Maxim Alekseevich Antonovich was once considered a publicist, as well as a popular literary critic. In his views, he was like N.A. Dobrolyubov and N.G. Chernyshevsky, about whom he spoke very respectfully and even admiringly.
His critical article "Asmodeus of Our Time" was directed against the image of the younger generation, which I.S. Turgenev created in his novel "Fathers and Sons". The article was published immediately after Turgenev's novel came out, and caused great excitement among the reading public of that time.
According to the critic, the author idealizes fathers (older generation) and slanders children (younger generation). Analyzing the image of Bazarov that Turgenev created, Maxim Alekseevich argued: Turgenev created his character as unnecessarily immoral, instead of clearly spelled out ideas, placing “porridge” in his head. Thus, not an image of the younger generation was created, but its caricature.
In the title of the article, Antonovich uses the word "Asmodeus", which is unfamiliar in wide circles. In fact, it means an evil demon that came to us from later Jewish literature. This word in poetic, refined language means a terrible creature or, simply put, the devil. Bazarov appears in the novel just like that. First, he hates everyone and threatens to persecute everyone he hates. He shows such feelings to everyone, from frogs to children.
The heart of Bazarov, as Turgenev created it, according to Antonovich, is not capable of anything. In it, the reader will not find a trace of any noble feelings - passion, passion, love, finally. Unfortunately, the cold heart of the protagonist is not capable of such manifestations of feelings and emotions, which is no longer his personal, but a social problem, since it affects the lives of the people around him.
In his critical article, Antonovich complained that readers might want to change their minds about the younger generation, but Turgenev does not give them such a right. The emotions of the "children" never wake up, which prevents the reader from living his life next to the adventures of the hero and worrying about his fate.
Antonovich believed that Turgenev simply hated his hero Bazarov, not putting him among his obvious favorites. In the work, moments are clearly visible when the author rejoices at what mistakes his unloved hero made, he tries to belittle him all the time and even takes revenge on him somewhere. For Antonovich, this state of affairs seemed ridiculous.
The very title of the article “Asmodeus of Our Time” speaks for itself - Antonovich sees and does not forget to point out that in Bazarov, as Turgenev created him, all negative, even sometimes devoid of sympathy, character traits were embodied.
At the same time, Maxim Alekseevich tried to be tolerant and unbiased, reading Turgenev's work several times and trying to see the attention and positive with which the car speaks of his hero. Unfortunately, Antonovich did not manage to find such tendencies in the novel "Fathers and Sons", which he mentioned more than once in his critical article.
In addition to Antonovich, many other critics responded to the publication of Fathers and Sons. Dostoevsky and Maikov were delighted with the work, which they did not fail to indicate in their letters to the author. Other critics were less emotional: for example, Pisemsky sent his criticisms to Turgenev, almost completely agreeing with Antonovich. Another literary critic, Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov, exposed Bazarov's nihilism, considering this theory and this philosophy completely divorced from the realities of life in Russia at that time. So the author of the article “Asmodeus of Our Time” was not unanimous in his statements regarding Turgenev’s new novel, and in many issues he enjoyed the support of his colleagues.
Abstracts of the article by M. A. Antonovich "Asmodeus of our time" - page No. 1/1
Application
Materials offered to workshop participants
Abstracts of the article M.A. Antonovich "Asmodeus of our time".
You are covered with some kind of deadly cold; you don't live with the characters in the novel, you don't get imbued with their life, but you begin to talk coldly with them, or, more precisely, follow their reasoning. You forget that you have a novel by a talented artist in front of you, and you imagine that you are reading a moral-philosophical treatise, but bad and superficial, which, not satisfying your mind, thereby makes an unpleasant impression on your feelings. This shows that the new work of Mr. Turgenev is extremely unsatisfactory in artistic terms.
... his (Turgenev's) last novel was written with tendencies, with clearly and sharply protruding theoretical goals. It is a didactic novel, a real scholarly treatise, written in colloquial form, and every face drawn serves as an expression and representative of a certain opinion and trend.
If you look at the novel from the point of view of its tendencies, then it is just as unsatisfactory from this side as it is from an artistic point of view. There is nothing to say about the quality of the trends yet…
Apparently, Mr. Turgenev wanted to depict in his hero, as they say, a demonic or Byronic nature, something like Hamlet; but, on the other hand, he gave him traits according to which this nature seems to be the most commonplace and even vulgar, at least very far from demonism. And this, on the whole, produces not a character, not a living personality, but a caricature, a monster with a tiny head and a gigantic mouth, with a small face and a very large nose, and, moreover, the most malicious caricature. The author is so angry with his hero that he does not want to forgive him and reconcile with him even before his death ...
The protagonist of the last novel is the same Rudin, with some changes in style and expression; he is a new, modern hero, and therefore even more terrible than Rudin in his concepts and insensible than him; he is a real asmodeus; - time did not pass without reason, and the heroes developed progressively in their bad qualities.
As can be seen from everything, Mr. Turgenev took for the image the present and, so to speak, the present period of our mental life and literature ... Before you see, there were Hegelists, and now, at the present time, nihilists have appeared ... Here is a collection of modern views put into the mouth Bazarov; what are they? - a caricature, an exaggeration that occurred as a result of misunderstanding, and nothing more.
There may be hunters who ... will say that, depicting the younger generation in a funny, caricatured and even absurd form, he (Turgenev) did not mean the younger generation in general, not its best representatives, but only the most miserable and limited children, that he is not talking about the general rule, but only about its exceptions. “They (fathers), in contrast to children, are imbued with love and poetry, they are moral people, modestly and secretly doing good deeds; they never want to be behind the times.
Excuse me, Mr. Turgenev, you did not know how to define your task; instead of depicting the relationship between "fathers" and "children", you wrote a panegyric for "fathers" and a rebuke for "children"; and you didn’t understand the “children”, and instead of denunciation, you came up with slander.
Abstracts of the article D.I. Pisarev "Bazarov".
From the school of labor and deprivation, Bazarov emerged as a strong and stern man; the course he took in the natural and medical sciences developed his natural mind and weaned him from accepting any concepts and beliefs on faith; he became a pure empiricist; experience became for him the only source of knowledge, personal sensation - the only and last proof.
Bazarov recognizes only what can be felt with hands, seen with eyes, put on the tongue, in a word - only what can be witnessed by one of the five senses. What enthusiastic young men call the ideal does not exist for Bazarov; he calls all this "romanticism," and sometimes instead of the word "romanticism" he uses the word "nonsense."
You can be indignant at people like Bazarov to your heart's content, but recognizing their sincerity is absolutely necessary.
Bazarov is extremely proud, but his pride is imperceptible precisely because of its immensity. Uncle Kirsanov, who is close to Bazarov in terms of mind and character, calls his pride "satanic pride."
The author sees that Bazarov has no one to love, because everything around him is small, flat and flabby, and he himself is fresh, smart and strong.
Bazarovism is ... a disease of our time.
So, Bazarov everywhere and in everything does only as he wants or as it seems to him profitable and convenient. It is controlled only by personal whim or personal calculations. Neither above himself, nor outside himself, nor within himself does he recognize any regulator, any moral law, any principle. Ahead - no lofty goal; there is no lofty thought in him, and with all this - enormous forces. “Yes, he is an immoral man! Villain, freak! - I hear exclamations of indignant readers from all sides. Well, well, villain, freak; scold him more, persecute him with satire and epigram, indignant lyricism and indignant public opinion, the fires of the Inquisition and the axes of the executioners - and you will not exterminate, you will not kill this freak, you will not put him in alcohol to the surprise of a respectable public. If Bazarovism is a disease, then it is a disease of our time, and one has to suffer through it, in spite of all palliatives and amputations. Treat Bazarovism however you like - that's your business; and stop - do not stop; this is cholera.
Bazarov, obsessed with this disease, has a remarkable mind and, as a result, makes a strong impression on people who come across him. As a remarkably intelligent man, he had no equal.
Bazarov is a man of life, a man of action.
Bazarov needs no one, fears no one, loves no one, and therefore spares no one. /.../ In Bazarov's cynicism, two sides can be distinguished - internal and external: cynicism of thoughts and cynicism of manners and expressions.
He flatly denies things he does not know and does not understand; poetry, in his opinion, is nonsense; reading Pushkin is a waste of time; making music is funny; enjoying nature is ridiculous. It is very possible that he, a man worn out by a working life, has lost or did not have time to develop in himself the ability to enjoy a pleasant irritation of the visual and auditory nerves, but it does not follow from this that he has a reasonable basis to deny or ridicule this ability in others, to cut out other people on the same level as oneself means to fall into narrow mental despotism.
Bazarov's thoughts are expressed in his actions, in his treatment of people; they shine through and are not difficult to discern, if only one reads carefully, grouping the facts and being aware of the causes.
To die the way Bazarov died is like doing a great feat. /…/ To look into the eyes of death, to foresee its approach, not trying to deceive yourself, to remain true to yourself until the last minute, not to weaken and not be afraid - this is a matter of a strong character. Because Bazarov died firmly and calmly, no one felt any relief or benefit; but such a person who knows how to die calmly and firmly will not retreat in the face of an obstacle and will not flinch in the face of danger. /…/ The nihilist remains true to himself until the last minute.
The image of the only creature that aroused a strong feeling in Bazarov and instilled respect in him comes to his mind at a time when he is about to say goodbye to life. He loves only one creature in the world, and those tender motives of feeling that he crushed in himself, like romanticism, are now surfacing; this is not a sign of weakness, it is a natural manifestation of a feeling freed from the yoke of rationality.
Abstracts of the article N.N. Strakhov “I.S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons".
Bazarov is a new face, whose sharp features we saw for the first time ... The system of beliefs, the range of thoughts that Bazarov represents, were more or less clearly expressed in our literature. Their main spokesmen were two magazines: "Sovremennik" ... and "Russian Word" ... Turgenev took a well-known view of things that had claims to dominance, to primacy in our mental movement ... and ... embodied it in living forms.
The figure of Bazarov has something gloomy and sharp in itself. There is nothing soft and beautiful in his appearance; his face had a different, not external beauty ... Deep asceticism penetrates the whole personality of Bazarov ... The nature of this asceticism is completely special ... Bazarov renounces the blessings of this world, but he makes a strict distinction between these blessings. He willingly eats delicious dinners and drinks champagne; he is not averse even to playing cards. ... Bazarov understands that there are temptations more disastrous, more corrupting the soul than, for example, a bottle of wine, and he is careful not of what can destroy the body, but of what destroys the soul. The enjoyment of vanity, gentlemanship, all kinds of mental and cordial debauchery are much more disgusting and hateful for him than berries and cream or a bullet in preference ... this is the highest asceticism to which Bazarov is devoted.
What is this power of art, hostile to Bazarov? ... To be more precise, but in a somewhat old language, we can say that art always carries an element of reconciliation, while Bazarov does not at all want to reconcile with life. Art is idealism, contemplation, renunciation of life and worship of ideals; Bazarov, on the other hand, is a realist, not a contemplative, but an activist who recognizes only real phenomena and denies ideals.
Bazarov denies science. ... Hostility against science is also a modern feature, and even deeper and more widespread than hostility against art. By science we mean exactly what is meant by science in general and which, in the opinion of our hero, does not exist at all. ... Such a denial of abstraction, such a desire for concreteness in the very field of abstraction, in the field of knowledge, is one of the trends of the new spirit ... is the result of a stronger, more direct recognition of real phenomena, the recognition of life. This discrepancy between life and thought has never been felt so strongly as now.
Bazarov came out as a simple man, devoid of any brokenness, and at the same time strong, powerful in soul and body. Everything about him is unusually suited to his strong nature. It is very remarkable that he is, so to speak, more Russian than all the other characters in the novel. His speech is distinguished by simplicity, accuracy, mockery and a completely Russian warehouse ... Turgenev, who has created so far ... bifurcated faces, for example, Hamlet of the Shchigrovsky district, Rudin, Lavretsky, finally reached the type of a whole person in Bazarovo. Bazarov is the first strong person, the first integral character, who appeared in Russian literature from the milieu of the so-called educated society.
If the gradual development of the hero is not shown, then without a doubt because Bazarov was formed not by a slow accumulation of influences, but, on the contrary, by a quick, sharp turning point. ... He is a man of theory, and he was created by theory, created imperceptibly, without events, without anything that could be told, created by one mental upheaval.
He (Bazarov) denies life, but meanwhile he lives deeply and strongly.
... although Bazarov is head and shoulders above all other persons ... however, there is something that, on the whole, stands above Bazarov. ... this is the highest not some faces, but the life that inspires them.
The general forces of life - that is what all his attention is directed to. He showed us how these forces are embodied in Bazarov, in the same Bazarov who denies them; he showed us, if not a more powerful, then a more distinct embodiment of them in those ordinary people who surround Bazarov. Bazarov is a titan who rebelled against his mother earth; no matter how great its strength, it only testifies to the greatness of the force that gave birth to and nourishes it, but does not equal force with matter.
Be that as it may, Bazarov is still defeated; defeated not by persons and not by the accidents of life, but by the very idea of this life.
Turgenev, on the other hand, had the pretensions and audacity to create a novel that had all sorts of directions; an admirer of eternal truth, eternal beauty, he had the proud goal of pointing the temporal to the eternal, and wrote a novel that was not progressive or retrograde, but, so to speak, everlasting.
The change of generations is the external theme of the novel. if Turgenev did not depict all the fathers and children, or not those fathers and children, such as others would like, then in general fathers and children in general, and he portrayed the relationship between these two generations admirably. Perhaps the difference between the generations was as great as it is at present, and therefore their relationship was revealed especially sharply.
I.S. Turgenev about Bazarov
Did I want to scold Bazarov or exalt him? This I myself do not know, for I do not know whether I love him or hate him.
I.S. Turgenev
Bazarov nevertheless suppresses all the other faces of the novel (Katkov felt that in it I presented the apotheosis of Sovremennik). The qualities given to him are not accidental. I wanted to make a tragic face out of him - there was no time for tenderness. He is honest, truthful and a democrat to the end of his nails. And you do not find in it good sides. He recommends "Stoff und Kraft" precisely as popular, i.e. an empty book duel with P.P. it was introduced as a visual proof of the emptiness of the elegantly noble chivalry, exhibited almost exaggeratedly comically; and how he would refuse it: after all, P.P. would have beaten him. Bazarov, in my opinion, constantly breaks P-a P-a, and not vice versa; and if he is called a nihilist, then it should be read: a revolutionary ... What is said about Arcadia, about the rehabilitation of fathers, etc., only shows - he is guilty! - that they did not understand me. My whole story is directed against the nobility as an advanced class. Look into the faces of N-I P-a, P-a P-a, Arkady. Weakness and lethargy or limitation. Aesthetic feeling compelled me to take precisely good representatives of the nobility in order to more accurately prove my theme: if cream is bad, what is milk?
... When drawing the figure of Bazarov, I excluded everything artistic from the circle of his sympathies, I gave him a sharpness and arrogance of tone, not out of an absurd desire to offend the younger generation (!!!), but simply as a result of observations of my acquaintance, Dr. D. and people like him. “This is how life developed,” experience told me again - it may be erroneous, but, I repeat, conscientious, I had nothing to be wiser, and I had to draw his figure just like that. My personal inclinations mean nothing here, but probably many of my readers will be surprised if I tell them that, with the exception of views on art, I share almost all of his beliefs ... "
Neither Odintsov should be ironic, nor the peasant should stand above Bazarov, even though he is empty and barren ... Maybe my view of Russia is more misanthropic than you think: in my eyes he is really a hero of our time. A good hero and a good time, - you say ... But it is so.
P. Weil, A. Genis
Native speech: Lessons of belles-lettres. -3rd ed. – 1999.
beetle formula
"Fathers and Sons" is perhaps the most noisy and scandalous book in Russian literature. Avdotya Panaeva, who did not like Turgenev very much, wrote: “I don’t remember that any literary work made so much noise and aroused so many conversations as Turgenev’s story Fathers and Sons. It can be positively said that "Fathers and Sons" was read even by people who did not pick up books from school.
Turgenev quite succinctly described the new phenomenon in his book. A definite, concrete, today's phenomenon. Such a mood is already set at the very beginning of the novel: “What, Peter? not see yet? - he asked on May 20, 1859, going out without a hat on a low porch ... ".
It was very significant for the author and for the reader that such a year was in the yard. Previously, Bazarov could not appear. The achievements of the 1840s prepared his approach. The society was strongly impressed by natural scientific discoveries: the law of conservation of energy, the cellular structure of organisms. It turned out that the phenomena of life can be reduced to the simplest chemical and physical processes, expressed in an accessible and convenient formula. Focht's book, the same one that Arkady Kirsanov gives his father to read - "Strength and Matter" - taught: the brain secretes thought, like the liver - bile. Thus, the highest human activity - thinking - turned into a physiological mechanism that can be traced and described. There are no secrets left.
Therefore, Bazarov easily and simply transforms the basic position of the new science, adapting it for different occasions. “You study the anatomy of the eye: where does the mysterious look come from, as you say? This is all romanticism, nonsense, rottenness, art,” he says to Arkady. And logically finishes: "Let's go and watch the beetle."
Bazarov quite rightly contrasts two worldviews - scientific and artistic. Only their collision does not end in the way that seemed inevitable to him. Actually, this is what Turgenev's book is about - more precisely, this is her role in the history of Russian literature ...
In general, Bazarov’s ideas boil down to “watching the beetle” - instead of pondering mysterious views. The beetle is the key to all problems. Bazarov's perception of the world is dominated by biological categories. In such a system of thinking, the beetle is simpler, the person is more complicated. Society is also an organism, only even more developed and complex than a person.
Turgenev saw a new phenomenon and was frightened of it. In these unprecedented people, an unknown force was felt. In order to realize it, he began to write down: “I painted all these faces, as if I were drawing mushrooms, leaves, trees; sore my eyes - I began to draw "...
The narrative fabric itself is extremely objectified. All the time one feels a zero degree of writing, uncharacteristic for Russian literature, where it is a question of a social phenomenon. In general, reading "Fathers and Sons" leaves a strange impression of lack of structure in the plot, looseness of the composition. And this is also the result of an attitude towards objectivity: as if not a novel is being written, but a notebook, notes for memory.
But execution in belles lettres is more important than intention. Turgenev is an artist, and this is the main thing. The characters in the book are alive. The language is bright. As Bazarov remarkably says about Odintsova: “A rich body. Even now in the anatomical theater "...
The novel "Fathers and Sons" is about the collision of a civilizing impulse with the order of culture. The fact that the world, reduced to a formula, turns into chaos.
Civilization is a vector, culture is a scalar. Civilization is made up of ideas and beliefs. Culture summarizes techniques and skills. The invention of the flush barrel is a sign of civilization. The fact that every house has a flush tank is a sign of culture.
Bazarov is a free and sweeping bearer of ideas. This looseness of his is presented in Turgenev's novel with mockery, but also with admiration. Here is one of the notable conversations: “However, we philosophized enough. “Nature evokes the silence of sleep,” said Pushkin. “I never said anything like that,” said Arkady. - Well, I didn’t say it, I could and should have said it as a poet. By the way, he must have served in the military. - Pushkin was never a military man! - For mercy, on every page he has: “To fight, to fight! for the honor of Russia!
It is clear that Bazarov is talking nonsense. But at the same time, something very accurately guesses in the reading and mass perception of Pushkin by Russian society. Such courage is the privilege of a free mind. Enslaved thinking operates with ready-made dogmas. Uninhibited thinking turns a hypothesis into a hyperbole, a hyperbole into a dogma. This is the most attractive in Bazarov. But the most frightening thing, too.
Turgenev managed to show such Bazarov. His hero is not a philosopher, not a thinker. When he speaks at length, it is usually from popular scientific writings. When brief, he speaks sharply and sometimes witty. But the point is not in the ideas themselves that Bazarov sets out, but in the way of thinking, in absolute freedom (“Raphael is not worth a damn”).
And Bazarov is opposed not by his main opponent - Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov - but by the way, order, respect for which Kirsanov professes ("Without principles taken on faith, one cannot take a step, one cannot breathe").
Turgenev destroys Bazarov, confronting him with the very idea of a way of life. The author guides his hero through the book, consistently arranging exams for him in all spheres of life - friendship, enmity, love, family ties. And Bazarov consistently fails everywhere. The series of these tests constitutes the plot of the novel.
Despite the differences in specific circumstances, Bazarov always fails for the same reason: he invades order, rushing like a lawless comet - and burns out.
His friendship with the devoted and faithful Arkady ends in failure. Attachment does not stand up to tests of strength, which are carried out in such barbaric ways as reviling Pushkin and other dear authorities. The bride of Arkady Katya accurately formulates: "He is predatory, and we are tame." Manual - means living by the rules, keeping order.
The way of life is sharply hostile to Bazarov and in his love for Odintsova. This is strongly emphasized in the book, even by the simple repetition of the same words. “What do you need Latin names for? Bazarov asked. “Everything needs order,” she answered.
