Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Turgenev, Fathers and Sons
>
Week 5: Chapters 23-25
date
newest »
newest »
Pavel seems to have been enamored with his brother's woman and enraged at Bazarov for doing what he dare not express so frankly. Maybe he realized how foolish obsession with pride and propriety was after the duel or he had a foreboding of his death and felt the need for closure.I think Bazarov's will to control everything according to his 'scientific theories' reveals his frustration at the social world around him which is out of his control. Because he can't accept this frustration, he rejects them as being meaningless and futile.
It sort of reflects Anna's attitude towards men. She wants to control the men, not be under their will. Both of them wants to be in charge of their emotion and can't submit to being ruled and keeps 'playing their games' and denying their emotions. Like Bazarov, Anna judges people on their 'significance' and their use to her.
On the other hand, Katya and Arcadi accepts their limitations and sees the futility of those pride. "they're like emperors - the truth has a hard time getting through to them." Unlike Anna, Katya is capable of both having her 'self-respect and submitting'.
Susan wrote: "Katya makes a distinction between Bazarov and Arcadii by describing the former as a wild animal and the latter as tamed. But isn’t Bazarov the opposite of wild in that he treats nature as a workshop—something to be dissected, analyzed, and controlled? In what sense could Katya be correct in describing him as wild?"In the original Russian text the word for 'wild animal' in your copy could be closer translated as 'predatory'; or 'beast of prey' when talking about animals. So, indeed, it can be understood that Katya meant describing Bazarov as having been born to control his environment.
Susan wrote: "The novel is peppered with descriptions of the beauty found in nature. Even the morning of the duel, for example, is described in fresh, glowing terms. Why introduce an upcoming duel, an act of man-made violence, with beautiful images of nature? Does it impact the way we see the duel?"The contrast between the beauty of nature and the violent act being performed is quite jarring. When everything around the scene is in full splendor pulsing with superabundant life two idiots with their noses out of joint play a deadly game of chicken.
Duells are a grotesque aberration in defense of honor. The whole notion is monstrous. The fact that Pavel even had a set of pistols for the eventuality is something I don't follow. Maybe if you're a 19th century rich male, full of self-importance, and generally bored with life you find this kind of excitement attractive. The offense was a stolen kiss and dumb on Bazarov's part. Why couldn't he have simply told Bazarov to pack his bags and be done with it?
Kerstin wrote: "..The offense was a stolen kiss and dumb on Bazarov's part. Why couldn't he have simply told Bazarov to pack his bags and be done with it?"No, he couldn't. In the 19th century? I don't see Pavel having any other choice. The thing wouldn't be done with just by telling Bazarov to pack his bags; in this case, everybody's life would be very likely poisoned for the rest of their lives. Nikolay's, Fenechka's, Pavel's, Arkadiy's... and eventually maybe even Bazarov's (when he got older).
For many centuries, duel was naturally developed in us to deal with certain issues in our human nature. But it's barbaric, cruel, etc etc, so it was abandoned, fairly so. But I am not sure it has been adequately replaced with anything else. More psychiatric clinics maybe?
Bigollo wrote: "But it's barbaric, cruel, etc etc, so it was abandoned, fairly so. But I am not sure it has been adequately replaced with anything else. More psychiatric clinics maybe? "We do have road rage escalation as a comparison.
Susanna wrote: " "Use your words" is what a kindergarten teacher would suggest.."I'm all for words. I love words. But, words, among many other things, can be insidious and deadly weapons. Pavel and Evgeniy were tormenting each other with words and -- silence, which is also part of language, for quite some time until the duel finally shifted the tense state of affairs to something relatively more relaxed.
Also, sometimes people can't find the right words, emotions can paralize thought and speech. In Pavel's case, the last drop was overlooking of a stolen kiss. What do people do in similar situations in our time? What kind of words would do?
But of course we ought to teach our kids to use their words first and formost. :)
Bigollo wrote: "No, he couldn't. In the 19th century? I don't see Pavel having any other choice. The thing wouldn't be done with just by telling Bazarov to pack his bags; in this case, everybody's life would be very likely poisoned for the rest of their lives."Good point!
