Wonderful Russian prose writer II half of XIX century Ivan Alexandrovich Goncharov in the novel "Oblomov" reflected the difficult time of transition from one era of Russian life to another. Feudal relations, the estate type of economy were replaced by a bourgeois way of life. The centuries-old views of people on life collapsed. The fate of Ilya Ilyich Oblomov can be called an "ordinary story", typical of landowners who lived serenely at the expense of the labor of serfs. The environment and upbringing made them weak-willed, apathetic people, incapable of decisive action.
"Why am I like this?" - Oblomov asks himself. He, a thirty-two-year-old man, is sadly aware of his own uselessness in society. At the beginning of the novel, the author describes in detail the hero's childhood and life in the ancestral village of Oblomovka, where the main occupation for the masters was food and sleep. Ilyusha was loved, pitied and fed, but not prepared for adulthood. As a result, good big child, irresponsible, unable to take care of himself. Goncharov draws his hero as a man “of pleasant appearance, with dark gray eyes, but with the absence of any definite idea, any concentration in facial features. The thought walked like a free bird across the face,<…>hid in the folds of her forehead, then completely disappeared, and then an even light of carelessness flickered all over her face.
Having moved to St. Petersburg, Oblomov lives here according to the laws of Oblomovka. The main piece of furniture in his apartment is a sofa, on which the hero lies all day long in a greasy dressing gown. Dust, dirt, cobwebs all around; the old servant Zakhar is lazy and dissolute. The master sometimes scolds him, but in reality they cannot live without each other: “Ilya Ilyich could neither get up, nor go to bed, nor be combed and shod, nor dine without the help of Zakhar, and Zakhar could not imagine another master, except for Ilya Ilyich, another existence, how to dress, feed him, be rude to him, lie and at the same time revere him. He, without hesitation, would have died for his master, and it could not have occurred to him to change the servant.
Lying was not a necessity for Oblomov, as for a sick or tired person. This was his normal natural state. The hero both sleeps and lives on the couch, in the afternoon coming up with a plan to improve the life of the peasants on his estate, where he has not been for 12 years. Taking advantage of the lack of will of the owner, the headman of Oblomovka brazenly deceives the master, referring to the constant drought and crop failure. The slightest changes in life scare Oblomov. Just leaving the house, especially going to the village and sorting it out, is beyond his strength.
An attempt to join public life ended in failure for him. Having somehow graduated from the university, Oblomov enters the service of an official, but work in the office - meaningless shifting of pieces of paper - requires great effort and concentration from him. Having sent one of the letters to the wrong address, Ilya Ilyich fell into a depression, could not overcome the feeling of guilt and was no longer in the service. Oblomov is a kind, decent person who is not devoid of intelligence and abilities. He would never agree to be mean or lie for the sake of a career. It is unbearable for him to portray the ebullient activity in the office, which does not bring any benefit to the state. He cannot harm others, so he chooses idleness as the only way to exist. At least he does not participate in the general evil by excluding himself from active life. He only harms himself. But most importantly, he was brought up in a tradition when labor was considered a punishment for a person, torment, God's punishment for sins. So, relatives and servants with lamentations escorted Ilya to the city to study, as if to death. Behind the carriage of young Oblomov, carts with food and things stretched. At 32, he proudly declares that he has never worn stockings himself!
Sometimes his acquaintances come to visit Oblomov, tell the news, call him for a walk, which the hero always refuses. The young secular dandy Volkov seduces Ilya Ilyich to take a ride to the festivities in Yekaterinhof, talks about visits, gloves and a tailcoat, about his next love. A former colleague, Sudbinsky, talks about a career, a profitable marriage, money, apartments, etc. The writer of newspaper articles, the "writer" Penkin, tires Oblomov with a list of social vices, suggests reading his article "The love of a bribe taker for a fallen woman." The petty official Alekseev, "a man of indefinite years, with an indefinite physiognomy," comes alone just to sit with Ilya Ilyich. The guests excitedly talk about their own, they do not hear Oblomov's complaints about the headman and the need to move to another apartment, and only Alekseev, who lives in extreme poverty, sympathizes with the owner. Listening to the stories of friends about their hectic life, Oblomov pities them, considering them deeply unhappy. He understands the true meaning of actions. Acquaintances rejoice, spending themselves on emptiness, vanity, which they seriously consider life. Goncharov skillfully depicts meaninglessness public service(Sudbinsky), the vulgarity and corruption of writers of all stripes (Penkin), the aimlessness of the life of high society (Volkov), the depersonalization of petty bureaucracy (Alekseev).
In the image of Oblomov, doom comes through. He voluntarily encloses himself in the space of four walls, seeing that evil triumphs around him. By nature, he is not a fighter. Even realizing that he is being robbed (headman Tarantyev), Ilya Ilyich is unable to resist or defend himself. Goncharov in the text of the novel directly names the cause of the disasters of his hero - this is Oblomovism. It is she who causes paralysis of the will, irresponsibility, fear of life, the habit of hoping for a miracle or "maybe". Oblomovism turned the life of Ilya Ilyich into a miserable existence, and the Oblomov family, once strong and rich, was now completely crushed and degraded. Having absorbed this corrupting psychology with early years, the hero can no longer live differently. From childhood, Ilya was protected from the harsh laws of life, in which idleness for aristocrats was the main privilege of the ruling class. Hence all the misfortunes of Oblomov, his lack of demand by society, on the one hand, and the inability to do anything without outside help, on the other. Oblomovka with its morals is his paradise, where he dreams of returning and which he finally found in the house of the widow Pshenitsyna, where he died happy.
In the article "What is Oblomovism?" the critic N. A. Dobrolyubov analyzed the historical situation in Russia and assessed the hero of the novel and the phenomenon itself. Oblomovism, this eternal "dream of reason" and will, crippled the souls of people, made them lazy and weak-willed. The critic points to the typical character of Oblomov. He wrote that Goncharov wanted to make a random image typical. Not without reason, trying to justify himself, Oblomov exclaims: “Am I the only Oblomovite? We are legion!
Depicting the Russian master, Goncharov shows the process of degeneration of the nobility and draws attention to character traits national character. Goncharov's realism is remarkable in that, along with positive qualities, the writer ruthlessly shows negative traits that belong to the hero. The features of Oblomovism are still alive among the Slavs: a sort of expectation of milk rivers with jelly banks while lying comfortably on the stove. Dobrolyubov does not agree with the ending of Goncharov's novel. He wrote that Goncharov decided to bury Oblomovism. “Farewell, old Oblomovka, you have outlived your life,” he says through Stolz, and is not telling the truth. Oblomovka is alive, and "her three hundred Zakharovs are always ready to serve." The novel by I. Goncharov outlived its time and remained in the history of Russian literature precisely because more than one generation of Russian people will have to get rid of the psychology of Oblomovism in themselves.
One of outstanding works literature of the XIX century is the novel by I. A. Goncharov "Oblomov". The work was a kind of mirror of its era. "Oblomov" became a "book of results" for Russian society. That is why Dobrolyubov welcomed Goncharov's work. Roman Revealed terrible force traditions, showed such an existence in which “the norm of life was ready and taught ... by parents, and they accepted it, also ready, from grandfather, and grandfather from great-grandfather ...”. Goncharov's creation convinced readers that continuity alone is not enough for living life - it needs renewal.
The best that the landlord environment could give rise to was Oblomov with his “heart of gold”. In personal manifestations, Ilya Ilyich is pure and noble, but he is all hidden only in them. It is no coincidence that Olga Ilyinskaya is always waiting for the hero to enter the public world. The girl who fell in love with Oblomov and tried in vain to save him asks: “What ruined you? There is no name for this evil...” - “There is... Oblomovism,” the hero replies. A life like a dream and a dream like death - this is the fate of not only the protagonist of the novel, but also many other characters. The events described in the work are common for public life 1855 - 1862. This is the tragedy of the novel, which describes the patriarchal Rus' that is fading into the past.
So, Oblomov lies on the couch in a comfortable dressing gown, and life goes away forever. Peace is the ideal of the hero's life, "his normal state."
Ilya Ilyich Oblomov - Russian landowner who lived in St. Petersburg on the income from his estate. This is a man of about thirty-two or three years old, of medium height, of pleasant appearance, received the education accepted in a noble society, once dreamed of service, travel, was fond of poetry. In terms of intelligence and development, he is superior to his acquaintances - Volkov, Penkin, Sudbinsky, Tarantiev. Oblomov has many positive qualities. “This is a crystal, transparent soul,” Stolz says of him. Attempts by a friend to awaken the hero to life lead to nothing. The author gives many answers to questions in "Oblomov's Dream" in the ninth chapter of the novel.
In Oblomovka, in the distant childhood, an important and in later life largely defining feature of Ilya Ilyich's character developed - poetic daydreaming. Here Goncharov, following Pushkin, emphasizes that the culture of the nobility is inextricably linked with the folk soil. These class traditions, on the one hand, will play a sad role V the formation of Oblomov's character, turning partly into traits 288
"Oblomovism". But these same foundations will allow the hero to preserve the naturalness and free state of the soul, which will be higher than Stolz's worldly practicality. In Oblomov's dream, in his attitude to a past life, there are clues to the hero's subsequent actions. Oblomov cannot be fully understood if one does not realize the fabulous and mythological nature of his character, reproduced precisely in Oblomov's Dream.
