• Who is the narrator in the story?

• Where do the events take place?

• What is the plot of the story?

• Maxim's reaction

• Maksimych

• to the news

• about the appearance

• Pechorina.

1.What personality traits of Pechorin are revealed in his portrait?

• 2. What underlies Pechorin’s character - “evil disposition” or “deep, constant sadness”?

The importance of “details” in a portrait

First of all, they didn't laugh when he laughed! -Have you ever noticed such strangeness in some people?.. This is a sign of either an evil disposition or deep, constant sadness. Because of the half-lowered eyelashes, they shone with some kind of phosphorescent shine, so to speak. It was not a reflection of the heat of the soul or the playing imagination: it was a shine, like the shine of smooth steel, dazzling, but cold; his gaze - short, but penetrating and heavy, left an unpleasant impression of an indiscreet question and could have seemed impudent if he had not been so indifferently calm.

• How do you explain Pechorin’s coldness during his last meeting with the staff captain?

• Did he want to offend him or is he indifferent to him?

• What was required from Pechorin to bring joy to Maxim Maksimych?

• How do you understand the phrase: “What to do?... To each his own way”?

• Why didn’t Pechorin strive to see Maxim Maksimych?

• What is the author's assessment of their behavior?

• Why did the writer call this chapter “Maksim Maksimych”?

• What impression does Pechorin make on the reader? What traits of his character seem negative to you? What details of the text of chapters 1-2 emphasize its positive qualities?

Why does the story "Maksim Maksimych" follow the story "Bela", and not complete the novel?

Pechorin is shown in the chapters “Bela” and “Maksim Maksimych” as a contradictory personality, a person who does not know how to sympathize, who is accustomed to fulfilling only his own desires. Mental callousness, indifference, and inability to value friendship and love make this image unattractive. However, such an assessment of the image would be unambiguous if one did not notice touches of sadness and notes of hopelessness in its image. In order to understand the image of Pechorin, you need to understand his soul, his inner world, the motives of his behavior and actions.

The novel “A Hero of Our Time” is the first psychological novel in Russian literature, and one of the perfect examples of this genre. Psychological analysis of the character of the main character is carried out in the complex compositional structure of the novel, the composition of which is bizarre in violation of the chronological sequence of its main parts. In the novel “A Hero of Our Time,” composition and style are subordinated to one task: to reveal the image of the hero of his time as deeply and comprehensively as possible, to trace the history of his inner life, since “the history of the human soul,” as the author states in the Preface to “Pechorin’s Journal,” - even for the smallest soul, is almost more curious and useful than the history of an entire people, especially... when it... is written without a vain desire to arouse participation or surprise.” Consequently, the composition of this novel is one of its most important artistic features.

According to the true chronology, the stories should have been arranged as follows: “Taman”, “Princess Mary”, “Fatalist”, “Bela”, “Maksim Maksimych”, Preface to “Pechorin’s Journal”. Lermontov breaks the order of events and talks about them not in chronological order: “Bela”, “Maksim Maksimych”, Preface to “Pechorin’s Journal”, “Taman”, “Princess Mary”, “Fatalist”. This arrangement of parts of the novel, violating the chronological order, enhances the plot tension, makes it possible to maximally interest the reader in Pechorin and his fate, gradually revealing his character in all its inconsistency and complexity.

The narration is told on behalf of three narrators: a certain traveling officer, staff captain Maxim Maksimych and, finally, Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin himself. The author resorted to this technique to highlight the events and character of the main character from different points of view, and as fully as possible. For Lermontov, these are not just three narrators, but three types of narrators: an outside observer of what is happening, a secondary character and participant in the events, as well as the main character himself. All three are dominated by the creator of the entire work - the author. We are presented not just three points of view, but three levels of comprehension of character, psychological revelation of the nature of the “hero of the time”, three measures of comprehension of the complex inner world of an extraordinary individuality. The presence of three types of narrators, their location in the course of the narrative is closely linked to the overall composition of the novel, and determines the chronological rearrangement of events, while at the same time being in complex dependence on such a rearrangement.

