A hero of our time creation. The history of the creation of “Hero of Our Time”

Lermontov's only completed novel, standing at the origins of Russian psychological prose. The author called his complex, dangerous and incredibly attractive hero the embodiment of the vices of his generation, but readers notice in Pechorin, first of all, a unique personality.

comments: Lev Oborin

What is this book about?

About an exceptional person who suffers and brings suffering to others. Lermontovsky Pechorin, as the author’s preface states, - collective image, “a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation, in their full development.” Despite this - or thanks to this - Lermontov managed to create one of the most living and attractive heroes in Russian literature: in the eyes of readers, his narcissism and love of manipulation do not overshadow his deep intelligence, courage, sexuality, or honest introspection. In an era that has almost given up romanticism, Lermontov writes the “history of the soul” romantic hero and selects suitable extras and impressive scenery for his actions.

Alexander Klunder. Portrait of M. Yu. Lermontov. 1839 Institute of Russian Literature RAS. Saint Petersburg

When was it written?

In 1836, Lermontov began writing a novel (“secular story”) “Princess Ligovskaya”, the main character of which is 23-year-old Grigory Pechorin. Work on the novel drags on, it is interrupted by Lermontov’s exile to the Caucasus after writing the poem “The Death of a Poet.” In the end, Lermontov abandoned the original plan (the unfinished “Princess Ligovskaya” would be published only in 1882, 41 years after the death of the author). Probably in 1838, during his vacation, he began “A Hero of Our Time,” where he transferred not only the hero, but also some motifs from the previous novel. The years 1838-1839 were very eventful for Lermontov: several editions of “Demon”, “Mtsyri”, “Song about the Merchant Kalashnikov”, two dozen poems, including “Poet”, “Duma”, “Three Palms” belong to the same period. , "Prayer". On the eve of sending “A Hero of Our Time” to press, Lermontov will take part in a duel with the son of the French ambassador, Ernest de Barant, and for this he will be transferred to serve in the Caucasus, where a year later he will die in another duel.

Apparently, Rus' was created in such a way that everything in it is renewed, except for such absurdities. The most magical of fairy tales can hardly escape the reproach of attempted personal insult!

Mikhail Lermontov

How is it written?

“A Hero of Our Time” has a unique composition for its era: it consists of five separate stories, unequal in volume of text and amount of action and not arranged chronologically: we first learn an old story from the life of the main character (“Bel”), then we meet with him face to face (“Maksim Maksimych”), then we learn about his death (preface to “Pechorin’s Journal”) and, finally, through his notes (“Taman”, “Princess Mary”, “Fatalist”) we restore earlier episodes of his biographies. Thus, a person’s romantic conflict with his environment and with fate itself unfolds almost like a detective story. Lermontov's mature prose, inheriting Pushkin's, is calm in temperament (unlike Lermontov's early experiments, such as the unfinished novel "Vadim"). It is often ironic - a romantic pathos to which Pechorin resorts more than once (“I am like a sailor, born and raised on the deck of a robber brig: his soul has become accustomed to storms and battles, and, thrown ashore, he is bored and languishing...”), verified by introspection, introspection, and romantic cliches are exposed at the plot level - this is how “Taman” is structured, where instead love adventure with a wild “undine”, the well-read Pechorin almost becomes a victim of smugglers. At the same time, “A Hero of Our Time” contains all the components of a classic romantic text: an exceptional hero, an exotic setting, love dramas, and playing with fate.

What influenced her?

To a huge extent - “Eugene Onegin”. The recently emerging tradition of the Russian “secular” story - from Pushkin to Nikolai Pavlov Nikolai Filippovich Pavlov (1803-1864) - writer. As the illegitimate son of a landowner and a concubine, he was a serf, but even as a child he was granted his freedom. Pavlov graduated from Moscow University, after studying he worked at the Moscow Court. In the 1820s he published poetry. In 1835, Pavlov published a collection of three stories “Name Day”, “Scimitar” and “Auction”, which brought him fame and recognition. In the 1840s, the house of Pavlov and his wife, poetess Karolina Pavlova (née Janisch), became one of the centers of cultural life in Moscow. ⁠ and Vladimir Odoevsky. The already existing “Caucasian text” of Russian literature - super-romantic stories Bestuzhev-Marlinsky Alexander Alexandrovich Bestuzhev (1797-1837) - writer, literary critic. From 1823 to 1825, together with Kondraty Ryleev, he published the magazine “Polar Star”, in which he published his literary reviews. For his participation in the Decembrist uprising, Bestuzhev, who held the rank of staff captain, was exiled to Yakutsk, then demoted to the ranks of soldiers and sent to fight in the Caucasus. Since 1830, Bestuzhev’s novels and short stories began to appear in print under the pseudonym Marlinsky: “Frigate “Nadezhda”, “Ammalat-Bek”, “Mulla-Nur”, “Terrible Fortune-telling” and others. ⁠ , poems by Pushkin. Famous travel notes (the genre that is now called travelogue) - primarily Pushkin’s “Travel to Arzrum" 1 Vinogradov V.V. Lermontov’s prose style // Literary heritage. T. 43/44: M. Yu. Lermontov. Book I. M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1941. P. 580-586. ⁠ . Of course, my own experience of life and military service in the Caucasus. Western adventure prose (Walter Scott, Fenimore Cooper), which at that time was the latest model prose as such: “Lermontov was captured by the whirlwind of the cultural revolution.<…>The adventure genre gave him the opportunity to generalize his romantic experience, create a Russian novel, introduce it into the pan-European mainstream and make it the property of professional literature and the masses. reader" 2 Weil P. L., Genis A. A. Native speech. M.: KoLibri, 2008. P. 111. ⁠ . European romantic literature in general, including the prose of the French romantics, where there is a disappointed, restless hero: “René” by Chateaubriand, “Confession of a Son of the Century” by Musset, works frantic school ⁠ , we need to talk separately about the influence of Benjamin Constant’s earlier novel “Adolphe” (however, according to researchers, all these influences were mediated Pushkin 3 Eikhenbaum B. M. Articles about Lermontov. M., Leningrad: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1961. P. 227-228. ⁠ . Finally, Byron and Shakespeare: according to the remark of philologist Anna Zhuravleva, through the poetry and biography of Byron in the novel, “Shakespearean (Hamlet’s) clearly cuts through”: for example, when Pechorin unexpectedly makes it clear that he knows Grushnitsky’s conspiracy with the captain, this refers to “the play in play "The Mousetrap" from Shakespeare's tragedy 4 Zhuravleva A.I. Lermontov in Russian literature. Problems of poetics. M.: Progress-Tradition, 2002. P. 209. ⁠ .

George Byron. Byron's poetry and biography influenced the entire corps of Russian romantic literature, including “Hero of Our Time,” which is already overcoming the romantic tradition

At first the novel was published in parts in "Domestic Notes" Literary magazine, published in St. Petersburg from 1818 to 1884. Founded by writer Pavel Svinin. In 1839, the magazine was transferred to Andrei Kraevsky, and the critical department was headed by Vissarion Belinsky. Lermontov, Herzen, Turgenev, Sollogub were published in Otechestvennye zapiski. After some of the employees left for Sovremennik, Kraevsky in 1868 transferred the magazine to Nekrasov. After the death of the latter, Saltykov-Shchedrin headed the publication. In the 1860s, Leskov, Garshin, and Mamin-Sibiryak published in it. The magazine was closed by order of the chief censor and former employee of the publication, Evgeniy Feoktistov. ⁠ . This was the order of the day in the 19th century, but the relative autonomy of the parts of “A Hero of Our Time” forced the first readers to perceive them not as a “novel with a continuation,” but as separate stories about Pechorin. At the same time, the parts were not published in the order in which we read them now: Bela came out first, Fatalist second (both in 1839), Taman third, in 1840. Then, in the same year, a separate edition of the novel appeared in two books: “Maksim Maksimych”, the preface to “Pechorin’s Journal” and “Princess Mary” were published here for the first time. Finally, in 1841, a second separate edition was published: after adding a two-page preface - “In every book, the preface is the first and at the same time the last thing...” - the novel acquired a canonical form.

The text of “A Hero of Our Time” (chapter “Taman”), recorded by Akim Shan-Girey under the dictation of Lermontov in 1839

Manuscript of “A Hero of Our Time” (chapters “Maksim Maksimych”, “Fatalist”, “Princess Mary”). 1839 Belov's autograph with corrections, exceptions and insertions, preceding the final edition

Russian National Library

How was she received?

“A Hero of Our Time” immediately interested the public, it was discussed in private correspondence and salon conversations. After the first magazine publications, Belinsky wrote in the Moscow Observer that Lermontov’s prose was “worthy of his high poetic talent,” and contrasted it with Marlinsky’s flowery Caucasian prose—this contrast became classic. Subsequently, Belinsky returned to “Hero of Our Time” several more times, and his articles became key in the canonization of Lermontov. It is Belinsky who subsequently offers the generally accepted interpretation of the composition of the novel. It is Belinsky who shifts the critical emphasis to the hero’s self-analysis (“Yes, there is nothing more difficult than parsing the language own feelings, how to know yourself!”) and defines it as reflection, in which “a person splits into two people, one of whom lives, and the other watches him and judges him.” It is Belinsky, echoing the author himself, who explains why Pechorin is not a vicious unique person, not an egoist, but a living, passionate and gifted person, whose actions and inaction depend on the society in which he lives; Lermontov’s words about “a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation” must be understood precisely in this sense.

Of course, there were other assessments. One of the first reactions to the book publication was an article by a critic Stepan Burachka Stepan Onisimovich Burachok (1800-1877) - shipbuilder, publicist, publisher. Burachok graduated from the School of Naval Architecture and was accepted into service in the St. Petersburg Admiralty. Managed the Astrakhan Admiralty, taught at the Marine cadet corps. Burachok designed and built ships and developed a submarine project. From 1840 to 1845 he published the Mayak magazine, where he published his articles on literature. The magazine often became the subject of ridicule among the capital's writers. ⁠ , which he published anonymously in his journal Mayak. Burachok placed above all novels which, in contrast to the French frantic school An artistic movement that emerged in France in the 1820s. At this time, the country was fascinated by “northern” literature: dark English and German novels filled with mysticism. She also influenced French writers: Victor Hugo, Honore de Balzac, Gerard de Nerval, Théophile Gautier. The programmatic text of “furious literature” was Jules Janin’s novel “The Dead Donkey and the Guillotined Woman.” Interest in dark and cruel literature arose as a counterbalance to classicist and sentimentalist novels that idealized reality. ⁠ , depicted “the inner life, the inner work of the human spirit, led by the spirit of Christianity towards perfection, through the cross, destruction and the struggle between good and evil.” Having not found a trace of the “path of the cross” in “A Hero of Our Time,” the critic refused to depict the novel’s “inner life” (that is, what seems obvious today): for Burachok the novel turned out to be “low,” built on false romantic premises . Pechorin disgusts him (his soul “rolls in the mud of romantic furies”), and the simple and kind Maxim Maksimych - sympathy. Subsequently, Burachok wrote a polemic against Lermontov’s romanticism, the story “Heroes of Our Time.”

You will tell me again that a person cannot be so bad, but I will tell you that if you believed in the possibility of the existence of all tragic and romantic villains, why don’t you believe in the reality of Pechorin?

Mikhail Lermontov

Burachok was not alone in his assessment of Maxim Maksimych: both the democrat Belinsky and the leading Slavophile critic liked the staff captain Stepan Shevyrev Stepan Petrovich Shevyrev (1806-1864) - literary critic, poet. He participated in the circle of “lyubomudrov”, the publication of the magazine “Moskovsky Vestnik”, and was a close friend of Gogol. From 1835 to 1837 he was a critic of the Moscow Observer. Together with Mikhail Pogodin he published the magazine “Moskvityanin”. Shevyrev was known for his conservative views; he is considered the author of the phrase “decaying West.” In 1857, a quarrel occurred between him and Count Vasily Bobrinsky due to political differences, which ended in a fight. Because of this incident, Shevyrev was fired from service and expelled from Moscow. ⁠ , who wrote in his generally unkind review: “What an integral character of the native Russian good-natured man, into whom the subtle infection of Western education has not penetrated...” Nicholas I himself, having begun to read “A Hero of Our Time” at the request of his wife, was in the joyful confidence that the true “The hero of our time” is Maxim Maksimych: “However, the captain appears in this essay as a hope that was not realized, and Mr. Lermontov was unable to follow this noble and such a simple character; he replaces it with despicable, very uninteresting faces, who, rather than causing boredom, would do better if they remained in obscurity - so as not to cause disgust.” At this time, Lermontov’s fate is being decided after his duel with Barant; the tsar does not hesitate to approve the decision to send the poet to the Caucasus: “Happy journey, Mr. Lermontov, let him, if possible, clear his head in an environment where he will be able to complete the character of his captain, if at all he is able to comprehend and outline it.”

Conservative criticism, which confused the hero with the author and branded the author for immorality, hurt Lermontov - it was probably after Burachok’s review that the author’s preface appeared in “Hero of Our Time”: “... apparently, Rus' was created in such a way that everything in it is updated, except for such absurdities. The most magical of fairy tales can hardly escape the reproach of attempted personal insult!” It is all the more curious that the critic who still embodies the idea of ​​Russian security - Thaddeus Bulgarin - spoke enthusiastically about “Hero”: “ Best novel I haven’t read in Russian”; however, for Bulgarin “Hero of Our Time” is a moralizing work, and Pechorin is definitely a negative hero.

