Turgenev's attitude to criticism of his novel. Turgenev, "Fathers and Sons": criticism of the work

Republication,
introductory
article and notes
L.I. SOBOLEV

M.N. Katkov. Roman Turgenev and his critics

In the newspaper “Literature” (1996, No. 7) we published an article by M.N. Katkova “On our nihilism regarding Turgenev's novel”, reprinting it from “Russian Messenger” (July, 1862). Let us recall some information about the author of the article.

Mikhail Nikiforovich Katkov (1818 or 1817–1887; for more information about him, see the article in the second volume of the dictionary “Russian Writers”) graduated from the verbal department of the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow University with honors. He joined Stankevich’s circle, was close to Belinsky, published simultaneously with him in the journal of Russian Hegelianism “Moscow Observer” (1838–1839); simultaneously with Belinsky, he began to collaborate in Otechestvennye zapiski. In 1840 he went abroad; Returning in January 1843, he became close to the Slavophiles. Having defended his master's thesis, he began to lecture on philosophy (1845–1849), and from 1851 he edited the university newspaper Moskovskie Vedomosti. In 1856 he left the newspaper and became the editor of the magazine “Russian Herald” - in the first three rooms magazine Katkov published his big article“Pushkin” (republished with some abbreviations in the collection “Russian Aesthetics and Literary Criticism of the 40–50s of the 19th Century.” M., 1982). It is known that at that time Katkov professed liberal views - to the point that in 1859 he discussed with Herzen in London the possibility of publishing a joint newspaper - with the same Herzen, with whom two years later Katkov would begin an irreconcilable polemic, for the first time naming the name of his opponent in censored press. “Russian Messenger” in the early 1860s combined support for government reforms (trial by jury, glasnost, etc.) with polemics against the “deniers” from Sovremennik and Kolokol. Subsequently, the best Russian writers will be published in this magazine - L. Tolstoy and F. Dostoevsky, N. Leskov and I. Turgenev, but the relationship of each of them with the editor-publisher of the magazine will not be at all idyllic.

Turgenev met Katkov, apparently, in 1841 in Berlin, where they studied at the university at the same time. When Katkov began publishing “Russian Messenger,” Turgenev published the novel “On the Eve” (1860, January) in his magazine.

It is known that after Dobrolyubov’s article about the novel “On the Eve,” Turgenev broke off all relations with Sovremennik. “Fathers and Sons” appeared in Katkov’s magazine. At the same time, the writer did not rate “Russkiy Vestnik” very highly - for example, in a letter to Dostoevsky dated October 30 (November 11), 1861, he noted (regarding one of the publications of Katkov’s magazine) that it was possible to publish only in “Vremya”, that is in Dostoevsky's own journal. Of course, the literary relations of that time were not so simple and obvious as to judge them from the letters of one writer, however, Turgenev wrote to Herzen (shortly after the quoted letter to Dostoevsky): “Russian Messenger is not such rubbish, although there is a lot in it that disgusts me to the point of nausea." Katkov will also publish the novel “Smoke”, the stories “The Story of Lieutenant Ergunov” and “The Unhappy”; Turgenev’s break with the “Russian Messenger” will not be loud and sharp, but when at the Pushkin holiday in 1880 Katkov handed his glass to Turgenev, he “looked at him coldly and covered his glass with the palm of his hand.”

Sending the manuscript of “Fathers and Sons” to “Russkiy Vestnik”, Turgenev asked P.V. Annenkov, when he is in Moscow, read it and send him your comments. Annenkov recounts in his memoirs a conversation with Katkov about the novel: “How ashamed Turgenev was to lower the flag in front of the radical and salute him as before an honored warrior,” said Katkov. -<...>Bazarov absolutely dominates everyone and does not meet any effective resistance anywhere. Even his death is still a triumph, a crown crowning this glorious life, and this, although accidental, is still self-sacrifice<...>Who can know what this guy will turn into? After all, this is just the beginning of it. To magnify it early and decorate it with the flowers of creativity means to make the fight against it twice as difficult later. However<...>I will write to Turgenev about this and wait for his response.”

Katkov’s letters to Turgenev about the novel “Fathers and Sons” have not survived. But based on Turgenev’s letters to the editor of Russkiy Vestnik, it is possible to at least partially reconstruct the remarks of Katkov, who saw in the novel “the apotheosis of Sovremennik.” In the article “About “Fathers and Sons”” (1869), included in “Literary and Everyday Memoirs,” Turgenev quotes one of Katkov’s letters to him; in this letter, the magazine editor notes: “One feels something unfree in the author’s relationship with the hero of the story, some kind of awkwardness and compulsion. The author in front of him seems to be lost and doesn’t love him, and even more so, he’s afraid of him!”

The most important problem creative history“Fathers and Sons” - the problem of editorial interference in the text of the novel. Part of the detailed comments by A.I. is devoted to this issue. Batyuto to “Fathers and Sons” in the Complete Works of Turgenev (vol. VII). Apparently, Turgenev made some corrections to please Katkov - he wrote about this to Herzen on April 10, 1862: “Katkov<...>persuaded me to throw out a lot of mitigating features, which I repent of.” When preparing a separate edition (in 1862), the author restored some passages discarded during the first publication, including those that “contained positive characteristics of Bazarov the democrat”; “However, some of the tendentious amendments,” writes a commentator on the novel, “were introduced into the text of the “Paris manuscript” (that is, the manuscript of the novel taken by the writer to Paris, in contrast to the one that was left to Katkov and intended for reading and amendments to Annenkov. - L.S.) under the influence of Katkov’s editorial censorship and Annenkov’s friendly advice, remained unchanged in the novel forever”

The novel is known to have caused heated controversy. Sovremennik responded with an article by M.A. Antonovich - in it the critic denied “Fathers and Sons” any artistic merit, accused Turgenev of slandering the younger generation and was glad that the writer had finally revealed his true face - the face of an opponent of progress, etc. Pisarev in “Russian Word” saw artistic truth in the novel, and in Bazarov - a representative of the younger generation, drawn by one of the most sensitive writers; no matter how far Turgenev was from his hero, he could not help but show readers that “all our hope” lies in the younger generation. These two conflicting opinions deliberately collided in a special section of the “Russian Messenger” - in the “Modern Chronicle”: there, in issue No. 18, under the title “Wonders of Russian Journalism”, extracts from the articles of two “nihilists” were successively published. The dispute with “nihilistic” critics continued in Katkov’s article “Turgenev’s Roman and His Critics,” which we bring to the attention of readers.

Katkov mentions another article about Turgenev’s novel - N.N. Strakhov in the Dostoevsky magazine “Time”. The article is “smart, well written,” but erroneous - Strakhov is in vain to see the “spirit of realism” and “mental asceticism” in Bazarov, but neither one nor the other “has nowhere to come from” in modern educated Russian society.

Let us draw attention to an important issue discussed in the article by the magazine editor - the issue of the author's position. Firstly, it is in vain that readers would like to clarify from the author his intention and the meaning of the work he created: “To what came out of his hands, he is in exactly the same relationship as everyone else; he may have a sympathetic or antipathetic feeling for a living person who has arisen in his fantasy, but he will have to perform exactly the same work of analysis as anyone else in order to convey the essence of his feeling in a judgment.” And yet Katkov 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.” In other words, Turgenev tried to show Bazarov in the most favorable light. What came of this, according to Katkov, is shown in the second article.

It is obvious to any literary historian that a work of art lives in close connection with its time, its era. Turgenev's novel, full of topical hints and pressing contemporary problems, evoked a warm response in Russian society. Katkov’s articles, which, unfortunately, were not included in the collection “Fathers and Sons in Russian Criticism,” represent an important fact of the ideological struggle around the novel.

When the editor’s May article appeared, Turgenev responded to it: “I can’t help but tell you<...>how much I liked your article about my novel; however, I believe you must have heard praise from everywhere. I'm looking forward to the second half."

I

The public has already had time to appreciate the literary merit of Mr. Turgenev’s new novel. Indeed, everything in this work testifies to the matured power of this first-class talent: clarity of ideas, skill in depicting types, simplicity in concept and course of action, restraint and evenness in execution, drama that arises naturally from the most ordinary situations, nothing superfluous, nothing delaying, nothing extraneous. But in addition to these general advantages, Mr. Turgenev’s novel also has the interest that it captures the current moment, captures a fleeing phenomenon, typically depicts and captures forever a fleeting phase of our life. This is the task of the artist who wants to act directly on his time; that's what true meaning the requirement that the artist remain a son of his time, a citizen of his country. Art can act only by those means that are characteristic of it; to rape its nature, to make it an organ of some deliberate tendencies, means to destroy its power and meaning. A work of art can be neither a lesson nor a sermon; its strength is purely theoretical; it must be the contemplation of life in its truth and essence. Only by virtue of such contemplation can a work of art be fruitful in a practical sense. In a true work of art nothing should disturb the purity of contemplation, which extends with an even light to everything, presenting each thing in its essential outlines, in its internal relations. Any random admixture will not only damage the internal dignity of a work of art, but will also reduce its significance for life, take away its power of action or give it a completely different meaning and, perhaps, make it act in the opposite sense.

Our mental life is not distinguished either by the multiplicity of its organs, or by its richness, or by its internal consistency in its development. It depends on diverse influences acting on it from the outside. This meager trickle of our mental and social life flows in the face of great and powerful civilizations on which it depends, which constantly act on it and produce disturbances in it. That is why our development, apparently, is proceeding so quickly; That is why it so often passes from one phase to another, so easily changes in its direction and color. Every day there is a new generation, a new era, new heroes. In our literature there is a succession of types corresponding to these phases. These are the heroes of their time. Mr. Turgenev himself has already depicted several similar types. In the previous types he depicted more or less lived-through phases; but in the last novel he caught the hero in action. That is why Mr. Turgenev’s new novel, despite its general artistic significance It also has the meaning of directly acting force. What now acts around us, what runs through our minds and tunes them in a certain way, is here brought to consciousness, presented to the eye, transformed from an agent into a simple object, thrown from the center to the periphery. For such a task it is necessary to have high creative power; What is also needed is mature and sensitive thought, a point of view to which not everyone can rise, deep and extensive observation, and great power over oneself. Only through the combination of these conditions could we obtain these essays filled with life, which the last novel of Mr. Turgenev presents to us. The scope of this novel is, of course, very limited; it corresponds to the circle in which our anemic formation rotates. This is the sphere of what we call educated people who have completed courses at universities and other educational institutions, who read something and grouped around literature. All this is very little, all this is very meager, all this has no inner strength. Bad or good opinions, false or true teachings are equally devoid of deep roots in both fathers and children. All these opinions, all these rumors and debates are mostly superficial or a product of hothouse air. This is a common feature of everything that we call educated, no matter what generation it belongs to - young or old. Whether people are good or bad, whether they are gifted or mediocre by nature, you feel that the main part of their mental content is not developed by life, but was accidentally brought in from the outside and is either affectation and sterile pretentiousness, or dry reality. The strength here is not strength at all, but only the relative powerlessness of the surrounding. This is the small world to which the latest work of our writer-artist belongs.

Following the appearance of this novel, voices were heard that, while doing justice to its merits, complained that the younger generation was represented in it from an unfavorable side. Without denying the truthfulness of the depiction of the depicted persons, it was found that these persons cannot serve as typical representatives of both generations, especially the younger ones. Are all our young people, these critics exclaimed, really like Arkady and Bazarov? Is this fresh, young generation, in which all our hopes, all our future lies, really like these two types? But this is bleak, this is terrible, this is impossible! However, what is especially bleak and terrible in Mr. Turgenev’s typical depiction of the younger generation? We will leave Bazarov aside for now. Bazarov is a hero; he is a more or less exceptional being; he embodies that spirit that is more or less mixed in with the opinions, feelings, and actions of people, but does not dominate them exclusively and even for the most part does not live in them at all, but only speaks through their lips. Whatever this spirit may be, it does not spoil them at the base, but it does not act in them as a living force, it only occupies an empty space; it is introduced where there is nothing. So, no matter what the hero may be, whom we leave aside for now, the majority does not represent anything bleak, although, to tell the truth, nothing particularly comforting. We don’t understand why this type of youth, depicted by Mr. Turgenev in the person of Arkady, seems to represent our young generation in an unfavorable light. On the contrary, we think that he is a very good, very attractive type. Contemptuous comments about this young man are understandable in the Arkadies themselves, in very young people who, of course, want to seem like heroes, just as a child wants to seem big. It is very clear why, for example, a critic of the magazine “Russian Word” speaks with contempt about the young Kirsanov and does not call him anything other than a chick: by all indications, the critic himself is still a very young man, himself the same Arkady, to whom one can only wish that it retained many of the good properties of its prototype 10. Really, what's wrong with this Arcadia? He is not predatory 11 - but this is glory to God; This is his dignity. The youth would be good if the majority of them consisted of predatory! The artistic truthfulness with which this figure is depicted in Turgenev’s novel is beyond praise. Everything in her amazes with an amazing fidelity to life, and if not every young man wants to recognize himself in Arcadia, then everyone who has lived through the years of his youth, looking at him, will remember them with tenderness and a smile. How sweet he is in his nihilism! He was the same way when he poured out terms from German philosophy and plunged into the world's substance 12. It is the same in transcendental idealism 13 and in this good-natured exaltation of the power of negation and violation, which breaks everything only because it is power. Yesterday he was a utopian, today he is a materialist, today he destroys and destroys, and tomorrow he will build phalansteries 14, recreate the earth and the solar system itself. The ease with which a young man’s imagination plays, the ease with which he judges things, the ease with which a young mind moves from one thing to another and connects the incompatible - all this is the most natural thing. This is a physical sign of youth. Maturity comes with age; experience and science educate the mind and give it weighty content.

Arkady is incomparable in his nihilistic antics; he is also incomparable in the naive consciousness of his mental superiority over the concepts of his father and uncle. How good-naturedly he regrets their backwardness. How charming he is with his Buchner, whom he palms off on his father instead of Pushkin, hoping to enlighten him and elevate him! How quickly he resolves all issues, how easily he copes with everything, how he doesn’t mind breaking and destroying anything out of pure nihilism! You feel how, under this living color of place and time, Arkady remains the same as you knew him in other places and at other times. Don't these disputes in Turgenev's novel, every word of which is imprinted with amazing artistic truth, remind you of other disputes in other times? “Before,” says Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov, “there were Hegelists, and now there are nihilists.” This is true, but there were not nearly as many Hegelists as there are now nihilists. Over time, the student population has multiplied significantly. Twenty or fifteen years ago, the circle of people who reasoned and argued “about important mothers” was much closer and smaller in number than it is now: for this reason alone it was not so noticeable and could not declare itself so noisily. But in the past, such disputes were no less good-natured and naive. “Have mercy,” he used to exclaim old man with simple common sense, hearing the solemn proof of the perfect unity between being and non-being - for mercy, is it really the same as to be or not to be?” 15 “It doesn’t matter,” answered the young thinker decisively. “It makes no difference whether to say that this table exists or that it does not?” - “It doesn’t matter at all.” - “It doesn’t matter whether I exist or not, whether I’m talking to you now or not?” “It doesn’t matter at all,” was the inexorable answer again. “My God, I’m lost,” the venerable elderly man of the past exclaimed in despair, turning away from the merciless philosopher and turning to another, equally decisive. “What can we do,” said this one, shrugging his shoulders with good-hearted regret, “what can we do, it turns out this way.”

