Literary and historical notes of a young technician. Evaluation of the novel by I.S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons" in Russian criticism (case study method) Critical literature fathers and sons

Are you here: Individual protection means

Processes taking place in the literary environment in the 1850s.

Novel by I. S. Turgenev “Fathers and Sons.” Criticism of the novel.

In the first half of the 50s, a process of consolidation of the progressive intelligentsia took place. The best people united on the main issue for the revolution - serfdom. At this time, Turgenev worked a lot in the Sovremennik magazine. It is believed that under the influence of V. G. Belinsky, Turgenev made a transition from poetry to prose, from romanticism to realism. After Belinsky's death, N. A. Nekrasov became the editor of the magazine. He also attracts Turgenev to cooperation, who, in turn, attracts L.N. Tolstoy and A.N. Ostrovsky. In the second half of the 50s, a process of differentiation and stratification took place in progressively thinking circles. Commoners appear - people who do not belong to any of the classes established at that time: neither the nobility, nor the merchants, nor the petty bourgeois, nor the guild artisans, nor the peasantry, and also do not have personal nobility or clergy. Turgenev did not attach much importance to the origin of the person with whom he communicated. Nekrasov attracted first N.G. Chernyshevsky to Sovremennik, then N.A. Dobrolyubov. As a revolutionary situation begins to take shape in Russia, Turgenev comes to the conviction that it is necessary to abolish serfdom in a bloodless way. Nekrasov advocated the revolution. So the paths of Nekrasov and Turgenev began to diverge. Chernyshevsky at this time published a dissertation on the aesthetic relationship of art to reality, which infuriated Turgenev. The dissertation bore the features of vulgar materialism:

Chernyshevsky put forward in it the idea that art is only an imitation of life, only a weak copy of reality. Chernyshevsky underestimated the role of art. Turgenev did not tolerate vulgar materialism and called Chernyshevsky’s work “carrion.” He considered this understanding of art disgusting, vulgar and stupid, which he repeatedly expressed in his letters to L. Tolstoy, N. Nekrasov, A. Druzhinin and D. Grigorovich.

In one of his letters to Nekrasov in 1855, Turgenev wrote about such an attitude towards art as follows: “This thinly hidden hostility to art is bad everywhere - and even more so with us. Take this enthusiasm away from us, and then run away from the world.”

But Nekrasov, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov advocated the maximum convergence of art and life, and believed that art should have an exclusively didactic character. Turgenev quarreled with Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, because he believed that they treated literature not as an artistic world that exists in parallel with ours, but as an auxiliary weapon in the struggle. Turgenev was not a supporter of “pure” art (the theory of “art for art’s sake”), but he still could not agree with the fact that Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov considered a work of art only as a critical article, without seeing anything more in it. Because of this, Dobrolyubov believed that Turgenev was not a comrade with the revolutionary democratic wing of Sovremennik and that at the decisive moment Turgenev would retreat. In 1860, Dobrolyubov published in Sovremennik a critical analysis of Turgenev’s novel “On the Eve” - the article “When will the real day come?” Turgenev completely disagreed with the key points in this publication and even asked Nekrasov not to publish it on the pages of the magazine. But the article was still published. After this, Turgenev finally broke with Sovremennik.

That is why Turgenev published his new novel “Fathers and Sons” in the conservative magazine “Russian Messenger,” which opposed Sovremennik. The editor of the Russian Messenger, M. N. Katkov, wanted to use Turgenev’s hands to shoot at the revolutionary-democratic wing of Sovremennik, so he eagerly agreed to publish “Fathers and Sons” in the Russky Messenger. To make the blow more noticeable, Katkov releases the novel with amendments that reduce the image of Bazarov.

At the end of 1862, the novel was published as a separate book dedicated to the memory of Belinsky.

The novel was considered by Turgenev's contemporaries to be quite polemical. Until the end of the 60s of the 19th century there were heated debates around it. The novel touched a nerve too much, was too related to life itself, and the author’s position was quite polemical. Turgenev was very upset by this situation; he had to explain himself about his work. In 1869, he published an article “About “Fathers and Sons””, where he writes: “I noticed coldness, reaching the point of indignation, in many people close and sympathetic to me; I received congratulations, almost kisses, from people in the camp opposite to me, from enemies. This confused me. upset; but my conscience did not reproach me: I knew well that I honestly, and not only without prejudice, but even with sympathy, treated the type I had drawn.” Turgenev believed that “the whole reason for the misunderstandings” lies in the fact that “Bazarov’s type did not have time to go through the gradual phases through which literary types usually go,” such as, for example, Onegin and Pechorin. The author says that “this has confused many [.] the reader is always embarrassed, he is easily overcome by bewilderment, even annoyance, if the author treats the character portrayed as a living being, that is, he sees and exposes his bad and good sides, and most importantly , if he does not show obvious sympathy or antipathy for his own brainchild.”

In the end, almost everyone was dissatisfied with the novel. Sovremennik saw in it a lampoon of progressive society, and the conservative wing was dissatisfied, since it seemed to them that Turgenev had not completely debunked the image of Bazarov. One of the few who liked the image of the main character and the novel as a whole was D.I. Pisarev, who in his article “Bazarov” (1862) spoke very well about the novel: “Turgenev is one of the best people of the last generation; to determine how he looks at us and why he looks at us this way and not otherwise means to find the cause of the discord that is noticed everywhere in our private family life; that discord from which young lives often perish and from which old men and women constantly groan and groan, not having time to process the concepts and actions of their sons and daughters into their own block.” In the main character, Pisarev saw a deep personality with powerful strength and potential. He wrote about such people: “They are aware of their difference from the masses and boldly distance themselves from them through their actions, habits, and entire way of life. Whether society will follow them is of no concern to them. They are full of themselves, their inner life.”

Searched here:

criticism of the novel fathers and sons
articles from critics about the novel fathers and sons
Chernyshevsky about fathers and sons

Many people, reading an article by a critic about a particular work, expect to hear negative statements about the plot of the work, its characters and the author. But criticism itself implies not only negative judgments and indications of shortcomings, but also an analysis of the work itself, its discussion in order to give an assessment. This is how the work of I. S. Turgenev was subjected to literary criticism. The novel “Fathers and Sons” appeared in the “Russian Bulletin” in March 1862, after which heated discussions of this work began in the press. Opinions were different

One of the most critical points of view was put forward by M. A. Antonovich, publishing his article “Asmodeus of our time” in the March book of Sovremennik. In it, the critic denied Fathers and Sons any artistic merit. He was very dissatisfied with Turgenev's novel. The critic accused the author of slandering the younger generation, said that the novel was written as a reproach and lesson for the younger generation, and was also glad that the writer had finally revealed his true face - the face of an opponent of progress. As N. N. Strakhov wrote, “the whole article reveals only one thing - that the critic is very dissatisfied with Turgenev and considers it his sacred duty and every citizen’s not to find anything good either in his new work or in all his previous ones.”

N. N. Strakhov himself regards the novel “Fathers and Sons” on the positive side. He says that “the novel is read with greed and arouses such interest, which, we can safely say, has not yet aroused any of Turgenev’s works.” The critic also notes that “the novel is so good that pure poetry, and not extraneous thoughts, triumphantly comes to the fore, and precisely because it remains poetry, it can actively serve society.” In his assessment of the author himself, Strakhov notes: “I. S. Turgenev represents an example of a writer, gifted with perfect mobility and, at the same time, deep sensitivity, deep love for contemporary life. Turgenev remained true to his artistic gift: he does not invent, but creates, does not distort, but only illuminates his figures; he gave flesh and blood to the one who which clearly already existed as thought and belief. He gave external manifestation to what already existed as an internal basis.” The critic sees the external change of the novel as a change of generations. He says, “if Turgenev did not portray all fathers and sons, or not those fathers and children that others would like, then in general he portrayed fathers and children in general and the relationship between these two generations excellently.”

Another of the critics who gave their assessment of Turgenev’s novel was N. M. Katkov. He published his opinion in the May issue of the Russian Messenger magazine in an article entitled “Turgenev’s novel and his critics.” Noting the “ripened power of first-class talent” of Ivan Sergeevich, he sees the special advantage of the novel in the fact that the author managed to “capture the current moment,” the modern phase of Russian educated society.

The most positive assessment of the novel was given by D. I. Pisarev. His article was one of the first critical reviews of the novel “Fathers and Sons” and appeared after its publication in the journal “Russian Messenger”. The critic wrote: “Reading Turgenev’s novel, we see in it the types of the present moment and at the same time we are aware of the changes that the phenomena of reality have experienced while passing through the artist’s consciousness.” Pisarev notes: “In addition to its artistic beauty, the novel is also remarkable in that it stirs the mind, provokes thought, although in itself it does not resolve any question and even illuminates with a bright light not so much the phenomena being deduced as the author’s relationship to these very phenomena.” Also he says that the entire work is permeated through and through with the most complete, most touching sincerity.

