Bazarov and his attitude to science. Bazarov and Kirsanov: disputes about life, culture, principles

MY
ATTITUDE TO BAZAROV

Tasks and tests on the topic "MY ATTITUDE TO BAZAROV"

• Compound sentences with disjunctive relations

  Lessons: 1 Assignments: 8 Tests: 1

• Compound sentences with adversative relations - Compound sentence 9th grade

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

Municipal educational institution "Gymnasium No. 1"

Literature lesson in 10th grade

« External conflict novel

I. S. Turgenev “Fathers and Sons”

Biysk 2007

Objectives: 1) to identify the meaning of the ideological confrontation between “fathers” and “sons”; 2) to develop generalization and systematization skills in the process of working on a work of art; 3) Lesson progress:

Teacher's word

Let's try, based on the author's characteristics of the portrait, character, and lifestyle of the hero, to form our own personal attitude towards the character.

Marina VOZNESENSKAYA,
10th grade,
school at the Russian Embassy
in the Republic of Cyprus
(literature teacher -
Evgeniy Vasilievich Vasilenko)

Philosophical views Bazarova and their test of life

Turgenev in the novel “Fathers and Sons” wanted to understand and show the image of the new man of his time.

Bazarov, the main character of the novel, is a nihilist. He resolutely and mercilessly denies everything: the social order, idle talk, love of the people, as well as art and love. The subject of his “worship” is practical benefit.

Bazarov differs from the Kirsanovs in his energy, masculinity, strength of character and independence. Turgenev wrote: “I dreamed of a gloomy, wild, large figure, half grown out of the soil, strong, evil, honest - and yet doomed to destruction, because it still stands on the threshold of the future, I dreamed of some kind of strange pendant with Pugachev.”

It should be noted that the novel does not show Bazarov's childhood. But it is known that a person’s character is formed in the first years of his life. Maybe Turgenev had no idea how such characters were formed? Bazarov is interested in natural sciences. Every day he is filled with work and new searches. “Bazarov got up very early and went two or three miles away, not to walk - he couldn’t stand walks without a purpose - but to collect herbs.” He admitted to Arkady that his passion for work made him a man. “You only need to achieve your goal with your own work.” Accustomed to relying only on his own mind and energy, Bazarov developed a calm self-confidence. He doesn’t care at all what others think of him: “A real person shouldn’t care about that; real man one about whom there is nothing to think, but whom one must obey or hate.”

He reduces the relationship between a man and a woman to physiology, art to “the art of making money, or no more hemorrhoids,” that is, the whole world of beauty is completely alien to him, which he calls “romanticism, nonsense, rot, art.”

His philosophy of existence originates from a similar attitude to life and consists in the complete denial of all the foundations of society, all beliefs, ideals and norms of human life. “A nihilist is a person who does not bow to any authorities, who does not accept a single principle on faith, no matter how respected this principle may be,” says Arkady in the novel, apparently in the words of his teacher (Bazarov). But denying everything is also a principle.

In the dispute with Pavel Petrovich, Bazarov’s views are even more clearly expressed. All of Pavel Petrovich’s principles boil down to preserving the old order in Russia. Bazarov seeks to destroy this order. “There is not a single civil resolution in Russia that does not deserve criticism,” he believes. However, Bazarov is not shown in any way in public activities, and we do not know whether he has real plans to put his views into practice.

When the dispute touches on the question of attitude towards the people, Pavel Petrovich says that the Russian people are “patriarchal”, “sacredly honor traditions” and “cannot live without faith” and that therefore the nihilists do not express their needs and are completely alien to them. Bazarov agrees with the statement about patriarchy, but for him this is only evidence of the backwardness of the people (“The people believe that when thunder roars, it is Elijah the prophet who rides across the sky in a chariot”), its failure as a social force (“... freedom itself , which the government is busy with, is unlikely to be of any use to us, because our peasant is happy to rob himself just to get drunk on dope in a tavern.” Bazarov considers himself closer to the people than Pavel Kirsanov: “My grandfather plowed the land. Ask any of your own peasants which of us - you or me - he would rather recognize as a compatriot,” although this does not prevent him from despising the people, “if they deserve contempt.”

