Literary criticism, literary criticism. Literary criticism, literary criticism Where did Pechorin die and why

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

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

Pechorin was an aristocrat by birth, received a secular upbringing. Coming out of the care of his relatives, he "set off into the big world" and "began to enjoy all the pleasures madly." The frivolous life of the Aris Tokrat soon became sick of him, and reading books, like Onegin, got bored. After the "outburst of history in St. Petersburg," Pechorin was exiled to the Caucasus.

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

“Born for a lofty goal,” he is forced to live in agonizing inaction or to waste his energy on actions that are unworthy of a real person. Even sharp adventures cannot satisfy him. Love only brings disappointment and grief. He causes grief to those around him, and this deepens his suffering. Remember the fate of Bela, Grushnitsky, Princess Mary and Vera, Maxim Maksimych.

Pechorin is trying to put the people around him on the same level with himself. But they do not stand up to such comparisons: the generation is simply not ready, not capable of any changes, and all the dark human sides are revealed. Testing people, the hero sees their baseness, their inability to do noble deeds, and this oppresses him and destroys his soul. Pechorin, who deeply believes in a person, studies him and, not finding support for his faith, suffers. This is a person who has not found a lofty goal for himself. Precisely high, because such strong, strong-willed natures do not attract ordinary everyday goals. The only thing he mastered was the ability to see through people. And he wants to change this world. Pechorin sees the path to perfection in "communicating with suffering." Everyone who meets him is subjected to a harsh, uncompromising test.

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

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

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

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

However, along with the wealth of mental strength and talent of the hero, Lermontov reveals in Pechorin such qualities that sharply reduce his image. Pechorin is a cold egoist, he is indifferent to the suffering of others. But the author's most serious accusation against Pechorin is that his hero has no life purpose. Thinking about the question of the purpose of his life, he wrote in the "journal": "And, it is true, it existed and, it is true, I had a high assignment, because I feel immense strength in my soul."

At all times, the attitude towards Pechorin was not unambiguous. Some saw, others did not see in him a "hero of the time." But there is a certain mystery hidden in this image. Pechorin cannot be predicted or comprehended. Its distinctive feature is that, understanding the nothingness of the surrounding world, he does not humble himself, but fights, seeks. Loneliness makes him a colorless person, like the rest. There are many negative features in him: he is cruel, selfish, unmerciful to people. But at the same time (which is important!) Does not judge anyone, but gives everyone the opportunity to open their souls, to show good qualities. But if this does not happen, then he is merciless.

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

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

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

He died while returning from Persia.

This is discussed in. It was this reason that allowed the author to publish his journal, replacing all proper names.

The exact cause of death is not specified, but three options are likely to be assumed:

1. Disease

In the 19th century, medicine was in its infancy, antibiotics and other serious drugs had not yet been invented. Therefore, any person had a chance to die quickly enough from some infectious disease. This is especially real in connection with a visit to Persia, to the local pathogens of which Pechorin did not have immunity.

However, this is the least likely cause of Pechorin's death, since he was young, about 30 years old, and then children and old people with weak immunity died from diseases more often.

In addition, throughout the novel, Lermontov never mentioned any health problems with his protagonist, and even some pallor and subtlety of Pechorin were attributed to his aristocratic breed.

And, finally, another argument not in favor of this version is the fact that Pechorin was often the subject of female attention and was considered very attractive. This is an argument for good health, as healthy people always appear prettier.

2. Rogue attack

Another version with arguments for and against. In those days, there were no tourist routes as now, especially in Asia, where Pechorin traveled. Therefore, the carriages usually moved accompanied by protection, or "opportunity," as it is called in the novel. However, this did not give complete safety, and the traveler risked anyway, especially having an expensive carriage like Pechorin's.

And yet this version has one flaw: the author writes that Pechorin died, and did not disappear without a trace, which means there were people who traveled with him and were able to return to tell about what happened. But in the event of an attack, they try not to leave witnesses.

