Turgenev, “Fathers and Sons”: criticism of the work. Contemporary assessment of Turgeneev's novel "Fathers and Sons" in literary criticism Famous critics about the novel Fathers and Sons

The most important feature of the amazing talent of I.S. Turgenev - a keen sense of his time, which is the best test for an artist. The images he created continue to live, but in another world, the name of which is the grateful memory of 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 was created during a difficult period of social confrontation.

The idea for “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 had a hard time leaving the magazine, because the memory of Belinsky was connected with him. The articles of Dobrolyubov, with whom Ivan Sergeevich constantly argued and sometimes disagreed, served as a real basis for depicting ideological differences. The radically minded 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 or authorities. While working on the novel, Turgenev involuntarily develops sympathy for his character. In this he is helped by the diary of the main character, which is kept by the writer himself.

In May 1861, the writer returned from Paris to his Spasskoye estate and made his last entry in the manuscripts. In February 1862, the novel was published in the Russian Bulletin.

Main problems

After reading the novel, you understand its true value, created by the “genius of proportion” (D. Merezhkovsky). What did Turgenev love? What did you doubt? What did you dream about?

1. Central to the book is the moral problem of 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 new people it lies in work, but the old guard sees it in reasoning and contemplation, because crowds of peasants work for them. In this fundamental position there is a place for irreconcilable conflict: fathers and children live differently. In this discrepancy we see the problem of misunderstanding of opposites. The antagonists cannot and do not want to accept each other, this impasse is especially evident in the relationship between Pavel Kirsanov and Evgeny Bazarov.
2. The problem of moral choice is also acute: on whose side is the truth? Turgenev believed that the past cannot be denied, because only thanks to it the future is 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 people of the past like it or not, will still come, and we must be prepared for them. This is evidenced by the ironic image of Pavel Kirsanov, who lost his sense of reality while putting on ceremonial tailcoats in the village. The writer calls for a sensitive response to changes and trying to understand them, and not indiscriminately criticize, like Uncle Arkady. Thus, the solution to the problem lies in the tolerant attitude of different people towards each other and an attempt to understand the opposite life concept. In this sense, the position of Nikolai Kirsanov, who was tolerant of new trends and was never in a hurry to judge them, won. His son also found a compromise solution.
3. However, the author made it clear that there is a high purpose behind Bazarov’s tragedy. It is precisely such desperate and self-confident pioneers who pave the way forward for the world, so the problem of recognizing this mission in society also occupies an important place. Evgeniy repents on his deathbed that he feels useless, this realization destroys him, but he could have become a great scientist or a skilled doctor. But the cruel mores of the conservative world are pushing him out, because they feel threatened by him.
4. The problems of the “new” people, the diverse intelligentsia, and difficult relationships in society, with parents, and in the family are also obvious. The commoners do not have profitable estates and a position in society, so they are forced to work and become embittered when they see social injustice: they work hard for a piece of bread, while 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 character 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 feeling.

All the interests and plans of the writer were entirely focused on the most important tasks of the time, moving towards the most pressing problems of everyday life.

Characteristics of the characters in the novel

Evgeny Vasilievich Bazarov- comes from the people. Son of a regimental doctor. My grandfather on my father’s side “plowed the land.” Evgeniy makes his own way in life and receives a good education. Therefore, the hero is careless in clothes and manners; no one raised him. Bazarov is a representative of the new revolutionary-democratic generation, whose task is to destroy the old way of life and fight against those who hinder social development. A complex man, doubtful, but proud and adamant. Evgeniy Vasilyevich is very vague about how to correct society. Denies the old world, accepts only what is confirmed by practice.

• The writer portrayed in Bazarov the type of young man who believes exclusively in scientific activity and denies religion. The hero has a deep interest in 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. Bazarov's views and beliefs do not find like-minded people. Sitnikov, a talker and phrase-monger, and the “emancipated” Kukshina are worthless “followers”.
• A soul unknown to him is rushing about in Evgeny Vasilyevich. What should a physiologist and anatomist do with it? It is not visible under a microscope. But the soul hurts, although it – a scientific fact – does not exist!
• Turgenev spends most of the novel exploring the “temptations” of his hero. He torments him with the love of old people - his parents - what to do with them? What about love for Odintsova? The principles are in no way compatible with life, with the living movements of people. What remains for Bazarov? Just die. Death is his final test. He accepts her heroically, does not console himself with the spells of a materialist, but calls his beloved.
• The spirit conquers the enraged mind, overcomes the errors 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” and “long nails”. But the hero’s aristocratic manners are an internal weakness, a secret consciousness of his inferiority.

• Kirsanov believes that respecting yourself means taking care of your appearance and never losing your dignity, even in the village. He organizes his daily routine in the English manner.
• Pavel Petrovich retired, indulging in love experiences. This decision of his became a “retirement” 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”, corresponding to his position as a gentleman - a serf owner. The Russian people are honored for their patriarchy and obedience.
• In relation to a woman, strength and passion of feelings are manifested, but he does not understand them.
• Pavel Petrovich is indifferent to nature. Denial of her beauty speaks of his spiritual limitations.
• This man is deeply unhappy.

Nikolai Petrovich Kirsanov- Arkady's father and Pavel Petrovich's brother. He failed to make a military career, 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 and humility. The hero's intelligence evokes sympathy and respect. Nikolai Petrovich is a romantic at heart, loves music, recites poetry.
• He is an opponent of nihilism and tries to smooth out any emerging disagreements. Lives in accordance with his heart and conscience.

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

• Subsequently, he became a zealous owner and started a family.
• “A nice fellow,” but “a soft, liberal gentleman,” Bazarov says about him.
• All the 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 this conclusion be made? The firmness of her outlook on life, “proud loneliness, intelligence - make her “close” to the main character of the novel. She, like Evgeny, sacrificed personal happiness, so her heart is cold and fearful of feelings. She herself trampled on them by marrying for convenience.