Bazarov does not recognize spiritual origin neither in nature (“Nature is not a temple, but a workshop, and man is a worker in it”), nor in man. He treats a person as a biological organism: “All people are similar to each other, both in body and soul... One human specimen is enough to judge all the others. People are like trees in a forest; not a single botanist will study each individual birch tree.”

After Bazarov has presented his views quite thoroughly, testing them with life begins.

When friends arrive in the city, they encounter Kukshina and Sitnikov, who clearly appear as caricatures of Bazarov, nihilists. Bazarov treats them ironically, but nevertheless is forced to endure them so as not to lose his supporters. The words of Pavel Petrovich are very suitable for them: “Before, young people had to study; I didn’t want to be branded as ignorant, so they toiled unwillingly. And now they should say: everything in the world is nonsense! - and the trick is in the bag. And in fact, before they were just idiots, but now they suddenly became nihilists.”

It becomes clear that the nihilist Bazarov is alone in the public arena, although he himself asserted: “There are not as few of us as you think.”

Next in the novel comes the most, in my opinion, important test of the hero: Bazarov suddenly finds himself under the power of a “natural element,” which is called love. The nihilist claims that romanticism is nonsense, nonsense, and he himself is tested by the feeling of love and turns out to be powerless before this feeling. Turgenev is convinced that nihilism is doomed to destruction, if only because it is powerless in the face of the nature of human feelings. According to the precise remark of G.B. Kurlyandskaya, “Turgenev deliberately presented Bazarov as a deeply emotional person, carrying the fullness of sensations, in order to put her in clear contradiction with false beliefs that eliminate romance and poetry from life.”

At the beginning of the novel, Bazarov laughs at Pavel Petrovich, who was touched by the “mysterious look” of Princess R.: “And what is this mysterious relationship between a man and a woman? We physiologists know what this relationship is. Study the anatomy of the eye: where does that mysterious look come from, as you say?” But a month later he already says to Madame Odintsova: “Maybe you’re right; Maybe, for sure, every person is a mystery. Yes, although you, for example...”

Life turns out to be much more complicated than Bazarov’s constructions. He sees that his feelings are not limited to “physiology,” and with anger he finds in himself that very “romanticism” that he so ridiculed in others, calling him “foolishness” and weakness.

Unrequited love leaves its mark on Bazarov: he falls into depression, cannot find a place for himself anywhere, reconsiders his views and finally realizes the hopelessness of his position in the world.

“I’m lying here under a haystack... the narrow place that I occupy is so tiny in comparison with the rest of the space where I am not and where no one cares about me; and the part of time that I manage to live is so insignificant before eternity, where I am not and will not be... And in this atom, at this mathematical point, the blood circulates, the brain works, it wants something too. What a disgrace! What nonsense!”

Further, one can trace a certain vicious circle in Bazarov’s thoughts: “...you said today, passing by the hut of our elder Philip, - it is so nice, white, so, you said, Russia will then reach perfection when the last man has the same room , and each of us should contribute to this... And I hated this last guy, for whom I have to bend over backwards and who won’t even say thank you to me... and why should I thank him? Well, he will live in a white hut, and a burdock will grow out of me; Well, what next?” This means, from Bazarov’s point of view, his theory becomes meaningless, since Russia will not achieve perfection if he and everyone are not going to do something for its good. “To understand the tragedy of Bazarov, you need to remember that he is a maximalist, that he would be satisfied with the resolution of human issues<...>immediately and completely. Immediately and completely - this means nowhere and never” (Yu. Mann).

