“In post-Lermontov literature, questions of conscience became the predominant motive ... And in this sense, we can say that the first Russian prose is “A Hero of Our Time,” V. F. Khodasevich argued. Indeed, the author focuses primarily on moral problems, although Lermontov can by no means be called a moralist or a singer of virtue. In the preface to the novel, the author mockingly speaks of writers who claim this, and of readers who take such moralizing seriously: “But do not think, however, that the author of this book would ever have a proud dream of becoming a corrector of human vices. God save him from such ignorance! It was just fun for him to draw a modern person ... ".
Is it just fun? Of course, Lermontov cannot be suspected of only wanting to entertain himself and his readers. In the novel A Hero of Our Time, the author touches on the most basic issues of human existence in the world, looks into such depths of the human personality, where only Tolstoy and Dostoevsky dared to look later. And, of course, the moral issues of the novel are connected primarily with the image of the protagonist.
The image of Pechorin is still a mystery. For some, he evoked and still evokes admiration, for others - compassion and pity, for others - hostility bordering on hatred. Who is he? Strong personality, which "everything is allowed"? An unfortunate person doomed to loneliness? A victim and a hero of his time or an eternal type? By his own admission, “some will say: he was a kind fellow, others - a bastard. Both will be false."
Perhaps the main problem in Lermontov's work is the problem of morality, that is, the struggle between good and evil in man and the world. Good or evil Pechorin? "I'm incapable of noble impulses," he says, at times comparing himself to a vampire.
Indeed, his world is "I", and in order to occupy it, Pechorin starts cruel games with love and death. Fate keeps the hero, others pay for his games: Bela and Grushnitsky - with life, Mary and Vera - with happiness. Pechorin compares himself with the executioner's ax in the hands of fate, the necessary face of the fifth act of the tragedy. But this ruthless egoist, as he may seem, rushes, forgetting everything, after the departed Vera and cries, realizing that he will not see her again. Until the last minute, he gives Grushnitsky the opportunity to abandon the vile plan, and if this happened, Pechorin "would throw himself on his neck." Parting with Mary, he confesses: "Another minute, and I would have fallen at her feet." And if he is "the cause of the unhappiness of others, then he himself is no less unhappy."
It is here that the center of the moral problems of the novel. To what extent can a person consider fate to be the cause of his own misfortune, and to what extent should he himself be responsible for himself and his actions? Does Pechorin excuse that he himself is unhappy, or not? The hero himself repeatedly tries to answer this question, making his own personality a favorite subject of his observations. He knows himself very well, but why he is like this, he does not know. Pechorin, as it were, exists simultaneously in three planes of being, each of which is the arena of the struggle between good and evil: for himself in himself, for other people - in society and before God. In accordance with this, the moral problems of the novel can be considered.
The novel was called "A Hero of Our Time" by the author. Such a hero, a kind of portrait, “composed of the vices of the whole generation,” Pechorin appeared before the reading public and criticism. In the hero of the novel, many saw the symptoms of the disease that in the thirties of the last century struck the best part of the young Russian nobility and gave rise to ridiculous imitators like Grushnitsky. To Maxim Maksimych's question about the youth of the capital, the narrator replied, "that there are many people who say the same thing ... and that now those who really miss the most are trying to hide this misfortune as a vice." Indeed, disappointment and cold despair, an exclusive focus on one's own personality, the inability to find an application for one's strength in social activities - all this is the result of that gloomy era, but this is not the only thing. “My soul is corrupted by light,” Pechorin admits. Indeed, in order to survive and win with the world, you need to change, accept its rules, its system of values, which is unthinkable without losing some - and the best! - human qualities. Where love has turned into a “science of tender passion” (which the hero has studied to perfection), friendship has become a game on someone else’s pride (which is what Pechorin enjoys), and any sincere feeling is considered ridiculous and indecent, it was impossible to be (or seem?) different.
But not only light and society made Pechorin a "moral cripple." The honor and dignity of a person, willpower and a proud mind do not allow him to completely shift responsibility to external circumstances. Pechorin may seem like anyone, but what does he think of himself? The novel is structured in such a way that our acquaintance with the hero becomes closer: first we hear about him from the lips of Maxim Maksimych, then we see through the eyes of the narrator, and finally we read his diary. But even the diary, where Pechorin is mercilessly sincere, where his introspection is truly ruthless, does not give us a complete clue! Something strange happens: the hero here, it would seem, is completely frank, does not hide a single spiritual movement, and the reader is at a loss.
It cannot be otherwise: Pechorin is the most complete embodiment of Lermontov's concept of man, the most important position of which is the infinity of the individual, the fundamental impossibility of a final definition, and even more so of an unambiguous assessment. This does not mean that Lermontov's hero is beyond moral categories, but he, without a doubt, cannot be called "good" or "evil", cannot be accused or justified. Pechorin does not recognize human judgment over himself, he knows that not a single person can be so much better than him as to allow himself to be a judge, since everyone is accountable for his actions only to God.
Man in the face of God is one of the main moral problems of Russian literature, and perhaps the most important for Lermontov. Like the lyrical hero of Lermontov, Pechorin could say:
And let Him punish me
Who invented my torments.
Pechorin was sentenced by the highest court to lifelong loneliness, but this loneliness, despite its hopelessness, is tragically beautiful. The hero is a stranger to Christian humility, and the heroic struggle that he wages with fate, relying neither on God nor on people, cannot but arouse respect. And if we are trying to make a final moral verdict on Pechorin, let us be forced to abandon this intention of Goethe's words: "A true work of art, like a work of nature, always remains something infinite for our mind."
This is exactly what M.Yu.'s novel remains for us. Lermontov "A Hero of Our Time".
Philosophical problems of the novel A Hero of Our Time.
One of the definitions of the genre of "A Hero of Our Time" is a philosophical novel.
The presence of philosophical problems and the very fact of posing philosophical questions in the novel are beyond doubt.
But since the work is multifaceted and such a genre definition is by no means exhaustive, it would be interesting to trace how this problem is expressed, how its artistic solution is peculiar, and in what sense one can speak of the novel as philosophical.
There are traditionally philosophical themes in literature.
These include, for example:
1. The theme of the meaning of life. Pechorin constantly thinks about this and does not find an answer. Existential problems are especially important for him, because without answering these questions, he cannot live a simple everyday life. The futility of his own existence with extensive talents weighs on him.
