Bazarov - yesterday and today

Alexander Genis: In the rapidly approaching 2018, Russian literature will celebrate the 200th anniversary of one of the pillars of its canon - Turgenev. Ahead is hot disputes about the place of classic in tradition from the point of view of today. But for now - on the eve of the big anniversary - Ach will celebrate the modest anniversary: the 155th anniversary of the living novel “Fathers and Children” with his unlucking hero Bazarov. The discussion about him, which had begun a century and a half ago did not stop all this time. Rather, on the contrary: today this image again symbolizes the split between two generations, this time Soviet and post -Soviet. This is the framework of the author’s section “History of Reading” we are talking with Boris Mikhailovich Paramonov.

Boris Paramonov: For me, Alexander Alexandrovich, from the school years “Fathers and Children”, if not a favorite book, then certainly - a beloved hero, bazarov. He could not help but like the teenager. At this age, boys are made ruff, looking for all confrontations. In this sense, the bazaars himself is a teenager himself, in any case, this can be perceived by young readers.

For the first time I read the novel precisely when for me he ended up in the school curriculum, that is, in the ninth grade, and read, oddly enough, in the school ackhelm, although Turgenev was at home from an early age of China. It was read, I must say, without particular interest, without excitement, all these “Asi” and “first love”. Not to mention the “notes of the hunter”, which then seemed boring then. I don’t know why I passed Bazarov then. Or maybe he didn’t pass, but he did not make an impression on a ten -year -old, and in the ninth grade, at sixteen, it was just what was needed. Bazarov in the novel is one against all: and this is just the existential position of the teenager. And it is not surprising that it was precisely the adolescence critic, Pisarev, so the novel praised, while others from the same camp-the so-called revolutionary democrats-considered themselves the offended by Bazarov, saw in it a slander for the young generation.

The Roster from “Contemporary” Antonovich wrote a completely indecent article, demonstrating the whole deep unculture of the then radicals. It was evident that he didn’t do not understand anything, but simply did not see in the novel. For example, he argued that Bazarov is a gambler, a glutton and a drunkard, simply because in different places of the novel he plays with a priest (by the way, he loses two with half a year), drinks champagne at Kukshina, and, of course, has lunch more than once. The amazing wretchedness of the Revdemocrat.

Alexander Genis: At the school, I remembered, they said that Chernyshevsky then moved away from literary criticism, Dobrolyubov had already died, so there was no one except Antonovich, and he, they say, is not such a genius as these two.

Boris Paramonov: Chernyshevsky was still an aesthetic who said that a real apple was better painted because it can be eaten. It is truly said: "Or for you Apollo Belvedere is worse than a stove pot?"

We were again told at school that this is not against art in general, but against the so -called art for art, self -sufficient aesthetism. By the way, Antonovich in that oak article also pretended to be a connoisseur of the beautiful and recalled Al -Goethe: we, they say, were not against art, and then Turgenev once again slandered the young generation, forcing Bazarov to deny Raphael and others. And Pisarev Mitya, too, was a kind of art in an article about Bazarov: they say, there is no reason to deny art, if it in a pleasant way acts on the optic and auditory nerves, that is, it has some taste, it seems like to drink a glass of vodka: both is pleasant that vodka, that Raphael. Strakhov Nikolai Nikolaevich highlighted this place with Pisarev: what a defender of art! For him, Pushkin, that vodka.

Alexander Genis: They didn’t tell us about the insurance at school, no one knew such a name, but now, I see, on the Internet, school works about “fathers and children”, in which fears are very actively mentioned.

Boris Paramonov: Well, thank God, at least something for the better. The article of the insurance placed in Dostoevsky’s journal “Time” is very convincingly explained why the advanced youth then was indignant at Bazarov, did not understand the novel, found him slander for “children”, that is, for young contemporaries. Strakhov says that in the novel there is no sermon, no imposed system of views, and our young society cannot live without such hints, he needs to chew some ideology and put in his mouth. It is not able to evaluate the independent aesthetic virtues of a work of art.

By the way, I Alexander Alexandrovich, now re-reading “Fathers and Children” with some surprise I found that Bazarov is by no means an ideologist (if Bakhtin), does not drop by at all or under the program of some particularly smart thoughts. True, he himself says that we are not engaged in preaching. He delights the sensitive reader with his thoughts, but style, manner of behavior and speech. These words were remembered and delighted: “The art of making money or not more hemorrhoids”; About the artists: “They do nonsense, and Rafael is not worth a copper penny”; Or: “It’s so sick that I read Gogol’s letters to the Kaluga governor.” And his ideology is just emphasized and not. This is the most outraged by the then leftists. Here, I am even ready to admit, Turgenev made a mistake, from the very beginning, announcing Bazarov by the nihilist. We, they say, deny everything. This is not convincing, too chubby.

