The article “What is Oblomovism?”, being one of the most brilliant examples of Dobrolyubov’s literary-critical skill, the breadth and originality of his aesthetic thought, was at the same time of great importance as a programmatic socio-political document. The article comprehensively argued for the need for a speedy severance of all historically established contacts of Russian revolutionary democracies with the liberal-noble intelligentsia, the opportunistic and objectively reactionary essence of which was considered by Dobrolyubov as ideological Oblomovism, as an indicator and direct consequence of the decomposition of the ruling class, as the main danger at this stage of the liberation struggle.

* * *

The given introductory fragment of the book What is Oblomovism? (N. A. Dobrolyubov, 1859) provided by our book partner - the company liters.

(“Oblomov”, novel by I. A. Goncharov. “Notes of the Fatherland”, 1859, No. I–IV)

Where is the one who would be able to tell us this almighty word “forward” in the native language of the Russian soul? Centuries pass after centuries, half a million Sidneys, louts and blockheads sleep soundly, and rarely is a husband born in Rus' who can pronounce it, this almighty word...

Our audience has been waiting for ten years for Mr. Goncharov’s novel. Long before its appearance in print, it was spoken of as an extraordinary work. We started reading it with the most extensive expectations. Meanwhile, the first part of the novel, written back in 1849 and alien to the current interests of the present moment, seemed boring to many. At the same time, " Noble nest", and everyone was carried away by the poetic, in highest degree the handsome talent of its author. “Oblomov” remained on the sidelines for many; many even felt tired of the unusually subtle and deep mental analysis that permeates the entire novel by Mr. Goncharov. That audience that loves the external entertainment of action found the first part of the novel tedious because until the very end its hero continues to lie on the same sofa on which he finds him at the beginning of the first chapter. Those readers who like the accusatory direction were dissatisfied with the fact that in the novel our official social life remained completely untouched. In short, the first part of the novel made an unfavorable impression on many readers.

It seems that there were many makings for the whole novel not to be a success, at least among our public, which is so accustomed to considering everything poetic literature fun and judge works of art on first impression. But this time artistic truth soon took its toll. The subsequent parts of the novel smoothed out the first unpleasant impression on everyone who had it, and Goncharov’s talent captivated even the people who least sympathized with him to its irresistible influence. The secret of such success lies, it seems to us, as much directly in the strength of the author’s artistic talent as in the extraordinary richness of the novel’s content.

It may seem strange that we find a particular wealth of content in a novel in which, by the very nature of the hero, there is almost no action at all. But we hope to explain our thoughts in the continuation of the article, the main goal of which is to make several comments and conclusions that, in our opinion, the content of Goncharov’s novel necessarily suggests.

“Oblomov” will no doubt cause a lot of criticism. Probably among them there will be proofreaders, who will find some errors in language and syllable, and pathetic ones, in which there will be many exclamations about the charm of the scenes and characters, and aesthetic apothecary ones, with strict verification of whether everything is exactly according to the aesthetic prescription. , the proper amount of such and such properties is given to the acting persons, and whether these persons always use them as stated in the recipe. We do not feel the slightest desire to indulge in such subtleties, and the readers, probably, will not suffer much grief if we do not worry about whether such and such a phrase fully corresponds to the character of the hero and his position, or whether it was necessary rearrange a few words, etc. Therefore, it seems to us not at all reprehensible to engage in more general considerations about the content and meaning of Goncharov’s novel, although, of course, true critics and they will reproach us again that our article was not written about Oblomov, but only about Oblomov.