3. The nature of Pechorin

This is the most likely reason for his death. Pechorin did not like his life, he did not see a goal in it and was constantly bored. Therefore, he often risked his life, not especially value it. It is likely that during the trip Pechorin encountered something risky and, as always, did not give up, however, this time he was unlucky.

The novel provides several examples to support this theory:

1. Pechorin loved to hunt and often went one-on-one against animals.
2. He was not afraid of revenge for the abduction of Bela.
3. He was nearly drowned in Taman.
4. Pechorin allowed Grushnitsky to shoot himself first in a duel, believing that he would not be able to kill him.
5. In the chapter, Pechorin decided to tempt fate and jumped out the window to the killer, but he missed.

In each of these cases, Pechorin could die, but each time fate was favorable to him. Before the duel, he himself believed that sooner or later he would be unlucky. And it probably did!

This meeting in the assembly of the nobility was unexpected for me. Count T., who had recently arrived from Persia, stopped me in the gallery by the railing while admiring the couples dancing the polka. The count bowed and apologized for a few minutes to talk, hinting at my book.
I’m really tired of these conversations. All winter I fought off critics who, as one, insisted that it was almost immoral to deal with the characters I described, and such "heroes" were not typical for our society. But I told about Mr. Pechorin everything that decency allowed. And even more so. In fact, I already doubted whether anyone other than me was interested in this "history of the human soul", whether it intrigued at least by the fact that it was truthfully written by an outside observer.
Obviously, thoughts were reflected on my face, and the count hastened to calm me down:
- I had the honor to meet with Mr. Pechorin and even was with him in the last minutes of his life ...
I did not expect such a turn, and therefore expressed a sincere interest in the topic of the conversation, which completely satisfied the count.
- Let's step aside. I think I won't take your time.
- Be calm. I would love to hear any testimony of this kind. Moreover, I have no reliable information about his last hours of life.
We moved away from the balustrade that encloses the upper gallery from the pretentious hall erected by the genius of Jacot. The dancing continued there, but I lost all interest in them.
We sat on a small sofa upholstered in red velvet in a corner where the music is not so audible.

It turned out that the count had come to Petersburg from Persia in the spring on an important diplomatic matter. Directed personally by His Excellency Plenipotentiary Minister Alexander Osipovich [Dyugamel], the Count was bringing important news. He met Pechorin twice: in Baku, a district town in the Shemakha province, and on the way to Derbent.

