home Wood protection The dispute between Bazarov and Kirsanov who is right. Who is right? (disputes of Bazarov). VI, X, XXIV chapters

The dispute between Bazarov and Kirsanov who is right. Who is right? (disputes of Bazarov). VI, X, XXIV chapters

Of course, in a dispute between heroes, one cannot stick to one side.

“Without self-respect, without self-respect—and these feelings are developed in an aristocrat—there is no solid foundation for the public good,” Kirsanov argues. And he is indeed right, because he expresses common truths.

“You respect yourself and sit with folded hands; what is the benefit of this for the public good? You would not respect yourself and would do the same, ”objects Bazarov. But we can only partly agree with him: maybe he is right about Kirsanov, “sitting with his hands folded”, but if there was no respect in a person, then he would hardly do the same.

Probably, such a person would only destroy and would be much worse.

Next, we talked about the people. Bazarov argued that the Russian people did not need any foreign words: "After all, logic is not needed to put a piece of bread in your mouth when you are hungry." And Kirsanov perceives this as an insult to the people.

In my opinion, Bazarov is right, because you are full of smart words, "abstracts" - they are of no use and the Russian peasant does not need them, because he works and does not care about these "nonsense" things. But Bazarov is wrong in denying art, poetry, and everything else. In his opinion, it turns out that everything that has been created over the centuries is useless.

But there was a thought expressed by Kirsanov, with which both sides agreed: “The Russian people hold sacred traditions, they are patriarchal, they cannot live without faith…”

But Bazarov wants to "clear a place" for those who will believe only in what is useful.

Kirsanov says that this means going against the people, that Bazarov is not a Russian person. And Bazarov replies that the people are more likely to see a compatriot in him than in Kirsanov. Kirsanov says that his opponent despises the Russian people. To which Bazarov replies that he deserves contempt. But I do not agree with him, although my opinion was formed by a different time ...

Then comes a long speech by Bazarov, in which he says that if we talk about problems (bribes, roads, trade, the lack of a proper court), they will not be solved: ours is happy to rob himself, just to get drunk on dope in a tavern.

And Kirsanov makes an assumption about Bazarov's position: "And they themselves decided not to take anything seriously."

Indeed, these thoughts of Bazarov are very accurate, but the conclusions that he made, in my opinion, are wrong.

Kirsanov is convinced that nihilism has no future: "There are millions who will not allow you to trample underfoot your most sacred beliefs, which will crush you!"

“If they crush it, the road is there,” replies Bazarov, who still believes that Kirsanov is wrong (“Moscow burned down from a penny candle”).

“I was told that in Rome our artists never set foot in the Vatican.

Rafael is considered almost a fool, because this, they say, is authority; but they themselves are powerless and fruitless to the point of disgust, and they themselves lack fantasy further than “The Girl at the Fountain”, no matter what you say! Kirsanov is indignant. And Bazarov simply answers this: “In my opinion, Rafael is not worth a penny, and they are no better than him.” Of course, Bazarov is wrong in this, because art is eternal, and people from different parts of the world admire it in different eras.

And Kirsanov, after this dispute, comes to the correct, but only partially, conclusion: “Before, young people had to study; they did not want to pass for ignoramuses, so they involuntarily worked. And now they should say: everything in the world is nonsense! - and it's in the hat. After that, Bazarov decides to end the conversation, believing that he has gone too far. But this dispute, in my opinion, had little effect on both sides, each of them remained in its own opinion.

Bazarov is right that something must be done; any truth must be verified. Pavel Petrovich is right that the achievements of previous generations cannot be denied.

Effective preparation for the exam (all subjects) - start preparing

www.kritika24.ru

dispute between kirsanov and evgeny bazarov, who is right? Who is guilty? chapter 10. "fathers and children". " Fathers and Sons "

In the dispute about the Russian people, the truth is, of course, on the side of Yevgeny Bazarov. Pavel Petrovich is touched by backwardness, patriarchy. Bazarov, on the other hand, understands that "the grossest superstition is strangling the country," and does not want to put up with these shortcomings. His love for the people is the love of a true member of the sixties, without sentimentality and idealization of a peasant. Bazarov knows how to communicate with peasants and, if he sees fit, knows how to enlighten them.

He connects his direction with the "people's spirit", considering himself the spokesman for the interests of the people. The heroes are arguing about which of them the peasant "is more likely to recognize as a compatriot."

The aesthetic positions of Bazarov and the Kirsanovs also collide in disputes. The views of the Kirsanovs are not the same: Pavel Petrovich is indifferent to art, Nikolai Petrovich loves and knows literature and music. Bazarov believes that reading Pushkin "is no good", "it's time to throw this nonsense", that playing the cello is "ridiculous" for a man, that a decent chemist is twelve times more useful than any poet. The characters of the novel also have different attitudes towards nature. Here, Arkady also opposes Bazarov. This is what Bazarov tells him: “And nature is nothing in the sense in which you understand it. Nature is not a temple, but a workshop, and man is a worker in it.

However, in the soul of Bazarov, there is still much of what he denies, for example, his ability to love, the ability to feel beauty. Love for Anna Sergeevna Odintsova revealed to him the abyss of his own soul: the suffering of a rejected heart cannot be explained. His soul seethes with unused opportunities and unknown feelings, and this is fully revealed on the verge of death. In the story of Pavel Petrovich, love, for which he abandoned everything, crossed out his career, nevertheless ousted all the “strength” of a person from life and led to the spiritual death of this good person in his own way.

Thus, in the novel Fathers and Sons, Turgenev showed the ideological struggle of two generations, the struggle of the old world that is becoming obsolete and the new world that is just being born, of new ideas and beliefs.

But in no case should the legacy of predecessors be discarded. A strong thread should connect one generation with another, only then the succession of the best traditions is possible, and movement forward is possible.

The dispute between Bazarov and Kirsanov: who is right?

The dispute between Bazarov and Kirsanov Pavel Petrovich is a significant component of the plot of Turgenev's novel Fathers and Sons. The first embodies a generation of children sensitive to progress, the second - conservative parents. Ivan Sergeevich brought together in polemic the life positions of representatives of two different generations. No wonder the attention of the classic was attracted by the growing confrontation within society. He presciently, almost decades before the Russian revolutions, pointed out by the example of the arguing main opposing forces of the emerging movement: revolutionary democrats and conservative liberals.

Brief description of the characters

Let us note the paradox of the novel: characteristic in its plot-forming confrontation is the convincing dominance of the positions of a representative of the younger generation. And this, despite the fact that the landowner Turgenev himself should be attributed to the bourgeois liberals!
Bourgeois literary criticism gave derogatory reviews of the book in the press. In particular, Mr. M. Antonovich summarized the author's prejudice, that he undeservedly humiliated the younger generation. Classics tried to "poison" for his views. That is, he could seriously suffer for the truth set forth in the work. Fortunately, biased literary critics, including D. Pisarev and N. Strakhov, voiced their voice in his defense.

The dispute between Bazarov and Pavel Kirsanov is shown by the classic as an ideological confrontation between two non-ideal people - types taken directly from Russian reality.

The first - comes from a poor, intelligent family, has an obvious creative potential, but he has not yet taken place as a man, as the head of the family. It still has a lot of superficial, leaving in mature years.

