"Fathers and Sons" is one of greatest works Russian literature. Each generation finds something interesting for itself in this novel, perceives the difficult position of the author differently. This book has historically absorbed important eventsassociated with the change of generations and the emergence of new ideas. "Fathers and Sons" was written at the time of the 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 an already outgoing class of nobles, or stick only to an 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 the poor doctor Yevgeny Bazarov. Turgenev gives a clear description of the main characters, and we immediately face a sharp difference in appearance, demeanor 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 disputes. It is in their bickering that different views on the social order, religion and people are revealed.
Bazarov believes that society is rotten and that fundamental measures are needed: "Fix society." This is precisely the benefit that Eugene sees. Pavel Petrovich agrees that society is not entirely in order. Then, when Kirsanov learns that his nephew and Yevgeny Bazarov are nihilists who deny everything and do not respect other people's interests, he proclaims:
“Civilization is dear to us. Its fruits are dear to us ”...
It is in these words that the conflict between "fathers" and "children" lies.
Bazarov and Kirsanov have absolutely different attitudes towards the nobility. Pavel Petrovich considers the aristocracy to be the main force that drives the people and contributes to the prosperous 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, forced to hide feelings.
In the dispute about the Russian people, the truth is undoubtedly on the side of Bazarov, who knows how to get along with the peasants. He soberly sees how "the grossest superstition is strangling the country." Yevgeny connects his activities with the "people's spirit", considering himself to be the one who expresses the interest of the people. Kirsanov and Bazarov argue about which of them the man "recognizes a compatriot."
The aesthetic views of the protagonists also clash in disputes. Their opinions are not the same: Pavel Petrovich highly values \u200b\u200bart, while Bazarov believes that Pushkin is “no good at all,” playing the cello is “funny” for a man, and a decent chemist is twenty times more useful than a poet.
Their attitude to the surrounding nature also differs. In response to the question of Arkady, who opposes Yevgeny, 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 the romantic impulses of Pavel Petrovich, there is an ability to love and feel in Yevgeny's soul. Falling in love with Anna Sergeevna revealed the real Evgeny Bazarov. His heart suffers from averted feelings. In the case of Pavel Petrovich, the love for which he left everything, including his career, led him to mental destruction.
Thus, in the novel "Fathers and Sons" Turgenev reflected the struggle of two different generations, the struggle of the outgoing century and the new, just emerging. But, despite this change of eras, there must remain a thread connecting one generation of people with another, only in this way is the progressive development of society possible.
Ideological disputes between "fathers" and "children". Who is right?
Describing the social enmity flaring up between the heroes, the author reveals the destructive sides of Kirsan's aristocracy and Bazarov's nihilism. The central place in the novel is occupied by the long disputes of the young raznochinets E.V. Bazarov and the aging aristocrat P.P. Kirsanov, revealing the essence of the work - the problem of "fathers and children." It is they who give a special acuity to the plot, serve as a characteristic of each hero, show the superiority of new, progressive ideas over old ones, the eternal movement towards progress.
These characters differ from each other in everything: age, social status, beliefs, appearance. "Tall in a long hoodie with tassels", the face is "long and thin with a wide forehead, a flat upward, pointed nose, large greenish eyes and hanging sandy sideburns, it was enlivened by a calm smile and expressed self-confidence and intelligence", and "its dark -white hair, long and thick, did not hide the large bulges of the spacious skull. " This is the portrait of E.V. Bazarov. P.P. Kirsanov, on the other hand, is “a man of average height, dressed in a dark English suite, a fashionable low tie and lacquered ankle boots”, “he looks forty-five years old”, “his face is bilious, but without wrinkles, unusually regular and clean, as if drawn by a thin and light chisel, showed traces of wonderful beauty. " His whole appearance "graceful and thoroughbred, retained youthful harmony and that striving upward, away from the earth, which for the most part disappears after the twenties."
Pavel Petrovich, in fact, is twenty years older than Bazarov, but even to a greater extent retains signs of youth in his appearance. Senior Kirsanov is a person who is extremely concerned about his appearance in order to look as young as possible. So befits a secular lion, an old heartthrob. Bazarov, on the other hand, does not care in the least about appearance. In the portrait of Pavel Petrovich, the writer highlights the correct features and strict order, the sophistication of the costume and the aspiration for light, unearthly materials. This hero will defend order against Bazarov's transformative pathos in the dispute. And everything in his appearance testifies to adherence to the norm.
Even Pavel Petrovich's height is average, so to speak, normal, while Bazarov's tall height symbolizes his superiority over others. And Evgeny's facial features are markedly irregular, his hair is unkempt, instead of the expensive English suit of Pavel Petrovich he has some kind of strange hoodie, his hand is red, rough, while Kirsanov's has a beautiful hand "with long pink nails." On the other hand, Bazarov's wide forehead and bulging skull give him intelligence and self-confidence. And Pavel Petrovich's face is bilious, and the increased attention to the toilet betrays a carefully hidden lack of confidence in his own abilities. We can say that this is Pushkin's Eugene Onegin, who has aged twenty years, 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 a man is a worker in it." Evgeny is deeply convinced that the achievements of modern natural science in the future will also solve all problems of social life. Beauty - art, poetry, feelings - he denies, in love he sees only the physiological, but does not see the spiritual principle. Bazarov "treats everything from a critical point of view", "does not accept a single principle on faith, no matter how respectful this principle may be". Pavel Petrovich proclaims that "aristocracy is a principle, and without principles, only immoral or empty people can live in our time." However, the impression of an inspired ode to principles is noticeably weakened by the fact that Bazarov's opponent prioritizes the closest "principle" of aristocracy to himself.
