And his generations (based on the novel by M. Yu. Lermontov "A Hero of Our Time")

The novel "A Hero of Our Time" can hardly be attributed to instructive and edifying literature. Rather, it arouses interest in that the author asks philosophical questions, but does not answer them himself, leaving the reader to decide for himself what is true and what is not. Main character The novel, on the one hand, is the focus of “the vices of the entire generation in their full development”, and on the other hand, a person who, in many respects, is a step above most representatives of the youth generation of that time. That is why Pechorin is lonely. He is looking for a person who could oppose him in some way, understand him.

Pechorin was an aristocrat by birth and received a secular upbringing. Having left the custody of his relatives, he “set off into the big world” and “began to enjoy all the pleasures furiously.” The frivolous life of an aristocrat soon grew sick of him, and reading books, like Onegin, got bored. After the "noisy story in St. Petersburg," Pechorin was exiled to the Caucasus.

Drawing the appearance of his hero, the author emphasizes his aristocratic origin with a few strokes: “pale, noble forehead”, “small aristocratic hand”, “dazzlingly clean underwear”. Pechorin is a physically strong and hardy person: “broad shoulders proved a strong build capable of enduring all difficulties nomadic life... undefeated neither by the depravity of metropolitan life, nor by spiritual storms. In the portrait of the hero, internal qualities are also reflected: inconsistency and secrecy. Is it not surprising that, "despite the light color of his hair, his mustache and eyebrows are black"? His eyes did not laugh when he laughed.

"Born for a high purpose," he is forced to live in tedious inactivity or to waste his strength on deeds unworthy of a real person. Even sharp adventures cannot satisfy him. Love brings only disappointment and grief. He causes grief to those around him, and this deepens his suffering. Remember the fate of Bela, Grushnitsky, Princess Mary and Vera, Maxim Maksimych.

Pechorin is trying to put the people around him on the same level with himself. But they do not stand up to such comparisons: the generation is simply not ready, not capable of any changes, and all the dark human sides are revealed. Testing people, the hero sees their meanness, inability to noble deeds, and this oppresses him and destroys his soul. Pechorin, who in the depths of his soul believes in man, studies him and, finding no support for his faith, suffers. This is a person who has not found a high goal for himself. It is high, because ordinary everyday goals do not attract such strong, strong-willed natures. The only thing he has mastered is the ability to see through people. And he wants to change the world. Pechorin sees the path to perfection in "communion with suffering." Everyone who meets him is subjected to a severe no-compromise test.

Pechorin not only makes people rise higher in spiritual development, but also tries to understand himself. He is looking for the ideal of purity, nobility, spiritual beauty. Perhaps this ideal is inherent in Bela? Alas. Again disappointment. The girl could not rise above the servile love for Pechorin. Pechorin appears as an egoist, thinking only about his feelings - Bela quickly got bored of him, love dried up. Nevertheless, the death of the girl deeply wounded the hero, changed his life. He probably no longer kept notes in a diary and hardly fell in love with anyone else.

Gradually, we begin to understand Pechorin's actions, we see how different he is from the rest of the characters, how deep his feelings are. The image of Pechorin appears most widely through the perception of other people: Maxim Maksimych, Princess Mary, etc. Pechorin and Maxim Maxi-mych do not have mutual understanding. Between them there is not and cannot be a true feeling of affection. Friendship between them is impossible because of the limitations of one and the doomed to loneliness of the other. If for Maxim Maksimych everything that has passed is sweet, then for Pechorin it is painful. Pecho-rin leaves, realizing that the conversation will not bring them closer, but, on the contrary, will increase the bitterness that has not yet subsided.

But not all representatives of the Pechorin, and therefore Lermontov generation have lost the ability to feel, not all have become gray and immoral. Pechorin woke up the soul of Princess Mary, which could fade away because of the facelessness of Grushnitsky. The girl fell in love with Pechorin, but he does not accept her feelings, not wanting to deceive. He cannot and does not want to live quietly, calmly, content with peaceful joys. Here, Pechorin's egoism once again manifested itself, leaving Mary alone with a soulless society. But this girl will never fall in love with the drawing self-satisfied dandy.

