Stepan Trofimovich bemoans the conclusions found in Chernyshevsky’s seminal novel What is to be Done?, and overtly and unambiguously points to the notion of generational responsibility:
“I agree that the author’s basic idea is correct,” he said to me feverishly, “but so much the more horrible for that! It’s our same idea, precisely ours; we, we were the first to plant it, to nurture it, to prepare it—and what new could they say on their own after us! But, God, how it’s all perverted, distorted, mutilated!” he exclaimed, thumping the book with his fingers. “Are these the conclusions we strove for? Who can recognize the initial thought here?” (304)
At the same time, there is a more complex tangle of various familial and relational structures. For example, Stavrogin is on one hand a protégé of Stepan Trofimovich, or like a son, yet at the same time, he is also likened to his sibling, given Stepan’s relationship with Varvara, who treats the elderly Verkhovensky like a child—and even tries to marry him off to Darya (who is as we find out later devoted to Stavrogin). Pyotr questions his father’s paternity, as does Stepan himself (“But tell me, finally, monster, are you my son or not?” 306). And to extend this notion further, serfs were often considered as children of the serf-owner, hence Fedka, who was sold by Stepan into the army, might also be construed as a brother to Pyotr. And the Tsar himself was often likened to (and called) a father, hence Marya Timofeevna’s accusation of Nikolai as Grishka Otrepev, the Tsar-imposter, might suggest that Stavrogin has a paternal role—which we might understand in his influence on Shatov, Kirillov and Pyotr Stepanovich. And, finally, the patriarchal structure of Russian Orthodoxy ought to be kept in mind.
Thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment