What happened to Pechorin. Literary studies, literary criticism. Why Pechorin is a “hero of our time”

The chapter “Fatalist” concludes Lermontov’s novel “A Hero of Our Time.” At the same time, it is the last one in Pechorin’s Journal. Chronologically, the events of this chapter occur after Pechorin visited Taman, Pyatigorsk and Kislovodsk, after the episode with Bela, but before the hero’s meeting with Maxim Maksimovich in Vladikavkaz. Why does Lermontov place the chapter “Fatalist” at the end of the novel and why exactly this?

The peculiar core of the analyzed episode is the bet between Lieutenant Vulich and Pechorin. The main character served in one Cossack village, “the officers gathered with each other in turns, and played cards in the evenings.” On one of these evenings the bet happened. After sitting for a long game of cards, the officers talked about fate and predestination. Suddenly, Lieutenant Vulich suggests checking “whether a person can arbitrarily dispose of his life, or whether everyone... is assigned a fatal moment in advance.”
Nobody except Pechorin enters into a bet. Vulich loaded the pistol, pulled the trigger and shot himself in the forehead. The gun misfired. Thus, the lieutenant proved that already destined fate still exists.

The theme of predestination and the player who tempts fate was developed before Lermontov by Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin (“The Shot” and “The Queen of Spades”). And in the novel “A Hero of Our Time” before the chapter “Fatalist,” the theme of fate arose more than once. Maxim Maksimovich speaks about Pechorin in “Bel”: “After all, there are, really, such people who are destined in their nature for various extraordinary things to happen to them.” In the chapter “Taman” Pechorin asks himself: “And why did fate throw me into the peaceful circle of honest smugglers?” In “Princess Mary”: “...fate somehow always led me to the outcome of other people’s dramas...what purpose did fate have for this?”

The main philosophical aspect of the novel is the struggle between personality and fate. In the chapter “Fatalist,” Lermontov asks the most important, pressing question: to what extent is a person himself the builder of his life? The answer to this question will be able to explain to Pechorin his own soul and destiny, and will also reveal the most important point - the author’s solution to the image. We will understand who, according to Lermontov, Pechorin is: a victim or a winner?

The whole story is divided into three episodes: the bet with Vulich, Pechorin’s reasoning about predestination and the death of Vulich, as well as the capture scene. Let's see how Pechorin changes as the episodes progress. At the beginning we learn that he does not believe in fate at all, which is why he agrees to the bet. But why does he allow himself to play with someone else’s life, not his own, with impunity?
Grigory Alexandrovich shows himself to be a hopeless cynic: “Everyone dispersed, accusing me of selfishness, as if I had made a bet with a man who wanted to shoot himself, and without me he seemed unable to find an opportunity!” Despite the fact that Vulich provided Pechorin with evidence of the existence of fate, the latter continues to doubt: “... I felt funny when I remembered that there were once wise people who thought that the heavenly bodies take part in our insignificant disputes over a piece of land or for some some fictitious rights!..”
Another proof of the existence of fate for the hero was to be the death of Vulich. Indeed, during the bet, it seemed to Pechorin that he “read the seal of death on the pale face” of the lieutenant, and at four o’clock in the morning the officers brought the news that Vulich had been killed under strange circumstances: hacked to death by a drunken Cossack. But this circumstance did not convince Pechorin; he says that instinct told him “on ... the changed face the stamp of Vulich’s imminent death.”
Then Pechorin decides to try his luck himself and helps capture the killer Vulich, who locked himself in an empty hut. He successfully captures the criminal, but is never convinced that his fate is destined from above: “After all this, how can one not become a fatalist? ... how often do we mistake a deception of feelings or a lapse of reason for a belief.”

It is amazing how subtly and accurately Pechorin’s last confession reveals another facet of his spiritual tragedy. The hero admits to himself a terrible vice: unbelief. And it’s not just about religious faith, no. The hero does not believe in anything: neither in death, nor in love, nor in truth, nor in lies: “And we... wandering the earth without convictions and pride, without pleasure and fear... we are no longer capable of making great sacrifices for the good of humanity , not even for our own happiness, because we know its impossibility, and we indifferently move from doubt to doubt, as our ancestors rushed from one error to another, having, like them, neither hope, nor even that vague, although true pleasure, which the soul encounters in every struggle with people and fate.”
The worst thing is that Pechorin does not believe in life, and, therefore, does not love it: “In my first youth, I was a dreamer: I loved to caress alternately gloomy and rosy images that my restless and greedy imagination painted for me. But what is left of this? - just fatigue... I have 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.”

An amazing episode that reveals to us Lermontov’s attitude to the fate of Pechorin is the capture scene. In fact, only here, at the end of the story and the entire novel, does Grigory Alexandrovich commit an act that benefits people. This act, as the last ray of hope that Pechorin will again feel a taste for life, will find his happiness in helping others, will use his composure in situations when an ordinary person cannot pull himself together: “I like to doubt everything: this is a disposition of character - on the contrary, as for me, I always move forward more boldly when I don’t know what awaits me.”
But we learn all this only at the end of the novel, when we already understand that there is no hope left, that Pechorin died without revealing his powerful talents. Here is the author's answer. Man is the master of his own destiny. And there is always a chance to take the reins into your own hands.
The solution to Pechorin's image is simple. Surprisingly, he, who does not believe in fate, always imagined himself and his lack of demand in this life as the tricks of evil Fortune. But that's not true. Lermontov in the last chapter of his novel tells us that Pechorin himself is to blame for his fate and this is a disease of the time. It is this theme and this lesson that the classic taught us that makes the novel “A Hero of Our Time” a book for all ages and for all times.

