What mistakes lead to unsuccessful life? On the example of Pechorin ("Hero of Our Time")

The novel "A Hero of Our Time" became a continuation of the theme of "extra people". This theme became central to the novel in verse by Alexander Pushkin "Eugene Onegin". Herzen called Pechorin Onegin's younger brother.

In the preface to the novel, the author shows his attitude towards his hero. Just like Pushkin in Eugene Onegin (“I am always glad to notice the difference between Onegin and me”), Lermontov ridiculed attempts to equate the author of the novel and its main character. Lermontov did not consider Pechorin positive herofrom which to take an example. The author emphasized that in the image of Pechorin, a portrait is given not of one person, but an artistic type that has absorbed the features of a whole generation of young people of the early 19th century.

Lermontov's novel “A Hero of Our Time” shows a young man suffering from his restlessness, desperately asking himself a painful question: “Why did I live? For what purpose was I born? " He does not have the slightest inclination to follow the beaten path of secular young people.

Pechorin is an officer. He serves, but not curry favor. Pechorin does not study music, does not study philosophy or military science. But we cannot fail to see that Pechorin is head and shoulders above the people around him, that he is smart, educated, talented, brave, energetic. We are repulsed by Pechorin's indifference to people, his inability for true love, for friendship, his individualism and egoism. But Pechorin captivates us with a thirst for life, a striving for the best, the ability to critically assess our actions. He is deeply unsympathetic to us by the “pitiful actions”, the waste of his strength, the actions with which he brings suffering to other people. But we see that he himself suffers deeply.

Pechorin's character is complex and contradictory. The hero of the novel says about himself: “There are two people in me: one lives in the full sense of the word, the other thinks and judges him ...” What are the reasons for this duality?

“I spoke the truth - they did not believe me: I began to deceive; having learned well the light and springs of society, I became skilled in the science of life ... ”- Pechorin admits. He learned to be secretive, vindictive, bilious, ambitious, became, in his words, a moral cripple. Pechorin is an egoist. Even Pushkin's Onegin, Belinsky called "suffering egoist" and "selfish reluctance." The same can be said about Pechorin. Pechorin is characterized by disappointment in life, pessimism. He is in constant duality of spirit.

In the socio-political conditions of the 30s of the XIX century, Pechorin cannot find a use for himself. He is wasted on petty love affairs, puts his forehead to Chechen bullets, seeks oblivion in love.

But all this is just a search for some way out, just an attempt to dissipate. He is haunted by boredom and the consciousness that it is not worth living such a life. Throughout the novel, Pechorin shows himself as a person accustomed to looking at “the suffering, the joys of others only in relation to himself” as “food” that supports his spiritual strength. It is on this path that he seeks consolation from the boredom pursuing him, tries to fill the emptiness of his existence.

And yet Pechorin is a richly gifted nature. He has an analytical mind, his assessments of people and their actions are very accurate; he has a critical attitude not only towards others, but also towards himself. His diary is nothing more than self-exposure. He is endowed with a warm heart, capable of deeply feeling (Bela's death, a date with Vera) and deeply worrying, although he tries to hide his emotional experiences under the guise of indifference. Indifference, callousness is a mask of self-defense. Pechorin is, after all, a strong-willed, strong, active person, “life of power” slumbers in his chest, he is capable of action. But all his actions carry not a positive, but a negative charge, all his activities are directed not at creation, but at destruction. In this Pechorin is similar to the hero of the poem "The Demon". Indeed, in his appearance (especially at the beginning of the novel) there is something demonic, unsolved.

In all the short stories that Lermontov combined in the novel, Pechorin appears before us as the destroyer of the lives and destinies of other people: because of him, Circassian Bela loses her home and dies, Maxim Maksimych is disappointed in friendship, Princess Mary and Vera suffer, Grushnitsky dies at his hand , “honest smugglers” are forced to leave their home, young officer Vulich dies.

Belinsky saw in Pechorin's character "a transitional state of mind, in which for a person everything old has been destroyed, but there is still no new, and in which a person is only the possibility of something real in the future and a perfect ghost in the present."

Mikhail Yurievich Lermontov is a genius poet, lyricist and true romantic. Creativity M.Yu. Lermontov is still relevant, it attracts with a deep meaning in every word, phrase. His work has been studied by many linguistic scientists, but there is still some mystery in it.

In his first lyric works, he is a truly Russian poet, in his works we see the indestructible strength of the spirit, but he surprised with a strange joylessness in them. He ruthlessly condemns the youth of his time. Poetry is his torment, but also his strength. Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov owns the poems "Duma", "And boring and sad", "Goodbye, unwashed Russia ...", "Death of a poet" and many others, as well as the famous truly Russian, which remains popular among Russian and foreign readers. V.G. Belinsky wrote: "There is something unsolved in this novel ..." and he was right, because he remains.

The novel has an unusual genre of travel notes, which sets us up for short description travel, as we learn later, a wandering officer, but we later come across the notes of another person. In addition, the chronology of the events of the novel is disrupted: first we see everything that the young man meets on the way, we observe his acquaintance with Maxim Maksimovich, we get acquainted with the history of the captain, then the travel notes of the hero-narrator are replaced by the journal of the guard officer Grigory Pechorin, which violates the composition of the novel.

The entire novel contains omissions and omissions, and the character of the protagonist is very complex and “multi-storey”, it is also full of mysteries that each reader has his own special opinion about him.
So what is Pechorin really? When the novel was published, it caused a lot of responses and completely opposite assessments. Someone believed that the novel was moral, someone - that the novel does not contain deep meaning, someone was delighted with the novel, and someone harshly criticized it.

Everyone understands him differently, all of them collect the image of the hero from his actions, which can be condemned, but can be understood. Pechorin said: “Some regard me worse, others better than I really ... Some will say: he was a good fellow, others - a scoundrel! Both will be false. " One gets the impression that the hero himself does not know who he is and what is his goal in life, but one thing is clear at once - the main character belongs to young people of that time who were disillusioned with life.

