The educational experience of Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky was largely formed from the impressions of his childhood years, when his cruel, domineering, stingy father, Mikhail Andreevich, authoritarianly dictated his pedagogical will to his sons. Father engaged with them primarily in natural scientific research (since he was a doctor), read to them “The History of the Russian State” by Karamzin, the Gospel, and the lives of saints. From childhood, the writer perceived the authority of his father as something strong, indestructible and not even amenable to discussion. Subsequently, he admitted to his brother Mikhail that people like their father were difficult to find: “after all, they were real, genuine people.” He adhered to this opinion despite everything - despite the cruel character of his father, despite his tyranny in relation to the peasants, for which he was killed by them. And yet, all his life, Fyodor Mikhailovich, who believed in the theory of heredity according to his father, was afraid to adopt his negative qualities.
It would seem that after his difficult childhood, after difficult studies at the Engineering School, life after hard labor and very complex personal stories, fate did not foretell a happy family for the writer. But, largely thanks to the character, love, dedication of his last wife Anna Grigorievna, family life Things worked out for Fyodor Mikhailovich after all.
Anna Grigorievna and Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky
After getting married, the Dostoevskys went abroad. Their first daughter* was born and died there. Anna Grigorievna became pregnant again, about which one of his friends wittily writes to Dostoevsky: “I’m glad, first of all, that you finished the novel “The Idiot.” And the second is that Anna Grigorievna also began to think about the novel. And she herself cannot say which one, although she will think about it for 9 months. Where will Anna Grigorievna’s novel be born?”
Apparently, this “novel”, the first surviving child, was destined to be born in Florence. But nevertheless this did not happen. When his wife’s “romance” was approaching “completion,” Dostoevsky became worried. He didn’t know Italian, so he began to think: if his wife went into labor and lost consciousness, he would not be able to communicate with the doctors. And the Dostoevskys left for Germany - Dostoevsky spoke German well, even translated Schiller’s “The Robbers”.
Daughter Lyubov Fedorovna was born in Dresden in 1869. And in 1871, already in St. Petersburg, a son, Fedor, was born.
Dostoevsky the teacher: “With love, buy the hearts of our children”
At that time, in the 70s of the 19th century, Dostoevsky as famous author works about children (in particular, “Netochka Nezvanova”, “ Little hero", etc.) many parents began to contact and school teachers, which served as one of the impetuses for the publication of the “Diary of a Writer,” where many pages are devoted to education. While creating the Diary, Dostoevsky was interested in the situation of children in factories, visited educational homes, colonies for minors, critically assessed the education system in them and made recommendations.
In Dostoevsky’s prose and journalism one can see what the author considered to be the main vices of upbringing. First of all, the disdainful attitude of adults towards the inner world of the child, which never goes unnoticed by the child. Next is the excessive importunity of adults that irritates children. Then comes bias, leading to erroneous conclusions about the child’s character. He condemns cruelty to children, the suppression of any originality in them. Dostoevsky especially condemns flirting with children, blind love for them and the desire to make everything easier for the child. And he concludes:
“First of all, we need to buy the hearts of our children with love, we need to give the child the sun, a bright example and at least a drop of love for him... We teach, and they make us better just by one contact with them. We must become closer to them in soul every hour.”
Dostoevsky allows punishment, but no punishment should be accompanied by a loss of faith in the possibility of correcting the child.
The main pedagogy is the parental home. The writer sees the core of the problem here:
“In our families, the highest goals of life are almost never mentioned, and the idea of immortality is not only not thought of at all, but is even too often treated satirically - and this is all in front of children, from a very early age...”
Therefore, education and upbringing according to Dostoevsky is not only science, but also “spiritual light that illuminates the soul, enlightens the heart, guides the mind and shows it the way.” Therefore, the writer especially sharply criticized contemporary pedagogy, which gives rise to atheists, “Svidrigailovs,” “Stavrogins,” and “Nechaevs.”
Dostoevsky was also interested in public education. He believed that it should not go against religious beliefs, because “It is important to preserve tenderness and a heartfelt religious feeling in society”. In his “intuitive” pedagogy, Dostoevsky foresaw many important provisions for modern pedagogy. He spoke about the role of heredity in the formation spiritual appearance person, about the developmental and educational nature of education, about the influence speech development child on his thinking abilities.
Dostoevsky the father: “I tremble for the children and their fate”
It is unlikely that Dostoevsky the father somehow systematized his pedagogical methods and principles. For him, pedagogy has always been living, effective, and practical. His upbringing of his stepson Pavel (the son of his first wife Isaeva) was unsuccessful. The young man was ungrateful, arrogant, and disdainful of his stepfather, despite the fact that Dostoevsky, even with his difficult financial situation, helped him financially whenever possible. Therefore, the father tried to make every effort to ensure that the education of his own children achieved its goal.
Fyodor and Lyubov Dostoevsky
He started doing them too early, when most fathers still keep their children in the nursery. He probably knew that he was not destined to see Lyuba and Fedya grow up, and he hurried to plant good thoughts and feelings in their receptive souls.
For this purpose, he chose the same means that his father had previously chosen - reading great writers. Daughter Lyubov remembered the first one literary evenings which their father regularly arranged for them:
“One autumn evening in Staraya Russa, when the rain was pouring down in torrents and yellow leaves covered the ground, my father announced to us that he would read Schiller’s “The Robbers” aloud to us(in its own translation, presumably - Yu.D.). I was seven years old at that time, and my brother was barely six years old. The mother wished to be present at this first reading. Dad read with enthusiasm, sometimes stopping to explain a difficult expression to us. But since sleep took possession of me the more, the more ferocious the Moore brothers became, I frantically opened my poor tired children’s eyes as wide as possible, and brother Fyodor completely unceremoniously fell asleep... When my father looked at his audience, he fell silent, burst out laughing and began to laugh at himself . “They can’t understand this, they are still too young,” he told his mother sadly. Poor father! He hoped to experience with us the delight that Schiller's dramas aroused in him; he forgot that he was twice our age when he could appreciate them himself!”
The writer read Pushkin’s stories, Lermontov’s Caucasian poems, and “Taras Bulba” to children. After their literary taste was more or less developed, he began to read to them poems by Pushkin and Alexei Tolstoy, the two Russian poets whom he loved most. Dostoevsky read them amazingly, and in particular one of them he could not read without tears - Pushkin’s poem “Poor Knight”.
The writer’s family did not neglect the theater. In Russia at that time it was customary for parents to take their children to ballet. Dostoevsky was not a fan of ballet and never attended it. He preferred opera. He himself really loved Glinka’s opera “Ruslan and Lyudmila” and instilled this love in his children.
When his father left or his work did not allow him to do it himself, he asked his wife to read to the children the works of Walter Scott and Dickens - this “great Christian,” as he calls him in “The Diary of a Writer.” During lunch, he asked the children about their impressions and reconstructed entire episodes from these novels.
Dostoevsky loved to pray with his whole family. During Holy Week he fasted, went to church twice a day, and put off all literary work. I really loved the Easter night service. Children usually did not attend this service filled with great joy. But the writer certainly wanted to show his daughter this wondrous service when she was barely nine years old. He placed her on a chair so she could see better and lifted her high in his arms as he explained what was happening.
Dostoevsky the father cared not only about the spiritual, but also about the material condition of the children. In 1879, shortly before his death (+1881), he wrote to his wife about purchasing the estate:
“I keep thinking, my dear, about my death myself and about what I will leave you and the children with... You don’t like villages, but I have every conviction that the village is capital, which will triple by the age of the children, and that the one who owns land and participates in political power over the state. This is the future of our children... I tremble for the children and for their fate.”
Daughter Lyubov lived with her father for 11 years, until his death. One day her father wrote her the following letter:
“My dear angel, I kiss you and bless you and love you very much. Thank you for writing me letters, I will read and kiss them. And I’ll think about you every time I receive it.”
“Listen to your mother and don’t quarrel with Fedya. Don't forget to both study. I pray to God for you all and ask Him for your health. Give my regards to the priest (a friend of Dostoevsky, an old priest, Father John Rumyantsev. - Yu.D.). Goodbye, dear Lilichka, I love you very much.”
Writer Markevich recalls the day of Dostoevsky’s funeral:
"Two children(Luba 11 years old, Fedya 9 years old – Yu.D.) They hurriedly and fearfully crossed themselves on their knees. The girl, in a desperate impulse, rushed to me, grabbed my hand: “Pray, I ask you, pray for dad, so that if he had sins, God would forgive him.” She spoke with some amazing childish expression.”
At Dostoevsky's grave. In the center: A.G. Dostoevskaya and the writer’s children - Fyodor and Lyubov
Lyubov Fedorovna Dostoevskaya: Find happiness...
Living and creating under the shadow of a genius is difficult. Lyubov Fedorovna also dared to become a writer, but her attempt failed. She wrote three novels, which she published at her own expense. These works were received rather coldly and were never republished. Someone suggested that she take a pseudonym, but she refused and tried to conquer the literary Olympus under the name Dostoevskaya, probably not realizing what temptations this was associated with.
She was often sick and never had a family. She left Russia before the revolution and was treated in Europe. Her only significant contribution to literature is big book memories of my father. These memories became the main work of her life. Certain excerpts of this book were published in the USSR in the 20s of the 20th century - but only biographical information about her father, Dostoevsky’s genealogy, and her thoughts on the revolution, naturally, were removed by Soviet censorship.
The questionnaire filled out by her, still an 18-year-old girl, is very revealing. Here are some answers from it:
— What goal do you pursue in life?
- Find happiness on earth and do not forget about the future life.
- What is happiness?
- In a calm conscience.
- What is the misfortune?
- In self-deprecation and suspicious character.
- How long would you like to live?
- As long as possible.
—What death would you like to die?
- left unanswered.
—What virtue is the most important for you?
- Sacrifice yourself for others.
— Your favorite writer?
- Dostoevsky.
—Where would you like to live?
- Where there is more sun...
She spent her last years in Italy, where she died at the age of 56 in 1926.
Fyodor Fyodorovich Dostoevsky: Save and continue
Dostoevsky's son Fyodor graduated from the law and natural sciences faculties of Dorpat University and became a major horse breeder. He had a love for horses since childhood. My father wrote about little Fed:
“Fechka asks to go for a walk too, but you can’t even think about it. He grieves and cries. I show him the horses through the window when they’re driving, he’s terribly interested and loves horses, shouts whoa.”
