“There is a lot of falsehood in Pechorin’s ideas, there is distortion in his feelings; but all this is redeemed by his rich nature. “There is a lot of falsehood in Pechorin’s ideas, there is distortion in his feelings; but all this is redeemed by his rich nature. Need help studying any topic

“Pechorin, returning from Persia, died...” Have you ever wondered under what circumstances this could have happened?
Lermontov's death was instantaneous - Pechorin, who died on the road for an unknown reason, was apparently intended by his creator to fully experience the torment of the “anguish of death.” Who was next to him in this difficult moment? His “proud” lackey?
What if this happened to him not on the road? What would change? Most likely - nothing! Not a single living, caring soul nearby... But both Mary and Vera loved him. Maxim Maksimych is ready to “throw himself on his neck” at any moment. Even Werner at a certain moment would have done the same if Pechorin had “showed him the slightest desire for this.” But all connections with people have been severed. The remarkable potential has not been realized. Why?
According to Grigory Alexandrovich, Werner is “a skeptic and a materialist.” Pechorin considers himself to be a believer. In any case, in “Fatalist”, written on behalf of Pechorin, we read: “We discussed that the Muslim belief that a person’s fate is written in heaven is also found between n-a-m-i, h-r-i-s -t-i-a-n-a-m-i, many fans...” It is as a believer that in the story “Taman” Pechorin exclaims: “Not a single image on the wall is a bad sign!” In “Taman,” the hero quotes the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, albeit inaccurately: “On that day the dumb will cry out and the blind will see.” In “Princess Mary” (entry dated June 3), Grigory Alexandrovich, without any irony, argues that only “in the highest state of self-knowledge can a person appreciate God’s justice.”
At the same time, in the famous fragment “I was returning home through the empty alleys of the village...” (“Fatalist”) Pechorin cannot help laughing, remembering that “there were once wise people who thought that the heavenly bodies took part in our insignificant disputes for a piece of land or some fictitious rights,” people convinced that “the whole sky with its countless inhabitants looks at them with participation, albeit mute, but unchanging!..” The above quotes indicate that Pechorin’s soul is tormented by doubts. The same fragment also indicates the reason for his doubts - “an involuntary fear squeezing the heart at the thought of the inevitable end.” The same “melancholy of death” that torments Bela, forcing her to rush about, knocking off the bandage. This acute, painful feeling of the finitude of existence may be familiar not only to the dying. The abstract thought of the immortality of the soul at such moments may well seem faded and unconvincing. It can be assumed that Pechorin has to experience such doubts because his faith has weakened under the influence of a secular lifestyle, acquaintance with various newfangled trends, etc. However, Bela, a deeply religious person who had not heard of any “materialism,” did not escape this torment of “death melancholy.” So the dependence here is rather the opposite: fear of death leads to a weakening of faith.
Pechorin tries to overcome his doubts with the help of reason. “I have long been living not with my heart, but with my head” - this confession of the hero is fully confirmed by the content of the novel. And this despite the fact that the work contains irrefutable evidence of the truthfulness of the voice of the heart - the story of the tragic death of Vulich. Why doesn’t this story convince Pechorin of the need to listen to his heart? The voice of the heart is “unfounded”, not based on any material arguments. “The mark of death on the pale face” of the lieutenant is too unsteady and vague. You can’t build any more or less convincing theory on this. And therefore “metaphysics” is thrown aside. Moreover, from the context it follows that this term is used by Pechorin in a meaning that the Dictionary of Foreign Words, for example, defines as “anti-scientific fabrications about the “spiritual principles” of existence, about objects inaccessible to sensory experience” (1987, p. 306). Is it possible to remain a believer, relying on bare reason alone?
To answer this question, it is necessary to arrange the stories in chronological order and follow the development of the hero’s character.
No one doubts that, from a chronological point of view, Taman is the first in the chain of stories. In this story we see a hero full of energy and thirst for knowledge of life. Just one shadow flashing across the floor prompts him to go on an adventure. And this despite the obvious danger: going down the same slope for the second time, Pechorin remarks: “I don’t understand how I didn’t break my neck.” However, danger is only an excellent incentive for active action, for the manifestation of unbending will.
In addition, Pechorin rushes towards adventure “with all the strength of youthful passion.” The stranger’s kiss, which the Journal’s author evaluates as “fiery,” evokes equally hot reciprocal feelings: “My eyes grew dark, my head began to spin.”
In a completely Christian way, Grigory Alexandrovich shows mercy and reveals the ability to forgive his enemies. “I don’t know what happened to the old woman and the blind man,” he laments about the fate of the man who robbed him a few hours ago.