He has both good and bad qualities, because a person should not become the subject of an unambiguous and straightforward assessment, his soul is multifaceted, which M.Yu. Lermontov. The personality of Pechorin is really very contradictory, which we see in his actions, in the manner of communicating with people.

Grigory Aleksandrovich is a very intelligent and reasonable person, he knows how to admit his mistakes, but at the same time he wants to teach others to confess to their own, as, for example, he kept trying to push Grushnitsky to confess his guilt and wanted to resolve their dispute peacefully. But the other side of Pechorin immediately manifests itself, after some attempts to defuse the situation in a duel and call Grushnitsky to conscience, he himself offers to shoot at a dangerous place so that one of them perishes. At the same time, the hero tries to turn everything into a joke, despite the fact that there is a threat to both the life of the young Grushnitsky and his own life.

After the murder of Grushnitsky, we see , how much the mood of Pechorin has changed: if on the way to the duel he notices how beautiful the day is, then after the tragic event he sees the day in black colors, in his soul there is a stone. I feel sorry for Pechorin, because, despite her bad deeds, she accepts her mistakes, in his journal he is very frank, frank with himself. Pechorin understands that he sometimes plays the role of an ax in the hands of fate, because he himself interferes in the peaceful life of people and turns it upside down.

It is not for nothing that the chapters in the work are not arranged in chronological order, M. Lermontov shows us the personality and soul of Pechorin from different sides, with each chapter we plunge more and more into the novel, we find in Pechorin what the characters in the novel did not notice. The author, as it were, makes us judges, gives us the most important information about him so that we can make our own decision.

Many people notice the similarity of Eugene Onegin A.S. Pushkin and Grigory Pechorin M.Yu. Lermontov, because they lived at about the same time, they are both from a noble family, they do not accept much of secular life, they have a negative and negative attitude towards hypocrisy in a secular society. They both suffer from blues, like many young people, only there is a significant difference between them from the rest - Onegin and Pechorin are not victims of "fashion" for. They are lonely among a motley secular crowd, trying to find themselves in art, they go to travel. Pechorin and Onegin thought completely differently than their contemporaries thought.

Heroes are also prone to irony, which played a cruel joke with them. Despite many similarities, there are differences. Throughout the novel "A Hero of Our Time" we see that Pechorin strives to find himself, he wants to subdue circumstances, to awaken in himself a thirst for life, love, fear. Onegin does not strive for all this, he is inherent in indifference to the world, people. We see that the characters are quite similar, but there are differences. Pechorin and Onegin are each hero of their time, but in the novel by A.S. Pushkin Onegin is presented precisely from the social side, and Pechorin from the philosophical one.

Let us turn to the events that happened to Pechorin after his meeting with Grushnitsky on the waters. Main character there he met his former love - Vera, made friends with Grushnitsky, Princess Ligovskaya and Princess Mary. Pechorin knew that Grushnitsky was in love with Mary, because he tried to awaken jealousy in him, he played on the guy's feelings in all possible ways, manipulated Mary's feelings, deliberately gave her hope for reciprocity on his part, but at the same time she knew that she was acting shamelessly and selfish.

In this chapter, because of his character, he refers to society as a destructive force. Pechorin says: “I love enemies, although not in a Christian way. They amuse me, excite the blood. " As a result of his "game", he did not amuse himself, but only ruined the lives of Grushnitsky, Mary and Vera. He realized this only when Grushnitsky challenged him to a duel. Pechorin tried to rectify the situation, but at the same time did not deviate from his principles: “I decided to give all the benefits to Grushnitsky; I wanted to test it; a spark of generosity could wake up in his soul, and then everything would triple for the better. "

But nothing came of it. The game, innocent in Pechorin's opinion, turned against him. He lost a friend, love and broke the heart of an innocent girl who fell in love with a young cadet Grushnitsky. I agree with B.T. Udodov, who wrote: "The trouble and fault of Pechorin is that his independent self-consciousness, his free will pass into direct individualism."

Roman M.Yu. Lermontov's "A Hero of Our Time" will always attract the attention of readers, he will always be studied, because in the novel there are so many omissions, secrets. The protagonist of the novel, Grigory Pechorin, is the most controversial and complex hero, he causes rather ambiguous assessments of critics and literary critics. Pechorin is often regarded as one of those whose future is described in the poem by M.Yu. Lermontov's "Duma". But Pechorin is really similar to Lermontov's contemporaries: "... And we hate, and we love by chance, / Not sacrificing anything either to malice or love ...".

At that time, the brighter a person's individuality was, the deeper were its sufferings from the contradiction between the life of secular society and the environment. Pechorin was a real hero of that time, he stood out from the "watery" society, he was himself, although he severely condemned himself in everything. One gets the impression that Pechorin are two different people: one is “the one who lives, acts, makes mistakes, and the second is the one who severely condemns the first » .

However, his self-esteem often does not coincide with what others think of him on the basis of his actions. The novel teaches us on the example of Pechorin, shows how to act and how not to. We see that we must learn to analyze our actions as the hero of the novel, but we must learn from our mistakes, try not to repeat them. Pechorin also teaches us to be judicious in our actions, but he likes to ironic situations, which is not always appropriate.

Pechorin is a very attention-grabbing hero, he learns himself, makes mistakes, thinks, he is honest, lives and acts as he sees fit, and this confirms that Pechorin is really a hero of his time.

Official comment:

Within the framework of the direction, it is possible to reason about the value of the spiritual and practical experience of an individual, people, humanity in general, about the cost of mistakes on the way of knowing the world, gaining life experience. Literature often makes one think about the relationship between experience and mistakes: about experience that prevents mistakes, about mistakes without which it is impossible to move along the path of life, and about irreparable, tragic mistakes.

"Experience and mistakes" is a direction in which, to a lesser extent, a clear opposition of two polar concepts is implied, because without mistakes there is and cannot be experience. Literary heromaking mistakes, analyzing them and thereby gaining experience, changes, improves, takes the path of spiritual and moral development. By assessing the actions of the characters, the reader acquires his invaluable life experience, and literature becomes a real textbook of life, helping not to make his own mistakes, the cost of which can be very high. Speaking about the mistakes made by the heroes, it should be noted that a wrong decision, an ambiguous act can affect not only the life of an individual, but also have a most fatal effect on the fate of others. In literature, we also meet such tragic mistakes that affect the fate of entire nations. It is in these aspects that one can approach the analysis of this thematic area.

Aphorisms and sayings of famous people:

Do not be shy for fear of making mistakes, the biggest mistake is to deprive yourself of experience.

Luc de Clapier Vovenargue

You can make mistakes in different ways, you can act right in only one way, that's why the first is easy, and the second is difficult; easy to miss, difficult to hit.

Aristotle

Karl Raimund Popper

He is deeply mistaken who thinks that he will not be mistaken if others think for him.

Aurelius Markov

We easily forget our mistakes when they are known only to us.

Francois de La Rochefoucauld

Take advantage of every mistake.

Ludwig Wittgenstein

Shyness can be appropriate everywhere, just not in admitting your mistakes.

Gothold Efraim Lessing

It is easier to find the mistake than the truth.

Johann Wolfgang Goethe

In all matters, we can only learn by trial and error, falling into error and correcting.

Karl Raimund Popper

As a support in your reasoning, you can turn to the following works.

F.M. Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment".Raskolnikov, killing Alena Ivanovna and confessing what he had done, does not fully realize the whole tragedy of the crime he committed, does not recognize the fallacy of his theory, he only regrets that he could not transgress, that he cannot now classify himself among the chosen ones. And only in hard labor, the soul-worn hero not only repents (he repented, confessing to the murder), but takes the difficult path of repentance. The writer emphasizes that a person who admits his mistakes is able to change, he is worthy of forgiveness and needs help and compassion. (In the novel, next to the hero is Sonya Marmeladova, who is an example of a compassionate person).

M.A. Sholokhov "The Fate of a Man", K.G. Paustovsky "Telegram".The heroes of such different works make a similar fatal mistake, which I will regret all my life, but, unfortunately, nothing can be corrected. Andrei Sokolov, leaving for the front, pushes his wife hugging him away, the hero is annoyed by her tears, he is angry , believing that she "buries him alive", but everything turns out the other way around: he returns, and the family dies. This loss is a terrible grief for him, and now he blames himself for every little thing and with inexpressible pain says: "Until my death, until my last hour, I will die, and I will not forgive myself that I pushed her away!" The story of K.G. Paustovsky is a story about a lonely old age. The grandmother Katerina, abandoned by her own daughter, writes: “My dear, I will not survive this winter. Come even for a day. Let me look at you, hold your hands. " But Nastya reassures herself with the words: "Since the mother writes, it means she is alive." Thinking about strangers, organizing an exhibition of a young sculptor, the daughter forgets about her only loved one. And only after hearing warm words of gratitude “for taking care of the person,” the heroine recalls that she has a telegram in her purse: “Katya is dying. Tikhon ". Repentance comes too late: “Mom! How could this have happened? After all, I have no one in my life. No and will not be dearer. If only to be in time, if only she saw me, if only she would forgive ”. The daughter arrives, but there is no one to ask for forgiveness. The bitter experience of the main characters teaches the reader to be attentive to those close to him "before it's too late."

M.Yu. Lermontov "A Hero of Our Time".The hero of the novel, M.Yu. Lermontov. Grigory Alexandrovich Pechorin belongs to to the young people of their era who were disillusioned with life.

Pechorin himself says about himself: "Two people live in me: one lives in the full sense of the word, the other thinks and judges him." Lermontov's character is an energetic, intelligent person, but he cannot find application for his mind, for his knowledge. Pechorin is a cruel and indifferent egoist, because he causes misfortune to everyone with whom he communicates, and he does not care about the state of other people. V.G. Belinsky called him a "suffering egoist" because Grigory Alexandrovich blames himself for his actions, he is aware of his actions, worries and does not bring him satisfaction.

Grigory Aleksandrovich is a very intelligent and reasonable person, he knows how to admit his mistakes, but at the same time he wants to teach others to confess to their own, as, for example, he kept trying to push Grushnitsky to confess his guilt and wanted to resolve their dispute peacefully. But the other side of Pechorin immediately manifests itself: after some attempts to defuse the situation in a duel and call Grushnitsky to conscience, he himself proposes to shoot at a dangerous place so that one of them perishes. At the same time, the hero tries to turn everything into a joke, despite the fact that there is a threat to both the life of the young Grushnitsky and his own life. After the murder of Grushnitsky, we see , how Pechorin's mood changed: if on the way to the duel he notices how beautiful the day is, then after the tragic event he sees the day in black colors, in his soul there is a stone.

The story of the disenchanted and dying Pechorin soul is described in the hero's diary entries with all the mercilessness of introspection; being both the author and the hero of the "magazine", Pechorin fearlessly speaks about his ideal impulses, and about the dark sides of his soul, and about the contradictions of consciousness. The hero realizes his mistakes, but does nothing to correct them, his own experience does not teach him anything. Despite the fact that Pechorin has an absolute understanding that he destroys human lives (“destroys the lives of peaceful smugglers,” Bela dies through his fault, etc.), the hero continues to “play” with the fate of others, thereby making himself unhappy ...

