return to title page
Introduction
The Momentum of Byronism
Terms of engagement
Turgenev: biography
Early upbringing
Early influences
Developing lifestyle
Exile, repatriation, death
Turgenev and political turbulence
Slavophiles and Westernizers
Forces of negation
Byronic influence through others
Pushkin and Lermontov
Anarchists and early nihilists
Fathers and Sons: from the source
Bazarov as nihilist?
Bazarov as Romantic hero?
Conclusion
Bazarov as Byronic negator and idealist
Bibliography
Bazarov clearly wishes to sweep away the assumptions and non-scientifically proven "truths" of social, political, emotional, and spiritual life in Russia. He begins by rejecting all common assumptions about serfdom, the foundation of Russian social hierarchy, and its reform, including all of its social and economic ramifications. Nikolai Petrovich, Arkady's father and Bazarov's host throughout the first third of the novel, has developed an enlightened theory of serfdom: he calls his estate of five thousand acres with two hundred serfs a "farm" (Turgenev 1996, 3), has "in effect" freed the serfs who were once house servants and provided them with duties that carry no responsibilities, and has even hires laborers to work the land and a townsman as a steward, paying the steward two hundred fifty rubles each year and maintaining that the former steward, Peter, is free (8-9). With these "reformed" attitudes, Nikolai and his brother Pavel still adhere to the traditional distinctions between aristocracy and working class, treating the "servants" and laborers with the respect due a member of a much lower class-the class lines remain along with the corresponding social and political attitudes. Thus Pavel and Nikolai still see themselves as aristocrats among peasants, describing the hired steward derogatorily as "a tall, thin man with a sugary, consumptive voice and deceitful eyes" who "tried to depict peasants as drunkards and slaves." Pavel leaves the conversation with the steward early, seemingly unable to remain in the same room with one of such low birth; Nikolai continues the conversation but seems to understand that the new system of labor is doomed to failure without massive injections of money-an aristocratic assumption (26-27). Neither Pavel nor Nikolai converse with any servant on any other topic except the running of the estate. Bazarov later confronts Pavel and Nikolai about their attitudes toward the peasants, which leads to the following confrontational argument with Pavel:
- "Ask any of your [Pavel and Nikolai's] peasants which of us-you or me-he recognizes as his fellow countryman. You don't even know how to talk to them."
- "While you speak to them and despise them at the same time."
- "So what, if they deserve to be despised? You condemn my course, but whoever said it was accidental, that it wasn't occasioned by that same national spirit in whose name you protest?"(39)
Bazarov immediately discards the traditional assumptions about social placement in society, treating peasants and aristocrats in the same way; with peasants Bazarov converses comfortably but disdainfully: "[H]e had a special flair for inspiring trust in members of the lower class, although he never indulged them and treated them in an offhanded manner" (15). This was precisely his manner with almost every other character in the novel. Bazarov considered every human an equal in purely scientific terms-comparing all humans to frogs, stating, "since you and I are just like frogs, except that we walk on two legs, I'll find out what's going on inside us as well"-which was his only means of characterizing people (15). Later, when he and Arkady discuss the peasants, Arkady typifies the sentiments of contemporary reformers by saying, "Russia will attain perfection when the poorest peasant has a house like that ['one that's so fine and white'] and each one of us should help bring that about." Bazarov negates Arkady's sentiments, the social order of Russia's serf-based society, and the efforts of reform by responding, "I've conceived a hatred for the poorest peasant-Philip or Sidor-those for whom I'm supposed to jump out of my skin and who won't even thank me for it . . . Besides, what the hell do I need his thanks for? So, he'll be living in a fine white hut while I'm pushing up Burdock; well, then what?" (99) Bazarov's attitude toward Russia's serf-based society-disregard for the social order and outright hatred for the deserving individuals-negates both the society's foundation upon serfdom and attempts at its reform. After Bazarov's indictment, all that remains is the character of Bazarov himself and his strong negative personal feelings for other individuals, peasants and aristocrats (like Pavel, whom he calls an "idiot") alike.
