Goncharov's first novel from the trilogy "Ordinary History", "Oblomov", "Cliff" was a great success, brought fame to the author and created a reputation as a master in literary circles and throughout reading Russia. Shortly after the publication of Ordinary History, Goncharov begins his second novel, the realization of the idea of the novel Oblomov. The writer creates the chapter "Oblomov's Dream", in which he describes the hero's childhood in the provincial village of Oblomovka, the family estate where he was born, outlines a familiar conflict: the clash of a young local nobleman with the living conditions of a modern big city - St. Petersburg. This part of the work became the main one in the future novel. Goncharov publishes "Oblomov's Dream" in a collection under the journal "Contemporary" in 1849 and stops work on it for a long time. This was probably due to the fact that the author wanted to avoid repeating the old conflict in the future novel, and he had to comprehend in a new light the drama of a man who is unable to find a full life in a changing Russia. A trip around the world on the frigate Pallada, which took 3 years (1852-1855), also contributed to distraction from the novel. At the end of the trip, Goncharov wrote a book of essays, The Pallas Frigate, reflecting his impressions and thoughts in it, and only after that he returned to continue working on Oblomov.
By 1857, Goncharov had finished the novel in rough outline, the whole next year the writer was finalizing the essay, and in 1859, reading Russia got acquainted with one of the most significant prose works in Russian literature of the 19th century, the novel Oblomov. In this novel, the author created the image of a national hero of his time in the context of a change in the age-old way of life of Russian society, the collapse of the social structure, changes in the economic and cultural situation in the country, and the general spiritual atmosphere. The novel "Oblomov" was completed, along with two other top works of the pre-reform period - the drama-tragedy "Thunderstorm" by A.N. Ostrovsky and the novel "Fathers and Sons" by I.S. Turgenev. The decree of Tsar Alexander II of February 19, 1861 on the liberation of peasants from serfdom was a revolutionary event that divided Russian historical life into old and new times.
The choice of the noble landowner Ilya Ilyich Oblomov as the hero is primarily due to historical factors, since the abolition of serfdom had the most impact on the local nobility, mainly on welfare and prospects. However, Goncharov is not limited to the social side of the depiction of events, involving in the novel the problems of the eternal nature, such issues as love, the meaning of life, the human soul and his choice. The well-known critic of that time N.A. Dobrolyubov in the textbook article “What is Oblomovism?” noticed that the hero of Goncharov is the "radical, folk" character of the Russian people. Thus, when reading the novel, one must see in his hero and his life a voluminous phenomenon and a large-scale meaning: individual psychological, social, the girl Olga Ilyinskaya and the widow-official Agafya Matveevna Pshenitsina, comparison with a friend of half-German origin Andrei Stolz, Oblomov’s antipode in character and life, in comic skirmishes with the serf servant Zakhar and other characters significant in different plot situations. ??????
G 1. Why is the Decree of Tsar Alexander II of February 19, 1861, called a revolutionary event in the read text? Expand your position. For the work of which other writers known to you, this event was important? In what literary works known to you this event was reflected (directly or indirectly)?
AND 2. It is known that "Oblomov" Goncharov, inspired by the novel with Elizaveta Vasilievna Tolstaya, quickly completed in a few weeks: "The main task of the novel, its soul is a woman." Read excerpts from Goncharov's 32 letters to a young beauty who preferred a brave captain to a middle-aged famous writer. What new did you learn from them about the personality of Goncharov, about his life and moral values?
“... I often bless fate that I met her: I have become better, it seems, at least since I have known her, I have not convicted myself of a single mistake against conscience, not even a single impure feeling: everything seems to me, that her meek brown eyes follow me everywhere, I feel constant invisible control over my conscience and will.
“A look shining with intelligence and kindness ... the softness of the lines, so harmoniously merging in the magical colors of blush, whiteness of the face and sparkle of the eyes.”
“I am sick of her. It became somehow cramped for me to live in the world: it seems that I am standing in terrible darkness, on the edge of an abyss, fog is all around, then suddenly the light and brilliance of her eyes and face will illuminate me - and I seem to rise to the clouds.
“I feel, however, that apathy and heaviness are gradually returning to me, and you, with your mind and old friendship, stirred up talkativeness in me”
"Under you, I had some wings that have fallen off now."
“Oh, how many pages I would write if I thought of counting your shortcomings, I would say, but I will tell you the merits ...”