“In the Baku commandant's office I was sent to the only hotel in the city where I was to spend the night. In addition, several Cossacks were assigned to accompany me. I was notified, the Chechens were noticed here, which has never happened before. The Highlanders clearly appeared here recently, but for what purposes it is completely unclear.
On the way, in front of Baku itself, something happened to my crew, we barely limped to the city. In the morning it turned out that the dormitory, in which I needed to continue my journey, could not be repaired.
I went out into the street with annoyance and then saw an elegant, but broad-shouldered gentleman in a particular dress. He looked not quite healthy: he was pale. And he was clearly obsessed with spleen. He saw me, held his gaze and walked over with a lazy gait. We met.
It turned out that Pechorin - that was the name of the stranger - was also traveling from Persia, where he was on his own business. He has been in Baku for the second day already, and he is terribly tired of this town with a strange amber. He hoped to see the antiquities he had heard of. But both the palace mosque and the rest were in a deplorable state. Obviously, Russian rule in the north of Persia did not contribute to the development of this region.
I objected to Pechorin that so far this province is a border area. Moreover, it was cut off from Russia by the rebellious highlanders of Shamil. But in the future, even this city can be very transformed. My interlocutor only grinned skeptically into his mustache.
Chatting like this, we walked to a huge puddle near the police station. She reminded me of the story of Mr. Gogol, to which Pechorin sarcastically told how the pigs had dug this very entrance of the police department and about the lawsuit between it and the owner of the pigs, an Orthodox priest.
I was very amused by this anecdote. However, it was time to return to the hotel.
There, unpleasant news awaited me: the dormez was still being repaired, that they had sent for another blacksmith, that ... In general, the news turned out to be unimportant to me. And I was in a hurry for state necessity to Cuba. Not to ride a cart!
Mr. Pechorin immediately offered me his crew. I, of course, could not agree with this, but he insisted. I liked his sense of responsibility, but he reassured me:
- It will be for you, Count. I do not expect to leave until tomorrow, as there is one important meeting awaiting me tonight. You need to hurry.
He was well aware of our diplomatic efforts to keep Persia from interfering in the Caucasian conflict. The highlanders were zealously incited by the Ottoman Empire on the riots, which Mohammed Shah could take advantage of. The British also entered the movement, providing money and weapons to the Persians and even sending their military advisers. Their attempts have been justified so far. Mohammed Shah retreated from Herat, and an English squadron was stationed in the Persian Gulf for greater persuasiveness.
Pechorin and I agreed that we would meet in Derbent, where we would again exchange crews. And I left immediately. In Cuba, I had to stay for a day, and in the afternoon the next day I set off further with my Cossacks.
The road from Baku to Derbent forks after Shabran and converges at the Kusar-chai river. Obviously, Pechorin drove along a short path, bypassing Cuba. Otherwise I would have met him. At the crossing of the Samur River, I noticed a small detachment of Russian soldiers, commanded by a young officer. Local Tatars and Russian settlers also stood there.
I ordered to stop and left. The officer immediately went to me and introduced himself.
- What happened here?
- They attacked the diplomat's dormouse.
And the officer said that the Chechens were guilty of the attack. Nobody knows where they came from. They were beaten off, one was captured and even interrogated. It turns out that they were waiting in ambush for an important official from Persia. However, an officer rode in the carriage, who offered them serious resistance. And then our squad arrived in time.
- Were there any losses?
- The officer was seriously wounded, he was taken to Derbent. Not more than half an hour ago.
And then I realized that our carriage exchange with Pechorin had done him a disservice. I ordered to start immediately, and soon we caught up with the dormez, which I recognized immediately.
Pechorin was very bad: a bullet hit him in the stomach. But he was conscious. He was reclining in bandages through which blood was showing. The orderly was holding him in his arms. Seeing me, Pechorin smiled. I moved to him, and then we drove all together. It was difficult for him to speak, he did not moan, but simply endured, closing his eyes. And suddenly he said:
- So that's why rock took the hand of death away from me earlier! To protect you from the bullet and allow you to carry out your order ...
“Try to talk less,” I tried to reason with him. But he apparently had a presentiment of an imminent death and all the time he was muttering something indistinct.
“You know, your excellency,” Pechorin suddenly said, “all my attempts to resist fate for some reason only brought trouble to others. You are a lucky exception. That's why I tried not to make friends and to be restrained with women. Although ... - he winced in pain, - there is one person to whom I am really attached ...
He paused, rested.
“But I just had to push him away. However, I have done this before, but that time I managed to do it with great difficulty ... I cannot understand ... It is not at all thoughts of the eternal that creep into my head ...
It was strange for me then to hear these revelations. Dormez rode unhurriedly and gently, although it brought Pechorin, if not suffering, then obvious inconvenience. At some point, he suddenly fell silent, got up, looked out the window to the west at the mountains and died. "

The count ended this sad tale:
- In St. Petersburg I came across a book that was published with your participation. And only then did I understand who Pechorin had in mind. Is it not Maksim Maksimovich?
I could not find what to answer. We were silent. I had no questions left. My prototype of a literary hero died without losing his honor, and this is the main thing. I didn't know what to do. On the one hand, I was grateful to the count for this story. On the other hand, knowledge of the last days of Pechorin's life could not add anything to the opinion that I had for him.
- It turned out that it was I who closed the eyes of the hero of our time ... - the count muttered, and I was surprised to notice tears on his cheeks, which he was trying to hide. I didn’t fully understand his condition, but I didn’t show it.
We were still silent. Then, finding that the conversation was over, I thanked the count, and we bowed.