Even in his last conversation with Pavel Petrovich, Bazarov renounces his previous view of the people and admits that it is difficult to understand him: “The Russian peasant is the same a mysterious stranger, about which Mrs. Radcliffe once talked so much. Who will understand him? He doesn’t understand himself.” And we see that he still remains alien to the people: “Alas! Shrugging his shoulder contemptuously, knowing how to talk to the peasants, Bazarov (as he boasted in a dispute with Pavel Petrovich), this self-confident Bazarov did not even suspect that in their eyes he was still something of a fool...” Left without supporters, Having broken up with Arkady without regret (“You are a nice fellow, but you are still a soft, liberal gentleman”), having received the refusal of his beloved woman and having lost faith in the correctness of his worldview, tested by life, Bazarov ceases to value his life. Therefore, his death can be regarded not only as an accident or suicide, but also as a logical consequence of his spiritual crisis.

Which form the ideological basis famous novel famous writer I. Turgenev “Fathers and Sons” are ideological opponents in this work. Both represent different worldviews, which are fundamentally different from each other. The first is a nihilist commoner, a materialist in his views on the world, the second is an aristocrat in spirit and by blood, a conservative by nature. So different personalities, of course, they couldn’t find it mutual language, this led to an ill-fated duel between them.

Social contradictions

Bazarov and Kirsanov, whose disputes served as the basis for the conflict between these heroes, belonged to different social groups. The first came from the family of a simple district doctor. He spent his entire life at work and did not tolerate free time, which, in fact, is what Pavel Petrovich did.

Bazarov studied a lot and was engaged in science. In addition, the author makes it clear to the reader: he did not disdain physical labor. Kirsanov, on the contrary, was left to his own devices. He didn't bother himself with any activities. The son of a military officer, an aristocrat and nobleman, Pavel Petrovich led an idle lifestyle in the village. So different positions led to their first encounter, which revealed more deep differences between them.

A look at life principles

Bazarov and Kirsanov, whose disputes concerned the most important aspects of human existence, on the very first evening of their acquaintance experienced a lively hostility towards each other.

During their general conversation, both discovered completely different views on the principles of human existence. Kirsanov argued that a person should be guided in life by clearly developed principles. Bazarov, on the contrary, believed that one should accept only what is practically useful. Pavel Petrovich defended the exclusive right of the aristocracy to a leading position in society: in his opinion, the nobles earned the right to be at the top of society not by noble origin, but by deeds. Evgeniy Vasilyevich does not accept any authorities.

About the society

The two main opponents in the novel “Fathers and Sons” are Bazarov and Kirsanov. The disputes between these characters are interesting because they show the clash of two worldviews of the mid-nineteenth century: the noble-aristocratic and the revolutionary-raznochinsky. Bazarov considered his contemporary social system to be outdated and in need of complete transformation.

At the same time, the weak point in this character’s explanations is that he does not offer anything in return for the destroyed way of life. He talks like a maximalist. Bazarov does not even allow the thought that many useful things can be taken and borrowed from the old system. The hero confidently asserts the need to break absolutely everything, without any exceptions. This position shocks and at the same time irritates his opponent, who considers the preservation of the old social structure to be the key to well-being.

About culture

The dispute between Bazarov and Pavel Kirsanov is perhaps the most interesting part of their conversation for schoolchildren. The protagonist's attitude towards culture is also negative. He believes that works of painting, literature, and music have no practical benefit for humans and therefore useless. These words shock not only Kirsanov, but also his brother, who, being an esthete by nature, loved to play music. Pavel Petrovich refuses to understand his interlocutor, and this, perhaps, is his weak point. He only becomes indignant and irritated, but does not find or provide any explanations in favor of his point of view about the necessity and usefulness of art.

The deep split in society in general and among the intelligentsia in particular in the mid-nineteenth century is proven by the dispute between Bazarov and Kirsanov. Quotes from their conversation allow us to better understand the position of the characters. Each of them looked at the same things completely differently. The first, for example, argued that “nature is a workshop, and man is a worker in it.” He also believed that in order to improve society, one must first get rid of all old ideas. Kirsanov objects that one cannot only destroy, that “after all, it is necessary to build.” However, Evgeniy Vasilyevich, as a maximalist, believes that first you need to completely get rid of everything that is associated with idealism.

Duel

The dispute between Bazarov and Kirsanov ended in a duel in which the latter was slightly wounded in the leg. It is significant that Evgeniy Vasilyevich, who considered the duel a relic of the old regime, accepted the challenge and even shot.

