Turgenev and. With
Having shown in his novel “Fathers and Sons” the type of a new hero - commoner, democrat, materialist and nihilist Bazarov, I.S. Turgenev had to reflect in his work the extent to which this phenomenon in life is isolated, accidental or natural. To do this, it was necessary to show whether Bazarov had like-minded people. One of them, his friend Arkady Kirsanov, completely shares the hero’s beliefs, but, as it turns out, not for long. Noble origins and upbringing, the inability to abandon family feelings, and then Katya’s influence force the hero to return to the traditional values of his circle. Are Sitnikov and Kukshina followers of Bazarov - people who consider themselves “progressives”? Sitnikov is the son of a wine farmer, a man who became rich running taverns. This is not respected in society, and Sitnikov is ashamed of his father. In his portrait, the author emphasized the unnaturalness of the hero’s behavior: an anxious and restless expression on his face, “and he laughed restlessly: with some kind of short, wooden laugh.” He considers himself a “student” of Bazarov and says that he owes him his “rebirth,” not noticing either the pomposity of his words or logical contradictions: after hearing from Bazarov that “one should not recognize authorities,” he felt “delight” in relation to to Bazarov himself: “Finally I found a man!” Progressive views for Sitnikov are a path to self-affirmation at the expense of others, just like for Mrs. Evdoxia Kukshina. Her personal life did not work out, she separated from her husband, she is not beautiful in appearance, she has no children. In her behavior, too, everything was, as the author says, “not simple, not natural.” To attract attention, she joined the progressive movement, but for her this is only a reason to show herself, to demonstrate to others the breadth of her interests. Worldwide famous writer She calls Georges Sand a “backward woman” for her supposed ignorance of embryology, but unknown to anyone, Eliseevich is a “brilliant” gentleman who wrote some article. Kukshina is interested in everything at once: chemistry, women's issue, schools - but what worries her most is not the problems themselves, but the desire to demonstrate their knowledge to her interlocutors. She “drops” her questions one after another, without waiting for answers to them, and they have no place in Kukshina’s self-satisfied monologue. She criticizes all women for being “badly brought up,” and Odintsova for not having “any freedom of opinion,” but, most likely, she is simply jealous of her beauty, independence and wealth. This is especially noticeable at the ball, where Kukshina appeared “in dirty gloves, but with a bird of paradise in her hair”: she was “deeply wounded” that they were not paying attention to her. Of course, Bazarov does not take conversations over a bottle of another champagne seriously, and treats such people purely as a consumer: “We need the Sitnikovs... I need such idiots. It’s not really for the gods to burn pots.” Feeling disdain for himself, Sitnikov discusses Bazarov and Kirsanov with Kukshina, considering them “Nasty, proud and ignorant.” However, after Bazarov’s death, Sitnikov in St. Petersburg continues, according to his assurances, Bazarov’s “work.” The author describes with irony how, together with the “great” Eliseevich, Sitnikov is also preparing to “be great.” They beat him, but “he did not remain in debt: in one dark article, squeezed into one dark magazine, he hinted that the one who beat him was a coward.” With the same irony, Turgenev says that Kukshina, who finally got to Heidelberg, is now studying architecture, “in which, according to her, she discovered new laws.” Bazarov died, and militant, self-righteous ignorance flourishes, vulgarizing progressive ideas for which true fighters were ready to give their lives.
4. The open ending of the novel.
Why did Bazarov have no other followers besides Sitnikov and Kukshina? These words of I. S. Turgenev are often quoted when discussing his hero Yevgeny Bazarov from the novel “Fathers and Sons” - the most controversial novel of the 60s of the 19th century in Russia. It is truly large-scale, but untimely, and therefore stands apart. The work was written in an era when in the social atmosphere of Russia there was a need for change and the arrival of a “new” hero capable of bringing about these changes. There were many people vying for this title. But were they really them? Bazarov is alone in the world of people, and therefore his figure is tragic. However, the author's reasoning extends much wider. Let’s try to understand this issue, just as Turgenev, who belonged both in age and in worldview to the generation of his fathers, tried to figure out who this new person and what to expect from him.
