Turgenev's opinion about the novel fathers and sons. The attitude of critics towards the novel “Fathers and Sons”

Maxim Alekseevich Antonovich was at one time considered a publicist, as well as a popular literary critic. In his views he was similar to N.A. Dobrolyubova 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 that I. S. Turgenev created in his novel “Fathers and Sons.” The article was published immediately after Turgenev's novel was published, and caused a great stir among the reading public of that time.

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

In the title of the article, Antonovich uses the word “Asmodeus,” which is unfamiliar in wide circles. It actually means an evil demon, which comes to us from late Jewish literature. This word in poetic, refined language means a terrible creature or, simply put, the devil. Bazarov appears in the novel exactly like this. First, he hates everyone and threatens to persecute everyone he hates. He shows such feelings towards 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 - infatuation, 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 public problem, since it affects the lives of the people around him.

In his critical article, Antonovich complained that readers might want to change their opinion about the younger generation, but Turgenev does not give them such a right. The “children’s” emotions never awaken, which prevents the reader from living his life alongside the hero’s adventures and worrying about his fate.

Antonovich believed that Turgenev simply hated his hero Bazarov, without putting him among his obvious favorites. The work clearly shows moments when the author rejoices at the mistakes his least favorite hero has 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 the 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 positivity with which the car speaks about its hero. Unfortunately, Antonovich was never able 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 the novel “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 directed his critical remarks 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, but in many issues he enjoyed the support of his colleagues.

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 criticism itself implies not only negative judgments and indications of shortcomings, but also an analysis of the work itself, its discussion in order to give an assessment. This is how the work of I. S. Turgenev was subjected to literary criticism. 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, publishing his article “Asmodeus of our time” in the March book 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 as a reproach and lesson for the younger generation, and was also glad 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’s not to find anything good either in his new work or in all his previous ones.”

N. N. Strakhov himself regards the novel “Fathers and Sons” on the positive side. He says that “the novel is read with greed and arouses such interest, which, we can safely say, has not yet aroused any of Turgenev’s works.” The critic also notes that “the novel is so good that pure poetry, and not extraneous thoughts, triumphantly comes to the fore, and precisely because it remains poetry, it can actively serve society.” In his assessment of the author himself, Strakhov notes: “I. S. Turgenev represents an example of a writer, gifted with perfect mobility and, at the same time, 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 the one who which clearly already existed as thought and belief. He gave external manifestation to what already existed as an internal basis.” The critic sees the external change of the novel as a change of generations. He says, “if Turgenev did not portray all fathers and sons, or not those fathers and children that others would like, then in general 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 Russian Messenger magazine in an article entitled “Turgenev’s novel and his critics.” Noting the “ripened power of first-class talent” of Ivan Sergeevich, he sees the special advantage of the novel in the fact that the author managed to “capture 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 moment and at the same time we are aware of the changes that the phenomena of reality have experienced while passing through the artist’s consciousness.” Pisarev notes: “In addition to its artistic beauty, the novel is also remarkable in that it stirs the mind, provokes thought, although in itself it does not resolve any question and even illuminates with a bright light not so much the phenomena being deduced as the author’s attitude towards these very phenomena.” Also he says that the entire work is permeated through and through with the most complete, most touching sincerity.

In turn, the author of the novel “Fathers and Sons” himself, Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev, in the article “About Fathers and Sons” notes: “By the grace of this story, the favorable disposition towards me of the Russian younger generation ceased - and, it seems, forever.” Having read in critical articles that in his works he “starts from an idea” or “pursues 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 a face to which suitable elements were gradually mixed and applied.” Throughout the entire 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 against you; do not try to clarify misunderstandings, do not want to either say it yourself or hear the “last word.” Do your job, otherwise everything will crumble.”

But the discussion did not end with just a discussion of the novel as a whole. Each of the critics in their article examined 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 remains the main character of the work, Evgeny Vasilyevich Bazarov.

D.I. Pisarev characterized him as a man of strong mind and character, who forms the center of the entire novel. “Bazarov is a representative of our younger generation; in his personality are grouped those properties that are scattered in small shares among the masses; and the image of this person emerges brightly and clearly before the reader’s imagination,” the critic wrote. Pisarev believes that Bazarov, as an empiricist, recognizes only what can be felt with his hands, seen with his eyes, put on his tongue, in a word, only what can be witnessed by one of the five senses. The critic claims that “Bazarov does not need anyone, is not afraid of anyone, does not love anyone and, as a result, does not spare anyone.” Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev speaks of Evgeny Bazarov as a person who mercilessly and with complete conviction denies everything that others recognize as lofty 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 whole people,” the critic notes. “Bazarov is a type, an ideal, a phenomenon, “raised to the pearl of creation,” he stands above the actual phenomena of bazaarism.” And the Bazarovism, in turn, is, as Pisarev said, a disease, a disease of our time, and one has to suffer through it, despite any palliatives and amputations. “Treat the Bazarovism as you like - it’s your business; but you can’t stop it; it’s the same cholera." Continuing Strakhov's thought, we can say that "Bazarov is a realist, not a contemplator, but a doer who recognizes only real phenomena and denies ideals." He does not want to put up with life at all. As Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov wrote, "Bazarov represents the living embodiment of one of the aspects of the Russian spirit, he is “more Russian than all the other characters in the novel.” “His speech is distinguished by simplicity, accuracy, mockery and a completely Russian disposition,” said the critic. Strakhov also noted that “Bazarov is the first strong person, the first integral a 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 stunning impression. Until the very end, until the last flash of consciousness, he does not betray himself with a single word or a single sign of cowardice. He is broken, but not defeated,” says the critic.

But of course, there were some 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 presented his hero as a glutton, a drunkard and a gambler.

The author himself claims that, while drawing the figure of Bazarov, he excluded everything artistic from the circle of his sympathies, gave him a harshness and unceremonious tone - not out of an absurd desire to offend the younger generation, but only because he had to draw his figure exactly like that. Turgenev himself realized: 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 critics of I. S. Turgenev’s novel was the attitude of the author himself towards his hero.

Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov first argued 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 magazine 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 towards a living person who has arisen in his fantasy, but he will have to commit exactly the same work of analysis as anyone else, in order to convey the essence of one’s feeling in a judgment.”

Katkov accused Turgenev of trying to show Bazarov in the most favorable light. Mikhail Nikiforovich does not miss the 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 possible is noticeable. The author, apparently, was afraid of appearing partial. He seemed to be trying to be impartial<.>. It seems to us that if these efforts had not taken place, 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: “When creating Bazarov, Turgenev wanted to smash him into dust and instead paid him full tribute of fair respect. He wanted to say: our young generation is going down the wrong road, and he said: all our hope is in our young generation.”

Turgenev expresses his attitude towards the main character in these words: “I share almost all of his beliefs. 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 the point of caricature, made him funny!” “At the very moment of the appearance of a new person - Bazarov - the author was critical of him. objectively". “The author himself does not know whether he likes or not the character presented (as happened to me in relation to Bazarov),” Turgenev says about himself in the third person.

So, now we understand for sure 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 to 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

Turgenev’s work “Fathers and Sons” caused a wide resonance. Many articles, parodies in the form of poetry and prose, epigrams and caricatures were written. And of course, the main object of this criticism was the image of the main character - Yevgeny Bazarov. The appearance of the novel was a significant event in the cultural life of that time. But Turgenev’s contemporaries were not at all 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 peasant reform, the deepest social contradictions of that time, the struggle of social forces - all this was reflected in the images of the work and formed its historical background.

The controversy among critics surrounding the novel “Fathers and Sons” lasted for many years, and at the same time the fuse did not become weaker. It became obvious that the novel retained its problematics and topicality. The work reveals one of the most important characteristic features of Turgenev himself - his 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

Turgenev’s laconic style is also striking. After all, the writer was able to fit all this enormous material into the framework of one novel. Bazarov is involved in 26 of the 28 chapters of the work. All other characters are grouped around him, revealed in their relationships with him, and also make the character traits of the main character even more prominent. The work does not cover Bazarov’s biography. 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 critique of Fathers and Sons can note brief and apt details in the work. They allow the writer to clearly draw the character of the characters and 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 half-swept roofs.” This speaks of the poverty of life. Perhaps the peasants have to feed hungry cattle with straw from the roofs. “Peasant cows” are also depicted as skinny and emaciated.

Subsequently, Turgenev no longer paints a picture of rural life, but at the beginning of the work it is described so vividly and demonstratively that it is impossible to add anything to it. The heroes of the novel are worried about the question: this region does not amaze 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 morals and the people's community.

A brewing riot

However, the reader feels: if the people do not trust the landowners and are hostile towards them, this will inevitably result in a rebellion. And the picture of Russia on the eve of reforms is completed by the author’s bitter remark, dropped as if by chance: “Nowhere does time fly as quickly as in Russia; in prison, they say, it runs even faster.”

And against the background of all these events, the figure of Bazarov emerges for Turgenev. He represents a man of a new generation who must replace the “fathers” who are unable to resolve the difficulties and problems of the era on their own.

Interpretation and criticism by D. Pisarev

After the release of the work “Fathers and Sons,” it began to be heatedly discussed in the press. It almost immediately acquired a polemical character. 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 towards his hero, because he experiences antipathy towards 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 common democracy, which Turgenev was able to portray quite truthfully. And Turgenev’s own critical attitude towards Bazarov in this regard is rather an advantage. After all, from the outside, both advantages and disadvantages become more noticeable. According to Pisarev, Bazarov’s tragedy lies in the fact that he does not have suitable conditions for his activities. And since Turgenev does not have the opportunity to show how his main character lives, he shows the reader how he dies.

It should be noted that Pisarev rarely expressed his admiration for literary works. He can just be called a nihilist - a subverter of values. However, Pisarev emphasizes the aesthetic significance of the novel and 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 magazine “Time,” which was published under the publication of F. M. and M. M. Dostoevsky. Nikolai Nikolaevich was a state councilor, publicist, and 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 demonstrate all his skill. Strakhov regards the image of Bazarov as extremely typical. What Pisarev considered a completely random misunderstanding (“He bluntly denies things that he does not know or does not understand”), Strakhov perceived as one of the most essential features of a true 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” comes to the fore in it, and not extraneous reflections.

Criticism of the work “Fathers and Sons”: Herzen’s view

In Herzen’s work entitled “Once More Bazarov” the main emphasis is not on Turgenev’s hero, but on the way in which 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 spoke quite negatively about the novel “Fathers and Sons”. One of the most critical points of view was put forward by M.A. Antonovich. In his magazine, he published an article entitled “Asmodeus of our time,” which was dedicated to Turgenev’s work. 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 as a reproach and instruction to young people. And Antonovich was also glad that Turgenev finally revealed his true face, showing himself as an opponent of all progress.

Opinion of N. M. Katkov

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

The novel “Fathers and Sons” in Russian criticism: Dostoevsky’s opinion

F. M. Dostoevsky also took a very unique position in relation to the main character. He considered Bazarov a “theorist” who was too far removed from real life. And that is 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 crash against the realities of life, and therefore bring torment and suffering to a person. Soviet critics believed that Dostoevsky reduced the problems of the novel to a complex of an ethical and psychological nature.

General impression of contemporaries

In general, criticism of Turgenev's Fathers and Sons was largely negative. Many writers were dissatisfied with Turgenev’s work. The Sovremennik magazine considered it a libel on modern society. Adherents of conservatism were also not sufficiently satisfied, since it seemed to them that Turgenev had not fully revealed 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 they, seeing their dissimilarity with the general mass, boldly move away from it. And they don’t care at all whether society agrees to follow them. They are full of themselves and their own inner life.

The criticism of “Fathers and Sons” is far from exhausted by the responses considered. 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 a work.

No sooner had Turgenev's novel appeared in the world 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 had not picked up books since school.”

The controversy surrounding the novel (Panaeva did not clearly indicate the genre of the work) immediately became truly fierce. Turgenev recalled: “I have compiled a rather interesting collection of letters and other documents regarding Fathers and Sons. 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 are burning my photographic cards,” others, on the contrary, indignantly reproach me for groveling before this very young generation. -knee".

Readers and critics were never able to come to a common opinion: what was the position of the author himself, whose side was he on - the “fathers” or the “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 the most, who did not formulate his attitude towards what was 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 magazine 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 a blow 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 to the “fathers” and a denunciation of the “children,” and you did not understand the “children,” and instead of denunciation you came up with slander.”

In a polemical frenzy, Antonovich argued that Turgenev’s novel is weak even in purely artistic terms. 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 magazine? Apparently, Antonovitch’s speech was of a programmatic nature.

Almost simultaneously with Antonovich’s article, an article by D.I. Pisarev “Bazaars” appeared on the pages of another democratic magazine, “Russian Word”. Unlike the critic of Sovremennik, Pisarev saw in Bazarov a reflection of the most essential features of democratic youth. “Turgenev’s novel,” Pisarev asserted, “besides its artistic beauty, is also remarkable because it stirs the mind, provokes thought... Precisely because it is all imbued with the most complete, most touching sincerity. Everything that is written in Turgenev’s last novel is felt until the last line; this feeling breaks through beyond the will and consciousness of the author himself and warms the objective story.”

Even if the writer does not feel any special sympathy for his hero, this did not bother Pisarev at all. Much more important is that Bazarov’s moods and ideas turned out to be surprisingly close and in tune with the young critic. Praising strength, independence, and energy in Turgenev’s hero, Pisarev accepted everything in his beloved Bazarov - a disdainful attitude towards art (Pisarev himself thought so), and simplified views on the spiritual life of man, and an attempt to comprehend love through the prism of natural sciences. views.

Pisarev turned out to be a more insightful critic than Antonovich. Despite all the 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 “full tribute of his respect” to the hero.

And yet, both Antonovich and Pisarev approached the assessment of “Fathers and Sons” one-sidedly, although in different ways: one sought to erase any significance of the novel, the other admired Bazarov to such an extent that he even made him a kind of standard when assessing other literary phenomena.

The disadvantage of these articles was, in particular, that they did not make an attempt to comprehend the internal tragedy of Turgenev’s hero, the growing dissatisfaction with himself, the 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 - but everyone interprets: why is he so bad? or why is he so good? Material from the site

Perhaps N. N. Strakhov reacted most calmly and objectively to Turgenev’s novel. He wrote: “Bazarov turns away from nature; Turgenev does not reproach him for this, but only paints nature in all its beauty. Bazarov does not value friendship and renounces parental love; The author does not discredit him for this, but only depicts Arkady’s friendship for Bazarov himself and his happy love for Katya... Bazarov... is defeated not by the faces and not by the accidents of life, but by the very idea of this life.”

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

The novel “Fathers and Sons” very quickly became famous abroad. Already in 1863 it appeared in a French translation with a preface by Prosper Merimee. Soon the novel was published in Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Poland, and North America. Already in the middle of the 20th century. The outstanding German writer Thomas Mann said: “If I were exiled to a desert island and could take with me only six books, 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 there is material on the following topics:

brief criticism of the novel Fathers and Sons
novel fathers and sons. criticism of the novel
criticism of fathers and sons
structure of the literary novel fathers and sons
critics about Turgenev's novel fathers and sons

The controversy surrounding the novel (Panaeva did not clearly indicate the genre of the work) immediately became truly fierce. Turgenev recalled: “I have compiled a rather interesting collection of letters and other documents regarding Fathers and Sons. 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 are burning my photographic cards with laughter of contempt,” others, on the contrary, indignantly reproach me for kowtowing to this very young generation.”

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 magazine 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 a blow at the most advanced forces of Russia, that, while defending the interests of the “fathers,” he simply slandered the young generation.

Almost simultaneously with Antonovich’s article, D.I. Pisarev’s article “Bazarov” appeared on the pages of another democratic magazine, “Russian Word”. Unlike the critic of Sovremennik, Pisarev saw in Bazarov a reflection of the most significant features of democratic youth. “Turgenev’s novel,” Pisarev asserted, “besides its artistic beauty, is also remarkable because it stirs the mind, provokes thought... Precisely because it is all imbued through and through with the most complete, most touching sincerity. Everything that is written in Turgenev’s last novel is felt until the last line; this feeling breaks through beyond the will and consciousness of the author himself and warms the objective story.”

Even if the writer does not have any special sympathy for his hero, this did not bother Pisarev at all. Much more important is that Bazarov’s moods and ideas turned out to be surprisingly close and in tune with the young critic. Praising strength, independence, and energy in Turgenev’s hero, Pisarev accepted everything in his beloved Bazarov - a disdainful attitude towards art (Pisarev himself thought so), and simplified views on the spiritual life of man, and an attempt to comprehend love through the prism of natural scientific views.

Pisarev turned out to be a more insightful critic than Antonovich. Despite all the costs, he was able to more fairly assess the objective significance of Turgenev’s novel, to understand that in the novel “Fathers and Sons” the writer paid “full tribute of his respect” to the hero.

The disadvantage of these articles was, in particular, that they did not make an attempt to comprehend the internal tragedy of Turgenev’s hero, his growing dissatisfaction with himself, his 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 - but everyone interprets: why is he so bad? or why is he so good?

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

The novel “Fathers and Sons” very quickly became famous abroad. Already in 1863 it appeared in a French translation with a preface by Prosper Mérimée. Soon the novel was published in Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Poland, and North America. Already in the middle of the 20th century. The outstanding German writer Thomas Mann said: “If I were exiled to a desert island and could take with me only six books, then Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons would certainly be among them.”