... Bazarov did not like this measured, somewhat solemn correctness of daily life; “It’s like rolling on rails,” he assured.
Odintsova is frightened by the scope and uncontrollability of Bazarov, and the worst accusation in her lips is the words: "I begin to suspect that you are prone to exaggeration." Hyperbole - the strongest and most effective trump card is considered as a violation of the norm.
The clash of chaos with the norm exhausts the theme of enmity, which is very important in the novel. Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov is also not a thinker, just like Bazarov. He is unable to resist Bazarov's onslaught of any articulated ideas and arguments. But Kirsanov acutely feels the danger of the very fact of Bazarov’s existence, while focusing not on thoughts and not even on words: “you deign to find my habits, my toilet, my neatness funny ...” Kirsanov defends these seemingly trifles, since he instinctively understands that the sum of trifles is culture. The same culture in which Pushkin, Raphael, clean nails and an evening walk are naturally distributed. Bazarov poses a threat to all this.
The civilizer Bazarov believes that somewhere there is a reliable formula for well-being and happiness, which you just need to find and offer to humanity (“Fix society, and there will be no diseases”). For the sake of finding this formula, some little things can be sacrificed. And since any civilizer always deals with an already existing, established world order, he goes by the opposite method: not creating something anew, but first destroying what is already there.
Kirsanov is convinced that the very well-being and happiness lies in the accumulation, summation and preservation. The uniqueness of the formula is opposed by the diversity of the system. You can't start a new life on Monday.
The pathos of destruction and reorganization is so unacceptable to Turgenev that it forces Bazarov to ultimately lose outright to Kirsanov.
The climactic event is a finely crafted fight scene. Depicted as a whole as an absurdity, a duel, darker or less - Kirsanov is not out of place. She is part of his heritage, his world, his culture of rules and "principles." Bazarov, on the other hand, looks pitiful in a duel, because he is alien to the system itself, which gave rise to such phenomena as a duel. He is forced to fight here on foreign territory. Turgenev even shows that against Bazarov - something much more important and powerful than Kirsanov with a pistol: "Pavel Petrovich seems to him a big forest, with which he still had to fight." In other words, at the barrier is nature itself, nature, the world order.
And Bazarov is finally finished off when it becomes clear why Odintsova renounced him: “She forced herself to reach a certain line, forced herself to look beyond her - and saw behind her not even an abyss, but emptiness ... or disgrace.”
This is the most important recognition. Turgenev denies even greatness to the chaos that Bazarov brings, leaving behind him only one unsightly disorder.
That is why Bazarov dies humiliatingly and pitifully. Although here the author retains complete objectivity, showing the strength of mind and courage of the hero. Pisarev even believed that by his behavior in the face of death, Bazarov put on the scales that last weight, which, ultimately, pulled in his direction.
But the cause of Bazarov's death is much more significant - a scratch on his finger. The paradoxical nature of the death of a young, flourishing, outstanding person from such an insignificant trifle creates a scale that makes one think. It was not a scratch that killed Bazarov, but nature itself. He again invaded with his crude lancet (literally this time) of the transducer into the routine of life and death - and fell victim to it. The smallness of the cause here only emphasizes the inequality of forces. Bazarov himself is aware of this: “Yes, go and try to deny death. She denies you, and that's it!
Turgenev killed Bazarov not because he did not guess how to adapt this new phenomenon in Russian society, but because he discovered the only law that, at least theoretically, the nihilist does not undertake to refute.
The novel "Fathers and Sons" was created in the heat of controversy. Russian literature rapidly democratized, the priestly sons crowded out the nobles resting on "principles". “Literary Robespierres”, “cookers – vandals” confidently walked, striving to “wipe poetry, fine arts, all aesthetic pleasures from the face of the earth and establish their seminary rude principles” (all these are the words of Turgenev).
This, of course, is an exaggeration, a hyperbole - that is, a tool that, naturally, is more suitable for a destroyer - a civilizer, than a cultural conservative, which was Turgenev. However, he used this tool in private conversations and correspondence, and not in belles-lettres. The journalistic idea of the novel "Fathers and Sons" was transformed into a convincing literary text. It sounds not even the author's voice, but the culture itself, which denies the formula in ethics, but does not find a material equivalent for aesthetics. The pressure of civilization breaks down on the foundations of the cultural order, and the diversity of life cannot be reduced to a beetle, which one must go to look at in order to understand the world.
O. Monakhova, M. Stishova
Russian literature of the 19th century.- M.:
OLMA - PRESS, 1999.
"Fathers and Sons". Epoch and novel
The novel by I. S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons" was written in 1861. Time of action - 1855-1861 - a difficult period for Russia. In 1855, the war with Turkey, lost by Russia, ended, this defeat is shameful for our country. The most important event in domestic politics also took place: the change of reign. Nicholas I died, his death ended the era of repression, the era of the suppression of public liberal thought. During the reign of Alexander II in Russia, the education of various segments of the population flourished. Raznochintsy are becoming a real social force, while the aristocracy is losing its leading role.
Of course, the education that the raznochintsy received was fundamentally different from that of the nobility. Aristocratic youth studied "for themselves", that is, it was education in the name of education itself. Raznochintsy, on the other hand, had neither the means nor the time for such a luxury as broadening their horizons. They needed to get a profession that would feed them. For the revolutionary-minded youth, the task was somewhat more complicated. Their business was not only to ensure their existence, but also to bring real benefits to people. Any pursuit of science, scientific creativity should have both theoretical and practical results. This attitude to the quickly achievable practical effect of scientific activity determined a narrow circle of specialties, which were mainly chosen by raznochintsy. Mostly it was the natural sciences. The fascination with them is also explained by the fact that the "religion" of the revolutionary-democratic youth has become materialism, and in its lowest manifestation - vulgar materialism, which completely denied the entire spiritual world of man. It is on the basis of vulgar materialism that the theory of Yevgeny Bazarov is built. It is no coincidence that he likens the study of a person to the study of a particular tree species: it is enough to study a certain number of specimens - and the researcher knows everything about this species: both people and trees. This is true with respect to physiology, and only this is recognized by the Bazarov theory. The higher life of the spirit does not exist for her.
Stanislav Borisovich Rassadin
Russian literature:
from Fonvizin to Brodsky.
– M.: Slovo / Slovo, 2001.
And Bazarov?
Its creator, Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev (1818-1873), has a fate that something difficult to define prevents us from calling it unconditionally glorious. The author of the amazing Notes of a Hunter (1847-1852), such powerful novels as The Noble Nest (1858) and - especially! - “Fathers and Sons” (1861), it is somewhat impressionistic against the backdrop of the then literature, whose creators gravitate towards not just drawing characters, but cutting out types. His characters are like sketches with a pencil or charcoal, blanks of what will later be painted in oil. For example, Chertop-hanov and Nedopyuskin from the Hunter's Notes will seem to be completed, completed, completed in Leskov's prose. Kukshina and Sitnikov, nonentities clinging to the "nihilist" Bazarov, ten years later will turn into sharp caricatures on the pages of the same Demons. Weak, inactive, and strangely attractive by this very inactivity, Lavretsky from The Nest of Nobles, of course, is also, as it were, a sketch - partly of Tolstoy's Pierre Bezukhov, partly (more likely) of Ilya Ilyich Oblomov ...
What's this? Advantage or disadvantage of Turgenev? But I don't feel like pronouncing a "flaw" when talking about a great artist. It would be better to say about Turgenev's extraordinary flair for the trends of the present; about the instinct that makes the creative process outstrip the state when the fruit is ripe. When the character of the hero is already able to come out conscious and voluminous ...
Like Dostoevsky, Turgenev undertook to create the image of a "nihilist" with the ultimate goal of condemning him for "emptiness and barrenness" - however, he did not plan a pamphlet. And, as they say, "he was embarrassed," he even thought about stopping the printing of the novel when various rumors began. Up to the point that some saw in Bazarov the devil in the flesh, others - "a pure, honest figure." Some are "a caricature of the youth", others are a panegyric.
“I don’t know if I love him or hate him,” the author admitted in confusion, and most importantly, confirmed this “I don’t know” with the entire text of the novel - which almost always speaks of the victory of the artist over the ideologist, art, “poetry” - over the trend , "politics".
Here, for example, the death of Bazarov. Why did he have to die? Because Turgenev didn't know what to do next with him? Perhaps ... But perhaps not ... Even the arrogant critic Dmitry Pisarev got confused in the explanations. On the one hand, he argued that Bazarov's death was an "accident", which "is not in connection with the general thread of the novel"; on the other hand, he realized that in the coming years “Bazarov could not have done anything that would show us the application of his worldview in life ...” But it was precisely this “in life” that betrayed the primitive logic of Pisarev, a pragmatist who interprets an artistic creation with point of view of political Russian reality. As something that exists is quite real.
Another thing: “Bazarov does not die from blood poisoning! Bazarov is dying of love!” So fantasized Vsevolod Meyerhold, intending to film "Fathers and Sons" and dreaming that Mayakovsky would play the role of Turgenev's "nihilist". Rave? Not at all. Fantasy, which does not want to take into account even what is written in black and white, with its intuitiveness is just akin to the complex and fragile structure of the creature named "Eugene Bazarov". The reason for the non-viability of which is not blood poisoning and not unrequited love; it is the inconsistency of Bazarov’s figure not only with the “first reality”, that is, the real Russian reality of the 50-60s of the XIX century, but also with that “second” that Turgenev, while maintaining lifelikeness, built around his strange “nihilist” ...
“Bazarov is a mixture of Nozdryov and Byron,” this is what Dostoevsky’s fictional hero Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky said, and here one should not brush aside the words of this liberal rhetoric.
E.N.Basovskaya
Russian literature.
Second halfXIXcentury.– M.: Olympus,
"AST Publishing House", 1998.
Turgenev in search of his hero.
In 1856 Sovremennik published Turgenev's novel Rudin. Much was determined in this book, which later became a hallmark of a special genre - Turgenev's novel: the sublime and slightly sad atmosphere of the landowner's estate, the image of the hero - an intelligent, but unhappy, lonely person who does not find a worthy social circle for himself; the heroine is a reverently tender girl with a pure soul and a warm heart... And Turgenev's great prose was also distinguished by an abundance of reasoning, dialogues and monologues devoted to the most difficult issues of politics, morality and life in general. It is no coincidence that Turgenev's novels are called intellectual, that is, smart. Two forces always reign in them - feeling and thought. Heroes in anything, even in love, are not guided by emotions alone. They not only love, but also constantly think about what is happening to them.
Rudin was then, with the light hand of Dobrolyubov, called among the "superfluous people" - for the reason that he did not find employment in Russia, spoke a lot and did little, and was also indecisive in love. True, at the end of the novel, the "extra person" was dying on the barricades in Paris in revolt in 1848. But in the eyes of Dobrolyubov, even this did not justify his former inactivity in his homeland.
The originality and loneliness of Rudin, his tragic throwing, mysterious disappearance and beautiful death in battle - all this made him related to the romantic hero of a recent era. Why, Turgenev was brought up on romantic literature with its exceptional, strong and attractive characters. At the beginning of his career, he retreated from the passions of youth under the influence of the "natural school". His first famous heroes were ordinary peasants and landlords, immersed in the simple, everyday life of the Russian provinces. But as soon as he felt creative maturity, became a completely independent artist, romantic motives sounded in his books. They are heard in subsequent novels:
"Nest of Nobles" (1859), "On the Eve" (1860), "Fathers and Sons" (1862), "Smoke" (1867), "Nov" (1877).
The hero of Turgenev is a man unlike others. Whatever distinguishes him from the crowd - political views or unhappy love and disappointment in life - the action is always built on the opposition of one - many, searching and throwing - peace and order. And every time the author's attitude to what is happening is shrouded in a fog of uncertainty. On the one hand, Turgenev clearly likes outstanding and strong personalities. On the other hand, he is anxiously watching how they easily destroy the already fragile harmony of a normal, settled, peaceful human life. The main character of the novel "On the Eve" Elena fell in love with the Bulgarian Insarov and, having left with him, forever parted with her family and friends, doomed herself to loneliness. After the untimely death of her husband, she did not want to return to Russia and went to Bulgaria, where her trace was lost. Only the sad memory of a very young, beautiful, educated girl remained, whom many loved, but no one managed to keep. Insarov gave her great love. But he ruined her life, which could not be so bright, but quite prosperous.
This is almost always the case with Turgenev. And every time we cannot say in advance: what will win - the quiet, domestic happiness of ordinary people or the destructive passions of outstanding natures.
Bazarov's views
("Fathers and Sons." Roman Turgenev. "Russian Bulletin", 1862, No. 2, February)
Maxim Alekseevich Antonovich
Sadly, I look at our generation.
Everyone who was interested in literature and those close to it knew from printed and oral rumors that Mr. Turgenev had an artistic intention to compose a novel, depict in it the modern movement of Russian society, express in an artistic form his view of the modern young generation and explain his attitude towards him. Several times rumor spread the news that the novel was ready, that it was being printed and would soon be published; however, the novel did not appear; it was said that the author stopped printing it, reworked, corrected and supplemented his work, then sent it to print again and again set about reworking it. Everyone was overcome with impatience; the feverish expectation was tense to the highest degree; everyone wanted to quickly see the new work of the banner of that sympathetic artist and favorite of the public. The very subject of the novel aroused the liveliest interest: Mr. Turgenev's talent appeals to the contemporary young generation; the poet took up youth, the spring of life, the most poetic plot. The younger generation, always gullible, delighted in advance in the hope of seeing their own; a portrait drawn by the skillful hand of a sympathetic artist, which will contribute to the development of his self-consciousness and become his guide; it will look at itself from the outside, take a critical look at its image in the mirror of talent and better understand itself, its strengths and weaknesses, its vocation and purpose. And now the desired hour has come; The novel, long and eagerly awaited and several times predicted, finally appeared near the Geological Sketches of the Caucasus, well, of course, everyone, young and old, eagerly rushed at him, like hungry wolves on prey.
And the general reading of the novel begins. From the very first pages, to the great amazement of the reader, he is seized by a kind of boredom; but, of course, you are not embarrassed by this and continue to read, hoping that it will be better further, that the author will enter into his role, that talent will take its toll and involuntarily captivate your attention. And meanwhile, and further, when the action of the novel unfolds completely before you, your curiosity does not stir, your feeling remains untouched; reading makes some unsatisfactory impression on you, which is reflected not in the feeling, but, most surprisingly, in the mind. You are covered with some deadly cold; you don't live with the characters in the novel, you don't get imbued with their life, but you begin to talk coldly with them, or, more precisely, follow their reasoning. You forget that you have a novel by a talented artist in front of you, and you imagine that you are reading a moral-philosophical treatise, but bad and superficial, which, not satisfying your mind, thereby makes an unpleasant impression on your feelings. This shows that the new work of Mr. Turgenev is extremely unsatisfactory in artistic terms. Longtime and zealous admirers of Mr. Turgenev will not like such a review of his novel, they will find it harsh and even, perhaps, unfair. Yes, we admit, we ourselves were surprised at the impression that "Fathers and Sons" made on us. True, we did not expect anything special and unusual from Mr. Turgenev, just as probably all those who remember his "First Love" did not expect; but even so, there were scenes in it, on which one could stop, not without pleasure, and rest after the various, completely unpoetic, whims of the heroine. In Mr. Turgenev's new novel there are not even such oases; there is nowhere to hide from the suffocating heat of strange reasonings and, even for a moment, to be freed from the unpleasant, irritable impression produced by the general course of the depicted actions and scenes. What is most surprising of all, in the new work of Mr. Turgenev there is not even that psychological analysis with which he used to analyze the play of feelings in his heroes, and which pleasantly tickled the feeling of the reader; there are no artistic images, pictures of nature, which really could not help but admire and which delivered to every reader a few minutes of pure and calm pleasure and involuntarily disposed him to sympathize with the author and thank him. In "Fathers and Sons" he skimps on description, does not pay attention to nature; after minor retreats, he hurries to his heroes, saves space and strength for something else, and instead of complete pictures, draws only strokes, and even then unimportant and uncharacteristic, like the fact that “some roosters fervently called to each other in the village; yes, somewhere high in the tops of the trees, the incessant squeak of a young hawk rang with a whining call" (p. 589).
All the author's attention is drawn to the protagonist and other characters, - however, not to their personalities, not to their spiritual movements, feelings and passions, but almost exclusively to their conversations and reasoning. That is why in the novel, with the exception of one old woman, there is not a single living person and living soul, but all are only abstract ideas and different directions, personified and called by their proper names. For example, we have a so-called negative direction and is characterized by a certain way of thinking and views. Mr. Turgenev took it and called him Yevgeny Vasilievich, who says in the novel: I am a negative direction, my thoughts and views are such and such. Seriously, literally! There is also a vice in the world, which is called disrespect to parents and is expressed by certain deeds and words. Mr. Turgenev called him Arkady Nikolaevich, who does these things and says these words. The emancipation of a woman, for example, is called Eudoxie Kukshina. The whole novel is built on such a trick; all personalities in it are ideas and views dressed up only in a personal concrete form. - But all this is nothing, no matter what the personalities, and most importantly, to these unfortunate, lifeless personalities, Mr. Turgenev, a soul highly poetic and sympathetic to everything, has not the slightest pity, not a drop of sympathy and love, that feeling that called humane. He despises and hates his main character and his friends with all his heart; his feeling for them is not, however, the high indignation of the poet in general and the hatred of the satirist in particular, which are directed not at individuals, but at the weaknesses and shortcomings noticed in individuals, and the strength of which is directly proportional to the love that the poet and satirist have for to their heroes. It is already a hackneyed truth and a commonplace that a true artist treats his unfortunate heroes not only with visible laughter and indignation, but also with invisible tears and invisible love; he suffers and hurts his heart because he sees weaknesses in them; he considers, as it were, his own misfortune, that other people like him have shortcomings and vices; he speaks of them with contempt, but at the same time with regret, as about his own grief, Mr. Turgenev treats his heroes, not his favorites, in a completely different way. He harbors some kind of personal hatred and hostility towards them, as if they personally did him some kind of insult and dirty trick, and he tries to mark them at every step, as a person personally offended; he with inner pleasure looks for weaknesses and shortcomings in them, about which he speaks with ill-concealed gloating and only in order to humiliate the hero in the eyes of readers; "Look, they say, what a scoundrel my enemies and opponents are." He rejoices as a child when he manages to prick an unloved hero with something, to joke about him, to present him in a funny or vulgar and vile form; every mistake, every thoughtless step of the hero pleasantly tickles his vanity, causes a smile of complacency, revealing a proud, but petty and inhumane consciousness of his own superiority. This vindictiveness reaches the ridiculous, has the appearance of school tweaks, showing up in trifles and trifles. The protagonist of the novel speaks with pride and arrogance of his skill in the card game; and Mr. Turgenev makes him constantly lose; and this is done not for fun, not for the sake of which, for example, Mr. Winkel, who boasts of his marksmanship, instead of a crow, falls into a cow, but in order to prick the hero and wound his proud pride. The hero was invited to fight in preference; he agreed, wittily hinting that he would beat everyone. “Meanwhile,” remarks Mr. Turgenev, “the hero went on and on and on. One person skillfully played cards; the other could also take care of herself. The hero was left with a loss, although insignificant, but still not entirely pleasant. “Father Alexei, they told the hero, and would not mind playing cards. Well, he answered, let's get into a jumble and I'll beat him. Father Alexei sat down at the green table with a moderate expression of pleasure and ended by beating the hero by 2 rubles. 50 kop. banknotes". - And what? beat? not ashamed, not ashamed, but also boasted! - schoolchildren usually say in such cases to their comrades, disgraced braggarts. Then Mr. Turgenev tries to portray the protagonist as a glutton who only thinks about how to eat and drink, and this is again done not with good nature and comedy, but with the same vindictiveness and desire to humiliate the hero even a story about gluttony. Petukha is written more calmly and with great sympathy on the part of the author for his hero. In all the scenes and cases of food, Mr. Turgenev, as if not on purpose, notices that the hero "spoke little, but ate a lot"; if he is invited somewhere, he first of all inquires whether he will have champagne, and even if he gets to it, he even loses his passion for talkativeness, "occasionally says a word, and is more and more engaged in champagne." This personal aversion of the author to his main character is manifested at every step and involuntarily revolts the feeling of the reader, who finally becomes annoyed with the author, why he treats his hero so cruelly and mocks him so viciously, then he finally deprives him of all meaning and of all human qualities, why he puts thoughts into her head, into his heart feelings that are completely inconsistent with the character of the hero, with his other thoughts and feelings. In artistic terms, this means incontinence and unnaturalness of character - a drawback consisting in the fact that the author did not know how to portray his hero in such a way that he constantly remained true to himself. Such unnaturalness has the effect on the reader that he begins to distrust the author and involuntarily becomes the hero's lawyer, recognizes as impossible in him those absurd thoughts and that ugly combination of concepts that the author ascribes to him; evidence and evidence is available in other words of the same author, referring to the same hero. A hero, if you please, a physician, a young man, in the words of Mr. Turgenev himself, passionately, selflessly devoted to his science and occupations in general; not for a single minute does he part with his instruments and apparatus, he is constantly busy with experiments and observations; wherever he is, wherever he appears, immediately at the first convenient minute he begins to botanize, catch frogs, beetles, butterflies, dissect them, examine them under a microscope, subject them to chemical reactions; in the words of Mr. Turgenev, he carried with him everywhere "some kind of medical-surgical smell"; for science, he did not spare his life and died of infection while dissecting a typhoid corpse. And suddenly Mr. Turgenev wants to assure us that this man is a petty braggart and drunkard chasing champagne, and claims that he has no love for anything, not even for science, that he does not recognize science, does not believe in it, that he even despises medicine and laughs at it. Is this a natural thing? Isn't the author too angry with his hero? In one place, the author says that the hero "possessed a special ability to arouse the confidence of the lower people, although he never indulged them and treated them carelessly" (p. 488); “The servants of the lord became attached to him, even though he teased them; Dunyasha chuckled eagerly with him; Peter, a man extremely proud and stupid, and he grinned and brightened as soon as the hero paid attention to him; the yard boys ran after the “dokhtur” like little dogs” and even had scholarly conversations and disputes with him (p. 512). But, in spite of all this, in another place a comic scene is depicted in which the hero did not know how to say a few words with the peasants; the peasants could not understand the one who spoke clearly even with the yard boys. This latter described his reasoning with the peasant as follows: “the master was chatting something, I wanted to scratch my tongue. It is known, master; does he understand? The author could not resist even here, and at this right opportunity he inserted a hairpin to the hero: “alas! he also boasted that he knew how to talk to peasants” (p. 647).
