An interesting lesson on the hero of our time. Abstract of a lesson in literature on the topic "Hero of Our Time" - the first psychological novel in Russian literature

We will talk about Lermontov's great novel "A Hero of Our Time". Who is a hero in Russian literature? This is not a positive character, but associated with the complexity of life. Russian classical literature does not teach correct answers to simple questions, but the difficulties of life.

Lermontov began working with prose ideas related to A Hero of Our Time in 1838. He sketches the unfinished novel "Princess Ligovskaya", where Grigory Alexandrovich Pechorin already appears. By the end of his life, the writer completes the work. In 1839, two stories from this novel "Bela" and "The Fatalist" appeared in the magazine.

There are works that are addictive due to a well-constructed plot. Many events and characters are united by one storyline. In Lermontov's novel, everything is different. There is no single storyline. The novel consists of disparate stories and is connected by the image of the main character Grigory Pechorin (see Fig. 1).

Rice. 1. M.A. Vrubel. Portrait of a military man (Pechorin on the couch)

Let us recall two literary concepts: plot and plot.

plot- the chronological sequence of events in a literary work.

But there are practically no stories with a direct, simple chronology. The authors jump from the events of the present to events from the past, look into the future, because they are building a plot.

Plot- a series of events built in accordance with the author's intention.

If the events were arranged in chronological order, the reader would first learn about Vera, because the hero met her a long time ago, long before he knew all the other characters.

The plot sequence of episodes of the novel

• "Taman"
• "Princess Mary"
• "Fatalist"
• "Bela"
• "Maxim Maksimych"

If Lermontov's novel had been built this way, it might have been more exciting. In the story "Princess Mary" there is a duel between Pechorin and Grushnitsky (see Fig. 2).

Rice. 2. M.A. Vrubel. "Duel Pechorin with Grushnitsky"

The reader does not experience excitement, it is known for sure that Pechorin will survive. The plot tension is off. A hero will die on his way back from Persia.

So, Lermontov's fascination is not so important.

The plot sequence of the episodes of the novel

• Preface. Meet the author and characters.
• "Bela".
• "Maxim Maksimych".
• Pechorin's journal. Notes telling about the events that took place before "Bela": preface, "Taman", "Princess Mary", "Fatalist".

The novel "A Hero of Our Time" came out in two small books that came to Nicholas I. Emperor Lermontov did not favor, but read the work carefully. He liked the first book and approved it. When I read the second, which contains Pechorin's notes, Nicholas I was disappointed in the work. He misunderstood the name, deciding that the "Hero of Our Time" was Maxim Maksimych. A simple loyal subject, a good Russian officer, faithful to the oath, having no spiritual contradictions, Pechorin explains internal experiences by the fact that "mother spoiled him." This is a deceitful move by Lermontov. He built the work with a different idea. The reader does not plunge deep into the events, but penetrates into the soul of the hero himself. The composition of the novel is subject to this plot rule. The reader moves in circles, gets acquainted with Maxim Maksimych and through his eyes looks at Pechorin in Bela's story. Then Pechorin himself appears, a cold, contemptuous person who does not look like a romantic hero, as Maxim Maksimych described him. Then the notes of Pechorin himself, the reader is immersed in his inner world and looks at what is happening already through his eyes. This is an important feature of the novel.

"Hero of our time"- the first psychological novel in Russian literature. What matters is not the events, but the history of the soul. This is a controversial portrait of an entire generation. The author does not seek to help the reader. What should be Pechorin? Should we love him or hate him, be indifferent or accept his image? The author shows three love stories connected with the hero. In all Pechorin looks like a monster. But women fall in love with him because they feel the power that contemporaries have lost. For the hero, love events end in disappointment, for the girls in disaster. But still, the reader finds a special meaning in them. Lermontov teaches the complexities of life, not the deciphering of simple formulas.

The last of the stories of the novel "The Fatalist", it talks about the main problem: is the protagonist responsible for his fate, or is everything fatal and predetermined, and nothing can be changed. There is no definitive answer. Serb Vulich, who had a premonition of death, plays with fate, and fate leaves him alive: the gun does not shoot. Miraculously surviving, Vulich dies "from a random checker of a drunken Cossack." Pechorin rushes at the Cossack, and the hero is more likely to die, but fate is present in our lives and Pechorin remains alive.

The author constantly reflects on the extent to which fate determines the fate of a person. The reader enters the world of the soul not only of the hero, but also of the narrator. This is a double psychological novel. Two images in the spotlight: the hero and the narrator. Relationships with each other are as complex as the plot of the novel. Pechorin is hopeless. The reader meets and says goodbye to him in the fortress. The hero cannot go beyond the circle outlined around his personality. The author does not find a way out of this contradiction either.

The text of the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov "A Hero of Our Time"

Victor Zolotussky in the program “M.Yu. Lermontov. Mysterious Tale” tells about the influence of the nature of the Caucasus on the perception and work of the poet; talks about the similarities and differences between the images of Pechorin and the Demon.

Participants of the program talk about the tragic fate of Pechorin

LessonI: "M.Yu. Lermontov "A Hero of Our Time" is the first psychological novel in Russian literature. The complexity of the composition. The age of M.Yu. Lermontov in the novel. Pechorin as a representative of the "portrait of a generation"

The Hero of Our Time... is a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation.

M.Yu.Lermontov

History of creation

The creative history of the creation of the novel "A Hero of Our Time" has been restored only in general terms.

It is known that it was based on Lermontov's impressions from a trip to the Caucasus in 1837, where he was exiled for poetry on the death of Pushkin, and the novel itself was created in St. Petersburg from 1838 to the beginning of 1840. Unfortunately, neither in Lermontov's letters nor in his notes is there any information regarding the work on the novel. The handwritten heritage is also extremely scarce, which does not allow fully comparing the text of the novel with the manuscript.

The idea of ​​the novel as a "long chain of stories" finally took shape with Lermontov, probably in 1838.

The first two stories - "Bela" and "Fatalist" - were published in 1839 in the journal "Domestic Notes", in early 1840 in the same place - "Taman". All of them went under the heading "Notes of an officer in the Caucasus."

In April 1840, the stories were combined into a single novel under the title A Hero of Our Time. This included two new stories - "Maxim Maksimych" and "Princess Mary".

The novel consists of six parts, five stories plus the “Preface to Pechorin's Journal”, each having its own genre, its own plot, and its own title. The stories "Bela", "Maxim Maksimych", "Princess Mary" are named after the names of the characters with whom the story is connected. The remaining two are named "Taman" and "Fatalist".

Taman ( Tamanskaya) village of Temryuksky district of the Krasnodar Territory, a port on the coast of the Tamansky Bay of the Krechensky Strait.

Fatalist- a person prone to fatalism.

Fatalism- belief in the inevitability of fate, in the fact that everything in the world

predetermined by a mysterious force, fate.

Fatal- 1. Predetermined by fate; mysteriously incomprehensible.

2. Fatal, tragic in its essence, according to the results.

The meaning of the name.

- How do you understand the meaning of the title of the work of M. Yu. Lermontov "A Hero of Our Time"?

Let's try to define the word "hero".

Ozhegov's dictionary gives several definitions for this concept:

A hero is a person who performs feats, unusual in his courage, valor, selflessness.

The hero is the one who attracted attention to himself (more often about the one who causes admiration, surprise).

The hero is the main character in a literary work.

A hero is a person who embodies the features of an era, environment.

- Which of these definitions will we take to explain the title of the novel?

What is the name of the main character in the novel? (Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin)

Now let's move on to the second part of the title. "Our time" - whose is it? (This is the time of heroes, the narrator, Lermontov himself)

The main period of Lermontov's work is associated with the era of the 30s of the XIX century - the time of the Nikolaev reaction in all spheres of public life and social stagnation after the defeat of the Decembrist uprising. Pechorin is a person who embodied the characteristic features of the public consciousness of people of the 30s: the intensity of moral and philosophical searches, exceptional willpower, analytical mind, outstanding human abilities.

An ideological crisis is a crisis of ideas. The ideas, ideals, goals and meaning of life of the Pushkin generation - everything was destroyed. These are difficult times, later they will be called the era of timelessness. In such years, they talk about lack of spirituality, about the fall of morality.

The need to master the "mistakes of the fathers", to rethink what seemed immutable to the previous generation, to develop one's own moral and philosophical position is a characteristic feature of the era of the 1920s and 1930s.