The ball continued the francaise; announced the second figure. But I sat on the sofa and thought about the strange fate of Pechorin. He walked through life inertie like a somnabul. It is impossible to explain this somehow, I thought, if you do not take into account the mores of the society in which he was brought up and was forced to live. Probably, the count closed his eyes not so much to my hero, but ... We, in fact, continue to exist in the same way as he, not particularly trying, like a sloppy batman, to polish the tops of dirty boots. Perhaps in a hundred years we will die completely. What will be born in return? Is there anything worse than us?
I threw these thoughts away and went down to the hall, where immediately, having found a lady for a couple, I joined the whirlpool of a gallop. It was fun.

V.Sh. Krivonos

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

In A Hero of Our Time, Maksim Maksimych tells the narrator how Azamat asks Kazbich for a horse: “I will die, Kazbich, if you don’t sell him to me! - said Azamat in a trembling voice "1. The horse stolen by him from Kazbich becomes the reason for his possible death: “So he has disappeared since then; surely, he joined some gang of abreks, and even laid down his violent head beyond the Terek or the Kuban: there and the road! .. ”(IV, 197). Wed explanation of the sentry who shot at Kazbich and missed: “Your Honor! he went off to die, - he answered: - such a cursed people, you can't kill right away ”(IV, 208). Speaking about Azamat, Maxim Maksimych resorts to characteristic phraseological units that reflect the logic of his inherent "clear common sense" (IV, 201). Azamat, most likely, really did lay down his violent head; This is the kind of death this desperate mountaineer deserves: there is a road.

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

rum of fate: with the uttered word, he is able to call himself death and predict its nature.

Death can be as probable as it is accidental, because the boredom that possesses Pechorin teaches him to neglect the danger: “I hoped that boredom does not live under the Chechen bullets - in vain: after a month I got so used to their buzzing and to the closeness of death, that, really, he paid more attention to mosquitoes ... ”(IV, 209). Hence the thought of travel as a means not so much to dispel boredom as to bring the inevitable ending closer: “and my life becomes empty day by day; I have only one remedy left: to travel. As soon as possible, I will go - just not to Europe, God forbid! - I'll go to America, to Arabia, to India - maybe I'll die somewhere on the road! " (IV, 210). Traveling to exotic countries is not connected with the search for new experiences, but with the opening opportunity to die on the road.

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

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

“- What should I do with them? ..

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

So you are in Persia? .. and when will you return? .. shouted after Maksim Maksimych.

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

Like the hero of Lermontov's lyrics, Pechorin experienced his own death in advance and therefore feels indifference to her. And this indifference is dictated by the state of boredom, which is a harbinger of nothingness; where they do not return, notes are not needed. Compare: “Experiencing at some moment complete indifference to the fate of his diary, at the same moment the“ hero of the time ”experiences the same indifference to his own life. And indeed, Pechorin parted with his magazine and. dies soon ”4. However, these two events (parting with notes and parting with life) are not connected in the novel by a causal relationship; the first event does not explain or predict the second.

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

Pechorin dies in a completely different way from a hero who determines the development of a novel's plot; his death is pushed to the periphery of the narrative - and it is said about it somehow casually, without giving a reason and without details, as if it were not about the attitude “to the event

death "5. True, for the narrator, Pechorin's death nevertheless becomes, if not a plot, then a narrative event, making it possible to print other people's notes under his own name. As for Pechorin, the possibility of dying on the road, about which he speaks, does not yet express a desire to die, and even more so does not indicate a victory over fate, since it does not imply a free choice of a random outcome of a life plot6.

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

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

external. Subjectly, his biographical story is built as an external journey, while boredom turns out to be an internal affliction that haunts the hero, as an evil fate or fateful fate can pursue; neither does the road save (and cannot save) from boredom, the image of which is inseparable from the idea of ​​non-being.

