Current page: 1 (total book has 4 pages)
Font:
100% +
N. N. Strakhov
I. S. Turgenev. Fathers and Sons
Russian messenger, 1862, No. 2
I feel in advance (yes, probably everyone who writes with us today also feels this) that the reader will most of all look for teachings, instructions, and sermons in my article. Such is the present situation, such is our state of mind, that we are little interested in any cold reasoning, dry, strict analyses, calm activity of thought and creativity. Something sharper, sharper and more cutting is needed to keep us occupied and stirred. We feel some satisfaction only when moral enthusiasm flares up in us at least for a little while, or when indignation and contempt for the reigning evil boils. In order to touch and amaze us, we need to make our conscience speak, we need to touch the deepest bends of our soul. Otherwise, we will remain cold and indifferent, no matter how great the wonders of mind and talent. More vividly than all other needs, the need for moral renewal speaks in us, and therefore the need for denunciation, the need for scourging our own flesh. To everyone who owns the word, we are ready to address with the speech that the poet once heard:
We are cowardly, we are insidious,
Shameless, evil, ungrateful;
We are cold-hearted eunuchs,
Slanderers, slaves, fools;
The vices nest in us like a club...
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Give us bold lessons!
To be convinced of the full force of this request for preaching, to see how clearly this need was felt and expressed, it is enough to recall at least a few facts. Pushkin, as we have just noticed, heard this demand. It struck him with a strange bewilderment. The “mysterious singer,” as he called himself, that is, a singer for whom his own fate was a mystery, a poet who felt that “he had no response,” he met the demand for a sermon as something incomprehensible and could not relate to him in any way. definite and correct. Many times he turned his thoughts to this mysterious phenomenon. From this came his polemical poems, somewhat incorrect and, so to speak, false in a poetic sense (a great rarity with Pushkin!), for example Black, or
I don't value high-profile rights.
Hence it happened that the poet sang of "involuntary dreams", "free mind" and sometimes came to the energy demand freedom for myself as a poet:
Do not bend any conscience no thoughts, no neck
That's happiness, that's right!
Hence, finally, that complaint, which sounds so sad in the poems "To the Poet", "Monument", and the indignation with which he wrote:
Go away! What's the matter
A poet peaceful before you?
In debauchery boldly stone,
The voice of the lyre will not revive you.
Pushkin died in the midst of this discord, and perhaps this discord contributed a lot to his death.
Let us remember later that Gogol not only heard the demand for preaching, but he himself was already infected with the enthusiasm for preaching. He decided to speak directly, openly, like a preacher in his Correspondence with Friends. When he saw how terribly wrong both in the tone and in the text of his sermon, he could no longer find salvation in anything. His creative talent also disappeared, courage and self-confidence disappeared, and he died, as if killed by failure in what he considered the main business of his life.
At the same time, Belinsky found his strength in a fiery indignation at the life around him. In the end, he began to look with some contempt at his vocation as a critic; he claimed that he was born a publicist. It is rightly noted that in recent years his criticism has lapsed into one-sidedness and has lost the sensitivity that it used to distinguish. And here the need for preaching prevented the calm development of forces.
Be that as it may, but only the demand for a lesson and teaching was revealed to us as clearly as possible with the appearance of a new novel by Turgenev. He was suddenly approached with feverish and urgent questions: whom does he praise, whom does he condemn, who is his role model, who is the object of contempt and indignation, what kind of novel is this - progressive or retrograde?
And countless rumors have been raised on this topic. It came down to the smallest detail, to the most subtle details. Bazarov drinks champagne! Bazarov plays cards! Bazarov dresses casually! What does this mean, they ask in bewilderment. Must this, or shouldn't? Each decided in his own way, but each considered it necessary to derive a moral and sign it under a mysterious fable. The decisions, however, came out completely discordant. Some have found that "Fathers and Sons" is a satire on the younger generation, that all the author's sympathies are on the side fathers. Others say they are ridiculed and shamed in the novel fathers, and the younger generation, on the contrary, is exalted. Some find that Bazarov himself is to blame for his unhappy relationship with the people he met; others argue that, on the contrary, these people are to blame for the fact that it is so difficult for Bazarov to live in the world.
Thus, if we bring together all these contradictory opinions, then one must come to the conclusion that in the fable there is either no moralizing at all, or that moralizing is not so easy to find, that it is not at all where one is looking for it. Despite the fact that the novel is read with greed and arouses such interest, which, one can safely say, has not yet been aroused by any of Turgenev's works. Here is a curious phenomenon that deserves full attention. Roman appears to have arrived at the wrong time; it does not seem to correspond to the needs of society; it does not give it what it seeks. And yet he makes a strong impression. G. Turgenev, in any case, can be satisfied. His mysterious goal has been fully achieved. But we must be aware of the meaning of his work.
If Turgenev's novel throws readers into bewilderment, then this happens for a very simple reason: it brings to consciousness something that has not yet been noticed. The protagonist of the novel is Bazarov; he is now the bone of contention. Bazarov is a new face, whose sharp features we saw for the first time; It is clear that we are thinking about it. If the author had once again brought us the landowners of the old time or other persons who have long been familiar to us, then, of course, he would not give us any reason to be amazed, and everyone would marvel only at the fidelity and mastery of his portrayal. But in the present case, the matter is different. Even questions are constantly heard: where do the Bazarovs exist? Who saw the Bazarovs? Which one of us is Bazarov? Finally, are there really people like Bazarov?
Of course, the best proof of Bazarov's reality is the novel itself; Bazarov in him is so true to himself, so full, so generously supplied with flesh and blood, that to call him composed there is no possibility for man. But he is not a walking type, familiar to everyone and only captured by the artist and exposed by him "to the eyes of the people." Bazarov, in any case, is a person created, and not only reproduced, foreseen, and not only exposed. So it should have been according to the task itself, which aroused the creativity of the artist. Turgenev, as has long been known, is a writer who diligently follows the movement of Russian thought and Russian life. He is unusually interested in this movement; not only in "Fathers and Sons", but in all his previous works, he constantly grasped and depicted the relationship between fathers and children. The last thought, the last wave of life - that was what most of all attracted his attention. He represents an example of a writer gifted with perfect mobility and, at the same time, deep sensitivity, deep love for contemporary life.