“Farewell ... not now, however, but when you get married, or before my death or yours ... And now ... until the next letter, my wonderful friend, my dear, smart, kind, charming ... Lisa!!! suddenly slipped off the tongue. I look around in horror to see if there is anyone around, respectfully add: goodbye, Elizaveta Vasilievna: God bless you with the happiness you deserve. I am in tenderness, I thank you hearts for your friendship ... "
If you are interested in this dramatic story, do your own research: “Is E.V. Tolstaya as the prototype of Olga Ilyinskaya?
B Check yourself: have you carefully read the text of the novel "Oblomov".
How many questions did you manage to answer? Go back to the text again, find answers to those questions that you did not cope with.
1. Who tells the story of Oblomov's life?
2. What is the main character's full name? How old is he? What is his education? What is the occupation?
3. Who is Zakhar? How was his fate?
4. Who is Stolz? How does he know Oblomov?
5. Who is Olga? What is the content of Oblomov's letter to Olga? How does her story end in the novel?
6. What move is Oblomov afraid of? Why and where does Oblomov move?
7. Who is Agafya Pshenitsyna? What role did she play in the fate of Oblomov?
8. What role does Tarantiev play in the plot of the novel? Why and when did Oblomov slap him?
9. Which of the characters in the novel has a backstory?
What difficulties did you experience when reading the text of the novel? Have they overcome them? How? What seemed interesting? Not interesting? What do you remember the most?
Home > DocumentBased on Goncharov's novel "Oblomov"
Oblomov through the eyes of Stolz, Olga and Zakhar
Plan:
This is the book on which the cult film of the nineties was shot - the film that laid the foundation for a whole fashion trend - the so-called. "heroin chic" that ruled catwalks, screens, and recording studios a few years ago.
Imagine that your brain is functioning at such a high power that you could not even dream of, sucking out the basic resources of your intelligence and energy.
A. Kh. Makhmutov - editor-in-chief of the journal "Economics and Management", Academician of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Bashkortostan, Doctor of Economics, Professor
Everything that is described below takes place in a parallel reality, surprisingly and incomprehensibly similar to ours, sometimes in such a way that it becomes truly uncomfortable.
Interview with Mikhail Khazin. /daily/23293/29523/ - Since the publication of your book "The Decline of the Dollar Empire and the End of Pax Americana", a long time has passed, during which the American economy has shown signs of recovery:
Ilya Ilyich Oblomov is a young nobleman, 33 years old, of short stature. At first glance, he made a rather positive impression, but upon closer examination, one could notice the complete absence of thought in his face.
He led a measured, apathetic life. He spent most of his time lying on the couch in his greasy dressing gown in a room with overhanging cobwebs and dusty mirrors.
An ambiguous character appears before readers. On the one hand, enslaved by laziness, indifference and apathy, and on the other hand, it stands out favorably against the background of its false and hypocritical friends. Here we already see his decency, kindness of soul, purity of thoughts and honesty.
In order to more fully reveal the image of Oblomov, Goncharov confronts him with other significant characters in the novel - Stolz and Olga Ilyinskaya.
Andrei Stoltz is a childhood friend of the protagonist - the complete opposite of Oblomov, his antipode. He cannot sit idle, his head is full of plans and ideas, he appreciates the boiling of life around, loves to be in the center of events. This difference is due to the difference in the upbringing of the characters.
Oblomov was the only child in the family, everyone cherished and cherished him. Any desire of little Ilya was immediately fulfilled, his whims were indulged, protected from the slightest danger and any activity. The village of Oblomov became, according to Dobrolyubov, the birthplace of such a thing as "Oblomovism". Such an attitude instilled in him an apathetic attitude towards life and made him a moral cripple, afraid of change and the uncertainty of the future.
Stolz, on the other hand, was brought up by one father, grew up as an independent and purposeful child. Ilya's good attitude towards him suggests that Stolz is able to influence him, revive him to true life and destroy the "Oblomovism" that reigns in the soul of the protagonist. Andrey set himself such a goal, considering it his duty to "save" his friend.
Andrei Stoltz forces Ilya Ilyich to go out, attend dinner parties, where one day the hero meets a young and energetic girl, Olga Ilyinskaya. She cannot be called a beauty in the full sense of the word, her beauty is simple and elegant. The most valuable thing about her was her views on life - freedom of thought, spontaneity, the absence of lies in words and deeds. Oblomov immediately fell in love with her freedom-loving voice, her soul, her character.
Olga, together with Stolz, come up with a plan of action, following which Oblomov must be an active, active person. She takes on the role of a ray of light, showing the way to the lost Oblomov. And Ilya Ilyich really began to transform, and with him Olga grew prettier and grew spiritually. In the end, the girl fell in love with her ward, which made it impossible to further fulfill the plan and thereby doomed their love union to death.
The fact is that both Olga and Ilya make impossible demands on each other. Olga expects to see in Oblomov a transformed person, at least remotely reminiscent of Andrei Stolz, but at the same time retaining the best qualities of Ilya - honesty, kindness, truthfulness. Ilya, on the other hand, expects from Olga absolute love for herself for who she is. But Olga loves an invented ideal that has little in common with the real Oblomov. To the girl’s question: “Who cursed you?” - Ilya replies bitterly: "Oblomovism." Thus, "Oblomovism" defeats the best qualities of the hero completely.
The life and death of Oblomov. Epilogue of the novel. For the third and last time, Stolz visits his friend. Under the caring eye of Pshenitsyna, Oblomov almost realized his ideal: “He dreams that he has reached that promised land, where rivers of honey and milk flow, where they eat unearned bread, walk in gold and silver ...”, and Agafya Matveevna turns into a fabulous Miliktrisa Kirbityevna .. The house on the Vyborgskaya side resembles a rural area.
However, the hero never reached his native village. Topic "Oblomov and the men" runs throughout the novel. Even in the first chapters, we learned that in the absence of the master, the peasants live hard. The headman reports that the peasants are "running away", "asking for quitrent". It is unlikely that they became better under the rule of the Worn One. While Oblomov was drowning in his problems, he missed the opportunity to build a road, build a bridge, as his neighbor, a village landowner, did. It cannot be said that Ilya Ilyich does not think about his peasants at all. But his plans are to ensure that everything remains as it is. And to the advice to open a school for a peasant, Oblomov replies with horror that “he, perhaps, will not plow ...” But time cannot be stopped. In the finale, we learn that "Oblomovka is not in the middle of nowhere anymore<…>the rays of the sun fell on her! The peasants, no matter how difficult it was, did without the master: “... In four years it will be a station on the road<…>, the men will go to work on the embankment, and then roll along the cast iron<…>bread to the pier ... And there ... schools, letters ... "But did Ilya Ilyich manage without Oblomovka? Goncharov proves his favorite thoughts with the logic of narration. And the fact that on the conscience of every landowner lies the concern for the fate of hundreds of people ("Happy Mistake"). And the fact that village life is the most natural and therefore the most harmonious for a Russian person; she herself will direct, teach and tell you what to do better than any “plans” (“Pallada Frigate”).
In the house on Vyborgskaya Oblomov sank down. What was a free dream became a hallucination - "the present and the past merged and mixed." On the first visit, Stolz managed to lift Oblomov off the couch. In the second, he helped a friend in solving practical cases. And now, with horror, he realizes that he is powerless to change anything:<«Вон из этой ямы, из болота, на свет, на простор, где есть здоровая, нормальная жизнь!» - настаивал Штольц…
“Do not remember, do not disturb the past: you will not turn back! Oblomov said. - I have grown to this pit with a sore spot: try to tear it off - there will be death ... 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. Maybe the last time was still possible. Now... now it's too late... Even Olga is unable to resurrect him: "Olga! - suddenly escaped from the frightened Oblomov ... - For God's sake, don't let her come here, leave!
As in the first visit, Stolz sums up the sad result:
What's there? Olga asked...
Nothing!..
Is he alive, well?
Why are you back so soon? Why didn't he call me there and bring him? Let me in!
What is going on there? ... Has the “abyss been opened”? Will you tell me? .. What is going on there?
Oblomovism!
And if Ilya Ilyich found people who are willing to endure this life around them, then nature itself, it seems, opposed, measuring out a short period of such an existence. That is why the attempts of the same Agafya Matveevna to restrict her husband produce a tragicomic impression. "How many times have you gone? - she asked Vanyusha ... - Don't lie, look at me ... Remember Sunday, I won't let you visit<…>". And Oblomov, willy-nilly, counted eight more times, then he already came into the room ... "; “It would be nice to have a pie!” - “I forgot, right I forgot! And I wanted it since the evening, but my memory seemed to be knocked off!” - Agafya Matveevna cheated. It doesn't make sense. For she cannot offer him any other goal in life than food and sleep.
Goncharov devotes relatively little space to the description of the illness and death of his hero. I. Annensky summarizes the reader's impressions, saying that “we read 600 pages about him, we do not know a person in Russian literature so fully, so vividly depicted. Meanwhile, his death affects us less than the death of a tree in Tolstoy's…” Why? Critics of the "Silver Age" are unanimous, because the worst thing has already happened to Oblomov. Spiritual death overtakes physical death. “He died because he ended ...” (I. Annensky). "Vulgarity" finally "triumphed over purity of heart, love, ideals." (D. Merezhkovsky).
Goncharov says goodbye to his hero with an excited lyrical requiem: “What happened to Oblomov? Where is he? Where? - In the nearest cemetery, under a modest urn, his body rests<…>. Lilac branches, planted by a friendly hand, doze over the grave, and the wormwood smells serenely. It seems that the angel of silence itself guards his sleep.
It would seem that there is an undeniable contradiction here. A lofty eulogy for a fallen hero! But life cannot be considered useless when someone remembers you. Bright sadness filled the life of Agafya Matveevna with the highest meaning: “She realized that<…>God 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 forever comprehended: now she knew why she lived and that she did not live in vain.
In the finale, we meet Zakhar in the guise of a beggar on the church porch. The orphaned valet prefers to ask for Christ's sake than to serve the "obnoxious" mistress. The following dialogue takes place between Stolz and his familiar writer about the late Oblomov:
And he was no more stupid than others, the soul is pure and clear, like glass; noble, gentle, and - gone!
From what? What reason?
Reason... what a reason! Oblomovism! Stolz said.
Oblomovism! - the writer repeated with bewilderment. - What it is?
Now I'll tell you ... And you write it down: maybe it will be useful to someone. "And he told him what is written here."
Thus, the composition of the novel is strictly circular, it is impossible to isolate the beginning and end in it. Everything that we read from the first pages, it turns out, can be interpreted as a story about Oblomov, his friend. At the same time, Stoltz could tell the story of a recently ended life. Thus, the circle of human life has been passed twice: in reality and in the memories of friends.
Goncharov, the harmony singer, could not complete his book with one minor note. In the epilogue, a new little hero appears, who, perhaps, will be able to harmoniously combine the best features of a father and an educator. “Don't forget my Andrey! - were the last words of Oblomov, spoken in a faded voice ... "" No, I will not forget your Andrey<…>, - promises Stolz. - But I will take your Andrey where you could not go<…>and with him we will carry out our youthful dreams.”
Let's do a little experiment. Open the last page of the Oblomov edition - any one that you hold in your hands. Turning it over, you will almost certainly find an article by Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov “What is Oblomovism?” This work must be known, if only because it is one of the examples of Russian critical thought of the nineteenth century. However, the first sign of a free person and a free country is the possibility of choice. Dobrolyubov's article is more interesting to consider next to the article with which it appeared almost simultaneously and with which it is in many respects polemical. This is a review by Alexander Vasilyevich Druzhinin “Oblomov”. Roman I.A. Goncharova.
Critics are unanimous in admiring the image of Olga. But if Dobrolyubov sees in her a new heroine, the main fighter against Oblomovism, Druzhinin sees in her the embodiment of eternal femininity: “It is impossible not to be carried away by this bright, pure creature, who has so intelligently developed in herself all the best, true principles of a woman ...”
Disagreements between them begin with Oblomov's assessment. Dobrolyubov argues with the author of the novel himself, proving that Oblomov is a lazy, spoiled, worthless creature: “He (Oblomov) will not bow to the idol of evil! Why is that? Because he is too lazy to get up on the couch. But drag him, put him on his knees before this idol: he will not be able to get up. Dirt will not stick to him! Yes, as long as there is one. So still nothing; and how Tarantiev, the Worn out, will come. Ivan Matveich - brr! what disgusting nastiness begins near Oblomov.
The critic shrewdly guesses the origins of Oblomov's character in his childhood. In Oblomovism, he sees, first of all, social roots: “... He ( Oblomov) from an early age sees in his house that all household chores are performed by lackeys and maids, and papa and mama only order and scold for bad performance. Gives as an example a symbolic episode with pulling on stockings. He considers Oblomov as social type. This is a gentleman, the owner of “three hundred Zakharov”, who “drawing the ideal of his bliss ... did not think to approve its legitimacy and truth, did not ask himself the question: where will these greenhouses and greenhouses come from ... and why on earth will he use them?”
And yet, the psychological analysis of the character and the meaning of the whole novel is not so interesting to critics. He is constantly interrupted by "more general considerations" about Oblomovism. In Goncharov's hero, the critic is primarily an established literary type; the critic traces his genealogy from Onegin, Pechorin, Rudin. In literary science, it is customary to call it a type of superfluous person. Unlike Goncharov, Dobrolyubov focuses on his negative features: “The common thing for all these people is that they have no business in life that would be a vital necessity for them, a sacred thing in the heart…”
Dobrolyubov presciently guesses that the reason for Oblomov's deep sleep was the absence of a lofty, truly noble goal. I chose the words of Gogol as an epigraph: “Where is the one who, in the native language of the Russian soul, would be able to tell us this almighty word “forward? ..””
Let's now look at Druzhinin's article. Let's be honest: it's a lot harder to read. As soon as we unroll the pages, the names of philosophers and poets, Carlyle and Longfellow, Hamlet and the artists of the Flemish school, will dazzle before our eyes. An intellectual of the highest outlook, a connoisseur of English literature, Druzhinin does not descend to the average level in his critical works, but is looking for an equal reader. By the way, this is how you can check the degree of your own culture - ask yourself which of the mentioned names, paintings, books are familiar to me?
Following Dobrolyubov, he pays a lot of attention to "Snu ..." and sees in it "a step towards understanding Oblomov with his Oblomovism." But, unlike him, focuses on the lyrical content of the chapter. Druzhinin saw poetry even in the "sleepy clerk", and put it in Goncharov's highest merit that he "poeticized the life of his native land." Thus the critic touched lightly national content Oblomovism. Defending his beloved hero, the critic urges: “Take a close look at the novel, and you will see how many people in it are devoted to Ilya Ilyich and even adore him ...” After all, this is no accident!
“Oblomov is a child, not a rotten lecher, he is a sleepyhead, not an immoral egoist or an epicurean...” To emphasize the moral value of the hero, Druzhinin asks: who is ultimately more useful for humanity? A naive child or a zealous official, "signing paper after paper"? And he answers: "A child by nature and by the conditions of his development, Ilya Ilyich ... left behind the purity and simplicity of a child - qualities that are precious in an adult." People "not of this world" are also necessary, because "in the midst of the greatest practical confusion, they often reveal to us the realm of truth and at times put an inexperienced, dreamy eccentric and above ... a whole crowd of businessmen who surround him." The critic is sure that Oblomov - type universal, and exclaims: “It’s not good for that land where there are no good and incapable of evil eccentrics like Oblomov!”
Unlike Dobrolyubov, he does not forget about Agafya Matveevna either. Druzhinin made a subtle observation about the place of Pshenitsyna in the fate of Oblomov: she was involuntarily the "evil genius" of Ilya Ilyich, "but this woman will be forgiven everything because she loved a lot." The critic is captivated by the subtle lyricism of the scenes depicting the woeful experiences of the widow. In contrast to her, the critic shows the selfishness of the Stoltsev couple in relation to Oblomov in scenes where "neither worldly order, nor worldly truth ... were violated."
At the same time, a number of controversial judgments can be found in his review. The critic avoids talking about why Ilya Ilyich is dying. Stolz's despair at the sight of a fallen friend is caused, in his opinion, only by the fact that Oblomov married a commoner.
Like Dobrolyubov, Druzhinin goes beyond the scope of the novel. He discusses the peculiarities of Goncharov's talent, compares it with the Dutch painters. Like the Dutch landscape painters and creators of genre scenes, the details of life under his pen acquire an existential scale and “his creative spirit was reflected in every detail ... like the sun is reflected in a small drop of water ...”
We saw that two critics in their judgments about Oblomov and the novel as a whole argue and deny each other. So which one to trust? I. Annensky answered this question, noting that it was a mistake “to dwell on the question of what type of Oblomov. Negative or positive? This question generally belongs to the school-market ones ... ”And it suggests that“ the most natural way in each type analysis is to start with an analysis of your impressions, deepening them as much as possible. For this "deepening" and need criticism. To convey the reaction of contemporaries, to supplement independent conclusions, and not to replace their own impressions. In fact, Goncharov believed in his reader, and to remarks that his hero was incomprehensible, he retorted: “What is the reader for? Is he some kind of oaf that his imagination will not be able to complete the rest according to the idea given by the author? Are the Pechorins, Onegins ... told to the smallest detail? The task of the author is the dominant element of character, and the rest is up to the reader.