2. Man and nature (see landscapes, consonant or contrasting with the mood of the hero; philosophical and symbolic landscape in "The Fatalist").
3. The problem of predestination, fate (fatum).
4. Reflection on certain philosophical "universal categories. For example, the phenomenon and essence: I constantly analyze Pechorin's actions to and from this point of view; he himself is constantly looking for a different, hidden meaning behind the phenomena of the world ("undine", for example, he sees it completely not what she really is)
One can also speak of philosophical problems of a different kind in the novel. The problem of an act could be posed as a social and even political one, but in Lermontov's novel it acquires a psychological and even purely philosophical sound.
For example, the cause-and-effect relationships of events and ideas, events and actions, the role of the intervention of fate and the share of participation of the person himself in events are constantly being investigated. Why, out of the whole "fan of possibilities, was this one realized? - quite philosophically) posing the question. Or, on the other hand, what combination of reasons led to such an outcome?
For example, why didn't Pechorin marry Princess Mary? There are a number of reasons:
a) did not love her enough (or tried with all his might to convince himself of his own indifference to her);
b) besides, he has very peculiar ideas about love in general: “to arouse in oneself a feeling of love, devotion and fear - isn’t this the first sign and the greatest triumph of power?”;
c) the old woman told Pechorin's mother that her son would die from an evil wife, and he was terrified of any hint from the woman of the possibility of marriage;
d) Vera's constant participation in the story with Mary and her pressure on Pechorin.
We see a combination of these reasons, a combination of the will of different people and / or the intervention of fate. What does the outcome depend on? “You don’t know what to believe” is the leitmotif of the whole novel: this is said not only from Pechorin, but also on behalf of the narrator. (On what occasion is this being said? Find in the text an episode where the narrator says these words.) The question of predestination, therefore, is not unambiguously resolved in the novel.
Philosophical understanding of life (and sometimes everyday), human, more or less simple or False, concepts is highly characteristic of Pechorin, because one of the main features of his character is reflection, the desire to get to the essence of phenomena. Let's say, When thinking about the patterns of human relations, he is always ready to turn the problem around, put the question philosophically, and thereby complicate everything (unlike a "simple person" who would think traditionally and superficially): happiness: "What is happiness? Saturated pride"; friendship: "of two friends, one is always the slave of the other"; love: for Pechorin, it has a direct bearing on power and fear (see the example above), etc. Note that the philosophical views of Pechorin and the author of the novel may not coincide. Text analysis allows us to see the critical attitude of the author to the hero as to the object of the image, and not to his "double".
For example, Pechorin likes to say: “I am like an ax in the hands of fate,” and we see that in each case he does everything himself to resolve the situation. (Illustrate this with examples of plot collisions with smugglers, with Bela, Grushnitsky, Princess Mary, Werner.)
It turns out that Pechorin lacks simple human humility, he is a man endowed with exorbitant pride, "superhuman" claims. He cannot even admit to himself the possibility of doing so; human feelings, like love or friendship. At the same time, he attributes the murder of Grushnitsky to the inevitability of fate, although in fact he had the opportunity not to commit this act.
It can be concluded that Pechorin's philosophy (in the sense of philosophizing, the philosophical views expressed by him) often covers the psychology of the hero, and the "philosophical problems of the novel" in itself are much broader, it includes observations of Pechorin from the outside, through the eyes of the author and reader
Thus, "A Hero of Our Time" is one of those novels where the reader is invited to actively participate and a kind of philosophical dialogue: the author through the hero's mouth, as well as with the help of epic means: (plot twists, compositionally convex episodes, event parallels) sets and solves philosophical questions, argues, expresses counterarguments, gives false, deceitful moves, distracting maneuvers, giving the reader the opportunity to get involved in experiencing and thinking about the issues that concern the author and his hero.
In this sense, the novel "A Hero of Our Time" is close to the novels of Dostoevsky,
where this kind of dialogue between the author and the hero and both - with the reader becomes one of the main structural principles,
including the principles of the artistic embodiment of philosophical problems.
Moral problems of Lermontov's novel "A Hero of Our Time"
The novel "A Hero of Our Time" is the first realistic novel in the history of Russian literature with a deep philosophical content. In the preface to the novel, Lermontov writes that his novel is a portrait of "not one person, but a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation in their full development."
Pechorin lived in the first years after the defeat of the December uprising. These are difficult years for Russia. The best people were executed, exiled to the Siberian mines, others renounced their free-thinking ideas. In order to preserve faith in the future, to find the strength in oneself for active work in the name of the coming triumph of freedom, one had to have a noble heart, one had to be able to see the real ways of fighting and serving the truth.
The overwhelming majority of thinking people of the 1930s were precisely those who had not managed or had not yet had time to acquire this clarity of purpose, to give their strength to the struggle, from whom the ingrained order of life took away faith in the expediency of serving the good, faith in its coming triumph. The dominant type of the epoch was that type of human personality which is known in the history of Russian social thought under the bitter name of the "superfluous man."
Pechorin belongs entirely to this type. Before us is a young twenty-five-year-old man, suffering from his restlessness, in despair asking himself the question: “Why did I live, for what purpose was I born?” Pechorin is not an ordinary representative of the secular aristocracy. He stands out from the background of the people around him with his originality. He knows how to critically approach any event, to any person. It gives clear and accurate characteristics to people. He quickly and correctly understood Grushnitsky, Princess Mary, Dr. Werner. Pechorin is bold, has great endurance and willpower. He is the only one who rushes into the hut, where the killer Vulich is sitting with a pistol, ready to kill the first one who enters him. He does not show his excitement when he stands under Grushnitsky's pistol.
Pechorin is an officer. He serves, but is not served. And when he says: “My ambition is suppressed by circumstances,” it is not difficult to understand what he means: many were just making a career in those years and “circumstances” did not prevent them from doing so.
Pechorin has an active soul, requiring will, movement. He prefers to expose his forehead to Chechen bullets, looking for oblivion in risky adventures, changing places, but all this is just an attempt to somehow dissipate, to forget about the vast emptiness that oppresses him. He is haunted by boredom and the consciousness that living like this is hardly “worth the trouble.”
In Pechorin, nothing betrays the presence of any public interests. The spirit of skepticism, disbelief, denial, which is sharply reflected in Pechorin's entire inner warehouse, in the cruel coldness of his merciless aphorisms, speaks for itself. And it is not for nothing that he often repeats that he is “not capable of great sacrifices for the good of mankind”, that he is used to “doubting everything”.
