Evaluation of contemporaries of Turgeneev's novel "fathers and sons" in literary criticism. Evaluation of contemporaries of Turgeneev's novel "fathers and sons" in literary criticism Criticism of heroes fathers and sons

Which is usually associated with the work "Rudin", published in 1855 - a novel in which Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev returned to the structure of this first of his creations.

As in it, in "Fathers and Sons" all the plot threads converged on one center, which was formed by the figure of Bazarov, a raznochint-democrat. She alarmed all critics and readers. Various critics have written a lot about the novel "Fathers and Sons", since the work aroused genuine interest and controversy. We will present the main positions regarding this novel to you in this article.

Significance in understanding the work

Bazarov became not only the plot center of the work, but also problematic. The assessment of all other aspects of Turgenev's novel largely depended on the understanding of his fate and personality: the author's position, the system of characters, various artistic techniques used in the work "Fathers and Sons". The critics examined this novel chapter by chapter and saw in it a new turn in the work of Ivan Sergeevich, although their understanding of the milestone meaning of this work was completely different.

Why was Turgenev scolded?

The ambivalent attitude of the author himself to his hero led to censures and reproaches of his contemporaries. Turgenev was severely scolded from all sides. Critics of the novel "Fathers and Sons" responded mostly negatively. Many readers could not understand the author's thought. From the memoirs of Annenkov, as well as Ivan Sergeevich himself, we learn that M.N. Katkov became indignant when he read the manuscript "Fathers and Sons" chapter by chapter. He was outraged by the fact that the protagonist of the work reigns supreme and does not meet a sensible rebuff anywhere. Readers and critics of the opposite camp also severely criticized Ivan Sergeevich for the internal dispute that he had with Bazarov in his novel Fathers and Sons. Its content seemed to them not quite democratic.

The most notable among many other interpretations are the article by M.A. Antonovich, published in "Sovremennik" ("Asmodeus of our time"), as well as a number of articles that appeared in the journal "Russian Word" (democratic), written by D.I. Pisarev: "The Thinking Proletariat", "Realists", "Bazarov". about the novel "Fathers and Sons" presented two opposing opinions.

Pisarev's opinion about the main character

Unlike Antonovich, who assessed Bazarov sharply negatively, Pisarev saw in him a real "hero of the time." This critic compared this image with the "new people" depicted in N.G. Chernyshevsky.

The theme of "fathers and sons" (the relationship between generations) came to the fore in his articles. The divergent opinions expressed by representatives of the democratic trend were perceived as a "split in the nihilists" - a fact of internal polemic that existed in the democratic movement.

Antonovich about Bazarov

Both readers and critics of "Fathers and Sons" were not accidentally worried about two questions: about the author's position and about the prototypes of the images of this novel. They are the two poles by which any work is interpreted and perceived. According to Antonovich, Turgenev was malicious. In the interpretation of Bazarov, presented by this critic, this image is not at all a person written off "from nature", but an "evil spirit", "asmodeus", which is released by a writer embittered at a new generation.

Antonovich's article is sustained in a feuilleton manner. This critic, instead of presenting an objective analysis of the work, created a caricature of the main character, substituting Sitnikov, Bazarov's "disciple", in the place of his teacher. Bazarov, according to Antonovich, is not at all an artistic generalization, not a mirror in which the critic believes that the author of the novel created a biting feuilleton, which should be objected to in the same manner. Antonovich's goal - to "quarrel" with the younger generation of Turgenev - was achieved.

What could the democrats not forgive Turgenev?

Antonovich, in the subtext of his unfair and rude article, reproached the author for making a figure that is too "recognizable", since Dobrolyubov is considered one of its prototypes. The journalists of Sovremennik, moreover, could not forgive the author for breaking up with this magazine. The novel "Fathers and Sons" was published in the "Russian Messenger", a conservative publication, which was for them a sign of Ivan Sergeevich's final break with democracy.

