Angry disposition or deep, persistent sadness. Pechorin is a strong, strong-willed nature, thirsty for activity.
The novel “A Hero of Our Time” is the first psychological novel in Russian literature, and one of the perfect examples of this genre. Psychological analysis of the character of the main character is carried out in the complex compositional structure of the novel, the composition of which is bizarre in violation of the chronological sequence of its main parts. In the novel “A Hero of Our Time,” composition and style are subordinated to one task: to reveal the image of the hero of his time as deeply and comprehensively as possible, to trace the history of his inner life, since “the history of the human soul,” as the author states in the Preface to “Pechorin’s Journal,” - at least for the smallest soul, is almost more curious and useful than the history of an entire people, especially... when it... is written without a vain desire to arouse participation or surprise.” Consequently, the composition of this novel is one of its most important artistic features.
According to the true chronology, the stories should have been arranged as follows: “Taman”, “Princess Mary”, “Fatalist”, “Bela”, “Maksim Maksimych”, Preface to “Pechorin’s Journal”. Lermontov breaks the order of events and talks about them not in chronological order: “Bela”, “Maksim Maksimych”, Preface to “Pechorin’s Journal”, “Taman”, “Princess Mary”, “Fatalist”. This arrangement of parts of the novel, violating the chronological order, increases the plot tension, makes it possible to maximally interest the reader in Pechorin and his fate, gradually revealing his character in all its inconsistency and complexity.
The narration is told on behalf of three narrators: a certain traveling officer, staff captain Maxim Maksimych and, finally, Grigory Alexandrovich Pechorin himself. The author resorted to this technique to highlight the events and character of the main character from different points of view, and as fully as possible. For Lermontov, these are not just three narrators, but three types of narrators: an outside observer of what is happening, a secondary character and participant in the events, as well as the main character himself. All three are dominated by the creator of the entire work - the author. We are presented not just three points of view, but three levels of comprehension of character, psychological revelation of the nature of the “hero of the time”, three measures of comprehension of the complex inner world of an extraordinary individuality. The presence of three types of narrators, their location in the course of the narrative is closely linked to the overall composition of the novel, and determines the chronological rearrangement of events, while at the same time being complexly dependent on such a rearrangement.
In the story “Bela,” Maxim Maksimych begins the story about Pechorin: “He was a nice guy, I dare to assure you; just a little strange. After all, for example, 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; the shutter knocks, he shudders and turns pale; and with me he went to hunt wild boar one on one; It happened that you wouldn’t get a word for hours at a time, but sometimes, as soon as he started talking, his stomach would rip from laughter... Yes, sir, he was very strange.”
Lermontov avoids local, dialect or Caucasian foreign words, deliberately using general literary vocabulary. The simplicity and accuracy of Lermontov's prose language were developed under the direct influence of Pushkin's prose.
Central to the story “Bela” is the story of Maxim Maksimych, included in the notes of a traveling officer. By putting the story of Pechorin and Bela into the mouth of the old Caucasian Maxim Maksimych, Lermontov highlighted the tragic devastation of Pechorin and at the same time contrasted him with the integral character of the Russian man.
In the next story, “Maksim Maksimych,” the staff captain turns into a character. The narration continues on behalf of the author of the novel. Here is the only time in the entire book that the author meets the hero, Pechorin. This is necessary in order to realistically motivate the detailed psychological portrait of Pechorin included in the second story. The introduction of a second narrator into the fabric of the novel adjusts the focus of the image. If Maxim Maksimych views events as if through inverted binoculars, so that everything is in his field of vision, but everything is too general, then the officer-narrator zooms in on the image, transfers it from a general plan to a more enlarged one. However, as a storyteller, he has a drawback in comparison with the staff captain: he knows too little, content with only passing observations. The second story therefore basically confirms the impression made after reading the beginning of the novel: Pechorin is too indifferent to people, otherwise with his coldness he would not have offended Maxim Maksimych, who was so devoted to his friendship.