True, Pechorin’s reasoning about the blind boy in particular and about “all the blind, crooked, deaf, dumb, legless, armless, hunchbacked” in general prompts the reader to recall the lines of A.S. Pushkin about the unfortunate Hermann from “The Queen of Spades”: “Having little true faith, he had many prejudices.” Subsequently, it turns out that to the prejudice against people with disabilities it is necessary to add Pechorin’s “insurmountable aversion” to marriage, based on the fact that once in childhood an old woman predicted his “death from an evil wife”...
But is it fair to reproach Pechorin for having “little true faith”? There is almost no reason for this in Taman. The only thing that is alarming about Pechorin’s behavior in this story is that he does not give free rein to his good feelings - mercy, repentance; tries to drown out the voice of the heart with the arguments of reason: “...What do I care about human joys and misfortunes, me, a traveling officer, and even on the road for official reasons!..”
In “Princess Mary” this feature of the hero’s behavior is strengthened many times over. Grigory Aleksandrovich not only laughs at feelings in a conversation with Mary, he simply shows off to himself (or to possible readers of the Journal?) his ability to manipulate people, controlling his own feelings.
Thanks to the “system”, he gets the opportunity to meet alone with Vera, achieves Mary’s love, and arranges for Grushnitsky to choose him as his attorney, as planned. Why does the “system” work so flawlessly? Last but not least, thanks to his extraordinary artistic abilities - the ability to take on a “deeply moved look” at the right moment. (How can one not recall Pushkin’s words: “How quick and tender his gaze was, // Shy and daring, and at times // Shining with an obedient tear!”) And most importantly, such artistry turns out to be possible because the hero of the novel acts completely neglecting your own feelings.
So Pechorin goes to the princess to say goodbye before leaving Kislovodsk for fortress N. By the way, was this visit really necessary? Surely, it was possible, citing the suddenness of the departure, to send a note with an apology and wishes “to be happy and so on.” However, Grigory Alexandrovich not only appears to the princess in person, but also insists on meeting Mary alone. For what purpose? Tell the deceived girl that he plays “the most pitiful and disgusting role” in her eyes? Otherwise she wouldn’t have guessed about it herself!
“No matter how much I searched in my chest for even a spark of love for dear Mary, my efforts were in vain,” Pechorin declares. Why then was “the heart beating strongly”? Why the irresistible desire to “fall at her feet”? Grigory Alexandrovich is disingenuous! “Her eyes sparkled wonderfully,” this is a remark from a man in love, and not from the cold cynic whose role he plays in this episode.
The feelings and behavior of the hero in the episode of Grushnitsky’s murder are just as far from each other. And his role in this story is no less “pathetic and disgusting.”
“Like all boys, he has the pretension to be an old man,” Grigory Alexandrovich sneers at Grushnitsky (entry dated June 5), which means Pechorin is both older and more experienced than his friend. It is not difficult for him to make a toy out of his young friend. However, there is a threat that the behavior of the “toy” will get out of control. Destroy immediately!
Pechorin talks about his opponent a few minutes before the start of the duel: “... A spark of generosity could awaken in his soul, and then everything would work out for the better; but pride and weakness of character d-o-l-f-n-s
b-y-l-and triumph..." A peaceful scenario is undesirable! The expected, sought-after option is the second... “I wanted to give myself the full right not to spare him if fate had mercy on me.” In other words, “I want to kill him if possible”... But at the same time, Pechorin has to risk his life...
Grigory Aleksandrovich is a subtle psychologist; he knows very well that Grushnitsky is not one of those people who would cold-bloodedly shoot an unarmed enemy in the forehead. And indeed, “he [Grushnitsky] blushed; he was ashamed to kill an unarmed man... I was sure that he would shoot into the air!” I am confident to such an extent that, when he sees a gun pointed at himself, he becomes furious: “An inexplicable rage boiled in my chest.” However, Pechorin’s expectations were completely justified: only the captain’s shout: “Coward!” - forces Grushnitsky to pull the trigger, and he shoots at the ground, no longer aiming.
It turned out... “Finita la comedy...”
Is Pechorin happy with his victory? “I had a stone on my heart. The sun seemed dim to me, its rays did not warm me,” such was his state of mind after the duel. But no one forced you, Grigory Alexandrovich, to shoot this stupid, pathetic boy!
But this is not a fact. This is precisely the feeling that in these episodes, and not only in them, Pechorin does not act of his own free will.
“But there is immense pleasure in possessing a young, barely blossoming soul!” - Pechorin opens up in his “Journal”. Just think about it: how can a mortal person have an immortal soul? A person cannot... But if we agree that “there is a deep spiritual connection between the image of Pechorin and the Demon” (Kedrov, 1974), then everything falls into place. And it’s hard to disagree when so many coincidences have been revealed: the location (the Caucasus), and the love plot (“The Demon” - the story “Bela”), and specific episodes (The Demon looks at Tamara dancing - Pechorin and Maxim Maksimych come to visit their father Bela; the meeting of the Demon and Tamara is the last meeting of Pechorin and Mary).
