Oblomovism, Bazarovism, a special person, a new person, a nihilist. What is “Oblomovism”? What is its essence
In it, the writer created an unforgettable image of an extra person. When starting to write the novel, the author set a goal to tell the reader about the life of “an honest and kind, sympathetic nature, a highly idealist, who has been struggling all his life, truth seeker, encountering lies at every step, being deceived and falling into apathy and powerlessness.”
But the reader’s attention is presented with a broader picture than just the life of the main character - Ilya Ilyich Oblomov. Goncharov’s novel reproduces the era of the 40-50s of the 19th century and gives a bright canvas of landowner Oblomovka and bureaucratic Petersburg with its kaleidoscope social types- from serf servants to representatives of the capital's nobility.
The main character of the novel, Oblomov Ilya Ilyich, is a man “about thirty-two or three years old, of average height, pleasant appearance, with dark gray eyes, but with the absence of any definite idea, any concentration in his facial features... softness was dominant and fundamental expression, not just of the face, but of the whole soul; and the soul shone so openly and clearly in the eyes, in the smile, in every movement of the head and hand.” This is how the reader finds the hero at the beginning of the novel, in St. Petersburg, on Gorokhovaya Street, where he lives with his servant Zakhar. From the chapter “Oblomov’s Dream,” as well as from individual strokes scattered throughout the text, the reader learns about the hero’s childhood and youth. He grew up and was brought up among people who understood life as “the ideal of peace and inaction,” and considered work to be punishment.
Life in Oblomovka and the habit of doing everything with the help of other people developed apathetic immobility in the hero. The entire novel is the story of a man who slowly but surely plunges into the quagmire of apathy. A different type of character is revealed in the image of Andrei Stolz - German on his father's side, Russian on his mother's side. Since childhood, Andrey developed such traits as initiative and hard work. He cannot understand Oblomov and does not lose hope of reviving him to life. Leaving abroad once again, Andrei entrusts the care of his friend Olga Ilyinskaya, a young girl devoid of social falsehood and coquetry. She tried to change Oblomov, make him live a different, active and thinking life. But they understood the ideal of life differently. Saying goodbye to Ilya, Olga says: “I only recently found out that I loved what I wanted in you, what Stolz showed me, what we invented with him. I loved the future Oblomov! You are meek and honest, Ilya; you are gentle... like a dove; you hide your head under your wing - and don’t want anything more; you’re ready to coo under the roof all your life... but I’m not like that: this is not enough for me, I need something else, but I don’t know what!”
Oblomov himself understands that he is not worthy of Olga, although he loves her sincerely and disinterestedly. Their love story is beautiful and romantic, but it cannot have a continuation, because Ilya and Olga - different people. If he imagines the future in quiet, calm walks in the garden, pleasant conversations, meeting guests, then for her it is a continuous movement forward. But it was Olga who was able to discern other character traits of Oblomov inherent in an integral nature: honesty, openness, the ability to have deep feelings. All these qualities are alien to the businessmen and careerists who periodically appear at Ilya Ilyich’s sofa. Each of them, talking about their activities and problems, represents one or another version of an active and active life, which reality offers the hero instead of lying on the sofa. After each guest leaves, the owner sums up the conversation with him and makes a negative assessment. Oblomov is not at all attracted to either a career or social success, because he sees in them only useless vanity. His soul requires something sublime and beautiful, for which it is worth getting off the couch. Having grown up in the bosom of Russian nature, among peace and quiet, surrounded by care and affection, he could not find himself in the calculating and bustling world of a big city, in a society in which, in his opinion, there are no “interests of the mind, heart, no universal sympathy” .
Possessing enormous power generalizations, the image of Oblomov belongs to the “eternal” images of not only Russian, but also world literature. The figure of the main character is ambiguous and makes readers different opinions. Some see in him a sage and contemplator, a man with a kind, “dove” heart. Others note mainly his laziness and apathy, uselessness and worthlessness. But the author, while working on the novel, sought to ensure that the reader would combine all the images of the work into one whole and be able to get an idea of Russian life and the problems relevant to this time. Talking about the life of the main character, Goncharov showed such a broad concept as Oblomovism. On the one hand, it includes the entire patriarchal way of Russian life with its idle sleepiness, cult of food, desire for peace and quiet, and on the other hand, poetry, kindness and love. The word “Oblomovism” is first uttered by Stolz, a friend of Ilya Ilyich and his antipode. When Andrei realizes that there is no hope for Oblomov’s revival to life, he exclaims: “He’s dead... He’s lost forever!”, and later tells Olga that “Oblomovism” reigns in Ilya’s house. This concept becomes both key and fatal for the main character. All attempts by Andrei Stolts and Olga Ilyinskaya to revive Ilya Ilyich are unsuccessful: the quagmire of apathy takes over and absorbs the living and pure beginning of the hero, leading his personality to death - first moral, and then physical. This is the result of the life of a kind and thoughtful person, capable of bringing great benefit to society under other conditions. The origins of his tragedy are rooted in the social structure of patriarchal Russia. The hero's laziness and apathy are the result of upbringing and surrounding circumstances. It is “”, rightly named by N.A. Dobrolyubov’s trait of the Russian national character, crippled the fate of the protagonist and destroyed him. And this was very painful for Oblomov himself, who “painfully felt that some good, bright beginning was buried in him, as in a grave, perhaps now dead...” Self-esteem, inner freedom, which attracted the main character, both Olga and Stolz, cannot leave the reader indifferent.
The word “Oblomovism” became a household word thanks to the critic N.A. Dobrolyubov. In his article, he examined in detail the problem raised by Goncharov and which has not lost its relevance today. Ilya Ilyich, sharing his thoughts with Stolz, says: “Our name is legion,” and he is absolutely right. The phenomenon of Oblomovism, which drowns out the will and strength of spirit for the sake of peace and serene well-being, can destroy many people. Therefore, each of us must think about it, see in time and eradicate the signs of this mental illness, which can “plunge a person into a miserable state of moral slavery.”
