What problems are raised in the hero of our time. "Hero of our time"

“In post-Lermontov literature, questions of conscience became the predominant motive... And in this sense, we can say that the first Russian prose is “A Hero of Our Time,” argued V. F. Khodasevich. Indeed, the author's focus is primarily on moral problems, although Lermontov cannot be called a moralist or a singer of virtue. In the preface to the novel, the author mockingly speaks of writers who pretend to do this, and of readers who take their moral teachings seriously: “But do not think, however, that the author of this book ever had the proud dream of becoming a corrector of human vices. God save him from such ignorance! He just had fun drawing modern man...”
Is it just fun? Of course, Lermontov cannot be suspected of wanting only to entertain himself and his readers. In the novel “A Hero of Our Time,” the author touches on the most basic issues of human existence in the world, looks into such depths human personality, where only Tolstoy and Dostoevsky later dared to look. And of course, moral issues The novel is connected primarily with the image of the main character.
The image of Pechorin is still a mystery. For some he evoked and arouses admiration, for others - compassion and pity, for others - hostility bordering on hatred. Who is he? Strong personality, to whom “everything is allowed”? An unhappy person doomed to loneliness? Victim and hero of his time or eternal type? By his own admission, “some will say: he was a kind fellow, others - a scoundrel. Both will be false.”
Perhaps the main problem in Lermontov’s work is the problem of morality, that is, the struggle between good and evil in man and the world. Is Pechorin good or evil? “I’m not capable of noble impulses,” he says, at times comparing himself to a vampire.
Indeed, his world is “I”, and in order to occupy it, Pechorin starts cruel games with love and death. Fate protects the hero, others pay for his games: Bela and Grushnitsky - with life, Mary and Vera - with happiness. Pechorin compares himself to the executioner's ax in the hands of fate, the necessary face of the fifth act of the tragedy. But this ruthless egoist, as he may seem, rushes, forgetting about everything, after the departed Vera and cries, realizing that he will not see her again. Before last minute he provides Grushnitsky with the opportunity to abandon the vile plan, and if this happened, Pechorin would “throw himself on his neck.” Parting with Mary, he admits: “Another minute and I would have fallen at her feet.” And if he is “the cause of the misfortune of others, then he himself is no less unhappy.”
This is where the center of the moral issues of the novel lies. To what extent can a person consider fate to be the cause of his own unhappiness, and to what extent should he be responsible for himself and his actions? Does Pechorin excuse himself because he himself is unhappy, or not? The hero himself repeatedly tries to answer this question, making his own personality the favorite subject of his observations. He knows himself very well, but why he is exactly like that, he does not know. Pechorin seems to exist simultaneously in three planes of existence, each of which is an arena for the struggle between good and evil: for himself in himself, for other people - in society and before God. In accordance with this, the moral issues of the novel can be considered.
The novel was called by the author “A Hero of Our Time.” Pechorin appeared before the reading public and criticism as such a hero, a kind of portrait, “composed of the vices of an entire generation.” In the hero of the novel, many saw symptoms of the disease that struck the best part of the young Russian nobility in the thirties of the last century and gave rise to funny imitators like Grushnitsky. To Maxim Maksimych’s question about the capital’s youth, the narrator replied, “that there are many people who say the same thing... and that today those who are really bored the most are trying to hide this misfortune as a vice.” Indeed, disappointment and cold despair, exclusive focus on one’s own personality, the inability to find use for one’s powers in social activities- all this is the result of that dark era, but it’s not only that. “My soul is spoiled by light,” admits Pechorin. In fact, in order to survive and win in the world, you need to change, accept its rules, its value system, which is unthinkable without losing some - and the best! - human qualities. Where love turned into “the science of tender passion” (which the hero studied to perfection), friendship became a game on someone else’s pride (which is what Pechorin amuses himself with), and any sincere feeling is considered ridiculous and indecent, it was impossible to be (or seem?) to others.
But it was not only light and society that made Pechorin “ moral cripple" A person’s honor and dignity, willpower and proud mind do not allow him to completely shift responsibility to external circumstances. Pechorin may seem like anyone, but what does he think about himself? The novel is structured in such a way that our acquaintance with the hero becomes more and more intimate: first we hear about him from the lips of Maxim Maksimych, then we see through the eyes of the narrator and finally we read his diary. But even the diary, where Pechorin is mercilessly sincere, where his introspection is truly merciless, does not give us a complete solution! Something strange is happening: the hero here, it would seem, is completely frank, does not hide a single spiritual movement, and the reader is perplexed.
It cannot be otherwise: Pechorin is the most complete embodiment of Lermontov’s concept of man, the most important position of which is the infinity of personality, the fundamental impossibility of a final definition, and even more so an unambiguous assessment. This does not mean that Lermontov’s hero is outside of moral categories, but he, without a doubt, cannot be called “good” or “evil”, cannot be accused or justified. Pechorin does not recognize human judgment over himself; he knows that not a single person can be so much better than him as to allow himself to be a judge, since everyone is accountable in their actions only to God.
Man in the face of God is one of the main moral problems of Russian literature, and for Lermontov, perhaps the most important. Like to the lyrical hero Lermontov, Pechorin could say:
And may He punish me
Who invented my torment.
Pechorin sentenced high court to lifelong loneliness, but this loneliness, despite its hopelessness, is tragically beautiful. The hero is alien to Christian humility, and the heroic struggle that he wages against fate, without relying on either God or people, cannot but arouse respect. And if we are trying to pass a final moral verdict on Pechorin, let us be forced to abandon this intention by the words of Goethe: “A true work of art, like a work of nature, always remains for our mind something infinite.”
This is exactly how the novel by M.Yu. remains for us. Lermontov "Hero of Our Time".

