Logo Main menu Lesson 1 - History of creation. Features of the compositionLesson 1 - History of creation. Features of the composition Lesson 2 – “Strange Man” (story “Bela”) Lesson 2 – “Strange Man” (story “Bela”) Lesson 3 – “What did we have to talk about?” (“Maksim Maksimych”) Lesson 3 – “What did we have to talk about?” (“Maksim Maksimych”) Lesson 4 – “Human joys and misfortunes” (“Taman”) Lesson 4 – “Human joys and misfortunes” (“Taman”) Lesson 5 – “Why do they all hate me so much?” (“Princess Mary”) Lesson 5 – “Why do they all hate me so much?” (“Princess Mary”) Lesson 6 – “For what purpose was I born?” (“Fatalist”) Lesson 6 – “For what purpose was I born?” (“Fatalist”) Lesson 7 – “I would like to love the whole world”
Logo Lermontov continued the path to the novel from where Pushkin left off: “With the verb, burn the hearts of people.” Lermontov “burned” himself by painting a portrait of his contemporary. But he was a very strange writer: he did not publish magazines, did not belong to literary communities, and did not analyze the works of art of his “brothers in the pen.” He was on his own. Maybe that’s why I looked “inward”, thinking about the eternal. The poet's soul is sensual, vulnerable, but there was no love for her. Such is the hero of his novel, Pechorin.
Logo History of the concept of the city - Dramas “People and Passions”, “Strange Man” (Yuri Volin, Vladimir Arbenin) 1835. –drama “Masquerade” (Evgeny Arbenin) 1836 –drama “Two Brothers” (Alexander and Yuri Radin)
Logo Chronology of the creation of the novel: 1837 - sketches for the story “Taman” (the plot of the story is based on actual events in which Lermontov himself was a participant during his stay in Taman in 1837). – publication in “Otechestvennye zapiski” of the stories “Bela”, “Fatalist”, “Taman” 1840. – “Hero of Our Time” (original title: “One of the Heroes of Our Century”) 1841 - reissue, preface introduced
Logo History of creation “It is with particular pleasure that we take this opportunity to inform you that M.Yu. Lermontov will soon publish a collection of his stories... This will be a new, wonderful gift to Russian literature" - "Notes of the Fatherland" (1840) ".. the image of Pechorin is a slander on Russian reality and Russian people... the whole novel is an epigram, it contains religiosity there are no traces of the Russian nationality... The author painted his portrait...” - S.O. Burachok “Mayak” (1840) “...it is clear that 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!” -M. Y. Lermontov “Preface to the novel” (1841)
Logo Features of the novel as a genre A novel is a voluminous epic work in which the narrative is focused on the fate of an individual in space and time. In a novel, unlike a story, the main organizing role is played not by the narrator, but by the plot and the development of events. Genre varieties of the novel: Social Political Philosophical Psychological Love Family Adventure Fantasy
Logo A psychological novel is an epic work in which attention is focused on the inner world of the hero, the movements of his soul, and understanding the reasons for his actions. Pushkin “Eugene Onegin” - “encyclopedia of Russian life” Lermontov “Hero of our time” - “the history of the human soul”
Logo Compare! What interests the authors: “a collection of colorful chapters”, a “collection” of stories, the spiritual evolution of the hero, life experience, immersion in the soul of the hero, there is no evolution
Logo The meaning of the title of the novel “A Hero of Our Time” 1). What does “hero” mean? Select the appropriate option: -a person exceptional in valor; - the main character of the work; - a person who is an exponent of some environment, era 2). Why “our” time, and not “mine”, not “yours”?
Logo Features of the novel's composition Chronology of the plot 1. "Taman" 2. "Fatalist" 3. "Princess Mary" 4. "Bela" 5. "Maksim Maksimych" 6. Message about the death of Pechorin Composition 1. "Bela" 2. "Maksim Maksimych" » 3. Message about the death of Pechorin 4. “Taman” 5. “Princess Mary” 6. “Fatalist” Life story History of the soul
Logo “Bela” -We look at the hero through the prism of two storytellers “Maksim Maksimych” We look at the hero through the eyes of the narrator “Pechorin’s Magazine” -The hero speaks about himself
Logo Analysis of the preface 1st paragraph – an appeal to the public, “who are so young and simple-minded that they do not understand a fable if there is no moral teaching at the end” 2nd paragraph – a response to indignant criticism 3rd paragraph – Lermontov’s goal: “to create a portrait created from the vices of an entire generation “Paragraph 4 – an explanation of how he intends to create a portrait: “bitter medicines and caustic truths are needed, enough people have been fed sweets”
Logo “Strange Man” (analysis of the story “Bela”) Lermontov’s novel is divided into episodes that are not given in chronology. This creates a feeling of disorder in life. "Bela" - an oriental story "Maksim Maksimych" - a travel story "Taman" - a robber story "Princess Mary" - a secular story "Fatalist" - a philosophical story But these episodes do not exist on their own. They are a novel, a novel about a hero of Lermontov’s time.
Logo About the role of the heroes of the story In the story, the narrator plays an organizing role. Before us is an “eastern story”, presented in the form of travel notes. Travel notes involve a description of the events that happened to the author during the “path”, some kind of journey. Before us is a traveling officer. which tells the readers the story about Pechorin, heard from Maxim Maksimych. Lermontov Narrator Maxim Maksimych Pechorin
Logo Romanticism in the story The action takes place in the Caucasus. Lermontov creates romantic landscape(impregnable rocks, yellow cliffs, golden fringe of snow). But underneath the external “romance” there is realistic content. The description of the highlanders is also romantic (strong characters, proud natures). Lermontov uses a plot that was very popular at that time: an affair with a Circassian woman, aggravating the tragic circumstances: Bela’s entire family dies.
Logo Think! Find elements of romanticism and realism in the landscape. Explain them. Find contradictions in the portrait of Pechorin. How do you explain the diminutive - affectionate suffixes in the words of Maxim Maksimych? Do you like Pechorin?
Logo Bela and Pechorin Does Pechorin love Bela? How does he win her love? Why did Bela give up? Did Pechorin win? For Pechorin, love for Bela is not a whim, but an attempt to return to the world of sincere feelings. He tries different methods to win her heart: from gifts to pity. Pechorin brought tragedy to Bela, but also elevated it. She was able to enter the world of people of another culture and experienced love.
Logo “He was a strange fellow”... (contradictions in Pechorin’s character: “yes” and “but”) Pechorin was sent to the fortress “for government reasons,” that is, by someone else’s will Pechorin, a nobleman, an aristocrat, a rich man Pechorin destroyed Bela and all of her family, did it with the wrong hands. Bela became a victim of Pechorin’s egoism, since he life principle: “I want” It’s cruel that Pechorin tore Bela out of her circle and destroyed the harmony of her life. Pechorin performs all actions of his own free will, out of personal need. Pechorin does not value his position, the sword as a symbol of honor means nothing to him. Pechorin deeply worries about what he has done, he is unhappy, since he is the cause of the tragedy. Making other people victims, Pechorin does not spare himself Pechorin also gives Bela a choice, wanting her to “freely act”
Logo “Who will solve you?” The essence of Pechorin’s character is a contradiction. The reason for his reflection is a dispute with fate. In “Fatalist” Pechorin says directly: “I decided to tempt fate.” The challenge of fate is also in “Bel”
Logo “Not fate?” 1. The compositional frame of the story is Bela’s song at the wedding: “.. the Russian officer is good,.. just don’t grow, don’t bloom in our garden.” 2. From this moment, an argument with fate begins: “No, grow, no, bloom!” » 3. Final. Bela is killed. Pechorin laughs: he again (once again) lost to fate! “Don’t bloom” – that’s right!
Logo Think! What role does Maxim Maksimych play in this story? Who is he - a sympathetic witness or a direct participant in the events? Explain his “reservations”: “I had my own things on my mind”; “The devil pulled me to retell...everything I heard..”; “Would you like a bet? “If you please!”
Logo What qualities correspond to whom? Add your characteristics! Narrator Maxim Maksimych Pechorin Kind, brave, controversial, not like everyone else. simple, sensitive, spontaneous, intelligent, literary educated, intelligent, limited, servant, smart, interested in everything, incomprehensible, mysterious, bored, suffering
Logo Who is which? Pechorin: brave, honest, contradictory, active, bored, charming, mysterious, suffering Maxim Maksimych: kind, simple, sensitive, limited, servant, spontaneous Narrator: caring, interested in everything, literary educated, intelligent, smart,
Logo Think! Why are the last phrases of the story addressed not to Bela, not to Pechorin, but to Maxim Maksimych? Is the emotional tone of the story the same? Prove that the emotional mood is spasmodic. Why?
Logo “And what did we have to talk about?” /"Maksim Maksimych"/ Why is the story called "Maksim Maksimych" and not "Pechorin"? Explain the emotional tone of the beginning of the story. Why and who could be offended? What about irony?
Logo We met.. How did Maxim Maksimych and the “wandering officer” meet? Has the narrator's attitude towards Maxim Maksimych changed? Why? How did Maxim Maksimych react to the news of Pechorin’s arrival?
Logo First psychological picture in Russian literature: Portrait - an image of the hero’s appearance, his face, figure, clothes, demeanor. A psychological portrait is a portrait in which the author, through the appearance of the hero, seeks to reveal him inner world, his character.
Logo Portrait of Pechorin /add with your own examples/: Slender figure, Strong build In the back, as if there was not a bone Aristocratic hand Careless gait Didn’t swing his arms when walking Nervous weakness of the body At first glance - he is no more than twenty-three Then I’m ready to give him thirty years In smile - something childish Skin tender Eyes did not laugh when he laughed
Logo Think! Is Pechorin cruel during his meeting with Maxim Maksimych? Comment on the author’s remarks in Pechorin’s dialogue with Maxim Maksimych: Oh, exactly! - he answered quickly, they told me yesterday.. Quite coldly, although with a friendly smile he extended his hand.. I missed you! - Pechorin said, smiling. Pechorin turned a little pale and turned away. Yes, I remember! - he said, almost immediately yawning forcefully. “Thank you for not forgetting,” he added, taking his hand. Well, that's enough! - said Pechorin, hugging him in a friendly manner. Whatever you want! - answered Pechorin. -Farewell…
Logo Think! Why is Maxim Maksimych upset? Why did Maxim Maksimych and the narrator say goodbye dryly? What new did we see in Pechorin? How does the author feel about Pechorin? Who is author? Pechorin is looking for death. Doesn't value his life. He's on the edge. With Maxim Maksimych they are different, they go along different roads. Maxim Maksimych does not understand this, he sees actions and does not understand their motives, but to understand means to forgive.
Logo “And what do I care about human joys and misfortunes...” What are the features of the genre of travel notes? How is a diary different from them? What is "Pechorin's Journal"? Who writes the preface to the Journal? For what? Diary - literary work in the form of daily entries (most often with a date), contemporary with the events described. Initially, it assumes complete frankness, sincerity of the thoughts and feelings of the writer.
Logo “Take Lermontov’s story “Taman” - you won’t find a word in it that could be thrown out or inserted; the whole thing sounds from beginning to end in one harmonic chord; what a wonderful language...!” D.V. Grigorovich
Logo Pechorin through the eyes of Pechorin “Taman is the worst little town of all the coastal cities of Russia. I almost died of hunger there, and on top of that they wanted to drown me.” Describe the Hero based on the first phrase of his diary. Pechorin is fast, energetic, decisive, and categorical in his judgments. But the first phrase is an exposition that contains information that will not “germinate.” This inconsistency is also a form of Pechorin’s character.
Logo Think! What state is Pechorin in after arriving in Taman? Late at night Started demanding I didn’t sleep for three nights Got exhausted Started getting angry
Logo Think! What will an ordinary person do in moments of extreme physical fatigue? What does Pechorin do when he finds himself in a “bad” place? Why? Pechorin lays out his things...(?) Inspects the pier..(?) Stands on the shore for a long time..(?) Talks about people..(?) Talks to a boy..(?) Takes a weapon..(?)
Logo “I firmly decided to get the key to this riddle”... How do they treat an “unclean” place in the city? Why doesn’t it repel Pechorin, doesn’t frighten him, but attracts him? Who in the story “challenges” Pechorin? What's the secret here? Why does Pechorin talk about what he saw at night to the blind man and the “undine”, but says nothing to his orderly?
Logo Pechorin – a romantic? My singer Fiery kiss The power of youthful passion The involuntary beating of the heart I was finishing my second glass of tea This comedy was beginning to bore me In the entryway she knocked over the kettle I grabbed her by the braid with one hand, the throat with the other
Logo Lermontov's "overturned" romanticism Lermontov uses sublime words, a romantic style, his heroes are mysterious. But he needs all this in order to show the truth of life.
Logo Think! What explains the bitter intonation of the story's ending? Why did Pechorin so fiercely want to enter the circle of smugglers? If again “not fate,” then what is “fate”? What is destined for Pechorin?
Logo “Why do they all hate me so much?” (“Princess Mary”) What idea do you get about Pechorin from the first phrases of the story? Prove that as soon as he goes to people, he changes. When is Pechorin real, and when does he put on a “mask”? Why does he need this “mask”?
Logo “Water Society” They drink, but not water... They are treated, but not for illnesses... They joke, but not out of joy... They love, but.. (continue the thought..) Why is a duel with the “water society” inevitable?
Logo Pechorin and Grushnitsky Prove that Pechorin is angry because Grushnitsky “dresses up” like Pechorin. Why does Pechorin “tease” Grushnitsky? Which side do you sympathize with?
Logo Pechorin and Princess Mary (history of relationship) -Mary rejects him (not fate?); -Pechorin is trying to anger her; -Grushnitsky's bet with Pechorin; -Ball in a restaurant; "It is done!" At first, Pechorin sees Mary as a spoiled young lady and plays with her. But as her soul awakens, the relationship becomes different. Pechorin judges himself cruelly.
Logo Pechorin and Vera How do we see Pechorin in his relationship with Vera? How is Vera different from Mary? Why did Pechorin’s heart “beat stronger than usual” when remembering Vera? Where is Pechorin rushing on the road to Pyatigorsk? Is it for Vera? Explain his tears.
Logo Pechorin and Werner Why is Pechorin doomed to loneliness in the circle of people who understand and love him? Why did Pechorin and Werner become friends? What do they have in common? What is the difference?
Logo Duel A duel is not a Russian tradition, but a borrowed one. This tradition was brought with them by military foreigners, who were invited by Peter the Great, creating new regiments. Later, Russian nobles also joined duels, adopting the aristocratic manners of Europeans. Both Peter the Great and Catherine II prohibited duels, issuing decrees punishing participation in duels - up to death penalty. The very concepts of “duel of honor” and “duel” are associated with the noble class, which claimed the high privilege of “honor”, which had to be defended with arms in hand. A matter of honor ended either in reconciliation before the duel, or in the duel itself. The duel was conducted under strict conditions (in Russia these conditions were much stricter), which were discussed in advance. Required condition– presence of seconds, doctor.
Logo “I can’t sleep…” June 16. What did Pechorin do the night before the duel? What is the role of the morning landscape? What conditions of the duel were violated by Lermontov? Why?
Logo “On the edge of the abyss...” Grushnitsky’s goals: Pechorin’s goals: -make a farce out of the duel; - to restore his human value - to prove that he is not a pathetic boy, but a man - to defend the honor of Princess Mary; -influence Grushnitsky’s conscience; - comprehend what is happening (fate - not fate?) Logo “Fatalist” Fatum - fate Fatal - predetermined by fate, fate Fatalism - a mystical belief in the inevitability of fate, in the fact that everything in this world is supposedly predetermined by fate, fate Fatalist - a person imbued with fatalism, believing in predestination from above
Logo “What rules us?” What is unusual about Vulich? Why does Pechorin call him “an extraordinary being”? What is strange for Pechorin in Vulich’s behavior? Did the incident with Vulich convince Pechorin that man is subject to predestination?
Logo “I decided to tempt fate...” Prove that Pechorin’s fatalism is not blind, but effective. The fatalism of Pechorin (and Lermontov) does not fit into the formula: “You cannot escape your destiny.” This fatalism has a different formula: “I will not submit!”
Logo Pechorin's crisis of faith No to altruism (altruism is a selfless action in the name of good for another person) There is doubt and no tradition No morality (morality is the rules that humanity has developed) There is the right of everyone to act according to their own will Egocentrism At the center of the universe is the human “I”
Logo “I would like to love the whole world...” Explain the facets of Pechorin’s spiritual tragedy, commenting on the highlighted words of the text: “In my first youth I was a dreamer.. But what is left of this for me?.. just fatigue, like after a night battle with a ghost, and a vague memory filled with regrets. In this futile struggle, I exhausted both the heat of my soul and the constancy of my will... I entered this life, having already experienced it mentally, and I felt bored and disgusted...”
Logo The meaning of the ring composition of the novel What is the meaning of the compositional framing of the novel? What sense does the construction make when we learn about the hero’s death in the first half of the novel? Select a diagram illustrating Pechorin's path
Logo Courage, thirst for the unknown, will distinguish Pechorin from the people of his generation and allow the author to sympathetically follow his fate and call him a Hero of the Time...
Logo Literature: N. Dolinina “Pechorin and Our Time” - M, “Children’s Literature”, 1985 I.V. Zolotareva, N.V. Egorova “Lesson-based developments in literature, grade 9” -M, “Vako”, 2008 V.G. Marantzman " Fiction"-M, "Enlightenment", 1991
Logo Resources INTERNET Slide 3, 9, 52 g g Slide4, 14,27 Slide10, Slide"15 Slide17 Slide 12,18 - Slide18 - Slide Slide 12,26 - Slide27http:// Slide31 g g Slide"20, Slide Slide 32,35 -
Logo Slide 12.28, 29, 55.36 - Slide Slide 43 Slide12.38 govno.com/images/knjazhnameri/knjazhnameri_5.jpg Slide"41 Slide12.42 Slide44 Slide46 Slide47 Slide 45 Slide 16.49 Slide50 Slide C slide 53- Slide 40.59
Gogina Olga Alekseevna,teacher of Russian language and literature
literature lesson, 9th grade
Topic: "M.Yu. Lermontov "Hero of Our Time" - the first psychological novel in Russian literature. The complexity of the composition."
Lesson Objectives : review and discussion of the content of the novel; analysis of composition features; prove that the work is the first psychological novel in Russian literature.
Tasks : create conditions for a more complete understanding of the text; develop skills in analyzing a literary work through the features of plot and composition; identifying the reading position of students; development of monologue speech skills.
Equipment e: interactive whiteboard, presentation.
Board design:number, theme "M.Yu. Lermontov“Hero of Our Time” is the first psychological novel in Russian literature. Complexity of the composition."
Lesson type:
Epigraph : “The Hero of Our Time, my dear sirs, is like a portrait, but not of one person: it is a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation, in their full development” (M.Yu. Lermontov)
Homework to the lesson:
Reading the novel “Hero of Our Time” by M.Yu. Lermontov.
Analysis of the composition of the work.
a) Who tells the story of Pechorin?
- The degree to which the narrator knows the character.
- His social status.
- Intellectual and cultural level.
- Moral qualities.
b) Analyze the plot of the novel.
c) Restore the chronological sequence of events in the novel (plot).
Individual task:a story about the plot of the novel according to V. Nabokov.
Slide 1
I Organizational moment.
II Teacher's opening speech.
Lermontov's only completed novel was not originally conceived as a complete work. Russian society became acquainted with the “long chain of stories” by M.Yu. Lermontov under the general title “Hero of Our Time” in 1839-1840: in 1839 in the magazine “Notes of the Fatherland” - “Bela. From the notes of an officer about the Caucasus” and later “Fatalist”. 1840 - "Taman". In 1840, “A Hero of Our Time” was published as a separate book.
Slides 2-3
III Main part
The time has come for us to get acquainted with this work, form our own idea about it, formulate (define) our own (personal) attitude towards its heroes.
Student answers.
You are not alone in appreciating the work and its hero. The appearance of the novel by M. Yu. Lermontov immediately caused heated controversy in society.
Slide 4
- Nicholas I found the novel “disgusting”, showing “the great depravity of the author.”
- Protective criticism attacked Lermontov's novel, seeing in it slander of Russian reality. Professor S.P. Shevyrev sought to prove that Pechorin was nothing more than an imitation of Western models, that he had no roots in Russian life.
- Before others, V.G. appreciated “A Hero of Our Time” with extraordinary fidelity. Belinsky, who noted in it “the wealth of content”, “deep knowledge of the human heart and modern society.”
- What about the author? To the second edition of “A Hero of Our Time” by M.Yu. Lermontov writes a “Preface,” in which he insisted that “A Hero of Our Time, my dear sirs, is like a portrait, but not of one person: it is a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation, in their full development.” That is why these words are presented as the epigraph of our lesson.
– What kind of generation is this to which both M. Yu. Lermontov himself and his hero belong?
Let's look at this topic in more detail. To talk about the century of M.Yu. Lermontov, it is necessary to remember the history that was characteristic of the 30s -50s of the 18th century.
Slide 5
The worldview of M. Yu. Lermontov took shape in the late 20s and early 30s of the 19th century, during the era of the ideological crisis of the advanced noble intelligentsia associated with the defeat of the December uprising and the Nicholas reaction in all spheres of public life.
Nicholas I is the tamer of revolutions, the gendarme of Europe, the jailer of the Decembrists, etc., from the point of view of “communist” historiography. A.S. Pushkin, whose relationship with the emperor was complex and ambiguous, noted the undoubted merits and Petrine scale of his personality. F.M. spoke of Nicholas I “with the greatest respect.” Dostoevsky, who, as is known, ended up in hard labor by his will. Conflicting assessments of personality. The fact is that Nicholas I rejected any revolution as an idea, as a principle, as a method of transforming reality. The Decembrist uprising is not only a noble motive to destroy “various injustices and humiliations,” but a violation of the officer’s oath, an attempt to forcibly change the political system, and criminal bloodshed. And as a reaction - a tough political regime established by the emperor.
An ideological crisis is a crisis of ideas. The ideas, ideals, goals and meaning of life of the Pushkin generation - everything was destroyed. These are difficult times, later they will be called the era of timelessness. In such years they talk about lack of spirituality, about the decline of morality. Maybe you and I have experienced or are experiencing such times associated with the collapse of the Soviet Union... But let’s go back to the 30s of the 19th century.
The need to master the “mistakes of our fathers”, to rethink what seemed immutable to the previous generation, to develop our own moral and philosophical position is a characteristic feature of the era of the 20-30s.
Practical action turned out to be impossible due to both objective (the harsh policies of the autocracy) and subjective reasons: before action, it was necessary to overcome the ideological crisis, the era of doubt and skepticism; clearly definein the name of what and howact. That is why in the 1930s the philosophical search for its best representatives acquired exceptional importance for society. This was extremely difficult to do. Something completely different was triumphant. Everywhere, as far as the eye could see, flowed slowly, as Herzen put it, “the deep and dirty river of civilized Russia, with its aristocrats, bureaucrats, officers, gendarmes, grand dukes and the emperor - a shapeless and voiceless mass of baseness, servility, cruelty and envy, captivating and absorbing everything."
Man and destiny, man and his purpose, purpose and meaning human life, its possibilities and reality, free will and necessity - all these questions received figurative embodiment in the novel.
The problem of personality is central to the novel: “The history of the human soul...is almost more curious and not more useful than history a whole people." And this statement by M.Yu. Lermontov could become an epigraph to our lesson.
It is no coincidence that Pechorin established himself in the eyes of the generation of the 30s as a typical character of the post-Decembrist era. And with his fate, his sufferings and doubts, and the whole structure of his inner world, he truly belongs to that time.Not understanding this means not understanding anything. Neither in the hero, nor in the novel itself.
To understand is, in fact, the goal of our lesson.
A. Let us turn to the composition of the essay.
I. – Who tells the story of Pechorin?
Student answers.
Slide 6
Writing on the board (work in notebooks):
1. Maxim Maksimych ("Bela") - staff captain, a man of the people, has served in the Caucasus for a long time, has seen a lot in his lifetime. A kind person, but limited. He spent a lot of time with Pechorin, but never understood the “oddities” of his aristocratic colleague, a man of a social circle too far from him.
