Maxim Alekseevich Antonovich was once considered a publicist, as well as a popular literary critic. In his views, he was like N.A. Dobrolyubov and N.G. Chernyshevsky, about whom he spoke very respectfully and even admiringly.

His critical article "Asmodeus of Our Time" was directed against the image of the younger generation, which I.S. Turgenev created in his novel "Fathers and Sons". The article was published immediately after Turgenev's novel came out, and caused great excitement among the reading public of that time.

According to the critic, the author idealizes fathers (older generation) and slanders children (younger generation). Analyzing the image of Bazarov that Turgenev created, Maxim Alekseevich argued: Turgenev created his character as unnecessarily immoral, instead of clearly spelled out ideas, placing “porridge” in his head. Thus, not an image of the younger generation was created, but its caricature.

In the title of the article, Antonovich uses something unfamiliar in wide circles the word "Asmodeus". In fact, it means an evil demon that came to us from later Jewish literature. This word in poetic, refined language means a terrible creature or, simply put, the devil. Bazarov appears in the novel just like that. First, he hates everyone and threatens to persecute everyone he hates. He shows such feelings to everyone, from frogs to children.

The heart of Bazarov, as Turgenev created it, according to Antonovich, is not capable of anything. In it, the reader will not find a trace of any noble feelings - passion, passion, love, finally. Unfortunately, the cold heart of the protagonist is not capable of such manifestations of feelings and emotions, which is no longer his personal, but a social problem, since it affects the lives of the people around him.

In his critical article, Antonovich complained that readers might want to change their minds about the younger generation, but Turgenev does not give them such a right. The emotions of the "children" never wake up, which prevents the reader from living his life next to the adventures of the hero and worrying about his fate.

Antonovich believed that Turgenev simply hated his hero Bazarov, not putting him among his obvious favorites. In the work, moments are clearly visible when the author rejoices at what mistakes his unloved hero made, he tries to belittle him all the time and even takes revenge on him somewhere. For Antonovich, this state of affairs seemed ridiculous.

The very title of the article “Asmodeus of our time” speaks for itself - Antonovich sees and does not forget to point out that in Bazarov, as Turgenev created him, all negative, even sometimes devoid of sympathy, character traits were embodied.

At the same time, Maxim Alekseevich tried to be tolerant and unbiased, reading Turgenev's work several times and trying to see the attention and positive with which the car speaks of his hero. Unfortunately, Antonovich did not manage to find such tendencies in the novel "Fathers and Sons", which he mentioned more than once in his critical article.

In addition to Antonovich, many other critics responded to the publication of Fathers and Sons. Dostoevsky and Maikov were delighted with the work, which they did not fail to indicate in their letters to the author. Other critics were less emotional: for example, Pisemsky sent his criticisms to Turgenev, almost completely agreeing with Antonovich. Another literary critic, Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov, exposed Bazarov's nihilism, considering this theory and this philosophy completely divorced from the realities of life in Russia at that time. So the author of the article “Asmodeus of Our Time” was not unanimous in his statements regarding Turgenev’s new novel, and in many issues he enjoyed the support of his colleagues.

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 stirred up as many conversations as the story "Fathers and Sons." They were read even by people who did not pick up books from school.

The controversy around 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 “with laughter of contempt they burn my photographic cards", - others, on the contrary, indignantly reproach me for kowtowing before this very young generation."

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", then the writer himself got the 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 young 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 didn’t understand “children” either, and instead of denunciation, you came up 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 "Bazarov" appeared on the pages of another democratic journal, Russkoye 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 through in spite of the will and consciousness of the author himself and warms the objective story.

Even if the writer does not feel much 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 scientific views.

Pisarev turned out to be a more penetrating critic than Antonovich. At all costs, he managed to more fairly assess the objective significance 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?

Perhaps the most calm and objective attitude to Turgenev's novel was NN Strakhov. He wrote: “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 parental love; the author does not defame him for this, but only depicts Arkady's friendship with Bazarov himself and his happy love to Katya ... Bazarov ... is defeated not by the faces 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 humanity. 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 rather 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. 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."

The most important feature of the amazing talent of I.S. Turgenev - sharp feeling of his time, which is the best test for the artist. The images created by him continue to live, but in a different world, whose name is the grateful memory of the descendants who learned love, dreams and wisdom from the writer.

The clash of two political forces, liberal nobles and raznochintsy revolutionaries, found artistic expression in a new work, which is created in a difficult period of social confrontation.