L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace".If Lermontov's hero, realizing his mistakes, could not take the path of spiritual and moral improvement, then the experience gained helps Tolstoy's favorite heroes to become better. When considering the topic in this aspect, one can turn to the analysis of the images of A. Bolkonsky and P. Bezukhov. Prince Andrei Bolkonsky stands out sharply from the high society for his education, breadth of interests, dreams of accomplishing a feat, wishes great personal glory. His idol is Napoleon. To achieve his goal, Bolkonsky appears in the most dangerous places of the battle. The harsh military events contributed to the fact that the prince was disappointed in his dreams, realizing how bitterly he was wrong. Badly wounded, while remaining on the battlefield, Bolkonsky is experiencing a mental breakdown. In these minutes, a new world opens before him, where there are no selfish thoughts, lies, but only the purest, highest, just. The prince realized that there is something more significant in life than war and glory. Now the former idol seems to him small and insignificant. Having survived further events - the appearance of a child and the death of his wife - Bolkonsky comes to the conclusion that it remains for him to live for himself and his loved ones. This is only the first stage in the evolution of a hero who not only admits his mistakes, but also strives to become better. Pierre also makes a number of mistakes. He leads a riotous life in the company of Dolokhov and Kuragin, but he understands that such a life is not for him, He cannot immediately assess people correctly and therefore often makes mistakes in them. He is sincere, trusting, weak-willed. These character traits are clearly manifested in the relationship with the depraved Helene Kuragina - Pierre makes another mistake. Soon after the marriage, the hero realizes that he was deceived, and "recycles his own grief alone." After breaking up with his wife, being in a state of deep crisis, he joins the Masonic lodge. Pierre believes that it is here that he “will find a rebirth for a new life,” and again realizes that he is again mistaken in something important. The experience gained and the "thunderstorm of 1812" lead the hero to drastic changes in his outlook. He understands that one must live for the sake of people, one must strive to benefit the Motherland.

M.A. Sholokhov "Quiet Don".Speaking about how the experience of military battles changes people, makes them assess their life mistakes, one can turn to the image of Grigory Melekhov. Fighting on the side of the whites, then on the side of the reds, he understands what a monstrous injustice around him, and he himself makes mistakes, gains military experience and draws the most important conclusions in his life: "... my hands need to be plowed." Home, family - that's the value. And any ideology that pushes people to kill is a mistake. A person who is already wise by life experience understands that the main thing in life is not war, but the son who meets at the door of the house. It is worth noting that the hero admits that he was wrong. This is what caused his repeated throwing from white to red.

M.A. Bulgakov " dog's heart». If we talk about experience as “a procedure for reproducing some phenomenon experimentally, creating something new under certain conditions for the purpose of research,” then the practical experience of Professor Preobrazhensky for “clarifying the question of the survival of the pituitary gland, and later on its influence on rejuvenation of the human body ”can hardly be called successful in full.

Scientifically, he is quite successful. Professor Preobrazhensky is performing a unique operation. The scientific result was unexpected and impressive, but in everyday life, it led to the most disastrous consequences. The type who appeared in the professor's house as a result of the operation, "small in stature and unsympathetic appearance", behaves defiantly, arrogantly and arrogantly. However, it should be noted that the emerging humanoid creature easily finds itself in a changed world, but does not differ in human qualities and soon becomes a thunderstorm not only for the inhabitants of the apartment, but also for the residents of the whole house.

After analyzing his mistake, the professor understands that the dog was much more "human" than P.P. Sharikov. Thus, we are convinced that the humanoid hybrid of Balls is more a failure than a victory for Professor Preobrazhensky. He himself understands this: "Old donkey ... Here, doctor, what happens when a researcher, instead of walking in parallel and groping with nature, forces the question and lifts the veil: here, get Sharikov and eat him with porridge." Philip Philipovich comes to the conclusion that violent interference in the nature of man and society leads to disastrous results.

In the story "Heart of a Dog" the professor corrects his mistake - Sharikov again turns into a dog. He is content with his fate and with himself. But in life, such experiments have a tragic effect on the fate of people, Bulgakov warns. Actions should be thought out and not destructive.

The main idea of \u200b\u200bthe writer is that naked progress, devoid of morality, brings death to people and such a mistake will be irreversible.

V.G. Rasputin "Farewell to Matera".Arguing about the mistakes that are irreparable and bring suffering not only to each individual person, but also to the people as a whole, one can turn to this story of the writer of the 20th century. This is not just a work about the loss of a home, but also about how erroneous decisions entail disasters that will surely affect the life of society as a whole.

The plot of the story is based on a real story. During the construction of the hydroelectric power station on the Angara, the surrounding villages were flooded. The resettlement has become a painful phenomenon for the inhabitants of the flooded areas. After all, hydroelectric power plants are being built for a large number of people. This is an important economic project, for the sake of which it is necessary to rebuild, not to hold on to the old. But can this decision be called unambiguously correct? Inhabitants of the flooded Matera move to a non-human-built settlement. The mismanagement with which huge money is spent hurts the soul of the writer. Fertile lands will be flooded, and in the village, built on the northern slope of the hill, nothing will grow on stones and clay. Rough interference with nature will certainly entail environmental problems. But for the writer, they are not so much important as the spiritual life of people.

For Rasputin it is absolutely clear that the collapse, the disintegration of a nation, people, country begins with the disintegration of the family. And the reason for this is the tragic mistake that progress is much more important than the souls of old people who say goodbye to their home. And there is no remorse in the hearts of youth.

The older generation, wise with life experience, does not want to leave their native island, not because they cannot appreciate all the benefits of civilization, but primarily because for these conveniences they are required to give to Matera, that is, to betray their past. And the suffering of the elderly is an experience that each of us must learn. A person cannot, should not give up his roots.

In discussions on this topic, one can turn to history and those catastrophes that resulted from the "economic" human activity.

Rasputin's story is not just a story about great construction projects, it is a tragic experience of previous generations for the edification of us, people of the XXI century.