2. Wandering officer (officer-narrator) (“Maksim Maksimych”) Capable of understanding Pechorin more deeply, being closer to him in his intellectual and cultural level than Maksim Maksimych. However, he can only be judged on the basis of what he heard from the kind but limited Maxim Maksimych. Pechorin “...saw...only once...in my life on the highway.” Subsequently, having familiarized himself with Pechorin’s diary, which fell into his hands, the narrator will express his opinion about the hero, but it is neither exhaustive nor unambiguous.
3. And finally, the narrative passes entirely into the hands of the hero himself - a sincere man, “who so mercilessly exposed his own weaknesses and vices”; a man of mature mind and unconceited.
B. – How does Lermontov build the plot of the work?
Let's open the content of the novel.
Do you notice any strange things? (chapter numbering)
How many parts are there in the novel? (two)
How many chapters are there in each part? (1-3,2-2)
Why after the chapter “Maksim Maksimych” comes chapter No. 1 “Taman”? (Pechorin himself begins the story)
Student answers
First, let's remember what plot and plot are?
Slide 7 - 8
Plot – a set of events in a work of art (events arranged in the order in which the author reports them).
| Fable – events in a literary work in their sequential connection (a set of events in their natural chronological order)
|
Can this collection of stories be called a novel? Why does Pushkin have “ Stories Belkin”? Why Gogolcollection of stories"Evenings on a Farm Near Dikanka"?
- Why Lermontov is in no hurry to call his brainchild a novel, denoting it very differently: as “notes”, “works”, “a long chain of stories”? Let's remember this question.
V. – Restore the chronological order of events.
Chronology of the events underlying the work, according to V. Nabokov (student message). Slide 9
“Taman”: around 1830 - Pechorin goes from St. Petersburg to the active detachment and stops in Taman;
“Princess Mary”: May 10 – June 17, 1832; Pechorin comes from the active detachment to the waters in Pyatigorsk and then to Kislovodsk; after a duel with Grushnitsky, he was transferred to the fortress under the command of Maxim Maksimych;
“Fatalist”: December 1832 - Pechorin comes from the fortress of Maxim Maksimych to the Cossack village for two weeks;
“Bela”: spring 1833 - Pechorin kidnaps the daughter of “Prince Mirnov”, and four months later she dies at the hands of Kazbich;
“Maxim Maksimych”: autumn 1837 - Pechorin, going to Persia, again finds himself in the Caucasus and meets Maxim Maksimych.”
Let us restore the picture made by M. Yu. Lermontov of “chronological shifts”. It looks like this: the novel begins from the middle of events and is carried through sequentially until the end of the hero’s life. Then the events in the novel unfold from the beginning of the depicted chain of events to its middle.
Why do you think the author needed to arrange the parts of the novel in this order? (expected student responses)
Teacher's conclusions (depending on the completeness of student answers).
Slide 10
Writing in notebooks:
To interest the reader as much as possible in the fate of Pechorin;
Trace the history of his inner life;
The image of Pechorin is revealed in two ways: from the point of view of an outside observer and in terms of internal self-disclosure (diary);
With this construction, as if leaving the hero alive, it is easier for the author to show his position. This compositional technique expresses the author’s hidden optimism, his faith in man. Remember: “The people dispersed, the officers congratulated me - and definitely, there was something to be said for.” With these words, we say goodbye not only to the main character, who could have done wonderful things if his fate had turned out differently. This is how he, according to Lermontov, should have been remembered by the reader.
All this is true, but not all. Lermontov created absolutely new novel– new in form and content: a psychological novel.
G. - Why is “A Hero of Our Time” the first psychological novel in Russian literature?
What is psychologism?
Slide 11
Psychologism – this is a fairly complete, detailed and deep depiction of the feelings, thoughts and experiences of a literary character using specific means of fiction.
The plot of the essay becomes “the history of the human soul.”
Lermontov first lets us hear about the hero, then looks at him, and finally opens his diary to us.
The change of narrators is aimed at making the analysis of the inner world deeper and more comprehensive.
- Kind, but limited Maxim Maksimych.
- Officer-narrator.
- “Observations of a mature mind on itself.”
V.G. Belinsky argued that the novel “despite its episodic fragmentation, “cannot be read in the order in which the author himself arranged it: otherwise you will read two excellent stories and several excellent short stories, but you will not know the novel.”
So, M. Yu. Lermontov felt the novelty of his work, which united such genres as travel essay, short story, secular story, Caucasian short story, and had every reason for this. This was the first psychological novel in Russian literature.
IV Dispute (Slide 12) : why Lermontov singled out Pechorin from other heroes, why, despite unseemly actions, Pechorin is better than some other characters.
V Homework (Slide 13):
SYSTEM OF LESSONS ON THE NOVEL BY M.YU. LERMONTOV “A HERO OF OUR TIME”
Author: Makarova Natalya Aleksandrovna, teacher of Russian language and literature.
LESSON #1
Topic: “Hero of Our Time” - the first psychological novel in Russian literature. Main and secondary characters.
Purpose: review and discussion of the content of the novel; analysis of composition features; prove that the work is the first psychological novel in Russian literature; create conditions for a more complete understanding of the text; develop skills in analyzing a literary work through the features of plot and composition; identifying the reading position of students; development of monologue speech skills.
DURING THE CLASSES
“The Hero of Our Time, my dear sirs, is like a portrait, but not of one person: it is a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation, in their full development” (M.Yu. Lermontov)
I. ORGANIZATIONAL MOMENT
Working with an epigraph
III. WORKING ON THE TOPIC OF THE LESSON
1. Teacher’s lecture (students take notes)
Lermontov's only completed novel was not originally conceived as a complete work. In “Domestic Notes” for 1839, “Bela. From an officer's notes about the Caucasus" and later "Fatalist" with a note that "M. Yu. Lermontov will soon publish a collection of his stories, both printed and unpublished.” In 1840, “Taman” was published there and then “Hero of Our Time” was published in two volumes. The problematic aphoristic title was proposed by experienced journalist A. A. Kraevsky instead of the original author’s “One of the Heroes of Our Century.” “Collected Stories,” united by the image of the main character, turned out to be the first socio-psychological and philosophical novel in Russian prose, which in terms of genre also mastered numerous elements of dramatic action, especially in the largest and most significant story, “Princess Mary.”
“A Hero of Our Time” is “the story of the human soul,” one person who embodied in his unique individuality the contradictions of an entire historical period. Pechorin is the only main character (although “Eugene Onegin” is named after one hero, the image of Tatyana, as well as the Author, is extremely important in it). His loneliness in the novel is fundamentally significant. Only individual episodes of Pechorin’s biography are covered; in the preface to his journal, the travel officer talks about a thick notebook, “where he tells his whole life,” but, in essence, the reader already gets an idea of life path hero from childhood to death. This is the story of the futile attempts of an extraordinary person to realize himself, to find at least some satisfaction to his needs, attempts that invariably turn into suffering and losses for him and those around him, the story of his loss of powerful vital forces and an absurd, unexpected, but prepared by all the above-mentioned death from having nothing to do, from its uselessness to anyone and to himself.
Most readers and critics of the newly published novel perceived Pechorin as a completely negative hero. This level of understanding was also demonstrated by Emperor Nicholas I. Getting acquainted with the first part of the work, he decided that the “hero of our days” would be the unassuming, honest (and narrow-minded) servant Maxim Maksimych. The content of the second part and the attribution of the title formula to Pechorin caused the emperor (in a letter to his wife) to irritate the maxim: “Such novels spoil morals and harden character.” “What result can this give? Contempt or hatred for humanity! Lermontov himself somewhat succumbed to the general mood and in the preface to the second edition of “A Hero of Our Time” (1841) stated that Pechorin “is a portrait made up of the vices of our entire generation, in their full development.” But in the preface to Pechorin’s magazine he was called precisely the hero of the time. Another thing is that as the time goes, so does the hero. The answer to the expected reaction of readers is “Yes, this is evil irony!” - just a meaningful “I don’t know.” As in “Duma,” Lermontov does not separate himself from his generation with all its inherent vices. Other emphasis was made by V. G. Belinsky, who addressed the public even more harshly than the author in the general preface. He said about Pechorin: “You anathematize him not for his vices - in you they are greater and in you they are blacker and more shameful - but for that bold freedom, for that bilious frankness with which he speaks about them.” Bold freedom in times of lack of freedom and courage - isn’t this the sign of a true hero?
2. Literary theory
A psychological novel is an epic work in which attention is focused on the inner world of the hero, the movements of his soul, and understanding the reasons for his actions.
-Prove that “A Hero of Our Time” is a psychological novel.
A.S.Pushkin M.Yu.Lermontov
"Eugene Onegin" "Hero of Our Time"
“encyclopedia of Russian life” “history of the human soul”
Evolution of the protagonist's soul Dive into the soul. Evolution
No
3. Features of the composition
Plot is a set of events in a work of fiction (events arranged in the order in which the author reports them).
“Bela” /4/
“Maksim Maksimych” /5/
“Foreword”
“Pechorin’s Journal” /6/
“Taman” /1/
“Princess Mary” /2/
“Fatalist” /3/ Fabula – events in a literary work in their sequential connection (a set of events in their natural chronological order)
“Taman”
“Princess Mary”
"Fatalist"
“Bela”
“Maksim Maksimych”
“Preface” to “Pechorin’s Journal”.
-How many narrators are there in the novel?
First, in the story “Bela,” we learn about Pechorin from a simple Russian officer Maxim Maksimych, a kind, honest man who spent a long time with Pechorin and treated him kindly, but was completely different from him in spirit and upbringing. He can only note the peculiarities of the behavior of the “strange man”, who remained a mystery to him (and therefore to the reader).
In the story “Maksim Maksimych” the narrator changes: he is an officer, fellow traveler and listener of Maxim Maksimych in “Bel”, clearly closer to Pechorin in age, development, social status, and most importantly, similar in spirit and frame of mind. He makes an attempt to somehow explain the characteristics of this unusual person.
And finally, we get acquainted with the hero’s diaries, his peculiar confession, which allows us to see his soul as if “from the inside”, through self-disclosure, thorough analysis and exposure of the underlying reasons for the hero’s behavior and the characteristics of his character.
This construction allows the author to:
- to interest the reader as much as possible in the fate of Pechorin;
- trace the history of his inner life;
- reveal the image of Pechorin in two ways: from the point of view of an outside observer and in terms of internal self-disclosure;
- as if leaving the hero alive, to show his own author’s position.
4. The meaning of the novel's title
1). What does “hero” mean? Select the appropriate option:
-a person of exceptional virtue;
- the main character of the work;
- a person who is an exponent of some environment, era
2) Why “our” time, and not “mine”, not “yours”?
IV. FIXING
"Passport" of the hero
Name literary hero ________________
Location______________________
The time in which the hero lived_______________
Education __________________________
Occupation __________________________
Portrait_____________________________
Character traits ______________________
Habits, hobbies___________________________
Interesting facts about the personality of the literary hero____
My attitude towards the hero__________________________________________
IV. D/Z Note the character traits of Pechorin in the story “Bela”
V. RESULTS OF THE LESSON
LESSON #2
Topic: “Strange Man” (Analysis of the story “Bela”)
Goal: by analyzing the chapter “Bela”, to reveal the characteristics of Pechorin’s character; develop skills in working with the text of a work of art; help students understand cultural value works.
DURING THE CLASSES
I. ORGANIZATIONAL MOMENT
Survey-quiz on the content of the previous lesson
II. MOTIVATION OF LEARNING ACTIVITIES
-Who is he, Lermontov’s hero? We have to make a first impression of him by analyzing the chapter of “Bel”.
“And maybe I’ll die tomorrow!.. and there won’t be a single creature left on earth who would understand me completely. Some honor me worse, others better than I really do. Some will say: he was a kind fellow, others – a scoundrel!.. Both will be false.”
III. PERCEPTION OF LEARNING MATERIAL
1. Working with text
Analysis of the “Preface” to the novel.
1 paragraph – an appeal to the public, “who are so young and simple-minded that they do not understand a fable if there is no moral teaching at the end”
Paragraph 2 – response to indignant criticism
Paragraph 3 – Lermontov’s goal: “to create a portrait created from the vices of an entire generation”
Paragraph 4 – an explanation of how he intends to create a portrait: “bitter medicines and caustic truths are needed, enough people have been fed sweets”
2. Analysis of the chapter “Bela”
- Staff Captain Maxim Maksimovich, during the journey - the ascent to Gud Mountain, the descent to the Devil's Valley, the forced halt in the Ossetian hut, entertains his companion with a story about his strange colleague, Pechorin.
