Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages

Bazarov and Rjazanov: The Romantic Archetype in Russian Nihilism


Author(s): William C. Brumfield
Source: The Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Winter, 1977), pp. 495-505
Published by: American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/305972 .
Accessed: 20/01/2015 13:31
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
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

This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:31:16 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BAZAROV AND RJAZANOV: THE ROMANTIC


ARCHETYPE IN RUSSIAN NIHILISM
William C. Brumfield,Harvard University

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)

This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:31:16 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

495

496

Slavic and East EuropeanJournal

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

This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:31:16 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The RomanticArchetype

497

withideology.Nevertheless,both worksbeginwitha similarconflict,and


theypresentit in much the same terms.
From the momentPavel Kirsanov firsthearstheword "nihilist,"until
Bazarov's interviewwith Odincova in chaptersixteen,Turgenev'sradical
periodicallyexpressesviews which cannot be reconciledwith the idea of
social progressthroughgradual reform.Bazarov's politicalrhetoricis too
well knownto requirelengthyquotation,but twopassages - both in chapterten - are particularly
close to the views Rjazanov will expressin Hard
Times. In the firstBazarov dismissesthe vocabularlyof liberalism(as expressed by Pavel Kirsanov): "Aristocracy,liberalism, progress, principles.., .if you thinkabout it,how manyforeign.. . and uselesswords!"5
In the second, he makes one of the most common accusations directed
against Russian liberalism- its inabilityto act:
"Then we figuredout thattalking,alwaystalkingabout our soreswasn'tworththeeffort,
that
it only led to banality and doctrinairism.We saw that even our smart ones, so-called
progressivepeople and exposersof abuses, were fitfornothing;that we were occupied with
the
nonsense,wereharpingabout some sortof art,unconsciouscreativity,
parliamentarianism,
legalprofession,and thedevilknowswhatelse,whileit's a questionof dailybread ... ." (245.)

In one passage fromHard TimesRjazanov developsa similarargument


as he explains to Sietinin's wifethe uselessnessof progressivearticlesshe
has been reading:
"You see, it's all thesame. You have thesesigns,and on themits written'Russian Truth'
or 'WhiteSwan.' So you go lookingfora whiteswan- butit's a tavern.In orderto read these
books and understandthem,you have to be practiced.... If you have a freshmind and you
pick up one of these books, then you reallywill see whiteswans: schools, and courts,and
and prostitutions,
and Magna Chartas,and thedevilknowswhatelse. ... But if
constitutions,
you look into the matter,you'll see that it's nothingbut a carry-outjoint."6

In the same vein Bazarov statesthat "at the presenttime,negationis the


mostusefulaction,"thatbeforeconstruction"thegroundhas to be cleared"
(243), while Rjazanov gives Sietinina a paraphrase of one of his radical
pamphlets:"If you want to build a temple,firsttake measures,sothat the
enemycavalrydoesn't use it as a stable" (79). When Sietinina asks, whatis
to be done, Rjazanov answers:" 'All that's leftis to thinkup, to create a
new life;but untilthen...' he waved his hand" (148). Rjazanov's manner
of expressionmay be earthierthan Bazarov's, yet the ideas are the same.
Bazarov's rage against useless talk notwithstanding,
neitherradical goes
beyond the rhetoricof frustration.
But howeversimilarthatrhetoric,the ensuingdevelopmentrevealsa
fundamentaldifference
betweenthe novels.Turgenev,it would seem,is less
in Bazarov thenihilist(understoodas a productof ideology)than
interested
in Bazarov the Romanticrebel. For by the middleof Fathersand Sons the
ideological elementbegins to recede and it becomes clear that Bazarov's
radicalviews,ratherthandetermining
his actions,have servedto establisha

This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:31:16 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

498

Slavic and East EuropeanJournal

positionof isolationfromwhichhe can offerhis challengeto the orderof


the universe.Turgenev has endowed his hero with a matrixof current
political opinions, only to lead him toward a confrontationbetweenhis
in"fathomless"ego and his "intimationof mortality"- a confrontation
herentin Bazarov's aggressivedeterminationto understandthe essence of
naturethrougha typeof scientificmaterialism.If in his challengeBazarov
has lost a senseof onenesswithnature(thetalismanscene),Turgeneveffects
a finalreconciliationwhichin itselfimpliesa Romanticviewof theunitybetweenman and nature- or a longingfor that unity:
"However passionate,sinning,and rebelliousthe heartconcealed in the tomb, the flowers
growingover it look at us serenely(bezmjateino)withtheirinnocenteyes: theytell us not of
eternalpeace alone, of that great peace of 'indifferent'
nature; theytell us also of eternal
reconciliationand of lifewithoutend ." (402.)
...

Such lines have a distinctlyWordsworthianring- if not in diction,then


certainlyin thought.
The evidencefor viewingBazarov's nihilismas one componentof a
Romanticimage is groundedin Turgenev'sown statementson the subject,
particularlyin his preparatoryremarksfor VirginSoil (Nov', 1877). He
writesthat thereare "Romantics of Realism," who "long forthe real and
strivetowardit as formerRomanticsdid towardthe 'ideal,' " who seek in
thisreality"somethinggrandand significant
(ne'to velikoei zna'itel 'noe)"
(XII, 314). After characterizingthe type as a prophet,tormentedand
anguished,Turgenevadds: "I introducedan elementof thatRomanticism
into Bazarov as well - a fact that only Pisarev noticed" (XII, 314).7
This reference
to theheroas a Romanticof Realism is themostexplicit
statementof the relationbetweenBazarov's faithin materialismand the
behavior.But thatspiritis clearlydefined
Romanticspiritwhichinforms.his
withinthenovel itself- defined,in part,by Bazarov's use of termssuch as
"romantic" and "romanticism."In chapterfourhe says of the elder Kirsanovs: "These elderlyromantics!Theydeveloptheirnervoussystemsto the
point of irritation... and so theirequilibriumis destroyed."(210.) Commentingon the natureof love he tellsArkadij: "Study the anatomyof the
eyea bit;wheredoes theenigmaticglanceyou talkabout come in?That's all
romanticism,
nonsense,rot,art(xudoiestvo)."Duringthedisputein chapter
ten the narratorremarks:"This last phrase [spokenby Arkadij] apparently
displeasedBazarov; therewas a flavorof philosophy,thatis to say,romanticismabout it,forBazarov called philosophy,too, romanticism.. . ." (243.)
In his presentationof Bazarov's thoughtson Odincova, the narratorcomments: "In his conversationswith Anna Sergeevna he expressed more
romantic;but whenhe
stronglythaneverhis calm contemptforeverything
was alone, withindignationhe recognizedthe romanticin himself."(287.)
And in chapternineteenBazarov tellsArkadij: "'In myopinion it's better
to break stoneson theroad thanto let a woman gain controlovereven the

This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:31:16 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Romantic Archetype

499

end of yourlittlefinger.That's all. . .' Bazarov was on thepointof uttering


his favoriteword, 'romanticism,'but he checked himselfand said 'nonsense' " (306.) Pisarevis verymuchto thepointwhenhe says,in an 1862articleentitled"Bazarov": "Pursuingromanticism,Bazarov withincredible
suspicion looks for it where it has never even existed. Arming himself
againstidealismand smashingits castlesin the air, he at timesbecomes an
idealisthimself. . ." (II, 27.) Indeed,Bazarov's path to self-knowledge
(and
spiritualcrisis)is associatedwiththedevelopingawarenessof"the romantic
withinhimself,"howevercontemptuouslyhe may react to that element.
Bazarov, of course, does not use words such as "romanticism"in a
specificiallyliterarysense. And P. G. Pustovojthas noted thatTurgenev's
application of the terms"romantic" and "romanticism"in his critical
writingsoftenrefersto a "romantic" dispositionratherthan to Romanticismas a literarymethod.8But froma structural
pointof viewthetwo are
connected:the literatureand rhetoricof Romanticismprovide
inextricably
the model forthisromanticdisposition.9In factthe model is delineatedin
Turgenev'sworkwell beforeFathersand Sons. In a reviewof Vron'enko's
translationofFaust(Otecestvennye
zapiski,1845,No. 2), Turgenevdescribes
the Romantic hero in the followingterms:
"He becomesthecenterof thesurrounding
he forces
world;he ... does not submitto anything,
to submitto himself;he lives by the heart,but by his own, solitaryheart- not
everything
another's- evenin love,about whichhe dreamsso much;he is a romantic,and romanticism
is
nothingmore than the apotheosisof personality(apofeozli'nosti). He is willingto talk about
society,about social questions,about science;but society,like science,existsforhim- not he
for them." (I, 220.)

Much in thisdescriptioncould well be appliedto Bazarov: thelast sentenceis reminiscent


of his outburstagainstconcernforthe peasants' wellin
the
his
face
of
own inevitabledeath,whilethephrase"apotheosisof
being
identifies
one
of thedominantmotifsin Bazarov's character.In
personality"
ten
Pavel
chapter
PetroviEremarksBazarov's "almost Satanic pride,"while
in
Arkadij, chapternineteen,notices"the fathomlessdepthsof Bazarov's
conceit," and asks him whetherhe considershimselfa god. Whateverthe
difficultiesin establishinga typologyfor homo romanticus,the passage
quoted above suggeststhat in his commentaryon Faust, Turgenevpresentedan interpretation
of the Romantichero whichreached its culmination in the creationof Bazarov.
But one can findthe type still earlier- in Turgenev'sverse drama
Steno (1837). Despite differences
in plot and circumstanceboth Steno and
Bazarov suffermuch the same spiritualmalaise - an awareness of great
strength,
coupledwitha senseof isolationand impotencebeforethetotality
of nature.In act one Stenomuses:"Rome nlassed... and we too shall disapWhatdeath?I inpear,leavingnothingbehindus... .Whatdoes lifesignify?
quireof you,thesky,butyou are silentin yourcold magnificence!"(I, 370.)

This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:31:16 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

500

Slavic and East EuropeanJournal

Similarrhetoricalpassages occur throughoutthe play: Steno speaks of the


loss of faith,of the insignificance
of man, and yet thereis a hintof reconciliationin death. In act two Turgenevcharacterizeshis hero throughthe
voice of themonkAntonio:"How muchstrength
he has! How muchsuffering. In him the Creatorhas shown us an exampleof the tormentsof those
witha mightysoul, when they,relyingon theirstrength,
go alone to meet
the world and embrace it." (I, 391.) (See also Turgenev's descriptionof
Bazarov in a letterto Konstantin Slu'evskij, "I conceived of a figure
fromthesoil, strong,caustic,honestgloomy,wild,enormous,half-grown
and all thesame condemnedto destruction..." [IV, 381].) And sinceSteno
is littlemorethana paraphraseof Manfred(as Turgenevreadilyadmitted),
it would seemthattheportraitof Bazarov owes muchto theByronicvariant
- particularlyin itsconceptof the alienatedbut
of European romanticism
defianthero.
Turgenevwould laterridiculehis youthfulenthusiasmforManfred,as
he would theplay whicharose fromthisinfatuation.But theevidenceof his
fictionshows a reworking,an adaptationof certainfundamentalconcerns
- and modes of expression- containedwithinthejuvenilia. It mightbe
detached himselffrom his early,
argued that Turgenev had sufficiently
derivativeRomanticismto judge it in Fathersand Sons. Yet the narrative
rhetoricof thatnovel,especiallyin the concludingparagraph,leads one to
assume thatthe Romanticelementwas stillverymuch a part of his vision.
As M. O. Gersenzon has noted, much in Turgenev's later work is
organicallyrelatedto Steno,'0and Bazarov mustbe consideredevidenceof
that continuity.
In view of these antecedentsit would seem that the conflictbetween
Bazarov and Pavel Kirsanov is an antagonismnot so much betweenthe
idealisticliberalof the fortiesand the materialisticradical of the sixties,as
betweentwo "generations"of Romantics- bothderivedfromvariationsof
Romanticismprevalentin thethirtiesand forties."This commonelementin
Turgenev'sconceptionof Bazarov and Kirsanov has not been sufficiently
acknowledged,despite the fact that it is developed throughan extensive
systemof parallels in theircharacterizationas well as theirfate. Each is
passionate in his defenseof certain principles,abstractions,ideals (and
Bazarov's "materialism"is just as idealisticas Kirsanov's liberalism).But
forall of theirapparentdedicationto an ideologicalposition,each is led to
believethat his lifeis withoutpurpose. To be sure,thereis a difference
in
theirexpressionof this belief: Kirsanov's resignationas opposed to the
anger and defianceof Bazarov's metaphysicalnihilism.
In each case Turgenevmotivatesthecrisiswitha passionate,desperate
affairwhich representshis conceptionof the incomprehensiblepower of
love - love unattainable,which can end only in death. Pavel Kirsanov,
shatteredby his attractionto the"mysterious"PrincessR. (chapterseven),

