Pechorin is a hero of his time, introduction. Essay “Pechorin - a hero of his time”

Pechorin - a hero of his time
Plan

1. Conflicting opinions about the hero of the novel.
2. Pechorin - a hero of his time
2.1. Representative of the aristocracy.
2.2. A bearer of pain and suffering.
2.3. A soul corrupted by light.
3. Do similar heroes exist in our time?

After its release, “A Hero of Our Time” blew up the reading public with a lot of contradictory rumors and gossip. Many believed that the writer deliberately denigrated secular society in order to present himself as a subtle psychologist and a respectable person. Others stated that the aristocracy could not be as vicious and cynical as the author portrayed it. Still others agreed with Lermontov, considering his work autobiographical.
The author himself explained that his hero is a collective image, “a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation.”

Using the example of Pechorin, the writer showed what awaits a person, even the most talented and extraordinary, but devoid of a moral core, alienated from everything human, fixated only on his desires.

Pechorin is a representative of the aristocracy, a young officer - a nobleman, rich and handsome. He is very educated and thoughtful, has a keen sense of beauty, loves life and freedom. It would seem that only happiness smiles on the young man.

But no, Grigory Pechorin is a tragic nature. He wants to love, but cannot, and only causes pain and suffering to his chosen ones. He admires friendship, but does not know how to be friends, and can easily turn away from yesterday's friend and even severely punish him.
Pechorin loves to play with the feelings of others and use them for his own purposes. He is selfish, proud, selfish.

But, on the other hand, Gregory is a very unhappy person. This is what he writes about himself in his diary: “I have an unhappy character; Whether my upbringing made me this way, whether God created me this way, I don’t know; I only know that if I am the cause of the misfortune of others, then I myself am no less unhappy.” And it’s true, reading the novel, you can see how actively and desperately searching main character happiness, and how hopeless and scary he cannot find it.
In his diary, Pechorin is honest and open, even self-critical. He calls himself a “moral monster” and a “moral cripple” and admits: “I sometimes despise myself.”
What a young person experiences and what happens to him is directly related to the society in which he grew up, was brought up and in which he lives. “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...” - the main character laments.

Apparently, the people who surround Pechorin cannot instill in him any positive qualities and feelings, cannot instill in him beautiful and sublime motives and motivations. Light, with its glitter of jewelry and feigned feelings, with its dazzling outfits and lazy, spoiled habits, brings only emptiness, disappointment and suffering. False smiles, hidden hatred and malice, idleness and promiscuity - all this gives rise to coldness, isolation and soullessness in Pechorin.

This can happen in our time. There are people for whom profit, popularity and wealth come first, and in whose souls there is no place for friendship, love and devotion. But there are few such people. Therefore, it is very important not to follow their example, but to live with your own mind - according to conscience and honor, and then the heroes of our modern society will be kind, loving and happy.

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 akin 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 reserve of spiritual strength smart person, the more bleak the moment of his mental fatigue, when he begins to doubt these powers. 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 in every sense words 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 the mind, heart and life could at times lead people to apathy, in which a person, while maintaining his proud and intelligent appearance, ceased to accept for a while live participation in life and placed 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.

Municipal educational institution secondary school No. 40

Pechorin as a hero of his time

Completed by: 9th grade student D Ksenia

Checked by: literature teacher

Tomsk - 2006

Plan:

1) Why did I choose the topic “Pechorin as a hero of our time”?

2) The history of the creation of “Hero of Our Time”.

3) The attractiveness of evil.

i) "Bela".

ii) “Maksim Maksimych”.

iii) "Taman".

iv)"Princess Mary".

v) "Fatalist".

4) Conclusion:

ii) Why is Pechorin a hero of that time?

5) List of used literature.

Here is a book that is destined to never grow old, because, at its very birth, it was sprinkled with the living water of poetry! This old book will always be new...

Re-reading “A Hero of Our Time” again, you can’t help but be surprised at how simple, easy, ordinary everything in it is, and at the same time so imbued with life, thought, so broad, deep, sublime...

V. G. Belinsky

Why did I choose the topic “Pechorin How Hero his time"?

Reading the novel “A Hero of Our Time”, for the first time I did something that I had never done before. I underlined and highlighted smart thoughts in the text. By the end of reading, almost the entire book was covered in horizontal stripes. When Lermontov wrote this novel, Pechorin reflected the “stain” of society, he reflected a strong, intelligent person who opposes society, but, unfortunately, as a result of this confrontation, becomes “such an attractive evil.” If earlier such people, capable of resisting the rest of humanity, were rare and were not loved, now there are practically no such people left at all, but they have become especially valuable.

“Pechorin is a hero of our time” - it seems to me that this phrase can be uttered in thirty or fifty years, but it will remain relevant. Pechorin was constantly in search of himself, constantly asking himself the question: “Who am I?”, but he died without finding the answer. Is this good or bad? I think that's good. If he had received an answer to his question, he would grow old and die of boredom. Despite the fact that in order to solve his question, Pechorin plays with other people's destinies, interferes in other people's lives, he can be forgiven for this. But how, how can you forgive a person for deciding someone’s fate to save himself? Pechorin did not save himself, he saved society. He saved us from rotting and destruction, saved us from uniformity, and saved us from melancholy, in the end. I really liked this novel. In it, using the example of several main characters, one can trace the lines of destinies of the majority of humanity. After all, we still have the vile, deceitful Grushnitskys, the generous, open-hearted Maxim Maksimychs, the wise doctors Werner, and the seemingly unapproachable Princess Mary...

How was “Hero of Our Time” created?