In a socially close circle, Pechorin is not loved, and some simply hate. They feel his superiority and their inability to resist him. Society hides its viciousness and mendacity. But all tricks to disguise are futile: Pechorin sees the falsity of the same Grushnitsky, an empty and dishonorable person. Pechorin is also testing him, hoping that there, in the depths of his soul, there is at least a drop of honesty and nobility. But Grushnitsky could not overcome his petty pride. Therefore, Pechorin is so cruel in a duel. The rejection of society painfully hurts Pechorin. He does not seek enmity, he tries to enter the circle of people close to him social standing. But they cannot understand Lermontov's hero, just like others who do not belong to this circle. But everyone who nevertheless turned out to be closer to Pecho-rin leaves his life. Of these, Werner is too naive, although the egocentrism of Pechorin, who does not recognize friendship, played an important role in their relationship. They did not become friends. By the will of fate, he remains without Faith. The only "worthy interlocutor" of Pechorin is his diary. With him, he can be completely frank, not hide his vices and virtues. At the end of the book, the hero enters into a struggle not with people, but with fate itself. And the victor comes out, thanks to courage, will and thirst for the unknown.

However, along with the wealth of mental strength and giftedness of the hero, Lermontov reveals in Pechorin such qualities that sharply reduce his image. Pechorin is a cold egoist, he is indifferent to the suffering of others. But the most difficult accusation of the author against Pechorin is that his hero does not have a life goal. Thinking about the question of the purpose of his life, he wrote in the “journal”: “Ah, it’s true, it existed and, it’s true, I had a high appointment, because I feel immense strength in my soul.”

At all times, the attitude towards Pechorin was not unambiguous. Some saw, others did not see him as a "hero of time." But there is a secret hidden in this image. Pechorin cannot be predicted or comprehended. His distinctive feature is that, understanding the insignificance of the world around him, he does not humble himself, but fights, searches. Loneliness makes him a colorless person, like the rest. It has a lot negative traits: he is cruel, selfish, merciless to people. But at the same time (which is important!) He does not judge anyone, but gives everyone the opportunity to open their soul, to show good qualities. But if this does not happen, then he is merciless.

Pechorins are rare. Not everyone can soberly look at the world, evaluate it and ... not accept it as it is. Do not accept all the evil, cruelty, heartlessness and other vices of mankind. Not many can rise up, fight and seek. Not everyone is given it.

The tragedy of Pechorin is that he could not realize his spiritual and physical strength, his life is wasted.

Analyzing the image of Pechorin, V. G. Belinsky said: “This is Onegin of our time, the hero of our time. Their dissimilarity among themselves is much less than the distance between Onega and Pechora. Onegin is a reflection of the era of the 20s, the era of the Decembrists; Pecho-rin is the hero of the third decade of the "cruel-th century". Both of them are thinking intellectuals of their time. But Pechorin lived in a difficult era of social oppression and inaction, and Onegin lived in a period of social revival and could have been a Decembrist. Pechorin did not have this opportunity. Therefore, Belinsky says: "Onegin is bored, and Pechorin is suffering."

Describes only some episodes from the adult life of the hero, when his character was already formed. First impression - Gregory strong personality. He is an officer, a physically healthy man of attractive appearance, active, purposeful, and has a sense of humor. Why not a hero? Nevertheless, Lermontov himself calls the main character of the novel so a bad person that it is even difficult to believe in its existence.

Pechorin grew up in a wealthy aristocratic family. Since childhood, he did not need anything. But material abundance also has a downside - the meaning of human life is lost. The desire to strive for something, to grow spiritually, disappears. This also happened to the hero of the novel. Pechorin finds no use for his abilities.

He quickly got bored metropolitan life with empty entertainment. The love of secular beauties, although it comforted pride, did not touch the heart strings. The thirst for knowledge also did not bring satisfaction: all sciences quickly got bored. Even at a young age, Pechorin realized that neither happiness nor glory depended on the sciences. "Most happy people- ignorant, and fame is good luck, and to achieve it, you just need to be dexterous ".

