Goncharov, Ivan Alexandrovich, the greatest Russian critic and writer who became famous thanks to his works. His work depicts the lives of people, their way of life and the entire era of the rule of peasant law. One of his famous works is called “Oblomov”. Here, the writer expresses his thoughts as a critic, and expressively shows all the actions taking place in the novel.
In this work of the author, the main character is Ilya Oblomov, according to Father Ilyich. This was a gentleman who was brought up by calmness, inaction, and very restless people close to him. Due to this, Oblomov became a practical empty place for himself and for society as a whole. The main tragedy of life was indifference to oneself. From an early age, he was banned from almost all of his actions and was protected from his thoughts in every possible way. Even taking into account walks on the street, which did not take place without the intervention of relatives. With their feelings about the boy, the people around him created this empty appearance in life, for which Ilya will be practically punished by fate. Over time, the boy grew up to be a “houseplant.” And having entered adulthood, it becomes catastrophically difficult for him to maintain life balance in his hands.
Despite all the inaction of the main character, the author mentions an important character trait of Ilya, his harmlessness. This characterized him as a positive character.
Due to the fact that the hero led a useless lifestyle, the scene in which Ilya meets a new love, but due to his inaction, he sees that she can “pull” him out of this routine, also speaks. But be that as it may, he finds happiness with Agafya, who gives birth to his son. Because of his inaction, the entire household went downhill. Against this background, the ingenuity of the swindlers worked, who, after his death, planned to completely ruin his property.
Oblomov had heart attacks more and more often, during which Agafya caught him. Lately, she had been practically waiting for him to die. And now, after a while, Ilya Oblomov suffers another final stroke, which Agafya Matveevna sees, and he leaves his useless life.
Thanks to Stolz, a descendant of the Oblomovs finds himself in good hands. At that time, Stolz lived with Olga and, unlike his father, he was determined to raise the orphan youth. If we take into account the disposition of Andrei’s new father, then the boy will grow up to be a smart and determined guy.
Essay on the Death of Oblomov in Goncharov’s novel
Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov, in his novel “Oblomov,” described a large number of people who live like Oblomov in Oblomovshchina. Everyone would like to allow themselves to live like Oblomov, lie on the couch for their own pleasure. Oblomov was accustomed to such a life from childhood; his parents taught him that all the servants should do for him. After the death of his parents, Oblomov did not know how to manage so many serfs, so he was not very worried about it. Oblomov is not a stupid man, but his laziness overpowered his activity.
Oblomov was content with the fact that he lay all day long and did nothing, he only cared about food and sleep. Ilya Ilyich seems ready to do something for his serfs, but then the fuse goes out, and he again lies on the sofa and does nothing. Oblomov was not prompted to an active lifestyle either by the help of a friend or by love. He is happy with everything and the changes in his life frighten Oblomov very much, he does not want to do anything to change his life.
Goncharov wanted to write about a man who was not taught how to live an adult life and make decisions on his own. There is dirt and cobwebs all around him in the house, and Oblomov is not bothered by this. Ivan Aleksandrovich wrote about Oblomov as a person with a pure heart; there are very few such people left in society. The material side does not bother Ilya Ilyich; the spiritual side of life is more important to him.
When Olga Ilyinskaya tries to remake the adult Oblomov, he resists this. In the scene described by Goncharov, he even asks his friend Stolz not to let Ilyinskaya come to him anymore. Oblomov doesn’t like that they put pressure on him, he didn’t want to be like his friend, he chose a different path for himself.
After breaking up with Olga Ilyinskaya, Oblomov suffers, because his heart is broken, but a woman was found who was able to give Oblomov the affection and care that he dreamed of. His connection with Agafya Matveevna brought him the peace and peace of mind that Ilyinskaya could not give him.
Oblomov, next to Agafya Matveevna, again felt like a little boy who was being cared for. The fruit of their love was their son Andryushka.
Once again, Stolz, who arrived, talking with a friend, realizes that he will soon die. Before his friend’s death, Oblomov asks not to abandon his son and take care of him. Stolz makes a promise to Oblomov that he will raise Andryushka to be a hardworking and responsible person. Everyone retained good memories of Oblomov, as a man who did not become callous in heart and poor in soul. He did not change his principles and remained a pure and bright person in their memory.
Several interesting essays
“The Station Agent” is the beginning of a new period in the work of Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin. If in the novel in verse "Eugene Onegin" he tries to hide his attitude to everyday issues under some humor
The life and death of Oblomov. Epilogue of the novel. For the third and last time, Stolz visits his friend. Under the caring eye of Pshenitsyna, Oblomov almost realized his ideal: “He dreams that he has reached that promised land, where rivers of honey and milk flow, where they eat unearned bread, walk in gold and silver...”, and Agafya Matveevna turns into the fabulous Miliktrisa Kirbitevna.. The house on the Vyborg side resembles rural freedom.
However, the hero never reached his native village. Subject "Oblomov and the men" runs through the entire novel. Even in the first chapters, we learned that in the absence of the master, life is difficult for the peasants. The headman reports that the men are “running away,” “begging for rent.” It is unlikely that they felt any better under the rule of the Overhauled One. While Oblomov was drowning in his problems, he missed the opportunity to pave a road, build a bridge, as his neighbor, a village landowner, did. It cannot be said that Ilya Ilyich does not think about his peasants at all. But his plans boil down to ensuring that everything remains as it is. And to the advice to open a school for the man, Oblomov replies with horror that “he probably won’t even plow…” But time cannot be stopped. In the finale we learn that “Oblomovka is not in the wilderness anymore<…>, the rays of the sun fell on her! The peasants, no matter how difficult it was, managed without the master: “... In four years it will be a road station<…>, the men will go to work on the embankment, and then it will roll along the cast iron<…>bread to the pier... And there...schools, literacy..." But did Ilya Ilyich manage without Oblomovka? Using the logic of the narrative, Goncharov proves his favorite thoughts. And the fact that on the conscience of every landowner lies concern for the fate of hundreds of people (“Happy Mistake”). And the fact that village life is the most natural and therefore the most harmonious for a Russian person; she herself will guide, teach and suggest what to do better than any “plans” (“Frigate “Pallada””).
In the house on Vyborgskaya Oblomov sank. What was a free dream became a hallucination - “the present and the past merged and mixed up.” On his first visit, Stolz managed to get Oblomov off the couch. In the second, he helped a friend in solving practical matters. And now he realizes with horror that he is powerless to change anything:<«Вон из этой ямы, из болота, на свет, на простор, где есть здоровая, нормальная жизнь!» - настаивал Штольц…
“Don’t remember, don’t disturb the past: you can’t bring it back! - said Oblomov. - I have grown to this hole with a sore spot: try to tear it off - there will be death... I feel everything, I understand everything: I have long been ashamed to live in the world! But I can’t go your way with you, even if I wanted to... Maybe the last time was still possible. Now... now it’s too late...” Even Olga is not able to resurrect him: “Olga! - the frightened Oblomov suddenly burst out... - For God’s sake, don’t let her here, leave!”
