初戀是什麽？文學作品中通常會這樣描寫：初戀是如露珠般的純真情感，初戀是閃電一般的熱情洋溢，初戀是陰晴不定的夏日天空。這一切，在屠格涅夫的《初戀》中可謂應有盡有。在古今中外的文學史上，産生過許多描寫初戀的作品，屠格涅夫在 1860年發表的中篇小說《初戀》，就是其中的一首動人的青春頌歌。法國著名作傢安德烈·莫洛亞在《<屠格涅夫傳》中稱贊這部作品：“它即使不是他最偉大的一部作品，可能也稱得上是一部絶妙的佳作。”
如同屠格涅夫不少中篇小說一樣, 《初戀》的故事情節也是通過一位故事中介人來講述的, 采用的也是第一人稱的角度。《初戀》的故事帶有濃重的自傳色彩, 在某種程度上說, 它講述的是作者自己的故事。屠格涅夫曾談到：“《初戀》也許是我最愛的作品，其他作品或多或少有編造的部分，《初戀》卻根據真事寫成。不加一點修飾，每當我反復閱讀時，人物的形象就在我眼前鮮明地呈現出來。”① 這部帶有自傳性的小說以誠摯、抒情、優美的筆調抒寫墜入情網的少年對愛情的憧憬、追求、渴望，同時刻畫了少女齊娜伊達對愛情鞭打不散的執着，謳歌了美麗的青春，謳歌了純潔的初戀。
這是一個情竇初開的花季少年 。“那時候，我的血液在沸騰, 我的心在發痛,有一種極舒服、而又莫名其妙的感覺。那個時候, 在我的頭腦裏，女人的形象,、女性的愛情幻影幾乎一嚮是模糊的。然而我所想到的, 我所感覺到的一切,，無不隱含着一種朦朦朧朧的羞怯的預感，一種新鮮的無比甜蜜的、與女性有關的東西……這種預感、這種期待，占據了我整個身心：它隨着我的呼吸融入我的血液，沿着我的血管流變我的全身……”（《初戀》，第96頁）
命運果然給青春的少年弗拉基米爾送來一位天使,在他充滿着愛的預感的時候, 他們傢旁搬來了的一戶新鄰居—— 一位窮貴族公爵夫人和她的女兒, 正是這位美麗非凡的公爵小姐齊娜伊達——小說的女主人公，以其不可抗拒的魅力令無數男子深深傾倒，少年弗拉基米爾與其父也不例外。
很自然的，作品第三小節就開始寫到少年弗拉基米爾與齊娜伊達相遇了。當少年見到齊娜伊達時，“我忘記了一切，貪婪的凝望着她的那窈窕的身段、潔白的脖頸，她那纖纖玉手、潔白的頭巾下蓬鬆的金發，她那雙半睜半閉的充滿智慧的眼睛，她那靈秀的睫毛下面嬌柔的腮……”（《初戀》，96頁）弗拉基米爾被齊娜伊達的美深深地吸引了，視覺上的享受令他陶醉。於是，他便朝思暮想與她結識。當他第一次坐在齊娜伊達身邊時，他興奮異常如魚得水般快活極了。 “我心想，‘能夠同她認識……多麽幸福啊，感謝上帝！’我高興得跳了起來，但我剋製住了，衹是想得到美食的孩子那樣，坐在椅子上輕輕地搖動一下雙腿。” （《初戀》，105頁）這天晚上，“ 我的感受是那樣的新鮮、甜蜜……我坐在那裏，時而朝四周顧盼，身子卻沒有動彈，緩緩的呼吸着，衹是有時想起什麽事，便默默地笑，有時想到我在戀愛，想到我愛她，愛情終於來臨……”（《初戀》，第123頁） 對於少年而言, 當時的感覺是這樣深刻, 以至在接下來的日子裏,他總是在追尋着這種感覺。
“ 初戀” 給少年主人公帶來了新鮮感但同時也帶來了痛苦。“ 我說過, 我的熱情是從那一天開始的, 我還可以加一句，我的痛苦也是從那一天開始的。”
心儀的人魅力四射，吸引的目光也會很多，所以，少年的情敵就相當多。另外，心儀之人並未偏嚮自己，卻同時遊離在那些情敵中。於是，“ 初戀” 的少年甚至也學會了嫉妒，而這正是少年真正墮人情網的最有力的明證。
值得一提的是，這場戀情其實衹是少年的“單戀”。因為，作品中多次間接提到，齊娜伊達的歲數比少年的大很多。她是一個有獨立思想和獨特個性的人，是個成熟的甚至老練的女子。她情歸何處呢？作品中有這樣一個情節：
有一天, 我獨自坐在墻頭上, 眺望遠方，悠悠的鐘聲不絶於耳……我朝下一看。下面路上— 齊娜伊達身穿一件淺灰色衣服, 肩上撐一把粉紅色陽傘, 匆匆忙忙地走過來。她看見我, 就站住了, 把草帽邊往上一推, 擡起她那雙溫柔的眼睛望着我。
“ 您在做什麽呀，爬那麽高?” 她問我，臉上帶着一種古怪的笑容。“對了，” 她接着說下去, “ 您總是說您愛我,—倘使您真愛我的話, 那麽就跳到路上我這兒來。”
齊娜伊達的話還不曾說完, 我縱身凌空地跳了下去, 就像有人在背後猛地推了我一下似的。這墻大約有兩沙繩高。我跳下來的時候, 腳先落地, 不過震動得太厲害了, 我竟然站不住我倒在地上, 一下子就失去了知覺。我醒過來, 還沒有張開眼睛, 就感覺到齊娜伊達在我的身邊。
“ 我親愛的孩子, ” 她嚮我彎下身子—她的聲音裏透露出一種驚惶不安的溫柔“ 你怎麽可以這樣做呢, 你怎麽可以聽我的話呢……你知道我愛你……起來吧”
她的胸部就在我的胸旁一起一伏,她的手撫摸我的頭, 突然—我怎麽來說明我那時的感覺呢—她那柔軟的、清涼的嘴唇吻了我的整個臉……她的嘴唇吻到我的嘴唇了……我的腿再沒有勁站起來了。——可是這一次我所經驗的至上的幸福感, 在我的生命裏决不會再有第二次了。它成為一種甜蜜的痛苦滲透我的全身, 最後它爆發為大歡大樂的狂喜和狂跳。的確, 我還是一個孩子。（《初戀》，第148頁）
這一情節中，心儀之人憐惜、“疼愛”和那一吻使純情少年的心中引發的是一種多麽巨大的力量, 這是一種潛能，它使少年更無可救藥地沉迷於自己對齊娜伊達的愛戀之中。
對於少年主人公來說, 初戀的感覺是那樣純潔和神聖, 是那樣令人感動然而, 正如一位哲人所說, 大凡初戀還算不上戀愛,初戀其實是一種對愛的嚮往。小說後來的情節發展便證實了這一點。對齊娜伊達而言, 與少年的愛情原本衹是一場遊戲,她根本沒有料到少年對她愛到如此癡迷的地步, 少年的真誠和勇敢甚至也感動了她, 不過在她的心中所喚起的不是愛情, 而衹是一種憐愛。因為她早已與少年的父親陷人另一條愛河。
齊娜伊達無疑也是一個有魅力的少女形象，她是美的化身, 愛的幻影, 是屠格涅夫把愛情視為一種自然力量的愛情觀的體現。較之於“ 自然的女兒” 阿霞, 這個形象更少一些社會的內容, 更多一些自然力的象徵。如果女主人公身上帶有鮮明的濃重的社會的烙印如屠格涅夫長篇小說中的女主人公葉琳娜和瑪利安娜, 那與《初戀》的情調顯然是不協調的。② 正是這種超社會超時代的普遍意義, 賦予《初戀》以哲學的光彩。 “啊，青春呀青春！你對什麽都無所謂, 你仿佛擁有宇宙間一切的財富, 甚至憂愁反到使你開心, 悲哀會使你感到愜意，你充滿着自信，膽大妄為，你總是說：你們瞧吧，衹有我青春常在……你的魅力的全部奧妙，也許不在於你做成任何事情，而在於你能夠想到這一點，認為自己能做成任何事情。” 這種畫竜點睛式的哲學抒情是對作品的思想的最精練的概括。
青春，就像是第一口茶。衹有這一口，我們才能在其間體會到最初的美妙和苦澀。作品《初戀》就是一麯青春的頌歌, 又是一支“ 初戀” 的輓麯。它謳歌了美麗的青春，謳歌了純潔的初戀，詮釋了少年對生活滿懷熱望，對愛情的美好憧憬。我們贊頌青春，不是為了讓青春被後人所景仰，而是為了度過青春這本書的人，在合上後，可以感嘆之後，唏噓不已……青春，總是那麽富有激情和堅強。青春總是能讓人感到即使路途再怎麽黑暗，也會有一束叫做“愛”的火把，會照亮我們前進的道路。儘管，青春總是會讓人留下一點遺憾。
Plot summary
Vladimir Petrovich, a 16-year-old, is staying in the country with his family and meets Zinaida Alexandrovna Zasyekina, a beautiful 21-year-old woman, staying with her mother, Princess Zasyekina, in a wing of the manor. This family, as with many of the Russian minor nobility with royal ties of that time, were only afforded a degree of respectability because of their titles; the Zasyekins, in the case of this story, are a very poor family. The young Vladimir falls irretrievably in love with Zinaida, who has a set of several other (socially more eligible) suitors whom he joins in their difficult and often fruitless search for the young lady's favour. Zinaida, as we find throughout the story, is a thoroughly capricious and somewhat playful mistress to a set of rather love-struck suitors. She fails to reciprocate Vladimir's love in a sensible and honest manner, often misleading him, mocking his comparative youth in contrast to her early adulthood. But eventually the true object of her affections and a rather tragic conclusion to the story are revealed.
Conclusion and outcome
Vladimir discovers that the true object of Zinaida's affection is his own father, Pyotr Vasilyevich. In the tragic and devastatingly succinct closing two chapters, Vladimir secretly observes a final meeting between Pyotr and Zinaida at the window of her house in which his father strikes her arm with a riding crop. Zinaida kisses the welt on her arm and Pyotr bounds into the house. Eight months later, Vladimir's father receives a distressing letter from Moscow and tearfully begs his wife for a favor. Pyotr dies of a stroke several days later, after which his wife sends a considerable sum of money to Moscow. Three or four years later, Vladimir learns of Zinaida's marriage to a Monsieur Dolsky and subsequent death during childbirth.
Central characters
Vladimir Petrovich
The storyteller, at the time of narration a 16-year old boy; the protagonist of the story.
Zinaida Alexandrovna Zasyekina
The object of Vladimir's affections. Capricious, mocking and difficult, she is inconsistent in her affections towards her suitors, of which Vladimir is the one to whom she shows (outwardly) the most affection. However, it is the affection of sister to brother rather than between lovers.
Pyotr Vasilyevich
Vladimir's father, a stoic symbol of 19th century masculinity; very 'British' in outlook and apparently unreceptive to emotion.
Structure
The book has one introductory chapter followed by 22 chapters over a length of between 60 and 102 pages depending upon translation and publication.
Context
Vladimir, having persuaded his friends that he cannot deliver the story orally, has presented a written version to them two weeks after they urged him to do so at a party (which itself takes place many years after the events surrounding Zinaida).
Other relevant works of Turgenev
The three stories, Torrents of Spring, Asya, and First Love work well when read in combination; they are often found published together and deal with similar topics and take place in similar contexts.
The importance of First Love
The story First Love is a true Russian 'classic' (for want of a better phrase). It remains an important book for young Russians. The ending itself is of some interest - clearly designed as a surprise of sorts but, crucially, it encourages the reader to reassess what he thought of the characters and causes the reader to muse a little over the content. The text is regularly used in the teaching of Russian at schools and colleges.
如同屠格涅夫不少中篇小說一樣, 《初戀》的故事情節也是通過一位故事中介人來講述的, 采用的也是第一人稱的角度。《初戀》的故事帶有濃重的自傳色彩, 在某種程度上說, 它講述的是作者自己的故事。屠格涅夫曾談到：“《初戀》也許是我最愛的作品，其他作品或多或少有編造的部分，《初戀》卻根據真事寫成。不加一點修飾，每當我反復閱讀時，人物的形象就在我眼前鮮明地呈現出來。”① 這部帶有自傳性的小說以誠摯、抒情、優美的筆調抒寫墜入情網的少年對愛情的憧憬、追求、渴望，同時刻畫了少女齊娜伊達對愛情鞭打不散的執着，謳歌了美麗的青春，謳歌了純潔的初戀。
這是一個情竇初開的花季少年 。“那時候，我的血液在沸騰, 我的心在發痛,有一種極舒服、而又莫名其妙的感覺。那個時候, 在我的頭腦裏，女人的形象,、女性的愛情幻影幾乎一嚮是模糊的。然而我所想到的, 我所感覺到的一切,，無不隱含着一種朦朦朧朧的羞怯的預感，一種新鮮的無比甜蜜的、與女性有關的東西……這種預感、這種期待，占據了我整個身心：它隨着我的呼吸融入我的血液，沿着我的血管流變我的全身……”（《初戀》，第96頁）
命運果然給青春的少年弗拉基米爾送來一位天使,在他充滿着愛的預感的時候, 他們傢旁搬來了的一戶新鄰居—— 一位窮貴族公爵夫人和她的女兒, 正是這位美麗非凡的公爵小姐齊娜伊達——小說的女主人公，以其不可抗拒的魅力令無數男子深深傾倒，少年弗拉基米爾與其父也不例外。
很自然的，作品第三小節就開始寫到少年弗拉基米爾與齊娜伊達相遇了。當少年見到齊娜伊達時，“我忘記了一切，貪婪的凝望着她的那窈窕的身段、潔白的脖頸，她那纖纖玉手、潔白的頭巾下蓬鬆的金發，她那雙半睜半閉的充滿智慧的眼睛，她那靈秀的睫毛下面嬌柔的腮……”（《初戀》，96頁）弗拉基米爾被齊娜伊達的美深深地吸引了，視覺上的享受令他陶醉。於是，他便朝思暮想與她結識。當他第一次坐在齊娜伊達身邊時，他興奮異常如魚得水般快活極了。 “我心想，‘能夠同她認識……多麽幸福啊，感謝上帝！’我高興得跳了起來，但我剋製住了，衹是想得到美食的孩子那樣，坐在椅子上輕輕地搖動一下雙腿。” （《初戀》，105頁）這天晚上，“ 我的感受是那樣的新鮮、甜蜜……我坐在那裏，時而朝四周顧盼，身子卻沒有動彈，緩緩的呼吸着，衹是有時想起什麽事，便默默地笑，有時想到我在戀愛，想到我愛她，愛情終於來臨……”（《初戀》，第123頁） 對於少年而言, 當時的感覺是這樣深刻, 以至在接下來的日子裏,他總是在追尋着這種感覺。
“ 初戀” 給少年主人公帶來了新鮮感但同時也帶來了痛苦。“ 我說過, 我的熱情是從那一天開始的, 我還可以加一句，我的痛苦也是從那一天開始的。”
心儀的人魅力四射，吸引的目光也會很多，所以，少年的情敵就相當多。另外，心儀之人並未偏嚮自己，卻同時遊離在那些情敵中。於是，“ 初戀” 的少年甚至也學會了嫉妒，而這正是少年真正墮人情網的最有力的明證。
值得一提的是，這場戀情其實衹是少年的“單戀”。因為，作品中多次間接提到，齊娜伊達的歲數比少年的大很多。她是一個有獨立思想和獨特個性的人，是個成熟的甚至老練的女子。她情歸何處呢？作品中有這樣一個情節：
有一天, 我獨自坐在墻頭上, 眺望遠方，悠悠的鐘聲不絶於耳……我朝下一看。下面路上— 齊娜伊達身穿一件淺灰色衣服, 肩上撐一把粉紅色陽傘, 匆匆忙忙地走過來。她看見我, 就站住了, 把草帽邊往上一推, 擡起她那雙溫柔的眼睛望着我。
“ 您在做什麽呀，爬那麽高?” 她問我，臉上帶着一種古怪的笑容。“對了，” 她接着說下去, “ 您總是說您愛我,—倘使您真愛我的話, 那麽就跳到路上我這兒來。”
齊娜伊達的話還不曾說完, 我縱身凌空地跳了下去, 就像有人在背後猛地推了我一下似的。這墻大約有兩沙繩高。我跳下來的時候, 腳先落地, 不過震動得太厲害了, 我竟然站不住我倒在地上, 一下子就失去了知覺。我醒過來, 還沒有張開眼睛, 就感覺到齊娜伊達在我的身邊。
“ 我親愛的孩子, ” 她嚮我彎下身子—她的聲音裏透露出一種驚惶不安的溫柔“ 你怎麽可以這樣做呢, 你怎麽可以聽我的話呢……你知道我愛你……起來吧”
她的胸部就在我的胸旁一起一伏,她的手撫摸我的頭, 突然—我怎麽來說明我那時的感覺呢—她那柔軟的、清涼的嘴唇吻了我的整個臉……她的嘴唇吻到我的嘴唇了……我的腿再沒有勁站起來了。——可是這一次我所經驗的至上的幸福感, 在我的生命裏决不會再有第二次了。它成為一種甜蜜的痛苦滲透我的全身, 最後它爆發為大歡大樂的狂喜和狂跳。的確, 我還是一個孩子。（《初戀》，第148頁）
這一情節中，心儀之人憐惜、“疼愛”和那一吻使純情少年的心中引發的是一種多麽巨大的力量, 這是一種潛能，它使少年更無可救藥地沉迷於自己對齊娜伊達的愛戀之中。
對於少年主人公來說, 初戀的感覺是那樣純潔和神聖, 是那樣令人感動然而, 正如一位哲人所說, 大凡初戀還算不上戀愛,初戀其實是一種對愛的嚮往。小說後來的情節發展便證實了這一點。對齊娜伊達而言, 與少年的愛情原本衹是一場遊戲,她根本沒有料到少年對她愛到如此癡迷的地步, 少年的真誠和勇敢甚至也感動了她, 不過在她的心中所喚起的不是愛情, 而衹是一種憐愛。因為她早已與少年的父親陷人另一條愛河。
齊娜伊達無疑也是一個有魅力的少女形象，她是美的化身, 愛的幻影, 是屠格涅夫把愛情視為一種自然力量的愛情觀的體現。較之於“ 自然的女兒” 阿霞, 這個形象更少一些社會的內容, 更多一些自然力的象徵。如果女主人公身上帶有鮮明的濃重的社會的烙印如屠格涅夫長篇小說中的女主人公葉琳娜和瑪利安娜, 那與《初戀》的情調顯然是不協調的。② 正是這種超社會超時代的普遍意義, 賦予《初戀》以哲學的光彩。 “啊，青春呀青春！你對什麽都無所謂, 你仿佛擁有宇宙間一切的財富, 甚至憂愁反到使你開心, 悲哀會使你感到愜意，你充滿着自信，膽大妄為，你總是說：你們瞧吧，衹有我青春常在……你的魅力的全部奧妙，也許不在於你做成任何事情，而在於你能夠想到這一點，認為自己能做成任何事情。” 這種畫竜點睛式的哲學抒情是對作品的思想的最精練的概括。
青春，就像是第一口茶。衹有這一口，我們才能在其間體會到最初的美妙和苦澀。作品《初戀》就是一麯青春的頌歌, 又是一支“ 初戀” 的輓麯。它謳歌了美麗的青春，謳歌了純潔的初戀，詮釋了少年對生活滿懷熱望，對愛情的美好憧憬。我們贊頌青春，不是為了讓青春被後人所景仰，而是為了度過青春這本書的人，在合上後，可以感嘆之後，唏噓不已……青春，總是那麽富有激情和堅強。青春總是能讓人感到即使路途再怎麽黑暗，也會有一束叫做“愛”的火把，會照亮我們前進的道路。儘管，青春總是會讓人留下一點遺憾。
Plot summary
Vladimir Petrovich, a 16-year-old, is staying in the country with his family and meets Zinaida Alexandrovna Zasyekina, a beautiful 21-year-old woman, staying with her mother, Princess Zasyekina, in a wing of the manor. This family, as with many of the Russian minor nobility with royal ties of that time, were only afforded a degree of respectability because of their titles; the Zasyekins, in the case of this story, are a very poor family. The young Vladimir falls irretrievably in love with Zinaida, who has a set of several other (socially more eligible) suitors whom he joins in their difficult and often fruitless search for the young lady's favour. Zinaida, as we find throughout the story, is a thoroughly capricious and somewhat playful mistress to a set of rather love-struck suitors. She fails to reciprocate Vladimir's love in a sensible and honest manner, often misleading him, mocking his comparative youth in contrast to her early adulthood. But eventually the true object of her affections and a rather tragic conclusion to the story are revealed.