In addition, it is certainly no coincidence that the novel practically ends with a mention of this off-stage character: “The devil dared him to talk to a drunk at night!..” exclaims Maxim Maksimych, after listening to Pechorin’s story about Vulich’s death.
So Pechorin, who plays with people, is himself just an obedient toy in the hands of an evil spirit, moreover, feeding him (the evil spirit) with spiritual energy: “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 himself feels that his actions are controlled by some force: “How many times have I already played the role of an ax in the hands of fate!” An unenviable role that brings Pechorin nothing but suffering. The trouble is that the great psychologist Pechorin cannot deal with his own feelings and his own soul. On one page of his “Journal” he has discussions about God’s justice - and confessions like: “My first pleasure is to subordinate to my will everything that surrounds me.” The religious feeling has long been lost, a Demon has settled in his soul, and he continues to consider himself a Christian.
The murder of Grushnitsky did not pass without a trace. Grigory Alexandrovich was thinking about something when, after the duel, he “rode for a long time” alone, “throwing away the reins, lowering his head on his chest.”
The second shock for him was Vera’s departure. It is impossible not to use Valery Mildon’s commentary on this event: “One minor circumstance in Lermontov’s novel unexpectedly takes on a deep meaning: Pechorin’s only true, enduring love is called Vera. He breaks up with her forever, and she writes to him in a farewell letter: “No one can be as truly unhappy as you, because no one tries to convince themselves otherwise.”
What does it mean to “assure otherwise”? Pechorin wants to assure himself that he has faith (and therefore hope). His desperate pursuit of his departed beloved is an amazingly powerful metaphor...” (Mildon, 2002)
The path to salvation opened before Pechorin - sincere repentance and prayer. That did not happen. “My thoughts returned to normal order.” And, leaving Kislovodsk, the hero leaves behind not only the corpse of his horse, but also the very possibility of rebirth. The point of return has been passed. Onegin was resurrected by love - Pechorin’s “illness” turned out to be too neglected.
Pechorin's further life path is the path of destruction of the hero's personality. In “Fatalist,” he “jokingly” makes a bet with Vulich, essentially provoking suicide, and he is not at all embarrassed by the “imprint of inevitable fate” on the lieutenant’s face. Pechorin just really needs to find out whether predestination exists. It is unbearable to think that only then did he come into the world to “play the role of an axe”! The author of the novel, who knows that a grave awaits him “without prayers and without a cross,” could not help but be interested in this question. However, the question remained open.
Pechorin's behavior in the story "Bela" cannot but arouse bewilderment and compassion in the reader. What made Grigory Alexandrovich decide to kidnap a sixteen-year-old girl? The absence of the policeman's pretty daughter, Nastya, from the fortress? Or crazy love, sweeping away all obstacles in its path?
“I, a fool, thought that she was an angel sent to me by compassionate fate,” the hero explains his action. As if it wasn’t him who was ironic in the Journal about the poets who “called women angels so many times that they, in the simplicity of their souls, actually believed this compliment, forgetting that the same poets for money called Nero a demigod...” Or did Grigory Alexandrovich come up with something that pushed him to kill Grushnitsky? And a drowning person, as you know, clutches at straws. However, the hero’s feelings cooled down faster than he himself expected. And were there any? And he really doesn’t feel anything, looking at the dying Bela!
And how Grigory Alexandrovich used to love his enemies! They stirred his blood and stimulated his will. But why not the enemy who killed Bela Kazbich?! However, Pechorin did not lift a finger to punish the criminal. In general, if he does anything at Bel, it is exclusively with someone else’s hands.
Feelings are atrophied. The will has weakened. Soul emptiness. And when Maxim Maksimych began to console his friend after Bela’s death, Pechorin “raised his head and laughed...” The experienced man “got a chill running through his skin from this laughter...” Wasn’t it the devil himself who laughed in the face of the staff captain?
“I have only one remedy left: travel. ...Perhaps I’ll die somewhere on the road!” - argues the twenty-five-year-old hero, who until recently believed that “nothing worse than death will happen.”
During our last meeting with Pechorin (the story “Maksim Maksimych”) we see a “spineless” (= weak-willed) man who has lost interest in his own past (he is indifferent to the fate of his “Journal,” although Grigory Alexandrovich once thought: “That’s it, whatever I throw at him will become a precious memory for me over time"), not expecting anything from the future, having lost connections not only with people, but also with his homeland.
In conclusion, it should be noted that in the “Book of the Prophet Isaiah,” immediately before the line quoted by Pechorin, there is a warning that encourages reflection: “And the Lord said: since this people draws near to me with their lips, and honors me with their tongue, but their heart is far away from me, and their reverence for me is the study of the commandments of men, then, behold, I will deal with this people in an extraordinary way, wonderfully and wondrously, so that the wisdom of their wise men will perish, and their understanding will cease to exist among those who have understanding.”
Notes