Critic Vissarion Belinsky (Kirill Gorbunov. 1876. All-Russian Museum of A.S. Pushkin) praised the novel highly

Shipbuilder and publisher of Mayak magazine Stepan Burachok called the novel “short”

Emperor Nicholas I (Franz Kruger. 1852. Hermitage) considered that the true “hero of our time” was Maxim Maksimych

Later assessments of critics, mainly from the democratic camp, focused on the image of Pechorin as a “superfluous man” - a natural representative of the 1830s, who was opposed to the “new people” of the 1860s. For Herzen, Chernyshevsky, Pisarev, Pechorin becomes a type; he is called plural along with its predecessor: “Onegins and Pechorins”. One way or another everything XIX critics centuries are considering the question of the national in Pechorin. The change in views is indicative here Apollo Grigoriev Apollo Aleksandrovich Grigoriev (1822-1864) - poet, literary critic, translator. Since 1845, he began to study literature: he published a book of poems, translated Shakespeare and Byron, and wrote literary reviews for Otechestvennye Zapiski. Since the late 1950s, Grigoriev wrote for Moskvityanin and headed its circle of young authors. After the magazine closed, he worked at Library for Reading, Russian Word, and Vremya. Due to alcohol addiction, Grigoriev gradually lost his influence and practically stopped publishing. ⁠ . In the 1850s, he considered Pechorin a Byronic hero alien to the Russian spirit: for a critic, he is “the powerlessness of personal arbitrariness placed on stilts.” In the 1860s, mixing romantic aestheticism with pochvennik ideas, Grigoriev wrote something else: “Perhaps this nervous gentleman, like a woman, would be able to die with the cold calm of Stenka Razin in the most terrible agony. The disgusting and funny sides of Pechorin in him are something feigned, something mirage, like all our high society in general... the foundations of his character are tragic, perhaps scary, but in no way funny.”

Readers of the 19th century never forget about Pechorin; many take him as a model in everyday life, in behavior, in personal relationships. As philologist Anna Zhuravleva writes, “in the minds of the average reader, Pechorin is already somewhat simplified: the philosophical nature of Lermontov’s novel is not perceived by the public and is pushed into the shadows, but the disappointment, cold restraint and carelessness of the hero, interpreted as a mask of a subtle and deeply suffering person, become the subject imitation" 5 Zhuravleva A.I. Lermontov in Russian literature. Problems of poetics. M.: Progress-Tradition, 2002. P. 218. ⁠ . The phenomenon of “Pechorinism” appears, which was actually predicted by Lermontov himself in the figure of Grushnitsky. Saltykov-Shchedrin writes in “ Provincial essays"about the "provincial Pechorins"; the novel is published in Sovremennik Mikhail Avdeev Mikhail Vasilyevich Avdeev (1821-1876) - writer, literary critic. After retirement from service, he began to study literature: he published stories and novels in the magazines Sovremennik, Otechestvennye zapiski, and St. Petersburg Vedomosti. He became famous for his novels “Tamarin” (1852) and “The Pitfall” (1862). In 1862, Avdeev was arrested for connections with the revolutionary Mikhail Mikhailov and expelled from St. Petersburg to Penza. In 1867 he was released from supervision. ⁠ “Tamarin,” where the hero’s appearance is based on Pechorin, although Tamarin belongs to “people of action.” Ultra-conservative fiction is walking around Pechorin: odious Victor Askochensky Victor Ipatievich Askochensky (1813-1879) - writer, historian. He received a theological education and researched the history of Orthodoxy in Ukraine. In 1848 he published the first book dedicated to the biographies of Russian writers. Askochensky became famous for his anti-nihilistic novel “Asmodeus of Our Time,” published in 1858. Since 1852, he published the ultra-conservative magazine Home Conversation. He spent the last two years of his life in a hospital for the mentally ill. ⁠ publishes the novel “Asmodeus of Our Time,” the main character of which is a caricature of Pechorin with the telling surname Pustovtsev. At the same time, “Hero of Our Time” became the subject of serious reflection in subsequent Russian literature: Dostoevsky is most often mentioned here. His heroes - Raskolnikov, Stavrogin - are in many ways close to Pechorin: like Pechorin, they claim exclusivity and fail in different ways; like Pechorin, they experiment on own life and the lives of others.

The presence of an enthusiast fills me with a baptismal chill, and I think frequent intercourse with a sluggish phlegmatic person would turn me into a passionate dreamer

Mikhail Lermontov

Symbolists, mainly Merezhkovsky, saw in Pechorin a mystic, a messenger of otherworldly power (Dostoevsky’s heroes, like Pechorin, are immoral “not from impotence and vulgarity, but from an excess of strength, from contempt for the pitiful earthly goals of virtue”); Marxist critics, on the contrary, developed Belinsky’s idea that Pechorin is a characteristic figure of the era, and raised the entire novel to class issues (thus, Georgy Plekhanov Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov (1856-1918) - philosopher, politician. He headed the populist organization “Land and Freedom”, secret society"Black redistribution". In 1880 he emigrated to Switzerland, where he founded the Union of Russian Social Democrats Abroad. After the Second Congress of the RSDLP, Plekhanov disagreed with Lenin and headed the Menshevik Party. Returned to Russia in 1917, supported the Provisional Government and condemned the October Revolution. Plekhanov died a year and a half after returning from an exacerbation of tuberculosis. ⁠ considers it symptomatic that in “Hero” the peasant is bypassed question) 6 Naidich E. E. “Hero of our time” in Russian criticism // Lermontov M. Yu. Hero of our time. M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1962. P. 193. ⁠ .

“A Hero of Our Time” is one of the most translated Russian novels. Excerpts from it were translated into German already in 1842, into French - in 1843, into Swedish, Polish and Czech - in 1844. The first one, quite free and incomplete English translation"A Hero of Our Time" appeared in 1853; Of the subsequent English editions, of which there were more than twenty, it is worth mentioning the translation by Vladimir and Dmitry Nabokov (1958). Early translators often sacrificed "Taman" or "Fatalist". All of these translations were widely read and influenced; one of the French translations was published in the magazine Le Mousquetaire by Alexandre Dumas; It is noteworthy that the young Joyce, working on the first version of A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man - Stephen the Hero - called A Hero of Our Time "the only book I know of that resembles mine" 7 Potapova G. E. Study of Lermontov in Great Britain and the USA // Creativity of M. Yu. Lermontov in the context of modern culture. SPb.: RKhGA, 2014. P. 234. ⁠ .

In the USSR and Russia, “A Hero of Our Time” was filmed six times and staged many times - right up to the ballet at the Bolshoi Theater (2015, libretto by Kirill Serebrennikov, composer - Ilya Demutsky). The latest innovations in the field of paraliterature, no worse than the voting of our experts, prove that “A Hero of Our Time” remains within the orbit of current texts: in one of the Russian horror series, the novel “Fatalist” was published, where Pechorin is confronted by zombies.

Mountain peak Adai-Khokh. 1885 From the album “The Journey of Moritz Desha in the Caucasus”

What does the title of the novel mean? Why is Pechorin a hero?

As has happened more than once in the history of Russian literature, it was not the author who suggested the exceptionally successful name. At first, the novel was entitled “One of the Heroes of the Beginning of the Century”: in comparison with “Hero of Our Time,” this title is cumbersome, a compromise, and takes away the problems of the novel from modernity. The title “Hero of Our Time” was suggested by the publisher of Otechestvennye Zapiski Andrey Kraevsky Andrey Aleksandrovich Kraevsky (1810-1889) - publisher, editor, teacher. Kraevsky began his editorial career at the Journal of the Ministry of Public Education, and after Pushkin’s death he was one of the co-publishers of Sovremennik. He headed the newspaper “Russian Invalid”, “ Literary newspaper", "St. Petersburg Vedomosti", the newspaper "Golos", but gained the greatest fame as the editor and publisher of the magazine "Domestic Notes", in which the best publicists of the mid-19th century were involved. IN literary environment Kraevsky had a reputation as a stingy and very demanding publisher. ⁠ , one of the most successful journalists of the 19th century. His instincts did not let him down: the title immediately became scandalous and determined the attitude towards the novel. It seemed to sweep aside objections in advance: the critic Alexander Skabichevsky Alexander Mikhailovich Skabichevsky (1838-1911) - literary critic. Began publishing in the 1860s. Since 1868 he became an employee of Otechestvennye zapiski. Skabichevsky also edited the magazines “Slovo” and “New Word”, wrote literary feuilletons in “Birzhevye Vedomosti” and “Son of the Fatherland”. In 1891, his book “The History of Modern Russian Literature” was published, which was a success among readers. ⁠ in vain he regretted that Lermontov “agreed to change Kraevsky, since the original title was more consistent with the significance in the life of that time of Pechorin, who did not at all personify the entire intelligentsia of the 30s, but was precisely one of its heroes" 8 Skabichevsky A. M. M. Yu. Lermontov. His life and literary activity. M.: Direct-Media, 2015. P. 145. ⁠ .

The word “hero” has two overlapping meanings: “a person of exceptional courage and nobility who performs feats in the name of a great goal” and “ central character" The first readers of the novel about Pechorin did not always distinguish between these meanings, and Lermontov points out this ambivalence at the end of the preface: “Perhaps some readers will want to know my opinion about Pechorin’s character? — My answer is the title of this book. “Yes, this is evil irony!” - they will say. - Don't know". It is characteristic that Lermontov evades assessment: the very fact of choosing such a hero as Pechorin lies outside the “moralistic tradition of the previous literature" 9 Arkhangelsky A. N. Heroes of the classics: after-school education for adults. M.: AST, 2018. P. 373. ⁠ .

I get used to sadness just as easily as to pleasure, and my life becomes emptier day by day; I have only one option left: travel

Mikhail Lermontov

In the preface, Lermontov directly states that “Hero of Our Time” is a collective image: “a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation, in their full development.” And then he contradicts himself, pointing out that Pechorin is not just a walking allegory of all vices, but a believable, living personality, a real diary author: “You will tell me again that a person cannot be so bad, but I will tell you that if you believed in the possibility of the existence of all tragic and romantic villains, why don’t you believe in the reality of Pechorin?” In the end, the romantic hero-villain who destroys people dear to him is not Lermontov’s invention at all: Pechorin here inherits Byron’s Giaour and Conrad. In turn, fatal boredom and satiety with the world is the disease of another Byronic hero, Childe Harold.

If there was a very clear gap between readers and romantic pirates, then Childe Harold and the hero of “Confession of a Son of the Century” by Musset were clearer to them. However, it was not easy for a significant part of readers to see the heroic in Pechorin. And the point here is precisely his dual position: Pechorin is unique, but at the same time he is interested in earthly things, he has earthly ideas about protecting honor. Readers must recognize that Pechorin is their contemporary, part of their society, and this confronts them with a problem that does not have a clear solution.

V. A. Polyakov. Fatalist. Illustration for "Hero of Our Time". 1900

Why is the order of events mixed up in A Hero of Our Time?

The oddities of the composition are the first thing people notice when talking about “A Hero of Our Time.” The hero's later adventures precede the earlier ones, we learn about his death in the middle of the novel, the narrative is told from several points of view, the parts of the novel are unequal in scope and significance. At the same time, “A Hero of Our Time” is not a collection of individual stories: the novel has an internal plot that every reader can reconstruct. In his preface to A Hero of Our Time, Vladimir Nabokov even pins down the sequence of events to precise dates: Taman takes place in the summer of 1830; in the spring - summer of 1832, Pechorin falls in love with Princess Mary and kills Grushnitsky in a duel, after which he is transferred to serve in a fortress in Chechnya, where he meets Maxim Maksimych; in December 1832 the action of “Fatalist” takes place, in the spring and summer of 1833 - “Bela”, in the autumn of 1837 the narrator and Maxim Maksimych meet Pechorin in Vladikavkaz, and a year or two later Pechorin dies on the road from Persia. In relation to this clear plot, the composition of “A Hero of Our Time” is indeed confused; according to Nabokov, “the whole trick of such a composition is to bring Pechorin closer to us over and over again, until finally he himself speaks to us.” This “trick” is presented very naturally - we get acquainted with Pechorin’s story in the same order in which the main, “frame” narrator - the “author-publisher” (not equal to the author - Lermontov!) learns it. First, we are shown Pechorin through the eyes of the simple-minded Maxim Maksimych, then through the eyes of a more insightful narrator, who, however, sees the hero for only a few minutes, and finally through the eyes of Pechorin himself: we gain access to his innermost thoughts, penetrate into his inner world, where he no longer shows off to anyone. According to Alexander Arkhangelsky, the logic of the novel’s composition is “from external to internal, from simple to complex, from unambiguous to ambiguous. From plot to psychology hero" 10 Arkhangelsky A. N. Heroes of the classics: after-school education for adults. M.: AST, 2018. P. 353. ⁠ . And although, according to Boris Tomashevsky, Lermontov’s decision to turn the cycle of stories about Pechorin into a novel could have been influenced by the structure of Balzac’s “Thirty-Year-Old Woman” mentioned in “A Hero of Our Time” (this novel was at first “a collection of independent short stories") 11 Tomashevsky B.V. Lermontov’s prose and Western European literary tradition // Literary heritage. T. 43/44: M. Yu. Lermontov. Book I. M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1941. P. 469-516. (Lit. inheritance; T. 43/44). C. 508. ⁠ , it is clear that it is precisely the considerations of the gradual revelation of the hero that outweigh here.

View of Pyatigorsk. Mid XIX century

Fine Art Images/Heritage Images/Getty Images

Why do the narrators change in A Hero of Our Time? Which one is the main one?