Conclusion and outcome
Vladimir discovers that the true object of Zinaida's affection is his own father, Pyotr Vasilyevich. In the tragic and devastatingly succinct closing two chapters, Vladimir secretly observes a final meeting between Pyotr and Zinaida at the window of her house in which his father strikes her arm with a riding crop. Zinaida kisses the welt on her arm and Pyotr bounds into the house. Eight months later, Vladimir's father receives a distressing letter from Moscow and tearfully begs his wife for a favor. Pyotr dies of a stroke several days later, after which his wife sends a considerable sum of money to Moscow. Three or four years later, Vladimir learns of Zinaida's marriage to a Monsieur Dolsky and subsequent death during childbirth.
Central characters
Vladimir Petrovich
The storyteller, at the time of narration a 16-year old boy; the protagonist of the story.
Zinaida Alexandrovna Zasyekina
The object of Vladimir's affections. Capricious, mocking and difficult, she is inconsistent in her affections towards her suitors, of which Vladimir is the one to whom she shows (outwardly) the most affection. However, it is the affection of sister to brother rather than between lovers.
Pyotr Vasilyevich
Vladimir's father, a stoic symbol of 19th century masculinity; very 'British' in outlook and apparently unreceptive to emotion.
Structure
The book has one introductory chapter followed by 22 chapters over a length of between 60 and 102 pages depending upon translation and publication.
Context
Vladimir, having persuaded his friends that he cannot deliver the story orally, has presented a written version to them two weeks after they urged him to do so at a party (which itself takes place many years after the events surrounding Zinaida).
Other relevant works of Turgenev
The three stories, Torrents of Spring, Asya, and First Love work well when read in combination; they are often found published together and deal with similar topics and take place in similar contexts.
The importance of First Love
The story First Love is a true Russian 'classic' (for want of a better phrase). It remains an important book for young Russians. The ending itself is of some interest - clearly designed as a surprise of sorts but, crucially, it encourages the reader to reassess what he thought of the characters and causes the reader to muse a little over the content. The text is regularly used in the teaching of Russian at schools and colleges.
1840年5月屠格涅夫在遊歷了意大利和瑞士回柏林途中來到德國城市法蘭剋福。在那裏他偶然踏進一傢糖果店想喝杯檸檬汁，適遇店主的女兒嚮他呼救，請他幫助搶救突然昏厥的弟弟。女郎的美貌和氣質使他産生愛慕之心，衹是由於匆匆離去，愛情種子未及萌芽便夭折了。
This literary work, as an unhappy love story, is often understood by readers as a description of Turgenev's own failure in finding romantic love. The story is partly autobiographical with the main character Sanin representing Turgenev himself during his younger days when the author did indeed visit Frankfurt and other European cities outside his native Russia.
While it is not an extended literary masterpiece like Turgenev's most famous novel Fathers and Sons, Torrents of Spring is significant in its revealing of the author's thoughts and intimate emotions.
A 101 minute movie based on this novel was released in 1989 and stars Timothy Hutton, Nastassja Kinski and Valeria Golino.
This literary work, as an unhappy love story, is often understood by readers as a description of Turgenev's own failure in finding romantic love. The story is partly autobiographical with the main character Sanin representing Turgenev himself during his younger days when the author did indeed visit Frankfurt and other European cities outside his native Russia.
While it is not an extended literary masterpiece like Turgenev's most famous novel Fathers and Sons, Torrents of Spring is significant in its revealing of the author's thoughts and intimate emotions.
A 101 minute movie based on this novel was released in 1989 and stars Timothy Hutton, Nastassja Kinski and Valeria Golino.
《父與子》是俄國著名作傢屠格涅夫的代表作。《父與子》完成於1860年8月至1861年 8月，經多次修改後，於1862年在《俄羅斯導報》上。
《父與子》描寫的是父輩與子輩衝突的主題。這一衝突在屠格涅夫筆下着上了時代的色彩。巴紮羅夫代表了19世紀60年代的年輕一代——激進的平民知識分子。而巴威爾和尼古拉則代表了保守的自由主義貴族的老一代人。當然，在對待年輕人的態度上，父輩中的人們態度各有不同，尼古拉比較溫和，希望理解子輩，想跟上時代，衹是不太成功。巴威爾則固執已見，信奉貴族自由主義，對年輕人的反叛耿耿於懷。父與子的衝突在廣義上表現為巴威爾和巴紮羅夫之間的對立，由此，在巴紮羅夫身上塑造了時代“新人”的形象。
《父與子》是俄國著名作傢屠格涅夫的代表作。《父與子》完成於1860年8月至1861年8月，經多次修改後，於1862年在《俄羅斯導報》上。
《父與子》描寫的是父輩與子輩衝突的主題。這一衝突在屠格涅夫筆下着上了時代的色彩。巴紮羅夫代表了19世紀60年代的年輕一代——激進的平民知識分子。而巴威爾和尼古拉則代表了保守的自由主義貴族的老一代人。當然，在對待年輕人的態度上，父輩中的人們態度各有不同，尼古拉比較溫和，希望理解子輩，想跟上時代，衹是不太成功。巴威爾則固執已見，信奉貴族自由主義，對年輕人的反叛耿耿於懷。父與子的衝突在廣義上表現為巴威爾和巴紮羅夫之間的對立，由此，在巴紮羅夫身上塑造了時代“新人”的形象。
《父與子》-人物特點
《父與子》的中心人物是平民知識分子巴紮洛夫。巴紮洛夫是平民知識分子的典型，是“新人”的形象，他性格的突出特徵是具有鮮明的革命色彩，這表現在：
1、他激烈地否定現存制度。巴紮洛夫的否定有其歷史的合理性。這裏首先是歷史進步的需要，其次纔是革命者的版面認識和過激情緒。作傢對巴紮洛夫的這種精神特質雖不欣賞，但卻作了真實的描述。
2、蔑視貴族階級。這是平民覺醒的一個重要特徵。巴紮洛夫確信真理在自己手中，確信自己是時代英雄，有權蔑視貴族階級。他對於巴威爾的憤怒挑戰始終從容對待，而且常常擺出一付不屑一顧的態度。在論辯中，在决鬥裏，他老師崇高的勝利者。最後巴威爾也不得不承認自己的光榮已成往事。
3、以平民身份自豪，跟人民保持着密切的關係。巴紮洛夫已經不同於巴西斯托夫，他不再是優秀貴族分子的追隨者，他已經意識到，平民優於貴族。這是平民勢力興起的又一個重要標志。同時，屠格涅夫也表現了巴紮洛夫的知識分子的生活方式使他和人民隔膜起來的情形。一個農民評論巴紮洛夫說：“當然啦，他是一位少爺，他能懂得什麽呢？”這樣的描述也是很深刻的，它揭示了巴紮洛夫高於普通農民和脫離人民的一面，在當時的平民知識分子中，這也是一種典型的現象。這正是後來的民粹主義運動失敗的重要原因之一。
巴紮羅夫是精神上的強者。他充滿自信，生氣勃勃，具有銳利的批判眼光。他和阿爾卡狄傢的僕人們和睦相處，並不妨礙他批判老百姓的落後迷信。他的精神力量和批判鋒芒集中表現在他與巴威爾的論戰上。兩人初次相見，就在感覺上互不相容，進而展露出思想觀點上的針鋒相對。巴紮羅夫以他特有的簡潔、粗魯的話語對巴威爾以強有力的反擊。頗有咄咄逼人之勢。他决不屈從權威，具有自主的人格和評判標準，體現了年青一代獨立思考的處世態度和初生牛犢不怕虎的鬥爭精神，當然，也帶有年輕人從不成熟走嚮成熟的過程中的可能産生的偏頗和極端。但他還是以毋庸置疑的精神優勢壓倒了對手。巴紮羅夫吻費涅奇卡，在巴威爾看來，是嚴重地侵犯了貴族的權利，也是他們之間對立觀點的繼續發展。决鬥暴露了巴威爾的偏狹、虛弱和做作，顯示了巴紮羅夫的豁達、鎮定和自信，雙方精神力量的強弱在此得到進一步的揭示。
巴紮羅夫是行動的巨人，他抨擊貴族的泛泛空談，自己首先從小事做起。他具有實踐能力，註重自然科學研究。他的行動有價值取捨標準：“凡是我們認為有用的事情，我們就依據它行動。”他的行動目標很明確——為未來打掃地盤。他敢於行動的勇氣在一定程度上也表現在對待愛情的態度上。他曾惱怒自己也産生那樣浪漫的情感，但在愛情之火燃燒起來的時候他卻决不回避躲閃。
屠格涅夫寫出了在否定愛情的巴紮羅夫內心，愛情是如何萌芽、發展的，寫得真實可信。但是作傢讓巴紮羅夫在愛情受挫後一蹶不振，重蹈了巴威爾在戀愛上的覆轍，那句對巴威爾的尖刻評價“雄性生物”猶如一記耳光反打在巴紮羅夫自己的臉上。這並不是說，不能寫他的失戀痛苦，英雄也有兒女情長的一面。但屠格涅夫卻讓他的主人公一味消沉下去，不能自拔，直至死亡。這不能不是對巴紮羅夫的麯解。那個在貴族莊園所嚮披靡的勇士竟無力使自己最終擺脫消極悲觀的情緒，人物性格的整體性因此受到損害。作傢把巴紮羅夫臨終前期待阿金左娃的一吻這幕寫得極為動人，然而他的銳氣，他的憤恨，他的精神威力，他的堅強意志也在這女人敷衍式的一吻中消溶殆盡。
這種違反人物性格發展邏輯的矛盾變化，與作傢的思想傾嚮不無聯繫。屠格涅夫對巴紮羅夫所代表的平民知識分子有一種情不自禁的嚮往，他欽佩他們的個人品質和犧牲精神，但並不贊成他們的社會政治主張。這位溫和的自由主義貴族作傢害怕暴力革命，不希望他們的事業取得成功。他認為他們的觀點必然導致他們成為悲劇人物，因此他安排了巴紮羅夫的失戀、悲觀乃至最後死亡。巴紮羅夫性格上的不一致正好折射出作傢對民主主義者的矛盾態度。
阿爾卡狄這個人物在小說中有特殊的意義。就年齡來說，他屬於子輩，也曾追隨過巴紮羅夫；但就思想意識來說，他是父輩的子弟，因此巴紮羅夫稱他為“溫柔的自由主義少爺”。在剛剛到來的新觀念和遲遲不肯退去的舊觀念相互爭鬥的時候，青年人憑藉他們的敏感、勇氣和朝氣等生理、心理因素有可能更傾心於新觀念，然而子輩並不是先進思想的當然代表者，進化論的觀念在社會思想鬥爭中並不具有絶對普遍性，更何況其中也不乏有獵奇求新的表面追求。因此，屠格涅夫所表現的不全是生理、心理意義上兩代人的代溝，更滲透着不同社會陣營之間政治思想的分歧，從而揭示出當時俄國民主主義對貴族自由主義的勝利。
《父與子》-中心思想
《父與子》描寫的是父輩與子輩衝突的主題。這一衝突在屠格涅夫筆下着上了時代的色彩。巴紮羅夫代表了19世紀60年代的年輕一代——激進的平民知識分子。而巴威爾和尼古拉則代表了保守的自由主義貴族的老一代人。當然，在對待年輕人的態度上，父輩中的人們態度各有不同，尼古拉比較溫和，希望理解子輩，想跟上時代，衹是不太成功。巴威爾則固執已見，信奉貴族自由主義，對年輕人的反叛耿耿於懷。父與子的衝突在廣義上表現為巴威爾和巴紮羅夫之間的對立，由此，在巴紮羅夫身上塑造了時代“新人”的形象。
《父與子》-作者簡介
伊凡·謝爾蓋耶維奇·屠格涅夫（俄語：Иван Сергеевич Тургенев；英語：Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev，公歷1818年11月9日－1883年9月3日，合儒略歷1818年10月28日－1883年8月22日）俄國現實主義小說傢、詩人和劇作傢。
俄國19世紀批判現實主義作傢、詩人和劇作傢，出生於世襲貴族之傢，生於俄國奧廖爾省奧廖爾一個舊式富裕家庭，父親是一個騎兵團團長，十六歲的時候父親去世。屠格涅夫的媽媽脾氣很不好，經常打駡自己的孩子。1833年進莫斯科大學文學係，一年後轉入彼得堡大學哲學係語文專業，畢業後到德國柏林大學攻讀哲學、歷史和希臘與拉丁文。屠格涅夫進入莫斯科大學學習一年，隨後轉入聖彼得堡大學學習經典著作，俄國文學和哲學。1838年前往柏林大學學習黑格爾哲學。在歐洲屠格涅夫見到了更加現代化的社會制度，被視為“歐化”的知識分子，主張俄國學習西方，廢除包括農奴製在內的封建制度。
屠格涅夫是 19 世紀俄國有世界 聲譽的現實主義藝術大師。他的小說不僅迅速及時地反映了當時的俄國社會現實 ，而且善於通過生動的情節和恰當的言語、行動，通過對大自然情境交融的描述，塑造出許多栩栩如生的人物形象。他的語言簡潔、樸質、精確、優美，為俄羅斯語言的規範化作出了重要貢獻。中國早在1917年就開始翻譯介紹屠格涅夫的小說，現在幾乎他所有的主要作品都有了中譯本，一些名作還有多種譯本。早期寫詩（《帕拉莎》《地主》等）。1847～1852年發表《獵人筆記》，揭露農奴主的殘暴，農奴的悲慘生活，因此被放逐。在監禁中寫成中篇小說《木木》，對農奴製表示抗議。以後又發表長篇小說《羅亭》（1856年）、《貴族之傢》（1859年），中篇小說《阿霞》《多餘人的日記》等，描寫貴族地主出身的知識分子好發議論而缺少鬥爭精神的性格。在長篇小說《前夜》（1860年）中，塑造出保加利亞革命者英沙羅夫的形象。後來發表長篇小說《父與子》，刻畫貴族自由主義者同平民知識分子之間的思想衝突。後期長篇小說《煙》（1867年）和《處女地》（1877年），否定貴族反動派和貴族自由主義者，批評不徹底的民粹派，但流露悲觀情緒。此外，還寫有劇本《村居一月》和散文詩等。
屠格涅夫是一位有獨特藝術風格的作傢，他既擅長細膩的心理描寫，又長於抒情。小說結構嚴整，情節緊湊，人物形象生動，尤其善於細緻雕琢女性藝術形象，而他對旖旎的大自然的描寫也充滿詩情畫意。
《父與子》-作品賞析
《父與子》描寫的是父輩與子輩衝突的主題。這一衝突在屠格涅夫筆下着上了時代的色彩。巴紮羅夫代表了19世紀60年代的年輕一代——激進的平民知識分子。而巴威爾和尼古拉則代表了保守的自由主義貴族的老一代人。當然，在對待年輕人的態度上，父輩中的人們態度各有不同，尼古拉比較溫和，希望理解子輩，想跟上時代，衹是不太成功。巴威爾則固執已見，信奉貴族自由主義，對年輕人的反叛耿耿於懷。父與子的衝突在廣義上表現為巴威爾和巴紮羅夫之間的對立，由此，在巴紮羅夫身上塑造了時代“新人”的形象。
巴紮羅夫是精神上的強者。他充滿自信，生氣勃勃，具有銳利的批判眼光。他和阿爾卡狄傢的僕人們和睦相處，並不妨礙他批判老百姓的落後迷信。他的精神力量和批判鋒芒集中表現在他與巴威爾的論戰上。兩人初次相見，就在感覺上互不相容，進而展露出思想觀點上的針鋒相對。巴紮羅夫以他特有的簡潔、粗魯的話語對巴威爾以強有力的反擊。頗有咄咄逼人之勢。他决不屈從權威，具有自主的人格和評判標準，體現了年青一代獨立思考的處世態度和初生牛犢不怕虎的鬥爭精神，當然，也帶有年輕人從不成熟走嚮成熟的過程中的可能産生的偏頗和極端。但他還是以毋庸置疑的精神優勢壓倒了對手。巴紮羅夫吻費涅奇卡，在巴威爾看來，是嚴重地侵犯了貴族的權利，也是他們之間對立觀點的繼續發展。决鬥暴露了巴威爾的偏狹、虛弱和做作，顯示了巴紮羅夫的豁達、鎮定和自信，雙方精神力量的強弱在此得到進一步的揭示。
巴紮羅夫是行動的巨人，他抨擊貴族的泛泛空談，自己首先從小事做起。他具有實踐能力，註重自然科學研究。他的行動有價值取捨標準：“凡是我們認為有用的事情，我們就依據它行動。”他的行動目標很明確——為未來打掃地盤。他敢於行動的勇氣在一定程度上也表現在對待愛情的態度上。他曾惱怒自己也産生那樣浪漫的情感，但在愛情之火燃燒起來的時候他卻决不回避躲閃。
屠格涅夫寫出了在否定愛情的巴紮羅夫內心，愛情是如何萌芽、發展的，寫得真實可信。但是作傢讓巴紮羅夫在愛情受挫後一蹶不振，重蹈了巴威爾在戀愛上的覆轍，那句對巴威爾的尖刻評價“雄性生物”猶如一記耳光反打在巴紮羅夫自己的臉上。這並不是說，不能寫他的失戀痛苦，英雄也有兒女情長的一面。但屠格涅夫卻讓他的主人公一味消沉下去，不能自拔，直至死亡。這不能不是對巴紮羅夫的麯解。那個在貴族莊園所嚮披靡的勇士竟無力使自己最終擺脫消極悲觀的情緒，人物性格的整體性因此受到損害。作傢把巴紮羅夫臨終前期待阿金左娃的一吻這幕寫得極為動人，然而他的銳氣，他的憤恨，他的精神威力，他的堅強意志也在這女人敷衍式的一吻中消溶殆盡。
《父與子》《父與子》
這種違反人物性格發展邏輯的矛盾變化，與作傢的思想傾嚮不無聯繫。屠格涅夫對巴紮羅夫所代表的平民知識分子有一種情不自禁的嚮往，他欽佩他們的個人品質和犧牲精神，但並不贊成他們的社會政治主張。這位溫和的自由主義貴族作傢害怕暴力革命，不希望他們的事業取得成功。他認為他們的觀點必然導致他們成為悲劇人物，因此他安排了巴紮羅夫的失戀、悲觀乃至最後死亡。巴紮羅夫性格上的不一致正好折射出作傢對民主主義者的矛盾態度。
阿爾卡狄這個人物在小說中有特殊的意義。就年齡來說，他屬於子輩，也曾追隨過巴紮羅夫；但就思想意識來說，他是父輩的子弟，因此巴紮羅夫稱他為“溫柔的自由主義少爺”。在剛剛到來的新觀念和遲遲不肯退去的舊觀念相互爭鬥的時候，青年人憑藉他們的敏感、勇氣和朝氣等生理、心理因素有可能更傾心於新觀念，然而子輩並不是先進思想的當然代表者，進化論的觀念在社會思想鬥爭中並不具有絶對普遍性，更何況其中也不乏有獵奇求新的表面追求。因此，屠格涅夫所表現的不全是生理、心理意義上兩代人的代溝，更滲透着不同社會陣營之間政治思想的分歧，從而揭示出當時俄國民主主義對貴族自由主義的勝利。
《父與子》是屠格涅夫的代表作。巴紮羅夫身上儘管有瑕疵，但他仍以不同凡響的藝術個性給人以鮮明的印象，在俄國文學史上他是第一個俄國“新人”形象，率先傳達出平民知識分子已成為生活主角的時代信息。
《父與子》-創作背景
屠格涅夫從《巴拉莎》（一八四三），《地主》（一八四六）等詩篇開始文學生涯。他的《獵人筆記》（一八四七——五二）的發表曾當作俄國文學生活中的一件大事。這一篇篇特寫，以俄國中部地區的自然景色為襯托，廣泛地描繪了莊園地主和農民的生活，深刻揭露了地主表面上文明仁慈、實際上醜惡殘暴的本性，全書充滿對含垢受辱、備受欺凌的勞動人民的同情。當時的進步思想界稱它是對農奴製的“一陣猛烈炮火”，是一部 “點燃火種的書”。一八五二年屠格涅夫因撰文悼念果戈理逝世，實質上則因其《獵人筆記》的社會思想傾嚮而被捕，送往斯巴斯科耶——魯托維諾夫村軟禁。軟禁期間他寫了中篇《木木》，以滿腔仇恨對農奴製進行控訴。五十至六十年代是他創作最旺盛的時期，適逢俄國社會運動逐步高漲，他及時地反映了社會生活的方方面面。長篇《羅亭》（一八五六），《貴族之傢》（一八五九），中篇《阿霞》（一八五八），《多餘人的日記》（一八五○）展示了貴族知識分子言語脫離行動，理論脫離實踐的一些典型特徵。長篇《前夜》（一八六○）則反映俄國農奴製垮臺前夕在俄國出現的進步社會思潮。在屠格涅夫創作中占有中心地位的長篇《父與子》（一八六二）刻畫了兩種社會勢力——民主主義者和自由派貴族間的思想衝突。
屠格涅夫文筆婉麗，結構巧妙，語言清新簡潔，深得讀者喜愛。其作品很早就有人譯介，譯介者有老一代知名作傢，也有我的同時代人。屠格涅夫創作《父與子》的那些年月，農奴主已不再可能。
《父與子》《父與子》
但屠格涅夫是個深沉的現實主義作傢，他必然把歷史的重大客觀事件置於視界之內，把再現生活作為無可推卸的責職，去塑造符合時代的典型。《父與子》中的巴紮羅夫可說是十九世紀六十年代俄國民。
巴紮羅夫不屈從任何權威，不把任何準則當作信仰，即使這準則是多麽受到尊重。赫爾岑把巴紮羅夫的這種虛無主義歸結為“完全、徹底襬脫了一切現成概念和陳規舊俗”。杜勃羅留波夫進一步認同：“新人——他是唯心主義哲學的反對者，因為唯心主義哲學把準則看成高於樸素的生活真理。”巴紮羅夫對藉抽象法得出的科學概念確無好感：“指的是什麽科學？泛泛的科學嗎？科學一如手藝，有具體的門類，而泛泛的科學是不存在的。”在此他衹承認具體的科學，而把“泛泛的科學”即哲學徹底否定了。他把哲學看成是 “浪漫主義”哲學，腐朽，鬍說八道，與浪漫主義是等同概念。曼恩由此認為巴紮羅夫的思辯“從黑格爾的 Allgemeinneit總體中得到瞭解放”。巴紮羅夫認為人的行為不由抽象的、必須遵循的準則，而是由現實生活决定的：“總的說來，準則是沒有的，……衹有感覺。一切都取决於感覺。”巴紮羅夫對基爾薩諾夫所奉準則的抗議也就是民主主義者對唯心觀的抗議。那時平民中的民主主義者按杜勃留波夫說法“不但懂得，而且親身感受到，世上絶對的東西是沒有的，一切事物衹有它的相對意義”，因此他們斷然“擺脫開絶對理念而去接近現實生活，用他們的現實觀替代一切抽象概念”。把小說《父與子》中發生的事件限定在一八五九年自有其。
