Two Hamlets: Questioning Romanticism In Turgenev’s
Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences 9 (2015 8) 1792-1802 УДК 82.091:72.035Two Hamlets: Questioning Romanticismin Turgenev’s Bazarovand Sleptsov’s RiazanovWilliam C. Brumfield*Tulane UniversityNew Orleans, Louisiana, USAReceived 18.04.2015, received in revised form 22.06.2015, accepted 30.08.2015The article examines the presentation of the protagonist as alienated radical activist in the novelsОтцы и дети (Fathers and Sons) and Трудное время (Hard Times). Both Turgenev and Sleptsovdraw on ideological and social questions of the day, yet each also creates a protagonist situated withina literary context. The Romantic hero, particularly as defined by Byron, is the major paradigm forTurgenev, while Sleptsov adopts a more skeptical approach. At the same time both protagonists arealso imbued with the 19th-century Russia interpretation of Hamlet as a study in social frustration.Keywords: Ivan Turgenev, Vasilii Sleptsov, Romanticism, Byron, Hamlet, radicalism, Dmitrii Pisarev,Nikolai Strakhov.DOI: 10.17516/1997-1370-2015-8-9-1792-1802.Research area: culture studies.In his essay “Bazarov Again” (“Eshcheraz Bazarov,” 1862), Alexander Herzen writes:“This mutual interaction of people and booksis a strange thing. A book takes its shape fromthe society that spawns it, then generalizesthe material, renders it clearer and sharper,and as a consequence reality is transformed.”1It is generally accepted that in Russia themutual interaction of people and books hasbeen intense, particularly in the realm ofsocial and political commentary, and thereis, no doubt, considerable truth in Herzen’sobservation that under such conditions “realpeople take on the character of their literaryshadows.”*Whether or not young Russians after 1862were “almost all out of What is to be Done? withthe addition of a few of Barazov’s traits,” suchwas frequently assumed to be the case, as thestatements of critics and political activists attest.2Dmitrii Pisarev, for example, in an article entitled“We Shall See” (Posmotrim,” 1865), raises thespecter of hundreds of Bazarovs: “the Bazarovtype is growing constantly, not by days, but bythe hour, in life as well as in literature.”3 Butas Herzen recognized, Pisarev’s Bazarov owesmore to the critic’s own vision of the Russianintelligentsia than to the text of Fathers and Sons:“Whether Pisarev understood Turgenev’s Bazarovcorrectly does not concern me. What is important Siberian Federal University. All rights reservedCorresponding author E-mail address: william.brumfield@gmail.com– 1792 –
William C. Brumfield. Two Hamlets: Questioning Romanticism in Turgenev’s Bazarov and Sleptsov’s Riazanovis that he recognized himself and others like himin Bazarov and supplied what was lacking in thebook” (337).Many of the novel’s exegetes have continuedto supply “what was lacking” in order to portrayBazarov as a representative of radical tendenciesin the sixties. And yet Bazarov is defined to agreater degree by a literary archetype derivingfrom European Romanticism and clearlydelineated in certain of Turgenev’s earliestwritings. In a further turn Turgenev bothderives Bazarov from the Romantic archetypeand challenges that derivation with a skepticismthat ensued in no small measure from hisinterpretation of Hamlet.The case for the influence of Romanticismcan be made within Turgenev’s works, but theextent to which it forms his portrayal of thenihilist is all the more clearly revealed when onecompares Fathers and Sons (Ottsy I deti, 1862)with another novel written during the same periodand centered around a similar (that is, radical)protagonist. Its author, Vasilii Sleptsov, was wellknown for his participation in radical causesduring the sixties (as the fame of his Petersburgcommune attests), and he presumably had a moreintimate knowledge of the radical milieu thandid Turgenev.4 Furthermore Sleptsov, who beganhis career as a writer in the early sixties, lackedthe Romantic apprenticeship which was to havesuch a pervasive influence on Turgenev’s laterwork. Consequently, in his novel Hard Times(Trudnoe Vremia, published in Sovremennik,1864), Sleptsov presents the Russian radical froma different literary perspective.The similarity between Fathers and Sonsand Hard Times was first noted, appropriatelyenough, by Pisarev, in an article entitled*Flourishing Humanity (“Podrastaiushchaiagumannost’,” 1865). Pisarev characterizesSleptsov’s protagonist, Riazanov, as “one of thebrilliant representatives of my beloved Bazarovtype” (IV,53). Although one might question theaccuracy of this statement, the resemblancebetween