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

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

“You respect yourself and sit with your hands folded; What benefit does this have for the public good? You wouldn’t respect yourself and would do the same thing,” Bazarov objects. But one can only partially agree with him: maybe he is right about Kirsanov “sitting with folded hands,” but if the man did not have respect, then it is unlikely that he did the same.

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

Then we started talking about the people. Bazarov argued that the Russian people do not need any foreign words: “After all, you don’t need logic 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 all the smart words, “abstractions” - 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 an idea 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.

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 don’t agree with him, although my opinion was formed by a different time...

Then there is a long speech by Bazarov, in which he reports that if we talk about problems (bribes, roads, trade, lack of a proper court), then they will not be solved: “The freedom that the government is busy about will hardly benefit us, because the man 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 he made, in my opinion, are incorrect.

Kirsanov is convinced that nihilism has no future: “There are millions who will not allow you to trample under your feet their most sacred beliefs, who will crush you!”

“If they crush you, that’s the way to go,” answers 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.

Raphael is considered almost a fool, because he is supposedly an authority; and they themselves are powerless and fruitless to the point of disgusting, and they themselves don’t have enough imagination beyond “The Girl at the Fountain”, no matter what!” - Kirsanov is indignant. And Bazarov simply replies to this: “In my opinion, Raphael is not worth a penny, and they are no better than him.” Of course, Bazarov is wrong in this, because art is eternal, and it is admired by people on different parts of the world in different eras.

And after this dispute, Kirsanov comes to the correct, but only partially, conclusion: “Before, young people had to study; They didn’t want to be branded as ignorant, so they toiled unwillingly. And now they should say: everything in the world is nonsense! - and it’s in the bag.” After this, Bazarov decides to end the conversation, believing that he has gone too far. But this dispute, in my opinion, had little influence on both sides; each of them remained unconvinced.

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

Effective preparation for the Unified State Exam (all subjects) - start preparing

www.kritika24.ru

dispute between Kirsanov and Evgeniy Bazarov, who is right? Who is guilty? Chapter 10. "Fathers and Sons." " 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 and 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 sixties man, without sentimentality and idealization of the peasant. Bazarov knows how to communicate with men and, if he considers it necessary, knows how to educate them.

He connects his direction with the “national spirit”, considering himself a spokesman for the interests of the people. The heroes argue about which of them the man “is more likely to recognize as a compatriot.”

The aesthetic positions of Bazarov and Kirsanov also collide in disputes. The Kirsanovs' views are different: 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 give up this nonsense”, that playing the cello is “ridiculous” for a man, that a decent chemist is twelve times more useful than any poet. The novel's characters also have different attitudes towards nature. Here Arkady also speaks out against 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 Bazarov’s soul there is still much that he denies, for example, his ability to love, the ability to feel beauty. Love for Anna Sergeevna Odintsova revealed to him the bottomlessness of his own soul: the suffering of a rejected heart cannot be explained. His soul is seething with unused opportunities and unknown feelings, and this is fully revealed on the threshold of death. In the story of Pavel Petrovich, love, for which he gave up everything, crossed out his career, nevertheless crowded out all the “power” of a person from life and led to the spiritual death of this good man 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 becoming obsolete and the new world just being born, new ideas and beliefs.

But under no circumstances should we discard the legacy of our predecessors. A strong thread must connect one generation to another, only then is the continuity of the best traditions possible and movement forward is possible.

Dispute between Bazarov and Kirsanov: who is right?

The dispute between Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov 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 polemics the life positions of representatives of two different generations. It is not for nothing that the classic’s attention was attracted by the growing confrontation within society. He perspicaciously, almost decades before the Russian revolutions, pointed out, using the example of those arguing, the main opposing forces of the nascent movement: revolutionary democrats and conservative liberals.

