Pechorin - “hero of our time”? Homework for the lesson.

And, it’s true, it existed and, it’s true, there was a high purpose for me, because I feel immense strength in my soul. M. Yu. Lermontov. Hero of Our Time "Hero of Our Time" - the first Russian realistic psychological novel in prose. The novel raises a topical problem: why don’t smart and energetic people find use for their remarkable abilities and “wither without a fight” at the very beginning of life? Lermontov answers this question with the life story of Pechorin, young man, belonging to the generation of the 30s of the XIX century. In the image of Pechorin, the author presented artistic type, which absorbed the features of a whole generation of young people at the beginning of the century. In the preface to Pechorin’s Journal, Lermontov writes: “The history of the human soul, at least petty soul, almost more curious and not more useful than history an entire people...” This ideological task of the author also determined the unique construction of the novel. Its peculiarity is the violation of the chronological sequence of events. The novel consists of five parts, five stories, each with its own genre, its own plot and its own title. Only the main character unites all these stories into something whole, into a single novel. The last three stories occupy a special place in the novel - this is the life story of Pechorin, written by him. This story is presented in the form of a diary (“Princess Mary”), as well as in the form of notes that the hero compiled some time later. Lermontov emphasizes that Pechorin’s confession is quite sincere, that he (Pechorin) was a strict judge of himself and “mercilessly exposed his own weaknesses and vices.” Pechorin is an “extra person.” His behavior is incomprehensible to those around him, because they have a common, widespread noble society point of view on life. For all the difference appearance and differences in characters, Onegin from the novel by A. S. Pushkin, and the hero of A. S. Griboedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit” - Chatsky, and Lermontov’s Pechorin belong to the type “ extra people”, that is, people for whom there was neither place nor work in the society around them. Belinsky said about Pechorin: “This is the Onegin of our time, the hero of our time. Their dissimilarity is much less than the distance between Onega and Pechora.” Herzen also called Pechorin “ younger brother Onegin". What are the similarities between Pechorin and Onegin? Both of them are representatives of high secular society. There is a lot in common in the history of their youth: at first, the same pursuit of secular pleasures, then the same disappointment in them, the same attempt to engage in science, reading books and a cooling towards them, the same boredom that possesses them. Just like Onegin, Pechorin is intellectually superior to the nobles surrounding him. Both of them are typical representatives thinking people of their time, critical of life and people. But that's where the similarities end. Pechorin is a different person than Onegin in his spiritual make-up; he lives in different socio-political conditions.

socio-political conditions. Onegin lived in the 20s, before the Decembrist uprising, at a time of socio-political revival. Pechorin is a man of the 30s, a time of rampant reaction, when the Decembrists were defeated, and the revolutionary democrats had not yet declared themselves as a social force. Onegin could have gone to the Decembrists (which is what Pushkin thought to show in the tenth chapter of the novel), Pechorin was deprived of this opportunity. That is why Belinsky said that “Onegin is bored, Pechorin is deeply suffering.” Pechorin's situation is all the more tragic because he is by nature more gifted and deeper than Onegin. This talent manifests itself in a deep mind, strong passions and the steel will of Pechorin. Pechorin's sharp mind allows him to correctly judge people, about life, and be critical of himself. The characteristics he gives to people are accurate and to the point. Pechorin’s heart is capable of feeling deeply and strongly, although outwardly he remains calm, for “the fullness and depth of feelings and thoughts does not allow wild impulses.” Pechorin is a strong, strong-willed nature, thirsty for activity. But for all his talent and wealth of spiritual powers, he, according to his own fair definition, is a “moral cripple.” His character and all his behavior are extremely contradictory. This inconsistency is clearly reflected in his appearance, which, like all people, reflects the inner appearance of a person. Drawing a portrait of Pechorin, the author persistently emphasizes the oddities of his hero. Pechorin's eyes "did not laugh when he laughed." Lermontov says: “This is a sign or evil temper, or deep, constant sadness...” “His gaze - short, but penetrating and heavy, left an unpleasant impression of an immodest question and could have seemed impudent if it had not been so indifferently calm.” Pechorin's gait "was careless and lazy, but I noticed that he did not wave his arms - a sure sign of some secretiveness of character." On the one hand, Pechorin has a “strong build,” on the other, “nervous weakness.” Pechorin is about thirty years old, and “there is something childish in his smile.” Maxim Maksimych was also amazed at Pechorin’s oddities, the contradictions in his character: “In the rain, in the cold, hunting all day; everyone will be cold and tired, but nothing to him. And another time he sits in his room, smells the wind, assures him that he has a cold; If he knocks with a shutter, he will tremble and turn white, but with me he went to hunt a wild boar one on one...” This inconsistency of Pechorin is revealed in the novel in its entirety, revealing, according to Lermontov’s definition, the “disease” of the generation of that time. “My whole life,” Pechorin himself points out, “was only a chain of sad and unsuccessful contradictions to my heart or mind.” How do they manifest themselves? Firstly, in his attitude to life. On the one hand, Pechorin is a skeptic, a disappointed person who lives out of curiosity, and on the other hand, he has a huge thirst for life and activity. Secondly, rationality in him struggles with the demands of feeling: “I have long lived not with my heart, but with my head.