The idea of ​​"Fathers and Sons" is the result of communication with the staff of the Sovremennik magazine, where the writer worked for a long time. The writer was very worried about leaving the magazine, because the memory of Belinsky was associated with him. Dobrolyubov's articles, with whom Ivan Sergeevich constantly argued and sometimes disagreed, served as a real basis for depicting ideological differences. The radical young man was not on the side of gradual reforms, like the author of Fathers and Sons, but firmly believed in the path of revolutionary transformation of Russia. The editor of the magazine, Nikolai Nekrasov, supported this point of view, so the classics of fiction - Tolstoy and Turgenev - left the editorial office.

The first sketches for the future novel were made at the end of July 1860 on the English Isle of Wight. The image of Bazarov was defined by the author as the character of a self-confident, hard-working, nihilist person who does not recognize compromises and authorities. Working on the novel, Turgenev involuntarily imbued with sympathy for his character. In this he is helped by the diary of the protagonist, which is kept by the writer himself.

In May 1861, the writer returns from Paris to his Spasskoe estate and makes the last entry in the manuscripts. In February 1862, the novel was published in Russkiy Vestnik.

Main problems

After reading the novel, you understand its true value, created by the "genius of measure" (D. Merezhkovsky). What did Turgenev like? What did you doubt? What did you dream about?

1. Central to the book are moral problem intergenerational relationships. "Fathers" or "children"? The fate of everyone is connected with the search for an answer to the question: what is the meaning of life? For the new people, it consists in work, but the old guard sees it in reasoning and contemplation, because crowds of peasants work for them. In this principled position there is a place for an irreconcilable conflict: fathers and children live differently. In this divergence we see the problem of misunderstanding of opposites. The antagonists cannot and do not want to accept each other, especially this impasse can be traced in the relationship between Pavel Kirsanov and Evgeny Bazarov.
2. Just as acute is the problem moral choice: on which side is the truth? Turgenev believed that the past cannot be denied, because only thanks to it the future is being built. In the image of Bazarov, he expressed the need to preserve the continuity of generations. The hero is unhappy because he is lonely and understood, because he himself did not strive for anyone and did not want to understand. However, changes, whether the people of the past like it or not, will come anyway, and we must be ready for them. This is evidenced by the ironic image of Pavel Kirsanov, who lost his sense of reality, putting on ceremonial tailcoats in the village. The writer urges to be sensitive to changes and try to understand them, and not indiscriminately scold, like Uncle Arkady. Thus, the solution to the problem is in a tolerant attitude. different people each other and an attempt to know the opposite life concept. In this sense, the position of Nikolai Kirsanov won, who was tolerant of new trends and was never in a hurry to judge them. His son also found a compromise solution.
3. However, the author made it clear that there is a high purpose behind the tragedy of Bazarov. It is these desperate and self-confident pioneers who are paving the way for the world forward, so the problem of recognizing this mission in society also occupies an important place. Eugene repents on his deathbed that he feels unnecessary, this realization destroys him, and he could become a great scientist or a skilled doctor. But cruel morals of the conservative world are pushing him out because they feel threatened by him.
4. The problems of the "new" people, the raznochintsy intelligentsia, difficult relationships in society, with parents, in the family are also obvious. Raznochintsy do not have profitable estates and position in society, therefore they are forced to work and become hardened, seeing social injustice: they work hard for a piece of bread, and the nobles, stupid and mediocre, do nothing and occupy all the upper floors of the social hierarchy, where the elevator simply does not reach . Hence the revolutionary sentiments and the moral crisis of an entire generation.
5. Problems of eternal human values: love, friendship, art, attitude to nature. Turgenev knew how to reveal the depths of human nature in love, to test the true essence of a person with love. But not everyone passes this test, an example of this is Bazarov, who breaks down under the onslaught of feelings.

All the interests and ideas of the writer were entirely focused on the most important tasks of the time, went towards the most burning problems of everyday life.

Characteristics of the heroes of the novel

Evgeny Vasilyevich Bazarov- comes from the people. The son of a regimental doctor. Grandfather from the father's side "plowed the land." Eugene himself makes his way in life, receives a good education. Therefore, the hero is careless in clothes and manners, no one brought him up. Bazarov is a representative of the new revolutionary-democratic generation, whose task is to destroy the old way of life, to fight against those who hinder social development. A complex, doubting person, but proud and adamant. How to fix society, Yevgeny Vasilyevich is very vague. Denies the old world, accepts only what is confirmed by practice.

