Oblomov on the Vyborg side.

1. Ilya Ilyich’s moral sense reacts unusually painfully to insults to his loved ones. One of the few decisive actions of the overly tolerant hero is the expulsion of Tarantiev. In this scene, Oblomov appears in an unusual state for him. There was a loud slap in the room... “384 -5 ( chapter 7, part 4) Having indifferently endured Tarantiev’s rudeness towards himself for many years, Oblomov cannot forgive him for Olga’s insults.

2. In the house on the Vyborg side, Oblomov seemed to have returned to the state in which the reader found him on Gorokhovaya Street. The whole difference is only in the degree of “well-being” of Ilya Ilyich - now “he shines, he shines

"under the constant care of the hostess.
But the reader has gained experience: behind the external immobility of the hero, there probably still lives a deep “longing of the heart, infinitely tender, capable of loving and believing and broken by the contradictions of reality
” (Ap. Grigoriev).
Stolz’s next visit, a conversation between friends and... the assumption is justified, Oblomov is tormented even more than ever by the shame of a fruitless existence - death does not frighten him “413 - 6”. Indeed, “ Oblomov’s apathy is not like that heavy dream in which they were the mental faculties of his parents are submerged;
this apathy paralyzes actions, but does not stiffen his feelings, does not take away his ability to think and dream; the human feelings implanted by nature in his soul have not hardened: they seem to have floated with fat, but have been preserved.” (D.I. Pisarev)

Pit? 415.

1. If Oblomov’s relationship with his friend is a reproach to Stolz, then the care of Oblomov, robbed by his “brother” and Tarantiev, voluntarily taken upon by Agafya Matveevna, is that “sacrifice of love” that the smart and proud Olga did not dare to make. “370” (5 chapters, 4 hours) Stolz carefully observed the hostess, sincerely talking about the pawned silver, pearls and furs - “ 379.”

2. “Human value,” according to Goncharov, is determined by purity, devotion, and selflessness. And therefore Goncharov argues with Stolz, for whom the house on the Vyborg side is just a “pit”. Goncharov saw Pshenitsyna in the house and

the other is the human soul, warm, devoted, suffering. Oblomov is gifted with the ability to see in everyone, first of all, a person. When Stolz called his friend, an old executor, a fool, Oblomov could not restrain himself and reproached him: “ How you sometimes speak harshly about people, Andrei, God knows you. But he’s a good person, he just doesn’t wear Dutch shirts.”

3. Oblomov’s misfortune is predetermined not only by the social environment, which he could not resist, it is also contained in the “ disastrous excess of the heart”

"; the hero's softness, delicacy, and vulnerability disarm his will. Fearing that his action will cause harm to others, he is ready not to act at all.

History of the Stolts family.

1. But “the abundance of the heart” can also become “disastrous,” although it is precisely this that often contributes to the creation of personal well-being, the acquisition of inner peace in the midst of world disorder, next to the misfortune of loved ones. This idea is conveyed by the story of the Stolts family.

2. “365” (chapter 4, part 4), Stolz said to Olga. And he built their life himself according to his own understanding and will. “392” (chapter 8, part 4) He settled not in St. Petersburg or in the village, but in Crimea, in his own house on the seashore. The choice of this place is far from accidental: Crimea, equally remote from the harsh North and the tropical South, is a kind of “norm” in nature. The following detail is also significant: from the gallery of Stolz’s house “ you could see the sea, on the other side – the road to the city.”

The home of Sh. and Olga, with its “
ocean of books and notes
,” the presence everywhere
of “waking thoughts”
and elegant things, among which “
an elegant office like Andrei’s father had” found its place,
as it were, connects nature with the best achievements of civilization. The life of the Stoltsevs is devoid of the extremes of rural immobility and vain urban activity.

3. The author of the novel claims that the characters are happy.

4. The life that Stolz organized for his wife soon revealed its vulnerability. Olga felt dissatisfaction with her dependent role, and with the content with which Stolz filled her life, and with her husband’s personal qualities.

5. Her melancholy is stimulated by the content of life

which he offered her. The happiness of Sh. and Olga is not convincing. And not so much because the novelist talks about it rather than shows it. Goncharov’s very hope to create the image of a harmonious person and the same love based on the material of modern reality was a utopia.

D. z. 1) Reading the epilogue.

Individual:

1. Epilogue. Olga in family life : - What is starting to confuse her?

– Why are her fears?

- How does he explain them?

– What does Stolz say about the nature of human melancholy?

– Where does Stolz let it slip that a moral barrier arises between him and Olga?

– Did Stolz consider this melancholy a serious illness?

2. Chapter 9, 4 parts. Pshenitsyna's house , her life;

3. 11 chapters, 4 hours. The fate of Zakhar after the death of Oblomov.

4 . Epilogue. Oblomov in the destinies of the people who loved him (Stolz about him, the story about Pshenitsyna’s widow’s grief) Chapter 8, part 4;

Lesson 8 - 9.

Topic : Olga and Stolz. Analysis of 2 epilogues.

Lesson objectives : Talk about the unique personality of the heroes; about “earthly” and “heavenly” love in the novel. Identify the author's position in the epilogue of the novel. Development of students' speech.

During the classes.

1. Olga. The criticism revealed opposing judgments about Olga. Dobrolyubov saw in Olga “ the highest ideal that a Russian artist can now evoke from present-day Russian life,”

wrote about her readiness for social activities and longing for her.
“ Olga Goncharovskaya does not reveal by a single hint her closeness to the circle of ideas and sentiments of the revolutionary struggle,”
the modern researcher answers the first critic of Oblomov. Her dissatisfaction is pointless, nameless and is not political, not social, but moral and psychological in nature. In Stolz, she is not satisfied with rationality, egocentrism, dry calculation, lack of gentleness, sincerity, which she observed in Oblomov.” (Piksanov N.K., “Oblomov” by Goncharov. – “Scientific Notes of Moscow State University”, issue 127, 1948. p. 152.)

2.

At the zenith of happiness, after 3-4
years of marriage, Olga begins to be embarrassed by the silence of life, its stopping at moments of happiness. “393” (chapter 8, part 4). But Olga has not been poisoned by Oblomovism since childhood - she is not lazy by nature, like I. Ilyich. Her fears come from unexpected and acute dissatisfaction with herself. So the story of Oblomov - a victim of social lack of spirituality - is repeated in the fate of Olga, who is so different from him. She remained a “dreamer, a visionary,” a woman “ with an unhappy character
”: “
everything pulls me somewhere, I become dissatisfied with nothing.”
There remains a step to melancholy and apathy.
A commentary on the fate of not only Olga, but also Oblomov, are Stolz’s reflections on the nature of human melancholy: “ The search for a living, irritated mind sometimes breaks through the boundaries of everyday life, does not find, of course, answers, and sadness appears... temporary dissatisfaction with life... This is the sadness of the soul, asking life about its secret..."
3. "Sadness of the soul"

who has not accepted life, limited to everyday amusements, torments Olga and deprives Oblomov of the last inclinations of activity.
But this “sadness”
does not threaten Stolz.
He is not able to suffer from what is outside the circle of his family, his “ business”
.
This creates a moral barrier between Olga and her self-confident husband. And he himself involuntarily “blems it out” about it. Stolz convinces his wife: “ 398/1.” Stolz rightly saw the source of Olga’s melancholy in her involvement in the concerns of humanity, but that is why he did not consider her melancholy to be a serious illness. This logic is natural for Stolz, who is focused on his own, “small” things.
4. “ 398/2 ,” Stolz addresses his wife.

5. But his calls are in vain. Although Olga really wants to believe him - she interrupts her husband’s monologue with a passionate hug and repeats the words “ 398/3 ”, she is not able to bow her head; a new attempt to hide from “rebellious issues” will again lead to apathy and melancholy. Such is her nature, such are her needs. “one drop of the universal human illness was sprinkled on Olga, and not on Stolz.

. This is the lot of the “chosen ones” - spiritually rich natures, such. Like energetic Olga and... lazy Oblomov.

6.

So
, the sources of Olga’s melancholy: spiritual dissatisfaction and moral discord with her husband, interacting, aggravate the heroine’s condition - drama is brewing.
Happy Olga, as if she had found lost peace in a conversation with her husband, is not convincing because the logic of her character is fraught with drama, no less than that of Oblomov, and due to the natural energy of the heroine, even greater. 7 . The image of Olga Ilyinskaya is a discovery in Russian literature. Her spiritual dissatisfaction, which Goncharov subtly captured but captured in the most general form, was “concentrated”

in the destinies of the heroines of Turgenev and Chernyshevsky. This was also noted by N. Dobrolyubov in an article dedicated to Turgenev’s novel “On the Eve”.

7.

What is Stolz?

A) It is known that Goncharov was not satisfied with this image: “He is weak, pale, the idea looks too bare from him.”

B) The descriptive characterization of Stolz at the beginning of the 2nd hour of the novel is then almost not supplemented - the image does not develop. With the appearance of Olga, Stolz loses his “meaningful” function and remains only a “plot” character. Olga explains Oblomov in such a way that through other characters, an explanation of Oblomov’s type becomes a luxury. (Druzhinin)

C) His unexpected visits to Oblomov measure the stages of Ilya Ilyich’s life . Stolz becomes the hero of Olga's happy novel and pronounces the author's epitaph for Oblomov.

D) A.P. Chekhov: “Stolz does not inspire me with any confidence. The author says that he is a magnificent fellow, but I don’t believe him. This is a clever beast who thinks very well of herself and is pleased with herself. It’s half composed, but 3 quarters is stilted.”

D) “Stoltsevsky layer” in the novel bears traces of “torture”: the artist, apparently, gradually lost interest in this hero more and more, but could no longer abandon him completely - Stolts became Olga’s husband, and the contrast of the two novels were necessary for Goncharov, who had extensively and deeply studied Oblomov’s drama.

E) But the “unclarity” of this image also has another reason; probably, the name Stolz, Goncharov hoped, was destined to become as common a name as Oblomov. This hero, the writer believed, reflected an energetic, rationalistic age.

Stolz (from German “ proud”

"), the son of the “business age,” which was the name given to the period of primitive accumulation in the history of Russian capitalism... “
No matter what they say about our age, no matter what particular manifestations it may have, its main and distinctive direction is practical.
To create a career for yourself, to make yourself more comfortable, to ensure the future of yourself and your descendants - these are the gods that the heroes of our time worship ...,” we read in one of the letters of A.F. Pisemsky. One of these heroes is Stolz.

G) But Goncharov, emphasizing the uniqueness of Stolz’s personality, avoids a detailed description of his activities, although it is in them that the social essence of the hero is realized. The affairs of Stolz are spoken of extremely mutely: “147/1.”

Stolz's activity is devoted to accumulation, acquisition, providing comfort. Dobrolyubov, page “497”. Stolz explains the incompleteness of his character by the fact that the very figure of the new figure has not yet crystallized in life.

H) Stolz finds peace at the end of the novel - Oblomov is plunged into sleep on the Vyborg side. Goncharov, constantly contrasting these heroes with each other, leads them to the same result, however, trying to prove that the essence of these results is opposite. But peace is peace. And the author’s desire to discover movement at the basis of Stoltsev’s peace does not convince. Peace is shown much more convincingly in its “uncompromising” version - we mean the last years of Oblomov’s life in Pshenitsyna’s house.

8. Although in chapter 9 , preceding the epilogue, Oblomov is still alive, it resembles an epitaph for the hero . This is the final chapter, its special character is obvious “ 407 – 8”.

9. Pshenitsyna’s house, its life, its rhythm are revealed not on their own, but in constant analogies with Oblomovka.

«407/2».

Previously, by “philosophizing”, Oblomov came out of a state of apathy, a critical mind awakened in him, intolerance to vulgarity. Now the hero’s entire “philosophy” is aimed at justifying his right to live in silence and inaction; he extinguished memories, the call of an unfulfilled dream in reasoning, «498/1».

The Oblomovite mask now exhausts the human face of Ilya Ilyich.

So, as it were, the triumph of the Oblomov principle in the hero took place.

And the new stage of his life, as always, was marked by the arrival of Stolz. Talking with him, Oblomov himself admits that his journey has ended, he has found a haven in life: “415/1.” Oblomov confirms the idea expressed by Goncharov about the irreversibility of his fate, but in the same monologue he refutes the author . "415/2". This is said by a person who, according to the narrator, has finally calmed his conscience - who has died spiritually.

Originality Chapter 9 in the open dictatorship of the author's thought, which extends over everything that is shown and told here. The author’s tone is categorical: the writer develops his view of the hero stated at the beginning of the chapter and does not hear him himself...

Stolz, the mouthpiece of the author’s ideas, finally clarifies the essence of Oblomov’s detailed characteristics in this chapter. "Dead!"

- says Stolz, having learned about his friend’s marriage to Agafya Matveevna.
And to Olga’s alarming question: “417.”
End of Chapter 9 immediately makes me remember the final scene of the 3rd part of the novel: Olga’s breakup with Oblomov. Then the same answer sounded - “Oblomovism.” Olga just asked: “What ruined you?”

The hero himself answered.

The coincidence of answers in this clearly “constructed” novel says a lot: both the hero himself and the author (Stolz) are called upon to emphasize the social

the nature of the drama,
the objective
predetermination of the hero’s death.

10. And, as it were, the final chord of the “epitaph ” is the second (of two) epilogues of the novel (the meeting of Stolz and his fellow writer with the beggar Zakhar - Chapter 11 ), where the refrain “Oblomovism” sounds for the 3rd time. Zakhar is one with Ilya Ilyich in his Oblomov incarnation. “Lazy by nature, he was still lazy by his lackey upbringing”

.
The laziness and ineptitude of Zakhar, who had established his right to be inept, could only flourish next to Oblomov’s inertia. Zakhar is no more viable than his master. When Oblomov died, Zakhar was also doomed. (4 hours, chapter 11). (Student message). Oblomovism reminds itself at the very end of the novel with another unfortunate human fate.
The very word “Oblomovism”, which concludes the novel, already sounds like a call of death and takes on a fatal, fatalistic connotation. 11. But another aspect of the drama: a smart, kind person in conflict

with a spiritless and “mechanical” environment – ​​never fell out of the artist’s field of vision. Its result is in the first epilogue dedicated to Pshenitsyna.

If the second epilogue, with all the brightness of the portrait of the unfortunate Zakhar, in its leading tendency is journalistic, then the first is almost lyrical. Deliberately different in tone, they have a common “plot”: Oblomov - in the destinies of the people who loved him. (Student message)

A) Yes, Oblomov ruined himself, corrupted Zakhara, but this same Oblomov managed to inspire people with a rare love for himself: he was kind, sensitive to people, respected the “heart.” “402 – 403” (chap. 8, part 4). This praise to Oblomov’s heart sounds a little pompous and declarative. In addition, Stolz’s ardor, one might assume, is caused by a feeling of his own cardiac mediocrity.

B) A simple story about Pshenitsyna’s widow’s grief embodies this same idea of ​​the artist much more convincingly. Oblomov didn’t just leave a memory of himself in a woman’s heart

– he breathed his soul into her, from a “mistress” she became a “person”. This happened at the moment when “420”. The self-knowledge that dawned on her immediately dramatically changed the entire world around her: she realized what she had lost - this lost became for her a measure of human value. Then the meek and unrequited Agafya Matveevna gave birth to a proud and regretful look with which she looked at her brother and his wife... Her life also became meaningful forever: now she knew why she lived and that she had not lived in vain.

She loved so fully and a lot: she loved Oblomov - as a lover, as a husband and as a master: «420».

C) Weak, passive, in need of someone else’s will, Oblomov possessed that talent of kindness that turned him into an active

in relation to other people in kind.
Olga blossomed next to Oblomov ,
G) Pshenitsyna only lived for those 7 years that passed next to him. Oblomov awakened individuality in her, which aroused the author’s warm sympathy (this is the origin of the lyrical intonation in the epilogue). Agafya Matveevna not only ceased to be the negative antipode of Olga, she became closer to Ilyinskaya in her unexpectedly awakened demands for the human in a person. The mutual understanding that emerged between the two women who loved Oblomov is touching and deeply vital.

Final word.

— Goncharov's life passes through the 19th century - from the Pushkin era to the times of Chekhov and the late Tolstoy; It is not surprising that the writer combines signs of various literary periods in his work. Being one of the largest writers of the realistic movement, Goncharov always paid tribute to romanticism: he depicted the real world very accurately, but often placed romantic heroes in it;

— in 3 of G.'s novels we are talking about the clash of different eras; the writer shows the collapse of the old, patriarchal world with its quiet landowner estates and sublime feelings; in every novel we see the victory of new people and new relationships, the triumph of strength, practicality, but the author’s sympathy for those heroes who are not able to adapt to modernity is constantly felt;

— Goncharov is considered a brilliant writer of everyday life of his era. The charm of his leisurely, “thick” writing was truly “concentrated” in these paintings: they remain in memory for a lifetime (room on Gorokhovaya, Pshenitsyna’s house, Oblomovka’s life). The life of the Russian province is lovingly and poetically described.

— Detail plays a huge role in Goncharov; we all remember very well the cobwebs, the dust in Oblomov’s office, his famous slippers and robe, which became symbolic images. Many novels are famous for their beginning (“My uncle had the most honest rules…”, “Everything was mixed up in the Oblonskys’ house” - “Anna Karenina”). Page 21. ( lying). We immediately met the hero

— In the novel “Region.” the traits of the Russian character are reflected, the book is imbued with national flavor. It is natural that the key antitheses in the novel were the Russian gentleman and half-German by origin Stolz, the Russian village of Oblomovka and the European city of St. Petersburg.

— Another equally bright side of his talent. Goncharov is an artist of an unusually heightened “moral reaction” to various life collisions. The author is primarily interested in human content

any everyday picture, social conflict. In this novel, the writer shows that sacrifice in the name of love can give happiness to someone who does not recognize himself as a sacrifice, and the satisfaction of selfish desires sometimes becomes the first step to painful dissatisfaction.

— Goncharov’s reader turns away from the dry, pragmatic approach to life; he is conveyed the height of the ideal of a writer who boldly exposed the abyss of shortcomings in his favorite characters.

— Goncharov’s “trial” of his heroes is sober and humane. Heroes are victims of both their originality and their weakness.

— A distinctive feature of Goncharov’s style can be called irony - the gentle mockery with which he treats the events described and his heroes; Continuing the romantic traditions, the writer looks at the world with a sad smile, contrasting human vanity with the eternal peace of nature.

D. z . Preparing for an essay (selection of material, drawing up a plan)

Lesson 10 – 11.

Subject : Rr. Essay based on the novel "Oblomov".

Purpose of the lesson: prepare students to write an essay on a novel; repeat the types of essays (characteristics of the hero, comparative characteristics; concepts of “narrow” and “broad” essays)

During the classes.

Essay topics:

Vyborg side (about the novel “Oblomov” by I. A. Goncharov)

The action of the fourth part of the novel, taking place on the Vyborg side, seems to return us to the setting of the beginning of the work, and at the same time - to Oblomov’s dream. Of course, the details of the situation have changed, but the essence remains the same. This is how the idea of ​​a ring composition arises. The hero's life comes to an end, and we have the opportunity to draw some conclusions.

In his youth, Oblomov looked like such a fiery and sublime romantic that you involuntarily remember his predecessor, Alexander Aduev. Yes, of course, Oblomov is more apathetic, he is more lethargic, but he was also characterized by romantic aspirations, he “kept hoping for something, expecting a lot both from fate and from himself; I was preparing everything for the field, for the role.” Once upon a time, his eyes “shone with the fire of life, rays of light, hope, and strength flowed from them.” And in his wildest dreams, Oblomov almost outdid the young Aduev: “He sometimes liked to imagine himself as some kind of invincible commander... Or he would choose the arena of a thinker, a great artist: everyone worships him; he reaps laurels; the crowd chases after him, exclaiming: “Look, look, here comes Oblomov, our famous Ilya Ilyich!”

We have gotten used to the other Oblomov, who is still lying on the sofa in a dressing gown.

It turns out that he was once different. He was no stranger to emotional disturbances, hopes, dreams - funny, of course, but still elevating him to some other, higher world, as is typical of all romantics. Stolz recalled another episode from Oblomov’s life, when he, a thin, lively boy, went every day to some two sisters, brought them Rousseau, Schiller, Goethe, Byron, “showed off in front of them.” What happened to the romantic Oblomov?

Dobrolyubov placed him in a certain typological series of so-called “extra people”, at the origins of which was Onegin. Without at all doubting the possibility of such a parallel, let us consider another connection between Goncharov’s novel and Pushkin’s novel.

For the romantic Lensky, there were two possible paths. He could have become a great poet - this is one option, but his life could have been like this:

Or maybe this: a destiny awaited the poet Ordinary. If the youth of summer had passed, the ardor of his soul would have cooled. In many ways he would have changed, He would have parted with the muses, gotten married, In the village, happy and horned, He would have worn a quilted robe; I would have learned about life in reality, I would have had gout at the age of forty, I would drink, eat, get bored, get fat, get sicker, And finally, in my bed, I would die among the children, Weeping women and doctors.

Perhaps not everything, but a lot was guessed and predicted by Pushkin with amazing accuracy - right down to the famous robe, which became a symbol of Oblomov’s laziness (“a real oriental robe, without the slightest hint of Europe”).

And before Oblomov there were also two paths. He made his choice - he chose the Vyborg side.

If the life of old Oblomovka was presented by the author with clearly palpable irony, now the tone of the narrative is changing. True, at first Pshenitsyna is ironically depicted, whom Oblomov looked at “with the same pleasure with which he looked at a hot cheesecake in the morning.” One day he asked her: “Are you reading anything?” In response, she simply looked at him. However, Oblomov shouldn’t ask Agafya Matveevna about reading! When the hero set out to kiss his mistress, she stood “straight and motionless, like a horse on which a collar is being put on.” Material from the site //iEssay.ru

But in the “sleepy kingdom” on the Vyborg side, it is Agafya Matveevna who turns out to be a living soul, waking up even unnoticed by herself. After all, in her life, in her environment, she had never seen or imagined people like Oblomov. There was finally some purpose to her existence; serving Oblomov acquired in her eyes the connotation of serving something higher; she realized her purpose on earth.

She fell in love with Oblomov for who he is, without calculations, without attempts to change him, to remake him in her own image and likeness. Goncharov, without any irony, but with obvious and ardent sympathy, wrote about Pshenitsyna at the end of the novel: “Her life was forever comprehended: now she already knew why she lived and that she did not live in vain. She loved so fully and a lot..."

Could Oblomov say the same about himself? Did he know why he lived? Were you convinced that you didn’t live in vain?

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

On this page there is material on the following topics:

• description of Oblomov’s life on the Vyborg side
• compare Oblomovka and Vyborg side table
• Vyborg side is the same oblomovka
• How Oblomov ended up on the Vyborg side
• Vyborg Oblomovism