brumfield - bazarov and rjazanov

8/18/2019 Brumfield - Bazarov and Rjazanov

1/12


2/12

BAZAROV

AND

RJAZANOV:

THE ROMANTIC

ARCHETYPE

IN

RUSSIAN

NIHILISM

William C.

Brumfield,

arvard

University

In

his

essay

"Bazarov

Again"

("E'e

raz

Bazarov,"

1862),

Alexander

Her-

zen writes: Thismutual nteractionfpeopleand books isa strange hing.

A

book takes its whole

shape

from

the

society

that

spawns

it,

then

generalizes

the

material,

renders

t clearer and

sharper,

nd

as a

conse-

quence

reality

s

transformed."'

t is

generally

ccepted

that n Russia the

mutual

nteraction f

people

and books

has

been

ntense,

articularly

n

the

realm

of

social and

political

commentary,

nd

there

s,

no

doubt,

con-

siderable truth

n

Herzen's observation

hat under such

conditions

real

people

take

on the

character

f their

iterary

hadows."

Whether r

not

young

Russians after 862

were "almost

all out of What s to

be

Done? with

the ddition fa few fBazarov'straits," uch wasfrequentlyssumedto be

the

case,

as the statements f critics

nd

political

activists ttest.2

mitrij

Pisarev,

for

example,

n

an

article ntitled

We Shall

See"

("Posmotrim,"

1865),

raises the

specter

of hundreds

of Bazarovs:

"the

Bazarov

type

s

growingconstantly,

ot

by days,

but

by

the

hour,

in

life as well as in

literature."3

ut as Herzen

recognized,

isarev's

Bazarov owes more to

the

critic's

wn

vision of the Russian

intelligentsia

han

to the textof

Fathers

and Sons:

"Whether isarevunderstood

urgenev's

Bazarov

correctly

oes

not

concern

me. What

is

important

s

that

he

recognized imself

nd

others

like him n Bazarov and suppliedwhat was lacking n the book" (337).

Many

of thenovel's

exegetes

ave continued

o

supply

what was lack-

ing"

in

order o

portray

azarov as a

representative

f radical tendencies n

the sixties.

And

yet

Bazarov

is

defined o a

much

greater egree y

a

literary

archetype eriving

rom

European

Romanticism

nd

clearly

delineated

n

certainof

Turgenev's

arliest

writings.

he case forthis derivation

an

be

made within

Turgenev's

works,

but

the extent o which t forms

his

por-

trayal

of the nihilist s all the more

clearly

revealed

when

one

compares

Fathers nd Sons

(Otcy

i

deti,

1862)

with

nother

novel

written

uring

he

sameperiodand centered rounda similarthat s,radical)protagonist.ts

author,

Vasilij

Slepcov,

was

well known

for

his

participation

n

radical

causes

during

he sixties

as

the

fameof

his

Petersburg

ommune

ttests),

and

he

presumably

ad

a more

intimate

knowledge

of the radical milieu

SEEJ,

Vol.

21,

No.

4

(1977)

495

This content downloaded from 136.167.3.36 on Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:31:16 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/12

496

Slavic and

East

European

Journal

than did

Turgenev.4

urthermore

lepcov,

who

began

his

career

s a

writer

in

the

early

ixties,

acked the Romantic

pprenticeship

hich

was

to

have

such a pervasive nfluence n Turgenev's aterwork.Consequently,n his

novel

Hard

Times

Trudnoe

vremja,

ublished

n

Sovremennik,

864),

Slep-

cov

presents

he Russian radical

from different

iterary

erspective.

The

similarity

etween

Fathers and

Sons and

Hard

Times

was

first

noted,

ppropriately nough,by

Pisarev,

n an article ntitled

Flourishing

Humanity" "Podrastajuscaja gumannost',

1865).

Pisarev

characterizes

Slepcov's protagonist,

jazanov,

as "one of

the

brilliant

epresentatives

f

my

beloved Bazarov

type"

IV, 53).

Although

one

might uestion

the

ac-

curacy

of this

tatement,

he resemblance

etween he two

protagonists

er-

tainlyprovidesa basis forcomparison.Both Bazarov and

Rjazanov

are

raznobincythe

atter

priest's

on),

disaffectedntellectuals

ho

intend

o

destroy

o

that others

may

build,

although

neither s

certain s to

how the

destruction

ill

occur or who

will

do the

building.

Both

represent

he

rise

of

a new class

and a

new

militancy

n

Russia's educational

system.

Both

are

products

f

the urban

ntellectual

milieu

although

heir

rigins

ink

them

to

the

provinces

f

centralRussia

("Rjazanov").

Both are

intruders n a

rural

backwater,

which s

itself

eset

with

problems

of

social reform.

On this

ast

point

ven

thedetails

orrespond:

he

principle

andowners

in bothnovels-

Nikolaj

Kirsanov and SRetinin

attempt

o introduce

agricultural

mprovements

nd

reformsn

their

ealings

with he

peasants,

but their

fforts

re viewed with

uspicionby neighboring

andowners nd

with

ndifference

y

the

peasants

a

reaction

amiliar

o

Tolstoj's

repentant

landowners).