The main spring of Pechorin's actions is individualism. He goes through life without sacrificing anything for others, even for those he loves: he also loves only “for himself”, for his own pleasure. Lermontov reveals Pechorin's individualism and considers not only his psychology, but a certain ideological concept of life. Pechorin is a true product of his time, a time of search and doubt. He is in a constant split spirit, the seal of constant introspection lies on his every step. “There are two people in me: one lives in the full sense of the word, the other thinks and judges him,” Pechorin says.
For Pechorin, there are no social ideals. What moral principles does he follow? “Of two friends, one is always the slave of the other,” he says. Hence his inability to real friendship and love. He is a selfish and indifferent person, looking "at the sufferings and joys of others only in relation to himself." Pechorin considers himself the creator of his own destiny and his only judge. Before his conscience, he constantly reports, he analyzes his actions, trying to penetrate into the sources of "good and evil."
With the life story of Pechorin, Lermontov tells that the path of individualism is contrary to human nature, its needs. A person begins to acquire true joys and a true fullness of life only where relations between people are built according to the laws of goodness, nobility, justice, and humanism.
As you know, the novel "A Hero of Our Time" consists of stories, each of which goes back to specific genre varieties. The story "Bela" is a mixture of an essay and a romantic story about the love of a "secular" person for a savage or a savage for a civilized person, resembling a romantic poem with an inverted plot (the hero does not run into a socio-cultural environment alien to him and does not return to his native bosom from an alien environment, but, on the contrary, the kidnapped savage is settled in the dwelling of a civilized person); the story "Maxim Maksimych" is a mixture of a kind of "physiological" essay (compare with the essay "Caucasian") with the genre of "travel". "Pechorin's Journal" belongs to the epistolary genre and is nothing more than a diary-confession, a genre close to the story-confession or the novel-confession, common in French literature ("Confession" by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, "Confession of the son of the century" Alfred de Musset). However, instead of a holistic presentation, Pechorin's Journal breaks up into a series of stories. Of these, “Taman” is a mixture of a romantic poem and a ballad (a clash of a civilized person with people who are conditionally natural and primitive in their social development, surrounded by an atmosphere of adventurous mystery), “Princess Mary” is a secular story, “Fatalist” is a philosophical story built on military material.
Philosophy, plot and composition of the novel
The central philosophical problem facing Pechorin and occupying his consciousness is the problem of fatalism, predestination: is his life destiny and the fate of a person in general predetermined or not, is a person initially free or is he deprived of free choice? The understanding of the meaning of being and the purpose of man depends on the resolution of this problem. Since Pechorin imposes the solution of the problem on himself, he participates in the search for truth with his whole being, his whole personality, mind and feelings. The personality of the hero comes to the fore with special, individual spiritual reactions to the world around him. The motivations for actions and actions come from the personality itself, already established and internally unchanged. Historical and social determinism fades into the background. This does not mean that it does not exist at all, but the conditionality of character by circumstances is not emphasized. The author does not reveal why, by virtue of what external causes and influence of the "environment" the character was formed. Omitting prehistory, he includes biographical inserts in the narrative that hint at the impact of external circumstances. In other words, the author needs a person who has already reached maturity in his spiritual development, but who is intellectually seeking, seeking truth, striving to solve the mysteries of life. Only from a hero with an established, but not stopped in its development, spiritual and mental organization, one can expect the solution of philosophical and psychological problems. The process of formation of Pechorin's character under the influence of objective circumstances independent of the hero is relegated to the past. Now it is no longer circumstances that create Pechorin, but he creates, of his own free will, the “subjective”, “secondary” circumstances he needs and, depending on them, determines his behavior. All other heroes are subject to the power of external circumstances. They are prisoners of the "environment". Their attitude to reality is dominated by custom, habit, their own irresistible delusion or the opinion of the surrounding society. And so they have no choice. Choice, as you know, means freedom. Only Pechorin has a conscious choice of real everyday behavior, in contrast to which the characters of the novel are not free. The structure of the novel presupposes the contact of the internally free hero with the world of unfree people. However, Pechorin, who has gained inner freedom as a result of sad experiments, each time ending in failure, cannot decide whether the tragic or dramatic results of his experiments are really a natural consequence of his free will or his fate is destined in heaven and in this sense is not free and dependent on higher, superpersonal forces. who for some reason chose him as an instrument of evil.
So, in the real world, Pechorin dominates circumstances, adapting them to his goals or creating them to please his desires. As a result, he feels free. But since, as a result of his efforts, the characters either die or crash, and Pechorin had no intention of intentionally harming them, but only falling in love with himself or laughing at their weaknesses, then, therefore, they are subject to some other circumstances that are not under the control of the hero and over which he has no control. From this, Pechorin concludes that perhaps there are forces more powerful than real everyday forces, on which both his fate and the fate of other characters depend. And then free in the real everyday world, he turns out to be not free in being. Free from the point of view of social ideas, he is not free in the philosophical sense. The problem of predestination appears as a problem of spiritual freedom and spiritual lack of freedom. The hero decides whether he has free will or not. All experiments set by Pechorin are attempts to resolve this contradiction.
In accordance with Pechorin’s aspirations (it is here that the hero is closest to the author, who is excited by the same problem; from this point of view, the hero’s self-knowledge is also the author’s self-knowledge) the entire plot-event plan of the novel was created, which found expression in a special organization of the narrative, in the composition "Hero of Our Time".
If we agree and mean by plot the totality of events and incidents developing in a chronological sequence in their mutual internal connection (here it is assumed that events follow in a work of art as they should follow in life), under the plot - the same totality of events, incidents and adventures, motives, impulses and stimuli of behavior in their compositional sequence (i.e., as they are presented in a work of art), it is quite clear that the composition of A Hero of Our Time organizes, builds a plot, and not a plot.
The arrangement of the stories, according to the chronology of the novel, is as follows: "Taman", "Princess Mary", "Fatalist", "Bela", "Maxim Maksimych", "Preface to Pechorin's Journal".
In the novel, however, the chronology is destroyed and the stories are arranged differently: "Bela", "Maxim Maksimych", "Preface to Pechorin's Journal", "Taman", "Princess Mary", "Fatalist". The composition of the novel, as you might guess, is associated with a special artistic task.
The sequence of stories chosen by the author pursued several goals. One of them was to take the pressure off the incidents and adventures, i.e., external events, and shift attention to the hero's inner life. From the real-everyday, everyday-everyday and event plan, where the hero lives and acts, the problematic is transferred to the metaphysical, philosophical, existential plan. Due to this, interest is focused on the inner world of Pechorin and on his analysis. For example, Pechorin's duel with Grushnitsky, if you follow the chronology, takes place before the reader receives the dull news of Pechorin's death. In this case, the reader's attention would be directed to the duel, would focus on the event itself. The tension would be maintained by a natural question: what will become of Pechorin, will Grushnitsky kill him, or will the hero remain alive? In the novel, Lermontov relieves tension by the fact that before the duel he already reports (in the Preface to Pechorin's Journal) about the death of Pechorin, who is returning from Persia. The reader is informed in advance that Pechorin will not die in a duel, and the tension for this important episode in the life of the hero is reduced. But on the other hand, tension is increased to the events of Pechorin's inner life, to his reflections, to the analysis of his own experiences. Such an attitude corresponds to the artistic intentions of the author, who revealed his goal in the “Preface to Pechorin’s Journal””: “The history of the human soul, although the smallest soul, is almost more curious and more useful than the history of a whole people, especially when it is the result of observations mature mind over itself and when it is written without a vain desire to arouse interest or surprise.
After reading this confession, the reader has the right to assume that the author's interest is focused on the hero, who has a mature mind, on his deep and subtle soul, and not on the events and adventures that happened to him. On the one hand, events and incidents are, to a certain extent, “works” of the soul of Pechorin, who creates them (the story of Bela and Princess Mary). On the other hand, existing independently of Pechorin, they are attracted to the extent that they evoke a response in him and help to comprehend his soul (the story of Vulich).
The image of Pechorin
Almost everyone who wrote about Lermontov's novel mentions its special playful nature, which is associated with experiments and experiments conducted by Pechorin. The author (probably, this is his own idea of life) encourages the hero of the novel to perceive real life in its natural everyday flow in the form of a theatrical game, stage, in the form of a performance. Pechorin, chasing funny adventures that should dispel boredom and amuse him, is the author of the play, the director who always puts on comedies, but in the fifth acts they inevitably turn into tragedies. The world is built, from his point of view, like a drama - there is a plot, a climax and a denouement. Unlike the author-playwright, Pechorin does not know how the play will end, just as the other participants in the play do not know this, although they do not suspect that they are playing certain roles, that they are artists. In this sense, the characters of the novel (the novel involves the participation of many individualized persons) are not equal to the hero. The director fails to equalize the protagonist and the involuntary "actors", to open the same opportunities for them, while maintaining the purity of the experiment: the "artists" go on stage only as extras, Pechorin turns out to be the author, director, and actor of the play. He writes and sets it for himself. At the same time, he behaves differently with different people: with Maxim Maksimych - friendly and somewhat arrogant, with Vera - lovingly and mockingly, with Princess Mary - appearing to be a demon and condescendingly, with Grushnitsky - ironically, with Werner - coldly, rationally, friendly up to a certain limit and rather harshly, with an “undine” - interested and wary.
His general attitude towards all the characters is due to two principles: firstly, no one should be allowed into the secret of the secret, into his inner world, for no one should his soul be opened wide open; secondly, a person is interesting for Pechorin insofar as he acts as his antagonist or enemy. Faith, which he loves, he devotes the fewest pages in his diary. This happens because Vera loves the hero, and he knows about it. She won't change and always will. On this score, Pechorin is absolutely calm. Pechorin (his soul is the soul of a disappointed romantic, no matter how cynic and skeptic he may present himself), people are interested only when there is no peace between him and the characters, there is no agreement, when there is an external or internal struggle. Tranquility brings death to the soul, unrest, anxiety, threats, intrigues give it life. This, of course, contains not only the strong, but also the weakness of Pechorin. He knows harmony as a state of consciousness, as a state of mind and as behavior in the world only speculatively, theoretically and dreamily, but by no means practically. In practice, harmony for him is a synonym for stagnation, although in his dreams he interprets the word "harmony" differently - as a moment of merging with nature, overcoming contradictions in life and in his soul. As soon as calmness, harmony and peace sets in, everything becomes uninteresting to him. This also applies to himself: outside the battle in the soul and in reality, he is ordinary. His destiny is to look for storms, to look for battles that feed the life of the soul and can never satisfy the insatiable thirst for reflection and action.
Due to the fact that Pechorin is a director and actor on the stage of life, the question inevitably arises about the sincerity of his behavior and words about himself. The opinions of the researchers strongly differed. As for the recorded confessions to himself, the question is, why lie if Pechorin is the only reader and if his diary is not intended for publication? The narrator in the "Preface to Pechorin's Journal" has no doubt that Pechorin wrote sincerely ("I was convinced of sincerity"). The situation is different with Pechorin's oral statements. Some believe, referring to the words of Pechorin (“I thought for a minute and then said, taking on a deeply moved look”), that in the famous monologue (“Yes! That was my fate since childhood”) Pechorin acts and pretends. Others believe that Pechorin is quite frank. Since Pechorin is an actor on the stage of life, he must put on a mask and must play sincerely and convincingly. The “deeply touched look” “adopted” by him does not mean that Pechorin is lying. On the one hand, acting sincerely, the actor speaks not for himself, but for the character, so he cannot be accused of lying. On the contrary, no one would have believed the actor if he had not stepped into his role. But the actor, as a rule, plays the role of an alien and fictional person. Pechorin, putting on various masks, plays himself. Pechorin the actor plays Pechorin the man and Pechorin the officer. Under each of the masks he himself is hidden, but not a single mask exhausts him. Character and actor merge only partially. With Princess Mary Pechorin plays a demonic personality, with Werner he is a doctor to whom he advises: “Try to look at me as a patient obsessed with a disease that is still unknown to you - then your curiosity will be aroused to the highest degree: you can now do several important physiological things on me. observations… Isn’t the expectation of a violent death already a real illness?” So he wants the doctor to see him as a patient and play the part of the doctor. But even before that, he put himself in the place of the patient and, as a doctor, began to observe himself. In other words, he plays two roles at once - the patient who is sick, and the doctor who observes the disease and analyzes the symptoms. However, in playing the role of a patient, he is pursuing the goal of impressing Werner ("The thought startled the doctor, and he cheered"). Observation and analytical frankness in the game of the patient and the doctor are combined with cunning and tricks that allow one or another character to be placed in their favor. At the same time, the hero sincerely admits this every time and does not try to hide his pretense. Pechorin's acting does not interfere with sincerity, but it shakes and deepens the meaning of his speeches and behavior.