And there are enough such inconsistencies in the novel. Almost every page shows the author's desire to humiliate the hero at all costs, whom he considered his opponent and therefore heaped on him all sorts of absurdities and mocked him in every possible way, scattering in witticisms and barbs. All this is permissible, appropriate, perhaps even good in some polemical article; but in the novel it is a flagrant injustice that destroys its poetic action. In the novel, the hero, the opponent of the author, is a defenseless and unanswerable creature, he is completely in the hands of the author and is silently forced to listen to all sorts of fables that are raised against him; he is in the same position in which the opponents were in learned treatises written in the form of conversations. In them, the author orates, always speaks intelligently and reasonably, while his opponents appear to be pitiful and narrow-minded fools who do not know how to say words decently, and not even to present any sensible objection; whatever they say, the author refutes everything in the most victorious manner. From various places in Mr. Turgenev's novel it is clear that the main character of his man is not stupid, - on the contrary, he is very capable and gifted, inquisitive, diligently studying and knowing a lot; meanwhile, in disputes, he is completely lost, expresses nonsense and preaches absurdities that are unforgivable to the most limited mind. Therefore, as soon as Mr. Turgenev begins to joke and mock his hero, it seems that if the hero were a living person, if he could free himself from silence and speak independently of himself, then he would immediately strike down Mr. Turgenev, laugh would have been much wittier and more thorough with him, so that Mr. Turgenev himself would then have to play the pitiful role of silence and unanswerability. Mr. Turgenev, through one of his favorites, asks the hero: “Do you deny everything? not only art, poetry ... but also ... it's scary to say ... - Everything, the hero answered with inexpressible calmness ”(p. 517). Of course, the answer is unsatisfactory; but who knows, a living hero, perhaps, would have answered: “No,” and would have added: we deny only your art, your poetry, Mr. Turgenev, yours and; but we do not deny and even demand a different art and poetry, a different one, and even though such and what, for example, Goethe imagined, the same poet as you, however, denied yours and. - There is nothing to say about the moral character and moral qualities of the hero; this is not a man, but some terrible creature, just a devil, or, more poetically, asmodeus. He systematically hates and persecutes everything from his kind parents, whom he cannot stand, to frogs, which he cuts with merciless cruelty. Never had a feeling crept into his cold heart; there is not a trace of any infatuation or passion in him; he releases the very hatred calculated, by the grain. And mind you, this hero is a young man, a young man! He appears as some kind of poisonous creature that poisons everything he touches; he has a friend, but even him he despises not the slightest favor; he has followers, but he also hates them. He teaches immorality and senselessness to all who are generally subject to his influence; their noble instincts and lofty feelings he kills with his contemptuous mockery, and with it he keeps them from every good deed. A woman, kind and sublime by nature, is at first carried away by him; but then, recognizing him closer, with horror and disgust, she turns away from him, spitting and "wiping with a handkerchief." He even allowed himself to be contemptuous of Father Alexei, a priest, a "very good and reasonable" man, who, however, jokes evilly at him and beats him at cards. Apparently, Mr. Turgenev wanted to depict in his hero, as they say, a demonic or Byronic nature, something like Hamlet; but, on the other hand, he gave him features that make his nature seem the most ordinary and even vulgar, at least very far from demonism. And this, on the whole, produces not a character, not a living personality, but a caricature, a monster with a tiny head and a gigantic mouth, a small face and a very large nose, and, moreover, the most malicious caricature. The author is so angry with his hero that he does not want to forgive him and reconcile with him even before his death, at that, oratorically speaking, sacred moment when the hero is already standing with one foot on the edge of the coffin - an act completely incomprehensible in a sympathetic artist. In addition to the sacredness of the minute, prudence alone should have softened the author's indignation; the hero dies - it is too late and useless to teach and denounce him, there is no need to humiliate him before the reader; his hands will soon go numb, and he can do no harm to the author, even if he wants to; seems like it should be left alone. So no; the hero, as a physician, knows very well that he has only a few hours to die; he calls to himself a woman for whom he had not love, but something else, not like a real sublime love. She came, the hero and said to her: “the old thing is death, but new for everyone. Until now, I'm not afraid ... and there, unconsciousness will come, and fuit! Well, what can I tell you... That I loved you? it made no sense before, and now even more so. Love is a form, and my own form is already decaying. I'd rather say that what a glorious you are! And now here you are standing, so beautiful ... ”(The reader will see more clearly what a nasty meaning lies in these words.) She came closer to him, and he spoke again:“ oh, how close, and how young, fresh, clean... in this nasty room!...” (p. 657). From this sharp and wild dissonance, the spectacularly painted picture of the death of the hero loses all poetic meaning. Meanwhile, in the epilogue there are pictures that are deliberately poetic, meant to soften the hearts of readers and lead them to sad daydreaming, and which completely do not achieve their goal due to the indicated dissonance. Two young Christmas trees grow on the hero's grave; his father and mother - "two already decrepit old men" - come to the grave, weep bitterly and pray for their son. “Are their prayers, their tears fruitless? Isn't love, holy, devoted love, all-powerful? Oh no! No matter how passionate, sinful, rebellious the heart is hidden in the grave, the flowers growing on it serenely look at us with their innocent eyes: they tell us not only about eternal calmness, about that great calmness of “indifferent” nature; they also speak of eternal reconciliation and endless life” (p. 663). It seems that what is better; everything is beautiful and poetic, and old people, and Christmas trees, and innocent looks of flowers; but all this is tinsel and phrases, even unbearable after the death of the hero is depicted. And the author turns his tongue to talk about all-reconciling love, about endless life, after this love and the thought of endless life could not keep him from inhuman treatment of his dying hero, who, lying on his deathbed, calls on his beloved in order to to tickle his fading passion for the last time with the sight of her charms. Very cute! This is the kind of poetry and art worth both denying and condemning; in words they sing touchingly about love and peace, but in reality they turn out to be malicious and irreconcilable. - In general, artistically, the novel is completely unsatisfactory, to say the least out of respect for the talent of Mr. Turgenev, for his former merits and for his many admirers. There is no common thread, no common action that would bind all parts of the novel; all some separate rhapsodies. Completely superfluous personalities are brought out, it is not known why they appear in the novel; such is, for example, Princess X .... th; she appeared several times for dinner and tea in the novel, sat "on a wide velvet armchair" and then died, "forgotten on the very day of her death." There are several other personalities, completely random, bred only for furniture.
However, these personalities, like all others in the novel, are incomprehensible or unnecessary from the artistic point of view; but Mr. Turgenev needed them for other purposes, alien to art. From the point of view of these goals, we even understand why Princess Kh .... aya came. The fact is that his last novel was written with tendencies, with clear and sharply protruding theoretical goals. It is a didactic novel, a real scholarly treatise, written in colloquial form, and every face drawn serves as an expression and representative of a certain opinion and trend. That's how powerful and strong the spirit of the times! Russkiy vestnik says that at present there is not a single scientist, not excluding, of course, himself, who would not start dancing trepak on occasion. It can be just as accurately said that at present there is not a single artist and poet who would not dare to create something with trends on occasion, Mr. "First Love", left his service to art and began to enslave it to various theoretical considerations and practical goals and wrote a novel with trends - a very characteristic and remarkable circumstance! As can be seen from the very title of the novel, the author wants to portray in it the old and the young generation, fathers and children; and indeed, he brings out in the novel several instances of fathers and even more instances of children. He does little with fathers, for the most part, fathers only ask, ask questions, and the children already answer them; His main focus is on the younger generation, on children. He tries to characterize them as fully and comprehensively as possible, describes their tendencies, sets out their general philosophical views on science and life, their views on poetry and art, their concepts of love, the emancipation of women, the relationship of children to parents, marriage; and all this is presented not in the poetic form of images, but in prose conversations, in the logical form of sentences, expressions and words.
How does the modern young generation imagine Mr. Turgenev, our artistic Nestor, our poetic coryphaeus? He, apparently, is not disposed towards him, he even treats children with hostility; to fathers he gives full precedence in everything and always tries to exalt them at the expense of children. One father, a favorite of the author, says: “Putting all selfishness aside, it seems to me that children are further from the truth than we are; but I feel that they have some advantage over us ... Isn't this advantage that they have fewer traces of nobility than us? (p. 523). This is the one and only good trait that Mr. Turgenev recognized in the younger generation, and this is the only thing they can console themselves with; in all other respects, the younger generation has moved away from the truth, wandering through the wilds of delusion and lies, which kills all poetry in it, leads it to misanthropy, despair and inaction, or to activity, but senseless and destructive. The novel is nothing but a merciless, also destructive criticism of the younger generation. In all contemporary questions, intellectual movements, gossip and ideals that occupy the younger generation, Mr. Turgenev does not find any meaning and makes it clear that they lead only to debauchery, emptiness, prosaic vulgarity and cynicism. In a word, Mr. Turgenev looks at the contemporary principles of the younger generation in the same way that Messrs. Nikita Bezrylov and Pisemsky, that is, he does not recognize any real and serious significance for them and simply mocks them. Mr. Bezrylov's defenders tried to justify his famous feuilleton and presented the case in such a way that he dirtyly and cynically mocked not the principles themselves, but only deviations from them, and when he said, for example, that the emancipation of a woman is a demand for her complete freedom in a riotous and depraved life, then he expressed by this not his own concept of emancipation, but the concepts of others, which he allegedly wanted to ridicule; and that he generally spoke only of abuses and reinterpretations of contemporary issues. Perhaps there will be hunters who, by means of the same strained method, will want to justify Mr. Turgenev, they will say that, depicting the younger generation in a funny, caricatured and even absurd way, he had in mind not the younger generation in general, not its best representatives, but only the most miserable and limited children, that he speaks not of a general rule, but only of its exceptions; that he mocks only the younger generation, which is displayed in his novel as the worst, but in general he respects him. Modern views and tendencies, the defenders may say, are exaggerated in the novel, understood too superficially and one-sidedly; but such a limited understanding of them belongs not to Mr. Turgenev himself, but to his heroes. When, for example, in a novel it is said that the younger generation follows the negative direction blindly and unconsciously, not because it is convinced of the failure of what it denies, but simply because of a feeling, this, the defenders may say, does not mean that Mr. Turgenev himself thought in this way about the origin of the negative trend - he only wanted to say by this that there are people who think this way, and there are freaks about whom such an opinion is true.
But such an excuse by Mr. Turgenev would be unfounded and invalid, as it was in relation to Mr. Bezrylov. (Mr. Turgenev's novel is not a purely objective work; the personality of the author, his sympathies, his enthusiasm, even his personal bile and irritation come out too clearly in it. Through this we get the opportunity to read in the novel the personal opinions of the author himself, and in this we already have one reason is to take the thoughts expressed in the novel as the author’s judgments, at least the thoughts expressed with noticeable sympathy for them on the part of the author, expressed in the mouths of those persons whom he obviously patronizes. ", to the younger generation, even a spark of a true and clear understanding of their views and aspirations, it would certainly shine somewhere throughout the entire novel. Any reproof makes it clear that by virtue of which it is being done; the disclosure of exceptions clarifies the very rule. Mr. Turgenev does not have this; in the whole novel we do not see the slightest hint of what the general rule should be, the best young generation; all "children", that is, the majority and x, he sums them up and presents them all as an exception, as an abnormal phenomenon. If indeed he portrayed only one bad part of the younger generation, or only one dark side of it, then he would see the ideal in another part or other side of the same generation; but he finds his ideal in a completely different place, namely in the "fathers", in a more or less old generation. Therefore, he draws a parallel and contrast between "fathers" and "children", and the meaning of his novel cannot be formulated as follows: among the many good "children" there are also bad ones, who are ridiculed in the novel; his task is completely different and is reduced to the following formula: "children" are bad, they are presented in the novel in all their ugliness; and "fathers" are good, which is also proven in the novel. In addition to Gothe, meaning to show the relationship between "fathers" and "children", the author could not have acted otherwise than by depicting the majority of "children" and most of the "fathers". Everywhere, in statistics, economy, trade, averages and figures are always taken for comparison; the same should be true of moral statistics. Defining the moral relationship between two generations in the novel, the author, of course, describes not anomalies, not exceptions, but ordinary phenomena, often occurring, average figures, relations that exist in most cases and under equal conditions. From this follows the necessary conclusion that Mr. Turgenev imagines young people in general, such as the young heroes of his novel are, and, in his opinion, those mental and moral qualities that distinguish the latter belong to the majority of the younger generation, that is, in the language of average numbers, to all young people; the heroes of the novel are examples of modern children. Finally, there is reason to think that Mr. Turgenev portrays the best young people, the first representatives of the modern generation. To compare and identify known objects, it is necessary to take the appropriate quantities and qualities; you cannot remove maximum on one side and minimum on the other. If fathers of a known size and caliber are shown in the novel, then the children must be exactly the same size and caliber. The "fathers" in the work of Mr. Turgenev are all respectable, intelligent, indulgent people, imbued with the most tender love for children, which God grant to everyone; these are not some grumpy old men, despots, autocratically disposing of children; they give children complete freedom in their actions, they themselves studied and they try to teach children and even learn from them. After this, it is necessary to accept that the “children” in the novel are also the best possible, so to speak, the color and beauty of youth, not some ignoramuses and revelers, in parallel to which one could pick up the most excellent fathers cleaner than Turgenev’s, but decent, inquisitive young men, with all the virtues characteristic of them, will increase. Otherwise, it will be absurdity and the most flagrant injustice if you compare the best fathers and the worst children. We are not talking about the fact that under the category of "children" Mr. Turgenev summed up a significant part of modern literature, its so-called negative direction, the second he personified in one of his heroes and put into his mouth words and phrases that are often found in the press and expressing thoughts that are approved by the younger generation and do not arouse hostile feelings in people of the middle generation, and perhaps even the old. - All these arguments would be superfluous, and no one could have come up with the objections that we have eliminated if it were about someone else, and not about Mr. Turgenev, who enjoys great honor and has acquired for himself the significance of authority; when expressing a judgment about Mr. Turgenev, one must prove the most ordinary thoughts, which in other cases are readily accepted even without proof, as obvious and clear in themselves; consequently, we considered necessary the above preliminary and elementary considerations. They now give us every right to assert that Mr. Turgenev serves as an expression of his own personal likes and dislikes, that the views of the novel on the younger generation express the views of the author himself; that it depicts the whole young generation in general, as it is and what it is even in the person of its best representatives; that the limited and superficial understanding of contemporary issues and aspirations expressed by the heroes of the novel lies with the responsibility of Mr. Turgenev himself. When, for example, the main character, a representative of "children" and of the way of thinking shared by the younger generation, says that there is no difference between a man and a frog, this means that Mr. Turgenev himself understands the modern way of thinking in precisely this way; he studied the modern doctrine shared by young people, and therefore it really seemed to him that it did not recognize any difference between a man and a frog. The difference, you see, is great, as modern teaching shows; but he did not notice him - philosophical insight betrayed the poet. If he saw this difference, but only hid it in order to exaggerate modern teaching, then this is even worse. Of course, on the other hand, it must also be said that the author is not obliged to answer for all the absurd and deliberately disfigured thoughts of his heroes - no one will demand this from him in all cases. But if a thought is expressed, at the suggestion of the author, quite seriously, especially if there is a tendency in the novel to characterize a certain trend and way of thinking, then we have the right to demand that the author not exaggerate this trend, that he present these thoughts not in a distorted form and caricature, but as they are, as he understands them in his extreme understanding. Just as precisely, what is said about the young personalities of the novel applies to all the youth they represent in the novel; so that she, not in the least embarrassed, must take into account the various tricks of the "fathers", dutifully listen to them as the sentences of Mr. Turgenev himself and not be offended, if only, for example, by the following remark directed against the main character, a representative of the younger generation:
"- Well well. At first almost satanic pride, then mockery. This is what the youth is fond of, this is what the inexperienced hearts of boys are subdued by! And this infection has already spread far. I was told that in Rome our artists never set foot in the Vatican: they consider Raphael almost a fool, because this, they say, is authority, while they themselves are powerless and fruitless to the point of disgust; and the fantasies themselves do not have more than “The Girl at the Fountain”, no matter what! And the girl is badly written. You think they are great, don't they?
- In my opinion, - objected the hero, - even Raphael is not worth a penny; and they are no better than him.
- Bravo! Bravo! Listen, this is how the young people of today should express themselves. And how, you think, they can't follow you! Formerly young people had to learn; they did not want to pass for ignoramuses, so they involuntarily worked. And now they should say: everything in the world is nonsense! - and it's in the hat. The young people rejoiced. And in fact, before they were just blockheads, and now they have suddenly become nihilists.
If you look at the novel from the point of view of its tendencies, then it is just as unsatisfactory from this side as it is from an artistic point of view. There is nothing to say about the quality of the trends yet, and most importantly, they are carried out very awkwardly, so that the author's goal is not achieved. Trying to cast an unfavorable shadow on the younger generation, the author got too excited, missed, as they say, and already began to invent such fables that they believe with great difficulty - and the accusation seems biased. But all the shortcomings of the novel are redeemed by one merit, which, however, has no artistic significance, which the author did not count on, and which, therefore, belongs to unconscious creativity. Poetry, of course, is always good and deserves full respect; but prosaic truth is not bad either, and it has a right to respect; we should rejoice in a work of art, which, although it does not give us poetry, but on the other hand promotes truth. In this sense, Mr. Turgenev's latest novel is an excellent thing; it does not give us poetic pleasure, it even affects the senses unpleasantly; but he is good in the sense that in him Mr. Turgenev revealed himself clearly and completely, and thereby revealed to us the true meaning of his former works, said without circumlocution and directness that last word of his, which, in his former works, was softened and obscured by various poetic embellishments and effects that hid its true meaning. Indeed, it was difficult to understand how Mr. Turgenev treated his Rudins and Hamlets, how he looked at their aspirations, extinguished and unfulfilled, as a result of their inaction and apathy, and as a result of the influence of external circumstances. Our credulous criticism decided that he treated them with sympathy, sympathized with their aspirations; according to her concepts, the Rudins were people not of deeds, but of words, but words of good and reasonable; their spirit was willing, but the flesh was weak; they were propagandists who spread the light of sound concepts and, if not by deed, then by their word, aroused higher aspirations and interests in others; they taught and said how to act, even though they themselves lacked the strength to translate their teachings into practice, to fulfill their aspirations; they languished and fell at the very beginning of their activity. Criticism thought that Mr. Turgenev treated his heroes with touching sympathy, grieved for them and regretted that they died along with their wonderful aspirations, and made it clear that if they had willpower and energy, they could do a lot of good. And criticism had some right to such a decision; the different positions of the heroes were depicted with effect and affectation, which could easily be mistaken for real enthusiasm and sympathy; just as surely as in the epilogue of the last novel, which speaks eloquently of love and reconciliation, one might think that the author's own love extends to "children." But now we understand this love, and on the basis of Mr. Turgenev's last novel, we can positively say that criticism was mistaken in explaining his previous works, introduced their own thoughts into them, found meaning and significance that did not belong to the author himself, according to whose concepts the heroes his flesh was vigorous, but his spirit was weak, they did not have sound concepts, and their very aspirations were illegal, they had no faith, that is, they did not accept anything on faith, they doubted everything, had no love and feelings, and therefore, naturally, died fruitlessly . The protagonist of the last novel is the same Rudin, with some changes in style and expression; he is a new, modern hero, and therefore even more terrible than Rudin in his concepts and insensible than him; he is a real asmodeus; time passed not in vain, and the heroes developed progressively in their bad qualities. The former heroes of Mr. Turgenev fit into the category of "children" of the new novel and must bear the entire burden of contempt, reproaches, reprimands and ridicule to which "children" are now subjected. One has only to read the last novel to be fully convinced of this; but our criticism, perhaps, will not want to admit its mistake; therefore, one must again begin to prove what is clear and without proof. We present only one proof. - It is known what Rudin and the nameless hero "Asia" did with their beloved women; they coldly pushed them away at the moment when they wholeheartedly, with love and passion, gave themselves to them and, so to speak, burst into their arms. Criticism scolded the heroes for this, called them sluggish people who did not have courageous energy, and said that a real reasonable and healthy man in their place would have acted completely differently. Meanwhile, for Mr. Turgenev himself, these actions were good. If the heroes had acted as our criticism requires, Mr. Turgenev would have called them base and immoral people, deserving of contempt. The protagonist of the last novel, as if on purpose, wanted to deal with the woman he loved precisely in the sense of criticism; on the other hand, Mr. Turgenev presented him as a dirty and vulgar cynic and forced the woman to turn away with contempt and even jump away from him "far into the corner." Similarly, in other cases, criticism usually praised in Mr. Turgenev's heroes exactly what he himself thought worthy of blame and what he really blames in the "children" of the last novel, with which we will have the honor to get acquainted with this very minute.
