Does Russia need the Oblomovs? Russian literary criticism of the 18th-19th centuries.

Part III

Fighting for the creation of a party of the people in literature, for writers to consciously serve the people's interests, Dobrolyubov was devoid of any sectarianism or narrowness, which his ideological opponents so often tried to accuse him of. He did not impose anything on art. He approached everyone with deep interest talented work, knew how to reveal the uniqueness of the writer’s talent and his view of the world.

How subtly and soulfully Dobrolyubov showed, for example, the characteristics of Goncharov the artist! In Goncharov's works, he wrote, there is little action, no intrigue, no external obstacles. We will not find any expression of the feelings of the author himself: he does not care about the readers, about the conclusions that will be drawn from the novel. But "he has an amazing ability - in every this moment to stop the volatile phenomenon of life, in all its fullness and freshness, and keep it in front of you until it becomes the complete property of the artist." Goncharov is characterized by a completeness of poetic worldview, "the ability to embrace the complete image of an object, mint it, sculpt it - hence love of detail and "extraordinarily subtle and deep mental analysis." The writer will not lag behind a phenomenon “without tracing it to the end, without finding its cause, without understanding its connection with all surrounding phenomena.”

It was this property of the writer’s talent that helped him elevate the image of Oblomov into a type, determine its generic and permanent meaning, and thereby reveal the social essence of Oblomovism. Dobrolyubov wrote that there is no need to demand that Goncharov have a different, less calm attitude towards reality - his attitude towards the facts of life is revealed from their very image.

Turgenev's talent is in many ways the opposite of Goncharov's; he is characterized by deep lyricism. The writer talks about his heroes as people close to him, he “follows them with tender sympathy, with painful trepidation, he himself suffers and rejoices along with the faces he created, he himself is carried away by the poetic atmosphere with which he always likes to surround them... And his passion is contagious: it irresistibly captures the reader’s sympathy, from the first page rivets his thoughts and feelings to the story, makes him experience, re-feel those moments in which Turgenev’s faces appear before him” (258).

This lyricism, together with another remarkable feature of the writer’s talent - the ability to “immediately respond to every noble thought and honest feeling that is just beginning to penetrate the consciousness of the best people” - determined the range of problems that Turgenev addressed: a hero who is at odds with society , was revealed to him primarily in the sphere of feelings; the writer created poetic female images, he is “the singer of pure, ideal female love.” Understanding these features of Turgenev’s talent helped Dobrolyubov to reveal public importance works of the artist, something new and fruitful that appeared in his work under the influence of a new movement in society.

Ostrovsky's performance in the literary field immediately generated a lot of articles. Critics of various directions sought to present the playwright as an exponent of the ideas of their camp. Dobrolyubov did not impose any abstract theories on Ostrovsky, he compared his creations with life itself - and this allowed him not only to expose the dark kingdom of autocratic-serf Russia, but also to insightfully identify the most important features of the playwright’s talent: his moral pathos, close attention to the victims social evil, To personalities a person crushed by tyranny, and hence - deep attention to the inner world of the heroes: Ostrovsky is characterized by “the ability to notice nature, penetrate into the depths of a person’s soul, capture his feelings, regardless of the depiction of his external, official relationships” (311).

Dobrolyubov shows the inconsistency of Ostrovsky’s critics, who stated that the endings of his comedies are random, and that the composition lacks logical harmony and consistency. In this freedom of the playwright from the dilapidated canons of various plays, from the “old stage routine”, he sees true innovation: the very image of the life of tyrants, where there is no logic, no moral laws, requires "no logical consistency".

One of Dobrolyubov’s fiercest critics was Dostoevsky, who in his article “G.-bov and the question of art” (“Time”, 1861, No. 2) accused him of “utilitarianism”, of disdain for artistry. Dostoevsky wrote that works of art influence the reader with their beauty, which gives “harmony and tranquility” to a person, especially when he is at odds with reality. In the article "Downtrodden People", analyzing in detail the works of Dostoevsky, two types of his heroes - meek, downtrodden, submissive, and - bitter, despairing - the critic highlights the characteristic features of the writer's worldview - pain for a humiliated person, turned into a rag due to "wild, unnatural relationships" reigning in society. The artistry of the writer’s works, contrary to false theories, was manifested not in pacifying beauty, but in the merciless truth of the images, in his “highly humane ideal.”

Dobrolyubov deeply despised criticism, “wandering in synthetic mists,” as well as criticism, “which approaches the authors, like men brought into the recruit’s presence, with a uniform yardstick, and shouts first “forehead!”, then “back of the head!”, looking by whether the recruit fits the bill or not,” that is, whether his creation meets the “eternal laws of art, printed in textbooks.” He understood artistry not as the decoration of scenes, details, or as external picturesqueness. He deeply and soulfully analyzed the most important thing in works of art - types, human characters And circumstances, in which they operate. And this invariably yielded fruitful results: Dobrolyubov saw and revealed the greatest achievement of the art of realism - the ability to reveal the social and historical conditioning of human character.

The critic spoke about the significance of outstanding literary phenomena for the social struggle of the 50s and 60s and at the same time showed their eternal and enduring content, the new things they brought into the development of art itself, posed and solved great aesthetic problems.

One of the most important issues aesthetics is a problem of typification. The reflection of reality in art is not a mechanical process; it presupposes the active work of the artist’s consciousness, which generalizes life phenomena. “An artist,” writes Dobrolyubov, “is not a photographic plate that reflects only the present moment: then there would be no meaning in works of art and life. The artist complements the fragmentary nature of the captured moment with his creative feeling, generalizes private phenomena in his soul, creates one harmonious whole from disparate features, finds a living connection and consistency in apparently incoherent phenomena, merges and processes diverse and contradictory aspects of living reality into the community of his worldview" (686).

To be truthful, to be true to his talent, a writer must penetrate deeply into the essence of life. To do this, firstly, he must turn his talent to vital subjects, and secondly, catch the development trend public life, to see what dies in it and what is born is a necessary property of typification, only this will determine the completeness and comprehensiveness of the picture of reality, the correct view of it. The critic’s thought boils down to the fact that in truly great art, realism and ideology are necessarily united, for the truth of the image in itself is “ necessary condition, and not yet the merit of the work.

We judge dignity by the breadth of the author’s view, the fidelity of understanding and the vividness of the depiction of the phenomena that he touched upon" (628--629),

Very great importance Dobrolyubov gave the general convictions and sympathies of the writer, which are manifested in the entire figurative structure of his works and act as worldview. The artist’s worldview is his own view of the world, which is developed in the process of artistic cognition of reality and contradicts “partiality” - false ideas, narrow views, learned by upbringing, taken on faith.

Worldview is by no means some spontaneous property of talent, completely independent of the subjective beginning, of the artist’s personality. On the contrary, it is the result of activity, his knowledge, creative will, and in-depth penetration into life. Dobrolyubov speaks of Goncharov’s careful study of life types, of Turgenev’s types, “to the point of subtlety studied and alive heartfelt author,” about Ostrovsky’s ability to see and persecute tyranny in all its types and forms... In works of art, the critic emphasizes, we see a phenomenon taken from life itself, but "clarified in the mind of the artist and placed in such positions that allow it to reveal itself more fully and decisively than as happens in most cases of ordinary life" (655).

When Dobrolyubov notes that with strong talents “sometimes from a simple statement of facts and relationships made by the artist, their solution follows naturally,” he does not mean the passivity, thoughtlessness of the writer. The worldview is formed under the influence of developing reality and means the artist’s involvement in the progressive movement of time. This happens because, by getting to know life and studying it, the writer penetrates into its needs and reflects the mature ideas of social development. Unlike false, abstract ideas imposed on reality, contradicting it and therefore hostile to art, progressive ideas naturally follow “from the existing facts of life.” These ideas are not artificially introduced into the work, but help the artist to reflect social relations more fully and deeply - not from some narrow, false, but from a universal, fair, that is, people's point of view - this is how Dobrolyubov asserts the connection between the ideological nature of art and its nationality.

The artist’s worldview is not just a reflection of life, but a reflection of it from the point of view of “human truth.” Dobrolyubov shows that this is precisely what allowed Ostrovsky, for example, to base his plays on the motif of “the unnaturalness of social relations, resulting from the tyranny of some and the lack of rights of others.” This is what allowed Dostoevsky, who preached patience and humility, to discover in his downtrodden, lost heroes “the never suppressed aspirations and needs of human nature”, to take out “the individual’s protest against external violent oppression hidden in the very depths of the soul” and present it for judgment and sympathy reader. These goals and objectives are not always clearly understood by the artist; they arise from the very development of life. By cognizing and reflecting life, the writer discovers its aspects and patterns from which a progressive idea associated with progressive historical development “follows by itself.”

By introducing the concept of “worldview,” Dobrolyubov clearly expresses the peculiarity of truly realistic creativity, which the artists of the word themselves spoke about - Pushkin, Goncharov, L. Tolstoy and others. Turgenev, for example, wrote about “Fathers and Sons”: “To accurately and powerfully reproduce the truth, the reality of life, is the highest happiness for a writer, even if this truth does not coincide with his own sympathies” (I. S. Turgenev, Collected. cit., Goslitizdat, M. 1956, vol. 10, p. 349.).

Dobrolyubov wrote that false ideas and views fetter the writer’s creativity, preventing him from freely indulging in the suggestions of his artistic nature. This can be seen in the example of Ostrovsky’s plays from the period of his passion for Slavophilism: the author, sometimes misunderstanding the connection of the phenomena he depicted, sought to elevate into a universal type persons who in reality had “a very particular and petty meaning,” and with this false view of the hero harmed his works. Since any one-sidedness and exclusivity interferes with genuine observance of the truth, the artist “must... save himself from one-sidedness by a possible expansion of his view, through the assimilation of those general concepts that have been developed by reasoning people.” Dobrolyubov associates the realization of the nationality of literature with the breadth of the writer’s worldview, with the reflection of advanced ideas in his work.

The main progressive idea of ​​that time was the idea of ​​the complete failure of serfdom and “all its offspring.” It arose not in literature, Dobrolyubov said, not in the minds of leading figures, but from the very course of social life. But literature, having reflected, picked it up, disseminated and propagated it with its own inherent means, in turn influences further development society.

Dobrolyubov could not give until the end scientific explanation the origin and role of ideas, he did not even reach the point of understanding the class conditionality of the artist’s worldview, but he saw the opposition and struggle between the ideas of exploiters and workers, and saw that ideas arise not as a result of the purely speculative activity of the artist, but from the practical, material needs of society and play an active role in its development. This determined the strength and depth of his analysis.

In his articles “What is Oblomovism?” (1859), "The Dark Kingdom" (1859), "When the real one will come day?" (1860), "A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom" (1860), "Downtrodden People" (1861), analyzing the wonderful works of contemporary literature, the critic showed that penetration by means of art into the essence of life, into its main conflicts leads to the fact that even writers far from a revolutionary worldview overcome false ideas and prejudices of their class and, truthfully depicting life, act as impartial judges of everything that has outlived its time...

Time itself, the progressive process of history, is on the side of the people. Reflecting the urgent needs of social development, writers thereby participate in the struggle for people's happiness and at the same time realize their creative possibilities, enrich the art of realism.

In the specific conditions of that time, the camp of revolutionary democracy put forward the task of educating public figures a new type, heroes of the people's struggle. The question of the hero in life and in literature caused heated debate. Chernyshevsky, in the article “Russian man at rendez-vous” (1858), debunked the image of the “superfluous person”, showing that these people, who have shown their pettiness in the field of feelings, in love for a woman, are also untenable in the social sense - “they cannot be wait for life to improve." The “superfluous man” is an imaginary hero who “retreats from everything that requires determination and noble risk,” because the very circumstances of life cultivate in him selfishness, selfishness, and inability to do real work. This article was not only an angry debunking of liberalism, but also raised the most important question for literature about the positive hero of the time.

Liberal P. Annenkov spoke out against Chernyshevsky with the article “Literary Type weak person" (1858). “Is the spineless man of the era as weak and insignificant as they say about him, and where to look for the opposite type, who, according to his highest moral qualities, would be worthy to replace him?” (P. V. Annenkov, Memoirs and critical essays. Second Department, St. Petersburg, 1879, p. 153.) asked Annenkov. The so-called " strong characters“,” he said, “these are the mayors, the tyrants of Ostrovsky, the officials of Shchedrin, the patriarchal landowners of Aksakov, and when you look at them enough, “the need to return to refresh thoughts and feelings in the circle of the “weak” becomes uncontrollable and passionate.” A weak person, - Annenkov concluded, - there is “the only moral type both in our contemporary life and in its reflection - current literature." It was this person and no one else, he believed, who still had a lot to do for Russian society. That’s why it is necessary to treat it with care and participation and not make exorbitant demands, for “in the properties of our character and the way of our life there is nothing resembling a heroic element” (Ibid., pp. 167-168.).

Dobrolyubov angrily ridiculed this “weak hero,” who in modern times had lost all aura of heroism and was already perceived as a fragment of previous eras. In contrast to P. Annenkov, he saw the need for the birth of a new, strong, real hero. Discontent and a spirit of protest rise in different strata of society - and writers, expanding the sphere of reality accessible to artistic reflection, show not only the failure of former heroes who remained aloof from public affairs, but also the birth of the heroic from life itself.

The true and imaginary hero, his attitude to reality, the methods of his depiction, typification - Dobrolyubov paid very great attention to these problems, and his conclusions are instructive for our days. Literary heroes, he pointed out, are not the fruit of the writer’s imagination, but are taken from life itself and, depending on its movement, change, receive a new meaning, and, consequently, a new assessment by the artist. Dobrolyubov traces the development of the type of “superfluous person” in Russian literature and comes to the conclusion: “Over time, as society consciously developed, this type changed its forms, took on different relationships to life, and received a new meaning. Notice these new phases of its existence , to determine the essence of its new meaning - this has always been an enormous task, and the talent who knew how to do this has always made a significant step forward in the history of our literature" (263).

A writer, recreating a true picture of reality, trying to present his hero in all its fullness and artistic persuasiveness, cannot help but think about the essence of certain life types, about their connection with each other, about their significance in society.

In an article about Shchedrin’s “Provincial Sketches” (1857), recalling the beginning of the discussion of the proposed reforms, the energetic cries of the champions of progress, calls to save Rus' from internal evil, the critic says that this atmosphere of general fermentation and expectations gave rise to hope - new figures entered the public arena , true heroes. “But two years have passed, and although nothing particularly important happened during these years, social aspirations are now far from being presented in the same form as before.” Everyone saw that the enthusiastic cries of home-grown progressives were worth little, because they did not give any practical results. And the heroes themselves, from whom great feats were expected, became very dim: “It turns out that... many of the people who warmly welcomed the dawn of a new life suddenly wanted to wait for noon and decided to sleep until then; that an even larger part of the people who blessed the deeds , suddenly became subdued and hid when she saw that feats had to be accomplished not in words alone, but that real work and sacrifices were needed" (128).

Shchedrin - and in this, first of all, Dobrolyubov sees his merit as an artist, this showed the strength of his talent, deeply in tune with modernity - debunked these would-be progressives, subjected them to merciless satirical ridicule, creating Various types talented natures, in which “the dominant character of our society is quite clearly expressed.”

We know that Shchedrin is a writer with a conscious revolutionary ideal, a merciless enemy of liberal verbiage.

However, Dobrolyubov in many of his works shows that other writers, in a different creative manner, but sometimes no less vividly, captured changes in public life, passing judgment on the old, obsolete, sensitively noticing the birth of the new. Attention to life, to what is new in it, is, according to Dobrolyubov, the first and obligatory sign of talent.

The appearance of a new type in literature becomes possible only when this type arises in life itself, when at least in some, the most advanced part of society, the consciousness has matured that the old heroes are already lagging behind life and cannot serve as a real example for readers. And the works of literature will be the more valuable and truthful, the greater their influence, the more formerly an artist will notice these thosendecency social development, will see the features of a new, progressive movement, will give us the opportunity to be present at the very birth of a new hero, at the just beginning of the decline of previous idols.

In the article "What is Oblomovism?" Dobrolyubov highly appreciates Goncharov’s novel not only because it delivers a merciless verdict on old, outdated serfdom relations, but also because it shows the evolution of the once high and noble hero, a “superfluous person” who could not find real activity for himself, ruined by the environment. In new conditions, when the possibility of a “terrible mortal struggle” with hostile circumstances is close, when the people themselves “realized the need for a real cause,” this hero appears in a new light.

“Superfluous people,” says Dobrolyubov, “not seeing a goal in life, despite this, had high authority in the eyes of the reader, because they were advanced people, standing much higher than their environment. The very possibility of broad practical work was not yet open to them; it had not yet matured in society.

It's not the same now. The new generation expects from heroes real deItelnosti. It will no longer listen with love and reverence to endless speeches about dissatisfaction with life and the need to act. These speeches in the new conditions cannot but be perceived as apathy of thought and soul, as moral Oblomovism. And the modern type of well-intentioned liberal, with his deceit and idle talk, is involuntarily associated in the reader’s mind with the heroes of former times - “superfluous people.” Now, from the heights of modern times, one can see that the traits of Oblomovism were always in embryo in the character of superfluous people - after all, these seemingly strong natures so often showed inconsistency in the face of hostile circumstances and retreated whenever it was necessary to make a firm decision in life. , a decisive step - whether it concerned their relationship to society or the area of ​​​​feelings - their relationship to the woman they loved.

Goncharov's talent and the breadth of his views were reflected in the fact that he felt this breath of new life. Dobrolyubov calls the creation of the Oblomov type “a sign of the times,” and sees the main merit of its author in the fact that he sensed in advanced Russian society a different attitude towards the life type that appeared thirty years ago. Oblomov’s story “reflected Russian life, in it a living, modern Russian type appears before us, minted with merciless severity and correctness; it reflected the new word of our social development, pronounced clearly and firmly, without despair and without childish hopes, but with complete consciousness of truth. This word is - Oblomovism; it serves as a key to unraveling many phenomena of Russian life, and it gives Goncharov’s novel much more social significance than all our accusatory stories have” (262).

IN public consciousness This transformation of the “superfluous man” into Oblomov has not yet taken place, Dobrolyubov points out, the process has only just begun. But this is where the great property and great significance of true art comes into force - to capture a progressive movement, an idea that has only just emerged and will be realized in the future. Having debunked, brought down the former hero from a high pedestal to Oblomov’s soft sofa, directly posing the question: what is he doing? What is the meaning and purpose of his life? - the artist, with the whole meaning of his work, raised the important question of what a modern hero should be.

True, the novel also reflected the limitations of the artist’s worldview: having been able to so deeply understand and so vitally show Oblomovism, he “could not, however, help but pay tribute to the general delusion, Oblomovism and the past, deciding to bury it.”

The image of Stolz, through whose mouth Goncharov buries Oblomovism and in whose person he wanted to show an active progressive hero, lacks persuasiveness, there are no typical life features in him. Dobrolyubov explains this by saying that the artist here is trying to pass off wishful thinking, running too far ahead of life, because such active, active heroes, whose thoughts immediately turn into action, do not yet exist among educated Russian society. Stolz cannot satisfy the reader from the point of view of his social ideals. In his practical practicality, he is narrow, he does not need anything except his own happiness, he “calmed down from all the aspirations and needs that overwhelmed even Oblomov.”

The critic sees a hint of a new Russian life, of an active Russian character in the image of Olga Ilyinskaya. Her naturalness, courage and simplicity, the harmony of her mind and heart are so far manifested only in the area of ​​feeling, in active love. She tries to bring Oblomov out of his slumber, to revive him morally, and when she is convinced of his complete passivity, she decisively and directly rejects Oblomov’s sleepy kingdom. She is constantly worried about some questions and doubts, she strives for something, although she does not yet know well what exactly. The author did not reveal these unrest to us in its entirety,” says the critic, “but there is no doubt that they are an echo of a new life, to which Olga is “incomparably closer to Stolz.”

Dobrolyubov also sees traits of the new Russian character in the heroine of the novel “On the Eve” - Elena. The critic valued most of all the writer's ability to reveal thirst for activity in your heroine. This is not the activity itself, because Russian reality has not yet provided material for such an image; the result would not be a living person, but a dry scheme: Elena “would turn out to be a stranger to Russian society,” and the social significance of the image would be zero. Sami search, herself uncertainty The image of the heroine, her dissatisfaction with the present are surprisingly truthful here, they cannot but evoke deep thoughts in the reader and will play much more big role in the active influence of literature on society than the image of an ideal hero, artificially “composed of the best traits developing in our society.”

