Ideological differences between Pavel Petrovich and Evgeny Bazarov. Storyline outcome

In his work “Fathers and Sons” I.S. Turgenev showed for the most part not the conflict of generations, but the opposition of liberals and democrats. Each of these movements sought to improve society. which runs through the entire novel, personify these two directions. The author very clearly depicts the confrontation between representatives of two different cultures.

Author about the novel “Fathers and Sons”

Turgenev himself says about the novel “Fathers and Sons” that it is directed against representatives of the nobility and aristocracy.

Bazarov and Kirsanov, whose dispute unfolds on the pages of the work, are characters with different views from each other. These are people of different backgrounds.

The main reason for the confrontation between the two heroes is the complete opposite of judgment on all issues: moral, political, spiritual.

used by the author

In order to emphasize the contrast of his characters, the author uses techniques that show their complete difference from each other. He achieves this by describing appearance characters, manners of dressing, behavioral characteristics. We can easily imagine Bazarov: impetuous, sharp, fast, rude, with red hands, dressed in a robe. He always says what he thinks.

Pavel Petrovich, on the contrary, is elegant, slender, “thoroughbred”. Kirsanov's gestures are full of nobility and imagery. His hands are beautiful, with pink nails.

The writer’s manner of behavior alone prepares us for the fact that disputes between Bazarov and Pavel Kirsanov will certainly take place.

The attitude of the heroes towards the aristocracy

So, the attitude of the two heroes to different moments in life is fundamentally different from each other.

Bazarov and Kirsanov, whose disputes form a significant part of the novel, certainly have different attitudes towards the nobility.

Pavel Petrovich defines aristocracy as main force, promoting As actions that contribute to the transformation of life, Kirsanov chooses liberal reforms.

Evgeny Bazarov sees the inability of the aristocracy to active work. In his eyes, nobles cannot bring any benefit to social development.

Heroes debate about nihilism

The dispute between Bazarov and Kirsanov certainly touches on the topic of nihilism. The characters see his role in the life of society differently. For Pavel Petrovich, nihilists are unprincipled impudents and cynics who do not respect social norms and values. Bazarov is a real nihilist. For him, only what is useful is important; he considers revolutionary changes necessary. There are no principles for Evgeniy.

Debates about the common people

Bazarov and Kirsanov, whose disputes permeate the entire novel, perceive the position of the people in society differently.

Pavel Petrovich, who has no idea how a simple peasant lives, is touched by his patriarchy. Bazarov finds the people ignorant, poorly informed about their own rights. For Kirsanov, the life of peasants, proceeding according to the same orders that were established by their distant ancestors, is completely natural and correct. Bazarov sees darkness and ignorance common people.

This different opinion It was not without reason that the heroes formed an opinion about the life of peasants. Evgeny, by his origin, is a commoner, a hard worker, he understands the common people well. Pavel Petrovich comes from a noble family, completely far from peasant life. The folk faith that Kirsanov admires so much is defined by Bazarov as superstition.

The inability of the heroes to find a compromise and constant contradictions led to a duel between them.

Debates about art and nature

Bazarov and Kirsanov, whose disputes do not bypass even art, determine its place in human life differently. Bazarov sees no point in reading fiction, nature is a resource for him. Kirsanov, on the contrary, appreciates art and perceives nature as its unique component.

The origin of the disputes between Bazarov and Kirsanov

Bazarov and Kirsanov, whose disputes are an integral part immortal work Turgenev, have a certain nature. Evgeniy considers Pavel Petrovich a worthless person leading a useless life. Kirsanov’s ambition was hurt by this attitude, because he always considered himself a noble, active person. For this, Pavel Petrovich hates Bazarov. Most likely, it is thanks to this strong feeling the characters argue throughout the entire work. It is the awareness of meaninglessness own existence forces Kirsanov to enter into dialogue with Evgeniy.

Disputes between Bazarov and Kirsanov were conducted on a variety of issues, they concerned education, public duty, and religion. Bazarov is an opponent of outdated foundations and culture. He advocates the destruction of previous ideals and active revolutionary actions. Kirsanov adheres to the “principles” he learned long ago.