In the novel "A Hero of Our Time" M. Yu. Lermontov shows Russian society in the thirties of the nineteenth century. The author wanted to show the most characteristic type of his time. The best people of the thirties were forced to withdraw into their the inner world, subjecting their thoughts and feelings to a thorough analysis. The political reaction of the thirties suspended the history of the development of not only the educated class, but also the "whole people". Meanwhile, the movement of life continued, but as if in the souls of progressive people - in their search,

Introspection, merciless criticism of the vulgar surrounding reality.

In an effort to comprehend the social laws of the era, Lermontov focused not on events, but on the inner experiences of the hero.

The main character of M. Yu. Lermontov's novel "A Hero of Our Time" is Grigory Aleksandrovich Pechorin. Pechorin is a nobleman. He moves in the highest aristocratic circles of Moscow and St. Petersburg, is rich and independent.

Let us turn to the portrait, which, in terms of skill in execution and saturation with psychological details, does not have I

equal in Russian literature XIX century. Portrait details

grouped so that already by them one can judge the uncommonness and inconsistency of Pechorin's nature. His gait is "careless and lazy," but "he did not wave his arms" (a sign of a hidden nature); at first glance, the hero can be given no more than twenty-three years, later - all thirty. Despite the light color of his hair, his mustache and eyebrows were black, a sign of breed in a person, as the black mane and black tail

the white horse. " The author pays special attention to the eyes

Pechorina: "... they did not laugh when he laughed ... This is a sign of either an evil disposition, or a deep constant sadness."

Pechorin is smart, educated, received an excellent education in St. Petersburg. His figurative, well-aimed speech is a kind of weapon with which he punishes self-righteous vulgarians. It is clear from Pechorin's diary that he ponders over the issues of being, the peculiarities of human consciousness, psyche, analyzes his shortcomings. Pechorin is drawn to nature, seeing in it a light element, capable of recalling the power and beauty of the human spirit. The hero despises vulgarity in people, lack of self-esteem, admiration for the tinsel of secular life, the selfish benefits of service. Such is his attitude to Grushnitsky, the dragoon captain and other representatives of the "water society", outlined in the novel with exceptional accuracy and satirical poignancy. The hero himself does not strive for a career, although he is not official and not very rich.

Pechorin is well versed in people. He immediately sees those "empty" and stupid people who live with one goal - to be rich: to have a lot of money, to get high positions, to attach their children to "paradise", where they do nothing, but get a lot. the hero came across very few good people, those who would serve the cause, would be very good and loyal friends. Pechorin's best friend was Vera, that woman whom our hero loves so ardently and passionately - Vera was Pechorin's closest person, best friend and advisor. Although the paths of Pechorin and Vera diverge, the hero believes in a future meeting, dreams of it. After Vera's departure, Pechorin rushes in pursuit and, not catching up, cries like a child - he realizes that he has lost the most precious thing in his life - love and friendship. The hero loves Vera, but at the same time cannot marry her. He did not find his place in life, and living without a goal for a hero means not living at all.

Pechorin is a victim of his difficult time. But does Lermontov justify his actions, his moods? On a sleepless night, on the eve of the duel with Grushnitsky, the hero of the novel, as it were, sums up the results of his life. Pechorin feels “immense strength” in himself and understands that his purpose was high: “I run through all my past in my memory and ask myself involuntarily: why did I live? For what purpose was I born? .. And, it is true, it existed, and, probably, I had a high purpose, because I feel immense strength in my soul ... But I did not guess this purpose, I was carried away by the lures of empty and unfavorable passions; from their furnace I came out hard and cold as iron, but I have lost forever the ardor of noble aspirations - the best color of life.

Pechorin's character is complex and contradictory. The hero of the novel says about himself: "There are two people in me: one lives in the full sense of the word, the other thinks and judges him ...". What are the reasons for this duality? “My colorless youth passed in the struggle with myself and the light; my best feelings were afraid of ridicule, I buried them in the depths of my heart: they died there. I spoke the truth - they did not believe me: I began to deceive; having learned well the light and springs of society, I became skilled in the science of life ... "- Pechorin admits. He learned to be secretive, became vindictive, iron, envious, ambitious, became, in his words, a moral cripple.

Pechorin is an egoist. But even Pushkin's Onegin, Belinsky called a suffering egoist and an unwilling egoist. The same can be said about Pechorin. Belinsky wrote about Onegin: “… The forces of this rich nature were left without application, life without meaning, and the novel without end…”. About Pechorin: “… there is a difference in the roads, but the result is the same”.

At a high price, in difficult conditions, Pechorin achieves an important conclusion for the Russian public that the struggle for happiness, human dignity, freedom is not only possible, but also necessary. Pechorin's last hopes are directed to the endless expanses of the sea, to the sound of the waves. Comparing himself to a sailor born and raised on the deck of a robber's brig, he says that he misses and yearns for the shore. He walks all day on the coastal sand, listens to the roar of the oncoming waves and peers into the distance covered with fog. What is he waiting for? What are his eyes looking for? "... Will not flicker there, on the pale line separating the blue abyss from the gray clouds, the desired sail, at first similar to the wing of a sea gull, but gradually moving away from the foam of the boulders and even running approaching the deserted pier ..." This dream did not come true neither for Lermontov, nor for the hero of his novel: the desired sail did not rush them off to another life, to other shores ...

Pechorin's mind is combined with willpower. The hero is exceptionally cold-blooded in conflict situations, shows great persistence in achieving the set goal, for example, in the history of relations with Mary. However, for all his outstanding abilities, Pechorin, like Onegin, did not do anything significant in life. He brings only trouble to people, often playing the "role of an ax" of unfavorable fate. Pechorin is a type of "superfluous person" of the thirties of the XIX century. In what way did Pechorin's typicality manifest itself, how does the hero appear in the novel? For all his inclinations, he has exhausted himself and his time. He did not come to the forefront of the fight against social vices, he could not free himself from under the gigantic, suffocating grip of his environment. But this does not diminish the social and political significance of Pechorin's impulses and sufferings. At a time of general humiliation and the triumph of selfish mediocrity, Pechorin's rebellion and skepticism did not let the dreams of another life, full of high content, fade away.