- What surprises and what is incomprehensible to Maxim Maksimovich in Pechorin?
Working with text (quoting, paraphrasing):
his inconsistency: then on the hunt everyone will be tired and cold, but he won’t mind. But there is a smell of wind in the room, assuring me that I have a cold. Either he’ll be silent for hours, or he’ll start talking and you’ll tear your stomach.
retells Pechorin’s explanations of why he quickly gets bored with everything, but explains that all misfortunes come from drunkenness or spoilage: “whatever you have in mind, give it to me, apparently, I was spoiled by my mother as a child.”
-Interested in this strange person, we will turn to his actions.
- How did the hero meet Bela?
He liked her immediately when she came up and sang a compliment. 16-year-old, thin, eyes black, like a mountain chamois, and look into your soul. He figured out how to steal it, and he stole it.
- Why did Pechorin steal Bela?
- What did Pechorin do to win Bela’s favor?
To win her over, he showered her with gifts, but quickly realized that he needed to appeal to her feelings: “Goodbye... I’m to blame for you... Maybe I won’t be chasing a bullet for long... then remember me and forgive me.”
He calculated the time when Bela would become his, even argued with Maxim Maksimovich - in a week.
- Did Pechorin win?
They were happy for a while. But this did not last long. Pechorin became bored with Bela, he began to leave the fortress for a long time.
Bela left the fortress to the river, was captured by Kazbich and mortally wounded. So Kazbich took revenge on Pechorin for the horse. Pechorin amazed Maxim Maksimovich with a strange laugh after Bela’s death, then he was sick for a long time and lost weight.
-Did these events and the hero’s actions clarify anything in Pechorin’s character?
He charming man, Maxim Maksimovich loved him as his own son, Bela fell in love.
He is a calculating egoist, a talented scoundrel. He is to blame for the death of Bela and her family. He treated Bela selfishly and inhumanly: he traded her for someone else’s horse.
He suffers and suffers. Bela's death left a long mark on his soul.
When he needs, he uses his methods of charm, and no one can resist him, he has a strong-willed nature, he knows how to play on human strings.
3. Composition of the story
OBSTACLE CHALLENGING DESTINY DESTINY WON
Bela's song: Pechorin steals Bela Bela dies “a good Russian officer,
Just don't let him grow up
Don't bloom in our garden"
General conclusion: So, judging by the actions told by Maxim Maksimovich, Pechorin is a mysterious, strange, contradictory person. V. G. Belinsky said about him: “In “Bel” he is some kind of mysterious person, as if appearing under fictitious name so that he won’t be recognized.”
IV. FIXING
(Fishbone technique)
Characteristics of Pechorin
Pechorin was sent to the fortress “by government necessity,” i.e., by someone else’s will Pechorin is a nobleman, an aristocrat, a rich man
Pechorin destroyed Bela and her entire family, he did it with the wrong hands
Bela became a victim of Pechorin’s egoism, since his life principle: “I want”
It’s cruel that Pechorin tore Bela out of her circle and destroyed the harmony of her life.
The essence of Pechorin's character is contradiction
Pechorin performs all actions of his own free will, out of personal need.
Pechorin does not value his position; the sword as a symbol of honor means nothing to him
Pechorin deeply worries about what he has done, he is unhappy, since he is the cause of the tragedy
Making other people victims, Pechorin does not spare himself
Pechorin also gives Bela a choice, wanting her to “freely act”
IV. RESULTS OF THE LESSON
V. D/Z
LESSON #3
Topic: “What were we supposed to talk about?” (analysis of the story “Maksim Maksimych”)
GOAL: To see the hero through the eyes of a psychological narrator, to find confirmation of Maxim Maksimych’s observations and to obtain explanations for some of the contradictions in Pechorin’s character by examining his portrait.
DURING THE CLASSES
I. UPDATED BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE
Test on the content of the story “Bela” and “Maksim Maksimych”
"Bela"
1. Whose portrait is this: “He was wearing an officer’s frock coat without epaulettes and a Circassian shaggy hat. He seemed to be about fifty years old; his dark complexion showed that it had long been familiar with the Transcaucasian sun, and his mustache did not match his firm gait”?
A) Pechorin
B) marching officer
B) Maxim Maksimych2. Pechorin's name is
A) Grigory Alexandrovich
B) Grigory Alekseevich
B) Grigory Antonovich
3. How old is Pechorin?
A) 20
B) 25
B) 30
4. Who and about which of the heroes said this: “He was a nice fellow, just a little wild boar one on one...”?
A) Pechorin about Maxim Maksimych B) Maxim Maksimych about Pechorin
Q) Kazbich about Azamat 5. What is Bela’s social status?
A) princess
B) peasant woman
B) countess
6. Where did Pechorin first see Bela?
A) on a walk
B) at the ball
B) at a wedding
7. What is the name of Bela’s brother?
A) Kazbich
B) Terke
B) Azamat8. How did Pechorin court Bela?
A) gave gifts
B) walked with her in the fortress
C) helped her learn Russian
9. What is Bela’s nationality?
A) Tatar
B) Georgian
B) Circassian
10. How did Kazbich manage to kidnap Bela?
A) Azamat helped Kazbich lure his sister out
B) Bela left the walls of the fortress to the river
B) Kazbich stole a girl from the fortress at night
11. How does the chapter “Bela” end?
A) the death of Bela
B) the traffic officer says goodbye to Maxim Maksimovich
B) Pechorin left the fortress
"Maksim Maksimych"
1. Whose portrait is this: “He was of average height, his slender, thin frame and broad shoulders proved a strong build... his gait was careless and lazy, but he did not wave his arms - a sure sign of a secretive character”?
A) Pechorin
B) Maxim Maksimych C) infantry officer
2. How did Pechorin explain where he was going?
A) to Persia
B) to Tiflis
B) to Russia
3. What did Maxim Maksimych think about after Pechorin left?
A) Pechorin visited Moscow
B) Pechorin will end badly... and it cannot be otherwise.
B) Pechorin remembers Bela
4. Military rank of Maxim Maksimych?
A) staff - captain B) staff - lieutenant
B) major
(Self-test)
II. MOTIVATION OF LEARNING ACTIVITIES
- What is friendship for you? Who do you consider a friend? How would you react if you ran into an old friend you haven't seen for a long time?
- How did Pechorin react? Let's find out why.
III. WORKING ON THE TOPIC OF THE LESSON
1. Introductory conversation
- Why is the story called “Maxim Maksimych” and not “Pechorin”?
-What opinion do you have about Maxim Maksimych?
Kind
Flexible
True friend
Executive
Spiritually weaker than Pechorin, he cannot resist Pechorin's whim.
Naive
Incapable of feeling a person (close-minded)
2. Working with the text of the chapter.
- In the chapter “Maksim Maksimych” we not only continue to get acquainted with the image of the main character, but also the image of Maksim Maksimych receives its completion.
Portrait is an image of the hero’s appearance, his face, figure, clothes, demeanor.
A psychological portrait is a portrait in which the author, through the appearance of the hero, seeks to reveal his inner world, his character.
- How did Maxim Mksimych take the news about Pechorin’s arrival? How did he expect Pechorin?
- The meeting with the hero is preceded by a description of the morning. Let’s read it: “The morning was fresh and beautiful. Golden clouds piled up on the mountains, like new row air mountains..." Against the backdrop of a fresh morning, the long-awaited and impatiently awaited one (along with Maxim Maksimych) appears. Perhaps there is some hidden meaning in this?
He was clearly indifferent to the beauty of the morning: he yawned twice and sat down on the bench on the other side of the gate.
- Let's read the portrait of Pechorin and note the features of his personality in it. (the ability to endure the difficulties of nomadic life, the habits of a decent person, secretiveness of character, nervous weakness, a childish smile, his eyes did not laugh when he laughed - a sign of either an evil disposition or deep constant sadness, his gaze could have seemed impudent if it had not been so indifferently calm ).
- What immediately catches your eye in Pechorin’s portrait?
And the portrait emphasizes inconsistency. Let's confirm this with observations: let's make a table of contradictions.
Broad shoulders - Women's hands
Childish smile - Penetrating heavy gaze
Youthful appearance - Wrinkles intersecting one another
Blonde hair - Mustache and eyebrows black
Gait is careless and lazy - Does not swing arms
Strong physique - straight waist bent, as if there was not a single bone, etc.
- What surprised and amazed you in his attitude towards Maxim Maksimych?
So indifferently, coldly to meet an old friend, refuse to talk, remember the old life. Belu. Stop! At the name of Bela, Pechorin turned pale and turned away. He didn't forget anything!
-Can we explain his behavior now?
He is going to Persia and will never return. Remember, in the fortress he said to Maxim Maksimych: “As soon as possible, I’ll go... to America, to Arabia, to India, and maybe I’ll die somewhere along the way.” Does he care about talking, does he care about memories? Even the diaries are no longer needed - he is breaking ties with everything that was dear...
-But why?
Pechorin longs for death, which will save him from suffering, from the burden of his sins.
- What is your opinion about Pechorin now? (Strange, sad, lonely, tired, secretive, devastated, indifferent to both the past and the future, surprisingly handsome, evoking sympathy and interest) - Why doesn’t Maxim Maksimych understand Pechorin?
Maxim Maksimych is a kind person, values friendship, but he and Pechorin are different people, so Maxim Maksimych does not understand Pechorin, unlike the passing officer. Maxim Maksimych does not understand that for Pechorin the meeting with the staff captain is a reminder of the tragedy that occurred through his fault.
- Did the officer-narrator understand Pechorin?
Yes, because they are people of the same circle. The narrator is similar to Lermontov himself, so he can understand Pechorin and does not condemn him.
IV. FIXING
- Choose an epigraph for the material studied in the lesson
V. LESSON RESULTS
VI. D/Z Write an essay on the topic: “How is Pechorin’s character revealed in the story “Taman”?”
LESSON #4
Topic: “Human joys and disasters” (“Taman”)
Goal: to discover the beauty and poetry of the world in the story "Taman"; find an explanation for Pechorin’s actions and feelings: a sense of the world as a mystery, a passionate interest in life and people, a thirst for activity and its aimlessness, a critical attitude towards oneself.
DURING THE CLASSES
I. ORGANIZATIONAL MOMENT
II. UPDATING BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE
Test on the story "Taman"
1. What is the name of this fragment: “The full moon shone on the reed roof and white walls of my new home. The shore sloped down steeply to the sea, almost at the very walls; dark blue waves splashed below with a continuous murmur. The moon looked at the restless, but submissive element"?
A) landscape
B) interior “The Joys and Disasters of Man” (“Taman”
B) story
2. Why did Pechorin end up in the smugglers’ house?
A) He wanted to spend the night on the seashore
B) there were no available apartments in the city
B) He decided to find out what kind of people live here
3.What was the name of the blind boy?
A) Yanko
B) Ivanko
B) he had no name
4. Why did the undine decide to drown Pechorin?
A) He pestered her during the day
B) He learned about smuggling
B) He saw her at night on the seashore with a boy and a smuggler
5. What is the fate of the undine?
A) she sails away with the smuggler
B) she died at sea
B) Pechorin exposed her
6. Finish Pechorin’s words: “I don’t know what happened to the old woman and the poor blind man………..”
A) I'm not interested in knowing about them
B) What do I care about human joys and misfortunes?
C) What do I care about honest smugglers?
(Mutual check)
IV. WORKING ON THE TOPIC OF THE LESSON
1. Teacher's word
- This story opens Pechorin's Journal. Previously, other people were storytellers. Now we recognize Pechorin as if from the inside, through himself.
PECHORIN THROUGH THE EYES OF PECHORIN
A diary is a literary work in the form of daily entries (most often indicating the date), contemporary with the events described. Initially, it assumes complete frankness, sincerity of the thoughts and feelings of the writer.
“Take Lermontov’s story “Taman” - you won’t find a word in it that could be thrown out or inserted; the whole thing sounds from beginning to end in one harmonic chord; what a wonderful language...!”
D.V. Grigorovich
2. Conversation based on content
- In what condition does Pechorin arrive in Taman? (began to demand, did not sleep for three nights, was exhausted and began to get angry)
- What will an ordinary person do in moments of extreme physical fatigue?
- What does Pechorin do when he finds himself in a “bad” place? Why?
The desire to “interfere” in events is evidence of the hero’s activity. Everything that Pechorin does, he does not for the sake of any benefit and not for the sake of the desire to benefit people. He does not pursue any goal, but he cannot help but act.
- How do they treat an “unclean” place in the city?
- Why doesn’t it repel Pechorin, doesn’t frighten him, but attracts him?
- Who in the story “challenges” Pechorin?
- What is the secret here? Why does Pechorin talk about what he saw at night to the blind man and the “undine”, but says nothing to his orderly?
Pechorin - ROMANTIC?
- Pay attention to Pechorin’s vocabulary
Landscape sketches (abundance of epithets and metaphors) – Pechorin loves nature, is able to see beauty
"drove me crazy"
"Fire Kiss"
"The Power of Youthful Passion"
3. Pechorin’s character traits
- How does Pechorin in the story “Taman” differ from Pechorin in “Bel”? (he is not indifferent, he is desperate and brave, he is curious)
- How does Pechorin’s critical attitude towards himself manifest itself? (Talking about himself, he does not hide anything.)
- Does Pechorin evoke condemnation in this story?
(Rather, he regrets that the powers of his rich nature do not find real use.)
- What does Pechorin’s last phrase mean?
(She became his motto, these words are all Pechorin. He doesn’t care about the problems and joys of other people, he satisfied his curiosity, and he doesn’t need anything else...)4. Implementation of homework
Students read out their essays and evaluate each other.
IV. RESULTS OF THE LESSON
V. D/Z Comparative characteristics Pechorin and Grushnitsky.
LESSON #5
Topic: “Why do they all hate me so much?” (story "Princess Mary")
Goal: to understand Pechorin’s complex relationships with other characters, to help students understand the motives of his actions; develop skills in analyzing the image of a literary hero; develop the ability to treat others with understanding.
DURING THE CLASSES
I. ORG.MOMENT
II. UPDATING BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE
Poll on the content of the chapter “Princess Mary”
III. MOTIVATION OF LEARNING ACTIVITIES
V.G. Belinsky wrote: “Whoever has not read the greatest story of this novel, “Princess Mary,” cannot judge either the idea or the dignity of the whole creation. The main idea of the novel is developed in the main character - Pechorin, whom you only become fully acquainted with through “Princess Mary”; After reading this story, “Bela” herself appears before you in a new light.”
IV. PERCEPTION OF NEW MATERIAL
1. Pechorin's Journal
-Why does Pechorin keep a diary?
(Firstly, this is the only interlocutor with whom he can be absolutely sincere. “I’m used to admitting this to myself,” writes Pechorin.
Secondly, there is an urgent need for reflection - detailed introspection, analysis of one’s actions and movements of the soul. The state of reflection is dangerous, because it is subject not to feeling, but to reason. A thorough analysis of one's own actions kills feeling. “I have long been living not with my heart, but with my head,” says Pechorin). Werner
2. System of images
Water Society
PechorinnVera
Grushnitsky
3. "Water Society"
- Why is Pechorin’s duel with the water society inevitable?
- How does Pechorin feel about his representatives? (read excerpt)
“Why do they all hate me? – I thought. - For what? Have I offended anyone? No. Am I really one of those people whose mere sight generates ill will?”
- Why do they hate Pechorin? (Because they feel his superiority over themselves).
4. Grushnitsky
- Read the description of Grushnitsky given by Pechorin.
- Why doesn’t Pechorin like Grushnitsky?
(Grushnitsky cadet. A cadet is a student of a military school. For military merits, cadets were promoted to officers. A cadet could also be demoted for a duel or as a participant in the December uprising. Grushnitsky wore a cadet uniform out of a special kind of dandyism, as Pechorin says. Grushnitsky wants to seem like something else , who he really is. He is ashamed to admit that he is a cadet in his youth.) - Why does Grushnitsky not like Pechorin? (For the fact that Pechorin understood him)
Grushnitsky is the direct antipode of Pechorin, even a parody of him. If Pechorin attracts attention to himself without caring at all about it, then Grushnitsky is trying his best to “produce an effect.” If Pechorin is truly disappointed in life, then Grushnitsky plays at disappointment. “His goal is to become the hero of a novel.” And Grushnitsky tries to behave like the hero of the novel: he throws out pompous phrases, “drapes himself in extraordinary feelings, sublime passions and exceptional suffering.” But he fails to be a romantic hero, since all his feelings and experiences are false.
- Is it possible to draw a parallel between Grushnitsky and Lensky?
Grushnitsky stands next to Pechorin, like Lensky stands next to Onegin. He was also the protagonist's friend and was killed by him. But there is a significant difference between Lensky and Grushnitsky: Lensky is a real romantic, and Grushnitsky wants to seem...
Implementation of d/z Comparative characteristics of Pechorin and Grushnitsky.
5. Pechorin and Mary
- Why does Pechorin start courting Mary?
(“An innate passion to contradict.” Grushnitsky is sure that Princess Mary hates Pechorin and that the doors to the Ligovskys’ house are closed to him. Pechorin immediately decides to prove the opposite.) - What was Pechorin’s opinion of Princess Mary?
(Pechorin sees Mary as a spoiled Moscow young lady, believes that she is “the kind of woman who wants to be amused.” Therefore, he takes pleasure in offending her pride. But as a soul emerges in Mary, capable of sincerely loving and suffering, Pechorin’s attitude towards the princess becomes different) - What brings Mary closer to Grushnitsky? (Grushnitsky wants to be a romantic hero, and Mary wants to love a romantic hero)
-He managed to divert her attention from Grushnitsky and enter the Ligovskys’ house. The dispute was won. Why did Pechorin continue to seek Mary’s love, because he had no intention of marrying her?
(“My first pleasure is to subordinate to my will everything that surrounds me” is the only explanation for his action. “To be the cause of suffering and joy for someone, without having any positive right to do so—isn’t this the sweetest food of our pride? And what is happiness? Saturated pride.” Thus, the only goal that Pechorin pursues is to satiate his pride.) - While seeking Mary’s love, Pechorin himself suspected several times that he was in love with Mary. Why didn't he marry her?
(Marriage was not part of his plans. It was not indifference, but fear of everyday life that made him reject Mary’s feelings. But Pechorin’s unseemly act has another side: he saved Mary from an affair with a scoundrel).6. Pechorin and Werner
- Read Werner's profile
Dr. Werner is an intelligent and insightful person, a mocking and subtle interlocutor. Skeptic and materialist, but at the same time a poet. It has evil tongue, mocks the sick who come to the waters for treatment. He studied all the strings of the human heart, but never used his knowledge.
- How Pechorin reveals himself in his relationship with Werner.
(In his relationship with Werner, Pechorin’s egocentrism is revealed, who does not recognize friendship because it requires self-forgetfulness: “I am not capable of friendship: of two friends, one is always the slave of the other.” Unlike the “hero of the time,” Werner is not able to accept the active manifestation evil. He recoiled from the demonic hero after the murder of Grushnitsky, which caused Pechorin only a skeptical remark about the weakness of human nature.)
7. Pechorin and Vera
-What is the significance of the image of Vera? (Shows that Pechorin is capable of strong feelings. Relations with Vera show that, contrary to his beliefs, Pechorin is “capable of going crazy under the influence of passion.” Remembering Vera, Pechorin writes in his journal: “There is no person in the world over whom the past would become such power as over me. Every reminder of past sadness or joy painfully strikes my soul and draws out the same sounds from it... I was created stupidly: I don’t forget anything - nothing!”) - And here we remember the scene of Pechorin’s meeting with Maxim Maksimych. Has Pechorin forgotten Bela? No!
- How is Vera different from Mary? (Vera loves Pechorin deeply and sincerely, she is the only woman who understands Pechorin, the only one whom he is not able to deceive. Vera sees not only Pechorin’s merits, but also his shortcomings: “evil in no one is so attractive.” And Vera accepts Pechorin with all his bad passions and vices. For this Pechorin loves her.) - Why does Pechorin rush after Vera after the duel with Grushnitsky? What does he want to catch up with?
(It is not for nothing that Vera is called Vera. Her name is the personification of faith in people, in life, in love. It is after her, faith in love, that Pechorin is chasing. Tears are a manifestation of the soul, alive, capable of feeling.)8. Duel
- What caused the duel between Pechorin and Grushnitsky?
- What secret did Pechorin learn about the duel?
- What does Pechorin do on the eve of the duel? (summarizes the life lived) read
- What conclusions does Pechorin come to? (“It’s true, I had a high destiny, because I feel immense strength in myself”... “My love did not bring happiness to anyone, because I did not sacrifice anything for those I loved...”) - What goals do opponents pursue?
Grushnitsky Pechorin
Make a farce out of the duel
Restore your human value
Prove that he is not a boy, but a man. Teach Grushnitsky a lesson.
Defend Mary's honor
Comprehend what is happening (fate - not fate?)
- Read the duel scene
- Why does Pechorin continue to test Grushnitsky?
- Why did Pechorin shoot? Did he have a choice? What about Grushnitsky?
- Can Pechorin’s conscience be clear?
- Do you feel sorry for Grushnitsky?
V. Consolidation
- How is Pechorin’s character revealed in this story?
Pechorin:
Hates hypocrisy
"an innate passion to contradict"
Sincere with yourself
Incapable of friendship
Capable of strong feelings and madness
Capable of noble impulses, contrary to his statements
Afraid of seeming funny
Lives not with the heart, but with the mind
VI. D/Z Answer the questions:
What brings Pechorin closer to Hamlet?
Compare two duels: Onegin - Lensky and Pechorin - Grushnitsky.
LESSON #6
Topic: “I decided to try my luck” (“Fatalist”)
Goal: to bring students to a holistic understanding of the image of Pechorin; reveal the concept " philosophical novel"; develop skills in analyzing a work of art; cultivate a love of literature.
DURING THE CLASSES
To be or not to be
That is the question
Is it worthy to measure yourself under
blows of fate
Or it is worth resisting.
(W. Shakespeare.)
I. ORG,MOMENT
II. UPDATING BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE
Survey on the studied material.
III. MOTIVATION OF LEARNING ACTIVITIES
Working with an epigraph
- Do you believe in fate?
- What is fate? (Predestination)
To believe in fate means to believe in God, to trust Him with your life, to humbly accept everything that the Lord sends to you and not to tempt fate. These are the foundations of Orthodoxy.
- How does Pechorin feel about fate? Today we have to find out.
IV. PERCEPTION OF LEARNING MATERIAL
1. Vocabulary work
Fatum - fate
Fatal – predetermined by fate, fate
Fatalism is a mystical belief in the inevitability of fate, in the fact that everything in this world is supposedly predetermined by fate, fate
Fatalist - a person imbued with fatalism, believing in predestination from above
- Who does the title of the story refer to? Is Pechorin a fatalist? Is Vulich a fatalist? Is Maxim Maksimych a fatalist? Or is Lermontov a fatalist?
2. Genre of the story
- How is the last part of the novel – “Fatalist” – different from the previous ones?
In this story, Pechorin has neither friends nor enemies. All characters are divided into those who believe in fate and those who do not.
- How can you determine the genre of this story?
This story can be called philosophical, since the author tries to answer the question: what controls a person’s life - fate or himself?
3. Analysis of the content of the story.
- Where does the story take place?
“on the left flank” of the Caucasian line.
- How is the plot of the story constructed?
The plot includes two episodes, between which there is a lyrical digression in the form of Pechorin’s thoughts about fate.
Analysis of the first episode of “The Wager of Vulich and Pechorin”
- Reading the novel, we repeatedly find confirmation that Pechorin sees the hand of fate in different situations, but the “innate passion to contradict” forces him to enter into an argument, declaring “that there is no predestination.”
- How does Pechorin manifest himself in this story?
He was the only one who decided to participate in this bet, which speaks of his thirst for activity.
Pechorin plays with a person's life, instead of refusing the bet.
He calmly tells Vulich that he must die
- Vulich remained alive, Pechorin returns home, continuing the argument about fate with himself. What conclusions does he come to?
It's funny that our ancestors believed in fate
People of his generation live “WITHOUT convictions and pride, WITHOUT pleasure and fear”, “are no longer capable of great sacrifices either for the good of humanity, or even for our own happiness... having... neither hope, nor even that... pleasure that the soul meets in any struggle with people or even with fate.”