These two characters are completely opposite to each other. When defending their ideas, they go to extremes.

Bazarov and Kirsanov argue, but forget about the truth, which can be revealed if you listen to your opponent even a little. The meaning of the dispute for them is in the dispute itself. It is symbolic that Bazarov, the personification of materialism, dies at the end of the novel. During his illness, Kirsanov reconsiders his own views on life.

What are Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov arguing about?

“Nine times out of ten disputes

ends with each of its participants still

becomes more convinced that he is absolutely right.”

Dale Carnegie.

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

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

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

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

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

The heroes of the novel have different attitudes towards both science and art.

They often argue about these topics. Kirsanov believes that art is a useful thing, but Bazarov completely denies this, saying that “Raphael is not worth a penny” and “a decent chemist is twenty times more useful than any poet.” He also denies science “in general,” although he “believes in frogs.”

They also have different views on the people. Bazarov says about Pavel Petrovich that he will never shake hands with a simple peasant, will never approach him without covering his nose with a handkerchief. But, according to Kirsanov, Evgeny despises the common people, if only because the men believe in Elijah the prophet, who rides across the sky when thunder roars.

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

Heroes have love too different attitude. Pavel Petrovich believes that there are sublime feelings, but his love for a certain princess R. turns into an earthly love for Fenechka. Bazarov generally denies love and says. That if you study the anatomy of the eye, then it is unknown where the mysterious look will come from. But Evgeny falls in love with Odintsova and finds in her face both a mysterious smile and a mysterious look. He denies sublime feelings and calls them sensations, but he contradicts himself.

Evgeny Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov argue on different topics, and Turgenev uses argument as a technique to reveal the views of his heroes. Formally, Bazarov wins the argument: he is cooler, but Kirsanov begins to lose his temper and gets heated. But in an argument with the author, Evgeniy loses. The men call him “a fool” and think that the master cannot understand them, and they do not understand him either.

“Bazarovshchina” was defeated, but Bazarov, capable of questioning the correctness of his views, won. Before his death, he says: “Russia needs me... but no, apparently I don’t. And who is needed? the nihilist Bazarov, a lone hero, dies, and with him dies everything that is unfair and wrong in the new theories of that time. By this, Turgenev shows that new forces, having gotten rid of the incorrect and superficial, will yet take the road of change and will still say their last word.

Views: 13785

After reading the tenth chapter of the work “Fathers and Sons,” it is easy to see that the views on life of Pavel Petrovich and Bazarov are diametrically opposed. For example, Pavel Petrovich highly regards the aristocracy: “... I respect aristocrats - real ones... The aristocracy gave freedom to England and supports it.” Bazarov, on the contrary, has a very low opinion of aristocrats: “Trash, aristocrat.” Another difference in their worldviews is that Pavel Petrovich loves art very much and does not tolerate those who do not respect figures of spiritual culture: “I was told that in Rome our artists never set foot in the Vatican. Raphael is considered almost a fool, because he is supposedly an authority, but they themselves are powerless and stupid to the point of disgusting; and they themselves don’t have enough imagination beyond “Girls at the Fountain”, no matter what! And the girl is written very badly. In your opinion, they are great, aren’t they?” To which Bazarov objects: “In my opinion, Raphael is not worth a penny, and they are no better than him.” In addition, Bazarov does not believe that there is “at least one resolution<…>which would not cause complete and merciless denial.” Pavel Petrovich responds to this: “I will present you with millions of such resolutions, millions!”

So, we are convinced that Pavel Petrovich and Bazarov are completely different people, their views on things are literally opposite, and they argue about aristocrats, art and principles. Pavel Petrovich is sure that they play a huge role in people’s lives, but Bazarov believes that they have no meaning.