In turn, the author of the novel “Fathers and Sons” himself, Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev, in the article “About Fathers and Sons” notes: “By the grace of this story, the favorable disposition towards me of the Russian younger generation ceased - and, it seems, forever.” Having read in critical articles that in his works he “starts from an idea” or “pursues an idea,” for his part, Turgenev admits “that he never attempted to “create an image” if he did not have as a starting point not an idea, but a living a face to which suitable elements were gradually mixed and applied.” Throughout the entire article, Ivan Sergeevich communicates only with his reader - his listener. And at the end of the story, he gives them very practical advice: “My friends, never make excuses, no matter what slander they bring against you; do not try to clarify misunderstandings, do not want to either say it yourself or hear the “last word.” Do your job, otherwise everything will crumble.”

But the discussion did not end with just a discussion of the novel as a whole. Each of the critics in their article examined one very significant part of the work, without which there would be no point in writing the socio-psychological novel “Fathers and Sons”. And this part was and still remains the main character of the work, Evgeny Vasilyevich Bazarov.

D.I. Pisarev characterized him as a man of strong mind and character, who forms the center of the entire novel. “Bazarov is a representative of our younger generation; in his personality are grouped those properties that are scattered in small shares among the masses; and the image of this person emerges brightly and clearly before the reader’s imagination,” the critic wrote. Pisarev believes that Bazarov, as an empiricist, recognizes only what can be felt with his hands, seen with his eyes, put on his tongue, in a word, only what can be witnessed by one of the five senses. The critic claims that “Bazarov does not need anyone, is not afraid of anyone, does not love anyone and, as a result, does not spare anyone.” Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev speaks of Evgeny Bazarov as a person who mercilessly and with complete conviction denies everything that others recognize as lofty and beautiful.

Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov calls the main character “an apple of discord.” “He is not a walking type, familiar to everyone and only captured by the artist and exposed by him “to the eyes of the whole people,” the critic notes. “Bazarov is a type, an ideal, a phenomenon, “raised to the pearl of creation,” he stands above the actual phenomena of bazaarism.” And the Bazarovism, in turn, is, as Pisarev said, a disease, a disease of our time, and one has to suffer through it, despite any palliatives and amputations. “Treat the Bazarovism as you like - it’s your business; but you can’t stop it; it’s the same cholera." Continuing Strakhov's thought, we can say that "Bazarov is a realist, not a contemplator, but a doer who recognizes only real phenomena and denies ideals." He does not want to put up with life at all. As Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov wrote, "Bazarov represents the living embodiment of one of the aspects of the Russian spirit, he is “more Russian than all the other characters in the novel.” “His speech is distinguished by simplicity, accuracy, mockery and a completely Russian disposition,” said the critic. Strakhov also noted that “Bazarov is the first strong person, the first integral a character who appeared in Russian literature from the environment of the so-called educated society.” At the end of the novel, “Bazarov dies a perfect hero, and his death makes a stunning impression. Until the very end, until the last flash of consciousness, he does not betray himself with a single word or a single sign of cowardice. He is broken, but not defeated,” says the critic.

But of course, there were some accusations against Bazarov. Many critics condemned Turgenev for portraying the main character as a reproach to the younger generation. So Maxim Alekseevich Antonovich assures us that the poet presented his hero as a glutton, a drunkard and a gambler.

The author himself claims that, while drawing the figure of Bazarov, he excluded everything artistic from the circle of his sympathies, gave him a harshness and unceremonious tone - not out of an absurd desire to offend the younger generation, but only because he had to draw his figure exactly like that. Turgenev himself realized: the “trouble” was that the Bazarov type he reproduced did not have time to go through the gradual phases through which literary types usually go.

Another of the main issues in the discussion of critics of I. S. Turgenev’s novel was the attitude of the author himself towards his hero.

Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov first argued that “Turgenev understands the Bazarovs at least as much as they understand themselves,” but then he proved that Ivan Sergeevich “understands them much better than they understand themselves.”

The editor of one magazine wrote: “To what has come out of his hands, he is in exactly the same relationship as everyone else; he may have a sympathetic or antipathetic feeling towards a living person who has arisen in his fantasy, but he will have to commit exactly the same work of analysis as anyone else, in order to convey the essence of one’s feeling in a judgment.”

Katkov accused Turgenev of trying to show Bazarov in the most favorable light. Mikhail Nikiforovich does not miss the opportunity to reproach the writer for his pro-nihilistic sympathies: “In Fathers and Sons the author’s desire to give the main type the most favorable conditions possible is noticeable. The author, apparently, was afraid of appearing partial. He seemed to be trying to be impartial<.>. It seems to us that if these efforts had not taken place, his work would have gained even more in its objectivity.”

D.I. Pisarev, in turn, says that Turgenev obviously does not favor his hero. The critic notes: “When creating Bazarov, Turgenev wanted to smash him into dust and instead paid him full tribute of fair respect. He wanted to say: our young generation is going down the wrong road, and he said: all our hope is in our young generation.”

Turgenev expresses his attitude towards the main character in these words: “I share almost all of his beliefs. And they assure me that I am on the side of the “Fathers”. I, who in the figure of Pavel Kirsanov even sinned against artistic truth and overdid it, brought his shortcomings to the point of caricature, made him funny!” “At the very moment of the appearance of a new person - Bazarov - the author was critical of him. objectively". “The author himself does not know whether he likes or not the character presented (as happened to me in relation to Bazarov),” Turgenev says about himself in the third person.

So, now we understand for sure that the opinions of all critics are very different from each other. Everyone has their own point of view. But, despite many negative statements about I. S. Turgenev and his works, the novel “Fathers and Sons” remains relevant to us to this day, because the problem of different generations has been and will be. As Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev already said, “this is a disease” and it is incurable

FATHERS AND CHILDREN IN RUSSIAN CRITICISM

ROMAN I. S. TURGENEVA

“FATHERS AND CHILDREN” IN RUSSIAN CRITICISM

"Fathers and Sons" caused quite a storm in the world of literary appreciation. After the release of the novel, a huge number of critical reviews and articles of completely opposite nature arose, which indirectly testified to the innocence and innocence of the Russian reading public.

Criticism treated the artistic creation as a journalistic article, a political pamphlet, not wanting to correct the point of view of the creator. With the release of the novel comes a lively discussion of it in the press, which immediately acquired a sharp polemical nature. Almost all Russian newspapers and magazines responded to the emergence of the novel. The work gave rise to disagreements both between ideological rivals and among like-minded people, for example, in the democratic magazines Sovremennik and Russian Word. The dispute, in essence, was about the type of the newest revolutionary figure in the Russian chronicle.

“Contemporary” responded to the novel with an article by M. A. Antonovich “Asmodeus of Our Time.” The circumstances surrounding Turgenev's departure from Sovremennik led in advance to the fact that the novel was assessed negatively by the critic.

Antonovich saw in it a panegyric to the “fathers” and slander against his young origins.

In addition, it was argued that the novel is extremely weak artistically, that Turgenev, who set his own goal to dishonor Bazarov, resorted to caricature, depicting the main hero as a monster “with a tiny head and a huge mouth, with a tiny face and a very big nose.” Antonovich is trying to protect women’s emancipation and the aesthetic views of the younger generation from Turgenev’s attacks, trying to prove that “Kukshina is not as empty and limited as Pavel Petrovich.” Regarding Bazarov’s renunciation of art