In 1836, Lermontov decided to write a novel from St. Petersburg high society life. The year 1837 came and for the poem “The Death of a Poet,” dedicated to Pushkin, Lermontov was exiled to the Caucasus. Work on the novel was interrupted, and Mikhail Yuryevich had a new idea for the novel. Lermontov visited Pyatigorsk and Kislovodsk, the Cossack villages on the Terek, traveled along the battle line, and almost died in the town of Taman, on the Black Sea coast. All this enriched Lermontov with many vivid impressions. But some observations and assumptions regarding the design and writing of “A Hero of Our Time” can be made by analyzing their appearance. Even before the novel was published as a separate edition, the three stories included in it were published in the journal Otechestvennye zapiski. “Bela” - 1839, magazine No. 3, “Fatalist” - 1839, magazine No. 11, “Taman” - 1840, magazine No. 2. Moreover, the chapter of “Bela” appeared under the heading “From the notes of an officer about the Caucasus.” The possibility of a continuation was confirmed by the ending of the story, where the author breaks up with Maxim Maksimych in Kobe: “We did not hope to ever meet again, however, we met, and, if you want, I will tell you someday: this is a whole story.” After a long break, “The Fatalist” was published, to which the editors made a note: “It is with particular pleasure that we take this opportunity to announce that M.Yu. Lermontov will soon publish a collection of his stories, both printed and unpublished. It will be new wonderful gift literature." As for “Taman,” it appeared in the magazine with an editorial note: “Another excerpt from the notes of Pechorin, the main person in the story “Bela,” published in the third book of “Notes of the Fatherland” in 1839.” From all this it follows,

that the order in which these three things appeared in print was the order in which they were written. In the earliest edition of the novel itself, the first of its constituent stories was “Bela”; she was followed by "Maksim Maksimych" and "Princess Mary". “Bela” and “Maksim Maksimych”, which had the subtitle “From the Notes of an Officer,” made up the first part of the novel, “Princess Mary” - the second, main part, containing the confessional self-disclosure of the hero. Most likely, in August-September 1839, Lermontov rewrote all the “chapters” of the novel (with the exception of “Bela,” which had been published by that time) from drafts into a special notebook, making some amendments during the rewriting process. At this stage of work, the chapter “Fatalist” was included in the novel. According to biographer P.A. Lermontov. Viskovatova, the “fatalist” was “written off from an incident that happened in the village of Chervlenaya with A.A. Khastatov”, Lermontov’s uncle: “at least the episode where Pechorin rushes into the hut of a drunken, enraged Cossack happened to Khastatov”

In this edition, the novel was called “1 of the heroes of the beginning of the century”; now it consisted of “Bela”, “Maksim Maksimych”, “Fatalist”, “Princess Mary”. As before, the novel was divided into two parts: the first was the notes of the officer-narrator, the second was the notes of the hero. With the inclusion of "Fatalist", the second part and the novel as a whole became deeper, more philosophical, and complete. By mid-1840, Lermontov created the final edition of the novel, including “Taman” in it and finally defining its composition. Having placed “Taman” first in Pechorin’s notes, Lermontov moved the chapter “Fatalist” to the end, which most closely corresponded to its final philosophical meaning. In this edition the title of the hero's notes appeared - "Pechorin's Journal". Having crossed out the ending of "Maxim Maksimych", which prepared the transition to the "notes", Lermontov wrote a special preface to "Pechorin's Journal". Thus, the novel has grown to six chapters, including the “Preface” to the “Journal”. The final name appeared - “Hero of Our Time”. When Lermontov wrote his novel, he came close to the most difficult task: to show in a real setting a typical hero of that time - a gifted and thoughtful person, but crippled by secular upbringing and cut off from the life of his country and his people. Talking about the fate of Pechorin, Lermontov came close to the question: “who is to blame?” Who is to blame for the fact that smart and thirsty people in the conditions of autocratic-serf Russia are doomed to forced inaction, crippled by education, and cut off from the people?

The attraction of evil.

Everyone sees in Pechorin what he wants to see. Someone sees in it a reflection of strength, courage and will, the ability to resist the crowd and society. Someone, on the contrary, sees in him a reflection of a broken and lost person who takes revenge on humanity, and revenge is a trait of weak character. I am inclined to the first opinion. Pechorin stood up to the crowd, and this is the main thing. It doesn't matter if he was able to defeat her. Any person, even with the strongest nervous system and the strongest willpower, cannot resist everything without changing himself. Many interpretations of the image of Pechorin are possible due to the fact that the narration is told from several persons: Maxim Maksimych, the narrator, Pechorin himself and the author of the first preface. The ambiguity of his character, the inconsistency of this image was revealed not only in the study of his spiritual world, but also in the correlation of the hero with other characters. The arrangement of the stories is also due to the need to introduce minor characters, which are needed to solve the main task facing the author - for an objective, multifaceted portrayal of the hero. First, Pechorin encounters simple people who are natural in their feelings - Bela, Maxim Maksimych, smugglers, then - with people of his own circle. The clashes between Pechorin and other characters make it possible to show with particular clarity the difference between Pechorin and them, his inferiority in comparison with them and at the same time his undeniable superiority, and the main function of all the characters in the novel is to reveal the central character. This once again emphasizes his egocentrism. One of the features of the composition is the increasing revelation of the secret. Lermontov leads the reader from Pechorin’s actions to their motives, that is, from riddle to solution. At the same time, we understand that the secret is not Pechorin’s actions, but his inner world, psychology. Pechorin is busy only with himself. He exercises power over someone else's soul, controls the feelings of other people and tests his own will.

