Oblomov's life and death. Epilogue of the novel. For the third and last time, Stolz visits his friend. Under the caring eye of Pshenitsyna, Oblomov almost realized his ideal: “He dreams that he has reached that promised land where rivers of honey and milk flow, where they eat unearned bread, wear gold and silver ...”, and Agafya Matveyevna turns into a fabulous Miliktrix Kirbityevna .. The house on the Vyborgskaya side resembles a rural open space.

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

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

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

As on the first visit, Stolz sums up the sad conclusion:

What's in there? - Olga asked ...

Nothing!..

Is he alive, well?

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

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

Oblomovism!

And if Ilya Ilyich found people who agree to endure this life around him, then nature itself, it seems, opposed, measuring out a short period of such an existence. That is why the attempts of the same Agafya Matveyevna to restrict her husband make a tragicomic impression. “How many times have you passed? - she asked Vanyusha ... - Don't lie, look at me ... Remember Sunday, I won't let you visit<…>". And Oblomov, willy-nilly, counted out eight more times, then he came into the room ... "; "It would be nice to have a pie for this!" - “I forgot, I forgot the right! And I wanted it since the evening, but my memory seemed to have lost it! " - Agafya Matveyevna cheated. " It doesn't make sense. For there is no other purpose in life than food and sleep she can offer him.

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

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

It would seem that there is an undeniable contradiction here. A lofty eulogy to the degraded hero! But life cannot be considered useless when someone remembers you. Light sadness filled the life of Agafya Matveyevna with the highest meaning: “She understood that<…>God put her soul into her life and took it out again; that the sun shone in her and faded forever ... Forever, really; but on the other hand, her life was also comprehended forever: now she already knew why she lived and that she did not live in vain. "

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

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

From what? What reason?

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

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

Now I’ll tell you ... And you write down: maybe someone will come in handy. "And he told him what was written here."

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

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

Let's do a little experiment. Open the last page of Oblomov's edition - whatever you hold in your hands. Turning it over, you will almost certainly find an article by Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov "What is Oblomovism?" This work must be known if only because it is one of the samples of Russian critical thought of the nineteenth century. However, the first sign of a free person and a free country is the possibility of choice. It is more interesting to consider Dobrolyubov's article next to the article with which it appeared almost simultaneously and with which it is largely polemic. This is a review by Alexander Vasilyevich Druzhinin “Oblomov”. Roman I.A. Goncharov ".

Critics are unanimous in their admiration for Olga's image. But if Dobrolyubov sees in her a new heroine, the main fighter against Oblomovism, Druzhinin sees in her the embodiment of eternal femininity: "One cannot help being carried away by this bright, pure creature, who has so reasonably developed in himself all the best, true beginnings of a woman ..."

The disagreements between them begin with Oblomov's assessment. Dobrolyubov argues with the author of the novel himself, proving that Oblomov is a lazy, spoiled, worthless creature: “He (Oblomov) will not bow down to an idol of evil! Why is that? Because he is too lazy to get up on the couch. And pull him off, put him on his knees before this idol: he will not be able to stand up. Dirt won't stick to him! Yes, while he is alone. So still nothing; but when Tarantiev comes, Zattyev. Ivan Matveich - brr! what disgusting filth begins near Oblomov. "

The critic discerningly guesses the origins of Oblomov's character in his childhood. In Oblomovism, he sees primarily social roots: “... He ( Oblomov) from an early age sees in his house that all housework is done by lackeys and maids, and papa and mamma only give orders and scold for poor performance. " Cites as an example a symbolic episode of pulling on stockings. He considers Oblomov as social type... This is the master, the owner of "three hundred Zakharov", who "while drawing the ideal of his bliss ... did not think to confirm its legitimacy and truth, did not ask himself the question: where will these greenhouses and hotbeds come from ... and why on earth will he use them?"

Yet the psychological analysis of the character and the meaning of the entire novel is not so interesting to the critic. It is constantly interrupted by "more general considerations" about Oblomovism. In the hero of Goncharov, the critic is primarily an established literary type, the critic draws his genealogy from Onegin, Pechorin, Rudin. In literary science, it is customary to call it a type of superfluous person. Unlike Goncharov, Dobrolyubov focuses on his negative features: "What all these people have in common is that they have no business in life that would be a vital necessity for them, a heartfelt shrine ..."

