An essay on the topic “What is the tragedy of Oblomov’s life” based on the novel by I. A

Oblomov’s quiet death is not the death of the blessed one. the entire fourth part of the novel is a description of the spiritual death of the hero before his death. and the main motive here is Oblomov’s spiritual defeat, which looks like a plunge into a new, now final “death sleep”. before us is already a living dead who does not want to think about what awaits him tomorrow (it is not without reason that it is said: “he had a presentiment of imminent death and was afraid of it”), but is only pleased that now he still has the opportunity not to worry about the final outcome of his life, about the need for repentance. The key words of the fourth part are: “peace”, “silence”, “hopelessness”, “carelessness”, “sleep”, “laziness”, “lulling”.

The hero in this part is characterized by two unequally represented states. the first is short-lived outbursts of repentance, which are “ever less common.” however, this repentance is not active, as in the novel with Olga Ilinskaya, but contemplative and therefore sad, desperate. Oblomov then “cries cold tears of hopelessness.” the second state is alarmingly named by Goncharov: “internal triumph.” this is a complete rejection of all repentance, complete self-justification and repose in sin. Goncharov writes about his hero that he will “taste temporary blessings and calm down”, that “there is no need to repent.”

self-justification lies in the fact that under his sin, under his sinful state, Ilya Ilyich provides a philosophical basis: “finally he will decide that his life not only took shape, but was created, even intended, so simply, no wonder, to express the possibility of an ideally peaceful side human existence. It fell to others, he thought, to express its disturbing sides, to move it with destructive forces: everyone has their own purpose! "

The result of Oblomov’s life is very disappointing. he is summed up in a conversation with Stolz already at the final farewell: “I have long been ashamed of living in the world! But I cannot walk your path with you, even if” and Stolz’s words look like the final verdict: “you are dead.”

however, the novel by Oblomov is clearly imbued with the evangelical spirit. even the final spiritual death of the hero still leaves hope for the mercy of the Lord God. The author hopes for this mercy when he only hints at the image of an angel guarding Oblomov’s grave: “it seems that the angel of silence himself is guarding his sleep.” Hope is also visible in the way Ilya Ilyich is preserved in people’s memory. The widow Agafya Matveevna Pshenitsyna prays for him in church every week. Zakhar remembers him with a kind word: “God took away such a master! He lived for the joy of people... you can’t make such a master... remember, Lord, his darling in your kingdom!”

Oblomov died for the world, for people, and died spiritually. but still, without doing good, he did not do evil. from a Christian point of view, God gave him such gifts as a pure heart, meekness, poverty of spirit, crying, etc. (although all this was in an everyday, non-spiritual form). Oblomov could not overcome by the power of repentance, the will to repentance and repentance - the “sleep of death”, the “despondency” of the spiritual. in this sense, he seemed to have wasted the priceless gifts given to him by God. but still the author does not condemn him, but highlights as the final result - the possibility of God's mercy.

Reply posted by: Guest

1) Bazarov believes that a lot has changed after the 17th century. There is no benefit from aristocrats, their main occupation is doing nothing, their dignity and self-respect are empty words. “So you respect yourself and sit with folded hands; what is the benefit of this for the social class. You wouldn’t respect yourself and would do the same.” in the idleness and empty chatter of the bazaars he sees the basic political principle of the entire nobility living at the expense of others.

Pavel P. sees aristocracy as the main force; it once gave freedom. varistocrats have a developed sense of self-esteem, a sense of self-respect, it is important, because society is built on the individual. "they do not give up their rights, and therefore they respect the rights of others; they demand the fulfillment of duties in relation to them, and therefore they themselves use their duties."

3) Bazarov. “A person is only good because he has a bad opinion of himself.”

Our man is happy to rob himself just so he can get drunk in the tavern.

Pavel p. “He (the man) sacredly honors the legends, he is patriarchal, he cannot live without faith”

p p. "our artists are powerless to the point of disgusting"

P.P. is wrong in what modern art denies, because doesn't know him

b. does not deny nature, but sees in it only the source and field of people. activities

The life and death of Oblomov. Epilogue of the novel. For the third and last time, Stolz visits his friend. Under the caring eye of Pshenitsyna, Oblomov almost realized his ideal: “He dreams that he has reached that promised land, where rivers of honey and milk flow, where they eat unearned bread, walk in gold and silver...”, and Agafya Matveevna turns into the fabulous Miliktrisa Kirbitevna.. The house on the Vyborg side resembles rural freedom.

However, the hero never reached his native village. Subject "Oblomov and the men" runs through the entire novel. Even in the first chapters, we learned that in the absence of the master, life is difficult for the peasants. The headman reports that the men are “running away,” “begging for rent.” It is unlikely that they felt better under the rule of the Overhauled One. While Oblomov was drowning in his problems, he missed the opportunity to pave a road, build a bridge, as his neighbor, a village landowner, did. It cannot be said that Ilya Ilyich does not think about his peasants at all. But his plans boil down to ensuring that everything remains as it is. And to the advice to open a school for the man, Oblomov replies with horror that “he probably won’t even plow…” But time cannot be stopped. In the finale we learn that “Oblomovka is not in the wilderness anymore<…>, the rays of the sun fell on her! The peasants, no matter how difficult it was, managed without the master: “... In four years it will be a road station<…>, the men will go to work on the embankment, and then it will roll along the cast iron<…>bread to the pier... And there...schools, literacy..." But did Ilya Ilyich manage without Oblomovka? Using the logic of the narrative, Goncharov proves his favorite thoughts. And the fact that on the conscience of every landowner lies concern for the fate of hundreds of people (“Happy Mistake”). And the fact that village life is the most natural and therefore the most harmonious for a Russian person; she herself will guide, teach and suggest what to do better than any “plans” (“Frigate “Pallada””).

In the house on Vyborgskaya Oblomov sank. What was a free dream became a hallucination - “the present and the past merged and mixed up.” On his first visit, Stolz managed to get Oblomov off the couch. In the second, he helped a friend in solving practical matters. And now he realizes with horror that he is powerless to change anything:<«Вон из этой ямы, из болота, на свет, на простор, где есть здоровая, нормальная жизнь!» - настаивал Штольц…

“Don’t remember, don’t disturb the past: you can’t bring it back! - said Oblomov. - I have grown to this hole with a sore spot: try to tear it off - there will be death... I feel everything, I understand everything: I have long been ashamed to live in the world! But I can’t go your way with you, even if I wanted to... Maybe the last time was still possible. Now... now it’s too late...” Even Olga is not able to resurrect him: “Olga! - the frightened Oblomov suddenly burst out... - For God’s sake, don’t let her here, leave!”

As on his first visit, Stolz sums it up sadly:

What's there? - Olga asked...

Nothing!..

Is he alive and well?

Why did you come back so soon? Why didn’t you call me there and bring him? Let me in!

What is going on there?... Has “the abyss opened”? Will you tell me?.. What's going on there?

Oblomovism!

And if Ilya Ilyich found people who agreed to endure this life around him, then nature itself, it seems, came out against it, measuring out a short period for such an existence. That is why the same Agafya Matveevna’s attempts to limit her husband produce a tragicomic impression. “How many times have you gone through? - she asked Vanyusha... - Don’t lie, look at me... Remember Sunday, I won’t let you visit<…>" And Oblomov, willy-nilly, counted eight more times, then came into the room...”; “It would be nice to have some pie!” - “I forgot, I really forgot! I wanted to since the evening, but my memory seems to have gone missing!” - Agafya Matveevna cheated.” This makes no sense. For she cannot offer him any other purpose in life other than food and sleep.

Goncharov devotes relatively little space to describing the illness and death of his hero. I. Annensky summarizes the reader’s impressions, saying that “we read 600 pages about him, we do not know a person in Russian literature so fully, so vividly depicted. And yet his death affects us less than the death of a tree in Tolstoy...” Why? Critics of the “Silver Age” are unanimous, because the worst has already happened to Oblomov. Spiritual death preceded physical death. “He died because he ended...” (I. Annensky). “Vulgarity has finally triumphed over purity of heart, love, and ideals.” (D. Merezhkovsky).

Goncharov says goodbye to his hero with an emotional lyrical requiem: “What happened to Oblomov? Where is he? Where? - In the nearest cemetery, under a modest urn, his body rests<…>. Lilac branches, planted by a friendly hand, doze over the grave, and wormwood smells serenely. It seems that the angel of silence himself is guarding his sleep.”

It would seem that there is an undeniable contradiction here. A high funeral speech for a fallen hero! But life cannot be considered useless when someone remembers you. Bright sadness filled the life of Agafya Matveevna with the highest meaning: “She realized that<…>God put his soul into her life and took it out again; that the sun shone in it and darkened forever... Forever, really; but on the other hand, her life was forever comprehended: now she knew why she lived and that she did not live in vain.”

In the finale, we meet Zakhar in the guise of a beggar on the church porch. The orphaned valet prefers to ask for Christ's sake rather than serve the “objectionable” lady. The following dialogue takes place between Stolz and his literary acquaintance about the late Oblomov:

And he was no more stupid than others, his soul was pure and clear, like glass; noble, gentle, and - disappeared!

From what? What reason?

The reason... what a reason! Oblomovism! - said Stolz.

Oblomovism! - the writer repeated with bewilderment. - What it is?

Now I’ll tell you... And you write it down: maybe it will be useful to someone. “And he told him what was written here.”

Thus, the composition of the novel is strictly circular; it is impossible to isolate the beginning and end in it. Everything that we read from the first pages, it turns out, can be interpreted as a story about Oblomov, his friend. At the same time, Stolz could tell the story of a recently completed life. Thus, the circle of human life is completed twice: in reality and in the memories of friends.

Goncharov, the singer of harmony, could not end his book with one minor note. In the epilogue, a new little hero appears, who, perhaps, will be able to harmoniously combine the best features of his father and educator. “Don’t forget my Andrey! - were Oblomov’s last words, spoken in a faded voice...” “No, I won’t forget your Andrey<…>, Stolz promises. “But I’ll take your Andrey where you couldn’t go.”<…>and with him we will put our youthful dreams into action.”

Let's do a little experiment. Open the last page of the Oblomov edition - any that you hold in your hands. Turning it over, you will almost certainly find an article by Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov “What is Oblomovism?” It is necessary to know this work, if only because it is one of the examples of Russian critical thought of the nineteenth century. However, the first sign of a free person and a free country is the ability to choose. Dobrolyubov’s article is more interesting to consider next to the article with which it appeared almost simultaneously and with which it is largely polemical. This is a review of Alexander Vasilyevich Druzhinin “Oblomov”. Roman I.A. Goncharova".

Critics are unanimous in admiring Olga's image. But if Dobrolyubov sees in her a new heroine, the main fighter against Oblomovism, Druzhinin sees in her the embodiment of eternal femininity: “One cannot help but be carried away by this bright, pure creature, who has so wisely developed in herself all the best, true principles of a woman...”

The disagreements between them begin with Oblomov’s assessment. Dobrolyubov argues with the author of the novel himself, proving that Oblomov is a lazy, spoiled, worthless creature: “He (Oblomov) will not bow to the idol of evil! But why is that? Because he is too lazy to get up from the couch. But drag him down, put him on his knees in front of this idol: he will not be able to stand up. Dirt won't stick to it! Yes, he's lying alone for now. Nothing yet; and when Tarantyev, the Worn One, arrives. Ivan Matveich - brr! what disgusting filth begins around Oblomov.”

The critic astutely guesses the origins of Oblomov’s character in his childhood. He sees primarily social roots in Oblomovism: “... He ( Oblomov) from an early age he sees in his house that all housework is done by footmen and maids, and daddy and mummy only give orders and scold for bad performance.” Gives the example of the symbolic episode of pulling on stockings. He also views Oblomov as social type. This is a gentleman, the owner of “three hundred Zakharovs”, who “while drawing the ideal of his bliss, ... did not think about establishing its legality and truth, did not ask himself the question: where will these greenhouses and greenhouses come from ... and why on earth will he use them?”

Yet the psychological analysis of the character and the meaning of the entire novel is not so interesting to the critic. He is constantly interrupted by “more general considerations” about Oblomovism. In Goncharov’s hero the critic is, first of all, an established literary type; the critic traces his genealogy from Onegin, Pechorin, Rudin. In literary science, it is usually called the type of superfluous person. Unlike Goncharov, Dobrolyubov focuses on his negative traits: “What all these people have in common is that they have no business in life that would be a vital necessity for them, a sacred thing of the heart...”

Dobrolyubov shrewdly guesses that the reason for Oblomov’s restless sleep was the lack of a high, truly noble goal. I chose Gogol’s words as my epigraph: “Where is the one who, in the native language of the Russian soul, could tell us this almighty word “forward?..””

Let's now look at Druzhinin's article. Let's be honest: it's a lot harder to read. As soon as we open the pages, the names of philosophers and poets, Carlyle and Longfellow, Hamlet and the artists of the Flemish school will dapple before our eyes. An intellectual of the highest outlook, an expert in English literature, Druzhinin does not stoop to the average level in his critical works, but seeks an equal reader. By the way, this is how you can check the degree of your own culture - ask yourself, which of the mentioned names, paintings, books are familiar to me?

Following Dobrolyubov, he pays a lot of attention to “The Dream...” and sees in it “a step towards understanding Oblomov with his Oblomovism.” But, unlike him, he focuses on the lyrical content of the chapter. Druzhinin saw poetry even in the “sleepy servant,” and gave Goncharov’s highest merit the fact that he “poeticized the life of his native land.” So the critic touched lightly national content Oblomovism. Defending his beloved hero, the critic calls: “Take a careful look at the novel, and you will see how many people in it are devoted to Ilya Ilyich and even adore him...” It’s not without reason!

“Oblomov is a child, and not a trashy libertine, he is a sleepyhead, and not an immoral egoist or an epicurean...” To emphasize the moral value of the hero, Druzhinin asks the question: who is ultimately more useful to humanity? A naive child or a zealous official, “signing paper after paper”? And he answers: “A child by nature and according to the conditions of his development, Ilya Ilyich ... left behind him the purity and simplicity of a child - qualities that are precious in an adult.” People “not of this world” are also necessary because “in the midst of the greatest practical confusion, they often reveal to us the realm of truth and at times put the inexperienced, dreamy eccentric above ... a whole crowd of businessmen surrounding him.” The critic is sure that Oblomov - universal type, and exclaims: “It’s not good for that land where there are no kind and incapable of evil eccentrics like Oblomov!”

Unlike Dobrolyubov, he does not forget about Agafya Matveevna. Druzhinin made a subtle observation about Pshenitsyna’s place in Oblomov’s fate: she was unwillingly the “evil genius” of Ilya Ilyich, “but everything will be forgiven for this woman because she loved a lot.” The critic is captivated by the subtle lyricism of the scenes depicting the sorrowful experiences of the widow. In contrast, the critic shows the egoism of the Stoltsev couple in relation to Oblomov in scenes where “neither everyday order, nor everyday truth... were violated.”

However, in his review one can find a number of controversial judgments. The critic avoids talking about why Ilya Ilyich dies. Stolz's despair at the sight of his friend's decline is caused, in his opinion, only by the fact that Oblomov married a commoner.

Like Dobrolyubov, Druzhinin goes beyond the consideration of the novel. He discusses the peculiarities of Goncharov's talent and compares it with Dutch painters. Like the Dutch landscape painters and creators of genre scenes, the details of everyday life under his pen acquire an existential scale and “his creative spirit was reflected in every detail... like the sun is reflected in a small drop of water...”

We saw that two critics argue and deny each other in their judgments about Oblomov and the novel as a whole. So which of them should we believe? I. Annensky answered this question, noting that it is a mistake to “dwell on the question of what type of Oblomov. Negative or positive? This question is generally one of the school-market ones...” And he suggests that “the most natural way in every type analysis is to start with an analysis of one’s impressions, deepening them if possible.” It is for this “deepening” that criticism is needed. To convey the reaction of contemporaries, to complement independent conclusions, and not to replace your impressions. In fact, Goncharov believed in his reader, and to comments that his hero was incomprehensible, he retorted: “What does the reader care about? Is he some kind of idiot who cannot use his imagination to complete the rest according to the idea given by the author? Have the Pechorins, Onegins... been told to the last detail? The author’s task is the dominant element of character, and the rest is up to the reader.”

Goncharov, Ivan Alexandrovich, the greatest Russian critic and writer who became famous thanks to his works. His work depicts the lives of people, their way of life and the entire era of the rule of peasant law. One of his famous works is called “Oblomov”. Here, the writer expresses his thoughts as a critic, and expressively shows all the actions taking place in the novel.

In this work of the author, the main character is Ilya Oblomov, according to Father Ilyich. This was a gentleman who was brought up by calmness, inaction, and very restless people close to him. Due to this, Oblomov became a practical empty space for himself and for society as a whole. The main tragedy of life was indifference to oneself. From an early age, he was banned from almost all of his actions and was protected from his thoughts in every possible way. Even taking into account walks on the street, which did not take place without the intervention of relatives. With their feelings about the boy, the people around him created this empty appearance in life, for which Ilya will be practically punished by fate. Over time, the boy grew up to be a “houseplant.” And having entered adulthood, it becomes catastrophically difficult for him to maintain life balance in his hands.

Despite all the inaction of the main character, the author mentions an important character trait of Ilya, his harmlessness. This characterized him as a positive character.

Due to the fact that the hero led a useless lifestyle, the scene in which Ilya meets a new love, but due to his inaction, he sees that she can “pull” him out of this routine, also speaks. But be that as it may, he finds happiness with Agafya, who gives birth to his son. Because of his inaction, the entire household went downhill. Against this background, the ingenuity of the swindlers worked, who, after his death, planned to completely ruin his property.

Oblomov had heart attacks more and more often, during which Agafya caught him. Lately, she had been practically waiting for him to die. And now, after a while, Ilya Oblomov suffers another final stroke, which Agafya Matveevna sees, and he leaves his useless life.

Thanks to Stolz, a descendant of the Oblomovs finds himself in good hands. At that time, Stolz lived with Olga and, unlike his father, he was determined to raise the orphan youth. If we take into account the disposition of Andrei’s new father, then the boy will grow up to be a smart and determined guy.

Essay on the Death of Oblomov in Goncharov’s novel

Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov, in his novel “Oblomov,” described a large number of people who live like Oblomov in Oblomovshchina. Everyone would like to allow themselves to live like Oblomov, to lie on the couch for their own pleasure. Oblomov was accustomed to such a life from childhood; his parents taught him that all the servants should do for him. After the death of his parents, Oblomov did not know how to manage so many serfs, so he was not very worried about this. Oblomov is not a stupid man, but his laziness overpowered his activity.

Oblomov was content with the fact that he lay all day long and did nothing, he only cared about food and sleep. Ilya Ilyich seems ready to do something for his serfs, but then the fuse goes out, and he again lies on the sofa and does nothing. Oblomov was not prompted to an active lifestyle either by the help of a friend or by love. He is happy with everything and the changes in his life frighten Oblomov very much, he does not want to do anything to change his life.

Goncharov wanted to write about a man who was not taught how to live an adult life and make decisions on his own. There is dirt and cobwebs all around him in the house, and Oblomov is not bothered by this. Ivan Aleksandrovich wrote about Oblomov as a person with a pure heart; there are very few such people left in society. The material side does not bother Ilya Ilyich; the spiritual side of life is more important to him.

When Olga Ilyinskaya tries to remake the adult Oblomov, he resists this. In the scene described by Goncharov, he even asks his friend Stolz not to let Ilyinskaya come to him anymore. Oblomov doesn’t like that they put pressure on him, he didn’t want to be like his friend, he chose a different path for himself.

After breaking up with Olga Ilyinskaya, Oblomov suffers, because his heart is broken, but a woman was found who was able to give Oblomov the affection and care that he dreamed of. His connection with Agafya Matveevna brought him the peace and peace of mind that Ilyinskaya could not give him.

Oblomov, next to Agafya Matveevna, again felt like a little boy who was being cared for. The fruit of their love was their son Andryushka.

Once again, Stolz, who arrived, talking with a friend, realizes that he will soon die. Before his friend’s death, Oblomov asks not to abandon his son and take care of him. Stolz makes a promise to Oblomov that he will raise Andryushka to be a hardworking and responsible person. Everyone retained good memories of Oblomov, as a man who did not become callous in heart and poor in soul. He did not change his principles and remained a pure and bright person in their memory.

Several interesting essays

• Analysis of Chekhov's story Vanka essay

  A.P. Chekhov (A. Chekhonte) devoted many works to describing the lives of ordinary people. He talked about their difficult existence. One of these works is the story “Vanka”. It was written in 1886

  Anton Pavlovich Chekhov's calling card is his humorous stories, starting with his little stories, which usually tell about the sad or funny drama of one character

The character Oblomov and the author Goncharov, who created this classic type, are fully aware of what destroyed this hero, a man with a “dove soul.” The answer is “Oblomovism,” as Ilya Ilyich Oblomov explains to Olga who asked this question. But what is “Oblomovism”? Goncharov figured this out long before the end of his novel.

In 1849, that is, almost ten years before the appearance of the novel “Oblomov” in print, he published a large excerpt from it, entitled “Oblomov’s Dream,” in which he connected the phenomenon of Russian life in question with the prevailing social structure in it, with the nature and climate of the country, with the morals of its population. Let's look at each of these factors separately.

The nature of that blessed corner of the earth where Oblomov spent his childhood does not know “anything grandiose, wild and gloomy.” The climate also corresponds to the peaceful nature. The annual cycle takes place here correctly and calmly: winter, uninterrupted by thaws, lasts just as long as it needs; spring is coming quickly, and during it there is no need to be afraid of sudden blizzards; In the summer, there are clear days for almost three months, the rays of the sun only slightly burn, but do not scorch with unbearable heat. Terrible storms are unheard of. An enthusiastic dreamer and poet may become homesick in this area. Meanwhile, a quiet life is precisely Oblomov’s ideal.

The silence and peace that reigned in nature extended to the morals of the population. The interests of the residents were entirely focused on themselves, since there were no relations with the population of other areas. The disappearance of a pig or chicken was interpreted as an event of national importance. Comparative material security, which guaranteed a piece of daily bread, developed an amazing carelessness. The living embodiment of such carelessness is the peasant Onisim Suslov, whose hut has been hanging over a ravine since time immemorial, threatening to fall every minute. It would seem that the chicken is afraid to enter it, but Onesimus does not even think about the danger.

The morals of the surrounding population were passed on to the inhabitants of the Oblomov estate, which created the good-natured and apathetic Ilya Ilyich. Eating and sleeping with complete idleness - such is the life of Oblomov’s parents and all his household. The whole house consulted about dinner: everyone proposed his own menu, even the elderly aunt was invited to advice. After dinner, sleep followed, during which there was not a single waking soul in the house. The predominance of physical needs, such as food and sleep, led to the fact that mental demands became dull and, finally, completely disappeared. The underdevelopment of the “Oblomovites” reached colossal limits: for example, except for old Oblomov, everyone confused the names of the months and the order of numbers; but they knew a great variety of all sorts of signs and slavishly believed in them. There was absolutely nothing for the Oblomovites to talk about with each other, since, according to the author’s ironic conclusion, their mental treasures were mutually exhausted, and they received little news. No matter how pathetic and wretched such a life was, they did not want another, because another life would be associated with diversity, change and chance, and the inhabitants of the Oblomov estate were afraid of this like fire. How great was their fear of any news is shown by the episode with the receipt of the letter, an extraordinary event in Oblomov’s life.

The picture of their life will be quite complete if we add that among the Oblomovites there was not even a serious interest in farming. They began to repair a structure that had fallen into disrepair no earlier than it was absolutely necessary. The bridge, for example, was repaired only when Antip fell from it into a ditch along with a horse and a barrel. There is no need to prove that such a well-fed and idle life was possible only during serfdom, when everything was paid for and paid for by the work of “three hundred Zakhars.”

This is the environment in which Ilya Ilyich Oblomov spent his childhood years. The author strongly emphasizes that this environment should have had a huge impact on the formation of the hero’s mental and moral being. Suffice it to recall the upbringing of little Ilyusha in his parents' home. From birth, an old, devoted nanny was assigned to him, whose duties included “looking after” the child. This observation consisted of a tireless struggle against manifestations of liveliness and independence in the boy’s character. The nanny could not influence the mental development of the child. And she fed his imagination only with her ego-softening tales about good fellows, very similar to Ilya Ilyich.

Most fairy tales featured a kind sorceress who patronized her favorite and, in the end, married him to an unheard-of beauty, Militrisa Kirbityevna. Little Ilyusha, under the impression of such fairy tales, began to be drawn to a wonderful land, where he did not have to work and where his Militris was waiting for him. The influence of the parents not only was not a counterbalance to the influence of the nanny, but, on the contrary, strengthened it. Ilyusha’s mother provided the child to the old woman only partly: in her free time from household chores, she made sure that the sun did not burn her son’s head, that he did not run into a ravine, and the like. Even more than the nanny, the mother softened the child’s pride: not embarrassed by the presence of her son, she loved to talk with the household about his future, and made him the hero of some brilliant epic she created.

When Ilya Ilyich grew from a child into a youth, the basis of his upbringing changed little, despite the fact that instead of a nanny, the serf boy Zakharka was now constantly with him. As soon as Ilyusha wakes up, Zakharka is already standing by the bed and, as a nanny used to do, pulls on his stockings, puts on his shoes, and Ilyusha, already a fourteen-year-old boy, only knows that he is holding out one or the other leg for him. And Zakharka is not the only one at his disposal; as soon as he blinks, three or four servants rush to fulfill his desire. It is not surprising that Ilyusha, like a greenhouse plant, grew slowly and sluggishly. The only thing that could overcome the influence of such an upbringing was the teaching at the boarding school of the efficient and energetic German Stolz, who managed the neighboring estate.

Stolz immediately entered into a stubborn struggle with the education system of the Oblomovites, who, having agreed to subject Ilyusha to school teaching only because without him it was impossible to achieve the embroidered uniform of an official, in every possible way opposed Stolz in his attempts to subject the boy to the strict regime of his boarding school. German perseverance might have overcome the influence of Oblomov’s followers on Ilyusha if the latter had not found an ally in the person of Stolz’s son, Andrei, who became so attached to Ilyusha that he did translations for him and gave him lessons. This freed Ilyusha from the need to work, and work was the only means of fighting “Oblomovism.”

The influence of the latter was strengthened by the fact that Ilya Ilyich, who from childhood had observed serfdom, in which such a sharp line was drawn between “people” and “masters” that a yard boy, for complaining about Ilyusha’s mistreatment of him, received beaters instead of fair satisfaction, felt himself as a master. In this regard, his quarrel with Zakhar, who dared to say that since “others are changing apartments, then why not Ilya Ilyich too,” is extremely characteristic. Oblomov became extremely indignant and blasted Zakhar:

“Another works tirelessly,” he says, “runs around, fusses, never works, never eats, another bows, another asks, humiliates himself.” And I? Well, decide what you think, the other one is me, huh?.. Am I rushing about, am I working? I don’t eat enough, or what? Skinny or pitiful-looking? Am I missing anything? It seems that there is someone to give it to? I have never pulled a stocking over my feet as I live, thank God. Will I worry? What do I need? And who am I telling this to? Haven't you been following me since childhood? You know all this, you saw that I was brought up tenderly, that I did not endure cold or hunger, I knew no need, I did not earn my own bread, and in general I did not do dirty work.

Oblomov's consciousness darkened so much that pride appeared from the advantage of doing nothing. Oblomov is indignant at the mere comparison of him with others.

Serfdom was the foundation of such a life. Zakhars and hundreds of Zakhars made it unnecessary to show their own initiative, their own activities. There was no need for life's struggle. Hence - complete helplessness, fear of life.

Conclusion:
Goncharov is a great master of the episode, revealing the true essence of the hero’s character. Oblomov’s dream is the writer’s desire to penetrate the secret of the soul, fully reveal the image, analyze the hero’s actions, and show his worldview. Sleep is a special human state. The feelings experienced during a dream-vision are of particular significance: they exactly translate the feelings that a person experiences in real life. The comprehensive picture of the dream shows a collective image of Oblomovka, this society in which there is no place for everything active, progressive, and thinking. Oblomov's dream is a key event, a sample episode, this is the line beyond which a true understanding of the novel begins.

Article outline

I. Introduction
Time of appearance of the excerpt “Oblomov’s Dream”.
His place in the novel

II. Main part
Oblomov as the cause of “Oblomovism”.
a) Nature:
- lack of “grand, wild and gloomy”,
- no struggle with nature,
- lack of poetic impressions.

b) Climate.

c) Morals of the population:
- pettiness,
- limited interests,
- carelessness,
- absence of accidents.

d) Estate:
- predominance of physical needs,
- underdevelopment,
- fear of change,
- attitude towards the economy,
- the reasons for it.

e) Oblomovka’s influence on Oblomov.
- childhood,
- adolescence.

III. Conclusion. Oblomov and “others”.

Roman I.A. Goncharov’s “Oblomov” was published in 1859 in the journal “Otechestvennye zapiski”. The writer worked on the novel during a period of revitalization of public life associated with preparations for the reform of the abolition of serfdom in Russia. In his work, Goncharov criticizes the foundations of serfdom and reveals the theme of spiritual impoverishment and degradation of the local nobility.

At the center of the novel “Oblomov” is the complex and contradictory image of the landowner Ilya Ilyich Oblomov. His character and thinking were influenced by the environment in which he was raised and spent his childhood.

From an early age, the hero was instilled with traits that later became known as “Oblomovism.” Little Ilyusha grew up as a spoiled child, completely unsuited to independent life. He is used to everything being done for him, and his destiny is “idleness and peace.” In Ilyusha, any attempts at activity were consistently suppressed. The stillness of life, dormancy, a secluded way of life is not only a sign of the hero’s existence, but also the essence of life in Oblomovka, which is separated from the whole world: “Neither strong passions nor brave undertakings worried the Oblomovites.” Inactivity and lack of life goals are what characterize Oblomovka’s life.

However, Ilyusha’s character is shaped not only by lordship. Life in Oblomovka is full and harmonious in its own way: it is Russian nature, the love and affection of a mother, Russian hospitality, the colors of the holidays. These childhood impressions are an ideal for Oblomov, from the height of which he judges life. Therefore, the hero does not accept “Petersburg life”: he is not attracted by either his career or the desire to get rich.

Until the age of fifteen, Ilya studied very reluctantly at the boarding school. Studying science and reading books tired him. After boarding school, he “followed the course of science to the end” in Moscow. Oblomov came to St. Petersburg with the goal of succeeding in public service and establishing a family life. Ilya Ilyich served somehow for two years and left the service. For him it was an unnecessary and meaningless burden.

Having quit his service and isolated himself from society, Oblomov indulged in dreams. Now “almost nothing attracted him from home, and every day he settled more and more firmly in his apartment.” Gradually, spiritual needs in Oblomov died, humane impulses became fruitless, and sound judgments turned into sleepy muttering. The hero gradually sank into complete mental passivity and apathy. Goncharov writes: “Oblomov...could not comprehend his life and therefore was burdened and bored by everything he had to do.”

He decided that it was better to remain an “Oblomovite”, but to retain his humanity and kindness of heart, than to be a vain careerist, callous and heartless. About St. Petersburg life, Ilya Ilyich says: “All the time running around, the eternal game of crappy passions, especially greed, interrupting each other’s paths, gossip, gossip, clicking at each other, this looking from head to toe; If you listen to what they are talking about, your head will spin and you will become stupefied.”

Thus, Oblomov was a kind, meek, intelligent person who received a good education. In his youth, he was full of progressive ideas and a desire to serve Russia. His childhood friend Andrei Stolts characterizes Oblomov this way: “This is a crystal, transparent soul.” However, the positive character traits of Ilya Ilyich are replaced by such qualities as lack of will and laziness. Life with its worries and worries, constant work frightens the hero, and he wants to sit out in a quiet apartment.

In an apartment on Gorokhovaya Street, Oblomov lies on the sofa, not only because, as a gentleman, he can do nothing, but also because he does not want to live at the expense of his moral dignity. The hero rejoices that he “doesn’t poke around, but lies here, preserving his human dignity and his peace!”

Oblomov's laziness and inactivity are caused by his negative attitude towards the life and interests of people contemporary to the hero. This is the tragedy of Oblomov’s life. Sometimes Ilya Ilyich wants to give up Oblomov’s habits. He rushes to action, but these desires quickly fade away. And before us is again a couch potato yawning from boredom and lying on the sofa. Apathy and laziness extinguish all his noble impulses.

Thus, Goncharov depicts the struggle of good inclinations in Oblomov with lordly habits and laziness. The hero does not seek to change his life. He values ​​peace most of all, having no strength or desire to fight. He retreats before life's problems and difficulties.

However, Ilya Ilyich is ashamed of his own lordship, as a person towering above him. He is tormented by the question: “Why am I like this?” When Stolz tries to awaken in Oblomov the desire to live and work, reproaching him for the paralysis of his mind and will, Ilya Ilyich admits: “I know everything, I understand everything, but there is no willpower.” The hero lives by the principle: “It would be nice if this happened by itself somehow imperceptibly.”

Love for Olga Ilyinskaya temporarily transforms Oblomov. This is how the hero is described in a state of love: “The foggy, sleepy face instantly transformed, the eyes opened, the colors began to play on the cheeks; thoughts began to move, desire and will sparkled in the eyes.” But the fear of losing peace makes Oblomov give up his love for Olga. “Oblomovism” turns out to be even stronger than love. This is the true tragedy!

Subsequently, Ilya Ilyich finds his “ideal” in the heartfelt love of Agafya Matveevna Pshenitsyna, who does not demand anything from him, indulging him in everything. In her house, “he was now surrounded by such simple, kind, loving people who agreed with their existence to support his life, to help him not notice, not feel it.” The disappeared world of childhood, Oblomovka appears again. Food and relaxation are all Ilya Ilyich’s activities.

Oblomov’s dignity lies in the fact that he condemned himself and was aware of his inevitable spiritual death. Olga asks him in anguish: “What ruined you, Ilya? There is no name for this hell...” Ilya Ilyich answered her: “There is - Oblomovism!” Oblomov suffers from the fact that he does not see a goal in life and does not find an application for his strength.

The writer showed Oblomov’s path to realizing his worthlessness, insolvency, and, ultimately, to the disintegration of his personality. Destruction of the essence of human nature.

So, the hero of the novel was destroyed by Oblomovism. This phenomenon is not an individual feature of Oblomov, but, as Dobrolyubov puts it, “it serves as the key to unraveling many phenomena of Russian life.” The critic concludes: “There is a significant part of Oblomov in each of us, and it is too early to write a funeral eulogy for us.”