What other characters in the novel can be called “new” people? In my opinion, no one. New - usually small in number, not yet widely used. And the main thing in novelty is not quantity, but quality. Among those who feel like a “new” person is Arkady Kirsanov, who considered himself a “student” of Bazarov, Kukshin and Sitnikov, who looked up to him. But none of them actually are.
At the beginning of the novel, Arkady Kirsanov tries to be like Bazarov. He restrainedly addresses Nikolai Petrovich as “father,” imitating Bazarov, speaking in a low voice and cheekily. However, different views on nature, art, attitudes towards loved ones, towards women, and towards the work of two friends gradually become clear. And this leads to disagreements between “teacher and student” simply because they different personalities. The path that Bazarov follows, even if it is not perfect, is suitable only for strong, determined people who are not afraid of anything. Arkady is not like that. It is no coincidence that Bazarov says to Arkady: “You gentle soul, a slob." Arkady is the type of person who is educated, well-mannered, not stupid, kind, sincere, but at the same time he has no inner strength and integrity, purposefulness of Bazarov. He was brought up in a completely different environment; he did not have to make his way in life through exhausting labor. Perhaps that is why he is so inconsistent in his views, and the worldview of his fathers in direct and figuratively is not a strong irritant for him. These are also features of his nature, sensitive to nature, poetry, music, harmony and warmth of human relationships. As we have seen, Bazarov turned out to be not so alien to these manifestations human nature. As Yu. V. Lebedev pointed out, Turgenev saw “the danger of breaking the connection of times” “in the ability of Russian people to easily break themselves.”
Sitnikov and Kukshina are so-called “provincial nihilists”; in the novel they are openly satirical characters. The author often makes fun of them. But the two Kirsanov brothers and especially Pavel Petrovich are still depicted more with humor, in places even with sympathy and sympathy. And Sitnikov and Kukshina are an obvious parody of people. In relation to Kukshina, Turgenev uses the verb “springs”, that is, to strive to seem different from who she really is. The writer repeatedly emphasizes: “a creature with a small red nose.” This detail seems to indicate that meaninglessness, vanity, stupidity are the basis of her existence. Sitnikov, the innkeeper's son, is also funny in Turgenev's portrayal - cheeky, narrow-minded, dependent. He is mentioned least of all in the novel. His main dream, at first glance, is noble - to make the people happy. But the ways to achieve it are questionable; he wants to use profits from his father’s establishments, that is, other people’s labor, for this purpose. In addition, there is a deep disrespect for their fathers in this, and even a consumerist one.
So why exactly do they appear as Bazarov’s followers? I think there is no clear answer here. On the one hand, these “parodies of a person” highlight the shortcomings of the main character and give him greater positivity, despite all his ambiguity. On the other hand, Turgenev felt the time and admitted that the Bazarovs’ time had not yet come. By this he further emphasizes Bazarov’s loneliness and alienation from modernity. Perhaps this is a warning of what a thoughtless passion for dangerous things can lead to. nihilistic ideas, if people like Kukshina and Sitnikov stand at the head of the movement and put new ideas into practice. Turgenev seeks to show that coping with the diversity and complexity of life, which does not fit into nihilistic schemes, is possible only for individuals of such stature as Bazarov. In the hands of people with low intelligence, insufficient life experience such ideas can become dangerous weapons. And the generation of fathers is not entirely wrong about the possible consequences of being carried away by new ideas.
The question of “new” people, their place in the life of Russia, especially worried Turgenev. For the writer it was important topic both at home and abroad, where he lived for quite a long time. In his work we see many heroes who claim to be called “new”. We find them in the works: “Rudin”, “On the Eve”, “New”, “Smoke”, “Fathers and Sons”. And not all of them withstand the tests through which the author puts them.
Turgenev very accurately sensed this change of times, the arrival of a new social force. This is how the nihilist Bazarov explains the logic of his reasoning: “We act because of what we recognize as useful... At the present time, the most useful thing is denial - we deny... Not only art, poetry... but also... it’s scary to say... That’s it,” he repeated with inexpressible calm Bazarov." At the same time, Turgenev did not accept maximalism and superficiality, the one-sidedness of his views. He sought to show that life is a much more complex thing than nihilists, raznochintsy, and populist revolutionaries imagine. It is no coincidence that he tests his heroes, leading them through certain life circumstances - love, honor, deprivation and other collisions.
His novels are a kind of warning of what can lead to excessive and irrepressible passion for revolutionary and nihilistic sentiments. And Bazarov is the most significant, integral figure among the heroes, who, before his death, understands both the tragedy of his situation and the fallacy of the theory. “The line dividing good and evil runs through the heart of a person. And who will destroy a piece of his heart? - wrote A.I. Solzhenitsyn. Love for Odintsova splits Bazarov’s worldview into two halves, and he himself seems to split into two. Bazarov alone is a convinced materialist, a denier, a cynic. Another is a man who has passionately fallen in love and already doubts his teaching, who cannot find an explanation for what is happening: “He could easily cope with his blood, but something else took possession of him, which he never allowed, which he always mocked, which outraged all his pride."
The researcher of Turgenev’s work, Yu. V. Lebedev, in my opinion, very accurately described this state of Bazarov: “Bazarov wants to break free, run away from the questions that surround him, run away from himself - but he fails to do this, and attempts to break living ties with life , surrounding him and awakening within himself, lead the hero to tragic end Turgenev once again leads Bazarov through the circle in which he walked: Maryino, Nikolskoye, parents' house. But now we don’t recognize the old Bazarov: his disputes are fading, his unhappy love is burning out. The second circle of the hero’s life’s wanderings is accompanied by the last breaks with the Kirsanov family, with Fenechka, with Arkady and Katya, with Odintsova and, finally, the fatal break with the peasant for Bazarov.”
This is how Bazarov’s passion for newfangled theories ends tragically. The author mourns the fate of “a titanic personality who did not realize the enormous opportunities given to her by nature and history.” New era nevertheless, it raises questions that fathers can no longer solve. The new time will need tomorrow new hero. Bazarov dies. Who will replace him? This question remains open in the novel. At the same time further history Russia, filled with such dramatic and terrible events, shows how far-sighted the author of Fathers and Sons was in his warnings.
For low natures there is nothing more pleasant than
take revenge for your insignificance by throwing mud at
their views on the sacred and great.
V.G. Belinsky
In the 10-20s of the 19th century, when Decembrist ideas and beliefs took shape, secret societies, and among the noble youth there was a fashion for “secret unions”, the members of which did not have any political beliefs. And therefore Griboyedov’s Chatsky, a man of strong convictions that led him, as Herzen believed, “on the straight road to hard labor,” sharply says to Repetilov: “Are you making noise, that’s all?” Yes, people went through difficult trials and even death for their beliefs. Convictions led to selfless actions of such heroes as Insarov, Rakhmetov, Bazarov.
Against the background of the noble environment depicted in the novel by V.G. Belinsky's "Fathers and Sons", the figure of Bazarov acquires special relief. Turgenev's hero is convinced of the need to radically break the existing system. “In these times, denial is the most useful,” he says, and he follows this conviction to the end. The all-destructive force of negation of Turgenev’s hero, imbued with maximalist pathos, directed beyond all and any limits, cannot be imagined separately from his inner freedom, from his inability to somehow limit, console or deceive himself. Having fallen in love with Odintsova, but realizing that there is an abyss between them, Bazarov leaves her, although he retains the feeling of love until his death. He will show loyalty to his convictions as an atheist scientist even before his death, when he renounces religious rituals. Pisarev was right in asserting that to die the way Bazarov died is the same as accomplishing a great feat. Yes, it’s true: a person dies without sacrificing his convictions, his principles.