The second is a hereditary aristocrat who never made a career in the service, devastated by a hopeless love for the socialite Princess R, is a type of a kind of biorobot, aimlessly sybaritizing.

Differences in appearance

Even describing the appearance of these characters, the author used the antithesis. Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov is a man of 43 years old, of average height, looking seven years younger than his age. He lives for his pleasure and is well-groomed in an aristocratic way. He takes care of his appearance: always clean-shaven, with well-groomed hands, in patent leather shoes. His trousers are always ironed, and his collars are exceptionally fresh.

With age, Kirsanov did not become flabby, he retained elegance and ease of movement, youthful thinness and smartness. A pleasant appearance and demeanor distinguish him, however, with a closer acquaintance, the spiritual emptiness of an aristocrat, superficiality, and coldness towards others are striking.

Evgeny Vasilyevich Bazarov is a young man of tall stature with irregular features of an oblong face. With narrow cheekbones, his forehead is disproportionately wide. Green eyes look mockingly and intelligently, the nose is pointed downwards.

The man is dressed tastelessly, in baggy suits. He has long, sandy-colored hair, and his appearance is colorless and unmemorable. However, when talking with people, Bazarov is transformed, he is filled with energy that attracts others to him.

Debate between the new and the old

Only time and real facts can resolve their dispute. These characters are so different and intolerant of each other that they categorically cannot come to a certain agreement and logical statement on their own.

They are both charismatic and selfish. It is characteristic that the dispute between Bazarov and Kirsanov Pavel as a result comes to a duel, fortunately ending comically. Let's try to judge these disputants. This is not at all difficult, because we have the opportunity to look at the subject of their disagreements, relying on historical experience. What is the representative of the generation of children and the follower of the views of the fathers diving to the point of hoarseness: Bazarov and Kirsanov? The table of disputes, compiled by us in sections, will help to visualize this conflict of opinions.

The subject of the dispute: what social position is most relevant for Russia?

Kirsanov preaches a superficial aristocratic view of the existing way of society, but, by and large, he is absolutely indifferent to progress. He is satisfied with a completely existing way of life. For some reason, he refers to himself as a liberal, although he does not express any liberal ideas. This is a typical retired aristocratic officer, at his leisure demagogy about his progressiveness. As a person, he is empty, gray and untalented, although he tries to give the impression of a modern person.

Yesterday's medical student is a convinced nihilist. The existing way of life does not suit him at all. For him, neither the sybarite nobles nor the downtrodden, disenfranchised peasants are not a decree. According to Eugene, a new Russia should be built, discarding the traditions and foundations of both the first and second, despising feelings, treating nature as a workshop. In his opinion, revolution corresponds to progress. For only by changing the state, you can change its people. The ideological disputes between Bazarov and Kirsanov convincingly demonstrate the correctness of the former. Is that why the author of the novel is on his side?

The subject of the dispute: how should the peasantry be treated?

Pavel Petrovich always talks about the people very beautifully and respectfully. Sometimes, purely in a lordly way, he provides peasants with penny material assistance. However, he does this not from the heart, but rather for force. In reality, Kirsanov eschews peasants. He does not even tolerate their smell, and when communicating, he brings a bottle of cologne to his nose. The courtyards also feel the abyss separating them from the master. To them, he is a foreigner.

The attitude towards the people of Bazarov is deformed by a radical theory: he looks down on ordinary people, allowing careless statements. However, his inner mentality is akin to that of a peasant. Although Yevgeny is rude and mocking to the courtyards, they understand and respect him.

Dispute: attitude towards God and religion

The lines of the dispute between Kirsanov and Bazarov about God are ephemeral - this is the confrontation between the insincere believer and the theomachist. The first, of course, loses. Pavel Petrovich is true to himself in matters of freedom of conscience. It is a complete imitation. His faith in God is sham. Initiating a duel, he not only shows his pride, but also attempts to kill his neighbor (First Commandment). What more to say?

Bazarov is an atheist. He considers the mind the main driving force of the universe. Arithmetic and chemistry for him are not only more important than poetry and art, but also commensurate with them. This, of course, is a delusion. However, Eugene believed in him so ardently, his position is so emotional that Kirsanova wins in this dispute too.

Dispute about the correct position in life

The principles of Pavel Petrovich's life are reduced to the outer side of aristocracy. For him, this means being smartly dressed, showing courtesy in communication. He reads the English press, follows the British style. The inner side of aristocracy is a genetic connection with the Motherland, which Pushkin, Tolstoy, Turgenev, Tereshchenko, Stolypin possessed. However, this is too difficult for Kirsanov.

Bazarov's life principle (although he denies the existence of such), perhaps, still exists. We dare to formulate it. Most likely it is “to be, not to seem”! The sybaritism of the nobility is alien to him. He is constantly busy with work, while believing that the best reward for a person is the tangible, weighty results of his work.

Dispute about the benefits of art

The aesthetic level of Pavel Petrovich, obviously, is at the level of the primary classes of the gymnasium. However, he shows snobbery, declaring his love for art, picturesquely raising his eyes to the sky. However, his vision is empty. The dispute between Kirsanov and Bazarov (the table reflects this) ends with the victory of the erroneous views of the latter. Pavel Petrovich, indifferent to the high manifestation of the human spirit, cannot argue that “beauty will save the world”.

Evgeny Bazarov is a convinced nihilist and materialist. In modern terms, he "trolls" representatives of art, even Pushkin. Readers are encouraged only by his naivety, because he does not really know the work of a genius.

Dispute about love and attitude towards a woman

Pavel Kirsanov, judging by his speeches, is a real gentleman and the last romantic. He always respectfully and passionately talks about the ladies. However, his biography testifies only to brilliant love affairs in his youth. Having met the same as himself, Princess R, a hunter of passions, he does not recognize in her consumer interest in himself, and his personal life fails.

Kirsanov, for the sake of his ego, is only able to indicate his attitude towards a woman (a duel over Fenichka), but he can no longer fall in love with this internally devastated person.

Young Yevgeny Vasilyevich, having heard enough of nihilist nonsense, at first declares his detachment from feelings, love, etc. However, this is nothing more than childishness. His love for Anna Sergeevna Odintsova still awakens a deep feeling in him. The real, unostentatious, natural nobility is manifested in him when, at the same time dying, he says goodbye and declares his love to Odintsova. The dispute between Kirsanov and Bazarov (the table clearly compares the internal nature of the opponents) was lost by both. True, with a small correction. Let's be clear: a woman's love is not a panacea for a man, it is just a magnifying glass for his shortcomings or virtues.

Bazarov's love morally elevated, while Kirsanov destroyed it.

Conclusion

Diametrically opposed views are expressed by Bazarov and Kirsanov. The table of disputes, grouped by sections, clearly demonstrates this. Why does Turgenev show such a confrontation in such detail? Yes, because this is a panorama of the ideological clash of political forces within Russia: old, decaying, obsolete and new, imperfect, but dynamic.

At the same time, it is necessary to recognize the depth of the mind of the classic, who chose precisely these topics of dispute between Bazarov and Kirsanov. After all, if we try to extrapolate them to our modern society, then we will also receive diametrically different interpretations from representatives of different segments of the population. The strife of generations will go on forever.