This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:31:16 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The RomanticArchetype 501


entersa periodofdeclineinwhichhisformer
areabanhopesandambitions
to an existence
doned.Kirsanovis consigned
whichhas all theappearance
himan enchanting
ofa romantic
but
cliche:"Ladiesconsidered
melanxolik,
he did not associatewithladies.. ." (225). And Bazarov claimsto see
theclich6.Aftertheaccountof Kirsanov'slife(ostensibly
toldby
through
"Andwhataboutthesemysterious
relations
beArkadij)Bazarovresponds:
tweena mananda woman?We physiologists
knowwhatsuchrelations
are.
a
Studytheanatomyoftheeye... ." (226.)ButKirsanov'saffairis merely
withOdincova,duringwhichTurgenev
preludeto Bazarov'sconfrontation
willinvesttheclichewitha pathosappropriate
to hishero'sstrength.
Both
Bazarovand Kirsanovdieinthecourseofthenovel;butKirsanov,trapped
within
hisimageoffatalpassion,isgranted
deathinlife(see
onlya lingering
the finallinesof chaptertwenty-four).
the
Bazarov,however,transcends
motifof destructive
of a rebellionwhichreflects
love by thestrength
the
Romanticanguishso imperfectly
realizedin Steno.
egocentric
Bazarov
and
has
isolated
PavelKirsanovwithin
an inthen,
Turgenev,
crisis
that
has
little
individual
direct
relation
to
an
tenselysubjective,
between
the
entire
notion
Indeed,
ideologicaldispute
opposinggenerations.
in FathersandSons is opento question.It is often
conflict
of generational
assumedthatthetitleimpliessons againstfathers,
yettheKirsanovsare
the
of
the
novel
and
the
affection
at
end
betweenBazarov
reconciled
quite
andhisparents
is beyonddoubt.Furthermore,
PavelKirsanovand Bazarov
reacha tenuousreconciliation
oftheirown,following
theduelwhichagain
revealsthe Romanticprinciplein both - Bazarov's rationalizations
theinitialopposition
Whatever
notwithstanding.
(basedon rolestereotypes
- youthrebelling
it
is
its
betweenthegenerations
against elders), affinity
that definesthe basic patternof relationsbetweenfathersand sons
"I rebel,I
(Bazarov'sfathershoutingat theend of chaptertwenty-seven,
rebel").
conflictis surelybetweenthe two
Rather,the book's irreconcilable
- fornotbeingexsons,and it is all thedeeper- and moresubversive
pressedin ideologicalterms.Arkadij,whosepoliticalviewsare dismissed
ofthe"honestconsciousness,"
onewho
earlyinthenovel,is representative
and itsprocessof biologicalcontinuity.
acceptshis rolewithinthefamily
Bazarov,wellawareofhiscompanion's
apostasy("You're notmadeforour
himtohisdomestic,
bitter,
rough,lonelyexistence"),
consigns
jackdawhaptheisolationso necessary
forhis ownimage.Inpiness,thusintensifying
deed,Arkadijhas replacedhis "radical"opinionswitha desireto turna
estate- and in so doingillustrates
stateprofiton thefamily
Turgenev's
mentintheletter
to Sludevskij:
"My entirestoryis directed
againstthegenclass."(IV, 380.)As Arkadijand Katja enterArcadiain
tryas a progressive
fulfillment
of rolesappropriateto pastoralcomedy,Bazarov, theRomantic
radical, is leftto his tragicdestiny.Like Rudin, he is rememberedby the

This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:31:16 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

502

Slavic and East EuropeanJournal

to be sure).Butalso likeRudin,hecan have


happyat theirfeast(discreetly,
no place withthesettledand unrebellious.
In comparison
viewofrevolt,Slepcov's
withTurgenev's
romanticized
is rather
of
approachto radicalism
prosaic.One couldpointto an element
the Romanticin Rjazanov - like Bazarov,a rebel and preyto the
- thatwaveofthehand.But
whichaccompanies
hisrebellion
ressentiment
his
laconic
theelement
narrative
toneas wellas bythe
Slepcovundercuts
by
of a plot whichcan be reducedto the simplestof outlines:
structure
in thewakeof a new
Rjazanov,a radicalintelligent
escapingPetersburg
arrives
at
the
estate
of
his
of
university
acquain(1863),
period repression
tance,Setinin,now marriedand settledintowhathe hopeswillbe the
roleofenlightened
landowner.
Rjazanov
morallyand financially
satisfying
and Setinin engagein a seriesof arguments
duringwhichtheradicalattemptsto demolishtheliberal'sbeliefin gradualsocialprogressthrough
shiftsto Setinin'swife.
But thefocusof thenoveleventually
reform.
Underthe swayof Rjazanov'snihilistic
opinions,Setinina can no
liberalism.
She
longeracceptwhatshenowseesas herhusband'simpotent
decidesto abandonherroleas benevolent
estatemistress
anddevoteherself
to anothercause.Yet,whensheturnsto Rjazanovfortheemotionaland
to sustainherinthisdecision,
moralsupport
sheis rebuffed.
In an intertwincharactertistic
oftherelations
within
ingofsexualand ideologicalelements
thismenage'i trois,Rjazanovrejectshersexualadvancesas well as her
radicalactivity.
desireto aid himinhisvaguelydefined
Setinina,however,
inherresolveto leavetheestateforPetersburg,
whereshewillatperseveres
tempttojoin theranksofthe"newpeople,"despiteRjazanov'sdimviewof
toward
thisfashionable
radicalism
(an echo,perhaps,ofBazarov'sattitude
Sitnikovand Kuklina).
in hisreform
The novelendsin a standoff.
SCetinin
takesrefuge
proin searchof her
jects,and a liberatedMarja Setinina goesto Petersburg
cause. Rjazanov,committed
to a distantand uncertain
leaves
revolution,
theestatewithhis one trophy,
a deacon'sson who intendsto enrollin a
schoolagainsthisfather's
wishes(anotherraznobinec
activistin
provincial
themaking).Slepcovhas clarified
relations
betweenthecharacters
onlyto
leavethemon thethreshold
ofotherambiguities.
In a literary
variantofhis
ownnihilism
he offers
no positivesolutionto thequestionsthe'work
raises,
nordoesheimplythathischaracters
arecapableoffinding
suchsolutions.
It shouldbe clearthenthatSlepcov,incontrast
toTurgenev,
adheresto
theideologicalconflict
at
the
of
the
while
work,
posed
beginning
avoidinga
romanticized
of
the
radical
which
would
focus
attention
on
character
image
ratherthanideology.Suchan approachhas implications
notonlyforthe
oftheprotagonist,
butalso forthedevelopment
ofthenovel.
significance
For whileTurgenev
directshisworkto a consideration
of Bazarovand his
fate,Slepcov,focusingon theproblemof radicalresponseduringa periodof

This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:31:16 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Romantic Archetype

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

This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:31:16 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

504

Slavic and East EuropeanJournal

labels Bazarov a "caricature"tryingto imitatea demonicor Byronicnature,


and Turgenev,in a letterto Ludwig Pietsch,writes,"ich den ganzen Kerl
viel zu heldenhaft- idealistisch[read "romantisch"] aufgefassthabe"
(VIII, 38), both are admittingthe same thingfromdifferent
pointsof view.
Bazarov is not a caricature,but it is equally true that Turgenevattached
ideological positionsto a Romantic archetype,only to submergethemin
other,literaryand metaphysicalconcernsinherentin the type.Yet, in an
ironyentirelyappropriateto thecomplexityof relationsbetweenliterature
and society, it is Turgenev (not Slepcov) who defined the image of
radicalismwithhis Romantic nihilist.
NOTES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8
9

A. I. Gercen,Sobraniesoc'inenij(30 vols.; M.: AN SSSR, 1960), XX (bk. 1), 337f.


See P. G. Pustovojt,RomanI. S. Turgeneva"Otcy i deti" i idejnajabor'ba60-xgodovXIX
veka (M.: MGU, 1964), in particular179-88.
D. I. Pisarev,So'inenija (4 vols.; M.: GIXL, 1956), III, 462.
For an assessmentof Slepcov's literaryand politicalactivitiessee mymonographSlepcov
Redivivusin CaliforniaSlavic Studies,Vol. 9 (Berkeley:Univ. of CaliforniaPress, 1976),
27-70.
I. S. Turgenev,Polnoe sobraniesocineniji pisem (28 vols.; M.-L.: AN SSSR), VIII, 242.
V. A. Slepcov, Socinenija(2 vols.; M.: GIXL, 1957), II, 82.
In factPisarevwas not theonlyone to noticecertainRomantictraitsin Bazarov's character. Maksim Antonovic,in his review,"Asmodej nasego vremeni"(Sovremennik,1862,
No. 3), writes:"ApparentlyMr. Turgenevwantedto portrayin his hero,so to speak, the
demonicor Byronicnature,somethinglike Hamlet; but, on theotherhand,he endowed
himwithtraitswhichmake thisnatureseem mostordinaryand even vulgar,at leastvery
farfromdemonism."In thenextsentenceAntonovidcalls Bazarov a caricature.Obtuse as
his descriptionis, it notes one elementof the Romantic in Bazarov; but Antonovidis
clearlyincapable of dealingwiththe literaryimplicationsof his observation,and would
considerthemunimportant.N. N. Straxov,in his reviewof Fathersand Sons (Vremja,
April, 1862), respondedto Antonovic's accusation by quoting the above passage and
adding: "Hamlet - a demonicnature!This shows some muddledthinkingabout Byron
and Shakespeare.But actually,Turgenevdid producesomething
of thedemonic,thatis a
is notpure." Straxov'sarticleis perceptive
naturerichin strength,
althoughthisstrength
as well as sympatheticto Bazarov, but he too fails to develop the significanceof the
Romantic(or "demonic") aspect of Bazarov's character.In recentyearsSoviet scholars
have devotedconsiderableattentionto an examinationof Romanticismand the Romantic legacyin Russian literature.See collectionssuch as Problemyromantizma,
ed. U. R.
Foxt et al. (M.: Iskusstvo,1967)and K istoriirusskogoromantizma,
ed. Ju.V. Mann, I. G.
are made to Romantic
Neupokoeva, U. R. Foxt (M.: Nauka, 1973).Occasional references
elementsin Turgenev'slaternovels(see thearticleby P. G. Pustovojtcitedbelow). There
of thisissue in relationto Fathers
seems,however,to have been no substantivetreatment
and Sons.
P. G. Pustovojt,"Romanticeskoenacalo v tvoriestveI. S. Turgeneva,"in Romantizmv
slavjanskixliteraturax,ed. V. I. Kule'ov et al. (M.: MGU, 1973), 259, 272.
Ju. V. Mann applies such a structuralapproach to Romanticismin his recentwork
Poetika russkogoromantizma(M.: Nauka, 1976). Choosing "artisticconflict(Romantic

This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:31:16 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Romantic Archetype

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).

This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:31:16 PM


All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi