Antonovich fathers and sons short article. Significance in understanding the work
the main theses of the article by Antonovich Asmodeus of our time. urgently! I beg you!! ! urgently! I beg you! and got the best answer
Answer from Alexey Khoroshev[guru]
Antonovich saw in the novel a panegyric to the “fathers” and slander against the younger generation. In addition, it was argued that the novel is very weak in artistically that Turgenev, who aimed to discredit Bazarov, resorted to caricature, depicting the main character as a monster “with a tiny head and a giant mouth, with a small face and a sore nose.” Antonovich is trying to defend women’s emancipation and the aesthetic principles of the younger generation from Turgenev’s attacks, trying to prove that “Kukshina is not as empty and limited as Pavel Petrovich.” Regarding Bazarov’s denial of art
Antonovich stated that this is a complete lie, that the younger generation denies only “pure art,” among whose representatives, however, he included Pushkin and Turgenev himself. According to Antonovich, from the very first pages, to the greatest amazement of the reader, a certain kind of boredom takes possession of him; but, of course, you are not embarrassed by this and continue to read, hoping that it will be better, that the author will enter into his role, that talent will take its toll and involuntarily captivate your attention. Meanwhile, further on, when the action of the novel unfolds completely before you, your curiosity does not stir, your feeling remains intact; reading makes some kind of unsatisfactory impression on you, which is reflected not in your feelings, but, most surprisingly, in your mind. You are enveloped in some kind of deadening cold; you don't live with actors novel, you do not become imbued with their lives, but begin to coldly reason with them, or, more precisely, follow their reasoning. You forget that there is a novel in front of you talented artist, and imagine that you are reading a moral and philosophical treatise, but a bad and superficial one, which, not satisfying the mind, thereby makes an unpleasant impression on your feelings. This shows that Turgenev's new work is extremely unsatisfactory artistically. Turgenev treats his heroes, who are not his favorites, completely differently. He harbors some kind of personal hatred and hostility towards them, as if they had personally done him some kind of insult and dirty trick, and he tries to take revenge on them at every step, like a person personally offended; With inner pleasure, he finds weaknesses and shortcomings in them, which he speaks about with poorly concealed gloating and only in order to humiliate the hero in the eyes of readers: “look, they say, what scoundrels my enemies and opponents are.” He childishly rejoices when he manages to prick his unloved hero with something, make jokes at him, present him in a funny or vulgar and vile way; Every mistake, every rash step of the hero pleasantly tickles his pride, evokes a smile of self-satisfaction, revealing a proud, but petty and inhumane consciousness of his own superiority. This vindictiveness reaches the point of ridiculousness, has the appearance of schoolboy pinching, revealing itself in small things and trifles. From different places Turgenev's novel shows that main character his person is not stupid, - on the contrary, he is very capable and gifted, inquisitive, diligently studying and knowing a lot; and yet in disputes he is completely lost, expresses nonsense and preaches absurdities that are unforgivable to the most limited mind. There is nothing to say about the moral character and moral qualities of the hero; this is not a person, but some kind of terrible creature, just a devil, or, to put it more poetically, an asmodeus. He systematically hates and persecutes everything, starting from his parents and ending with frogs, which he slaughters with merciless cruelty. Never did any feeling creep into his cold heart; not a trace of any hobby or passion is visible in him; He releases the very hatred calculatedly, grain by grain. And note, this hero is a young man, a youth! He appears to be some kind of poisonous creature that poisons everything he touches; he has a friend, but he despises him too and has not the slightest affection for him; He has followers, but he also hates them. The novel is nothing more than a merciless and also destructive criticism of the younger generation.
“a moral and philosophical treatise, but bad and superficial”
“And the general reading of the novel begins. From the very first pages, to the greatest amazement of the reader, a certain kind of boredom takes possession of him... and then, when the action of the novel unfolds completely before you, your curiosity does not stir, your feeling remains intact; reading makes some kind of unsatisfactory impression on you, which is reflected not in your feelings, but, most surprisingly, in your mind.
This shows that Mr. Turgenev’s new work is extremely unsatisfactory artistically.”
2. What, according to Antonovich, did readers expect from Turgenev and what did they receive in the finished work?
“We, however, did not expect anything special and unusual from Mr. Turgenev... In Mr. Turgenev's new novel... there is nowhere to hide from the suffocating heat of strange reasoning and to free yourself even for a minute from the unpleasant, irritable impression produced by the general course of the depicted actions and scenes. ... there is not even that psychological analysis with which he used to analyze the play of feelings in his heroes, and which pleasantly tickled the reader’s feelings; there are no artistic images, pictures of nature, which one really could not help but admire and which gave every reader a few minutes of pure and calm pleasure and involuntarily disposed him to sympathize with the author and thank him.”
3. What behavioral aspect of his heroes does Turgenev pay more attention to?
“The author’s entire attention is paid to the main character and other characters - however, not to their personalities, not to their mental movements, feelings and passions, but almost exclusively to their conversations and reasoning. That is why in the novel, with the exception of one old woman, there is not a single living person or living soul, but all only abstract ideas and different directions, personified and called by proper names.
4. How, Antonovich notes, does Turgenev relate to: a) the main character, b) “unloved” heroes?
A) “Turgenev, a highly poetic soul and sympathetic to everything, does not have the slightest pity, not a drop of sympathy and love, that feeling that is called humane. He despises and hates his main character and his friends with all his heart; his feeling for them is not, however, the high indignation of the poet in general and the hatred of the satirist in particular, which are directed not at individuals, but at the weaknesses and shortcomings noticed in individuals, and the strength of which is directly proportional to the love that the poet and satirist have for to their heroes."
B) “... Mr. Turgenev has some kind of personal hatred and hostility towards them (the heroes), as if they personally did him some kind of insult and dirty trick, and he tries to mark them at every step as a person personally insulted; with inner pleasure he finds weaknesses and shortcomings in them, which he speaks about with poorly concealed gloating and only in order to humiliate the hero in the eyes of readers... he rejoices childishly when he manages to prick the unloved hero with something, joke about him, introduce him in a funny or vulgar and disgusting manner; Every mistake, every rash step of the hero pleasantly tickles his pride, evokes a smile of self-satisfaction, revealing a proud, but petty and inhumane consciousness of his own superiority. This vindictiveness reaches the point of ridiculousness, has the appearance of schoolboy pinching, revealing itself in trifles and trifles.”