Dobrolyubov perspicaciously guesses that the reason for Oblomov's deep sleep was the absence of a lofty, truly noble goal. He chose the words of Gogol as an epigraph: "Where is the one who, in the native language of the Russian soul, would be able to tell us this omnipotent word" forward? .. "

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

Following Dobrolyubov, he pays a lot of attention to "Sleep ..." and sees in it "a step towards understanding Oblomov with his Oblomovism." But, unlike him, he focuses on the lyrical content of the chapter. Druzhinin saw poetry even in the "sleepy Chelyadinets", and gave the highest credit to Goncharov that he "poeticized the life of his native land." Thus, the critic touched lightly national content Oblomovism. Defending his beloved hero, the critic urges: "Take a close look at the novel, and you will see how many people there are devoted to Ilya Ilyich and even adore him ..." It's not without reason!

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

Unlike Dobrolyubov, he does not forget about Agafya Matveyevna. Druzhinin made a subtle observation about Pshenitsyna's place in Oblomov's fate: she was involuntarily the "evil genius" of Ilya Ilyich, "but this woman will be forgiven everything for the fact that she loved a lot." The critic is carried away by the subtle lyricism of scenes depicting the sorrowful experiences of the widow. In contrast to her, the critic shows the selfishness of the Stolz couple in relation to Oblomov in scenes where "neither everyday order, nor everyday truth ... were violated."

At the same time, a number of controversial judgments can be found in his review. The critic avoids talking about why Ilya Ilyich is dying. Stolz's despair at the sight of a degraded friend was caused, in his opinion, only by the fact that Oblomov married a commoner.

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

We saw that two critics in their judgments about Oblomov and the novel as a whole argue and deny each other. So which one to believe? This question was answered by I. Annensky, noting that it is erroneous “to dwell on the question of what type of Oblomov. Negative or positive? This question generally belongs to the school market ... "And suggests that" the most natural way in each analysis of the type is to start by analyzing your impressions, deepening them as much as possible. " For this "deepening" criticism is needed. To convey the reaction of contemporaries, to supplement independent conclusions, and not replace their impressions. Generally speaking, Goncharov believed in his reader, and to remarks that his hero was incomprehensible, he retorted: “And what for the reader? Is he some kind of fool that his imagination will not be able to supplement the rest according to the idea given by the author? Is the Pechorins, Onegins ... told to the smallest detail? The task of the author is the dominant element of character, and the rest is the business of the reader. "

Sections: Literature

Goals:

• to reveal the philosophical meaning of the work, to improve the reading activity of students, the skills of working with critical literature and artistic text;
• to form the skills of discussion thinking and communication culture;
• show the relevance and temporary value of the work.

During the classes

I. Organizational stage.(Slide1)

1. Viewing the finale of the film directed by N. Mikhalkov "A few days in the life of Oblomov". (Slide 2)

2. Conversation.

Compare the ending of the film and the ending of the novel "Oblomov". (There are no scenes with Pshenitsyna in the film, there is no scene of Stolz and Oblomov saying goodbye, but there is a message about Oblomov's death.)

Read the epigraph. (Slide 3, 4)

(- Why did everything perish ?.

Yes, he said, barely audible:

Oblomovism! he whispered:

Goncharov "Oblomov"

Who can tell us that we did not know how to live,
Soulless and idle minds
That kindness and tenderness did not burn in us
And we didn’t sacrifice beauty?

: It's not a pity for life with agonizing breath,
What is life and death? It's a pity that fire
That shone over the whole universe,
And he walks into the night and cries as he leaves.
A. Fet.)

What question do you think we will try to answer?

(The question of the topic opens: "Why did everything perish?") (Slide5)

- "What happened to Oblomov? Where is he? Where?" - In the nearest cemetery, under a modest urn, his body rests, between the bushes, in a calm. Lilac branches, planted by a friendly hand, doze over the grave, and the wormwood smells serenely. It seems that the angel himself silence guards his sleep: "

Key words in this snippet? (Calm; lilac branches doze; the angel of silence himself guards his sleep) (Slide 6)

Death: Sleep: Life: Based on these keywords, tell me, what is Oblomov's life like? (Life is like a dream) (Slide 7)

And what about a dream? (Sleep is like death)

Let's supplement the topic of the lesson. (The whole lesson topic opens) (Slide 8)

Define our main task in this lesson.

(Answer the question of the topic, try to understand the reason for the death of the hero, try to understand Oblomov).

3. The teacher explains how to work with the 10-point grading table.

II. Homework check.

1. - At home, you had to show the compositional contrast of the Oblomov novel with the keywords of the text. Who will present this plan to us and comment?

(One of the students suggested this option:

Part 1 (Slide 9)

a) "There must be a good man, simplicity", or maybe a "darling, sybarite" or "carefree sloth"? (Acquaintance with the main character);

b) "Where is the man here?" (Visitors and Oblomov's opinion about them);

c) "Silence and imperturbable serenity reign in the mores of people in that land." ("Oblomov's Dream").

Part 2 (Slide 10)

a) "Because on it: afterwards they always part,: and I: to part with you! ... Never!";

b) "Going forward means suddenly throwing off a wide robe not only from the shoulders, but also from the soul, from the mind; together with dust and cobwebs from the walls, sweep the cobweb from your eyes and see!" (An attempt to revive the hero through love, home, activity).

Part 3 (Slide 11)

a) "And this whole summer, blooming love poem seemed to have stopped, went more lazily, as if there was not enough content in it";

b) "The heart was killed: life quieted down there for a while" (Catastrophic return back to the former life: refusal of love, the bitter realization of the impossibility of fulfilling Olga Ilyinskaya's expectations and requirements. 2 hours and 3 hours end with culminating scenes: 2 hours - rising, 3h. - descending, that is, the joyful cry of the hero and a silent illness)

Part 4 (Slide 12)

a) "Man was created to arrange himself and even change his nature: You had wings, but you untied them" (Stolz, Stolz and Olga);

b) "They were all bound by one common sympathy, one memory of the soul of the deceased, pure as crystal" (Epilogue).

2. "So why did everything die?" Perhaps the reason is the environment? At home, you drew up a diagram of Oblomov's relations with other heroes of the novel. "Oblomov tree of life" (Slide 13)

As you can see, the environment is one of the reasons for the death of the hero. Oblomov is unhappy in an environment devoid of spirituality. But isn't that why he decides, after the take-off and soaring of his soul, given to him by love, so swiftly descend to the earth's firmament, that is, settle on the Vyborg side? The impression that he is taking revenge on himself for the inability and inability to realize his dreams and spiritual impulses. He chooses the punishment for himself. Which?

III. Work on the topic of the lesson.

The motive of fire and river. (Slide 14)

In the wording of the topic of the lesson, the word "life" is mentioned. What are the symbols of life found in the novel? (Fire, river).

So, the motive of the river and fire in the novel "Oblomov". "And where did everything go - why did it go out?" Your comments?

How Oblomov and Stolz perceived life?

What is the direct and figurative meaning of the river and fire

(Oblomov and Stolz are antipodes, and when we read the novel, we perceive them as two rivers and two fires). (Slide 15)

(Different combustion and flow).

How is this shown in the text?

(“He didn’t want to imagine it as a wide, noisily rushing river with boiling waves — as Stolz imagined it — it’s a disease — says Oblomov — fever, jumping off rapids, with dam breaks, with floods”).

How do we see Oblomovka's life?

("Nothing is needed: life, like a deceased river, flowed past them, they could only sit on the banks of this river and observe the inevitable phenomena that, in turn, without a call, appeared before each of them," it becomes clear why Oblomov in inaction)

How is the fire motive shown?

(Stolz believed that “the normal purpose of a person is to live 4 seasons, that is, 4 ages, without leaps to carry the vessel of life to the last day, without spilling a single drop in vain, and that even and slow burning of fire is better than violent fires, whatever poetry nor burned in them. "

Oblomov says: "No, my life began with extinguishing, strange, but this is so! From the first minute, when I realized myself, I felt that I was already extinguishing. I began to extinguish over writing papers in the office, then extinguished, reading in books of truth, with which he did not know what to do in life, died out with friends, listening to talk, gossip, imitation, angry and cold chatter "

Stolz believes that his existence will be eternal burning: "Life will flicker like an instant, but he [Oblomov] would go to bed and fall asleep! Let it be a constant burning! Ah, if I could live two or three hundred, how many things could be done!") ...

In what other sense is fire given?

(Zakhar "kindled with zeal"; Olga, whose eyes "burned with rays of inner fire", "spiritual fire").

How do you understand the "fire of Vesta"? (Slide 16)

("The norm of life was ready and taught to them by their parents: with the covenant to observe its integrity and inviolability, like the fire of Vesta," that is, an eternally burning fire guarded by priestesses. In the novel, this is an image of the inviolability of the way of life, stagnation and inertia).

How do you understand "soulful antonov fire"? (Slide 17)

(This is the popular name for gangrene, disease. Disease of the soul, Stolz and Olga speak of Oblomov as a sick person, and the hero's treatment is necessary).

2. The motive of sleep. (Slide 18)

We read the topic of the lesson: "Life is like a dream:" How is the dream motive shown in the novel? What is the meaning of the word "sleep" in the dictionary?

The physiological state of rest and rest that comes at regular intervals, in which the work of consciousness almost completely stops, reactions to external stimuli decrease. Fall asleep. Fall asleep with eternal sleep. As in a dream. Moon.

What is dreaming is dreaming of a sleeping person, a dream. Dreams are dreaming. See a dream. Sleep in hand.).

The writing of the novel began with the chapter "Oblomov's Dream". This is a figurative semantic key to understanding the entire work. Oblomovka is a "sleepy kingdom" in the form of a vicious circle. "Oblomov's Dream" - dreams, nostalgia for the past of both the hero and Zakhar. "Oblomov's Dream" is a dream of a lost paradise. How do you understand the "dream of a lost paradise"?

(In the novel we read:

"- Have mercy! - added Oblomov more boldly. - Yes, the purpose of all your running, passions, wars, trade and politics is not the dressing up of peace, not the pursuit of this ideal of the lost paradise.

And you have Oblomov's utopia, ”objected Stolz. ")

What is Stolz talking about?

(Utopia is a place that does not exist).

Why, reading the novel, especially the chapter "The Dream", can we safely call Goncharov a Russian Flemish, and his work [chapter] a pastoral?

(Slide 19) Fleming is an artist of the conventional and traditional art of Flanders, [the traditional name of the art of the 17th - 18th centuries]. Flemings: Jan Van Eyck is an artist, a master of spiritualized graceful portraits, A. Brauer is a master of dramatic and expressive landscapes, H. Heismans is a master of elegant, colorful landscapes. Goncharov is a writer-draftsman.

(Slide 20) Pastoral is a dramatic or musical work that idyllically depicts the life of shepherds and shepherdesses in the bosom of nature.

(Slide 21) Idyll - 1. A poetic work depicting a virtuous and serene life in the bosom of nature. 2. Peaceful, happy existence.

According to D. Merezhkovsky, Goncharov, in his descriptions, dwells for a long time with special love on the prosaic details of life. “The same love for the everyday side of life, the same ability to transform the prose of reality into poetry and beauty. Reread Oblomov's Dream: food, tea, ordering food, chatter, the old-world landowners' amusements take on ideal outlines here: Goncharov does not describe, but sings of mores Oblomovtsev ", - emphasizes Dmitry Sergeevich.

Your comments?

("Oblomov's Dream" is a dream-idyll, a dream-warning, a dream-utopia of a "happy society" and a dream-dystopia of historical stagnation and inaction).

How does D. Merezhkovsky talk about death? Contrast with a novel.

("Death is only the evening of life, when soft shadows fly over your eyes and close them for eternal sleep") (Slide 22)

3. The motive of silence. (Slide 23)

How is the motive of silence shown in the novel?

("A deep silence reigned in the house" [Oblomovka]

"Eternal peace, eternal silence and lazy crawling from day to laziness quietly stopped the machine of life. Ilya Ilyich died, as if a clock had stopped, which had forgotten to start:"

"Agafya Matveyevna: I found him resting as meekly on the deathbed as on the bed of sleep."

Clock stopped. Stopped the car of life :)

What does Oblomov's death look like?

This is the fate of a person with a "heart of gold" and "a soul pure as crystal." Who are they talking about and whose words are they? (Author's opinion about Oblomov.)

Why exactly "heart of gold" and "pure soul"?

("At the base of Oblomov's nature lay a pure and kind beginning, filled with deep sympathy for everything that is good and that only opened up and responded to the call of this simple, uncomplicated, eternally trusting heart: Who accidentally and deliberately looked into this bright, childish soul - be he is gloomy, angry - he could no longer deny him reciprocity. "[The Author]).

Oblomov tried to understand "the pattern of his own life," but what is the poetic ideal of life?

Norma's aria "Casta diva" from the opera of the same name by V. Bellini sounds in the background, the teacher reads an excerpt from the novel (Slides 24 - 30):

"- Well, I would get up in the morning: The weather is beautiful, the sky is bluer, bluer, not a single cloud: While waiting for my wife to wake up, I would put on a dressing gown and walk around the garden to breathe the morning fumes; there I would have found a gardener, watered flowers together, trimmed bushes, trees: Then, putting on a spacious frock coat or jacket of some kind, hugging his wife around the waist, go deep with her into the endless, dark alley; walk quietly, thoughtfully, silently or think aloud, dream, count minutes of happiness, like pulse beat; listen to how the heart beats and freezes; look for sympathy in nature: and imperceptibly go to the river, to the field ... Damp in the field: dark, fog, like an overturned sea, hangs over the rye; horses shudder with their shoulders and beat their hooves: it's time to go home. ”The lights have already lit up in the house; five knives are knocking in the kitchen; a frying pan of mushrooms, cutlets, berries: here is the music: Casta diva ... Casta diva!” Oblomov sang. sounds! ... and no one knows anything around: She is alone: ​​Mystery weighs her; she entrusts her to the moon:

Do you love aria? I am very glad: Olga Ilyinskaya sings it beautifully. I will introduce you - here is the voice, here is the singing! And she herself, what a charming child !. ... "

What is the role of a piece of music?

Has Oblomov found his poetic ideal of life? Where else is the "poetry of life" found in the novel?

We read the epigraph again. So why did everything die? (Oblomovshchina)

IV. Lesson summary.

Make a cinquain. (Slide 31)

(A variant of syncwine that the students suggested:

Oblomov

• Serene, kind
• Lie down, sleep, dream
• It began with the inability to put on stockings, it ended with the inability to live
• Oblomovshchina)

How did Druzhinin say about Oblomov?

("Oblomov is a child, not a cheesy libertine, he is a sleepyhead, not an immoral egoist or an epicurean of the times of disintegration. He is powerless for good, but he is positively incapable of evil deeds, pure in spirit, not perverted by everyday sophisms"

"A child by nature and according to the conditions of his development, Ilya Ilyich largely left behind him the purity and simplicity of a child, qualities precious in an adult, qualities that in themselves often reveal to us the realm of truth and at times put an inexperienced, dreamy eccentric and above the prejudices of his age , and above the whole crowd of businessmen surrounding him: "(Slide 32))

On the blackboard are the opinions of critics about Oblomov and Oblomovism. If you were to write an essay on the topic of a lesson, what words would you choose as an epigraph? Why?

(In addition to Druzhinin's statements on the blackboard, the words of I. Annensky: "What is he: a glutton? A sloth? A sissy? A contemplator? A reasoner? No: he, Oblomov, is the result of a long accumulation of heterogeneous impressions, thoughts, feelings, sympathies, doubts and self-reproaches:" (Slide 33)

D. Merezhkovsky: "The vulgarity, triumphing over purity of heart, love, ideals - this is the main tragedy of life for Goncharov").

What new experience have you gained and what have you learned?

Have we answered the topic question? Have you achieved your goals? Conclusion?

V. Homework.

Write a review of the essay of a tenth grader. (Works for which you need to write reviews are in

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

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

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

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

Heart attacks, more and more often visited Oblomov, in which Agafya caught him. Lately, she practically waited for his death. And now, after a while, Ilya Oblomova suffers another last stroke, which Agafya Matveyevna sees, and he leaves his useless life.

Thanks to Stolz, a descendant of the Oblomovs is in good hands. At that time, Stolz lived with Olga and, unlike his father, he was determined to raise a young orphan. Taking into account the temper of the new father Andrey, then the boy will grow up to be a smart and decisive guy.

Composition pr Death Oblomov in the novel of Goncharov

Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov, with his novel Oblomov, described a large number of people who live like Oblomov in Oblomov region. Everyone would like to allow themselves to live like Oblomov, to lie on the couch for their own pleasure. Oblomov was accustomed to such a life from childhood, his parents taught him that all servants should do for him. Oblomov, after the death of his parents, did not know how to manage so many serfs, so he did not really care. Oblomov is not a stupid person, but his laziness overpowered his activity.

Oblomov was satisfied with the fact that he lies all day and does nothing, he only cares about food and sleep. Ilya Ilyich seems to be ready to do something for his serfs, but then the fuse goes out, and he again lies on the sofa and does nothing. Oblomov was not prompted to an active lifestyle by either the help of a friend or love. Everything suits him and Oblomov is very frightened by the changes in his life, he does not want to do anything to change his life.

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

When Olga Ilyinskaya tries to remake the adult Oblomov, he opposes it. In the scene described by Goncharov, he even asks his friend Stolz not to let Ilyinskaya see him again. Oblomov does not like the pressure on him, he did not want to be like his friend, he chose a different path for himself.

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

Oblomov next to Agafya Matveyevna again felt like a little boy who was being taken care of. Their son Andryushka became the fruit of their love.

Once again, Stolz, who has arrived, talking with a friend, realizes that he will soon die. Oblomov asks before the death of his friend not to leave his son and take care of him. Stolz gives Oblomov a promise that he will grow up from Andryushka to be a hardworking and responsible person. Everyone retained good memories of Oblomov, as a person who did not become callous in heart and meager in soul. He did not betray his principles and remained a pure and bright person in their memory.

Several interesting compositions

"The Stationmaster" is the beginning of a new streak in the work of Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin. If in the novel in verse "Eugene Onegin" he tries to hide the attitude to everyday issues under some humor

This June marks 200th anniversary of birthIvan Alexandrovich Goncharov, known to all of us from the novel "Oblomov" - his pass at school. They pass - but more often than not they do not understand. We invite our readers to take a fresh look at this well-forgotten classic. Take a Christian look.

"Lying on a soft bed, you will never get fame ..." - it would seem that there is no reason to dispute this statement of the great Dante. And yet there is a fact in Russian culture that casts doubt on his obvious correctness. Ilya Ilyich Oblomov, a pathological sloth who spent his whole life in a soft bed, suddenly became one of the most famous heroes of Russian literature, and precisely because of this very unrestrained fumbling on the sofa. The author of the novel did not ascribe any other accomplishments and exploits to Oblomov. This strange success would be easily explained if Goncharov's novel was a satire, a ridicule of vice. But no, Ilya Ilyich Oblomov clearly does not fall into a number of satirical characters. Of course, the author sometimes laughs at his unlucky hero, but on the whole he writes out Oblomov with great sympathy and respect: “… There was something in him that was dearer than any mind: an honest, loyal heart! This is his natural gold; he carried it unharmed through life. He fell from the tremors, cooled down, fell asleep at last, killed, disappointed, having lost the strength to live, but did not lose his honesty and loyalty. Not a single false note emitted from his heart, no dirt adhered to him. No smart lie will seduce him, and nothing will lead him to a false path; let the whole ocean of rubbish and evil worry about him; let the whole world be poisoned with poison and go upside down - Oblomov will never bow down to the idol of lies, his soul will always be pure, light, honest ... This is a crystal, transparent soul; there are few such people; these are pearls in the crowd! You cannot bribe his heart with anything, you can rely on him everywhere and everywhere. "

There are not so many in world literature there are such frank declarations of the author's love for his character. It is all the more incomprehensible what is the secret of the popularity of this hero, about which even a century and a half after the publication of the novel, readers still do not have an unequivocal opinion - whether it is positive or negative. Is it honest and loyal to a person who has devoted himself entirely to keeping the sides on the sofa? And vice versa: is it possible to respect and love a loafer and a lazy person for his sincerity and heartfelt purity? After reading the novel, there are many such questions.