Pechorin and Bela

The author named one of the stories of his novel after the Circassian girl Bela. This name seems to predetermine the touchingness and some drama of the plot. And indeed, as the story unfolds, which is told on behalf of Staff Captain Maxim Maksimych, we become acquainted with bright, unusual characters.
The main character of the story is officer Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin, who arrived in the Caucasus for military service.
He immediately appears to us as an unusual person: enthusiastic, brave, intelligent: “He was a nice guy, only 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... I went to hunt wild boar one on one...” - this is how Maxim Maksimych characterizes him.
Pechorin's character is complex and contradictory. Along with his positive qualities, we soon become convinced of his ambition, selfishness, and spiritual callousness.
For his own pleasure, out of a thirst for new impressions, he enters into an agreement with the reckless Circassian Azamat, who was raving about good horses. In exchange for Kazbich's horse, Pechorin secretly decides to get his sister, the young girl Bela, from the Circassian, without even thinking about her consent.
To Maxim Maksimych’s objections that this is “a bad thing,” Pechorin replies: “A wild Circassian woman should be happy, having such a sweet husband like him...”.
And this unthinkable exchange of a girl for a horse took place. Officer Pechorin became Bela’s master and tried to accustom her to the idea “that she will not belong to anyone except him...”.
With attention, gifts, and persuasion, Pechorin managed to win the love of the proud and distrustful Bela. But this love could not have a happy ending. In the words of the author: “What began in an extraordinary way must end in the same way.
Very soon Pechorin’s attitude towards the “poor girl” changed. Bela quickly tired of him, and he began to look for every excuse to leave her, at least for a while.
Bela is the complete opposite of Pechorin. If he is a nobleman, a secular aristocrat and a heartthrob, then Bela is a girl who lives according to the laws of the mountains, in accordance with her national traditions and customs. She is ready to love one man all her life, to be completely devoted and faithful to him.
And how much pride and independence there was in this young Chechen, although she understood that she had become a captive of Pechorin. Like a true mountain dweller, she is ready to accept any turn of fate: “If they stop loving her, she will leave herself, because she is a prince’s daughter...”.
In fact, Bela fell in love with Pechorin so much that, despite his coldness, she thought only about him.
Her huge unrequited feeling for this officer was the reason for her death at the hands of Kazbich.
Bela accepted his death calmly, speaking only of his sincere love for Pechorin. She probably deserved a better fate, but she fell in love with an indifferent and cold man and sacrificed her life for this.
What was Pechorin’s reaction to her death? He sat calmly with a face that “didn’t express anything special.” And in response to Maksim Maksimych’s words of consolation, “he raised his head and laughed.”
Everywhere Pechorin appeared, he brought suffering and misfortune to people. Bela, torn from her family and abandoned by him, died. But her love and death became just simple episodes in Pechorin’s life

What are the reasons for Pechorin's death in the novel "A Hero of Our Time"? and got the best answer

Answer from Alexey Khoroshev[guru]
Lermontov's novel A Hero of Our Time shows a young man suffering from his restlessness, in despair asking himself a painful question: “Why did I live? For what purpose was I born? “He does not have the slightest inclination to follow the beaten path of secular young people. On the one hand, Pechorin is an officer, on the other, he is a kind of tempter and provocateur of people to reveal their hidden essence. We cannot help but see that Pechorin is head and shoulders above the people around him, that he is smart, educated, talented, brave, and energetic. We are repelled by Pechorin's indifference to people, his inability for true love, for friendship, his individualism and selfishness. But Pechorin captivates us with his thirst for life, the desire for the best, and the ability to critically evaluate his actions. He is deeply unsympathetic to us because of his “pathetic actions,” the waste of his strength, and the actions by which he brings suffering to other people. But we see that he himself suffers deeply. 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. Pechorin is characterized by disappointment in life and pessimism. He suffers from constant duality of soul. In the socio-political conditions of the 1830s, Pechorin could not find a use for himself. He is wasted on petty adventures, exposes his forehead to Chechen bullets, seeks oblivion in what he calls love. But all these are just pathetic attempts to find some way out, to unwind. He is haunted by boredom and the consciousness that such a life is not worth living. Throughout the novel, Pechorin shows himself as a person accustomed to looking “at the suffering and joys of others only in relation to himself” - as “food” that supports his mental strength; it is on this path that he seeks consolation from the boredom that haunts him, tries to fill the emptiness of your existence. And yet Pechorin is a richly gifted nature. He has an analytical mind, his assessments of people and their 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 and experiencing strongly, although he tries to hide his emotional experiences under the guise of indifference. Indifference, callousness is a mask of self-defense. Pechorin is a strong-willed, strong, active person, “lives of strength” sleep 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 Lermontov’s poem “The Demon”. There is something demonic and unsolved in his appearance. In all the short stories, 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, Mary and Vera suffer, Grushnitsky dies at his hand, “honest smugglers” are forced to leave their home ", the young officer Vulich dies. Pechorin's demonic nature perfectly reflects the contradictory nature of the human appearance in general. No matter how much a person praises himself, no matter how much he strives for good, there will always be a dark element within him that tempts and provokes him. In this case, Pechorin acts as a tempter of other characters in the novel. In each he discovers a secret loophole to vice, which leads them to death or despair. His death brings to mind the dominant desire for good in Lermontov himself. He kills his too complex and too realistic hero, although sometimes the reader does not believe it. Pechorin is alive, and so alive that sometimes we feel his presence in our doubts and seditious thoughts.