The question of the narrator and the change of points of view in A Hero of Our Time is directly related to the question of composition. There are three narrators in the novel - the “author-publisher”, Maxim Maksimych and Pechorin himself; as the Czech philologist Miroslav Drozda notes, “even the “author” does not represent a single, unchanged “mask”, but appears in different, contradictory friends friend's appearances": in the preface to the novel he is a literary critic and a critic of morals, then a traveler and listener, then a publisher of someone else's manuscript. These authorial incarnations and audiences differ: the recipients of the author's preface are the entire reading public, already familiar with the story of Pechorin; the addressee of Maxim Maksimych is the “author-publisher” (and the addressees of Maksim Maksimych are hypothetical readers waiting in vain for an ethnographic essay); finally, Pechorin’s diary is designed only for him himself 12 Drozda M. Narrative structure of “A Hero of Our Time” // Wiener Slawistischer Almanach. Bd. XV. 1985. S. 5-6. ⁠ . This whole game is needed to gradually “bring Pechorin closer” to us, and also to reflect him in different points of view, as in different optical filters: the impressions of Maxim Maksimych and the “author-publisher” ultimately overlap with how Pechorin sees himself.

This variety of optics does not fit with how characters' speech is traditionally understood. Many researchers of “A Hero of Our Time” note inconsistencies here. The same Maxim Maksimych, conveying the monologues of Pechorin or Azamat, falls into a tone completely unusual for him - but, it would seem, by quoting others, a person adjusts their style of speech to his own. But despite this, the biography and life philosophy Pechorin as presented by Maxim Maksimych is noticeably poorer than in the presentation of Pechorin himself - the authority closest to the author.

And here, of course, the question arises about the personality and style of the final “author-publisher” who puts the whole story together. He is similar to Pechorin in many ways. Like Pechorin, he also travels on crossroads, also keeps travel notes, also subtly perceives nature and is able to rejoice, comparing himself with it (“... some kind of joyful feeling spread through all my veins, and I felt somehow happy that I am so high above the world..."). In a conversation with Maxim Maksimych, he speaks knowledgeably about Pechorin’s blues and generally shares with Pechorin the “paradoxical perception reality" 13 Vinogradov V.V. Lermontov’s prose style // Literary heritage. T. 43/44: M. Yu. Lermontov. Book I. M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1941. P. 588. ⁠ . The striking remark about Pechorin’s death - “This news made me very happy” - echoes the wild laughter with which Pechorin greets Bela’s death. Perhaps it is precisely because he feels a kinship with Pechorin that he undertakes to judge him and publishes his notes, which undoubtedly influenced him. However, a serious distance separates him from Pechorin. He prints Pechorin's notes, thinking that this “history of the human soul” will bring benefit to people. Pechorin would never do this, and not out of fear of confession: he, who has an excellent style, is indifferent to his diary; he tells Maxim Maksimych that he can do whatever he wants with his papers. This is an important point: after all, in the drafts of “A Hero of Our Time,” Lermontov not only leaves Pechorin alive, but also makes it clear that he was preparing his notes for publications 14 Eikhenbaum B. M. Articles about Lermontov. M., Leningrad: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1961. pp. 246-247. ⁠ . This means that Lermontov wanted to increase the distance between the hero and the “author-publisher,” who treats literature much more respectfully. He translates Kazbich’s song, conveyed to him in prose, into verse and asks for forgiveness from the readers: “habit is second nature.” This is how we learn that the compiler of “A Hero of Our Time” is a poet.

Georgian checker. 1860s

Wikimedia Commons

Does Pechorin resemble Lermontov himself?

Many of Lermontov’s contemporaries spoke about the similarity and even identity of Pechorin with his author. “There is no doubt that if he did not portray himself in Pechorin, then at least the ideal that greatly worried him at that time, and which he really wanted to be like,” writes Ivan Panaev Ivan Ivanovich Panaev (1812-1862) - writer, literary critic, publisher. Headed the critical department of Otechestvennye zapiski. In 1847, together with Nekrasov, he began publishing Sovremennik, for which he wrote reviews and feuilletons. Panaev is the author of many stories and novels: “Meeting at the Station”, “Lions in the Province”, “Grandson of a Russian Millionaire” and others. He was married to the writer Avdotya Panaeva, after ten years of marriage she went to Nekrasov, with whom she lived in a civil marriage for many years. ⁠ , recalling Lermontov’s “Pechorin” character traits: “piercing glances, poisonous jokes and smiles, a desire to show contempt for life, and sometimes even the arrogance of a bully.” “It is known that to some extent he portrayed himself in Pechorin,” Turgenev echoes Panaev. “Pechorin is himself, as he is,” he states with complete confidence in the letter Vasily Botkin Vasily Petrovich Botkin (1811-1869) - literary critic, publicist. In the mid-1830s, he became close to Belinsky, participated in Stankevich’s circle, and published in the magazines Telescope, Otechestvennye Zapiski, and Moscow Observer. In 1855 he became an employee of Nekrasov's Sovremennik. Botkin traveled a lot, after a trip to Spain he published the series “Letters about Spain” in Sovremennik. In the late 1850s, the critic disagreed with the Democrats and began to defend an aesthetic approach to art. ⁠ Belinsky 15 Shchegolev P. E. Book about Lermontov: In 2 issues. Vol. 2. L.: Priboy, 1929. P. 19, 23, 45. ⁠ . Ekaterina Sushkova, with whom Lermontov was in love, called him “calculating and mysterious”: she had the right to a more unflattering description, because Lermontov, wanting to take revenge on her for indifference, a few years later played with her approximately the same game that Pechorin plays with Princess Mary. “Now I don’t write novels—I make them,” he wrote to a friend in 1835. - So you see that I took good revenge for the tears that mlle S.’s coquetry made me shed 5 years ago; O!" However, Pechorin does not take revenge on the princess for his once rejected love, but starts an intrigue out of boredom.

Literary critic Dmitry Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky ⁠ wrote about Lermontov’s “egocentrism of nature”: “When such a person thinks or creates, his “I” does not drown in the process of thought or creativity. When he suffers or enjoys, he clearly feels his suffering or enjoyment "I" 16 Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky D. N. M. Yu. Lermontov. On the centenary of the birth of the great poet. St. Petersburg: Book “Prometheus” by N. N. Mikhailov, (1914). C. 6. ⁠ . Pechorin “is rightly recognized as the most subjective creation of Lermontov: this, one might say, is his self-portrait,” he states bluntly researcher 17 Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky D. N. M. Yu. Lermontov. On the centenary of the birth of the great poet. St. Petersburg: Book “Prometheus” by N. N. Mikhailov, (1914). C. 72. ⁠ . It's not just about external similarities (military service in the Caucasus, courage, playing cards, readiness to duels). We are talking about secret experiences - the best feelings “buried in the depths of the heart”, the desire to be accepted by the world and rejection. Pechorin’s contradictory feelings (“The presence of an enthusiast gives me a baptismal chill, and I think frequent relations with a sluggish phlegmatic person would make me a passionate dreamer”) find a parallel in Lermontov’s relationship with Belinsky (“He began to respond to Belinsky’s serious opinions with various jokes”). It is obvious that both Pechorin and Lermontov are capable of reflection: they realize that they are sick with the “disease of the century,” boredom and satiety.

I have an innate passion for contradiction; my whole life was just a chain of sad and unfortunate contradictions to my heart or reason

Mikhail Lermontov

Like Pushkin's Onegin, Pechorin clearly belongs to the same circle as its author. He is educated, quotes Pushkin, Griboyedov, Rousseau. Finally, there is one more important thing, determined by the very device of the “Hero of Our Time”. Peter Weil and Alexander Genis write: “We should not forget that Pechorin is a writer. It was his pen that “Taman” belongs to, on which our prose of nuances is based - from Chekhov to Sasha Sokolov. And “Princess Mary” was written by Pechorin. Lermontov entrusted him with the most difficult task- explain to yourself: “There are two people in me: one lives in the full sense of the word, the other thinks and judges.” his" 18 Weil P. L., Genis A. A. Native speech. M.: KoLibri, 2008. P. 114. ⁠ .

This statement by Pechorin is echoed by another memoir of Prince Alexander Vasilchikov, a writer and Lermontov’s second in the duel with Martynov: “In Lermontov (we are talking about him as a private person) there were two people: one good-natured for a small circle of his closest friends and for those few persons for whom he had special respect, the other was arrogant and perky for all his others acquaintances" 19 Shchegolev P. E. Book about Lermontov: In 2 editions. Vol. 2. L.: Priboy, 1929. P. 188. ⁠ . So, unlike Pechorin, Lermontov had an inner circle with whom he could be quite frank; in turn, Pechorin did not behave arrogantly with everyone: for example, his relationship with Dr. Werner was quite respectful.

So, Pechorin is not Lermontov’s literary alter ego, but, of course, the character most intelligible and close to him. Philologist Efim Etkind generally believes that “the real Pechorin without a mask” is a romantic poet, capable of subtly, with tenderness, experiencing and superbly describing nature 20 Etkind E. G. " Inner man"and external speech: Essays on the psychopoetics of Russian literature of the 18th-19th centuries. M.: Languages ​​of Russian Culture, 1998. pp. 106-107. ⁠ (“the constant, sweetly soporific noise of icy streams, which, meeting at the end of the valley, run in unison and finally rush into Podkumok” - here the streams are likened to children; “like a child’s kiss” the Caucasian air is fresh and pure for Pechorin, and so on). Landscapes are something that is often left out of the discussion of novels; Meanwhile, in the poet’s prose it is worth paying special attention to them.

Mikhail Lermontov. Engraving from a watercolor by Kirill Gorbunov of 1841

Are Pechorin from “Princess Ligovskaya” and Pechorin from “Hero of Our Time” the same Pechorin?

No, it's different characters, between which there is undoubtedly continuity. Pechorin from the unfinished “Princess Ligovskaya” “tries, with the help of careful observation and analysis, to read the hidden feelings of other characters, but these attempts turn out to be barren" 21 Kahn A., Lipovetsky M., Reyfman I., Sandler S. A History of Russian Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. P. 426. ⁠ . This useful skill will also be useful to Pechorin from “A Hero of Our Time” - but he has no doubts about anything: he does not read other people’s characters, but knows them in advance. The first Pechorin has a sister whom he loves dearly; the second one seems to have no close relatives. Pechorin from “Princess Ligovskaya” is a man of unattractive appearance; the portrait of Pechorin in “Hero of Our Time,” for all its inconsistency (which should emphasize demonicity), depicts a handsome man who is aware of his beauty. In “Princess Ligovskaya,” “in order to brighten up his appearance a little in the opinion of strict readers,” Lermontov announces that Pechorin’s parents have three thousand serf souls; “A Hero of Our Time” is devoid of such irony in relation to the hero (although it retains irony in relation to the reader). The first Pechorin compromises the girl just to be known as a dangerous seducer; The actions of the second Pechorin are determined not so much by idleness as by a fatal and deep contradiction of character.

In “A Hero of Our Time,” some kind of St. Petersburg story is vaguely mentioned that forced Pechorin to leave for the Caucasus, but there is no evidence that this is the outcome of the conflict outlined in “Princess Ligovskaya.” In the drafts of “Hero,” Pechorin talks about the “terrible story of the duel” in which he participated. Boris Eikhenbaum believes that the reasons for leaving were political and Pechorin could have been connected with the Decembrists (that is why the “author-publisher”, having at his disposal a whole notebook with a description of Pechorin’s past, refuses for the time being publish) 22 Eikhenbaum B. M. Articles about Lermontov. M., Leningrad: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1961. Pp. 254-265. ⁠ . In any case, in “Princess Ligovskaya” there is no trace of all this secret biography.

The point, in the end, is simply that “Princess Ligovskaya” and “Two Heroes of Our Time” are very various works. As Eikhenbaum puts it, Russian prose of the 1830s was carrying out the “rough” work preparing the emergence of a real Russian novel. In terms of style, “Princess Ligovskaya” experiences a strong Gogolian influence, and its secular content is associated with such texts as the stories of Bestuzhev-Marlinsky and Odoevsky, which reconcile the romantic approach to reality with moral descriptiveness, in which there are more harbingers of the natural school than the influence of European prose XVIII century. Having stopped moving in this direction, Lermontov makes a leap forward and creates an innovative text on the decline of the romantic tradition - the experiment of “A Hero of Our Time” with the novel form and the deepening of the romantic hero are so convincing that they give rise to a whole trail of imitations, although, it would seem, the era of romanticism is already behind .

At the same time, it is unfair to consider “Princess Ligovskaya” a completely unsuccessful experience: the scene of Pechorin’s explanation alone with the poor and proud official Krasinsky, who was insulted by him, is completely worthy of Dostoevsky. Lermontov will convey some of Krasinsky’s traits and thoughts to Pechorin from “A Hero of Our Time.”

Mikhail Lermontov. Ruins on the bank of the Aragva in Georgia. 1837

Mikhail Lermontov. An officer on horseback and an Amazon. 1841

Why is Pechorin so disappointed?

If you believe Pechorin himself, the reasons for his condition must be sought in his early youth and even childhood. He confesses first to Maxim Maksimych, and then to Princess Mary, complaining to one of his satiety with secular pleasures, female love, and military dangers, and to the other, to the tragic misunderstanding that he has encountered from people all his life. “I get used to sadness just as easily as to pleasure, and my life becomes emptier day by day; I have only one remedy left: to travel,” says Pechorin as told by Maxim Maksimych. What we have before us is a typically Byronic biography and a recipe for boredom: they fit, for example, into the outline of Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage. But in Pechorin’s disappointment they see not only the “fashion of being bored” that the British started. Of course, Byronic melancholy and rejection appealed to Pechorin, who knew Byron well. In Soviet and Russian literary criticism there is a tradition to consider the behavior of Lermontov’s hero as a consequence of the apathy that gripped society after the failure of the Decembrist uprising, in the “terrible” years, as he called them Herzen 23 Gurevich A. M. Dynamics of realism (in Russian XIX literature c.): A manual for teachers. M.: Gardarika, 1995. P. 34; Ginzburg L. Ya. Lermontov’s creative path. L.: Hood. lit., 1940. P. 162. ⁠ . There is some truth in this: Herzen even traced Lermontov’s ideas to Decembrism, and historical trauma is a characteristic justification for the “diseases of the century” (in the same way, in Musset, the hero of “Confession of a Son of the Century” refers to the wounds of 1793 and 1814). But Pechorin is even less concerned about the ideals of freedom than Evgeny Onegin: he also opposes himself to a society in which these ideals can be in demand. These ideals, of course, were important for Lermontov - and perhaps here lies the reason for the similarities between the author and the hero: Lermontov communicates to Pechorin his feelings, his sense of hopelessness, but does not give him his motivation. Perhaps to compensate for this, he gives the portrait of Pechorin contrasting, contradictory features: “There was something childish in his smile. His skin had some kind of feminine tenderness,” but on the “pale, noble forehead” one can, with effort, notice “traces of wrinkles that crossed one another and were probably visible much more clearly in moments of anger or mental anxiety.” Pechorin’s eyes “did not laugh when he laughed,” and his body, “not defeated by either the depravity of metropolitan life or mental storms,” can, in a moment of rest, “depict some kind of nervous weakness.” Such a contrasting appearance, according to the 19th century ideas about physiognomy Determining a person’s personality, his physical and mental health by facial features. Today physiognomy is considered a pseudoscientific discipline. ⁠ , also exposes the contradictions in the hero’s character: indeed, reading Pechorin’s Journal, we can see constant changes in his mood, interspersed with experiences of deep introspection.

Why is Pechorin called an extra person?

“Extra people” are characters who do not integrate into society due to their exclusivity: the environment is not able to find a use for them. Pechorin, along with Onegin, is considered the founder of “superfluous people” in Russian literature. In the interpretation of traditional Soviet literary criticism, Pechorin cannot reveal his social potential and therefore is busy with intrigue, games, and seduction of women. This point of view existed before the October Revolution. So, in 1914 Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky Dmitry Nikolaevich Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky (1853-1920) - literary critic, linguist. He taught at Novorossiysk, Kharkov, St. Petersburg and Kazan universities. From 1913 to 1918 he edited the journal “Bulletin of Europe”. He studied the works of Gogol, Pushkin, Turgenev, Tolstoy, Chekhov. Most famous work Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky’s “History of the Russian Intelligentsia”, published in 1907. He studied the syntax of the Russian language, as well as Sanskrit and Indian philosophy. ⁠ writes about Pechorin: “Like many egocentric natures, he is a person with a pronounced and very active social instinct. To balance his hypertrophied “I,” he needs living connections with people, with society, and this need would best be satisfied by living and meaningful social activity, for which he has all the data: a practical mind, a fighting temperament, strong character, the ability to subjugate people to your will, and finally, ambition. But conditions and the spirit of the times were not conducive to any broad and independent social activities. Pechorin involuntarily remained out of work, hence his eternal dissatisfaction, melancholy and boredom" 24 Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky D. N. M. Yu. Lermontov. On the centenary of the birth of the great poet. St. Petersburg: Book “Prometheus” by N. N. Mikhailov, (1914). C. 78. ⁠ .

Another interpretation is possible, more likely existential rather than social nature. “I have an innate passion for contradiction; “My whole life was just a chain of sad and unsuccessful contradictions to my heart or mind,” Pechorin says about himself. Here it is easy to recognize the characteristics of another type of Russian literature - Dostoevsky’s “underground man”, who lives off negative self-affirmation. The psychologism of Lermontov’s prose lies precisely in the understanding of the possibility of such a character, deeply individualistic, frustrated by the impressions of childhood. Pechorin, in the end, can be considered “superfluous” in a positive sense: no other hero of the novel is capable of such “intense self-deepening” and “exceptional strength of subjective memory" 25 Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky D. N. M. Yu. Lermontov. On the centenary of the birth of the great poet. St. Petersburg: Book “Prometheus” by N. N. Mikhailov, (1914). C. 83. ⁠ . “I was created stupidly: I don’t forget anything,” says Pechorin; this property, in turn, makes him in common, if not with Lermontov, then with a writer in general - with a person capable of inventing and organizing the world, putting his own experience into it. Despite the fact that Pechorin, as Lermontov suggests, the portrait typical person of his generation, having collected in himself all the vices of the time, he is in fact unique - and that is why he is attractive.

Is Grushnitsky similar to Pechorin?

The period of action of “A Hero of Our Time” is the peak of the passion for romantic art and romantic cliches in Russian aristocratic society. The emotional trail from this hobby will stretch for many more decades, but the end of the 1830s is the time when romanticism, already problematized in literature and even overcome (primarily through the efforts of Pushkin), “goes to the people.” Hence Grushnitsky’s epigone, demonstrative behavior (for example, his exaggerated and vulgar courtliness). Pechorin feels that Grushnitsky is a caricature of the person he himself is: Grushnitsky “importantly drapes himself in extraordinary feelings, sublime passions and exceptional suffering”, which “is liked by romantic provincials” (the last statement is a stone in the garden of Pechorin himself); he “was preoccupied with himself all his life.” Pechorin also has “lush” words in stock, but he does not pronounce them in front of others, trusting them only in his diary,” notes Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky 26 Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky D. N. M. Yu. Lermontov. On the centenary of the birth of the great poet. St. Petersburg: Book “Prometheus” by N. N. Mikhailov, (1914). P. 94. ⁠ . It is quite possible that Grushnitsky irritates Pechorin not only because he apes his behavior, but also because he exaggerates and flaunts his unsightly sides - thus becoming not a caricature, but rather a distorting mirror. If we assume a moralizing component in “A Hero of Our Time,” then the figure of Grushnitsky exposes the typical romantic image life. The next iteration of a diminished romantic figure in Russian literature is Aduev Jr. from “An Ordinary History” Goncharova 27 Ginzburg L. Ya. About psychological prose. About a literary hero. St. Petersburg: Azbuka, Azbuka-Atticus, 2016. P. 130. ⁠ . However, it is worth taking into account Goncharov’s ambivalent attitude towards his character: as we will now see, Grushnitsky is also ambiguous in the author’s eyes.

Of course, Lermontov emphasizes the difference between Pechorin and Grushnitsky - down to the smallest detail. For example, the motif of stars, important for the novel, appears in “Princess Mary” only twice: Grushnitsky, promoted to officer, calls the stars on his epaulettes “guiding stars,” while Pechorin, before his duel with Grushnitsky, worries that his star “will finally betray him.” “A simple comparison of these exclamations more convincingly than any commentary depicts the characters’ characters and the author’s attitude towards them,” writes philologist Anna Zhuravleva. — For both, the high motive of stars arises as if for a similar everyday reason. But Grushnitsky has a “guiding star” for his career, Pechorin has a “star” fate" 28 Zhuravleva A.I. Lermontov in Russian literature. Problems of poetics. M.: Progress-Tradition, 2002. P. 203. ⁠ .

At the same time, the moment of existence, the ultimate, dying state highlights in Grushnitsky a depth that Pechorin, putting his opponent in a stalemate, could not have suspected in him before. Grushnitsky refuses to continue the dishonest game offered to him by the hussar captain and sacrifices himself, perhaps to atone for a previously committed meanness. Peter Weil and Alexander Genis write: “Grushnitsky... before his death shouts out words that in no way correspond to the dueling code: “Shoot!.. I despise myself, but I hate you. If you don’t kill me, I’ll stab you at night from around the corner.” This is a poignant confession from a completely different novel. Perhaps from the one that Dostoevsky will not write soon. At the last second, the pathetic clown Grushnitsky suddenly tears off the mask imposed on him by Pechorinsky. script" 29 Weil P. L., Genis A. A. Native speech. M.: KoLibri, 2008. P. 116. ⁠ . It is noteworthy that in 1841, Lermontov’s acquaintance Emilia Shan-Girey, whom Lermontov “found particular pleasure” in teasing, returned Grushnitsky’s threat to him: “I flared up and said that if I were a man, I would not challenge him to a duel, but would kill him.” would have him around the corner emphasis" 30 Shchegolev P. E. Book about Lermontov: In 2 issues. Vol. 2. L.: Priboy, 1929. P. 192. ⁠ . It is noteworthy, finally, that by ridiculing and killing Grushnitsky, Lermontov removes Pechorin from under attack. Grushnitsky's life goal - to become the hero of a novel - really comes true when Grushnitsky ends up in Pechorin's notes and Lermontov's novel. But Pechorin, making jokes about this, thereby rejects possible accusations of literariness 31 Eikhenbaum B. M. Articles about Lermontov. M., Leningrad: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1961. P. 268. ⁠ : he is a living person, and not some hero of a novel.

V. A. Polyakov. Princess Mary. Illustration for "Hero of Our Time". 1900

Lermontov's Rock in Kislovodsk. 19th century postcard

Why do women like Pechorin so much?

When the heroine of Ian Fleming's novel From Russia with Love, Russian spy Tatyana Romanova, needs to come up with a legend about why she allegedly fell in love with James Bond (she will truly fall in love with him only later), she will say that he reminds her of Pechorin . “He loved to play cards and all he did was get into fights,” this is how Bond’s boss characterizes Pechorin from hearsay. The reputation of a dangerous man, of course, favors the interest of the opposite sex, especially if physical beauty is added to it. “He was generally very good-looking and had one of those original faces that secular women especially like” - this is how the “author-publisher” ends the portrait of Pechorin. “You simply cannot help but admire Pechorin - he is too handsome, elegant, witty,” say Weil and Genis; As a result of this admiration, “generations of schoolchildren come to the conclusion that a smart scoundrel is better than a respectable one.” fool" 32 Weil P. L., Genis A. A. Native speech. M.: KoLibri, 2008. P. 115. ⁠ .

Pechorin’s “scoundreliness” is manifested primarily in the way he behaves with women. This applies not so much to “Bela” as to “Princess Mary,” where he follows Pushkin’s maxim “The less we love a woman, / The easier it is for her to like us” and acts as an expert on women (“There is nothing more paradoxical than the female mind; women are difficult to convince something, we need to bring them to the point where they convince themselves." He irritates and at the same time intrigues Princess Mary, then reveals his soul to her in a confession - seemingly sincere in content, but pronounced with calculation (Pechorin says, “assuming a deeply touched look”) - and achieves a declaration of love. This game with the naive princess is of a completely romantic nature: Pechorin becomes a “secular version of the Demon,” “sowing evil without pleasure" 33 Etkind E. G. “Inner man” and external speech: Essays on the psychopoetics of Russian literature of the 18th-19th centuries. M.: Languages ​​of Russian Culture, 1998. P. 105. ⁠ . He revels in the effect produced: “Everyone noticed this extraordinary gaiety. And the princess rejoiced inwardly, looking at her daughter; and my daughter is just having a nervous attack: she will spend the night without sleep and cry. This thought gives me immense pleasure: there are moments when I understand the Vampire... And I am also known as a kind fellow and achieve this title!

A modern psychologist could find in Pechorin the traits of a perverted narcissist: a person who idealizes himself and feels the need to subjugate others to his will. Such a person confuses and exhausts his partner, who is unable to part with him. He creates a kind of psychological force field around himself and is confident in his irresistibility - let us remember how easily Pechorin buys into the trick that the smuggler plays on him in Taman (although he takes precautions). Pechorin's complex personality is not limited to these traits (perverted narcissists, as a rule, choose one victim for a long time). In many other respects he is noble, but he is aware of his unseemly actions. It is difficult for him to understand why Vera loves him, who alone understood him to the end, with all his vices and weaknesses. Vera, meanwhile, loves him “just like that” - and this is the only inexplicable and genuine love in the novel.

How independent are Lermontov's women?

"At all female images Lermontov did not succeed. Mary is a typical young lady from novels, completely devoid of individual features, except for her “velvet” eyes, which, however, are forgotten by the end of the novel. Vera is completely invented with an equally invented mole on her cheek; “Bela is an oriental beauty from a box of Turkish delight,” - this is how Nabokov, in his usual manner, certifies the heroines of the novel. Belinsky didn’t like Vera either: “Vera’s face is especially elusive and vague. It's more of a satire of women than of women. As soon as you begin to become interested and fascinated by her, the author immediately destroys your participation and fascination with some completely arbitrary trick.”

This “arbitrary trick” is a significant slip of the tongue: Belinsky is not ready to see the author’s conscious decision in the “arbitrariness” of a woman. Meanwhile, Vera is Lermontov’s most “subjective” heroine. It is she who “leads” in the relationship with Pechorin, it is she who helps launch the intrigue with Mary, and finally, it is she - alone of all - who understands Pechorin “completely, with all... weaknesses, bad passions.” Vera sacrifices herself, hoping that Pechorin will someday understand that her love for him “did not depend on any conditions”; Having lost Vera, Pechorin loses his temper, almost goes crazy, instantly giving up his brilliant composure.

Other women in A Hero of Our Time are much more “objective”. Researcher Zheanne Gait calls the heroine who is rejected by the “superfluous person” in a romantic work an “obligatory woman”: she is certainly present near the hero and determines his qualities. In this case, Bela and Mary are necessary for the plot to show Pechorin’s inability to love and fidelity 34 Kahn A., Lipovetsky M., Reyfman I., Sandler S. A History of Russian Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. pp. 476-477. ⁠ . “I have never become a slave to the woman I love; on the contrary, I always acquired invincible power over their will and heart, without even trying to do so.<…>I must admit that I definitely don’t like women with character: is it any of their business!..” Pechorin boasts; “without trying” is, let’s say, not true, but the hero’s attitude towards women is clear from these phrases. Let's see how it is implemented.