此書獲全國優秀暢銷書奬，不朽的傑作，永遠的暢銷書！
連環漫畫《父與子》是德國幽默大師埃·奧·卜勞恩的不朽傑作。作品中一個個生動幽默的小故事都是來自於漫畫傢在生活中的真實感受，父與子實際上就是卡勞恩與兒子剋裏斯蒂安的真實寫照。一幅幅小巧精湛的畫面閃爍着智慧之光，無言地流瀉出純真的赤子之情與融融天倫之樂，永遠地震撼着人們的心靈。 早在20世紀30年代《父與子》便傳入我國，但在這本《父與子》全集之前國內最多衹出現過150個《父與子》的小故事，1988年我國在德意志聯邦人和國駐華大使及領事的幫助下成功地編成了這本《父與子》全集後，十幾年中這本畫册重印了數十萬，深受讀者喜愛，1994年還被評為全國優秀暢銷書。
非常難得的是國內的許多出版社對我們這個《父與子》全集的版本十分感償趣，經常愉快地藉用這個版本。例如，山東的黃河出版社竟全盤翻印了我們的《父與子》全集，而成都的天地出版社藉用的這個版本（此外還藉了我編的許多其他的畫册）不到兩年竟銷了10萬册。說真的，我真為此感到高興，因為模仿是最真誠的恭維，這些年輕的編輯畢竟是真心實意的追隨者！不過我們的《父與子》全集到底是原版，細看畢竟不同，不是嗎？
【編輯點評】
德國著名漫畫傢埃· 奧·卜勞恩的連環漫畫《父與子》譽滿天下、風靡世界。《父與子》所塑造的善良、正直、寬容的藝術形象，充滿着智慧之光，流露出純真的父子之情，深深地打動了千百萬讀者的心，從而使卜勞恩成為海恩裏希·霍夫曼和威廉·布施之後的又一巨匠，《父與子》被人們譽為德國幽默的象徵，受到人們一致高度的贊揚，聲譽遠遠地越出了國界。
《父與子》-影視信息
劇情簡介
俄國名導蘇古諾夫（Aleksandr Sokurov）執導。這部電影是描述一對父子之間，既濃烈特殊又撲朔迷離的情感，極具爭議性和震撼力。
父親與兒子長年生活在同一屋檐下，仿佛與世隔絶般沉浸在他們自己的世界中，被回憶和日常儀式所填滿。有時他們看起來就像兄弟，有時甚至像一對戀人。
《父與子》《父與子》
兒子亞力剋斯走上了一條和父親一樣的道路，進入了軍校。他喜歡體育運動，還有了女朋友。但是情人之間卻總有點隔閡，女友似乎在暗暗嫉妒亞力剋斯與父親的親密關係。
儘管亞力剋斯心裏明白所有的兒子總有一天終將離開父親，開始自己的生活，他的內心仍然充滿矛盾。
亞力剋斯的父親也清楚他或許應該去另一座城市找一份更好的工作，或者娶一位新太太。但是，誰又能減輕亞力剋斯夢魘中的痛苦呢？
從來沒有哪對父與子之間的愛如他們這般深厚。
蘇古諾夫親情三部麯係列電影的第二部，備受好評的《母與子》之姊妹篇。
本片的拍攝地點，是2003年正好建城三百周年的俄羅斯名城，如詩如畫的聖彼得堡所拍攝，極具詩意且唯美。
Historical context and notes
The fathers and children of the novel refers to the growing divide between the two generations of Russians, and the character Yevgeny Bazarov has been referred to as the "first Bolshevik", for his nihilism and rejection of the old order.
Turgenev wrote Fathers and Sons as a response to the growing cultural schism that he saw between liberals of the 1830s/1840s and the growing nihilist movement. Both the nihilists (the "sons") and the 1830s liberals sought Western-based social change in Russia. Additionally, these two modes of thought were contrasted with the conservative Slavophiles, who believed that Russia's path lay in its traditional spirituality.
Fathers and Sons might be regarded as the first wholly modern novel in Russian Literature (Gogol's Dead Souls, another main contender, is sometimes referred to as a poem or epic in prose as in the style of Dante's Divine Comedy). The novel introduces a dual character study, as seen with the gradual breakdown of Bazarov's and Arkady's nihilistic opposition to emotional display, especially in the case of Bazarov's love for Madame Odintsova and Fenichka. This prominent theme of character duality and deep psychological insight would exert an influence on most of the great Russian novels to come, most obviously echoed in the novels of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky.
The novel is also the first Russian work to gain prominence in the Western world, eventually gaining the approval of well established novelists Gustave Flaubert, Guy de Maupassant, and Henry James.
Major characters
* Yevgeny Vasil'evich Bazarov - A nihilist, a student of science, and is training to be a doctor. As a nihilist he is a mentor to Arkady, and a challenger to the liberal ideas of the Kirsanov brothers and the traditional Russian Orthodox feelings of his own parents.
* Arkady Nikolaevich Kirsanov - A recent graduate of St. Petersburg University and friend of Bazarov. He is also a nihilist, although his belief seems to stem from his admiration of Bazarov rather than his own conviction.
* Nikolai Petrovich Kirsanov - A landlord, a liberal democrat, Arkady’s father.
* Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov - Nikolai’s brother and a bourgeois with aristocratic pretensions, who prides himself on his refinement but like his brother is reform minded. Although he is reluctantly tolerant of the nihilism, he cannot help hating Bazarov.
* Vasily Ivanovich Bazarov - Bazarov’s father, a retired army surgeon, and a small countryside land/serf holder. Educated and enlightened, he nonetheless feels, like many of the characters, that rural isolation has left him out of touch with modern ideas. He thus retains a loyalty to traditionalist ways, manifested particularly in devotion to God and to his son Yevgeny.
* Arina Vlas'evna Bazarova - Bazarov’s mother. A very traditional woman of the 15th c. Moscovy style aristocracy: a pious follower of Orthodox Christianity, woven with folk tales and falsehoods. She loves her son deeply, but is also terrified of him and his rejection of all beliefs.
* Anna Sergeevna Odintsova - A wealthy widow who entertains the nihilist friends at her estate. Bazarov declares his love for her, but she is unable to reciprocate, both out of fear for the emotional chaos it could bring and an inability to recognize her own sentiments as love itself. Bazarov's love is a challenge to his nihilist ideal of rejection of all established order.
* Katerina (Katya) Sergeevna Lokteva - A character similar to Arkady and the younger sister of Anna. She lives comfortably with her sister but lacks confidence, finding it hard to escape Anna Sergeevna's shadow. This shyness makes her and Arkady’s love slow to realize itself.
* Fedosya (Fenichka) Nikolayevna - The daughter of Nikolai’s housekeeper, with whom he has fallen in love and fathered a child out of wedlock. The implied obstacles to their marriage are difference in class, and perhaps Nikolai's previous marriage - the burden of 'traditionalist' values.
* Viktor Sitnikov - A pompous and somewhat stupid friend of Bazarov who joins populist ideals and groups.
* Avdotya Nikitishna or Evdoksya Kukshina - An emancipated woman who lives in the town of X. Kukshina is independent but rather eccentric and incapable as a proto-feminist despite her potential.
Themes
Transgression and redemption
Bazarov (the prototypical nihilist) argues with Pavel Kirsanov (the prototypical liberal of the 1840s generation) about the nature of nihilism and usefulness to Russia in an episode which personifies the struggle between the fathers (i.e., the liberals of the 1840s) and their nihilist "sons". "Aristocratism, liberalism, progress, principles," Bazarov says. "Just think, how many foreign…and useless words!"
Bazarov tells Pavel that he will abandon nihilism when Pavel can show him "…a single institution of contemporary life, either in the family or in the social sphere, that doesn’t deserve absolute and merciless rejection." But despite this utter scorn for all things associated with traditional Russia, Bazarov still believes that there is a purpose and a value in applied science.
Human emotion and love as redemption
Bazarov's nihilism falls apart in the face of human emotions, specifically his love for Anna Odintsova. His nihilism does not account for the pain that his unrequited love causes him, and this introduces a despair that he is not capable of contending with.
Bazarov returns to his family after Odintsova rejects him. Bazarov complains to Arkady that "…they, that is, my parents, are occupied, and don't worry in the least about their own insignificance; they don't give a damn about it… While I…I feel only boredom and anger." His theory's inability to account for his emotions frustrates him and he sinks deep into boredom and ennui.
And then there is the enigmatic Anna Odintsova, a beautiful young woman of lowly origin. By virtue of having married well and been widowed young, she has inherited an exceedingly comfortable and insular life on a palatial country estate. In a letter written the same year the novel was published, Turgenev revealed that he conceived of Anna as “the representative of our idle, dreaming, curious and cold epicurean young ladies, our female nobility.” And yet, as with Bazarov, Turgenev’s fictional creation takes on a life of its own, superseding the author’s intellectual scheme to become a complex and perplexing figure.
Apparently content at the outset with her unattached life, Anna finds herself increasingly attracted to the blunt, unorthodox, highly intelligent Bazarov. She proceeds almost unwittingly to emotionally seduce the self-declared womanizer, luring him step by step in a pair of riveting, back-to-back passages to reveal his love. In the intimacy of her study, Anna confesses that she is very “unhappy,” that she has no desire to “go on,” that she longs for a “strong attachment” that is “all or nothing. A life for a life. You take mine, you give up yours, without regrets, without turning back.”
And yet, a moment after Bazarov capitulates and confesses his love, Odintsova rejects him brutally. Afterward, she is tortured, alternately blaming and excusing herself while fearing she may have thrown away a chance for genuine love. Finally she decides, “No. God knows where it might have led; one mustn’t fool around with this kind of thing.”
Conversely, Turgenev shows us Arkady and Nikolai's traditional happiness in marriage and estate management as the solution to Bazarov's cosmic despair and Anna's life of loveless comfort. (Arkady marries Anna Odintsova's sister Katya, though he was also originally in love with Anna). The height of the conflict between Bazarov and the older generation comes when Bazarov wounds Pavel in a duel. Finally, Turgenev also refutes Bazarov's "insignificance principle", i.e., the nihilist idea that life is utterly insignificant and that nothing remains after death: after leaving and then returning again to his parents, Bazarov dies of typhus. The final passage of the book portrays Bazarov's parents visiting his grave.
They walk with a heavy step, supporting each other; when they approach the railing, they fall on their knees and remain there for a long time, weeping bitterly, gazing attentively at the headstone under which their son lies buried: they exchange a few words, brush the dust off the stone, move a branch of the pine tree, and pray once again; they can’t forsake this place where they seem to feel closer to their son, to their memories of him… Can it really be that their prayers and tears are futile? Can it really be that love, sacred, devoted love is not all powerful? Oh, no!
Their love causes them to remember Bazarov: he has transcended death, but only through the love of other people. Fyodor Dostoevsky, who read Fathers and Sons and apparently appreciated Bazarov as a character, explores a similar theme with Raskolnikov's religious redemption (via the love of Christ) in Crime and Punishment.
《父與子》描寫的是父輩與子輩衝突的主題。這一衝突在屠格涅夫筆下着上了時代的色彩。巴紮羅夫代表了19世紀60年代的年輕一代——激進的平民知識分子。而巴威爾和尼古拉則代表了保守的自由主義貴族的老一代人。當然，在對待年輕人的態度上，父輩中的人們態度各有不同，尼古拉比較溫和，希望理解子輩，想跟上時代，衹是不太成功。巴威爾則固執已見，信奉貴族自由主義，對年輕人的反叛耿耿於懷。父與子的衝突在廣義上表現為巴威爾和巴紮羅夫之間的對立，由此，在巴紮羅夫身上塑造了時代“新人”的形象。
《父與子》是俄國著名作傢屠格涅夫的代表作。《父與子》完成於1860年8月至1861年8月，經多次修改後，於1862年在《俄羅斯導報》上。
《父與子》描寫的是父輩與子輩衝突的主題。這一衝突在屠格涅夫筆下着上了時代的色彩。巴紮羅夫代表了19世紀60年代的年輕一代——激進的平民知識分子。而巴威爾和尼古拉則代表了保守的自由主義貴族的老一代人。當然，在對待年輕人的態度上，父輩中的人們態度各有不同，尼古拉比較溫和，希望理解子輩，想跟上時代，衹是不太成功。巴威爾則固執已見，信奉貴族自由主義，對年輕人的反叛耿耿於懷。父與子的衝突在廣義上表現為巴威爾和巴紮羅夫之間的對立，由此，在巴紮羅夫身上塑造了時代“新人”的形象。
《父與子》-人物特點
《父與子》的中心人物是平民知識分子巴紮洛夫。巴紮洛夫是平民知識分子的典型，是“新人”的形象，他性格的突出特徵是具有鮮明的革命色彩，這表現在：
1、他激烈地否定現存制度。巴紮洛夫的否定有其歷史的合理性。這裏首先是歷史進步的需要，其次纔是革命者的版面認識和過激情緒。作傢對巴紮洛夫的這種精神特質雖不欣賞，但卻作了真實的描述。
2、蔑視貴族階級。這是平民覺醒的一個重要特徵。巴紮洛夫確信真理在自己手中，確信自己是時代英雄，有權蔑視貴族階級。他對於巴威爾的憤怒挑戰始終從容對待，而且常常擺出一付不屑一顧的態度。在論辯中，在决鬥裏，他老師崇高的勝利者。最後巴威爾也不得不承認自己的光榮已成往事。
3、以平民身份自豪，跟人民保持着密切的關係。巴紮洛夫已經不同於巴西斯托夫，他不再是優秀貴族分子的追隨者，他已經意識到，平民優於貴族。這是平民勢力興起的又一個重要標志。同時，屠格涅夫也表現了巴紮洛夫的知識分子的生活方式使他和人民隔膜起來的情形。一個農民評論巴紮洛夫說：“當然啦，他是一位少爺，他能懂得什麽呢？”這樣的描述也是很深刻的，它揭示了巴紮洛夫高於普通農民和脫離人民的一面，在當時的平民知識分子中，這也是一種典型的現象。這正是後來的民粹主義運動失敗的重要原因之一。
巴紮羅夫是精神上的強者。他充滿自信，生氣勃勃，具有銳利的批判眼光。他和阿爾卡狄傢的僕人們和睦相處，並不妨礙他批判老百姓的落後迷信。他的精神力量和批判鋒芒集中表現在他與巴威爾的論戰上。兩人初次相見，就在感覺上互不相容，進而展露出思想觀點上的針鋒相對。巴紮羅夫以他特有的簡潔、粗魯的話語對巴威爾以強有力的反擊。頗有咄咄逼人之勢。他决不屈從權威，具有自主的人格和評判標準，體現了年青一代獨立思考的處世態度和初生牛犢不怕虎的鬥爭精神，當然，也帶有年輕人從不成熟走嚮成熟的過程中的可能産生的偏頗和極端。但他還是以毋庸置疑的精神優勢壓倒了對手。巴紮羅夫吻費涅奇卡，在巴威爾看來，是嚴重地侵犯了貴族的權利，也是他們之間對立觀點的繼續發展。决鬥暴露了巴威爾的偏狹、虛弱和做作，顯示了巴紮羅夫的豁達、鎮定和自信，雙方精神力量的強弱在此得到進一步的揭示。
巴紮羅夫是行動的巨人，他抨擊貴族的泛泛空談，自己首先從小事做起。他具有實踐能力，註重自然科學研究。他的行動有價值取捨標準：“凡是我們認為有用的事情，我們就依據它行動。”他的行動目標很明確——為未來打掃地盤。他敢於行動的勇氣在一定程度上也表現在對待愛情的態度上。他曾惱怒自己也産生那樣浪漫的情感，但在愛情之火燃燒起來的時候他卻决不回避躲閃。
屠格涅夫寫出了在否定愛情的巴紮羅夫內心，愛情是如何萌芽、發展的，寫得真實可信。但是作傢讓巴紮羅夫在愛情受挫後一蹶不振，重蹈了巴威爾在戀愛上的覆轍，那句對巴威爾的尖刻評價“雄性生物”猶如一記耳光反打在巴紮羅夫自己的臉上。這並不是說，不能寫他的失戀痛苦，英雄也有兒女情長的一面。但屠格涅夫卻讓他的主人公一味消沉下去，不能自拔，直至死亡。這不能不是對巴紮羅夫的麯解。那個在貴族莊園所嚮披靡的勇士竟無力使自己最終擺脫消極悲觀的情緒，人物性格的整體性因此受到損害。作傢把巴紮羅夫臨終前期待阿金左娃的一吻這幕寫得極為動人，然而他的銳氣，他的憤恨，他的精神威力，他的堅強意志也在這女人敷衍式的一吻中消溶殆盡。
這種違反人物性格發展邏輯的矛盾變化，與作傢的思想傾嚮不無聯繫。屠格涅夫對巴紮羅夫所代表的平民知識分子有一種情不自禁的嚮往，他欽佩他們的個人品質和犧牲精神，但並不贊成他們的社會政治主張。這位溫和的自由主義貴族作傢害怕暴力革命，不希望他們的事業取得成功。他認為他們的觀點必然導致他們成為悲劇人物，因此他安排了巴紮羅夫的失戀、悲觀乃至最後死亡。巴紮羅夫性格上的不一致正好折射出作傢對民主主義者的矛盾態度。
阿爾卡狄這個人物在小說中有特殊的意義。就年齡來說，他屬於子輩，也曾追隨過巴紮羅夫；但就思想意識來說，他是父輩的子弟，因此巴紮羅夫稱他為“溫柔的自由主義少爺”。在剛剛到來的新觀念和遲遲不肯退去的舊觀念相互爭鬥的時候，青年人憑藉他們的敏感、勇氣和朝氣等生理、心理因素有可能更傾心於新觀念，然而子輩並不是先進思想的當然代表者，進化論的觀念在社會思想鬥爭中並不具有絶對普遍性，更何況其中也不乏有獵奇求新的表面追求。因此，屠格涅夫所表現的不全是生理、心理意義上兩代人的代溝，更滲透着不同社會陣營之間政治思想的分歧，從而揭示出當時俄國民主主義對貴族自由主義的勝利。
《父與子》-中心思想
《父與子》描寫的是父輩與子輩衝突的主題。這一衝突在屠格涅夫筆下着上了時代的色彩。巴紮羅夫代表了19世紀60年代的年輕一代——激進的平民知識分子。而巴威爾和尼古拉則代表了保守的自由主義貴族的老一代人。當然，在對待年輕人的態度上，父輩中的人們態度各有不同，尼古拉比較溫和，希望理解子輩，想跟上時代，衹是不太成功。巴威爾則固執已見，信奉貴族自由主義，對年輕人的反叛耿耿於懷。父與子的衝突在廣義上表現為巴威爾和巴紮羅夫之間的對立，由此，在巴紮羅夫身上塑造了時代“新人”的形象。
《父與子》-作者簡介
伊凡·謝爾蓋耶維奇·屠格涅夫（俄語：Иван Сергеевич Тургенев；英語：Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev，公歷1818年11月9日－1883年9月3日，合儒略歷1818年10月28日－1883年8月22日）俄國現實主義小說傢、詩人和劇作傢。
俄國19世紀批判現實主義作傢、詩人和劇作傢，出生於世襲貴族之傢，生於俄國奧廖爾省奧廖爾一個舊式富裕家庭，父親是一個騎兵團團長，十六歲的時候父親去世。屠格涅夫的媽媽脾氣很不好，經常打駡自己的孩子。1833年進莫斯科大學文學係，一年後轉入彼得堡大學哲學係語文專業，畢業後到德國柏林大學攻讀哲學、歷史和希臘與拉丁文。屠格涅夫進入莫斯科大學學習一年，隨後轉入聖彼得堡大學學習經典著作，俄國文學和哲學。1838年前往柏林大學學習黑格爾哲學。在歐洲屠格涅夫見到了更加現代化的社會制度，被視為“歐化”的知識分子，主張俄國學習西方，廢除包括農奴製在內的封建制度。
屠格涅夫是 19 世紀俄國有世界 聲譽的現實主義藝術大師。他的小說不僅迅速及時地反映了當時的俄國社會現實 ，而且善於通過生動的情節和恰當的言語、行動，通過對大自然情境交融的描述，塑造出許多栩栩如生的人物形象。他的語言簡潔、樸質、精確、優美，為俄羅斯語言的規範化作出了重要貢獻。中國早在1917年就開始翻譯介紹屠格涅夫的小說，現在幾乎他所有的主要作品都有了中譯本，一些名作還有多種譯本。早期寫詩（《帕拉莎》《地主》等）。1847～1852年發表《獵人筆記》，揭露農奴主的殘暴，農奴的悲慘生活，因此被放逐。在監禁中寫成中篇小說《木木》，對農奴製表示抗議。以後又發表長篇小說《羅亭》（1856年）、《貴族之傢》（1859年），中篇小說《阿霞》《多餘人的日記》等，描寫貴族地主出身的知識分子好發議論而缺少鬥爭精神的性格。在長篇小說《前夜》（1860年）中，塑造出保加利亞革命者英沙羅夫的形象。後來發表長篇小說《父與子》，刻畫貴族自由主義者同平民知識分子之間的思想衝突。後期長篇小說《煙》（1867年）和《處女地》（1877年），否定貴族反動派和貴族自由主義者，批評不徹底的民粹派，但流露悲觀情緒。此外，還寫有劇本《村居一月》和散文詩等。
屠格涅夫是一位有獨特藝術風格的作傢，他既擅長細膩的心理描寫，又長於抒情。小說結構嚴整，情節緊湊，人物形象生動，尤其善於細緻雕琢女性藝術形象，而他對旖旎的大自然的描寫也充滿詩情畫意。
《父與子》-作品賞析
《父與子》描寫的是父輩與子輩衝突的主題。這一衝突在屠格涅夫筆下着上了時代的色彩。巴紮羅夫代表了19世紀60年代的年輕一代——激進的平民知識分子。而巴威爾和尼古拉則代表了保守的自由主義貴族的老一代人。當然，在對待年輕人的態度上，父輩中的人們態度各有不同，尼古拉比較溫和，希望理解子輩，想跟上時代，衹是不太成功。巴威爾則固執已見，信奉貴族自由主義，對年輕人的反叛耿耿於懷。父與子的衝突在廣義上表現為巴威爾和巴紮羅夫之間的對立，由此，在巴紮羅夫身上塑造了時代“新人”的形象。
巴紮羅夫是精神上的強者。他充滿自信，生氣勃勃，具有銳利的批判眼光。他和阿爾卡狄傢的僕人們和睦相處，並不妨礙他批判老百姓的落後迷信。他的精神力量和批判鋒芒集中表現在他與巴威爾的論戰上。兩人初次相見，就在感覺上互不相容，進而展露出思想觀點上的針鋒相對。巴紮羅夫以他特有的簡潔、粗魯的話語對巴威爾以強有力的反擊。頗有咄咄逼人之勢。他决不屈從權威，具有自主的人格和評判標準，體現了年青一代獨立思考的處世態度和初生牛犢不怕虎的鬥爭精神，當然，也帶有年輕人從不成熟走嚮成熟的過程中的可能産生的偏頗和極端。但他還是以毋庸置疑的精神優勢壓倒了對手。巴紮羅夫吻費涅奇卡，在巴威爾看來，是嚴重地侵犯了貴族的權利，也是他們之間對立觀點的繼續發展。决鬥暴露了巴威爾的偏狹、虛弱和做作，顯示了巴紮羅夫的豁達、鎮定和自信，雙方精神力量的強弱在此得到進一步的揭示。
巴紮羅夫是行動的巨人，他抨擊貴族的泛泛空談，自己首先從小事做起。他具有實踐能力，註重自然科學研究。他的行動有價值取捨標準：“凡是我們認為有用的事情，我們就依據它行動。”他的行動目標很明確——為未來打掃地盤。他敢於行動的勇氣在一定程度上也表現在對待愛情的態度上。他曾惱怒自己也産生那樣浪漫的情感，但在愛情之火燃燒起來的時候他卻决不回避躲閃。
屠格涅夫寫出了在否定愛情的巴紮羅夫內心，愛情是如何萌芽、發展的，寫得真實可信。但是作傢讓巴紮羅夫在愛情受挫後一蹶不振，重蹈了巴威爾在戀愛上的覆轍，那句對巴威爾的尖刻評價“雄性生物”猶如一記耳光反打在巴紮羅夫自己的臉上。這並不是說，不能寫他的失戀痛苦，英雄也有兒女情長的一面。但屠格涅夫卻讓他的主人公一味消沉下去，不能自拔，直至死亡。這不能不是對巴紮羅夫的麯解。那個在貴族莊園所嚮披靡的勇士竟無力使自己最終擺脫消極悲觀的情緒，人物性格的整體性因此受到損害。作傢把巴紮羅夫臨終前期待阿金左娃的一吻這幕寫得極為動人，然而他的銳氣，他的憤恨，他的精神威力，他的堅強意志也在這女人敷衍式的一吻中消溶殆盡。
《父與子》《父與子》
這種違反人物性格發展邏輯的矛盾變化，與作傢的思想傾嚮不無聯繫。屠格涅夫對巴紮羅夫所代表的平民知識分子有一種情不自禁的嚮往，他欽佩他們的個人品質和犧牲精神，但並不贊成他們的社會政治主張。這位溫和的自由主義貴族作傢害怕暴力革命，不希望他們的事業取得成功。他認為他們的觀點必然導致他們成為悲劇人物，因此他安排了巴紮羅夫的失戀、悲觀乃至最後死亡。巴紮羅夫性格上的不一致正好折射出作傢對民主主義者的矛盾態度。
阿爾卡狄這個人物在小說中有特殊的意義。就年齡來說，他屬於子輩，也曾追隨過巴紮羅夫；但就思想意識來說，他是父輩的子弟，因此巴紮羅夫稱他為“溫柔的自由主義少爺”。在剛剛到來的新觀念和遲遲不肯退去的舊觀念相互爭鬥的時候，青年人憑藉他們的敏感、勇氣和朝氣等生理、心理因素有可能更傾心於新觀念，然而子輩並不是先進思想的當然代表者，進化論的觀念在社會思想鬥爭中並不具有絶對普遍性，更何況其中也不乏有獵奇求新的表面追求。因此，屠格涅夫所表現的不全是生理、心理意義上兩代人的代溝，更滲透着不同社會陣營之間政治思想的分歧，從而揭示出當時俄國民主主義對貴族自由主義的勝利。
《父與子》是屠格涅夫的代表作。巴紮羅夫身上儘管有瑕疵，但他仍以不同凡響的藝術個性給人以鮮明的印象，在俄國文學史上他是第一個俄國“新人”形象，率先傳達出平民知識分子已成為生活主角的時代信息。
《父與子》-創作背景
屠格涅夫從《巴拉莎》（一八四三），《地主》（一八四六）等詩篇開始文學生涯。他的《獵人筆記》（一八四七——五二）的發表曾當作俄國文學生活中的一件大事。這一篇篇特寫，以俄國中部地區的自然景色為襯托，廣泛地描繪了莊園地主和農民的生活，深刻揭露了地主表面上文明仁慈、實際上醜惡殘暴的本性，全書充滿對含垢受辱、備受欺凌的勞動人民的同情。當時的進步思想界稱它是對農奴製的“一陣猛烈炮火”，是一部 “點燃火種的書”。一八五二年屠格涅夫因撰文悼念果戈理逝世，實質上則因其《獵人筆記》的社會思想傾嚮而被捕，送往斯巴斯科耶——魯托維諾夫村軟禁。軟禁期間他寫了中篇《木木》，以滿腔仇恨對農奴製進行控訴。五十至六十年代是他創作最旺盛的時期，適逢俄國社會運動逐步高漲，他及時地反映了社會生活的方方面面。長篇《羅亭》（一八五六），《貴族之傢》（一八五九），中篇《阿霞》（一八五八），《多餘人的日記》（一八五○）展示了貴族知識分子言語脫離行動，理論脫離實踐的一些典型特徵。長篇《前夜》（一八六○）則反映俄國農奴製垮臺前夕在俄國出現的進步社會思潮。在屠格涅夫創作中占有中心地位的長篇《父與子》（一八六二）刻畫了兩種社會勢力——民主主義者和自由派貴族間的思想衝突。
屠格涅夫文筆婉麗，結構巧妙，語言清新簡潔，深得讀者喜愛。其作品很早就有人譯介，譯介者有老一代知名作傢，也有我的同時代人。屠格涅夫創作《父與子》的那些年月，農奴主已不再可能。
《父與子》《父與子》
但屠格涅夫是個深沉的現實主義作傢，他必然把歷史的重大客觀事件置於視界之內，把再現生活作為無可推卸的責職，去塑造符合時代的典型。《父與子》中的巴紮羅夫可說是十九世紀六十年代俄國民。
巴紮羅夫不屈從任何權威，不把任何準則當作信仰，即使這準則是多麽受到尊重。赫爾岑把巴紮羅夫的這種虛無主義歸結為“完全、徹底襬脫了一切現成概念和陳規舊俗”。杜勃羅留波夫進一步認同：“新人——他是唯心主義哲學的反對者，因為唯心主義哲學把準則看成高於樸素的生活真理。”巴紮羅夫對藉抽象法得出的科學概念確無好感：“指的是什麽科學？泛泛的科學嗎？科學一如手藝，有具體的門類，而泛泛的科學是不存在的。”在此他衹承認具體的科學，而把“泛泛的科學”即哲學徹底否定了。他把哲學看成是 “浪漫主義”哲學，腐朽，鬍說八道，與浪漫主義是等同概念。曼恩由此認為巴紮羅夫的思辯“從黑格爾的 Allgemeinneit總體中得到瞭解放”。巴紮羅夫認為人的行為不由抽象的、必須遵循的準則，而是由現實生活决定的：“總的說來，準則是沒有的，……衹有感覺。一切都取决於感覺。”巴紮羅夫對基爾薩諾夫所奉準則的抗議也就是民主主義者對唯心觀的抗議。那時平民中的民主主義者按杜勃留波夫說法“不但懂得，而且親身感受到，世上絶對的東西是沒有的，一切事物衹有它的相對意義”，因此他們斷然“擺脫開絶對理念而去接近現實生活，用他們的現實觀替代一切抽象概念”。把小說《父與子》中發生的事件限定在一八五九年自有其。
此書獲全國優秀暢銷書奬，不朽的傑作，永遠的暢銷書！
連環漫畫《父與子》是德國幽默大師埃·奧·卜勞恩的不朽傑作。作品中一個個生動幽默的小故事都是來自於漫畫傢在生活中的真實感受，父與子實際上就是卡勞恩與兒子剋裏斯蒂安的真實寫照。一幅幅小巧精湛的畫面閃爍着智慧之光，無言地流瀉出純真的赤子之情與融融天倫之樂，永遠地震撼着人們的心靈。 早在20世紀30年代《父與子》便傳入我國，但在這本《父與子》全集之前國內最多衹出現過150個《父與子》的小故事，1988年我國在德意志聯邦人和國駐華大使及領事的幫助下成功地編成了這本《父與子》全集後，十幾年中這本畫册重印了數十萬，深受讀者喜愛，1994年還被評為全國優秀暢銷書。
非常難得的是國內的許多出版社對我們這個《父與子》全集的版本十分感償趣，經常愉快地藉用這個版本。例如，山東的黃河出版社竟全盤翻印了我們的《父與子》全集，而成都的天地出版社藉用的這個版本（此外還藉了我編的許多其他的畫册）不到兩年竟銷了10萬册。說真的，我真為此感到高興，因為模仿是最真誠的恭維，這些年輕的編輯畢竟是真心實意的追隨者！不過我們的《父與子》全集到底是原版，細看畢竟不同，不是嗎？
【編輯點評】
德國著名漫畫傢埃· 奧·卜勞恩的連環漫畫《父與子》譽滿天下、風靡世界。《父與子》所塑造的善良、正直、寬容的藝術形象，充滿着智慧之光，流露出純真的父子之情，深深地打動了千百萬讀者的心，從而使卜勞恩成為海恩裏希·霍夫曼和威廉·布施之後的又一巨匠，《父與子》被人們譽為德國幽默的象徵，受到人們一致高度的贊揚，聲譽遠遠地越出了國界。
《父與子》-影視信息
劇情簡介
俄國名導蘇古諾夫（Aleksandr Sokurov）執導。這部電影是描述一對父子之間，既濃烈特殊又撲朔迷離的情感，極具爭議性和震撼力。
父親與兒子長年生活在同一屋檐下，仿佛與世隔絶般沉浸在他們自己的世界中，被回憶和日常儀式所填滿。有時他們看起來就像兄弟，有時甚至像一對戀人。
《父與子》《父與子》
兒子亞力剋斯走上了一條和父親一樣的道路，進入了軍校。他喜歡體育運動，還有了女朋友。但是情人之間卻總有點隔閡，女友似乎在暗暗嫉妒亞力剋斯與父親的親密關係。
儘管亞力剋斯心裏明白所有的兒子總有一天終將離開父親，開始自己的生活，他的內心仍然充滿矛盾。
亞力剋斯的父親也清楚他或許應該去另一座城市找一份更好的工作，或者娶一位新太太。但是，誰又能減輕亞力剋斯夢魘中的痛苦呢？
從來沒有哪對父與子之間的愛如他們這般深厚。
蘇古諾夫親情三部麯係列電影的第二部，備受好評的《母與子》之姊妹篇。
本片的拍攝地點，是2003年正好建城三百周年的俄羅斯名城，如詩如畫的聖彼得堡所拍攝，極具詩意且唯美。
Historical context and notes
The fathers and children of the novel refers to the growing divide between the two generations of Russians, and the character Yevgeny Bazarov has been referred to as the "first Bolshevik", for his nihilism and rejection of the old order.
Turgenev wrote Fathers and Sons as a response to the growing cultural schism that he saw between liberals of the 1830s/1840s and the growing nihilist movement. Both the nihilists (the "sons") and the 1830s liberals sought Western-based social change in Russia. Additionally, these two modes of thought were contrasted with the conservative Slavophiles, who believed that Russia's path lay in its traditional spirituality.
Fathers and Sons might be regarded as the first wholly modern novel in Russian Literature (Gogol's Dead Souls, another main contender, is sometimes referred to as a poem or epic in prose as in the style of Dante's Divine Comedy). The novel introduces a dual character study, as seen with the gradual breakdown of Bazarov's and Arkady's nihilistic opposition to emotional display, especially in the case of Bazarov's love for Madame Odintsova and Fenichka. This prominent theme of character duality and deep psychological insight would exert an influence on most of the great Russian novels to come, most obviously echoed in the novels of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky.
The novel is also the first Russian work to gain prominence in the Western world, eventually gaining the approval of well established novelists Gustave Flaubert, Guy de Maupassant, and Henry James.
Major characters
* Yevgeny Vasil'evich Bazarov - A nihilist, a student of science, and is training to be a doctor. As a nihilist he is a mentor to Arkady, and a challenger to the liberal ideas of the Kirsanov brothers and the traditional Russian Orthodox feelings of his own parents.
* Arkady Nikolaevich Kirsanov - A recent graduate of St. Petersburg University and friend of Bazarov. He is also a nihilist, although his belief seems to stem from his admiration of Bazarov rather than his own conviction.
* Nikolai Petrovich Kirsanov - A landlord, a liberal democrat, Arkady’s father.
* Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov - Nikolai’s brother and a bourgeois with aristocratic pretensions, who prides himself on his refinement but like his brother is reform minded. Although he is reluctantly tolerant of the nihilism, he cannot help hating Bazarov.
* Vasily Ivanovich Bazarov - Bazarov’s father, a retired army surgeon, and a small countryside land/serf holder. Educated and enlightened, he nonetheless feels, like many of the characters, that rural isolation has left him out of touch with modern ideas. He thus retains a loyalty to traditionalist ways, manifested particularly in devotion to God and to his son Yevgeny.
* Arina Vlas'evna Bazarova - Bazarov’s mother. A very traditional woman of the 15th c. Moscovy style aristocracy: a pious follower of Orthodox Christianity, woven with folk tales and falsehoods. She loves her son deeply, but is also terrified of him and his rejection of all beliefs.
* Anna Sergeevna Odintsova - A wealthy widow who entertains the nihilist friends at her estate. Bazarov declares his love for her, but she is unable to reciprocate, both out of fear for the emotional chaos it could bring and an inability to recognize her own sentiments as love itself. Bazarov's love is a challenge to his nihilist ideal of rejection of all established order.
* Katerina (Katya) Sergeevna Lokteva - A character similar to Arkady and the younger sister of Anna. She lives comfortably with her sister but lacks confidence, finding it hard to escape Anna Sergeevna's shadow. This shyness makes her and Arkady’s love slow to realize itself.
* Fedosya (Fenichka) Nikolayevna - The daughter of Nikolai’s housekeeper, with whom he has fallen in love and fathered a child out of wedlock. The implied obstacles to their marriage are difference in class, and perhaps Nikolai's previous marriage - the burden of 'traditionalist' values.
* Viktor Sitnikov - A pompous and somewhat stupid friend of Bazarov who joins populist ideals and groups.
* Avdotya Nikitishna or Evdoksya Kukshina - An emancipated woman who lives in the town of X. Kukshina is independent but rather eccentric and incapable as a proto-feminist despite her potential.
Themes
Transgression and redemption
Bazarov (the prototypical nihilist) argues with Pavel Kirsanov (the prototypical liberal of the 1840s generation) about the nature of nihilism and usefulness to Russia in an episode which personifies the struggle between the fathers (i.e., the liberals of the 1840s) and their nihilist "sons". "Aristocratism, liberalism, progress, principles," Bazarov says. "Just think, how many foreign…and useless words!"
Bazarov tells Pavel that he will abandon nihilism when Pavel can show him "…a single institution of contemporary life, either in the family or in the social sphere, that doesn’t deserve absolute and merciless rejection." But despite this utter scorn for all things associated with traditional Russia, Bazarov still believes that there is a purpose and a value in applied science.
Human emotion and love as redemption
Bazarov's nihilism falls apart in the face of human emotions, specifically his love for Anna Odintsova. His nihilism does not account for the pain that his unrequited love causes him, and this introduces a despair that he is not capable of contending with.
Bazarov returns to his family after Odintsova rejects him. Bazarov complains to Arkady that "…they, that is, my parents, are occupied, and don't worry in the least about their own insignificance; they don't give a damn about it… While I…I feel only boredom and anger." His theory's inability to account for his emotions frustrates him and he sinks deep into boredom and ennui.
And then there is the enigmatic Anna Odintsova, a beautiful young woman of lowly origin. By virtue of having married well and been widowed young, she has inherited an exceedingly comfortable and insular life on a palatial country estate. In a letter written the same year the novel was published, Turgenev revealed that he conceived of Anna as “the representative of our idle, dreaming, curious and cold epicurean young ladies, our female nobility.” And yet, as with Bazarov, Turgenev’s fictional creation takes on a life of its own, superseding the author’s intellectual scheme to become a complex and perplexing figure.
Apparently content at the outset with her unattached life, Anna finds herself increasingly attracted to the blunt, unorthodox, highly intelligent Bazarov. She proceeds almost unwittingly to emotionally seduce the self-declared womanizer, luring him step by step in a pair of riveting, back-to-back passages to reveal his love. In the intimacy of her study, Anna confesses that she is very “unhappy,” that she has no desire to “go on,” that she longs for a “strong attachment” that is “all or nothing. A life for a life. You take mine, you give up yours, without regrets, without turning back.”
And yet, a moment after Bazarov capitulates and confesses his love, Odintsova rejects him brutally. Afterward, she is tortured, alternately blaming and excusing herself while fearing she may have thrown away a chance for genuine love. Finally she decides, “No. God knows where it might have led; one mustn’t fool around with this kind of thing.”
Conversely, Turgenev shows us Arkady and Nikolai's traditional happiness in marriage and estate management as the solution to Bazarov's cosmic despair and Anna's life of loveless comfort. (Arkady marries Anna Odintsova's sister Katya, though he was also originally in love with Anna). The height of the conflict between Bazarov and the older generation comes when Bazarov wounds Pavel in a duel. Finally, Turgenev also refutes Bazarov's "insignificance principle", i.e., the nihilist idea that life is utterly insignificant and that nothing remains after death: after leaving and then returning again to his parents, Bazarov dies of typhus. The final passage of the book portrays Bazarov's parents visiting his grave.
They walk with a heavy step, supporting each other; when they approach the railing, they fall on their knees and remain there for a long time, weeping bitterly, gazing attentively at the headstone under which their son lies buried: they exchange a few words, brush the dust off the stone, move a branch of the pine tree, and pray once again; they can’t forsake this place where they seem to feel closer to their son, to their memories of him… Can it really be that their prayers and tears are futile? Can it really be that love, sacred, devoted love is not all powerful? Oh, no!
Their love causes them to remember Bazarov: he has transcended death, but only through the love of other people. Fyodor Dostoevsky, who read Fathers and Sons and apparently appreciated Bazarov as a character, explores a similar theme with Raskolnikov's religious redemption (via the love of Christ) in Crime and Punishment.
俄國傑出的批判現實主義作傢屠格涅夫的代表作《羅亭》創作於1856年。羅亭19世紀40年代，黑格爾的學說在俄國流行，青年們崇尚空談，不善實際，作品描寫的主人公羅亭就是這樣一個典型人物。他出身於破落貴族家庭，念過大學，又曾到國外遊歷，熱愛自由，能言善辯，嚮往理想的生活、事業、愛情。但他是“語言的巨人，行動的矮子”，雖諸多追求，卻一事無成。他贏得了美麗勇敢的娜塔利亞的芳心，卻為遵從娜塔利亞母親的意志而放棄幸福。後來他曾創辦農業、水利、教育等20多種事業，都以失敗告終。之後，他一直過着痛苦的漂泊生活，小說結尾寫道：“願上帝幫助所有無傢可歸的流浪者！”1860年作者又給《羅亭》作了補充：後來他在1848年的巴黎巷戰中陣亡，臨死時手裏還握着一面紅旗。作品以羅亭與娜塔利亞的愛情為綫索，情節單純，以各種人物的對話、觀點、評價為依據，深刻展示主人公的人物特性。
屠格涅夫（1818-1883）生於世襲貴族家庭，是俄國傑出的批判現實主義作傢。曾在莫斯科大學語文係就讀，並開始詩的創作。後到德國學習，長期僑居國外。1847-1852年發表了《獵人筆記》，揭露農奴主的殘暴和農奴的悲慘生活，因此 被放逐。在監禁中寫成的中篇小說《木木》表現了對農奴製的抗議。早期詩作有《帕拉莎》、《地主》，其他重要作品有長篇小說《羅亭》、《貴族之傢》、《父與子》、《煙》、《處女地》，中篇小說《阿霞》、《多餘人的日記》等，還有劇本《村中一月》和散文詩等。他善於寫景，擅長塑造少女形象，風格清新，富於抒情，被列寧譽為俄國的語言大師。
羅亭-銀屏再現
影片《羅亭》根據俄國著名作傢屠格涅夫的同名小說改編。
羅亭天資聰穎，博學多才，能言善辯，講起話來滔滔不絶，口若懸河，他熱情洋溢地宣傳真理和理想，徵服了許多人的心，也因此贏得了娜塔利婭的愛慕，兩人真心相愛了。然而羅亭既無錢財又無地位，達裏婭·米哈伊洛芙娜不許女兒與他來往。這時，娜塔利婭告訴羅亭，她寧可拋棄親人和家庭也要跟他遠走高飛。然而意志軟弱的羅亭竟然選擇退出。兩年之後，娜塔利婭嫁給了一直愛她的沃倫采夫。羅亭最終孤身一人。
Rudin was the first of Turgenev’s novels, but already in this work the topic of the superfluous man and his inability to act (which became a major theme of Turgenev's literary work) was explored. Similarly to other Turgenev’s novels, the main conflict in Rudin was centred on a love story of the main character and a young, but intellectual and self-conscious woman who is contrasted with the main hero (this type of female character became known in literary criticism as «тургеневская девушка», “Turgenev maid”).
Context
Rudin was written by Turgenev in the immediate aftermath of the Crimean War, when it became obvious to many educated Russians that reform was needed. The main debate of Turgenev's own generation was that of Slavophiles versus Westernizers. Rudin depicts a typical man of this generation (known as 'the men of forties'), intellectual but ineffective. This interpretation of the superfluous man as someone who possesses great intellectual ability and potential, but is unable to realize them stems from Turgenev’s own view of human nature, expressed in his 1860 speech ‘Hamlet and Don Quixote’, where he contrasts egotistical Hamlet, too deep in reflection to act, and enthusiastic and un-thinking, but active Don Quixote. The main character of the novel, Rudin, is easily identified with Hamlet. Many critics also suggest that the image of Rudin was at least partly autobiographical.
Rudin is often compared to Pushkin’s Eugene Onegin and Lermontov’s Pechorin. The latter two are considered to be representations of their generations (‘men of twenties’ and ‘men of thirties’ respectively) as Rudin is considered to be a representation of his generation; the three literary works featuring these characters share many similarities in structure and all three characters are routinely referred to as ‘superfluous men’ (whether the term is applicable to all three has been a subject of scholarly debate).
For a long time, Turgenev was unsure of the genre of Rudin, publishing it with a subtitle of ‘novella’. In 1860, it was published together with two other novels, but in the three editions of Turgenev’s Works that followed it was grouped with short stories. In the final, 1880, edition it was again placed at the head of the novels. The theme of the superfluous man in love was further explored in Turgenev’s subsequent novels, culminating in Fathers and Sons.
Main characters
Dmitrii Nikolaevich Rudin
Rudin's first appearance at Lasunskaya's, by Dmitry Kardovsky
The main protagonist of the novel. Rudin is a well-educated, intellectual and extremely eloquent nobleman. His finances are in a poor state and he is dependent on others for his living. His father was a poor member of the gentry and died when Rudin was still very young. He was brought up by his mother who spent all the money she had on him, and was educated at Moscow University and abroad in Germany, at Heidelberg and Berlin (Turgenev himself studied in Berlin). When he first appears in the novel, he is described as follows: “A man of about thirty-five […] of a tall, somewhat stooping figure, with crisp curly hair and swarthy complexion, an irregular but expressive and intelligent face.[…] His clothes were not new, and were somewhat small, as though he had outgrown them.” In the course of the novel he lives at Dar’ya Mikhailovna’s estate and falls in love with her daughter, Natalya. This love is the main conflict of the novel. His eloquence earns him the respect of the estate's inhabitants, but several other characters display a strong dislike of him, and during the course of the novel it becomes apparent that he is “almost a Titan in word and a pigmy in deed” — that is, despite his eloquence he cannot accomplish what he talks of.
Natal’ya Aleskeevna Lasunskaya
Also referred to as Natasha. Natasha is a seventeen-year old daughter of Dar’ya Mikhailovna. She is observant, well-read and intelligent, but also quite secretive. While her mother thinks of her as a good-natured and well-mannered girl, she is not of a high opinion about her intelligence, and quite wrongly. She also thinks Natasha is ‘cold’, emotionless, but in the beginning of Chapter Five we are told by the narrator that “Her feelings were strong and deep, but reserved; even as a child she seldom cried, and now she seldom even sighed and only grew slightly pale when anything distressed her.” She engages in intellectual conversations with Rudin (which are not discouraged by her mother because she thinks that these conversations “improve her mind”); Natasha thinks highly of Rudin, who confides to her his ideas and “privately gives her books”, and soon falls in love with him. She also often compels him to apply his talents and act. Natasha is often thought of as the first of 'Turgenev maids' to feature in Turgenev's fiction.
Dar’ya Mikhailovna Lasunskaya
A female landowner at whose estate most of the events of the novel happen. She is the widow of a privy councillor, “a wealthy and distinguished lady”. While she is not very influential in St Petersburg, let alone Europe, she is notorious in Moscow society as “a rather eccentric woman, not wholly good-natured, but excessively clever.” She is also described as a beauty in her youth, but “not a trace of her former charms remained.” She shuns the society of local female landowners, but receives many men. Rudin at first gains her favour, but she is very displeased when she finds out about Rudin’s and Natasha’s love. That said, her opinion of Natasha is far from being correct.
Mihailo Mihailych Lezhnev
A rich local landowner, generally thought to be a “queer creature” and described in Chapter One as having the appearance of “a huge sack of flour”. Lezhnev is about thirty years old, and seldom visits Dar’ya Mikhailovna (more often than before as the novel progresses), but is often found at Aleksandra’s Pavlovna Lipina’s house; he is friends both with her and her brother, Sergei. He was orphaned at the age of seventeen, lived at his aunt’s and studied together with Rudin at Moscow University, where they were members of the same group of intellectual young men and was good friends with him; he also knew him abroad, but began to dislike him there as “Rudin struck [Lezhnev] in his true light.” Lezhnev is in fact in love with Aleksandra and in the end marries her. His character is often contrasted to Rudin’s as he is seen as everything a superfluous man is not – he is intelligent, but in a more practical way, and while he does not do anything exceptional, he doesn’t want to either. Seeley writes, that “he concentrates on doing the jobs that lie to hand – running his estate, raising a family – and these he does very competently. Beyond them he does not look.” Lezhnev also acts as Rudin’s biographer – he is the one who tells the reader about Rudin’s life prior to his appearance at Dar’ya Mikhailovna’s. He first describes Rudin in extremely unfavourable terms, but in the end he is also the one who admits Rudin's “genius” in certain areas of life.
Aleksandra Pavlovna Lipina
Also a local landowner, she is the first of major characters to be presented in the novel. She is described as “a widow, childless, and fairly well off”; we first see her visiting an ill peasant woman, and also find out that she maintains a hospital. She lives with her brother Sergei, who manages her estate, and visits Dar’ya Mikhailovna sometimes (less often as the novel progresses). Dar’ya Mikhailovna describes her as “a sweet creature […] a perfect child […] an absolute baby”, although the question remains of how well Dar’ya Mikhailovna can judge people. At first, she thinks very highly of Rudin and defends him against Lezhnev, but as the novel progresses she seems to side with his view of Rudin. In the end, she marries Lezhnev and seems to be an ideal partner for him.
Sergei Pavlovich Volyntsev
Aleksandra’s brother. He is a retired cavalry officer and manages his sister’s estate. At the beginning of the novel he is a frequent guest at Dar’ya Mikhailovna’s, because he is in love with Natasha. He takes a great dislike to Rudnev, whom he sees as far too intelligent and, quite rightly, a dangerous rival. He is also slighted by Rudin when the latter comes to inform him of his mutual love with Natasha (with the best intentions). He is generally shown as a pleasant, if not very intellectual person, and is good friends with Lezhnev.
Minor characters
Konstantin Diomidych Pandalevskii
Dar’ya Mikhailovna’s secretary, a young man of affected manners. He is a flatterer and appears to be a generally dishonest and unpleasant person. He doesn’t appear to play an important role in the novel apart from being a satirical image.
Afrikan Semenych Pigasov
Described as “a strange person full of acerbity against everything and every one”, Pigasov frequently visits Dar’ya Mikhailovna prior to Rudin’s appearance and amuses her with his bitter remarks, mostly aimed at women. Coming from a poor family, he educated himself, but never rose above the level of mediocrity. He failed his examination in public disputation, in government service he made a mistake which forced him to retire. His wife later left him and sold her estate, on which he just finished building a house, to a speculator. Since then he lived in the province. He is the first victim of Rudin’s eloquence, as at Rudin’s first appearance he challenged him to a debate and was defeated easily. He ends up living with Lezhnev and Aleksandra Pavlovna.
Basistov
Tutor to Dar’ya Mikhailovna’s younger sons. He is completely captivated by Rudin and seems to be inspired by him. Basistov is interesting in that he is the first example of an intellectual from the raznochinets background (Bazarov and Raskol’nikov are among later, more prominent fictional heroes from this background). He also serves as an example of how Rudin is not completely useless since he can inspire people such as Basistov, who can then act in a way impossible for Rudin.
Synopsis
Rudin’s arrival
The novel begins with the introduction of three of the characters – Aleksandra, Lezhnev, and Pandalevskii. Pandalevskii relates to Aleksandra Dar’ya Mikhailovna’s invitation to come and meet a Baron Muffel’. Instead of the Baron, Rudin arrives and captivates everyone immediately with his intelligent and witty speeches during the argument with Pigasov. Interestingly, Rudin’s arrival is delayed until Chapter Three. After his success at Dar’ya Mikhailovna’s, he stays the night and the next morning meets Lezhnev who arrives to discuss some business affairs with Dar’ya Mikhailovna. This is the first time the reader finds out that Rudin and Lezhnev are acquainted, and studied together at university. During the day that follows Rudin has his first conversation with Natasha; as she speaks of him highly and says he “ought to work”, he replies with a lengthy speech. What follows is a description quite typical of Turgenev, where the character of Rudin is shown not through his own words, but through the text which underlines Rudin’s contradictory statements:
“Yes, I must act. I must not bury my talent, if I have any; I must not squander my powers on talk alone — empty, profitless talk — on mere words,’ and his words flowed in a stream. He spoke nobly, ardently, convincingly, of the sin of cowardice and indolence, of the necessity of action.”
On the same day, Sergei leaves Dar’ya Mikhailovna’s early and arrives to see that Lezhnev is visiting. Lezhnev then gives his first description of Rudin.
Rudin and Natasha
Natasha leaves Rudin after their decisive encounter, by Dmitry Kardovsky
In two months, we are told, Rudin is still staying at Dar’ya Mikhailovna’s, living off borrowed money. He spends a lot of time with Natasha; in a conversation with her he speaks of how an old love can only be replaced by a new one. At the same time, Lezhnev gives the account of his youth and his friendship with Rudin, making for the first time the point that Rudin is “too cold” and inactive. On the next day, Natasha quizzes Rudin over his words about old and new love. Neither she, nor he confess their love for each other but in the evening, Rudin and Natasha meet again, and this time Rudin confesses his love for her; Natasha replies that she, too, loves him. Unfortunately, their conversation is overheard by Pandalevskii, who reports it to Dar’ya Mikhailovna, and she strongly disapproves of this romance, making her feelings known to Natasha. The next time Natasha and Rudin meet, she tells him that Dar’ya Mikhailovna knows of their love and disapproves of it. Natasha wants to know what plan of action is Rudin going to propose, but he does not fulfil her expectations when he says that one must “submit to destiny”. She leaves him, disappointed and sad:
“I am sad because I have been deceived in you… What! I come to you for counsel, and at such a moment! — and your first word is, submit! submit! So this is how you translate your talk of independence, of sacrifice, which …”
Rudin then leaves Dar’ya Mikhailovna’s estate. Before his departure he writes two letters: one to Natasha and one to Sergei. The letter to Natasha is particularly notable in its confession of the vices of inactivity, inability to act and to take responsibility for one’s actions – all the traits of a Hamlet which Turgenev later detailed in his 1860 speech. Lezhnev, meanwhile, asks Aleksandra to marry him and is accepted in a particularly fine scene.
The Aftermath
Rudin at the barricades, by Dmitry Kardovsky
Chapter Twelve and the Epilogue detail events of over two years past Rudin’s arrival at Dar’ya Mikhailovna’s estate. Lezhnev is happily married to Aleksandra. He arrives to give her news of Sergei’s engagement to Natasha, who is said to “seem contented”. Pigasov lives with Lezhnevs, and amuses Aleksandra as he used to amuse Dar’ya Mikhailovna. A conversation which follows happens to touch on Rudin, and as Pigasov begins to make fun of him, Lezhnev stops him. He then defends Rudin’s “genius” while saying that his problem is that he had no “character” in him. This, again, refers to the superfluous man’s inability to act. He then toasts Rudin. The chapter ends with the description of Rudin travelling aimlessly around Russia. In the Epilogue, Lezhnev happens by chance to meet Rudin at a hotel in a provincial town. Lezhnev invites Rudin to dine with him, and over the dinner Rudin relates to Lezhnev his attempts to “act” – to improve an estate belonging to his friend, to make a river navigable, to become a teacher. In all three of this attempts Rudin demonstrated inability to adapt to the circumstances of Nicholas I’s Russia, and subsequently failed, and was in the end banished to his estate. Lezhnev then appears to change his opinion of Rudin as inherently inactive, and says that Rudin failed exactly because he could never stop striving for truth. The Epilogue ends with Rudin’s death at the barricades during the French Revolution of 1848; even at death he is mistaken by two fleeing revolutionaries for a Pole.
