Criticism of “Hero of Our Time” Lermontov. Hero of our time" in criticism Characteristics of the main characters

“Lermontov’s Fate” - Portraits of M.Yu Lermontov. V. Bryusov. The story of the poet's soul. And gloomily You hid your thoughts, And came out to us with a grin on your lips. Write an essay “My impression of Lermontov” using key words and conclusions recorded in class. A. Herzen. Sonnet “To the Portrait of Lermontov”. Motives of Lermontov's lyrics. M.Yu. Lermontov: personality, fate, era.

“Critique Fathers and Sons” - Critics (“Fathers and Sons”). “Contemporary” responded to the novel with an article by M. A. Antonovich “Asmodeus of Our Time.” The dispute, in essence, was about the type of new revolutionary figure in Russian history. The novel “Fathers and Sons” in critics’ reviews (N.N. Strakhov, D.I. Pisarev, M.A. Antonovich). Antonovich saw in it a panegyric to the “fathers” and slander against the younger generation.

“Lermontov's Lyrics” - Self-portrait of M.Yu. Lermontov. Mix sadness, which is not acute, With delights, which have never happened K. Balmont. N.F. Ivanova. Father M.Yu. Lermontov. Grandmother M.Yu. Lermontova E.A. Arsenyev. “And again I am alone, and again I live by myself” Lyrics by M.Yu. Lermontov. And again I’m alone, and I’m living myself again” Lyrics M.Yu. Lermontov.

“Roman Lermontov, Hero of Our Time” - Lesson objectives: The originality of the plot of the novel. Why are the plots of every story based on unusual events? Novel "Hero of Our Time" - psychological portrait hero. Grushnitsky. Novel - research inner world hero. Pechorin About himself. Belinsky about the novel. Faith. Mikhail Yurievich Lermontov 1814 - 1841.

“Novel A Hero of Our Time” - Construction of the novel “A Hero of Our Time.” Kislovodsk Mikhail is 6-8 years old. Staying in places of hostilities. The history of the creation of M.Yu. Lermontov’s novel “A Hero of Our Time.” IN Cossack villages. "Maksim Maksimych." After participating in hostilities, Pechorin receives leave. "Princess Mary". Chronological order (plot of the work).

Criticism of the novel “A Hero of Our Time” began during Lermontov’s lifetime, from the moment the first chapters were published (the novel was published in parts since 1839).

Opinions about the novel are quite varied. Among critics, writers and other famous people you can find both negative and enthusiastic reviews. At the same time, which is quite natural, the attitude towards the novel improves from century to century. This is due to the general trend for everyone classical authors– over time, their recognition only increases.

For this reason, both contemporary and early criticism of the novel need to be considered. Modern opinion is relevant now, and the past is devoid of the prism of greatness M.Yu. Lermontov.

This page provides a brief critique of the novel “A Hero of Our Time.”

Nicholas I (life 1796-1855)

The most important historical figure who wrote a review of the novel in his letter was Emperor Nicholas I. However, in this review it is important to take into account the negative attitude of the authorities towards the author of the novel (Lermontov’s links to the Caucasus, non-recognition of merits).

The emperor first mentions the novel on June 13, 1840, expressing a positive assessment of the first volume of the novel:

I have worked and read all of Hero which is well written.

However, the next day the score is already worse:

And already in the evening of the same day the attitude towards the novel becomes negative:

I read to the end of Hero and find the second part disgusting, quite worthy of being in fashion. This is the same depiction of despicable and incredible characters that are found in modern foreign novels. Such novels spoil morals and harden character. And although you read these cat-like sighs with disgust, they still produce a painful effect, because in the end you get used to believing that the whole world consists only of such individuals, in whom even seemingly good deeds are committed only for vile and dirty motives . What result can this give? Contempt or hatred for humanity! But is this the purpose of our existence on earth? People are already too prone to become hypochondriacs or misanthropes, so why arouse or develop such inclinations with such writings! So, I repeat, in my opinion, this is a pitiful talent, it indicates the perverted mind of the author. The captain's character is sketched well. Starting the story, I hoped and rejoiced that he would be the hero of our days, because in this category of people there are much more real people than those who are so indiscriminately awarded with this epithet. Undoubtedly, the Caucasian corps has a lot of them, but rarely does anyone know how to spot them. However, the captain appears in this work as a hope that never came true, and Mr. Lermontov failed to follow this noble and such a simple character; he replaces it with despicable, very uninteresting faces, who, rather than causing boredom, would do better if they remained in obscurity - so as not to cause disgust. Happy journey, Mr. Lermontov, may he, if possible, clear his head in an environment where he will be able to complete the character of his captain, if at all he is able to comprehend and outline it

V.G. Belinsky (life 1811-1848)

The most famous critic of the novel is V.G. Belinsky, whose reviews are most often found on the Internet.

The first publication was published immediately after the release of the story “Bela”. Belinsky speaks negatively about the story, noting the simplicity, conciseness and artlessness of the story. At the same time, after the publication of a separate edition of the novel, Belinsky emphasizes the originality and originality of the work, considering the novel as a single whole, for the first time talking about the gradual disclosure of the main character, from chapter to chapter.

absolutely new world art

Contrary to the opinion of the majority of reactionary critics, who considered the novel a slander against Russian life, Belinsky defends Lermontov, proving that Pechorin is strongly connected with reality:

“The poet’s art should consist in developing in practice the task: how a character given by nature should be formed under the circumstances in which fate will place him.”

It is difficult to overestimate the importance of Belinsky’s analysis of the image of Pechorin. It obtained one of the main features of the Russian critical realism XIX century: depiction of the character of a typical representative modern society is given in such a way that it leads to the denial of the relations prevailing in society. It is Belinsky who begins a series of criticisms about “superfluous people” and a comparison of Onegin and Pechorin.

S.O. Burachek (years of life 1800-1877)

The first reactionary criticism belongs to the pen of S. O. Burachka, who unites Lermontov himself with Pechorin. Overall, he gives the novel an extremely negative assessment:

For those in whom spiritual powers are even more or less alive, this book is disgustingly intolerable.

Burachek indignantly notes the lack of nationality and truthfulness in the novel. For the first time, an opinion is heard about the novel as a slander of Russian reality:

there is no religion, no nationality

The only non-disgusting character, in his opinion, is Maxim Maksimych, but too little time is given to him.

O.I. Senkovsky (life 1800-1858)

Senkovsky gave a review that can be understood ambiguously. First he writes positively:

G. Lermontov happily extricated himself from the most difficult situation in which a lyric poet can find himself, placed between exaggerations, without which there is no lyricism, and truth, without which there is no prose. He put the cloak of truth on exaggeration, and this outfit suits them very well

Then, after the release of the second edition, everything changes:

“You can’t pass off a “Hero of Our Time” as anything more than a nice little student sketch”

F. Bulgarin (life 1789-1859)

The review by F. Bulgarin in “Northern Bee” is remarkable. The review was so positive that it raised doubts about its honesty. This is how Belinsky wrote about her:

false friends have appeared who speculate on the name of Lermontov in order to improve their unenviable reputation in the eyes of the crowd with imaginary impartiality

Bulgarin himself describes his impression of the novel as follows:

Best novel I haven't read in Russian

Bulgarin continues Belinsky's idea about the disease of society discussed in the novel, but believes that this disease is caused by the West. He claims that Pechorin is only moral lesson:

What does a brilliant upbringing and all secular advantages lead to without positive rules, without faith, hope and love?

S.P. Shevyrev (life 1806-1864)

He put forward the most complete assessment of the novel from the reactionary camp. And this assessment is unflattering:

Shevyrev believed that the image of Pechorin was not only unrealistic, but literary inferior and inspired by Western ideals:

Pechorin is one of those pygmies of evil that is now so abundant in the narrative and dramatic literature of the West.

P.A. Pletnev (life 1792-1866)

Another positive assessment was given by P. A. Pletnev, who notes the great talent of the writer.

marked with the stamp of true talent; each took on the living, bright colors of the era of their creation; everyone is destined to listen in silence to the grumpy antics of judges who, deprived of the ability to think and feel, are consoled by their inalienable right to scold everything attractively living

A. Grigoriev (life 1822-1864)

Grigoriev writes:

Pechorin, despite his impressionability, is still the suffisance of his own Self, worshiping only himself, not painfully suffering from that noble, gracious suffering, which, finding food in itself, inexorably survives petty, limited egoism in order to create conscious egoism, imbued with a sense of the whole and respect for oneself and others as parts of a great whole

Look how in Lermontov himself this egoism burned out and was purified, how this feeling of love from boredom and idleness, the feeling of a soul suffering from emptiness, the feeling of denial was transformed into a rational and human idea in the poems of his last era

Grigoriev doubted Lermontov's abilities as a thinker and tried to show that Lermontov's direction was dead.

the word of Lermontov's activity by its very nature was incapable of further development. This word was a protest of the individual against reality - a protest that came not from a clear understanding of the ideal, but from the conditions that consisted in the painful development of the personality itself

A.I. Herzen (life 1812-1870)

Herzen supports the possibility of Pechorin’s existence in the past:

The Onegins and Pechorins were completely true, they expressed the real sorrow and fragmentation of Russian life at that time... Our literary flankers of the last set are now poking fun at these weak dreamers who broke without a fight, over these idle people who did not know how to find themselves in the environment in which they lived. It’s a pity that they don’t finish the story - I myself think that if Onegin and Pechorin could, like many, adapt to the Nicholas era, Onegin would have been Viktor Nikitich Panin, and Pechorin would not have disappeared on the way to Persia, but he himself would have ruled as Kleinmichel, communication routes would interfere with the construction railways. But the time of the Onegins and Pechorins has passed. Now in Russia there are no extra people; now, on the contrary, there are not enough hands to deal with these huge ploughs. Whoever now does not find anything to do has no one to blame; he is truly an empty person, a whiner or a lazy person. And therefore, very naturally, Onegins and Pechorins become Oblomovs.

Public opinion, which spoiled the Onegins and Pechorins because it sensed their suffering in them, will turn away from the Oblomovs

Herzen perceived Pechorin rather one-sidedly:

Lermontov was Belinsky’s comrade for years, he was with us at the university, and died in the hopeless hopelessness of the Pechorin trend, against which both the Slavophiles and we were already rebelling

DI. Pisarev (life 1840-1868)

D.I. Pisarev did not speak highly of Lermontov’s poems, but he appreciated his prose. He assessed the novel “A Hero of Our Time” within the framework of other Russian classics, trying to highlight the difference between “superfluous” and “new” people.

He called Pechorin and Onegin “bored drones” and believed that few such characters live in every wealthy and smart person. He compared Pechorin with Bazarov:

The Pechorins and the Bazarovs are cut from the same cloth... they are not similar to each other in the nature of their activities, but they are completely similar to each other in terms of the typical characteristics of nature: both are very smart and completely consistent egoists, both of them choose everything from life for themselves that at this moment you can choose the best...

S.S. Dudyshkin (life years 1820-1866)

A critic who completely rejected the images of “superfluous people,” especially Pechorin. Dudyshkin called such people “seekers of strong sensations,” arrogant and deceitful.