Each phrase of Pechorin’s last confession reveals another facet of his spiritual tragedy. “In my first youth I was a dreamer, I loved to caress
alternately gloomy and rosy images that my restless
and greedy imagination. But what does this leave me with? just tiredness
after a night battle with a ghost, and a vague memory filled
regrets. In this vain struggle I exhausted both the heat of my soul and the constancy of will necessary for real life; 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.”
CRISIS OF FAITH PECHORIN
NO to altruism
There is doubt and no tradition
NO morals
Everyone has the right to act according to their own will
EGOCENTRISM
(at the center of the universe is the “I” of man)
Analysis of the second episode
- Vulich died that same evening at the hands of a drunken Cossack. What words did he say before he died?
"He is right!"
- Who was Vulich talking about?
Pechorin correctly predicted his imminent death. Now, it would seem, he must believe in predestination. But Pechorin is not like that. He decides to try his luck himself.
- The topic of fate, which was raised in the first episode among officers, is now being resolved among uneducated people, ordinary Cossacks. What law of life do the Cossacks follow?
Reading passage:
“I’ve sinned, brother Efimych,” said the captain, “there’s nothing to do.”
submit!
- I won’t submit! - answered the Cossack.
- Fear God. After all, you are not a damned Chechen, but an honest Christian; Well,
If your sin has entangled you, there is nothing to do: you will not escape your fate!
- I won’t submit! - the Cossack shouted menacingly, and one could hear the click
cocked hammer.
YOU CAN’T AVOID YOUR DESTINY │ I WILL NOT SUBMIT
- Here are two possible ways. Which path does Pechorin choose? (Don't submit)
- We accused Pechorin of playing with Vulich’s life, but Pechorin is also playing with his life. But Pechorin risks his life not senselessly, like Vulich, and not recklessly. He carefully thought out his plan of action and, perhaps for the first time, committed an act not for his own sake, but for the benefit of other people. What does Pechorin's behavior indicate? (Pechorin is a fatalist, but arguing with fate, not ready to submit)
-At the end of the story, Maxim Maksimych unexpectedly appears. How does Maxim Maksimych explain the incident?
At first he finds the most everyday explanation for what happened: “these
Asian triggers often misfire if they are poorly lubricated or if you do not press firmly enough with your finger.”
He also finds an explanation for the second incident: “The devil dared him to talk to a drunk at night!.. However, apparently, it was written in his family...” It turns out that Maxim Maksimych is a fatalist, but unlike Pechorin, he passively accepts both the joys and blows of fate and is unable to fight it.
- So who is the fatalist in the story? (each to their own. Author's position on Pechorin's side, which is life position“I will not submit!”)V. FIXING
- What purpose of writing the novel did Lermontov outline in the “Preface”?
create a “portrait made up of the vices of an entire generation”
- What vices did Lermontov depict? (egocentrism, indifference to other people’s destinies, the desire to play with a person’s life, denial of moral values, doubts, lack of faith, waste of energy on empty activities)
- Why is the HERO OF TIME doomed to loneliness and death? (lack of faith makes him push people away from himself. The hero does not believe in love, does not believe in happiness, does not believe in friendship, sees only bad in people, which is a reflection of his own soul, does not find the purpose of his existence) - What distinguishes Pechorin from the people of his generation and makes him a HERO OF THE TIME? (Pechorin, with all his shortcomings, embodying the “disease of the century,” remains precisely a hero for the author. He was a realistic reflection of that socio-psychological type of person of the 30s of the 19th century, who retained and carried within himself dissatisfaction existing life, comprehensive skepticism and denial, so highly valued by Lermontov. After all, only on this basis could one begin to revise old ideological and philosophical systems that no longer met the needs of the new time, and thereby open the way to the future. It is from this point of view that Pechorin can be called a “hero of the time,” becoming a natural link in the development of Russian society)VI. RESULTS OF THE LESSON
List of used literature:
1. V.G.Marantsman. Literature. Tutorial for 9th grade high school. M.1994.
2. M.A. Aristova. Analysis of works of Russian literature. 9th grade. M. 2013
3. N. Dolinina. Pechorin and our time.
4. http://perova.jimdo.com
Lesson 3. “Hero of our time” (beginning)
Preface.First, I will post two excerpts from articles (for courses) that relate to the theory of the novel and the composition of the “hero”. They were not written exactly for a lesson, you can just look into them and not say it again (especially things that are quite well known).
– A novel is an “epic” privacy"Unlike ancient epic poems dedicated to the life of a people (and not an individual, even if the center of the story is, for example, the cunning Odysseus or the mighty Ilya Muromets).
– The novel tells about the formation and development of an individual personality, “unfolded” in artistic space and the time required for the history of this individual destiny to somehow “be determined”, acquire or become aware of itself.
– The novel is a “free” genre, not constrained by rigid classicist “rules”: classicism considered the novel a “low” genre, suitable for describing corrupt modern morals and did not consider it necessary to describe its genre properties.
– A novel often “pretends” to be a description of a true (and not fictional) life story, and therefore the authors include supposedly authentic documents in it: letters, excerpts from a diary; the novel seems to be trying to erase the boundary between fiction and reality, art and life.
– No matter how skilled the writer who creates the novel may actually be, he voluntarily “pushes” his talent as a narrator into the background, because the main thing in the novel is the plot, the event, the novel’s “interest of continuation,” as M.M. called it. Bakhtin. (6) Epic and novel in the book: M.M. Bakhtin. Questions of literature and aesthetics. M., 1975, p. 474. This does not mean that writing a novel requires less skill than creating an ode or a tragedy (as one might naively believe in the 18th century, when the Russian novel eked out a rather miserable existence), but even the most virtuoso narrative technique in a novel remains only a means for creating characters , plot development, etc.
When determining the genre uniqueness of “A Hero of Our Time,” we will have to find out what novel differs from stories. If Pushkin created his novel based on the genre romantic poem, then Lermontov took as a basis a prose, (but also mostly romantic) story: this genre in the 30s of the 19th century was also developed better than the Russian prose novel.
There are several points of view on what is unique about the genre of the story.
1. Relatively speaking, a “quantitative” approach: the story is a kind of “average” epic genre; it is larger than a story (in volume, number of characters and events, duration of action, etc.), but smaller than a novel. Sometimes supporters of this theory add that the novel touches on important social issues, and the story tends to describe private life. This approach now satisfies few people, since it cannot explain, for example, why “The Captain’s Daughter” is a story, and “Dubrovsky” is a novel, although in the first case the volume and poignancy are greater “ public issues"no less than in the second.
2. Another version suggests the existence of two types of epic prose: one belongs to the ancient oral traditions, the other took shape only in written literature. The first belongs story And story, to the second - “new” genres: novel And short story. “If in a novel the center of gravity lies in the holistic action, in the actual and psychological movement of the plot, then in a story the main gravity is often transferred to the static components of the work - positions, mental states, landscapes, descriptions, etc. (...) a huge role in the story (and story) is played by the element of speech - the voice of the author or narrator.” (7)LES, p. 281.
3. The third version is based on compositional features story: in the story, events are presented chronically, in their natural sequence. (8) E.Ya. Fesenko Theory of Literature: Textbook. Ed. 2nd, rev. and additional –M., 2005. This “presentation of material” does not make concessions to the “interest of continuation”, conscientiously unfolding the picture of events in the order in which they appeared before the narrator.
The second and third versions are related and do not contradict each other. We invite the class, based on this theory, to find the features of the stories in those fragments that make up “A Hero of Our Time.” – Indeed, each of them unfolds in chronological order. As for the “element of storytelling,” it plays big role in the first part of the novel - in the stories “Bela” and “Maksim Maksimych”; “Pechorin's Journal” is an “originally” written, not narrated text and a typical novelistic device (imitation of “documentary”). However, “Taman”, “Princess Mary”, and “Fatalist” are traditionally called stories, since they are “ building material" for a novel. However, the transfer states of mind, both landscapes and the narrator’s voice play a huge role in them.
In order to “assemble” a novel from these stories, Lermontov abandoned the chronological principle. Let’s offer the class a “classic” task:
– Restore the “correct” sequence of parts. – Most researchers are inclined to this option: “Pechorin’s Journal”, “Bela”, “Maksim Maksimych”, “Preface to the “Journal”.
(Another answer is possible: so that the reader does not think that the character of the main character is shown to him in development. However, this is hardly the main thing in the author’s plan: it is enough that we do not see how this character was formed).
– But what is the “interest of a continuation” if the novel does not have a single plot? What plays the role of a “riddle” here, a question that requires an answer, and a plot that requires a solution? – Apparently, the very character of the main character, his personality.
– And one more “classic” question: try to explain the internal logic of the order in which Lermontov arranged the parts of the novel. (In other words, explain the main compositional principle to which “Hero of Our Time” is subordinated).
Usually, schoolchildren easily notice that in the first part we see the hero “from the outside,” and in the second he reveals his inner world.
– Is there (within the first part) a difference between the view of Maksim Maksimych and the narrator? - Oddly enough, the narrator notices and understands more than Pechorin’s old friend. Why? – They are people of the same circle and experience; the narrator “understands the Pechorins,” Maxim Maksimych does not. So, already within the first part we see some approximation of the “solution”.
It is more difficult to see the logic of “approximation” inside Pechorin’s Journal, and if no one sees it right away, this issue can be returned to at the end of studying the novel. The main thing that the reader is trying to understand is the motives of Pechorin’s actions, the inner meaning of his “adventures”. In “Taman” the hero himself describes what is happening to him, but he touches on motives in passing and only teases the reader’s curiosity. In "Princess Mary" a complete psychological introspection is deployed; the hero explores himself at the level of emotions and passions and does not find a solution to his “strangeness.” In "Fatalist" it is described in highest degree a kind of “philosophical experiment”: Pechorin is trying to get an answer whether there is any higher being above him, fate, predestination, and whether there is for him in the world that “great destiny” that needs to be guessed - or whether he himself is the only master of his actions , and fate. And this is the last answer, the last “guess” that the author offers us.
– Can we say that in “A Hero of Our Time” the hero realized the logic of his fate, determined it for himself main meaning(as is typical novel hero)? - That’s the trouble with Pechorin, that he was looking for this meaning, but did not find it. The ending of the novel is sometimes interpreted as the final degradation of the hero, who has lost hope of finding answers to his questions. But the fact that death found him on the road can also be interpreted in the exact opposite way - especially considering that for romantics the road is a symbol of an endless path, the endless striving of the human spirit for ideal and perfection (and in Lermontov’s prose, as in his poetry , the influence of romanticism is very deep). Death on the way is a sign of ongoing searches and unbending perseverance: this hero continued to search for answers to the end.
Lesson 1.
1. Give a written survey: “What kind of person is Pechorin?” Clarifying questions:
– What is he looking for in life?
– What guides your actions?
– Does he have criteria for good and evil?
Brief summary: this novel is based on one question, one mystery - the character of the main character. What is he like, why does he live the way he does, what does he do, what does he need from life? Our task is to figure this out.
2. Restore the chronology of events and understand the composition (see above). We find out that the novel is structured like this - as an approach to the solution. I draw on the board sharp corner, resting on a point - Pechorina.
3. What do the plots of all the stories have in common? – Children see that Pechorin always brings misfortune to those with whom he deals (he ruins all his toys, even Maxim Maksimych). And that every time he risks his life along with his main opponent. Each time he may die, but another one dies.
But they don’t see that here, as in Belkin’s Tales, new patterns are being embroidered on the old canvas. All these plots are more or less typical of romantic prose and poems (stories with undines, adventures with mountain beauties, secular duels...). One might even say that Pechorin seems to be trying to penetrate Magic world romantic stories, but that was not the case. Something similar to the story with Pinocchio and the painted hearth happens: he stuck his nose into the picture, tore it, but couldn’t get inside. This is very noticeable in “Taman”: the world remained magical and beautiful, but the fairy tale collapsed and slipped away.
4. If there is time left, we start talking about “Bel”. Chronologically it's pretty late history, but it all starts with her. And here the first questions about Pechorin appear. You can first ask what M.M. thinks about Pechorin. (“strange” – and a list of oddities, some of which are clearer to us than to the narrator; “spoiled” and ready to do anything to fulfill his momentary desire). Which one is older?
Then the story of Bela's kidnapping.
– Whose idea? - Azamata. And his execution, Pechorin only played along slightly.
