Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages is collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavic and East European Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
In his essay "Bazarov Again" ("E'e raz Bazarov," 1862),AlexanderHerzen writes:"This mutualinteractionof people and books is a strangething.
A book takes its whole shape from the society that spawns it, then
generalizesthe material,rendersit clearer and sharper,and as a consequence realityis transformed."'It is generallyaccepted thatin Russia the
in the
mutualinteractionof people and books has been intense,particularly
realm of social and political commentary,and there is, no doubt, considerable truthin Herzen's observationthat under such conditions"real
people take on the characterof theirliteraryshadows." Whetheror not
youngRussians after1862were"almost all out of Whatis to be Done? with
assumedto be
theadditionofa fewofBazarov's traits,"suchwas frequently
the case, as the statementsof criticsand political activistsattest.2Dmitrij
Pisarev,forexample,in an articleentitled"We Shall See" ("Posmotrim,"
1865), raises the specterof hundredsof Bazarovs: "the Bazarov type is
growingconstantly,not by days, but by the hour, in life as well as in
But as Herzen recognized,Pisarev'sBazarov owes moreto the
literature."3
own
than to the textof Fathers
vision
of the Russian intelligentsia
critic's
and Sons: "WhetherPisarevunderstoodTurgenev'sBazarov correctlydoes
not concernme. What is importantis thathe recognizedhimselfand others
like himin Bazarov and supplied what was lackingin the book" (337).
Many of thenovel'sexegeteshave continuedto supply"what was lackof radicaltendenciesin
ing" in orderto portrayBazarov as a representative
thesixties.And yetBazarov is definedto a muchgreaterdegreebya literary
archetypederivingfromEuropean Romanticismand clearlydelineatedin
certainof Turgenev'searliestwritings.The case forthis derivationcan be
made withinTurgenev'sworks,but the extentto which it formshis portrayal of the nihilistis all the more clearlyrevealed when one compares
Fathersand Sons (Otcy i deti, 1862) withanothernovel writtenduringthe
same periodand centeredaround a similar(thatis, radical) protagonist.Its
author, Vasilij Slepcov, was well known for his participationin radical
causes duringthe sixties(as the fameof his Petersburgcommuneattests),
and he presumablyhad a more intimateknowledgeof the radical milieu
SEEJ, Vol. 21, No. 4 (1977)
495
496
thandid Turgenev.4Furthermore
Slepcov, who began his careeras a writer
in the earlysixties,lacked the Romanticapprenticeshipwhichwas to have
such a pervasiveinfluenceon Turgenev'slaterwork. Consequently,in his
novel Hard Times(Trudnoevremja,publishedin Sovremennik,
1864), Slepcov presentsthe Russian radical froma different
literaryperspective.
The similaritybetweenFathers and Sons and Hard Times was first
noted,appropriatelyenough,by Pisarev,in an articleentitled"Flourishing
Humanity" ("Podrastajuscaja gumannost'," 1865). Pisarev characterizes
of
Slepcov's protagonist,Rjazanov, as "one of the brilliantrepresentatives
beloved
Bazarov
one
the
acmy
type" (IV, 53). Although
mightquestion
theresemblancebetweenthetwo protagonistscercuracyof thisstatement,
tainlyprovides a basis for comparison.Both Bazarov and Rjazanov are
intellectualswho intendto
raznobincy
(the lattera priest'sson), disaffected
so
that
others
neither
is certainas to how the
destroy
may build, although
destructionwilloccuror who willdo thebuilding.Both representtheriseof
a new class and a new militancyin Russia's educational system.Both are
productsof theurbanintellectualmilieu- althoughtheiroriginslinkthem
to the provincesof centralRussia ("Rjazanov"). Both are intrudersin a
rural backwater,which is itselfbeset with problemsof social reform.
On thislast pointeven thedetailscorrespond:theprinciplelandowners
in both novels - Nikolaj Kirsanov and SRetinin- attemptto introduce
and reformsin theirdealingswiththe peasants,
agriculturalimprovements
but theireffortsare viewedwithsuspicionby neighboringlandownersand
withindifference
by the peasants(a reactionfamiliarto Tolstoj's repentant
landowners).Kirsanov and Sietinin are swindledby theirlaborersand are
baffledby their ignorance, superstition,and resistanceto the reforms.
in Hard Times,while
Descriptionsof ruralpovertyare frequent,
particularly
attemptsto implementa rational systemof agriculturalproductivityare
continuallyfrustrated.
(In both worksa new threshing
machine,purchased
at great expense, proves too heavy for local conditions.)The similarity
extendsto thephysicalsettingas well:thesame dilapidatedchurch,thesame
peasant hutsclusteredin a villagenear a manorhouse withthesame arbors
and acacias.
Once placed in this setting,both protagonistsare led into a situation
whichpits theirurban radicalismagainst a formof gentryliberalism.As
would be expected,each novelistreliesheavilyon dialogueto developa conflictwhicharises fromideological antagonism,but thereis a difference
in
thefunctionof theseverbalconfrontations.
In Hard Timestheyso dominate
the core of the work thatplot is relativelyunimportantand the narrator's
commentsare littlemore than extendedstage directions.In Fathersand
thenarrator'sintrusionsdirect
Sons, whichhas a plot ofgreatercomplexity,
the reader's perception of events, while ideological arguments serve
primarilyto motivatea course of action which eventuallyhas littleto do
The RomanticArchetype
497
498
499
500
502
503
"hard times,"beginswhereTurgenevleaves off:in the liberalgentry'sarcadia. In Sietinin,Rjazanov facesnota Pavel Kirsanovbut hisown contemporary,a newtypeofliberal- practical(or so he thinks),optimistic,
willing
to accept emancipationreformswiththeunderstanding
thattheyshould be
made to work in his own interests.The questionis will they?and at what
cost to the peasants who supplythe labor?