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

“- I ask you not jokingly: when you want to speak ill of me, take a better knife and stab me - I think it will not be very difficult for you.

Do I look like a killer? ..

You are worse ... ”(IV, 267).

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

he monsters on the brink of death the brute's habits that hit the effect. Grushnitsky perishes by the "force of fate", which embodies for him a "rival" 14, but Pechorin does not consider himself an instrument of fate and does not see a fatal predestination in the outcome of the duel.

Alone with himself, Pechorin often talks about death; the theme of the test of the hero is also internally connected with the theme of death. Wed: “Taman is the nastiest town of all the seaside towns in Russia. There I almost starved to death, and in addition they wanted to drown me ”(IV, 225). The expression nearly starved to death is a clear exaggeration, a way to vent frustration

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

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

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

Maksimych, worse than death from Kazbich's bullet. But Pechorin’s reaction to Bela’s death confuses Maksim Maksimych: “His face did not express anything special, and I felt annoyed; I would die of grief in his place ”(IV, 214). Expressing formal condolences to Pechorin, Maksim Maksimych, unwillingly, offends his hidden feelings: “I, you know, more for decency wanted to console him, I began to speak; he raised his head and laughed. I got a chill on my skin from this laughter. I went to order a coffin "(IV, 214-215).

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

“Pechorin turned a little pale and turned away.

Yes I remember! he said, almost immediately yawning forcibly. " (IV,

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

The hero's attitude to death is tested and tested in situations that reveal the secret of his personality.16 This mystery is connected both with his

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

"... only a part of his inner world and, perhaps, not the most significant and meaningful" 18.

One can agree: “Self-observation for Pechorin is the same process of objective observation of“ another person ”” 19. But Pechorin is different for himself in the sense that he does not coincide with himself; he is not identical to the self-portrait he painted, which, probably, could be confirmed by the notebook that was preserved, but remained unknown to readers. Predicting the possible ending of his own fate in his notes, he at the same time reserves the right to bring it closer or postpone it or alter it altogether.

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

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

a very playful lifestyle. " ... Pechorin's aspiration was noted

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

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

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

The Pechorins' ignorance of the purpose of their birth is hardly evidence of "absolute indifference to him on the part of fate" and that the death of the hero "will be the same as his birth, devoid of any meaning.

la ". It is another matter that the purpose of birth is really an insoluble problem for him, which he is trying to grasp by starting to write a diary: “Why did I live? for what purpose was I born? .. ”(IV, 289). Uncovering the temporality of Pechorin as a biographical person, death gives a special semantic dimension to his diary, which turns out to be

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

which is emphasized by the functions of sticky notes as inset text when

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

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

desire for freedom, for a way out of any dependencies and connections. " This

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

The story of Pechorin, met by the narrator in real space, receives a novel continuation in the hero's diary; but if the notes are a work of Pechorin, where his autobiographical image was created, then their content cannot be reduced to the facts of the life of a biographical person. The reaction to the news of Pechorin's death reflects the structurally significant fact that “... the spheres of“ objective ”reality and the creative process (creation of a novel) in Lermontov, in contrast to Pushkin’s novel, are sharply opposed. The hero's transition from the first sphere to the second is associated with his death ”30. The death of Pechorin is directly related to the fate of the notes, where the hero claims that he has a long life ahead of him.

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

die? The riddle of death crowns the riddle of life here. " But Pechorin's perhaps cannot be understood literally; the hero does not prejudge either his own fate or the fate of his notes.

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

Rin predicts: "I thought I read the stamp of death on his pale face." (IV, 308). After the death of Vulich, he will explain his foresight by instinct: "My instinct did not deceive me, I definitely read on his changed face the stamp of imminent death" (IV, 311). Instinct acts here as a synonym for premonition.