Brief description of the characters

Let us note the paradox of the novel: characteristic of its plot-forming confrontation is the convincing dominance of the positions of the representative of the younger generation. And this, despite the fact that the landowner Turgenev himself should be classified as a bourgeois liberal!
Bourgeois literary criticism gave the book derogatory reviews in the press. In particular, Mr. M. Antonovich summarized the author’s bias, that he undeservedly humiliated the younger generation. They tried to “harass” the classic for his views. That is, he could seriously suffer for the truth set out in the work. Fortunately, engaged literary scholars, including D. Pisarev and N. Strakhov, cast their voices 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 one comes from a poor, intelligent family and has obvious creative potential, but he has not yet matured as a man, as the head of the family. There is still a lot of sediment in him that goes into mature years.

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

Differences in appearance

Even when describing the appearance of these characters, the author used an antithesis. Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov is a 43-year-old man, of average height, looking seven years younger than his age. He lives for his own pleasure and is well-groomed in an aristocratic manner. He takes care of his appearance: always clean-shaven, with well-groomed hands, and wearing 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. His pleasant appearance and demeanor distinguish him, but upon closer acquaintance, the aristocrat’s spiritual emptiness, superficiality, and coldness towards others are striking.

Evgeny Vasilyevich Bazarov is a tall young man 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 hair, his appearance is colorless and not memorable. However, when talking with people, Bazarov is transformed, he is filled with energy that attracts others to him.

The dispute between the new and the old

Their dispute can only be resolved by time and real facts. 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 Pavel Kirsanov eventually leads 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 it that the representative of the generation of children and the follower of the views of their fathers: Bazarov and Kirsanov, are shouting until they are hoarse? The table of disputes that we have compiled by section will help to visualize this conflict of opinions.

Subject of dispute: which public position is most relevant for Russia?

Kirsanov preaches a superficial aristocratic view of the existing structure of society, but, by and large, he is absolutely indifferent to progress. He is completely satisfied with the existing way of life. For some reason he considers himself a liberal, although he does not express any liberal ideas. This is a typical retired aristocratic officer who, in his spare time, engages in demagoguery about his progressiveness. As a person, he is empty, gray and mediocre, 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, both the sybarite nobles and the downtrodden, powerless peasants are not a decree. According to Evgeniy, a new Russia should be built by discarding the traditions and foundations of both the first and the second, despising feelings, treating nature as a workshop. In his opinion, revolution corresponds to progress. For only by changing the state can its people be changed. The ideological disputes between Bazarov and Kirsanov convincingly demonstrate the correctness of the first. Is this 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 very beautifully and respectfully about the people. Sometimes, in purely lordly fashion, he provides peasants with pennies of financial assistance. However, he does this not from the heart, but rather for the sake of force. In reality, Kirsanov shuns the peasants. He can’t even stand their smell, and when communicating, he brings a bottle of cologne to his nose. The servants also feel the abyss separating them from the master. For them he is a foreigner.

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

Subject of dispute: attitude towards God and religion

The lines of dispute between Kirsanov and Bazarov about God are ephemeral - this is a confrontation between an insincere believer and a fighter against God. The first one, naturally, loses. Pavel Petrovich is true to himself in matters of freedom of conscience. It is a complete imitation. His faith in God is feigned. By initiating a duel, he not only shows his pride, but also attempts to kill his neighbor (First Commandment). What else can I say?

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

Dispute about the right position in life

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

Bazarov’s life principle (although he denies the existence of such) perhaps still exists. Let us venture to formulate it. Most likely this 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, significant results of his work.

Dispute about the benefits of art

Pavel Petrovich's aesthetic level is obviously at the level of the primary classes of a gymnasium. However, he shows snobbery, declaring his love for art, raising his eyes dramatically to the sky. However, his gaze is empty. The dispute between Kirsanov and Bazarov (the table reflects this) ends with the victory of the latter’s erroneous views. 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 only encouraged by his naivety, because he does not really know the work of the genius.

Dispute about love and attitude towards a woman

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

Kirsanov, to please his ego, is only able to indicate his attitude towards a woman (a duel over Fenechka), but this internally devastated person can no longer fall in love.

Young Evgeniy Vasilyevich, having listened to enough nihilist nonsense, 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. Real, unostentatious, natural nobility manifests itself in him when, while simultaneously 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 slight amendment. Let's be clear: a woman's love is not a panacea for a man, it is only a magnifying glass for his shortcomings or advantages.