In the story “Bela,” Maxim Maksimych begins the story about Pechorin: “He was a nice guy, I dare to assure you; just a little strange. After all, for example, in the rain, in the cold, hunting all day; everyone will be cold and tired, but nothing to him. And another time he sits in his room, smells the wind, assures him that he has a cold; the shutter knocks, he shudders and turns pale; and with me he went to the wild boar one on one; It happened that you wouldn’t get a word for hours at a time, but sometimes, as soon as he started talking, his stomach would rip from laughter... Yes, sir, he was very strange.”

Lermontov avoids local, dialect or Caucasian foreign words, deliberately using general literary vocabulary. The simplicity and accuracy of Lermontov's prose language were developed under the direct influence of Pushkin's prose.

Central to the story “Bela” is the story of Maxim Maksimych, included in the notes of a traveling officer. By putting the story of Pechorin and Bela into the mouth of the old Caucasian Maxim Maksimych, Lermontov highlighted the tragic devastation of Pechorin and at the same time contrasted him with the integral character of the Russian man.

In the next story, “Maxim Maksimych,” the staff captain turns into a character. The narration continues on behalf of the author of the novel. Here is the only time in the entire book that the author meets the hero, Pechorin. This is necessary in order to realistically motivate the detailed psychological portrait of Pechorin included in the second story. The introduction of a second narrator into the fabric of the novel adjusts the focus of the image. If Maxim Maksimych views events as if through inverted binoculars, so that everything is in his field of vision, but everything is too general, then the officer-narrator zooms in on the image, transfers it from a general plan to a more enlarged one. However, as a storyteller, he has a drawback in comparison with the staff captain: he knows too little, being content with only passing observations. The second story, therefore, basically confirms the impression made after getting acquainted with the beginning of the novel: Pechorin is too indifferent to people, otherwise with his coldness he would not have offended Maxim Maksimych, who was so devoted to his friendship with him.

Pechorin is indifferent not only to Maxim Maksimych, but also to himself, giving the Journal to the staff captain. The narrator, observing Pechorin’s appearance, notes: “... I must say a few more words about his eyes. First of all, they didn't laugh when he laughed! Have you ever noticed such strangeness in some people?.. This is a sign of either an evil disposition or deep, constant sadness. Because of the half-lowered eyelashes, they shone with some kind of phosphorescent shine, so to speak. It was not a reflection of the heat of the soul or the playing imagination: it was a shine, like the shine of smooth steel, dazzling, but cold; his gaze, short, but penetrating and heavy, left the unpleasant impression of an immodest question and could have seemed impudent if it had not been so indifferently calm.” In the second story, the author, as it were, prepares the reader for the further “Pechorin’s Journal”, because he finds out how Pechorin’s notes fell into the hands of the author.

The second story is capable of irritating the reader's imagination: what is true about Pechorin - is it an evil disposition or a deep, constant sadness? Only after this, having aroused an inquisitive interest in such an unusual character, forcing the reader, looking for an answer, to be attentive to every detail of the further story, the author changes the narrator, giving the floor to the most central character: as a narrator, he has undoubted advantages over his two predecessors, it’s not so easy knows about himself more than others, but is also able to comprehend his actions, motives, emotions, subtle movements of the soul - as rarely anyone can do this. Introspection is Pechorin’s strength and weakness, hence his superiority over people and this is one of the reasons for his skepticism and disappointment.

In the Preface to Pechorin's Journal, the author reports something that Pechorin himself could not report: Pechorin died while returning from a trip to Persia. This is how the author’s right to publish “Pechorin’s Journal”, consisting of three stories: “Taman”, “Princess Mary” and “Fatalist” is justified.

“Taman” is an action-packed story. In this story, everything is explained and resolved in the most ordinary and prosaic way, although initially Pechorin is perceived somewhat romantically and truly poetically, which is not surprising: Pechorin finds himself in an unusual and atypical situation for a noble hero. The poor hut with its inhospitable inhabitants on a high cliff near the Black Sea seems a mystery to him. And Pechorin invades this strange life of smugglers, incomprehensible to him, “like a stone thrown into a smooth spring” and “almost went to the bottom himself.” Pechorin’s sadly ironic exclamation sums up the truthful and bitter conclusion of the whole incident: “And what do I care about human joys and misfortunes, me, a traveling officer, and even on the road for official business!..”.