• The writer displayed in Bazarov the type of young man who believes exclusively in scientific activity and rejection of religion. The hero has a deep interest in the natural sciences. From childhood, his parents instilled in him a love of work.
• He condemns the people for illiteracy and ignorance, but is proud of his origin. The views and beliefs of Bazarov do not find like-minded people. Sitnikov, a talker and a phrase-monger, and the "emancipated" Kukshina are useless "followers".
• In Yevgeny Vasilyevich, a soul unknown to him rushes about. What should a physiologist and an anatomist do with it? It is not visible under a microscope. But the soul hurts, although it - scientific fact- No!
• Turgenev spends most of the novel exploring the "temptations" of his hero. He torments him with the love of old people - parents - what to do with them? And love for Odintsova? Principles are in no way compatible with life, with the living movements of people. What remains for Bazarov? Only die. Death is his final test. He accepts her heroically, does not comfort himself with the spells of a materialist, but calls for his beloved.
• The spirit conquers the enraged mind, overcomes the delusions of the schemes and postulates of the new teaching.

Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov - bearer of noble culture. Bazarov is disgusted by Pavel Petrovich's "starched collars", "long nails". But the hero's aristocratic manners are an inner weakness, a secret consciousness of his inferiority.

• Kirsanov believes that self-respect means taking care of your appearance and never losing your dignity, even in the countryside. He composes his daily routine in the English manner.
• Pavel Petrovich retired, indulging in love experiences. This decision of his became a "resignation" from life. Love does not bring joy to a person if he lives only by its interests and whims.
• The hero is guided by principles taken "on faith" that correspond to his position as a feudal lord. Honors the Russian people for patriarchy and obedience.
• In relation to a woman, the strength and passion of feelings are manifested, but he does not understand them.
• Pavel Petrovich is indifferent to nature. The denial of her beauty speaks of his spiritual limitations.
• This man is deeply unhappy.

Nikolai Petrovich Kirsanov- father of Arkady and brother of Pavel Petrovich. Do military career failed, but he did not despair and entered the university. After the death of his wife, he devoted himself to his son and the improvement of the estate.

• The characteristic features of the character are gentleness, humility. The intelligence of the hero causes sympathy and respect. Nikolai Petrovich is a romantic at heart, loves music, recites poetry.
• He is an opponent of nihilism, he tries to smooth out any emerging differences. Live in harmony with your heart and conscience.

Arkady Nikolaevich Kirsanov- a person who is not independent, deprived of his life principles. He is completely subordinate to his friend. He joined Bazarov only out of youthful enthusiasm, since he did not have his own views, so in the final there was a gap between them.

• Subsequently, he became a zealous owner and started a family.
• “A nice fellow,” but “a soft, liberal barich,” Bazarov says about him.
• All Kirsanovs are "more children of events than fathers of their own actions."

Odintsova Anna Sergeevna- an "element" "related" to Bazarov's personality. On what basis can such a conclusion be drawn? The firmness of the outlook on life, "proud loneliness, intelligence - make it" close "to the protagonist of the novel. She, like Eugene, sacrificed personal happiness, so her heart is cold and fearful of feelings. She herself trampled on them, having married by calculation.

The conflict of "fathers" and "children"

Conflict - “collision”, “serious disagreement”, “dispute”. To say that these concepts have only a "negative connotation" means to completely misunderstand the processes of development of society. “Truth is born in a dispute” - this axiom can be considered a “key” that opens the veil on the problems posed by Turgenev in the novel.

Disputes - the main compositional technique, allowing the reader to determine his point of view and take a certain position in the views on this or that social phenomenon, area of ​​development, nature, art, moral concepts. Using the "reception of disputes" between "youth" and "old age", the author affirms the idea that life does not stand still, it is multifaceted and many-sided.

The conflict between "fathers" and "children" will never be resolved, it can be described as a "constant". However, it is the conflict of generations that is the engine of development of everything earthly. On the pages of the novel, there is a burning controversy caused by the struggle of the revolutionary democratic forces with the liberal nobility.

Main Topics

Turgenev managed to saturate the novel with progressive thought: protest against violence, hatred for legalized slavery, pain for the suffering of the people, the desire to found their happiness.

The main themes in the novel "Fathers and Sons":

1. Ideological contradictions of the intelligentsia during the preparation of the reform on the abolition of serfdom;
2. "Fathers" and "children": relationships between generations and the theme of the family;
3. "New" type of man at the turn of two epochs;
4. Immeasurable love for the motherland, parents, woman;
5. Human and nature. The world around: workshop or temple?

What is the meaning of the book?

Turgenev's work sounds like an alarming tocsin over all of Russia, calling on fellow citizens to unite, to reason, to fruitful activity for the good of the Motherland.

The book explains to us not only the past, but also the present day, reminds us of eternal values. The title of the novel does not mean the older and younger generations, not family relationships and people of new and old views. "Fathers and Sons" is valuable not so much as an illustration to history, many moral problems are raised in the work.

The basis of the existence of the human race is the family, where everyone has their own duties: the elders (“fathers”) take care of the younger ones (“children”), pass on the experience and traditions accumulated by their ancestors, educate them in moral feelings; the younger ones honor adults, adopt from them everything important and best that is necessary for the formation of a person of a new formation. However, their task is also the creation of fundamental innovations, which is impossible without some denial of past delusions. The harmony of the world order lies in the fact that these “ties” do not break, but not in the fact that everything remains the same.

The book has great educational value. To read it at the time of the formation of one's character means to think about important life problems. "Fathers and Sons" teaches a serious attitude to the world, an active position, patriotism. They teach from a young age to develop firm principles, engaging in self-education, but at the same time honor the memory of their ancestors, even if it does not always turn out to be right.

Criticism about the novel

• After the publication of Fathers and Sons, a fierce controversy erupted. M.A. Antonovich in the Sovremennik magazine interpreted the novel as "merciless" and "destructive criticism of the younger generation."
• D. Pisarev in the "Russian Word" highly appreciated the work and the image of the nihilist created by the master. The critic emphasized the tragedy of character and noted the firmness of a person who does not back down before trials. He agrees with other critiques that "new" people can be resented, but "sincerity" cannot be denied. The appearance of Bazarov in Russian literature is a new step in the coverage of social - public life countries.

Is it possible to agree with the critic on everything? Probably no. He calls Pavel Petrovich "Pechorin of small sizes." But the dispute between the two characters gives reason to doubt this. Pisarev claims that Turgenev does not sympathize with any of his heroes. The writer considers Bazarov to be his "favorite brainchild."

What is "nihilism"?

For the first time, the word "nihilist" sounds in the novel from the lips of Arkady and immediately attracts attention. However, the concept of "nihilist" is in no way connected with Kirsanov Jr.

The word "nihilist" was taken by Turgenev from N. Dobrolyubov's review of a book by the Kazan philosopher, conservative-minded professor V. Bervi. However, Dobrolyubov interpreted it in a positive sense and assigned it to the younger generation. Ivan Sergeevich introduced the word into wide use, which became synonymous with the word "revolutionary".

The "nihilist" in the novel is Bazarov, who does not recognize authorities and denies everything. The writer did not accept the extremes of nihilism, caricaturing Kukshina and Sitnikov, but sympathized with the main character.

Evgeny Vasilievich Bazarov still teaches us with his destiny. Any person has a unique spiritual image, whether he is a nihilist or a simple layman. Respect and reverence for another person is made up of respect for the fact that in him there is the same secret flicker of a living soul as in you.

Interesting? Save it on your wall!

FATHERS AND CHILDREN IN RUSSIAN CRITICISM

ROMAN I. S. TURGENEV

“FATHERS AND CHILDREN” IN RUSSIAN CRITICISM

"Fathers and Sons" caused a whole storm in the world of literary appreciation. After the release of the novel, a huge number of critical reviews and articles that were completely opposite in their own charge arose, which indirectly testified to the innocence and innocence of the Russian reading public.

Criticism treated the work of art as a journalistic article, a political pamphlet, not wanting to correct the point of view of the creator. With the release of the novel, a lively discussion of it in the press begins, which immediately received a sharp polemical temper. Almost all Russian newspapers and magazines responded to the emergence of the novel. The work gave rise to disagreements both between ideological rivals and among like-minded people, for example, in the democratic magazines Sovremennik and Russian word". The dispute, in essence, was about the type of the newest revolutionary figure in the Russian chronicle.

Sovremennik responded to the novel with M.A. Antonovich’s article “Asmodeus of Our Time”. The circumstances connected with the departure of Turgenev from Sovremennik predisposed to the fact that the novel was assessed negatively by the critic.

Antonovich saw in it a panegyric to the “fathers” and a slander of a young origin.

In addition to this, it was argued that the novel was extremely weak in artistic terms, that Turgenev, who set himself the goal of dishonoring Bazarov, resorted to caricature, depicting the main hero as a monster "with a tiny head and a huge mouth, with a tiny face and a big nose." Antonovich is trying to protect the ladies' emancipation and aesthetic views of the younger generation from Turgenev's attacks, trying to justify that "Kukshina is not as empty and limited as Pavel Petrovich." Regarding the renunciation of art by Bazarov

Antonovich declared that this was the purest heresy, that only “pure art” denies a young origin, among the representatives of which, truth, he ranked Pushkin and Turgenev himself. According to Antonovich's concept, from the very first pages, to the greatest amazement of the reader, he is seized by a kind of boredom; but, obviously, you are not embarrassed by this and continue to recite, believing that it will get better later on, that the creator will enter into his role, that the ability will understand what is native and involuntarily captivate your interest. And yet, when the action of the novel unfolds completely before you, your curiosity does not stir, your emotion remains intact; reading produces some unsatisfactory memory in you, which is reflected not on the feeling, but, what is only more surprising, on the mind. You are covered with some kind of deadly frost; you don't live with actors of the novel, you don’t get imbued with their life, but you begin to coolly analyze with them, or, more precisely, look at their reasoning. You forget that you have a professional painter's novel in front of you, and you imagine that you are reading a moral-philosophical treatise, but not good and shallow, which, not satisfying your mind, thereby produces an unpleasant memory on your emotions. This indicates that the new creation of Turgenev is very unsatisfactory artistically. Turgenev treats his own heroes, not his favorites, quite differently. He harbors some kind of dislike and enmity of his own towards them, as if they actually did him some kind of insult and disgust, and he tries to take revenge on them at every step, like a person actually offended; with inner pleasure, he looks for helplessness and shortcomings in them, about which he speaks with poorly concealed gloating and only in order to humiliate the hero in the eyes of readers: "Look, they say, what scoundrels my enemies and enemies are." He is childishly content when he manages to prick an unloved hero with something, to play a joke on him, to deliver him in a ridiculous or vulgar and vile guise; any miscalculation, any thoughtless step of the hero gloriously tickles his vanity, causes a smile of complacency, revealing the proud, but petty and inhumane mind of personal advantage. This vindictiveness comes to the point of amusing, has the appearance of school tweaks, showing up in trifles and trifles. The protagonist of the novel speaks with pride and arrogance about his own art in gambling; and Turgenev forces him to continually lose. Then Turgenev tries to outline the main hero as a glutton who only thinks about how to eat and drink, and this is again done not with good nature and comedy, but with the same vindictiveness and desire to humiliate the hero; From various places in Turgenev's novel, it follows that the main character of his man is not stupid, - against, extremely capable and gifted, inquisitive, diligently studying and understanding a lot; meanwhile, in disputes, he completely disappears, expresses nonsense and preaches nonsense, unforgivable to the most limited mind. There is nothing to say about the moral character and moral qualities of the hero; this is not a person, but some kind of terrible substance, elementarily a demon, or, to put it most poetically, asmodeus. He regularly hates and pursues everything from his own good parents, which he cannot bear, and ending with frogs, which he cuts with merciless ruthlessness. Never had any emotion crept into his cool little heart; not consequently in it the imprint of any passion or attraction; he lets go of the very dislike calculated, according to the grains. And note that this hero - young man, guy! He appears as some kind of poisonous creature that poisons everything he touches; he has a friend, but he hates him too and does not have the slightest disposition towards him; he has followers, but he cannot stand them in the same spirit. The Roman has nothing more than a cruel and also destructive assessment of the younger generation. In all contemporary issues, mental movements, gossip and ideals that occupy a young origin, Turgenev does not acquire the slightest significance and makes it clear that they lead only to debauchery, emptiness, prosaic obscenity and cynicism.

What opinion will be allowed to be deduced from this novel; who will be right and wrong, who is worse, and who is better - "dads" or "kids"? Turgenev's novel has the same one-sided meaning. Excuse me, Turgenev, you did not know how to find your own problem; instead of depicting the relationship between "fathers" and "children", you wrote a panegyric for "dads" and an exposé for "children"; Yes, and "children" you did not realize, and instead of denunciation, you came up with a slander. Spreaders of healthy opinions among the young generation you wanted to deliver as corrupters of youth, sowers of discord and evil, hating the good - in one word, Asmodeans. This attempt is not the first and is repeated very often.

The same attempt was made, some years ago, in a novel that was "a phenomenon that we missed," because it belonged to a creator who was unknown at the time and did not have the resounding fame that he uses now. This novel features "Asmodeus of Our Time", Op.

Askochensky, who was published in 1858. Last novel Turgenev briskly reminded us of this "Asmodeus" with his general thought, his tendencies, his personalities, and in his individuality, his own main hero.

In the journal "Russian Word" in 1862, an article by D. I. Pisarev appears

"Bazarov". The critic notes a certain partiality of the creator in relation to

Bazarov, says that in a number of cases Turgenev "does not favor his own hero," that he tests "an involuntary antipathy to this current of thought."

But a solid opinion about the novel is not united to this. D. I. Pisarev acquires in the form of Bazarov a figurative synthesis of more important aspects of the worldview of raznochinnoy democracy, depicted honestly, despite the initial plan of Turgenev. The critic freely sympathizes with Bazarov, his strong, honest and formidable disposition. He believed that Turgenev understood this newest human type for Russia "as correctly as none of our young realists can learn." The critical news of the creator to Bazarov is perceived by the critic as an ambition, since “the pros and cons are more visible from the side”, and “a strictly dangerous look ... in a real moment, it turned out to be more fruitful than unfounded delight or servile adoration.” The tragedy of Bazarov, according to Pisarev's concept, is that for a real thing in reality there is no suitable criterion, and therefore, “not having the ability to present to us how Bazarov lives and acts, I.S.

Turgenev showed us how he dies.

In his own article, D. I. Pisarev reinforces the social responsiveness of the painter and the aesthetic significance of the novel: “Turgenev's new novel gives us everything that we used to admire in his creations. The artistic processing is impeccably excellent ... And these phenomena are extremely close to us, so close that all our young origins, with their aspirations and ideas, can find themselves in the working faces of this novel. Even before the start of a specific controversy, D.

I. Pisarev practically foresees Antonovich's position. About the scenes

Sitnikov and Kukshina, he notes: “Many of the literary enemies

"Russian Messenger" will attack Turgenev with bitterness for these scenes.

However, D. I. Pisarev is sure that a real nihilist, a democrat-raznochinets, just like Bazarov, is obliged to reject art, not to perceive Pushkin, to be convinced that Raphael is “not worth a penny”. But for us it is important that

Bazarov, who is dying in the novel, “resurrects” on the last page of Pisarev’s article: “What to do? To live as long as one lives, there is dry bread when there is no roast beef, to be with ladies when it is impossible to love a lady, and in general not to dream of orange trees and palm trees, when there are snowdrifts and cool tundras underfoot. Perhaps we can consider Pisarev's article as a more catchy interpretation of the novel in the 60s.

In 1862, in the fourth book of the magazine "Time", published by F. M. and M.

M. Dostoevsky, means a fascinating article by N. N. Strakhov, which is called “I. S. Turgenev. "Fathers and Sons". Strakhov is sure that the novel is a remarkable achievement of Turgenev the artist. The aristarch considers the image of Bazarov to be very ordinary. "Bazarov has a type, an ideal, a phenomenon elevated to the pearl of creation." Some features of Bazarov's character are explained more precisely by Strakhov than by Pisarev, for example, the renunciation of art. What Pisarev considered an accidental misunderstanding, explained by the personal development of the hero

(“He bluntly denies things he doesn’t know or doesn’t understand ...”), Strakhov took a significant trait of the nihilist’s temper: “... Art constantly shifts the nature of reconciliation in itself, while Bazarov does not want to reconcile with life at all. Art is idealism, contemplation, detachment from life and reverence for ideals; Bazarov is a realist, not an observer, but a doer ... "However, if D.I. Pisarev Bazarov is a hero whose word and deed are combined into one single thing, then Strakhov's nihilist is still a hero

"words", albeit with a thirst for activity, brought to the last stage.

Strakhov caught the novel's timeless significance, managing to rise above the ideological disputes of his own time. “Writing a novel with a progressive and retrograde course is not a difficult thing to do. Turgenev, on the other hand, had pretensions and rudeness to create a novel with various directions; fan of eternal truth, eternal beauty, he had a proud target in the temporal to orient to the permanent and wrote a novel that was neither progressive nor retrograde, but, so to speak, eternal,” wrote the aristarchus.

The free aristarch P. V. Annenkov also responded to Turgenev's novel.

In his own article “Bazarov and Oblomov”, he tries to substantiate that, despite the outward difference between Bazarov and Oblomov, “the grain is the same in both natures”.

In 1862, in the journal "Vek" means an article by an unknown creator

"Nihilist Bazarov". Until then, it was dedicated only to the analysis of the personality of the main hero: “Bazarov is a nihilist. To the environment in which he is placed, he is certainly negative. There is no friendship for him: he endures his own comrade, as the powerful endures the weak. Related affairs for him are the habit of his parents towards him. He thinks about love like a realist. He looks at the people with disdain for the mature at the little guys. There is no field of activity left for Bazarov.” As for nihilism, the unknown aristarchus declares that Bazarov's abdication has no basis, "there is no reason for it."

