Bichenko S. G. The Problem of “Two Worlds”-conception in Realism: “Repressive Ideal” Model (Thesaurus Analysis)
annotation♦ The article deals with the problem of dual worlds in realism (I. A. Goncharov, O. de Balzac), analyzes the model " repressive ideal».
Keywords: the concept of duality, realism, repressive ideal, thesaurus approach.
Abstract♦ The article considers the problem of “two worlds”-conception in realism (I. A. Goncharov, H. de Balzac). The author analyzes the “repressive ideal” model.
keywords: “two worlds”-concept, realism, repressive ideal, thesaurus approach.
Realism, which replaced romanticism as the leading literary direction, abandoned many romantic concepts and techniques, but the problems associated with the opposition of the ideal and reality remained relevant. This question was especially acute in Russian realism in the context of criticism of romanticism (not only as literary movement, but also as a worldview).
I. A. Goncharov was one of the most consistent researchers on the problem of the relationship between the ideal and reality. Raised back in ' Ordinary history”, this question will be relevant for Goncharov throughout his work; He will develop it both in Oblomov and in Obryv. However greatest interest for our study, it is Oblomov, where, it seems, the problem of the relationship between the ideal and reality turns out to be one of the central ones. And if in Ordinary History it can be considered similarly to Balzac's Lost Illusions - in terms of inconsistency with reality, then in Oblomov a much more in-depth study of this issue is presented.
The gap between the ideal and reality is realized in Oblomov in the images of the main characters: Oblomov, Olga Ilinskaya and Stolz. The analysis of these images will make it possible to consider a realistic approach to the problem, previously updated by the romantic dual world. However, the subject and volume of our work do not allow us to analyze the functioning of all three images in connection with the problem posed, so we will limit ourselves to analyzing the image of the protagonist of the novel.
Oblomov's ideal is already explicated in the first part - this is life in the renewed Oblomovka, the filling of which Stolz calls the word "Oblomovism". Oblomov's dream is not at all like the ideal in the understanding of the early romantics: he strives for the material and concrete, and even describes it with pleasure. Therefore, the principle no longer applies. romantic irony: the ideal ceases to be fundamentally unknowable, ceases to avoid explication. It no longer has that ambivalence that was inherent in the romantic ideal, and therefore it lends itself easily to human language.
On the other hand, the Oblomov ideal retains the important feature romantic ideal: it is unreachable. Oblomov paints Stolz a utopian image; in his Oblomovka there is "not a single pale, suffering face, no care," and Stolz himself calls this life "Oblomov's utopia." It is characteristic that the description of Oblomov is largely determined by one of the two aspirations that Zhirmunsky calls the main ones for mystical expressiveness - “the desire to mix and extinguish what is too bright, to speak in hints, semitones” (33). So, Oblomov dreams of "deepening with her into the endless, dark alley; go quiet, thoughtful, silently or think aloud, dream, count the minutes of happiness, like a beating pulse; listen to the heartbeat and freezes; look for sympathy in nature... and unnoticed go to the river, to the field ... River splashes a little; ears of corn worried about the wind, heat ... "[our italics - S. B.]. Oblomov thus paints a romantic pastoral.
We also note another important feature"Oblomovism": this is not only a romantic pastoral, but also a space from which everything non-romantic is expelled, everything that in the novel is opposed to the romantic - that is, case. Oblomov willingly lists those things that have no place in his dream: “not a single question about the Senate, about the stock exchange, about shares, about reports, about receiving a minister, about ranks, about an increase in table money.” Oblomov himself clearly opposes his ideal to business: “Yes, is the goal of all your running around, passions, wars, trade and politics, is it not the dressing of peace, not the desire for this ideal of a lost paradise?” Deed and ideal are divorced and do not allow interpenetration: devoid of romantic irony, art world realistic text does not allow such ambivalence (at least in an explicit form). That escalation of the two worlds, which Zhirmunsky spoke about in connection with the late romantics, turns out to be relevant for the romantic heroes in realism.