In conclusion, we summarize: the health of any society depends on the balance of opinions, on the ability to find a compromise and the right path of development. Speaking figuratively, the unfinished, "hanging in the air" dispute between Bazarov and Kirsanov, heated up over time, grew into a revolutionary situation. How sad that the classics are not heard in time!

Novel "Fathers and Sons"

Two duels: verbal and physical fights between Kirsanov and Bazarov

VI, X, XXIV chapters

Determine the conflict in the novel. Through the analysis of the conflict to find out to the end the system of images.

From comprehending the scale of Bazarov's personality to thinking about a person's place in life, the extent of his activity, the courage of his convictions.

Who are the main antagonists in the novel?

The main antagonists in the novel are Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov.

In order to understand the conflict of the novel in its entirety, one must understand all the shades of disagreement between the main characters. How are these disagreements revealed, how are they revealed?

In disputes, dialogues. Finally, in a duel.

Why is a clash between Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich inevitable?

What information can be gleaned from the portrait description of Bazarov, is it given by the author in its entirety or in separate characteristic strokes?

The appearance of Bazarov is not given immediately, but emerges from a number of details (“tall stature”, “self-confidence and intelligence”).

"Who is Bazarov?" the Kirsanovs ask. Arkady's answer: "Nihilist". What do you think about the personality of Bazarov?

What does Bazarov's nihilism extend to? Give examples from the text.

For literature and art. Virtually every aspect of life.

In your opinion, is it possible to deduce from the novel itself whether this concept and, accordingly, the phenomenon that it denotes, was widespread, well-established?

No, there is no common understanding. This phenomenon is relatively recent for the late 1950s.

Nikolai Petrovich is just trying to somehow understand him, Arkady claims that nihilists are critically thinking individuals who do not take anything for granted. According to Pavel Petrovich, nihilists simply do not recognize anything and do not respect anything. The views of the nihilist Bazarov can only be determined by ascertaining his position.

Let's analyze the first meeting between Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich.

Pavel Petrovich, greeting Bazarov, “slightly tilted his flexible waist and smiled slightly, but did not give his hand and even put it back in his pocket”.

In this scene, Pavel Petrovich's obvious dislike for Bazarov, who did not want to shake hands with the plebeian, is manifested.

Pay attention to the repetition of the word "slightly", which emphasizes the carelessness of Pavel Petrovich's greeting, and to the buffoonish behavior of Prokofich, who, having picked up the Bazarov "clothes", retired on tiptoe. The author does not delve into the reflections of Pavel Petrovich, but in a few words gives the details of the picture, which we draw ourselves according to these guidelines.

And how does Bazarov behave? Is he offended? Offended? Annoyed?

“Nothing happened,” Arkady answers, “so they hesitated a little. But now we are hungry like wolves. Hurry up Prokofitch, papa, and I'll be right back. "Wait a minute, I'll go with you," exclaimed Bazarov, suddenly tearing himself off the sofa.

What does this action of Bazarov mean? What are the thoughts of the hero at this moment?

Bazarov does not enjoy communicating with the older Kirsanovs.

The thoughts of the hero can be guessed from one detail. To convey the deep feelings of the hero in one small detail is a feature of the creative manner of I.S. Turgenev.

What are the main topics of dispute between Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich?

About the attitude towards the nobility, the aristocracy and its principles, about nihilism, about the attitude towards the people, about views on art, nature. After relatively neutral topics about science, art, nature, the dispute turns to political issues.

Give aphorisms of Bazarov

A decent chemist is twenty times more useful than any poet.

The art of making money, or no more hemorrhoids!

There are sciences as there are crafts, titles; and science does not exist at all.

First you need to learn the alphabet and then take up the book, and we have not yet seen the basics.

Every person must educate himself.

As for time, why should I depend on it? Let it better depend on me.

The important thing is that two times two is four, and the rest is all nonsense.

Nature is not a temple, but a workshop, and man is a worker in it.

Aristocracy, liberalism, progress, principles, just think how many foreign ones. and useless words Russian people do not need them for nothing.

We do not preach anything and have decided not to take on anything.

First you need to clear the place.

Why do we need this logic? We do without it.

Raphael is not worth a penny.

I do not share anyone's opinions; I have mine.

Only freaks think freely between women.

When the first clash between P.P. and Bazarov? What was the dispute about?

Chapter 6, at breakfast. About science.

Are you really into physics? asked Pavel Petrovich in his turn.
- Physics, yes; the natural sciences in general.
- They say that the Germans have recently been very successful in this part.
“Yes, the Germans are our teachers in this,” Bazarov answered casually.
The word Germans, instead of Germans, Pavel Petrovich used for the sake of irony, which, however, no one noticed.
- You have such a high opinion of the Germans? said Pavel Petrovich with refined courtesy. He began to feel secret irritation. His aristocratic nature was outraged by Bazarov's perfect swagger. Not only was this doctor's son not shy, he even answered curtly and reluctantly, and there was something rough, almost impudent, in the sound of his voice.
- Local scientists efficient people.
- So-so. Well, but about Russian scientists, you probably have such a flattering idea?
- Perhaps so.
“This is a very commendable self-sacrifice,” said Pavel Petrovich, straightening his body and throwing his head back. “But how did Arkady Nikolaevich just tell us that you do not recognize any authorities?” Don't believe them?
Why should I acknowledge them? And what will I believe? They will tell me the case, I agree, that's all.
- Do the Germans talk all the time? said Pavel Petrovich, and his face took on such an indifferent, distant expression, as if he had all gone into some transcendental height.
"Not all of them," answered Bazarov with a short yawn, who clearly didn't want to continue the argument.

How do both arguing relate to the people? What does Pavel Petrovich value among the people? How does Bazarov treat the people?

To Pavel Petrovich, the religiosity of the people, life according to established business and order, seem to be primordial and valuable features of the people's life, they touch him. Bazarov hates these qualities. When Pavel Petrovich talks about the patriarchal nature of the Russian people, Bazarov objects to him: “The people believe that when the thunder rumbles, this is Elijah the prophet in a chariot driving around the sky. Well? Should I agree with him?"

The different attitude of Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich to religious prejudices common among the people proves Bazarov's hatred for backwardness and survivals.

Pay attention to the emotional coloring of the speech of the characters. One and the same phenomenon is called differently, and its role in the life of the people is assessed differently. Pavel Petrovich: "He (the people) cannot live without faith." Bazarov: "The grossest superstition is strangling us." (Ch. X)

Let's open Chapter X, where the argument turns to aristocrats and the role of principles in life.

What are the "principles" of Pavel Petrovich, and how does Bazarov feel about them?

The question of what to recognize, on what, on what grounds to build one's convictions, is extremely important for Pavel Petrovich.

“Without self-respect, without self-respect—and these feelings are developed in an aristocrat—there is no solid foundation for the social. bien public, public building. Personality, dear sir, is the main thing: the human personality must be strong as a rock, for everything is built on it.

Pavel Petrovich believes that the aristocrats won the right to a leading position in society not by origin, but by moral virtues and deeds (“The aristocracy gave freedom to England and supports it”).

