“Pechorin is a hero of his time” (School essays). Is Pechorin really a hero of his time Message on the topic Pechorin is a hero of his time

The novel “A Hero of Our Time” was begun in 1837-38 and completed in 1839. This is the first Russian socio-psychological novel in prose.

In the preface to the novel, the author talks about the purpose of his work - to create a portrait of the hero of his time: “... this is a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation, in their full development.” In the preface to Pechorin’s magazine, Lermontov calls his work “the history of the human soul.”

The main problem of this novel is the fate of a thinking, talented person who could not find a use for himself in the living conditions of that society. The main character of M. Yu. Lermontov's novel “A Hero of Our Time” lived in the thirties of the nineteenth century. These years can be characterized as the years of gloomy reaction that came after the defeat of the Decembrist uprising of 1825. At this time, a man of progressive thought could not find an application for his strength. Disbelief, doubt, denial have become features of the consciousness of the younger generation.

Pechorin comes from a noble family. He received a typical upbringing and education for aristocratic youth of that time under the guidance of foreign teachers and tutors. Having left the care of his relatives, he began to madly enjoy all the pleasures that could be obtained for money. Then he set out into the big world: he fell in love with secular beauties and was loved. We learn about these events in the hero’s life from his confession to Maxim Maksimych in the chapter “Bela”.

Pechorin has a “sharp, cooled mind,” which allows him to correctly judge people, about life, and be critical of himself and those around him. Pechorin has already experienced everything; even in his youth he was disgusted with all pleasures. This could not but lead him to disappointment in life. Pechorin sees that the happiest people are ignorant, and fame is luck. Boredom quickly takes possession of Pechorin.

The main character understands that in the society where he is, he will never find friends, that no one there will be able to understand him. Therefore, Pechorin breaks with secular society. He goes to the Caucasus, hoping that “boredom does not live under Chechen bullets.”
Pechorin seeks danger, strives for an active life and “suffers deeply” because he cannot find his like-minded people.

On the one hand, Pechorin is a skeptic, a disappointed person who lives “out of curiosity”; on the other hand, he has a huge thirst for life and activity. In Pechorin, the mind and heart, rationality and feeling struggle. “For a long time now I have been living not with my heart, but with my head. I weigh and examine my own passions and actions with strict curiosity, but without participation,” says the hero.

The composition of the novel is structured in such a way as to better reveal the image of the main character. The chapters are not arranged in chronological order, but all the characters in the novel help to better reveal Pechorin’s character.

The image of Pechorin “as a hero of his time” is revealed in relationships with other characters who are not similar either in character or in position to Pechorin. The change of persons leading the narrative is also of particular importance. First, Maxim Maksimych, a “traveling officer,” talks about Pechorin. Then the author-narrator talks about him, and then Pechorin reveals himself in his diaries. The portrait of Pechorin itself characterizes him as an extraordinary personality. His eyes “did not laugh when he laughed.” He is contradictory: sometimes he is brave, energetic, persistent, sometimes he is quiet and meek, deep in himself. He is also uneven in his relationships with people, and these relationships further emphasize the contradictory nature of Pechorin. There are qualities in Pechorin that attract people with whom he has to communicate. Maxim Maksimych is a simple, kind, sentimental person. One of the unwitting victims of friendship with Pechorin. He liked Pechorin, he sincerely believed in the sincerity of Pechorin’s attitude towards him, considered him his best friend, waited for a meeting with him after a long separation, believing that they had a lot in common, and Pechorin, when meeting him, did not find even two kind words, not realizing that with such an attitude he offended the old man, who did not sleep all night preparing to meet him.

All of Pechorin’s actions are woven from contradictions. Pechorin says about himself: “My whole life has been just a chain of sad contradictions to my heart or mind.” Pechorin's tragedy is that all his abilities, which he could use to achieve some high goal, he spends on adventures. He himself does not understand what to do with his strength. He interferes in other people's affairs of the heart, destroys the lives of “honest” smugglers, guided only by his own interest and curiosity. The search for thrills leads him to a duel with Grushnitsky, the result of which pushes Werner, the only person who understood Pechorin, away from him. He is smart and insightful, like Pechorin, he has an ironic mindset. Werner is a person with whom it is easy and simple for Pechorin. They understand each other perfectly and Pechorin values ​​the doctor’s opinion. In Pechorin's duel with Grushnitsky, Werner acts as a second, but the outcome of the duel frightens him, and Werner decides to say goodbye to Pechorin.