The tale from “Oblomov's Dream” passes into the life of the hero and settles with him on the Vyborg side, “the present and the past have merged and mixed up.” And right away the hero plunges into the “sleepy kingdom”, only it is already called “life”. It is no coincidence that in Goncharov's novel the hero comes from Oblomov's paradise not just anywhere, but to St. Petersburg - a half-Russian, half-European city, cold, bureaucratic, full of fuss. Everything here is the opposite of customs in Obyaomovka: burdensome service, insincere relations between people, even the weather is cloudy and dull. The image of Ilya Ilyich is the embodiment of nostalgia for the past. Just as a person is sad about his childhood, so people are sad about their past, which always seems better than the present.
Oblomov is just a child of his time. The kingdom of serf Russia is the source of Oblomov's apathy, inactivity, fear of life. The habit of getting everything for nothing, without putting any effort, is the basis of all Oblomov's actions and actions.
In his work, Goncharov created a generalized image. This is a literary type, a system of vices of a noble society. In the image of Oblomov embodied typical features Russian character. The author showed the Russian master - a sloth with a broad soul and good heart, high feelings. Unlike the people around him, Oblomov is aware of his unsuitability for a new life, while suffering, today's life does not suit him either: "It's worth getting up from the couch for such a life." Having turned into an unnecessary and bitter vegetative life, Oblomov's life ends without ending with anything significant. The future of the country is not for people like Ilya Ilyich.
In his novel, which can be called central to the writer's work, Goncharov managed to realistically reflect all the complex processes that took place in Russian society in the second half of the 19th century. In the person of Oblomov, on the one hand, the image of a Russian master is reproduced, and on the other hand, the vices of the contemporary reality of the author - “Oblomovism”.
Goncharov's novel "Oblomov" was written in 1858, and in 1859 it was published in " Domestic notes". However, the first part of the work - "Oblomov's Dream" was published back in 1849 in the "Literary Collection", becoming a landmark element of the plot and ideological construction of the novel. "Oblomov" is one of the works of Goncharov's novel trilogy, which also includes "An Ordinary Story" and "Cliff". In the book, the author touches on many acute social issues for his era - the formation of a new Russian society and the opposition of the original Russian mentality to European principles, as well as the "eternal" problems of the meaning of life, love and human happiness. A detailed analysis of Goncharov's "Oblomov" will allow us to reveal the author's idea more similarly and better understand the brilliant work of Russian literature of the 19th century.
Genre and literary direction
The novel "Oblomov" was written in the tradition literary direction realism, as evidenced by the following features: the central conflict of the work, which develops between the main character and a society that does not share his lifestyle; realistic depiction of reality, reflecting many everyday historical facts; the presence of characters typical of that era - officials, entrepreneurs, philistines, servants, etc., who interact with each other, and in the process of narration, the development (or degradation) of the personality of the main characters is clearly traced.
The genre specificity of the work allows us to interpret it, first of all, as a social and everyday novel, revealing the problem of "Oblomovism" in the contemporary era of the author, its detrimental effect on the townspeople. In addition, the work should be considered as philosophical, affecting many important " eternal questions", and a psychological novel - Goncharov subtly reveals inner world and the character of each hero, analyzing in detail the reasons for their actions and their fate.
Composition
The analysis of the novel "Oblomov" would not be complete without considering the compositional features of the work. The book consists of four parts. The first part and chapters 1-4 of the second are a description of one day of Oblomov's life, including events in the hero's apartment, his characterization by the author, as well as an important chapter for the whole plot - "Oblomov's Dream". This part The work is an exposition of the book.
Chapters 5-11 and the third part represent the main action of the novel, describing the relationship between Oblomov and Olga. The culmination of the work is the parting of the beloved, leading to the fact that Ilya Ilyich again falls into the old state of "Oblomovism".
The fourth part is an epilogue of the novel, which tells about the later life of the characters. The denouement of the book is the death of Oblomov in a kind of "Oblomovka" created by him and Pshenitsyna.
The novel is divided into three conditional parts - 1) the hero strives for an illusory ideal, a distant "Oblomovka"; 2) Stolz and Olga bring Oblomov out of a state of laziness and apathy, forcing him to live and act; 3) Ilya Ilyich again returns to his previous state of degradation, having found "Oblomovka" at Pshenitsyna. Despite the fact that the main plot node has become love story Olga and Oblomov, with psychological point view, the leitmotif of the novel is the image of the degradation of the personality of Ilya Ilyich, its gradual disintegration up to actual death.
Character system
The central core of the characters is represented by two opposing male and female images - Oblomov and Stolz, as well as Ilinskaya and Pshenitsyna. Apathetic, calm, more interested in everyday life, home warmth and a rich table, Oblomov and Pshenitsyn act as carriers of outdated, archaic ideas of Russian philistinism. For both of them, "fragmentation" as a state of calm, detachment from the world and spiritual inactivity is the primary goal. This is opposed to the activity, activity, practicality of Stolz and Olga - they are the bearers of new, European ideas and norms, an updated Russian-European mentality.
Male characters
The analysis of Oblomov and Stolz as mirror characters suggests considering them as heroes of different time projections. So, Ilya Ilyich is a representative of the past tense, for him the present does not exist, and the ephemeral "Oblomovka of the Future" does not exist for him either. Oblomov lives only in the past, for him all the best was already a long time ago in childhood, that is, he strove back, not appreciating the experience and knowledge gained over the years. That is why the return to "Oblomovism" in Pshenitsyna's apartment was accompanied by a complete degradation of the hero's personality - he seemed to be returning to a deep, weak childhood, which he had been dreaming of for many years.
For Stolz, there is no past and present, he is directed only to the future. Unlike Oblomov, who is aware of the goal and outcome of his life - the achievement of the distant "paradise" Oblomovka, Andrei Ivanovich does not see the goal, for him it becomes a means to achieve goals - constant work. Many researchers compare Stolz with an automated, masterfully tuned mechanism, devoid of the inner spirituality that he finds when communicating with Oblomov. Andrei Ivanovich acts in the novel as a character-practitioner who has no time to think, while he needs to create and build something new, including himself. However, if Oblomov was fixated on the past and was afraid to look into the future, then Stolz did not have time to stop, look back and understand where and where he was going. Perhaps it is precisely because of the lack of precise landmarks at the end of the novel that Stolz himself falls into the "traps of fragmentation" finding peace in his own estate.
Both male characters are far from the ideal of Goncharov, who wanted to show that remembering one's past and honoring one's roots is just as important as constant personal development, learning something new and continuous movement. Only such a harmonious personality, living in the present tense, combining the poetry and good nature of the Russian mentality with the activity and industriousness of the European one, is worthy, according to the author, to become the basis for a new Russian society. Perhaps Andrei, the son of Oblomov, could become such a person.
female characters
If, when depicting male characters, it was important for the author to understand their orientation and meaning of life, then female images are connected, first of all, with questions of love and family happiness. Agafya and Olga not only have different origin, upbringing and education, but also have a different character. The meek, weak-willed, quiet and economic Pshenitsyna perceives her husband as a more important and significant person, her love borders on the adoration and deification of her husband, which is normal within the framework of the old, archaic traditions of house building. For Olga, her beloved is, first of all, a person equal to her, a friend and teacher. Ilinskaya sees all the shortcomings of Oblomov and tries to change her lover to the very end - despite the fact that Olga is depicted as an emotional, creative nature, the girl approaches any issue practically and logically. The romance of Olga and Oblomov was doomed from the very beginning - in order to complement each other, someone would have to change, but none of them wanted to give up habitual views and the heroes continued to unconsciously confront each other.
Symbolism of Oblomovka
Oblomovka appears before the reader as a kind of fabulous, unattainable place, where not only Oblomov, but also Stolz strives, constantly settling the affairs of a friend there and trying at the end of the work to take to himself the last thing left of that old Oblomovka - Zakhara. However, if for Andrey Ivanovich the village is devoid of its mythical qualities and attracts rather on an intuitive, unclear level for the hero, connecting Stolz with the traditions of his ancestors, then for Ilya Ilyich it becomes the center of his entire illusory universe in which a man exists. Oblomov is a symbol of everything old, dilapidated, leaving, for which Oblomov is trying to grab on, which leads to the degradation of the hero - he himself becomes decrepit and dies.
In the dream of Ilya Ilyich, Oblomovka is closely connected with rituals, fairy tales, legends, which makes it itself part of the ancient myth of the village-paradise. Oblomov, associating himself with the heroes of fairy tales told by the nanny, seems to fall into this ancient, existing in parallel real world. However, the hero does not realize where dreams end and illusions begin, replacing the meaning of life. The distant, unattainable Oblomovka never gets closer to the hero - it only seems to him that he found it at Pshenitsyna, while he slowly turned into a “plant”, ceasing to think and live a full life, completely immersing himself in the world of his own dreams.
Issues
Goncharov in the work "Oblomov" touched upon many historical, social and philosophical issues, many of which do not lose their relevance to this day. Central problem works is the problem of "Oblomovism" as a historical and social phenomenon among Russian philistines who do not want to adopt new social principles and change. Goncharov shows how "Oblomovism" becomes not only a problem for society, but also for the person himself, who is gradually degrading, fencing off his own memories, illusions and dreams from the real world.
Of particular importance for understanding Russian national mentality has an image in the novel of classical Russian types - both on the example of the main characters (landowner, businessman, young bride, wife), and secondary ones (servants, swindlers, officials, writers, etc.), as well as the disclosure of the Russian national character in opposition to with European mentality on the example of the interaction between Oblomov and Stolz.