Pavel Petrovich, brought up in an atmosphere of a comfortable manor house and accustomed to the Petersburg secular society, does not accidentally put poetry, music, love in the first place. He never in his life was engaged in any practical activity, except for a short and easy service in the Guards regiment, he was never interested in the natural sciences and did not know much about them. Bazarov, the son of a poor military doctor, from childhood accustomed to work and not to idleness, graduated from the university, carried away by natural sciences, experienced knowledge, very little in his short life dealt with poetry or music, perhaps Pushkin was not was reading. Hence the harsh and unfair judgment of Evgeny Vasilyevich about the great Russian poet: “... He must be in military service he served ... on every page: For battle, for battle! for the honor of Russia! "
Bazarov also does not have such experience in love as Pavel Petrovich, therefore he is too simplistic about this feeling. The elder Kirsanov has already had a chance to experience love suffering, namely an unsuccessful romance with Princess R. and the death of his beloved, which aggravated his state of mind. Evgeny Vasilyevich has love agony - an equally unsuccessful romance with Anna Sergeevna Odintsova - is 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 \u200b\u200bof romanticism of the first third of the century, on the cult of beauty.
And, of course, he is jarred by Bazarov's statements about the fact that "a decent chemist is twenty times more useful than any poet" or that "Raphael is not worth a dime." Here Turgenev certainly does not agree with Bazarov's point of view. However, he does not give Pavel Petrovich victory on this point of the dispute either. The trouble is that the refined aristocrat-Anglomaniac does not have not only Raphael's abilities, but generally no creative abilities. His discourses on art and poetry, as well as on society, are empty and trivial, often comical. Pavel Petrovich cannot be a worthy opponent to Bazarov. And when they part, the eldest of the Kirsanov brothers "was a dead man", of course, in a figurative sense. Arguments with a nihilist somehow justified the meaning of his existence, brought in a kind of "fermenting principle", 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 discouraged, does not become embittered by the whole world, but studies at the university, then marries, lives with his wife for ten years in love and harmony, which have passed "like a dream." After the death of his wife, he devotes himself to the upbringing and training of his son. Then life sends him love for a simple girl, Fenechka, for a newborn child.
That 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 a son is able to understand this, who, in the end, comes to the conclusion that Bazarov's ideas are inconsistent. 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 him out of desolation and poverty; Nikolai Petrovich - marries Fenechka, becomes a world mediator and works with all his might.
However, in 1862, in one of his letters about Fathers and Sons, Ivan Sergeevich emphasized that the whole story is directed against the nobility, as an advanced class ... Aesthetic feeling made me take good representatives nobility, in order to prove my theme all the more faithfully: if the cream is bad, what is milk? .. if the reader does not love Bazarov with all his rudeness, heartlessness, merciless dryness and harshness - if he does not love, I repeat, - I am guilty and did not achieve your goal. But, in his words, I did not want to "get muddled", although through this I would probably have immediately had young people on my side. I didn't want to buy off the popularity of this kind of concessions. Better to lose the battle ... than to win it with a ruse. " 11 .
I.S. Turgenev was a representative of the same generation as P.P. Kirsanov, but of the heroes of his novel, he had the greatest sympathy for the young nihilist Bazarov. In 1869, in a special article “Concerning Fathers and Sons,” the writer directly pointed out: “In drawing the figure of Bazarov, I excluded everything artistic from his circle of sympathies, I gave him a harsh and unceremonious tone - not out of an absurd desire to offend the younger generation. .. With the exception of Bazarov's views on art, I share almost all of his 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 the artistic truth and overdid it, brought his shortcomings to a 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 different ranks of youth possessed in abundance. However, Turgenev did not deprive Eugene of Russian roots either, stressing that half the hero grows out of Russian soil, the fundamental conditions of Russian life, and half is formed under the influence of new ideas brought from Europe. And in a dispute with Pavel Petrovich Bazarov, according to the conviction of the writer, and any thoughtful reader, is right in its main positions: in the need to question the established dogmas, to work tirelessly for the good of society, to be critical of the surrounding reality. Where Bazarov is wrong, in utilitarian views on the nature of beauty, on literature, on art, victory still does not remain on the side of Pavel Petrovich.
In disputes on the side of Bazarov, not only the advantages of youth and the novelty of his position. Turgenev sees that nihilism is deeply connected with social disorder, popular discontent, that this is a natural expression of the spirit of the times, when everything in Russia is overestimated and turned upside down. The author admits that the role of the "advanced class" is shifting from the noble intelligentsia to the commoners.
In the novel "Fathers and Sons" I.S. Turgenev overcomes the political limitations of his own views. He tried to rise and rose above the fray, showing extremes in the position of both "fathers" and "children". However, this is precisely why his novel not only failed to reconcile, but further exacerbated the social struggle. And the writer himself was in a dramatic situation. With bewilderment and bitterness, he paused, giving up, before the chaos of contradictory judgments: the novel did not satisfy either the "fathers" or "children." “The question that has arisen,” wrote I.S. Turgenev many years later - was more important than artistic truth - and I should have known this in advance. "
noble nihilist bazaars children
Of course, in the dispute between the heroes, one cannot adhere to any one side.
“Without self-esteem, without respect for oneself, - and these feelings are developed in an aristocrat, - there is no solid foundation for the public good,” Kirsanov argues. And he is, indeed, right, because he expresses common truths.
“You respect yourself and sit with folded hands; what is the benefit to the public good? You would not respect yourself and would do the same, ”objected Bazarov. But one can only partly agree with him: maybe he is right about Kirsanov, "sitting with folded hands," but if there was no respect in the man, then he would hardly have done the same.
Probably, such a person would only destroy and would be much worse.
Then we talked about the people. Bazarov argued that no foreign words the Russian people do not need: "After all, logic is not needed to put a piece of bread in your mouth when you are hungry." And Kirsanov perceives this as an insult to the people.
In my opinion, Bazarov is right, because all the clever 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 a thought expressed by Kirsanov, with which both sides agreed: "The Russian people sacredly honor traditions, they are patriarchal, they cannot live without faith ..."
But Bazarov wants to "clear a place" for those who will believe only in what is useful.
Kirsanov, however, 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 man. To which Bazarov replies that he deserves contempt. But I do not agree with him, although my opinion was formed by another time ...
Then there is a long speech by Bazarov, in which he says that if we talk about problems (bribes, roads, trade, the lack of a proper court), they will not be solved: “The freedom that the government is busy with will hardly be of use to us because ours is glad to rob himself, just to get drunk in a tavern.
And Kirsanov suggests Bazarov's position: "And they themselves decided not to take anything seriously."
Indeed, these thoughts of Bazarov are very accurate, but the conclusions that he drew, 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 your most sacred beliefs, which will crush you!"
“If they’re crushed, there’s a way,” replies Bazarov, who nevertheless believes that Kirsanov is wrong (“Moscow burned out from a penny candle”).
“I was told that in Rome our artists did not go to the Vatican.
Raphael is considered almost a fool, because he is, they say, authority; while they themselves are powerless and sterile to the point of disgusting, and the fantasy itself is beyond the "Girl at the fountain" is not enough, no matter what! " - Kirsanov is indignant. And Bazarov simply replies to this: "In my opinion, Rafael is not worth a dime, and they are no better than him." Of course, Bazarov is wrong about this, because art is eternal, and people admire him in different parts of the world in different eras.
And Kirsanov, after this dispute, comes to the correct, but only partially, conclusion: “Before, young people had to study; they did not want to be branded as ignorant, so they reluctantly worked. And now they should say: everything in the world is nonsense! - and it's in the bag. After that, Bazarov decides to end the conversation, believing that he has gone too far. But this dispute, in my opinion, had little effect on both sides, each of them remained unconvinced.
Bazarov is right that something must be done; any truth must be verified. Pavel Petrovich is right that the achievements of previous generations cannot be denied.
Effective preparation for the exam (all subjects) - start preparing
www.kritika24.ru
dispute between kirsanov and eugene bazarov, who is right? Who is guilty? chapter 10. "fathers and children". " Fathers and Sons "
In the dispute about the Russian people, the truth is undoubtedly on the side of Yevgeny Bazarov. Pavel Petrovich is touched by backwardness and patriarchy. Bazarov, however, 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, without sentimentality and idealization of a man. Bazarov knows how to communicate with peasants and, if he sees fit, knows how to educate them.
He connects his direction with the "people's spirit", considering himself the spokesman for the interests of the people. The heroes argue about which of them the man "most likely recognizes a compatriot."
The aesthetic positions of Bazarov and Kirsanovs also clash in disputes. The views of the Kirsanovs are not the same: Pavel Petrovich is indifferent to art, Nikolai Petrovich loves and knows literature and music. Bazarov believes that reading Pushkin “is no good,” “it's time to give up this nonsense,” that it’s “ridiculous” for a man to play the cello, that a decent chemist is twelve times more useful than any poet. The attitude to nature among the heroes of the novel is also different. Here Arkady is also against Bazarov. This is what Bazarov says to 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 a lot of that which he denies, for example, his ability to love, his 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 seethes with unused opportunities and unexplored feelings, and this is fully revealed on the verge of death. In the story of Pavel Petrovich, love, for the sake of which he gave up everything, crossed out his career, nevertheless drove out of life all the "strength" of a person and led to the spiritual death of this good person in its own way.
Thus, in the novel "Fathers and Sons", Turgenev showed the ideological struggle of two generations, the struggle of the old and just emerging new world, which is outliving its age, and new ideas and beliefs.
But in no case should the legacy of predecessors be discarded. A strong thread should connect one generation to another, only then is the continuity of the best traditions possible, and movement forward is possible.
The dispute between Bazarov and Kirsanov: who is right?
The dispute between Bazarov and Kirsanov Pavel Petrovich is a significant component of the plot of Turgenev's novel Fathers and Sons. The first embodies a generation of children sensitive to progress, the second - of conservative parents. Ivan Sergeevich brought together in polemics life positions representatives of two different generations. It is not for nothing that the attention of the classic was attracted by the growing confrontation within society. He perspicaciously, almost decades before the Russian revolutions, pointed out by the example of arguing the main opposing forces of the nascent movement: revolutionary democrats and conservative liberals.
Brief characteristics of the characters
Let us note the paradox of the novel: characteristic of its plot-forming opposition is the convincing dominance of the positions of a representative of the younger generation. And this, despite the fact that the landowner Turgenev himself should be attributed to the bourgeois liberals! 
Bourgeois literary criticism gave pejorative reviews of the book in the press. In particular, Mr. M. Antonovich summed up the author's prejudice, that he undeservedly humiliated the younger generation. They tried to “poison” the classics for his views. That is, he could seriously suffer for the truth set forth in the work. Fortunately, committed literary critics, including D. Pisarev and N. Strakhov, have voted in his defense.
The dispute between Bazarov and Kirsanov Pavel is shown by the classic as an ideological confrontation between two imperfect people - types taken directly from Russian reality.
The first one comes from a poor, intelligent family, has obvious creative potential, but he has not yet taken place as a man, as the head of the family. There is still a lot of superficial in it, leaving in mature years.
The second - a hereditary aristocrat, who never made a career in the service, devastated by a hopeless love for the socialite princess R - is a type of a kind of biorobot, aimlessly synergistic.
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 who looks seven years younger than his age. He lives for his own pleasure and is aristocraticly well-groomed. Monitors his appearance: he is always clean-shaven, with well-groomed hands, in patent leather shoes. His trousers are always ironed and his collars are exceptionally fresh. 
With age, Kirsanov is not flabby, has retained the elegance and ease of movement, youthful thinness and fit. Pleasant appearance and demeanor distinguish him, however, upon closer acquaintance, the spiritual emptiness of an aristocrat, superficiality, coldness towards others are striking.
Evgeny Vasilievich Bazarov is a tall young man with irregular features of an oblong face. With narrow cheekbones, his forehead is disproportionately wide. Green eyes look mocking and intelligent, the nose is pointed downwards.
The man is dressed tastelessly, in baggy suits. Him long hair sandy shade, the appearance is colorless and not remembered. However, when talking with people, Bazarov is transformed, he is filled with energy that attracts others to him.
New versus old dispute
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 definite agreement and logical statement on their own. 
They are both charismatic and selfish. It is characteristic that the dispute between Bazarov and Kirsanov Pavel as a result comes to a duel, fortunately, ends comically. Let's try to judge these debaters. This is not at all difficult, because we have the opportunity to look at the subject of their disagreement, 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 dive about to hoarseness? The table of disputes, compiled by us in sections, will help to visualize this conflict of opinions.
The subject of the 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 satisfied with the completely existing way of life. For some reason he considers himself to be a liberal, although he does not express any liberal ideas. This is a typical retired aristocrat officer, engaged in demagoguery about his progressiveness in his spare time. As a person, he is empty, gray and untalented, although he tries to give the impression of a modern man.
Yesterday's medical student is a staunch nihilist. The existing way of life does not suit him at all. For him, neither the Sybarite noblemen nor the downtrodden, disenfranchised peasants are decree. According to Eugene, a new Russia should be built, 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, you can change its people. The ideological disputes between Bazarov and Kirsanov convincingly demonstrate the correctness of the former. Isn't that why the author of the novel is on his side?
The subject of the dispute: how should the peasantry be treated?
Pavel Petrovich always talks very nicely and respectfully about the people. Sometimes, in a purely lordly manner, he renders peasants a penny financial aid. However, he does this not from the heart, but rather for the sake of force. In reality, however, Kirsanov avoids the peasants. He does not even tolerate their smell, and when communicating, he brings a bottle of cologne to his nose. The courtyards also feel the abyss separating them from the master. For them, he is a foreigner.
Bazarov's attitude towards the people is deformed by a radical theory: he looks down on ordinary people, allowing for careless statements. However, his internal mentality is akin to that of a peasant. Although Eugene is rude and mocking to the servants, they understand and respect him.
The subject of controversy: attitude to God and religion
The lines of the dispute between Kirsanov and Bazarov about God are ephemeral - this is the confrontation between an insincere believer and a fighter against God. The first, naturally, loses. Pavel Petrovich is true to himself in matters of freedom of conscience. It is a solid imitation. His faith in God is false. By initiating a duel, he not only shows his pride, but also attempts to kill his neighbor (First Commandment). What can we say further?
Bazarov is an atheist. He considers the mind to be the main driving force of the universe. Arithmetic and chemistry for him are not only more important than poetry and art, but also commensurate with them. This is, of course, a delusion. However, Eugene believed in him so fervently, his position is so emotional that Kirsanova wins in this dispute.