The second story, included in Pechorin’s Journal, “Princess Mary,” develops the theme of the hero of time surrounded by the “water society,” surrounded by which and in conflict with which Pechorin is shown.

In the story “Princess Mary” Pechorin appears to the reader not only as a memoirist-storyteller, but also as the author of a diary, a journal in which his thoughts and impressions are accurately recorded. This allows Lermontov to reveal the inner world of his hero with great depth. Pechorin's diary opens with an entry made on May 11, the day after his arrival in Pyatigorsk. Detailed descriptions of subsequent events constitute, as it were, the first, “Pyatigorsk” part of the story. The entry dated June 10 opens the second, “Kislovodsk” part of his diary. In the second part, events develop more rapidly, consistently leading to the climax of the story and the entire novel - the duel between Pechorin and Grushnitsky. For a duel with Grushnitsky, Pechorin ends up in the fortress of Maxim Maksimych. This is where the story ends. Thus, all the events of “Princess Mary” fit into a period of a little more than a month and a half. But the narration of these few days makes it possible for Lermontov to reveal with exceptional depth and completeness the contradictory image of Pechorin from the inside.

It is in “Princess Mary” that the hopeless despair and tragic hopelessness of Pechorin, an intelligent and gifted person crippled by his environment and upbringing, are most deeply shown.

Pechorin's past within the framework of "A Hero of Our Time" is of little interest to Lermontov. The author is almost not occupied with the question of the formation of his hero. Lermontov does not even consider it necessary to tell the reader what Pechorin did in St. Petersburg during the five years that passed after his return from the Caucasus and until his reappearance in Vladikavkaz (“Maxim Maksimych”) on his way to Persia. All Lermontov's attention is paid to revealing the inner life of his hero.

Not only in Russian, but also in world literature, Lermontov was one of the first to master the ability to capture and depict “the mental process of the emergence of thoughts,” as Chernyshevsky put it in an article about the early stories of Leo Tolstoy.

Pechorin consistently and convincingly reveals in his diary not only his thoughts and moods, but also the spiritual world and spiritual appearance of those with whom he meets. Neither the intonation of the interlocutor’s voice, nor the movements of his eyes, nor facial expressions escape his observation. Every word spoken, every gesture reveals to Pechorin the state of mind of his interlocutor. Pechorin is not only smart, but also observant and sensitive. This explains his ability to understand people well. The portrait characteristics in Pechorin's Journal are striking in their depth and accuracy.

Nature and landscape in “A Hero of Our Time,” especially in “Pechorin’s Journal,” are very often not only a backdrop for human experiences. The landscape directly clarifies the human condition, and sometimes contrastingly emphasizes the discrepancy between the hero’s experiences and the surrounding environment.

Pechorin’s first meeting with Vera is preceded by a thunderous landscape saturated with electricity: “It was getting hot; white shaggy clouds quickly fled from the snowy mountains, promising a thunderstorm; Mashuk's head was smoking like an extinguished torch; Around him, gray wisps of clouds curled and crawled like snakes, detained in their quest and as if caught in his thorny bushes. The air was filled with electricity."

Pechorin’s contradictory state before the duel is characterized by the duality of images and colors of the morning landscape of the outskirts of Kislovodsk: “I don’t remember a bluer and fresher morning! The sun barely appeared from behind the green peaks, and the merging of the first warmth of its rays with the dying coolness of the night brought a kind of sweet languor to all the senses.”

The same technique of contrasting lighting is used in the description of the mountain landscape surrounding the duelists who climbed to the top of the rock: “All around, lost in the golden fog of the morning, the tops of the mountains crowded like a countless herd, and Elbrus in the south stood up as a white mass, closing the chain of icy peaks, between where the stringy clouds that had rushed in from the east were already wandering, and when I approached the edge of the platform and looked down, my head almost began to spin; there, below, it seemed dark and cold, as if in a coffin: the mossy teeth of rocks, thrown down by thunderstorms and time, were awaiting their prey.”

Pechorin, who knows how to accurately define his every thought, every state of mind, restrainedly and sparingly reports about his return from the duel in which Grushnitsky was killed. A brief, expressive description of nature reveals to the reader Pechorin’s difficult state: “The sun seemed dim to me, its rays did not warm me.”