The contradictions in Pechorin’s character are especially evident in his relationships with women. Love should reveal the true essence of a person. Pechorin turned out to be incapable of this feeling. Pechorin's love brings misfortune to everyone he loves. Bela and her parents die, Mary falls ill, her mother is deeply unhappy, seeing her daughter’s suffering. In relation to the princess, Pechorin looks extremely unsympathetic and repulsive. If he was sincerely attracted to Bela, then he seeks the princess’s love only in order to annoy Grushnitsky. Is Pechorin even capable of love? I think that Pechorin loved Vera, and he himself said that she was “the woman I have ever loved.” This feeling manifests itself most strongly at the moment when there is a danger of losing Faith: “...I prayed, cursed, cried, laughed... no, nothing will express my anxiety, despair!.. Faith has become dearer to me than anything in the world ...” But this state does not last long for Pechorin. He began to be assailed by questions about why he should “chase after lost happiness,” what the last meeting would give him, but most of all he was afraid that he might be seen sobbing. And Pechorin returns home. One of the researchers of the work wrote that Pechorin loved Vera, felt true passion for Bela, and Mary was one of his experiences in mastering a woman’s heart.

The novel covers only individual episodes of Pechorin's life. This life story is the story of an extraordinary person’s futile attempts to realize himself, to find at least some satisfaction to his needs, attempts that invariably turn into suffering and losses for him and those around him. Pechorin is not only a hero of his time, but also its victim.

It is always interesting to think about why the author named his work in a certain way. For example, Mikhail Lermontov decided to call his work “Hero of Our Time”; it is quite clear that by the hero of the entire time that he described, the writer understands the main character of the entire work - a young man named Pechorin. It is worth noting that not all of those Those who even carefully read this work really understand why Pechorin can well be called a hero of the described time. Therefore, this requires additional research and analysis.

However, for me personally it is not at all difficult to do such an analysis. You should be firmly aware that a hero is not always a popular and famous person who enjoys universal love, respect and understanding. Very often, a person can be considered a hero, who opposed himself to the time of his life, truly, truly stood out from the crowd and was not like anyone else. This can be said with confidence about Pechorin. So what was typical for the main character of Mikhail Lermontov’s work? What qualities does he need and which of these qualities is the most important?

It is worth immediately noting that Pechorin was a very talented person. Whatever he planned, he succeeded in almost everything. Such people sometimes exist, but they cannot always be called a hero of a certain era. Pechorin could well have become a respected person recognized in society, but society rejected him. Instead of virtue, society found deceit in him, traits that in fact were not characteristic of this young man. Then he changed, he became what they had previously seen in him - he became soulless, insidious and vindictive. He disdained that society in where he was and lived. One might even say that he presented this society with a bold challenge from a brave man. Of course, society doesn’t let anyone off the hook for nothing, and therefore Pechorin faced the angry reaction of many people, he had to overcome this reaction. It is worth saying that very often he fully succeeded. Despite the tragic outcome, Pechorin’s fate can well be called outstanding and deserves all interest and attention.

Every time has its heroes. Heroes can be both positive and negative. It also happens that the quality of a hero cannot be determined at all. A similar situation is typical for the main character of Mikhail Lermontov’s work “Hero of Our Time” Pechorin. On the one hand, this person was abandoned and not recognized in society. On the other hand, he has achieved real success, which is almost impossible to challenge or question in any way. All this allows us to conclude that Pechorin is truly a hero of our time.

The main theme of Lermontov's entire work is the theme of personality and its relationship to society. The central character of Lermontov's lyrics, poems, dramas, and novels is a proud, rebellious and protesting personality, striving for action, for struggle. But in the conditions of social reality of the 30s, such a person does not find a sphere of application of his strength, and therefore is doomed to loneliness. The tragedy of an extraordinary personality, doomed to inaction and loneliness, is the main ideological meaning of the novel “A Hero of Our Time.”

Following Pushkin 1 0Lermontov sets himself the goal of painting a typical young man of his time. “Hero of Our Time, dear sirs 1, 0my 1 0accurate portrait, but not of one person: this is a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation, in their full development, "- writes Lermontov himself.

Truthfully, simply, convincingly, Lermontov draws his contemporary Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin.

So who is this Pechorin?