As on his first visit, Stolz sums it up sadly:
What's there? - Olga asked...
Nothing!..
Is he alive and well?
Why did you come back so soon? Why didn’t you call me there and bring him? Let me in!
What is going on there?... Has “the abyss opened”? Will you tell me?.. What's going on there?
Oblomovism!
And if Ilya Ilyich found people who agreed to endure this life around him, then nature itself, it seems, came out against it, measuring out a short period for such an existence. That is why the same Agafya Matveevna’s attempts to limit her husband produce a tragicomic impression. “How many times have you gone through? - she asked Vanyusha... - Don’t lie, look at me... Remember Sunday, I won’t let you visit<…>" And Oblomov, willy-nilly, counted eight more times, then came into the room...”; “It would be nice to have some pie!” - “I forgot, I really forgot! I wanted to since the evening, but my memory seems to have gone missing!” - Agafya Matveevna cheated.” This makes no sense. For she cannot offer him any other purpose in life other than food and sleep.
Goncharov devotes relatively little space to describing the illness and death of his hero. I. Annensky summarizes the reader’s impressions, saying that “we read 600 pages about him, we do not know a person in Russian literature so fully, so vividly depicted. And yet his death affects us less than the death of a tree in Tolstoy...” Why? Critics of the “Silver Age” are unanimous, because the worst has already happened to Oblomov. Spiritual death preceded physical death. “He died because he ended...” (I. Annensky). “Vulgarity has finally triumphed over purity of heart, love, and ideals.” (D. Merezhkovsky).
Goncharov says goodbye to his hero with an emotional lyrical requiem: “What happened to Oblomov? Where is he? Where? - In the nearest cemetery, under a modest urn, his body rests<…>. Lilac branches, planted by a friendly hand, doze over the grave, and wormwood smells serenely. It seems that the angel of silence himself is guarding his sleep.”
It would seem that there is an undeniable contradiction here. A high funeral speech for a fallen hero! But life cannot be considered useless when someone remembers you. Bright sadness filled the life of Agafya Matveevna with the highest meaning: “She realized that<…>God put his soul into her life and took it out again; that the sun shone in it and darkened forever... Forever, really; but on the other hand, her life was forever comprehended: now she knew why she lived and that she did not live in vain.”
In the finale, we meet Zakhar in the guise of a beggar on the church porch. The orphaned valet prefers to ask for Christ's sake rather than serve the “objectionable” lady. The following dialogue takes place between Stolz and his literary acquaintance about the late Oblomov:
And he was no more stupid than others, his soul was pure and clear, like glass; noble, gentle, and - disappeared!
From what? What reason?
The reason... what a reason! Oblomovism! - said Stolz.
Oblomovism! - the writer repeated with bewilderment. - What it is?
Now I’ll tell you... And you write it down: maybe it will be useful to someone. “And he told him what was written here.”
Thus, the composition of the novel is strictly circular, it is impossible to isolate the beginning and end in it. Everything that we read from the first pages, it turns out, can be interpreted as a story about Oblomov, his friend. At the same time, Stolz could tell the story of a recently completed life. Thus, the circle of human life is completed twice: in reality and in the memories of friends.
Goncharov, the singer of harmony, could not end his book with one minor note. In the epilogue, a new little hero appears, who, perhaps, will be able to harmoniously combine the best features of his father and educator. “Don’t forget my Andrey! - were Oblomov’s last words, spoken in a faded voice...” “No, I won’t forget your Andrey<…>, Stolz promises. “But I’ll take your Andrey where you couldn’t go.”<…>and with him we will put our youthful dreams into action.”
Let's do a little experiment. Open the last page of the Oblomov publication - any one you hold in your hands. Turning it over, you will almost certainly find an article by Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov “What is Oblomovism?” It is necessary to know this work, if only because it is one of the examples of Russian critical thought of the nineteenth century. However, the first sign of a free person and a free country is the ability to choose. Dobrolyubov’s article is more interesting to consider next to the article with which it appeared almost simultaneously and with which it is largely polemical. This is a review of Alexander Vasilyevich Druzhinin “Oblomov”. Roman I.A. Goncharova".
Critics are unanimous in admiring Olga's image. But if Dobrolyubov sees in her a new heroine, the main fighter against Oblomovism, Druzhinin sees in her the embodiment of eternal femininity: “One cannot help but be carried away by this bright, pure creature, who has so wisely developed in herself all the best, true principles of a woman...”
The disagreements between them begin with Oblomov’s assessment. Dobrolyubov argues with the author of the novel himself, proving that Oblomov is a lazy, spoiled, worthless creature: “He (Oblomov) will not bow to the idol of evil! But why is that? Because he is too lazy to get up from the couch. But drag him down, put him on his knees in front of this idol: he will not be able to stand up. Dirt won't stick to it! Yes, he's lying alone for now. Nothing yet; and when Tarantyev, the Worn One, arrives. Ivan Matveich - brr! what disgusting filth begins around Oblomov.”
The critic astutely guesses the origins of Oblomov’s character in his childhood. He sees primarily social roots in Oblomovism: “... He ( Oblomov) from an early age he sees in his house that all housework is done by footmen and maids, and daddy and mummy only give orders and scold for bad performance.” Gives the example of the symbolic episode of pulling on stockings. He also views Oblomov as social type. This is a gentleman, the owner of “three hundred Zakharovs”, who “while drawing the ideal of his bliss, ... did not think about establishing its legality and truth, did not ask himself the question: where will these greenhouses and hotbeds come from ... and why on earth will he use them?”
Yet the psychological analysis of the character and the meaning of the entire novel is not so interesting to the critic. He is constantly interrupted by “more general considerations” about Oblomovism. In Goncharov’s hero the critic is, first of all, an established literary type; the critic traces his genealogy from Onegin, Pechorin, Rudin. In literary science, it is usually called the type of superfluous person. Unlike Goncharov, Dobrolyubov focuses on his negative traits: “What all these people have in common is that they have no business in life that would be a vital necessity for them, a sacred thing of the heart...”
Dobrolyubov shrewdly guesses that the reason for Oblomov’s restless sleep was the lack of a high, truly noble goal. I chose Gogol’s words as my epigraph: “Where is the one who, in the native language of the Russian soul, could tell us this almighty word “forward?..””
Let's now look at Druzhinin's article. Let's be honest: it's a lot harder to read. As soon as we open the pages, the names of philosophers and poets, Carlyle and Longfellow, Hamlet and the artists of the Flemish school will dapple before our eyes. An intellectual of the highest outlook, an expert in English literature, Druzhinin does not stoop to the average level in his critical works, but seeks an equal reader. By the way, this is how you can check the degree of your own culture - ask yourself, which of the mentioned names, paintings, books are familiar to me?
Following Dobrolyubov, he pays a lot of attention to “The Dream...” and sees in it “a step towards understanding Oblomov with his Oblomovism.” But, unlike him, he focuses on the lyrical content of the chapter. Druzhinin saw poetry even in the “sleepy servant,” and gave Goncharov’s highest merit the fact that he “poeticized the life of his native land.” So the critic touched lightly national content Oblomovism. Defending his beloved hero, the critic calls: “Take a careful look at the novel, and you will see how many people in it are devoted to Ilya Ilyich and even adore him...” After all, this is not without reason!
“Oblomov is a child, and not a trashy libertine, he is a sleepyhead, and not an immoral egoist or an epicurean...” To emphasize the moral value of the hero, Druzhinin asks the question: who is ultimately more useful to humanity? A naive child or a zealous official, “signing paper after paper”? And he answers: “A child by nature and according to the conditions of his development, Ilya Ilyich ... left behind him the purity and simplicity of a child - qualities that are precious in an adult.” People “not of this world” are also necessary because “in the midst of the greatest practical confusion, they often reveal to us the realm of truth and at times put the inexperienced, dreamy eccentric above ... a whole crowd of businessmen surrounding him.” The critic is sure that Oblomov - universal type, and exclaims: “It’s not good for that land where there are no kind and incapable of evil eccentrics like Oblomov!”
Unlike Dobrolyubov, he does not forget about Agafya Matveevna. Druzhinin made a subtle observation about Pshenitsyna’s place in Oblomov’s fate: she was unwillingly the “evil genius” of Ilya Ilyich, “but everything will be forgiven for this woman because she loved a lot.” The critic is captivated by the subtle lyricism of the scenes depicting the sorrowful experiences of the widow. In contrast, the critic shows the egoism of the Stoltsev couple in relation to Oblomov in scenes where “neither everyday order, nor everyday truth... were violated.”
At the same time, a number of controversial judgments can be found in his review. The critic avoids talking about why Ilya Ilyich dies. Stolz's despair at the sight of his friend's decline is caused, in his opinion, only by the fact that Oblomov married a commoner.
Like Dobrolyubov, Druzhinin goes beyond the consideration of the novel. He discusses the peculiarities of Goncharov's talent and compares it with Dutch painters. Like the Dutch landscape painters and creators of genre scenes, the details of everyday life under his pen acquire an existential scale and “his creative spirit was reflected in every detail... like the sun is reflected in a small drop of water...”
We saw that two critics argue and deny each other in their judgments about Oblomov and the novel as a whole. So which of them should we believe? I. Annensky answered this question, noting that it is a mistake to “dwell on the question of what type of Oblomov. Negative or positive? This question is generally one of the school-market ones...” And he suggests that “the most natural way in every type analysis is to start with an analysis of one’s impressions, deepening them if possible.” It is for this “deepening” that criticism is needed. To convey the reaction of contemporaries, to complement independent conclusions, and not to replace your impressions. In fact, Goncharov believed in his reader, and to comments that his hero was incomprehensible, he retorted: “What does the reader care about? Is he some kind of idiot who cannot use his imagination to complete the rest according to the idea given by the author? Have the Pechorins, Onegins... been told to the last detail? The author’s task is the dominant element of character, and the rest is up to the reader.”
This June marks the 200th birthdayIvan Alexandrovich Goncharov, known to us all from the novel "Oblomov" - his pass At school. They pass, but most often they don’t understand. We invite our readers to take a fresh look at this well-forgotten classic. Take a Christian look.
“By lying on a soft bed, you will never gain glory for yourself...” - it would seem that there is no reason to dispute this statement of the great Dante. And yet, in Russian culture there is a fact that casts doubt on his obvious correctness. Ilya Ilyich Oblomov, a pathological sloth who spent his entire life lying in a soft bed, suddenly became one of the most famous heroes of Russian literature, and precisely thanks to this very unbridled wallowing on the sofa. The author of the novel did not attribute any other achievements or feats to Oblomov. This strange success would be easily explained if Goncharov’s novel were a satire, ridiculing vice. But no, Ilya Ilyich Oblomov clearly does not fall into the list of satirical characters. Of course, the author sometimes laughs at his unlucky hero, but on the whole he writes Oblomov with great sympathy and respect: “... He had something that is more valuable than any mind: an honest, faithful heart! This is his natural gold; he carried it through life unscathed. He fell from the tremors, cooled down, finally fell asleep, killed, disappointed, having lost the strength to live, but did not lose honesty and loyalty. His heart did not emit a single false note, nor did any dirt stick to it. No elegant lie will seduce him, and nothing will lure him onto a false path; let a whole ocean of rubbish and evil swirl around him; let the whole world be poisoned and go topsy-turvy - Oblomov will never bow to the idol of lies, his soul will always be pure, bright, honest... This is a crystal, transparent soul; there are few such people; These are pearls in the crowd! You can’t bribe his heart with anything, you can rely on him anywhere and everywhere.”
There are not many in world literature where there are such frank declarations of the author’s love for his character. Moreover, it is not clear what is the secret of the popularity of this hero, about whom readers, even a century and a half after the publication of the novel, still do not have a clear opinion - whether it is positive or negative. Can a person who devotes himself entirely to tracking the sides of a sofa be considered honest and faithful? And vice versa: can a slacker and lazy person be respected and loved for their sincerity and purity of heart? Many such questions arise after reading the novel.
But the main mystery of “Oblomov” lies elsewhere. Apparently, Goncharov was able to express something extremely significant for each of us here; he touched some very important chord in the soul of the Russian person. Yes, so strong that it sounds, without stopping, to this day, and is unlikely to subside in the foreseeable future. Back in the 19th century, N.A. Dobrolyubov wrote: “...There is a significant part of Oblomov in each of us...”. True, by these words he meant a certain feature of the Russian national character, determined by the then way of life and political system. But for a long time now there has been no structure or way of life. Everything has changed beyond recognition: super speeds, super loads, a huge amount of information bombarding us every day... Today’s life is absolutely different from the measured slumber of patriarchal Oblomovka. However, the main character of the novel himself, as a social type, inexplicably managed to seep through all the cultural, political and civilizational changes, and in his main features remain the same Oblomov - a beautiful-hearted lazy person with a heart of gold and a saggy belly.
A man in sweatpants, lying on the sofa in front of the TV and sighing sadly when his wife asks him to take out the trash can, is a typical manifestation of modern Oblomovism, quite normally adjacent to the conquest of space, nanotechnology and the Large Hadron Collider. And this image should not be perceived as obviously caricatured. Hasn’t it happened to each of us to hide from important but unpleasant decisions behind the textbook phrase “I’ll think about it tomorrow,” supplementing it with an ironic adaptation of Latin wisdom: “Don’t put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after tomorrow”? Don’t each of us have problems like this – “postponed until the day after tomorrow” – that have been poisoning our lives for years, although they could have been solved in a couple of days of decisive action? Apparently, Dobrolyubov was still mistaken, and Ilya Ilyich was not at all a product of his era. The roots of Oblomovism lie in much deeper layers of human existence. They are capable of producing their poisonous shoots on any historical and social basis, because the bearer of this misfortune is the person himself, no matter what era he lived in.
Life touches...
Laziness is always directly proportional to freedom. For an unfree person, laziness is an unattainable luxury. It is very difficult to imagine a lazy slave on a galley, or, say, a first-year soldier in the army. As the degree of freedom increases, the possibility of choice also increases, including between “to do or not to do.” When freedom becomes absolute, it becomes possible to do nothing at all. Of course, Oblomov was far from such ideal “heights of spirit,” however, according to the conditions of his life, he was
What's happened?
Why: life touches!
much closer to him than most modern people. Not very rich, but still a nobleman, Ilya Ilyich was very free in material terms and could bask on a soft bed to his heart’s content, and perceived any external influence as a personal tragedy:
“Ah!..” said Oblomov, waving his hand.
What's happened?
Why: life touches!
And thank God! - said Stolz.
How thank God! If only she would pat everyone on the head, otherwise she would pester you, as bullies used to pester a quiet student at school: either she would pinch you on the sly, or suddenly she would come right from the forehead and sprinkle her with sand... there’s no way to resist!”
Of course, any of us today is “touched by life” much more often and more sensitively than a small landowner with three hundred serfs in his native Oblomovka. That is why we have succeeded much less than Oblomov in the art of laying sofa springs. But, honestly, besides the daily need to run to work in the morning, how many other reasons do we have that do not allow us to fully become like Ilya Ilyich?
The external circumstances of life determine only the level of our freedom and, accordingly, the degree of laziness that we can afford within the framework of this freedom. The ability to overcome laziness depends on our philosophy of life and worldview, on the ideals to which we strive. And, understanding the reasons for Oblomovism, first of all, you need to try to look at his ideals behind Ilya Ilyich’s sofa seclusion. Because it is in a person’s value system that one can find an explanation for his words, actions, and his entire way of life.
And here we will discover that the ideal of Oblomovism is essentially religious, directly sending us to a theological understanding of the history of the world and man. In Oblomov’s homeland, “...good people understood it (life) as nothing other than an ideal of peace and inaction, disrupted from time to time by various unpleasant accidents, such as illness, losses, quarrels and, among other things, labor. They endured labor like punishment imposed on our forefathers, but they could not love, and where there was a chance, they always got rid of it, finding it possible and necessary.”
From childhood, Oblomov acquired an attitude towards any work as punishment for Adam and Eve for the Fall - ...by the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground from which you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you will return.(Life 3 :19). Accordingly, heaven is understood by Ilya Ilyich as a kind of blissful idleness of a person, freed from the need to work to satisfy his primary needs:
“Isn’t everyone achieving the same thing I dream of? Have mercy! - he added more boldly. - Yes, the goal of all your running around, passions, wars, trade and politics is not the manufacture of peace, not the pursuit of this ideal of paradise lost?
And your utopia is Oblomov’s,” Stolz objected.
“Everyone is looking for rest and peace,” Oblomov defended himself.
Crooked ideal
In the current, post-Soviet reality, it is in demand with renewed vigor, and not necessarily among entrepreneurs - it is there that Stolz’s views are much more widespread: “Work is the image, content, element and purpose of life.” But, according to statistics, only 3% of the population are entrepreneurs in our country. And isn’t some office worker striving for Oblomov’s lost paradise? ?
Why does the confrontation between these two ideas - work and rest as mutually exclusive meanings of human life - seem so relevant at all times? Which of the main characters of the novel is right - Oblomov or Stolz? It seems that a definite answer is impossible here. Because both are wrong, although each also has its own truth. Oblomov acutely feels a certain unnaturalness of work, its burden and painfulness, which his whole nature resists. Stolz, on the contrary, sees in work the main purpose of a person. But since the novel examines this concept in the context of the lost paradise and the punishment of the ancestors of mankind, there is a reason to find out how the relationship between work, idleness and heavenly bliss is understood in the religious tradition to which Oblomov belonged - in Orthodox Christianity.
Where did the labor come from?
In the film “Formula of Love,” the village blacksmith Stepan, having broken Count Cagliostro’s carriage into pieces, argued that it was easier to get to the wheels through the roof. And he quoted a Latin proverb: work in itself is pleasure.
The idea is formally beautiful, but it is unlikely that this aphorism was born in the head of a Roman peasant or slave. Most likely, some predecessor of Count Tolstoy found pleasure in work - a patrician who grew cabbage in his spare time for his own pleasure.
In the Church Slavonic language, the word labor is one of the terms for illness and suffering. And this is entirely consistent with the biblical understanding of work. According to Christian doctrine, the need to work by the sweat of one’s brow, as well as the connection between labor and suffering, became for man a direct consequence of the Fall. This, of course, in no way means that man was created for blissful idleness. It’s just that the creative participation in transforming the face of the Earth, to which the first people were called by God, was truly joyful and did not imply any painful manifestations. But labor in the modern sense appeared only when man fell away from his Creator, deciding to live according to his own will. And he immediately faced the need to work hard to cultivate the land, which began to grow weeds instead of grains and feed him sorrow instead of joy. God provided him with all the blessings of this world for free. But after the Fall, man found himself forced to make enormous efforts to obtain tiny grains of this God's gift that he had rejected.
Any work is the result of a severance of a person’s connection with God. Therefore, it would be naive to consider it outside the context of this gap - in Stoltsev’s simple way, as some kind of self-sufficient good. However, no less naive is Oblomov’s attempt to evade work, in the hope of regaining his lost heavenly bliss through this evasion. The fact is that there is no and cannot be heaven (and, consequently, heavenly bliss) without God. “Where Christ is, there is Heaven,” said St. John Chrysostom. It is possible to return the lost paradise to man only through a return to God. Any other path - avoidance of work or, on the contrary, its deification - in themselves are equally incapable of leading to paradise. Although, of course, they also carry their own little pleasures, which are mistaken for a glimpse of paradise by both lazy people and workaholics.
After all, Andrei Stolts, in a certain sense, is also a seeker of the lost paradise, as the true meaning and purpose of his own existence. Moreover, he believes that he has already found this meaning: “So when to live? - Oblomov objected with annoyance to Stolz’s remarks. “Why suffer all your life?” - “For the work itself, nothing else. Labor is the image, content, element and purpose of life, at least mine.”
However, with all the external nobility of these words, behind them there is some kind of eerie metaphysical emptiness, likening a person to a social insect - a termite, a bee, or an ant. Oblomov’s ideological idleness against Stolz’s unprincipled diligence is the main opposition of Goncharov’s novel. And it is no wonder that to this day readers cannot agree on which of the two is right. Because horseradish is no sweeter than radish.
God Oblomov
Oblomov is shown in the novel as a man who is not alien to spiritual life, who knows what prayer is. But even here God is not a goal for him, but rather an auxiliary means to achieving the real “divinity” of Ilya Ilyich - rest and peace:
“In bitter moments, he suffers from worries, turns over from side to side, lies face down, sometimes even gets completely lost; then he will get out of bed on his knees and begin to pray fervently, fervently, begging Heaven to somehow avert the threatening storm. Then, having handed over the care of his fate to Heaven, he becomes calm and indifferent to everything in the world, and the storm there as it pleases.”
God, as an anesthesiologist who helps to get rid of suffering and worries, is what stands behind Ilya Ilyich’s “ideal of rest and peace.” Of course, such religiosity will only drive a person deeper and deeper into the quagmire of his delusion. However, what is the true path to the lost paradise? It seems that this can be considered a certain synthesis of the best personality traits of both Oblomov and Stolz, with which they could mutually compensate for each other’s deficiencies. For Stolz, this is the ability for systematic, purposeful action, which lacks only a real, worthy goal. Oblomov shows dissatisfaction with the life of his contemporary society, longing for the happiness of humanity lost in the Fall. It is obvious that the combination of these two qualities could give the result that we see in the lives of most Orthodox saints - many years of conscious work aimed at gaining the Kingdom of Heaven. Which, according to Christ, ...is taken by force, and those who use force take it away(Mt. 11 :12).
...Evade evil
The universal formula of holiness is expressed in the words of Holy Scripture: turn away from evil and do good(Ps 33 :15). The paradoxical nature of Oblomov’s figure, the amazing combination in him of spiritual beauty and everyday ugliness can be fully explained by a simple and obvious fact: he tried, as best he could, to implement this formula in himself, but... only half! The sofa became a fortress for him, where he tried to hide from the evil and meaninglessness of secular society, the activities, interests and motives of which (quite acceptable, from Stolz’s point of view) for Oblomov are a much more vile form of existence than his own sofa inaction:
“Light, society! You, probably, on purpose, Andrei, are sending me into this world and society in order to discourage me from being there anymore. Life: life is good! What to look for there? interests of the mind, heart? Look where the center is around which all this revolves: it is not there, there is nothing deep that touches the living. All these are dead people, sleeping people, worse than me, these members of the world and society!
What drives them in life? So they don’t lie down, but scurry about every day like flies, back and forth, but what’s the point? You will enter the hall and will not stop admiring how symmetrically the guests are seated, how quietly and thoughtfully they sit - playing cards. Needless to say, what a glorious task of life! An excellent example for the seeker of the movement of the mind!
Aren't these the dead? Don't they sleep sitting all their lives? Why am I more guilty than them, lying at home and not infecting my head with threes and jacks?
...And our best youth, what are they doing? Doesn't he sleep while walking, driving along Nevsky, dancing? Daily empty shuffling of days! And look with what pride and unknown dignity, with a repulsive gaze they look at those who are not dressed like them, who do not bear their name and title. And the unfortunate ones imagine that they are still above the crowd: “We serve, where, besides us, no one serves; we are in the first row of seats, we are at Prince N’s ball, wherever they let us go.”... And they will get together, get drunk and fight, like wild ones! Are these people alive, not sleeping? It’s not just young people: look at the adults.
They gather, feed each other, no cordiality... no kindness, no mutual attraction!
...The third day, at dinner, I didn’t know where to look, even to crawl under the table, when the torment of the reputations of those who were absent began: “This one is stupid, this one is low, another is a thief, another is ridiculous” - real persecution! Saying this, they look at each other with the same eyes: “just go out the door, and the same will happen to you”... Why do they get together if they are like that? Why do they shake each other’s hands so tightly?”
This picture reminds me of something, doesn’t it? It is enough to change a few outdated words - and here we have a completely adequate image of today's social gathering. The morals of the “elite”, entertainment and criteria for the success of the “golden youth” - everything today remains approximately the same as in Oblomov’s time. Well, except that “tormenting other people’s reputations” now also happens on social networks, and expensive cars and fashionable gadgets have become a source of pride, in addition to clothes. The people of the “creative class” themselves have changed very little since that distant time. And Oblomov’s desperate question continues to sound today with no less tension than one and a half hundred years ago:
God, as an anesthesiologist who helps to get rid of suffering and worries, is what stands behind Ilya Ilyich’s “ideal of rest and peace.”
“...It seems that people look so smart, with such dignity on their faces, but all you hear is: “They gave this one this, that one got the rent.” - “For mercy, for what?” - someone shouts. “This one was played yesterday at the club; he takes three hundred thousand!” Boredom, boredom, boredom!.. Where is the man here? Where is his integrity? Where did he disappear, how did he exchange for every little thing?
“Something must occupy the world and society,” said Stolz, “everyone has their own interests.” That's what life is for..."
But this is only life for him, Andrei Stolts. For Ilya Ilyich, such a pastime is an obvious evil, which he tries to avoid with all his might. However, in order to gain the Kingdom of Heaven, it is not enough to just move away from evil. We still need to do good.
...And do good
Goncharov’s contemporary, St. Theophan the Recluse, referring to the great teachers of the Church, wrote: “Evasion from evil and the creation of good are the two legs with which God-fearing people complete their procession along the path of a godly life. Those who are experienced, however, in distinguishing spiritual orders find differences between them, which are not useless for zealots of moral perfection to know. …Basily the Great says: “It is not appropriate for someone who is perfect to abstain from evil, but only for someone who is still a beginner.” One must first, as if from a bad path, move away from the habit of a vicious life, and then begin to do good deeds."
St. Augustine adds to this: « not enough - do not harm, do not kill, do not steal, do not commit fornication, do not deceive, do not bear false witness. Having shied away from evil, you cannot yet say with confidence: now I am safe, I have done everything, I will have a peaceful life, I will see good days. For one should not shy away only from evil, but also do good. It’s not enough to rob: you have to clothe the naked. You didn’t rob: you avoided evil. But you won’t do good in this if you don’t bring the strange one into the house, don’t put him to rest and don’t provide him with what he needs. And one must always evade evil in order to do good at the same time - or evade evil not by inaction, but by doing good, the opposite of it.”
Faith without works is dead. But friendship, love, a person’s mental abilities, and his best intentions are just as dead without action. Cogito ergo sum! “I think, therefore I exist!” - Rene Descartes once said. But it is not enough for a person to simply exist and be aware of his existence. A person’s personality is made up of his actions in a situation of choice, when he needs to overcome himself in order to rise above his current self. There is a certain predicament in a person, dissatisfaction with what you are now, and aspiration for what you should become. Without efforts in this direction, his life will remain just a thinking existence.
Are you smart? - apply your mind to some good deed. Are you friends? - find out how your friend is doing and help him if he needs your help. You like? - do at least something for the sake of your loved one, start rebuilding your life in accordance with this love.
Ilya Ilyich largely managed to evade the evil that thoroughly permeated his contemporary society. And this noble purity of his soul, his categorical rejection of lies and hypocrisy, his goodness and devotion to friendship make Oblomov so dear and close to the author of the novel, and with him to the readers. However, by avoiding evil, Oblomov did not accomplish any good. On this "leg" in
For a Christian, life is a path of becoming like Christ. And Christ, as you know, did not have a sofa.
In the matter of piety, Ilya Ilyich was not just limping - it had completely atrophied from many years of idleness. And, alas, Oblomov’s story could not have had any other ending other than the one that his friend Andrei Stolts speaks about with bitterness:
And he was no more stupid than others, his soul was pure and clear, like glass; noble, gentle, and - disappeared!
The real name of laziness
So what is this misfortune that fatally plowed Oblomov’s fate, and along with him, destroyed and continues to destroy a huge number of other people, equally kind and noble in soul? This quiet evil is so imperceptible that it is not always possible to pay attention to it, although it is inseparably present in each of us from the very moment of our birth. Its action was very accurately described in a funny poem by the poet Igor Guberman:
Sometimes you wake up like a bird
A winged spring on edge,
And I want to live and work...
But by breakfast it goes away.
Only by understanding why a person does not want to live and work can one understand what Oblomovism is.
As has already been said, any work is the result of man’s falling away from God. Even the prayerful work of the saints is a direct consequence of this metaphysical catastrophe, when the most natural activity for a person - communication with his Creator - suddenly turned out to be associated with painful effort and overcoming some dark, inert principle within himself. Goncharov called this beginning Oblomovism. In a broader sense, people used to call it laziness. But if we consistently develop the idea of people falling away from God, then we will inevitably have to admit: this dark principle in man is... death. We feel her soft touch when we lie on the sofa in gentle languor after waking up or having a hearty lunch. It is her voice that insinuatingly speaks about any task: “Drop it, put it aside, because you can do it tomorrow. Now, relax, sleep for an hour or two.” Laziness is nothing more than the desire for decay, for the irreversible dissipation of energy, for the complete cessation of all processes in the human body and soul. Laziness is dying, an image of death that permeates every second of a person’s life. Its ideal is the gradual assimilation of man, first to an animal, and then to inanimate organic matter, a pathetic heap of rotting meat.
Oblomov's desire for the lost paradise can be seen as a spontaneous attempt to escape from this quiet but merciless enemy - death: after all, in paradise, man was immortal. However, Ilya Ilyich’s path to heavenly bliss was initially doomed to failure. Death watched over him precisely under the guise of laziness - the very inaction in which he hoped to find salvation from the evil of the world around him. And Oblomov’s entire life was not enough to recognize her under this seemingly harmless guise.
Why do we live?
Saint Ignatius (Brianchaninov) wrote: “Earthly life is not life itself, but a constant struggle between life and death: alternately we deviate first to one or the other, hesitate between them, are challenged by them.”
But one way or another, each of us has to die. Two meters of earth in the cemetery, and a burdock over the grave - this is the end of the life path of both the sloth and the workaholic. Does it really matter whether we spend our whole lives lying on the couch or whether we work tirelessly? One can argue this way, but only if death is considered as the final and absolute point in human existence.
Ilya Ilyich was by no means a convinced materialist. And his main mistake as a Christian was his incorrect assessment of his own earthly life. Oblomov viewed it as a kind of annoying obstacle to eternal peace and joy that should come after death. He hoped to at least partially find this peace here on Earth, hiding on the sofa from the bustle that surrounded him. But earthly life is not a natural disaster that must be patiently waited out under a warm blanket. The path to the lost paradise is the work of correcting oneself, one’s sick inclinations, and the properties of one’s soul distorted by sin. In other words, it is the work of recreating in ourselves the person God would like us to be. For a Christian, life is a path of becoming like Christ. And Christ, as you know, did not have a sofa.
Photo materials provided by Mosfilm Cinema Concern
Sections: Literature
Goals:
- reveal the philosophical meaning of the work, improve students’ reading activity, skills in working with critical literature and literary texts;
- develop skills in discussion thinking and communication culture;
- show the relevance and time value of the work.
During the classes
I. Organizational stage.(Slide1)
1. Viewing of the finale of the film directed by N. Mikhalkov “A few days in the life of Oblomov.” (Slide 2)
2. Conversation.
Compare the ending of the film and the ending of the novel "Oblomov". (In the film there are no scenes with Pshenitsyna, there is no scene of farewell between Stolz and Oblomov, but there is a message about Oblomov’s death.)
Read the epigraph. (Slide 3, 4)
(- Why did everything perish?. . Who cursed you, Ilya? What have you done? You are kind, smart, gentle, noble: and: you are perishing! What ruined you? There is no name for this evil:
“Yes,” he said barely audibly:
Oblomovism! - he whispered:
Goncharov "Oblomov"
Who will tell us that we did not know how to live,
Soulless and idle minds,
That kindness and tenderness did not burn in us
And we didn’t sacrifice beauty?: It’s not a pity for life with languid breathing,
What is life and death? What a pity about that fire
That shone over the whole universe,
And he walks into the night and cries as he leaves.
A. Fet.)
What question do you think we will try to answer?
(The topic question opens: “Why did everything die?”) (Slide 5)
- “What happened to Oblomov? Where is he? Where? - In the nearest cemetery, under a modest urn, his body rests, between the bushes, in the calm. Lilac branches, planted by a friendly hand, doze over the grave, and the serene scent of wormwood. It seems like an angel himself silence guards his sleep: "
Key words in this snippet? (Calm; lilac branches are dozing; the angel of silence himself guards his sleep) (Slide 6)
Death: Sleep: Life: Based on these key words, what is Oblomov's life like? (Life is like a dream) (Slide 7)
What about sleep? (Sleep is like death)
Let's add to the topic of the lesson. (The whole topic of the lesson opens) (Slide 8)
Determine our main task in this lesson.
(Answer the question of the topic, try to understand the reason for the death of the hero, try to understand Oblomov).
3. The teacher explains how to work with the scoring table using a ten-point system.
II. Checking homework.
1. - At home, you should have used the key words of the text to show the compositional contrast of the novel “Oblomov”. Who will present this plan to us and comment?
(One of the students suggested this option:
Part 1 (Slide 9)
a) “He must be a good-natured person, simplicity”, or maybe “a darling, a sybarite” or “a carefree sloth”? (Introducing the main character);
b) “Where is the person here?” (Visitors and Oblomov’s opinion about them);
c) “Silence and imperturbable calm reign in the morals of the people in that region.” ("Oblomov's Dream").
Part 2 (Slide 10)
a) “Because on it: they always break up afterwards, and I: break up with you!.. Never!”;
b) “To go forward means to suddenly throw off the wide robe not only from your shoulders, but also from your soul, from your mind; together with the dust and cobwebs from the walls, sweep away the cobwebs from your eyes and see clearly!” (An attempt to revive the hero through love, home, activity).
Part 3 (Slide 11)
a) “And this whole summer, blooming poem of love seemed to stop, moved more lazily, as if there was not enough content in it”;
b) “The heart was killed: life died down there for a while” (Catastrophic return back to the old life: rejection of love, bitter awareness of the impossibility of fulfilling the expectations and demands of Olga Ilyinskaya. 2 hours and 3 hours end with climactic scenes: 2 hours - ascending, 3 hours - descending, that is, the hero’s joyful cry and silent illness)
Part 4 (Slide 12)
a) “Man was created to arrange himself and even change his nature: You had wings, but you untied them” (Stolz, Stolz and Olga);
b) “They were all connected by one common sympathy, one memory of the soul of the deceased, clear as crystal” (Epilogue).
2. “So why did everything die?” Perhaps the reason is in the environment? At home, you drew up a diagram of Oblomov’s relationships with other characters in the novel. "Oblomov's tree of life" (Slide 13)
As we see, the environment is one of the reasons for the death of the hero. Oblomov is unhappy, being in an environment devoid of spirituality. But is this not why he decides, after the takeoff and soaring of his soul, given to him by love, to so quickly descend to the earth’s surface, that is, to settle on the Vyborg side? The impression is that he is taking revenge on himself for his inability and inability to realize his dreams and spiritual impulses. He chooses his own punishment. Which?
III. Work on the topic of the lesson.
Motif of fire and river. (Slide 14)
The word "life" is mentioned in the topic of the lesson. What symbols of life are found in the novel? (Fire, river).
So, the motif of the river and fire in the novel "Oblomov". “And where did everything go - why did it go out?” Your comments?
How did Oblomov and Stolz perceive life?
What is the literal and figurative meaning of the river and fire
(Oblomov and Stolz are antipodes, and when reading the novel, we perceive them as two rivers and two fires). (Slide 15)
(Different combustion and flow).
How is this shown in the text?
(“He didn’t want to imagine it as a wide, noisily rushing river with seething waves,” as Stolz imagined it, “it’s a disease,” says Oblomov, “fever, jumping with rapids, with dam breaks, with floods”).
How do we see the life of Oblomovka?
(“Nothing is needed: life, like a calm river, flowed past them, they could only sit on the bank of this river and observe the inevitable phenomena that, in turn, without a call, appeared before each of them,” it becomes clear why Oblomov in inaction)
How is the fire motif shown?
(Stolz believed that “the normal purpose of a person is to live through 4 seasons, that is, 4 ages, without leaps, to carry the vessel of life to the last day, without spilling a single drop in vain, and that an even and slow burning of fire is better than violent fires, no matter what poetry there was no flame in them."
Oblomov says: “No, my life began with extinction, it’s strange, but it’s so! From the first minute, when I realized myself, I felt that I was already extinguishing. I began to fade away while writing papers in the office, then I died out while proofreading in books of truth, with which I did not know what to do in life, I hung out with my friends, listening to talk, gossip, mockery, angry and cold chatter"
Stolz believes that his existence will be an eternal burning: “Life will flash by like an instant, and he [Oblomov] would lie down and go to sleep! Let it be a constant burning! Oh, if you lived two hundred, three hundred, how much you could redo things!”) .
In what other meaning is fire given?
(Zakhar “inflamed with zeal”; Olga, whose eyes “burned with rays of inner fire”, “spiritual fire”).
How do you understand the "fire of Vesta"? (Slide 16)
(“The norm of life was prepared and taught to them by their parents: with a covenant to guard its integrity and inviolability, like the fire of Vesta,” that is, an ever-burning fire guarded by priestesses. In the novel, this is an image of the inviolability of the way of life, stagnation and inertia).
How do you understand “Antonov’s spiritual fire”? (Slide 17)
(This is the popular name for gangrene, a disease. A disease of the soul, Stolz and Olga talk about Oblomov as a sick person, and the hero needs to be treated).
2. Motive of sleep. (Slide 18)
We read the topic of the lesson: “Life is like a dream:” How is the motif of sleep shown in the novel? What is the definition of the word "sleep" in the dictionary?
A physiological state of rest and rest that occurs at certain intervals, in which the work of consciousness almost completely stops and reactions to external stimuli decrease. Fall into sleep. Fall into eternal sleep. Like in a dream. Moon.
What is dreamed is dreamed by the sleeper, a dream. I have dreams. See a dream. Sleep in hand.).
The writing of the novel began with the chapter “Oblomov’s Dream.” This is a figurative semantic key to understanding the entire work. Oblomovka is a “sleepy kingdom” in the form of a vicious circle. “Oblomov’s Dream” - dreams, nostalgia about the past of both the hero and Zakhar. "Oblomov's Dream" - a dream of a lost paradise. How do you understand "dream of paradise lost"?
(In the novel we read:
“For mercy!” added Oblomov more boldly. “But the goal of all your running around, passions, wars, trade and politics is not the production of peace, not the desire for this ideal of a lost paradise.
And your utopia is Oblomov’s,” Stolz objected. ")
What is Stolz talking about?
(Utopia is a place that does not exist).
Why, reading the novel, especially the chapter “Dream,” can we safely call Goncharov a Russian Flemish, and his work [the chapter] a pastoral?
(Slide 19) Fleming is an artist of the conventional and traditional art of Flanders, [the traditional name for the art of the 17th - 18th centuries]. Flemings: Jan Van Eyck is an artist, a master of inspired, graceful portraits, A. Brouwer is a master of dramatic and expressive landscapes, H. Huysmans is a master of elegant, colorful landscapes. Goncharov is a writer and draftsman.
(Slide 20) Pastoral is a dramatic or musical work that idyllically depicts the life of shepherds and shepherdesses in the lap of nature.
(Slide 21) Idyll - 1. A poetic work depicting a virtuous, serene life in the lap of nature. 2. Peaceful, happy existence.
According to D. Merezhkovsky, in his descriptions Goncharov dwells for a long time with special love on the prosaic details of life. “The same love for the everyday side of life, the same ability to transform the prose of reality into poetry and beauty. Re-read “Oblomov’s Dream”: food, tea drinking, ordering food, chatting, the fun of old-world landowners here take on ideal shape: Goncharov does not describe, but sings of morals Oblomovtsev,” emphasizes Dmitry Sergeevich.
Your comments?
(“Oblomov’s Dream” is an idyll dream, a warning dream, a utopian dream of a “happy society” and a dystopian dream of historical stagnation and inaction).
How does D. Merezhkovsky talk about death? Compare with the novel.
(“Death is only the evening of life, when soft shadows fly over the eyes and close them for eternal sleep”) (Slide 22)
3. Motive of silence. (Slide 23)
How is the motif of silence shown in the novel?
(“Deep silence reigned in the house” [Oblomovka]
“Eternal peace, eternal silence and lazy crawling from day to day quietly stopped the machine of life. Ilya Ilyich died, as if a clock had stopped that had forgotten to wind:”
“Agafya Matveevna: found him resting as meekly on his deathbed as on his bed of sleep.”