Turgenev, an artist extremely sensitive to the burning issues of our time, under the influence of the natural course of social life, “to which the very thought and imagination of the author involuntarily obeyed,” saw that his former heroes - “superfluous people” could no longer serve as a positive ideal, and made an attempt show the leading hero of modern times - Insarov, a fighter for the liberation of his homeland from foreign enslavers. The greatness and holiness of the idea of ​​patriotism permeates Insarov’s entire being. Not an external command of duty, not a renunciation of oneself, as was the case with previous heroes. For Insarov, love for his homeland is life itself, and this cannot but captivate the reader.

And yet Dobrolyubov did not consider this image a complete artistic success: if in Stolz Goncharov depicted activity without ideals, then Insarov is an ideological hero without activity. He is not brought “face to face with the matter itself—with the parties, with the people, with someone else’s government, with his own like-minded people, with the enemy’s force” (464). True, says Dobrolyubov, this was not the author’s intention, and, judging by his previous works, he could not have shown such a hero. But the very possibility of creating epics of folk life and character public figuresela the critic saw precisely in the depiction of the struggle of the people, as well as the best representatives of an educated society who defend the people's interests. The new hero will bear little resemblance to the old, inactive one. And literature was faced with the task of finding ways to portray not only the new hero, but also the old ones - because public role they have changed, and from a progressive force they have turned into a force inhibiting social development.

Belinsky wrote about Eugene Onegin: “You can do something only in society, on the basis of social needs indicated by reality itself, and not by theory. But what would Onegin do in a community with such wonderful neighbors, in the circle of such dear neighbors?” (V. G. Belinsky, Complete collected works, vol. XII, p. 101.). The very rise of the hero above environment was already a sign of his positivity and exclusivity. In modern times, such passive superiority was not enough. The motif of the suffering hero and his surrounding environment, which was so widespread in literature, could no longer satisfy the requirements of art itself.

In the article “Benevolence and Activity” (1860), devoted to the analysis of Pleshcheev’s stories, Dobrolyubov examines this issue in detail. The image of the environment is “a good and very strong motive for art,” he writes. But the writers have many omissions and abstractions here - if the hero’s suffering is depicted fully and in detail, then his relationship to the environment raises many questions: what does this hero achieve? What is the strength of the environment based on? What eats the hero and why does he allow himself to be eaten? And, having delved into the essence of the matter, the artist discovers that these heroes are vitally connected with the environment, have experienced its vicious influence: they are internally powerless, completely inactive. These heroes have no right to our sympathy. They cannot continue to be depicted with romantic pathos, in an aura of suffering. Such a hero, like the environment itself, is “a subject for the most merciless satire.” The critic considers the main advantage of Pleshcheev’s works to be precisely the author’s “negative, mocking attitude” towards the “platonic liberalism and nobility” of his heroes.

Future talented writers, says Dobrolyubov, “will give us heroes with healthier content.” These heroes grow in life itself, although they have not yet been defined in all their integrity and completeness. But the question about them has already been posed by reality itself, and best writers sensitively reflected this social need. Soon, very soon, real heroes will appear in Russian life and literature - revolutionary figures, Russian Insarovs, who will face a difficult and sacred task - the liberation of their homeland from internal Turks.

And a sure guarantee of this is that the traits of the new hero are manifested not only among the educated class, but in all strata of society, because the entire people's Russia is already rising against the old order.

Dobrolyubov highly appreciated the importance of Ostrovsky's realism and especially the image of Katerina from The Thunderstorm. The playwright was able to “very fully and comprehensively portray the essential aspects and requirements of Russian life,” to show the aspirations that had already awakened among the people. Moreover, here too the critic notes that Ostrovsky “found the essence of the general requirements of life at a time when they were hidden and expressed by very few and very weakly.”

The wild merchant world of tyrants, presented by Ostrovsky, as if in a drop of water, reflects the entire “dark kingdom” of autocratic-serf Russia, where arbitrariness reigns, “the powerless arbitrariness of some over others,” where individual rights are destroyed. But “life is no longer completely absorbed by their influence, but contains within itself the makings of a more reasonable, legal, correct order affairs." And this is precisely what makes a satirical depiction of tyrants possible for the artist: they already evoke “laughter and contempt.”

In the depiction of the senseless influence of tyranny on family and social life, Dobrolyubov sees the basis of Ostrovsky’s comedy. The writer reveals to us that “this tyranny is powerless and decrepit in itself, that there is no moral power in it, but its influence is terrible in that, being itself senseless and without rights, it distorts common sense and the concept of law in all who come into contact with him" (348). However, the artist shows - and this is the revolutionary meaning and deep truth of his works - that the very intolerability of oppression gives rise to and strengthens the protest against unnatural relations, and this protest comes out, it can no longer be suppressed at its very inception. Thus, says Dobrolyubov, Ostrovsky expressed the idea that had matured in society about the illegality of tyranny, and most importantly, he created a strong, integral national character, which “has long demanded its implementation in literature,” which “corresponds to the new phase of national life.”

In characters goodies, according to Dobrolyubov, there should be organicity, integrity, simplicity, which are determined by the naturalness of their aspirations for a new life. He finds these traits in Olga and Elena. They manifested themselves with special, irresistible force in Katerina. And this is natural. Katerina's strength lies in her "complete opposition to all tyrant principles." Everything here is alien to her, her internally free nature requires will, happiness, and spaciousness of life. It is not abstract ideals and beliefs, but everyday facts of life, a powerless, materially dependent existence that makes her strive for something new. That is why her desire for freedom is so organic and so strong: freedom is more valuable to her than life. This is a heroic, courageous character; such people, if necessary, will endure the struggle, you can rely on them.

Katerina’s spontaneous, unconscious protest is much more valuable to Dobrolyubov than the “vivid speeches of high speakers of truth” who shout about their dedication, about “denial of themselves for a great idea”, and end up in complete humility before evil, because, they say, the fight against it "still too hopeless." In Katerina, the playwright was able to “create a person who serves as a representative of a great popular idea, without carrying great ideas either on his tongue or in his head, selflessly goes to the end in an unequal struggle and dies, without at all dooming himself to high selflessness.”

Dobrolyubov talks about the breadth of the writer’s worldview, which makes his works deeply popular. The measure of nationality is that it stands “in line with those natural aspirations that have already awakened among the people at the request of the modern order of affairs,” that he understood and expressed them fully and comprehensively. “The demands of law, legality, respect for man,” a protest against arbitrariness and tyranny—this is what the reader hears in Ostrovsky’s plays, this is what allowed Dobrolyubov, using the material of these plays, to show that the only way out of the darkness of the “dark kingdom” is a revolutionary struggle against all its foundations. The playwright himself did not think about the possibility of such revolutionary conclusions from his works; his worldview was not revolutionary.

Dobrolyubov dreams of the literature of the future, when artists will consciously preach advanced ideals: “The free transformation of the highest speculations into living images and, at the same time, full consciousness of the highest, general meaning in every, most private and random fact of life - this is the ideal , representing a complete fusion of science and poetry and has not yet been achieved by anyone" (309). Revolutionary-democratic criticism set as its task the struggle for such revolutionary literature.

The path of conscious service to the people, the revolution should lead to the further flourishing of art, because “when the general concepts of the artist are correct and are in complete harmony with his nature, then this harmony and unity are reflected in the work. Then reality is reflected in the work brighter and more vividly, and it can more easily lead a reasoning person to correct conclusions and, therefore, have more meaning for life" (309).

Goncharov's novel "Oblomov" is a socio-psychological novel written in the 19th century. In the work, the author touches on a number of social and philosophical problems, including issues of human interaction with society. The main character of the novel, Ilya Ilyich Oblomov, is an “extra person” who does not know how to adapt to a new, rapidly changing world, to change himself and his views for the sake of a bright future. That is why one of the most acute conflicts in the work is the opposition to the passive, inert hero of an active society, in which Oblomov cannot find a worthy place for himself.

What does Oblomov have in common with “extra people”?

In Russian literature, this type of hero as an “extra person” appeared in the early 20s of the 19th century. This character was characterized by alienation from the usual noble environment and, in general, the entire official life of Russian society, since he felt boredom and his superiority (both intellectual and moral) over the others. The “superfluous person” is filled with mental fatigue, can talk a lot but do nothing, and is very skeptical. Moreover, the hero is always the heir to a good fortune, which he, however, does not try to increase.
And indeed, Oblomov, having inherited a larger estate from his parents, could easily have settled matters there long ago so that he could live in complete prosperity with the money he received from the farm. However, mental fatigue and boredom overwhelming the hero prevented him from starting any business - from the banal need to get out of bed to writing a letter to the headman.

Ilya Ilyich does not associate himself with society, which Goncharov vividly depicted at the beginning of the work, when visitors come to Oblomov. Each guest for the hero is like a cardboard decoration with which he practically does not interact, putting a kind of barrier between others and himself, covering himself with a blanket. Oblomov does not want to go on visits like others, to communicate with hypocritical and uninteresting people who disappointed him even during his service - when he came to work, Ilya Ilyich hoped that everyone there would be the same friendly family, as in Oblomovka, but was faced with a situation where every person is “for himself.” Discomfort, the inability to find one’s social calling, the feeling of uselessness in the “neo-Oblomov” world leads to the hero’s escapism, immersion in illusions and memories of Oblomov’s wonderful past.

In addition, the “extra” person always does not fit into his time, rejecting it and acting contrary to the rules and values ​​dictating to him the system. In contrast to Pechorin and Onegin, who gravitate towards the romantic tradition, always striving forward, ahead of their time, or the character of enlightenment Chatsky, rising above a society mired in ignorance, Oblomov is an image of the realistic tradition, a hero striving not in front, for transformations and new discoveries (in society or in his soul), to a wonderful distant future, but focused on the past that is close and important to him, “Oblomovism.”

Love of the "extra person"

If in the matter of time orientation Oblomov differs from the “extra heroes” who preceded him, then in matters of love their fates are very similar. Like Pechorin or Onegin, Oblomov is afraid of love, afraid of what may change and become different or negatively influence his beloved - even to the point of degradation of her personality. On the one hand, parting with lovers is always a noble step on the part of the “superfluous hero”, on the other hand, it is a manifestation of infantilism - for Oblomov it was an appeal to Oblomov’s childhood, where everything was decided for him, they took care of him and everything was allowed.

The “superfluous man” is not ready for fundamental, sensual love for a woman; for him, it is not so much the real beloved that is important, but a self-created, inaccessible image - we see this both in Onegin’s feelings for Tatyana that flared up years later, and in illusory, “spring” feelings Oblomov to Olga. The “superfluous person” needs a muse - beautiful, unusual and inspiring (for example, like Pechorin’s Bella). However, not finding such a woman, the hero goes to the other extreme - he finds a woman who would replace his mother and create the atmosphere of distant childhood.
Oblomov and Onegin, who are different at first glance, equally suffer from loneliness in the crowd, but if Evgeny does not refuse social life, then for Oblomov the only way out is to immerse himself in himself.