the two protagonists provides asufficient basis for comparison. Both Bazarov andRiazanov are raznochintsy (the latter a priest’sson), disaffected intellectuals who intend todestroy so that others may build, although neitheris certain as to how the destruction will occur orwho will do the building. Both represent the riseof a new class and a new militancy in Russia’seducational system. Both are products of theurban intellectual milieu--although their originslink them to the provinces of central Russia(“Riazanov,” “Bazarov”). Both are intrudersin a rural backwater, which is itself beset withproblems of social reform.On this last point even the detailscorrespond: the principle landowners in bothnovels--Nikolai Kirsanov and Shchetinin-attempt to introduce agricultural improvementsand reforms in their dealings with the peasants,but their efforts are viewed with suspicion byneighboring landowners and with indifferenceby the peasants (a reaction familiar to Tolstoi’srepentant landowners). Kirsanov and Shchetininare swindled by their laborers and are baffled bytheir ignorance, superstition, and resistance to thereform. Descriptions of rural poverty are frequent,particularly in Hard Times, while attempts toimplement a rational system of agriculturalproductivity are continually frustrated. (In bothworks a new threshing machine, purchasedat great expense, proves too heavy for localconditions.) The similarity extends to the physicalsetting as well: the same dilapidated church, thesame peasant huts clustered in a village near amanor house with the same arbors and acacias.Once placed in this setting, both protagonistsare led into a situation which pits their urbanradicalism against a form of gentry liberalism. Aswould be expected, each novelist relies heavily ondialogue to develop a conflict which arises from– 1793 –
William C. Brumfield. Two Hamlets: Questioning Romanticism in Turgenev’s Bazarov and Sleptsov’s Riazanovideological antagonism, but there is a differencein the function of these confrontations. In HardTimes they so dominate the core of the work thatplot is relatively unimportant and the narrator’scomments are little more than extended stagedirections. In Fathers and Sons, which has a plotof greater complexity, the narrator’s intrusionsdirect the reader’s perception of events, whileideological arguments serve primarily to motivatea course of action which eventually has little todo with ideology. Nevertheless, both works beginwith a similar conflict, and they present it in muchthe same termsFrom the moment Pavel Kirsanov first hearsthe word “nihilist,” until Bazarov’s interview withOdintsova in chapter sixteen, Turgenev’s radicalperiodically expresses views which cannot bereconciled with the idea of social progress throughgradual reform. Bazarov’s political rhetoric is toowell known to require lengthy quotation, but twopassages--both in chapter ten--are particularlyclose to the views Riazanov will express inHard Times. In the first Bazarov dismisses thevocabulary of liberalism (as expressed by PavelKirsanov): “Aristocracy, liberalism, progress,principles if you think about it, how manyforeign and useless words!”5 In the second, hemakes one of the most common accusationsagainst Russian liberalism--its inability to act:“Then we figured out that talking,always talking about our sores wasn’t worththe effort, that it only led to banality anddoctrinairism. We saw that even our smartones, so-called progressive people andexposers of abuses, were fit for nothing;that we were occupied with nonsense, wereharping about some sort of art, unconsciouscreativity , parliamentarianism, the legalprofession, and the devil knows what else,while it’s a question of daily bread ”(245)In one passage from Hard Times Riazanovdevelops a similar argument as he explains toShchetinin’s wife the uselessness of progressivearticles she has been reading:“You see, it’s all the same. Youhave these signs, and on them it’s written‘Russian Truth’ or ‘White Swan.’ So you golooking for a white swan--but it’s a tavern,In order to read these books and understandthem, you have to be practiced If you havea fresh mind and you pick up one of thesebooks, then you really will see white swans:schools, and courts, and constitutions, andprostitutions, and Magna Chartas, and thedevil knows what else But if you lookinto the matter, you’ll see that it’s nothingbut a carry-out joint.”6In the same vein Bazarov states that “at thepresent time, negation is the most useful action,”that before construction “ the ground has to becleared” (243), while Riazanov gives Shchetininaa paraphrase of one of his radical pamphlets: “Ifyou want to build a temple, first take measures sothat the enemy cavalry doesn’t use it as a stable”(79) When Shchetinina asks, what is to be done,Riazanov answers: “’All that’s left is to think up,to create a new life; but until then ’ he wavedhis hand” (148). Riazanov’s manner of expressionmay be earthier than Bazarov’s, yet the ideas arethe same. Bazarov’s rage against useless talknotwithstanding, neither radical goes beyond therhetoric of frustration so frequently associatedwith the image of Hamlet in nineteenth-centuryRussian critical commentary.sBut however similar the rhetoric, theensuing development reveals a fundamentaldifference between the novels. Turgenev, itwould seem, is less interested in Bazarov thenihilist (understood as a product of ideology)than in Bazarov the Romantic rebel. For by– 1794 –
William C. Brumfield. Two Hamlets: Questioning Romanticism in Turgenev’s Bazarov and Sleptsov’s Riazanovthe middle of Fathers and Sons the ideologicalelement begins to recede and it becomes clearthat Bazarov’s radical views, rather thandetermining his actions, have served to establisha position of isolation from which he can offer hischallenge to the order of the universe. Turgenevhas endowed his hero with a matrix of currentpolitical opinions, only to lead him toward aconfrontation between his “fathomless” ego andhis “intimation of mortality”--a confrontationinherent in Bazarov’s aggressive determinationto understand the essence of nature through atype of scientific materialism. If in his challengeBazarov has lost a sense of oneness with nature(the talisman scene), Turgenev effects a finalreconciliation which in itself implies a Romanticview of the unity between man and nature--or alonging for that unity:“However passionate, sinning, andrebellious the heart concealed in the tomb,the flowers growing over it look at usserenely (bezmiatezhno) with their innocenteyes: they tell us not of eternal peace along,of that great peace of ‘indifferent’ nature,;they tell us also of eternal reconciliationand of life without end ” (402)Such lines have a distinctly Wordsworthianring--if not in diction, then certainly in thought.The evidence for viewing Bazarov’snihilism as one component of a romantic imageis grounded in Turgenev’s own statements on thesubject, particularly in his preparatory remarksfor Virgin Soil (Nov’, 1877). He writes that thereare “Romantics of Realism,” who “long for thereal and strive toward it as former Romanticsdid toward the ‘ideal,’” who seek in this reality“something grand and significant (nechto velikoei znachitel’noe)” (XII, 314). After characterizingthe type as a prophet, tormented and anguished,Turgenev adds: “I introduced an element of thatRomanticism into Bazarov as well--a fact thatonly Pisarev noticed” (XII, 314).In fact Pisarev was not the only one to noticeRomantic traits in Bazarov’s character. MaksimAntonovich, in his review, “Asmodei nashegovremeni” (Sovremennik, 1862, No. 3), writes:“Apparently Mr. Turgenev wanted to portray inhis hero, so to speak, the demonic or Byronicnature, something like Hamlet; but, on the otherhand, he endowed him with traits which makethis nature seem most ordinary and even vulgar,at least very far from demonism.” In the nextsentence Antonovich calls Bazarov a caricature.Obtuse as his description is, it notes one elementof the Romantic in Bazarov; but Antonovich isincapable of dealing with the literary implicationsof his observation and would consider themunimportant. N. N. Strakhov, in his review ofFathers and Sons (Vremia, April, 1862), respondedto Antonovich’s accusation by quoting the abovepassage and adding: “Hamlet--a demonic nature!This shows some muddled thinking about Byronand Shakespeare. But actually, Turgenev didproduce something of the demonic, that is, anature rich in strength, although this strengthis not pure.” Strakhov’s article is perceptive aswell as sympathetic to Bazarov, but he too failsto develop the significance of the Romantic (or“demonic”) aspect of Bazarov’s character.7Turgenev’s reference to the hero as aRomantic of Realism is the most explicitstatement of the relation between Bazarov’s faithin materialism and the Romantic spirit whichinforms his behavior. But that spirit is also clearlydefined within the novel itself--defined in part, byBazarov’s use of terms such as “romantic” and“romanticism.” In chapter four he says of theelder Kirsanovs: “These elderly romantics! Theydevelop their nervous systems to the point ofirritation and so their equilibrium is destroyed.”(210) Commenting on the nature of love he tellsArkadii: “Study the anatomy of the eye a bit;– 1795 –