Pechorin is indifferent not only to Maxim Maksimych, but also to himself, giving the Journal to the staff captain. The narrator, observing Pechorin’s appearance, notes: “... I must say a few more words about his eyes. First of all, they didn't laugh when he laughed! Have you ever noticed such strangeness in some people?.. This is a sign of either an evil disposition or deep, constant sadness. Because of the half-lowered eyelashes, they shone with some kind of phosphorescent shine, so to speak. It was not a reflection of the heat of the soul or the playing imagination: it was a shine, like the shine of smooth steel, dazzling, but cold; his gaze, short, but penetrating and heavy, left the unpleasant impression of an immodest question and could have seemed impudent if he had not been so indifferently calm.” In the second story, the author, as it were, prepares the reader for the further “Pechorin’s Journal”, because he finds out how Pechorin’s notes fell into the hands of the author.
The second story is capable of irritating the reader’s imagination: what is true about Pechorin - is it an evil disposition or a deep, constant sadness? Only after this, having aroused an inquisitive interest in such an unusual character, forcing the reader, looking for an answer, to be attentive to every detail of the further story, the author changes the narrator, giving the floor to the most central character: as a narrator, he has undoubted advantages over his two predecessors, it’s not so easy knows about himself more than others, but is also able to comprehend his actions, motives, emotions, subtle movements of the soul - as rarely anyone can do this. Self-analysis is Pechorin’s strength and weakness, hence his superiority over people and this is one of the reasons for his skepticism and disappointment.
In the Preface to Pechorin's Journal, the author reports something that Pechorin himself could not report: Pechorin died while returning from a trip to Persia. This is how the author’s right to publish “Pechorin’s Journal”, consisting of three stories: “Taman”, “Princess Mary” and “Fatalist” is justified.
“Taman” is an action-packed story. In this story, everything is explained and resolved in the most ordinary and prosaic way, although initially Pechorin is perceived somewhat romantically and truly poetically, which is not surprising: Pechorin finds himself in an unusual and atypical situation for a noble hero. The poor hut with its inhospitable inhabitants on a high cliff near the Black Sea seems a mystery to him. And Pechorin invades this strange life of smugglers, incomprehensible to him, “like a stone thrown into a smooth spring” and “almost went to the bottom himself.” Pechorin’s sadly ironic exclamation sums up the truthful and bitter conclusion of the whole incident: “And what do I care about human joys and misfortunes, me, a traveling officer, and even on the road for official business!..”.
The second story, included in Pechorin’s Journal, “Princess Mary,” develops the theme of the hero of time surrounded by the “water society,” surrounded by which and in conflict with which Pechorin is shown.
In the story “Princess Mary” Pechorin appears to the reader not only as a memoirist-storyteller, but also as the author of a diary, a journal in which his thoughts and impressions are accurately recorded. This allows Lermontov to reveal the inner world of his hero with great depth. Pechorin's diary opens with an entry made on May 11, the day after his arrival in Pyatigorsk. Detailed descriptions of subsequent events constitute, as it were, the first, “Pyatigorsk” part of the story. The entry dated June 10 opens the second, “Kislovodsk” part of his diary. In the second part, events develop more rapidly, consistently leading to the climax of the story and the entire novel - the duel between Pechorin and Grushnitsky. For a duel with Grushnitsky, Pechorin ends up in the fortress of Maxim Maksimych. This is where the story ends. Thus, all the events of “Princess Mary” fit into a period of a little more than a month and a half. But the narration of these few days makes it possible for Lermontov to reveal with exceptional depth and completeness the contradictory image of Pechorin from the inside.
It is in “Princess Mary” that the hopeless despair and tragic hopelessness of Pechorin, an intelligent and gifted person crippled by his environment and upbringing, are most deeply shown.
Pechorin's past within the framework of "A Hero of Our Time" is of little interest to Lermontov. The author is almost not occupied with the question of the formation of his hero. Lermontov does not even consider it necessary to tell the reader what Pechorin did in St. Petersburg during the five years that passed after his return from the Caucasus and until his reappearance in Vladikavkaz (“Maxim Maksimych”) on his way to Persia. All Lermontov's attention is paid to revealing the inner life of his hero.