Kirsanov

and Sietinin

are swindled

y

their

aborers nd

are

baffled

by

their

gnorance, superstition,

nd

resistanceto the

reforms.

Descriptions

f

rural

overty

re

frequent,

articularly

n

Hard

Times,

while

attempts

o

implement

rational

system

f

agricultural roductivity

re

continually

rustrated.

In

both

works new

threshing

machine,

urchasedat

great

expense,

proves

too

heavy

for ocal

conditions.)

The

similarity

extends

o the

physical etting

s well:the ame

dilapidated

hurch,

he ame

peasant

huts

lustered n

a

village

near a

manor

house with

he

ame

arbors

and

acacias.

Once

placed

in this

setting,

oth

protagonists

re

led

into

a

situation

which

pits

theirurban radicalism

gainst

a form f

gentry

iberalism.As

would be

expected,

ach

novelist elies

heavily

n

dialogue

to

develop

a

con-

flictwhich

arises from

deological

antagonism,

ut there s

a

differencen

the

function f these

verbal onfrontations.

n

Hard Times

hey

o

dominate

thecore ofthe work that

plot

is

relatively

nimportant

nd thenarrator's

comments

re little

more

than

extended

tage

directions. n

Fathers and

Sons,

which

has

a

plot

of

greater

omplexity,

he

narrator's

ntrusions

irect

the

reader's

perception

of

events,

while

ideological arguments

serve

primarily

o

motivate courseof action

which

eventually

as

little

o do




4/12

The Romantic

Archetype

497

with

deology.

Nevertheless,

oth works

begin

witha similar

onflict,

nd

theypresent

t in much

the

same

terms.

From the moment avel Kirsanov first earsthe word"nihilist," ntil

Bazarov's

interview

with Odincova in

chapter

ixteen,

Turgenev's

radical

periodically

xpresses

views

which

cannot

be

reconciledwith the

idea

of

social

progress hrough radual

reform. azarov's

political

rhetoric

s

too

well known

o

require engthy uotation,

but two

passages

-

both

n

chap-

terten

-

are

particularly

lose to the

views

Rjazanov

will

express

n

Hard

Times. n

the first

azarov

dismisses

he

vocabularly

f liberalism

as

ex-

pressed by

Pavel

Kirsanov):

"Aristocracy,

iberalism,

progress, prin-

ciples..,

.if

you

think

bout

it,

how

many

foreign..

and uselesswords "5

In the second, he makes one of the mostcommonaccusations directed

against

Russian

liberalism its

inability

o

act:

"Then we

figured

ut

that

alking, lways

talking

bout

our soreswasn't worth he

effort,

hat

it

only

led to

banality

and

doctrinairism.

We

saw

that even our smart

ones,

so-called

progressive

eople

and

exposers

of

abuses,

were fit

for

nothing;

hat we

were

occupied

with

nonsense,

were

harping

bout

some sortof

art,

unconscious

reativity,

arliamentarianism,

he

legal profession,

nd the

devilknowswhat

lse,

while

t's a

question

f

daily

bread

..

."

(245.)

In one

passage

from

Hard Times

Rjazanov

develops

similar

rgument

as

he

explains

to Sietinin's

wife he uselessness

f

progressive

rticles

he

has been

reading:

"You

see,

it's

all the

ame. You have

these

igns,

nd

on

them ts written

Russian Truth'

or White

Swan.'

So

you

go

looking

for white wan

-

but t's

a

tavern.

n order

o

read

these

books

and

understand

hem,

you

have

to

be

practiced....

If

you

have a

fresh

mind

and

you

pick

up

one

of

these

books,

then

you

really

will see white

swans:

schools,

and

courts,

nd

constitutions,

nd

prostitutions,

nd

Magna

Chartas,

nd the

devil knowswhatelse.

..

But

f

you

look

into

the

matter,

ou'll

see that

t's

nothing

ut

a

carry-out

oint."6

In

the same vein

Bazarov statesthat "at

the

present

ime,

negation

s

the

mostuseful

ction,"

thatbefore onstruction

the

ground

has to

be

cleared"

(243),

while

Rjazanov gives

Sietinina a

paraphrase

of one of his

radical

pamphlets:

If

you

want to build a

temple,

irst ake

measures,so

hat

the

enemy avalry

doesn't

use it as a stable"

79).

When

Sietinina

asks,

what

s

to

be

done,

Rjazanov

answers:

'All that's eft s

to think

up,

to create

a

new

life;

but

until hen

..'

he

waved

his

hand"

(148).

Rjazanov's

manner

of

expressionmay

be earthier

han

Bazarov's,

yet

the deas

are

the

same.

Bazarov's

rage

against

useless

talk

notwithstanding,

either adical

goes

beyond

the rhetoric f

frustration.

But however imilar hatrhetoric,heensuingdevelopment evealsa

fundamental ifferenceetween he

novels.