To put it in a scholarly style, the concept of the novel does not represent any artistic features and tricks, nothing intricate; its action is also very simple and takes place in 1859, therefore already in our time. The main protagonist, the first hero, a representative of the younger generation, is Evgeny Vasilyevich Bazarov, a physician, a young man, smart, diligent, knowing his job, self-confident to the point of insolence, but stupid, loving revelry and strong drinks, imbued with the wildest concepts and unreasonable to the point that everyone is fooling him, even simple peasants. He has no heart at all; he is insensitive - like a stone, cold - like ice and ferocious - like a tiger. He has a friend, Arkady Nikolaevich Kirsanov, a candidate of St. Petersburg University, which faculty is not said, a young man sensitive, kind-hearted, with an innocent soul; unfortunately, he submitted to the influence of his friend Bazarov, who is trying in every possible way to dull the sensitivity of his heart, to kill with his ridicule the noble movements of his soul and instill in him contemptuous coldness towards everything; as soon as he discovers some sublime impulse, his friend will immediately besiege him with his contemptuous irony. Bazarov has a father and a mother; father, Vasily Ivanovich, an old physician, lives with his wife in his small estate; good old men love their Enyushenka to infinity. Kirsanov also has a father, a significant landowner who lives in the countryside; his wife is dead, and he lives with Fenechka, a sweet creature, the daughter of his housekeeper; his brother lives in his house, so uncle Kiranov, Pavel Petrovich, a bachelor in his youth, a capital lion, and in old age - a village veil, endlessly immersed in worries about smartness, but an invincible dialectician, at every step striking Bazarov and his nephew . The action begins with the fact that young friends come to the village to Kirsanov's father, and Bazarov enters into an argument with Pavel Petrov, which immediately expresses his thoughts and his direction to him and hears from him a refutation of them. Then the friends go to the provincial town; there they met Sitnikov, a stupid little fellow who was also under the influence of Bazarov, they met Eudoxie Kukshina, who is presented as a "progressive woman", "?mancip?e * in the true sense of the word." From there they went to the village to Anna Sergeevna Odintsova, the widow of an exalted, noble and aristocratic soul; Bazarov fell in love with her; but she, seeing his vulgar nature and cynical inclinations, almost drove him away from her. Kirsanov, who at first fell in love with Odintsova, then fell in love with her sister Katya, who, by her influence on his heart, tried to eradicate traces of her friend's influence in him. Then the friends went to Bazarov's fathers, who greeted their son with the greatest joy; but he, despite all their love and passionate desire to enjoy the presence of his son as long as possible, hastened to leave them, and together with his friend again went to the Kirsanovs. In the house of the Kirsanov Bazars, like the ancient Paris8, he “violated all the rights of hospitality”, kissed Fenechka, then fought a duel with Pavel Petrovich and again returned to his fathers, where he died, calling Odintsova to him before his death and saying to her several compliments already known to us about her appearance. Kirsanov married Katya and is still alive.
That's all the external content of the novel, the formal side of its action and all the characters; all that remains now is to get to know the inner content, the tendencies, to know the innermost qualities of fathers and children. So what are the fathers, the old generation? As already noted above, the fathers are presented in the best possible way. I, Mr. Turgenev reasoned to himself, am not talking about those fathers and about that old generation, which is represented by the puffed-up Princess X ..., who could not stand youth and sulked at the "new frenzied" Bazarov and Arkady; I will portray the best fathers of the best generation. (Now it’s clear why Princess X .... oh is given two pages in the novel.) Kirsanov’s father, Nikolai Petrovich, is an exemplary person in all respects; he himself, despite his general origin, was brought up at the university and had a candidate's degree and gave his son a higher education; having lived almost to old age, he did not cease to take care of supplementing his own education. He used all his strength to keep up with the times, followed contemporary movements and issues; “he lived three winters in St. Petersburg, almost never going anywhere and trying to make acquaintances with his son’s young comrades; spent whole days sitting over the latest compositions, listening to the conversations of young people and rejoiced when he managed to insert his own word into their ebullient speeches ”(p. 523). Nikolai Petrovich did not like Bazarov, but he conquered his dislike, “willingly listened to him, willingly attended his physical and chemical experiments; he would come every day, as he put it, to study, if it were not for household chores; he did not embarrass the young naturalist: he would sit somewhere in a corner of the room and gaze intently, occasionally allowing himself a cautious question” (p. 606). He wanted to get closer to the younger generation, imbued with its interests, so that together with him, together, hand in hand, go towards a common goal. But the younger generation rudely pushed him away. He wanted to get along with his son in order to start his rapprochement with the younger generation from him; but Bazarov prevented this, he tried to humiliate the father in the eyes of his son and thereby interrupted all moral connection between them. “We,” the father said to his son, “we will live happily with you, Arkasha; we need to get close to each other now, get to know each other well, don’t we?” But no matter what they talk about among themselves, Arkady always begins to sharply contradict his father, who attributes this - and quite rightly - to the influence of Bazarov. A father, for example, tells his son about his love for his native places: you were born here, everything should seem to you something special here. “Well, dad,” the son replies, “it doesn’t matter where a person is born.” These words upset the father, and he looked at his son not directly, but "from the side" and stopped talking. But the son still loves his father and does not lose hope someday get closer to him. “My father,” he says to Bazarov, “is a golden man.” - “It's amazing,” he answers, “these old romantics! They will develop the nervous system in themselves to the point of irritation, well, the balance is disturbed. In Arcadia, filial love spoke, he stands up for his father, says that his friend does not yet know him enough. But Bazarov killed in him the last remnant of filial love with the following contemptuous review: “Your father is a kind fellow, but he is a retired man, his song is sung. He reads Pushkin. Explain to him that this is no good. After all, he is not a boy: it's time to quit this nonsense. Give him something useful, at least Buchner's Stoff und Kraft**9, just in case." The son fully agreed with the words of his friend and felt pity and contempt for his father. Father accidentally overheard this conversation, which struck him to the very heart, offended him to the depths of his soul, killed all his energy, all desire for rapprochement with the younger generation; he dropped his hands, frightened by the abyss that separated him from the young people. “Well,” he said after that, “maybe Bazarov is right; but one thing hurts me: I hoped to get close and friendly with Arkady, but it turns out that I stayed behind, he went ahead, and we cannot understand each other. It seems that I am doing everything to keep up with the times: I arranged for peasants, started a farm, so that they call me red in the whole province; I read, study, in general I try to become up to date with modern needs, and they say that my song is sung. Yes, I myself am beginning to think so ”(p. 514). These are the harmful effects produced by the arrogance and intolerance of the younger generation; one trick of the boy struck the giant, he doubted his strength and saw the futility of his efforts to lag behind the century. So the younger generation is their own fault. lost the cooperation and support of a person who could be a very useful figure, because he was gifted with many wonderful qualities that young people lack. Young people are cold, selfish, do not have poetry in themselves and therefore hate it everywhere, do not have the highest moral convictions; while this man had a poetic soul and, in spite of the fact that he knew how to set up a farm, retained his poetic fervor until his advanced years, and, most importantly, was imbued with the strongest moral convictions.
“The slow sounds of the cello flew to them (Arkady with Bazarov) from home at this very moment. Someone played Schubert's Expectation with feeling, albeit with an inexperienced hand, and a sweet melody poured through the air like honey.
- What's this? said Bazarov in amazement.
- It's the father.
- Does your father play the cello?
- Yes.
- How old is your father?
- Forty four.
Bazarov suddenly burst out laughing.
- What are you laughing at?
- Have mercy! at forty-four years old, a man, pater familias *** in ... county - plays the cello!
Bazarov continued to laugh; but Arkady, no matter how much he revered his teacher, this time did not even smile.
Nikolai Petrovich lowered his head and passed his hand over his face.
“But reject poetry? - thought Nikolai Petrovich, - not to sympathize with art, nature! (What the youth do.)
And he looked around, as if wishing to understand how one could not sympathize with nature. It was already evening; the sun hid behind a small aspen grove that lay half a verst from the garden: its shadow stretched endlessly across the motionless fields. A peasant was trotting on a white horse along a dark narrow path along the grove itself: he was all clearly visible, all up to the patch on his shoulder, even though he rode in the shade ”(a patch is a picturesque, poetic thing, against which one speaks, but at the sight of it does not dream, but thinks that without a patch it would be better, albeit less poetic); “Pleasant, distinctly flashed the legs of the horse. The sun's rays, for their part, climbed into the grove and, breaking through the thicket, doused the aspen trunks with such a warm light that they became like pine trunks (from the warmth of the light?), and their foliage almost turned blue (also from the warmth?), and above it a pale blue sky was rising, slightly flushed with the dawn. The swallows flew high; the wind stopped completely; belated bees buzzed lazily and drowsily in the lilac flowers; midges huddled in a column over a lonely, far-stretched branch. “How good; My God!" thought Nikolai Petrovich, and his favorite poems came to his lips: he remembered Arkady, Stoff und Kraft, and fell silent, but continued to sit, continued to indulge in the sorrowful and gratifying game of lonely thoughts.
He got up and wanted to return home; but his softened heart could not calm down in his chest, and he began to slowly walk around the garden, now looking thoughtfully at his feet, now raising his eyes to the sky, where the stars were already swarming and winking. He walked a lot, almost to the point of fatigue, but the anxiety in him, some kind of searching, indefinite, sad anxiety still did not subside. Oh, how Bazarov would laugh at him if he knew what was going on in him then! Arkady himself would have condemned him. He, a forty-four-year-old man, an agronomist and a landlord, was welling up with tears, unreasonable tears; it was a hundred times worse than the cello” (pp. 524-525).
And such and such a person was pushed away by the youth and even prevented him from reciting his "favorite verses." But his main merit lay nevertheless in his strict morality. After the death of his dearly beloved wife, he decided to live with Fenechka, probably after a stubborn and lengthy struggle with himself; he was constantly tormented and ashamed of himself, felt remorse and reproaches of conscience until he was legally married to Fenechka. He sincerely and frankly confessed to his son his sin, his unlawful cohabitation before marriage. And what? It turned out that the younger generation had no moral convictions on this score at all; the son took it into his head to assure his father that it was nothing, that living with Fenechka before marriage was not at all a reprehensible act, that this was the most common thing, that, consequently, the father was falsely and vainly ashamed. Such words deeply revolted the moral sense of the father. And yet in Arcadia there still remained a particle of consciousness of moral obligations, and he found that his father must certainly enter into a legal marriage with Fenechka. But his friend, Bazarov, destroyed this particle with his irony. “Ege-ge! he said to Arkady. - That's how generous we are! You attach more importance to marriage; I didn't expect this from you." It is clear how after that Arkady looked at his father's act.
“A strict moralist,” the father said to his son, “will find my frankness inappropriate, but, firstly, this cannot be hidden, and secondly, you know, I have always had special principles about the relationship of father to son. However, you will certainly have the right to condemn me. In my years... In a word, this... this girl, about whom you probably already heard...
- Fenechka? asked Arkady cheekily.
Nikolai Petrovich blushed.
“Of course, I should be ashamed,” said Nikolai Petrovich, blushing more and more.
- Come on, daddy, come on, do me a favor! Arkady smiled kindly. "Apologizing for what!" he thought to himself, and a feeling of condescending tenderness for his kind and gentle father, mingled with a feeling of some kind of secret superiority, filled his soul. “Stop, please,” he repeated once more, involuntarily enjoying the consciousness of his own development and freedom” (pp. 480-481).
“Perhaps,” said the father, “and she assumes ... she is ashamed ...
- In vain is she ashamed. Firstly, you know my way of thinking (Arkady was very pleased to utter these words), and secondly, would I even want to embarrass your life, your habits, even by a hair? Besides, I'm sure you couldn't have made a bad choice; if you let her live under the same roof with you, then she deserves it; in any case, a son is not a judge of a father, and especially I, and especially a father like you, who never hindered my freedom in anything.
Arkady's voice trembled at first, he felt magnanimous, but at the same time he understood that he was reading something like an admonition to his father; but the sound of his own speeches has a strong effect on a person, and Arkady pronounced the last words firmly, even with effect! (eggs teach chicken) (p. 489).
Bazarov's father and mother are even better, even kinder than Arkady's parent. The father just as certainly does not want to lag behind the century; and the mother lives only by love for her son and the desire to please him. Their common, tender affection for Enyushenka is depicted by Mr. Turgenev in a very captivating and lively way; here are the best pages in the whole novel. But the contempt with which Enyushenka pays for their love, and the irony with which he regards their gentle caresses, seems all the more disgusting to us. Arkady, one can see that he is a kind soul, stands up for his friend's parents, but he ridicules him too. “I,” says Bazarov’s father, Vasily Ivanovich, about himself, “of the opinion that for a thinking person there is no backwater. At least I try not to overgrow, as they say, with moss, to keep up with the times. Despite his advanced years, he is ready to help anyone with his medical advice and means; in illness, everyone turns to him, and he satisfies everyone as best he can. “After all, I,” he says, “refused to practice, and once or twice a week I have to shake the old days. They go for advice - you can’t drive in the neck. Sometimes the poor come to the rescue. - One woman who complained about the oppression10, I poured opium; and pulled out another tooth. And this I do gratis****” (p. 586). “I idolize my son; but I don’t dare to express my feelings in front of him, because he doesn’t like it.” His wife loved her son "and was afraid of him unspeakably." “Look now how Bazarov treats them.
“Today they are waiting for me at home,” he said to Arkady. - Well, wait, what an importance! - Vasily Ivanovich went to his office and, lighting a cigarette on the sofa at the feet of his son, was about to chat with him; but Bazarov sent him away at once, saying that he wanted to sleep, but he himself did not fall asleep until morning. Opening his eyes wide, he looked angrily into the darkness: childhood memories had no power over him” (p. 584). “One day my father began to tell his memoirs.
- I have experienced many, many things in my lifetime. For example, if I may, I will tell you a curious episode of the plague in Bessarabia.
- For which received Vladimir? - picked up Bazarov. - We know, we know... By the way, why don't you wear it?
“After all, I told you that I have no prejudices,” muttered Vasily Ivanovich (only the day before he had ordered the red ribbon to be torn off his coat), and he began to tell the episode of the plague. “But he fell asleep,” he suddenly whispered to Arkady, pointing to Bazarov and winking good-naturedly. - Evgeniy! get up! - he added loudly "(what cruelty! fall asleep from the stories of his father!) (p. 596).
“Here you go! A most amusing old man, ”Bazarov added, as soon as Vasily Ivanovich left. - The same eccentric as yours, only in a different way. - He talks a lot.
"And your mother seems to be a beautiful woman," remarked Arkady.
- Yes, I have it without cunning. Let's see what kind of dinner we will ask.
- Not! - he said the next day to Arkady, - I will leave here tomorrow. Boring; I want to work, but I can't. I will go back to your village; I left all my drugs there. At least you can lock yourself up. And here my father keeps telling me: “My office is at your service - no one will interfere with you,” but he himself is not a step away from me. Yes, and ashamed to somehow lock himself away from him. Well, so does the mother. I hear her sigh behind the wall, and you go out to her - and she has nothing to say.
“She will be very upset,” said Arkady, “and he, too.
- I'll get back to them.
- When?
- Yes, that's how I'm going to Petersburg.
- I feel sorry for your mother.
- What is it? Berries, or what, did she please you?
Arkady lowered his eyes” (p. 598).
That's what (fathers! They, in contrast to children, are imbued with love and poetry, they are moral people, modestly and secretly doing good deeds; they never want to lag behind the century. Even such an empty veil as Pavel Petrovich, and he is raised to stilts and exhibited by a beautiful man. "For him, youth has passed, but old age has not yet come; he retained youthful harmony and that aspiration upwards, away from the earth, which for the most part disappears after the twenties." This is a man also with a soul and poetry; in his youth he loved passionately, with sublime love, one lady, "in whom there was something cherished and inaccessible, where no one could penetrate, and what nested in this soul - God knows," and who looks a lot like Madame Svechina. him, he, as it were, died for the world, but sacredly preserved his love, did not fall in love another time, “did not expect anything special either from himself or from others, and did nothing,” and therefore remained to live in the village with his brother. he did not live uselessly, read a lot, "excellent he began with impeccable honesty, loved his brother, helped him with his means and wise advice. When, it happened, a brother got angry with the peasants and wanted to punish them, Pavel Petrovich stood up for them and said to him: "du calme, du calme" *****. He was distinguished by curiosity and always followed Bazarov's experiments with the most intense attention, despite the fact that he had every right to hate him. The best decoration of Pavel Petrovich was his morality. - Bazarov liked Fenechka, "and Fenechka liked Bazarov"; “he once kissed her firmly on her open lips,” and this “violated all the rights of hospitality” and all the rules of morality. “Fenechka herself, although she rested both hands on his chest, but rested weakly, and he could resume and prolong his kiss” (p. 611). Pavel Petrovich was even in love with Fenechka, several times he came to her room "for nothing", several times he remained alone with her; but he was not low enough to kiss her. On the contrary, he was so prudent that because of a kiss he fought with Bazarov in a duel, so noble that only once "he pressed her hand to his lips, and so clung to her, not kissing her and only occasionally convulsively sighing" (literally so , p. 625), and finally was so selfless that he said to her: “love my brother, do not cheat on him for anyone in the world, do not listen to anyone's speeches”; and, in order not to be tempted by Fenechka any longer, he went abroad, "where he can be seen even now in Dresden on the Bryulevskaya terrace11, between two and four o'clock" (p. 661). And this smart, respectable man proudly treats Bazarov, does not even give him a hand, and to self-forgetfulness plunges into worries about smartness, anoints himself with incense, flaunts English suits, fezzes and tight collars, "with inexorability resting on the chin"; his nails are so pink and clean, "even send them to an exhibition." After all, it's all ridiculous, said Bazarov, - and it's true. Of course, slovenliness is not good either; but also excessive worries about panache show in a person emptiness and lack of seriousness. Can such a person be inquisitive, can he, with his incense, with his white hands and pink nails, seriously take up the study of something dirty or stinking? Mr. Turgenev himself expressed this about his favorite Pavel Petrovich: “once even he brought his face perfumed and washed with an excellent drug to the microscope in order to see how a transparent ciliate swallowed a green speck.” What a feat, think; but if under the microscope there was not an infusoria, but some thing - fi! - if it were necessary to take it with fragrant pens, Pavel Petrovich would give up his curiosity; he would not even have entered Bazarov's room if there had been a very strong medical-surgical smell in it. And such and such a person is passed off as a serious, thirsty for knowledge; - what a contradiction! why an unnatural combination of properties that exclude one another - emptiness and seriousness? What are you, the reader, slow-witted; Yes, it was necessary for the trend. Remember that the old generation is inferior to the youth in that it has "more traces of nobility" in it; but this, of course, is unimportant and trifling; but in essence the old generation is closer to the truth and more serious than the young. It is this idea of the seriousness of the old generation with traces of nobility in the form of a face washed with an excellent drug, and in tight collars, that is Pavel Petrovich. This also explains the inconsistencies in the depiction of Bazarov's character. The trend demands: in the younger generation there are fewer traces of nobility; in the novel, therefore, it is said that Bazarov aroused confidence in the lower people, they became attached to him and loved him, seeing in him not a gentleman. Another trend demands: the younger generation understands nothing, can do nothing good for the fatherland; the novel fulfills this requirement, saying that Bazarov was not even able to speak clearly with the peasants, and not even to arouse confidence in himself; they mocked him, seeing in him the stupidity bestowed on him by the author. The trend, the trend, has spoiled the whole thing - “the Frenchman is shitting everything! »
So, the high advantages of the old generation over the young are undoubted; but they will be even more certain when we consider in more detail the qualities of the "children." What are "children"? Of those "children" who are bred in the novel, only one Bazarov seems to be an independent and intelligent person; under what influences the character of Bazarov was formed is not clear from the novel; it is also unknown where he borrowed his beliefs from and what conditions favored the development of his way of thinking. If Mr. Turgenev had thought about these questions, he would certainly have changed his ideas about fathers and children. Mr. Turgenev said nothing about the part that the study of the natural sciences, which constituted his specialty, could take in the development of the hero. He says that the hero took a certain direction in his way of thinking as a result of sensation; what it means - it is impossible to understand; but in order not to offend the philosophical insight of the author, we see in this feeling simply only poetic wit. Be that as it may, Bazarov's thoughts are independent, they belong to him, to his own activity of the mind; he is a teacher; other "children" of the novel, stupid and empty, listen to him and only repeat his words senselessly. In addition to Arcadia, such, for example. Sitnikov, whom the author, at every opportunity, reproaches with the fact that his "father is all at the mercy." Sitnikov considers himself a student of Bazarov and owes his rebirth to him: “Would you believe it,” he said, “that when Yevgeny Vasilyevich said in my presence that he should not recognize authorities, I felt such delight ... as if I saw the light! Here, I thought, I finally found a man! Sitnikov told the teacher about Eudoxie Kukshina, a model of modern daughters. Bazarov then only agreed to go to her when the student assured him that she would have a lot of champagne. They set off. “In the hall they were met by some sort of maid, or a companion in a cap—obvious signs of the hostess's progressive aspirations,” Mr. Turgenev sarcastically remarks. Other signs were as follows: “Numbers of Russian magazines lay on the table, mostly uncut; cigarette butts were white everywhere; Sitnikov collapsed in his armchair and lifted his leg up; the conversation is about Georges Sand and Proudhon; our women are ill-bred; it is necessary to change the system of their education; down with authority; down with Macaulay; Georges-Sand, according to Eudoxie, had never heard of embryology." But the most important feature is this:
“We have reached,” said Bazarov, “to the last drop.