Alexander Genis: But here, Boris Mikhailovich, it is important that such a statement does not Bazarov, but his younger student Arkady Kirsanov, this inappropriate enthusiasm is given not to the teacher, but to the neophyte, which simplifies the way of Bazarov’s thoughts. Bazarova should judge readers, and not his epigones, including, by the way, Pisarev, whom I, however, love, but not for that.

Caricature for the novel "Fathers and Children"

Boris Paramonov: That's right, and after all, we note: further this word is not mentioned at all, the word “nihilist”. As if he was not there. Only Odintsova asks: is it true that you deny everything? And this universal denial can be interpreted in the sense that Bazarov’s positive program cannot be stated simply for censorship reasons. Turgenev said in letters: if I say a nihilist, then the revolutionary should be understood. But the word itself was launched and acquired inadequate resonance. The youth was indignant, and the retrogrades joyfully laughed. Avdotya Panaeva in memories: what does the nihilist mean? Yes, just a switter! - This is how she gives an example of the perception of the novel by conservatives.

And in the same connection you can put the main plot of the narrative: a random and somehow not motivated death of Bazarov.

Alexander Genis: At the same time, just the dying Bazarov creates the most powerful impression, this is the most expressive demonstrations of the power of this hero.

Boris Paramonov: Oh yes, of course. But there is such a bitter truth about writing: the writer kills the hero when he has nothing more to do with him. Indeed, how could Turgenev talk about Bazarov’s activities, when no activity was noticed in society itself. The novel was released in 1862, four years before the shot of Karakozov.

Alexander Genis: Well, Tolstoy, let’s put, death. Beloved heroes, so. Like Bolkonsky, he gives a smart, meaningful death. Bazarov - also dies not in vain, in any case - for the novel.

But about something else. Boris Mikhailovich, you think you will not argue with one supervision. It is known that many readers who are cool related to Turgenev make an exception for “fathers and children”, everyone likes this novel. How would you explain this?

Boris Paramonov: He is primarily out of the general tone, from Turgenev’s tonality. Turgenev writer is soft, internally sentimental and this sentimentality is trying to refute various kinds of sarcastic remarks, attempts by irony that he fails. The satirical Turgenev is even weaker than Turgenev sentimental. And in "Fathers and Children" a completely different tone and another hero. The hero of Turgenev is an excess person, a weak man, and the bazarov is strong. This again noted this, Strakhov noted, and not even with respect to Turgenev, but all of Russian literature: a strong hero, an integral active nature, appeared in Bazarov in it for the first time. And I would say that in Bazarov Turgenev made an attempt to self -enforcement, he himself wanted to appear strong.

Alexander Genis: Why, then, did he not continue the relevant experiments? Why are “fathers and children” so the river stands out from the entire Turgenev canon?

Boris Paramonov: And he was afraid of the negative reaction of just the youth that he tried to win. A weak man was, he was looking for popularity, in front of the boy Pisarev, he broke his hat. It is most reminiscent of Yevtushenko from the current. Kataev told him: Zhenya, do not write poems that like the liberal intelligentsia. And he just wrote these most often, longing for fame. And why they have such glory, if they do not understand the most important, “fathers and children” did not understand.

Alexander Genis: But still, Boris Mikhailovich, you will not compare the current liberal intelligentsia and identify with the then nihilists.

Boris Paramonov: Of course not. In general, in Russia there are no best people than liberal intellectuals. This and Chekhov understood, trying to reach the heart of power with his Sakhalin trip.

This is like Valerie’s field asked: who is the best poet of France? And he answered: alas, Hugo.

But what else I want to say, A.A. Turgenev, having written a strong hero, did this partly from the requirements of a certain self -therapy. In himself he wanted to overcome liberal slack. Of course, he does not identify with Bazarov, where is it there, but he is ready to admire them if not, then get carried away. And the self -image of Turgenev in "Fathers and Children" do you know where?

Alexander Genis: Pyotr Pavlovich Kirsanov?

Boris Paramonov: No, Odintsova. She seems to go towards Bazarov, but stops, scared. Like, it is not known how it could end. Odintsova in the novel is also sluggish, most striving to maintain his calm. She is very pleased to bask in a clean bed, in fragrant lingerie. This, in essence, is Turgenev.