The Russian writer, Mikhail Morgulis ,remarked to me that children will not listen to their parents, but they will watch. It is not our words, but our actions that determine how we will be judged. Examine the words and actions of Bazarov, Arkady, Pavel and Arkady’s father and determine if their actions are consistent with their words.
It is quite clear that there is a generational gap between the two pairs of men. We see mostly through the eyes of the elderly pair – Nikolai and Pavel – at the novel’s beginning, and so it is clear to the reader early on that the younger pair – Bazarov and Arkady – are somewhat hypocritical. Nikolai and Pavel, on the other hand, present themselves as well-intentioned and consistent with their values, but the story is more complicated: Nikolai continues to mourn his lost wife but has a mistress and bastard child, while Pavel loiters (somewhat lecherously) in her room, despite his pretense that he is somewhat indifferent to his brother’s situation. Pavel clearly has some darker side to him that has yet to out, and Nikolai cannot seem to get a grasp on what he really wants just yet.
Arkady, on the other hand, means very little of what he says. In fact, he mostly parrots Bazarov, whom he wishes to impress, repressing any inner feelings he knows to be somewhat true. To be concise: he speaks like Bazarov and feels like his father. It is clear that Arkady will at some point openly rebel against his companion, and the trip to the Odintsov household provided the staging ground for that: Bazarov has shown his weakness to the aristocratic Anna. The length of his stay Bazarov spends denying some sort of feeling arising within himself, some idealism, which he masks with affected languor and indifference, but to a reader with the benefit of an omniscient narrator, it is easy to appreciate it as just a ruse.
Pavel Petrovich thinks that his brother is not practical enough in running the estate and that the peasants impose upon him, and he does not object when Nikolai Petrovich praises his practical abilities. Yet Pavel Petrovich gave his half of the living to his brother, and has continued to give him money ever since. He pretends to disapprove of Fenitchka, frowning when she brings him his hot chocolate, but he visits her and says he wants to see the baby. Pavel Petrovich is happily tickling the baby until his brother walks in, whereupon he frowns and leaves. Bazarov seems to be the most consistent in speech and action, proclaiming his nihilist beliefs and despising Pavel Petrovich for staking his whole life’s happiness on a woman. He is incredibly self-aware of the struggle between his stated beliefs about romanticism and his love for Anna Sergeyevna, but does admit that love to her. He is infuriated about this contradiction later, though, unlike any of the other characters. Nikolai Petrovich at least recognizes the contradictions of remembering his dead wife while fathering a bastard son, but he feels “no pang, no shame” (46). Arkady tells his father that he is sure he made the right decision about Fenitchka, that he could never be wrong, but later tells Bazarov that he thinks his father wrong for not marrying her. Arkady’s struggle, as Ali said, is between idolizing Bazarov’s beliefs and respecting his own father and upbringing. All the characters are contradictory but their awareness and responses are in sharp contrast: Pavel Petrovich is unaware of his hypocrisy, Bazarov is aware and it infuriates him, Nikolai Petrovich knows and doesn’t care, while Arkady is living with the struggle between paternal tradition and idolizing Bazarov.
