Life ideals of the hero Oblomov. Stolz's social ideals in the novel Oblomov

But the denouement of the main conflict of the novel also has another, even more significant meaning. Having parted with Olga, Oblomov thereby left the influence of Stolz. He settled in Pshenitsyna’s petty-bourgeois house and now lives under the dark power of Tarantiev and Mukhoyarov. Here he not only returns to his old habits - to a robe, a sofa, etc. Stolz reappears in the novel not only to sadly see this “fading”, but above all so that, having taken the place of Oblomov in relations with Olga, to show, in contrast to him, their strength “in the wide arena of a comprehensive life, with all its depth...”. This is how Olga realizes Stolz’s possibilities, and the author himself seems to undertake to show their implementation.

Social ideals Stolz are progressive. These are bourgeois reformist ideals of economic and cultural development landowner Russia, based on the complete economic education of the peasants, on mutual economic “benefit” in the type of estate and village, on the development of applied knowledge and literacy among the people. According to Stolz, with the help of the establishment of “schools”, “piers”, “fairs”, “highways”, and old, patriarchal “detritus” should be transformed into comfortable, cultural estates that generate income. Stolz himself strives to manage the estates of Oblomov and Olga.

So, while with Olga in Paris, Stolz constantly encountered “deep questions” or “questions, doubts, demands” from her. It was not easy for him to answer them, but still “he, with the fire of experience in his hands, plunged into the labyrinth of her mind, character ...” or “hurried to throw in front of her, with fire and energy, a new supply, new material!” Further, trying to draw a meaningful life of happy spouses in their cottage, the author does not allow the reader there. Here too he is content with meaningful phrases. “Life,” writes the author, “was in full swing, I heard new question a restless mind, a troubled heart..." They worked together “on the endless material asked of each other...”, etc. When the author became clearly uncomfortable with his evasiveness, and he posed a long-overdue question: “But what was the subject of these heated debates, quiet conversations, readings? » – he answered it very vaguely and unsuccessfully. “Yes, that’s it,” he writes. “He (Stolz) was barely enough to keep up with the languid haste of her thoughts and will.”

Thus, Stolz, and with him the author, do not deny romantic experiences, as Aduev did, but give them a natural scientific explanation. However, the lofty aspirations of Stolz and Olga do not go beyond personal interests; a social orientation is alien to them. The entire “philosophy” of Stolz’s life boils down to finding “a balance of practical aspects with the subtle needs of the spirit” “in the moral principles of one’s life.”

This is Goncharov’s “new man” who must “wake up” Oblomov and, saving him from Tarantiev and Mukhoyarov, introduce him to life and activity. The main events of the novel and the conflicts they contain show how feasible these possibilities are. The writer again brings to the fore love affairs. He introduces his main characters into love conflict in order to experience with life itself what each of them is worth.

But Stolz also has his own logic of character, which conflicts with the author’s tendency. While sympathetically speaking about the life of Stolz and Olga in its exceptional content, the author cannot show it in live scenes and does not find convincing colors for it, which Oblomov’s portrayal is so rich in. The author only assures readers that this life is very rich in content, but these assurances are not supported by anything.

Stolz is depicted by Goncharov as a kind of “new man”. This is not a major official who achieved a “career and fortune,” as Pyotr Aduev was. This is a businessman, alien to both noble laziness and official careerism, distinguished by such activity and such a level of culture that were not characteristic of the Russian merchants at that time. Not knowing, apparently, where to find such a person among Russian businessmen, Goncharov made Stolz the scion of a half-German, burgher family, who, however, received an education from his Russian noblewoman mother and at a noble university.

In a love relationship with such a woman, both main characters of Goncharov, Oblomov and Stolz, each in their own way, suffer defeat. And this reveals the inconsistency of the author’s illusions in assessing each of them.

A) Y. Loschits: “Oblomov cannot be fully understood if you do not see in him a fairy-tale-mythological hypostasis. In the intense fairy-tale lighting, before us is not just a lazy person and a fool - it’s a wise lazy person and a wise fool.” Oblomov is “embedded” in a specific folklore and literary series: an eccentric, a naive savage, a child of nature, a fool (the holy fool-fool of medieval legends). In a Canadian scientific journal (article “Anti-Faust as a Christian Hero”), the image of Oblomov is elevated to a holy martyr, are compared with Christ, revealing “Christlikeness” both in the hero’s surname (the root “lom” - to break, beat, torment - refers to the suffering of the Savior) and in the name (Elijah is a messianic prophet who should appear and announce the Second Coming. Holiness is revealed both in appearance and in choice life position– inability to accept an ugly philosophy of activity for oneself personally or only for material purposes. Oblomov’s very passivity, according to his logic, only emphasizes his altruism, deeply felt love for people and God, and desire to serve humanity. BUT! The authors of the article ignore the humorous element of the novel, not noticing, for example, that Oblomov in the scene with the guests is far from completely opposed to them (Alekseev’s uncertainty, the discrepancy between Tarantiev’s words and deeds). The experience of the European novel is once again confirmed, in which “the fool brought out by the author, who sets aside the world of pathetic convention, can himself be the object of the author’s ridicule, like a fool.”

(in literature - Voltaire “Candide” (and “The Simple-minded”), the oblique Levka - in the story by A.I. Herzen "Doctor Krupov". According to Bakhtin, the prosaic detachment of the world of pathetic convention by uncomprehending stupidity (simplicity, naivety) had great importance for the subsequent history of the novel - if the image of the “fool” in further development novel and has lost its organizing role, then the very moment of misunderstanding of social conventions and lofty pathetic names and events remains an essential ingredient of the prose style)

The image of Oblomov reminds us of the fabulous Emelya, and Ivan the Fool, and epic hero Ilya Muromets.

B) About Ilya Oblomov at the beginning of the novel it is reported that he is 32-33 years old, like Ilya Muromets. Both heroes with the same name (Ilya - Heb. Fortress of the Lord) sit together until the age of 33, when different events begin to happen to them. Kaliki passers-by come to Ilya Muromets, heal him, endowing him with incredible strength, and lead him to the court of Grand Duke Vladimir, where the hero begins to perform feats. Oblomov, lying on the sofa-stove, is visited by a traveler all over the world. old friend Stolz takes him “to the court” of Olga Ilyinskaya, where he, like a knight, performs “feats” (does not lie down after dinner, goes to the theater with Olga, reads books, retells them to her) But the Kaliki helped Ilya Muromets to recover, but neither Olga , nor Stolz were able to “wake up” Oblomov Why? Oblomov is a nobleman, that is free man, which has all the conditions for intellectual leisure - creative activity. Oblomomov’s tragic guilt, according to Goncharov, lies in the fact that this opportunity given to him historical development, he doesn't use it. He is given “high impulses,” but a secret “enemy” undermines him from within: “He, driven moral strength“, in one minute he will change two or three poses, with shining eyes he will get out of bed, stretch out his hand and look around with inspiration” - the author’s irony is obvious. Ironically, Oblomov is compared with the most tragic hero of Shakespeare’s tragedies - Hamlet: “What should he do now? Go forward or stay? This Oblomov’s question was deeper for him than Hamlet’s…”Now or never!” - “To be or not to be” Oblomov rose from his chair, but did not immediately hit his shoe with his foot and sat down again.”

A contrasting version of Oblomov’s personality formation ( Andrey Stolts ) is not told, but shown and therefore not so artistically full-blooded, looks like a kind of commentary with the opposite sign to the paintings of “Dream”. The story about Stolz's upbringing is also correlated with the ideas of Rousseau, but this time as a Russian variation on themes from Emil. Goncharov was not the first in such a description. The most direct echo of Rousseau’s pedagogical ideas can be found already in “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow” by A.N. Radishchev (1790) – where the question of the practice of educational ideas is raised. Chapter “Sacrats”: the father says goodbye to his sons who are going to the state. Service. In his monologue, the father sets out an education program that reproduces the main postulates of Rousseau’s famous book, where main principle– respect for the child and rigor in upbringing. And timidity and humility (the results of Oblomov’s upbringing) are seen by Radishchev himself as signs of a depressed personality.

The opposition of “laziness” and “businesslikeness” leads us to certain opposite types of behavior, way of thinking, worldview

In Stolz's story, Goncharov's ideal of “human education” is expressed. Stolz’s mother “seemed in her son the ideal of a gentleman, albeit an upstart, from a burgher’s father, but still the son of a Russian noblewoman.” The appearance of her son in her dreams is a cast from a portrait of little Ilyusha: “a white, beautifully built boy, with small arms and legs, with a clean face, a clear and lively look.” But, like Radishchev, it is not his mother, but his father who is the main figure in Andrei’s upbringing (in contrast to Oblomov’s story, whose father remains an inconspicuous and insignificant figure, running everything female hand). By the will of his father, Andrei’s upbringing combined freedom of behavior and expression of feelings with submission to strict requirements in the world of work. At the heart of it pedagogical methodology was preparing my son for the future life's trials(both physical and spiritual). If Andrei’s mother dressed up her son and groomed him, then his father firmly stood for Spartan severity and physical training. The father treated his son as an adult even when he was a child, in contrast to the attitude of Ilya’s parents towards their son as a small child when he had already grown up. “Like peasant children, he got used to running in the heat and cold with his head uncovered, sweating - and he became stronger, more cheerful,” this is a passage from Julia (Russo) about her son, but a similar description can easily be attributed to Goncharov’s Andrei. The grown-up Stolz (embodied energy) is his father’s plan realized. In it, every step, every gesture is a protest against Oblomov’s life (denial of fear of life, passivity, amorphousness, daydreaming, lazy but tormenting reflection, emotionality). Stolz is thin, energetic, rationalistic, and thanks to the fact that his mother instilled in him an interest in books from childhood, he did not turn into a philistine. Metaphor family heritage, feeding Andrei’s personality, looks like the clothes that he takes with him to S-P: practical in the spirit of his father and elegant in memory of his mother. In the scene where father and son say goodbye, two behaviors reflect two cultures. (restrained with his father and gentle with a simple peasant woman, in whose voice he heard the voice of his mother). The synthesis of two cultures (Russian and German) and two eras (feudal and bourgeois) provides the hero with a special place. In the draft version of Oblomov, Goncharov connected with Stolz his hopes for the birth of a figure with the Mission of Awakening of Russia, but in the realized version he limited himself to ethical and psychological tasks. Stolz was given, in part, the functions of a sounding board for classicist literature, a direct exponent of the author’s ideas, which was, for example, Chatsky Griboyedov. Goncharov wrote about Stolz: “He is weak, pale, the idea looks too bare from him,” but such reproaches are leveled at almost everyone “ goodies"literatures of classicism.

Is it possible to say that Goncharov idealizes the “past century” and patriarchy? The question of patriarchy again relates to Rousseau’s ideas about “natural man.” These ideas became relevant for a number of Russian writers of the 19th century, incl. and for Goncharov. In both the old and the new, Goncharov saw + and -, in “patriarchy” and in the “bourgeois world order” he “highlights” the weak and strong sides. For him, the main thing is not who is right (Oblomov or Stolz), but how the truths of these heroes relate to contemporary artist reality.

How the “children's soul” survives outside the “world of idyll” is discussed in three parts of the novel, which depict the “world of civilization,” the symbol of which was S-P in Goncharov.

3. Test by St. Petersburg. A man of the idyll in the novel's reality. Oblomov and the type of “superfluous person”, the ideals of the hero.

The contrast between Oblomovka and Petersburg was predicted by the Grachi-Petersburg contrast in “Ob. ist.”, there the Russian capital was already comprehended in a broad socio-historical sense. In the novel “Oblomov,” the idyll (Oblomovka) is opposed to the novel reality (Petersburg). Already in the idylls of the 18th century, the true (organic) time of idyllic life was contrasted with the vain and fragmented time - urban. Rousseau: “Cities are the abyss of the human race.” The idyllic world is interpreted as integral, deeply human, and the large but abstract world opposed to it is perceived as a world of loneliness, a world where all people are disunited, selfishly closed and selfishly practical.. The “man of the idyll” must master and “homogenize” this world, re-educate himself (the same problem is resolved differently in the novel formation- a genre that combines the features of a novel education and novel tests). – the collapse of provincial idealism, the provincial romance of heroes who are not idealized at all is depicted; The capitalist world is not idealized either: its inhumanity and the instability of moral principles are revealed. Positive person the idyllic world becomes pitiful, unnecessary, he either dies or is re-educated. In the novel "Oblomov" the theme of the collapse of the idyll is developed very clearly. The image of “the idyll in Oblomovka and then on the Vyborg side (with the idyllic death of Oblomov) is given with complete realism: “the man of the idyll appears pitiful, helpless and unnecessary,” but, on the other hand, “the exceptional humanity of the idyllic man Oblomov, his dove-like tenderness” is shown. - Rousseauian problematics of the topic. Both of these aspects are revealed during the main test of the hero in a Russian novel - in a relationship with a woman ( love story), where Goncharov’s character looks both humane and pitiful at the same time. In addition, it is the “man of the idyll” who acts as a critic of “bad reality,” and reality itself enters the novel thanks to the angry monologues of Ilya Ilyich (the social background in Goncharov’s first two novels is weakened). In these monologues, Ilya’s intelligence and humanity are revealed, a pathos sounds that is not particularly characteristic of a timid hero, whose contemplative nature contains a penchant for philosophizing (but at the same time, Stolz is right when he says about Ilya: “You have always been a bit of an actor”). The critical attitude is also fueled by Oblomov’s position of non-participation (The Great Absent One), which allows the hero to see what others do not see, and gives him freedom of expression, which others do not have (for this naive purity and sincerity, Oblomov was perceived in society as an eccentric). But not a single stain or reproach of cold cynicism lay on his conscience. This separated Ilya from his youth from the “all-knowing, who had long ago decided all life’s issues, who did not believe in anything and who coldly and wisely analyzed everything.” Ilya Ilyich’s isolation from St. Petersburg society grew gradually, eventually reaching almost absolute - connections with people were severed due to the incompatibility of the idealist dreamer with prosaic reality. Oblomov’s criticism of the world outside his “den” on Gorokhovaya increases from visitor to visitor - the culmination is a visit to Penkin. The meaning of Oblomov’s objections to Penkin is broader than the demonstration of Goncharov’s aesthetic preferences (according to Nedzvetsky, when drawing Penkin, Goncharov aimed at Nikolai Alekseevich Nekrasov as the initiator and compiler of “Physiology of S-P” \1845\). The hero’s monologue is directed against society itself, which is indifferent to the suffering individual (Ilya sees journalism as the focus of everything false), he calls: “ Extend your hand to a fallen person to lift him up, or weep bitterly over him, but do not mock him. Love him, remember yourself in him" It is unexpected that Oblomov, whom the author compares to a newborn baby, turns out to be capable of passionate appeals and angry philippics. When Stolz appears, Oblomov again unexpectedly turns out to be the attacking party, and Andrei only restrainedly parries his friend’s attacks. Oblomov’s childishly “pure” consciousness turns out to be by no means so helpless in the face of accepted standards of life; on the contrary, it reveals the ability to analyze and generalize. This once again confirms that, as Bakhtin wrote, “the combination in a character of understanding with misunderstanding, stupidity, simplicity and naivety with intelligence is a widespread and deeply typical phenomenon of novel prose.” Ilya protested, complained, argued, then, lying down on the sofa, said: “I don’t like this St. Petersburg life of yours!” Of course, in Ilya’s angry words there is an attempt to justify his own passivity (attack is the best defense), but at the same time their content is not limited to this. The world of boredom that Oblomov speaks of, the boredom in it existential sense- this is a world devoid of genuine human content and therefore meaningless and absurd. Oblomov: “This is not life, but a distortion of life, the ideal of life that nature itself indicated to man, the eternal running around, the eternal game of trashy passions, especially greed.” If earlier Oblomov made demands on literature (“Give me a Man, a Man!”), now he transfers them to life itself: “Where is the man here? Where did Ron disappear, how did he exchange for all sorts of little things?” In the vocabulary itself there is a reference to the philosophy of the Enlightenment in general and Rousseauism in particular (Lotman: “ Essential to the system of Rousseauism is the antithesis of the holistic to the fragmented. A person drawn into a large social machine loses integrity. The problem of the fractional man is one of the main ones in the Enlightenment system). The St. Petersburg world, where the “guests” and Stolz persistently dragged Ilya, feels completely soulless to the hero: “What to look for there? Interests of the mind and heart? Look, where is the center around which all this revolves? He is not here! Behind everything...emptiness. Aren't these the dead? Don't they sleep sitting all their lives? What is my fault, lying at home and not infecting my head with threes and jacks? And this is not only the voice of the “man of the idyll.” It is criticism Oblomov S-P life became the main reason for his rapprochement with the leading character of literature of the 30-50s. - “superfluous person” (Dobrolyubov: Oblomov “superfluous”, Herzen: no! “superfluous people” are bitter sufferers. In Soviet time Dobrolyubov’s interpretation was almost not disputed (with the exception of Pereverzev). The source that gave birth to the type "l. person" (“an involuntary egoist”) - the lack of meaningful activity while craving it - does not correspond with Goncharov’s hero. Oblomov’s goal and occupation is to draw up a plan for the estate in his dreams and enjoy imaginary pictures. American Slavist Leon Stillman: “It is not the lack of a worthy goal that is responsible for his passivity. Dobrolyubov’s statement that with others social conditions Oblomov would have found himself useful application– pure speculation. A person can be lazy not only in a feudal society. He has more in common with the neurotic personalities of our time than with the romantic adventurers, disillusioned Don Juans or would-be social reformers." It is important that the author of the novel himself speaks about this (and not in well-known polemical articles, but in private correspondence). In a letter to Hansen in February 1885, he mentioned a review of his hero in a German magazine, the author of which classified Ilya Oblomov in the category of “l. of people". Goncharov: “I don’t understand! I was right when I said that Oblomav’s type would be unclear to foreigners. Such extra people The whole Russian crowd is full, most likely there are fewer of them. Oblomov is an infantile couch potato, an original part of a young and stubbornly non-maturing nation, representing the mass itself, and not an exception from it. Oblomov’s story is “ordinary”, i.e. usually happens. Disillusioned heroes like Onegin and Pechorin who have adopted the Byronic pose, as well as “titans” like Beltov and Rudin who have not found a place for themselves in the world of mediocrity, are the heroes of “extraordinary” stories.” The creator of the novel “Who is to Blame” Herzen wrote: “The image of Onengin is so national that it is found in all novels and poems that receive any recognition in Russia, and not because they wanted to copy him, but because you constantly find him near you or in himself” (Herzen A.I. Works: In 9 vols. M., 1955. T.7.S.204.) Goncharov, who absorbed the very spirit of poetry and prose of the author of “Eugene Onegin”, however less chose his own, special path, turning not to the exceptions in the Russian nobility, but to its very mass in order to understand the essence of the soil, which simultaneously gives rise to both Oblomov and Beltov (the first as a natural fruit, the second as a painful growth). But the connection between these two “supertypes” is inextricable, since they are grown on the same tree - Russian historical fate. Two mentalities (actually national and “European”) within one people naturally give rise to bizarre interweavings, which are captured in the psychology of Goncharov’s heroes. For example, Oblomov, for all his differences from heroes like Onegin and Pechorin, often shares with them the feeling of the purposelessness of existence and the lack of understanding of the meaning of life in general. Boredom (blues) is Goncharov’s favorite definition for the internal discomfort that Aduev, Oblomov and Raisky periodically experience. A similar feeling of disappointment and melancholy visits almost every person who thinks about life. From a religious point of view, the source of this kind of feeling is in man's "falling away" from God. (what Lermontov showed in Pechorin). A priest who lived at the beginning of the 20th century, M.I. Menstrov, in the article “No Support Point,” dedicated to the centenary of Goncharov’s birth (1912), wrote that Oblomov’s weakness and lack of will are explained by the lack of faith, the strength that could strengthen the human spirit. Menstrov compares sad story Oblomov with lines from Tyutchev’s poem “Our Century” 1851: It is not the flesh, but the spirit that has become corrupted in our days, / And man desperately yearns / He rushes towards the light from the shadows of the night, / And, having found the light, he grumbles and rebels... / We burn with unbelief and dried up, / Today he endures the unbearable / And he recognizes his destruction, / And thirsts for faith - but does not ask for it / He will not say forever with prayer and tears, Just as he does not grieve before a closed door: “Let me in! “I believe, my God.” Come to the aid of my unbelief!” Oblomov suffers because he is deprived of a fulcrum that gives a person happiness and confidence.

Oblomov's ideals and dreams.

Oblomov’s favorite activities are sleep and daydreaming.

(A dream is a poet’s light staff, with which he always leaves life one way - “the path of oblivion” (K. Batyushkov).

The description of the kingdom of dreams and the kingdom of dreams helps to clarify for readers what the ideals of Ilya Ilyich were. At first glance, it seems that Oblomov’s ideal completely coincides with the ideal of the residents of Oblomovka. He, like them, dreams of nourishing food, convenient and warm clothes, a cozy home, dreams of being able to live in peace, without worrying about anything. But, and this is already reflected in life in St. Petersburg, Oblomov cannot imagine his ideal life without music, visual arts. And, perhaps most importantly, he cannot imagine his life without a woman. Woman“with a thoughtful look” is presented in the novel as an ideal, as an embodiment whole life, full of bliss, solemn peace and silence. Woman is the sacred center of Oblomov’s ideal. “The peasants prostrate themselves before her, as if before an angel,” - this is how Oblomov saw Olga’s appearance in the estate. It is around women that it should be organized." earthly paradise"- the transformed Oblomovka, where eternal summer should reign. A continuation and at the same time a security outpost of the “transformed Oblomovka” was to become a “small colony of friends” who settled nearby. The image of the sun and the image of a woman are paired for Oblomov. The wife is a source of light and warmth. Love itself is a sultry afternoon that “hangs” over the lovers.

It is not difficult to discern in Pshenitsyna’s house features of similarity with the world of childhood and dreams. But at the same time, one feels the crampedness of this world: “skinny gardens”, “courtyard”, “unpaved streets”, “courtyard the size of a room”. There, in Oblomovka, - huge world, where heaven and earth united under the parental roof, here is a world the size of a room. The Vyborg side is the kingdom of everyday life, there is no poetry in it, it is devoid of spirituality. Ilya Ilyich left for the Vyborg side from the suffering of the big world, but at the same time he left his happiness, and ultimately, life itself.

“Looking and reflecting on his life and becoming more and more settled in it, he finally decided that he had nowhere else to go, nothing to look for, that the ideal of his life had come true, although without poetry, without those rays with which his imagination had once painted him lordly, broad and carefree flow of life...”

From this triad of life “everyday life - ideal - poetry”, only everyday life remains in reality; Oblomov’s ideal is now associated with it - poetry has passed away.

To some extent, the image of Oblomov is reminiscent of the poets K. Batyushkov and A. Delvig, for whom victory over the imperfections of the world by creating an aesthetic utopia is the leading theme. Known tragic fate these poets: Delvig passed away early, Batyushkov became mentally ill.

Oblomov did not experience the pleasures gained in the struggle, he abandoned them in favor of peace in a cozy corner, alien to movement and comprehension of life. Pushkin’s formula “I want to live in order to think and suffer” (“Elegy”, 1830), which really gives the fullness of life and helps to find harmony, turned out to be unacceptable for Oblomov.

The question of the possibility of realizing the idyllic ideal in life is resolved by Goncharov using the example of two heroes - Olga and Stolz. Having settled in Crimea, they constantly control their lives so that it does not turn into Oblomov’s existence. Meanwhile, many features of his ideal were embodied in the Stolts family idyll.

Stolz is depicted by Goncharov as a kind of “new man”. This is not a major official who achieved a “career and fortune,” as Pyotr Aduev was. This is a businessman, alien to both noble laziness and official careerism, distinguished by such activity and such a level of culture that were not characteristic of the Russian merchants at that time. Not knowing, apparently, where to find such a person among Russian businessmen, Goncharov made Stolz the scion of a half-German, burgher family, who, however, received an education from his Russian noblewoman mother and at a noble university.

Stolz's social ideals are progressive. These are bourgeois reformist ideals of the economic and cultural development of landowner Russia, based on the complete economic education of the peasants, on mutual economic “benefit” in the type of estate and village, on the development of applied knowledge and literacy among the people. According to Stolz, with the help of the establishment of “schools”, “piers”, “fairs”, “highways”, and old, patriarchal “detritus” should be transformed into comfortable, cultural estates that generate income. Stolz himself strives to manage the estates of Oblomov and Olga.

Thus, Stolz, and with him the author, do not deny romantic experiences, as Aduev did, but give them a natural scientific explanation. However, the lofty aspirations of Stolz and Olga do not go beyond personal interests; a social orientation is alien to them. The entire “philosophy” of Stolz’s life boils down to finding “a balance of practical aspects with the subtle needs of the spirit” “in the moral principles of one’s life.”

This is Goncharov’s “new man” who must “wake up” Oblomov and, saving him from Tarantiev and Mukhoyarov, introduce him to life and activity. The main events of the novel and the conflicts they contain show how feasible these possibilities are. The writer again brings love affairs to the fore. He introduces his main characters into a love conflict in order to experience with their own lives what each of them is worth.
In a love relationship with such a woman, both main characters of Goncharov, Oblomov and Stolz, each in their own way, suffer defeat. And this reveals the inconsistency of the author’s illusions in assessing each of them.

But the denouement of the main conflict of the novel also has another, even more significant meaning. Having parted with Olga, Oblomov thereby left the influence of Stolz. He settled in Pshenitsyna’s petty-bourgeois house and now lives under the dark power of Tarantiev and Mukhoyarov. Here he not only returns to his old habits - to a robe, a sofa, etc. Stolz appears again in the novel not only to sadly see this “fading”, but above all so that, having taken the place of Oblomov in relations with Olga, to show, in contrast to him, their strength “in the wide arena of a comprehensive life, with all its depth...”. This is how Olga realizes Stolz’s possibilities, and the author himself seems to undertake to show their implementation.

But Stolz also has his own logic of character, which conflicts with the author’s tendency. While sympathetically speaking about the life of Stolz and Olga in its exceptional content, the author cannot show it in live scenes and does not find convincing colors for it, which Oblomov’s portrayal is so rich in. The author only assures readers that this life is very rich in content, but these assurances are not supported by anything.

So, while with Olga in Paris, Stolz constantly encountered “deep questions” or “questions, doubts, demands” from her. It was not easy for him to answer them, but still “he, with the fire of experience in his hands, plunged into the labyrinth of her mind, character ...” or “hurried to throw in front of her, with fire and energy, a new supply, new material!” Further, trying to draw a meaningful life of happy spouses in their cottage, the author does not allow the reader there. Here too he is content with meaningful phrases. “Life,” the author writes, “was in full swing, a new question was heard from a restless mind, an alarmed heart...” They worked together “on the endless material asked of each other...”, etc. When the author became clearly uncomfortable with his evasiveness, and he posed a long-overdue question: “But what was the subject of these heated debates, quiet conversations, readings? » - he answered it very vaguely and unsuccessfully. “Yes, that’s it,” he writes. “He (Stolz) was barely enough to keep up with the languid haste of her thoughts and will.”

All his life, Goncharov dreamed of people finding harmony of feeling and reason. He reflected on the strength and poverty of the “man of the mind,” and on the charm and weakness of the “man of the heart.” In Oblomov, this idea became one of the leading ones. This novel contrasts two...

"Oblomov" met with unanimous acclaim, but opinions about the meaning of the novel were sharply divided. N. A. Dobrolyubov in the article “What is Oblomovism?” I saw in Oblomov the crisis and collapse of old feudal Rus'. Ilya Ilyich...

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.”...

Love is the strongest human feeling- played a big role in Oblomov’s life. The love of two women: one - smart, sophisticated, gentle, demanding, the other - economical, simple-minded, accepting the hero as he is. Who can understand Ilya...