The unattainability of the Oblomov ideal, although inherent in it in itself, is realized in the text as a consequence of its utopian opposition to the cause. Oblomov jealously protects his dream from any intervention of the cause - and this makes it unattainable. In order to transform Oblomovka, you need to get down to business; in order to marry an ideal wife (who even sings “Casta diva” – a cavatina straight from a dream) you will have to organize a wedding – but Oblomov cannot allow the matter to touch his dream, to stain it. The line connected with the engagement of Oblomov and Olga demonstrates this "protective" tendency of Oblomov in relation to his ideal most clearly.
A wedding for Oblomov becomes part of a dream, his poetic ideal. As in the case of the dream of living in the countryside, he is ready to list what exactly he expects from the wedding, and again these will be romantic clichés: “But marriage, wedding - after all, this is the poetry of life, this is a ready-made, blossoming flower. He imagined how he was leading Olga to the altar: she was with an orange branch on her head, with a long veil. There is a whisper of surprise in the crowd. She bashfully, with a quietly agitated chest, with her proudly and gracefully bowed head, gives him her hand and does not know how to look at everyone. Either a smile will flash from her, or tears will appear, or a wrinkle above the eyebrow will sparkle with some kind of thought. This ideal will support Oblomov all those days until he is deprived of the opportunity to be alone with Olga, meeting her only at dinner parties and in the theater - but only until he unambiguously connects his dreamy idea of \u200b\u200bthe wedding with those affairs that need to be addressed in order to be implemented.
This happens when Oblomov reprimands Zakhar for "daring" to talk about the master's wedding. Shortly before this, Oblomov notices that people in the world are guessing about the upcoming wedding, and for the first time he combines business and marriage in one view: “Wedding! This poetic moment in the life of those who love, the crown of happiness - the lackeys, the coachmen started talking about it, when nothing has yet been decided, when there is no answer from the village, when I have an empty wallet, when the apartment has not been found ... ”In the same conversation with Zakhar Oblomov is taken for "depicting the inconvenience of marriage" in order to prove to him that the rumors are groundless. For example: “What are the costs? Oblomov continued. — Where is the money? Have you seen how much money I have? Oblomov asked almost menacingly. - Where is the apartment? Here you have to pay a thousand rubles, and hire another, give three thousand, and how much for finishing! And there the crew, the cook, for a living! Where can I get it? But Oblomov turns not to Zakhar, but to himself. Hence the following remark of the narrator: “He [Oblomov] wanted to frighten Zakhar and was frightened himself more than him when he delved into the practical side of the question of the wedding and saw that this, of course, was a poetic, but at the same time practical, official step towards an essential and serious reality and to a series of strict duties. But the ideal and the deed cannot exist together; the ideal beyond irony is a totalitarian, imperious authority that does not allow anything from the outside. Therefore, the dream of a wedding, as soon as it turns out to be “stained” by the deed, disappears, now it is “a poetic moment that suddenly lost its colors as soon as Zakhar spoke about it.” Oblomov's ideal does not tolerate the invasion of reality. romantic dream about the wedding rejects Oblomov and disappears for him forever. With the realization of this fact, Oblomov ends the chapter:
“I remembered everything, and then the thrill of happiness, Olga’s hand, her a passionate kiss... and froze: "faded, moved away!" echoed inside him.
“What now?”
So, Oblomov's ideal is not achievable - in the present. Instead, he exists as a mirage, as a fantasy - in the future (a typical description of Oblomov's fantasies: "A helpful dream carried him easily and freely, far in the future"). WITH early youth Oblomov has an idea about his future- this word is often used by both the characters and the narrator. So, the young Oblomov “everything was going and preparing to start life, he kept drawing in his mind the pattern of his future; but with each year that flashed over his head, he had to change and discard something in this pattern. Oblomov is in a state of constant production and reproduction of his fantasmatic ideal - "future", - transforming it to at least minimally correspond to reality, but invariably placing the ideal in the future. Time for Oblomov, therefore, appears mythological: if in traditional myths events are most often placed in the past, then Oblomov's fantasy lies in the future. Just as it is impossible to “rewind” time step by step until the events described in Greek mythology, Oblomov's "future" turns out to be out of reach from the present.