Adaptations
Rudin was adapted for screen in 1976. The 95 minutes-long Soviet-made movie was directed by Konstantin Voynov. The cast included Oleg Yefremov, Armen Dzhigarkhanyan, and Rolan Bykov.
屠格涅夫（1818-1883）生於世襲貴族家庭，是俄國傑出的批判現實主義作傢。曾在莫斯科大學語文係就讀，並開始詩的創作。後到德國學習，長期僑居國外。1847-1852年發表了《獵人筆記》，揭露農奴主的殘暴和農奴的悲慘生活，因此 被放逐。在監禁中寫成的中篇小說《木木》表現了對農奴製的抗議。早期詩作有《帕拉莎》、《地主》，其他重要作品有長篇小說《羅亭》、《貴族之傢》、《父與子》、《煙》、《處女地》，中篇小說《阿霞》、《多餘人的日記》等，還有劇本《村中一月》和散文詩等。他善於寫景，擅長塑造少女形象，風格清新，富於抒情，被列寧譽為俄國的語言大師。
羅亭-銀屏再現
影片《羅亭》根據俄國著名作傢屠格涅夫的同名小說改編。
羅亭天資聰穎，博學多才，能言善辯，講起話來滔滔不絶，口若懸河，他熱情洋溢地宣傳真理和理想，徵服了許多人的心，也因此贏得了娜塔利婭的愛慕，兩人真心相愛了。然而羅亭既無錢財又無地位，達裏婭·米哈伊洛芙娜不許女兒與他來往。這時，娜塔利婭告訴羅亭，她寧可拋棄親人和家庭也要跟他遠走高飛。然而意志軟弱的羅亭竟然選擇退出。兩年之後，娜塔利婭嫁給了一直愛她的沃倫采夫。羅亭最終孤身一人。
Rudin was the first of Turgenev’s novels, but already in this work the topic of the superfluous man and his inability to act (which became a major theme of Turgenev's literary work) was explored. Similarly to other Turgenev’s novels, the main conflict in Rudin was centred on a love story of the main character and a young, but intellectual and self-conscious woman who is contrasted with the main hero (this type of female character became known in literary criticism as «тургеневская девушка», “Turgenev maid”).
Context
Rudin was written by Turgenev in the immediate aftermath of the Crimean War, when it became obvious to many educated Russians that reform was needed. The main debate of Turgenev's own generation was that of Slavophiles versus Westernizers. Rudin depicts a typical man of this generation (known as 'the men of forties'), intellectual but ineffective. This interpretation of the superfluous man as someone who possesses great intellectual ability and potential, but is unable to realize them stems from Turgenev’s own view of human nature, expressed in his 1860 speech ‘Hamlet and Don Quixote’, where he contrasts egotistical Hamlet, too deep in reflection to act, and enthusiastic and un-thinking, but active Don Quixote. The main character of the novel, Rudin, is easily identified with Hamlet. Many critics also suggest that the image of Rudin was at least partly autobiographical.
Rudin is often compared to Pushkin’s Eugene Onegin and Lermontov’s Pechorin. The latter two are considered to be representations of their generations (‘men of twenties’ and ‘men of thirties’ respectively) as Rudin is considered to be a representation of his generation; the three literary works featuring these characters share many similarities in structure and all three characters are routinely referred to as ‘superfluous men’ (whether the term is applicable to all three has been a subject of scholarly debate).
For a long time, Turgenev was unsure of the genre of Rudin, publishing it with a subtitle of ‘novella’. In 1860, it was published together with two other novels, but in the three editions of Turgenev’s Works that followed it was grouped with short stories. In the final, 1880, edition it was again placed at the head of the novels. The theme of the superfluous man in love was further explored in Turgenev’s subsequent novels, culminating in Fathers and Sons.
Main characters
Dmitrii Nikolaevich Rudin
Rudin's first appearance at Lasunskaya's, by Dmitry Kardovsky
The main protagonist of the novel. Rudin is a well-educated, intellectual and extremely eloquent nobleman. His finances are in a poor state and he is dependent on others for his living. His father was a poor member of the gentry and died when Rudin was still very young. He was brought up by his mother who spent all the money she had on him, and was educated at Moscow University and abroad in Germany, at Heidelberg and Berlin (Turgenev himself studied in Berlin). When he first appears in the novel, he is described as follows: “A man of about thirty-five […] of a tall, somewhat stooping figure, with crisp curly hair and swarthy complexion, an irregular but expressive and intelligent face.[…] His clothes were not new, and were somewhat small, as though he had outgrown them.” In the course of the novel he lives at Dar’ya Mikhailovna’s estate and falls in love with her daughter, Natalya. This love is the main conflict of the novel. His eloquence earns him the respect of the estate's inhabitants, but several other characters display a strong dislike of him, and during the course of the novel it becomes apparent that he is “almost a Titan in word and a pigmy in deed” — that is, despite his eloquence he cannot accomplish what he talks of.
Natal’ya Aleskeevna Lasunskaya
Also referred to as Natasha. Natasha is a seventeen-year old daughter of Dar’ya Mikhailovna. She is observant, well-read and intelligent, but also quite secretive. While her mother thinks of her as a good-natured and well-mannered girl, she is not of a high opinion about her intelligence, and quite wrongly. She also thinks Natasha is ‘cold’, emotionless, but in the beginning of Chapter Five we are told by the narrator that “Her feelings were strong and deep, but reserved; even as a child she seldom cried, and now she seldom even sighed and only grew slightly pale when anything distressed her.” She engages in intellectual conversations with Rudin (which are not discouraged by her mother because she thinks that these conversations “improve her mind”); Natasha thinks highly of Rudin, who confides to her his ideas and “privately gives her books”, and soon falls in love with him. She also often compels him to apply his talents and act. Natasha is often thought of as the first of 'Turgenev maids' to feature in Turgenev's fiction.
Dar’ya Mikhailovna Lasunskaya
A female landowner at whose estate most of the events of the novel happen. She is the widow of a privy councillor, “a wealthy and distinguished lady”. While she is not very influential in St Petersburg, let alone Europe, she is notorious in Moscow society as “a rather eccentric woman, not wholly good-natured, but excessively clever.” She is also described as a beauty in her youth, but “not a trace of her former charms remained.” She shuns the society of local female landowners, but receives many men. Rudin at first gains her favour, but she is very displeased when she finds out about Rudin’s and Natasha’s love. That said, her opinion of Natasha is far from being correct.
Mihailo Mihailych Lezhnev
A rich local landowner, generally thought to be a “queer creature” and described in Chapter One as having the appearance of “a huge sack of flour”. Lezhnev is about thirty years old, and seldom visits Dar’ya Mikhailovna (more often than before as the novel progresses), but is often found at Aleksandra’s Pavlovna Lipina’s house; he is friends both with her and her brother, Sergei. He was orphaned at the age of seventeen, lived at his aunt’s and studied together with Rudin at Moscow University, where they were members of the same group of intellectual young men and was good friends with him; he also knew him abroad, but began to dislike him there as “Rudin struck [Lezhnev] in his true light.” Lezhnev is in fact in love with Aleksandra and in the end marries her. His character is often contrasted to Rudin’s as he is seen as everything a superfluous man is not – he is intelligent, but in a more practical way, and while he does not do anything exceptional, he doesn’t want to either. Seeley writes, that “he concentrates on doing the jobs that lie to hand – running his estate, raising a family – and these he does very competently. Beyond them he does not look.” Lezhnev also acts as Rudin’s biographer – he is the one who tells the reader about Rudin’s life prior to his appearance at Dar’ya Mikhailovna’s. He first describes Rudin in extremely unfavourable terms, but in the end he is also the one who admits Rudin's “genius” in certain areas of life.
Aleksandra Pavlovna Lipina
Also a local landowner, she is the first of major characters to be presented in the novel. She is described as “a widow, childless, and fairly well off”; we first see her visiting an ill peasant woman, and also find out that she maintains a hospital. She lives with her brother Sergei, who manages her estate, and visits Dar’ya Mikhailovna sometimes (less often as the novel progresses). Dar’ya Mikhailovna describes her as “a sweet creature […] a perfect child […] an absolute baby”, although the question remains of how well Dar’ya Mikhailovna can judge people. At first, she thinks very highly of Rudin and defends him against Lezhnev, but as the novel progresses she seems to side with his view of Rudin. In the end, she marries Lezhnev and seems to be an ideal partner for him.
Sergei Pavlovich Volyntsev
Aleksandra’s brother. He is a retired cavalry officer and manages his sister’s estate. At the beginning of the novel he is a frequent guest at Dar’ya Mikhailovna’s, because he is in love with Natasha. He takes a great dislike to Rudnev, whom he sees as far too intelligent and, quite rightly, a dangerous rival. He is also slighted by Rudin when the latter comes to inform him of his mutual love with Natasha (with the best intentions). He is generally shown as a pleasant, if not very intellectual person, and is good friends with Lezhnev.
Minor characters
Konstantin Diomidych Pandalevskii
Dar’ya Mikhailovna’s secretary, a young man of affected manners. He is a flatterer and appears to be a generally dishonest and unpleasant person. He doesn’t appear to play an important role in the novel apart from being a satirical image.
Afrikan Semenych Pigasov
Described as “a strange person full of acerbity against everything and every one”, Pigasov frequently visits Dar’ya Mikhailovna prior to Rudin’s appearance and amuses her with his bitter remarks, mostly aimed at women. Coming from a poor family, he educated himself, but never rose above the level of mediocrity. He failed his examination in public disputation, in government service he made a mistake which forced him to retire. His wife later left him and sold her estate, on which he just finished building a house, to a speculator. Since then he lived in the province. He is the first victim of Rudin’s eloquence, as at Rudin’s first appearance he challenged him to a debate and was defeated easily. He ends up living with Lezhnev and Aleksandra Pavlovna.
Basistov
Tutor to Dar’ya Mikhailovna’s younger sons. He is completely captivated by Rudin and seems to be inspired by him. Basistov is interesting in that he is the first example of an intellectual from the raznochinets background (Bazarov and Raskol’nikov are among later, more prominent fictional heroes from this background). He also serves as an example of how Rudin is not completely useless since he can inspire people such as Basistov, who can then act in a way impossible for Rudin.
Synopsis
Rudin’s arrival
The novel begins with the introduction of three of the characters – Aleksandra, Lezhnev, and Pandalevskii. Pandalevskii relates to Aleksandra Dar’ya Mikhailovna’s invitation to come and meet a Baron Muffel’. Instead of the Baron, Rudin arrives and captivates everyone immediately with his intelligent and witty speeches during the argument with Pigasov. Interestingly, Rudin’s arrival is delayed until Chapter Three. After his success at Dar’ya Mikhailovna’s, he stays the night and the next morning meets Lezhnev who arrives to discuss some business affairs with Dar’ya Mikhailovna. This is the first time the reader finds out that Rudin and Lezhnev are acquainted, and studied together at university. During the day that follows Rudin has his first conversation with Natasha; as she speaks of him highly and says he “ought to work”, he replies with a lengthy speech. What follows is a description quite typical of Turgenev, where the character of Rudin is shown not through his own words, but through the text which underlines Rudin’s contradictory statements:
“Yes, I must act. I must not bury my talent, if I have any; I must not squander my powers on talk alone — empty, profitless talk — on mere words,’ and his words flowed in a stream. He spoke nobly, ardently, convincingly, of the sin of cowardice and indolence, of the necessity of action.”
On the same day, Sergei leaves Dar’ya Mikhailovna’s early and arrives to see that Lezhnev is visiting. Lezhnev then gives his first description of Rudin.
Rudin and Natasha
Natasha leaves Rudin after their decisive encounter, by Dmitry Kardovsky
In two months, we are told, Rudin is still staying at Dar’ya Mikhailovna’s, living off borrowed money. He spends a lot of time with Natasha; in a conversation with her he speaks of how an old love can only be replaced by a new one. At the same time, Lezhnev gives the account of his youth and his friendship with Rudin, making for the first time the point that Rudin is “too cold” and inactive. On the next day, Natasha quizzes Rudin over his words about old and new love. Neither she, nor he confess their love for each other but in the evening, Rudin and Natasha meet again, and this time Rudin confesses his love for her; Natasha replies that she, too, loves him. Unfortunately, their conversation is overheard by Pandalevskii, who reports it to Dar’ya Mikhailovna, and she strongly disapproves of this romance, making her feelings known to Natasha. The next time Natasha and Rudin meet, she tells him that Dar’ya Mikhailovna knows of their love and disapproves of it. Natasha wants to know what plan of action is Rudin going to propose, but he does not fulfil her expectations when he says that one must “submit to destiny”. She leaves him, disappointed and sad:
“I am sad because I have been deceived in you… What! I come to you for counsel, and at such a moment! — and your first word is, submit! submit! So this is how you translate your talk of independence, of sacrifice, which …”
Rudin then leaves Dar’ya Mikhailovna’s estate. Before his departure he writes two letters: one to Natasha and one to Sergei. The letter to Natasha is particularly notable in its confession of the vices of inactivity, inability to act and to take responsibility for one’s actions – all the traits of a Hamlet which Turgenev later detailed in his 1860 speech. Lezhnev, meanwhile, asks Aleksandra to marry him and is accepted in a particularly fine scene.
The Aftermath
Rudin at the barricades, by Dmitry Kardovsky
Chapter Twelve and the Epilogue detail events of over two years past Rudin’s arrival at Dar’ya Mikhailovna’s estate. Lezhnev is happily married to Aleksandra. He arrives to give her news of Sergei’s engagement to Natasha, who is said to “seem contented”. Pigasov lives with Lezhnevs, and amuses Aleksandra as he used to amuse Dar’ya Mikhailovna. A conversation which follows happens to touch on Rudin, and as Pigasov begins to make fun of him, Lezhnev stops him. He then defends Rudin’s “genius” while saying that his problem is that he had no “character” in him. This, again, refers to the superfluous man’s inability to act. He then toasts Rudin. The chapter ends with the description of Rudin travelling aimlessly around Russia. In the Epilogue, Lezhnev happens by chance to meet Rudin at a hotel in a provincial town. Lezhnev invites Rudin to dine with him, and over the dinner Rudin relates to Lezhnev his attempts to “act” – to improve an estate belonging to his friend, to make a river navigable, to become a teacher. In all three of this attempts Rudin demonstrated inability to adapt to the circumstances of Nicholas I’s Russia, and subsequently failed, and was in the end banished to his estate. Lezhnev then appears to change his opinion of Rudin as inherently inactive, and says that Rudin failed exactly because he could never stop striving for truth. The Epilogue ends with Rudin’s death at the barricades during the French Revolution of 1848; even at death he is mistaken by two fleeing revolutionaries for a Pole.
Adaptations
Rudin was adapted for screen in 1976. The 95 minutes-long Soviet-made movie was directed by Konstantin Voynov. The cast included Oleg Yefremov, Armen Dzhigarkhanyan, and Rolan Bykov.
