Classics and the Western Canon discussion

The novel opens with Nicholai Petrovich Kirsanov, a widower, anxiously awaiting the return of his son, Arcadii, who has just graduated from university. The year is 1859. Arcadii shows up with his friend and house guest, Bazarov. On the way home, Nicholai reveals to his son he is in a relationship with the young Phenechka, the daughter of his former housekeeper. Arcadii assures his father there is nothing to be embarrassed about.

We meet Nicholai’s brother, Pavel, who joins them at supper. Arcadii describes Bazarov as a nihilist, which he defines as a man “who doesn’t accede to any authority, who does not accept a single principle on faith no matter how great the aura of respect which surrounds that principle.” When Bazarov joins them, he is questioned by Pavel in a tense exchange. Later, Arcadii tries to defend his uncle to Bazarov by explaining how Pavel lost his respected position in society over the ill-fated love of a woman. Bazarov is unimpressed.


How would you describe the characters so far?

Is Pavel’s refutation of nihilism valid? Is he correct in asserting that to live without principles is tantamount to being paralyzed?

Bazarov dismisses art and romance because he thinks it contradicts his philosophy of nihilism. Is he correct? Does nihilism require one to reject art, romance, or even an appreciation of the beauty in nature?

Tamara wrote: "Bazarov dismisses art and romance because he thinks it contradicts his philosophy of nihilism. Is he correct? Does nihilism require one to reject art, romance, or even an appreciation of the beauty in nature?"

I think all of the descriptions of nihilism are each a little biased, showing each character's general position on the times. Nihilism has taken many forms, but it's essentially the belief that, not only is there no transcendent meaning in this life, but that there is in fact no meaning at all. Nothing we do or think "matters" philosophically. I'm not sure if it's necessary to reject art or nature, but I do think a nihilist finds abstract beauty and fine art to be a waste of time, since there's no meaning to be found in it.

I love how Turgenev created the characters who you can already see have four different points of view on the issues of the day; which is to say liberal reforms including the end of serfdom combined with disillusionment at the failures of the 1840s push for reform that culminated in the 1848 revolutions in Western Europe.

The brothers, Nicholai and Pavel both grew up in that turbulent time, but they took different positions. It seems that Pavel was caught up in the romanticism and chased after his passion. Anyone else think Princess R. could be not just a censor's abbreviation, but a reference to Romanticism, Reformation or Revolution? If you notice, Pavel's Princess dies in 1848, the same year hopes of reform throughout Europe were built up and then crushed, including in Russia. Nicholai evidently took a practical view of things and kept out of politics, but seems equally disillusioned with the times.

Both brothers seem like they would have been liberals of the 1840s, in the sense that they wanted civil reforms and, at least in theory, an end to serfdom. Many of those wealthy liberal came to resent it when the reforms they championed were actually enacted and they began losing their privileges and land in the late 1850s and early 1860s. I think Nicholai might fall into this category, whereas Pavel is jaded overall.

However, the children of the liberals of the 1840s grew up taking in the bitterness and hopelessness of failed revolutionaries and reformers. As a result, the philosophy of nihilism, confirming that life has no meaning and there's no point in trying so hard to find one, came into vogue among people of Arcady's generation. Though Arcady seems to be in that middle place where he hasn't given up all hope of finding meaning, whereas his new friend is a committed nihilist, focusing on the practical entirely.

When I previously read this, most of the Russian history and politics I knew was what I had gleaned from Dostoevsky's novels. Now that I have actually studied the history, I understand the subtleties of each point of view and I'm enjoying it much more.

Aiden wrote: "When I previously read this, most of the Russian history and politics I knew was what I had gleaned from Dostoevsky's novels. Now that I have actually studied the history, I understand the subtleties of each point of view and I'm enjoying it much more..."

I know very little about Russian history and politics. So I found your post helpful in understanding the significance of the different perspectives.

Aiden wrote: "a nihilist finds abstract beauty and fine art to be a waste of time, since there's no meaning to be found in it..."

Doesn't it depend on how we define "meaning"? Abstract beauty and fine art may have no quantifiable meaning, but don't they have qualitative meaning?

I guess what I'm asking is this: do nihilist deny the existence of all meaning, as such? It seems to me they deny the existence and/or relevance of a specific type of meaning--the kind of meaning that cannot be quantified, measured, scientifically analyzed, or dissected.