Turgenev,

t would

seem,

s

less

interested

n

Bazarov thenihilist

understood

s a

product

f

deology)

han

in

Bazarov

the

Romantic

rebel.

For

by

the

middleof

Fathers nd

Sons

the

ideological

element

begins

to

recede and it becomes clear

that Bazarov's

radical

views,

atherhan

determining

is

actions,

have

served oestablish




5/12

498

Slavic and East

European

Journal

position

of isolation

fromwhichhe can offer is

challenge

o the

order

of

the universe.

Turgenev

has

endowed

his

hero

with a matrix of

current

political opinions,onlyto lead him toward a confrontation etween his

"fathomless"

go

and

his

"intimation

f

mortality"

a

confrontation

n-

herent

n

Bazarov's

aggressive

etermination

o understand he

essence

of

nature

hrough type

of scientificmaterialism.

f in his

challenge

Bazarov

has lost a sense

of

oneness

withnature

the

talisman

cene),

Turgenev

ffects

a

final econciliation

hich n

tself

mplies

Romantic

viewof the

unity

e-

tweenman and nature or a

longing

for

that

unity:

"However

passionate, sinning,

nd

rebellious

he heartconcealed

in

the

tomb,

the

flowers

growing

ver t

look at us

serenely

bezmjateino)

with

heir

nnocent

yes:

they

ell

us

not

of

eternalpeace alone, of thatgreat peace of 'indifferent'ature;theytell us also of eternal

reconciliation

nd

of lifewithout nd

...

."

(402.)

Such

lines have a

distinctly

Wordsworthian

ing

ifnot in

diction,

hen

certainly

n

thought.

The

evidence

for

viewing

Bazarov's nihilism

s one

component

of a

Romantic

mage

s

grounded

n

Turgenev's

wn statements

n the

subject,

particularly

n

his

preparatory

emarks

for

Virgin

oil

(Nov',

1877).

He

writes

hat

there re

"Romantics of

Realism,"

who

"long

forthe

real and

strive oward

t

as

former

omantics

did

towardthe

ideal,'

"

who seek in

this

reality

something rand

and

significantne'to

velikoe

zna'itel

noe)"

(XII,

314).

After

characterizing

he

type

as

a

prophet,

tormented nd

anguished,

Turgenev

dds:

"I

introduced n element

f

thatRomanticism

into Bazarov as

well

-

a

fact that

only

Pisarev noticed"

XII, 314).7

This referenceo the

hero

as a Romantic

of Realism

s the

most

xplicit

statement

f the relation

between

Bazarov's faith

n

materialism nd the

Romantic

pirit

which nforms.his

ehavior.But that

pirit

s

clearly

efined

within he novel

tself

defined,

n

part,

by

Bazarov's use of terms uch

as

"romantic"and "romanticism." n chapterfour he saysofthe elder Kir-

sanovs:

"These

elderly

omantics

heydevelop

their ervous

ystems

o the

point

of irritation...

and

so

their

quilibrium

s

destroyed."

210.)

Com-

menting

n

the

natureof love he tells

Arkadij:

"Study

the

anatomy

of

the

eye

a

bit;

where

does

the

enigmatic

lance

you

talk bout come

n?That's

all

romanticism,

onsense, ot,

rt

xudoiestvo)."

During

the

dispute

n

chapter

ten the

narrator

emarks: This last

phrase

spokenby

Arkadij]

apparently

displeased

Bazarov;

therewas a

flavor f

philosophy,

hat

s to

say,

roman-

ticism bout

it,

forBazarov

called

philosophy,

oo,

romanticism.

.

."

(243.)

In hispresentationfBazarov's thoughts n Odincova,the narrator om-

ments:

"In his

conversations

with Anna

Sergeevna

he

expressed

more

strongly

hanever

his

calm

contempt

or

verything

omantic;

ut when

he

was

alone,

with

ndignation

e

recognized

he

romantic n

himself."

287.)

And

in

chapter

nineteen azarov

tells

Arkadij:

"'In

my opinion

t's

better

to break stoneson the road thanto let

a

woman

gain

control

ver even the




6/12

The

Romantic

Archetype

499

end

of

your

ittle

inger.

hat's all.

. .'

Bazarov was

on

the

point

of

uttering

his

favorite

word,

romanticism,'

ut he checked

himself nd

said 'non-

sense'" (306.) Pisarev sverymuch o thepointwhenhesays, nan 1862ar-

ticle entitled

Bazarov":

"Pursuing

romanticism,

azarov with

ncredible

suspicion

looks

for

it where it

has

never even existed.

Arming

himself

against

dealism nd

smashing

ts castles

n

the

air,

he

at

times

becomes

an

idealist

himself

.

."

(II,

27.)

Indeed,

Bazarov's

path

to

self-knowledge

and

spiritual

risis)

s

associated

with

he

developing

wareness f "the

romantic

within

himself,"

owever

ontemptuously

e

may

react

to that

element.

Bazarov,

of

course,

does

not use

words such

as

"romanticism"

n

a

specificiallyiterary

ense.