Our hero tried to compose and travel, which many young aristocrats of that time did. But these studies did not fill the life of Gregory with meaning. Therefore, boredom constantly pursued the officer and did not allow him to escape from himself. Although Gregory tried his best to do it. Pechorin is always in search of adventure, daily testing his fate: in the war, in pursuit of smugglers, in a duel, breaking into the killer's house. He tries in vain to find a place in the world where his sharp mind, energy and strength of character could be useful. At the same time, Pechorin does not consider it necessary to listen to his heart. He lives by the mind, guided by a cold mind. And it always fails.

But the saddest thing is that people close to him suffer from the actions of the hero: Vulich, Bela and her father are tragically killed, Grushnitsky is killed in a duel, Azamat becomes a criminal, Mary and Vera suffer, Maxim Maksimych is offended and offended, smugglers flee in fright, leaving the fate of a blind boy and an old woman.

It seems that in search of new adventures, Pechorin cannot stop at nothing. He breaks hearts and destroys people's destinies. He is aware of the suffering of those around him, but he does not refuse the pleasure of deliberately torturing them. Hero calls "sweet food for pride" the ability to be the cause of happiness or suffering for someone without having the right to do so.

Pechorin is disappointed in life, in social activities, in people. A feeling of despondency and despair, uselessness and uselessness lives in him. In the diary, Gregory constantly analyzes his actions, thoughts and experiences. He tries to understand himself, exposing real reasons deeds. But at the same time, society blames everything, and not itself.

True, episodes of repentance and a desire to adequately look at things are not alien to the hero. Pechorin was able to self-critically call himself "moral cripple" and, in fact, he was right. And what is the passionate impulse to see and explain to Vera. But these minutes are short-lived, and the hero, again absorbed by boredom and introspection, shows spiritual callousness, indifference, and individualism.

In the preface to the novel, Lermontov called the protagonist a sick person. By this he meant the soul of Gregory. The tragedy lies in the fact that Pechorin suffers not only because of his vices, but also his positive qualities, feeling how much strength and talent is wasted in him. Not finding the meaning of life in the end, Gregory decides that his only purpose is to destroy people's hopes.

Pechorin is one of the most controversial characters in Russian literature. In his image, originality, talent, energy, honesty and courage strangely coexist with skepticism, unbelief and contempt for people. According to Maxim Maksimovich, Pechorin's soul consists of nothing but contradictions. He has a strong physique, but it shows an unusual weakness. He is about thirty years old, but there is something childish in the face of the hero. When Gregory laughs, his eyes remain sad.

According to Russian tradition, the author experiences Pechorin with two main feelings: love and friendship. However, the hero does not withstand any test. Psychological experiments with Mary and Bela show Pechorin a connoisseur human souls and a cruel cynic. The desire to win the love of women, Gregory explains solely by ambition. Gregory is not capable of friendship either.

The death of Pechorin is indicative. He dies on the way, on the way to distant Persia. Probably, Lermontov believed that a person who brings only suffering to loved ones is always doomed to loneliness.

• "A Hero of Our Time", a summary of the chapters of Lermontov's novel
• The image of Bela in Lermontov's novel "A Hero of Our Time"

V.Sh. Krivonos

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

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

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

the rum of fate: by the spoken word, he is able to invite death to himself and predict its character.

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

The attitude towards death expresses Pechorin's reaction to an existence devoid of purpose and meaning; he draws in his imagination the image of death, which is important for understanding his frame of mind. This is not the romantic "bliss of death" as "escaping, liberation, flight into the infinity of the other world." Death is correlated by Pechorin with the idea of ​​the emptiness that captures his personal space, and if it is associated with the motive of flight, then it is illusory; it cannot bring any real liberation from this emptiness to the hero, except that it will forever save him from boredom.

Going on the road, Pechorin refuses to take the notes left to him from Maxim Maksimych:

"What should I do with them?