Conflict between "fathers" and "children"

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

Disputes are the main compositional device that allows the reader to determine his point of view and take a certain position in his views on a particular social phenomenon, area of ​​development, nature, art, moral concepts. Using the “technique of debate” between “youth” and “old age,” the author affirms the idea that life does not stand still, it is multifaceted and multifaceted.

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 on earth. On the pages of the novel there is a heated debate caused by the struggle of revolutionary democratic forces with the liberal nobility.

Main topics

Turgenev managed to saturate the novel with progressive thought: protest against violence, hatred of 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 “sons”: relationships between generations and the theme of family;
3. A “new” type of person at the turn of two eras;
4. Immense love for the homeland, parents, woman;
5. Human and nature. The world around us: workshop or temple?

What is the point of the book?

Turgenev’s work sounds an alarming alarm bell over all of Russia, calling on fellow citizens to unite, sanity, and 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, but people of new and old views. “Fathers and Sons” is valuable not only as an illustration of history; the work touches on many moral issues.

The basis of the existence of the human race is the family, where everyone has their own responsibilities: the elders (“fathers”) look after the younger ones (“children”), pass on to them the experience and traditions accumulated by their ancestors, and instill moral feelings in them; 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, impossible without some denial of past misconceptions. The harmony of the world order lies in the fact that these “connections” are not broken, but not in the fact that everything remains the old fashioned way.

The book has great educational value. Reading it at the time of forming your character means thinking about important life problems. “Fathers and Sons” teaches a serious attitude towards the world, an active position, and patriotism. They teach from a young age to develop strong 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 a “merciless” and “destructive criticism of the younger generation.”
• D. Pisarev in “Russian Word” highly appreciated the work and the image of a nihilist created by the master. The critic emphasized the tragedy of character and noted the firmness of a person who does not retreat from trials. He agrees with other writers of criticism that the “new” people may cause resentment, but it is impossible to deny them “sincerity.” The appearance of Bazarov in Russian literature is a new step in highlighting the social and public life of the country.

Can you agree with the critic on everything? Probably no. He calls Pavel Petrovich “a small-sized Pechorin.” 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 his “favorite child.”

What is "nihilism"?

For the first time, the word “nihilist” is heard 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 professor V. Bervy. However, Dobrolyubov interpreted it in a positive sense and assigned it to the younger generation. The word was introduced into widespread use by Ivan Sergeevich, 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 Vasilyevich Bazarov still teaches us about his fate. Every person has a unique spiritual image, whether he is a nihilist or a simple layman. Respect and reverence for another person consists of respect for the fact that in him there is the same secret flicker of a living soul that is in you.

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.

As soon as it was published, the novel caused a real flurry of critical articles. None of the public camps accepted Turgenev's new creation.

The editor of the conservative “Russian Messenger” M. N. Katkov, in the articles “Turgenev’s novel and its critics” and “On our nihilism (regarding Turgenev’s novel),” argued that nihilism is a social disease that must be fought by strengthening protective conservative principles; and Fathers and Sons is no different from a whole series of anti-nihilistic novels by other writers. F. M. Dostoevsky took a unique position in assessing Turgenev’s novel and the image of its main character.

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

Liberal criticism, on the contrary, has become too interested in the social aspect. She could not forgive the writer for his ridicule of representatives of the aristocracy, hereditary nobles, and his irony regarding the “moderate noble liberalism” of the 1840s. The unsympathetic, rude “plebeian” Bazarov constantly mocks his ideological opponents and turns out to be morally superior to them.

In contrast to the conservative-liberal camp, democratic magazines differed in their assessment of the problems of Turgenev’s novel: Sovremennik and Iskra saw in it a slander against common democrats, whose aspirations are deeply alien and incomprehensible to the author; “Russkoe Slovo” and “Delo” took the opposite position.

The critic of Sovremennik, A. Antonovich, in an article with the expressive title “Asmodeus of our time” (that is, “the devil of our time”) noted that Turgenev “despises and hates the main character and his friends with all his heart.” Antonovich's article is full of harsh attacks and unsubstantiated accusations against the author of Fathers and Sons. The critic suspected Turgenev of colluding with the reactionaries, who allegedly “ordered” the writer a deliberately slanderous, accusatory novel, accused him of moving away from realism, and pointed out the grossly schematic, even caricatured nature of the images of the main characters. However, Antonovich’s article is quite consistent with the general tone that Sovremennik employees took after the departure of a number of leading writers from the editorial office. It became almost the duty of the Nekrasov magazine to personally criticize Turgenev and his works.

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

Pisarev was one of the first to clear Bazarov of the charge of caricature leveled at him by Antonovich, explained the positive meaning of the main character of Fathers and Sons, emphasizing the vital importance and innovation of such a character. As a representative of the generation of “children,” he accepted everything in Bazarov: a disdainful attitude towards art, a simplified view of human spiritual life, and an attempt to comprehend love through the prism of natural science views. The negative traits of Bazarov, under the pen of the critic, unexpectedly for readers (and for the author of the novel) acquired a positive assessment: open rudeness towards the inhabitants of Maryino was passed off as an independent position, ignorance and shortcomings in education - as a critical view of things, excessive conceit - as manifestations of a strong nature and etc.

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

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

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

N.N. Strakhov, in his article about “Fathers and Sons,” continues Pisarev’s thought, discussing the realism and even “typicality” of Bazarov as a hero of his time, a man of the 1860s:

“Bazarov does not arouse disgust in us at all and does not seem to us either mal eleve or mauvais ton. All the characters in the novel seem to agree with us. Bazarov’s simplicity of address and figure do not arouse disgust in them, but rather inspire respect for him. He was cordially received in Anna Sergeevna’s living room, where even some bad princess was sitting...”

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

Turgenev's novel shook up all layers of Russian society. The controversy about nihilism, about the image of the natural scientist, the democrat Bazarov, continued for a whole decade on the pages of almost all magazines of that time. And if in the 19th century there were still opponents of apologetic assessments of this image, then by the 20th century there were none left at all. Bazarov was raised on a shield as a harbinger of the coming storm, as a banner of everyone who wanted to destroy, without giving anything in return (“...it’s no longer our business... First we need to clear the place.”)

At the end of the 1950s, in the wake of Khrushchev’s “thaw,” a discussion unexpectedly developed, caused by the article by V. A. Arkhipov “On the creative history of the novel by I.S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons". In this article, the author tried to develop the previously criticized point of view of M. Antonovich. V.A. Arkhipov wrote that the novel appeared as a result of a conspiracy between Turgenev and Katkov, the editor of the Russian Messenger (“the conspiracy was obvious”) and a deal between the same Katkov and Turgenev’s advisor P.V. Annenkov (“In Katkov’s office in Leontyevsky Lane, as one would expect , a deal between a liberal and a reactionary took place."

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

Attempt V.A. Arkhipov to revive the point of view, ridiculed and refuted by Turgenev himself, caused a lively discussion, which included the magazines “Russian Literature”, “Questions of Literature”, “New World”, “Rise”, “Neva”, “Literature at School”, as well as "Literary newspaper". The results of the discussion were summed up in the article by G. Friedlander “On the debate about “Fathers and Sons”” and in the editorial “Literary Studies and Modernity” in “Questions of Literature”. They note the universal human significance of the novel and its main character.

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

Municipal educational institution "Gymnasium No. 42"

The novel "Fathers and Sons" in critics' reviews

Completed by: student of grade 10 “b”

Koshevoy Evgeniy

Checked:

teacher of Russian language and literature

Proskurina Olga Stepanovna

Barnaul 2008

Introduction

Topic of the abstract: “The novel “Fathers and Sons” in critics’ reviews (D.I. Pisarev, M.A. Antonovich, N.N. Strakhov)”

Purpose of the work: to display the image of Bazarov in the novel using articles from critics.

With the release of the novel by I.S. Turgenev’s “Fathers and Sons” begins a lively discussion of it in the press, which immediately acquired a sharp polemical character. Almost all Russian newspapers and magazines responded to the appearance of the novel. The work gave rise to disagreements, both between ideological opponents and among like-minded people, for example, in the democratic magazines Sovremennik and Russian Word. The dispute, in essence, was about the type of new revolutionary figure in Russian history.

Sovremennik responded to the novel with an article by M.A. Antonovich “Asmodeus of our time.” The circumstances surrounding Turgenev's departure from Sovremennik predisposed the novel to be assessed negatively by the critic. Antonovich saw in it a panegyric to the “fathers” and slander against the younger generation.

In the magazine “Russian Word” in 1862, an article by D.I. Pisarev “Bazarov”. The critic notes some bias of the author towards Bazarov, says that in a number of cases Turgenev “does not favor his hero”, that he experiences “an involuntary antipathy towards this line of thought.

In 1862, in the fourth book of the magazine “Time”, published by F.M. and M.M. Dostoevsky, an interesting article by N.N. Strakhov, which is called “I.S. Turgenev. "Fathers and Sons". Strakhov is convinced that the novel is a remarkable achievement of Turgenev the artist. The critic considers the image of Bazarov extremely typical.

At the end of the decade, Turgenev himself became involved in the controversy surrounding the novel. In the article “About “Fathers and Sons,” he tells the story of his idea, the stages of publication of the novel, and makes his judgments about the objectivity of the reproduction of reality: “...To accurately and powerfully reproduce the truth, the reality of life is the highest happiness for a writer, even if this truth does not coincide with his own sympathies.”

The works discussed in the essay are not the only responses of the Russian public to Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons.” Almost every Russian writer and critic has expressed, in one form or another, their attitude to the problems raised in the novel.

DI. Pisarev "Bazarov"

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

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

He acts in this way because he considers it unnecessary to embarrass his person in anything, for the same urge that Americans raise their legs on the backs of their chairs and spit tobacco juice on the parquet floors of luxurious hotels. Bazarov does not need anyone, and therefore does not spare anyone. Like Diogenes, he is ready to live almost in a barrel and for this he gives himself the right to speak harsh truths to people’s faces, because he likes it. In Bazarov’s cynicism, two sides can be distinguished - internal and external: cynicism of thoughts and feelings, and cynicism of manners and expressions. An ironic attitude towards feelings of all kinds. The rude expression of this irony, the causeless and aimless harshness in address refer to external cynicism. The first depends on the mindset and the general worldview; the second is determined by the properties of the society in which the subject in question lived. Bazarov is not only an empiricist - he is, moreover, an uncouth bursh who knows no other life than the homeless, working, life of a poor student. Among Bazarov’s admirers there will probably be people who will admire his rude manners, traces of Bursak life, and will imitate these manners, which constitute his shortcoming. Among Bazarov’s haters there will be people who will pay special attention to these features of his personality and reproach them to the general type. Both will be mistaken and will reveal only a deep misunderstanding of the real matter.

Arkady Nikolaevich is a young man, not stupid, but lacking mental orientation and constantly in need of someone's intellectual support. In comparison with Bazarov, he seems like a completely unfledged chick, despite the fact that he is about twenty-three years old and that he has completed a course at the university. Arkady rejects authority with pleasure, reverently before his teacher. But he does this from someone else’s voice, without noticing the internal contradiction in his behavior. He is too weak to stand on his own in the atmosphere in which Bazarov breathes so freely. Arkady belongs to the category of people who are always looked after and always do not notice the care over themselves. Bazarov treats him patronizingly and almost always mockingly. Arkady often argues with him, but as a rule achieves nothing. He does not love his friend, but somehow involuntarily submits to the influence of a strong personality, and, moreover, imagines that he deeply sympathizes with Bazarov’s worldview. We can say that Arkady's relationship with Bazarov is made to order. He met him somewhere in a student circle, became interested in his worldview, submitted to his power and imagined that he deeply respected him and loved him from the bottom of his heart.

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

Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov can be called a Pechorin of small proportions; he had fooled around in his time, and finally got tired of everything; he failed to settle in, and this was not in his character; Having reached the time when regrets are similar to hopes and hopes are similar to regrets, the former lion retired to his brother in the village, surrounded himself with elegant comfort and turned his life into a calm vegetation. An outstanding memory from Pavel Petrovich’s former noisy and brilliant life was a strong feeling for one high-society woman, which brought him a lot of pleasure and, as almost always happens, a lot of suffering. When Pavel Petrovich’s relationship with this woman ended, his life was completely empty. As a person with a flexible mind and strong will, Pavel Petrovich differs sharply from his brother and nephew. He does not give in to other people's influence. He subjugates the people around him and hates those people in whom he encounters rebuff. He has no convictions, but he does have habits that he values ​​very much. He talks about the rights and duties of the aristocracy and proves in disputes the need principles. He is accustomed to the ideas that society holds, and stands for these ideas as for his comfort. He hates for anyone to refute these concepts, although, in essence, he has no heartfelt affection for them. He argues with Bazarov much more energetically than his brother. At heart, Pavel Petrovich is the same skeptic and empiricist as Bazarov himself. In life, he has always acted and acts as he pleases, but he does not know how to admit this to himself and therefore verbally supports doctrines that his actions constantly contradict. Uncle and nephew should change their beliefs among themselves, because the first mistakenly ascribes to himself a belief in principles, the second similarly mistakenly imagines himself as a bold rationalist. Pavel Petrovich begins to feel a strong antipathy towards Bazarov from the first meeting. Bazarov's plebeian manners outrage the retired dandy. His self-confidence and lack of ceremony irritate Pavel Petrovich. He sees that Bazarov will not yield to him, and this arouses in him a feeling of annoyance, which he seizes on as entertainment in the midst of deep village boredom. Hating Bazarov himself, Pavel Petrovich is indignant at all his opinions, finds fault with him, forcibly challenges him to an argument and argues with that zealous passion that idle and bored people usually display.

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

Bazarov is lying - this, unfortunately, is fair. He denies things he doesn't know or doesn't understand. Poetry, in his opinion, is nonsense. Reading Pushkin is a waste of time; making music is funny; enjoying nature is absurd. He is a man worn out by work life.

Bazarov's passion for science is natural. It is explained: firstly, by the one-sidedness of development, and secondly, by the general character of the era in which they had to live. Evgeniy has a thorough knowledge of natural and medical sciences. With their assistance, he knocked all prejudices out of his head, then he remained an extremely uneducated man. He had heard something about poetry, something about art, but did not bother to think and passed judgment on subjects unfamiliar to him.

Bazarov has no friend, because he has not yet met a person “who would not give in to him.” He doesn't feel the need for any other person. When a thought comes to his mind, he simply speaks out, not paying attention to the reaction of his listeners. Most often, he doesn’t even feel the need to speak out: he thinks to himself and occasionally drops a cursory remark, which is usually picked up with respectful greed by chicks like Arkady. Bazarov's personality closes in on itself, because outside of it and around it there are almost no elements related to it. This isolation of Bazarov has a hard effect on those people who want tenderness and communication from him, but there is nothing artificial or deliberate in this isolation. The people surrounding Bazarov are insignificant mentally and cannot stir him up in any way, which is why he remains silent, or speaks fragmentary aphorisms, or breaks off the dispute he has started, feeling its ridiculous uselessness. Bazarov does not put on airs in front of others, does not consider himself a genius, he is simply forced to look down on his acquaintances, because these acquaintances are up to his knees. What should he do? After all, he shouldn’t sit on the floor in order to match their height? He inevitably remains in solitude, and this solitude is not difficult for him because he is busy with the vigorous work of his own thoughts. The process of this work remains in the shadows. I doubt that Turgenev would be able to convey to us a description of this process. To portray him, you have to be Bazarov yourself, but this did not happen with Turgenev. In the writer we see only the results that Bazarov arrived at, the external side of the phenomenon, i.e. We hear what Bazarov says and find out how he acts in life, how he treats different people. We do not find a psychological analysis of Bazarov’s thoughts. We can only guess what he thought and how he formulated his beliefs to himself. Without introducing the reader into the secrets of Bazarov’s mental life, Turgenev can arouse bewilderment in that part of the public that is not accustomed to using the work of their own thoughts to supplement what is not agreed upon or not completed in the writer’s work. An inattentive reader may think that Bazarov has no inner content, and that all of his nihilism consists of a weave of bold phrases snatched from the air and not developed by independent thinking. Turgenev himself does not understand his hero this way, and that is the only reason why he does not follow the gradual development and maturation of his ideas. Bazarov's thoughts are expressed in his actions. They shine through and are not difficult to see if you only read carefully, grouping the facts and being aware of their reasons.