It seems to us that in relation to Goncharov, more than in relation to any other author, criticism is obliged to present the general results deduced from his work. There are authors who take on this work themselves, explaining to the reader the purpose and meaning of their works. Others do not categorically express their intentions, but conduct the entire story in such a way that it turns out to be a clear and correct personification of their thoughts. With such authors, every page tries to make the reader understand, and it takes a lot of slow-wittedness not to understand them... But the fruit of reading them is more or less complete (depending on the degree of the author’s talent) agreement with the idea underlying the work. The rest all disappears two hours after reading the book. It’s not the same with Goncharov. He doesn't give you, and apparently doesn't want to give you, any conclusions. The life he portrays serves for him not as a means to abstract philosophy, but as a direct goal in itself. He doesn’t care about the reader or the conclusions you draw from the novel: that’s your business. If you make a mistake, blame your myopia, and not the author. He presents you with a living image and guarantees only its resemblance to reality; and then it’s up to you to determine the degree of dignity of the depicted objects: he is completely indifferent to this. He does not have that fervor of feeling that gives other talents the greatest strength and charm. Turgenev, for example, talks about his heroes as people close to him, snatches their warm feeling from his chest and watches them with tender sympathy, with painful trepidation, he himself suffers and rejoices along with the faces he created, he himself is carried away by that poetic atmosphere with which he always likes to surround them... And his passion is contagious: it irresistibly captures the reader’s sympathy, from the first page chains his thoughts and feelings to the story, makes him experience, re-feel those moments in which Turgenev’s faces appear before him. And a lot of time will pass - the reader may forget the course of the story, lose the connection between the details of incidents, lose sight of the characteristics of individuals and situations, and may finally forget everything he has read; but he will still remember and cherish the lively, joyful impression that he experienced while reading the story. Goncharov has nothing like this. His talent is unyielding to impressions. He will not sing a lyrical song when he looks at the rose and the nightingale; he will be amazed by them, he will stop, he will peer and listen for a long time, he will think... What process will take place in his soul at this time, we cannot understand this well... But then he begins to draw something... You peer coldly into the still unclear features... Here they are become clearer, clearer, more beautiful... and suddenly, by some unknown miracle, from these features both the rose and the nightingale rise before you, with all their charm and charm. Not only is their image drawn to you, you smell the scent of a rose, you hear the sounds of a nightingale... Sing a lyrical song, if a rose and a nightingale can excite your feelings; the artist drew them and, satisfied with his work, steps aside: he will add nothing more... “And it would be in vain to add,” he thinks, “if the image itself does not speak to your soul, then what can words tell you? ..”

In this ability to embrace full image an object, to mint it, to sculpt it - this is the strongest side of Goncharov’s talent. And with this he surpasses all modern Russian writers. It easily explains all the other properties of his talent. He has an amazing ability - in every at the moment to stop the volatile phenomenon of life, in all its fullness and freshness, and keep it in front of you until it becomes the complete property of the artist. A bright ray of life falls on all of us, but it immediately disappears as soon as it touches our consciousness. And behind it come other rays from other objects, and again they disappear just as quickly, leaving almost no trace. This is how all life passes, sliding across the surface of our consciousness. Not so with the artist; he knows how to catch in every object something close and kindred to his soul, he knows how to dwell on that moment that particularly struck him with something. Depending on the nature of poetic talent and the degree of its development, the sphere accessible to the artist can narrow or expand, impressions can be more vivid or deeper; their expression is more passionate or calmer. Often the poet’s sympathy is attracted by one quality of objects, and he tries to evoke and seek this quality everywhere, in the fullest and most vivid expression of it he delivers his main task, he primarily spends his artistic power on it. This is how artists merge inner world their souls with the world of external phenomena and seeing all life and nature under the prism of the mood prevailing in them. Thus, for some, everything is subordinated to a sense of plastic beauty, for others, tender and pretty features are drawn predominantly, for others, humane and social aspirations are reflected in every image, in every description, etc. None of these aspects stand out especially in Goncharov . He has another property: calmness and completeness of a poetic worldview. He is not interested in anything exclusively or is interested in everything equally. He is not amazed by one side of an object, one moment of an event, but turns the object from all sides, waits for all moments of the phenomenon to occur, and then begins to process them artistically. The consequence of this is, of course, in the artist a more calm and impartial attitude towards the objects depicted, greater clarity in the outline of even small details and an equal share of attention to all the details of the story.

This is why some people think Goncharov’s novel is drawn out. It is, if you like, really stretched out. In the first part, Oblomov lies on the sofa; in the second he goes to the Ilyinskys and falls in love with Olga, and she with him; in the third she sees that she was mistaken about Oblomov, and they part ways; in the fourth, she marries his friend, Stolz, and he marries the mistress of the house where he rents an apartment. That's it. None external events, no obstacles (except perhaps for the opening of the bridge across the Neva, which stopped Olga’s meetings with Oblomov), no extraneous circumstances interfere with the novel. Oblomov's laziness and apathy are the only spring of action in his entire story. How could this be stretched into four parts! If another author had come across this topic, he would have handled it differently: he would have written fifty pages, light, funny, composed a cute farce, ridiculed his sloth, admired Olga and Stolz, and left it at that. The story would not be boring, although it would not have anything special artistic value. Goncharov set to work differently. He did not want to lag behind the phenomenon that he had once cast his eyes on without tracing it to the end, without finding its causes, without understanding its connection with all the surrounding phenomena. He wanted to ensure that the random image that flashed before him was elevated to a type, giving it a generic and permanent meaning. Therefore, in everything that concerned Oblomov, there were no empty or insignificant things for him. He took care of everything with love, outlined everything in detail and clearly. Not only those rooms in which Oblomov lived, but also the house in which he only dreamed of living; not only his robe, but the gray frock coat and bristly sideburns of his servant Zakhar; not only the writing of Oblomov’s letter, but also the quality of the paper and ink in the headman’s letter to him - everything is presented and depicted with complete clarity and relief. The author cannot even pass by some Baron von Langwagen, who does not play any role in the novel; and he would write a whole wonderful page about the baron, and would have written two and four if he had not managed to exhaust it on one. This, if you like, harms the speed of action, tires the indifferent reader, who demands to be irresistibly lured by strong sensations. But nevertheless, this is a precious quality in Goncharov’s talent, which greatly helps the artistry of his images. As you begin to read it, you find that many things do not seem to be justified by strict necessity, as if they are not in line with the eternal requirements of art. But soon you begin to get used to the world that he depicts, you involuntarily recognize the legality and naturalness of all the phenomena he deduces, you yourself become in the position characters and you seem to feel that in their place and in their position it is impossible to do otherwise, and as if you shouldn’t act. Small details, constantly introduced by the author and drawn by him with love and extraordinary skill, finally produce some kind of charm. You are completely transported into the world into which the author leads you: you find something familiar in it, not only the external form opens before you, but also the very inside, the soul of every face, every object. And after reading the entire novel, you feel that something new has been added to your sphere of thought, that new images, new types have sunk deep into your soul. They haunt you for a long time, you want to think about them, you want to find out their meaning and relationship to yours. own life, character, inclinations. Where will your lethargy and fatigue go? vivacity of thought and freshness of feeling awaken in you. You are ready to re-read many pages again, think about them, argue about them. At least that’s how Oblomov affected us: “Oblomov’s Dream” and some individual scenes we read several times; We read the entire novel almost completely twice, and the second time we liked it almost more than the first. These details with which the author frames the course of action and which, according to some, have such a charming significance stretch novel.

Thus, Goncharov appears to us, first of all, as an artist who knows how to express the fullness of the phenomena of life. Their image constitutes his calling, his pleasure; His objective creativity is not confused by any theoretical prejudices and given ideas, and does not lend itself to any exceptional sympathies. It is calm, sober, dispassionate. Does this constitute the highest ideal of artistic activity, or perhaps it is even a flaw that reveals a weakness of receptivity in the artist? A categorical answer is difficult and in any case would be unfair, without restrictions and explanations. Many do not like the poet’s calm attitude towards reality, and they are ready to immediately pronounce a harsh verdict on the unsympathetic nature of such talent. We understand the naturalness of such a verdict, and, perhaps, we ourselves are not alien to the desire for the author to irritate our feelings more, to captivate us more strongly. But we realize that this desire is somewhat Oblomov-esque, stemming from the inclination to constantly have leaders, even in feelings. To attribute to the author a weak degree of receptivity simply because the impressions do not evoke lyrical delight in him, but silently lie hidden in his spiritual depths, is unfair. On the contrary, the sooner and more quickly an impression is expressed, the more often it turns out to be superficial and fleeting. We see many examples at every step in people gifted with an inexhaustible supply of verbal and facial pathos. If a person knows how to endure, cherish the image of an object in his soul and then vividly and fully imagine it, this means that his sensitive receptivity is combined with the depth of feeling. He does not speak out for the time being, but for him nothing in the world is lost. Everything that lives and moves around him, everything that nature and human society is rich in, he has it all

...somehow strange

lives in the depths of the soul.

In it, as in a magic mirror, all phenomena of life are reflected and, at his will, are stopped, frozen, cast into solid motionless forms, at any given moment. He can, it seems, stop life itself, forever strengthen and place before us the most elusive moment of it, so that we can forever look at it, learning or enjoying.

Such power, in its highest development, is, of course, worth everything that we call cuteness, charm, freshness or the energy of talent. But this power also has its own degrees, and in addition, it can be applied to objects of various kinds, which is also very important. Here we disagree with the adherents of the so-called art for art's sake, who believe that an excellent picture of a tree leaf is as important as, for example, an excellent picture of a person's character. Perhaps, subjectively, this will be true: in fact, the strength of talent can be the same for two artists, and only the sphere of their activity is different. But we will never agree that a poet who spends his talent on exemplary descriptions of leaves and streams could have the same meaning as someone who, with equal talent, knows how to reproduce, for example, phenomena public life. It seems to us that for criticism, for literature, for society itself, it is much more more important question about what it is used for, how the artist’s talent is expressed, rather than what dimensions and properties it has in itself, in abstraction, in possibility.

How did you put it, what was Goncharov’s talent spent on? The answer to this question should be an analysis of the content of the novel.

Apparently, Goncharov did not choose a vast area for his images. The stories about how the good-natured sloth Oblomov lies and sleeps and how neither friendship nor love can awaken and raise him are not God knows what important story. But it reflects Russian life, in it a living, modern Russian type appears before us, minted with merciless severity and correctness; it expressed a new word for our social development, pronounced clearly and firmly, without despair and without childish hopes, but with a full consciousness of the truth. This word is Oblomovism; it serves as a key to unraveling many phenomena of Russian life, and it gives Goncharov’s novel much more social significance than all our accusatory stories have. In the type of Oblomov and in all this Oblomovism we see something more than just the successful creation of a strong talent; we find in it a work of Russian life, a sign of the times.

Oblomov is not a completely new face in our literature; but before it was not presented to us as simply and naturally as in Goncharov’s novel. In order not to go too far into the old days, let's say that we find the generic traits of the Oblomov type in Onegin, and then we see their repetition several times in our best literary works. The fact is that this is our indigenous, folk type, from which none of our serious artists could get rid of. But over time, as society consciously developed, this type changed its forms, took on a different relationship to life, and acquired a new meaning. To 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 who knew how to do this has always made a significant step forward in the history of our literature. Goncharov also took this step with his “Oblomov”. Let's look at the main features of the Oblomov type and then try to draw a small parallel between it and some types of the same kind, in different times appearing in our literature.

What are the main features of Oblomov’s character? In complete inertia, stemming from his apathy towards everything that is happening in the world. The reason for his apathy lies partly in his external situation, and partly in the manner of his mental and moral development. In terms of his external position, he is a gentleman; “he has Zakhar and three hundred more Zakharovs,” as the author puts it. Ilya Ilyich explains the advantage of his position to Zakhara in this way:

Am I rushing about, am I working? I don’t eat enough, or what? thin or pitiful in appearance? Am I missing anything? It seems like there is someone to give it to and do it! I have never pulled a stocking over my feet as I live, thank God!

Will I worry? Why should I?.. And who did I tell this to? Haven't you been following me since childhood? You know all this, you saw that I was not brought up clearly, that I never endured cold or hunger, knew no need, did not earn my own bread and generally did not engage in menial activities.

And Oblomov speaks the absolute truth. The entire history of his upbringing serves as confirmation of his words. From an early age he gets used to being a bobak thanks to the fact that he has someone to give and do; here, even against his will, he often sits idle and sybarizes. Well, please tell me what you would want from a person who grew up in these conditions:

Zakhar, as a nanny used to be, pulls on his stockings and puts on his shoes, and Ilyusha, already a fourteen-year-old boy, only knows what to do with him, lying down, first one leg, then the other; and if anything seems wrong to him, he will kick Zakharka in the nose. If the dissatisfied Zakharka decides to complain, he will also receive a mallet from his elders. Then Zakharka scratches his head, pulls on his jacket, carefully threading Ilya Ilyich’s hands into the sleeves so as not to disturb him too much, and reminds Ilya Ilyich that he needs to do this and that: when he gets up in the morning, wash himself, etc.

If Ilya Ilyich wants anything, he only has to blink - three or four servants rush to fulfill his desire; whether he drops something, whether he needs to get something but can’t get it, whether to bring something, whether to run for something - sometimes, like a playful boy, he just wants to rush in and redo everything himself, and then suddenly his father and mother yes three aunts in five voices and shout:

- For what? Where? What about Vaska, and Vanka, and Zakharka? Hey! Vaska, Vanka, Zakharka! What are you looking at, dumbass? Here I am!

And Ilya Ilyich cannot do anything for himself. Afterwards he found that it was much calmer, and he learned to shout himself: “Hey, Vaska, Vanka, give me this, give me that!” I don't want this, I want that! Run and get it!”

Sometimes the tender care of his parents bothered him. Whether he runs down the stairs or across the yard, suddenly ten desperate voices are heard after him: “Oh, oh, help me, stop me! will fall and hurt himself! Stop, stop!..” If he thinks of jumping out into the hallway in winter or opening the window, there will be again shouts: “Oh, where? how is it possible? Don’t run, don’t walk, don’t open the door: you’ll kill yourself, catch a cold...” And Ilyusha remained at home with sadness, cherished like an exotic flower in a greenhouse, and just like the last one under glass, he grew slowly and sluggishly. Those seeking manifestations of power turned inward and sank, withering away.

Such upbringing is not at all something exceptional or strange in our educated society. Not everywhere, of course, Zakharka pulls on the little boy’s stockings, etc. But we must not forget that such a benefit is given to Zakharka out of special indulgence or as a result of higher pedagogical considerations and is not at all in harmony with the general course of household affairs. The little boy will probably dress himself; but he knows that this is like a nice entertainment for him, a whim, and in essence, he is not at all obliged to do this himself. And in general he himself does not need to do anything. Why should he fight? Is there no one to give and do for him everything he needs?.. Therefore, he will not kill himself over work, no matter what they tell him about the necessity and sanctity of work: from an early age he sees in his house that everyone is homemade. the work is performed by footmen and maids, and father and mother only give orders and scold for poor performance. And now he already has the first concept ready - that sitting with folded hands is more honorable than fussing with work... All further development goes in this direction.

It is clear what effect this situation has on the child’s entire moral and mental education. Inner forces“wither and wither” out of necessity. If the boy sometimes tortures them, it is only in his whims and arrogant demands that others fulfill his orders. And it is known how satisfied whims develop spinelessness and how arrogance is incompatible with the ability to seriously maintain one’s dignity. Getting used to making stupid demands, the boy soon loses the measure of the possibility and feasibility of his desires, loses all ability to compare means with ends, and therefore becomes deadlocked at the first obstacle, to remove which he must use his own effort. When he grows up, he becomes Oblomov, with a greater or lesser share of his apathy and spinelessness, under a more or less skillful mask, but always with one constant quality - aversion from serious and original activity.

End of introductory fragment.

Arts and entertainment

N.A. Dobrolyubov. “What is Oblomovism?” Summary articles

Where did the title of Dobrolyubov’s article come from? Let us remember that in Goncharov’s work itself, Ilya Ilyich Oblomov himself named the reason for his self-destruction briefly and succinctly: “Oblomovism.”

Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov showed the whole society how a terminally ill person, yesterday’s student, a writer who does not write novels, can become a classic. His article was immediately noticed. The meaning is an explanation of Oblomov’s phrase. This was done subtly and brightly, in the context of how Dobrolyubov himself understood what Oblomovism is. We bring to your attention a brief summary of this famous work.

Hereditary nobles and boyars - "Oblomovites"?

What does he write about? literary critic? The fact that Goncharov managed to consider the truly Russian type and reveal it mercilessly and reliably. Indeed, that was then. The worst part of the nobility and lordship, realizing that they would not really do anything for society, lived, reveling in their wealth, only for their own pleasure. The dormant existence of the “life of the stomach” of this stratum of society was perniciously decomposing the rest Russian society. The writer pronounces a harsh historical verdict on the nobility and nobility in Russia: their time has passed forever! Dobrolyubov’s article “What is Oblomovism?” openly exposes the antisocial character of the “Oblomovites”: contempt for work, consumerist attitude towards women, endless verbiage.

The problem of the new man

A reboot is needed, new people need to appear in power and industry. Goncharov therefore created an image of an active and creative Andrey Stolz. “However, there are none at the moment!” - says Dobrolyubov in his article “What is Oblomovism?” The summary, or more precisely the summary of his subsequent thoughts, is the potential inability of the “Stoltsev” to become the “mind and heart” of Russia. What is unacceptable for people performing such an important mission is the reflex to “bow their heads” before circumstances when it seems to them that these circumstances are stronger. “Social progress requires more dynamics than Stolz possesses!” - says Dobrolyubov.

What is Oblomovism? The summary of the article, where this question was first raised, indicates that Goncharov’s novel itself also contains an antidote to this disease of society. The image of Olga Ilyina, a woman open to everything new, not afraid of any challenges of the time, who does not want to wait to fulfill her aspirations, but, on the contrary, to actively change the surrounding reality. “Not Stoltz, but Olga Ilyina can be called, in Lermontov’s style, a “hero of our time”!” - says Dobrolyubov.

Conclusions

How much can a person accomplish before the age of 25? Using the example of Nikolai Alexandrovich, we see that he can do not so little - notice for himself and point out to others the “light” among the “midnight darkness”, express his thoughts exhaustively, brightly and succinctly. In the room next to the literary genius dying from a fatal illness, N.G. was constantly present. Chernyshevsky, who continued his friend’s thought “hovering in the air,” powerfully posing the question to his compatriots: “What to do?”

Not only did Dobrolyubov answer “What is Oblomovism?” Briefly, succinctly, artistically, he emphasized the pernicious influence of the foundations of serfdom and the need for further social progress. Perhaps that is why his author’s assessment of Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov” has become both famous and classic.

Current

Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous

“In the first part, Oblomov lies on the sofa; in the second he goes to the Ilyinskys and falls in love with Olga, and she with him; in the third she sees that she was mistaken in Oblomov, and they separate, in the fourth she marries his friend Stolz, and he marries the mistress of the house where he rents an apartment... But Goncharov wanted to ensure that the random image that flashed before him elevate it to a type, give it a generic and permanent meaning. Therefore, in everything that concerned Oblomov, there were no empty or insignificant things for him.”

“The story of how the good-natured sloth Oblomov lies and sleeps and how neither friendship nor love can awaken and raise him is not God knows what an important story. But it reflected Russian life, in it a living, modern Russian type appears before us, minted with merciless severity and correctness, it expressed the new word of our social development, pronounced clearly and firmly, without despair and without childish hopes, but with full consciousness truth. This word is Oblomovism; it serves as the key to unraveling many phenomena of Russian life... In the type of Oblomov and in all this Oblomovism we see something more than just the successful creation of a strong talent; we find in him a work of Russian life, a sign of the times... We find generic features of the Oblomov type in Onegin and then see their repetition several times in our best literary works. The fact is that this is our indigenous, folk type, from which none of our serious artists could get rid of. But over time, as society consciously developed, this type changed its forms, took on different relationships to life, and acquired a new meaning... What are the main features of Oblomov’s character? In complete inertia, stemming from his apathy towards everything that is happening in the world. The reason for the apathy lies partly in his external position, partly in the manner of his mental and moral development... From an early age he got used to being a bobak thanks to the fact that he has someone to give and do; here, even against his will, he often sits idle and sybarizes... Therefore, he will not kill himself over work, no matter what they tell him about the necessity and sanctity of work: from an early age he sees in his house that all household work is performed by lackeys and maids, and daddy and mummy just give orders and scold for bad performance. And now he already has the first concept ready - that sitting with folded hands is more honorable than fussing with work... all his further development goes in this direction.”

“It is clear that Oblomov is not a stupid, apathetic nature, without aspirations and feelings, but a person who is also looking for something in his life, thinking about something. But the vile habit of receiving satisfaction of his desires not from his own efforts, but from others, developed in him an apathetic immobility and plunged him into a pitiful state of moral slavery... This moral slavery of Oblomov constitutes perhaps the most curious side of his personality and his entire history.”

“It has long been noticed that all the heroes of the most wonderful Russian stories and novels suffer because they do not see a goal in life and do not find decent activity for themselves... All our heroes, except Onegin and Pechorin, serve, and for all of their service it is unnecessary and without meaning burden; and they all end with a noble and early resignation... In relation to women, all Oblomovites behave in the same shameful manner. They do not know how to love at all and do not know what to look for in love, just like in life in general... And Ilya Ilyich... like Pechorin, he certainly wants to possess a woman, he wants to force her to make all sorts of sacrifices as proof of love. You see, at first he did not hope that Olga would marry him, and timidly invited her to be his wife. She told him something like he should have done this a long time ago. He became embarrassed, he was not satisfied with Olga’s consent... he began to torture her, whether she loved him so much to be able to become his mistress! And he was annoyed when she said that she would never go down this path; but then her explanations and the passionate scene calmed him down... All Oblomovites love to humiliate themselves; but they do this for the purpose of having the pleasure of being refuted and hearing praise from those to whom they scold themselves...”

“In everything we said, we meant more Oblomovism than the personality of Oblomov and other heroes.!.”

“Oblomov appears before us exposed as he is, silent, brought down from a beautiful pedestal onto a soft sofa, covered instead of a robe only with a spacious robe. Question: what does he do? What is the meaning and purpose of his life? - stated directly and clearly, not filled with any side questions..."

“Goncharov, who knew how to understand and show us our Oblomovism, could not, however, help but pay tribute to the general delusion that is still so strong in our society: he decided to bury Oblomovism, to give it a laudatory funeral oration. “Goodbye, old 06-lomovka, you have outlived your time,” he says through the mouth of Stolz, and he is not telling the truth. All of Russia, which has read or will read Oblomov, will not agree with this. No, Oblomovka is our direct homeland, its owners are our educators, its three hundred Zakharovs are always ready to serve.”

“Olga, in her development, represents the highest ideal that only a Russian artist can now evoke from present-day Russian life... In her, more than in Stolz, one can see a hint of a new Russian life; One can expect from her a word that will burn and dispel Oblomovism.”

Where did the title of Dobrolyubov’s article come from? Let us remember that in Goncharov’s work itself, Ilya Ilyich Oblomov himself named the reason for his self-destruction briefly and succinctly: “Oblomovism.”

Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov showed the whole society how a terminally ill person, yesterday’s student, a writer who does not write novels, can become a classic. His article was immediately noticed. The meaning is an explanation of Oblomov’s phrase. This was done subtly and brightly, in the context of how Dobrolyubov himself understood what Oblomovism is. We bring to your attention a brief summary of this famous work.

Hereditary nobles and boyars - "Oblomovites"?

What does a literary critic write about? The fact that Goncharov managed to consider the truly Russian type and reveal it mercilessly and reliably. Indeed, that was then. The worst part of the nobility and lordship, realizing that they would not really do anything for society, lived, reveling in their wealth, only for their own pleasure. The drowsy existence of the “life of the stomach” of this layer of society was perniciously corrupting the rest of Russian society. The writer delivers a harsh historical verdict to the nobility and nobility in Russia: their time has passed forever! Dobrolyubov’s article “What is Oblomovism?” openly exposes the antisocial character of the “Oblomovites”: contempt for work, consumerist attitude towards women, endless verbiage.

All Russia - Oblomovka

The problem of the new man

A reboot is needed, new people need to appear in power and industry. Goncharov therefore created the image of the active and creative Andrei Stolts. “However, there are none at the moment!” - says Dobrolyubov in his article “What is Oblomovism?” The summary, or more precisely the summary of his subsequent thoughts, is the potential inability of the “Stoltsev” to become the “mind and heart” of Russia. What is unacceptable for people performing such an important mission is the reflex to “bow their heads” before circumstances when it seems to them that these circumstances are stronger. “Social progress requires more dynamics than Stolz possesses!” - says Dobrolyubov.

What is Oblomovism? The summary of the article, where this question was first raised, indicates that Goncharov’s novel itself also contains an antidote to this disease of society. The image of Olga Ilyina, a woman open to everything new, not afraid of any challenges of the time, who does not want to wait to fulfill her aspirations, but, on the contrary, to actively change the surrounding reality. “Not Stoltz, but Olga Ilyina can be called, in Lermontov’s style, a “hero of our time”!” - says Dobrolyubov.

Conclusions

How much can a person accomplish before the age of 25? Using the example of Nikolai Alexandrovich, we see that he can do not so little - notice for himself and point out to others the “light” among the “midnight darkness”, express his thoughts exhaustively, brightly and succinctly. In the room next to the literary genius dying from a fatal illness, N.G. was constantly present. Chernyshevsky, who continued his friend’s thought “hovering in the air,” powerfully posing the question to his compatriots: “What to do?”

Not only did Dobrolyubov answer “What is Oblomovism?” Briefly, succinctly, artistically, he emphasized the pernicious influence of the foundations of serfdom and the need for further social progress. Perhaps that is why his author’s assessment of Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov” has become both famous and classic.

Dobrolyubov’s short article “What is Oblomovism” and received the best answer

Reply from HAK HAK[guru]
What is “Oblomovism”? (based on the novel “Oblomov” by I. A. Goncharov) N. A. Dobrolyubov in his famous article “What is Oblomovism?” wrote about this phenomenon as a “sign of the times.” From his point of view, Oblomov is “a living, modern, Russian type, minted with merciless rigor and correctness.” Dobrolyubov understood “Oblomovism” socially - as an allegory of serfdom. What kind of phenomenon is this “Oblomovism”? Where are its roots and why is it so powerful? She probably destroyed the destinies of many people, and perhaps influenced the destinies of © A L L S o c h . r u of the entire Russian people. Dobrolyubov understood “Oblomovism” as social phenomenon, a kind of allegory of serfdom. I. A. Goncharov traces its terrible influence on the example of one person - Ilya Ilyich Oblomov. “In Gorokhovaya Street, in one of the big houses... Ilya Ilyich Oblomov was lying in bed in his apartment in the morning,” these are the words the novel begins and this is how we recognize the main character. We see Oblomov doing his most favorite and usual activity - lying on the sofa. But when we meet Oblomov, he is at the age of thirty-two to thirty-three. Is it natural for a young man to lie on the sofa all day and experience a “feeling of peaceful joy”? However, Oblomov does not want to know anything about work. In his opinion, there are other people for this, and he is a master. Lying on the sofa and thinking about plans for renovating his estate, he imagines eternal summer, eternal fun, delicious food and peace. “Who am I? What am I? Go ask Zakhar, and he will tell you: “Master!” Yes, I’m a gentleman and I don’t know how to do anything!” - says Oblomov. He despises people who work, and is proud that he has never pulled a stocking on his feet. The sofa, robe and shoes become certain symbols of his life. These are symbols of laziness and apathy. Oblomov has no desire to serve, or even to simply leave the house. His circle of contacts narrowed to almost only Zakhar. Bustle big city not for him. After all, he was born and raised in Oblomovka, where a quiet, calm life flowed, “full of satisfied desires, reasonable pleasures.” This kind of life became Oblomov’s ideal. A separate chapter of the novel, called “Oblomov’s Dream,” is dedicated to Ilyusha Oblomov’s childhood. As you read it, it becomes clear that Ilya Oblomov was “turned into jelly” primarily by the conditions in which he was raised as a child. Oblomovka is the soil on which “Oblomovism” has grown and taken root. This typical example serf estate, where the source of livelihood is the labor of serfs. All the inhabitants of Oblomovka are cut off from the outside world: “Their interests were focused on themselves, did not intersect or come into contact with anyone else.” All the forces of Oblomovka are aimed at satisfying their needs: “Caring for food was the first and main concern of life in Oblomovka.” From morning to evening, Ilyusha’s mother was busy with “business” - choosing dishes for breakfast, lunch and dinner. However, sleep was considered an equally important “activity” in Oblomovka: “... all-consuming, invincible sleep, a true likeness of death.” Inertia is the basis of life for Oblomovites. They persistently adhere to the old traditions and customs bequeathed to them by their ancestors. They need all the days of their lives to be the same. Spiritual world Oblomovtsev is poor and limited. They are only interested everyday problems, which the serfs decide for them. Oblomovites never ask the question: “Why was life given?” Their life flows “like a calm river,” and everything breathes “primitive laziness.” Parents tried to protect Ilyusha from labor as from a grave punishment - after all, for this there are “Zakhars and 300 more Zakharovs.” And what is the result? Ilyusha Oblomov, who by nature was a lively and inquisitive boy, learned to look at everything around him through the eyes of the Oblomovites. Because of his lordly upbringing, “those seeking manifestations of strength turned inward and sank, withering.” Education, ..[link will appear after verification by moderator]

