The dispute between Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov is a significant component of the plot of the Turgenev novel "Fathers and Sons".
The first embodies a generation of children sensitive to progress, the second - conservative parents. Ivan Sergeevich reduced the pole position of the representatives of two different generations. No wonder the attention of the classic was attracted by the growing confrontation within society. He shrewdly, almost tens of years before the Russian revolutions, pointed to the arguing main opposing forces of the emerging movement: revolutionary democrats and conservative liberals.
Brief characterization
Note the paradox of the novel: characteristic in its plot-forming confrontation is the convincing dominance of the positions of the younger generation. And this, despite the fact that the landowner Turgenev himself should be attributed to the bourgeois liberals!
Bourgeois literary criticism in the press gave derogatory book reviews. In particular, Mr. M. Antonovich summarized the author’s bias, that he had undeservedly humiliated the younger generation. Classic tried to "poison" for his views. That is, he could seriously suffer for the truth set forth in the work. Fortunately, biased literary scholars, including D. Pisarev and N. Strakhov, cast their vote in his defense.
The dispute between Bazarov and Pavel Kirsanov is shown by the classic as the ideological confrontation of two imperfect people - types taken directly from Russian reality.
The first one comes from a poor intellectual 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 alluvial, leaving in mature years.
The second - a hereditary aristocrat who never made a career in service, devastated by a hopeless love for socialite Princess R - represents the type of a kind of biorobot, aimlessly sybaric.
Differences in appearance
Even describing the appearance of these characters, the author used the antithesis. Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov - a man of 43 years old, of average height, looking seven years younger than his age. He lives for his pleasure and is aristocratically well-groomed. He looks after his appearance: he is always clean-shaven, with well-groomed hands, in patent leather shoes. His trousers are always ironed, and his collars are of exceptional freshness.
With age, Kirsanov was not a flabber, retained the elegance and ease of movement, youthful thinness and fit. Pleasant appearance and behaviors distinguish him, however, with a closer acquaintance, the aristocratic spiritual emptiness, superficiality, coldness to others are striking.
Evgeny Vasilievich Bazarov is a young man of high stature with irregular features of an oblong face. With narrow cheekbones, his forehead is disproportionately wide. Green eyes look mockingly and smartly, the nose is pointed down.
Dressed man tasteless in baggy suits. He has long sand-colored hair, his appearance is colorless and not remembered. However, talking with people, Bazarov transforms, he is filled with energy that attracts others to him.
The dispute between the new and the old
Their argument can only be resolved by time and real facts. These characters are so different and intolerant of each other that they cannot come to a certain agreement and logical statement on their own.
They are both charismatic and selfish. It is characteristic that the argument between Bazarov and Pavel Kirsanov as a result reaches a duel, fortunately ending in a comic. 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 disagreements, relying on historical experience. What does the representative of the generation of children and the follower of the views of the fathers dive to hoarseness about: Bazarov and Kirsanov? The table of disputes, compiled by sections, will help to present this conflict of views clearly.
Subject of the dispute: what 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 attributes himself to the liberals, although he does not express any liberal ideas. This is a typical retired aristocratic officer, in his spare time engaged in demagogy about his progressiveness. As a person, he is empty, gray and mediocre, although he is trying to impress the modern man. | Yesterday's medical student is a staunch nihilist. The existing way of life does not suit him at all. For him, there is no decree for both noblemen-sybarites and slaughtered, disenfranchised peasants. According to Eugene, a new Russia should be built, discarding traditions and foundations of both the first and second, despising feelings, treating nature as a workshop. In his view, the revolution is consistent with progress. For only by changing the state, you can change its people. The ideological disputes of Bazarov and Kirsanov convincingly demonstrate the correctness of the first. Is that why the author of the novel is on his side? |
Subject of dispute: how should the peasantry be treated?
Pavel Petrovich always very beautifully and respectfully talks about the people. Sometimes, purely lordly, he provides peasants with penniless material assistance. However, this is not done from the heart, but rather for force. In reality, Kirsanov eschews the peasants. He does not even tolerate their smell, and when communicating, he brings a bottle of cologne to his nose. Yards also feel the abyss separating them from the master. For them he is a foreigner. | The attitude to the people of Bazarov is deformed by a radical theory: he looks down on ordinary people, allowing sloppy statements. However, his inner mentality is akin to the peasant. Although Eugene is rude and mocking to the yard, they understand and respect him. |
Subject matter: attitude towards God and religion
The lines of the dispute between Kirsanov and Bazarov about God are ephemeral - this is a confrontation between an insincere believer and a godless fighter. The first, of course, loses. Pavel Petrovich in matters of freedom of conscience is true to himself. It is a complete imitation. His faith in God is false. When initiating a duel, he not only shows his pride, but also attempts to kill his neighbor (First Commandment). What can I say further? | Bazarov is an atheist. He considers the mind the main driving force of the universe. Arithmetic and chemistry for him are not only more important than poetry and art, but also commensurate with them. This, of course, is a fallacy. However, Eugene believed so ardently in him, his position is so emotional that even Kirsanova wins in this dispute. |
The debate about the right attitude
The principles of life of Pavel Petrovich are reduced to the external side of aristocracy. For him, this means being dressed with a needle, showing courtesy in communication. He reads the English press, follows the British style. The inner side of aristocracy is a genetic connection with the homeland, which Pushkin, Tolstoy, Turgenev, Tereshchenko, Stolypin possessed. However, this is too complicated for Kirsanov. | The life principle of Bazarov (although he denies the existence of such), perhaps, still exists. We dare to formulate it. Most likely it is “to be, not to seem”! The sybarism of the nobility is alien to him. He is constantly busy with labor, believing that the best reward for a person is the tangible, tangible results of his work. |
The debate about the benefits of art
The aesthetic level of Pavel Petrovich, obviously, is at the level of the elementary classes of the gymnasium. Nevertheless, he shows snobbery, declaring his love for art, picturesquely raising his eyes to heaven. 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” representatives of art, even Pushkin. Readers are encouraged only by his naivety, because he really does not know the work of a genius. |
The debate about love and attitude towards a woman
Judging by his speeches, Pavel Kirsanov is a real gentleman and the last romantic. He always talks respectfully and passionately about ladies. However, his biography testifies only to brilliant love affairs in his youth. Having met Princess Hunter, the passion hunter, who is the same as Princess R himself, he does not recognize her consumer interest in himself, and his personal life fails. Kirsanov, for the sake of his ego, is only able to indicate his attitude to a woman (a duel due to Fenichka), however, he cannot fall in love with this internally devastated man. | Young Yevgeny Vasilievich, having heard a lot of nihilist nonsense, at first declares his detachment from feelings, love, etc. However, this is nothing more than childishness. His love for Anna Sergeyevna Odintsova still awakens a deep feeling in him. A real, unshowable, natural nobility is manifested in him when he, while dying, is forgiven and declared in love by Odintsova. The dispute between Kirsanov and Bazarov (the table clearly compares the internal nature of the opponents) is lost by both. True, with a slight amendment. Let's make it clear: a woman’s love is not a panacea for a man, she’s just a magnifying glass for his shortcomings or advantages. Bazarov’s love was morally exalted, and Kirsanova was destroyed. |
Conclusion
Bazarov and Kirsanov show diametrically opposite views. The table of disputes, grouped into sections, demonstrates this. Why does Turgenev show such a confrontation in such detail? Yes, because this is a panorama of the ideological clash of political forces within Russia: old, decaying, obsolete and new, imperfect, but dynamic.
Along with this, it is necessary to recognize the depth of mind of the classic, who chose precisely these topics of dispute between Bazarov and Kirsanov. After all, if we try to extrapolate them to our modern society, we will also receive diametrically different interpretations from representatives of different strata of the population. The dispute of generations will last forever.
To conclude, we summarize: the health of every society depends on a balance of opinions, on the ability to find a compromise and the right path of development. Speaking figuratively, the dispute between Bazarov and Kirsanov, "hanging in the air", heated up over time, grew into a revolutionary situation. How sad that the classics are not heard on time!