consistency with the demands of feeling: “I have long lived not with my heart, but with my head. I weigh my own passions and actions with strict curiosity, but without participation." But Pechorin has a warm heart, capable of understanding and loving nature. From contact with her, “no matter what grief lies in the heart,” he says, “no matter what anxiety torments the thought, everything will dissipate in a minute, the soul will become light.” The contradictions in Pechorin’s nature are also reflected in his attitude towards women. He himself explains his attention to women and the desire to achieve their love by the need of his ambition, which, according to his definition, “is nothing more than a thirst for power, and my first pleasure,” he says further, “is to subordinate to my will everything that I surrounds: to arouse feelings of love, devotion and fear - isn’t this the first sign and the greatest triumph of power?” But Pechorin is not a heartless egoist. He is capable of deep feelings. This is evidenced by his attitude towards Vera. Having received it last letter, Pechorin, “like crazy, jumped out onto the porch, jumped on his Circassian... and set off at full speed, on the road to Pyatigorsk... One minute, one more minute to see her, say goodbye, shake her hand... If possible, lose her forever,” writes he, - Faith has become dearer to me than anything in the world - more valuable than life, honor, happiness! Left without a horse in the steppe, “he fell on the wet grass and cried like a child.” This inconsistency does not allow Pechorin to live life to the fullest. With a bitter feeling, he regards himself as a “moral cripple” whose better half of his soul has “dried up, evaporated, died.” In order to more clearly show Chatsky’s noble feelings and aspirations, Griboyedov at one time placed the sycophant Molchalin next to him. Lermontov contrasted the suffering Pechorin with Grushnitsky, who only cares about “becoming the hero of the novel” and tries to “produce an effect.” Pechorin is alone among people like Grushnitsky, who in their youth play the disappointed, and in old age “become either peaceful landowners or drunkards, sometimes both.” On the eve of the duel, recalling his entire life, Pechorin thought about the question: why did he live, for what purpose was he born? Answering, he writes in his diary: “Oh, it’s true, she existed and, it’s true, I had a high purpose, because I feel immense strength in my soul.” But Pechorin did not find this “high purpose” of his, did not find an activity worthy of his “immense strength.” He spends his rich strength on actions unworthy of him: he destroys life “ honest smugglers", kidnaps Bela, achieves Mary's love, refuses her, kills Grushnitsky in a duel. He brings grief or even death to everyone with whom he comes into contact: Bela and Grushnitsky are dead, Vera and Mary are unhappy, Maxim Maksimych is saddened to the depths of his soul: his dry meeting with Pechorin made the poor old man suffer and doubt the possibility of sincere, friendly relations between people.

in the possibility of sincere, friendly relations between people. Here it is, the most terrible contradiction: “immense powers of the soul” and petty actions unworthy of Pechorin; he strives to “love the whole world” and brings people only evil and misfortune; the presence of noble, high aspirations and petty feelings that dominate the soul; a thirst for the fullness of life and complete hopelessness, awareness of one’s doom. Who is to blame for the fact that Pechorin has turned into a “smart useless person”, into an extra person? Pechorin himself answers this question: “The soul in me is spoiled by light,” that is, by secular society, in which he lived and could not leave. “My colorless youth passed in a struggle with myself and the world; fearing ridicule, I buried my best feelings in the depths of my heart: they died there.” But the point here is not only in noble society. In the 20s, the Decembrists left this society. The fact is that Pechorin is a man of the 30s, typical representative of its time. This time presented him with a choice: “either decisive inaction, or empty activity.” Energy is boiling in him, he wants active action, he understands that he could have a “high purpose.” But this is the tragedy of Pechorin, that he never found the main goal worthy of his life, namely to apply his strength to social useful cause in his time it was impossible.