Antonovich declared that this is the purest heresy, that youthful origin is denied only by “pure art,” among whose representatives, it is true, he included Pushkin and Turgenev himself. According to Antonovich, from the very first pages, to the greatest amazement of the reader, a certain kind of boredom takes possession of him; but, obviously, you are not embarrassed by this and continue to recite, believing that it will get better, that the creator will enter into his role, that the ability will understand the native and involuntarily captivate your interest. And meanwhile, when the action of the novel unfolds completely before you, your curiosity does not stir, your emotion remains untouched; reading produces some kind of unsatisfactory memory on you, which is reflected not in your feelings, but, what is even more surprising, in your mind. You are enveloped in some kind of deadening frost; you do not live with the characters in the novel, do not become imbued with their lives, but begin to coolly analyze with them, or, more precisely, watch their reasoning. You forget that in front of you lies a novel by a professional painter, and imagine that you are reading a moral and philosophical treatise, but not good and shallow, which, not satisfying the mind, thereby produces a nasty memory on your emotions. This indicates that Turgenev's new creation is very unsatisfactory artistically. Turgenev treats his own heroes, not his favorites, completely differently. He harbors some kind of his own dislike and enmity towards them, as if they had actually done him some kind of insult and nasty thing, and he tries to take revenge on them at every step, like a person who is actually offended; With inner pleasure, he looks for helplessness and shortcomings in them, which he pronounces with poorly concealed gloating and only in order to humiliate the hero in the eyes of his readers: “Look, they say, what scoundrels my enemies and enemies are.” He is childishly content when he manages to prick the unloved hero with something, make jokes at him, deliver him in a funny or vulgar and vile form; any miscalculation, any rash step of the hero nicely tickles his pride, causes a smile of self-satisfaction, revealing a proud, but petty and inhumane mind of personal advantage. This vindictiveness reaches the point of funny, it has the appearance of schoolboy pinching, showing up in small things and trifles. The main character of the novel speaks with pride and arrogance about his own artistry in the game of cards; and Turgenev forces him to continuously lose. Then Turgenev tries to describe the main hero 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; From various places in Turgenev’s novel, it follows that his main character is not a stupid person, but, on the contrary, extremely capable and gifted, inquisitive, diligently studying and understanding a lot; and yet in disputes he completely disappears, expresses nonsense and preaches nonsense that is unforgivable to the most limited mind. There is nothing to say about the moral character and moral qualities of the hero; This is not a person, but some kind of terrible substance, simply a demon, or, to put it most poetically, Asmodeus. He regularly hates and persecutes everything, from his own good parents, whom he cannot tolerate, and ending with frogs, which he cuts up with merciless ruthlessness. Never did any emotion creep into his cool little heart; therefore there is no imprint of any passion or attraction in it; He lets go of even the most dislike calculatedly, grain by grain. And note, this hero is a young man, a guy! He appears to be some kind of poisonous creature that poisons everything he touches; he has a friend, but he hates him too and does not have the slightest affection for him; He has followers, but he really can’t stand them either. The Roman has nothing more than a cruel and also destructive assessment of the younger generation. In all modern issues, mental movements, sentiments and ideals that occupy his youth, Turgenev does not acquire the slightest significance and gives the impression that they lead only to depravity, emptiness, prosaic obscenity and cynicism.

What opinion can be deduced from this novel; who will turn out to be right and wrong, who is worse, and who is better - “dads” or “kids”? Turgenev's novel has the same one-sided meaning. Sorry, Turgenev, you didn’t know how to find your own problem; instead of depicting the relationship between “fathers” and “children,” you wrote a panegyric for “fathers” and an expose for “children”; Yes, and you didn’t understand the “children”, and instead of denunciation you came up with a slander. You wanted to turn the distributors of healthy opinions among the younger generation into corrupters of youth, sowers of discord and evil, haters of good - in a word, Asmodeus. This is not the first attempt and is repeated very often.

The same attempt was made, some years ago, in one novel, which was “a phenomenon missed by our assessment,” because it belonged to the creator, who was unknown at that time and did not have the sonorous fame that he enjoys now. This novel is "Asmodeus of Our Time", Op.

Askochensky, published in 1858. Turgenev’s last novel vividly reminded us of this “Asmodeus” with its general thought, its tendencies, its personalities, and individually its own main hero.

In the magazine “Russian Word” in 1862, an article by D. I. Pisarev appeared

“Bazarov”. The critic notes a certain bias of the creator in relation to

Bazarov, says that in a number of cases Turgenev “does not favor his own hero,” that he tests “an involuntary antipathy to this current of thought.”

But this is not the general opinion about the novel. D.I. Pisarev finds in the form of Bazarov a figurative synthesis of the more important aspects of the worldview of heterogeneous democracy, depicted honestly, without looking at Turgenev’s initial plan. The critic easily sympathizes with Bazarov, his strong, honest and formidable character. He believed that Turgenev understood this new human type for Russia “so correctly that none of our young realists could grasp it.” The creator’s critical message to Bazarov is perceived by the critic as ambition, since “from the outside the pros and cons are more visible,” and “a strictly dangerous gaze... in the real moment turned out to be more fruitful than unfounded admiration or servile adoration.” The tragedy of Bazarov, according to Pisarev’s concept, is that for the real thing in reality there are no suitable criteria, and therefore, “not being able to imagine to us how Bazarov lives and acts, I.S.

Turgenev showed us how he died.

In his own article, D.I. Pisarev reinforces the painter’s social responsiveness and the aesthetic significance of the novel: “Turgenev’s new novel gives us everything that we are used to admiring in his works. The artistic treatment is impeccably excellent... And these phenomena are extremely close to us, so close that all of our young origins, with their aspirations and ideas, can find themselves in the working faces of this novel.” Even before the origin of the specific controversy D.

I. Pisarev practically predicts Antonovich’s position. About the scenes with

Sitnikov and Kukshina, he notes: “Many of the literary enemies

“Russian Messenger” will fiercely attack Turgenev for these scenes.”

However, D.I. Pisarev is sure that a real nihilist, a commoner democrat, just like Bazarov, is obliged to reject art, not accept Pushkin, and be convinced that Raphael “is not worth a penny.” But for us it is important that

Bazarov, who dies in the novel, “resurrects” on the last page of Pisarev’s article: “What to do? To live as long as one can live, to have dry bread when there is no roast beef, to be with ladies when it is impossible to love a lady, and in general not to dream of orange trees and palm trees, when there are snowdrifts and cool tundra underfoot.” Perhaps we can consider Pisarev’s article a more striking interpretation of the novel in the 60s.

In 1862, in the fourth book of the magazine “Time”, published by F. M. and M.

M. Dostoevsky, which means a fascinating article by N. N. Strakhov, which is called “I. S. Turgenev. "Fathers and Sons". Strakhov is sure that the novel is a remarkable achievement of Turgenev the artist. The aristarch considers the image of Bazarov very ordinary. “Bazarov has a type, an ideal, a phenomenon elevated to the pearl of creation.” Some features of Bazarov's character are explained by Strakhov more precisely than by Pisarev, for example, the renunciation of art. What Pisarev considered an accidental misunderstanding explained by the personal development of the hero

(“He bluntly denies things that he does not know or does not understand...”), Strakhov accepted as a significant feature of the nihilist’s character: “... Art constantly moves within itself the character of reconciliation, while Bazarov does not want to reconcile with life at all. Art is idealism, contemplation, detachment from life and reverence for ideals; Bazarov is a realist, not an observer, but a doer...” However, if D.I. Pisarev’s Bazarov is a hero, whose word and deed are combined into one, then Strakhov’s nihilist is still a hero

“words”, albeit with a thirst for activity brought to the last stage.

Strakhov captured the timeless significance of the novel, managing to rise above the ideological disputes of his own time. “Writing a novel with a progressive and retrograde course is not a difficult thing. Turgenev had the pretensions and rudeness to create a novel that had different directions; a fan of eternal truth, eternal beauty, he had a proud goal to orient the temporal to the permanent and wrote a novel that was neither progressive nor retrograde, but, so to speak, eternal,” wrote the aristarchus.

The free aristarch P. V. Annenkov also responded to Turgenev’s novel.

In his own article “Bazarov and Oblomov” he tries to justify that, despite the external difference between Bazarov and Oblomov, “the same grain is embedded in both natures.”

In 1862, in the magazine “Vek”, an article by an unknown creator

“Nihilist Bazarov.” Previously, it was devoted only to an analysis of the personality of the main hero: “Bazarov is a nihilist. He certainly has a negative attitude towards the environment in which he is placed. There is no friendship for him: he tolerates his own comrade, just as the powerful tolerate the weak. Related matters for him are the behavior of his parents towards him. He thinks about love like a realist. He looks at people with mature disdain for small children. There is no field of activity left for Bazarov.” As for nihilism, the unknown aristarch declares that Bazarov’s renunciation has no basis, “there is no reason for it.”

The works discussed in the abstract are not the only responses of the Russian public to Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons.” Almost every Russian fiction writer and aristarch has laid out in one form or another a related message to the dilemmas raised in the novel. Isn’t this a real recognition of the relevance and significance of creation?

As soon as it was published, the novel caused a real flurry of critical articles. None of the public camps accepted Turgenev's new creation.

According to Dostoevsky, Bazarov is a “theorist” who is at odds with “life”; he is a victim of his own, dry and abstract theory. In other words, this is a hero close to Raskolnikov. However, Dostoevsky avoids a specific consideration of Bazarov's theory. He correctly asserts that any abstract, rational theory breaks down in life and brings suffering and torment to a person. According to Soviet critics, Dostoevsky reduced the entire problematic of the novel to an ethical-psychological complex, overshadowing the social with the universal, instead of revealing the specifics of both.

Liberal criticism, on the contrary, has become too interested in the social aspect. She could not forgive the writer for his ridicule of representatives of the aristocracy, hereditary nobles, and his irony regarding the “moderate noble liberalism” of the 1840s. The unsympathetic, rude “plebeian” Bazarov constantly mocks his ideological opponents and turns out to be morally superior to them.

In contrast to the conservative-liberal camp, democratic magazines differed in their assessment of the problems of Turgenev’s novel: Sovremennik and Iskra saw in it a slander against common democrats, whose aspirations are deeply alien and incomprehensible to the author; “Russkoe Slovo” and “Delo” took the opposite position.

The critic of Sovremennik, A. Antonovich, in an article with the expressive title “Asmodeus of our time” (that is, “the devil of our time”) noted that Turgenev “despises and hates the main character and his friends with all his heart.” Antonovich's article is full of harsh attacks and unsubstantiated accusations against the author of Fathers and Sons. The critic suspected Turgenev of colluding with the reactionaries, who allegedly “ordered” the writer a deliberately slanderous, accusatory novel, accused him of moving away from realism, and pointed out the grossly schematic, even caricatured nature of the images of the main characters. However, Antonovich’s article is quite consistent with the general tone that Sovremennik employees took after the departure of a number of leading writers from the editorial office. It became almost the duty of the Nekrasov magazine to personally criticize Turgenev and his works.

DI. Pisarev, editor of the Russian Word, on the contrary, saw the truth of life in the novel Fathers and Sons, taking the position of a consistent apologist for the image of Bazarov. In the article “Bazarov” he wrote: “Turgenev does not like merciless denial, and yet the personality of a merciless denier emerges as a strong personality and inspires respect in the reader”; “...No one in the novel can compare with Bazarov either in strength of mind or strength of character.”

Pisarev was one of the first to clear Bazarov of the charge of caricature leveled at him by Antonovich, explained the positive meaning of the main character of Fathers and Sons, emphasizing the vital importance and innovation of such a character. As a representative of the generation of “children,” he accepted everything in Bazarov: a disdainful attitude towards art, a simplified view of human spiritual life, and an attempt to comprehend love through the prism of natural science views. The negative traits of Bazarov, under the pen of the critic, unexpectedly for readers (and for the author of the novel) acquired a positive assessment: open rudeness towards the inhabitants of Maryino was passed off as an independent position, ignorance and shortcomings in education - as a critical view of things, excessive conceit - as manifestations of a strong nature and etc.

For Pisarev, Bazarov is a man of action, a naturalist, a materialist, an experimenter. He “recognizes only what can be felt with the hands, seen with the eyes, put on the tongue, in a word, only what can be witnessed by one of the five senses.” Experience became the only source of knowledge for Bazarov. It was in this that Pisarev saw the difference between the new man Bazarov and the “superfluous people” of the Rudins, Onegins, and Pechorins. He wrote: “...the Pechorins have will without knowledge, the Rudins have knowledge without will; The Bazarovs have both knowledge and will, thought and deed merge into one solid whole.” This interpretation of the image of the main character was to the taste of revolutionary-democratic youth, who made their idol the “new man” with his reasonable egoism, contempt for authorities, traditions, and the established world order.

...Turgenev now looks at the present from the heights of the past. He doesn't follow us; he calmly looks after us, describes our gait, tells us how we speed up our steps, how we jump over potholes, how we sometimes stumble on uneven places on the road.

There is no irritation in the tone of his description; he was just tired of walking; the development of his personal worldview ended, but the ability to observe the movement of someone else's thought, to understand and reproduce all its bends remained in all its freshness and completeness. Turgenev himself will never be Bazarov, but he thought about this type and understood him as correctly as none of our young realists will understand...

N.N. Strakhov, in his article about “Fathers and Sons,” continues Pisarev’s thought, discussing the realism and even “typicality” of Bazarov as a hero of his time, a man of the 1860s:

“Bazarov does not arouse disgust in us at all and does not seem to us either mal eleve or mauvais ton. All the characters in the novel seem to agree with us. Bazarov’s simplicity of address and figure do not arouse disgust in them, but rather inspire respect for him. He was cordially received in Anna Sergeevna’s living room, where even some bad princess was sitting...”

Pisarev’s opinions about the novel “Fathers and Sons” were shared by Herzen. About the article “Bazarov” he wrote: “This article confirms my point of view. In its one-sidedness it is truer and more remarkable than its opponents thought.” Here Herzen notes that Pisarev “recognized himself and his friends in Bazarov and added what was missing in the book,” that Bazarov “for Pisarev is more than his own,” that the critic “knows his Bazarov’s heart to the core, he confesses for him.”

Turgenev's novel shook up all layers of Russian society. The controversy about nihilism, about the image of the natural scientist, the democrat Bazarov, continued for a whole decade on the pages of almost all magazines of that time. And if in the 19th century there were still opponents of apologetic assessments of this image, then by the 20th century there were none left at all. Bazarov was raised on a shield as a harbinger of the coming storm, as a banner of everyone who wanted to destroy, without giving anything in return (“...it’s no longer our business... First we need to clear the place.”)

Turgenev himself strongly objected to such a vulgar and unfair interpretation of the history of the novel “Fathers and Sons” back in 1869 in his essay “About “Fathers and Sons”: “I remember that one critic (Turgenev meant M. Antonovich) in strong and eloquent expressions, directly addressed to me, presented me, together with Mr. Katkov, in the form of two conspirators, in the silence of a secluded office, plotting their vile plot, their slander against young Russian forces... The picture came out spectacular!”

Attempt V.A. Arkhipov to revive the point of view, ridiculed and refuted by Turgenev himself, caused a lively discussion, which included the magazines “Russian Literature”, “Questions of Literature”, “New World”, “Rise”, “Neva”, “Literature at School”, as well as "Literary newspaper". The results of the discussion were summed up in the article by G. Friedlander “On the debate about “Fathers and Sons”” and in the editorial “Literary Studies and Modernity” in “Questions of Literature”. They note the universal human significance of the novel and its main character.

Of course, there could be no “conspiracy” between the liberal Turgenev and the guards. In the novel “Fathers and Sons” the writer expressed what he thought. It so happened that at that moment his point of view partly coincided with the position of the conservative camp. You can't please everyone! But by what “conspiracy” Pisarev and other zealous apologists of Bazarov launched a campaign to glorify this quite unambiguous “hero” is still unclear...

Writing a novel with a progressive or retrograde direction is not difficult. Turgenev had the ambition and audacity to create a novel with all sorts of directions; an admirer of eternal truth, eternal beauty, he had the proud goal of pointing to the eternal in the temporal and wrote a novel that was neither progressive nor retrograde, but, so to speak, everlasting.

N.N. Strakhov “I.S. Turgenev. "Fathers and Sons"

1965 edition

Roman I.S. Turgenev's “Fathers and Sons” is clearly recognized by critics as a landmark work both in the work of the great Russian writer and in the general context of the era of the 60s of the 19th century. The novel reflects all the socio-political contradictions contemporary to the author; both topical and eternal problems of relationships between generations of “fathers” and “children” are vividly presented.

In our opinion, the position of I.S. Turgenev in relation to the two opposing camps presented in the novel looks quite unambiguous. The author's attitude towards the main character Bazarov also leaves no doubt. Nevertheless, with the light hand of radical critics, Turgenev’s contemporaries elevated the largely grotesque, schematic image of the nihilist Bazarov to the pedestal of a hero, making him a real idol of the generation of the 1860-80s.

The unreasonably enthusiastic attitude towards Bazarov, which developed among the democratic intelligentsia of the 19th century, smoothly migrated to Soviet literary criticism. Of all the variety of works of the great novelist I.S. For some reason, only the novel “Fathers and Sons” by Turgenev with its schematic heroes was firmly established in the school curriculum. For many years, literature teachers, citing the authoritative opinions of Pisarev, Herzen, Strakhov, tried to explain to schoolchildren why the “new man” Evgeny Bazarov, who dissects frogs, is better than the beautiful-hearted romantic Nikolai Petrovich Kirsanov, who plays the cello. Contrary to all common sense, these explanations about the “class” superiority of democrats over aristocrats, the primitive division into “ours” and “not ours” continue to this day. One has only to look at the collection of Unified State Exam assignments in literature for 2013: the examinee is still required to identify the “socio-psychological types” of the characters in the novel, explain their behavior as a “struggle between the ideologies of the nobility and the various intelligentsia,” etc., etc. .

For a century and a half now, we have blindly trusted the subjective opinion of critics of the post-reform era, who sincerely believed in Bazarov as their future and rejected the thinker Turgenev as a false prophet idealizing the outdated past. How long will we, people of the 21st century, humiliate the greatest humanist writer, the Russian classic I.S. Turgenev by clarifying his “class” position? Pretend that we believe in the “Bazarov’s” path that has long been passed in practice, irrevocably erroneous?..