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

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

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

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

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

Pechorin dies in a completely different way than it should be for a hero who determines the unfolding of a novel plot; his death is relegated to the periphery of the narrative - and it is said about it somehow in passing, without indicating the reason and without details, as if it were not a question of the attitude "to the event

death"5. True, for the narrator, Pechorin's death becomes, if not a plot, then a narrative event, allowing other people's notes to be printed under his own name. As for Pechorin, the possibility of dying on the road, which he speaks of, does not yet express a desire to die, and even more so does not indicate a victory over fate, since it does not imply a free choice of a random outcome of a life story6.

The death of Pechorin is said in passing, and it seems at the same time accidental, because it is not explained and not motivated in any way, and not accidental, because the road is closely connected with the symbolism and with the very area of ​​\u200b\u200bdeath. The road plays an important role in the plot of the hero's test: leaving the world of the living, he seems to be setting off on his last journey8. Pechorin seems to have a presentiment that this is really his last journey, which is why he disposes of his notes in this way; apparent indifference turns (regardless of the hero's intentions) into a hidden concern for their fate. Leaving notes to Maxim Maksimych, he finally breaks off the contacts that still connect him with the world of the living (the story of Pechorin, as it is told by Maxim Maksimych himself, is the story of a break in contacts9), and predicts for himself the fate, if not of the late author of the notes, then of their hero.

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

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

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

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

Do I look like a killer?

You are worse...” (IV, 267).

Pechorin is worse than a killer because he makes his victims despise or hate himself. Grushnitsky does not love him, since Pechorin understood the nature of his "romantic fanaticism" (IV, 238); the astute Werner predicts Pechorin not in vain: “poor Grushnitsky will be your victim.” (IV, 245). And the proud Grushnitsky does not want to protect himself from the role intended for him: “If you do not kill me, I will slaughter you at night from around the corner. There is no place for us on earth together.” (IV, 298). So de-

he monsters on the verge of death, hitting the effect of the habits of the breter. Grushnitsky perishes by the "power of fate", which embodies his "rival" for him,14 but Pechorin does not consider himself an instrument of fate and does not see fatal predestination in the outcome of the duel.

Alone with himself, Pechorin often talks about death; the plot of the hero's test is also internally connected with the theme of death. Wed: “Taman is the nastiest town of all the coastal cities of Russia. I almost died of hunger there, and besides, they wanted to drown me” (IV, 225). The expression almost starved to death is a clear exaggeration, a way to pour out annoyance

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

Pechorin, touching on the theme of death, cannot become like “natural” people15, who live a natural life and are not inclined to reflection; for him, indifference to his own death serves as a psychological mask. In a duel with Grushnitsky, Pechorin rejects Werner's advice to uncover a conspiracy of opponents: “What do you care? Maybe I want to be killed." (IV, 296). However, he still does not express a direct desire to be killed; Pechorinskoe may not carry any certainty in itself. Preparing for a duel and talking about death, Pechorin assumes the pose of a man who has had time to get bored with the world: “Well? to die like this to die: a small loss to the world; and I myself am quite bored already” (IV, 289). It's all about the misunderstanding of his personality on the part of those who remain; not death itself, but precisely the misunderstanding that accompanies him during his lifetime, continues to disturb him: “And perhaps I will die tomorrow! .. and there will not be a single creature left on earth who would understand me completely” (IV, 290). So he is playing a verbal game with himself, which can turn into a deadly game with fate.

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

Maksimych, worse than death from Kazbich's bullet. But Pechorin's reaction to the death of Bela puzzles Maxim Maksimych: “... his face did not express anything special, and I became annoyed; I would have died of grief in his place” (IV, 214). Expressing formal condolences to Pechorin, Maxim Maksimych, unwillingly, touches his hidden feelings: “I, you know, more for decency wanted to console him, began to speak; he raised his head and laughed. Chills ran down my spine at that laugh. I went to order a coffin" (IV, 214-215).

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

“Pechorin turned a little pale and turned away.

