Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

Fathers and Children
Fathers and Children
Fathers and Children
Ebook346 pages4 hours

Fathers and Children

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

4/5

()

Read preview
LanguageEnglish
Release dateJan 1, 1867

Read more from Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev

Related to Fathers and Children

Related ebooks

Related articles

Reviews for Fathers and Children

Rating: 3.953488372093023 out of 5 stars
4/5

43 ratings49 reviews

What did you think?

Tap to rate

Review must be at least 10 words

  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Fairly short and easy to read (at least in this translation). More thoughts to come later...
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Mooie, vooral trefzekere psychologische tekening van de karakters. Salonroman-allures, met dikke romantische onderlaag.Figuur Bazarov is tragisch getekend.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    That took awhile.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Mooie, vooral trefzekere psychologische tekening van de karakters. Salonroman-allures, met dikke romantische onderlaag.Figuur Bazarov is tragisch getekend.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    For once I read the book before reading the introduction; an approach which has its merits. The analysis in the introduction seemed to be a little over the top at first but then after learning of the letters Turgenev exchanged with Dostoevsky, particularly concerning the former's construction of the character Bazarov, really drives home how truly great novels are so much more than the product of a vivid imagination. The beauty of reading such works is to open my eyes to a place and period that was simply neglected in my early education due to the Cold War. Yet Turgenev highlights many issues which remain relevant in modern society: nationalism East or West, revolutionary or evolutionary development, the perpetual quest for newness in youth, to the pointlessness of life when humanity's frailty is illuminated. It also reunited me with the importance of the simple things in life which are often overlooked in our individual quests for glory which probably never arrives: the scene involving Bazarov's grieving parents still haunts me, as does the thought that Arkady is now under-the-thumb in an ever-so-happy way. The great writers were great because of their ability to intellectualise so many issues without a hint of discontinuity - a trait Turgenev displays with relative ease despite his own personal agonising over his critics (both revolutionaries and aristocrats). Indeed, had we never known about Turgenev's agonising from his letters, the work does not belie any such lack of confidence. Yet had I read the introduction first I may well have formed an entirely different view.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    A fine, tender, evocative short novel portraying "liberal" Russian landowners and their nihilist sons mid-19th century, on the eve of the (troubled) emancipation of the serfs. Marvelous writing as translated here by Richard Hare. A book to re-read.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    An incredible read. The story holds your interest, the characters are very realistic and believable, and the content/theme is still relevant and always will be.
  • Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
    2/5
    Snoozed. And I'm a Russian history major. Go figure.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Finished Fathers and Sons yesterday, another quickly devoured novel. Don't think I'll take the time to properly review it, but I will say that while I worried I wouldn't be thrilled by a novel in which one of the main characters is an unpleasant Nihilist with an attitude to match, I was on the contrary pleasantly surprised to find this novel touch on a variety of other subjects I ended up finding quite engrossing indeed, so that even Bazarov, the unpleasant proponent of Nihilism in question became, if not appealing exactly, essential to a masterful whole. Some of the topics broached are the major shift going on in Russia during the mid-19th century, with landowners 'freeing' their serfs and allowing them to become paid tenants and the attendant class conflicts; the concept or what makes up a true Russian identity; the generation gap and how the old guard is always relegated to obsolescence by the young. In other words, social conflicts seem to be at the heart of this novel, but these subjects became all the more interesting to me thanks to the deft hand of Turgeniev, who presents these from the unique standpoints of young student Arkady Nikolaevich Kirsanov, who brings his friend and Nihilistic hero Yevgeny Vasilyevich Bazarov on a visit to his family farm to meet his father and uncle. Arkady Nikolaevich's father Nikolai Petrovich is excited to get together with his grown son again, looking forward to a forging a close friendship with him based on intellectual equality, and thinks himself to be 'with the times' by embracing modern socioeconomic concerns (having among other things recently emancipated his serfs and removed himself to a smaller house with few paid servants) and keeping up with all the latest authors (but at heart a great lover of the Romantic Old Guard Pushkin). However, his hopes are fairly dashed when Bazarov is introduced into the household with his uncouth, brusque manners and disdain for art, tradition, and sentimentality. Arkady has become Bazarov's disciple and parrots his older friend's ideas, though all the while he is made uneasy by Bazarov's repeated critical sallies and generally disrespectful attitude toward his beloved father and his uncle Pavel Petrovich, a gallant aristocrat very much attached to tradition and keeping up appearances, which Arkady nevertheless sees as a tragic hero. Through this prism we see a whole nation shifting toward what laid the ground for the inevitable Russian Revolution and the Communist USSR, though again, Turgeniev, far from making his protagonists all black or all white, lets them evolve throughout the novel and experience conflicting emotions and motivations. Here, together with a large dose of philosophical doctrine, there is also love and romance and it's deceptions, there is even an unlikely duel which ends rather unexpectedly. In other words, it is a mix of intellectual ideas and romantic concerns and for this reason, still feels incredibly modern and shows us once again that human nature never really changes much. So much for NOT writing a review. :-)
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Rather striking, though sometimes comes across a little bit forced and solemn. Which is, in the end, quite okay with characters like Bazarov that bring forward lots of interesting issues and ideas.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    Unquestioningly, a classic. Different in its substance from the gripping and heart-rending prose of Dostoyevsky, but a classic nevertheless. Apart from the main plot and the ever-existing question of a generation gap, Turgenev brings to light such relevant to that day and age issues as the peasant question (with all its tormenting difficulties just prior to abolition of serfdom in Russia), the highly controversial idea of nihilism, and description (even though in a slightly caricature form) of a burgeoning feminism trend. Some minor characters are stereotypically comical, but the main ones are given a thoroughly thoughtful and serious portrayal. Bazarov's father impressed me the most. I read this book in the original years ago (it was a part of high school curriculum and was required reading, thus making it less appealing at the time) and now refreshed my memory, with deeper understanding of the book, in translation, which is quite adequate, though, naturally, cannot quite be a substitute for the original - but it fell into my hands at a used books shop and grabbed my nostalgic attention.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Literature is full of proof that generational conflicts are eternal. Kids are always convinced their parents don't understand them, and in some ways, that's true. But in other ways, the parents understand more than the kids can even believe. If everyone lives long enough, one day that will become clear.Arkady is coming home after graduating from university to stay with his parents for a while, and his friend Bazarov comes with him. Bazarov is the classic "bad influence" that worries parents. He's cynical and not respectful of his elders' experience, and worst of all, he's a nihilist. (This was probably less comical before The Big Lebowski was made, or if you've never seen it. If you have, you may have the same reaction as I did every time someone brings it up, which was: hearing "We belieff in NUFFINK!" in a German accent.) Anyhow, there are tensions between the generations as well as tensions between contemporaries. After all, the older generation will always have a variety of ideas about the younger, from "get off my lawn!" to "oh, to be young and carefree." And the younger generation will be busy trying to find out where they fit in the world, how to define themselves and who to use as a model. On a larger scale, these conflicts are played out in the same way in countries, and Russia was in transition at the time when the book is set.Although I approached this novel with some trepidation because 19th-century Russian literature has always been difficult for me (I've tried Dostoevsky and Tolstoy and come to the conclusion that I need to read up on Russian history before trying again), it was an involving read. I didn't feel lost in the political situations (that references were amply footnoted helped).Recommended for: Generation X, people looking to ease into Russian literature.Quote: "The tiny space I occupy is so minute in comparison with the rest of space, in which I am not, and which has nothing to do wtih me; and the period of time in which it is my lot to live is so insignificant beside the eternity in which I have not been, and shall not be.... But in this atom, this mathematical point, the blood is circulating, the brain is working and wanting something.... Isn't it loathsome? Isn't it petty?"
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    I'm surprised this book was so controversial when it was published, as it's largely a standard Russian novel- the focus on the lower nobility, attending balls, falling in love, fighting duels, unreturned affection, marriages, and a glimpse of the stunted lives and intellect of the peasants. Lermontov satirizes this type of novel long before Turgenev put pen to paper. The only notable divergence from the paint-by-numbers plot is the addition of Bazarov, a medical student who is a self-proclaimed nihilist, who denies all rules and traditions. According to his notes for the novel Turgenev wanted Bazarov to be "like a comet" (as Freeborn translates it), knocking everyone out of there rut. At this Turgenev fails; Bazarov comes off as less a comet than a contrarian, disagreeing with his elders and society more for the sake of disagreement itself than because of any true belief in the pointlessness of life.