- What? interrupted Eudoxia.
- Champagne, most venerable Avdotya Nikitishna, champagne - not your blood.
Breakfast went on for a long time. The first bottle of champagne was followed by another, a third, and even a fourth... Evdoksia chatted incessantly; Sitnikov echoed her. They talked a lot about what marriage is - a prejudice or a crime? and what kind of people will be born - the same or not? And what exactly is individuality? Things finally got to the point that Evdoxia, all red from drunk wine (fi!) and tapping with flat nails on the keys of an out-of-tune piano, began to sing in a hoarse voice, first gypsy songs, then the Seymour-Schiff romance: “Sleepy Grenada is Dozing”12, and Sitnikov tied a scarf around his head and imagined a dying lover, with the words:
And your mouth with mine
Pour hot kiss into a kiss!
Arkady could not bear it at last. "Gentlemen, this is something like Bedlam," he remarked aloud. Bazarov, who only occasionally inserted a mocking word into the conversation - he was more busy with champagne - yawned loudly, got up and, without saying goodbye to the hostess, went out with Arkady. Sitnikov jumped out after them” (pp. 536-537). - Then Kukshina “went abroad. She is now in Heidelberg; still hobnobs with students, especially with young Russian physicists and chemists, who surprise professors with their complete inactivity and absolute laziness” (p. 662).
Bravo, young generation! excellently strives for progress; and what is the comparison with smart, kind and morally sedate "fathers"? Even the best representative of it turns out to be the most vulgar gentleman. But still he is better than others; he speaks to consciousness and expresses his own opinions, not borrowed from anyone, as it turns out from the novel. We will now deal with this best specimen of the younger generation. As said above, he appears as a cold person, incapable of love, not even of the most ordinary affection; he cannot even love a woman with the poetic love that is so attractive in the old generation. If, at the request of an animal feeling, he loves a woman, then he will love only her body; he even hates the soul in a woman; he says, "that she does not need to understand a serious conversation at all, and that only freaks think freely between women." This trend is embodied in the novel as follows. At the governor's ball, Bazarov saw Odintsova, who struck him with "the dignity of her posture"; he fell in love with her, that is, in fact, he did not fall in love, but felt for her some kind of feeling, similar to malice, which Mr. Turgenev tries to characterize with such scenes:
“Bazarov was a great hunter of women and female beauty, but love in the sense of the ideal, or, as he put it, romantic, he called rubbish, unforgivable nonsense. - “Do you like a woman,” he said, “try to make sense, but you can’t - well, don’t, turn away - the earth hasn’t converged like a wedge.” "He liked Odintsova," therefore...
“- One gentleman just told me,” said Bazarov, turning to Arkady, “that this lady is - oh, oh; Yes, the sir seems to be a fool. Well, in your opinion, what is she, exactly - oh-oh-oh?
“I don’t quite understand this definition,” answered Arkady.
- Here's another! What an innocent!
- In that case, I do not understand your master. Odintsova is very sweet - no doubt, but she keeps herself so cold and strict that ...
- In a quiet whirlpool ... you know! - picked up Bazarov. - You say she's cold. This is where the taste is. Because you love ice cream.
“Maybe,” muttered Arkady, “I can't judge that.
- Well? - Arkady said to him on the street: - are you still of the same opinion that she is - oh-oh-oh?
- And who knows! You see how she froze herself,” objected Bazarov, and after a pause he added: “A duchess, a sovereign person. She would only wear a train at the back and a crown on her head.
"Our duchesses don't speak Russian like that," Arkady remarked.
- You were in a mess, my brother, you ate our bread.
"All the same, she's a charm," said Arkady.
- Such a rich body! - continued Bazarov, - at least now to the anatomical theater.
- Stop it, for God's sake, Eugene! it doesn't look like anything.
- Well, do not be angry, sissy. Said first class. I will have to go to her” (p. 545). “Bazarov got up and went to the window (in Odintsova’s office, alone with her).
"Would you like to know what's going on in me?"
"Yes," Odintsova repeated, with some kind of fright she still did not understand.
- And you will not be angry?
- Not.
- Not? Bazarov stood with his back to her. - So know that I love you stupidly, madly ... That's what you have achieved.
Odintsova stretched out both hands, while Bazarov rested his forehead against the glass of the window. He was suffocating: his whole body was visibly trembling. But it was not the fluttering of youthful timidity, it was not the sweet horror of the first confession that seized him: it was a passion that throbbed in him, strong and heavy, a passion similar to malice and, perhaps, akin to it ... Odintsova felt both frightened and sorry for him. (- Evgeny Vasilyevich, - she said, and involuntary tenderness rang in her voice.
He quickly turned around, threw a devouring look at her - and, grabbing both of her hands, suddenly drew her to his chest ...
She did not immediately free herself from his embrace; but a moment later she was already standing far away in the corner and looking from there at Bazarov ”(she guessed what was the matter).
"He ran towards her...
"You misunderstood me," she whispered with hasty fright. It seemed that if he took another step, she would scream ... Bazarov bit his lips and went out ”(he is dear to him there).
“She didn’t show up until dinner, and kept walking up and down her room, and slowly ran her handkerchief over her neck, on which she kept imagining a hot spot (probably Bazarov’s nasty kiss). He asked herself what made her "achieve", in the words of Bazarov, his frankness, and whether she suspected something ... "I'm to blame," she said aloud, "but I couldn't foresee it." She thought and blushed, remembering the almost brutal face of Bazarov when he rushed to her.
Here are a few features of Turgenev's characterization of "children", features that are really unprepossessing and not flattering for the younger generation - what to do? There would be nothing to be done with them and nothing to be said against them if Mr. Turgenev's novel were a revealing story in a moderation spirit,13 against bureaucracy, but only against bureaucratic abuses, against bribes; the bureaucracy itself remained inviolable; there were bad officials, they were denounced. In this case, the meaning of the novel is what kind of "children" come across sometimes! - would be unshakable. But, judging by the tendencies of the novel, it belongs to the accusatory, radical form and resembles stories, let's say, ransoms, in which the idea was expressed of the destruction of the ransom itself, not only its abuses; the meaning of the novel, as we have already noted above, is completely different - that's how bad "children" are! But it is somehow embarrassing to object to such a meaning in the novel; perhaps they will be accused of predilection for the younger generation, and even worse, they will be reproached for lack of self-accusation. Therefore, let anyone who wants to protect the younger generation, but not us. Here is the female younger generation, this is another matter; here we are on the sidelines, and no self-praise and self-accusation is possible. - The question of women was "raised" recently, before our very eyes and without the knowledge of Mr. Turgenev; it was “placed” completely unexpectedly, and for many respectable gentlemen, as, for example, for the Russkiy vestnik, it was a complete surprise, so that this journal, regarding the ugly act of the former Vek,14 asked with bewilderment: what are the Russians fussing about? women, what do they lack and what do they want? The women, to the surprise of the venerable gentlemen, replied that they wanted, among other things, to learn what men are taught, to study not in boarding schools and institutes, but in other places. Nothing to do, they opened a gymnasium for them; no, they say, and this is not enough, give us more; they wanted to "eat our bread," not in Mr. Turgenev's dirty sense, but in the sense of the bread that a developed, rational person lives on. Whether they were given more and whether they took more is not known with certainty. And indeed there are such emancipated women as Eudoxie Kukshina, although all the same, perhaps, they do not get drunk on champagne; chatting just as accurately as she does. But even so, it seems unfair to us to present her as an example of a modern emancipated woman with progressive aspirations. Mr. Turgenev, unfortunately, observes his fatherland from a beautiful distance; up close, he would see women who, with greater justice, could be depicted instead of Kukshina as specimens of modern daughters. Women, especially in recent times, quite often began to appear in different schools as unpaid teachers, and in more scholarly schools as pupils. It is probable that they too, Mr. Turgenev, are capable of real curiosity and a real need for knowledge. Otherwise, what kind of desire would they have to drag around and sit for several hours somewhere in stuffy and unscented classrooms and auditoriums, instead of lying this time somewhere in a more comfortable place, on soft sofas, and admiring Tatyana Pushkina or at least your works? Pavel Petrovich, in your own words, deigned to put his face smeared with potions under the microscope; and some of the living daughters consider it an honor to lift their unoiled face to things that are even more - phi !, than a microscope with ciliates. It happens that, under the guidance of some student, young girls with their own hands, softer than the hands of Pavel Petrovich, cut up an unscented corpse and even look at the operation of lithotomy. This is extremely unpoetic and even vile, so that any decent person from the breed of "fathers" would spit on this occasion; and the "children" look at this matter extremely simply; What's wrong with that, they say. All this, perhaps, are rare exceptions, and in most cases the young female generation is guided in its progressive actions by force, coquetry, fanfare, etc. We do not argue; this is very possible. But after all, the difference in the objects of unseemly activity gives a different meaning to the unseemly itself. Another, for example, for chic and whim, throws money in favor of the poor; and the other, just for glamor and whim, beats his servants or subordinates. In both cases, one whim; and the difference between them is great; and on which of these whims should artists expend more wit and gall in literary denunciations? Limited patrons of literature are, of course, ridiculous; but a hundred times funnier, and most importantly, more contemptible patrons of Parisian grisettes and camellias. This consideration can also be applied to discussions about the female younger generation; it is much better to force with a book than with a crinoline, to flirt with science than with empty dandies, to brag at lectures than at balls. This change in the subjects at which the daughters' coquetry and pomp is directed is very characteristic and presents the spirit of the times in a very favorable light. Think, please, Mr. Turgenev, what all this means, and why this former generation of women did not rush into the chairs of teachers and student benches, Was the image of a guardsman with a mustache always dearer to the heart than the image of a student, whose miserable existence it hardly even guessed? Why did such a change take place in the female younger generation and what draws him to the students, to Bazarov, and not to Pavel Petrovich? “This is all empty fashion,” says Mr. Kostomarov, whose learned words were eagerly listened to by the female younger generation. But why is fashion something like this, and not another? Previously, women had "something cherished, where no one could penetrate." But what is better - cherished and impenetrable, or curiosity and a desire for clarity, for teaching? And what should be laughed at more? However, it is not for us to teach Mr. Turgenev; we can learn better from him. He portrayed Kukshina in a funny way; but his Pavel Petrovich, the best representative of the old generation, is much funnier, by God. Imagine, a gentleman lives in a village, already approaching old age, and kills all his time to wash and clean himself; his nails are pink, polished to a dazzling shine, snow-white sleeves with large opals; at different times of the day he dresses in different costumes; almost hourly he changes his ties, one better than the other; incense carries from him a whole verst; even on the road, he carries with him "a silver travel bag and a camping bath"; This is Pavel Petrovich. But in the provincial town there lives a young woman, she accepts young people; but in spite of this, she does not care too much about her costume and dress, which Mr. Turgenev thought to humiliate her in the eyes of readers. She walks “somewhat disheveled”, “in a silk, not quite neat dress”, her velvet coat “on yellowed ermine fur”; and at the same time reads something from physics and chemistry, reads articles about women, albeit with sin in half, but still talks about physiology, embryology, marriage, and so on. None of this matters; but still she will not call embryology the Queen of England, and, perhaps, she will even say what kind of science this is and what she does - and that's good. Still, Kukshina is not as empty and limited as Pavel Petrovich; still, her thoughts are turned to subjects more serious than fezzes, ties, collars, potions and baths; and she seems to ignore it. She subscribes to magazines, but does not read or even cut them, and yet this is better than ordering waistcoats from Paris and morning suits from England, like Pavel Petrovich. We ask the most zealous admirers of Mr. Turgenev: which of these two personalities will they give preference to and whom will they consider more worthy of literary ridicule? Only an unfortunate tendency made him himself raise his pet on stilts and ridicule Kukshina. Kukshina is really funny; abroad she hangs out with students; but still it is better than showing off on the Bryulevskaya terrace between two and four o'clock, and much more forgivable than a respectable old man hanging out with Parisian dancers and singers. You, Mr. Turgenev, ridicule strivings that would deserve encouragement and approval from any well-meaning person - we do not mean here the striving for champagne. And without that, many thorns and obstacles are met on the way by young women who want to study more seriously; their already evil-speaking sisters prick their eyes with "blue stockings"; and without you, we have many stupid and dirty gentlemen who, like you, reproach them for their disheveledness and lack of crinolines, scoff at their unclean collars and their nails, which do not have that crystal transparency to which your dear Pavel has brought his nails Petrovich. This would suffice; and you are still straining your wit to invent new insulting nicknames for them and want to use Eudoxie Kukshina. Or do you really think that emancipated women only care about champagne, cigarettes, and students, or about several one-time husbands, as your fellow artist, Mr. Bezrylov, imagines? This is even worse, because it casts an unfavorable shadow on your philosophical acumen; but another thing - ridicule - is also good, because it makes you doubt your sympathy for everything reasonable and fair. We are personally disposed in favor of the first assumption.
We will not defend the young male generation; it really is and is as depicted in the novel. So we agree exactly that the old generation is not at all embellished, but is presented as it really is, with all its respectable qualities. We just don't understand why Mr. Turgenev gives preference to the old generation; the younger generation of his novel is in no way inferior to the old. Their qualities are different, but the same in degree and dignity; as fathers are, so are children; fathers = children - traces of nobility. We will not defend the younger generation and attack the old, but only try to prove the correctness of this formula of equality. - Young people push away the old generation; this is very bad, harmful to the cause and does not honor the youth. But why does the older generation, more prudent and experienced, not take measures against this repulsion, and why does it not try to win over the youth? Nikolai Petrovich was a respectable, intelligent man who wanted to get closer to the younger generation, but when he heard the boy call him retired, he frowned, began to lament his backwardness, and immediately realized the futility of his efforts to keep up with the times. What kind of weakness is this? If he realized his justice, if he understood the aspirations of the youth and sympathized with them, then it would be easy for him to win over his son to his side. Bazarov interfered? But as a father connected with his son by love, he could easily defeat the influence of Bazarov on him if he had the desire and skill to do so. And in alliance with Pavel Petrovich, the invincible dialectician, he could even convert Bazarov himself; after all, it’s only difficult to teach and retrain old people, and youth is very receptive and mobile, and you can’t think that Bazarov would renounce the truth if it were shown to him and proven? Mr. Turgenev and Pavel Petrovich exhausted all their wit in arguing with Bazarov and did not skimp on harsh and insulting expressions; however, Bazarov did not break his glass, was not embarrassed, and remained with his opinions, despite all the objections of his opponents; must be because the objections were bad. So, "fathers" and "children" are equally right and wrong in mutual repulsion; "children" repel their fathers, but these passively move away from them and do not know how to attract them to themselves; equality is complete. - Further, young men and women revel and drink; she does it badly, it is impossible to defend her. But the revels of the old generation were much grander and more sweeping; the fathers themselves often say to the youth: “No, don’t drink to you like we drank during it, when we were the young generation; we drank honey and strong wine like plain water.” And indeed, it is unanimously recognized by all that the present young generation is less fun than the previous one. In all educational institutions, among pupils and students, legends are preserved about the Homeric revels and drinking bouts of the former youth, corresponding to the current fathers; even at alma mater******, Moscow University, there were often scenes described by Mr. Tolstoy in his reminiscences of his youth17. But, on the other hand, the teachers and rulers themselves find that the former younger generation, on the other hand, was distinguished by greater morality, greater obedience and respect for superiors, and did not at all have that obstinate spirit that the current generation is imbued with, although it is less reveling and rowdy , as the authorities themselves assure. So the faults of both generations are exactly the same; the former did not talk about progress, the rights of women, but reveled in fame; The current one revels less, but drunkenly shouts recklessly - down with the authorities, and differs from the former in immorality, disrespect for legality, mocks even Fr. Alexey. One is worth another, and it is difficult to give preference to someone, as Mr. Turgenev did. Again, in this respect, equality between generations is complete. - Finally, as can be seen from the novel, the younger generation cannot love a woman or loves her stupidly, madly. First of all, it looks at the woman's body; if the body is good, if it is “so rich,” then young people like the woman. And as soon as they liked the woman, they "only try to make sense," and nothing more. And all this, of course, is bad and testifies to the soullessness and cynicism of the younger generation; this quality cannot be denied in the younger generation. How the old generation, the “fathers,” acted in matters of love, we cannot determine this with accuracy, since this was in relation to us in prehistoric times; but, judging by certain geological facts and animal remains, among which our own existence is included, one can guess that without exception, all the "fathers", all diligently "obtained sense" from women. Because, it seems, it can be said with some probability that if the "fathers" did not love women stupidly and did not seek sense, then they would not be fathers and the existence of children would be impossible. Thus, in love relationships, the "fathers" acted exactly as children do now. These a priori judgments may be unfounded and even erroneous; but they are confirmed by the undoubted facts presented by the novel itself. Nikolai Petrovich, one of the fathers, loved Fenechka; how did this love start and what did it lead to? “On Sundays in the parish church, he noticed the delicate profile of her little white face” (in the temple of God, such a respectable person as Nikolai Petrovich, it is indecent to entertain himself with such observations). “Once Fenechka had an eyeache; Nikolai Petrovich cured him, for which Fenechka wanted to kiss the master's hand; but he did not give her his hand and, embarrassed, he kissed her bowed head. After that, “he kept imagining this clean, tender, timidly raised face; he felt that soft hair under the palms of his hands, saw those innocent, slightly parted lips, behind which pearly teeth shone wetly in the sun. He began to look at her with great attention in church, tried to talk to her ”(again, a respectable man, like a boy, yawns at a young girl in church; what a bad example for children! This is equal to the disrespect that Bazarov showed to Fr. Alexei, and probably even worse.) So, how did Fenechka seduce Nikolai Petrovich? Slim profile, white face, soft hair, lips and pearly teeth. And all these objects, as everyone knows, even those who do not even know anatomy like Bazarov, make up parts of the body and in general can be called a body. Bazarov, at the sight of Odintsova, said: "such a rich body"; Nikolai Petrovich, at the sight of Fenechka, did not speak—Mr. Turgenev forbade him to speak—but he thought: "What a pretty little white body!" The difference, as everyone will agree, is not very big, that is, in essence, there is none. Further, Nikolai Petrovich did not put Fenechka under a transparent glass cap and admire her from afar, calmly, without trembling in his body, without malice and with sweet horror. But - “Fenechka was so young, so lonely, Nikolai Petrovich was so kind and modest ... (points in the original). There is nothing else to say." Aha! that's the whole point, that's your injustice, that in one case you "prove the rest" in detail, and in the other - say that there is nothing to prove. The case of Nikolai Petrovich came out so innocently and sweetly because it was closed with a double poetic veil and the phrases used were more obscure than when describing Bazarov's love. As a result of this, in one case the deed came out moral and decent, and in the other - dirty and indecent. Let us "tell the rest" about Nikolai Petrovich as well. Fenechka was so afraid of her master that once, according to Mr. Turgenev, she hid in a tall, thick rye, just to avoid his eyes. And suddenly she is called one day to the master in the office; the poor thing was frightened and trembled all over as if in a fever; however, she went - it was impossible to disobey the master, who could drive her out of his house; but outside of it she knew no one, and starvation threatened her. But on the threshold of the study, she stopped, gathered all her courage, resisted and did not want to enter for anything. Nikolai Petrovich gently took her by the handles and dragged her towards him, the footman pushed her from behind and slammed the door behind her. Fenechka "rested her forehead against the glass of the window" (remember the scene between Bazarov and Odintsova) and stood stock-still. Nikolai Petrovich was suffocating; his whole body seemed to tremble. But it was not the “flutter of youthful timidity”, because he was no longer a youth, not the “sweet horror of the first confession” seized him, because the first confession was in front of his dead wife: undoubtedly, therefore, it was “passion beat in him, a strong and heavy passion, similar to malice and, perhaps, akin to it. Fenechka became even more frightened than Odintsova and Bazarov; Fenechka imagined that the master would eat her, which the experienced widow Odintsov could not imagine. “I love you, Fenechka, I love you stupidly, madly,” said Nikolai Petrovich, quickly turned around, threw a devouring look at her - and, grabbing both his hands, suddenly drew her to his chest. Despite all her efforts, she could not free herself from his embrace ... A few moments later, Nikolai Petrovich said, turning to Fenechka: “Did you not understand me?” “Yes, master,” she answered, sobbing and wiping away her tears, “I didn’t understand; what have you done to me?" There is nothing else to say. Mitya was born to Fenechka, and even before legal marriage; therefore, was the illegitimate fruit of immoral love. This means that among the "fathers" love is excited by the body and ends with "sensible" - Mitya and children in general; This means that in this respect, too, there is complete equality between the old and the young generation. Nikolai Petrovich himself was aware of this and felt all the immorality of his relations with Fenechka, was ashamed of them and blushed before Arkady. He's a freak; if he recognized his act as illegal, then he should not have decided on it. And if you decide, then there is nothing to blush and apologize. Arkady, seeing this inconsistency of his father, read him "something like an instruction", which offended his father completely unfairly. Arkady saw that the father had done the deed and practically showed that he shared the convictions of his son and his friend; therefore he assured that the father's work was not reprehensible. If Arkady had known that his father did not agree with his views on this matter, he would have given him another instruction - why are you, father, deciding on an immoral deed, contrary to your convictions? - and he would be right. Nikolai Petrovich did not want to marry Fenechka due to the influence of the traces of the nobility, because she was not equal to him and, most importantly, because he was afraid of his brother, Pavel Petrovich, who had even more traces of the nobility and who, however, also had views of Fenechka . Finally, Pavel Petrovich decided to destroy the traces of nobility in himself and demanded that his brother marry. “Marry Fenechka... She loves you; she is the mother of your son." “You say that, Pavel? - you, whom I considered an opponent of such marriages! But don't you know that it was only out of respect for you that I did not fulfill what you so rightly called my duty. “In vain did you respect me in this case,” Pavel answered, “I begin to think that Bazarov was right when he reproached me for aristocracy. No, it's enough for us to break down and think about the light; it is time for us to put aside all fuss” (p. 627), that is, traces of the nobility. Thus, the “fathers” finally realized their shortcoming and put it aside, thereby destroying the only difference that existed between them and the children. So, our formula is modified as follows: "fathers" - traces of the nobility = "children" - traces of the nobility. Subtracting from equal values equal, we get: "fathers" = "children", which was required to be proved.