/ Understanding the meaning of life by Oblomov and Stolz

All his life, Goncharov dreamed of people finding harmony of feeling and reason. He reflected on the strength and poverty of the “man of the mind,” and on the charm and weakness of the “man of the heart.” In Oblomov, this idea became one of the leading ones. In this novel, two types of male characters are contrasted: the passive and weak Oblomov, with his golden heart and pure soul, and the energetic Stolz, who overcomes any circumstances with the power of his mind and will. However, Goncharov’s human ideal is not personified in either one or the other. Stolz does not seem to the writer to be a more complete personality than Oblomov, whom he also looks at with “sober eyes.” Impartially exposing the “extremes” of the nature of both, Goncharov advocated completeness and integrity spiritual world man with all the diversity of his manifestations.

Each of the main characters of the novel had their own understanding of the meaning of life, their own life ideals that they dreamed of realizing.

At the beginning of the story, Ilya Ilyich Oblomov is a little over thirty years old, he is a pillar nobleman, the owner of three hundred and fifty souls of serfs, which he inherited. Having served for three years in one of the capital's departments after graduating from Moscow University, he retired with the rank of collegiate secretary. Since then he lived in St. Petersburg without a break. The novel begins with a description of one of his days, his habits and character. Oblomov's life by that time it had become a lazy “crawling from day to day.” Having withdrawn from active work, he lay on the sofa and irritably argued with Zakhar, his serf servant who was caring for him. Revealing the social roots of Oblomovism, Goncharov shows that “it all started with the inability to put on stockings, and ended with the inability to live.”

Brought up in a patriarchal noble family, Ilya Ilyich perceived life in Oblomovka, his family estate, with its peace and inaction as the ideal of human existence. The standard of life was prepared and taught to the Oblomovites by their parents, and they adopted it from their parents. Three main acts of life constantly played out before the eyes of little Ilyusha in childhood: homeland, weddings, funerals. Then followed their divisions: christenings, name days, family holidays. The whole pathos of life is focused on this. This was the “wide expanse” lordly life"with its idleness, which forever became the ideal of life for Oblomov.

All Oblomovites treated work as a punishment and did not like it, considering it something humiliating. Therefore, life in the eyes of Ilya Ilyich was divided into two halves. One consisted of work and boredom, and these were synonymous for him. The other is from peace and peaceful fun. In Oblomovka, Ilya Ilyich was also instilled with a sense of superiority over other people. The “other” cleans his own boots, dresses himself, runs out to get what he needs. This “other” has to work tirelessly. Ilyusha, on the other hand, “was brought up tenderly, he did not endure cold or hunger, he knew no need, he did not earn his own bread, he did not engage in menial deeds.” And he considered studying a punishment sent by heaven for his sins, and avoided school classes whenever possible. After graduating from university, he was no longer involved in his education, was not interested in science, art, or politics.

When Oblomov was young, he expected a lot both from fate and from himself. Prepared to serve the fatherland, to play a prominent role in public life, dreamed of family happiness. But days passed after days, and he was still getting ready to start his life, he was still picturing his future in his mind. However, “the flower of life blossomed and did not bear fruit.”

Future service seemed to him not in the form of harsh activity, but in the form of some kind of “ family activity" It seemed to him that the officials serving together constituted a friendly and close family, all members of which were tirelessly concerned about mutual pleasure. However, his youthful ideas were deceived. Unable to withstand the difficulties, he resigned after serving only three years and without having accomplished anything significant.

Only the youthful heat of his friend Stolz could still infect Oblomov, and in his dreams he sometimes burned with a thirst for work and a distant but attractive goal. It happened that, lying on the sofa, he would be inflamed with the desire to point out to humanity his vices. He will quickly change two or three positions, stand up on the bed with sparkling eyes and look around with inspiration. It seems that his high effort is about to turn into a feat and bring good consequences to humanity. Sometimes he imagines himself as an invincible commander: he will invent a war, organize new ones Crusades, performs feats of kindness and generosity. Or, imagining himself as a thinker, an artist, in his imagination he reaps laurels, everyone worships him, the crowd chases after him. However, in reality, he was not able to understand the management of his own estate and easily became the prey of such scammers as Tarantiev and the “brother” of his landlady.

Over time, he developed remorse that did not give him peace. He felt pain for his lack of development, for the burden that prevented him from living. He was torn by envy that others lived so fully and widely, but something was stopping him from boldly moving through life. He painfully felt that the good and bright beginning was buried in him, as in a grave. He tried to find the culprit outside himself and did not find it. However, apathy and indifference quickly replaced anxiety in his soul, and he again slept peacefully on his sofa.

Even his love for Olga did not revive him to practical life. Faced with the need to act, overcoming the difficulties that stood in his way, he became afraid and retreated. Having settled on the Vyborg side, he left himself entirely to the care of Agafya Pshenitsyna, finally withdrawing from active life.