4.50 /5 (90.00%) 2 votes

Main actor M. Yu. Lermontov's novel “Hero of Our Time” is a fictional character - Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin. He was the smartest, most educated man of his time. For the era in which Pechorin happened to live, he was an extraordinary personality, and therefore stood out among his contemporaries.

Nature gave him not only intelligence, but also an attractive appearance combined with a bewitching gaze. M. Lermontov himself believes that it is through the eyes that one can most easily understand a person’s character. The author says about Pechorin’s eyes: “Firstly, they laughed when he laughed! “Have you ever noticed such strangeness in some people?” And the conclusion immediately follows from this observation: “This is a sign of either evil right, or deep, constant sadness.” This description speaks of a certain secrecy and duality of Grigory Alexandrovich. This is not good stealth. For example, he could hide his real feelings, but, despite all the strength of his character, he still could not make his eyes laugh.

Further, M. Lermontov notes that the eyes of the hero of the novel “sparkled with a certain phosphoric shine.” This shine showed in him great amount unspent vital forces that were looking for their use. At the same time, this shine was reminiscent of the shine of steel - “dazzling, but cold.” In addition, it was precisely this brilliance that revealed the coldness of Pechorin’s nature, who, by his own admission, had long been accustomed to living by reason and not by feelings.

The author shows his hero in a variety of circumstances and depicts his behavior in relationships with the most different people. And having arranged all the parts of the novel in chronological order, you can trace the entire life path Grigory Alexandrovich.

The reader's first meeting with Pechorin occurs in the short story "Taman". It is shown here an inquisitive person who is rapidly pursuing life and trying to learn all its secrets as quickly as possible. He is overly romantic and considers any woman he meets to be a real Ondine, an unreal, fairy-tale creature.

In this short story, Pechorin tries to find out the secret of the smugglers and gets involved in quite dangerous story. The aimless intervention of a stranger in the long-established way of life of people completely unfamiliar to him brings them suffering and destroys their lives, although Pechorin did not want them harm. He reflects on his action, understands its meaninglessness and even harm. But he becomes selfish, and he does not care about the joys and sorrows of the people around him.

Next, we manage to observe Pechorin’s life on the waters. Here he is forced to communicate with hypocritical, empty people. But here fate smiles on him and he meets Dr. Werner. They understand each other perfectly, their views are largely similar. However, this is not enough for Pechorin. He analyzes his thoughts and actions, almost indifferently tells almost to a stranger both about good and evil deeds.

For the duel, Pechorin is exiled to the fortress, where he meets Bela and wins her love. But this bright feeling also brings him disappointment, because of which he again brings only grief. Kazbich is cruelly offended, Bela dies, and her father dies. But Grigory Alexandrovich does not submit to fate and again challenges it. But this happens in the short story “Fatalist”, but in the story “Maksim Maksimych” Pechorin is already completely different. It becomes noticeable that Grigory Alexandrovich is already tired of fighting evil fate, and Petersburg also infected Pechorin with its coldness.

Pechorin's life ends on the road, and his death turned out to be as ordinary as his useless life, to which he was doomed, like any other extraordinary people of his time.

After reading the novel, a completely logical question arises: “Is Pechorin really a hero of his time?” There is no clear answer to this question. But as for our contemporaries, it is with great regret that we can state that Pechorin may well be a generalized portrait of the majority of representatives of our time, indifferent to everything and everyone. But real heroes can be called those who perform feats for the benefit of people and in the name of the Motherland, or at least benefit other people. Pechorin, although he was an extraordinary person for his time, he did nothing to help the people around him in any way, and wasted all his strength on trifles, while everyone who was closer to him became unhappy or even died.

But the fault in how Pechorin’s fate turned out and how the fate of our contemporaries, similar to the hero M. Lermontov, develops, lies not only in themselves, but also in the society around them. However, in any case, each of us must strive to develop the abilities given to him by nature, and then in our society, in the most different areas our lives, there will be many more talented people.