Fathers and Sons, more than the other works we have read so far, is defined — almost as though it were a play — by the dialogue between the main actors and the brief, pithy descriptions of their actions between quotes. Much like Dead Souls, I find that the book places much more importance on the individual characters (and their struggles with differing ways of life) than on the storyline in which they are set. There are two main tensions that exist within and between the four main characters in the first half or so of the book, and we are almost immediately met with one of them: namely, the tension between Nikolai Petrovich’s idea of life and Arkady’s own changing, more modern opinions. This struggle is imbued into Arkady’s character, as he is quick to spout definitions of Nihilism and yet hardly “approaches everything from a critical point of view” (18, Katz translation). He is accepting of his father, his uncle, and even Fenetchka and his new brother, without much questioning. Nikolai Petrovich, on the other hand, is the least hypocritical of the four, perhaps because he is so quick to accept the idea that his way of life is outdated. An example of his concession comes when Arkady takes away his Pushkin reading: instead of showing frustration, he believes that Arkady is just being helpful. The other tension lies between Pavel Petrovich and Bazarov. That such strain exists is testament to the fact that Pavel Petrovich and Bazarov are both headstrong proponents of their respective schools: Bazarov is, really, the Pavel Petrovich of his generation. It is no surprise, then, that both deviate from their own ideals as a result of the same external force, their attraction to women. As Hillary mentioned, Pavel Petrovich is two-faced when it comes to Fenetchka — in front of people, he turns his nose to her, but in private he shows respect and even affection for her. Bazarov also hints at an interest in lady types near the end of the assignment. After Arkady makes the acquaintance of Odintsova, Bazarov is quick to ask if she is “ooh la la or not” (58), and this hint is sure to be developed later in the story by Turgenev. Thus, though each of these men are willing to stand up and proclaim their ideals for Russia, neither is capable of embodying them fully themselves, making their petty arguments all the more real (albeit occasionally frustrating with hypocrisy) for the reader.
This group of men gives microcosm of Russian opinion during the time of Lermontov. Bazarov and Pavel are firm proponents new and the old respectively and therefore oppose each other. Arkady and Arkady’s father are more neutral, firm believers but also recognize the other school as laudable too, instead of them being Queen of Spades-usque ideas that “can no more exist together in the moral world than two bodies can occupy one and the same place in the physical world” (Pushkin, The Queen of Spades, Chapter 6). Most of the time, the firm believers seem to portray their ideas through their actions to an unnatural extent. With his life, Bazarov represent nihilism and works hard to embody these ideas in every sense of his life. He works hard and does things practically, while purging himself of almost all emotion if possible. In the same way, Pavel strains himself to embody the highest, romantic aristocratic ideals. He maintains himself meticulously, even maintaining long nails to show his physical inactivity in accordance with aristocratic custom and is an ardent proponent of the many emotional and impractical things that Bazarov looks down on so intently. However, especially in the case of Bazarov with his emotional outburst to Lady Odinstova, their actions seem terribly forced and are product of sheer intent rather than honest will. Their efforts are so ridiculous that no one could actually believe in their honesty. Are both Bazarov and Pavel consistent with their words? Yes, of course. However, are they consistent with their ideas or has so much of their lives and energy been sunk into their ideas that both would rather die than give even the slightest inch of ground to other? That is left to be determined.
Both Arkady and his father are more of the middling sort and neither is as deeply entrenched in their feelings as the other pair. Arkady is obviously not honest in his words, especially when he defended them against Pavel. He seems to agree with nihilist ideals but lives them out in moderation. Arkady’s father, however, is very honest with himself and with his actions. He defends his romantic aristocratic ideas but acknowledges their backwardness openly with Pavel, although not with the young men. Arkady’s father seems to also live out his feelings through his mistress and young son, who Pavel could never actually tolerate.
I agree with those who’ve posted before me that Bazarov and Pavel belong, ironically enough, together, as should Arkady and his father, when it comes to words-action consistency. However, I believe that Nikolai talks the talk and walks the walk best. Though he may ‘err,’ according to his progressivist philosophy that aims at approaching his son’s level of liberalism, by reading poetry, appreciating nature, playing violoncello, etc., Nikolai is also the only one who seems to contemplate or consider any inconsistency between his words and actions. Contrariwise, Bazarov cannot annihilate and must admit his love for Madame Odintsov; yet at the same time he takes an negligent, explanatory stance when speaking to Arkady about that relationship (90). Pavel is similarly hypocritical, though I don’t believe in the sense others have mentioned (i.e. his weird hovering over Fenitchka). Rather, I think that his speeches about tradition and principles contrast with his non-action about and apathy toward the sweeping changes to Russian custom—though these are in line with his idealism. Also, his adoption of English style belies much conservatism in a way that even Bazarov appreciates. The reader receives relatively little information regarding Arkady’s actions, except for those into which he’s forced or else doggedly follows; although he apparently sides with nihilism, mostly his thoughts say otherwise. So he would probably also, from the outside, be judged relatively consistent in both his talk and walk.
None of the characters are completely consistent in their actions. Barazov shows that he believes in this nihilist world view, but he cannot help but fall in love with Madame Odintsova and show reluctant tenderness towards his parents. His worldview rejects any starry eyed romanticism, so he is uneasy when he feels something for other people. Arkady propounds the ideas of nihilism because of his friendship and respect for Bazarov, but he admits to himself that he enjoys the music that Katya plays for him and he enjoys art like his father. He also says that with his views he does not judge anyone, but he judges his father’s relationship with Fenitchka by telling Bazarov that it is a bad thing that his father hasn’t married her. I cannot really tell yet if Pavel has any more convictions after his devastating love affair with Princess R… or if he is just angered by the idea of someone who believes in nothing. He sees this stance on life as absurd and is angered by the confidence and arrogance Bazarov has due to his beliefs. Nikolai shares the feeling that what his son and Bazarov believe in is nonsense, but seems to feel that maybe he just does not understand the merits of this viewpoint. He only seems really vexed by nihilism because Bazarov considers art to be useless, and art is the only thing where his actions and convictions are consistent.
Turgenev certainly portrays the younger generation as more hypocritical. I have yet to see whether he has any real sympathy for the character of Bazarov, or if Bazarov exists only as a caricature to poke fun at and tangle up with the lives of the other characters. Nihilism, so far, seems to be manifested in general rudeness and selfishness and cynicism. But at least Bazarov is consistent. Arkady seems smitten with Bazarov’s glamorous philosophy, but he is obviously not truly a nihilist. He takes too much pleasure in life and seems honestly to love his father, however much Bazarov persuades him to abuse that love. Arkady prides himself on being truthful and noble, but so far he isn’t either. He pretends to scorn his father’s taste for Pushkin simply because Bazarov scorns it, and although he recognizes that Bazarov is rude to his father and uncle, he doesn’t do anything to stop him. Meanwhile, Nikolai and Pavel seem somewhat more genuine. At least Nikolai is honest about liking Pushkin, and he feels it to the heart when Arkady criticizes him for it. Pavel, while obviously attracted to Fenechka, cares enough about his brother to hide it. It’s hard to imagine Turgenev’s hipsters feeling anything so deeply, which makes Arkady’s strong feelings on meeting Odintsova proof that he isn’t really the same kind of person as Bazarov; he just pretends to be.
Perhaps the proper way to start off a discussion of the hypocrisy that exists in the actions of the four principle characters of Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons is a Winston Churchill quote: “If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” Arkady and Bazarov are compelled by nihilism, though Bazarov certainly is the more sincere, yet both as it turns out are utterly susceptible to the romanticism that they mock so openly (Pg. 77 Bazarov’s gaffe with the window is ample evidence.) While the politics of 19th century Russia made it fashionable for the younger generation to buy into the philosophy of Bakunin and embrace nihilism, Turgenev notes that it is contradictory to human nature to commit to utter detachment and that the heart of which Churchill speaks in no way overpowers the heart from which emotions are drawn. At the same time Nikolai and especially Pavel, are suffering some delusions of chivalry most likely garnered from a Walter Scott novel. Nikolai may think he is enlightened yet in reality his rationale is not derived from any great understanding of Russian society and its needs but more from a lack of any real critical thinking and a simple desire to live life easily. Pavel also has an immediate distaste for Bazarov yet it is highly doubtful that he has truly thought out Bazarov’s nihilism merely he recognizes it as something foreign and takes a reactionary stance against it. In the end the “sons” are unwilling to defer totally to their “hearts” while the “fathers” seemingly pay no attention to their brains.
Arkady claims that he is a devout believer in Bazarov’s philosophy, but there remain many ways in which their actions show great differences. It is obvious from his first sight of Madame Odintsov and his actions in her presence that Arkady has a greater inclination towards romanticism than he would ever admit. “He could not get the sound of her voice out of his ears; the very folds of her dress seemed to hang upon her differently than all the rest” (58). If Bazarov had any idea that these sentimental thoughts were running rampant in his disciple’s head, he would turn away in scorn. From the semi-omniscent narrative we repeatedly see that Bazarov and Arkady’s philosophies greatly, despite the fact that both claim to hover under the same umbrella of thought.
Several characters in this section try to act exactly the opposite of how they feel, to the point where their true sentiments become blatantly obvious. This occurs with Pavel Petrovitch, trying to act with cool detachment in his confrontation with the Bazarov, and later on with the young nihilist himselft in the presence of Madame Odintsov. Though from their words one might think the conversation is ordinary and of no great consequence, their physical anxiety shows otherwise. In the following chapters Bazarov repeated calls Madame Odintsov a grand-duches because of her life of luxury and her educated manner of speaking. We know that this is supposed to come off as abuse towards the lady from his previous contemptuous discourse on the aristocracy, yet it is apparent that Bazarov is more than a little infatuated with her.
I think the most telling incident in this portion of Fathers and Sons is Bazarov’s collapse to passion in front of Anna. Bazarov claims to detest passion, because he does not see the use of it. His disdain for emotions is so great that Arkady feels very self conscious displaying any kind of emotion in front of him: in one case Arkady hesitates to cry for “he did not like to cry before his sarcastic friend” (81). When Bazarov realizes he loves Anna, he bemoans what “idealism” he finds within himself, “cursing under his breath both her and himself” (74).
But is Bazarov’s collapse into passion hypocritical? While yes, Bazarov does go against what he preaches and what he believes (or at least what he claims to believe), I hesitate to classify him as a hypocrite. Bazarov is in fact an idealist. As much as he would hate that label that is in fact what he is. He’s a nihilistic idealist. His believes that with the correct societal system, everything would work itself out is in fact an idealist belief. As is his rejection of passion and art. He strives for a scientific ideal, but there is something in his nature, his human nature, which prevents him from aspiring to and fulfilling this ideal. I’ll be interested to see what Bazarov’s family is like to see if his character is shaped by his parents, but for now I see his idealist views clashing with his human reality.
“Do you know what I was reminded of, brother? I once had a dispute with our poor mother; she stormed, and wouldn’t listen to me. At last I said to her, ‘Of course, you can’t understand me; we belong,’ I said, ‘to different generations.”
Nikolai begins to realize how Arkady and Barazov are now the younger misunderstood generations, while Nikolai himself and his brother Pavel are the older different generation. We can see an us vs. them battle here of the younger and older generations. With Arkady and Barazov, they identify as the nihilists, which deny everything. Yet Barazov has a fascination with the species and nature. For me I don’t see consistency with their words and actions, the ‘nihilists’ are more trying to be socially different from their older generation. “The Russian people is not what you imagine it Tradition holds sacred; it is a patriarchal people, it cannot live without faith.” We see that the older generation believes in a more traditional Russia, rather than not believing in anything at all.
Hmm…well, Nikolai and his father are quite similar in their behavior, personality, upbringing and ideals (although ideals doesn’t describe the whole of it…perhaps worldview). Both were sent to school in Petersburg and love ideas – particularly ones exhibiting novelty or social justice, Nikolai of course is unreceptive to his son’s Petersburg ideas, but he demonstrates the novel ideas of his youth in his restructuring of his agricultural land and attempts to better his serfs. It is also remarkable that in spite of their shared enlightened ideals both father and son are uncomfortable with Fenichka’s position. The pair of them are aristocrats at heart even if nominally enlightened.
Pavel and Bazarov are of a different breed both are, in a sense, more unromantic and they are similar in other regards as well. Neither take their companions wholly seriously – Pavel recognizes the folly of Nikolai’s reforms and Bazarov constantly instruct Arkady and both fall victim to womanly wiles in spite of their hard personalities. Do their words and actions exhibit disparities? Well, Odintsova certainly throws Bazarov for a loop, but for Pavel the question seems irrelevant – he is stable but for his romantic issues and feelings of impotence. I observe no negative contrast between his words and actions, which is appropriate because he is the conservative one. As for Bazarov’s scientific inquiries it is somewhat strange to consider a doctor who cares nothing for people and a revolutionary who has no plan for the future.