Thus, Pechorin is a person who embodied the characteristic features of the public consciousness of people of the 30s.

The main feature of the modern Pechorin generation is inconsistency.

Man and destiny, man and his purpose, the purpose and meaning of human life, its possibilities and reality, free will and necessity - all these questions received a figurative embodiment in the novel.

The problem of personality is central in the novel: "The history of the human soul ... is almost more curious and more useful than the history of a whole people."

controversy surrounding the novel.

The appearance of the novel by M. Yu. Lermontov immediately caused a sharp controversy in society.

Nicholas I found the novel "disgusting", showing the "great depravity of the author".

Protective criticism attacked Lermontov's novel, seeing in it a slander on Russian reality. Professor S.P. Shevyrev sought to prove that Pechorin was nothing more than an imitation of Western models, that he had no roots in Russian life.

conservative criticism- slander of Russian reality, "the whole novel is an epigram"

W. Kuchelbecker- “... it’s still a pity that Lermontov spent his talent on the image of such a creature as his ugly Pechorin”

V.G. Belinsky He was the first to evaluate “The Hero of Our Time” with extraordinary fidelity, noting in it “a wealth of content”, “deep knowledge of the human heart and modern society”.

Author to the second edition of A Hero of Our Time, he writes a Preface, in which he insisted that “The Hero of Our Time, my gracious sirs, is like a portrait, but not of one person: it is a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation, in their full development.”

Ideological intention.

- What task did Lermontov set for himself when he wrote "A Hero of Our Time"?

The novel was conceived as an artistic study of the inner world of man, his soul. Lermontov himself said this in the "Preface" to "Pechorin's Journal": "The history of the human soul, even the smallest soul, is perhaps more curious and more useful than the history of a whole people, especially when it is a consequence of the observation of a mature mind over itself ... "

Understanding Lermontov's ideological concept is necessary for understanding the genre and compositional features of the work.

Composition. "A Hero of Our Time" as a psychological novel. one

In "A Hero of Our Time" the composition organizes, builds a plot, not a plot. To understand the difference, it is necessary to clarify the concepts of plot and plot.

plot- a set of events and incidents in their mutual internal connection, developing in chronological sequence.

Plot- the same set of events and incidents, as well as motives and incentives for behavior in their compositional sequence, those. plot - the distribution of events in a work of art, built by the author for the purposes he needs.

– How Lermontov builds the plot of the work?

Plot- a set of events in a work of art. “Bela” /4/ “Maxim Maksimych” /5/ "Foreword" to "Pechorin's Journal" /6/ “Taman” /1/ Princess Mary” /2/ Fatalist” /3/

plot- events in a literary work in their sequential connection. "Taman" Princess Mary" "Fatalist" "Maxim Maksimych" "Preface" to "Pechorin's Journal".

– Restore the chronological order of events.

Chronology of events underlying the work, according to V. Nabokov.

“Taman": around 1830 - Pechorin is sent from St. Petersburg to the active detachment and stops in Taman;

“Princess Mary": May 10 - June 17, 1832; Pechorin comes from the active detachment to the waters in Pyatigorsk and then to Kislovodsk; after a duel with Grushnitsky, he was transferred to the fortress under the command of Maxim Maksimych;

“Fatalist": December 1832 - Pechorin arrives for two weeks from the fortress of Maxim Maksimych to the Cossack village;

“Bela": spring of 1833 - Pechorin kidnaps the daughter of the “prince of peace”, and four months later she dies at the hands of Kazbich;

“Maksim Maksimych": autumn 1837 - Pechorin, going to Persia, again finds himself in the Caucasus and meets with Maxim Maksimych.

If we keep in mind the chronology of events, in the "Hero of Our Time", i.e. plot, it should look like this:

Pechorin's adventure with the "undine" in Taman ("Taman");

the story of Mary with Grushnitsky, a duel ("Princess Mary");

episode with Vulich ("Fatalist");

the abduction of Bela and the journey of the wandering officer-narrator with Maksim Maksimych ("Bela");

meeting with Maxim Maksimych in Vladikavkaz ("Maxim Maksimych");

news of the death of Pechorin ("Preface to the" Journal of Pechorin.

The arrangement of parts according to the chronology (plot) of the novel, therefore, is as follows:

"Taman"

"Princess Mary"

"Fatalist"

1. "Maxim Maksimych"

   "Foreword" to "Pechorin's Journal".

Did Lermontov accidentally abandon the chronological principle in the arrangement of the stories included in the novel, from the order of their initial publication?

Belinsky wrote: "Parts of this novel are arranged in accordance with internal necessity." And then he explained: "Despite its episodic fragmentation, it must not be read in the order in which the author himself placed it: otherwise you will read two excellent stories and several excellent stories, but you will not know the novel."

- Why does Lermontov violate the chronology of events? What was the goal pursued by Lermontov, arranging the stories in such a sequence?

By arranging the stories in such a sequence, the author pursued the goal arising from the ideological design - to reveal the complex nature of Pechorin wider and deeper.

Let us recall once again that the novel was conceived as an artistic study of the inner world of a person, a description of the "history of the human soul."

Lermontov created a completely new novel - new in form and content: a psychological novel, foreseeing the further development of Russian prose in this direction. From now on, the Russian novel in its best, classical forms will become a psychological novel. He will always focus on the inner world of the characters and will shy away from direct and contrasting assessments.

Psychologism- this is a fairly complete, detailed and deep depiction of the feelings, thoughts and experiences of a literary character with the help of specific means of fiction.

Psychological novel- a type of novel in which the introspection of the characters is directed at the characters and motives of behavior and in which this introspection of the characters is criticized and evaluated by the author or narrator.

Lermontov lets us first hear about the hero, then look at him, and finally reveals his diary to us.

So,violation of chronology, i.e.inconsistency between the plot and the plot,due to the following:

selection of the most significant episodes;

special attention to psychological reflections, rather than the description of events.

For example, the duel between Pechorin and Grushnitsky, if we follow the chronology, takes place before the reader receives news of Pechorin's death, the reader's interest will then be directed to the duel itself, and the tension will be maintained by the question: what will become of Pechorin, will Grushnitsky kill him or will the hero remain alive? The reader's attention in this case is focused on the event itself. In the novel, Lermontov relieves tension by the fact that before the duel he already reports (in the Preface to Pechorin's Journal) about the death of Pechorin, who was returning from Persia. The reader is notified in advance that Pechorin will live, and the tension for this important episode in the life of the hero is reduced. But on the other hand, tension is increased to the events of Pechorin's inner life, to his reflections, to the analysis of his own experiences.

Conclusion: the events and incidents of Pechorin's life are involved only to the extent that they help to comprehend his soul.

the choice of the narrator is not accidental;

the need to correlate the hero with other characters appearing in a certain sequence;

comprehensively and deeply reveal the image of the hero of his time, trace the history of his life.

Psychological portrait of Pechorin. 2

Does the character of the protagonist change during the course of the story, or does it remain the same?

The character of Pechorin is given as an established and stable worldview. This is a feature of romanticism: the hero is a static figure. The character of Pechorin does not change from episode to episode. It took shape once and for all. The inner world of Pechorin is the same from the first story to the last. It doesn't develop.

Unlike the hero of PS Pushkin's novel "Eugene Onegin", where the main character, being the hero of a realistic work, undergoes changes, develops under the influence of new feelings and circumstances.

How do we see Pechorin? What can we say about his character, attitude to life and people around him, what principles and considerations does he follow in his life?

From life experience, the hero took out a skeptical attitude towards reality and towards the people around him.

Everywhere he sees the same banality, triviality, but he continues to chase after life, each time thinking that the next adventure will be new and unusual, will refresh his feelings and enrich his mind. The main goal is to get rid of Pechorin's main illness - boredom (an analogy with Eugene Onegin).

However, sincerely surrendering to a new attraction, he turns on the mind, which destroys the immediate feeling.

The hero's skepticism becomes, as it were, absolute: it is not love, not truth, and sincerity of feeling that is important - power over a woman. Love for him is not a duel of equals, but submission to himself. He sees pleasure and pleasure in being "the cause of suffering and joy, without having any positive right to do so."

In the same way, he is incapable of friendship, because he cannot give up part of his freedom, which would mean for him to become a “slave” (in friendship, one is always the slave of the other). With Werner, he maintains a distance in a relationship. He also makes Maxim Maksimych feel his detachment, avoiding friendly hugs.

Free will, growing into individualism, serves for Pechorin as the principle of life behavior.

