The role of the internal monologue in creating the image of Pechorin

(on the example of the story "Princess Mary")

The novel "A Hero of Our Time" is the first in the history of Russian literature, where he was depicted new person which reflected a new phenomenon of Russian reality.

The creative method can be defined as psychological romanticism. The writer, as a romantic, has always been characterized by deep introspection. Especially fully his interest in the inner world of man was expressed in the novel "A Hero of Our Time".

In the second preface to the novel, the author writes: "The history of the human soul, even the smallest soul, is almost more entertaining and more useful than the history of a whole people." Before the reader is the "story of the soul" of the Russian officer Georgy Aleksandrovich Pechorin. His character, inner world opens before us through internal monologues, diary entries of the hero.

According to the Russian literary critic, an internal monologue is a statement of the hero addressed to himself, directly reflecting the internal psychological process, a monologue “to himself”, in which the emotional and mental activity of a person is imitated in its immediate course. According to the principle of an internal monologue, Pechorin's Journal is built, which is an integral part of the novel.

The great importance of the internal monologue is especially clearly revealed in the story "Princess Mary". The chapter is in the form of diary entries. Right here main character prone to reflection. We see what is happening not from the outside, but from the first person, who experiences, feels and passes through himself everything that happens. The two-week long internal monologue reveals such properties of the hero's nature that we could only guess about before.

First of all, in this story, Pechorin opens up to readers as a true connoisseur of women's minds: “Getting acquainted with a woman, I
always unmistakably guessed whether she would love me or not ... "; “Meanwhile, the princess was annoyed by my indifference, as I could guess from one angry, brilliant look ... Oh, I surprisingly understand this conversation, mute, but expressive, brief, but strong! ..”; “Tomorrow she will want to reward me. I already know all this by heart, that's what's boring! What is interesting here is the parallel development of Pechorin's relations with Vera and Mary. All his actions and words are aimed only at commanding Mary’s feelings, in order to annoy his comrade Grushnitsky and get satisfaction from this: “But there is immense pleasure in the possession of a young, barely blossoming soul! She is like a flower whose best fragrance evaporates towards the first ray of the sun; it must be torn off at this moment and, after breathing it to its fullest, throw it on the road, maybe someone will pick it up! In this monologue, one sees some kind of inhuman cruelty of the hero, insensitivity, deadness of the soul. But Pechorin is not so impassive, and real love for Mary causes him frustration, because happiness for him is only “saturated pride”. During last explanation with Mary Pechorin realizes his guilt before her: “It seemed that another moment, and I would fall at her feet.” But this moment will never happen: the hero values ​​his freedom too much.

Time passes, and we see Pechorin in a completely different way. He learns about Vera’s arrival in the Caucasus: “Did fate bring us together again in the Caucasus, or did she come here on purpose, knowing that she would meet me? .. and how we would meet? .. and then, is it her? ..” the end of each expression reflects the anxiety and awe of the hero. After describing their meeting, Pechorin writes in his diary: “I sat down beside her and took her hand: a long-forgotten thrill ran through my veins at the sound of that sweet voice.” The hero opens up to us from a new side: he knows how to love, to be timid in the presence of a woman, his “head is on fire” next to her. But even Vera, a woman who has already submitted to the character of Pechorin, who understood and accepted him as he is, recalls that their relationship brought her nothing but suffering. “Perhaps,” thought the hero, “that’s why you loved me: joys are forgotten, but sorrows never! ..” It turns out that even in true love Pechorin is not capable of calm coexistence, even here his nature of a “cold thinker” is manifested. In addition, after this meeting, he decides to use the intrigue with Mary to spur Vera's feelings: "Perhaps jealousy will do what my requests could not." Thus, even Pechorin's beloved woman did not escape his passion for playing with human feelings.

In his relationship with Grushnitsky, Pechorin's ability to create "explosion situations" is manifested. He takes particular pleasure in exposing people and tearing off their masks. With great irony, Pechorin describes Grushnitsky in his diary: “his festive appearance, his proud gait would make me burst out laughing if it were in accordance with my intentions”; “Grushnitsky could not bear this blow: like all boys, he has a claim to be an old man; he thinks it's on his face
deep traces of passions replace the imprint of years. Grushnitsky for the hero is just a reason for amusement, a good pastime. Even Pechorin agrees to a duel with him only in order to find out to what extent his former friend will reach a moral decline. Death does not frighten Pechorin: “Well? to die, so to die: a small loss to the world; And yes, I'm pretty bored too. I am like a man who yawns at a ball, who does not go to bed just because he is not yet
his carriages. But is the carriage ready? - goodbye! But in his experiments the hero goes too far: Grushnitsky is killed in an absurd duel. Dr. Varner "turned away from the victor in horror."

The hero's friendship with the doctor also ends ingloriously. They feel deep sympathy for each other, but Pechorin prefers to "keep his distance." He explains the reason for this behavior in the Journal: “I am incapable of friendship: of two friends, one is always the slave of the other.” After the duel, Varner removes the bullet from Grushnitsky's body in order to present what happened as an accident and save his friend from punishment, but even after that Pechorin will not change his attitude towards the savior. Even when the doctor wants to hug him goodbye, the officer will remain "cold as a rock."

The personal drama of the hero is that he is only able to take from people and is not able to give them anything in return. At the end of the story, we read in his diary: "I became a moral cripple." To a large extent, the reason for the hardening of Pechorin's soul is constant introspection, withdrawal into oneself. The reflection of the hero develops into a disease. The hero makes any experiences the object of dispassionate observation, while losing susceptibility to the pain of another. However, deep knowledge of one's own "I" has a positive side. The hero himself is aware of the perniciousness of his character: “Is it really, I thought, that my only purpose on earth is to destroy other people's hopes? Since I live and act, fate somehow always led me to the denouement of other people's dramas, as if without me no one could die or despair. An inquisitive mind, a restless heart do not allow the hero to concentrate on a specific matter, to lead a measured lifestyle. Fatal questions “Who am I? What was I born for? torment him incessantly and lead to the destruction of personality.

The story "Princess Mary" reveals the image of Pechorin to the highest degree precisely because it is a large, suffering inner monologue of the hero. Pechorin's thoughts and feelings are the property of his personal experience and spiritual work, although they pass through the prism of the author's consciousness.

Literature:

Belinsky of our time. - M .: Sovremennik, 1988. Grigoryan literature of the 19th century: Reader literary terms: A book for teachers. - M.: Enlightenment, 1984. Lermontov of our time. - M .: Pan Press, 2011. Udodov "Hero of Our Time": A Book for the Teacher. – M.: Enlightenment, 1989. Urnov monologue // LES. – P.65-66

Composition Lermontov M.Yu. - Hero of our time

Topic: - "Pechorin and Grushnitsky in the duel scene"

Pechorin is the main character in M.Yu. Lermontov’s novel “A Hero of Our Time”.
The events described in the work take place in the Caucasus. And this is probably not an accident, since at that time people were sent here, persecuted by the government. Pechorin, exiled to the Caucasus for some sensational story in St. Petersburg, belonged to their number. Here he met Grushnitsky, who had come to the waters to heal his wounds. Pechorin and Grushnitsky served together in the active detachment and met like old friends.
Grushnitsky is a cadet, he somehow wears his thick soldier's overcoat in a special way, speaks in magnificent phrases, the mask of disappointment does not leave his face. To produce an effect is his main pleasure. The purpose of his life is to become the hero of the novel. He is selfish. Bored Pechorin, having nothing to do, decided to play on the pride of a friend, foreseeing in advance that one of them would be unhappy. And the case was not slow in coming. Pechorin was forced to challenge Grushnitsky to a duel for the vile slander that he spread about his friend. Incited by "his friends," Grushnitsky, in order not to look like a coward, accepted the challenge.
On the night before the duel, Pechorin could not fall asleep and mentally asked himself: “Why did I live? For what purpose was I born? And with anguish he noticed that he had not guessed his “high purpose”, “had lost forever the ardor of noble aspirations, best color life and played the role of an ax in the hands of fate. Pechorin feels the presence of two people in him: “... one lives in the full sense of the word, the other thinks and judges him ...” Our hero, deeply and subtly feeling nature, peers into every dewdrop before the fight and says: “I don’t I remember mornings bluer and fresher...”
And here Pechorin stands at gunpoint. Dueling conditions are very tough. At the slightest injury, you can find yourself in the abyss. How much self-control, endurance he has! He knows that his gun is not loaded, that in a minute his life could end. He wants to test Grushnitsky to the end. But he forgets about honor, conscience and decency when his pride is affected. Generosity did not awaken in Grushnitsky's petty soul. And he shot an unarmed man. Fortunately, the bullet only grazed the opponent's knee. Contempt and anger seized Pechorin at the thought that this man could have killed him with such ease.
But in spite of everything, Pechorin is ready to forgive his opponent and says: “Grushnitsky, there is still time. Give up your slander, and I will forgive you everything, you failed to fool around, and my pride is satisfied. Grushnitsky, flashing his eyes, replied: “Shoot. I despise myself, but I hate you ... There is no place for us on earth together ... ”Pechorin did not miss.
The author showed that in the face of death the hero of the novel turned out to be as dual as we saw him throughout the entire work. He is sincerely sorry for Grushnitsky, who, with the help of intriguers, has fallen into a stupid position. Pechorin was ready to forgive him, but at the same time he could not refuse the duel due to the prejudices that existed in society. Feeling his loneliness among the watery society, among people like Grushnitsky, condemning this society, Pechorin himself is a slave to his Morality. Pechorin repeatedly speaks of his duality, and his duality, as we see, is not a mask, but a real state of mind.

LESSON 61

ANALYSIS OF THE STORY "MAXIM MAKSIMYCH"
Am I not the same?

DURING THE CLASSES
I. The word of the teacher.

So, the story about the main character opens Maxim Maksimych. We have seen that he does not understand much in the character of Pechorin, he sees only the external side of events, therefore, for readers, Pechorin is hidden, mysterious. The characteristics that Maxim Maksimych gives Pechorin testify not only to the naivety and purity of his soul, but also to the limited mind and inability to understand the complex inner life of Pechorin.

But already in the first story, another narrator appears, one who informs the reader about his Caucasian impressions.
II. Conversation on:

1. What did we learn about him from the story "Bela"? (Not so much: he travels from Tiflis, travels around the Caucasus "for a year", his suitcase is full of travel notes about Georgia, apparently he is a writer, because he was very interested in Maxim Maksimych's "stories". However, when Maxim Maksimych asked about his occupation he does not give a specific answer. This creates a veil of mystery. Information about the narrator is omitted, the reader will never know anything about him.)

2. Who is the narrator of the story "Maxim Maksimych"? (The narration is continued by the conditional author, the "publisher" of Pechorin's diary.)

3. What is the reason for the change of narrators? (Yu.M. Lotman writes: “Thus, the character of Pechorin is revealed to the reader gradually, as if reflected in many mirrors, and none of these reflections, taken separately, gives an exhaustive description of Pechorin. Only the totality of these arguing voices creates a complex and the contradictory nature of the hero.

