Everyone has experienced happiness at some point in their lives. The reason for this could be anything: it is the achievement of goals that have long been sought, and the fulfillment of cherished desires. But, in my opinion, happiness can be realized only after this moment has already been left behind. We often remember the happy moments of our lives and forget all our pressing problems.
We often say: "How little a person needs to be happy." We speak, it seems to me, often not understanding the full validity of this phrase. After all, a person who is always short of everything will never be happy with what he has, since you cannot get everything in the world.
But there are people who do not require anything special from life and spend it uselessly and boringly. This is how Ilya Ilyich Oblomov is represented in Goncharov's novel. What is he doing? He lies on the sofa or on the bed under the covers, receives guests, argues with Zakhar, and from morning to night admires the view from the window of the neighboring house. He, too, is happy in his own way. Some people need movement, love, passion, something new in life in order to feel happy. But Ilya Ilyich does not need any of this, he does not want anything, except for nothing to change in his life. At first, he does not want to move to new apartment, then does not even want to think about the improvement of the estate in the village - all this would violate his happiness.
But Oblomov cannot be considered an ordinary lazy person - he simply cannot exist according to the laws of his time, his “robe” is a kind of protest against the emptiness and senselessness of active actions that society can offer him: “Light, society! You are right, on purpose, Andrei, sending me into this world and society in order to discourage being there! there is nothing deep, touching for the living. You will enter the hall and not stop admiring how symmetrically the guests are seated, how quietly and thoughtfully they sit - at the cards. All of these are dead. How am I more guilty than them, lying at home and not infecting my head with triplets and jacks?
From this monologue of Oblomov, one can understand a lot, in particular, that he is right in his own way: to each his own - one “profoundly and meekly” sits and plays cards, the other does business, the third steals, but someone does not want to, and completely rightly, to do all this and therefore lies on the couch.
But Olga Ilyinskaya appears in Oblomov’s life, the one who was called upon by Stolz to “stir up” Ilya Ilyich, to show him a different life. In a sense, she succeeded, and it cannot be said that Oblomov was not happy with Olga, walking with her along summer garden making her laugh.
But he cannot love in the way that is necessary and accepted, and Olga could not fully love Oblomov the way he is, and not the way Stoltz wanted to make him. Possible happiness with Olga frightened Oblomov with too strong changes in his lifestyle, life and household. And in the end, Olga found her happiness with Stolz, and Oblomov with Mrs. Pshenitsyna.
Here it is - Oblomovism in pure form: Ilya Ilyich did not have to be active, he just moved to a new apartment, where he found a wife, they had a child, and Oblomov eventually died happy.
Love in the novel "Oblomov", as in other Russian novels, plays a huge role. Falling in love can explain many of the actions of heroes, it (love) is the cause of joy and suffering, this is the main feeling that awakens the soul to life. In the novel "Oblomov" love revives the main character, brings happiness. She makes him suffer - with the departure of love in Oblomov, the desire to live disappears.
Why do we talk about types of love? Because everyone loves in their own way. No clear boundaries can be drawn between different types love, how to define this feeling. For some, love is an all-consuming passion, for others it is only the expectation of another, true love, the need for tenderness. That is why Goncharov, in his novel Oblomov, presents us with several types of love.
According to Stendhal, love is divided into four types: love - passion, love - attraction, love - vanity, physical love. To which of these genera does the feeling that arises between Olga and Oblomov belong?
Both heroes have been waiting for love for a long time. Ilya Ilyich, perhaps, did not suspect this, but he waited instinctively. And then love comes to him and absorbs him completely. This feeling inflames his soul, feeding on the tenderness that has accumulated during hibernation and is looking for a way out. It is new to Oblomov's soul, accustomed to burying all feelings at the bottom of consciousness, therefore love revives the soul to a new life. For Oblomov, this feeling is a burning love - a passion for a woman who managed to change him in such a way.
What is special about Olga's love for Oblomov? I would compare this feeling with the love of a sculptor for his brilliant creation. Olga succeeds in changing Ilya Ilyich, knocking out laziness and boredom from him. For this she loves Oblomov! Here is what the hero writes to his beloved: “Your real“ love ”is not real love, but the future one. This is only an unconscious need to love, which, due to a lack of real food, is sometimes expressed in women in caresses for a child, for another woman, even simply in tears and hysterical fits ... You are mistaken, in front of you is not the one you were waiting for, about whom dreamed. Wait - he will come, and then you will wake up, you will be annoyed and ashamed of your mistake ... ". And soon Olga herself is convinced of the justice of these lines, falling in love with Andrei Stolz. So her love for Oblomov was just an expectation, an introduction to a future novel? But this love is pure, disinterested, selfless; and we are convinced that Olga can love and believes that she loves Oblomov. Unfortunately, her heart is wrong, and the mistake is monstrous. Oblomov understands this before Olga.
With the departure of this love, Oblomov does not find what to occupy the emptiness in his soul, and again he sleeps for whole days and lies idle on his sofa in St. Petersburg, in the house of Agafya Pshenitsyna. It seemed that nothing could replace Oblomov's departed love. Over time, having got used to the measured life of his mistress, our hero will humble the impulses of the heart and begin to be content with little. Again, all his desires will be limited to sleep, food, rare empty conversations with Agafya Matveyevna. Pshevitsyna is opposed by the author to Olga: the first is an excellent hostess, kind, faithful wife, but there is no high soul in it; Stolz says about her: “a simple woman; dirty life, suffocating sphere of stupidity, rudeness - fi!” The second is a refined nature, far from routine life. Probably, Oblomov, and indeed any man, would like to meet a woman who combines the features of both Ilyinskaya and Pshenitsyna.
Having plunged into a simple semi-village life in the house of Pshenitsyna, Ilya Ilyich seemed to find himself in the former Oblomovka. Only everyone in this house, unlike this “piece of paradise”, works and works, trying for Ilya Ilyich. Lazily and slowly dying in his soul, Oblomov falls in love with Agafya Matveevna. It seems to me that his love is not worth much, because it is not suffered by him. She is closer to physical love - Oblomov admires Pshenitsyna's round elbows, always moving at work. I perceive this love as gratitude to the hero Agafya and as a dream come true for a resident of the heavenly Oblomovka.
And Agafya Matveevna? Is this her love? No, she is selfless, devoted; in this feeling, Agafya is ready to drown, to give all her strength, all the fruits of her labors to Oblomov. It seems that her whole life has passed in anticipation of a person who could be devotedly loved, taken care of him as own son. Oblomov is exactly that: he is lazy - this allows you to take care of him like a child; he is kind, soft - it touches female soul accustomed to male rudeness and ignorance. How touching is the love and sympathy of a rude woman for a helpless master who has sunk to the point of complete decline of the soul! This feeling is full of maternal tenderness. Where does such a feeling come from in a simple woman? Perhaps it is the quality of her soul that attracts our hero.
Oblomov's friend, Stolz, does not understand this love. From him, an active person, lazy home comfort, Oblomovka's orders, and even more so a woman who has become coarse in her environment, are far from him. That is why the ideal of Stolz is Olga Ilyinskaya, subtle, romantic, wise woman. It lacks even the slightest shadow of coquetry.
One day, while traveling through Europe, Stolz falls in love with Olga. From what? Andrey does not recognize in her his former girlfriend, a young girl, on whose face he always easily read a question, a living thought.
He went too deep into the solution of the change in Olga ... “How ripe she is, my God! How this girl has developed! Who was her teacher? .. Not Ilya! .. ” Andrei is looking for and does not find an explanation for the change in Olga. Finally, having asked the question “does he love or not?”, Stolz himself falls in love with a recent girlfriend without memory. The moment of explanation comes - and Andrey begs Olga for help. He asks to explain her unexpected change. And then he learns from Olga about their affair with Oblomov and does not believe that it is possible to love Ilya. It seems to Olga that she still loves him and, passionately wanting to give this love to Stolz, she finds the answer in herself: “A woman truly loves once.” Stolz offers Olga to marry him - and she agrees.
So, Stolz falls in love with the “new” Olga. This uncertainty, the secret of the “new” Olga, captures Andrey. He knows that, thanks to his character, he will be happy only with a lively, active Olga. His love. pure and disinterested, he does not seek profit in it, no matter how restless "dealer" he may be.
And what happens to Olga? Torment torments her. It seems to her that the only love- Oblomov. By agreeing to marry Stolz, Olga believes that someday love will come to her. And now she cannot distinguish her friendship from love and does not know what is happening in her soul. I would call her present and future feeling: love - friendship - duty, since these three concepts are too closely intertwined in her attitude towards Stolz.
Summing up, I want to say again that the strength, depth and quality of love depend on the people themselves. But people change from this feeling! Oblomov suddenly comes to life when he sees that his happiness with Olga depends on the victory over laziness! And Olga herself is growing up, gaining experience after the story with Oblomov. How happy the hostess Agafya is when her daily chores and perpetual movement acquire meaning for the sake of the convenience of Ilya Ilyich. And Oblomov sincerely thanks her for this. Many feelings cannot be said with certainty whether they are love or not love. Goncharov does not want to open to the reader all the doors of the holy of holies of the souls of his heroes. And if he did this, we would not have appeared eternal question: move forward or rest? To love or not to love?
It is difficult to say what is the ideal of happiness and love for the writer Goncharov, who did not have his own own family. However, the author, as a rule, embodies his dreams, ideas, ideas in the main character. They are spiritually linked and inseparable. It is he who will allow me to create an idea of the author's ideal.
“The ideal of happiness, drawn by Oblomov, was nothing more than a satisfying life - with greenhouses, hotbeds, trips with a samovar to the grove, etc. - in a dressing gown, in a sound sleep, and for an intermediate - in idyllic walks with a meek but stout wife and in contemplation of how the peasants work. These are Oblomov's dreams, which have been imprinted in his imagination for years. Dreams take Oblomov back to childhood, where it was cozy, quiet and calm. The ideal family for Oblomov comes precisely from childhood memories ... “The nanny is waiting for his awakening. She begins to put on his stockings; he is not given, he is naughty, dangles his legs; the nanny catches him and they both laugh...”
“The child looks and observes with a sharp and captivating look how and what adults do, what they devote morning to. Not a single trifle, not a single feature escapes the inquisitive attention of a child ... ”And if we compare the order of life of the Oblomov family and the life described by Oblomov to Stolz, we will get two very similar pictures: Morning... Kiss of the wife. Tea, cream, crackers, fresh butter... Walking with my wife under the blue-blue sky, along the shady alleys of the park. Guests. Hearty lunch. “In the eyes of the interlocutors you will see sympathy, in a joke sincere, gentle laughter ... Everything is to your liking!” Here is an idyll, "Oblomov's utopia."
This idyll is partially personified in the relationship between Oblomov and Agafya Matveevna. This woman, in whom Oblomov is so admired by full elbows with dimples, mobility, housekeeping, cherishes and takes care of him like a child. She provides him with peace and a well-fed life. But was it the ideal of love? “He was getting closer to Agafya Matveevna - as if he was moving towards the fire, from which it becomes warmer and warmer, but which cannot be loved.”
Oblomov could not love Agafya Matveevna, could not appreciate her attitude towards him. And he took her care for granted, as he had been used to since childhood. “It is as if an invisible hand has planted him, like a precious plant, in the shade from the heat, under the roof from the rain, and is caring for him ...”. Again, we see - "Oblomov's utopia." What else is needed for happy life? Why is Goncharov stirring up this quiet, calm “pond”? Why does he introduce Olga into the novel as a powerful "antidote" to Oblomov's life?
The love of Ilya and Olga, I would say, even seems passionate. She runs a spark between them, inflaming interest in each other. She makes Oblomov wake up, makes Olga feel her strength as a woman, she helps her spiritual growth. But their relationship does not have a future, because Oblomov will never overcome the “ravine” that separates Olga and Oblomovka.
At the end of the novel I can't see complete picture love and family happiness. On the one hand, only Agafya Matveevna is the personification of the family, on the other hand, Olga is love.
But we must not forget Olga and Stolz. Perhaps their union is close to ideal. They became as one. Their souls merged into one. They thought together, read together, raised children together - they lived varied and interesting lives. Olga, peering with radiant eyes into the eyes of Stolz, as if absorbing his knowledge, his feelings. family life failed to land their relationship.
“Stoltz was deeply happy with his filled, exciting life, in which an unfading spring blossomed, and jealously, actively, vigilantly cultivated, protected and cherished it.”
It seems to me that it is Olga and Stolz who symbolize the ideal of love and family in the understanding of I. A. Goncharov.
"The ideal of happiness, drawn by Oblomov, was nothing more than a satisfying life - with greenhouses, greenhouses, trips with a samovar to the grove, etc. - in a dressing gown, in a sound sleep, and for the intermediate - in idyllic walks with a meek but stout wife and in contemplation of how the peasants work. These are Oblomov's dreams, which have been imprinted in his imagination for years. Dreams take Oblomov back to childhood, where it was cozy, quiet and calm. The ideal of a family for Oblomov comes precisely from childhood memories ... "The nanny is waiting for him to wake up. She begins to pull on his stockings; he does not give in, plays pranks, dangles his legs; the nanny catches him, and both of them laugh..."
“The child looks and observes with a sharp and captivating look how and what adults do, what they devote the morning to. Not a single trifle, not a single trait escapes the child’s inquisitive attention ...” And if we compare the order of life of the Oblomov family and the life described Oblomov Stolz, we get two very similar pictures: Morning ... Kiss of the wife. Tea, cream, crackers, fresh butter... Walking with my wife under the blue-blue sky, along the shady alleys of the park. Guests. Hearty lunch. "In the eyes of the interlocutors you will see sympathy, in a joke sincere, gentle laughter ... Everything is to your liking!" Here is an idyll, "Oblomov's utopia".
This idyll is partially personified in the relationship between Oblomov and Agafya Matveevna. This woman, in whom Oblomov is so admired by full elbows with dimples, mobility, housekeeping, cherishes and takes care of him like a child. She provides him with peace and a well-fed life. But was it the ideal of love? "He was getting closer to Agafya Matveyevna - as if he was moving towards the fire, from which it becomes warmer and warmer, but which cannot be loved."
Oblomov could not love Agafya Matveevna, could not appreciate her attitude towards him. And he took her care for granted, as he had been used to since childhood. "It's as if an invisible hand has planted him, like a precious plant, in the shade from the heat, under the roof from the rain, and takes care of him ...". Again, we see - "Oblomov's utopia." What else is needed for a happy life? Why is Goncharov stirring up this quiet, calm "pond"? Why does he introduce Olga into the novel as a powerful "antidote" to Oblomov's life?
The love of Ilya and Olga, I would say, even seems passionate. She runs a spark between them, inflaming interest in each other. She makes Oblomov wake up, makes Olga feel her strength as a woman, she contributes to her spiritual growth. But their relationship does not have a future, because Oblomov will never overcome the "ravine" that separates Olga and Oblomovka.
At the end of the novel, I do not see the full picture of love and family happiness. On the one hand, only Agafya Matveevna is the personification of the family, on the other hand, Olga is love.
But we must not forget Olga and Stolz. Perhaps their union is close to ideal. They became as one. Their souls merged into one. They thought together, read together, raised children together - they lived varied and interesting lives. Olga, peering with radiant eyes into the eyes of Stolz, as if absorbing his knowledge, his feelings. Family life could not land their relationship.
"Stoltz was deeply happy with his filled, exciting life, in which an unfading spring blossomed, and jealously, actively, vigilantly cultivated, protected and cherished it."
It seems to me that it is Olga and Stolz who symbolize the ideal of love and family in the understanding of I. A. Goncharov. UDC 009
Bichenko S. G. The Problem of “Two Worlds”-conception in Realism: “Repressive Ideal” Model (Thesaurus Analysis)
annotation♦ The problem of dual worlds in realism (I. A. Goncharov, O. de Balzac) is considered in the article, the model of “repressive ideal” is analyzed.
Keywords: the concept of duality, realism, repressive ideal, thesaurus approach.
Abstract♦ The article considers the problem of “two worlds”-conception in realism (I. A. Goncharov, H. de Balzac). The author analyzes the “repressive ideal” model.
keywords: “two worlds”-concept, realism, repressive ideal, thesaurus approach.
Realism, which replaced romanticism as the leading literary direction, abandoned many romantic concepts and techniques, but the problems associated with the opposition of the ideal and reality remained relevant. This question was especially acute in Russian realism in the context of criticism of romanticism (not only as literary movement, but also as a worldview).
I. A. Goncharov was one of the most consistent researchers on the problem of the relationship between the ideal and reality. Raised back in ' Ordinary history”, this question will be relevant for Goncharov throughout his work; He will develop it both in Oblomov and in Obryv. However greatest interest for our study, it is Oblomov, where, it seems, the problem of the relationship between the ideal and reality turns out to be one of the central ones. And if in Ordinary History it can be considered similarly to Balzac's Lost Illusions - in terms of inconsistency with reality, then in Oblomov a much more in-depth study of this issue is presented.
The gap between the ideal and reality is realized in Oblomov in the images of the main characters: Oblomov, Olga Ilinskaya and Stolz. The analysis of these images will make it possible to consider a realistic approach to the problem, previously updated by the romantic dual world. However, the subject and volume of our work do not allow us to analyze the functioning of all three images in connection with the problem posed, so we will limit ourselves to analyzing the image of the protagonist of the novel.
Oblomov's ideal is already explicated in the first part - this is life in the renewed Oblomovka, the filling of which Stolz calls the word "Oblomovism". Oblomov's dream is not at all like the ideal in the understanding of the early romantics: he strives for the material and concrete, and even describes it with pleasure. Therefore, the principle no longer applies. romantic irony: the ideal ceases to be fundamentally unknowable, ceases to avoid explication. It no longer has that ambivalence that was inherent in the romantic ideal, and therefore it lends itself easily to human language.
On the other hand, the Oblomov ideal retains the important feature romantic ideal: it is unreachable. Oblomov paints Stolz a utopian image; in his Oblomovka there is "not a single pale, suffering face, no care," and Stolz himself calls this life "Oblomov's utopia." It is characteristic that the description of Oblomov is largely determined by one of the two aspirations that Zhirmunsky calls the main ones for mystical expressiveness - "the desire to mix and extinguish what is too bright, to speak in hints, semitones" (33). So, Oblomov dreams of "deepening with her into the endless, dark alley; go quiet, thoughtful, silently or think aloud, dream, count the minutes of happiness, like a beating pulse; listen to the heartbeat and freezes; look for sympathy in nature... and imperceptibly go to the river, to the field ... River splashes a little; ears of corn worried about the wind, heat ... "[our italics - S. B.]. Oblomov thus paints a romantic pastoral.
We also note another important feature"Oblomovism": this is not only a romantic pastoral, but also a space from which everything non-romantic is expelled, everything that in the novel is opposed to the romantic - that is, case. Oblomov willingly lists those things that have no place in his dream: “not a single question about the Senate, about the stock exchange, about shares, about reports, about receiving a minister, about ranks, about an increase in table money.” Oblomov himself clearly opposes his ideal to business: “Yes, is the goal of all your running around, passions, wars, trade and politics, is it not the dressing of peace, not the desire for this ideal of a lost paradise?” Deed and ideal are divorced and do not allow interpenetration: devoid of romantic irony, art world realistic text does not allow such ambivalence (at least in an explicit form). That escalation of the two worlds, which Zhirmunsky spoke about in connection with the late romantics, turns out to be relevant for the romantic heroes in realism.
The unattainability of the Oblomov ideal, although inherent in it in itself, is realized in the text as a consequence of its utopian opposition to the cause. Oblomov jealously protects his dream from any intervention of the cause - and this makes it unattainable. In order to transform Oblomovka, you need to get down to business; in order to marry an ideal wife (who even sings “Casta diva” – a cavatina straight from a dream) you will have to organize a wedding – but Oblomov cannot allow the matter to touch his dream, to stain it. The line connected with the engagement of Oblomov and Olga demonstrates this "protective" tendency of Oblomov in relation to his ideal most clearly.
A wedding for Oblomov becomes part of a dream, his poetic ideal. As in the case of the dream of living in the countryside, he is ready to list what exactly he expects from the wedding, and again these will be romantic clichés: “But marriage, wedding - after all, this is the poetry of life, this is a ready-made, blossoming flower. He imagined how he was leading Olga to the altar: she was with an orange branch on her head, with a long veil. There is a whisper of surprise in the crowd. She bashfully, with a quietly agitated chest, with her proudly and gracefully bowed head, gives him her hand and does not know how to look at everyone. Either a smile will flash from her, or tears will appear, or a wrinkle above the eyebrow will sparkle with some kind of thought. This ideal will support Oblomov all those days until he is deprived of the opportunity to be alone with Olga, meeting her only at dinner parties and in the theater - but only until he unambiguously connects his dreamy idea of \u200b\u200bthe wedding with those affairs that need to be addressed in order to be implemented.
This happens when Oblomov reprimands Zakhar for "daring" to talk about the master's wedding. Shortly before this, Oblomov notices that people in the world are guessing about the upcoming wedding, and for the first time he combines business and marriage in one view: “Wedding! This poetic moment in the life of those who love, the crown of happiness - the lackeys, the coachmen started talking about it, when nothing has yet been decided, when there is no answer from the village, when I have an empty wallet, when the apartment has not been found ... ”In the same conversation with Zakhar Oblomov is taken for "depicting the inconvenience of marriage" in order to prove to him that the rumors are groundless. For example: “What are the costs? Oblomov continued. — Where is the money? Have you seen how much money I have? Oblomov asked almost menacingly. - Where is the apartment? Here you have to pay a thousand rubles, and hire another, give three thousand, and how much for finishing! And there the crew, the cook, for a living! Where can I get it? But Oblomov turns not to Zakhar, but to himself. Hence the following remark of the narrator: “He [Oblomov] wanted to frighten Zakhar and was frightened himself more than him when he delved into the practical side of the question of the wedding and saw that this, of course, was a poetic, but at the same time practical, official step towards an essential and serious reality and to a series of strict duties. But the ideal and the deed cannot exist together; the ideal beyond irony is a totalitarian, imperious authority that does not allow anything from the outside. Therefore, the dream of a wedding, as soon as it turns out to be “stained” by the deed, disappears, now it is “a poetic moment that suddenly lost its colors as soon as Zakhar spoke about it.” Oblomov's ideal does not tolerate the invasion of reality. romantic dream about the wedding rejects Oblomov and disappears for him forever. With the realization of this fact, Oblomov ends the chapter:
“I remembered everything, and then the thrill of happiness, Olga’s hand, her a passionate kiss... and froze: "faded, moved away!" echoed inside him.
“What now?”
So, Oblomov's ideal is not achievable - in the present. Instead, he exists as a mirage, as a fantasy - in the future (a typical description of Oblomov's fantasies: "A helpful dream carried him easily and freely, far in the future"). WITH early youth Oblomov has an idea about his future- this word is often used by both the characters and the narrator. So, the young Oblomov “everything was going and preparing to start life, he kept drawing in his mind the pattern of his future; but with each year that flashed over his head, he had to change and discard something in this pattern. Oblomov is in a state of constant production and reproduction of his fantasmatic ideal - "future", - transforming it to at least minimally correspond to reality, but invariably placing the ideal in the future. Time for Oblomov, therefore, appears mythological: if in traditional myths events are most often placed in the past, then Oblomov's fantasy lies in the future. Just as it is impossible to “rewind” time step by step until the events described in Greek mythology, Oblomov's "future" turns out to be out of reach from the present.
So, the unattainability of the Oblomov ideal is due not only to its utopian nature, not only to its "romanticism", but also to the fact that it cannot, in principle, be conceived in the present - it concluded in future. However, this unattainability, being inseparable from Oblomov's fantasy, is never explicated in the novel.
The impossibility of realizing the future of Oblomov, therefore, is due to two factors: firstly, his ideal does not tolerate the interference of reality and, secondly, he exists only as a future, as a future.
Oblomov's ideal is destructive. He suppresses all other desires and aspirations of Oblomov and appears to be the only worthy object of desire. Even love for Olga turns out to be mediated by Oblomov's romantic fantasies, as demonstrated above. Despite the fact that the ideal turns out to be the only, absolute value (as in romanticism), it itself prevents its implementation. Thus, on the one hand, it, obscuring all other values, takes the form of an obsession, and at the same time does not allow itself to be realized. Hence Oblomov's apathy arises: not a single occupation seems worthy to Oblomov (this is especially clearly demonstrated at the beginning of the novel, when he consistently rejects all types of activity (represented by his guests), except for fantasies about his future), except for the pursuit of an ideal, which, in principle, does not can be implemented.