Introduction
Ivan Goncharov for the first time in his novel “Oblomov” introduces a new concept for Russian literature “Oblomovism”, which denoted a special social tendency, characteristic, first of all, of the Russian people, concluded in complete lack of will, apathy, constant laziness and excessive daydreaming, when illusions are replaced real life, and the person degrades. The very word “Oblomovshchina” comes from the name of the main character of the work - Oblomov and the name of his native village - Oblomovka, which was the focus of everything that led to the gradual decline of Ilya Ilyich as a person, his complete isolation from the world and final escapism. The depiction of Oblomov and “Oblomovism” in Goncharov’s novel is a reflection of the process of gradual change, the “breaking” of a person who is instilled with unnatural values and desires, which ultimately leads to tragic consequences - the acquisition of a false meaning of life, fear real world and the early death of the hero.
Oblomovka and “Oblomovism”
The roots of the appearance of “Oblomovism” in Oblomov lie in the hero’s childhood - Ilya Ilyich grew up in a distant literally isolated from the real world and the center of Russia in the village of Oblomovka. The Oblomov estate is located in a picturesque, quiet, peaceful area, where the climate pleased with its moderation and tranquility, where there was no heavy rains, hurricanes or winds, a raging sea or majestic mountains, instead of which there are gentle hills, even the sky “huddles closer to the earth”, “to hug it tighter, with love: it spreads out so low above your head, like a parent’s reliable roof, to protect, it seems like a chosen corner from all kinds of adversity.” Everything here promised “a calm, long-term life until the hair turns yellow and an imperceptible, sleep-like death.” Even the seasons followed each other according to the calendar, without destroying the crops with spring snows - everything in Oblomovka went according to its usual way, without changing for decades. In such a semblance of paradise on earth, Oblomov and the Oblomovites developed, protected even by nature from all sorts of hardships, experiences and losses.
People in Oblomovka lived from rite to rite - from birth to wedding and from wedding to funeral. The pacifying nature pacified their disposition, making them quiet, harmless and indifferent to everything: the most terrible atrocities in the village were associated with the theft of peas or carrots, and once found dead person from neighboring village, they decided to forget about it, since the lives of other communities did not concern them, which means the dead person is not their problem. A similar situation occurred with a letter from a neighboring estate, which described a recipe for beer, but the Oblomovites were afraid to open it right away, fearing bad news that could disturb the usual tranquility of the village. People in Oblomovka did not like work, considering it a duty and trying to get the job done as quickly as possible or even shift it onto the shoulders of someone else. On the estate, all the work was done by the servants, who, as can be seen from the example of Zakhar, were also not the most responsible and hardworking people, but at the same time remained devoted servants of their bar.
The days of the Oblomovites passed in calmness and idleness, and most important event there was a choice of dishes for lunch, when everyone offered their own options, and then everyone consulted, approaching the menu with particular seriousness: “caring for food was the first and main concern of life in Oblomovka. After the meal, everyone fell into a sleepy state, sometimes they carried on lazy, meaningless conversations, but more often they were completely silent, gradually falling asleep: “it was some kind of all-consuming, invincible sleep, a true likeness of death,” which little Ilya observed from year to year, gradually adopting parental behavior model and values.
Oblomov's childhood in Oblomovka
As a child, Ilya was an inquisitive, active child who tried in every possible way to learn the world. He wanted, like other children, to run through the fields, climb trees, walk where it was forbidden, or, climbing into the hayloft, admire the river and magnificent landscapes from above. Oblomov liked to watch animals and explore the surrounding area. However, overly protective parents, who from infancy surrounded Ilya with constant care and control, forbade the boy to actively interact with the world and study it, instilling in him completely different, “Oblomov” values and behavior patterns: constant laziness, unwillingness to work and study, lack of will and fear of the real. peace.
Deprived of the need to fight for his desires, receiving everything he wants at the first request, Oblomov became accustomed to idleness. He did not need to decide or do anything on his own - there were always parents nearby who “knew better” what their son needed, or servants who were ready to bring him any food, help him get dressed or clean his chambers. Ilya was raised as an exotic " indoor flower", protecting him with all his might from the outside world and hiding him in the peaceful nest of Oblomovka. His parents did not even demand academic success from their son, since they did not consider science to be something truly important and useful; they often left him at home on holidays or in bad weather. That is why studying at school, and then at the institute, became for Oblomov something like an instruction from his parents, and not the implementation of his own will. Ilya Ilyich was bored in class; he did not understand how the knowledge gained could be applied in later life, in particular, in Oblomovka.
The destructive influence of fairy tales on Oblomov’s life
In the novel, Ilya Ilyich appears as a very sensitive, dreamy person who knows how to see beauty and subtly experience any manifestations of the outside world. In many ways, the formation of these qualities in the hero was influenced by Oblomov’s picturesque nature and fairy tales that his nanny told the boy. Myths and legends carried Oblomov into a completely different world - a fantastic, beautiful and full of wonders: “He involuntarily dreams of Militris Kirbityevna; he is constantly drawn in the direction where they only know that they are walking, where there are no worries and sorrows; he always has the disposition to lie on the stove, walk around in a ready-made, unearned dress and eat at the expense of the good sorceress.” Even in adulthood, realizing that “rivers of milk” do not exist, Ilya Ilyich “is sometimes unconsciously sad, why is a fairy tale not life, and why is life not a fairy tale.” That is why in Oblomov, that feeling, instilled with fairy tales, continued to live, the feeling of a person’s abandonment in a terrifying and frightening world, where you need to blindly make your way forward, neither seeing a goal nor a road, from which only a true miracle can save you.
Fairy, Magic world legends and myths become an alternative reality for Oblomov and already in adulthood he himself invents a fairy tale about future life in heavenly Oblomovka, about endless calm family happiness, prosperity and tranquility. However, the tragedy of Ilya Ilyich does not even lie in total escapism, fear of society, unwillingness to do anything and fight for his happiness, and not the understanding that he has already replaced real life with an illusory one. Before his death, for Oblomov, his dreams are more real and important than his son, wife, friend and people around him, even more important than himself, because in his dreams everything is in order with his health, he is full of strength and energy. However, Goncharov himself in the novel briefly gives the reader one of the explanations for this substitution: “or maybe sleep, the eternal silence of a sluggish life and the absence of movement and any real fears, adventures and dangers forced a person to create another, unrealizable one among the natural world, and to look for revelry and fun for the idle imagination or the solution to ordinary combinations of circumstances and causes of a phenomenon outside the phenomenon itself,” emphasizing that life itself should be a continuous striving forward, and not an endless sleep in the “comfort zone.”
Conclusion
The concept of “Oblomovism” in the novel “Oblomov” is introduced by Goncharov not as a single characteristic of the life motives and characteristics of the protagonist’s nature, but as a typical and especially attractive phenomenon for Russian society - the archetype of Emelya the Fool, lying on the stove and waiting for his finest hour. According to the author himself, this is “an evil and insidious satire on our great-grandfathers, and maybe even on ourselves” - a fairy tale that everyone wants to believe in, but which has nothing to do with reality, where in order to achieve heights it is necessary to rise from ovens and work, work on yourself. Using Oblomov as an example, Goncharov showed how excessive care and guardianship, protection from stress and losses, leading to complete disappointment in life, can have a detrimental effect on a sensitive, dreamy person. real life and replacing it with illusions.
The characteristics of the concept of “Oblomovism”, the history of its appearance and the connection with the main character of the novel will be useful to 10th graders while preparing an essay on the topic “Oblomov and “Oblomovism” in the novel “Oblomov”.
Work test
Concepts can be the basis for wonderful works of fine literature, if only they are creatively embodied in images, and not simply personified... The whole point is in what way the concepts appeared, were they given to us by life or invented apart from it? What are the most famous types of our modern literature - Oblomov and Bazarov, if not concepts made by people under the hands of two true artists. These concept-types are not at all ashamed and cannot be ashamed of their origin from thinking. On the contrary, they constantly and openly hint themselves about the source of their existence. Who, besides the concept-types, can be so mercilessly consistent, who, besides them, is capable of acting with such monotonous, let’s say - almost desperate - fidelity to his direction at every moment of life? There is no longer anything to be expected from them like a good-natured betrayal of their principles or a flighty attempt to free themselves from the demands of their nature even for a moment, which so often happens with types taken from the crowd, and gives them a charm that evokes our sympathy and opens the heart to indulge all their delusions. The very hobbies of Oblomov and Bazarov seem to be nothing more than fits of insanity, for which they should not be responsible, and they are never carried away by their whole being: the author’s thought serves as ballast for them and holds them to the place from which they rose. These famous types also owe their striking similarity to their origin from concepts: after all, it is known that between the most opposite, exceptional concepts there is family connection . On this basis, heterogeneous types emerging from concepts can represent, despite their opposition, one and the same person, only taken at two different moments of their development. This is exactly what we see in Oblomov and Bazarov. It is clear that when pursuing such an idea, we mean only their moral essence, and not their physical essence, which is not subject to rapprochement, being a form that determines their personal, typical peculiarity. Oblomov, who was reborn as Bazarov, had, of course, to change in appearance, in his lifestyle and in his habits, but the seed from which in one grows unawakened mental apathy, and in the other in convulsive activity that has no moral support, is laid one and the same. the same in both natures. It is familiar to us, in the best possible way, as a fruit given by the properties of our education, the characteristics of our development. As soon as Oblomov woke up and opened his heavy eyes, he had to act no differently than Bazarov; his soft, pliable nature, while he was in a lethargic state, was to be transformed into the rough, animal nature of Bazarov; On this condition, Oblomov could only rise to the burden. Likewise, Bazarov, who knows nothing in the world holier than the demands of his not entirely enlightened personality, is only Oblomov, who has been stirred up and who, by a combination of unforeseen circumstances, is forced to think and do something. They have the same skepticism towards life; Just as everything seemed impossible to Oblomov, so to Bazarov everything seems untenable. Where could Oblomov, in the time of his imperturbable hibernation, acquire anything resembling a political faith, a moral rule or a scientific conviction? He died without any content; That’s why, when he was resurrected, under different living conditions, in Bazarovo, he could only doubt the dignity and significance of everything that existed, and highly value his strong, tenacious nature. The goal of his aspirations did not change. With his new skepticism, he achieved exactly the same peace of mind, the same unperturbed purity of conscience and firmness in the rules that he enjoyed when he sat in the room of his house on the Petersburg side, between his wife, the wild lackey and the kulebyaks. Try to get through all of Bazarov’s external, deceptive activities to his soul: you will see that he is calm, completely Oblomov-like; He doesn’t care about everyday suffering and the spiritual need of the world around him. He only despises them, instead of quietly commiserating about them, as his great predecessor did. Progress of time! Both of them, however, are higher than the disasters, aspirations, falls and urgent demands of humanity, and higher precisely because of their moral insignificance; They have invented for themselves, each in their own way, mental consolation, which protects them from any excessively sorrowful feeling towards their neighbors. The difference between them is that Bazarov enjoys the consciousness of his superiority over people with an admixture of anger and impetuous passions, explained mainly by physiological reasons, and Oblomov enjoys this consciousness meekly, having managed to subordinate his carnal and also very lively instincts to the established family order. Mr. Goncharov thought that Oblomov was being replaced by the Stolts generation, while the real change appeared in the form of Bazarov; Mr. Turgenev thought to contrast the Bazarovs of the great and small family with their less developed fathers and forgot that the true ancestor of all the Bazarovs is Oblomov, who has long been shown to our society. At least for us, the words: Oblomovism and Bazarovism express the same idea, the same idea, presented by talented authors from two opposite sides. These are artistic antinomies.
"Literature of the 18th century" - Unity of action (one storyline, characters no more than 10). Reasoner. Bottom line. Origins of world classicism. Rationalism. Role is a character stereotype that moves from play to play. Transitional nature, formation secular literature Names Feofan Prokopovich. Heroine - hero lover - second lover.
“Culture of the Silver Age” - I work like a slave, but for freedom I call night, peace and darkness. Hypothesis. How many disasters and catastrophes the period of the beginning of the century absorbed! I will not reveal my divine nature to anyone. I will not make myself an idol, neither on earth nor in heaven. Silver Age silhouette... Goals: Hopes and disappointments, ups and downs, gains and losses...
“Medieval Literature” - Life is depicted in an allegorical form medieval Europe. We learned that in the Middle Ages there was a cult of the lady. Which famous works came to us from the Middle Ages? We would include in the exhibition a story about “The Romance of the Fox.” We would include in the exhibition a story about “The Song of Roland.”
“Poetry of the 19th-20th centuries” - Symbolism from the Greek. simbolon - sign, symbol. The composition of poets is wide and varied. Symbolists used melodicism, creating complex musical and verbal structures. Composition of poets. Symbolism. The Cubo-Futurists tried to create a “cubic structure of verbal mass” in poetry. Bunin, M. Tsvetaeva... Abstract.
“Course on the History of Literature” - The oldest translated literature. Apocrypha. The main thing in philological education. Didactic units. Assessment systems for ongoing monitoring of progress. Exam. Periodization. Lives. The place and significance of Russian literature in the historical existence of an ethnos - a people - a nation. Questions for the exam. 4. Forms of conducting educational practice (The forms of conducting practical training are indicated.
“Collectivization in literature” - I guard your wealth, I protect you from blindness.” Not a poor worker, but a hard-working, successful one - both an employee and an entrepreneur. F. Abramov often said that Russia says goodbye to the village as to its mother. There is no strong power whose land does not feed its people... Municipal Educational Institution "Lazurnenskaya Secondary School". The degradation of the peasant is worse than the degradation of the soil.
There are 18 presentations in total
There is no longer anything to be expected from them like a good-natured betrayal of their origin or a flighty attempt to free themselves from the demands of their nature even for a moment, which so often happens with types taken from the crowd, and gives them a charm that evokes our sympathy and opens the heart to indulge all their delusions. The very hobbies of Oblomov and Bazarov seem to be nothing more than fits of insanity, to which they should not respond, and they are never carried away with their whole being: the author’s thought serves as ballast for them and holds them to the place from which they rose” (Ibid. p. 261 -262).
The advantageous difference between the types-concepts of Goncharov and Turgenev from similar images, for example, N. G. Pomyalovsky (Molotov and Cherevanin) is that in the case of Oblomov and Bazarov, these types “were given ‹…› to us by life” (Ibid. S. 261); “the very thought to which they owe their origin was born from direct contemplation
337
society, from penetration, so to speak, into the depths of it psychological mood, from the intercepted secret of his existence" (Ibid. p. 264).
Bearing in mind “only their moral essence, and not their physical,” Annenkov speaks of the “striking similarity” of the two famous heroes: “...it is known that there is a family connection between the most opposite, exclusive concepts” (Ibid. p. 262). Moreover, according to the logic of the critic, Oblomov and Bazarov can be understood as “one and the same person, only taken at different moments of their development. ‹…› Oblomov, reborn into Bazarov, had, of course, to change in appearance, in lifestyle and habits, but the seed from which in one grows unwavering mental apathy, and in the other convulsive activity that has no moral support, the same thing is inherent in both natures. It is most familiar to us as a fruit given by the properties of our education, the peculiarities of our development. As soon as Oblomov woke up and opened his heavy eyes, he had to act no differently than Bazarov;1 his soft, pliable nature, while he was in a lethargic state, had to be transformed into the rough, animal nature of Bazarov: on this condition Oblomov could only rise to your feet. Likewise, Bazarov, who knows nothing in the world holier than the demands of his not entirely enlightened personality, is only Oblomov, who was stirred up and who, due to unforeseen circumstances, is forced to think and do something. They have the same skepticism towards life: just as everything seemed impossible to Oblomov, so to Bazarov everything seems untenable. Where could Oblomov, in the time of his imperturbable hibernation, acquire anything resembling a political faith, a moral rule or a scientific conviction?2 He died without any content; that's why when
338
he was resurrected, under different living conditions, in Bazarovo, he could only doubt the dignity and significance of everything that exists and highly value his strong, tenacious nature. The goal of his aspirations did not change. With his new skepticism, he achieved exactly the same peace of mind, the same imperturbable purity of conscience and firmness in the rules that he enjoyed when he sat in the room of his house on the Petersburg side between his wife, the wild lackey and the kulebyaks. Try to get through Bazarov’s external, deceptive activity to his soul: you will see that he is calm, completely Oblomov-like; He doesn’t care about everyday suffering and the spiritual need of the world around him. He only despises them, instead of quietly condoling them, as his great predecessor did. Progress of time! Both of them, however, are above the disasters, aspirations, falls and urgent demands of humanity, and above precisely because of their moral insignificance;1 they invented for themselves, each in their own way, mental consolation, which protects them from any excessively sorrowful feeling for their neighbors . The difference between them is that Bazarov enjoys the consciousness of his superiority over people with an admixture of anger and impetuous passions, explained mainly by physiological reasons, and Oblomov enjoys this consciousness meekly, having managed to subordinate his carnal and also very lively instincts to the established family order" (Ibid. pp. 262-263).2
339
And finally, the relationship between Oblomov and Bazarov, interpreted in this way, leads Annenkov to a completely original understanding of the problem of “fathers and sons”, so significant for Russian literature of the mid-19th century: “...fathers and children are depicted in our literature in more than one novel, which would not be even such a talent as Mr. Turgenev can do, and with two wonderful novels belonging to two to different artists, who were mistaken regarding the conclusions that can be drawn from the main idea of their works. G. Goncharov thought that the Oblomovs were being replaced by a generation of practical Stolts, while the real change appeared in the form of Bazarov; Mr. Turgenev thought to contrast the Bazarovs of the great and small family with their less developed fathers and forgot that the true ancestor of all the Bazarovs is Oblomov, who has long been shown to our society. The fathers of Mr. Turgenev therefore seem and will seem to be fake fathers, not having the slightest connection with their tribe, except for the act of birth, which is very sufficient to recognize the spiritual kinship between its members. At least for us, the words “Oblomovism” and “Bazarovism” express the same idea, the same idea, presented by talented authors from two opposite sides. These are artistic antinomies. And so great is the importance of creative types, even if they owe their origin to the concept, that their single calling instantly opens a long chain of ideas and clarifies an abstract thought to its last details” (Ibid. pp. 263-264).
Equating these heroes both aesthetically (Oblomov and Bazarov are “concept-types”) and socio-politically (“the true ancestor of all Bazarovs is Oblomov”), Annenkov, as noted by I. N. Sukhikh, entered into “an unannounced dispute with Dobrolyubov, who spoke about the heroes of the “new Russian life” who were replacing the “Oblomovites,” and with Pisarev, for whom Bazarov canceled the Pechorins and Rudins.”1
In the article “Historical and aesthetic issues in the novel gr. L. N. Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” (1868) Annenkov outlined another parallel: speaking about the main characters of Tolstoy’s novel, the critic was the first to call “heavy, but
340
the humanely developed young Bezukhov is a type similar to Oblomov, if Oblomov is made an immensely rich man and the bastard son of one of Catherine’s eagles” (Ibid. p. 356).
***
Very large group Critical reviews of the novel and its main character consist of responses dating back to the end of the 19th century. – 1910s
A.P. Chekhov had ambivalent views on the images of Oblomov and Stolz, as well as on Goncharov’s work in general. “I’m reading Goncharov,” he wrote to A.S. Suvorin at the beginning of May 1889, “and I’m surprised. I wonder to myself: why did I still consider Goncharov a first-class writer? His “Oblomov” is a completely unimportant thing. Ilya Ilyich himself is an exaggerated figure, not so large that it would be worth writing a whole book about him. A flabby lazy fellow, of which there are many, an uncomplicated nature, ordinary, petty; to elevate this person to a social type is a tribute beyond his rank. I ask myself: if Oblomov were not lazy, then what would he be? And I answer: nothing. And if that’s the case, then let him sleep. The rest of the faces are small, smell of leukism, taken carelessly and half-composed. They do not characterize the era and do not give anything new. ‹…› Olga is invented and pulled by the tail. And the main problem is that the whole novel is cold, cold, cold... I am crossing Goncharov off the list of my demigods.”1 Chekhov’s harsh epistolary judgments about the overthrown “demigod,” the novel “Oblomov” and its heroes, who, as we know, were not random figures, 2 still does not exhaust his attitude to Goncharov’s work. Obviously, the reflection of some poetic motifs of “Oblomov’s Dream” in the story “Steppe”. M. O. Menshikov wrote about the heroes of Chekhov’s works “Fear”, “A Boring Story”, “Duel”, “Wife”,
341
“Neighbors”: “...weak and flabby Russian people, the newest Oblomovs, who absolutely do not know how to live, who do not know how to arrange either their own or others’ happiness under the most wonderful external circumstances.”1
D. S. Merezhkovsky in the article “I. A. Goncharov (Critical Study),” published during the life of the novelist,2
342
noticed that the author of “Oblomov” stands out sharply from other writers with his special attitude towards nature. Having quoted part of the description of Oblomov’s world, which talks about the sky, which “hugs closer to the earth” in order to “embrace it tightly, with love,” the critic noted: “Here is nature, as none of the new poets understands it - nature, devoid of mystery, limited and beautiful, as the ancients imagined it: a setting for the idyll of Theocritan shepherds or, even better, for the happiness of patriarchal landowners” (“Oblomov” in criticism. P. 174).
“High comedy,” with which many heroes of Goncharov’s novels, including Oblomov, are “illuminated,” allows the critic to bring together the created art world with the “ideal beauty” that the epic art of the ancients brought to us. Distinctive feature Goncharov’s talent, according to Merezhkovsky, is “love for the everyday side of life”, the ability to transform “the prose of reality into poetry and beauty” with one touch. At first glance, the critic is talking about that feature of the art of the author of Oblomov, which since the time of Druzhinin has been called Flemishness. A modern researcher understands Flemishism as a “proseization of the traditionally sublime”, as an emphasized “undifferentiated perception of reality”, “equalization of different-scale phenomena”, when “the little things of everyday life rise to the level of man”, when “people and animals, the important and the insignificant are brought to a common denominator, become equivalent ".1 One way or another, we're talking about about the violation of some norm expected by the reader, the artistic effect is achieved as a result of liberation from a certain stylistic inertia. And the Homeric epic tradition is manifested in the fact that for the artist there is generally no division into high and low. Here is Merezhkovsky’s train of thought:
343
“In his descriptions, Homer spent a long time dwelling with special love on the prosaic features of life. He depicts in the smallest detail how his heroes and demigods eat, drink, take a bath, sleep, and dress. For Homer, there is nothing ugly in life, just as naively and simply as he talks about the death of great men, about the council of the gods, about the destruction of Troy, he talks about the dirty dress that the king’s daughter Nausicaa and her slaves went to the river to wash; he describes with childish innocence how
They began to rinse the dresses, and then, they cleaned them
Having washed, along the seashore on the milky-shiny cartilage applied
On the flat shore like a sea wave, they were all spread out.1
The same ancient love for the everyday side of life, the same ability to transform the prose of reality into poetry and beauty with one touch makes up characteristic feature Pushkin and Goncharov. Re-read “Oblomov’s Dream.” Eating, drinking tea, ordering food, chatting, and amusements of old-world landowners here take on Homeric ideal contours.
This is how the laughter of these happy people is depicted: “The laughter spread throughout the whole society, penetrated to the front and to the maid’s room, enveloped the whole house, everyone remembers a funny incident, everyone laughs for a long time, in unison, unspeakably, like the Olympian gods. As soon as they start to fall silent, someone will pick it up again - and off to write.” And then almost an entire page describes this Homeric laughter. The patriarchal morals of Oblomov's landowners are so fantastic, out-of-date and reminiscent of a fairy tale in their epic proportions that the reader is not at all surprised when Goncharov directly from Oblomovka takes him into the heroic environment of ancient Russian legends and epics.
344
How different all this is from the easy, superficial manner, from the semi-careless style of modern novelists! It seems that Oblomov’s creator leaves his pen here and takes up the ancient lyre; he no longer describes - he glorifies the morals of the Oblomovites, whom it is not without reason that he equates them to the “Olympic gods”” (Ibid. pp. 177-178).
Merezhkovsky’s idea does not cancel Druzhinin’s concept; it introduces a different (epic) contextual vector.
As you know, Montesquieu wrote about the importance of the “geographical factor” for the formation of national character. When Merezhkovsky talks about “the influence of the environment on character,” he, in particular, means that the consciousness of Oblomov’s people develops to a large extent under the influence of their native nature: “He (Goncharov. - Ed.) watches how the soft steppe contours of the hills, how the hot “ruddy” sun of Oblomovka reflected on the dreamy, lazy and meek character of Ilya Ilyich...” (Ibid. P. 179). It should be recalled that Goncharov himself, in a letter to S.A. Nikitenko dated February 25, 1873, speaking about the external forces that determined the fate of the hero, wrote: “Climate, environment, extension - outback, drowsy life.”
Merezhkovsky’s arguments about the special attitude of the author of “Oblomov” to the past and his understanding of the tragedy of “today’s life” are also worthy of attention.
“There are two types of writers,” the critic writes, “ones, like Lermontov, Byron, Dostoevsky, look forward with greed and anxiety, cannot stop at anything, go to the unknown, do not love and do not know the past, strive to capture still unconscious feelings , burn, worry, become indignant and die, unreconciled.
Others, like Walter Scott and Goncharov, look back with gratitude, dwell for a long time and lovingly on the harmonious and complete forms of reality, prefer the past to the future, the known to the unknown, the quiet depths of life to the agitated surface, admire how the last rays of sunset fade on the heights , and regret the faded day.
They understand the poetry of the past.
For Goncharov, in the past there is a source of light that illuminates the characters he created. The closer to the light, the brighter they are. Immortal images - grandmother, Marfinka,
345
the serf servant, Oblomov's mistress, Aduev's mother - all these are people of the past, completely or almost completely untouched by modernity. In transitional types, as in Raisky, in Alexander Aduev, the side turned to the light, that is, to the past, to upbringing, childhood memories, to the native village, is still brighter.
Modernity appears to Goncharov as a gray and rainy St. Petersburg morning; she smells cold; in its dim light all the colors of poetry fade and dead, non-artistic figures appear - Stolz in Oblomov, uncle in " Ordinary history”, Tushin in “Cliff”.
People of the future seem like ghosts in comparison with living people of the past” (Ibid. pp. 184-185).
Goncharov, Merezhkovsky believes, sees that this past life has not only a bright one (“limited by legends, obedient to traditions, the life of the past flowed brightly and peacefully in a deep, age-old channel,” “the poetry of the past lives in Oblomov’s dove, meek heart”), but also the reverse, dark side: the critic recalls the habit of the little baron Ilyusha Oblomov to “kick” the serf Zakharka in the nose. But still, Goncharov’s world is not built on the principle of satirical contrast. " great artist“, the author of the article concludes, “better and deeper than a satirist, he feels with his conscience the lies and ugliness of the past, but hatred does not blind him: he sees both the beauty and poetry of the past” (Ibid. p. 186).
The connection with the past, according to Merezhkovsky, determines much in the psychology and destinies of Goncharov’s heroes. Let us remember that the novelist himself “ big time" of his trilogy designated as the transition from Sleep to Awakening.1
346
Merezhkovsky writes: “When two historical eras change, characters appear that belong to one and the other, incomplete, divided. Their convictions and beliefs belong to new times; habits, temperament - to the past. In most cases, it is not reason, but instinct that wins; not beliefs, but temperament; the outdated triumphs over the living, and a person dies as a victim of this struggle, just as Alexander Aduev dies in vulgarity, Oblomov in apathy, and Raisky in amateurism” (Ibid. p. 182). And the triumph of temperament over convictions poses a mortal threat to the spiritual nature of the individual. That is why “the tragedy of vulgarity, calm, everyday tragedy is the main theme of Oblomov” (Ibid., p. 176). Goncharov looks at life without illusions, in which the universal meaning of “ordinary history” is replaced by the spiritual anemia of everyday existence.
If we interpret Alexander Aduev as “the prototype of Oblomov,” then, Merezhkovsky believed, although Ilya Ilyich no longer has “feigned Byronism and phrase-mongering,” his connection with the heroes of Lermontov and Pushkin is still felt. This genetic linkage between Goncharov’s two heroes makes it possible to comprehend Oblomov’s kinship with Onegin and Pechorin, a kinship that Dobrolyubov asserted on completely different grounds.
According to M.A. Protopopov, expressed in the article “Goncharov”,1 Dobrolyubov was mistaken in thinking about “ extra people“(his analogies and parallels “scatter to dust”). And he was mistaken because he was misled by Goncharov (“great artistic talent”). The author of Oblomov, Protopopov believed, “managed to solve social problems on the basis of personal psychology; to connect the individual, although not accidental, properties of their heroes with questions of social physiology or pathology, psychological types present as living social forces” (Ibid. pp. 191-192). Based on this, the critic makes the following conclusion: “...for Onegin, Pechorin, Beltov and Rudin ‹…› the curse of their lives lay in involuntary inaction, while Oblomov believed all his happiness in inaction. ‹…› you can’t put people next to each other whose ideals of happiness are diametrically opposed. Oblomov, dying
347
on three feather beds from the paralysis that befell him from gluttony and immobility, and, for example, Rudin, dying with a banner in his hand on the pavement of Paris - these are as if people of the same type! (Ibid. p. 195).
Protopopov also disagrees with Dobrolyubov’s “main argument” regarding the “superfluous”. It's about their attitude towards women. Or rather, women to them. Women look down on the “real” “superfluous” ones, “while Olga Ilyinskaya commanded and even downright pushed Oblomov around.” The explanation is given as follows: “Because Pechorin, Rudin and others were people filled with inner strength, before which women gave in, and Oblomov was just a down mattress that could be tugged and turned as much as he wanted, this way and that, by the first person he met. young lady" (Ibid. p. 196).
And the conclusion: Oblomov’s laziness is a phenomenon of “personal mental life”, the result of “personal incorrect development.” One can speak of Oblomov as a type, “but only in a statistical sense, that is, in the sense that we probably have quite a few people like him or almost like him” (Ibid., p. 197).
A. M. Skabichevsky’s judgment about Oblomov was first expressed by him in 1891, in the first edition of his “History of Contemporary Russian Literature.” The critic wrote that Goncharov’s hero is both a “tribal” type, which embodies the traits characteristic of Russian people, regardless of what class or rank they belong to, and, “one might even say, a universal human type,” is “one of those eternal types, such as, for example, Don Quixote, Don Juan, Hamlet, etc.”1 Skabichevsky, therefore, classified Oblomov among such literary types, which are now increasingly called “supertypes.”2
Highlighting Goncharov among the largest Russian novelists of the 19th century, V.V. Chuiko argued that his talent was marked with a special seal: “This seal is his symbolism. Analyze carefully the impression you
348
get from reading Goncharov, and you, I think, will come to the conviction that he does not have that artistic clarity and partly spontaneity that, for example, lies in Turgenev. Goncharov's artistic observation is unusually great and intense, especially in episodic and introductory figures: here he is not only an artist, an observer, but also a great master painter, arranging colors with amazing perfection, painting with the ruthless truth of Rembrandt or Velazquez. If only these features were contained in Goncharov, then we would have a realist of the purest school - something like Pisemsky, more faithful to reality than photography itself - because his paintings would be brighter and more prominent than photographic photographs, with the same fidelity. But there is another feature in Goncharov, which, in most cases, prevails and forms, as it were, the general background of all his works. This feature is a philosophical synthesis of life phenomena, which in art very often turns or degenerates into allegory, into a kind of symbolism. This trait immediately came forward and already quite clearly dominates in “Ordinary History,” reaching its full development in “Oblomov.” Goncharov not only reproduces life, but also philosophizes about it, although his initial starting point is always direct observation.”1
Speaking about his heroes, Goncharov used the term “ideal”. In a letter to I. I. Lkhovsky dated August 2 (14), 1857, he reflected on the novel “Oblomov”: “Sometimes it scares me that I don’t have a single type, but all ideals: is this good? Meanwhile, I don’t need types to express my idea; they would lead me away from my goal. Or, finally, it takes a huge, Gogolian talent to master both.” In interpreting the nature of the artistic image, Goncharov relied on the theoretical judgments of S. P. Shevyrev and V. N. Maykov. S. Shevyrev contrasted Jean Paul (as the creator of “ideals”) with Walter Scott, in whose works various historical types were masterfully presented. “If Jean Paul,” wrote the critic, “we call
349
ideal novelist, then W. Scott, as completely opposite to him, is befitting the title of historical.”1
The ideal is understood as the maximum degree of generalization in artistic image, when the timeless, universal essence dominates in it. Thus, according to V.N. Maikov’s definition, images that “fully express universal human characters,” such as the faces of Shakespeare’s dramas, can be considered ideal (Maikov. P. 342). And Walter Scott’s art manifested itself, according to Maykov, in the creation historical types, in the ability to “depict a person under the influence of known conditions of time, locality and fate” (Ibid. P. 209).
Thanks to criticism of XIX century, and many literary works of the present century, Goncharov undoubtedly gained the reputation of the creator, first of all, of literary types. However, when analyzing the structure of his images and determining the principles of their creation, it is necessary to take into account the aesthetic orientation of the author himself. It's obvious that artistic method Goncharov allowed him - like Gogol - to identify in the hero both “today’s”, “historical”, typical, and “ideal”, timeless, universal (see: Nedzvetsky. P. 84, 129, 137-139).
About the special nature of Goncharov’s image, V.V. Chuiko wrote: “He was not concerned about the type, not about the personality, but about the symbolization of general concepts.” The author of “Oblomov” was considered by the critic in a broad literary context: “The vast majority of other poets and artists (almost all of them, led, of course, by Shakespeare) allow only one artistic generalization – type. Such, for example, is Turgenev; his Rudin, Lavretsky, Bazarov are only types; there is no symbolization in them; mentally go through all the forms of Turgenev’s novels: these are simply characters, individuals that have only psychological interest, or, in extreme cases, types, that is, collective figures that unite many individuals. There are even great poets and artists who consider it too great a generalization, not consistent with true art, even type. To such
350
artists belong, for example, to Goethe: where can you find even a hint of a type in him? Such, on the other hand, is Byron: he does not, like Goethe, have a type. Goncharov stands at the other pole from them: they know only individuality; he knows almost only abstract concepts personified in the figures he creates. Byron and Goethe, I would venture to say, from the point of view of Aristotle, who knows only the species and does not know the genus, they are, in medieval terminology, realists; Turgenev, partly Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Dickens, Thackeray are Platonists or, scholastically speaking, nominalists. Goncharov, like Dante, goes even further: he is, so to speak, more transcendental; for him even platonic ideas-types are not enough; it ascends from them to even more general abstract concepts, which should no longer represent genera, but, so to speak, world unities. I now put Goncharov next to Dante; and in fact, they have a lot in common ‹…› they are kindred natures and allegorists: Beatrice for Dante is not the woman he once loved and lost in his youth, she is the personification of theology or philosophy - absolutely in the same sense as grandmother for Goncharov is the personification of the old Russian conservative life. How, perhaps the reader will say, surprised by these words, which contradict everything that he has so far heard about Goncharov, “Goncharov has no types?” And Oblomov, Volokhov, Zakhar, Tushin? Indeed, all these beautifully sculpted figures, at first glance, seem to be types, but one has only to weigh the role of each of them to see that they are more than types, that they are generalizing concepts, and not psychological aspects, which is, however, how they were understood Goncharov himself, who, in order to avoid any misunderstandings, accurately and clearly expressed in his article “Better late than never” what he wanted to say with them. Referring to Dobrolyubov, he says about Oblomov: “The embodiment of sleep, stagnation, motionless dead life, - crawling from day to day, in one person and in his environment, - was found by everyone to be true.” A little further he adds: “Oblomov was a whole, undiluted expression of the masses, resting in a long and unrestrained sleep and stagnation.” This means that Oblomov is not a type, not a figure in which, as if in focus, many Russian individualities are reflected,
351
but a representation, a symbolization of a certain era in Russian social life.”1
It is surprising that critical and exploratory thought late XIX-XX V. did not respond to the parallel proposed by Chuiko and quite expanded by him between Goncharov and Dante, a parallel that allows us to more fully comprehend the epic scale of the novel trilogy. Chuiko wrote: “No matter how strange it may seem (I am aware of this) the comparison artistic creation Goncharova with „ Divine Comedy”, this comparison involuntarily comes to mind if we look at both creatures from a certain point of view. Indeed, Dante's poem is the greatest epic of the Middle Ages; in it, Dante summarized not only the social and state life, but the philosophy, religion, and science of his time. Goncharov embraced Russian XIX century not with such a wide scope and not with such brilliant depth, but in both tasks there is undoubtedly something related: the desire and ability to reduce all historical, state and social life a certain era. This kinship of both great artistic talents is all the more imposed on the mind because not only their tasks were similar, but in the method of execution we see something in common... Being both symbolists, they both at the same time possessed all the properties of great portrait artists: the figures of Dante, exactly bronze statues are etched into the memory to such an extent that it is impossible to forget them; he is a great connoisseur of the human soul and a great inventor of people. But doesn’t Goncharov leave the same impression ‹…›? And Goncharov’s figures stand before us like bronze statues, in which, despite their immobility, life is in full swing and spiritual processes are taking place.”2
According to Chuiko, Goncharov’s trilogy is a history of Russian society, given in a symbolic, “as if in an abstract form,” “in the process of formation,” a gigantic artistic composition, subject to the classical dialectical principle. "In Ordinary
352
history,” writes Chuiko, “Goncharov depicted the primary phase of the twenties and thirties, a weak flicker of consciousness in the need for work, living business. In “Oblomov” Goncharov characterizes the second phase of Russian life – “creeping from day to day, Oblomovism.” The third phase is already an awakening from Oblomov’s sleep in “The Precipice”, an awakening from a weak consciousness of the need for work and from Oblomov’s vegetation to the consciousness of practical social activity; thus, according to Goncharov, all Russian life XIX century fits into three novels, logically developing as a philosophical theme, reminiscent of Hegel’s triad.”1
Y. N. Govorukha-Otrok was one of those who tried to answer the question of what are the results of more than thirty years of understanding the novel “Oblomov”. He came to a rather sad conclusion: “Of all the wonderful works of Russian belles lettres there was hardly anything else so misunderstood as famous novel Goncharov.”2 And, according to the critic, the writer himself is to blame for this: “Unclarity,” he wrote in article VII “I. A. Goncharov" of the cycle "Literary Critical Essays" (RV. 1892. No. 1; sub.: Yu. Elagin) - was in the very concept of the novel, the biased purpose with which it was written produced this ambiguity. From the point of view of his doctrine, Goncharov simply wanted to expose Russian landowner laziness, but, as always, carried away by his talent as a draftsman, he created a number of paintings that testify not to Russian laziness and idleness, but to the best, noblest traits of the Russian character. Because of these pictures, vague contours emerge, in which a positive type of Russian person from an educated society is still unclearly drawn. Thus, thanks to the fact that Goncharov’s heartfelt sympathies for Russian life overpowered his doctrinaire attitude towards reality, instead of a boring dissertation with the capital epigraph: “laziness is the mother of all vices,” a novel was published that will forever remain in Russian literature... (“Oblomov” in criticism, pp. 203-204). Govorukha-Otrok explains by the contradictory position of the novelist himself that until the 1890s.
353
In Russian criticism, two mutually exclusive points of view on “Oblomov” have been preserved: Dobrolyubov’s and Druzhinin’s-Grigoriev’s. The Govorukha-Youth himself, with his pochvennik sentiments, is naturally closer to the second. But in his assessment of Oblomov’s Dream, he disagrees with Druzhinin and Grigoriev. Govorukha-Otrok believes that “in an artistic sense ‹…› “Dream” is a slander against Russian life” (Ibid. p. 205).