Bazarov in "real criticism"

Pisarev expressed a different point of view about the protagonist of the work. He considered him not as a caricature of certain individuals, but as a representative of a new socio-ideological type that was emerging at that time. This critic was least of all interested in the attitude of the author himself towards his hero, as well as various features of the artistic embodiment of this image. Pisarev interpreted Bazarov in the spirit of so-called real criticism. He pointed out that the author in his image was biased, but the type itself was highly appreciated by Pisarev - as a "hero of the time." The article titled "Bazarov" said that the protagonist depicted in the novel, presented as a "tragic person", is a new type that literature lacked. In further interpretations of this critic, Bazarov broke away more and more from the novel itself. For example, in the articles "Thinking Proletariat" and "Realists" the name "Bazarov" was used to name a type of era, a raznochinets-kulturträger, whose outlook was close to Pisarev himself.

Accusations of bias

Turgenev's objective, calm tone in portraying the protagonist was contradicted by accusations of tendentiousness. "Fathers and Sons" is a kind of Turgenev's "duel" with nihilists and nihilism, however, the author complied with all the requirements of the "code of honor": he treated the enemy with respect, having "killed" him in a fair fight. Bazarov, as a symbol of dangerous delusions, according to Ivan Sergeevich, is a worthy adversary. The mockery and caricature of the image, which some critics accused the author of, was not used by him, since they could give quite the opposite result, namely, an underestimation of the power of nihilism, which is destructive. The nihilists sought to put their false idols in the place of the "eternal". Turgenev, recalling his work on the image of Yevgeny Bazarov, wrote to M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin in 1876 about the novel "Fathers and Sons", the history of which was of interest to many, that he is not surprised why this hero remained a mystery to the main part of readers, because the author himself cannot fully imagine how he wrote it. Turgenev said that he knew only one thing: there was no tendency in him then, no preconceived thought.

The position of Turgenev himself

Critics of the novel "Fathers and Sons" responded mostly one-sidedly, gave harsh assessments. Meanwhile, Turgenev, as in his previous novels, avoids comments, does not draw conclusions, and deliberately hides the inner world of his hero in order not to put pressure on readers. The conflict of the novel "Fathers and Sons" is by no means on the surface. So straightforwardly interpreted by the critic Antonovich and completely ignored by Pisarev, it manifests itself in the composition of the plot, in the nature of the conflicts. It is in them that the concept of Bazarov's fate is realized, presented by the author of the work "Fathers and Sons", the images of which still cause controversy among various researchers.

Eugene in disputes with Pavel Petrovich is unshakable, but after a difficult "test of love" he is internally broken. The author emphasizes the "cruelty", the thoughtfulness of the convictions of this hero, as well as the interconnection of all the components that make up his worldview. Bazarov is a maximalist, according to whom any belief has a price, if it is not in conflict with others. As soon as this character lost one "link" in the "chain" of worldview, all the others were reassessed and questioned. In the finale, this is already the "new" Bazarov, who is the "Hamlet" among the nihilists.