And when Bazarov tells Pavel, "I've already informed you that I don't believe in anything" (Chapt. 6), that's not quite true, is it? He does find "meaning" in something, i.e. in his nihilistic philosophy.

I feel like I'm going around in circles :)

Tamara wrote: "i.e. in his nihilistic philosophy"

I think the problem you're having is that nihilism is more a philosophical concept, not a philosophy unto itself. A certain philosophy can be nihilistic in nature, but it needs further information. It's also more like a negative state than a philosophy with goals.

Another thing to consider is that there is no "nihilism" itself, but rather types of nihilism. Such as moral nihilism (the belief that moral judgements are meaningless), epistemological nihilism (the belief that judgements and knowledge are meaningless) and political nihilism (the belief that the current government should be destroyed, because government is meaningless/worthless) among others.

All nihilism essentially rests on the fact that the nihilist has determined that finding true meaning in that particular arena is impossible, and therefore should be irrelevant. So its basis is in its criticism of existing philosophies, rather than proposing alternatives. Crucially, I think, nothing about the natural sciences themselves can be nihilistic, since something like biology is based on experiments and proofs. It is it's meaning.

In the specific case of the Russian nihilism of the 1850-60s era, it was the result of the 1840s liberals having very high-minded ideas about political reform. When reform proved impossible, the next generation turned to the political nihilism of revolution for revolution's sake. Essentially, overthrow the Tsar and nobility, then figure out the rest later, if at all.

It should be noted that Russian nihilism was often associated with anarchism and revolution. If you were a revolutionary of this period, you either wanted to overthrow the Tsar in favor of creating a Utopia (socialist or otherwise) or you wanted to overthrow all authority for the sake of political nihilism (anarchy). However, when you live in the world of politics, and your political ideas become untenable, it can lead to epistemological and moral nihilism as well.

Thank you, Aiden. That explains a lot. I appreciate you taking the time to explain this because my head was spinning. If I understand you correctly, theoretically one can be, for example, a political nihilist but still recognize and appreciate the beauty in a work of art.

This doesn't seem to be the case with Bazarov since he claims he doesn't believe in anything. He seems to have adopted a nihilistic approach across the board.

I found Bazarov's views more closer to political nihilism but not yet up to any moral/epistemological nihilism. In fact, he seems to have a relatively heavy amount of interest in the natural sciences and seems to have a bit of positivism.

From the first chapters, I'm already sensing this tension between the actual fathers and children (or more like, the older generations and the younger). The Pavel-Bazarov/Nicholai-Arkady might represent the worst and the best (or at least the most peaceful) kind of relationships that can happen between the opposing generations.

Your understanding is correct, Tamara. The statements Uncle Pavel makes about nihilism reflect the idealist generation's criticisms of it, such as that political nihilists extend their nihilism to every area of life. Basically, it's an ignorant critique of Barazov's "type", not an accurate description.

I think Barazov's views are specific to late-nineteenth century Russian nihilism, or at least Turgenev's seemingly sympathetic understanding of it. It was mainly political nihilism, but the extreme cases formed revolutionary cells to spread their political views with illegal printing presses. Dostoevsky's novel Demons is based on one such cell that became infamous after they murdered one of their own out of paranoia.

I think the thing to understand is that this specific brand of Russian nihilism tended to view the means by which the system is destroyed in a morally nihilistic manner. They wanted to destroy the political system, but the inevitable consequences led them to stray from just wanting to destroy the system to make the world better to the moral nihilism of destruction for destruction's sake.

You're welcome for the explanations and thank you for the questions. I wanted to do a deep read this time and writing it all out is helping me to understand better as well.

Borum wrote: "From the first chapters, I'm already sensing this tension between the actual fathers and children (or more like, the older generations and the younger). .."

The tension between fathers and children impacted me more with this reading than in previous readings--probably because I'm a lot older and my children are now grown.

I was very impacted by Nicholai's exuberant greeting of his son and his attempt to connect with him. The poor man could hardly contain his enthusiasm and his pride. I found it very touching, especially the way he tiptoes around his son for fear of offending him.

Arcadii's embarrassment at his father's public display of affection in front of Bazarov reminded me so much of when my boys were young. They would be mortified if I gushed over them in front of their peers. For me, this was the first suggestion we get that Arcadii is somewhat immature for his age. He seems to be overly keen to impress Bazarov even if it means trying to maintain a distance from his father. I thought his attitude was pretty sad.

Bazarov’s positivism does come to the fore especially with his fascination with frog vivisection. I do find it ironic that he insists on facts, but not values .”Facts” are loaded with metaphysical proofs, evidence, and rationalism which can’t be proven by the scientific method. This goes to his lack of moral-epistemological nihilism.

I also noticed A’s immaturity with Bazarov around his father. I’ve been there in the past, and it really reveals insecurity. Eventually one realizes that the model you’re attempting to impress doesn’t have all the answers, and realizing how foolish one appeared in the past.

Peej wrote: "”Facts” are loaded with metaphysical proofs, evidence, and rationalism which can’t be proven by the scientific method. This goes to his lack of moral-epistemological nihilism...."

I'm not sure I understand your comment. Would you mind explaining it a little more?

Sure. The entire notion of a fact implies that we can reason logically from a hypothesis to a conclusion. Facts are reasonable things. Reason implies the world, and the universe, is actually something that can be grasped on a certain level.

Cutting open a frog allows us to learn certain things about the human body. There are rational principles here. How do you prove “rationality” within the lab? I maintain you can only do that philosophically rather than quantifiably. In short, “science” and “facts” imply accepted philosophical preconditions.

Does that make sense? Excuse me for the ramble.

But Bazarov may not agree with that. He may argue that facts barge into our minds regardless of our accepted philosophical preconditions, and more depending on our prewired biology. And in a very similar way to most of us by the way, even if we belong to different schools of philosophy. I think Bazarov would argue that philosophyzing comes after the FACT.

Bigollo wrote: "But Bazarov may not agree with that. He may argue that facts barge into our minds regardless of our accepted philosophical preconditions, and more depending on our prewired biology. And in a very s..."

Is Bazarov correct? Don't we have enough examples, even today, of individuals rejecting facts because of their philosophical preconditions? Facts can only barge into our minds if we are open to them, if we allow them access. Our philosophical preconditions can bar entry to facts, i.e. refuse to recognize them as facts even though all the evidence supports their existence as facts.

I'm wondering if there is a way to reconcile the two positions stated by Peej and Bigollo. Maybe there are different types of facts. For example, it is an indisputable fact that if you put your hand in a fire, you will get burned. That is a fact regardless of one's philosophical precondition. But maybe there are types of facts that are accepted or rejected as facts based on one's philosophical precondition. In other words, what one person defines as a fact maybe be defined as a falsehood by someone with a different philosophical position.

When Bazarov says, And what am I going to believe in? If anybody talks sense to me I agree--and that's that.

To me, the crucial point in that is when he says, "to me." Isn't that an admission of a philosophical precondition? Isn't that an admission that what makes sense to him comes because of his philosophic precondition? After all, what appears to make sense to him may not make sense to someone with a different set of lenses.

I’m reading a bit about German philosophy at the moment. Pavel explicitly mentions Hegel in his criticism of German thought. Contemporarily, within Germany, positivism and materialism is on the rise within a post-Hegelian climate. I definitely see that in Bazarov.

Hi everyone. I haven’t yet read your comments carefully. I will; I have some catching up to do. But Turgenev has been of high interest, because he is rare as a writer who wrote about the lives of lower class. I have his Sportsman’s Notebook, but after reading 1st pages of Intro to Fathers and Sons, I am really pleased to start with it. I see how interesting it is going to be from scanning your comments.

Tolstoy was concerned about the peasants, but Turgenev actually wrote about their lives. This summer I read Candice Millard’s River of Gods, nonfiction also 19th century, and a very important person of that story was Bombay, who was sold as a child into slavery. It was wonderful to have as much information about him, I am sure Millard included all there was to tell. But it would have been fantastic if someone would have recognized at the time a biography of this man would have been brilliant. I would love to know even more about him.

Anyway I just wanted to say Hi and share why I am excited about reading this.

Welcome, Marti. Glad you decided to join us.

So on the first page, Peter, the servant is introduced to us first. “A round-cheeked young fellow with small, dull eyes and a chin adorned with a tuft of pale-colored down.” “Glancing along the high road in a supercilious manner, the servant (in whom everything, from the turquoise ear-ring to the dyed, pomaded hair and the mincing gait, revealed the modern, the rising generation)”

The barin (age 40) was “hatless, and clad in a dusty jacket over a pair of tweed breeches”

Unexpected, interesting beginning.

Good point. Nicholas also explains how he trusts a former peasant to be his attendant but not his land steward. So his trust only goes so far with these liberal reforms.

Also of note is this in reference to Procophich:

A man of sixty or thereabouts entered, white-haired, gaunt and swarthy, in a brown frock coat with copper buttons, and with a pink kerchief swathed about his neck. He smirked, walked up to Arcadii to kiss his hand, then, after making a bow to the guest, backed toward the door and put his hands behind his back.

This contrasts with the way Peter, the servant, greets Arcadii:

Peter, who in his status of a perfect servant had refrained from walking up to the young master and kissing his hand but had merely made him a distant bow . . .

Peter is described earlier as "a man of the new, perfected generation . . "

Change is afoot among the different generations of servants.

Peej wrote: "I’m reading a bit about German philosophy at the moment. Pavel explicitly mentions Hegel in his criticism of German thought. Contemporarily, within Germany, positivism and materialism is on the ris..."

It's funny. You're line of thinking about science being philosophy brought me back, momentarily, to my mind caving in on itself while working my way through Heidegger's Being and Time recently.

I understand the point you're making, but I think it belongs more in the realm of epistemological philosophy than literary interpretation. That is to say, I don't so much disagree with you, but rather view the questioning of what "knowledge" really is as somewhat unhelpful to interpreting the novel.

Marti wrote: "Anyway I just wanted to say Hi and share why I am excited about reading this"

Welcome, Marti. Always nice to have one more person with a genuine interest in appreciating the novel and author with us.

Peej wrote: "Good point. Nicholas also explains how he trusts a former peasant to be his attendant but not his land steward. So his trust only goes so far with these liberal reforms."

The house steward is actually an important representative of certain Russian social complications of this time. One of the main stated goals of the 1840s push for reform was to free the serfs. It was seen as a noble undertaking. The house steward in this case would have been a serf, meaning they did the job of house steward for nothing but being allowed to live on the land, because the novel is set in 1859.

By 1862 , when the novel was first published, serfdom had been abolished. This meant that Russians with estates large enough to need a house steward would have to actually pay someone now. Oftentimes, they hired the freed serf who had been doing the job already. However, if the former master hadn't been a kind one, you could bet the relationship would become much more complicated and acrimonious now that they can't just be ordered on pain of death.

On the other hand, there were many serfs who took pride in their work and were very disappointed when they were left unemployed because their former master couldn't afford to pay them. There were some pretty complex feelings between house stewards and land-owners in particular. Nicholai seems like the sympathetic type, but he's still disconcerted. Meanwhile, Pavel seems to openly disdainful of the "lower sort" behaving as if horrified that the ideals of equality that he previously espoused as a romantic revolutionary have actually come to pass.

In recent discussions of nihilism in Dostoyevsky's "Idiot", meaning seems to be tied to belief in Orthodox Christianity. Faith imbues meaning and denying or doubting one's faith separates individuals from meaningful living and leaves them with a vacuous materialism associated with nihilism. I'm seeing Turgenev as more open-minded to the isssues raised by the nihilists while Dostoyevsky looked at them through a very thick Orthodox Christian, pro-Russian, anti Western lens. The nihilists seem to be casting about for solutions to a range of social and economic issues outside the Church and the Monarchy, and while Turgenev treats them somewhat sympathetically, Dostoyevsky casts them as anti-Christian radicals and terrorists. I appreciate Turgenev's more secular treatment.

Suzann wrote: "while Turgenev treats them somewhat sympathetically, Dostoyevsky casts them as anti-Christian radicals and terrorists. I appreciate Turgenev's more secular treatment."

While Fyodor Mikhailovich is one of my favorite writers, I'd agree that his work shows a clear bent toward his own Slavophil, Russian Orthodox views. I take no position on the Westernizer/Slavophil debate, but as an atheist, it's not one of my favorite things about him.