Not only in Russian, but also in world literature, Lermontov was one of the first to master the ability to capture and depict “the mental process of the emergence of thoughts,” as Chernyshevsky put it in an article about the early stories of Leo Tolstoy.
Pechorin consistently and convincingly reveals in his diary not only his thoughts and moods, but also the spiritual world and spiritual appearance of those with whom he meets. Neither the intonation of the interlocutor’s voice, nor the movements of his eyes, nor facial expressions escape his observation. Every word spoken, every gesture reveals to Pechorin the state of mind of his interlocutor. Pechorin is not only smart, but also observant and sensitive. This explains his ability to understand people well. The portrait characteristics in Pechorin's Journal are striking in their depth and accuracy.
Nature and landscape in “A Hero of Our Time,” especially in “Pechorin’s Journal,” are very often not only a backdrop for human experiences. The landscape directly clarifies the human condition, and sometimes contrastingly emphasizes the discrepancy between the hero’s experiences and the surrounding environment.
Pechorin’s first meeting with Vera is preceded by a thunderous landscape saturated with electricity: “It was getting hot; white shaggy clouds quickly fled from the snowy mountains, promising a thunderstorm; Mashuk's head was smoking like an extinguished torch; Around him, gray wisps of clouds curled and crawled like snakes, detained in their quest and as if caught in the thorny bushes. The air was filled with electricity."
Pechorin’s contradictory state before the duel is characterized by the duality of the images and colors of the morning landscape of the outskirts of Kislovodsk: “I don’t remember a bluer and fresher morning! The sun barely appeared from behind the green peaks, and the merging of the first warmth of its rays with the dying coolness of the night brought a kind of sweet languor to all the senses.”
The same technique of contrasting lighting is used in the description of the mountain landscape surrounding the duelists who climbed to the top of the rock: “All around, lost in the golden fog of the morning, the tops of the mountains crowded like a countless herd, and Elbrus in the south stood up as a white mass, closing the chain of icy peaks, between where the stringy clouds that had come from the east were already wandering, and when I walked up to the edge of the platform and looked down, my head almost began to spin; there, below, it seemed dark and cold, as if in a coffin: the mossy teeth of rocks, thrown down by thunderstorms and time, were awaiting their prey.”
Pechorin, who knows how to accurately define his every thought, every state of mind, restrainedly and sparingly reports about his return from the duel in which Grushnitsky was killed. A brief, expressive description of nature reveals to the reader Pechorin’s difficult state: “The sun seemed dim to me, its rays did not warm me.”
The last story of “Pechorin's Journal” is “Fatalist”. The tragic death of Vulich, as it were, prepares the reader of “Fatalist” for the inevitable and imminent death of Pechorin, which the author already announced in the Preface to “Pechorin’s Journal”.
In this story, the question of fate and predestination is posed by Lermontov on completely real, even everyday material. In idealistic philosophical literature, in stories, tales and novels of the 20s and especially the 30s, during the period of intensified European reaction, much attention was paid to this issue. The key to the ideological plan of “Fatalist” is Pechorin’s monologue, which combines the first part of the story with its second part, which deals with the death of Vulich. Pechorin’s reflections in this monologue seem to sum up the entire “Pechorin’s Journal” and even the novel “A Hero of Our Time” as a whole.
It was in “The Fatalist” that Pechorin soberly and courageously discerned the source of many of his troubles, saw the cause of evil, but not the nature of temptation: “In my first youth I was a dreamer; I loved to caress the alternately gloomy and rosy images that my restless and greedy imagination painted for me. But what does this leave me with? only fatigue, as after a night battle with ghosts, and a vague memory filled with regrets. In this vain struggle I exhausted both the heat of my soul and the constancy of will necessary for real life; I entered this life having already experienced it mentally, and I felt bored and disgusted, like someone who reads a bad imitation of a book he has long known.”
Who is the narrator in the story?
Where do the events take place?
What is the plot of the story?
Maxim's reaction
Maksimych
to hear
about the appearance
Pechorina.
1.What personality traits of Pechorin are revealed in his portrait?