“Why did I live? For what purpose was I born...

But, it’s true, I had a high purpose, since I feel immense strength in my soul.”

M. Yu. Lermontov."Hero of our time"

“Hero of our time” is, first of all, Pechorin, in whose image Lermontov showed the “superfluous man” who absorbed the features of an entire generation early XIX century, the so-called “era of timelessness”. It is believed that the image of Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin was formed by Lermontov after reading an essay about Griboedov in Pushkin’s “Travel to Arzrum”. Putting aside the story “Princess Ligovskaya,” Lermontov began working on the novel “A Hero of Our Time.”

Pushkin wrote about Griboyedov: “His melancholic character, his embittered mind, his good nature, the very weaknesses and vices, the inevitable companions of humanity - everything about him was unusually attractive. Born with an ambition equal to his talents, for a long time he was entangled in the networks of petty needs and the unknown. The abilities of a statesman remained unused; the poet's talent was not recognized; even his cold and brilliant courage remained for some time under suspicion. Several friends knew his worth and saw a smile of distrust, this stupid, unbearable smile, when they happened to talk about him as an extraordinary person. People believe only in Glory and do not understand that among them there may be some Napoleon, who did not lead a single Jaeger company, or another Descartes, who did not publish a single line in the Moscow Telegraph.”

Lermontov endowed his main character with similar complexes of an “inner” person. His character also contains dissatisfaction with reality, high anxiety and a hidden desire for better life, which he does not associate with career and wealth. This is Lermontov’s personal position, figuratively formulated in the following statement: “... a genius, chained to an bureaucratic desk, must die or go crazy, just as a man with a powerful physique with a sedentary life and modest behavior dies of an apoplexy.”

Pechorin’s rich personality did not correspond to the framework assigned to her by an official career, hence the lack of enthusiasm and, as a result, the insignificant track record of Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin: the guard and the St. Petersburg light - an army regiment in the Caucasus - garrison service in fortress N - an army hussar regiment in Georgia - resignation. At 25 years old, he is only a warrant officer, whose rank in the civil service corresponded to the rank of a collegiate registrar from “ Stationmaster» Pushkin. But this is the price that Pechorin is ready to pay for maintaining his freedom and independence.

Revealing positive traits Pechorin - sharp critical thought, rebellious will and ability to fight - the author in no way justifies his hero, he is as critical of him as of himself. Lermontov fully shows the forced infertility of his beloved hero, his sharply negative individualism, pride and skepticism. Internal contradictions torment the soul of the hero, which demands and thirsts for love, but at the same time is afraid of happiness and does not believe in its possibility, although there would be all the prerequisites for this. As soon as fate forces him to take responsibility, Pechorin withdraws from contact even with his loved one. Pechorin is not afraid of the betrayal of women and the betrayal of friends, he is afraid of himself, as the bearer of his misfortune and misfortune for the people around him. Therefore, Pechorin is not able to establish natural connections with people and does not strive for them, preferring to be “superfluous.” Those around him do not understand him. Pechorin's actions seem to them inexplicable, paradoxical, violating moral laws. What are the results of his communication with people? Maxim Maksimych is offended, Bela is killed, the blind boy is left without friends, Princess Mary is insulted.

Without any moralism, Lermontov shows Pechorin’s moral bankruptcy, the hero’s reluctance to use the rich inner potential that nature has endowed him with. The author does not express his attitude towards his vices; he gives the reader the right to understand this complex character himself, revealing the destructive processes occurring in Pechorin’s soul and the subsequent “internal retribution”: boredom, fruitless activity, loss of interest in life. The images of “natural” people - Bela and Maxim Maksimych - emphasize Pechorin’s spiritual decay and his useless existence.

M.Yu.Lermontov

“A Hero of Our Time” is the first psychological novel in Russian literature. Complexity of the composition. The century of M.Yu. Lermontov in the novel. Pechorin as a representative of the “portrait of a generation.”

Homework to the lesson.

1. Reading the novel “Hero of Our Time” by M.Yu. Lermontov.
2. Analysis of the composition of the work.

a) Who tells the story of Pechorin?