One thing I found interesting about the contemporary reception of Fathers and Children is that people in the secular, nihilistic camp actually reproached Turgenev for not seeming to take one position or another on whether he approved of Bazarovs viewpoints. One writer friend actually laid the blame for nihilistic disorder in the future at Turgenev's feet for the crime of taking the pre-modernist stance of political/moral neutrality in his fiction and leaving readers to decide for themselves.

Aiden wrote: "nihilistic camp actually reproached Turgenev ... (for his) pre-modernist stance of political/moral neutrality in his fiction and leaving readers to decide for themselves."

How do nihilists who don't believe in anything justify demanding that others believe in one thing or another?

Suzann wrote: "How do nihilists who don't believe in anything justify demanding that others believe in one thing or another?"

Based on what we've read so far, I think Bazarov has a very clear idea of what is and is not acceptable for nihilists. We see evidence of him correcting Arcadii when he feels he has strayed from the "right" path. He gets frustrated with Arcadii when he deviates, and he dismisses any hint of a justification for Nicholai or Pavel. So I don't think it so much that Bazarov doesn't believe in anything. He believes in repudiating everything until and unless it makes sense to him. Whether he wants to acknowledge it or not, that is a form of belief. And he wants everyone to go along with his belief.

Suzann wrote: "How do nihilists who don't believe in anything justify demanding that others believe in one thing or another?"

To put it differently, it's not so much that Bazarov demands that everyone believe what he believes. Nihilism is more of a negative drive and also individualistic. The opinions he expresses are essentially what he sees as being left available to provide meaning, after he rejects everything that is based on custom or tradition. He's not so much telling people how to fix life or even complaining about how life is unfair. Rather, he's pointing out that interacting with the traditional system at all is pointless; and therefore, following your own best judgement and focusing on tangible matters is the only valid course. (Ironically, he violates his own ideals by telling Arkady how to behave.)

Aiden wrote: "Nihilism is more of a negative drive and also individualistic. The opinions he expresses are essentially what he sees as being left available to provide meaning, after he rejects everything that is based on custom or tradition..."

So, are the differences between the generations basically change by evolution vs. revolution? Nicholai embraces gradual change in society and on his estate. Barzarov is associated with words like "repudiate", "denunciate", "wreck because we are a force". Nicholai clings to the idea that change should be constructive ultimately. Barazov denies that construction follows "demolishing everything". Change is inevitable. The attitude toward change differs between the generations.

Underlying the whole discussion is the question of who is Russian. Pavel tells Bazarov "...No, you're not Russian--not after all you've told me! I can't acknowledge you as a Russian." But Bazarov counters that he's closer to peasant stock. So Russian identity as a central theme?

Yes. I think your understanding is correct. Basically, all of our characters understand that change is not only necessary, but desirable. No main characters are on the illiberal side of wanting to strengthen the power of the tsar and gentry or thinking things are fine the way they are. However, the "fathers" aspired toward reforms to make Russia more like the rest of Europe. While the "children" felt that reform was putting lipstick on a pig, so to speak, and chose to reject the old entirely, Europe included, in favor of radical, wholesale change. Bazarov's uncouthness is the latter view followed to its most literal conclusion.

And yes, the change-minded Russian identity is definitely a central theme. Turgenev's accomplishment, I think, was capturing it in all of its nuances.

Aiden wrote: " Bazarov's uncouthness is the latter view followed to its most literal conclusion..."

Although I can sympathesize with the frustration and perhaps ultimately inadequate tinkering-at-the-edges change advocated by the "fathers", seems like the slash and burn approach to changing social and economic institutions with no constructive replacement advocated by the "sons" is naive at best. The sons benefit by the very institutions they rail against! Uncouthness is the least of the problems dwellers in the "son's" world would experience.

Bazarov strikes me as a person with little empathy. He is so matter-of-fact about performing vivisections on frogs as if it were no different than putting on your coat. There is a piece of humanity missing.

Tamara wrote: "I was very impacted by Nicholai's exuberant greeting of his son and his attempt to connect with him. The poor man could hardly contain his enthusiasm and his pride. I found it very touching, especially the way he tiptoes around his son for fear of offending him."

I noticed this too. Having grown children of my own Turgenev's insight is spot on!