5. What, according to Antonovich, results in the author’s dislike for the main character?
“This personal dislike of the author towards his main character manifests itself at every step and involuntarily outrages the feeling of the reader, who finally becomes annoyed with the author, why he treats his hero so cruelly and mocks him so viciously, then he finally deprives him of all meaning and all human properties, why puts thoughts into her head, into his heart, feelings that are completely incompatible with the character of the hero, with his other thoughts and feelings. Artistically, this means lack of restraint and unnaturalness of character - a flaw consisting in the fact that the author did not know how to portray his hero in such a way that he constantly remained true to himself.”
“On almost every page one can see the author’s desire to humiliate the hero at all costs, whom he considered his opponent and therefore loaded him with all sorts of absurdities and mocked him in every possible way, scattering in witticisms and barbs. This is all permissible, appropriate, perhaps even good in some polemical article; and in the novel this is a blatant injustice that destroys its poetic effect.”
6. What moral qualities of the hero are discussed in Turgenev’s novel and what, according to Antonovich, as a result of this, can represent the image of Bazarov?
“...and there’s nothing to say; this is not a person, but some kind of terrible creature, just a devil, or, to put it more poetically, an asmodeus. He systematically hates and persecutes everything, from his kind parents, whom he cannot stand, and ending with frogs, which he slaughters with merciless cruelty... seems to be some kind of poisonous creature that poisons everything it touches; he has a friend, but he despises him too, not the slightest favor; He has followers, but he hates them too. He teaches everyone who submits to his influence to be immoral and senseless; he kills their noble instincts and sublime feelings with his contemptuous mockery, and with it he keeps them from every good deed... Apparently, Mr. Turgenev wanted to portray in his hero, as they say, a demonic or Byronic nature, something like Hamlet; but, on the other hand, he gave him features by which his nature seems most ordinary and even vulgar, at least very far from demonism. And from this, as a whole, what emerges is not a character, not a living personality, but a caricature, a monster with a tiny head and a giant mouth, a small face and a huge nose, and, moreover, the most malicious caricature.”
7. Which poetic side of art, used in Turgenev’s novel, does Antonovich most condemn in his article?
“Meanwhile, in the epilogue there are pictures that are deliberately poetic, intended to soften the hearts of readers and lead them into sad reverie, and completely fail to achieve their goal due to the indicated dissonance. Two young fir trees grow on the hero’s grave; his father and mother - “two already decrepit old men” - come to the grave, cry bitterly and pray for their son... It seems that what’s better; everything is beautiful and poetic, and old people, and Christmas trees, and the innocent glances of flowers; but all this is tinsel and phrases, even unbearable after the death of the hero is depicted. And the author turns his tongue to talk about all-reconciling love, about endless life, after this love and the thought of endless life could not keep him from inhumane treatment of his dying hero, who, lying on his deathbed, calls on his beloved to so that the sight of her charms in last time tickle your dying passion. Very nice! This is the kind of poetry and art that is worth denying and condemning; in words they sing touchingly about love and peace, but in reality they turn out to be malicious and irreconcilable.”
8. What is Turgenev’s attitude towards the younger generation in the novel, on what basis does the author of the article come to this conclusion?
“The novel is nothing more than a merciless and also destructive criticism of the younger generation. In all modern issues, mental movements, sentiments and ideals that occupy the younger generation, Mr. Turgenev does not find any meaning and makes it clear that they lead only to depravity, emptiness, prosaic vulgarity and cynicism. ... when, for example, in the novel it is said that the younger generation follows the negative direction blindly and unconsciously, not because it is confident in the inconsistency of what it denies, but simply because of a feeling - then this, the defenders may say, does not mean “For Mr. Turgenev himself to think in this way about the origin of the negative trend - he only wanted to say by this that there are people who think this way, and there are freaks about whom such an opinion is true.”
“...we get the opportunity to read in the novel the personal opinions of the author himself, and in this we already have one reason - to accept the thoughts expressed in the novel as the author’s judgments, at least thoughts expressed with noticeable sympathy for them on the part of the author, put into the mouths of those persons whom he obviously patronizes. Further, if the author had at least a spark of sympathy for the “children”, for the younger generation, even a spark of a true and clear understanding of their views and aspirations, then it would certainly have sparkled somewhere throughout the entire novel.”
“Defining the moral relationship between two generations in the novel, the author, of course, describes not anomalies, not exceptions, but ordinary, frequently occurring phenomena, average figures, relationships that exist in most cases and under equal conditions. From this comes the necessary conclusion that Mr. Turgenev imagines young people in general, such as the young heroes of his novel, and, in his opinion, those mental and moral qualities that distinguish the latter belong to the majority of the younger generation, that is, in the language of the average numbers, to all young people; The heroes of the novel are examples of modern children. Finally, there is reason to think that Mr. Turgenev portrays the best young people, the first representatives of the modern generation.”
“They (reasonings) now give us every right to assert that Mr. Turgenev’s novel serves as an expression of his own personal likes and dislikes, that the novel’s views on the younger generation express the views of the author himself; that it depicts the entire young generation in general, as it is and as it is, even in the person of its best representatives; that the limited and superficial understanding of modern issues and aspirations expressed by the heroes of the novel lies with the responsibility of Mr. Turgenev himself. When, for example, the main character, a representative of “children” and the way of thinking that is shared by the younger generation, says that there is no difference between a man and a frog, this means that Mr. Turgenev himself understands modern look thoughts in exactly this way; he studied the modern teaching shared by young people, and it really seemed to him that it did not recognize any difference between a man and a frog.”