But leave aside the opinions that young Arkady repeats, not bothered by any exaggeration, not embarrassed by any nonsense. Leave these opinions: they are not supported by anything, they will disappear like the morning fog 16, and the young man, at his first serious steps in school and in life, will easily free himself from them. Look at this young man in other ways; you will not find anything incorrigibly bad in it; on the contrary, you will find a lot of good in it. He is susceptible to all good things, there are many beautiful beginnings in him. And whether he will turn out good or bad later will depend on the circumstances, on the social environment in which he is destined to live, on the conditions that will open up for his activities. You cannot despair for such youth as Arkady. You can only regret one thing, and regret it bitterly, that she is not a good student; that all these candidates who complete the course take away so little positive knowledge and mature concepts from it. But can the Arkadies be blamed for the superficiality and emptiness of their education? They accepted what was given to them: are they to blame for the fact that they were taught poorly in the gymnasium and taught nothing at the university, and that all their science is limited for the most part to a few established terms, a few learned phrases, that there is nothing accurate and solid in their information? , there is nothing serious in their thoughts that they have not had the opportunity to experience with their own experience, what does it mean to form a concept or make a judgment?

Arkady is not nature predatory : this was revealed to him by an intelligent girl, with whom, fortunately for himself, he became close in the early stages of his life. At first he was a little jarred by this discovery: the simple-minded young man was sorry to part with this quality, which seemed to him a sign of strength and heroism; but he soon realized his youthful stupidity and, of course, laughed at it himself afterwards. He is not predatory either by nature or by upbringing. The opinions he flaunts do not penetrate deep inside him, just as they do not grow from within; this is an easy game of ideas that do not yet have any definite meaning for a young, soft mind. But all his practical instincts are good, all the immediate movements of his heart are unspoiled and pure. They remained untouched and testify to fresh, untapped strength, a good inclination for the future. They testify to the love that surrounded the cradle of our young man, to the soft family atmosphere in which his childhood passed. True, there are no noticeable solid elements in his mental organization; but they had nowhere to come from. What is not there is not; but there is a lot of kindness and simplicity in him; he is capable of generous impulses, and one can only wish that his future life would give him what his upbringing could not give. Is it possible to reproach him for this naive conceit, this tone of superiority with which he treats his father? However, many critics will easily forgive him for thinking about his mental superiority. Perhaps they will find not only very natural, but even very touching his concerns to advance the education of their parent and enlighten him with Buchner’s book. A much more serious reproach is the sense of moral superiority that he has in relation to his father - in this tone of magnanimous patronage of his father's weaknesses, which is depicted with such skill by Mr. Turgenev. Indeed, it is a pity to see how embarrassed poor Nikolai Petrovich is in front of his son. But who is to blame for this? Why is he embarrassed or, better yet, why does he have a good reason to blush in front of his young son? Arkady's patronage, however, is not at all arrogant, but just as naive and simple-hearted as his teaching, is not something independent in him, formed in him from his own elements; on the contrary, both are a direct expression of his father’s real weakness. In Arcadia there is not even a shadow of a desire to humiliate his father or make him feel his weakness; on the contrary, he good-naturedly tries to raise it, reinforce it, justify it in his own way. The other young man who bows down to bazaarism is not like Arkady. The “Sitnikovs” bear on their foreheads signs of vulgarity and insignificance. But he is also surprisingly faithful, and his image is full of life’s truth. Sitnikovs are everywhere, and there are plenty of them everywhere. He and Madame Kukshina are not at all caricatures or portraits, but living representatives of a whole category of phenomena that have entered into their types both with their common, identical features everywhere, and with all their peculiarities of time and place, with all couleurs locales (peculiarities, literally - local flavor - fr.). You will meet the Sitnikovs in buildings and gymnasiums, at universities and in society; they are mixed with Arkady. There are also quite a few Madam Kukshins in the capitals and in the provinces. Predatory understand them very well and know how to use them.

There is nothing funnier and more absurd than the constantly repeated talk among us about the younger generation as something special and separate, as if about some kind of class or party. Only in our literature, only in our pitiful social environment can such absurdities be heard. Young people have well-known physiological signs that characterize them and distinguish them from older and older people. But to imagine and say seriously that young people, precisely as young people, represent a special political or philosophical system, a special code of rules and opinions with which they came to replace everything that people who were previously born into the world lived with, is excusable only the youngest of the Arkadies and perhaps only in our literary world. Undeveloped youths really imagine that it is in their nature to be progressive people and to stand at the head of the movement, and that everyone who has reached mature age is already eo ipso (as a result of this - lat.) a backward person. The Arcadias think this out of naivety, but people of a different kind, people of more or less properties predatory, of course, they don’t think so, but they find it useful to instill and support such an idea in the young people of the buildings and gymnasiums.

Somehow recently, one of our writers, Mr. Chernyshevsky, who gained flattering fame for himself, complained that his youth, by virtue of an inevitable law, must pass and is passing, and at the same time, following the same inevitable law, he is from the advanced a person must turn into a retard; he spoke with emotion about this fate awaiting him and pointed to another, younger thinker, Mr. Antonovich, who later appeared on the literary scene in the same magazine: according to Mr. Chernyshevsky, this new thinker had not yet reached full physiological maturity, and therefore himself and should have more rights than he, Mr. Chernyshevsky, to the title of progressive and progressive person 17 . Following this theory, Pisarev, another thinker, seemingly even younger, should have greater rights to this title. Students who have not yet completed the course should have even higher rights to this title; young people sitting on the benches of the gymnasium should still be more advanced- and thus, without forcing the step, little by little we will reach sucking a baby, the most advanced of all advanced people. We consider ourselves not entitled to decide from what source this theory of advanced people was developed by the venerable Mr. Chernyshevsky - from naivety and simple-heartedness or from falsehoods, which, according to his own, slightly cynical consciousness (Sovr. No. 2. “In expression of gratitude.” P. 394), seems to be especially characteristic of his character 18.

Who does not know that a person is born naked and empty, without any concepts, without any systems, that a child is the most backward of all creatures, that the whole meaning of development and education is to bring him on a level with the time among which he is destined to live that only people who are fully mature, fully in control of the means and forces of their era, can move its cause forward? But the dear little ones who write in our magazines don’t know this. They must really think that all these undigested doctrines were carried out by them from the womb. This good-natured Mr. Pisarev, who with the arrogance of Arkady (God only grant that it is Arkady and not Sitnikov) talks about new great concepts and views that constitute an integral part of his peers - must really imagine that great thinkers, whom he worships, whom he quotes - Messrs. Karl Focht, Moleshot and Buchner are still studying at the gymnasium. Alas! Karl Vocht is already an old man, Moleshot is also an old man, as is this notorious Buchner, who, by a strange whim of fate, was destined to become a great authority in the educational institutions of our dear fatherland.

II

The work of Mr. Turgenev is in completely exceptional circumstances. Taken from current life, it enters it again and produces a strong practical effect in all directions, such as a literary work has hardly ever produced in our country. The footlights disappeared and the actors and spectators mingled. The novel seems to still be going on; the action he performed, the phenomena that he caused, as if a new chapter in him, as if an epilogue to him.

This epilogue, played out in reality, serves as an excellent commentary on the novel: that is why we said that it is in exceptional conditions. Thanks to these conditions, the assessment is extremely simplified and the question of the truth of the type, of the correctness of its image, is resolved with complete accuracy. Subsequently, the historian of our literature will speak about this novel only in connection with the phenomena it caused in the environment from which its content was taken.

Is the type depicted in Bazarov correct? Is there any truth to this type of plan? Does it accurately represent something real? Or is this a whim and an invention? Apparently, there is no way to give a completely conclusive answer to this question. We may think one way, others may think differently. The same impression will have a completely different effect on different minds. Under the fresh impression of a new work of art, judgments will necessarily respond to those concepts, moods, prejudices and predilections that the impression predisposes in the minds. But in the present case the issue is resolved without any difficulties. The best verification of the type depicted is the action it produces. Let's see how this action was expressed and what phenomena it caused.

It should be noted that for any principle that claims dominance, the most offensive thing is to be brought onto the stage. To become an object of observation, to appear in a certain image, means to descend from a height and turn from a dominant principle into a simple object. It is a well-known fact that a person is freed from blind desires in no other way than through consciousness. What we manage to recognize loses its blind power over us; on the contrary, it itself becomes more or less subject to us. That is why every blind power is afraid of becoming an object of consciousness and does not like to be represented. That is why people who blindly submit to such power resist with their hands and feet, are indignant and indignant when they call it on stage. They are especially afraid of artistic representation, which takes it not from its general aspects, but in its specialty, in all the features of its manifestation, in its individual embodiment. General concepts and reasoning will not really show it; they will present it in those general elements that can relate to a wide variety of phenomena. No matter how precise our concepts are, the living principle will always elude them. They can only overtake and cover it when it is caught in its living image, seen with one’s own eyes, felt in its immediate action. That is why the blind force that controls minds is most afraid of becoming the subject of artistic depiction.

She will remain indifferent to impersonal images with any shade, sympathetic or antipathetic, which will be designated by his name. She is not afraid of this. She is only afraid of what will really affect her, what will touch her alive. General rumors, as well as some individual features, some random manifestations, are not dangerous; Caricature is also not dangerous: an exaggerated depiction of some feature only obscures the meaning of the whole and distracts attention from it. She is very happy with stupid, mediocre, absurd attempts; standing aside, untouched by them, she laughs at them comfortably.

G. Antonovich, a critic of Sovremennik, would not have paid any attention or would have responded with the most good-natured laughter to any unsuccessful attempt to depict something that he did not want to see depicted; but he becomes completely furious when reading Mr. Turgenev’s novel. It was as if something had been torn out of his heart, as if he felt himself being struck into the most vital part of his organism. His article about “Fathers and Sons” is not criticism, but a spasm, some kind of terrible tongue twister, in which everything crowded together without any mutual control, obeying only a feeling of intense irritation, not knowing what to grab onto and what to bite. He re-composes the novel, imposes different tendencies on the author, reproaches him for betraying pure art and at the same time laughs hysterically at this pure art, distorts quotes, alters actions, ascribes to the characters properties and opinions completely opposite to those with which the author presents them, tries in every possible way to vulgarize the main character, to bring him to the same level as some novel by Mr. Askochensky 19, giving preference to the latter. There is everything in Mr. Antonovich’s criticism, even a comparison with Mr. Askochensky, who serves in our literature as the last term of any offensive comparison. Oh, if something of this kind had really appeared under the name of Mr. Turgenev, how rejoiced Mr. Antonovich would have been then, how complacent his criticism would have been then, how calmly and smoothly he would have written it then! There wouldn't be these cramps, this irritation, this despair.

According to Mr. Antonovich’s interpretation, Bazarov is some kind of pitiful caricature of something unprecedented. According to his interpretation, this is some kind of ridiculous braggart, fanfare, glutton, drunkard, idle talker. The opinions he expresses in disputes are stupid and absurd. As stupid as he is in his way of thinking, he is just as ugly in his actions. In a word, nothing can be more disgusting than the figure that Mr. Antonovich describes under the name of Bazarov, the hero of Turgenev’s novel. This hero calls himself a nihilist; but Mr. Antonovich is horrified at this one word, he knows nothing like it in our literature, and his ears wither, he blushes at the game that this absurd nihilist is talking about. G. Antonovich swears that there was no mention of any negative direction in our literature. Any denial, Mr. Antonovich now hastily teaches, is accompanied by a position. Nobody denied anything in the sense of nihilism. G. Antonovich is outraged by Bazarov’s disrespectful reviews of art, Raphael, science and much more. G. Antonovich solemnly asserts that nothing like this has ever happened in our literature. “We,” he says to the author of “Fathers and Sons,” “deny your art, your poetry, your And(by this union the critic means something a lot) 20 ; but we do not deny and even demand another art and poetry, another And, at least this And what Goethe imagined...” And then we unexpectedly learn what has been hidden from everyone until now; The meaning of modern Russian literature, the secret of its aspirations and its disputes, was revealed to us. This is an old German question, which still continues to serve as an inexhaustible topic of conversation at tea parties in Germany; This is an innocent question about Goethe and Schiller. Some stand behind Goethe, that monumental elder of German literature; others, probably fathers, are more sympathetic to the melancholy, ideal Schiller. Thus, Bazarov, with his tendencies and opinions, with his shameless denial, with his nihilism, turns out to be a complete anomaly, a complete freak who represents nothing, to whom nothing corresponds either in our society or in literature. The critic is offended by the author's intention to portray the modern trend in the person of this jester Bazarov. We were talking about Goethe and Schiller, and the author found some kind of nihilism. In this whim of the author, the critic sees not just a whim, but also slander.

Shouldn’t we go through the magazine in which Mr. Antonovich writes, should we bring from it evidence that no one in this magazine expressed as sensibly and intelligently as Turgenev’s Bazarov, all that these gentlemen tried to develop in every way with an admixture of ignorance? from which Bazarov, scolded by the critic, would be embarrassed, with an admixture of bad faith that would make him blush and turn away with contempt? Yes, if this Bazarov had turned into a living person, if he had found himself among these gentlemen, he would have firmly taken Messrs. into his hands. Antonovich and Chernyshevsky; they would get it from him, and he would teach them to behave more decently in literature. They have no reason to be offended by the resemblance to this typical figure; they still need to grow up to boast of this similarity. Bazarov, no doubt, would not have resorted to such tricks as Mr. Antonovich was not ashamed of in his criticism. He probably would not have written such a critical article; he would have such taste that he would not say: “G. Askochensky anticipated the novel by Mr. Turgenev.” Finally, he would not fuss, rush into ambiguities, or deny himself.

He would not, like Mr. Antonovich, cover up his opinions with words that are unusual for them and would not put a meaning that is unusual for them under his words. One little boy, brought up in a devout family, was afraid to take the name of God in vain, and when he had to swear in order to deceive his mother, he resorted to a cunning trick and, instead of “By God,” he quickly uttered “By God”: he never did this Turgenev's Bazarov...

However, many will still be pleased to meet stern Puritan piety in a person of the new generation, in a young progressive. Listen to the animated and stern tone in which Mr. Antonovich speaks about the “sacred minute of death.” “The sacred minute of death”: how solemnly these words sound! For some mitigation, Mr. Antonovich adds: “The so-called sacred minute of death.” “So-called” softens the effect somewhat; this increase is designed for the obstinate ears of young and old freethinkers, who, perhaps, would be tempted by the “sacred moment of death.” But softening is softening, and the pious meaning remains and does honor to the young progressive and the magazine in which he writes. However, Bazarov would under no circumstances have decided to resort to such glorification, would not have used it as an argument or to produce any effect. Bazarov, from his point of view, does not see anything sacred in a simple physiological process; but he is still so honest that he would not hide behind Goethe and would not throw dust in his eyes with “so-called sacred minutes.” It would be interesting to hear how he would besiege Mr. Antonovich for all this “abracadabra.”

But not everyone is a Bazarov, and we can respect the sincerity of belief, no matter how harsh the form it may be expressed. Sincere conviction is such a rarity in the world that a young progressive can be forgiven for excessive zeal for piety. And the jealousy is truly excessive: imagine, Mr. Antonovich cannot think without indignation that a person in the “so-called sacred minute of death” is thinking about his earthly attachments. Bazarov, as our readers know, wished before his death to see the woman he loved, and was consoled by her farewell kiss. What do you think? The critic is horrified by this; he speaks with disgust about this scene and showers the author with stinging reproaches for such “disgusting”... A young man, feeling the approach of death, do not dare to think about what worried his heart during his life, what he loved with enthusiasm and passion. To say goodbye to the object of this love before death is sinful and immoral. The reader remembers this scene: it seems that there is nothing immoral and ungodly in it? However, this rigorist finds her like that.

One must think that the appearance of Turgenev's novel caused some kind of deep chaos in the venerable magazine where Mr. Antonovich writes. In his critical article one hears reviews of this underground catastrophe. Mr. Antonovich began to flash new unusual expressions. We cannot decide whether he uses them cleverly or appropriately, but he speaks of all-reconciling love, and of sublime love, and of endless life. He reproaches the author for not being imbued with the deep meaning of these words, for the fact that he does not sufficiently nourish these sublime feelings and is not fully guided by them in the administration of poetic justice. It seems to him that the author does not fully forgive his hero. He mourns such bitterness and speaks with bitter irony about the final scene of the novel. In this scene he sees hypocrisy, he pours poison on the ridicule of flowers, and fir trees, “deliberately planted,” and old people who come to cry at the grave. G. Antonovich is unpleasant why the author did not appear personally before the dying man’s bed and did not admonish his transition to endless life with outpourings of all-forgiving love.

We are convinced that Mr. Antonovich is not sincere in his bad reviews of Bazarov. G. Antonovich scolds Bazarov in the most inappropriate way, and at the same time wants to endow him with all kinds of benefits; he is together and cannot stand him, and wants him to succeed in everything. It offends him why everyone else has at least something and means anything. Whoever says anything, whoever does whatever, he reproaches the author for everything. Any little thing, any rubbish - he would take it all and give it to Bazarov. Look: he contemptuously tramples the Kirsanov brothers, “fathers,” into the dirt: one has his song sung, the other is an empty veil. But as soon as he thinks about Bazarov, he suddenly becomes envious of them, and they turn out to be excellent people, invincible thinkers, amazing rural owners, and smart, and strong, and virtuous in all respects, and the critic begins to sarcastic the author, why is Bazarov not in English? suite flaunts why he doesn’t admire nature, doesn’t indulge in quiet dreams, doesn’t shed causeless tears; finally, why did he once become burdened with cards? He says almost nothing about the duel in which Bazarov behaved so well. But he cannot forget that Bazarov was defeated at cards by his father Alexei. Will readers believe that the critic devotes several of his most caustic lines to this sad circumstance? What envious eyes!

Didn’t we say the truth that Mr. Antonovich’s criticism is not criticism, but a painful convulsion? What does this greedy envy of everything mean, this desire to combine everything in one person? He would like Nikolai Petrovich, and Pavel Petrovich, and his old mother, and his father Alexei to sit in Bazarovo. He wants him to cut frogs, and enjoy poetry, and behave elegantly with ladies, and play Jumble better than anyone else, and be able to speak to men like a man, so that he is both a materialist and a romantic, and so that he is strong, like a lion, and pure as a dove, and did not associate with vulgar people, and did not get dirty in any dirt, so that he was a combination of all possible qualities, so that he was everything, so that he was nothing. The fact is that criticism oppresses the certainty of this image. He would like to cover up this bright image, to disappear this living figure. He would like to destroy her. Alas! all these efforts are in vain...

While Mr. Antonovich was writing his criticism, another writer, completely like-minded to him, was doing the same thing. In the “Modern Chronicle” (No. 18. “Wonders of Russian Journalism”) the opinions of these two thinkers were presented in the form of a lively debate 21. They differ on all points in their reviews of “Fathers and Sons” and especially about Bazarov: what seems bad to one, seems incomparable to another. G. Pisarev enthusiastically thanks the author for the artistic portrayal of Bazarov, in which he sees the true type of the best and strongest minds of the new generation. He is completely satisfied with Bazarov. He follows him with ardent participation in all his adventures, applauds him in his disputes, rejoices at his victories, vividly takes his misfortunes to heart and is present with tenderness at his death, in which he sees an example of sublime heroism. From the fullness of his heart, he thanks the artist for not being carried away by any trends and presenting the type of the best minds of our time with complete truthfulness. Assuming that Mr. Turgenev does not sympathize with Bazarov in his heart, the critic sincerely regrets him, regrets that Mr. Turgenev, due to his years and kindness, cannot experience all the sweetness of the process of Bazarov’s thought and live his life. But he gives the artistic creativity of Mr. Turgenev all the more justice because, due to the outdatedness of his concepts, he cannot belong to the environment where the spirit of nihilism reigns. True, Bazarov’s manners are not particularly elegant; with more sympathy the author might have infused the same spirit into a more elegant gentleman; but the critic immediately rushes to justify the author and explains this circumstance in a satisfactory way: Bazarov made his way through his own efforts and hard work - no wonder that his hands became calloused, his manners became coarse and his disposition hardened; but he is the most perfect gentleman in soul and mind, and Mr. Pisarev proves this with the presentation of an entire novel and goes through the same path that Mr. Antonovich took.

The death of the hero especially fascinates Mr. Pisarev. He writes about her with a proud sparkle in his gaze; he boasts of this death for himself and for the entire new generation; he sees in this death the true apotheosis of the hero of our time; he cannot find words to express gratitude to the author for this death scene. What a contrast with Mr. Antonovich’s view! Who is right?

G. Antonovich speaks with indignation about Bazarov’s relationship with his parents. The gentle soul of this critic dwells with special love on the old woman, Bazarov’s mother. Of the entire novel, he liked only this one face. New proof of the virtuous qualities of this progressive: this old woman is superstitious, and does not know embryology, and has not seen the operation of lithotomy 22, there is nothing progressive in her, everything in her is stagnation and the most notorious conservatism, and, however, Mr. Antonovich fell in love with her, distinguished her from everyone and speaks about her with feeling. But he is even more indignant at Bazarov, who treats her disrespectfully and harshly. G. Pisarev, on the contrary, is surprised at Bazarov’s condescension and long-suffering attitude towards his old parents. He is infinitely superior to them. What should he do with them, what should he talk to them about? Shouldn't he sit on the floor in order to get even with them? - this is how his young admirer justifies the hero expressively.

This young admirer, as noted above, applauds the opinions of the hero, in whom he sees a bright and strong expression of the principles of nihilism. He accepts the title of nihilist with pleasure and gratitude. He welcomes the hero in this capacity. Only once did he not completely agree with Bazarov’s opinion; only once did it seem to him that the hero was a little “lying.” G. Pisarev is a lover of pleasant sensations, and therefore a lover of the beauties of nature and art. He was shocked by Bazarov's coldness towards art; he was a little alarmed by the hero’s stern words that nature is not some kind of temple, but a workshop in which one must work. G. Pisarev ventures into a light debate with the hero and declares the need for pleasant sensations for a person. He dares to confront the hero with his inconsistency on this point and suddenly brings out the triple force of Karl Vocht, Moleschott and Buchner against his authority. G. Pisarev reminds Bazarov that this great triumvirate allowed the consumption of a glass of vodka for unskilled laborers and drug pleasures for people of sufficient classes: this means that art is also allowed. This is the only disagreement between the hero and his admirer; in everything else, Mr. Pisarev remains faithful to him.

Now the question is, how does the critic of Sovremennik deny the existence of nihilism? How does he not recognize any connection between Bazarov and reality and deprive him of the right to be a hero of our time? Let us assume that he sincerely thinks so; but then Mr. Pisarev shows him with his special one that he was mistaken.

As is known, one should not argue about tastes; In aesthetic assessment, the most like-minded people can disagree. But this is not a matter of aesthetic appreciation; We bring these two critics together not in order to draw any conclusion from this rapprochement regarding the artistic merits of the work. Let it stand high in the opinion of one; even if in the opinion of another it is inferior to Mr. Askochensky’s novel: it’s all the same, there’s nothing to talk about. But we are not interested in the opinions of these critics, but in their personal relationships to the novel, which they supposedly dissected, but which overwhelmed them and had a most disintegrating effect on their mental organization.

Reading his colleague’s article, Mr. Antonovich must agree that Bazarov is not a fiction, that there are people who thank the author for creating this type and are delighted to recognize themselves in him. And Mr. Antonovich honors this type with the most shameful names: a drunkard, a glutton, a braggart, a gambler, and an asmodeus, Mr. Askochensky! This is what passion means! In fact, what was it like for Mr. Pisarev to hear how this hero, in whom he sees the personification of the most advanced ideas and the best forces of the younger generation, was called a drunkard, a braggart and, finally, Mr. Askochensky’s asmodeus? If Mr. Antonovich claims to be the author of “Fathers and Sons,” then how should Mr. Pisarev claim to be his brother?

Strange affair! Both of these philosophers, both in their youth and in the nature of their views, equally consider themselves among the progressive people, both have the same creed and, however, what a radical disagreement in relation to the type in which one recognizes the ideal modern generation, the other - his caricature and desecration!

Here is obvious proof that the artist hit the mark. In his work, what he depicted in it recognized itself, recognized itself not only not in a distorted, but even in the most flattering form, and at the same time felt wounded. It would be impossible to combine these two results in one person. And then the decomposition occurred. From the same place two voices were heard, contradicting each other on all points, but forced to merge into one common result. Coming from one beginning and describing two interesting curved lines, they came to one end. One stated that the artist did not invent his type, but extracted it from reality; another testified that the artist actually removed it.

The painful cries of the critic of “Sovremennik” and the enthusiastic jubilation of the critic of “Russian Word” merge into one sound and evenly testify to the strength of the artist and the success of his work.

But we haven't said everything. Naturalists know how careful and careful experiments and observations must be in order to serve as a clear and correct guidance. Let's use another technique, look again, and we will see that both critics, dissatisfied and satisfied, not only contradict each other, but also completely agree. There is a contradiction, and there is no contradiction. In the views of both philosophers, the one crying and the one laughing 23, there is complete agreement; but in their feelings, in the pathetic movements of the soul, there is a complete opposite. They felt the same thing in opposite ways. One recognized the coming hero with cheerful glee; the other also recognized him, but with gnashing of teeth. One is calm and happy; the other is worried, and tormented, and curses.

Do you think that the protesting critic really does not sympathize with the thoughts and actions of the hero Bazarov? Nothing happened; it was only the excited passion that rushed about in him. He not only gives him full justice, like his brother, the satisfied critic, but also goes much further. The opposition and struggle are not between two persons, but in the very person of the protesting critic. Look, he protests against the hero for treating his parents unkindly; he is ready to put Bazarov on criminal trial for this unkindness in tone. We saw how satisfactorily Mr. Pisarev explained Bazarov’s attitude towards his parents: shouldn’t he, in fact, sit on the floor in order to become equal to them? But the protesting critic is not content with this. He then not only justifies Bazarov, but elevates him to apotheosis. Having executed him for disrespectful treatment of his parents, he then, in a solemn and gloomy tone, recalls the ancient sages - it seems to be Empedocles, he adds in parentheses - who left his father and mother in order to listen to or preach the word of truth. This is the height to which he elevates Bazarov, whom a few minutes before, in a blind rage, he subjected to trade execution 24 .

Do you think that he really simply fell in love with Bazarov’s old mother? Oh no! He shows her favor because she is completely destroyed before her son, before the great teacher, before “Empedocles.” All the other characters in the novel live on their own, and they are hated by critics; and the old people, Bazarov’s parents, although they are not able to understand him, are devoted to him without memory, to the point of self-forgetfulness - and this is what touches the critic, this is what bribes the priest of the temples in their favor, and he only gives them a taste of sacrificial ones, they alone are stroked on the old gray head.

Do you think that he really considers Bazarov a cynic because he praised Madame Odintsova’s “rich body” and made her jump to the other corner of the room? Not at all! He explains that a healthy man cannot and should not do otherwise. He gloatingly proves that even romantic fathers were never indifferent to a “rich body”, that everyone always zealously tried to get the “sense” out of women, and that without this, fathers would not be fathers and children would not be born.

Do you think that he really does not recognize the thoughts expressed by Bazarov? No, in another part of his article he tries to develop, justify and prove them, but he only does it much worse than Bazarov himself with his energetic, concise and explanatory words.

Bazarov is even more important for a protesting critic than for a satisfied critic; he sympathizes with the hero even more deeply. But this sharp, energetically outlined figure is unbearable for him; he can’t bear that thousands of eyes are now fixed on this figure, that everyone can look at it from all sides. Every decisive stroke in this figure disturbs and excites his soul. No one has said anything yet, but he already sees accusatory faces and reproachful glances. There is no author, the author is nowhere to be seen, but this merciless contemplation of the artist, mercilessly spread out over everything, is hard for him. He cowers and wriggles, and fearfully looks up, raises his head, expecting a blow, and is angry that there is nothing to grab onto and no one to bite.

Alas! The temple was dissolved, the holy of holies was desecrated, the idol was taken outside! How could the priest remain indifferent, not tear the robe, not sprinkle ashes on the head! How could he not be indignant at the desecrator of the shrine?

Finally, one last observation: we saw that a dissatisfied critic, excited by passion, betrays himself and recognizes his god in the one whom he blasphemously called the most shameful names. But what do we find in a satisfied critic? G. Pisarev, having bowed to Bazarov and burned incense in front of him, with amazing naivety announces to the assembled laymen that this deity is “cholera.” The kind young man said this with a sense of dignity, preening himself and showing off in front of the crowd...

One recognized the hero as a scoundrel and a brute, and then with the same spirit he idolized him and fell to the dust before him. Another, performing a sacrifice before this deity, declares with self-indulgence and contentment that the spirit to which he sacrifices is no more and no less than Bhagavani herself 25...

So, we see that there is no contradiction and that nature gives absolutely clear answers to the urgent questions of the observer.

III

Now the question is, what did the artist want to portray in the hero of his novel, or, better to say, what is this epic figure and what does it correspond to in life? We saw how confusedly the impression she made on the environment where she rules despotically was expressed; we saw what contradictions were combined in this impression, how much pain, and joy, and self-awareness, and self-contempt echoed in it. It is interesting to take a closer look at this image and analyze its essence.

In addition to those criticisms that we touched on above and in which we heard personally interested voices, we also heard other voices, more or less free from partiality. In one of the St. Petersburg magazines (“Time”, No. 4) we read a very smart, well-written article about Turgenev’s novel, in which the reviews of personally interested critics were successfully and accurately compared and analyzed 26 . But giving due justice to many of the intelligent remarks of the author of this article, we cannot, however, agree with him in his main thought, namely in his view of the essence of the type depicted by Mr. Turgenev under the name of Bazarov. This look will not stand up to scrutiny, whether we compare it with the novel itself or with the social environment from which the elements of the image are taken. According to the critic, this figure expressed the prevailing spirit of realism in our time, a spirit that operates both in life and in science. The critic expands the horizon of this type to universal significance and sees in it some kind of universal idea. He sees in him that mental asceticism that sternly renounces everything that is distant, unclear, and not directly within one’s hands, and directs thought and activity toward achievable goals. But, attaching such importance to this type, the critic is far from sympathizing with him; the critic sees in it a one-sided force that does not satisfy all the requirements of human life and suppresses many of the best of them.

In any case, such a view destroys not only all individual, but also all typical features of this image; he turns it into an abstraction, which can relate just as much to Bazarov as to completely opposite phenomena. We deliberately dwell on this view, because it is quite widespread, although nowhere is it expressed so clearly and completely as in the mentioned criticism of “Time”. Having seized on one external sign, the critic ignores other, much more significant elements of this image and develops its meaning from one more imaginary than truly characteristic feature. Thanks to this operation, we must welcome in the person of this type the spirit of our time, with the addition of that genius of wise self-control, which was personified in Socrates 27 and constitutes the essence of all accurate thinking and real knowledge. But in this case, we absolutely do not understand what relation this type can have to our life. Evidently the critic has left untouched the essential content of his own impression and has fled into the sphere of general abstractions which have nothing in common with him.

If the critic had paid attention to the everyday aspects of the type, then not a shadow of thought about some kind of universal spirit of realism could have arisen in him, and he would have easily found the key to his impression. He is surprised by the vitality and fidelity of the image; Indeed, the Turgenev type is distinguished to a high degree by these qualities. But how could the critic not think that with his interpretation this type would turn out to be the most unfortunate invention and, in any case, would be something completely exceptional, something without any analogy with the environment? Spirit of realism! Would it not be an unforgivable mistake on the part of the artist to create from the elements of our mental life a type of that general spirit of realism which dominates modern thought? Is it possible to imagine anything funnier than an attempt to portray the heroic type of a Russian realist or a Russian idealist from elements of our educated society? No proof is required here; the matter is obvious. Could it, for example, occur to anyone to portray from Russian life a type of researcher who lives by the interest of knowledge, devoting his energies to the work of science, concentrated in calculating the elements of a supposed planet, in an experiment on the solar spectrum, in the analysis of a complex organic combination, in subtle research? nervous system? Is it possible for us to have a young type or not? young man, possessed by a mental hunger for reality in any sense, one-sided or non-one-sided, bad or good, true or false? What a strange, absurd, incomprehensible figure that would be! What a lie every feature would echo in her and what well-deserved laughter she would arouse everywhere! We do not want to say that there are no intellectual interests in our educated environment; but their manifestations are so few and weak, so insignificant, that any attempt to reproduce them in a typical image would be absurd. It would be exactly the same strangeness to imagine the type of Russian merchant conquering India and creating a great empire (although in a long, long time something similar happened with us 28), or a Russian navigator venturing into the Arctic ice to look for the twentieth time for the remains of Sir John Franklin 29 . Would there be any correspondence with the environment in such types? Could the most gifted artist, under all favorable conditions, create something typical of this kind, and not a completely exceptional specimen?

It is easy to complain about our artists because they draw so few positive types from our lives. It would be much more thorough to ask whether our social life presents the elements for such types. Gogol decided to create positive types, and everyone knows what a shipwreck he suffered 30. The critics who reproached Mr. Turgenev for the unsatisfactory nature of the types of the young or old generation he derived did not think that if these types were truly unsatisfactory, then it was not the author who was to blame, but the life from which he took them. He took what was there, and any addition would be a distortion and a lie.

Isn’t it strange that about a modern work, taken from current life, there can be different rumors, bewilderments and questions, as if we were talking about some monument of a long-past era? Isn’t it strange that a modern type, so sharply defined on all sides, becomes the subject of commentary, as if we were talking about the character of Hamlet or Macbeth? But the more individual the artistic image, the more difficult it is for analysis. Turgenevsky Bazarov is not just a type, but also a character, a face that is alive to the smallest detail. Nowhere in this image is a maxim revealed, nowhere is an abstract concept visible in it; he is a living figure from head to toe. The impression it produces is of a completely individual nature, exactly the same as what we experience when meeting a living person - an unaccountable feeling of sympathy or antipathy, which either speaks loudly or becomes quiet. It would seem that the author himself could most easily solve the riddle and give the key to the character he created. The author is obvious, and, apparently, the most natural and simplest thing one could expect from him is the final word, which would decide the matter without appeal. Who, if not the author, knows the essence of the character he created, understands the meaning of the type he depicts? However, this is not entirely true: the author in this case differs little from any other observer. To what came out of his hands, he is in exactly the same relationship as everyone else; he may have a sympathetic or antipathetic feeling for a living person who has arisen in his fantasy, but he will have to perform exactly the same work of analysis as anyone else in order to convey the essence of his feeling in a judgment. In his judgment he can be mistaken no less than anyone else; and often it is even more difficult for him than for others to carry out that necessary analysis, which should provide the elements for a clear and accurate judgment.

We have previously expressed very vague opinions about unconscious creativity, which caused a fair reaction. Without a doubt, it is impossible to admit that such a thing as artistic creation, which requires the full development of mental powers, taking place in the clearest element, in the very center of consciousness, that such a thing should at the same time be something unconscious, similar to a wordless and dark process of nature. These images, these tones, these ideas - what is all this if not leading to an enhanced, complete, clear consciousness of what happens in life dully, semi-consciously, unconsciously, absent-mindedly, accidentally? But there are different degrees and different types of consciousness. And sensation is consciousness, and concept is consciousness - but what a difference between these two types of consciousness! In the same way, there is a difference between an artistic image and the judgment that analyzes it. Without any doubt, this element of judgment certainly participates in the artist’s work, with greater or lesser force; No human endeavor can do without it, but in the work of an artist it plays a secondary role. If it prevailed and began to control the entire course of the matter, if the artist began to act according to the instructions of analysis, then we would get an allegory or an illustrated treatise, and not an image, not contemplation; we would not have at all that fullness of living impression, that polysyllabic content that requires analysis; Nor could the need for new labor of thought arise, wanting to give itself an account of its content.

The power that works miracles in a brilliant artist is not at all the exclusive destiny of anyone. This property is universal; it belongs to everyone to a greater or lesser extent, and everyone can experience in themselves the property and action of this force. When we happen to catch some significant feature in life and reproduce it in the imagination, then it itself, according to its strength and significance, will begin to attract all the elements that are essentially akin to it or with which its life has connected. One is complemented by the other by itself, and the less we interfere in the matter, the more accurately and completely the rapprochement of the elements seeking each other will occur. Outside interference will only weaken the progress of this matter, reduce this force of mutual attraction, frustrate the work and harm its success. We can only help this process in every way we can - remember, think, repeat observations, expand the circle of data, nourish and strengthen those elements that we have already found, so that they reveal their action with more energy, attract everything to themselves more fully and extensively similar to them. This is the whole secret of artistic types - and the artist only to a special extent possesses the conditions favorable to this process, and the strength of these conditions grows and develops from exercise, as with any other activity. The fidelity, depth and expressiveness of the types depend on this force and its development. True artists, at the same time, have the gift of imagination, the gift of individual contemplation, so that the type is not just a general scheme for them, but a living person, which acts on its own and is responsible for itself, and in which not everything is just a type, but there is also something completely individual.

It is impossible, however, to imagine this matter in such a way that it could be isolated from any more or less random influences or extraneous considerations. The truth of contemplation will not suffer in the least from the freedom with which the artist chooses his points of view, guided by general considerations, from the tone that he decides to give to his work, and, finally, from the motive that prompts him to connect a type with this or that individual character, put him in such or other circumstances.

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 too hard to be impartial, and these efforts were not without some consequences. It seems to us that if these efforts had not taken place, his work would have gained even more in its objectivity, while the principle of non-interference would have been observed even more fully. However, traces of these efforts are insignificant; they only show the direction of thought of the author, who not only does not deserve to be reproached for injustice to the hero, but, on the contrary, may rather be slightly reproached for being too suspicious, for making excessive efforts to be impartial, because excess in everything, even good things, can be more harmful, what is useful. But this excessive suspiciousness only appears here and there and immediately disappears, without causing much harm. The author was guided by another, more significant consideration. He wanted the type he had chosen to appear in his best clothes, so that nothing unfavorable from any extraneous accidents would be mixed into the impression he made. He wanted to create his hero from the best materials that could be suitable for this type. This hero is staged in such a way that his personality makes the most favorable impression for him. This personality is not immediately conspicuous by any weaknesses; Only everything that is beneficial is shown in appearance. We see before us a capable and strong man, who cannot be accused of any vulgarity. Even what could be imputed to him as a shortcoming or guilt inspires some respect 31. In no way does he seem funny or pitiful; he comes out of everything with some dignity. His courage is toute epreuve (unshakable - fr.), genuine courage, but completely natural. He remains completely calm under the bullet, and the author, not content with the impression of external appearance, makes us look into his soul, and we really see that the death that swept over his head made no more impression on him than a buzzing fly. He constantly maintains power over himself; his emotional moods, intentions and thoughts do not become entangled in reflections, do not linger, do not blur, but proceed along the shortest path to action. His words are always clear and concise; he expresses only what he wants to say, and wants to say only what is suitable for him. In short, whether anyone likes it or not, whether the spirit that is expressed in it is good or bad, it is staged by the author in such a way that it makes an impression strong nature. The author gives him a central place everywhere; everywhere he is the main point, and everything else is only grouped around him and only reveals his figure more sharply and clearly. Everything is positioned to give the impression of strength. Of the faces that come close to him, only one seems to erase him, one to whom he gives in: this is Odintsova. Another female figure, also independent, who could moderate the impression he makes, a young girl, Odintsova’s niece 32, is placed at a distance and never comes into contact with him. We have already talked about his young companion and admirer - a kind and gentle nature, like his father. And his father is an immature creature, untested by life, spineless, incapable of certain activities, embarrassed, although kind, meek, with unfading poetry in his soul. Both he and his brother are smart and good people and would be efficient people if they lived in a different environment, under conditions more favorable for the formation of character. If Pavel Petrovich had been born an English squire, he would perhaps have been a glorious justice of the peace and a reliable authority political party; just as with another, more serious education, the sensitive and pliable nature of Nikolai Petrovich would not have remained with only vague dreams and moods and quiet poetry his soul would be nourished with more vital juices and would find ways to express itself somehow more fruitfully in life. Poor, kind Nikolai Petrovich is completely destroyed not only in front of Bazarov, but even in front of his young son. His brother is a man of character; this one does not give up, strength is felt in him - but the strength is lost, which withered from inaction, from petty use in a fruitlessly lived life. He is irritable and nervous; but there is little real strength in it. You do him justice, you recognize him as a true gentleman, you respect his nobility; but you feel that he is a hero in the Mambrine helmet 33 and the author shows no mercy in his funny sides. This man, who has lost his past, without a present, without a future, is a ghost among the living, fruitlessly galvanized by impressions that irritate, boil him, but cannot resurrect the lost life. In clashes with him, Bazarov’s figure is shaded even more sharply; in comparison with it, the impression of strength produced by this figure is only more felt. There is nothing to say about other persons. The love of his old father, especially his mother, for Bazarov, reaching the point of reverence and self-forgetfulness, completes this impression of strength that accompanies Bazarov. So, he decisively dominates the entire scene. He is given full scope, and everything serves as soft material for him to express himself and declare his strength.

What does this power consist of? Is this real strength or just an optical illusion, the result of comparison with the surrounding softness and powerlessness? This question goes quite deep; it concerns those elements that are unconsciously and involuntarily felt by everyone in the general impression. This question seeks the key to that secret antipathy that Bazarov arouses, to that bitter and caustic feeling that people who carry his spirit in their hearts must inevitably experience.

Stepping beyond) is a term denoting spheres of existence that go beyond the limits of our sensory, experiential knowledge. In relation to Hegel's philosophy - Absolute Spirit, the development of which constitutes the history of mankind. One of Schelling’s major works is called “The System of Transcendental Idealism” (1800).

Phalanstery(phalanstery) - in the utopia of the French socialist Charles Fourier, a house-palace in which one phalanx lives (the social unit of the future of humanity).

A circle of people who reasoned and argued “about important mothers”- the circle of Moscow Hegelians (Bakunin, Herzen, Belinsky, etc.), to which Katkov belonged; unity between being and non-being- one of the provisions of Hegel’s philosophy (“Science of Logic”); about Russian Hegelianism, see, for example, “Past and Thoughts” by Herzen, part IV, ch. XXV; “about important mothers”- Griboyedov, “Woe from Wit”, no. 4, yavl. 4.

In the history of philosophy crying Heraclitus is traditionally called a philosopher, laughing- Democritus.

Trade execution- punishment with a whip or flogger in a public place. Abolished in 1863. This refers to the following passage from Antonovich’s article: “One great philosopher of antiquity (I think Empedocles or some other) was reproached for the fact that, busy with worries about his teaching, he did not care about his parents and relatives; he replied that his calling was dearest to him<...>All this may seem cruel, but it is not easy for children to experience such a break with their fathers; maybe it is painful for them and they decide on it after a persistent internal struggle with themselves” (Antonovich M.A. Literary Critical Articles. M.–L., 1961. P. 86).

Bhagavani- the cruel hypostasis of the goddess Kali, the wife of Shiva; depicted with bloody fangs.

Obviously, Katkov means Katya, Anna Sergeevna’s sister.

Hero in Mambrine Helmet- Don Quixote (see, for example, Part I, Chapter 21 of Cervantes’ novel).