Bazarov's love morally elevated him, but Kirsanova's love destroyed him.

Conclusion

Bazarov and Kirsanov show diametrically opposed views. 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, we must recognize the depth of mind of the classic who chose these particular topics of debate between Bazarov and Kirsanov. After all, if we try to extrapolate them to our modern society, we will also receive diametrically different interpretations from representatives of different segments of the population. The generational debate will continue 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. Figuratively speaking, the unfinished, “hanging in the air” dispute between Bazarov and Kirsanov, heating up over time, grew into a revolutionary situation. How sad it is that the classics are not heard on time!

Novel "Fathers and Sons"

Two duels: verbal and physical fights between Kirsanov and Bazarov

Chapters VI, X, XXIV

Identify the conflict of the novel. Through conflict analysis, fully understand the system of images.

From understanding the magnitude 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 discovered, how are they identified?

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 individual characteristic strokes?

Bazarov’s appearance 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 Bazarov’s personality?

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

For literature and art. Almost all life events.

Do you think it is possible to deduce from the novel itself whether this concept and, accordingly, the phenomenon that it denotes, was widespread and established?

No, there is no common understanding. This phenomenon is relatively recent for the late 50s.

Nikolai Petrovich is simply 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 finding out his position.

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

Pavel Petrovich, greeting Bazarov, “he slightly bent his flexible figure and smiled slightly, but did not offer his hand and even put it back in his pocket”.

This scene shows Pavel Petrovich’s obvious hostility towards Bazarov, who did not want to shake hands with the plebeian.

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 Bazarov’s “clothes,” walked away on tiptoe. The author does not delve into the thoughts of Pavel Petrovich, but in a few words gives the details of the picture, which we ourselves complete according to these guidelines.

How does Bazarov behave? Is he offended? Offended? Annoyed?

“Nothing happened,” Arkady answers, “so we hesitated a little.” But now we are hungry like wolves. Hurry Prokofich, dad, and I'll be right back. “Wait, I’ll go with you,” exclaimed Bazarov, suddenly rushing off the sofa.”

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

Bazarov does not enjoy communicating with the older Kirsanovs.

You can guess the hero’s thoughts from one detail. Conveying the hero’s deep experiences with one small detail is a feature of I.S.’s creative style. Turgenev.

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

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

Give Bazarov's aphorisms

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

The art of making money, or no more hemorrhoids!

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

First you need to learn the alphabet and then pick up a book, but we haven’t even seen the basics yet.

Every person must educate himself.

As for time, why will I depend on it? It’s better to let it depend on me.

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

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

Aristocratism, liberalism, progress, principles, just think, how many are foreign. and useless words! Russian people don’t need them for nothing.

We do not preach anything and have decided not to accept anything.

First you need to clear the place.

What do we need this logic for? We can do without it.

Raphael is not worth a dime.

I don’t share anyone’s opinions; I have mine.

Only freaks think freely between women.

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

Chapter 6, at breakfast. About science.

Are you actually studying physics? - Pavel Petrovich asked, in turn.
- Physics, yes; natural sciences in general.
- They say that the Germans have recently made a lot of progress in this area.
“Yes, the Germans are our teachers in this,” Bazarov answered casually.
Pavel Petrovich used the word Germans instead of Germans for the sake of irony, which, however, no one noticed.
- Do you have such a high opinion of the Germans? - Pavel Petrovich said with exquisite politeness. He began to feel secretly irritated. His aristocratic nature was outraged by Bazarov's complete swagger. This doctor’s son was not only not timid, he even answered abruptly and reluctantly, and there was something rude, almost impudent, in the sound of his voice.
- The scientists there are efficient people.
- So-so. Well, do you probably have such a flattering idea about Russian scientists?
- Perhaps so.
“This is very commendable self-sacrifice,” said Pavel Petrovich, straightening his waist and throwing his head back. - But how did Arkady Nikolaich tell us just now that you do not recognize any authorities? Don't believe them?
- But why would I recognize them? And what will I believe? They will tell me the case, I agree, that’s all.
- Do the Germans talk the whole story? - said Pavel Petrovich, and his face took on such an indifferent, distant expression, as if he had completely disappeared into some transcendental heights.
“Not everything,” answered Bazarov with a short yawn, who clearly did not want to continue the argument.

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

To Pavel Petrovich, the religiosity of the people, life according to established affairs and orders seem to be primordial and valuable features of people's life, touching 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 thunder roars, it is Elijah the prophet who rides across the sky in a chariot. Well? Should I agree with him?

The different attitudes of Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich to religious prejudices widespread among the people prove Bazarov’s hatred of backwardness and relics.

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

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

What are Pavel Petrovich’s “principles”, and how does Bazarov relate to them?

The question of what to admit, on what, on what grounds to build one’s beliefs, is extremely important for Pavel Petrovich.

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

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

V.M. Markovich believes that Pavel Petrovich’s principles “become a subject of ridicule only in relation to the titanic scale of Bazarov’s denial. In 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 relate to nobles and aristocrats?

Pavel Petrovich considers aristocrats to be the basis of society. But his “principles” do not in any way correlate with his activities for the benefit of society. Bazarov believes that inactive people cannot be the basis of society: “So you respect yourself and sit with your hands folded; What benefit does this have for the public good?” (Chapter X)

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

Turgenev does not reveal the thoughts of Pavel Petrovich, 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 deign to put it.”

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

Bazarov already knows the life story of Pavel Petrovich. He knows the story of Pavel Petrovich's unhappy love, he knows how and why Pavel Petrovich became an ass in the village and became isolated in his own insignificant interests. Even 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 personality for Pavel Petrovich and for Bazarov?

“Every person must educate himself” - Bazarov.

“A personality must be as 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 established order 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 or 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, helping Fenechka; Bazarov treats patients on his parents’ estate, etc.

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

Bazarov accepts Pavel Petrovich's challenge. Having wounded the enemy, he immediately provides assistance:

Bazarov threw the pistol to the side and approached his opponent.
-Are you injured? - he said.
“You had the right to call me to the barrier,” said Pavel Petrovich, “and this is nothing.” According to the condition, everyone has one more shot.
“Well, excuse me, that’s for another time,” answered Bazarov and grabbed 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? (Chapter VII) Is he achieving his goal?

Apparently, Arkady wants to arouse Bazarov’s sympathy for his uncle and says: “He is deeply unhappy, believe me; it is a sin to despise him.” But Bazarov responds to this: “A man who put his whole life on the card of female love and, when this card was killed, 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 give?

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 will I depend on it! “It’s better to let it depend on me.”

Let us remember the 40s, the time of reaction, the growth of the generation that Lermontov predicted: “It will grow old in inaction.” Why doesn’t Arkady Bazarov recognize the arguments of how he imagines personality, its formation?

Bazarov does not want to be a toy in the hands of circumstances. He makes circumstances and time depend on him! Man is the king of nature, a man who remakes both society and relationships in this society - this is the personality in Bazarov’s view. This person can handle anything.

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 notes: “Since the time of the ancient tragedy, we already know that real clashes are those in which both sides are to a certain extent right.”

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. // Encyclopedias 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: Nauka, 1982. pp. 120 – 160

“WHO IS RIGHT HERE, WHO IS GUILTY, I CAN’T DECIDE...":
“FATHERS AND CHILDREN” by I. S. TURGENEV

O. V. Bogdanova,
St. 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, it really touched on the conflict between fathers and children: the growing Bazarov fell in love and, as a result, had to further reconsider his nihilistic “principles.” On the other hand, having passed the test of love, Bazarov discovered in himself a human soul, inexplicable feelings, and had to become closer to the “tender soul” (p. 293) of the Kirsanovs. Love for Odintsova, as it were, equates Bazarov and Kirsanov, puts them side by side. It is no coincidence that the two most important moments in compositional terms - Bazarov's dispute with Kirsanov (chap. X) and Bazarov's declaration of love (chap. XVIII) - 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 Chapter XXIV. It seems that the “ideological differences” between 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 permissibility of a duel clash between the heroes.