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

Arkady, as Bazarov put it, fell into the jackdaws and directly from the influence of his friend passed under the soft power of his young wife. But be that as it may, Arkady built a nest for himself, found his happiness, and Bazarov remained homeless, an unwarmed wanderer. This is not an accidental circumstance. If you, gentlemen, understand Bazarov’s character at all, then you will be forced to agree that it is very difficult to find a home for such a person and that he cannot become a virtuous family man without changing. Bazarov can only fall in love with a very smart woman. Having fallen in love with a woman, he will not subject his love to any conditions. He will not restrain himself and, in the same way, will not artificially warm up his feeling when it cools down after complete satisfaction. He takes a woman’s favor when it is given to him completely voluntarily and unconditionally. But we usually have smart women who are careful and calculating. Their dependent position makes them afraid of public opinion and not giving free rein to their desires. They are afraid of the unknown future, and therefore a rare smart woman will decide to throw herself on the neck of her beloved man without first binding him with a strong promise in the face of society and the church. Dealing with Bazarov, this smart woman will understand very soon that no promise will bind the unbridled will of this wayward man and that he cannot be obliged to be a good husband and a gentle father of the family. She will understand that Bazarov either will not make any promise at all, or, having made it in a moment of complete infatuation, will break it when this infatuation dissipates. In a word, she will understand that Bazarov’s feeling is free and will remain free, despite any oaths and contracts. Arkady has a much better chance of being liked by a young girl, despite the fact that Bazarov is incomparably smarter and more wonderful than his young comrade. A woman who is capable of appreciating Bazarov will not give herself to him without preconditions, because such a woman knows life and, out of calculation, takes care of her reputation. A woman who is capable of being carried away by feelings, like a naive creature who has thought little, will not understand Bazarov and will not love him. In a word, for Bazarov there are no women capable of arousing a serious feeling in him and, for their part, warmly responding to this feeling. If Bazarov had been dealing with Asya, or with Natalya (in Rudin), or with Vera (in Faust), then he, of course, would not have retreated at the decisive moment. But the fact is that women like Asya, Natalya and Vera are carried away by sweet-tongued phrase-mongers, and in front of strong people like Bazarov they feel only timidity, close to antipathy. Such women need to be caressed, but Bazarov does not know how to caress anyone. But nowadays a woman cannot give herself over to direct pleasure, because behind this pleasure a formidable question always arises: what then? Love without guarantees and conditions is not common, and Bazarov does not understand love with guarantees and conditions. Love is love, he thinks, bargaining is bargaining, “and mixing these two crafts,” in his opinion, is inconvenient and unpleasant.

Let us now consider three circumstances in Turgenev’s novel: 1) Bazarov’s attitude towards the common people; 2) Bazarov’s courtship of Fenechka; 3) Bazarov’s duel with Pavel Petrovich.

In Bazarov’s relations with the common people, first of all, one must notice the absence of any sweetness. The people like it, and therefore the servants love Bazarov, the children love him, despite the fact that he does not shower them with money or gingerbread. Having mentioned in one place that Bazarov is loved by ordinary people, Turgenev says that the men look at him like a fool. These two testimonies do not contradict each other at all. Bazarov behaves simply with the peasants: he does not show either lordship or a cloying desire to imitate their speech and teach them wisdom, and therefore the peasants, speaking to him, are not timid or embarrassed. But, on the other hand, Bazarov, in terms of address, language, and concepts, is completely at odds with both them and those landowners whom the peasants are accustomed to seeing and listening to. They look at him as a strange, exceptional phenomenon, neither this nor that, and will look at gentlemen like Bazarov in this way until there are no more of them and until they have time to take a closer look at them. The men have a heart for Bazarov, because they see in him a simple and intelligent person, but at the same time this person is a stranger to them, because he does not know their way of life, their needs, their hopes and fears, their concepts, beliefs and prejudices.

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

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

Seeing that Bazarov kissed Fenechka, Pavel Petrovich, who has long harbored hatred for the nihilist and, moreover, is not indifferent to Fenechka, who for some reason reminds him of his former beloved woman, challenges our hero to a duel. Bazarov shoots with him, wounds him in the leg, then he bandages his wound and leaves the next day, seeing that after this story it is inconvenient for him to stay in the Kirsanovs’ house. A duel, according to Bazarov’s concepts, is absurd. The question is, did Bazarov do a good job accepting Pavel Petrovich’s challenge? This question boils down to a more general question: “Is it generally permissible in life to deviate from one’s theoretical beliefs?” There are different opinions about the concept of persuasion, which can be reduced to two main shades. Idealists and fanatics shout about beliefs without analyzing this concept, and therefore they absolutely do not want and cannot understand that a person is always more valuable than a brain conclusion, due to a simple mathematical axiom that tells us that the whole is always greater than the part. Idealists and fanatics will say, therefore, that to deviate from theoretical convictions in life is always shameful and criminal. This will not prevent many idealists and fanatics from becoming cowardly and retreating on occasion, and then reproaching themselves for practical failure and engaging in remorse. There are other people who do not hide from themselves the fact that they sometimes have to do absurd things, and even do not at all want to turn their lives into a logical calculation. Bazarov is one of these people. He says to himself: “I know that a duel is an absurdity, but at this moment I see that it is absolutely inconvenient for me to refuse it. In my opinion, it is better to do something absurd than, while remaining prudent to the last degree, to receive a blow from the hand or from Pavel Petrovich's cane.

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

If the desired changes occur in consciousness and in the life of society, then people like Bazarov will be ready, because the constant work of thought will not allow them to become lazy and rusty, and constantly awake skepticism will not allow them to become fanatics of a specialty or sluggish followers of a one-sided doctrine. Unable to show us how Bazarov lives and acts, Turgenev showed us how he dies. This is enough for the first time to form an idea of ​​​​Bazarov’s powers, the full development of which could only be indicated by life, struggle, actions and results. Bazarov has strength, independence, energy that phrase-mongers and imitators do not have. But if someone wanted not to notice and feel the presence of this force in him, if someone wanted to question it, then the only fact that solemnly and categorically refuting this absurd doubt would be Bazarov’s death. His influence on the people around him does not prove anything. After all, Rudin also had influence on people like Arkady, Nikolai Petrovich, Vasily Ivanovich. But looking into the eyes of death not to become weak and not to become afraid is a matter of strong character. To die the way Bazarov died is the same as accomplishing a great feat. Because Bazarov died firmly and calmly, no one felt either relief or benefit, but such a person who knows how to die calmly and firmly will not retreat in the face of an obstacle and will not cower in the face of danger.

