Literary criticism. Russian literary criticism of the 18th-19th centuries

Roman Oblomov. Since 1847, Goncharov has been pondering the horizons of a new novel: this thought is also palpable in the essays "Frigate" Pallada ", where he confronts a type of businesslike and practical Englishman with a Russian landowner living in the patriarchal Oblomovka. And in Ordinary History, such a collision moved the plot. It is no coincidence that Goncharov once admitted that in Ordinary History, Oblomov and The Cliff he sees not three novels, but one.The writer completed work on Oblomov in 1858 and published it in the first four issues of the Otechestvennye Zapiski magazine. for 1859.

Dobrolyubov about the novel. "Oblomov" met with unanimous recognition, but opinions about the meaning of the novel were sharply divided. N. A. Dobrolyubov in the article "What is Oblomovism?" I saw in "Oblomov" a crisis and the collapse of the old feudal Rus'. Ilya Ilyich Oblomov - "our indigenous people's type", symbolizing laziness, inaction and stagnation of the entire feudal system of relations. He is the last in a series of "superfluous people" - the Onegins, the Pechorins, the Beltovs and the Rudins. Like his older predecessors, Oblomov is infected with a fundamental contradiction between word and deed, daydreaming and practical worthlessness. But in Oblomov, the typical complex of the "superfluous person" is brought to a paradox, to its logical end, followed by the disintegration and death of a person. Goncharov, according to Dobrolyubov, reveals more deeply than all his predecessors the roots of Oblomov's inaction.

The novel reveals the complex relationship between slavery and nobility. “It is clear that Oblomov is not a stupid, apathetic nature,” writes Dobrolyubov. “But the vile habit of obtaining the satisfaction of his desires not from his own efforts, but from others, developed in him an apathetic immobility and plunged him into a miserable state This slavery is so intertwined with the nobility of Oblomov, they mutually penetrate each other and are conditioned by one another that it seems there is not the slightest possibility of drawing any kind of boundary between them ... He is the slave of his serf Zakhar, and it is difficult to decide which of them is more subject to the authority of the other. At least - what Zakhar does not want, that Ilya Ilyich cannot force him to do, and what Zakhar wants, he will do against the will of the master, and the master will submit ... "

But that's why the servant Zakhar is in a certain sense a "master" over his master: Oblomov's complete dependence on him makes it possible for Zakhar to sleep peacefully on his couch. The ideal of the existence of Ilya Ilyich - "idleness and peace" - is to the same extent a longed-for dream of Zakhar. Both of them, master and servant, are the children of Oblomovka.

“Just as one hut fell on the cliff of a ravine, it has been hanging there since time immemorial, standing with one half in the air and propped up by three poles. Three or four generations lived quietly and happily in it.” Near the manor's house, too, a gallery has collapsed since time immemorial, and the porch has long been going to be repaired, but has not yet been repaired.

“No, Oblomovka is our direct homeland, its owners are our educators, its three hundred Zakharovs are always ready for our services,” concludes Dobrolyubov. “A significant part of Oblomov sits in each of us, and it’s too early to write us a funeral word.”

“If I now see a landowner talking about the rights of mankind and the need for personal development, I already know from his first words that this is Oblomov.

If I meet an official complaining about the complexity and burdensomeness of office work, he is Oblomov.

If I hear from an officer complaints about the tiring parades and bold arguments about the futility of a quiet step, etc., I have no doubt that he is Oblomov.

When I read in the magazines liberal antics against abuses and the joy that what we have long hoped and desired has finally been done, I think that everyone writes from Oblomovka.

When I am in a circle of educated people who ardently sympathize with the needs of mankind and for many years with undiminished ardor tell all the same (and sometimes new) jokes about bribe-takers, about oppression, about lawlessness of all kinds, I involuntarily feel that I moved to the old Oblomovka," writes Dobrolyubov.

(*29) Druzhinin about the novel. Thus, one point of view on Goncharov's novel Oblomov, on the origins of the main character's character, developed and strengthened. But already among the first critical responses, a different, opposite assessment of the novel appeared. It belongs to the liberal critic A. V. Druzhinin, who wrote the article "Oblomov", a novel by Goncharov."

Druzhinin also believes that the character of Ilya Ilyich reflects the essential aspects of Russian life, that “Oblomov” was studied and recognized by a whole people, mostly rich in Oblomovism. his snail: all this strict trial of the hero shows one superficial and fleeting captiousness. Oblomov is kind to all of us and worth boundless love."

"The German writer Riehl said somewhere: woe to that political society where there are no and cannot be honest conservatives; imitating this aphorism, we will say: it is not good for the land where there are no good and incapable of evil eccentrics like Oblomov." What does Druzhinin see as the advantages of Oblomov and Oblomovism? “Oblomovism is disgusting if it comes from rottenness, hopelessness, corruption and evil obstinacy, but if its root is hidden simply in the immaturity of society and the skeptical hesitation of pure-hearted people before practical disorder, which happens in all young countries, then being angry at it means the same what to be angry at a child whose eyes are stuck together in the middle of the evening noisy conversation of adults ... "

Druzhinin's approach to understanding Oblomov and Oblomovism did not become popular in the 19th century. The Dobrolyubov interpretation of the novel was enthusiastically accepted by the majority. However, as the perception of "Oblomov" deepened, revealing to the reader more and more new facets of its content, the druzhina's article began to attract attention. Already in Soviet times, M. M. Prishvin wrote in his diary: "Oblomov." In this novel, Russian laziness is internally glorified and outwardly it is condemned by the depiction of deadly active people (Olga and Stolz). No "positive" activity in Russia can withstand Oblomov's criticism: his peace is fraught with a demand for the highest value, for such activity, because of which it would be worth losing peace. This is a kind of Tolstoyan "non-doing". It cannot be otherwise in a country where any activity aimed at improving one's existence is accompanied by a feeling of being wrong, and only activity in which the personal completely merges with the work for others can be opposed to Oblomov's peace.

The completeness and complexity of Oblomov's character. In the light of these diametrically opposed interpretations of Oblomov and Oblomovism, let us take a closer look at the text of the very complex and multi-layered content of Goncharov's novel, in which the phenomena of life "revolve from all sides." The first part of the novel is devoted to one ordinary day in the life of Ilya Ilyich. This life is limited to one room in which Oblomov lies and sleeps. Outwardly, there is very little going on here. But the picture is full of movement. Firstly, the hero's state of mind is constantly changing, the comic merges with the tragic, carelessness with internal torment and struggle, sleep and apathy with awakening and play of feelings. Secondly, Goncharov with plastic virtuosity guesses the character of their owner in household items surrounding Oblomov. Here he follows in the footsteps of Gogol. The author describes Oblomov's office in detail. On all things - abandonment, traces of desolation: last year's newspaper is lying around, there is a layer of dust on the mirrors, if someone dared to dip a pen in an inkwell, a fly would fly out of there. The character of Ilya Ilyich is guessed even through his shoes, long, soft and wide. When the owner, without looking, lowered his legs from the bed to the floor, he would certainly hit them right away. When in the second part of the novel Andrei Stoltz tries to awaken the hero to an active life, confusion reigns in Oblomov's soul, and the author conveys this through his discord with familiar things. "Now or never!", "To be or not to be!" Oblomov got up from his chair, but did not immediately hit his shoe with his foot and sat down again.

The image of the dressing gown in the novel and the whole history of Ilya Ilyich's relationship to him are also symbolic. Oblomov's dressing gown is special, oriental, "without the slightest hint of Europe." He, like an obedient slave, obeys the slightest movement of the body of his master. When love for Olga Ilyinskaya awakens the hero for a while to an active life, his determination is associated with a dressing gown: “That means,” Oblomov thinks, “suddenly throw off a wide dressing gown not only from his shoulders, but also from his soul, from his mind ...” But in the moment of sunset of love, like an ominous omen, the menacing image of a dressing gown flickers in the novel. The new mistress of Oblomov, Agafya Matveevna Pshenitsyna, reports that she took out a dressing gown from the closet and is going to wash and clean it.