ROMAN I. S. TURGENEV
“FATHERS AND CHILDREN” IN RUSSIAN CRITICISM

"Fathers and Sons" caused a storm in the world of literary criticism. After the release of the novel, a huge number of critical responses and articles that were completely opposite in their charge appeared, which indirectly testified to the innocence and innocence of the Russian reading public. Criticism treated the work of art as a journalistic article, a political pamphlet, not wanting to reconstruct the author's point of view. With the release of the novel, a lively discussion of it in the press begins, which immediately acquired a sharp polemical character. Almost all Russian newspapers and magazines responded to the appearance of the novel. The work gave rise to disagreements both between ideological opponents and among like-minded people, for example, in the democratic magazines Sovremennik and Russkoe Slovo. The dispute, in essence, was about the type of a new revolutionary figure in Russian history.
Sovremennik responded to the novel with M.A. Antonovich’s article “Asmodeus of Our Time”. The circumstances connected with the departure of Turgenev from Sovremennik predisposed to the fact that the novel was assessed negatively by the critic.
Antonovich saw in it a panegyric to the “fathers” and a slander on the younger generation.
In addition, it was argued that the novel was very weak artistically, that Turgenev, who set out to discredit Bazarov, resorted to caricature, depicting the protagonist as a monster "with a tiny head and a giant mouth, with a small face and a big 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 the denial of art by Bazarov
Antonovich declared that this was a pure lie, that the younger generation denies only "pure art", among whose representatives, however, he ranked Pushkin and Turgenev himself. According to Antonovich, from the very first pages, to the reader's greatest amazement, he is overcome by a kind of boredom; but, of course, you are not embarrassed by this and continue to read, hoping that it will be better further, that the author will enter into his role, that talent will take its toll and involuntarily captivate your attention. And meanwhile, and further, when the action of the novel unfolds completely before you, your curiosity does not stir, your feeling remains untouched; reading makes some unsatisfactory impression on you, which is reflected not in the feeling, but, most surprisingly, in the mind. You are covered with some kind of deadly cold; you don't live with the characters in the novel, you don't get imbued with their life, but you begin to talk coldly with them, or, more precisely, follow their reasoning. You forget that you have a novel by a talented artist in front of you, and you imagine that you are reading a moral-philosophical treatise, but bad and superficial, which, not satisfying your mind, thereby makes an unpleasant impression on your feelings. This shows that Turgenev's new work is extremely unsatisfactory artistically. Turgenev treats his heroes, not his favorites, in a completely different way. He harbors some kind of personal hatred and hostility towards them, as if they personally did him some kind of insult and dirty trick, and he tries to take revenge on them at every step, like a person personally offended; he with inner pleasure looks for weaknesses and shortcomings in them, about which he speaks with ill-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 rejoices as a child when he manages to prick an unloved hero with something, to joke about him, to present him in a funny or vulgar and vile form; every mistake, every thoughtless step of the hero pleasantly tickles his vanity, causes a smile of self-satisfaction, revealing a proud, but petty and inhumane consciousness of his own superiority. This vindictiveness reaches the ridiculous, has the appearance of school tweaks, showing up in trifles and trifles. The protagonist of the novel speaks with pride and arrogance of his skill in the card game; and Turgenev makes him constantly lose. Then Turgenev tries to present the protagonist as a glutton who only thinks about how to eat and drink, and this is again done not with good nature and comedy, but with the same vindictiveness and desire to humiliate the hero; From various places in Turgenev's novel it is clear that the main character of his man is not stupid, - on the contrary, he is very capable and gifted, inquisitive, diligently studying and knowing a lot; meanwhile, 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 man, but some terrible creature, just a devil, or, more poetically, asmodeus. He systematically hates and persecutes everything from his kind parents, whom he cannot stand, to frogs, which he cuts with merciless cruelty. Never had a feeling crept into his cold heart; there is not a trace of any infatuation or passion in him; he releases the very hatred calculated, by grains. And mind you, this hero is a young man, a young man! He appears as some kind of poisonous creature that poisons everything he touches; he has a friend, but he despises him too and has not the slightest disposition towards him; he has followers, but he also hates them. The novel is nothing but a merciless and also destructive criticism of the younger generation. In all modern questions, mental movements, rumors and ideals that occupy the younger generation, Turgenev does not find any meaning and makes it clear that they lead only to debauchery, emptiness, prosaic vulgarity and cynicism.
What conclusion can be drawn from this novel; who will be right and wrong, who is worse, and who is better - "fathers" or "children"? Turgenev's novel has the same one-sided meaning. Excuse me, Turgenev, you did not know how to define your task; instead of depicting the relationship between "fathers" and "children", you wrote a panegyric for "fathers" and a rebuke for "children"; and you didn’t understand the “children” either, and instead of denunciation, you came up with slander. You wanted to present the spreaders of sound concepts among the younger generation as corrupters of youth, sowers of discord and evil, who hate goodness - in a word, asmodeans. This attempt is not the first and is repeated quite often.
The same attempt was made, a few years ago, in a novel which was "a phenomenon overlooked by our criticism" because it belonged to an author who at that time was unknown and did not have the loud fame that he now enjoys. This novel is Asmodeus of Our Time, Op.
Askochensky, which appeared in 1858. Turgenev's last novel vividly reminded us of this "Asmodeus" with its general thought, its tendencies, its personalities, and especially its main character.