He is full of interest in both people and nature, seeks and finds adventure, creating favorable situations for himself, where his mind could triumph.

The desire to constantly test not only others, knowing their weaknesses and guessing possible reactions to his words and actions, but also himself, often taking risks and being in danger.

The ultimate goal of vital activity is the knowledge of the meaning of reality and one's personality. This striving for higher goals distinguishes Pechorin from the environment, demonstrates the scale of his personality and character. However, the insignificance of the results and their repetition forms a spiritual circle in which the hero is closed. Pechorin feels infinitely unhappy and deceived by fate. The immense forces felt by him not only did not become good for him, but also turned into suffering and torment. From here grows the idea of ​​death as the best outcome from a vicious and bewitched, as if predetermined circle. The hero courageously bears this cross and cannot come to terms with it, making more and more attempts to change his fate, to give a deep and serious meaning to his stay in the world.

inconsistency- the main character trait of Pechorin, in the image of which the originality of a person who stands above the society around him, the strength and talent of his thinking and energetic nature, realized in active introspection, the courage and honesty of his character are combined with unbelief, skepticism and individualism, leading to contempt and hostility attitude towards people. The hero is not satisfied with modern morality, does not believe in friendship and love. But at the same time, he seeks to decide his own fate and be responsible for his behavior.

The novel tells about a new attempt to find food for the soul - Pechorin goes to the East. His developed critical consciousness is turned to the essential problems of human life and the world. It has not ended and has not acquired a harmonious integrity. Lermontov makes it clear that in Russia Pechorin is doomed to his former state. Traveling to exotic, unknown countries is also imaginary, because the hero cannot escape from himself.

Let us return once again to the Preface written by the author to the second edition of his novel: “The Hero of Our Time, my gracious sirs, is like a portrait, but not of one person: it is a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation, in their full development”

In the history of the soul of a noble intellectual of the middle of the 19th century, duality was initially concluded: the consciousness of the individual felt free will as an immutable value, but took painful forms, the individual opposed himself to the environment and faced such external circumstances that gave rise to a boring repetition of norms of behavior, similar situations and responses to they can lead to despair, make life meaningless, dry up the mind and feelings, replace the direct perception of the world with a cold and rational one, and take out only a negative view of the world from this bitter experience.

Image system

- In the novel there is a change of narrators. What is the reason for the change of narrators?

The main features of the image of Pechorin are helped to reveal the system of images of the novel, each of which in its own way sets off the different facets of the character of the hero.

We have already said that the image of Pechorin is static.

Therefore, the change of narrators is aimed at ensuring that the analysis of the inner world becomes deeper and more comprehensive. Different characters tell about Pechorin. The reader sees his character from different points of view, including from the point of view of the hero himself, to whom the word is given. A change of perspective is needed not in order to observe the development of character, but in order to immerse yourself in the inner world of the hero.

There are three narrators in the novel: Maxim Maksimych, a wandering officer, and Pechorin himself. Yu.M. Lotman writes: "Thus, the character of Pechorin is revealed to the reader gradually, as if reflected in many mirrors, and not one of the reflections, taken separately, gives an exhaustive description of Pechorin. Only the totality of these arguing voices creates a complex and contradictory character of the hero " .

First, the reader looks at Pechorin through the eyes of Maxim Maksimych, a man of a completely different consciousness than Pechorin. At the same time, the staff captain's point of view is conveyed by another person, a wandering officer. In other words, the hero becomes known from afar and through other people's assessments.

The narrator then meets with him and directly conveys his observations.

Finally, the reader is introduced to Pechorin's Journal, where the hero describes his adventures and analyzes them. The reader looks at Pechorin through his eyes and learns about him from his words. The inner world of Pechorin approaches the reader, who gets the opportunity to enter and immerse himself in it.

The genre of the novel.

In "A Hero of Our Time" and in general in prose, Lermontov, as in lyrics, follows the path of combining genre forms.

Let's try to define the genre of each of the stories.

"Bela" - a travel essay merges with a romantic short story about the love of a European for a savage.

"Maxim Maksimych" - a psychological novella

"Taman" - combines the genres of an adventurous short story, an action-packed story

"Princess Mary" - the genre of diary entries, as well as the obvious influence of the genre of Lermontov's modern secular story

"Fatalist" - contains signs of a romantic story with its mystery and inexplicable intervention of higher powers.

HOMEWORK

Prepare a selective retelling on the topic “Pechorin in the view of Maxim Maksimych” according to the following plan:

What is the social position of Pechorin and his past in the understanding of Maxim Maksimych?

What does Pechorin see as a strange character?

Why does Maxim Maxima condemn Pechorin?

1 D / z: build stories according to the plot, restore the chronological order of events

2 D / z: prepare a psychological portrait of Pechorin, make a list of his life principles (attitude towards women, friendship, life). Answer the question: what do you think Pechorin sees the meaning of life

Lesson 3

Preface.First, I will post two excerpts from articles (for courses) that relate to the theory of the novel and the composition of the "hero". They were not written entirely for the lesson, you can just look into them and not say it anymore (especially things that are quite well-known).

– A novel is an “epos of private life”, in contrast to the ancient epic poems dedicated to the life of a people (and not an individual, even if, for example, the cunning Odysseus or the mighty Ilya Muromets turn out to be in the center of the narrative).

– The novel tells about the formation and development of an individual personality, “deployed” in artistic space and time, necessary for the history of this individual destiny to somehow “determine”, find or realize itself.

– The novel is a “free” genre, not constrained by strict classicist “rules”: classicism considered the novel to be a “low” genre, suitable for describing corrupted modern mores and did not consider it necessary to describe its genre properties.

- The novel often “pretends” to be a description of a true (rather than fictional) life story, and therefore the authors include allegedly authentic documents in it: letters, excerpts from a diary; the novel seems to be trying to blur the line between fiction and reality, art and life.

– No matter how skillful the writer who creates the novel is, he voluntarily “shifts” his storytelling talent into the background, because the main thing in the novel is the plot, the event, the novel’s “interest in continuation,” as M.M. called it. Bakhtin. (6) Epos and novel in the book: M.M. Bakhtin. Questions of literature and aesthetics. M., 1975, p. 474. This does not mean that writing a novel requires less skill than creating an ode or tragedy (as one might naively believe in the 18th century, when the Russian novel eked out a rather miserable existence), but even the most virtuoso narrative technique in the novel remains only a means to create characters. , plot development, etc.

In determining the genre originality of A Hero of Our Time, we will have to find out what novel differs from stories. If Pushkin created his novel, starting from the genre of a romantic poem, then Lermontov took as a basis a prose (but also mostly romantic) story: this genre was also better developed in the 30s of the 19th century than the Russian prose novel.

There are several points of view on what is the originality of the genre of the story.

1. Relatively speaking, a "quantitative" approach: the story is a kind of "average" epic genre; it is more than a story (in terms of volume, number of characters and events, time of action, etc.), but less than a novel. Sometimes supporters of this theory add that the novel touches on important social issues, and the story tends to describe private life. This approach now satisfies few people, since it cannot explain, for example, why The Captain's Daughter is a story, and Dubrovsky is a novel, although in the first case both the volume is larger and the sharpness of "public issues" is no less than in second.

2. Another version suggests the existence of two types of epic prose: one belongs to the ancient oral tradition, the other took shape only in written literature. To the first belong story and story, to the second - "new" genres: novel and short story. “If in the novel the center of gravity lies in the integral action, in the actual and psychological movement of the plot, then in the story the main burden is often transferred to the static components of the work - situations, states of mind, landscapes, descriptions, etc. (...) a huge role in the story (and the story) is played by the speech element - the voice of the author or narrator. (7) LES, p. 281.

3. The third version is based on the compositional features of the story: in the story, the events are presented chronologically, in their natural sequence. (8) E.Ya. Fesenko Theory of Literature: Textbook. Ed. 2nd, rev. and additional –M., 2005. Such a “presentation of material” does not make concessions to the “interest of continuation”, conscientiously unfolding the picture of events in the order in which they appeared before the narrator.

The second and third versions are interconnected and do not contradict each other. Let's invite the class, based on this theory, to find the features of the stories in those fragments that make up the "Hero of Our Time". Indeed, each of them unfolds in chronological order. As for the "element of storytelling", it plays a big role in the first part of the novel - in the stories "Bela" and "Maxim Maksimych"; "Pechorin's Journal" is a "originally" written, not narrated text and a typical novelistic technique (imitation of "documentary"). However, Taman, and Princess Mary, and The Fatalist are traditionally called stories, since they are the "building material" for the novel. However, the transfer of mental states, and landscapes, and the voice of the narrator play a huge role in them.

In order to "assemble" a novel from these stories, Lermontov abandoned the chronological principle. Let's offer the class a "classic" task:

- Restore the "correct" sequence of parts. - Most researchers are inclined to this option: "Pechorin's Journal", "Bela", "Maxim Maksimych", "Foreword to the Journal".

(Another answer is possible: so that the reader does not think that the character of the protagonist is shown to him in development. However, this is hardly the main thing in the author's intention: it is enough that we do not see how this character was formed).

- But what is the "interest of continuation" if the novel does not have a single plot? What plays the role of a “mystery” here, a question that needs an answer, and a plot that needs a resolution? - Apparently, the character of the protagonist, his personality.

- And one more "classic" question: try to explain the internal logic of the order in which Lermontov arranged the parts of the novel. (In other words, explain the main compositional principle, which is subject to the "Hero of Our Time").

Usually schoolchildren easily notice that in the first part we see the hero "from the outside", and in the second he reveals his inner world.

– Is there (within the first part) a difference between the look of Maxim Maksimych and the narrator? - Oddly enough, the narrator notices and understands more than Pechorin's old friend. Why? - They are people of the same circle and experience; the narrator "understands the Pechorins", Maxim Maksimych does not. So, already inside the first part we see some approximations to the "solution".

It is more difficult to see the logic of "approximation" inside Pechorin's Journal, and if no one sees it right away, this question can be returned to at the end of the study of the novel. The main thing that the reader is trying to understand is the motives of Pechorin's actions, the inner meaning of his "adventures". In "Taman" the hero himself describes what is happening to him, but touches on the motives in passing and only teases the reader's curiosity. In "Princess Mary" a complete psychological introspection is developed; the hero explores himself at the level of emotions and passions and does not find a clue to his "strangeness". The Fatalist, on the other hand, describes a highly peculiar “philosophical experiment”: Pechorin is trying to get an answer whether there is any higher being, fate, predestination above him, and whether there is for him in the world that “great destiny” that needs to be guessed, - or he himself is the sole master of both his actions and fate. And this is the last answer, the last "guess" that the author offers us.

– Can we say that in “A Hero of Our Time” the hero realized the logic of his fate, determined for himself its main meaning (as is typical of a novel hero)? - That's Pechorin's trouble, that he looking for this meaning, but did not find it. The finale of the novel is sometimes interpreted as the final degradation of the hero, who has lost hope of finding answers to his questions. But the fact that death caught him on the road can be interpreted in the opposite way - especially when you consider that for romantics the road is a symbol of the endless path, the endless striving of the human spirit for ideal and perfection (and in Lermontov's prose, as well as in his poetry , the influence of romanticism is very deep). Death on the way is a sign of ongoing search and unbending perseverance: this hero continued to search for answers to the end.

Lesson 1.

1. Give a written survey: “What kind of person is Pechorin?” Clarifying questions:

What is he looking for in life?

- What guides the actions?

Does he have criteria for good and evil?

Brief summary: at the heart of this novel is one question, one mystery - the character of the protagonist. What is he like, why does he live this way, what is he doing, what does he need from life? Our task is to figure it out.

2. Restore the chronology of events and understand the composition (see above). We find out that the novel is built in this way - as an approximation to the solution. I draw on the board an acute angle resting on a point - Pechorin.

3. What is common in the plots of all stories? - Children see that Pechorin always brings misfortune to those with whom he deals (spoils all his toys, even Maxim Maksimych). And that every time he risks his life on a par with his main opponent. Each time it can die, but the other one dies.

But they do not see that here, as in Belkin's Tales, new patterns are being embroidered on the old canvas. All these plots are more or less characteristic of romantic prose and poems (stories with undines, adventures with mountain beauties, secular duel showdowns ...). You can even say that Pechorin seems to be trying to penetrate the magical world of romantic stories, but that was not the case. Something similar to the story with Pinocchio and the painted hearth happens: he stuck his nose into the picture - tore it, but could not get inside. This is very noticeable in Taman: the world remained magical and beautiful, but the fairy tale collapsed and slipped away.

4. If there is time left, we start talking about "Bel". Chronologically, this is a rather late story, but it all begins with it. And here the first questions about Pechorin appear. You can ask first what he thinks about Pechorin M.M. ("strange" - and a list of oddities, and something is clearer to us than to the narrator; "spoiled" and ready for anything for the sake of fulfilling his momentary desire). Which one is older?

Then the story of the kidnapping of Bela.

– Whose idea? - Azamat. Yes, and his performance, Pechorin only played along slightly.

- Who and what prohibitions overcomes along the way? (Azamat - fear of the father, Bela - of Allah, M.M. - of the authorities). And Pechorin? We find out in detail what M.M. had to say: why can’t a Russian officer steal a mountain girl, even if he wants to (as Pechorin says)? - Not according to the customs of our faith and not according to the laws of our country. However, M.M. does not say this. Why? – He partly understands that it is useless, partly because he himself, having lived for years among the highlanders, became infected with moral relativism: one people has one laws and faith, another has another ... And it seems that they are equally possible ...

- And so we “ran into” the Pechorin question: are there any laws of morality that are mandatory for all people, regardless of folk customs (which are rather arbitrary)? Or is all morality a convention? We ask: what law does Pechorin follow in this story? - Formally - mountain, in fact - their own desire. The mountain law here is only a tool for manipulating Azamat. - How seriously does Pechorin perform it? - He is forced to finish the game in all seriousness, because the highlanders have only one law - blood feud (here it is - this equal risk, the willingness to pay with one's own life for one's actions).

Who is to blame for Bela's death? - Kazbich, Azamat, Pechorin, partly - M.M. Who will plead guilty? - Only Pechorin (by the way, blood feud does not imply special mental anguish and conscience: the ancient Greeks, they say, had no conscience in sight). - How sincere? - More than: he does not say any words - he laughs terribly and is sick for a long time.

So, the intermediate result: we found out that for Pechorin there are no sacred laws that go back to the faith and custom of some people. He is ready to play according to the rules of any human world: with smugglers - according to their robbery laws, with secular people - according to the laws of secular honor, with the player - in his manner. But his soul takes responsibility for everything that happens through his fault.

Lessons 2 - 3. Pechorin's character: psychological analysis

1. We understand Pechorin further: the author gives us his portrait. We write down: the first in Russian literature psychological picture. What does it mean? And the fact that the narrator reads Pechorin like a book: he explains each external feature with a comment about his character. It looks casual, but try to describe like this, for example, a desk mate: his clothes mean this, his laugh - that, the way he looks, sits, moves - everything makes sense, but not everything is easy to interpret. Question: is there any pattern in the description of Pechorin? - There is a duality. He looks either young, or not very young, or strong, or exhausted, or sad, or angry; the gloves are dirty - the underwear is dazzling ... Sometimes someone jokes and says that Pechorin has a typical elven appearance. What can you say? Genes, perhaps, Lermontov, Scottish affected?

2. We ask about his attitude towards Maxim Maksimych. Why is he so defiantly avoiding him? Does he neglect the common man (according to M.M. himself)? - Some say: because an egoist who thinks only about his own pleasure. Others notice that the meeting with M.M. he is uncomfortable. With M.M. will have to talk. About what? About Bel, of course. For M.M., as we already know, this is an interesting, exciting story. And for Pechorin? - He does not forget anything, he remembers his guilt. He does not want to stir it all up, especially with a person who does not feel how much it hurts.

Now about what happened to M.M. He turned into a grumpy staff captain. Is Pechorin to blame for this? The kids will say it's my fault. It was necessary with him delicately ... But we already understood that Pechorin was unbearable. And M.M. turned out to be a true friend? - Hardly. How angrily he threw away Pechorin's papers ... The resentment turned out to be much stronger than friendship (resentment and pride: he told his fellow traveler about his close friendship with this man ...). In general, Pechorin does not spare the people who meet him on the way, but these people do not show special love and devotion either ...

Good. Now we will figure out together with the narrator how and why Pechorin lived even before meeting M.M. (because the Journal was written earlier).

3. There are two series of questions that are interconnected, but it is better to analyze them separately for a start. 1) What does Pechorin think about himself and his fate? 2) How does he act with other people and why?

The first is D/Z. It is good if the children read everything that Pechorin wrote about his character. We find out that he is bored and looking for entertainment (adventure, mysteries, secrets, confrontation), but at the same time he vaguely feels that all this is small for him, that he was born for some higher purpose - but what? No higher goals will ever appear on the horizon of his life. Let us pay attention to a certain touch of Pechorin's materialistic irony in relation to his own spiritual life. He compares the collapse of life with several cups of strong coffee drunk at night. Both can be defeated with the help of a thorough walk ... Pechorin is not inclined to rush about with himself and is looking for the most rational and prosaic explanation for all his internal movements.

Now the second is how he treats other people. One may ask why he began to spy on smugglers, upset the romance between Grushnitsky and Princess Mary, make her fall in love with him? - He had fun. In the first case (in "Taman"), as we said, he just wanted to get into a romantic plot. And he destroyed the fairy tale and got another notch on his conscience: a blind boy left without food (and an old woman ...). Pechorin and the smugglers acted according to the same laws: they deceived, drowned, threatened ... But they left the dangerous nest without any regret, and Pechorin survived his share of guilt. By the way, the remark there is good about the fact that he does not care about smuggling: he does not care about state interests at all.

In "Princess Mary" the motivation is more complicated. He tested in practice his theoretical knowledge about the properties of human psychology (our novel is socio-psychological, although also philosophical). But at the same time, he used other people partly as puppets, partly as food for his inner hunger (about how pleasant it is to capture first love and then throw it away). Behind these experiments is a completely conscious worldview: there are no "absolute" moral laws for this hero. The criteria for good and evil are his desires and the pleasure of their fulfillment; they are the only basis for action.

Pechorin puts himself as a kind of god over others, and he really successfully manipulates everyone. However, using other people's passions and sufferings as food for his pride or boredom, he never gets enough. Why? – Because taking is a bottomless abyss. In order to become happy, you need to give (sometimes I cite as an example a remark from the “Junker’s Letters” - “we don’t understand selfless love; if I love someone, I’ll gobble up with all the giblets”).

Difficult question - why is it like this? Someone finds his monologue for Princess Mary about how he wanted good things, but society spoiled him. Sometimes this is noted as a feature of realism (secular society is to blame for everything). But there are two reservations here: he says this on purpose; he didn't come up with it himself. In fact, he retells the monologue of Frankenstein from the novel by Mary Shelley (everyone has more or less heard about this monster). So there is somehow more romanticism than realism ...

The rivalry with Grushnitsky is both petty and at the same time understandable: Grushnitsky is trying to play the role of Pechorin and take his place (the very best ...). Pechorin Prince. Mary is needed as a screen, and at the same time he cannot allow her to prefer Grushnitsky. But in a quarrel between two heroes, this is what is interesting: Pechorin again wants to play by the rules of the little world in which he lives. Rules in a water society are a secular honor. He demands from Grushnitsky to shoot honestly, and is the first to get up under the shot. To what extent all this for him is conditionally visible from the quarrel: he stands up like a mountain for the honor of Prince. Mary and immediately says to the captain: “Did I hit you so awkwardly in the garden?” Grushnitsky does not stand the test - and dies. By the way, Mary also partly failed to pass the test. Their last explanation echoes Onegin's last explanation with Tatyana. Tatyana says “I love you ...” Pechorin was ready to give up on such an answer, but Mary told him “I hate you ...” Mary is not Tatyana.

According to the idea of ​​Belinsky (and I. Vinogradov), Pechorin never met an “enemy” who would not “spoil” from contact with him, who would be able to oppose something truly imperishable, beautiful and true. If he had met, he might have changed ... But he goes through life as if there is no good, no evil, no law, no conscience - only the satisfaction of his own desires. And the longer he lives like this, the worse he gets. The question about Vera is rhetorical (would he be happy if…) Vera is a romantic unattainable dream, a symbol of his search.

D/Z. Make a final entry about the character of Pechorin. It is possible - starting from the “Foreword to the Journal”: is it really a portrait of the vices of its time? Vices or problems? It would be nice to compare the resulting portrait with the "Duma" - point by point: what account does Lermontov present to his generation in verse, what - in prose? All considerations can be divided into "understandable" and "incomprehensible". Or on "for" and "against" - which will be closer to the class.

Appendix 1. Task cards on the same topic for individual speakers

It was rarely used, usually in a lesson, if you need to “turn off” someone, or check with predilection, or, conversely, if the whole class does not draw out the topic and you need to prepare strong speakers in advance (then it’s better to give cards at home).

Card 1

Read the entries from May 23 to June 6 (the story "Princess Mary") and answer the questions:

1. How does Pechorin destroy the romance between Grushnitsky and Princess Mary (try to note all Pechorin's moves)?

2. How does he make Princess Mary fall in love with himself (the task is the same: follow the sequence of his moves)? What do you think, how plausible is such a game with someone else's soul? Is it possible to control the people of our time (you and your acquaintances) in this way?

3. Reread carefully what Pechorin says to Princess Mary about his youth (July 3). What do you think, is it true or is it drawn? Did he inadvertently let it slip about himself, or is this also a calculated move? What would you answer him if you were in the place of the princess?

Card 2

Read the end of the story "Taman" (3 paragraphs); entries from June 3 and June 16 - and until the end of the story "Princess Mary" and answer the questions:

1. What does Pechorin think about his fate? Why does he have such thoughts? Do you think he is right?

2. Does Pechorin consider himself a genius? What is "genius", in his opinion? What do you think, can Pechorin be considered a man of genius, if you use his theory? Do you agree with such a theory? How do you assess Pechorin's abilities?

3. What is ambition? Why does Pechorin believe that his ambition cannot be satisfied? What would he like to be in the world?

4. How do you understand Pechorin's words: "... I ... have lost forever the ardor of noble aspirations ..."? What is this "dust"?

5. What does Pechorin regret on the night before the duel?

6. How does he explain his character in the last lines of the story "Princess Mary"?

Lesson 3

First, we look at the plans for Pechorin. Be sure to read what the author wrote about him in the “Foreword to the Journal”. Be sure to ask the question: well, what is the main reason for all these vices? If you start only from the novel, you get unbelief. Lost faith in higher ideals, truth, moral laws, which ultimately go back to faith in God. Having received such an answer, let us compare it with the Duma. Another reason is named there, historical (or political). In poetry, Lermontov accuses his generation of being afraid to live and act seriously, and therefore remains fruitless, wasting itself on trifles. Can this reproach be transferred to Pechorin? - Yes and no. To accuse him of cowardice somehow does not turn the tongue - he dared to recklessness. But only in those little things that he spends his life on: duels, adventures, risky bets. He does not aim at big goals, being annoyed that he cannot guess such a goal ... Lermontov did not like his time for that, because it did not leave a serious field for his contemporaries-nobles. Or make a career (why?), or have fun as you can, or ... go to a monastery, perform spiritual feats? But this path for an educated and very skeptical nobleman was practically closed. After all, a nobleman is historically either a politician or a warrior. Pechorin is fighting little by little, although he clearly does not see the point in this. And we don't see it in action. As M. Kachurin rightly wrote in his textbook, if Lermontov showed us Pechorin at war, perhaps the title of the novel would no longer sound ironic.

And finally, “The Fatalist,” as was said in the article, is the key to what Pechorin, in fact, is looking for, for what he is acting. He passionately wants one thing - an answer, is there a higher law over us, or is it really just rampant self-will everywhere.

For "Fatalist" There is a detailed set of questions. And to them - a set of children's "leading" answers (2000). Unfortunately, the authorship is not marked everywhere.

– What did Vulich want to prove, how and for what?

He needed all this dispute to win, because he was a gambler ...

He wanted to prove that predestination exists. Vulich had a passion for the game; the fact that he often lost added excitement. But at the moment he won, proving that each of us was assigned a fateful minute in advance, especially since they bet for money, and this added excitement even more. (P. Ivanov, I. Cherentsov)

“I affirm that there is no predestination.” What would really serve as evidence in the game proposed by Vulich?

Everyone thought that his death, but this is hardly serious evidence.

– Why does Pechorin offer such a bet? What is he accused of and how does he justify himself?

Pechorin jokingly offered a bet on Vulich's proposal (forwarding).

Pechorin offered such a bet so that Vulich could prove his fatalism.

I think that at first Pechorin was sure that Vulich would give up the crazy idea of ​​shooting himself in the head, but then he himself regretted it, and he had to make excuses.