– Who overcomes what prohibitions along the way? (Azamat - fear of his father, Bela - of Allah, M.M. - of his superiors). And Pechorin? We find out in detail what M.M. had to say: why can’t a Russian officer steal a mountain girl, even if he wants to (as Pechorin says)? – Not according to the customs of our faith and not according to the laws of our country. However, M.M. doesn't say that. Why? – Partly he understands that it is useless, partly because he himself, having lived for years among the mountaineers, became infected with moral relativism: one people has one laws and faith, another has another... And it seems that they are equally possible...
– And so we “ran into” Pechorin’s question: what if there are some moral laws that are mandatory for all people, regardless of folk customs (which are quite conventional)? Or is all morality a convention? Let us ask: what law is Pechorin guided by in this story? – Formally – mountainous, in essence – by one’s own desire. The mountain law here is only a tool for manipulating Azamat. – How seriously does Pechorin perform it? - He is forced to finish the game in all seriousness, because the highlanders have one law - blood feud(here it is - this equal risk, the willingness to pay with one’s life for one’s actions).
– Who is to blame for Bela’s death? – Kazbich, Azamat, Pechorin, partly – M.M. – Who admits his guilt? - Only Pechorin (by the way, blood feud does not imply any special mental anguish and conscience: the ancient Greeks, they say, had no trace of conscience). – How sincere? - More than that: he doesn’t say any words - he laughs terribly and is sick for a long time.
So, an intermediate result: we found out that for Pechorin there are no sacred laws that go back to the faith and custom of any people. He is ready to play according to the rules of any human world: with smugglers - according to their robber laws, with secular people - according to the laws of secular honor, with a player - in his manner. But his soul takes responsibility for everything that happens through his fault.
Lessons 2 – 3. Pechorin’s character: psychological analysis
1. Let's understand Pechorin further: the author gives us his portrait. We write down: the first in Russian literature psychological picture. What does it mean? And the fact that the narrator reads Pechorin like a book: he explains every external feature with a commentary about his character. It looks casual, but try to describe, for example, your desk neighbor like this: his clothes mean this, his laugh means this, the way he looks, sits, moves - everything makes sense, but not everything is easy to interpret. Question: is there any pattern in the description of Pechorin? – There is duality. He looks sometimes young, sometimes not very young, sometimes strong, sometimes exhausted, sometimes sad, sometimes angry; the gloves are dirty - the linen is dazzling... Sometimes someone jokes and says that Pechorin has a typical elven appearance. What can I say? Did the Lermontov or Scottish genes take their toll?
2. We ask about his attitude towards Maxim Maksimych. Why does he avoid him so pointedly? Neglects a simple person(as M.M. himself thinks)? – Some say: because he is an egoist who thinks only about his own pleasure. Others note that the meeting with M.M. he feels bad. With M.M. we will need to talk. About what? About Bel, of course. For M.M., as we already know, this is an interesting, exciting story. And for Pechorin? “He doesn’t forget anything, he remembers his guilt. He doesn’t want to bring up all this, especially with a person who doesn’t feel how painful it is.
Now about what happened to M.M. He turned into a grumpy staff captain. Is Pechorin to blame for this? - The children will say: guilty. It was necessary to be delicate with him... But we already realized that Pechorin could not bear it. And M.M. himself turned out to be a true friend? - Hardly. How angrily he threw away Pechorin’s papers... The resentment turned out to be much stronger than the friendship (resentment and pride: after all, he told his fellow traveler about his close friendship with this man...). In general, Pechorin does not spare people who meet him on the way, but these people do not show special love and devotion...
Fine. Now the narrator and I will figure out together how and why Pechorin lived even before meeting M.M. (because the Journal was written earlier).
3. There are two series of questions that are interconnected, but it’s better to start by looking at them separately. 1) What does Pechorin think about himself and his fate? 2) How does he treat other people and why?
The first is D/Z. It’s good if children read everything that Pechorin wrote about his character. We find out that he is bored and looking for entertainment (adventures, riddles, secrets, confrontation), but at the same time he vaguely feels that all this is small for him, that he was born for some higher purpose - but what? No higher goals will ever appear on the horizon of his life. Let us pay attention to a certain touch of Pechorin’s materialistic irony in relation to his own mental life. He compares the collapse of life to several cups of strong coffee drunk at night. Both can be overcome with the help of a thorough walk... Pechorin is not inclined to rush around with himself and is looking for the most rational and prosaic explanation for all his internal movements.
Now the second thing is how he acts with other people. One may ask why he began to spy on smugglers, to upset the romance of Grushnitsky and Princess Mary, to make her fall in love with him? - He was having fun. In the first case (in “Taman”), as we said, he just wanted to get into a romantic plot. And he destroyed the fairy tale and received another notch on his conscience: a blind boy left without food (and an old woman...). Pechorin and the smugglers acted according to the same laws: they deceived, drowned, threatened... But they abandoned the dangerous nest without any regret, and Pechorin survived his share of guilt. By the way, the remark there is good about the fact that he doesn’t care about smuggling: he doesn’t care about state interests at all.
In “Princess Mary” the motivation is more complex. He tested in practice his theoretical knowledge about the properties of human psychology (our novel is socio-psychological, although philosophical too). But at the same time he used other people partly as puppets, partly as food for his inner hunger (about how nice it is to capture your first love and then throw it away). Behind these experiments there is a completely conscious worldview: no “absolute” moral laws exist for this hero. The criteria of good and evil are his desires and the pleasure of fulfilling them; they are the only basis for action.
Pechorin puts himself as a kind of god above others, and he really successfully manipulates everyone. However, using other people's passions and suffering as food for his own pride or boredom, he is never satisfied. Why? - Because taking is a bottomless abyss. To become happy, you need to give (sometimes I cite as an example a line from “Letters of a Screwtape” - “we don’t understand selfless love; If I love someone, I’ll eat them with all their giblets.”
The difficult question is why is he like this? Someone finds his monologue for Princess Mary about how he wanted good things, but society spoiled him. This is sometimes noted as a feature of realism (blame secular society). But there are two caveats: he says this on purpose; he didn't come up with it himself. In fact, he retells Frankenstein's monologue from Mary Shelley's novel (everyone has more or less heard about this monster). So there is somehow more romanticism than realism...
The rivalry with Grushnitsky is both petty and at the same time understandable: Grushnitsky is trying to play the role of Pechorin and take his place (the very, very...). Pechorin, Prince. Mary is needed as a screen, and at the same time he cannot allow her to prefer Grushnitsky. But in the quarrel between the two heroes, this is what is interesting: Pechorin again wants to play by the rules of the world in which he lives. The rules in water society are secular honor. He demands that Grushnitsky shoot honestly, and is the first to stand under fire. To what extent all this for him is conditionally evident from the quarrel: he stands up for the honor of the prince. Mary immediately says to the captain: “Did I hit you so awkwardly in the garden?” Grushnitsky fails the test and dies. By the way, Mary was also partially unable to pass the test. Their last explanation echoes the last explanation of Onegin and Tatyana. Tatyana says, “I love you...” Pechorin was ready to give up to such an answer, but Mary tells him, “I hate you...” Mary is not Tatyana.
According to Belinsky’s (and I. Vinogradov’s) idea, Pechorin never met an “enemy” who would not be “spoiled” by contact with him, who would be able to oppose something truly imperishable, beautiful and true. If he had met him, he might have changed... But he goes through life as if there is no good or evil, no law, no conscience - only the satisfaction of his own desires. And the longer he lives like this, the worse he gets. The question about Vera is rhetorical (would he be happy if...) Vera is a romantic, unattainable dream, a symbol of his quest.
D/Z. Make a final note about Pechorin’s character. It is possible - starting from the “Preface to the Magazine”: is this really a portrait of the vices of its time? Vices or problems? It would be nice to compare the resulting portrait with the “Duma” - point by point: what kind of account does Lermontov present to his generation in poetry, what kind - in prose? All considerations can be divided into “understandable” and “incomprehensible”. Or “for” and “against” - whichever will be closer to the class.
Appendix 1. Card tasks on the same topic for individual speakers
It was rarely used, usually in a lesson, if you need to “disable” someone, or test with passion, or, conversely, if the whole class does not understand the topic and you need to prepare strong speakers in advance (then it is better to give cards to take home).
Card 1
Read the entries from May 23 to June 6 (the story “Princess Mary”) and answer the questions:
1. How does Pechorin destroy the romance of Grushnitsky and Princess Mary (try to mark all Pechorin’s moves)?
2. How does he make Princess Mary fall in love with him (the task is the same: to trace the sequence of his moves)? How plausible do you think such a game with someone else's soul is? Is it possible to control the people of our time (you and your friends) in this way?
3. Re-read carefully what Pechorin tells Princess Mary about his youth (July 3). Do you think this is true or is he just pretending? Did he accidentally let it slip about himself, or is this also a calculated move? What would you answer him if you were in the princess’s place?
Card 2
Read the end of the story “Taman” (3 paragraphs); entries from June 3 and June 16 - and until the end of the story “Princess Mary” and answer the questions:
1. What does Pechorin think about his fate? Why does he have such thoughts? Do you think he's right?
2. Does Pechorin consider himself a genius? What is a “genius”, in his opinion? Do you think Pechorin can be considered a man of genius if we use his theory? Do you agree with this theory? How do you assess Pechorin's abilities?
3. What is ambition? Why does Pechorin believe that his ambition cannot be satisfied? What would he like to become in the world?
4. How do you understand Pechorin’s words: “...I... have lost forever the ardor of noble aspirations...”? What is this “fervor”?
5. What does Pechorin regret the night before the duel?
6. How does he explain his character in the last lines of the story “Princess Mary”?
Lesson 3. “Fatalist” – the philosophical “solution” of the novel
First, we look at the plans for Pechorin. Be sure to read what the author wrote about him in the “Preface to the Journal.” We definitely ask the question: well, what is the main reason for all these vices? If you start only from the novel, you will end up with disbelief. Lost faith in higher ideals, truth, moral laws, which ultimately go back to faith in God. Having received such an answer, let us compare it with the Duma. There is another reason named there, historical (or political). In his poems, Lermontov accuses his generation of being afraid to live and act seriously, and therefore remaining fruitless, wasting itself on trifles. Is it possible to transfer this reproach to Pechorin? - Yes and no. It’s hard to accuse him of cowardice – he was so bold as to be reckless. But only in those little things on which he spends his life: duels, adventures, risky bets. He does not aim at big goals, annoyed that he cannot guess such a goal... Lermontov did not like his time because it did not leave his contemporaries, the nobles, a serious field. Either make a career (why?), or have fun as best you can, or... go to a monastery and perform spiritual deeds? But this path was practically closed for an educated and very skeptical nobleman. A nobleman, after all, is historically either a politician or a warrior. Pechorin fights little by little, although he clearly does not see the point in this. But we don’t see him in action. As M. Kachurin rightly wrote in his textbook, if Lermontov had shown us Pechorin in the war, perhaps the title of the novel would no longer sound ironic.
And finally, “Fatalist,” as it was said in the article, is the answer to what Pechorin, in fact, is looking for, for what he is acting. He passionately wants one thing - an answer to whether there is a higher law above us, or whether, in fact, everywhere there is only rampant self-will.
For "Fatalista" there is a detailed set of questions. And to them - a set of children's “advanced” answers (2000). Unfortunately, the authorship is not noted everywhere.
– What did Vulich want to prove, how and for what?
He needed this whole argument to win, because he was a gambler...
He wanted to prove that predestination exists. Vulich had a passion for the game; the fact that he often lost added to the excitement. But at the moment he won, proving that each of us had a fateful moment assigned in advance, especially since they bet on money, and this added even more excitement. (P. Ivanov, I. Cherentsov)
- “I affirm that there is no predestination.” What would really serve as proof in the game proposed by Vulich?
Everyone thought he was dead, but this is hardly serious evidence.
– Why does Pechorin offer such a bet? What is he accused of and how does he justify himself?
Pechorin jokingly offered a bet on Vulich’s proposal (redirection).
Pechorin proposed such a bet so that Vulich could prove his fatalism.
I think that at first Pechorin was sure that Vulich would give up the crazy idea of shooting himself in the head, but then he regretted it, and he had to make excuses.
Pechorin offers such a bet jokingly, but thinking that Vulich will refuse, afraid of death, and by this he will prove that there really is no predestination (?)