He is the same in his new novel. If we do not know the full Bazarovs in reality, then, however, we all meet many Bazarov traits, everyone knows people who, on the one hand, then on the other, resemble Bazarov. If no one preaches the whole system of Bazarov's opinions, then, however, everyone heard the same thoughts one by one, fragmentarily, incoherently, incoherently. These wandering elements, these undeveloped embryos, unfinished forms, unformed opinions, Turgenev embodied whole, complete, harmonious in Bazarov.
From this comes both the profound amusement of the novel and the bewilderment it produces. The Bazarovs by half, the Bazarovs by one quarter, the Bazarovs by one hundredth, do not recognize themselves in the novel. But this is their grief, not Turgenev's grief. It is much better to be a complete Bazarov than to be his ugly and incomplete likeness. Opponents of Bazarovism rejoice, thinking that Turgenev deliberately distorted the matter, that he wrote a caricature of the younger generation: they do not notice how much greatness the depth of his life puts on Bazarov, his completeness, his inexorable and consistent originality, which they take for disgrace.
False accusations! Turgenev remained true to his artistic gift: he does not invent, but creates, does not distort, but only illuminates his figures.
Let's get closer to the point. The system of beliefs, the circle of thoughts of which Bazarov is a representative, were more or less clearly expressed in our literature. Their main spokesmen were two magazines: Sovremennik and Russkoye Slovo, which recently announced them with particular harshness. It is hard to doubt that from here, from these purely theoretical and abstract manifestations of a certain way of thinking, Turgenev took the mentality embodied by him in Bazarov. Turgenev adopted a certain view of things, which had claims to dominance, to primacy in our mental movement; he consistently and harmoniously developed this view to its extreme conclusions, and - since the artist's business is not thought, but life - he embodied it in living forms. He gave flesh and blood to what obviously already existed in the form of thought and belief. He gave an outward manifestation to that which already existed as an inward foundation.
This, of course, should explain the reproach made to Turgenev that he portrayed in Bazarov not one of the representatives of the younger generation, but rather the head of a circle, a product of our literature divorced from life.
The reproach would be justified if we did not know that sooner or later, to a greater or lesser extent, but without fail passes into life, into deeds. If the Bazarov trend was strong, had admirers and preachers, then it certainly had to give birth to the Bazarovs. So only one question remains: is the Bazarov direction correctly grasped?
In this regard, the opinions of those very journals that are directly interested in the case, namely Sovremennik and Russkoe Slovo, are essential for us. From these reviews it should be fully revealed how correctly Turgenev understood their spirit. Whether they are satisfied or dissatisfied, whether they understood Bazarov or did not understand, each feature is characteristic here.
Both journals were quick to respond with large articles. An article by Mr. Pisarev appeared in the March issue of Russkoye Slovo, and an article by Mr. Antonovich appeared in the March issue of Sovremennik. It turns out that Sovremennik is quite dissatisfied with Turgenev's novel. He thinks that the novel was written as a reproach and instruction to the younger generation, that it represents a slander against the younger generation and can be placed along with Asmodeus of Our Time, Op. Askochensky.
It is quite obvious that Sovremennik wants to kill Mr. Turgenev in the opinion of the readers, to kill him on the spot, without any pity. It would be very scary if it were only as easy to do as Sovremennik imagines. No sooner had his formidable book appeared than Mr. Pisarev's article appeared, constituting such a radical antidote to the malicious intentions of Sovremennik that nothing better could be desired. Sovremennik hoped that they would take their word for it in this matter. Well, maybe there are those who will hesitate. If we began to defend Turgenev, we, too, might be suspected of ulterior motives. But who will hesitate in the city of Pisarev? Who wouldn't believe him?
If Mr. Pisarev is known for anything in our literature, it is precisely for the directness and frankness of his exposition. G. Pisarev never plays cunning with readers; he finishes his thought. Thanks to this precious property, Turgenev's novel received the most brilliant confirmation that one could expect.
G. Pisarev, a man of the younger generation, testifies that Bazarov is the real type of this generation and that he is depicted quite correctly. "Our entire generation," says Mr. Pisarev, "with its aspirations and ideas, can recognize itself in the protagonists of this novel." “Bazarov is a representative of our young generation; in his personality are grouped those properties that are scattered in small fractions in the masses, and the image of this person clearly and distinctly emerges before the imagination of readers. "Turgenev pondered the type of Bazarov and understood him as truly as none of the young realists would understand." "He didn't cheat in his latest work." “Turgenev’s general relationship to those phenomena of life that make up the outline of his novel is so calm and impartial, so free from the worship of one theory or another, that Bazarov himself would not have found anything timid or false in these relationships.” Turgenev is "a sincere artist who does not disfigure reality, but depicts it as it is." As a result of this “honest, pure nature of the artist”, “his images live their own lives; he loves them, is carried away by them, he becomes attached to them during the process of creation, and it becomes impossible for him to push them around at his whim and turn the picture of life into an allegory with a moral purpose and with a virtuous denouement.
All these reviews are accompanied by a subtle analysis of Bazarov's actions and opinions, showing that the critic understands them and fully sympathizes with them. After this, it is clear what conclusion Mr. Pisarev had to come to as a member of the younger generation.
“Turgenev,” he writes, “justified Bazarov and appreciated him. Bazarov came out of his test clean and strong. “The meaning of the novel came out like this: today's young people are carried away and go to extremes; but fresh strength and an incorruptible mind are expressed in the very passions; this strength and this mind make themselves felt in a moment of difficult trials; this strength and this mind, without any extraneous aids and influences, will lead young people on a straight path and support them in life.
Who read this beautiful thought in Turgenev's novel, he cannot but express his deep and ardent gratitude to him as a great artist and an honest citizen of Russia!
Here is sincere and irrefutable evidence of how true Turgenev's poetic instinct is; Here is the complete triumph of the all-conquering and all-reconciling power of poetry!