He hated Pechorin so much that he devoted most of the introductory article to Lermontov’s Works to his analysis, using the following expressions:

Pechorin has more of the character of Byron than of a Russian officer

Pechorin now belongs to Lermontov's weakest creations

F.M. Dostoevsky (life 1821-1881)

Dostoevsky shared Belinsky's position, believing that Pechorin is folk character, but distant from the common people due to the rapprochement of the wealthy class to Europe.

Onegin, and then Pechorin, expressed to dazzling brightness precisely all those traits that could only be expressed in a Russian person... at the very moment when civilization for the first time was felt by us as life, and not as a whimsical graft, and at the same time and all the perplexities, all the strange, insoluble questions at that time for the first time began to besiege Russian society and ask to enter his consciousness

Subsequently, Dostoevsky sharply changed his opinion about Pechorin. This is due to the growth of revolutionary ideas, with which Dostoevsky did not agree. Now he denies the existence of such a real character.

were ready, for example, to extremely value in their time various bad men who appeared in our literary types and were borrowed for the most part from foreign

N.K. Mikhailovsky (life 1842-1904)

An unusual opinion about the novel was expressed by the populist critic N.K. Mikhailovsky. He highlighted the heroic and protesting principles in Lermontov’s work. Mikhailovsky compares Lermontov and Pechorin, saying that Lermontov himself had “immense powers” ​​that he could not properly use in an era of timelessness.

Mikhailovsky gave Pechorin an anthropological explanation:

To act, to fight, to win hearts, to operate in one way or another on the souls of those near and far, loved and hated - this is the calling or fundamental requirement of the nature of all outstanding characters works of Lermontov, and himself

G.V. Plekhanov (life 1856-1918)

He brought a Marxist approach to the study of Lermontov and his novel. Plekhanov wrote:

Art owes its origin public person, and this latter changes with the development of society. Therefore, to understand a given work of art means not only to understand its main idea, but also to find out why this idea interests people - although, perhaps, only a few people - of a given time. To resolve this issue, it will be necessary to remember that Lermontov was born in October 1814 and that, consequently, he had to spend his youth in a society that was completely suppressed by the reaction, which greatly intensified after the failure of the famous Decembrist movement...

Plekhanov noted:

Hero of our time,” “despite all the reasoning, the historical significance of Pechorin is not understood. Pechorin's character is explained from the point of view of personal psychology... Pechorin suffers because he has not yet come to terms with reality. It is true, but not true. For him to come to terms with reality was the same as for Alexander the Great to become a clerical scribe.

M. Gorky (life 1868-1936)

Gorky in his lectures continues the ideas of Plekhanov and the revolutionary democrats. He wrote, comparing the poem “Both Boring and Sad” with the dialogue between Pechorin and Werner:

And again we see a complete coincidence of the author’s feelings and thoughts with the feelings and thoughts of his hero. It is important for us to know that Onegin is a portrait of Pushkin, and Pechorin is a portrait of Lermontov...

At the same time, Gorky believes that Lermontov and Pechorin do not completely merge:

Pechorin was too narrow for him; following the truth of life, the poet could not endow his hero with everything that he carried in his soul, and if he had done this, Pechorin would have been untruthful

Gorky also explained what caused the main character’s problems:

Pechorin and Onegin are alien to so-called social issues, they live a narrowly personal life, they are both strong, well-gifted people and therefore do not find a place for themselves in society

B.M. Eikhenbaum (life 1886-1959)

The last, but not least, review in this article is dedicated to Eikhenbaum, the largest Soviet expert on Lermontov.

Eikhenbaum’s works critically evaluate the texts of the novel and establish the final edition of the novel “A Hero of Our Time.”

Eikhenbaum drew attention to the assessment of Pechorin by the author himself, which is clear from the title:

The title, indeed, sounds ironic, and it cannot be understood otherwise: “This is what the heroes of our time are like!” This title makes us recall the lines of “Borodino”, which Belinsky drew attention to: “Yes, there were people in our time, not like the current tribe: the heroes are not you!” However, the irony of this title is, of course, not directed against the hero’s personality itself, but against “our time”; this is the irony of “Duma” and “Poet”. This is exactly how the author of the preface’s evasive answer should be understood: “I don’t know.” This means: “Yes, evil irony, but directed not at Pechorin in himself, but at you, reader, and at all of modernity.”

A review of criticism of the novel “A Hero of Our Time” was prepared with the help of the following works:

1. Hero of our time / M. Yu. Lermontov; ed. prepared by: B. M. Eikhenbaum and E. E. Naiditsch; [Acad. Sciences of the USSR]. - Moscow: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1962. - 225 p.
2. The fate of Lermontov / E. Gershtein. — 2nd ed., rev. and additional - M.: Artist. lit., 1986. – 350 p.

In an article devoted to the consideration of the pathos of the novel “A Hero of Our Time,” Belinsky classified Lermontov among those “strong artistic talents” who appear very unexpectedly among the emptiness that surrounds them. The interest aroused in Lermontov by several poems published in “Notes of the Fatherland” was finally established after the publication of the novel “A Hero of Our Time.” This story was written not out of a desire to interest the public, but out of a deep creative need, to which all motives other than inspiration are alien. Belinsky notes that Lermontov’s novel produces “a complete impression.” The reason for this lies in the unity of thought, which gives rise to a feeling of correspondence between the parts and the whole. Belinsky especially dwells on the story “Bela”, after reading which “you feel sad, but your sadness is light, bright and sweet.” The death of the Circassian woman does not outrage the critic with a bleak and heavy feeling, for it appeared as a result of a reasonable necessity, which we, the readers, foresaw. The very image of the captivating Circassian woman is depicted with endless skill. She speaks and acts very little, but we vividly see her in all the clarity of a wondrous being, we read in her heart.

Maxim Maksimych, in turn, does not suspect how deep and rich his nature is, how tall and noble he is. This “rude soldier” 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 that’s stupidity.” All these features, so “full of infinity,” speak for themselves. In conclusion, Belinsky notes: “And may you meet the Maksimov Maksimychs more often.”