Dispute about the correct life position
The principles of Pavel Petrovich's life are reduced to the outer side of aristocracy. For him, it means being dressed up with a needle, showing courtesy in communication. He reads the English press, follows the British style. The inner side of aristocracy is the genetic connection with the Motherland, which Pushkin, Tolstoy, Turgenev, Tereshchenko, Stolypin possessed. However, this is too difficult for Kirsanov.
The life principle of Bazarov (although he denies the existence of such), perhaps, still exists. We will venture to formulate it. Most likely it is “to be, not to seem”! The sybarity 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.
Controversy about the benefits of art
The aesthetic level of Pavel Petrovich, obviously, is at the level of the primary grades of the gymnasium. Nevertheless, he shows snobbery, declaring his love for art, picturesquely raising his eyes 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 language, he "trolls" the representatives of art, even Pushkin. Readers are encouraged only by his naivety, because he really does not know the work of a genius.
Dispute about love and attitude towards a woman
Pavel Kirsanov, judging by his speeches, is a real gentleman and the last romantic. He is always respectful and passionate about the ladies. However, his biography testifies only to the brilliant love affairs in his youth. Having met the same as himself, Princess R, a hunter for passions, he does not recognize in her a consumer interest in himself, and his personal life is a fiasco.
Kirsanov, for the sake of his ego, is only able to indicate his attitude towards a woman (a duel over Fenichka), but he can no longer fall in love with this internally devastated person.
Young Evgeny Vasilyevich, who has heard enough of nihilistic nonsense, at first declares his detachment from feelings, love, etc. However, this is nothing more than childishness. His love for Anna Sergeevna Odintsova still awakens a deep feeling in him. Real, unseen, natural nobility manifests itself in him when, at the same time dying, he forgives and declares his love for Madame Odintsov. The dispute between Kirsanov and Bazarov (the table clearly compares the internal nature of opponents) was lost by both. However, with a slight amendment. Let's be clear: a woman's love is not a panacea for a man, it is just a magnifying glass for his shortcomings or advantages.
Bazarov's love was morally elevated, while Kirsanov's was destroyed.
Conclusion
Bazarov and Kirsanov show diametrically opposite views. The table of disputes, grouped by section, clearly demonstrates this. Why does Turgenev show such opposition in such detail? Because this is a panorama of an ideological clash of political forces within Russia: old, decaying, obsolete and new, imperfect, but dynamic. 
At the same time, it is necessary to recognize the depth of the mind of the classic who chose these very topics of the disputes between Bazarov and Kirsanov. After all, if we try to extrapolate them to our modern society, then we will also receive diametrically different interpretations from representatives of different segments of the population. The dispute between generations will go on forever. 
In conclusion, let us summarize: the health of any society depends on the balance of opinions, on the ability to find a compromise and the correct path of development. Figuratively speaking, the unfinished, "airborne" dispute between Bazarov and Kirsanov, heating up over time, turned into a revolutionary situation. How sad that the classics are not heard on time!
Fathers and Sons novel
Two duels: verbal and physical fights between Kirsanov and Bazarov
VI, X, XXIV chapters
Define the conflict of the novel. Through the analysis of the conflict to find out to the end the system of images.
From comprehending the scale of Bazarov's personality to thinking about a person's place in life, the measure of his activity, the courage of 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 differences revealed, how are they revealed?
In disputes, dialogues. Finally, in a duel.
Why is a collision between Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich inevitable?
What information can be gleaned from the portrait description of Bazarov, is it given by the author in its entirety or in separate characteristic strokes?
The appearance of Bazarov is not given immediately, but appears from a number of details ("high growth", "self-confidence and intelligence").
"Who is Bazarov?" - ask the Kirsanovs. Arkady's answer is "Nihilist." What do you think about Bazarov's personality?
What does Bazarov's nihilism apply to? Give examples from the text.
For literature and art. Almost all life phenomena.
Do you think it is possible to deduce from the novel itself, was this concept and, accordingly, the phenomenon that it denotes, widespread, well-established?
No, there is no common understanding. This phenomenon is relatively recent for the late 50s.
Nikolai Petrovich is just trying to understand him somehow, 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 respect nothing. The views of the nihilist Bazarov can only be determined by clarifying his position.
Let's analyze the first meeting between Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich.
Pavel Petrovich, greeting Bazarov, "Slightly bent his flexible waist and smiled slightly, but did not give his hand and even put it back in his pocket".
In this scene, Pavel Petrovich's obvious dislike for Bazarov, who did not want to shake hands with the plebeian, is manifested.
Pay attention to the repetition of the word "slightly", which emphasizes the carelessness of Pavel Petrovich's greeting, and to the buffoonery of Prokofich, who, picking up Bazarov's "clothes", retired 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 draw ourselves on these guidelines.
And how does Bazarov behave? Is he offended? Offended? Frustrated?
“Nothing happened,” replies Arkady, “they hesitated a little. But now we are hungry like wolves. Hurry up Prokofich, dad, and I'll be right back. "Wait, I'll go with you," exclaimed Bazarov, suddenly tearing himself off the sofa. "
What does this action of Bazarov mean? What are the thoughts of the hero at this moment?
Bazarov does not enjoy communicating with the older Kirsanovs.