In imitation of Mr. Pisarev, we are ready to exclaim: honor and glory to the artist who waited for such a response from those whom he portrayed.
The delight of Mr. Pisarev fully proves that the Bazarovs exist, if not in reality, then in the possibility, and that they are understood by Mr. Turgenev, at least to the extent that they understand themselves. To prevent misunderstandings, we note that the captiousness with which some look at Turgenev's novel is completely inappropriate. Judging by its title, they require that it contain quite depicted all the old and all the new generation. Why so? Why not be satisfied with the image some fathers and some children? If Bazarov really exists one of the representatives of the younger generation, then other representatives must necessarily be related to this representative.
Having proved by facts that Turgenev understands the Bazarovs at least as much as they understand themselves, we will now go further and show that Turgenev understands them much better than they understand themselves. There is nothing surprising and unusual here: such is the everlasting advantage, the invariable privilege of poets. After all, poets are prophets, seers; they penetrate into the very depths of things and reveal in them what remained hidden to ordinary eyes. Bazarov is a type, an ideal, a phenomenon "raised into the pearl of creation"; it is clear that he stands above the real phenomena of Bazarovism. Our Bazarovs are only Bazarovs in part, while Turgenev's Bazarovs are Bazarovs by excellence, par excellence. And consequently, when those who have not grown up to him begin to judge him, in many cases they will not understand him.
Our critics, even Mr. Pisarev, are dissatisfied with Bazarov. People of a negative direction cannot reconcile themselves to the fact that Bazarov has reached the end in denial. In fact, they are dissatisfied with the hero because he denies 1) the elegance of life, 2) aesthetic pleasure, 3) science. Let us examine these three negatives in more detail; in this way, Bazarov himself will become clear to us.
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: "it was animated by a calm smile and expressed self-confidence and intelligence." He cares little for his appearance and dresses casually. In the same way, in his address, he does not like any unnecessary politeness, empty, meaningless forms, external varnish that does not cover anything. Bazarov simple to the highest degree, and on this, by the way, depends the ease with which he gets along with people, from the yard boys to Anna Sergeevna Odintsova. This is how his young friend Arkady Kirsanov himself defines Bazarov:
“Please don’t stand on ceremony with him,” he says to his father, “he is a wonderful fellow, so simple, you will see.”
In order to sharpen the simplicity of Bazarov, Turgenev contrasted it with the sophistication and scrupulousness of Pavel Petrovich. From beginning to end of the story, the author does not forget to laugh at his collars, perfumes, mustaches, nails and all other signs of tender courtship for his own person. No less humorous is the appeal of Pavel Petrovich, his mustache touch instead of a kiss, his unnecessary delicacy, etc.
After that, it is very strange that Bazarov's admirers are unhappy with his portrayal in this regard. They find that the author gave him rude manners, that he exposed it uncouth, ill-bred, who should not be allowed into a decent living room. This is how Mr. Pisarev puts it, and on this basis he attributes to Mr. Turgenev insidious intent drop And trivialize its hero in the eyes of readers. In the opinion of Mr. Pisarev, Turgenev acted very unfairly; “You can be an extreme materialist, a complete empiricist, and at the same time take care of your toilet, treat your acquaintances with refinement and politeness, be an amiable conversationalist and a perfect gentleman. I say this, - adds the critic, - for those readers who, attaching importance to refined manners, will look with disgust at Bazarov, as a man mal eleve and mauvais ton. He is really mal eleve and mauvais ton, but this does not in the least refer to the essence of the type ... ".
Reasoning about the elegance of manners and the subtlety of treatment, as you know, is a very difficult subject. Our critic, apparently, is a great expert in this matter, and therefore we will not compete with him. This is all the easier for us because we do not at all wish to have in mind readers who attach importance to refined manners and worries about the toilet. Since we do not sympathize with these readers and know little about these things, it is clear that Bazarov does not in the least arouse disgust in us and does not seem to us either mal eleve or mauvais ton. All the characters in the novel seem to agree with us. The simplicity of treatment and the figures of Bazarov do not arouse disgust in them, but rather inspire respect for him; he is welcomed into living room Anna Sergeevna, where even some poor little girl sat princess.
Graceful manners and a good dress, of course, are good things, but we doubt that they were to Bazarov's face and went to his character. A man deeply devoted to one cause, destined, as he himself says, for "a bitter, tart, bean life," he could in no way play the role of a refined gentleman, could not be an interlocutor. He easily converges with people; he is of great interest to all who know him; but this interest lies not at all in the subtlety of the treatment.
Deep asceticism penetrates the whole personality of Bazarov; this feature is not accidental, but essential. The nature of this asceticism is quite special, and in this respect one must strictly adhere to the present point of view, that is, the one from which Turgenev looks. 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. G. Antonovich in Sovremennik sees here too insidious intent Turgenev and assures us that the poet put his hero glutton, drunkard and gambler. The case, however, is not at all like that. Bazarov understands that simple or purely bodily pleasures are much more legitimate and forgivable than pleasures of a different kind. Bazarov understands that there are more disastrous temptations, 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, mental and heart depravity of every kind is much more disgusting and hateful for him than berries and cream or a bullet in preference. These are the temptations he guards himself against; this is the highest asceticism to which Bazarov is devoted. He does not pursue sensual pleasures, he enjoys them only on occasion; he is so deeply occupied with his thoughts that it can never be difficult for him to give up these pleasures; in a word, he indulges in these simple pleasures because he is always above them, because they can never take possession of him. But the more stubbornly and severely he refuses such pleasures, which could become higher than him and take possession of his soul.
This is where the more striking circumstance is explained, that Bazarov denies aesthetic pleasures, that he does not want to admire nature and does not recognize art. Both of our critics were greatly perplexed by this denial of art.
“We deny,” writes Mr. Antonovich, “only your art, your poetry, Mr. Turgenev; but we do not deny and even demand another art and poetry, even such poetry as, for example, Goethe presented. “There were people,” the critic notes elsewhere, “who studied nature and enjoyed it, understood the meaning of its phenomena, knew the movement of waves and vegetation, read the book of stars clearly, scientifically, without dreaminess, and were great poets.”