2. What underlies Pechorin’s character - “evil disposition” or “deep, constant sadness”?
The importance of “details” in a portrait
First of all, they didn't laugh when he laughed! -Have you ever noticed such strangeness in some people?.. This is a sign of either an evil disposition or deep, constant sadness. Because of the half-lowered eyelashes, they shone with some kind of phosphorescent shine, so to speak. It was not a reflection of the heat of the soul or the playing imagination: it was a shine, like the shine of smooth steel, dazzling, but cold; 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.
How do you explain Pechorin’s coldness during his last meeting with the staff captain?
Did he want to offend him or is he indifferent to him?
What was required from Pechorin to bring joy to Maxim Maksimych?
How do you understand the phrase: “What to do?... To each his own way”?
Why didn’t Pechorin strive to see Maxim Maksimych?
What is the author's assessment of their behavior?
Why did the writer call this chapter “Maksim Maksimych”?
What impression does Pechorin make on the reader? What traits of his character seem negative to you? What details of the text of chapters 1-2 emphasize its positive qualities?
Why does the story "Maksim Maksimych" follow the story "Bela", and not complete the novel?
Pechorin is shown in the chapters “Bela” and “Maksim Maksimych” as a contradictory personality, a person who does not know how to sympathize, who is accustomed to fulfilling only his own desires. Mental callousness, indifference, and inability to value friendship and love make this image unattractive. However, such an assessment of the image would be unambiguous if one did not notice touches of sadness and notes of hopelessness in its image. In order to understand the image of Pechorin, you need to understand his soul, his inner world, the motives of his behavior and actions.
Detailed summary of the debate lesson ““Evil disposition” or “deep
“constant sadness” lies in Pechorin’s character.”
(based on the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov “Hero of Our Time”)
The lesson is conducted after getting acquainted with the biography of the poet and the main motives of the lyrics. A preliminary written work “My opinion about the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov “A Hero of Our Time” is carried out. This lesson is a kind of analysis of students' perception of the novel. Thanks to the debate, time is freed up to study the craft of writing. The remaining lessons can be devoted to the innovation of M.Yu. Lermontov in the field of psychologism of the character of the hero. The chapters “Princess Mary” and “Fatalist” can be analyzed in detail.
Equipment:
1. A reminder about the rules for conducting a dispute.
2. Statements by contemporaries of M.Yu. Lermontov.
“Pechorin is a monster, slander on an entire generation.” S.O. Burachek
“Internal questions are incessantly heard within him, disturbing him, tormenting him...” V. G. Belinsky
“Some will say: he was a kind fellow, others – a scoundrel. Both will be false..." G.A. Pechorin
During the classes
The teacher, the moderator of the debate, begins the lesson: “I look sadly at our generation...” (part of the poem is read). 30s of the XIX century. Nicholas I firmly learned his lessons on December 14, 1825. He not only sent the Decembrists to the gallows and hard labor, he took all measures to ensure that their cause would not be revived. Any attempt to act and think independently was suppressed. Life should go quietly, without storms. In this oppressive silence, M.Yu. Lermontov entered literature. The novel “A Hero of Our Time” was published as a separate edition in 1840. Accusations rained down on both the author and the hero of the novel. Here are the statements of contemporaries and the words of the hero himself. Where is the truth?"An evil disposition" or "deep, persistent sadness" lies in the basis of Pechorin's character? The purpose of our lesson is to find out this. From your statements about the novel, I understood that some admire and defend their hero, others condemn and call Pechorin immoral. The truth is born in a dispute, let's try to find it.
Please do not forget the rules of disputes. Pay attention to polemical techniques. I want to wish you success and that the truth will prevail. The novel consists of separate stories. Each should discover something new in the character of the hero.
