Literary studies, literary criticism. Essays What is Pechorin’s main mistake?
M.Yu. Lermontov, who lived a very short life (only 26!), created one of the best novels in Russian and world literature. This is a moral and psychological study of the personality of the main character - Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin.
When I read this novel for the first time, a long time ago, I really liked main character. Something about him attracted me inexpressibly. Then, as an adult, I reconsidered my attitude. This lyrical digression I allowed myself so that you understand that the novel and its main character are very complex and require careful reading and reflection on what you read. Traditionally, I will not retell the content, except in some places.
Let's get straight to what you need USE essays and literature. The novel is moral and psychological, I repeat, therefore, we will talk about human psychology and related moral problems, among them the problem of good and evil.
Composition of the work
The first mystery of the novel is its composition. The work consists of several stories, which are arranged as follows: “Bela”, “Maksim Maksimych”, “Taman”, “Princess Mary”, “Fatalist”. But chronologically they should be arranged differently: “Taman”, “Princess Mary”, “Fatalist”, “Bela”, “Maksim Maksimych”.
So let's see how he does it.
« Bela
" This is a story from the perspective of Maxim Maksimych about Pechorin, where he most often calls him strange. “Why strange?” - the reader is interested. And the answer will come further.
« Maksim Maksimych " We see Pechorin. A few touches: the eyes did not laugh when he laughed, he sits like a tired coquette after a ball, as if there was not a single bone in his body, pampered, almost childish hands, the gait of a secretive person - this is how Grigory Alexandrovich appears to the reader.
« Taman», « Princess Mary», « Fatalist» - readers listen to Pechorin himself. In his journal he reveals his soul, and here we can form our own opinion about him. Over the course of three stories, we witness a merciless psychological analysis of our own personality, see his psychological experiments, listen to his assessment and self-esteem.
Thus, the composition of the novel is subordinate to the author’s goal - to gradually reveal the image of the “hero of our time.”
Pechorin and others
How to tell about this person? I think that we need to follow the “chain” of the hero’s relationships with different characters, where the essence of Pechorin is revealed. So let's build a story about him.
- Pechorin and Bela. The main thing that is emphasized in these relationships is the difference between the characters. Bela is a pure, sincere girl who fell in love with Pechorin, broke with her family and her usual circle. And Pechorin? Shows remarkable strength and ability to achieve his goal, gets everything and immediately cools down. At the same time, he is not interested in the fate of unfortunate Bela. She dies.
- Pechorin and Maxim Maksimych. A kind and simple person cannot understand the “strange” Grigory Alexandrovich and his actions. He sincerely feels sorry for Bela and is happy to see Pechorin. And the main character is cold and indifferent, which offends the old man.
- Pechorin and “honest smugglers”. Pechorin’s “Caucasian” life begins in Taman. And where does he start? From spying on strange people. They are smugglers, and have earned their living this way generation after generation. This is bad for the state, but Pechorin can least of all be suspected of sympathizing with the state. He asks himself the question: “Why did fate throw me into the circle of smugglers.” Great! He still doesn’t admit his guilt. He stirred up a nest, drove people away from their homes - and was not guilty of anything! But Ondine is ready to do anything to protect her own; she is an integral and purposeful nature, which cannot be said about Pechorin.
"Princess Mary".
In the story there are a number of characters with whom Pechorin meets. Let's talk about each one separately.
- Pechorin and Grushnitsky. Grushnitsky is a young cadet, ready to make friends with Pechorin; he is open and inexperienced. Yes, sometimes he does not shine with intelligence, he is funny, out of place romantic, a poser... But so ill-treatment He doesn’t deserve it from Pechorin. Pechorin, out of his own whim and experiment, flirts with Mary, watching how Grushnitsky will react. And waits for a challenge to a duel. After the murder, Pechorin pathetically declares: “Finita la comedy!” Werner looks at the hero with horror.
- Pechorin and women. There are two of them in the story: Vera and Mary. He loved Vera, now she is married, although she still loves the hero. Pechorin rushes after her, but to no avail. The only woman leaves, and Pechorin is doomed to loneliness. Mary is a lovely young girl who turns out to have heart and soul. The hero treats her cruelly, laughs at her feelings, breaks her heart. Yes, Pechorin himself did not expect to cause such a reaction.
- Pechorin and Werner. Werner is a doctor and, it seems, the only one who understands Pechorin. He is a cynic and a practitioner. But one day Pechorin saw Werner crying over a soldier, and after the duel Werner was horrified by Pechorin’s words.
So who is Pechorin?
Lermontov paints a portrait of a hero of his time. He is not a hero in the literal sense of the word, but rather a type of time.
- This is a brave, strong, purposeful person. If he wants something, he achieves it at any cost. He loves to act, and not to contemplate, to perform actions.
- “Pechorin’s soul is not rocky soil.” This is how V.G. characterizes him. Belinsky. Why? He is capable of love and hate, sees and appreciates the beauty of nature and subtly notices the moods of others.
- But what are Pechorin’s aspirations aimed at? Kidnap a girl for fun? Destroy the peaceful life of “honest smugglers”? Laugh at the feelings of a young and inexperienced man by performing a psychological experiment on him and a cute girl? These are his plans, goals and aspirations. A bit small for a large person. All his actions are aimed at satisfying his own needs. He is an egoist, but, as the critic noted, “a reluctant egoist.”
- What do the words “reluctantly selfish” mean? Pechorin has nowhere to apply his strength, he has no worthy goal, hence the coldness, indifference, and desire to focus exclusively on his own interests. “I look at human sorrows only in relation to myself,” he admits in his journal.
The answer can be found in the story "Fatalist". There the hero enters into a dispute about the fate of a person with Vulich. He claims that a person is destined to die at his own hour, conducts an experiment, and the gun misfires. But that same evening Vulich dies at the hands of a drunken Cossack. Pechorin volunteers to pacify the killer. For what? Experimenting again. Throughout the novel, he claims that living the way he lives is destiny. But he doesn’t believe it himself! That's why he tempts fate.
Pechorin is a destroyer, always doubting himself, people, and life. He was given a lot, but where does he spend his strength? Everything goes into emptiness. Hence disappointment, coldness, selfishness. The worst thing for those around Pechorin is the lack of moral principles. He confuses good and evil, which the heroes around him never do.
Why do you feel sorry for Pechorin? Because in his journal, behind his actions, a very unhappy person appears, a little demon suffering from his own evil, but due to circumstances he cannot stop, and he is doomed.
Attention, Unified State Examination! The material from the novel can be used in essays related to moral problems, the problem of good and evil. Pechorin - an illustration of what happens when a person confuses good and evil, gives in own desires without paying attention to the suffering of others. The lot of such people is loneliness and contempt of others, and their mark on the earth is the suffering and pain they cause.
The idea of the novel- in the poem “Duma”.
I look sadly at our generation.
His future is either empty or funny.
Meanwhile, under the burden of knowledge and doubt
It will grow old in inactivity.
You can’t say more precisely about Pechorin.
The material was prepared by Karelina Larisa Vladislavovna, teacher of the Russian language of the highest category, honorary worker of general education of the Russian Federation
Official comment:
Within the framework of the direction, discussions are possible about the value of the spiritual and practical experience of an individual, a people, humanity as a whole, about the cost of mistakes on the path to understanding the world, gaining life experience. Literature often makes you think about the relationship between experience and mistakes: about experience that prevents mistakes, about mistakes without which it is impossible to move along the path of life, and about irreparable, tragic mistakes.
“Experience and errors” is a direction in which a clear opposition of two polar concepts is implied to a lesser extent, because without errors there is and cannot be experience. Literary hero By making mistakes, analyzing them and thereby gaining experience, he changes, improves, and takes the path of spiritual and moral development. By assessing the actions of the characters, the reader gains invaluable life experience, and literature becomes a real textbook of life, helping not to make one’s own mistakes, the price of which can be very high. Speaking about the mistakes made by the heroes, it should be noted that a wrong decision or an ambiguous act can affect not only the life of an individual, but also have the most fatal impact on the destinies of others. In literature we also encounter tragic mistakes that affect the destinies of entire nations. It is in these aspects that one can approach the analysis of this thematic area.
Aphorisms and sayings of famous people:
You should not be timid for fear of making mistakes; the biggest mistake is to deprive yourself of experience.
Luc de Clapier Vauvenargues
You can make mistakes in different ways, but you can act correctly only in one way, which is why the first is easy, and the second is difficult; easy to miss, difficult to hit the target.
Aristotle
Karl Raymund Popper
He who thinks that he will not make mistakes if others think for him is deeply mistaken.
Aurelius Markov
We easily forget our mistakes when they are known only to us.
Francois de La Rochefoucauld
Learn from every mistake.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Shyness may be appropriate everywhere, but not in admitting one’s mistakes.
Gotthold Ephraim Lessing
It is easier to find error than truth.
Johann Wolfgang Goethe
In all matters, we can only learn by trial and error, falling into error and correcting ourselves.
Karl Raymund Popper
As support in your reasoning, you can refer to the following works.
F.M. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment". Raskolnikov, killing Alena Ivanovna and confessing to what he had done, does not fully realize the tragedy of the crime he committed, does not recognize the fallacy of his theory, he only regrets that he could not commit the crime, that he will not now be able to classify himself among the chosen ones. And only in hard labor does the soul-weary hero not only repent (he repented by confessing to the murder), but embark on the difficult path of repentance. The writer emphasizes that a person who admits his mistakes is able to change, he is worthy of forgiveness and needs help and compassion. (In the novel, next to the hero is Sonya Marmeladova, who is an example of a compassionate person).
M.A. Sholokhov “The Fate of Man”, K.G. Paustovsky "Telegram". Heroes are so different works make a similar fatal mistake, which I will regret all my life, but, unfortunately, they will not be able to correct anything. Andrei Sokolov, leaving for the front, pushes away his wife hugging him, the hero is irritated by her tears, he gets angry , believing that she is “burying him alive,” but it turns out the opposite: he returns, and the family dies. This is a loss for him - terrible grief, and now he blames himself for every little thing and says with inexpressible pain: “Until my death, until my last hour, I will die, and I will not forgive myself for pushing her away!” Story by K.G. Paustovsky is a story about lonely old age. Grandmother Katerina, abandoned by her own daughter, writes: “My beloved, I will not survive this winter. Come at least for a day. Let me look at you, hold your hands.” But Nastya calms herself with the words: “If her mother writes, it means she’s alive.” Thinking about strangers, organizing an exhibition of a young sculptor, the daughter forgets about the only thing loved one. And only after hearing warm words of gratitude “for caring for a person”, the heroine remembers that she has a telegram in her purse: “Katya is dying. Tikhon." Repentance comes too late: “Mom! How could this happen? After all, I have no one in my life. It is not and will not be dearer. If only I could make it in time, if only she could see me, if only she would forgive me.” The daughter arrives, but there is no one to ask for forgiveness. The bitter experience of the main characters teaches the reader to be attentive to loved ones “before it’s too late.”
M.Yu. Lermontov "Hero of Our Time". The hero of the novel, M.Yu., also makes a series of mistakes in his life. Lermontov. Grigory Alexandrovich Pechorin belongs to to young people of his era who were disillusioned with life.
Pechorin himself says about himself: “Two people live in me: one lives in the full sense of the word, the other thinks and judges him.” Lermontov's character is energetic, clever man, but he cannot find application for his mind, his knowledge. Pechorin is a cruel and indifferent egoist, because he causes misfortune to everyone with whom he communicates, and he does not care about the condition of other people. V.G. Belinsky called him a “suffering egoist” because Grigory Aleksandrovich blames himself for his actions, he is aware of his actions, worries and does not bring him satisfaction.
Grigory Alexandrovich is a very smart and reasonable person, he knows how to admit his mistakes, but at the same time wants to teach others to admit theirs, as, for example, he kept trying to push Grushnitsky to admit his guilt and wanted to resolve their dispute peacefully. But then the other side of Pechorin also appears: after some attempts to defuse the situation in the duel and call Grushnitsky to conscience, he himself proposes to shoot in a dangerous place so that one of them will die. At the same time, the hero tries to turn everything into a joke, despite the fact that there is a threat to both the life of young Grushnitsky and his own life. After the murder of Grushnitsky we see , how Pechorin’s mood changed: if on the way to the duel he notices how beautiful the day is, then after the tragic event he sees the day in black colors, there is stone on his soul.
The story of Pechorin's disappointed and dying soul is set out in the hero's diary entries with all the mercilessness of introspection; being both the author and the hero of the “magazine,” Pechorin fearlessly speaks about his ideal impulses, the dark sides of his soul, and the contradictions of consciousness. The hero is aware of his mistakes, but does nothing to correct them; his own experience does not teach him anything. Despite the fact that Pechorin has an absolute understanding of what he is destroying human lives(“destroys the lives of peaceful smugglers”, Bela dies through his fault, etc.), the hero continues to “play” with the destinies of others, which makes himself unhappy.
L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace". If Lermontov's hero, realizing his mistakes, could not take the path of spiritual and moral improvement, then Tolstoy's favorite heroes, the acquired experience helps them become better. When considering the topic in this aspect, one can turn to the analysis of the images of A. Bolkonsky and P. Bezukhov. Prince Andrei Bolkonsky stands out sharply from the high society environment with his education, breadth of interests, dreams of accomplishing a feat, and desires great personal glory. His idol is Napoleon. To achieve his goal, Bolkonsky appears in the most dangerous places of the battle. Harsh military events contributed to the fact that the prince was disappointed in his dreams and realized how bitterly he was mistaken. Seriously wounded, remaining on the battlefield, Bolkonsky experiences a mental crisis. At these moments it opens before him new world, where there are no selfish thoughts, lies, but only the purest, highest, fair. The prince realized that there is something more significant in life than war and glory. Now the former idol seems small and insignificant to him. Having experienced further events - the birth of a child and the death of his wife - Bolkonsky comes to the conclusion that he can only live for himself and his loved ones. This is only the first stage in the evolution of a hero who not only admits his mistakes, but also strives to become better. Pierre also makes a considerable series of mistakes. He leads a riotous life in the company of Dolokhov and Kuragin, but understands that such a life is not for him. He cannot immediately correctly evaluate people and therefore often makes mistakes in them. He is sincere, trusting, weak-willed. These character traits are clearly manifested in his relationship with the depraved Helen Kuragina - Pierre makes another mistake. Soon after marriage, the hero realizes that he was deceived and “processes his grief alone.” After breaking up with his wife, being in a state of deep crisis, he joins the Masonic lodge. Pierre believes that it is here that he will “find rebirth to a new life,” and again realizes that he is again mistaken in something important. The experience gained and the “thunderstorm of 1812” lead the hero to drastic changes in his worldview. He understands that one must live for the sake of people, one must strive to benefit the Motherland.
