Fathers and children in Russian criticism. Literary and historical notes of a young technician Criticism of the novel fathers and sons summary

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, drawn 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.

No sooner had Turgenev's novel appeared in the light than an extremely active discussion of it immediately began on the pages of the press and simply in the conversations of readers. A. Ya. Panaeva wrote in her “Memoirs”: “I don’t remember that any literary work made so much noise and aroused so many conversations as the story“ Fathers and Sons ”. They were read even by people who did not pick up books from school.

The controversy surrounding the novel (Panaeva did not quite accurately identify the genre of the work) immediately acquired a truly fierce character. Turgenev recalled: “About Fathers and Sons, I have compiled a rather curious collection of letters and other documents. Comparing them is not without some interest. While some accuse me of insulting the younger generation, of backwardness, of obscurantism, they inform me that “they burn my photographic cards with laughter of contempt,” others, on the contrary, indignantly reproach me for kowtowing before this very young -knee".

Readers and critics have not been able to come to a consensus: what was the position of the author himself, on whose side is he - "fathers" or "children"? They demanded a definite, precise, unambiguous answer from him. And since such an answer did not lie "on the surface", it was the writer himself who suffered most of all, who did not formulate his attitude to the depicted with the desired certainty.

In the end, all disputes came down to Bazarov. "Sovremennik" responded to the novel with an article by M. A. Antonovich "Asmodeus of our time." Turgenev’s recent break with this journal was one of the sources of Antonovich’s conviction that the writer deliberately conceived his new work as anti-democratic, that he intended to strike at the most advanced forces of Russia, that he, defending the interests of the “fathers” , simply slandered the younger generation.

Addressing the writer directly, Antonovich exclaimed: “... 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 “fathers” and a denunciation of “children”, and you did not understand “children” either, and instead of denunciation, you came out with slander.

In a polemical fervor, Antonovich argued that Turgenev's novel was weak even in a purely artistic sense. Apparently, Antonovich could not (and did not want to) give an objective assessment of Turgenev's novel. The question arises: did the critic's sharply negative opinion express only his own point of view, or was it a reflection of the position of the entire journal? Apparently, Antonovich's speech was of a programmatic nature.

Almost simultaneously with Antonovich's article, an article by D. I. Pisarev "Baza-rov" appeared on the pages of another democratic journal, Russkoe Slovo. Unlike the critic of Sovremennik, Pisarev saw in Bazarov a reflection of the most essential features of democratic youth. “Turgenev’s novel,” Pisarev argued, “besides its artistic beauty, is also remarkable for the fact that it stirs the mind, leads to reflection ... Precisely because it is completely imbued with the most complete, most touching sincerity. Everything that is written in Turgenev's last novel is felt to the last line; this feeling breaks past the will and consciousness of the author himself and warms the objective story.

Even if the writer does not feel special sympathy for his hero, Pisarev was not embarrassed at all. Much more important is that the moods and ideas of Bazarov turned out to be surprisingly close and consonant with the young critic. Praising strength, independence, energy in Turgenev's hero, Pisarev accepted everything in Bazarov, who fell in love with him - both a dismissive attitude towards art (Pisarev himself thought so), and simplified views on the spiritual life of a person, and an attempt to comprehend love through the prism of natural sciences. views.

Pisarev turned out to be a more penetrating critic than Antonovich. At all costs, he managed to more fairly assess the objective meaning of Turgenev's novel, to understand that in the novel "Fathers and Sons" the writer paid the hero "full tribute of his respect."

And yet, both Antonovich and Pisarev approached the assessment of "Fathers and Sons" one-sidedly, although in different ways: one sought to cross out any meaning of the novel, the other was so admired by Bazarov that he even made him a kind of standard when evaluating other literary phenomena.

The disadvantage of these articles was, in particular, that they did not attempt to comprehend the inner tragedy of Turgenev's hero, the growing dissatisfaction with himself, discord with himself. In a letter to Dostoevsky, Turgenev wrote with bewilderment: “... No one seems to suspect that I tried to present a tragic face in him - and everyone is interpreting: why is he so bad? Or why is he so good? material from the site

Perhaps the most calm and objective attitude to Turgenev's novel was N. N. Strakhov. He wrote: “Bazarov turns away from nature; Turgenev does not blame him for this, but only draws nature in all its beauty. Bazarov does not value friendship and renounces parental love; the author does not defame him for this, but only depicts Arkady's friendship for Bazarov himself and his happy love for Katya ... Bazarov ... is defeated not by persons and not by the accidents of life, but by the very idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthis life.

For a long time, primary attention was paid to the socio-political problems of the work, the sharp clash between the raznochinets and the world of the nobility, etc. Times have changed, readers have changed. New problems have arisen before mankind. And we begin to perceive Turgenev's novel already from the height of our historical experience, which we got at a very high price. We are more concerned not so much with the reflection in the work of a specific historical situation, but with the posing in it of the most important universal questions, the eternity and relevance of which over time are felt especially sharply.

The novel "Fathers and Sons" very quickly became known abroad. As early as 1863 it appeared in a French translation with a preface by Prosper Mérimée. Soon the novel was published in Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Poland, North America. Already in the middle of the XX century. the outstanding German writer Thomas Mann said: “If I were exiled to a desert island and could take only six books with me, then Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons would certainly be among them.”

Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the search

On this page, material on the topics:

• articles criticism Pisarev fathers and dei
• abstract of a critical article about the novel "fathers and sons"
• critic of the novel fathers and sons
• criticism of Turgenev's novel fathers and sons
• pisarev and fears about the novel fathers and sons

Barely published, the novel caused a flurry of critical articles. None of the public camps accepted Turgenev's new creation.

The editor of the conservative Russkiy Vestnik, M. N. Katkov, in the articles “Turgenev’s Roman and His Critics” and “On Our Nihilism (Regarding Turgenev’s Novel),” argued that nihilism is a social disease that must be combated by strengthening protective conservative principles; and "Fathers and Sons" is no different from a whole series of anti-nihilistic novels by other writers. F. M. Dostoevsky took a peculiar position in assessing Turgenev's novel and the image of its protagonist.

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

Liberal criticism, on the other hand, has been too carried away by the social aspect. She could not forgive the writer for ridicule of representatives of the aristocracy, hereditary nobles, his irony in relation to the "moderate noble liberalism" of the 1840s. The unsympathetic, rude "plebeian" Bazarov constantly mocks his ideological opponents and turns out to be morally superior to them.

In contrast to the conservative-liberal camp, democratic journals differed in their assessment of the problems of Turgenev's novel: Sovremennik and Iskra saw in it a slander on raznochintsev democrats, whose aspirations are deeply alien and incomprehensible to the author; Russian Word and Delo took the opposite position.

The critic of Sovremennik A. Antonovich in an article with the expressive title "Asmodeus of our time" (that is, "the devil of our time") noted that Turgenev "despises and hates the main character and his friends with all his heart." Antonovich's article is full of sharp attacks and unsubstantiated accusations against the author of Fathers and Sons. The critic suspected Turgenev of conspiracy with the reactionaries, who allegedly "ordered" the writer a deliberately slanderous, accusatory novel, accused him of departing from realism, pointed to the rough sketchiness, even the caricature of the images of the main characters. However, Antonovich's article is quite consistent with the general tone that was taken by the Sovremennik staff after a number of leading writers left the editorial office. To personally scold Turgenev and his works became almost the duty of the Nekrasov magazine.

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

Pisarev was one of the first to remove from Bazarov the charge of caricature raised against him by Antonovich, explained the positive meaning of the protagonist of Fathers and Sons, emphasizing the vital importance and innovation of such a character. As a representative of the generation of “children”, he accepted everything in Bazarov: both a dismissive attitude towards art, and a simplified view of a person’s spiritual life, and an attempt to comprehend love through the prism of natural science views. The negative features of Bazarov, under the pen of criticism, unexpectedly for readers (and for the author of the novel himself) acquired a positive assessment: frank rudeness towards the inhabitants of Maryin was presented as an independent position, ignorance and shortcomings in education - for a critical view of things, excessive conceit - for manifestations of a strong nature and etc.

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

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

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

N.N. Strakhov, in his article on "Fathers and Sons," continues Pisarev's thought, arguing about the realism and even "typicalness" of Bazarov as a hero of his time, a man of the 1860s:

“Bazarov does not in the least arouse disgust in us and does not seem to us either mal eleve or mauvais ton. All the characters in the novel seem to agree with us. The simplicity of treatment and the figures of Bazarov do not arouse disgust in them, but rather inspire respect for him. He was warmly received in Anna Sergeevna's drawing room, where even some poor princess sat ... "

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

Roman Turgenev stirred up all layers of Russian society. The controversy about nihilism, about the image of the naturalist, the democrat Bazarov, continued for a whole decade on the pages of almost all the magazines of that time. And if in the 19th century there were still opponents of apologetic assessments of this image, then by the 20th century there were none left at all. Bazarov was raised to the shield as a harbinger of the coming storm, as the banner of all who wish to destroy, without giving anything in return. (“... it’s none of our business anymore… First we need to clear the place.”)

In the late 1950s, in the wake of Khrushchev's "thaw", a discussion unexpectedly unfolded, caused by the article by V. A. Arkhipov "On the creative history of the novel by I.S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons". In this article, the author tried to develop the previously criticized point of view of M. Antonovich. V.A. Arkhipov wrote that the novel appeared as a result of Turgenev’s conspiracy with Katkov, the editor of the Russky Vestnik (“the conspiracy was evident”) and the same Katkov’s deal with Turgenev’s adviser P.V. , a deal was made between the liberal and the reactionary).

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

An attempt by V.A. Arkhipov to revive the point of view, ridiculed and refuted by Turgenev himself, caused a lively discussion, which included the journals "Russian Literature", "Questions of Literature", "New World", "Rise", "Neva", "Literature at School", as well as "Literary Newspaper". The results of the discussion were summed up in G. Friedländer's article "On the Disputes about Fathers and Sons" and in the editorial "Literary Studies and Modernity" in Voprosy Literatury. They note the universal significance of the novel and its protagonist.

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

MOU "Gymnasium No. 42"

The novel "Fathers and Sons" in reviews of critics

Completed: student 10 "b" class

Koshevoy Evgeniy

Checked:

teacher of Russian language and literature

Proskurina Olga Stepanovna

Barnaul 2008

Introduction

Abstract topic: “The novel “Fathers and Children” in the reviews of critics (D.I. Pisarev, M.A. Antonovich, N.N. Strakhov)”

The purpose of the work: to display the image of Bazarov in the novel with the help of articles by critics.

With the release of the novel by I.S. Turgenev's "Fathers and Sons" begins a lively discussion of it in the press, 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 an article by M.A. Antonovich "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 the journal "Russian Word" in 1862, an article by D.I. Pisarev "Bazarov". The critic notes a certain 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.

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, 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.

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 essay are not the only responses of the Russian public to Turgenev's novel Fathers and Sons. Almost every Russian writer and critic has expressed in one form or another his attitude to the problems raised in the novel.