    The writing is largely functional, but there are a few places where the writing is noticeably bad. The arguments Turgenev writes out between Bazarov and Pavel are confusing, with characters giving responses that make little sense given the previous comment, and in general the segments where this occurs have no flow and feel stilted. Perhaps at the time this novel was written the characters conformed to easily defined types, allowing readers to fill in the leaps in dialogue in a satisfactory way, but that is no longer the case. There is also a line in the book that leads readers to believe a character has died when in fact that is not the case. I checked both the Garnett and the Freeborn translation and this is clearly a flaw in the original text, not in the translation.

    There's a reason Turgenev exists today in the shadow of Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky. Read Fathers and Sons if you want to experience more Russian literature, but don't expect it to reach the heights of the masterpieces in the genre.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    I loved this book - thanks to my son who introduced it to me. It is a book I hope to reread a few times.
  • Rating: 2 out of 5 stars
    2/5
    This work of fiction is set in Russia before the revolution. Serfdom was similar to slavery and the story contrasts the life of aristocracy with that of serfs. The main characters are two students: Bazarov being the leader and Arkady being his follower. The story is somewhat interesting in its description of the characters and was likely more of interest in the day of its writing. The eventual demise of Bazarov seems of limited importance since his existence was largely an annoyance to most. I do not recommend the book unless you are interested in Russian history.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    A great example of Russian literature at its finest. The only great writers coming out of this country weren't only Tolstoy and Doesevski. After reading this novel for a history class, I downloaded a bunch more of his work to my Kindle, for later reading. Enjoy!
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    3.5 stars. I would've liked it much more when I was younger, but, nearing eighty, the first thoughts and loves and rebellions and other conceits of the characters were a bit flat. Reading it felt a little like watching kittens--their behavior is amusing and endearing but every miscalculated jump and tumble is foreseen.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    I picked up Fathers and Sons because it seemed an approachably slim volume to start me off in Russian literature. I'm going to jump into that ocean headfirst eventually, but let me dabble my toes a bit first and get used to the temperature. The title hints that it is a story about generational differences, how family members with wildly different philosophies interact with one another, and it is that on one level. But it is also a portrayal of the different positions (or branches of the family) of philosophy in general. Modern nihilism squares off with traditional religiosity and the liberal Russian politics of 1862. Sounds like fun, right? In many ways this felt like a screenplay. I'm not exactly sure why, but as I was reading I was struck by the theatricality of the scenes and descriptions. Especially in the beginning, Turgenev gives us a lot of background information on the characters and their histories... the sort of things that a movie would show us to set up the characters and their surroundings. Sometimes it was choppy, a little too much of an info dump. I found some of the the characters quite underdeveloped, like Fenichka and Katya. Others, like Nicholas and his brother Paul, get great attention when they're onscreen and then just... disappear. Arcady is us, I think... drawn along by Bazarov's genius and admiring his ways not for their own merit, but because they are his. There is something magnetic about him. Or maybe we are Nicholas and Vasily, floundering around in a world that is changing too quickly for our comfort. What about Fenichka, content to leave the wrangling to others and follow her natural impulses? Or Bazarov's mother, terrified because of her son's philosophy? Maybe we are each of these characters at some point in our lives. Bazarov was one of those characters you just enjoy, not because you like him but because he's just so unpredictable and masterful. He's fascinating to watch, a bundle of contradictions because of his nihilism. He believes in pure science, but is that really kosher for a strict nihilist, to believe in anything? Why should one study so hard to be a doctor, if nothing means anything and every institution should be pulled down? Why bother? I guess this is the thing that disappointed me the most in this story: I still feel quite in the dark as to nihilistic philosophy. It seemed like Bazarov is supposed to be just a mouthpiece for the nihilistic worldview ? which is fine by me, actually, in a novel like this ? but whenever he gets into philosophical discussions, they always stop short. It could be that I was missing it, but the arguments and opposing viewpoints ended right when I wanted them expanded upon, just when things were getting good! Maybe Turgenev was being careful of not weighing his story down too much, leaving room for some plot and character development. And maybe I just have unrealistic expectations of Russian literature. My copy is translated by George Reavy. Aficionados of Russian lit can tell me if it's a good translation or not. I'm glad I read this, but I can't conjure up any real enthusiasm for it. Tolstoy is bound to be better.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Some thoughts:

    1. Every time I pick up a Russian novel I'm always surprised by how leisurely the term prince and princess are thrown around, and I can never remember why. I am done looking for the answer so I am just going to assume it?s because there is a shit-ton of royalty in that vast country.

    2. It feels weird when the narrator addresses the reader. It happens a few times. It's strange but charming.

    3. Why the hell are Russian's always obscuring place and street names? I can't think of (m)any non-Russian novels that do this, though I am sure they exist.

    This book was interesting and would have appealed greatly to the younger me back when I was reading the likes of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, being argumentative, and most likely annoying to those around me. Sadly (perhaps), I've grown older and likely appreciated this book a little less than I would have ten years ago. Today I rate this book three stars. If time travel soon becomes possible and I am permitted to both meet my younger self and influence him by giving him a copy of this book I am willing to bet the rating would be closer to five stars.

    God this is a dumb review. Sorry Turgenev you deserve better.
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    There are so many ways to start the review of ?Fathers and Sons?. Do I address the obvious ?generation gap? concept that is FAR ahead of its time? How?s about the role it played in the transitional Russia during the rumbling years against the old money and serfdom? What about the criticisms that Turgenev received from BOTH the Left and the Right accusing Turgenev of being both ?Father? and ?Son?? Should I examine Turgenev?s personal view which he claimed to align most with Bazarov, the steely, indifferent nihilist (except on art)? The many facets of this book are made the more interesting in this edition, which was enriched with a sizable lecture by Isaiah Berlin and an informative introduction by the translator, Rosemary Edmonds. Regardless of one?s view, Turgenev?s burial was attended by the Imperial Government, the intelligentsia, and the workers? organizations ? noted by Berlin in 1970 as perhaps the first and last time where these groups met peacefully in Russia. That?s got to be worth something to note a career! Turgenev?s writing charm is not in the heavy subjects or weighty writing style akin to Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy, his great contemporaries. He allows the reader to connect empathically to his characters. We have in Nikolai, the kindly widowed father, in Arkady, the son finding his new path (or not), in Bazarov, the brazen mentor and vocal ?nihilist? who frees himself from allegiance to anything and anyone, in Anna, the strength of a woman in her daily estate dealings - both beautiful and clever, in Pavel, the ?lost? uncle who gave his life away for love, and many more. Each character is richly crafted that you have an empathy and comprehension of their motivations. Despite an insistence that women opt to be silent and even beaten, Turgenev created many strong women, both in the home and in their business. I won?t attempt to elaborate further on this classic except to say it is certainly charming with some heart string tucking, but not overtly. (I loved Bazarov?s sweet, sweet parents.) 4.0 stars for the book plus 0.5 stars for the bonuses in this edition.Favorite Character: Anna Sergeyevna Odintsov ? for her many strengths but also her melancholyLeast Favorite Character: Yevgeny Vassilyich Bazarov ? for hating art (blasphemy!) and being self-centeredSome Quotes:On the generation divide:"Once I quarrelled with our late mamma: she stormed and would not listen to me? At last I said to her, ?Of course, you cannot understand me: we belong to two different generations,? I said. She was dreadfully offended but I thought to myself, ?It can?t be helped. It is a bitter pill but she must swallow it.? You see, now our turn has come, and our successors say to us, ?You are not of our generation: swallow your pill?.?On nihilism:?Aristocratism, liberalism, progress, principles ? think of it, what a lot of foreign.. and useless words! To a Russian they?re not worth a straw?? In these days the most useful thing we can do is to repudiate ? and so we repudiate. Everything.???But one must construct too, you know.??That is not our affair? The ground must be cleaned first.???In the old days young people had to study. If they did not want to be ignorant they had to work hard whether they liked it or not. But now they need only say, ?Everything in the world is rubbish!? ? and the trick?s done. The young men are simply delighted. Whereas they were only sheep?s heads before, now they have suddenly blossomed out as nihilists!? On individuality (or the lack thereof!):?? I assure you the study of separate individuals is not worth the trouble it involves. All men are similar, in soul as well as body. Each of us has a brain, spleen, heart, and lungs of similar construction; and the so-called moral qualities are the same in all of us ? the slight variations are of no importance. It is enough to have one human specimen in order to judge all the others. People are like trees in a forest; no botanist would dream of studying each individual birch tree.?On women, men, and love:?Anna Sergeyevna was a rather strange person. Having no prejudices of any kind, and no strong convictions even, she was not put off by obstacles and she had no goal in life. She had clear ideas about many things and a variety of interests, but nothing ever completely satisfied her; indeed she did not really seek satisfaction. Her mind was at once probing and indifferent; any doubts she entertained were never soothed into oblivion, nor ever swelled into unrest?? Like all women who have not succeeded in falling in love she hankered after something without knowing what it was. In reality there was nothing she wanted, though it seemed to her that she wanted everything?? She had conceived a secret repugnance for all men, whom she could only think of as slovenly, clumsy, dull, feebly irritating creatures.? On melancholy:?I have no desire, no longing for life. You look at me incredulously; you think those are the words of an aristocrat covered in lace and sitting in a velvet armchair. I don?t deny for a moment that I like what you call comfort, but at the same time I have very little desire to live. Reconcile that contradiction as best you can.?On family:?It can?t be helped, Vasya. A son is an independent person. He?s like a falcon that comes when he wills and flies off when he lists; but you and I are like the funguses growing in a hollow tree: here we sit side by side, not budging an inch. It is only I who will stay with you always, faithful for ever, just as you will stay with me.?On love and connection:?They were both silent; but the way in which they were silent, the way in which they were sitting together, spoke eloquently of the trustful intimacy between them, each seemed unmindful of the other and yet full of an inward joy at being together.?
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    ??It can?t be helped, Vasya. A son is like a lopped-off branch. As a falcon he comes when he wills and goes where he lists; but you and I are like mushrooms growing in a hollow tree. Here we sit side by side without budging. But I shall stay with you for ever and unalterably, just as you will stay with me.?