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

It would seem that “ideological” opponents faced an insurmountable conflict that could only be resolved through a duel. However, no ideological battles between the characters occur at this moment: Bazarov, in Arkady’s absence, works hard and hard, “a fever of work has come over him” (p. 308), and Kirsanov tries to avoid meeting 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 sought-after reason, not the “pretext”) becomes stupid and empty jealousy - Bazarov’s innocent kiss to Fenechka.

Bazarov liked Fenechka. “Even his face changed when he talked to her: it took on a clear, almost kind expression, and some kind of playful attentiveness was mixed with his usual carelessness” (p. 310). But it’s precisely 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.

The absurdity of the reason that led to the duel is not inferior to the form of the challenge. Kirsanov appears at the door of Bazarov’s room with “a beautiful cane with an ivory knob (he usually walked around without a cane)” (p. 315), which he grabbed in case of “violent measures” (p. 316), if Bazarov did not consider the excuse valid for a duel.

Before the start of the duel, there is still an assumption that Pavel Kirsanov challenges Bazarov to a duel, trying to defend his brother’s honor. He does not give the reason to Bazarov: “I could explain to you the reason,” began Pavel Petrovich. “But I prefer to keep silent about it.” To my taste, you 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 flared up in Bazarov too” (p. 316) - again emphasizes the similarity (of the emotional state) of the heroes. A certain correlation between the images is revealed by Bazarov’s subsequent words: “You can remain a gentleman. I also accept your challenge like a gentleman” (p. 316).

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

But what is the reason for Bazarov agreeing to the duel, who despises the aristocratic method 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, Evgeny Vasilyevich” (p. 314) - and the “genuine reproach” that “was heard in her whisper” (p. 314) made Bazarov remember “another recent scene”, in Nikolskoye, and he felt “disdainfully annoyed” (p. 314). Until recently, Bazarov was ironic about Pavel Petrovich’s love suffering, but now he himself found himself in the role of a “celadon” (p. 314), and the duel with Kirsanov became for him a kind of outlet, helping to at least partially relieve internal mental tension. Realizing that “from a theoretical point of view, a duel is absurd” (p. 315), nevertheless, the hero goes out to fight. And the reason for this again is not ideological, but personal.

Thus, the duel between Bazarov and Pavel Kirsanov turns out to be presented in Turgenev’s novel not as the culminating point of resolving the ideological contradictions of the opponents (as Nikolai Kirsanov believed: the reason “to some extent can be explained only by the constant antagonism of your mutual views,” p. 326), but as a skirmish opponents 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 heroes discuss the conditions of the duel, their entire dialogue is structured as an alternating repetition of the same questions, like the sounds of an echo. The situation is so absurd that the questions do not require an answer. “What more? // What more?”, “...where can I get them? // Exactly where to 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 like a French novel, something is implausible” (p. 317), but nevertheless he still becomes a participant in this farce. “What a comedy we pulled off!” (p. 318) – Evgeniy will say at the end of the negotiations.

The novel “Fathers and Sons”, written by I.S. Turgenev, is a work about the conflict of two generations, in which the contradiction between representatives of the old noble culture and adherents of new views is clearly indicated.

Historical basis of the novel

The clash of interests of liberals and revolutionary democrats on the eve of the events

1861 found expression in Turgenev’s work. The generational dispute in the novel “Fathers and Sons” is expressed by the opposition of the views of Bazarov and the Kirsanovs. According to Evgeniy, the reform will be of no use.

The Kirsanovs personify the outgoing culture of the nobility. Bazarov is a supporter of revolutionary democratic changes.

The dispute between generations in the novel “Fathers and Sons” is about the situation of the people, about the attitude towards art, history, and literature. The book talks a lot about the contradiction between two generations on a variety of issues, including the system of moral principles. It’s not for nothing that reviewers call this novel a work of ideological debate.

Dispute of generations in literature

Many authors touch on the issue of generational conflict. The contradiction between fathers and children finds expression in Pushkin’s novel “Eugene Onegin”. The main character of the novel, M.Yu., remains unclear. Lermontov "Hero of Our Time". Chatsky is lonely in Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit."

In each of these works there is a debate between generations. “Fathers and Sons” is a novel in which this contradiction is the main theme and involves almost all areas of life.

Idea and attitude towards the nobility

The generational dispute in the novel “Fathers and Sons” emphasizes the need to abolish the serfdom. The work shows the difficult fate of the serfs, the ignorance of the common people. The author voices this idea at the very beginning of the work in the form of Arkady’s reflections on the poverty of the people and the urgent need for transformations of the existing regime. Turgenev reflects in the novel on the fate of the country and people.

Author about the novel “Fathers and Sons”

I.S. Turgenev says about the political content of his work that its idea is directed against the nobility and rejects it as an advanced class. The author calls Arkady and his uncle, Pavel Petrovich, weak and limited. At the same time, he notes that these are the best representatives of the nobility. This state of affairs shows the failure of the aristocracy.

Ideological conflict P.P. Kirsanova and Bazarova

The generational dispute in the novel “Fathers and Sons” is especially clearly manifested in the clash of views on the existing order of things of Pavel Petrovich and Evgeny.

We can distinguish four circles of issues on which these heroes argue. Let's look at them.

The first question is the attitude towards the nobility. Pavel Petrovich believes that aristocrats are those who contribute to the development of society. Bazarov, on the contrary, says that aristocrats are not able to act and do not bring benefit to society. The nobility, in his opinion, cannot contribute to the development of Russia.

The second issue that causes a contradiction between the heroes is their attitude towards not recognizing any authorities and not taking anything for granted. He is independent, has independent thinking, the essence of the problem is important to him, and not the attitude of others towards it. However, no matter how practical Bazarov is, human feelings are also characteristic of him. He fell in love with and could not help but explain to her.

However, as Pavel Petrovich rightly notes, the extreme manifestation of nihilism can be the denial of such concepts that cannot be questioned. Bazarov rejects religion and morality, and asserts the obligatory nature of revolutionary actions for the benefit of the people.

The views of the two heroes on the common people and their fate differ. Pavel Petrovich glorifies the patriarchy of the peasant family and religion. Bazarov believes that the peasants are ignorant and incapable of understanding their interests. One must distinguish the prejudices of the people from their interests. Kirsanov talks a lot about the need to serve the fatherland, but at the same time he lives calmly and well-fed. Bazarov is closer than Kirsanov to the common people in his social status: he is a commoner and must work. It should be noted that Evgeny does not like inaction. Work captivates him; he does not respect idleness and laziness.

The last issue that causes disagreement between the two characters is the attitude towards

nature and art. Pavel Petrovich blesses everything beautiful. Bazarov is able to see only the useful in things and phenomena. For him, nature is a workshop where the owner is a person. He denies the achievements of culture and art because they have no practical use.

The attitude of contemporaries to the novel

The generational dispute in literature is a topic that has been raised by many writers.

However, immediately after its publication, the novel received critical reviews from both conservatives and Democrats. So, in particular, Antonovich wrote that Bazarov is nothing more than slander. The critic does not see the artistic value of this work.

Pisarev expressed a different attitude towards the novel. In the article “Bazarov” he justifies the hero’s indifference to the future of the common people. In addition, the author of the article agrees with Bazarov’s attitude towards art.

The dispute between generations in the works of many authors is not a new topic. However, it is worth noting that the novel deals largely not with the ideological clashes between fathers and sons, but with the contradictions between nobles and commoners, who personify the future of the country.

"Fathers and Sons" is one of the greatest works of Russian literature. Each generation finds something interesting for itself in this novel and perceives the complex author’s position differently. This book incorporates historically important events associated with the change of generations and the emergence of new ideas. “Fathers and Sons” was written at the time of preparation and implementation of the peasant reform in one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one. In those critical times, each person had to decide on the position that he would adhere to. Join the already departing class of nobles or stick to the emerging class of revolutionaries. It was then that Turgenev wrote his great novel.

Throughout the entire work, our attention is focused on the relationship between the nobleman Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov and the son of a poor doctor Yevgeny Bazarov. Turgenev gives a clear description of the main characters, and we are immediately confronted with a sharp difference in appearance, behavior and views on the main problems of life.

The romantic Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov is in no way compatible with the democrat Bazarov, who is indifferent to love relationships. Antipathy immediately arises between them, turning into heated arguments. It is in their bickering that different views on the social system, religion and people are revealed.

Bazarov believes that society is rotten and serious measures are needed: “Fix society.” This is precisely the benefit that Evgeniy sees. Pavel Petrovich agrees that society is not entirely in order. Then, when Kirsanov finds out that his nephew and Evgeny Bazarov are nihilists who deny everything and do not respect other people’s interests, he proclaims:

“We value civilization. Its fruits are dear to us”...

It is in these words that the conflict between “fathers” and “children” lies.

Bazarov and Kirsanov have completely different attitudes towards the nobility. Pavel Petrovich considers the aristocracy to be the main force that moves the people and contributes to the successful development of society. In the eyes of Eugene, aristocrats are not able to act and benefit people. Bazarov, as a nihilist, is accustomed to “acting, breaking,” instead of sitting idly by, like aristocrats. But despite having such a strong quality, nihilists also have weaknesses. One of the downsides is the poor soul having to hide feelings.

In the dispute about the Russian people, the truth is, of course, on the side of Bazarov, who knows how to get along with men. He soberly sees how “the grossest superstition is strangling the country.” Evgeniy connects his activities with the “national spirit”, considering himself the one who expresses the interest of the people. Kirsanov and Bazarov argue about which of them the man “recognizes as a compatriot.”

The aesthetic views of the main characters also collide in disputes. Their opinions are different: Pavel Petrovich highly values ​​art, Bazarov believes that Pushkin is “no good”, playing the cello is “ridiculous” for a man, and a decent chemist is twenty times more useful than a poet.

Their attitude towards the surrounding nature also differs. In response to the question of Arkady, who opposes Evgeny, the answer of the nihilist Bazarov sounds: “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.”

Despite the fact that Bazarov denies love and laughs at Pavel Petrovich’s romantic impulses, in Evgeny’s soul there is the ability to love and feel. Falling in love with Anna Sergeevna revealed the real Evgeny Bazarov. His heart suffers because of his averted feelings. In the case of Pavel Petrovich, the love for which he left everything, including his career, led him to spiritual death.

Thus, in the novel “Fathers and Sons” Turgenev depicted the struggle of two different generations, the struggle of the outgoing century and the new one, just emerging. But, despite this change of eras, there must remain a thread connecting one generation of people to another, only in this way is the progressive development of society possible.

Ideological disputes between “fathers” and “sons”. Who is right?

Describing the social hostility that flares up between the heroes, the author reveals the destructive sides of Kirsanov's aristocracy and Bazarov'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 sons”. 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 old ones, and 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,” his face was “long and thin with a wide forehead, a flat upward, pointed nose downward, large greenish eyes and hanging sand-colored sideburns, it was enlivened by a calm smile and expressed self-confidence and intelligence,” and “his dark - blond hair, long and thick, did not hide the large bulges of the spacious skull.” This is the portrait of E.V. Bazarova. P.P. Kirsanov is “a man of average height, dressed in a dark English suit, 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, retaining youthful harmony and that desire upward, away from the earth, which for the most part disappears after the twenties.”

Pavel Petrovich is precisely twenty years older than Bazarov, but even to a greater extent 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 age. So befits a socialite, 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 sophistication of the costume and the desire for light, unearthly materials. This hero will defend order in the dispute against Bazarov’s transformative pathos. And everything in his appearance indicates adherence to the norm.