And P.

G.

Pustovojt

has

noted

that

Turgenev's

applicationof the terms "romantic" and "romanticism" n his critical

writings

ftenrefers o

a "romantic"

disposition

rather han to Roman-

ticism

s a

literary

method.8

ut from

structural

oint

of view

the

two

are

inextricably

onnected: he iterature nd rhetoric

f

Romanticism

rovide

the

model

for

this

romantic

isposition.9

n

fact he

model is

delineated n

Turgenev's

work well

before

Fathers nd

Sons.

In

a review

f

Vron'enko's

translation f

Faust

Otecestvennye

apiski,

1845,

No.

2),

Turgenev

escribes

the

Romantic hero in

the

following

erms:

"He becomes

he enter f the

urrounding orld;

he

..

does not submit o

anything,

e

forces

everything

o

submit

o

himself;

e lives

by

the

heart,

but

by

his

own,

solitary

heart not

another's

even

n

love,

about

which

he

dreams

o

much;

he

s

a

romantic,

nd

romanticism

s

nothing

more

than the

apotheosis

of

personality

apofeoz

i'nosti).

He is

willing

o

talk about

society,

bout

social

questions,

bout

science;

but

society,

ike

science,

xistsforhim not he

for

them."

I, 220.)

Much in this

description

ould

well be

applied

to

Bazarov:

the ast

sen-

tence s

reminiscentf

his outburst

gainst

concernforthe

peasants'

well-

being

n the

faceof

his

own nevitable

eath,

while he

phrase

apotheosis

of

personality"

dentifiesne of

thedominant

motifsn

Bazarov's character.

n

chapter enPavel PetroviE emarks azarov's "almost Satanicpride,"while

Arkadij,

n

chapter

nineteen,

otices "the

fathomless

epths

of

Bazarov's

conceit,"

and asks

him

whether e considershimself

god.

Whatever he

difficultiesn

establishing typology

for

homo

romanticus,

he

passage

quoted

above

suggests

hat in his

commentary

n

Faust,

Turgenevpre-

sentedan

interpretation

f the

Romantic

hero which

reached ts

culmina-

tion

in

the

creationof

Bazarov.

But one

can find the

type

still earlier

in

Turgenev's

verse

drama

Steno

1837).

Despite

differences

n

plot

and circumstance oth

Steno

and

Bazarov suffermuchthe same

spiritual

malaise - an awarenessof

great

strength,

oupled

with

senseof

solation nd

impotence

efore he

totality

of

nature.

n

act one

Steno muses:

Rome

nlassed

.. and we

too

shall

disap-

pear,

eavingnothing

ehind

us... .What

does life

ignify?

hat

death?

in-

quire

of

you,

the

ky,

but

you

are silent

n

your

old

magnificence "I, 370.)




7/12

500

Slavic and East

European

Journal

Similarrhetorical

assages

occur

throughout

he

play:

Steno

speaks

of the

loss offaith, f the nsignificancefman,and yetthere s a hintofrecon-

ciliation n

death.

In

act two

Turgenev

haracterizes is

hero

through

he

voice of

the

monk

Antonio:

"How much

trength

e

has

How much

uffer-

ing.

In him

the

Creator

has shown us an

example

of the torments f those

with

mighty

oul,

when

they,

elying

n their

trength,

o

alone

to meet

the

world and embrace t."

(I,

391.) (See

also

Turgenev's description

f

Bazarov

in

a letter o

Konstantin

Slu'evskij,

"I

conceived of

a

figure

gloomy,

wild,

normous,

alf-grown

rom

he

oil,

strong,

austic,

honest

and all

the same condemned odestruction..

"

[IV,

381].)

And since

Steno

is littlemore thana paraphrase fManfredas Turgenev eadily dmitted),

it would seem that

he

portrait

f

Bazarov

owes

much

o

the

Byronic

ariant

of

European

romanticism

particularly

n its

concept

of the alienated

but

defianthero.

Turgenev

would laterridicule

his

youthful

nthusiasm

or

Manfred,

s

he would

the

play

which rose

from

his nfatuation. ut the

evidence

f his

fiction

hows

a

reworking,

n

adaptation

of

certainfundamental oncerns

-

and

modes of

expression

contained

within he

uvenilia.

It

might

be

argued

that

Turgenev

had

sufficiently

etached

himselffrom his

early,

derivativeRomanticism o judge it in Fathers nd Sons. Yet the narrative

rhetoric f

that

novel,

especially

n the

concluding

aragraph,

eads one to

assume

that

the

Romantic

elementwas

still

very

much a

part

of his vision.

As M.

O.

Gersenzon has

noted,

much in

Turgenev's

later

work

is

organically

elated o

Steno,'0

nd Bazarov must

be considered vidence f

that

continuity.

In

view of

these

antecedents

t

would seem that the

conflict etween

Bazarov and Pavel

Kirsanov

is

an

antagonism

not so much

between he

idealistic iberalof

the forties nd the materialistic

adical

of

the

sixties,

s

between wo"generations" f Romantics bothderived rom ariations f

Romanticism

revalent

n

the

thirtiesnd forties."This

common

lement

n

Turgenev's

onception

f Bazarov and

Kirsanov

has

not

been

sufficiently

acknowledged,

despite

the

fact

that it is

developed through

n extensive

system

f

parallels

n their

haracterization s well as

theirfate. Each

is

passionate

in his

defense

of

certain

principles,

bstractions,

deals

(and

Bazarov's

"materialism"

s

just

as idealistic s Kirsanov's

liberalism).

But

for

ll of

their

pparent

dedication o an

ideological

position,

ach

is

led to

believe

that his

life s

without

urpose.

To be

sure,

there s a

differencen

theirexpressionof thisbelief: Kirsanov's resignation s opposed to the

anger

and

defiance f

Bazarov's

metaphysical

ihilism.

In

each

case

Turgenev

motivates he crisiswith

passionate,

desperate

affair

which

represents

is

conception

of the

incomprehensible

ower

of

love

-

love

unattainable,

which

can

end

only

in

death. Pavel

Kirsanov,

shattered

y

his

attraction o the

"mysterious"

rincess

R.

(chapter

even),




8/12

The Romantic

rchetype

501

enters

period

f

decline

n

which

isformer

opes

nd ambitionsre

ban-

doned.Kirsanov s

consigned

o an

existence hich as all the

ppearanceofa romanticliche: Ladiesconsideredim n

enchanting

elanxolik,ut

he

did not

associatewith adies.. "

(225).

And Bazarov

claimsto

see

through

he

clich6.

fter

he

ccount

f

Kirsanov's

ife

ostensibly

old

by

Arkadij)

azarov

esponds:

And

what

bout

hese

mysterious

elations e-

tween man nd a

woman?

We

physiologists

nowwhat

uch elationsre.

Study

he

natomy

fthe

ye.

.

."

(226.)

But Kirsanov's ffairs

merely

prelude

o Bazarov's onfrontation

ith

dincova,

uring

hich

urgenev

will nvest

he

liche

with

pathos

ppropriate

o

hishero's

trength.

oth

Bazarov

nd

Kirsanov ie

n

the

ourse f he

novel;

ut

Kirsanov,rappedwithinis

mage

ffatal

assion,

s

granted

nly lingering

eathn ife

see

the final inesof

chapter

wenty-four).

azarov,

however,

ranscends

he

motif

f destructiveove

by

the

trength

f a

rebellion hich

eflectshe

egocentric

omantic

nguish

o

imperfectly

ealized

n

Steno.

Turgenev,

hen,

as solated

azarov nd

PavelKirsanov

within

n

in-

tensely

ubjective,

ndividual

risis hat has

little

direct elation

o an

ideological

ispute

etween

pposing enerations.

ndeed,

he

ntire otion

of

generational

onflict

n

Fathers

nd

Sons

s

open

to

question.

t

is

often

assumed

hat he

title

mplies

ons

against athers,et

heKirsanovs

re

quite

reconciledtthe ndof thenovel nd the ffectionetween azarov

and his

parents

s

beyond

oubt.

urthermore,

avel

Kirsanov nd

Bazarov

reach

tenuous econciliation

ftheir

wn,

ollowing

he

duelwhich

gain

revealsthe Romantic

principle

n

both

-

Bazarov's

rationalizations

notwithstanding.

hatever

he nitial

pposition

based

on

role

tereotypes

-

youth

ebelling

gainst

ts

elders),

t s

affinity

etween he

generations

that

defines

he

basic

pattern

f

relations

etween

athers

nd sons

(Bazarov's

father

houting

t the

end

of

chapter

wenty-seven,

I

rebel,

rebel").

Rather,

he book'sirreconcilableonflicts

surely

etweenhe two

sons,

nd

it s

all the

deeper

and more

ubversive

for

not

being

x-

pressed

n

ideological

erms.

rkadij,

whose

political

iews

re

dismissed

early

n

the

novel,

s

representative

fthe honest

onsciousness,"

ne

who

accepts

his

rolewithin he

family

nd its

process

f

biological

ontinuity.

Bazarov,

well ware

fhis

ompanion'spostasy

"You're

not

madefor ur

bitter,

ough,onely xistence"),onsigns

im

o his

domestic,

ackdaw

hap-

piness,

hus

ntensifying

he

solation o

necessary

orhis

own

mage.

n-

deed,Arkadij

as

replaced

is "radical"

opinions

with

desire o turn

profit

nthe

family

state andinso

doing

llustrates

urgenev's

tate-

ment

n the

etter

o

Sludevskij:

My

entire

tory

s directed

gainst

he

gen-

try

s

a

progressive

lass."

IV,

380.)

As

Arkadij

nd

Katja

enter

rcadia

n

fulfillmentf roles

appropriate

o

pastoralcomedy,

Bazarov,

theRomantic

radical,

s

left o his

tragic

destiny.

ike

Rudin,

he

is

remembered

y

the




9/12

502

Slavic and East

European

Journal

happy

t

their east

discreetly,

o be

sure).

But

lso

ike

Rudin,

e can

have

no

place

with he

ettled

nd unrebellious.

In comparison ith urgenev'somanticizediew frevolt,lepcov's

approach

o radicalism

s

rather

rosaic.

One could

point

o an

element

f

the

Romantic n

Rjazanov

-

like

Bazarov,

a

rebel

and

prey

to

the

ressentiment

hich

ccompanies

isrebellion

that

wave f

the

hand.But

Slepcov

ndercutshe lement

y

his aconic

narrativeone s well s

by

he

structure

f

a

plot

which an be

reduced

o the

simplest

f

outlines:

Rjazanov,

radical

ntelligent

scaping etersburg

n

thewake of

a

new

period

f

repression

1863),

rrives t the state f his

university

cquain-

tance, etinin,

now married nd settled ntowhathe

hopes

willbe

the

morallyndfinanciallyatisfyingoleofenlightenedandowner. jazanov

and Setinin

engage

n a series f

arguments

uring

hich heradical

t-

tempts

o demolish he

iberal's

elief n

gradual

ocial

progress

hrough

reform.

ut

the

focus

f the

novel

ventually

hifts o Setinin's

wife.

Under

the

sway

of

Rjazanov's

nihilistic

pinions,

etinina can

no

longer ccept

what

henow ees

s her

husband's

mpotent

iberalism.

he

decides o

abandon

er ole

s benevolentstatemistressnd

devote erself

to another

ause.

Yet,

when he turns o

Rjazanov

for

he motionalnd

moral

upport

o sustain er

n

this

ecision,

he

s

rebuffed.

n an

ntertwin-

ing f exual nd deologicallementsharactertisticftherelations ithin

this

menage

i

trois,

Rjazanovrejects

er exual dvances

s

well

as her

desire o aid

him

n

his

vaguely

efined

adical

ctivity.

etinina,

however,

perseveres

n

her

esolve o eave

he

state

or

etersburg,

here he

will

t-

tempt

o

oin

the

anks f

he

new

people," espite

jazanov's

im iew f

this ashionableadicalism

an

echo,

perhaps,

fBazarov's ttitudeoward

Sitnikov nd

Kuklina).

The novel nds

n

a

standoff.

Cetininakes

efuge

n

his reform

ro-

jects,

nd a

liberated

Marja

Setinina

goes

to

Petersburg

n

search f

her

cause.Rjazanov, ommittedo a distant nd uncertainevolution,eaves

the

estate

with

his one

trophy,

deacon's on who

ntends

o

enroll

n

a

provincial

chool

gainst

is

father's

ishes

another

aznobinec

ctivistn

the

making).

lepcov

has clarified

elations etween he haracters

nly

o

leave

hem n

the

hresholdf

other

mbiguities.

n

a

literary

ariant fhis

ownnihilism

e offers o

positive

olution o

the

uestions

he'work

aises,

nor

does

he

mply

hat

is

haracters

re

capable

f

finding

uch olutions.

It

should e clear hen

hat

lepcov,

n

contrast

o

Turgenev,

dheres o

the

deological

onflict

osed

t

the

eginning

f

the

work,

hile

voidingromanticizedmage f he adicalwhichwould ocus ttentionncharacter

rather han

deology.

uch

an

approach

as

implications

ot

only

for

he

significance

f the

protagonist,

utalso

for he

development

f the

novel.

For while

urgenev

irects

iswork o

a

considerationf

Bazarov

nd his

fate,

lepcov,

focusing

n the

problem

f

radical

response uring

period

of




10/12

The Romantic

Archetype

503

"hard

times,"

begins

where

Turgenev

eaves off:

n

the iberal

gentry's

r-

cadia. In Sietinin,Rjazanovfacesnota Pavel Kirsanovbut his owncontem-

porary,

new

type

f

iberal

practical

or

so he

thinks),

ptimistic, illing

to

accept

emancipation

eforms

ith

he

understanding

hat

they

hould be

made to

work

n

his own

interests. he

question

s

will

they?

nd at what

cost

to

the

peasants

who

supply

the

labor?

Turgenev,

n a

final,

rief

esture

f concernwith

ocial

issues

ndicates

that there

will

be

problems

n

adjusting

to the

reforms,

ut

couples

his

remarkwithreferenceso the Kirsanov's

growing

rosperity. eyond

this

such

problems

do not interest

im,

because

they

provide

no

scope

for

the

greaterstrugglewhich is his true concern. Bazarov merelydismisses

Arkadij's

new role as benevolent

andowner,

he

does not

challenge

t. The

Romantic rebel is not concernedwith

the

details

or

pretensions

f

land

reform,

nd

he does not return o accuse

Arkadij

of

hypocrisy

n

his

dealings

with he

peasants

indeed,

he cannot return.

His isolation

must be

main-

tained

in

the interests

f

a

conclusion

beyond

specific

onsiderations

f

politics

and

ideology.