It should have long been recognized that the modern reader may be interested in Turgenev’s novel not so much for the clarification of the author’s position in relation to the main characters of the work, but for the general humanitarian, eternal problems raised in it.

“Fathers and Sons” is a novel about delusions and insights, about the search for eternal meaning, about the closest relationship and at the same time tragic divergence between the past, present and future of humanity. Ultimately, this is a novel about each of us. After all, we are all someone’s fathers and someone’s children... It simply cannot be any other way.

Background to the creation of the novel

The novel “Fathers and Sons” was written by I.S. Turgenev shortly after his departure from the editorial office of the Sovremennik magazine and the severance of many years of friendly relations with N.A. Nekrasov. Nekrasov, faced with a decisive choice, relied on young radicals - Dobrolyubov and Chernyshevsky. Thus, the editor significantly increased the commercial rating of his socio-political publication, but lost a number of leading authors. Following Turgenev, L. Tolstoy, A. Druzhinin, I. Goncharov and other writers who took moderate liberal positions left Sovremennik.

The topic of the Sovremennik split has been deeply studied by numerous literary scholars. Starting from the second half of the 19th century, it was customary to place purely political motives at the forefront of this conflict: the divergence in the views of commoner democrats and liberal landowners. The “class” version of the split suited Soviet literary studies quite well, and for almost a century and a half it continues to be presented as the only one confirmed by the memories of eyewitnesses and other documentary sources. Only a few researchers, relying on the creative and epistolary heritage of Turgenev, Nekrasov, Dobrolyubov, Chernyshevsky, as well as other people close to the publication of the magazine, paid attention to the implicit, deeply hidden personal conflict of the participants in those long-past events.

In the memoirs of N.G. Chernyshevsky there are direct indications of N. Dobrolyubov’s hostile attitude towards Turgenev, whom the young critic contemptuously called a “literary aristocrat”. An unknown provincial commoner, Dobrolyubov, came to St. Petersburg with the ambitious intention of making a journalistic career for himself at any cost. Yes, he worked a lot, lived in poverty, starved, undermined his health, but the all-powerful Nekrasov noticed him, accepted the aspiring critic into the editorial office of Sovremennik, and settled him in Kraevsky’s house, practically in his apartment. Whether by chance or not, Dobrolyubov seemed to be repeating the fate of young Nekrasov, once warmed and caressed by the Panaevs.

With I.S. Turgenev Nekrasov had many years of personal friendship and close business cooperation. Turgenev, who did not have his own housing in St. Petersburg, always stopped and lived for a long time in the apartment of Nekrasov and Panaev during his visits to the capital. In the 1850s, he occupied the place of the leading novelist of Sovremennik and sincerely believed that the editor of the magazine listened to his opinion and valued it.

ON THE. Nekrasov, despite all his business activity and success as a businessman from literature, retained the sybaritic habits of a Russian master. He slept almost until lunchtime and often fell into causeless depression. Usually in the first half of the day, the publisher of Sovremennik received visitors right in his bedroom, and all important issues regarding the publication of the magazine were resolved while lying in bed. Dobrolyubov, as the closest “neighbor”, soon turned out to be the most constant visitor to Nekrasov’s bedroom, surviving Turgenev, Chernyshevsky from there and almost pushing A.Ya herself out the door. Panaev. The selection of materials for the next issue, the amount of royalties for authors, the magazine’s responses to political events in the country - Nekrasov often discussed all this with Dobrolyubov face to face. An unofficial editorial alliance emerged, in which Nekrasov, of course, set the tone, and Dobrolyubov, as a talented performer, embodied his ideas, presenting them to the reader in the form of bold, fascinating journalistic articles and critical essays.

Members of the editorial board could not help but notice Dobrolyubov’s growing influence on all aspects of the publication of Sovremennik. Since the end of 1858, the departments of criticism, bibliography, and modern notes were united into one - “Modern Review”, in which the journalistic principle turned out to be the leading one, and the selection and grouping of materials was carried out almost single-handedly by Dobrolyubov.

For his part, I.S. Turgenev more than once tried to establish contact with the young employees of Sovremennik, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, but was met only with cold aloofness, complete misunderstanding, and even arrogant contempt from working journalists for the “literary aristocrat.” And the main conflict was not at all that Dobrolyubov and Turgenev did not share space in Nekrasov’s bedroom, trying to influence the editor on issues of policy for publishing the magazine. Although this is exactly how their confrontation is presented in the literary memoirs of A.Ya. Panaeva. With her light hand, domestic literary scholars considered Dobrolyubov’s article about Turgenev’s novel “On the Eve” to be the main reason for the split in the editors of Sovremennik. The article was titled “When Will the Real Day Come?” and contained rather bold political forecasts with which I.S. Turgenev, as the author of the novel, categorically disagreed. According to Panaeva, Turgenev sharply objected to the publication of this article, delivering an ultimatum to Nekrasov: “Choose, either I or Dobrolyubov.” Nekrasov chose the latter. N.G. adheres to a similar version in his memoirs. Chernyshevsky, noting that Turgenev was extremely offended by Dobrolyubov’s criticism of his last novel.

Meanwhile, Soviet researcher A.B. Muratov in his article “Dobrolyubov and the gap of I.S. Turgenev with the magazine Sovremennik, based on materials from Turgenev’s correspondence for 1860, thoroughly proves the fallacy of this widespread version. Dobrolyubov’s article about “On the Eve” was published in the March issue of Sovremennik. Turgenev accepted her without any offense, continuing his collaboration with the magazine, as well as personal meetings and correspondence with Nekrasov until the fall of 1860. In addition, Ivan Sergeevich promised Nekrasov for publication the “big story” he had already conceived and begun (the novel “Fathers and Sons”) for publication. Only at the end of September, after reading a completely different article by Dobrolyubov in the June issue of Sovremennik, Turgenev wrote to P. Annenkov and I. Panaev about his refusal to participate in the magazine and the decision to give “Fathers and Sons” to M.N. Katkova. In the mentioned article (a review of N. Hawthorne’s book “Collection of Miracles, Stories Borrowed from Mythology”), Dobrolyubov openly called Turgenev’s novel “Rudin” a “custom” novel, written to please the tastes of wealthy readers. Muratov believes that Turgenev was humanly offended not even by the bilious attacks of Dobrolyubov, whom he unambiguously ranked among the generation of “unreasonable children,” but by the fact that behind the opinion of the author of the article that was offensive to him was the opinion of Nekrasov, a representative of the generation of “fathers”, his personal friend . Thus, the center of the conflict in the editorial office was not a political conflict at all, nor a conflict between the older and younger generations of “fathers” and “sons.” This was a deeply personal conflict, because until the end of his life Turgenev did not forgive Nekrasov for the betrayal of their common ideals, the ideals of the generation of “fathers” for the sake of “reasonable egoism” and the lack of spirituality of the new generation of the 1860s.

Nekrasov’s position in this conflict turned out to be even more complex. As best he could, he tried to soften Dobrolyubov’s “claws” that constantly clung to Turgenev’s pride, but Turgenev was dear to him as an old friend, and Dobrolyubov was necessary as a collaborator on whom the release of the next issue of the magazine depended. And businessman Nekrasov, sacrificing personal sympathies, chose business. Having broken with the old editors, as with an irrevocable past, he led his Sovremennik along a revolutionary radical path, which then seemed very promising.

Communication with young radicals - employees of Nekrasov's Sovremennik - was not in vain for the writer Turgenev. All critics of the novel saw in Bazarov precisely a portrait of Dobrolyubov, and the most narrow-minded of them considered the novel “Fathers and Sons” a pamphlet against the recently deceased journalist. But this would be too simple and unworthy of the pen of a great master. Dobrolyubov, without suspecting it, helped Turgenev find a theme for a deeply philosophical, timeless work necessary for society.

The history of the novel

The idea for “Fathers and Sons” originated with I.S. Turgenev in the summer of 1860, immediately after his visit to St. Petersburg and the incident with Dobrolyubov’s article about the novel “On the Eve”. Obviously, this happened even before his final break with Sovremennik, since in the summer correspondence of 1860 Turgenev had not yet abandoned the idea of giving a new thing to Nekrasov’s magazine. The first mention of the novel is contained in a letter to Countess Lambert (summer 1860). Later, Turgenev himself dates the beginning of work on the novel to August 1860: “I was taking sea baths in Ventnor, a small town on the Isle of Wight - it was in August 1860 - when the first thought of Fathers and Sons came into my head, this story, by the grace of which it ceased - and, it seems, , forever - the favorable disposition towards me of the Russian young generation..."