4. Briefly retell the plot of the story.

5. What strikes the observer of Pechorin most of all? (The appearance is all woven from contradictions - reading the description from the words: "He was of medium height" to the words: "... which women especially like.")

6. What is the role of the portrait of Pechorin? (The portrait is psychological. It explains the character of the hero, his contradictions, testifies to the fatigue and coldness of Pechorin, to the unspent forces of the hero. Observations convinced the narrator of the richness and complexity of the character of this person. In this immersion in the world of his thoughts, the suppression of Pechorin's spirit is the key to understanding his alienation at the meeting with Maxim Maksimych.)

7. Why didn't Pechorin stay with Maxim Maksimych? After all, he was in no hurry anywhere, and only after learning that he wanted to continue the conversation, did he hurriedly get ready for the road?

8. Why did Pechorin not want to remember the past?
III. A table is drawn and filled out on the board and in notebooks, helping to understand the state of the characters, their experiences.

Maksim Maksimych	Pechorin
Overwhelmed with joy, excited, wanted to "throw on the neck" of Pechorin.	"... quite coldly, although with a friendly smile, extended ... his hand ..."
"I was dumbfounded for a moment," then "greedily seized his hand with both hands: he still could not speak."	Pechorin is the first to say: “How glad I am, dear Maxim Maksimych ...”
Doesn’t know how to call: on “you” - on “you”? Tries to stop Pechorin, asks not to leave.	A monosyllabic answer: "I'm going to Persia - and further ..."
Speech is slurred, conveys excitement.	Still monosyllabic answers: “I have to go”, “I missed you”, pronounced with a smile.
Reminds me of "living-being" in the fortress: about hunting, about Bel.	"... a little pale and turned away ...". He answers again in monosyllables and yawns forcibly.
He begs Pechorin to stay for two hours to talk, is interested in his life in St. Petersburg.	Refusal, albeit polite: “Really, I have nothing to tell, dear Maxim Maksimych ...” He takes her by the hand
Tries to hide his annoyance	Soothes, hugs in a friendly way: “Am I not the same?” As he speaks, he gets into the carriage.
Reminds me of papers. "What... to do with them?"	Complete indifference: "Whatever you want!"

Output: Pechorin's whole demeanor depicts a depressed person who does not expect anything from life. Pechorin's meeting with Maxim Maksimych emphasizes the gulf between them - between the common man and the nobleman. In addition to the fact that it hurts Pechorin to remember the death of Bela, they are so different that there is nothing to talk about.

The ending of this story explains a lot about the old staff captain. The narrator directly speaks of Maxim Maksimych's delusions, his limitations, his misunderstanding of Pechorin's character.

IV. Teacher's word.

It’s impossible to talk about Pechorin’s arrogance, because he smoothed the situation as best he could: he took his hand, hugged him in a friendly way, uttering the words: “Everyone has his own way ...”

Maxim Maksimych did not see how Pechorin turned pale when he heard the offer to remember "life in the fortress" - this meant that it hurt Pechorin to remember Bela, her death. Nor did Maxim Maksimych understand that Pechorin's reaction was not explained by their social difference.

Let's try to explain Pechorin's reluctance to remember the past from his point of view: lonely, yearning, embittered by misfortunes, he wants only one thing - to be left alone, not tormented by memories, hopes. Of course, he remembers everything and suffers from the fact that he became the culprit of the death of a person.

The dialogue shows what changed in Pechorin after leaving the fortress: his indifference to life intensified, he became more withdrawn. The loneliness of the hero becomes tragic.

Pechorin does not run from Maxim Maksimych - he runs from his unhappy thoughts, even the past seems to him unworthy of attention. Once he wrote that his diary would eventually be a "precious memory" for him, but in the present he is indifferent to the fate of his notes. But they capture the world of his feelings and innermost thoughts, searches, reflect the sad joyful minutes of the past; in them is a story about the irretrievable days when he was full of hope to find a worthy place in life. And all this past is crossed out, and the present is not very pleasing, and the future is futile. These are the results of the life of a gifted, outstanding personality.

The story is permeated with a mood of sadness: Pechorin left for the unknown, a wandering officer left, who witnessed a sad meeting, Maxim Maksimych was left alone with his resentment and pain. This mood is emphasized by the last lines of the narrator about Maxim Maksimych.
V. Homework.

1. Reading and analysis of the "Preface" to the "Journal of Pechorin" and the story "Taman".

2. Individual task - a message on the topic “What is the role of the landscape in the story, Taman”? (for card 35).

Card 35

What is the role of the landscape in the story "Taman"? one

The romantic landscape enhances the sense of mystery that attracts Pechorin, makes you feel the contrast of the wretchedness of the "unclean" place, the quite prosaic deeds of smugglers and the powerful forces of nature.

Pechorin loves nature, knows how to see its colors, hear its sounds, admire it, notice the changes that are taking place. He listens to the murmur of the waves, admires the life of the sea. Communication with nature is always joyful for him (this can be seen by reading the stories "Princess Mary" and "The Fatalist"). Pechorin not only sees nature, but talks about it in the language of an artist. Pechorin’s word is precise, expressive: “heavy waves rolled measuredly and evenly one after another”, “dark blue waves splashed with a continuous murmur.” Two sentences about waves, but they convey different states of it: in the first case, homogeneous adverbs convey a picture of a pacified sea, in the second - inversion and the mention of the color of the waves emphasizes the picture of a stormy sea. Pechorin uses comparisons: the boat, "like a duck", he compares himself with "a stone thrown into a smooth source."

And yet, the usual conversational intonations remain in the landscape, the sentences are simple in structure, strict in vocabulary and syntax, although they are permeated with lyricism.

Even the image of a sail, which occurs several times in the novel, acts like a real everyday detail: "... they raised a small sail and quickly rushed ... a white sail flashed..."

LESSON 62

ANALYSIS OF THE STORY "TAMAN".
You see a man with a strong will, from-

important, not fading any dangerous

ty, asking for storms and worries ...

V.G. Belinsky
I. The word of the teacher.

If the first two stories by genre are travel notes (the narrator dismissed: “I am not writing a story, but travel notes”), then the next two stories are Pechorin’s diary.

A diary is a record of a personal nature in which a person, knowing that they will not become known to others, can state not only external events, but also internal movements of his soul hidden from everyone. Pechorin was sure that he was writing "this journal ... for himself", which is why he was so open in their description.

So, we have before us the first story in the hero's diary - "Taman", from which we learn about the adventures of Pechorin in this "bad town". In this story, we have an early stage in the life of the hero. Here he speaks for himself. We look at all events and heroes through his eyes.

II. Conversation with questions:

1. What character traits of Pechorin are revealed in the story "Taman"? In what scenes do they appear most prominently? [Determination, courage, interest in people, the ability to sympathize. These qualities are shown in the scenes:

a) The first meeting with a blind boy reveals Pechorin's interest in a person. It is important for him to understand the secret of the boy, and he begins to follow him.

b) Observation of the girl and the first conversation with her makes him conclude: "A strange creature! .. I have never seen such a woman."

c) The scene of “charming” Pechorin with an undine betrays in him “youthful passion”: “It darkened in my eyes, my head was spinning ...” The active beginning makes Pechorin go on a date, appointed by the girl at night.

d) Watching the meeting of the blind man and Yanko causes sadness in the hero, reveals his ability to sympathize with grief. (Reading from the words: “Meanwhile, my undine jumped into the boat ...” to the words: “... and like a stone almost went to the bottom!”)]

2. Why, at the beginning of the story, is Pechorin so eager to get closer to the inhabitants of the “unclean” place, and why is this rapprochement impossible? How did this attempt end? (Pechorin is an active nature. Here, just as in Bel, the hero’s desire is manifested to get closer to the original sources of being, a world full of dangers, the world of smugglers.

But Pechorin, with his deep mind, understands better than anyone else the impossibility of finding among the “honest smugglers” the fullness of life, beauty and happiness that his rushing soul so longs for. And let his prosaic side, real life contradictions, be revealed in everything later - for both the hero and the author, the real world of smugglers will retain in itself the undeveloped, but living in it prototype of a free, full of "alarms and battles" of human life.)

3. Do not forget that we have Pechorin's diary, which demonstrates his ability to tell about what he saw and felt. Everything is covered by his keen sight and hearing. Pechorin feels the beauty of nature, knows how to talk about it in the language of an artist. Thus, the hero is revealed to readers as talented person. (Checking the individual task - a message on the topic “What is the role of the landscape in the story, Taman”? (on card 35).

4. Why does the hero's activity bring misfortune to people? With what feeling does the hero pronounce the words: “Yes, and what do I care about human joys and misfortunes ...”? (Because his activity is directed at himself, it does not have a lofty goal, he is just curious. The hero is looking for real action, but finds its semblance, a game. He is annoyed with himself because, invading people's lives, does not bring them joy, he is a stranger in this world.)

III. Teacher's word.

Pechorin is sorry for the deceived boy. He understands that he frightened off the "honest smugglers", their life will now change. Watched the crying boy, he understands that he is also alone. For the first time throughout the story, he has a feeling of unity of feelings, experiences, destinies.

However, the blind boy is not an ideal character, but a little selfish person infected with vices. After all, it was he who robbed Pechorin.

“The romantic “mermaid” motif is transformed by Lermontov, the episode with the undine reveals the inner weakness of the hero, alien to the natural world, his inability to live a simple life full of dangers. An intellectual, civilized hero suddenly loses his undoubted advantages over ordinary people, is not allowed into their environment. He can only envy courage, dexterity ordinary people and bitterly regret the inevitable death of the natural world...

In "Bel" the hero plays with the souls of ordinary people, in "Taman" he himself becomes a toy in their hands" 1 .

Output: Nevertheless, Pechorin, in a clash with smugglers, shows himself as a man of action. This is not a room romantic dreamer and not Hamlet, whose will is paralyzed by doubts and reflection. He is resolute and courageous, but his activity turns out to be pointless. He does not have the opportunity to indulge in major activities, to do things that a future historian would remember and for which Pechorin feels the strength in himself. No wonder he says: "My ambition is suppressed by circumstances." Therefore, he wastes himself, getting involved in other people's affairs, interfering in other people's destinies, intruding into someone else's life and upsetting someone else's happiness.
IV. Homework.

1. Reading the story "Princess Mary".

2. Individual task - prepare a message on the topic “What does Pechorin read before the duel with Grushnitsky?” (for card 40).

3. The class is divided into 4 groups.

Each group receives a card with questions to discuss in the next lesson. Questions are distributed among group members. Answers to them are prepared at home.

Card 36

Pechorin and Grushnitsky

1. What characteristic does Pechorin give to Grushnitsky? Why is he so intransigent in his perception of this man? Why does he suggest that they will collide on the other road, and one will not do well?

2. What in the behavior of Grushnitsky pushed Pechorin to a cruel decision?

3. Was the murder of Grushnitsky inevitable for Pechorin?

4. What can be said about Pechorin's feelings after the duel? What does it say about his readiness to die?

5. Does he experience the triumph of victory?

Card 37

Pechorin and Werner

1. What are the similarities between Pechorin and Werner? What trait brings them together? What is their difference?

2. Why don't they become friends by "reading each other's souls"? What led them to alienate?

Card 38

Pechorin and Mary

1. Why is Pechorin starting a game with Mary?

2. What actions of Pechorin cause Mary to hate him?

3. How did Mary change when she fell in love with Pechorin? How does Pechorin's attitude towards Mary change throughout the story?

