— seemed like a natural ending to Goncharov’s novel. But everything turned out differently. Therefore, not all readers understand why Olga fell in love with Oblomov, but married another man?
Characteristics of Olga
Possessing an inner core and a constant thirst for self-development, the girl occupied Her inner beauty- tenderness, openness, ingenuousness, prudence, nobility - was in harmony with her external data. She was an addicted person, so she gave herself over to this feeling headlong.
She amazed those around her with her brilliant mind, feminine grace and ability to behave in society. With her lively, real character, she was so different from the flirtatious girls of that time.
Oblomov's personality
Ilya Ilyich was a small landowner who could not adapt to life in big city, but still dreamed of returning to his family estate - the village of Oblomovka. Homemade warm pies from the oven, raspberry jam and pickles from a barrel - this was his model of happiness. Therefore, Oblomov spent almost all his time daydreaming about the future quiet life in his village. He was not interested in anything else.
Stolz organized their acquaintance in order to pull his longtime childhood friend out of eternal hibernation. He believed that the young, confident and purposeful Olga would captivate the dreamy master, encourage him to think, act, develop, in a word, get off the couch in the literal and figurative sense.
Girls sometimes tend to mold men to suit themselves, and Olga was no exception. But all this was more reminiscent of a creative experiment, and not love in the true sense of the word.
“I love the future Oblomov,” she said, meaning that she expected an internal revolution from him. She longed for her chosen one to become taller than her, as if she expected to see Ilya Ilyich on a pedestal and only then present herself to him as a well-deserved reward.
As much as Oblomov was lazy and passive, Olga was just as active. The young people were complete opposites of each other. Therefore, it is all the more difficult to understand why Olga Ilyinskaya fell in love with Oblomov. She was most likely attracted by his purity of soul, naivety and sensuality. Twenty-year-old girls love romantics, and Ilya Ilyich was one. She really encouraged him to live, and for a time he almost lived up to her ideal.
The separation of Ilyinskaya and Oblomov
They even planned to get married. But here Ilya Ilyich’s indecision and inertia took its toll: he kept postponing the wedding. She soon realized that they still had radically different views on life, and therefore deliberately left him.
He preferred to be not a leader, but a follower. Almost everything suited him in their relationship; he would gladly give the reins of power into Olga’s hands. Perhaps another woman would have taken this as a gift of fate, but not her. Why did Olga fall in love with Oblomov not entirely and completely, but only some of his character traits? Because for her, who was in such a hurry to live, resigning herself to eternal lying on the sofa was unacceptable. She wanted to see next to her a man superior to her in almost everything. At the same time, Ilyinskaya realized that Oblomov would never become like that.
Love or something else?
Their relationship was more like that of a teacher and student. It was the sculptor's love for his creation. Only Galatea in this case was Ilya Ilyich. Ilyinskaya admired the results she had achieved in re-educating his personality, and mistakenly perceived this feeling as something more than compassion or pity.
Andrei was a practical and proactive person, he knew how to adapt to life very well, unlike her previous lover. A marriage with Stolz would guarantee stability for her. Although Olga cannot be accused of selfishness towards Andrei. No, she would never allow deceit or insincerity.
A logical question arises: why did Olga Ilyinskaya fall in love with Oblomov, but did not become his wife? Was it blasphemous or hypocritical of her? Not at all. Her feelings have long since dried up. A year has passed since parting with Ilya Ilyich. She realized that she was looking for a reliable life partner, and not a dreamer with her head in the clouds. It was very smart of her. Andrei strove to support his beloved in everything and could give her everything she wanted. He was head and shoulders taller than her at the beginning of their relationship, so he performed the role of mentor and teacher of life. True, over time his wife outgrew him into spiritual development both in the strength of feelings and in the depth of reflection.
It would seem that the union of two people with very similar values and life position must be simply perfect.
Family life with Andrey
Was she happily married? It seems that it’s more likely yes than no. At least all the components of happiness were present: children, cozy family nest, intelligent husband, confidence in tomorrow. But sometimes there were difficult moments. The fact is that her marriage to Andrei was influenced more by a cold mind than by warm feelings. And she expected a little more from this union: Olga was very eager to develop as a person, to grow, to realize herself. But, unfortunately, marriage for a woman in the century before last was the last step and the ultimate dream. Therefore, sometimes Olga had periods of depression.