Belinsky admires the artistic skill of Lermontov, who in each part of his novel managed to exhaust its content and, in typical terms, “bring out everything internal” that lay within it as a possibility. As a result of all this, Lermontov appeared in the story as the same creator as in his poems. “A hero of our time,” Belinsky will write, discovered the power of young talent and showed its diversity and versatility. The main character of Lermontov's novel is Pechorin. The main problem of romanticism can be defined in one word - “personality”. Lermontov is a romantic.

“Vice is outrageous even in great people, but when punished, it brings tenderness to your soul,” writes Belinsky. The critic dwells on the description of Pechorin's appearance. This is what Lermontov says about his hero’s eyes: “They never laughed 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. ..” Belinsky believes that such a description of the eyes, like the entire scene of Pechorin’s meeting with Maxim Maksimych, shows that if this is a vice, it is not a triumphant one, “and one must be born for good in order to be punished so cruelly for evil!..".

According to Belinsky, the novel “A Hero of Our Time” is not evil irony, although it can very easily be mistaken for irony. On the contrary, this is one of those novels that reflects the century. All this was said about the hero of Pushkin’s novel “Eugene Onegin”. But Onegin, according to Belinsky, is already the past, and the past is irrevocable. Pechorin is “the Onegin of our time,” the hero of his time. Their dissimilarity is much less than the distance between Onega and Pechora. Onegin is undoubtedly superior to Pechorin artistically. But Pechorin is superior to Onegin in theory. After all, what is Onegin? This is a man who was killed by his upbringing and social life, who took a closer look at everything, fell in love with everything, and whose whole life consisted in the fact that he yawned equally // Among the fashionable and ancient halls.

Pechorin does not bear his suffering indifferently, not apathetically: “he madly chases after life, looking for it everywhere.” Pechorin is bitter in his delusions. Internal questions are constantly arising in him, which disturb and torment him, and in reflection he seeks their resolution. He has made himself the most curious subject of his observations, and, trying to be as sincere as possible in his confession, he frankly admits his shortcomings.

“A hero of our time” is a sad soul in our time,” Belinsky will write. Lermontov's century was primarily historical. All thoughts, all questions and answers, all activities of that time grew from historical soil and on historical soil. Lermontov's novel is no exception. However, the image of Pechorin itself is not entirely artistic in terms of the form of the image. The reason for this is not the author’s lack of talent, but the fact that the character he portrayed was so close to him that he was unable to separate from him and become objectified. Pechorin is hiding from us as the same unsolved creature as he appears to us at the beginning of the novel . That’s why the novel itself leaves a feeling of futility. There is something unsolved in it, as if unsaid, and therefore a heavy impression remains after reading it. But this drawback, according to Belinsky, is at the same time the advantage of Lermontov’s novel, because such are all modern social issues expressed in poetic works. It is the cry of suffering, the cry that distinguishes suffering.

At the beginning of June 1840, even before the publication of Belinsky’s article, but after his preliminary reviews, a sharp review of “The Hero of Our Time” by N. A. Polevoy appeared in “Son of the Fatherland.” With the light hand of Burachok, the comparison of “Hero of Our Time” with Bashutsky’s “Philistine” became one of the polemical techniques of reactionary criticism. In order to downplay the significance of Lermontov’s novel, Polevoy devoted his review to both works at once, characterizing them as “sick creatures drawn between life and death in a small period of their poor, ephemeral existence”6. If Polevoy and Burachok disagreed in their assessment of “The Bourgeois”, then in their attitude towards “Hero of Our Time” they had complete unanimity. Polevoy’s words that criticism is useless for many writers, “just as rain and dew are useless for plants whose roots are undermined by an inexorable worm,” were only a repetition of Burachok’s reasoning.

The review of “A Hero of Our Time” by O. I. Senkovsky is very ambiguous. "G. Lermontov, wrote Senkovsky, happily extricated himself from the most difficult situation in which a lyric poet can find himself, placed between exaggerations, without which there is no lyricism, and truth, without which there is no prose. He has put on the cloak of truth over exaggeration, and this attire suits them very well.” What Senkovsky’s praise was worth can be judged by his sharply negative review of the second edition of “A Hero of Our Time.” Senkovsky wrote that after Lermontov’s death it was possible to talk about his work objectively and that “one cannot pass off ‘Hero of Our Time’ as anything more than a nice little student sketch.” Senkovsky’s review provoked a sharp rebuke from Belinsky in his response to the third edition of “A Hero of Our Time” (“Literaturnaya Gazeta” dated March 18, 1844). Lermontov's novel was greeted kindly by Sovremennik publisher P. A. Pletnev, who in a brief review compared “A Hero of Our Time” with “A Knight of Our Time” by Karamzin. He wrote that these works are marked “with the stamp of true talent; each took on the living, bright colors of the era of their creation; everyone is destined to listen in silence to the grumpy antics of the judges who, deprived of the ability to think and feel, are consoled by their inalienable right to scold everything attractively living.” A special place in the speeches of reactionary criticism is occupied by the laudatory review of F. Bulgarin, published in “Northern Bee” (1840, June 30). “I have never read a better novel,” wrote Bulgarin, “in Russian.” Soon after Bulgarin’s article appeared on the pages of Otechestvennye Zapiski, Belinsky wrote about the true background of this article: “false friends have appeared who speculate in the name of Lermontov in order to improve their unenviable reputation in the eyes of the crowd with an imaginary impartiality (similar to a purchased bias).