Pechorin is a "superfluous person" in the sense that he was ahead of his noble milieu and broke away from it, having no support in it. He is a hero of his time without any quotation marks, because he is looking for a way out of the stagnation in which Russian society found itself during the period of reaction.

Pechorin calls himself and his generation "miserable descendants, wandering the earth without convictions and pride, without pleasure and fear ... no longer capable of greater sacrifices neither for the good of humanity, nor even for our own happiness ...".

Lermontov was faced with a specific task, as he himself explained in the preface to the novel: to draw "a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation." Express "caustic truths" about modern society. That is why the image of Pechorin dominates the novel. Through his throwing, mistakes, disappointment, bitter experience, searches best representatives of the noble intelligentsia of the 30-40s. Lermontov clearly points out the main reason that made Pechorin and other thinking people of his time unhappy. He saw her in "insignificant disputes for a piece of land or for some fictitious rights", in disputes that divided people into masters and slaves.

Belinsky speaks of disbelief, selfishness, cold prudence in Pechorin's character. Belinsky does not justify these traits, but explains their appearance by social conditions: “This man is not indifferent, not apathetically bearing his suffering: he is frantically chasing life, looking for it everywhere, he bitterly blames himself for his delusions. Internal questions are incessantly distributed in him ... and in reflection he seeks their solutions ... ". That is why Belinsky believed that the spiritual and moral searches and impulses of Pechorin reflect "the riddle of a representative of his time" - an important and "necessary moment in the development of mankind or society."

We learn about Pechorin from his diary, from the stories of others actors, it gives him an ambivalent feeling. We cannot but condemn Pechorin for his attitude to Bela, Mary, to Vera, to the kind Maxim Maksimych. But we cannot but sympathize with him when he caustically ridicules the aristocratic "water society", breaks the intrigues of Grushnitsky and his friends. We cannot but see that Pechorin is head and shoulders above the people around him, that he is smart, educated, talented, brave, energetic. We are repulsed by Pechorin's indifference to people, his inability for true love, for friendship, his individualism and egoism. But Pechorin captivates us with a thirst for life, a striving for the best, the ability to critically assess their actions. He is deeply unsympathetic to us by the "pitiful actions", the waste of his strength, the actions with which he brings suffering to other people, but we see that he himself is deeply suffering. As a social, the Pechorin type has receded into the past, psychologically, this character remained the property of the 19th century. But there is something in Lermontov's hero that will attract our attention for a long time to come. A high culture of intelligence, energy, depth of soul and a variety of sensations - this is now perceived in Pechorin as a sign of the inexhaustibility of human nature.

That is why Lermontov's novel is dear to us because it is directed against the dark forces of evil - self-interest, hostility, anger, hatred - everything that disfigures, cripples and darkens life on earth.

"Pechorin, returning from Persia, died ..." Have you ever wondered under what circumstances this could happen?
The death of Lermontov was instantaneous - Pechorin, who died on the road for an unknown reason, was apparently intended by his creator to fully experience the torment of "death anguish". Who was next to him in this difficult moment? His "proud" footman?
What if it happened to him not on the road? What would change? Most likely - nothing! Not a single living, not indifferent soul is near ... But both Mary and Vera loved him. Maxim Maksimych is ready to "throw himself on his neck" at any moment. Even Werner at a certain moment would have done the same if Pechorin “showed him the slightest desire for this”. But all connections with people are cut off. Remarkable inclinations are not realized. Why?
According to Grigory Alexandrovich, Werner is a "skeptic and materialist." Pechorin considers himself to be a believer. In any case, in “Fatalist”, written on behalf of Pechorin, we read: “We discussed that the Muslim belief that the fate of a person is written in heaven also finds between n-a-m-i, x-r-i-s -t-i-a-n-a-m-i, many admirers ... "It is as a believer, in the story" Taman "Pechorin exclaims:" There is not a single image on the wall - a bad sign! " In Taman, the hero quotes the Book of Isaiah, albeit inaccurately: “On that day the dumb will cry and the blind will see.” In "Princess Mary" (entry dated June 3), Grigory Alexandrovich, without any irony, argues that only "in the highest state of self-knowledge can a person appreciate the justice of God."
At the same time, in the well-known fragment “I was returning home through the empty lanes of the village ...” (“The Fatalist”) Pechorin cannot help laughing, recalling that “there were once wise people who thought that the heavenly bodies were taking part in our insignificant disputes for a piece of land or some fictitious rights ", people convinced that" the whole sky with its countless inhabitants looks at them with sympathy, albeit dumb, but unchanging! .. "The above quotes indicate that Pechorin's soul is tormented by doubts. In the same fragment, the reason for his doubts is also indicated - "an involuntary fear that squeezes the heart at the thought of an inevitable end." The very same "longing for death" that torments Bela, forcing him to rush, knocking off the bandage. This acute, painful sensation of the finiteness of being may be familiar not only to the dying. An abstract thought about the immortality of the soul at such moments may well seem faded and unconvincing. It can be assumed that Pechorin has to experience such doubts because his faith has weakened under the influence of a secular lifestyle, acquaintance with various new-fangled trends, etc. However, a deeply religious believer who had not heard of any "materialisms" of Bela did not escape this torment of "longing for death." So the dependence here is rather the opposite: fear of death leads to a weakening of faith.
Pechorin tries to overcome his doubts with the help of reason. “I have long been living not with my heart, but with my head” - this recognition of the hero is fully confirmed by the content of the novel. And this despite the fact that the work contains irrefutable evidence of the veracity of the voice of the heart - the story of the tragic death of Vulich. Why does this story not convince Pechorin of the need to listen to his heart? The voice of the heart is "unfounded", not based on any material arguments. "The seal of death on the pale face" of the lieutenant is too shaky, vague. On this you can not build any more or less convincing theory. And therefore "metaphysics" is thrown aside. Moreover, from the context it follows that this term is used by Pechorin in the meaning that “Dictionary foreign words", For example, is defined as" antiscientific speculations about the "spiritual origins" of being, about objects inaccessible to sensory experience "(1987, p. 306). Is it possible to remain a believer, relying on one naked reason?
To answer this question, it is necessary to arrange the stories in chronological sequence and follow the development of the character of the hero.
No one doubts that from a chronological point of view, Taman is the first in the chain of stories. In this story we see the hero's life full of energy and thirst for knowledge. Only one shadow that flashed on the floor prompts him to go on an adventure. And this despite the obvious danger: going down the same slope for the second time, Pechorin remarks: "I don't understand how I didn't break my neck." However, danger is only an excellent stimulus for active action, for the manifestation of unbending will.
In addition, Pechorin rushes towards adventures "with all the strength of youthful passion." The kiss of a stranger, which the author of the Magazine assesses as "fiery", evokes the same warm response: "It went dark in my eyes, my head was spinning."
In a completely Christian way, Grigory Alexandrovich shows mercy, reveals the ability to forgive his enemies. “I don’t know what happened to the old woman and the b-e-d-n-s-blind,” he laments about the fate of the man who robbed him a few hours ago.
True, Pechorin's reasoning about the blind boy in particular and about “all the blind, crooked, deaf, dumb, legless, armless, hunchbacked” generally prompt the reader to recall the lines of A.S. Pushkin about the unfortunate Hermann from The Queen of Spades: “Having little true faith, he had many prejudices. " Subsequently, it turns out that to the prejudice against people with disabilities, it is necessary to add Pechorin's “irresistible aversion” to marriage, based on the fact that sometime in childhood some old woman predicted him “death by an evil wife” ...
But is it fair to reproach Pechorin that he has "little true faith"? There are almost no grounds for this in Taman. The only thing that is alarming in Pechorin's behavior in this story is that he does not give vent to his good feelings - mercy, repentance; tries to drown out the voice of the heart with the arguments of reason: "... What does it matter to me to the joys and disasters of human beings, to me, a wandering officer, and even from a state-owned road trip! .."
In "Princess Mary" this feature of the hero's behavior is greatly enhanced. Grigory Aleksandrovich not only laughs at his feelings in a conversation with Mary, he simply portrays himself (or possible readers of the “Journal”?) With the ability to manipulate people, controlling his own feelings.
Thanks to the "system," he gets the opportunity to meet alone with Vera, achieves Mary's love, arranges for Grushnitsky to choose him as his attorney, as planned. Why does the "system" work so flawlessly? Last but not least, thanks to the extraordinary artistic data - the ability at the right moment to take a "deeply touched look." (How can we not recall Pushkin's: "How his gaze was quick and gentle, // Shy and impudent, and sometimes // Shone with an obedient tear! ..") And most importantly, such artistry is possible because the hero of the novel acts completely neglecting their own feelings.
Here Pechorin goes to the princess to say goodbye before leaving Kislovodsk for the fortress N. By the way, was this visit really necessary? Surely, it was possible, referring to the suddenness of departure, send a note with apologies and wishes "to be happy and so on." However, Grigory Alexandrovich not only appears to the princess himself, but also insists on meeting Mary alone. For what purpose? Tell the deceived girl that it plays "the most pitiful and disgusting role" in her eyes? Otherwise, she herself would not have guessed about it!
“No matter how I looked in my chest for even a spark of love for dear Mary, my efforts were in vain,” Pechorin declares. Why, then, "the heart was beating violently"? And why is the irresistible desire to “fall at her feet”? Grigory Alexandrovich is disingenuous! “Her eyes sparkled wonderfully,” is the remark of a man in love, and not the cold cynic he plays in this episode.
Equally distant from each other are the feelings and behavior of the hero in the episode of Grushnitsky's murder. And his role in this story is no less “pathetic and disgusting”.
"Like all boys, he has a pretense to be an old man," Grigory Aleksandrovich sneers over Grushnitsky (entry dated June 5), which means that Pechorin is older and more experienced than his friend. It is not difficult for him to make a toy out of a young friend. However, there is a threat that the behavior of the "toy" will get out of control. Destroy immediately!