It is easy to see that Pechorin is woven from contradictions. He is a hero whose spiritual needs are limitless, boundless and absolute. His strength is immense, his thirst for life is insatiable, his desires too. And all these needs of nature are not Nozdrevskaya bravado, not Manilovian daydreaming and not Khlestakov's vulgar boasting. Pechorin sets a goal for himself and achieves it, straining all the forces of the soul. Then he ruthlessly analyzes his actions and fearlessly judges himself. Individuality is measured by immensity. The hero correlates his fate with infinity and wants to solve the fundamental mysteries of life. Free thought leads him to knowledge of the world and self-knowledge. These properties are usually endowed precisely with heroic natures, who do not stop in front of obstacles and are eager to realize their innermost desires or plans. But in the title "hero of our time" there is, of course, an admixture of irony, as Lermontov himself hinted at. It turns out that the hero can look and looks like an anti-hero. In the same way, he seems extraordinary and ordinary, an exceptional person and a simple army officer in the Caucasian service. Unlike the ordinary Onegin, a kind fellow who knows nothing about his inner rich potential forces, Pechorin feels and recognizes them, but life lives, like Onegin, usually. The result and meaning of adventures each time turn out to be below expectations and completely lose their halo of extraordinaryness. Finally, he is noblely modest and feels "sometimes" sincere contempt for himself and always - for "others", for the "aristocratic herd" and for the human race in general. There is no doubt that Pechorin is a poetic, artistic and creative person, but in many episodes he is a cynic, insolent, snob. And it is impossible to decide what constitutes the grain of the personality: the wealth of the soul or its evil sides - cynicism and arrogance, what is a mask, whether it is consciously put on the face and whether the mask has become a face.
To understand where are the sources of disappointment, cynicism and contempt that Pechorin carries in himself as a curse of fate, the hints scattered in the novel about the hero’s past help.
In the story “Bela”, Pechorin explains his character to Maxim Maksimych in response to his reproaches: “Listen, Maxim Maksimych,” he answered, “I have an unhappy character; Whether my upbringing made me that way, whether God created me that way, I don’t know; I only know that if I am the cause of the unhappiness of others, then I myself am no less unhappy; Of course, this is a bad consolation for them - only the fact is that this is so.
At first glance, Pechorin seems to be a worthless person, spoiled by light. In fact, his disappointment in pleasures, in the "big world" and "secular" love, even in the sciences, does him credit. The natural, natural soul of Pechorin, not yet processed by family and secular education, contained high, pure, one might even assume ideal romantic ideas about life. In real life, Pechorin's ideal romantic ideas crashed, and he got tired of everything and got bored. So, Pechorin admits, “in my soul is spoiled by light, my imagination is restless, my heart is insatiable; everything is not enough for me: I get used to sadness just as easily as to pleasure, and my life becomes emptier day by day ... ". Pechorin did not expect that bright romantic hopes upon entering the social circle would come true and come true, but his soul retained purity of feelings, ardent imagination, insatiable desires. They are not satisfied. The precious impulses of the soul need to be embodied in noble actions and good deeds. This nourishes and restores the mental and spiritual strength spent on achieving them. However, the soul does not receive a positive response, and it has nothing to eat. It is fading, exhausted, empty and dead. Here the contradiction characteristic of the Pechorin (and Lermontov) type begins to clear up: on the one hand, immense mental and spiritual strength, a thirst for boundless desires (“everything is not enough for me”), on the other, a feeling of complete emptiness of the same heart. D. S. Mirsky compared the devastated soul of Pechorin with an extinct volcano, but it should be added that inside the volcano everything boils and bubbles, on the surface it is really deserted and dead.
In the future, Pechorin unfolds a similar picture of his upbringing in front of Princess Mary.
In the story “The Fatalist”, where he does not need to either justify himself to Maxim Maksimych or arouse the compassion of Princess Mary, he thinks to himself: “... I have exhausted both the heat of the soul and the constancy of the will necessary for real life; I entered this life, having already experienced it mentally, and I became bored and disgusted, like someone who reads a bad imitation of a book he has known for a long time.
Each statement by Pechorin does not establish a rigid relationship between education, bad character traits, developed imagination, on the one hand, and life's fate, on the other. The reasons that determine the fate of Pechorin still remain unclear. All three statements of Pechorin, interpreting these reasons in different ways, only complement each other, but do not line up in one logical line.
Romanticism, as you know, assumed a dual world: a collision of the ideal and real worlds. The main reason for Pechorin's disappointment lies, on the one hand, in the fact that the ideal content of romanticism is empty dreams. Hence the merciless criticism and cruel, to the point of cynicism, persecution of any ideal idea or judgment (comparisons of a woman with a horse, a mockery of Grushnitsky's romantic attire and recitation, etc.). On the other hand, mental and spiritual impotence made Pechorin weak in the face of imperfect reality, as the romantics correctly claimed. The perniciousness of romanticism, speculatively assimilated and abstractly experienced ahead of time, lies in the fact that a person does not meet life fully armed, fresh and youthful of his natural forces. It cannot fight on equal terms with hostile reality and is doomed to defeat in advance. When entering into life, it is better not to know romantic ideas than to learn and worship them in youth. A secondary encounter with life gives rise to a feeling of satiety, fatigue, melancholy and boredom.
Thus, romanticism is subjected to decisive doubt in its good for the individual and its development. The current generation, Pechorin reflects, has lost its foothold: it does not believe in predestination and considers it a delusion of the mind, but it is incapable of great sacrifices, of exploits for the glory of mankind and even for the sake of its own happiness, knowing about its impossibility. “And we…,” continues the hero, “indifferently move from doubt to doubt…” without any hope and without experiencing any pleasure. Doubt, which signifies and ensures the life of the soul, becomes the enemy of the soul and the enemy of life, destroying their fullness. But the reverse thesis is also valid: doubt arose when the soul awakened to an independent and conscious life. Paradoxical as it may seem, life has given birth to its enemy. No matter how much Pechorin wants to get rid of romanticism - ideal or demonic - he is forced in his reasoning to turn to him as the starting point of his thoughts.