In addition to this inability brought up by the lordship, many other things prevent Oblomov from being active. He really feels the objectively existing disconnect between the “poetic” and the “practical” in life, and this is the reason for his bitter disappointment. He is outraged that the highest meaning of human existence in society is often replaced by false, imaginary content. Although Oblomov has nothing to object to Stolz’s reproaches, there is some kind of spiritual truth contained in Ilya Ilyich’s confession that he failed to understand this life.

If at the beginning of the novel Goncharov talks more about Oblomov’s laziness, then at the end the theme of Oblomov’s “golden heart”, which he carried unscathed through life, sounds more and more insistently. Oblomov's misfortune is connected not only with social environment, the influence of which he could not resist. It is also contained in the “destructive excess of the heart.” The hero's gentleness, delicacy, and vulnerability disarm his will and make him powerless in front of people and circumstances.

In contrast to the passive and inactive Oblomov Stolz was conceived by the author as a completely unusual figure. Goncharov sought to make it attractive to the reader with his “efficiency”, rational, skillful practicality. These qualities have not yet been characteristic of the heroes of Russian literature.

The son of a German burgher and a Russian noblewoman, Andrei Stolz received a hard-working, practical education from childhood thanks to his father. This, combined with the poetic influence of his mother, made him a special person. Unlike the round Oblomov, he was thin, all muscle and nerves. He exuded some kind of freshness and strength. “Just as there was nothing superfluous in his body, so in the moral practices of his life he sought a balance between practical aspects and the subtle needs of the spirit.” “He walked through life firmly, cheerfully, lived on a budget, trying to spend every day, like every ruble.” He attributed the reason for any failure to himself, “and did not hang it, like a caftan, on someone else’s nail.” He sought to develop a simple and straightforward outlook on life. Most of all, he was afraid of the imagination, “this two-faced companion,” and any dream, so everything mysterious and mysterious had no place in his soul. He considered everything that is not subject to analysis of experience and does not correspond to practical truth to be a deception. Labor was the image, content, element and purpose of his life. Above all, he placed persistence in achieving goals: this was a sign of character in his eyes.

Emphasizing the rationalism and strong-willed qualities of his hero, Goncharov, however, was aware of Stolz’s callous heart. Apparently, a man of “budget”, emotionally confined within strict and narrow limits, is not Goncharov’s hero. One mercantile comparison: Stolz spends “every day” of his life like “every ruble” - removes him from the author’s ideal. Goncharov also speaks of the “moral functions of the personality” of his hero as the physiological work of the body or the “discharge of official duties.” You cannot “send” friendly feelings. But in Stolz’s attitude towards Oblomov this shade is present.

As the action develops, Stolz gradually reveals himself as “not a hero.” For Goncharov, who sang the holy recklessness of Chatsky and perfectly understood the anxiety of great spiritual demands, this was a sign of internal insufficiency. Absence high goal, understanding of the meaning of human life is constantly revealed, despite Stolz’s vigorous activity in the practical sphere. He has nothing to say to Oblomov in response to the admission that his friend did not find meaning in the life around him. Having received Olga's consent to the marriage, Stolz utters puzzling words: “Everything has been found, there is nothing to look for, there is nowhere else to go.” And subsequently, he will carefully try to persuade the alarmed Olga to come to terms with the “rebellious issues”, eliminating “Faustian” anxiety from her life.

Remaining objective in relation to all his heroes, the writer explores the internal capabilities of various contemporary human types, finding strength and weakness in each of them. However, Russian reality has not yet had its day true hero. According to Dobrolyubov, the real historical matter in Russia was not in the sphere of practicality and efficiency, but in the sphere of the struggle for the renewal of the social structure. An active existence and new, active people were still just a prospect, already very close, but still not a reality. It had already become clear what kind of person Russia did not need, but the type of activity and the type of figure that it required was still elusive.

If you build a pedestal of love, then, undoubtedly, in the first place will be romantic relationship Romeo and Juliet. This is the most beautiful story that immortalized its author - Shakespeare. Romeo and Juliet fell in love with each other at first sight, from the first words. Two lovers defy fate, despite the enmity between their families. Romeo is ready to give up even his name for the sake of love, and Juliet is ready to die just to be faithful to Romeo. They die in the name of love, they die together because they cannot live without each other. The life of one becomes meaningless without the other. Although this story is tragic, the love of Romeo and Juliet will always and everywhere, at any time, be equal to all lovers. But love can be different: love-passion and love-habit. Some people love with all their hearts and are ready to do anything for their beloved, while others love with their heads, knowing in advance what they need. But no matter how different love is, this feeling is still wonderful. That’s why they write so much about love, write poems, and sing about love in songs. And the creators beautiful works can be listed endlessly.