The last story of “Pechorin's Journal” is “Fatalist”. The tragic death of Vulich, as it were, prepares the reader of “Fatalist” for the inevitable and imminent death of Pechorin, which the author already announced in the Preface to “Pechorin’s Journal”.

In this story, the question of fate and predestination is posed by Lermontov on completely real, even everyday material. In idealistic philosophical literature, in stories, novels and novels of the 20s and especially the 30s, during the period of intensified European reaction, much attention was paid to this issue. The key to the ideological plan of “Fatalist” is Pechorin’s monologue, which combines the first part of the story with its second part, which deals with the death of Vulich. Pechorin’s reflections in this monologue seem to sum up the entire “Pechorin’s Journal” and even the novel “A Hero of Our Time” as a whole.

It was in “The Fatalist” that Pechorin soberly and courageously discerned the source of many of his troubles, saw the cause of evil, but not the nature of temptation: “In my first youth I was a dreamer; I loved to caress the alternately gloomy and rosy images that my restless and greedy imagination painted for me. But what does this leave me with? only fatigue, as after a night battle with ghosts, and a vague memory filled with regrets. In this vain struggle I exhausted both the heat of my soul and the constancy of will necessary for real life; I entered this life having already experienced it mentally, and I felt bored and disgusted, like someone who reads a bad imitation of a book he has long known.”

Sections: Literature

LESSON 1.
"Strange Man"

Subject:"Strange Man" ("Bela")

Target: To take the meaning of the story beyond the love plot, to discover in it the general causes of Pechorin’s tragedy

Tasks:

• to find out students’ initial perception of the novel;
• lead the children to understand the meaning of composition and its role in revealing the ideological concept of the novel;
• to interest them in the romantic plot of the story “Bela” and the personality of a strange man - Pechorin.

Concept: Analysis of the story “Bela” is interesting for students, as they are captivated by the dramatic story of Pechorin’s love for a Circassian woman and sympathize with her. The purpose of the lesson is to take the meaning of the story beyond the love plot, to discover in it the general causes of Pechorin’s tragedy. During the lesson it is necessary to show Pechorin in his relationship with the highlanders and Maxim Maksimych. First, let’s find out the students’ attitude towards the heroes of the story by conducting oral verbal drawings or looking at illustrations by Serov, Vrubel, Repin. The charm of the mountain people, their integrity, strength of feelings, courage and naturalness in resolving the question of why Pechorin wants to get closer to them.

For Pechorin, love for Bela is not a whim of a spoiled heart, but an attempt to return to the world of sincere feelings of “children of nature.” Why did this attempt fail? Why does Pechorin admire Bela and achieve her love? Was it possible to foresee the tragic outcome from the beginning of Pechorin’s relationship with Belaya? What role do landscapes play in this anticipation of events by the reader? Who is to blame for Bela's death? Resolving these questions in conversation leads to the central question of the lesson: who is Pechorin - the culprit or the victim of the tragedy?

We re-read Pechorin’s confession to Maxim Maksimych and are convinced that what the hero explains here is a consequence of the laws of time and his circle. Does this relieve Pechorin of guilt? How did he react to Bela's death? Maxim Maksimych blames Pechorin for indifference: “... his face did not express anything special, and I felt annoyed: if I were in his place, I would have died of grief.” True, in his place, Maxim Maksimych, who “loved her like a father,” went to order a coffin and admits that “he did it partly for fun.”

Then we find out what role Maxim Maksimych plays in this whole story, who he is - a sympathetic witness or a direct participant in what is happening. The idea of ​​introducing Pechorin to Bela belongs to Maxim Maksimych. Sympathizing with the kindness of his heart for the “thin, white” officer “with great oddities,” Maxim Maksimych wants to entertain him and takes him to the prince’s wedding. At the same time, he “had his own thing on his mind,” he wanted to change Pechorin’s opinion about the Circassian women with this meeting with Bela.

