Disputes between Evgeny Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov. Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov

It is not difficult to catch the external conflict between an aristocrat and a democrat: it starts from the first meeting, from Pavel Petrovich's unwillingness to give a hand to Bazarov, from Bazarov's unwillingness to remain in the presence of Pavel Petrovich, etc. The scenes of the dispute between these heroes are certainly one of the ideological culminations of the novel and require careful parsing.

The study of the causes and meaning of Bazarov's collision with Kirsanov Sr. can begin with preliminary work on a deeper study of each of the characters. Such comparative work shows that Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich are complete antipodes. One is a graceful aristocrat, thoroughbred and handsome despite his age. The other is a plebeian, clearly flaunting his democratic unpresentability. One is a gentleman spoiled by the world, the other is a self-broken raznochinets, a doctor's son, who has been making his own way all his life. Specific representatives of the camp of Pavel Petrovich Turgenev named in a letter to Sluchevsky: “Stolypin, Esakov, Rosset ... the best of the nobles ...” Behind Bazarov are “all true deniers ... Belinsky, Bakunin, Herzen, Dobrolyubov, Speshnev and others. ”, and Chernyshevsky, and Pisarev, and the entire democratic revolutionary camp of the Russian intelligentsia.

Naturally, the views on the life of the two heroes should turn out to be opposite. This is revealed not only in moments of direct conflict, but also in the statements of the characters about each other.

It is possible to compile a comparative table of the judgments of Bazarov and his opponent, using quotes and clarifying the wording. It is important to understand the essence of the dispute. Bazarov assesses the current state of the state and society negatively. He prepares to destroy this device, while denying everything that exists. Kirsanov acts as a defender of foundations. His loss in this role is obvious (the commented reading of the dialogue remarks and the analysis of the author's remarks fully reveals this). You can assess the strength of the debaters, starting from the words of Fenichka, said to Bazarov: “I don’t even know what your argument is about, but I see that you are twisting it like that, and like that ...” But we will try to delve deeper into the dispute:

♦ Does Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov know the phenomena that he undertakes to defend?

♦ Does he maintain the current state of society by his participation in its life?

♦ Is he really satisfied with the way life works, including his own?

Analysis of the text will force us to answer all these questions in the negative. Pavel Petrovich has long distanced himself from real life, he does not know properly any of the state institutions and secretly despises those who are successfully advancing in society (for example, Kolyazin). He is squeamish about the peasants and practical life in general. Finally, he is deeply unhappy. Defending "principles", Kirsanov stands up for what he does not like and does not respect himself (modern society). Thus, the representative of the "fathers" is doomed to defeat in the dispute between Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich. But can the representative of the "children" be called the winner?

♦ Does Bazarov know those social institutions that he denies?

♦ What is the positive part of Bazarov's program?

♦ Does the life practice of the hero correspond to his beliefs?

It is easy to see that it is not so simple here either. Bazarov, of course, knows real life better than Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov, but still he is only a student and his experience is in many ways as speculative as that of his opponent (it is no coincidence that he is presented as the experience of a certain party: we saw, we guessed, we are the strength, etc.). Bazarov denies, and this is always easier than offering something. Finally, denying, Bazarov nevertheless exists in the current state, uses its institutions (studies at the university, studies science, goes to the ball), without showing hostility towards him in practice. The life practice of this hero does not coincide with his views.

Let us define the main question, which is the center of hostile statements, is always overshadowed by particulars, but cannot be forgotten and arises again.

“Excuse me, Pavel Petrovich,” said Bazarov, “you respect yourself and sit with folded hands; what is the use of this? .. "

“What are you doing?.. Don’t you chat like everyone else?.. So what? you act, don't you? Are you going to take action?"(Pavel Petrovich)

Who brought, benefits Russia, who does she really need: the Kirsanovs or the Bazarovs? This is what the dispute between Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich is about, this is where such bitterness comes from. But who is right in this dispute? Between those who still have not done anything and those who have not yet done anything, the difference does not seem to be too great. The advantage of Bazarov is apparent. The future is on his side, an opportunity that Kirsanov no longer has. In the era of Dobrolyubov, it seemed that rightness was on the side of Bazarov. But from the position of today, it is clear that the strength of Bazarov is not the strength of action, but the strength of promise. Thus, in the dispute about the fate of Russia, both heroes are theoreticians, both parties are equal.