William C. Brumfield. Two Hamlets: Questioning Romanticism in Turgenev’s Bazarov and Sleptsov’s Riazanovwhere does the enigmatic glance you talk aboutcome in? That’s all romanticism, nonsense,rat, art (khudozhestvo).” During the disputein chapter ten the narrator remarks: “This lastphrase [spoken by Arkadii] apparently displeasedBazarov; there was a flavor of philosophy, that isto say, romanticism about it, for Bazarov calledphilosophy, too, romanticism ” (243.) In hispresentation of Bazarov’s thoughts on Odintsova,the narrator comments: “In his conversations withAnna Sergeevna he expressed more strongly thanever his calm contempt for everything romantic;but when he was alone, with indignation herecognized the romantic in himself.” (287.) Andin chapter nineteen Bazarov tells Arkadii: “’Inmy opinion it’s better to break stones on the roadthan to let a woman gain control over even theend of your little finger. That’s all ’ Bazarovwas on the point of uttering his favorite word,‘romanticism,’ but he checked himself and said‘nonsense’” (306.) Pisarev is very much to the point when he says,in an 1862 article entitled “Bazarov”: “Pursuingromanticism, Bazarov with incredible suspicionlooks for it where it has never even existed.Arming himself against idealism and smashing itscastles in the air, he at times becomes an idealisthimself ” (II, 27.) Indeed, Bazarov’s path to selfknowledge (and spiritual crisis) is associated withthe developing awareness of “the romantic withinhimself,” however contemptuously he may reactto that element.Bazarov, of course, does not use wordssuch as “romanticism” in a specifically literarysense. And P. G. Pustovoit has noted thatTurgenev’s application of the terms “romantic”and “romanticism” in his critical writings oftenrefers to a “romantic” disposition rather than toRomanticism as a literary method.8 But from astructural point of view the two are inextricablyconnected: the literature and rhetoric ofRomanticism provide the model for this romanticdisposition.9 In fact the model is delineated inTurgenev’s work well before Fathers and Sons.In a review of Vronchenko’s translation of Faust(Otechestvennyye zapiski, 1845, No. 2), Turgenevdescribes the Romantic hero in the followingterms:“He becomes the center of thesurrounding world; he does not submitto anything, he forces everything to submitto himself; he lives by the heart, but by hisown, solitary heart--not another’s--even inlove, about which he dreams so much; heis a romantic, and romanticism is nothingmore than the apotheosis of personality(apofeoz lichnosti). He is willing to talkabout society, about social questions, aboutscience; but society, like science, exists forhim--not he for them.” (I, 220.)Much in this description could well be appliedto Bazarov: the last sentence is reminiscent of hisoutburst against concern for the peasants' wellbeing in the face of his own inevitable death,while the phrase «apotheosis of personality»identifies one of the dominant motifs in Bazarov'scharacter. In chapter ten Pavel Petrovich remarksBazarov's «almost Satanic pride,» while Arkadii,in chapter nineteen, notices «the fathomlessdepths of Bazarov's conceit,» and asks himwhether he considers himself a god. Whatever thedifficulties in establishing a typology for homoromanticus, the passage quote above suggeststhat in his commentary on Faust, Turgenevpresented an interpretation of the Romantic herowhich reached its culmination in the creation ofBazarov.But one can find the type still earlier--inTurgenev’s verse drama Steno (1837). Despitedifferences in plot and circumstance both Stenoand Bazarov suffer much the same spiritualmalaise--an awareness of great strength, coupled– 1796 –
William C. Brumfield. Two Hamlets: Questioning Romanticism in Turgenev’s Bazarov and Sleptsov’s Riazanovwith a sense of isolation and impotence before thetotality of nature. In act one Steno muses: “Romepassed and we too shall disappear, leavingnothing behind use What does life signify?What death? I inquire of you, the sky, but youare silent in your cold magnificence!” (I, 370.)Similar rhetorical passages occur throughoutthe play: Steno speaks of the loss of faith, of theinsignificance of man, and yet there is a hint ofreconciliation in death. In act two Turgenevcharacterizes his hero through the voice of themonk Antonio: “How much strength he has! Howmuch suffering! In him the Creator has shown usan example of the torments of those with a mightysoul, when they, relying on their strength, goalone to meet the world and embrace it.” (I, 391.)