• The degree to which the narrator knows the character.
• His social status.
• Intellectual and cultural level.
• Moral qualities.

b) Analyze the plot of the novel.

c) Restore the chronological sequence of events in the novel (plot).

3. Individual task linguists.

a) Reflection – lexical meaning words.

b) A.I. Herzen, V.G. Belinsky - historical and biographical commentary.

Individual task: a story about the plot of the novel according to V. Nabokov.

A Hero of Our Time...is a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation.

M.Yu. Lermontov.

Russian society became acquainted with the “long chain of stories” by M.Yu. Lermontov under the general title “Hero of Our Time” in 1839-1840. From March to February, the essay was published in the magazine “ Domestic notes" In 1840, “A Hero of Our Time” was published as a separate book.

The time has come for us to get acquainted with this work, form our own idea about it, formulate (define) our own (personal) attitude towards its heroes.

Student answers.

You are not alone in appreciating the work and its hero. The appearance of the novel by M. Yu. Lermontov immediately caused heated controversy in society.

• Nicholas I found the novel “disgusting”, showing “the great depravity of the author.”
• Protective criticism attacked Lermontov's novel, seeing in it slander of Russian reality. Professor S.P. Shevyrev sought to prove that Pechorin was nothing more than an imitation Western models that he has no roots in Russian life.
• Before others, V.G. appreciated “A Hero of Our Time” with extraordinary fidelity. Belinsky, who noted in it “the wealth of content”, “deep knowledge human heart and modern society."
• What about the author? To the second edition of “A Hero of Our Time” by M.Yu. Lermontov writes a “Preface,” in which he insisted that “A Hero of Our Time, my dear sirs, is like a portrait, but not of one person: it is a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation, in their full development.” That is why these words are presented as the epigraph of our lesson.

– What kind of generation is this to which both M. Yu. Lermontov himself and his hero belong?

The doctor says philological sciences, Professor Panchenko (Appendix 2).

Let's look at this topic in more detail. To talk about the century of M.Yu. Lermontov, you need to master a certain vocabulary. Follow my thoughts based on the words written on the board to the right.

The worldview of M. Yu. Lermontov took shape in the late 20s and early 30s of the 19th century, during the era of the ideological crisis of the advanced noble intelligentsia associated with the defeat of the December uprising and the Nicholas reaction in all spheres of public life.

Nicholas I is the tamer of revolutions, the gendarme of Europe, the jailer of the Decembrists, etc., from the point of view of “communist” historiography. A.S. Pushkin, whose relationship with the emperor was complex and ambiguous, noted the undoubted merits and Petrine scale of his personality. F.M. spoke of Nicholas I “with the greatest respect.” Dostoevsky, who, as is known, ended up in hard labor by his will. Conflicting assessments of personality. The fact is that Nicholas I rejected any revolution as an idea, as a principle, as a method of transforming reality. The Decembrist uprising is not only a noble motive to destroy “various injustices and humiliations,” but a violation of the officer’s oath, an attempt to forcibly change the political system, and criminal bloodshed. And as a reaction - a tough political regime established by the emperor.

An ideological crisis is a crisis of ideas. The ideas, ideals, goals and meaning of life of the Pushkin generation - everything was destroyed. These are difficult times, later they will be called the era of timelessness. In such years they talk about lack of spirituality, about the decline of morality. Maybe you and I have also experienced or are experiencing such times associated with the collapse of the Soviet Union... But let’s go back to the 30s of the 19th century.

The need to master the “mistakes of our fathers”, to rethink what seemed immutable to the previous generation, to develop our own moral and philosophical position is a characteristic feature of the era of the 20-30s.

Practical action turned out to be impossible due to both objective (the harsh policies of the autocracy) and subjective reasons: before action, it was necessary to overcome the ideological crisis, the era of doubt and skepticism; clearly define in the name of what and how act. That is why in the 1930s the philosophical search for its best representatives acquired exceptional importance for society. This was extremely difficult to do. Something completely different was triumphant. Everywhere, as far as the eye could see, flowed slowly, as Herzen put it, “the deep and dirty river of civilized Russia, with its aristocrats, bureaucrats, officers, gendarmes, grand dukes and the emperor - a shapeless and voiceless mass of baseness, servility, cruelty and envy, captivating and absorbing everything."

Man and destiny, man and his purpose, purpose and meaning human life, its possibilities and reality, free will and necessity - all these questions received figurative embodiment in the novel.