It was here, on the Isle of Wight, that the “Formular list of characters in the new story” was compiled, where, under the heading “Evgeny Bazarov”, Turgenev sketched a preliminary portrait of the main character: "Nihilist. Self-confident, speaks abruptly and little, hard-working. (A mixture of Dobrolyubov, Pavlov and Preobrazhensky.) Lives small; he doesn’t want to be a doctor, he’s waiting for an opportunity. - He knows how to talk to people, although in his heart he despises them. He does not have and does not recognize an artistic element... He knows quite a lot - he is energetic, and can be liked by his freedom. In essence, the most barren subject is the antipode of Rudin - for without any enthusiasm and faith... An independent soul and a proud man of the first hand.”

Dobrolyubov is listed first as a prototype here, as we see. Following him is Ivan Vasilyevich Pavlov, a doctor and writer, an acquaintance of Turgenev, an atheist and materialist. Turgenev treated him friendly, although he was often embarrassed by the directness and harshness of this man’s judgments.

Nikolai Sergeevich Preobrazhensky is a friend of Dobrolyubov from the pedagogical institute with an original appearance - small stature, long nose and hair standing on end, despite all the efforts of the comb. He was a young man with heightened self-esteem, with impudence and freedom of judgment that even Dobrolyubov admired. He called Preobrazhensky “a guy who is not timid.”

In a word, all the “most barren subjects” whom I.S. Turgenev had a chance to observe in real life, merged into the collective image of the “new man” Bazarov. And at the beginning of the novel, this hero, whatever one may say, really resembles an unpleasant caricature.

Bazarov's remarks (especially in his disputes with Pavel Petrovich) repeat almost verbatim the thoughts expressed by Dobrolyubov in his critical articles of 1857-60. The words of German materialists dear to Dobrolyubov, for example, G. Vogt, whose works Turgenev intensively studied while working on the novel, were also put into the mouth of this character.

Turgenev continued to write Fathers and Sons in Paris. In September 1860, he reported to P.V. Annenkov: “I intend to work as hard as I can. The plan for my new story is ready down to the smallest detail - and I’m eager to get to work on it. Something will come out - I don’t know, but Botkin, who is here... very much approves of the idea that is the basis. I would like to finish this thing by spring, by April, and bring it to Russia myself.”

During the winter the first chapters were written, but work proceeded more slowly than expected. In letters from this time there are constantly requests to report on the news of the social life of Russia, seething on the eve of the greatest event in its history - the abolition of serfdom. To get the opportunity to directly become acquainted with the problems of modern Russian reality, I. S. Turgenev comes to Russia. The writer finished the novel, begun before the reform of 1861, after it in his beloved Spassky-Lutovinovo. In a letter to the same P.V. Annenkov, he informs about the end of the novel: “My work is finished at last. On July 20 I wrote my blessed last word.”

In the fall, upon returning to Paris, I. S. Turgenev reads his novel to V. P. Botkin and K. K. Sluchevsky, whose opinion he valued very much. Agreeing and arguing with their judgments, the writer, in his own words, “plows” the text, makes numerous changes and amendments to it. The amendments mainly concerned the image of the main character. Friends pointed out the author’s excessive enthusiasm for the “rehabilitation” of Bazarov at the end of the work, the approaching of his image to the “Russian Hamlet.”

When work on the novel was completed, the writer had deep doubts about the advisability of its publication: the historical moment turned out to be too inappropriate. In November 1861, Dobrolyubov died. Turgenev sincerely regretted his death: “I regretted the death of Dobrolyubov, although I did not share his views,” Turgenev wrote to his friends, “he was a gifted man - young... It’s a pity for the lost, wasted strength!” To Turgenev's ill-wishers, the publication of a new novel could seem like a desire to “dance on the bones” of a deceased enemy. By the way, this is exactly how the editors of Sovremennik rated her. In addition, a revolutionary situation was brewing in the country. Prototypes of the Bazarovs took to the streets. The democratic poet M. L. Mikhailov was arrested for distributing proclamations to youth. Students of St. Petersburg University rebelled against the new charter: two hundred people were arrested and imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress.

For all these reasons, Turgenev wanted to postpone the publication of the novel, but the very conservative publisher Katkov, on the contrary, did not see anything provocative in Fathers and Sons. Having received corrections from Paris, he insistently demanded “sold goods” for the new issue. Thus, “Fathers and Sons” was published at the very height of government persecution of the younger generation, in the February book of the “Russian Messenger” for 1862.

Criticism of the novel “Fathers and Sons”

As soon as it was published, the novel caused a real flurry of critical articles. None of the public camps accepted Turgenev’s new creation.

The editor of the conservative “Russian Messenger” M. N. Katkov, in the articles “Turgenev’s novel and its critics” and “On our nihilism (regarding Turgenev’s novel),” argued that nihilism is a social disease that must be fought by strengthening protective conservative principles; and Fathers and Sons is no different from a whole series of anti-nihilistic novels by other writers. F. M. Dostoevsky took a unique position in assessing Turgenev’s novel and the image of its main character. According to Dostoevsky, Bazarov is a “theorist” who is at odds with “life”; he is a victim of his own, dry and abstract theory. In other words, this is a hero close to Raskolnikov. However, Dostoevsky avoids a specific consideration of Bazarov's theory. He correctly asserts that any abstract, rational theory breaks down in life and brings suffering and torment to a person. According to Soviet critics, Dostoevsky reduced the entire problematic of the novel to an ethical-psychological complex, overshadowing the social with the universal, instead of revealing the specifics of both.

Pisarev was one of the first to clear Bazarov of the charge of caricature leveled at him by Antonovich, explained the positive meaning of the main character of Fathers and Sons, emphasizing the vital importance and innovation of such a character. As a representative of the generation of “children,” he accepted everything in Bazarov: a disdainful attitude towards art, a simplified view of human spiritual life, and an attempt to comprehend love through the prism of natural science views. The negative traits of Bazarov, under the pen of the critic, unexpectedly for readers (and for the author of the novel himself) acquired a positive assessment: open rudeness towards the inhabitants of Maryino was passed off as an independent position, ignorance and shortcomings in education - as a critical view of things, excessive conceit - as manifestations of a strong nature and etc.

Turgenev now looks at the present from the heights of the past. He doesn't follow us; he calmly looks after us, describes our gait, tells us how we speed up our steps, how we jump over potholes, how we sometimes stumble on uneven places on the road.

N.N. Strakhov, in his article about “Fathers and Sons,” continues Pisarev’s thought, discussing the realism and even “typicality” of Bazarov as a hero of his time, a man of the 1860s:

At the end of the 1950s, in the wake of Khrushchev’s “thaw,” a discussion unexpectedly developed, caused by the article by V. A. Arkhipov “On the creative history of the novel by I.S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons". In this article, the author tried to develop the previously criticized point of view of M. Antonovich. V.A. Arkhipov wrote that the novel appeared as a result of a conspiracy between Turgenev and Katkov, the editor of the Russian Messenger (“the conspiracy was obvious”) and a deal between the same Katkov and Turgenev’s advisor P.V. Annenkov (“In Katkov’s office in Leontyevsky Lane, as one would expect , a deal between a liberal and a reactionary took place." Turgenev himself strongly objected to such a vulgar and unfair interpretation of the history of the novel “Fathers and Sons” back in 1869 in his essay “About “Fathers and Sons”: “I remember that one critic (Turgenev meant M. Antonovich) in strong and eloquent expressions, directly addressed to me, presented me, together with Mr. Katkov, in the form of two conspirators, in the silence of a secluded office, plotting their vile plot, their slander against young Russian forces... The picture came out spectacular!”

The image of Bazarov as perceived by contemporaries

Contemporaries I.S. Turgenev (both “fathers” and “children”) found it difficult to talk about the image of Bazarov for the simple reason that they did not know how to relate to him. In the 60s of the 19th century, no one could have predicted what the type of behavior and dubious truths professed by the “new people” would ultimately lead to.

However, Russian society was already falling ill with an incurable disease of self-destruction, expressed, in particular, in sympathy for the “hero” created by Turgenev.

Democratic raznochinsky youth (“children”) were impressed by Bazarov’s previously inaccessible emancipation, rationalism, practicality, and his self-confidence. Such qualities as external asceticism, uncompromisingness, priority of the useful over the beautiful, lack of admiration for authorities and old truths, “reasonable egoism,” and the ability to manipulate others were perceived by young people of that time as an example to follow. Paradoxically, it was precisely in this Bazarov-style caricature that they were reflected in the worldview of Bazarov’s ideological followers - the future theorists and terrorist practitioners of Narodnaya Volya, the Socialist-Revolutionaries-maximalists and even the Bolsheviks.

The older generation (“fathers”), feeling their inadequacy and often helplessness in the new conditions of post-reform Russia, also feverishly sought a way out of the current situation. Some (protectors and reactionaries) turned to the past in their search, others (moderate liberals), disillusioned with the present, decided to bet on an as yet unknown but promising future. This is exactly what N.A. tried to do. Nekrasov, providing the pages of his magazine for the revolutionary provocative works of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, bursting out with poetic pamphlets and feuilletons on the topic of the day.