This

analysis

has

attempted

o

interpret

athers nd

Sons,

n

particular

the relation

betweenradicalism nd

literary rchetype,

y

offering

con-

trastwith notherworkwhichdeals withmanyof the same ssues. twould

be

pointless

o claim that

Slepcov,

a talented

minor

writer,

as

given

more

truthful

epresentation

f the

nigilist

s a

social

phenomenon.

But

he

has

written novel

whichreflects nd comments is

views

as

a radical

ntellec-

tual.

In

presenting

form f radical

deologypeculiar

o the

sixties,

lepcov

shows ittle

endency

o

idealize

ts

proponents,

with esult hat

he is

able to

offer radical

critique

without

ransforming

ischaracters

nto

dvocates

of

a

simplistic, topian

solution n the mannerof

Cernyievskij.

Turgenev's

achievement, owever,

s of a

different rder

-

one

in

which he role ofideology s moretenuous.His political nd philosophical

viewsand his ambivalence

owardBazarov have

receivedmuch

attention;'2

but

efforts

o

interpret

athers and

Sons

solely

in

terms of the

"liberal

predicament"

r

a

specific hilosophical

ystem

re,

finally,

nadequate.

t

has been

noted that

Turgenev's

correspondence

uring

he latter

part

of

1860contains

requent

eferenceso a

senseof

depression,

nd

although

his

is not an uncommon mood in

his

writings

ne such

letter

to Fet)

does

suggest

link

between

his

despondency

nd his irritation

ith

he

young

critics hen n control f

Sovremennik

ho

wished o

consign

heir lders o

oblivion IV, 125). It maywell be thatBazarov represents urgenev's t-

tempt

o come to termswith the

radical

spirit

which

both

fascinated

nd

repelled

him.

But

in

doing

so

Turgenev

returned o a

problem

which

had

occupied

him

at the earliest

stages

of

his

literary

areer: the

challenge

and

the

ressentimentf theRomantic

hero,

he

apotheosis

of self.

When Antonovi6




11/12

504

Slavic and

East

European

Journal

labels Bazarov a

"caricature"

rying

o imitate demonic r

Byronic

ature,

and

Turgenev,

n

a

letter o LudwigPietsch,writes, ich denganzenKerl

viel

zu

heldenhaft idealistisch

read

"romantisch"]

aufgefasst

habe"

(VIII,

38),

both are

admitting

he

same

thing

rom

ifferent

oints

of

view.

Bazarov is

not a

caricature,

ut

it

is

equally

true that

Turgenev

ttached

ideological

positions

to

a Romantic

archetype, nly

to

submerge

hem n

other,

iterary

nd

metaphysical

oncerns nherent n

the

type.

Yet,

in

an

irony

ntirely

ppropriate

o

the

complexity

f

relations

etween

iterature

and

society,

it is

Turgenev

(not

Slepcov)

who defined

the

image

of

radicalism

with

his

Romantic

nihilist.

NOTES

1

A. I.

Gercen,

Sobranie

oc'inenij

30

vols.;

M.:

AN

SSSR,

1960),

XX

(bk. 1),

337f.

2

See P.

G.

Pustovojt,

Roman

.

S.

Turgeneva

Otcy

deti"

idejnaja

bor'ba60-x

godov

XIX

veka

M.:

MGU,

1964),

n

particular

79-88.

3 D. I.

Pisarev,

So'inenija

(4

vols.;

M.:

GIXL,

1956),

III,

462.

4

For an

assessment f

Slepcov's iterary

nd

political

ctivities

ee

my

monograph

lepcov

Redivivus

n

California

lavic

Studies,

Vol.

9

(Berkeley:

Univ. of

California

Press,

1976),

27-70.

5 I. S. Turgenev, olnoesobraniesocinenij pisem 28 vols.; M.-L.: AN SSSR), VIII, 242.

6

V. A.

Slepcov,

Socinenija

2

vols.;

M.:

GIXL,

1957),

II,

82.

7

In

fact

Pisarevwas not

the

only

one to

notice

ertain

Romantic

raits n Bazarov's

charac-

ter.

Maksim

Antonovic,

n his

review,

Asmodej

nasego

vremeni"

Sovremennik,

862,

No.

3),

writes:

Apparently

Mr.

Turgenev

wanted o

portray

n his

hero,

o to

speak,

the

demonicor

Byronic

nature,

omething

ike

Hamlet;

but,

on the

other

hand,

he

endowed

himwith

raits

whichmake this

nature eem most

ordinary

nd even

vulgar,

t least

very

far

from

emonism." n the

next

entenceAntonovid alls

Bazarov a

caricature.

btuse

as

his

description

s,

it

notes one

element

f the

Romantic n

Bazarov;

but Antonovid s

clearly

ncapable

of

dealing

with he

iterary

mplications

f

his

observation,

nd would

considerthem

unimportant.

. N.