When one thinks about it, a duell is a stylized and formal way to end an argument once and for all. Once it is done, honor has been served. And you are right, we don't have anything to replace it.
I wish I hadn’t missed out on this reading? ! It sounds wonderful!
Bigollo wrote: "For many centuries, duel was naturally developed in us to deal with certain issues in our human nature. But it's barbaric, cruel, etc etc, so it was abandoned, fairly so. But I am not sure it has been adequately replaced with anything else. More psychiatric clinics maybe?..."I think dueling nowadays takes place on social media in front of a potential audience of millions. It can be just as cruel and barbaric as the duels of the past and with some of the same devastating emotional and physical consequences.
Kerstin wrote: "When one thinks about it, a duell is a stylized and formal way to end an argument once and for all. Once it is done, honor has been served. And you are right, we don't have anything to replace it...."What about courts of law? Aren't they a formal way to end an argument? Nowadays, Fenechka might accuse Bazarov of sexual assault and sue him for damages.
Susan wrote: "Tamara is away for several days and asked me to post this on her behalf. She hopes to be back soon to join the discussion.Week 5: Chapters 23 – 25
After Arcadii’s departure, Bazarov busies hims..."
Susan, thank you for posting Week 5 for me. I've been away and was unable to post messages. It's good to be back and to catch up on the reading.
Susanna wrote: " As S.A. Cosby said in his 2021 tale of revenge, Razorblade Tears, "A knife is protection. A gun is provocation.""Haven't read that one, so I may be out of context, but in terms of dueling, I bet dueling with swords, and with knives even more so (close range is a must!), was much more maiming and deadly.
With old fashion pistols, fortune played much bigger role than skill.
And with a sword/knife, a well trained bully might seek scandal just for fun, knowing that chances of winning were overwhelmingly on his side.
Tamara wrote: "What about courts of law? Aren't they a formal way to end an argument? Nowadays, Fenechka might accuse Bazarov of sexual assault and sue him for damages."Does court really extinguish emotions? I've never been there, but judging from what other people say and TV shows, court more like shifts emotions between parties; but duel in old good days could put an end to the bad blood (pni) between people. I think that's what Kerstin meant by saying there is no fully adequate replacement for duel in our days.
I think potentiality of a duel (as opposed to a duel in action itself) was a much stonger stabilizer of what one might afford to say or do (yes, mostly due to fear probably) than modern court of law. No ton of money, powerful connections, or skillful attourney could protect you from a lucky bullet sent by your opponent, and you can't even run.. From court -- you may try..
In the old days, if two boys got into a scuffle, a PE teacher would take them behind the gym and let them fight it out under supervision. It did tend to clear the air and let the emotions out. Then the boys would realize that they're hurt and bloody, and that the original issue is still unresolved.It's a very good thing that they're in the past, but I wonder what fraction of affairs of honor actually ended in a death.
Tamara wrote: "What about courts of law? Aren't they a formal way to end an argument? Nowadays, Fenechka might accuse Bazarov of sexual assault and sue him for damages."Especially in a litigious society as ours.
To me the more interesting question here is the legal status of duels. I looked it up, duels were already condemned with the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. Over the centuries they were outlawed just about everywhere. In Russia they were outlawed in 1715 and punishable by hanging. So what Pavlov and Bazarov did was highly illegal and they knew it. But it gives us an insight how highly honor was valued at the time.
We're talking about duels in the abstract. But the specific duel between Bazarov and Pavel didn't seem to resolve anything. After Pavel was wounded, we are told:Pavel Petrovich tried to avoid looking at Bazarov; after all, he did not want any reconciliation with him; he felt ashamed of his arrogance, of his fiasco as a duellist, ashamed of this whole affair which he had contrived, even though he also felt that it could not have would up in a more favorable manner.
And a few lines later:
Both felt badly; each was aware that the other understood him. Such an awareness is a pleasant thing for those who are friends and a quite unpleasant one for those who are not, especially when it is impossible either to come to an understanding or to go off in different directions.
Unless I'm misreading this, it seams to me as if Pavel is embarrassed about the whole fiasco.