Pavel Petrovich claims that the principles of the aristocracy, i.e. its moral standards, developed by the best representatives of the previous civilization, are the backbone of the human personality. Only immoral people can live without principles.

V.M. Markovich believes that the principles of Pavel Petrovich “become an object of ridicule only in relation to the titanic scale of Bazarov's denial. By themselves, they look consistent in Turgenev, in some ways convincing and not without merit.

What is opposed to the views of Pavel Petrovich? How does Bazarov feel about nobles and aristocrats?

Pavel Petrovich considers aristocrats the basis of society. But his "principles" have nothing to do with his activities for the benefit of society. Bazarov, on the other hand, believes that inactive people cannot be the basis of society: “Here you respect yourself and sit back; what is the use of this for the public good? (Ch. X)

Can we judge what Pavel Petrovich felt when he heard these words of Bazarov?

Turgenev does not reveal Pavel Petrovich's thoughts, but Kirsanov's reaction (“Pavel Petrovich turned pale”) indicates that Bazarov hurt his innermost feelings.

“That's a completely different question. I don't have to explain to you now why I'm sitting with my hands folded, as you please express yourself.

What did Pavel Petrovich mean? What are the reasons for this inaction? Do I need to explain them to Bazarov?

The life story of Pavel Petrovich Bazarov already knows. He knows the story of Pavel Petrovich's unhappy love, he knows how and why Pavel Petrovich ended up in the countryside and closed himself off in his own insignificant interests. Already before the main dispute, it is known that Pavel Petrovich is actually a “living dead man”.

So why is Bazarov so merciless towards Pavel Petrovich?

He wanted to hurt him.

Bazarov's goal is not to offend a person, but to show that under any conditions a person should not sit idly by.

What is a person for Pavel Petrovich and for Bazarov?

“Every person must educate himself” - Bazarov.

“A person must be strong as a rock, because everything is built on it” - Kirsanov.

If this statement belongs to Pavel Petrovich, does this mean that his words are at odds with his deeds?

The fact is that for Kirsanov it is important to follow social traditions, a strict routine once and for all. From the point of view of Pavel Petrovich, even a person who is advanced in his ideology should not come into conflict with the social structure, the law.

What does Bazarov look like next to Pavel Petrovich? Find episodes in the novel that indicate that Bazarov is kind and sympathetic. Prove the "positivity of Bazarov's image".

Bazarov's conversation with the yard boys, help to Fenechka; Bazarov treats the sick on his parents' estate, and so on.

What does the duel scene add to our idea of a hero? Let's turn to the XXIV chapter?

Bazarov accepts the challenge of Pavel Petrovich. Having wounded the enemy, immediately renders assistance to him:

Bazarov threw the pistol aside and approached his opponent.
- Are you injured? he said.
- You had the right to call me to the barrier, - Pavel Petrovich said, - and this is nothing. According to the condition, everyone has one more shot.
“Well, excuse me, that’s until another time,” answered Bazarov, and embraced Pavel Petrovich, who was beginning to turn pale. - Now I am no longer a duelist, but a doctor, and first of all I must examine your wound.

Why does Arkady tell the story of his uncle? (ch. vii) Does he succeed?

Apparently, Arkady wants to arouse Bazarov's sympathy for his uncle and says: “He is deeply unhappy, believe me; to despise him is a sin." But Bazarov answers this: “A man who put his whole life on the map of female love and, when this card was killed for him, became limp and sank to the point that he was not capable of anything, such a person is not a man.”

What other circumstances, besides unhappy love, does Arkady bring?

Arkady explains to Bazarov: "Yes, remember his upbringing, the time in which he lived." "Upbringing! Bazarov picked up. - Every person must educate himself - well, at least like me, for example. As for time, why should I depend on it! “Let it better depend on me.”

Let's remember the 40s, the time of reaction, the growth of the generation to which Lermontov predicted: "In inaction it will grow old." Why does Arkady Bazarov not recognize the arguments, how does he imagine the personality, its formation?

Bazarov does not want to be a toy in the hands of circumstances. He makes circumstances, time depend on him! Man - the king of nature, a man who remakes both society and relations in this society - this is the personality in Bazarov's view. This person is all over the place.

It is generally accepted that in the verbal battle between the liberal Pavel Petrovich and the revolutionary democrat Bazarov, complete victory remains with Bazarov. Meanwhile, the winner gets a very relative triumph. Exactly a month and a half before the end of Fathers and Sons, Turgenev remarks: “Since the time of ancient tragedy, we already know that real clashes are those in which both sides are right to a certain extent.”

Write a miniature essay “My attitude to the views of Bazarov” or “My attitude to the “principles” of Pavel Petrovich.

Vladimir Korovin. Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev. // Encyclopedia for children "Avanta +". Volume 9. Russian literature. Part one. M., 1999

N.I. Yakushin. I.S. Turgenev in life and work. M.: Russian Word, 1998

L.M. Lotman. I.S. Turgenev. History of Russian literature. Volume three. Leningrad: Science, 1982. S. 120 - 160

“WHO HERE IS RIGHT, WHO IS GUY TO DECIDE I DON'T TAKE DECISION…”:
"FATHERS AND CHILDREN" by I. S. TURGENEV

O. V. Bogdanova,
Saint Petersburg State University
Doctor of Philology, Professor

It must be assumed that Turgenev undertook the “test of love” for Bazarov not by chance. On the one hand, he really touched on the conflict between fathers and children: the maturing Bazarov fell in love and, as a result, had to reconsider his nihilistic "principles" in the future. On the other hand, having passed the test of love, Bazarov discovered in himself a human soul, inexplicable feelings, he had to become closer to the “tender soul” (p. 293) of the Kirsanovs. Love for Odintsova, as it were, equalizes Bazarov and Kirsanov, puts them side by side. It is no coincidence that the two most important compositional moments - Bazarov's dispute with Kirsanov (X ch.) and Bazarov's declaration of love (XVIII ch.) - are absolutely symmetrically located in the system of twenty-eight chapters of the novel, symmetrical both relative to the center and relative to each other.

The resolution of the "bifurcated" conflict occurs in Turgenev's novel in the XXIV chapter. It seems that the "ideological differences" of Pavel Kirsanov and Bazarov, which have already faded into the background, are reasserting themselves. In a duel situation, the motives of "ideology" and "love" seem to merge, revealing the admissibility of a duel clash of heroes.

Meanwhile, the reason for the challenge to a duel is not questions of belief, but questions of love, not ideological, but ethical problems. Moreover, the resolution of the conflict between Bazarov and Kirsanov is again presented by the writer in an ironic manner.

It would seem that the "ideological" opponents collided in an insurmountable conflict, which can only be resolved through a duel. However, no ideological clashes between the characters take place at this moment: Bazarov, in the absence of Arkady, works hard and hard, “the fever of work came upon him” (p. 308), and Kirsanov tries to avoid meeting with him even at the table. According to his caustic remark, he now "denied himself the pleasure of talking" with Bazarov (p. 315), "he no longer argued" (p. 308). The reason for the duel (not the desired reason, not the "pretext") is stupid and empty jealousy - the innocent kiss of Bazarov Fenechka.