Clock stopped. Stopped the machine of life :)
What is Oblomov's death like?
This is the fate of a man with a “heart of gold” and a “soul as pure as crystal.” Who are we talking about and whose words are these? (Author's opinion about Oblomov.)
Why exactly the “golden heart” and “pure soul”?
(“At the base of Oblomov’s nature lay a pure and good beginning, filled with deep sympathy for everything that was good and that only opened up and responded to the call of this simple, simple, eternally trusting heart: Whoever accidentally and deliberately looked into this bright, childish soul - be he is gloomy, angry - he could no longer refuse him reciprocity." [Author]).
Oblomov tried to understand the “pattern of his own life,” but what is the poetic ideal of life?
Norma's aria "Casta diva" from the opera of the same name by V. Bellini plays in the background, the teacher reads an excerpt from the novel (Slides 24 - 30):
"- Well, I would get up in the morning: The weather is beautiful, the sky is blue and blue, not a single cloud: While waiting for my wife to wake up, I would put on a dressing gown and walk around the garden to breathe in the morning fumes; I would find a gardener there, watering flowers together, trimmed bushes and trees: Then, putting on a spacious frock coat or jacket of some kind, hugging his wife around the waist, go deeper with her into the endless, dark alley; walk quietly, thoughtfully, silently, or think out loud, dream, count the minutes of happiness, how. the beat of the pulse; listen to how the heart beats and stops; look for sympathy in nature: and unnoticed go to the river, to the field: it is dark, the fog hangs over the rye; It’s time to go home. The lights are already on in the kitchen; a frying pan of mushrooms, cutlets, berries: there’s music: Casta diva! - Oblomov sang: What a sadness this woman is in! sounds!. And no one knows anything around: She is alone: The secret weighs on her; she entrusts it to the moon:
Do you love Aria? I’m very glad: Olga Ilyinskaya sings it beautifully. I'll introduce you - here's the voice, here's the singing! And what a charming child she is! . "
What is the role of the musical passage?
Has Oblomov found his poetic ideal of life? Where else is the “poetry of life” found in the novel?
Let's read the epigraph again. So why did everything die? (Oblomovshchina)
IV. Lesson summary.
Make a syncwine. (Slide 31)
(The syncwine option suggested by the students:
Oblomov
- Serene, kind
- Lie down, sleep, dream
- It started with the inability to put on stockings, it ended with the inability to live
- Oblomovism)
How did Druzhinin speak about Oblomov?
(“Oblomov is a child, and not a trashy libertine, he is a sleepyhead, and not an immoral egoist or an epicurean from the times of decay. He is powerless for good, but he is positively incapable of evil deeds, pure in spirit, not perverted by everyday sophisms.”
“A child by nature and according to the conditions of his development, Ilya Ilyich largely left behind him the purity and simplicity of a child, precious qualities in an adult, qualities that in themselves often open up to us the realm of truth and at times place the inexperienced, dreamy eccentric above the prejudices of his age , and above the whole crowd of businessmen surrounding him:" (Slide 32))
On the board are the opinions of critics about Oblomov and Oblomovism. If you were writing an essay on the topic of the lesson, what words would you choose as the epigraph? Why?
(In addition to Druzhinin’s statements on the board, the words of I. Annensky: “What is he: a glutton? a sloth? a sissy? a contemplator? a reasoner? No: he, Oblomov, is the result of a long accumulation of heterogeneous impressions, thoughts, feelings, sympathies, doubts and self-reproaches:" (Slide 33)
D. Merezhkovsky: “Vulgarity, triumphing over purity of heart, love, ideals - this is the main tragedy of life for Goncharov.”
What new experience did you gain and what did you learn?
Have we answered the topic question? Have you achieved your goals? Conclusion?
V. Homework.
Write a review of a tenth grader's essay. (Essays for which reviews must be written are in
The text of the work is posted without images and formulas.
The full version of the work is available in the "Work Files" tab in PDF format
Sleep and Death close their eyes equally,
They put a limit to the unrest of the soul,
The day is replaced by the darkness of night,
They let passions fall asleep in silent silence.
K. Balmont
Why are life and death often compared to sleep? What happens to a person when he finds himself in the power of the son of Veles and Mary? Chu! Do you hear how measured snoring is heard in the midnight silence? This is a person falling asleep. He wraps himself in a blanket like a cocoon, hugs a pillow and... Shh! The man fell asleep! He no longer hears the rhythm of life, passions no longer tear him apart, and his soul does not bleed, suffering from unrequited love or the injustice of existence. The man is sleeping! Wait! Is he sleeping? Or maybe Semargl, standing at the post between life and death, died and left his mortal body?
Eh, no! Not yet. Semargl is still protecting Oblomov’s mortal body. But how long will he be able to maintain the smoldering fire of Ilya Ilyich’s life? And does the main character of the novel, I.A., live? Goncharova? Alas, Oblomov only exists. He got lost in time, lost, wilted. His life is like a dream, and sleep, as people say, is like death. What happens to the hero? Why is he in oblivion? The inquisitive reader will find the answers to these questions in Ilyusha’s childhood.
The environment and environment in which he grew up had a huge influence on the hero’s life. In Oblomovka everything was calm and peaceful, no one was in a hurry; sleep and idleness reigned everywhere, interrupted only for meals, which was important for the village residents. Ilya Ilyich, as the writer emphasizes, was an active and curious child at an early age, but over time his ardor and interest in life gradually faded away. The hero gradually loses his liveliness, becomes fat and becomes similar to the inhabitants of Oblomovka.
Ilya exists. His life is like a dream: he is criminally indifferent to everything new, doesn’t read anything, doesn’t go anywhere. Oblomov just sits at home all the time. He is comfortable and cozy on the sofa in a robe. Why is he acting this way? Why so indifferent to the world? And it's all about upbringing. The hero was not taught to work, did not develop independence and extinguished his curiosity. Parents and servants did everything to ensure that Ilyusha did not leave the family estate and always remained under supervision. As a result, Oblomov acts only under duress. It is Stolz and Olga who make desperate attempts to save their friend, to snatch him from the tenacious clutches of oblivion. But their efforts are in vain. The bustle of life frightens Oblomov. Ilya Ilyich seeks and finds salvation in a dream, surrendering to which, he forgets about the vanity of the world.
This behavior of the hero is like an escape from reality: unrequited love, the inability to stop being led and the need to make decisions and be responsible for one’s actions. Oblomov's life is quiet, inconspicuous. She has no emotions, no passions. However, there is no life itself. There is no pleasure and brightness. Sleep, deep and long. A dream gradually turning into death.
Shh! Do you hear? No? Yes, you can't hear your breathing. Man has made the transition from life to death. Did he notice that he was dead? No. Why? Did he live? No. He existed.
Life is a dream, and sleep is death. Do not believe? Try to wake up...