Date in the summer garden bummer analysis. Oblomov and Olga Ilinskaya

I would like to illuminate the issue of the relationship between secular and spiritual education through the prism of creativity and the phenomenon of religious faith of two outstanding representatives of Russian classical literature: writers F. M. Dostoevsky and L. N. Tolstoy, who celebrated his 185th birthday last year.

Since the study of literature is included in the compulsory curriculum of secondary schools, it is very important from what angle a particular topic is presented. After all, it is certain that artistic heritage and the religious and philosophical worldview of these two authors had at one time and continue to have a significant influence on the spiritual formation of the individual.

In search of truth

Dostoevsky and Tolstoy were contemporaries living in the same country. They knew about each other, but never met. However, both, each in their own way, spent their entire lives searching for truth. Religious quest Tolstoy was led to the fact that he, according to the apt remark of the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod K. Pobedonostsev, became “a fanatic of his own teaching,” the creator of another false Christian heresy. The works of F. M. Dostoevsky still help to comprehend the main secrets of the existence of God and man. In my life I have met many people who do not like to read Dostoevsky. This is understandable: too much undisguised, frank, sometimes quite painful truth about a person is revealed to us in his novels. And this truth is not only impressive, it makes us think deeply about the most important question that each of us must decide for ourselves, positively or negatively. " Main question“, with which I have been tormented consciously and unconsciously all my life - the existence of God...” - Dostoevsky would write as a mature man. It may seem strange, but last month Before his death, according to the recollections of eyewitnesses, the genius of world literature L. Tolstoy reread Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov. Wasn’t the classic looking for an answer in the works of another? Tolstoy regretted that he was never able to meet Dostoevsky, because he considered him perhaps the only serious author in Russian literature with whom he would really like to talk about faith and God. Not particularly appreciating Fyodor Mikhailovich as a writer, Leo Tolstoy saw in him a religious thinker capable of significantly influencing the mind and soul of a person through his works. Dostoevsky’s daughter, in her memoirs, cites the story of the then Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, who wished to attend the reading of the Psalter for the deceased writer in the Church of the Holy Spirit of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. After spending part of the night in the church, the Metropolitan watched the students, who, on their knees, all the time took turns reading psalms at the tomb of the late Dostoevsky. “I have never heard such reading of psalms! - he recalls. “The students read them with voices trembling with excitement, putting their souls into every word they uttered. Which one magical power did Dostoevsky have the power to turn them back to God in this way?” Researcher of Dostoevsky’s work Tatyana Kasatkina writes that “...according to the testimony of many Orthodox priests, in the 70s of the 20th century, when the third generation of atheists was growing up in Russia, and their grandchildren were being raised by grandmothers - former Komsomol members, and it seemed that young people were completely lost to the Church, suddenly young people in large numbers began to be baptized and become church members. When the priests asked them, “What brought you to church?” - many answered: “I read Dostoevsky.” That is why in Soviet time literary critics the author of The Brothers Karamazov was not favored and his works were not very willingly included in school curriculum. And if they were included, then the emphasis was more on the rebellious tendencies of Raskolnikov and Ivan Karamazov, and not on the Christian virtues of Elder Zosima. Why does it happen that the works of one lead people to God, and the works of another lead people away from Him?

Creative dominants

The creative dominants of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy are different. That is why the result is different. Tolstoy's religious and philosophical approach is rational, Dostoevsky's is irrational. The author of War and Peace lived his whole life with a proud desire to explain everything in his own way; the author of The Brothers Karamazov - a thirst for faith. Back in 1855, at the age of 26, Leo Tolstoy wrote in his diary: “The conversation about the divine and faith brought me to a great, enormous thought, the implementation of which I feel capable of devoting my life to. This thought is the basis new religion“, corresponding to the development of humanity, the religion of Christ, but purified from faith and mystery, a practical religion that does not promise future bliss, but gives bliss on earth.” That is why one saw in Christ only an ideologist and teacher, and the other saw the Truth: “...If someone proved to me that Christ is outside the truth, and it really were that the truth is outside of Christ, then I would rather stay with Christ than with the truth." This philosophical credo of Dostoevsky found its confirmation and development in his literary works. Tolstoy's rational “religion without faith” found its development in the ideology of Theosophy and the modern New Age movement, where everything is mainly built on pantheistic monism. Dostoevsky was always attracted by the sincere faith in Christ, which he saw among the simple Russian people. Tolstoy believed that people did not understand the Gospel and Christianity as they should. By the way, this approach of Tolstoy is very prophetically depicted in many episodes of some of Dostoevsky’s novels. Everyone famous hero Alyosha Karamazov conveys to Kolya Krasotkin the opinion of a German who lived in Russia: “Show a Russian schoolchild a map of the starry sky, which he had no idea about until now, and tomorrow he will return this entire map corrected.” “No knowledge and selfless conceit - that’s what the German wanted to say about the Russian schoolboy,” says Alyosha. Against the background of such a “revision of the universe,” the self-confident author of “A Study of Dogmatic Theology,” Leo Tolstoy, really looks like a schoolboy. In 1860, Tolstoy came up with the idea of writing a “materialistic Gospel” (a distant prototype of the code of the builder of communism). Many years later, he would realize his intention by creating his own translation of the New Testament, which, however, would not make an impression even on the followers of the Tolstoyan heresy. There was no one willing to delve into the materialistic ravings of the great genius. Another hero of Dostoevsky’s novel “Demons” is an atheist Stepan Verkhovensky, who, like Leo Tolstoy, for the sake of a “great idea”, leaving a comfortable life, will embark on his last wandering, also obsessed with the thought of “presenting his Gospel to the people.” The answer to the question of how the revision of the gospel truths and Christian values might end can again be found in the works of Dostoevsky. He is interested not so much in life in its sensory-tangible manifestations (although partly this too), but in the metaphysics of life. Here the writer does not strive for external verisimilitude: for him, the “ultimate truth” is more important.

The idea “if there is no God, then everything is permitted” is not new in the novels of Dostoevsky, who does not imagine morality outside of Christ, outside of religious consciousness. However, one of the heroes of the novel “Demons” goes to its logical conclusion in this idea, asserting what none of the consistent atheists dared to do: “If there is no God, then I am God myself!” Using evangelical symbolism, the hero of the novel Kirillov seems to make just a formal rearrangement of parts of the word, but it contains the core of his idea: “He will come, and his name is Man-God.”
Scripture tells us about the God-man - Jesus Christ. And we are deified in Him to the extent that we are faithful and follow Him. But here it is not the eternal God who acquires human flesh, but, on the contrary, having rejected Christ, the “old false God,” who is “the pain of the fear of death,” man himself becomes an omnipotent and absolutely free God. It is then that everyone will know that “they are good” because they are free, and when everyone becomes happy, the world will be “completed” and “there will be no more time”, and the person will even be reborn physically: “Now a person is not yet that person. Will new person, happy and proud." But the creation of not only a new person, but also a whole new, chosen race with superpowers is one of the main tasks of modern occult and near-occult teachings (suffice it to recall Hitler’s organization “Ananerbe” with its attempts to penetrate Shambhala to obtain sacred knowledge and super-destructive weapons).

It should be noted that this idea of Kirillov (one of the heroes of the novel “Demons”) turned out to be one of the most attractive and fruitful for the development of philosophical literature and philosophical thought late XIX- beginning of the 20th century. F. Nietzsche also used it in his own way, and the writer A. Camus largely based his version of existentialism on it, and even in early work M. Gorky, uncompromising ideological opponent Dostoevsky, Kirill’s programmatic ideas about a new, free, happy and proud Man are clearly visible (the coincidence of the epithets “new man”, “happy and proud man"by Kirillov and "Man - it sounds proudly" by M. Gorky). So that the last comparison does not look far-fetched, we should also cite V. G. Korolenko’s review of Gorky’s poem “Man”: “Mr. Gorky’s man, as far as one can discern his features, is precisely the Nietzschean “superman”; here he goes “free, proud, far ahead of people... he is higher than life...”

It is no coincidence that the novel is called “Demons.” All these Verkhovenskys, Kirillovs, Shigalevs (the heroes of the novel) are trying to “arrange” future happiness for people, and no one asks the people themselves whether they need this very “happiness”? After all, indeed, people are just “material”, “a trembling creature”, and they “have the right”. Here it is appropriate to recall the slogan nailed to the gates of the Gulag: “Let us drive humanity into happiness with the iron fist of the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

Tormented by God

Through the mouth of one of his own negative heroes Dostoevsky says: “...God has tormented me all my life.” This painful question of “the existence or non-existence of God” is obvious to many, for if He does not exist, then “everything will be allowed to man.” And now demons enter the Russian people. The writer’s prophecy sounded long before 1917. This prophecy reeked of tragedy. After all, evil in any form is life in emptiness, it is an imitation of life, a counterfeit of it. It's like shavings curled around emptiness. After all, evil is not existential, it has no real nature, it is only back side truth and truth. The devil can only be an imitator of life, love and happiness. After all, true happiness is participation, the coincidence of parts: my part and God’s part; only then is a person truly happy. It is in the words of the prayer that the secret of such participation is contained: “Thy will be done.”

The secret of false happiness is contained in the proud: “Not Your will, but mine be done.” Therefore, the devil can only be an imitator of life, for evil is a paradoxical existence in the non-existent, in what in the Jewish tradition is called “Malchut”. Evil therefore arises as we move away from God. Just as going into the shadows no longer provides an excess of light and warmth, and going into the basement completely hides this light from us, so moving away from the Creator increases sin in us and at the same time makes us thirst for genuine truth and light.

Stavrogin's face, central character“Demons” not only resembled a mask, but, in essence, was a mask. The right word here is “personality.” Stavrogin himself is not there, because he is possessed by the spirit of non-existence, and he himself knows that he does not exist, and hence all his torment, all the strangeness of his behavior, these surprises and eccentricities, with which he seems to want to dissuade himself of his non-existence, as well as that the death that he inevitably and inexorably brings to the creatures associated with him. A “legion” lives in it. How is such a rape of the free human spirit, the image and likeness of God, possible? What is this obsession, this black grace of demon possession? Doesn’t this question come into contact with another question, namely, how the healing, saving, regenerating and liberating grace of God works; How is redemption and salvation possible? And here we come to the deepest mystery in the relationship between God and man: Satan, who is the monkey of God, the plagiarist and the thief, sows his black grace, binding and paralyzing the human personality, which only Christ frees. “And when they came to Jesus, they found a man from whom the demons had gone out, and sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed and in his right mind” (Luke 8:35).

Leo Tolstoy, too, was “tormented by God” all his life, like Dostoevsky’s heroes. But Christ as God and Savior was never born in his heart. One Western theologian said wonderful words about this: “Christ could have been born as many times as he wanted anywhere on our planet. But if He is not born one day in your heart, then you are lost.” This human pride - to become a god besides God - is a substitution of deification for man-theism. “The beginning of pride is the removal of a person from the Lord and the retreat of his heart from his Creator; for the beginning of sin is pride” (Sir. 10:14). In essence, pride is the desire, conscious or unconscious, to become a god besides God by showing selfishness.

Saint Tikhon of Zadonsk writes: “What evil behavior we notice in cattle and beasts, the same exists in man, unregenerate and unrenewed by the grace of God. We see pride in cattle: it wants to devour food, greedily grabs it and devours it, other cattle do not allow it and drive it away; the same is true in man. He himself does not tolerate offense, but he offends others; He himself does not tolerate contempt, but he despises others; he doesn’t want to hear slander about himself, but he slanders others; does not want his property to be stolen, but he himself steals someone else’s... In a word, he wants to be in every prosperity and avoids misfortune, but he neglects others, like himself. This is bestial and vile pride!”

Saint Dmitry of Rostov echoes him: “Do not boast yourself and do not accept praise from others with pleasure, so as not to accept reward for your good deeds with human praise. As the prophet Isaiah says: “Your leaders lead you astray and spoil the path of your paths.” For from praise comes self-love; from self-love comes pride and arrogance, and then separation from God. It is better not to do anything glorious in the world than to do, to magnify immeasurably. For the Pharisee, who did something glorious and boasted, perished from heaping up; but the tax collector, who did nothing good, humbly saved himself. For one, his good deeds became a pit from praise, while the other was pulled out of the pit by humility; for it is said that the tax collector “went justified into his own house...ˮ (Luke 18:14).”

Tolstoy's graceless humanism (that is, religion purified from faith in God) lays, according to Dostoevsky's observation, the foundations for the inevitable depravity of man and society, since the criterion of truth is transferred from the sacred sphere to the area of human self-will. Therefore, there can be no unity of Truth, as well as moral unity, under the dominance of such a system. “And without faith it is impossible to please God; therefore, everyone who comes to God must believe that He exists and rewards those who seek Him.”

Dostoevsky therefore rejects such abstract humanism and writes: “The Russian people are entirely in Orthodoxy and in its idea. There is nothing more in him or him - and there is no need, because Orthodoxy is everything. Orthodoxy is the Church, and the Church is the crowning of the building and is forever... He who does not understand Orthodoxy will never understand anything about the people. Moreover, he cannot even love the Russian people, but will love them only as he would like to see them.”

In contrast to Tolstoy’s tossing and turning, it was love for Christ that made Dostoevsky realize and feel that the fullness of Christ’s truth is associated solely with Orthodoxy. This is a Slavophile idea: only one who owns its fullness can unite everyone in the Truth. Therefore, the Slavic idea, according to Dostoevsky, is: “The great idea of Christ, there is no higher. Let us meet Europe in Christ." The Savior Himself said: “You are the light of the world; you are the salt of the earth. If the salt loses its strength, what will you do to make it salty...” Such a salt that salts everything in the recording of Dostoevsky’s thoughts is precisely the idea of Orthodoxy. He writes: “Our purpose is to be a friend of nations. By serving them, we are the most Russian... We bring Orthodoxy to Europe.”
(Suffice it to recall the contribution of Russian emigration to the cause Orthodox mission, which is associated with the names of Archpriest. John Meyendorff, Georgy Florovsky, Sergiy Bulgakov, Vasily Zenkovsky, Vladimir Lossky, I. Ilyin, N. Berdyaev, etc.).

The writer ends his diary this way: “Slavophiles lead to true freedom, reconciling. Russian all-humanity is our idea.” And the essence of freedom is not rebellion against God, because the first revolutionary was the devil, who rebelled against God; In a similar way, Tolstoy raised a protest against the royal world order, becoming overnight the “mirror of the Russian revolution.” Whereas about Dostoevsky it should be noted that the Gospel revealed to him the secret of man, testified that man is not a monkey or a holy angel, but the image of God, which in its original God-given nature is good, pure and beautiful, but due to sin has been deeply distorted, and the earth “thorns and thistles” began to grow in his heart. That is why the human state, which is now called natural, is in reality sick, distorted, in it the seeds of good and the chaff of evil are simultaneously present and mixed together. It is no coincidence that all of Dostoevsky’s work is about suffering. All of his work is a theodicy: the justification of God in the face of evil. It is suffering that burns out the tares of evil in a person: “Through great sorrows one must enter the Kingdom of Heaven”; “Wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many will go there... Strive to enter through the strait gate, for the strait gate and narrow is the way that leads to eternal life,” Scripture testifies.

The godless pursuit of happiness is misfortune and the death of the soul. After all, true happiness is the desire to learn how to make others happy: “We have nothing, but we enrich everyone,” says the apostle. And you say that “... you are rich, you have become rich and you have no need for anything; but you do not know that you are wretched and pitiful and naked and poor and blind...” (Rev. 3:17).

Suffering, through which sin is eliminated, cleanses the soul and gives true happiness to its owner. It should be remembered that temporary earthly happiness, if it does not grow into eternity, cannot satisfy a person. The paradox is that the criteria for spiritual happiness are acquired by self-restraint of earthly pleasures and joys.

Not by overthrowing state foundations and institutions, Dostoevsky is looking for new “horizons of truth” in the life of mankind, but by telling the story of one of characteristic episodes in the novel Crime and Punishment. This episode is the semantic and energetic hub of the writer’s entire work. Where Sonya Marmeladova reads to Raskolnikov, at his request, the Gospel episode of the resurrection of Lazarus - this gives a powerful cleansing discharge to the human soul. Without faith, resurrection is impossible, because the Savior Himself said what Raskolnikov heard in Sonya’s reading: “I am the resurrection and the life; He who believes in Me, even if he dies, will live..." (John 11:25). The resurrection of Lazarus is greatest miracle, accomplished by the Savior in His earthly life. And such a miracle was possible only for God, and not for man. Disbelief in the authenticity of this event is disbelief in the omnipotence of God.

The murder of the old woman turned into Raskolnikov’s suicide, as he himself says: “I didn’t kill the old woman - I killed myself.” Allowing yourself to bleed out of conscience is the fatal limit of choice. Everything else is just a consequence. For internal readiness for sin is already sin. Sin always begins with a pretext, which in essence is a starting point sin. That is, a pretext is always the source of an illness, and an act is only a consequence. Saint Tikhon of Zadonsk wrote: “Satan plunges us into vanity, so that we seek our own glory, and not God’s.” Therefore, at all times it sounds, without stopping: “You will be like gods...” To establish your selfhood is an unquenchable thirst, and this thirst can never be quenched in the godless space of humanism (which is what Tolstoy was so wrong about!). Lazarus cannot resurrect himself; a person cannot overcome his powerlessness: “Without Me you can do nothing” (John 15:5).

Not Tolstoy’s creation of “his own religion”, free from faith, but the churching of all humanity - this is Dostoevsky’s main idea. However, there is a force that prevents this - Catholicism, which is based on three components: miracle, mystery and authority. Catholic papocaesarism is an attempt by the church to rely on the sword of state, where political ideas and worldly preferences become priorities. The Orthodox Saint Theophan the Recluse said this about this: “The more passions, the more smaller circle freedom." Being seduced, a person dreams of himself, as if enjoying complete freedom. The bonds of this captive are an addiction to non-spiritual persons, things, ideas, which are painful to part with. But true freedom is inseparable from the truth, since the latter frees you from sin: “Know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (John 8:32).

For communist ideologists, whose arrival was essentially sanctioned by Tolstoy, the concept of freedom is rooted not in the word of the Gospel, but in the story of the fall of man (the novel “Demons”), who picks the fruits from the forbidden tree in order to “become God himself.” The proud man opposes freedom as obedience to God's will with the freedom of revolutionary initiative (the godless International). The struggle of these two freedoms represents the main problem of all humanity: “The devil fights with God, and the battlefield is human hearts” (Dostoevsky).

Writer through ugliness revolutionary ideas strives to gain insight into the mountainous Truth that will save the world. Understanding Beauty and the very idea of saving the world with Beauty is impossible without revealing the nature of this Beauty. Russian philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev wrote: “Throughout his entire life, Dostoevsky carried an exceptional, unique feeling of Christ, a kind of frenzied love for His Face. In the name of Christ, out of endless love for Christ, Dostoevsky broke with the humanistic world of which Belinsky was the prophet. Dostoevsky’s faith in Christ passed through the crucible of doubt and was tempered in fire.”

“Beauty will save the world” - these words belong to F. M. Dostoevsky.

Later the poet Balmont will write:

There is only one Beauty in the world,
Love, sadness, renunciation,
And voluntary torment
Christ crucified for us.

On the contrary, L. Tolstoy came to deny the Divine nature of Christ the Savior. He initially rejects faith and the mystery of His Resurrection as the basis of his new religion invented by him - and therefore lowers the hope for future bliss from heaven to earth. His faith is pragmatic - the establishment of the Kingdom of freedom here on earth, “in justice.” The idea of immortality in this case is not needed, because for the writer, immortality is us in generations. The commandments no longer carry any meaning sacred meaning, after all, Christ Himself is only a philosophical man who “successfully formulated his thoughts,” which explains His success. Tolstoyism, in essence, is the arrangement of the earthly kingdom on a rational basis through one’s own efforts. But human nature damaged by sin will not lead to harmony for all of humanity. This is now an axiom that does not require proof: “If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit,” as Scripture says. The communists seduced the Russian people and took them into this very “pit”. Being themselves slaves of sin, they decided to “bless” humanity with their delusional ideas - all this demonic army, led by the Lenins, Sverdlovs, Dzerzhinskys and other rabble, plunged humanity into bloody chaos, and did not lead them onto the path of freedom and love. How many maternal tears and curses fell on these monsters, and Heaven, obviously, heard these tears. So the unburied mausoleum corpse hangs between heaven and earth as God’s punishment as a reproach to all tribes, peoples and languages... And the ideologist of the “Kingdom of God on Earth” Tolstoy himself died without parting words and funeral service, a hateful death, not even buried in a cemetery, and in the grove, without a cross on the grave. Truly, God cannot be mocked!

Tolstoy’s indignation against civilization was expressed in the fact that he called for “simplification of life” - he began to wear bast shoes, a blouse, took up the plow, and gave up meat. This is how the master had fun from the many fats on his family estate... Why not act like a fool and play Tolstoy with a considerable estate, serfs, numerous household members, with his faithful wife Sofya Andreevna, with whom he had thirteen children; called for the destruction of all state institutions, but at the same time enjoyed all the benefits that these same institutions provided him...

Right of free choice

If Dostoevsky thought of happiness in a soteriological aspect (soteriology is the doctrine of salvation), then Tolstoy absolutizes the eudaimonic perception of the world (eudaimonism considers the meaning of life as good. But what is it?). Of course, Tolstoy is talented as an artist. But as a religious thinker, human pride hinders him.

In his Critique of Dogmatic Theology, he rejects the dogma of the Holy Trinity. The question of human freedom also became a stumbling block for the writer. He recognized it as impossible in the system of Orthodox dogma. The first thing that impedes, in his opinion, human freedom is the Providence of God. He writes: “The theologians have tied themselves a knot that cannot be untangled. Almighty, good God, Creator and Provider of man - and the unfortunate, evil and free man- two concepts that exclude each other.” If you look at it superficially, the writer is right: if human free will operates, then there is no place for Providence. And vice versa, if Providence dominates, you only need to obey it. Where then is freedom?

God gives us the right free choice, and we choose. Prayer becomes a sign of our choice. In prayer, we express our consent to collaborate with God in the matter of our salvation and show our faith that everything He sends is good for us: “Thy will be done...” Thus, a person’s prayer and his participation in the Sacraments is is a sign of free acceptance of the Grace of God, a sign of collaboration with God in the implementation of the Sacraments. Here the believer seems to say: “Lord, I know that You can do this according to Your will regardless of me, but you want me to desire and accept the action of Your will, so I ask that Your will be done.” If a person does not pray, does not participate in the Sacraments, then this expresses his reluctance to Grace. And God does not perform the Sacraments against the will of man. Therefore, there are no contradictions here.

The writer's need for the common good is inextricably linked with the despotic pride of reason and the pride of virtue outside of God. Striving for unity in love, Tolstoy, contrary to his will and intention, paved the way for Bolshevism with the idea of “graceless holiness,” which saw its ally in the writer, calling him “the mirror of the Russian revolution.” This duality of consciousness of the “godless harmony of humanity” responded in the depths of his existence with a craving for non-existence. Going into “nothing” is, in essence, Tolstoy’s understanding of salvation. (Just as Bolshevism “went into nothingness,” into oblivion, rejecting the “living, precious and cornerstone,” which is Christ Himself). Tolstoy's "departure" Yasnaya Polyana, his tossing and turning in the last days of his life, convulsive attempts to reconcile with the Church are fraught with providential meaning. They give a lesson to the whole world: denial of the Resurrection inevitably gives rise to a thirst for non-existence.

Professor Chernyshev V.M.

Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky, with whose story the action of the novel begins and ends, belongs to greatest creatures writer. There is breath and warmth of life in the image of this pure idealist of the 1840s. He lives so directly and naturally on the pages of the novel that he seems independent of the author’s arbitrariness. His every phrase and every action amazes with its inner truthfulness. Dostoevsky with good-natured humor follows the exploits of his “fifty-year-old baby”, makes fun of his weaknesses, hilariously imitates his lordly intonations, but resolutely admires him. The figure of Stepan Trofimovich testifies to the author’s extraordinary humorous gift. The prototype of Stepan Trofimovich was the famous Western historian in the 1840s - early 1850s T. Granovsky.

Historian T. N. Granovsky, the prototype of Stepan Trofimovich Verkhovensky in “Demons”. Portrait 1845

Verkhovensky was " the most wonderful person", "the smartest and most gifted." He belonged to the galaxy of famous names of the 40s; He studied (like Granovsky) in Germany, shone in the university department, wrote a study about “the reasons for the extraordinary moral nobility of some knights” and a poem like the second part of Faust. But brilliant career he was “broken by a whirlwind of circumstances” and he found himself in provincial town in the role of a “hanger-on” under his despotic friend and patron, Varvara Petrovna Stavrogina, the mother of the main character of “Demons”. The idealist sank to cards and champagne, and regularly fell into “civil sorrow,” that is, into the blues, which invariably ended in attacks of cholera. But he was supported by “a pleasant dream of his beautiful civil production.” For twenty years he stood before Russia in the form of an “embodied reproach” and entered into the role of a persecuted and exiled. He was married twice: the first time to some “frivolous girl,” with whom he had a son, Peter. This “fruit of the first, joyful and not yet darkened love” was brought up somewhere in the wilderness. His second wife was a German woman: the marriage was obviously a consequence of his passion for German idealistic philosophy. But main love The romantic knight had a twenty-year-old platonic feeling for Varvara Petrovna, consisting of habit, vanity, selfishness and the most sublime and sincere affection. The idealist lives by the “highest thought”, the idea eternal beauty; he is a real poet; he knows the inspiration and premonition of world harmony.

Dostoevsky. Demons. 1st part of the television series

But aestheticism in theory turns into unsightly amoralism in practice. Stepan Trofimovich can enthusiastically preach the happiness of all mankind - and lose his serf Fedka at cards. The author exposes the groundlessness of dreaming in a sharp parody. Verkhovensky writes to Varvara Petrovna from Berlin: “And we have almost Athenian evenings, but only in subtlety and grace; everything noble, a lot of music, Spanish motifs, the dream of universal renewal, the idea of eternal beauty, the Sistine Madonna, light with slits of darkness.”

The discord between dream and reality, from which the knight of the stern lady sometimes reached nervous explosions and gloomily declared: “Je suis un simple hanger-on et rien de plus,” or: “Je suis un a man backed to the wall” - this discord turns into a conflict with the arrival of his son Peter. Stepan Trofimovich encounters nihilists, among whom the first is his cher Petrusha. He reads "What to do" and enters the battle. Indignation, civic feeling and courage ignite in the dejected and relaxed esthete. Verkhovensky boldly declares that “boots are lower than Pushkin and even much” and fearlessly speaks in front of an unbridled audience at the “festival.” It is to him, a weak and insignificant character, that Dostoevsky gives the right to denounce the younger generation. “Do you understand,” Stepan Trofimovich shouts to his son, “do you understand that if you have the guillotine in the foreground and with such delight, it is only because chopping off heads is the easiest thing, but having an idea is the most difficult thing, These carts and how there: “the sound of carts bringing bread to humanity” is more useful than the Sistine Madonna, or whatever they say - une bêtise dans ce genre.” Stepan Trofimovich's words echo Lebedev's prophecy in “The Idiot” and prepare the final denunciation of the “temptation of bread” in “The Legend of the Grand Inquisitor”. At the festival, Verkhovensky solemnly and inspiredly says to the nihilists: “And I declare that Shakespeare and Raphael are above the liberation of the peasants, above the people, above socialism, above the young generation, above chemistry, above almost all of humanity, for they are already the fruit, the real fruit of all humanity, and perhaps the highest fruit there can be! The form of beauty has already been achieved: without achieving which I may not even agree to live... Without bread, humanity can live, without beauty alone it is impossible, because there will be absolutely nothing to do in the world! The whole secret is here, the whole story is here!... I won’t give in!... - he shouted absurdly in conclusion and hit the table with his fist as hard as he could.”

The tragicomic speech of the “idealist” contains main idea novel and the author’s sacred hope. The former ideal of beauty became clouded in humanity, and for him it began to " Time of Troubles" Dostoevsky always argued that society is guided by aesthetic principles and that the modern crisis is, at its core, a crisis aesthetic consciousness . Stepan Trofimovich’s “ridiculous performance” at the festival ends with the lecturer being booed and ridiculed. He puts on his traveling overcoat, takes a stick and leaves Varvara Petrovna’s house. He will die as he lived as a “Russian wanderer,” a homeless spiritual vagabond, “ extra person" The tragedy of the baseless romantic is symbolized by this final journey through high road. At the inn, Verkhovensky meets with the bookseller Sofia Matveevna, and she reads to him the Gospel story about the healing of the Gadarene demoniac.

The gloomy and terrible novel-pamphlet ends with a bright prophecy about Russia. “These demons,” says Stepan Trofimovich in great excitement, “are all the ulcers, all the miasma, all the uncleanness, all the demons and imps that have accumulated in our great and dear patient, in our Russia, over centuries, over centuries. Oui, cette Russie que j"aimais toujours. But great idea and a great will will overshadow her from above, like that crazy demoniac, and all these demons, all the uncleanness will come out... But the sick person will be healed and “sit at the feet of Jesus” and everyone will look in amazement. Darling, vous comprendrez après

Oblomov beamed as he walked home. Tarantyev was waiting for him there. He asked Oblomov why he didn’t look into his godfather’s apartment? Oblomov replied that he would never move there. Tarantiev recalled the one-year contract signed by Oblomov, about the money six months in advance. Oblomov said that there was no money. Then Tarantiev demanded that he give him a cab for lunch. Oblomov gave him money and drove him away.

After Tarantiev leaves, Oblomov imagines a wedding with Olga. He ran to Olga. Oblomov is trying to tell everything to his aunt, but Olga says that first he must go to the ward, and then to his aunt. Moreover, we need to go to Oblomovka and arrange things there. It seems to Oblomov that Olga has conspired with Stolz and is rushing him to live.

The next day Oblomov went to the city to the ward, but met an old acquaintance on the way, stopped by to see him, stayed too long, so it was too late to go to the ward, he had to postpone it until Monday. Then Oblomov went to the Vyborg side. I found the house of the widow Pshenitsyna. He entered the house and saw Agafya Matveevna, a woman of about thirty, plump and white in face. She was timid and afraid of Oblomov. Oblomov explained that he had rented an apartment here, and Agafya replied that she could not decide anything without her brother. Oblomov noticed how quiet it was in this direction. Agafya Matveevna told Oblomov that she doesn’t go anywhere, she only does housework. Oblomov asks the landlady to tell his brother that he will not move into the apartment, and leaves. On the way, he remembers that he wanted to look at an apartment for himself and Olga, but decides that he can put it off until another time.

At the end of August it started to rain, and people began to leave their dachas. The Ilyinskys also left. It was hard for Oblomov to be alone. And he decided to go to find another apartment on the Vyborg side. In the city, he can no longer see Olga so often, and their romance fades away. Oblomov is drawn more and more into the life of Agafya Matveevna, she attracts him with her efficiency and ability to manage a household.

Oblomov finally meets the owner's brother. He tells his brother that he is forced to change his apartment, so this one could be given to someone else. But the brother reminds them of the contract, says that with Oblomov moving and looking for a new tenant, they will suffer a loss, and demands from Oblomov, if he leaves, seven hundred rubles. Oblomov says that he has no money. There were only three hundred rubles in his wallet, although at the beginning of summer twelve hundred were sent from the village. Oblomov completely wilted, but remembered that he would see Olga today, and his mood improved.

Arriving at Olga, Oblomov told her about the conversation with his brother, and then went to look for an apartment, but the prices were so high that Oblomov was horrified. He hurried to return to Olga. Olga invites Ilya Ilyich to various entertainments, and the only thought spinning in his head is that there are only three hundred rubles left in money.

Returning home, Oblomov thinks about moving and understands that he could easily have stayed on the Vyborg side, but it’s just far from here to the center, but here “the order is strict and the economy is going well.”

And the economy was definitely going well. Agafya Matveevna was like a god in the kitchen, she prepared wonderful food for Ilya Ilyich, always stroking, pushing, rubbing something. Olomov admired her beauty, but she stopped being shy about him. One day Oblomov told Pshenitsyna that she needed to get married, and she replied that whoever would take her and her children. So three, four weeks passed, and Oblomov still did not move out of the apartment.

One day in the theater Oblomov heard an unpleasant conversation, from which he was completely lost. The dandies from Olga's box were talking about him: what was he doing in Olga's box and who was he anyway? They were told that “some Oblomov.” Ilya Ilyich went home without waiting for the end of the performance.

One day Zakhar looked into Oblomov’s room and asked if he had found the apartment, otherwise his things were still lying undisassembled. Oblomov replied that he was waiting for a letter from the village. Then Zakhar asked when Oblomov’s wedding with Olga was. Oblomov flared up: where did Zakhar get the idea that Oblomov was getting married? Zakhar replies that the Ilyinsky people said this back in the summer. Oblomov was shocked that servants, lackeys, etc. were talking about their wedding. And the idea of a wonderful wedding was darkened for Ilya Ilyich.

Oblomov called Zakhar and said that he was spreading false rumors about the wedding. And they are fake, because a wedding is a hassle, an expense, you will have to go to Oblomovka and arrange everything there. As a result, Ilya Ilyich ordered Zakhar not to spread such rumors anymore. Then Anisya came and calmed the master down, saying that all this was nonsense, there would be no wedding, no one dared even think about it, let alone say it.

When she left, Oblomov fell into despondency: he imagined all the practical side of marriage, what responsibilities it imposes. He remembered everything about Olga, and some voice inside him said: “It has faded, gone away!” “What now?” - thought Oblomov.

Oblomov doesn’t know how to behave with Olga now. A letter comes from her in which she makes an appointment in the Summer Garden.

Olga meets him alone in the garden, which greatly alarms Oblomov. Olga says she is happy to see him. Oblomov asks how Olga could come alone. But she was cheerful, pleased with the meeting and did not notice the state in which Oblomov came to the date. Oblomov says that they are doing wrong, seeing each other secretly in private, she can discredit herself in front of all her friends with such behavior, and they will say that it was Oblomov who seduced the naive girl. Olga says that means everything needs to be told to Auntie. Oblomov suggests not to rush, but to wait for a letter from the village. But Olga says that she doesn’t want to wait any longer, and therefore let Oblomov come to them tomorrow. Olga leaves, but Oblomov remains at a loss.

The next day, Oblomov shudders at the thought of going to Olga. He decides that until he receives news from the village, he will see Olga only on Sundays and in front of witnesses. He spends the whole day eating, lying down, talking with Pshenitsyna. She took Ilya Ilyich’s robe out of the closet, but he refuses to wear it anymore. Agafya Matveevna still washes her robe.

A letter arrives from Olga in which she writes that she cried all night because Oblomov did not arrive. In response, Oblomov wrote that he had a cold. Olga writes to tell him to take care and not come to them for now. Ilya Ilyich was very happy about Olga’s proposal. Later the bridges were removed, the Neva was not yet frozen, and now Oblomov could not go to Olga. But then they laid a bridge across the Neva, and Nikita came from Olga with a letter. Oblomov hid from him, and ordered Zakhar and Anisya not to talk to him about anything.

A week has passed. During this time, Oblomov worked with Agafya Matveevna’s children, talked with her, but never saw his brother.

One morning Zakhar announced that bridges had finally been built across the Neva, which meant that on Sunday we had to go to Olga. Oblomov is tormented by this duty, but, on the other hand, Olga’s face, still dear to him, looms in his imagination. He decides to wait for news from the village.

At this time, Olga was informed that bridges had been built, and she was happy that Oblomov would arrive on Sunday.

On Sunday, Olga was looking forward to Oblomov, especially since the baron announced that she could go to her estate in April. She dreams of how Oblomov will be happy about this news. But Ilya Ilyich did not appear that day.

On Monday, Katya came to Oblomov and said that Olga was here, she was sitting in the carriage and wanted to visit him. Oblomov kicks Zakhar and Anisya out of the house. Olga entered the house. She understands that Oblomov was not sick. He tells her that he was afraid of talk and gossip. Olga says that the talk will cease as soon as they inform Auntie about everything. But Oblomov stands his ground. Olga understands that something is wrong here. Oblomov replies that he wants peace. Olga looks around, sees a rumpled bed, an unread book and understands that Oblomov is beginning to live his old life. She accuses him of not loving her, but Oblomov insists in an impulse that she is his love, she moves him, he is ready right now to go anywhere... just to be with her. Olga leaves.

After leaving Ilyinskaya Oblomov ready to move forward again, he understands what a disgusting place he lives in. That night he read almost all the books Olga sent him.

The next day, Oblomov made excuses to Pshenitsyna that he did not have any young lady, it was a dressmaker who came who sews shirts.

In the evening, a letter arrived from Oblomov’s attorney, his neighbor. He wrote that things were bad, the house was falling apart, the road would be built far from Oblomovka, he was refusing to do anything because he had a lot of troubles. And, of course, Oblomov should come himself, otherwise he will be ruined.

Ilya Ilyich was not hoping for such news at all.

Now it was possible to think about the wedding only in a year. Olomov is thinking of different ways out of the situation: occupying, mortgaging the village, but refuses everything. Finally, he asked Agafya Matveevna for her brother to come to him tomorrow.

IXMaterial from the site

The next day, Oblomov asked brother Pshenitsyna for advice. He says that we need to go if things are so bad. Ivan Matveevich asks Oblomov about men, rent, etc. But Oblomov says that he knows nothing and asks him to teach him everything. After all, he, Oblomov, is a gentleman, and therefore he has never done anything and cannot do anything. Then Ivan Matveevich invites Ilya Ilyich to entrust his affairs to knowledgeable person and write a power of attorney for him.

He has one - his colleague, an honest soul. O-lomov agrees.

In the evening of the same day, Ivan Matveevich and Tarantyev discuss the business that they want to do with Oblomov. Tarantiev is afraid that they will burn out, but Ivan Matveyevich is confident in his colleague, and besides, Oblomov is a real idiot who knows nothing about life or business.

Oblomov tells Olga about the letter from the village and that he will entrust all matters to Pshenitsyna’s brother’s colleague. Olgi says that you can’t trust strangers. But Oblomov assures her that they can be trusted. And when the new attorney sorts things out, it will be built new house, they will get married. And this takes about a year. Olga falls and faints. She is carried into the room. Left alone. Oblomom decided that he himself would go to the village with an attorney, borrow money, have a wedding with Olga, and then arrange Oblomovka as it should be.

Olga came out, and Oblomov read in her eyes the decision to separate.

She says that she relied too much on her own strength, but Oblomov cannot be changed, he has already died. After all, in a year he would never have built his life, his estate. And if they got married, he would fall asleep more and more soundly every day, and she would never get tired of living. She also says that she loved in him what Stolz pointed out to her, what they invented with him. Olga cries, Oblomov understands that she is now telling the truth. “Why did everything die? What ruined you? - Olga asked. “There is no name for this evil.” "Eat. Oblomovism,” answered Ilya Ilyich and left without raising his head.

Oblomov returned home and did not notice how a robe was pulled on him. He fell asleep. I didn’t see anything, didn’t hear anything, didn’t understand. He sat in the chair all night. It started snowing in the morning. Zakhar offered a pie, but Oblomov refused; he developed a fever.

Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the search

On this page there is material on the following topics:

Part 3 of the novel Oblomov
Oblomov short retelling part 3
Oblomov faints Olga
Having grown up, Oblomov moved
Oblomov. removed bridges

Part three

Oblomov beamed as he walked home. Tarantiev was waiting for him there. He asked Oblomov why he didn’t look into his godfather’s apartment? Oblomov replied that he would never move there. Tarantiev recalled the one-year contract signed by Oblomov, about the money six months in advance. Oblomov said that there was no money. Then Tarantiev demanded that he give him a cab for lunch. Oblomov gave him money and drove him away.

After Tarantiev leaves, Oblomov imagines a wedding with Olga. He ran to Olga. Oblomov tries to tell his aunt everything, but Olga says that first he must go to the ward, and then to his aunt. Moreover, we need to go to Oblomovka and arrange things there. It seems to Oblomov that Olga has conspired with Stolz and is rushing him to live.

The next day Oblomov went to the city to the ward, but met an old acquaintance on the way, stopped by to see him, stayed too long, so it was too late to go to the ward, he had to postpone it until Monday. Then Oblomov went to the Vyborg side. I found the house of the widow Pshenitsyna. He entered the house and saw Agafya Matveevna, a woman of about thirty, plump and white in face. He was timid and afraid of Oblomov. Oblomov explained that he had rented an apartment here, and Agafya replied that she could not decide anything without her brother. Oblomov noticed how quiet it was in this direction. Agafya Matveevna told Oblomov that she doesn’t go anywhere, she only does housework. Oblomov asks the landlady to tell his brother that he will not move into the apartment, and leaves. On the way, he remembers that he wanted to look for an apartment for himself and Olga, but decides that he can put it off until another time.

At the end of August it started to rain, and people began to leave their dachas. The Ilyinskys also left. It was hard for Oblomov to be alone. And he decided to go to find another apartment on the Vyborg side. In the city, he can no longer see Olga so often, and their romance fades away. Oblomov is increasingly drawn into the life of Agafya Matveevna, she attracts him with her efficiency and ability to manage a household.

Oblomov finally meets the owner's brother. He tells his brother that he is forced to change his apartment, so this one could be given to someone else. But the brother reminds them of the contract, says that with Oblomov moving and the search for a new tenant, they will suffer a loss, and demands seven hundred rubles from Oblomov if he leaves. Oblomov says that he has no money. There were only three hundred rubles in his wallet, although at the beginning of summer twelve hundred were sent from the village. Oblomov completely wilted, but remembered that he would see Olga today, and his mood improved.

Returning home, Oblomov thinks about moving and understands that he would have quite stayed on the Vyborg side, but it’s only far from here to the center, but here “the order is strict and the economy is going well.”

And the economy was definitely going well. Agafya Matveevna was like a god in the kitchen, she prepared wonderful food for Ilya Ilyich, always stroking, pushing, rubbing something. Oblomov admired her beauty, and she stopped being shy about him. One day Oblomov told Pshenitsyna that she needed to get married, and she replied that whoever would take her and her children. So three, four weeks passed, and Oblomov still did not move out of the apartment.

mov". Ilya Ilyich went home without waiting for the end of the performance.

Oblomov called Zakhar and said that he was spreading false rumors about the wedding. And they are fake, because a wedding is a hassle, an expense, you will have to go to Oblomovka and arrange everything there. As a result, Ilya Ilyich ordered Zakhar not to spread such rumors anymore. Then Anisya came and reassured the master, saying that all this was absurd, there would be no wedding, no one dared even think about it, let alone say it.

Oblomov doesn’t know how to behave with Olga now. A letter comes from her in which she makes an appointment in the Summer Garden.

Olga meets him alone in the garden, which greatly alarms Oblomov. Olga says she is happy to see him. Oblomov asks how Olga could come alone. But she is cheerful, happy with the meeting and does not notice the state in which Oblomov came on the date. Oblomov says that they are doing wrong, seeing each other secretly in private, she can discredit herself in front of all her friends with such behavior, and they will say that it was Oblomov who seduced the naive girl. Olga says that means we need to tell Auntie everything. Oblomov

suggests not to rush, but to wait for a letter from the village. But Olga says that she doesn’t want to wait any longer, and therefore let Oblomov come to them tomorrow. Olga leaves, but Oblomov remains at a loss.

The next day, Oblomov shudders at the thought of going to Olga. He decides that until he receives news from the village, he will see Olga only on Sunday and in front of witnesses. He spends the whole day eating, lying down, talking with Pshenitsyna. She took Ilya Ilyich’s robe out of the closet, but he refuses to wear it anymore. Agafya Matveevna still washes her robe.

A letter arrives from Olga in which she writes that she cried all night because Oblomov did not arrive. In response, Oblomov wrote that he had a cold. Olga writes to tell him to take care and not come to them for now. Ilya Ilyich was very happy about Olga’s proposal. Later the bridges were removed, the Neva had not yet frozen, and now Oblomov could not go to Olga. But then they laid a bridge across the Neva, and Nikita came from Olga with a letter. Oblomov hid from him, and ordered Zakhar and Anisya not to talk to him about anything.

A week has passed. During this time, Oblomov worked with Agafya Matveevna’s children, talked with her, but never saw his brother.

One morning Zakhar announced that bridges had finally been built across the Neva, which meant that on Sunday we had to go to Olga. Oblomov is tormented by this responsibility, but, on the other hand, Olga’s face, still dear to him, looms in his imagination. He decides to wait for news from the village.

At this time, Olga was informed that bridges had been built, and she was happy that Oblomov would arrive on Sunday.

On Monday, Katya came to Oblomov and said that Olga was here, she was sitting in the carriage and wanted to visit him. Oblomov kicks Zakhar and Anisya out of the house. Olga entered the house. She understands that Oblomov was not sick. He tells her that he was afraid of talk and gossip. Olga says that the rumors will cease as soon as they inform Auntie about everything. But Oblomov stands his ground. Olga understands that something is wrong here. Oblomov replies that he wants peace. Olga looks around, sees a rumpled bed, an unread book and understands that Oblomov is beginning to live his old life. She accuses him of not loving her, but Oblomov insists in an impulse that she is his love, she moves him, he is ready right now to go anywhere... just to be with her. Olga leaves.

After Ilyinskaya leaves, Oblomov is ready to move forward again, he understands what a disgusting place he lives in. That night he read almost all the books Olga sent him.

The next day, Oblomov made excuses to Pshenitsyna that he did not have any young lady, it was a dressmaker who came who sews shirts.

Ilya Ilyich was not hoping for such news at all.

Now it was possible to think about the wedding only in a year. Oblomov is thinking of different ways out of the situation: occupying, mortgaging the village, but refuses everything. Finally, he asked Agafya Matveevna to let her brother come to him tomorrow.

The next day, Oblomov asked brother Pshenitsyna for advice. He says that we need to go if things are so bad. Ivan Matveyevich asks Oblomov about men, rent, etc. But Oblomov says that he knows nothing and asks him to teach him everything. After all, he, Oblomov, is a master, and therefore he has never done anything and cannot do anything. Then Ivan Matveevich invites Ilya Ilyich to entrust his affairs to a knowledgeable person and write a power of attorney for him.

He has one - his colleague, an honest soul. Oblomov agrees.

In the evening of the same day, Ivan Matveevich and Tarantyev discuss the business they want to do with Oblomov. Tarantiev is afraid that they will burn out, but Ivan Matveevich is confident in his colleague, and besides, Oblomov is a real idiot who knows nothing about life or business.

Oblomov tells Olga about the letter from the village and that he will entrust all matters to Pshenitsyna’s brother’s colleague. Olgi says that you can’t trust strangers. But Oblomov assures her that they can be trusted. And when the new attorney sorts out the affairs, a new house is built, they get married. And this takes about a year. Olga falls and faints. She is carried into the room. Left alone. Oblomom decided that he himself would go to the village with an attorney, borrow money, have a wedding with Olga, and then arrange Oblomovka as it should be.

Olga came out, and Oblomov read in her eyes the decision to separate.

Oblomov returned home and did not notice how a robe was pulled on him. He fell asleep. I didn’t see anything, didn’t hear anything, didn’t understand anything. He sat in the chair all night. It started snowing in the morning. Zakhar offered a pie, but Oblomov refused; he developed a fever.

Brief retelling the third part of Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov”

4.8 (96.67%) 6 votes

Searched on this page:

Oblomov part 3 summary
a brief retelling of part 3 of Oblomov
summary of part 3 of Oblomov
Oblomov part 3
a brief retelling of the failures part 3

Olga Ilyinskaya and Ilya Oblomov. Love story. 1. Meeting, Olga’s singing, Oblomov’s delight (part 2, chapter 5) 2. declaration of love (part 2, chapter 5) 3. Meetings in the park. Lilac branch. Olga’s repeated declaration of love and forgiveness (part 2, chapters 6 – 8). 4. Date on the mountain (part 2, chapter 9) 5. Letter (part 2, chapter 10) 6. Date in the Summer Garden (part 3, chapter 5). 7. Flood of the Neva, removed bridges - an obstacle to postpone visits to Olga) (part 3, chapter 6) 8. Olga’s arrival at Oblomov’s apartment (part 3, chapter 7) 9. Breakup of Oblomov and Olga (part 3, chapter 11 ).

Slide 14 from the Oblomov presentation for literature lessons on the topic “Oblomov”

Dimensions: 960 x 720 pixels, format: jpg. To download a slide for free to use on literature lesson, right-click on the image and click “Save Image As...”. You can download the entire presentation “Oblomov.pptx” in a zip archive of 1815 KB in size.

Download presentation

Oblomov

“Roman Oblomov” - In the living room before dinner. Roman by I.A. Goncharov “Oblomov” Ill. Ill. S.M. Shore. Still from the film “A few days in the life of I.I. Oblomov.” Still from the film. Y. Gershkovich 1982. Zakhar - A. Popov; Oblomov - O. Tabakov. Directed by N.S. Mikhalkov. 1980. Trilogy by Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov:

“Oblomov” - Identify the similarities and differences between Oblomov and Stolz and fill out the table. Fill the table. Lilac branch. What is a portrait? M. Yu. Lermontov. Family happiness Oblomov. Andrey Stolts (part 2, chapters 1 – 5). Love story. Observe how the portrait reflects the characters. Olga Ilyinskaya and Ilya Oblomov. A.P. Chekhov: “Stolz does not inspire me with any confidence.

“Stolz and Oblomov” - Oblomov and Stolz.

“Oblomov in Goncharov’s novel” - There is no sleep, no fatigue, no boredom on his face.” The biggest changes happen to Olga after meeting Oblomov. Oblomov. The chapter “Oblomov’s Dream” shows the origins of the hero’s character. In 1849, the first part of the novel was written. Oblomov's love story. As a child, Ilyusha Oblomov was a lively and inquisitive child.

“Roman Goncharov Oblomov” - Goncharov enters the Moscow Commercial School on Ostozhenka. February 19, 1861. Novel. Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov. Provincial committees. Homework. Secret Committee for Peasant Affairs. 1859 1868 1869 1869 1872 1878 1879 1889. 1812 1819 1822. Alexander 11. “Oblomov’s Dream” 1849. Copying reality, cast from life.