G. Antonovich, obviously, does not want to quote verses that are known to everyone:
With nature alone he breathed life.
The brook understood babble,
And I understood the sound of woody sheets,
And I felt the vegetation growing;
The star book was clear to him,
And the sea wave spoke to him.
The point is clear: Mr. Antonovich declares himself an admirer of Goethe and asserts that the younger generation recognizes poetry great old man. From him, he says, we have learned "the highest and rational enjoyment of nature." Here is an unexpected and, frankly, highly dubious fact! How long has it been since Sovremennik became an admirer of Goethe's Privy Councilor? Sovremennik says a lot about literature; he especially loves poetry. As soon as a collection of some poems appears, an analysis will certainly be written on it. But for him to talk a lot about Goethe, to set him as a model - this, it seems, did not happen at all. Sovremennik scolded Pushkin: everyone remembers this; but to glorify Goethe - it seems to him for the first time, if one does not remember long gone and forgotten years. What does this mean? Was it really necessary?
And is it even possible for Sovremennik to admire Goethe, the egoist Goethe, who serves as an eternal link for art lovers for art, who represents an example of Olympian indifference to earthly affairs, who survived the revolution, the conquest of Germany and the war of liberation, without taking heart in them participation, looking down on all the events!..
Nor can we think that the younger generation should learn the enjoyment of nature or anything else from Goethe. This is a well-known case; if the younger generation reads poets, then certainly not Goethe; instead of Goethe, it reads a lot to Heine, instead of Pushkin, it reads Nekrasov. If Mr. Antonovich so unexpectedly declared himself an adherent of Goethe, this still does not prove that the younger generation is disposed to revel in Goethe's poetry, that they are learning from Goethe to enjoy nature.
Mr. Pisarev presents the case much more directly and frankly. He also finds that, denying art, Bazarov swears denies things who do not know or understand. “Poetry,” says the critic, “in his opinion, is nonsense; reading Pushkin is a waste of time; making music is funny; enjoying nature is absurd.” To refute such delusions, Mr. Pisarev does not resort to authorities, as Mr. Antonovich did, but tries with his own hand to explain to us the legitimacy of aesthetic pleasures. To reject them, he says, is impossible: after all, this would mean rejecting the pleasure of "a pleasant irritation of the visual and auditory nerves." After all, for example, "the enjoyment of music is a purely physical sensation." “Consistent materialists like Karl Vocht, Moleschott and Büchner do not refuse a glass of vodka to the day laborer, but to sufficient classes the use of narcotic substances. They look condescendingly even on violations of due measure, although they recognize such violations as harmful to health. “Why, allowing the use of vodka and narcotic substances in general, to prevent the enjoyment of nature”? And just like that, if you can drink vodka, then why can't you read Pushkin. From here, we should already clearly see that since Bazarov allowed drinking vodka and drank it himself, he acts inconsistently, laughing at reading Pushkin and playing the cello.
Obviously, Bazarov does not look at things in the same way as Mr. Pisarev. G. Pisarev, apparently, recognizes art, but in fact he rejects it, that is, he does not recognize its real significance. Bazarov directly denies art, but he denies it because he understands it more deeply. Obviously, music for Bazarov is not a purely physical occupation, and reading Pushkin is not the same as drinking vodka. In this respect, Turgenev's hero is incomparably superior to his followers. In the melody of Schubert and in the verses of Pushkin, he clearly hears a hostile beginning; he senses their all-enticing power, and therefore he arms himself against them.
In what does this force of art, hostile to Bazarov, consist? To put it as simply as possible, we can say that art is something too sweet, while Bazarov does not like any sweets, but prefers bitter to them. To put it more precisely, but in somewhat old language, we can say that art always has an element reconciliation, while Bazarov does not at all want to come to terms 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.
<<…>> Hostility to art is an important phenomenon and is not a fleeting delusion; on the contrary, it is deeply rooted in the spirit of the present. Art has always been and always will be eternal: hence it is clear that the priests of art, like the priests of the eternal, easily begin to look contemptuously at everything temporary; at least they sometimes consider themselves right when they indulge in eternal interests, taking no part in temporal ones. And, consequently, those who cherish the temporal, who demand the concentration of all activity on the needs of the present moment, on vital matters, must necessarily become hostile to art.
What does Schubert's melody mean, for example? Try to explain what business the artist did when he created this melody, and what business those who listen to it do? Art, some say, is a surrogate for science; it indirectly contributes to the dissemination of information. Try to consider what kind of knowledge or information is contained and disseminated in this melody. One of two things: either the one who indulges in the pleasure of music is engaged in perfect trifles, physical sensation; or else his rapture refers to something abstract, general, boundless, and yet alive and completely taking possession of the human soul.
Delight- this is the evil against which Bazarov goes and which he has no reason to fear from a glass of vodka. Art has a claim and the power to become much higher pleasant irritation of the visual and auditory nerves; It is this claim and this power that Bazarov does not recognize as legitimate.
As we have said, the denial of art is one of the contemporary aspirations. In vain did Mr. Antonovich frighten Goethe, or at least frighten others with him: Goethe can also be denied. No wonder our age is called anti-aesthetic. Of course, art is invincible and contains an inexhaustible, ever-renewing power; nevertheless, the inspiration of the new spirit, which was revealed in the rejection of art, is, of course, of profound significance.
It is especially understandable for us Russians. Bazarov in this case represents a living embodiment of one of the sides of the Russian spirit. In general, we have little disposition towards the elegant; we are too sober for that, too practical. Quite often you can find people among us for whom poetry and music seem to be something either cloying or childish. Enthusiasm and grandiloquence are not to our liking; we prefer simplicity, caustic humor, ridicule. And on this score, as can be seen from the novel, Bazarov himself is a great artist.