When starting to build the character of Kirsanov, Turgenev wanted to present him as great and instead made him funny. 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 is not a dialectician, not a sophist, he is first of all an artist, a person unconsciously, involuntarily sincere. His images live their own lives. He loves them, he is carried away by them, he becomes attached to them during the creative process, and it becomes impossible for him to push them around at his whim and turn the picture of life into an allegory with a moral purpose and a virtuous outcome. The honest, pure nature of the artist takes its toll, breaks down theoretical barriers, triumphs over the delusions of the mind and with its instincts redeems everything - the infidelity of the main idea, the one-sidedness of development, and the obsolescence of concepts. Looking at his Bazarov, Turgenev, as a person and as an artist, grows in his novel, grows before our eyes and grows to a correct understanding, to a fair assessment of the created type.

M.A. Antonovich “Asmodeus of our time”

I look sadly at our generation...

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

Let's take a closer look at the trends and try to find out the hidden qualities of fathers and children. So, what are the fathers, the old generation, like? Fathers in the novel are presented in the best possible way. We are not talking about those fathers and that old generation, which is represented by the inflated Princess Khaya, who could not tolerate youth and sulked at the “new rabid ones,” Bazarov and Arkady. Kirsanov's father, Nikolai Petrovich, is an exemplary person in all respects. He himself, despite his general origins, was brought up at the university and had a candidate's degree and gave his son a higher education. Having lived almost to old age, he never ceased to take care of supplementing his own education. He used all his strength to keep up with the times. He wanted to get closer to the younger generation, to become imbued with their interests, so that together, together, hand in hand, to move towards a common goal. But the younger generation rudely pushed him away. He wanted to get along with his son in order to begin his rapprochement with the younger generation with him, but Bazarov prevented this. He tried to humiliate the father in the eyes of his son and thereby broke off any moral connection between them. “We,” the father said to his son, “will live a glorious life with you, Arkasha. We now need to get close to each other, get to know each other well, don’t we?” But no matter what they talk about among themselves, Arkady always begins to sharply contradict his father, who attributes this - and quite rightly - to the influence of Bazarov. But the son still loves his father and does not lose hope of someday getting closer to him. “My father,” he says to Bazarov, “is a golden man.” “It’s an amazing thing,” he replies, “these old romantics! They will develop a nervous system in themselves to the point of irritation, well, the balance will be disturbed.” Filial love began to speak in Arkady, he stood up for his father, saying that his friend did not know him enough yet. But Bazarov killed the last remnant of filial love in him with the following contemptuous review: “Your father is a kind fellow, but he is a retired man, his song is sung. He reads Pushkin. Explain to him that this is no good. After all, he is not a boy: it’s time to give up this nonsense. Give him something sensible, even Buchner's Stoff und Kraft5 for the first time." The son completely agreed with his friend’s words and felt regret and contempt for his father. His father accidentally overheard this conversation, which struck him to the very heart, offended him to the depths of his soul, and killed all energy in him, all desire to get closer to the younger generation. “Well,” he said after this, “maybe Bazarov is right; but one thing hurts me: I hoped to get along closely and friendly with Arkady, but it turns out that I was left behind, he went ahead, and we can’t understand each other.” Can. It seems that I am doing everything to keep up with the times: I organized peasants, started a farm, so that throughout the entire province they call me red. I read, I study, I generally try to keep up with modern needs, but they say that my song is finished. Yes, I’m beginning to think so myself." These are the harmful effects produced by the arrogance and intolerance of the younger generation. One boy’s trick struck the giant; he doubted his abilities and saw the futility of his efforts to keep up with the times. Thus, the younger generation, through their own fault, lost assistance and support from a person who could be a very useful figure, because he was gifted with many wonderful qualities that young people lack. Youth are cold, selfish, do not have poetry in themselves and therefore hate it everywhere, do not have the highest moral convictions. Then how this man had a poetic soul and, despite the fact that he knew how to set up a farm, retained his poetic fervor until his old age, and most importantly, was imbued with the firmest moral convictions.

Bazarov's father and mother are even better, even kinder than Arkady's parent. The father, in the same way, does not want to lag behind the times, and the mother lives only with love for her son and the desire to please him. Their common, tender affection for Enyushenka is depicted by Mr. Turgenev very excitingly and vividly; these are the best pages in the entire novel. But the more disgusting it seems to us is the contempt with which Enyushenka pays for their love, and the irony with which he treats their tender caresses.

This is what fathers are like! They, in contrast to children, are imbued with love and poetry, they are moral people, modestly and quietly doing good deeds. They never want to lag behind the century.

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

Bravo, young generation! Excellent for progress. And what is the comparison with smart, kind and morally sedate “fathers”? Even his best representative turns out to be a most vulgar gentleman. But still, he is better than others, he speaks with consciousness and expresses his own judgments, not borrowed from anyone, as it turns out from the novel. We will now deal with this best specimen of the younger generation. As stated above, he seems to be a cold person, incapable of love, or even the most ordinary affection. He cannot even love a woman with the poetic love that is so attractive in the old generation. If, according to the demands of animal feeling, he falls in love with a woman, then he will love only her body. He even hates the soul in a woman. He says “that she doesn’t even need to understand a serious conversation and that only freaks think freely between women.”