One can guess the thoughts of the hero from one detail. To convey the deep feelings of the hero in one small detail is a feature of I.S. Turgenev.
What are the main topics of disputes 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, nature. After relatively neutral topics about science, art, nature, the dispute turns to questions 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 as there are crafts, titles; and science does not exist at all.
First, you need to learn the alphabet and then take up the book, and we haven't seen the basics yet.
Every person must educate himself.
As for the time - why should I depend on it? Better yet, it depends on me.
The important thing is that twice two is four, and the rest is nothing.
Nature is not a temple, but a workshop, and man is a worker in it.
Aristocracy, liberalism, progress, principles, just think how many foreign. and useless words! The Russian person does not need them for nothing.
We do not preach anything and decided not to take on anything.
First you need to clear the place.
Why do we need this logic? We can do without it.
Raphael is not worth a dime.
I don’t share anyone’s opinion; I have mine.
Only freaks think freely between women.
When the first clash between P.P. and Bazarov? What is the dispute about?
6th chapter, at breakfast. About science.
Do you actually do physics? Pavel Petrovich asked, in turn.
- Physics, yes; generally natural sciences.
- They say that the Germans have recently been very successful 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 think so highly of the Germans? - Pavel Petrovich said with exquisite courtesy. He was beginning to feel a secret irritation. His aristocratic nature was outraged by Bazarov's perfect swagger. This medicinal son was not only not shy, he even answered abruptly and reluctantly, and in the sound of his voice there was something coarse, almost insolent.
- The local scientists are efficient people.
- So-so. Well, and about Russian scientists, you probably, but have such a flattering concept?
- Perhaps so.
“This is a very commendable selflessness,” said Pavel Petrovich, straightening his waist and throwing his head back. - But how did Arkady Nikolaich just tell us that you do not recognize any authorities? Don't believe them?
- But why would I begin to recognize them? And what will I believe? They will tell me the case, I agree, that's all.
- And the Germans say the whole thing? - said Pavel Petrovich, and his face took on such an indifferent, distant expression, as if he had all gone into some transcendental height.
"Not all," Bazarov replied with a short yawn, who clearly did not want to continue his words.
How do both disputants relate to the people? What does Pavel Petrovich appreciate among the people? How does Bazarov treat the people?
To Pavel Petrovich, the religiosity of the people, life according to established business and order, seem to be the primordial and valuable features of the people's life, they touch him. Bazarov hates these qualities. When Pavel Petrovich discusses the patriarchal nature of the Russian people, Bazarov objects to him: “The people believe that when the thunder is thundering, it is Elijah the prophet in a chariot across the sky. Well? Should I agree with him? "
The different attitude of Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich to the religious prejudices widespread among the people proves Bazarov's hatred of backwardness and survivals.
Pay attention to the emotional coloring of the characters' speech. One and the same phenomenon is called differently, and its role in the life of the people is assessed differently. Pavel Petrovich: "He (the people) cannot live without faith." Bazarov: "The gross superstition is strangling us." (ch. X)
Let's open Chapter X, where the debate comes about aristocrats and the role of principles in life.
What are the "principles" of Pavel Petrovich, and how does Bazarov relate to them?
The question of what to recognize, on what, on what grounds to base your beliefs, is extremely important for Pavel Petrovich.
“Without self-esteem, without respect for oneself — and these feelings are developed in an aristocrat — there is no solid foundation for the social. bien public, public building. Personality, my dear sir, is the main thing: the human person must be strong as a rock, for everything is built on it. "
Pavel Petrovich believes that the aristocrats won the right to a leading position in society not by origin, but by moral virtues and deeds ("The aristocracy gave freedom to England and supports it").
Pavel Petrovich argues that the principles of aristocracy, i.e. her moral standards developed the best representatives the previous civilization - the support of the human personality. Only immoral people can live without principles.
V.M. Markovich believes that the principles of Pavel Petrovich “become the subject of ridicule only in relation to the titanic scale of Bazarov's denial. By themselves, they look consistent with Turgenev, in some ways convincing and not devoid of merit. "
What is opposed to the views of Pavel Petrovich? How does Bazarov relate to the nobles and aristocrats?
Pavel Petrovich considers aristocrats to be the basis of society. But his "principles" do not correlate in any way with his activities for the benefit of society. Bazarov, however, believes that inactive people cannot be the basis of society: “You respect yourself and sit with folded hands; what is the use of this for the public good? " (Ch. X)
Can we judge how Pavel Petrovich felt after hearing these words of Bazarov?
Turgenev does not disclose Pavel Petrovich's thoughts, but Kirsanov's reaction (“Pavel Petrovich turned pale”) testifies that Bazarov hurt his innermost feelings.
“This is a completely different question. I do not have to explain to you now why I am sitting with folded hands, as you please express yourself. "
What did Pavel Petrovich mean? What are the reasons for this inaction? Do I need to explain them to Bazarov?
Bazarov already knows the story of Pavel Petrovich's life. He knows the story of Pavel Petrovich's unhappy love, knows how and why Pavel Petrovich's donkey in the village and withdrawn into his own insignificant interests. Even before the main dispute, it is known that Pavel Petrovich is actually a "living dead".
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.