M.A. Sholokhov "Quiet Don". Speaking about how the experience of military battles changes people and forces them to evaluate their mistakes in life, we can turn to the image of Grigory Melekhov. Fighting either on the side of the whites or on the side of the reds, he understands the monstrous injustice around him, and he himself makes mistakes, gains military experience and draws the most important conclusions in his life: “...my hands need to plow.” Home, family – that’s the value. And any ideology that pushes people to kill is a mistake. Already sophisticated life experience a person understands that the main thing in life is not the war, but the son who greets him at the doorstep. It is worth noting that the hero admits that he was wrong. This is precisely the reason for his repeated darting from white to red.
M.A. Bulgakov " dog's heart». If we talk about experience as “a procedure for reproducing a phenomenon experimentally, creating something new under certain conditions for the purpose of research,” then the practical experience of Professor Preobrazhensky to “clarify the question of the survival of the pituitary gland, and in the future, its influence on “rejuvenation of the human body” can hardly be called completely successful.
WITH scientific point he is very successful. Professor Preobrazhensky performs a unique operation. The scientific result was unexpected and impressive, but in everyday life it led to the most disastrous consequences. The guy who appeared in the professor’s house as a result of the operation, “short in stature and unattractive in appearance,” behaves defiantly, arrogantly and insolently. However, it should be noted that the emerging humanoid creature easily finds itself in a changed world, but does not differ in human qualities and soon becomes a thunderstorm not only for the inhabitants of the apartment, but also for the residents of the entire house.
Having analyzed his mistake, the professor realizes that the dog was much more “humane” than P.P. Sharikov. Thus, we are convinced that the humanoid hybrid Sharikov is more a failure than a victory for Professor Preobrazhensky. He himself understands this: “Old donkey... This, doctor, is what happens when a researcher, instead of going parallel and groping with nature, forces the question and lifts the veil: here, get Sharikov and eat him with porridge.” Philip Philipovich comes to the conclusion that violent intervention in the nature of man and society leads to catastrophic results.
In the story “Heart of a Dog,” the professor corrects his mistake - Sharikov again turns into a dog. He is happy with his fate and with himself. But in real life, such experiments have a tragic effect on people’s destinies, warns Bulgakov. Actions must be thoughtful and not destructive.
The main idea of the writer is that naked progress, devoid of morality, brings death to people and such a mistake will be irreversible.
V.G. Rasputin "Farewell to Matera". When discussing mistakes that are irreparable and bring suffering not only to each individual person, but also to the people as a whole, one can turn to the indicated story by a twentieth-century writer. This is not just a work about the loss of one’s home, but also about how wrong decisions lead to disasters that will certainly affect the life of society as a whole.
The plot of the story is based on real story. During the construction of the hydroelectric power station on the Angara, the surrounding villages were flooded. Relocation has become a painful experience for residents of flooded areas. After all, hydroelectric power stations are built for a large number of people. This is an important economic project, for the sake of which we need to rebuild, and not hold on to the old. But can this decision be called unambiguously correct? Residents of flooded Matera are moving to a village built inhumanely. The mismanagement with which huge amounts of money are spent hurts the soul of the writer. Fertile lands will be flooded, and in the village built on the northern slope of the hill, on stones and clay, nothing will grow. Gross interference with nature will certainly entail ecological problems. But for the writer it is not so much they that are important as the spiritual life of people.
For Rasputin it is absolutely clear that the collapse, the disintegration of a nation, people, country begins with the disintegration of the family. And the reason for this is the tragic mistake that progress is much more important than the souls of old people saying goodbye to their home. And there is no repentance in the hearts of young people.
The older generation, wise from life experience, does not want to leave their native island, not because they cannot appreciate all the benefits of civilization, but primarily because for these amenities they demand to give Matera, that is, to betray their past. And the suffering of the elderly is an experience that each of us must learn. A person cannot, should not, abandon his roots.
In discussions on this topic, one can turn to history and the disasters that human “economic” activity entailed.
Rasputin's story is not just a story about great construction projects, it is the tragic experience of previous generations as an edification to us, people of the 21st century.
Onegin and Pechorin. Two people. Two novels. Two destinies. Same age, same upbringing. The atmosphere is different. Spirit of the era. A person cannot develop outside of society. Directly or indirectly it will influence the personality. And therefore the differences between Onegin and Pechorin are natural. They are separated by a short period of time. A mountain separates them - December 14, 1825. If Onegin was just going to the top, Pechorin found himself on the descent. This also determines the development of images. Like Onegin, Pechorin was a product of his time. The severe reaction that reigned in Russia could not help but leave an imprint on his character. Everything truly progressive was mercilessly stifled. And it was difficult for the sprouts of a new life to break through the routine towards the sun. Many people lost their bearings in the darkness and did not find a way out. They died and slowly sank to the bottom, forming more and more layers of swamp. And it would continue to suck in the intended victims with methodical precision, if not for the rare flowers that dared to break through to the surface. In furious anger, the quagmire enveloped them in mud, doused them with mud, and gnawed at the roots, but they proudly and joyfully opened their petals towards the sun.