Belinsky gives the answer: “Pechorin is the Onegin of our time.” Their dissimilarity with each other “is much less than the distance between Onega and Pechora. These are people of the same circle, representatives of secular society. You can find a lot in common in their biographies: both received a secular upbringing, at first they chased secular entertainment, then disappointment, attempts to engage in science and cooling off towards her. Pechorin, like Onegin, “sarcastically slandered” in the presence of his rivals. And “when he wanted to destroy his rivals,” he did not stop before a duel. Both of them are bored, both have a negative attitude towards the world and experience deep dissatisfaction with their lives. But, despite all their similarities, these are still different people, with different spiritual make-up and behavior... And this difference is explained by the time in which they live.

Onegin is a representative of the 20s, an era of social upsurge. And Pechorin is from the 30s, the period of reaction and decline in social struggle. And if Onegin is “bored,” then Pechorin “suffers deeply,” according to Belinsky.

Pechorin is a deeper and more tragic character. He combines a “sharp, chilled mind” with a thirst for activity and struggle with courage, bravery, and willpower. He feels immense strength within himself, but wastes it on trifles, on love affairs, without doing anything useful. Pechorin makes the people who come into contact with him unhappy. So he interferes in the life of “honest smugglers”, takes revenge on everyone indiscriminately, plays with the fate of Bela, the love of Vera. The duel with Grushnitsky, this pathetic actor who put on a mask of disappointment, is an indicator of how Pechorin is wasting his strength. He defeats Grushnitsky and becomes the hero of the society he despises. He is above the environment, smart, educated. But internally devastated, disappointed. Skeptic, lives "out of curiosity." This is on the one hand, and on the other, he has an ineradicable thirst for life.

As you can see, Pechorin’s character is very contradictory. He says: “I have long lived not with my heart, but with my head.” At the same time, having received Vera’s letter, Pechorin rushes like crazy to Pyatigorsk, hoping to see her at least once again.

Where does all this come from? Pechorin himself gives the answer, writing in his diary: “My colorless youth passed in a struggle with myself and the light; fearing ridicule, I buried my best feelings in the depths of my heart: there they died!”

Extreme egoism and individualism are inherent in Pechorin. He is a "moral cripple." And this despite all his talent and wealth of spiritual strength.

He painfully searches for a way out, gets entangled in contradictions, thinks about the role of fate, and seeks understanding among people of a different circle.

And he doesn’t find a sphere of activity or use for his strength in Russia. He is looking for business outside the borders of his fatherland and goes to Persia.

The entire novel is dedicated to one hero. The remaining characters highlight certain traits of his character. The entire novel is focused on psychology, the experiences of the main character. The author is interested in the complex aspects of the hero’s mental life. This helps us understand the ideological and spiritual life of Russian society in the 30s and 40s of the last century. This reflected the skill of Lermontov, the creator of the first psychological novel.

The tragedy of Pechorin is the tragedy of many of his contemporaries, similar to him in their way of thinking and position in society. This is the tragedy of all progressive-minded nobles who entered life after the defeat of the Decembrists. This is the tragedy of “superfluous people,” “smart useless people.” After Pushkin and Lermontov, the theme of “extra people” became traditional in Russian literature of the 19th century.

Is Pechorin a hero of his time?

Despite the fact that Pechorin’s type was more of an individual type than a collective one, the society of that time liked it and liked it very much. Pechorin did not become a “hero” of his time in the strict sense of the word; but the people of that time could sometimes take him for their hero, and for very understandable reasons.

The type was depicted very temptingly; Pechorin's intelligence and nobility impressed him, his sadness and thoughtfulness touched readers, and the hero's inner emptiness and confusion in the face of difficult life issues were skillfully covered by his spectacular appearance. Those readers who were partial to just a beautiful pose could easily transfer their sympathies from the foggy heroes of Byron to Pechorin, and replace the tattered and dilapidated suit with a new one.

More serious people, for their part, also found in Pechorin something close to their hearts.

Russian life in the thirties of the 19th century put many smart people in the same position as Lermontov. For them, the task of reconciling ideals with life was equally difficult, since every year their social consciousness increased. Many, like Lermontov, could have become tired in this difficult pursuit of ideals, to the achievement of which the path was completely unclear. Why not assume that they could, albeit for a short time, like Pechorin’s passive and joyless worldly philosophy?