Yes I remember! he said, with a forced yawn almost immediately. (IV,

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

The hero's attitude to death is tested and tested in situations that reveal the secret of his personality16. This mystery is connected both with his

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

"...only part of it inner world and perhaps not the most significant and meaningful.

We can agree: “Self-observation for Pechorin is the same process of objective observation of the“ other person ”19. But Pechorin is different for himself in the sense that he does not coincide with himself; it is not identical to the self-portrait painted by him, which, probably, could be confirmed by the surviving, but still unknown to readers, notebook. Predicting in his notes the possible ending of his own fate, he at the same time reserves the right to bring it closer or delay it, or even change it.

The death of Pechorin completes his life plot, but not the plot of the novel, where such a denouement is seen as only one of the possible20, as indicated by the behavior of the hero in The Fatalist; significant update

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

chesky gaming lifestyle.” . Pechorin's desire was noted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

which is accentuated by the functions of notes as insert text when

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

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

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

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

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

Both as the author of the notes and as their hero, Pechorin carries various possibilities; completing the existence of a biographical person, death leaves an imprint of incompleteness on his notes. Commenting on Pechorin's words about the probability of death on the road, the researcher of the novel notes that the hero's phrase acquires "...a certain symbolic connotation - the assumption is likened to a voluntaristic destiny"; since the assumption comes true, and the hero really dies, the question arises about the cause of death: “... died because he wanted

die? The riddle of death crowns here the riddles of life. But Pechorin's maybe cannot be taken literally; the hero does not predetermine either his own fate or the fate of his notes.

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

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

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

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

Maxim Maksimych characterizes Pechorin in such a way in a conversation with the narrator: “After all, there are, really, such people who have it written in their family that various unusual things must happen to them” (IV, 190). This maxim (using the phraseologism ‘it is written in kind’, meaning ‘predetermined in advance, destined’33) gives a simple explanation for the oddities of Pechorin’s behavior on the part of common man, kru-

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

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

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

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

“Yeah, sorry poor guy. The devil pulled him to talk to a drunk at night! .. However, it is clear that it was written in his family that way.

I could get nothing more from him: he generally does not like metaphysical debates ”(IV, 314).

Pechorin himself is skeptical about the prompts of "abstract thought", but nevertheless, he evades from following "helpful astrology": threw metaphysics aside and began to look at his feet” (IV, 310). Meanwhile, the phrase that concludes the novel takes on the shocking meaning of the ending, returning the story to the news, which made the narrator very happy, and opening up just the right place for metaphysical debate about the meaning of the event of the death of the hero of our time.

1 Lermontov M.Yu. Sobr. cit.: In 4 vols. 2nd ed., corrected. and additional T. IV. L., 1981. S. 195. Further all references to this edition with the indication of the volume in Roman and pages in Arabic numerals are given in the text.

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

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

4 Savinkov S.V. To Lermontov's Metaphysics of Writing: Pechorin's Journal // Korman Readings. Issue. 4. Izhevsk, 2002. P. 35.

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

7 Shchepanskaya T.B. The culture of the road in Russian mythological and ritual traditions XIX-XX centuries M., 2003. S. 40-41. See about the connection in the lamentations of the theme of the road with the region of death: Nevskaya L.G. Semantics of the road and related representations in the funeral rite // Structure of the text. M., 1980. S. 230.

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

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

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

11 Compare: See: Kedrov K.A. Decree. op. S. 311.

12 See: Fedorov F.I. Art world German Romanticism: Structure and Semantics. M., 2004. S. 197-198.

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

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

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

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

17 Lotman Yu.M. "Fatalist" and the problem of East and West in the work of Lermontov // Lotman Yu.M. In the school of the poetic word: Pushkin. Lermontov. Gogol. M., 1988. S. 227.

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

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

M., 1941. S. 611.

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

22 Durylin S. "A Hero of Our Time" by M.Yu. Lermontov. M., 1940. S. 255.

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

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

25 Compare: “...death reveals not our ephemeralness: it reveals our infinity, our eternity” (Vasiliadis N. Sacrament of death / Translated from modern Greek. Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, 1998, p. 44).