You, Mr. Turgenev, ridicule aspirations that would deserve encouragement and approval from every right-thinking person - we do not mean here the desire for champagne. There are already many thorns and obstacles on the way for young women who want to study more seriously. Their already evil-tongued sisters prick their eyes with “blue stockings.” And without you, we have many stupid and dirty gentlemen who, like you, reproach them for their disheveled state and lack of crinolines, mock their unclean collars and their nails, which do not have that crystal transparency to which your dear Pavel brought his nails Petrovich. This would be enough, but you are still straining your wit to come up with new offensive nicknames for them and want to use Mrs. Kukshina. Or do you really think that emancipated women only care about champagne, cigarettes and students, or about several one-time husbands, as your fellow artist Mr. Bezrylov imagines? This is even worse because it casts an unfavorable shadow on your philosophical acumen. But something else - ridicule - is also good, because it makes you doubt your sympathy for everything reasonable and fair. We, personally, are in favor of the first assumption.

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

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

Nikolai Petrovich did not want to marry Fenechka due to the influence of traces of nobility, because she was no match for him and, most importantly, because he was afraid of his brother, Pavel Petrovich, who had even more traces of nobility and who, however, also had designs on Fenechka. Finally, Pavel Petrovich decided to destroy the traces of nobility in himself and himself demanded that his brother marry. "Marry Fenechka... She loves you! She is the mother of your son." “Are you saying this, Pavel? - you, whom I considered an opponent of such marriages! But don’t you know that it was only out of respect for you that I did not fulfill what you so rightly called my duty.” “It’s in vain that you respected me in this case,” Pavel answered, “I’m beginning to think that Bazarov was right when he reproached me for aristocratism. No, we’ve had enough of breaking down and thinking about the world, it’s time for us to put aside all vanity,” then there are traces of lordship. Thus, the “fathers” finally realized their shortcoming and put it aside, thereby destroying the only difference that existed between them and their children. So, our formula is modified as follows: “fathers” are traces of the nobility = “children” are traces of the nobility. Subtracting equal quantities from equal ones, we get: “fathers” = “children,” which is what we needed to prove.

With this we will finish with the personalities of the novel, with fathers and sons, and turn to the philosophical side. Those views and trends that are depicted in it and which do not belong only to the younger generation, but are shared by the majority and express the general modern direction and movement. As you can see, by all appearances, Turgenev took to depict the then period of mental life and literature, and these are the features he discovered in it. From different places in the novel we will collect them together. Before, you see, there were Hegelists, but now nihilists have appeared. Nihilism is a philosophical term that has different meanings. The writer defines it as follows: “A nihilist is one who recognizes nothing, who respects nothing, who treats everything from a critical point of view, who does not bow to any authorities, who does not accept a single principle on faith, no matter how respectful.” no matter how this principle was surrounded. Previously, without principles taken on faith, they could not take a step. Now they do not recognize any principles: they do not recognize art, they do not believe in science, and they even say that science does not exist at all. Now they deny everything, but build they don’t want to. They say: “It’s none of our business, we need to clear the place first.”

Here is a collection of modern views put into Bazarov’s mouth. What are they? Caricature, exaggeration and nothing more. The author directs the arrows of his talent against something into the essence of which he has not penetrated. He heard various voices, saw new opinions, observed lively debates, but could not get to their inner meaning, and therefore in his novel he touched only on the tops, only on the words that were spoken around him. The concepts associated with these words remained a mystery to him. All his attention is focused on fascinatingly drawing the image of Fenechka and Katya, describing Nikolai Petrovich’s dreams in the garden, depicting “searching, vague, sad anxiety and causeless tears.” The matter would have turned out well if he had limited himself to this. He should not artistically analyze the modern way of thinking and characterize trends. He either does not understand them at all, or he understands them in his own, artistic way, superficially and incorrectly, and from the personification of them he composes a novel. Such art really deserves, if not denial, then censure. We have the right to demand that the artist understand what he depicts, that in his images, in addition to artistry, there is truth, and what he is not able to understand should not be accepted for that. Mr. Turgenev is perplexed how one can understand nature, study it and at the same time admire it and enjoy it poetically, and therefore says that the modern young generation, passionately devoted to the study of nature, denies the poetry of nature and cannot admire it. Nikolai Petrovich loved nature because he looked at it unconsciously, “indulging in the sad and joyful play of lonely thoughts,” and felt only anxiety. Bazarov could not admire nature, because vague thoughts did not play in him, but thought worked, trying to understand nature; he walked through the swamps not with “searching anxiety,” but with the goal of collecting frogs, beetles, ciliates, so that he could then cut them and examine them under a microscope, and this killed all poetry in him. But meanwhile, the highest and most reasonable enjoyment of nature is possible only with its understanding, when it is looked at not with unaccountable thoughts, but with clear thoughts. The “children”, taught by the “fathers” and authorities themselves, were convinced of this. There were people who understood the meaning of its phenomena, knew the movement of waves and vegetation, read the star book and were great poets10. But true poetry also requires that the poet depict nature correctly, not fantastically, but as it is, a poetic personification of nature - an article of a special kind. "Pictures of nature" can be the most accurate, most scientific description of nature and can produce a poetic effect. The picture can be artistic, although it is drawn so accurately that a botanist can study on it the location and shape of leaves in plants, the direction of their veins and the types of flowers. The same rule applies to works of art depicting phenomena of human life. You can write a novel, imagine in it the “children” looking like frogs and the “fathers” looking like aspens. Confuse modern trends, reinterpret other people's thoughts, take a little from different views and make a porridge and vinaigrette out of it all called “nihilism.” Imagine this mess of faces, so that each face represents a vinaigrette of the most opposite, incongruous and unnatural actions and thoughts; and at the same time effectively describe a duel, a sweet picture of love dates and a touching picture of death. Anyone can admire this novel, finding artistry in it. But this artistry disappears, denies itself at the first touch of thought, which reveals a lack of truth in it.

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

Sorry, 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 the “fathers” and a denunciation of the “children,” and you did not understand the “children,” and instead of denunciation you came up with slander. You wanted to portray the spreaders of sound concepts among the younger generation as corrupters of youth, sowers of discord and evil, haters of good - in a word, Asmodeus.