10. What positive quality does Antonovich highlight in Turgenev's novel?
« Poetry, of course, is always good and deserves full respect; but prosaic truth is also not bad, and it has the right to respect; we should rejoice work of art which, although it does not give us poetry, promotes truth. In this sense, Mr. Turgenev's last novel is an excellent thing; it does not give us poetic pleasure, it even has an unpleasant effect on the senses; but it is good in the sense that in it Mr. Turgenev revealed himself clearly and completely, and thereby revealed to us the true meaning of his previous works, said without circumlocution and directly his last word, which, in his previous works, was softened and obscured by various poetic embellishments and effects that hid its true meaning."
11. Did the generations in Turgenev’s idea turn out to be different or developing along a single path?
“So, the shortcomings of both generations are completely equal; the former did not talk about progress, women's rights, but was a great revelry; The present one revels less, but recklessly shouts when drunk - away with authorities, and differs from the previous one in immorality, disrespect for the rule of law, mocking even Fr. Alexey. One is worth the other, and it is difficult to give preference to someone, as Mr. Turgenev did. Again, in this respect, equality between generations is complete. ...Thus, in love relationships, “fathers” acted in the same way as children act now. These aprioristic judgments may be unfounded and even erroneous; but they are confirmed by the undoubted facts presented by the novel itself.”
12. Who does Turgenev himself appear in the end, according to Antonovich, and why?
“What conclusion can be drawn from this novel, who will be right and wrong, who is worse and who is better - “fathers” or “children”? The novel by Mr. Turgenev has the same one-sided significance. Sorry, Mr. Turgenev, you did not know how to define your task; instead of depicting the relationship between “fathers” and “children,” you wrote a panegyric for the “fathers” and a denunciation of the “children”; and you didn’t understand the “children,” and instead of denunciation you came out with slander. You wanted to portray the spreaders of sound concepts among the younger generation as corrupters of youth, sowers of discord and evil, haters of good - in a word, Asmodeus. This is not the first attempt and is repeated quite often.”
.Abstracts of the article by M. A. Antonovich “Asmodeus of our time” - page No. 1/1
Application
Materials offered to workshop participants
Abstract of the article by M.A. Antonovich "Asmodeus of our time."
You are enveloped in some kind of deadening cold; you do not live with the characters in the novel, do not become imbued with their lives, but begin to coldly reason with them, or, more precisely, follow their reasoning. You forget that before you lies a novel by a talented artist, and imagine that you are reading a moral and philosophical treatise, but a bad and superficial one, which, not satisfying the mind, thereby makes an unpleasant impression on your feelings. This shows that Mr. Turgenev’s new work is extremely unsatisfactory artistically.
...his (Turgenev's) last novel was written with tendencies, with clearly and sharply protruding theoretical goals. This is a didactic novel, a real scholarly treatise, written in a colloquial form, and each person depicted serves as an expression and representative of a certain opinion and trend.
If you look at the novel from the point of view of its tendencies, then from this side it is just as unsatisfactory as in artistic terms. There is nothing to say about the quality of trends yet...
Apparently, Mr. Turgenev wanted to portray in his hero, as they say, a demonic or Byronic nature, something like Hamlet; but, on the other hand, he gave him features by which this nature seems most ordinary and even vulgar, at least very far from demonism. And from this, as a whole, what emerges is not a character, not a living personality, but a caricature, a monster with a tiny head and a gigantic mouth, with a small face and a large nose, and, moreover, the most malicious caricature. The author is so angry with his hero that he does not want to forgive him and reconcile with him even before his death...
The main character of the last novel is the same Rudin, with some changes in style and expressions; he's new, modern hero, and therefore even more terrible than Rudin in his concepts and more insensitive than him; he is a real Asmodeus; - It was not for nothing that time passed, and the heroes developed progressively in their bad qualities.
As can be seen from everything, Mr. Turgenev took to depict the present and, so to speak, present period of our mental life and literature... First, you see, there were Hegelists, and now, at the present time, nihilists have appeared... Here is a collection of modern views put into the mouth Bazarov; what are they? - a caricature, an exaggeration that occurred as a result of misunderstanding, and nothing more.
There may be hunters who... will say that, depicting the younger generation in a funny, caricatured and even absurd form, he (Turgenev) did not mean the young generation in general, not its best representatives, but only the most pitiful and limited children, what he's not talking about general rule, but only about its exceptions. “They (fathers), in contrast to children, are imbued with love and poetry, they are moral people, modestly and quietly doing good deeds; they never want to lag behind the century.
Sorry, Mr. Turgenev, you did not know how to define your task; instead of depicting the relationship between “fathers” and “children,” you wrote a panegyric for the “fathers” and a denunciation of the “children”; and you didn’t understand the “children,” and instead of denunciation you came out with slander.
Abstracts of the article by D.I. Pisarev "Bazarov".
From the school of labor and hardship, Bazarov emerged as a strong and stern man; the course he took in natural and medical sciences developed his natural mind and weaned him from accepting any concepts or beliefs on faith; he became a pure empiricist; experience became for him the only source of knowledge, personal sensation - the only and final evidence.
Bazarov 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. What enthusiastic young men call ideal does not exist for Bazarov; he calls all this “romanticism,” and sometimes instead of the word “romanticism” he uses the word “nonsense.”
You can be indignant at people like Bazarov as much as you like, but recognizing their sincerity is absolutely necessary.
Bazarov is extremely proud, but his pride is invisible precisely because of his enormity. Uncle Kirsanov, who is close to Bazarov in mentality and character, calls his pride “satanic pride.”
The author sees that Bazarov has no one to love, because everything around him is small, flat and flabby, but he himself is fresh, smart and strong.
Bazarovism is ... a disease of our time.
So, Bazarov everywhere and in everything acts only as he wants or as it seems profitable and convenient to him. It is controlled only by personal whim or personal calculations. Neither above himself, nor outside himself, nor within himself does he recognize any regulator, any moral law, any principle. There is no lofty goal ahead; There is no lofty thought in him, and with all this he has enormous strength. - But this is an immoral person! Villain, freak! – I hear exclamations from indignant readers from all sides. Well, okay, villain, freak; scold him more, pursue him with satire and epigram, indignant lyricism and indignant public opinion, the fires of the Inquisition and the axes of the executioners - and you will not poison, will not kill this freak, will not put him in alcohol to a surprisingly respectable public. If bazaarism is a disease, then it is a disease of our time, and we have to suffer through it, despite any palliatives and amputations. Treat bazaarism however you like - it’s your business; but to stop - do not stop; it's the same cholera.
Bazarov, obsessed with this disease, is distinguished by a remarkable mind and, as a result, makes a strong impression on the people who encounter him. As a remarkably intelligent person, he had no equal.
Bazarov is a man of life, a man of action.
Bazarov does not need anyone, is not afraid of anyone, does not love anyone, and as a result does not spare anyone. /…/ In Bazarov’s cynicism, two sides can be distinguished - internal and external: cynicism of thoughts and cynicism of manners and expressions.
He bluntly denies things that he does not know and does not understand; poetry, in his opinion, is nonsense; reading Pushkin is wasted time; making music is funny; enjoying nature is absurd. It may very well be that he, a man worn out by work life, has lost or has not had time to develop in himself the ability to enjoy the pleasant stimulation of the visual and auditory nerves, but it does not follow from this that he has reasonable basis to deny or ridicule this ability in others, to cut other people into the same standard as oneself, means to fall into narrow mental despotism.
Bazarov's thoughts are expressed in his actions, in his treatment of people; they shine through and are not difficult to see if you read carefully, grouping the facts and being aware of the reasons.
To die the way Bazarov died is the same as accomplishing a great feat. /…/ Looking death in the eyes, foreseeing its approach, without trying to deceive yourself, remaining true to yourself until the last minute, not weakening and not becoming cowardly is a matter of strong character. Because Bazarov died firmly and calmly, no one felt either relief or benefit; but such a person who knows how to die calmly and firmly will not retreat in the face of an obstacle and will not be afraid in the face of danger. /…/ The nihilist remains true to himself until the last minute.
The image of the only creature who aroused a strong feeling in Bazarov and inspired him with respect comes to his mind at a time when he is about to say goodbye to life. He loves only one creature in the world, and those tender motives of feeling that he suppressed in himself, like romanticism, now float to the surface; This is not a sign of weakness, it is a natural manifestation of feeling freed from the yoke of rationality.
Abstracts of the article by N.N. Strakhov “I.S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons".
Bazarov is a new face, whose sharp features we saw for the first time... The system of beliefs, the circle of thoughts, of which Bazarov is a representative, were more or less clearly expressed in our literature. Their main spokesmen were two magazines: “Sovremennik”... and “ Russian word"... Turgenev took a well-known view of things, which had claims to dominance, to primacy in our mental movement... and... embodied it in living forms.
The figure of Bazarov has something dark and harsh in it. There is nothing soft or beautiful about his appearance; his face had a different, non-external beauty... Deep asceticism permeates Bazarov’s entire personality... The character of this asceticism is completely special... Bazarov renounces the blessings of this world, but he makes a strict distinction between these blessings. He willingly eats delicious dinners and drinks champagne; he doesn't even mind playing cards. ...Bazarov understands that there are temptations more disastrous, more corrupting the soul, than, for example, a bottle of wine, and he is careful not about what can destroy the body, but about what destroys the soul. The enjoyment of vanity, gentlemanliness, mental and heartfelt debauchery of all kinds is much more disgusting and hateful for him than berries and cream or a shot of preference... this is the highest asceticism to which Bazarov is devoted.
What is this power of art, hostile to Bazarov?... To put it more precisely, but in somewhat old language, we can say that art always carries within itself an element of reconciliation, while Bazarov does not at all want to come to terms with life. Art is idealism, contemplation, detachment from life and worship of ideals; Bazarov is a realist, not a contemplator, but a doer who recognizes only real phenomena and denies ideals.
Bazarov denies science. ...There is also hostility against science modern touch, and even deeper and more widespread than the hostility against art. By science we mean exactly what is meant by science in general and which, in the opinion of our hero, does not exist at all. ...Such a denial of abstraction, such a striving for concreteness in the very area of abstraction, in the area of knowledge, constitutes one of the trends of the new spirit...is a consequence of a stronger, more direct recognition of real phenomena, recognition of life. This discord between life and thought has never been felt so strongly as now.
Bazarov emerged as a simple man, alien to any brokenness, and at the same time strong, powerful in soul and body. Everything about him unusually suits his strong nature. It is very remarkable that he is, so to speak, more Russian than all the other characters in the novel. His speech is distinguished by simplicity, accuracy, mockery and a completely Russian style... Turgenev, who until now had created... split faces, for example, Hamlet of the Shchigrovsky district, Rudin, Lavretsky, finally reached in Bazarov the type of a whole person. Bazarov is the first strong person, the first integral character to appear in Russian literature from among the so-called educated society.
If the gradual development of the hero is not shown, it is without a doubt because Bazarov was formed not by the slow accumulation of influences, but, on the contrary, by a quick, abrupt change. ...He is a man of theory, and theory created him, created him imperceptibly, without events, without anything that could be told, created him with one mental revolution.
He (Bazarov) denies life, and yet lives deeply and strongly.
...although Bazarov is head and shoulders above all other persons...there is, however, something that, on the whole, stands above Bazarov. ...this highest is not some person, but the life that inspires them.
The general forces of life are where all his attention is directed. He showed us how these forces are embodied in Bazarov, in the very Bazarov who denies them; he showed us, if not a more powerful, then a more clear embodiment of them in those ordinary people who surround Bazarov. Bazarov is a titan who rebelled against his mother earth; no matter how great his strength, it only testifies to the greatness of the force that gave birth to and nourishes him, but is not equal in strength to matter.
Be that as it may, Bazarov is still defeated; defeated not by the faces and not by the accidents of life, but by the very idea of this life.
Turgenev had the ambition and audacity to create a novel with all sorts of directions; an admirer of eternal truth, eternal beauty, he had the proud goal of pointing out the eternal in the temporal and wrote a novel that was neither progressive nor retrograde, but, so to speak, eternal.
The change of generations is the overarching theme of the novel. if Turgenev did not depict all fathers and sons, or those fathers and children, such as others would like, then fathers in general and children in general, and he portrayed the relationship between these two generations superbly. Perhaps the difference between generations was as great as it is now, and therefore their attitude was revealed especially sharply.
I.S. Turgenev about Bazarov
Did I want to scold Bazarov or praise him? I don’t know this myself, because I don’t know whether I love him or hate him.
I.S. Turgenev
Bazarov still suppresses all the other characters in the novel (Katkov thought that in him I presented the apotheosis of Sovremennik). The qualities given to him are not accidental. I wanted to make him a tragic face - there was no time for tenderness. He is honest, truthful and a democrat through and through. But you don’t find any good sides in him. He recommends “Stoff und Kraft” precisely as popular, i.e. an empty book; duel with P.P. it was precisely introduced to clearly demonstrate the emptiness of elegant noble chivalry, presented in an almost exaggerated and comical manner; and how he would refuse it: after all, P.P. I would have beaten him. Bazarov, in my opinion, constantly breaks P-a P-a, and not vice versa; and if he is called a nihilist, then it should be read: revolutionary... What is said about Arkady, about the rehabilitation of fathers, etc., only shows that he is guilty! - that they didn’t understand me. My whole story is directed against the nobility as an advanced class. Take a closer look at faces N-ya P-a, P-a P-a, Arcadia. Weakness and lethargy or limitation. An aesthetic feeling forced me to take specifically good representatives of the nobility in order to more accurately prove my theme: if cream is bad, what about milk?
... When drawing the figure of Bazarov, I excluded everything artistic from the circle of his sympathies, I gave him a harshness and unceremonious tone, not out of an absurd desire to offend the younger generation (!!!), but simply as a result of observations of my acquaintance, Doctor D. and people like him. “This is how life turned out this way,” experience again told me - perhaps erroneous, but, I repeat, conscientious, I had no need to split hairs, and I had to draw his figure exactly like that. My personal inclinations do not mean anything here, but probably many of my readers will be surprised if I tell them that, with the exception of my views on art, I share almost all of his beliefs ... "
Neither Odintsova should be ironic, nor a man should stand above Bazarov, even though he is empty and barren... Perhaps my view of Russia is more misanthropic than you assume: he, in my eyes, is truly a hero of our time. The hero is good and the time is good, you say... But it is so.
P. Weil, A. Genis
Native speech: Lessons in fine literature. -3rd ed. – 1999.
Beetle formula
“Fathers and Sons” is perhaps the most noisy and scandalous book in Russian literature. Avdotya Panaeva, who really disliked Turgenev, wrote: “I don’t remember any literary work made so much noise and aroused so many conversations, like Turgenev’s story “Fathers and Sons.” It can be said positively that “Fathers and Sons” was read even by people who school days didn’t pick up books.”
Turgenev described the new phenomenon quite lapidarily in his book. The phenomenon is definite, concrete, today. This mood is set at the very beginning of the novel: “What, Peter? not in sight yet? - asked on May 20, 1859, going out onto the low porch without a hat...”
It was very significant for the author and the reader that it was just such a year. Previously, Bazarov could not appear. The achievements of the 1940s prepared his approach. Society was strongly impressed by natural scientific discoveries: the law of conservation of energy, cellular structure organisms. It turned out that the phenomena of life can be reduced to the simplest chemical and physical processes and expressed in an accessible and convenient formula. Vokht's book, the same one that Arkady Kirsanov gives his father to read - “Force and Matter” - taught: the brain secretes thought, like the liver secretes bile. Thus, the highest human activity - thinking - turned into a physiological mechanism that can be traced and described. There are no secrets left.
Therefore, Bazarov easily and simply transforms the basic position of the new science, adapting it for different occasions of life. “You study the anatomy of the eye: where does that mysterious look, as you say, come from? This is all romanticism, nonsense, rottenness, art,” he tells Arkady. And he logically ends: “Let’s go and look at the beetle.”
Bazarov quite rightly contrasts two worldviews - scientific and artistic. Only their collision does not end as it seemed inevitable to him. Actually, this is what Turgenev’s book is about, or rather, this is its role in the history of Russian literature...
In general, Bazarov’s ideas boil down to “watching the beetle” - instead of thinking about mysterious looks. The beetle is the key to all problems. In Bazarov’s perception of the world, biological categories dominate. In such a system of thinking, a beetle is simpler, a person is more complex. Society is also an organism, only even more developed and complex than the individual.
Turgenev saw the new phenomenon and was afraid of it. An unknown force was felt in these unprecedented people. To realize it, he began to write down: “I painted all these faces, as if I were painting mushrooms, leaves, trees; They made my eyes sore, so I began to draw”...
The narrative fabric itself is extremely objectified. All the time one feels a zero degree of writing, uncharacteristic for Russian literature, where we're talking about about a social phenomenon. In general, reading “Fathers and Sons” leaves a strange impression of the unstructured plot, the looseness of the composition. And this is also the result of an attitude of objectivity: as if one were writing not a novel, but a notebook, notes for memory.
But execution in belles lettres is more important than intent. Turgenev is an artist, and this is the main thing. The characters in the book are alive. The language is bright. As Bazarov wonderfully says about Odintsova: “A rich body. At least now to the anatomical theater”...
The novel “Fathers and Sons” is about the clash of the civilizing impulse with the order of culture. About how the world, reduced to a formula, turns into chaos.
Civilization is a vector, culture is a scalar. Civilization is made up of ideas and beliefs. Culture summarizes techniques and skills. The invention of the flush barrel is a sign of civilization. The fact that every house has a flush cistern is a sign of culture.
Bazarov is a free and sweeping carrier of ideas. This relaxedness of his is presented in Turgenev’s novel with mockery, but also with admiration. Here is one of the remarkable conversations: “However, we were quite philosophical. “Nature evokes the silence of sleep,” said Pushkin. “I never said anything like that,” said Arkady. - Well, I didn’t say that, but I could and should have said that as a poet. By the way, he must have served in military service. – Pushkin was never a military man! - For mercy, on every page he says: “To the battle, to the battle!” for the honor of Russia!”
It is clear that Bazarov is talking nonsense. But at the same time, he guesses something very accurately in the reading and mass perception of Pushkin by Russian society. Such courage is the privilege of a free mind. Enslaved thinking operates with ready-made dogmas. Uninhibited thinking turns a hypothesis into a hyperbole, a hyperbole into a dogma. This is the most attractive thing in Bazarovo. But also the most frightening thing.
Turgenev was able to show this kind of Bazarov. His hero is not a philosopher, not a thinker. When he speaks at length, it is usually from popular scientific works. When he speaks briefly, he speaks sharply and sometimes wittily. But the point is not in the ideas themselves that Bazarov expounds, but in the way of thinking, in absolute freedom (“Raphael is not worth a penny”).
And what confronts Bazarov is not his main opponent - Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov - but the way of life, order, respect for which Kirsanov professes (“Without principles taken on faith, you cannot take a step, you cannot breathe”).
Turgenev ruins Bazarov, confronting him with the very idea of the way of life. The author guides his hero through the book, consistently giving him exams in all areas of life - friendship, enmity, love, family ties. And Bazarov consistently fails everywhere. The series of these tests constitutes the plot of the novel.
Despite the differences in specific circumstances, Bazarov always suffers defeats for the same reason: he invades order, rushing like a lawless comet - and burns out.
His friendship with the devoted and faithful Arkady ends in ruin. Attachment does not withstand tests of strength, which are carried out in such barbaric ways as defamation of Pushkin and other dear authorities. Arkady’s fiancee Katya puts it precisely: “He is predatory, but you and I are tame.” Tame means living by the rules, maintaining order.
The way of life is sharply hostile to Bazarov and in his love for Odintsova. The book strongly emphasizes this, even by simply repeating the same words. “What do you need Latin names for? - asked Bazarov. “Everything needs order,” she answered.”
...Bazarov did not like this measured, somewhat solemn correctness of daily life; “It’s like you’re rolling on rails,” he assured.”
Odintsova is frightened by the scope and uncontrollability of Bazarov, and the worst accusation in her mouth is the words: “I am beginning to suspect that you are prone to exaggeration.” Hyperbole, the strongest and most effective trump card, is seen as a violation of the norm.
The collision of chaos with the norm exhausts the very important theme of enmity in the novel. Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov, like Bazarov, is not a thinker. He is unable to resist Bazarov’s pressure with any articulated ideas and arguments. But Kirsanov acutely senses the danger of the very fact of Bazarov’s existence, focusing not on thoughts or even words: “you deign to find my habits, my toilet, my neatness funny...” Kirsanov defends these seemingly trifles, since he instinctively understands that the sum of little things is culture. The same culture in which Pushkin, Raphael, clean nails and an evening walk are naturally distributed. Bazarov poses a threat to all this.
The civilizer Bazarov believes that somewhere there is a reliable formula for prosperity and happiness, which only needs to be found and offered to humanity (“Correct society, and there will be no diseases”). In order to find this formula, some little things can be sacrificed. And since any civilizer always deals with an already existing, established world order, he uses the opposite method: not creating something anew, but first destroying what already exists.
Kirsanov is convinced that well-being and happiness itself lie in accumulation, summation and preservation. The uniqueness of the formula is opposed by the diversity of the system. New life You can't start on Monday.
The pathos of destruction and reconstruction is so unacceptable for Turgenev that it forces Bazarov to ultimately lose outright to Kirsanov.
The climax is a delicately written fight scene. Depicted as a whole as an absurdity, the duel, to say the least, is not foreign to Kirsanov. She is part of his heritage, his world, his culture of rules and “principles”. Bazarov looks pathetic in a duel, because he is alien to the very system that gave rise to such phenomena as a duel. Here he is forced to fight on foreign territory. Turgenev even shows that against Bazarov there is something much more important and stronger than Kirsanov with a pistol: “Pavel Petrovich seems to him like a big forest with which he still had to fight.” In other words, at the barrier is nature itself, nature, the world order.
And Bazarov is finally finished off when it becomes clear why Odintsova renounced him: “She forced herself to reach a certain line, forced herself to look beyond it - and behind it she saw not even an abyss, but emptiness... or ugliness.”
This is the most important recognition. Turgenev denies the chaos that Bazarov brings even greatness, leaving behind him only one unsightly disorder.
That is why Bazarov dies humiliatingly and pitifully. Although even here the author maintains complete objectivity, showing the strength of spirit and courage of the hero. Pisarev even believed that by his behavior in the face of death, Bazarov put that last weight on the scales, which ultimately tipped in his direction.
But the cause of Bazarov’s death is much more significant - a scratch on his finger. The paradox of the death of a young, thriving, extraordinary person from such an insignificant detail creates a scale that makes you think. It was not a scratch that killed Bazarov, but nature itself. He again invaded with his crude lancet (this time literally) a transformer into the established order of life and death - and fell victim to it. The smallness of the reason here only emphasizes the inequality of power. Bazarov himself is aware of this: “Yes, go ahead and try to deny death. She denies you, and that’s it!”
Turgenev killed Bazarov not because he did not figure out how to adapt this new phenomenon to Russian society, but because he discovered the only law that a nihilist, at least theoretically, does not undertake to refute.
The novel “Fathers and Sons” was created in the heat of controversy. Russian literature was rapidly democratizing, the priest's sons were crowding out the nobles who were based on "principles". “Literary Robespierres”, “revelers - vandals” walked confidently, striving to “wipe poetry, fine arts, all aesthetic pleasures from the face of the earth and install their crude seminary principles” (all these are Turgenev’s words).
This, of course, is an exaggeration, a hyperbole - that is, a tool that, naturally, is more suitable for a destroyer - a civilizer - than for a cultural conservative, like Turgenev was. However, he used this tool in private conversations and correspondence, and not in fine literature. The journalistic idea of the novel “Fathers and Sons” was transformed into a convincing literary text. It contains the voice not even of the author, but of culture itself, which denies the formula in ethics, and does not find a material equivalent for aesthetics. The civilizational pressure is broken against the foundations of the cultural order, and the diversity of life cannot be reduced to a beetle that one must go look at in order to understand the world.
O. Monakhova, M. Stishova
Russian literature XIX century.- M.:
OLMA - PRESS, 1999.
"Fathers and Sons". Epoch and novel
I. S. Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons” was written in 1861. The period of action is 1855-1861, a difficult period for Russia. In 1855, the war that Russia lost with Turkey ended; this defeat is shameful for our country. The most important event took place in domestic policy: change of reign. Nicholas I died, his death ended the era of repression, the era of suppression of public liberal thought. During the reign of Alexander II, the education of various segments of the population flourished in Russia. The commoners become a real social force, while the aristocracy loses its leading role.
Of course, the education that commoners received was fundamentally different from that of the nobility. Aristocratic youth studied “for themselves,” that is, it was education in the name of education itself. The commoners had neither the money nor the time for such a luxury as broadening their horizons. They needed to get a profession that would feed them. For revolutionary-minded youth, the task became somewhat more complicated. Their business was supposed to not only ensure their existence, but also bring real benefits to people. Any pursuit of science and scientific creativity should have both theoretical and practical results. This focus on the quickly achievable practical effect of scientific activity determined a narrow range of specialties that were predominantly chosen by commoners. These were mainly natural sciences. The fascination with them is also explained by the fact that the “religion” of the revolutionary-democratic youth became materialism, and in its lowest manifestation - vulgar materialism, which completely denied the entire spiritual world of man. It is on the basis of vulgar materialism that the theory of Evgeny Bazarov is built. It is no coincidence that he likens the study of a person to the study of a particular tree species: it is enough to study a certain number of specimens - and the researcher knows everything about this species: both people and trees. This is true regarding physiology, and only this is what Bazarov’s theory recognizes. The higher life of the spirit does not exist for her.
Stanislav Borisovich Rassadin
Russian literature:
from Fonvizin to Brodsky.
– M.: Slovo / Slovo, 2001.
And Bazarov?..
Its creator, Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev (1818-1873), has a fate, something difficult to define prevents it from being called unconditionally glorious. The author of the amazing “Notes of a Hunter” (1847-1852), such powerful novels as “The Noble Nest” (1858) and - especially! – “Fathers and Sons” (1861), it is somewhat impressionistic against the background of the literature of that time, whose creators gravitate towards not just drawing characters, but cutting out types. His characters are like pencil or charcoal sketches, preparations for what will later be painted in oil. Let's say, Tchertophanov and Nedopyuskin from “Notes of a Hunter” will seem to be drawn, added, completed in Leskov’s prose. Kukshina and Sitnikov, nonentities clinging to the “nihilist” Bazarov, ten years later will turn into harsh caricatures on the pages of the same Demons. Weak, inactive and strangely attractive by this very inactivity Lavretsky from “The Noble Nest”, of course, is also like a sketch - partly of Tolstoy’s Pierre Bezukhov, partly (which is more likely) of Ilya Ilyich Oblomov...
What is this? Advantage or disadvantage of Turgenev? But I don’t want to say “flaw” when talking about a great artist. It is better to say about Turgenev’s extraordinary flair for modern trends; about the instinct that forces the process of creativity to outstrip the state when the fruit is ripe. When the character of the hero is already able to emerge conscious and voluminous...
Like Dostoevsky, Turgenev undertook to create the image of a “nihilist” with the ultimate goal of condemning him for “emptiness and sterility” - however, he did not plan a pamphlet. And, as they say, “I was embarrassed” and even thought about stopping the printing of the novel when controversy began. To the point that some saw Bazarov as the devil in the flesh, while others saw him as a “pure, honest figure.” Some are “caricatures of youth,” others are panegyrics.
“I don’t know whether I love him or hate him,” the author admitted in confusion, and most importantly, the entire text of the novel confirmed this “I don’t know” - which almost always speaks of the victory of the artist over the ideologist, of art, “poetry” - over the trend , "politics".
For example, the death of Bazarov. Why did he have to die? Because Turgenev did not know what to do with him next? Perhaps... But perhaps not... Even the arrogant critic Dmitry Pisarev was confused in his explanations. On the one hand, he argued: Bazarov’s death is an “accident”, which “is not in connection with the general thread of the novel”; on the other hand, he realized that in the coming years “Bazarov could not do anything that would show us the application of his worldview in life...” But it was precisely this “in life” that betrayed the primitiveness of the logic of Pisarev, a pragmatist who interprets artistic creation with point of view of political Russian reality. Like something that exists quite realistically.
Another thing: “Bazarov is not dying from blood poisoning! Bazarov is dying of love!” This is how Vsevolod Meyerhold fantasized, intending to film Fathers and Sons and dreaming that the role of Turgenev’s “nihilist” would be played by Mayakovsky. Rave? Not at all. Fantasy, which does not want to take into account even what is written in black and white, in its intuitiveness is exactly akin to the complex and fragile structure of the creature named “Evgeny Bazarov”. The reason for the non-viability of which is not blood poisoning or unrequited love; it is the incompatibility of the figure of Bazarov not only with the “first reality”, that is, the real Russian reality of the 50-60s of the 19th century, but also with that “second”, which Turgenev, while maintaining life-likeness, built around his strange “nihilist”...
“Bazarov is a mixture of Nozdryov and Byron,” said Dostoevsky’s fictional hero Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky, and here we should not brush aside the words of this liberal talker.
E.N.Basovskaya
Russian literature.
Second halfXIXcentury.– M.: Olympus,
"AST Publishing House", 1998.
Turgenev in search of his hero.
In 1856, Sovremennik published Turgenev’s novel Rudin. This book determined a lot of things that happened later distinctive feature a special genre - Turgenev's novel: the sublime and slightly sad atmosphere of the landowner's estate, the image of the hero - an intelligent man, but unhappy, lonely, who cannot find a worthy circle of friends for himself; the heroine is a tenderly tender girl with a pure soul and a warm heart... Turgenev’s great prose was also distinguished by an abundance of reasoning, dialogues and monologues devoted to the most difficult issues of politics, morality and life in general. It is no coincidence that Turgenev’s novels are called intellectual, that is, smart. Two forces always reign in them - feeling and thought. Heroes are not guided in anything, even in love, by emotions alone. They not only love, but also constantly think about what is happening to them.
Later, with the light hand of Dobrolyubov, Rudin began to be called among the “superfluous people” - for the reason that he did not find anything to do in Russia, talked a lot and did little, and was also indecisive in love. True, at the end of the novel “ extra person“He died on the barricades in the rebellious Paris of 1848. But in the eyes of Dobrolyubov, even this did not justify his former inactivity in his homeland.
Rudin's originality and loneliness, his tragic tossing, mysterious disappearance and beautiful death in battle - all this made him similar to the romantic hero of a recent era. But Turgenev was brought up on romantic literature with its exceptional, strong and lovable characters. At the beginning of his career, he retreated from the passions of his youth under the influence of the “natural school.” His first famous heroes were ordinary peasants and landowners, immersed in the simple, everyday life of the Russian province. But as soon as he felt creative maturity and became a completely independent artist, romantic motifs began to appear in his books. They can also be heard in subsequent novels:
“The Noble Nest” (1859), “On the Eve” (1860), “Fathers and Sons” (1862), “Smoke” (1867), “New” (1877).
Turgenev's hero is a man unlike others. Whatever makes him stand out from the crowd - his political views or unhappy love and disappointment in life - the action is always based on the opposition of one thing to many, searches and wanderings to peace and order. And every time shrouded in a fog of uncertainty author's attitude to what is happening. On the one hand, Turgenev is clearly attracted to extraordinary and strong personalities. On the other hand, he watches with alarm how they easily destroy the already fragile harmony of a normal, established, peaceful human life. main character In the novel “On the Eve”, Elena fell in love with the Bulgarian Insarov and, having left with him, she forever parted with her family and friends, dooming herself to loneliness. After the untimely death of her husband, she did not want to return to Russia and went to Bulgaria, where her trace was lost. All that remains is the sad memory of a very young, beautiful, educated girl, whom many loved, but no one was able to keep. Insarov gave her great love. But he ruined her life, which might not have been so bright, but quite prosperous.
This is almost always the case with Turgenev. And every time we cannot say in advance: what will win is quiet, homely happiness ordinary people or the destructive passions of extraordinary natures.
Bazarov's views
“Everyone interested in literature and those close to it knew from printed and oral rumors that Mr. Turgenev had an artistic plan to compose a novel, depict in it the modern movement of Russian society, express in artistic form his view of the modern young generation and explain his relationship to it . Several times a hundred-thousand rumor spread the news that the novel was already ready, that it was being printed and would soon be published; however, the novel did not appear; they said that the author stopped printing it, reworked, corrected and supplemented his work, then sent it back to print and again began reworking it ... "
On our website you can download the book “Asmodeus of Our Time” in epub, fb2 format or read online. The book's rating is 3.67 out of 5. Here, before reading, you can also turn to reviews from readers who are already familiar with the book and find out their opinion. In our partner's online store you can buy and read the book in paper form.
Maxim Alekseevich Antonovich – publicist, literary critic and a natural scientist, belonged to the revolutionary-democratic camp, was a student of N. A. Dobrolyubov and N. G. Chernyshevsky. He carried his reverent attitude towards Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov throughout his life.
In the article “Asmodeus of Our Time,” Antonovich spoke negatively about I. S. Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons.” The critic saw in the novel the idealization of fathers and slander of children. In Bazarov, Antonovich found immorality and a “mess” in his head. Evgeny Bazarov is a caricature, slander against the younger generation.
Some excerpts from the article.
“From the very first pages... You are overwhelmed with some kind of deadening cold; you do not live with the characters in the novel, do not become imbued with their lives, but begin to coldly reason with them or, more precisely, follow their reasonings... This shows that Mr. Turgenev’s new work is extremely unsatisfactory artistically... there is no... psychological analysis in the new work , no... artistic images of nature paintings...
...in the novel... there is not a single living face or living soul, but all are only abstract ideas and different directions... He [Turgenev] despises and hates his main character and his friends with all his heart...
In disputes, he [Bazarov] is completely lost, expresses nonsense and preaches absurdities that are unforgivable to the most limited mind...
There is nothing to say about the moral character and moral qualities of the hero; this is not a person, but some kind of terrible creature, just a devil, or, to put it more poetically, an asmodeus. He systematically hates and persecutes everyone, from his kind parents, whom he cannot stand, to the frogs, whom he slaughters with merciless cruelty. No feeling ever creeps into his cold heart; not a trace of any hobby or passion is visible in him...
[Bazarov] is not a living person, but a caricature, a monster with a tiny head and a giant mouth, with a small face and a large nose, and, moreover, the most malicious caricature...
How does the modern young generation of Turgenev imagine itself? He is apparently not disposed towards him, and is even hostile towards children; he gives full priority to fathers...
The novel is nothing more than a merciless and destructive criticism of the younger generation...
Pavel Petrovich [Kirsanov], a single man... endlessly immersed in worries about dandyism, but an invincible dialectician, amazes Bazarov and his nephew at every step...”
“Mr. Turgenev’s new work is extremely unsatisfactory artistically.”
Turgenev “despises and hates his main character with all his heart,” and “gives full priority to his fathers and tries to elevate them...”
Bazarov “is completely lost, expresses nonsense and preaches absurdities.” Pavel Petrovich “amazes Bazarov at every step.”
Bazarov “hates everyone”... “not a single feeling creeps into his cold heart.”
Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov- literary critic, author of a piece published in the magazine “Time” (1862) articles “I. S. Turgenev. "Fathers and Sons"". The article is devoted to exposing nihilism as a theory supposedly divorced from Russian life.
The critic believed that Bazarov is an image of a man trying to subjugate the “forces of life” that gave birth to him and dominate him. Therefore, the hero denies love, art, the beauty of nature - these are the forces of life that reconcile a person with the world around him. Bazarov hates reconciliation, he thirsts for fight. Strakhov emphasizes the greatness of Bazarov. Turgenev’s attitude, according to Strakhov, is the same towards both fathers and children. “This identical measure, this common point of view in Turgenev is human life, in its broadest and fullest meaning.”