With this we will finish with the personalities of the novel, with fathers and children, and turn to the philosophical side, to those views and trends that are depicted in it and which do not belong to the younger generation only, but are shared by the majority and express the general modern trend and movement. - As can be seen from everything, Mr. Turgenev took for the image the present and, so to speak, the present period of our mental life and literature, and these are the features he discovered in it. From different places in the novel, we will collect them together. Before, you see, there were Hegelists, but now, at the present time, there are nihilists. Nihilism is a philosophical term with different meanings; Mr. Turgenev defines it as follows: “A nihilist is one who does not recognize anything; who respects nothing; who treats everything from a critical point of view; who does not bow to any authority; who takes no principle for granted, no matter how respected that principle may be. Previously, without principles taken for granted, one could not take a step; now they do not recognize any principles. They do not recognize art, they do not believe in science, and they even say that science does not exist at all. Now everyone is in denial; but they do not want to build; they say it's none of our business; first you need to clear the place.
- Before, in recent times, we said that our officials take bribes, that we have neither roads, nor trade, nor a proper court.
- And then we guessed that chatting, just chatting about our ulcers is not worth the trouble, that this only leads to vulgarity and doctrinairism; we saw that our wise men, the so-called progressive people and accusers, are no good, that we are engaged in nonsense, talking about some kind of art, unconscious creativity, about parliamentarism, about advocacy, and the devil knows what, when it comes to urgent bread, when the grossest superstition is choking us, when all our joint-stock companies are bursting apart solely from the fact that there is a shortage of honest people, when the very freedom that the government is busy with is hardly going to benefit us, because our peasant is happy to rob himself in order to just get drunk dope in a tavern. We decided not to take on anything, but only to swear. And this is called nihilism. - We break everything without knowing why; but simply because we are strong. The fathers object to this: both in the wild Kalmyk and in the Mongol there is strength - but what do we need it for? You imagine yourself to be progressive people, and you would only have to sit in a Kalmyk wagon! Strength! Finally, remember, strong gentlemen, that there are only four and a half of you, and there are millions of those who will not allow you to trample underfoot your most sacred beliefs, who will crush you” (p. 521).
Here is a collection of modern views put into the mouth of Bazarov; what are they? - a caricature, an exaggeration that occurred as a result of misunderstanding, and nothing more. The author directs the arrows of his talent against what he has not penetrated into the essence of. He heard a variety of voices, saw new opinions, observed lively disputes, but could not get to the inner meaning, and therefore in his novel he touched only the tops, only the words that were spoken around him; the concepts combined in these words remained a mystery to him. He doesn't even know exactly the title of the book he points to as a code of modern views; what would he say if he were asked about the contents of the book. Probably, he would only answer that she does not recognize the difference between a frog and a man. In his innocence, he imagined that he understood Büchner's Kraft und Stoff, that it contained the last word of modern wisdom, and that he, therefore, understood modern wisdom in its entirety as it is. Innocence is naive, but excusable in an artist who pursues the goals of pure art for art's sake. All his attention is drawn to captivatingly draw the image of Fenechka and Katya, to describe Nikolai Petrovich's dreams in the garden, to depict "searching, indefinite, sad anxiety and causeless tears." It would not have turned out badly if he had only limited himself to this. Artistically analyze the modern way of thinking and characterize the direction he should not; he either does not understand them at all, or he understands them in his own way, artistically, superficially and incorrectly; and from their personification the novel is composed. Such art really deserves, if not denial, then censure; we have the right to demand that the artist understand what he depicts, that in his images, besides artistry, there is truth, and what he is not able to understand should not be taken for that. Mr. Turgenev is perplexed how one can understand nature, study it, and at the same time admire it and enjoy it poetically, and therefore says that the modern young generation, passionately devoted to the study of nature, denies the poetry of nature, cannot admire it, “for him nature is not a temple, but a workshop.” Nikolai Petrovich loved nature, because he looked at it unconsciously, "indulging in the sad and joyful game of lonely thoughts," and felt only anxiety. Bazarov, on the other hand, could not admire nature, because vague thoughts did not play in him, but thought worked, trying to understand nature; he walked through the swamps not with "searching anxiety", but with the aim of collecting frogs, beetles, ciliates, in order to cut them up later and examine them under a microscope, and this killed all poetry in him. But meanwhile, the highest and most reasonable enjoyment of nature is possible only when it is understood, when one looks at it not with unaccountable thoughts, but with clear thoughts. The “children” were convinced of this, taught by the “fathers” and authorities themselves. There were people who studied nature and enjoyed it; understood the meaning of its manifestations, knew the movement of the waves and vegetation, read the book of the stars18 clearly, scientifically, without dreaminess, and were great poets. One can draw an incorrect picture of nature, one can, for example, say, like Mr. Turgenev, that from the warmth of the sun's rays "the trunks of aspens became like trunks of pines, and their foliage almost turned blue"; maybe a poetic picture will come out of this and Nikolai Petrovich or Fenechka will admire it. But for true poetry this is not enough; it is also required that the poet depict nature correctly, not fantastically, but as it is; the poetic personification of nature is an article of a special kind. "Pictures of nature" may be the most accurate, most learned description of nature, and may produce a poetic effect; the picture may be artistic, although it is drawn so accurately that a botanist can study on it the arrangement and shape of leaves in plants, the direction of their veins and the types of flowers. The same rule applies to works of art depicting the phenomena of human life. You can compose a novel, imagine in it “children” like frogs and “fathers” like aspens, confuse modern trends, reinterpret other people’s thoughts, take a little from different views and make porridge and vinaigrette from all this under the name of “nihilism”, imagine this porridge in faces, so that each face is a vinaigrette of the most opposite, incongruous and unnatural actions and thoughts; and at the same time effectively describe a duel, a sweet picture of love dates and a touching picture of death. Anyone can admire this novel, finding artistry in it. But this artistry disappears, negates itself at the first touch of thought, which reveals in it a lack of truth and life, a lack of clear understanding.
Take a look at the views and thoughts cited above, given out by the novel as modern - don't they look like porridge? Now "there are no principles, that is, not a single principle is taken for granted"; Yes, the very same decision not to take anything on faith is the principle. And is he really not good, is it possible that an energetic person will defend and put into practice what he has received from the outside, from another, on faith, and what does not correspond to his mood and his entire development. And even when a principle is taken for granted, it is not done without cause, like "uncaused tears," but because of some foundation that lies in the person himself. There are many principles to believe; but to recognize one or the other of them depends on the personality, on its disposition and development; this means that everything comes down, in the last instance, to the authority that lies in the personality of a person, he himself determines both external authorities and their meaning for himself. And when the younger generation does not accept your principles, it means that they do not satisfy his nature; inner motives dispose in favor of other principles. - What does disbelief in science and non-recognition of science in general mean - you need to ask Mr. Turgenev himself about this; where he observed such a phenomenon and in what it is revealed cannot be understood from his novel. - Further, the modern negative direction, according to the testimony of the novel itself, says: "we act by virtue of what we recognize as useful." Here is the second principle for you; why does the novel in other places try to present the matter as if the denial occurs as a result of the feeling, "it's nice to deny, the brain is so arranged, and that's it": denial is a matter of taste, one likes it just as "the other likes apples." "We are breaking, we are the strength... the Kalmyk wagon... the beliefs of millions, and so on." To explain to Mr. Turgenev the essence of denial, to tell him that in every denial a situation is hidden, would mean to decide on the audacity that Arkady allowed himself to read to Nikolai Petrovich. We will revolve within Mr. Turgenev's understanding. Negation denies and breaks, let us say, according to the principle of utility; everything that is useless, and even more harmful, it denies; for breaking, he does not have the strength, at least such as Mr. Turgenev imagines. - Here, for example, about art, about bribes, about unconscious creativity, about parliamentarism and advocacy, we really talked a lot lately; even more discussion was about publicity, which Mr. Turgenev did not touch upon. And these arguments have had time to annoy everyone, because everyone is firmly and unshakably convinced of the benefits of these beautiful things, and yet they still still constitute pia desideria*******. But, pray tell, Mr. Turgenev, who was mad enough to rebel against freedom “about which the government is busying himself,” who said that freedom would not be of any use to the muzhik? This is no longer a misunderstanding, but a sheer slander raised against the younger generation and modern trends. Indeed, there were people who were not disposed to freedom, who said that the peasants, without the guardianship of the landowners, would drink themselves from the circle and indulge in immorality. But who are these people? Rather, they belong to the number of "fathers", to the category of Pavel and Nikolai Petrovich, and certainly not to the "children"; in any case, they weren't talking about parliamentarism and advocacy; they were not the spokesmen for the negative trend. On the contrary, they kept a positive direction, as can be seen from their words and from their concern for morality. Why do you put words about the uselessness of freedom into the mouths of the negative trend and the younger generation and put them along with talk about bribes and advocacy? You are already allowing yourself too much licentiam poeticam, that is, poetic liberty. - What principles does Mr. Turgenev oppose to the negative trend and lack of principles that he notices in the younger generation? In addition to beliefs, Pavel Petrovich recommends the "principle of aristocracy" and, as usual, points to England, "to which aristocracy gave freedom and supported it." Well, it's an old song, and we've heard it, albeit in a prosaic, but more animated form, a thousand times.
Yes, Mr. Turgenev's development of the plot of his last novel is very, very unsatisfactory, a plot that is really rich and provides a lot of material for the artist. - “Fathers and Sons”, the young and the old generation, the elders and the young men, these are two poles of life, two phenomena that replace one another, two luminaries, one ascending, the other descending; at the time when one reaches the zenith, the other is already hidden behind the horizon. The fruit decays and rots, the seed decays and gives rise to renewed life. There is always a struggle for existence in life; one seeks to replace the other and take its place; that which has lived, that has already enjoyed life, is giving way to that which is only just beginning to live. New life requires new conditions to replace the old ones; the obsolete is content with the old and defends them for itself. The same phenomenon is observed in human life between its various generations. The child grows up to take the father's place and become a father himself. Having achieved independence, children strive to arrange life in accordance with their new needs, they try to change the previous conditions in which their fathers lived. Fathers are reluctant to part with these conditions. Sometimes things end amicably; fathers yield to children and apply themselves to them. But sometimes there is disagreement between them, a struggle; both stand on their own. By entering into a struggle with their fathers, children are in more favorable conditions. They come to the ready, receive an inheritance collected by the labors of their fathers; they begin with what was the last result of the life of the fathers; what was the conclusion in the case of the fathers becomes the basis for new conclusions in the children. Fathers lay the foundation, children build the building; if the fathers brought the building out, then the children have to either finish it completely, or destroy it and arrange another one according to a new plan, but from ready-made material. What was the adornment and pride of the advanced people of the old generation, becomes an ordinary thing and the common property of the entire younger generation. Children are going to live and are preparing what is necessary for their life; they know the old, but it does not satisfy them; they look for new ways, new means, according to their tastes and needs. If they come up with something new, it means that it satisfies them more than the old one. To the old generation, all this seems strange. It has its own truth, considers it immutable, and therefore it is disposed to see in new truths a lie, a deviation not from its temporary, conditional truth, but from truth in general. As a result, it defends the old and tries to impose it on the younger generation as well. - And the old generation is not personally to blame for this, but time or age. The old man has less energy and courage; he is too used to the old. It seems to him that he has already reached the shore and the pier, he has acquired everything that is possible; therefore he reluctantly decides to set off again into the open unknown sea; he takes each new step not with trusting hope, like a young man, but with apprehension and fear, as if not to lose what he managed to gain. He formed for himself a certain circle of concepts, compiled a system of views that are part of his personality, defined the rules that guided him all his life. And suddenly some new concept appears, sharply contradicting all his thoughts and violating their established harmony. To accept this concept means for him to lose a part of his being, to rebuild his personality, to be reborn and begin again the difficult path of development and the development of beliefs. Very few are capable of such work, only the strongest and most energetic minds. That is why we see that quite often very remarkable thinkers and scientists, with a kind of blindness, stupid and fanatical stubbornness, rebelled against new truths, against obvious facts, which, apart from them, were discovered by science. There is nothing to say about mediocre people with ordinary, and even more so with weak abilities; every new concept for them is a terrible monster that threatens them with death and from which they turn their eyes away in fear. - Therefore, let Mr. Turgenev console himself, let him not be embarrassed by the disagreement and struggle that he notices between the old and the young generation, between fathers and children. This struggle is not an unusual phenomenon, exclusively characteristic of our time and constituting its incommendable feature; it is an unavoidable fact, constantly repeating itself and taking place at all times. Now, for example, fathers read Pushkin, but there was a time when the fathers of these fathers despised Pushkin, hated him and forbade their children to read him; but instead, Lomonosov and Derzhavin were delighted and recommended to children, and all attempts by children to determine the real significance of these paternal poets were looked upon as a blasphemous attempt against art and poetry. Once the "fathers" read Zagoskin, Lazhechnikov, Marlinsky; and the "children" admired Mr. Turgenev. Having become "fathers", they do not part with Mr. Turgenev; but their "children" are already reading other works, which are unfavorably looked at by the "fathers". There was a time when the "fathers" feared and hated Voltaire and pricked the eyes of the "children" in his name, as Mr. Turgenev pricks Buchner; the "children" had already left Voltaire, and the "fathers" long after that called them Voltairians. When the “children”, imbued with reverence for Voltaire, became “fathers”, and new fighters of thought, more consistent and courageous, appeared in Voltaire’s place, the “fathers” rebelled against the latter and said: “What is the matter of our Voltaire!” And this is how it has been going on forever, and this is how it will always be.
In calm times, when movement is slow, development proceeds gradually on the basis of old principles, disagreements between the old generation and the new concern unimportant things, the contradictions between “fathers” and “children” cannot be too sharp, therefore the very struggle between them has the character calm and does not go beyond known limited limits. But in busy times, when development makes a bold and significant step forward or turns sharply to the side, when the old principles prove untenable and completely different conditions and requirements of life arise in their place, then this struggle takes on significant volumes and sometimes expresses itself in the most tragic way. The new teaching appears in the form of an unconditional negation of everything old; it declares an irreconcilable struggle against old views and traditions, moral rules, habits and way of life. The difference between the old and the new is so sharp that, at least at first, agreement and reconciliation between them is impossible. At such times, family ties seem to weaken, brother rebels against brother, son against father; if the father remains with the old, and the son turns to the new, or vice versa, discord is inevitable between them. The son cannot waver between his love for his father and his conviction; the new teaching, with visible cruelty, requires him to leave his father, mother, brothers and sisters, and be true to himself, his convictions, his vocation and the rules of the new teaching, and follow these rules steadily, no matter what the "fathers" say. Mr. Turgenev can, of course, depict this steadfastness and firmness of the "son" as simply disrespect for his parents, see in it a sign of coldness, a lack of love and a hardening of the heart. But all this will be too superficial, and therefore not entirely fair. One great philosopher of antiquity (I think Empedocles or some other) was reproached for the fact that he, busy with worries about the spread of his teaching, does not care about his parents and relatives; he answered that his vocation was dearest to him, and that his concern for the dissemination of the doctrine was above all other concerns for him. All this may seem cruel; but after all, even children do not easily get such a break with their fathers, maybe it is painful for them themselves, and they decide on it after a stubborn internal struggle with themselves. But what is to be done - especially if there is no all-reconciling love in the fathers, there is no ability to understand the meaning of the children's aspirations, understand their vital needs and evaluate the goal towards which they are going. Of course, the stopping and restraining activity of the "fathers" is useful and necessary and has the meaning of a natural reaction against the swift, unstoppable, sometimes going to extremes, activity of the "children". But the relationship of these two activities is always expressed by a struggle in which the final victory belongs to the "children". "Children", however, should not be proud of this; their own "children", in turn, will repay them in kind, get the better of them and invite them to retire into the background. There is nobody and nothing to be offended here; It is impossible to disassemble who is right and wrong. Mr. Turgenev took in his novel the most superficial features of the disagreement between "fathers" and "children": "fathers" read Pushkin, and "children" Kraft und Stoff; "fathers" have principles, and "children" principles; "fathers" look at marriage and love in this way, and "children" differently; and presented the matter in such a way that the “children” are stupid and stubborn, they have moved away from the truth and pushed the “fathers” away from themselves, and therefore they are tormented by ignorance and suffer from despair through their own fault. But if we take the other side of the matter, the practical one, if we take other “fathers” and not those depicted in the novel, then the judgment about “fathers” and “children” must change, reproaches and harsh sentences for “children” must apply to “ fathers"; and everything that Mr. Turgenev said about "children" can be applied to "fathers." For some reason it pleased him to take only one side of the matter; why did he ignore the other? The son, for example, is imbued with selflessness, ready to act and fight without sparing himself; the father does not understand why the son is fussing when his efforts will not bring him any personal benefits, and that he wants to interfere in other people's affairs; the son's self-denial seems to him madness; he ties his son's hands, restricts his personal freedom, deprives him of means and the opportunity to act. It seems to a different father that the son, by his actions, humiliates his dignity and the honor of the family, while the son looks at these actions as the most noble deeds. The father inspires his son with obsequiousness and fawning over the authorities; the son laughs at these suggestions and cannot free himself from contempt for his father. The son rebels against unjust bosses and defends his subordinates; he is stripped of his position and expelled from service. The father mourns his son as a villain and a malicious person who cannot get along anywhere and everywhere arouses enmity and hatred against himself, while the son is blessed by hundreds of people who were under his supervision. The son wants to study, is going abroad; the father demands that he go to his village to take his place and profession, for which the son has not the slightest vocation and desire, even feels disgust for it; the son refuses, the father becomes angry and complains about the lack of filial love. All this hurts the son, he himself, poor, is tormented and crying; however, reluctantly, he leaves, parting ways with parental curses. After all, these are all the most real and ordinary facts, encountered at every step; you can collect a thousand even sharper and more destructive for "children", decorate them with the colors of fantasy and poetic imagination, compose a novel from them and also call it "Fathers and Sons." What conclusion can be drawn from this novel, who will be right and wrong, who is worse, and who is better - “fathers” or “children”? Mr. Turgenev's novel has the same one-sided meaning. Excuse me, Mr. Turgenev, you did not know how to define your task; instead of depicting the relationship between "fathers" and "children", you wrote a panegyric for "fathers" and a rebuke for "children"; and you didn’t understand the “children”, and instead of denunciation, you came up with slander. You wanted to present the spreaders of sound concepts among the younger generation as corrupters of youth, sowers of discord and evil, who hate goodness - in a word, asmodeans. This attempt is not the first and is repeated quite often.