No one wrote that Pechorin, in a sense, takes everyone at their word and forces them to take their principles seriously, confirming this by risking their lives.
– Stars and people in the eyes of Pechorin. Why is this digression necessary in the story?
This digression is necessary in order to show that Pechorin, as a representative of his generation, is deprived of the ability to believe (unlike his ancestors), he can only doubt. Pechorin despised the thoughts of the ancients about the stars. (I. Anokhin)
Pechorin thinks that people used to believe in the stars and thought that the stars looked at them and helped them. But the stars remain, and people disappear along with their dreams and thoughts. Now people live, try to live on their own, struggling with fate, rejecting predestination and heaven. (I. Cherentsov)
Perhaps a digression is needed in order to better explain the meaning of predestination, what it is. (A. Golovko)
– How did death find Vulich? What's so scary about this scene? How does it echo his shot at the bet?
We can say that death found Vulich by accident, but it seems that everything was predetermined, and Pechorin noticed this. The scene is terrifying due to Vulich’s composure and the Cossack’s terrible response. The scene of the lieutenant’s death echoes the scene in the major’s room in that Vulich seemed to have already died at the major’s place, the shadow of death fell over him, and he didn’t care. (I. Cherentsov)
This is scary because the Cossack cut Vulich very badly.
Here the Cossack is, as it were, the hand of predestination and fulfills what did not happen with Major S.
- “I like to doubt everything: this disposition of mind does not interfere with the decisiveness of character - on the contrary...” How did Pechorin’s doubts turn into decisiveness in the scene of the arrest of the Cossack?
Pechorin was unable to believe in something once and for all. Therefore, even after Vulich’s death, he still did not decide for himself whether there was a definition or not. (P. Ivanov)
Pechorin's doubts about whether there was predestination led to his decision to try his luck and capture the Cossack. (S. Starkov)
During the arrest of the Cossack, Pechorin still doubts the existence of predestination and therefore decides to repeat Vulich’s experiment in order to prove to himself its (predestination’s) existence. As if for sure. (P. Ivanov)
Pechorin's doubts turned into determination after an argument with fate. He argued with whether the Cossack would kill him or not. The bullet missed, and Pechorin won. (I. Cherentsov)
– Why did Pechorin decide to repeat Vulich’s experiment after he was killed? (Check if he is destined to die). Has he done similar things in other stories?
Pechorin wanted to resolve all his doubts (whether he personally had predestination), and so he took a risk. (A. Goloulina)
– Did Pechorin want to bring benefit with his action? Why did he risk his life?
I think not. Pechorin played with fate like Vulich.
For some reason there are no answers to the last questions (perhaps they were discussed orally).
– Does Maxim Maksimych believe in predestination?
– What does the plot of “Fatalist” have in common with the plots of previous stories? Is there any significant difference?
– Why is this story the last in the novel?
In general, we know the answers.
Now the question is about writing - if there is time and energy left for it. In addition to the list of textbooks for the Unified State Exam (separate), I can offer the following fossil topics:
– Moral issues of the novel.
– Philosophical problems of the novel.
– Pechorin’s character: ways to reveal it.
– Demonic and everyday in Pechorin.
– Destroyer of romantic illusions.
– The role of landscape in the novel.
– Portrayal of the highlanders in the novel.
– Depiction of the “water society” in the novel.
– Women's images in the novel.
– The fate of a generation in Lermontov’s lyrics and in the novel.
- Master or instrument of fate?
– Two meetings between Pechorin and Maxim Maksimych (a very old and famous topic).
– Romanticism and realism in the novel.
– Romantic situations in the novel.
- Composition of the novel.
- “The History of the Human Soul” in the novel.
– Portrait and landscape as means of characterizing characters.
– The originality of Lermontov’s psychologism.
There are comparative topics that were often offered in exams:
- Pechorin and Grushnitsky.
- Pechorin and the Highlanders.
- Onegin and Pechorin.
- Grushnitsky and Lensky, etc.
Of these, the most significant - “Onegin and Pechorin.” Perhaps it should be said at the end of the work so that the concept of an “extra person” settles in everyone’s heads, because no one has yet canceled this type, although many grumble about him. This work can be done as a test or the last D/Z: list the commonalities between the heroes, the differences and draw conclusions (they are heroes of different times - and what follows from this?)
General: two aristocrats, rich, young, educated, internally free, not feeling any obligations to society and (much less) the state, not seeing any purpose in their lives, not knowing where to apply their abilities; egoists who do not know how to love and sacrifice, who inspire love and are unhappy in love. Both are indifferent to generally accepted morality and obey only the external demands of the circle in which they rotate. Lermontov deliberately repeats the motives and situations of Pushkin’s novel: the names of the heroes, the situation of a duel and a young lady in love, the melancholy of an aimless existence. In both, the authors wanted to impartially show the heroes of their time - with all their vices.
Difference: Onegin changes over the course of the novel, and for the better: at least he learned to love, saw that secular laws are not morality, and violation of real ethical laws makes him deeply unhappy and generally leads to disasters. Although at the same time there are no eternal questions the hero is not concerned. Pechorin, on the contrary, is looking for answers about the nature of good and evil, about the criteria for distinguishing them, about the meaning of life, etc. But he finds no answers and practically does not change during the course of the novel.
Conclusion. They are usually classified as one type and the reason for the appearance of such characters is considered to be an era that did not give the most independent and original people a chance to realize their talents. This is partly fair: Nikolai I He really disliked everything independent and original and lost a lot of talent. But psychologically these are very different heroes: Onegin, in general, is a kind fellow, not accustomed to being critical of his habits and actions. He is lazy and not accustomed to work, and therefore there is no question of realizing his talents (and did he even have special talents?). But he is a “good guy.” Pechorin, on the contrary, is constantly immersed in introspection and weighs and judges his every action. He is not lazy at all and is always looking for adventures so as not to get bored in inactivity. But he is not the least bit kind and incapable of compassion. Of the two, he is much closer to the demonic guise in which Onegin appeared in Tatyana’s dream.
Type " extra people” were identified already in the next era, when the era changed in Russian life and other heroes of a different time came. They very much insisted that all the “superfluous” nobles were simply slackers and white-handed people, freed by their landowner position from the need to work and make their way in life. These new people in every possible way disavowed any kind of continuity between them and the “extra” noble “suffering egoists.” However, if you look at the continuity of ideas, they all follow the path paved by Pechorin. Only Pechorin doubted the existence of God and certain general (absolute) moral laws, and the youth of the next generation will simply deny them (as we will soon see).
Appendix 2. What kind of person is Pechorin? (2007)
He is very unhappy, sometimes he himself does not understand why he does such things. He is partly selfish, a cynic and even just a sadist.
In fact, his purpose in life is to bring misfortune to people. In general, he is a desperate person who loves adventure. He is not interested in other people's destinies. (N. Kopylov)
It seems to me that Lermontov... put into the main character, for the most part, only inflammable - like passion, but only hatred for everyone, for the whole world and people...
He is capable of using an innocent girl (Princess Mary) for the sake of revenge, and then throwing away her love, like napkin (italics mine). He is an evil and cruel person, but at times there is pity, love, honor in him. (M. Tarasova)
I don’t like his attitude towards women, his manners, his non-recognition of religion (attitude towards God).
What I like about him is his determination, the achievement of goals (but not Goals), his destiny. (M. Ignatova)
What I like about Pechorin is that he treats everyone and his life easily and cheerfully. He is quite curious and constantly wants to get into something. This makes everything easy and fun for him.
But what I don’t like about him is that sometimes he goes too far in his games and ends up treating people cruelly and coldly. Although this happens without games. (R. Gulyaev)
The attitude towards Pechorin is very complex. It is absolutely clear that his main actions and his way of thinking will receive a negative assessment from me. However, I never worried so much about anyone else while reading, because he is real, because he is a person who combines the shortcomings of society, but at the same time Pechorin remains a person. (S. Popov)
Pechorin was a big egoist. He did not notice anyone around him and did not consider those around him to be people. Pechorin could not open his soul to anyone, he did not have a close friend... Pechorin noticed only himself and minded his own business. Everyone who was “friends” with him considered themselves his friends, but he didn’t care about them... (F. Makarov)
Pechorin amazes me with his ability to hide his own thoughts and feelings from others. He is a very reserved person and true to his habits. He treats those around him with contempt and treats them with cold-blooded calculation. (R. Legkov)
It seems to me that Pechorin was an egoist. He looks like Onegin at the beginning of Eugene Onegin. He has no goal in life, therefore he values nothing and strives for nothing.
For Maxim Maksimych, Pechorin remained a friend, but Pechorin did not appreciate or respect his commander. (T. Ivanova)
He has a malicious character. (N. Barabash)
I don't really like Pechorin. He's kind of very strange. It seems to me that he was poorly brought up. Pechorin did not notice the people with whom he lived. He plays with life, but doesn’t live... He doesn’t seem to take into account the people around him, he lives only the way he likes, he lives for himself. He doesn’t care whether people feel good or bad about him. He does not see his actions, whether they are good or bad. He lives as he wants. (Katya Artamkina)
Pechorin is reckless, flighty, flies from one young lady to another, vindictive. He quickly got bored with everything: and Savor, and travel; falling in love and leaving friends is his habit. He has an empty soul, he can't get busy good deed. He wants to go out and have fun. But those who are looking for fun and idleness will find nothing, because all fun and idleness will someday become boring. And they don’t lead to good.
And since he has an empty soul, he has no goal. Pechorin's only good trait is that he has a mind. (Lisa Artamkina)
- #1
Thank you very much, Inessa Nikolaevna! Low bow for such labor-intensive work! All the best to you, health and success in everything!
- #2
Inessa Nikolaevna, many thanks for your materials. You are simply a treasure trove for literature teachers. All the best to you.
- #3
Thank you very much for your selfless work!! Health and prosperity to you!
- #4
Inessa Nikolaevna, thank you very much for the material! Happiness to you in the New Year and always!
- #5
It’s better not to play a large piece; everything doesn’t look very good, to put it mildly. Well, who needs a game like this?
Drama is another matter, that’s where you can let off your “steam”, emotions, even if they are caricatured, will still be acceptable. - #6
Dear Inessa Nikolaevna, sincere thanks to you for your work, for your creativity and for your generosity!
- #7
I bow to you for the wonderful materials, for your work, for the openness of your soul!!!
- #8
Thank you for the perfectly selected material, for your creativity and professionalism.
- #9
Thanks a lot To you, Inessa Nikolaevna! Your site always helps me out! Great lessons! I give almost no changes!
- #10
Inessa Nikolaevna! Thanks a lot for interesting material based on the novel "A Hero of Our Time".
- #11
Inessa Nikolaevna! This is my first year teaching literature, and your site has become a lifesaver for me. Interesting developments, a lot of additional materials. Thank you very much for your work!
- #12
Rukasueva Angelina Mitrofanovna (Sunday, 24 December 2017 07:39)
Thank you so much, Inessa Nikolaevna! I join the words of Lyudmila, a stranger to me: I bow to you for the excellent materials, for your work, for the openness of your soul!
- #13
Dikalova Nadezhda Ivanovna (Monday, 15 January 2018 13:00)
Very rich material, thank you very much!
- #14
Inessa Nikolaevna! Thank you for the rich material! Such a great opportunity to see and show children those “magical places” they have read about.
I wish you health and creative discoveries! - #15
Inessa Nikolaevna! Thank you very much for your site and wonderful material!
- #16
Inessa Nikolaevna, thank you very much! Your materials are very helpful in my work. This is simply invaluable help! I wish you good health, inspiration, and may everything go well for you!
- #17
Thank you very much, Inessa Nikolaevna, for the interesting material and for your work. Health and creative success!
- #18
Yadykina Marina Vladimirovna (Wednesday, 28 November 2018 21:29)
Inessa Nikolaevna! Thank you very much for your rich material! Be healthy and constantly looking for new ideas!
- #19
Thank you for the interesting and informative material
- #20
Inessa Nikolaevna! Thank you very much for the material provided. All the best to you!!!
- #21
Thank you so much for your work!!! Creative success and strength for fruitful work!!!
- #22
Inessa Nikolaevna! Thank you so much, this is all a huge amount of work that you highlight so openly. Creative success to you and grateful students!
- #23
Thank you for your work!! Helps me out every time)
- #24
Thank you so much for such amazing material! I use it all the time!