There is nothing more paradoxical than the female mind; It is difficult to convince women of anything, you need to bring them to the point where they convince themselves

Mikhail Lermontov

Bela's description is included in the "full standard kit" 35 Weil P. L., Genis A. A. Native speech. M.: KoLibri, 2008. P. 112. ⁠ romantic cliches about the Caucasus: before us is a “tall, thin” savage, whose “eyes, black, like those of a mountain chamois, looked into our souls.” It cannot be said that Bela is completely passive: she herself sings something “like a compliment” to Pechorin; in a moment of pride and anger at Pechorin, she remembers: “I am not his slave - I am a prince’s daughter!..”; she is ready to take revenge for her father. “And in you, darling, the blood of the robber is not silent!” - thinks Maxim Maksimych - the only person through whose eyes we see Bela. “We don’t know how Bela Azamat or Pechorin perceive...” reminds Alexander Arkhangelsky, “we are not allowed into her inner world and can only guess about the depth of her joy and the strength of her suffering.” It is characteristic that the only time when the conquered Bela does something of her own free will—disobeying Pechorin and leaving the fortress—ends with her death.

However, if Bela had not disobeyed, she would have died anyway, completely boring Pechorin, who sought her out so much. Today, Pechorin’s persuasion could be included in a feminist textbook as examples victimblaming From the English victim - “victim” and blame - “to blame”. Victim blaming refers to a situation where responsibility for violence, physical or psychological, is placed not on the perpetrator, but on the victim. ⁠ And gaslighting Psychological manipulation designed to make the victim doubt his own adequacy. The origin of the term is associated with the Hollywood film Gaslight (1944), which depicts this type of psychological abuse. ⁠ : “...You know that sooner or later you must be mine, so why are you torturing me?<…>Believe me, Allah is the same for all tribes, and if he allows me to love you, why will he forbid you to repay me in return?<…>...I want you to be happy; and if you are sad again, then I will die”; finally, he offers her freedom, but at the same time informs her that he is going to expose himself to a bullet or a blow from a saber. Poor Bela has no choice but to give up.

Princess Mary is also objectified at first (“If it were possible to merge Bela and Mary into one person: that would be the ideal of a woman!” exclaims the critic Shevyrev). Pechorin's remarks about her are cynical - even the empty Grushnitsky remarks: “You talk about a pretty woman like an English horse.” There is nothing unusual about this: Pechorin states in “Taman” that “the breed in women, as well as in horses, is a great thing.” Even more cynical is the game he plays with Mary. But when this game comes to a close, Mary manages to outgrow her assigned role:

-...You see, I am low to you. Isn’t it true, even if you loved me, from now on you despise me?

She turned to me, pale as marble, only her eyes sparkled wonderfully.

“I hate you...” she said.

But in Taman, Pechorin’s confidence that any woman will submit to him plays a cruel joke on him. Pechorin is not only confident of his victory - he also interprets the oddities in the behavior of the smuggler, which could instill doubts in him, in the spirit of romantic literature: the “wild” girl seems to him either Ondine from Zhukovsky’s ballad, or Goethe’s Minion. The collapse of the love adventure is presented, as usual in Lermontov, ironically, but it seems that this irony masks disappointment here.

V. A. Polyakov. Bela. Illustration for the novel by M. Yu. Lermontov “Hero of Our Time.” 1900

Why is Maxim Maksimych in the novel?

Playing with the cliche “an extra person,” we can come to the conclusion that in fact Maxim Maksimych deserves such a name in the novel. He is consistently ignored: the dying Bela does not remember him before her death, and this annoys him; Pechorin, meeting him again, offends him with rudeness and coldness. He is absent from the active movement of the plot in much the same way as the “author-publisher” of the novel, who is deliberately (but not completely) eliminated from the text.

But, like the “author-publisher,” the “small” and “superfluous” person Maxim Maksimych is actually the most important element in the character system. It is he who launches the narrative mechanism and plays an important role in the fate of the heroes (he tells Pechorin about Kazbich’s conversation with Azamat, takes Bela for a walk on the rampart, where Kazbich will see her). Moreover, at some point the fate of Pechorin’s entire story is in his hands: offended by the meeting, he is ready to use Pechorin’s manuscripts for cartridges.

I entered this life having already experienced it mentally, and I felt bored and disgusted, like someone who reads a bad imitation of a book he has long known

Mikhail Lermontov

Both supporters and opponents of Lermontov noted that Maxim Maksimych is an exceptionally successful image. Belinsky wrote about “the type of old Caucasian campaigner, seasoned in dangers, labors and battles, whose face is as tanned and stern as his manners are simple and rude, but who has a wonderful soul, a heart of gold” and said that this type is “purely Russian , who, by the artistic merit of his creation, resembles the most original of the characters in the novels of Walter Scott and Cooper, but who, in his novelty, originality and purely Russian spirit, is not like any of them”; The critic ends his apology with the wish to the reader “to meet more on the path of your life Maksimov Maksimych" Critics noted the similarity of Maxim Maksimych with one of the first “little people” in Russian literature - Samson Vyrin from “ Stationmaster"; The reader's sympathy for Vyrin is transferred to Lermontov's staff captain.

But in addition to the plot and typology, Maxim Maksimych has two more important functions. Firstly, he is the main source of ethnographic information in Bel. He understands the languages ​​of the mountain peoples and knows their customs and morals very well, although he interprets them from the position of a condescending European, to the point of “These Asians are terrible beasts!” His experience as an “old Caucasian”, in which Lermontov summarized his own observations and the knowledge of his senior comrades in the service, guarantees the reliability of the information - while Lermontov, of course, is aware of the colonial optics of his character, forcing him to utter maxims like: “The same mountains were visible from the fortress from the village, but these savages don’t need anything else.” Secondly, Maxim Maksimych, like Doctor Werner, in the system of characters in “A Hero of Our Time” serves as a counterweight to the figure of Pechorin; The author's clearly tangible sympathy for both characters (communicated to Pechorin and the nameless narrator) means not only that they are kind and honest people, but also that they are necessary for the plot and harmonize it. “This character was introduced into the narrative so that against his background the complex, confused, but large-scale “Pechorin” beginning would appear especially clearly,” notes Alexander Arkhangelsk 36 Arkhangelsky A. N. Heroes of the classics: after-school education for adults. M.: AST, 2018. P. 362. ⁠ .

V. A. Polyakov. Maxim Maksimych. Illustration for the novel by M. Yu. Lermontov “Hero of Our Time”. 1900

What is the essence of Pechorin’s dispute with Vulich about predestination?

The motif of fate appears in one way or another in all parts of A Hero of Our Time. In "The Fatalist" the question of whether everyone's fate is destined is posed with a "final sharpness" 37 Arkhangelsky A. N. Heroes of the classics: after-school education for adults. M.: AST, 2018. P. 359. ⁠ . Pechorin’s bet with Vulich is as follows: Vulich claims that predestination exists, Pechorin claims that it does not; Vulich brings the pistol to his temple and pulls the trigger: the pistol misfires, which means Vulich is not destined to die this time, and he could calmly try his luck. It is easy to see that this bet has strange conditions: if the gun had fired, one could say that this was what was supposed to happen and Vulich guessed his fatal moment. The matter is complicated by the fact that Pechorin, who bets against predestination, actually secretly believes in it: he sees that on Vulich’s face lies the stamp of death, “a strange imprint of inevitable fate.” Thus, by offering a bet to Vulich, he is actually ready to become an instrument of this fate and bring death to his opponent.

This difficult game with fate - another confirmation of the hero’s duality. In Vulich, for the first time he meets his equal: a fearless and demonic man. Like the parody Grushnitsky, this double must be eliminated, and his death must confirm Pechorin’s ability to know everything in advance. Vulich’s salvation amazes him, he begins to believe in predestination consciously - although his entire skeptical philosophy opposes this:

...I felt funny when I remembered that there were once wise people who thought that the heavenly bodies took part in our insignificant disputes over a piece of land or for some fictitious rights!..<…>And we, their pitiful descendants, wandering the earth without convictions and pride, without pleasure and fear, except for that involuntary fear that squeezes the heart at the thought of the inevitable end, we are no longer capable of great sacrifices, either for the good of humanity, or even for our own happiness , therefore we know its impossibility and indifferently move from doubt to doubt...

The thought of predestination is also unpleasant for Pechorin from a pragmatic point of view: after all, he “always moves forward more boldly when he does not know what awaits him.” Soon after the bet, Vulich actually dies at the hands of a drunken Cossack - and Pechorin is amazed at such an unexpected resolution to the dispute about predestination: Vulich, who thought that he should live, actually had to die. After this, Pechorin risks his life by helping to capture the killer Vulich. This action again has a double motivation: on the one hand, Pechorin decides, just like Vulich, to try his luck - and surpass his double, to remain alive where Vulich died. On the other hand, he helps to carry out retribution - and thereby pays tribute to the murdered.

Kuchenreuther's dueling pistol. Around 1830

The colonial novel, born within romanticism, is closely related to the adventure genre. In some cases it suggests a civilizing, exploitative, arrogant attitude of the European hero towards the indigenous population: probably the most famous text of this kind is Henry Haggard's King Solomon's Mines (1885). In other cases, a representative of civilization makes friends with the “natives”, participates in their adventures, even takes their side; Examples include the novels of Fenimore Cooper, familiar to Lermontov. Both types of novels are based on myths - about the “terrible savage” and about the “noble savage”. “A Hero of Our Time” is difficult to classify as one of these types. For example, Maxim Maksimych’s civilizing condescension towards “Asians” and “Tatars” is set off by the ironic characterization of Maxim Maksimych himself, and the “author-publisher” shares cliches about Caucasians rather passively: it is characteristic that, having found himself in a hut full of poor travelers, he calls them “pathetic people”, and Maxim Maksimych - “stupid people”.

The Russian “Caucasian text” of the first half of the 19th century meets the romantic requirement for national content for literature, dating back to Schelling. U national literature there must also be something exotic; Naturally, for Lermontov, following Pushkin and Marlinsky, the Caucasus becomes an exotic testing ground. Exoticism here is more important than reliable ethnography - already in 1851 the magazine Sovremennik looked back at Russian romantic prose with the words: “The lack of factual information was usually replenished with the beauty of a flowery style, which had become so inevitable in Caucasian stories that at one time the Caucasian story and a high style were synonymous in Russian literature" 38 Vinogradov V.V. Lermontov’s prose style // Literary heritage. T. 43/44: M. Yu. Lermontov. Book I. M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1941. P. 565. ⁠ . According to Viktor Vinogradov, the “Caucasian” vocabulary of Maxim Maksimych “does not go beyond the most typical everyday names and formulas: peaceful prince... kunak, kunatskaya; horseman... saklya, dukhanschitsa, beshmet, giaur, kalym"; and this despite the fact that Maxim Maksimych is a borderline character who either “takes the point of view of the natives, or, on the contrary, translates local concepts and designations into Russian person" 39 Vinogradov V.V. Lermontov’s prose style // Literary heritage. T. 43/44: M. Yu. Lermontov. Book I. M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1941. P. 571-572. ⁠ . Lermontov’s ethnonyms are conditional: the lack of distinction between Circassians, Chechens, and “Tatars” gives commentators headaches Lermontov 40 Durylin S. N. “Hero of our time” by M. Yu. Lermontov. Comments. M.: Uchpedgiz, 1940. ⁠ . Unconscious neglect is also visible in the speeches of Pechorin, who calls Bela peri - that is, a character in Persian demonology who has no relation to the Caucasus.

There is a lot of duality in Lermontov’s descriptions of the Caucasus. On the one hand, he speaks with amazing skill about mountain peaks, rivers, gorges; An excellent expert on the Caucasus, he clearly conveys his own admiration for the Caucasian nature. His descriptions are striking, sometimes almost word for word, with Pushkin’s “Journey to Arzrum”, but much more colorful and rich; the same impressions were reflected in “The Demon” and “Mtsyri”. On the other hand, he is capable, lowering his register, of remembering “a cast-iron teapot is my only joy in travel,” or even, as if afraid of being mistaken for Marlinsky, pointedly refusing to follow the genre: “I’ll spare you from describing the mountains, from exclamations that express nothing , from pictures that do not depict anything, especially for those who were not there, and from statistical notes that absolutely no one will read.” All this duality is a sign of Lermontov’s unsettled attitude towards Caucasian exoticism and romantic mythology. To solve this problem, he, as always, will resort to irony - this is how “Taman” will appear, where, according to Boris Eikhenbaum, “the touch of naive "Rousseauism" 41 Eikhenbaum B. M. Articles about Lermontov. M., Leningrad: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1961. P. 279. ⁠ . If the conquest of a woman for Pechorin is in some way parallel to the conquest of the Caucasus, then in “Taman” the pursuit of another “savage” ends in a comic disaster.

Map of the Caucasus region until 1832

How is “Hero of Our Time” connected with “Eugene Onegin”?

The first similarity between the heroes of Pushkin and Lermontov is visible at the most external level: both surnames, Onegin and Pechorin, did not exist in reality and come from the names of the rivers - Onega and Pechora. Based on this, Belinsky wrote that “their dissimilarity is much less than the distance between Onega and Pechora”: Pechorin is “the Onegin of our time.” It is characteristic that in the drafts of “Princess Ligovskaya” Lermontov once mistakenly calls his Pechorin Evgeniy. The plot parallels are also obvious: Princess Mary’s love for Pechorin, which she herself admits, reminds us of Tatyana’s confession to Onegin; duel with Grushnitsky - younger friend Pechorin - echoes Onegin’s duel with Lensky even in the motivation: Onegin, in order to annoy Lensky, dances with Olga; Pechorin is bored and plays a comedy with Grushnitsky for his own amusement. In the figure of Grushnitsky, the standard “vulgar romantic,” much is similar to Lensky:

He speaks quickly and pretentiously: he is one of those people who have ready-made pompous phrases for all occasions, who are not touched by simply beautiful things and who are solemnly draped in extraordinary feelings, sublime passions and exceptional suffering. To produce an effect is their delight; Romantic provincial women like them crazy.<…>His goal is to become the hero of a novel.

<…>...I am sure that on the eve of leaving his father’s village he said with a gloomy look to some pretty neighbor that he was not going just to serve, but that he was looking for death, because... here, he probably covered his eyes with his hand and continued like this: “No, you (or you) should not know this! Yours pure soul will shudder! And why? What am I to you! Will you understand me? - and so on.