Lermontov places Pechorin in various life situations, testing him in love and friendship, in relationships with representatives of various strata of society, forcing him to argue with himself and others, to experiment on people. Without wishing harm to anyone, but without doing any good, he destroys the established, calm life of those around him. Pechorin opposes other characters like movement opposes peace. He interferes in other people's lives. No matter how we evaluate the novel, we cannot fail to note the skill with which Lermontov described his main character. Throughout the entire work, the author strives to reveal his inner world as fully as possible. According to Dobrolyubov, Pechorin “really despises people, well understanding their weaknesses; he really knows how to capture a woman’s heart not for a short moment, but for a long time, often forever. He knows how to remove or destroy everything that comes his way. There’s only one misfortune: he doesn’t know where to go.”

"Bela"

The chapter “Bela” is distinguished by its particular simplicity, which was noted by V.G. Belinsky. In his article dedicated to “The Hero of Our Time,” Belinsky noted the peculiarity of the construction of “Bela” in that “the simplicity and artlessness of this story are inexpressible, and every word in it is so in its place, so rich in meaning. We are ready to read such stories about the Caucasus, about wild mountaineers and the attitude of our troops towards them, because such stories introduce the subject, and do not slander it.”

In the chapter “Bela” we learn about Pechorin from the lips of Maxim Maksimych. This man is sincerely attached to Pechorin, but is spiritually deeply alien to him. They are separated not only by the difference in social status and age. They are people of principle various types consciousness and children of different eras. For the staff captain, an old Caucasian, his young friend is an alien, strange and inexplicable phenomenon. Therefore, in the story of Maxim Maksimych, Pechorin appears as a mysterious, mysterious person. Later we learn that the events told in the story will be the last episodes in Pechorin’s life, but Lermontov deliberately begins the novel this way.

The compositional complexity of the novel is inextricably linked with the psychological complexity of the image of the main character. After all, the ambiguity of Pechorin’s character, the inconsistency of this image, was revealed not only in the study of his very spiritual world, but also in the correlation of the hero with other characters. The content of the chapter “Bela” is a traditional romantic plot about the love of a Russian officer for a beautiful mountain woman, and its bloody outcome - the death of Bela. Pechorin himself said: “How many times have I already played the role of an ax in the hands of fate! Like an instrument of execution, I fell on the heads of the doomed victims... My love did not bring happiness to anyone, because I did not sacrifice anything for those I loved...” Wherever Pechorin appeared, everywhere he brought with him destruction and destruction. He destroyed the chains of destinies of peaceful people. If he had not appeared in the Caucasus Mountains, if he had not met Bela there, she would have lived for a long time, and would not have ended her life under the dagger of a jealous man. Pechorin did not like to celebrate the victory of the next achievement of a goal, he liked the process itself, the actions themselves on the path to victory. Having received Bela and won her favor, Pechorin almost immediately lost interest in her. His feeling for her is primitive, it is intensified by the presence of obstacles. Pechorin saved and consoled Bela only out of a sense of duty. Maxim Maksimych spoke about Pechorin: “He listened to her in silence, with his head in his hands; but all the time I did not notice a single tear on his eyelashes; Whether he really could not cry or controlled himself - I don’t know; As for me, I have never seen anything more pitiful.” And then again: “No, she did well to die: what would have happened to her if Grigory Alexandrovich had left her? And this would have happened sooner or later...” Here Pechorin appears to us as an egoist, as a completely immoral person. Maxim Maksimych and Grigory Alexandrovich are in many ways complete opposites. If Pechorin is an outstanding, exceptional person, then Maxim Maksimych is an ordinary officer, of which there are many in the army. On the other hand, Maxim Maksimych has a heart of gold, he admires Bela, loves her like a dear daughter. The question arises: for what? Ask him, and he will answer you: “It’s not that he loved, but it’s stupidity,” and Pechorin is a secular man who plays with other people’s destinies. Thus, comparing Maxim Maksimych, who thinks more about others than about himself, and the selfish Pechorin, Lermontov leads the reader to the thought brilliantly formulated by Belinsky: “A personality outside a people is a ghost, but a people outside a person is also a ghost.” The inability to get close to people from other circles of society led Pechorin first to loneliness, and then gave rise to individualism and selfishness in him, and this is precisely what conveys the state of Russian society: the gap between the intelligentsia and the people. Pechorin seems cruel to us when he stopped loving Bela. However, the final part of the story, when Pechorin “became as pale as a sheet,” when he laughed so that Maxim Maksimych “got a chill from that laughter,” and then “was unwell for a long time,” speaks of deep emotions and feelings of guilt in front of the Circassian woman.

"Maksim Maksimych"

The next chapter, telling about Pechorin “from the outside,” is the chapter “Maksim Maksimych.” The narrator's place is taken by a traveling officer, a student of Staff Captain Maxim Maksimych. And the mysterious hero Pechorin is given some living features, his airy and mysterious image begins to take on flesh and blood. The wandering officer not only describes Pechorin, he gives psychological portrait. He is a person of the same generation and probably close circle. If Maxim Maksimych was horrified when he heard from Pechorin about the boredom tormenting him: “...my life is becoming emptier day by day...”, then his listener, the officer, accepted these words without horror as completely natural: “I answered that there are a lot of people saying the same thing; that there are probably those who tell the truth...” And therefore, for the officer-storyteller, Pechorin is much closer and more understandable; he can explain a lot about that: “the debauchery of metropolitan life”, and “spiritual storms”, and “some secrecy”, and “nervous weakness”. Thus, the mysterious Pechorin, unlike anyone else, becomes a more or less typical person of his time; general patterns are revealed in his appearance and behavior. And yet the mystery does not disappear, the “oddities” remain. The narrator notes Pechorin’s eyes “they didn’t laugh when he laughed!” In them the narrator will try to guess “a sign of either an evil disposition or a deep ridiculed sadness”; and is amazed at their brilliance: “it was a brilliance, like the brilliance of smooth steel, dazzling, but cold.” Lermontov shows Pechorin as an extraordinary, intelligent, strong-willed, brave person. In addition, he is distinguished by a constant desire for action; Pechorin cannot stay in one place, surrounded by the same people.

