Why Pavel Petrovich called Bazarov a seminary rat. Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov. Social and ideological contradictions. History of Pavel Petrovich

Between the ideological duel in Chapter X and the pre-duel explanation, a whole series of events take place in Bazarov's life, significantly softening the harsh image of the beginning of the novel. The following contributes to this:

· a dispute with Arkady in a haystack, where Bazarov, perhaps for the first time, acutely felt his loneliness and admitted his self-loathing;

· a visit to the parents, which highlighted the new, soft facets of the hero's soul, his careful attitude towards his parents, habitually hidden under a rudely ironic mask;

· a meeting with Odintsova and an absurd scene of a declaration of love, which for the first time showed Bazarov to helplessly passionate and not entirely understood;

· the scene in the pavilion with Fenechka, reflecting the process of intensifying the hero's struggle with his nature.

What makes this scene special? It is interestingly built compositionally: the characters seem to seize the initiative from each other several times. In addition, it is here that, after a long break, “fathers” and “children” clash with even greater sharpness. More clearly than before, in this episode, the characters of the two heroes appear. Not like before, this last of the psychological duels ends, and the heroes suddenly find themselves on the verge of real, physical bloodshed.

Before this duel, the heroes feel differently. Bazarov is in an unusual state of confusion for him, his usual work is not going well. He is annoyed with himself after two clumsy actions in a row in relation to two women - to Odintsova in the scene of a declaration of love and to Fenechka in the scene with a kiss in the gazebo. However, as before, he is completely indifferent to Pavel Petrovich and does not seek further quarrels with him. At the same time, Pavel Petrovich's indignation against Bazarov reached its highest point, and the last straw was a kiss in the arbor.

However, unlike past disputes that arose spontaneously, Kirsanov is preparing for this duel, and this is his initial advantage.

At the beginning of the scene, Bazarov is unusually unsure of himself. After Bazarov's first remark, the author's words come: "... answered Bazarov, in whom something ran across his face as soon as Pavel Petrovich crossed the threshold of the door." Previously, Turgenev did not characterize the state of Bazarov (according to the laws of "secret psychology") with indefinite pronouns.

And further - when Pavel Petrovich spoke about the duel, the author writes: "Bazarov, who stood up to meet Pavel Petrovich, sat down on the edge of the table and folded his arms." Half-gestures “got up”, “sat down” are also not typical for Yevgeny. Immediately after being challenged to a duel: "Bazarov's eyes widened."

Bazarov's confusion at this moment is reflected in his speech. He usually spoke rudely, abruptly, abruptly. And here are the usual turns of the type “yes, no matter what!” are accompanied by phrases more characteristic of Kirsanov: "Very well, sir", "You have a fantasy to test your chivalrous spirit on me."

In turn, Pavel Petrovich tries to restrain his excitement, firstly, by excessively emphasized politeness and formality of tone. Secondly, a “beautiful cane” specially taken for such an occasion, a symbol of aristocratic superiority, helps him not to throw off this mask and maintain the set tone. The cane, as a symbolic detail, went through the whole episode. Bazarov called it a "stick" - an instrument of possible violence.

After Kirsanov's confession, "I despise you," the quarrel culminated: "Pavel Petrovich's eyes sparkled ... They also flared up at Bazarov." It is at this moment that Bazarov takes control of himself and uses the usual weapon of irony, starting to mimic his opponent, repeating almost verbatim the endings of each of Kirsanov's remarks. It doesn't go unnoticed. Kirsanov says: "You keep joking..." But this time Pavel Petrovich won't lose his temper, as he used to. Why? Bazarov, although joking, did not overstep the bounds of what was permitted. In addition, the cane that was present nearby helped - a kind of reminder of aristocracy, a symbol of patience, support.

Each of the characters throughout the scene diligently hides his true feelings from the other. Kirsanov behind a screen of politeness hides resentment, jealousy, indignation, and Bazarov behind a screen of irony - confusion and irritation with himself.

It seems that this psychological duel is won by Pavel Petrovich, who has achieved his goal on almost all counts. And after his departure, Bazarov even more lost his inherent inner calm, dissatisfied with himself, experiencing remorse and moral feelings that were not inherent in him, having discovered Pavel Petrovich's secret love for Fenechka.

During the duel itself, after the shots, both opponents behave with dignity. Bazarov fulfills his medical and human duty, showing the nobility that he had recently hated, and Pavel Petrovich courageously and even with humor endures pain and loses all resentment towards Bazarov.

What are Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov arguing about?

“In nine cases out of ten disputes

ends with each of its participants still

more convinced of his absolute correctness.

Dale Carnegie.

In the novel by I.S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons" the eternal conflict of two generations develops into a social conflict, a conflict of two ideologies. The main dispute is between the two main characters: Evgeny Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov, although all the characters in the novel and the author himself participate in the dispute, directly or indirectly.

The dispute between Yevgeny Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov reflects the struggle between liberal and democratic forces in Russia. This struggle became especially fierce in 1859. At the heart of the conflict of heroes lies the discussion of a significant part of the main issues of Russian life. The heroes express their attitude to the people, to the cultural heritage of Russia, to art, they argue about moral standards, about love, about faith and unbelief.

What are the main opponents of the dispute? Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov was born and raised in a noble family, hence his aristocratic manners.

Bazarov's father was a poor doctor. Eugene is proud of his democratic origins. He says that his grandfather plowed the land. Their origins are different and therefore they have different views.

Pavel Petrovich and Bazarov are already arguing with their appearance. Exquisite toilet and polished Kirsanov's nails, completely unnecessary in such a rural wilderness, are already offended by the dusty robe with tassels that Evgeny is wearing. His cheeky and rude speech, his incredible sideburns and red bare hand shock Pavel Petrovich, who does not even want to say hello to Bazarov, because, as he believes, this is below his dignity and he will not give Yevgeny his hand in a snow-white sleeve with opal.

The heroes of the novel have different attitudes towards science and art. They often argue about these topics. Kirsanov believes that art is a useful thing, and Bazarov completely denies this, saying that "Rafael is not worth a penny" and "a decent chemist is twenty times more useful than any poet." He also denies science "in general", although he "believes in frogs".

They also have different views on the people. Bazarov says about Pavel Petrovich that he will never give a hand to a simple peasant, he will never approach him without holding his nose with a handkerchief. But, according to Kirsanov, Eugene despises the common people, if only for the fact that the peasants believe in Elijah the prophet, driving around the sky when thunder rumbles.

Pavel Petrovich is an adherent of "principles" taken on faith. He believes that if this is accepted, then this is true. And Bazarov is a nihilist, he intends to break everything. Eugene wants to clear the place first, and only then think about what to do next. By the word "everything" he also means the political system of that time.

The characters also have different attitudes towards love. Pavel Petrovich believes that there are lofty feelings, but his love for a certain princess R. turns into an earthly love for Fenechka. Bazarov generally denies love and says. That if you study the anatomy of the eye, then it is not known where the mysterious look will come from. But Eugene falls in love with Odintsova and finds in her face both a mysterious smile and a mysterious look. He denies lofty feelings and calls them sensations, but he contradicts himself.

Evgeny Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov argue on various topics, and Turgenev uses the dispute as a technique to reveal the views of his heroes. Formally, Bazarov wins the argument: he is cooler, and Kirsanov begins to lose his temper, gets excited. But in a dispute with the author, Eugene loses. The peasants call him the "pea jester" and think that the master cannot understand them, and they do not understand him either.

"Bazarovshchina" was defeated, but Bazarov, who was able to question the correctness of his views, won. Before his death, he says: “Russia needs me ... no, apparently, I’m not needed. And who is needed? the nihilist Bazarov, the lone hero, dies, with him everything that is unfair and wrong in the new theories of that time dies. By this, Turgenev shows that the new forces, having got rid of the unfaithful and superficial, will still take the road of change, they will still say their last word.

Disputes between Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich. Complexity and versatility. And what about the eternal theme - "fathers and sons"? And it is in the novel, but it is more complicated than the line of Alexander and Peter Aduev.

Already in the introduction, the question was raised: “Transformations are necessary<…>, but how to fulfill them, how to proceed? .. ”Two heroes claim to know the answer. And they believe that their ideas will bring prosperity to Russia. In addition to Bazarov, this is the uncle of Arkady Kirsanov, Pavel Petrovich. Their “party” affiliation is already declared in their clothes and manners. The reader recognized the raznochinets democrat by his “naked red hand”, by the peasant simplicity of his speeches (“Vasilyev”, instead of “Vasilyevich”), by the deliberate carelessness of the costume - “a long hoodie with tassels”. In turn, Bazarov instantly guessed in Uncle Arkady's "graceful and thoroughbred appearance" an "archaic phenomenon" inherent in aristocracy. “What panache in the village, just think! Nails, nails, at least send them to the exhibition!<…>».

The peculiarity of the positions of "democrat" and "aristocrat" is emphasized by symbolic details. With Pavel Petrovich, the whirling smell of cologne becomes such a detail. Meeting his nephew, he touched his cheeks three times with his "fragrant mustache", in his room he "ordered to smoke cologne", entering into a conversation with the peasants, "grimaces and sniffs cologne." The addiction to an elegant smell betrays the desire to squeamishly move away from everything low, dirty, everyday that only occurs in life. Go to a world accessible to few. On the contrary, Bazarov, in his habit of “cutting frogs”, demonstrates a desire to penetrate, to take possession of the slightest secrets of nature, and at the same time, the laws of life. “... I will flatten the frog and see what is happening inside it; and the one like us<…>the same frogs<...>I will know what is going on inside of us.” The microscope is the strongest proof of his correctness. In it the nihilist sees a picture of a general struggle; the strong inevitably and without repentance devours the weak: "... The ciliate swallowed a green speck and chewed it troublesomely."

Thus, we are presented with antagonistic heroes, whose worldview is determined by irreconcilable fundamental contradictions. A clash between them is a foregone conclusion and inevitable.

Social contradictions. We mentioned how they manifested themselves in clothing. They are no less striking in behavior. Previously, a raznochinets entered the noble estate as an employee - tutor, doctor, steward. Sometimes - a guest who was shown such a favor and could be deprived at any moment - which happened to Rudin, who dared to look after the daughter of the hostess. Pavel Petrovich is outraged by the visitor, listing the signs of his social humiliation: “He considered him proud, impudent<...>, plebeian. But the most offensive for the aristocrat - "he suspected that Bazarov did not respect him<…>, almost despises him - him, Pavel Kirsanov! The pride of the nobility is now opposed by the pride of the plebs. Bazarov can no longer be expelled with outward politeness, like Rudin. You can not force to obey the established rules in dress, manners, behavior. The raznochinets realized his strength. Poverty of clothes, lack of social gloss, ignorance of foreign languages, inability to dance, etc. - everything that distinguished him from the nobles and put him in a humiliated position, he began to diligently cultivate as an expression of his ideological position.

Ideological contradictions. Disputes break out between Pavel Petrovich and Bazarov. A controversy familiar from the Ordinary History. Here and there, inner and personal urges become a reflection of grandiose social changes. "Topical<…>Turgenev's novel is full<…>polemical hints that do not allow to forget the volcanic situation in the country on the eve of the reform of 1861 ... "

Pavel Petrovich saw in Bazarov’s words “rubbish, aristocratic” an insult not only to himself personally. But the future path of Russia, as he presents it. Pavel Petrovich suggests taking an example from parliamentary Great Britain: "The aristocracy gave freedom to England and supports it." The aristocracy, therefore, should become the main social force: “... Without a sense of dignity, without respect for oneself - and in an aristocrat these feelings are developed - there is no solid foundation<…>public building." Bazarov brilliantly retorts: “... You respect yourself and sit back; what is the use of this? .. "

On the contrary, Bazarov sees the same nihilist democrats as himself at the head of the future Russia. “My grandfather plowed the land,” he says proudly, which means that the people will rather believe him and “recognize his compatriot”, appreciate his tireless work.

So the key concept appears in the novel - the people. “The present state of the people requires this<…>, we should not indulge in the satisfaction of personal egoism, ”says an enthusiastic student of Bazarov, Arkady. This statement repels the stern teacher with its form (reminiscent of Rudin's ardent speeches), but it is true in content - Bazarov "did not consider it necessary to refute his young student." The proposed reforms depend on who the people will follow. The only time the opponents agree is in their observation of people's life. Both agree that the Russian people "revere traditions, they are patriarchal, they cannot live without faith ...". But for Bazarov, this "proves nothing." In the name of the bright future of the people, it is possible to destroy the foundations of its worldview (“The people believe that when thunder rumbles, it is Elijah-vice in a chariot driving around the sky ... Should I agree with him?”). Pavel Petrovich exposes in the democrat Bazarov no less arrogance towards the people than in himself:

You and talk to him man) do not know how ( says Bazarov).

And you talk to him and despise him at the same time.

Well, if he deserves contempt!

Pavel Petrovich defends centuries-old cultural values: “Civilization is dear to us, yes, sir.<…>we cherish its fruits. And do not tell me that these fruits are insignificant ... ”But this is exactly what Bazarov thinks. "Aristocracy, liberalism, progress, principles" and even "the logic of history" are just "foreign words", useless and unnecessary. However, as well as the concepts that they name. He resolutely sweeps aside the cultural experience of mankind in the name of a new, useful direction. As a practitioner, he sees the immediate tangible goal. His generation belongs to an intermediate, but noble mission - "to clear the place": "At the present time, denial is most useful - we deny." The same struggle, natural selection, should become an indicator of their correctness. Or the nihilists, armed with the latest theory, will "deal with the people" in the name of their own interests. Or "crush" - "there and the road." Everything, as in nature - natural selection. But on the other hand, if these few noble personalities win (“Moscow burned from a penny candle”), they will destroy everything, right down to the foundations of the social world order: “name at least one decision in our modern life<...>, which would not cause a complete and merciless denial. Bazarov declares this “with inexpressible calmness”, enjoying the horror of Pavel Petrovich, who is “terrified to say”: “How? Not only art, poetry ... but also ... "

For Turgenev, the topic of culture is so important that he devotes independent episodes to it. Opponents discuss what is more important, science or art? Bazarov, with his usual frankness, declares that "a decent chemist is more useful than any poet." And to timid remarks about the need for art, he answers with a snarky remark: “The art of making money, or there is no more hemorrhoids!” Subsequently, he will explain to Odintsova that art plays a subsidiary, didactic role: “Drawing ( art) will visually represent to me what is in the book ( scientific) is set out on ten pages. For his part, Pavel Petrovich recalls how his generation cherished literature, the creations of "...well, there is Schiller, or something, Goethe ...". Indeed, the generation of the forties, and among them Turgenev himself, worshiped art. But not without reason the writer highlighted the words of the hero in italics. Although Pavel Petrovich considers it necessary to stand up for his abstract "principles", for him the questions of belles-lettres are not so important. Throughout the novel, we see only a newspaper in his hands. Bazarov's position is much more complicated - sincere conviction is felt in his sharpness. About Pavel Petrovich, the author reports that in his youth he "read only five or six French books" so that he had something to show off at the evenings "with Mrs. Svechina" and other secular ladies. Bazarov, on the other hand, has read and knows these romantics so despised by him. The remark suggesting that "Toggenburg with all his mennisingers and troubadours" be sent to a lunatic asylum betrays that the hero once read Zhukovsky's ballads. And he didn’t just read, but singled out (albeit with a minus sign) one of the best - about sublime love - “Knight Toggneburg”. The inspirational quote “How sad your appearance is to me ...” from the lips of Nikolai Petrovich Bazarov interrupts somehow surprisingly “on time”. He obviously remembers that further lines will follow about the grief that the arrival of spring brings to people who have experienced a lot:

Perhaps, in our thoughts comes Amidst a poetic dream Another, old spring, And makes our hearts tremble ...

Just look, Nikolai Petrovich will remember his dead wife, he will be deeply moved ... Well, him! And Bazarov decisively interrupts the inspired monologue with a prosaic request for matches. Literature is another area where the hero "broke himself" in preparation for a great mission.

Turgenev considered tragic such clashes in which "both sides are right to a certain extent." Bazarov is right in exposing Pavel Petrovich's inaction. (“I wish Bazarov hadn’t suppressed “a man with a fragrant mustache,” Turgenev remarked). The writer conveyed to his hero his own conviction that nihilistic negation is “caused by the same folk spirit…”, on behalf of which he speaks. But his opponent also has reasons when he talks about the "satanic pride" of the nihilists, about their desire to "get along with the whole people", "despising" the peasant. He asks his antagonist the question that comes to the mind of the reader: "You deny everything<...>, you are destroying everything ... Why, you need to build.” Bazarov evades an answer, not wanting to seem like an idealist and talker. Further, “it’s not our business anymore ... First we need to clear the place.”

Subsequently, in a conversation with Odintsova, Bazarov mentioned in part his plans for the future reorganization of society. As a naturalist, Bazarov puts an equal sign between physical and moral illnesses. The difference "between good and evil" is "as between the sick and the healthy." Those and other ailments are subject to treatment from the outside, the most severe methods are allowed. "Fix society and there will be no disease." A similar point of view, although in a milder form, was held then by many. It was promoted by the idol of youth, N.G. Chernyshevsky. “The most inveterate villain,” the critic argued, “is still a man, i.e. creature, by nature, inclined to respect and love the truth, goodness<…>that can violate the laws of goodness and truth only through ignorance, delusion, or under the influence of circumstances<…>but never able<…>prefer evil to good. Remove harmful circumstances, and the mind of a person will quickly brighten up and his character will be ennobled. But it would be wrong to look for a real prototype in Bazarov. The writer strengthened and brought to its logical conclusion those ideas that were "floating in the air." In this case, Turgenev acted as a brilliant visionary: “The reader of the early 60s could perceive Bazarov’s denial as<…>sharply exaggerated, the reader of our time can see here an early harbinger of the extremist radicalism of the twentieth century ... ". It is also wrong to see in Bazarov's statements the views of only one era. Turgenev brilliantly expresses here the essence of the philosophy of all revolutionaries. And not only expresses, but warns of the terrible danger that the humanist writer guessed in the theories designed to improve the life of mankind. The worst thing is in practice, and we, armed with the historical experience of the twentieth century, understand it. In order to make everyone equally happy, it is necessary to oblige everyone to become the same. The happy people of the future must give up their individuality. In response to the question of the amazed Anna Sergeevna: “... When society is corrected, will there be neither stupid nor evil people?” - Bazarov paints a picture of a wonderful future: "... With the right arrangement of society, it will absolutely make no difference whether a person is stupid or smart, evil or kind." So - "... to study individuals is not worth the trouble."

Rivals and brothers in fate. The longer the confrontation between Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich lasts, the clearer it becomes to the reader that, in hostile beliefs, they are paradoxically similar in personality type. Both are leaders by nature, both are smart, talented and conceited. Pavel Petrovich, like Bazarov, puts feelings low. After a furious argument, he went out into the garden, "thought, and<…>raised his eyes to the sky. But his beautiful dark eyes reflected nothing but the light of the stars. He was not born a romantic, and his smartly dry and passionate<...>soul ... ”For Pavel Petrovich, nature, if not a workshop, then clearly is not a temple. Like Bazarov, Pavel Petrovich is inclined to explain spiritual unrest with purely physiological causes. “What is the matter with you? .. you are pale as a ghost; Are you unwell?.. ”- he asks his brother, excited by the beauty of the summer evening, shaken by memories. Having learned that these are “only” emotional experiences, he retires, reassured. Sudden impulses and spiritual outpourings, if not completely rejected, then tolerated condescendingly. When the next day, upon arrival, Arkady again rushes into the arms of his father. ""What is it? Are you hugging again?" - Pavel Petrovich's voice came from behind them.

Pavel Petrovich's clashes with Bazarov are given in the novel as something quite natural, organic, unintentional, based on their difference in everything: appearance, behavior, lifestyle, views, feelings. It can be said that the very fact of his existence democrat Bazarov irritates Pavel Petrovich, prompts a dispute. It is important to note that Pavel Petrovich is the instigator of the "fights". Bazarov, on the other hand (undoubtedly an excellent polemicist by his nature), finding himself in an environment alien to him, tries to evade disputes.

As a rule, Bazarov himself does not start conversations on political topics, as well as disputes with Pavel Petrovich, does not reveal his views (“does not spread in front of this gentleman”), and then makes it clear that he will not continue the “conversation” started by Kirsanov, then stops his "attacks" with calm, indifferent answers, then, as if agreeing with him, even repeating his words, by the tone itself reduces their "high style". But it was precisely this lack of interest in Bazarov’s interlocutor, a hidden ironic attitude towards the enemy (with external restraint), apparently, that irritated Pavel Petrovich most of all, and he could not stand the gentlemanly tone in communication with Bazarov, he “was betrayed by his vaunted self-esteem”; sharp words appeared in his refined speech: "boobs," "boys," "seminary rat," "I can't stand you," "I despise you." However, Turgenev's agreement with Bazarov had its limits. In contrast to him, the author did not deny Pavel Petrovich kindness, generosity, but as if he doubted the immediacy of these feelings: generosity sometimes looks rationalistic or overly exalted (explanations with Fenechka, Nikolai Petrovich), and kindness is not entirely organic for his “dandy-dry misanthropic souls."

In the finale of the novel, in which, according to the author himself, he "unraveled all the knots", scenes in the Bazarovs' "estate" are of particular importance. Turgenev pursues several goals here: to show yet another version of the “fathers”, that multi-layered social environment in which the patriarchal nobility, the clergy, the people, the raznochintsy intelligentsia are fancifully combined (the grandfather is a sexton from the peasants, “he plowed the land”, the father is the owner of the estate, doctor, mother - a noblewoman of the "old Moscow time"), the environment that gave birth to Bazarov; to convince the reader of the great strength of Bazarov, his superiority over those around him, and, finally, to make him feel the humanity of his hero. In the finale, the knots of the central ambiguous conflict are “unraveled” (the struggle of two worldviews, and not just two generations). It should become clear to the reader that the “realist” Bazarov in his life practice does not withstand the theoretical premise (people are like trees in the forest, each person should not be studied), he is not inclined to level all the “fathers”, people of the old generation; different shades of feelings are available to him: from resolute denial, condemnation of "feudal lords", idle bars to filial love for parents, spiced, however, with irresistible boredom and intolerance for patriarchy, if communication with them becomes more or less protracted. “On trial” Turgenev puts the materialistic and atheistic convictions of Bazarov himself, his strength, courage, will.

And he passes this test with honor: he does not coward at Pavel Petrovich's gunpoint, does not drive away thoughts of death from himself during his illness, soberly assesses his position, but does not reconcile with it either. Bazarov does not change his atheistic views, refuses to take communion, although he was ready (at their request) to "fulfill the duty of a Christian" to console religious parents. "No, I'll wait!" is his final decision. The tragedy of Bazarov's fate appears with particular force against the background of the final "simple-hearted comedy" of other characters. Hastily, as if carelessly, Turgenev draws in the epilogue the favorable existence of the Kirsanovs, the inhabitants of Maryin, and Odintsova. He utters his last penetrating word about Bazarov. In a solemn epic tone, almost rhythmic prose, in the spirit of unhurried folk tales, imbued with hidden lyricism, it is said about the village cemetery, about Bazarov's grave, "Evgeny Bazarov is buried in this grave." "Fathers and Sons" was published in the second issue of "Russian Messenger" for 1862, published with some delay in March. And immediately began to receive conflicting reviews about the novel. Some expressed gratitude to the author for the delivered "pleasure", for creating vivid pictures of life and "heroes of our time"; the novel was called "Turgenev's best book", "amazing, inimitable" in terms of the objectivity of the image. Others expressed bewilderment about Bazarov; he was called the "sphinx", "mystery" and they were waiting for clarifications ...

The release of a separate edition of "Fathers and Sons" was coming in September 1862, and Turgenev again prepared the text of the novel to the accompaniment of conflicting reviews in letters to him and in newspaper and magazine reviews and articles. “From other compliments,” he wrote to Annenkov on June 8, 1862, “I would be glad to fall through the ground, other scolding was pleasant to me.” “Some would like me to mix Bazarov with dirt, others, on the contrary, are furious at me for allegedly slandering him.” It was (according to V. A. Sleptsov’s definition) a “difficult time”: the reaction was intense, Chernyshevsky and his political associates were arrested, Nekrasov’s Sovremennik was temporarily suspended by censorship, the fires that broke out in St. Petersburg were attributed to “nihilists”, etc. The struggle around Fathers and Sons also intensified. In this social atmosphere, Turgenev, with his “sense of the present moment” (Dobrolyubov), could not but feel special responsibility for his attitude towards Bazarov expressed in the novel. Preparing the text for publication in a separate publication and taking into account the reaction of readers and critics, he clarified the author's position: he did not deny himself the right to identify weaknesses in Bazarov's system of views, in his behavior and express to him (to use Turgenev's words) "involuntary attraction". It is very significant that Turgenev considered it necessary to preface the text with a dedication of the novel to V. G. Belinsky. It was, as it were, a clear sign of the author's sympathy for the predecessor of the modern Bazarovs. Let us quote, however, this preface: "Fathers and Sons" aroused so many contradictory rumors in the public that, publishing this novel separately, I had the intention of preface it with something like a preface, in which I myself would try to explain to the reader what I actually set for myself. task.

But on reflection, I abandoned my intention. If the case itself does not speak for itself, all the possible explanations of the author will not help. I will limit myself to two words: I myself know, and my friends are sure of this, that my convictions have not changed a single hair since I entered the literary field, and I can, with a clear conscience, put on the first page of this book the name of my unforgettable friend ". In the dedication to Belinsky there is another meaningful connotation: a reminder of that democratic figure who paid tribute to art, sublime, spiritual love, and the aesthetic perception of nature. Following Turgenev, the reader should check the strength or chance of Bazarov's views, his words in life situations. Three times the author tests his hero with real circumstances: love, a clash with the people, a deadly disease. And in all cases it turns out that nothing human is alien to him, that far from without difficulty he breaks himself in the name of great goals and usually remains true to himself. Having not received an adequate response to his feelings, Bazarov finds the strength to move away from his passionately beloved woman.

And before death, he does not give himself the right to give up materialistic, atheistic convictions. In this sense, the scenes of Bazarov's explanation with Odintsova are especially important, in which the author secretly and sympathizes with the hero, and argues with him. The explanations are preceded by several meetings that leave no doubt that his rich nature is also open to a wonderful feeling of love. Turgenev carefully writes out all the diverse shades of manifestation of a sincere, strong feeling that captures Bazarov: embarrassment, anxiety, excitement, a bizarre change of mood, depression, joy and grief, annoyance, suffering, anger, inconsistency in actions, unsuccessful struggle with oneself. All this seems especially prominent in the neighborhood of the coldly calm Odintsova, the “Epicurean lady”, leading a measured lifestyle. With all the immediacy of love, Bazarov has not lost the ability to make sober assessments. He was attracted not only by beauty, but also by the mind, the originality of Odintsova, who stood out in the circle of the nobility for her "artlessness". But he also saw her indifference to others, selfishness, love of peace, curiosity, women's tricks.

The accuracy of these observations is confirmed by Odintsova (“It is clear that Bazarov is right ...”) and the author himself, who outlined in the epilogue (not without irony) the logic of Odintsova’s future life: she will marry “not for love ... for a lawyer ... cold, like ice." They live in "great harmony with each other and have lived, perhaps, to happiness ... perhaps to love."

It is not difficult to guess that Turgenev countered this rational, skinny "love" with the fullness and strength of Bazarov's feelings. The second serious test (Bazarov and the people, Bazarov and Russia) is surrounded in the novel by examples of the coexistence of masters and peasants in times of crisis ... Patriarchal-good-natured relations between masters and servants on the estate of Bazarov's parents. Alienated and condescending communication with the people of the Slavophile aristocrat Angloman Pavel Petrovich. The soft connivance of the inept liberal master Nikolai Petrovich. Only Bazarov, who was proud of his plebeian origin, approached the peasant without lordly patronage and without false idealization, as if he were “his brother” ... Bazarov does not curry favor with “ordinary people”, and they (yard children, Dunyasha, Timofeich, Anfisushka) everyone, except for the servant of the old school - Prokofich, feel goodwill towards him, keep themselves freely in his presence. It is closeness to the people that allows Bazarov to tease ignorance, slavish submission to the masters, to express a skeptical attitude towards the peasant "peace", mutual responsibility.

The conflict between Kirsanov and Bazarov underlies the entire novel by I. S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons". This article presents a table "Dispute between Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich".

Political views

The different views of Bazarov and Kirsanov come from their social position.

Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov is a bright representative of an aristocratic society. He is a hereditary nobleman.

Yevgeny Bazarov is a commoner. His mother was of noble origin, and his father was an ordinary doctor. This allows us to talk about Bazarov's intermediate position: he does not consider himself a nobleman, but he does not consider himself to be a simple peasant either.

In connection with this difference in origin, Bazarov and Kirsanov have different socio-political views.

Philosophical views

The main disputes between Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov and Bazarov are due to a different attitude towards nihilism.

Moral values

This article, which will help write the essay “Table “Dispute between Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich”, will consider the political, philosophical and moral views of the representatives of the “fathers and children” from the novel by I. S. Turgenev.

useful links

See what else we have:

Artwork test