The family life of the Stolz family was devoid of the stormy passion and sensuality that Ilyinskaya’s soul so yearned for. Andrei was a cold-blooded and calculating person. He inherited these qualities from his German father. Their mutual decision to unite their destinies was dictated by a cold mind, and not by fiery feelings. Sometimes she recalled with quiet sadness Ilya Ilyich, who had a “heart of gold.” That is why Olga fell in love with Oblomov and not Stolz from the very beginning.
Oddly enough, but their quiet, stable family life with Andrey, she began to remind the woman more and more of that “Oblomovism” that she and her current husband wanted to eradicate from Ilya Ilyich. Stolz himself did not see a problem in this; on the contrary, he believed that this was such a temporary stage in their life, side effect creating a cozy nest, and Olga’s apathy should go away on its own. True, at times he was frightened by the dark abyss of her restless soul. After living with Stolz for three years, she sometimes began to feel that marriage was limiting her.
So, why did Olga fall in love with Oblomov? In the novel "Oblomov" Goncharov explains this by her belief that best qualities Ilya Ilyich will overcome his laziness and he will become an active and active person. But, unfortunately, she had to be disappointed.
Why Oblomov did not find a place in life
Based on the novel “Oblomov” by I. Goncharov
Reflecting in " Sne Oblomov"(1849) over the conditions of Ilyusha's upbringing, Goncharov moves from the history of the Russian master to larger questions - about spiritual fate significant person in the modern world.
The characterization of Oblomov cannot be limited to just one inability to act, lordly laziness. This complex, multifaceted image , in which not only is discerned a “sign of the times” in the sense in which N.A. Dobrolyubov understood it, i.e., the collapse of the landowner class. But together with Oblomov, the spiritual principle and high moral requirements for life leave life.
The entire first chapter of the novel is devoted to a description of how the former official, St. Petersburg resident Ilya Ilyich Oblomov, spends his morning. On the one hand, we see that Oblomov cannot get up from the sofa, although it is already noon, and the whole business of St. Petersburg is in trouble. The features of his face, his dressing gown, the slippers that he immediately slipped into when he lowered his feet, the details of the situation seemed to speak for themselves - they characterize him as an indefinite, lethargic person.
At the same time, we note that the types of modern St. Petersburg “figures” collected in Oblomov’s living room are intended to highlight and emphasize the uniqueness of his human inclinations: a subtle, observant mind, high spiritual needs, the purity and kindness of a “dove’s heart.” He awakens from his sleep to argue with his former colleagues. These dialogues reveal a person who does not accept the values of the vain practical world.
The secular dandy Volkov, busy trying on and demonstrating a new tailcoat, evokes regret and an ironic smile from the reader. The “Brilliant Master” is preoccupied with how to attend ten places in one day: skating in Yekateringhof, ballets, balls and reception days with numerous princes and nobles. Oblomov’s bitter and true remarks accompany his departure: “Where is the man here? What does it fragment and crumble into?” In the empty, unrestrained pursuit of the glitz and noise of entertainment, there is no time to think about the moral side of the “case.”
The official Sudbinsky is concerned about obtaining a title and moving up the career ladder. A man without mind, will and feelings is a soulless clerical worker. Extreme efficiency and “busyness” hide his empty, limited nature, the lack of truly human interests - mind and heart, for which he is “blind and deaf.”
Finally, Penkin is a magazine hack, a collector of dirty news, a representative of the so-called. mass tabloid press. Oblomov understands the scarcity of this kind of literature. In a conversation with Penkin, he angrily condemns the lack of love for a person in latest literature, mockery of virtue, criticism of vice without compassion and heartache, when, in pursuit of sensation, in an effort to amaze the reader’s imagination, the dirty sides of human life are savored, the morally permissible boundaries of the image are transgressed. Unprincipled journalists like Penkin are ready to “change beliefs, trade their minds and imagination for a bribe... And write everything, write everything, like a wheel, like a car.” Where can such literature lead, so to speak, which has expelled from its pages the desire for a noble and sublime ideal?