Pechorin creates adventures for himself, actively interfering in the fate and lives of those around him, changing the course of things in such a way that he leads to an explosion, a collision. He brings into people's lives his alienation, his desire for destruction. He acts without regard for the feelings of other people, without paying attention to them. But already in the second chapter we see how frail Pechorin finally became. Even despite the fact that Maxim Maksimych himself presents Grigory Alexandrovich to us as a closed and incomprehensible person, I think hardly anyone expected that Pechorin would be so cold towards someone who had experienced so much. In this episode, Lermontov is on the side of Maxim Maksimych and against Pechorin. What is Pechorin to blame for? If Maxim Maksimych is all turned towards another person, all open to meet him, then Pechorin is all closed in on himself and does not sacrifice anything for the other, even the smallest. Lermontov exposes the egocentrism in Pechorin, which correlates everything with the “I”, subordinates everything to this “I”, remaining indifferent to how his behavior will affect another person. He did not even feel the full height and purity of the old staff captain’s human charm, did not sense the great human content of his feelings enough to freely respond to these feelings. Pechorin is so withdrawn into himself that he loses the ability, forgetting about himself, to be imbued with, at least for a short time, the excitement, anxieties, and demands of the soul of another person.

"That man"

“Taman” is the first of the stories written on behalf of Pechorin. Knowing from the preface to Taman that he died on the way from Persia, the reader is especially attentive to his confessions. The story of Pechorin's disappointed and dying soul is set out in the hero's confessional notes - with all the mercilessness of introspection; being both the author and the hero of the “magazine,” Pechorin fearlessly speaks about his ideal impulses, and about the dark sides of his soul, and about the contradictions of consciousness. Pechorin makes people who come into contact with him unhappy. This is how he interferes in the lives of “honest smugglers,” just as he plays with Bela’s fate. Finding ourselves in a hut on a steep seashore, Pechorin instantly notices and moonlight, and a steep coast, a restless sea element and a blind boy. Looking at the house, he notices that there is not a single “image” on the wall, which is not at all typical for ordinary people of that time. Everything seems to indicate that this place is unclean. And indeed, the promised evil begins to come true - Pechorin discovers that the inhabitants are nocturnal. How does he behave? Pechorin has a deep and tragic character. He combines a “sharp, chilled mind” with a thirst for activity and struggle with courage, bravery, and willpower. Realizing that they are smugglers in front of him, Pechorin instinctively reaches out to them, romanticizing their attitude to freedom. The warnings of the orderly and the constable only inflame his excitement. Pechorin begins the game with a beautiful smuggler girl. He responds to the call of the alarming, dangerous, alluring freedom of the life of smugglers. The heroine of the story has no name. This is not accidental - the author wants to show only women's seductive nature. This “feminine nature” is described through contrasts, variability, and sensuality. But later this innocent femininity will take on a completely different side - the girl almost drowns Pechorin in the sea. This will be Pechorin’s payment, payment for Bela’s death, payment for unlimited passion. “Honest smugglers seem free, romantic, mysterious and attractive, but their world disappoints Pechorin. Having run away with Yanko, the girl dooms the old woman and the blind boy to starvation, but what does he, Pechorin, care about this? He feels like a stranger everywhere: the smugglers are in the sea, but he doesn’t know how to swim, they are free to choose their place of residence, but he is ordered to go to the Caucasus.

"Princess Mary"

Pechorin is an egoist. The hero’s inner world is revealed most fully and deeply in the chapter “Princess Mary”. The plot here is Pechorin’s meeting with Grushnitsky, a familiar cadet. And then Pechorin’s next “experiment” begins. The hero's entire life is a chain of experiments on himself and other people. Its goal is to comprehend the truth, human nature, evil, good, love. This is exactly what happens in the case of Grushnitsky. Why is the young cadet so unpleasant to Pechorin? As we see, Grushnitsky is by no means a villain worth fighting. This is the most ordinary young man, dreaming of love and stars on his uniform. He is mediocre, but he has one weakness that is quite forgivable at his age - “draping himself into extraordinary feelings.” Of course, we understand that this is a parody of Pechorin! That is why Pechorin hates him so much. Grushnitsky, as a narrow-minded person, does not understand Pechorin’s attitude towards him, does not suspect that he has already begun a kind of game, and he also does not know that he is not the hero of the novel. Pechorin also felt this pity in Grushnitsky, but too late - after the duel. At first, Grigory Alexandrovich even evokes a certain condescending feeling in Grushnitsky, since this young man is self-confident and seems to himself to be a very insightful and significant person. “I feel sorry for you, Pechorin,” this is what he says at the beginning of the novel. But events are developing the way Pechorin wants them. Mary falls in love with him, forgetting about Grushnitsky. Pechorin himself told Mary: “Everyone read on my face signs of bad qualities that were not there; but they were anticipated - and they were born. I was modest - I was accused of guile: I became secretive. ...I was gloomy, - the other children were cheerful and talkative; I felt superior to them - they put me lower. I became envious. I was ready to love the whole world, but no one understood me: and I learned to hate...” In this monologue, Pechorin fully reveals himself. He explains his world and character. It becomes clear that Pechorin is still concerned about feelings such as love and understanding. At least they were worried before. And although this story is true, he uses it only to touch Mary. Alas, even the tears of the young lady did not soften his morals. Alas, one half of Pechorin’s soul has already died. Alas, it is impossible to restore it. Pechorin plays. He has learned life too well. He is taller than other people and, knowing this, does not hesitate to take advantage of it. Princess Mary, like Bela, is another step towards answering the question that torments him: “Who is he in this life? " Day after day, hour after hour, Pechorin poisons the consciousness of poor Grushnitsky with the most contradictory statements and fabrications; he neglects Mary’s feelings, deliberately instilling in her the hope of reciprocity and at the same time knowing that this is the most shameless deception; he breaks the heart of old woman Ligovskaya, clearly renouncing the honor of becoming the owner of her daughter’s hand. Pechorin's romance with Mary is a peculiar manifestation of the war against society on the part of a person who is cramped and bored within the existing relationship.

Overwhelmed by jealousy, indignation, and then hatred, the cadet suddenly reveals himself to us from a completely different side. He turns out to be not so harmless at all. He is capable of being vindictive, and then dishonest and vile. Someone who recently dressed up as nobility is today capable of shooting at an unarmed person. Pechorin's experiment was a success! Here the “demonic” properties of his nature manifested themselves in full force: “sowing evil” with the greatest skill. During the duel, Pechorin again tempts fate, calmly standing face to face with death. Then he offers Grushnitsky reconciliation. But the situation is already irreversible, and Grushnitsky dies, having drunk the cup of shame, repentance and hatred to the end. The duel with Grushnitsky is an indicator of how Pechorin is wasting his strength. He defeats Grushnitsky and becomes the hero of the society he despises. He is taller environment, smart, educated. But internally devastated, disappointed. Pechorin lives “out of curiosity.” But this is on the one hand, because on the other hand, he has an ineradicable thirst for life. So, the image of Grushnitsky is very important in the novel; it reveals, perhaps, the most important thing in central hero. Grushnitsky - a distorting mirror of Pechorin - highlights the truth and significance of the suffering of this “suffering egoist”, the depth and exclusivity of his nature, and brings Pechorin’s qualities to the point of absurdity. But in the situation with Grushnitsky, the whole danger that is always inherent in the individualistic philosophy inherent in romanticism is revealed with particular force. Why does Grigory Aleksandrovich go to the camp so easily? Lermontov did not seek to pass a moral verdict. He only showed all the abysses with great power human soul devoid of faith, filled with skepticism and disappointment.

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 world, the best feelings, fearing ridicule, I buried 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. But he finds nothing but emptiness. His character is marked by contradictions, and his ideas are also contradictory. Pechorin himself admits that there are two people in him: one lives in the full sense of the word, the other thinks and judges him. Pechorin considers this discord a moral “disease.” Emphasizing the duality of the hero, Lermontov seems to be saying once again that Pechorin is a victim not only of his immediate environment, but also of the social system in which people of extraordinary talent are morally suffocating. However, despite the author’s condemnation of Pechorin’s egoism, the central idea of Pechorin’s image is to distinguish him from his environment as a strong, bright, effective and at the same time tragic personality.

Faith plays a special role in this chapter. Her love contains that sacrifice that Princess Mary only imagined. Vera has deep tenderness for Pechorin, which does not depend on any conditions; her love has grown together with her soul. The sensitivity of her heart helps Vera to fully understand Pechorin with all his vices and sorrow. All Vera’s worries are supplanted by the life of the heart. She knows Pechorin as well as him. If Grushnitsky dies from Grigory Alexandrovich’s bullet with the words: “... I despise myself, but I hate you”; when parting with Mary, she whispers to him: “I hate you...”, then Vera forgives him both his weaknesses and his cruelty. A woman of the secular circle, free from coquetry, Vera aroused the strongest feeling in Pechorin. But in relation to her, Pechorin is not free from the manifestation of egocentrism. “Since we have known each other, you have given me nothing but suffering,” Vera says to Pechorin. Pechorin could not decide to connect his life even with the woman he loved. He admits: “No matter how passionately I love a woman, if she only makes me feel that I should marry her, my heart turns to stone and nothing will warm it up again. I am ready for all sacrifices except this: twenty times life I’ll even put my honor on the line... But I won’t sell my freedom.” And in the scene of the horse chase after Vera Pechorin, who had driven away after killing Grushnitsky in a duel, having driven his horse to death, “fell on the wet grass and cried like a child.” But then he writes: “When the night dew and the mountain wind refreshed my burning head and my thoughts returned to normal order, I realized that chasing after lost happiness was useless and reckless. What else do I need? - to see her? - why? not all Is it over between us? One bitter farewell kiss will not enrich my memories, and after it it will only be more difficult for us to part.

However, I am glad that I can cry! However, perhaps this is due to frayed nerves, a night spent without sleep, two minutes at the barrel of a gun and an empty stomach. Everything is for the better!.." Everything is very logical and sober from the point of view of selfish logic and reason. Tears are only the cause of nervous breakdown and hunger, and feelings can be saved for later. This was all love. The very first gust of fresh wind dispelled Pechorin's sadness over the eternal separation from the woman who, according to him, was so dear to him. Let's return to the topic of Alexander Grigorievich's duel with Grushnitsky. Why does Pechorin so easily agree to the duel? Pechorin is an atheist. in the Devil. As it should be, he has no faith in either life or death. He does not feel the difference between these, therefore he so easily goes on an adventure. He does not know what is hidden behind the word death, and therefore he is not interested. of any thought, he turns such antonyms as “life” and “death” into synonyms.

"Fatalist"

The adventurous and philosophical nature of the story makes it the most mysterious among the other parts of the novel. In The Fatalist, questions about fate and predestination, free will and spiritual imprisonment become central. In “Fatalist,” the exceptional hero Vulich appears, his passion for the game and decency are described, then an absurd bet, an accidental misfire of a weapon that saved the hero’s life, and the same accidental death. Vulich became a prisoner of passions and a gambling card game: “constant failures only irritated his stubbornness.” He teases and tests fate, although he does not doubt its power over a person. He dreams of luck, luck, fortune. But if fate is predetermined, then you cannot count on a special card case. In this story, the prejudices of the heroes are tested: Vulich, who certainly believes in the fate of fate, and Pechorin, who insists on the power of reason and will. Here the problems being solved are not so much psychological as philosophical and moral. Vulich is a supporter of fatalism. Pechorin asks the question: “If there are definitely predestination, then why were we given will, reason?” This dispute is tested by three examples, three mortal battles with fate. Firstly, Vulich’s attempt to kill himself with a shot to the temple, which ended in failure; secondly, the accidental murder of Vulich on the street by a drunken Cossack; thirdly, Pechorin’s brave attack on the Cossack killer. Without denying the very idea of fatalism, Lermontov leads to the idea that one cannot resign oneself and be submissive to fate. With such a turn philosophical theme the author saved the novel from a gloomy ending. Pechorin, whose death is unexpectedly announced in the middle of the story, in this last story not only escapes from a seemingly certain death, but also for the first time commits an act that benefits people. And instead of a funeral march, at the end of the novel there are congratulations on the victory over death: “the officers congratulated me - and there was definitely something to it.” In this chapter, Pechorin solves an important philosophical question about whether a person has the power to control his own destiny, or is it all God’s will? The hero has an ambivalent attitude towards the fatalism of his ancestors: on the one hand, he is ironic about their naive faith in the heavenly bodies, on the other hand, he openly envies their faith, since he understands that any faith is good. But, rejecting the previous naive faith, he realizes. , that there is nothing to replace the lost ideals. Pechorin’s misfortune is that he doubts not only the necessity of good in general; for him, not only do sacred things exist, he laughs “at everything in the world”... And unbelief gives rise to either inaction or empty activity. , and they, in turn, are torture for the smart and energetic person. It seems to me, after all, Pechorin is not a smug cynic: playing “the role of an executioner or an ax in the hands of fate,” he himself suffers from this no less than his victims. And yet, Princess Mary calls him evil, although Grigory Alexandrovich attracts her.

Conclusion

Whoever looks at himself sees his own face,

He who sees his own face knows his worth,

He who knows the price is strict with himself,

He who is strict with himself is truly great!

Pierre Grengorg.

By bringing this epigraph here, I wanted to say that Pechorin was precisely a great man. He was extremely strict with himself: he understood that he was the cause of many tragic destinies, analyzed his actions, and, most importantly, directly told himself the truth, no matter how cruel it was. I am very admired by both the work itself and the fate of the main character. I think that Pechorin is a person who has all the best qualities, but reflected from the other side. Such qualities in him are extremely distorted and reflected only on himself. Thus, Pechorin unconsciously becomes an egoist, an egoist with a big soul.

Is evil really that attractive?

To answer this question, we must first understand what evil means, and whether this concept can even carry something positive.

S. I. Ozhegov in his explanatory dictionary gives the following definitions of the word “evil”:

1. Something bad, harmful, the opposite of good.

2. Trouble, misfortune, trouble.

3. Annoyance, anger.

It is difficult to find anything attractive in these definitions. But does this mean that the answer to the question has been found? It is actually very difficult to challenge these definitions. But good and evil are very controversial concepts. And many philosophers, both ancient and modern, tried to solve the riddle of good and evil. But the solution has not been found, so it is impossible to adhere to only one point of view. For understanding Pechorin, an episode is important when he returns “home through the empty alleys of the village” and reflects on “wise people” who are convinced of participation heavenly bodies in “insignificant disputes” over a piece of land.” But “what willpower was given to them by the confidence that the whole sky was looking at them with sympathy...”. Pechorin calls himself and his generation “pathetic descendants”, without convictions and pride, pleasure and fear, incapable of “great sacrifices either for the good of humanity, or even for their own happiness.” From all the disputes with other heroes, feelings, and fate, Pechorin emerges devastated, but not surrendered. His atheism is a drama of personality. The complex image of Pechorin reflects the historical process of the development of social consciousness with all its disruptions and discoveries, ups and downs, intellectual energy and the inability of direct social influence. There is something more in Pechorin that makes him a hero not only of the era when the book was written, but also of the human race in general. He is self-aware, knows how to analyze actions and admit mistakes, and ask questions about purpose. The duality of character is clearly emphasized by the act when, after reading Vera’s letter, he rushes after her like a madman. Maybe the reason is awakened love? It would be too easy. The hero is not used to losing those who are subordinate to his will. Perhaps the conquest of Mary occurs not in order to annoy Grushnitsky, but in order to “possess a young, barely blossoming soul.” This is “insatiable greed” that consumes everything. The diary of Grigory Alexandrovich is the maximum self-expression and constant introspection of the hero, even if he puts on masks in front of those around him, he admits this to himself. This technique, used by the author, allows the reader to understand Pechorin’s soul as best as possible. Someone can understand him as a person with a black soul, someone, on the contrary, can understand him as a person with high feelings and great intelligence. But it is impossible to say with complete accuracy who Pechorin is. However, he is definitely a hero. But why?

Why is Pechorin a hero of that time?