26 Eikhenbaum B.M. "Hero of our time" // Eikhenbaum B.M. About prose. L., 1969. S. 302303.

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

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

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

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

31 Gurvich I. Is Pechorin Mysterious? // Questions of Literature. 1983. No. 2. S. 123.

32 Compare: “Settings in relation to death are closely connected with the image of the other world” (Gurevich A.Ya. Decree. Op. P. 132).

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

34 Maksimov D.E. Decree. op.

The image of Pechorin, depicted by Mikhail Lermontov, is, first of all, the personality of a young man who suffers from his restlessness and is constantly captivated by questions: “Why did I live? For what purpose was I born?

What is he, the hero of the XIX century?

Pechorin is not at all like his peers, he does not have a drop of desire to move along the beaten path of the secular youth of that time. The young officer serves, but does not seek to curry favor. He is not fond of music, philosophy, does not want to go into the intricacies of studying the military craft. But it immediately becomes clear to the reader that the image of Pechorin is the image of a person who is head and shoulders above the people around him. He is smart enough, educated and talented, distinguished by energy and courage. Nevertheless, Pechorin's indifference to other people, the selfishness of his nature, the inability to empathize, friendship and love are repulsive. The controversial image of Pechorin is complemented by his other qualities: the thirst to live to the fullest, the ability to critically evaluate his actions, the desire for the best. The "pity of actions" of the character, the senseless waste of energy, his actions that hurt others - all this puts the hero in a bad light. However, at the same time, the officer himself is experiencing deep suffering.

The complexity and inconsistency of the protagonist of the famous novel is especially vividly represented by his words that two people live in it at the same time: one of them lives in the full sense of the word, and the second one thinks and judges the actions of the first one. It also tells about the reasons that laid the foundation for this “splitness”: “I told the truth - they didn’t believe me: I began to deceive ...” A young and hopeful young man in just a couple of years turned into a callous, vindictive, bilious and ambitious person; as he himself put it - "a moral cripple." The image of Pechorin in the novel “A Hero of Our Time” echoes the image of Onegin created by A. S. Pushkin: he is an “egoist involuntarily”, disappointed in life, prone to pessimism, experiencing constant internal conflict.

30s XIX century did not allow Pechorin to find and reveal himself. He repeatedly makes attempts to forget himself in petty adventures, love, exposes himself to the bullets of the Chechens ... However, all this does not bring him the desired relief and remains only an attempt to distract himself.

Nevertheless, the image of Pechorin is the image of a richly gifted nature. After all, he has a sharp analytical mind, he extraordinarily accurately evaluates people and the actions that they perform. He developed a critical attitude not only towards others, but also towards himself. In his diary, the officer exposes himself: a warm heart is beating in his chest, able to feel deeply (the death of Bela, meeting with Vera) and experience extremely strongly, although it is hidden under the mask of indifference. However, this indifference is nothing more than self-defense.

“The Hero of Our Time”, the image of Pechorin in which is the basis of the story, allows you to see the same person from completely different sides, look into different corners of her soul. Simultaneously with all of the above in the guise of an officer, we see a strong-willed, strong and active person in whom "life forces" are dormant. He is ready to act. Unfortunately, almost all of his actions end up hurting both Pechorin himself and those around him, his activities are not constructive, but destructive.

The image of Pechorin strongly resonates with Lermontov's "Demon", especially at the beginning of the novel, when something demonic, unsolved remains in the hero. The young man, by the will of fate, becomes the destroyer of other people's lives: it is he who is guilty of the death of Bela, that Maxim Maksimovich was completely disappointed in friendship, of how much Vera and Mary suffered. Grushnitsky, in turn, dies at the hands of Pechorin. Pechorin played a role in how another young officer, Vulich, died, and also in how "honest smugglers" were forced to leave their homes.

Conclusion

Pechorin is a person who no longer has a past and there is only hope for something better in the future. In the present, he remains a perfect ghost - this is how Belinsky described this contradictory image.