Oblomov’s mental gaze reveals a bleak picture of St. Petersburg life, where vanity and external efficiency hide the absence of truly spiritual human needs. How Oblomov’s heart lights up in a dispute with Stolz about the essence of life: “... the eternal running around in starts, the eternal game of trashy passions, especially greed ... gossip, gossip ... Where is the man here? Where is his integrity? Where did he disappear, how did he exchange for every little thing?... 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?... And our best youth, what do they do? Doesn't he sleep while walking, driving along Nevsky Prospekt, dancing? Daily empty shuffling of days! ...everyone is infected from each other with some kind of painful concern, melancholy, painfully searching for something. And it would be good for the truth, good for themselves and others - no, they turn pale from the success of their comrade. ...This yellow gentleman with glasses pestered me: did I read the speech of some deputy, and his eyes widened at me when I said that I don’t read newspapers. ...They reason and think at random, but they themselves are bored - it doesn’t interest them; Through these screams one can see an undisturbed dream! This is foreign to them; they don't wear their own hat. ...Underneath this comprehensiveness lies emptiness, a lack of sympathy for everything!” It becomes clear that this is one of the reasons for his apathy and indifference to life.
Disappointment did not come to Oblomov right away. Oblomov tried to get down to business: he served in the department for about two years, but could not stand the monotonous clerical routine. Life seemed to break him, broke him . He became convinced that the present is alien to hopes and desires. There is nothing more to expect from fate, as before, in my youth.
In the furnishings of his office and the decoration of the rooms, it is noticeable the desire to isolate yourself from the world, to hide from the hustle and bustle, to forget yourself in sleep , because in conditions of general callousness, lies and depravity, dreams of a clean, harmonious life are not feasible. He escapes reality into the world of dreams.
But not only the callousness and commercialism of the surrounding world were the cause of Oblomov’s death. The reason for his immobility also lies in the conditions of his upbringing. It is no coincidence that the author introduces us to Oblomov’s childhood, painting a serene picture where everything was easy for little Ilyushenka. The adult Ilya is served by the devoted Zakhar. And as Stolz rightly notes, Oblomov, it all started “with the inability to put on stockings, and ended with the inability to live”. Lack of habit of work was one of the reasons for Oblomov’s spiritual impotence, inability to withstand life’s difficulties, inability to volitional effort, the fight for your happiness. He only managed to indicate the evil that was taking over the world, but could not resist its spread.
On the other hand, pictures of Ilyusha’s rural childhood make one think not only about a serene life, but also about the moral and spiritual standard of life. Oblomov got ideas about this from his childhood: Oblomov’s people “did not accept the cycle of eternal aspirations somewhere, for something as life,” their life was filled with “radical and inevitable events” (which is especially important to emphasize today), in harmony with nature , in the continuity of forms of national life, in the desire to pass on to children and preserve these inescapable principles of life, which are the basis and guarantee of human individuality. Not by chance image of the family nest acts as the basis of the moral and spiritual principles of the human personality.
Goncharov deeply comprehended the psychology of man, who is naturally kind and sensitive, intelligent and pure, but infected with the disease - “Oblomovism”. This word is repeated more than once in the novel. The tragedy is aggravated by the fact that Oblomov himself recognizes his illness, sees its signs, but the irresistible force of Oblomovism kills him, both spiritually and physically.
Love for Olga Ilyinskaya was the hero’s last attempt to return to life. The author, as if convinced of the inadequacy of his hero, with bitterness and regret leaves him to die on the outskirts of St. Petersburg, in the house of the bourgeois Pshenitsyna, where he finds comfort and warmth, long-awaited peace, but without spiritual impulses, without development and movement.
The answer to the question is why the hero did not find a place in life does not have a clear solution. According to Dobrolyubov, the reason lies in the moral and psychological consequences of serfdom, softened lordly life, and Oblomovism. In fact, author's position deeper. Goncharov also takes into account tragic patterns of existence that influence the fate of the individual in new living conditions.