The novel “Fathers and Sons”, to some extent, also became an attempt by the liberal Turgenev to keep up with new trends, to fit into an era of rationalism that was incomprehensible to him, to capture and reflect the spirit of a difficult time that was frightening in its lack of spirituality.

But we, distant descendants, for whom the political struggle in post-reform Russia long ago acquired the status of one of the pages of Russian history or one of its cruel lessons, should not forget that I.S. Turgenev was never either a topical publicist or a writer of everyday life engaged by society. The novel “Fathers and Sons” is not a feuilleton, not a parable, not an artistic embodiment by the author of fashionable ideas and trends in the development of contemporary society.

I.S. Turgenev is a unique name even in the golden galaxy of classics of Russian prose, a writer whose impeccable literary skill is correlated with an equally impeccable knowledge and understanding of the human soul. The problematics of his works are sometimes much broader and more diverse than it might seem to another unlucky critic in the era of great reforms. The ability to creatively rethink current events, to look at them through the prism of philosophical, moral and ethical, and even simple, everyday problems that are “eternal” for all mankind, distinguishes Turgenev’s fiction from the topical “creations” of Messrs. Chernyshevsky, Nekrasov, etc.

Unlike author-journalists who crave immediate commercial success and quick fame, the “literary aristocrat” Turgenev had the fortunate opportunity not to flirt with the reading public, not to follow the lead of fashion editors and publishers, but to write as he saw fit. Turgenev speaks honestly about his Bazarov: “And if he is called a nihilist, then it should be read: revolutionary.” But does Russia need such"revolutionaries"? Everyone, after reading the novel “Fathers and Sons,” must decide for himself.

At the beginning of the novel, Bazarov bears little resemblance to a living character. A nihilist who takes nothing for granted, denies everything that cannot be touched, he zealously defends his incorporeal, completely immaterial idol, whose name is “nothing,” i.e. Emptiness.

Having no positive program, Bazarov sets as his main task only destruction ( “We need to break others!” ; “First we need to clear the place,” etc.). But why? What does he want to create in this emptiness? “It’s no longer our business,” Bazarov answers a completely natural question from Nikolai Petrovich.

The future clearly showed that the ideological followers of the Russian nihilists, the revolutionaries-janitors of the 20th century, were not at all interested in the question of who, how and what would create in the devastated space they had cleared. It was precisely this “rake” that the first Provisional Government stepped on in February 1917, then the fiery Bolsheviks repeatedly stepped on it, clearing the way for a bloody totalitarian regime...

Brilliant artists, like seers, sometimes reveal truths that are securely hidden behind the veils of future mistakes, disappointments, and ignorance. Perhaps unconsciously, but even then, in the 60s of the 19th century, Turgenev foresaw the futility, even the destruction, of the path of purely materialistic, unspiritual progress, leading to the destruction of the very foundations of human existence.

Destroyers like Turgenev's Bazarov are sincerely deceived themselves and deceive others. As bright, attractive personalities, they can become ideological leaders, they can lead people, manipulate them, but... if a blind man leads a blind man, then sooner or later both will fall into a hole. Known truth.

Only life itself can clearly prove to such people the failure of their chosen path.

Bazarov and Odintsova: test of love

In order to deprive the image of Bazarov of its cartoonish sketchiness and give it living, realistic features, the author of “Fathers and Sons” deliberately subjects his hero to the traditional test of love.

Love for Anna Sergeevna Odintsova, as a manifestation of the true component of human life, “breaks” Bazarov’s theories. After all, the truth of life is stronger than any artificially created “systems”.

It turned out that “superman” Bazarov, like all people, is not free over his feelings. Having an aversion to aristocrats in general, he falls in love not with a peasant woman at all, but with a proud society lady who knows her worth, an aristocrat to the core. The “plebeian,” who imagines himself to be the master of his own destiny, is unable to subjugate such a woman. A fierce struggle begins, but the struggle is not with the object of one’s passion, but with oneself, with one’s own nature. Bazarov's thesis “nature is not a temple, but a workshop, and man is a worker in it” scatters to smithereens. Like any mortal, Bazarov is subject to jealousy, passion, is capable of “losing his head” from love, experiencing the whole gamut of feelings previously denied by him, and reaching a completely different level of awareness of himself as a person. Evgeny Bazarov is capable of love, and this “metaphysics” previously denied by a convinced materialist almost drives him crazy.

However, the “humanization” of the hero does not lead to his spiritual rebirth. Bazarova's love is selfish. He perfectly understands the falsity of the rumors spread about Madame Odintsova by provincial gossips, but does not give himself the trouble to understand and accept the real her. It is no coincidence that Turgenev addresses Anna Sergeevna’s past in such detail. Odintsova is even more inexperienced in love than Bazarov himself. He fell in love for the first time, she had never loved. A young, beautiful, very lonely woman was disappointed in a love relationship without even recognizing it. She willingly replaces the concept of happiness with the concepts of comfort, order, peace of mind, because she is afraid of love, like every person is afraid of something unfamiliar and unknown. Throughout their acquaintance, Odintsova neither brings Bazarov closer nor pushes him away. Like any woman who is ready to fall in love, she is waiting for the first step from a potential lover, but Bazarov’s unbridled, almost bestial passion frightened Anna Sergeevna even more, forcing her to seek salvation in the orderliness and tranquility of her former life. Bazarov has neither the experience nor the worldly wisdom to act differently. He “needs to do business,” and not delve into the intricacies of someone else’s soul.

Film adaptations of the novel

Strange as it may seem, the most philosophical, completely non-cinematic novel by I.S. Turgenev’s “Fathers and Sons” was filmed five times in our country: in 1915, 1958, 1974 (television play), 1983, 2008.

Almost all the directors of these productions followed the same thankless path. They tried to convey in every detail the eventful and ideological components of the novel, forgetting about its main, philosophical subtext. In the film by A. Bergunker and N. Rashevskaya (1958), the main emphasis is, naturally, on social and class contradictions. Against the background of the caricatured types of provincial nobles Kirsanov and Odintsova, Bazarov looks like a completely positive, “sleek” democratic hero, a harbinger of a great socialist future. Apart from Bazarov, in the 1958 film there is not a single character sympathetic to the viewer. Even the “Turgenev girl” Katya Lokteva is presented as a round (in the literal sense of the word) fool who says smart things.

The four-episode version of V. Nikiforov (1983), despite the excellent constellation of actors (V. Bogin, V. Konkin, B. Khimichev, V. Samoilov, N. Danilova), upon its appearance, disappointed the viewer with its overt textbook nature, expressed primarily in the literal following the text of Turgenev's novel. Reproaches for being “long-winded,” “dry,” and “uncinematic” continue to fall on its creators from the lips of the current viewer, who cannot imagine a movie without Hollywood “action” and humor “below the belt.” Meanwhile, it is precisely in following Turgenev’s text, in our opinion, that the main advantage of the 1983 film adaptation lies. Classical literature is called classical because it does not require later corrections or original interpretations. In the novel "Fathers and Sons" everything is important. It is impossible to remove or add anything from it without damaging the understanding of the meaning of this work. By consciously abandoning the selectivity of the texts and unjustified “gag,” the filmmakers managed to fully convey Turgenev’s mood, make the viewer involved in the events and characters, and reveal almost all the facets, all the “layers” of the complex, highly artistic creation of the Russian classic.

But in the sensational serial version by A. Smirnova (2008), unfortunately, Turgenev’s mood is completely gone. Despite the location shooting in Spassky-Lutovinovo, there was a good selection of actors for the main roles, “Fathers and Sons” by Smirnova and “Fathers and Sons” by I.S. Turgenev are two different works.

The cute young scoundrel Bazarov (A. Ustyugov), created in contrast to the “positive hero” of the 1958 film, enters into an intellectual duel with the charming old man Pavel Petrovich (A. Smirnov). However, it is impossible to understand the essence of this conflict in Smirnova’s film, even if one wants to. The mediocrely truncated text of Turgenev’s dialogues is more reminiscent of the flaccid arguments of today’s children with today’s fathers, devoid of true drama. The only evidence of the 19th century is the absence of modern youth slang in the speech of the characters, and the occasional French rather than English words that slip through. And if in the 1958 film there is a clear bias in the author’s sympathies towards “children”, then in the 2008 film the opposite situation is clearly visible. The wonderful duet of Bazarov’s parents (Yursky - Tenyakova), Nikolai Petrovich (A. Vasiliev), touching in his resentment, and even A. Smirnov, who is not suitable in age for the role of the older Kirsanov, “outplay” Bazarov in terms of acting and thereby leave no doubt in the viewer’s mind in his rightness.