Maxim Maksimych’s good impulse turns into disaster precisely because he is not used to thinking about the consequences of his actions. Sometimes he blames himself for this: “I will never forgive myself for one thing: the devil pulled me, having arrived at the fortress, to retell to Grigory Alexandrovich everything that I heard while sitting behind the fence; he laughed - so cunning! “And I thought of something myself.” Maxim Maksimych's spontaneity fails him, as does his kindness: without wanting it, he suggests to Pechorin a method for kidnapping Bela. Maxim Maksimych is honest and sensitive, he understands that Bela’s kidnapping is “a bad thing,” but he is unable to prove that he is right to Pechorin.

Pechorin is shown here in the most unfavorable light: he achieves Bela without risking anything, the intricacies of the mind replace courage. A kidnapping committed by the wrong hands is bad, but Maxim Maksimych is unable to explain it and can only reproach Pechorin, who constantly puts him “in a dead end.” We read their dialogue in their faces and pay attention to the strangeness of Maxim Maksimych’s first arguments: “You did an act for which I can also be responsible.” Taking care of yourself at such a moment least of all indicates kindness, just as the difference between the official and intimate tone in Maxim Maksimych’s remarks indicates the lack of integrity of his position.

The good of Maxim Maksimych cannot resist the evil that Pechorin commits. Moreover, Maxim Maksimych, unwittingly drawn into the duel that is going on between Bela and Pechorin, teases him and, as a player, agrees to the bet. On another occasion, speaking about Maxim Maksimych’s attitude towards the mountaineers, the author will note: “I was involuntarily struck by the ability of a Russian person to apply himself to the customs of those peoples among whom he happens to live; I don’t know whether this property of the mind is worthy of blame or praise, only it proves its incredible flexibility and the presence of this clear common sense, which forgives evil wherever it sees its necessity or the impossibility of its destruction.”

So, the kindness, spontaneity, and honesty of Maxim Maksimych turn out to be clearly insufficient to resist evil or at least understand the meaning of the perpetrator. At the same time, loving Pechorin, Maxim Maksimych is not able to help him, to understand his tragedy: “Tell me, please,” the staff captain continued, turning to me, “it seems that you were in the capital, and recently: was it really Are all the youth there like that?” I answered that there are many people who say the same thing; that there are probably those who are telling the truth... and that today those who are really bored the most are trying to hide this misfortune as a vice. The staff captain did not understand these subtleties, shook his head and smiled slyly:

And that's it, tea, the French have introduced a fashion for being bored?

No, the British.

Yeah, that’s what!..” He answered, “but they were always notorious drunkards!”

Maxim Maksimych's limitations not only coexist with his kindness, but undermines it and counteracts it.

At the end of the lesson, we introduce the students to Belinsky’s point of view on Maxim Maksimych and invite them to answer the question at home whether the conclusion of the story is serious or ironic: “Do we recognize, however, that Maxim Maksimych is a person worthy of respect? If you admit this, then I will be fully rewarded for my perhaps too long story.”

The highlighting of the relationship to the staff captain in the last lines of the story emphasizes that for the author of the novel, the meaning of the story does not boil down to the story of Bela. At home, we instruct students to read the textbook articles: “Features of the depiction of the nature of the Caucasus and the life of the highlanders,” “Kazbich and Azamat,” “Bela,” “Pechorin and the Highlanders” - and for one of the articles, select facts in the novel confirming the characteristics of the heroes that are given in textbook. In addition, we instruct students to re-read the second part of the novel and answer the question: “An evil disposition” or “deep, constant sadness” underlies Pechorin’s character?

Lesson structure:

Educational problem situations:

Exposition

The year was 1840. M. Yu. Lermontov’s novel “A Hero of Our Time” is published. Accusations rained down on the author:

• “slandered an entire generation. It is immoral to call such a person a hero”;
• “We declare,” others shouted, offended by the author of the novel, “Pechorin is a portrait of Lermontov himself.”

All these contradictory and unfair responses forced Lermontov to write a preface, where he rejected incorrect interpretations and revealed his attitude: “... There is more truth in it than you wanted.”

So, we will begin to study this novel, we will try with you in this and the following lessons to unravel the mysteries of the work, to reveal its intention. But first, let's talk about the introduction to the novel.

Expressive reading.

Teacher of the preface to the novel.

How do you understand the critics' statements? Which hero did you meet? What impression did he make on you?

I learning situation.

Who is Pechorin - the culprit or the victim of the tragedy?

Belinsky said about Pechorin: “This is the Onegin of our time, the hero of our time. Their dissimilarity is much less than the distance between Onega and Pechora.” Herzen also called Pechorin “Onegin’s younger brother.” ( This material will help you write competently on the topic The image and character of Pechorin in the novel A Hero of Our Time. A summary does not make it possible to understand the full meaning of the work, so this material will be useful for a deep understanding of the work of writers and poets, as well as their novels, stories, short stories, plays, and poems.) Indeed, there are many similarities between Pechorin and Onegin. Both of them are representatives of secular society. There is a lot in common in the history of their youth: at first the same pursuit of secular pleasures, then the same disappointment in them, the same attempt to engage in science, reading books and a cooling towards them, the same boredom that possesses them. Just like Onegin, Pechorin stands above the noble environment around him. Both of them are typical representatives of thinking people of their time, critical of life and people.

But that's where the similarities end. Pechorin is a different person than Onegin in his spiritual make-up; he lives in different socio-political conditions.

Onegin lived in the 20s, before the Decembrist uprising, at a time of socio-political revival. Pechorin is a man of the 30s, a time of rampant reaction, when the Decembrists were defeated, and revolutionary democrats had not yet appeared as a mass figure. Onegin could have gone to the Decembrists (which is what Pushkin thought to show in the tenth chapter of the novel), Pechorin was deprived of such an opportunity. That is why Belinsky said that “Onegin is bored, Pechorin is deeply suffering.” Pechorin's situation is all the more tragic because he is by nature more gifted and deeper than Onegin.

Pechorin's natural talent is strikingly striking to the readers of the novel, who see in him a hero far superior to other characters. This talent is manifested in Pechorin’s deep mind, strong passions and steely will. Pechorin's sharp mind allows him to correctly judge people, about life, and be critical of himself. The characteristics he gives to people are accurate and to the point. Pechorin’s heart is capable of feeling deeply and strongly, although outwardly he remains calm, for “the fullness and depth of feelings and thoughts does not allow wild impulses.”

Pechorin is a strong, strong-willed nature, thirsty for activity.

But for all his talent and wealth of spiritual powers, he, according to his own fair definition, is a “moral cripple.” His character and all his behavior are extremely contradictory.

This inconsistency is clearly reflected in his appearance, which, like all people, according to Lermontov, reflects the inner appearance of a person. Drawing a portrait of Pechorin, the poet persistently emphasizes the oddities of his hero. Pechorin's eyes "did not laugh when he laughed." Lermontov says: “This is a sign of either an evil disposition, or deep, constant sadness...” The “gasp” from him was short, but insightful and heavy, leaving behind the unpleasant impression of an indiscreet question and could have seemed impudent if it had not been so indifferently calm." Pechorin's gait "was careless and lazy, but I noticed that he did not wave his arms - a sure sign of some secrecy of character." On the one hand, Pechorin has a “strong build,” on the other, “nervous weakness.” Pechorin is about 30 years old, and “there is something childish in his smile.”

Maxim Maksimych was also amazed at Pechorin’s oddities, the contradictions in his character: “In the rain, in the cold, hunting all day; everyone will be cold and tired, but nothing to him. And another time he sits in his room, smells the wind, assures him that he has a cold; knock on the shutter, he will tremble and turn pale, but with me he went to hunt a wild boar one on one...”

This inconsistency of Pechorin is revealed in the novel in its entirety, revealing, according to Lermontov’s definition, the “disease” of the generation of that time.

“My whole life,” Pechorin himself points out, “was only a chain of sad and unsuccessful contradictions to my heart or mind.” How do they manifest themselves?

Firstly, in his attitude to life. On the one hand, Pechorin is a skeptic, a disappointed person who lives “out of curiosity,” on the other hand, he has a huge thirst for life and activity.

Secondly, rationality struggles with the demands of feelings, mind and heart. Pechorin says: “For a long time I have been living not with my heart, but with my head. I weigh and examine my own passions and actions with strict curiosity, but without participation.” But Pechorin has a warm heart, capable of understanding and loving nature. From contact with her - “Whatever grief lies in the heart,” he says, “no matter what anxiety the thought torments, everything will dissipate in a minute, the soul will become light.”

The contradictions in Pechorin’s nature are also reflected in his attitude towards women. He himself explains his attention to women and the desire to achieve their love by the need of his ambition, which, according to his definition, “is nothing more than a thirst for power, and my first pleasure,” he says further, “is to subordinate to my will everything that I surrounds: to arouse feelings of love, devotion and fear - isn’t this the first sign and the greatest triumph of power?”

But Pechorin is not such a heartless egoist. He is capable of deep love. His attitude towards Vera tells us this. Having received her last letter, Pechorin, “like crazy, jumped out onto the porch, jumped on his Circassian... and set off at full speed, on the road to Pyatigorsk... One minute, one more minute to see her, say goodbye, shake her hand. .. Given the possibility of losing her forever,” he writes, “Faith became dearer to me than anything in the world - dearer than life, honor, happiness!” Left without a horse in the steppe, he “fell on the wet grass and cried like a child.”

This inconsistency does not allow Pechorin to live a full life. With a bitter feeling, he regards himself as a “moral cripple” whose better half of his soul has “dried up, evaporated, died.”

On the eve of the duel, recalling his entire past life, Pechorin thought about the question: why did he live, for what purpose was he born? Answering this question, he writes in his diary: “Oh, it’s true, she existed and, it’s true, I had a high purpose, because I feel immense strength in my soul.” But Pechorin did not find this “high purpose” of his, did not find activity worthy of his “immense strength.” He spends his rich energies on actions unworthy of him: he destroys the lives of “honest smugglers”, kidnaps Bela, achieves Mary’s love and refuses it, kills Grushnitsky. He brings grief or even death to everyone with whom he comes into contact: Bela and Grushnitsky are dead, Vera and Mary are unhappy, Maxim Maksimych is saddened to the depths of his soul: his dry meeting with Pechorin made the poor old man suffer and doubt the possibility of sincere, friendly relations between people.

Here it is, the most terrible contradiction: “immense powers of the soul” - and petty actions unworthy of Pechorin; he strives to “love the whole world” - and brings people only evil and misfortune; the presence of noble, high aspirations - and small feelings that dominate the soul; a thirst for the fullness of life - and complete hopelessness, awareness of one’s doom.

Who is to blame for the fact that Pechorin has turned into a “smart useless person”, into an extra person? Pechorin himself answers this question like this: “My soul is spoiled by the light,” that is, by the secular society in which he lived and from which he could not escape. “My colorless youth passed in a struggle with myself and the world; Fearing ridicule, I buried my best feelings in the depths of my heart: they died there.”

But the point here is not only in noble society. In the 1920s, the Decembrists also left this society. The fact is that Pechorin is a man of the 30s, a typical hero of his time.

Pechorin Grigory Alexandrovich- the main character of the novel. His character was formed in the atmosphere of high society, which makes him similar to the hero of the novel “Eugene Onegin”. But the vanity and immorality of society “with the decency of pulled masks” bored the hero. Pechorin is an officer. He serves, but does not earn favors, does not study music, does not study philosophy or military affairs, that is, he does not strive to impress by means available to ordinary people. M. Yu. Lermontov hints at the political nature of Pechorin’s exile to the Caucasus; some remarks in the text suggest his closeness to the ideology of Decembrism. Thus, in the novel, the theme of personal heroism arises in the tragic interpretation that it receives in the 30s of the 19th century.

Already in the first story it is emphasized that Pechorin is an extraordinary person. “After all, there are, really, such people who have it written in their nature that various extraordinary things should happen to them,” says Maxim Maksimych. The unusualness of the hero is also manifested in his portrait. His eyes, the author notes, “didn’t laugh when he laughed!” What is this: a sign of “an evil disposition or deep, constant sadness”?