Grade 10

It is generally accepted that in the verbal battle of the liberal Pavel Petrovich with the revolutionary democrat Bazarov the complete truth remains on the Bazarovskaya side. Meanwhile, the winner gets a very relative triumph. The readers' sympathies are associated with Bazarov not because he is absolutely triumphant, and the “fathers” are undoubtedly put to shame. Let us pay attention to the special nature of the heroes' polemics and its unusual moral and philosophical result. Towards the end of the novel, in a conversation with Arkady, Bazarov reproaches his student for his addiction to using the “opposite commonplace.” When asked by Arkady what it is, Bazarov replies: “But here’s what: to say, for example, that enlightenment is useful is a commonplace; but to say that enlightenment is harmful is the opposite commonplace. It seems more dandy, but in essence it is the same thing.” Same". And Bazarov, by the way, can just as easily be accused of using “opposite commonplaces.” Kirsanov talks about the need to follow authorities and believe in them, Bazarov denies the rationality of both. Pavel Petrovich claims that only immoral and empty people can live without “principles”; Evgeniy Vasilyevich calls “principle” a meaningless, non-Russian word. Kirsanov reproaches Bazarov for contempt for the people, the nihilist retorts: “Well, if he deserves contempt!” Pavel Petrovich talks about Schiller and Goethe, Bazarov exclaims: “A decent chemist is twenty times more useful than any poet!” etc. Bazarov is right to a certain extent: any truths and authorities must be tested by doubt. But the “heir” must have a sense of filial relationship to the culture of the past. This feeling is emphatically denied by Baz-(*112)rov. Taking ultimate truths as absolutes modern natural science, Bazarov falls into a nihilistic denial of everyone historical values. Turgenev is attracted to the raznochintsy by the lack of lordly effeminacy, contempt for beautiful phrases, and the impulse towards living practical work. Bazarov is strong in criticizing the conservatism of Pavel Petrovich, in denouncing the idle talk of Russian liberals, in denying the aesthetic admiration of the “barchuks” for art, in criticizing the noble cult of love. But, challenging the moribund system, the hero goes too far in his hatred of the “damned barchuks.” The denial of “your” art develops for him into the denial of all art, the denial of “your” love into the assertion that love is a “feigned feeling”: everything in it is easily explained by physiological attraction, the denial of “your” class principles - in the destruction of any principles and authorities, the denial of sentimental-noble love for the people - in disdain for the peasant in general. By breaking with the “Barchuks,” Bazarov challenges the enduring values ​​of culture, putting himself in a tragic situation.

In his dispute with Bazarov, Pavel Petrovich is right to a certain extent: life with its ready-made, historically nurtured forms will not yield to the arbitrariness of an individual or group of persons who unceremoniously treats it. But trust in the experience of the past should not prevent us from checking its viability, its correspondence to an ever-renewing life. It suggests paternalism careful attitude to new social phenomena. Pavel Petrovich, obsessed with class arrogance and pride, is deprived of these feelings. In his reverence for the old authorities, his “fatherly” noble egoism manifests itself. It is not for nothing that Turgenev wrote that his novel was “directed against the nobility as an advanced class.” So, Pavel Petrovich comes to the denial of human personality in front of principles taken on faith. Bazarov comes to the affirmation of personality, but at the cost of destroying all authorities. Both of these statements are extreme: in one - rigidity and selfishness, in the other - intolerance and arrogance. Disputants fall into "opposite common places". Truth eludes the disputing parties: Kirsanov lacks fatherly love for her, Bazarov lacks filial respect. The participants in the dispute are driven not by the desire for truth, but by mutual social intolerance. (*113) Therefore, both, in essence, are not entirely fair in relation to to each other and, what is especially noteworthy, to themselves. Already the first acquaintance with Bazarov convinces: in his soul there are feelings that the hero hides from those around him. “Bazarov’s thin lips moved slightly; but he did not answer anything and only raised his cap." However, no, no, Turgenev’s hero will lose his temper, speak with exaggerated harshness, with suspicious bitterness. This happens, for example, whenever it comes to art. Here Bazarov’s vaunted poise betrays him. : “The art of making money or no more hemorrhoids!” Why? Isn’t Bazarov’s intolerance the result of a feeling of the hidden power of art over his apparently “nihilistic” soul? Doesn’t Bazarov recognize a force in music and art that seriously threatens his limited views on life? human nature? And another thing. The first breakfast in Maryino. Bazarov “returned, sat down at the table and began to hastily drink tea.” over the timidity of Nikolai Petrovich? What is hidden behind the “completely cheeky” manner of his behavior, behind the “short and reluctant” answers? Turgenev’s self-confident and sharp commoner is very, very difficult. An anxious and vulnerable heart beats in his chest. Extreme sharpness his attacks on poetry, on love, on philosophy make one doubt the complete sincerity of the denial. There is a certain duality in Bazarov’s behavior, which will turn into a breakdown and strain towards the end of the novel. Bazarov anticipates Dostoevsky's heroes with their typical complexes: anger and bitterness as a form of manifestation of love, as a polemic with the good that latently lives in the soul of a denier. In Turgenev’s “nihilist” there is hidden much of what he denies: the ability to love, and “romanticism”, and folk origin, and a family feeling, and the ability to appreciate beauty and poetry. It is no coincidence that Dostoevsky highly appreciated Turgenev’s novel and the tragic figure of “the restless and yearning Bazarov (a sign of a great heart), despite all his nihilism.”