The same attempt was made a few years ago in a novel which was "a phenomenon missed by our criticism" because it belonged to an author who at that time was unknown and did not have the loud fame that he now enjoys. This novel is Asmodeus of Our Time, Op. Askochensky, who was published in 1858. Mr. Turgenev's last novel vividly reminded us of this "Asmodeus" in its general thought, its tendencies, its personalities, and especially its main character. We are speaking quite sincerely and seriously, and we ask readers not to take our words in the sense of that frequently used method by which many, wishing to humiliate some direction or thought, liken it to the direction and thoughts of Mr. Askochensky. We read Asmodeus at a time when its author had not yet made himself known in literature, was unknown to anyone even to us, and when his famous journal did not yet exist. We read his work with impartiality, complete indifference, without any ulterior motives, as the most ordinary thing, but at the same time we were unpleasantly affected by the author's personal irritation and his anger towards his hero. The impression made on us by "Fathers and Sons" struck us in that it was not new to us; it evoked in us the recollection of another similar impression we had experienced before; the similarity of these two impressions at different times is so strong that it seemed to us as if we had read Fathers and Sons some time before and even met Bazarov himself in some other novel, where he was depicted in exactly the same form as from Mr. Turgenev, and with the same feelings towards him on the part of the author. For a long time we puzzled and could not remember this novel; at last "Asmodeus" resurrected in our memory, we read it again and made sure that our memory did not deceive us. The shortest parallel between the two novels will justify us and our words. "Asmodeus" also took on the task of portraying the modern young generation in its contrast to the old, obsolete; the qualities of fathers and children are depicted in it the same as in Mr. Turgenev's novel; the preponderance is also on the side of the fathers; the children are imbued with the same malicious thoughts and destructive tendencies as in Mr. Turgenev's novel. The representative of the old generation in "Asmodeus" is the father, Onisim Sergeevich Nebeda, "who came from an ancient noble Russian house"; this is a smart, kind, simple-hearted man, "who loved children with his whole being." He is also learned and educated; “in the old days I read Voltaire”, but still, as he himself puts it, “I did not read from him such things as Asmodeus of our time says”; like Nikolai and Pavel Petrovich, he tried to keep up with the times, willingly listened to the words of the youth and Asmodeus himself, and followed modern literature; he was in awe of Derzhavin and Karamzin, “however, he was not at all deaf to the verse of Pushkin and Zhukovsky; the latter was even respected for his ballads; and in Pushkin he found talent and said that he had described Onegin well" ("Asmodeus", p. fifty); He did not like Gogol, but admired some of his works, "and, having seen The Inspector General on the stage, for several days after that he told the guests the contents of the comedy." In Heaven there were not even any "traces of nobility" at all; he was not proud of his pedigree and spoke of his ancestors with contempt: “The devil knows what it is! Look, my ancestors also appear under Vasily the Dark, but what’s in it for me? Neither warm nor cold. No, now people have grown wiser, and because fathers and grandfathers were smart, fools are not respected for sons. Contrary to Pavel Petrovich, he even denies the principle of aristocracy and says that “in the Russian kingdom, thanks to Father Peter, an old, pot-bellied aristocracy has bred” (p. 49). “Such people,” the author concludes, “look for with a candle: for they are already the last representatives of an obsolete generation. Our descendants will not find these clumsily crafted characters. Meanwhile, they still live and move between us, with their strong word, which at other times will knock down, like a butt, a fashionable rhetorician ”(like Pavel Petrovich Bazarova). - This wonderful generation was replaced by a new one, whose representative in Asmodeus is a young man, Pustovtsev, Bazarov's brother and double in character, in convictions, in immorality, even in negligence in receptions and toilet. “There are people in the world,” says the author, “whom the world loves and puts on the level of a model and imitation. He loves them as certified admirers of his, as strict guardians of the laws of the spirit of the times, a flattering, deceitful and rebellious spirit. Such was Pustovtsev; he belonged to that generation, “which Lermontov correctly outlined in his Duma. “He has already met readers,” says the author, “and in Onegin - Pushkin, and in Pechorin - Lermontov, and in Pyotr Ivanovich - Goncharov20 (and, of course, in Rudin - Turgenev); only there they are ironed, cleaned and combed, as if at a ball. A person admires them, knowingly the terrible corruption of the types presented to him and not descending to the innermost bends of their souls” (p. 10). “There was a time when a person rejected everything, without even bothering to analyze what he rejected (like Bazarov); he laughed at everything sacred only because it was inaccessible to a narrow and stupid mind. Pustovtsev not of this school: from the great mystery of the universe to the last manifestations of the power of God, which occur even in our meager time, he subjected everything to a critical review, demanding only rank and knowledge; what did not fit into the narrow cells of human logic, he rejected everything as sheer nonsense” (p. 105). Both Pustovtsev and Bazarov belong to the negative direction; but Pustovtsev is still taller, at least much smarter and more thorough than Bazarov. Bazarov, as the reader remembers, denied everything unconsciously, unreasonably, as a result of the feeling, "I like to deny - and that's it." Pustovtsev, on the contrary, denies everything as a result of analysis and criticism, and does not even deny everything, but only that which does not correspond to human logic. Whatever you like, Mr. Askochensky is more impartial to the negative trend and understands it better than Mr. Turgenev: he finds meaning in it and correctly points to its starting point - criticism and analysis. In other philosophical views, Pustovtsev is in complete agreement with children in general and with Bazarov in particular. “Death,” argues Pustovtsev, “is the common lot of everything that exists (“the old thing is death” - Bazarov)! Who we are, where we are from, where we will go and what we will be - who knows? If you die, they will bury you, an extra layer of earth will grow - and it’s over (“after death, burdock will grow out of me” - Bazarov)! They preach there about some kind of immortality, weak natures believe this, not at all suspecting how ridiculous and stupid the claims of a piece of earth for eternal life in some kind of superstellar world. Bazarov: “I am lying here under a haystack. The narrow place that I occupy is tiny in comparison with the rest of space, and the part of the time that I will be able to live is insignificant before that eternity where I was not and will not be ... And in this atom, in this mathematical point, the blood circulates, the brain works, it wants something too... What a disgrace! What nonsense!” (“Fathers and Sons,” p. 590). Pustovtsev, like Bazarov, also begins to corrupt the younger generation - "these young creatures who have recently seen the light and have not yet tasted its deadly poison!" However, he did not take up Arkady, but Marie, the daughter of Onisim Sergeevich Nebeda, and in a short time managed to completely corrupt her. “In sarcastic mockery of the rights of parents, he extended sophism to the point that he turned the first, natural basis of parental rights into reproach and reproach, and all this in front of the girl. He showed in its present form the significance of her father and, having reduced him to the class of the originals, made Marie laugh heartily at the speeches of her father ”(p. 108). “These old romantics are amazing,” Bazarov expressed himself about Arkady’s father; "a funny old man," he says of his own father. Under the pernicious influence of Pustovtsev, Marie completely changed; became, as the author says, a real femme emancipee********, like Eudoxie, and from a meek, innocent and obedient angel she turned into a real asmodeus, so that it was impossible to recognize her. "God! who would recognize this young creature now? Here they are - these coral lips; but they seemed to have become plump, expressing some kind of arrogance and readiness to open up not for an angelic smile, but for outrageous speech, full of mockery and contempt” (p. 96). Why did Pustovtsy lure Marie into his diabolical nets, did he fall in love with her, or what? But how can the asmodeans of our time fall in love, such insensitive gentlemen as Pustovtsev and Bazarov?
“But what is the purpose of your courtship?” - Pustovtsev was asked. “Very simple,” he answered, “my own pleasure,” that is, “to achieve good things.” And this is beyond doubt, because at the same time he had "careless, friendly and overly confidential relations" with a married woman. In addition, he aspired to Marie; he did not intend to marry her, which is shown by “his eccentric antics against marriage”, repeated by Marie (“ege-ge, how generous we are, we attach importance to marriage” - Bazarov). “He loved Marie as his victim, with all the flame of a stormy, frantic passion,” that is, he loved her “stupidly and madly,” like Bazarov to Odintsov. But Odintsova was a widow, an experienced woman, and therefore she understood Bazarov's plans and drove him away from her. Marie, on the other hand, was an innocent, inexperienced girl, and therefore, suspecting nothing, calmly indulged in Pustovtsev. There were two reasonable and virtuous people who wanted to reason with Pustovtsev, like Pavel and Nikolai Petrovich Bazarov; “stand across this sorcerer, curb his insolence and show everyone who he is and what and how”; but he amazed them with his ridicule, and achieved his goal. Once Marie and Pustovtsev went for a walk in the forest together, and returned alone; Marie fell ill and plunged her whole family into deep sorrow; father and mother were in utter despair. “But what happened there? - the author asks - and prenaively answers: I don’t know, I definitely don’t know. There is nothing else to say. But Pustovtsev turned out to be better in these matters than Bazarov; he decided to enter into a legal marriage with Marie, and even what? “He, who always blasphemously laughed at every expression of a person’s inner pain, he, who contemptuously called a bitter tear a drop of sweat that emerges from the pores of the eyes, he, who has never grieved over a person’s grief and is always ready to proudly meet the finding of misfortune, he cries!” (Bazarov would never have wept.) Marie, you see, fell ill and had to die. “But if Marie were in blooming health, maybe Pustovtsev would have cooled little by little, satisfying his sensuality: the suffering of a beloved creature raised his price.” Marie dies and calls for a priest to heal her sinful soul and prepare her for a worthy transition to eternity. But look at the blasphemy Pustovtsev treats him with? “Father! - he said, - my wife wants to talk to you. What should you be paid for such work? Don't be offended, what's wrong with that? It's your craft. They take me as a doctor for preparing me for death” (p. 201). Such terrible blasphemy can only be compared with Bazarov's mockery of Father Alexei and his dying compliments to Odintsova. Finally, Pustovtsev himself shot himself, and died, like Bazarov, without repentance. When the police officers were carrying his coffin past a fashionable restaurant, one gentleman who was sitting in it sang at the top of his voice: “Here are those ruins! They are cursed." This is unpoetic, but on the other hand it fits in much more consistently and much better with the spirit and mood of the novel than young Christmas trees, innocent looks of flowers and all-reconciling love with "fathers and children." - Thus, using the expression "Whistle" Mr. Askochensky anticipated the new novel of Mr. Turgenev.
Notes
*Emancipated, free from prejudice (French).
** Matter and Force (German).
*** Father of the family (lat.).
**** Free (lat.).
***** Calm, calm (French).
****** The old student name of the university, literally nursing mother (lat.).
******* Good Wishes (lat.).
******** Free from prejudice woman (French).
1 The first line from M. Yu. Lermontov's poem "The Duma".
2 The novel "Fathers and Sons" was published in the "Russian Bulletin" (1862, No. 2) next to the first part of G. Shchurovsky's article "Geological Sketches of the Caucasus".
3 Mr. Winkel (in modern translations Winkle) is a character in the Posthumous Notes of the Pickwick Club by C. Dickens.
4 The quote from "Fathers and Sons" is given inaccurately, as in a number of other places in the article: skipping some words or replacing them, introducing explanatory phrases, Anotovich does not note this. Such a manner of quoting the text gave rise to hostile criticism of Sovremennik, accusing it of overexposure, of dishonest handling of the text, and of deliberately distorting the meaning of Turgenev's novel. In fact, by inaccurately quoting and even paraphrasing the text of the novel, Antonovich nowhere distorts the meaning of the quoted passages.
5 Rooster - one of the characters in "Dead Souls" by N.V. Gogol.
6 This refers to the “Feuilleton” signed “The old feuilleton horse Nikita Bezrylov” (a pseudonym of A.F. Pisemsky), published in the “Library for Reading” (1861, No. 12), containing rude attacks on the democratic movement, and in particular on Nekrasov and Panaev. Pisemsky is sharply hostile about Sunday schools and especially about the emancipation of women, which is portrayed as the legitimization of licentiousness and depravity. The Feuilleton aroused the indignation of the democratic press. Iskra published an article in the Chronicle of Progress (1862, No. 5). In response, the Russkiy Mir newspaper published an article “On the Literary Protest Against the Iskra” (1862, No. 6, February 10), containing a provocative message about a collective protest in which Sovremennik employees would allegedly take part. Then a “Letter to the editors of the Russkiy Mir” appeared signed by Antonovich, Nekrasov, Panaev, Pypin, Chernyshevsky, published twice - in Iskra (1862, No. 7, p. 104) and in Russkiy Mir (1862, No. 8 , February 24), supporting the speech of Iskra.
7 This refers to the article by N. G. Chernyshevsky “Russian man on gendez-vous”.
8 Paris - an image from ancient Greek mythology, one of the characters in Homer's Iliad; the son of the Trojan king Priam, while visiting the king of Sparta Menelaus, kidnapped his wife Helen, which caused the Trojan War.
9 "Stoff und Kraft" (correctly: "Kraft und Stoff" - "Force and Matter") is a book by the German physiologist and propagandist of the ideas of vulgar materialism Ludwig Büchner. It appeared in Russian translation in 1860.
10 Gnetka - illness, malaise.
11 Brühl Terrace - a place of festivities and celebrations in Dresden in front of the palace of Count Heinrich Brühl (1700-1763), Minister of August III, Elector of Saxony.
12 “Sleepy Grenada is Dozing” - an inaccurate line from the romance “Night in Grenada”, music by G. Seymour-Schiff to words by K. Tarkovsky. The following couplet is the lines of the same romance, inaccurately quoted by Turgenev.
13 ... in a moderative spirit ... - in the spirit of moderate progress. In the era of the French Revolution, the Girondins were called Modernists. This refers to the liberal-accusatory trend in literature and journalism.
14 In No. 8 of 1861, the Vek magazine published an article by Kamen-Vinogorov (P. Weinberg's pseudonym) "Russian Curiosities", directed against the emancipation of women. The article provoked a number of protests from the democratic press, in particular, M. Mikhailov's speech in the St. Petersburg Vedomosti - "The ugly act of the "Century"" (1861, No. 51, March 3). Russky Vestnik responded to this controversy with an anonymous article in the Literary Review and Notes section entitled Our Language and What are Whistlers (1862, No. 4), where he supported the position of Vek against the democratic press.
15 Lithotomy is an operation to remove stones from the bladder.
16 A direct allusion to Turgenev's relationship with Pauline Viardot. In the manuscript of the article, the phrase ends like this: “even with Viardot herself.”
17 "Memoirs" of L. Tolstoy about his youth Antonovich calls his story "Youth" - the third part of the autobiographical trilogy. Chapter XXXIX ("The Revelry") describes the scenes of the unrestrained revelry of aristocratic students.
18 Goethe is meant. This whole phrase is a prosaic retelling of some lines of Baratynsky's poem "On the death of Goethe."
19 Askochensky's novel "Asmodeus of Our Time" came out at the very end of 1857, and the magazine "Home Talk" edited by him began to appear in July 1858. The magazine was extremely reactionary.
20 Petr Ivanovich Aduev - a character in I. A. Goncharov's "Ordinary Story", the uncle of the main character - Alexander Aduev.
The text of the article is reproduced according to the publication: M. A. Antonovich. Literary-critical articles. M.-L., 1961
Maxim Alekseevich Antonovich
Asmodeus of our time
Sadly I look at our generation.
All those who were interested in literature and those close to it knew from rumors in print and by word of mouth that Mr. Turgenev had an artistic intention to compose a novel, to depict in it the modern movement of Russian society, to express in an artistic form his view of the modern young generation and to explain his attitude towards him. Several times rumor spread the news that the novel was ready, that it was being printed and would soon be published; however, the novel did not appear; it was said that the author stopped printing it, reworked, corrected and supplemented his work, then sent it to print again and again set about reworking it. Everyone was overcome with impatience; the feverish expectation was tense to the highest degree; everyone wanted to quickly see the new work of the banner of that sympathetic artist and favorite of the public. The very subject of the novel aroused the liveliest interest: Mr. Turgenev's talent appeals to the contemporary young generation; the poet took up youth, the spring of life, the most poetic plot. The younger generation, always gullible, delighted in advance in the hope of seeing their own; a portrait drawn by the skillful hand of a sympathetic artist, which will contribute to the development of his self-consciousness and become his guide; it will look at itself from the outside, take a critical look at its image in the mirror of talent and better understand itself, its strengths and weaknesses, its vocation and purpose. And now the desired hour has come; The novel, long and eagerly awaited and several times predicted, finally appeared near the Geological Sketches of the Caucasus, well, of course, everyone, young and old, eagerly rushed at him, like hungry wolves on prey.
And the general reading of the novel begins. From the very first pages, to the great amazement of the reader, he is seized by a kind of boredom; but, of course, you are not embarrassed by this and continue to read, hoping that it will be better further, that the author will enter into his role, that talent will take its toll and involuntarily captivate your attention. And meanwhile, and further, when the action of the novel unfolds completely before you, your curiosity does not stir, your feeling remains untouched; reading makes some unsatisfactory impression on you, which is reflected not in the feeling, but, most surprisingly, in the mind. You are covered with some deadly cold; you don't live with the characters in the novel, you don't get imbued with their life, but you begin to talk coldly with them, or, more precisely, follow their reasoning. You forget that you have a novel by a talented artist in front of you, and you imagine that you are reading a moral-philosophical treatise, but bad and superficial, which, not satisfying your mind, thereby makes an unpleasant impression on your feelings. This shows that the new work of Mr. Turgenev is extremely unsatisfactory in artistic terms. Longtime and zealous admirers of Mr. Turgenev will not like such a review of his novel, they will find it harsh and even, perhaps, unfair. Yes, we admit, we ourselves were surprised at the impression that "Fathers and Sons" made on us. True, we did not expect anything special and unusual from Mr. Turgenev, just as probably all those who remember his "First Love" did not expect; but even so, there were scenes in it, on which one could stop, not without pleasure, and rest after the various, completely unpoetic, whims of the heroine. In Mr. Turgenev's new novel there are not even such oases; there is nowhere to hide from the suffocating heat of strange reasonings and, even for a moment, to be freed from the unpleasant, irritable impression produced by the general course of the depicted actions and scenes. What is most surprising of all, in the new work of Mr. Turgenev there is not even that psychological analysis with which he used to analyze the play of feelings in his heroes, and which pleasantly tickled the feeling of the reader; there are no artistic images, pictures of nature, which really could not help but admire and which delivered to every reader a few minutes of pure and calm pleasure and involuntarily disposed him to sympathize with the author and thank him. In "Fathers and Sons" he skimps on description, does not pay attention to nature; after minor retreats, he hurries to his heroes, saves space and strength for something else, and instead of complete pictures, draws only strokes, and even then unimportant and uncharacteristic, like the fact that “some roosters fervently called to each other in the village; yes, somewhere high in the tops of the trees, the incessant squeak of a young hawk rang with a whining call" (p. 589).