So, the unattainability of the Oblomov ideal is due not only to its utopian nature, not only to its "romanticism", but also to the fact that it cannot, in principle, be conceived in the present - it concluded in future. However, this unattainability, being inseparable from Oblomov's fantasy, is never explicated in the novel.
The impossibility of realizing the future of Oblomov, therefore, is due to two factors: firstly, his ideal does not tolerate the interference of reality and, secondly, he exists only as a future, as a future.
Oblomov's ideal is destructive. He suppresses all other desires and aspirations of Oblomov and appears to be the only worthy object of desire. Even love for Olga turns out to be mediated by Oblomov's romantic fantasies, as demonstrated above. Despite the fact that the ideal turns out to be the only, absolute value (as in romanticism), it itself prevents its implementation. Thus, on the one hand, it, obscuring all other values, takes the form of an obsession, and at the same time does not allow itself to be realized. Hence Oblomov's apathy arises: not a single occupation seems worthy to Oblomov (this is especially clearly demonstrated at the beginning of the novel, when he consistently rejects all types of activity (represented by his guests), except for fantasies about his future), except for the pursuit of an ideal, which, in principle, does not can be implemented.
It is Oblomov's apathy that causes those life failures that are described in the novel. This is recognized by the characters themselves (“What ruined you?” Olga asks Oblomov and receives the answer: “Oblomovism”; Stolz calls her the reason that he sees Oblomov’s moral death). From the point of view of Oblomov himself, due to his apathy, he loses the love of an almost ideal (up to “Casta Diva”) woman, almost loses the village - the basis and source of his dreams, stops friendship with Stolz; he, in turn, believes that Oblomov, because of Oblomovism, "died, disappeared for nothing." Oblomov's ideal in the novel turns out to be an instance of destruction, a source of evil.
This ideal will haunt Oblomov until the end of his days. After all, to abandon the ideal does not mean to get rid of it. Despite the fact that Oblomov "has already stopped dreaming about setting up an estate and about going there with the whole house," despite the work he had worked out life philosophy("life<…>not only took shape, but also created, was even intended so simply, no wonder, to express the possibility of an ideally calm side human being", - argues Oblomov), the feeling of inconsistency of reality with the ideal, its inferiority does not leave him. Oblomov's "philosophy", which "lulled him to sleep among the questions and strict demands of duty and appointment," proved unable to resist these demands. The appointment, the “future” of Oblomov still weigh on him. So when its in last time visits and tries to take Stolz to Oblomovka, and Oblomov persistently refuses, between them there is, in particular, such an exchange of remarks:
- Yes, you look around, where and with whom are you? [says Stolz — S. B.]
“I know, I feel ... Ah, Andrey, I feel everything, I understand everything: I have long been ashamed to live in the world!” But I can't go your way with you, even if I wanted to...
Oblomov both knows and feels that his life is vicious, and vicious from the point of view of Stolz, from the position of destination, future (Stolz's words: “Come to your senses! Did you prepare yourself for this life to sleep like a mole in a hole?”). Once given, the ideal will never lose its possession.
Even death, in such a case, cannot bring deliverance. Oblomov at the end of his days "foresaw imminent death and was afraid of her. For Oblomov, death becomes the end of the future, because death is the inevitable limit of the future, which posits itself only in the future. Oblomov is constantly moving the future to an even more distant future, and death here means there is no place for further movement: there is no more distant future. The impossibility of coming to terms with death is due to the very essence of Oblomov's ideal.