Fyodor Fedorovich, apparently, adopted vanity and the desire to excel from his grandfather, Mikhail Andreevich. At the same time, attempts to prove oneself literary field soon disappointed him. However, according to some contemporaries, he had abilities, but it was precisely the label “son of the writer Dostoevsky” that prevented him from revealing them.
In 1918, after the death of his mother, who was kicked out of her dacha by a watchman and spent her last days in a Yalta hotel, Fyodor Fedorovich came to Crimea and, risking his life (he was almost shot by security officers who decided that he was smuggling), took the archive to Moscow father.
Fedor Fedorovich died in 1921. His son, Andrei Fedorovich Dostoevsky, became the only successor of the direct line of descendants of the great writer.
Dostoevsky's children did not become geniuses and outstanding personalities: They say nature rests on children. Yes and world history does not know the duplication of geniuses in one family, from generation to generation. Geniuses are born once every century. It was the same with Tolstoy’s children - many of them wrote and left memoirs, but who remembers them today, except literary scholars and admirers of the great old man’s work? Lyuba and Fedya undoubtedly grew up to be decent and responsible people. And in such a “scattered” fate of Lyubov and Fyodor, of course, those storms and thunderstorms that swept over Russia at the beginning of the 20th century and which their father, the great writer-prophet, foresaw and predicted back in the 19th century were largely to blame.
In the end, at God's judgment we will be asked not for what we left behind, but for the kind of people we were. In this regard, I am sure that Dostoevsky’s children have something to justify themselves to the Almighty.
Fyodor Fedorovich Dostoevsky, Anna Grigorievna Dostoevskaya, Lyubov Fedorovna Dostoevskaya
Note:
*Another child of the Dostoevskys, youngest son, did not live to be three years old and died in 1878. Fyodor Mikhailovich was very worried early death two of their children.
Turgenev’s work “Fathers and Sons” caused a wide resonance. Many articles, parodies in the form of poetry and prose, epigrams and caricatures were written. And of course, the main object of this criticism was the image of the main acting character- Evgenia Bazarova. The appearance of the novel was a significant event in the cultural life of that time. But Turgenev’s contemporaries were not at all unanimous in their assessment of his work.
Relevance
Criticism of "Fathers and Sons" contained large number disagreements that reached the most polar judgments. And this is not surprising, because in the central characters of this work the reader can feel the breath of an entire era. The preparation of peasant reform, the deepest social contradictions of that time, the struggle of social forces - all this was reflected in the images of the work and formed its historical background.
The controversy among critics surrounding the novel “Fathers and Sons” lasted for many years, and at the same time the fuse did not become weaker. It became obvious that the novel retained its problematics and topicality. The work reveals one of the most important characteristic features Turgenev himself is the ability to see the trends that are emerging in society. The great Russian writer managed to capture in his work the struggle of two camps - “fathers” and “children”. In fact, it was a confrontation between liberals and democrats.
Bazarov is the central character
Turgenev’s laconic style is also striking. After all, the writer was able to fit all this enormous material into the framework of one novel. Bazarov is involved in 26 of the 28 chapters of the work. Everyone else characters group around him, reveal themselves in relationships with him, and also make the character traits of the main character even more prominent. The work does not cover Bazarov’s biography. Only one period from his life is taken, filled with turning events and moments.
Details in the work
A student who needs to prepare his own critique of Fathers and Sons can note brief and apt details in the work. They allow the writer to clearly draw the character of the characters and the events described in the novel. With the help of such strokes, Turgenev depicts the crisis of serfdom. The reader can see “villages with low huts under dark, often half-swept roofs.” This speaks of the poverty of life. Perhaps the peasants have to feed hungry cattle with straw from the roofs. “Peasant cows” are also depicted as skinny and emaciated.
In the future, Turgenev no longer paints a picture rural life, however, at the beginning of the work it is described so vividly and demonstratively that it is impossible to add anything to it. The heroes of the novel are worried about the question: this region does not amaze with either wealth or hard work, and it needs reforms and transformations. However, how can they be fulfilled? Kirsanov says that the government should take some measures. All the hopes of this hero are on patriarchal morals and the people's community.
A brewing riot
However, the reader feels: if the people do not trust the landowners and are hostile towards them, this will inevitably result in a rebellion. And the picture of Russia on the eve of reforms is completed by the author’s bitter remark, dropped as if by chance: “Nowhere does time fly as quickly as in Russia; in prison, they say, it runs even faster.”
And against the background of all these events, the figure of Bazarov emerges for Turgenev. He represents a man of a new generation who must replace the “fathers” who are unable to resolve the difficulties and problems of the era on their own.
Interpretation and criticism by D. Pisarev
After the release of the work “Fathers and Sons,” it began to be heatedly discussed in the press. It almost immediately acquired a polemical character. For example, in a magazine called " Russian word“In 1862, D. Pisarev’s article “Bazarov” appeared. The critic noted a bias in relation to the description of the image of Bazarov, said that in many cases Turgenev does not show goodwill towards his hero, because he has antipathy towards this direction thoughts.
However, Pisarev's general conclusion is not limited to this problem. He finds in the image of Bazarov a combination of the main aspects of the worldview of common democracy, which Turgenev was able to portray quite truthfully. And Turgenev’s own critical attitude towards Bazarov in this regard is rather an advantage. After all, from the outside, both advantages and disadvantages become more noticeable. According to Pisarev, Bazarov’s tragedy lies in the fact that he does not have suitable conditions for his activities. And since Turgenev does not have the opportunity to show how he lives main character, he shows the reader how he dies.
It should be noted that Pisarev rarely expressed his admiration for literary works. He can just be called a nihilist - a subverter of values. However, Pisarev emphasizes the aesthetic significance of the novel and Turgenev’s artistic sensitivity. At the same time, the critic is convinced that a true nihilist, like Bazarov himself, must deny the value of art as such. Pisarev's interpretation is considered one of the most complete in the 60s.
Opinion of N. N. Strakhov
“Fathers and Sons” caused a wide resonance in Russian criticism. In 1862, an interesting article by N. N. Strakhov also appeared in the magazine “Time,” which was published under the publication of F. M. and M. M. Dostoevsky. Nikolai Nikolaevich was a state councilor, publicist, and philosopher, so his opinion was considered weighty. The title of Strakhov’s article was “I. S. Turgenev. "Fathers and Sons". The critic's opinion was quite positive. Strakhov was convinced that the work was one of best novels Turgenev, in which the writer was able to demonstrate all his skill. Strakhov regards the image of Bazarov as extremely typical. What Pisarev considered a completely random misunderstanding (“He bluntly denies things that he does not know or does not understand”), Strakhov perceived as one of the most essential features of a true nihilist.
In general, N. N. Strakhov was pleased with the novel, wrote that the work is read with greed and is one of the most interesting creations of Turgenev. This critic also noted that “pure poetry” comes to the fore in it, and not extraneous reflections.
Criticism of the work “Fathers and Sons”: Herzen’s view
In Herzen’s work entitled “Once More Bazarov” the main emphasis is not on Turgenev’s hero, but on the way in which he was understood by Pisarev. Herzen wrote that in Bazarov Pisarev was able to recognize himself, and also add what was missing in the book. In addition, Herzen compares Bazarov with the Decembrists and comes to the conclusion that they are “great fathers,” while the “Bazarovs” are the “prodigal children” of the Decembrists. In his article, Herzen compares nihilism with logic without structures, or with scientific knowledge without theses.
Criticism of Antonovich
Some critics spoke quite negatively about the novel “Fathers and Sons”. One of the most critical points of view was put forward by M.A. Antonovich. In his magazine, he published an article entitled “Asmodeus of Our Time,” which was dedicated to Turgenev’s work. In it, Antonovich completely denied the work “Fathers and Sons” any artistic merit. He was completely dissatisfied with the work of the great Russian writer. The critic accused Turgenev of slandering the new generation. He believed that the novel was written as a reproach and instruction to young people. And Antonovich was also glad that Turgenev finally revealed his true face, showing himself as an opponent of all progress.
Opinion of N. M. Katkov
Also interesting is the criticism of “Fathers and Sons” by Turgenev, written by N. M. Katkov. He published his opinion in the Russian Messenger magazine. Literary critic noted the talent of the great Russian writer. Katkov saw one of the special advantages of Katkov’s work in the fact that Turgenev was able to “catch the current moment,” the stage at which he was contemporary to the writer society. Katkov considered nihilism a disease that should be fought by strengthening conservative principles in society.
The novel “Fathers and Sons” in Russian criticism: Dostoevsky’s opinion
F. M. Dostoevsky also took a very unique position in relation to the main character. He considered Bazarov a “theoretician” who had become too far removed from real life. And that is why, Dostoevsky believed, Bazarov was unhappy. In other words, he represented a hero close to Raskolnikov. At the same time, Dostoevsky does not strive for a detailed analysis of the theory of Turgenev’s hero. He correctly notes that any abstract theory must inevitably crash against the realities of life, and therefore bring torment and suffering to a person. Soviet critics believed that Dostoevsky reduced the problems of the novel to a complex of an ethical and psychological nature.
General impression of contemporaries
In general, the criticism of Turgenev's Fathers and Sons was largely negative character. Many writers were dissatisfied with Turgenev’s work. The Sovremennik magazine reviewed it as a libel on modern society. Adherents of conservatism were also not sufficiently satisfied, since it seemed to them that Turgenev had not fully revealed the image of Bazarov. D. Pisarev was one of the few who this work I liked it. In Bazarovo he saw powerful personality, which has serious potential. The critic wrote about such people that they, seeing their dissimilarity with the general mass, boldly move away from it. And they don’t care at all whether society agrees to follow them. They are full of themselves and their own inner life.
The criticism of “Fathers and Sons” is far from exhausted by the responses considered. Almost every Russian writer left his opinion about this novel, in which - one way or another - he expressed his opinion about the problems raised in it. This is what can be called a true sign of the relevance and significance of the work.
Topic: Fathers and sons
F. “Humiliated and Offended”
Family Saga
Parents and their children, the experience of elders and young self-confidence are eternal themes. Who owes whom, who is responsible for whom, who is obliged to take off their hat to whom is an insoluble dispute. In almost every literary work There is a theme of generations: either it’s family, family relationships, or it’s a clash of ages and minds.
What should be the ideal relationship between parents and children? And does this ideal exist in nature? Should parents be responsible for their children? Do children have to be grateful to them all their lives? No matter how many questions are asked, there is an answer to each, but each person has his own, because these questions must be answered not with words, but with life. If someone may not have children, then they definitely have parents (even adopted ones).
Let's look at the relationship between children and parents using the example of the novel “Humiliated and Insulted,” written by Fyodor Dostoevsky immediately after returning from hard labor. There are three parallels of parents and children in this work: old man Smith, his daughter and granddaughter Nellie; the Ikhmenev couple with their daughter Natasha and Prince Valkovsky with their son Alyosha and illegitimate daughter Nellie.
All these people, despite the difference in living standards at the time the events are depicted in the novel, are, in general, from the same circle, they should have approximately the same education, after all, they themselves once had parents, and they were their loved ones children. But what do we see after many years?! What happens to the heart and soul of a person during life?!
So, old man Smith. The narrative of the novel begins with him, or rather, with his death. He was once a very successful breeder, not a millionaire, although he had enough to live on for his beloved daughter. But his treasure had the misfortune of falling in love with a very nasty man who forced her to leave father's house, taking daddy's savings. Smith's daughter and her lover (as it turns out later that this is none other than Prince Valkovsky) are leaving abroad. There he leaves his beloved for another love with money.
Before parting, the prince tries to give money to Smith's daughter, but she throws it in his face, preferring to find refuge with a poor friend, and after the latter's death return to Russia with a little daughter in her arms, without money, without a name, without everything...
So what? loving father Smith? He cursed his daughter long ago; out of resentment and betrayal, he closed his heart and hung such a huge lock on it, which over time rusted, and it’s unlikely that anyone will be able to open it. His daughter is mortally ill with consumption and dies in poverty, his granddaughter asks for alms for food, he himself lives from bread and water, but his pride never allowed him to say goodbye to his living daughter, he resorts to the already cold body.
Despite the fact that Smith, even during his daughter’s life, recognized Nellie as his granddaughter, even invited her to visit, taught her, sometimes treated her to candy and apples, but after the death of her mother he did not invite her to live with him; he died alone, leaving Nellie to the mercy of fate.
What about her real father? What about Prince Valkovsky? Didn't he know about his daughter? I knew but I forgot. She was not in his life, just as the episode with her mother had long been erased from his memory.
But the prince also had a son, Alyosha. Maybe he loved him, cared for him and cherished him? He supplied him with money, but for the rest he made plans: how to marry his son successfully in order to increase his capital. And nothing else mattered. Alyosha has always been an empty place for him, and when the moment comes to take advantage of his son, he cleverly manipulates his feelings, using his weakest character traits.
And the Ikhmenevs had their only and beloved daughter, Natasha. This family is not rich at all, and then Prince Valkovsky is trying to take away their small estate, which he eventually manages to do. The prince took revenge in this way good people for good attitude and because his son fell in love with the daughter of the Ikhmenevs. Although it was Natasha who loved Alyosha.
And for the sake of love, without marriage, she leaves her parents and lives with Alyosha, supported by her. The blow for the parents was great, grief settled in their home, but the love for the daughter who abandoned them did not go away. Despite the fact that Ikhmenev pretends that he does not want to hear about her, that he is ready to curse her, his heart is always with his child. And after a six-month separation, Natasha, left by Alyosha for another, returns to her father’s house, where she is met by loving parents.
Here are three stories of parent-child relationships. How to judge them? Old man Smith never knew the happiness of forgiveness; his daughter, having stolen money from him, for some reason did not take it back from her lover and did not give it to her father, but proudly refused it. In general, both father and daughter are worth each other, only they took away the future from Nellie: the girl, who experienced so many tragedies, hunger and cold, having a very serious heart defect, dies. As a result, an entire family disappeared without forgiving love.
Prince Valkovsky does not love anyone and does not need anyone's love. His son, although not so greedy for money, did not want to take responsibility for Natasha’s love, he simply sincerely took advantage of it. An act worthy of a father. And this family has no future, because there is no family itself. Alyosha, like his father, will someday become simply the biological father of his children - he only knows how to talk about love, but not love.
And all hope rests on the Ikhmenevs. Through troubles and poverty, but with love and forgiveness, this family will live and give love to everyone around them.
|
See also the work "Crime and Punishment"
|
Other materials on the works of Dostoevsky F.M.
|
In the works of Russian writers, two are most vividly written: literary images- this is Evgeny Bazarov and Rodion Raskolnikov. The novels in which these characters appeared were published in 1863 and 1866, respectively. It was a difficult time. On the one hand, the implementation of a number of reforms, the tsar’s promise of a constitution, on the other, disappointment with the reform of 1861, the spread of socialist ideas, and ongoing disputes between Westerners and Slavophiles. It was a period of hope and disappointment, of choosing a future path. In such a contradictory environment, heroes such as Bazarov and Raskolnikov appeared.