(See also Turgenev’s description of Bazarov in aletter to Konstantin Sluchevskii, “I conceived of afigure gloomy, wild, enormous, half-grown fromthe soil, strong, caustic, honest--and all the samecondemned to destruction ” [IV, 381].) Andsince Steno is little more than a paraphrase ofManfred (as Turgenev readily admitted), it wouldseem that the portrait of Bazarov owes much tothe Byronic variant of European romanticism-particularly in its concept of the alienated butdefiant hero.Turgenev would later ridicule his youthfulenthusiasm for Manfred, as he would the playwhich arose from this infatuation. But theevidence of his fiction shows a reworking, anadaptation of certain fundamental concern-and modes of expression--contained within thejuvenilia. It might be argued that Turgenev hadsufficiently detached himself from his early,derivative Romanticism to judge it in Fathersand Sons. Yet the narrative rhetoric of thatnovel, especially in the concluding paragraph,leads one to assume that the Romantic elementwas still very much a part of his vision. As M.O. Gershenzon has noted, much in Turgenev’slater work is organically related to Steno,10 andBazanov must be considered evidence of thatcontinuity.In view of these antecedents it wouldseem that the conflict between Bazarov andPavel Kirsanov is an antagonism not so muchbetween the idealistic liberal of the forties andthe materialistic radical of the sixties, as betweentwo “generations” of Romantics--both derivedfrom variations of Romanticism prevalent in thethirties and forties.11 This common element inTurgenev’s conception of Bazarov and Kirsanovhas not been sufficiently acknowledged, despitethe fact that it is developed through an extensivesystem of parallels in their characterizationas well as their fate. Each is passionate in hisdefense of certain principles, abstractions, ideals(and Bazarov’s “materialism” is just as idealisticas Kirsanov’s liberalism). But for all of theirapparent dedication to an ideological position,each is led to believe that his life is withoutpurpose. To be sure, there is a difference in theirexpression of this belief: Kirsanov’s resignationas opposed to the anger and defiance of Bazarov’smetaphysical nihilism.In each case Turgenev motivates thecrisis with a passionate, desperate affair whichrepresents his conception of the incomprehensiblepower of love--love unattainable, which canend only in death. Pavel Kirsanov, shattered byhis attraction to the “mysterious” Princess R.(chapter seven) enters a period of decline in whichhis former hopes and ambitions are abandoned.Kirsanov is consigned to an existence which hasall the appearance of a romantic cliché: “Ladiesconsidered him an enchanting melankholik, buthe did not associate with ladies ” (225).And Bazarov claims to see through the cliché.After the account of Kirsanov’s life (ostensiblytold by Arkadii (Bazarov responds: “And whatabout these mysterious relations between a manand a woman? We physiologists know what suchrelations are. Study the anatomy of the eye ”– 1797 –
William C. Brumfield. Two Hamlets: Questioning Romanticism in Turgenev’s Bazarov and Sleptsov’s Riazanov(226.) But Kirsanov’s affair is merely a prelude toBazarov’s confrontation with Odintsova, duringwhich Turgenev will invest the cliché with apathos appropriate to his hero’s strength. BothBazarov and Kirsanov die in the course of thenovel; but Kirsanov, trapped within his image offatal passion, is granted only a lingering deathin life (see the final lines of chapter twentyfour). Bazarov, however, transcends the motifof destructive love by the strength of a rebellionwhich reflects the egocentric Romantic anguishso imperfectly realized in Steno.Turgenev, then, has isolated Bazarov andPavel Kirsanov within an intensely subjective,individual crisis that has little direct relationto an ideological dispute between opposinggenerations. Indeed, the entire notion ofgenerational conflict in Fathers and Sons is opento question. It is often assumed that the titleimplies sons against fathers, yet the Kirsanovsare reconciled at the end of the novel and theaffection between Bazarov and his parents isbeyond doubt. Furthermore, Pavel Kirsanov andBazarov reach a tenuous reconciliation of theirown, following the duel which again revealsthe Romantic principle in both--Bazarov’srationalizations notwithstanding. Whatever theinitial opposition (based on role stereotypes-youth rebelling against its elders), it is affinitybetween the generations that defines the basicpattern of relations between fathers and sons(Bazarov’s father shouting at the end of chaptertwenty-seven, “I rebel, I rebel”).Rather, the book’s irreconcilable conflictis surely between the two sons, and it is all thedeeper--and more subversive--for not beingexpressed in ideological terms. Arkadii, whosepolitical views are dismissed early in the novel,is representative of the “honest consciousness,”one who accepts his role within the family andits process of biological continuity. Bazarov, wellaware of his companion’s apostasy (“You’re notmade for our bitter, rough, lonely existence”),consigns him to his domestic, jackdaw happiness(the banality of the family), thus intensifying theisolation so necessary for his own image.Indeed, Arkadii has replaced his “radical”opinions with a desire to turn a profit onthe family estate--and is so doing illustratesTurgenev’s statement in the letter to Sluchevskii:“My entire story is directed against the gentryas a progressive class.” (IV, 380.) As Arkadiiand Katia enter Arcadia in fulfillment of rolesappropriate to pastoral comedy, Bazarov, theRomantic radical, is left to his tragic destiny.Like Rudin, he is remembered by the happy attheir feast (discreetly, to be sure). But also likeRudin, he can have no place with the settled andunrebellious.In comparison with Turgenev’s romanticizedview of revolt, Sleptsov’s approach to radicalismis prosaic. One could point to an element of theRomantic in Rizanov--like Bazarov, a rebel andprey to the ressentiment which accompanies hisrebellion. But Sleptsov undercuts the elementby his laconic narrative tone as well as by thestructure of a plot which can be reduced tothe simplest of outlines: Riazanov, a radicalintelligent escaping Petersburg in the wake ofa new period of repression (1863), arrives at theestate of his university acquaintance, Shchetinin,now married and settled into what he hope willbe the morally and financially satisfying role ofenlightened landowner. Riazanov and Shchetininengage in a series of arguments during which theradical attempts to demolish the liberal’s belief ingradual social progress through reform. But thefocus of the novel eventually shifts to Shchetinin’swife.Under the sway of Riazanov’s nihilisticopinions, Shchetinina can no longer accept whatshe now sees as her husband’s impotent liberalism.She decides to abandon her role as benevolentestate mistress and devote herself to another– 1798 –
William C. Brumfield. Two Hamlets: Questioning Romanticism in Turgenev’s Bazarov and Sleptsov’s Riazanovcause. Yet, when she turns to Riazanov for theemotional and moral support to sustain her in thisdecision, she is rebuffed. In an intertwining ofsexual and ideological elements characteristic ofthe relations within this menage å trois, Riazanovrejects her sexual advances as well as her desireto aid him in his vaguely defined radical activity.Shchetinina, however, perseveres in her resolveto leave the estate for Petersburg, where she willattempt to join the ranks of the “new people,”despite Riazanov’s dim view of this fashionableradicalism (an echo, perhaps, of Bazarov’sattitude toward Sitnikov and Kukshina).The novel ends in a standoff. Shchetinintakes refuge in his reform projects, and a liberatedMaria Shchetinina goes to Petesrburg in searchof her cause. Riazanov, committed to a distantand uncertain revolution, leaves the estate withhis one trophy, a deacon’s son, who intends toenroll in a provincial school against his father’swishes (another raznochinets activist in themaking). Sleptsov has clarified relations betweenthe characters only to leave them on the thresholdof other ambiguities. In a literary variant of hisown nihilism he offers no positive solution tothe questions the work raises, nor does he implythat his characters are capable of finding suchsolutions.It should be clear then that Sleptsov, incontrast to Turgenev, adheres to the ideologicalconflict posed at the beginning of the work, whileavoiding a romanticized image of the radicalwhich would focus attention of character ratherthan ideology. Such an approach has implicationsnot only for the significance of the protagonist, butalso for the development of the novel. For whileTurgenev directs his work to a consideration ofBazarov and his fate, Sleptsov, focusing on theproblem of radical response during a period of“hard times,” begins where Turgenev leaves off:in the liberal gentry’s arcadia. In Shchetinin,Riazanov faces not a Pavel Kirsanov but his owncontemporary, a new type of liberal--practical(or so he thinks), optimistic, willing to acceptemancipation reforms with the understanding thatthey should be made to work in his own interests.The question is will they? And at what cost to thepeasants who supply the labor?Turgenev, in a final, brief gesture of concernwith social issues indicates that there will beproblems in adjusting to the reforms, but coupleshis remark with references to the Kirsanov’sgrowing prosperity. Beyond this such problemsdo not interest him, because they provide noscope for the greater struggle which is his trueconcern. Bazarov merely dismisses Arkadii’snew role as benevolent landowner, he does notchallenge it. The Romantic rebel is not concernedwith the details or pretensions of land reform, andhe does not return to accuse Arkadii of hypocrisyin his dealings with the peasants--indeed, hecannot return. His isolation must be maintainedin the interests of a conclusion beyond specificconsiderations of politics and ideology.This analysis has interpreted Fathersand Sons, in particular the relation betweenradicalism and literary archetype, by offeringa contrast with another work which deals withmany of the same issues. It would be pointless toclaim that Sleptsov, a talented writer, has givena more truthful representation of the nigilist asa social phenomenon. But he has written a novelwhich reflects and comments on his views asa radical intellectual. In presenting a form ofradical ideology peculiar to the sixties, Sleptsovshows little tendency to idealize its proponents,with the result that he is able to offer a radicalcritique without transforming his characters intoadvocates of a simplistic, utopian solution in themanner of Chernyshevskii.Turgenev’s achievement, however, is of adifferent order--one in which the role of ideologyis more tenuous. His political and philosophicalviews and his ambivalence toward Bazarov– 1799 –
William C. Brumfield. Two Hamlets: Questioning Romanticism in Turgenev’s Bazarov and Sleptsov’s Riazanovhave received much attention;12 but efforts tointerpret Fathers and Sons solely in terms of the“liberal predicament” or a specific philosophicalsystem are, finally, inadequate. It has been notedthat Turgenev’s correspondence during thelatter part of 1860 contains frequent referencesto a sense of depression. Although this is notan uncommon mood in his writings, one suchletter (to Fet) does suggest a link between thisdespondency and his irritation with the youngcritics then in contr
Отцы и дети (Fathers and Sons) and Трудное время (Hard Times). Both Turgenev and Sleptsov draw on ideological and social questions of the day, yet each also creates a protagonist situated within a literary context. The Romantic hero, pa
Phoenix previously considered a non-romantic poem is shown as the Yushij's culmination of Romanticism and thus a justifiable reason for becoming the first modern Persian poetry. II. PECKHAM'S THEORY OF ROMANTICISM For the first time, at the end of nineteenth century, "the term Romanticism began to attract attention from different
Romanticism literature. Grade Range: 9-12 Objective: After completing this activity, students will be able to: Independently complete a primary source analysis tool. Infer three possible characteristics of American Romanticism literat
What is Romanticism? Romanticism refers to a movement in art, literature, and music during the 19th century. It first emerged in the 1790s in Germany and Britain, and in the 1820s in France and elsewhere.
Romanticism and technology Andrew Bowie Romanticism and technology are often regarded as inherently at odds with each other, one supposedly relying upon a desire to get in touch with a nature in u
Romanticism While both groups believe nature is a deeply spiritual force, Dark Romanticism views it in a much more sinister light than does Transcendentalism, which sees nature as a divine and universal organic mediator. Some, including Poe, Hawthorne and Melville, found Transcendent
American Romanticism Best described as a journey away from the corruption of civilization and the limits of rational thought and toward the integrity of nature and the freedom of the imagination. Romanticism – value feeling and intuit
1.2. Reaction Against Enlightenment Romanticism appeared in conflict with the Enlightenment. You could go as far as to say that Romanticism reflected a crisis in Enlightenment thought itself, a crisis which shook the comfortable 18th century philosophe out of his intellectual single-mindedness. The Romantics were conscious of their unique destiny.
Grade 2 Writing and Language Student At-Home Activity Packet 3 Flip to see the Grade 2 Writing and Language activities included in this packet! This At-Home Activity Packet is organized as a series of journal entries. Each entry has two parts. In part 1, the student writes in response to a prompt. In part 2, the student completes a Language Handbook lesson and practices the skill in the .