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

When criticism of any work appears, everyone expects some lesson or teaching from it. This requirement could not have been clearer with the appearance of Turgenev’s new novel. They suddenly approached him with feverish and urgent questions: who does he praise, who does he condemn, who is his role model, who is the object of contempt and indignation? What kind of novel is this - progressive or retrograde?

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

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

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

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

This is how he is in his new novel. If we do not know the complete Bazarovs in reality, then, however, we all encounter many Bazarov-like traits; we all know people who, on one side or the other, resemble Bazarov. Everyone heard the same thoughts one by one, fragmentarily, incoherently, awkwardly. Turgenev embodied undeveloped opinions in Bazarov.

This is where the novel's deep entertainingness comes from, as well as the bewilderment it produces. Half Bazarovs, one quarter Bazarovs, one hundredth Bazarovs do not recognize themselves in the novel. But this is their grief, not Turgenev’s grief. It is much better to be a complete Bazarov than to be his ugly and incomplete likeness. Opponents of Bazarovism rejoice, thinking that Turgenev deliberately distorted the matter, that he wrote a caricature of the younger generation: they do not notice how much greatness the depth of his life, his completeness, his inexorable and consistent originality, which they take for ugliness, puts on Bazarov.

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

Let's come closer to the matter. The range of thoughts of which Bazarov is a representative were more or less clearly expressed in our literature. Their main exponents were two magazines: Sovremennik, which had been pursuing these aspirations for several years, and Russkoe Slovo, which recently stated them with particular sharpness. It is difficult to doubt that from here, from these purely theoretical and abstract manifestations of a well-known way of thinking, Turgenev took the mentality that he embodied in Bazarov. Turgenev took a well-known view of things, which had claims to dominance, to primacy in our mental movement. He consistently and harmoniously developed this view to its extreme conclusions and - since the artist’s work is not thought, but life - he embodied it in living forms. He gave flesh and blood to what clearly already existed as thought and belief. He gave external manifestation to what already existed as an internal basis.

Similar documents

Analysis of the historical fact of the emergence of a new public figure - a revolutionary democrat, his comparison with the literary hero Turgenev. Bazarov's place in the democratic movement and private life. Compositional and plot structure of the novel "Fathers and Sons".

abstract, added 07/01/2010


The idea and the beginning of the work of I.S. Turgenev's novel "Fathers and Sons". The personality of a young provincial doctor as the basis of the main figure of the novel - Bazarov. Finishing work on the work in my beloved Spassky. The novel "Fathers and Sons" is dedicated to V. Belinsky.

presentation, added 12/20/2010


The novel "Oblomov" as the pinnacle of the work of Ivan Andreevich Goncharov. Review by N.A. Dobrolyubova about the novel "Oblomov" in the article "What is Oblomovism?" Distinctive signs of the poet’s talent in the assessment of D.I. Pisarev. Comparative analysis of articles by these critics.

abstract, added 02/01/2012


The confrontation of generations and opinions in Turgenev's novel "Fathers and Sons", images of the work and their real prototypes. A portrait description of the main characters of the novel: Bazarov, Pavel Petrovich, Arkady, Sitnikov, Fenechka, a reflection of the author’s attitude in it.

abstract, added 05/26/2009


The concept, varieties and meaning of the symbol in the novel by I.S. Turgenev "fathers and sons". Symbolism of the name. The parable of the prodigal son is the key text and the main semantic leitmotif of the plot. Concentric principle of plot construction. Immortality in the images of the novel.

abstract, added 11/12/2008


The relationship between the characters in the novel by I.S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons". Love lines in the novel. Love and passion in the relationship of the main characters - Bazarov and Odintsova. Female and male images in the novel. Conditions for harmonious relationships between heroes of both sexes.

presentation, added 01/15/2010


Studying the storyline concerning the main character of the novel I.S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons" - E.V. Bazarov, who dies at the end of the work. Analysis of Evgeny’s life position, which consists in the fact that he denies everything: his views on life, his feeling of love.

abstract, added 12/07/2010


The worldview and ideals of the main character of the novel - Evgeny Bazarov. Image techniques I.S. Turgenev's spiritual experiences of his heroes and the emergence and development of various feelings in them. The author's method of describing the essence of the psychological states of the characters.

presentation, added 04/02/2015


The concept of image in literature, philosophy, aesthetics. The specificity of the literary image, its characteristic features and structure using the example of the image of Bazarov from Turgenev’s work “Fathers and Sons”, its contrast and comparison with other heroes of this novel.

test, added 06/14/2010


Biography of I.S. Turgenev. The novel "Rudin" is a dispute about the attitude of the noble intelligentsia towards the people. The main idea of ​​"The Nobles' Nest". Revolutionary sentiments of Turgenev - the novel “On the Eve”. "Fathers and Sons" - a polemic about the novel. The significance of Turgenev's creativity.

INTRODUCTION

1. PISAREV ABOUT BAZAROV

2. BAZAROV IN THE EYES OF ANTONOVICH

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

CONCLUSION

LIST OF REFERENCES USED

Excerpt from the text

It became epoch-making in the history of national self-awareness: it revealed and exposed the phenomena of Russian reality. The publication of the novel created a storm of criticism. The most interesting to us are the assessments given by I.’s contemporaries.

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

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

An abstract paper consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion and a list of references. The first chapter indicates the features of religious and philosophical criticism at the turn of the 19th century -

2. centuries, the second chapter is devoted to the question of what is the uniqueness and originality of V.V.’s work. Rozanov “The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor”, and also considered the ideas of V.V. that most interested me. Rozanov, expressed by him in this work.

List of information sources

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

2. Arkhipov V.A. On the creative history of I.S. Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons.” M., 1995.

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

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

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

6. I. S. Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons” in Russian criticism. M., 1996.

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

bibliography