Questions for the story “Bela”
1. What impression did Pechorin make on you in the story “Bela”?
2. Pechorin’s love for Bela – a sincere feeling or a whim of a spoiled heart?
3. Why does he become indifferent to Bela?
4. How did he react to her death?
5. Maxim Maksimych - a sympathetic witness or participant in the tragedy?
6. Why did Pechorin laugh when Maxim Maksimych began to console him?
7. So who is Pechorin - the culprit or the victim of the tragedy?
Questions for the story “Maksim Maksimych”
1. What kind of Pechorin appears before us here, what is added to his character?
2. What did Pechorin’s appearance tell you?
3. What struck you most in the story?
4. Can you call Maxim Maksimych and Pechorin friends?
5. How do you explain Pechorin’s coldness during his last meeting with the staff captain?
6. Does Pechorin have an internal justification before Maxim Maksimych?
It is difficult to judge a person by observing him from the outside, but Pechorin makes our task easier. He leaves his diary entries. We are allowed to look into the hero's inner world. Lift the veil and unravel this man.
Questions for Pechorin's diary entries
1. Why do you think Pechorin keeps a diary?
2. Is it possible to accuse Pechorin of anything in the story “Taman”? I think he's the injured party here?
3. Why does interest in smugglers give way to indifference and irony of the hero over himself?
4. How does Pechorin in the story “Taman” differ from Pechorin in the story “Maksim Maksimych”?
5. Why does the story “Princess Mary” begin with a description of a wonderful landscape?
6. How does the intonation change when the hero moves from describing nature to describing a “water society”?
7. What accusations can you bring against Pechorin in this story?
8. Why does Pechorin need Mary to fall in love with him?
9. Quotation “But there is immense pleasure in possessing a young, barely blossoming soul.”
10. This is a serious accusation. Who will try to fend him off?
11. What makes Pechorin reject Mary’s feelings?
12. Why, having compassion for her, does Pechorin explain himself to her “frankly and rudely”?
13. What new does his relationship with Vera reveal? What explains Pechorin’s outburst of despair and grief after Vera’s departure and in the scene of the chase after her?
14. How are his desires and aspirations revealed in Pechorin’s words and thoughts? (Quoting “Why did I live...”)
15. Why are they not being implemented? (“My soul is spoiled by light...”)
16. Who is to blame for this?
17. So “evil disposition” or “deep, constant sadness” lies at the heart of Pechorin’s character?
The presenter sums up: we find confirmation of your understanding in the poem “Monologue”. We read the poem to the end.
Questions for the debate on the novel by I.A. Goncharov "Oblomov"
(Each question implies different points of view.)
Lesson 1 – The main stages of the life and work of I.A. Goncharov.
Lessons 2-3 – The image of the main character. The concept of “Oblomovism” in the novel.
Lessons 4-5 – Discussion lesson “Slave of someone else’s will or a free person?”
In the previous lessons, the concept of “Oblomovism” was discussed, it was shown “how and why our people turn before their time into ... jelly...”. It is obvious that “Oblomovism” turned out to be stronger than love, that the bourgeoisie with its tireless energy and hard work is opposed to the impoverished, degrading nobility in the novel. But what is truly interesting about the main character to today’s reader? This helps to identify the lesson-debate. Each question in this debate is addressed to a specific student. Here, every high school student has the opportunity to draw classmates to their own dissimilarity and uniqueness.
Questions to the topic “A slave to someone else’s will or a free person?”
1. Is love a duty or a free manifestation of the heart?
2. What does it mean to “love” for Oblomov and Olga Ilyinskaya?
3. Do you think people who love you need to be corrected, their shortcomings eradicated, or accepted and loved for who they are?
4. Did the loss of Olga Ilyinskaya’s love become a tragedy for Oblomov?
5. Whose love will you give preference to: the love of Olga or Agafya Pshenitsyna?
6. Which of the novel’s heroes can sacrifice everything for the sake of love and find a reward in love?
7. So what is the meaning of life? Whose point of view is closer to you, Oblomov or Stolz?
8. Where is the person here? Where is his integrity? What does Oblomov mean when he says these words?
9. Who has more humanity, Oblomov or Stolz?
10. What is Oblomov’s laziness? Protection from the outside world or is the whole reason in “Oblomovism”?
11. Why did Oblomov abandon his activities and participate in life? Is it unwillingness or inability?
12. Oblomov is incapable of evil, because he is generally incapable of anything in life?
13. Does he achieve the ideal in his life? And what is his ideal?
14. So who is Oblomov - a slave of someone else's will or a free person?
The guys' answers are very interesting. These are reflections on the most complex issues of free will and the need to live “as I need” or “as I want.” This is a conversation about the extent to which violence against an individual is harmful (even with the attitude “for the good”). How should life be structured so that a person does not die in it, does not hide from it? What is the key to a full-fledged active existence? Is Oblomov’s life and decline an acceptable, possible or legal option? These questions are born in the minds of the children thanks to questions of debate and attempts to answer them reasonably. And Oblomov’s personality becomes close, understandable, and dear to some. Suddenly, everyone finds a piece of Oblomov in themselves. By the end of the discussion, the image of the main character amazes with its depth and versatility.
1. Pechorin in the perception of others.
2. How Pechorin himself evaluates himself.
3. Life internal and external.
I'm not for angels and heaven
Created by God Almighty;
But why do I live, suffering,
He knows more about this.
M. Yu. Lermontov
The title of M. Yu. Lermontov’s novel “Hero of Our Time” is, of course, no coincidence. The author wanted to emphasize that Pechorin’s character is a kind of collective image of a generation of noble youth, Lermontov’s peers: “A Hero of Our Time... exactly, a portrait, but not of one person: this is a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation, in their full development " The fate of a generation that thoughtlessly and senselessly squandered its strength and best movements of the soul is one of the significant themes in Lermontov’s work. For example, a ruthless description of the generation is given in the poem “Duma” (“Sadly I look at our generation...”). However, the difference lies in the fact that in “Duma” Lermontov generalizes and speaks about the generation as a whole. In “A Hero of Our Time” we are talking about the fate of a specific person, a representative of his time and generation.
The appeal to the image of an extraordinary and proud personality, whose outstanding abilities were not realized, is a continuation of the traditions of romanticism, primarily found in the work of J. Byron. At the same time, in Lermontov’s novel there is a strong tendency towards realism. “...There is more truth in him than you would wish,” the author emphasizes, speaking about the character of his hero. Indeed, Lermontov does not embellish his hero and does not seek to denigrate him beyond measure. In order to achieve the most objective, impartial portrayal of the personality traits of his hero, the author either shows Pechorin through the eyes of Maxim Maksimych, then introduces his own observations, or reveals to the reader the pages of his diary, in which Pechorin recorded not only events from his life, but also reflections that make it possible to compose an idea of the invisible movements of his soul.
The contradictory nature of Pechorin is noted by everyone who communicated with him even briefly or even just watched him from the side. Maxim Maksimych, who was friendly towards Pechorin, considered him a “nice fellow,” is sincerely perplexed about his oddities: “After all, for example, 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; the shutter knocks, he shudders and turns pale; and with me he went to hunt wild boar one on one; It happened that you wouldn’t get the word out for hours at a time, but sometimes when he started talking, you’d burst your stomach with laughter...”
Lermontov writes about the secrecy of his hero and the strangeness in his facial expressions: Pechorin’s eyes “did not laugh when he laughed.” The author notes that “this is a sign of either an evil disposition or deep, constant sadness.”
As a person prone to introspection, Pechorin is well aware of the contradictory nature of his nature. In his diary, he notes, not without humor: “The presence of an enthusiast fills me with baptismal cold, and I think frequent intercourse with a sluggish phlegmatic would make me a passionate dreamer.” What is it - the desire to stand out from the crowd? Hardly... - Pechorin already has a high enough opinion of himself to bother with such trifles. Rather, the driving force here is the “spirit of doubt,” the motive of influence of which is generally quite strong in Lermontov’s work. “I like to doubt everything: this disposition of mind does not interfere with the decisiveness of character - on the contrary, as for me, I always move forward more boldly when I don’t know what awaits me,” Pechorin himself admits.
One of Pechorin's most striking contradictions is manifested in his attitude towards love. More than once he writes in his diary about the desire to be loved. We must admit that he knows how to achieve this. However, Pechorin himself is not capable of a strong reciprocal feeling. Having won Bela's ingenuous heart, he soon loses interest in her. Why did he so diligently seek Mary’s love? Pechorin himself cannot really answer this question. Probably because he enjoys the feeling of power over another person: “But there is immense pleasure in possessing a young, barely blossoming soul!.. I feel in myself this insatiable greed, absorbing everything that comes along the way; I look at the sufferings and joys of others only in relation to myself, as food that supports my spiritual strength.”
Pechorin had a fairly strong attachment to Vera, but this was revealed at the moment when he realized that he would not see her again. However, he also loved Vera “as a source of joys, anxieties and sorrows, replacing each other, without which life is boring and monotonous.” For Vera herself, this love brought more mental anguish than joy, because Pechorin did not value her love or the love of other women enough to sacrifice anything for them, to give up even the slightest of his habits.
So, Pechorin, on the one hand, dreams of being loved, believes that one strong attachment would be enough for him, and on the other, he realizes that he is unsuitable for family life: “No, I would not get along with this lot! I am like a sailor, born and raised on the deck of a robber brig: his soul has become accustomed to storms and battles, and, thrown ashore, he is bored and languishing...”
Another contradiction in Pechorin’s nature is constant boredom and thirst for activity. Apparently, at his core, Pechorin is a fairly active person: we see how he involves those around him in the whirlpool of events that he himself provoked. “After all, there are, really, such people who have it written in their nature that various extraordinary things should happen to them!” However, these adventures occur precisely thanks to the active position of the hero himself. But Pechorin’s activities do not have a solid foundation: everything he undertakes is aimed at combating boredom - and nothing more. And even this goal cannot be achieved by Lermontov’s hero. At best, he manages to drive away boredom for a short time, but soon it returns: “In me, the soul is spoiled by light, the imagination is restless, the heart is insatiable; I can’t get enough of it: I get used to sadness just as easily as to pleasure, and my life becomes emptier day by day...” Not only that, the lack of goals and an idle lifestyle contributed to the development of such negative qualities as cynicism, arrogance, and disregard for the feelings of others.
But Pechorin is endowed with many virtues: a sharp mind, insight, a unique sense of humor, willpower, courage, observation and charm. However, his life is devoid of inner meaning and joy: “I run through my entire past in my memory and involuntarily ask myself: why did I live? for what purpose was I born?.. And, it’s true, it existed, and, it’s true, I had a high purpose, because I feel immense strength in my soul... But I didn’t guess this purpose, I was carried away by the lures of empty and ungrateful passions ; I came out of their furnace hard and cold, like iron, but I lost forever the ardor of noble aspirations - the best color of life.”
Pechorin Grigory Alexandrovich- the main character of the novel. His character was formed in the atmosphere of high society, which makes him similar to the hero of the novel “Eugene Onegin”. But the vanity and immorality of society with the “decorum of pulled masks” bored the hero. Pechorin is an officer. He serves, but does not earn favors, does not study music, does not study philosophy or military affairs, that is, he does not strive to impress by means available to ordinary people. M. Yu. Lermontov hints at the political nature of Pechorin’s exile to the Caucasus; some remarks in the text suggest his closeness to the ideology of Decembrism. Thus, in the novel, the theme of personal heroism arises in the tragic interpretation that it receives in the 30s of the 19th century.
Already in the first story it is emphasized that Pechorin is an extraordinary person. “After all, there are, really, such people who have it written in their nature that various extraordinary things should happen to them,” says Maxim Maksimych. The unusualness of the hero is also manifested in his portrait. His eyes, the author notes, “didn’t laugh when he laughed!” What is this: a sign of “an evil disposition or deep, constant sadness”?
The problem of morality is connected with the image of Pechorin in the novel. In all the short stories that Lermontov combines in the novel, Pechorin appears before us as a destroyer of the lives and destinies of other people: because of him, the Circassian Bela loses her home and dies, Maxim Maksimych is disappointed in his friendship with him, Mary and Vera suffer, and die by his hand Grushnitsky, “honest smugglers” are forced to leave their home, the young officer Vulich dies. The hero of the novel himself realizes: “Like an instrument of execution, I fell on the heads of the doomed victims, often without malice, always without regret...” His whole life is a constant experiment, a game with fate, and Pechorin allows himself to risk not only his life, but also the lives of those who were nearby. He is characterized by unbelief and individualism. Pechorin, in fact, considers himself a superman who managed to rise above ordinary morality. However, he does not want either good or evil, but only wants to understand what it is. All this cannot but repel the reader. And Lermontov does not idealize his hero. However, the title of the novel, in my opinion, contains “evil irony” not over the word “hero”, but over the words “our time”.
It was the era of reaction that came in Russia after the Decembrist uprising that gave birth to people like Pechorin. The hero “feels immense strength in his soul,” but does not find in life the opportunity to realize his “high purpose,” therefore he wastes himself in the pursuit of “empty passions,” quenches his thirst for life in senseless risk and constant self-analysis, which eats him away from the inside. M. Yu. Lermontov considers reflection, the transfer of active activity to isolation in one’s own inner world, one of the most important features of his generation. Pechorin's character is complex and contradictory. The hero of the novel says about himself: “There are two people in me: one lives in the full sense of the word, the other thinks and judges him...” What are the reasons for this duality? “I told the truth - they didn’t believe me: I began to deceive; Having learned well the light and springs of society, I became skilled in the science of life...” admits Pechorin. He learned to be secretive, vindictive, bilious, ambitious, and became, in his words, a moral cripple. Pechorin is an egoist. Belinsky also called Pushkin’s Onegin “a suffering egoist” and “a reluctant egoist.” The same can be said about Pechorin. The novel “Hero of Our Time” became a continuation of the theme of “extra people”.
And yet Pechorin is a richly gifted nature. He has an analytical mind, his assessments of people and actions are very accurate; he has a critical attitude not only towards others, but also towards himself. His diary is nothing more than self-exposure. He is endowed with a warm heart, capable of deeply feeling (the death of Bela, a date with Vera) and worrying greatly, although he tries to hide his emotional experiences under the mask of indifference. Indifference, callousness is a mask of self-defense. Pechorin is, after all, a strong-willed, strong, active person, “lives of strength” lie dormant in his chest, he is capable of action. But all his actions carry not a positive, but a negative charge; all his activities are aimed not at creation, but at destruction. In this, Pechorin is similar to the hero of the poem “Demon”. Indeed, in his appearance (especially at the beginning of the novel) there is something demonic, unsolved. But this demonic personality became part of the “current tribe” and became a caricature of itself. Strong will and thirst for activity gave way to disappointment and powerlessness, and even high egoism gradually began to turn into petty selfishness. The traits of a strong personality remain only in the image of a renegade, who, however, belongs to his generation.
The genius of M. Yu. Lermontov was expressed primarily in the fact that he created an immortal image of a hero who embodied all the contradictions of his era. It is no coincidence that V. G. Belinsky saw in Pechorin’s character “a transitional state of spirit, in which for a person everything old is destroyed, but nothing new is yet there, and in which a person is only the possibility of something real in the future and a perfect ghost in the present.”
The significance of the novel “A Hero of Our Time” in the subsequent development of Russian literature is enormous. In this work, Lermontov, for the first time in the “history of the human soul,” revealed such deep layers that not only equated it with the “history of the people,” but also showed its involvement in the spiritual history of humanity through its personal and tribal significance. In an individual personality, not only its specific and temporal socio-historical characteristics were highlighted, but also all-human ones.
?????? ??????????????? ????? ?. ?. ?????????? "????? ?????? ???????” ? ??????? ??????? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ? ?? ?????? ????????? ????????????? ?????????? ?????????, ?. ???????, F.M. ????????????, ??????. ?. ?. ??????? ??? ??????? ? ??????? ????? ?????????? ? ??? ?????? "????? ?????? ???????": "?????????-????????? ??? ????, ??? ??, ? ???? ?? ??????, ????? ??? ???, ?????? ??????????, ?????? ??????? ????????????? ?????, ?????? ???????????? ?? ??? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???????????? ??????????..."
