With the release of the novel by I. S. Turgenev “Fathers and Sons”, a lively discussion of it in the press begins, which immediately acquired a sharp polemical character. Almost all Russian newspapers and magazines responded to the appearance of the novel. The work gave rise to disagreements both between ideological opponents and among like-minded people, for example, in the democratic magazines Sovremennik and Russian word". The dispute, in essence, was about the type of a new revolutionary figure in Russian history.
Sovremennik responded to the novel with M.A. Antonovich’s article “Asmodeus of Our Time”. The circumstances connected with the departure of Turgenev from Sovremennik predisposed to the fact that the novel was assessed negatively by the critic. Antonovich saw in it a panegyric to the “fathers” and a slander on the younger generation. In addition, it was argued that the novel was very weak artistically, that Turgenev, who set out to discredit Bazarov, resorted to caricature, depicting the protagonist as a monster "with a tiny head and a giant mouth, with a small face and a very large nose." Antonovich is trying to defend women's emancipation and the aesthetic principles of the younger generation from Turgenev's attacks, trying to prove that "Kukshina is not as empty and limited as Pavel Petrovich." Regarding Bazarov’s denial of art, Antonovich said 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.
In the journal "Russian Word" in 1862, an article by D. I. Pisarev "Bazarov" appeared. 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”. But the general conclusion about the novel does not boil down to this. D. I. Pisarev finds in the image of Bazarov an artistic synthesis of the most significant aspects of the worldview of raznochintsy democracy, depicted truthfully, despite Turgenev's original intention. The critical attitude of the author to Bazarov is perceived by the critic as a virtue, since “from the outside, the advantages and disadvantages are more visible”, and “a strictly critical look ... at the present moment turns out to be more fruitful than unfounded admiration or servile adoration.” The tragedy of Bazarov, according to Pisarev, is that there are actually no favorable conditions for the present case, and therefore, “not being able to show us how Bazarov lives and acts, I. S. Turgenev showed us how he dies.
In his article, D. I. Pisarev confirms the social sensitivity of the artist and the aesthetic significance of the novel: “ New romance Turgenev gives us everything that we used to enjoy in his works. The artistic finish is impeccably good... And these phenomena are very close to us, so close that our entire young generation can recognize themselves with their aspirations and ideas. b characters in this novel.
Even before the start of the direct controversy, D. I. Pisarev actually foresees Antonovich's position. Regarding the scenes with Sitnikov and Kukshina, he remarks: “Many of the literary opponents of the Russian Messenger will attack Turgenev with bitterness for these scenes.”
However, D. I. Pisarev is convinced that a real nihilist, a democrat-raznochinets, just like Bazarov, must deny art, not understand Pushkin, be sure that Raphael is “not worth a penny”. But it is important for us that Bazarov, who dies in the novel, “resurrects” on the last page of Pisarev’s article: “What is to be done? Live while you live, eat dry bread when there is no roast beef, be with women when you cannot love a woman, and generally not dream of orange trees and palm trees, when there are snowdrifts and cold tundras under your feet. Perhaps we can consider Pisarev's article the most striking interpretation of the novel in the 60s.
In 1862, in the fourth book of the magazine "Time", published by F. M. and M. M. Dostoevsky, comes out interesting article N. N. Strakhova, which is called “I. S. Turgenev. "Fathers and Sons". Strakhov is convinced that the novel is a remarkable achievement of Turgenev the artist. The critic considers the image of Bazarov to be extremely typical. "Bazarov is a type, an ideal, a phenomenon elevated to the pearl of creation." Some features of Bazarov's character are explained more precisely by Strakhov than by Pisarev, for example, the denial of art. What Pisarev considered as an accidental misunderstanding, explained by the individual development of the hero (“He flatly denies things that he does not know or does not understand ...”), Strakhov perceived an essential trait of the nihilist’s character: “... Art always has the character of reconciliation, while Bazarov does not at all want to come to terms with life. Art is idealism, contemplation, renunciation of life and worship of ideals; Bazarov, on the other hand, is a realist, not a contemplator, but a doer ... ”However, if D.I. Pisarev Bazarov is a hero whose word and deed merge into one whole, then Strakhov’s nihilist is still the hero of the “word”, albeit with a thirst for action taken to the extreme.
The liberal critic P. V. Annenkov also responded to Turgenev's novel. In his article “Bazarov and Oblomov” he tries to prove that, despite the outward difference between Bazarov and Oblomov, “the grain is the same in both natures”.
In 1862, an article by an unknown author "Nihilist Bazarov" was published in the Vek magazine. It is devoted primarily to the analysis of the personality of the protagonist: “Bazarov is a nihilist. To that environment in which it is put, it concerns unconditionally negatively. Friendship does not exist for him: he endures his friend as the strong endures the weak. Kinship for him is a habit of his parents towards him. He understands love as a materialist. The people look with disdain for the adult on the little guys. There is no field of activity left for Bazarov.” As for nihilism, an unknown critic claims that Bazarov's denial has no basis, "there is no reason for him."
In the work of A. I. Herzen “Once again Bazarov”, the main object of controversy is not Turgenev's hero, but Bazarov, created in the articles of D. I. Pisarev. “Whether Pisarev correctly understood Turgenev’s Bazarov, I don’t care about that. The important thing is that he recognized himself and his people in Bazarov and added what was missing in the book, ”wrote the critic. In addition, Herzen compares Bazarov with the Decembrists and concludes that "the Decembrists are our great fathers, the Bazarovs are our prodigal children." Nihilism is called “logic without structures, science without dogma, submission to experience” in the article.
At the end of the decade, Turgenev himself joins the controversy around the novel. In the article “Regarding “Fathers and Sons”, he tells the story of his idea, the stages of the publication of the novel, speaks with his judgments about the objectivity of reproducing reality: “... Accurately and strongly reproduce the truth, the reality of life - there is the highest happiness for a writer, even if this truth does not coincide with his own sympathies.”
The works considered in the essay are not the only responses of the Russian public to Turgenev's novel Fathers and Sons. Almost every Russian writer and critic expressed in one form or another his attitude to the problems raised in the novel. But isn't this a real recognition of the relevance and significance of the work?

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 is 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 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 towards me of the Russian young generation has ceased - and, it seems, forever.” Having read in critical articles that in his works he "starts from an idea" or "carries out an idea", Turgenev, for his part, admits "that he never attempted to 'create an image' if he did not have as a starting point not an idea, but a living a face to which suitable elements were gradually mixed and applied. Throughout the 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 how much slander is thrown at 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 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 just 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: "He is in exactly the same relation to what has come out of his hands 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 pronihilistic 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

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.

The article by N. N. Strakhov is devoted to the novel by I. S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons". The issue of critical material concerns:

• the meaning of the literary-critical activity itself (the author does not seek to instruct the reader, but thinks that the reader himself wants this);
• the style in which literary criticism should be written (it should not be too dry and attract the attention of a person);
• discord between the creative personality and the expectations of others (as, according to Strakhov, it was with Pushkin);
• the role of a particular work ("Fathers and Sons" by Turgenev) in Russian literature.

The first thing the critic notes is that "a lesson and teaching" was also expected from Turgenev. He raises the question of whether the novel is progressive or retrograde.

He notes that card games, casual clothing style and Bazarov's love for champagne are some kind of challenge to society, a cause of bewilderment among the readership. Strakhov also noted that there are different views on the work itself. Moreover, people argue about who the author himself sympathizes with - "fathers" or "children", whether Bazarov himself is guilty of his troubles.

Of course, one cannot but agree with the critic that this novel is a special event in the development of Russian literature. Moreover, the article says that the work may have a mysterious goal and it has been achieved. It turns out that the article does not claim to be 100% true, but tries to understand the features of "Fathers and Sons".

The main characters of the novel are Arkady Kirsanov and Yevgeny Bazarov, young friends. Bazarov has parents, Kirsanov has a father and a young illegal stepmother, Fenechka. Also in the course of the novel, friends get acquainted with the Loktev sisters - Anna, in the marriage of Odintsova, at the time of the unfolding events - a widow, and young Katya. Bazarov falls in love with Anna, and Kirsanov falls in love with Katya. Unfortunately, at the end of the work, Bazarov dies.

However, the question is open to the public and literary criticism - are there people similar to Bazarov in reality? According to I. S. Turgenev, this is quite real type, although rare. But for Strakhov, Bazarov is still the product of the author's imagination. And if for Turgenev "Fathers and Sons" is a reflection, his own vision of Russian reality, then for a critic, the author of the article, the writer himself follows "the movement of Russian thought and Russian life." He notes the realism and vitality of Turgenev's book.

An important point is the critic's comments regarding the image of Bazarov.

The fact is that Strakhov noticed important point: Bazarov is given features different people, so each real person something like him, according to Strakhov.

The article notes the sensitivity and understanding of the writer of his era, a deep love for life and the people around him. Moreover, the critic defends the writer from accusations of fiction and distortion of reality.

Most likely, the purpose of Turgenev's novel was, in general and as a whole, to highlight the conflict of generations, to show the tragedy human life. That is why Bazarov became a collective image, was not written off from a specific person.

According to the critic, many people unfairly consider Bazarov as the head of the youth circle, but this position is also erroneous.

Strakhov also believes that poetry should be appreciated in "fathers and children", without paying too much attention to "back thoughts". In fact, the novel was created not for teaching, but for enjoyment, the critic believes. However, I. S. Turgenev nevertheless described the tragic death of his hero not without reason - apparently, there was still an instructive moment in the novel. Yevgeny had old parents who yearned for their son - maybe the writer wanted to remind you that you need to appreciate your loved ones - both parents of children and children - parents? This novel could be an attempt not only to describe, but also to soften or even overcome the eternal and contemporary conflict of generations.

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

Relevance

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

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

Bazarov is the central character

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

Details in the work

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

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

A brewing riot

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

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

Interpretation and criticism of D. Pisarev

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

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

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

Opinion of N. N. Strakhov

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

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

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

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

Criticism of Antonovich

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

Opinion of N. M. Katkov

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

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

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

General impression of contemporaries

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

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