Fenechka liked Bazarov. “Even his face changed when he talked to her: it took on a clear, almost kind expression, and some playful attentiveness was mixed with his usual carelessness” (p. 310). But it is playful, because Bazarov is deeply in love with Odintsova. Bazarov's kiss in the gazebo is innocent and expresses admiration for the freshness and youth of Fedosya Nikolaevna.

In the absurdity of the reason that led to the duel, the form of the challenge is not inferior. Kirsanov appears at the door of Bazarov’s room with “a beautiful cane with an ivory knob (he usually walked without a cane)” (p. 315), which he took in case of “violent measures” (p. 316), if Bazarov had not considered a solid pretext for a duel.

Before the start of the duel, the assumption still remains that Pavel Kirsanov challenges Bazarov to a duel, trying to protect the honor of his brother. He does not give reasons to Bazarov: “I could explain to you the reason,” began Pavel Petrovich. But I prefer to keep silent about it. You, for my taste, are superfluous here; I can't stand you, I despise you, and if that's not enough for you. "(p. 316). And further: “We can’t stand each other. What more? (p. 316). At the same time, the narrator's comment: “Pavel Petrovich's eyes sparkled. They also flared up with Bazarov” (p. 316) - again emphasizes the similarity (of the emotional state) of the characters. A certain correlation of images is also revealed by Bazarov's subsequent words: “You can remain a gentleman. I accept your challenge also in a gentlemanly way” (p. 316).

However, the true reason for the duel is revealed by the phrase of Pavel Kirsanov, uttered after the duel and addressed to his brother: “Isn’t it true, Nikolai, that Fenechka has something in common with Nelly?” (p. 325). Fenechka reminds the former “secular lion” of his former lover, Princess R., therefore Bazarov’s liberties, which he allows in relation to Fenechka, for Pavel Petrovich is tantamount to courting Nelly, is read by him as an insult to his (long ago offended by real rivals) dignity. Kirsanov's challenge finds the simplest explanations and is motivated by reasons that are not ideological, not even kinship-brotherly, but exclusively personal.

But what is the reason for agreeing to the duel of Bazarov, who despises the aristocratic way of testing the “knightly spirit” (p. 316)? It is not as obvious as in the case of Pavel Petrovich. But for Evgeny, it is also connected with love - with his unrequited love for Odintsova. It is no coincidence that Fenechka's words after the kiss: "It's a sin for you, Yevgeny Vasilyevich" (p. 314) - and the "genuine reproach" that "was heard in her whisper" (p. 314), made Bazarov recall "another recent scene", in Nikolskoye, and he became "contemptuously annoyed" (p. 314). More recently, Bazarov was ironic about Pavel Petrovich’s love suffering, and now he himself has found himself in the role of a “celadon” (p. 314), and the duel with Kirsanov has become a kind of outlet for him, helping to at least partially relieve inner spiritual tension. Realizing that “from a theoretical point of view, a duel is absurd” (p. 315), nevertheless, the hero enters the duel. And the reason for this is again not ideological, but personal.

Thus, the duel between Bazarov and Pavel Kirsanov turns out to be presented in Turgenev’s novel not as a culminating point in resolving the ideological contradictions of opponents (as Nikolai Kirsanov believed: the reason “is to some extent explained by the constant antagonism of your mutual views”, p. 326), but as a skirmish adversaries burdened with their own individualistic ambitions. That is why the duel situation is portrayed by Turgenev as the apogee of buffoonery, as a farce, as a comedy.

When the characters discuss the conditions of the duel, their entire dialogue is built as an alternate repetition of the same questions, like the sounds of an echo. The situation is so ridiculous that the questions do not require an answer. “What more? // What more?", "... where can I get them? // Exactly, where can I get them? (about seconds), “the barrier is ten steps away. // Ten steps away? (p. 317). Bazarov seems to be ironic, realizing that everything “is a little bit like a French novel, something implausible” (p. 317), but nevertheless he nevertheless becomes a participant in this farce. “What a comedy we broke off!” (p. 318) - Eugene will say at the end of the negotiations.

Chapter 10

Of course, in a dispute between heroes, one cannot stick to one side.

“Without self-esteem, without self-respect – and these feelings are developed in an aristocrat – there is no solid foundation for the public good,” Kirsanov argues. And he is indeed right, because he expresses common truths.

Probably, such a person would only destroy and would be much worse.

In my opinion, Bazarov is right, because all these smart words, "abstracts" - they are of no use and the Russian peasant does not need them, because he works and he does not care about these "nonsense". But Bazarov is wrong in denying art, poetry, and everything else. In his opinion, it turns out that everything that has been created over the centuries is useless.

But there was a thought expressed by Kirsanov, with which both sides agreed: "The Russian people sacredly honor traditions, they are patriarchal, they cannot live without faith ...".

But Bazarov wants to "clear a place" for those who will believe only in what is useful.

And Kirsanov makes an assumption about Bazarov's position: "And they themselves decided not to take anything seriously."

Indeed, these thoughts of Bazarov are very accurate, but the conclusions that he made, in my opinion, are wrong.

Kirsanov is convinced that nihilism has no future: "There are millions who will not allow you to trample underfoot your most sacred beliefs, which will crush you!"

“If they crush it, the road will go there,” replies Bazarov, who still believes that Kirsanov is wrong (“Moscow burned down from a penny candle”).

“I was told that in Rome our artists never set foot in the Vatican. Rafael is considered almost a fool, because this, they say, is authority; but they themselves are powerless and fruitless to the point of disgust, and they themselves lack fantasy further than “The Girl at the Fountain”, no matter what you say! - Kirsanov is indignant. And Bazarov simply answers this: “In my opinion, Rafael is not worth a penny, and they are no better than him.” Of course, Bazarov is wrong in this, because art is eternal, and people from different parts of the world admire it in different eras.

Bazarov is right that something must be done; any truth must be verified. Pavel Petrovich is right that the achievements of previous generations cannot be denied.

Who is right? (BAZAROV'S DISPUTES)