Maybe the correctness of one of the parties will be revealed by the opponents' statements about global values, such as the people, nature, art, love? This is where something unexpected comes in. In relation to eternal values, it is not so much the difference that is revealed, but the similarity of their positions. Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich evaluate the people approximately the same, and, as it turns out, both are quite far from the peasant: although the democrat knows how to win over the courtyards in Maryino, for the peasants he still remains "something like a pea jester." Neither Bazarov nor Pavel Petrovich in the novel show love for nature. Kirsanov's judgments about Schiller and Goethe correspond to Bazarov's phrase about Pushkin. The indifference of both to the art and beauty of nature is fully revealed through comparison with Nikolai Petrovich and Arkady. As for love, in this respect Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich are similar. Nihilist's phrase: “If you like a woman... try to make sense; but it’s impossible - well, don’t, turn away: the earth didn’t converge like a wedge ”- it completely characterizes the behavior of the secular lion Kirsanov in those years when,“ accustomed to victories ”, he soon achieved his goal. The heroes are given at different stages of their career, but the further fate of Bazarov confirms his inner resemblance to an ideological enemy.

Thus, the analysis makes it possible to make sure that the source of the conflict between Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich is not only their obvious opposite, but also a secret similarity. Mutual hostility is enhanced by the fact that each of them is a strong personality, seeking to influence people, to subjugate them. Obviously, in his youth, Arkady considered his uncle to be a model. Now, under the influence of Bazarov, he must refuse Pavel Petrovich even respect. Resentment against his nephew makes Kirsanov's irritation against the entire younger generation really strong and naturally exacerbates hatred for the "rival", the idol of the young - Bazarov.

The rivalry (again secret) of the characters will be repeated in the second half of the novel. The subject of their struggle will now be Fenechka. At the same time, the internal similarity of the characters will be revealed even more fully: both of them will be untenable. Frightened by one and offended by the other, Fenechka remains a stranger to both of them. Leaving the influence of Bazarov Arkady. Loneliness thickens around each of the opponents. Oddly enough, at the end of the novel, having finally dispersed, these two people, according to their inner experience, will become closest to each other. Turgenev reveals the unity of opposites and thereby reveals the groundlessness of the noisy dispute between the two parties, represented by a democrat and an aristocrat.

Used book materials: Yu.V. Lebedev, A.N. Romanova. Literature. Grade 10. Lesson developments. - M.: 2014

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, nor disputes with Pavel Petrovich; 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 outward 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, and the various intelligentsia are fancifully combined (the grandfather is a deacon 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), 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 with honor withstands this test: 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. 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, "Eugene 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 make fun of ignorance, slavish submission to the masters, to express a skeptical attitude towards the peasant "peace", mutual responsibility.

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 Bazarov, after his departure, 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.

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 “The Dispute of 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

In the novel by Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev, one can find examples of a wide variety of relationships between the characters: romantic, platonic, family, friendly and hostile. Evgeny Bazarov is a very ambiguous person, evoking the love of some and the hatred of others. His relationship with Pavel Petrovich, his uncle - Yevgeny's friend, who invited him to stay at the Kirsanov family estate for the holidays) is especially interesting, since these seemingly complete opposites are not so unambiguously antagonistic.

The dispute between Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich reveals new facets of each personality. Read more about the features of the characters of the two heroes and their relationship in this article.

Pavel Petrovich - a proud military man

In Pavel Petrovich, at first glance, a proud person is guessed. Even his costume reflects this. When the hero first appears before the reader, the narrator notes that he had long neat nails, that although he is no longer young, he still remains an attractive man, and that Pavel Petrovich carries himself with unchanging aristocratic elegance. And how interesting are the disputes between Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich! The "table" of their relationship includes opposition even in appearance.

What are Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich arguing about?

While the narrator notices these conspicuous details, Bazarov immediately guesses in Pavel Petrovich a man who thinks too much of himself. In the eyes of Yevgeny Vasilyevich, his pride is unfounded and absurd. The dispute between Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich, their confrontation, thus, begins with the very acquaintance of the characters.

As we learn a little more about this retired military man's past, we begin to better understand why he behaves the way he does. This military man was the favorite son of General Kirsanov and, in contrast to his brother Nikolai, was always a man of action. By the age of twenty-seven, Pyotr Petrovich was already a captain in the Russian army. He knew how to behave in high society and was popular with women. Thus, Pavel Petrovich from a young age got used to respect and admiration.

Rude young Bazarov from the very beginning was destined to become the antagonist of this man. They were united by extreme vanity, and, even without taking into account the fact that the opinions of the two heroes differed in everything, each saw a threat to himself in the image of the other. From the point of view of Bazarov, Pavel Petrovich is a proud old man, into whom he himself can one day turn. In the eyes of the aristocrat, the young man was an arrogant upstart who had not yet earned the right to be so self-confident. Even before Pavel Petrovich knew anything about Bazarov, he began to dislike him because of his untidy appearance and too long hair.

After Arkady discovered that Bazarov is a nihilist and informed his uncle about this, Pavel Petrovich has a clue that can be used to justify his dislike for the guest. The nephew tries to argue, saying that a nihilist is one who critically evaluates all things, but Pavel Petrovich rejects this philosophy as a new fad of young people who do not recognize any authorities.

He compares this way of thinking with unfortunate examples from history, in particular with the ideas of supporters of Hegelian logic, and with the manner of a connoisseur says to Arkady: "Let's see how you will exist in the void, in Paul appeals to his experience and wisdom and speaks as if he already knows in advance that nihilism is a deeply vicious philosophy of youth.

Argument about principles. Views of Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov

When Pavel Petrovich involves Bazarov in a dispute, he appeals to the English system of values. The main idea of ​​this aristocrat: "... that without self-esteem, without respect for oneself - and in an aristocrat these feelings are developed - there is no solid foundation for a public ... bien public, a public building." Thus, the retired military associates with aristocratic values, gradually developing this idea. So the dispute between Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich continues.

On the other hand, in the discussion, he gradually moves to the absurdity of the existence of those who have no principles, and presents the enemy with a whole set of principles from high society, which he considers indisputable. Although Pavel Petrovich, perhaps, would begin to deny this, it is still important for him not just the presence or absence of values ​​as such. The presence or absence of aristocratic values ​​is more important. This is what Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich are arguing about.

As the plot develops, both the shortcomings and the virtues of this aristocrat clearly emerge. His military pride makes him challenge Bazarov in the form of a duel, which ends for Pavel Petrovich in a complete fiasco.

It's not just that the old aristocrat gets hurt, but that he had to explain to everyone that it was his fault.

However, the military's assertion that a person cannot live without values, and his sense of self-respect, is ultimately justified. We learn this mainly from the isolation and confusion that Bazarov's attempts to find his place in the world lead to. Arkady, who was not endowed with such a strong will, but at the same time was not so devoted to traditional values, arranges his life quite happily. Almost without remembering himself, Eugene follows the path of a retired military man and becomes entangled in his failed love. The dispute between Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich seems somewhat absurd at this moment, because the life lines of the heroes and their behavior turn out to be so similar ...

History of Pavel Petrovich

When Bazarov begins to laugh at Pavel Petrovich, Arkady decides to tell him the story of his uncle, in the hope that this story will arouse sympathy in his friend. We learn that unsuccessful love played a big role in the life of Pavel Petrovich. He fell head over heels in love with a mysterious woman named Princess R. Pavel Petrovich courted her, and after he succeeded, his obsession with the princess only increased.

Rejected lover

When his beloved ran away from Paul and her family, Paul resigned and followed her. He was ashamed of his behavior, but her image sunk into Pavel Petrovich's soul too much, and he could not get it out of his head. It is not clear what exactly attracted the military princess R. Perhaps, by her mystery, by the fact that it was impossible to fully understand or conquer her.