Pechorin discusses his rival a few minutes before the start of the duel: “... A spark of generosity could wake up in his soul, and then everything would have been arranged for the better; but pride and weakness of character d-o-l-z-n-s
b-s-l-and to triumph ... "A peaceful scenario is undesirable! The expected, demanded option is the second ... "I wanted to give myself every right not to spare him, if fate had mercy on me." In other words, “I want to kill him, if possible” ... But in this case Pechorin has to risk his life ...
Grigory Aleksandrovich is a subtle psychologist, he knows perfectly well that Grushnitsky is not one of those people who cold-bloodedly shoot an unarmed enemy in the forehead. And indeed, “he [Grushnitsky] blushed; he was ashamed to kill an unarmed man ... I was sure that he would shoot in the air! " I am sure to such an extent that when he sees a gun pointed at himself, he becomes enraged: "An inexplicable fury boiled in my chest." However, Pechorin's expectations were completely justified: only the captain's shout: "Coward!" - makes Grushnitsky pull the trigger, and he shoots into the ground, no longer aiming.
It turned out ... "Finita la comedia ..."
Is Pechorin happy with his victory? “I had a stone in my heart. The sun seemed dim to me, its rays did not warm me, ”- such is his state of mind after the duel. But no one forced you, Grigory Alexandrovich, to shoot this stupid, pitiful boy!
But this is not a fact. This is exactly what the feeling arises that in these episodes, and not only in them, Pechorin does not act of his own free will.
"But there is immense pleasure in the possession of a young, barely blossoming soul!" - Pechorin confesses in his "Journal". Just think: how can a mortal man possess immortal soul? A person cannot ... But if we agree that “there is a deep spiritual connection between the image of Pechorin and the Demon” (Kedrov, 1974), then everything falls into place. And it's hard to disagree when so many coincidences have been revealed: the scene of action (the Caucasus), and the love story (“The Demon” - the story of “Bela”), and specific episodes (The demon looks at the dancing Tamara - Pechorin and Maxim Maksimych come to visit his father Bela; meeting of the Demon and Tamara - last date Pechorin and Mary).
In addition, it is certainly no coincidence that the novel practically ends with a mention of this off-stage character: "The devil pulled him to talk with a drunk at night! .." - exclaims Maxim Maksimych, after listening to Pechorin's story about Vulich's death.
So Pechorin, playing with people, is himself only an obedient toy in the hands of an evil spirit, besides feeding it (the evil spirit) with spiritual energy: “I feel this insatiable greed in me, absorbing everything that comes my way; I look at the suffering and joys of others only in relation to myself, as food that supports my spiritual strength. "
Pechorin himself feels that some force controls his actions: "How many times have I already played the role of an ax in the hands of fate!" An unenviable role that does not bring Pechorin anything but suffering. The trouble is that the great psychologist Pechorin cannot figure out his own feelings and his own soul. He has on one page of the "Journal" arguments about the justice of God - and confessions like: "My first pleasure is to subordinate everything that surrounds me to my will." The religious feeling has long been lost, the Demon has settled in the soul, and he continues to consider himself a Christian.
The murder of Grushnitsky did not go unnoticed. Grigory Aleksandrovich was thinking about something when, after the duel, he "rode for a long time" alone, "having thrown the reins, with his head on his chest."
The second shock for him was the departure of Vera. It is impossible not to use Valery Mildon's commentary on this event: “One circumstance that is secondary in Lermontov's novel unexpectedly acquires a deep meaning: Pechorin's only true, enduring love is called Vera. He breaks up with her forever, and she writes to him in a farewell letter: "No one can be as truly unhappy as you, because no one tries to convince themselves otherwise."
What is it - "to assure otherwise"? Pechorin wants to assure himself that he has faith (hence, hope). His desperate pursuit of his departed beloved is a metaphor of amazing power ... ”(Mildon, 2002)
The path to salvation opened before Pechorin - sincere repentance and prayer. That did not happen. "Thoughts returned to normal." And, leaving Kislovodsk, the hero leaves behind not only the corpse of his horse, but also the very possibility of rebirth. The return point has been passed. Onegin was resurrected by love - Pechorin's "illness" was too neglected.
Further life path Pechorina is the path of destruction of the hero's personality. In "Fatalist" he "jokingly" makes a bet with Wulich, in fact, provoking suicide, and he is not at all embarrassed by the "imprint of inevitable fate" on the lieutenant's face. It's just that Pechorin really needs to find out if predestination exists. It is unbearable to think that only then he was born to "play the role of an ax"! I could not help but be interested in this question and the author of the novel, who knows that his grave awaits "without prayers and without a cross." However, the question remained open.
Pechorin's behavior in the story "Bela" cannot but cause bewilderment and compassion in the reader. What made Grigory Alexandrovich decide to kidnap a sixteen-year-old girl? The absence in the fortress of the police officer's pretty daughter - Nastya? Or crazy love that sweeps away all the obstacles in its path?
“I, a fool, thought that she was an angel sent to me by a compassionate fate,” the hero explains his act. As if it was not he who sarcastically in the "Journal" over the poets who "so many times called women angels that they really, in the simplicity of their soul, believed this compliment, forgetting that the same poets called Nero a demigod for money ..." Or did Grigory Aleksandrovich figured out that who pushed him to murder Grushnitsky? And the drowning man, as you know, grasps at straws. However, the hero's feelings cooled down faster than he himself expected. And were they? And he really doesn't feel anything looking at the dying Bela!
And how Grigory Alexandrovich used to love his enemies! They stirred his blood, stimulated his will. But why not the enemy who killed Bela Kazbich ?! However, Pechorin did not lift a finger to punish the criminal. In general, in Bela, if he does anything, it is exclusively by someone else's hands.
Feelings are atrophied. Will weakened. Soul emptiness. And when Maksim Maksimych began to console his friend after Bela's death, Pechorin "raised his head and laughed ..." The experienced man "frost ran through the skin from this laughter ..." Could it be that the devil himself laughed in the face of the captain?
“I have only one means left: to travel. ... Maybe somewhere I'll die on the road! " - says the twenty-five-year-old hero, who until recently believed that "nothing worse than death will happen."
During our last meeting with Pechorin (the story “Maxim Maksimych”) we see a “spineless” (\u003d weak-willed) person who has lost interest in his own past (he is indifferent to the fate of his “Journal”, although Grigory Alexandrovich once thought: “That's it, whatever I throw into it will eventually be a precious memory for me ”), expecting nothing from the future, which has lost contact not only with people, but also with the homeland.
In conclusion, it should be noted that in the "Book of the Prophet Isaiah" immediately before the line quoted by Pechorin there is a warning that prompts reflection: from me, and their reverence for me is the study of human commandments, then, behold, I will do extraordinary things with this people, wonderfully and wonderfully, so that the wisdom of its wise men will perish, and the rational mind will not become. "
Notes

1.Kedrov Konstantin. Ph.D. thesis "The Epic Basis of the Russian Realist Novel 1st half of XIX in." (1974)
Lermontov's tragic epic "Hero of Our Time"
http://metapoetry.narod.ru/liter/lit18.htm
2. Mildon Valery. Lermontov and Kierkegaard: the Pechorin phenomenon. About one Russian-Danish parallel. October. 2002. No. 4. page 185
3. Dictionary of foreign words. M. 1987.