The speculation that Belinsky wrote about was that Bulgarin persistently emphasized his objective attitude towards the writer, who constantly appears on the pages of an organ hostile to the Northern Bee. Bulgarin took a curious position in resolving the main issue that arose in the controversy surrounding the novel. He borrowed from Belinsky the idea that the novel revealed the illness of Russian society and thereby parted ways with Burachko. But this disease, according to Bulgarin, was “the stigma of the West on the modern generation.” Having condemned Burachk for his harsh article, the publisher of the Northern Bee, like the critic of Mayak, approached the novel from a moralistic position and saw in it only a moral lesson: “What does a brilliant upbringing and all secular advantages lead to without positive rules, without faith, hope and love” - this, according to Bulgarin, is the dominant idea of ​​the novel.

The most complete and detailed assessment of “A Hero of Our Time”, coming from the reactionary camp, belongs to S.P. Shevyrev. Shevyrev formulated his main thesis in the article “A Look at Modern Education in Europe” (“Moskvityanin”, 1841, No. 1) and then developed it in a special article dedicated to Lermontov’s novel (“Moskvityanin”, 1841, No. 2). Main idea Belinsky's articles about the "Hero of Our Time" - a statement of Pechorin's connection with modern life, proof that Pechorin is “a real character.” The critic of “Mosk the Knight” spoke out against this position: “The entire content of Mr. Lermontov’s stories, except for Pechorin,” Shevyrev argued, “belongs to essential life; but Pechorin himself, with the exception of his apathy, which was only the beginning of his moral illness, belongs to the dreamy world produced in us by the false reflection of the West. This ghost, which has substance only in the world of our fantasy.” Behind the contrast of Pechorin's assessments, the contrast of the views of Shevyrev and Belinsky, their different attitude towards Russian reality, is easily revealed. Shevyrev wrote in his article that if we recognize Pechorin as a hero of our time, then “it follows that our century is seriously ill.” Shevyrev also accused Lermontov of naturalism. According to the critic, the image of Pechorin is not only false at its core, but also artistically inferior, since evil, like main subject work of art, can only be depicted by large features of an ideal type (in the form of a titan, not a pygmy), and Lermontov in “A Hero of Our Time” supposedly delves into “all the details of the rotting of life.” Pechorin “belongs to those pygmies of evil that are now so abundant in the narrative and dramatic literature of the West.” A significant place in Shevyrev’s article is occupied by an analysis of the theme of the Caucasus in Lermontov’s works, in particular in “A Hero of Our Time.” “Here,” Shevyrev wrote, “Europe and Asia converge in great and irreconcilable enmity. Here Russia, civilly organized, puts up a fight against these ever-rushing streams of mountain peoples who do not know what a social contract is... Here is our eternal struggle... Here is a duel between two forces, educated and wild... Here is life!.. How Shouldn’t the poet’s imagination rush here?”

Soon after the meeting and conversation with Lermontov, Belinsky wrote his article about “A Hero of Our Time.” In Russian criticism, this was the first deep analysis of a work of genius and at the same time its enthusiastic assessment.

Reactionary criticism greeted Lermontov's novel with bitterness. The very title, which Lermontov had a bitterly ironic and tragic meaning, was understood in its literal meaning.

In a number of critical reviews of “A Hero of Our Time” written by defenders of the autocratic-serf system, there was one common line - sharp censure and condemnation of the image of Pechorin. Pechorin is an immoral and depraved person, and declaring him a “hero of our time” means slandering Russia. This was the verdict on the novel from reactionary criticism. Only Belinsky understood the enormous significance of Pechorin’s image.

In the image of Pechorin, Belinsky saw a truthful and fearless reflection of the tragedy of his generation, the generation of progressive people of the 40s. A man of extraordinary fortitude, proud and courageous, Pechorin wastes his energy in cruel games and petty intrigues. Pechorin is a victim of that social system that could only suppress and cripple everything that is best, advanced and strong.

Belinsky’s friend and comrade-in-arms, Herzen, with his characteristic brightness, subsequently described the social atmosphere of Nicholas’s time as follows: “The kingdom of darkness, arbitrariness, silent fading, death without a trace, torment with a handkerchief in the mouth.” Any desire for activity was paralyzed under conditions of the most severe reaction. In such conditions, people like Pechorin grew up, who, in the words of Belinsky, were either inactive or engaged in empty activities. For reactionary criticism, Pechorin is a fictitious image that does not exist in reality. Belinsky saw in him a man created by life itself.

In his article, Belinsky passionately defended the image of Pechorin from the attacks of reactionary criticism and argued that this image embodied the critical spirit of “our century.” Defending Pechorin, Belinsky emphasized that “our century” abhors “hypocrisy.” He speaks loudly about his sins, but is not proud of them; exposes his bloody wounds, and does not hide them under the beggarly rags of pretense. He realized that awareness of his sinfulness is the first step towards salvation” (84).

From Belinsky’s point of view, the image of Pechorin reflected a painful transitional era. Belinsky believed that Pechorin should have recovered and become “a triumphant winner over the evil genius of life.” “Judging a person,” said Belinsky, “one must take into account the circumstances of his development and the sphere of life in which he is placed by fate. 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. His, in many ways, bad present promises a wonderful future.” (116). This view of Pechorin stemmed from Belinsky’s deep faith in the triumph of truth and reason, as well as from the confidence that the progressive people of the 40s would be able to find ways to a free and healthy social system.

EXAMINATION TICKET No. 13.

Mikhail Lermontov combined rare talents: masterly versification and skill as a prose writer. His novel is known no less than his lyrics and drama, and maybe even more, because in “Hero of Our Time” the author reflected the illness of an entire generation, the historical features of his era and the psychologism of the romantic hero, who became the voice of his time and an original manifestation of Russian romanticism .

The creation of the novel “A Hero of Our Time” is shrouded in mystery. There is not a single documentary evidence of the exact date of the beginning of writing this work. In his notes and letters the writer is silent about this. It is generally accepted that the completion of work on the book dates back to 1838.