In Baden, Pavel Petrovich managed to meet her, but a few months later the princess ran away again. After that, he returned to Russia and did his best to play his former role in society, although he did it without his former enthusiasm. After Pavel Petrovich heard that the princess had died in Paris in a state close to insanity, he gradually lost interest in life and stopped doing anything.

The Irony of Fate

Bazarov did not like this story. He believed that it was not masculine to give up after being defeated on the love front, and suggested that Paul spent the rest of his days teaching young people, and could not do anything worthwhile with his own life.

By an evil irony of fate, Bazarov subsequently, like a former military man, becomes obsessed with Anna Sergeevna and cannot cope with this feeling and accept the fact that he was rejected.

However, the disputes between Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich do not stop there. Who is right?

Hidden motives

When we meet Pavel Petrovich, the narrator describes him this way: "A lonely bachelor entered that vague, twilight time, a time of regrets, similar to hopes, and hopes, similar to regrets, when youth has passed, and old age has not yet come." The vague feeling of despair that owned the hero can explain many of his actions. It also explains why he clung so desperately to his pride and his family, since there was nothing else to cling to.

As the story progresses, the softer side of the elderly aristocrat is revealed to us. Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich, the dispute between which never stopped, of course, were enemies. However, the real reason for his duel with Bazarov was that he wanted to defend his brother's honor, not his own. His last wish was for Nikolai to marry Fenechka and be happy.

Although Paul was unable to achieve his own happiness, he tries to make those around him happy. The hero lives the life of a brother, but still cannot forget the betrayal of Princess R. and become happy. He doesn't choose to be unhappy, he just can't help it.

The attraction of Bazarov

The strength and weakness of Bazarov's position in the dispute with Pavel Petrovich are present at the same time. It is easy to condemn Eugene. He thinks he is the best. He is rude. Eugene does not recognize any of those things that fill our lives with meaning (love, for example). Bazarov's disputes with Pavel Petrovich sometimes cause bewilderment. At times, Eugene is so stubborn that he is completely unable to admit his own wrong. But still...

Bazarov inspires. For the first time we see him with the admiring eyes of Arkady, and later we learn that his friend is just one of his students. As soon as these two move away from each other, we begin to see Bazarov in a more objective light, to see him as a born leader. He is a powerful, dignified person. When Yevgeny Vasilievich says to Pavel Petrovich: "At the present time, denial is the most useful - we deny," the reader cannot help but succumb to the power of these words and this person.

This topic is discussed in great detail in the dispute between Evgeny Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich. The topics of their disputes cannot be covered in one article. We recommend that you refer to the original source for a deeper understanding. The lines of dispute between Evgeny Bazarov and Pavel Kirsanov can thus be continued.

Final scene

Turgenev himself admired the strong, almost magnetic personality of Bazarov. He admitted that he cried when he described the scene of the death of Yevgeny Vasilyevich. The character of Bazarov is fully revealed in this final scene. He's not just a haughty young upstart. This man was really talented and wanted to do something great with his life.

Looking into his past, Bazarov thinks: “And I, too, thought: I’ll break off a lot of things, I won’t die, where! There is a task, because I’m a giant!” Although he does not show the fear of death, yet its approach makes Eugene feel his own insignificance, and not just talk about it. However, in the end, the fact that Bazarov is not remorseful is what makes his character so compelling. Eugene is the epitome of audacious youth with its delusion that we will never die. After all, why should we die?

Is there any benefit in denial?

When the novel "Fathers and Sons" was first published in 1862, Turgenev was severely criticized by the younger generation, because the youth believed that Bazarov's character was a parody of her. Of course, Ivan Sergeevich did not have such an intention when creating the work, but at times Evgeny really resembles a parody, but not of youth in general, but of himself. One involuntarily recalls the sharpness of a retired military man, launched into his address: "He does not believe in principles, but he believes in frogs." Evgeny Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov in an ideological dispute reveal both their strengths and weaknesses.

Bazarov has a complex character. It is impossible to put forward a simple argument against him, but Eugene was deeply mistaken. Perhaps it is his shortcomings, rather than what makes the character of this young nihilist so interesting and convincing.