The article was published with the support of the open online literature directory Cwetochki.ru. Its pages contain texts literary works, studied in the course school curriculum, V full version and in the form summary. The site can also be used as an auxiliary source of information when obtaining education on your own, since the directory provides the opportunity to familiarize yourself with the analysis and criticism of works, and consult with literature teachers for free.

One fine day two young progressives rode from the north into the peaceful lull of the countryside, bringing with them alive a new spirit that had previously reached there only in vague echoes or weak and caricatured manifestations. One of these young progressives, a man no longer in his early youth, is a fully formed and mature man, and it is mainly in him that this new spirit resides.

“What’s in your soul?.. Who are you, what are you?” - they ask this guest. “You surprise me,” he replies, “you know that I study natural sciences.”

So, the spirit of research, clear and precise thought, positive knowledge has come to our wilderness. How opportune! That's what we were missing. Yes, this is truly the spirit of the new times, conquering one region after another. This spirit of clear and precise thought is not limited in our time only to those sciences that are usually called natural; it extends everywhere, and there is no mental sphere that in our time does not place its strength and dignity in clear thought and positive knowledge.

Bazarov’s first thing, upon arriving in the village to visit the father of his young admirer, was to go into the swamp to look for frogs. He laid out his shells and filled his room with a chemical smell. The company sits over morning tea, and he, a stern worker, drags his prey from the swamp and, without stopping, fragmentarily answers annoying questions... It is told in such a way that you won’t falter at anything and actually believe that the tireless one has arrived an explorer of the secrets of nature, who does not want to waste a minute of time and, without having time to wipe his eyes from sleep after a long journey, without having time to look around the new place, get acquainted with the owners and drink tea, hurries on an educational excursion, sends the boys into the swamp for frogs, in brief but expressive words he explains to them what they are needed for and that in essence a man and a frog are one and the same. “Come on, philosopher,” he says to a six-year-old boy who has been chatting too much, while every minute is precious to our natural scientist: he must immediately carry out an important experiment on the nervous system.

What was visible in this: was it a serious matter or not? The author leaves us without any hint. If there had been any intention on his part, then this intention would certainly have responded one way or another in the tone of his story. Suspicious eyes inquisitorially observed all the movements of the author in his work and were ready to see malicious intent in everything; but not a single critic thought of dwelling on this point. Indeed, there is not the slightest irony here. The author only took the spirit of science that our social environment presented to him and let it act, without taking responsibility for anything. It may very well be that it never occurred to the author to ask himself whether this was a serious matter or not; but, without a doubt, in the sum of the general impression, everyone must have felt that this was not a serious matter. What kind of Dubois Remond, or Rudolf Wagner, or, perhaps, this very George Henry Lewis, about whom we had so much talk, appeared in holy Rus'? And if he did appear, would this typical feature that Bazarov is depicted, this feature, filled with such artistic truth in Mr. Turgenev’s novel, really be suitable for them? What amazing eagerness, as if the frogs in the swamp could not wait a day or two! And we feel all the more strongly the unnaturalness of this zeal because our natural scientist is not at all some eccentric scientist, not at all some buried specialist; he lives like everyone else, and walks, and idle, and does nothing.

“I was looking at the views of Saxon Switzerland in your album,” Bazarov once said to a lady who interested him, “and you noticed to me that this could not occupy me. You said this because you do not assume artistic sense in me, and indeed in me it no; but these species could interest me from a geological point of view, from the point of view of mountain formation, for example."

Isn’t it before us again the image of the same naturalist who was in such a hurry to surprise the frogs in the swamp? He despises artistic interest; he even views the ladies' album as nothing other than "from a geological point of view, from the point of view of mountain formation."

A bored secular woman became interested in our scientist. He arouses her curiosity, and she makes him the subject of her observations and experiments, and meanwhile passion begins to boil within him. Let our natural scientist, forgetting about his chemical shells, about his microscope and frogs, sit down with a spinning wheel at the feet of his Omphale; no, he does not forget that he is a scientist; he does not see that this lady, talking to him about physics and chemistry, does not at all intend to study the properties of oxygen or experiments with a Leyden jar; he does not see that she wants to study not something else, but himself, and he recommends her a course in chemistry by Pelus and Fremy and a course in physics by Gano, and begins to calculate all the merits of these textbooks; he suddenly spoke as if he had learned a lesson, and would not stop until the interlocutor herself interrupted him and directed the conversation in a different direction. He doesn’t engage in such a conversation with Mrs. Kukshina; He does not recommend this “Physics” by Gano; here it is not tense; here he is, as they say, at ease; here he does not care about content and does not indulge in science.

Finally, this book by Buchner, which plays the role of some kind of talisman, a book that a serious natural scientist, moreover, a positive person who does not want to waste minutes of time on empty talk (“a positive person, uninteresting, I can’t talk”), would least of all think about. spreading a chemical smell everywhere, always working on frogs and ciliates: could such idle thinking as Buchner’s book attract the attention of a serious specialist, as Bazarov wants to appear in his eyes?

There is no doubt that science here is not anything serious and that it must be discounted. If there is real power in this Bazarov, then it is something else, and not science. With his science he can only have significance in the environment where he finds himself; with his science he can only suppress his old father, young Arkady and Madame Kukshina. He is just a lively schoolboy who learned his lesson better than others and who was promoted to auditor for that reason. However, he is so smart that he himself is aware of this, he himself expresses this, although not about himself personally, but in general about his compatriots in comparison with real researchers in those countries where this is a serious matter. He himself does not recognize the special significance of his scientific studies; for him they are only a fulcrum, only a means for a further goal, and his goal is of a completely different nature and has nothing to do with science. His experiments on frogs would not lead to discoveries. He is diligently engaged in all this, but in the same way as in the past, young and even quite mature people diligently studied philosophy, traveling from one German university to another, listening, writing down and religiously re-reading in their notebooks the doctrine of Sein And Nichts. Poor young people! They didn't want to fool anyone, they only fooled themselves. They puffed up, tensed up and wasted their mental strength on the fruitless task of appearing to be great philosophers in their own eyes. How many difficult moments they experienced, how they indulged in melancholy, how they suffered at the slightest hint that they were working in vain! They were ready to cry and torment themselves, at the slightest gleam of their own consciousness, that they were fooling around in vain, that they were not philosophers at all, that it would be much more useful to engage in some more modest business or some science that would better correspond to their real needs that they are destroying themselves by drowning out these needs, distracting themselves from meaningful activities and thereby becoming incapable of anything.

True, the sciences that Bazarov lays claim to are of a different nature. They are generally accessible and simple, they school thought and accustom it to sobriety and self-restraint. These sciences abandon the pursuit of the first causes and essence of things. Each adheres to its own fact and does not deviate from it, or deviates only as much as necessary to embrace it in generality; observation and experience are their the only source of, and their whole purpose is only to make known the fact. Any mind can find a place for itself in this work, from the most modest to the most brilliant. Clever and capable person As our hero is, he could, of course, study both chemistry and physiology, not without success. But he is not at all concerned about becoming a specialist in this or that part; it is not the positive part of science that he needs; he deals with the natural sciences more as a sage, in the interest of the first causes and essence of things. He is engaged in these sciences because, in his opinion, they directly lead to the solution of questions about these first causes. He is already convinced in advance that natural sciences lead to a negative solution to these questions, and he needs them as a tool for destroying prejudices and for convincing people of the inspiring truth that there are no first causes, and that a man and a frog are essentially the same thing .

This wisdom, indeed, characterizes the modern mental phase in our dear fatherland. We have no natural sciences, and no sciences at all; our young chemists, according to Mr. Turgenev’s remark, do not know how to distinguish oxygen from nitrogen; Our magazine physiologists have never been to the anatomical theater in their lives, and yet, by the way and inappropriately, every now and then they talk about brains and nerves. The fact is that we study natural sciences from the books of Feuerbach and Buchner or, even better, from Noack’s journal. Under the guise of natural sciences, we are also engaged in German philosophy or that side degeneracy of it, which is just as similar to philosophy as to the natural sciences.

We do not like the narrow and difficult path of the naturalist. We will take only a few things from him, for force or for contention, and let's take a different, broader path; We are not researchers, not testers - let others pore over the facts and engage in science for knowledge - we are sages and teachers of faith. We preach a religion of nihilism, we we deny : this is our purpose, our pride and glory. One of the critics noticed that this nihilism introduces a spirit of fruitful doubt, which frees the mind from blind faith in authority, and brought Cartesius, Kant, and even Confucius here. One can probably say that our critic is as familiar with philosophical doubt as with the language in which the wise Confucius spoke. Doubt is not an easy task and not accessible to everyone. Only a few strong minds are capable of real, serious doubt regarding the highest questions of knowledge. Here are Descartes and Kant, they were capable of it, and if our critic, in turn, had been able to get to know them, he would have learned from them what doubt is, how it is done and what it comes to. Our philosophers are quite sure that doubting and denying are one and the same thing, and that whoever doubts must certainly come to denial. But doubt neither posits nor denies; doubt, real, true doubt, allows for the possibility of contrary solutions. And where the possibility of opposite decisions is allowed, it means that a decision has not been made in either direction. Doubt poses a question, arouses energy for research, for criticism, for the most precise determination of the strength of our concepts, for distinguishing between what we know and what we do not know; it leads to abstinence and tolerance, if not to final certification. But if our doubt leans in one direction or the other, it is a sign that the decision has already been made by us and that a dogmatic element is already present in our criticism. If our doubt tends towards denial, then we are no longer just doubting, we are already more or less confident and do not need doubt. If we deny, then it means that the matter has already been decided by us in advance, decided beyond doubt; we only deceive ourselves by imagining that we doubt; we resolved the matter simply and directly. We did without any research or questioning, without any criticism; we have nothing to verify, and, rejecting the possibility of an opposite decision, we treat with more or less intolerance not only those who made the opposite decision, but also those who admit the possibility of one or the other; we become intolerant of tolerance itself. This kind of negative direction is not a matter of thought; on the contrary, it serves as a sign of the absence of any interest in thought and knowledge. It not only refrains from making a decision - which does not at all mean to deny - it has already decided all the questions without even asking them to itself. “Sic volo, sic jubeo,” it says, like Juvenal’s matron. People predisposed in this way, people predisposed in denial, do not want evidence; all kinds of research are tedious and boring to them, because all research seems unnecessary to them; they are already convinced and consider themselves quite knowledgeable. The negative direction is a kind of religion - an overturned religion, full of internal contradiction and nonsense, but nevertheless a religion that can have its teachers and fanatics. The interest of denial, prevailing over everything, attracts these fanatics to everything that is only imprinted by the nature of denial. No matter how a negative result is obtained, as long as it is Orthodox negative, it takes possession of these minds as inspiration and is accepted as a dogma, without any hesitation or doubt. In this negative dogmatism, all mental productivity ceases, all desires for truth and knowledge disappear. There is nothing to achieve, everything has been decided, and everything is nonsense.

The religion of denial is directed against all authorities, and is itself based on the crudest worship of authority. She has her merciless idols. Everything that has a negative character is already eo ipso 14 an immutable dogma in the eyes of these sectarians. The more decisive the denial, the less it reveals hesitation and doubt, the better, the more powerful the authority, the more exalted the idol, the more unshakable the faith. The negative dogmatist is not bound by anything; his word is as free as a bird; in his mind there are no definite formations, no positive interests that could stop and delay him; he has nothing to defend, nothing to protect; he is relieved of the need to make ends meet. He only needs complete self-confidence and the ability to use all means for the purpose of denial. The less he examines the means, the better. In this regard, he completely agrees with the Jesuit fathers and fully accepts their famous rule that the end sanctifies all means.

Is this negative dogmatism, this religion of nihilism, a phenomenon that characterizes the spirit of our age? Is it permissible to think that this phenomenon is a worldwide historical phase that the educated peoples of our time are experiencing? No, our time is famous primarily for its freedom and tolerance, its science, the spirit of research and criticism, which does not neglect anything and does not condemn anything. The spirit of dogmatic negation cannot be a general feature of any world era; but it is possible at any time, to a greater or lesser extent, as a social disease that takes possession of certain minds and certain spheres of thought. As a private phenomenon, it occurs in our time, to a greater or lesser extent, in some social environments; but, like any evil, it finds counteraction everywhere in the powerful forces of civilization. Education, science, political and industrial life, the development and competition of all kinds of interests, freedom of conscience, the educational influence of the environment, the living power of tradition - these are the obstacles that this phenomenon encounters in the educated societies of our time. But if in this phenomenon it is impossible to see a general sign of our time, then we undoubtedly recognize in it a characteristic feature of mental life in our fatherland at the current moment. In no other social environment could the Bazarovs have a wide range of actions and appear to be strongmen or giants; in any other environment, at every step, the deniers themselves would be continually subjected to denial; at every meeting they would have to repeat to themselves what Bazarov said before his death: “Yes, go and try to deny death: it denies me, and that’s it.” But in our civilization, which does not have any independent strength in itself, in our small mental world, where there is nothing that stands firmly, where there is not a single interest that is not ashamed and embarrassed of itself and has any faith in its existence - the spirit of nihilism could develop and acquire meaning. This mental environment naturally falls under nihilism and finds its truest expression in it.

We cannot complain that our civilization is meager. On the contrary, what is not in it? All sorts of ideas circulate in our mental circulation. We know all languages ​​and are familiar with all literatures. We touch subjects of all knowledge and all spheres of life. But this wealth, as everyone knows, is banknotes, and counterfeit ones at that. The wealth of our education is imaginary wealth; this is a hackneyed truth, repeated a thousand times in every way, starting from famous saying : "gatter le Russe" 15 - to the equally famous doctrine of isolation from the people's soil. All modes of figurative expression have been exhausted in our literature to express this idea. The fact is that the concepts that make up our mental formation do not have the meaning of actual forces. No matter how many of them we have, no matter how diverse they are, and even no matter how clear and strong they are in individual people (which, incidentally, is a great rarity), they are not organizing, that is, social forces. Only those ideas are real forces which are not limited to flourishing in disparate minds, but extend their action further and are revealed as principles that unite people. However, everything that does not reveal such power remains imaginary, imaginary, invalid. Ideas that gather people into groups, connecting them into various, more or less strong formations, all this is what we call social forces. Where these forces are absent or where they are suppressed, education will always be a ghost, and no matter how rich its content may be, it will have no meaning, and individuals will always feel the powerlessness of their education. Whatever happens in their heads, everything will bear the stamp of the imaginary, the unreal; there will be no harmony between their words and thoughts, there will be no organic connection between their thoughts and actions. Everything in them will be unsteady and shaky, everything will be doubtful for them, and their own moral personality will appear to them like a ghost, their own mental organization will frighten them like a ghost. There is no individual person; Everywhere a person is part of some living connection, some social organization; Everywhere he is connected with other people, and everywhere his life and education are determined by the environment. A person, taken separately from his environment, is nothing more than a fiction or an abstraction. His moral and mental organization, or, generally speaking, his concepts, are valid in him only when he finds them as the organizing forces of the environment in which he happens to live and think. But the characteristic difference of our environment is that it is deprived of these organizing forces that group people as a common interest to all of them, passing through them and living among them. There is nothing more difficult than finding something positive in our social environment on which people could agree. You will not bind three people into one whole on some positive interest; in any case, the connection between them will not last long and will not prove fruitful. But there is nothing easier than to unite people with each other in something negative. On the positive side, everyone will quarrel, and things won’t work out; on the negative, everyone will easily become friends, and things will boil. Even in the sphere of so-called material interests we notice the same phenomenon. This is the historical fate of our civilization. History has broken all our social bonds and given a negative direction to our artificial civilization. It itself is entirely based on negations; There is not a single social foundation that feels inviolable, there is not a single social force that is not suppressed or given the opportunity to develop. Nothing is allowed to flow spontaneously and naturally, and, instead of living organic forces, people feel themselves in mechanical combinations, completely external and alien to life. People thus live a double life - an external one, in which they do not take any mental or moral part, and an internal one, which is more like the world of dreams than reality.