Each exam question may have multiple answers from different authors. The answer may contain text, formulas, pictures. The author of the exam or the author of the answer to the exam can delete or edit a question.

. Originality of the genre

Lermontov's only completed novel was not originally conceived as a complete work. In "Domestic Notes" for 1839, "Bela. From an officer's notes about the Caucasus" and later "Fatalist" were published with a note "that M.Yu. Lermontov will soon publish a collection of his stories, both printed and unpublished"; in 1840, “Taman” was published there and then “Hero of Our Time” was published in two volumes. The problematic aphoristic name was proposed by experienced journalist A.A. Kraevsky instead of the original author's "One of the heroes of our century." The "collection of stories" united by the image of the main character turned out to be the first socio-psychological and philosophical novel , who in terms of genre have also mastered numerous elements dramatic action, especially in the largest and most significant story - “Princess Mary”.

"Hero of our time" - work critical realism with features of romanticism.

Lermontov's novel is distinguished by its deep historicism: the writer reflected here the era of the 1830s in its tragic contradictions and philosophical quests, created a bright type hero of the time. Russia of the 1830s, the gloomy post-Decembrist decade - these were the times and the circumstances that shaped the character of Lermontov’s contemporary. The surrounding reality, which completely excluded any manifestations of social activity, led to the self-deepening of the individual, the development of his self-awareness. People spiritually and intellectually close to Lermontov lived a stormy, intense inner life, but enormous internal forces could not be properly realized in their external life, which was devoid of purpose. Lermontov captured this tragedy of his generation in Pechorin. The author wrote, as already noted, about the meaning of “a portrait... made up of the vices of the entire... generation” in the preface to the second edition of the work. In addition to Pechorin, other bright typical characters are depicted in the novel - for example, Maxim Maksimych, Grushnitsky.

Besides, realism Lermontov, as mentioned above, is distinguished by its critical orientation.

Creating realistic work, the writer also relied on romantic traditions, which manifested themselves in the following. We find some romantic traits as the main character. Pechorin has extraordinary personal qualities - enormous willpower, an indomitable thirst for struggle. Even some can be guessed in his character "demonic" traits. This brings Pechorin closer to such romantic heroes of Lermontov himself, such as, for example, Demon and Arbenin. Pechorin lonely. He is in opposition to society. The past is not entirely clear hero. We only know that he comes from the St. Petersburg society, from an aristocratic environment. At the same time, the “story” that served as the reason for Pechorin’s departure to the Caucasus remains mysterious. Romantic traits are also characteristic of other characters in the novel. Among them are Bela, Kazbich, a smuggler girl, and Vulich.

In “A Hero of Our Time” there are often unusual, extraordinary situations, characteristic of adventure novels and stories of the romantic era (the kidnapping of Bela, her tragic death; the story of the smugglers; challenges to fate in “Fatalist”). A variety of acute situations - from social intrigue to the hero’s meeting with “honest smugglers” that almost ended in death - confront Pechorin with the need to solve serious moral and psychological problems; the most important of them, which to a certain extent sums up the quest of the hero, whose thoughts are constantly tormented by anxiety, is the problem of fate, predestination. Act or obey? Answering this main question, Pechorin affirms the individual’s right to internal freedom: “I like to doubt everything: this disposition of mind does not interfere with the decisiveness of character - on the contrary, as for me, I always move forward more boldly when I don’t know what awaits me.”