The problem of personality is central to the novel: “The history of the human soul... is almost more interesting and useful than the history of an entire people.” And this statement by M.Yu. Lermontov could become an epigraph to our lesson.

It is no coincidence that Pechorin established himself in the eyes of the generation of the 30s as a typical character of the post-Decembrist era. And with your fate, with your sufferings and doubts, and with your whole disposition inner world it really belongs to that time. Not understanding this means not understanding anything. Neither in the hero, nor in the novel itself.

To understand is, in fact, the goal of our lesson.

Let's turn to the composition of the essay.

I. – Who tells the story of Pechorin?

Student answers.

• Maxim Maksimych is a staff captain, a man of the people, he has served in the Caucasus for a long time, he has seen a lot in his lifetime. a kind person, but limited. He spent a lot of time with Pechorin, but never understood the “oddities” of his aristocratic colleague, a man of a social circle too far from him.
• Traveling officer (officer-narrator). He is able to understand Pechorin more deeply, and is closer to him in his intellectual and cultural level than Maxim Maksimych. However, he can only be judged on the basis of what he heard from the kind but limited Maxim Maksimych. Pechorin “...saw...only once...in my life on the highway.” Subsequently, having familiarized himself with Pechorin’s diary, which fell into his hands, the narrator will express his opinion about the hero, but it is neither exhaustive nor unambiguous.
• And finally, the narrative passes entirely into the hands of the human hero sincere, “who so mercilessly exposed his own weaknesses and vices”; a man of mature mind and unconceited.

II. – How does Lermontov build the plot of the work?

Student answers(the plot and plot of the work are written on the board before the lesson by two students).

Can this collection of stories be called a novel? Why does Pushkin have “ Stories Belkin”? Why Gogol collection of stories"Evenings on a Farm Near Dikanka"?

- Why Lermontov is in no hurry to call his brainchild a novel, denoting it very differently: as “notes”, “essays”, “a long chain of stories”? Let's remember this question.

III. – Restore the chronological order of events.

Student answers. Correction of the recording of the plot of the novel made before the lesson.

Chronology of the events underlying the work, according to V. Nabokov.

“Taman”: around 1830 - Pechorin goes from St. Petersburg to the active detachment and stops in Taman;

“Princess Mary”: May 10 – June 17, 1832; Pechorin comes from the active detachment to water in Pyatigorsk and then to Kislovodsk; after a duel with Grushnitsky, he was transferred to the fortress under the command of Maxim Maksimych;

“Fatalist”: December 1832 - Pechorin comes from the fortress of Maxim Maksimych to the Cossack village for two weeks;

“Bela”: spring 1833 - Pechorin kidnaps the daughter of “Prince Mirnov”, and four months later she dies at the hands of Kazbich;

“Maxim Maksimych”: autumn 1837 - Pechorin, going to Persia, again finds himself in the Caucasus and meets Maxim Maksimych.”

Let us restore the picture made by M. Yu. Lermontov of “chronological shifts”. It looks like this: the novel begins from the middle of events and is carried through sequentially until the end of the hero’s life. Then the events in the novel unfold from the beginning of the depicted chain of events to its middle.

- Why does Lermontov violate the chronology of events?

Here are three issues that require immediate resolution.

Student answers.

Teacher's conclusions (depending on the completeness of students' answers).

All this is true, but not the whole truth. Lermontov created absolutely new novel– new in form and content: a psychological novel.

Psychologism is a fairly complete, detailed and deep depiction of feelings, thoughts and experiences literary character using specific means of fiction.

The plot of the essay becomes “the history of the human soul.”

Lermontov first lets us hear about the hero, then looks at him, and finally opens his diary to us.

The change of narrators is aimed at making the analysis of the inner world deeper and more comprehensive.

• Kind, but limited Maxim Maksimych.
• Officer-narrator.
• “Observations of a mature mind on itself.”

V.G. Belinsky argued that the novel “despite its episodic fragmentation, “cannot be read in the order in which the author himself arranged it: otherwise you will read two excellent stories and several excellent short stories, but you will not know the novel.”

M. Yu. Lermontov felt the novelty of his work, which united such genres as travel essay, short story, secular story, Caucasian short story, and had every reason for this. This was the first psychological novel in Russian literature.