Is Oblomov a superfluous person?

The “superfluous man” in Oblomov is perceived by other characters differently than similar heroes in previous works. Oblomov is kind, simple, fair man who sincerely wants quiet, calm happiness. He is attractive not only to the reader, but also to the people around him - it’s not for nothing that school years His friendship with Stolz does not end and Zakhar continues to serve the master. Moreover, Olga and Agafya sincerely fell in love with Oblomov precisely for his spiritual beauty, dying under the pressure of apathy and inertia.

What is the reason that from the very appearance of the novel in print, critics defined Oblomov as a “superfluous person,” because the hero of realism, unlike the characters of romanticism, is a typified image that combines the features of an entire group of people? By portraying Oblomov in the novel, Goncharov wanted to show not just one “extra” person, but a whole social stratum of educated, wealthy, intelligent, sincere people who could not find themselves in the rapidly changing, new Russian society. The author emphasizes the tragedy of the situation when, unable to change with circumstances, such “Oblomovs” slowly die, continuing to hold tightly to long-gone, but still important and soul-warming memories of the past.

It will be especially useful for 10th graders to familiarize themselves with the above arguments before writing an essay on the topic “Oblomov and the “extra people”.”

Work test

N.L. Dobrolyubov

Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov (1836 - 1861) is the second largest representative of “real” criticism of the 60s. By the way, this term itself belongs to him - real criticism.

In 1857, Dobrolyubov, while still a student at the St. Petersburg Main Pedagogical Institute, appeared on the pages of Sovremennik (articles “Interlocutor of Lovers of the Russian Word”, “A.V. Koltsov”, etc.), became a permanent contributor to this magazine. From the beginning of 1858 N.G. Chernyshevsky, who saw a comrade-in-arms in the young critic, transferred the department of criticism and bibliography to his jurisdiction. “Four years of feverish, tireless work” followed (N.A. Nekrasov), which soon made him the author of the articles “What is Oblomovism?”, “The Dark Kingdom”, “When will the real day come?” one of central figures Russian literary and social thought of this time.

In 1861, in the article “Mr. ...bov and the question of art” F.M. Dostoevsky testified: today’s critics are almost not read, but “Mr. ... Bov (i.e. Dobrolyubov, who signed his speeches with an incomplete surname - V.N.) ... forced himself to be read, and for this One thing is that he is worth special attention.”

Dobrolyubov’s literary-critical position was already determined in such articles of 1857 - 1858 as “Provincial Sketches. From the notes of... Shchedrin" and "On the degree of participation of the people in the development of Russian literature." It receives its development and completion in the critic’s major works: “What is Oblomovism?” (1850). "The Dark Kingdom" (1859). “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom” (1860), “When will the real day come?” (1860), “Downtrodden People” (1861). Dobrolyubov is a direct ally of Chernyshevsky in the struggle for the “party of the people” in literature, that is, for the creation of a literary movement depicting modern Russian reality from the position of the people (peasantry) and serving the cause of liberation. Like Chernyshevsky, he is a constant opponent of “aesthetic criticism,” which he, with considerable justification, qualifies as dogmatic, dooming art “to immobility.” Dobrolyubov’s (“Dark Kingdom”) attempts, for example, by critics N.D. seem unsuccessful. Akhsharumov and B.N. Almazov to understand from the position of “eternal and general” laws of aesthetics in such an unconventional phenomenon as the plays of A.N. Ostrovsky.

Like Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov relies on Belinsky’s legacy from the 1940s. At the same time, Dobrolyubov’s critical position is characterized by deep originality and independence, which not only brings the author of “The Dark Kingdom” closer to other representatives of real criticism, but also distinguishes him from them. They are manifested in an understanding of the role and significance in the creative act of the artist’s immediate feelings, on the one hand, and his ideological position (ideology), on the other.

Paying tribute to such a writer’s ability as “the power of direct creativity” (Belinsky), Dobrolyubov’s teachers major success(or, on the contrary, failure) of the artist was nevertheless determined by his ideological sphere. Hence the reproaches of both Belinsky and Chernyshevsky against Gogol, who, possessing “the amazing power of direct feeling (in the sense of the ability to reproduce every object in the fullness of its life, with all its subtlest features),” did not rise or was unable to, as critics believed , rise to the advanced (socialist and revolutionary-democratic first of all) modern theories. On the contrary, Dobrolyubov, analyzing the works of Ostrovsky and Goncharov, links the main achievements of these authors primarily with their inherent “power of direct feeling”, and not with their ideological position. According to Dobrolyubov, it was to him that Ostrovsky owed his correct view of the phenomena of Russian life. Moreover, this feeling, according to the critic, can come into conflict with the ideology (views) of the writer if it diverges from the truth of life.

Indicative in this light is Dobrolyubov’s attitude, for example, to Ostrovsky’s plays “Don’t sit in your own sleigh”, “Don’t live the way you want”. “Poverty is not a vice,” created under the influence of Slavophile ideas, is obviously false in the eyes of a democratic critic. Chernyshevsky, in his 1856 review of the comedy “Poverty is not a Vice,” reasoned as follows. The works are based on an erroneous idea. Since a false thought bleeds even the strongest talent, Ostrovsky’s comedy turned out to be artistically untenable. Dobrolyubov puts the question differently. Yes, he says, these plays by Ostrovsky are inspired by false sentiments. “But,” the critic continues, “the power of immediate artistic feeling could not abandon the author here, and therefore the particular positions and individual characters taken by him ... are distinguished by genuine truth.”

Dobrolyubov and Goncharov value immediate feelings first and foremost. Speaking in his last annual review of Russian literature about the desire of the author of “Ordinary History” to portray his heroes purely objectively, impartially (“He has neither love nor enmity for the persons he creates, they do not amuse him, he does not give any moral lessons neither to them nor to the reader"). Belinsky considered this a shortcoming of the novelist. “Of all the current writers,” he noted with irony, “he (Goncharov. - V.N.) is the only one... approaching the ideal of pure art, while all the others have moved away from it into an immeasurable space” - and thereby succeed.” . “First of all, an artist” - calm, sober, dispassionate - he calls Goncharov in the article “What is Oblomovism?” and Dobrolyubov. However, unlike Belinsky, he evaluates these features of the talent and creative position of the creator of “Oblomov” essentially positively. Indeed, thanks to them, “his (Goncharov’s – V.N.) creativity is not embarrassed by any prejudices, does not succumb to any exceptional sympathies.” In other words, the writer’s immediate reaction to reality is stronger in it.

What's the matter? Why does Dobrolyubov, unlike Belinsky and Chernyshevsky, determine the truthfulness of the reproduction of life not so much by the ideology of the writer, but by his living instinct and feeling?

The answer lies in the philosophical premise of Dobrolyubov's criticism - the so-called anthropological materialism. This is the general basis of "real" criticism. However, in Dobrolyubov it acquires, perhaps, the most effective character, which largely predetermines Dobrolyubov’s concept of both the person and the artist.

Anthropologism is one of the varieties of the materialist worldview, which preceded the dialectical and historical materialism of K. Marx and F. Engels. The French Enlightenmentists were anthropological materialists. XVIII century(in particular, Jean Jacques Rousseau), later many of the French utopian socialists. Then the anthropological principle in philosophy was developed by L. Feuerbach, who made it the basis of his ideas about man. In the human individual, philosophers-anthropologists distinguish, first of all, the original nature (nature, nature), which developed in the pre-class period of history and consists of a number of basic components (beginnings). Man, according to this understanding, is by nature: 1) reasonable ( homo sapiens), 2) inclined towards activity, a hard worker (homo faber), 3) a social, collective being (sociale animal est homo; zoon politicon, 4) kind, 5) strives for happiness (profit), egoist, 6) free and freedom-loving.

The presence in one or another individual of all the components of his nature, equally developed and complementary to each other, turns him into a “ normal person”, that is, completely consistent with his nature. Such, for example, according to Chernyshevsky, are the heroes of his novel about “new people” - Lopukhov, Kirsanov, Vera Pavlovna, the Mertsalovs. (According to Chernyshevsky, note in parentheses, human “naturalness” is identical to genius, therefore a genius is simply a normally developed person.)

So, a real man in his behavior is determined primarily by the requirements of his human nature, but he is also influenced by the society in which he is located. This influence can coincide with the requirements of nature if society is built in complete harmony with it: if reason reigns in it, “universal labor, a sense of collectivism, not individualism, goodness, freedom of each and all. In this case, the very egoism of man, pacified reason and the desire for good, transforms into “reasonable egoism", that is, it naturally harmonizes the interests (benefit, benefit) of the individual with the benefit of the whole society. Such a society was depicted by Chernyshevsky in the novel “What is to be done?” in Vera Pavlovna's fourth dream. This, according to the novelist, is a natural human community, that is, meeting all the needs of human nature.

Dobrolyubov thinks similarly. Thus, in the article “The Dark Kingdom” the critic likens Russian society in a prison into which “not a single sound from the free air, not a single ray of bright day penetrates. But he immediately adds: and in it “from time to time a spark of that sacred flame flares up, which burns in every human breast, until it is flooded with an influx of everyday dirt.” In the light of the anthropological interpretation of reason, Dobrolyubov characterized such a phenomenon of Russian life as tyranny. Tyrants are people; “unaccustomed to all rationality and truth in their everyday relationships.” Tyrant power is a “senseless” force that “does not recognize any reasonable rights and demands.” Tyrants are people with an extremely distorted nature, and along with generally useful work, they despise the reason that is fundamental to it.

So, the human personality in Dobrolyubov’s view. turns out to be dual: the natural (“natural”) principle is combined in it with the actual social, formed by the dominant way of life, environment. The modern Russian artist is by no means free from the varied influence of the latter. Consequently, a certain duality may distinguish him too.

These premises explain the preference given by Dobrolyubov to the writer’s immediate instincts and feelings over his ideology and general views. After all, they are incomparably more than the natural sphere of his personality, subject to the influence of concepts and ideas imposed by the dominant society. Sharing them as a thinker, ideologist, the artist is able to challenge and correct them as a living person - with the power of immediate truth, natural humanity. This will happen the sooner the larger and more original the artist’s nature.