在俄羅斯文學史上，伊萬·謝爾蓋耶維奇·屠格涅夫（一八一八——一八八三）占有一席光榮的位置。而在他的全部文學作品中，長篇小說又具有特殊重要意義。屠格涅夫是俄羅斯和世界文學現實主義長篇小說的奠基者之一，他的長篇小說給他帶來了世界聲譽。他的六部長篇小說有一個共同的中心主題：與作傢同時代的俄羅斯進步知識分子的歷史命運。屠格涅夫既是這些知識分子的編年史作者，又是他們的歌手和裁判者。可以毫不誇張地說，如果不認真研究屠格涅夫的長篇小說，就不能深刻理解十九世紀俄羅斯社會和俄羅斯解放運動發展的歷史。
十九世紀五十年代中期，俄羅斯貴族階級趨嚮沒落，農奴製的崩潰已不可輓回。一八五三——一八五六年的剋裏米亞戰爭暴露了沙皇製的腐敗，進步知識分子在思考人民的命運、祖國的前途。屠格涅夫的長篇小說正是在這個時期醖釀構思和呈獻給讀者的。
一八五六年，《現代人》雜志上發表了屠格涅夫的第一部長篇小說《羅亭》。
《貴族之傢》是屠格涅夫的第二部長篇小說，於一八五八年十月二十七日脫稿，最初發表在一八五九年一月號《現代人》雜志上，同年在莫斯科出版了單行本。一八八○年，在作者生前收入作品最全的最後一版文集裏，屠格涅夫本人曾在前言中說：“《貴族之傢》獲得了我曾經獲得的最大的一次成功。”雖然評論界對這部小說的評價並不完全一致，但它確實是俄羅斯經典長篇小說的典範之一。
貴族之傢-相關資料
《貴族之傢》的故事發生在一八四二年及八年以後；主人公拉夫烈茨基是已經喪失了農奴主“熱情”的貴族的最後代表。在某種意義上，可以說拉夫烈茨基仍然是俄羅斯文學中已不止一次出現過的“多餘的人”。但他已經不同於普希金的長詩《葉夫根尼·奧涅金》中的奧涅金和萊蒙托夫的《當代英雄》中的畢巧林。《貴族之傢》發展了“多餘的人”這一類型。奧涅金和畢巧林是利己主義者，他們衹考慮個人享受，他們活着衹是為了滿足個人的欲望；屠格涅夫筆下的“多餘的人”卻充滿熱情，願意為了大衆的利益而獻身。然而他們衹是模模糊糊意識到，應該做點兒什麽，卻不知道究竟該做什麽。米哈列維奇責備拉夫烈茨基無所作為，說他是“懶漢”。拉夫烈茨基回答：“……你最好說說，該做什麽”。米哈列維奇卻說：“這我可不告訴你，老兄，這一點每個人應該自己知道。”其實，就連米哈列維奇那樣的理想主義者，自己也不知道究竟該做什麽，否則，他就不會漂泊半生，一事無成，最後為獲得一個“學監”的位置而感到心滿意足了。這並不奇怪，因為就連小說的作者，恐怕也無法回答拉夫烈茨基提出的問題。
於是，拉夫烈茨基所追求的衹能仍然是個人的幸福了。《貴族之傢》的“重大、現實思想是幸福問題，是人追求幸福的規律，是個人幸福的思想與有益的勞動思想、進步思想的和諧融合”。然而拉夫烈茨基沒能獲得個人幸福。個人幸福碰到了“義務”設置的障礙，他的“幸福”“還沒開始”就結束了。
對於莉莎來說，愛情不僅是幸福，而且是義務，信任，意識到自己道義上的責任。“上帝結合起來的，怎麽能拆散呢？”莉莎問。因此，她和拉夫烈茨基的“幸福”從一開始就是虛幻的，建築在一個極不可靠的基礎上：瓦爾瓦拉·帕夫洛芙娜故意散布的關於她已經死了的謠言。屠格涅夫在小說中反映了十九世紀三十—四十年代在“貴族之傢”的溫室裏培育出來的貴族知識分子的精神悲劇，這一悲劇的實質已經“不在於必須與自己的軟弱無能鬥爭，而是因為”“與一些概念和道德規範發生了衝突。與這些概念和規範相抗衡，確實連那些堅决果斷、勇敢大膽的人都會感到可怕。”（杜勃羅留波夫）《貴族之傢》異常深刻地提出了貴族教育的問題。貴族的教育制度扭麯了人的優秀品質，使之畸形化了。莉莎的篤信宗教、忍讓、順從，拉夫烈茨基的消極無為，就都是這種教育的結果。杜勃羅留波夫正確地指出：“屠格涅夫選擇的、為俄國生活如此熟悉的衝突”應該“成為強有力的宣傳鼓動，促使每一位讀者思索：那些主宰我們生活的整整一大批概念究竟有什麽意義”。
不過莉莎的“義務”並不僅僅是來自對瓦爾瓦拉·帕夫洛芙娜的負罪感。她想要在修道院中尋求的並不是慰藉，她所期待的也不是忘卻；她認為，她的“義務”是“贖罪”！她對瑪爾法·季莫菲耶芙娜說：“我什麽都知道，無論是自己的罪孽，還是別人的罪孽，還有爸爸是怎樣聚斂自己的財富，我全都知道。這一切都需要祈禱，以期得到赦免……”於是個人的悲劇就具有了社會意義：在農奴製社會裏，不僅有良知的貴族知識分子不可能獲得真正的個人幸福，而且幾乎人人都與真正的幸福無緣。“你看看四周，在你周圍有誰在享福，有誰感到心滿意足？”個人幸福幻滅之後，拉夫烈茨基這樣想：正去割草的農人顯然並不幸福，他那個對生活並沒有多少要求的母親，更沒有獲得過真正的幸福……就連瑪爾法·季莫菲耶芙娜也對他說：“你很難過，這我知道，可要知道，大傢也並不輕鬆”……總之，在農奴製的社會環境裏，個人幸福是虛幻的，不完滿的，根本不可能的。屠格涅夫曾在《文學回憶錄》中寫下了這樣一段話：“我與我仇恨的事物不共戴天……在我心目中，這個敵人有固定的形象，有人所共知的名稱：這個敵人就是農奴制度。”《貴族之傢》譴責了當時的社會制度，因為它庇護潘申和瓦爾瓦拉·帕夫洛芙娜之流，使他們孳生繁衍，而扼殺天才的性格（列姆，拉夫烈茨基），毒害人民，使他們渾渾噩噩，屈服順從（瑪蘭尼婭，阿加菲婭，安東等）。
在《貴族之傢》中，屠格涅夫用“春秋筆法”展示了貴族階級日趨沒落的過程：拉夫烈茨基的曾祖父“想做什麽就能做什麽”，“誰也管不了他”。到了他的祖父，已經是“不管幹什麽，全都白搭”了。他的父親先是受了法國式的教育，腦子裏裝滿了伏爾泰、狄德羅和盧梭，然而那些“深奧的道理”“沒有和他的血液溶為一體，沒有深入他的心靈，沒有形成堅定不移的信念”；在國外待了幾年以後，他又成了崇拜英國的人，“瞧不起自己的同胞”，要用英國的制度和方法來改造俄國；可是十二月黨人遭到鎮壓後，他立刻燒毀了從國外帶回的一切計劃和來往信件，躲到自己的莊園裏，閉門不出，“在省長大人面前嚇得戰戰兢兢”……最後“變成了一個十足的廢物”。
貴族之傢的沒落已無可輓回，農奴製的崩潰也不可避免；然而由誰來給俄羅斯社會註入新的活力，俄羅斯又該往何處去呢？無論是拉夫烈茨基，還是作者本人，都無法作出明確回答。拉夫烈茨基衹是模模糊糊感覺到，應該做點兒什麽有益的事情，未來應該是光明的。而作為農奴製貴族階級的最後代表，回首往事，拉夫烈茨基卻感到虛度了一生。“熄滅了吧，無益的一生！”在抒情詩一般的“尾聲”中，拉夫烈茨基無可奈何地這樣悲嘆。故事的結尾無疑帶有濃郁的傷感色彩，不過屠格涅夫把希望寄托於青年一代。拉夫烈茨基是在青年一代的歡聲笑語中悄然離去的。歷史舞臺上已經換了新的角色，將要上演的也該是不同的劇目了吧？！
評論傢皮沙烈夫①對《貴族之傢》作了如下的評價，認為它是屠格涅夫“結構最嚴謹、最完美的作品之一”。它沒有進行說教，然而是一部有教育意義的小說。在這部小說中，屠格涅夫“描寫了現代生活，突出它各個好的和壞的方面，闡明了他所描寫的現象的根源，促使讀者進行嚴肅認真的深思。”
--------
①皮沙烈夫（一八四○—一八六八），俄羅斯著名評論傢，哲學家，革命民主主義者。
屠格涅夫的作品，特別是他的長篇小說，堪稱幾乎近半個世紀俄羅斯生活的藝術編年史。但就篇幅而言，他的長篇卻短小精緻，除《處女地》外，可以說是反映當時社會的中篇小說。
生活場面和自然風景的描寫在他的小說中隨處可見，但這些描寫從不喧賓奪主，遮掩情節。他的小說是單一結構的，在這一點上不同於托爾斯泰的長篇小說。
《貴族之傢》的結構尤其嚴謹，對人物都有簡明的交待。作者自己曾說：他對這部小說的情節考慮了很久，希望避免像《羅亭》中那樣令人感到意外的結局。的確，《貴族之傢》情節十分緊湊，故事迅速展開，簡練凝縮，不蔓不枝；中間幾處插敘主人公的往事，都是讀者進一步瞭解他們所必需的。在這方面，可以說屠格涅夫是普希金、萊蒙托夫的直接繼承者。
屠格涅夫對人物的心理描寫很有特色。他不是對主人公的感情作詳盡的心理分析，而是把讀者的註意力集中到人物內心活動的結果上。我們知道莉莎對拉夫烈茨基的感情是怎樣産生、怎樣發展的，可是我們不知道莉莎心裏究竟在想些什麽。屠格涅夫甚至宣稱，她的內心活動不可能用語言表達出來。“然而語言不能表達一個姑娘純潔的心靈中正在發生的事情：對於她本人來說，那也是秘密；就讓它對於大傢也始終是一個秘密吧。”他還藉瑪爾法·季莫菲耶芙娜之口說：“別人的心，……就像不透光的樹林，女孩子的心就更不用說了。”正是因此，他也拒絶寫出拉夫烈茨基和莉莎在修道院裏最後一次見面時的感受。
屠格涅夫並不深入描寫主人公的內心活動，卻十分巧妙地讓讀者能充分理解他們的內心生活。他經常利用潛臺詞，對主人公的微妙感情衹是點到為止。莉莎和拉夫烈茨基的愛情幾乎是默默無言的。他們在卡利京傢的客廳裏、花園裏和拉夫烈茨基傢池塘邊單獨待在一起的時候，往往很少談話，而是默默地感受對方心中正在發生的一切。
在屠格涅夫的小說中，自然景色對於人物的精神世界往往起一種烘雲托月的作用。隨着人物命運的改變，自然景物的色彩也在發生變化。在《貴族之傢》中，自始至終都讓人感到有一種衰敗沒落的情調：“夕陽無限好，衹是近黃昏”。小說中描寫的大部分都是傍晚、黃昏和夜晚的景色，或明月當空，或星光閃爍。拉夫烈茨基回鄉村去一路上看到的景色，與他憂鬱的回憶和對幸福的憧憬是協調一致的。具有象徵性的小說結尾是大地回春，萬物復蘇，一派欣欣嚮榮的景象：拉夫烈茨基以及他那一代人雖然一生蹉跎，黯然退出歷史舞臺，但青年一代已經接過了他們手中的接力棒，正在精力充沛地走嚮未來。
除了自然景色，小說中的音樂也與人物的心情相互交融。藉用柴科夫斯基評論普希金的話，可以說：在《貴族之傢》中，屠格涅夫的天才常常衝破“散文”的狹窄天地，進入音樂的無限的領域。拉夫烈茨基在花園中與莉莎相會，知道她愛他以後，聽到了列姆的奇妙的音樂，而當他的妻子突然回來，使他關於幸福的夢破滅以後，同一個列姆，也完全變了樣，在他身上再也看不到二十四小時前那位充滿靈感的音樂傢的影子了。
屠格涅夫從不用個人的註釋來代替情節的發展，從不歪麯他不喜歡的現象；他敘述故事的時候是完全客觀的，决不對情節發展進行任何幹預。作者的態度、作者的感情，是通過他獨特的抒情風格表現出來的，這也正是他的藝術風格的特點之一。特別是在《貴族之傢》中，抒情色彩更像空氣和陽光一樣伴隨着拉夫烈茨基和莉莎，為他們譜寫出一首首同情、嘆息、哀婉的抒情歌麯。一方面在敘述中力求做到客觀，另一方面又要以作者的感情感染讀者，在屠格涅夫的小說中，可以說這二者已經完美地結合在一起了。
屠格涅夫的語言特點是：反對矯揉造作和華而不實。他的詞彙豐富多彩，形象生動，栩栩如生的比喻比比皆是，而且善於巧妙地運用隱喻。他的句子通常都簡短精悍，結構清晰，節奏和諧（可參看他介紹列姆的那段文字）。許多人都曾指出屠格涅夫語言的特殊魅力，對他運用語言的才能給予極高的評價。陀思妥耶夫斯基稱屠格涅夫為“俄羅斯語言的巨匠”。高爾基說：“未來的文學史專傢談到俄羅斯語言的發展時，一定會說：這種語言是普希金、屠格涅夫和契訶夫創造的”。
翻譯這樣一位語言大師的作品，其難度可想而知；如果譯文能多少傳達原作的神韻，對譯者來說，也就是最大的幸福了。
Plot summary
The novel's protagonist is Fyodor Ivanych Lavretsky, a nobleman who shares many traits with Turgenev. The child of a distant, Anglophile father and a serf mother who dies when he is very young, Lavretsky is brought up at his family's country estate home by a severe maiden aunt, often thought to be based on Turgenev's own mother who was known for her cruelty.
Lavretsky pursues an education in Moscow, and while he is studying there, he spies a beautiful young woman at the opera. Her name is Varvara Pavlovna, and he falls in love with her and asks for her hand in marriage. The two move to Paris, where Varvara Pavlovna becomes a very popular salon hostess and begins an affair with one of her frequent visitors. Lavretsky learns of the affair only when he discovers a note written to her by her lover. Shocked by her betrayal, he severs all contact with her and returns to his family estate.
Upon returning to Russia, Lavretsky visits his cousin, Marya Dmitrievna Kalitina, who lives with her two daughters, Liza and Lenochka. Lavretsky is immediately drawn to Liza, whose serious nature and religious devotion stand in contrast to Varvara Pavlovna's coquettishness and social consciousness. Lavretsky realizes that he is falling in love with Liza, and when he reads in a foreign journal that Varvara Pavlovna has died, he confesses his love to her and learns that she loves him in return.
Unfortunately, a cruel twist of fate prevents Lavretsky and Liza from being together. After they confess their love to one another, Lavretsky returns home to find his supposedly dead wife waiting for him in his foyer. It turns out that the reports of her death were false, and that she has fallen out of favor with her friends and needs more money from Lavretsky.
Upon learning of Varvara Pavlovna's sudden appearance, Liza decides to join a remote convent and lives out the rest of her days as a nun. Lavretsky visits her at the convent one time and catches a glimpse of her as she is walking from choir to choir. The novel ends with an epilogue which takes place eight years later, in which Lavretsky returns to Liza's house and finds that, although many things have changed, there are elements such as the piano and the garden that are the same. Lavretsky finds comfort in his memories and is able to see the meaning and even the beauty in his personal pain.
Major themes
Ultimately, Turgenev concludes that the truth is best left unstated. He concludes the novel by stating that he could not possibly explain what Lavretsky and Liza felt, and that it is better to point out these individual tragedies and pass them by.
Turgenev wrote the novel shortly after his 40th birthday, and it expresses some of his feelings about middle age, as its protagonist is forced to confront the mistakes of his past and determine what options are left for his dwindling future.
十九世紀五十年代中期，俄羅斯貴族階級趨嚮沒落，農奴製的崩潰已不可輓回。一八五三——一八五六年的剋裏米亞戰爭暴露了沙皇製的腐敗，進步知識分子在思考人民的命運、祖國的前途。屠格涅夫的長篇小說正是在這個時期醖釀構思和呈獻給讀者的。
一八五六年，《現代人》雜志上發表了屠格涅夫的第一部長篇小說《羅亭》。
《貴族之傢》是屠格涅夫的第二部長篇小說，於一八五八年十月二十七日脫稿，最初發表在一八五九年一月號《現代人》雜志上，同年在莫斯科出版了單行本。一八八○年，在作者生前收入作品最全的最後一版文集裏，屠格涅夫本人曾在前言中說：“《貴族之傢》獲得了我曾經獲得的最大的一次成功。”雖然評論界對這部小說的評價並不完全一致，但它確實是俄羅斯經典長篇小說的典範之一。
貴族之傢-相關資料
《貴族之傢》的故事發生在一八四二年及八年以後；主人公拉夫烈茨基是已經喪失了農奴主“熱情”的貴族的最後代表。在某種意義上，可以說拉夫烈茨基仍然是俄羅斯文學中已不止一次出現過的“多餘的人”。但他已經不同於普希金的長詩《葉夫根尼·奧涅金》中的奧涅金和萊蒙托夫的《當代英雄》中的畢巧林。《貴族之傢》發展了“多餘的人”這一類型。奧涅金和畢巧林是利己主義者，他們衹考慮個人享受，他們活着衹是為了滿足個人的欲望；屠格涅夫筆下的“多餘的人”卻充滿熱情，願意為了大衆的利益而獻身。然而他們衹是模模糊糊意識到，應該做點兒什麽，卻不知道究竟該做什麽。米哈列維奇責備拉夫烈茨基無所作為，說他是“懶漢”。拉夫烈茨基回答：“……你最好說說，該做什麽”。米哈列維奇卻說：“這我可不告訴你，老兄，這一點每個人應該自己知道。”其實，就連米哈列維奇那樣的理想主義者，自己也不知道究竟該做什麽，否則，他就不會漂泊半生，一事無成，最後為獲得一個“學監”的位置而感到心滿意足了。這並不奇怪，因為就連小說的作者，恐怕也無法回答拉夫烈茨基提出的問題。
於是，拉夫烈茨基所追求的衹能仍然是個人的幸福了。《貴族之傢》的“重大、現實思想是幸福問題，是人追求幸福的規律，是個人幸福的思想與有益的勞動思想、進步思想的和諧融合”。然而拉夫烈茨基沒能獲得個人幸福。個人幸福碰到了“義務”設置的障礙，他的“幸福”“還沒開始”就結束了。
對於莉莎來說，愛情不僅是幸福，而且是義務，信任，意識到自己道義上的責任。“上帝結合起來的，怎麽能拆散呢？”莉莎問。因此，她和拉夫烈茨基的“幸福”從一開始就是虛幻的，建築在一個極不可靠的基礎上：瓦爾瓦拉·帕夫洛芙娜故意散布的關於她已經死了的謠言。屠格涅夫在小說中反映了十九世紀三十—四十年代在“貴族之傢”的溫室裏培育出來的貴族知識分子的精神悲劇，這一悲劇的實質已經“不在於必須與自己的軟弱無能鬥爭，而是因為”“與一些概念和道德規範發生了衝突。與這些概念和規範相抗衡，確實連那些堅决果斷、勇敢大膽的人都會感到可怕。”（杜勃羅留波夫）《貴族之傢》異常深刻地提出了貴族教育的問題。貴族的教育制度扭麯了人的優秀品質，使之畸形化了。莉莎的篤信宗教、忍讓、順從，拉夫烈茨基的消極無為，就都是這種教育的結果。杜勃羅留波夫正確地指出：“屠格涅夫選擇的、為俄國生活如此熟悉的衝突”應該“成為強有力的宣傳鼓動，促使每一位讀者思索：那些主宰我們生活的整整一大批概念究竟有什麽意義”。
不過莉莎的“義務”並不僅僅是來自對瓦爾瓦拉·帕夫洛芙娜的負罪感。她想要在修道院中尋求的並不是慰藉，她所期待的也不是忘卻；她認為，她的“義務”是“贖罪”！她對瑪爾法·季莫菲耶芙娜說：“我什麽都知道，無論是自己的罪孽，還是別人的罪孽，還有爸爸是怎樣聚斂自己的財富，我全都知道。這一切都需要祈禱，以期得到赦免……”於是個人的悲劇就具有了社會意義：在農奴製社會裏，不僅有良知的貴族知識分子不可能獲得真正的個人幸福，而且幾乎人人都與真正的幸福無緣。“你看看四周，在你周圍有誰在享福，有誰感到心滿意足？”個人幸福幻滅之後，拉夫烈茨基這樣想：正去割草的農人顯然並不幸福，他那個對生活並沒有多少要求的母親，更沒有獲得過真正的幸福……就連瑪爾法·季莫菲耶芙娜也對他說：“你很難過，這我知道，可要知道，大傢也並不輕鬆”……總之，在農奴製的社會環境裏，個人幸福是虛幻的，不完滿的，根本不可能的。屠格涅夫曾在《文學回憶錄》中寫下了這樣一段話：“我與我仇恨的事物不共戴天……在我心目中，這個敵人有固定的形象，有人所共知的名稱：這個敵人就是農奴制度。”《貴族之傢》譴責了當時的社會制度，因為它庇護潘申和瓦爾瓦拉·帕夫洛芙娜之流，使他們孳生繁衍，而扼殺天才的性格（列姆，拉夫烈茨基），毒害人民，使他們渾渾噩噩，屈服順從（瑪蘭尼婭，阿加菲婭，安東等）。
在《貴族之傢》中，屠格涅夫用“春秋筆法”展示了貴族階級日趨沒落的過程：拉夫烈茨基的曾祖父“想做什麽就能做什麽”，“誰也管不了他”。到了他的祖父，已經是“不管幹什麽，全都白搭”了。他的父親先是受了法國式的教育，腦子裏裝滿了伏爾泰、狄德羅和盧梭，然而那些“深奧的道理”“沒有和他的血液溶為一體，沒有深入他的心靈，沒有形成堅定不移的信念”；在國外待了幾年以後，他又成了崇拜英國的人，“瞧不起自己的同胞”，要用英國的制度和方法來改造俄國；可是十二月黨人遭到鎮壓後，他立刻燒毀了從國外帶回的一切計劃和來往信件，躲到自己的莊園裏，閉門不出，“在省長大人面前嚇得戰戰兢兢”……最後“變成了一個十足的廢物”。
貴族之傢的沒落已無可輓回，農奴製的崩潰也不可避免；然而由誰來給俄羅斯社會註入新的活力，俄羅斯又該往何處去呢？無論是拉夫烈茨基，還是作者本人，都無法作出明確回答。拉夫烈茨基衹是模模糊糊感覺到，應該做點兒什麽有益的事情，未來應該是光明的。而作為農奴製貴族階級的最後代表，回首往事，拉夫烈茨基卻感到虛度了一生。“熄滅了吧，無益的一生！”在抒情詩一般的“尾聲”中，拉夫烈茨基無可奈何地這樣悲嘆。故事的結尾無疑帶有濃郁的傷感色彩，不過屠格涅夫把希望寄托於青年一代。拉夫烈茨基是在青年一代的歡聲笑語中悄然離去的。歷史舞臺上已經換了新的角色，將要上演的也該是不同的劇目了吧？！
評論傢皮沙烈夫①對《貴族之傢》作了如下的評價，認為它是屠格涅夫“結構最嚴謹、最完美的作品之一”。它沒有進行說教，然而是一部有教育意義的小說。在這部小說中，屠格涅夫“描寫了現代生活，突出它各個好的和壞的方面，闡明了他所描寫的現象的根源，促使讀者進行嚴肅認真的深思。”
--------
①皮沙烈夫（一八四○—一八六八），俄羅斯著名評論傢，哲學家，革命民主主義者。
屠格涅夫的作品，特別是他的長篇小說，堪稱幾乎近半個世紀俄羅斯生活的藝術編年史。但就篇幅而言，他的長篇卻短小精緻，除《處女地》外，可以說是反映當時社會的中篇小說。
生活場面和自然風景的描寫在他的小說中隨處可見，但這些描寫從不喧賓奪主，遮掩情節。他的小說是單一結構的，在這一點上不同於托爾斯泰的長篇小說。
《貴族之傢》的結構尤其嚴謹，對人物都有簡明的交待。作者自己曾說：他對這部小說的情節考慮了很久，希望避免像《羅亭》中那樣令人感到意外的結局。的確，《貴族之傢》情節十分緊湊，故事迅速展開，簡練凝縮，不蔓不枝；中間幾處插敘主人公的往事，都是讀者進一步瞭解他們所必需的。在這方面，可以說屠格涅夫是普希金、萊蒙托夫的直接繼承者。
屠格涅夫對人物的心理描寫很有特色。他不是對主人公的感情作詳盡的心理分析，而是把讀者的註意力集中到人物內心活動的結果上。我們知道莉莎對拉夫烈茨基的感情是怎樣産生、怎樣發展的，可是我們不知道莉莎心裏究竟在想些什麽。屠格涅夫甚至宣稱，她的內心活動不可能用語言表達出來。“然而語言不能表達一個姑娘純潔的心靈中正在發生的事情：對於她本人來說，那也是秘密；就讓它對於大傢也始終是一個秘密吧。”他還藉瑪爾法·季莫菲耶芙娜之口說：“別人的心，……就像不透光的樹林，女孩子的心就更不用說了。”正是因此，他也拒絶寫出拉夫烈茨基和莉莎在修道院裏最後一次見面時的感受。
屠格涅夫並不深入描寫主人公的內心活動，卻十分巧妙地讓讀者能充分理解他們的內心生活。他經常利用潛臺詞，對主人公的微妙感情衹是點到為止。莉莎和拉夫烈茨基的愛情幾乎是默默無言的。他們在卡利京傢的客廳裏、花園裏和拉夫烈茨基傢池塘邊單獨待在一起的時候，往往很少談話，而是默默地感受對方心中正在發生的一切。
在屠格涅夫的小說中，自然景色對於人物的精神世界往往起一種烘雲托月的作用。隨着人物命運的改變，自然景物的色彩也在發生變化。在《貴族之傢》中，自始至終都讓人感到有一種衰敗沒落的情調：“夕陽無限好，衹是近黃昏”。小說中描寫的大部分都是傍晚、黃昏和夜晚的景色，或明月當空，或星光閃爍。拉夫烈茨基回鄉村去一路上看到的景色，與他憂鬱的回憶和對幸福的憧憬是協調一致的。具有象徵性的小說結尾是大地回春，萬物復蘇，一派欣欣嚮榮的景象：拉夫烈茨基以及他那一代人雖然一生蹉跎，黯然退出歷史舞臺，但青年一代已經接過了他們手中的接力棒，正在精力充沛地走嚮未來。
除了自然景色，小說中的音樂也與人物的心情相互交融。藉用柴科夫斯基評論普希金的話，可以說：在《貴族之傢》中，屠格涅夫的天才常常衝破“散文”的狹窄天地，進入音樂的無限的領域。拉夫烈茨基在花園中與莉莎相會，知道她愛他以後，聽到了列姆的奇妙的音樂，而當他的妻子突然回來，使他關於幸福的夢破滅以後，同一個列姆，也完全變了樣，在他身上再也看不到二十四小時前那位充滿靈感的音樂傢的影子了。
屠格涅夫從不用個人的註釋來代替情節的發展，從不歪麯他不喜歡的現象；他敘述故事的時候是完全客觀的，决不對情節發展進行任何幹預。作者的態度、作者的感情，是通過他獨特的抒情風格表現出來的，這也正是他的藝術風格的特點之一。特別是在《貴族之傢》中，抒情色彩更像空氣和陽光一樣伴隨着拉夫烈茨基和莉莎，為他們譜寫出一首首同情、嘆息、哀婉的抒情歌麯。一方面在敘述中力求做到客觀，另一方面又要以作者的感情感染讀者，在屠格涅夫的小說中，可以說這二者已經完美地結合在一起了。
屠格涅夫的語言特點是：反對矯揉造作和華而不實。他的詞彙豐富多彩，形象生動，栩栩如生的比喻比比皆是，而且善於巧妙地運用隱喻。他的句子通常都簡短精悍，結構清晰，節奏和諧（可參看他介紹列姆的那段文字）。許多人都曾指出屠格涅夫語言的特殊魅力，對他運用語言的才能給予極高的評價。陀思妥耶夫斯基稱屠格涅夫為“俄羅斯語言的巨匠”。高爾基說：“未來的文學史專傢談到俄羅斯語言的發展時，一定會說：這種語言是普希金、屠格涅夫和契訶夫創造的”。
翻譯這樣一位語言大師的作品，其難度可想而知；如果譯文能多少傳達原作的神韻，對譯者來說，也就是最大的幸福了。
Plot summary
The novel's protagonist is Fyodor Ivanych Lavretsky, a nobleman who shares many traits with Turgenev. The child of a distant, Anglophile father and a serf mother who dies when he is very young, Lavretsky is brought up at his family's country estate home by a severe maiden aunt, often thought to be based on Turgenev's own mother who was known for her cruelty.