The problem of morality is connected with the image of Pechorin in the novel. In all the short stories that Lermontov combines in the novel, Pechorin appears before us as a destroyer of the lives and destinies of other people: because of him, the Circassian Bela loses her home and dies, Maxim Maksimych is disappointed in his friendship with him, Mary and Vera suffer, and die by his hand Grushnitsky, “honest smugglers” are forced to leave their home, the young officer Vulich dies. The hero of the novel himself realizes: “Like an instrument of execution, I fell on the heads of doomed victims, often without malice, always without regret...” His whole life is a constant experiment, a game with fate, and Pechorin allows himself to risk not only his life, but also the lives of those who were nearby. He is characterized by unbelief and individualism. Pechorin, in fact, considers himself a superman who managed to rise above ordinary morality. However, he does not want either good or evil, but only wants to understand what it is. All this cannot but repel the reader. And Lermontov does not idealize his hero. However, the title of the novel, in my opinion, contains “evil irony” not over the word “hero”, but over the words “our time”.

It was the era of reaction that came in Russia after the Decembrist uprising that gave birth to people like Pechorin. The hero “feels immense strength in his soul,” but does not find in life the opportunity to realize his “high purpose,” therefore he wastes himself in the pursuit of “empty passions,” quenches his thirst for life in senseless risk and constant introspection, which eats him away from the inside. M. Yu. Lermontov considers reflection, the transfer of active activity to isolation in one’s own inner world, one of the most important features of his generation. Pechorin's character is complex and contradictory. The hero of the novel says about himself: “There are two people in me: one lives in the full sense of the word, the other thinks and judges him...” What are the reasons for this duality? “I told the truth - they didn’t believe me: I began to deceive; Having learned well the light and springs of society, I became skilled in the science of life...” admits Pechorin. He learned to be secretive, vindictive, bilious, ambitious, and became, in his words, a moral cripple. Pechorin is an egoist. Belinsky also called Pushkin’s Onegin “a suffering egoist” and “a reluctant egoist.” The same can be said about Pechorin. The novel “Hero of Our Time” became a continuation of the theme of “extra people”.

And yet Pechorin is a richly gifted nature. He has an analytical mind, his assessments of people and actions are very accurate; he has a critical attitude not only towards others, but also towards himself. His diary is nothing more than self-exposure. He is endowed with a warm heart, capable of deeply feeling (the death of Bela, a date with Vera) and worrying greatly, although he tries to hide his emotional experiences under the mask of indifference. Indifference, callousness is a mask of self-defense. Pechorin is, after all, a strong-willed, strong, active person, “lives of strength” lie dormant in his chest, he is capable of action. But all his actions carry not a positive, but a negative charge; all his activities are aimed not at creation, but at destruction. In this, Pechorin is similar to the hero of the poem “Demon”. Indeed, in his appearance (especially at the beginning of the novel) there is something demonic, unsolved. But this demonic personality became part of the “current tribe” and became a caricature of itself. Strong will and thirst for activity gave way to disappointment and powerlessness, and even high egoism gradually began to turn into petty selfishness. The traits of a strong personality remain only in the image of a renegade, who, however, belongs to his generation.

The genius of M. Yu. Lermontov was expressed primarily in the fact that he created an immortal image of a hero who embodied all the contradictions of his era. It is no coincidence that V. G. Belinsky saw in Pechorin’s character “a transitional state of spirit, in which for a person everything old is destroyed, but nothing new is yet there, and in which a person is only the possibility of something real in the future and a perfect ghost in the present.”

The significance of the novel “A Hero of Our Time” in the subsequent development of Russian literature is enormous. In this work, Lermontov for the first time in the “history of the human soul” revealed such deep layers that not only equated it with the “history of the people”, but also showed its involvement in the spiritual history of mankind through its personal and tribal significance. In an individual personality, not only its specific time-specific socio-historical characteristics were highlighted, but also all-human ones.

?????? ??????????????? ????? ?. ?. ?????????? "????? ?????? ???????” ? ??????? ??????? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ? ?? ?????? ????????? ????????????? ?????????? ?????????, ?. ???????, F.M. ????????????, ??????. ?. ?. ??????? ??? ??????? ? ??????? ????? ?????????? ? ??? ?????? "????? ?????? ???????": "?????????-????????? ??? ????, ??? ??, ? ???? ?? ??????, ????? ??? ???, ?????? ??????????, ?????? ??????? ????????????? ?????, ?????? ???????????? ?? ??? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???????????? ??????????..."