So, the strength of our nihilism lies not in the quality of its content - it consists in not having any essential content - but in the circumstances of the environment. The environment makes it a force; it determines its meaning and development. Denial after negation gives rise to a tendency to deny, forms a habit, and from this tendency, from this skill, finally grows an irresistible passion, which, like any passion, can reach the point of insanity, losing all definition and every object. Negations for the sake of negation are the essence of this passion.

The nature of force also gives nihilism its unconditional dogmatic character. His strength lies in the fact that he does not allow any doubt or hesitation and, as a result, is filled with self-confidence and determination. And everything that has the character of undoubted dogmatism produces a charming effect on people. There were, and still are, entire religious cults that were based on the idea of ​​annihilation; the masses of people were overwhelmed by this fanaticism of destruction, in which they saw the final goal of everything. There is now a famous sect in India tags, which makes its terrible sacrifices to a secret idol, irresistibly and blindly possessing its fans. In essence, the same phenomenon is repeated in nihilism, repeated in another sphere, in a different setting, under different conditions. This, in a small way, is the same spirit, only speaking in a different language and acting in other forms.

The spirit of this new cult, of course, affects people to varying degrees. Some embody his spirit; others submit to him outwardly, because they see in him a dominant force, against which they do not find any resistance in themselves. Soul catchers, priests and teachers appear, and weak people submit to their authority and blindly follow them.

What, however, motivates people to such service? How can such a strange power be embodied in them? How are they aware of their aspirations, and what interest might this propaganda have for them? But can we give an account of everything that possesses us and captivates us? Every passion, every inclination, and even every skill possesses a person unconsciously, although people nevertheless feel the urge to explain and justify even that to which they blindly submit. These explanations and justifications do not touch the essence of the matter at all, and with them people only deceive themselves. Adherents of religious cults of destruction had their own belief systems; they had their promises. The little cult of our nihilism also has its own creed, its own dogmas, and it has its own promises. Teachers of nihilism find in various utopias, on the one hand, a justification for their cult, and on the other, an auxiliary means of propaganda. But utopias also have another, more significant meaning for them; Utopias themselves serve as the best weapons of negation and destruction. The unrealizable, unnatural, impossible, seeming to be a completely possible and natural thing, has a stupefying effect on the minds and completes the disintegration of their organization - which is what is required. Everything close, practically possible, everything real is more easily rejected due to the distant and dreamy, intoxicating people - and this is the interest of nihilism.

Nevertheless, nihilism does not consist in utopias: they serve only as an auxiliary means. Smart people, priests and teachers, cannot help but recognize in the depths of their souls the futility of these fantasies, but they do not consider it necessary to undermine faith in them; on the contrary, they consider it necessary and proper to support this belief and even encourage others to engage in all sorts of foolishness.

The more a person is imbued with his service, the more the spirit he serves is embodied in him, the more fully and firmly all his personal interests are connected with this service. This is what incarnation means. All human interests are more or less directly connected with this dominant interest. Everything receives nourishment from it, and everything, in turn, nourishes it. A person in it is clearer, warmer, more at ease, and finally, more profitable. It is associated with self-love, pride, self-respect and the respect of others. Like any cult, nihilism can have among its followers hypocrites, fanatics, simple deceivers, and more or less selfless servants. People can gather under his banner different varieties. Active and capable people can indulge in it all the more willingly because they feel the strength in it. Seeing how easily nihilistic concepts take hold of minds, how little they meet with resistance, how, on the contrary, everything pleases them and everything feeds them, people impulsive are attracted to them because they can give them meaning both in their own eyes and in the eyes of others.

In Bazarovo our author took one of best types nihilism. He belongs to the people impulsive. Like all our educated people, he took away the good inclinations of this spirit of denial straight from school - he brought out its seed, which found fertile soil in him. Like all our so-called educated people, in his mind tenacious and strong elements It turns out only that which is imprinted by a denying character; everything else turns out to be weak, dead, rotten, subject to denial. He keeps all this rubbish to himself only to perform the operation of decomposition on it. He is the complete opposite of those “rodents”, “Samoyeds”, “Hamletics” whom Mr. Turgenev so masterfully portrayed in his other types. They doubted everything; but they doubted in the most false and most fruitless way. They doubted not out of love for the truth, not out of interest in the matter; on the contrary, they doubted everything out of emptiness and idleness. As a matter of fact, they were not occupied with anything else except their own personality, and it was this that they subjected to the torture of doubt, it was this that they tormented, tormented and torn apart. Not finding the strength to do anything and forget themselves in anything, they always compared themselves with various ideals that floated before them, and always turned to themselves with various claims, and were always dissatisfied, and always gnawing at themselves. But nihilists are people of a completely different nature; they hold on to nothing and have given up everything at once; They have nothing to doubt, they are ready-made workers. They honor their own person as a vessel of great power and do not compare themselves with any ideals; they find complete satisfaction for their pride in the current activity of general denial and destruction of everything. They have no need to gnaw and break themselves; they are quite pleased with themselves - they are quite satisfied with the fact that everything is easy to give in, easy to break, easy to deny. They have no need to turn on themselves, they attack others and attack all the more willingly because everything falls by itself. “You haven’t grown up to us,” says Bazarov to young Arkady, “you involuntarily admire yourself, you enjoy scolding yourself; but for us it’s boring - give us others! We need to break others!” They find the measure of their dignity and self-respect in the emptiness that forms around them. They love and honor themselves with all the contempt that the insignificance of the environment, devoid of any power of resistance, inspires in them. These people will certainly have the appearance of strong and, moreover, business-like people, directly moving towards the goal, free from any suspicious and enervating thoughts, from all idle dreams. This is what the hero of Turgenev’s novel looks like. In this regard, a special characteristic feature is given to him by the fact that he does not belong to the breed barichs. These latter are never serious deniers; They indulge in nihilism out of amateurism, because of their youth, out of stupidity, also because they see in it advanced wisdom, and because they easily fall into the net, finding that it is better to be an instrument of negation than to serve as its target.

The author produced his hero from poor parents, from that agitated environment that flows into our privileged class, clusters on its outskirts and seeps into it from different sides. His father was a commoner who rose to the nobility and became a small landowner, the owner of one or two dozen souls. Even more characteristic is the fact that Bazarov is the grandson of a sexton, “like Speransky,” he once said to his young friend, curling his lips. Perhaps the figure of Bazarov would have been even more typical if the author had directly descended him from a sexton.

When we talk about closed classes, they usually mean the nobility and rarely remember the whole huge class, which, due to its disunity, is even more like a caste than the nobility. We mean the spiritual class. Currently in general Christendom there is nothing similar to this special caste, which was formed among us by chance under the name of the clergy. In Catholic countries, as is known, the clergy is recruited from all classes of society, and, with all the isolation, with all the strictness of the church organization, the people who join it do not constitute a special breed, simply because the Catholic clergy is celibate. In Protestant countries, clergy are not bound by celibacy; but they do not constitute a special breed, do not form a caste, due to the general civil situation of these countries. Thus, both the Catholic and Protestant worlds were saved from Levitism, which has so little in common with the spirit of Christianity, and at the same time so little favorable to the development of national and civil life. Levitism formed among us by itself, as a result of the inertia of our life, under the influence of alien legal principles introduced into it. As soon as a closed noble breed, a warrior caste, was formed, then the Levite breed, a spiritual caste, was formed by itself. The entrance to this latter is not legally closed, and the exit is also not closed; but the entrance to it is completely overgrown with grass, and if many come out of it, then the mass remains. Church positions are passed on from generation to generation, remaining in the constant possession of a special social breed. If until recently elements from different social strata were attracted to the nobility, there could be no such attraction to the clergy, and the white clergy was not renewed by new elements, but was multiplied by generation. The position that our church occupied in relation to society and the state, as well as the predominance of the black clergy in it, was the reason that isolated the clergy class and cut off the path to it from other social strata. Despite their high appointment, the white clergy has become a humiliated class in our country, constrained in their activities and deprived of any significance in the matter of social development.

The principles that create a moral organization, the principles that gather people into one body, the more strongly they are expressed and act, the more diverse in all other respects the elements that gather in response to their call are. The power of any beginning is most accurately measured by the connecting effect that it has on heterogeneous elements. If, due to some historical fate, the principles living in society cease to exert such a unifying effect, then they little by little weaken and lose the sense of their own existence. They disappear from both the consciousness and will of people, leaving behind them an idle, often disgraced name. This law of moral organizations is obvious: since there is no difference in quality in the elements gathered for one service, then it cannot reveal its strength in their combination; these elements do not need a strong vital movement in order to gather and form one whole; they are already in casual unity with each other; they are already so close to each other that they have no need, and there is no place, to energetically move closer to each other; in their unity they do not experience the living action of that principle that accidentally covers them with its name; the connection between them is essentially alien to this principle; it does not declare itself in it, it does not act in it - and this is why the unfortunate contradiction very often arises between name and thing, between word and deed, between purpose and reality. Under such circumstances, any title loses its spirit or a spirit of a special kind is acquired in it, bad or good, but, in any case, alien to its essence. Every principle acts only where people draw closer to each other in its name, and it acts to the extent that it overcomes other attractions in people, overpowers other attractions; Only under this condition can people appear with a fruitful sense of calling, with an effective power of conviction. Caste and everything similar to it does not represent such a condition. Where there is a caste, there cannot be a spirit of vocation, there cannot be any living interest. Where people are grouped together by race, a common spirit of service according to calling cannot develop. As long as the caste remains in dissociation with life, as long as vital currents from the outside do not penetrate into it, as long as the people living in it are protected by general inertia from all extraneous attractions and attractions, from all kinds of testing inspirations and temptations, so long the internal contradiction remains hidden, and existence the social body is maintained by its numbness. But at the first movement of free air, this contradiction will immediately appear, and signs of decay will develop to terrifying proportions. The social body in its renegades can become a rich source of evil denials of the very principle whose name it bears.

And our nihilism cannot help but find profit in the scions of the spiritual class. Thanks to the current circumstances, it is between them that he can recruit the most impulsive champions. It is from here that his religious teachers can emerge most easily and most surely, both capable and strong enough for their work. And therefore, we repeat, a very true instinct prompted Mr. Turgenev to bring his nihilist into some connection with this class. This feature would be very expressive if the artist took more advantage of it; the hero's physiognomy would be clearer, and much of him would become even more natural; there would be no need to resort to some efforts to highlight this figure, to duels and the like; there would be no need for certain features, too exceptional and not enough typical, in order to more sharply define it.

In general, as we have already noticed, there are some ambiguities in the figure of this hero. In other places, the author’s imagination seemed to waver, and the consequence of these fluctuations is that it is sometimes difficult to separate the purely individual properties of the person depicted from his typical properties. Bazarov does not play such a role as to receive meaning as an individual character, and therefore all the features in this figure that are devoid of a certain typical meaning seem unclear and unfinished in him. But we had no intention of analyzing the novel and the characters depicted in it; we are only touching on some points of general significance, and in relation to them we are trying to grasp and identify the typical features of the volatile phenomenon of our modern social environment.

Bazarov is the enemy of the phrase - this is a very good sign. He can't stand lies and affectation - what's better? He arms himself against all pretentiousness and idleness: shouldn’t we honor him for this as a man of stern truth and sincere action? So, here he is, the formidable pursuer of the phrase, eating away at our thoughts, the merciless destroyer of all these soap bubbles that float over our civilization, artificial and false, - all these ghosts that deprive us of a sense of reality! Here it is, the sobering-up we were so looking forward to. What need is it that he is called a nihilist? Let us applaud him, the nihilist.

So, therefore, this is why he renounces art, this is why he is wary of any play of fantasy! Called to sober up our mental life, he abhors everything that has a softening effect on the weak human mind. That is why one critic proclaimed him a mental ascetic, while another worshiped him as a man of action par excellence. And how can you not bow? He came to put an end to our idleness, idle talk and phrase-mongering; with his asceticism he will redeem us from this harmful ulcer, he will lead us out of the fog into the clear light of positive action.

Alas, all this is in vain! All this is the same deception of the senses as science with its frogs and microscopes. Our hero is not only not the enemy of the phrase, not only not the enemy of affectation and falsehood, but on the contrary - he is the phrase himself, he is the affectation and falsehood. He does not tolerate a certain kind of phrase, because he himself is devoted to a different kind. He does not pursue a phrase, but only that kind or that kind of it that is not to his liking and which is opposite to his own family. He does not like, for example, a “beautiful” phrase. “Oh, my friend, Arkady Nikolaevich,” he says to his young admirer, “I ask one thing, don’t talk so beautifully!” He beats up a beautiful phrase, but he himself flaunts his roughness and cruelty, flaunts his mental asceticism, phrases his hatred of the phrase, shows off his claims to simplicity of thought and deed. It is very easy to verify this. You can hate lies sincerely, and not falsely, only out of love for the truth. It is possible to deny the false in thought and life only because of something positive. Where denial reigns, where it is the beginning and the end, where all wisdom consists of a series of zeros and minuses, there true hatred of lies is impossible, there this hatred of lies will itself turn out to be an even worse lie. Opposition to the bad and false can only arise in the feeling of those principles that are distorted and dishonored in false phenomena. You can’t hate a lie like crazy; You can’t suddenly hate a phrase. One must feel and respect the positive norms that the phrase encroaches on. In a person experiencing a strong feeling, it is understandable to have contempt and indignation for any affectation, for any feigned expression of the same feeling. Anyone who has experienced any moral mood through personal experience will easily recognize its caricature and will rightly be disgusted by it. A person who truly knows will be outraged by the false appearance of knowledge much more than by simple ignorance. A person who is a true believer will be outraged by the selfish and hypocritical appearance of faith even more than by unbelief. A person who truly has an instinct for freedom in his soul will be offended by its false appearance even more than by the crude and naive absence of any instinct of freedom. Everywhere and in everything, our denials will have truth only to the extent that we feel and recognize the power of positive principles, perverted in their false manifestations. But this little wisdom, which marks the last phase of our mental development, consists of nothing but negations. We already know this simple system well; it has already completed a full cycle of its theoretical development; it is expressed in every way. Denial for the sake of negation, that’s her whole secret; nothing at the beginning and nothing at the end, that’s all its power. Where can a nihilist come from to hate falsehood and phrases? Will there be truth in this hatred? Will this hatred itself be nothing more than a most hateful phrase?