So, the ideal, conceivable beyond irony, acts as an instance of destruction and suppression. He simultaneously considers himself an absolute value (leveling the significance of all other aspirations) and at the same time is fundamentally unattainable. Thus, happiness for the hero turns out to be concentrated in one, unattainable point. The hero, on the one hand, is incapable of any activity that is not aimed at the ideal, and on the other hand, he can never achieve it. Such properties allow us to speak of such an ideal as repressive.
IN realistic literature one can find many examples, in addition to the novel Oblomov, where the problem of the repressive ideal turns out to be one of the central ones. These are the two stories of Balzac "The Unknown Masterpiece" and "Sarrasin". In the first of them talented artist Frenhofer dedicates ten years of his life to work on one painting - the image of the beautiful courtesan Catherine Lesko. He strives to create a perfect picture in which nature would be "expressed" (and not just "copied"). Frenhofer refuses to show his painting to anyone until he is sure that he has created an image of perfect beauty, and decides to go on a long journey in order to "compare his painting with various types of female beauty". However, his friend, Porbus, claims that a woman of "incomparable, impeccable beauty" lives here in Paris - Gillette, the mistress of the young artist Poussin. Poussin, intrigued by the stories about Frenhofer's creation, agrees to let Gillette go to the artist, so that he can be convinced of the impeccability of her naked beauty, but with one condition: Frenhofer must show his painting. The result of this deal is tragic. It turns out that the painting the artist was poring over is “a chaotic combination of strokes, outlined by many strange lines, forming, as it were, a fence of colors,” and only in the corner of the picture was a piece of a bare leg visible. Gillette, outraged by the deal, breaks with Poussin with the words: "To love you still would be shameful, because I despise you." Frenhofer apparently also sees (despite the fact that at the end he begins to assert the opposite) that the work of his life is a meaningless set of colors, and therefore Porbus, who comes in the morning, finds that “the old man died in the night, having burned all his paintings ".
"Sarrasin" also tells about tragic fate a creator striving for perfection in his art. A young sculptor named Ernest-Jean Sarrazin, known for his "indomitable temper" and "uncontrollable genius", arrives in Rome in 1759, where he is going to study architecture and sculpture. A week later, he sees the performance of the prima donna Zambinella in the theater and falls madly in love with her. The reason for this unearthly passion lies in the fact that "he was delighted to see with his own eyes the ideal of beauty, which he had hitherto sought in vain in nature." “It was something more than a woman, it was a masterpiece!”, says the story of Zambinella. Sarrazine begins to reproduce (again, phantasmatically) the image of Zambinella in drawing and sculpture: “He sculpted, trying to reproduce the body of Zambinella in clay, regardless of the covers, dresses, corsets and bows with which her figure was hidden from him.” However, his love is doomed to failure: the romance that began with the singer turns out to be a joke played by Zambinella's friends, and at the end Sarrazin learns the most terrible truth: female arias at the papal court in those days were performed by castrati. He kidnaps Zambinella and is about to kill him, but first tries to destroy the statue he made, believing that he sees the ideal of beauty embodied. The words with which he accompanies this attempt are noteworthy: “... Whenever I look at a real woman, I will remember this imaginary one! ..
He pointed to the statue with a gesture of desperation.
- Forever in my memory will live a heavenly harpy that will plunge its sharp claws into my feelings and impose the stigma of imperfection on all women! Monster! You, unable to give life to anything, you have turned the world into a desert for me.
However, Sarrazin misses the statue with his hammer, and moments later he will be killed by the mercenaries of the patron Zambinella.
And in " unknown masterpiece", and in "Sarrazine" the artists find themselves in the position of the oppressed; instance of oppression - perfect art. In the first case we are talking about the perfect picture, embodying perfect beauty, in the second - about the perfect beauty of the body, embodied in sculpture (in a copy of the perfect body). Both artists demonstrate two main impacts of the repressive ideal. In The Unknown Masterpiece, destruction is realized through the death of Frenhofer, the destruction of his main masterpiece, and then the rest of the paintings, and Gillette's break with Poussin. In "Sarrasina" the destruction affects not only the deceased sculptor himself, but also "tangentially" touches both Zambinella and his statue (who barely escape destruction). In addition, we can say that the story of Sarrazin destroys the plans of the hero who told it (the story uses frame composition). Both creators are oppressed by their ideals: they see in them the only purpose of their existence, and having lost these ideals, they die.
Another feature of the functioning of the repressive ideal is revealed: in the texts where it is problematized, the hero - the bearer of the ideal on the pages of the work invariably faces death. And it will hardly be peaceful death, full of reconciliation with fate and life (War and Peace can again be cited as an example of such a death: “He, without haste and without worry, expected what lay ahead of him,” says the novel about the last days of Andrei Bolkonsky). Violent death, death as defeat - such is the end of the hero who has touched the repressive ideal.
Let us list the main features of the repressive ideal, which we managed to identify on the material of the considered works. Firstly, this ideal suppresses: it turns out to be an absolute value, while leveling all other values. Secondly, this ideal is destructive: it turns out to be the main source of destructive forces. These are the two main effects of the repressive ideal. The repressive ideal is embodied in a dream (which constitutes its figurativeness), which does not tolerate any contact with reality and is most often thought of in the future (as “futurity”). The conductor to this dream is a special figure (see below about this) of the conductor - the opposite sex. The hero, exposed to the repressive ideal, is waiting for death on the pages of the novel. The emergence of repressive ideals is associated with the denial of the principle of romantic irony and the special relations generated by it.
Thus, the problem of duality not only does not lose its significance in realistic literature, but is also undergoing a transformation. The destruction of the system of philosophical and aesthetic principles romanticism led to the fact that the ideal in work of art begins to be thought of as an instance of repression, all evil is concentrated around it. The problem of the repressive ideal and its critique are often at the center of attention of realist writers. The solution of this problem within the limits of realism is possible (as the example of Andrey Bolkonsky shows).
"The ideal of happiness, drawn by Oblomov, was nothing more than a satisfying life - with greenhouses, greenhouses, trips with a samovar to the grove, etc. - in a dressing gown, in a sound sleep, and for the intermediate - in idyllic walks with a meek but stout wife and in contemplation of how the peasants work. These are Oblomov's dreams, which have been imprinted in his imagination for years. Dreams take Oblomov back to childhood, where it was cozy, quiet and calm. The ideal of a family for Oblomov comes precisely from childhood memories ... "The nanny is waiting for him to wake up. She begins to pull on his stockings; he does not give in, plays pranks, dangles his legs; the nanny catches him, and both of them laugh..."
“The child looks and observes with a sharp and captivating look how and what adults do, what they devote the morning to. Not a single trifle, not a single trait escapes the child’s inquisitive attention ...” And if we compare the order of life of the Oblomov family and the life described Oblomov Stolz, we get two very similar pictures: Morning... Kiss of the wife. Tea, cream, crackers, fresh butter... Walking with my wife under the blue-blue sky, along the shady alleys of the park. Guests. Hearty lunch. "In the eyes of the interlocutors you will see sympathy, in a joke sincere, gentle laughter ... Everything is to your liking!" Here is an idyll, "Oblomov's utopia".
This idyll is partially personified in the relationship between Oblomov and Agafya Matveevna. This woman, in whom Oblomov is so admired by full elbows with dimples, mobility, housekeeping, cherishes and takes care of him like a child. She provides him with peace and a well-fed life. But was it the ideal of love? "He was getting closer to Agafya Matveyevna - as if he was moving towards the fire, from which it becomes warmer and warmer, but which cannot be loved."
Oblomov could not love Agafya Matveevna, could not appreciate her attitude towards him. And he took her care for granted, as he had been used to since childhood. "It's as if an invisible hand has planted him, like a precious plant, in the shade from the heat, under the roof from the rain, and takes care of him ...". Again, we see - "Oblomov's utopia." What else is needed for happy life? Why is Goncharov stirring up this quiet, calm "pond"? Why does he introduce Olga into the novel as a powerful "antidote" to Oblomov's life?
The love of Ilya and Olga, I would say, even seems passionate. She runs a spark between them, inflaming interest in each other. She makes Oblomov wake up, makes Olga feel her strength as a woman, she helps her spiritual growth. But their relationship does not have a future, because Oblomov will never overcome the "ravine" that separates Olga and Oblomovka.
At the end of the novel I can't see complete picture love and family happiness. On the one hand, only Agafya Matveevna is the personification of the family, on the other hand, Olga is love.
But we must not forget Olga and Stolz. Perhaps their union is close to ideal. They became as one. Their souls merged into one. They thought together, read together, raised children together - they lived varied and interesting lives. Olga, peering with radiant eyes into the eyes of Stolz, as if absorbing his knowledge, his feelings. family life failed to land their relationship.
"Stoltz was deeply happy with his filled, exciting life, in which an unfading spring blossomed, and jealously, actively, vigilantly cultivated, protected and cherished it."
It seems to me that it is Olga and Stolz who symbolize the ideal of love and family in the understanding of I. A. Goncharov.
In the novel by I. A. Goncharov "Oblomov" three love stories are shown: Oblomov and Olga, Oblomov and Agafya Matveevna, Olga and Stolz. They all have different attitudes towards love, they have different goals in life, different views on life itself, but they have something in common - the ability to love. They are looking for their love for a long time and, only having found it, they find true happiness. Ilya Ilyich Oblomov is a typical Russian gentleman. He grew up as a "buyback" and therefore he does not know how and does not want to do anything, he just lies on the couch all day long, eats, sleeps and makes grandiose plans for the future. Even Stolz, his close friend, cannot bring him out of a state of complete inactivity. But the situation changes dramatically after Oblomov's acquaintance with Olga Ilyinskaya. She was considered unusual girl, there was "no affectation, no lies, no coquetry" in it. It was for this sincerity, purity, directness that he fell in love with Olga. The heroine first tries to awaken him to life, and then fell in love with him for his kindness, gentleness, and romance.
In the summer, Oblomov follows Olga to the dacha, where their love blooms in full force. But already here he understands that they are with Olga different people that she loves not him, but only the future Oblomov.
Returning to St. Petersburg, they continue to meet, although Oblomov again leads a sedentary lifestyle. He begins to imagine how many things need to be redone for the wedding - to settle things in Oblomovka, to pick up new apartment, prepare everything for the wedding, visit old friends and invite them to visit. The hero is afraid of these troubles and therefore begins to move away from Olga, excused either by illness or by the poor condition of the roads. She begins to realize that Ilya Ilyich is far from the person she painted in her imagination, and that she cannot do real Oblomov ideal. Therefore, Olga breaks with Oblomov.
Their break should have been a relief for Oblomov, but it brings him heartache. He loved sincerely, the end of the relationship killed the remnants of the energetic, active Oblomov.
The hero again plunges into the maelstrom of idleness and daydreaming. All worries about him are taken over by his landlady, Agafya Matveevna Pshenitsyna. She herself does not know why she loves Ilya Ilyich. Perhaps he differs sharply from her surroundings, from servile officials like her late husband, perhaps she discerned his gentleness, sensitivity, kindness. She sacrifices a lot for him, sells her things so that he always feels good. The hero likes her constant movement, her unobtrusive concern for him, her willingness to give everything for a loved one. Oblomov begins to get used to it. He marries Agafya Matveevna, their son Andrey is born.
Until the death of Ilya Ilyich, she takes care of him, takes him for walks, cares and cherishes him. After his death, she is the only one who does not forget him, takes care of his grave. She gives their son Andrey to Stolz and Olga, so that the son is brought up in the same environment as his father, so that he becomes a real nobleman.