Some also have a romantic connotation. descriptions of nature in the novel: for example, the view from Mount Gud (“Bela”), night landscape and sea sketches (“Taman”), paintings of the environs of Pyatigorsk and Kislovodsk (“Princess Mary”), a description of the starry sky (“Fatalist”).

"Hero of Our Time" - novel social, which reflected the life of Russian society in the 1830s, recreated the appearance of the “superfluous man”. It's novel philosophical: the philosophical quests of the Lermontov generation are reflected here. Moreover, this is one of the first psychological novels in Russian literature, since in the center of the work, according to Belinsky, “an important modern question about the inner man." It is no coincidence that in the preface to Pechorin’s Journal the narrator points out the importance of studying inner world personality: “The history of the human soul, even the smallest soul, is perhaps more interesting and useful than the history of an entire people.” As is known, the composition of the work is also subordinated to the task of studying the “human soul”.

In creating the novel, Lermontov relied on genre traditions contemporary literature. In this work we find features of such genres as travel notes(“Bela”, “Maksim Maksimych”, “Taman”), Caucasian short story("Bela") robber's tale("Taman"), secular story, written in the form of a diary("Princess Mary") philosophical novella("Fatalist").

The artistic psychologism that defines the narrative style of Pechorin's Journal was formed not only under the influence of French prose of the 1830s; The influence of the tradition of autobiographical, diary prose, first of all, Byron’s diaries, which were well known to Lermontov, with their special abstractness, turned out to be very significant. philosophical language, aphoristic and epigrammatic style, a peculiar combination of subjective-lyrical and objective-ironic narrative elements.

IN early work Lermontov himself has several sketches that can serve as an example of autobiographical prose; one of them, written under the impression of reading Byron’s notes (“More similarities in my life...”), was included (with changes) in “Pechorin’s Journal” (“Princess Mary”).

II. Issues

Let's name the main ones Topics novel. This 1830s generation; " extra person"; Caucasus(nature, highlanders, Cossacks, Russian officers in the Caucasus, smugglers); secular society(“water society”).

The events of the novel “A Hero of Our Time” take place in the 1830s. As already noted, this was the time of reaction that came after the defeat of the Decembrist uprising. On the one hand, the results of the uprising revealed significant contradictions in the worldview of the opposition-minded nobility. The main contradiction was that the revolutionary educational ideas that underlay the ideology of the Decembrists did not find a response in Russia. Hence the disappointment of a significant part of the educated nobles in the very possibility of fruitful public service, pessimistic moods - even complete disappointment in life. On the other hand, the sharp limitation of opportunities for opposition activities caused an increase in philosophical quests. In the image of Pechorin, in the problems of the novel, Lermontov’s contemporary era was reflected - in its tragic contradictions and philosophical quests.

The main problem of the novel is time hero problem. By creating the image of Pechorin, Lermontov sought to capture the main character traits and worldview of his contemporary - a young educated nobleman who had lost the meaning of life. The reasons for the hero’s pessimism and his loss of higher spiritual values ​​are explored by the writer in his work.

Understanding the problem of the hero of time, Lermontov simultaneously poses such social, philosophical and moral issues, How action and inaction, the meaning of knowing the world, predestination and free will, faith and unbelief, good and evil, the meaning of life, man and nature.

The novel "A Hero of Our Time" features critical pathos. The writer expressed his position in the preface to the second edition of the work: “The Hero of Our Time, my dear 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.” As in “Duma,” Lermontov denounces the vices of his contemporaries, their inability to serve high ideals. Meanwhile, the author does not set himself the task of establishing any ways to overcome spiritual crisis of his generation: “The disease is indicated, but God knows how to cure it!”

At the same time, some facets can be discerned in Lermontov’s work moral ideal author . This free life in unity with nature(the ideal of the “natural man” is partly embodied in the images of the mountaineers and “ honest smugglers»); struggle(it is no coincidence that the desire for action - main feature character of Pechorin); worthy service to the fatherland (shining example such service - Maxim Maksimych); true love and friendship(feelings that Pechorin does not believe in and which nevertheless often become the subject of his sad reflections); finally, Faith in God, the loss of which became a real tragedy for Pechorin and the entire generation of the 1830s.

One of the most important philosophical questions becomes the following: who rules the world, the will of man or Divine predestination? As a result problem of predestination and free will turns out central philosophical problem Lermontov's novel. It is formulated by an unnamed officer in “Fatalist”: “And if there really is predestination, then why were we given will, reason?”

The Problem of Predestination and Free Will is closely related to both the problem of action and the problem of cognition. That is why the story “Fatalist,” which formulates the problem of predestination and free will, occupies key place in the work, completing Lermontov's novel. It cannot be said that Pechorin completely denies the existence of fate. Rather he doesn’t want to acknowledge her power over him and constantly challenges her. The hero states: “I always move forward more boldly when I don’t know what awaits me.”

The motif of the struggle with fate sounds especially vivid in Pechorin’s monologue, which concludes the story “Princess Mary”: “Why didn’t I want to take this path, opened to me by fate, where quiet joys and peace of mind awaited me? No, I wouldn’t get along with this lot! I am like a sailor, born and raised on the deck of a robber brig: his soul has become accustomed to storms and battles, and, thrown ashore, he is bored and languishing, no matter how the shady grove beckons him, no matter how the peaceful sun shines on him. He walks all day along the coastal sand, listens to the monotonous murmur of the oncoming waves and peers into the foggy distance: will there be a glimpse there, on the pale line separating the blue abyss from gray clouds, the desired sail."

Closely related to the problem of predestination and free will problem of faith and unbelief.

In “Fatalist,” Pechorin writes with irony about “wise people” who thought that “heavenly bodies take part” in their lives. At the same time, the hero recognizes the enormous willpower that gave his ancestors “the confidence that the whole sky... was looking at them with sympathy.” Faith in Providence gave strength and courage to bygone generations. The faith of our ancestors is contrasted with the lack of faith of the generation of the 1830s and - wider - people of new times:“And we, their pitiful descendants, wandering the earth without convictions and pride, we are no longer capable of great sacrifices, either for the good of humanity, or even for our own happiness,” the hero notes. Loss of faith is the gravest mental illness that the Lermontov generation suffered from. This illness also affected Pechorin to a large extent.

The question of faith and unbelief is also connected with problem of good and evil. By challenging God, Lermontov's hero inevitably questions the moral principles that are dictated by religion. We are talking primarily about the Old Testament commandments “thou shalt not kill” and “thou shalt not commit adultery.” Pechorin allows himself to kill. He thinks of adultery as a kind of life norm. As for the New Testament commandment of love, the hero even sneers at it: “I love my enemies, although not in a Christian way.” Loss of faith is inextricably linked with the impoverishment of love. Losing the ability to love, Lermontov's hero inevitably devotes himself to the service of evil.

III. Features of the plot and composition

G.V.N. both similar and unlike a traditional novel. It does not tell about an incident or event with a beginning and ending that exhausts the action. Each story has its own plot. The fourth story is closest to the traditional novel - “Princess Mary”, however, its ending contradicts the Western European tradition and, on the scale of the entire work, is in no way a denouement, but implicitly motivates the situation of “Bela”, placed in first place in the overall narrative. "Bela", "Taman", "Fatalist" are full of adventures, "Princess Mary" - with intrigues: short work, "A Hero of Our Time", unlike "Eugene Onegin", is oversaturated with action. It contains a lot of conventional, strictly speaking, implausible, but just typical situations for novels. Maxim Maksimych has just told a random fellow traveler the story of Pechorin and Bela, and immediately their meeting with Pechorin takes place. IN different stories the heroes repeatedly eavesdrop and spy - without this there would be neither the story with the smugglers, nor the exposure of the conspiracy of the dragoon captain and Grushnitsky against Pechorin. Main character predicts his death on the way, and so it happens. At the same time, “Maksim Maksimych” is almost devoid of action; it is primarily a psychological sketch. And all the various events are not valuable in themselves, but are aimed at revealing the character of the hero, identifying and explaining his tragic fate.

The compositional rearrangement of events in time serves the same purpose. The action itself begins in the middle after the announcement of the death of the hero, which is highly unusual, and previous events are presented thanks to the journal after those that occurred later (however, violation of the chronological sequence in the presentation of events is a feature of many romantic works). This intrigues the reader, makes him reflect on the mystery of Pechorin’s personality, and explain to himself his “great oddities.” But Lermontov did not need a consistent presentation of his biography. It is given in the form of a chain of life episodes that do not chronologically follow each other. The sequence of short stories that make up the novel determines the reader’s deeply thought-out path to the hero. After external, initial familiarization, which occurs with the help of an outside observer, the reader, turning to diary entries the hero, forms his opinion about him based on his own story. The reader gradually seems to get closer to the hero - from the general plan in “Bel” and “Maksim Maksimych” to detailed descriptions“Pechorin's Journal”, from the external image of character to the image of the “inner” person. Belinsky considered the composition of “A Hero of Our Time” to be justified by the psychological content of the novel, the parts of which “are arranged in accordance with internal necessity.” “Despite its (the novel’s - Ed.) episodic fragmentation, it cannot be read in a manner other than the order in which the author himself arranged it,” wrote Belinsky, “otherwise you will read two excellent stories and several excellent short stories, but you will not know the novel "

In "Pechorin's Journal" the characterization of the hero is based mainly on his own confessions, on his confession - this is evidence of the closeness of "Pechorin's Journal" to the French confessional novel (B. Constant, A. de Musset). Thus, at the center of “Pechorin’s Journal” is the history of “ inner man", the story of his intellectual and spiritual life.

As the events are presented, as they are presented in the novel, Pechorin’s bad deeds accumulate, but his guilt is felt less and less and his virtues emerge more and more. In "Bel", on his whim, he commits, in essence, a series of crimes, although according to the concepts of the nobility and officers who participated in Caucasian War, they are not, in “Fatalist” Pechorin accomplishes a real feat, capturing a Cossack killer, whom they wanted to “shoot” in fact in front of his mother, without giving him the opportunity to repent, despite the fact that he is “not a damned Chechen, but an honest Christian” (Esaul’s words).

Of course, changing narrators plays an important role. Maxim Maksimych is too simple to understand Pechorin; he mainly sets out external events. The big monologue Pechorin conveyed to him about his past is conditional (realistic poetics has not yet been developed) motivated: “So he spoke for a long time, and his words were etched in my memory, because for the first time I heard such things from a 25-year-old man, and, God willing, at the last..." The writer who observes Pechorin with his own eyes is a man of his circle, he sees and understands much more than the old Caucasian. But he is devoid of direct sympathy for Pechorin, the news of whose death made him “very happy” with the opportunity to publish a magazine and “put his name on someone else’s work.” It may be a joke, but it's too dark a reason. Finally, Pechorin himself fearlessly, without trying to justify himself in anything, talks about himself, analyzes his thoughts and actions. In “Taman” events are still in the foreground, in “Princess Mary” experiences and reasoning are no less significant (“The fog is clearing, the riddle is being solved,” notes Belinsky), and in “Fatalist” the very title of the story contains a philosophical problem. At the same time, just one task psychological analysis it is impossible to explain either " fragmentation» the composition of the work, nor places in him story "Fatalist", which, as we know, ends the novel.

Why is “Fatalist” placed at the end of all stories about Pechorin? This is explained philosophical issues Lermontov's novel.

It can be clearly stated that the events of “A Hero of Our Time” do not reflect the smooth, even flow of life(as it was in “Eugene Onegin”, where “time is calculated according to the calendar”). Pechorin's Caucasian adventures are presented chain of experiments on life; they are caused not an objective necessity, but by personal will a hero possessed by an insatiable thirst for action. The kidnapping of Bela, a duel with a smuggler girl, an intrigue with Princess Mary, a duel with Grushnitsky, challenges to fate in “Fatalist” not connected in time, but they bound by unity philosophical issues novel. These events lead the reader to understand main philosophical question, staged by Lermontov in “Hero of Our Time”: who rules the world, human will or fate? Pechorin constantly challenges fate, is constantly in a fight with it. In "The Fatalist", in the mortal battles of the heroes with fate described in this story, the problem of predestination and free will finds artistic completion- this is where the novel ends.

But the most important thing, for the sake of which the events are rearranged in time, is how Pechorin leaves the novel. We know that he ran out of steam and died young. However, the novel ends with the only act of Pechorin that is worthy of it. We say goodbye not only to the “hero of the time,” but also to a real hero who could have accomplished wonderful things if his fate had turned out differently. This, according to Lermontov, is how he should be most remembered by the reader. Compositional technique expresses the author’s hidden optimism, his faith in man.