Nihilism is the sweetest good nature in young Arkady, a student and admirer of our hero. The same teaching is a disgusting affectation and ridiculous vulgarity in Madame Kukshina and Sitnikov, other admirers of the same hero. And what is it in the hero himself? The content of this wisdom is the same everywhere, but only in different people it takes on different colors. Even in Bazarov it cannot be anything other than emptiness. However, there is something in him that others do not have. There is something in it that gives a certain strength to emptiness, that gives a certain sincerity to a lie, that imparts to a phrase the character of a real thought and a true feeling. In Bazarov, nihilism is not simple-minded naivety; there is no vulgar pretentiousness in it. There is one rather sincere feeling in him, which is more or less mixed into everything, and everything more or less gives the stamp of something serious and practical. This element, which the students do not have and which the teacher has, this element is a rather sincere and genuine feeling of bitterness that is visible in him. His scientific research is a phrase; his concern for social ills is a phrase; his general views, his talk about art, about knowledge, about people, about social institutions, about general failure, about the need for a wholesale breakup, about non-recognition of authorities, about the denial of all principles of life and thought - all this is complete idleness and idle talk. So; but all this is mixed with a small drop of true poison, real malice, and this whole mixture takes on more or less serious significance and inspires respect in those around him. The only thing that saves Bazarov from phrases is this dose of natural poison, which imparts a vital glow to his thoughts. In her is the source of his mental energy, in her is his inspiration, in her is his strength, in her is he distinguished from his admirers, who do not have any serious element in their mental organization.

Every real element in the human mind, even if it is a particle of poison, imparts strength and life to its manifestations; everything that truly exists, even if it is of the worst nature, has this secret, in contrast to what is imaginary, invented, falsely existing, lied. Where and how this drop of poison that operates in our nihilist was developed - we will not look for this; Yes, there is no mention of this in the novel itself. But often, in the life of societies, this drop, developed under very specific conditions, is then generalized and passed on from person to person, from generation to generation, connecting with the most diverse views, mixing into the most diverse systems, expressing itself in the most diverse actions. Here she had to live in the mind of a nihilist, animate his words and add color to reality to his thoughts. Consider the content of his thoughts to be nonsense, and there is no content in them at all, but please respect this drop of poison, recognize it as reality and give it its due with serious care, so that it loses its power and gives way to others, best sources mental energy.

Looking at Turgenev's Bazarov, everyone will say that he is an honest man. Despite all the malice of critics who accused the author of having a hostile feeling towards his hero, it is certain that the author did not diminish him at all and did not take away from him a single feature that could make an impression favorable to him. Everything that speaks in favor of the hero catches the eye. This is not enough; Looking at Turgenev's Bazarov, you must admit that honesty in him is not some random, purely individual quality; you must admit that this is a typical trait in him. You feel that he will not resort to any meanness, like, for example, Sitnikov. True, he is still young, life has not yet tested him; but you feel that he is quite insured against everything petty and contemptuous by his pride, his enormously developed conceit. If the sincere feeling of bitterness that gives the tone to his mind saves him from vulgarity, then this pride saves him from petty meanness. It is impossible for him not to be, in a certain sense and to a certain extent, an honest person; otherwise he would have to break himself and give up the height on which he stands in his own eyes. He honors the strength within himself, and it is impossible for him to offend it by calling for a contemptuous and petty matter. It is impossible for him to imagine himself in a position that, from any angle, would show him in a pitiful form. He must be tall and strong; he must inspire respect for himself - and this is not just a calculation in him, it is a vital need for him. People of this sort can perhaps reach the point of heroism in this regard.

What? this is not bad, we will say again. Whatever the opinions of these people, should we not give honor to these opinions at least for the fact that they elevate a person above the contemptuous and vile? Of course, it would be impossible not to pay this honor; but at the slightest insight we are disappointed again. For such people, it is not immoral that is immoral, but only the impression of contempt and pitifulness. The norm of their morality does not determine the quality of an action; it determines only its size and relative importance. Whatever the source of the action and whatever its object, they ask only how they will appear in it, great or small, whether it will be in the eyes of others or in their own. The same act, with the same combination of its factors, will, according to this norm, seem both dishonest and honest, depending on what it looks like, small or large, what impression it makes - a contemptuous trifle or a respectful event, - vaudeville farce or epic rhapsody. Our nihilist will not agree to petty deception, because petty deception will lower him even in his own feelings, in his conceit; but he will commit the same deception, only on a grandiose scale, with full readiness, because deception on such a scale will be felt by him as strength and will exalt his self-esteem. “You, brother, are still stupid, I see,” Bazarov said to his young admirer, “We need the Sitnikovs. I, understand this, I need such idiots. It’s not for the gods, in fact, to burn pots!”

So, our hero will not resort to meanness; but he does not abhor it because its motives are vile, that the meaning of the vile act contradicts his moral feeling and consciousness of duty - he denies this moral feeling and consciousness of duty in their foundations - no, he abhors meanness only because of its miserable nature, because its pettiness and humiliation for his person. Take away this meager character, give away the dimensions of an essentially the same act, exalt this act with some distant goals, so that it does not seem contemptuous and petty - our hero will willingly commit it and will be proud of it. Consequently, the question here may not be about moral or immoral, not about honest or dishonest, but only about the impression of strength or powerlessness, only about the size of the action - about the size of contemptuous and vile in its smallness or respectful and honorable in its volume, in its multiplicity expected consequences, for distant goals to which it can lead.

Where can a sense of positive morality come from in a mind that corrupts and rots its foundations within itself? It would be strange to demand from Bazarov a morality other than that which is determined by his pride and conceit. We must take it as it is; I should probably thank him for this too. Nevertheless, the artistic depiction of this typical person must have resonated with bitterness and humiliation in the minds sympathetic to him.

In conclusion, let us ask ourselves, does this nihilism have serious significance in our country and is it destined for a future? There is a drop of poison in it, that’s true; therefore, one cannot deny it serious significance. True, this value must still be measured by the volume of the environment in which it is found. Our mental environment is still so small, so insignificant, that the phenomena occurring in it, of whatever nature, cannot be of very great importance. But this environment is constantly expanding, the number of people belonging to it is growing continuously, and what does not have of great importance, can grow to very respectable proportions over time if it does not encounter serious opposition. What could this opposition consist of? All kinds of negative measures against these negative phenomena will be in vain - not only in vain, but also harmful. All kinds of oppression and persecution, while providing only a palliative effect, can over time intensify the disease and make it chronic. There is only one true radical remedy against these phenomena - strengthening all positive interests public life. The richer life develops in all its normal interests, in all its positive aspirations, religious, mental, political, economic, the less room there will be for negative forces in social life. Under such circumstances, the Bazarovs would be extremely embarrassed; they had to feel in a position of contempt and powerlessness, and this for them is the most cruel death.

Notes:

1 Mikhail Nikiforovich Katkov (1818 or 1817-1887; for more information about him, see the article in the second volume of the dictionary “Russian Writers”) graduated from the verbal department of the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow University with honors. He joined Stankevich’s circle, was close to Belinsky, published simultaneously with him in the journal of Russian Hegelianism “Moscow Observer” (1838-1839); simultaneously with Belinsky, he began to collaborate in Otechestvennye zapiski. In 1840 he went abroad; Returning in January 1843, he became close to the Slavophiles. Having defended his master's thesis, he began to lecture on philosophy (1845-1849), and from 1851 he edited the university newspaper Moskovskie Vedomosti. In 1856, he left the newspaper and became the editor of the magazine “Russian Bulletin” - in the first three issues of the magazine, Katkov published his long article “Pushkin” (republished with some abbreviations in the collection “Russian Aesthetics and Literary Criticism of the 40s - 50s” 19th century", M., 1982). It is known that at that time Katkov professed liberal views - to the point that in 1859 he discussed with Herzen in London the possibility of publishing a joint newspaper (See Russian writers. 1800-1917. Biographical Dictionary. T.II. M., 1982, p. 509) - with the same Herzen, with whom two years later Katkov would begin an irreconcilable polemic, naming the name of his opponent for the first time in the censored press. "Russian Messenger" in the early 1860s combined support for government reforms (trial by jury, glasnost, etc.) with polemics against the "deniers" from Sovremennik and Kolokol. Subsequently, the best Russian writers will be published in this magazine - L. Tolstoy and F. Dostoevsky, N. Leskov and I. Turgenev, but the relationship of each of them with the editor-publisher of the magazine will not be at all idyllic.

Turgenev met Katkov, apparently, in 1841 in Berlin, where they simultaneously studied at the university. When Katkov began publishing the Russian Messenger, Turgenev published the novel “On the Eve” in his magazine (1860, January).
It is known that after Dobrolyubov’s article about the novel “On the Eve,” Turgenev broke off all relations with Sovremennik. “Fathers and Sons” appeared in Katkov’s magazine. At the same time, the writer did not value “Russkiy Vestnik” very highly - for example, in one of his letters to Dostoevsky he noted (regarding one of the publications of Katkov’s magazine) that it was possible to publish only in “Vremya”, that is, in the journal of Dostoevsky himself (Letters, t 4, p. 378). Of course, the literary relations of that time were not so simple and obvious as to judge them from the letters of one writer - however, Turgenev wrote to Herzen (shortly after the quoted letter to Dostoevsky): “The Russian Messenger is not such rubbish - although there is a lot in it that disgusts me ad nauseum” (Letters, vol. 5, M., 1987, p. 15). Katkov will also publish the novel “Smoke”, the stories “The Story of Lieutenant Ergunov” and “The Unhappy”; Turgenev’s break with the “Russian Messenger” will not be loud and sharp, but when at the Pushkin holiday in 1880 Katkov handed his glass to Turgenev, he “looked at him coldly and covered his glass with the palm of his hand” (I.S. Turgenev in the memoirs of his contemporaries. T. II. M., 1983, p. 132 (memoirs of A.F. Koni).
Sending the manuscript of “Fathers and Sons” to the “Russian Messenger”, Turgenev asked P.V. Annenkov, when he is in Moscow, read it and send him your comments. Annenkov recounts in his memoirs a conversation with Katkov about the novel: “How ashamed Turgenev was to lower the flag in front of the radical and salute him as before an honored warrior,” said Katkov. “Bazarov unconditionally dominates everyone and does not meet with any effective resistance anywhere. Even his death is still a triumph, a crown crowning this glorious life, and this, although accidental, is still self-sacrifice. Who can know what this guy will turn into? After all, this is just the beginning of it. To magnify it early and decorate it with the flowers of creativity means to make the fight against it twice as difficult later. However, I will write to Turgenev about this and wait for his response” (P.V. Annenkov. Literary memoirs. M., 1983, pp. 468-469).
Katkov's letters to Turgenev about the novel Fathers and Sons have not survived. But based on Turgenev’s letters to the editor of Russky Vestnik, it is possible to at least partially reconstruct the remarks of Katkov, who saw in the novel “the apotheosis of Sovremennik.” In the article “About “Fathers and Sons”” (1869), included in “Literary and Everyday Memoirs,” Turgenev quotes one of Katkov’s letters to him; in this letter, the editor of the magazine notes: “One feels something unfree in the author’s relationship with the hero of the story, some kind of awkwardness and constraint. The author seems to be lost in front of him, and does not love, and is even more afraid of him!” (Works. T.11, M., 1983, pp. 92-93). This article aroused the sharp rejection of Katkov, who in 1880 in the newspaper “Moskovskie Vedomosti” (from 1863 he again became the editor of this newspaper and the author of most of the editorial articles in it) wrote: “Mr. Turgenev came out to the public with a statement his true respect and complete devotion to Mr. Bazarov, and as proof of his feelings for him, he betrayed the publisher of the magazine, citing his disagreements with him during printing” (“Moskovskie Vedomosti”, 1880, No. 5, January 6. Quoted from a commentary on Turgenev’s article - vol. 11, p. 374).
The most important problem in the creative history of Fathers and Sons is the problem of editorial interference in the text of the novel. Part of the detailed comments by A.I. is devoted to this issue. Batyuto to “Fathers and Sons” in Full meeting Turgenev's works (vol. VII). Apparently, Turgenev made some corrections to please Katkov - he wrote about this to Herzen on April 10, 1862: “Katkov (...(persuaded me to throw out many mitigating features, which I repent of" (Letters, vol. 5, p. 50 When preparing a separate edition (in 1862), the author restored some passages discarded during the first publication, including those that “concluded positive characteristics Bazarov the Democrat”; “However, some of the tendentious amendments,” writes a commentator on the novel, “were introduced into the text of the “Paris manuscript” (that is, the manuscript of the novel taken by the writer to Paris, in contrast to the one that was left to Katkov and intended for reading and amendments to Annenkov - L.S. .(under the influence of Katkov’s editorial censorship and Annenkov’s friendly advice, remained unchanged in the novel forever” (Works, vol. 7, p. 434).
The novel is known to have caused heated controversy. Sovremennik responded with an article by M.A. Antonovich - in it the critic denied “Fathers and Sons” any artistic merit, accused Turgenev of slandering the younger generation and was glad that the writer finally revealed his true face - the face of an opponent of progress, etc. Pisarev in “Russian Word” I saw artistic truth in the novel, and in Bazarov - a representative of the younger generation, drawn by one of the most sensitive writers; no matter how far Turgenev was from his hero, he could not help but show his readers that “all our hope” lies in the younger generation. These two conflicting opinions deliberately collided in a special section of the Russian Messenger - in the Modern Chronicle: there, in issue No. 18 under the title “Wonders of Russian Journalism,” extracts from the articles of two “nihilists” were successively published. The dispute with the “nihilist” critics continued in Katkov’s article “Turgenev’s Roman and His Critics.”
Katkov mentions another article about Turgenev’s novel - N.N. Strakhov in the Dostoevsky magazine “Time”. The article is “smart, well written,” but erroneous - Strakhov is in vain to see the “spirit of realism” and “mental asceticism” in Bazarov - but neither one nor the other “has nowhere to come from” in modern educated Russian society.
Let us draw attention to an important issue discussed in the article by the magazine editor - the issue of the author's position. Firstly, it is in vain that readers would like to clarify from the author his intention and the meaning of the work he created: “To what came out of his hands, he is in exactly the same relationship as everyone else; he may have a sympathetic or antipathetic feeling for a living person who has arisen in his fantasy, but he will have to perform exactly the same work of analysis as anyone else in order to convey the essence of his feeling in a judgment.” And yet Katkov 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 been there, then his work would have gained even more in its objectivity (...(). In other words, Turgenev tried to show Bazarov in the most favorable light. Which of This happened, according to Katkov, as shown in the article.
It is obvious to any literary historian that a work of art lives in close connection with its time, its era. Turgenev's novel, full of topical allusions, acutely modern problems, caused a warm response in Russian society. Katkov’s articles, which, unfortunately, were not included in the collection “Fathers and Sons in Russian Criticism,” represent an important fact of the ideological struggle around the novel.
When the editor’s May article appeared, Turgenev responded to it: “I can’t help but tell you (...(how much I liked your article about my novel; however, I believe you must have heard praise from everywhere. I’m looking forward to the second half” (Letters , vol. 5, p. 96).