However, in this episode of the novel it is not so much the physical confrontation that is important as the completion ideological conflict, which the author leaves open. Although the former opponents were reconciled in words, Turgenev makes it clear that time will determine who is right in this endless dispute between fathers and sons.

Bazarov is a representative of the young

generations. His personality is grouped

those properties that are small

scattered in fractions among the masses.

D. I. Pisarev

In the article “About “Fathers and Sons”” Turgenev wrote about Bazarov: “... I excluded everything artistic from the circle of his sympathies,” emphasizing that “I had to draw his figure this way.” From the text of the novel it is clear that Bazarov denies both art in general and its individual types, in particular poetry, painting, and music.

To Pavel Petrovich’s question: “So you don’t recognize art?” - Bazarov exclaims with a grin: “The art of making money.” He speaks sharply negatively about poetry and poets: “A decent chemist is twenty times more useful than any poet,” he advises replacing Pushkin with the materialist Buchner, and calls poetry “nonsense.” ABOUT the greatest painter Rafaele Bazarov says that he is “not worth a penny.” Turgenev's hero considers music a frivolous activity. In a conversation with Odintsova, he openly admits: “You don’t assume in me artistic meaning“Yes, I really don’t have it in me.”

And at the same time, Bazarov knows works of art and literature: he quotes Byron’s “The Bride of Abydos” by heart, is familiar with the novels of Fenimore Cooper, and the ballads of Schiller. Why does Bazarov treat art this way?

Bazarov denies art because it was in the 60s of the 19th century that it was placed by writers and critics from the camp of “pure art” above those civil and political tasks that required the fastest resolution at that time.

This was an era of bitter struggle between Democrats and Liberals. In Bazarov’s statements one can hear echoes of the debate between the “sixties” democrats and supporters of “pure art.” Among the first were those who, in polemics, attacking the theorists of “pure art”, were inclined to deny art itself. The democrats destroyed the aesthetics of the nobility, and Turgenev attributed to them the destruction of all aesthetics, the complete denial of art. He endowed his hero with such extreme views. And since the writer himself held directly opposite views, then, naturally, Bazarov’s attitude towards art could not be reflected in the author’s sympathies in the novel.

to his ideological opponents- liberal representatives younger generation The democrats answered something like this: if Raphael, whom you extol so much, is above everything that is most dear to us, what we believe in and what we fight for, then in that case we do not need your Raphael. That’s roughly what Bazarov said, only with his characteristic laconicism: “Raphael is not worth a penny.”

The ideological struggle for Pushkin between democrats and liberals was that they valued the poet’s work differently. For the democrats, led by Chernyshevsky, the content of art was everything that aroused public interest. For them, Pushkin was the poet of “real life.” He was dear to them as the author of freedom-loving poems, “ The captain's daughter", "History of the village of Goryukhin" and other works of critical direction. For liberals, who valued the poet as the author of romantic poems and elegies, love lyrics During these years, Pushkin turned out to be the banner of “art for art’s sake.” The misconception of Bazarov, as well as of some of his real prototypes, was that they rushed to attack Pushkin himself, instead of exposing the liberals who falsely interpreted the work of the great poet. Material from the site

This misconception spread among wide circles of student youth, who began to oppose specific sciences to art, and criticism of various social vices society - a sense of beauty. The democrat of the 60s could not like the fact that art was used by some liberal figures to cover up class and social injustice. The nihilist commoner transferred his hostility towards these figures to art as a means they used.

All these facts were known to Turgenev. Therefore, creating the character of a common democrat of the 60s, he endowed his hero with harsh critical statements about art.

Bazarov’s limitation is that he did not take into account the effective, educational, aesthetic power of art, which played a huge role in the development and formation of both the individual and society as a whole.

Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the search

On this page there is material on the following topics:

• bazaars to love, to education, to the people, to art
• attitude to the art of Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich
• Bazarov's attitude to art, what chapter
• views on literature, art of Bazarov
• what does Bazarov think about art?