In love, friendship, life, Bazarov is tragically alone. And this loneliness is emphasized by the images of his “students,” for whom Bazarov’s hard-won beliefs become simply fashion. As natural as Bazarov is with his merciless harshness and directness, so unnatural are Sitnikov and Kukshina. Sitnikov really wants to be known as a person close to Bazarov, he flaunts the sharpness of his views, but he is a man without convictions, ready, succumbing to fashion, to become a “nihilist.” Turgenev sharply caricatures Kukshina, showing her ugly forms as an example: women's emancipation. This is an insignificant woman who is confused in her head and has no convictions of her own.
In Chapter XIII, arguing about women’s emancipation, Kukshina, in response to Sitnikov’s words: “Are you standing up for these little women?”, replies this way: “But for the little women, but for the rights of women, which I vowed to defend to the last drop of blood.” The comic importance of behavior, posture, love for crackling phrases, combined with the vulgarization of the views of the true and consistent denier of Bazarov, in principle, equally characterize both Arkady and the caricatured Kukshina and Sitnikov. Turgenev achieves this goal sometimes by indicating a gesture, a movement of a character, more often by individual words and expressions of a character (Kukshina vowed to defend the rights of women not just in any way, but “to the last drop of blood”).
The scene of the novel, which depicts a “feast” in Kuk-shina’s house, is an evil caricature of people who dress up in fashionable clothes to be known as “progressives.” In the images of Sitnikov and Kukshina, Turgenev captured those who blindly imitate fashion trends and are recklessly carried away by them. Bazarov can easily withstand the proximity of Sitnikov, just like Chatsky next to the caricature of new people - Repetilov. Sitnikov and Kukshin seem to emphasize Bazarov’s originality, greatness, loyalty to his convictions, and his tragic loneliness more strongly.
Bazarov did not leave followers, did not complete the enormous task set for himself. But this does not mean that Russia did not need him. Heroes do not die without a trace: their lives, their aspirations and failures, and their death itself have historical significance.
Yes, people who have their own convictions, faithful to them to the end, are the “engines of history,” and perhaps our tragic troubles recent years happened because for some, unfortunately for many, reforming society, democracy, openness became fashion, and not hard-won convictions, and we did not immediately recognize the danger posed by evil, dressed in clean, white clothes. The future well-being of our country and its people depends on leaders of a new type, those for whom beliefs will not become fashionable, who will go to the chopping block for them, but will not stop, will not give up, and will fulfill their duty as a person and citizen to the end.
I. S. Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons” reflects the socio-political struggle between the nobles and commoners. The author sets himself the task of revealing the image of the “new man” - the nihilist Evgeny Vasilyevich Bazarov. The system of images is subordinated to this goal. The ideological opponent of the main character, Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov, debunking the inconsistency of the views of the “nasty proud man,” declares: “Finally, remember, gentlemen, mighty, that you are only four and a half people...” But the future doctor calmly and calmly objects: “There are not so few of us, "What do you think?"
Who are they, these so-called followers of Bazarov, his ideological brothers? Except for the young Arkady Kirsanov, who first idolizes his “teacher”, and then under the influence younger sister Katya Odintsova changes her views, then Viktor Sitnikov and Avdotya Nikitichna Kukshina are presented as “comrades-in-arms” of the main characters. Can they be considered real followers of Bazarov? Let's see how the author presents these characters in the novel.
After a heated ideological duel between the aristocrat Pavel Petrovich and the “plebeian” Bazarov, the situation in the Kirsanovs’ house became tense. To defuse the atmosphere, the son of the regimental doctor invites his friend to accept the offer of his “noble relative” Matvey Ilyich Kolyazin and “take a ride into the city.”
Returning from the governor, the friends meet Sitnikov, who introduces himself as Bazarov’s “student”. The portrait of “Herr” Sitnikov emphasizes his unnaturalness: “an anxious and dull expression... of his slick face,” “like sunken eyes,” “a short wooden laugh.” The epithet “restless” is repeated twice: “the eyes looked intently and restlessly. What bothers the “student” Bazarov so much, why does he behave so unnaturally?