But Bazarov’s opponent, Pavel Petrovich, is not entirely sincere with himself. In reality, he is far from being the self-confident aristocrat he pretends to be in front of Bazarov. The emphatically aristocratic (*114) manners of Pavel Petrovich are caused by inner weakness, a secret consciousness of his inferiority, which Pavel Petrovich, of course, is afraid to admit even to himself. But we know his secret, his love is not for the mysterious Princess R., but for the sweet simpleton - Fenechka. Even at the very beginning of the novel, Turgenev makes us understand how lonely and unhappy this man is in his aristocratic office with furniture English work. Long after midnight, he sits in a wide gums chair, indifferent to everything that surrounds him: he even holds a copy of an English newspaper uncut in his hands. And then, in Fenichka’s room, we will see him among the everyday life of the people: jars of jam on the windows, a siskin in a cage, a disheveled volume of “Streltsov” by Masalsky on the chest of drawers, dark image Nicholas the Wonderworker in the corner. And here he is also an outsider with his strange love in his declining years without any hope of happiness and reciprocity. Returning from Fenechka’s room to his elegant office, “he threw himself on the sofa, put his hands behind his head and remained motionless, looking almost in despair at the ceiling.” Preceded by a decisive duel between an aristocrat and a democrat, these pages are intended to highlight the psychological and social costs of the dispute for both fighting sides. Pavel Petrovich's class arrogance provokes the harshness of Bazarov's judgments and awakens painfully proud feelings in the commoner. The mutual social hostility that flares up between rivals immeasurably aggravates the destructive aspects of Kirsanov's conservatism and Bazarov's nihilism. At the same time, Turgenev shows that Bazarov’s denial has democratic origins and is fueled by the spirit of popular indignation. It is no coincidence that the author himself pointed out that in the person of Bazarov he “dreamed of some strange pendant with Pugachev.” The character of the prickly Bazarov is clarified in the novel by a wide panorama village life, developed in the first chapters: strained relations between masters and servants; the “farm” of the Kirsanov brothers, popularly nicknamed “Beaver Farm”; rollicking men in wide open sheepskin coats; a symbolic picture of centuries-old feudal desolation - “small forests”, “rivers with dug-out banks, and tiny ponds with thin flesh, and villages with low huts under dark, often half-swept roofs, and crooked threshing sheds with... yawning gates nearby empty barns, and churches, sometimes brick, with peeling plaster here and there, sometimes wooden, with leaning crosses and ruined cemeteries.” It was as if an elemental force swept like a tornado over this God-forsaken land, sparing nothing, even churches and graves, leaving behind only dull grief, desolation and destruction.