These discussions end with considerations about ideas and passions. Ideas have content and form. Their form is action. The content is passions, which are nothing but ideas in their first development. Passions are short-lived: they belong to youth and at this tender age usually break out. In maturity, they do not disappear, but acquire fullness and go into the depths of the soul. All these reflections are a theoretical justification for egocentrism, but without a demonic flavor. Pechorin's conclusion is as follows: only by plunging into the contemplation of itself and imbued with itself, the soul will be able to understand the justice of God, that is, the meaning of being. One's own soul is the only subject of interest for a mature and wise person who has achieved philosophical calm. Or in other words: one who has reached maturity and wisdom understands that the only worthy subject of interest for a person is his own soul. Only this can provide him with philosophical peace of mind and establish agreement with the world. Evaluation of the motives and actions of the soul, as well as of all being, belongs exclusively to it. This is the act of self-knowledge, the highest triumph of the self-conscious subject. However, is this conclusion final, the last word of Pechorin the thinker?
In the story The Fatalist, Pechorin argued that doubt dries up the soul, that the movement from doubt to doubt exhausts the will and is generally detrimental to a person of his time. But here he is, a few hours later, called to pacify the drunken Cossack who hacked Vulich. The prudent Pechorin, who took precautions so as not to become an accidental and vain victim of a raging Cossack, boldly rushes at him and, with the help of the bursting Cossacks, ties up the killer. Being aware of his motives and actions, Pechorin cannot decide whether he believes in predestination or is an opponent of fatalism: “After all this, how would it seem not to become a fatalist? But who knows for sure whether he is convinced of something or not? .. And how often do we take for belief a deception of feelings or a mistake of reason! .. ”The hero is at a crossroads - he cannot but agree with the Muslim belief,“ in heaven," nor reject it.
Therefore, the disappointed and demonic Pechorin is not yet Pechorin in the full extent of his nature. Lermontov reveals other sides to us in his hero. Pechorin's soul has not yet cooled down, has not faded away and has not died: he is poetically, without any cynicism, ideal or vulgar romanticism, to perceive nature, enjoy beauty and love. There are moments when Pechorin is peculiar and dear to the poetic in romanticism, cleansed of rhetoric and declarativeness, of vulgarity and naivety. Here is how Pechorin describes his arrival in Pyatigorsk: “I have a wonderful view from three sides. To the west, the five-headed Beshtu turns blue, like “the last cloud of a scattered storm”, to the north, Mashuk rises like a shaggy Persian hat, and covers this entire part of the sky; it is more fun to look to the east: down below, in front of me, a clean, brand new town is full of colors; healing springs rustle, a multilingual crowd rustles, - and there, further, mountains are piled up like an amphitheater, bluer and foggier, and on the edge of the horizon stretches a silver chain of snowy peaks, starting with Kazbek and ending with the two-headed Elbrus. It's fun to live in such a land! Some kind of gratifying feeling is poured into all my veins. The air is pure and fresh, like the kiss of a child; the sun is bright, the sky is blue - what would seem more? – why are there passions, desires, regrets?”
It is hard to believe that this was written by a person disappointed in life, prudent in experiments, coldly ironic towards those around him. Pechorin settled on the highest place so that he, a romantic poet in his soul, was closer to heaven. It is not without reason that a thunderstorm and clouds are mentioned here, to which his soul is related. He chose an apartment to enjoy the whole vast realm of nature.
In the same vein, the description of his feelings before the duel with Grushnitsky is sustained, where Pechorin opens his soul and admits that he loves nature passionately and indestructibly: “I don’t remember a deeper and fresher morning! The sun barely emerged from behind the green peaks, and the merging of the first warmth of its rays with the dying coolness of the night inspired a kind of sweet languor on all the senses. The joyful ray of the young day had not yet penetrated the gorge: it gilded only the tops of the cliffs hanging on both sides above us; thick-leaved bushes growing in their deep cracks showered us with silver rain at the slightest breath of wind. I remember - this time, more than ever before, I loved nature. How curiously I peered into every dewdrop fluttering on a wide grape leaf and reflecting millions of rainbow rays! how greedily my gaze tried to penetrate the smoky distance! There the path kept getting narrower, the cliffs bluer and more terrifying, and finally they seemed to converge like an impenetrable wall. In this description, one feels such love for life, for every dewdrop, for every leaf, which seems to look forward to merging with it and complete harmony.
There is, however, one more indisputable proof that Pechorin, as others have painted him and as he sees himself in his reflections, does not reduce either anti-romanticism or a secular Demon.
Having received a letter from Vera with a notice of an urgent departure, the hero “ran like crazy onto the porch, jumped on his Circassian, who was led around the yard, and set off at full speed on the road to Pyatigorsk.” Now Pechorin was not chasing adventures, now there was no need for experiments, intrigues, - then the heart spoke, and a clear understanding came that the only love was dying: “With the opportunity to lose her forever, Vera became dearer to me than anything in the world, dearer than life, honor, happiness! At these moments, soberly thinking and clearly, not without aphoristic grace, expounding his thoughts, Pechorin is confused by his overwhelming feelings (“one minute, one more minute to see her, say goodbye, shake her hand ...”) and unable to express them (“I prayed , cursed, cried, laughed ... no, nothing will express my anxiety, despair! ..”).
Here, a cold and skillful experimenter on other people's destinies turned out to be defenseless in front of his own sad fate - the hero is brought out bitterly crying, not trying to hold back tears and sobs. Here the mask of an egocentrist is removed from him, and for a moment his other, perhaps real, true face is revealed. For the first time, Pechorin did not think about himself, but thought about Vera, for the first time he put someone else's personality above his own. He was not ashamed of his tears (“However, I am pleased that I can cry!”), and this was his moral, spiritual victory over himself.
Born before the term, he leaves before the term, instantly living two lives - speculative and real. The search for truth undertaken by Pechorin did not lead to success, but the path he followed became the main one - this is the path of a free thinking person who hopes for his own natural forces and believes that doubt will lead him to the discovery of the true destiny of man and the meaning of being. At the same time, Pechorin's murderous individualism, fused with his face, according to Lermontov, had no life prospects. Lermontov everywhere makes it feel that Pechorin does not value life, that he is not averse to dying in order to get rid of the contradictions of consciousness that bring him suffering and torment. A secret hope lives in his soul that only death is the only way out for him. The hero not only breaks other people's destinies, but - most importantly - kills himself. His life is spent on nothing, goes into the void. He wastes his life force in vain, achieving nothing. The thirst for life does not cancel the desire for death, the desire for death does not destroy the feeling of life.