Sitnikov is embarrassed by his father, of whom the self-confident nihilist reminds him with caustic, caustic irony, and then, following his “first” friend, Arkady. Sitnikov’s father is a tax farmer, that is, he bought from the government the right to collect income from the sale of alcoholic beverages for his benefit. It is no coincidence that the author does not indicate the patronymic name of this “follower” of Bazarov. He mentally renounces his father, ashamed of his origins and his father's activities. The writer gives this minor character speaking name. Victor is the “winner”. If Bazarov’s fate is tragic - he dies from an accidental cut - then Sitnikov is “blessed in the world.” From the epilogue we learn that Sitnikov is “hanging around in St. Petersburg,” assuring everyone that he is continuing Bazarov’s “business.” This hero, personifying triumphant vulgarity, is unfamiliar with world sorrow. The author reports that someone “beat” Sitnikov, but in revenge he “pressed” “in one dark magazine” “that the one who beat him was a coward.”
His last name can tell a lot about the hero. "Sitnik" - spoken word, denoting sieve bread, made from flour sifted through a sieve. There is a playful and familiar address “my friend Sitny”, which perfectly conveys Bazarov’s mockingly ironic, unceremonious and even contemptuous attitude towards his “student”.
There are two very important details, with the help of which the author conveys the concept of “imaginary” Sitnikov’s nihilism. There is a Slavophile Hungarian on it, but in a conversation with Kukshina he renounces his Slavophilism. Business card, which this “advanced” person leaves in the room of Bazarov and Arkady, is filled on one side with an entry on French, and on the other hand – in Slavophil script. Like a weather vane, he can turn into a Westerner, a Slavophile, and a nihilist, depending on which way the political wind blows.
Thus, “Herr” Sitnikov does not have any firm convictions. He's just pretending to be advanced person in society, strives to become significant, to become famous. But our “nihilist” is petty and insignificant. Adhering to some business or idea, he immediately vulgarizes and caricatures both the “business” and the idea.
The same can be said about the “progressive” and “emancipated” woman Avdotya Nikitichna Kukshina, about whom the narrow-minded and stupid Sitnikov speaks with such delight and excitement. And she, like Sitnikov, “was always scratching her soul.” Ashamed of his origin, the imaginary follower of Bazarov seeks to compensate for the feeling of his inferiority and inferiority with the role of an advanced person. Kukshina, under the guise of “emancipation,” seeks to hide her unsettledness as a woman: she separated from her husband and has no children. It’s interesting that this heroine’s middle name also translates as “winner.” In the epilogue we learn that the “advanced” woman also went abroad and is no longer studying natural sciences, but architecture; in essence, she, like Sitnikov, is “prospering.”
In the “speaking” surname of the heroine, three meanings shine through. Firstly, the word “fig” suggests itself. This word emphasizes the emptiness and insignificance of Avdotya Nikitichna, as well as her parodic affiliation with nihilism. The word "nihil" means "nothing", like the colloquial word "kukish". Secondly, “kuksha” can be rethought as a generic noun from the verb “kuksha”, which means “to be in bad mood" The author notes that Kukshina’s facial expression “had an unpleasant effect on the viewer.” “I couldn’t help but want to ask her: “Are you hungry? Or are you timid? Why are you jumping?” In the “emancipated woman,” as in a distorting mirror, many of Bazarov’s qualities are parodically reflected. For example, sloppiness in clothing, interior design, casualness in communication. We see her “somewhat disheveled, in a silk, but not entirely neat dress.” In her room there are “dusty tables” and “cigarette butts scattered everywhere.” “Thick numbers of Russian magazines, for the most part uncut,” indicate that the hostess pretends to be educated, but does not read anything. Kukshina’s manners emphasize her unnaturalness: “she spoke and moved very casually and at the same time awkwardly.” Avdotya Nikitichna, not without pride and self-satisfaction, declares herself: “I’m practical too,” and says that “I came up with a mastic”, “to make dolls, to make heads so that they don’t break.” The manner of communication of an “advanced and developed woman” testifies to both her insincerity and narrow-mindedness. “Mrs. Kukshina dropped her questions one after another with pampered carelessness, without waiting for answers; spoiled children talk to their nannies like that.”