The novel "Fathers and Sons", according to the definition of the Russian writer Vladimir Nabokov, is "not only Turgenev's best novel, but also one of the most brilliant works of the 19th century." The central place here is occupied by long disputes between the young commoner nihilist Yevgeny Bazarov and the aging aristocrat Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov.
These heroes differ from each other in everything: age, social status, beliefs, appearance. Here is a portrait of Bazarov: "tall in a long robe with tassels", his face "long and thin with a broad forehead, flat top, pointed nose, large greenish eyes and drooping sandy sideburns, it was enlivened by a calm smile and expressed self-confidence and intelligence "; the hero has thin lips, and "his dark blond hair, long and thick, does not
hid the large bulges of a spacious skull. "And here is a portrait of Bazarov's main opponent:" ... a man of average height, dressed in a dark English suit, a fashionable low tie and patent leather half boots, Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov entered the living room. He looked to be forty-five years old; his short-cropped gray hair shone with a dark sheen, like new silver; his face, bilious, but without wrinkles, unusually regular and clean, as if drawn with a thin and light
chisel, showed traces of remarkable beauty; the light, black, oblong eyes were especially good. The whole look...
graceful and thoroughbred, retained youthful slenderness and that aspiration upwards, away from the earth, which for the most part disappears after the twenties.
Pavel Petrovich is twenty years older than Bazarov, but, perhaps even to a greater extent than he, retains the signs of youth in his appearance. The elder Kirsanov is a man who is extremely concerned about his appearance in order to look as young as possible for his years. So befits a secular lion, an old heartthrob. Bazarov, on the contrary, does not care at all about appearance. In the portrait of Pavel Petrovich, the writer highlights the correct features and strict order, the refinement of the costume and the aspiration to light, unearthly matters. This hero will defend order in the dispute against Bazarov's transformative pathos. And everything in his appearance testifies to the adherence to the norm. Even Pavel Petrovich's height is average, so to speak, normal, while Bazarov's high growth symbolizes his superiority over those around him. And Yevgeny's facial features are emphatically non-. correct, unkempt hair, instead of Pavel's expensive English suit
Petrovich has some strange robe, his hand is red, rough, while Kirsanov has a beautiful hand "with long pink nails." But the wide forehead and convex skull of Bazarov betray his mind and self-confidence. And Pavel Petrovich's face is bilious, and the increased attention to the toilet betrays in him a carefully concealed lack of self-confidence. We can say that this is aged twenty years push-. Kin's Onegin, who lives in a different era, in which this type of people will soon have no place.
What position does Bazarov defend in the dispute? He claims that "nature is not a temple, but a workshop, and man is a worker in it." Evgeny is deeply convinced that the achievements of modern natural science will in the future make it possible to solve all the problems of social life. Beautiful - art, poetry - he denies, in love he sees only the physiological, but does not see the spiritual principle. Bazarov "applies to everything from a critical point of view", "does not accept a single principle on faith, no matter how respected this principle is." Pavel Petrovich, on the other hand, proclaims that "aristocratism is a principle, and without principles only immoral or empty people can live in our time." However, the impression of an inspired ode to principles is noticeably weakened by the fact that Bazarov's opponent puts in the first place the closest "principle" of aristocracy to himself. Pavel Petrovich, brought up in an atmosphere of a comfortable estate existence and accustomed to St. Petersburg secular society, it is no coincidence that he puts poetry, music, and love in the first place. He never engaged in any practical activity in his life, except for a short and easy service in the guards regiment, he was never interested in the natural sciences and knew little about them. Bazarov, the son of a poor military doctor, from childhood accustomed to work, and not to idleness, graduated from the university, fond of the natural sciences, experienced knowledge, very little in his short life dealt with poetry or music, maybe even Pushkin -
didn't really read it. Hence the harsh and unfair judgment of Yevgeny Vasilyevich about the great Russian poet: "... He must have served in military service ... on every page of him: To fight, to fight! For the honor of Russia!", By the way, almost verbatim repeating the opinion about Pushkin expressed in a conversation with Turgenev by the raznochinets writer N.V. Uspensky (the author of Fathers and Sons called him a "misanthrope").
Bazarov does not have such experience in love as Pavel Petrovich, and therefore he is inclined to be too simplistic about this feeling. The elder Kirsanov had already experienced love suffering, it was an unsuccessful romance with Princess R. that prompted him to settle in the village with his brother for many years, and the death of his beloved aggravated his state of mind even more. Bazarov has love torments - an equally unsuccessful romance with Anna Sergeevna Odintsova is yet to come. That's why at the beginning
In the novel, he so confidently reduces love to certain physiological relationships, and calls the spiritual in love "romantic nonsense."
Bazarov is a realist, and Pavel Petrovich is a romantic, focused on the cultural values of romanticism of the first third of the 19th century, on the cult of beauty. And, of course, he is jarred by Bazarov's statements about the fact that "a decent chemist is twenty times more useful than any poet" or that "Rafael is not worth a penny." Here Turgenev certainly does not agree with Bazarov's point of view. However, he does not give victory on this point of the dispute to Pavel Petrovich either. The trouble is that the refined Angloman aristocrat has not only the abilities of Raphael, but generally no creative abilities. His discourses on art and poetry, as well as on society, are empty and trivial, often comical. Pavel Petrovich cannot possibly be a worthy opponent to Bazarov. And when they parted, the eldest of the Kirsanov brothers "was
dead man", of course, in a figurative sense. Disputes with the nihilist somehow justified the meaning of his existence, introduced a kind of "fermentation", woke up thoughts. Now Pavel Petrovich is doomed to a stagnant existence. This is how we see him abroad in the finale of the novel .
The victory of Bazarov over the aristocrat Kirsanov fully corresponded to Turgenev's plan. In 1862, in one of his letters about "Fathers and Sons", Ivan Sergeevich emphasized that "my whole story is directed against the nobility, as an advanced class ... topic: if cream is bad, what is milk? .. if the reader does not fall in love with Bazarov with all his rudeness,
heartlessness, ruthless dryness and harshness - if he does not fall in love, I repeat, - I am to blame and did not achieve my goal. But I didn't want to "get wet", in his words, although through this I would probably immediately have young people on my side. I didn't want to buy popularity with that kind of concession. It's better to lose the battle... than to win it by ruse. I dreamed of a gloomy, wild, large figure, half grown out of the soil, strong, vicious, honest - and
still doomed to death - because she still stands on the eve of the future ... "Turgenev himself was a representative of the same generation as Pavel Petrovich, but of the heroes of his novel, he had the greatest sympathy for the young nihilist Bazarov. In 1869 in a special article devoted to "Fathers and Sons", the writer directly stated: "I honestly, and not only without prejudice, but even with sympathy, reacted to the type I had drawn ... Drawing the figure of Bazarov, I excluded
from the circle of his sympathies, everything artistic, I gave it a harsh and unceremonious tone - not out of an absurd desire to offend the younger generation (!!!) ... "This life developed like that," experience again told me, , I repeat, conscientious ... My personal inclinations mean nothing here; but, probably, many of my readers will be surprised if I tell them that, with the exception of Bazarov's views on art, I share almost all of his convictions. A
I am assured that I am on the side of the "Fathers" ... I, who in the figure of Pavel Kirsanov even sinned against artistic truth and overdid it, brought his shortcomings to a caricature, made him ridiculous!" Turgenev was honest as an artist to the same extent how honest as a person was the character created by his imagination... The writer did not want to idealize Bazarov and endowed his hero with all the shortcomings that his prototypes from the radical raznochinka had in abundance
youth. However, Turgenev did not deprive Yevgeny of Russian roots, emphasizing that half the hero grows out of Russian soil, the fundamental conditions of Russian life, and half is formed under the influence of new ideas brought from Europe.
And in a dispute with Pavel Petrovich Bazarov, according to the writer, and indeed any thoughtful reader, he is right in his main positions: in the need to question established dogmas, to work tirelessly for the good of society, to be critical of the surrounding reality. Where Bazarov is wrong, in utilitarian views on the nature of beauty, on literature, on art, victory still does not remain on the side of Pavel Petrovich.

Ideological disputes between "fathers" and "children". Who is right?

Describing the social dislike that flares up between the characters, the author reveals the destructive aspects of Kirsanov's aristocracy and Bazar's nihilism. The central place in the novel is occupied by the long disputes of the young commoner E.V. Bazarov and the aging aristocrat P.P. Kirsanov, revealing the essence of the work - the problem of "fathers and children". It is they who give special poignancy to the plot, serve as a characteristic of each hero, show the superiority of new, progressive ideas over the old ones, the eternal movement towards progress.

These heroes differ from each other in everything: age, social status, beliefs, appearance. “Tall in a long robe with tassels”, the face “is long and thin with a broad forehead, flat upwards, downwards pointed nose, large greenish eyes and drooping sandy whiskers, it was enlivened by a calm smile and expressed self-confidence and intelligence”, and “its dark -blond hair, long and thick, did not hide the large bulges of a spacious skull. Such is the portrait of E.V. Bazarov. P.P. Kirsanov, on the other hand, is “a man of medium height, dressed in a dark English suite, a fashionable low tie and patent leather ankle boots”, “he looks about forty-five years old”, “his face, bilious, but without wrinkles, unusually regular and clean, as if drawn by a thin and with a light chisel, showed traces of remarkable beauty. His whole appearance "is elegant and thoroughbred, retained youthful harmony and that aspiration upwards, away from the earth, which for the most part disappears after the twenties."

Pavel Petrovich, just twenty years older than Bazarov, but even more retains the signs of youth in his appearance. The elder Kirsanov is a man who is extremely concerned about his appearance in order to look as young as possible for his years. So befits a secular lion, an old heartthrob. Bazarov, on the contrary, does not care at all about appearance. In the portrait of Pavel Petrovich, the writer highlights the correct features and strict order, the refinement of the costume and the aspiration to light, unearthly matters. This hero will defend order in the dispute against Bazarov's transformative pathos. And everything in his appearance testifies to the adherence to the norm.

Even Pavel Petrovich's height is average, so to speak, normal, while Bazarov's high growth symbolizes his superiority over others. And Yevgeny's facial features are emphatically wrong, his hair is unkempt, instead of Pavel Petrovich's expensive English suit, he has some kind of strange hoodie, his hand is red, rough, while Kirsanov has a beautiful hand "with long pink nails." But the wide forehead and convex skull of Bazarov betray his mind and self-confidence. And Pavel Petrovich's face is bilious, and the increased attention to the toilet betrays in him a carefully concealed lack of self-confidence. We can say that this is Pushkin's Yevgeny Onegin, who has aged twenty years and lives in a different era, in which this type of people will soon no longer have a place.

What position does Bazarov defend in the dispute? He argues that "nature is not a temple, but a workshop, and man is a worker in it." Evgeny is deeply convinced that the achievements of modern natural science will in the future make it possible to solve all the problems of social life. Beautiful - art, poetry, feelings - he denies, in love he sees only the physiological, but does not see the spiritual principle. Bazarov "applies to everything from a critical point of view", "does not accept a single principle on faith, no matter how respect this principle is surrounded." Pavel Petrovich, on the other hand, proclaims that "aristocratism is a principle, and without principles only immoral or empty people can live in our time." However, the impression of an inspired ode to principles is noticeably weakened by the fact that Bazarov's opponent puts in the first place the “principle” of aristocracy closest to him.

Pavel Petrovich, brought up in an atmosphere of a comfortable estate existence and accustomed to St. Petersburg secular society, it is no coincidence that he puts poetry, music, and love in the first place. He never engaged in any practical activity in his life, except for a short and easy service in the guards regiment, he was never interested in the natural sciences and knew little about them. Bazarov, the son of a poor military doctor, accustomed from childhood to work, and not to idleness, graduated from the university, fond of the natural sciences, experienced knowledge, had very little to do with poetry or music in his short life, maybe even Pushkin did not read. Hence the harsh and unfair judgment of Yevgeny Vasilyevich about the great Russian poet: “... He must have served in military service ... on every page of him: To fight, to fight! for the honor of Russia!

Bazarov does not have such experience in love as Pavel Petrovich, and therefore he is too simplistic about this feeling. The elder Kirsanov had already experienced love suffering, namely an unsuccessful romance with Princess R. and the death of his beloved, which aggravated his state of mind. Yevgeny Vasilyevich's love torments - an equally unsuccessful romance with Anna Sergeevna Odintsova - are yet to come. That is why, at the beginning of the novel, he so confidently reduces love to certain physiological relationships, and calls everything spiritual in love "romantic nonsense." Bazarov is a realist, and Pavel Petrovich is a romantic, focused on the cultural values of romanticism of the first third of the century, on the cult of beauty.

And, of course, he is jarred by Bazarov's statements about the fact that "a decent chemist is twenty times more useful than any poet" or that "Rafael is not worth a penny." Here Turgenev certainly does not agree with Bazarov's point of view. However, he does not give victory on this point of the dispute to Pavel Petrovich either. The trouble is that the refined Angloman aristocrat has not only the abilities of Raphael, but generally no creative abilities. His discourses on art and poetry, as well as on society, are empty and trivial, often comical. Pavel Petrovich cannot possibly be a worthy opponent to Bazarov. And when they part, the eldest of the Kirsanov brothers "was a dead man", of course, in a figurative sense. Arguments with the nihilist somehow justified the meaning of his existence, introduced a certain “fermentative beginning”, awakened thoughts. Now Pavel Petrovich is doomed to a stagnant existence.

Based on all of the above, I think that the real opponent of Bazarov is Nikolai Petrovich Kirsanov, although he does not enter into verbal disputes. He is well aware that his arguments will not be convincing either for Bazarov or for his brother. Nikolai Petrovich simply lives according to his heart and conscience. Having broken his leg in his youth, which prevented him from making a military career, he does not become discouraged, does not become embittered at the whole world, but studies at the university, then marries, lives with his wife for ten years in love and harmony, which passed "like a dream." After the death of his wife, he devotes himself to the upbringing and education of his son. Then life sends him love for a simple girl, Fenechka, for a newborn child.

That suffering knowledge that Nikolai Petrovich possesses - about harmonious existence, about unity with nature, about poetry, about love - can only be understood by a developed soul, which neither the "county aristocrat" nor the "leader of the nihilists" has. Only the son is able to understand this, who, in the end, comes to the conclusion that Bazarov’s ideas are untenable. Life itself puts everything in its place, sweeps away everything unnatural: Bazarov dies, knowing love, softening his skepticism, Pavel Petrovich went abroad; Arkady marries Katya, lives on his father's estate, raises it from desolation and poverty; Nikolai Petrovich - marries Fenechka, becomes a mediator and works hard.

However, in 1862, in one of his letters about “Fathers and Sons,” Ivan Sergeevich emphasized that the whole “story is directed against the nobility, as an advanced class ... An aesthetic feeling made me take precisely good representatives of the nobility in order to prove my topic: if cream is bad, what about milk? .. if the reader does not fall in love with Bazarov with all his rudeness, heartlessness, ruthless dryness and harshness - if he does not fall in love, I repeat, - I am to blame and did not achieve my goal. But I didn't want to "get pissed off," in his words, although through this I would probably immediately have young people on my side. I didn't want to buy popularity with that kind of concession. It's better to lose the battle... than to win it by trickery." 11 .