All this, isn’t it, resembles Lensky’s “dark and sluggish” verses, in which Pushkin parodies popular poetic romanticism, and its excessive affectation in personal relationships (later these outpourings to a pretty neighbor are parodied by Goncharov in “An Ordinary History”). The word “parody” is not repeated here in vain: “Princess Mary” itself is in partly parodic relationship with “Eugene Onegin.” relationships 42 Svyatopolk-Mirsky D. P. History of Russian literature. Novosibirsk: Svinin and Sons Publishing House, 2014. P. 253. ⁠ , which do not cancel Lermontov’s admiration for Pushkin. To understand this, let's look at how Lermontov's heroes differ from Pushkin's. There is duality in their psychological portraits, a certain emphasized dark principle. Returning to the hydronymic similarity, we can recall the remark of Boris Eikhenbaum: “Onega flows smoothly, in one direction to the sea; the bed of the Pechora is changeable, ornate, it is a stormy mountain river" 43 Eikhenbaum B. M. Articles about Lermontov. M., Leningrad: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1961. P. 235. ⁠ . Lensky, of course, is not capable of meanness in the spirit of Grushnitsky, who first spreads dirty gossip about Pechorin and Mary, who rejected him, and then wants to fool Pechorin by not loading his pistol on the advice of a comrade. It’s the same with Pechorin: as philologist Sergei Kormilov writes, “it is impossible to imagine Onegin on the balcony of someone else’s house peeping into Tatiana’s window, and Pechorin, getting out this way from Vera, someone else’s wife, satisfies his curiosity by looking into the room How is “A Hero of Our Time” connected to Lermontov’s poetry?

Parallels between the novel and Lermontov's lyrics have been noted more than once, including at the structural level. Anna Zhuravleva believes that Lermontov’s novel is united not only by plot, but also by “verbal and semantic motifs characteristic of Lermontov’s poetry... in the same way as lyrical poetry is united.” cycle" 46 Zhuravleva A.I. Lermontov in Russian literature. Problems of poetics. M.: Progress-Tradition, 2002. P. 204. ⁠ . Even earlier, Nabokov noticed that the nesting of dreams and the change of points of view in the poem “Dream” (“In the midday heat in the valley of Dagestan ...”) “is akin to the interweaving of the five stories that made up Lermontov’s novel.”

Pechorin's psychological closeness to Lermontov makes the novel's overlap with Lermontov's lyrics inevitable. Thus, already in the early poem “1831, June 11th” one can see the motives of Pechorin’s confessional monologues, his duality, and misunderstanding on the part of those around him:

My soul, I remember from childhood
I was looking for something wonderful. I loved
All the seductions of the light, but not the light,
In which I only lived for minutes...

No one values ​​me on earth
And I am a burden to myself, as well as to others;
Melancholy wanders on my brow.
I am cold and proud; and even evil

I seem to the crowd; but can she really
Should I boldly penetrate my heart?
Why does she need to know what is in it?
Fire or darkness there - she doesn’t care.

The hero of the poem finds solace only in nature, and Pechorin’s descriptions of the nature of the Caucasus echo Lermontov’s lyrics. Compare: “It’s fun to live in such a land! Some kind of gratifying feeling flowed through all my veins. The air is clean and fresh, like a child’s kiss...” and “The air there is pure, like a child’s prayer; / And people, like free birds, live carefree.” The hero’s relationship with people against this background is a product of irritation: being among them, Pechorin cannot show “his real self.” Likewise, the hero of Lermontov’s poem, recalling a wonderful childhood (as a child he was “the omnipotent master of the wondrous kingdom”), is irritated by the society in which he is forced to be: “Oh, how I want to confuse their gaiety / And boldly throw an iron verse in their eyes, / Doused with bitterness and anger!..”

I look sadly at our generation!
His future is either empty or dark,
Meanwhile, under the burden of knowledge and doubt,
It will grow old in inaction.
We are rich, barely out of the cradle,
By the mistakes of our fathers and their late minds,
And life already torments us, like a smooth path without a goal,
Like a feast at someone else's holiday.

“I entered this life having already experienced it mentally, and I became bored and disgusted, like someone who reads a bad imitation of a book he has long known,” agrees Pechorin.

Here the “author-publisher” turns in his thoughts to the howling blizzard: “And you, an exile, cry about your wide, expansive steppes!”, But Lermontov writes about the clouds of heaven: “You rush, as if like me, exiles, / With dear north towards the south." Here Pechorin destroys Bela, and the Demon destroys Tamara. In the poem “Ishmael Bey” we will find descriptions of Caucasian customs, similar to descriptions from the novel... Examples of roll calls can still be multiplied, but it is clear that there is a strong connection between “A Hero of Our Time” and Lermontov’s poetry. In the end, there are poems in the novel itself: the “author-publisher”, out of habit, translates Kazbich’s song into Russian, and Pechorin writes down the smuggler’s song. Both songs are distinguished by stylization folk poetry: Kazbich’s song uses a typical folk formula (“Gold will buy four wives, / A dashing horse has no price”), and in the last line the rhythmic variation - the release of one syllable - creates the impression of free, unbookish poetic speech. The “authentic” song of the smuggler is written in a completely heterogeneous folk verse (“As if by free will - / On the green sea, / All the ships sail / White sailboats ...”) with

What did Pechorin do in Persia?

Pechorin dies while returning from Persia. This is how Maxim Maksimych’s prophecy that he will end badly comes true. Pechorin himself in “Bel” says: “As soon as possible, I will go - just not to Europe, God forbid! “I’ll go to America, to Arabia, to India, and maybe I’ll die somewhere on the road!” And so it happens; Pechorin, who was predicted to die “from an evil wife,” imagines another death for himself.

In his article “Why did Pechorin go to Persia? 47 Ermolenko S.I. Why did Pechorin go to Persia? // Philological class. T. V. No. 17. 2007. pp. 41-48. ⁠ philologist Svetlana Ermolenko summarizes possible answers to this question. Commentator on the novel Sergei Durylin believes that for Pechorin, a trip to Persia, which is in the zone of Russia’s diplomatic interests, is a comfortable way to “quench the craving for the East, gleaned from Byron,” and at the same time escape from the “barracks Nikolaevshchina.” Boris Eikhenbaum, in accordance with his theory about Pechorin’s Decembrism, sees in this not a whim, but an expression of “characteristic post-Decembrist moods” (Venevitinov wants to go to Persia shortly before his death, “in Arabia, in Iran in gold” Izhorsky, the hero of Kuchelbecker’s drama, is looking for happiness ). Ermolenko objects to Durylin: compared to Griboyedov’s time, the political situation in Persia has become even more complicated - these places were “a theater of continuous, early XIX century, military actions." Thus, Pechorin could consciously seek death. Let’s not forget that in direct chronology the events of “Bela” are Pechorin’s last adventure. It is quite possible that it broke his Byronic character: when Maxim Maksimych reminds him of Bel, Pechorin turns pale and turns away. He no longer worries about the fate of his notes, which, as he once believed, should have become a “precious memory” for him; He now has only one road - to death.

Persia's connection with death should have reminded any secular reader of the death of Griboedov in Tehran. One of the main episodes of “Travel to Arzrum”, on which Lermontov clearly relies, is Pushkin’s meeting with the dead “Mushroom Eater”, and thus we have before us another reference to Pushkin’s work (Boris Eikhenbaum believes that in this way Lermontov pays tribute to "half-disgraced" Pushkin). It is known that Lermontov was going to take on new novel“from Caucasian life”, “with Persian war"; in this novel he wanted to describe the death of Griboyedov. Ermolenko draws attention: Pushkin complained that Griboedov “did not leave his notes”; Pechorin, who was not at all similar to Griboedov, just left his notes, allowing others to read his “story of the soul.”

Finally, one more consideration. “America, Arabia, India,” and even Persia, where Pechorin is striving, are not just exotic spaces for Russian people, but not at all explored. This is a kind of “other world”, the other world. It turns out that Persia for Pechorin is the same sign of death as America is for the heroes of Dostoevsky, the successor of Lermontov’s psychological and existential tradition.

bibliography

• Arkhangelsky A. N. Heroes of the classics: after-school education for adults. M.: AST, 2018.
• Vinogradov V.V. Lermontov’s prose style // Literary heritage. T. 43/44: M. Yu. Lermontov. Book I. M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1941. P. 517–628.
• Ginzburg L. Ya. About psychological prose. About a literary hero. St. Petersburg: Azbuka, Azbuka-Atticus, 2016.
• Gurevich A. M. Dynamics of realism (in Russian literature of the 19th century): A manual for teachers. M.: Gardarika, 1995.

• Drozda M. Narrative structure of “A Hero of Our Time” // Wiener Slawistischer Almanach. Bd. XV. 1985. S. 5–34.
• Durylin S. N. “Hero of our time” by M. Yu. Lermontov. Comments. M.: Uchpedgiz, 1940.
• Ermolenko S.I. Why did Pechorin go to Persia? // Philological class. T. V. No. 17. 2007. pp. 41–48.
• Zhuravleva A.I. Lermontov in Russian literature. Problems of poetics. M.: Progress-Tradition, 2002.
• Kiyko E.I. “Hero of Our Time” by Lermontov and the psychological tradition in French literature// Lermontov collection. L.: Nauka, 1985. pp. 181–193.
• Kormilov S. I. M. Yu. Lermontov // Russian literature of the 19th–20th centuries: In 2 volumes. T. 1. M.: Moscow University Publishing House, 2001. pp. 137–173.
• Naidich E. E. “Hero of our time” in Russian criticism // Lermontov M. Yu. Hero of our time. M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1962. pp. 163–197.
• Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky D. N. M. Yu. Lermontov. On the centenary of the birth of the great poet. St. Petersburg: Book “Prometheus” by N. N. Mikhailova, .
• Perlmutter L. B. The language of M. Yu. Lermontov’s prose // Life and creativity of M. Yu. Lermontov: Research and materials: Collection. first. M.: OGIZ; GIHL, 1941, pp. 310–355.
• Potapova G. E. Study of Lermontov in Great Britain and the USA // Creativity of M. Yu. Lermontov in the context of modern culture. SPb.: RKhGA, 2014. pp. 232–248.
• Sartakov E. V. S. A. Burachok - critic of the novel by M. Yu. Lermontov “Hero of Our Time” // Bulletin of Moscow State University. Ser. 10. Journalism. 2015. No. 6. pp. 193–203.
• Skabichevsky A. M. M. Yu. Lermontov. His life and literary activity. M.: Direct-Media, 2015.
• Svyatopolk-Mirsky D. P. History of Russian literature. Novosibirsk: Svinin and Sons Publishing House, 2014.
• Tomashevsky B.V. Lermontov’s prose and Western European literary tradition // Literary heritage. T. 43/44: M. Yu. Lermontov. Book I. M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1941. P. 469–516. (Lit. inheritance; T. 43/44).
• Shchegolev P. E. Book about Lermontov: In 2 issues. Vol. 2. L.: Priboy, 1929.
• Etkind E. G. “Inner man” and external speech: Essays on the psychopoetics of Russian literature of the 18th–19th centuries. M.: Languages ​​of Russian Culture, 1998.
• Kahn A., Lipovetsky M., Reyfman I., Sandler S. A History of Russian Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.

Full list of references



Hero of our time

Hero of our time
Hero of our time
Title page of the first edition
Genre:
Original language:
Year of writing:
Publication:
Separate edition:
in Wikisource

"Hero of Our Time"(written in 1838-1840) - a novel by Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov. The novel was first published in St. Petersburg, in the printing house of Ilya Glazunov and Co., in 2 books. Circulation: 1000 copies.

Novel structure

The novel consists of several parts, the chronological order of which is disrupted. This arrangement serves special artistic purposes: in particular, Pechorin is first shown through the eyes of Maxim Maksimych, and only then we see him from the inside, according to entries from his diary

• Preface
• PART ONE
  • I. Bela
  • II. Maxim Maksimych
• Pechorin's Journal
  • Preface
  • I. Taman
• PART TWO ( End of Pechorin's journal)
  • II. Princess Mary
  • III. Fatalist

Chronological order of parts

1. Taman
2. Princess Mary
3. Fatalist
4. Maxim Maksimych
5. Preface to the magazine

Five years pass between the events of “Bela” and Pechorin’s meeting with Maxim Maksimych in front of the narrator’s eyes in “Maksim Maksimych”.

Also, in some scientific publications, “Bela” and “Fatalist” change places.

Plot

"Bela"

It is a nested story: the narration is led by Maxim Maksimych, who tells his story to an unnamed officer who met him in the Caucasus. Bored in the mountain wilderness, Pechorin begins his service by stealing someone else's horse and kidnapping the beloved daughter of the local prince, which causes a corresponding reaction from the mountaineers. But Pechorin doesn’t care about this. The careless act of the young officer is followed by a collapse of dramatic events: Azamat leaves the family forever, Bela and her father die at the hands of Kazbich.

"Maksim Maksimych"

This part is adjacent to “Bela” and has no independent novelistic significance, but is entirely important for the composition of the novel. Here the reader meets Pechorin face to face for the only time. The meeting of old friends did not take place: it was more of a fleeting conversation with the desire of one of the interlocutors to end it as soon as possible.

The narrative is built on the contrast of two opposing characters - Pechorin and Maxim Maksimych. The portrait is given through the eyes of the officer-narrator. This chapter makes an attempt to unravel the “inner” Pechorin through external “speaking” features.

"Taman"

The story does not tell about Pechorin’s reflection, but shows him from the active, active side. Here Pechorin unexpectedly becomes a witness, and later, to some extent, a participant in gangster activity. Pechorin at first thinks that the man who sailed from the other side is risking his life for something truly valuable, but in fact he is just a smuggler. Pechorin is very disappointed by this. But still, when he leaves, he does not regret having visited this place.

The main point in final words Pechorin: “And why did fate throw me into a peaceful circle honest smugglers? Like a stone thrown into a smooth spring, I disturbed their calm and, like a stone, I almost sank to the bottom!”

"Princess Mary"

The story is written in the form of a diary. In terms of life material, “Princess Mary” is closest to the so-called “secular story” of the 1830s, but Lermontov filled it with a different meaning.
The story begins with Pechorin's arrival in Pyatigorsk to the medicinal waters, where he meets Princess Ligovskaya and her daughter, called Mary in English. In addition, here he meets his former love Vera and his friend Grushnitsky. Junker Grushnitsky, a poser and secret careerist, acts as a contrasting character to Pechorin.

During his stay in Kislovodsk and Pyatigorsk, Pechorin falls in love with Princess Mary and quarrels with Grushnitsky. He kills Grushnitsky in a duel and refuses Princess Mary. On suspicion of a duel, he is again exiled, this time to the fortress. There he meets Maxim Maksimych.

"Fatalist"

It happens in Cossack village, where Pechorin arrives. He is visiting and the company is playing cards. Soon they get tired of this and start a conversation about predestination and fatalism, which some believe in, some don’t. A dispute ensues between Vulich and Pechorin: Pechorin says that he sees obvious death on Vulich’s face; as a result of the argument, Vulich takes a pistol and shoots himself, but it misfires. Everyone goes home. Soon Pechorin learns of Vulich’s death; he was stabbed to death by a drunken Cossack with a saber. Then Pechorin decides to try his luck and catch the Cossack. He breaks into his house, the Cossack shoots, but misses. Pechorin grabs the Cossack, comes to Maxim Maksimych and tells him everything.

Main characters

Pechorin

Pechorin is a Petersburger. A military man, both in his rank and in his soul. He comes to Pyatigorsk from the capital. His departure to the Caucasus is connected with “some kind of adventures.” He ends up in the fortress where the action of “Bela” takes place after a duel with Grushnitsky, at the age of 23. There he holds the rank of ensign. He was probably transferred from the Guards to the Army Infantry or Army Dragoons.

The meeting with Maxim Maksimych takes place five years after the story with Bela, when Pechorin is already 28.

He's dying.

The surname Pechorin, derived from the name of the Pechora River, has semantic similarities with the surname of Onegin. Pechorin is the natural successor of Onegin, but Lermontov goes further: like R. Pechora north of the river. Onega, and the character of Pechorin is more individualistic than the character of Onegin.

Image of Pechorin

The image of Pechorin is one of Lermontov's artistic discoveries. The Pechorinsky type is truly epoch-making, and primarily because in it the peculiarities of the post-Decembrist era received concentrated expression, when on the surface “only losses, a cruel reaction were visible,” but inside “great work was being accomplished ... deaf and silent, but active and continuous ...” (Herzen, VII, 209-11). Pechorin is an extraordinary and controversial personality. He can complain about the draft, and after a while jump with his saber drawn at the enemy. Image of Pechorin from the chapter “Maksim Maksimych”: “He was of average height; His slender, slender figure and broad shoulders proved a strong build, capable of enduring all the difficulties of nomadic life and climate change, not defeated either by the depravity of metropolitan life or by spiritual storms...”

Publication

The novel has appeared in print in parts since 1838. The first complete edition was published in

• “Bela” was written in the city. The first publication was in “Notes of the Fatherland”, March, vol. 2, no. 3.
• “The Fatalist” was first published in Otechestvennye zapiski in 1839, vol. 6, no. 11.
• “Taman” was first published in Otechestvennye zapiski in 1840, vol. 8, no. 2.
• “Maksim Maksimych” first appeared in print in the 1st separate edition of the novel in the city.
• “Princess Mary” first appeared in the 1st edition of the novel.
• The “Preface” was written in St. Petersburg in the spring and first appeared in the second edition of the novel.

Illustrations

The book was repeatedly illustrated by famous artists, including M. A. Vrubel, I. E. Repin, E. E. Lansere, V. A. Serov.

Origins and predecessors

• Lermontov deliberately overcame the adventurous romantic tradition of novels based on Caucasian theme, given by Bestuzhev-Marlinsky.
• Alfred de Musset's novel “Confession of a Son of the Century” was published in 1836 and also talks about “illness,” meaning “the vices of a generation.”
• The Rousseauist tradition and the development of the motive of the European’s love for the “savage”. For example, Byron, as well as Pushkin’s “Gypsies” and “Prisoner of the Caucasus”.
• Pushkin’s “Eugene Onegin”, “Prisoner of the Caucasus”, “The Captain’s Daughter” and so on.

Related works by Lermontov

• "Caucasian"- an essay written by Lermontov a year after the end of the novel. Genre: physiological essay. The officer described is extremely reminiscent of Maxim Maksimych; the reader is presented with a typical life story of such a “Caucasian”.

• The drama “Two Brothers”, in which Alexander Radin, Pechorin’s closest predecessor, appears.

Geography of the novel

The action of the novel takes place in the Caucasus. The main place is Pyatigorsk.

Caucasian peoples in the novel

Literary analysis

Film adaptations

• "Princess Mary", ; "Bela", ; "Maxim Maximovich", . Director - V. Barsky. Starring Nikolai Prozorovsky. Black and white, silent.
• "Princess Mary", . Director - I. Annensky.
• "Bela", ; "Hero of our time", . Director - S. Rostotsky. Starring Vladimir Ivashov (voice by Vyacheslav Tikhonov).
• “Pages of Pechorin’s Journal”, film-play. Director - Anatoly Efros. Starring Oleg Dal.
• "Hero of Our Time", series. Director - Alexander Kott. Starring Igor Petrenko.

Notes

Links

• Website dedicated to the novel “Hero of Our Time” by Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov
• International Literary Club: Mikhail Yurievich Lermontov “Hero of Our Time”
• “Hero of Our Time” in the “Lermontov Encyclopedia”

Mikhail Yurievich Lermontov
Prose	Ashik-Kerib · Vadim · Hero of our time · Caucasian (essay) · Princess Ligovskaya · Panorama of Moscow · Stoss · I want to tell you
Poems	Azrael · Angel of Death · Aul Bastunji · Fugitive · Boyar Orsha · Two slave girls · Demon · Giulio · Izmail Bay · Confession · Last Son liberties · Caucasian prisoner · Calla lilies · Corsair · Litvinka · Mongo · Sailor · Mtsyri · Oleg · A song about Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, a young oprichnik and the daring merchant Kalashnikov · Criminal · Sashka · Fairy tale for children · Tambov treasurer · Hadji Abrek · Circassians
Plays	Arbenin · Two brothers · Spaniards · Masquerade · Strange man · Gypsies (sketch) · Menschen und Leidenschaften (people and passions)
Poems	Angel · Ballad (In the hut late at night...) · Ballad (Over the sea, a beautiful maiden...) · Barteneva · Bashilov · Gratitude · Thank you · Shining clouds pass... · Fight · Borodino · Bukharina · To the album · Valerik · Venice · Spring · Palestine branch · Evening after the rain · Look at this face... · Vision · Airship · Will · I go out alone on the road... · To a stupid beauty · I look at the future with fear... · Countess Rostopchina · Hussar · Gifts of Terek · Two giants · Agreement · Dodo · Thought · There are speeches - meaning... · Desire · Cupid's Fallacy · Forget your hopes again... · Will · Star (Above one...) · Call hope a dream... · And boring and sad · From Goethe (Mountain peaks...) · From under the mysterious, cold · half masks... · Confession · Be with me as you were before... · My friend, your efforts are in vain!.. · I will not humiliate myself before you... · When you listen coldly... · To the portrait · Cossack lullaby song · Like the spirit of despair and evil... · Dagger · Cemetery · If only in the humility of ignorance... · When the yellowing field is agitated... · When word spreads to you about a story... · leaf · Dead Man's Love · Martynova · The blizzard is noisy and the snow is falling... · My demon · Prayer (Don't blame me...) · Monologue · On secular chains... · In the wild north it stands alone... · On silver spurs... · Hope · Naryshkina · The day will come - and the world will condemn... · Don't laugh... · People often scolded... · No, it’s not you that I love so passionately... · No, I'm not Byron, I'm different... · Beggar · Alone among the noise of people... · Loneliness · He was born for happiness... · She sings - and the sounds melt away... · They loved each other... · Fear · Excerpt · Why · Sail · There is a piece of paper in front of me... · Dedication to N.N. · Poet · Prediction · You are beautiful, fields... · Prophet · Goodbye, unwashed Russia... · Let me love someone... · Parting · Repentance · We parted, but your portrait... · To the child · Motherland · Mermaid · Russian melody · Saburova · It's finished! fully expect... · September 28 · Silhouette · Blind, inspired by suffering... · Can I hear your voice... · Feel free to believe in what is eternal... ·

The history of the creation of Lermontov’s “Hero of Our Time” can be described in three main stages. These stages are highlighted in the works of literary scholars; let us consider these stages sequentially.

First stage. The idea of ​​the novel. Determining its structure and ideological content

Literary scholars date the first stage to 1836, when young poet Lermontov, seeking to establish himself in prose, decided to create a monumental work that would show the life of his contemporary from all sides - young man from the noble class. At the same time, the main character (according to the creator of the novel) had to carry in his soul all the contradictions of a man of his time.
In 1836 A.S. was still alive. Pushkin, whose work (and primarily the novel in verse, which tells the story of the fate of Eugene Onegin) inspired the young Lermontov.

The story of the novel “A Hero of Our Time,” also, according to the author’s plan, was based on the story of a young nobleman, whose surname should be consonant with the surname of Onegin. As a result, Lermontov called the main character of the novel “Pechorin”, and, as you know, in our country there are two rivers similar to each other - Onega and Pechora.

In 1837, an epochal event took place in Lermontov’s life: his idol, the Russian genius A.S., died in a duel. Pushkin. Young Lermontov wrote a poem full of bitterness and pain, “The Death of a Poet,” which immediately sold thousands of copies. This poem became the reason for Lermontov’s exile to the Caucasus.

Having left St. Petersburg, Lermontov (in fact, like Pushkin decades earlier) continued to work on the concept of his future work, which he had dreamed of writing all his life.

Second stage of work. Determining the circle of characters, creating a plot

Traveling around the Caucasus, visiting Taman, visiting the villages of the highlanders, Lermontov finally decided on the plot of his work. His hero was supposed to appear before readers in the image of not a bored nobleman, without special activities (like Onegin in his time), but in the image of a young officer who, by the nature of his activity, serves the Motherland, but in fact suffers from his internal vices and disappointments.

Lermontov also decided on the circle characters: he conceived the image of a proud Russian princess who fell in love with Pechorin (the image is somewhat consonant with Pushkin’s Tatyana Larina), a beautiful Circassian woman who will love the main character with all her heart (also an image that goes back to the heroine of Pushkin’s poem “Prisoner of the Caucasus”). The author decided that the characters in his novel would be the highlanders, with their wild but fair customs, smugglers leading a risky but exciting lifestyle, the secular society of that time (officers, nobles, etc.).

The writer sought to create a work that would help readers see people close and familiar to them in the characters in the novel. Two centuries later, we can state that Lermontov succeeded.

The third stage of creating a novel. Writing text. Publication of the work

The history of the creation of the novel “A Hero of Our Time” includes the third most important stage in writing the text of the work.

According to literary scholars, the writer worked on creating the text during 1838-1841. There is still debate in science as to what was the sequence of writing parts of the work. It is believed that the author first wrote “Taman”, then “Fatalist”, followed by parts of “Maksim Maksimych” and “Bela”.

In this case, the publication sequence different parts the future of a single novel did not coincide with their creation. The first part, entitled “Bela,” was published in 1839. Then it had the following title: “From the Notes of an Officer in the Caucasus.” The famous critic V.S. immediately drew his attention to this short story. Belinsky, stating that the author created a new genre of prose about the Caucasus, which is opposed to the styles and genre originality of the notes of Marlinsky (exiled to the Caucasus in the active army of the Decembrist A.A. Bestuzhev).

The next story to be published was “The Fatalist” (1839). Contemporaries really liked this work. Later, Lermontov’s biographers expressed two main versions of the origin of the plot: according to the first of them, the episode with the officer who shot himself on a bet, missed, but died that same evening from the saber of a drunken Cossack, occurred in front of Lermontov himself and his friend Stolypin in one of Cossack villages; according to the second version, the writer’s uncle witnessed what happened, who later told his nephew this terrible and mysterious story.

Taman was published next. This happened already in 1840. The writer's biographers believe that Lermontov described in this part an event that happened to him. In 1838, he himself was on business in Taman, and there the young officer was mistaken for a policeman who was tracking down smugglers.

Pleased with the success of his stories, Lermontov decided to publish them in one novel in 1840. By adding the last part, “Maxim Maksimovich,” he made the plot more holistic and understandable to readers. At the same time, the image of the main character of the work is not immediately revealed to readers: first we meet Pechorin in the first part (“Bela”). Here he is described by the kindest servant Maxim Maksimovich. Readers have different assessments of the personality of Pechorin, who stole a young Circassian woman, but failed to bring her happiness and save her life. In the second part of “Maxim Maksimovich” we see a description of the portrait of the main character and his personal diary is revealed to us. Here readers already fully understand who the hero of the novel is. This part includes two the most important episode his literary biography: a story about Pechorin’s adventure on Taman and his love conflict with Princess Mary Ligovskaya. The novel ends with “The Fatalist,” which sums up the story about the sad fate of Pechorin.

The history of writing “A Hero of Our Time” includes numerous disputes among contemporaries about who is the prototype of the main character of this work. Literary scholars name many different names, starting from the personality of the famous handsome, dandy and duelist A.P. Shuvalov and ending with the image of Lermontov himself.

One way or another, this novel today is a classic of Russian literature, a work of genius that shows us a whole layer of Russian life, way of life and culture of the beginning of the century before last.

Work test

This work is a socio-psychological portrait an entire era, represented by the main character, a tragic and extraordinary personality. The events taking place in the novel touch on the 30s of the 19th century. The history of the creation of the novel “A Hero of Our Time” by M.Yu. Lermontov is divided into several main periods, which are clearly visible in the essays of famous literary scholars.

Stage I. Starting work on a novel

In 1836, Lermontov, inspired by Pushkin’s novel “Eugene Onegin,” decided to write a future work that would show in full glory the life of his contemporary in the light of events in the capital. The main character, according to the plan, should reflect in his soul the spirit of contradiction of that time. He even tried to choose a last name that was consonant with Onegin, taking as a basis the names of two rivers, Onega and Pechora. This is how Pechorin turned out.

The year 1837 became an epochal year in the life of Mikhail Yuryevich. His friend A.S. Pushkin dies in a duel. Shocked by his death, Lermontov wrote the poem “The Death of a Poet,” for which he was subsequently exiled to the Caucasus. He will take up the manuscript a little later.

Stage II. The basis of the plot. Determining the circle of other heroes of the novel

Traveling around the Caucasus, Lermontov finds himself in a whirlpool of events of an adventurous nature. New people, emotions, impressions inspired him to take up writing a novel again. So, in addition to Pechorin, Princess Mary, Bela, smugglers, highlanders with their wild customs and traditions, and the secular society of that time appeared.

Lermontov strove for the characters in the novel to be as similar as possible to ordinary people with their characteristic vices, desires, feelings. So that every reader can see themselves in them. Try on the image you like and imagine yourself in its place. He succeeded.

Stage III. Final

There is still debate about the sequence of writing parts of the novel. It is known that the writer worked on it from 1838-1841. Presumably the first part was “Taman”. Afterwards “Fatalist”, “Bela”, “Maksim Maksimych” appeared. At first, a series of notes was planned, like travel notes. Then the author's intentions changed. He decided to merge the separate stories into one.

The first to be published was “Bela” (1839). The Fatalist was published in the same year. "Taman" was published in 1840. In this part of the novel, Lermontov described the events that happened to him personally. The last part of the novel was “Maxim Maksimych”. Its finishing touch. Now the novel has become a complete work, understandable and accessible to the reader.

Throughout the novel, the image of Pechorin is revealed gradually, revealing his true essence.



Hero of our time

Hero of our time
Hero of our time
Title page of the first edition
Genre:
Original language:
Year of writing:
Publication:
Separate edition:
in Wikisource

"Hero of Our Time"(written in 1838-1840) - a novel by Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov. The novel was first published in St. Petersburg, in the printing house of Ilya Glazunov and Co., in 2 books. Circulation: 1000 copies.

Novel structure

The novel consists of several parts, the chronological order of which is disrupted. This arrangement serves special artistic purposes: in particular, Pechorin is first shown through the eyes of Maxim Maksimych, and only then we see him from the inside, according to entries from his diary

• Preface
• PART ONE
  • I. Bela
  • II. Maxim Maksimych
• Pechorin's Journal
  • Preface
  • I. Taman
• PART TWO ( End of Pechorin's journal)
  • II. Princess Mary
  • III. Fatalist

Chronological order of parts

1. Taman
2. Princess Mary
3. Fatalist
4. Maxim Maksimych
5. Preface to the magazine

Five years pass between the events of “Bela” and Pechorin’s meeting with Maxim Maksimych in front of the narrator’s eyes in “Maksim Maksimych”.

Also, in some scientific publications, “Bela” and “Fatalist” change places.

Plot

"Bela"

It is a nested story: the narration is led by Maxim Maksimych, who tells his story to an unnamed officer who met him in the Caucasus. Bored in the mountain wilderness, Pechorin begins his service by stealing someone else's horse and kidnapping the beloved daughter of the local prince, which causes a corresponding reaction from the mountaineers. But Pechorin doesn’t care about this. The careless act of the young officer is followed by a collapse of dramatic events: Azamat leaves the family forever, Bela and her father die at the hands of Kazbich.

"Maksim Maksimych"

This part is adjacent to “Bela” and has no independent novelistic significance, but is entirely important for the composition of the novel. Here the reader meets Pechorin face to face for the only time. The meeting of old friends did not take place: it was more of a fleeting conversation with the desire of one of the interlocutors to end it as soon as possible.

The narrative is built on the contrast of two opposing characters - Pechorin and Maxim Maksimych. The portrait is given through the eyes of the officer-narrator. This chapter makes an attempt to unravel the “inner” Pechorin through external “speaking” features.

"Taman"

The story does not tell about Pechorin’s reflection, but shows him from the active, active side. Here Pechorin unexpectedly becomes a witness, and later, to some extent, a participant in gangster activity. Pechorin at first thinks that the man who sailed from the other side is risking his life for something truly valuable, but in fact he is just a smuggler. Pechorin is very disappointed by this. But still, when he leaves, he does not regret having visited this place.

The main meaning in Pechorin’s final words: “And why did fate throw me into a peaceful circle? honest smugglers? Like a stone thrown into a smooth spring, I disturbed their calm and, like a stone, I almost sank to the bottom!”

"Princess Mary"

The story is written in the form of a diary. In terms of life material, “Princess Mary” is closest to the so-called “secular story” of the 1830s, but Lermontov filled it with a different meaning.
The story begins with Pechorin's arrival in Pyatigorsk to the medicinal waters, where he meets Princess Ligovskaya and her daughter, called Mary in English. In addition, here he meets his former love Vera and his friend Grushnitsky. Junker Grushnitsky, a poser and secret careerist, acts as a contrasting character to Pechorin.

During his stay in Kislovodsk and Pyatigorsk, Pechorin falls in love with Princess Mary and quarrels with Grushnitsky. He kills Grushnitsky in a duel and refuses Princess Mary. On suspicion of a duel, he is again exiled, this time to the fortress. There he meets Maxim Maksimych.

"Fatalist"

It happens in a Cossack village, where Pechorin arrives. He is visiting and the company is playing cards. Soon they get tired of this and start a conversation about predestination and fatalism, which some believe in, some don’t. A dispute ensues between Vulich and Pechorin: Pechorin says that he sees obvious death on Vulich’s face; as a result of the argument, Vulich takes a pistol and shoots himself, but it misfires. Everyone goes home. Soon Pechorin learns of Vulich’s death; he was stabbed to death by a drunken Cossack with a saber. Then Pechorin decides to try his luck and catch the Cossack. He breaks into his house, the Cossack shoots, but misses. Pechorin grabs the Cossack, comes to Maxim Maksimych and tells him everything.

Main characters

Pechorin

Pechorin is a Petersburger. A military man, both in his rank and in his soul. He comes to Pyatigorsk from the capital. His departure to the Caucasus is connected with “some kind of adventures.” He ends up in the fortress where the action of “Bela” takes place after a duel with Grushnitsky, at the age of 23. There he holds the rank of ensign. He was probably transferred from the Guards to the Army Infantry or Army Dragoons.

The meeting with Maxim Maksimych takes place five years after the story with Bela, when Pechorin is already 28.

He's dying.

The surname Pechorin, derived from the name of the Pechora River, has semantic similarities with the surname of Onegin. Pechorin is the natural successor of Onegin, but Lermontov goes further: like R. Pechora north of the river. Onega, and the character of Pechorin is more individualistic than the character of Onegin.

Image of Pechorin

The image of Pechorin is one of Lermontov's artistic discoveries. The Pechorinsky type is truly epoch-making, and primarily because in it the peculiarities of the post-Decembrist era received concentrated expression, when on the surface “only losses, a cruel reaction were visible,” but inside “great work was being accomplished ... deaf and silent, but active and continuous ...” (Herzen, VII, 209-11). Pechorin is an extraordinary and controversial personality. He can complain about the draft, and after a while jump with his saber drawn at the enemy. Image of Pechorin from the chapter “Maksim Maksimych”: “He was of average height; His slender, slender figure and broad shoulders proved a strong build, capable of enduring all the difficulties of nomadic life and climate change, not defeated either by the depravity of metropolitan life or by spiritual storms...”

Publication

The novel has appeared in print in parts since 1838. The first complete edition was published in

• “Bela” was written in the city. The first publication was in “Notes of the Fatherland”, March, vol. 2, no. 3.
• “The Fatalist” was first published in Otechestvennye zapiski in 1839, vol. 6, no. 11.
• “Taman” was first published in Otechestvennye zapiski in 1840, vol. 8, no. 2.
• “Maksim Maksimych” first appeared in print in the 1st separate edition of the novel in the city.
• “Princess Mary” first appeared in the 1st edition of the novel.
• The “Preface” was written in St. Petersburg in the spring and first appeared in the second edition of the novel.

Illustrations

The book was repeatedly illustrated by famous artists, including M. A. Vrubel, I. E. Repin, E. E. Lansere, V. A. Serov.

Origins and predecessors

• Lermontov deliberately overcame the adventurous romantic tradition of novels on a Caucasian theme, set by Bestuzhev-Marlinsky.
• Alfred de Musset's novel “Confession of a Son of the Century” was published in 1836 and also talks about “illness,” meaning “the vices of a generation.”
• The Rousseauist tradition and the development of the motive of the European’s love for the “savage”. For example, Byron, as well as Pushkin’s “Gypsies” and “Prisoner of the Caucasus”.
• Pushkin’s “Eugene Onegin”, “Prisoner of the Caucasus”, “The Captain’s Daughter” and so on.

Related works by Lermontov

• "Caucasian"- an essay written by Lermontov a year after the end of the novel. Genre: physiological essay. The officer described is extremely reminiscent of Maxim Maksimych; the reader is presented with a typical life story of such a “Caucasian”.

• The drama “Two Brothers”, in which Alexander Radin, Pechorin’s closest predecessor, appears.

Geography of the novel

The action of the novel takes place in the Caucasus. The main place is Pyatigorsk.

Caucasian peoples in the novel

Literary analysis

Film adaptations

• "Princess Mary", ; "Bela", ; "Maxim Maximovich", . Director - V. Barsky. Starring Nikolai Prozorovsky. Black and white, silent.
• "Princess Mary", . Director - I. Annensky.
• "Bela", ; "Hero of our time", . Director - S. Rostotsky. Starring Vladimir Ivashov (voice by Vyacheslav Tikhonov).
• “Pages of Pechorin’s Journal”, film-play. Director - Anatoly Efros. Starring Oleg Dal.
• "Hero of Our Time", series. Director - Alexander Kott. Starring Igor Petrenko.

Notes

Links

• Website dedicated to the novel “Hero of Our Time” by Mikhail Yuryevich Lermontov
• International Literary Club: Mikhail Yurievich Lermontov “Hero of Our Time”
• “Hero of Our Time” in the “Lermontov Encyclopedia”

Mikhail Yurievich Lermontov
Prose	Ashik-Kerib · Vadim · Hero of our time · Caucasian (essay) · Princess Ligovskaya · Panorama of Moscow · Stoss · I want to tell you
Poems	Azrael · Angel of Death · Aul Bastunji · Fugitive · Boyar Orsha · Two slave girls · Demon · Giulio · Izmail Bay · Confession · The Last Son of Liberty · Caucasian prisoner · Calla lilies · Corsair · Litvinka · Mongo · Sailor · Mtsyri · Oleg · A song about Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich, a young oprichnik and the daring merchant Kalashnikov · Criminal · Sashka · Fairy tale for children · Tambov treasurer · Hadji Abrek · Circassians
Plays	Arbenin · Two brothers · Spaniards · Masquerade · Strange man · Gypsies (sketch) · Menschen und Leidenschaften (people and passions)
Poems	Angel · Ballad (In the hut late at night...) · Ballad (Over the sea, a beautiful maiden...) · Barteneva · Bashilov · Gratitude · Thank you · Shining clouds pass... · Fight · Borodino · Bukharina · To the album · Valerik · Venice · Spring · Palestine branch · Evening after the rain · Look at this face... · Vision · Airship · Will · I go out alone on the road... · To a stupid beauty · I look at the future with fear... · Countess Rostopchina · Hussar · Gifts of Terek · Two giants · Agreement · Dodo · Thought · There are speeches - meaning... · Desire · Cupid's Fallacy · Forget your hopes again... · Will · Star (Above one...) · Call hope a dream... · And boring and sad · From Goethe (Mountain peaks...) · From under the mysterious, cold · half masks... · Confession · Be with me as you were before... · My friend, your efforts are in vain!.. · I will not humiliate myself before you... · When you listen coldly... · To the portrait · Cossack lullaby song · Like the spirit of despair and evil... · Dagger · Cemetery · If only in the humility of ignorance... · When the yellowing field is agitated... · When word spreads to you about a story... · leaf · Dead Man's Love · Martynova · The blizzard is noisy and the snow is falling... · My demon · Prayer (Don't blame me...) · Monologue · On secular chains... · In the wild north it stands alone... · On silver spurs... · Hope · Naryshkina · The day will come - and the world will condemn... · Don't laugh... · People often scolded... · No, it’s not you that I love so passionately... · No, I'm not Byron, I'm different... · Beggar · Alone among the noise of people... · Loneliness · He was born for happiness... · She sings - and the sounds melt away... · They loved each other... · Fear · Excerpt · Why · Sail · There is a piece of paper in front of me... · Dedication to N.N. · Poet · Prediction · You are beautiful, fields... · Prophet · Goodbye, unwashed Russia... · Let me love someone... · Parting · Repentance · We parted, but your portrait... · To the child · Motherland · Mermaid · Russian melody · Saburova · It's finished! fully expect... · September 28 · Silhouette · Blind, inspired by suffering... · Can I hear your voice... · Feel free to believe in what is eternal... ·