Oblomov found in the widow Pshenitsyna a woman from his dreams, who lived only for the sake of her husband and children. She brightened him up last days, helped him live them calmly, without needing anything.
After the break with Oblomov, Olga cannot recover for a long time. Together with her aunt, she leaves for a trip to Europe, where she meets with Stolz. Andrey was very surprised to see instead of the cheerful girl that Olga was before leaving, a serious young woman. He understands that the "new" Olga is the ideal he aspired to. Stolz confesses his love to her. Olga, on the other hand, is afraid of the feeling for Stolz that is emerging in her, she believes that you can love only once and that now she cannot truly love anyone. Stolz explains to her that she did not love Oblomov, it was only a preparation for love, and Olga will still be happy.
The joint life of Stolz and Olga is similar to the dreams of Ilya Ilyich: their own house in the Crimea, children, every evening they read books, newspapers, discuss new inventions and discoveries, argue on different topics. But Olga feels some kind of dissatisfaction, some kind of unconscious striving forward. These aspirations help her more love"to look at life. In his novel, Goncharov showed different faces of love: sacrificial love Agafya Matveevna, Olga's idealized love for Oblomov, the union of two loving people- Olga and Stolz. Each of them is beautiful in its own way, each of them is possible only for a certain type of people. Olga, Stolz, Oblomov, Pshenitsyn's widow are completely different people, but they have a common goal - to be with a loved one, to have a family. Love is a great feeling, there are no class barriers for it (Oblomov and Agafya Matveevna). If you really love, you will do everything for your loved one.
In his work "Oblomov" I. A. Goncharov tries to find answers to those eternal questions that a person asks himself at least once in his life. And one of such multifaceted worlds, the study and understanding of which the author devoted his novel to, is the world of harmony, happiness, love. Love, as it were, permeates the whole work, filling it different colors, revealing the most unexpected features of the hero, awakening in them a thirst for action and knowledge. Goncharov reveals to us the most diverse facets of love and the concepts of family and marriage associated with it. We feel the author's sympathy for this or that ideology of happiness, however top choice he leaves to the reader.
Love helps to reveal the most unexpected traits in the characters' characters, traits without which it was impossible to make a complete impression of them, because otherwise it would be erroneous. For example, the character of the adult Ilya Ilyich Oblomov. Well, what would Stolz's words about Oblomov's “crystal, pure and bright” soul be like if the author showed us only his life in St. Petersburg? If it were not for those beautiful pages about his sincere all-encompassing love awakened by Olga, even childhood memories would not brighten up this image.
Second, no less meaningful function love story in the novel, - opposition. IN this work two collective images, which are the exact opposite when comparing characters or appearance - they both pass the test of love. Both Oblomov and Stolz are connected by a thread of relationship with Olga. How unlike their behavior when they fall in love with her, and how much more it gives than any other comparison.
The great significance of the theme of love lies in the fact that it gives the author the opportunity to raise other, no less profound and interesting problems. For example, the question about perfect family. How does the author see her, what can she be?
Let's move on to specific images novel, let's start with the relationship of the three main characters: Oblomov, Olga and Stolz. The first couple is Oblomov and Olga. Their love is the beautiful sounds of "Sazla Via", awakening all the best in the soul, a flowering branch of lilac, symbolizing the "color of life", bright summer nature, causing the most joyful dreams. But autumn came, the lilacs faded, and love passed. She was like a fairy tale. Oblomov and Olga lived in some kind of imaginary, mythical world. But faced with harsh reality, this world has scattered and broken into thousands of fragments, and with it love. Or maybe not love. Maybe Stolz is right when he says that it was not love for Olga, but only preparation for true love, future love. But then it is also true for Oblomov. He also believes not in a living person, but rather in an invented image. After all, if he had fully realized Olga's nature, it would never have occurred to him to place her in his future family world.