All the author's attention is drawn to the protagonist and other characters, - however, not to their personalities, not to their spiritual movements, feelings and passions, but almost exclusively to their conversations and reasoning. That is why in the novel, with the exception of one old woman, there is not a single living person and living soul, but all are only abstract ideas and different directions, personified and called by their proper names. For example, we have a so-called negative direction and is characterized by a certain way of thinking and views. Mr. Turgenev took it and called him Yevgeny Vasilievich, who says in the novel: I am a negative direction, my thoughts and views are such and such. Seriously, literally! There is also a vice in the world, which is called disrespect to parents and is expressed by certain deeds and words. Mr. Turgenev called him Arkady Nikolaevich, who does these things and says these words. The emancipation of a woman, for example, is called Eudoxie Kukshina. The whole novel is built on such a trick; all personalities in it are ideas and views dressed up only in a personal concrete form. - But all this is nothing, whatever the personalities, and most importantly, to these unfortunate, lifeless personalities, Mr. Turgenev, a highly poetic soul and sympathetic to everything, has not the slightest pity, not a drop of sympathy and love, that feeling that called humane. He despises and hates his main character and his friends with all his heart; his feeling for them is not, however, the high indignation of the poet in general and the hatred of the satirist in particular, which are directed not at individuals, but at the weaknesses and shortcomings noticed in individuals, and the strength of which is directly proportional to the love that the poet and satirist have for to their heroes. It is already a hackneyed truth and a commonplace that a true artist treats his unfortunate heroes not only with visible laughter and indignation, but also with invisible tears and invisible love; he suffers and hurts his heart because he sees weaknesses in them; he considers, as it were, his own misfortune, that other people like him have shortcomings and vices; he speaks of them with contempt, but at the same time with regret, as about his own grief, Mr. Turgenev treats his heroes, not his favorites, in a completely different way. He harbors some kind of personal hatred and hostility towards them, as if they personally did him some kind of insult and dirty trick, and he tries to mark them at every step, as a person personally offended; he with inner pleasure looks for weaknesses and shortcomings in them, about which he speaks with ill-concealed gloating and only in order to humiliate the hero in the eyes of readers; "Look, they say, what a scoundrel my enemies and opponents are." He rejoices as a child when he manages to prick an unloved hero with something, to joke about him, to present him in a funny or vulgar and vile form; every mistake, every thoughtless step of the hero pleasantly tickles his vanity, causes a smile of complacency, revealing a proud, but petty and inhumane consciousness of his own superiority. This vindictiveness reaches the ridiculous, has the appearance of school tweaks, showing up in trifles and trifles. The protagonist of the novel speaks with pride and arrogance of his skill in the card game; and Mr. Turgenev makes him constantly lose; and this is done not for fun, not for the sake of which, for example, Mr. Winkel, who boasts of his marksmanship, instead of a crow, falls into a cow, but in order to prick the hero and wound his proud pride. The hero was invited to fight in preference; he agreed, wittily hinting that he would beat everyone. “Meanwhile,” remarks Mr. Turgenev, “the hero went on and on and on. One person skillfully played cards; the other could also take care of herself. The hero was left with a loss, although insignificant, but still not entirely pleasant. “Father Alexei, they told the hero, and would not mind playing cards. Well, he answered, let's get into a jumble and I'll beat him. Father Alexei sat down at the green table with a moderate expression of pleasure and ended by beating the hero by 2 rubles. 50 kop. banknotes". - And what? beat? not ashamed, not ashamed, but also boasted! - schoolchildren usually say in such cases to their comrades, disgraced braggarts. Then Mr. Turgenev tries to portray the protagonist as a glutton who only thinks about how to eat and drink, and this is again done not with good nature and comedy, but with the same vindictiveness and desire to humiliate the hero even a story about gluttony. Petukha is written more calmly and with great sympathy on the part of the author for his hero. In all the scenes and cases of food, Mr. Turgenev, as if not on purpose, notices that the hero "spoke little, but ate a lot"; if he is invited somewhere, he first of all inquires whether he will have champagne, and even if he gets to it, he even loses his passion for talkativeness, "occasionally says a word, and is more and more engaged in champagne." This personal aversion of the author to his main character is manifested at every step and involuntarily revolts the feeling of the reader, who finally becomes annoyed with the author, why he treats his hero so cruelly and mocks him so viciously, then he finally deprives him of all meaning and of all human qualities, why he puts thoughts into her head, into his heart feelings that are completely inconsistent with the character of the hero, with his other thoughts and feelings. In artistic terms, this means incontinence and unnaturalness of character - a drawback consisting in the fact that the author did not know how to portray his hero in such a way that he constantly remained true to himself. Such unnaturalness has the effect on the reader that he begins to distrust the author and involuntarily becomes the hero's lawyer, recognizes as impossible in him those absurd thoughts and that ugly combination of concepts that the author ascribes to him; evidence and evidence is available in other words of the same author, referring to the same hero. A hero, if you please, a physician, a young man, in the words of Mr. Turgenev himself, passionately, selflessly devoted to his science and occupations in general; not for a single minute does he part with his instruments and apparatus, he is constantly busy with experiments and observations; wherever he is, wherever he appears, immediately at the first convenient minute he begins to botanize, catch frogs, beetles, butterflies, dissect them, examine them under a microscope, subject them to chemical reactions; in the words of Mr. Turgenev, he carried with him everywhere "some kind of medical-surgical smell"; for science, he did not spare his life and died of infection while dissecting a typhoid corpse. And suddenly Mr. Turgenev wants to assure us that this man is a petty braggart and drunkard chasing champagne, and claims that he has no love for anything, not even for science, that he does not recognize science, does not believe in it, that he even despises medicine and laughs at it. Is this a natural thing? Isn't the author too angry with his hero? In one place, the author says that the hero "possessed a special ability to arouse the confidence of the lower people, although he never indulged them and treated them carelessly" (p. 488); “The servants of the lord became attached to him, even though he teased them; Dunyasha chuckled eagerly with him; Peter, a man extremely proud and stupid, and he grinned and brightened as soon as the hero paid attention to him; the yard boys ran after the “dokhtur” like little dogs” and even had scholarly conversations and disputes with him (p. 512). But, in spite of all this, in another place a comic scene is depicted in which the hero did not know how to say a few words with the peasants; the peasants could not understand the one who spoke clearly even with the yard boys. This latter described his reasoning with the peasant as follows: “the master was chatting something, I wanted to scratch my tongue. It is known, master; does he understand? The author could not resist even here, and at this right opportunity he inserted a hairpin to the hero: “alas! he also boasted that he knew how to talk to peasants” (p. 647).
M.A. Antonovich "Asmodeus of our time"
Sadly, I look at our generation ...
There is nothing fancy about the concept of the novel. Its action is also very simple and takes place in 1859. The main protagonist, a representative of the younger generation, is Yevgeny Vasilyevich Bazarov, a physician, a smart, diligent young man who knows his business, self-confident to the point of insolence, but stupid, loving strong drinks, imbued with the wildest concepts and unreasonable to the point that everyone fools him, even simple men. He has no heart at all. He is insensitive as a stone, cold as ice and fierce as a tiger. He has a friend, Arkady Nikolaevich Kirsanov, a candidate of St. Petersburg University, a sensitive, kind-hearted young man with an innocent soul. Unfortunately, he submitted to the influence of his friend Bazarov, who is trying in every possible way to dull the sensitivity of his heart, kill with his ridicule the noble movements of his soul and instill in him contemptuous coldness towards everything. As soon as he discovers some sublime impulse, his friend will immediately besiege him with his contemptuous irony. Bazarov has a father and a mother. Father, Vasily Ivanovich, an old physician, lives with his wife in his small estate; good old men love their Enyushenka to infinity. Kirsanov also has a father, a significant landowner who lives in the countryside; his wife is dead, and he lives with Fenechka, a sweet creature, the daughter of his housekeeper. His brother lives in his house, therefore, Kirsanov's uncle, Pavel Petrovich, a bachelor, in his youth a metropolitan lion, and in old age - a village veil, endlessly immersed in worries about smartness, but an invincible dialectician, at every step striking Bazarov and his own. nephew.
Let's take a closer look at the trends, try to find out the innermost qualities of fathers and children. So what are the fathers, the old generation? Fathers in the novel are presented in the best possible way. We are not talking about those fathers and about that old generation, which is represented by the puffed-up Princess Kh ... aya, who could not stand youth and pouted at the "new frenzied ones", Bazarov and Arkady. Kirsanov's father, Nikolai Petrovich, is an exemplary person in all respects. He himself, despite his general origin, was brought up at the university and had a candidate's degree and gave his son a higher education. Having lived almost to old age, he did not cease to take care of supplementing his own education. He used all his strength to keep up with the times. He wanted to get closer to the younger generation, imbued with its interests, so that together with him, together, hand in hand, go towards a common goal. But the younger generation rudely pushed him away. He wanted to get along with his son in order to start his rapprochement with the younger generation from him, but Bazarov prevented this. He tried to humiliate his father in the eyes of his son and thus broke off all moral ties between them. “We,” the father said to his son, “will live happily with you, Arkasha. We need to get close to each other now, get to know each other well, don’t we?” But no matter what they talk about among themselves, Arkady always begins to sharply contradict his father, who attributes this - and quite rightly - to the influence of Bazarov. But the son still loves his father and does not lose hope someday get closer to him. "My father," he says to Bazarov, "is a golden man." "It's amazing," he replies, "these old romantics! They will develop their nervous system to the point of irritation, well, the balance is broken." In Arcadia, filial love spoke, he stands up for his father, says that his friend does not yet know him enough. But Bazarov killed the last remnant of filial love in him with the following contemptuous review: “Your father is a kind fellow, but he is a retired man, his song is sung. He reads Pushkin. nonsense. Give him something sensible, at least Büchner's Stoff und Kraft5 for the first time." The son fully agreed with the words of his friend and felt pity and contempt for his father. Father accidentally overheard this conversation, which struck him to the very heart, offended him to the depths of his soul, killed all his energy, all desire for rapprochement with the younger generation. “Well,” he said after that, “maybe Bazarov is right; but one thing hurts me: I hoped to get close and friendly with Arkady, but it turns out that I was left behind, he went ahead, and we can’t understand each other Can. It seems that I am doing everything to keep up with the times: I arranged for the peasants, started a farm, so that they call me red in the whole province. I read, I study, in general I try to become up to date with modern needs, and they say that my song is sung. Yes, I myself am beginning to think so. "These are the harmful actions that the arrogance and intolerance of the younger generation produces. One trick of the boy struck down the giant, he doubted his strength and saw the futility of his efforts to keep up with the century. Thus, the younger generation, through their own fault, lost assistance and support from a person who could be a very useful figure, because he was gifted with many wonderful qualities that young people lack.Youth is cold, selfish, does not have poetry in itself and therefore hates it everywhere, does not have the highest moral convictions.Then how this man had a poetic soul and, despite the fact that he knew how to set up a farm, retained his poetic fervor until his advanced years, and most importantly, was imbued with the strongest moral convictions.
Bazarov's father and mother are even better, even kinder than Arkady's parent. The father also does not want to lag behind the century, and the mother lives only with love for her son and the desire to please him. Their common, tender affection for Enyushenka is depicted by Mr. Turgenev in a very captivating and lively way; here are the best pages in the whole novel. But the contempt with which Enyushenka pays for their love, and the irony with which he regards their gentle caresses, seems all the more disgusting to us.
That's what fathers are! They, in contrast to children, are imbued with love and poetry, they are moral people, modestly and secretly doing good deeds. They don't want to be behind the times.
So, the high advantages of the old generation over the young are undoubted. But they will be even more certain when we consider in more detail the qualities of the "children." What are "children"? Of those "children" who are bred in the novel, only one Bazarov seems to be an independent and intelligent person. Under what influences the character of Bazarov was formed, it is not clear from the novel. It is also unknown where he borrowed his beliefs from and what conditions favored the development of his way of thinking. If Mr. Turgenev had thought about these questions, he would certainly have changed his ideas about fathers and children. The writer did not say anything about the part that the study of the natural sciences, which constituted his specialty, could take in the development of the hero. He says that the hero took a certain direction in his way of thinking as a result of sensation. What this means is impossible to understand, but in order not to offend the philosophical insight of the author, we see in this sensation only poetic wit. Be that as it may, Bazarov's thoughts are independent, they belong to him, to his own activity of the mind. He is a teacher, other "children" of the novel, stupid and empty, listen to him and only repeat his words senselessly. In addition to Arkady, such, for example, is Sitnikov. He considers himself a student of Bazarov and owes his rebirth to him: “Would you believe it,” he said, “that when Evgeny Vasilyevich said in my presence that he should not recognize authorities, I felt such delight ... as if I had seen the light! Here, I thought, finally I have found a man! Sitnikov told the teacher about Mrs. Kukshina, a model of modern daughters. Bazarov then only agreed to go to her when the student assured him that she would have a lot of champagne.
Bravo, young generation! Works great for progress. And what is the comparison with smart, kind and moral-powerful "fathers"? Even the best representative of it turns out to be the most vulgar gentleman. But still, he is better than others, he speaks with consciousness and expresses his own opinions, not borrowed from anyone, as it turns out from the novel. We will now deal with this best specimen of the younger generation. As said above, he appears to be a cold person, incapable of love, or even of the most ordinary affection. He cannot even love a woman with the poetic love that is so attractive in the old generation. If, at the request of an animal feeling, he loves a woman, then he will love only her body. He even hates the soul in a woman. He says, "that she does not need to understand a serious conversation at all and that only freaks think freely between women."
You, Mr. Turgenev, ridicule strivings that would deserve encouragement and approval from any well-meaning person - we do not mean here the striving for champagne. And without that, many thorns and obstacles are met on the way by young women who want to study more seriously. And without that, their evil-speaking sisters prick their eyes with "blue stockings." And without you, we have many stupid and dirty gentlemen who, like you, reproach them for their disheveledness and lack of crinolines, scoff at their unclean collars and their nails, which do not have that crystal transparency to which your dear Pavel has brought his nails Petrovich. That would be enough, but you are still straining your wit to invent new insulting nicknames for them and want to use Mrs. Kukshina. Or do you really think that emancipated women only care about champagne, cigarettes, and students, or about several one-time husbands, as your fellow artist, Mr. Bezrylov, imagines? This is even worse, because it casts an unfavorable shadow on your philosophical acumen. But the other thing - ridicule - is also good, because it makes you doubt your sympathy for everything reasonable and fair. We, personally, are in favor of the first assumption.
We will not protect the young male generation. It really is and is, as depicted in the novel. So we agree exactly that the old generation is not at all embellished, but is presented as it really is, with all its respectable qualities. We just don't understand why Mr. Turgenev gives preference to the old generation. The younger generation of his novel is in no way inferior to the old. Their qualities are different, but the same in degree and dignity; as fathers are, so are children. Fathers = children - traces of nobility. We will not defend the younger generation and attack the old, but only try to prove the correctness of this formula of equality.
The youth are pushing away the old generation. This is very bad, harmful to the cause and does not honor the youth. But why does the older generation, more prudent and experienced, not take measures against this repulsion, and why does it not try to win over the youth? Nikolai Petrovich was a respectable, intelligent man who wanted to get closer to the younger generation, but when he heard the boy call him retired, he frowned, began to lament his backwardness, and immediately realized the futility of his efforts to keep up with the times. What kind of weakness is this? If he realized his justice, if he understood the aspirations of the youth and sympathized with them, then it would be easy for him to win over his son to his side. Bazarov interfered? But as a father connected with his son by love, he could easily defeat the influence of Bazarov on him if he had the desire and skill to do so. And in alliance with Pavel Petrovich, the invincible dialectician, he could even convert Bazarov himself. After all, it is only difficult to teach and retrain old people, and youth is very receptive and mobile, and one cannot think that Bazarov would renounce the truth if it were shown and proved to him! Mr. Turgenev and Pavel Petrovich exhausted all their wit in disputes with Bazarov and did not skimp on harsh and insulting expressions. However, Bazarov did not lose his eye, was not embarrassed, and remained with his opinions, despite all the objections of his opponents. It must be because the objections were bad. So, "fathers" and "children" are equally right and wrong in mutual repulsion. "Children" repel their fathers, but these passively move away from them and do not know how to attract them to themselves. Equality is complete!
Nikolai Petrovich did not want to marry Fenechka due to the influence of the traces of the nobility, because she was not equal to him and, most importantly, because he was afraid of his brother, Pavel Petrovich, who had even more traces of the nobility and who, however, also had views of Fenechka. Finally, Pavel Petrovich decided to destroy the traces of nobility in himself and demanded that his brother marry. "Marry Fenechka... She loves you! She is the mother of your son." "You say that, Pavel? - you, whom I considered an opponent of such marriages! But don't you know that it was only out of respect for you that I did not fulfill what you so rightly called my duty." “In vain did you respect me in this case,” answered Pavel, “I am beginning to think that Bazarov was right when he reproached me for being aristocratic. there are traces of nobility. Thus, the "fathers" finally realized their shortcoming and put it aside, thereby destroying the only difference that existed between them and the children. So, our formula is modified as follows: "fathers" - traces of nobility = "children" - traces of nobility. Subtracting from equal values equal, we get: "fathers" = "children", which was required to be proved.
With this we will finish with the personalities of the novel, with fathers and children, and turn to the philosophical side. To those views and trends that are depicted in it and which do not belong to the younger generation only, but are shared by the majority and express the general modern trend and movement. Apparently, Turgenev took for the image the period of mental life and literature of that time, and these are the features he discovered in it. From different places in the novel, we will collect them together. Before, you see, there were Hegelists, but now there are Nihilists. Nihilism is a philosophical term with different meanings. The writer defines it as follows: "The nihilist is the one who recognizes nothing, who respects nothing, who treats everything from a critical point of view, who does not bow to any authorities, who does not accept a single principle on faith, no matter how respected "Formerly, without principles taken for granted, one could not take a step. Now they do not recognize any principles: they do not recognize art, they do not believe in science, and they even say that science does not exist at all. Now everyone denies, but to build they don't want to, they say: "It's none of our business, first we need to clear the place."
Here is a collection of modern views put into the mouth of Bazarov. What are they? Caricature, exaggeration and nothing more. The author directs the arrows of his talent against what he has not penetrated into the essence of. He heard various voices, saw new opinions, observed lively disputes, but could not get to their inner meaning, and therefore in his novel he touched only the tops, only the words that were spoken around him. The concepts associated with these words remained a mystery to him. All his attention is focused on captivatingly drawing the image of Fenechka and Katya, describing Nikolai Petrovich's dreams in the garden, depicting "searching, indefinite, sad anxiety and causeless tears." It would not have turned out badly if he had only limited himself to this. Artistically analyze the modern way of thinking and characterize the direction he should not. He either does not understand them at all, or he understands them in his own way, artistically, superficially and incorrectly, and from their personification he composes a novel. Such art really deserves, if not denial, then censure. We have the right to demand that the artist understand what he depicts, that in his images, besides artistry, there is truth, and what he is not able to understand should not be taken for that. Mr. Turgenev is perplexed how one can understand nature, study it and at the same time admire it and enjoy it poetically, and therefore says that the modern young generation, passionately devoted to the study of nature, denies the poetry of nature, cannot admire it. Nikolai Petrovich loved nature, because he looked at it unconsciously, "indulging in the sad and joyful game of lonely thoughts," and felt only anxiety. Bazarov, on the other hand, could not admire nature, because indefinite thoughts did not play in him, but a thought worked, trying to understand nature; he walked through the swamps not with "seeking anxiety", but with the aim of collecting frogs, beetles, ciliates, in order to cut them up later and examine them under a microscope, and this killed all poetry in him. But meanwhile, the highest and most reasonable enjoyment of nature is possible only when it is understood, when one looks at it not with unaccountable thoughts, but with clear thoughts. The "children" were convinced of this, taught by the "fathers" and authorities themselves. There were people who understood the meaning of its phenomena, knew the movement of waves and vegetation, read the book of stars and were great poets. But for true poetry, it is also required that the poet depict nature correctly, not fantastically, but as it is, the poetic personification of nature is an article of a special kind. "Pictures of nature" may be the most accurate, most learned description of nature, and may produce a poetic effect. The picture may be artistic, although it is drawn so faithfully that a botanist can study on it the arrangement and shape of leaves in plants, the direction of their veins, and the types of flowers. The same rule applies to works of art depicting the phenomena of human life. You can compose a novel, imagine in it "children" like frogs and "fathers" like aspens. Confuse modern trends, reinterpret other people's thoughts, take a little from different views and make all this porridge and vinaigrette called "nihilism". Imagine this porridge in faces, so that each face is a vinaigrette of the most opposite, incongruous and unnatural actions and thoughts; and at the same time effectively describe a duel, a sweet picture of love dates and a touching picture of death. Anyone can admire this novel, finding artistry in it. But this artistry disappears, negates itself at the first touch of thought, which reveals a lack of truth in it.
In calm times, when movement is slow, development proceeds gradually on the basis of old principles, disagreements between the old generation and the new concern unimportant things, contradictions between "fathers" and "children" cannot be too sharp, therefore the very struggle between them has a calm character. and does not go beyond known limited limits. But in busy times, when development makes a bold and significant step forward or turns sharply to the side, when the old principles prove untenable and completely different conditions and requirements of life arise in their place, then this struggle takes on significant volumes and sometimes expresses itself in the most tragic way. The new teaching appears in the form of an unconditional negation of everything old. It declares an uncompromising struggle against old views and traditions, moral rules, habits and way of life. The difference between the old and the new is so sharp that, at least at first, agreement and reconciliation between them is impossible. At such times, family ties seem to weaken, brother rebels against brother, son against father. If the father remains with the old, and the son turns to the new, or vice versa, discord is inevitable between them. A son cannot waver between his love for his father and his conviction. The new teaching, with visible cruelty, requires him to leave his father, mother, brothers and sisters and be true to himself, his convictions, his vocation and the rules of the new teaching, and follow these rules steadily.
Excuse me, Mr. Turgenev, you did not know how to define your task. Instead of depicting the relationship between "fathers" and "children", you wrote a panegyric for "fathers" and a denunciation of "children", and you did not understand "children" either, and instead of denunciation, you came up with slander. You wanted to present the spreaders of sound concepts among the younger generation as corrupters of youth, sowers of discord and evil, who hate goodness - in a word, asmodeans.