Lermontov’s youth and the time of formation of his personality occurred during the years of government reaction after the defeat of the Decembrist uprising. A difficult atmosphere of denunciations, total surveillance, and exile to Siberia on charges of unreliability reigned in Russia. Progressive people of that time could not freely express their thoughts on political issues. Lermontov was acutely worried about the lack of freedom, the state of stopped time. The main tragedy He reflected the era in his novel, which he meaningfully called “A Hero of Our Time.” Forced inaction, general uselessness, and the inability to express oneself creatively became the reason for the appearance of a new “hero” in literature. The writer created a socio-psychological novel in which he showed his contemporary. In the preface to the novel, Lermontov gave the following description of the hero. This is “a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation in their full development.”

A “hero” cannot be a hero; society does not need his actions. Pechorin is an officer of the Russian army, but even in the Caucasus, being on the territory of the highlanders, he gets bored in the fortress, having fun hunting wild boars, kidnaps Bela, and causes trouble for those around him. Lermontov conducts a study of the state of his soul, paying attention to Pechorin’s moral principles. The hero is assessed from three sides. The author, Maxim Maksimych and Pechorin himself write about him in their diary.

Pechorin concentrates in himself the traits of an entire generation. The author harshly condemns him and makes it clear that he does not at all share the moral beliefs of the hero. Lermontov reveals the cause of the “disease of the century” and proposes to fight selfishness, arrogant contempt for people, lack of faith and cynicism. The writer also takes into account the conditions in which Pechorin’s character was formed, the corrupting influence of the environment and society on him, but at the same time does not relieve responsibility from the young man, whose actions bring trouble to others.

Poisoned by selfishness, Pechorin does not know how to love, but suffers without the love of others. Confident in his wonderful qualities, Pechorin is surprised to see that he brings only evil and disappointment to people. “Why did I live? For what purpose was I born... But, it’s true, I had a high purpose, since I feel immense strength in my soul. But I didn’t guess it right.” Pechorin is indifferent to the feelings of others. He says: “And what do I care about human misfortunes and troubles.” The hero is aware that he is breaking people’s destinies, and thinks that “he has always played the role of an ax in the hands of fate.” He suffers, but his system of moral principles does not change.

The positive inclinations of Pechorin's nature were not developed. He sometimes “feels sorry for Vera”; during an explanation with Mary, he almost “fell at her feet,” but good impulses for him are momentary weaknesses. He did not catch up and did not return Vera, he left Mary with broken hearted, out of pure selfishness, killed Grushnitsky. More than anything else, Pechorin values ​​his freedom, but understands it as permissiveness. Without love, out of an empty whim, he disgraces the decent girl Mary in front of the whole society, knowing what kind of gossip her honor will be subjected to. Without hesitation, Pechorin destroys Bela. Calmly and cruelly, he says to Maxim Maksimych: “The love of a savage is for a few better than love noble lady... I’m bored with her.” Either he talks about noble honor in relation to women, or he argues that it is good to “inhale the aroma of a barely blooming flower,” and then throw it on the road, maybe someone will pick it up. The destinies of people for him are only temporary entertainment. After rash actions, he is again overcome by boredom and needs a new victim.

In the chapter “Taman” the narrative moves to the hero himself. In it the author creates a clear psychological picture his unfortunate hero. Pechorin rushes around the world in search of real life. Out of curiosity, he interferes in the lives of the smugglers, forcing them to flee and leave the blind boy without help. The hero cannot find refuge anywhere. He is deaf and blind to the world.

Pechorin’s moral convictions emerge especially clearly in his discussion of happiness. He thinks that “happiness is intense pride,” and continues: “...I look at the sufferings and joys of others only in relation to myself.” Pechorin admits to himself: “Evil begets evil; the first suffering gives the concept of pleasure in tormenting another. I sometimes despise myself... Isn’t that why I despise others too?”

Pushkin also called many of his contemporaries people with an “immoral soul,” selfish and dry. Habits and morals high society disfigured Pechorin's moral character. He is not able to live and work joyfully. He is sure that “life is boring and disgusting,” and is constantly immersed in pessimism and skepticism. Pechorin treats his native noble environment with contempt, broke away from it, but did not find anything positive for himself. The hero’s spiritual emptiness creates a vacuum around him, from which he unsuccessfully tries to get out.