Turgenev,in a final,briefgestureofconcernwithsocial issuesindicates
that therewill be problemsin adjustingto the reforms,but couples his
remarkwithreferencesto the Kirsanov's growingprosperity.Beyond this
such problemsdo not interesthim, because theyprovideno scope forthe
greater strugglewhich is his true concern. Bazarov merely dismisses
Arkadij's new role as benevolentlandowner,he does not challengeit. The
Romantic rebel is not concernedwith the details or pretensionsof land
reform,and he does notreturnto accuse Arkadijofhypocrisyin his dealings
withthe peasants- indeed,he cannot return.His isolationmustbe maintained in the interestsof a conclusion beyond specificconsiderationsof
politicsand ideology.
This analysishas attemptedto interpret
Fathersand Sons, in particular
the relationbetweenradicalismand literaryarchetype,by offeringa contrastwithanotherworkwhichdeals withmanyof thesame issues.It would
be pointlessto claim thatSlepcov,a talentedminorwriter,has givena more
truthfulrepresentation
of the nigilistas a social phenomenon.But he has
writtena novel whichreflectsand commentshis viewsas a radical intellectual. In presenting
a formof radicalideologypeculiarto thesixties,Slepcov
shows littletendencyto idealize itsproponents,withresultthathe is able to
offera radicalcritiquewithouttransforming
hischaractersintoadvocatesof
a simplistic,utopian solutionin the mannerof Cernyievskij.
order - one in
Turgenev's achievement,however,is of a different
whichthe role of ideologyis more tenuous.His politicaland philosophical
viewsand his ambivalencetowardBazarov have receivedmuchattention;'2
but effortsto interpretFathers and Sons solely in termsof the "liberal
predicament"or a specificphilosophicalsystemare, finally,inadequate. It
has been noted that Turgenev'scorrespondenceduringthe latterpart of
1860containsfrequentreferences
to a senseofdepression,and althoughthis
is not an uncommonmood in his writingsone such letter(to Fet) does
suggesta link betweenthis despondencyand his irritationwiththe young
criticsthenin controlof Sovremennik
who wishedto consigntheireldersto
oblivion (IV, 125). It may well be that Bazarov representsTurgenev'sattemptto come to termswiththe radical spiritwhichboth fascinatedand
repelledhim.
But in doing so Turgenevreturnedto a problemwhichhad occupied
him at the earliest stages of his literarycareer: the challenge and the
of the Romantichero,theapotheosisof self.When Antonovi6
ressentiment
504
8
9
505
conflict)"as his basic structuralcategory(15), he later writes:"We have said that the
Romanticmethodof dealingwiththesocial themeis to introduceit intoa Romanticconflict.To be moreprecise:the Romanticmethodof dealingwiththe social consistsin the
factthat the latterbecomes a motivating
forcefor alienation."(264.)
10 Mec3tai mysl'I. S. Turgeneva,
introd.Thomas G. Winner(Brown Univ. Slavic Reprint,8;
Providence,R. I.: Brown Univ. Press, 1970), 17. [reprintof the 1919 edition]
11 In viewof the factthatTurgenevdedicatedFathersand Sons to thememoryof Vissarion
to note thatBazarov's faithin scientificmaterialismechoes the
Belinskij,it is interesting
opinionsof Belinskijin his article"A View of Russian Literaturein 1846" ("Vzgljad na
russkujuliteraturuv 1846 godu"). Advisingthose interestedin man's higherfaculties
(soul, mind) to study their physiological source (heart, brain), Belinskij writes:
as physiologywhich
"Psychologywhichdoes not reston physiologyisjust as unscientific
knowsnothingof theexistenceof anatomy.Modernscienceis not satisfiedonlywiththis
[analysis of the brain]: by chemical analysis it wishes to penetrateinto the secret
laboratoriesof nature,and by observingtheembryoto tracethephysicalprocessofmoral
development...." See Polnoe sobranie socinenij(M.: AN SSSR, 1956), X, 27. The
would lead one to believe that
similarityof thisstatementto Bazarov's pronouncements
Bazarov belongs to an earliergenerationin an intellectualas well as literarysense. The
questionof Belinskijas a Romanticradical- and a prototypeforBazarov - lies beyond
the scope of thisarticle,but JosephFrank,in his recentbook on theyoungDostoevskij,
pointsout how clearlythe spiritof Romanticismpermeatedthe notionof social change
and justiceduringtheforties.See Dostoevsky:The Seeds ofRevolt,1821-1849(Princeton:
PrincetonUniv. Press,1976),73, 98-112.Belinskij'sinterestin Romanticismas a literary,
at considerablelengthin thesecond of his
and spiritualforceis demonstrated
intellectual,
"Articlesof Pu'kin" ("Stat'i o Pu'kine").
12 See Pustovojt,Roman L S. Turgeneva"Otcy i deti"; A. Batjuto, Turgenev-romanist
(L.:
et les courantspolitiqueset sociaux de son
Nauka, 1972); HenriGranjard,Ivan Tourgubnev
temps(Paris: Institutd'6tudesslaves, 1966); Isaiah Berlin,Fathersand Children:Turgenev
and the Liberal Predicament(New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1973).