Therefore, the scale of the writer’s nature (nature) is therefore almost adequate in Dobrolyubov to the exchange of artistic talent. A dependent, small person is unable to become a major artist. At best he will become a spokesperson fashion ideas and moods, how. for example, the liberal whistle-blowing writers V. Sollogub and Rosenheim. “We understand,” writes Dobrolyubov, “that Count Sollogub, for example, cannot be analyzed otherwise than by asking: “What did he want to say with his “Official”? poems remains the relative significance of the idea on which it is composed.” On the contrary, in the works of Ostrovsky, according to the critic, first of all, the deep nature of this man is reflected. Therefore, “Ostrovsky knows how to look into the depths of the human soul, knows how to distinguish nature from all externally accepted deformities and layers...”

For a true artist, it is necessary, Dobrolyubov believes, to distinguish and share a priori views that he owes to society (or accepted on faith), on the one hand, and a worldview that embodies the deepest principles of his personality, its innermost pathos, on the other hand, the concept of a worldview (and not actual ideological position) becomes the most important in Dobrolyubov’s criticism. In works talented artist“,” he writes in the article “The Dark Kingdom,” “... one can always notice something in common that characterizes all of them and distinguishes them from the works of other writers. In the technical language of art, it is customary to call this the artist’s worldview. But in vain would we bother to bring this worldview into certain logical structures, to express it in certain formulas. These abstractions usually do not exist in the artist’s consciousness itself; often, even in abstract reasoning, he expresses concepts that are strikingly opposite to what is expressed in his artistic activities - concepts, taken by him on faith or obtained through false, hastily, purely externally composed syllogisms. His own view of the world, which serves as the key to characterizing his talent, must be sought in the living images he creates.”

The contradiction between the artist’s nature (immediate feeling) and his views (ideology), however, did not seem absolutely inevitable to Dobrolyubov. There is no doubt that the critic did not find it among people of a revolutionary bent and the same convictions - among N.A. Nekrasova, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. However, writers who fully corresponded to Dobrolyubov’s ideal of a freedom-loving artist were still counted in just a few. Used huge success among the public, Turgenev, Goncharov, Ostrovsky, Dostoevsky did not share the same conclusions about the need for the violent elimination of the existing social order that Dobrolyubov did. Chernyshevsky inevitably followed, in particular, from the anthropological concept of man and history. Born humanists, these writers were nevertheless not revolutionaries.

Awareness of this fact explains Dobrolyubov’s first requirement for criticism: it must, leaving the writer’s actual ideology aside, take up the artistic images he created, since the artist’s worldview is reflected in them. Dobrolyubov will follow this path, analyzing the dramas of Ostrovsky, the novels of Goncharov, Turgenev, Dostoevsky. Without imposing, say, on Ostrovsky any predetermined regulations and requirements, which is what representatives of “aesthetic” criticism sinned with, Dobrolyubov focuses his attention on specific characters, scenes and provisions of a particular play, exploring the objective meaning contained in them. At the same time, the critic is interested not so much in what the writer wanted to say, but in what was expressed in a certain way, by the conflict, by the work as a whole. Dobrolyubov called this method of criticism real.

According to Dobrolyubov, even a single character, an image created by a great artist, contains significant and, moreover, relevant content, to one degree or another embodying the natural aspirations of his contemporaries. The fact is that a true artist knows how to present to the reader “ full man", thereby "making human nature visible through all the influx of abominations." This ability distinguishes, in particular, Ostrovsky. “And in this ability to notice nature,” writes Dobrolyubov, “to penetrate deep into a person’s soul, to capture his feelings, regardless of the depiction of his external, official relationships, - in this we recognize one of the main best properties of Ostrovsky’s talent.”

To portray a person in his entirety, that is, in the totality of not only social, but also natural traits, means guaranteeing the character’s fidelity to the truth of life. And at the same time, artistic and aesthetic value. From these positions, Dobrolyubov defends Ostrovsky’s plays from the reproaches of “aesthetic” criticism, which found in them an abundance of random persons and episodes, even “contempt for the logical isolation of the work.” Yes, Dobrolyubov agrees, Ostrovsky’s dramas do often end in random endings. But they reflect a society in which unreasonableness reigns. Where can we find reasonable solutions? “In our opinion,” the critic notes, “all kinds of plots are suitable for a work of art, no matter how random they may be, and in such plots it is necessary to sacrifice even abstract logic for naturalness, in full confidence that life, like nature, has its own logic and that this logic may turn out to be much better than the one that we often impose on it." Dobrolyubov links the originality of the plot structure in Ostrovsky’s plays with their genre. By his definition, these are “plays of life.”

The proposed definition reflected, however, strong point Dobrolyubov’s critical method and the danger hidden in it. The definition emphasized Ostrovsky's genre innovation, the difference between his playwrights and comedy of characters, sitcoms, etc. At the same time, it seemed to blur the line separating artistic authenticity (truth) from the truth of objective reality. Identifying them “threatened to replace the analysis of the work of art itself with a journalistic conversation about it.

“The completeness of the phenomena of life”, accessible to this or that artist, becomes an important criterion of talent for Dobrolyubov. Here, he says, are two poets - Tyutchev and Fet. Both are gifted. But if Fet captures life only in fleeting impressions from quiet natural phenomena, Tyutchev also has access to “deep thought, severe with energies..., excited by moral questions, the interests of public life.” Consequently, Tyutchev is a greater artist than Fet. The ability to “capture the full image of an object, mint it, sculpt it” is evidence, according to Dobrolyubov, of Goncharov’s extraordinary talent.

In the articles “Russian Satire in the Age of Catherine”, “On the Degree of National Participation in the Development of Russian Literature” (1858), “Characteristics of the Russian Common People” (1860), Dobrolyubov formulated the second most important requirement of “real” criticism. This is a requirement (criterion) of the people. “The measure of the merit of a writer or an individual work,” the critic declared, “we accept the extent to which they serve as an expression of the natural aspirations of a certain time and people.”

By “natural aspirations,” Dobrolyubov, as a follower of anthropological materialism, means the inherently human needs for freedom and happiness, the social (collective) orientation and content of which are guaranteed by reason and generally useful work sanctified by reason. First of all, the life of the people (peasantry) is spent in generally useful labor. This circumstance turns the people, in the eyes of Dobrolyubov, spiritually and morally into the healthiest part of the Russian nation, into a decisive force on the path of its liberation. Hence the love of the people (but not the worship of the people) of Dobrolyubov and Chernyshevsky.

A writer becomes a people's writer to the extent that his works reproduce and stimulate the natural aspirations of his contemporaries, especially those from a democratic environment. In many respects, according to Dobrolyubov, Ostrovsky deserves the name of a national writer, in whose dramas, along with the corrupting influence of an inhumane social order, the critic sees heroes from whose lips the voice of protest, the voice of unclouded human nature is heard. At the same time, Dobrolyubov notes that in modern Russian literature there is still no “party” (the names of Nekrasov and Saltykov-Shchedrin are not mentioned, apparently for tactical reasons), which would speak on behalf of the people and in their voice. It has yet to be created.

So, the analysis and final assessment of a work of art is defined by Dobrolyubov by two main criteria, determined by both the philosophical and socio-political positions of the critic: 1) the objective content of the images created by the artist (characters, conflicts, situations, etc.). considered in the light of the natural aspirations of man, 2) the degree of nationality.

Dobrolyubov's strength was his ability to use talented literature as an ally in revolutionary propaganda and struggle. Dobrolyubov’s interpretation of the dramas of Ostrovsky, the novels of Turgenev, Goncharov, Dostoevsky and others transformed them from phenomena of a moral and aesthetic order into facts and factors of social, civil self-awareness and progress. At the same time, the shift of the critic’s attention from the concept of the artist himself (his “innermost spirit,” as Belinsky put it) to the objective meaning of his images threatened to neglect not only the a priori views of the writer, but also the internal logic of the work. Dobrolyubov did not avoid this danger when analyzing Turgenev’s novel “On the Eve” in the article “When will the real day come?” Turgenev not only did not accept Dobrolyubov’s interpretation of the novel, but also protested against the publication of the article. And second. One or the other artistic image(character) cannot be removed from the figurative system of the work without damaging its artistic meaning. But it must be said that Dobrolyubov does this in more than one article, “The Dark Kingdom,” where he groups Ostrovsky’s characters in the light of their own understanding, and not their position in this or that playwright’s play. In both cases, the conversation about the work threatened to turn into speculation about it, that is, pure journalism.

And now about one more thing interesting feature critical works of Dobrolyubov, which has not yet been recorded by specialists.

Dobrolyubov’s articles were often likened to sociological treatises, which is largely true. At the same time, they have a curious feature, dictated primarily by the anthropological philosophy of the author. Dobrolyubov’s largest speeches are nothing more than an analysis of Russian society in a vertical section, starting with the upper ruling classes and ending with the lower classes, the people. The critic measures these strata by the degree of natural aspirations available to them.

One of the first major articles is “Provincial Sketches. From the notes of... Shchedrin" - analyzes the noble intelligentsia. The critic finds in its representatives an extreme impoverishment of “nature” - natural inclinations. This, in his opinion, is no wonder, since the life of a noble intellectual, with rare exceptions, is spent in idleness, provided for by the free labor of serfs. Therefore, according to the critic, these are not even “talented natures” in the ironic sense that the author of the essays gave this epithet, but “rotten” natures.

The second, fundamentally important article is “What is Oblomovism?” - from the same positions he debunks the dominant type of noble oppositionist (“superfluous man”) - from Onegin and Pechorin to Rudin. Here also the original nature is distorted or weakened by similar conditions of existence. These are therefore “trashy” natures.

In the article “Dark Kingdom” a close to literary image“senseless” tyrant power is a symbol of the life of the ruling classes. This is a life that has broken with light, reason and work, a focus of gross absurdities, moral deformities, lies and hypocrisy. In other words, the “dark kingdom” (“the power of darkness”) in the original meaning of the concept, going back to the Bible.

The dominant “dark kingdom”, its oppressive and degrading force of human nature, formed “downtrodden people” (this is the title of Dobrolyubov’s article about Dostoevsky’s novel “The Humiliated and Insulted”), that is, “downtrodden natures. timid and patiently suffering people, in whose souls, however, the light of human desires has not completely gone out. These are minor officials, poor writers, etc.

Finally, the article “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom” points to an environment - a layer of Russian society - in which human nature appears unbroken despite the suffocating atmosphere of prevailing morals and way of life. This is an area close to working people. This is a font of “normal” natures, an example of which was Katerina from Ostrovsky’s “The Thunderstorm” for Dobrolyubov..

Thus, with hope in the final victory of man’s natural aspirations, his primordial nature over the “fantastic” and “artificial” social order, Dobrolyubov ended his literary and critical work, who died of tuberculosis at the age of 25.

And one last thing. Until now, we have used the definition of Dobrolyubov’s criticism that he himself gave it: real. The above allows us to concretize this definition, common to democratic criticism. Dobrolyubov’s critical method (system) can be characterized as literary-journalistic, bearing in mind both the predominance of journalistic pathos in it and the author’s commitment to literary progress itself.

Roman "Oblomov". Since 1847, Goncharov had been thinking about the horizons of a new novel: this thought is also palpable in the essays “Frigate Pallada,” where he pits a type of businesslike and practical Englishman against a Russian landowner living in patriarchal Oblomovka. And in “Ordinary History” such a clash moved the plot. It is no coincidence that Goncharov once admitted that in Ordinary History, Oblomov and Precipice he sees not three novels, but one. The writer completed work on Oblomov in 1858 and published it in the first four issues of the journal Otechestvennye zapiski for 1859.

Dobrolyubov about the novel. "Oblomov" met with unanimous acclaim, but opinions about the meaning of the novel were sharply divided. N. A. Dobrolyubov in the article “What is Oblomovism?” I saw in Oblomov the crisis and collapse of old feudal Rus'. Ilya Ilyich Oblomov is “our indigenous folk type,” symbolizing laziness, inaction and stagnation of the entire feudal system of relations. He is the last in a row of “superfluous people” - the Onegins, Pechorins, Beltovs and Rudins. Like his older predecessors, Oblomov is infected with a fundamental contradiction between word and deed, dreaminess and practical worthlessness. But in Oblomov, the typical complex of the “superfluous man” is brought to a paradox, to its logical end, beyond which is the disintegration and death of man. Goncharov, according to Dobrolyubov, reveals the roots of Oblomov’s inaction more deeply than all his predecessors.

The novel reveals the complex relationship between slavery and lordship. “It is clear that Oblomov is not a stupid, apathetic nature,” writes Dobrolyubov. “But the vile habit of receiving satisfaction of his desires not from his own efforts, but from others, developed in him an apathetic immobility and plunged him into a pitiful state moral slavery. This slavery is so intertwined with Oblomov’s lordship, so they mutually penetrate each other and are determined by one another, that it seems there is not the slightest possibility of drawing any kind of boundary between them... He is the slave of his serf Zakhar, and it is difficult to decide ", which of them is more submissive to the power of the other. At least - what Zakhar does not want, Ilya Ilyich cannot force him to do, and what Zakhar wants, he will do against the master’s will, and the master will submit..."

But that is why the servant Zakhar, in a certain sense, is a “master” over his master: Oblomov’s complete dependence on him makes it possible for Zakhar to sleep peacefully on his bed. The ideal of Ilya Ilyich’s existence - “idleness and peace” - is equally Zakhara’s longed-for dream. Both of them, master and servant, are children of Oblomovka.

“Just like one hut ended up on the cliff of a ravine, it has been hanging there since time immemorial, standing with one half in the air and supported by three poles. Three or four generations lived quietly and happily in it.” Since time immemorial, the manor house also had a gallery that had collapsed, and they had been planning to repair the porch for a long time, but it has not been repaired yet.

“No, Oblomovka is our direct homeland, its owners are our educators, its three hundred Zakharovs are always ready for our services,” concludes Dobrolyubov. “There is a significant part of Oblomov in each of us, and it is too early to write a funeral eulogy for us.”

“If I now see a landowner talking about the rights of humanity and the need for personal development, I know from his first words that this is Oblomov.

If I meet an official who complains about the complexity and burdensomeness of office work, he is Oblomov.

If I hear from an officer complaints about the tedium of parades and bold arguments about the uselessness of a quiet step, etc., I have no doubt that he is Oblomov.

When I read in magazines liberal outbursts against abuses and the joy that what we have long hoped and desired has finally been done, I think that everyone is writing this from Oblomovka.

When I am in a circle of educated people who ardently sympathize with the needs of humanity and for many years, with undiminished fervor, tell the same (and sometimes new) anecdotes about bribe-takers, about oppression, about lawlessness of all kinds, I involuntarily feel that I moved to old Oblomovka,” writes Dobrolyubov.

(*29) Druzhinin about the novel. This is how one point of view on Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov”, on the origins of the protagonist’s character, emerged and became stronger. But already among the first critical responses, a different, opposite assessment of the novel appeared. It belongs to the liberal critic A.V. Druzhinin, who wrote the article “Oblomov,” a novel by Goncharov.”

Druzhinin also believes that the character of Ilya Ilyich reflects the essential aspects of Russian life, that “Oblomov” was studied and recognized by a whole people, predominantly rich in Oblomovism.” But, according to Druzhinin, “in vain many people with overly practical aspirations are trying to despise Oblomov and even call his snail: this whole strict trial of the hero shows one superficial and fleeting pickiness. Oblomov is kind to all of us and deserves boundless love."

“The German writer Riehl said somewhere: woe to that political society where there are no and cannot be honest conservatives; imitating this aphorism, we will say: it is not good for that land where there are no kind and incapable of evil eccentrics like Oblomov.” What does Druzhinin see as the advantages of Oblomov and Oblomovism? “Oblomovism is disgusting if it stems from rottenness, hopelessness, corruption and evil stubbornness, but if its root lies simply in the immaturity of society and the skeptical hesitation of pure-hearted people in the face of practical disorder, which happens in all young countries, then being angry with it means the same thing why be angry with a child whose eyes are sticking together in the middle of an evening noisy conversation between adults..."

Druzhinsky's approach to understanding Oblomov and Oblomovism did not become popular in the 19th century. Dobrolyubov's interpretation of the novel was enthusiastically accepted by the majority. However, as the perception of “Oblomov” deepened, revealing to the reader more and more facets of its content, the druzhinsky article began to attract attention. Already in Soviet times, M. M. Prishvin wrote in his diary: “Oblomov.” In this novel, Russian laziness is internally glorified and externally it is condemned by the depiction of dead-active people (Olga and Stolz). No “positive” activity in Russia can withstand Oblomov’s criticism: his peace is fraught with a demand for the highest value, for such activity, because of which it would be worth losing peace. This is a kind of Tolstoyan “not doing.” It cannot be otherwise in a country where any activity aimed at improving one’s existence is accompanied by a feeling of wrongness, and only activity in which the personal completely merges with the work for others can be opposed to Oblomov’s peace.”

The completeness and complexity of Oblomov's character. In the light of these diametrically opposed interpretations of Oblomov and Oblomovism, let us take a closer look at the text of the very complex and multi-layered content of Goncharov’s novel, in which the phenomena of life “revolve from all sides.” The first part of the novel is dedicated to one ordinary day in the life of Ilya Ilyich. This life is limited to the confines of one room in which Oblomov lies and sleeps. Externally, very little happens here. But the picture is full of movement. Firstly, the hero’s state of mind is constantly changing, the comic merges with the tragic, carelessness with internal torment and struggle, sleep and apathy with the awakening and play of feelings. Secondly, Goncharov, with plastic virtuosity, guesses in the household items surrounding Oblomov the character of their owner. Here he follows in the footsteps of Gogol. The author describes Oblomov's office in detail. All things show abandonment, traces of desolation: last year's newspaper is lying around, there is a layer of dust on the mirrors, if someone decided to dip a pen into an inkwell, a fly would fly out of it. The character of Ilya Ilyich is guessed even through his shoes, long, soft and wide. When the owner, without looking, lowered his feet from the bed to the floor, he certainly fell into them immediately. When in the second part of the novel Andrei Stolts tries to awaken the hero to an active life, confusion reigns in Oblomov’s soul, and the author conveys this through his discord with familiar things. “Now or never!”, “To be or not to be!” Oblomov started to get up from his chair, but didn’t immediately hit his shoe and sat down again.”

The image of the robe in the novel and the whole story of Ilya Ilyich’s relationship to it are also symbolic. Oblomov’s robe is special, oriental, “without the slightest hint of Europe.” He, like an obedient slave, obeys the slightest movement of his master’s body. When love for Olga Ilyinskaya temporarily awakens the hero to an active life, his determination is associated with the robe: “This means,” Oblomov thinks, “suddenly throwing off the wide robe not only from his shoulders, but also from his soul, from his mind...” But in At the moment of the decline of love, like an ominous omen, the threatening image of a robe flashes in the novel. Oblomov’s new owner, Agafya Matveevna Pshenitsyna, reports that she took the robe out of the closet and is going to wash and clean it.

(*31) The connection between Oblomov’s internal experiences and the things that belong to him creates in the novel comic effect. Not anything significant, but shoes and a robe characterize his internal struggle. The hero's long-standing habit of the deceased Oblomov's life is revealed, his attachment to household things and dependence on them. But here Goncharov is not original. He picks up and develops the Gogolian technique of reifying man, known to us from Dead Souls. Let us recall, for example, the descriptions of the offices of Manilov and Sobakevich.

The peculiarity of Goncharov’s hero is that his character is in no way exhausted or limited by this. Along with the everyday environment, the action of the novel includes much more extensive connections, influencing Ilya Ilyich. The very concept of the environment that shapes human character is expanded immensely by Goncharov. Already in the first part of the novel, Oblomov is not only a comic hero: behind the humorous episodes, other, deeply dramatic principles slip through. Goncharov uses the hero’s internal monologues, from which we learn that Oblomov is a living and complex person. He plunges into youthful memories, reproaches for a mediocre life are stirring in him. Oblomov is ashamed of his own lordship, as a person, he rises above him. The hero is faced with a painful question: “Why am I like this?” The answer to it is contained in the famous “Oblomov’s Dream”. The circumstances that influenced the character of Ilya Ilyich in childhood and youth are revealed here. The living, poetic picture of Oblomovka is part of the soul of the hero himself. It includes the Russian nobility, although Oblomovka is far from being limited to nobility. The concept of "Oblomovism" includes a whole patriarchal way of life Russian life not only with its negative, but also with its deeply poetic sides.

The broad and gentle character of Ilya Ilyich was influenced by Central Russian nature with the soft outlines of sloping hills, with the slow, leisurely flow of lowland rivers, which either spill into wide ponds, or rush in a fast thread, or crawl slightly over the pebbles, as if lost in thought. This nature, shunning the “wild and grandiose,” promises a person a calm and long-term life and an imperceptible, sleep-like death. Nature here, like an affectionate mother, takes care of the silence and measured tranquility of a person’s entire life. And at the same time, there is a special “mode” of peasant life with a rhythmic sequence of everyday life and holidays. And even thunderstorms are not terrible, but beneficial (*32) there: they “occur constantly at the same set time, almost never forgetting Ilya’s day, as if in order to support a well-known legend among the people.” There are no terrible storms or destruction in that region. The stamp of unhurried restraint also lies on the characters of people nurtured by Russian mother nature.

The creations of the people's poetic imagination match nature. “Then Oblomov dreamed of another time: on an endless winter evening he timidly clings to his nanny, and she whispers to him about some unknown side, where there are neither nights nor cold, where miracles happen, where rivers of honey and milk flow, where no one he doesn’t do anything all year round, and all he knows every day is that all the good fellows, such as Ilya Ilyich, and beauties are walking, no matter what a fairy tale can describe.”

Goncharov’s “Oblomovism” includes boundless love and affection, with which Ilya Ilyich has been surrounded and nurtured since childhood. “The mother showered him with passionate kisses,” looked “with greedy, caring eyes to see if his eyes were cloudy, if anything hurt, if he slept peacefully, if he woke up at night, if he tossed about in his sleep, if he had a fever.” .

This also includes the poetry of rural solitude, and pictures of generous Russian hospitality with a gigantic pie, and Homeric fun, and the beauty of peasant holidays to the sounds of the balalaika... It is not only slavery and lordship that shape the character of Ilya Ilyich. There is something in him from the fairy-tale Ivanushka, a wise sloth who distrusts everything calculating, active and offensive. Let others fuss, make plans, scurry and jostle, boss and servile others. And he lives calmly and carelessly, like the epic hero Ilya Muromets, he sits for thirty years and three years.

Here, in the modern St. Petersburg guise, “walking men” come to him, calling him on a journey across the sea of ​​\u200b\u200blife. And then we suddenly involuntarily feel that our sympathies are on the side of the “lazy” Ilya Ilyich. How does St. Petersburg life tempt Oblomov, where do his friends invite him? The capital's dandy Volkov promises him secular success, the official Sudbinsky - a bureaucratic career, the writer Penkin - vulgar literary denunciation.

“I’m stuck, dear friend, up to my ears,” Oblomov complains about the fate of the official Sudbinsky. “And he’s blind, and deaf, and dumb for everything else in the world. But he’ll come out into the public, and over time he’ll manage his affairs and grab ranks... And how little (*33) a person is needed here: his intelligence, his soul, his feelings - why is this?

“Where is the man here? Why is he fragmented and scattered?” Oblomov denounces the emptiness of Volkov’s social bustle. “...Yes, in ten places in one day - unfortunate!” - he concludes, “turning over on his back and rejoicing that he does not have such empty desires and thoughts, that he does not rush around, but lies here, maintaining his human dignity and his peace.”

In the life of business people, Oblomov does not see a field that meets the highest purpose of a person. So isn’t it better to remain an Oblomovite, but retain humanity and kindness of heart, than to be a vain careerist, an active Oblomov, callous and heartless? So Oblomov’s friend Andrei Stolts finally lifted the couch potato from the sofa, and Oblomov for some time indulges in the life into which Stolts plunges headlong.

“One day, returning from somewhere late, he especially rebelled against this fuss. - “For whole days,” Oblomov grumbled, putting on a robe, “you don’t take off your boots: your feet itch!” I don’t like this life of yours in St. Petersburg!” he continued, lying down on the sofa.

"Which one do you like?" - asked Stolz. - “Not like here.” - “What exactly didn’t you like here?” - “Everything, the eternal running around, the eternal game of trashy passions, especially greed, interrupting each other’s paths, gossip, gossip, clicking on each other, this looking from head to toe; if you listen to what they are talking about, you will feel dizzy, you will go crazy. It seems that you will go crazy. , people look so smart, with such dignity on their faces; all you hear is: “This one was given this, that one got the rent.” “For goodness sake, for what?” someone shouts. “This one lost yesterday in the club; he takes three hundred thousand!" Boredom, boredom, boredom!.. Where is the man here? Where is his integrity? Where did he hide, how did he exchange for every little thing? "

Oblomov lies on the sofa not only because as a master he can do nothing, but also because as a person he does not want to live at the expense of his moral dignity. His “doing nothing” is also perceived in the novel as a denial of bureaucracy, secular vanity and bourgeois businessmanship. Oblomov's laziness and inactivity are caused by his sharply negative and rightly skeptical attitude towards the life and interests of modern practically active people.

Andrey Stolts as the antipode of Oblomov. Oblomov is contrasted in the novel by Andrei Stolts. Initially, he was thought of by Goncharov as a positive hero, worthy of Oblomov’s antipode. The author dreamed that over time many “Stoltsevs will appear under Russian names.” He tried to combine in Stolz German hard work, prudence and punctuality with Russian dreaminess and gentleness, with philosophical thoughts about the high destiny of man. Stolz's father is a businesslike burgher, and his mother is a Russian noblewoman. But Goncharov failed to synthesize German practicality and Russian spiritual breadth. The positive qualities coming from the mother are only declared in Stolz: they never entered the flesh of the artistic image. In Stolz, the mind prevails over the heart. This is a rational nature, subordinating even the most intimate feelings to logical control and distrusting the poetry of free feelings and passions. Unlike Oblomov, Stolz is an energetic, active person. But what is the content of his activity? What ideals inspire Stolz to work hard and constantly? As the novel develops, the reader becomes convinced that the hero does not have any broad ideals, that his practice is aimed at personal success and bourgeois comfort.

Oblomov and Olga Ilyinskaya. And at the same time, behind the Russian type of bourgeois, the image of Mephistopheles can be seen in Stolz. Like Mephistopheles to Faust, Stolz, in the form of temptation, “slips” Olga Ilyinskaya to Oblomov. Even before she meets Oblomov, Stolz negotiates the terms of such a “prank.” Olga is given the task of lifting the couch potato Oblomov from his bed and dragging him into the big world. If Oblomov’s feelings for Olga are sincere and unartificial, then in Olga’s feelings we can sense a consistent calculation. Even in moments of enthusiasm, she does not forget about her high mission: “she liked this role of a guiding star, a ray of light that she would pour over a stagnant lake and be reflected in it.” It turns out that Olga loves in Oblomov not Oblomov himself, but her own reflection. For her, Oblomov is “some kind of Galatea, with whom she herself had to be Pygmalion.” But what does Olga offer Oblomov in exchange for him lying on the sofa? What light, what radiant ideal? Alas, the program for Oblomov’s awakening in Olga’s clever head is completely exhausted by Stoltsev’s horizon: read newspapers, bother about organizing the estate, go to the order. Everything is the same as what Oblomov and Stolz advise: “...Choose a small circle of activity for yourself, set up a village, tinker with the peasants, get involved in their affairs, (*35) build, plant - all this you must and can do.” This minimum for Stolz and Olga, whom he raised, is the maximum. Is this why, having flared up brightly, the love of Oblomov and Olga quickly fades?

As the Russian poet of the early 20th century I. F. Annensky wrote, “Olga is a moderate, balanced missionary. She does not have a desire to suffer, but a sense of duty... Her mission is modest - to awaken a sleeping soul. She fell in love not with Oblomov, but with The timid and gentle Oblomov, who treated her so obediently and so bashfully, loved her so simply, was only a convenient object for her girlish dreams and games of love.

But Olga is a girl with a large supply of common sense, independence and will, most importantly. Oblomov is the first, of course, to understand the chimerical nature of their romance, but she is the first to break it off.

One critic laughed evilly at both Olga and the end of the novel: good, they say, is love that burst like a soap bubble because the lazy groom did not get his act together.

This ending seems very natural to me. The harmony of the novel ended a long time ago, and it may have flashed for only two moments in Casta diva *, in the lilac branch; both Olga and Oblomov are experiencing a complex, inner life, but completely independently of each other; in a joint relationship there is boring prose, when Oblomov is sent either for double stars or for theater tickets, and he, groaning, bears the yoke of an affair.

Some nonsense was needed to cut off these very thin threads."

Olga’s head-like, rational-experimental love is contrasted with Agafya Matveevna Pshenitsyna’s spiritual-heartfelt love, not controlled by any external idea. Under the cozy roof of her home, Oblomov finds the desired peace.

The dignity of Ilya Ilyich lies in the fact that he is devoid of self-satisfaction and is aware of his spiritual decline: “I began to fade away over writing papers in the office; then I died out, reading truths in books that I didn’t know what to do with in life, I died out with my friends, listening to talk, gossip, mimicry... Either I didn’t understand this life, or it’s no good, and I didn’t know anything better, I didn’t see anything, no one showed it to me... yes, I’m flabby, decrepit, (*36) a worn-out caftan, but not from the climate, not from work, but from the fact that for twelve years the light was locked inside me, which was looking for a way out, but only burned its prison, did not break free and went out.”

When Olga, in the scene of the last date, declares to Oblomov that she loved in him what Stolz pointed out to her, and reproaches Ilya Ilyich for his dovelike meekness and tenderness, Oblomov’s legs give way. “In response, he smiled somehow pitifully, painfully bashful, like a beggar who was reproached for his nakedness. He sat with this smile of powerlessness, weakened by excitement and resentment; his extinct look clearly said: “Yes, I am meager, pitiful, poor.” ... hit me, hit me!.."

“Why doesn’t his passivity produce on us either the impression of bitterness or the impression of shame?” I. F. Annensky, who had a keen sense of Oblomov, asked the question and answered it like this. “Look at what is opposed to Oblomov’s laziness: career, social vanity, petty litigiousness or cultural - Stolz's commercial activities. Isn't it possible to sense in Oblomov's robe and sofa the denial of all these attempts to resolve the question of life?"

At the end of the novel, not only Oblomov fades away. Surrounded by bourgeois comfort, Olga begins to increasingly experience acute attacks of sadness and melancholy. She is troubled by eternal questions about the meaning of life, about the purpose of human existence. And what does the wingless Stolz say to her in response to all her worries? “You and I are not titans... we will not go with the Manfreds and Fausts into a daring fight against rebellious issues, we will not accept their challenge, bow our heads and humbly endure a difficult moment...” Before us, in essence, is the worst version of Oblomovism, because in Stolz she is stupid and smug.