    Vassily Ivanich removed his hands from his face and embraced his wife, his constant companion, with a warmth greater than he had ever shown her in his youth; she had consoled him in his grief.? (p. 141).


    And so it was that Eugene Bazarov?s parents reconciled themselves to an only child grown cold, detached ? apparently even aloof. By p. 202, that same only son is dead of pyaemia. As a parent, myself, of two children now entering early adulthood and consequently moving out and away into the world, I must confess that Turgenev?s portrayal of this unhappy ? albeit necessary ? fact of life was quite moving.


    Like most (if not all) of the Russian classics, however, there?s a kind of ?preciousness? in both the dialogue and comportment of the characters ? at least to this American eye and ear. Can one fault Turgenev (or Tolstoy, Chekhov, Goncharov, Dostoevsky and Gogol) for portraying an aristocracy that is, well, aristocratic in its entire modus operandi? Probably not. It?s just that all of it grows wearisome with wear.


    Where I would give Turgenev exceptional credit, however, in his ability to distinguish the ages and stations of his several characters through their dialogue alone, slight though their differences in age or station might be. This is no mean accomplishment for a writer (and, I might add, for the translator ? George Reavy in this case).


    Can I, in good conscience, recommend Fathers and Sons as a ?must-read?? Only if you?re intent on covering the gamut of what the world considers to be great Russian literature ? or want to discover how the other half (or one-hundredth?) once lived, spoke and thought.