V.Sh. Krivonos

THE DEATH OF A HERO IN THE NOVEL BY M.YU. LERMONTOV "HERO OF OUR TIME"

In “A Hero of Our Time,” Maxim Maksimych tells the narrator how Azamat begs Kazbich for a horse: “I will die, Kazbich, if you don’t sell it to me!” - Azamat said in a trembling voice.”1 The horse he stole from Kazbich becomes the cause of his eventual death: “So it has disappeared since then; It’s true that he stuck with some gang of abreks, and laid down his violent head beyond the Terek or beyond the Kuban: that’s where the road is!..” (IV, 197). Wed. explanation of the sentry who shot at Kazbich and missed: “Your Honor! “I went to die,” he answered: “such a damned people, you can’t kill them right away” (IV, 208). Speaking about Azamat, Maxim Maksimych resorts to characteristic phraseological units that reflect the logic of his inherent “clear common sense” (IV, 201). Azamat, most likely, really laid down his violent head; This is exactly the kind of death this desperate mountaineer deserved: that’s where the road goes.

Pechorin, convincing Bela of his love, uses the same argument for death as Azamat: “... and if you are sad again, then I will die” (IV, 200). Moreover, here, as in the situation with Azamat, the word is capable of being realized in a plot: “I am guilty before you and must punish myself; goodbye, I'm going - where? why do I know! Perhaps I won’t be chasing a bullet or a saber strike for long; then remember me and forgive me” (IV, 200). Death in battle seems not only probable to Pechorin, but also, as it may seem, desirable. Maxim Maksimych, who observed the scene, is convinced: “...I think he was able to actually fulfill what he was talking about jokingly” (IV, 201). Pechorin's joke is ready to turn into a conscious choice.

rum of fate: with a spoken word he is able to invite death for himself and predict its nature.

Death may turn out to be as probable as it is accidental, because the boredom that possesses Pechorin teaches him to neglect danger: “I hoped that boredom did not live under Chechen bullets - in vain: after a month I was so accustomed to their buzzing and to the proximity of death, that, really, he paid more attention to mosquitoes...” (IV, 209). Hence the idea of ​​travel as a means not so much to dispel boredom as to bring the inevitable ending closer: “...and my life becomes emptier day by day; I have only one remedy left: travel. As soon as possible, I will go, but not to Europe, God forbid! - I’ll go to America, to Arabia, to India - maybe I’ll die somewhere on the road!” (IV, 210). Traveling to exotic countries is not associated with the search for new experiences, but with the opportunity to die on the road.

The attitude towards death expresses Pechorin’s reaction to an existence devoid of purpose and meaning; he draws in his imagination an image of death that is important for understanding his state of mind. This is not the romantic “bliss of death” as “escaping, liberation, escape into the infinity of the otherworldly.” Death is correlated by Pechorin with the idea of ​​the emptiness that captures his personal space and, if connected with the motive of escape, it is illusory; It cannot bring the hero any real liberation from this emptiness, unless it saves him forever from boredom.

Setting off on the road, Pechorin refuses to take the notes left for him from Maxim Maksimych:

“What should I do with them?..

What do you want! - answered Pechorin. - Goodbye.

So, are you going to Persia?.. and when will you return?.. Maksim Maksimych shouted after him.

The carriage was already far away; but Pechorin made a hand sign that could be translated as follows: unlikely! and why?..” (IV, 222).

Like the hero of Lermontov's lyrics, Pechorin experienced his own death in advance and therefore feels indifferent to it. And this indifference is dictated by the state of boredom, which is a harbinger of non-existence; where they do not return, notes are not needed. Compare: “At some point experiencing complete indifference to the fate of his diary, at the same moment the “hero of time” experiences the same indifference to his own life. And indeed, Pechorin parted with his magazine and... soon dies."4 However, these two events (parting with the notes and parting with life) are not connected in the novel by a cause-and-effect relationship; the first event does not explain or predict the second.

The narrator begs Pechorin's notes from Maxim Maksimych; reporting the death of the author of the notes, he does not specify how this news reached him: “I recently learned that Pechorin, returning from Persia, died. This news made me very happy: it gave me the right to print these notes, and I took the opportunity to put my name on someone else’s work” (IV, 224). The narrator’s reaction may seem not only strange, but also indicative of the presence of a mental flaw in someone who is able to rejoice at such news. He is glad to have the opportunity to publish the notes of the deceased, that is, “a person who no longer has anything in common with this world.” (IV, 225); however, the euphemism that replaces the word “deceased” serves as a false key to someone else’s work, since its author remains connected with the local world even after death.

Pechorin dies not at all as befits a hero who determines the unfolding of a novel's plot; his death is pushed to the periphery of the narrative - and it is said about it somehow casually, without indicating the reason and without details, as if it is not about the relationship “to the event

death"5. True, for the narrator, Pechorin’s death nevertheless becomes, if not a plot event, then a narrative event, allowing him to publish other people’s notes under his own name. As for Pechorin, the opportunity to die on the road, which he talks about, does not yet express the desire to die and, even more so, does not indicate victory over fate, since it does not imply a free choice of a random outcome of the life plot6.

Pechorin’s death is mentioned in passing, and it seems at the same time accidental, because it is not explained or motivated in any way, and not accidental, because the road is closely connected with symbolism and with the area of ​​death itself. The road plays an important role in the plot of the hero’s test: leaving the world of the living, he seems to set off on his last journey8. Pechorin seems to have a presentiment that this is really his last path, which is why he disposes of his notes in this way; apparent indifference turns (regardless of the hero’s intentions) into hidden concern for their fate. Leaving notes to Maxim Maksimych, he finally breaks off the contacts that still connect him with the world of the living (the story of Pechorin, as it is told by Maksim Maksimych himself, is the story of a break in contacts9), and predicts for himself the fate, if not of the deceased author of the notes, then of their hero.

