In the center of the work of Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy “ Prisoner of the Caucasus"The two main characters are Zhilin and Kostylin. The plot of the story contains the relationships between the characters, a comparison of their characters and a comparison of the characters with each other.
The difference in the characters' characters led to the fact that their destinies turned out differently. Zhilin is a “dzhigit”, and Kostylin behaves quietly in the ransom agreement scene. This difference is already evident in the scene of the Tatar attack and the arrest of the heroes. And further, their behavior in captivity also shows Kostylin’s physical and spiritual weakness and concern for his comrade, Zhilin’s fortitude.
Zilina's best qualities are his love of life and worst qualities Kostylin are described in the escape scene. Zhilin walks around looking out, thinking about how to escape, he dug a hole, got out, climbed the mountain, crawls towards the road and at the same time carries Kostylin on him. And how Kostylin behaves - he is indifferent, bored, asleep, and during his escape he caught a stone with his foot, lags behind, groans, fell out of fear. For Zhilin, the concept of mutual assistance is important, and Kostylin does not want to be a burden.
If we briefly describe the characters of the heroes, then Zhilin can be described as a decisive, resourceful hero who knows how to forgive, brave; Kostylin, on the contrary, is meek, weak, betrays, humbles himself, is a coward, and forcibly hobbled home. In a word, Zhilin is a daredevil, and Kostylin is a deck.
Zhilin overcomes the trials in captivity, he managed not only to survive and take root in a hostile environment, but even won over his enemies. He solved his problems himself, without throwing them onto the shoulders of others, and was strong. Kostylin does not withstand the tests sent to him in captivity because of his weakness and selfishness.
Their portraits also play an important role in comparing characters. Kostylin’s portrait is described with the words: “... the man is overweight, fat, all red, and sweat is pouring from him.” Contempt and hostility immediately appear from the description of appearance. The image of a pitiful, insignificant person is created; he is weak, ready for a vile act.
Zhilin: “short in stature, but he was brave.” Outwardly, the man is ordinary, but one can feel strength and courage in him.
Comparing the actions, motives of actions and the relationship of the characters, one can also notice the contrast in the characters.
Zhilin loves his old mother, takes care of her, does not bother her, does not demand anything beyond her strength, he relies only on his own strength, and is actively looking for a way out. He says this: “I was not afraid, and I will not be afraid of you dogs.” He knew that his letter would not arrive, but he did not write another.
Kostylin is an egoist, he is sure that his relatives are obliged to ransom him, but he himself does not want to do anything for this, does not fight, and passively submits to circumstances. He sits in the barn all day and counts the days until the letter arrives or sleeps.
I consider Zhilin a real hero who does not submit to circumstances and strives for liberation. His character is characterized by strong will, courage, bravery, nobility and resourcefulness. But Kostylin cares only about himself, about his well-being, he does not know what duty, loyalty to friendship is. He is weak-willed, irresponsible, capable of meanness. He does not commit an act, does not escape from captivity. Kostylin is not a hero, he is not capable of great deeds.
But our heroes have something in common. Both characters served in the Caucasus. Zhilin and Kostylin are noblemen, both officers of the Russian army, both going on vacation and being captured. And how differently they manifest themselves!!! One is a hero, the other is a weak person in body and spirit. Two different people in the same situation.
I think that the author, by comparing the characters of the heroes, tried to convey to us the idea of a person, what he should be. How much depends on the person himself. In the same circumstances, one turns out to be a hero, and the other does not deserve to be called a person.
Two destinies, two heroes, but how different they are. Two Russian officers serve in the Caucasus, fulfilling their duty to the Fatherland. Having been captured by the Tatars, one strives for freedom, and the second humbly awaits his fate. So why are such different destinies from two noble officers.
Zhilin Ivan is a Russian officer, from a poor noble family. He is short in stature, but a handsome and daring young gentleman. He serves in the Caucasus, helping his old mother with money. He is not married, his mother found him a suitable bride and is waiting at home. Going to visit his mother, Zhilin takes a vacation, but on the way home he is captured. Here his moral qualities are revealed: rebellious, with a strong character, he does not lose hope, he is an optimist and believes in himself.
He is careful, but persistent in his aspirations, tries to act in any circumstances. Strong and courageous, he cannot come to terms with the position of a prisoner. There is no one to expect help from, relying only on himself, Zhilin is ready to carry a comrade on himself, without leaving him to be torn to pieces by enemies Smart and straightforward, Zhilin knows how to get along with people, he is respected even by his enemies, for his character, “golden hands” and his sense of dignity, which he does not lose even in captivity. Thanks to his ingenuity, dexterity, he managed to escape, and courage, bravery and a thirst for life, help him successfully reach “his people.”
Kostylin is from a wealthy noble family, a Russian officer and serves in the Caucasus. Tall, a clumsy “sissy”, fat and weak. A pessimist by nature, Kostylin does not try to change anything, having been captured. He is waiting for his ransom to be paid for him family, sleeps and complains about life. A weak-willed gentleman, cowardly and unable to do anything. His health is weak, and his spirit is even weaker. He can easily abandon a comrade in trouble, which is what he did with Zhilin.
Remaining in captivity, Kostylin received his freedom, he was ransomed a month later, but barely alive.
A craving for freedom and a thirst for life save Zhilin from death, there is no one to pay a ransom for him and death awaits him. He sees the good in life, helps people, and for this even his enemies respect him, and in the little girl Dina he finds a friend who helps him to escape. Honor and dignity helped Zhilin to remain an officer in any situation, even in captivity. Zhilin’s fate is the fate of the defender of the Motherland, for him honor and conscience are not empty words, which cannot be said about Kostylin. Having abandoned a comrade in trouble, becoming a coward in front of the enemy, he chooses the fate of a prisoner, weak-willed and devastated. A prisoner of his conscience, Kostylin will never be able to speak with pride about defending the Motherland.
Sissies have no place among officers; money only saves his life, not honor and dignity. Such different fates for two comrades who served together in the Caucasus.
Zhilin and Kostylin different destinies essay grade 5
Plan
1. Briefly about the work.
2.1. Life in captivity.
2.2. The escape.
3. My favorite hero.
He wrote his story Prisoner of the Caucasus in 1872 and dedicated it to the events of the Caucasian War. In the work, using the example of two people, he described hard life in Tatar captivity and the military valor of a Russian prisoner.
Zhilin and Kostylin are different characters both in character and in their way of thinking. But one day they found themselves on the same road. During his captivity, Zhilin behaved like a hero, fought back and tried to escape. But Kostylin, on the contrary, chickened out and, having a loaded gun and a war horse, not only did he not protect his comrade, he even failed to escape himself!
It is remarkable how both of these officers, being in the same circumstances, behaved differently. Zhilin invariably relied only on himself, constantly looked for opportunities to escape, and always behaved correctly. For example, he took up good deed- made dolls from clay and distributed them to local children, repaired things and treated the sick. In this way he won the respect and sympathy of the Tatars.
Kostylin, on the contrary, behaved passively and cowardly. He, complaining about his fate, constantly lay in the barn, relaxing physically and mentally. He didn’t strive for anything, didn’t want to fight, was afraid of everything and was lazy. Both comrades reacted differently to the possibility of ransom. Zhilin did not want his elderly mother to pay an exorbitant fee for him, so he bargained up to five hundred rubles for his freedom, and even then he deliberately sent the letter to the wrong address. Kostylin, on the contrary, was glad that he could shift the responsibility for his release onto someone else and inactively began to wait for the ransom from the house.
During his first escape, Zhilin showed himself to be a persistent and courageous man. Overcoming the pain in his legs from the hard pads, he patiently endured all obstacles, purposefully walked forward, hoping for the best. His comrade in misfortune, on the contrary, whined all the way, complained and wanted to go back into captivity, and subsequently he became so weak that Zhilin was forced to drag his comrade on himself. This act showed all the most beautiful traits of a man - kindness, self-sacrifice, readiness to help.
After returning to the Tatars, Zhilin did not stop losing hope of escape. Despite the terrible conditions in which the captives found themselves, Ivan continued to act, take initiative, and fight. His optimistic spirit and cheerful attitude, his unquenchable energy and determination greatly influenced the result. Zhilin’s warmth and pleasant manners prompted the owner’s daughter Dina to help him escape. Taking risks, the girl helped the prisoner escape and even escorted him outside the village.
Zhilin happily reached his own, and Kostylin, refusing to escape again, spent another month in captivity. He, half dead and weak, was released as soon as the ransom arrived. Of course, I am delighted with the main character Zhilin. He is fearless and courageous man, confident in himself and his abilities, positive and cheerful. He was able to change his circumstances, he was able to cope with a seemingly incredibly difficult problem, he was able to get out of a difficult situation with dignity. You can learn a lot from this man, for example, how to be an optimist in difficult circumstances, how to become good friend how to behave correctly in an unusual environment.
In the story “Prisoner of the Caucasus,” which serves partly as an autobiography of Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy, there are two main characters. These are colleagues: Zhilin and Kostylin. Lev Nikolaevich himself became the prototype of Zhilin, and Kostylin’s hero was invented by him as a contrast to Zhilin.
Zhilin is described by Tolstoy as a strong-willed character, with strong spirit, and not wanting to lay down their heads before the trials that befall them. His colleague, on the contrary, is a cowardly and lazy person, patiently awaiting the verdict of fate, and not wanting to decide it himself.
The attentive reader will immediately notice that, despite the presence of two main characters, the story is called “Prisoner of the Caucasus.” I think: why? The fact is that Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy, as a writer who knows how to convey the mood and essence of a story in a few words, called the work that way because he did not consider Kostylin a person worthy of being mentioned in history.
After being captured, Kostylin immediately, unconditionally, agrees to write a letter to his relatives. This means that he does not have his own goals, but hopes for his relatives and that they will ransom him. Zhilin, realizing that his mother will not collect enough money, indicates the wrong address in the letter, hoping to get out later, which he later succeeds. Zhilin doesn’t just run away, he foresees everything possible outcomes, plans his escape down to the last detail. And, being already ready, he also takes Kostylin, who at that time was not doing anything, but was only eating and sleeping. Zhilin is a purposeful person, ready to make sacrifices for the sake of friends and colleagues. Kostylin is a pampered egoist, incapable of anything. After the first unsuccessful attempt, which failed because of Kostylin, Zhilin nevertheless ran away, demonstrating his love of life and resilience, but Kostylin did not succeed because of his laziness.
The story ends with Lev Nikolaevich talking about the further fate of Zhilin. Zhilin remained to serve in the Caucasus, as befits a brave officer. About future fate Kostylin, except that he was bought out, nothing is known.
It is noteworthy that Lev Nikolaevich uses the names of the characters to describe their characters. Zhilin is associated with a strong man, strong in soul, not in body, which is clear to readers of “Prisoner of the Caucasus” from the beginning of the story to the end. The surname Kostylin, so similar to a crutch, indicates the laziness and cowardice of the character.
Thus, Lev Nikolaevich fit two opposite heroes. He did this to educate future generations. So that in the future there will be no people like Kostylin, but only people like Zhilin.
And Kostylin are both in charge actors story by L. N. Tolstoy “Prisoner of the Caucasus”. The author wrote this work during the Caucasian War, more precisely during the most last years war, when one day he himself almost became prey to the enemy. Tolstoy, together with his friend named Sado, barely managed to ride horses to the border so as not to be captured by the Tatars. This incident prompted the writer to create the story “Prisoner of the Caucasus” (1872).
Zhilin and Kostylin became friends during their service; both were officers. It so happened that on the way to their native lands they were both captured by the Tatars. And this happened due to Kostylin’s fault. He was a man of weak character and undecided. When he saw the Tatars running towards them, he immediately abandoned his friend in trouble and began to run away. However, nothing worked out for him. Both were captured and locked in shackles in the barn. All further actions seemed to reveal the characters’ character even more.
The author deliberately focuses on the difference between these heroes, because he wants to show what cowardice and weakness are fraught with. If you think about it, he also came up with “speaking” surnames. One is made of a “vein”, that is, of strength and will, and the other is associated with a “crutch”, that is, with weakness and lack of an inner core. When the Tatars order each of them to write home a letter asking for a ransom, Zhilin, unlike his friend, writes the wrong address so as not to frighten the old mother, who does not have that kind of money.
The next time the characters' character is revealed is when they plan to escape. They managed to escape in the dark, but in the forest, due to Kostylin’s fault, they again ended up in the hands of the Tatars. Zhilin made his second attempt to escape without his friend. They were put in a deep hole and heavy stocks were put on their feet. Kostylin was unable to escape. Firstly, after the first unsuccessful attempt, he immediately gave up. Secondly, he did not have enough strength and will to take this decisive step.
As a result, Zhilin fled alone. Thirteen-year-old Dina helped him, who brought a long stick to pull her friend out of the hole. She was always kind to him. She brought food and water at the request of the officer, and in return he made clay dolls for her. The second escape was more successful. Despite the difficulties that Zhilin encountered along the way, he was able to reach the border, and in the end he crawled. There he was picked up by the Cossacks.
Zhilin changed his mind about going home and remained to serve in the Caucasus. Kostylin had to remain in captivity for another month. He was released for a large ransom, barely alive. This is the result of his cowardice, weakness and unreliability. If he had been stronger in spirit, they would have escaped together long ago, and maybe they would not have been captured. So L.N. Tolstoy showed how people who find themselves in the same situation behave completely differently due to differences in character. Such is the character, such is the destiny.