For Olga, love is first of all a duty. And the eye itself does not deny this. In her relationship with Oblomov, she liked the role of "a guiding star, a bright ray" that guides Ilya Ilyich. And it is no coincidence that when they talk about the love of Olga and Oblomov, they note the Christian beginning in her image. Even Oblomov himself sees in her an angel who came to save him, to bring him to the light. It is no coincidence that Olga performs "Saz1;a C1ua" for Oblomov. This is the appeal of a young girl to the goddess Artemis, to the immaculate maiden from mythology. This goddess acts as a prototype of the Holy Virgin. This christian motif fits the image of Olga. She, like a saint, is trying to save Oblomov's soul from this darkness, to which he doomed her.
Page 1 ]
The author, as a rule, embodies his dreams, ideas, ideas in the main character. They are spiritually linked and inseparable. It is he who will allow me to create an idea of the author's ideal.
“The ideal of happiness, drawn by Oblomov, consisted of nothing more than a satisfying life - with greenhouses, greenhouses, trips with a samovar to the grove, etc. - in a dressing gown, in a sound sleep, and for an intermediate in idyllic walks with a meek but stout wife and in contemplation of how the peasants work. These are Oblomov's dreams, which have been imprinted in his imagination for years. Dreams take Oblomov back to childhood, where it was cozy, quiet and calm. The ideal family for Oblomov comes precisely from childhood memories ... “Nanny is waiting for him to wake up. She begins to put on his stockings; he is not given, he is naughty, dangles his legs; the nanny catches him, and they both laugh ... "
“The child looks and observes with a sharp and captivating look how and what adults do, what they devote morning to. Not a single trifle, not a single feature escapes the inquisitive attention of a child ... "And if we compare the order of life of the Oblomov family and the life described by Oblomov to Stolz, we will get two very similar pictures: Morning .. . Kiss your wife. Tea, cream, crackers, fresh butter... Walking with his wife under the blue-blue sky, along the shady alleys of the park. Guests. Hearty lunch. “In the eyes of the interlocutors you will see sympathy, in a joke sincere, non-malicious laughter ... All to your liking! "Here is an idyll," Oblomov's utopia ".
This idyll is partially personified in the relationship between Oblomov and Agafya Matveevna. This woman, in whom Oblomov is so admired by full elbows with dimples, mobility, housekeeping, cherishes and takes care of him like a child. She provides him with peace and a well-fed life. But was it the ideal of love? “He was getting closer to Agafya Matveevna - as if he was moving towards the fire, from which it becomes warmer and warmer, but which cannot be loved.”
Oblomov could not love Agafya Matveevna, could not appreciate her attitude towards him. And he took her care for granted, as he had been used to since childhood. “It’s as if an invisible hand has planted him, like a precious plant, in the shade from the heat, under the roof from the rain, and takes care of him ...” . Again, we see - "Oblomov's utopia". What else is needed for a happy life? Why is Goncharov stirring up this quiet, calm "pond"? Why does he introduce Olga into the novel as a powerful "antidote" to Oblomov's life?
The love of Ilya and Olga, I would say, even seems passionate. She runs a spark between them, inflaming interest in each other. She makes Oblomov wake up, makes Olga feel her strength as a woman, she contributes to her spiritual growth. But their relationship does not have a future, because Oblomov will never overcome the "ravine" that separates Olga and Oblomovka.
At the end of the novel, I do not see the full picture of love and family happiness. On the one hand, only Agafya Matveevna is the personification of the family, on the other hand, Olga is love.
But we must not forget Olga and Stolz. Perhaps their union is close to ideal. They became as one. Their souls merged into one. They thought together, read together, raised children together - they lived varied and interesting lives. Olga, peering with radiant eyes into the eyes of Stolz, as if absorbing his knowledge, his feelings. Family life could not land their relationship.
“Stolz was deeply happy with his filled, exciting life, in which an unfading spring bloomed, and jealously, actively, vigilantly cultivated, protected and cherished it.”
It seems to me that it is Olga and Stolz who symbolize the ideal of love and family in the understanding of I. A. Goncharov