The first were “Bela” and “Taman”. The date of publication of these chapters is 1839. They, as independent stories, were published in the literary magazine Otechestvennye zapiski and were in great demand among readers. In February 1840, “Fatalist” appears, at the end of which the editors promise the imminent release of Lermontov’s entire book. The author completed the chapters “Maksim Maksimych” and “Princess Mary” and in May of the same year published the novel “A Hero of Our Time”. Later, he published his work again, but with a “preface”, in which he gave a kind of rebuff to criticism.

Initially M.Yu. Lermontov did not conceive this text as something holistic. These were a kind of travel notes, with their own history, which were inspired by the Caucasus. Only after the success of the stories in Otechestvennye zapiski did the writer add 2 more chapters and connect all the parts with a common plot. It should be noted that the writer visited the Caucasus very often, since his health was poor since childhood, and his grandmother, fearing the death of her grandson, often brought him to the mountains.

Meaning of the name

The title already brings the reader up to date, revealing the true intentions of the artist. Lermontov foresaw from the very beginning that critics would consider his work a personal revelation or banal fiction. Therefore, he decided to immediately outline the essence of the book. The meaning of the title of the novel “A Hero of Our Time” is to state the theme of the work - the image of a typical representative of the 30s of the 19th century. The work is dedicated not to the personal drama of some fictional character, but to what an entire generation felt. Grigory Pechorin absorbed all the subtle, but authentic for young people of that era, characteristics that make it possible to understand the atmosphere and tragedy of the personality of that time.

What is the book about?

In the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov tells the story of the life of Grigory Pechorin. He is a nobleman and an officer, we first learn about him “from the lips” of Maxim Maksimych in the chapter “Bela”. The old soldier told the reader about the eccentricity of his young friend: he always achieves his goals, no matter what the cost, but is not afraid of public condemnation and even more serious consequences. Having kidnapped a beautiful mountain girl, he thirsted for her love, which over time arose in Bela’s heart; another question is that Gregory no longer needed this. With his reckless act, he immediately signed the girl’s death warrant, because later Kazbich, in a fit of jealousy, decides to take the beauty away from the kidnapper, and when he realizes that he cannot leave with the woman in his hands, he mortally wounds her.

The chapter “Maxim Maksimych” reveals Gregory’s coldness and sensual barrier, which he is not ready to cross. Pechorin very restrainedly greets his old friend - the staff captain - which greatly upsets the old man.

The chapter “Taman” lifts the veil of the hero’s conscience. Grigory sincerely repents that he got involved in the affairs of “honest smugglers.” The strong-willed strength of character is also shown in this fragment at the moment of the fight in the boat with Ondine. Our hero is inquisitive and does not want to remain ignorant of the affairs happening around him, which is why he follows a blind boy in the middle of the night, interrogating a girl about the nightly activities of her badna.

The truly mysteries of Pechorin’s soul are revealed in the part “Princess Mary”. Here he, like Onegin, who “dragged” the ladies out of boredom, begins to play the ardent lover. The hero’s ingenuity and sense of justice at the time of the duel with Grushnitsky amaze the reader, because pity also lives in a cold soul; Grigory gave his comrade a chance to repent, but he missed it. The main line in this chapter is love. We see the hero as loving, yet he knows how to feel. Faith melted all the “ice,” causing old feelings to burn even brighter in the heart of the chosen one. But his life is not created for a family; his way of thinking and love of freedom indirectly influence the outcome of his relationship with his beloved. All his life Pechorin broke the hearts of young ladies, and now he receives a “boomerang” from fate. She did not prepare family happiness and the warmth of home for the social dandy.

The chapter “Fatalist” discusses the destiny of human life. Pechorin again shows courage, entering the house of the Cossack, who hacked Vulich to death with a saber. Here we are presented with Gregory's thoughts on fate, predestination and death.

Main topics

An extra person. Grigory Pechorin is a smart, intelligent young man. He does not show emotion, no matter how much he himself wants it. Coldness, prudence, cynicism, the ability to analyze all his actions - these qualities distinguish the young officer from all the characters in the novel. He is always surrounded by some kind of society, but he is always a “stranger” there. And the point is not that the hero is not accepted by high society, far from it, he becomes the object of everyone’s attention. But he moves himself away from his environment, and the reason lies in his development, which has gone beyond “this age.” A penchant for analysis and sober reasoning is what truly reveals Gregory’s personality, and, therefore, the explanation for his failures in the “social” sphere. We will never like people who see more than we want to show.

Pechorin himself admits that he is spoiled by high society, and this is also the reason for his satiety. After being freed from the care of his parents, Gregory, like many young people of any time, begins to explore the pleasures of life that are available for money. But our hero quickly becomes bored with these entertainments, his mind is gnawed by boredom. After all, he makes Princess Mary fall in love with him for fun, he didn’t need it. Out of boredom, Pechorin begins to play big “games,” unwittingly destroying the destinies of the people around him. So, Mary is left with a broken heart, Grushnitsky is killed, Bela becomes a victim of Kazbich, Maxim Maksimych is “disarmed” by the coldness of the hero, “honest” smugglers have to leave their beloved shore and leave the blind boy to the will of fate.

Fate of a generation

The novel was written during a period of “timelessness.” Then the bright ideals of active and active people who dreamed of changing the country for the better lost their meaning. The state, in response, violated these good intentions and demonstrably punished the Decembrists, so after them came a lost generation, disillusioned with serving the homeland and satiated with secular amusements. They could not be satisfied with their innate privileges, but they saw perfectly well that all other classes were vegetating in ignorance and poverty. But the nobles could not help them; their opinion was not taken into account. And in the person of his hero Grigory Pechorin M.Yu. Lermontov collects the vices of that apathetic and idle era; it is no coincidence that the novel is called “A Hero of Our Time.”

Boys and girls received proper upbringing and education, but it was impossible to realize their potential. Because of this, their youth is spent not in satisfying ambitions by achieving goals, but in constant fun, and this is where satiety begins. But Lermontov does not reproach his hero for his actions, the task of the work is different - the writer tries to show how Grigory came to this state of affairs, he tries to show the psychological motives for which the character acts in one way or another. Of course, the answer to the question is the era. After the failures of the Decembrists, the executions of the best representatives of society, young people, before whose eyes this was happening, did not believe anyone. They were accustomed to coldness of mind and feelings, to doubt everything. People live, looking around, but at the same time, without showing it. These qualities were absorbed by the hero of the novel M.Yu. Lermontov - Pechorin.

What's the point?

When the reader first meets Pechorin, he develops antipathy towards the hero. In the future, this hostility decreases, new facets of Gregory’s soul are revealed to us. His actions are assessed not by the author, but by the narrators, but they do not judge the young officer. Why? The answer to this question lies the meaning of the novel “A Hero of Our Time.” M.Yu. Lermontov, with his work, fights back against Nikolaev’s time, and through the image extra person shows what “the country of slaves, the country of masters” leads a person to.

In addition, in the work the author described in detail romantic hero V Russian realities. At that time, this trend was popular in our country, so many word artists tried to embody fresh trends in art and philosophical trends in literature. Distinctive feature The innovative motive was psychologism, for which the novel became famous. For Lermontov, the image of Pechorin and the depth of his image became an extraordinary creative success. We can say that the idea of ​​the book is a psychoanalysis of his generation, fascinated and inspired by romanticism (the article “” will tell you more about this).

Characteristics of the main characters

1. Princess Mary is a girl not lacking in beauty, an enviable bride, she loves male attention, although she does not show this desire, she is moderately proud. Arrives with his mother in Pyatigorsk, where he meets Pechorin. Falls in love with Gregory, but unrequitedly.
2. Bela is a Circassian, the daughter of a prince. Her beauty is not like the beauty of high society girls, it is something unbridled and wild. Pechorin notices the beautiful Bela at the prince's wedding and secretly steals her from the house. She is proud, but after Gregory's long courtship, her heart thawed, allowing love to take over him. But he was no longer interested in her, because only the forbidden fruit is truly sweet. He dies at the hands of Kazbich. we described in the essay.
3. Vera is the only person who loves Pechorin for who he is, with all his shortcomings and oddities. Grigory once loved her in St. Petersburg, and, having met her again in Pyatigorsk, he again experiences warm and strong feelings for Vera. She also has a son and has been married twice. In a fit of emotion against the background of Pechorin’s duel with Grushnitsky, she tells her second husband about her connection with Grigory. The husband takes Vera away, and the lover burns out in fruitless attempts to catch up with his beloved.
4. Pechorin is a young officer, a nobleman. Gregory was given an excellent education and upbringing. He is selfish, cold in heart and mind, analyzes every action, smart, handsome and rich. He trusts only himself, he is disappointed in friendship and marriage. Unhappy. It is discussed in more detail in an essay on this topic.
5. Grushnitsky - a young cadet; emotional, passionate, touchy, stupid, vain. His acquaintance with Pechorin takes place in the Caucasus; the details of this are kept silent in the novel. In Pyatigorsk he again runs into an old friend, this time the young people have one narrow road from which someone will have to get off. The reason for Grushnitsky's hatred of Gregory was Princess Mary. Even a vile plan with an unloaded pistol does not help the cadet get rid of his opponent, and he dies himself.
6. Maxim Maksimych - staff captain; very kind, open and smart. He met Pechorin while serving in the Caucasus and sincerely fell in love with Gregory, although he did not understand his oddities. He is 50 years old, single.

Double heroes in the novel

The novel “A Hero of Our Time” presents 3 doubles of the main character - Grigory Pechorin - Vulich, Werner, Grushnitsky.

The author introduces us to Grushnitsky at the beginning of the chapter “Princess Mary”. This character is always in the game of a “tragic performance”. For every question, he always has a beautiful speech prepared, accompanied by gestures and a life-affirming pose. Oddly enough, this is precisely what makes him Pechorin’s double. But the cadet’s behavior is rather a parody of Gregory’s behavior rather than his exact copy.

In the same episode, the reader meets Werner. He is a doctor, his views on life are very cynical, but they are based not on internal philosophy, like Pechorin’s, but on medical practice, which clearly speaks of the mortality of any person. The thoughts of the young officer and the doctor are similar, which sparks friendship between them. The doctor, like Gregory, is a skeptic, and his skepticism is much stronger than Pechorinsky. The same cannot be said about his cynicism, which is only “in words.” The hero treats people quite coldly, he lives by the principle “what if you die tomorrow,” and in communicating with those around him he acts as a patron. He often has in his hands the “cards” of a person, the layout of which is done by him, because he is responsible for the patient’s life. In the same way, Gregory plays with the destinies of people, but also puts his life on the line.