The imprint of inevitable fate, seen by Pechorin on the face of Vulich, is not a sign of fatal predestination. Bela, dying, grieves that her soul will not meet with Pechorin's soul “in the next world” (IV, 213), but Pechorin, internally preparing for death, does not remember the other world and does not try to look there. Pechorin discusses his own death without any feeling of doom, not seeing any causal connection between his destiny and his departure from

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

Maxim Maksimych characterizes Pechorin in a conversation with the narrator in the following way: “After all, there are, indeed, such people who are written in their own families that various extraordinary things should happen to them” (IV, 190). This maxim (using the phraseological unit ‘it’s kind of written’, meaning ‘predetermined in advance, destined ’33) provides a simple explanation for the strangeness of Pechorin’s behavior on the part of an ordinary person,

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

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

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

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

“- Yes, sorry for the poor fellow. The devil pulled him to talk to a drunk at night!

More I could not get anything from him: he does not like metaphysical debate at all ”(IV, 314).

Pechorin himself is skeptical about the prompts of "abstract thought", but nevertheless avoids following "helpful astrology": threw metaphysics aside and began to look at his feet ”(IV, 310). Meanwhile, the phrase concluding the novel acquires the punchy sense of the ending, returning the narrative to the news, which greatly delighted the narrator, and opening up space just for metaphysical debates about the meaning of the event of the death of a hero of our time.

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

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

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

4 Savinkov S.V. To Lermontov's metaphysics of writing: Pechorin's journal // Kormanovskie readings. Issue 4. Izhevsk, 2002. S. 35.

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

7 Schepanskaya T.B. The culture of the road in the Russian mythological tradition of the XIX-XX centuries. M., 2003.S. 40-41. See about the connection in the laments of the theme of the road with the area of ​​death: Nevskaya L.G. Semantics of the road and related concepts in the funeral rite // Text structure. M., 1980.S. 230.

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

9 Cf .: “... the attitude to death completes and summarizes all the negative experience of breaking up contacts that a person has already acquired” (L. Sedov, Typology of Cultures by the Criterion of Attitude to Death // Syntax. 1989. No. 26, p. 161 ).

10 See: T.B. Schepanskaya. Decree. op. P. 41.

11 Wed: See: Kedrov K.A. Decree. op. P. 311.

12 See: F.I. Fedorov. The Artistic World of German Romanticism: Structure and Semantics. M., 2004.S. 197-198.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M., 1941.S. 611.

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

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

23 Savinkov S.V. Lermontov's creative logic. Voronezh, 2004.S. 213.

24 Cf .: “When I write my diary, there is no death; the text of the diary convinces me that I am alive "(Kuyundzhich D. Tongue inflammation / Translated from English. M., 2003. S. 234).

25 Wed: “. Death reveals not our ephemerality: it reveals our infinity, our eternity” (Vasiliadis N. The Sacrament of Death / Transl. From the New Greek. Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, 1998. S. 44).

26 Eikhenbaum B.M. "A Hero of Our Time" // Eikhenbaum B.M. About prose. L., 1969.S. 302303.

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

28 Lotman Yu.M. Text in text // Lotman Yu.M. Selected articles: In 3 volumes, T. I. Tallinn, 1992, p. 156.

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

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

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

32 Cf .: “Attitudes towards death are closely connected with the image of the other world” (A.Ya. Gurevich, op. Cit. P. 132).

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

34 Maksimov D.E. Decree. op.

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

What is he, a hero of the XIX century?

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

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

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

Nevertheless, the image of Pechorin is the image of a richly gifted nature. After all, a sharp analytical mind is inherent in him, he unusually accurately evaluates people and the actions they perform. He developed a critical attitude not only in relation to others, but also in relation to himself. In his diary, the officer reveals himself: a warm heart beats in his chest, able to deeply feel (Bela's death, meeting with Vera) and be extremely worried, although it is hidden under the mask of indifference. However, this indifference is no more than self-defense.

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

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

Conclusion

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