An important place in the novel is occupied by questions of the meaning of the hero's life, his personal happiness, his place in society and the world in general. Oblomov is a typical “superfluous person”, for whom the world striving for the future was inaccessible and far away, while the ephemeral, essentially existing only in dreams, ideal Oblomovka was something close and more real than even Oblomov’s feelings for Olga. Goncharov did not depict an all-encompassing, true love between the characters - in each of the cases it was based on other, prevailing feelings - on dreams and illusions between Olga and Oblomov; on friendship between Olga and Stolz; on respect from Oblomov and adoration from Agafya.
Theme and idea
In the novel "Oblomov", Goncharov, considering the historical theme of changing society in the 19th century through the prism of such a social phenomenon as "Oblomovism", reveals its destructive effect not only for the new society, but also for the personality of each individual, tracing the influence of "Oblomovism" on the fate Ilya Ilyich. At the end of the work, the author does not lead the reader to a single thought, who was more right - Stolz or Oblomov, however, an analysis of the work "Oblomov" by Goncharov shows that a harmonious personality, like a worthy society, is possible only with full acceptance of one's past, drawing from it spiritual fundamentals, with a constant striving forward and continuous work on oneself.
Conclusion
Goncharov in the novel "Oblomov" for the first time introduced the concept of "Oblomovism", which remains common noun and in our days to refer to apathetic, stuck in the illusions and dreams of the past, lazy people. In the work, the author touches upon a number of social and philosophical issues that are important and relevant in any era, allowing the modern reader to take a fresh look at his own life.
Artwork test
He was a poet, but only too skillfully and successfully pretended to be a prose writer.
Yuri Aikhenvald
Homework for the lesson
1. Write a short review “My reader's impression of the novel by I.A. Goncharov "Oblomov"" in workbooks.
2. Reread the first part of the novel, note in the text the portrait characteristics of Oblomov and his servant Zakhar, their almost blood connection with each other; pay attention to the originality of the writer's humor (Oblomov's scene with Zakhar about "others are moving out").
3. Mark in the text the episodes associated with Oblomov's guests, giving a concise definition to each of them.
The purpose of the lesson: analyze in detail the image of Ilya Ilyich Oblomov and try to find out where the roots of the main features of his character should be looked for.
History of creation
The novel "Oblomov" was started in 1846. While on vacation in Europe, in Paris, Ivan Aleksandrovich read the manuscript of a new work to Turgenev, Botkin and Fet, and on the waters in Marienbad, in 1857, he practically completed his second and most famous novel.
Those were the happiest days of his life. Where did the usual apathy and slowness go! He got up at six o'clock in the morning, drank medicinal waters, and worked nonstop from nine o'clock until dinner. In the evenings I wandered for a long time forest paths, thinking about the next scene or episode, and at the same time - all his life, because "Oblomov" is in many ways a novel about Goncharov himself. The source for writing the novel was the writer's observations on the life of his own family and the customs of his native city. The life of Oblomovka, the estate where the main character, Ilya Ilyich Oblomov spent his childhood, differed little from the life of provincial Simbirsk.
"The very appearance of the native city, The writer recalled I couldn’t imagine anything else but a picture of sleep and stagnation… I just want to fall asleep myself, looking at this lull, at the sleepy windows with the curtains down… at the sleepy physiognomies of those sitting at home or the faces that come across on the street. “We have nothing to do! - yawning, it seems, each of these faces, looking lazily at you, - we are not in a hurry, we live - we chew bread, but we smoke the sky!
The novel was created for 10 years and was published in Otechestvennye Zapiski for 1859, i.e. on the eve of the abolition of serfdom, the way of life that gave birth to the protagonist of the novel, Oblomov. For Russia, 10 years is a whole era. The first part of the novel was written in the late 1840s - early 1850s. (N.V. Gogol is still alive and the traditions of the “natural school” are strong). The remaining parts - in 1857 - 1858. Its appearance coincided with the most acute (before the coming reform) crisis of serfdom. The country stood on the threshold of a quite probable peasant revolt. The image of an apathetic, incapable of activity landowner, who grew up and was brought up in the patriarchal atmosphere of a manor's estate, where the gentlemen lived serenely thanks to the labor of serfs, was very relevant for contemporaries.
Prototypes
The protagonist of the novel "Oblomov" had many prototypes, Goncharov's close acquaintances. In a conversation with the publisher M.O. Wolf, the writer recognized the features of his hero in himself: “Oblomov is me (...) I drew Oblomov from myself”. Along with life, Ilya Ilyich had literary predecessors.
Question
Can you name some of them yourself?
Answer
First of all, these are Gogol's heroes: Manilov, Tententnikov (from the second volume of "Dead Souls"), Beshmetova (from the story "Tufyak" by A.F. Pisemsky), the characters of Goncharov himself: Tyazhalenko, Yegor Aduev and Alexander Aduev. In Oblomov, traits of character are revealed, generated, first of all, by the Russian patriarchal landowner life. But this image has become the largest generalization of world significance. He is the embodiment of life stagnation, immobility, unrestrained human laziness, a universal property.
Portrait characteristic of Ilya Ilyich Oblomov
Question
Using the material prepared at home, characterize Oblomov.
Answer
Part I, ch.1, p. 19, 20, 70, 72, 74, 76*
Question
On what details does Goncharov focus the attention of the reader?
Answer
Look (eyes that walked carelessly along the walls, along the ceiling, "with that indefinite thoughtfulness which shows that nothing occupies him, nothing disturbs him"), softness of the face ( "which was the dominant and basic expression not only of the face, but of the whole soul"), complexion ( "neither ruddy, nor swarthy, nor positively pale, but indifferent").
Social characteristic
Part I, Ch. 5, p. 70
“Oblomov, a nobleman by birth, a collegiate secretary with rank, has been living without a break for the twelfth year in St. Petersburg”.
Psychological characteristic
Soul (“shone so openly and clearly in the eyes, in a smile, in every movement of the head, hands”), movements (“were restrained by softness and laziness not devoid of a kind of grace”), a dressing gown (dressing gown) is a favorite type of clothing, lying down is normal state.
Part I, Ch. I, p. 19
Part I, Ch. 5, p. 72–73, 74, 76
Question
What other properties are inherent in Oblomov?
Answer
Constant drowsiness, immobility “Oblomov set out to get up” and “almost got up”- so he crawls all day long from bed to armchair and sofa), lack of will, contemplation, helplessness (he is not able to write a note to the owner of the house, much less go to his village to take care of the estate), the need for guardianship, powerlessness of the mind . He is afraid of life changes, afraid of new things in everyday life, in particular, to build a pier in Oblomovka, build a highway, open a fair in the city. The whole being rebels against the transformations.
The portrait of Oblomov is very expressive. It is marked by both a pleasant appearance and a lack of concentration in facial features, according to which "the thought walked like a free bird" and then completely disappear. In the guise of the hero, fatigue, softness of features, pampering, little characteristic of a man, dominate. Oblomov "flabby beyond his years".
Ilya Ilyich is characterized by soreness. His illnesses are socially conditioned and are associated with his constant lying down. As Stoltz noted, Oblomov "attacked his ailments".
Oblomov's oriental robe is a kind of symbol of immobility and laziness in the novel.
Question
Describe Oblomov's dwelling. How does it relate to the image of the main character?
Answer
The interior of the apartment on Gorokhovaya.
Part I, Ch. 1, p. 20–21
“The appearance of the office was striking in the neglect and negligence that prevailed in it”. Goncharov, with his usual thoroughness, reproduces shaky whatnots, cobwebs hanging near the paintings, a mirror covered with a layer of dust, an inkwell clogged with flies, an uncleaned plate with gnawed bones and a sofa with a peeling back tree, an object that is another symbol of Oblomov’s laziness and inactivity in the interior. and apathy.
Question
What did Oblomov do in his life?
Answer
Part I, Ch. 6, p. 76.
Goncharov recreates the biography of his hero, from which we learn about the studies and education of Oblomov ( “He had life on its own, and science on its own”), about his hobbies and a failed marriage of convenience, about the gradual departure from secular fuss and work into a closed shell that ensures his peace, and finally, about twelve years of life in St. Petersburg in an apartment on Gorokhovaya, where we find him in the first part of the novel. As a result, all ties with life are severed, he says goodbye to "a crowd of friends", with a cook and a cook, with "pair of horses". With him remains only a devoted servant Zakhar.
Question
What is this character?
Answer
Part I, Ch. VII, p. 83.
Oblomov's paradoxical double turns out to be his serf servant Zakhar. The writer endows him with an expressive, comic appearance, depicting him "naked as a knee skull", "immensely wide sideburns" and a gray coat "with a hole under the arm". Zakhara is distinguished by constant grumbling and obstinacy, stubbornness, slowness. Inertia and slovenliness. Untidiness and admiration for the nobility, but above all - laziness.
He is devoted to his master. The writer compares this feeling to the devotion of a dog.
"Well, brother, you are even more Oblomov than myself"- the master thinks about him. Both of them are inconceivable without each other, although they are capable of methodically harassing one another.
Question
Is it possible to exhaust the personality of Oblomov with the characteristic of "lazy", "couch potato"? Is it possible to talk about the positive properties of Oblomov? If yes, what are they?
Answer
Oblomov is distinguished by sincerity, conscientiousness, gentleness and sincerity. "Oblomov's nature was based on a pure, bright and good beginning". Oblomov is observant and well sees the vanity of people of his class, hypocrisy, envy, gossip, the pursuit of ranks. He felt that “it is buried, as in a grave, some kind of good, bright beginning”.