In the journal "Russian Word" in 1862, an article by D. I. Pisarev appears
"Bazarov". The critic notes some bias of the author in relation to
Bazarov, says that in a number of cases Turgenev "does not favor his hero," that he experiences "an involuntary antipathy to this line of thought."
But the general conclusion about the novel does not boil down to this^. D. I. Pisarev finds in the image of Bazarov an artistic synthesis of the most significant aspects of the worldview of raznochintsy democracy, depicted truthfully, despite Turgenev's original intention. The critic openly sympathizes with Bazarov, his strong, honest and stern character. He believed that Turgenev understood this new human type for Russia "as truly as none of our young realists would understand." a strictly critical look ... at the present moment turns out to be more fruitful than unfounded admiration or servile adoration. The tragedy of Bazarov, according to Pisarev, is that there are actually no favorable conditions for the present case, and therefore, “not being able to show us how Bazarov lives and acts, I.S.
Turgenev showed us how he dies.
In his article, D. I. Pisarev confirms the social sensitivity of the artist and the aesthetic significance of the novel: “Turgenev's new novel gives us everything that we used to enjoy in his works. The artistic finish is impeccably good... And these phenomena are very close to us, so close that our entire young generation, with their aspirations and ideas, can recognize themselves in the characters of this novel.” Even before the start of the direct controversy, D.
I. Pisarev actually foresees Antonovich's position. About the scenes
Sitnikov and Kukshina, he remarks: “Many of the literary opponents
"Russian Messenger" will attack Turgenev with bitterness for these scenes.
However, D. I. Pisarev is convinced that a real nihilist, a democrat-raznochinets, just like Bazarov, must deny art, not understand Pushkin, be sure that Raphael is “not worth a penny”. But it is important for us that
Bazarov, who is dying in the novel, “resurrects” on the last page of Pisarev’s article: “What to do? Live while you live, eat dry bread when there is no roast beef, be with women when you cannot love a woman, and generally not dream of orange trees and palm trees, when there are snowdrifts and cold tundras under your feet. Perhaps we can consider Pisarev's article the most striking interpretation of the novel in the 60s.

In 1862, in the fourth book of the Vremya magazine published by F. M. and M.
M. Dostoevsky, an interesting article by N. N. Strakhov is published, which is called “I. S. Turgenev. "Fathers and Sons". Strakhov is convinced that the novel is a remarkable achievement of Turgenev the artist. The critic considers the image of Bazarov to be extremely typical. "Bazarov is a type, an ideal, a phenomenon elevated to the pearl of creation." Some features of Bazarov's character are explained more precisely by Strakhov than by Pisarev, for example, the denial of art. What Pisarev considered an accidental misunderstanding, explained by the individual development of the hero
(“He bluntly denies things that he does not know or does not understand ...”), Strakhov perceived Strakhov as an essential trait of the nihilist’s character: “... Art always has the character of reconciliation, while Bazarov does not at all want to reconcile with life. Art is idealism, contemplation, renunciation of life and worship of ideals; Bazarov is a realist, not a contemplator, but a doer ... ”However, if D.I. Pisarev Bazarov is a hero whose word and deed merge into one, then Strakhov’s nihilist is still a hero
“words”, albeit with a thirst for activity, brought to an extreme degree.
Strakhov captured the timeless meaning of the novel, managing to rise above the ideological disputes of his time. “Writing a novel with a progressive and retrograde direction is not a difficult thing to do. Turgenev, on the other hand, had the pretensions and audacity to create a novel that had all sorts of directions; an admirer of eternal truth, eternal beauty, he had the proud goal of pointing the temporal to the eternal, and wrote a novel that was neither progressive nor retrograde, but, so to speak, everlasting,” the critic wrote.

The liberal critic P. V. Annenkov also responded to Turgenev's novel.
In his article “Bazarov and Oblomov” he tries to prove that, despite the outward difference between Bazarov and Oblomov, “the grain is the same in both natures”.

In 1862, an article by an unknown author was published in the Vek magazine.
"Nihilist Bazarov". It is devoted primarily to the analysis of the personality of the protagonist: “Bazarov is a nihilist. To that environment in which it is put, it concerns unconditionally negatively. Friendship does not exist for him: he endures his friend as the strong endures the weak. Kinship for him is a habit of his parents towards him. He understands love as a materialist. The people look with disdain for the adult on the little guys. There is no field of activity left for Bazarov.” As for nihilism, an unknown critic claims that Bazarov's denial has no basis, "there is no reason for him."

In the work of A. I. Herzen “Once again Bazarov”, the main object of controversy is not Turgenev’s hero, but Bazarov, created in the articles of D. I.
Pisarev. “Whether Pisarev correctly understood Turgenev’s Bazarov, I don’t care about that. The important thing is that he recognized himself and his people in Bazarov and added what was missing in the book, ”wrote the critic. Moreover, Herzen compares
Bazarov with the Decembrists and comes to the conclusion that “the Decembrists are our great fathers, the Bazarovs are our prodigal children.” Nihilism is called “logic without structures, science without dogma, submission to experience” in the article.

At the end of the decade, Turgenev himself joins the controversy around the novel. In the article “Regarding “Fathers and Sons”, he tells the story of his idea, the stages of the publication of the novel, speaks with his judgments about the objectivity of reproducing reality: “... Accurately and strongly reproduce the truth, the reality of life - there is the highest happiness for a writer, even if this truth does not coincide with his own sympathies.”

The works considered in the abstract are not the only responses of the Russian public to Turgenev's novel Fathers and Sons. Almost every Russian writer and critic expressed in one form or another his attitude to the problems raised in the novel. But isn't this a real recognition of the relevance and significance of the work?

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Article by D.I. Pisarev's "Bazarov" was written in 1862 - just three years after the events described in the novel. From the very first lines, the critic expresses admiration for Turgenev's gift, noting the impeccable "artistic finish" inherent in him, the soft and visual depiction of paintings and heroes, the closeness of the phenomena of modern reality, making him one of the best people of his generation. According to Pisarev, the novel stirs the mind due to its amazing sincerity, feeling, and immediacy 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 strong and whole in nature, a true empiricist, trusting only personal experience and sensations. Of course, he is prudent, but just as 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 means not self-admiration, but “fullness of oneself”, i.e. neglect of petty fuss, the opinions of others and other "regulators". "Bazarovshchina", i.e. the denial of everything and everything, the life of one's own desires and needs, is the true cholera of the time, which, however, must be overcome. Our hero is struck by this disease for a reason - mentally, he is significantly ahead of the 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. Growing up in a simple environment, having survived hunger and need, he naturally threw off the husk of "nonsense" - daydreaming, sentimentality, tearfulness, pomp. Turgenev, according to Pisarev, does not favor Bazarov at all. A refined and refined person, 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 the established tradition, such individuals have always been dissatisfied with the existing order, stood out from the general mass - and therefore so attractive (how 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, are eager to be useful, but do not find application for knowledge, strength, intelligence, and the best aspirations. All of them have outlived themselves without ceasing to live. At that moment, Bazarov appeared - not yet a new, but no longer an old-time nature. Thus, the critic concludes, "The Pechorins have a will without knowledge, the Rudins have knowledge without a will, the Bazarovs have both knowledge and will."

Other characters of "Fathers and Sons" are depicted very clearly and aptly: Arkady is weak, dreamy, in need of guardianship, superficially carried away; his father is soft and sensitive; uncle - "secular lion", "mini-Pechorin", and possibly "mini-Bazarov" (corrected for his generation). He is smart and has a will, appreciates his comfort and "principles", and therefore Bazarov is especially antipathetic to him. The author himself does not feel sympathy for him - however, as well as for all his other characters - he is not "satisfied with either fathers or children." He only notes their funny features and mistakes, without idealizing the heroes. This, according to Pisarev, is the depth of the writer's experience. He himself would not be Bazarov, but he understood this type, felt him, did not deny him "charming strength" and brought him tribute.