DI. Pisarev "Bazarov"

To people who stand above the general level in their mental strength, the disease of the century sticks most often. Bazarov is obsessed with this disease. He is distinguished by a remarkable mind and, as a result, makes a strong impression on people who encounter him. "A real person," he says, "is one about whom there is nothing to think about, but whom one must obey or hate." It is Bazarov himself who fits the definition of this person. He immediately captures the attention of others; Some he intimidates and repels, others he subjugates by his direct strength, simplicity and integrity of his concepts. "When I meet a man who would not give in to me," he said with emphasis, "then I will change my mind about myself." From this statement of Bazarov, we understand that he has never met a person equal to himself.

He looks down on people and rarely hides his semi-contemptuous attitude towards people who hate him and those who obey him. He doesn't love anyone.

He does this because he considers it superfluous to embarrass his person in any way, for the same impulse that Americans put their feet on the backs of their chairs and spit tobacco juice on the parquet floors of luxurious hotels. Bazarov does not need anyone, and therefore spares no one. Like Diogenes, he is ready to live almost in a barrel and for this he gives himself the right to speak harsh truths to people's eyes, because he likes it. In Bazarov's cynicism, two sides can be distinguished - internal and external: the cynicism of thoughts and feelings, and the cynicism of manners and expressions. An ironic attitude to feeling of any kind. The crude expression of this irony, the unreasonable and aimless harshness in the address, belong to outward cynicism. The first depends on the mindset and on the general outlook; the second is determined by the properties of the society in which the subject in question lived. Bazarov is not only an empiricist - he is, moreover, an uncouth bursh who knows no other life than the homeless, working life of a poor student. Among Bazarov's admirers, there will probably be people who will admire his rude manners, traces of the bursat life, will imitate these manners, which are his drawback. Among the haters of Bazarov there are people who will pay special attention to these features of his personality and put them in reproach to the general type. Both will err and reveal only a deep misunderstanding of the present matter.

Arkady Nikolaevich is a young man, not stupid, but devoid of mental orientation and constantly in need of someone's intellectual support. Compared to Bazarov, he seems to be a completely unfledged chick, despite the fact that he is about twenty-three years old and that he completed his course at the university. Arkady denies authority with pleasure, reverent for his teacher. But he does it from someone else's voice, not noticing the internal contradiction in his behavior. He is too weak to stand on his own in the atmosphere in which Bazarov breathes so freely. Arkady belongs to the category of people who are always guarded and never notice guardianship over themselves. Bazarov treats him patronizingly and almost always mockingly. Arkady often argues with him, but usually achieves nothing. He does not love his friend, but somehow involuntarily submits to the influence of a strong personality, and, moreover, imagines that he deeply sympathizes with Bazarov's worldview. We can say that Arkady's relationship with Bazarov is made to order. He met him somewhere in a student circle, became interested in his worldview, submitted to his strength and imagined that he deeply respects him and loves him from the bottom of his heart.

Arkady's father, Nikolai Petrovich, is a man in his early forties; in terms of personality, he is very similar to his son. As a soft and sensitive person, Nikolai Petrovich does not rush to rationalism and calms down on such a worldview that gives food to his imagination.

Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov, can be called Pechorin of small size; he fooled around in his lifetime, and, finally, he got tired of everything; he failed to settle down, and this was not in his character; having reached the point where regrets are like hopes and hopes are like regrets, the former lion retired to his brother in the village, surrounded himself with elegant comfort and turned his life into a calm vegetative existence. An outstanding recollection from the former noisy and brilliant life of Pavel Petrovich was a strong feeling for one high society woman, which brought him much pleasure and, as almost always happens, much suffering. When Pavel Petrovich's relationship with this woman broke off, his life was completely empty. As a man with a flexible mind and a strong will, Pavel Petrovich differs sharply from his brother and from his nephew. He is not influenced by others. He himself subjugates the surrounding personalities and hates those people in whom he meets resistance. He has no convictions, but there are habits that he cherishes very much. He talks about the rights and duties of the aristocracy and proves in disputes the need principles. He is accustomed to the ideas that society holds on to and stands up for these ideas as for his own comfort. He hates to have anyone refute these concepts, although, in fact, he does not have any heartfelt affection for them. He argues with Bazarov much more energetically than his brother. At heart, Pavel Petrovich is the same skeptic and empiricist as Bazarov himself. In life, he has always acted and is doing as he pleases, but he does not know how to admit this to himself and therefore supports in words such doctrines, which his actions constantly contradict. Uncle and nephew should have exchanged beliefs between themselves, because the former mistakenly ascribes to himself a belief in principles, the second just as mistakenly imagines himself a bold rationalist. Pavel Petrovich begins to feel the strongest antipathy for Bazarov from the first meeting. Bazarov's plebeian manners outrage the retired dandy. His self-confidence and unceremoniousness irritate Pavel Petrovich. He sees that Bazarov will not give in to him, and this arouses in him a feeling of annoyance, which he seizes on as entertainment amid deep village boredom. Hating Bazarov himself, Pavel Petrovich is indignant at all his opinions, finds fault with him, forcibly challenges him to an argument and argues with that zealous enthusiasm that idle and bored people usually show.

On whose side do the sympathies of the artist lie? Who does he sympathize with? This question can be answered as follows: Turgenev does not fully sympathize with any of his characters. Not a single weak or funny feature escapes his analysis. We see how Bazarov lies in his denial, how Arkady enjoys his development, how Nikolai Petrovich becomes shy, like a fifteen-year-old youth, and how Pavel Petrovich shows off and gets angry, why does Bazarov not admire him, the only person whom he respects in his very hatred .

Bazarov lies - this, unfortunately, is fair. He denies things he does not know or understand. Poetry, in his opinion, is nonsense. Reading Pushkin is a waste of time; making music is funny; enjoying nature is ridiculous. He is a man worn out by working life.

Bazarov's passion for science is natural. It is explained: firstly, by the one-sidedness of development, and secondly, by the general character of the era in which they had to live. Eugene thoroughly knows the natural and medical sciences. With their assistance, he knocked out all sorts of prejudices from his head, then he remained an extremely uneducated person. He had heard something about poetry, something about art, but he did not bother to think, and slurred his sentence over objects unfamiliar to him.

Bazarov has no friend, because he has not yet met a person "who would not give in to him." He does not feel the need for any other person. When a thought occurs to him, he simply expresses himself, not paying attention to the reaction of the listeners. Most often he does not even feel the need to speak out: he thinks to himself and occasionally drops a cursory remark, which is usually taken up with respectful greed by chicks like Arkady. Bazarov's personality closes in on itself, because outside of it and around it there are almost no elements related to it. This isolation of Bazarov has a hard effect on those people who want tenderness and sociability from him, but there is nothing artificial and deliberate in this isolation. The people surrounding Bazarov are mentally insignificant and cannot stir him up in any way, which is why he is silent, or speaks fragmentary aphorisms, or breaks off an argument he has begun, feeling its ridiculous futility. Bazarov does not put on airs in front of others, does not consider himself a man of genius, he is simply forced to look down on his acquaintances, because these acquaintances are knee-deep. What should he do? After all, he shouldn’t sit on the floor in order to catch up with them in height? He involuntarily remains in solitude, and this solitude is not difficult for him because he is busy with the vigorous work of his own thought. The process of this work remains in the shadows. I doubt that Turgenev would be able to give us a description of this process. To portray him, one must be Bazarov himself, but this did not happen with Turgenev. In the writer, we see only the results that Bazarov came to, the external side of the phenomenon, i.e. we hear what Bazarov says, and find out how he acts in life, how he treats different people. We do not find a psychological analysis of Bazarov's thoughts. We can only guess what he thought and how he formulated his convictions to himself. Without initiating the reader into the secrets of Bazarov's mental life, Turgenev can arouse bewilderment in that part of the public that is not used to supplementing with the labor of its own thought what is not agreed upon or not completed in the writer's work. An inattentive reader may think that Bazarov has no inner content, and that all his nihilism consists of a weave of bold phrases snatched from the air and not worked out by independent thinking. Turgenev himself does not understand his hero in the same way, and only therefore does not follow the gradual development and maturation of his ideas. Bazarov's thoughts are expressed in his actions. They shine through, and it is not difficult to see them, if only one reads carefully, grouping the facts and being aware of their causes.

Depicting Bazarov's attitude towards the elderly, Turgenev does not at all turn into an accuser, deliberately choosing gloomy colors. He remains as before a sincere artist and depicts the phenomenon as it is, without sweetening or brightening it up as he pleases. Turgenev himself, perhaps by his nature, approaches compassionate people. He is sometimes carried away by sympathy for the naive, almost unconscious sadness of the old mother and for the restrained, bashful feeling of the old father. He is carried away to such an extent that he is almost ready to reproach and blame Bazarov. But in this hobby one cannot look for anything deliberate and calculated. Only the loving nature of Turgenev himself is reflected in him, and it is difficult to find anything reprehensible in this property of his character. Turgenev is not to blame for pitying the poor old people and even sympathizing with their irreparable grief. There is no reason for a writer to hide his sympathies for the sake of this or that psychological or social theory. These sympathies do not force him to distort his soul and disfigure reality, therefore, they do not harm either the dignity of the novel or the personal character of the artist.

Arkady, in the words of Bazarov, fell into the jackdaws and directly from under the influence of his friend came under the soft power of his young wife. But be that as it may, Arkady made a nest for himself, found his happiness, and Bazarov remained a homeless, unwarmed wanderer. This is not a random circumstance. If you, gentlemen, understand Bazarov's character in any way, then you will be forced to agree that it is very difficult to attach such a person and that he cannot, without changing, become a virtuous family man. Bazarov can only love a very smart woman. Having fallen in love with a woman, he will not subordinate his love to any conditions. He will not restrain himself, and in the same way he will not artificially warm up his feeling when it has cooled down after complete satisfaction. He takes the location of a woman when it is given to him completely voluntarily and unconditionally. But we usually have smart women, cautious and prudent. Their dependent position makes them afraid of public opinion and not give free rein to their desires. They are afraid of the unknown future, and therefore a rare smart woman will decide to throw herself on the neck of her beloved man without first binding him with a strong promise in the face of society and the church. Dealing with Bazarov, this smart woman will realize very soon that no promise will bind the unbridled will of this wayward man and that he cannot be obliged to be a good husband and gentle father of the family. She will understand that Bazarov will either not make any promise at all, or, having made it in a moment of complete enthusiasm, will break it when this enthusiasm dissipates. In a word, she will understand that Bazarov's feeling is free and will remain free, despite any oaths and contracts. Arkady is much more likely to please a young girl, despite the fact that Bazarov is incomparably smarter and more wonderful than his young comrade. A woman capable of appreciating Bazarov will not give herself up to him without preconditions, because such a woman knows life and, by calculation, protects her reputation. A woman capable of being carried away by feelings, as a being naive and thinking little, will not understand Bazarov and will not love him. In a word, for Bazarov there are no women who can evoke a serious feeling in him and, for their part, warmly respond to this feeling. If Bazarov had dealt with Asya, or with Natalya (in Rudin), or with Vera (in Faust), then he would, of course, not back down at the decisive moment. But the fact is that women like Asya, Natalya and Vera are fond of sweet-talking phrase-mongers, and before strong people like Bazarov they feel only timidity, close to antipathy. Such women need to be caressed, but Bazarov does not know how to caress anyone. But at the present time a woman cannot give herself up to immediate pleasure, because behind this pleasure the formidable question is always put forward: what then? Love without guarantees and conditions is not common, and Bazarov does not understand love with guarantees and conditions. Love is love, he thinks, bargaining is bargaining, "and mixing these two crafts," in his opinion, is inconvenient and unpleasant.

Consider now three circumstances in Turgenev's novel: 1) Bazarov's attitude towards the common people; 2) courtship of Bazarov for Fenechka; 3) Bazarov's duel with Pavel Petrovich.

In Bazarov's relationship to the common people, first of all, one should notice the absence of any sweetness. The people like it, and therefore the servants love Bazarov, the children love him, despite the fact that he does not give them money or gingerbread. Mentioning in one place that ordinary people love Bazarov, Turgenev says that the peasants look at him like a pea jester. These two statements do not contradict each other. Bazarov behaves simply with the peasants: he does not show any nobility, nor a cloying desire to imitate their dialect and teach them to reason, and therefore the peasants, speaking with him, are not shy and are not embarrassed. But, on the other hand, Bazarov, both in terms of address, language, and concepts, is completely at odds with both them and with those landowners whom the peasants are accustomed to seeing and listening to. They look at him as a strange, exceptional phenomenon, neither this nor that, and will look in this way at gentlemen like Bazarov until they are divorced more and until they have time to get accustomed to. The peasants have a heart for Bazarov, because they see in him a simple and intelligent person, but at the same time this person is a stranger to them, because he does not know their way of life, their needs, their hopes and fears, their concepts, beliefs and prejudice.

After his failed romance with Odintsova, Bazarov again comes to the village to the Kirsanovs and begins to flirt with Fenechka, Nikolai Petrovich's mistress. He likes Fenechka as a plump, young woman. She likes him as a kind, simple and cheerful person. One fine July morning, he manages to imprint a full-fledged kiss on her fresh lips. She resists weakly, so that he manages to "renew and prolong his kiss". At this point, his love affair ends. He apparently had no luck at all that summer, so that not a single intrigue was brought to a happy ending, although they all began with the most favorable omens.

Following this, Bazarov leaves the village of the Kirsanovs, and Turgenev admonishes him with the following words: "It never occurred to him that he had violated all the rights of hospitality in this house."

Seeing that Bazarov had kissed Fenechka, Pavel Petrovich, who had long harbored hatred for the nihilist and, moreover, was not indifferent to Fenechka, who for some reason reminded him of his former beloved woman, challenged our hero to a duel. Bazarov shoots with him, wounds him in the leg, then bandages his wound himself and leaves the next day, seeing that after this story it is inconvenient for him to stay in the Kirsanovs' house. The duel, according to Bazarov, is absurd. The question is, did Bazarov do well in accepting the challenge of Pavel Petrovich? This question boils down to a more general question: "Is it generally permissible in life to deviate from one's theoretical convictions?" Concerning the concept of persuasion, different opinions prevail, which can be reduced to two main shades. Idealists and fanatics shout about beliefs without analyzing this concept, and therefore they absolutely do not want and are unable to understand that a person is always more expensive than brain inference, by virtue of a simple mathematical axiom that tells us that the whole is always greater than the part. Idealists and fanatics will thus say that it is always shameful and criminal to deviate from theoretical convictions in life. This will not prevent many idealists and fanatics, on occasion, from cowardly and stepping back, and then reproach themselves for practical inconsistency and indulge in remorse. There are other people who do not hide from themselves the fact that they sometimes have to do absurdities, and even do not want to turn their lives into a logical calculation. Bazarov belongs to the number of such people. He says to himself: “I know that a duel is absurd, but at the moment I see that it is decidedly inconvenient for me to refuse it. canes of Pavel Petrovich.

At the end of the novel, Bazarov dies from a small cut made during the dissection of a corpse. This event does not follow from previous events, but it is necessary for the artist to complete the character of his hero. People like Bazarov are not defined by one episode snatched from their lives. Such an episode gives us only a vague idea that colossal powers lurk in these people. What will these forces be? Only the biography of these people can answer this question, and, as you know, it is written after the death of the figure. From the Bazarovs, under certain circumstances, great historical figures are developed. These are not workers. Delving into careful investigations of special questions of science, these people never lose sight of the world that contains their laboratory and themselves, with all their science, tools and apparatus. Bazarov will never become a fanatic of science, he will never raise it to an idol: constantly maintaining a skeptical attitude towards science itself, he will not allow it to acquire independent significance. He will engage in medicine partly as a pastime, partly as a bread and useful craft. If another occupation presents itself, more interesting, he will leave medicine, just as Benjamin Franklin10 left the printing press.

If the desired changes take place in the consciousness and in the life of society, then people like Bazarov will be ready, because constant labor of thought will not allow them to become lazy, rusty, and constantly awake skepticism will not allow them to become fanatics of a specialty or sluggish followers of a one-sided doctrine. Unable to show us how Bazarov lives and acts, Turgenev showed us how he dies. This is enough for the first time to form an idea of ​​Bazarov's forces, whose full development could only be indicated by life, struggle, actions and results. In Bazarov there is strength, independence, energy that phrase-mongers and imitators do not have. But if someone wanted not to notice and not feel the presence of this force in him, if someone wanted to question it, then the only fact that solemnly and categorically refutes this absurd doubt would be the death of Bazarov. His influence on the people around him proves nothing. After all, Rudin also had an influence on people like Arkady, Nikolai Petrovich, Vasily Ivanovich. But to look into the eyes of death not to weaken and not to be afraid is a matter of a strong character. To die the way Bazarov died is the same as doing a great feat. Because Bazarov died firmly and calmly, no one felt any relief or benefit, but such a person who knows how to die calmly and firmly will not retreat in front of an obstacle and will not be afraid of danger.

Starting to construct the character of Kirsanov, Turgenev wanted to present him as great and instead made him ridiculous. Creating Bazarov, Turgenev wanted to smash him to dust and instead paid him full tribute of fair respect. He wanted to say: our young generation is on the wrong road, and he said: in our young generation, all our hope. Turgenev is not a dialectician, not a sophist, he is first of all an artist, a man unconsciously, involuntarily sincere. His images live their own lives. He loves them, he is carried away by them, he becomes attached to them during the process of creation, and it becomes impossible for him to push them around at his whim and turn the picture of life into an allegory with a moral purpose and with a virtuous denouement. The honest, pure nature of the artist takes its toll, breaks down theoretical barriers, triumphs over the delusions of the mind and redeems everything with its instincts - both the inaccuracy of the basic idea, and the one-sidedness of development, and the obsolescence of concepts. Looking at his Bazarov, Turgenev, as a person and as an artist, grows in his novel, grows before our eyes and grows to a correct understanding, to a fair assessment of the created type.

M.A. Antonovich "Asmodeus of our time"

Sadly, I look at our generation ...

There is nothing fancy about the concept of the novel. Its action is also very simple and takes place in 1859. The main protagonist, a representative of the younger generation, is Yevgeny Vasilyevich Bazarov, a physician, a smart, diligent young man who knows his business, self-confident to the point of insolence, but stupid, loving strong drinks, imbued with the wildest concepts and unreasonable to the point that everyone fools him, even simple men. He has no heart at all. He is insensitive as a stone, cold as ice and fierce as a tiger. He has a friend, Arkady Nikolaevich Kirsanov, a candidate of St. Petersburg University, a sensitive, kind-hearted young man with an innocent soul. Unfortunately, he submitted to the influence of his friend Bazarov, who is trying in every possible way to dull the sensitivity of his heart, kill with his ridicule the noble movements of his soul and instill in him a contemptuous coldness to everything. As soon as he discovers some sublime impulse, his friend will immediately besiege him with his contemptuous irony. Bazarov has a father and a mother. Father, Vasily Ivanovich, an old physician, lives with his wife in his small estate; good old men love their Enyushenka to infinity. Kirsanov also has a father, a significant landowner who lives in the countryside; his wife is dead, and he lives with Fenechka, a sweet creature, the daughter of his housekeeper. His brother lives in his house, therefore, Kirsanov's uncle, Pavel Petrovich, a bachelor, in his youth a metropolitan lion, and in old age - a village veil, endlessly immersed in worries about smartness, but an invincible dialectician, at every step striking Bazarov and his own. nephew.

Let's take a closer look at the trends, try to find out the innermost qualities of fathers and children. So what are the fathers, the old generation? Fathers in the novel are presented in the best possible way. We are not talking about those fathers and about that old generation, which is represented by the puffed-up Princess Kh ... aya, who could not stand youth and pouted at the "new frenzied ones", Bazarov and Arkady. Kirsanov's father, Nikolai Petrovich, is an exemplary person in all respects. He himself, despite his general origin, was brought up at the university and had a candidate's degree and gave his son a higher education. Having lived almost to old age, he did not cease to take care of supplementing his own education. He used all his strength to keep up with the times. He wanted to get closer to the younger generation, imbued with its interests, so that together with him, together, hand in hand, go towards a common goal. But the younger generation rudely pushed him away. He wanted to get along with his son in order to start his rapprochement with the younger generation from him, but Bazarov prevented this. He tried to humiliate his father in the eyes of his son and thus broke off all moral ties between them. “We,” the father said to his son, “will live happily with you, Arkasha. We need to get close to each other now, get to know each other well, don’t we?” But no matter what they talk about among themselves, Arkady always begins to sharply contradict his father, who attributes this - and quite rightly - to the influence of Bazarov. But the son still loves his father and does not lose hope of ever getting closer to him. "My father," he says to Bazarov, "is a golden man." "It's amazing," he replies, "these old romantics! They will develop their nervous system to the point of irritation, well, the balance is broken." In Arcadia, filial love spoke, he stands up for his father, says that his friend does not yet know him enough. But Bazarov killed the last remnant of filial love in him with the following contemptuous review: “Your father is a kind fellow, but he is a retired man, his song is sung. He reads Pushkin. nonsense. Give him something sensible, at least Büchner's Stoff und Kraft5 for the first time." The son fully agreed with the words of his friend and felt pity and contempt for his father. Father accidentally overheard this conversation, which struck him to the very heart, offended him to the depths of his soul, killed all his energy, all desire to get closer to the younger generation. “Well,” he said after that, “maybe Bazarov is right; but one thing hurts me: I hoped to get along closely and friendly with Arkady, but it turns out that I was left behind, he went ahead, and we can’t understand each other Can. It seems that I am doing everything to keep up with the times: I arranged for the peasants, started a farm, so that they call me red in the whole province. I read, I study, in general I try to become up to date with modern needs, and they say that my song is sung. Yes, I myself am beginning to think so." These are the harmful actions produced by the arrogance and intolerance of the younger generation. assistance and support from a person who could be a very useful figure, because he was gifted with many wonderful qualities that young people lack.Youth is cold, selfish, does not have poetry in itself and therefore hates it everywhere, does not have the highest moral convictions.Then how this man had a poetic soul and, despite the fact that he knew how to set up a farm, retained his poetic fervor until his advanced years, and most importantly, was imbued with the strongest moral convictions.

Bazarov's father and mother are even better, even kinder than Arkady's parent. The father also does not want to lag behind the century, and the mother lives only with love for her son and the desire to please him. Their common, tender affection for Enyushenka is depicted by Mr. Turgenev in a very captivating and lively way; here are the best pages in the whole novel. But the contempt with which Enyushenka pays for their love, and the irony with which he regards their gentle caresses, seems all the more disgusting to us.

That's what fathers are! They, in contrast to children, are imbued with love and poetry, they are moral people, modestly and secretly doing good deeds. They don't want to be behind the times.

So, the high advantages of the old generation over the young are undoubted. But they will be even more certain when we consider in more detail the qualities of the "children." What are "children"? Of those "children" who are bred in the novel, only one Bazarov seems to be an independent and intelligent person. Under what influences the character of Bazarov was formed, it is not clear from the novel. It is also unknown where he borrowed his beliefs from and what conditions favored the development of his way of thinking. If Mr. Turgenev had thought about these questions, he would certainly have changed his ideas about fathers and children. The writer did not say anything about the part that the study of the natural sciences, which constituted his specialty, could take in the development of the hero. He says that the hero took a certain direction in his way of thinking as a result of sensation. What this means is impossible to understand, but in order not to offend the philosophical insight of the author, we see in this sensation only poetic wit. Be that as it may, Bazarov's thoughts are independent, they belong to him, to his own activity of the mind. He is a teacher, other "children" of the novel, stupid and empty, listen to him and only repeat his words senselessly. In addition to Arkady, such, for example, is Sitnikov. He considers himself a student of Bazarov and owes his rebirth to him: “Would you believe it,” he said, “that when Evgeny Vasilyevich said in my presence that he should not recognize authorities, I felt such delight ... as if I had seen the light! Here, I thought, finally I have found a man! Sitnikov told the teacher about Mrs. Kukshina, a model of modern daughters. Bazarov then only agreed to go to her when the student assured him that she would have a lot of champagne.

Bravo, young generation! Works great for progress. And what is the comparison with smart, kind and moral-powerful "fathers"? Even the best representative of it turns out to be the most vulgar gentleman. But still, he is better than others, he speaks with consciousness and expresses his own opinions, not borrowed from anyone, as it turns out from the novel. We will now deal with this best specimen of the younger generation. As said above, he appears to be a cold person, incapable of love, or even of the most ordinary affection. He cannot even love a woman with the poetic love that is so attractive in the old generation. If, at the request of an animal feeling, he loves a woman, then he will love only her body. He even hates the soul in a woman. He says, "that she does not need to understand a serious conversation at all and that only freaks think freely between women."

You, Mr. Turgenev, ridicule strivings that would deserve encouragement and approval on the part of any well-meaning person - we do not mean here the striving for champagne. And without that, many thorns and obstacles are met on the way by young women who want to study more seriously. And without that, their evil-speaking sisters prick their eyes with "blue stockings." And without you, we have many stupid and dirty gentlemen who, like you, reproach them for their disheveledness and lack of crinolines, scoff at their unclean collars and their nails, which do not have that crystal transparency to which your dear Pavel has brought his nails Petrovich. That would be enough, but you are still straining your wit to invent new insulting nicknames for them and want to use Mrs. Kukshina. Or do you really think that emancipated women only care about champagne, cigarettes, and students, or about several one-time husbands, as your fellow artist, Mr. Bezrylov, imagines? This is even worse, because it casts an unfavorable shadow on your philosophical acumen. But the other thing - ridicule - is also good, because it makes you doubt your sympathy for everything reasonable and fair. We, personally, are in favor of the first assumption.

We will not protect the young male generation. It really is and is, as depicted in the novel. So we agree exactly that the old generation is not at all embellished, but is presented as it really is, with all its respectable qualities. We just don't understand why Mr. Turgenev gives preference to the old generation. The younger generation of his novel is in no way inferior to the old. Their qualities are different, but the same in degree and dignity; as fathers are, so are children. Fathers = children - traces of nobility. We will not defend the younger generation and attack the old, but only try to prove the correctness of this equality formula.

The youth are pushing away the old generation. This is very bad, harmful to the cause and does not honor the youth. But why does the older generation, more prudent and experienced, not take measures against this repulsion, and why does it not try to attract the youth? Nikolai Petrovich was a respectable, intelligent man who wanted to get close to the younger generation, but when he heard the boy call him retired, he frowned, began to lament his backwardness, and immediately realized the futility of his efforts to keep up with the times. What kind of weakness is this? If he realized his justice, if he understood the aspirations of the youth and sympathized with them, then it would be easy for him to win over his son to his side. Bazarov interfered? But as a father connected with his son by love, he could easily defeat the influence of Bazarov on him if he had the desire and skill to do so. And in alliance with Pavel Petrovich, the invincible dialectician, he could even convert Bazarov himself. After all, it is only difficult to teach and retrain old people, and youth is very receptive and mobile, and one cannot think that Bazarov would refuse the truth if it were shown and proved to him! Mr. Turgenev and Pavel Petrovich exhausted all their wit in disputes with Bazarov and did not skimp on harsh and insulting expressions. However, Bazarov did not lose his eye, was not embarrassed, and remained with his opinions, despite all the objections of his opponents. It must be because the objections were bad. So, "fathers" and "children" are equally right and wrong in mutual repulsion. "Children" repel their fathers, but these passively move away from them and do not know how to attract them to themselves. Equality is complete!

Nikolai Petrovich did not want to marry Fenechka due to the influence of the traces of the nobility, because she was not equal to him and, most importantly, because he was afraid of his brother, Pavel Petrovich, who had even more traces of the nobility and who, however, also had views of Fenechka. Finally, Pavel Petrovich decided to destroy the traces of nobility in himself and demanded that his brother marry. "Marry Fenechka... She loves you! She is the mother of your son." "You say that, Pavel? - you, whom I considered an opponent of such marriages! But don't you know that it was only out of respect for you that I did not fulfill what you so rightly called my duty." “In vain did you respect me in this case,” Pavel answered, “I’m starting to think that Bazarov was right when he reproached me for being aristocratic. there are traces of nobility. Thus, the "fathers" finally realized their shortcoming and put it aside, thereby destroying the only difference that existed between them and the children. So, our formula is modified as follows: "fathers" - traces of nobility = "children" - traces of nobility. Subtracting from equal values ​​equal, we get: "fathers" = "children", which was required to be proved.

With this we will finish with the personalities of the novel, with fathers and children, and turn to the philosophical side. To those views and trends that are depicted in it and which do not belong to the younger generation only, but are shared by the majority and express the general modern trend and movement. Apparently, Turgenev took for the image the period of mental life and literature of that time, and these are the features he discovered in it. From different places in the novel, we will collect them together. Before, you see, there were Hegelists, but now there are Nihilists. Nihilism is a philosophical term with different meanings. The writer defines it as follows: "A nihilist is one who does not recognize anything, who respects nothing, who treats everything from a critical point of view, who does not bow to any authorities, who does not accept a single principle on faith, no matter how respected "Formerly, without principles taken for granted, one could not take a step. Now they do not recognize any principles: they do not recognize art, they do not believe in science, and they even say that science does not exist at all. Now everyone denies it, but to build they don't want to, they say: "It's none of our business, first we need to clear the place."

Here is a collection of modern views put into the mouth of Bazarov. What are they? Caricature, exaggeration and nothing more. The author directs the arrows of his talent against what he has not penetrated into the essence of. He heard various voices, saw new opinions, observed lively disputes, but could not get to their inner meaning, and therefore in his novel he touched only the tops, only the words that were spoken around him. The concepts associated with these words remained a mystery to him. All his attention is directed to captivatingly draw the image of Fenechka and Katya, to describe Nikolai Petrovich's dreams in the garden, to depict "searching, indefinite, sad anxiety and causeless tears." It would not have turned out badly if he had only limited himself to this. Artistically analyze the modern way of thinking and characterize the direction he should not. He either does not understand them at all, or he understands them in his own way, artistically, superficially and incorrectly, and from their personification he composes a novel. Such art really deserves, if not denial, then censure. We have the right to demand that the artist understand what he depicts, that in his images, besides artistry, there is truth, and what he is not able to understand should not be taken for that. Mr. Turgenev is perplexed how one can understand nature, study it and at the same time admire it and enjoy it poetically, and therefore says that the modern young generation, passionately devoted to the study of nature, denies the poetry of nature, cannot admire it. Nikolai Petrovich loved nature, because he looked at it unconsciously, "indulging in the sad and joyful game of lonely thoughts," and felt only anxiety. Bazarov, on the other hand, could not admire nature, because indefinite thoughts did not play in him, but thought worked, trying to understand nature; he walked through the swamps not with "seeking anxiety", but with the aim of collecting frogs, beetles, ciliates, in order to cut them up later and examine them under a microscope, and this killed all poetry in him. But meanwhile, the highest and most reasonable enjoyment of nature is possible only when it is understood, when one looks at it not with unaccountable thoughts, but with clear thoughts. The "children" were convinced of this, taught by the "fathers" and authorities themselves. There were people who understood the meaning of its phenomena, knew the movement of waves and vegetation, read the book of stars and were great poets. But for true poetry, it is also required that the poet depict nature correctly, not fantastically, but as it is, the poetic personification of nature is an article of a special kind. "Pictures of nature" may be the most accurate, most learned description of nature, and may produce a poetic effect. The picture may be artistic, although it is drawn so accurately that a botanist can study on it the arrangement and shape of leaves in plants, the direction of their veins and the types of flowers. The same rule applies to works of art depicting the phenomena of human life. You can compose a novel, imagine in it "children" like frogs and "fathers" like aspens. Confuse modern trends, reinterpret other people's thoughts, take a little from different views and make all this porridge and vinaigrette called "nihilism". Imagine this porridge in faces, so that each face is a vinaigrette of the most opposite, incongruous and unnatural actions and thoughts; and at the same time effectively describe a duel, a sweet picture of love dates and a touching picture of death. Anyone can admire this novel, finding artistry in it. But this artistry disappears, negates itself at the first touch of thought, which reveals a lack of truth in it.

In calm times, when movement is slow, development proceeds gradually on the basis of old principles, disagreements between the old generation and the new concern unimportant things, the contradictions between "fathers" and "children" cannot be too sharp, therefore the very struggle between them has a calm character. and does not go beyond known limited limits. But in busy times, when development takes a bold and significant step forward or turns sharply to the side, when the old principles prove untenable and completely different conditions and requirements of life arise in their place, then this struggle takes on significant volumes and sometimes expresses itself in the most tragic way. The new teaching appears in the form of an unconditional negation of everything old. It declares an uncompromising struggle against old views and traditions, moral rules, habits and way of life. The difference between the old and the new is so sharp that, at least at first, agreement and reconciliation between them is impossible. At such times, family ties seem to weaken, brother rebels against brother, son against father. If the father remains with the old, and the son turns to the new, or vice versa, discord is inevitable between them. A son cannot waver between his love for his father and his conviction. The new teaching, with visible cruelty, requires him to leave his father, mother, brothers and sisters and be true to himself, his convictions, his vocation and the rules of the new teaching, and follow these rules steadily.

Excuse me, 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 "fathers" and a denunciation of "children", and you did not understand "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.

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

When criticism of a work appears, everyone expects some lesson or teaching from it. Such a requirement was revealed as clearly as possible with the appearance of Turgenev's new novel. He was suddenly approached with feverish and urgent questions: whom does he praise, whom does he condemn, who is his role model, who is the object of contempt and indignation? What kind of novel is this - progressive or retrograde?

And countless rumors have been raised on this topic. It came down to the smallest detail, to the most subtle details. Bazarov drinks champagne! Bazarov plays cards! Bazarov dresses casually! What does this mean, they ask in bewilderment. Should it or shouldn't it? Each decided in his own way, but each considered it necessary to derive a moral and sign it under a mysterious fable. The solutions, however, came out completely different. Some have found that "Fathers and Sons" is a satire on the younger generation, that all the author's sympathies are on the side of the fathers. Others say that the fathers are ridiculed and disgraced in the novel, while the younger generation, on the contrary, is exalted. Some find that Bazarov himself is to blame for his unhappy relationship with the people he met. Others argue that, on the contrary, these people are to blame for the fact that it is so difficult for Bazarov to live in the world.

Thus, if we bring together all these contradictory opinions, then one must come to the conclusion that in the fable there is either no moralizing at all, or that moralizing is not so easy to find, that it is not at all where one is looking for it. Despite the fact that the novel is read with greed and arouses such interest, which, one can safely say, has not yet been aroused by any of Turgenev's works. Here is a curious phenomenon that deserves full attention. The novel appeared at the wrong time. It does not seem to meet the needs of society. It does not give it what it seeks. And yet he makes a strong impression. G. Turgenev, in any case, can be satisfied. His mysterious goal is fully achieved. But we must be aware of the meaning of his work.

If Turgenev's novel throws readers into bewilderment, then this happens for a very simple reason: it brings to consciousness that which was not yet conscious, and reveals that which has not yet been noticed. The protagonist of the novel is Bazarov. He is now the bone of contention. Bazarov is a new face, whose sharp features we saw for the first time. It is clear that we are thinking about it. If the author had again brought us the landowners of the old time or other persons who have long been familiar to us, then, of course, he would not give us any reason to be amazed, and everyone would marvel only at the fidelity and mastery of his portrayal. But in the present case, the matter is different. Even questions are constantly heard: where do the Bazarovs exist? Who saw the Bazarovs? Which one of us is Bazarov? Finally, are there really people like Bazarov?

Of course, the best proof of Bazarov's reality is the novel itself. Bazarov in him is so true to himself, so generously supplied with flesh and blood, that there is no way to call him an invented person. But he is not a walking type, familiar to everyone and only captured by the artist and exposed by him “to the eyes of the people. Bazarov, in any case, is a person created, and not reproduced, foreseen, but only exposed. which excited the artist's work. Turgenev, as has long been known, is a writer who diligently follows the movement of Russian thought and Russian life. Not only in "Fathers and Sons", but in all his previous works, he constantly grasped and depicted the relationship between fathers and children.The last thought, the last wave of life - that's what attracted his attention most of all.He is a model of a writer gifted with perfect mobility and at the same time with deep sensitivity, deep love for contemporary life.

He is the same in his new novel. If we do not know the full Bazarovs in reality, then, however, we all meet a lot of Bazarov features, everyone knows people who, on the one hand, then on the other, resemble Bazarov. Everyone heard the same thoughts one by one, fragmentarily, incoherently, incoherently. Turgenev embodied the unformed opinions in Bazarov.

From this comes both the profound amusement of the novel and the bewilderment it produces. The Bazarovs by half, the Bazarovs by one quarter, the Bazarovs by one hundredth, do not recognize themselves in the novel. But this is their grief, not Turgenev's grief. It is much better to be a complete Bazarov than to be his ugly and incomplete likeness. Opponents of Bazarovism rejoice, thinking that Turgenev deliberately distorted the matter, that he wrote a caricature of the younger generation: they do not notice how much greatness the depth of his life puts on Bazarov, his completeness, his inexorable and consistent originality, which they take for disgrace.

False accusations! Turgenev remained true to his artistic gift: he does not invent, but creates, does not distort, but only illuminates his figures.

Let's get closer to the point. The range of ideas of which Bazarov is a representative has been more or less clearly expressed in our literature. Their main spokesmen were two journals: Sovremennik, which had been carrying out these aspirations for several years, and Russkoye Slovo, which had recently announced them with particular sharpness. It is hard to doubt that from here, from these purely theoretical and abstract manifestations of a certain way of thinking, Turgenev took the mentality embodied by him in Bazarov. Turgenev took a certain view of things, which had claims to dominance, to primacy in our mental movement. He consistently and harmoniously developed this view to its extreme conclusions and - since the artist's business is not thought, but life - he embodied it in living forms. He gave flesh and blood to what obviously already existed in the form of thought and belief. He gave an outward appearance to what already existed as an inward foundation.

This, of course, should explain the reproach made to Turgenev that he portrayed in Bazarov not one of the representatives of the younger generation, but rather the head of a circle, a product of our wandering and divorced from life literature.

The reproach would be justified if we did not know that sooner or later, to a greater or lesser extent, but without fail passes into life, into deeds. If the Bazarov trend was strong, had admirers and preachers, then it certainly had to give birth to the Bazarovs. So only one question remains: is the Bazarov direction correctly grasped?

In this regard, the opinions of those very journals that are directly interested in the matter, namely Sovremennik and Russkoe Slovo, are very important to us. From these reviews it should be fully revealed how correctly Turgenev understood their spirit. Whether they are satisfied or dissatisfied, whether they understood Bazarov or did not understand, each feature is characteristic here.

Both journals were quick to respond with large articles. An article by Mr. Pisarev appeared in the March issue of Russkoye Slovo, and an article by Mr. Antonovich appeared in the March issue of Sovremennik. It turns out that Sovremennik is quite dissatisfied with Turgenev's novel. He thinks that the novel was written as a reproach and instruction to the younger generation, that it represents a slander against the younger generation and can be placed along with Asmodeus of Our Time, Op. Askochensky.

It is quite obvious that Sovremennik wants to kill Mr. Turgenev in the opinion of the readers, to kill him on the spot, without any pity. It would be very scary if only it were so easy to do, as Sovremennik imagines. No sooner had his formidable book appeared than Mr. Pisarev's article appeared, which constitutes such a radical antidote to the malicious intentions of Sovremennik that nothing better could be desired. Sovremennik hoped that they would take his word for it in this matter. Well, maybe there are those who doubt it. If we began to defend Turgenev, we, too, might be suspected of ulterior motives. But who will doubt Mr. Pisarev? Who wouldn't believe him?

If Mr. Pisarev is known for anything in our literature, it is precisely for the directness and frankness of his exposition. The frankness of Mr. Pisarev consists in carrying out his convictions unreservedly and unrestricted by anything, to the very end, to the last conclusions. G. Pisarev never plays cunning with readers. He finishes his thought. Thanks to this precious property, Turgenev's novel received the most brilliant confirmation that one could expect.

G. Pisarev, a man of the younger generation, testifies that Bazarov is the real type of this generation and that he is depicted quite correctly. "Our entire generation," says Mr. Pisarev, "with its aspirations and ideas, can recognize itself in the protagonists of this novel." "Bazarov is a representative of our young generation. In his personality, those properties are grouped that are scattered in small fractions among the masses, and the image of this person clearly and clearly emerges before the imagination of readers." "Turgenev pondered the type of Bazarov and understood him as truly as none of the young realists would understand." "He didn't cheat in his last work." "Turgenev's general relationship to those phenomena of life that form the outline of his novel is so calm and impartial, so free from the worship of one theory or another, that Bazarov himself would not have found anything timid or false in these relations."

Turgenev is "a sincere artist who does not disfigure reality, but depicts it as it is." As a result of this "honest, pure nature of the artist" "his images live their own lives. He loves them, is carried away by them, he becomes attached to them during the creative process, and it becomes impossible for him to push them around at his whim and turn the picture of life into an allegory with a moral purpose and with a virtuous denouement."

All these reviews are accompanied by a subtle analysis of Bazarov's actions and opinions, showing that the critic understands them and fully sympathizes with them. After this, it is clear what conclusion Mr. Pisarev had to come to as a member of the younger generation.

“Turgenev,” he writes, “justified Bazarov and appreciated him at his true worth. Bazarov came out of his test clean and strong.” "The meaning of the novel came out like this: today's young people get carried away and go to extremes, but fresh strength and an incorruptible mind affect the very hobbies. This strength and this mind make themselves felt in a moment of difficult trials. This strength and this mind without any extraneous aids and influences will lead young people to a straight path and support them in life.

Whoever read this beautiful thought in Turgenev's novel cannot but express deep and ardent gratitude to him as a great artist and an honest citizen of Russia!

Here is sincere and irrefutable evidence of how true Turgenev's poetic instinct is, here is the complete triumph of the all-conquering and all-reconciling power of poetry! In imitation of Mr. Pisarev, we are ready to exclaim: honor and glory to the artist who waited for such a response from those whom he portrayed!

The delight of Mr. Pisarev fully proves that the Bazarovs exist, if not in reality, then in the possibility, and that they are understood by Mr. Turgenev, at least to the extent that they understand themselves. To prevent misunderstandings, we note that the captiousness with which some look at Turgenev's novel is completely inappropriate. Judging by its title, they demand that the entire old and all the new generation be fully depicted in it. Why so? Why not content ourselves with portraying some fathers and some children? If Bazarov is really one of the representatives of the younger generation, then other representatives must necessarily be related to this representative.

Having proved by facts that Turgenev understands the Bazarovs, we will now go further and show that Turgenev understands them much better than they understand themselves. There is nothing surprising or unusual here: such is the privilege of poets. Bazarov is an ideal, a phenomenon; it is clear that he stands above the real phenomena of Bazarovism. Our Bazarovs are only partly Bazarovs, while Turgenev's Bazarovs are Bazarovs by excellence, par excellence. And, consequently, when those who have not grown up to him begin to judge him, in many cases they will not understand him.

Our critics, and even Mr. Pisarev, are dissatisfied with Bazarov. People of a negative direction cannot reconcile themselves to the fact that Bazarov has consistently reached the end in denial. In fact, they are dissatisfied with the hero because he denies 1) the elegance of life, 2) aesthetic pleasure, 3) science. Let us analyze these three denials in more detail, in this way, Bazarov himself will become clear to us.

The figure of Bazarov has something gloomy and sharp in itself. There is nothing soft and beautiful in his appearance. His face had a different, not external beauty: "it was animated by a calm smile and expressed self-confidence and intelligence." He cares little for his appearance and dresses casually. In the same way, in his address, he does not like any unnecessary politeness, empty, meaningless forms, external varnish that does not cover anything. Bazarov is simple to the highest degree, and on this, by the way, depends the ease with which he gets along with people, from the yard boys to Anna Sergeevna Odintsova. This is how his young friend Arkady Kirsanov himself defines Bazarov: “Please don’t stand on ceremony with him,” he says to his father, “he is a wonderful fellow, so simple, you will see.”

In order to expose Bazarov's simplicity more sharply, Turgenev contrasted it with the sophistication and scrupulousness of Pavel Petrovich. From beginning to end of the story, the author does not forget to laugh at his collars, perfumes, mustaches, nails and all other signs of tender courtship for his own person. The appeal of Pavel Petrovich, his touch with his mustache instead of a kiss, his unnecessary delicacy, etc., are depicted no less humorously.

After that, it is very strange that Bazarov's admirers are unhappy with his portrayal in this regard. They find that the author has given him a rude manner, that he has presented him as uncouth, ill-bred, who should not be allowed into a decent living room.

Reasoning about the elegance of manners and the subtlety of treatment, as you know, is a very difficult subject. Since we know little about these things, it is understandable that Bazarov does not in the least arouse disgust in us and does not seem to us either mal eleve or mauvais ton. All the characters in the novel seem to agree with us. The simplicity of treatment and the figures of Bazarov do not arouse disgust in them, but rather inspire respect for him. He was cordially received in Anna Sergeevna's drawing room, where even some poor princess sat.

Graceful manners and a good dress, of course, are good things, but we doubt that they were to Bazarov's face and went to his character. A man deeply devoted to one cause, destined, as he himself says, for "a bitter, tart life," he could in no way play the role of a refined gentleman, could not be an amiable conversationalist. He easily gets along with people. He is keenly interested in all who know him, but this interest does not lie at all in the subtlety of treatment.

Deep asceticism penetrates the whole personality of Bazarov. This feature is not accidental, but essential. The nature of this asceticism is special, and in this respect one must strictly adhere to the present point of view, that is, the one from which Turgenev looks. 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 is not averse even to playing cards. G. Antonovich in "Sovremennik" sees here also the insidious intent of Turgenev and assures us that the poet exposed his hero as a glutton, drunkard and gambler. The matter, however, does not have the form in which it seems to the chastity of G. Antonovich. Bazarov understands that simple or purely bodily pleasures are much more legitimate and forgivable than pleasures of a different kind. Bazarov understands that there are temptations more disastrous, more corrupting the soul than, for example, a bottle of wine, and he is careful not of what can destroy the body, but of what destroys the soul. The enjoyment of vanity, gentlemanship, mental and heart depravity of every kind is much more disgusting and hateful for him than berries and cream or a bullet in preference. Here are the temptations he guards himself against. Here is the highest asceticism to which Bazarov is devoted. He does not pursue sensual pleasures. He enjoys them only on occasion. He is so deeply occupied with his thoughts that it can never be difficult for him to give up these pleasures. In a word, he indulges in these simple pleasures because he is always above them, because they can never take possession of him. But the more stubbornly and severely he refuses such pleasures, which could become higher than him and take possession of his soul.

This is where the striking circumstance is explained that Bazarov denies aesthetic pleasures, that he does not want to admire nature and does not recognize art. Both of our critics were greatly perplexed by this denial of art.

Bazarov rejects art, that is, does not recognize its true meaning behind it. He directly denies art, but he denies it because he understands it more deeply. Obviously, music for Bazarov is not a purely physical occupation, and reading Pushkin is not the same as drinking vodka. In this respect, Turgenev's hero is incomparably superior to his followers. In the melody of Schubert and in the verses of Pushkin, he clearly hears a hostile beginning. He senses their all-enticing power and therefore arms against them.

In what does this force of art, hostile to Bazarov, consist? We can say that art always carries an element 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, on the other hand, is a realist, not a contemplative, but an activist who recognizes only real phenomena and denies ideals.

Hostility to art is an important phenomenon and is not a fleeting delusion. On the contrary, it is deeply rooted in the spirit of the present. Art has always been and always will be the realm of the eternal: hence it is clear that the priests of art, like the priests of the eternal, easily begin to look contemptuously at everything temporary. At least, they sometimes consider themselves right when they indulge in eternal interests, taking no part in temporal ones. And, consequently, those who cherish the temporal, who demand the concentration of all activity on the needs of the present moment, on urgent matters, must necessarily become hostile to art.

What does Schubert's melody mean, for example? Try to explain what business the artist did when he created this melody, and what business those who listen to it do? Art, some say, is a surrogate for science. It indirectly contributes to the dissemination of information. Try to consider what kind of knowledge or information is contained and disseminated in this melody. One of two things: either the one who indulges in the pleasure of music is engaged in perfect trifles, physical sensations; or else his rapture refers to something abstract, general, boundless, and yet alive and completely taking possession of the human soul.

Delight is the evil against which Bazarov goes and which he has no reason to fear from a glass of vodka. Art has a claim and a power to become much higher than the pleasant irritation of the visual and listening nerves: it is this claim and this power that Bazarov does not recognize as legitimate.

As we have said, the denial of art is one of the contemporary aspirations. Of course, art is invincible and contains an inexhaustible, ever-renewing power. Nevertheless, the inspiration of the new spirit, which was revealed in the rejection of art, is, of course, of profound significance.

It is especially understandable for us Russians. Bazarov in this case represents a living embodiment of one of the sides of the Russian spirit. In general, we are not very disposed towards the elegant. We are too sober for that, too practical. Quite often you can find people among us for whom poetry and music seem to be something either cloying or childish. Enthusiasm and grandiloquence are not to our liking. We prefer simplicity, caustic humor, ridicule. And on this score, as can be seen from the novel, Bazarov himself is a great artist.

“The course of the natural and medical sciences attended by Bazarov,” says Mr. Pisarev, “developed his natural mind and weaned him from accepting any concepts and beliefs on faith. He became a pure empiricist. Experience became for him the only source of knowledge, personal feeling is the only and last convincing evidence. I stick to the negative direction," he says, "because of sensations. I like to deny, my brain is so arranged - and that's it! Why do I like chemistry? Why do you like apples? Also by virtue of sensations - it's all one. People will never penetrate deeper than this. Not everyone will tell you this, and I won't tell you this another time." “So,” concludes the critic, “neither above himself, nor outside himself, nor within himself, Bazarov does not recognize any regulator, no moral law, no (theoretical) principle.”

As for Mr. Antonovich, he considers Bazarov's mental mood to be something very absurd and disgraceful. It is only a pity that, no matter how it gets stronger, it cannot show what this absurdity consists of.

“Disassemble,” he says, “the above views and thoughts, given out by the novel as modern: don’t they look like porridge? (But let’s see!) Now “there are no principles, that is, not a single principle is taken for granted.” this decision not to take anything on faith is the principle!

Of course it is. However, what a cunning man Mr. Antonovich found a contradiction in Bazarov! He says that he has no principles - and suddenly it turns out that he has!

“And is this principle really not good?” continues Mr. Antonovich. “Can an energetic person really defend and put into practice what he has received from the outside from another, on faith, and which does not correspond to his whole mood and his whole development?”

Well, this is weird. Who are you speaking against, Mr. Antonovich? After all, you, obviously, are defending the principle of Bazarov, and yet you are going to prove that he has a mess in his head. What does this mean?

“And even,” the critic writes, “when a principle is taken on faith, it is not done without reason (Who said it wasn’t?), but because of some foundation that lies in the person himself. There are many principles on faith, but to admit one or the other of them depends on the personality, on its disposition and development.So, everything comes down to authority, which lies in the personality of a person (i.e., as Mr. Pisarev says, personal sensation is the only and last convincing proof?). He himself determines both external authorities and their meaning for himself. And when the younger generation does not accept your principles, it means that they do not satisfy his nature. Internal impulses (feelings) dispose in favor of other principles. "

It is clearer than day that all this is the essence of Bazarov's ideas. G. Antonovich, obviously, is fighting against someone, but it is not known against whom. But everything he says serves as confirmation of Bazarov's opinions, and in no way proof that they represent porridge.

And yet, almost immediately after these words, Mr. Antonovich says: “Why, then, does the novel try to present the matter as if negation occurs as a result of sensation: it is pleasant to deny, the brain is so arranged - and that's it. Denial is a matter of taste: one likes it just like someone else likes apples"

What do you mean why? After all, you yourself say that this is so, and the novel was intended to depict a person who shares such opinions. The only difference between Bazarov's words and yours is that he speaks simply, and you speak in high style. If you loved apples and were asked why you love them, you would probably answer like this: "I took this principle on faith, but not without reason: apples satisfy my nature; my inner urges dispose me to them" . And Bazarov answers simply: "I love apples because of the pleasant taste for me."

It must be that Mr. Antonovich himself finally felt that not quite what was needed comes out of his words, and therefore he concludes as follows: “What does disbelief in science and non-recognition of science in general mean? You need to ask Mr. Turgenev himself about this.” Where he observed such a phenomenon and in what it is revealed cannot be understood from his novel.

Not to mention the manifestation of Bazarov’s way of thinking in the whole novel, let us point out here some conversations that could lead Mr. Antonovich to an understanding that was not given to him ...

“So you reject everything?” Pavel Petrovich says to Bazarov. “Let’s assume. So you believe in one science?

I have already reported to you,” answered Bazarov, “that I don’t believe in anything. And what is science, science in general? There are sciences, just as there are crafts, knowledge, but science does not exist at all."

On another occasion, Bazarov objected to his rival no less sharply and distinctly.

“Forgive me,” he said, “the logic of history requires ...

Why do we need this logic? - answered Bazarov, - we manage without it.

Yes, the same. You don't need logic, I hope, to put a piece of bread in your mouth when you're hungry. Where are we before these abstractions!

Already from here it can be seen that Bazarov's views do not represent porridge, as the critic tries to assure, but, on the contrary, form a solid and strict chain of concepts.

In order to further point out some of his characteristic features, we will cite here passages from the novel that struck us with the extraordinary insight with which Turgenev understood the spirit of the Bazarov trend.

"We break because we are strong," Arkady remarked.

Pavel Petrovich looked at his nephew and grinned.

Yes, strength still does not give an account, ”Arkady said and straightened up.

Unhappy! - Pavel Petrovich cried out, - even if you thought that in Russia you support your vulgar maxim? .. But - you will be crushed!

If crushed, there and the road! - Bazarov said, - only the grandmother said in two more. We are not as few as you think."

This direct and pure recognition of force for right is nothing else than the direct and pure recognition of reality. Not a justification, not an explanation or conclusion of it - all this is superfluous here - but a simple recognition, which is so strong in itself that it does not require any extraneous support. The renunciation of thought as something completely unnecessary is quite clear here. Reasoning can add nothing to this confession.

"Our people," Bazarov says elsewhere, "are Russian, but am I not Russian myself?" "My grandfather plowed the land." "You blame my direction, but who told you that it was accidental, that it was not caused by the same folk spirit in whose name you advocate?"

This simple logic is strong in that there is no reasoning where it is not needed. The Bazarovs, as soon as they really became Bazarovs, have no need to justify themselves. They are not a phantasmagoria, not a mirage: they are something solid and real. They do not need to prove their right to exist, because they already really exist. Justification is needed only for phenomena that are suspected of being false or that have not yet reached reality.

"I sing like a bird sings," the poet said in his defense. "I am Bazarov, just like a linden is a linden, and a birch is a birch," Bazarov might have said. Why should he submit to history and the national spirit, or somehow conform to them, or even just think about them, when he himself is history, himself the manifestation of the national spirit?

Thus, believing in himself, Bazarov is undoubtedly confident in the forces of which he is a part. "We are not as few as you think."

From such an understanding of oneself, another important feature consistently follows in the mood and activity of the true Bazarovs. Twice hot Pavel Petrovich approaches his opponent with the strongest objection and receives the same significant answer.

“Materialism,” says Pavel Petrovich, “which you preach, has been in vogue more than once and has more than once proved untenable...

Another foreign word! interrupted Bazarov. - First of all, we do not preach anything. It's not in our habits..."

After some time, Pavel Petrovich again gets on the same topic.

“Why, then,” he says, “do you honor others, at least the same accusers? Don’t you talk the same way as everyone else?

What else, but this sin is not sinful, - Bazarov said through his teeth.

In order to be completely consistent to the end, Bazarov refuses to preach as idle chatter. Indeed, preaching would be nothing but the recognition of the rights of thought, the power of the idea. A sermon would be the justification that, as we have seen, is superfluous for Bazarov. To attach importance to preaching would be to recognize mental activity, to recognize that people are not governed by sensations and needs, but also by thought and the word that clothes it. He sees that logic cannot take much. He tries to act more by personal example, and is sure that the Bazarovs themselves will be born in abundance, just as famous plants are born where their seeds are. Mr. Pisarev perfectly understands this view. For example, he says: "Indignation against stupidity and meanness is generally understandable, but, by the way, it is just as fruitful as indignation against autumn dampness or winter cold." In the same way, he judges the direction of Bazarov: “If Bazarovism is a disease, then it is a disease of our time, and you have to suffer, in spite of any palliatives and amputations. Treat Bazarovism as you like - this is your business, but you can’t stop it. It's the same cholera."

From this it is clear that all Bazarov-talkers, Bazarov-preachers, Bazarovs, busy not with business, but only with their own Bazarovism, follow the wrong path, which leads them to incessant contradictions and absurdities, that they are much more inconsistent and stand much lower than the real Bazarov.

Such is the strict mood of the mind, what a firm frame of mind Turgenev embodied in his Bazarov. He gave flesh and blood to this mind and performed this task with amazing skill. Bazarov came out as a simple man, devoid of any brokenness, and at the same time strong, powerful in soul and body. Everything about him is unusually suited to his strong nature. It is 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 warehouse. In the same way, between the faces of the novel, he most easily draws closer to the people, knows how to behave with them best of all.

All this perfectly matches the simplicity and directness of the view professed by Bazarov. A person who is deeply imbued with well-known convictions, constituting their full embodiment, must necessarily come out both natural, therefore, close to his nationality, and at the same time a strong person. That is why Turgenev, who until now has created, so to speak, bifurcated faces (Hamlet of the Shchigrovsky district, Rudin, Lavretsky), finally, in Bazarovo, reached the type of a whole person. Bazarov is the first strong person, the first integral character, who appeared in Russian literature from the milieu of the so-called educated society. Anyone who does not appreciate this, who does not understand the full importance of such a phenomenon, better not judge our literature. Even Mr. Antonovich noticed this, and declared his insight with the following strange phrase: "Apparently, Mr. Turgenev wanted to depict in his hero, as they say, a demonic or Byronic nature, something like Hamlet." Hamlet is demonic! As you can see, our sudden admirer of Goethe is content with very strange notions about Byron and Shakespeare. But indeed, Turgenev produced something in the nature of a demon, that is, a nature rich in strength, although this strength is not pure.

What is the action of the novel?

Bazarov, together with his friend Arkady Kirsanov, both students who had just completed the course - one at the medical academy, the other at the university - come from St. Petersburg to the province. Bazarov, however, is no longer a man of his first youth. He has already made himself some fame, managed to declare his way of thinking. Arkady is a perfect young man. All the action of the novel takes place in one vacation, perhaps for both of them the first vacation after the end of the course. The friends mostly stay together, sometimes in the Kirsanov family, sometimes in the Bazarov family, sometimes in the provincial town, sometimes in the village of the widow Odintsova. They meet many people whom they either see only for the first time or have not seen for a long time. It was Bazarov who did not go home for three whole years. Thus, there is a varied clash of their new views, taken out of St. Petersburg, with the views of these people. In this collision lies the whole interest of the novel. There are very few events and actions in it. At the end of the holidays, Bazarov almost accidentally dies, having become infected from a purulent corpse, and Kirsanov marries, having fallen in love with his sister Odintsova. That is how the whole novel ends.

Bazarov is at the same time a true hero, despite the fact that there is, apparently, nothing brilliant and striking in him. From his first step, the reader's attention is riveted to him, and all other faces begin to revolve around him, as around the main center of gravity. He is least interested in other people, but other people are all the more interested in him. He does not impose on anyone and does not ask for it. And yet, wherever he appears, he excites the strongest attention, is the main subject of feelings and thoughts, love and hatred. Going to visit relatives and friends, Bazarov had no particular goal in mind. He seeks nothing, expects nothing from this trip. He just wanted to rest, to travel. Many, many, that he sometimes wants to see people. But with the superiority that he has over the people around him, these people themselves beg for a closer relationship with him and entangle him in a drama that he did not want at all and did not even foresee.

As soon as he appeared in the Kirsanov family, he immediately aroused irritation and hatred in Pavel Petrovich, in Nikolai Petrovich respect mixed with fear, the disposition of Fenechka, Dunyasha, the yard boys, even the infant Mitya, and the contempt of Prokofich. Subsequently, it comes to the fact that he himself gets carried away for a minute and kisses Fenechka, and Pavel Petrovich challenges him to a duel. “What stupidity! what stupidity!” repeats Bazarov, who did not expect such events.

A trip to the city, which had the purpose of seeing the people, also does not cost him nothing. Various faces begin to circle around him. He is courted by Sitnikov and Kukshina, masterfully portrayed as the faces of a fake progressive and a fake emancipated woman. They, of course, do not bother Bazarov. He treats them with contempt, and they serve only as a contrast, from which his mind and strength, his complete genuineness, stand out even sharper and more clearly. But then there is also a stumbling block - Anna Sergeevna Odintsova. Despite all his composure, Bazarov begins to hesitate. To the great surprise of his admirer Arkady, he once even became embarrassed, and another time he blushed. Not suspecting, however, any danger, firmly relying on himself, Bazarov goes to visit Odintsova, in Nikolskoye. Indeed, he is in excellent command of himself. And Odintsova, like all other persons, is interested in him in a way that she probably has not been interested in anyone in her entire life. The case ends, however, badly. Too strong passion ignites in Bazarov, and Odintsova's passion does not reach true love. Bazarov leaves, almost rejected, and again begins to marvel at himself and scold himself: "The devil knows what nonsense! Every person hangs by a thread, the abyss under him can open up every minute, and he still invents all sorts of troubles for himself, spoils his life. "

But, despite these wise arguments, Bazarov still unwittingly continues to spoil his life. Already after this lesson, already during the second visit to the Kirsanovs, he comes across Fenichka's lips and a duel with Pavel Petrovich.

Obviously, Bazarov does not at all want and does not expect an affair, but the affair is accomplished against his iron will. Life, over which he thought to be the master, captures him with its broad wave.

At the end of the story, when Bazarov is visiting his father and mother, he is obviously somewhat lost after all the shocks he has endured. He was not so lost that he could not recover, could not resurrect in full strength in a short time, but nevertheless, the shadow of anguish, which at the very beginning lay on this iron man, becomes thicker in the end. He loses the desire to exercise, loses weight, begins to tease the peasants no longer friendly, but biliously. From this it follows that this time he and the peasant do not understand each other, whereas previously mutual understanding was to a certain extent possible. Finally, Bazarov recovers somewhat and takes a great interest in medical practice. The infection from which he dies, nevertheless, seems to indicate a lack of attention and dexterity, an accidental distraction of mental strength.

Death is the last test of life, the last chance that Bazarov did not expect. He dies, but even to the last moment he remains a stranger to this life, which he encountered so strangely, which alarmed him with such trifles, forced him to do such stupid things and, finally, ruined him due to such an insignificant reason.

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

Thus, despite the short duration of the novel and despite the quick death, he managed to express himself completely, to fully show his strength. Life has not ruined him - this conclusion cannot be deduced from the novel - but so far it has only given him occasions to show his energy. In the eyes of readers, Bazarov emerges from temptation as a winner. Everyone will say that people like Bazarov are capable of doing a lot, that with these forces one can expect a lot from them.

Bazarov is shown only in a narrow frame, and not in the full width of human life. The author says almost nothing about how his hero developed, how such a person could have developed. In the same way, the quick end of the novel leaves a complete mystery to the question: would Bazarov remain the same Bazarov, or in general, what development is destined for him ahead. And yet, both of these silences seem to us to have their own reason, their essential basis. If the gradual development of the hero is not shown, then, without a doubt, because Bazarov was formed not by a slow accumulation of influences, but, on the contrary, by a quick, sharp turning point. Bazarov was not at home for three years. These three years he studied, and now he suddenly appears to us saturated with everything that he managed to learn. The next morning after his arrival, he already goes for frogs, and in general he continues his educational life at every opportunity. He is a man of theory, and theory created him, created him imperceptibly, without events, without anything that could be told, created by one mental upheaval.

The artist needed the quick death of Bazarov for the simplicity and clarity of the picture. In his present tense mood, Bazarov cannot stop for long. Sooner or later he must change, he must cease to be Bazarov. We have no right to complain about the artist for not taking on a broader task and limiting himself to a narrower one. Nevertheless, at this stage of development, the whole person appeared before us, and not his fragmentary features. In relation to the fullness of the face, the task of the artist is excellently executed. A living, whole person is captured by the author in every action, in every movement of Bazarov. This is the great merit of the novel, which contains its main meaning and which our hasty moralists have not noticed. Bazarov is a strange man, one-sidedly sharp. He preaches extraordinary things. He acts eccentrically. As we said, he is a man alien to life, that is, he himself is alien to life. But under all these external forms flows a warm stream of life.

This is the point of view from which one can most correctly assess the actions and events of the novel. Because of all the roughness, ugliness, false and feigned forms, one can hear the deep vitality of all the phenomena and persons brought to the stage. If, for example, Bazarov captures the attention and sympathy of the reader, it is not at all because his every word is holy and every action is just, but precisely because, in essence, all these words and actions flow from a living soul. Apparently, Bazarov is a proud man, terribly proud and offending others with his pride, but the reader comes to terms with this pride, because at the same time there is no self-satisfaction, self-gratification in Bazarov. Pride does not bring him any happiness. Bazarov treats his parents dismissively and dryly, but in no case will anyone suspect him of enjoying a sense of his own superiority or a sense of his power over them. Still less can he be accused of abusing this superiority and this power. He simply refuses tender relations with his parents, and he does not refuse completely. It turns out something strange: he is taciturn with his father, laughs at him, sharply accuses him of either ignorance or tenderness, and meanwhile the father is not only not offended, but glad and pleased. “Bazarov’s mockery did not bother Vasily Ivanovich at all; they even consoled him. Holding his greasy dressing gown with two fingers on his stomach, and smoking his pipe, he listened to Bazarov with pleasure, and the more anger was in his antics, the more good-naturedly he laughed, showing all his black teeth, his happy father." Such are the wonders of love! The gentle and good-natured Arkady could never make his father so happy as Bazarov made his own. Bazarov, of course, himself very well feels and understands this. Why else should he be gentle with his father and change his inexorable consistency!

From all this one can see what a difficult task Turgenev took and completed in his last novel. He portrayed life under the deadening influence of theory. He gave us a living person, although this person, apparently, embodied himself without a trace in an abstract formula. From this, the novel, if it is judged superficially, is little understood, presents little sympathy and seems to consist entirely of an obscure logical construction, but in essence, in fact, it is superbly clear, unusually captivating and trembles with the warmest life.

There is almost no need to explain why Bazarov came out and had to come out as a theoretician. Everyone knows that our living representatives, that the bearers of the thoughts of our generations have long since refused to be practitioners, that active participation in the life around them has long been impossible for them. In this sense, Bazarov is a direct, immediate successor of the Onegins, Pechorins, Rudins, and Lavretskys. Just like them, he still lives in the mental sphere and spends his spiritual strength on it. But in him the thirst for activity has already reached the last, extreme degree. His whole theory consists in the direct demand of the case. His mood is such that he will inevitably seize on this matter at the first opportunity.

The image of Bazarov for us is this: he is not a hateful creature, repulsive with his shortcomings, on the contrary, his gloomy figure is majestic and attractive.

What is the meaning of the novel? - fans of naked and exact conclusions will ask. Do you think Bazarov is a role model? Or, rather, should his failures and roughness teach the Bazarovs not to fall into the mistakes and extremes of the real Bazarov? In a word, is the novel written for the younger generation or against it? Is it progressive or retrograde?

If the matter is so urgently about the intentions of the author, about what he wanted to teach and what to wean from, then these questions should, it seems, be answered in the following way: indeed, Turgenev wants to be instructive, but at the same time he chooses tasks that are much more taller and harder than you think. Writing a novel with a progressive or retrograde direction is still not difficult. Turgenev, on the other hand, had the ambition 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 to the eternal in time, and wrote a novel that was neither progressive nor retrograde, but, so to speak, everlasting.

The change of generations is the external theme of the novel. If Turgenev did not depict all fathers and children, or not those fathers and children that others would like, then in general fathers and children, and he portrayed the relationship between these two generations excellently. Perhaps the difference between the generations has never been as great as it is at present, and therefore their relationship was revealed especially sharply. Be that as it may, in order to measure the difference between two objects, one must use the same measure for both. To paint a picture, you need to take the objects depicted from one point of view, common to all of them.

This identical measure, this common point of view in Turgenev is human life, in its broadest and fullest sense. The reader of his novel feels that behind the mirage of external actions and scenes such a deep, such an inexhaustible stream of life flows that all these actions and scenes, all persons and events are insignificant before this stream.

If we understand Turgenev's novel in this way, then perhaps we will most clearly see the moralizing we seek. There is moralizing, and even very important, because truth and poetry are always instructive.

Let's not talk here about the description of nature, that Russian nature, which is so difficult to describe and for the description of which Turgenev is such a master. In the new novel, he is the same as before. The sky, the air, the fields, the trees, even the horses, even the chickens - everything is captured picturesquely and accurately.

Let's just take people. What could be weaker and more insignificant than Bazarov's young friend, Arkady? He seems to be subject to every counter influence. He is the most common of mortals. Meanwhile, he is extremely sweet. The magnanimous excitement of his young feelings, his nobility and purity are noticed by the author with great subtlety and are clearly outlined. Nikolai Petrovich is the real father of his son. There is not a single bright feature in him, and the only good thing is that he is a man, albeit a simple man. Further, what could be more empty than Fenichka? “It was charming,” says the author, “the expression in her eyes, when she looked, as it were, from under her brows, and laughed affectionately and a little stupidly.” Pavel Petrovich himself calls her an empty being. And yet, this stupid Fenechka is gaining almost more fans than the clever Odintsova. Not only does Nikolai Petrovich love her, but both Pavel Petrovich and Bazarov himself fall in love with her, in part. And yet, this love and this falling in love are true and dear human feelings. Finally, what is Pavel Petrovich - a dandy, a dandy with gray hair, all immersed in worries about the toilet? But even in it, despite the apparent perversion, there are lively and even energetic sounding heart strings.

The further we go in the novel, the closer to the end of the drama, the darker and more intense the figure of Bazarov becomes, but at the same time, the background of the picture becomes brighter and brighter. The creation of such persons as Bazarov's father and mother is a true triumph of talent. Apparently, what could be more insignificant and worthless than these people, who have outlived their time and, with all the prejudices of the past, are ugly decrepit in the midst of a new life? And meanwhile, what a wealth of simple human feelings! What depth and breadth of psychic manifestations - in the midst of everyday life, which does not rise even a hair's breadth above the lowest level!

When Bazarov falls ill, when he rots alive and adamantly endures the cruel struggle with the disease, the life surrounding him becomes the more intense and brighter, the darker Bazarov himself is. Odintsova comes to say goodbye to Bazarov; probably, she has not done anything more generous and will not do it all her life. As for the father and mother, it is difficult to find anything more touching. Their love flashes with some kind of lightning that instantly shocks the reader; infinitely mournful hymns seem to burst out of their simple hearts, some infinitely deep and tender cries, irresistibly grabbing the soul.

In the midst of this light and this warmth, Bazarov dies. For a moment, a storm boils in his father's soul, worse than which nothing can be. But it quickly subsides, and everything becomes light again. The very grave of Bazarov is illuminated with light and peace. Birds sing over her, and tears fall on her...

So, here it is, here is the mysterious moralizing that Turgenev put into his work. Bazarov turns away from nature. Turgenev does not reproach him for this, but only draws nature in all its beauty. Bazarov does not value friendship and renounces romantic love. The author does not defame him for this, but only depicts Arkady's friendship for Bazarov himself and his happy love for Katya. Bazarov denies close ties between parents and children. The author does not reproach him for this, but only unfolds before us a picture of parental love. Bazarov eschews life. The author does not expose him as a villain for this, but only shows us life in all its beauty. Bazarov rejects poetry. Turgenev does not make him a fool for this, but only portrays him with all the luxury and insight of poetry.

In a word, Turgenev showed us how the forces of life are embodied in Bazarov, in the same Bazarov who denies them. He showed us, if not more powerful, then more open, more clear incarnation of them in those ordinary people who surround Bazarov. Bazarov is a titan who rebelled against his mother earth21. No matter how great its power, it only testifies to the greatness of the power that gave birth to and nourishes it, but does not equal the mother's power.

Be that as it may, Bazarov is still defeated. Defeated not by persons and not by the accidents of life, but by the very idea of ​​this life. Such an ideal victory over him was possible only on the condition that all possible justice be given to him, that he be exalted to the extent that greatness is characteristic of him. Otherwise, there would be no strength and meaning in the victory itself.

In "Fathers and Sons" Turgenev showed more clearly than in all other cases that poetry, while remaining poetry, can actively serve society.

Conclusion

In my work, I presented critics' reviews of Turgenev's novel Fathers and Sons. As already mentioned, none of the writers remained indifferent to this work. Reviews of critics were very different: from positive (D.I. Pisarev, N.N. Strakhov) to negative (M.A. Antonovich).

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 was a pure lie, that the younger generation denies only “pure art”, among the representatives of which, however, he ranked Pushkin and Turgenev himself.

DI. Pisarev notes a certain 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”. The critic 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."

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."

In any case, we can say with confidence that Turgenev created an eternal work. After all, the conflict of fathers and children will always take place in people's lives, regardless of the era.

Not a single work of I. S. Turgenev caused such contradictory responses as "Fathers and Sons" (1861). It couldn't be otherwise. The writer reflected in the novel the turning point in the public consciousness of Russia, when revolutionary-democratic thought replaced noble liberalism. Two real forces clashed in the evaluation of Fathers and Sons.

Turgenev himself ambivalently perceived the image he created. He wrote to A. Fet: “Did I want to scold Bazarov or exalt him? I don’t know this myself…” Turgenev told A.I. The heterogeneity of the author's feelings was noticed by Turgenev's contemporaries. The editor of the Russian Messenger magazine, where the novel was published, M. N. Katkov was outraged by the omnipotence of the “new man”. Critic A. Antonovich in an article with the expressive title "Asmodeus of our time" (that is, "the devil of our time") noted that Turgenev "despises and hates the main character and his friends with all his heart." Critical remarks were made by A. I. Herzen, M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. D. I. Pisarev, editor of Russkoye Slovo, saw the truth of life in the novel: “Turgenev does not like merciless denial, but meanwhile the personality of a merciless denier comes out as a strong personality and inspires respect in the reader”; "... No one in the novel can compare with Bazarov either in strength of mind or in strength of character."

Turgenev's novel, according to Pisarev, is also remarkable for the fact that it excites the mind, leads to reflection. Pisarev accepted everything in Bazarov: both a dismissive attitude towards art, and a simplified view of a person’s spiritual life, and an attempt to comprehend love through the prism of natural science views. material from the site

In the article by D. I. Pisarev "Bazarov" there are many controversial provisions. But the general interpretation of the work is convincing, and the reader often agrees with the thoughts of the critic. Not everyone who spoke about the novel "Fathers and Sons" could see, compare and evaluate the personality of Bazarov, and this is natural. In our time of restructuring life, this type of personality can be equaled, but we need a slightly different Bazarov ... Another thing is also important for us. Bazarov selflessly spoke out against the routine of spiritual stagnation, dreamed of establishing new social relations. The origins of the condition, the results of this activity of his, were, of course, different. But the idea itself - to remake the world, the human soul, to breathe into it the living energy of daring - cannot but excite today. In such a broad sense, the figure of Bazarov acquires a special sound. It is not difficult to see the external difference between “fathers” and “children”, but it is much more difficult to understand the internal content of the controversy between them. N. A. Dobrolyubov, a critic of the Sovremennik magazine, helps us with this. "... People of the Bazarov warehouse," he believes, "decide to set foot on the road of merciless denial in order to find the pure truth." Comparing the positions of people of the 40s and people of the 60s, N. A. Dobrolyubov said about the first: “They strove for the truth, wished for good, they were captivated by everything beautiful, but principles were above all for them. Principles they called the general philosophical idea, which they recognized as the basis of all their logic and morality. Dobrolyubov called the Sixties "the young active generation of the time": they do not know how to shine and make noise, they do not worship any idols, "their final goal is not slavish loyalty to abstract higher ideas, but bringing the greatest possible benefit to humanity." "Fathers and Sons" is an "artistic document" of the ideological struggle in Russia in the middle of the 19th century. In this respect, the cognitive value of the novel will never dry up. But Turgenev's work cannot be limited to this meaning alone. The writer discovered for all epochs the important process of generational change - the replacement of obsolete forms of consciousness by new ones, showed the difficulty of their germination. It is also striking that I. S. Turgenev so long ago discovered conflicts that are very relevant for today. What are "fathers" and "children", what connects and separates them? The question is not idle. The past provides many necessary guidelines for the present. Imagine how much easier Bazarov's fate would have been if he had not deleted the experience accumulated by mankind from his luggage? Turgenev tells us about the danger of the next generation losing the achievements of human culture, about the tragic consequences of enmity and separation of people.