Pechorin does not believe in goodness and cannot change. He turns into a cold, cruel egoist, hateful even to himself. Belinsky wrote that Pechorin, “hungry for anxiety and storms,” chases life, “looking for it everywhere.” According to Dobrolyubov, Pechorin does not know what to do with his strength, “exhausts the heat of his soul on petty passions and insignificant matters.”

In "Pechorin's Diary" the author presents the confession of his hero. Pechorin sadly realizes the duality of his character. In his opinion, two people live in him, and one of them commits actions, and the other watches and judges him. The tragedy of the hero is that he does not admit his spiritual inferiority, but blames society and people, therefore he turns out to be superfluous everywhere.

M. Yu. Lermontov’s novel “Hero of Our Time” is the final work of the writer’s creativity. It reflected problems that deeply worried the author, as well as his contemporaries. Their range is extremely wide; this circumstance determined the deep and serious problems, the complex genre nature of the novel, as well as the features of its composition. Central problem The novel, according to V. G. Belinsky’s definition, is “an important question about the inner man, a question to which the century has responded.” However, despite the fact that the problem of the “inner man” is the main one in the work, it is closely connected with the historical situation, which is characteristic of the time of action in the novel and the time of its writing, since Lermontov’s hero is a contemporary of the writer. Lermontov's novel is deep and complex in its problems. The questions posed in it are of a social, or public, moral, as well as philosophical nature. The main problems raised by the author of the novel “A Hero of Our Time”: the problem of the meaning of life, the problem of predestination human destiny and freedom of choice, problem contemporary author a generation “wandering the earth without convictions or pride,” the problem of public and personal duty, the problem of friendship and love, and many others. With all the variety of themes in the novel, the central problem of the work is the question of the “inner man,” and the author’s main task is to learn and understand “the history of the human soul,” which is “almost more curious and useful than the history of an entire people.” The originality of the composition of the novel attracts special attention; it was chosen by M. Yu. Lermontov in accordance with the author’s assignment: to learn and understand “the history of the human soul.” The peculiarity of the composition of Lermontov's novel is as follows: consisting of separate chapters, the novel, however, is surprisingly integral, since its parts are united by one hero and a single author's thought. In the novel, the chapters are not arranged in the sequence in which the events described in it could occur in the life of the hero. Thus, the reader learns about Pechorin’s death on the road from Persia in the preface to “Pechorin’s Journal,” and is followed by chapters telling about the hero’s life in the Caucasus: “Taman,” “Princess Mary,” and “Fatalist.” Besides, latest novella returns the reader to fortress N. in which the action of the first story “Bela” takes place. Thus, the composition of Lermontov’s novel can be defined as circular, which is very symbolic. Such an unusual composition was not chosen by M. Yu. Lermontov by chance; it is aimed at revealing the image of the main character, his character, helps the author first to interest the reader in the personality of Pechorin, and then gradually reveal to him the mystery of this personality. In the first story of the novel “Bela,” we learn about Pechorin thanks to Maxim Maksimych, a man far from the hero in his social origin, temperament and age, so the staff captain only points out the characteristics of the “hero of his time,” but cannot explain them. Thanks to this, Pechorin appears in the story to the reader in the image of a mysterious romantic hero who fearlessly goes after a wild boar, but at the same time flinches from the knocking of the window shutter. The veil of secrecy about Pechorin’s personality in the travel sketch “Maxim Maksimych” is lifted before us by a traveling officer who is a representative of the same generation and social environment as Lermontov’s hero. The narrator gives a psychological portrait of Pechorin, trying to explain the features of his character with physiological characteristics. However, it is not possible to learn the “history of the human soul”, to find and understand the “inner man”, making only assumptions about him from the outside. Therefore, in the subsequent chapters of the novel, which make up “Pechorin’s Journal,” M. Yu. Lermontov transfers authorship to the main character. The narration in “Taman”, “Princess Mary” and “Fatalist” is told in the first person, especially notable in this regard is the story “Princess Mary”, which has the form personal diary. In it, Pechorin explores the peculiarities of his nature, his own vices, as well as the vices of those around him and the mechanism of human relationships. The hero sets himself and tries to find answers to questions of social, moral, and philosophical nature. Among the predecessors of M. Yu. Lermontov in world literature one can name the French novelists Chateaubriand, Constant and Musset (“Confession of a Son of the Century”), who created shortly before the appearance of Lermontov’s work on canvas psychological novel the story of a hero of his time.