Pechorin not only does not avoid situations in the novel that are fraught with mortal danger for him, but persistently seeks them, sometimes consciously, and sometimes instinctively. The road, by definition, is fraught with this kind of danger, metaphorically likening the traveler to an inhabitant of the other world10. Pechorin constantly refers to the boredom that possesses him, depriving him of the desire to live; he, like the hero of Lermontov’s lyrics, is characterized by the traits of a “living dead”11. The narrator, for example, is surprised that his eyes “...didn’t laugh when he laughed!” (IV, 220). He is not like the romantic wanderers who preferred an inner journey in their desire for a higher world and in their search for higher meaning

external. Plot-wise, his biographical story is structured as an external journey, while boredom turns out to be an internal illness that haunts the hero, just as an evil fate or fatal fate can haunt him; The road, the image of which is inseparable from the idea of ​​non-existence, does not (and cannot save) from boredom.

The theme and motive of murder are tightly attached to Pechorin in the novel; the characters he encounters are destined to be his potential victims. Princess Mary feels like just such a victim:

“I ask you not jokingly: when you decide to speak ill of me, you better take a knife and stab me - I think it won’t be very difficult for you.

Do I look like a murderer?..

You are worse..." (IV, 267).

Pechorin is worse than a murderer because he makes his victims despise or hate themselves. Grushnitsky does not love him, since Pechorin understood the nature of his “romantic fanaticism” (IV, 238); It is not for nothing that the insightful Werner predicts Pechorin: “poor Grushnitsky will be your victim.” (IV, 245). And the proud Grushnitsky does not want to protect himself from the role assigned to him: “If you don’t kill me, I will stab you at night from around the corner. There is no place for the two of us on earth.” (IV, 298). So de-

On the verge of death, he demonstrates the habits of a brethren that have an effect. Grushnitsky dies “by the power of fate,” which the “rival” represents for him,14 but Pechorin does not consider himself an instrument of fate and does not see any fatal predestination in the outcome of the duel.

Alone with himself, Pechorin often talks about death; The plot of the hero's trial is also internally connected with the theme of death. Compare: “Taman is the worst little town of all the coastal cities of Russia. I almost died of hunger there, and on top of that they wanted to drown me” (IV, 225). The expression almost died of hunger is a clear exaggeration, a way to vent frustration

to the hardships of nomadic life; but the vaguely personal phrase “wanted to drown” refers to the undine who really tried to drown him. Honest smugglers, “into the peaceful circle” (IV, 235) whom fate for some reason threw Pechorin, treat death with apparent indifference. The blind man consoles the undine, who fears that Yanko might drown in a storm: “Well? on Sunday you will go to church without a new ribbon” (IV, 228). But Yanko, with the same indifference, says to the blind man: “...tell the old woman that, they say, it’s time to die, she’s healed, she needs to know and honor” (IV, 234).

Pechorin, touching on the topic of death, cannot become like “natural” people15, living a natural life and not prone to reflection; for him, indifference to his own death serves as a psychological mask. In a duel with Grushnitsky, Pechorin rejects Werner’s advice to reveal the opponents’ conspiracy: “What do you care? Maybe I want to be killed." (IV, 296). However, he still does not express a direct desire to be killed; Pechorinsky may not carry any certainty. Preparing for a duel and talking about death, Pechorin takes the pose of a man who has become bored with the world: “Well? to die like that: the loss for the world is small; and I’m already pretty bored myself” (IV, 289). The whole point is a lack of understanding of his personality on the part of those remaining; It is not death itself, but precisely the misunderstanding that accompanies him during life that continues to disturb him: “And maybe I will die tomorrow!.. and there will not be a single creature left on earth who would understand me completely” (IV, 290). So he plays a verbal game with himself, which can turn into a deadly game with fate.

Maxim Maksimych perceives Bela’s death as a deliverance from the suffering that Pechorin’s likely act will cause her: “No, she did well to die: what would have happened to her if Grigory Alexandrovich had left her? And this would have happened, sooner or later.” (IV, 214). The fate of being abandoned by Pechorin for her, as Maxim believes

Maksimych, worse than death from Kazbich’s bullet. But Pechorin’s reaction to Bela’s death baffles Maxim Maksimych: “...his face did not express anything special, and I felt annoyed; If I were in his place, I would die of grief” (IV, 214). Expressing formal condolences to Pechorin, Maxim Maksimych, unwittingly, touches his hidden feelings: “I, you know, more for the sake of decency, I wanted to console him, I began to speak; he raised his head and laughed. A chill ran down my spine from this laughter. I went to order a coffin” (IV, 214-215).

Pechorin's laughter, being a defensive reaction, destroys Maxim Maksimych's idea of ​​decency; in his place, Pechorin does not die of grief, which does not mean, however, that he remains indifferent to Bela’s death. At their last meeting, Maxim Maksimych, reminding Pechorin about Bel, again involuntarily creates psychological tension:

“Pechorin turned a little pale and turned away.

Yes I remember! - he said, almost immediately yawning forcefully.” (IV,

Pechorin's physiological reaction indicates that the grief caused to him by the death of Bela has not passed.

The hero’s attitude towards death is tested and tested in situations that reveal the secret of his personality16. This secret is connected both with his ability

the ability to “combine incompatible cultural models” and to destroy any conventions that impose ready-made meanings and initially given causality on his actions. He can pose in front of himself (notes for him are a kind of mirror), or he can resort to a figure of silence, deliberately concealing his true feelings. The narrator talks about another notebook, which he plans to publish later: “...in my hands there is still a thick notebook, where he tells his whole life” (IV, 225). So the printed notes reveal

“...only a part of his inner world and, perhaps, not the most significant and meaningful”18.