As several have pointed out before, the book lives from the tensions it portrays. On the one hand those between the generations, on the other those within the generations. In any person contradictions between speech and actions can be found, but the father-generation seems to have more of an identity and hence consistency overall.
Bazarov, the great nihilist claims not to respect any authorities and yet quite readily accepts that of female beauty. Furthermore he bases his justification on his authoritative family background and his academic studies (doctor). So in rejecting any form of authority, he elevates his nihilist self (or generation) into an authoritative position, which he then however fails to reject. This authority question is also found in Pavel. He is trying to be an authoritative figure from the educated city and administrative system, does by living in the countryside and his interaction with lower classes nevertheless acknowledge his failure.
In Arkady I can see Morgulis’ words come true. Yes, Arkady wants to be a nihilist and part of the new generation and therefore agrees with Bazarov to the extent that his heart and conscience allows him. He does not respect his father the way he is supposed to according to tradition, but does feel the urge to defend him and feels pity as well as compassion with his father’s actions. Father and son are very kind people that honor the opinions of other and are very willing to accept them. This appears to stem less from their intellectual conviction but rather from their very nature. They are open, warm, maybe even naive and emotionally smart, not necessarily intellectual and cold as the other two characters. Arkady does not acknowledge this trait he inherited from his father in his speech, but most certainly shows them in his actions.
Although not as apparent in the two older men, who seem quite consistent and authentic in their actions, different levels of hypocrisy are apparent in each one of the four main characters.
In the first chapters, both Nikolai and Pavel seem consistent in what they say and do, although Nikolai seems to be more open to and tolerant of the ideas of the younger generation than his brother. Like Ali, I also believe there will be some inconsistencies in Nikolai and Pavel’s actions later in the story.
Despite his nihilist beliefs, Bazarov somehow manages to fall in love with Anna Sergyevna Odintsova, is conscious of and irritated by the fact that he is “frightened of a petticoat” (61). Bazarov’s beliefs are what attracts Odinstova, who “expressed a desire to listen to the man ‘who dares to have no belief in anything’” (62). He then tries to deny this fact by commenting only on Odintsova’s physical beauty after leaving her. He is eventually so maddened by his feelings for Odintsova which make it “beyond his power” to turn his back on her.
Arkady considers himself a nihilist but doesn’t fully understand all the concepts. When the four men are having the argument on nihilism, Bazarov is displeased by one some of says Arkady, “his young disciple.” Also, Arkady can’t help but to be moved by Katya’s piano playing, which goes against his nihilistic feelings of anti-romanticism (69).
Nikolai and Arkady are similar and it is easy to see their relation. Both are sentimental (however much Arkady tries to disguise his feelings he cannot deny them). Neither are particularly strong-willed or intelligent, however they share an openness of mind not to be found in the other characters. Pavel’s actions and words are wholly inconsistent. He is constantly scheming, and it is he who is aggressive in confronting the differences of ideas between him and Bazarov. In fact, he throws the first stone by condescending to Bazarov before Bazarov makes a remark about him. Pavel is clearly a very airy guy, the story about his youth shows that he never really developed any intelligence, focus, or skill, but rather just took advantage of his natural looks and wit (and his father) until he was heartbroken (and lifebroken) by a woman he could not keep. On the other hand Bazarov, who seems to be a jerk, is actually very much a man of his word. He reflects his ideas plainly, and does not disguise his motives.
The book is arranged so that dialogue is markedly different and distinctive among generations. The most blatant example of speech conflicting with action is in the case of Bazarov and Arkady. Their utter, almost blind devotion to nihilism is so typical of a youthful need to cling to something. One poignantly reads Arkady’s excitement and desire to give his being to something when he vehemently supports his friend’s almost absurdly pessimistic claims. The two adult brothers, Pavel and Nikolai comport themselves in less obviously deceptive manners. When they speak, readers know histories that influence each statement. While Nikolai acknowledges that his decision to father a child after being widowed is looked down upon by the public, he generally abstains from claiming that he is actually morally against his decision. Bazarov seems more sincere in his rants, yet such a pessimistic outlook cannot exist without deep internal strife. Pavel additionally seems to be more sincere, standing by the old, aristocratic way. Indeed, Pavel has this attitude because he perpetually lives in memories of his former success and gallantry, memories that have long since ceased to exist. Perhaps Bazarov has a similar but inverted motivation for his general philosophical outlook, such as a lack of hope for the future.
I agree with Helena that Bazarov has an apparently contradictory nature. He espouses the view of nihilism and rejects all authority, yet he elevates this rejection to the level of an authority itself. In his words, there is no way of knowing what is right, or how one should act, but the practice is very different. Bazarov in practice thinks that he is right and is the authority and that others should listen to him. He acts as though the right action is always the opposite of the norm. He sees a cultural norm of marriage and rejects it, he sees a societal deference to authority, and rejects it; Bazarov does not create his own ideas, he merely inverts other ideas. Arkady is less blatant about the distance between his words and his actions. He says much less about his beliefs, and in fact really only defers to Bazarov. He seems to also be a nihilist, but a much less committed one. He is a nihilist who seems to reject the authority of nihilism.
The older generation is much harder to analyze. Neither Pavel nor Nikolai espouse any particular worldview or belief structure, other than a vague maintenance of the status quo. Nikolai tries his best to love and support his son, but is finding that increasingly challenging as his son turns to nihilism. Pavel is just disenchanted with the world and particularly with the idea of youthful trends. Pavel is a somewhat crotchety old man who just wants to live his life enjoyably, not dealing with any problems.
The disconnect between the generations is clear. The older men see the young as making mistakes and being sucked into a modern world that they don’t fully understand. The young generation sees the old one as bogged down in tradition, unable to reform, and hypocritical. Bazarov and Arkady believe themselves to be going through the same questioning of the world that their parents did. They see the mistakes their parents made, or the lives they lead, and they want something different. Like youth everywhere, they feel choked by the preceding generation, rightfully or not.
Joanna hinted towards this, but I just want to make it more explicit. The whole notion that Arkady and Bazarov have decided to become Nihilist and relish that fact is totally inconsistent with their Nihilism. The hypocrisy of Nihilism is that you tend to cling onto the fact that you cling onto nothing. For Arkady and Bazarov, it is even more because they so clearly seem to be clinging onto each other (for Arkady, almost in a way that replaces Nikolai) under the guise of supposed Nihilism. When Arkady decides to maintain nothing more than tepid conversation with Nikolai upon his return, he trades seemingly sentimental relationship for (at least in the reader’s retrospective eye) Nihilism. But in actuality, he just seems to be trading his relationship with Nikolai for Bazarov, and that feels less like Nihilism in a philosophical sense than it does youthful ignorance.
The disparity between Pavel’s and Nikolai’s views and Arkady’s and Bazarov’s outlook on life highlights the generational gap that was occurring at that time in Russia. The timelessness of this issue, for there will always be a generational gap between father and son, is what gives “Fathers and Sons” its relevance.
Bazarov and Arkady both see themselves as new and revolutionary thinkers, but unlike Bazarov, Arkady remains respectful of his father and uncle. Arkady is unable to act on his supposed nihilist views because he does not renounce everything. He cannot help but love nature, and eventually a woman. In contrast, Bazarov seems to truly believe in his views as he openly mocks Pavel Petrovich. It is interesting to consider whether Bazarov actually believes that this sort of treatment of another human is acceptable based on his views or that he is simply a rude and unkind person who happens to have unusual views to explain his behavior. It seems that it must be the latter, considering he deeply betrays his own views when he fall in love with Madam Odinstkov.
Despite his age, Nikolai seems to be the most open minded of the four men. When he wonders “[d]oesn’t their superiority consist in there being fewer traces of the slave-owner in them than us?” (45), Nikolai proves that he lacks the arrogance that the other three men have. Even as a member of the older generation, he ultimately seems to have the capability to learn the most because he is the only man who will actually listen.