How does the “teacher” himself relate to his “students”? It would seem that he should be interested in having followers. He goes to Kukshina only because Sitnikov promised champagne. Having reached “the last drop” of champagne, he leaves the “highly moral phenomenon” without saying goodbye to this “wonderful personality.” At the provincial ball, neither Bazarov nor Arkady paid any attention to Kukshina, deeply hurting her pride. Bazarov’s attitude towards Sitnikov is no better. A self-confident nihilist explains to his friend the “usefulness” of the Sitnikovs: “...We need the Sitnikovs... I need such idiots. It’s really not for the gods to burn pots!” At that moment, Arkady discovered for himself “the whole bottomless abyss of Bazarov’s pride.”
Having shown in his novel “Fathers and Sons” the type of a new hero - commoner, democrat, materialist and nihilist Bazarov, I.S. Turgenev had to reflect in his work the extent to which this phenomenon in life is isolated, accidental or natural. To do this, it was necessary to show whether Bazarov had like-minded people. One of them, his friend Arkady Kirsanov, completely shares the hero’s beliefs, but, as it turns out, not for long. Noble origin and upbringing, the inability to abandon family feelings, and then Katya’s influence force the hero to return to the traditional values of his circle. Are Sitnikov and Kukshina followers of Bazarov - people who consider themselves “progressives”? Sitnikov is the son of a wine farmer, a man who became rich running taverns. This is not respected in society, and Sitnikov is ashamed of his father. In his portrait, the author emphasized the unnaturalness of the hero’s behavior: an anxious and restless expression on his face, “and he laughed restlessly: with some kind of short, wooden laugh.” He considers himself a “student” of Bazarov and says that he owes him his “rebirth,” not noticing either the pomposity of his words or logical contradictions: after hearing from Bazarov that “one should not recognize authorities,” he felt “delight” in relation to to Bazarov himself: “Finally I found a man!” Progressive views for Sitnikov are a path to self-affirmation at the expense of others, just like for Mrs. Evdoxia Kukshina. Her personal life did not work out, she separated from her husband, she is not beautiful in appearance, she has no children. In her behavior, too, everything was, as the author says, “not simple, not natural.” To attract attention, she joined the progressive movement, but for her this is only a reason to show herself, to demonstrate to others the breadth of her interests. She calls the world-famous writer George Sand a “backward woman” for her alleged ignorance of embryology, but unknown to anyone, Eliseevich is a “brilliant” gentleman who wrote some article. Kukshina is interested in everything at once: chemistry, women's issues, schools - but what worries her most is not the problems themselves, but the desire to demonstrate their knowledge to her interlocutors. She “drops” her questions one after another, without waiting for answers to them, and they have no place in Kukshina’s self-satisfied monologue. She criticizes all women for being “badly brought up,” and Odintsova for not having “any freedom of opinion,” but, most likely, she is simply jealous of her beauty, independence and wealth. This is especially noticeable at the ball, where Kukshina appeared “in dirty gloves, but with a bird of paradise in her hair”: she was “deeply wounded” that they were not paying attention to her. Of course, Bazarov does not take conversations over a bottle of another champagne seriously, and treats such people purely as a consumer: “We need the Sitnikovs... I need such idiots. It’s not really for the gods to burn pots.” Feeling disdain for himself, Sitnikov discusses Bazarov and Kirsanov with Kukshina, considering them “Nasty, proud and ignorant.” However, after Bazarov’s death, Sitnikov in St. Petersburg continues, according to his assurances, Bazarov’s “work.” The author describes with irony how, together with the “great” Eliseevich, Sitnikov is also preparing to “be great.” They beat him, but “he did not remain in debt: in one dark article, squeezed into one dark magazine, he hinted that the one who beat him was a coward.” With the same irony, Turgenev says that Kukshina, who finally got to Heidelberg, is now studying architecture, “in which, according to her, she discovered new laws.” Bazarov died, and militant, self-righteous ignorance flourishes, vulgarizing progressive ideas for which true fighters were ready to give their lives.