Lavretsky pursues an education in Moscow, and while he is studying there, he spies a beautiful young woman at the opera. Her name is Varvara Pavlovna, and he falls in love with her and asks for her hand in marriage. The two move to Paris, where Varvara Pavlovna becomes a very popular salon hostess and begins an affair with one of her frequent visitors. Lavretsky learns of the affair only when he discovers a note written to her by her lover. Shocked by her betrayal, he severs all contact with her and returns to his family estate.
Upon returning to Russia, Lavretsky visits his cousin, Marya Dmitrievna Kalitina, who lives with her two daughters, Liza and Lenochka. Lavretsky is immediately drawn to Liza, whose serious nature and religious devotion stand in contrast to Varvara Pavlovna's coquettishness and social consciousness. Lavretsky realizes that he is falling in love with Liza, and when he reads in a foreign journal that Varvara Pavlovna has died, he confesses his love to her and learns that she loves him in return.
Unfortunately, a cruel twist of fate prevents Lavretsky and Liza from being together. After they confess their love to one another, Lavretsky returns home to find his supposedly dead wife waiting for him in his foyer. It turns out that the reports of her death were false, and that she has fallen out of favor with her friends and needs more money from Lavretsky.
Upon learning of Varvara Pavlovna's sudden appearance, Liza decides to join a remote convent and lives out the rest of her days as a nun. Lavretsky visits her at the convent one time and catches a glimpse of her as she is walking from choir to choir. The novel ends with an epilogue which takes place eight years later, in which Lavretsky returns to Liza's house and finds that, although many things have changed, there are elements such as the piano and the garden that are the same. Lavretsky finds comfort in his memories and is able to see the meaning and even the beauty in his personal pain.
Major themes
Ultimately, Turgenev concludes that the truth is best left unstated. He concludes the novel by stating that he could not possibly explain what Lavretsky and Liza felt, and that it is better to point out these individual tragedies and pass them by.
Turgenev wrote the novel shortly after his 40th birthday, and it expresses some of his feelings about middle age, as its protagonist is forced to confront the mistakes of his past and determine what options are left for his dwindling future.
譯者：黃偉經
輸入：小精靈
－－愛之路
落難
“這些聲音聲意味着什麽呢？”“意味着我感到痛苦，強烈地感到痛苦。”
“當小溪的流水碰到石頭的時候，你聽見過它的潺潺聲嗎？”
“聽見過……但這說明了說明呢？”
“說明這潺潺聲和你的呻吟聲都一樣是聲音，而不是別的什麽東西。所不同的是：小溪的潺潺聲使人悅耳，而你的呻吟聲，卻引不起任何人的憐憫。你不必忍住呻吟，可是你記住吧：這反正是聲音，聲音，象樹木被折裂的嘎吱聲一樣的聲音……聲音－－而不是什麽別的東西。
屠格涅夫這篇散文詩寫於他去世前一年，那時他身患重病(脊椎癌)經常處於痛苦呻吟和孤獨感之中。
乞丐
我在街上走着……一個乞丐－－一個衰弱的老人檔住了我。紅腫的、流着淚水的眼睛，發青的嘴唇，粗糙、襤褸的衣服，齷齪的傷口……呵，貧窮把這個不幸的人折磨成了什麽樣子啊！他嚮我伸出一隻紅腫、骯髒的手……。他呻吟着，他喃喃地乞求幫助。我伸手搜索自己身上所有口袋……。既沒有錢包，也沒有懷錶，甚至連一塊手帕也沒有……。我隨身什麽東西也沒有帶。但乞丐在等待着……他伸出來的手，微微地擺動着和顫動着。我惘然無措，惶惑不安，緊緊地握了握這衹骯髒的、發抖的手……。“請別見怪，兄弟；我什麽也沒有帶，兄弟。”乞丐那對紅腫的眼睛凝視着我；他發青的嘴唇微笑了一下－－接着，他也照樣緊握了我的變得冷起來的手指。“那兒的話，兄弟，”他吃力地說道，“這也應當謝謝啦。這也是一種施捨啊，兄弟。”乞丐那對紅腫的眼睛凝視着我；他發青的嘴唇微笑了一下－－接着，他也照樣緊握了我的變得冷起來的手指。“那兒的話，兄弟，”他吃力地說道，“這也應當謝謝啦。這也是一種施捨啊，兄弟。”我明白，我也從我的兄弟那兒得到了施捨。
明天，明天
度過的每一天，幾乎都是那麽空虛，那麽懶散，那麽毫無價值！它給自己留下的痕跡是多麽少！這些一點鐘又一點鐘消逝了的時間，又是多麽沒有意義，多麽糊裏糊塗啊！
然而，人卻要生存下去；他珍惜生命，他把希望寄托在生命，寄托在自己，寄托在未來上面……噢，他期待着將來什麽樣的幸福呀！
可是，他為什麽設想，其他後來的日子，將不會同剛剛過去的這一天相似呢？
他就是沒有料想到這一點。他嚮來不愛思索－－他這做得很好。
“啊，明天，明天！”他安慰着自己，一直到這個“明天”把他送入墳墓。
好啦－－一旦在墳墓裏－－你就不得不停止思索了。
愛之路
一切感情都可以導致愛情，導致熱烈愛慕，一切的感情：憎恨，憐憫，冷漠，崇敬，友誼，畏懼，－－甚至蔑視。是的，一切的感情……衹是除了感謝以外。
感謝－－這是債務；任何人都可以擺出自己的一些債務……但愛情－－不是金錢。
空話
我害怕，我避免空話；但對空話的畏懼－－也是一種自負。
於是，在這兩個外來詞之間，在自負與空話之間，我們復雜的生活在流逝着和變動着。
純樸
純樸！純樸！人們把你叫作神聖的。可是，神聖－－這不是人類的事。
謙遜－－這纔是。它抑製着，它戰勝着驕傲。但不要忘記：勝利感本身就藴場着自己的驕傲。
你哭……
你哭的是我的悲痛；而我哭，是由於同情你對我的憐憫。
然而，要知道，你哭的也是自己的悲痛，因為衹有你在我身上看到了自己的悲痛。
愛情
大傢都說：愛情－－這是最高尚的，最特殊的感情。別一個的“我”，深入到你的“我”裏：你被擴大了－－你也被突破了；現在從肉體上說你是很超然了，而且你的“我”被消除了。可是甚至連這樣的消亡，也使一個有血有肉的人憤懣。衹有不朽之神才能復活啊。
啊，我的青春！啊，我的活力！
啊，我的青春！啊，我的活力！－－果戈裏
“啊，我的青春！啊，我的活力！”我有個時候也曾經這樣感嘆過。不過，當我發出這個感嘆的時候，我自己還年輕和充滿活力。
那時，我不過是想以憂鬱的情緒來投自己所好，表面上是在憐憫自己，暗地裏是在高興。
現在，我緘口不語，不再為那些失去的東西唉聲嘆氣，難過傷心……。那些失去的東西，本來就以不能明說的煩惱經常折磨着我。
“嘿！最好別去想吧！”男子漢們堅决地說。
我憐憫……
我憐憫我自己，別人，所有的人，野獸，鳥類……一切有生命之物。
我憐憫孩子們和老年人，不幸者和幸運者……憐憫幸運者甚於不幸者。
我憐憫常勝的、凱旋的首領們，憐憫偉大的藝術傢，思想傢詩人們。
我憐憫殺人犯和他的受害者，憐憫醜與美，憐憫被壓迫者和壓迫者。
我怎樣從這憐憫中解脫出來呢？它不讓我安穩地生活……。它，還有這煩惱。
哦，煩惱，煩惱，充滿了憐憫的煩惱啊！人千萬不能陷入煩惱之中。
真的，我最好還是羨慕吧！我就羨慕－－岩石。
處世法則
你想成為心情安寧的人嗎？那麽，去同人們交往吧，不過要一個人生活，對任何事情都不要着手去做，對任何事情都不惋惜吧。
你想成為幸福的人嗎？那你首先要學會吃苦。
誰之罪
她嚮我伸出了自己的溫暖的手、蒼白的手……我卻粗魯無情地推開了她。年輕、可愛的臉龐上，表現出疑惑不解的神情；年輕、善良的眼睛，帶着責備的目光註視着我；年輕、純潔的心，並不理解我。
“我的罪過是什麽？”她的嘴唇喃喃着說。
“你的罪過？在最光輝燦爛的蒼穹深處，最快活的安琪兒，可能比你更容易犯下罪過呢。
“可是，在我面前，你的罪過依然是很大的。
“你想知道它，知道這個你不可能瞭解，我無法給你解釋明白的罪過嗎？
“這個罪過就在於：你－－正當青春年華；我－－已是老年。”
輸入：小精靈
－－愛之路
落難
“這些聲音聲意味着什麽呢？”“意味着我感到痛苦，強烈地感到痛苦。”
“當小溪的流水碰到石頭的時候，你聽見過它的潺潺聲嗎？”
“聽見過……但這說明了說明呢？”
“說明這潺潺聲和你的呻吟聲都一樣是聲音，而不是別的什麽東西。所不同的是：小溪的潺潺聲使人悅耳，而你的呻吟聲，卻引不起任何人的憐憫。你不必忍住呻吟，可是你記住吧：這反正是聲音，聲音，象樹木被折裂的嘎吱聲一樣的聲音……聲音－－而不是什麽別的東西。
屠格涅夫這篇散文詩寫於他去世前一年，那時他身患重病(脊椎癌)經常處於痛苦呻吟和孤獨感之中。
乞丐
我在街上走着……一個乞丐－－一個衰弱的老人檔住了我。紅腫的、流着淚水的眼睛，發青的嘴唇，粗糙、襤褸的衣服，齷齪的傷口……呵，貧窮把這個不幸的人折磨成了什麽樣子啊！他嚮我伸出一隻紅腫、骯髒的手……。他呻吟着，他喃喃地乞求幫助。我伸手搜索自己身上所有口袋……。既沒有錢包，也沒有懷錶，甚至連一塊手帕也沒有……。我隨身什麽東西也沒有帶。但乞丐在等待着……他伸出來的手，微微地擺動着和顫動着。我惘然無措，惶惑不安，緊緊地握了握這衹骯髒的、發抖的手……。“請別見怪，兄弟；我什麽也沒有帶，兄弟。”乞丐那對紅腫的眼睛凝視着我；他發青的嘴唇微笑了一下－－接着，他也照樣緊握了我的變得冷起來的手指。“那兒的話，兄弟，”他吃力地說道，“這也應當謝謝啦。這也是一種施捨啊，兄弟。”乞丐那對紅腫的眼睛凝視着我；他發青的嘴唇微笑了一下－－接着，他也照樣緊握了我的變得冷起來的手指。“那兒的話，兄弟，”他吃力地說道，“這也應當謝謝啦。這也是一種施捨啊，兄弟。”我明白，我也從我的兄弟那兒得到了施捨。
明天，明天
度過的每一天，幾乎都是那麽空虛，那麽懶散，那麽毫無價值！它給自己留下的痕跡是多麽少！這些一點鐘又一點鐘消逝了的時間，又是多麽沒有意義，多麽糊裏糊塗啊！
然而，人卻要生存下去；他珍惜生命，他把希望寄托在生命，寄托在自己，寄托在未來上面……噢，他期待着將來什麽樣的幸福呀！
可是，他為什麽設想，其他後來的日子，將不會同剛剛過去的這一天相似呢？
他就是沒有料想到這一點。他嚮來不愛思索－－他這做得很好。
“啊，明天，明天！”他安慰着自己，一直到這個“明天”把他送入墳墓。
好啦－－一旦在墳墓裏－－你就不得不停止思索了。
愛之路
一切感情都可以導致愛情，導致熱烈愛慕，一切的感情：憎恨，憐憫，冷漠，崇敬，友誼，畏懼，－－甚至蔑視。是的，一切的感情……衹是除了感謝以外。
感謝－－這是債務；任何人都可以擺出自己的一些債務……但愛情－－不是金錢。
空話
我害怕，我避免空話；但對空話的畏懼－－也是一種自負。
於是，在這兩個外來詞之間，在自負與空話之間，我們復雜的生活在流逝着和變動着。
純樸
純樸！純樸！人們把你叫作神聖的。可是，神聖－－這不是人類的事。
謙遜－－這纔是。它抑製着，它戰勝着驕傲。但不要忘記：勝利感本身就藴場着自己的驕傲。
你哭……
你哭的是我的悲痛；而我哭，是由於同情你對我的憐憫。
然而，要知道，你哭的也是自己的悲痛，因為衹有你在我身上看到了自己的悲痛。
愛情
大傢都說：愛情－－這是最高尚的，最特殊的感情。別一個的“我”，深入到你的“我”裏：你被擴大了－－你也被突破了；現在從肉體上說你是很超然了，而且你的“我”被消除了。可是甚至連這樣的消亡，也使一個有血有肉的人憤懣。衹有不朽之神才能復活啊。
啊，我的青春！啊，我的活力！
啊，我的青春！啊，我的活力！－－果戈裏
“啊，我的青春！啊，我的活力！”我有個時候也曾經這樣感嘆過。不過，當我發出這個感嘆的時候，我自己還年輕和充滿活力。
那時，我不過是想以憂鬱的情緒來投自己所好，表面上是在憐憫自己，暗地裏是在高興。
現在，我緘口不語，不再為那些失去的東西唉聲嘆氣，難過傷心……。那些失去的東西，本來就以不能明說的煩惱經常折磨着我。
“嘿！最好別去想吧！”男子漢們堅决地說。
我憐憫……
我憐憫我自己，別人，所有的人，野獸，鳥類……一切有生命之物。
我憐憫孩子們和老年人，不幸者和幸運者……憐憫幸運者甚於不幸者。
我憐憫常勝的、凱旋的首領們，憐憫偉大的藝術傢，思想傢詩人們。
我憐憫殺人犯和他的受害者，憐憫醜與美，憐憫被壓迫者和壓迫者。
我怎樣從這憐憫中解脫出來呢？它不讓我安穩地生活……。它，還有這煩惱。
哦，煩惱，煩惱，充滿了憐憫的煩惱啊！人千萬不能陷入煩惱之中。
真的，我最好還是羨慕吧！我就羨慕－－岩石。
處世法則
你想成為心情安寧的人嗎？那麽，去同人們交往吧，不過要一個人生活，對任何事情都不要着手去做，對任何事情都不惋惜吧。
你想成為幸福的人嗎？那你首先要學會吃苦。
誰之罪
她嚮我伸出了自己的溫暖的手、蒼白的手……我卻粗魯無情地推開了她。年輕、可愛的臉龐上，表現出疑惑不解的神情；年輕、善良的眼睛，帶着責備的目光註視着我；年輕、純潔的心，並不理解我。
“我的罪過是什麽？”她的嘴唇喃喃着說。
“你的罪過？在最光輝燦爛的蒼穹深處，最快活的安琪兒，可能比你更容易犯下罪過呢。
“可是，在我面前，你的罪過依然是很大的。
“你想知道它，知道這個你不可能瞭解，我無法給你解釋明白的罪過嗎？
“這個罪過就在於：你－－正當青春年華；我－－已是老年。”