Historical and philosophical meaning of the novel. In the conflict between Oblomov and Stolz, another, historical and philosophical meaning shines through behind social and moral problems. In the novel, sadly funny Oblomov challenges modern civilization with its idea of ​​historical progress. “And history itself,” he says, “only plunges you into melancholy: you teach, you read that a time of disaster has come, a person is unhappy; now he gathers his strength, works, struggles, endures and labors terribly, everything is preparing clear days. they came - here at least history itself could rest: no, the clouds appeared again, the building collapsed again, work and chaos again... The clear days will not stop, they run - and life continues to flow, everything flows, everything breaks and breaks.”

(*37) Oblomov is ready to leave the vain circle of history. He dreams that people will finally calm down and calm down, give up the pursuit of illusory comfort, stop playing technical games, leave big cities and return to the village world, to a simple, unpretentious life, fused with the rhythms of the surrounding nature. Here Goncharov’s hero in some ways anticipates the thoughts of the late L.N. Tolstoy, who denied technical progress and called people to simplification and to renounce the excesses of civilization.

Novel "Break". Goncharov continued his search for ways of organic development of Russia, removing the extremes of patriarchy and bourgeois progress, in his last novel, “The Precipice.” It was conceived back in 1858, but the work lasted, as always, for a whole decade, and the “Cliff” was completed in 1868. As the revolutionary movement develops in Russia, Goncharov becomes an increasingly determined opponent of drastic social changes. This affects the change in the concept of the novel. It was originally called "The Artist". In the main character, the artist Raisky, the writer thought to show Oblomov awakening to an active life. The main conflict of the work was still built on the collision of the old, patriarchal-serf Russia with the new, active and practical, but it was resolved in the original plan by the triumph of young Russia.

Accordingly, the character of Raisky’s grandmother sharply emphasized the despotic habits of the old landowner-serf. Democrat Mark Volokhov was considered a hero exiled to Siberia for his revolutionary beliefs. And the central heroine of the novel, proud and independent Vera, broke with “grandmother’s truth” and left after her beloved Volokhov.

A lot changed while working on the novel. The character of grandmother Tatyana Markovna Berezhkova increasingly emphasized positive moral values ​​that keep life on safe “shores.” And in the behavior of the young heroes of the novel, “falls” and “precipices” increased. The title of the novel also changed: the neutral one - “The Artist” - was replaced by the dramatic one - “The Cliff”.

Life has also brought significant changes to the poetics of Goncharov’s novel. Compared to Oblomov, Goncharov now uses the confessions of the heroes much more often, their internal monologue. The narrative form has also become more complex. An intermediary (*37) appeared between the author and the heroes of the novel - the artist Raisky. This is a fickle person, an amateur, often changing his artistic preferences. He is a little bit of a musician and painter, and a little bit of a sculptor and writer. The lordly, Oblomov element is tenacious in him, preventing the hero from surrendering to life deeply, for a long time and seriously. All events, all people passing through the novel are passed through the prism of the perception of this changeable person. As a result, life is illuminated from a wide variety of angles: either through the eyes of a painter, or through the unsteady musical sensations elusive by plastic art, or through the eyes of a sculptor or a writer who has conceived a great novel. Through the intermediary Raisky, Goncharov achieves in “The Cliff” an extremely voluminous and vibrant artistic image, illuminating objects and phenomena “from all sides.”

If in Goncharov’s past novels there was one hero at the center, and the plot focused on revealing his character, then in “The Precipice” this sense of purpose disappears. There are many storylines and their corresponding heroes. The mythological subtext of Goncharov’s realism is also intensified in “The Precipice”. There is a growing desire to elevate fleeting momentary phenomena to fundamental and eternal ones. life fundamentals. Goncharov was generally convinced that life, with all its mobility, maintains unchanged foundations. Both in the old and in the new times, these foundations do not diminish, but remain unshakable. Thanks to them, life does not die or be destroyed, but remains and develops.

The living characters of people, as well as the conflicts between them, are directly traced back to mythological foundations, both Russian, national, and biblical, universal. The grandmother is both a woman of the 40s and 60s, but at the same time she is also patriarchal Russia with its stable, centuries-worn moral values, the same for both the noble estate and the peasant hut. Vera is also an emancipated girl of the 40s-60s with an independent character and a proud rebellion against the authority of her grandmother. But this is young Russia in all eras and all times, with its love of freedom and rebellion, with its bringing everything to the last, extreme line. And for love drama Faith with Mark raises the ancient tales of the prodigal son and fallen daughter. In the character of Volokhov, the anarchic, Buslaevsky beginning is clearly expressed.

Mark offering Vera an apple from his grandmother’s “paradise” garden is an allusion to the devilish temptation of the biblical heroes Adam and Eve. And when Raisky wants to breathe life (*39) and passion into his cousin Sofia Belovodova, beautiful in appearance but cold as a statue, the ancient legend about the sculptor Pygmalion and the beautiful Galatea, brought to life from marble, is resurrected in the reader’s mind.

"Oblomov" met with unanimous acclaim, but opinions about the meaning of the novel were sharply divided. N. A. Dobrolyubov in the article “What is Oblomovism?” I saw in Oblomov the crisis and collapse of old feudal Rus'. Ilya Ilyich Oblomov is “our indigenous folk type,” symbolizing laziness, inaction and stagnation of the entire feudal system of relations. He is the last in a row of “superfluous people” - the Onegins, Pechorins, Beltovs and Rudins. Like his older predecessors, Oblomov is infected with a fundamental contradiction between word and deed, dreaminess and practical worthlessness. But in Oblomov, the typical complex of the “superfluous man” is brought to a paradox, to its logical end, beyond which is the disintegration and death of man. Goncharov, according to Dobrolyubov, reveals the roots of Oblomov’s inaction more deeply than all his predecessors.

The novel reveals the complex relationship between slavery and lordship. “It is clear that Oblomov is not a stupid, apathetic nature,” writes Dobrolyubov. “But the vile habit of receiving satisfaction of his desires not from his own efforts, but from others, developed in him an apathetic immobility and plunged him into a pitiful state of moral slavery. Slavery is so intertwined with Oblomov's lordship, so they mutually penetrate each other and are determined by one another, that it seems there is not the slightest possibility of drawing any kind of boundary between them... He is the slave of his serf Zakhar, and it is difficult to decide which of them is more submissive the power of another. At least, what Zakhar doesn’t want, Ilya Ilyich cannot force him to do, and what Zakhar wants, he will do against the master’s will, and the master will submit..."

But that is why the servant Zakhar, in a certain sense, is a “master” over his master: Oblomov’s complete dependence on him makes it possible for Zakhar to sleep peacefully on his bed. The ideal of Ilya Ilyich’s existence - “idleness and peace” - is equally Zakhara’s longed-for dream. Both of them, master and servant, are children of Oblomovka.
Three or four generations lived quietly and happily in it." The gallery at the manor's house had also collapsed since time immemorial, and they had been planning to repair the porch for a long time, but it has not yet been repaired.

“No, Oblomovka is our direct homeland, its owners are our educators, its three hundred Zakharovs are always ready for our services,” concludes Dobrolyubov. “There is a significant part of Oblomov in each of us, and it is too early to write a funeral eulogy for us.”

“If I now see a landowner talking about the rights of humanity and the need for personal development, I know from his first words that this is Oblomov.

If I meet an official who complains about the complexity and burdensomeness of office work, he is Oblomov.

If I hear from an officer complaints about the tedium of parades and bold arguments about the uselessness of a quiet step, etc., I have no doubt that he is Oblomov.

When I read in magazines liberal outbursts against abuses and the joy that what we have long hoped and desired has finally been done, I think that everyone is writing this from Oblomovka.

When I am in a circle of educated people who ardently sympathize with the needs of humanity and for many years, with undiminished fervor, tell the same (and sometimes new) anecdotes about bribe-takers, about oppression, about lawlessness of all kinds, I involuntarily feel that I moved to old Oblomovka,” writes Dobrolyubov.

This is how one point of view on Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov”, on the origins of the protagonist’s character, emerged and became stronger. But already among the first critical responses, a different, opposite assessment of the novel appeared. It belongs to the liberal critic A.V. Druzhinin, who wrote the article “Oblomov,” a novel by Goncharov.”

But, according to Druzhinin, “it is in vain that many people with overly practical aspirations begin to despise Oblomov and even call him a snail: this whole strict trial of the hero shows one superficial and fleeting pickiness. Oblomov is dear to all of us and is worth boundless love.”

“The German writer Riehl said somewhere: woe to that political society where there are no and cannot be honest conservatives; imitating this aphorism, we will say: it is not good for that land where there are no kind and incapable of evil eccentrics like Oblomov.” What does Druzhinin see as the advantages of Oblomov and Oblomovism? “Oblomovism is disgusting if it stems from rottenness, hopelessness, corruption and evil stubbornness, but if its root lies simply in the immaturity of society and the skeptical hesitation of pure-hearted people in the face of practical disorder, which happens in all young countries, then being angry with it means the same thing why be angry with a child whose eyes are sticking together in the middle of an evening noisy conversation between adults..."

Druzhinsky's approach to understanding Oblomov and Oblomovism did not become popular in the 19th century. Dobrolyubov's interpretation of the novel was enthusiastically accepted by the majority. However, as the perception of “Oblomov” deepened, revealing to the reader more and more facets of its content, the druzhinsky article began to attract attention. Already in Soviet time M. M. Prishvin wrote in his diary: “Oblomov.” In this novel, Russian laziness is internally glorified and externally it is condemned by the depiction of dead-active people (Olga and Stolz). No “positive” activity in Russia can withstand Oblomov’s criticism: his peace is fraught with a demand for the highest value, for such activity, because of which it would be worth losing peace. This is a kind of Tolstoyan “not doing.”

The image of Stolz was conceived by Goncharov as an antipode to the image of Oblomov. In the image of this hero, the writer wanted to present an integral, active, active person, to embody the new Russian type. However, Goncharov’s plan was not entirely successful, and, above all, because...

N.A. Dobrolyubov in his famous article “What is Oblomovism?” wrote about this phenomenon as a “sign of the times.” From his point of view, Oblomov is “a living, modern, Russian type, minted with merciless rigor and correctness.”...

1. New!

   For a writer, both space and time are not only the object of depiction, but also an important means in the artistic exploration of the world. Turning to the spatial-temporal organization of the novel will help to better understand the ideological and artistic structure...

“To analyze the female images created by I. A. Goncharov means making a claim to be a great connoisseur woman's heart”, noted one of the most insightful Russian critics, N. A. Dobrolyubov. Indeed, the image of Olga Ilyinskaya can be called...