1.Kedrov Konstantin. Candidate's dissertation "The epic basis of the Russian realistic novel of the 1st half of the 19th century." (1974)
Lermontov's tragic epic "Hero of Our Time"
http://metapoetry.narod.ru/liter/lit18.htm
2. Mildon Valery. Lermontov and Kirkegaard: the Pechorin phenomenon. About one Russian-Danish parallel. October. 2002. No. 4. p.185
3. Dictionary of foreign words. M. 1987.

“There is a lot of falsehood in Pechorin’s ideas, there is distortion in his feelings; but all this is redeemed by his rich nature"

The novel “A Hero of Our Time” showed the flourishing of artistic skill and ideological richness of M. Yu. Lermontov’s creativity. The image of Pechorin is a realistic embodiment of the problems of the individual and society that were acute in post-Decembrist Russia.

The life story of Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin reflected the fate of an entire generation of young educated people of the thirties of the nineteenth century. The author himself notes that this is “a portrait, but not of one person: this is a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation, in their full development.”

M. Yu. Lermontov, creating the image of his hero, tried to figure out why gifted, thinking people cannot find their place in life, why they waste their lives on trifles and, finally, why are they so lonely?

Using the example of Pechorin’s fate, the author reveals the essence and causes of the tragedy of such people, placing his hero in various life circumstances. There are many ways to help reveal a literary image. Lermontov resorts to the form of diary entries - the hero sincerely talks about himself, looking into the most hidden corners of his soul. In the preface to Pechorin’s journal, M. Yu. Lermontov notes that “the history of the human soul” is “almost more interesting and useful than the history of an entire people...”.

The sequence of stories does not correspond to the chronology of the development of events in the novel, but this was deliberately done by the author, since each of them serves as a step in the gradual disclosure of the image of the main character. It is important for the author to show the hero from different points of view, in a new social environment for him, with people occupying different positions in society.

In the first chapter of the novel, “Bela,” we see Pechorin through the eyes of Maxim Maksimych, an old officer who served most of his life in the Caucasus, a kind and open man who, according to V. G. Belinsky, is a typical representative of the Russian people. Maxim Maksimych considers Pechorin his friend, although he is not able to fully understand the complex character of the protagonist. He recognizes his originality, iron will, unusual ability to subjugate everyone to his will, but for the old captain, his colleague remained a “strange” person. And, indeed, after listening to Maxim Maksimych, we ourselves begin to consider Pechorin very interesting and mysterious. So what is he like?

An intelligent, educated person, endowed with talent, “immense powers” ​​lurk in his soul. A nobleman by birth, who received a decent upbringing, he, as soon as he leaves the care of his relatives, sets out in pursuit of pleasure. Once in the world, he starts countless affairs with beauties, but soon becomes disillusioned with all this, and boredom takes possession of him. Trying to cope with it, he begins to study science and read books, but it is useless, and this also bothers him. And so, in the hope that “boredom does not live under Chechen bullets,” he goes to the Caucasus.