Oblomov's human qualities are fully revealed in his love for Olga. It is this purity and sincerity that puts him, in some respects, even above those around him. This also arouses ardent love among readers. Oblomov had a rather rare quality among people: do not do “evil” to another, do not sacrifice him to your whims, sometimes absurd and cruel. You cannot live in a world of vulgarity and deceit with such a quality. Oblomov, unlike many, did not hide his “vices”, the weaknesses of his nature, he withdrew from the world, closed himself off and died...
Why did Oblomov become an Oblomov? Before answering this question, we need to figure out who Oblomov is, why did his name become a household name? The main features of the hero of Goncharov’s novel are laziness and apathy. But why did he become like this? There is an opinion that Oblomov turned into Oblomov because of his upbringing. He grew up in Oblomovka among the same lazy and apathetic people as he would later become. A quiet, measured life without any incidents or accidents, boredom and the prohibition for Ilyusha to have fun and play with other guys - isn’t this what shaped his character? Maybe.
Ilya Ilyich asks himself the question: “Why am I like this?” The answer to this is contained in the famous “Oblomov’s dream.” It reveals the circumstances that influenced the character of Ilya Ilyich in childhood and youth. The living, poetic picture of Oblomovka is part of the soul of the hero himself. Oblomov is also like this because his mother was kind, spoiled, caressed Ilyusha and protected him from all adversity.
Or maybe he doesn’t lead an active lifestyle for another reason? Why doesn’t Oblomov make a career like Sudbinsky, doesn’t write articles like Penkin, doesn’t conduct secular image life, like wolves, and not like that business man like Stolz? Ilya Ilyich rejoices that “He doesn’t have such empty desires and thoughts that he doesn’t hang around, but lies here, maintaining his human dignity and peace.”
Oblomov has not yet found his purpose in life. He lies on the sofa, and his idleness is also perceived in the novel as a denial of bureaucracy, secular vanity and bourgeois businessmanship. Ilya Ilyich does what everyone strives for without knowing it: after all, while earning money and receiving ranks, many want, in the end, to get peace and be as lazy as Oblomov.
All this gradually makes Oblomov an Oblomov.
But he's not always like that. Ilya Ilyich awakens and banishes his laziness when he meets Olga. He sees the meaning of life in love, but returns to his old life, because Olga’s goal is to make Oblomov a person who would read newspapers, travel abroad and draw up management plans for his estate, that is, he would be like her and Stolz would like to see Ilya Ilyich.
But Oblomov, in his conversation with Andrei, explains to him that there are other Oblomovs and he is not the only one. And this leads us to the conclusion that the hero of the novel became a bummer because of the society in which he lives. After all, this concept includes not only his current position, but also the upbringing of Ilya Ilyich, who, in turn, was raised by people who had already become Oblomovs.
Thus, Oblomov does not see high goal in his life, to which he could devote himself, and therefore believes that it is better to do nothing than to do empty things and fuss, like many other people.
“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 whole life lying in a soft bed, suddenly became one of the most famous heroes 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. None false note his heart did not make noise, no dirt stuck 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” is still different. 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 peculiarity of Russian national character, due to 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 speed, super load, huge amount information that bombards us every day... Today's life is absolutely not like the measured slumber of patriarchal Oblomovka. However, he himself main character the novel as a social type inexplicably managed to seep through all the cultural, political and civilizational changes, and in its 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 these – “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 much closer to them than most modern people. Not very rich, but still a nobleman, Ilya Ilyich was very free in his materially and could bask on a soft bed as much as he wanted, 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 her, as bullies used to pester a quiet student at school: she would either pinch her on the sly, or suddenly come straight from her 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 life philosophy 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 they 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 other 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 is it not Oblomov’s lost paradise that some office worker, working hard for a whole year in anticipation of a two-week summer holiday in a five-star hotel somewhere on the Antalya coast, with servants - “three hundred Zakhars”, free grub for the belly and the same free booze?
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 religious tradition, to which Oblomov belonged, is 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 Church Slavonic language the word labor is one of the designations for illness and suffering. And this is entirely consistent with the biblical understanding of work. By 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 right way to the lost paradise? It seems that this can be considered a kind of synthesis best features the personalities 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.
...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 evil and meaninglessness secular society, whose activities, interests and motives (quite acceptable, from Stolz’s point of view) for Oblomov are a much more vile form of existence than his own couch 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 occurs in social networks, and expensive cars and fashionable gadgets became 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:
“...It seems that people look so smart, with such dignity on their faces, but all you hear is: “This one was given 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 in the same way, friendship, love, and mental abilities man, and his best intentions. 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 something good deed. Are you friends? - find out how your friend is doing and help him if he needs your help. Do you love? - 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. Ilya Ilyich not only limped on this “leg” in the matter of piety - it completely atrophied from many years of idleness. And, alas, Oblomov’s story could not have had any other ending other than the one his friend Andrei Stolts bitterly speaks about:
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 problem? fatally plowed Oblomov's fate, and along with him - ruined and continues to ruin 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 more in a broad 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 to paradise lost 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 an incessant struggle between life and death: alternately we deviate first to one, then to the other.”
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 entire 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 main mistake him as a Christian was in an incorrect assessment of his own earthly life. Oblomov viewed her as some 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- not a natural disaster that needs to 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
School essay Based on the novel by I. A. Goncharov "bummer".
Lying down for Ilya Ilyich was neither a necessity, like a sick person or a person who wants to sleep, nor an accident, like those who are tired, nor a pleasure, like a lazy person: it was his normal state.
I. A. Goncharov. Oblomov
Roman by I. A. Goncharova "bummer" was written in pre-reform times. In it, the author depicted with objective accuracy and completeness Russian life first half of the 19th century century. The plot of the novel is life path Ilya Ilyich is a bummer, from childhood until his death. The main theme of the novel is Oblomovism - a way of life, a life ideology; this is apathy, passivity, isolation from reality, contemplation of life around oneself; but the main thing is the lack of work, practical inactivity. The concept of “Oblomovism” is not applied to only Oblom and its inhabitants; it is a “reflection of Russian life”, the key to unraveling many of its phenomena. In the 19th century, the life of “many Russian landowners was similar to the life of Oblomovism, and therefore Oblomovism can be called the “dominant disease” of that time. The essence of Oblomovism is revealed by Goncharov through the depiction of the life of Oblomov, most of which the hero spends lying on the sofa, dreaming and making all kinds of plans. What prevents him from getting up from this sofa?
In my opinion, the main reason for Oblomov’s inaction- this is his social status. He is a landowner, and this frees him from many activities. He is the master, he does not need to do anything - the servants will do everything for him. Ilya Ilyich never even had the desire to do something himself, although one should not blame him for this, because this is a consequence of his upbringing. And his upbringing, the atmosphere in which the little bummer grew up, played a huge role in the formation of his character and worldview. Ilya Ilyich Oblomov was born in Oblom - this “blessed corner of the earth”, where “there is nothing grandiose, wild and gloomy”, nor “there are no terrible storms, no destruction”, where deep silence, peace and indestructible calm reign. Life in the bummer was monotonous, here they were terribly afraid of any changes. In the estate of the wreckage, the traditional was the midday “all-consuming, nothing sleep, sincere likeness of death.” And little Ilyusha grew up in this atmosphere, he was surrounded by care and attention from all sides: his mother, nanny and the entire numerous retinue of the house of rubble showered the boy with affection and praise. The slightest attempt by Ilyusha to do something on his own was immediately suppressed: he was often forbidden to run, and at the age of fourteen he was not even able to dress himself. And Ilyusha’s studies at Stolz can hardly be called such. The parents found all sorts of reasons for the boy not to go to school, including senseless and ridiculous ones.
AND In this way, living in such a house and in such an environment, Ilya Ilyich “seeped” Oblomovism more and more, and an ideal of life gradually formed in his mind. Already as an adult, Oblom was characterized, in my opinion, by a bit of childish daydreaming. Life in his dreams seemed to him calm, measured, stable, and the woman he loved - in her qualities, more reminiscent of a mother - loving, caring, sympathetic. Oblomov was so immersed in the world of his dreams, completely divorced from reality that he was unable to accept. ("Where is the man here? Where is his integrity? Where did he disappear, as if he had lost his mind for every little thing?")
So, the reality of the bummer scares him. Does Ilya Ilyich have a specific goal in life, apart from that idyll? No. Does he have any business to which he would devote himself completely? Not either. This means there is no need to get up from the couch. Oblomovism completely absorbed Ilya Ilyich, which surrounded him in childhood; it did not leave him until his death. But it’s a bummer - a person with a “pure, faithful heart”, with a harmonious, integral, sublime, poetic soul, in which “there will always be pure, bright, honest”, there are few such people; they are "gems in the crowd." But Oblomov did not find use for his enormous moral and spiritual potential, he ended up " extra person", he was corrupted by the very possibility of doing nothing. It seems to me that if not for the upbringing that gave rise to Oblom’s inability to work, this man could have become a poet or writer, maybe a teacher or a revolutionary. But, in any case, he would have been useful to those around him, he would not have lived his life in emptiness. But, as Ilya Ilyich himself says, Oblomovism destroyed him, it was she who did not allow him to get off the couch and start a new, full life.
I. Goncharov wrote three novels, which, being neither canvases nor examples of complex psychologism, nevertheless became a kind of encyclopedia of national character, way of life, and philosophy of life. Oblomov is a persistent, purely Russian type, a type of master, brought up by centuries of slavery. Inertia, apathy, aversion to serious activity, confidence that all desires will be fulfilled. Bummer did not know personal work that required mental and emotional costs. Their whole life from the seventh generation went according to routine, and now their descendants lost their personal initiative. Oblomov considers himself free and protected from life, but in reality he is a slave to his whims, a slave to anyone who subjugates him to his desire. Oblomov is not evil, but he is not good either. He is a man without actions, a man who always gives in to routine and habits. For Oblom, the question “Now or never” always has an evasive answer: “Not now.” Childlike spontaneity, purity, sincerity The bummer comes not from mental labor and expense, but from the underdevelopment of the soul. “Pureness is not a wild flower,” it requires tireless work on oneself, studying and understanding life, experience and relationships with people. This is not a bummer, he becomes a victim of anyone who claims to own his life.
Fraudster or friend
at, but from the underdevelopment of the soul. “Pureness is not a wild flower,” it requires tireless work on oneself, studying and understanding life, experience and relationships with people. This is not a bummer, he becomes a victim of anyone who claims to own his life.
Fraudster or friend a smart woman or a kind woman - he limply passes from one hand to another. The swindler and the simple woman win. They don't demand anything. There are problems with a friend, problems with Olga, what they want, where they are calling. And in a cozy house on the Petrograd side there are liqueurs and jams, feather beds, care and unburdened love.
Oblomov is a hero who has become that piece of the mosaic, without which it is impossible to understand a unique historical type - the Russian nobleman. Onegin, Pechorin, Rudin - they rush around in search of a goal, they are taller and better than those around them. Oblomov not only does not search, he avoids purposeful activity. The world around is vain and vulgar, Oblomov does not want to play his games, and is not able to impose his game on the world. The problem of individual responsibility for one’s destiny in I. A. Goncharov’s novel “Bummer”
Goncharov Ivan Aleksandrovich was born on June 6, 1812 in a rich merchant family. Father Alexander Ivanovich was repeatedly elected mayor of Simbirsk. He died when Ivan was 7 years old. The upbringing was carried out by the mother, Avdotya Matveevna, as well as by the former naval officer Nikolai Nikolaevich Tregubov, a man of progressive views, familiar with the Decembrists.
TO literary creativity Goncharov turned during his university years. His outstanding works are the novels "The Precipice", " An ordinary story", "bummer". In 1859, Goncharov's novel "bummer" was published in the magazine "Otechestvennye zapiski". "Bummer" was extremely important in the development of the Russian realistic novel. The novel shows the detrimental influence of the feudal-serf system on the development human personality and these two large typical generalizations, which represent the pinnacle of Goncharov’s creativity: Oblomov and Oblomovism.