Reply from ALBERT MAMMOTHOV[master]
N.A. Dobrolyubov in his famous article “What is Oblomovism?” wrote about this phenomenon as a “sign of the times.” From his point of view, Oblomov is “a living, modern, Russian type, minted with merciless rigor and correctness.” Dobrolyubov understood “Oblomovism” socially - as an allegory of serfdom. What kind of phenomenon is this “Oblomovism”? Where are its roots and why is it so powerful? It probably destroyed the destinies of many people, and perhaps influenced the fate of the entire Russian people. Dobrolyubov understood “Oblomovism” as a social phenomenon, a kind of allegory of serfdom. I. A. Goncharov traces its terrible influence on the example of one person - Ilya Ilyich Oblomov. “In Gorokhovaya Street, in one of the big houses... Ilya Ilyich Oblomov was lying in bed in his apartment in the morning,” these are the words the novel begins and this is how we recognize the main character. We see Oblomov doing his most favorite and usual activity - lying on the sofa. But when we meet Oblomov, he is at the age of thirty-two to thirty-three. Is it natural for a young man to lie on the sofa all day and experience a “feeling of peaceful joy”? However, Oblomov does not want to know anything about work. In his opinion, there are other people for this, and he is a master. Lying on the sofa and thinking about plans for renovating his estate, he imagines eternal summer, eternal fun, delicious food and peace. “Who am I? What am I? Go ask Zakhar, and he will tell you: “Master!” Yes, I’m a gentleman and I don’t know how to do anything! “says Oblomov. He despises people who work, and is proud that he has never pulled a stocking on his feet. The sofa, robe and shoes become certain symbols of his life. These are symbols of laziness and apathy. Oblomov has no desire to serve, or even to simply leave the house. His circle of contacts narrowed to almost only Zakhar. The bustle of the big city is not for him. After all, he was born and raised in Oblomovka, where a quiet, calm life flowed, “full of satisfied desires, reasonable pleasures.” This kind of life became Oblomov’s ideal. A separate chapter of the novel, called “Oblomov’s Dream,” is dedicated to Ilyusha Oblomov’s childhood. As you read it, it becomes clear that Ilya Oblomov was “turned into jelly” primarily by the conditions in which he was raised as a child. Oblomovka is the soil on which “Oblomovism” has grown and taken root. This is a typical example of a serf estate, where the source of livelihood is the labor of serfs. All the inhabitants of Oblomovka are cut off from the outside world: “Their interests were focused on themselves, did not intersect or come into contact with anyone else.” All the forces of Oblomovka are aimed at satisfying their needs: “Caring for food was the first and main concern of life in Oblomovka.” From morning to evening, Ilyusha’s mother was busy with “business” - choosing dishes for breakfast, lunch and dinner. However, sleep was considered an equally important “activity” in Oblomovka: “... all-consuming, invincible sleep, a true likeness of death.” Inertia is the basis of life for Oblomovites. They persistently adhere to the old traditions and customs bequeathed to them by their ancestors. They need all the days of their lives to be the same. The spiritual world of Oblomovites is poor and limited. They are only interested in everyday problems that serfs solve for them. Oblomovites never ask the question: “Why was life given? “Their life flows “like a calm river,” and everything breathes “primitive laziness.” Parents tried to protect Ilyusha from labor as from a grave punishment - after all, for this there are “Zakhars and 300 more Zakharovs.” And what is the result? Ilyusha Oblomov, who by nature was a lively and inquisitive boy, learned to look at everything around him through the eyes of the Oblomovites. Because of his lordly upbringing, “those seeking manifestations of power turned inward and