The works considered in the abstract are not the only responses of the Russian public to Turgenev's novel "Fathers and Sons". Almost every Russian novelist and aristarchus has posted, in one form or another, native news to the dilemmas raised in the novel. But isn't this a real recognition of the relevance and significance of creation?
"Fathers and Sons"

Many people, reading an article by a critic about a particular work, expect to hear negative statements about the plot of the work, its characters and the author. But after all, criticism itself implies not only negative judgments and indications of shortcomings, but also an analysis of the work itself, its discussion in order to evaluate it. So literary criticism subjected to the work of I. S. Turgenev. The novel "Fathers and Sons" appeared in the "Russian Bulletin" in March 1862, after which heated discussions of this work began in the press. Opinions were different

One of the most critical points of view was put forward by M.A. Antonovich, who published his article "Asmodeus of Our Time" in the March issue of Sovremennik. In it, the critic denied "Fathers and Sons" any artistic merit. He was very dissatisfied with Turgenev's novel. The critic accused the author of slandering the younger generation, said that the novel was written to reproach and instruct the younger generation, and also rejoiced that the writer had finally revealed his true face - the face of an opponent of progress. As N. N. Strakhov wrote, “the whole article reveals only one thing - that the critic is very dissatisfied with Turgenev and considers it his sacred duty and every citizen not to find anything good in his new work, or in all the previous ones.”

N. N. Strakhov himself refers to the novel "Fathers and Sons" with positive side. He says that "the novel is read with greed and arouses such interest, which, one can safely say, has not been aroused by any other work of Turgenev." The critic also notes that "the novel is so good that pure poetry, and not extraneous thoughts, victoriously comes to the fore, and precisely because it remains poetry, it can actively serve society." In assessing the author himself, Strakhov notes: “I. S. Turgenev represents an example of a writer gifted with perfect mobility and, at the same time, with deep sensitivity, deep love for contemporary life. Turgenev remained true to his artistic gift: he does not invent, but creates, does not distort, but only illuminates his figures, he gave flesh and blood to that, which obviously already existed in the form of thought and belief. He gave an outward appearance to that which already existed as an inward foundation. The critic sees the change of generations as the outward change of the novel. He says, "if Turgenev did not depict all fathers and children, or not those fathers and children that others would like, then he portrayed fathers and children in general and the relationship between these two generations excellently."

Another of the critics who gave their assessment of Turgenev's novel was N. M. Katkov. He published his opinion in the May issue of the Russky Vestnik magazine in an article entitled "Roman Turgenev and his critics." Noting the "ripe strength of the first-class talent" of Ivan Sergeevich, he sees the special merit of the novel in the fact that the author managed to "catch the current moment", the modern phase of Russian educated society.

The most positive assessment of the novel was given by D. I. Pisarev. His article was one of the first critical reviews of the novel "Fathers and Sons" and appeared after its publication in the journal "Russian Messenger". The critic wrote: "Reading Turgenev's novel, we see in it the types of the present minute and at the same time we are aware of the changes that the phenomena of reality have experienced, passing through the mind of the artist." Pisarev notes: “In addition to its artistic beauty, the novel is also remarkable in that it stirs the mind, leads to reflection, although in itself it does not resolve any issue and even illuminates with a bright light not so much the output phenomena as the author’s attitude to these very phenomena” he says that the whole work is permeated through and through with the fullest, most touching sincerity.

In turn, the author of the novel “Fathers and Sons”, Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev, in the article “About Fathers and Children” notes: “By the grace of this story, the favorable disposition of the Russian young generation towards me has ceased - and, it seems, forever.” After reading in critical articles about the fact that in his works he “starts from an idea” or “carries out an idea”, for his part, Turgenev admits “that he never attempted to“ create an image ”, if he did not have as a starting point not an idea, but a living face, to which suitable elements were gradually mixed in and applied. Throughout the article, Ivan Sergeevich communicates only with his reader - his listener. And at the end of the story, he gives them very practical advice: “My friends, never make excuses, no matter what slander they bring up against you; do not try to clarify misunderstandings, do not want to either say or hear the "last word". Do your job - otherwise everything will be crushed.