“The course of natural and medical sciences attended by Bazarov,” says Mr. Pisarev, “developed his natural mind and weaned him from accepting any concepts and convictions on faith; he became a pure empiricist; experience became for him the only source of knowledge, personal sensation - the only and last convincing proof. I stick to the negative direction,” he says, “because of the sensations. I am pleased to deny that this is how my brain works - and that's it! Why do I like chemistry? Why do you love apples? Also by virtue of feeling - it's all one. People will never go deeper than that. Not everyone will tell you this, and I won’t tell you this next time either.". “So,” the critic concludes, “neither above himself, nor outside himself, nor within himself, Bazarov recognizes any regulator, no moral law, no (theoretical) principle.”
As for Mr. Antonovich, he considers Bazarov's mental mood to be very absurd and disgraceful. It is only a pity that, no matter how it gets stronger, it cannot show what this absurdity consists of.
“Disassemble,” he says, “the above views and thoughts, 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”; but the very same decision not to take anything on faith is the principle!”
Which is usually associated with the work "Rudin", published in 1855 - a novel in which Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev returned to the structure of this first of his creations.
As in it, in "Fathers and Sons" all the plot threads converged on one center, which was formed by the figure of Bazarov, a raznochint-democrat. She alarmed all critics and readers. Various critics have written a lot about the novel "Fathers and Sons", since the work aroused genuine interest and controversy. We will present the main positions regarding this novel to you in this article.
Significance in understanding the work
Bazarov became not only the plot center of the work, but also problematic. The assessment of all other aspects of Turgenev's novel largely depended on the understanding of his fate and personality: the author's position, the system of characters, various artistic techniques used in the work "Fathers and Sons". The critics examined this novel chapter by chapter and saw in it a new turn in the work of Ivan Sergeevich, although their understanding of the milestone meaning of this work was completely different.
Why was Turgenev scolded?
The ambivalent attitude of the author himself to his hero led to censures and reproaches of his contemporaries. Turgenev was severely scolded from all sides. Critics of the novel "Fathers and Sons" responded mostly negatively. Many readers could not understand the author's thought. From the memoirs of Annenkov, as well as Ivan Sergeevich himself, we learn that M.N. Katkov became indignant when he read the manuscript "Fathers and Sons" chapter by chapter. He was outraged by the fact that the protagonist of the work reigns supreme and does not meet a sensible rebuff anywhere. Readers and critics of the opposite camp also severely criticized Ivan Sergeevich for the internal dispute that he had with Bazarov in his novel Fathers and Sons. Its content seemed to them not quite democratic.
The most notable among many other interpretations are the article by M.A. Antonovich, published in "Sovremennik" ("Asmodeus of our time"), as well as a number of articles that appeared in the journal "Russian Word" (democratic), written by D.I. Pisarev: "The Thinking Proletariat", "Realists", "Bazarov". about the novel "Fathers and Sons" presented two opposing opinions.
Pisarev's opinion about the main character
Unlike Antonovich, who assessed Bazarov sharply negatively, Pisarev saw in him a real "hero of the time." This critic compared this image with the "new people" depicted in N.G. Chernyshevsky.
The theme of "fathers and sons" (the relationship between generations) came to the fore in his articles. The divergent opinions expressed by representatives of the democratic trend were perceived as a "split in the nihilists" - a fact of internal polemic that existed in the democratic movement.
Antonovich about Bazarov
Both readers and critics of "Fathers and Sons" were not accidentally worried about two questions: about the author's position and about the prototypes of the images of this novel. They are the two poles by which any work is interpreted and perceived. According to Antonovich, Turgenev was malicious. In the interpretation of Bazarov, presented by this critic, this image is not at all a person written off "from nature", but an "evil spirit", "asmodeus", which is released by a writer embittered at a new generation.
Antonovich's article is sustained in a feuilleton manner. This critic, instead of presenting an objective analysis of the work, created a caricature of the main character, substituting Sitnikov, Bazarov's "disciple", in the place of his teacher. Bazarov, according to Antonovich, is not at all an artistic generalization, not a mirror in which the critic believes that the author of the novel created a biting feuilleton, which should be objected to in the same manner. Antonovich's goal - to "quarrel" with the younger generation of Turgenev - was achieved.
What could the democrats not forgive Turgenev?
Antonovich, in the subtext of his unfair and rude article, reproached the author for making a figure that is too "recognizable", since Dobrolyubov is considered one of its prototypes. The journalists of Sovremennik, moreover, could not forgive the author for breaking up with this magazine. The novel "Fathers and Sons" was published in the "Russian Messenger", a conservative publication, which was for them a sign of Ivan Sergeevich's final break with democracy.
Bazarov in "real criticism"
Pisarev expressed a different point of view about the protagonist of the work. He considered him not as a caricature of certain individuals, but as a representative of a new socio-ideological type that was emerging at that time. This critic was least of all interested in the attitude of the author himself towards his hero, as well as various features of the artistic embodiment of this image. Pisarev interpreted Bazarov in the spirit of so-called real criticism. He pointed out that the author in his image was biased, but the type itself was highly appreciated by Pisarev - as a "hero of the time." The article titled "Bazarov" said that the protagonist depicted in the novel, presented as a "tragic person", is a new type that literature lacked. In further interpretations of this critic, Bazarov broke away more and more from the novel itself. For example, in the articles "Thinking Proletariat" and "Realists" the name "Bazarov" was used to name a type of era, a raznochinets-kulturträger, whose outlook was close to Pisarev himself.
Accusations of bias
Turgenev's objective, calm tone in portraying the protagonist was contradicted by accusations of tendentiousness. "Fathers and Sons" is a kind of Turgenev's "duel" with nihilists and nihilism, however, the author complied with all the requirements of the "code of honor": he treated the enemy with respect, having "killed" him in a fair fight. Bazarov, as a symbol of dangerous delusions, according to Ivan Sergeevich, is a worthy adversary. The mockery and caricature of the image, which some critics accused the author of, was not used by him, since they could give quite the opposite result, namely, an underestimation of the power of nihilism, which is destructive. The nihilists sought to put their false idols in the place of the "eternal". Turgenev, recalling his work on the image of Yevgeny Bazarov, wrote to M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin in 1876 about the novel "Fathers and Sons", the history of which was of interest to many, that he is not surprised why this hero remained a mystery to the main part of readers, because the author himself cannot fully imagine how he wrote it. Turgenev said that he knew only one thing: there was no tendency in him then, no bias of thought.