Oblomov is kind, he has "heart like a well, deep". And at the end of the novel it says: "there is no heart purer, lighter and simpler". Oblomov cannot harm a person. Oblomov is endowed with dreaminess, the ability to go into the realm of fantastic dreams. The hero's dreams are in extreme contrast with real life, they are distinguished by impracticability, idyllicity, and contemplation.
However, the positive properties of Oblomov should not be overestimated.
Question
Where should one look for the roots of the character of the protagonist?
Answer
As a child, in Oblomovka (Oblomov's Dream).
This is our next lesson..
Literature
Igor Kuznetsov. Great worker. // Goncharov I.A. Oblomov / A book for students and teachers. Moscow: Ast Olymp, 1997.
Yu.M. Loshits. Goncharov / Series: Life of Remarkable People. Moscow: Young Guard, 1977
* The text is quoted from the book: Goncharov I.A. Oblomov / A book for students and teachers. Moscow: Ast Olymp, 1997.
The English writer Lewis, not the Lewis who wrote The Monk, which terrified our grandmothers, but Lewis, who wrote the famous biography of Goethe, 1 in one of his works tells an anecdote that is not without amusement. The hero of the joke was Thomas Carlyle, a contemporary historian and critic, a great lover of German literature and German philosophy. So, the above-named and rather famous among us Thomas Carlyle, while in Berlin, shortly after the death of Goethe, attended a dinner with some professor, along with a very mixed audience, among which were representatives of the most extreme parties in Prussia. The Pietists 2 sat side by side with the Democrats and the new feudal lords of the new Prussian newspaper, which did not yet exist, with the defenders of German unity. At the end of the table, the conversation touched on the recently deceased poet and became general. You can imagine that the shadow of the Weimar Jupiter received a considerable amount of censure. One guest reproached the author of "Faust" for the fact that, not using his authority, he did little to serve the cause of piety and morality; another found two famous verses lawless:
Try in vain, Germans, to make one people out of you;
It would be better for each of you to freely strive to develop as a person 3 .
There were people who reproached Goethe for being insensitive to the political aspirations of his contemporaries, there were even eccentrics who condemned his great word: only in one law can there be true freedom. The conversation was already turning into scolding, but Carlyle remained silent and turned his napkin in his hands. Finally, he looked around him and said in a low voice: "Meine Herren (Gentlemen (German).), have you ever heard of a man who scolded the sun for not wanting to light his cigars?" The bomb that fell on the table could not have hit the debaters more than this trick. Everyone fell silent, and the mocking Englishman remained the winner.
The anecdote we have now told is exceedingly good, and Carlyle's jest was significant as a contradiction to the extremes of other interlocutors, although, in our opinion, the wise admirer of Goethe got a little carried away in his expressions. Such important aspects of life as national aspirations, religious needs, the thirst for political development, it is not entirely clever to compare with a worthless German cigar. The daily, urgent needs of society are as legitimate as possible, although it does not follow at all that the great poet was their direct and immediate representative. The sphere of the great poet is different - and that is why no one has the right to take him out of this sphere. The Prussian Stein, as minister, was incomparably superior to the minister and Privy Councilor von Goethe, and any political parallel between these two people is impossible. But which of the most prejudiced people does not admit that the poet Goethe is in practical sense words turned out to be more beneficial for mankind than the beneficent and noble Stein. Millions of people in their inner world were enlightened, developed and directed towards goodness by Goethe's poetry, millions of people were lent to this poetry, this true the word of our age, most useful and sweet hours of your life. Millions of individual moral chaos rallied into a coherent world through the magical teachings of the poet-philosopher, and his immeasurable influence on the minds of his contemporaries will be reflected over the years in the whole life of Germany, whether it will be a united or fragmented Germany. In consequence of all that has just been said, Carlyle's escapade is perfectly justified, despite its rudeness. A great poet is always a great enlightener, and poetry is the sun of our inner world, which, apparently, does no good deeds, does not give anyone a penny, and meanwhile lives the whole universe with its light.
The greatness and significance of true poetry (albeit not worldly, even if not great) is nowhere so clearly, so tangibly expressed as in the literature of peoples who are still young or just awakening from a long mental inactivity. In societies that have matured, experienced a lot and are largely enlightened by experience for long years, the thirst for the poetic word is kept within limits, which can only be violated by the influence of a true genius or a powerful herald of new truths. In these societies, even strong talents grow old, are forgotten by posterity, and pass into the possession of bibliophiles alone; the reason for this is quite understandable - neither the stars nor the moon can be seen where the sun shines. But in the societies of the young, we see quite the opposite: there poets are long-lived, where talent is given everything it deserves, and very often more than it should. Look, for example, at the endless, uninterrupted popularity in America of Longfellow, a poet of very little distinction, Washington Irving, a writer of true poetry, but by no means of genius, Messrs. Sitsfield and Melville, scarcely known to the European reader. The American not only respects these people, but adores them, he naively compares them with the first geniuses of England, Germany and Italy. And the citizen of the United States is right, and all the young society in which he was born is absolutely right in its boundless thirst for every new word in the matter of native poetry. The people we have named are not geniuses, everything written by them is nothing compared to one of Shakespeare's dramas, but they meet the needs of their homeland, they bring their own, albeit not strong, light into the darkness of the inner world of their fellow citizens, they interpret to their listeners their poetry and the truth of life, embracing them, and here they are best fame, here is their permanent diploma for longevity!
Isn't that what we see here in Russia? In our literature, which has not been formed, which has spread through magazines, is imitative and infected with many vices, not a single work marked with the stamp of real poetry has been lost and has not been lost.
With us, with all our frivolity, even with the temporary fashion to trace the genealogy of art from yesterday, everything truly poetic - and, therefore, wise - does not grow old and seems to have been written only yesterday. Pushkin, Gogol and Koltsov, this poetic triad, embracing the poetry of the most versatile phenomena of Russian society, not only have not faded for our time, but live and act with all the power of a fact that never dies. Imagine for a moment (a difficult assumption!) that our thinking people have suddenly forgotten everything that the three poets we have just named have taught them, and it is terrible to imagine what darkness will be inseparable from such oblivion! It cannot be otherwise: it is not for nothing that modern society appreciates poets and the words uttered by true poets, our enlighteners. A strong poet is a constant educator of his land, an educator all the more precious because he will never teach evil, will never give us the truth, which is incomplete and may eventually become untrue. During the period of disturbing practical activity, in the collision of scientific and political theories , in an era of doubt or denial - the importance and greatness of true poets increase in spite of all apparent obstacles. Society, in the full sense of the word, fixes "its eyes full of expectations" on them, 4 and directs them not at all because it expects from poets a solution to its doubts or directions for its practical activity. Society does not harbor such unrealizable fantasies at all and will never give the poet the role of some legislator in the sphere of his ordinary interests. But it will give him faith and power in the affairs of his inner world and does not err in his trust. After every truly artistic creation, it feels that it has received a lesson, the sweetest of lessons, a lesson at the same time lasting and just. Society knows, albeit dimly, that the fruits of such a lesson will not perish or decay, but will pass into its eternal and truly hereditary heritage. This is the reason why coldness towards the cause of poetry is an abnormal thing in a developed member of a young society, and pitiful idiosyncrasy, moral illness, is the most disappointing sign. When an apparently intelligent person says publicly that he doesn't care about works of art and that all he cares about in society is rank and wealth, he is either deluded in a sad way or covers up his own idiosyncrasy with cunning phrases. Didn't one of the greatest German thinkers tell us: "Art re-creates a person and, educating the individual units that make up society, is a sure lever of all social improvements. It illuminates the path to knowledge and well-being, it enlightens the inner world of selected individuals and, acting on them, benefits the whole world, which moves forward only by the ideas and efforts of a few chosen individuals. What is true of the first poets of Russia is just as true of their successors. No true talent has ever gone unnoticed. Every person who has ever written one honest and poetic page knows very well that this page is alive in the memory of every developed contemporary. This greed for the poetic word, this passionate meeting of worthy creations of art is not new to us for a long time, although they have never been written about. The younger our society strives for enlightenment, the hotter it is in its attitude towards talents. In the present years, the whole of reading Russia, with all its business aspirations, yearns for true creations of art, as a field on a hot day yearns for life-giving moisture. Like a field, it absorbs every dewdrop, every drop of refreshing rain, no matter how short this rain is. Society vaguely, very vaguely understands that the inner world of man, that world on which all true poets and artists act, is the basis of everything in this world, and that until our own inner world is softened and illumined by enlightenment, all of our striving forward will not be the movement of progress, but the suffering movements of the patient, tossing and turning in his bed to no avail. In this way, a lot of Russians thinking people instinctively guesses the truth that Goethe and Schiller served so beneficially and so zealously during the period of their friendship and joint activity: "Bildet, ihr konnt es, dafiir freier zu Menscheri euch aus!" ("It is better to develop freely by people - it is within your capabilities" (German) 5 .) If you please, then say that "in our time of movement, fine literature should be in the background!".
The best refutation of the now cited and still insufficiently ridiculed paradox is the present year 1859 and the literary affairs of this year. At first, several remarkable works appeared in our journals, of course, not Shakespearean or even Pushkinian, but honest and poetic works. Throughout Europe, where no one has ever relegated works of art to the background, these works would have had an honorable, calm success, very enviable, but not striking or noisy. In our country, as a result of the paradox just mentioned, they should immediately fade into the background and entertain the leisure of young ladies or idle people, but either happened. The success of the "Noble Nest" turned out to be such that we will not remember for many years. Mr. Turgenev's little novel was read to the point of frenzy, it penetrated everywhere and became so popular that it was unacceptable not to read The Noble Nest. They waited for him for several months and rushed to him, as to a long-awaited treasure. But, let's say, "The Nest of Nobles" appeared in the month of January, the month of news, rumors and so on, the novel was published in its entirety, under all the most favorable conditions for its evaluation. But here is Goncharov's Oblomov. It is difficult to count all the chances collected against this artistic creation. It was published monthly, so it was interrupted three or four times. The first part, always so important, especially important when a novel is published in fragmented form, was weaker than all the other parts. In this first part, the author has sinned by what the reader, apparently, never forgives - the poverty of action; everyone had read the first part, noticed its weak side, but meanwhile, the continuation of the novel, so rich in life and so masterfully constructed, was still in the printing house! People who knew the whole novel, admiring it to the depths of their souls, trembled for long days for Mr. Goncharov; what must the author himself have experienced while the fate of the book, which he carried in his heart for more than ten years, was decided. But the fears were in vain. The thirst for light and poetry took its toll in the young reading world. Despite all the obstacles, Oblomov triumphantly captured all the passions, all the attention, all the thoughts of the readers. In some kind of paroxysms of pleasure, all literate people read Oblomov. Crowds of people, as if waiting for something, noisily rushed to the Oblomov. Without any exaggeration, it can be said that at the present moment in all of Russia there is not a single, remote, provincial town where Oblomov is not read, Oblomov is not praised, and Oblomov is not arguing about. Almost at the same time as Mr. Goncharov's novel, "Adam Bede" appeared in England, a novel by Elliot, a man also highly talented, energetic and destined for a great role in literature, and, above all, a completely new man. "Adam Bede" was a huge success, but compare this quiet, mainstream success with the enthusiasm generated by "Oblomov", and you will not regret the share of Russian writers. Even in the material benefits of success, Mr. Goncharov was almost ahead of the happy Englishman. If all this means "relegating art to the background," then God forbid that Russian art and Russian poets remain longer in such an advantageous background for them!
Let us try, to the best of our ability, to explain to some extent the reason for the extraordinary success of Oblomov. Our work will not be very hard work - the novel is so well known to everyone that it is completely useless to analyze it and acquaint the reader with its content. About the features of Mr. Goncharov, as a writer of high poetic significance, we are also not in a position to say much - our view of him was already expressed by us four years ago, in Sovremennik, regarding our author's book "Russians in Japan" 7 . The review that we mention at one time aroused the sympathy of connoisseurs of Russian literature and is still not out of date, at least we, and quite recently, have come across more than one passage from it in later reviews of Goncharov's works.
In the writer who gave our literature "An Ordinary History" and "Oblomov", we have always seen and see now one of the strongest contemporary Russian artists - with such a judgment, no doubt, any person who knows how to read Russian will agree. There can be no big disputes about the features of Goncharov's talent either. The author of Oblomov, together with other first-class representatives of his native art, is a pure and independent artist, an artist by vocation and by the whole integrity of what he has done. He is a realist, but his realism is constantly warmed by deep poetry; in his powers of observation and manner of creativity, he is worthy of being a representative of the most natural school, while his literary upbringing and the influence of the poetry of Pushkin, his favorite of his teachers, forever remove the very possibility of barren and dry naturalness; In our review, which was mentioned above, we drew a detailed parallel between Goncharov's talent and the talents of first-class painters. Flemish school, the parallel, as it seems to us even now, gives the right key to understanding the merits, merits and even shortcomings of our author. Like the Flemings, Mr. Goncharov is national. relentless in the once accepted task and poetic in the smallest details of creation. Like them, he firmly clings to the reality around him, firmly believing that there is no object in the world that could not be elevated to a poetic representation by the power of labor and talent. As a Flemish artist, Mr. Goncharov does not get confused in systems and does not rush into areas alien to him. Like Dow, Van der Neer and Ostad, he knows he doesn't have to look far for art. Simple and even seemingly stingy with invention, like the three great people we have just named, Mr. Goncharov, like them, does not betray all his depth to a superficial observer. But, like them, he appears deeper and deeper with each attentive glance, like them, he puts before our eyes the whole life of a given sphere, a given era and a given society, in order to, like them, forever remain in the history of art and illuminate with bright light the moments of reality that he has captured.
Despite some imperfections in execution, which we will discuss below, despite the apparent disagreement of the first part of the novel with all subsequent ones, the face of Ilya Ilyich Oblomov, together with the world around him, confirms everything we have just said about the talent of Mr. Goncharov. Oblomov and Oblomovism: it was not for nothing that these words spread all over Russia and became words forever rooted in our speech. They explained to us a whole range of phenomena of modern society, they put before us the whole world ideas, images and details, until recently we were not fully conscious, appearing to us as if in a fog. By the strength of his labor, a man with a deep poetic talent did for a certain department of our modern life what the Flemings kindred to him did with many aspects of their native reality. Oblomov was studied and recognized by a whole people, mostly rich in Oblomovism - and not only did they learn, but they loved him with all their hearts, because it is impossible to know Oblomov and not love him deeply. In vain, to this day, many gentle ladies look at Ilya Ilyich as a creature worthy of ridicule. in vain, many people with overly practical aspirations, intensify to despise Oblomov and even call him a snail: all this strict trial of the hero shows one, superficial and fleeting captiousness. Oblomov is kind to all of us and worth boundless love - this is a fact, and it is impossible to argue against him. Its creator himself is infinitely devoted to Oblomov, and this is the whole reason for the depth of his creation. To blame Oblomov for his Oblomov qualities does not mean the same thing as being angry at why the kind and plump faces of the Flemish burgomasters Flemish paintings not adorned with the black eyes of Neapolitan fishermen or Romans from Transtevere? 8 Throwing thunder at the society that gives birth to the Oblomovs, in our opinion, is the same as being angry for the lack of snowy mountains in Ruysdael's paintings. Do we not see with striking clarity that in this matter all the strength of the poet is generated by his firm, unswerving attitude towards reality, in addition to all embellishments and sentimentality. Holding on tightly to reality and developing it to a depth yet unknown to anyone, the creator of "Oblomov" achieved everything that is true, poetic and eternal in its creation. Let's say more, through his Flemish, relentless work, he gave us that love for his hero, about which we spoke and will continue to speak. If Mr. Goncharov had not descended so deeply into the bowels of Oblomovism, the same Oblomovism, in its incomplete development, might have seemed to us sad, poor, pitiful, worthy of empty laughter. Now you can laugh at Oblomovism, but this laughter is full of pure love and honest tears - you can regret its victims, but such regret will be poetic and bright, not humiliating for anyone, but for many a lofty and wise regret.
Mr. Goncharov's new novel, as anyone who has read it in Otechestvennye Zapiski knows, is divided into two uneven sections. Under the first part of it, if we are not mistaken, 1849 is signed, under the remaining three 1857 and 58 9 . So, almost ten years separate the original, laborious and not yet fully realized idea from its mature implementation. Between Oblomov, who mercilessly torments his Zakhar, and Oblomov, in love with Olga, perhaps there is a whole abyss that no one can destroy. As much as Ilya Ilyich, lying on the sofa between Alekseev and Tarantiev, seems moldy and almost disgusting to us, so much the same Ilya Ilyich, who himself destroys the love of the woman he has chosen and weeps over the wreckage of his happiness, is deep, touching and sympathetic in his sad comic. The features lying between these two heroes, our author was not able to smooth out. All his efforts in this part were in vain - like all artists by nature, our author is powerless wherever required. work done: that is, smoothing, attracting, explaining, in a word, that which is easily given to ordinary talents. After working and hard work on an impossible task, Mr. Goncharov finally became convinced that he could not smooth out the lines we indicated, not fill up the abyss that lay between the two Oblomovs. On this abyss lay one planche de salut (lit.: board of salvation (fr.).), one transitional board: the inimitable Dream of Oblomov. All efforts to add something to it were in vain, the abyss remained the same abyss. Convinced of this, the author of the novel waved his hand and signed under the first part of the novel the explanatory figure of 49 years. By this he expressed his position and frankly gave himself as an artist to the public. The success of "Oblomov" was his answer - the reader forgave private imperfections for the pleasures brought to him by the whole creation. We will not be overly exacting either, but rather we will use the splitting of the novel into two parts in order to trace the curious process of creativity given to us about Oblomov himself and the Oblomovism surrounding him.
There is no doubt that the first relationship of the poet to the powerful type who took possession of all his thoughts was at first far from friendly relations. Ilya Ilyich, not yet mature, not yet alive, met Ilya Ilyich in the soul of his artist, neither affection nor love. The time before 1849 was not a time of poetic independence and impartiality of opinion; for all the independence of Mr. Goncharov, he was still a writer and a son of his time. Oblomov lived in him, occupied his thoughts, but still appeared to his poet in the form of a negative phenomenon, worthy of execution and at times almost hated. In all the first chapters of the novel, right up to The Dream itself, Mr. Goncharov frankly brings out before us the hero who had previously presented itself to him, that Ilya Ilyich, who appeared to him as an ugly manifestation of ugly Russian life. This Oblomov embrio (correct: embryo - in its infancy, in the embryo (English).) is sufficiently processed, objective enough to act on two or three volumes, faithful enough to illuminate many dark sides modern society, but, my God, how far from the present, to the heart of dear Oblomov, this greasy, awkward piece of meat, which also bears the name Oblomov in the first chapters of the novel! What egoism of an ugly bachelor this being is imbued with, how it torments everyone around him, how insultingly indifferent it is to everything humiliating, how lazily hostile to everything that only comes out of its narrow sphere. The evil and nasty side of Oblomovism has been exhausted, but where is its subsequently manifested poetry, where is its comic grace, where is its frank consciousness of its weaknesses, where is its reconciling side, which calms the heart and, so to speak, legitimizes the illegal? In 1849, with the didactic aspirations of literature and with the extremely constrained opportunity to manifest these aspirations, Oblomov could have delighted the reader and connoisseur with himself. What thunders would have been rushed at him by critics, what gloomy talk would have been heard about the environment that gives birth to the Oblomovs! G. Goncharov could be an accuser of serious social ailments, to the general pleasure and even to the small benefit of people who are striving to be liberal without being exposed to great danger, and show the fig to society in the hope that this fig will not be noticed by those who do not like those shown cookies. But similar success our author would be too little. Repulsive and unenlightened by poetry, Oblomov did not satisfy the ideal that he carried in his heart for so long. The voice of poetry told him: go further and look deeper. "Oblomov's dream"! - this most magnificent episode, which will remain in our literature for all eternity, was the first, powerful step towards understanding Oblomov with his Oblomovism. The novelist, thirsting for a solution to the questions brought into his soul by his own creation, demanded an answer to these questions; for answers he turned to that source to which no man of true talent turns in vain. He needed to finally find out, because of what reason Oblomov owns his thoughts, why Oblomov is dear to him, because of which he is dissatisfied with the original objectively correct, but incomplete, Oblomov who does not express his thoughts. In response to his hesitations, Mr. Goncharov began asking the poetry of Russian life, his childhood memories, for the final word, and, explaining past life his hero, with all the freedom plunged into the sphere that surrounded her. Following Pushkin, his teacher, following the example of Gogol, his senior comrade, he treated real life kindly and did not react in vain. "Oblomov's Dream" not only illuminated, clarified and reasonably poeticized the whole face of the hero, but also connected him with a thousand invisible bonds with the heart of every Russian reader. In this respect, the "Dream", striking in itself as a separate artistic creation , is even more striking in its significance throughout the novel. Deep in the feeling that inspired it, bright in the meaning contained in it, it at the same time both explains and enlightens with itself that typical face in which the interest of the whole work is concentrated. Oblomov without his "Dream" would be an unfinished creation, not native to any of us, as now - his "Dream" explains all our perplexities and, without giving us a single bare interpretation, commands us to understand and love Oblomov. Is it necessary to talk about the miracles of subtle poetry, about the radiant light of truth, with the help of which this rapprochement between the hero and his connoisseurs takes place. There is nothing superfluous here, you will not find here an obscure line or a word said in vain, all the little things of the situation are necessary, everything is lawful and beautiful. Onisim Suslov, whose porch could only be reached by grasping the grass with one hand and the roof of the hut with the other, is kind to us and necessary in this matter of clarification. A sleepy servant, blowing awake on kvass, in which drowning flies are stirring strongly, and a dog, recognized as rabid just because he rushed to run from people who had gathered at her with pitchforks and axes, and a nanny who falls asleep after a fat dinner with a presentiment that Ilyusha he will go to touch the goat and climb the gallery, and a hundred other charming, Mierisian details 10 are necessary here, for they contribute to the integrity and high poetry of the main task. Here Mr. Goncharov's affinity for the Flemish masters strikes one's eye, and shows itself in every image. Or, for idle fun, did all the artists we mentioned pile up on their canvas a lot of small details? Or, due to the poverty of their imagination, did they spend the heat of a whole creative hour over some grass, onion, marsh tussock, on which the ray of sunset falls, a lace collar on the camisole of a fat burgomaster? If so, why are they great, why are they poetic, why are the details of their creations merged with the integrity of the impression, cannot be torn off from the idea of the picture? How did it happen that these true artists, so keen on poetry, who illuminated and poeticized the life of their native land to such an extent, rushed into trifles, sat over the details? It can be seen that in the trifles and details we have named, something more was hidden than some short-sighted compiler of cunning theories thinks about. It can be seen that work on details was necessary and important for capturing those higher tasks of art on which everything is based, from which everything is nourished and grows. It can be seen that when creating a small detail, the artist gave himself to it with all his soul for a reason, and his creative spirit must have been reflected in every detail of a powerful work, just as the sun is reflected in a small drop of water - according to the words of the ode, which we learned by heart as children 11 .
So, "Oblomov's Dream" expanded, legitimized and clarified the significant type of hero, but this was still not enough to complete the creation. The new and last, decisive step in the process of creativity was the creation of Olga Ilyinskaya - a creation so happy that we, without hesitation, will name the first thought about it cornerstone the whole Oblomov drama, the happiest thought in all the artistic activity of our author. Even leaving aside all the charm of the performance, all the artistry with which Olga's face is processed, we will not find sufficient words to express everything. beneficial effect this character on the course of the novel and the development of the Oblomov type. Several years ago, when giving an account of Mr. Turgenev's Rudin, 12 we had the opportunity to notice that types in Rudin's genus are not explained by love - now we have to reverse our maxim and declare that the Oblomovs betray all charm, all weakness, and all sadness. the comedy of his nature is precisely through love for a woman. Without Olga Ilyinskaya and without her drama with Oblomov, we would not have known Ilya Ilyich as we know him now, without Olga’s look at the hero, we still would not look at him properly. In the convergence of these two main faces of the work, everything in the highest degree Naturally, every detail satisfies the most demanding requirements of art - and yet how much psychological depth and wisdom develops before us through it! How this young, proudly brave girl lives and fills all our ideas about Oblomov, how we sympathize with the desire of her whole being for this gentle eccentric, separated from the world around him, how we suffer from her suffering, how we hope through her hopes, even knowing and well aware of their impossibility. G. Goncharov, as a brave connoisseur of the human heart, from the first scenes between Olga and her first chosen one, gave a large share intrigue to the comic element. His incomparable, mocking, lively Olga, from the first minutes of rapprochement, sees all the funny features of the hero, without being deceived at all, plays with them, almost enjoys them and is deceived only in her calculations on the solid foundations of Oblomov's character. All this is amazingly true and at the same time bold, because so far none of the poets has dwelled on the great significance of the gentle-comic side in love affairs, while this side has always existed, eternally exists and shows itself in most of our hearts. attachments. many times during recent months we happened to hear and even read expressions of bewilderment about “how could the clever and sharp-sighted Olga fall in love with a man who is unable to change apartments and sleeps with pleasure after dinner” - and, as far as we can remember, all such expressions belonged to very young people, very unfamiliar with life. Olga's spiritual antagonism with Oblomovism, her playful, touching attitude to the weaknesses of the chosen one is explained both by the facts and the essence of the matter. The facts formed quite naturally - the girl, who by nature is not fond of tinsel and empty secular youths of her circle, is interested in an eccentric about whom the smart Stolz told her so many stories, curious and funny, unusual and funny. She approaches him out of curiosity, he likes him because he has nothing to do, perhaps due to innocent coquetry, and then stops in amazement at the miracle she has performed.
We have already said that the tender, loving nature of the Oblomovs is all illuminated through love - and how could it be otherwise with a pure, childishly affectionate Russian soul, from which even her laziness drove away corruption with tempting thoughts. Ilya Ilyich spoke out completely through his love, and Olga, a sharp-sighted girl, did not remain blind to the treasures that were revealed to her. These are the external facts, and from them there is only one step to the most essential truth of the novel. Olga understood Oblomov closer than Stoltz understood him, closer than all the faces devoted to him. She discerned in him both innate tenderness, and purity of character, and Russian gentleness, and a chivalrous capacity for devotion, and a decisive inability to do any unclean deed, and finally - which should not be forgotten - she saw in him an original, funny, but pure person. and not at all contemptible in its originality. Once he reached this point, the artist reached such an amusing action, such charm in the whole course of events, that the failed, sadly ended love of Olga and Oblomov became and will forever remain one of the most charming episodes in all Russian literature. Which of the old people did not read these pages, which of the receptive young men did not feel hot tears in their eyes while reading them? And how simple, often how by comic means such an incredible result! What fear, combined with a smile, these infinitely varied manifestations of Oblomovism arouse in us in the struggle against the true, active life of the heart! We know that the time for renewal has been lost, that it was not given to Olga to raise Oblomov, but meanwhile, with any collision in their drama, our heart stops from the unknown. What we did not feel in all the vicissitudes of this passion, starting even from the moment when Ilya Ilyich, looking at Olga the way nurse Kuzminishna looks at her, importantly talks about the fact that it is not good and dangerous to see each other alone, to his terrible, last date with the girl and until her last words: "What ruined you, there is no name for this evil!" What is there in this interval, in this struggle of light and shadow, which gives us all of Oblomov and brings him closer to us so that we suffer for him when, groaning and bored, he sneaks into the opera from the Vyborg side, and we light up with joy in those moments when in his Oblomov, dusty nest, with the desperate barking of a dog galloping on a chain, an unexpected vision of a kind angel suddenly appears. Before how many particulars of the aforementioned episode, the most good-natured laughter takes possession of us, and then takes possession of it, only to immediately give way to expectation, sadness, excitement, bitter condolences to the weak! This is where the series leads us artistic details, which began with Oblomov's dream. This is where true laughter through tears appears - that laughter that became hateful to us - so often scandalous poets and biographers of drunken bribe-takers covered themselves with it! The expression, so ruthlessly disgraced by mediocre writers, has regained its power for us: the power of true, living poetry has again returned our sympathy to it.
Olga's creation is so complete - and the task she performed in the novel is so richly accomplished - that a further explanation of Oblomov's type through other characters becomes a luxury, sometimes unnecessary. One of the representatives of this excessive luxury is Stolz, with whom, it seems, many of Mr. Goncharov's admirers are dissatisfied. It is quite clear to us that this person was conceived and thought out before Olga, that his share, in the author’s former idea, fell great work clarification of Oblomov and Oblomovism through an understandable opposition of two heroes. But Olga took the whole matter into her own hands, to the true happiness of the author and to the glory of his work. Andrei Stoltz disappeared before her, as a good, but ordinary husband disappears before his brilliantly gifted wife. His role became insignificant, not at all commensurate with the labor and extensiveness of training, like the role of an actor who had been preparing for a whole year to play Hamlet and appeared before the public in the role of Laertes. Looking at the matter from this point of view, we are ready to condemn the too frequent appearance of Stolz, to condemn him very much as living face we are just as incapable as to condemn Laertes for not being Hamlet. We see absolutely nothing unsympathetic in Stolz, and nothing sharply inconsistent with the laws of art in his creation: he is an ordinary person and does not aim at extraordinary people, a face that the novelist does not at all elevate to the ideal of our time, a character depicted with excessive thoroughness, which is all - still does not give us the proper completeness of the impression. Describing Stolz's childhood to us in great detail and poetically, Mr. Goncharov cools down to the period of his maturity so much that he does not even tell us what kind of enterprises Stolz is engaged in, and this strange mistake has an unpleasant effect on the reader, who from his childhood has been accustomed to looking unkindly at any swindler, whose business activities are shrouded in obscurity. If there was a great need in Stolz, if only through him the type of Oblomov was capable of a proper explanation, we have no doubt that our artist, with his strength and vigilance, would not retreat before a once set theme, but we have already said that creation Olga was pushed aside by Stolz and his significance in the novel. Clarification through the sharp contrast of two dissimilar male characters became unnecessary: dry ungrateful contrast was replaced by drama, full of love, tears, laughter and pity. For Stolz, only some participation in the mechanical course of the whole intrigue remained, and even his boundless love for the person of Oblomov, in which, however, he has many rivals.
And in fact, take a careful look at the whole novel, and you will see how many people in it are devoted to Ilya Ilyich and even adoring him, this meek dove, as Olga puts it. And Zakhar, and Anisya, and Stolz, and Olga, and the sluggish Alekseev - all are attracted by the charm of this pure and whole nature, in front of which only Tarantiev can stand without smiling and not feeling warmth in his soul, not making fun of her and not wanting her sip. But Tarantiev is a scoundrel, a mazurik; a clod of dirt, a nasty cobblestone sits in his chest instead of a heart, and we hate Tarantiev, so that if he appeared alive before us, we would consider it a pleasure to beat him with our own hands. On the other hand, the cold penetrates us to the bones and a thunderstorm rises in our soul at the moment when, after describing the conversation between Oblomov and Olgri, after the seventh heaven of poetry, we learn that Tarantyev is sitting in Ilya Ilyich's chair and waiting for his arrival. Fortunately, there are few Tarantievs in the world and in the novel there is someone to love Oblomov. Almost every one of the characters loves him in his own way, and this love is so simple, so necessarily follows from the essence of the matter, so alien to any calculation or authorial exaggeration! But no one's adoration (even counting Olga's feelings here at the best time of her passion) touches us as much as Agafya Matveevna's love for Oblomov, that same Agafya Matveevna Pshenitsyna, who from her first appearance seemed to us the evil angel of Ilya Ilyich - and alas! really became his evil angel. Agafya Matveyevna, quiet, devoted, at any moment ready to die for our friend, really ruined him completely, heaped a coffin stone over all his aspirations, plunged him into a gaping abyss for a moment abandoned Oblomovism, but this woman will be forgiven everything because she loved. The pages in which Agafya Matveevna appears to us, from her very first shy conversation with Oblomov, are the height of artistic perfection, but our author, concluding the story, crossed all the boundaries of his usual artistry and gave us such lines from which the heart breaks, tears flow on a book and the soul of a keen reader flies into the realm of quiet poetry, which until now, of all Russian people, Pushkin alone has been given the opportunity to be a creator in this area. Agafya Matveevna's grief for the late Oblomov, her relationship to her family and Andryusha, finally, this wondrous analysis of her soul and her past passion - all this is beyond the most enthusiastic assessment. Here in the review one short word, one exclamation of sympathy is needed - yes, perhaps, an extract from the most striking lines of the passage, an extract suitable in case the reader wishes to refresh his memory of the whole episode without marking the book and without wasting a minute turning it over her sheets.
“Here she is in a dark dress, in a black woolen scarf around her neck, she walks from the room to the kitchen, still opens and closes cupboards, sews, irons lace, but quietly, without energy, she speaks as if reluctantly, in a quiet voice, and not in as before, she looks around with her eyes carelessly shifting from object to object, but with a concentrated expression, with a hidden inner meaning in her eyes. This thought sat invisibly on her face, it seems, at the moment when she consciously and for a long time peered into the dead face of her husband, and since then she has not left her. She moved around the house, did everything that was necessary with her hands, but her thought did not participate here. Over the corpse of her husband, with the loss of him, she seems to have suddenly understood her life and thought about its meaning, and this thoughtfulness forever lay a shadow on her face. After weeping out a living grief, she concentrated on the consciousness of the loss: everything else died for her, except for little Andryusha. Only when she saw him, signs of life seemed to awaken in her, her features came to life, her eyes filled with joyful light and then burst into tears of memories. She was a stranger to everything around her: if her brother gets angry for a wasted ruble, for a burnt roast, for stale fish, if her daughter-in-law puffs up for softly starched skirts, for weak and cold tea, if the fat cook is rude, Agafya Matveyevna does not notice anything, as if she does not talking about her, does not even hear a caustic whisper: "Mistress! landowner!" She answers everything with the dignity of her grief and submissive silence. On the contrary, on Christmas time, on a bright day, on merry Shrovetide evenings, when everyone rejoices, sings, eats and drinks in the house, she suddenly, among the general fun, will burst into bitter tears and hide in her corner. Then he will concentrate again and sometimes even look at his brother and his wife, as if with pride, with regret. She realized that she had lost and shone her life, that God had put a soul into her life - and took it out again; that the sun shone in it and faded forever ... Forever, really; but on the other hand, her life was also comprehended forever; now she knew why she had lived and that she had not lived in vain.
She loved so fully and much: she loved Oblomov - as a lover, as a husband and as a master; only she could never tell this, as before, to anyone. Yes, no one would understand her around. Where would she find the language. There were no such words in the lexicon of the brother, Tarantiev, daughter-in-law, because there were no concepts; only Ilya Ilyich would have understood her, but she never spoke to him, because then she herself did not understand and did not know how .... Beams spilled over her whole life, a quiet light from the seven years that flew by as one instant, and there was nothing for her wait no more, nowhere to go..."
After all that we have said and written out, perhaps another skeptical reader will ask us: “Yes, why, finally, Oblomov is so loved by those around him - and even more, why exactly is he kind to the reader? If there is enough to excite expressions and deeds of devotion and wallow on sofas, do no evil and confess his worldly incapacity, and above all this, have several comic sides in his character, then a significant mass of the human race has the right to our possible affection!If Oblomov is really kind as a dove, then why is the author did not express to us the practical manifestations of this kindness, if the hero is honest and incapable of evil, then why are these respectable sides of his nature not exposed to us in a tangible way? , petty, vital activity, which, as everyone knows, is always enough to express the attractive sides of our nature. Why, then, are all such expressions of nature in Oblomov exclusively passive and negative? Why, finally, does he not perform before us even the smallest deed of love and meekness, even a deed that can be completed without parting from the robe - why does he not say a welcoming and sincere word to at least one of the secondary persons standing near him, although would be a reward for all their devotion?" In such a remark of the reader, one finds its share of truth. Oblomov, the best and strongest creation of our brilliant novelist, is not one of the types "to which it is impossible to add a single superfluous feature" - you involuntarily think about this type , you involuntarily crave additions to it, but these additions themselves come to mind, and the author, for his part, has done almost everything necessary to ensure that they come.
The German writer Riehl said somewhere: woe to that political society where there are no and cannot be honest conservatives; imitating this aphorism, we will say: it is not good for the land where there are no good and incapable of evil eccentrics in the Oblomov family! Oblomovism, so fully described by Mr. Goncharov, captures a huge number of aspects of Russian life, but from the fact that it has developed and lives with us with extraordinary strength, one should not yet think that Oblomovism belongs to Russia alone. When the novel we are considering is translated into foreign languages, its success will show to what extent the types that fill it are general and universal. Numerous brothers of Ilya Ilyich are scattered across the face of the whole world, that is, people who are not prepared for practical life who peacefully hid from collisions with her and do not throw their moral slumber behind the world of unrest, to which they are not capable. Such people are sometimes funny, sometimes mischievous, but very often sympathetic and even intelligent. Oblomovism in relation to everyday life is the same as, in relation to political life, conservatism, mentioned by Riehl: it, in too extensive development, is an intolerable thing, but there is nothing to be treated with enmity towards its free and moderate manifestation. Oblomovism is disgusting if it comes from rottenness, hopelessness, corruption and evil obstinacy, but if its root lies simply in the immaturity of society and skeptical hesitation pure in soul people in the face of practical disorder, which happens in all young countries, then being angry with her means the same as being angry with a child whose eyes are stuck together in the middle of the evening noisy conversation of adult people. Russian Oblomovism, as captured by Mr. Goncharov, arouses our indignation in many ways, but we do not recognize it as the fruit of rottenness or corruption. This is precisely the merit of the novelist, that he firmly linked all the roots of Oblomovism to the soil folk life and poetry - he showed us its peaceful and non-malicious sides, without hiding any of its shortcomings. Oblomov is a child, not a vile debauchee, he is a sleepyhead, and not an immoral egoist or an epicurean from the time of disintegration. He is powerless for good, but he is positively incapable of evil deeds, pure in spirit, not perverted by worldly sophisms - and, despite all his uselessness in life, he legitimately wins the sympathy of all the people around him, apparently separated from him by a whole abyss.
It is very easy to attack Oblomov from the point of view of practical people, but meanwhile, why should we sometimes not look at the shortcomings of modern practical sages, who so contemptuously push the child - Oblomov. A lazy yawning child physiologically, of course, is weaker and more worthless than a middle-aged official who signs paper after paper, but a middle-aged official, no doubt, has hemorrhoids and, perhaps, other diseases that a child does not have. So the sleepy Oblomov, a native of the sleepy and yet poetic Oblomovka, is free from moral illnesses, which many practical people who throw stones at him suffer from. He has nothing to do with the countless mass of sinners of our time, presumptuously taking up things to which they are not called. He is not infected with worldly debauchery and looks directly at every thing, not considering it necessary to be embarrassed before anyone or anything in life. He himself is not capable of any activity, the efforts of Andrei and Olga to awaken his apathy were unsuccessful, but it still does not follow by far that other people under other conditions could not inspire Oblomov to an idea and a good deed. A child by nature and by the conditions of his development, Ilya Ilyich in many respects left behind him the purity and simplicity of a child, precious qualities in an adult, qualities that in themselves, in the midst of the greatest practical confusion, often reveal to us the realm of truth and at times put an inexperienced, dreamy eccentric and above the prejudices of his age, and above the whole crowd of businessmen who surround him.
Let's try to confirm our words. Oblomov, like a living person, is full enough so that we can judge him in different positions, not even noticed by his author. In practicality, in strength of will, in knowledge of life, he is far below his Olga and Stolz, good and modern people; by the instinct of truth and the warmth of his nature, he is undoubtedly superior to them. IN last years of his life, the Stoltz spouses visited Ilya Ilyich, Olga remained in the carriage, Andrei entered the house we know with a chain dog at the gate. Leaving his friend, he only said to his wife: everything is over or something like that and left, and Olga left, although, no doubt, with grief and tears. What was the meaning of this hopeless, desperate sentence? Ilya Ilyich married Pshenitsyna (and had a child with this uneducated woman). And this is the reason why the blood connection is terminated, Oblomovism is recognized as having crossed all limits! We do not blame either Olga or her husband for this: they obeyed the law of light and left their friend not without tears. But let's turn the medal and, on the basis of what the poet has given us, ask ourselves: would Oblomov have done this if he had been told that Olga had made an unfortunate mesalliance (misalliance, unequal marriage (fr.).) that his Andrei married a cook and that both of them, as a result, are hiding from people close to them. A thousand times and with full confidence we will say that it is not so. Neither the idea of rejection from dear people due to secular reasons, nor the idea that there are mesalliances in the world, does not exist for Oblomov. He would not say a word of eternal parting, and, hobbling, would go to good people, and would cling to them, and would bring his Agafya Matveyevna to them. And Andreev's cook would not have become a stranger to him, and he would have given Tarantiev a new slap in the face if he had begun to mock Olga's husband. The backward and clumsy Ilya Ilyich, in this simple matter, would, of course, have acted more in accordance with the eternal law of love and truth than two people from among the most developed in our society. Both Stolz and Olga, without any doubt, are humane in their ideas, without any doubt, they know the power of goodness and are tied with their heads to the fate of the smaller brothers, but as soon as their friend connects his existence with the fate of a woman from the breed of these smaller brothers, and they both, enlightened people, hastened to say with tears: everything is over, everything is gone - Oblomovism, Oblomovism!
Let's continue our parallel. Oblomov died, Andryusha, together with Oblomovka, entered the custody of Stolz and Olga. It is very likely that Andryusha was well with them, and the Oblomov peasants did not tolerate harassment. But Zakhar, left without charity, was only accidentally found among the beggars, but the widow of Ilya Ilyich was not close to her husband's friends, but the children of Agafya Matveevna, whom Oblomov taught calligraphy and geography, the children whom he did not separate from his son, remained to the will of his mother, who was too accustomed to separate them from Andryusha, in everything. Neither worldly order nor worldly truth were violated by this, and no law would find the Stolz spouses guilty. But Ilya Ilyich Oblomov, we dare to think, would have acted otherwise with the faces and orphans whose presence once delighted the life of his Andrei and especially Olga. It is very possible that he would not be able to be useful to them practically, but he would not begin to divide his love for them into different degrees. Without calculation and considerations, he would have shared with them the last piece of bread and, speaking metaphorically, would have accepted them all equally under the shade of his warm robe. Whoever has a heart more far-sighted than his head can do a lot of stupid things, but in his aspirations he will still remain hotter and more liberal than people entangled in the nets of secular wisdom. Let us take, for example, the behavior of Stolz at that time, when he lived somewhere on Lake Geneva, and Oblomov was almost plunged into poverty by the coves of Tarantiev's friends. Andrey Stolz, who did not mean anything to travel half of Europe, a man with connections and business experience, did not even want to find a businessman in St. Petersburg who, for a decent reward, would agree to take over the supervision of Oblomov's position. Meanwhile, both he and Olga could not but know the fate that threatened their friend. With your practical laissez faire, laissez passer (do not interfere in other people's affairs (fr.).) they were both quite right, and no one dares to blame them. Who in our time dares to stick his nose into the affairs of the closest person? But suppose now that Ilya Ilyich hears a rumor that Andrei and Olga are on the verge of poverty, that they are surrounded by enemies who threaten their future. It is difficult to say what Oblomov would have done with this news, but it seems to us that he would not have said to himself: what right do I have to interfere in the affairs of people who were once dear and close to me. Perhaps our guesses will seem to another reader not entirely solid, but such is our point of view, and no one has the right to doubt its sincerity. Not for the comic side, not for the pitiful life, not for the manifestations of weaknesses common to all of us, we love Ilya Ilyich Oblomov. He is dear to us as a man of his land and his time, as a gentle and gentle child, capable, under other circumstances of life and other development, of true love and mercy. He is dear to us as an independent and pure nature, completely independent of that scholastic-moral shabbiness that stains the vast majority of people who despise him. He is dear to us in truth, which permeates his entire creation, in the thousand roots with which the poet-artist connected him with our native soil. And finally, he is kind to us as an eccentric who, in our era of selfishness, cunning and untruth, peacefully ended his life without offending a single person, without deceiving a single person and without teaching a single person anything bad.
NOTES
The texts of the articles by A. V. Druzhinin were prepared according to the publication: Druzhinin A. V. Sobr. cit., vol. VII. SPb., 1865 (with the exception of the article "Poems by N. Nekrasov" - see note) and are given with the preservation of some of the author's features of spelling and punctuation.
"Oblomov", a novel by I. A. Goncharov. TWO VOLUME. St. Petersburg, 1859
1 Druzhinin talks about D. Lewis (Lewis) author of novels and biographies, including the book "Life of Goethe", in contrast to M.-G. Lewis, the author of the novel "The Monk", filled with miracles and terrible events.
2 With pietism, religious movement in Germany, the German nobility was associated.
3 Druzhinin gives his translation of the epigram "German national character", included in the collection "Xenia", - the fruit of the joint work of Schiller and Goethe.
4 Inaccurate quote from Dead Souls. Gogol: "Rus! What do you want from me? What incomprehensible connection lurks between us? Why do you look like that, and why does everything that is in you turn eyes full of expectation on me? .." (Chapter XI).
5 Second line from Schiller and Goethe's epigram "The German national character" (see note 3).
6 Roman J. Elliot(M.-A. Evans) "Adam Beed"(1859) depicted a healthy village life, was distinguished by strict realism, distinctness of characters, and clarity of the author's views.
7 About creativity Goncharova Druzhinin wrote in the article "Russians in Japan at the end of 1853 and at the beginning of 1854. From the travel notes of I. Goncharov. St. Petersburg, 1855". The article was published in Sovremennik (1856, No. 1).
8 Transtevere- part of Rome, located beyond the Tiber.
9 "Oblomov" was published in full in 1859 in the first four issues of "Notes of the Fatherland". "Oblomov's Dream" as an "episode from an unfinished novel" was published in the Literary Collection in 1849 - this date was under the first part of the novel in Fatherland Notes. In 1857, in Marienbad, the novel was roughly completed and revised in 1858.
10 mieris details- i.e., details similar to the carefully written out pictorial details of the Dutchman F. van Mieris Sr.
11 Druzhinin recalls lines from Derzhavin's ode "God":
Nothing! - But you shine in me
By the majesty of your kindness;
You portray yourself in me
Like the sun in a small drop of water.
12 Druzhinin wrote about Turgenev's novel "Rudin" in the last part of the article "Tales and Stories of I. Turgenev, St. Petersburg, 1856".