4. Why does he refuse to marry her? Why is he trying to convince her that she can't love him?

Card 39

Pechorin and Vera

1. Why, when remembering Vera, did Pechorin's heart beat faster than usual? How is she different from Mary?

2. What explains Pechorin's outburst of despair after Vera's departure? What aspects of the hero's personality does this impulse speak about?

Card 40

What does Pechorin read before the duel with Grushnitsky?

There is one example with which the poet hinted at the views of his hero. Let's remember what Pechorin reads on the eve of the duel with Grushnitsky - W. Scott "Scottish Puritans". Pechorin reads with enthusiasm: “Is it really true that the Scottish bard in the next world is not paid for every gratifying minute that his book gives?” At first, Lermontov wanted to put another book by V. Scott on Pechorin's table - "The Adventures of Nigel", a purely adventurous novel, but "Scottish Puritans" - a political novel, telling about the fierce struggle of the Whig Puritans against the king and his minions. On the eve of the duel caused by "empty passions", Pechorin reads a political novel about a popular uprising against despotic power and "forgets himself", imagining himself the main character of "Puritans".

The main character Morton sets out his political position in it: “I will resist any power in the world that tyrannically tramples on my ... rights of a free man ...” These are the pages that could captivate Pechorin and make him forget about the duel and death, that’s why he could thank the author so warmly.

So Lermontov showed that his hero had a really "high appointment".

Pechorin is hostile to the philistine, everyday attitude to reality, which dominates the noble "water society". His critical view largely coincides with the view of Lermontov himself. This misled some critics who perceived Pechorin as an autobiographical image. Lermontov was critical of Pechorin, stressing that he was not so much a hero as a victim of his time. Pechorin is also characterized by typical contradictions of the progressive people of his generation: a thirst for activity and forced inactivity, a need for love, participation and selfish isolation, distrust of people, a strong strong-willed character and skeptical reflection.

LESSONS 63-64

ANALYSIS OF THE STORY "PRINCESS MARY".

PECHORIN AND HIS DOUBLES (GRUSHNITSKY AND WERNER).

PECHORIN AND MARY. PECHORIN AND VERA
He made himself the most curious

met their observations and, trying to be like

you can be sincere in your confession, not only

frankly admits his true shortcomings

stats, but also invents unprecedented or

misinterprets his most natural

movement.

V.G. Belinsky
DURING THE CLASSES
I. The word of the teacher.

In a familiar environment, in a civilized society, Pechorin demonstrates the full strength of his abilities. Here he is a dominant person, here any secret desire is clear and accessible to him, and he easily predicts events and consistently implements his plans. He succeeds in everything, and fate itself, it would seem, helps him. Pechorin makes every person open his face, throw off his mask, expose his soul. But he himself is forced to look for new moral norms, because the old ones do not satisfy him. Revealing his own soul, Pechorin approaches the denial of the egoistic position, this initial principle of his behavior.

In the story "Princess Mary" Pechorin is shown in relationships with representatives of the secular, that is, his own circle. The system of images in the story is built in such a way that it contributes to the disclosure of the character of the protagonist: on one side of him are Grushnitsky and Mary, in relations with which the external side of the hero’s life is revealed, on the other - Werner and Vera, from whose relations we learn about the true Pechorin about the best part of his soul. The story consists of 16 entries, exactly dated: from May 11 to June 16.

Why doesn't he become happy? Who wins the duel: Pechorin or the "water society"?

II. Conversation on:

1. Is Pechorin the same in society and alone with himself? (Already the first entry testifies to the contradictory character of Pechorin. The hero speaks of the view from his window in a manner that we could not have imagined in it - sublimely, optimistically: “It's fun to live in such a land! ..” He quotes Pushkin's poem: “Clouds”. But suddenly, as if he remembers: "However, it's time." It's time to get out of your solitude and see what kind of people are here on the waters - Pechorin is always drawn to people, but as soon as people appear, a mocking, dismissive, arrogant tone arises. He perceives this society quite realistically (Reading a description of a secular society.)

2. Why do the people he watches cause irony in him? (For these people, the main thing is not the inner world of a person, but his appearance, the feelings of women are fleeting and shallow. Pechorin draws attention to the fact that these people have lorgnettes, but not because they have poor eyesight. This “talking” detail is filled meaning: the lorgnette gives their views unnaturalness, excluding spiritual contact... For Pechorin, it is important to look into a person's eyes.)

3. But why does Pechorin himself point a lorgnette at Mary? (This reflects the paradoxical behavior of the hero: on the one hand, he is critical of these people, on the other hand, he begins to live according to the laws of this society. This behavior of the hero speaks of his game of love, it’s not for nothing that he notices: comedy, we'll pat." In the absence of a real case, there is at least some opportunity to act. The game has become his essence, his protective mask.)

III. Checking the individual task - a message on the topic “What does Pechorin read before the duel with Grushnitsky?” (for card 40).
III. Report of students on work in groups, each of which received a card with questions.
Card conversation 36

Pechorin and Grushnitsky

1. What characteristic does Pechorin give to Grushnitsky? Why is Pechorin so implacable in his perception of this person? Why does he suggest that they "collide on a narrow road, and one ... will not do well"?

(Pechorin is displeased with Grushnitsky’s manner of pronouncing “ready-made pompous phrases ... to produce an effect ...”. But isn’t he himself capable of this? Recall the conversation with Mary on the road to failure. It turns out that the heroes also have something in common. Apparently, the difference is in that Pechorin, uttering "ready-made pompous phrases," is also capable of sincerity ( last meeting with the princess), but Grushnitsky is not capable. Pechorin refuses him poetry (“not a penny of poetry”). Here we are not talking about an interest in poetry, here we mean a “sublime, deeply affecting feelings and imagination” word. This is the kind of word Grushnitsky is not capable of. Before the reader is an ordinary young man, who is not difficult to understand, as Pechorin understood him.)

2. What in the behavior of Grushnitsky pushed Pechorin to a cruel decision? (Grushnitsky’s behavior is not only harmless and funny. Under the mask of a hero who seems to be disappointed in some cherished aspirations, there is a petty and selfish soul, selfish and malicious, filled to the brim with complacency. He does not stop at discrediting Mary in the eyes of the “water society ".

Lermontov consistently rips off all the masks from Grushnitsky until there is nothing left in him but a cruel nature. Anger and hatred won out in Grushnitsky. His last words speak of a complete moral decline. In the mouth of Grushnitsky, the phrase “I will stab you at night from around the corner” is not a simple threat. His selfishness is quite consistent with the complete loss of moral character. The contempt he speaks of does not come from a high moral standard, but from a devastated soul in which hatred has become the only sincere and genuine feeling. Thus, in the course of Pechorin's moral experiment, the real content of Grushnitsky's personality is revealed. Reading from the words: "Grushnitsky stood with his head on his chest, embarrassed and gloomy" to the words: "Grushnitsky was not on the site.")

3. Was the murder of Grushnitsky inevitable for Pechorin? (Until the last moment, Pechorin gave Grushnitsky a chance, he was ready to forgive his friend for his vindictiveness, the rumors spread in the city, to forgive both his pistol, which was deliberately not loaded by opponents, and Grushnitsky’s bullet, which had just been fired at him, actually unarmed, and Grushnitsky’s impudent expectation of a blank shot. All this proves that Pechorin is not a dry egoist, preoccupied with himself, that he wants to believe in a person, to make sure that he is not capable of meanness.)

What can be said about Pechorin's feelings before, during and after the duel? What does it say about his readiness to die?

(Reading fragments of the entry on June 16 with the words: "Well? To die like this to die: a small loss for the world ..." with the words: "Funny and annoying!")

(Pechorin soberly prepares for a duel: he speaks calmly, mockingly with Werner, his second. He is cold and smart. Alone with himself, he becomes a natural and life-loving person. Everything that he sees on the way to the place of the duel pleases him, and he not ashamed to admit it.

During the duel, Pechorin behaves like a man of courage. Outwardly, he is calm. It was only when he felt his pulse that Werner noticed signs of excitement in him. The details of the description of nature, which Pechorin wrote down in his diary, also betray his experiences: “... it seemed dark and cold down there, as in a coffin; mossy jagged rocks...waiting for their prey.")

5. Does Pechorin experience the triumph of the winner? (The comedy turned into a tragedy. It’s hard for Pechorin: “I had a stone in my heart. The sun seemed dim to me, its rays didn’t warm me ... The sight of a person was painful for me: I wanted to be alone ...”)

Output: Grushnitsky is a kind of caricature of Pechorin: he is very similar to him, but at the same time is his complete opposite. What is tragic in Pechorin is funny in Grushnitsky. Grushnitsky has all the negative properties of Pechorin - selfishness, lack of simplicity, self-admiration. At the same time, not a single positive quality of Pechorin. If Pechorin is in constant conflict with society, then Grushnitsky is in complete harmony with it. Pechorin does not find a worthy activity for himself, Grushnitsky strives for ostentatious activity (perhaps he is one of those who arrived in the Caucasus for awards).

Pechorin's duel with Grushnitsky is Pechorin's attempt to kill the petty side of his own soul in himself.

Card conversation 37

Pechorin and Werner

1. What are the similarities between Pechorin and Werner? What trait brings them together? What are their differences? (The heroes are brought together by great intellectual demands - “we often got together and talked together about abstract objects”, knowledge of “all living strings” of the human heart.

Dr. Werner is a conscious, principled egoist. He can no longer overcome his own developed position. He aspires no more high morality because he does not see a real opportunity for its implementation. The natural moral feeling did not disappear in him, and in this he is akin to Pechorin, but Werner is a contemplative, a skeptic. He is deprived of Pechorin's internal activity. If Pechorin is active, if he knows that truth can be found only in activity, then Werner is inclined to speculative logical philosophizing. From this stems in Werner the disease of personal responsibility that Pechorin notices in him. That is why the heroes part coldly.

Farewell to Werner is a dramatic moment for Pechorin, he confirms his skeptical remarks about the selfish background of any friendship).

2. Why don't they become friends by "reading each other's souls"? What led to their alienation?

3. What role does Werner play in Pechorin's duel with society?

Card conversation 38

Pechorin and Mary

1. Why does Pechorin start an intrigue with Mary?

(Pechorin cannot always understand his feelings. Reflecting on his attitude towards Mary, he asks: “What am I bothering about? ... this is not the restless need for love that torments us in the first years of youth”, not “a consequence of that bad but an invincible feeling that makes us destroy the sweet delusions of our neighbor" and not envy of Grushnitsky.

Here, it turns out, is the reason: “... there is an inexplicable pleasure in the possession of a young, barely blossoming soul! ..”

“I feel in myself this insatiable greed that consumes everything ... I look at the suffering and joy of others only in relation to myself, as food that supports my spiritual strength.” He does not take into account the simple truths that you need to think about other people, you can not bring them suffering. After all, if everyone starts to violate moral laws, any cruelty will become possible. Pechorin loves himself too much to give up the pleasure of torturing others.

Throughout the novel, we see how Bela, Maxim Maksimych, Grushnitsky, Mary and Vera obey his will.)

2. What actions of Pechorin cause Mary's hatred for him? (If at first Mary indifferently meets the appearance of Pechorin on the waters and is even surprised by his impudence, then at the end of the novel she hates Pechorin. However, this is a different hatred than that of Grushnitsky. This is an insulted bright feeling of love awakened by Pechorin in Mary’s soul, a kind of manifestation of a woman human pride.)

3. How did Mary change when she fell in love with Pechorin? How does Pechorin's attitude towards Mary change throughout the story? (Pechorin observed and noted in his diary how a continuous struggle of natural feeling with social prejudices was going on in the princess. Here she took part in Grushnitsky: “Easier than a bird, she jumped up to him, bent down, raised a glass ... then she blushed terribly, looked around at the gallery and, making sure that mother had not seen anything, it seems that she immediately calmed down. "The first impulse is natural, humane, the second is already a trace of upbringing. Pechorin notices how natural passions wither in her, how coquetry and affectation develop. Until that moment, when Mary fell in love with Pechorin, secular "education" prevailed in her, which did not result in an egotistical norm of behavior, since she had not yet gone through the anguish of the heart. But then natural, natural feelings take over. She sincerely fell in love with Pechorin, and there is no affectation here anymore Even Pechorin, watching her, exclaims: “Where did her liveliness, her coquetry, her impudent mien, contemptuous smile, absent-minded look go? ."

Having passed the test of love for Pechorin, she is no longer that submissive creature to her mother, but an internally independent person.)

4. Why does he refuse to marry her? Why is he trying to convince her that she can't love him? (Analysis of the fragment " last conversation with Mary).

(Pechorin does not play in this scene. He has feelings that are natural for a person in this situation - pity, compassion. But he wants to be honest with Mary, so he directly explains that he laughed at her and she should despise him for this. At the same time, he himself It was not easy for Pechorin: “It became unbearable: another minute, and I would have fallen at her feet.”)
Card conversation 39

Pechorin and Vera

1. Why, when remembering Vera, did Pechorin's heart beat faster than usual? How is she different from Mary? (In Vera's love for Pechorin there is that sacrifice that the princess does not have. Vera's tenderness does not depend on any conditions, it has grown together with her soul. The sensitivity of the heart allowed Vera to understand Pechorin to the end with all his vices and sorrow.

Pechorin's feeling for Vera is exceptionally strong, sincere. This true love throughout his life. “Terrible sadness” cramps his heart at the moment Vera appears on the waters, “long-forgotten trembling” runs through her veins from her voice, his heart contracts painfully at the sight of her figure - all this is evidence of a true feeling, and not a game of love.

And yet, for Vera, he also does not sacrifice anything, as well as for other women. On the contrary, it kindles jealousy in her, dragging after Mary. But there is a difference: in his love for the Faith, he not only satisfies his passionate need of the heart for love, not only takes, he also gives a part of himself. In particular, this quality of Pechorin comes through in the episode of the insane, desperate chase on a furiously galloping horse for the irrevocably gone Vera.)

2. How to explain Pechorin's outburst of despair after Vera's departure? (A woman has become “more precious than anything in the world” to him. He dreams of taking Vera away, marrying her, forgetting the old woman’s prediction, sacrificing his freedom.) What aspects of the hero’s personality does this impulse speak of? (About sincerity and the ability to deep feelings.)

3. How does Lermontov help readers understand the strength of the character's feelings at this climax?

(Pechorin cannot be happy and cannot give happiness to anyone. This is his tragedy. In his diary he writes: “If at that moment someone saw me, he would turn away with contempt.” Here Lermontov uses a detail to reveal the inner world hero: as soon as a genuine feeling wakes up in his soul, he looks around to see if anyone has seen this. He really kills the better half of his soul or hides it so deep that no one sees. Then he begins to convince himself that "what to chase for lost happiness is useless and reckless.” He remarks: “However, I am pleased that I can cry.”

Introspection and self-deception begins. Thoughts come in the usual order, and he draws the terrible conclusion that an empty stomach is to blame for his tears and that thanks to tears, a jump and a night walk, he will sleep well at night and really "fell the dream of Napoleon." Here we again observe Pechorin's duality.

V. Conversation on the questions:

1. How did you understand the meaning of Belinsky’s words about the story “Princess Mary”: “Whoever has not read the biggest story of this novel - “Princess Mary”, He cannot judge either the idea or the dignity of the whole creature”? (If in “Taman” and “The Fatalist” the plot is primarily important, then in “Princess Mary” the reader is presented with Pechorin’s own confession, which reveals his character. The story “Princess Mary” ends with a light lyrical note, hinting at the incompleteness of Pechorin’s spiritual quest. The process of his internal development continues.The relative result of this process was the comprehension of important moral truths, the manifestation of his ability to selflessly, without selfish calculation, to sacrifice himself for the happiness and good of people.)

2. Reread the ending of the story: “And now here, in this boring fortress, I often ask myself…” What is the meaning of the image of the sail that appears at this point in the story? (We remember that in Lermontov's poem "Sail" the sail is a symbol of a real, full of storms and anxieties of life. "Quiet joys" happy love with a princess, with Vera, is it necessary for someone who has storms, passions, and a real business in life. Pechorin does not have this, therefore “peace of mind” weighs on him even more. What can he expect? Wait for a new storm, in which again someone will die, and he will remain in his strange anguish? .. There is another story ahead - "The Fatalist".)
VI. Homework.

Reading and analysis of the story "The Fatalist".

LESSON 65

ANALYSIS OF THE STORY "FATALIST"
I like to doubt everything: it is

mentality does not interfere with the decisiveness of the character

ra - on the contrary ... I always go forward bolder,

when I don't know what to expect.

M.Yu. Lermontov. "Hero of our time"
DURING THE CLASSES
I. The word of the teacher.

The problem of fate is constantly raised in the novel. It is of primary importance. The word "fate" is mentioned in the novel before "The Fatalist" - 10 times, 9 times - in Pechorin's "Journal".

The story "The Fatalist", according to the exact definition of I. Vinogradov, "is a kind of" keystone "that holds the entire vault and gives unity and completeness to the whole ..."

It demonstrates a new angle of view of the protagonist: the transition to a philosophical generalization of the cardinal problems of life that occupy the mind and heart of Pechorin. Here the philosophical theme is explored in a psychological context.

Fatalism is the belief in a predetermined, inevitable fate. Fatalism rejects personal will, human feelings and reason.

The problem of fate, predestination, worried Lermontov's contemporaries, and people of the previous generation as well. This was mentioned in "Eugene Onegin":

And age-old prejudices

And fatal secrets of the coffin,

Fate and life in turn -

Everything was judged by them.

Pechorin was also worried about this problem. Is there a destiny? What influences a person's life? (Reading a fragment from the words: “I was returning home through empty alleys ...”)
II. Conversation on:

1. What is the essence of the dispute between Vulich and Pechorin? With all the differences of opinion, what brings the characters together? (Vulich has “only one passion ... passion for the game.” Obviously, she was a means to drown out the voice of stronger passions. This brings Vulich closer to Pechorin, who also plays with his own and someone else’s fate and life.

All his life, Vulich strove to snatch his winnings from fate, to be stronger than her, he does not doubt, unlike Pechorin, the existence of predestination and offers to “try for yourself whether a person can freely dispose of his life, or everyone .., a fateful minute is predetermined ".)

2. What impression did Vulich's shot make on Pechorin? (Reading from the words: “The incident of that evening made a rather deep impression on me ...” to the words: “Such a precaution was very useful ...”)

3. Did Pechorin believe in fate after this incident? (Analysis of the central episode of the story.) (Pechorin does not have ready-made answers to questions related to the existence or absence of a predetermined human fate, predestination, but he understands that character is of considerable importance in the fate of a person.)

4. How does Pechorin behave? What conclusions does he draw from the analysis of the situation? (Analyzing his behavior, Pechorin says that he “thought of trying his luck.” But at the same time, he does not act at random, contrary to reason, although not from rational considerations alone.) (Reading from the words: “Ordering the captain to start a conversation with him .. .” to the words: “The officers congratulated me - and for sure, there was something!”)

5. What did the officers congratulate Pechorin with? (Pechorin undoubtedly performs a heroic deed, although this is not a feat somewhere on the barricades; for the first time he sacrifices himself for the sake of others. The free will of a person has united with the “universal”, human interest. The egoistic will, which previously did evil, now becomes good, devoid of self-interest. It is filled with social meaning. Thus, Pechorin's act at the end of the novel opens up a possible direction for his spiritual development.)

6. How does Pechorin himself evaluate his act? Does he want to meekly follow fate? (Pechorin did not become a fatalist, he is responsible for himself, he sees his inferiority, tragedy, realizes it. He does not want someone to decide his fate for him. That is why he is a person, a hero. If we can talk about Pechorin's fatalism , then only as a special, “effective fatalism.” Without denying the existence of forces that determine the life and behavior of a person, Pechorin is not inclined to deprive a person of free will on this basis.)

7. Does Maxim Maksimych believe in fate? What is the meaning of his answer to the question of predestination? (In the answer of Maxim Maksimych and the position of Pechorin, a similarity appears: both of them are used to relying on themselves and trusting “common sense”, “direct consciousness”. There is nothing surprising in such a community of heroes: they are both homeless, lonely, unhappy. direct feelings... Thus, in the finale of the novel, the intellectual nature of Pechorin and folk soul Maksim Maksimych. Both turn to the same reality, beginning to trust their moral instincts.)

8. So who is the fatalist? Vulich, Pechorin, Maxim Maksimych? Or Lermontov? (Probably, each in his own way. But Pechorin’s (and Lermontov’s) fatalism is not the one that fits into the formula: “you can’t escape your fate.” This fatalism has a different formula: “I won’t submit!” It does not make a person a slave of fate, but adds him determination.)

9. How is Pechorin's attitude to love changing? (Pechorin no longer seeks pleasure in love. After the incident with Vulich, he meets the “pretty daughter” of the old constable, Nastya. But the sight of a woman does not touch his feelings - “but I had no time for her.”)

10. Why is this story the last in the novel, despite the fact that chronologically its place is different? (The story sums up the philosophical understanding of the life experience that fell to the lot of Pechorin.)

III. Word of the teacher 1 .

Thus, the theme of fate appears in the novel in two aspects.

1. Fate is understood as a force that predetermines the whole life of a person. In this sense, it is not directly connected with human life: it human life its existence only confirms the law inscribed somewhere in heaven and obediently fulfills it. Human life is needed only to justify the meaning and purpose prepared for it in advance and independent of the individual. The personal will is absorbed by the higher will, loses its independence, becomes the embodiment of the will of providence. It only seems to a person that he acts on the basis of the personal needs of his nature. In fact, he has no personal will. With such an understanding of fate, a person can either “guess” or not “guess” his destination. A person has the right to relieve himself of responsibility for his life behavior, since he cannot change his fate.

2. Fate is understood as a socially conditioned force. Although human behavior is determined by personal will, this will itself requires an explanation of why it is such, why a person acts in this way and not otherwise. Personal will is not destroyed, it does not fulfill the given program. Thus, the personality is freed from the normativeness destined in heaven, which constrains its volitional efforts. Its activity is based in the internal properties of the personality.

In "Fatalist" all officers are on an equal footing, but only Pechorin rushed to the killer Vulich. Consequently, the conditionality of circumstances is not direct, but indirect.

The story "The Fatalist" brings together Pechorin's spiritual quest, it synthesizes his thoughts about personal will and the meaning of objective circumstances independent of a person. Here he is given the opportunity to "try his luck" once again. And he directs his best spiritual and physical forces, speaking in the aura of natural, natural human virtues. The hero experiences for the first and last time trust in fate, and this time fate not only spares him, but also exalts him. And this means that reality not only generates tragedy, but also beauty and happiness.

The fatal predestination of human destiny collapses, but the tragic social predestination remains (the inability to find one's place in life).
IV. Test based on the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov "A Hero of Our Time" 2 .

Students can choose one or two answers to the questions provided.

1. How would you define the theme of the novel?

a) the theme of "extra person",

b) the theme of the interaction of an outstanding personality with a "water society",

c) the theme of the interaction of personality and destiny.

2. How would you define the main conflict of the novel?

a) the conflict of the hero with secular society,

b) the hero's conflict with himself,

c) conflict between Pechorin and Grushnitsky.

3. Why did Lermontov need to break the chronological sequence of the stories?

a) to show the development of the hero, his evolution,

b) to reveal in Pechorin the core of his character, independent of time,

c) to show that Pechorin has been tormented by the same problems all his life.

4. Why does the novel have such a composition?

a) such a system of narration corresponds to the general principle of the composition of the novel - from riddle to riddle,

b) such a composition allows you to diversify the story.
5. Why is the last story of the novel "The Fatalist"?

a) because it chronologically completes the plot,

b) because the transfer of action to the Caucasian village creates a circular composition,

c) because it is in the Fatalist that the main problems for Pechorin are posed and solved: about free will, fate, predestination.

6. Can Pechorin be called a fatalist?

a) with some reservations,

b) can't

c) Pechorin himself does not know whether he is a fatalist or not.

7. Can Pechorin be called "an extra person"?

a) he is superfluous for the society in which he lives, but not superfluous for his era - the era of analysis and search,

b) Pechorin - "an extra person" primarily for himself,

c) Pechorin is "superfluous" in all respects.

8. Positive or villain Pechorin?

a) positive

b) negative,

c) cannot be said for certain.

9. What is more in the characters of Onegin and Pechorin - similarities or differences?

a) more similar

b) there are similarities, but there are many differences,

c) these are completely different characters in different circumstances.

10. Why does Pechorin seek death at the end of his life?

a) he is tired of life,

b) cowardly

c) he realized that he had not found and would not find his high purpose in life.

Answers: 1 in; 2 b; 3 b, c; 4 a; 5 in; 6 in; 7 a; 8 in; 9 in; 10 a, c.

LESSONS 66-67

DEVELOPMENT OF SPEECH.

WORK ON THE NOVEL M.Yu. LERMONTOVA

"HERO OF OUR TIME"
TOPICS OF ESSAYS

1. Is Pechorin really a hero of his time?

2. Pechorin and Onegin.

3. Pechorin and Hamlet.

4. Pechorin and Grushnitsky.

5. Women's images in the novel.

6. Psychologism of the novel.

7. The theme of play and farce in the novel.

8. Analysis of one of the episodes of the novel, for example: "Pechorin's duel with Grushnitsky", "The scene of the pursuit of Vera".
Homework.

Individual tasks - prepare messages on the topics: “Childhood of N.V. Gogol", "Evenings on a farm near Dikanka", "Creative maturity" (on cards 41, 42, 43).

Card 41

Childhood N.V. Gogol

A heightened attention to the mysterious and terrible, to the "night side of life" awakened early in the boy.

In 1818, Gogol, together with his brother Ivan, entered the district school in Poltava.

In 1819 his brother died. Gogol took this death hard. He left the school and began to study at home with a teacher.

On May 1, 1821, Gogol was admitted to the Gymnasium of Higher Sciences that opened in Nizhyn. This educational institution combined, following the model of the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum, secondary and higher education. In the entrance exams, he received 22 out of 40 points. It was an average result. The first years of study were very difficult: Gogol was a sickly child, he missed his relatives very much. Gradually, however, gymnasium life returned to its usual routine: they got up at half past six, put themselves in order, then the morning prayer began, then they drank tea and read the New Testament. Lessons were held from 9 to 12. Then - a 15-minute break, lunch, time for classes and from 3 to 5 again lessons. Then rest, tea, repetition of lessons, preparation for the next day, dinner from 7.30 to 8, then 15 minutes - time "for movement", again repetition of lessons and at 8.45 - evening prayer. At 9 o'clock they went to bed. And so every day. Gogol was a boarder at the gymnasium, and not a volunteer, like the students who lived in Nizhyn, and this made his life even more monotonous.

In the winter of 1822, Gogol asks his parents to send him a sheepskin coat - “because they don’t give us official coats or overcoats, but only in uniforms, despite the cold.” The detail is small, but important - the boy learned from his own life experience what it means not to have a saving “overcoat” in a harsh time ...

It is interesting to note that already in the gymnasium, Gogol is noticed such qualities as causticity and mockery towards his comrades. He was called the "mysterious carla". In student performances, Gogol showed himself to be a talented artist, playing the comic roles of old men and women.

Gogol was in the 6th grade when his father died. In the few months that have passed since the death of his father, Gogol has matured, the idea of ​​public service has become stronger in him.

As we know, he settled on justice. Since "injustice ... most of all exploded the heart." The civic idea merged with the fulfillment of the duties of a "true Christian." There was also a place where he was supposed to perform all this - Petersburg.

In 1828, Gogol graduated from the gymnasium and, full of the brightest hopes, went to St. Petersburg. He was carrying a written romantic poem " Ganz Küchelgarten and hoped for quick literary fame. He printed the poem, spending all his money on it, but the magazines ridiculed his immature work, and readers did not want to buy it. Gogol, in desperation, bought up all the copies and destroyed them. He was also disillusioned with the service, about which he writes to his mother: “What a happiness to serve at the age of 50 to some state adviser, to use a salary that is barely falling. To support oneself decently, and not to have the strength to bring good to humanity for a penny.

Gogol decided to leave his homeland, boarded a ship bound for Germany, but, having landed on the German coast, he realized that he did not have enough money for the trip, and was forced to return to St. Petersburg soon. No matter how short the journey was (about two months), it expanded life experience, and it is not for nothing that foreign reminiscences will begin to appear in his works. More critically, he looks at St. Petersburg. He managed to get a job in the fall of 1829, but soon the position he received seemed "unenviable", he received salaries "a real trifle."

During this difficult time, Gogol worked hard as a writer. He realized that literature was his life's work, that he was a prose writer, not a poet, and that he should abandon the beaten literary roads and find your way. The way was found - he plunged into the study of Ukrainian folklore, fairy tales, legends, historical songs, bright folk life. This world opposed in his mind the gray and dull bureaucratic Petersburg, in which, as he wrote to his mother, “no spirit shines among the people, all employees and officials, everyone talks about their departments and collegiums, everything is suppressed, everything is mired in idle, insignificant labors in which life is wasted fruitlessly. The turning point in Gogol's fate was his acquaintance with Pushkin, who supported the novice writer and played a decisive role in directing his creative search. In 1831-1832. Gogol published two volumes of short stories under the general title "Evenings on a farm near Dikanka". The story "Bisavriuk, or Evening on the eve of Ivan Kupala" made him famous, which, apparently, opened the doors of a new service for Gogol - in the Department of Appanages. He was glad of this service, he dreamed of influencing politics and administration. Soon he became assistant clerk with a salary of 750 rubles a year. His mood improved. Nevertheless, he continued to test himself in other fields: he regularly visited the Imperial Academy of Arts, improved in painting. By this time, he met V.A. Zhukovsky, P.A. Pletnev, was recommended as a home teacher to several families. He no longer felt alone. His teaching activities went beyond private lessons - Gogol was appointed junior history teacher at the Patriotic Women's Institute. He submits a letter of resignation from the Department of Appanages and forever says goodbye to official service, and with it the dream that inspired him from his high school years. The service was no longer tiring, on the contrary, it made it possible to do more creative work.

Card 42

next page >>

The topics proposed for the novel A Hero of Our Time can, it seems to me, be divided into two blocks.

The first concerns the image of the protagonist.

• Why does the author call Pechorin a “hero of time”?
• How does Pechorin relate to the problem of fate?
• What are the paradoxes of Pechorin's personality?
• “The soul of Pechorin is not stony soil, but the earth dried up from the heat of fiery life” (V.G. Belinsky).
• The second block of topics is the analysis of individual chapters and episodes.
• The ideological and compositional role of the head of "Bel" in the novel.
• Pechorin and smugglers. (Analysis of the chapter "Taman".)
• Pechorin's bet with Vulich. (Analysis of the chapter "The Fatalist".)
• Duel Pechorin with Grushnitsky. (Analysis of an episode from the chapter "Princess Mary".)
• How did Pechorin's collusion with Azamat affect Bela's fate?
• Vera's letter to Pechorin. (Analysis of a fragment of the chapter "Princess Mary".)

The topics of the first block are of a generalized nature, and the essay involves the coverage of a fairly wide and voluminous material. Episode analysis will be the research tool here. In the themes of the second block, the analysis of a single episode should lead to generalizations and conclusions concerning the entire text. In essence, as in the analysis of themes common to lyrics and individual poems, the difference is in the approach: from the general to the particular or from the particular to the general.

The main danger when working with the themes of the first block is to lose connection with specific episodes of the text, one way or another characterizing the main character; when working with the themes of the second block, it is dangerous to stray into a retelling or lose the organic connections of this episode with others, not to pay due attention to the place of the episode in the complex artistic system of the novel.

Why does the author call Pechorin a “hero of time”?

Strictly speaking, to the question posed in the title of the first topic, Lermontov answered in the Preface to the second edition: character, even as fiction, finds no mercy in you? Is it not because
is there more truth in it than you would like it to be?..” A little earlier, Lermontov also named the main artistic technique that forms the image - irony. In the last part of the Preface, the author of the novel emphasizes that “he just had fun drawing modern man, as he understands him and, to his ... unfortunately, met him too often. Of course, we are talking about the typicality of the image (“... This is a type,” Lermontov writes in a draft of the Preface, “do you know what a type is? I congratulate you”), and in this sense we can talk about the features of realism as an artistic method in “ Hero of our time.

The typicality of Pechorin, on the one hand, his irreducibility to the image of the author (which is typical for romantic works) and even the narrator, on the other, create ambiguity author's position towards the hero. Hence the special composition, and the peculiar arrangement of the characters of the novel, which serve to the most complete disclosure of the image of Pechorin.