The story “Bela” reveals the hero’s boundless indifference to everything in the world except himself. To satisfy his own whim, he is ready to ruin someone else's life. Thus, our hero’s attempt to find simple happiness in the love of the mountain woman Bela ends in failure. He openly admits to Maxim Maksimych: “the love of a savage is little better than the love of a noble lady; the ignorance and simple-heartedness of one are as annoying as the coquetry of the other...”

After Bela’s death, Maxim Maksimych notes: “... his face did not express anything special, and I felt annoyed: if I were in his place, I would have died of grief.” True, then he casually says: “Pechorin was unwell for a long time, lost weight...” From these words we can conclude that Pechorin suffers in his soul because of this death.

Our hero brings people nothing but suffering. Why is this happening? Pechorin is a bright product of his time and society. He is too different from the “children of nature”, alien and incomprehensible to their environment. It invades the life of the mountaineers as a destructive principle. The love of the savage Bela cannot satisfy him. But is he to blame for this? On the one hand, he, of course, is to blame for destroying Bela’s quiet life, but, on the other hand, can you really blame him for the fact that he “can’t love her anymore? Pechorin is in constant search of means to overcome his boredom and emptiness of existence. And the idea of ​​kidnapping Bela is carried out by him, by and large, not out of love for this girl, but because of an irresistible desire for adventure, because of the unexpectedly flashing hope of returning his lost interest in life.

But no matter what reasons prompt our hero to take certain actions, he still does not have the right to control someone else’s life, to turn a person into a cure for boredom, which he stops “taking” as soon as it stops working.

In the second story of the novel, “Maxim Maximych,” we find the main character on his way to Persia. The story about him is narrated by a traveling officer, a man, apparently, educated and occupying the same position in society as Pechorin. He paints us a fairly detailed portrait of Grigory Alexandrovich, making some psychological remarks along the way. The character turns out to be so figurative that we vividly imagine a person who is completely devastated and has suffered a lot.

The author pays special attention to Pechorin’s eyes: “...they did not laugh when he laughed!.. Because of the half-lowered eyelashes, they shone with some kind of phosphorescent shine,... it was a shine similar to the shine of smooth steel, dazzling, but cold. .. This is a sign of either an evil disposition or deep, constant sadness.”

In the characterization of the hero, visible through his portrait, three features can be noticed: firstly, Pechorin’s appearance reflects the personality traits of an unusual, strong, towering personality above those around him. Secondly, it is striking that this is a “strange” person, incomprehensible, since he consists entirely of contradictions. And thirdly, the author finds in his portrait a certain “nervous weakness.” “This is a deep trace of the consciousness of the meaninglessness and emptiness of existence... this is the bitter result of tireless and fruitless responses to the search for activity,” notes critic E. Mikhailova.

Pechorin is so closed in on himself, constantly analyzing his feelings and actions, that he is already losing the ability to be imbued with the experiences and anxieties of another person. This is clearly seen from his last meeting with Maxim Maksimych. He offends the good-natured old man with his inattention and indifference, which ultimately leads to the erosion of the old man's faith in the younger generation.

So, in the first two stories of the novel we learned about Pechorin from the stories of other people. The next three stories are the journal-diary of Grigory Alexandrovich, “the result of observations of a mature mind over itself...”.

The story "Taman" is a romantic adventure of our hero. It tells a story that happened to Pechorin on his way to the Caucasus. She helps us see another of the qualities characteristic of this person - curiosity, which, in turn, leads him to mortal danger. Pechorin attracts events to himself, moves them with exceptional willpower. He is drawn to dangers, to anxious experiences, to risky actions, and all this is done with only one single purpose - to fill the emptiness that has formed in the soul, at least for a while.

The story “Princess Mary” allows us to get answers to most questions related to the personality of Grigory Alexandrovich Pechorin. The plot is based on diary entries that are made almost daily. Our hero not only describes the events themselves, but also expresses his attitude towards them, his opinions and feelings, carefully examines his soul, analyzes the actions of the people with whom his life encounters.

Before the events described in “Princess Mary,” we had never met Pechorin in the midst of people. But here he constantly meets with someone, and it may seem that he is on friendly, even friendly terms with some of them.

On the waters, our hero meets cadet Grushnitsky, a young man who wants to seem older and wiser than his age, but in fact has not yet known any feelings and suffering. He is completely false, his goal is to “become the hero of a novel” and make a spectacular impression. And not being able to amaze the people around him with the real brightness of his personality, true exclusivity, he tries to imitate such a personality.

Pechorin cannot stand insincerity, so he immediately begins to feel hostility towards Grushnitsky, this is how he speaks of him: “... he is one of those people who have ready-made pompous phrases for all occasions, who are simply not touched by the beautiful and who solemnly drape themselves in extraordinary feelings, sublime passions and exceptional suffering. Producing an effect is their pleasure... I understood him, and he doesn’t love me for this, although outwardly we are on the most friendly terms... I don’t love him either: I feel that we will someday collide with him on a narrow road , and one of us will be in trouble.” And so it happened. Annoyed by Grushnitsky’s falsehood, Pechorin boldly intervenes in the cadet’s fate, making Mary fall in love with him. But in fairness, it should be noted that it is the same boredom that pushes him to this act to a greater extent. “Why am I bothering?” - he asks himself and answers: “... there is immense pleasure in possessing a young, barely blossoming soul!”

Pechorin never tires of subordinating everything around him to his will, “without having any positive right to do so.” Thus, he tries to satiate his pride in order to finally feel happy. After all, according to his definition, happiness is nothing more than “saturated pride.” But here is the tragedy of our hero: instead of happiness, there is fatigue and boredom. Fate seems to be laughing at him - his every step is proof that the fullness of life cannot be comprehended without a real fullness of feelings, when a person’s communication with the world goes only in one direction: only to you, but not from you.

“Pechorin’s soul is not rocky soil, but earth dried up from the heat of fiery life...”, writes V. G. Belinsky about our hero. His soul actually passionately seeks true love, and with joyful surprise he feels that, given the opportunity to lose Vera forever, she suddenly becomes dearer to him than anything in the world. The reader understands that Pechorin loves her, but again he loves only for himself, causing her only torment.

“Princess Mary” shows the true tragedy of Grigory Pechorin. He spends his entire life, his talent, and enormous energy on trifles, unable to find a more worthy use for himself. Isn't this tragic?

In the last story, “Fatalist,” the hero tries to answer the main question: is a person’s destiny predetermined by someone’s will from above? Pechorin considers only himself the true creator of his destiny. He rejects the sacred faith of his ancestors in a higher mind, and here again a tragedy arises - he has nothing to put in place of the lost ideals.

““Hero of Our Time” is a sad thought about our time...”, writes V. G. Belinsky. It is necessary to judge a person, taking into account the circumstances of his life, the historical era in which he lives. The time reflected in the novel was one of the most dramatic periods of Russian history. After the defeat of the Decembrists on Senate Square, a turning point occurred in people’s minds: many became disillusioned with their former values ​​and ideals, which gave rise to total disappointment and apathy. This is also Pechorin, in whose ideas, according to V. G. Belinsky, there is a lot of falsehood, but all this is “bought back by his rich nature.”

Pechorin remains an unsolved person for us from the beginning to the end of the novel. But this drawback, according to V. G. Belinsky, is at the same time the advantage of the great work of M. Yu. Lermontov, because “such are all modern social issues expressed in poetic works...”.

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; It’s not enough for me: 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.”

Plan:

1) Pechorin is a hero of the transitional time. (“Pechorin is a representative of the noble youth who entered into life after the defeat of the Decembrists”, “The absence of high social ideals is a striking feature of the historical period.”)

2) The tragedy of Pechorin’s fate and life.

3) Origin and social status.

4) The discrepancy between Pechorin’s life and his internal capabilities and needs:

a) the extraordinary nature of his nature, manifested in the wealth of interests, the complexity of the spiritual world, and a critical mindset;

b) a thirst for action and a constant search for the use of one’s strengths is a distinctive feature of Pechorin;

c) his inconsistency and discord with himself;

d) an increase in selfishness, individualism, and indifference in the character of the hero.

5) Pechorin is one of the representatives of the advanced noble intelligentsia of the 30s of the 19th century.

a) his closeness to the people of the 30s and Lermontov;

b) features that make Pechorin similar to the heroes of Duma.