Pechorin offers such a bet jokingly, but thinking that Vulich will refuse, being afraid of death, and by this he will prove that there really is no predestination (?)

No one wrote that Pechorin, in a sense, catches everyone at their word and makes them take their principles seriously, confirming this with a risk to life.

– Stars and people in the eyes of Pechorin. Why is this digression necessary in the story?

This digression is necessary in order to show that Pechorin, as a representative of his generation, is deprived of the ability to believe (unlike his ancestors), he can only doubt. Pechorin despised the thoughts of the ancients about the stars. (I. Anokhin)

Pechorin thinks that people used to believe in the stars and thought that the stars were looking at them and helping them. But the stars remain, and people disappear along with their dreams and thoughts. Now people are living, trying to live on their own, struggling with fate, rejecting predestination and heaven. (I. Cherentsov)

Perhaps a digression is needed in order to further explain the meaning of predestination, what it is. (A. Golovko)

How did death find Vulich? What is so special about this scene? How does it echo his bet shot?

It can be said that death found Vulich by accident, but it seems that everything was predetermined, and Pechorin noticed this. The scene is terrifying due to the composure of Vulich and the terrible response of the Cossack. The scene of the lieutenant's death echoes the scene in the major's room in that Vulich, as it were, had already died at the major's, the shadow of death fell on him, and he did not care. (I. Cherentsov)

This is terrible because the Cossack cut Vulich very badly.

Here the Cossack is, as it were, the hand of predestination and performs what did not happen with Major S.

- “I like to doubt everything: this disposition of mind does not interfere with the decisiveness of character - on the contrary ...” How did Pechorin’s doubts turn into decisiveness in the scene of the Cossack’s arrest?

Pechorin was not able to believe in something once and for all. Therefore, after the death of Vulich, he never decided for himself whether there is a definition or not. (P. Ivanov)

Pechorin's doubts about whether there is predestination led to the determination to try his luck and capture the Cossack. (S. Starkov)

During the arrest of the Cossack, Pechorin still doubts the existence of predestination and therefore decides to repeat the experience of Vulich in order to prove to himself his (predestination) existence. As if for sure. (P. Ivanov)

Pechorin's doubts turned into decisiveness after a dispute with fate. He argued with whether the Cossack would kill him or not. The bullet missed and Pechorin won. (I. Cherentsov)

- Why did Pechorin decide to repeat the experience of Vulich after he was killed? (Check if he is destined to die). Has he done similar things in other stories?

Pechorin wanted to resolve all his doubts (whether he personally has predestination), and therefore he took the risk. (A. Goloulina)

- Did Pechorin want to benefit by his act? Why did he risk his life?

It seems to me that no. Pechorin played with fate like Vulich.

For some reason, there are no answers to the last questions (perhaps they were discussed orally).

- Does Maxim Maksimych believe in predestination?

– What does the plot of The Fatalist have in common with the plots of previous stories? Is there any significant difference?

Why is this story the last in the novel?

We generally know the answers.

Now the question is about the composition - if there are forces and time left for it. In addition to the list of manuals for the exam (separate), I can offer the following fossil topics:

- Moral issues of the novel.

- Philosophical problems of the novel.

- The character of Pechorin: ways to reveal it.

- Demonic and household in Pechorin.

- Destroyer of romantic illusions.

- The role of landscape in the novel.

- The image of the highlanders in the novel.

- The image of the "water society" in the novel.

- Women's characters in the novel.

- The fate of a generation in Lermontov's lyrics and in the novel.

- Lord or instrument of fate?

- Two meetings of Pechorin with Maxim Maksimych (a very old and famous topic).

- Romanticism and realism in the novel.

- Romantic situations in the novel.

- The composition of the novel.

- "History of the human soul" in the novel.

– Portrait and landscape as a means of characterization of characters.

- The originality of Lermontov's psychologism.

There are comparative topics that were often offered in exams:

- Pechorin and Grushnitsky.

- Pechorin and mountaineers.

- Onegin and Pechorin.

- Grushnitsky and Lensky, etc.

Of these, the most significant - Onegin and Pechorin. Perhaps it should be said at the end of the work, so that the concept of “an extra person” settles in everyone’s head, because no one has yet canceled this type, although many grumble about it. This work can be done as a test or the last D / Z: list the commonality between the heroes, the difference and draw conclusions (they are heroes of different times - and what follows from this?)

General: two aristocrats, rich, young, educated, internally free, not feeling any obligations to society and (even more so) to the state, not seeing any goal in their lives, not knowing where to apply their abilities; egoists who do not know how to love and sacrifice, who inspire love and are unhappy in love. Both are indifferent to generally accepted morality and are subject only to the external requirements of the circle in which they rotate. Lermontov consciously repeats the motives and situations of Pushkin's novel: the names of the heroes, the situations of a duel and a young lady in love, the longing of an aimless existence. In both, the authors wanted to impartially show the heroes of their time - with all their vices.

Difference: Onegin changes in the course of the novel, and for the better: at least he learned to love, he saw that secular laws are not morality, and the violation of real ethical laws makes him deeply unhappy and generally leads to disasters. Although at the same time, the hero is not concerned about any eternal questions. Pechorin, on the contrary, is looking for answers about the nature of good and evil, about the criteria for distinguishing them, about the meaning of life, and so on. But he does not find answers and practically does not change in the course of the novel.

Conclusion. They are usually attributed to one type and the reason for the appearance of such characters is considered to be an era that did not give the most independent and original people a chance to realize their talents. This is partly true: Nikolai I He disliked everything independent and original and ruined a lot of talents. But psychologically, these are very different heroes: Onegin, in general, is a kind fellow who is not used to being critical of his habits and actions. He is lazy and not accustomed to work, and therefore there is no question of realizing his talents (and did he have any special talents?). But he is a "good guy". Pechorin, on the contrary, is constantly immersed in introspection and weighs and judges his every act. He is not at all lazy and is always looking for adventure, so as not to get bored in inaction. But he is not one bit kind and incapable of compassion. Of the two, he is much closer to the demonic guise in which Onegin appeared in Tatyana's dream.

The type of "superfluous people" was already identified in the next era, when an era changed in Russian life and other heroes of another time came. They very much insisted that all the "superfluous" nobles were just loafers and white-handed people, relieved by their position as landlords from the need to work and make their way in life. These new people in every possible way denied any continuity between them and the "superfluous" noble "suffering egoists." However, if you look at the continuity of ideas, they all follow the path paved by Pechorin. Only Pechorin doubted the existence of God and certain general (absolute) moral laws, and the youth of the next generation will simply deny them (as we will soon see).

Appendix 2. What kind of person is Pechorin? (2007)

He is very unhappy, sometimes he does not understand why he does such things. He is somewhat selfish, a cynic and even just a sadist.

In fact, the purpose of his life is to bring misfortune to people. In general, this is a desperate person who loves adventure. He is not interested in the fate of others. (N. Kopylov)

It seems to me that Lermontov ... put into the main character for the most part only flammable - like a passion, but only hatred for everyone, for the whole world and people ...

He is able to use an innocent girl (Princess Mary) for the sake of revenge, and then throw away her love, like napkin (emphasis mine). He is an evil and cruel person, but at times there is pity, love, honor in him. (M. Tarasova)

I do not like him for his attitude towards women, his manners, non-recognition of religion (attitude towards God).

But I like his decisiveness, the achievement of goals (but not Goals), his fate. (M. Ignatova)

What I like about Pechorin is that he treats everyone and his life easily and cheerfully. He is quite curious and constantly wants to climb somewhere. Thus, he makes everything easy and fun.

But what I don't like about him is that sometimes he goes too far in his games and in the end treats people cruelly and coldly. Although this happens without games. (R. Gulyaev)

The attitude towards Pechorin is very complex. It is absolutely clear that his main actions, his way of thinking will receive a negative assessment from me. However, I didn’t worry about anyone else while reading, because he is real, because he is a person who combines the shortcomings of society, but at the same time Pechorin remains a person. (S. Popov)

Pechorin was a big egoist. He did not notice anyone around him and did not consider those around him to be people. Pechorin could not open his soul to anyone, he did not have a close friend ... Pechorin noticed only himself and went about his business. Everyone who was “friends” with him considered themselves his friends, but he didn’t care about them ... (F. Makarov)

Pechorin amazes me with his ability to hide his own thoughts and feelings from others. He is a very reserved person and true to his habits. He treats others with contempt and treats them with cold-blooded calculation. (R. Legkov)

It seems to me that Pechorin was an egoist. He looks like Onegin at the beginning of "Eugene Onegin". In life, he has no purpose, therefore he does not value anything and does not strive for anything.