    RRB
    08/04/14
    Brooklyn, NY

  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    This book throws me back to my teens, a time when I read all the great Russian authors. I really like this book, because it captured the atmosphere of the times. It does so in a style that is more gentle than Dostoevsky; and reaches down into the character of the protagonists. I wish, however, that it went deeper into the relationship between the generations. But then, that is my wish only!
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Even though the conflict between generations is centered around the historical event of the emancipation of the russian serfs, it is relevant to every generational conflict. The extremists at either end will never understand each other, yet there is a delightful middle ground to be struck and exist happily in. The characters were more life like than anything I've read in a long while, which turned what could have been a relatively dull classic into a page turner. I cared about his portraits.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Paperback (edit)review This is the kind of book to read while still in college or in high school. Youth, realizing how bad and corrupt things are in the world become disillusioned and want to change it. In Fathers and Sons, Bazarov wants to destroy it, for he is a nihilist. This book is good on many different levels. It's a great historical piece, reflecting what was going on in Russia in the mid-19th century. Students were coming back from colleges in Western Europe, in some cases they were forcibly recalled by Russian law. These students, filled with ideas about how things can be, or taken aback at the backward customs and rituals in Russia. In the book, Barazrov and Arkady are two such students. Bazarov is the one with the fire in the belly. He wants to destroy the whole Russian system which resemble feudalism. The book documents his views and his fights with the landowners and the Fathers of Russia. It's also a great reflection of generational conflict. The young, wanting to change the world, the old who feel their ideas are fads to pass with time. There is even condescension about these ideas. I thought this was an excellent passage that reflected this:"Of course gentlemen, you know best; how could we keep pace with you? You are here to take our places. In my day, too, there was some sort of Humouralist school, Hoffman, and brown too with his vitalism--they seemed ridiculous to us, but, of course, they too had been great men at one time or another. Some one new has taken the place of Rademacher with you; you bow down to him, but in another twenty years it will be his turn to be laughed at." P 135When I read about generationally conflict today, this book reminds me how long that conflict has been going on. It gives me a better understanding of it. I felt the ending was a bit bleak. The man wanting change and railing against the system becomes a victim of it and dies, representing that death of progress in Russia at the time (the students were roundly rejected by the system and even by the peasants they were trying to help). Overall an excellent and short book. More passages: Then we suspected that talk, perpetual talk, and nothing but talk, about our social diseases, was not worth while, that it all led to nothing but superficiality and pedantry; we saw that our leading men, so-called advanced people and reformers, are no good; that we busy ourselves over foolery, talk rubbish about art, unconscious creativeness, parliamentarism, trial by jury, and the deuce knows what all; while, all the while, it's a question of getting bread to eat, while we're stifling under the grossest superstition, while all our enterprises come to grief, simply because there aren't honest men enough to carry them on, while the very emancipation our Government's busy upon will hardly come to any good, because peasants are glad to rob even themselves to get drunk at the gin-shop.' chap 5...es, yes. First a pride almost Satanic, then ridicule?that, that's what it is attracts the young, that's what gains an ascendancy over the inexperienced hearts of boys! Here's one of them sitting beside you, ready to worship the ground under your feet. Look at him! (Arkady turned away and frowned.) And this plague has spread far already. I have been told that in Rome our artists never set foot in the Vatican. Raphael they regard as almost a fool, because, if you please, he's an authority; while they're all the while most disgustingly sterile and unsuccessful, men whose imagination does not soar beyond 'Girls at a Fountain,' however they try! And the girls even out of drawing. They are fine fellows to your mind, are they not?''To my mind,' retorted Bazarov, 'Raphael's not worth a brass farthing; and they're no better than he.'the tiny space I occupy is so infinitely small in comparison with the rest of space, in which I am not, and which has nothing to do with me; and the period of time in which it is my lot to live is so petty beside the eternity in which I have not been, and shall not be... P 144'Bravo! bravo! Listen, Arkady ... that's how young men of to-day ought to express themselves! And if you come to think of it, how could they fail to follow you! In old days, young men had to study; they didn't want to be called dunces, so they had to work hard whether they liked it or not. But now, they need only say, "Everything in the world is foolery!" and the trick's done. Young men are delighted. And, to be sure, they were simply geese before, and now they have suddenly turned nihilists.'Chap. 10'And now, I say again, good-bye, for it's useless to deceive ourselves?we are parting for good, and you know that yourself ... you have acted sensibly; you're not made for our bitter, rough, lonely existence. There's no dash, no hate in you, but you've the daring of youth and the fire of youth. Your sort, you gentry, can never get beyond refined submission or refined indignation, and that's no good. You won't fight?and yet you fancy yourselves gallant chaps?but we mean to fight. Oh well! Our dust would get into your eyes, our mud would bespatter you, but yet you're not up to our level, you're admiring yourselves unconsciously, you like to abuse yourselves; but we're sick of that?we want something else! we want to smash other people! You're a capital fellow; but you're a sugary, liberal snob for all that?ay volla-too, as my parent is fond of saying.'chap XXVI(less)
  • Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
    5/5
    One of my all time favorites.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    Possibly the first modern Russian novel. The central figures Barazov and Arkady show a marked contrast in their eventual approaches to life. Bazarov is a self-professed nihilist, believing that the established order should always be challenged.Arkady is initially in thrall to Bazarov's tenets, to the extent that he risks alienating his old-fashioned father and even more traditional uncle. The novel is one of self discovery, though, and Arkady eventually marries Katya Lokteva, having previously been infatuated with her elder sister Anna. However, it is Bazarov who falls irredeemably in love with Anna, thus compromising the beliefs that have been the pillar of his entire being.
  • Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
    4/5
    A fine novel and one that can be enjoyed on many levels. There is the much celebrated frictions between the generations and the views of the progressives against the reactionaries and they are there throughout the novel. However for me it was the beautiful lyrical writing that I found so entrancing. Much of the novel takes place in pastoral surroundings as the characters move from one estate to another all with varying degrees of prosperity. Here the major protagonists expound their views and fall in love, despite their world view, even the nihilist Basarov falls in love. The characters are finely drawn their relationships are exquisitely portrayed, as is the countryside that surrounds them. For me this is not a political novel but more of a beautiful pastoral novel whose characters are touched by modern thoughts and ideas. The translation by Rosemary Edmonds captures the lyrical quality of the writing, perhaps a different translation might emphasise other qualities in the novel. I was a bit wary of Edmonds after reading her introduction where she seemed to be equating nihilists with 1960's beatniks, which I think misses the point and so maybe the political themes do not come out so well in her translation.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Wonderful book; brings out the similarities and differences for one generation to another. Great characters but it hard to compare it to the other Russian classics.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    I read this mainly to get some more Russian lit background to fill in the gaps. It was pretty good in some ways, weak in others. It’s basically just an episodic collection of character sketches(albeit excellent ones)... nothing much happens and nobody changes overmuch. Historical context makes it better, as it makes you realize what an archetype Bazarov was at the time… kind of like an 1860’s Russian equivalent to Holden Caulfield in 1950’s America. Worthwhile, but you’d be better served to read the more well-known Russians first.
  • Rating: 3 out of 5 stars
    3/5
    Twenty-three brief chapters tell of a period in the lives of two young Russian men. Together they visit each of their families, and together they mix into society. It is a rambling tale. (My copy is illustrated with wood engravings by Fritz Eichenberg and has a foreword by Sinclair Lewis, and an essay by John T. Winterich.) I do not know how long I've had it. . . it caught my eye recently, hence this brief review.

Book preview

Fathers and Children - Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev

The Project Gutenberg eBook, Fathers and Children, by Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev, Translated by Constance Clara Garnett

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with

almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or

re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included

with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org

Title: Fathers and Children

Author: Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev

Release Date: December 21, 2009 [eBook #30723]

Language: English

Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1

***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK FATHERS AND CHILDREN***

E-text prepared by Ron Swanson

from page images generously made available by

Internet Archive/American Libraries

(http://www.archive.org/details/americana)


THE HARVARD CLASSICS

SHELF OF FICTION

[From Vol. 19]

SELECTED BY CHARLES W ELIOT LL D

FATHERS AND CHILDREN

BY

IVAN TURGENEV

TRANSLATED BY CONSTANCE GARNETT

EDITED WITH NOTES AND INTRODUCTIONS

BY WILLIAM ALLAN NEILSON PH D

P F COLLIER & SON

NEW YORK

Published under special arrangement with

The Macmillan Company

Copyright, 1917

By P. F. COLLIER & SON

CONTENTS

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

CRITICISMS AND INTERPRETATIONS:

I. BY EMILE MELCHIOR, VICOMTE DE VOGÜÉ

II. BY WILLIAM DEAN HOWELLS

III. BY K. WALISZEWSKI

IV. BY RICHARD H. P. CURLE

V. BY MAURICE BARING

LIST OF CHARACTERS

FATHERS AND CHILDREN

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

Ivan Sergyevitch Turgenev came of an old stock of the Russian nobility. He was born in Orel, in the province of Orel, which lies more than a hundred miles south of Moscow, on October 28, 1818. His education was begun by tutors at home in the great family mansion in the town of Spask, and he studied later at the universities of Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Berlin. The influence of the last, and of the compatriots with whom he associated there, was very great; and when he returned to Moscow in 1841, he was ambitious to teach Hegel to the students there. Before this could be arranged, however, he entered the Ministry of the Interior at St. Petersburg. While there his interests turned more and more toward literature. He wrote verses and comedies, read George Sand, and made the acquaintance of Dostoevsky and the critic Bielinski. His mother, a tyrannical woman with an ungovernable temper, was eager that he should make a brilliant official career; so, when he resigned from the Ministry in 1845, she showed her disapproval by cutting down his allowance and thus forcing him to support himself by the profession he had chosen.