Pechorin was not among them. But he did not belong to those who indifferently surrendered to the will of the current. He struggled. I was looking for it. He threw himself headlong into the pool, greedily gasping for air, and... choked again and again. He expected something big and beautiful from life. What did you get? He understood people too well and did not understand himself. After all, this is more difficult. What do we know about ourselves? Why do we often do things that we ourselves would not want, but pure movements do we humble our hearts with cold arguments of reason? But everything seems so simple when you don’t think about anything, and Pechorin’s main mistake was in deciding that he had found the answer to all the questions. A person lives while he thinks, and thought begins with questions. So many questions, so many answers. No, perhaps there are even more answers. And it is impossible with one of them, received once, chosen for a specific occasion, to approach Maxim Maksimych, and Mary, and Bela. Pechorin understood people, but did not believe in them. The dissatisfaction that comes from the uniqueness of nature has not yet taken shape in the desire for something beautiful. He resembles a child who shouts: “I want!” But what does he want?
Eternal disappointments dampened the thirst for life. And the flame of love for the whole world gradually extinguished in the dark recesses of the heart, only occasionally flaring up from the touch of a long-awaited gentle hand. But these sparks of humanity soon died out, not having time to turn into sacrificial fire.
Pechorin could not put all of himself on the altar of love. The duality of nature did not allow it. It was as if two people lived in him: one acted, and the other judged him. Moreover, the two halves of the soul could never come to the same decision. They were always quarreling and the ever-increasing discord with themselves confused the already rather complex psychology of Lermontov’s hero. It seems that the author himself did not understand it enough and, fearing to make a mistake, handed it over to the readers to judge without the label of a “positive” or “negative” image. Indeed, Pechorin’s character is quite complex. He is undoubtedly smart, but I cannot forgive him for his indifference to people. Indifference is the worst thing about Pechorin. It stops all the best impulses with an icy question: “What will this give me?” And the growing egoism, brought up from childhood, takes on terrible proportions. Pechorin is deeply indifferent to the fate of the people around him. He takes everything and gives nothing. Therefore, he had no real comrades, since true friendship is necessarily built on mutual enrichment. By communicating, people become better people. And Pechorin took a person’s heart and mind for himself, suppressed the will and, like squeezed lemons, threw them away as unnecessary. He needed friendship, but one that would constantly provide food for his insatiable mind. He longed for love, but only that which would overwhelm and swallow him whole. He needed it all or nothing.
Pechorin does not agree to drag out a miserable existence somewhere in a warm place, but he cannot find anything better. And he closes himself in a narrow circle of his own interests, and this ring, tightening more and more, strangles both him and the people close to him. And when it closes completely, he will die. Pechorin is a man. He will be another victim of his society, his time. More precisely, he has already become one.
There were so many of them, disappointed... They left home, went towards adventures and dangers, just to dispel their melancholy. They looked for something in nature that they did not find in people. They rushed around the world, grasping at every straw of happiness and ending their lives somewhere on a dusty road, without giving anything to people. How many of them were there, representatives of the advanced noble youth, who did not cross the threshold of maturity, but stepped straight into old age? How many were there, unopened buds, unopened flowers? Life itself, similar to an old, dusty, well-read novel of which they were the heroes, was a cemetery for them. And after touching it, you involuntarily want to wash your hands...
“Pechorin, returning from Persia, died...” Have you ever wondered under what circumstances this could have happened?
Lermontov's death was instantaneous - Pechorin, who died on the road for an unknown reason, was apparently intended by his creator to fully experience the torment of the “anguish of death.” Who was next to him in this difficult moment? His “proud” lackey?
What if this happened to him not on the road? What would change? Most likely - nothing! Not a single living, caring soul nearby... But both Mary and Vera loved him. Maxim Maksimych is ready to “throw himself on his neck” at any moment. Even Werner at a certain moment would have done the same if Pechorin had “showed him the slightest desire for this.” But all connections with people have been severed. The remarkable potential has not been realized. Why?
According to Grigory Alexandrovich, Werner is “a skeptic and a materialist.” Pechorin considers himself to be a believer. In any case, in “Fatalist”, written on behalf of Pechorin, we read: “We discussed that the Muslim belief that a person’s fate is written in heaven is also found between n-a-m-i, h-r-i-s -t-i-a-n-a-m-i, many fans...” It is as a believer that in the story “Taman” Pechorin exclaims: “Not a single image on the wall is a bad sign!” In “Taman,” the hero quotes the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, albeit inaccurately: “On that day the dumb will cry out and the blind will see.” In “Princess Mary” (entry dated June 3), Grigory Alexandrovich, without any irony, argues that only “in highest condition Through self-knowledge a person can appreciate the justice of God.”
At the same time, in the famous fragment “I was returning home through the empty alleys of the village...” (“Fatalist”) Pechorin cannot help laughing, remembering that “there were once wise people who thought that the heavenly bodies took part in our insignificant disputes for a piece of land or some fictitious rights,” people convinced that “the whole sky with its countless inhabitants looks at them with participation, albeit mute, but unchanging!..” The above quotes indicate that Pechorin’s soul is tormented by doubts. The same fragment also indicates the reason for his doubts - “an involuntary fear squeezing the heart at the thought of the inevitable end.” The same “melancholy of death” that torments Bela, forcing her to rush about, knocking off the bandage. This acute, painful feeling of the finitude of existence may be familiar not only to the dying. The abstract thought of the immortality of the soul at such moments may well seem faded and unconvincing. It can be assumed that Pechorin has to experience such doubts because his faith has weakened under the influence of a secular lifestyle, acquaintance with various newfangled trends, etc. However, Bela, a deeply religious person who had not heard of any “materialism,” did not escape this torment of “death melancholy.” So the dependence here is rather the opposite: fear of death leads to a weakening of faith.
Pechorin tries to overcome his doubts with the help of reason. “I have long been living not with my heart, but with my head” - this confession of the hero is fully confirmed by the content of the novel. And this despite the fact that the work contains irrefutable evidence of the truthfulness of the voice of the heart - the story of the tragic death of Vulich. Why doesn’t this story convince Pechorin of the need to listen to his heart? The voice of the heart is “unfounded”, not based on any material arguments. “The mark of death on the pale face” of the lieutenant is too unsteady and vague. You can’t build any more or less convincing theory on this. And therefore “metaphysics” is thrown aside. Moreover, from the context it follows that this term is used by Pechorin in the meaning that “Dictionary foreign words“, for example, is defined as “anti-scientific fabrications about the “spiritual principles” of existence, about objects inaccessible to sensory experience” (1987, p. 306). Is it possible to remain a believer, relying on bare reason alone?
To answer this question, it is necessary to arrange the stories in chronological order and follow the development of the hero’s character.
No one doubts that, from a chronological point of view, Taman is the first in the chain of stories. In this story we see a hero full of energy and thirst for knowledge of life. Just one shadow flashing across the floor prompts him to go on an adventure. And this despite the obvious danger: going down the same slope for the second time, Pechorin remarks: “I don’t understand how I didn’t break my neck.” However, danger is only an excellent incentive for active action, for the manifestation of unbending will.
In addition, Pechorin rushes towards adventure “with all the strength of youthful passion.” The stranger’s kiss, which the Journal’s author evaluates as “fiery,” evokes equally hot reciprocal feelings: “My eyes grew dark, my head began to spin.”
In a completely Christian way, Grigory Alexandrovich shows mercy and reveals the ability to forgive his enemies. “What happened to the old woman and b-e-d-n-y-m blind“I don’t know,” he laments about the fate of the man who robbed him a few hours ago.
True, Pechorin’s reasoning about the blind boy in particular and about “all the blind, crooked, deaf, dumb, legless, armless, hunchbacked” in general prompts the reader to recall the lines of A.S. Pushkin about the unfortunate Hermann from “The Queen of Spades”: “Having little true faith, he had many prejudices.” Subsequently it turns out that prejudice against people with disabilities it is necessary to add Pechorin’s “insurmountable aversion” to marriage, based on the fact that once in childhood a certain old woman predicted him “death from an evil wife”...
But is it fair to reproach Pechorin for having “little true faith”? There is almost no reason for this in Taman. The only thing that is alarming about Pechorin’s behavior in this story is that he does not give free rein to his good feelings - mercy, repentance; tries to drown out the voice of the heart with the arguments of reason: “...What do I care about human joys and misfortunes, me, a traveling officer, and even on the road for official reasons!..”
In “Princess Mary” this feature of the hero’s behavior is strengthened many times over. Grigory Aleksandrovich not only laughs at feelings in a conversation with Mary, he simply shows off to himself (or to possible readers of the Journal?) his ability to manipulate people, controlling his own feelings.
Thanks to the “system”, he gets the opportunity to meet alone with Vera, achieves Mary’s love, and arranges for Grushnitsky to choose him as his attorney, as planned. Why does the “system” work so flawlessly? Not in last resort, thanks to his extraordinary artistic abilities - the ability to take on a “deeply touched look” at the right moment. (How can one not recall Pushkin’s words: “How quick and tender his gaze was, // Shy and daring, and at times // Shining with an obedient tear!”) And most importantly, such artistry turns out to be possible because the hero of the novel acts completely neglecting your own feelings.
So Pechorin goes to the princess to say goodbye before leaving Kislovodsk for fortress N. By the way, was this visit really necessary? Surely, it was possible, citing the suddenness of the departure, to send a note with an apology and wishes “to be happy and so on.” However, Grigory Alexandrovich not only appears to the princess in person, but also insists on meeting Mary alone. For what purpose? Tell the deceived girl that he plays “the most pitiful and disgusting role” in her eyes? Otherwise she wouldn’t have guessed about it herself!