Kerstin wrote: "So what Pavlov and Bazarov did was highly illegal and they knew it. But it gives us an insight how highly honor was valued at the time.."Yes. And Petr almost passed out just from the thought of witnessing it. But Petr was from a different social class. Did Turgenev insert this character so to stress the gap between classes in terms of having very different sets of values (like honor, composure, endurance)?
Duel. Must have been a horrible experience. And 19th Century literature and life is full of it. Among Russian authors Pushkin and Lermontov first come to mind. They both had descriptions of duel in their works and both died in duels. Age 37 and 27 respectively. Read Lermontov's Hero of Our Time, it has a horrible episode of a duel, very similar to what happened to Lermontov himself soon after he wrote it. And P. and L. lived just a liitle earlier than Turgenev.
Thank you Kerstin for finding those dates. Indeed, there must be reasons (psychological, historical?) why the institution of duel was surviving for so long, even after being condemned and outlawed.
And it wasn't just in Russia all the way through 19th century that way. By some reason the name of Evariste Galois, an extremely talented French mathematician of the first half of the 19th century, who perished in a duel at 21, comes to mind.
Tamara wrote: "We're talking about duels in the abstract. But the specific duel between Bazarov and Pavel didn't seem to resolve anything. After Pavel was wounded, we are told:Pavel Petrovich tried to avoid loo..."
Yes, both Pavel and Bazarov seems to be embarrassed and was so eager to see no more of each other to avoid further embarrassment. I think this happens with people who don't even take things up to the level of an actual duel (or a fist fight or kickboxing or what have you). Some grudges or violation of honor or justice might not be sufficiently resolved by, say taking it to the court. but don't most fights like this look silly or regrettable when we look back on it or even before the actual duel if it takes some time to cool down on their own?
Tamara wrote: "Unless I'm misreading this, it seams to me as if Pavel is embarrassed about the whole fiasco..."
Basically, I am echoing from Borum here. Yes, Pavel felt emabarrassed. But embarrassment is not a top notch negative emotion. He had felt much worse the day before. Basically, as I read the whole situation, imagining myself in Pavel's shoes, the duel was the only available solution for him in those circumstances of time, place, spirit, and his very being.
Week 5: Chapters 23 – 25
After Arcadii’s departure, Bazarov busies himself with his scientific work. Nicholai takes an interest in Bazarov’s work. Meanwhile, tension simmers between Bazarov and Pavel. Bazarov flirts with Phenechka when he sees her in the garden. Phenechka assumes they are having a friendly chat until Bazarov kisses her. Pavel witnesses this and challenges Bazarov to a duel. They are painstakingly polite with one another as they arrange the terms of the duel. The duel terminates when Bazarov wounds Pavel in the thigh. Bazarov leaves the next day. Pavel urges Phenechka to be loyal to his brother and urges his brother to marry her. Meanwhile, romance blossoms between Arcadii and Katya. Arcadii declares his love for her. Bazarov shows up and informs Arcadii about the duel with Pavel. Despite Arcadii’s denials, Bazarov assumes Arcadii is still in love with Anna Odintsova. Bazarov tells Anna that Arcadii is in love with her.
In Chapter 18, Bazarov declares his love for Anna Odintsova when he says, Know that I love you—foolishly, madly. There you’ve succeeded in getting that out of me. He characterizes his love as “foolish” and makes it sound as if his declaration of love is the result of losing some sort of contest between Anna and himself. This is hardly a flattering declaration of love. And now we see him forcing his kisses on Phenechka. What do these scenes reveal about Bazarov’s attitude toward love? Toward women?
The novel is peppered with descriptions of the beauty found in nature. Even the morning of the duel, for example, is described in fresh, glowing terms. Why introduce an upcoming duel, an act of man-made violence, with beautiful images of nature? Does it impact the way we see the duel?
Why had Pavel previously objected to Nicholai marrying Phenechka. And why has he now changed his mind and is urging his brother to marry her?
Katya makes a distinction between Bazarov and Arcadii by describing the former as a wild animal and the latter as tamed. But isn’t Bazarov the opposite of wild in that he treats nature as a workshop—something to be dissected, analyzed, and controlled? In what sense could Katya be correct in describing him as wild?