An essay on this topic can be built as a sequential disclosure of the meaning of the three words included in the title of the novel. And here it is necessary to say that time in the novel is shown through the hero: this is not a broad picture of Russian life, as in "Eugene Onegin", but rather, symptoms of time. The circumstances that form the hero are not shown, but the features of the generation - doomed to inaction, reflection and, as a result, indifference - are repeatedly illustrated in the text (both in separate episodes and in the thoughts of Grigory Alexandrovich Pechorin). This part of the work can be constructed as a comparison of the novel with the poem "Duma". Dissatisfaction with the world gives rise to individualism - a “kind of illness”, a disease from the Preface to the second edition, destroying the ties of the individual with the world. It is important to pay attention both to the historical time (the years of the Nikolaev reaction) and to the traditions of romanticism.

Disappointment, a tendency to reflection (“I have long been living not with my heart, but with my head. I weigh, analyze my own passions and actions with strict curiosity, but without participation. There are two people in me; one lives in the full sense of the word, the other thinks and judges him ...”) are combined in the hero with an unshakable will (it is no coincidence that in the novel there is no person capable of morally resisting Pechorin) and a thirst for action (“I, like a sailor, born and raised on the deck of a robber brig; his soul got used to storms and battles, and, thrown ashore, he is bored and languishing”; “I understand to wish and achieve something, but who hopes?” Pechorin says to Grushnitsky). He is looking for strong life impressions - they are required by his chilled soul, devoid of passions and not finding use for its inner forces. Pechorin's protest is expressed in the fact that, striving for self-affirmation, for the freedom of his own personality, he challenges the world, ceasing to reckon with it. Everyone with whom fate confronts Pechorin, he voluntarily or involuntarily tests, while testing himself: “If I myself am the cause of the misfortune of others, then I myself am no less unhappy.”

The "Hero of Our Time" shows the tragedy of a person in general, who did not find application for his mind, ability, energy, and in this sense he is a timeless hero. But Lermontov does not show the possibilities of using these forces. The hero is not saved either by "change of place" or "change of personality." And in this sense, the word “ours” becomes extremely important in the title. Is it possible to be a hero at a time when heroism is basically impossible? It is no coincidence that Lermontov contrasts his time with the heroic past: in the poem “Borodino”, in “The Song ... about the merchant Kalashnikov”, it is no coincidence that in the Preface to the second edition he speaks of the “illness” of society.

Shevyryov, in his response to The Hero .., accused Lermontov of focusing on the Western European novel by Vigny, Musset, Bernard, Constant, whose heroes can certainly be considered Pechorin's predecessors (for more on this, see: Rodzevich S.I. Pechorin's predecessors in French literature), however, as Yu.M. Lotman, Pechorin embodies the features of a “Russian European”: “However, Pechorin is not a man of the West, he is a man of Russian Europeanized culture ... He combines both cultural models.” The image of the “son of the century”, drawn by Lermontov from European literature, enriched the character of Pechorin, at the same time emphasizing his typicality.

When referring to this topic, it would be quite appropriate to compare Pechorin with Onegin (in the criticism of the 60s, these images are united by one characteristic - “ extra people”). Of course, one can note the spiritual relationship of Pechorin and Onegin, their common feature- a sharp, chilled mind, but if for Onegin “involuntary devotion to dreams” is acceptable, then Pechorin left daydreaming in the distant past of his early youth. According to B.M. Eikhenbaum, Pechorin differs from Onegin in depth of thought, willpower, degree of self-awareness, his attitude to the world. In itself, reflection is not an illness, but a necessary form of self-knowledge, it takes painful forms in an era of timelessness... “Having called his hero Pechorin, Lermontov simultaneously emphasized his connection with literary tradition and, to a certain extent, argued with Pushkin, showing a man of “a completely different era””.

The ambiguity of the phrase “hero of our time” is also manifested in the characterization of the characters in whose circle Pechorin finds himself: a parody of a romantic hero in his most vulgar manifestations - Grushnitsky, “skeptic and materialist” Werner, simple-minded Maxim Maksimych, almost demonic Vulich. Some similarity between the images of the narrator and Pechorin (for all their differences) confirms the author's idea that Pechorin really embodies the features of his generation. Their similarity is in the description of nature (by the narrator on the Cross Pass and by Pechorin, who rented an apartment at the foot of Mashuk), but the finale of the description is completely different. Pechorin has a conversation about society, the narrator has lines that are impossible for Pechorin: “... everything acquired falls away from the soul, and it becomes again the way it once was and, it’s true, will someday be again.” “Friend” both call Maxim Maksimovich, but if Pechorin is completely indifferent to him, then the narrator is sympathetic, with regret: “It is sad to see when a young man loses his best hopes and dreams, when a pink veil is pulled away in front of him, through which he looked at things and human feelings, although there is hope that he will replace the old delusions with new ones ... But how to replace them in the years of Maxim Maksimych? Involuntarily, the heart will harden and the soul will close ... ”Pechorin’s skepticism and egoism are much stronger, because these vices are taken“ in their full development.

Particular attention, of course, should be paid to the fact that the main interest of this first psychological novel is the “history of the human soul”, which is “almost more curious and more useful than the history of a whole people”; history is given through it whole era. Hence - all the techniques for constructing a novel.

Despite the typological connection with the heroes of Lermontov’s early works (“Strange Man”, “Masquerade”, “Two Brothers”, “People and Passions”), which are characterized by disappointment, weariness from life, bitter thoughts about an unfulfilled destiny that replaced “gigantic plans” , Pechorin is a fundamentally new hero. Rethinking the method of artistic representation is associated primarily with the new artistic task of Lermontov.

The second topic of the block is “ How does Pechorin relate to the problem of fate? - poses the problem of predestination, fatalism. The dispute about predestination is a natural consequence of doom to inaction and loss of faith. This is the main moral problem novel: it is no coincidence that the last story of the “Hero of Our Time” is dedicated to her.

This problem is posed, as it were, at different levels - from the conditionally romantic to the philosophical - and can be traced in all the stories of the novel. “After all, there are, really, such people who have written by birth that various unusual things must happen to them, ”says Maxim Maksimych, just starting the story about Pechorin. In Taman, Pechorin himself reflects: “And why was destiny throw me in a peaceful circle honest smugglers? Like a stone thrown into a smooth spring, I disturbed their calmness, and like a stone almost sank by itself!” Peculiar statements during a philosophical and metaphysical conversation about beliefs enable Pechorin and Werner to "distinguish each other in the crowd." This theme is heard in "Princess Mary" repeatedly: "Obviously fate takes care that I should not be bored"; “When he left, a terrible sadness cramped my heart. Did fate bring us together again in the Caucasus, or did she come here on purpose, knowing that she would meet me?..”; "My premonitions never deceived me." The same with Grushnitsky: "... I feel that someday we will collide with him on a narrow road, and one of us will be unhappy." About Vera: “I know that soon we will part again and, perhaps, forever ...” An attempt to realize our fate is Pechorin’s reflection before the ball: “Really, I thought, my only purpose on earth is to destroy other people's hopes? Since I have been living and acting, fate has somehow always led me to the denouement of other people's dramas, as if without me no one could die or despair. I was the necessary face of the fifth act; involuntarily I played the pitiful role of executioner or traitor. What purpose did fate have for this? petty-bourgeois tragedies and family romances?.. How many people, starting life, think of ending it like Alexander the Great or Lord Byron, and meanwhile remain titular advisers for a century?..”

There is also an unfulfilled prediction (“death from an evil wife”), about which Pechorin speaks not without irony, realizing, however, the influence of this prediction on his life.

Accidents are also often seen by Pechorin as signs of fate: “For the second time, fate gave me the opportunity to eavesdrop on a conversation that was supposed to decide his fate”; “…what if his happiness overwhelms him? if my star finally betrays me? .. And no wonder: for so long she served faithfully to my whims; there is no more constancy in heaven than on earth.” Even the fact that he did not die in a duel with Grushnitsky becomes for Pechorin some sign of fate: “... I have not yet drained the cup of suffering and I feel that I still have a long time to live.”

Main body of essay "Analysis of the chapter" Fatalist "": this is the “final chord” in creating the image of Pechorin (namely, the features of the composition of the novel are connected with this). The story is given in it “through the eyes of Pechorin”, in it the protagonist of the novel reflects on the main question of life - the purpose of man and faith; finally, this is the chapter that is least associated with the usual romantic tradition. When analyzing it, attention should be paid to the following.

card theme, card game, fate. Connection with the youthful drama "Masquerade", where the main character Arbenin characterizes himself as "I am a player", but unable to resist the tragic game of his own demonism and the secular society that surrounds him.

East theme. “Valerik” (“I am writing to you by chance ...”). The conversation about predestination is the beginning of the plot connected with Vulich.

The very form of conversation is indicative - dialogue, dispute. The answer to the question of predestination will not be received either “inside” the story, or in the hero's further reasoning, or in any author's conclusion.

The unusualness of Vulich, his resemblance to the heroes of romantic works.

Pechorin's interest in this topic is due to his previous reasoning: the meaning of the search for life, an attempt to use one's own forces, is being questioned. After all, if there is a destiny predetermined for everyone, then there can be no question of any moral duties of a person. If there is no fate, then a person must be responsible for his actions. Pechorin is not just “betting”, he acts as a participant in the “duel with fate”: he is sure that signs of imminent death are read on Vulich’s face; he is not inclined to translate everything into a joke; he - the only one - notices the fear of death in Vulich, who had just won a bet "from fate", but "flashed and embarrassed" from Pechorin's remark.

The theme of the past and the future (which also arises in Pechorin’s reflections on the stars in the Duma, partly in Borodino and the Song about ... the merchant Kalashnikov).

Of particular importance is Pechorin's reflection on the fate of his generation - on the loss of faith and the vain search for a "high appointment". Reflection “under the stars” is a very significant symbol of the heavenly, beautiful and, as a rule, unattainable for Lermontov's lyrics. The conversation about the generation is transferred to the philosophical plane, it acquires integrity and logic of the worldview.

“Mirror Episode” (with a drunken Cossack) is an attempt by Pechorin himself to try his luck. It is important that despite the similarity of the goal, the situation is completely different: Vulich plays; Pechorin, entering the "game" with fate, helps to catch the criminal.

The characteristic features of poetics also deserve a detailed commentary: first of all, a mixture of styles. “Twenty chervonets” coexist with the “mysterious power” that Vulich acquired over his interlocutors.

The problem of fatalism has not been fully resolved, and Pechorin's reasoning reflects another important feature of the generation - doubt (“I love to doubt everything ...”) as an echo of the “burden of knowledge and doubt” in “Duma”.

The philosophical roots of doubt are in unbelief. It is from here - a tendency to reflection, a kind of heroic egoism.

Pechorin's personality paradoxes

I address colleagues and high school students to the book by L. Ginzburg “ creative path Lermontov. In the chapter devoted to "The Hero of Our Time", Pechorin's bifurcation as an element of ironic consciousness is very convincingly spoken of (along with the masking of feelings and abrupt transitions from the tragic to the comic, from the sublime to the trivial).