Turgenev was an enthusiastic hunter; and it was his experiences in the woods of his native province that supplied the material for A Sportsman's Sketches, the book that first brought him reputation. The first of these papers appeared in 1847, and in the same year he left Russia in the train of Pauline Viardot, a singer and actress, to whom he had been devoted for three or four years and with whom he maintained relations for the rest of his life. For a year or two he lived chiefly in Paris or at a country house at Courtavenel in Brie, which belonged to Madame Viardot; but in 1850 he returned to Russia. His experiences were not such as to induce him to repatriate himself permanently. He found Dostoevsky banished to Siberia and Bielinski dead; and himself under suspicion by the government on account of the popularity of A Sportsman's Sketches. For praising Gogol, who had just died, he was arrested and imprisoned for a short time, and for the next two years kept under police surveillance. Meantime he continued to write, and by the time that the close of the Crimean War made it possible for him again to go to western Europe, he was recognized as standing at the head of living Russian authors. His mother was now dead, the estates were settled, and with an income of about $5,000 a year he became a wanderer. He had, or imagined he had, very bad health, and the eminent specialists he consulted sent him from one resort to another, to Rome, the Isle of Wight, Soden, and the like. When Madame Viardot left the stage in 1864 and took up her residence at Baden-Baden, he followed her and built there a small house for himself. They returned to France after the Franco-Prussian War, and bought a villa at Bougival, near Paris, and this was his home for the rest of his life. Here, on September 3, 1883, he died after a long delirium due to his suffering from cancer of the spinal cord. His body was taken to St. Petersburg and was buried with national honors.

The two works by Turgenev contained in the present volume are characteristic in their concern with social and political questions, and in the prominence in both of them of heroes who fail in action. Turgenev preaches no doctrine in his novels, has no remedy for the universe; but he sees clearly certain weaknesses of the Russian character and exposes these with absolute candor yet without unkindness. Much as he lived abroad, his books are intensely Russian; yet of the great Russian novelists he alone rivals the masters of western Europe in the matter of form. In economy of means, condensation, felicity of language, and excellence of structure he surpasses all his countrymen; and Fathers and Children and A House of Gentlefolk represent his great and delicate art at its best.

W. A. N.    

CRITICISMS AND INTERPRETATIONS

I

BY EMILE MELCHIOR, VICOMTE DE VOGÜÉ

Ivan Sergyevitch (Turgenev) has given us a most complete picture of Russian society. The same general types are always brought forward; and, as later writers have presented exactly similar ones, with but few modifications, we are forced to believe them true to life. First, the peasant: meek, resigned, dull, pathetic in suffering, like a child who does not know why he suffers; naturally sharp and tricky when not stupefied by liquor; occasionally roused to violent passion. Then, the intelligent middle class: the small landed proprietors of two generations. The old proprietor is ignorant and good-natured, of respectable family, but with coarse habits; hard, from long experience of serfdom, servile himself, but admirable in all other relations of life.

The young man of this class is of quite a different type. His intellectual growth having been too rapid, he sometimes plunges into Nihilism. He is often well educated, melancholy, rich in ideas but poor in executive ability; always preparing and expecting to accomplish something of importance, filled with vague and generous projects for the public good. This is the chosen type of hero in all Russian novels. Gogol introduced it, and Tolstoy prefers it above all others.

The favorite hero of young girls and romantic women is neither the brilliant officer, the artist, nor rich lord, but almost universally this provincial Hamlet, conscientious, cultivated, intelligent, but of feeble will, who, returning from his studies in foreign lands, is full of scientific theories about the improvement of mankind and the good of the lower classes, and eager to apply these theories on his own estate. It is quite necessary that he should have an estate of his own. He will have the hearty sympathy of the reader in his efforts to improve the condition of his dependents.

The Russians well understand the conditions of the future prosperity of their country; but, as they themselves acknowledge, they know not how to go to work to accomplish it.

In regard to the women of this class, Turgenev, strange to say, has little to say of the mothers. This probably reveals the existence of some old wound, some bitter experience of his own. Without a single exception, all the mothers in his novels are either wicked or grotesque. He reserves the treasures of his poetic fancy for the young girls of his creation. To him the young girl of the country province is the corner-stone of the fabric of society. Reared in the freedom of country life, placed in the most healthy social conditions, she is conscientious, frank, affectionate, without being romantic; less intelligent than man, but more resolute. In each of his romances an irresolute man is invariably guided by a woman of strong will.

Such are, generally speaking, the characters the author describes, which bear so unmistakably the stamp of nature that one cannot refrain from saying as he closes the book, These must be portraits from life! which criticism is always the highest praise, the best sanction of works of the imagination.—From Turgenev, in The Russian Novelists, translated by J. L. Edmands (1887).