We can agree: “For Pechorin, self-observation is the same process of objective observation of “another person””19. But Pechorin is different to himself in the sense that he does not coincide with himself; it is not identical to the self-portrait he drew, which could probably be confirmed by the notebook that survived, but remained unknown to readers. Predicting in his notes the possible ending of his own destiny, he at the same time reserves the right to bring it closer, delay it, or change it altogether.

Pechorin’s death completes his life’s plot, but not the plot of the novel, where such an outcome is seen as only one of the possible ones20, as indicated by the hero’s behavior in “The Fatalist”; significant update

motive of accidental death in his reasoning, which carries “specific

purely playful lifestyle." . Pechorin's desire was noted

free to “...create your own destiny by playing with death.” However, the hero connects chance to this game; his attitude to death is explained by a game, the result of which depends not so much on the intended fate, which “you cannot escape” (IV, 312), but on the will of chance, which can be ignored.

There is nothing in the fact that Pechorin dies on the road that would hint at the predetermined nature of his fate; his reference to chance is devoid of the meaning of fatal inevitability. Pechorin could have died earlier at the hands of Grushnitsky, if he had not given events a different turn with his fatal shot for his opponent. Not all the possibilities contained in the test plot come to fruition in the novel; fate only tests Pechorin's readiness to die, but as a result, chance is ahead of it. Death on the road is just such a case, left without any motivation and without any

or an explanation, because there was no fatal need for Pechorin to die.

Pechorin’s ignorance of the purpose of his birth hardly indicates “absolute indifference to him on the part of fate” and that the hero’s death “...will be, just like his birth, devoid of any meaning.”

la". Another thing is that the purpose of birth really represents an insoluble problem for him, which he tries to understand by starting to write a diary: “...why did I live? For what purpose was I born?..” (IV, 289). Revealing the temporality of Pechorin as a biographical person, death gives a special semantic dimension to his diary, which turns out to be

a form of struggle against non-existence. Compare: “...thinking about imminent and possible death, I think about only myself; others don’t do this either.<.>There are two people in me: one lives in the full sense of the word, the other thinks and judges it; the first, perhaps, in an hour will say goodbye to you and the world forever, and the second. second." (IV, 292).

Thoughts about death are connected in Pechorin’s mind with thoughts about his own duality; the physical departure from life of someone who lives in the full sense of the word does not mean the disappearance of someone who thinks and judges the departed on the pages of the diary he left behind. Fate, as it turns out, is by no means indifferent to the hero if death allows him to open

eternal in his personality. Pechorin's death is not only illuminated differently (and evokes a different reaction) than the deaths of other characters, but also highlights the paradoxical combination of temporality and eternity in his image.

The death of Pechorin is the finale of the life of a biographical person, the author of notes, where he introduces himself under his own name; the deceased author acquires in the notes the status of a depicted person, not identical (or not completely identical) to the biographical person. B.M. Eikhenbaum noted the role of the “fragmentary structure of the novel”, thanks to which “the hero in the artistic (plot) sense does not die:

the novel ends with a perspective into the future" and "victory over death"26. But the fact of the matter is that in the novel the biographical person dies, but not the hero of the notes; in the notes we have before us an unfinished self-portrait of Pechorin, an autobiographical image he created. The completion of Pechorin's life plot is intended to emphasize the incompleteness of the plot history of the hero of the notes.

This incompleteness takes on an important structural meaning: “The fragmentary construction turns the essence of the character of his hero into a secret, not allowing one to imagine his biography, to establish and understand many events that are important for the empirical explanation of his fate.

psychological connections". Let us only clarify that an empirical explanation of Pechorin’s fate is not assumed in the novel, not only because of its construction. The biography of the author of the work published by the narrator cannot be identical to the history of the autobiographical hero,

which is emphasized by the functions of notes as inserted text when

“...the main space of the text is perceived as real.” Pechorin, acting in this real space, has reason to believe that he is not identical to his notes. At the same time, the construction of the novel enhances the structural role of semantic omissions and compositional inversion; it turns out that Pechorin the author and Pechorin the hero cannot be completely identified, but it is also impossible to completely separate them.

In the same way, it is impossible to give any definite (and especially unambiguous) conclusion about the regularity or accident of Pechorin’s death, which served as an external reason for a literary hoax. Compare: “The very fact of the hero’s death on the way back from Persia may seem accidental, but his steady movement towards death is marked with the stamp of tragic inevitability. Death, as it were, crowns his constant mouth.

commitment to freedom, to a way out of any dependencies and connections.” This

the conclusion, however, exceeds the explanatory capabilities of both the narrative in the novel and its compositional structure.

The story of Pechorin, met by the narrator in real space, receives a novel continuation in the hero's diary; but if the notes are Pechorin’s work, where his autobiographical image was created, then their content cannot be reduced to the facts of the life of a biographical person. The reaction to the news of Pechorin’s death reflects the structurally significant fact that “... the spheres of “objective” reality and the creative process (creating a novel) in Lermontov - in contrast to Pushkin’s novel - are sharply opposed. The hero’s transition from the first sphere to the second is associated with his death.”30 Pechorin’s death is directly related to the fate of the notes, where the hero claims that he has a long life ahead of him.