The position of Turgenev himself
Critics of the novel "Fathers and Sons" responded mostly one-sidedly, gave harsh assessments. Meanwhile, Turgenev, as in his previous novels, avoids comments, does not draw conclusions, deliberately hides the inner world of his hero in order not to put pressure on readers. The conflict of the novel "Fathers and Sons" is by no means on the surface. So straightforwardly interpreted by the critic Antonovich and completely ignored by Pisarev, it manifests itself in the composition of the plot, in the nature of the conflicts. It is in them that the concept of Bazarov's fate is realized, presented by the author of the work "Fathers and Sons", the images of which still cause controversy among various researchers.
Eugene in disputes with Pavel Petrovich is unshakable, but after a difficult "test of love" he is internally broken. The author emphasizes the "cruelty", the thoughtfulness of the convictions of this hero, as well as the interconnection of all the components that make up his worldview. Bazarov is a maximalist, according to whom any belief has a price, if it is not in conflict with others. As soon as this character lost one "link" in the "chain" of worldview, all the others were reassessed and questioned. In the finale, this is already the "new" Bazarov, who is the "Hamlet" among the nihilists.
N. N. Strakhov
I. S. Turgenev. Fathers and Sons
Russian messenger, 1862, No. 2
I feel in advance (yes, probably everyone who writes with us today also feels this) that the reader will most of all look for teachings, instructions, and sermons in my article. Such is the present situation, such is our state of mind, that we are little interested in any cold reasoning, dry, strict analyses, calm activity of thought and creativity. Something sharper, sharper and more cutting is needed to keep us occupied and stirred. We feel some satisfaction only when moral enthusiasm flares up in us at least for a little while, or when indignation and contempt for the reigning evil boils. In order to touch and amaze us, we need to make our conscience speak, we need to touch the deepest bends of our soul. Otherwise, we will remain cold and indifferent, no matter how great the wonders of mind and talent. More vividly than all other needs, the need for moral renewal speaks in us, and therefore the need for denunciation, the need for scourging our own flesh. To everyone who owns the word, we are ready to address with the speech that the poet once heard:
We are cowardly, we are insidious,
Shameless, evil, ungrateful;
We are cold-hearted eunuchs,
Slanderers, slaves, fools;
The vices nest in us like a club...
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Give us bold lessons!
To be convinced of the full force of this request for preaching, to see how clearly this need was felt and expressed, it is enough to recall at least a few facts. Pushkin, as we have just noticed, heard this demand. It struck him with a strange bewilderment. The “mysterious singer,” as he called himself, that is, a singer for whom his own fate was a mystery, a poet who felt that “he had no response,” he met the demand for a sermon as something incomprehensible and could not relate to him in any way. definite and correct. Many times he turned his thoughts to this mysterious phenomenon. From this came his polemical poems, somewhat incorrect and, so to speak, false in a poetic sense (a great rarity with Pushkin!), for example Black, or
I don't value high-profile rights.
Hence it happened that the poet sang of "involuntary dreams", "free mind" and sometimes came to the energy demand freedom for myself as a poet:
Do not bend any conscience no thoughts, no neck
That's happiness, that's right!
Hence, finally, that complaint, which sounds so sad in the poems "To the Poet", "Monument", and the indignation with which he wrote:
Go away! What's the matter
A poet peaceful before you?
In debauchery boldly stone,
The voice of the lyre will not revive you.
Pushkin died in the midst of this discord, and perhaps this discord contributed a lot to his death.
Let us remember later that Gogol not only heard the demand for preaching, but he himself was already infected with the enthusiasm for preaching. He decided to speak directly, openly, like a preacher in his Correspondence with Friends. When he saw how terribly wrong both in the tone and in the text of his sermon, he could no longer find salvation in anything. His creative talent also disappeared, courage and self-confidence disappeared, and he died, as if killed by failure in what he considered the main business of his life.
At the same time, Belinsky found his strength in a fiery indignation at the life around him. In the end, he began to look with some contempt at his vocation as a critic; he claimed that he was born a publicist. It is rightly noted that in recent years his criticism has lapsed into one-sidedness and has lost the sensitivity that it used to distinguish. And here the need for preaching prevented the calm development of forces.
Be that as it may, but only the demand for a lesson and teaching was revealed to us as clearly as possible with the appearance of a new novel by Turgenev. He was suddenly approached with feverish and urgent questions: whom does he praise, whom does he condemn, who is his role model, who is the object of contempt and indignation, what kind of novel is this - progressive or retrograde?
And countless rumors have been raised on this topic. It came down to the smallest detail, to the most subtle details. Bazarov drinks champagne! Bazarov plays cards! Bazarov dresses casually! What does this mean, they ask in bewilderment. Must this, or shouldn't? Each decided in his own way, but each considered it necessary to derive a moral and sign it under a mysterious fable. The decisions, however, came out completely discordant. Some have found that "Fathers and Sons" is a satire on the younger generation, that all the author's sympathies are on the side fathers. Others say they are ridiculed and shamed in the novel fathers, and the younger generation, on the contrary, is exalted. Some find that Bazarov himself is to blame for his unhappy relationship with the people he met; others argue that, on the contrary, these people are to blame for the fact that it is so difficult for Bazarov to live in the world.
Thus, if we bring together all these contradictory opinions, then one must come to the conclusion that in the fable there is either no moralizing at all, or that moralizing is not so easy to find, that it is not at all where one is looking for it. Despite the fact that the novel is read with greed and arouses such interest, which, one can safely say, has not yet been aroused by any of Turgenev's works. Here is a curious phenomenon that deserves full attention. Roman appears to have arrived at the wrong time; it does not seem to correspond to the needs of society; it does not give it what it seeks. And yet he makes a strong impression. G. Turgenev, in any case, can be satisfied. His mysterious goal has been fully achieved. But we must be aware of the meaning of his work.