Bazarov's personality is closed in itself. Having not met an equal person, he does not feel the need for it, even with his parents he is bored and hard. What can we say about all kinds of "bastards" like Sitnikov and Kukshina! .. Nevertheless, Odintsova manages to impress the young man: she is equal to him, beautiful in appearance and mentally developed. Carried away by the shell and enjoying communication, he can no longer refuse it. The explanation scene put an end to the relationship that never began, but Bazarov, oddly enough, in his character, is bitter.

Arkady, meanwhile, falls into love networks and, despite the hasty 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 a voluntary and exclusive arrangement. Meanwhile, he can only fall in love with a smart woman, and she will not agree to such a relationship. Mutual feelings, therefore, are simply impossible for Evgeny Vasilyich.

Further, Pisarev considers aspects of Bazarov's relations with other heroes, primarily the people. The heart of the peasants "lies" to 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 future would await the hero only when his generation reaches a mature age, to which Eugene was not destined to live. Nevertheless, great figures (under certain conditions) grow out of such personalities - energetic, strong-willed, people of life and business. 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 death of the hero becomes the best episode of the 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 to the last breath and - at the same time - keeping a bright feeling for Odintsova.

(AnnaOdintsova)

In conclusion, D.I. Pisarev notes that Turgenev, starting to create the image of Bazarov, wanted, driven by an unkind feeling, to “smash him to dust”, he himself gave him due respect, saying that the “children” are on the wrong path, while at the same time placing hope and hope on the new generation believing in him. The author loves his characters, 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 which neither happiness nor activity is possible.

There is no need for Bazarov to live - well, let's look at his death, which is 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, carried away, but it has the strength and intelligence that will lead them to the right path. And only for this idea can the author be grateful as "a great artist and an honest citizen of Russia."

Pisarev admits: Bazarov is bad in the world, there is no activity, no 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.

Turgenev's work "Fathers and Sons" caused a wide resonance. Many articles were written, parodies in the form of poetry and prose, epigrams and caricatures. And of course, the main object of this criticism was the image of the main character - Yevgeny Bazarov. The appearance of the novel was a significant event in the cultural life of that time. But Turgenev's contemporaries were by no means unanimous in their assessment of his work.

Relevance

Criticism of "Fathers and Sons" contained a large number of disagreements that reached the most polar judgments. And this is not surprising, because in the central characters of this work the reader can feel the breath of an entire era. The preparation of the peasant reform, the deepest social contradictions of that time, the struggle of social forces - all this was reflected in the images of the work, made up its historical background.

The debates of critics around the novel "Fathers and Sons" lasted for many years, and at the same time, the fuse did not become weaker. It became obvious that the novel retained its problematics and topicality. The work reveals one of the most important characteristic features of Turgenev himself - this is the ability to see the trends that are emerging in society. The great Russian writer managed to capture in his work the struggle of two camps - "fathers" and "children". In fact, it was a confrontation between liberals and democrats.

Bazarov is the central character

The conciseness of Turgenev's style is also striking. After all, the writer was able to fit all this huge material into the framework of one novel. Bazarov is involved in 26 of the 28 chapters of the work. All other characters are grouped around him, revealed in relations with him, and also make the character traits of the main character even more prominent. The work does not cover the biography of Bazarov. Only one period from his life is taken, filled with turning events and moments.

Details in the work

A student who needs to prepare his own criticism of "Fathers and Sons" can note brief and accurate details in the work. They allow the writer to clearly draw the character of the characters, the events described in the novel. With the help of such strokes, Turgenev depicts the crisis of serfdom. The reader can see "villages with low huts under dark, often up to half-swept roofs." This indicates the poverty of life. Maybe the peasants have to feed hungry cattle with straw from the roofs. "Peasant cows" are also depicted as skinny, emaciated.

In the future, Turgenev no longer paints a picture of rural life, but at the beginning of the work it is described so vividly and revealingly that it is impossible to add anything to it. The heroes of the novel are worried about the question: this region does not impress with either wealth or hard work, and it needs reforms and transformations. However, how can they be fulfilled? Kirsanov says that the government should take some measures. All the hopes of this hero are on patriarchal customs, the people's community.

A brewing riot

However, the reader feels: if the people do not trust the landowners, treat them with hostility, this will inevitably result in a revolt. And the picture of Russia on the eve of reforms is completed by the bitter remark of the author, dropped as if by accident: “Nowhere does time run as fast as in Russia; in prison, they say, it runs even faster.

And against the background of all these events, the figure of Bazarov is looming by Turgenev. He is a person of a new generation, who should replace the "fathers" who are unable to solve the difficulties and problems of the era on their own.

Interpretation and criticism of D. Pisarev

After the release of the work "Fathers and Sons", its heated discussion began in the press. It almost immediately became polemical. For example, in a magazine called "Russian Word" in 1862, an article by D. Pisarev "Bazarov" appeared. The critic noted a bias in relation to the description of the image of Bazarov, saying that in many cases Turgenev does not show favor to his hero, because he feels antipathy to this line of thought.

However, Pisarev's general conclusion is not limited to this problem. He finds in the image of Bazarov a combination of the main aspects of the worldview of heterodox democracy, which Turgenev managed to portray quite truthfully. And the critical attitude of Turgenev himself to Bazarov in this regard is rather an advantage. After all, both advantages and disadvantages become more noticeable from the outside. According to Pisarev, the tragedy of Bazarov lies in the fact that he does not have suitable conditions for his activities. And since Turgenev does not have the opportunity to show how his main character lives, he shows the reader how he dies.

It should be noted that Pisarev rarely expressed his admiration for literary works. It just can be called a nihilist - a subversive of values. However, Pisarev emphasizes the aesthetic significance of the novel, Turgenev's artistic sensitivity. At the same time, the critic is convinced that a true nihilist, like Bazarov himself, must deny the value of art as such. Pisarev's interpretation is considered one of the most complete in the 60s.

Opinion of N. N. Strakhov

"Fathers and Sons" caused a wide resonance in Russian criticism. In 1862, an interesting article by N. N. Strakhov also appeared in the Vremya magazine, which was published under the publication of F. M. and M. M. Dostoevsky. Nikolai Nikolaevich was a state adviser, publicist, philosopher, so his opinion was considered weighty. The title of Strakhov's article was “I. S. Turgenev. "Fathers and Sons". The critic's opinion was quite positive. Strakhov was convinced that the work was one of Turgenev's best novels, in which the writer was able to show all his skill. The image of Bazarov Strakhov regards as extremely typical. What Pisarev considered to be completely accidental incomprehension (“He bluntly denies things that he does not know or does not understand”) Strakhov perceived as one of the most essential features of a real nihilist.

In general, N. N. Strakhov was pleased with the novel, wrote that the work is read with greed and is one of the most interesting creations of Turgenev. This critic also noted that "pure poetry" and not extraneous reflections come to the fore in it.

Criticism of the work "Fathers and Sons": Herzen's view

In Herzen's work entitled "Once again Bazarov" the main emphasis is not on Turgenev's hero, but on how he was understood by Pisarev. Herzen wrote that Pisarev was able to recognize himself in Bazarov, and also add what was missing in the book. In addition, Herzen compares Bazarov with the Decembrists and comes to the conclusion that they are "great fathers", while the "Bazarovs" are the "prodigal children" of the Decembrists. Nihilism in his article Herzen compares with logic without structures, or with scientific knowledge without theses.

Criticism of Antonovich

Some critics about the novel "Fathers and Sons" spoke quite negatively. One of the most critical points of view was put forward by M. A. Antonovich. In his journal, he published an article entitled "Asmodeus of our time", which was devoted to the work of Turgenev. In it, Antonovich completely denied the work "Fathers and Sons" any artistic merit. He was completely dissatisfied with the work of the great Russian writer. The critic accused Turgenev of slandering the new generation. He believed that the novel was written to reproach and instruct the youth. And also Antonovich was glad that Turgenev had finally revealed his true face, showing himself as an opponent of any progress.

Opinion of N. M. Katkov

The criticism of "Fathers and Sons" by Turgenev, written by N. M. Katkov, is also interesting. He published his opinion in the Russian Bulletin magazine. The literary critic noted the talent of the great Russian writer. Katkov saw one of the special merits of the work in the fact that Turgenev was able to "catch the current moment", the stage at which the writer's contemporary society was. Katkov considered nihilism a disease that should be combated by strengthening conservative principles in society.

The novel "Fathers and Sons" in Russian criticism: Dostoevsky's opinion

F. M. Dostoevsky also took a very peculiar position in relation to the main character. He considered Bazarov a "theorist" who was too far removed from real life. And that is precisely why, Dostoevsky believed, Bazarov was unhappy. In other words, he represented a hero close to Raskolnikov. At the same time, Dostoevsky does not strive for a detailed analysis of the theory of Turgenev's hero. He correctly notes that any abstract theory must inevitably break up against the realities of life, and therefore bring a person torment and suffering. Soviet critics believed that Dostoevsky reduced the problems of the novel to a complex of ethical and psychological nature.

General impression of contemporaries

In general, criticism of Turgenev's "Fathers and Sons" was largely negative. Many writers were dissatisfied with Turgenev's work. The Sovremennik magazine considered in it a libel on modern society. Adherents of conservatism were also not sufficiently satisfied, since it seemed to them that Turgenev did not fully reveal the image of Bazarov. D. Pisarev was one of the few who liked this work. In Bazarov, he saw a powerful personality who has serious potential. The critic wrote about such people that, seeing their dissimilarity with the general mass, they boldly move away from it. And they absolutely do not care whether society agrees to follow them. They are full of themselves and their own inner life.

The criticism of Fathers and Sons is by no means exhausted by the considered responses. Almost every Russian writer left his opinion about this novel, in which - one way or another - he expressed his opinion about the problems raised in it. This is what can be called a true sign of the relevance and significance of the work.

INTRODUCTION

1. Pisarev on Bazarov

2. BAZAROV IN THE EYES OF ANTONOVICH

3. THE IMAGE OF BAZAROV IN THE CRITIQUE OF STRAKHOV, ANNENKOV, HERZEN

CONCLUSION

LIST OF USED LITERATURE

Extract from the text

It became a milestone in the history of national self-consciousness: it revealed and exposed the phenomena of Russian reality. The publication of the novel generated a storm of criticism. We are most interested in the assessments given by contemporaries of I.

In 1860, Tolstoy began writing the novel The Decembrists, conceived as the story of a Decembrist returning from exile. It was this novel that served as the beginning of the creation of "War and Peace". The Decembrist theme determined at an early stage of the work the composition of the conceived monumental work about the almost half-century history of Russian society.

The theoretical basis of the study was the articles of critics M.A. Antonovich, D.I. Pisareva, N.N. Strakhova, M.N. Katkova; works on the work of Turgenev by pre-revolutionary (S.A. Vengerov) and modern (Yu.V. Lebedev, V.M. Markovich, E.G. Stepanov, S.E. Shatalov, etc.) literary critics.

Abstract work consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion and a list of references. The first chapter indicates the features of religious and philosophical criticism of the turn of the 19th —

2. centuries, the second chapter is devoted to the consideration of the question of what is the uniqueness and originality of the work of V.V. Rozanov "The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor", as well as the ideas of V.V. Rozanov, expressed by him in this work.

List of information sources

Antonovich M.A. Asmodeus of our time // Antonovich M.A. Selected articles. M., 1998. T.1.

2. Arkhipov V.A. To the creative history of the novel by I.S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons". M., 1995.

3. Herzen A.I. Once again Bazarov // Herzen A.I. Full composition of writings. M., 1997. Vol. 2

4. Mann Yu. Bazarov and others. M., 1998.

5. Pisarev D.I. Bazarov // Pisarev D.I. Selected writings. M., 1994. T.1.

6. Roman I.S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons" in Russian criticism. M., 1996.

7. Strakhov N.N. I. S. Turgenev. "Fathers and Sons". M., 1994.

bibliography