The richer the stock of spiritual strength of an intelligent person, the more bleak the moment of his mental fatigue when he begins to doubt these forces. In the thirties, such moments of fatigue among smart people and even more developed people than Lermontov were not uncommon. Life began to demand a conscious and strict attitude towards itself; its isolated phenomena needed generalization; it imposed moral obligations on an intelligent person, which were very difficult to understand and accurately differentiate.

The era was in the full sense of the word transitional: it was necessary to develop a new worldview and try to put it into practice. A person either began to act without previously justifying his actions with reason, or with a ready-made and integral worldview he sat idle, for reasons beyond his control. Such a disagreement between mind, heart and life could at times lead people to apathy, in which a person, while maintaining his proud and intelligent appearance, ceased for a while to take an active part in life and left himself at the complete disposal of its accidents.

Pechorin was thus both understandable and sympathetic to his contemporaries; but he still cannot be called a “hero” of his time. He was not a real type or character: he reflected only one moment in the history of one type, an important moment, but not long lasting; he was not the Onegin of his time.

Introduction.

The novel “A Hero of Our Time” made a huge impression on me. Pechorin is a very interesting object to study from a psychological point of view. He is always sincere with himself, but rarely tells the truth to others. All his actions seem to be logical, but this logic of his is extraordinary in itself. It’s as if he’s experienced everything he wanted in this life and he’s already bored here. He is able to indifferently experience his falls and failures, which is perhaps why he does not particularly sympathize with other people.

Pechorin has enormous potential for achievements. He can sacrifice himself for the sake of a cause, but not a public one, but in which he is interested. The author himself regrets this. People like his hero could make a great, great contribution to society. But alas... The era, society and government policy greatly influence the character and actions of a person. Expressing through Pechorin the “present time” in which Lermontov lived, he collected in his hero an innumerable number of vices. Consequently, he wanted to say that the circumstances of his era make people such. Who is called a hero in “our time” (Lermontov’s time)? Who deserves this title? Let's consider Pechorin: he is fearless, no one can tell him, they are trying to imitate him (Grushnitsky), he is a hero! But what lies behind this title, behind the image of a “hero”? An unlimited number of vices for which the title of hero will not be awarded. How the author wants to see a real hero and how he sees him in reality. This is what my essay will be about.

Pechorin as a hero of his time.

I look sadly at our generation!

His future is either empty or dark,

Meanwhile, under the burden of knowledge and doubt,

It will grow old in inactivity.

M.Yu. Lermontov

“Hero of Our Time” is one of Lermontov’s works, in which the writer’s intense thoughts about the general laws of the historical development of mankind and the historical destinies of Russia were refracted. But in the novel, as in the poem “Duma,” Lermontov’s attention is focused on his contemporary era. The novel "Hero of Our Time", like the poem "Duma", is written in a tragic tone. “Our time” is conceptualized in it as a “transitional period.” The latter is considered as an era of national prehistory, as a time when the people have not yet entered the age of maturity, have not mastered the centuries-old gains of world culture, and therefore are not yet ready for great achievements of universal significance in the field of culture.

PECHORIN- the main character of the novel M.Yu. Lermontov “Hero of Our Time” (1838-1840). Contemporaries, including Belinsky, largely identified Pechorin with Lermontov. Meanwhile, it was important for the author to distance himself from his hero. According to Lermontov, Pechorin is a portrait made up of the vices of an entire generation - “in their full development.” It is quite clear why “Pechorin’s Journal” is “someone else’s work” for Lermontov. If not the best, then the central part of it is Pechorin’s diary entries, entitled “Princess Mary”. Nowhere does Pechorin so correspond to the image revealed by the author in the preface. “Princess Mary” appeared later than all the other stories. The preface that Lermontov wrote for the second edition of the novel, with its critical acuity, is primarily associated with this story. The hero he introduces to the reader is exactly the Pechorin as he is shown on the pages of “Princess Mary.” The critical pathos of the last period of Lermontov's life manifested itself especially clearly in this story. The character of the main character was obviously influenced by the different times in which the stories were written. Lermontov's consciousness changed very quickly. His hero also changed. Pechorin in “Princess Mary” is no longer quite the same as what appears first in “Bel”, then in “Fatalist”. At the end of work on the novel, Pechorin acquired the expressiveness that was supposed to complete the promised portrait. Indeed, in “Princess Mary” he appears in the most unsightly light. Of course, this is a strong-willed, deep, demonic nature. But it can only be perceived through the eyes of a young woman. Princess Mary and blinded by it Grushnitsky. He imitates Pechorin unnoticed by himself, which is why he is so vulnerable and funny to Pechorin. Meanwhile, even this Grushnitsky, a nonentity, according to Pechorin, arouses in him a feeling of envy. And at the same time, how much courage Pechorin showed at the climax of the duel, knowing that his own pistol was not loaded. Pechorin really shows miracles of endurance. And the reader is already lost: who is he, this hero of our time? The intrigue came from him, and when the victim got confused, it was as if he was not to blame.

Pechorin is called a strange man by all the characters in the novel. Lermontov paid a lot of attention to human oddities. In Pechorin he summarizes all his observations. Pechorin’s strangeness seems to elude definition, which is why the opinions of those around him are polar. He is envious, angry, cruel. At the same time, he is generous, sometimes kind, that is, capable of succumbing to good feelings, nobly protects the princess from the encroachments of the crowd. He is impeccably honest with himself, smart. Pechorin is a talented writer. Lermontov attributes the wonderful “Taman” to his careless pen, generously sharing the best part of his soul with the hero. As a result, readers seem to get used to excusing a lot of things about Pechorin, and not noticing some things at all. Belinsky defends Pechorin and actually justifies him, since “in his very vices something great glimmers.” But all the critic’s arguments skim on the surface of Pechorin’s character. Illustrating the words of Maxim Maksimych: “A nice fellow, I dare you, he’s just a little strange...”, Lermontov looks at his hero as an exceptional phenomenon, so the original title of the novel - “One of the heroes of our century” - was discarded. In other words, Pechorin cannot be confused with anyone, especially with the poet himself, as I. Annensky categorically formulated: “Pechorin - Lermontov.” A. I. Herzen, speaking on behalf of the “Lermontov” generation, argued that Pechorin expressed “the real sorrow and fragmentation of Russian life at that time, the sad fate of an extra, lost person.” Herzen put the name of Pechorin here with the same ease with which he would have written the name of Lermontov.

According to V.G. Belinsky, Lermontov’s novel is “a sad thought about our time.” The work raises the problem of the fate of a strong-willed and gifted individual in an era of timelessness. According to the fair statement of B. M. Eikhenbaum, “the subject of Lermontov’s artistic study... is a personality endowed with heroic traits and entering into a struggle with his age.”

The hero goes through the entire book and remains unrecognized. A man without a heart - but his tears are hot, the beauty of nature intoxicates him. He commits bad acts, but only because they are expected of him. He kills the person he slandered, and before that the first one offers him peace. Expressing multiple traits, Pechorin is truly exceptional. Anyone can do bad things. To recognize oneself as an executioner and a traitor is not given to everyone. The role of the ax that Pechorin recognizes among people is not a euphemism at all, not a veiled world sorrow. It is impossible to make allowances for the fact that this was stated in the diary. Confessing, Pechorin is horrified by his “pathetic” role of being an indispensable participant in the last act of a comedy or tragedy, but there is not a shadow of repentance in these words. All his complaints are reminiscent of the “pathetic” style of Ivan the Terrible, lamenting over his next victim. The comparison does not seem exaggerated. Pechorin's goal is undivided power over those around him. All the more insistently he emphasizes that we suffer from boredom and are “very worthy of regret.” The poet of Lermontov's school, A. Grigoriev, tried to poeticize and develop Pechorin's boredom, and the result was Moscow melancholy with gypsy guitars. Pechorin says directly that he is bored - his life is “emptier day by day,” speaking as if in tone with the tyrant who calls himself a “stinking dog.” Of course, Pechorin’s victims are not so bloody; they are primarily destroyed morally. The decoding of the idea of ​​the hero of our time must be sought in individual demonism: “The collection of evils is his element.” Lermontov placed the thirst for power, which destroys personality, at the forefront of Pechorin’s worldview. Of course, this is only outlined by Lermontov, and that is why his hero does not have sharp outlines. There is nothing predatory about him, on the contrary, there is a lot of feminine. Nevertheless, Lermontov had every reason to call Pechorin a hero of the future. It’s not scary that Pechorin sometimes “understands the vampire.” For Pechorin, a field of activity has already been found: the philistine environment, in fact, is this field - the environment of dragoon captains, princesses, romantic phrase-mongers - the most favorable soil for cultivating all kinds of “gardener-executioners”. This will be exactly what Lermontov called the complete development of vices. To crave power and find the highest pleasure in it is not at all the same as involuntarily destroying the life of “honest” smugglers. This is the evolution of the image of Pechorin from “Bela” and “Taman” to “Princess Mary”. When Belinsky admires the sparks of greatness of Pechorin’s vices, he thereby, as it were, strives to cleanse his image from petty interpretations. After all, Pechorin so picturesquely likens himself to a sailor born and raised on the deck of a robber brig. In this reading, Pechorin is bad, because the others are even worse. Belinsky softens Pechorin's features, not noticing the question asked by the hero to himself: “Is evil really so attractive?” The attractiveness of evil - this is how Lermontov accurately described the disease of his century.