Any person who takes the time to thoughtfully re-read Turgenev’s text will become clear that such an interpretation of “Fathers and Sons” has nothing in common with the novel itself. Turgenev’s work is therefore considered “eternal”, “everlasting” (according to N. Strakhov’s definition), because it contains neither “pros” nor “minuses”, nor harsh condemnation, nor complete justification of the heroes. The novel forces us to think and choose, and the creators of the 2008 film simply filmed a remake of the 1958 production, sticking “minus” and “plus” signs to the faces of other characters.

It’s also sad that the vast majority of our contemporaries (judging by reviews on online forums and critical articles in the press) were quite satisfied with this director’s approach: glamorous, not quite banal, and, moreover, perfectly adapted for the mass consumer of the Hollywood “movement.” What else is needed?

“He is predatory, and you and I are tame,”- Katya noted, thereby indicating the deep gap between the main character and other characters in the novel. To overcome the “interspecies difference”, to make Bazarov an ordinary “doubting intellectual” - a district doctor, teacher or zemstvo figure would be too Chekhovian. This was not the intention of the author of the novel. Turgenev only sowed doubt in his soul, but life itself dealt with Bazarov.

The author especially emphasizes the impossibility of rebirth and the spiritual static nature of Bazarov by the absurd accident of his death. For a miracle to happen, the hero needed mutual love. But Anna Sergeevna could not love him.

N.N. Strakhov wrote about Bazarov:

“He dies, but until the last moment he remains alien to this life, which he encountered so strangely, which alarmed him with such trifles, forced him to do such stupid things and, finally, destroyed him due to such an insignificant reason.

Bazarov dies a perfect hero, and his death makes a stunning impression. Until the very end, until the last flash of consciousness, he does not betray himself with a single word or a single sign of cowardice. He is broken, but not defeated..."

Unlike the critic Strakhov and others like him, I.S. Already in 1861, the unviability and historical doom of the “new people” who were worshiped by the progressive public of that time were quite obvious to Turgenev.

The cult of destruction in the name of destruction alone is alien to the living principle, the manifestation of what later L.N. Tolstoy in his novel “War and Peace” described it with the term “swarm life”. Andrei Bolkonsky, like Bazarov, is incapable of rebirth. Both authors kill their heroes because they deny them participation in true, real life. Moreover, Turgenev's Bazarov to the end "doesn't change itself" and, unlike Bolkonsky, at the moment of his far from heroic, absurd death he does not evoke pity. I sincerely feel sorry for his unfortunate parents, to the point of tears, because they are alive. Bazarov is a “dead man” to a much greater extent than the living “dead man” Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov. He is still able to cling to life (for loyalty to his memories, for love for Fenechka). Bazarov is stillborn by definition. Even love can't save him.

"Neither fathers nor sons"

“Neither fathers nor children,” one witty lady told me after reading my book, “that’s the real title of your story - and you yourself are a nihilist.”
I.S. Turgenev “About “Fathers and Sons”

If we follow the path of the critics of the 19th century and again begin to clarify the author’s position regarding the social conflict between the generations of “fathers” and “sons” of the 1860s, then only one thing can be said with confidence: neither fathers nor children.

Today one cannot but agree with the same Pisarev and Strakhov - the difference between generations is never as great and tragic as at turning points, key moments in history. The 1860s for Russia were precisely such a moment when “The great chain broke, it broke - one end snapped at the master, the other at the peasant!..”

Large-scale government reforms carried out “from above” and the associated liberalization of society were overdue for more than half a century. The “children” of the 60s, who expected too much from the inevitably coming changes, found themselves too cramped in the narrow caftan of moderate liberalism of their “fathers” who had not yet managed to grow old. They wanted real freedom, Pugachev’s freedom, so that everything that was old and hated would go up in flames and be completely burned out. A generation of revolutionary arsonists was born, thoughtlessly denying all previous experience accumulated by humanity.

Thus, the conflict between fathers and children in Turgenev’s novel is by no means a family conflict. The Kirsanov-Bazarov conflict also goes far beyond the scope of the social conflict between the old noble aristocracy and the young revolutionary-democratic intelligentsia. This is a conflict between two historical eras that accidentally came into contact with each other in the house of the landowners Kirsanovs. Pavel Petrovich and Nikolai Petrovich symbolize the irretrievably gone past, with which everything is clear, Bazarov is the still undecided, wandering, like dough in a tub, mysterious present. Only the future will tell what will come out of this test. But neither Bazarov nor his ideological opponents have a future.

Turgenev equally ironizes both “children” and “fathers”. He portrays some as self-confident and selfish false prophets, while others endow them with the traits of offended righteous people, or even call them “dead men.” Both the boorish “plebeian” Bazarov with his “progressive” views and the sophisticated aristocrat Pavel Petrovich, dressed in the armor of moderate liberalism of the 1840s, are equally funny. Their ideological clash reveals not so much a clash of beliefs as a clash of tragic misconceptions both generations. By and large, they have nothing to argue about and nothing to oppose each other, because there is much more that unites them than that that separates them.

Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich are extremely sketchy characters. They are both alien to real life, but living people act around them: Arkady and Katya, Nikolai Petrovich and Fenechka, touching, loving old people - Bazarov's parents. None of them is capable of creating something fundamentally new, but no one is capable of thoughtless destruction either.

That is why they all remain alive, and Bazarov dies, thereby interrupting all the author’s assumptions on the topic of his further development.

However, Turgenev still takes it upon himself to lift the curtain on the future of the “fathers” generation. After a duel with Bazarov, Pavel Petrovich calls on his brother to marry the commoner Fenechka, to whom he himself, despite all his rules, is far from indifferent. This demonstrates the loyalty of the generation of “fathers” in relation to the almost accomplished future. And although the duel between Kirsanov and Bazarov is presented by the author as a very comical episode, it can be called one of the most powerful, even key scenes in the novel. Turgenev deliberately reduces the social, ideological, age conflict to a purely everyday insult to the individual and pits the heroes in a duel not for beliefs, but for honor.

The innocent scene in the gazebo might have seemed (and indeed did seem) to Pavel Petrovich offensive to the honor of his brother. In addition, jealousy speaks in him: Fenechka is not indifferent to the old aristocrat. He takes a cane, like a knight takes a spear, and goes to challenge the offender to a duel. Bazarov understands that refusal will entail a direct threat to his personal honor. He accepts the challenge. The eternal concept of “honor” turns out to be higher than his far-fetched beliefs, higher than the assumed position of a nihilist-denier.

For the sake of unshakable moral truths, Bazarov plays by the rules of the “old people,” thereby proving the continuity of both generations at the universal human level and the prospect of their productive dialogue.

The possibility of such dialogue, in isolation from the social and ideological contradictions of the era, is the main component of human life. Ultimately, only eternal, not subject to temporary changes, real values and eternal truths are the basis for the continuity of generations of “fathers” and “children.”

According to Turgenev, the “fathers,” even if they were wrong, tried to understand the younger generation, showing readiness for future dialogue. The “children” have yet to go through this difficult path. The author would like to believe that the path of Arkady Kirsanov, who went through disappointment in previous ideals and found his love and true purpose, is more correct than Bazarov’s path. But Turgenev, as a wise thinker, avoids dictating his personal opinion to his contemporaries and descendants. He leaves the reader at a crossroads: everyone must choose for himself...

Editor's Choice

Day of Remembrance of Fallen Russian Internal Affairs Officers Heroism of Police Officers

In recent years, the bodies and troops of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs have been performing service and combat missions in a difficult operational environment. Wherein...

Northern coast of Neva Bay

Members of the St. Petersburg Ornithological Society adopted a resolution on the inadmissibility of removal from the Southern Coast...

Enviable beauties in politics (17 photos)

Russian State Duma deputy Alexander Khinshtein published photographs of the new “chief cook of the State Duma” on his Twitter. According to the deputy, in...

The best ballet performances

Home Welcome to the site, which aims to make you as healthy and beautiful as possible! Healthy lifestyle in...

Biography, political activity

The son of moral fighter Elena Mizulina lives and works in a country with gay marriages. Bloggers and activists called on Nikolai Mizulin...

The magical world of crystals

Purpose of the study: With the help of literary and Internet sources, find out what crystals are, what science studies - crystallography. To know...

How to salt milk mushrooms: a quick recipe

WHERE DOES PEOPLE'S LOVE FOR SALTY COME FROM? The widespread use of salt has its reasons. Firstly, the more salt you consume, the more you want...

Ten Surprisingly Profitable Illegal Trades

The Ministry of Finance intends to submit a proposal to the government to expand the experiment on taxation of the self-employed to include regions with high...

Management project based on the example of an enterprise presentation

To use presentation previews, create a Google account and sign in:...

New

Popular