“No matter how much I searched in my chest for even a spark of love for dear Mary, my efforts were in vain,” Pechorin declares. Why then was “the heart beating strongly”? Why the irresistible desire to “fall at her feet”? Grigory Alexandrovich is disingenuous! “Her eyes sparkled wonderfully,” this is a remark from a man in love, and not from the cold cynic whose role he plays in this episode.
The feelings and behavior of the hero in the episode of Grushnitsky’s murder are just as far from each other. And his role in this story is no less “pathetic and disgusting.”
“Like all boys, he has the pretension to be an old man,” Grigory Alexandrovich sneers at Grushnitsky (entry dated June 5), which means Pechorin is both older and more experienced than his friend. It is not difficult for him to make a toy out of his young friend. However, there is a threat that the behavior of the “toy” will get out of control. Destroy immediately!
Pechorin talks about his opponent a few minutes before the start of the duel: “... A spark of generosity could awaken in his soul, and then everything would work out for the better; but pride and weakness of character d-o-l-f-n-s
b-y-l-and triumph..." A peaceful scenario is undesirable! The expected, sought-after option is the second... “I wanted to give myself the full right not to spare him if fate had mercy on me.” In other words, “I want to kill him if possible”... But at the same time, Pechorin has to risk his life...
Grigory Aleksandrovich is a subtle psychologist; he knows very well that Grushnitsky is not one of those people who would cold-bloodedly shoot an unarmed enemy in the forehead. And indeed, “he [Grushnitsky] blushed; he was ashamed to kill an unarmed man... I was sure that he would shoot into the air!” I am confident to such an extent that, when he sees a gun pointed at himself, he becomes furious: “An inexplicable rage boiled in my chest.” However, Pechorin’s expectations were completely justified: only the captain’s shout: “Coward!” - forces Grushnitsky to pull the trigger, and he shoots at the ground, no longer aiming.
It turned out... “Finita la comedy...”
Is Pechorin happy with his victory? “I had a stone on my heart. The sun seemed dim to me, its rays did not warm me,” such was his state of mind after the duel. But no one forced you, Grigory Alexandrovich, to shoot this stupid, pathetic boy!
But this is not a fact. This is precisely the feeling that in these episodes, and not only in them, Pechorin does not act of his own free will.
“But there is immense pleasure in possessing a young, barely blossoming soul!” - Pechorin opens up in his “Journal”. Just think about it: how can a mortal person have an immortal soul? A person cannot... But if we agree that “there is a deep spiritual connection between the image of Pechorin and the Demon” (Kedrov, 1974), then everything falls into place. And it’s hard to disagree when so many coincidences have been revealed: the location (the Caucasus), and the love plot (“The Demon” - the story “Bela”), and specific episodes (The Demon looks at Tamara dancing - Pechorin and Maxim Maksimych come to visit their father Bela; the meeting of the Demon and Tamara is the last meeting of Pechorin and Mary).
In addition, it is certainly no coincidence that the novel practically ends with a mention of this off-stage character: “The devil dared him to talk to a drunk at night!..” exclaims Maxim Maksimych, after listening to Pechorin’s story about Vulich’s death.
So Pechorin, who plays with people, is himself just an obedient toy in the hands of an evil spirit, moreover, feeding him (the evil spirit) with spiritual energy: “I feel in myself this insatiable greed, absorbing everything that comes along the way; I look at the sufferings and joys of others only in relation to myself, as food that supports my spiritual strength.”
Pechorin himself feels that his actions are controlled by some force: “How many times have I already played the role of an ax in the hands of fate!” An unenviable role that brings Pechorin nothing but suffering. The trouble is that the great psychologist Pechorin cannot deal with his own feelings and his own soul. On one page of his “Journal” he has discussions about God’s justice - and confessions like: “My first pleasure is to subordinate to my will everything that surrounds me.” The religious feeling has long been lost, a Demon has settled in his soul, and he continues to consider himself a Christian.
The murder of Grushnitsky did not pass without a trace. Grigory Alexandrovich was thinking about something when, after the duel, he “rode for a long time” alone, “throwing away the reins, lowering his head on his chest.”
The second shock for him was Vera’s departure. It is impossible not to use Valery Mildon’s commentary on this event: “One minor circumstance in Lermontov’s novel unexpectedly takes on a deep meaning: Pechorin’s only true, enduring love is called Vera. He breaks up with her forever, and she writes to him in a farewell letter: “No one can be as truly unhappy as you, because no one tries to convince themselves otherwise.”
What does it mean to “assure otherwise”? Pechorin wants to assure himself that he has faith (and therefore hope). His desperate pursuit of his departed beloved is an amazingly powerful metaphor...” (Mildon, 2002)
The path to salvation opened before Pechorin - sincere repentance and prayer. That did not happen. “My thoughts returned to normal order.” And, leaving Kislovodsk, the hero leaves behind not only the corpse of his horse, but also the very possibility of rebirth. The point of return has been passed. Onegin was resurrected by love - Pechorin’s “illness” turned out to be too neglected.
Further life path Pechorin is the path of destruction of the hero's personality. In “Fatalist,” he “jokingly” makes a bet with Vulich, essentially provoking suicide, and he is not at all embarrassed by the “imprint of inevitable fate” on the lieutenant’s face. Pechorin just really needs to find out whether predestination exists. It is unbearable to think that only then did he come into the world to “play the role of an axe”! The author of the novel, who knows that a grave awaits him “without prayers and without a cross,” could not help but be interested in this question. However, the question remained open.
Pechorin's behavior in the story "Bela" cannot but arouse bewilderment and compassion in the reader. What made Grigory Alexandrovich decide to kidnap a sixteen-year-old girl? The absence of the policeman's pretty daughter, Nastya, from the fortress? Or crazy love, sweeping away all obstacles in its path?
“I, a fool, thought that she was an angel sent to me by compassionate fate,” the hero explains his action. As if it wasn’t him who was ironic in the Journal about the poets who “called women angels so many times that they, in the simplicity of their souls, actually believed this compliment, forgetting that the same poets for money called Nero a demigod...” Or did Grigory Alexandrovich come up with something that pushed him to kill Grushnitsky? And a drowning person, as you know, clutches at straws. However, the hero’s feelings cooled down faster than he himself expected. And were there any? And he really doesn’t feel anything, looking at the dying Bela!
And how Grigory Alexandrovich used to love his enemies! They stirred his blood and stimulated his will. But why not the enemy who killed Bela Kazbich?! However, Pechorin did not lift a finger to punish the criminal. In general, if he does anything at Bel, it is exclusively with someone else’s hands.
Feelings are atrophied. The will has weakened. Soul emptiness. And when Maxim Maksimych began to console his friend after Bela’s death, Pechorin “raised his head and laughed...” The experienced man “got a chill running through his skin from this laughter...” Wasn’t it the devil himself who laughed in the face of the staff captain?
“I have only one remedy left: travel. ...Perhaps I’ll die somewhere on the road!” - argues the twenty-five-year-old hero, who until recently believed that “nothing worse than death will happen.”
During our last meeting with Pechorin (the story “Maksim Maksimych”) we see a “spineless” (= weak-willed) man who has lost interest in his own past (he is indifferent to the fate of his “Journal,” although Grigory Alexandrovich once thought: “That’s it, whatever I throw at him will become a precious memory for me over time"), not expecting anything from the future, having lost connections not only with people, but also with his homeland.
In conclusion, it should be noted that in the “Book of the Prophet Isaiah,” immediately before the line quoted by Pechorin, there is a warning that encourages reflection: “And the Lord said: since this people draws near to me with their lips, and honors me with their tongue, but their heart is far away from me, and their reverence for me is the study of the commandments of men, then, behold, I will deal with this people in an extraordinary way, wonderfully and wondrously, so that the wisdom of their wise men will perish, and their understanding will cease to exist among those who have understanding.”
Notes
1.Kedrov Konstantin. Candidate's dissertation "The epic basis of the Russian realistic novel of the 1st half of the 19th century V." (1974)
Lermontov's tragic epic "Hero of Our Time"
http://metapoetry.narod.ru/liter/lit18.htm
2. Mildon Valery. Lermontov and Kirkegaard: the Pechorin phenomenon. About one Russian-Danish parallel. October. 2002. No. 4. p.185
3. Dictionary of foreign words. M. 1987.
In his novel “Hero of Our Time,” M. Yu. Lermontov depicted the 30s of the 19th century in Russia. These were difficult times in the life of the country. Having suppressed the Decembrist uprising, Nicholas I sought to turn the country into a barracks - all living things, the slightest manifestation of free-thinking...
“A Hero of Our Time” belongs to those phenomena of true art that, occupying... the attention of the public, like a literary story, turn into eternal capital, which over time increases more and more with the right interest. V.G....
Expressing an attitude towards a particular person or artistic image, we, first of all, carry out a detailed analysis of his actions and words. We strive to understand the motivation of his actions, the impulses of his soul, his conclusions, his attitude towards the world. If the sphere...
Belinsky said about Pechorin: “This is the Onegin of our time, the hero of our time. Their dissimilarity is much less than the distance between Onega and Pechora.” Herzen also called Pechorin “Onegin’s younger brother.” (This material will help you write correctly...
The end of Pechorin's journal. Princess Mary. Before us is Pechorin’s diary, in which the days of recording are marked. On May 11, Pechorin records his arrival in Pyatigorsk. Having found an apartment, he headed to the source. On the way, he was called out by an acquaintance with whom he...
Since the second half of the 19th century, primarily thanks to fiction, the concept “ extra person"(this term was first used by A. S. Pushkin in one of his rough sketches for Onegin). A whole range of artistic...