The reader is presented with a world on the verge of social catastrophe; against the backdrop of a restless sea folk life and the figure of Yevgeny Bazarov appears in the novel. This democratic, peasant background of the novel enlarges the character of the hero, gives him heroic monumentality, and connects nihilism with popular discontent, with the social disadvantage of all of Russia. Bazarov's mentality reveals typical aspects of the Russian folk character: for example, a tendency to sharply critical self-evaluation, the ability to go to extremes in denial. Bazarov also holds in his hands the “heroic club” - natural science knowledge, which he idolizes and considers a reliable weapon in the fight against the idealism of the “Fathers”, with their religion and the official ideology of autocracy, a healthy antidote to lordly daydreaming and peasant superstition. In his impatience, it seems to him that with the help of natural sciences all questions relating to complex problems can be easily resolved public life, solve all the riddles, all the secrets of existence. Let us note that, following the vulgar materialists, Bazarov extremely simplifies nature human consciousness, reduces the essence of complex spiritual and mental phenomena to elementary, physiological ones. Art for Bazarov is perversion, nonsense, rot. He despises the Kirsanovs not only because they are “barchuks,” but also because they are “old men,” “retired people,” “their song is over.” He approaches his parents with the same standards. All this is the result of a narrow biological view of human nature, leading Bazarov to erase the qualitative differences between physiology and social psychology. Bazarov also considers spiritual sophistication to be “romantic nonsense.” love feeling: “No, brother, all this is licentiousness, emptiness!.. We, physiologists, know what kind of relationship these are. Just study the anatomy of the eye: where does this mysterious look come from, as you say? This is all romanticism, nonsense, rottenness, art". The story about Pavel Petrovich's love for Princess R. is not introduced into the novel as an inserted episode. He is a warning to the arrogant Bazarov. (*116) A big flaw is also noticeable in Bazarov’s aphorism: “Nature is not a temple, but a workshop.” The truth of an active, master's attitude towards nature turns into blatant one-sidedness, when the laws operating at lower natural levels are absolutized and turned into a universal “master key”, with the help of which Bazarov can easily deal with all the mysteries of existence. Denying romantic relationship to nature as a temple, Bazarov falls into slavery to the lower elemental forces of the natural “workshop”. He even envies the ant, which, as an insect, has the right “not to recognize feelings of compassion, not like our self-destructive brother.” In a bitter moment of life, Bazarov is inclined to consider even a feeling of compassion as a weakness, an anomaly, denied by the “natural” laws of nature.

But besides the truth of physiological laws acting on lower levels nature, is the truth of human spiritualized naturalness. And if a person wants to be a “worker,” he must take into account the fact that nature at the highest ecological level is a “temple” and not a “workshop.” And Nikolai Petrovich’s tendency to daydream is not “rotten” and not “nonsense.” Dreams are not simple fun, but a natural human need, one of the manifestations creative power his spirit. Isn’t the natural power of Nikolai Petrovich’s memory amazing when he resurrects the past in his hours of solitude? Isn’t the amazingly beautiful picture of a summer evening that this hero admires worthy of admiration? This is how the mighty forces of beauty and harmony, artistic imagination, love, and art stand in Bazarov’s path. Against Buchner's "Stoff und Kraft" are Pushkin's "Gypsies" with their verses warning the hero: "And fatal passions are everywhere. And there is no protection from fate." Against the neglect of art, daydreaming, the beauty of nature - thoughts and dreams, playing the cello of Nikolai Petrovich. Bazarov laughs at all this. But “what you laugh at is what you will serve” - the bitter cup of this life wisdom Bazarov is destined to drink to the bottom.

Related information.

The title of Turgenev's novel "Fathers and Sons" very accurately reflects the main conflict of the work. The writer raises a layer of cultural, family, romantic, platonic and friendly themes, but the relationship between two generations - the older and the younger - comes to the fore. The dispute between Bazarov and Kirsanov is a vivid example of this confrontation. Historical background For ideological conflicts served as the mid-19th century, the time before the abolition of serfdom in Russian Empire. At the same time, liberals and revolutionary democrats clashed head-on. Let's look at the details and outcome of the controversy using the example of our heroes.