(*31) The connection of Oblomov's inner experiences with the things belonging to him creates in the novel comic effect. Not anything significant, but shoes and a bathrobe characterize his inner struggle. The long-standing habit of the hero for the late Oblomov life, his attachment to household items and dependence on them. But here Goncharov is not original. He picks up and develops Gogol's method of reification of a person, known to us from "Dead Souls". Let us recall, for example, the descriptions of the offices of Manilov and Sobakevich.

The peculiarity of Goncharov's hero lies in the fact that his character is by no means exhausted and not limited to this. Along with the everyday environment, the action of the novel includes much broader connections that have an impact on Ilya Ilyich. The very concept of the environment that forms the human character, Goncharov expands immensely. Already in the first part of the novel, Oblomov is not only a comic hero: other, deeply dramatic beginnings slip behind the humorous episodes. Goncharov uses the hero's internal monologues, from which we learn that Oblomov is a living and complex person. He is immersed in youthful memories, reproaches for a mediocre life lived in him stir. Oblomov is ashamed of his own nobility, as a person, rises above him. The hero is faced with a painful question: "Why am I like this?" The answer to it is contained in the famous "Oblomov's Dream". It reveals the circumstances that influenced the character of Ilya Ilyich in childhood and adolescence. A lively, poetic picture of Oblomovka is part of the soul of the hero himself. It includes the Russian nobility, although Oblomovka's nobility is by no means exhausted. The concept of "Oblomovism" includes a whole patriarchal way of Russian life, not only with its negative, but also with its deeply poetic sides.

The wide and soft character of Ilya Ilyich was influenced by the Central Russian nature with the soft outlines of gently sloping hills, with the slow, unhurried flow of flat rivers, which either overflow into wide ponds, or aspire in a fast thread, or crawl a little over the pebbles, as if in thought. This nature, estranged from the "wild and grandiose", promises a person a calm and long-term life and an imperceptible, sleep-like death. Nature here, like an affectionate mother, takes care of the silence, the measured calm of a person's whole life. And with it, at the same time, a special "way" of peasant life with a rhythmic succession of everyday life and holidays. And even thunderstorms are not terrible, but beneficial (* 32) there: they "happen constantly at the same set time, almost never forgetting Ilyin's day, as if in order to support a well-known tradition among the people." There are no terrible storms or destruction in that region. The stamp of unhurried restraint also lies on the characters of people brought up by Russian mother nature.

To match nature and the creation of the poetic fantasy of the people. “Then Oblomov dreamed of another time: on an endless winter evening he timidly clings to his nanny, and she whispers to him about some unknown side, where there are no nights or cold, where miracles all happen, where rivers of honey and milk flow, where no one does nothing all year round, and all day and day they only know that all the good fellows are walking, such as Ilya Ilyich, and beauties, which cannot be described in a fairy tale with a pen.

Goncharov's "Oblomovism" includes boundless love and affection, with which Ilya Ilyich has been surrounded and nurtured since childhood. "Mother showered him with passionate kisses," she looked "with greedy, caring eyes, if her eyes were cloudy, if something hurts, if he slept peacefully, if he woke up at night, if he tossed about in a dream, if he had a fever" .

This also includes the poetry of rural solitude, and pictures of generous Russian hospitality with a gigantic pie, and Homeric fun, and the beauty of peasant holidays to the sounds of a balalaika ... By no means only slavery and nobility form the character of Ilya Ilyich. There is something in him from the fabulous Ivanushka, a wise sloth, distrustful of everything prudent, active and offensive. Let them fuss, make plans, scurry and hustle, let others lead and servile. And he lives calmly and non-vanishingly, like the epic hero Ilya Muromets, he sits for thirty years and three years.

Here come to him in the modern appearance of St. Petersburg "Kaliki passers-by", calling him on a journey through the sea of ​​\u200b\u200blife. And here we suddenly involuntarily feel that our sympathies are on the side of the "lazy" Ilya Ilyich. What tempts Oblomov with life in St. Petersburg, where are his friends calling? The capital's dandy Volkov promises him social success, the official Sudbinsky - a bureaucratic career, the writer Penkin - a vulgar literary accusation.

“I got stuck, dear friend, I got stuck up to my ears,” Oblomov complains about the fate of the official Sudbinsky. “He’s both blind and deaf and dumb for everything else in the world. how little (*33) a person is needed here: his mind, ash, feelings - why is this?

“Where is the man here? What is he crushed and crumbling into?” Oblomov denounces the emptiness of Volkov’s secular bustle. “... Yes, ten places in one day - unfortunate!” - he concludes, "rolling over on his back and rejoicing that he does not have such empty desires and thoughts, that he does not loom around, but lies right here, maintaining his human dignity and his peace."

In the life of business people, Oblomov does not see a field that meets the highest purpose of a person. So, isn't it better to remain an Oblomovite, but to preserve the humanity and kindness of the heart in oneself, than to be a vain careerist, an active Oblomov, callous and heartless? Here, Oblomov's friend Andrey Stoltz lifted his couch potato from the sofa, and for some time Oblomov indulges in the life into which Stoltz goes headlong.

“Once, returning from somewhere late, he especially rebelled against this fuss. “For days,” Oblomov grumbled, putting on a dressing gown, “you don’t take off your boots: your feet itch! I don't like this Petersburg life of yours!" he continued, lying down on the sofa.

"Which one do you like?" - Asked Stolz. - "Not the same as here." - "What exactly didn't you like here?" - "That's it, the eternal running around, the eternal game of cheesy passions, especially greed, interrupting each other's way, gossip, gossip, clicks to each other, this is looking from head to toe; if you listen to what they are talking about, your head will spin, you will go crazy. It seems , people look so smart, with such dignity on their faces, all you hear is: “They gave this one, he got a lease.” “For what?” someone shouts. he takes three hundred thousand!" Boredom, boredom, boredom! .. Where is the man here? Where is his integrity? Where did he hide, how did he exchange for every little thing?"

Oblomov lies on the couch not only because, as a gentleman, he can do nothing, but also because, as a person, he does not want to live to the detriment of his moral dignity. His "doing nothing" is also perceived in the novel as a denial of bureaucracy, secular fuss and bourgeois businessmanship. Oblomov's laziness and inactivity are caused by his sharply negative and justly skeptical attitude towards the life and interests of modern, practically active people.

Andrey Stolz as the antipode of Oblomov. Oblomov is opposed in the novel by Andrey Stoltz. Initially, he was conceived by Goncharov as a positive hero, a worthy antipode to Oblomov. The author dreamed that over time many "Stoltsev will appear under Russian names." He tried to combine in Stolz German diligence, prudence and punctuality with Russian daydreaming and softness, with philosophical reflections on the high destiny of man. Stolz's father is a businesslike burgher, and his mother is a Russian noblewoman. But the synthesis of German practicality and Russian spiritual breadth did not work out for Goncharov. The positive qualities coming from the mother are only declared in Stolz: they never entered the flesh of the artistic image. In Stolz, the mind prevails over the heart. This is a rational nature, subjecting even the most intimate feelings to logical control and distrustful of the poetry of free feelings and passions. Unlike Oblomov, Stolz is an energetic, active person. But what is the content of his work? What ideals inspire Stoltz to hard, constant work? As the novel develops, the reader becomes convinced that the hero does not have any broad ideals, that his practice is aimed at personal success and bourgeois comfort.

Oblomov and Olga Ilyinskaya. And at the same time, behind the Russian type of bourgeois, the image of Mephistopheles peeps through in Stolz. Like Mephistopheles to Faust, Stolz, in the form of temptation, “slips” Olga Ilyinskaya to Oblomov. Even before she met Oblomov, Stolz negotiated the terms of such a "prank". Olga is given the task of raising Oblomov's couch potato from the bed and pulling him out into the big light. If Oblomov's feelings for Olga are sincere and artless, then a consistent calculation is felt in Olga's feelings. Even in moments of enthusiasm, she does not forget about her high mission: "she liked this role of a guiding star, a ray of light that she would pour over a stagnant lake and be reflected in it." It turns out that Olga loves in Oblomov not Oblomov himself, but her own reflection. For her, Oblomov is "some kind of Galatea, with whom she herself had to be Pygmalion." But what does Olga Oblomov offer in return for him lying on the couch? What light, what radiant ideal? Alas, the program of Oblomov's awakening in Olga's smart little head is completely exhausted by Stoltsev's horizon: to read newspapers, to bother with the arrangement of the estate, to go to the order. All the same that advises Oblomov and Stolz: "... Choose a small circle of activity for yourself, arrange a village, mess with the peasants, enter into their affairs, (* 35) build, plant - all this you must and can do." This minimum for Stolz and Olga brought up by him is the maximum. Is it because, having flashed brightly, the love of Oblomov and Olga quickly fades?

As the Russian poet of the early 20th century I. F. Annensky wrote, “Olga is a moderate, balanced missionary. She does not have a desire to suffer, but a sense of duty ... Her mission is modest - to wake up a sleeping soul. She fell in love not with Oblomov, but with The timid and gentle Oblomov, who treated her so obediently and so shyly, loved her so simply, was only a convenient object for her girlish dream and game of love.

But Olga is a girl with a large stock of common sense, independence and will, the main thing. Oblomov is the first, of course, to understand the chimerical nature of their romance, but she is the first to break it.

One critic laughed angrily at both Olga and the end of the novel: it’s good, they say, love that burst like a soap bubble because the lazy groom did not gather in an order.

This ending seems very natural to me. The harmony of the novel ended a long time ago, and perhaps it only flashed for two moments in Casta diva*, in a lilac branch; both, and Olga and Oblomov, are experiencing a complex, inner life, but already completely independently of each other; in a joint relationship there is boring prose, when Oblomov is sent now for double stars, now for theater tickets, and he, groaning, bears the yoke of the novel.

Some kind of nonsense was needed to cut off these completely thinned threads.

The head, rational and experimental love of Olga is opposed by the sincere and heartfelt love of Agafya Matveevna Pshenitsyna, not controlled by any external idea. Under the cozy roof of her house, Oblomov finds the desired peace.

The dignity of Ilya Ilyich lies in the fact that he is devoid of complacency and is aware of his spiritual decline: “I began to go out over writing papers in the office; I went out later, reading truths in books with which I did not know what to do in life, went out with friends, listening talk, gossip, mockery... Either I didn't understand this life, or it's no good, but I didn't know anything better, I didn't see it, no one pointed it out to me... yes, I'm flabby, dilapidated, (* 36) worn-out caftan, but not from the climate, not from labor, but from the fact that for twelve years the light was locked in me, which was looking for a way out, but only burned its prison, did not break free and died out.

When Olga, in the scene of the last meeting, declares to Oblomov that she loved in him what Stoltz pointed out to her, and reproaches Ilya Ilyich for pigeon meekness and tenderness, Oblomov's legs give way. In response, he smiled somehow pitifully, painfully bashfully, like a beggar who was reproached for his nakedness. He sat with this smile of impotence, weakened by excitement and resentment; his extinct look clearly said: “Yes, I am poor, pitiful, poor ... beat, beat me!.."

“Why doesn’t his passivity produce on us either the impression of bitterness or the impression of shame?” I. F. Annensky, who felt Oblomov subtly, asked the question and answered it like this. "Stolz's commercial activities. Isn't one sensed in Oblomov's dressing gown and sofa the denial of all these attempts to resolve the issue of life?"

At the end of the novel, not only Oblomov fades away. Surrounded by petty-bourgeois comfort, Olga begins to experience more and more acute attacks of sadness and longing. She is troubled by eternal questions about the meaning of life, about the purpose of human existence. And what does the wingless Stoltz say to her in response to all her worries? "We are not titans with you ... we will not go with Manfreds and Fausts to a daring fight against rebellious issues, we will not accept their challenge, we will bow our heads and humbly go through a difficult moment ..." Before us, in essence, is the worst version of Oblomovism, because at Stolz she is stupid and self-satisfied.

The historical and philosophical meaning of the novel. In the conflict between Oblomov and Stolz, behind social and moral problems, another, historical and philosophical meaning shines through. The sadly funny Oblomov challenges modern civilization with its idea of ​​historical progress in the novel. “And history itself,” he says, “only plunges into melancholy: you teach, you read that a time of disaster has come, an unhappy person; here he gathers his strength, works, homogenizes, endures terribly and labors, everything prepares clear days. if they had come - then at least history itself would have rested: no, clouds appeared again, again the building collapsed, work again, homosexuality ... The clear days will not stop, they run - and life flows, everything flows, everything breaks and breaks.

(*37) Oblomov is ready to leave the vain circle of history. He dreams that people will finally calm down and calm down, give up the pursuit of illusory comfort, stop playing technical games, leave the big cities and return to the rural world, to a simple, unpretentious life, merged with the rhythms of the surrounding nature. Here the hero of Goncharov in some way anticipates the thoughts of the late L. N. Tolstoy, who denied technical progress, called people to simplification and to abandon the excesses of civilization.

The novel "Break". The search for ways of organic development of Russia, removing the extremes of patriarchy and bourgeois progress, was continued by Goncharov in his last novel, The Cliff. It was conceived as early as 1858, but the work dragged on, as always, for a whole decade, and the "Cliff" was completed in 1868. As development in Russia revolutionary movement Goncharov is becoming an increasingly resolute opponent of drastic social changes. This changes the plot of the novel. It was originally called "Artist". In the main character, the artist Raysky, the writer thought to show Oblomov awakened to an active life. The main conflict of the work was still built on the clash of the old, patriarchal-feudal Russia with the new, active and practical, but it was resolved in the original plan by the triumph of young Russia.

Accordingly, the despotic habits of the old feudal landowner were sharply emphasized in the character of Raisky's grandmother. Democrat Mark Volokhov was thought of as a hero exiled to Siberia for his revolutionary convictions. And the central heroine of the novel, proud and independent Vera, broke with the "grandmother's truth" and left after her beloved Volokhov.

A lot has changed in the course of writing the novel. In the character of grandmother Tatyana Markovna Berezhkova, positive moral values ​​were more and more emphasized, keeping life in reliable "shores". And in the behavior of the young heroes of the novel, "falls" and "cliffs" were growing. The name of the novel also changed: the neutral one - "The Artist" - was replaced by the dramatic one - "Cliff".

Life has made significant changes in the poetics of Goncharov's novel. Compared to Oblomov, Goncharov now uses the confessions of heroes much more often, their internal monologue. The narrative form has also become more complex. An intermediary (*37) nickname appeared between the author and the heroes of the novel - the artist Raisky. This is a fickle person, an amateur, often changing his artistic preferences. He is a little musician and painter, and a little sculptor and writer. There is a tenacious lordly, Oblomov beginning in him, which prevents the hero from surrendering to life deeply, for a long time and seriously. All events, all people passing in the novel, are passed through the prism of perception of this changeable person. As a result, life is illuminated from a wide variety of perspectives: either through the eyes of a painter, or through musical sensations that are elusive, elusive by plastic art, or through the eyes of a sculptor or writer who has conceived a great novel. Through the intermediary of Paradise Goncharov, in "The Cliff" he achieves an extremely voluminous and lively artistic image, illuminating objects and phenomena "from all sides".

If in Goncharov's past novels there was one hero in the center, and the plot focused on revealing his character, then in "The Cliff" this purposefulness disappears. There are many storylines and their corresponding characters. The mythological subtext of Goncharov's realism also intensifies in "The Cliff". There is a growing desire to build fluid momentary phenomena to the fundamental and eternal life foundations. Goncharov was generally convinced that life, with all its mobility, retains unchanging foundations. Both in the old and in the new time, these foundations do not decrease, but remain unshakable. Thanks to them, life does not perish and is not destroyed, but abides and develops.

The living characters of people, as well as the conflicts between them, are directly elevated here to mythological foundations, both Russian, national, and biblical, universal. Grandmother is a woman of the 1940s and 1960s, but at the same time, patriarchal Russia with its stable, centuries-old moral values, the same for a noble estate and a peasant hut. Vera is also an emancipated girl of the 40-60s with an independent character and a proud rebellion against the authority of her grandmother. But this is also young Russia in all epochs and all times, with its love of freedom and rebellion, with its bringing everything to the last, extreme line. And behind the love drama of Vera with Mark, there are ancient tales of the prodigal son and the fallen daughter. In the character of Volokhov, the anarchist, Buslaevian beginning is clearly expressed.

Mark, bringing Vera an apple from the "paradise", grandmother's garden - a hint of the devilish temptation of the biblical heroes Adam and Eya. And when Raisky wants to breathe life (*39) and passion into her outwardly beautiful, but cold as a statue cousin Sofya Belovodova, the reader’s mind resurrects the ancient legend about the sculptor Pygmalion and the beautiful Galatea revived from marble.

At the beginning of the 19th century, a number of works appeared in Russian literature, the main problem of which is the conflict between a person and the society that brought him up. The most outstanding of them were "Eugene Onegin" by A.S. Pushnin and "Hero of Our Time" M.Yu. Lermontov. This is how a special literary type is created and developed - the image of an "extra person", a hero who has not found his place in society, not understood and rejected by his environment. This image changed with the development of society, acquiring new features, qualities, features, until it reached the most vivid and complete embodiment in the novel by I.A. Goncharov "Oblomov".

Goncharov's work is the story of a hero who does not have the makings of a determined fighter, but has all the data to be a good, decent person. The writer “wanted to ensure that the random image that flashed before him was raised to a type, to give it a generic and permanent meaning,” wrote N.A. Dobrolyubov. Indeed, Oblomov is not a new face in Russian literature, "but before it was not exhibited before us as simply and naturally as in Goncharov's novel."

Why can Oblomov be called "an extra person"? What are the similarities and differences between this character and his famous predecessors - Onegin and Pechorin?

Ilya Ilyich Oblomov - nature is weak-willed, lethargic, apathetic, cut off from real life: "Lying down ... was his normal state." And this feature is the first thing that distinguishes him from Pushkin's and, especially, Lermontov's heroes.

The life of Goncharov's character is rosy dreams on a soft sofa. Slippers and a dressing gown are indispensable companions of Oblomov's existence and bright, accurate artistic details, revealing the inner essence and external way of life of Oblomov. Living in a fictional world, fenced off by dusty curtains from reality, the hero devotes his time to building unrealizable plans, does not bring anything to the end. Any of his undertakings suffers the fate of a book that Oblomov has been reading for several years on one page.

However, the inaction of Goncharov's character was not elevated to such an extreme degree as in Manilov's poem by N.V. Gogol " Dead Souls", and, as Dobrolyubov correctly noted, "Oblolov is not a dull, apathetic nature, without aspirations and feelings, but a person who is also looking for something in his life, thinking about something ...".

Like Onegin and Pechorin, Goncharov's hero in his youth was a romantic, longing for an ideal, burning with a desire for activity, but, like them, Oblomov's "flower of life" "bloomed and did not bear fruit." Oblomov became disillusioned with life, lost interest in knowledge, realized the worthlessness of his existence and, literally and figuratively, "lay down on the sofa", believing that in this way he would be able to maintain the integrity of his personality.

So the hero "lay" his life, without bringing any visible benefit to society; “slept through” the love that passed him by. One can agree with the words of his friend Stolz, who figuratively noted that Oblomov's "trouble began with the inability to put on stockings and ended with the inability to live."

Thus, the main difference between Oblomov's "superfluous person" and Onegin and Pechorin's "superfluous people" is that the latter denied social vices in action - real affairs and deeds (see Onegin's life in the village, Pechorin's communication with the "water society"), while the former "protested" on the couch, spending his whole life in immobility and inaction. Therefore, if Onegin and Pechorin are "moral cripples" in more through the fault of society, then Oblomov - mainly through the fault of his own apathetic nature.

In addition, if the type of "superfluous person" is universal and characteristic not only for Russian, but also for foreign literature(B. Konsgan, L. de Musset, etc.), then, considering the features of the social and spiritual life of Russia in the 19th century, it can be noted that Oblomovism is a purely Russian phenomenon, generated by the reality of that time. It is no coincidence that Dobrolyubov saw in Oblomov "our indigenous, folk type."

So, in the novel by I.A. Goncharov "Oblomov", the image of the "superfluous person" receives its final embodiment and development. If in the works of A.S. Pushkin and M.Yu. Lermontov reveals the tragedy of one human soul which has not found its place in society, Goncharov depicts a whole phenomenon of Russian social and spiritual life, called "Oblomovshchiya" and incorporating the main vices of one of the characteristic types of noble youth of the 50s of the XIX century.

Goncharov's novel "Oblomov" is a socio-psychological novel written in the 19th century. In the work, the author touches on a number of social and philosophical problems, including issues of human interaction with society. Main character novel - Ilya Ilyich Oblomov - "an extra person" who does not know how to adapt to a new, rapidly changing world, change himself and his views for the sake of a brighter future. That is why one of the most acute conflicts in the work is the opposition to the passive, inert hero of an active society in which Oblomov cannot find a worthy place for himself.

What does Oblomov have in common with "superfluous people"?

In Russian literature, such a type of hero as "an extra person" appeared in the early 20s of the 19th century. This character was characterized by alienation from the usual noble environment and, in general, the entire official life of Russian society, as he felt boredom and his superiority (both intellectual and moral) over the others. The “superfluous person” is overwhelmed with spiritual fatigue, can talk a lot, but do nothing, is very skeptical. At the same time, the hero is always the heir to a good fortune, which, nevertheless, he does not try to increase.
Indeed, Oblomov, having inherited a larger estate from his parents, could easily settle things there long ago in order to live in full prosperity on the money received from the farm. However, mental fatigue and boredom overwhelming the hero prevented the start of any business - from the banal need to get out of bed to writing a letter to the headman.

Ilya Ilyich does not associate himself with society, which Goncharov vividly depicted at the beginning of the work, when visitors come to Oblomov. Each guest for the hero is like a cardboard decoration, with which he practically does not interact, putting a kind of barrier between others and himself, hiding behind a blanket. Oblomov does not want to visit like others, communicate with hypocritical and not interesting people who disappointed him even during his service - when he came to work, Ilya Ilyich hoped that everyone would be the same friendly family as in Oblomovka, but he ran into with a situation where every person is “for himself”. Discomfort, the inability to find one's social vocation, the feeling of uselessness in the "neoblomov" world leads to the hero's escapism, immersion in illusions and memories of the wonderful Oblomov past.

In addition, the “extra” person always does not fit into his time, rejecting it and acting contrary to the system that dictates the rules and values ​​to him. Unlike those gravitating towards the romantic tradition, always striving forward, ahead of their time, Pechorin and Onegin, or Chatsky’s character of enlightenment, towering over a society mired in ignorance, Oblomov is an image of a realistic tradition, a hero who does not strive forward, to transformations and new discoveries (in society or in one’s soul), a wonderful distant future, but focused on the close and important past for him, “Oblomovism”.

The love of an "extra person"

If in the matter of time orientation Oblomov differs from the “superfluous heroes” that preceded him, then in love matters their fates are very similar. Like Pechorin or Onegin, Oblomov is afraid of love, afraid of what can change and become different or negatively affect his beloved - up to the degradation of her personality. On the one hand, parting with lovers is always a noble step on the part of the “extra hero”, on the other hand, this is a manifestation of infantilism - for Oblomov this was an appeal to the “Oblomov” childhood, where everything was decided for him, cared for and everything was allowed.

The “extra man” is not ready for fundamental, sensual love for a woman, it’s not so much the real lover that matters to him, but the self-created, inaccessible image - we see this both in Onegin’s feelings for Tatyana that flared up years later, and illusory, “spring” feelings Oblomov to Olga. The "superfluous person" needs a muse - beautiful, unusual and inspiring (for example, like Bella at Pechorin). However, not finding such a woman, the hero goes to the other extreme - he finds a woman who would replace his mother and create an atmosphere of distant childhood.
Oblomov and Onegin, not similar at first glance, equally suffer from loneliness in the crowd, but if Eugene does not refuse secular life, then for Oblomov the only way out is immersion in oneself.

Is Oblomov an extra person?

The "superfluous person" in Oblomov is perceived by other characters differently than similar characters in previous works. Oblomov - kind, simple, fair man who sincerely wants a quiet, peaceful happiness. He is sympathetic not only to the reader, but also to the people around him - not in vain, after all, with school years his friendship with Stolz does not stop and Zakhar continues to serve with the master. Moreover, Olga and Agafya sincerely fell in love with Oblomov precisely for his spiritual beauty dying under the pressure of apathy and inertia.

What is the reason that, from the very appearance of the novel in the press, critics have defined Oblomov as “an extra person”, because the hero of realism, unlike the characters of romanticism, is a typed image that combines the features of a whole group of people? Depicting Oblomov in the novel, Goncharov wanted to show not one "extra" person, but a whole social stratum of educated, wealthy, smart, sincere people who could not find themselves in a rapidly changing, new Russian society. The author emphasizes the tragedy of the situation when, unable to change with the circumstances, such “Oblomovs” slowly die, continuing to hold on tightly to long-gone, but still important and soul-warming memories of the past.

It will be especially useful for grades 10 to familiarize themselves with the above reasoning before writing an essay on the topic “Oblomov and “extra people””.

Artwork test

Part III

Fighting for the creation of a party of the people in literature, for writers to consciously serve the interests of the people, Dobrolyubov was deprived of any sectarianism, narrowness, which his ideological opponents so often tried to accuse him of. He did not impose anything on art. With deep interest he approached each talented work, he knew how to reveal the originality of the writer's talent, his view of the world.

How subtly and penetratingly Dobrolyubov showed, for example, the features of Goncharov the artist! In the works of Goncharov, he wrote, there is little action, no intrigue, no external obstacles. We will not find an expression of the feelings of the author himself: he does not care about the readers, about the conclusions that will be drawn from the novel. But "he has an amazing ability - at any given moment to stop the volatile phenomenon of life, in all its fullness and freshness, and keep it in front of him until it becomes the full property of the artist." Goncharov is characterized by the completeness of the poetic worldview, "the ability to capture the full image of the subject, to mint, sculpt it - hence the love for details and "an unusually subtle and deep mental analysis." The writer will not lag behind the phenomenon, "not following it to the end, not finding its causes not understanding its connection with all the surrounding phenomena.

It was this property of the writer's talent that helped him raise the image of Oblomov to a type, determine its generic and permanent meaning, and thereby reveal the social essence of Oblomovism. Dobrolyubov wrote that there is no need to present Goncharov with a demand for a different, less calm attitude towards reality - his attitude to life facts is revealed from their very depiction.

Turgenev's talent is in many respects the opposite of Goncharov's, he has a deep lyricism. The writer talks about his heroes as about people close to him, he “watches them with tender participation, with painful trepidation, he himself suffers and rejoices along with the faces he created, he himself is carried away by the poetic atmosphere that he always loves to surround them ... And his enthusiasm is contagious: it irresistibly seizes the reader's sympathy, from the first page rivets his thought and feeling to the story, makes him experience, re-feel those moments in which Turgenev's faces appear before him" (258).

This lyricism, together with another remarkable feature of the writer's talent - the ability to "immediately respond to every noble thought and honest feeling that is just beginning to penetrate into consciousness the best people"- determined the range of problems that Turgenev addressed: the hero, who is at odds with society, revealed to him primarily in the sphere of feelings; the writer created poetic female images, he is "a singer of pure, ideal female love"Understanding these features of Turgenev's talent helped Dobrolyubov to reveal public importance works of the artist, something new and fruitful that appeared in his work under the influence of a new movement in society.

Speech in the literary field of Ostrovsky immediately caused a lot of articles. critics various directions sought to present the playwright as an exponent of the ideas of their camp. Dobrolyubov did not impose any abstract theories on Ostrovsky, he compared his creations with life itself - and this allowed him not only to expose dark kingdom autocratic-feudal Russia, but also to astutely determine the most important features of the playwright's talent: his moral pathos, close attention to the victims of social evil, to personalities a man crushed by tyranny, and hence a deep attention to the inner world of heroes: Ostrovsky is characterized by "the ability to notice nature, penetrate into the depths of a person's soul, catch his feelings, regardless of the image of his external, official relations" (311).

Dobrolyubov shows the inconsistency of Ostrovsky's critics, who stated that the endings of his comedies are random, and there is no logical harmony and consistency in the composition. In this freedom of the playwright from the dilapidated canons of various piitiks, from the "old stage routine", he sees true innovation: the very depiction of the life of tyrants, where there is no logic, no moral laws, requires "lack of logical sequence."

One of Dostoevsky's fierce critics was Dostoevsky, who in his article "G.-bov and the question of art" ("Time", 1861, No. 2) accused him of being "utilitarian", of neglecting artistry. Dostoevsky wrote that works of art affect the reader with their beauty, which gives "harmony and tranquility" to a person, especially when he is at odds with reality. In the article "The Downtrodden People", analyzing in detail the works of Dostoevsky, two types of his heroes - meek, downtrodden, submissive, and - fierce, desperate, - the critic singles out characteristics the writer's worldview is pain for a humiliated person, turned into a rag due to the "wild, unnatural relations" that prevail in society. The artistry of the writer's works, contrary to false theories, manifested itself not in pacifying beauty, but in the merciless truth of the images, in his "highly humane ideal."

Dobrolyubov deeply despised criticism, "wandering in synthetic fogs", as well as criticism, "which approaches the authors, as if they were peasants brought into the presence of a recruit, with a uniform measure, and shouts "forehead!", then "back of the head!" according to whether the recruit fits the measure or not,” that is, whether his creation meets the “eternal laws of art printed in textbooks.” He understood artistry not as decoration of scenes, details, not as external picturesqueness. He deeply and penetratingly analyzed the most important thing in works of art - types, human characters And circumstances, in which they operate. And this invariably gave its fruitful results: Dobrolyubov saw and revealed the greatest achievement of the art of realism - the ability to reveal the social and historical conditioning of a person's character.

The critic spoke of the significance of the outstanding phenomena of literature for the social struggle of the 1950s and 1960s, and at the same time showed their eternal and enduring content, the new that they introduced into the development of art itself, posed and solved great aesthetic problems.

One of the most important problems of aesthetics is the problem of typing. The reflection of reality in art is not a mechanical process, it presupposes the active work of the consciousness of the artist, who generalizes vital phenomena. “The artist,” writes Dobrolyubov, “is not a plate for photography, reflecting only the present moment: then there would be no sense in works of art and life. creates one harmonious whole from disparate features, finds a living connection and consistency in apparently incoherent phenomena, merges and processes in the community of his worldview the diverse and contradictory aspects of living reality" (686).

To be truthful, to be true to his talent, the writer must penetrate deeply into the essence of life. To do this, firstly, he must turn his talent to vital objects, and secondly, to catch the trend in the development of social life, to see what dies in it and what is born - this is a necessary property of typification, only this will determine completeness and comprehensiveness of the picture of reality, a correct view of it. The critic's idea boils down to the fact that in a truly great art realism and idealism are necessarily united, because the truth of the image in itself is "a necessary condition, and not yet the dignity of a work.

We judge the dignity by the breadth of the author's view, the fidelity of understanding and the liveliness of the image of those phenomena that he touched" (628--629),

Dobrolyubov attached great importance to the general convictions and sympathies of the writer, which are manifested in the entire figurative structure of his works and act as worldview. The artist's worldview is his own view of the world, which is developed in the process of artistic cognition of reality and contradicts "partiality" - false ideas, narrow views, assimilated by education, taken for granted.

Worldview is by no means some spontaneous property of talent, completely independent of the subjective principle, of the personality of the artist. On the contrary, it is the result of activity, his knowledge, creative will, deep penetration into life. Dobrolyubov speaks of Goncharov's careful study of life types, of Turgenev's types, "to the subtlety studied and lively heartfelt author", about Ostrovsky's ability to see and pursue tyranny in all its forms and forms ... In works of art, the critic emphasizes, we see a phenomenon taken from life itself, but "clarified in the mind of the artist and placed in positions that enable it to manifest itself more fully and more decisively than is the case in most cases of ordinary life" (655).

When Dobrolyubov remarks that among strong talents "sometimes from a simple statement of facts and relations made by an artist, their solution follows by itself," he does not mean the writer's passivity, thoughtlessness. The worldview is formed under the influence of the developing reality and means the artist's involvement in the progressive movement of time. It turns out this is because, knowing life, studying it, the writer penetrates into its needs, reflects the overdue ideas of social development. Unlike false, abstract ideas imposed on reality, contradicting it and therefore hostile to art, progressive ideas naturally follow "from the existing facts of life." These ideas are not introduced artificially into the work, but help the artist to reflect social relations more fully and deeply - not from any narrow, false, but from a universal, fair, that is, people's point of view - this is how Dobrolyubov asserts the connection between the ideological nature of art and its nationality.

The artist's worldview is not just a reflection of life, but a reflection of it from the point of view of "human truth." Dobrolyubov shows that this is what allowed Ostrovsky, for example, to put the motif of "unnaturalness" in the basis of his plays. public relations This is what allowed Dostoevsky, who preached patience and humility, to discover in his downtrodden, lost heroes "the never-suppressed aspirations and needs of human nature", to take out "hidden in the very depths of the soul, the protest of the individual against the external violent oppression" and present it to the judgment and sympathy of the reader. These goals and objectives are not always clearly understood by the artist, they follow from the very development of life. Cognizing and reflecting life, the writer discovers such aspects and patterns of it, from which a progressive idea associated with progressive historical development, "follows by itself."

Introducing the concept of "world outlook", Dobrolyubov clearly expresses that feature of truly realistic creativity, which the artists of the word themselves spoke about - Pushkin, Goncharov, L. Tolstoy and others. Turgenev, for example, wrote about "Fathers and Sons": "To accurately and strongly reproduce the truth, the reality of life - is the highest happiness for a writer, even if this truth does not coincide with his own sympathies" (I. S. Turgenev, Sobr. soch., Goslitizdat, M. 1956, v. 10, p. 349.).

Dobrolyubov wrote that false ideas and views fetter the writer's creativity, prevent him from freely indulging in the suggestions of his artistic nature. This can be seen in the plays of Ostrovsky during his fascination with Slavophilism: the author, sometimes misunderstanding the connection of the phenomena he depicted, sought to elevate persons to a general type, which in reality had "very private and petty significance", and with this false look at the hero harmed his works. Since any one-sidedness and exclusivity interferes with the true observance of the truth, the artist "must ... save himself from one-sidedness by the possible expansion of his view, by assimilating for himself those general concepts that have been developed by people who reason." Dobrolyubov connects the implementation of the nationality of literature with the breadth of the writer's worldview, with the reflection of advanced ideas in his work.

The main progressive idea of ​​that time was the idea of ​​the complete failure of serfdom and "all its offspring". It arose not in literature, Dobrolyubov said, not in the minds of progressive figures, but from the very course of social life. But literature, reflecting it, picking it up, distributing and propagating it with its own inherent means, in turn influences further development society.

Dobrolyubov could not give until the end scientific explanation origin and role of ideas, he did not even reach the understanding of the class conditionality of the artist’s worldview, but he saw the opposition and struggle of the ideas of the exploiters and workers, he also saw that ideas arise not as a result of the artist’s purely speculative activity, but from the practical, material needs of society and play an active role in its development. This determined the strength and depth of his analysis.

In his articles "What is Oblomovism?" (1859), "The Dark Kingdom" (1859), "When will the real day come?" (1860), "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom" (1860), "The Downtrodden People" (1861), analyzing the remarkable works of contemporary literature, the critic showed that the penetration of art into the essence of life, into its main conflicts, leads to the fact that even writers who are far from a revolutionary worldview overcome false ideas, prejudices of their class and, truthfully depicting life, act as impartial judges of everything that has outlived its age ...

Time itself, the progressive process of history, is on the side of the people. Reflecting the urgent needs of social development, writers thereby participate in the struggle for people's happiness and at the same time realize their creative potential, enrich the art of realism.

Under the specific conditions of that time, the camp of revolutionary democracy put forward the task of educating public figures of a new type, heroes of the people's struggle. The question of the hero in life and in literature caused heated debate. Chernyshevsky, in his article "A Russian Man on Rendez-Vous" (1858), debunked the image of a "superfluous man", showing that these people, who showed their pettiness in the realm of feelings, in love for a woman, are also untenable in public sense"You can't expect them to improve their lives." The “superfluous person” is an imaginary hero who “retreats from everything that requires determination and a noble risk,” because the very circumstances of life instill in him selfishness, selfishness, and inability to do real work. This article was not only an angry debunking of liberalism, but also raised the most important question for literature about the positive hero of the time.

The liberal P. Annenkov opposed Chernyshevsky with the article "The Literary Type of a Weak Man" (1858). "Is the spineless man of the era as weak and insignificant as they say about him, and where to look for the type opposite to him, who, according to the highest moral qualities would he be worthy of replacing him?" (P. V. Annenkov, Memoirs and Critical Essays. Second Department, St. Petersburg, 1879, p. 153.) - asked Annenkov. The so-called " strong characters", he said, - these are burmisters, Ostrovsky's tyrants, Shchedrin's officials, Aksakov's patriarchal landowners, and when you have seen enough of them, "the need to return to the circle of the "weak" to refresh your thoughts and feelings becomes irresistible, passionate. "A weak person, - Annenkov concluded, - there is "the only moral type both in our contemporary life and in its reflection - current literature". It was this person and no one else, he believed, that still had a lot to do for Russian society. it is necessary to treat it with care and participation and not make exorbitant demands, because "in the properties of our character and the warehouse of our life there is nothing resembling a heroic element" (Ibid., pp. 167-168.).

Dobrolyubov maliciously ridiculed this "weak hero", who in modern times has lost all halo of heroism and was already perceived as a fragment of former eras. In contrast to P. Annenkov, he saw the need for the birth of a new, strong, real hero. Discontent rises in different strata of society, the spirit of protest rises - and writers, expanding the sphere of reality accessible to artistic reflection, show not only the failure of the former heroes who remained aloof from public affairs, but also the birth of the heroic from life itself.

The true and imaginary hero, his attitude to reality, the ways of his depiction, typification - Dobrolyubov paid very much attention to these problems. great attention, and his conclusions are instructive for our day. Literary heroes, he pointed out, are not the product of the writer's fantasy, but are taken from life itself and, depending on its movement, change, receive a new meaning, and, consequently, a new assessment on the part of the artist. Dobrolyubov traces the development of the type of "superfluous person" in Russian literature and comes to the conclusion: "Over time, as the conscious development of society, this type changed its forms, took on different attitudes to life, acquired a new meaning. Notice these new phases of its existence , to determine the essence of its new meaning - this has always been an enormous task, and the talent that was able to do this has always made a significant step forward in the history of our literature" (263).

The writer, recreating a true picture of reality, trying to present his hero in all its fullness and artistic persuasiveness, cannot but think about the essence of certain life types, about their connection with each other, about their significance in society.

In an article on Shchedrin's "Provincial Essays" (1857), recalling the beginning of the discussion of the proposed reforms, the energetic exclamations of the champions of progress, the calls to save Rus' from internal evil, the critic says that this atmosphere of general ferment and expectations gave rise to hope - new figures entered the public arena , true heroes. "But two years have passed, and although nothing particularly important has happened in these years, social aspirations now appear far from the same form as before." Everyone saw that the enthusiastic cries of home-grown progressives are worth little, because they do not produce any practical results. And the heroes themselves, from whom great deeds were expected, became very dim: “It turns out that ... many of the people who warmly welcomed the dawn of a new life suddenly wanted to wait for noon and decided to sleep until then; that an even greater part of the people who blessed the feats , suddenly subdued and hid when she saw that feats need to be accomplished not in words alone, that real labors and donations are needed here "(128).

Shchedrin - and in this, first of all, Dobrolyubov sees his merit as an artist, in this the strength of his talent, deeply in tune with modernity, was manifested - debunked these pseudo-progressives, subjected them to merciless satirical ridicule, creating various types talented natures, in which "the dominant character of our society is quite clearly expressed."

We know that Shchedrin is a writer with a conscious revolutionary ideal, a merciless enemy of liberal verbiage.

However, Dobrolyubov in many of his works shows that other writers, in another creative manner, but sometimes no less vividly captured the changes in public life, passing judgment on the old, obsolete, sensitively noticing the birth of the new. Attention to life, to the new in it - this, according to Dobrolyubov, is the first and indispensable sign of talent.

The appearance of a new type in literature becomes possible only when this type arises in life itself, when, at least in some, the most advanced part of society, the consciousness matures that the old heroes are already lagging behind life, cannot serve as a real example for readers. And works of literature will be the more valuable and truthful, the more they will have influence, the formerly an artist notice these thosendentia social development, will see the features of a new, progressive movement, will give us the opportunity to be present at the very birth of a new hero, when the decline of the old idols has just begun.

In the article "What is Oblomovism?" Dobrolyubov highly appreciates Goncharov's novel not only for the fact that it passes a merciless verdict on the old, already obsolete serf relations, but also for the fact that in it shows the evolution of a once lofty and noble hero, a "superfluous person" who did not find real activity for himself, ruined by the environment. In the new conditions, when the possibility of a "terrible mortal struggle" with hostile circumstances is close at hand, when the people themselves "realized the need for a real cause," this hero appears in a new light.

“Superfluous people,” says Dobrolyubov, “not seeing a goal in life, despite this, they had high authority in the eyes of the reader, because they were advanced people, standing much higher than their environment. The very possibility of broad practical work was not yet open to them, it had not yet matured in society.

Now it's not the same. A new generation is waiting for heroes real deIvalue. It will no longer listen with love and reverence to endless speeches about dissatisfaction with life and the need to act. These speeches in the new conditions cannot but be perceived as apathy of thought and soul, as moral Oblomovism. AND modern type of a well-intentioned liberal, with his deceit and idle talk, is involuntarily associated in the mind of the reader with the heroes of former times - "superfluous people". Now, from the vantage point of modern times, one can see that the features of Oblomovism were always in embryo in the character of superfluous people - after all, these seemingly strong natures so often showed failure in the face of hostile circumstances and retreated whenever it was necessary to make a firm step in life. , a decisive step - whether it concerned their relationship to society or the field of feelings - their relationship to the woman they love.

Goncharov's talent, the breadth of his views were reflected in the fact that he felt this breath of a new life. Dobrolyubov calls the creation of the Oblomov type "a sign of the times," and sees the main merit of its author in the fact that he caught in advanced Russian society a different attitude towards the life type that appeared about thirty years ago. Oblomov's history "reflected Russian life, it presents us with a living, modern Russian type, minted with merciless rigor and correctness; a new word of our social development, pronounced clearly and firmly, without despair and without childish hopes, but with complete consciousness of truth. Oblomovism; it serves as a key to unraveling many phenomena of Russian life, and it gives Goncharov's novel a much more social significance than all our accusatory stories have about him" (262).

IN public consciousness this transformation of the "superfluous person" into Oblomov has not yet taken place, Dobrolyubov points out, the process has only just begun. But it is here that the great property and great significance of true art comes into play - to catch a progressive movement, an idea that has just begun to emerge and will be realized in the future. Having debunked, brought the former hero from a high pedestal to a soft Oblomov sofa, directly posing the question: what is he doing? What is the meaning and purpose of his life? - the artist thereby put the entire meaning of his work and important question about what a modern hero should be like.

True, the artist’s limited worldview also showed in the novel: who knew how to understand Oblomovism so deeply and so vividly show Oblomovism, he “could not, however, not pay tribute to the general delusion, Oblomovism and the past, having decided to bury it.”

The image of Stolz, through whose mouth Goncharov buries Oblomovism and in whose person he wanted to show an active progressive hero, lacks persuasiveness, he lacks typical life features. Dobrolyubov explains this by the fact that the artist here seeks to wishful thinking, runs too far ahead of life, because such active, active heroes, in whom thought immediately turns into action, are not yet among educated Russian society. Stolz cannot satisfy the reader even from the point of view of his public ideals. In his businesslike practicality, he is narrow, he does not need anything but his own happiness, he "calmed down from all the aspirations and needs that even Oblomov overcame."

The critic sees a hint of a new Russian life, of an active Russian character in the image of Olga Ilyinskaya. Her naturalness, courage and simplicity, the harmony of her mind and heart are manifested so far only in the realm of feeling, in active love. She tries to bring Oblomov out of his hibernation, to revive him morally, and when she is convinced of his complete passivity, she resolutely and directly rejects the sleepy Oblomov kingdom. She is constantly worried about some questions and doubts, she strives for something, although she still does not know well what exactly. The author did not reveal to us these unrest in all their fullness, says the critic, but there is no doubt that they are an echo of a new life, to which Olga is "incomparably closer to Stolz."

Dobrolyubov also sees the features of the new Russian character in the heroine of the novel "On the Eve" - ​​Elena. The critic most appreciated the writer's ability to reveal thirst for activity in his heroine. This is not the activity itself, because Russian reality did not yet provide material for such an image, it would not have turned out to be a living person, but a dry scheme: Elena “would have turned out to be a stranger to Russian society,” and the social significance of the image would be equal to zero. themselves search, herself uncertainty images of the heroine, her dissatisfaction with the present here is surprisingly true, they cannot but cause deep reflections of the reader and will play a much greater role in active influence literature on society than the image of an ideal hero, artificially "composed of the best features that develop in our society."

Turgenev, an artist extremely sensitive to the burning issues of our time, under the influence of the natural course of social life, "to which the very thought and imagination of the author involuntarily obeyed," saw that his former heroes - "superfluous people" could no longer serve as a positive ideal, and made an attempt show the leading hero of modern times - Insarov, a fighter for the liberation of his homeland from foreign enslavers. The greatness and holiness of the idea of ​​patriotism penetrates Insarov's entire being. Not the outward command of duty, not the renunciation of oneself, as was the case with the former heroes. Love for the motherland for Insarov is life itself, and this cannot but bribe the reader.

Nevertheless, Dobrolyubov did not consider this image a complete artistic success: if in Stolz Goncharov depicted activity without ideals, then Insarov - idea hero without activity. He is not placed "face to face with the cause itself - with the parties, with the people, with a foreign government, with his like-minded people, with the enemy force" (464). True, Dobrolyubov says, this was not part of the author's intention, and, judging by his previous works, he could not have shown such a hero. But the very possibility of creating epics of folk life and character public actionela the critic saw precisely in the depiction of the struggle of the people, as well as the best representatives of an educated society who protect the interests of the people. New hero will be little like the former, inactive. And literature was faced with the task of finding ways to depict not only the new hero, but also the former ones, because their social role had changed, and from a progressive force they turned into a force hindering social development.

Belinsky wrote about Eugene Onegin: "You can do something only in society, on the basis of social needs, indicated by reality itself, and not by theory. But what would Onegin do in a community with such wonderful neighbors, in the circle of such dear neighbors?" (V. G. Belinsky, Poln. sobr. soch., v. XII, p. 101.). The very rise of the hero above environment was already a sign of his positivity, exclusivity. In modern times, such passive superiority was not enough. The motif of the suffering hero and his environment, which was so widespread in literature, could no longer satisfy the requirements of art itself.

In the article "Good intention and activity" (1860), devoted to the analysis of Pleshcheev's stories, Dobrolyubov analyzes this issue in detail. The depiction of the environment is "a good and very strong motif for art," he writes. But the writers here have a lot of reticence and abstraction - if the suffering of the hero is depicted in full and in detail, then his relationship to the environment raises many questions: what is this hero trying to achieve? What is the strength of the environment based on? What eats the hero and why does he allow himself to be eaten? And, penetrating into the essence of the matter, the artist discovers that these heroes are vitally connected with the environment, have experienced its vicious influence: they are internally powerless, completely inactive. These heroes have no right to our sympathy. They cannot continue to be drawn with romantic pathos, in an aura of suffering. Such a hero, like the environment itself, is "a subject for the most merciless satire." The critic considers the author's "negative, mocking attitude" to the "Platonic liberalism and nobility" of his heroes to be the main advantage of Pleshcheev's works.

Future talented writers, says Dobrolyubov, "will give us heroes with healthier content." These heroes grow in life itself, although they have not yet decided in all their integrity and completeness. But the question of them has already been raised by reality itself, and the best writers have sensitively reflected this social need. Soon, very soon, real heroes will appear in Russian life and literature - revolutionary figures, the Russian Insarovs, who have a difficult and holy task ahead of them - the liberation of their homeland from the internal Turks.

And the true guarantee of this is that the traits of the new hero are manifested not only among the educated class, but in all strata of society, because all folk russia is already rising against the old order.

Dobrolyubov highly appreciated the importance of Ostrovsky's realism and especially the image of Katerina from The Thunderstorm. The playwright was able to "depict the essential aspects and demands of Russian life in a very complete and multifaceted way," to show the aspirations that had already awakened among the people. And here, too, the critic notes that Ostrovsky "found the essence general requirements life at a time when they were hidden and expressed by very few and very weakly.

The wild merchant world of petty tyrants, presented by Ostrovsky, as in a drop of water reflects the entire "dark kingdom" of autocratic-feudal Russia, where arbitrariness reigns, "powerless arbitrariness of some over others", where individual rights are destroyed. But "life is no longer absorbed by all their influence, but contains the makings of a more reasonable, lawful, right order affairs". And this is what makes it possible for the artist satirical image petty tyrants: they already cause "laughter and contempt".

In the depiction of the senseless influence of tyranny on family and social life, Dobrolyubov sees the basis of Ostrovsky's comedy. The writer reveals to us that “this tyranny is powerless and decrepit in itself, that there is no moral power in it, but its influence is terrible because, being itself meaningless and powerless, it distorts common sense and the concept of law in all who come into contact with him" (348). However, the artist shows - and this is the revolutionary meaning and deep truth of his works - that the very intolerance of oppression gives rise to and strengthens the protest against unnatural relations, and this protest comes out, it can no longer be suppressed at its very inception. Thus, says Dobrolyubov, Ostrovsky expressed the idea that matured in society about the illegality of tyranny, and most importantly, he created a strong, integral folk character, which "had long demanded its implementation in literature," which "corresponds to a new phase of folk life."

In characters goodies, according to Dobrolyubov, there should be organicity, integrity, simplicity, which are due to the naturalness of their aspirations for a new life. He finds these features in Olga, Elena. With a special, irresistible force, they manifested themselves in Katerina. And this is natural. Katerina's strength is in her "complete opposition to any self-impossible beginnings." Here everything is alien to her, her inwardly free nature requires will, happiness, spaciousness of life. Not abstract ideals and beliefs, but everyday life facts, disenfranchised, materially dependent existence make her strive for something new. That is why her desire for freedom is so organic and so strong: freedom for her dearer than life. This is a heroic, courageous character, such people, if necessary, will survive in the fight, you can rely on them.

Katerina’s spontaneous, unconscious protest is much more precious to Dobrolyubov than the “bright speeches of lofty orators of truth,” who shout about their selflessness, about “renouncing themselves for a great idea,” and end up in complete humility before evil, because, they say, the fight against it "still too hopeless." In Katerina, the playwright managed to "create such a person who serves as a representative of a great national idea, without carrying great ideas either in his tongue or in his head, selflessly goes to the end in an unequal struggle and perishes, without dooming himself to high self-sacrifice."

Dobrolyubov speaks about the breadth of the writer's worldview, which makes his works deeply popular. The measure of nationality is that it stands "on a level with those natural aspirations that have already awakened in the people at the request of the modern order of affairs," that he understood and expressed them fully and comprehensively. "The demands of law, legality, respect for man", a protest against arbitrariness and tyranny - this is what the reader hears in Ostrovsky's plays, this is what allowed Dobrolyubov to show on the material of these plays that the only way out of the darkness of the "dark kingdom" is a revolutionary struggle against all his foundations. The playwright himself did not think about the possibility of such revolutionary conclusions from his works, his worldview was not revolutionary.

Dobrolyubov dreams of the literature of the future, when artists will consciously preach advanced ideals: "The free transformation of the highest speculations into living images and, at the same time, the full consciousness of the highest, general meaning in every, the most private and random fact of life - this is the ideal , representing a complete fusion of science and poetry and hitherto not achieved by anyone" (309). Revolutionary-democratic criticism set itself the task of fighting for such revolutionary literature.

The path of conscious service to the people, to the revolution must also lead to the further flourishing of art, because "when general concepts the artist's ideas are correct and in complete harmony with his nature, then this harmony and unity are reflected in the work. Then reality is reflected in the work more vividly and more vividly, and it can more easily lead the reasoning person to correct conclusions and, consequently, have more significance for life" (309).

“It has long been noticed that all the heroes of the most wonderful Russian stories and novels suffer from the fact that they do not see a goal in life and do not find a decent activity for themselves. As a result, they feel bored and disgusted with any business, in which they are strikingly similar to Oblomov, writes N. A. Dobrolyubov. - In fact, open, for example, "Onegin", "Hero of Our Time", "Who is to blame?", "Rudina" ... - in each of them you will find features that are almost literally similar to those of Oblomov.

So Dobrolyubov in the article “What is Oblomovism?” put the hero of the novel I. A. Goncharov on a par with those who are called "superfluous people". True, the critic does not try to prove Oblomov's belonging to " extra people". The hero himself admitted this: “With the world where you are attracting me,” he says to Stolz at the last meeting, “I parted forever; you will not solder, you will not make two torn halves. Dobrolyubov, pointing to the kinship of the characters in their upbringing, in their attitude to society, to work, science and women, comes to the conclusion that they are all united by one feature - Oblomovism. “The common thing for all these people is that in life they have no business that would be a vital necessity, a sacred thing of the heart, a religion that would organically grow together with them, so that taking them away from him would mean depriving them of their life.”

What is the place of Oblomov in this gallery of "superfluous", but not the worst people of your time? It looks like it's the last one. First, by the time of appearance. Thirty years passed from the appearance of Onegin to Oblomov. If Onegin and Pechorin did not find application for their aspirations, then they are justified by the fact that they were ahead of their time in many ways, the possibility of their activity was limited by objective historical conditions. Oblomov, on the other hand, is a man of the new time, "when the time for public work comes urgently." But Ilya Ilyich turned out to be unsuitable not only for "social work." He is not able to do anything for personal benefit, for his own happiness. Before him is a wide field of activity. Stolz and Olga are ready to help him, they call him to follow them into a new life. | But Oblomov is behind his time, he remains forever in the old Oblomovka. And no one can get him out of there! Of all the superfluous people, Ilya Ilyich is the weakest of all in character. He is lethargic, apathetic, lazy. But he does not hide his shortcomings, although he is ashamed of them. Oblomov, like his literary brethren, has his own philosophy that justifies him in his own eyes. In some ways, he is really higher than the people around him, deeper, more honest. He is proud that he “does not break up” and “does not crumble”, “does not roam”, gaining ranks and satisfying someone's desires. He "lies right here, maintaining his human dignity." Oblomov seems to be aware of his place in the gallery of superfluous people: he is the last of the mohiki And his mission is to keep, as in a safe, the best features of the Russian nobility, everything that is still left of the Onegins, Pechorins, Rudins. And he, like a true keeper, remains true to himself until his death.

Then other people will come: energetic, self-confident, enterprising and obsessed. There will also be good people among them (Stoltz, for example). But they have their own values, other ideals, another era.