For Maxim Maksimych, Pechorin remained a friend, but Pechorin did not appreciate or respect his commander. (T. Ivanova)

He has a vicious personality. (N. Barabash)

I don't really like Pechorin. He's kind of weird. He seems to me to be ill-bred. Pechorin did not notice the people with whom he lived. He plays with life, but does not live ... He does not seem to take into account the people around him, he lives only the way he likes, lives for himself. He doesn't care if it's good or bad for people. He does not see his actions, whether they are good or bad. He lives as he wants. (Katya Artamkina)

Pechorin is reckless, windy, flies from one young lady to another, vindictive. Everything quickly bored him: both social life and travel; falling in love and leaving friends is his habit. He has an empty soul, he cannot do a good job. Wants to go out and have fun. And he who seeks fun and idleness will not find anything, because all fun and idleness will someday get bored. And they do not lead to good.

And since he has an empty soul, he has no purpose. The only good feature of Pechorin is that he has a mind. (Lisa Artamkina)

02.12.2014 12323 0

Goals:

. Educational: analysis of the work: to identify the features of the novel "A Hero of Our Time" as a psychological work; to trace how, against the background of the life of ordinary people, Pechorin's inconsistency sharply stands out; identify the author's attitude to the hero as a whole and understand the causes of the tragedy of Pechorin;

2.Educational: teaching monologue speech, developing the skill of expressive reading;

3. Educational: fostering interest in studying the work of M.Yu. Lermontov.

Equipment:

illustrations for the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov "A Hero of Our Time"

During the classes

I. Organizational moment.

II . Presentation of the topic and objectives of the lesson.

With the creation of the novel A Hero of Our Time, Lermontov made a huge contribution to the development of Russian literature, continuing Pushkin's realistic traditions. M.Yu. Lermontov generalized in the image of Pechorin the typical features of the younger generation of his era, the 30s XIX century, the era that came after the defeat of the Decembrist uprising in Russia, when freedom-loving views were persecuted, when the best people of that time could not find application for their knowledge and abilities, prematurely lost their youthfulness of soul, devastated life by the pursuit of new impressions. This is precisely the fate of Grigory Pechorin, the protagonist of Lermontov's novel.

The topic of today's lesson is "A Hero of Our Time" - the first psychological novel in Russian literature. A novel about an extraordinary personality"

What do you understand by the expression "uncommon personality"?

(Unusual, standing out from others)

We must find out what is the originality of Pechorin's personality.

And besides, we must reveal what the psychologism of the novel is.

How do you understand the meaning of the word "psychologism"?

(Notebook entry: Psychologism is an in-depth depiction of mental, emotional experiences.

(Dictionary)

III . Checking homework.

What is the peculiarity of the composition of the work?

(The novel consists of 5 independent stories. The central character, Pechorin, ties together all parts of the novel. The stories are arranged in such a way that the chronology of the hero’s life is clearly violated.

You needed to restore the plot of the work. Do you remember what Fabula is?

(Fabula - the location of the main events (episodes) of a literary work in their chronological order.)

Story order Story order

1. "Bela" 4

2. "Maxim Maksimych" 5

3. "Taman" 1

4. "Preface to Pechorin's Journal" 6

5. "Princess Mary" 2

6. Fatalist 3

(The author uses the principle from “external” to “internal” disclosure of the character of the protagonist. First, other people tell about Pechorin (Maxim Maksimych, an officer “Traveling on official need”). Then Pechorin himself tells about himself in the stories “Taman”, “Fatalist ", as well as in his diary - confession.)

IV . Work on the topic of the lesson (analysis of the work)

1) Work on questions:

In the first chapter we see Grigory Alexandrovich Pechorin through the eyes of Maxim Maksimych. What can you say about this person?

(The headquarters - the captain, who spent most of his life in the Caucasian fortress, is able to accurately reproduce the external course of events, but cannot explain them. He is far from understanding the spiritual searches of the hero. The motives of his actions for Maxim Maksimych are inexplicable. He only notices the "strangeness of the hero")

What did you learn from the story "Bela" about Pechorin's life in the fortress?

What traits of character speak of his actions?

(Pechorin has a brilliant analytical mind, he evaluates people, the motives of their actions, and, on the other hand, boredom quickly takes possession of him, he has no purpose in life.)

What did you learn about Pechorin's life before appearing in the fortress?

How does psychology manifest itself in this episode?

(We see here not only a description of life, but also the spiritual experiences of the hero)

Under what circumstances do we meet the hero while reading the chapter "Maxim Maksimych"?

Who describes the portrait of Pechorin

What seemed unusual in the appearance of the hero?

(The combination of blond hair and black eyes, "the eyes did not laugh when he laughed." The author concludes that this is a sign of either an evil disposition or deep permanent sadness.)

Has Pechorin changed after leaving the fortress?

(Pechorin's indifference to life, to people, apathy, selfishness increased.)

What is the purpose of the narrator printing Pechorin's Journal?

(Show the history of the human soul)

Who acts as a narrator in the story "Taman"?

And who is the main character?

How did Pechorin show himself in a collision with smugglers, how is his character revealed?

(Pechorin finds himself in the role of an observer who accidentally witnessed the actions of smugglers. But gradually he leaves the role of an observer and becomes a participant in events. The desire to intervene in events speaks of the hero’s activity, he does not want to be content with the passive role of a contemplator of life.)

What aspects of character can be judged by the story "Taman"

(Activity, desire for action, attraction to danger, perseverance, observation)

Why, having such opportunities in character, does Pechorin not seem happy?

(All his actions do not have a deep goal. He is active, but neither he nor others need activity. He is smart, resourceful, observant, but all this brings misfortune to people. There is no goal in his life, his actions are random).

In the story "Princess Mary" we see Pechorin in Pyatigorsk.

How did his relationship with the "water society" develop?

How are Pechorin's relations with Grushnitsky developing?

Analyze the history of Pechorin's relationship with Princess Mary.

(The story of Mary's seduction is based on the knowledge of the human heart. This means that Pechorin is well versed in people)

How and why are relations between Pechorin and Vera developing?

What does the tragic scene of the pursuit of Vera indicate?

(His love for Vera awakens with new strength precisely when there is a danger of forever losing the only woman who understood him.)

Why does the hero not find happiness in love? How does he say it himself?

(Read passages)

"Fatalist"

How does Pechorin tempt fate?

What does his action say?

V . Working with illustrations.

1) Illustration by L. M. Nepomniachtchi for the novel “A Hero of Our Time”

"Death of Bela"

Exercise:

1. Describe the illustration

2. Find lines from the text that convey the state of the characters in the illustration

(In the foreground of the picture, Maxim Maksimych, shocked by the death of Bela, is depicted. In the doorway near Bela’s bed, Pechorin, depicted in full growth, is visible. His face expresses the same complex feelings as in Lermontov’s narrative (“... I have never noticed a single tear on his eyelashes: whether he really couldn’t cry or was in control of himself - I don’t know ... ”,“ ... his face did not express anything special, and I became annoyed: I would have died of grief in his place")

2) Illustration by L.E. Feinberg to the novel "A Hero of Our Time"

"Pechorin and the Wandering Officer"

3) Illustration by P. Ya. Pavlinov “Pechorin and the smuggler”

VI. Lesson summary

What is the originality of Pechorin's personality?

What is the psychology of the novel?

The character of Pechorin cannot be unambiguously assessed. Good and bad, good and evil are bizarrely intertwined in it. The fact is that in his actions he proceeds from his own selfish motives. Own "I" is the goal, and all the people around are only a means to satisfy the desires of this "I". Pechorin's individualism formed a transitional era, a sign of which was the absence of a lofty goal, social ideals.

VI. Homework: Creativity M.Yu. Lermontov

M.Yu.Lermontov

A Hero of Our Time is the first psychological novel in Russian literature. The complexity of the composition. Age of M.Yu. Lermontov in the novel. Pechorin as a representative of the “portrait of a generation”.

Homework for the lesson.

1. Reading the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov “A Hero of Our Time”.
2. Analysis of the composition of the work.

a) Who tells the story of Pechorin?

• The degree of familiarity between the narrator and the character.
• His social status.
• Intellectual and cultural level.
• Moral qualities.

b) Analyze the plot of the novel.

c) Restore the chronological sequence of events in the novel (plot).