I.S. Turgenev was a representative of the same generation as P.P. Kirsanov, but of the heroes of his novel, he felt the greatest sympathy for the young nihilist Bazarov. In 1869, in a special article “Regarding “Fathers and Sons”, the writer directly stated: “Drawing the figure of Bazarov, I excluded everything artistic from the circle of his sympathies, I gave him a harsh and unceremonious tone - not out of an absurd desire to offend the younger generation. .. With the exception of Bazarov's views on art, I share almost all of his convictions. And they assure me that I am on the side of the “fathers” ... I, who in the figure of Pavel Kirsanov even sinned against artistic truth and overdid it, brought his shortcomings to a caricature, made him ridiculous! 12

The writer did not want to idealize Bazarov and endowed his hero with all the shortcomings that his prototypes from the radical youth had in abundance. However, Turgenev did not deprive Yevgeny of Russian roots, emphasizing that half the hero grows out of Russian soil, the fundamental conditions of Russian life, and half is formed under the influence of new ideas brought from Europe. And in a dispute with Pavel Petrovich Bazarov, according to the writer, and indeed any thoughtful reader, he is right in his main positions: in the need to question established dogmas, to work tirelessly for the good of society, to be critical of the surrounding reality. Where Bazarov is wrong, in utilitarian views on the nature of beauty, on literature, on art, victory still does not remain on the side of Pavel Petrovich.

In disputes, on the side of Bazarov, not only the advantages of youth and the novelty of his position. Turgenev sees that nihilism is deeply connected with social disorder, popular discontent, that it is a natural expression of the spirit of the time, when everything in Russia is overestimated and turned upside down. The author admits that the role of the "advanced class" is moving from the noble intelligentsia to the raznochintsy.

In the novel "Fathers and Sons" I.S. Turgenev overcomes the political limitations of his own views. He tried to rise and rose above the fray, showing extremes in both "fathers" and "children" positions. However, that is precisely why his novel not only did not reconcile, but even more exacerbated the social struggle. And the writer himself found himself in a dramatic situation. With bewilderment and bitterness, he stopped, lowering his hands, before the chaos of contradictory judgments: the novel did not satisfy either the “fathers” or the “children”. “The question that has arisen,” wrote I.S. Turgenev many years later - was more important than artistic truth - and I should have known this in advance.

noble nihilist bazaars children

Apr 15 2016

Bazarov's disputes with Pavel Petrovich: who is right? (I. S. Turgenev “Fathers and Sons”) The novel “Fathers and Sons”, according to the definition of the Russian writer Vladimir Nabokov, is “not only Turgenev’s best novel, but also one of the most brilliant works of the 19th century.” The central place here is occupied by long disputes between the young commoner nihilist Yevgeny Bazarov and the aging aristocrat Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov. ‘ ‘ These heroes differ from each other in everything: age, social status, beliefs, appearance.

Here is a portrait of Bazarov: “tall in a long robe with tassels”, his face “long and thin with a wide forehead, flat top, pointed nose, large greenish eyes and drooping sandy sideburns, it was enlivened by a calm smile and expressed self-confidence and intelligence”; he has thin lips, and “his dark blond hair, long and thick, did not hide the large bulges of a spacious skull.” And here is a portrait of Bazarov's main opponent: “... Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov entered the living room of average height, dressed in a dark English suite, a fashionable low tie and patent leather ankle boots. He looked to be forty-five years old; his short-cropped gray hair shone with a dark sheen, like new silver; his face, bilious, but without wrinkles, unusually regular and clean, as if drawn with a thin and light chisel, showed traces of remarkable beauty; the light, black, oblong eyes were especially good. The whole look...

graceful and thoroughbred, retained youthful slenderness and that aspiration upwards, away from the earth, which for the most part disappears after the twenties. Pavel Petrovich is twenty years older than Bazarov, but, perhaps even to a greater extent than he, retains the signs of youth in his appearance. The older Kirsanov is a man who is extremely concerned about his appearance in order to look as young as possible for his years. So befits a secular lion, an old heartthrob.

Bazarov, on the contrary, does not care at all about appearance. In the portrait of Pavel Petrovich, he highlights the correct features and strict order, the sophistication of the costume and the aspiration to light, unearthly matters. This hero will defend order in the dispute against Bazarov's transformative pathos. And everything in his appearance testifies to the adherence to the norm.

Even Pavel Petrovich's height is average, so to speak, normal, while Bazarov's high growth symbolizes his superiority over those around him. And Yevgeny's facial features are not emphasized. correct, unkempt hair, instead of Pavel Petrovich's expensive English suit, he has some kind of strange hoodie, his hand is red, rough, while Kirsanov has a beautiful hand "with long pink nails." But the wide forehead and convex skull of Bazarov betray his mind and self-confidence. And Pavel Petrovich's face is bilious, and the increased attention to the toilet betrays in him a carefully concealed lack of self-confidence.

We can say that this is aged twenty years push-. Kinsky's Onegin, living in a different era, in which there will soon be no place for this type of people. What position does Bazarov defend in the dispute? He claims that "nature is not a temple, but a workshop, and man is a worker in it." Evgeny is deeply convinced that the achievements of modern natural science will in the future make it possible to solve all the problems of social life. Fine art, he denies poetry, in love he sees only the physiological, but does not see the spiritual principle.

Bazarov “applies to everything from a critical point of view”, “does not accept a single principle on faith, no matter how respect this principle is surrounded by”. Pavel Petrovich, on the other hand, proclaims that “aristocratism is a principle, and without principles only immoral or empty people can live in our time.” However, the impression of an inspired ode to principles is noticeably weakened by the fact that Bazarov's opponent puts in the first place the “principle” of aristocracy closest to himself. Pavel Petrovich, brought up in an atmosphere of a comfortable estate existence and accustomed to St. Petersburg secular society, it is no coincidence that he puts poetry, music, and love in the first place.

He never engaged in any practical activity in his life, except for a short and easy service in the guards regiment, he was never interested in the natural sciences and knew little about them. Bazarov, the son of a poor military doctor, accustomed from childhood to work, and not to idleness, graduated from the university, fond of the natural sciences, experienced knowledge, very little in his short life dealt with poetry or music, maybe Pushkin really do not read. Hence the harsh and unfair judgment of Yevgeny Vasilyevich about the great Russian poet: “... He must have served in military service ... on every page of him: To fight, to fight! for the honor of Russia!

“, by the way, almost verbatim repeating the opinion about Pushkin expressed in a conversation with Turgenev by the raznochintsy writer N.V. Uspensky (“Fathers and Sons” called him “misanthrope”). Bazarov does not have such experience in love as Pavel Petrovich, and therefore he is inclined to be too simplistic about this feeling. The elder Kirsanov had already experienced love suffering, it was an unsuccessful romance with Princess R. that prompted him to settle in the village with his brother for many years, and the death of his beloved aggravated his state of mind even more. Bazarov's love throes are just as unsuccessful an affair with Anna Sergeevna Odintsova is yet to come. That is why at the beginning of the novel he is so

Need a cheat sheet? Then save it - "Bazarov's disputes with Pavel Petrovich: who is right? (Novel by I. S. Turgenev “Fathers and Sons”). Literary writings!

We are building a wooden house. Informational portal