The creative style of their creators, I. S. Turgenev and F. M. Dostoevsky, is different, and this determines the ways of depicting literary heroes. If in “Fathers and Sons” the reader recognizes Yevgeny Bazarov mainly by his words and actions, then Raskolnikov in Dostoevsky’s novel - to a greater extent by his spiritual experiences and reflections. The thought is primary, the word is secondary, and therefore the image of Rodion Romanovich is more vibrant, clear and, most importantly, deeper.
What makes Bazarov and Raskolnikov similar and different? Both of them are young people, looking for their place in life, defining their views on it. Bazarov tries his hand at natural science, and Raskolnikov tests himself for being chosen, for belonging to the ranks of superhumans. If the first does not attach any importance to power, then for Rodion this is almost the most important thing in life. Both heroes are extremely proud, only Bazarov, in his pride, strives for freedom, independence from other people’s influence, and Raskolnikov strives for power. Both are guided by their own, rather similar guidelines, since each of them has a system of views and values. Based on their ideas, they perform certain actions.
The beliefs of Bazarov and Raskolnikov are similar in many ways, although this is not immediately obvious. The theories of both imply the division of people into two groups: ordinary and superhumans. Only Bazarov talks about this as if in passing (“It’s really not for the gods to burn pots!”), but for Raskolnikov this idea forms the basis of the entire theory. By the way, both believe that they belong to the second category of people. (For Rodion this is for the time being.)
Bazarov's idea is non-recognition of authorities and principles of the existing system and religion, spiritual and material assets. The essence of Raskolnikov's theory is the recognition of the right of superhumans to commit crimes in the name of a certain goal, and therefore the denial of moral principles. Based on these signs, Bazarov’s views can be called vulgarly materialistic and immoral, and Raskolnikov’s - openly fascist.
Why are Bazarov's ideas immoral? After all, he calls for living according to conscience; he cannot be called an immoral person. Him, Bazarov, yes, but what if there is someone else in Bazarov’s place? Living according to conscience, and not according to laws, is in principle a good slogan, but at the same time reactionary: you never know what a person’s conscience can allow? She allowed Raskolnikov to kill the old woman and Lizaveta. Moreover, what morality of Bazarov’s ideas can we talk about when he himself rejects spiritual values en masse? So these beliefs look less frightening only due to the purity of the soul of the one who shares them. Bazarov can be allowed to live according to this formula, Raskolnikov cannot.
The programs of the two heroes are short-sighted. What will Rodion Romanovich do with his power, what does he need it for? Neither one nor the other has ultimate goals. Neither of them has a positive program: their ideas are based on the denial of something, be it authorities or moral principles. Both Bazarov and Raskolnikov are nihilists, but Dostoevsky went further than Turgenev: he, according to one critic, depicted not only the ideas of nihilism, but its tragedy. Raskolnikov is her victim. It is no coincidence that Ivan Sergeevich “dead” his hero: most likely, he did not see a future in nihilism.
Bazarov and Raskolnikov are rebels, but each of them has their own rebellion! for the first it is revolutionary, for the second it is personal. There is no need to prove the revolutionary nature of Bazarov’s views. The important thing is that his protest was dictated by the injustice that reigned in society. Evgeniy Vasilyevich is confident in the need to change it. Raskolnikov's rebellion is due to poverty and pride. He spoke out not against the structure of society (what does he care about the “anthill”!), but against the oppression of the individual and soul. Therefore, his rebellion is individualistic.
It is interesting that in both cases the protest ended in nothing: Bazarov died, and Raskolnikov experienced mental anguish. Perhaps, with the ending of Fathers and Sons, Turgenev wanted to show the inconsistency of a revolutionary rebellion, and Dostoevsky in his novel wanted to show the harmfulness of any rebellion associated with violence, thereby calling for obedience? Of course, there is some truth here: the consequences of such protest tests can be very sad.
He despises Bazarov, and Raskolnikov hates the people around him, so they both withdrew into themselves, are taciturn, gloomy, lonely, despite the fact that they have comrades and parents. Rodion Romanovich is also simply “crushed by poverty,” which makes him completely gloomy. But sometimes life awakens in these people: for Bazarov - when he fell in love with Odintsova, for Raskolnikov - when he did something for others and when he fell in love with Sonechka. What prevented these two people from changing their status? First of all, commitment to one’s ideas, turning into fanaticism. Bazarov abandoned Odintsova in order to preserve the purity of the life scheme he had built; Raskolnikov could not remain a normal, living person for long while he justified his crime from a theoretical point of view. Detrimental ideas killed love in both cases, and, consequently, life. Bazarov did not renounce his convictions and died, but Raskolnikov repented and “came to life.”
Using the example of the hero of Crime and Punishment, we see what hatred and bitterness do to a person. Bazarov was completely captivated by the study of nature, and Raskolnikov, having the ability to learn, did not even open books in order to study and earn his living by teaching. Bazarov fell in love with Anna Sergeevna, but Raskolnikov, until he repented, did not love Sonechka and could not love him even if he wanted to. Hatred (combined with the poverty it generates) robs a person of the ability to live in society, the desire and love for life in general. This is what happened to Raskolnikov, and this is his punishment.
One more point by which two of these images can be compared should be especially emphasized, because it is in this that lies the tragedy of such people, their inconsistency. This is an attitude towards morality, towards the spiritual principle. Bazarov's opinion on this issue unclear. On the one hand, his phrase “what’s next?”, which has the meaning that spiritual values are more important than material ones. On the other hand, his complete rejection of art and religion. Even love found no place in his views. Bazarov considers the spiritual more important than the earthly, but at the same time does not recognize the spiritual... In this he contradicts himself. Evgeniy encountered this discrepancy in practice (the story with Odintsova), which left him confused, even frightened. Bazarov could not escape the contradictions and died (a very symbolic fact).
Raskolnikov neglected moral principles and committed a crime. What prompted him to do this was probably the fact that everyone did this, everyone sacrificed and thus survived. A split occurred in Raskolnikov’s soul, and a struggle between two opinions began. From the point of view of reason, the crime was justified, from the point of view of morality, it was not. In the end, Raskolnikov realized that everything must be judged from a moral standpoint, and this brought him back to life.
Using the example of two literary heroes- Bazarov and Raskolnikov - we see a picture of the development and decline of nihilism, which has gone from the harmless Bazarov model to the terrible Raskolnikov theory put into practice. The creators of these images revealed the anti-human essence of this phenomenon, its isolation from national roots, its denial and denigration of the entire life of the people, all its aspects, the absence of any ideals in nihilism, the desecration of religion, in which the hero saw only superstitions and prejudices, while a different approach to it is possible.
Bazarov and Raskolnikov are very similar: they have many of the same views on life, characters, they are both capable of doing good, they both find themselves in contradiction, etc. etc. But there are also differences, mainly due to the different living conditions of the heroes. Hence, despair, a heightened sense of justice, and hatred appear in Raskolnikov. All this is missing in Bazarovo. Despite the fallacy of their views (and Raskolnikov’s cruelty), both young men rather evoke not hatred and condemnation, but rather sympathy—sympathy for tragic fate both. They have a lot to learn from: from Bazarov - willpower, the desire for knowledge, from Raskolnikov - the ability to show nobility and compassion in the most difficult moments of life.
The authors of the novels “Fathers and Sons” and “Crime and Punishment” staged different goals, but they also had one thing in common - exposing the vices of anti-humane forms public relations. And the images of Evgeny Bazarov and Rodion Raskolnikov played a big role in achieving this chain, thereby making a great contribution to the cause of humanism.
In the literature of the second half of the nineteenth century, characters appear who belong to a new stratum of society - commoners. The brightest of them are Evgeny Bazarov and Rodion Raskolnikov. The novels in which they appeared were published in 1863 and 1866, respectively. It was a difficult time. On the one hand, the preparation and implementation of a number of reforms, the tsar’s promise of constitutions, on the other, disappointment with the reform of 1861, the spread of socialist ideas and ongoing disputes between Westerners and Slavophiles. It was a time of hope and disappointment, a time of choice. In such a contradictory environment, heroes such as Bazarov and Raskolnikov were born.
Turgenev and Dostoevsky, as artists, are concerned with different aspects of human existence, and this determines the difference between these images. Turgenev is more interested in social relations, clashes of different characters, while Dostoevsky is more interested in the emotional experiences of an individual. Therefore, in “Fathers and Sons” we recognize Yevgeny Bazarov mainly by his words and actions, and Raskolnikov in Dostoevsky’s novel - to a greater extent by his emotional experiences and thoughts.
What makes Bazarov and Raskolnikov similar and different? Both of them, young people, are looking for their place in life, forming their views. Bazarov tries his hand at natural science, and Raskolnikov is interested in man’s place in society. If the first does not attach any importance to power, then for Rodion this is almost the most important thing in life. Both heroes are extremely proud, only Bazarov, in his pride, strives for freedom, independence from other people’s influence, and Raskolnikov strives for power. Both go through life according to some of their own, although rather close, guidelines, since each of them has a value system. Guided by their ideas, they perform certain actions.
The beliefs of Bazarov and Raskolnikov are similar in many ways, although this is not immediately obvious. The theories of both imply the division of people into two groups: ordinary and superhumans. Only Bazarov talks about this as if in passing (“It’s really not for the gods to burn pots!”), but for Raskolnikov this forms the basis of the entire theory. By the way, both believe that they belong to the second category of people. (For Rodion this is for the time being.)
Bazarov's idea is non-recognition of the authorities and principles of the existing system and religion, spiritual and material values. The essence of Raskolnikov's theory is the recognition of the right of superhumans to commit crimes in the name of a certain goal, and therefore the denial of moral principles. Based on this, one can call Bazarov’s views vulgarly materialistic and immoral, and Raskolnikov’s views openly fascist.
Why are Bazarov's ideas immoral? After all, he calls to live according to conscience, because he himself cannot be called an immoral person. Him - yes, but what if someone else were in Bazarov’s place? Living according to one's conscience and not according to laws is, in principle, a good slogan, but at that time, and even now, it was reactionary: you never know what a person's conscience can allow? She allowed Raskolnikov to kill the old woman and Lizaveta. Moreover, what morality of Bazarov’s ideas can we talk about when he himself rejects spiritual values en masse? So these beliefs do not lead to dire consequences only due to the purity of the soul of the one who shares them. Bazarov can be allowed to live according to this formula, but Raskolnikov cannot.
The programs of the two heroes are shortsighted. How far can they go without any valuables? What will Rodion Romanovich do with his power, what is it for him - neither one nor the other has final goals. Neither of them has a positive program: their ideas are based on the denial of something, be it authorities or moral principles. Both Bazarov and Raskolnikov are nihilists, but Dostoevsky went further than Turgenev: he, according to one critic, depicted not only the idea of nihilism and its tragedy. Raskolnikov is her victim. It is no coincidence that Ivan Sergeevich “killed” his hero: most likely, he did not see a future for nihilism.
Bazarov and Raskolnikov are rebels, only each of them has their own rebellion: the first is revolutionary, the second is personal. There is no need to prove the revolutionary nature of Bazarov’s views. The important thing is that his protest is not due to a bad situation in society, but because of the terrible state of society itself. Evgeniy Vasilievich is confident in the need for change.
Raskolnikov’s rebellion came out of poverty and pride; he went not against the structure of society (what does he care about the “anthill”!), but against the oppression of the individual and soul. Therefore, his rebellion is individualistic.
It is interesting that in both cases the protest ended in nothing: Bazarov died, and Raskolnikov experienced mental anguish. Perhaps, with the ending of Fathers and Sons, Turgenev wanted to show the failure of a revolutionary revolt (a liberal!), and Dostoevsky in his novel wanted to show the harmfulness of any rebellion associated with violence, thereby generally calling for obedience. Of course, there is some truth here: the consequences of such protests can be very sad.
He despises Bazarov, and Raskolnikov simply hates the people around him, so they both withdraw into themselves, are taciturn, gloomy, lonely, despite the fact that they have comrades and parents. Rodion Romanovich is also simply “crushed by poverty,” which makes him completely gloomy. But sometimes life awakens in these people: for Bazarov - when he fell in love with Odintsova, for Raskolnikov - when he did something for others and when he fell in love with Sonechka. What prevented these two people from remaining like this forever? First of all, commitment to your ideas, turning into stubbornness and fanaticism. Bazarov abandoned Odintsova in order to preserve the purity of the life scheme he had built; Raskolnikov could not remain a normal, living person for long while he was justifying his crime. In both cases, harmful ideas killed love, and therefore life. Bazarov did not renounce his convictions and died. Raskolnikov repented and “came to life.”
Using the example of the hero of Crime and Punishment, we see what hatred and bitterness do to a person. Bazarov poured his soul into the knowledge of nature, and Raskolnikov, having the ability to learn, did not even open books in order to study and earn his living from lessons. Bazarov loved Anna Sergeevna. Raskolnikov, until he repented, could not love Sonechka, even if he wanted to. Hatred (combined with and generated by poverty) robs a person of the ability to live in society, the desire and love for life in general. This is what happened to Raskolnikov, and this is his punishment.
One more point on which we can compare these two images: it should be especially noted, because it is in this that lies the tragedy of these people, their inconsistency. This is an attitude towards morality, towards the spiritual principle. Bazarov's opinion on this issue is unclear. On the one hand, his phrase “what’s next?”, implying that spiritual values are more important than material ones. On the other hand, his complete rejection of art and religion. Even love found no place in his views. Bazarov considers the spiritual more important than the earthly, but at the same time does not recognize the spiritual itself. In this he contradicts himself. Evgeniy encountered this discrepancy in practice (the story with Odintsova), which left him confused, almost frightened. Bazarov did not get out of these contradictions and died. I often talk about his death because I consider this moment deeply symbolic.
Raskolnikov neglected moral principles and committed a crime. What prompted him to do this was probably the fact that everyone did this, everyone sacrificed and thus survived. There was a split in his soul, a struggle between two opinions: from the point of view of reason, calculation, theory, the crime was justified, from the point of view of morality - not. In the end, he realized that everything must be judged from a moral standpoint, and this brought him back to life.
Using the example of two literary heroes - Bazarov and Raskolnikov - we see a picture of the development and decline of nihilism, which has gone from the harmless Bazarov model to the terrible Raskolnikov model. The creators of these images revealed the inhumane essence of this phenomenon, its isolation from national roots, its denial and denigration of the entire life of the people, all its aspects, the absence of any ideals in nihilism, the desecration of religion, in which he saw only superstitions and prejudices, then how a broader approach to it is possible.
Bazarov and Raskolnikov are very similar: they have many of the same views on life, characters, they are both capable of doing good, both are contradictory natures. But there are also differences, mainly due to the different living conditions of the two heroes. Hence, despair, a heightened sense of justice, and hatred appear in Raskolnikov. All this is missing in Bazarovo. Despite the erroneousness of their views (and Raskolnikov’s cruelty), both young men rather evoke not hatred and condemnation, but sympathy - sympathy for the tragic fate of both. There is a lot to learn from them: from Bazarov - willpower, the desire for knowledge, from Raskolnikov - the ability to show nobility and compassion in the most difficult moments of life.
The goals of the novels “Fathers and Sons” and “Crime and Punishment” were different, but there was one thing in common - to expose the vices of inhumane forms of social relations. And the images of Evgeny Bazarov and Rodion Raskolnikov played a big role in achieving this chain.