The image of Pechorin is not painted with any black paint. In the end, Pechorin lost his worse half. He is like a man from a fairy tale who has lost his shadow. Therefore, Lermontov did not turn Pechorin into a vampire, but left him as a man capable of even composing “Taman”. It was this man, so similar to Lermontov, who overshadowed Pechorin’s shadow. And it is no longer possible to make out whose steps are sounding on the flinty path. Lermontov sketched a portrait consisting not of vices, but of contradictions. And most importantly, he made it clear that the thirst that this man suffers cannot be quenched from a well with mineral water. Destructive for everyone except himself, Pechorin is like Pushkin’s anchar. It is difficult to imagine him among the yellowing fields, in the Russian landscape. It is increasingly somewhere in the east - the Caucasus, Persia.

The novel “A Hero of Our Time” is “composed” of separate independent short stories. In general, it represents a system of seemingly unrelated episodes from the life of the main character.

The novelistic principle of narration contributes to an in-depth psychological characterization of the hero. “Novella” in translation means “news”, “new”: this is how, from Klava to Klava, new facets of the hero’s contradictory character and the complex world of the era of the 30s of the 19th century are revealed - an era of timelessness. The personal initiative of the hero, acting as a kind of experimenter in each chapter, moves the plot and, despite all the “discontinuity” of the narrative, organizes it into a single whole, forming a unity of thought and unity of feeling.

The fragmentary discreteness of the novel, its construction as loosely interconnected episodes and periods of the hero’s life in its own way reflects the “discontinuity” of this life. It (this life) occurs at crossroads, each time in pursuit of some new goal, in the hope of the fullness of human life. Lermontov was looking for an organic form of storytelling, internally corresponding to the character of the main character.

The discreteness of the narrative structure gave the author the opportunity to change the perspective of the image, to “bring together” positions, opinions, assessments, at the intersection of which not only the mysterious Pechorin became accessible, but also the phenomena of reality were illuminated in a diversified way.

Lermontov's novel is a work born of the post-Decembrist era. The heroic attempt of the “hundred warrant officers” to change the social system in Russia turned into a tragedy for them. The post-Decembrist decade was a difficult period in Russian history. These were the years of reaction and political oppression. But during this period, thought worked hard. We can say that all the energy accumulated in Russian society and potentially capable of turning into action was switched to the sphere of intellectual life. Russian educated people set themselves the goal of developing a broad view of the world, comprehending the universal connection of phenomena, understanding the patterns of the historical life of peoples and the meaning of the existence of an individual person. Their attention was attracted by the achievements of German classical philosophy (Schelling during the “System of Transcendental Idealism”, Hegel’s objective idealism) and the latest achievements of historical science. In the decade after December 14, 1825, the desire for knowledge in Russian society was so great that it allowed its prominent representatives, having mastered the achievements of European socio-philosophical and historical thought, to become on par with it and independently turn to solving pressing problems of Russian life.

Pechorin's life, as it is given in the novel, has no general direction. It consists of a series of disparate, episodic skirmishes with fate, which do not add up to a single “plot”, nor do they contribute to the process of the hero’s spiritual growth. One stage of Pechorin’s biography does not serve as a psychological preparation for another, does not contribute to the accumulation of life experience by the hero, which would be preserved at the subsequent stage of his development.

Pechorin's life is, by his own admission, a chain of constant contradictions that raise before his consciousness, in general, the same questions. Infinitely varying. Changing, each time taking a new form due to changing circumstances, these questions never receive a final answer on the pages of the novel.

The subject of analysis of the novel can be these questions tormenting Pechorin, the solution to which he gave his life.