Bazarov also rejects the authority of Russian political leadership as "spoiled hegemony," not "enlightened leadership." The narrator, swayed for a moment by Bazarov's thinking, describes a certain distant relative of the brothers Petrovich, Matve Ilich, a governmental arbiter and judge whom Arkady and Bazarov travel to *** to meet. The description could as easily have been in the voice of Bazarov as in that of the narrator. Matve Ilich is dispatched to investigate a squabble in which the local governor, "both a progressive and a despot," is involved. Matve Ilich is not painted sympathetically: he wears ostentatious and somewhat undistinguished and undeserved medals on his chest, is considered a progressive but embodies such egotism that he does not "resemble the majority of such people," is usually made a fool of, "follow[s] the development of contemporary literature . . . in the same way a grown man who meets a line of young boys in the street will sometimes fall behind it," and, most damning for narrator and Bazarov alike, treats his subordinates with disdain and disrespect because of their social position, not because they deserve it (46-7). Unable to remain with such a character long, Bazarov and Arkady seek the company of a young lady they met at one of the governor's balls. Bazarov himself never provides a specific indictment of Russian politics; to do so directly would have been dangerous for Turgenev. In the narrator's description we receive Bazarov's criticism-a government official whose every action emanates not from nihilistic-based self-reliance (99), but out of obedience to political and societal norms (16-7, 55-6). Earlier, when describing one of the local landowning aristocrats, Bazarov remarks to Pavel, "He's trash, a lousy little aristocrat" (37), a description which Bazarov later allows to be known applies, as far as he is concerned, to all members of the aristocracy. His disdain for those who perpetuate the status quo, such as the political and social leaders, cannot be overlooked.
Bazarov also rejects emotions which are not common to the base drives of nature, including all assumptions and contrivances surrounding the concept of courtly or romantic love. Upon seeing Anna Odintsova at the governor's ball, Arkady seems immediately attracted and enamored of her graces. Bazarov, on the other hand, categorizes her scientifically; as the two go to meet her, Bazarov says, "Let's see what species of Mammalia this person belongs to" (58). While with the lady, Bazarov limited his discussion to "medicine, homeopathy, and botany" (61). Later, after speaking with the lady, Bazarov comments, " 'She's been through many changes, my dear boy; she's tasted the common bread . . . . What a delectable body!' continued Bazarov. 'Perfect for the dissecting table!' " (61). While Bazarov may not be completely able to control his emotions with the duchess, he continues to believe in the importance of debunking the concept of romantic love, particularly after Odintsova rejected him once he had declared his love for her. After leaving the duchess' estate, Bazarov provides Arkady clear insight into his behavior with Anna Odintsova and explains why he rejects concepts of romantic love.
"Since you don't quite understand me, let me inform you of the following: in my opinion, it's better to break rocks on a roadway than to let a woman gain control of even the tip of one's little finger. That's all . . ." Bazarov almost uttered his favorite word romanticism, but restrained himself and said, "nonsense." You won't believe me now, but let me say this: you and I fell into the society of women and found it very pleasant; forsaking society of that sort is just like splashing yourself with cold water on a hot day . . ." (85)
Later Bazarov further explains his rejection of emotions in general, referring again to the "beating" he and Arkady took with the duchess:
"Hey! Well, Arkady Nikolaevich, I see you understand love like all our modern young men: 'Here, chick, chick! Here, chick, chick!' But as soon as the chick starts to approach, you run like hell! I'm not like that. . . . Look! Here's a heroic ant dragging away a half-dead fly. Go on, brother, pull! Don't pay any attention to her resistance; take advantage of the fact that as an animal you have the right not to feel any compassion, unlike us, self-destructive creatures that we are" (98).
Bazarov's outcry reminds us of his constant characterization of humans in animal terms, implying that it is emotions ("compassion") that differentiate humans from animals and that those very emotions are the means by which humans destroy themselves.
As for a nihilistic negation of the spiritual realm of life, little direct mention of the religious is made in the novel. Father Aleksai alone represents the Church in the novel, a man about whom Bazarov says only, "I'm prepared to sit down at table with any man" (102). It is Bazarov's mother's description, provided by the narrator, which may indicate either Bazarov's or the nihilist narrator's opinion of religion. The narrator describes Arina Vlasevna's incredibly superstitious nature intertwined with her devoutly religious fervor; she maintained strict fasts for religious purposes even though she loved to eat; she did not eat watermelon because it reminded her of John the Baptist's head; she was "religious and emotional." These intertwined descriptions of religious devotion and emotional superstition lead up to her social beliefs: "She understood that there were some people on earth who were supposed to give orders and other, simple folk who were supposed to take orders, so she showed no aversion to servility or prostrations; but she always treated subordinates politely and kindly, never let a beggar go away empty-handed, and never condemned anyone outright, although she was partial to a little gossip from time to time" (93). The narrator's connection of religion and superstition with emotion and slavish adherence to established social order provides a clear picture of Bazarov's opinion of religion-a means of suppressing the individual's ability to be completely self-reliant and true to oneself. For Bazarov, there is only the natural: "I look at heaven only when I feel like sneezing" (101).