If Turgenev's novel throws readers into bewilderment, then this happens for a very simple reason: it brings to consciousness something that has not yet been noticed. The protagonist of the novel is Bazarov; he is now the bone of contention. Bazarov is a new face, whose sharp features we saw for the first time; It is clear that we are thinking about it. If the author had once again brought us the landowners of the old time or other persons who have long been familiar to us, then, of course, he would not give us any reason to be amazed, and everyone would marvel only at the fidelity and mastery of his portrayal. But in the present case, the matter is different. Even questions are constantly heard: where do the Bazarovs exist? Who saw the Bazarovs? Which one of us is Bazarov? Finally, are there really people like Bazarov?
Of course, the best proof of Bazarov's reality is the novel itself; Bazarov in him is so true to himself, so full, so generously supplied with flesh and blood, that to call him composed there is no possibility for man. But he is not a walking type, familiar to everyone and only captured by the artist and exposed by him "to the eyes of the people." Bazarov, in any case, is a person created, and not only reproduced, foreseen, and not only exposed. So it should have been according to the task itself, which aroused the creativity of the artist. Turgenev, as has long been known, is a writer who diligently follows the movement of Russian thought and Russian life. He is unusually interested in this movement; not only in "Fathers and Sons", but in all his previous works, he constantly grasped and depicted the relationship between fathers and children. The last thought, the last wave of life - that was what most of all attracted his attention. He represents an example of a writer gifted with perfect mobility and, at the same time, deep sensitivity, deep love for contemporary life.
He is the same in his new novel. If we do not know the full Bazarovs in reality, then, however, we all meet many Bazarov traits, everyone knows people who, on the one hand, then on the other, resemble Bazarov. If no one preaches the whole system of Bazarov's opinions, then, however, everyone heard the same thoughts one by one, fragmentarily, incoherently, incoherently. These wandering elements, these undeveloped embryos, unfinished forms, unformed opinions, Turgenev embodied whole, complete, harmonious in Bazarov.
From this comes both the profound amusement of the novel and the bewilderment it produces. The Bazarovs by half, the Bazarovs by one quarter, the Bazarovs by one hundredth, do not recognize themselves in the novel. But this is their grief, not Turgenev's grief. It is much better to be a complete Bazarov than to be his ugly and incomplete likeness. Opponents of Bazarovism rejoice, thinking that Turgenev deliberately distorted the matter, that he wrote a caricature of the younger generation: they do not notice how much greatness the depth of his life puts on Bazarov, his completeness, his inexorable and consistent originality, which they take for disgrace.
False accusations! Turgenev remained true to his artistic gift: he does not invent, but creates, does not distort, but only illuminates his figures.
". Turgenev succeeded in capturing and depicting in the person of Bazarov the most burning phenomenon of his contemporary life, in which no one has yet had time to properly understand.
Fathers and Sons. Feature film based on the novel by I. S. Turgenev. 1958
Conservative publicists indiscriminately condemned any manifestation of the "new life", and therefore, with joy, they saw Turgenev's strict trial of progressive youth in the loser Bazarov and rejoiced at this trial.
The radical part of Russian journalism saw in this "trial" the progressive writer's apostasy from his liberal convictions, a transition to another camp, and began (Antonovich) to bombard Turgenev with vicious reproaches, proving that the novel is a lampoon on the younger generation of the idealization of "fathers". However, voices were heard from the progressive camp, which, ignoring the question of Turgenev’s attitude towards his hero, praised Bazarov as the perfect embodiment of the “best sides” of the 1860s (Pisarev).
The vast majority of Turgenev's recent admirers did not accept Pisarev's point of view, but adopted Antonovich's. That is why this novel begins a cooling in the relations of Russian society to its recent favorite. “I noticed coldness that reached indignation in many people close to me and likeable people, I received congratulations, almost kisses, from people of a camp that was opposite to me, from enemies,” Turgenev says in notes about Fathers and Sons.
Turgenev's work "Fathers and Sons" caused a wide resonance. Many articles were written, parodies in the form of poetry and prose, epigrams and caricatures. And of course, the main object of this criticism was the image of the main character - Yevgeny Bazarov. The appearance of the novel was a significant event in the cultural life of that time. But Turgenev's contemporaries were by no means unanimous in their assessment of his work.
Relevance
Criticism of "Fathers and Sons" contained a large number of disagreements that reached the most polar judgments. And this is not surprising, because in the central characters of this work the reader can feel the breath of an entire era. The preparation of the peasant reform, the deepest social contradictions of that time, the struggle of social forces - all this was reflected in the images of the work, made up its historical background.
The debates of critics around the novel "Fathers and Sons" lasted for many years, and at the same time, the fuse did not become weaker. It became obvious that the novel retained its problematics and topicality. The work reveals one of the most important characteristic features of Turgenev himself - this is the ability to see the trends that are emerging in society. The great Russian writer managed to capture in his work the struggle of two camps - "fathers" and "children". In fact, it was a confrontation between liberals and democrats.
Bazarov is the central character
The conciseness of Turgenev's style is also striking. After all, the writer was able to fit all this huge material into the framework of one novel. Bazarov is involved in 26 of the 28 chapters of the work. All other characters are grouped around him, revealed in relations with him, and also make the character traits of the main character even more prominent. The work does not cover the biography of Bazarov. Only one period from his life is taken, filled with turning events and moments.
Details in the work
A student who needs to prepare his own criticism of "Fathers and Sons" can note brief and accurate details in the work. They allow the writer to clearly draw the character of the characters, the events described in the novel. With the help of such strokes, Turgenev depicts the crisis of serfdom. The reader can see "villages with low huts under dark, often half-swept roofs." This indicates the poverty of life. Maybe the peasants have to feed the hungry cattle with straw from the roofs. "Peasant cows" are also depicted as skinny, emaciated.