3. Individual task for linguists.

a) Reflection - the lexical meaning of the word.

b) A. I. Herzen, V. G. Belinsky - historical and biographical commentary.

Individual task: a story about the plot of the novel according to V. Nabokov.

The Hero of Our Time... is a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation.

M.Yu.Lermontov.

Russian society got acquainted with the “long chain of stories” by M.Yu. Lermontov under the general title “A Hero of Our Time” in 1839-1840. From March to February, the essay was published in the journal Otechestvennye Zapiski. In 1840, A Hero of Our Time was published as a separate book.

The time has come for us to get acquainted with this work, to form our own idea of ​​it, to formulate (define) our own (personal) attitude towards its heroes.

Student responses.

You are not alone in assessing the work and its hero. The appearance of the novel by M. Yu. Lermontov immediately caused a sharp controversy in society.

• Nicholas I found the novel "disgusting", showing the "great depravity of the author."
• Protective criticism fell upon Lermontov's novel, seeing in it a slander on Russian reality. Professor S.P. Shevyrev sought to prove that Pechorin was nothing more than an imitation of Western models, that he had no roots in Russian life.
• Earlier than others, V.G. Belinsky, who noted in it the “richness of content”, “deep knowledge of the human heart and modern society”.
• But what about the author? To the second edition of “A Hero of Our Time” by M.Yu. Lermontov writes the "Foreword", in which he insisted that "The Hero of Our Time, my gracious sovereigns, is like a portrait, but not of one person: it is a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation, in their full development." That is why these words are taken out as the epigraph of our lesson.

- What kind of generation is this, to which both M. Yu. Lermontov himself and his hero belong?

Says Doctor of Philology, Professor Panchenko (Appendix 2).

Let's dwell on this topic in more detail. To talk about the century of M.Yu. Lermontov, you need to know a certain vocabulary. Follow my thought, based on the words written on the board on the right.

The worldview of M. Yu. Lermontov took shape in the late 20s and early 30s of the 19th century, in the era of the ideological crisis of the advanced noble intelligentsia, associated with the defeat of the December uprising and the Nikolaev reaction in all spheres of public life.

Nicholas I - the tamer of revolutions, the gendarme of Europe, the jailer of the Decembrists, etc., from the point of view of "communist" historiography. A.S. Pushkin, whose relationship with the emperor was complex and ambiguous, noted the undoubted merits and Petrine scale of his personality. “With the greatest respect” spoke about Nicholas I F.M. Dostoevsky, who, as is known, ended up in hard labor at his will. Contradictory personality assessments. The fact is that Nicholas I rejected any revolution as an idea, as a principle, as a method of transforming reality. The uprising of the Decembrists is not only noble motives to destroy "various injustices and humiliations", but a violation of the officer's oath, an attempt to forcibly change the political system, criminal bloodshed. And as a reaction - a tough political regime established by the emperor.

An ideological crisis is a crisis of ideas. The ideas, ideals, goals and meaning of life of the Pushkin generation - everything was destroyed. These are difficult times, later they will be called the era of timelessness. In such years, they talk about lack of spirituality, about the fall of morality. Maybe you and I have experienced or are experiencing such times associated with the collapse of the Soviet Union ... But let's go back to the 30s of the nineteenth century.

The need to master the "mistakes of the fathers", to rethink what seemed immutable to the previous generation, to develop one's own moral and philosophical position is a characteristic feature of the era of the 1920s and 1930s.

Practical action turned out to be impossible due to both objective (tough policy of the autocracy) and subjective reasons: before acting, it was necessary to overcome the ideological crisis, the era of doubt and skepticism; clearly define for what and how act. That is why in the 1930s the philosophical search for its best representatives acquired exceptional significance for society. This was extremely difficult to do. It was something else that triumphed. Everywhere, as far as the eye could see, slowly flowed, in the words of Herzen, "the deep and dirty river of civilized Russia, with its aristocrats, bureaucrats, officers, gendarmes, grand dukes and the emperor - a shapeless and mute mass of baseness, servility, cruelty and envy, captivating and absorbing everything."

Man and destiny, man and his purpose, the purpose and meaning of human life, its possibilities and reality, free will and necessity - all these questions received a figurative embodiment in the novel.

The problem of personality is central in the novel: "The history of the human soul ... is almost more curious and more useful than the history of a whole people." And this is the statement of M.Yu. Lermontov could become an epigraph to our lesson.

It was no accident that Pechorin established himself in the eyes of the generation of the 1930s as a typical character of the post-Decembrist era. And by his fate, by his sufferings and doubts, and by the whole warehouse of his inner world, he really belongs to that time. Not understanding this means not understanding anything. Not in the hero, not in the novel itself.

To understand is, in fact, the goal of our lesson.

Let's turn to composition.

I. - Who tells the story of Pechorin?

Student responses.

• Maxim Maksimych is a staff captain, a man of the people, he has been serving in the Caucasus for a long time, he has seen a lot in his lifetime. A kind person, but limited. He spent a lot of time with Pechorin, but he never figured out the “strangeness” of his aristocratic colleague, a person from a social circle too far from him.
• Wandering officer (officer-narrator). Able to understand Pechorin deeper, closer to him in terms of his intellectual and cultural level than Maxim Maksimych. However, he can judge him only on the basis of what he heard from the kind, but limited Maxim Maksimych. Pechorin "... saw ... only once ... in my life on the high road." Subsequently, having familiarized himself with Pechorin's diary that fell into his hands, the narrator will express his opinion about the hero, but it is neither exhaustive nor unambiguous.
• And finally, the story passes entirely into the hands of the hero himself, a sincere man, “who so mercilessly exposed his own weaknesses and vices”; a man of mature mind and not conceited.

II. - How Lermontov builds the plot of the work?

Student responses(an entry on the board of the plot and plot of the work is done before the lesson by two students).

Can this collection of short stories be called a novel? Why does Pushkin " Tale Belkin? Why does Gogol collection of short stories"Evenings on a Farm Near Dikanka"?

- Why Lermontov is in no hurry to call his offspring a novel, denoting it very differently: like “notes”, “compositions”, “a long chain of stories”? Let's remember this question.

III. - Restore the chronological order of events.

Student responses. Correction of the writing of the plot of the novel, made before the lesson.

Chronology of events underlying the work, according to V. Nabokov.

"Taman": around 1830 - Pechorin is sent from St. Petersburg to the active detachment and stops in Taman;

"Princess Mary": May 10 - June 17, 1832; Pechorin comes from the active detachment to the waters in Pyatigorsk and then to Kislovodsk; after a duel with Grushnitsky, he was transferred to the fortress under the command of Maxim Maksimych;

"Fatalist": December 1832 - Pechorin arrives for two weeks from the fortress of Maxim Maksimych to the Cossack village;

"Bela": spring 1833 - Pechorin kidnaps the daughter of the "Mirnov Prince", and four months later she dies at the hands of Kazbich;

"Maxim Maksimych": autumn 1837 - Pechorin, going to Persia, again finds himself in the Caucasus and meets with Maxim Maksimych.

Let us restore the picture made by M. Yu. Lermontov of “chronological shifts”. It looks like this: the novel begins in the middle of events and is brought sequentially to the end of the hero's life. Then the events in the novel unfold from the beginning of the depicted chain of events to its middle.

- Why does Lermontov violate the chronology of events?

Here are three issues that require immediate resolution.

Student responses.

Teacher's conclusions (depending on the completeness of the students' answers).

All this is true, but not the whole truth. Lermontov created a completely new novel - new in form and content: a psychological novel.

Psychologism is a fairly complete, detailed and deep depiction of the feelings, thoughts and experiences of a literary character with the help of specific means of fiction.

The plot of the composition becomes “the history of the human soul”.

Lermontov lets us first hear about the hero, then look at him, and finally reveals his diary to us.

The change of narrators is aimed at making the analysis of the inner world deeper and more comprehensive.

• Kind, but limited Maksim Maksimych.
• Narrator officer.
• “Observations of a mature mind over itself.”

V.G. Belinsky argued that the novel “despite its episodic fragmentation, “cannot be read in a different order than the author himself: otherwise you will read two excellent stories and several excellent short stories, but you will not know the novel.”

M. Yu. Lermontov felt the novelty of his work, which united such genres as a travel essay, short story, secular story, Caucasian short story, and had every reason for this. It was the first psychological novel in Russian literature.