Moral issues. Every society had its own unchanging moral laws. The person who violated them was already considered an incomplete member of this society. Pechorin violated these principles many times.

In general, Pechorin is by no means a clear-cut personality. Lermontov himself insists that Pechorin is no longer the romantic hero that the public wanted him to be.

Possessing a completely romantic appearance - “of average height; His slender, slender figure and broad shoulders proved a strong build, capable of enduring all the difficulties of nomadic life and climate change. There was something childish in his smile. His skin had a certain feminine tenderness; blond hair”, etc. - he lives a very complex spiritual life - this is also a romantic trait.

Lermontov several times draws our attention to the fact that Pechorin is a very real hero. His selfishness, outward contempt for everything around him, cruel and, worst of all, well-thought-out, calculating actions are not the hero’s strengths, as was the case in the era of romanticism, but also not his weaknesses. Lermontov is trying to reveal to the reader what influenced Pechorin. This is his main difference from Pushkin, who is trying to break the myth of romantic hero in his poem "Gypsies".

Everything that Pechorin undertakes turns into misfortune for the people next to him.

In the story “Bela” he destroys the life of Bela herself, her father and Kazbich.

In the story “Maksim Maksimych” Pechorin undermined the old man’s faith in the younger generation.

In the story “Taman” his actions lead to an unpleasant change in the lives of the smugglers.

In the story “Princess Mary” he kills Grushnitsky and ruins the life of Princess Mary and her mother.

In the story “Fatalist” Pechorin predicts the death of Vulich, which then actually happens.

Moral problems also arise in Pechorin’s relationships with women.

For example, he acted meanly with Princess Mary from the very beginning. Pechorin never loved her, but simply used her gullibility and love to fight Grushnitsky.

The savage beauty was just another experiment, Pechorin’s whim. He thought that this new wild and exotic love would help him overcome his boredom. But this did not happen, because treatment with love was a completed stage for Pechorin.

In his relationship with the smuggler Ondine, Pechorin’s generally rather strange position towards a woman can be traced. Forgetting that in front of him is a creature that is much weaker than him, Pechorin enters into a real physical struggle with the woman. Even already married woman- Vera could not save Pechorin from satiety with life.

Women played the role of a kind of indicator in Pechorin’s life.

At the moments when he was full of strength and energy, there were no women in his life, and only in moments of boredom or impending tragedy (as in the chapter “Fatalist”, when Pechorin, after a conversation with Vulich, met another girl in the courtyard of the house, which was a bad sign), at such moments women appear in Pechorin’s life one after another.

And what is characteristic is that each woman opened some new pages in Pechorin’s character. He did not exhaust himself at all with his ostentatious selfishness and coldness of actions. There was something different about Pechorin that could attract a truly Russian person to him - Maxim Maksimovich, who in theory should have hated the arrogant young fellow. But this does not happen, because Maxim Maksimovich sees in Pechorin, first of all, his personal qualities. Therefore, the insult inflicted on the old man hurt him especially strongly.

The relationship between Pechorin and Grushnitsky is also interesting.

In general, Grushnitsky is a completely successful parody of Pechorin. With his pitiful behavior, on the one hand, he emphasizes the nobility of Pechorin, and on the other, he seems to erase any differences between them. After all, Pechorin himself spied on him and Princess Mary, which, of course, was not a noble act. In addition, we must pay special attention to the scene of their duel. Since ancient times, a duel has been a defense of honor, but in no case a murder, which is what the duel of Grushnitsky and Pechorin actually was. In his diary, Pechorin mentioned that he specifically chose such a place so that one of them would not return from the duel.

Not only can this act be called premeditated murder, it is also not worthy moral person. At the beginning of this chapter, Grushnitsky, with his behavior, as already mentioned, emphasizes the grace of Pechorin, but closer to the end of the chapter, this myth is dispelled by Grushnitsky himself.

Thus, we can say that Pechorin is to some extent an immoral person, especially since he himself talks about this, calling himself a “moral cripple.” Pechorin understands that all the people he meets end up as toys in his hands.

Pechorin does not even think about changing his line of behavior, although he is well aware that during his life he has only caused evil to people, but this self-criticism does not bring any relief to him or the people who encounter him.