“Personality must be strong as a rock, because everything is built on it” - Kirsanov.
If this statement belongs to Pavel Petrovich, does this mean that his words are at odds with his deeds?
The fact is that for Kirsanov it is important to adhere to social traditions, to a rigorous once and for all established order. 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 order, the law.
What does Bazarov look like next to Pavel Petrovich? Find episodes in the novel that indicate that Bazarov is kind and responsive. Prove that Bazarov's image is positive.
Bazarov's conversation with the courtyard boys, help to Fenichka; Bazarov treats the sick on the estate of his parents, etc.
What does the duel scene add to our hero image? Turning to chapter XXIV?
Bazarov accepts the challenge from Pavel Petrovich. Having injured the enemy, immediately assists him:
Bazarov threw the pistol aside and approached his opponent.
- Are you injured? - he said.
“You had the right to call me to the barrier,” said Pavel Petrovich, “and this is nothing. By condition, each has one more shot.
"Well, excuse me, it's until another time," answered Bazarov and hugged 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 is Arkady telling the story of his uncle? (ch. 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 replies to this: "A man who all his life has put on the card of female love and, when this card was killed to him, became limp and sank to the point that he was not capable of anything, such a person is not a man."
What other circumstances besides unhappy love does Arkady bring?
Arkady explains to Bazarov: "Yes, remember his upbringing, the time in which he lived." “Education! Interjected Bazarov. - Every person should educate himself - well, at least like me, for example. And as for the time - why should I depend on it! “It’s better that it depends on me.”
Let us recall the 40s, the reaction time, the growth of the generation, to which Lermontov predicted: "In inaction it will grow old." Why does not he recognize the arguments of Arkady Bazarov, how he imagines personality, its formation?
Bazarov does not want to be a toy in the hands of circumstances. He makes circumstances, time depends on him! Man is the king of nature, a man who remakes both society and relations in this society - this is the personality in Bazarov's mind. This personality can handle everything.
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 one and a half months before the end of Fathers and Sons, Turgenev remarks: "From the time of the ancient tragedy, we already know that real clashes are those in which both sides are right to a certain extent."
Write a miniature essay "My attitude to the views of Bazarov" or "My attitude to the" principles "of Pavel Petrovich.
Vladimir Korovin. Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev. // 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.S. 120 - 160
"WHO IS RIGHT HERE, WHO IS GUILTY TO DECIDE ...":
"FATHERS AND CHILDREN" I. S. TURGENEV
O. V. Bogdanova,
Saint Petersburg State University
doctor of Philology, Professor
It must be assumed that Turgenev did not undertake the "test of love" for Bazarov by chance. On the one hand, he really touched upon the conflict between fathers and children: the maturing Bazarov fell in love and, as a result, had to reconsider his nihilistic "principles" in the future. On the other hand, having passed the test of love, Bazarov discovered in himself a human soul, inexplicable feelings, should have become closer to the “tender soul” (p. 293) of the Kirsanovs. Love for Madame Odintsova, as it were, equates Bazarov and Kirsanov, puts them side by side. It is no coincidence that the two most important compositional moments - the dispute between Bazarov and Kirsanov (Ch. X) and Bazarov's explanation of love (Ch. XVIII) - are absolutely symmetrically arranged 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 "split" conflict takes place in Turgenev's novel in chapter XXIV. It seems that the "ideological differences" of Pavel Kirsanov and Bazarov, which have already receded into the background, are re-emerging. In a duel situation, the motives of “ideology” and “love” seem to converge, revealing the permissibility of a duel clash of heroes.
Meanwhile, the reason for the 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 vein.
It would seem that the "ideological" opponents clashed in an insurmountable conflict that can only be resolved through a duel. However, no ideological fights between the characters are taking place at this moment: Bazarov, in the absence of Arkady, works hard and hard, "a fever of work has found 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 a sought-after reason, not a "pretext") is stupid and empty jealousy - Fenichka's innocent kiss by Bazarov.
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 mingled with his usual negligence” (p. 310). But she was just joking, for Bazarov is deeply in love with Odintsov. Bazarov's kiss in the gazebo is innocent and expresses admiration for the freshness and youth of Fedosya Nikolaevna.
In the absurdity of the reason that led to the duel, the form of the challenge does not yield. Kirsanov appears at the door of Bazarov's room with "a beautiful cane with an ivory knob (he usually walked without a cane)" (p. 315), which he had taken in case of "violent measures" (p. 316), if Bazarov had not considered the pretext to be sound for a duel.
Before the start of the duel, there is still an assumption that Pavel Kirsanov challenges Bazarov to a duel, trying to protect his brother's honor. He does not name the reasons for Bazarov: “I could explain the reason for you,” Pavel Petrovich began. “But I prefer to remain silent about her. You, for my taste, are superfluous here; I can't stand you, I despise you, and if that's not enough for you. "(P. 316). And further: “We cannot stand each other. What is more? " (p. 316). At the same time, the narrator's commentary: “Pavel Petrovich's eyes sparkled. They flared up in Bazarov too ”(p. 316) - again emphasizes the similarity (emotional state) of the heroes. A well-known correlation of images is also revealed by Bazarov's subsequent words: “You can remain a gentleman. I also accept your challenge in a gentlemanly way ”(p. 316).
but the real reason The duel is revealed by Pavel Kirsanov's phrase, uttered after the duel and addressed to his brother: "Isn't it, Nikolai, in Fenechka there is something in common with Nelly?" (p. 325). Fenechka reminds the former "socialite" of his former lover, Princess R., because Bazarov's liberty, which he allows in relation to Fenechka, for Pavel Petrovich is tantamount to courting Nelly, he reads him as an insult to his (long insulted by real rivals) dignity. Kirsanov's challenge finds the simplest explanations and is motivated by reasons that are not ideological, not even sibling, but exclusively personal.