In general, in order to decide why Grigory Alexandrovich is a hero of his time, it is necessary to become more closely acquainted with the society, with the environment in which he had to live and exist. It was Lermontov who first revealed the problem of the lost generation. The writer revealed the tragic duality of man in the post-Decembrist dead era, his strength and weakness. Proud and passive rejection of the transformations of society gave rise to bitter loneliness, and as a result, spiritual bitterness. There is one moral law that is true at all times: respect for people, for the world, begins with self-respect. Pechorin himself says: “Evil begets evil; the first suffering gives the concept of pleasure in torturing another...” The world surrounding Pechorin is built on the law of spiritual slavery - one tortures in order to gain pleasure from the suffering of another. And the unfortunate person, suffering, dreams of one thing - to take revenge, to humiliate not only the offender, but the whole world. Pechorin compares favorably with other heroes in that he is concerned about questions of awareness of human existence - questions about the purpose and meaning of life, about the purpose of man. He not only understands the nature and capabilities of man, but is also passionate about shaping himself as an individual. Pechorin is a hero of that time. After all, if a person thinks that there is nothing in the world higher than his desires, he thereby does not gain will, but loses himself. But if a person has a goal in life, then he will definitely believe in himself. Pechorin lived in a generation that had lost faith in goodness, in justice, that had lost faith in itself, but madly believed in the beliefs of previous generations: “And we, their pitiful descendants, wandering the earth without convictions and pride, without pleasure and fear, except that Involuntary fear, squeezing the heart at the thought of the inevitable end, we are no longer capable of making great sacrifices, either for the good of humanity, or even for our own happiness...” Showing in the novel the importance of environment and circumstances for the formation of character, Lermontov, in the image of his hero, focuses not on this process, but on the ultimate development of the human personality. People like Pechorin noble society met little, but nevertheless, in this unique, exceptional person, Lermontov showed a typical noble hero the thirties, that tragic period of Russian social life that began after the suppression of the Decembrist uprising. “A Hero of Our Time” is a novel consisting of five novellas and short stories, united by the main actor- Grigory Alexandrovich Pechorin. Lermontov moved from external to internal motivation and united all the stories with the personality of the hero. Thus, the cycle of stories turned into psychological novel. The compositional complexity of the novel is inextricably linked with the psychological complexity of the image of the main character. The ambiguity of Pechorin's character and the contradictory nature of his image were revealed not only in the study of his spiritual world, but also in the correlation of the hero with other characters. If you arrange the stories in the correct chronological order, then their arrangement should look like this:

1. On his way to the Caucasus to his destination, Pechorin stopped in Taman. "Taman"

2. After participating in a military expedition, Pechorin goes to the waters, lives in Pyatigorsk and Kislovodsk, kills Grushnitsky in a duel. "Princess Mary"

3. For participating in a duel, Pechorin is sent to the fortress under the command of Maxim Maksimych. "Bela"

4. From the fortress Pechorin travels to the Cossack village, where he makes a bet with Vulich. "Fatalist"

5. Five years later, Pechorin, who retired, on his way to Persia, meets Maxim Maksimych in Vladikavkaz. "Maksim Maksimych"

On the way back from Persia, Pechorin dies. Mikhail Yuryevich conducted an in-depth psychological analysis, revealing contemporary man from the inside. His hero is looking for ways to solve problems, he spies every movement of his heart, considers every thought. Thus, he has made himself a curious subject for his observations and, trying to be as frank as possible in his confession, openly admits his shortcomings. Literary critic Khodasevich, in his article “Fragments about Lermontov,” wrote that “he (Lermontov) not only placed the viewer at the center of events, but also forced him to experience all the vices and evils of the heroes... the reader’s peace is as unbearable to him as the peace own". Another literary critic Chernyshevsky wrote that “...Pechorin is a person of a completely different character and a different degree of development. His soul is indeed very strong, thirsty for passion; His will is really strong, capable of energetic activity, but he only cared about himself personally. No general questions occupy his mind.” (From the article “Notes on Journals”) Despite this, Pechorin makes some attempts to improve society. He makes attempts to get closer to people, to find some kind of harmonious balance with them, but all these attempts are fruitless. Pechorin, contrary to society, is filled with rebellious rejection of the foundations of existing society.

I think that Pechorin - true hero. He did not break under the influence of society, did not become part of the crowd. Pechorin remained himself, and although he could not change his generation, he pointed out the mistakes to his descendants so that in the future humanity would become purer and freer.

List of used literature:

1. « M.Yu. Lermontov“Hero of Our Time”: text analysis, main content, essays» . Publishing house "Drofa" 2002.

2. “A classic for school. M.Yu. Lermontov “Hero of Our Time” to prepare for literature lessons" Publishing house "Dragonfly" 2001.

3. “Novel by M.Yu. Lermontov “Hero of Our Time” Commentary.” Publishing house "Prosveshcheniye" 1975.

4. "Russian literature. Works school curriculum. M.Yu. Lermontov "Hero of Our Time"Publishing house "Iris Press" 2006.

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 given. 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 general patterns the historical development of mankind and the historical destinies of Russia. 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 - main character novel by 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 - 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: “Nice fellow, I dare to boil you down, only a little strange...” - Lermontov looks at his hero as an exceptional phenomenon, therefore original title 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 age.

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”: thus, 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 discrete nature 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 “one 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 permission pressing problems 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 psychological preparation for another, does not contribute to the hero’s accumulation life experience, which would persist at the subsequent stage of its 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, I accept each time, due to changing circumstances new uniform, these questions never receive a final answer on the pages of the novel.

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

"Hero of Our Time" - last great work Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov, which was published in full in the year of his death. However, taking into account the whole logic of the development of the writer’s genius, it can be assumed that if his life had not been cut short so early, this would have been only the beginning. Lermontov promised to grow into the greatest Russian prose writer, since nothing equal to this work existed in Russian literature at that time.

Preface that changed the perception of the work

Lermontov began to think about prose in the late thirties. In the forties, the first edition of the novel “A Hero of Our Time” was published, and a year later the second. They differed in the preface, which Mikhail Yuryevich added in the second version. In it he expressed several important thoughts. First of all, all suspicions about the identification of the author with the character of the work that Lermontov wrote - “A Hero of Our Time” are swept aside here. "Pechorin is not me!" - says Mikhail Yurievich. He emphasizes that he is writing a novel not about himself, but about a hero of his time.

The second commentary, contained in the preface, also shifted many of the accents in the perception of the work. Lermontov mentions the naivety of the public, which always expects direct conclusions or morality. Who is the "hero of our time"? Pechorin or someone else? Here Mikhail Yuryevich openly mocks those who hope to see answers to their questions at the end of the work.

"Hero of our time." Pechorin's analysis and his understanding of the meaning of life

In this work, Lermontov makes an attempt - consistent, clear and very large-scale - to answer the question of what type of personality or character is the bearer of the key properties of time. And how are such qualities motivated by external conditions? Why is Pechorin a “hero of our time” and why does he live in this particular period?

The work contains a very complex meaning. The fact is that the “hero of our time” Pechorin is not so much motivated by external conditions, but, on the contrary, resists them. The novel contains a minimum of facts, references to history, to the large national scale of events.

The character seems to exist separately from the events taking place at this time. And he lives a very incomprehensible life. It's not clear what he's aiming for. Is he making a career, does he want to get another rank, meet true love. There are no answers to these questions.

The image of the main character created by others

How the personality of this character differs from other images of the work “A Hero of Our Time” shows him as a person constantly contradicting himself. And yet, the reader still understands his logic, and what kind of person he is, in principle. The difficulties of the character of the main character, this elusive "hero of the time", correspond to the entire complexity of the view of him.

Mikhail Yuryevich creates a very complex system, combining different narrators and witnesses who describe events. As a result, the reader does not get closer to the answers to his questions, but, on the contrary, seems to move away from them.

There are descriptions of the events seen by Maxim Maksimovich, a rather simple-minded officer. He lives next to Pechorin and treats him with deep sympathy, but sees in him not the person he really is. The complex, contradictory image of the main character is presented throughout the novel through the eyes of various characters, including himself.

Lonely and self-absorbed personality

Not only the main, but also a rather complex character in the work “Hero of Our Time” is Pechorin. The characteristics of his personality are created with the help of the people around him. And when they analyze this person from the outside, sometimes their opinions do not coincide with his own point of view. Since, for example, Maxim notices much more in him than he does himself. Observes those properties that are not visible to him.

And this happens to every person who, like the character in the novel “Hero of Our Time” Pechorin, is deep in himself. He has almost no friends, with the exception of Dr. Werner. And it is very important that to see the main thing in this person, her best qualities maybe just an outside observer.

The mystery of the character of the main character

What is the main Pechorin always doing? He is absorbed in constant search for himself. And in most cases they turn out to be a search for love, passion, truly close, cordial, friendly relationships with a woman.

Alone with himself, this is very Any of his actions gives rise to reaction. Any action does not turn out to be the result that he expected. He’s like a director who builds his life and constantly sees himself from the outside. And all this is painful and destructive for the individual. After all, it is unnatural to constantly think about yourself.

The author's special intention in the work

Mikhail Yuryevich is absolutely original. Relying on familiar literary patterns, he offers the reader something completely unusual. Each event in the novel is seen from different points of view, and none is dominant.

To understand Lermontov’s work, it is necessary to arrange the stories included in the novel “A Hero of Our Time” in sequence real events. Mikhail Yuryevich builds his own author’s chronology, which is different from the reality of what is happening. This sets a special artistic logic for the development of the concept of depicting a “hero of our time” - a person who embodies the essence of that period.

What else is characteristic of the work “A Hero of Our Time”? Pechorin's quotes, present throughout the novel, are filled with deep meaning and reveal the essence of the character's character. Unable to apply his energy and talent externally, to direct his aspirations to some external object, he turns them on himself. And every time he acts as the executioner of those people he loves.

Key to the main character's character

The reader analyzes why Pechorin is a “hero of our time” throughout the entire work, but the philosophical key to his image is found precisely in the story “Fatalist.” It is no coincidence that it encapsulates the entire novel. Here lies the confidence that fate cannot be contradicted, everything is predetermined. And the predictions in the story strangely come true. And at the same time, Pechorin, every time, being confident in the fatality of the events taking place, resists them.

This is a person who interferes with events, tries to change them, being at the same time convinced that this is an absolutely useless activity. A completely incomprehensible person, every action of which guarantees the opposite result, and the desire for activity ultimately contains powerlessness.

The invisible presence of the author in the novel

Thanks to the novel, contemporaries could rethink situations, facts, and everyday details. For example, the duel with Grushnitsky, which is of great importance in the context of the work. Such a duel for the nineteenth century is a significant attribute noble life. And the rethinking of the dueling code, which is given in the novel “A Hero of Our Time,” is very important.

This wonderful work was written a year before the poet’s death, but one can’t help but think that it describes the story of an upcoming duel. The author himself is invisibly present in the image of the hero, but he also endowed Grushnitsky with the character and appearance traits of Nikolai Solomonovich Martynov.

The novel "A Hero of Our Time" became the beginning of an entire literary tradition. Without this work and those artistic discoveries that Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov came to, there might not have been best novels Turgenev, Tolstoy. It is this work that begins new era in Russian literature, where prose and especially the genre of the novel dominate.