Problems

• The problem of finding the meaning of life. Throughout the entire novel, Grigory Pechorin seeks answers to the questions of existence. The hero feels that he has not achieved something high, but the question is, what? He tries to fill his life with interesting moments and intriguing acquaintances, to experience the full range of his capabilities, and in these pursuits of self-knowledge he destroys other people, therefore he loses the value of his own existence and wastes the allotted time in vain.
• The problem of happiness. Pechorin will write in his journal that pleasure and a real feeling of happiness are intense pride. He does not accept easy accessibility. Despite the fact that he has all the aspects to satiate his pride, he is unhappy, so the hero embarks on all sorts of adventures, hoping at least this time to amuse his pride enough to become happy. But he becomes only satisfied, and then not for long. True harmony and joy elude him, since Gregory is cut off from creative activity by circumstances and does not see the value in life, as well as the opportunity to prove himself and bring benefit to society.
• The problem of immorality. Grigory Pechorin was too zealous a cynic and an egoist to stop himself from playing with human lives. We see the hero’s constant thoughts, he analyzes every action. But he finds that he is incapable of either love happiness or strong long-term friendship. His soul is filled with mistrust, nihilism and fatigue.
• Social issues. For example, the problem of an unjust political system is obvious. Through his hero M.Yu. Lermontov conveys an important message to his descendants: personality does not develop under conditions of constant restrictions and harsh despotic power. The writer does not judge Pechorin, his goal is to show that he became such under the influence of the time in which he was born. In a country with a huge number of unresolved social issues, such phenomena are not uncommon.

Composition

The stories in the novel “A Hero of Our Time” are not arranged in chronological order. This was done in order to more deeply reveal the image of Grigory Pechorin.

So, in “Bel” the story is told on behalf of Maxim Maksimych, the staff captain gives his assessment of the young officer, describes their relationship, events in the Caucasus, revealing one part of his friend’s soul. In “Maksim Maksimych” the narrator is an officer, in a conversation with whom the old soldier remembered Bela. Here we receive descriptions of the hero’s appearance, since we see him through the eyes of a stranger, who, naturally, first encounters the “shell”. In “Taman”, “Princess Mary” and “Fatalist” Gregory himself talks about himself - these are his travel notes. These chapters describe in detail his mental upheavals, his thoughts, feelings and desires, we see why and how he comes to certain actions.

It is interesting that the novel begins with a story about events in the Caucasus and ends there - a ring composition. The author first shows us the assessment of the hero through the eyes of others, and then reveals the features of the structure of the soul and mind, found as a result of introspection. The stories are arranged not in chronological, but in psychological order.

Psychologism

Lermontov opens readers' eyes to the inner components of the human soul, masterfully analyzing personality. With an unusual composition, a change of narrator, and double heroes, the author reveals the mysteries of the hero’s innermost inner world. This is called psychologism: the narrative is aimed at depicting a person, not an event or phenomenon. The emphasis shifts from the action to the one who performs it and to why and why he does it.

Lermontov considered the timid silence of people frightened by the consequences of the Decembrist uprising to be a misfortune of the early 19th century. Many were dissatisfied, but they endured more than one insult. Some suffered patiently, while others were not even aware of their misfortunes. In Grigory Pechorin, the writer embodied the tragedy of the soul: the lack of realization of one’s ambitions and the unwillingness to fight for it. The new generation became disillusioned with the state, with society, with themselves, but did not even try to change anything for the better.

Contemporaries admired the immense talent of M.Yu. Lermontov, who in his youth managed to create such a complex and interesting novel as "Hero of Our Time". The actions that unfold in this work take place at a turning point for Russian society; the defeat of the Decembrists is called one of the dramatic moments in Russian history.

“A Hero of Our Time” absorbs the circumstances in which people of that era found themselves, and Lermontov skillfully shows how the personality of one person experiences the changes taking place and how it is transformed.

Romantic beginning in the novel “A Hero of Our Time”

The romantic beginning in the novel “A Hero of Our Time” echoes the lyrics of the poet Lermontov, whose poems talked about loneliness and sadness, about the trials that he goes through human soul, forced to exist in certain conditions.

Disappointment and loss are the constant companions of the hero of Lermontov's lyrics, and they also accompany the main character of the novel Pechorin. He experiences disappointment in love when the Circassian Bella dies absurdly, he reflects that it is impossible to love forever, and to love for a while is not worth his efforts. And despite the fact that his views on life seem cynical, Pechorin still opens up to readers from the other side.

The conflict between the romantic and the realistic

He is able to experience happy and peaceful moments when he remembers the high, starry sky and when he feels the greatness of the nature surrounding him. When the narration comes from Pechorin himself, the reader can feel how closely the romantic and realistic principles are connected in the life of the hero himself - this is precisely what determines his contradictions, and the contradictions that the work itself causes.

Pechorin is merciless towards himself, he looks at himself and his actions with excessive sobriety and straightforwardness, he wants to accept only reality and does not want to deceive himself. Pechorin is an incredibly active and active person; he does not feel the need for calm and constant happiness. But still he feels immensely lonely and out of place in this world. There is a constant struggle going on inside Pechorin, one part of his personality craves renewal and adventure, while the other harshly and destructively criticizes the first.

Criticism of the novel “A Hero of Our Time”

The opinion of critics about “A Hero of Our Time”, first of all, depended on the fact that Lermontov portrayed a hero who absorbed the most obvious features of a turning point. Critics noted that the story created by Lermontov makes a “complete impression,” since the author himself wrote the novel not with any specific purpose, but with a great creative desire to speak out, to “pour out his soul” in the situation that had developed for his Fatherland.

Belinsky's opinion reflects the general opinion of his contemporaries regarding this novel. First of all, Belinsky admired Lermontov’s artistic talent, the unity of thoughts and conclusions that found their place in such a complex composition of the novel and its role in revealing the character of Pechorin. He highly appreciated the realistic side of “A Hero of Our Time,” because Lermontov does not create an ideal and untainted image of the main character - on the contrary, he portrays a real, living person who is tormented by contradictions and is not a model of ideal moral behavior.

And despite the fact that after reading the novel a gloomy feeling of understatement and incompleteness may arise, Belinsky notes that this is Lermontov’s talent and dignity as a writer. Because “A Hero of Our Time” is a story about a sad soul who lived in an era of timelessness, and Lermontov managed to portray it from the most realistic side.

Need help with your studies?