But what is the reason for Bazarov's consent to a duel, who despises the aristocratic method of testing the "chivalrous spirit" (p. 316)? It is not as obvious as in the case of Pavel Petrovich. But even for Eugene, it is connected with love - with his unrequited love for Madame Odintsova. It is no coincidence that Fenichka's words after the kiss: "You are sinful, Evgeny Vasilyevich" (p. 314) - and the "genuine reproach" that "was heard in her whisper" (p. 314), forced Bazarov to recall "another recent scene" in Nikolskoye, and he felt “contemptuously annoyed” (p. 314). Until recently, Bazarov was ironic about Pavel Petrovich's love afflictions, but now he himself was in the role of "celadon" (p. 314), and the duel with Kirsanov became a kind of outlet for him, at least partially helping to relieve inner emotional stress. Realizing that "from a theoretical point of view, a duel is an absurdity" (p. 315), the hero nevertheless goes into a duel. And the reason for this is again not ideological motives, but personal ones.
Thus, the duel between Bazarov and Pavel Kirsanov is presented in Turgenev's novel not as a culmination point for resolving the ideological contradictions of opponents (as Nikolai Kirsanov believed: the reason "is to some extent explained by the constant antagonism of your mutual views," p. 326), but as a clash opponents burdened with their own individualistic ambitions. That is why the dueling 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 alternate 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 is more? // What is more? "," ... where can I get them? // Exactly where to get them? " (about the seconds), “the barrier is ten steps away. // Ten steps away? " (p. 317). Bazarov seems to be ironic, realizing that everything is “a little lost in the French novel, something incredible” (p. 317), but nevertheless becomes a participant in this farce. "What a comedy we broke off!" (p. 318) - Evgeny will say at the end of the negotiations.
(446 words) The problem of conflict between representatives of different generations has always been relevant. The struggle between fathers and children, ideological disputes and irreconcilability of views are what always worried the minds of writers and philosophers. On the one hand, this misunderstanding seems quite natural, because time passes, everything changes, therefore worldviews cannot lag behind the pace of life. On the other hand, everything is cyclical, the present is replaced by a well-forgotten past, so young people cannot give up the valuable experience of their ancestors. I think young people need a productive dialogue with their parents, just like the older generation. To verify this, consider examples from the literature.
Let us recall the famous novel by I.S. Turgenev "Fathers and Sons". The title itself prepares readers for the conflict of times. The young nihilist Bazarov is absolutely opposite in his views to the nobleman Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov. Throughout the entire work, we see their endless argument about everything in the world. For Eugene, the experience of his ancestors is rubbish, from which he needs to "clear the place." However, Pavel Petrovich is outraged by such a categorical position, because the younger generation should create, not destroy. A complex conflict of new and outdated views pushes the heroes to extreme measures. In the novel, the duel has become a kind of symbol of the eternal clash of "fathers and children", which very rarely finds a peaceful solution. However, the book's finale proves that it is precisely in dialogue that young and mature people need. Only those heroes who were able to establish communication, despite ideological disputes, were awarded happiness. These are Arkady and his father - people who have found mutual understanding. But the irreconcilable Eugene died without knowing happiness. His parents were doomed to visit the grave of their son, who during his lifetime did not find time for a dialogue with them.
In the literature, you can find a lot of works in which such a conflict is "resolved" by the death of one of the opposing sides. The well-known play by A.N. Ostrovsky's "Thunderstorm" is a vivid example of the tragic outcome of an eternal dispute. main character Katerina, having fallen under the complete subordination of Kabanikha, cannot bear such a life. After all, their views and foundations are absolutely opposite. The influence of the older generation turned out to be so disastrous that the youth simply disappeared from home: Varvara fled, Tikhon rebelled against his mother, and Katerina threw herself into the water. However, thus, the dispute between "fathers and children" is not resolved, but only hangs in the air. The heroes of the play did not have enough desire to establish mutual understanding with each other, so their lives were destroyed by confrontation. If Kabanikha, her daughter-in-law, daughter and son sat down at the negotiating table at least once, the tragedy would have been avoided. They would differentiate families, stop reproaching each other and suppressing grievances. This is precisely what they lacked for peaceful coexistence. Therefore, each of us must choose a dialogue, not an argument with parents, because all people need to find a compromise solution.
The opposing views of parents and children on life is an important and urgent problem for all times that needs to be resolved. A constructive dialogue based on mutual understanding and respect is the only right decision that both generations must come to in order to avoid serious negative consequences.
Interesting? Keep it on your wall!