Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Arcadii proposes to Katya and she accepts. Bazarov congratulates Arcadii while criticizing him for his inability to commit to the nihilist way of life. Bazarov returns home, becoming increasingly restless and despondent. His parents are concerned and tiptoe around him. He helps his father in taking care of patients. He contracts typhus when he cuts himself performing an autopsy of a man who died of the disease. It is ironic that Bazarov, who loves to dissect and analyze nature, should die because of a dissection gone wrong. A dying Bazarov is visited by Anna Odinstova. He has some kind words to say of his parents (finally!) and dies the next day.

The final chapter takes place six months later. Katya and Arcadii are married as are Nicholai and Phenechka. Anna has also married, “not for love.” Her husband is described as a man “still young, good-natured, and as cold as ice.” And Pavel has moved to Dresden. The final and very poignant image is of Bazarov’s elderly parents supporting each other as they make their way to Bazarov’s grave and fall on their knees, weeping.

______________

Bazarov strips nature of its romantic and wondrous elements by reducing it exclusively to its material components. One can argue he dissects and analyzes nature in an attempt to subdue and control it. Are there similarities between his approach to nature and his approach to Anna Odinstova and Phrenechka?

What do you think of the final scene between Anna and Bazarov? Are they compelling characters? Why or why not?

Set in 1859, the novel pits two ideologies against one another. At the time of its release, it caused a stir. Conservatives accused Turgenev of glorifying nihilism; radicals accused him of caricaturing the younger generation. Is either criticism justified?

What do the flowers growing on top of Bazarov’s grave symbolize?

Suzann’s question in Week 4: Is Bazarov the hero? Is he the character of lasting consequence in this novel?

Does nihilism promote human happiness?

What do you think of the novel? Does it have something relevant to say to us today?

F&S, from one perspective, might be an exploration of the mechanisms of social change. Generational rebellion against tradition in the form of armchair nihilism and science being offered here. Change seems to evolve despite human action. Disease kills the scientist and proponent of radical break with tradition, marriage distracts the supporter of change. Change evolves incrementally through Nicholai's practical, non-ideological choices. Nihilism is not glorified. Scientific knowledge is incomplete. The generations will continue much as they have before.

Bazarov dissects nature, and it's a dissection that kills him. How fitting! He disparaged all human feelings, and then a disappointment in love drove him to fatal recklessness.

I don't think it was typhoid that killed Bazarov but blood poisoning (pyæmia)

Vassily Ivanovitch was shaking and chill with terror.
'Supposing,' he said at last, 'even supposing ... if even there's something like ... infection ...'
'Pyæmia,' put in his son.
'Well, well ... something of the epidemic ...'
'Pyæmia,' Bazarov repeated sharply and distinctly; 'have you forgotten your text-books?'

When Bazarov had returned home from the dissection he had asked his father if he had some caustic to cauterize a small wound he had on his finger.

Vassily Ivanovitch burnt the cut a little more. 'But had the district doctor no caustic?'
'No.'
'How was that, good Heavens? A doctor not have such an indispensable thing as that!'
'You should have seen his lancets,' observed Bazarov as he walked away.

Bazarov got infected by the unsanitary instruments the doctor gave him for a dissection he himself thought unnecessary. Now this makes his death doubly tragic.

The 'caustic' they are talking about is silver nitrate. It is an old remedy for the removal of warts and caustic pencils are still available for this purpose. The silver nitrate chemically removes unwanted tissue growths. It must also have been a common method to cauterize wounds and thereby preventing further infection. Vassily certainly thinks it basic to any doctor's medical inventory which is not surprising given that he is a retired army doctor.

Tamara wrote: "Conservatives accused Turgenev of glorifying nihilism; radicals accused him of caricaturing the younger generation. Is either criticism justified?

What do the flowers growing on top of Bazarov’s grave symbolize?..."

I don't think Turgenev is glorifying nihilism at all. Bazarov seems to be miserable and lonely in the end and sometimes seems to represent Turgenev's criticism, if not caricature, of the younger generation. This is even made more evident by the end of Bazarov and the contrasting happiness of the two couples (Katya/Arakady and Phenechka/Nikoai) However, the futility of Pavel's duel and his insistence on honor and traditional values is also contrasted with the extreme nihilism of Bazarov. I think Turgenev proposed a more moderate, nuanced and natural approach to life.

The flowers may be just a natural specimen in Bazarov's eyes and he might have scorned such sentimentality, but the innocent serenity in the flowers that speaks to us of 'eternal reconciliation and life everlasting' seem to console the tears of his parents.

I think this reminds us how religion and ideals, even in a more secular and materialistic age like now, may not be just fluff or humbug to be completely ignored, but observed through a more tolerant point of view. I think I felt more sorry for Bazarov's parents than for Bazarov himself.

I don’t think the author satirizes the younger generation. As a recent one myself, this is how I thought and conducted myself previously. Getting married and having kids transformed my life radically over the past 9 years.

Bazarov goes home at the end. Isn’t this totally appropriate? Where else can he go when all his “followers” have left him? His experiments ultimately killed him. The Truth is essential, yet truth without love is hollow.

I see transformation in most of the characters.

Pavel now urges Nicholai to marry Phenchka whereas in the past he had told Nicholai not to marry her. Nicholai says:

But don’t you know it was solely out of deference to you that I didn’t carry out what you so justly call my obligation.

Pavel responds with No, dear brother, it’s time we gave up posturing and taking the world into any account: we’re old folks and resigned; it’s time to lay aside all the vanities.

Pavel now recognizes that there is no shame in marrying the daughter of a servant—which is a big step in the right direction. It’s as if he sees his previous attitude is defunct and no longer has a place in a changing world.

Arcadii has also changed in that he frees himself of Bazarov’s influence and will marry Katya.

I see a transformation even in Bazarov. He has changed because he was rejected in love. Instead of running away from his parents, he begins working with his father, showing compassion for his parents and his father’s patients.

It seems to me the only one who hasn’t change is Anna. We are told she re-marries but “not for love.” In other words, she marries for convenience and money, which is what she did in her first marriage. Her husband is described as being as cold as ice. She strikes me as being incapable of love and very calculating.

Does Anna represent the pragmatic actor who simply “gets along” with few ideals? She always calculates, and she ends up marrying for utility again. She is the ultimate manager. I wonder what her archetype represents in that era of Russian history.

It is a bare bones melodrama. For example, compared with our book "Tess of the D...", Turgenev sketches the relations quickly and without much embellishment. We get our impression of Bazarov's Nihilism only in his brief statements, or maybe it was too far back, in the early chapters, that he expressed his ideology. From then on, it is talked about by others rather than elaborated by Bazarov himself.
As the title efficiently proclaims, the characters are precisely the relations of fathers and sons.
What must have been innovative with Turgenev is difficult for me to recognize, given the 180 years between us. I'd like to have read the novel as one who lived then.

Peej wrote: "Does Anna represent the pragmatic actor who simply “gets along” with few ideals? She always calculates, and she ends up marrying for utility again. She is the ultimate manager. I wonder what her ar..."

Perhaps her ideal is to maintain the lifestyle to which she has been accustomed. And the only way for her to do that during those times was through marriage. She was obviously attracted to Bazarov, but as a country doctor, Bazarov couldn't support her lifestyle. So she opted to go for the more lucrative financial prospect.

Sam wrote: "We get our impression of Bazarov's Nihilism only in his brief statements, or maybe it was too far back, in the early chapters, that he expressed his ideology. From then on, it is talked about by others rather than elaborated by Bazarov himself..."

Your comment got me thinking about how much of the nihilism that we saw Bazarov exhibiting is actually due to nihilism or due to Bazarov's personality. What I mean is this: Bazarov comes across as an arrogant, unsavory, inflexible character who looks down on all who don't see things his way and who deludes himself into believing he can operate as an autonomous entity. How much of that is due to nihilism? How much of that is due to Bazarov's personality?

Are we getting a distorted view of nihilism because of the way Turgenev embodied it in the character of Bazarov? Is it possible to have a nihilist who has a modicum of humility, who is unafraid of intimacy, who treats people with respect, and who appreciates the beauty in nature? Or are all nihilists, by definition, emotionally bankrupt and inflexible Bazarovs?

Perhaps Bazarov's nihilism is the result of his personality.

Good point! It's possible he projects his negative personality on all he sees.

I am going to look at the novel from the perspective of legacy.

Nikolai:
He is a widower and currently owning and managing the estate he had inherited it from his father. He has two sons, Arkady from his first marriage, and Mitya by a servant girl whom he later marries. In terms of tradition and legacy he has fulfilled his duty. He has an heir and a spare.

Pavel:
Nikolai’s brother is the spare in his generation. He lives on the estate but is not involved in the day-to-day operation. He lives on his inheritance and will chip in financially whenever he is able. He never married after his love died unexpectedly. From the perspective of legacy Pavel’s duel with Bazarov can be viewed as a defense of legacy. If Bazarov muddies the waters, i.e., dallies with Fenetchka, then Nikolai has no incentive to marry her and Mitya remains a bastard and loses his standing as second-in-line to inherit. Since Pavel never established a living of his own or pursued a purpose separate from the estate he leaves no legacy. His role as the spare is now fulfilled. He is no longer needed to help secure the legacy handed to him and his brother. Pavel leaves for Europe and is miserable. Being the spare is not an easy lot in life when you no longer have anything to live for and nothing to be remembered by.

Arkady:
First-in-line to inherit his father’s estate. He comes home from university full of new philosophical ideals which are freely promulgated by his new acquaintance and nihilist Bazarov. He honestly thinks he believes all these things, but the way he acts show that he is far more rooted in the traditional role he was prepared for all his life. In the end he marries the well-suited Katya, a woman with whom he will be able to take over the reins of the estate waiting for him.

Bazarov:
Arkady’s acquaintance from university and stout nihilist. It is interesting that we don’t learn of his first name well into the novel until he goes home and his parents call him Enyusha, otherwise it is just ‘Bazarov’. Not knowing a person’s first name keeps us at a distance, we never get a chance to form a close relationship. One can never be truly his friend only an acquaintance. He causes quite a stir on the Kirsanov estate culminating in the duel with Pavel. Bazarov doesn’t get hurt but Pavel does. Nihilism lives unscathed to spread its ideas for another day and tradition gets wounded. Not mortally, but it hits the person who is not going to perpetuate the inheritance.
At home with his parents Bazarov is confronted with his own inheritance in which he no longer believes. The closeness of family is stifling to him and he struggles. Ultimately he has no other place to go. Then he dies prematurely, an accidental wound caused by a modern medical instrument. This is fitting for the negation of meaning and purpose cannot leave a legacy. Nihilism is a dead-end to human flourishing, and the only way it perpetuates itself is by infecting another like a pathogen. It has to move from host to host otherwise it will die.

Vassily and Arina:
Bazarov’s father is a retired army doctor and still looks after the well-being of the people living in his community. He used to move around with his family while still active, and he is open to new discoveries of the natural sciences, but it really doesn’t change his traditional, faith-filled life or that of his wife Arina. They really don’t know at times how to interact with their son or try very hard to avoid any arguments. They just want to enjoy him being at home. This is not only common of parents with grown children but also of the clash between enlightenment ideas and a traditional, faith-filled culture. His death is completely devastating to them, they leave no legacy in human terms. Yet their faith lives on, and whomever they touch with their lives will encounter it.

Fenetchka:
She is Cinderella. She represents upward movement in society through marriage as it has occurred over the ages. When we encounter her last, she is sure in her role as mother and wife.

Anna:
She got her status and riches through calculated marriage. Completely self-absorbed she doesn’t leave a legacy, she needs all the riches for her own personal pleasure.

Katya:
Anna’s sister goes the traditional way. She marries Arkady and becomes part of the legacy of his family.

Kerstin wrote: "I am going to look at the novel from the perspective of legacy.

Nikolai:
He is a widower and currently owning and managing the estate he had inherited it from his father. He has two sons, Arkady ..."

Thank you for the summation of the characters and their legacies. It's very helpful in terms of situating the characters.

Tamara wrote: "Suzann’s question in Week 4: Is Bazarov the hero? Is he the character of lasting consequence in this novel?."

In some ways, I do see Bazarov as a tragic hero. He shares with all tragic heroes the same tragic flaw--a giant ego that leads him to believe and to act as if he is above the rest of humanity.

Bazarov falls in love with Anna, but when she doesn't reciprocate, he realizes he is as vulnerable and as needy as the rest of us. His self-image and world view falls apart. Like Oedipus, he learns his true identity, and, like Oedipus, it's a little too late to save him.

I also want to draw a parallel between two characters that, on the surface, appear to be miles apart: Bazarov and Don Quixote. It's an unlikely pairing. Bazarov is thoroughly unlikeable and Don Quixote is one of the most charming characters in literature. In spite of this, they have something in common.

Both characters have an unwavering commitment to their vision of reality. Granted, their respective visions are poles apart with neither vision firmly grounded in reality. But each believes in the ultimate truth of his vision, is determined to live by it, and interprets all he sees in terms of his distorted lens. When reality finally crashes through and shatters their vision of the world and their role in it, they are left with nowhere to go but to their graves.

Tamara wrote: "I also want to draw a parallel between two characters that, on the surface, appear to be miles apart: Bazarov and Don Quixote. It's an unlikely pairing. Bazarov is thoroughly unlikeable and Don Qui..."

Maybe, but Don Quixote does better by Sancho Panza than Bazarov does by Arkady.

Roger wrote: "Maybe, but Don Quixote does better by Sancho Panza than Bazarov does by Arkady..."

Agreed.
Don Quixote and Sancho have a delightful partnership. They complement each other. Bazarov and Arkady's relationship is fraught with tension and seems doomed from the start.

Tamara wrote: " She strikes me as being incapable of love and very calculating. ..."

Perhaps Turgenev's exemplar of a very self protective love?

Sam wrote: "What must have been innovative with Turgenev is difficult for me to recognize, given the 180 years between us...."

Perhaps you would enjoy the Norton Edition with its contemporary commentaries. I find myself comparing with the U.S. moving out of slavery -- sans the Civil War, if that mirage is feasible.

How do you compare/contrast Turgenev with Tolstoy? With Dostoevsky? I'm still struggling with those questions -- have seen some contrasts with Tolstoy's presentations of families, am not a good enough reader of Dostoevsky to have clear thoughts.

Just finished Dostoyevsky's Idiot with references to nihilism. I find the slavophile Dostoyevsky to be disparaging or dismissive of nihilism while Turgenev lets it play out a little before the action turns elsewhere. Turgenev seems more open minded to me.

Tamara wrote: "I also want to draw a parallel between two characters that, on the surface, appear to be miles apart: Bazarov and Don Quixote. It's an unlikely pairing. Bazarov is thoroughly unlikeable and Don Qui..."

This striking comparison has stuck in my mind. I think the big difference is that Bazarov's shattering realization that human emotions really do matter is what leads to his death. Don Quixote is not undone by his delusions--he is simply preparing to retire and become a shepherd when he is overcome by an illness, falls asleep, and awakens as from a dream, plain old Alonso Quixano again.

Roger wrote: "This striking comparison has stuck in my mind. I think the big difference is that Bazarov's shattering realization that human emotions really do matter is what leads to his death. Don Quixote is not undone by his delusions.."

I agree with you about Bazarov, but I'm not quite sure Don Quixote is not undone by his delusions. After he falls ill, Don Quixote's friends try to revive his spirits:

They believed his grief at being defeated, and his unsatisfied longing to see Dulcinea free and disenchanted, were responsible for his condition, and they did everything they could think of to life his spirits . . . (Chapter LXXIV).

Later in the same chapter, DQ admits he had been delusional and regrets his constant reading of books of chivalry. So I think it's debatable whether he dies because he is undone by his delusions, or because of his illness, or whether he becomes ill because he no longer harbours delusions and, therefore, feels he no longer has a reason to live.

In any case, in my mind, his death signifies the loss of one of the most beautiful souls in literature. While I sympathize with Bazarov to a degree, I certainly don't feel his is a great loss.