Considering the strengths and weaknesses, the "light" and "dark sides" of Pechorin, one cannot say that they are balanced, but they are mutually conditioned, inseparable from each other and capable of flowing one into another.
Lermontov created the first psychological novel in Russia in line with emerging and victorious realism, in which the process of self-knowledge of the hero played a significant role. In the course of introspection, Pechorin tests for strength all spiritual values that are the inner property of a person. Such values in literature have always been considered love, friendship, nature, beauty.
Pechorin’s analysis and introspection concerns three types of love: for a girl who grew up in a conditionally natural mountain environment (Bela), for a mysterious romantic “mermaid” living near the free sea element (“undine”) and for an urban girl of “light” (Princess Mary) . Each time love does not give true pleasure and ends dramatically or tragically. Pechorin is again disappointed and bored. A love game often creates a danger for Pechorin that threatens his life. It outgrows the limits of a love game and becomes a game of life and death. This is what happens in Bel, where Pechorin can expect an attack from both Azamat and Kazbich. In "Taman" "undine" almost drowned the hero, in "Princess Mary" the hero shot with Grushnitsky. In the story "The Fatalist" he tests his ability to act. It is easier for him to sacrifice life than freedom, and in such a way that his sacrifice turns out to be optional, but perfect for the satisfaction of pride and ambition.
Embarking on another love adventure, Pechorin each time thinks that it will turn out to be new and unusual, refresh his feelings and enrich his mind. He sincerely surrenders to a new attraction, but at the same time he turns on the mind, which destroys the immediate feeling. Pechorin's skepticism sometimes becomes absolute: it is not love that matters, not the truth and authenticity of feelings, but power over a woman. Love for him is not a union or a duel of equals, but the subordination of another person to his will. And therefore, from each love adventure, the hero endures the same feelings - boredom and longing, reality opens up to him with the same banal, trivial - sides.
In the same way, he is incapable of friendship, because he cannot give up part of his freedom, which would mean for him to become a "slave." With Werner, he maintains a distance in a relationship. Maxim Maksimych also makes himself feel his sidelines, avoiding friendly embraces.
The insignificance of the results and their repetition forms a spiritual circle in which the hero is closed, hence the idea of death grows as the best outcome from a vicious and bewitched, as if predetermined, circulation. As a result, Pechorin feels infinitely unhappy and deceived by fate. He courageously bears his cross, not reconciling with it, and making more and more attempts to change his fate, to give a deep and serious meaning to his stay in the world. This intransigence of Pechorin with himself, with his share, testifies to the restlessness and significance of his personality.
The novel tells about the hero's new attempt to find food for the soul - he goes to the East. His developed critical consciousness was not completed and did not acquire harmonic wholeness. Lermontov makes it clear that Pechorin, like the people of that time, from whose features the portrait of the hero is composed, is not yet able to overcome the state of spiritual crossroads. Traveling to exotic, unknown countries will not bring anything new, because the hero cannot escape from himself. In the history of the soul of a noble intellectual in the first half of the 19th century. duality was initially concluded: the consciousness of the individual felt free will as an immutable value, but took painful forms. The personality opposed itself to the environment and faced such external circumstances that gave rise to a boring repetition of norms of behavior, similar situations and responses to them that could lead to despair, make life meaningless, dry up the mind and feelings, replace the direct perception of the world with cold and rational. To Pechorin's credit, he is looking for positive content in life, he believes that it exists and only it has not been revealed to him, he resists negative life experience.
Using the method “from the contrary”, it is possible to imagine the scale of Pechorin’s personality and guess in him the hidden and implied, but not manifested positive content, which is equal to his frank thoughts and visible actions.
Any work of art is always a lot of problems. The novel by M. Yu. Lermontov is no exception. The poet tries to answer timeless questions that concern people from era to era: what is the meaning of life for a person, happiness, good and evil, dignity and honor, what place does love and friendship take. The themes dictated by the time in which the author and his hero live are very important: the destiny of man, freedom of choice, individualism. All this defines the problematics of the “Hero of Our Time”.
How can we, readers, determine the range of the main questions of a brilliant work, which of the characters will surely help us to identify them? Main character. In A Hero of Our Time, the problems of the novel are “highlighted” precisely in the character of Pechorin, at the same time reflecting both the personality of Lermontov himself and his world outlook.
Philosophical problems in the novel “A Hero of Our Time”
“Why did I live? for what purpose was I born?” - Pechorin asks this question and cannot find an answer. The futility of existence burdens the hero, vegetating is not suitable for a young man who feels "immense forces in his soul."
Trying to plunge into the fullness of life, Pechorin unwittingly becomes the culprit of the destruction of the destinies of various people. Bela dies, whose fate is broken for the sake of selfishness, the whim of Pechorin. Maxim Maksimych is offended by the callousness of his friend. "Honest smugglers" are forced to hide, the fate of the old woman and the blind man is unknown. “Yes, and what do I care about human joys and misfortunes! ..” - and in this exclamation Pechorin's individualism becomes especially understandable. We, the readers, follow how inventively tempts Grigory Mary, having no serious intentions, how he acts in relation to Grushnitsky, how he enjoys undivided power over Vera ...
“I weigh, analyze my own passions and actions with strict curiosity, but without participation. There are two people in me: one lives in the full sense of the word, the other thinks and judges him ... ”, - reading the lines of the magazine, we understand that individualism is a life program, the main driving force of Pechorin’s character, he is aware of what is happening . Longing for the “high purpose” that he could not “guess”, the protagonist of the novel analyzes his actions, deeds, moods. “I look at the sufferings and joys of others only in relation to myself, as food that supports my spiritual strength.”
The problematics of the novel “A Hero of Our Time” includes both the problem of the predestination of human destiny and the question of the origins of the individualism of the Lermontov generation. Where does Pechorin's individualism originate?