Having separated from the hero, the author uses the possibility of an objective assessment of him. It is no coincidence that, breaking the chronology of the events taking place, Lermontov subordinates the composition to the main idea - the gradual disclosure of the image of Pechorin. It is no coincidence that for the first time the reader learns about him not even from the mouth of the narrator, but from the simple-hearted and ingenuous Maxim Maksimych, who is not inclined to analyze Pechorin’s inner world: “He was such a person” - this is how he comments every time on the inconsistency of his colleague’s behavior. However, it was Maksim Maksimych who first characterizes Pechorin as a strange person: “He was a nice guy, I dare to assure you; just a little weird. After all, for example, in the rain, in the cold all day hunting; everyone will get cold, tired - but nothing to him. And another time he sits in his room, the wind smells, he assures that he has caught a cold; the shutters will knock, he will shudder and turn pale, and in my presence he went to the boar one on one; it used to be that you couldn’t get a word for whole hours, but sometimes, as soon as he starts talking, you’ll tear your tummies with laughter ... Yes, sir, with great oddities ... ”

“You are a strange person!” Mary says to Pechorin. Werner repeats the same words to Pechorin.

The subject of observation in an essay on this topic should be episodes in which Pechorin's inconsistency is manifested. Psychological, historical, philosophical substantiation of this inconsistency are the main conclusions of the essay.

One of the important questions in this regard is whether Pechorin can completely internally “detach himself” from the game that he is playing. “... I think he was able to actually do what he was talking about jokingly. Such was the man, God knows him!” - says Maxim Maksimych.

Pechorin is convinced that he lives, knowing in advance what will happen next, but life refutes his ideas, sometimes as if laughing (as in Taman), sometimes bringing him face to face with tragedy (the story of Mary, the loss of Vera, the duel with Grushnitsky ). His game ceases to be a game and extends beyond him. This is both the fault and the misfortune of Pechorin.

In “Bel”, Pechorin confesses to Maxim Maksimych: “... I have an unhappy character: did my upbringing make me like this, did God create me like that, I don’t know; I only know that if I am the cause of the misfortune of others, then I myself am no less unhappy ... "On the other hand, he writes in his diary:" ... I look at the suffering and joys of others only in relation to myself, as food that supports my spiritual strength."

On the one hand - “and why did fate throw me into the peaceful circle of honest smugglers”, and on the other hand - “what do I care about human joys and misfortunes”. On the one hand, there is a discussion about how to captivate a young girl, on the other hand, “have I really fallen in love?” On the one hand - “I love enemies ...”, on the other - “Why do they all hate me? Am I really one of those people whose mere sight already breeds ill-will?

Pechorin's confession - “... I have an innate passion to contradict; my whole life was only a chain of sad and unsuccessful contradictions of heart or reason” - raises the theme of reason and feeling in “A Hero of Our Time”. As in the lyrics, mind, reason interfere with the manifestation of sincere feelings. This can be illustrated, for example, by the episode when Pechorin is trying to catch up with Vera. “Look,” Pechorin says to Werner, “here are two smart people; we know in advance that everything can be argued to infinity, and therefore we do not argue; we know almost all the secret thoughts of each other; one word is a whole story for us; we see the grain of each of our feelings through the triple shell. What is sad is funny to us, what is funny is sad, but in general, in truth, we are rather indifferent to everything, except ourselves.

Pechorin's contradictions are based on the fight against boredom. In an entry dated June 3, Pechorin discusses the reasons for his own actions and desires. Happiness is understood by him as “saturated pride”, the desire to arouse a feeling of love, devotion and fear to oneself is “a sign and the greatest triumph of power”; “evil begets evil; the first suffering gives the idea of ​​the pleasure of torturing another.”

An idea is impossible without embodiment (already at birth it takes on the form of action), an idea in its first development is a passion that is possible only in youth. “The fullness and depth of feelings and thoughts does not allow frantic impulses: the soul, suffering and enjoying, gives a strict account of everything and is convinced that it should be so ... It is imbued with its own life, - cherishes and punishes himself, like a beloved child. Only in this highest state of self-knowledge can man appreciate the justice of God.”

Connections with the world are torn (“I sometimes despise myself ... is that why I despise others too? I have become incapable of noble impulses; I am afraid to seem ridiculous to myself”), the concepts of good and evil are mixed (“evil is not so attractive in anyone ”, Vera says about Pechorin). “Our age ... is the age ... of separation, individuality, the age of personal passions and interests,” Belinsky writes in 1842. Pechorin is alone. It is not accidental that he is opposed to Grushnitsky - a double hero, a parody generated by time.

Pechorin's diary entry before the duel with Grushnitsky deserves special comment - at the moment when sincerity towards oneself reaches its climax. Pechorin's reasoning concerns the key positions of his worldview:

• first of all, an assessment of one’s own “being”, its purpose and meaning, its place in the world - “to die like this to die! The loss for the world is small”;
• confidence that the “immense forces” of his soul had a “high purpose”;
• an attempt to assess the degree of his own guilt - “I did not guess this appointment, I was carried away by the bait of empty and ungrateful passions”;
• the role he is called upon to play - “as an instrument of execution, I fell on the heads of doomed victims, often without malice, always without regret ...”;
• contemplating a love that "brought happiness to no one" because he "sacrificed nothing for those he loved";
• instead of the romantic opposition of the hero and the crowd - a bitter consciousness of loneliness, unappreciated, misunderstood.

Indicative is the peculiar conclusion made after the passage of time in the following diary entry: “I thought about dying; it was impossible: I have not yet drained the cup of suffering and now I feel that I still have a long time to live.” Pechorin again realizes himself at the same time "an ax in the hands of fate" and its victim.

This commentary is a necessary part of the essay, which is analysis of the episode "Pechorin's duel with Grushnitsky".

Of course, it should be noted that Grushnitsky was initially presented as a vulgar version of demonism and Pechorin's double.

Attention should be paid to the characterization of Grushnitsky given by Pechorin, the dominants of which are posturing, inner emptiness (a junker is a soldier’s overcoat; he can be given 25 years old, although he is hardly 21; “he is one of those people who have ready-made lush phrases for all occasions who are simply not touched by the beautiful and who are importantly draped in extraordinary feelings ... ”; epigrams are funny, but they are never marks and evil; Grushnitsky is reputed to be a brave man; “I saw him in action: he waves his saber, shouts and rushes forward, closing his eyes” ). There is a mask motif. Sometimes the masks of Pechorin and Grushnitsky coincide (for example, “the St. Petersburg cut of the frock coat misled them, but soon recognizing army epaulettes, they turned away indignantly ... The wives of local authorities ... are accustomed in the Caucasus to meet an ardent heart under a numbered button and an educated mind under a white cap” - Pechorin; "This proud nobility looks at us, army men, as wild. And what do they care if there is a mind under a numbered cap and a heart under a thick overcoat?" - Grushnitsky). But if Pechorin's face acquires some features in the continuation of the novel, then under the mask of Grushnitsky there remains a void.

As for the episode itself proposed for analysis, it consists of two parts - the night before the duel, Pechorin's reasoning and the duel itself, which (and this should not be forgotten) was described much later after the event itself. That is why the ironic style usual for Pechorin is inherent in the second part. An example of this is the description of the second, Dr. Werner.

The morning landscape and Pechorin's attitude to it, who is generally very sensitive to nature (both in "Taman", and in "Fatalist", and in "Princess Mary" you can find many confirmations of this).

“For a long time I have been living not with my heart, but with my head. I weigh, analyze my own passions and actions with severe curiosity, but without participation. There are two people in me: one lives in the full sense of the word, the other thinks and judges him. This reasoning inevitably leads to a conversation about faith, but Pechorin (or rather, the author) deliberately interrupts the reasoning.

Pechorin perfectly sees the internal struggle in Grushnitsky, but remains unshakable. He seeks to deprive Grushnitsky of a compromise with his conscience and thus puts him before a moral choice: “... I wanted to test him; a spark of magnanimity could awaken in his soul, and then everything would work out for the better; but self-love and weakness of character should have triumphed ... ”But this desire is at the same time an attempt to save oneself from the need for a moral choice:“ I wanted to give myself the full right not to spare him if fate had mercy on me. Who has not made such conditions with his conscience?”

It would seem that Grushnitsky's behavior removes all moral obligations from Pechorin, but the tragic end of the duel does not bring him satisfaction: “I had a stone in my heart. The sun seemed dim to me, its rays did not warm me.

The plot of the duel determines the course of further events (probably, it is precisely as a result of it that Pechorin goes to the fortress), the compositional role of this episode is much more significant: Pechorin’s character traits are revealed, subjected to powerful introspection, and the most important philosophical questions are posed in the face of danger.

Ideological and compositional originality of "Bela"

It is important to pay attention to the structure of the narrative:

• the narrator himself is not equal to the hero;
• the story of Bela is the story of Maxim Maksimych, and his look clearly colors the whole story. In "Bel" only the external side of Pechorin's behavior is shown, in fact there is no penetration into his inner world;
• anti-romantic style (proximity to Pushkin's Journey to Arzrum). A kind of “reduction” of romantic situations and symbolism: “So, we went down from Good Mountain to Devil's Valley ... Here is a romantic name! You already see the nest of the evil spirit between the impregnable cliffs - it wasn’t there: the name of the Devil’s Valley comes from the word “devil”, and not “devil”.

The retardation is indicative: “... I am not writing a story, but travel notes; therefore, I cannot force the staff captain to tell before he actually begins to speak. Rethinking the sentimental genre of travel notes, ironic attitude towards the reader.

The plot - the love of a European and a mountain woman, a love triangle (Pechorin-Bela-Kazbich), a tragic denouement - is characteristic of romantic works. However, the romantic situations here are rethought and reduced to frank routine: instead of passionate and crazy love - Pechorin's phrase “Yes, when do I like her? ..”; Bela's kidnapping is connected with money and profit; Pechorin and Maxim Maksimych make a bet whether Pechorin will be able to achieve Bela's favor in a week. In general, the topic of the dispute is important in the context of the entire novel: Pechorin makes some kind of bet - and then his life is filled with some kind of meaning. In The Fatalist, this is not only a bet with Vulich, but also, in a certain sense, a dispute with fate (the episode with the arrest of the Cossack).

In addition to the image of Bela, it is important to pay attention to the image of Maxim Maksimych, who, according to Belinsky, is a “purely Russian type”, close to the folk one, which gave rise to a whole gallery of types (including in the works of L.N. Tolstoy). However, we must not forget that this image was written not without irony, and the opposition of Pechorin and Maxim Maksimych is ambiguous: of course, the staff captain is kind, humane, simple (in comparison with Pechorin), but clearly loses to the main character in activity, intelligence level, he is practically devoid of personal self-consciousness. That is why the good Maksim Maksimych finds himself “at a dead end”, unable to resist Pechorin’s most, from his point of view, strange desires.

The novel about the Caucasus could not but include a certain “ethnographic component” (description of the wedding, images of Kazbich and Azamat). The “mastering” of a foreign culture by Russians is indicative: “Of course, in their language he was absolutely right,” Maksim Maksimych comments on Kazbich’s massacre of Bela’s father. And the narrator concludes: “I was involuntarily struck by the ability of a Russian person to apply to the customs of those peoples among whom he happens to live ...” Here one can recall Lermontov’s essay “Caucasian”, draw a parallel with Tolstoy’s stories about the war.

The world of nature in the chapter "Bel" is a joyful, happy world, and the narrator is involuntarily imbued with a "pleasant" feeling.

From the point of view of artistic time, "Bela" is heterogeneous, and its position in the composition of the novel serves the main artistic task - the gradual disclosure of the image of Pechorin. The hero finds himself in a “natural” environment, but this “environment” also turns out to be far from harmonious. Kazbich and Azamat are far from the ideal of a “natural person”. Pechorin does not strive to become “his own” in it, like Pushkin’s Aleko, but, like a romantic hero, he is carried away by a new feeling for him: “When I saw Bela in my house ... I, a fool, thought that she was an angel sent to me by a compassionate fate." He is fascinated by the romantic appearance created in his imagination, but the romantic situation cannot be resolved in real life: “the love of a savage woman is little better than the love of a noble lady; the ignorance and simple-heartedness of one are just as annoying as the coquetry of another.” And the innocent victim in this situation is Bela, who has retained her simplicity, sincerity, spontaneity, pride.

The story with Bela is the first (shown to the reader) in Pechorin's chain of experiments on people and on himself. And already in it the reader hears, though sounding from the lips of Maxim Maksimych, but still Pechorin’s reasoning about his own character: “I’m a fool or a villain, I don’t know; but it is true that I am also very pitiable, perhaps more than she is: in me the soul is corrupted by the light, the imagination is restless, the heart is insatiable; everything is not enough for me: I get used to sadness just as easily as to pleasure, and my life becomes emptier day by day ... ”The continuation of these thoughts is in Princess Mary, in Maxim Maksimych, in Fatalist. Pechorin's attempt to avoid boredom causes the death of many: Bela's father and Bela herself died, it is not known where Azamat disappeared.

Another romantic situation awaits the hero in Taman (it is important that the narration in the story comes from the hero himself), and again it is decided completely not in the spirit of romantic works. When working on a topic "Pechorin and smugglers" it is important to note that, as in "Bel", the romantic mystery is constantly decreasing: a cheerful, dexterous, courageous undine is in fact a smuggler whose main concern is money, a source of income. The smuggler and Janko, who is "not afraid of the storm".

Pechorin does not become clearer to us in this chapter, but the psychological ambiguity is again emphasized: he is ready to believe that in front of him is Goethe's Mignon, and he completely loses his head. Pechorin does not think, completely falling under the power of feelings and prejudices: “I imagined that I found Goethe's Mignon", "in my head suspicion was born that this blind man is not so blind”, “I I have a prejudice against all the blind, crooked, deaf, dumb, legless, armless, humpbacked, etc.”, “I did not have time come to your senses as he noticed that we were swimming.

A purely romantic situation (a strange girl, a disillusioned stranger, a bright nature) is reversed in Taman: the blind man is really blind, the mysterious girl is actually a clever and courageous criminal, strong and determined people are cruel, romantic nature is dangerous. The story is filled with everyday details: for example, the situation of a romantic date (“it went dark in my eyes, my head was spinning, I squeezed her in my arms with all the strength of youthful passion, but she slithered between my hands like a snake ...”) ends very prosaically ( "In the hallway, she knocked over a teapot and a candle that stood on the floor. "What a devil-girl!" - shouted the Cossack ... who dreamed of warming himself with the remnants of tea).

“Ondine” is a kind of romantic counterpart of Pechorin. Both she and he deliberately choose a style of behavior to achieve some goal, but only she follows this behavior to the end. He deliberately uses romantic techniques and situations (relations with Bela and Mary), but he himself cannot always resist them. Disappointment comes when the hero once again sees the collapse of his own illusions. Indifference, indifference become a kind of defense for him: "... What do I care about the joys and misfortunes of people, me, a wandering officer, and even with a traveler for public need." But in a certain sense, the whole novel is a chain of romantic illusions that Pechorin creates for himself and others. Like romantic heroes, he opposes himself to others, but his proud loneliness is vulnerable even in his own eyes (reasoning on the eve of the duel). He thinks of himself as romantic hero: “... Why did I not want to set foot on this path, opened to me by fate, where quiet joys and peace of mind awaited me? .. No, I would not get along with this fate! I, 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. He wants great and lofty things, but in fact, “like a stone thrown into a smooth spring,” he disturbs the peace of people.

Pechorin not only gets into romantic situations, he creates them for himself, he “plays” the life that he has already lived mentally. If the circuit created in his mind and real life match, he gets bored, if they do not match - life does not live up to his expectations: it brings his “game” to its logical end. Each time, carried away by the game, Pechorin crosses the line separating good from evil, an innocent romantic risk from the thoughtless trampling of other people's destinies.

The contrast between Pechorin's ideas and what really is is enhanced by the author's irony: while the main character "enjoys" a romantic adventure, a blind boy steals his things from him.

Vera's letter to Pechorin

Vera's name appears in the novel before her own, and quite possibly has a symbolic meaning. It is important to note the connection with recollection: “There is no person in the world over whom the past would acquire such power as over me ... I was stupidly created: I don’t forget anything, nothing.” Faith not only connects him with the past, it connects him with the time when his soul still lived in the full sense of the word, was capable of strong emotions: “My heart sank painfully, as after the first parting. Oh, how I rejoiced at this feeling! Is it not youth with its beneficial storms that wants to come back to me again, or is it just its parting glance, the last gift - as a keepsake?..”; “A long-forgotten thrill ran through my veins at the sound of that sweet voice; she looked into my eyes with her deep and calm eyes.

What is important to pay attention to when analyzing this topic?

• Memories and thoughts about Vera are completely devoid for Pechorin of posture or hypocrisy in front of himself.
• The meeting with Vera occurs when he thinks about her.
• With Vera, the theme of suffering from love enters the novel.
• Another significant moment: a conversation in which “the meaning of sounds replaces and complements the meaning of words” takes place with Vera.
• For Pechorin, Vera stands out from among all women, she is “the only woman in the world” whom he “would not be able to deceive”.
• The situation of separation, parting forever.
• Vera is the only person in the novel who really understands Pechorin and accepts him for who he is, with his vices and duality: “no one can be as truly unhappy as you, because no one tries so hard to convince himself otherwise.”

In fact, in this letter we are talking about the very features that Pechorin discovers in himself and talks about: doubt, indifference, individualism, power over other people's feelings. She seems to respond to his confessions.

Pechorin. Why she loves me so much, really, I don't know! Moreover, this is one woman who understood me completely, with all her weaknesses, bad passions ... Is evil so attractive?

Vera. In no one is evil so attractive.

Pechorin. I only want to be loved, and then by very few; even it seems to me that one constant affection would suffice for me: a miserable habit of the heart!

Vera. No one knows how to constantly want to be loved.

Pechorin. I feel this insatiable greed in me, consuming everything that comes my way; I look at the sufferings and joys of others only in relation to myself, as food that supports my spiritual strength.

Vera. You loved me as a property, as a source of joys, anxieties and sorrows, changing mutually, without which life is boring and monotonous.

Pechorin.“Perhaps,” I thought, “that’s why you loved me: joys are forgotten, but sorrows never…”

Vera. You can be sure that I will never love another: my soul has exhausted all its treasures, its tears and hopes on you.

But her attitude towards him is based on love, and this love turns out to be stronger than all the arguments of reason: “But you were unhappy, and I sacrificed myself, hoping that someday you will understand my deep tenderness, which does not depend on any conditions”; “My love has grown together with my soul: it has darkened, but has not died out.” Losing everything for the sake of love is a position opposite to Pechorin's, but capable of affecting his condition.

It is in the pursuit of Vera that Pechorin completely surrenders to the power of feelings: “... One minute, one more minute to see her, say goodbye, shake hands ... I prayed, cursed, cried, laughed ... no, nothing will express my anxiety, despair! .. With the possibility of losing her forever Faith has become dearer to me than anything in the world - dearer than life, honor, happiness!”; “I fell on the wet grass and cried like a child.” Until now, Pechorin himself often became the cause of other people's tears: Kazbich cried, having lost his horse; Pechorin brought Azamat almost to tears; cried Bela, the blind boy, Princess Mary and Princess Ligovskaya. But only these tears, tears from the loss of Faith, are a sign of the truth and sincerity of the feeling of one who, with rational composure, looked at the tears of others: “the soul was exhausted, the mind fell silent.” It is only later, when “thoughts will come to the usual order”, Pechorin will be able to convince himself of the senselessness of the pursuit of “lost happiness”, he will even cynically note: “... it’s nice that I can cry.” And yet, the experiences associated with the loss of Faith are the clearest confirmation of the fact that, according to Belinsky, “Pechorin’s soul is not stony soil, but the earth dried up from the heat of fiery life.”

Two o'clock in the morning... I can't sleep... But I should fall asleep so that tomorrow my hand doesn't tremble. However, it is difficult to miss at six steps. BUT! Mr Grushnitsky! you will not succeed in your hoax ... we will switch roles: now I will have to look for signs of secret fear on your pale face. Why did you yourself appoint these fatal six steps? You think that I will turn my forehead to you without argument ... but we will cast lots! ... and then ... then ... what if his happiness outweighs? if my star finally betrays me? .. And no wonder: for so long she served faithfully to my whims; there is no more constancy in heaven than on earth.

Well? die so die! little loss to the world; And yes, I'm pretty bored too. I am like a man who yawns at a ball, who does not go to bed only because his carriage is not yet there. But the carriage is ready ... goodbye! ..

I run through my memory of all my past and involuntarily ask myself: why did I live? for what purpose was I born?.. And, it is true, it existed, and, it is true, I had a high purpose, because I feel immense powers in my soul ... But I did not guess this purpose, I was carried away by the lures of empty and ungrateful passions ; I came out of their furnace hard and cold as iron, but I lost forever the ardor of noble aspirations - the best light of life. And since then, how many times have I played the role of an ax in the hands of fate! As an instrument of execution, I fell on the heads of doomed victims, often without malice, always without regret... My love brought happiness to no one, because I did not sacrifice anything for those whom I loved: I loved for myself, for my own only satisfied the strange need of the heart, greedily absorbing their feelings, their joys and sufferings - and could never get enough. Thus, exhausted by hunger, he falls asleep and sees sumptuous food and sparkling wine in front of him; he devours with delight the aerial gifts of the imagination, and it seems to him easier; but just woke up - the dream disappears ... there remains a double hunger and despair!

And perhaps tomorrow I will die!.. and not a single creature will remain on earth who would understand me completely. Some revere me worse, others better than I really ... Some will say: he was a kind fellow, others - a bastard. Both will be false. Is it worth living after this? and yet you live - out of curiosity: you expect something new ... Ridiculous and annoying!

It's been a month and a half since I've been in fortress N; Maksim Maksimych went hunting... I'm alone; I sit by the window; gray clouds covered the mountains to the soles; the sun looks like a yellow spot through the fog. Coldly; the wind whistles and shakes the shutters... It's boring! I will continue my journal interrupted by so many strange events