“A Hero of Our Time” is the first Russian realistic psychological novel in prose. The novel raises a topical problem: why don’t smart and energetic people find use for their remarkable abilities and “wither without a fight” at the very beginning of life? Lermontov answers this question with the life story of Pechorin, a young man belonging to the generation of the 30s of the 19th century. In the image of Pechorin, the author presented an artistic type that absorbed the features of a whole generation of young people at the beginning of the century.

In the preface to the Pechorin Journal, Lermontov writes: “The history of the human soul, even the smallest soul, is perhaps more interesting and useful than the history of an entire people...”

The novel consists of five parts, five stories, each with its own genre, its own plot and its own title. Only the main character unites all these stories into something whole, into a single novel.

The last three stories occupy a special place in the novel - this is the life story of Pechorin, written by him. This story is presented in the form of a diary (“Princess Mary”), as well as in the form of notes that the hero compiled some time later.

Lermontov emphasizes that Pechorin’s confession is quite sincere, that he was a strict judge of himself and “mercilessly exposed his own weaknesses and vices.”

Pechorin is an “extra person.” His behavior is incomprehensible to those around him, because they have a common point of view on life, common in noble society. With all the difference in appearance and difference in character, Onegin from the novel by A.S. Pushkin, and the hero of the comedy A.S. Griboyedov's "Woe from Wit" - Chatsky, and Lermontov's Pechorin belong to the type of "superfluous people", that is, those people for whom there was neither place nor business in the society around them. Belinsky said about Pechorin: “This is the Onegin of our time, the hero of our time. Their dissimilarity is much less than the distance between Onega and Pechora.” Herzen also called Pechorin “Onegin’s younger brother.”

What are the similarities between Pechorin and Onegin? Both of them are representatives of high secular society. There is much in common in the history of their youth: at the beginning, the same pursuit of secular pleasures, then the same disappointment in them, the same boredom that possesses them. Just like Onegin, Pechorin is intellectually superior to the nobles surrounding him. Both of them are typical representatives of thinking people of their time, critical of life and people.

But that's where the similarities end. Pechorin is a different person from Onegin in his spiritual make-up, he lives others socio-political conditions.

Onegin lived in the 20s, before the Decembrist uprising, at a time of socio-political revival. Pechorin is a man The 30s, a time of rampant reaction, when the Decembrists were defeated, and the revolutionary democrats had not yet declared themselves as a social force.

Onegin could have gone to the Decembrists (which is what Pushkin thought to show in the tenth chapter of the novel), Pechorin was deprived of this opportunity. That is why Belinsky said that “Onegin is bored, Pechorin is deeply suffering.” Pechorin's situation is all the more tragic because he is by nature more gifted and deeper than Onegin.

This talent manifests itself in Pechorin’s deep mind, strong passions and steely will, allowing him to correctly judge people, about life, and be critical of himself. The characteristics he gives to people are accurate and to the point. Pechorin’s heart is capable of feeling deeply and strongly, although outwardly he remains calm, for “the fullness and depth of feelings and thoughts does not allow wild impulses.”

Pechorin is a strong, strong-willed nature, thirsty for activity. But for all his talent and wealth of spiritual powers, he, according to his own fair definition, is a “moral cripple.” His character and all his behavior are extremely contradictory.

This inconsistency is clearly reflected in his appearance, which, like all people, reflects the inner appearance of a person. Drawing a portrait of Pechorin, the author persistently emphasizes the oddities of his hero. Pechorin's eyes "did not laugh when he laughed." Lermontov says: “This is a sign of either an evil disposition, or deep, constant sadness...”

“His gaze, short, but penetrating and heavy, left an unpleasant impression of an indiscreet question and could have seemed impudent if he had not been so indifferently calm.” Pechorin’s gait was careless and lazy, but I noticed that he did not wave his arms - a sure sign of some secretiveness of character.” On the one hand, Pechorin has a “strong build,” on the other, “nervous weakness.” Pechorin is about thirty years old, and “there is something childish in his smile.”

Maxim Maksimych was also amazed at Pechorin’s oddities, the contradictions in his character: “In the rain, in the cold, hunting all day; everyone will be cold and tired, but nothing to him. And another time he sits in his room, smells the wind, assures him that he has a cold; knock on the shutter, he will tremble and turn white, but with me he went to hunt a wild boar one on one...”