6) Causes of Pechorin’s death:

a) lack of public demands and a sense of homeland;

b) education and influence of light.

7) The significance of the image of Pechorin in the socio-political struggle of the 30-40s.

Explanations. The novel “A Hero of Our Time” is the first Russian psychological and realistic novel in prose. In the preface to the magazine, Lermontov writes: “The history of the human soul, even the smallest soul, is almost more interesting and useful than the history of an entire people.” And Pechorin, according to the author, is “a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation in their full development,” that is, Lermontov points to Pechorin’s typicality, to the vital truth of character.

The spiritual tragedy of Lermontov's hero reflected the tragic state of Russian society. Thus, according to Belinsky, important problems of the time were solved, why smart people do not find use for their remarkable abilities, why they become “superfluous”, “smart useless things”.

II. Onegin and Pechorin are “heroes of their time.”

Plan:

1) The reasons for the appearance of “extra people” in Russian literature of the first half of the 19th century.

2) Onegin and Pechorin are “heroes of their time.”

a) similarities:

Noble origin;

Secular education and upbringing;

Idle existence, lack of high goals and ideals in life;

Understanding people;

Dissatisfaction with life.

b) differences between them:

The depth of Pechorin's suffering, Onegin's superficial experience;

Neglect of the laws of “light” in Pechorin and fear of secular rumor in Onegin;

Onegin's lack of will and Pechorin's willpower;

Contradiction, duality of nature, Pechorin’s skepticism, Onegin’s “sharp, chilled mind.”

3) The place of Pechorin and Onegin in the gallery of “extra people” of the 19th century.

Explanations. In an essay on this topic it is necessary to give a comparative description of Onegin and Pechorin. This topic requires consideration first of the general and then of the individual character traits of the heroes. Explain how smart, educated people who understand life and people gradually turned into “smart useless people”, “suffering egoists”, doomed to a meaningless existence.

The work should be based on Belinsky’s assessment of the heroes, but at the same time remember that the heroes live at different times: the first in the twenties, during the period of social upsurge caused by the War of 1812 and the Decembrist movement, and the second in the thirties, during the defeat of the Decembrists , harsh government reaction. This left an imprint on the personality of Pechorin, who, unlike Onegin, is experiencing a great tragedy of the uselessness and hopelessness of life.

It must be proven that Pechorin is more interesting, deeper, that he attracts and repels us, readers.

III “Strange love” for the homeland in the lyrics of M. Yu. Lermontov

Plan:

1) Love for the Motherland is ambiguous and sometimes painful.

2) Lermontov is a patriot of his Fatherland.

3) Slavishly submissive Russia is hated by the poet:

a) “... unwashed Russia, a country of slaves, a country of masters...” (“Farewell, unwashed Russia”);

b) A country where “man groans from slavery and chains” (“Complaints of the Turk”).

4) What Lermontov contrasts with modernity:

a) the glorious past of Russia (“Song about the merchant Kalashnikov”);

b) the generation of “children of the twelfth year” (“Borodino”).

5) Image of the generation of the 30s of the 19th century (“Duma”).

6) “I love the Fatherland, but with a strange love...” (“Motherland”).

7) Native spaces, nature heals the wounded soul of a person (“How often surrounded by a motley crowd”).

8) Lermontov’s poetry is a new link in the chain of historical development of society.

Explanations. Lermontov, as a man of his generation, strives to analyze reality. Alas, what he sees is “either empty or dark.”

The poet was alien to ostentatious patriotism and therefore he does not accept the official point of view, according to which contemporary Russia is an almost ideal state. Lermontov's Russia appears in a different form, this is country of slaves, country of masters...

Lermontov contrasts Russia's glorious past with modernity. This is how he thinks about the problem of the positive hero.

The poet also calls the generation of “children of the twelfth year” who won the War of 1812 heroic.

Then it would be appropriate to contrast the heroic generation of the 30s of the nineteenth century. The inability, and more often the unwillingness, to find the use of forces in life is the main misfortune of man in Russia at that time.

In the poem “Motherland,” the poet sums up his thoughts about what the Fatherland is for him.

IV. Topics to choose from:

The fate of a generation in the lyrics of M. Yu. Lermontov.

The lyrical hero of the poetry of M. Yu. Lermontov.

Landscape lyrics by M. Yu. Lermontov.

The problem of personality and its reflection in the lyrics of M. Yu. Lermontov.

The tragedy of loneliness (based on the works of M. Yu. Lermontov).

Female images in the novel by M. Yu. Lermontov “A Hero of Our Time.”

Analysis of the human soul as the basis of M. Yu. Lermontov’s novel “A Hero of Our Time.”

The controversial image of Pechorin. Pechorin's soul "non-stony desert"

The novel “A Hero of Our Time” was created by Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov from 1837 to 1840. The tragic thirties of the 19th century were the result of the suppression of reaction. The fate of the generation of the 30s was vividly reflected by Lermontov in his novel.

Realistically depicting his hero with all his contradictions and “vices”, the writer at the same time shows in him those makings of a truly heroic personality, which allow us to talk about the romantic-realistic embodiment in this image of the ideals nurtured by the poet from the time of his romantic youth to the end his life. Lermontov based the psychological portrait of his hero on Fourier’s “theory of passions,” according to which mental forces that have not found an outlet in a positive matter distort the generally good nature of a person, his character. It was from the understanding of the contradictions between the needs of the inner world and the imperatives of the external world that such definitions of Pechorin as “reluctant egoist”, “reluctant romantic” arose.

At the beginning of the novel, two heroes tell about Pechorin: a young officer and Maxim Maksimych (stories “Bela”, “Maksim Maksimych”). But neither one nor the other is able to understand this person. Therefore, his character helps to reveal such a form of psychological analysis as a confessional monologue in the form of a diary (the stories “Taman”, “Princess Mary” and “Fatalist”). The first story in "Pechorin's Journal" is the story "Taman". The main motives of the magazine have already been outlined here: Pechorin’s desire for active action, curiosity that pushes him to conduct “experiments” on himself and others, to interfere in other people’s affairs, his reckless courage and romantic attitude.

Lermontov's hero strives to understand what motivates people, to identify the motives of their actions, and to comprehend their psychology. In the story "Princess Mary" the author presents an almost daily record of the life of the main character. It is interesting that he hardly writes about events in the country, about Pyatigorsk; he is primarily concerned with thoughts, feelings, and actions. In this story, he is shown in his typical noble environment, whose representatives evoke ridicule, irony, and contempt in him.

Pechorin perfectly understands the deceit and hypocrisy of the “water society” and high society; he sees that life here is either a vulgar comedy or a cheap drama, where all participants play some roles. Against the background of this society, Pechorin’s intelligence and sincerity, his education, and the wealth of the spiritual world especially stand out. The desire for something bright lives in his soul, apparently giving rise to such an attractive feature as a love of nature. Calm contemplation of the beauty and harmony of nature brings him a feeling of happiness, but Pechorin is an active nature, and he cannot stop there. In the desire for “storms and battles” one can feel the desire for independence and freedom, the inability to be content with what life represents for the hero. No matter how happy the hero is in communication with nature, he needs to participate in the life of society. In relationships with different people, more and more new facets of Pechorin’s character are revealed, and the tragic contradiction between the hero’s internal capabilities and his behavior is revealed more and more deeply. Coldness, spiritual emptiness, selfishness, indifference to people - all these traits are undeniable in Pechorin.

And yet one cannot help but notice that he is capable of sincere sympathy and selfless love. (Pechorin’s soul is “an unstony desert”). The hero is tired of loneliness, but admits this only to himself, and even then rarely. He does not know the goal, but he feels that he was not born to be bored in life. He regrets that he did not guess his purpose and “lost forever the ardor of noble aspirations.” “Immense forces” do not find real application, and the person becomes smaller. The awareness of the inconsistency of one's actions with one's true character leads to a split personality. Two people have been living in Pechorin’s soul for a long time: one acts, and the other judges his actions. The hero can no longer fully experience joy and happiness, because he has made himself a constant object for observation. Such constant introspection prevents him from completely surrendering not only to feeling, but also to action, although in his character one of the leading qualities is activity. Having not received real development, this quality gradually faded away, and Pechorin, in whom the thirst for action and struggle was so strong, goes to Persia with the hope of dying “somewhere along the way.”

Telling “the story of the human soul,” Lermontov, with exceptional depth and penetration, managed to convey to the reader’s consciousness and heart the tragedy of its spiritual emptiness, which ends in a senseless death.

Bibliography

To prepare this work, materials from the site were used