In the bet proposed by Lieutenant Vulich, the question was decided, "can a person arbitrarily dispose of his life." Pechorin, who claims that “there is no predestination,” involuntarily changes his mind after the shot, “the evidence was too striking.” But he immediately stops himself in this faith, remembering that he has “the rule not to reject anything decisively and not to trust anything blindly.” And later, tempting fate and endangering life, he sneers at human beliefs. And, as if challenging blind beliefs that deprive a person of freedom, true, inner freedom, he clearly indicates his true worldview: I know what awaits me…”
The meaning of life, the purpose of a person, freedom of choice, individualism - these philosophical problems in the novel “A Hero of Our Time” were for the first time so clearly and accurately formulated by the poet, it is for this reason that Lermontov’s work became the first philosophical novel of Russian literature of the 19th century.
The Problem of Happiness in A Hero of Our Time
Pechorin's whole life is in search of a clue to human happiness. With interest, he conducts a conversation with an undine singing his wonderful song, but the ease of relating to happiness is not for Pechorin. “Where it is sung, there one is happy”, “where it will not be better, it will be worse there, and again it is not far from bad to good”, - Gregory does not accept such a philosophy.
“What is happiness? Intense pride,” he writes in the magazine. It would seem that the hero has everything to satiate his pride: they obey his will and love the people with whom fate brings. Faith loves faithfully, Mary is captivated by his charm and perseverance, is happy to be friends with Grigory Werner, Maxim Maksimych is attached to Pechorin, like a son.
Faced with completely different characters, Pechorin continuously tries to satiate his pride, but there is no happiness, instead of him time after time comes boredom and fatigue from life.
Among philosophical problems, the problem of happiness in A Hero of Our Time occupies an important place.
Moral problems in the novel “A Hero of Our Time”
Not only philosophical, but also moral problems in the novel "A Hero of Our Time" are very significant. “The history of the human soul” is written by Lermontov, therefore on the pages of the work we observe how Pechorin solves for himself the issues of good and evil, freedom of choice, responsibility, as he reflects on the possibility and place in his own life of love and friendship.
The love that Gregory longs for and strives for is incomprehensible to him. His love “did not bring happiness to anyone”, because he loved “for his own pleasure”, simply absorbing the feelings and sufferings of people, not being saturated with them and giving nothing in return. Stories with Bela and Mary are a vivid confirmation of this.
Analyzing the ability for friendship, Pechorin concludes that he is “incapable of it either: of two friends, one is always the slave of the other,” he does not know how to be a slave, and considers managing others to be tedious work that requires deception. Having become a friend with Dr. Werner, Pechorin will never be able or will not want to let him into his inner world - he does not trust him to anyone.
In the soul of the protagonist, only fatigue, in his opinion, exhausted and “the heat of the soul, and the constancy of will necessary for real life; I entered this life, having already experienced it mentally, and I became bored and disgusted.
The modernity of the problems of the novel
We, the readers, do not accept much in the character of Pechorin, we simply cannot understand even more. It makes no sense to accuse the hero of selfishness and individualism, that he wasted his life on empty passions and whims. Yes, the main character is like that, but is it an accident or the author's intention?
It is worth re-reading the preface of Lermontov himself to the novel, and finding the lines: “Enough people were fed with sweets ... bitter medicines, caustic truths are needed.” Pechorin is sincere in his skepticism, he does not put himself above everyone else, but genuinely suffers from the fact that he sees no way out, cannot find the ideal. He looked so deeply and explored his own soul that he does not feed on illusions, but courageously sees himself as he is. But without this, development and progress are impossible. Being a man of his time, he reflects the path that his generation had to take - to discard romantic illusions, insincere ideals, to learn a sober look at reality and himself, so that future generations can go further, seeing ideals and goals.
“You will tell me again that a person cannot be so bad, but I will tell you that if you believed the possibility of the existence of all tragic and romantic villains, why do you not believe in the reality of Pechorin? more truth than you would like?” Here it is, bitter medicine - Pechorin, whose worldview turns out to be a cleansing step into the future. The poet is right, morality wins from “caustic truths”.
Philosophical and moral - these are the main problems raised in A Hero of Our Time. They make us, readers, think about our own purpose in life, about the complex relationship between the world and man, they make this work alive, modern at any time and era.
- “This book has recently experienced the unfortunate gullibility of some readers and even magazines ... Others were terribly offended ... that they were given as an example such an immoral person ...
- About the hero: the public took him with irritation. Some because they are given such an immoral person as an example, others because the author allegedly drew his own not ...
- M. Yu. Lermontov worked on the novel “A Hero of Our Time” in 1838-1840. Its idea was born during the writer's exile to the Caucasus in 1838....
- In any book, the preface is the first and at the same time the last thing; it either serves as an explanation of the purpose of the essay, or as a justification and answer to criticism. But...
- Bela The author travels from Tiflis on a chaise longue and on the way meets Staff Captain Maksim Maksimych. The men stop in the village to spend the night, and between them...
- ... Onegin is Russian, he is possible only in Russia, he is needed in it and he is met at every step ... Lermontov's "Hero of Our Time" -...
- And, it’s true, it existed and, it’s true, it was a high appointment for me, because I feel immense strength in my soul. M. Yu. Lermontov. Hero of our time...
- The narrative in any work of art is always subject to the author's intention. In Lermontov's novel, both the plot, the characters of the characters, and the events are aimed at revealing the "history of the human soul"...
- Lermontov's work on the novel lasted about two years: 1838-1840. The novel did not appear in print immediately, but came out in parts. In 1840 it was published...
- Already Belinsky said that “A Hero of Our Time” is an integral work. For the first time in Russian literature, it combined socio-psychological and moral-philosophical issues. For philosophical and psychological insight...
- Sadly, I look at our generation! His future is either empty or dark, Meanwhile, under the burden of knowledge and doubt, It will grow old in inaction. M....
- The novel consists of five independent chapters, united by the figure of Pechorin, a common theme, the author's idea. The impression of “disconnection” of the narrative reflects the idea of the “disconnection” of the hero’s life, the absence of...
- The novel “A Hero of Our Time” by M. Yu. Lermontov left a big mark on my mind. For me, first of all, what is extraordinarily valuable and dear is that in the novel ...
- Realism, as a trend in literature, has a very long history. Even Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin portrayed the complex and contradictory character of Eugene Onegin, the protagonist of the novel of the same name in...
- All poets at all times sang of women, they composed hymns to them, dedicated poems, in the name of women they went to a feat. Women are called the beautiful half of humanity....