For the first time - “Russian Bulletin”, 1862. No. 7. Published according to the first publication.

2 Dubois Remond (Reymon) Emil (1818-1896) - German physiologist; Rudolf Wagner (Wagner, 1805-1864) - physiologist and anatomist; George Henry Lewis (Lewes, Lewes) (1817-1878) - English writer and positivist philosopher.

Omphale - in Greek mythology, the queen of Lydia, to whom, by order of the oracle, Hercules was given into slavery for a year. At the whim of Omphale, Hercules was dressed in women's clothing, and he did housework along with the maids.

A Leyden jar is a device designed to accumulate small charges of electricity (for demonstrating experiments).

This refers to the “Cours de chimie g?n?rale” (in three volumes), published in the mid-50s by French chemists Théophile-Jules Pelouz (1807-1867) and Edmond Fremy (1814-1894); Gano's physics textbook is not mentioned in Fathers and Sons.

Contenance - from French. contenance - manner of behavior; for content - for appearance; The expression is found in Chapter XVI of “Fathers and Sons.”

Stoff und Kraft (more precisely, “Kraft und Stoff” - “Matter and Force”, 1855) is a book by the German physiologist Ludwig Büchner (1824-1899), popular among radical youth of the 1860s. Its Russian translation was published in 1860.

Auditor (auditor) - here: in some educational institutions, a student (mainly in religious schools) appointed by the teacher to listen to the lessons of his comrades.

Being and Non-Being (German)

10 We are talking about the passion for German philosophy of a significant part of Russian students in the 1830s - 1840s; Katkov, who was a member of the circle of Moscow Hegelians, also paid tribute to this hobby; the doctrine of Sein and Nichts - apparently, Hegel’s terminology is implied in his (Science of Logic). On Russian Hegelianism, see (Past and Thoughts (Herzen, Part IY, Chapter XXY.

11 About young Russian physicists and chemists, “who do not know how to distinguish oxygen from nitrogen,” is spoken of in the XXYIII (last) chapter (Fathers and Sons(.

12 Cartesius is the Latinized name of René Descartes (1596-1650), French philosopher and mathematics; in (Discourse on Method ((1637) Descartes demanded the verification by reason of all judgments previously taken on faith. Kant Immanuel (1724-1804) - German philosopher, who in his main works asserted the limited capabilities of the human mind. Confucius (c.551-479 BC) - ancient Chinese philosopher; the original Confucianism dealt only with questions of ethics, without touching on metaphysical questions, that is, what cannot be explained by reason, but requires faith.

13 Katkov quotes (Satires (Juvenal: in satire YI, a woman demanding that her husband execute a slave she dislikes, says: “Sic volo, sic jubeo, sut pro ratione voluntas” (“So I want, so I command, instead of arguments, let it be my will").

14 As a result of this (lat.)

15 Gratte le Russe et vous trouverez le tartare (“Scratch a Russian and you will find a Tatar”) - this phrase was attributed to various historical figures: Napoleon, Joseph de Maistre, Prince de Ligne, etc.

16 This refers to the position of the Dostoevsky brothers’ pochvennik journal “Time”, in which N.N. collaborated. Strakhov, A.A. Grigoriev et al.

17 Tagi (thagi) - a sect who worshiped the cruel goddess Kali (Bagavani); The custom of ritual strangulation of people was widespread among the Tags.

18 Apparently we're talking about about the so-called “superfluous people”, heroes of Turgenev’s prose of the 1840s - 1850s - (Diary of an extra person(, (Hamlet of Shchigrovsky district (etc.

19 Speransky Mikhail Mikhailovich (1772-1839) - statesman, reformer; was the son of a priest. Here and further, Katkov’s discussions about the clergy contain a hint that the most prominent figures in revolutionary democratic journalism - Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, Antonovich, Eliseev, Blagosvetlov - came from families of clergy.

20 Levitism - (from Levites - a special clan of clergy in Judaism) - isolation, casteism.

Many people, reading an article by a critic about a particular work, expect to hear negative statements to 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 his 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 attitude towards 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 say it yourself or hear it" 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 main character works by 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

Article by D.I. Pisarev's "Bazarov" was written in 1862 - only three years after the events described in the novel. From the very first lines, the critic expresses admiration for Turgenev’s gift, noting his inherent impeccability of “artistic finishing,” the soft and visual depiction of paintings and characters, the proximity of the phenomena of modern reality, making him one of the best people of his generation. According to Pisarev, the novel moves the mind thanks to its amazing sincerity, sensitivity, and spontaneity of feelings.

The central figure of the novel - Bazarov - is the focus of the properties of today's young people. The hardships of life hardened him, making him a strong and integral person, a true empiricist who trusted only personal experience and sensations. Of course, he is calculating, but he is also sincere. Any deeds of such natures - bad and glorious - stem only from this sincerity. At the same time, the young doctor is satanically proud, which does not mean narcissism, but “fullness of oneself,” i.e. neglect of petty fuss, the opinions of others and other “regulators”. “Bazarovschina”, i.e. denial of everything and everyone, living by one’s own desires and needs, is the true cholera of time, which, however, must be overcome. Our hero is affected by this illness for a reason - mentally he is significantly ahead of others, which means that he influences them in one way or another. Someone admires Bazarov, someone hates him, but it is impossible not to notice him.

The cynicism inherent in Eugene is dual: it is both external swagger and internal rudeness, stemming both from the environment and from the natural properties of nature. Having grown up in a simple environment, having experienced hunger and poverty, he naturally threw off the husks of “nonsense” - daydreaming, sentimentality, tearfulness, pomp. Turgenev, according to Pisarev, does not favor Bazarov at all. A sophisticated and refined man, he is offended by any glimpses of cynicism... however, he makes a true cynic the main character of the work.

The need to compare Bazarov with his literary predecessors comes to mind: Onegin, Pechorin, Rudin and others. According to established tradition, such individuals were always dissatisfied with the existing order, stood out from the general mass - and therefore so attractive (as dramatic). The critic notes that in Russia any thinking person is “a little Onegin, a little Pechorin.” The Rudins and Beltovs, unlike the heroes of Pushkin and Lermontov, long to be useful, but do not find use for their knowledge, strength, intelligence, and best aspirations. They all outlived their usefulness without ceasing to live. At that moment, Bazarov appeared - not yet a new, but no longer an old-regime nature. Thus, the critic concludes, “The Pechorins have will without knowledge, the Rudins have knowledge without will, the Bazarovs have both knowledge and will.”

The other characters of “Fathers and Sons” are depicted very clearly and accurately: Arkady is weak, dreamy, in need of care, superficially carried away; his father is soft and sensitive; uncle is a “socialite”, “mini-Pechorin”, and possibly “mini-Bazarov” (adjusted for his generation). He is smart and strong-willed, values ​​his comfort and “principles,” and therefore Bazarov is especially antipathetic to him. The author himself does not feel sympathy for him - however, like all his other characters - he is not “satisfied with either fathers or children.” He only notes their funny traits and mistakes, without idealizing the heroes. This, according to Pisarev, is the depth of the writer’s experience. He himself was not a Bazarov, but he understood this type, felt him, did not deny him “charming power” and paid him tribute.

Bazarov's personality is closed in on itself. Having not met an equal person, he does not feel the need for it, even with his parents it is boring and difficult for him. What can we say about all kinds of “bastards” like Sitnikov and Kukshina!.. Nevertheless, Odintsova manages to impress the young man: she is his equal, beautiful in appearance and mentally developed. Having become fascinated by the shell and enjoying the communication, he can no longer refuse it. The explanation scene put an end to the relationship that had not yet begun, but Bazarov, strange as it may be given his character, is bitter.

Arkady, meanwhile, falls into the love net and, despite the hasty nature of the marriage, is happy. Bazarov is destined to remain a wanderer - homeless and unkind. The reason for this is only in his character: he is not inclined to restrictions, does not want to obey, does not give guarantees, craves voluntary and exclusive favor. Meanwhile, he can only fall in love with an intelligent woman, and she will not agree to such a relationship. Mutual feelings, therefore, are simply impossible for Evgeny Vasilich.

Next, Pisarev examines aspects of Bazarov’s relationship with other characters, primarily the people. The men’s heart “lies” with him, but the hero is still perceived as a stranger, a “clown” who does not know their true troubles and aspirations.

The novel ends with the death of Bazarov - as unexpected as it is natural. Alas, it would be possible to judge what kind of future awaited the hero only after his generation reached adulthood, to which Eugene was not destined to live. Nevertheless, such individuals grow into great figures (under certain conditions) - energetic, strong-willed, people of life and deeds. Alas, Turgenev does not have the opportunity to show how Bazarov lives. But it shows how he dies - and that’s enough.

The critic believes that dying like Bazarov is already a feat, and this is true. The description of the hero's death becomes best episode novel and perhaps the best moment of the entire work of the brilliant author. Dying, Bazarov is not sad, but despises himself, powerless in the face of chance, remaining a nihilist until his last breath and - at the same time - maintaining a bright feeling for Odintsova.

(AnnaOdintsova)

In conclusion, D.I. Pisarev notes that Turgenev, when starting to create the image of Bazarov, wanted, driven by an unkind feeling, to “break him into dust,” but he himself gave him due respect, saying that “children” were following the wrong path, while at the same time pinning hopes on the new generation and believing in him. The author loves his heroes, is carried away by them and gives Bazarov the opportunity to experience a feeling of love - passionate and young, begins to sympathize with his creation, for whom neither happiness nor activity turns out to be impossible.

Bazarov has no reason to live - well, let's look at his death, which represents the whole essence, the whole meaning of the novel. What did Turgenev want to say with this untimely but expected death? Yes, the current generation is mistaken and carried away, but it has the strength and intelligence that will lead them to the right path. And only for this thought can the author be grateful as “a great artist and an honest citizen of Russia.”

Pisarev admits: the Bazarovs have a bad time in the world, there is no activity or love for them, and therefore life is boring and meaningless. What to do - whether to be content with such an existence or to die “beautifully” - is up to you to decide.

1001 ideas for interesting activities with children

DEVELOPMENT OF A LITERATURE LESSON IN 10TH GRADE “NOVEL BY I.S. TURGENEV “FATHERS AND CHILDREN IN THE EVALUATION OF RUSSIAN CRITICISM.” CASE STUDY METHOD

Kopytina Irina Ivanovna State budgetary educational institution education center No. 491 “Maryino” teacher of Russian language and literature, Moscow

Subject (focus): literature

Children's age: Grade 10

Location: literature room

Lesson objectives:

Educational – generalization of knowledge gained from studying a work. To identify the position of critics about the novel by I.S. Turgenev “Fathers and Sons”, about the image of Yevgeny Bazarov; Having created a problematic situation, encourage students to express their own point of view. To develop the ability to analyze the text of a critical article.

Educational – to promote the formation of students’ own point of view.

Developmental – developing skills in working in a group, public speaking, the ability to defend one’s point of view, activating the creative abilities of students.

Turgenev had no pretension and insolence

create a novel that has

all kinds of directions;

admirer of eternal beauty,

he had a proud goal in time

point to the eternal

and wrote a novel that is not progressive

and not retrograde, but,

so to speak, always.

N. Strakhov

Does Russia need Bazarovs?

2nd group works with a case based on the article by D. I. Pisarev “Fathers and Sons,” a novel by I. S. Turgenev.

Does Russia need Bazarovs?

What is “bazaarism”? Do Russia need Bazarovs?

Are there winners in the novel? Fathers or children? What is bazaarism? Does it exist today? What does Turgenev warn the individual and society against? Does Russia need Bazarovs?

(Only we are the face of our time!

The horn of time blows for us in the art of words!

The past is tight. The Academy and Pushkin are more incomprehensible than hieroglyphs!

Abandon Pushkin, Dostevsky, Tolstoy, etc. and so on. from the ship of modern times!

Whoever does not forget his first love will not know his last!

LITERATURE AND LINKS

I.S. Turgenev. Selected works. Moscow. Fiction. 1987

Basovskaya E.N. “Russian literature of the second half of the 19th century. Moscow. "Olympus". 1998.

Antonovich M.A. "Asmodeus of Our Time"

D. I. Pisarev Bazarov. "Fathers and Sons", novel by I. S. Turgenev http://az.lib.ru/p/pisarew_d/text_0220.shtml

APPLICATION

Case for the lesson

What was Turgenev’s attitude towards Bazarov? Which of the judgments were unexpected for you? What is “bazaarism”? Does it exist today? Does Russia need Bazarovs?

What is Antonovich’s attitude to the novel by I.S. Turgenev?

What is the purpose of the novel, according to the critic?

Which of the judgments were unexpected for you? Express your opinion on Turgenev’s novel.

Does Russia need Bazarovs?

D. I. Pisarev “Bazarov” “Fathers and Sons”, novel by I. S. Turgenev “Russian Word” 1862 March

But it’s still bad for the Bazarovs to live in the world, even though they sing and whistle (20). No activity, no love, and therefore no pleasure. They don’t know how to suffer, they won’t whine, and sometimes they only feel that it’s empty, boring, colorless and meaningless. So what should we do? After all, you shouldn’t deliberately infect yourself in order to have the pleasure of dying beautifully and calmly? No! What to do? To live while you live, to eat dry bread when there is no roast beef, to be with women when you cannot love a woman, and not to dream of orange trees and palm trees at all, when there are snowdrifts and cold tundra under your feet. Questions:

What does the critic see as the merits of Turgenev’s novel? What conclusions does Pisarev come to when comparing Bazarov with “others”? literary types»» Turgenev's attitude towards Bazarov. Bazarov's attitude towards the common people Does Russia need Bazarovs?