The central conflict of the novel “Fathers and Sons” is the dispute between Bazarov and Kirsanov

It is a mistake to believe that the essence of the work “Fathers and Sons” comes down to just a change in the ideology of generations, which has socio-political implications. Turgenev endowed this novel with deep psychologism and a multi-layered plot. With a superficial reading, the reader’s focus is only on the conflict between the aristocracy and commoners. The dispute helps to identify the views held by Bazarov and Kirsanov. The table below shows the essence of these contradictions. And if we dig deeper, we can notice that there is an idyll here family happiness, and intrigue, and emancipation, and grotesque, and the eternity of nature, and reflections on the future.

Evgeny Bazarov finds himself in the midst of a conflict between fathers and sons when he agrees to come and visit Maryino with his university friend Arkady. The atmosphere in my friend’s house did not immediately go well. Manners, appearance, difference of views - all this provokes mutual antipathy with Uncle Arkady. The further dispute between Bazarov and Kirsanov flares up due to many topics: art, politics, philosophy, the Russian people.

Portrait of Evgeny Bazarov

Evgeny Bazarov is a representative of the generation of “children” in the novel. He is a young student with progressive views, but at the same time prone to nihilism, which the “fathers” condemn. Turgenev seemed to deliberately dress the hero absurdly and carelessly. The details of his portrait emphasize roughness and spontaneity young man: broad forehead, red hands, self-confident behavior. Bazarov, in principle, is outwardly unattractive, but has a deep mind.

The dispute between Bazarov and Kirsanov is aggravated by the fact that the former does not recognize any dogmas or authorities. Evgeniy is convinced that any truth begins with doubt. The hero also believes that everything can be verified experimentally, and does not take judgments on faith. The situation is aggravated by Bazarov’s intolerance towards opposing opinions. He is deliberately harsh in his statements.

Portrait of Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov

Pavel Kirsanov is a typical nobleman, a representative of the “fathers” generation. He is a pampered aristocrat and a staunch conservative who adheres to liberal political views. Dresses elegantly and neatly, wears formal suits in the English manner and starches his collars. Bazarov's opponent is very well-groomed in appearance and elegant in manners. He shows his “breed” with all his appearance.

From his point of view, established traditions and principles must remain unshakable. The dispute between Bazarov and Kirsanov is reinforced by the fact that Pavel Petrovich perceives everything new negatively and even hostilely. Here innate conservatism makes itself felt. Kirsanov bows to the old authorities, only they are true for him.

Dispute between Bazarov and Kirsanov: table of disagreements

The most the main problem already voiced by Turgenev in the title of the novel - the difference between generations. The line of argument between the main characters can be traced from this table.

Who are nihilists

The ideas of nihilism are clearly manifested in the confrontation between opponents, who are Pavel Kirsanov and Bazarov. The dispute reveals the rebellious spirit of Evgeny Bazarov. He does not bow to authority, and this unites him with the revolutionary democrats. The hero questions and denies everything he sees in society. This is precisely the trait that nihilists have.

Storyline outcome

In general, Bazarov belongs to the category of people of action. He does not accept conventions and feigned aristocratic etiquette. The hero is in a daily search for truth. One of such searches is the dispute between Bazarov and Kirsanov. The table clearly shows the contradictions between them.

Kirsanov is good at polemics, but things don’t go beyond talking. He talks about the life of the common people, but only the ashtray in the shape of a bast shoe on his desktop speaks of his true connection with them. Pavel Petrovich talks with pathos about serving for the good of the Motherland, while he himself lives a well-fed and calm life.

Because of the uncompromising nature of the heroes, the truth is not born in the novel "Fathers and Sons." The dispute between Bazarov and Kirsanov ends in a duel, which demonstrates the emptiness of noble knighthood. The collapse of the ideas of nihilism is identified with the death of Eugene from blood poisoning. And the passivity of the liberals is confirmed by Pavel Petrovich, since he remains to live in Dresden, although life away from his homeland is difficult for him.