Even Pavel Petrovich’s height is average, so to speak, normal, while Bazarov’s tall height symbolizes his superiority over those around him. And Evgeniy’s facial features are distinctly irregular, his hair is unkempt, instead of Pavel Petrovich’s expensive English suit, he has some kind of strange robe, his hand is red, rough, while Kirsanov has a beautiful hand “with long pink nails.” But Bazarov’s wide forehead and convex skull reveal his intelligence and self-confidence. But Pavel Petrovich has a bilious face, and increased attention to the toilet reveals in him a carefully hidden lack of confidence in his own abilities. We can say that this is Pushkin’s Eugene Onegin, twenty years older, living 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.” Evgeniy 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. He denies beauty - art, poetry, feelings - in love he sees only the physiological, but does not see the spiritual principle. Bazarov “approaches everything from a critical point of view”, “does not accept a single principle on faith, no matter how much respect this principle is surrounded.” Pavel Petrovich proclaims that “aristocratism is a principle, and in our time only immoral or empty people can live without principles.” However, the impression of an inspired ode to principles is noticeably weakened by the fact that Bazarov’s opponent puts in first place the “principle” of aristocracy that is closest to himself.

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

Bazarov does not have as much experience in love as Pavel Petrovich, and therefore 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. Evgeny Vasilyevich's love pangs - an equally unsuccessful romance with Anna Sergeevna Odintsova - are still ahead. 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 he, of course, is offended by Bazarov’s statements about the fact that “a decent chemist is twenty times more useful than any poet” or that “Raphael is not worth a penny.” Here Turgenev certainly disagrees with Bazarov’s point of view. However, he does not give victory on this point of the dispute to Pavel Petrovich. The trouble is that the refined Anglomaniac aristocrat does not have not only Raphael’s abilities, but no creative abilities at all. His discussions about art and poetry, as well as about society, are empty and trivial, often comical. Pavel Petrovich cannot possibly be a worthy opponent for Bazarov. And when they part, the eldest of the Kirsanov brothers “was dead,” of course, in a figurative sense. Disputes with a nihilist at least somehow justified the meaning of his existence, introduced a certain “fermentation”, awakened thoughts. Now Pavel Petrovich is doomed to a stagnant existence.

Based on all of the above, I think that Bazarov’s real opponent is Nikolai Petrovich Kirsanov, although he does not enter into verbal disputes. He understands perfectly well 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 despondent, does not become embittered at the whole world, but studies at the university, then gets married, 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 raising and educating his son. Then life sends him love for a simple girl, Fenechka, for a newborn child.

The hard-won 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 “district 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, having known 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 peace mediator and works hard.

However, in 1862, in one of his letters regarding “Fathers and Sons,” Ivan Sergeevich especially emphasized that the entire “story is directed against the nobility, as an advanced class... An aesthetic feeling forced me to take precisely good representatives of the nobility, in order to more accurately prove my theme: 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 guilty and have not achieved my goal. But I didn’t want to “get upset,” to use his words, although through this I would probably immediately have young people on my side. I didn’t want to buy into popularity with this kind of concession. It's better to lose a battle... than to win it with a trick." 11 .

I.S. himself 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 harshness 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 beliefs. 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 the point of caricature, made him funny!” 12

The writer did not want to idealize Bazarov and endowed his hero with all those shortcomings that his prototypes from the radical heterodox youth possessed in abundance. However, Turgenev did not deprive Eugene of his Russian roots, emphasizing that half the hero grows from 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 conviction of the writer, and any thoughtful reader, is right in his main positions: the need to question established dogmas, work tirelessly for the good of society, and 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, Bazarov has 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 this is a natural expression of the spirit of the times, when in Russia everything is overestimated and turned upside down. The author admits that the role of the “advanced class” is moving from the noble intelligentsia to the commoners.

In the novel “Fathers and Sons” by I.S. Turgenev overcomes the political limitations of his own views. He tried to rise and rose above the fray, showing the extremes in the position of both "fathers" and "sons". However, this is precisely why his novel not only did not reconcile, but even more aggravated the social struggle. And the writer himself found himself in a dramatic situation. With bewilderment and bitterness, he stopped, giving up, 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 bazaar children