Straxov,

n his

review f

Fathers

nd

Sons

(Vremja,

April, 1862),respondedto Antonovic'saccusationby quotingthe above passage and

adding:

"Hamlet

-

a demonicnature

This

shows

some

muddled

hinking

bout

Byron

and

Shakespeare.

But

actually,

urgenev

id

produce omething

f

the

demonic,

hat

s

a

nature

ich

n

strength,

lthough

his

trength

s not

pure."

Straxov's rticle

s

perceptive

as

well as

sympathetic

o

Bazarov,

but he

too fails to

develop

the

significance

f the

Romantic

or

"demonic")

aspect

of Bazarov's

character.

n

recent

years

Soviet scholars

have

devoted

onsiderable

ttention o an

examination f

Romanticism

nd

the

Roman-

tic

legacy

n

Russian literature.

ee collections uch as

Problemy

omantizma,

d. U. R.

Foxt

et al.

(M.:

Iskusstvo,

967)

and K

istorii

usskogo

omantizma,

d.

Ju.V.

Mann,

.

G.

Neupokoeva,

U. R.

Foxt

M.:

Nauka,

1973).

Occasional referencesre

made to

Romantic

elements n

Turgenev's

aternovels

see

the article

y

P.

G.

Pustovojt

ited

below).

There

seems,however, o havebeen no substantivereatmentf this ssue nrelation oFathers

and Sons.

8

P.

G.

Pustovojt,

Romanticeskoe

nacalo

v

tvoriestve .

S.

Turgeneva,"

n

Romantizm

slavjanskix

iteraturax,

d.

V.

I.

Kule'ov

et al.

(M.:

MGU,

1973), 259,

272.

9

Ju. V. Mann

applies

such a

structural

pproach

to

Romanticism

n

his

recentwork

Poetika

russkogo

omantizma

M.:

Nauka,

1976).

Choosing

"artistic onflict

Romantic




12/12

The

Romantic

Archetype

505

conflict)"

s his

basic structural

ategory

15),

he

later writes: We have said that

the

Romanticmethod f

dealing

with he ocial theme

s

to introduce

t nto

Romantic on-

flict. o be moreprecise: he Romanticmethod fdealingwith hesocial consists nthe

fact that the latter

becomes a

motivatingorce

for

alienation."

264.)

10

Mec3ta

mysl'

.

S.

Turgeneva,

ntrod.

homas G.

Winner

Brown

Univ.

Slavic

Reprint,

;

Providence,

R.

I.: Brown

Univ.

Press,

1970),

17.

[reprint

f

the 1919

edition]

11

In view

of the fact hat

Turgenev

edicatedFathers nd Sons

to

the

memory

f

Vissarion

Belinskij,

t s

interesting

o note that

Bazarov's faith

n scientificmaterialism

choes

the

opinions

of

Belinskij

n his

article

A View of Russian

Literature n

1846"

"Vzgljad

na

russkuju

iteraturu

1846

godu").

Advising

those

interestedn

man's

higher

faculties

(soul,

mind)

to

study

their

physiological

source

(heart,

brain),

Belinskij

writes:

"Psychology

whichdoes not rest

n

physiology

s

ust

as

unscientific

s

physiology

hich

knows

nothing

f theexistence f

anatomy.

Modern science

s not

satisfied

nly

with his

[analysisof the brain]: by chemical analysis it wishes to penetrate nto the secret

laboratories f

nature,

nd

by

observing

he

mbryo

o

trace

he

physical

rocess

of

moral

development

..."

See

Polnoe sobranie

socinenij

M.:

AN

SSSR,

1956),

X,

27.

The

similarity

f

this tatement

o Bazarov's

pronouncements

ould lead

one to believe that

Bazarov

belongs

to an earlier

generation

n an

intellectual

s well as

literary

ense.

The

question

f

Belinskij

s

a Romantic

adical and

a

prototype

orBazarov

-

lies

beyond

the

scope

of this

rticle,

ut

Joseph

Frank,

n his recent

ook

on the

young

Dostoevskij,

points

out how

clearly

he

spirit

f Romanticism

ermeated

he

notion

of

social

change

and

ustice

during

he

forties.

ee

Dostoevsky:

he Seeds

of

Revolt,

821-1849

Princeton:

PrincetonUniv.

Press,

1976),

73,

98-112.

Belinskij's

nterest

n

Romanticism s a

literary,

intellectual,

nd

spiritual

orce s demonstrated

t considerable

ength

n the econd of

his

"Articles

of Pu'kin"

("Stat'i

o

Pu'kine").

12

See

Pustovojt,

Roman

L S.

Turgeneva

Otcy

i

deti";

A.

Batjuto,

Turgenev-romanistL.:

Nauka,

1972);

Henri

Granjard,

van

Tourgubnev

t

es

courants

olitiques

t

sociaux

de

son

temps

Paris:

Institut

d'6tudes

laves,

1966);

saiah

Berlin,

athers nd

Children:

urgenev

and

the

Liberal

Predicament

New

York: Oxford

Univ.

Press,

1973).

brumfield - bazarov and rjazanov

Documents