This inconsistency of Pechorin is revealed in the novel in its entirety, revealing, according to Lermontov’s definition, the “disease” of the generation of that time.

“My whole life,” Pechorin himself points out, “was only a chain of sad and unsuccessful contradictions to my heart or mind.” How do they manifest themselves?

Firstly, in his attitude to life. On the one hand, Pechorin is a skeptic, a disappointed person who lives out of curiosity, and on the other hand, he has a huge thirst for life and activity.

Secondly, rationality struggles in him with the demands of feeling: “I have long lived not with my heart, but with my head. I weigh my own passions and actions with strict curiosity, but without participation." But Pechorin has a burning heart, capable of understanding and loving nature. From contact with her, “no matter what grief lies in the heart,” he says, “no matter what anxiety torments the thought, everything will dissipate in a minute, the soul will become light.”

The contradictions in Pechorin’s nature are also reflected in his attitude towards women. He himself explains his attention to women and the desire to achieve their love by the need of his ambition, which, according to his definition, “is nothing more than a thirst for power, and my first pleasure,” he further says, “is to make everything my will. What surrounds me: to arouse feelings of love, devotion and fear for myself - isn’t this the first sign and the greatest triumph of power?”

But Pechorin is not a heartless egoist. He is capable of deep feelings. This is evidenced by his attitude towards Vera. Having received her last letter, Pechorin, “like crazy, jumped out onto the porch, jumped on his Circassian... and set off at full speed, on the road to Pyatigorsk... One minute, one more minute to see her, say goodbye, shake her hand... If possible, lose her forever,” he writes, “faith has become dearer to me than anything else in the world - dearer than life, honor, happiness!” Left without a horse in the steppe, “he fell on the wet grass and cried like a child.”

This inconsistency does not allow Pechorin to live a full life. With a bitter feeling, he regards himself as a “moral cripple” whose better half of his soul has “dried up, evaporated, died.”

In order to more clearly show Chatsky’s noble feelings and aspirations, Griboyedov at one time placed the sycophant Molchalin next to him. Lermontov contrasted the suffering Pechorin with Grushnitsky, who only cares about “becoming the hero of the novel” and tries to “produce an effect.” Pechorin is alone among people like Grushnitsky, who in their youth play the disappointed, and in old age “become either peaceful landowners or drunkards, sometimes both.” On the eve of the duel, recalling his entire life, Pechorin thought about the question: why did he live, for what purpose was he born? Answering, he writes in his diary: “Oh, it’s true, she existed and, it’s true, I had a high purpose, because I feel immense strength in my soul.” But Pechorin did not find this purpose, did not find an activity worthy of his “immense strength.” He spends his rich strength on actions unworthy of him: he destroys the lives of “honest smugglers”, kidnaps Bela, achieves Mary’s love, refuses her, kills Grushnitsky in a duel. He brings grief or even death to everyone with whom he comes into contact: Bela and Grushnitsky are dead, Vera and Mary are unhappy, Maxim Maksimych is saddened to the depths of his soul: his dry meeting with Pechorin made the poor old man suffer and doubt the possibility of sincere, friendly relations between people .

Here it is, the most terrible contradiction: “immense powers of the soul” and petty actions unworthy of Pechorin; he strives to “love the whole world” and brings people only evil and misfortune; the presence of noble, high aspirations and petty feelings that dominate the soul; a thirst for the fullness of life and complete hopelessness, awareness of one’s doom.

Who is to blame for the fact that Pechorin has turned into a “clever useless person”, “an extra person”? Pechorin himself answers this question: “My soul is spoiled by the light,” that is, by the secular society in which he lived and from which he could not escape. “My colorless youth passed in a struggle with myself and the world; my best feelings, fearing ridicule, I buried in the depths of my heart: they died there.”

But the point here is not only in noble society. In the 20s, the Decembrists left this society. The fact is that Pechorin is a man of the 30s, a typical representative of his time. This time presented him with a choice: “either decisive inaction, or empty activity.” Energy is boiling in him, he wants active action, he understands that he could have a “high purpose.” But the tragedy of Pechorin is that he never found the main goal worthy of his life, since it was impossible to apply his strength to a socially useful cause in his time.