It is Oblomov's apathy that causes those life failures that are described in the novel. This is recognized by the characters themselves (“What ruined you?” Olga asks Oblomov and receives the answer: “Oblomovism”; Stolz calls her the reason that he sees Oblomov’s moral death). From the point of view of Oblomov himself, due to his apathy, he loses the love of an almost ideal (up to “Casta Diva”) woman, almost loses the village - the basis and source of his dreams, stops friendship with Stolz; he, in turn, believes that Oblomov, because of Oblomovism, "died, disappeared for nothing." Oblomov's ideal in the novel turns out to be an instance of destruction, a source of evil.
This ideal will haunt Oblomov until the end of his days. After all, to abandon the ideal does not mean to get rid of it. Despite the fact that Oblomov "has already stopped dreaming about setting up an estate and about going there with the whole house," despite the work he had worked out life philosophy("life<…>not only took shape, but also created, was even intended so simply, no wonder, to express the possibility of an ideally calm side human being", - argues Oblomov), the feeling of inconsistency of reality with the ideal, its inferiority does not leave him. Oblomov's "philosophy", which "lulled him to sleep among the questions and strict demands of duty and appointment," proved unable to resist these demands. The appointment, the “future” of Oblomov still weigh on him. So when its in last time visits and tries to take Stolz to Oblomovka, and Oblomov persistently refuses, between them there is, in particular, such an exchange of remarks:
- Yes, you look around, where and with whom are you? [says Stolz — S. B.]
“I know, I feel ... Ah, Andrey, I feel everything, I understand everything: I have long been ashamed to live in the world!” But I can't go your way with you, even if I wanted to...
Oblomov both knows and feels that his life is vicious, and vicious from the point of view of Stolz, from the position of destination, future (Stolz's words: “Come to your senses! Did you prepare yourself for this life to sleep like a mole in a hole?”). Once given, the ideal will never lose its possession.
Even death, in such a case, cannot bring deliverance. Oblomov at the end of his days "foresaw imminent death and was afraid of her. For Oblomov, death becomes the end of the future, because death is the inevitable limit of the future, which posits itself only in the future. Oblomov is constantly moving the future to an even more distant future, and death here means there is no place for further movement: there is no more distant future. The impossibility of coming to terms with death is due to the very essence of Oblomov's ideal.
So, the ideal, conceivable beyond irony, acts as an instance of destruction and suppression. He simultaneously considers himself an absolute value (leveling the significance of all other aspirations) and at the same time is fundamentally unattainable. Thus, happiness for the hero turns out to be concentrated in one, unattainable point. The hero, on the one hand, is incapable of any activity that is not aimed at the ideal, and on the other hand, he can never achieve it. Such properties allow us to speak of such an ideal as repressive.
IN realistic literature one can find many examples, in addition to the novel Oblomov, where the problem of the repressive ideal turns out to be one of the central ones. These are the two stories of Balzac "The Unknown Masterpiece" and "Sarrasin". In the first of them talented artist Frenhofer dedicates ten years of his life to work on one painting - the image of the beautiful courtesan Catherine Lesko. He strives to create a perfect picture in which nature would be "expressed" (and not just "copied"). Frenhofer refuses to show his painting to anyone until he is sure that he has created an image of perfect beauty, and decides to go on a long journey in order to "compare his painting with various types of female beauty". However, his friend, Porbus, claims that a woman of "incomparable, impeccable beauty" lives here in Paris - Gillette, the mistress of the young artist Poussin. Poussin, intrigued by the stories about Frenhofer's creation, agrees to let Gillette go to the artist, so that he can be convinced of the impeccability of her naked beauty, but with one condition: Frenhofer must show his painting. The result of this deal is tragic. It turns out that the painting the artist was poring over is “a chaotic combination of strokes, outlined by many strange lines, forming, as it were, a fence of colors,” and only in the corner of the picture was a piece of a bare leg visible. Gillette, outraged by the deal, breaks with Poussin with the words: "To love you still would be shameful, because I despise you." Frenhofer apparently also sees (despite the fact that at the end he begins to assert the opposite) that the work of his life is a meaningless set of colors, and therefore Porbus, who comes in the morning, finds that “the old man died in the night, having burned all his paintings ".
"Sarrasin" also tells about tragic fate a creator striving for perfection in his art. A young sculptor named Ernest-Jean Sarrazin, known for his "indomitable temper" and "uncontrollable genius", arrives in Rome in 1759, where he is going to study architecture and sculpture. A week later, he sees the performance of the prima donna Zambinella in the theater and falls madly in love with her. The reason for this unearthly passion lies in the fact that "he was delighted to see with his own eyes the ideal of beauty, which he had hitherto sought in vain in nature." “It was something more than a woman, it was a masterpiece!”, says the story of Zambinella. Sarrazine begins to reproduce (again, phantasmatically) the image of Zambinella in drawing and sculpture: “He sculpted, trying to reproduce the body of Zambinella in clay, regardless of the covers, dresses, corsets and bows with which her figure was hidden from him.” However, his love is doomed to failure: the romance that began with the singer turns out to be a joke played by Zambinella's friends, and at the end Sarrazin learns the most terrible truth: female arias at the papal court in those days were performed by castrati. He kidnaps Zambinella and is about to kill him, but first tries to destroy the statue he made, believing that he sees the ideal of beauty embodied. The words with which he accompanies this attempt are noteworthy: “... Whenever I look at a real woman, I will remember this imaginary one! ..
He pointed to the statue with a gesture of desperation.
- Forever in my memory will live a heavenly harpy that will plunge its sharp claws into my feelings and impose the stigma of imperfection on all women! Monster! You, unable to give life to anything, you have turned the world into a desert for me.
However, Sarrazin misses the statue with his hammer, and moments later he will be killed by the mercenaries of the patron Zambinella.
And in " unknown masterpiece", and in "Sarrazine" the artists find themselves in the position of the oppressed; instance of oppression - perfect art. In the first case we are talking about the perfect picture, embodying perfect beauty, in the second - about the perfect beauty of the body, embodied in sculpture (in a copy of the perfect body). Both artists demonstrate two main impacts of the repressive ideal. In The Unknown Masterpiece, destruction is realized through the death of Frenhofer, the destruction of his main masterpiece, and then the rest of the paintings, and Gillette's break with Poussin. In "Sarrasina" the destruction affects not only the deceased sculptor himself, but also "tangentially" touches both Zambinella and his statue (who barely escape destruction). In addition, we can say that the story of Sarrazin destroys the plans of the hero who told it (the story uses frame composition). Both creators are oppressed by their ideals: they see in them the only purpose of their existence, and having lost these ideals, they die.
Another feature of the functioning of the repressive ideal is revealed: in the texts where it is problematized, the hero - the bearer of the ideal on the pages of the work invariably faces death. And it will hardly be peaceful death, full of reconciliation with fate and life (War and Peace can again be cited as an example of such a death: “He, without haste and without anxiety, expected what was coming to him,” says the novel about last days Andrei Bolkonsky). Violent death, death as defeat - such is the end of the hero who has touched the repressive ideal.
Let us list the main features of the repressive ideal, which we managed to identify on the material of the considered works. Firstly, this ideal suppresses: it turns out to be an absolute value, while leveling all other values. Secondly, this ideal is destructive: it turns out to be the main source of destructive forces. These are the two main effects of the repressive ideal. The repressive ideal is embodied in a dream (which constitutes its figurativeness), which does not tolerate any contact with reality and is most often thought of in the future (as “futurity”). The conductor to this dream is a special figure (see below about this) of the conductor - the opposite sex. The hero, exposed to the repressive ideal, is waiting for death on the pages of the novel. The emergence of repressive ideals is associated with the denial of the principle of romantic irony and the special relations generated by it.
Thus, the problem of duality not only does not lose its significance in realistic literature, but is also undergoing a transformation. The destruction of the system of philosophical and aesthetic principles romanticism led to the fact that the ideal in work of art begins to be thought of as an instance of repression, all evil is concentrated around it. The problem of the repressive ideal and its critique are often at the center of attention of realist writers. The solution of this problem within the limits of realism is possible (as the example of Andrey Bolkonsky shows).