II

BY WILLIAM DEAN HOWELLS

Turgenev was of that great race which has more than any other fully and freely uttered human nature, without either false pride or false shame in its nakedness. His themes were oftenest those of the French novelist, but how far he was from handling them in the French manner and with the French spirit! In his hands sin suffered no dramatic punishment; it did not always show itself as unhappiness, in the personal sense, but it was always unrest, and without the hope of peace. If the end did not appear, the fact that it must be miserable always appeared. Life showed itself to me in different colors after I had once read Turgenev; it became more serious, more awful, and with mystical responsibilities I had not known before. My gay American horizons were bathed in the vast melancholy of the Slav, patient, agnostic, trustful. At the same time nature revealed herself to me through him with an intimacy she had not hitherto shown me. There are passages in this wonderful writer alive with a truth that seems drawn from the reader's own knowledge: who else but Turgenev and one's own most secret self ever felt all the rich, sad meaning of the night air drawing in at the open window, of the fires burning in the darkness on the distant fields? I try in vain to give some notion of the subtle sympathy with nature which scarcely put itself into words with him. As for the people of his fiction, though they were of orders and civilizations so remote from my experience, they were of the eternal human types whose origin and potentialities every one may find in his own heart, and I felt their verity in every touch.

I cannot describe the satisfaction his work gave me; I can only impart some sense of it, perhaps, by saying that it was like a happiness I had been waiting for all my life, and now that it had come, I was richly content forever. I do not mean to say that the art of Turgenev surpasses the art of Björnson; I think Björnson is quite as fine and true. But the Norwegian deals with simple and primitive circumstances for the most part, and always with a small world; and the Russian has to do with human nature inside of its conventional shells, and his scene is often as large as Europe. Even when it is as remote as Norway, it is still related to the great capitals by the history if not the actuality of the characters. Most of Turgenev's books I have read many times over, all of them I have read more than twice. For a number of years I read them again and again without much caring for other fiction. It was only the other day that I read Smoke through once more, with no diminished sense of its truth, but with somewhat less than my first satisfaction in its art. Perhaps this was because I had reached the point through my acquaintance with Tolstoy where I was impatient even of the artifice that hid itself. In Smoke I was now aware of an artifice that kept out of sight, but was still always present somewhere, invisibly operating the story.—From My Literary Passions (1895).

III

BY K. WALISZEWSKI

The second novel of the series, Fathers and Children, stirred up a storm the suddenness and violence of which it is not easy, nowadays, to understand. The figure of Bazarov, the first Nihilist—thus baptized by an inversion of epithet which was to win extraordinary success—is merely intended to reveal a mental condition which, though the fact had been insufficiently recognized, had already existed for some years. The epithet itself had been in constant use since 1829, when Nadiéjdine applied it to Pushkin, Polevoï, and some other subverters of the classic tradition. Turgenev only extended its meaning by a new interpretation, destined to be perpetuated by the tremendous success of Fathers and Children. There is nothing, or hardly anything, in Bazarov, of the terrible revolutionary whom we have since learnt to look for under this title. Turgenev was not the man to call up such a figure. He was far too dreamy, too gentle, too good-natured a being. Already, in the character of Roudine, he had failed, in the strangest way, to catch the likeness of Bakounine, that fiery organiser of insurrection, whom all Europe knew, and whom he had selected as his model. Conceive Corot or Millet trying to paint some figure out of the Last Judgment after Michael Angelo! Bazarov is the Nihilist in his first phase, in course of becoming, as the Germans would say, and he is a pupil of the German universities. When Turgenev shaped the character, he certainly drew on his own memories of his stay at Berlin, at a time when Bruno Bauer was laying it down as a dogma that no educated man ought to have opinions on any subject, and when Max Stirner was convincing the young Hegelians that ideas were mere smoke and dust, seeing that the only reality in existence was the individual Ego. These teachings, eagerly received by the Russian youth, were destined to produce a state of moral decomposition, the earliest symptoms of which were admirably analysed by Turgenev.

Bazarov is a very clever man, but clever in thought, and especially in word, only. He scorns art, women, and family life. He does not know what the point of honour means. He is a cynic in his love affairs, and indifferent in his friendships. He has no respect even for paternal tenderness, but he is full of contradictions, even to the extent of fighting a duel about nothing at all, and sacrificing his life for the first peasant he meets. And in this the resemblance is true, much more general, indeed, than the model selected would lead one to imagine; so general, in fact, that, apart from the question of art, Turgenev—he has admitted it himself—felt as if he were drawing his own portrait; and therefore it is, no doubt, that he has made his hero so sympathetic.—From A History of Russian Literature (1900).

IV

BY RICHARD H. P. CURLE

But for the best expression of the bewilderment of life we have to turn to the portrait of a man, to the famous Bazarov of Fathers and Children. Turgenev raises through him the eternal problem—Has personality any hold, has life any meaning at all? The reality of this figure, his contempt for nature, his egoism, his strength, his mothlike weakness are so convincing that before his philosophy all other philosophies seem to pale. He is the one who sees the life-illusion, and yet, knowing that it is the mask of night, grasps at it, loathing himself. You can hate Bazarov, you cannot have contempt for him. He is a man of genius, rid of sentiment and hope, believing in nothing but himself, to whom come, as from the darkness, all the violent questions of life and death. Fathers and Children is simply an exposure of our power to mould our own lives. Bazarov is a man of astonishing intellect—he is the pawn of an emotion he despises; he is a man of gigantic will—he can do nothing but destroy his own beliefs; he is a man of intense life—he cannot avoid the first, brainless touch of death. It is the hopeless fight of mind against instinct, of determination against fate, of personality against impersonality. Bazarov disdaining everyone, sick of all smallness, is roused to fury by the obvious irritations of Pavel Petrovitch. Savagely announcing the creed of nihilism and the end of romance, he has only to feel the calm, aristocratic smile of Madame Odintsov fixed on him and he suffers all the agony of first love. Determining to live and create, he has only to play with death for a moment, and he is caught. But though he is the most positive of all Turgenev's male portraits, there are others linking up the chain of delusion. There is Rudin, typical of the unrest of the idealist; there is Nezhdanov (Virgin Soil), typical of the self-torture of the anarchist. There is Shubin (On the Eve), hiding his misery in laughter, and Lavretsky (A House of Gentlefolk), hiding his misery in silence. It is not necessary to search for further examples. Turgenev put his hand upon the dark things. He perceived character, struggling in the clutch of circumstances, the tragic moments, the horrible conflicts of personality. His figures have that capability of suffering which (as someone has said) is the true sign of life. They seem like real people, dazed and uncertain. No action of theirs ever surprises you, because in each of them he has made you hear an inward soliloquy.—From Turgenev and the Life-Illusion, in The Fortnightly Review (April, 1910).

V

BY MAURICE BARING

Turgenev did for Russian literature what Byron did for English literature; he led the genius of Russia on a pilgrimage throughout all Europe. And in Europe his work reaped a glorious harvest of praise. Flaubert was astounded by him, George Sand looked up to him as to a master, Taine spoke of his work as being the finest artistic production since Sophocles. In Turgenev's work, Europe not only discovered Turgenev, but it discovered Russia, the simplicity and the naturalness of the Russian character; and this came as a revelation. For the first time Europe came across the Russian woman whom Pushkin was the first to paint; for the first time Europe came into contact with the Russian soul; and it was the sharpness of this revelation which accounts for the fact of Turgenev having received in the west an even greater meed of praise than he was perhaps entitled to.

In Russia Turgenev attained almost instant popularity. His Sportsman's Sketches and his Nest of Gentlefolk made him not only famous but universally popular. In 1862 the publication of his masterpiece Fathers and Children dealt his reputation a blow. The revolutionary elements in Russia regarded his hero, Bazarov, as a calumny and a libel; whereas the reactionary elements in Russia looked upon Fathers and Children as a glorification of Nihilism. Thus he satisfied nobody. He fell between two stools. This, perhaps, could only happen in Russia to this extent; and for that same reason as that which made Russian criticism didactic. The conflicting elements of Russian society were so terribly in earnest in fighting their cause, that anyone whom they did not regard as definitely for them was at once considered an enemy, and an impartial delineation of any character concerned in the political struggle was bound to displease both parties. If a novelist drew a Nihilist, he must be one or the other, a hero or a scoundrel, if either the revolutionaries or the reactionaries were to be pleased. If in England the militant suffragists suddenly had a huge mass of educated opinion behind them and a still larger mass of educated public opinion against them, and some one were to draw in a novel an impartial picture of a suffragette, the same thing would happen. On a small scale, as far as the suffragettes are concerned, it has happened in the case of Mr. Wells. But if Turgenev's popularity suffered a shock in Russia from which it with difficulty recovered, in western Europe it went on increasing. Especially in England, Turgenev became the idol of all that was eclectic, and admiration for Turgenev a hallmark of good taste....

Fathers and Children is as beautifully constructed as a drama of Sophocles; the events move inevitably to a tragic close. There is not a touch of banality from beginning to end, and not an unnecessary word; the portraits of the old father and mother, the young Kirsanov, and all the minor characters are perfect; and amidst the trivial crowd Bazarov stands out like Lucifer, the strongest—the only strong character—that Turgenev created, the first Nihilist—for if Turgenev was not the first to invent the word, he was the first to apply it in this sense.

Bazarov is the incarnation of the Lucifer type that recurs again and again in Russian history and fiction, in sharp contrast to the meek, humble type of Ivan Durak. Lermontov's Pechorin was in some respects an anticipation of Bazarov; so were the many Russian rebels. He is the man who denies, to whom art is a silly toy, who detests abstractions, knowledge, and the love of Nature; he believes in nothing; he bows to nothing; he can break, but he cannot bend; he does break, and that is the tragedy, but, breaking, he retains his invincible pride, and

not cowardly puts off his helmet,

and he dies valiantly vanquished.

In the pages which describe his death Turgenev reaches the high-water mark of his art, his moving quality, his power, his reserve. For manly pathos they rank among the greatest scenes in literature, stronger than the death of Colonel Newcome and the best of Thackeray. Among English novelists it is, perhaps, only Meredith who has struck such strong, piercing chords, nobler than anything in Daudet or Maupassant, more reserved than anything in Victor Hugo, and worthy of the great poets, of the tragic pathos of Goethe and Dante. The character of Bazarov, as has been said, created a sensation and endless controversy. The revolutionaries thought him a caricature and a libel, the reactionaries a scandalous glorification of the Devil; and impartial men such as Dostoevsky, who knew the revolutionaries at first hand, thought the type unreal. It is impossible that Bazarov was not like the Nihilists of the sixties; but in any case as a figure in fiction, whatever the fact may be, he lives and will continue to live....—From An Outline of Russian Literature (1914).

LIST OF CHARACTERS

NIKOLAI PETROVITCH KIRSANOV, a landowner.

PAVEL PETROVITCH KIRSANOV, his brother.

ARKADY (ARKASHA) NIKOLAEVITCH (or NIKOLAITCH), his son.

YEVGENY (ENYUSHA) VASSILYEVITCH (or VASSILYITCH) BAZAROV, friend of Arkady.

VASSILY IVANOVITCH (or IVANITCH), father of Bazarov.

ARINA VLASYEVNA, mother of Bazarov.

FEDOSYA (FENITCHKA) NIKOLAEVNA, second wife of Nikolai.

ANNA SERGYEVNA ODINTSOV, a wealthy widow.

KATYA SERGYEVNA, her sister.

PORFIRY PLATONITCH, her neighbor.

MATVY ILYITCH KOLYAZIN, government commissioner.

EVDOKSYA (or AVDOTYA) NIKITISHNA KUKSHIN, an emancipated lady.

VIKTOR SITNIKOV, a would-be liberal.

PIOTR (pron. P-yotr), servant to Nikolai.

PROKOFITCH, head servant to Nikolai.

DUNYASHA, a maid servant.

MITYA, infant of Fedosya.

TIMOFEITCH, manager for Vassily.

FATHERS AND CHILDREN

A NOVEL


CHAPTER I

'Well, Piotr,

Enjoying the preview?
Page 1 of 1