But the discussion did not end with just a discussion of the novel as a whole. Each of the critics in his article considered one very significant part of the work, without which there would be no point in writing the socio-psychological novel "Fathers and Sons". And this part was and still is main character works by Evgeny Vasilyevich Bazarov.

D. I. Pisarev characterized him as a man of strong mind and character, which is the center of the whole novel. “Bazarov is a representative of our young generation; in his personality are grouped those properties that are scattered in small shares in the masses; and the image of this person is vividly and distinctly looming before the imagination of the reader,” wrote the critic. Pisarev believes that Bazarov, as an empiricist, recognizes only what can be felt with his hands, seen with his eyes, put on the tongue, in a word, only what can be witnessed by one of the five senses. The critic claims that "Bazarov does not need anyone, is not afraid of anyone, does not love anyone and, as a result, spares no one." Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev speaks of Yevgeny Bazarov as a person who mercilessly and with complete conviction denies everything that others recognize as high and beautiful.

Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov calls the main character "an apple of discord." "He is not a walking type, familiar to everyone and only captured by the artist and exposed by him "to the eyes of the people," the critic notes. "Bazarov is a type, an ideal, a phenomenon," elevated to the pearl of creation, "he stands above the actual phenomena of Bazarovism." And Bazarovism, in turn, is, as Pisarev said, a disease, a disease of our time, and one has to suffer through it, in spite of any palliatives and amputations. cholera". Continuing Strakhov's thought, we can say that "Bazarov is a realist, not a contemplator, but a figure who recognizes only real phenomena and denies ideals." He does not at all want to put up with life. As Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov wrote, "Bazarov represents the living embodiment of one from the sides of the Russian spirit, he is "more Russian than all the other faces of the novel." "His speech is distinguished by simplicity, accuracy; derision and a completely Russian warehouse," the critic said. Strakhov also noted that "Bazarov there is the first strong person, the first integral character, who appeared in Russian literature from the environment of the so-called educated society.” At the end of the novel, “Bazarov dies a perfect hero, and his death makes a 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, ”says the critic.

But of course, it was not without accusations against Bazarov. Many critics condemned Turgenev for portraying the main character as a reproach to the younger generation. So Maxim Alekseevich Antonovich assures us that the poet exposed his hero as a glutton, a drunkard and a gambler.

The author himself claims that, drawing the figure of Bazarov, he excluded everything artistic from the circle of his sympathies, gave him a sharpness and unceremonious tone - not out of an absurd desire to offend the younger generation, but only because he had to draw his figure just like that. Turgenev himself was aware that the "trouble" was that the Bazarov type he reproduced did not have time to go through the gradual phases through which literary types usually go.

Another of the main issues in the discussion of the critics of the novel by I. S. Turgenev was the attitude of the author himself towards his hero.

Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov at first claimed that "Turgenev understands the Bazarovs at least as much as they understand themselves," but then he proved that Ivan Sergeevich "understands them much better than they understand themselves."

The editor of one of the magazines wrote: "To what has come out of his hands, he is in exactly the same relationship as everyone else; he may have a sympathetic or antipathetic feeling for a living person that arose in his fantasy, but he will have to commit exactly the same labor of analysis as any other, in order to convey in judgment the essence of one's feeling.

Katkov, on the other hand, accused Turgenev of trying to show Bazarov in the most favorable light. Mikhail Nikiforovich does not miss an opportunity to reproach the writer for his pro-nihilistic sympathies: “In Fathers and Sons, the author’s desire to give the main type the most favorable conditions is noticeable. The author, apparently, seemed to be afraid of appearing biased. He seemed to be strengthening himself to be impartial.<.>. It seems to us that if these efforts had not been made, then his work would have gained even more in its objectivity.

D. I. Pisarev, in turn, says that Turgenev, obviously, does not favor his hero. The critic notes: “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, on the other hand, expresses his attitude towards the main character with the following words: “I share almost all of his convictions. And they assure me that I am on the side of the "Fathers". I, who in the figure of Pavel Kirsanov even sinned against artistic truth and overdid it, brought his shortcomings to a caricature, made him ridiculous! “At the very moment of the appearance of a new person - Bazarov - the author reacted critically to him. objectively". “The author himself does not know whether he loves or not the exposed character (as happened to me in relation to Bazarov),” Turgenev says about himself in the third person.

So, now we clearly understand that the opinions of all critics are very different from each other. Everyone has their own point of view. But, despite many negative statements about I. S. Turgenev and his works, the novel “Fathers and Sons” remains relevant for us to this day, because the problem of different generations has been and will be. As Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev already said, “this is a disease”, and it is incurable