Both as the author of the notes and as their hero, Pechorin carries within himself various possibilities; completing the existence of a biographical person, death leaves a stamp of incompleteness on his notes. Commenting on Pechorin’s words about the likelihood of death on the road, a researcher of the novel notes that the hero’s phrase acquires “...a certain symbolic connotation - the assumption is likened to a voluntaristic destiny”; Since the assumption comes true, and the hero actually dies, the question arises about the cause of death: “...died because he wanted to

die? The mystery of death crowns the mysteries of life here.” But Pechorin's avos cannot be taken literally; the hero does not prejudge either his own fate or the fate of his notes.

Vulich invites Pechorin to “test for himself whether a person can arbitrarily dispose of his life, or whether a fatal moment is assigned to each of us in advance.” (IV, 307). The dispute about predestination (what is it: free choice or fate) will make Pechorin desire and attempt to “test fate” (IV, 313). The result of the test undertaken by Vulich, Pecho-

Rin predicts: “It seemed to me that I read the seal of death on his pale face.” (IV, 308). He will explain his foresight after the death of Vulich by instinct: “...my instinct did not deceive me, I definitely read on his changed face the seal of his imminent death” (IV, 311). Instinct appears here as a synonym for premonition.

The imprint of inevitable fate, seen by Pechorin on Wu-lich’s face, is not a sign of fatal predestination. Bela, dying, is sad that her soul will not meet Pechorin’s soul “in the next world” (IV, 213), but Pechorin, internally preparing for death, does not remember the other world and does not try to look there. Pechorin talks about his own death without any sense of doom, not seeing any causal connection between his destined fate and his departure from life.

life. The image of the other world, inseparable from the image of death, seems to be absent from his consciousness.

Maxim Maksimych characterizes Pechorin in a conversation with the narrator: “After all, there are, really, these people who are written in their family that various extraordinary things should happen to them” (IV, 190). This maxim (using the phraseological unit ‘it was written in the family’, meaning ‘predetermined in advance, destined’33) provides a simple explanation for the strangeness of Pechorin’s behavior on the part of a common man, a

whose vision is limited by his “intellectual childishness.” But the speech cliche used by Maxim Maksimych can hardly serve as a clue to the fate of Pechorin, whose death on the road also belongs to the category of extraordinary things.

Pechorin speaks of his inability to become a fatalist: “I like to doubt everything: this disposition of mind does not interfere with the decisiveness of character - on the contrary; As for me, I always move forward more boldly when I don’t know what awaits me. After all, nothing worse can happen than death - and you can’t escape death!” (IV, 313). The hero's reasoning is by no means

testifies to belief in predestination and contradicts the desire to die on the road: going on a journey, he did not know what awaited him. True, in his diary Pechorin convinces himself: “My premonitions never deceived me” (IV, 247). In the fortress, he returns to the thoughts of death that visited him on the eve of the duel: “I re-read the last page: funny! - I thought about dying; this was impossible: I have not yet drained the cup of suffering, and now I feel that I still have a long time to live” (IV, 290). The premonition of imminent death does not come true, but the new premonition does not come true either: Pechorin is not destined to live long. However, it comes true not literally, but figuratively: after all, Pechorin remains to live (and live for a long time) in his notes.

The novel ends on a note of dislike for metaphysical debates on the part of Maxim Maksimych, who is alien to reflection and again uses (now to characterize Vulich) his favorite phraseology:

“Yes, I’m sorry for the poor guy. The devil dared him to talk to a drunk at night!.. However, apparently, it was written in his family.

I couldn’t get anything more out of him: he doesn’t like metaphysical debates at all” (IV, 314).

Pechorin himself is skeptical about the prompts of “abstract thought”, but nevertheless avoids following “helpful astrology”: “...I stopped myself in time on this dangerous path and, having a rule not to reject anything decisively and not to trust anything blindly, threw metaphysics aside and began to look at his feet” (IV, 310). Meanwhile, the phrase concluding the novel takes on the impact of the ending, returning the narrative to the news that made the narrator very happy, and opening up space for metaphysical debates about the meaning of the event of the death of a hero of our time.

1 Lermontov M.Yu. Collection cit.: In 4 volumes, 2nd ed., revised. and additional T. IV. L., 1981. P. 195. Further, all references to this publication indicating the volume in Roman and pages in Arabic numerals are given in the text.

2 Aries F. Man in the face of death / Trans. from fr. M., 1992. P. 358.

3 See: Kedrov K.A. Death // Lermontov Encyclopedia. M., 1981. P. 311.

4 Savinkov S.V. Towards Lermontov's metaphysics of writing: Pechorin's journal // Kormanov's readings. Vol. 4. Izhevsk, 2002. P. 35.

6 Compare: “Pechorin died the way he wanted - on the way, rejecting his “destined” death from his “evil wife” as something absurd and alien to his “Ego.” Thus, Lermontov’s hero defeated not only the fear of non-existence, but also fate. And this means, in turn, his right of free choice - the highest gift of God - is fully realized by him" (Zharavina L.V. A.S. Pushkin, M.Yu. Lermontov, N.V. Gogol: philosophical and religious aspects of literary development of the 1830-1840s. Volgograd, 1996. P. 119).

7 Shchepanskaya T.B. The culture of the road in the Russian mythological and ritual tradition of the 19th-20th centuries. M., 2003. P. 40-41. See about the connection between the theme of the road and the area of ​​death in laments: Nevskaya L.G. Semantics of the road and related ideas in funeral rites // Structure of the text. M., 1980. P. 230.

8 Wed. the image of the deceased as a wanderer and the image of the path (the last path) as a metaphor for the test of the deceased: Sedakova O.A. Poetics of ritual: Funeral rituals of the Eastern and Southern Slavs. M., 2004. S. 52, 56.

9 Compare: “...attitude towards death completes and summarizes all the negative experience of breaking contacts that a person has already acquired before” (Sedov L. Typology of cultures according to the criterion of attitude towards death // Syntax. 1989. No. 26. P. 161 ).

10 See: Shchepanskaya T.B. Decree. op. P. 41.

11 Wed: See: Kedrov K.A. Decree. op. P. 311.

12 See: Fedorov F.I. The artistic world of German romanticism: Structure and semantics. M., 2004. pp. 197-198.

13 Compare: “The readiness to kill an opponent in case of refusal of a duel, to “stab at night from around the corner” (Grushnitsky - Pechorin) was often announced in the early stages of the development of a matter of honor, especially in the Breter environment” (Vostrikov A.V. Murder and suicide in a matter of honor // Death as a cultural phenomenon. Syktyvkar, 1994. P. 30).

14 Pumpyansky L.V. Lermontov // Pumpyansky L.V. Classical tradition: Collection. works on the history of Russian literature. M., 2000. P. 654.

15 See: Maksimov D.E. Poetry of Lermontov. M.; L., 1964. P. 133.

16 Wed: “In relation to death, the secrets of the human personality are revealed” (Gurevich A.Ya. Death as a problem of historical anthropology: about a new direction in foreign historiography // Odyssey. Man in history. 1989. M., 1989. P. 114 ).

17 Lotman Yu.M. “Fatalist” and the problem of East and West in the works of Lermontov // Lotman Yu.M. At the school of poetic words: Pushkin. Lermontov. Gogol. M., 1988. P. 227.

18 Serman I.Z. Mikhail Lermontov: Life in Literature: 1836-1841. 2nd ed. M., 2003. P. 239.

19 Vinogradov V.V. Lermontov's prose style // Lit. inheritance. T. 43-44. Lermontov. I..

M., 1941. P. 611.

See about the “unclosed hero”, which is “partly Lermontov’s Pechorin”, who “does not fit entirely into the Procrustean bed of the plot”: Bakhtin M.M. Problems of Dostoevsky's poetics. 4th ed. M., 1979. P. 96.

22 Durylin S. “Hero of Our Time” by M.Yu. Lermontov. M., 1940. P. 255.

23 Savinkov S.V. Creative logic of Lermontov. Voronezh, 2004. P. 213.

24 Compare: “When I write a diary, there is no death; the text of the diary convinces me that I am alive” (Kuyundzhich D. Inflammation of the tongue / Translated from English. M., 2003. P. 234).

25 Compare: “...death does not reveal our ephemerality: it reveals our infinity, our eternity” (Vasiliadis N. The Sacrament of Death / Translated from modern Greek. Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, 1998. P. 44).

26 Eikhenbaum B.M. “Hero of our time” // Eikhenbaum B.M. About prose. L., 1969. P. 302303.

27 Markovich V.M. I.S. Turgenev and the Russian realistic novel of the 19th century. (30-50s.). L., 1982. P. 43.

28 Lotman Yu.M. Text within the text // Lotman Yu.M. Selected articles: In 3 vols. T. I. Tallinn, 1992. P. 156.

29 Markovich V.M. Decree. op. P. 56.

30 Tamarchenko N.D. Russian classic novel of the 19th century: Problems of poetics and typology of the genre. M., 1997. P. 134.

31 Gurvich I. Is Pechorin mysterious? // Questions of literature. 1983. No. 2. P. 123.

32 Cf.: “Attitudes towards death are closely connected with the image of the other world” (Gurevich A.Ya. Op. cit. P. 132).

Phraseological dictionary of the Russian language. 2nd ed., stereotype. M., 1968. P. 267.

34 Maksimov D.E. Decree. op.

“A Hero of Our Time” is read in one sitting. The life of an officer in the tsarist army, Grigory Pechorin, is captivating with events seasoned with the character’s mental torment. The author created the image of a “superfluous person” in society, who does not know in what direction to direct his energy and vitality.

History of creation

The unusualness of the novel “A Hero of Our Time” is that it opened the list of psychological works in Russian literature. Mikhail Lermontov spent three years on the work - the story about a representative of a new generation was born from 1838 to 1940.

The idea arose from the writer in Caucasian exile. The time of Nikolaev reaction reigned when, after the suppressed Decembrist uprising, intelligent youth were lost in search of the meaning of life, purpose, and ways to use their abilities for the benefit of the Fatherland. Hence the title of the novel. Plus, Lermontov was an officer in the Russian army, walked the military paths of the Caucasus and managed to become closely acquainted with the life and customs of the local population. The restless character of Grigory Pechorin was revealed far from his homeland, surrounded by Chechens, Ossetians and Circassians.

The work was sent to the reader in the form of separate chapters in the journal Otechestvennye zapiski. Seeing the popularity of his literary work, Mikhail Yuryevich decided to combine the parts into a whole novel, which was published in two volumes in 1840.

Five stories with their own titles make up a composition where the chronological order is disrupted. First, Pechorin is introduced to the readers by an officer of the tsarist army, a close friend and boss, Maxim Maksimych, and only then does the opportunity arise to “personally” get to know the emotional experiences of the protagonist through his diaries.

According to writers, when creating the image of the character, Lermontov relied on the famous hero of his idol -. The great poet borrowed his surname from the calm Onega River, and Mikhail Yuryevich named the hero in honor of the stormy mountain Pechora. And in general, it is believed that Pechorin is an “extended” version of Onegin. In their search for prototypes, the writers also came across a typo in Lermontov’s manuscript - in one place the author mistakenly called his character Evgeniy.

Biography and plot

Grigory Pechorin was born and raised in St. Petersburg. In his youth, he quickly abandoned the tedious study of science and plunged into social life with carousing and women. However, this quickly became boring. Then the hero decided to repay his debt to the Fatherland by going to serve in the army. For participating in a duel, the young man was punished with real service, sent to the Caucasus to join the active troops - this is the starting point of the story of the work.

In the first chapter, entitled “Bela,” Maxim Maksimych tells an unknown listener a story that happened to Pechorin and revealed the nature of an egoist in him. The young officer managed to get bored even during the war - he got used to the whistling of bullets, and the remote village in the mountains made him sad. With the help of the Circassian prince, the selfish and unbalanced Azamat, he stole first a horse, and then the daughter of the local prince Bela. Feelings for the young lady quickly cooled, giving way to indifference. The thoughtless actions of the Russian officer led to a series of dramatic events, including the murder of a girl and her father.

The chapter “Taman” takes the reader to pre-army events, when Pechorin meets with a group of smugglers, falsely mistaking its members for people acting in the name of something great and valuable. But the hero was disappointed. In addition, Grigory comes to the conclusion that he brings nothing but misfortune to those around him, and goes to Pyatigorsk to the healing waters.

Here Pechorin intersects with his past lover Vera, who still has tender feelings for him, his friend Junker Grushnitsky and Princess Mary Ligovskaya. The quiet life again did not work out: Grigory won the princess’s heart, but refused the girl, and then, because of a quarrel, fought a duel with Grushnitsky. For the murder of a cadet, the young man again found himself in exile, but now he was assigned to serve in the fortress, where he met Maxim Maksimych.

In the last chapter of the novel “Fatalist,” Lermontov placed the hero in a Cossack village, where a conversation about fate and predestination begins between the participants while playing cards. Men are divided into two camps - some believe in the predestination of life events, others deny this theory. In a dispute with Lieutenant Vulich, Pechorin stated that he saw the imprint of imminent death on his opponent’s face. He tried to prove his invulnerability using Russian roulette, and indeed, the gun misfired. However, that same evening Vulich died at the hands of an over-drinking Cossack.

Image

The hero of his time is unable to find a sphere of application for his boundless young energy. Energy is wasted on insignificant trifles and heart dramas; society does not benefit from either one. The tragedy of an individual who is doomed to inertia and loneliness is the ideological core of Lermontov’s novel. The author explains:

“... exactly a portrait, but not of one person: it is a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation, in their full development.”

Since his youth, Grigory has existed “for the sake of curiosity” and admits: “I have long lived not with my heart, but with my head.” “Cold mind” pushes the character to actions that only make everyone feel bad. He interferes in the affairs of smugglers, plays with the feelings of Bela and Vera, and takes revenge. All this brings complete disappointment and spiritual devastation. He despises the high society in which he was born and raised, but it is his idol that he becomes after winning a duel over Grushevsky. And this turn of events depresses Gregory even more.

The characteristics of Pechorin's appearance convey his inner qualities. Mikhail Yurievich painted an aristocrat with pale skin and thin fingers. When walking, the hero does not swing his arms, which speaks of a withdrawn nature, and when laughing, his eyes lack a cheerful sparkle - with this the author tried to convey a character prone to analysis and drama. Moreover, even Grigory Alexandrovich’s age is not clear: he looks 26, but in fact the hero celebrated his 30th birthday.

Film adaptations

The star of “A Hero of Our Time” lit up in cinema in 1927 - director Vladimir Barsky shot a trilogy of black-and-white silent films, where actor Nikolai Prozorovsky played the role of Pechorin.

Once again we remembered Lermontov’s work in 1955: Isidor Annensky presented the audience with the film “Princess Mary”, in which Anatoly Verbitsky got used to the image of a restless young man.

10 years later he appeared in the image of Pechorin. All these films did not receive recognition from critics, who felt that the directors did not sufficiently reveal the character of Lermontov’s character.

And the following film adaptations turned out to be successful. This is the 1975 teleplay “Pechorin’s Magazine Page” (starring) and the 2006 TV series “Hero of Our Time” ().

Grigory Pechorin also appears in Lermontov’s unfinished novel “Princess Ligovskaya,” but here the hero is not a St. Petersburger, but a Muscovite.

The script for the series, released on television in 2006, was written by Irakli Kvirikadze. The work is close to the textbook source, but the main difference is that the chronology of actions is observed. That is, the chapters have been rearranged. The picture begins with the events described by the classic of literature in the part “Taman”, followed by the chapter “Princess Mary”.

Quotes

“Of two friends, one is always the slave of the other, although often neither of them admits it to himself. I was created stupidly: I don’t forget anything - nothing!”

“Women only love those they don’t know.”

“What began in an extraordinary way must end in the same way.”

“We must give justice to women: they have an instinct for spiritual beauty.”

“To be the cause of suffering and joy for someone, without having any positive right to do so - isn’t this the sweetest food of our pride? What is happiness? Intense pride."

“This has been my lot since childhood. Everyone read on my face signs of bad feelings that were not there; but they were anticipated - and they were born. I was modest - I was accused of guile: I became secretive. I felt good and evil deeply; no one caressed me, everyone insulted me: I became vindictive; I was gloomy, - other children were cheerful and talkative; I felt superior to them - they put me lower. I became envious. I was ready to love the whole world, but no one understood me: and I learned to hate. My colorless youth passed in a struggle with myself and the light.”

“My love did not bring happiness to anyone, because I did not sacrifice anything for those I loved.”

“Tomorrow she will want to reward me. I already know all this by heart - that’s what’s boring!”