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

A peculiar core of the analyzed episode is a bet between lieutenant Vulich and Pechorin. The main character served in one Cossack village, "the officers gathered at each other's place in turn, played cards in the evenings." On one of these evenings, the bet happened. After sitting for a long game of card games, the officers talked about fate and predestination. Unexpectedly, Lieutenant Vulich offers to check whether "a person can arbitrarily dispose of his life, or whether everyone ... has a fateful minute in advance."
No one, except Pechorin, enters into a bet. Vulich loaded the pistol, pulled the trigger, and shot himself in the forehead. The gun misfired. So the lieutenant proved that the already predetermined fate still exists.

The theme of predestination and a player who is trying his luck was developed before Lermontov by Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin (“Shot” and “ Queen of Spades"). And in the novel A Hero of Our Time, up to the chapter Fatalist, the theme of fate arose repeatedly. Maxim Maksimovich says about Pechorin in "Bel": "After all, there are, really, such people who have a life written, various unusual things must happen to them." In the chapter “Taman”, Pechorin asks himself: “And why did fate throw me into the peaceful circle of honest smugglers?” In "Princess Mary": "... fate somehow always led me to the denouement of other people's dramas ... what purpose did fate have for this?"

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

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

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

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

Pechorin and Bela

The author named one of the stories of his novel after the Circassian girl Bela. This name seems to predetermine the touchingness and some drama of the plot. And indeed, as the story is told on behalf of staff captain Maxim Maksimych, we get to know bright, unusual characters.
The protagonist of the story is officer Grigory Alexandrovich Pechorin, who arrived in the Caucasus for military service.
He immediately appears before us as an unusual person: enthusiastic, courageous, smart: “He was nice, just a little strange. After all, for example, in the rain, in the cold all day hunting; everyone will be cold, tired - but nothing to him ... I went to the wild boar one on one ... ”- this is how Maxim Maksimych characterizes him.
The character of Pechorin is complex and contradictory. Along with his positive qualities, we are soon convinced of his ambition, selfishness, spiritual callousness.
For his own pleasure, out of a thirst for new experiences, he enters into an agreement with the reckless Circassian Azamat, who raved about good horses. In exchange for Kazbich's horse, Pechorin secretly decides to get his sister, the young girl Bela, from the Circassian, without even thinking about her consent.
To Maxim Maksimych’s objections that this is “a bad thing,” Pechorin replies: “A wild Circassian woman should be happy having such a sweet husband like him ...”.
And this unthinkable exchange of a girl for a horse took place. Officer Pechorin became the owner of Bela and tried to accustom her to the idea "that she would not belong to anyone except him ...".
With attention, gifts, persuasion, Pechorin managed to achieve the love of the proud and incredulous Bela. But this love could not have a happy ending. In the words of the author: “What began in an extraordinary way must end the same way.
Very soon, Pechorin's attitude towards the "poor girl changed." Bela quickly got tired of him, and he began to look for every reason to leave her, at least for a while.
Bela is the exact opposite of Pechorin. If he is a nobleman, a secular aristocrat and a heartthrob, then Bela is a girl living according to the laws of the mountains, in accordance with her national traditions and customs. She is ready to love one man all her life, to be completely devoted to him and faithful.
And how much pride and independence there was in this young Chechen woman, although she understood that she had become a prisoner of Pechorin. As a real resident of the mountains, she is ready to accept any turn of fate: "If they stop loving her, she herself will leave, because she is a prince's daughter ...".
In fact, Bela fell in love with Pechorin so much that, despite his coldness, she thought only of him.
Her great unrequited feeling for this officer was the cause of her death at the hands of Kazbich.
Bela accepted death calmly, speaking only of her sincere love for Pechorin. She probably deserved a better fate, but she fell in love with an indifferent and cold person and sacrificed her life for this.
What was Pechorin's reaction to her death? He sat quietly with a face that "expressed nothing in particular." And in response to Maksim Maksimych's words of consolation, "he raised his head and laughed."
Wherever Pechorin appeared, he brought suffering and misfortune to people. Torn from her family and abandoned by him, Bela died. But her love and death became just simple episodes in Pechorin's life.