In the future, Turgenev no longer paints a picture of rural life, but at the beginning of the work it is described so vividly and revealingly that it is impossible to add anything to it. The heroes of the novel are worried about the question: this region does not impress with either wealth or hard work, and it needs reforms and transformations. However, how can they be fulfilled? Kirsanov says that the government should take some measures. All the hopes of this hero are on patriarchal customs, the people's community.
A brewing riot
However, the reader feels: if the people do not trust the landowners, treat them with hostility, this will inevitably result in a revolt. And the picture of Russia on the eve of reforms is completed by the bitter remark of the author, dropped as if by accident: “Nowhere does time run as fast as in Russia; in prison, they say, it runs even faster.
And against the background of all these events, the figure of Bazarov is looming by Turgenev. He is a person of a new generation, who should replace the "fathers" who are unable to solve the difficulties and problems of the era on their own.
Interpretation and criticism of D. Pisarev
After the release of the work "Fathers and Sons", its heated discussion began in the press. It almost immediately became polemical. For example, in a magazine called "Russian Word" in 1862, an article by D. Pisarev "Bazarov" appeared. The critic noted a bias in relation to the description of the image of Bazarov, saying that in many cases Turgenev does not show favor to his hero, because he feels antipathy to this line of thought.
However, Pisarev's general conclusion is not limited to this problem. He finds in the image of Bazarov a combination of the main aspects of the worldview of heterodox democracy, which Turgenev managed to portray quite truthfully. And the critical attitude of Turgenev himself to Bazarov in this regard is rather an advantage. After all, both advantages and disadvantages become more noticeable from the outside. According to Pisarev, the tragedy of Bazarov lies in the fact that he does not have suitable conditions for his activities. And since Turgenev does not have the opportunity to show how his main character lives, he shows the reader how he dies.
It should be noted that Pisarev rarely expressed his admiration for literary works. It just can be called a nihilist - a subversive of values. However, Pisarev emphasizes the aesthetic significance of the novel, Turgenev's artistic sensitivity. At the same time, the critic is convinced that a true nihilist, like Bazarov himself, must deny the value of art as such. Pisarev's interpretation is considered one of the most complete in the 60s.
Opinion of N. N. Strakhov
"Fathers and Sons" caused a wide resonance in Russian criticism. In 1862, an interesting article by N. N. Strakhov also appeared in the Vremya magazine, which was published under the publication of F. M. and M. M. Dostoevsky. Nikolai Nikolaevich was a state adviser, publicist, philosopher, so his opinion was considered weighty. The title of Strakhov's article was “I. S. Turgenev. "Fathers and Sons". The critic's opinion was quite positive. Strakhov was convinced that the work was one of Turgenev's best novels, in which the writer was able to show all his skill. The image of Bazarov Strakhov regards as extremely typical. What Pisarev considered to be completely accidental incomprehension (“He bluntly denies things that he does not know or does not understand”) Strakhov perceived as one of the most essential features of a real nihilist.
In general, N. N. Strakhov was pleased with the novel, wrote that the work is read with greed and is one of the most interesting creations of Turgenev. This critic also noted that "pure poetry" and not extraneous reflections come to the fore in it.
Criticism of the work "Fathers and Sons": Herzen's view
In Herzen's work entitled "Once again Bazarov" the main emphasis is not on Turgenev's hero, but on how he was understood by Pisarev. Herzen wrote that Pisarev was able to recognize himself in Bazarov, and also add what was missing in the book. In addition, Herzen compares Bazarov with the Decembrists and comes to the conclusion that they are "great fathers", while the "Bazarovs" are the "prodigal children" of the Decembrists. Nihilism in his article Herzen compares with logic without structures, or with scientific knowledge without theses.
Criticism of Antonovich
Some critics about the novel "Fathers and Sons" spoke quite negatively. One of the most critical points of view was put forward by M. A. Antonovich. In his journal, he published an article entitled "Asmodeus of our time", which was devoted to the work of Turgenev. In it, Antonovich completely denied the work "Fathers and Sons" any artistic merit. He was completely dissatisfied with the work of the great Russian writer. The critic accused Turgenev of slandering the new generation. He believed that the novel was written to reproach and instruct the youth. And also Antonovich was glad that Turgenev had finally revealed his true face, showing himself as an opponent of any progress.
Opinion of N. M. Katkov
The criticism of "Fathers and Sons" by Turgenev, written by N. M. Katkov, is also interesting. He published his opinion in the Russian Bulletin magazine. The literary critic noted the talent of the great Russian writer. Katkov saw one of the special merits of the work in the fact that Turgenev was able to "catch the current moment", the stage at which the writer's contemporary society was. Katkov considered nihilism a disease that should be combated by strengthening conservative principles in society.
The novel "Fathers and Sons" in Russian criticism: Dostoevsky's opinion
F. M. Dostoevsky also took a very peculiar position in relation to the main character. He considered Bazarov a "theorist" who was too far removed from real life. And that is precisely why, Dostoevsky believed, Bazarov was unhappy. In other words, he represented a hero close to Raskolnikov. At the same time, Dostoevsky does not strive for a detailed analysis of the theory of Turgenev's hero. He correctly notes that any abstract theory must inevitably break up against the realities of life, and therefore bring a person torment and suffering. Soviet critics believed that Dostoevsky reduced the problems of the novel to a complex of ethical and psychological nature.
General impression of contemporaries
In general, criticism of Turgenev's "Fathers and Sons" was largely negative. Many writers were dissatisfied with Turgenev's work. The Sovremennik magazine considered in it a libel on modern society. Adherents of conservatism were also not sufficiently satisfied, since it seemed to them that Turgenev did not fully reveal the image of Bazarov. D. Pisarev was one of the few who liked this work. In Bazarov, he saw a powerful personality who has serious potential. The critic wrote about such people that, seeing their dissimilarity with the general mass, they boldly move away from it. And they absolutely do not care whether society agrees to follow them. They are full of themselves and their own inner life.
The criticism of Fathers and Sons is by no means exhausted by the considered responses. Almost every Russian writer left his opinion about this novel, in which - one way or another - he expressed his opinion about the problems raised in it. This is what can be called a true sign of the relevance and significance of the work.