But the main mystery of "Oblomov" is still different. Apparently, Goncharov was able to express something extremely significant for each of us here, he touched some very important string in the soul of a Russian person. Yes, so strong that it sounds, without stopping, to this day, and is unlikely to subside in the foreseeable future. Back in the 19th century, N. A. Dobrolyubov wrote: "... In each of us sits a significant part of Oblomov ...". True, by these words he meant a certain feature of the Russian national character, due to the then way of life and the political system. But for a long, long time now, there is neither that order nor the way of life. Everything has changed beyond recognition: super-speed, overload, a huge amount of information falling on us every day ... Today's life is absolutely not like the measured slumber of patriarchal Oblomovka. However, the protagonist of the novel himself, as a social type, somehow managed to seep through all cultural, political and civilizational changes, and in his main features remain the same Oblomov - a beautiful-minded lazy person with a golden heart and a saggy belly.

A man in sweatpants lying on the couch in front of the TV and sighing sadly when his wife asks him to take out the trash can is a typical manifestation of modern Oblomovism, quite normally adjacent to the conquest of space, nanotechnology and the large hadron collider. And you shouldn't take this image as deliberately caricature. Didn't each of us ever hide from important but unpleasant decisions behind the textbook phrase “I’ll think about it tomorrow”, supplementing it with an ironic revision of Latin wisdom: “Don't put off until tomorrow what can be put off until the day after tomorrow”? Do not each of us have such “postponed until the day after tomorrow” problems that have poisoned our lives for years, although they could have been solved in a couple of days of decisive action? Apparently, Dobrolyubov was still wrong, and Ilya Ilyich was not at all a product of his era. The roots of Oblomovism lie in much deeper layers of human existence. They are capable of giving their poisonous shoots on any historical and social basis, because the bearer of this misfortune is the person himself, in whatever era he lives.

Life touches ...

Laziness is always directly proportional to freedom. For an unfree person, laziness is an unattainable luxury. It is very difficult to imagine a lazy galley slave, or, say, a first-year soldier in the army. As the degree of freedom increases, so does the choice, including between "doing or not doing." When freedom becomes absolute, it becomes possible to do nothing at all. Of course, Oblomov was far from such ideal "heights of spirit", but according to the conditions of his life he was

What happened?

But what: life touches!

they are much closer than most modern people. Not very rich, but still a nobleman, Ilya Ilyich was very free in material terms and could bask on a soft bed as much as he liked, and perceived any outside influence as a personal tragedy:

“- Ah! .. - said Oblomov, waving his hand.

What happened?

But what: life touches!

And thank God! - said Stolz.

How thank God! If she stroked everything on the head, and then she sticks, as it used to be, bullying sticks to a meek student at school: she will pinch stealthily, then suddenly she will come right from her forehead and sprinkle with sand ... there is no urine! "

Of course, any of us today "life touches" much more often and more sensitively than a small landowner with three hundred serfs in his native Oblomovka. Therefore, in the art of laying sofa springs, we have succeeded much less than Oblomov. But, in all honesty, apart from the daily need to run to work in the morning, do we still have many reasons that do not allow us to fully become like Ilya Ilyich?

The external circumstances of life determine only the level of our freedom and, accordingly, the degree of laziness that we can afford within the framework of this freedom. The ability to overcome laziness depends on our philosophy of life and outlook on the world, on the ideals to which we strive. And, understanding the reasons for Oblomovism, first of all, you need to try to consider behind the sofa seclusion of Ilya Ilyich his ideals. Because it is in a person's system of values ​​that one can find an explanation for his words, actions, and the whole way of life.

And here we find that the ideal of Oblomovism, in its essence, is religious, directly sending us to a theological understanding of the history of the world and man. In Oblomov's homeland “... good people understood her (life) as nothing other than the ideal of peace and inaction, disturbed at times by various unpleasant accidents, such as illness, losses, quarrels and, among other things, labor. They endured labor like the punishment imposed on our forefathers, but they could not love, and where there was a chance, they always got rid of it, finding it possible and necessary. "

Since childhood Oblomov has mastered the attitude to any work, as to the punishment of Adam and Eve for the fall - ... in the sweat of your face you will eat bread, until you return to the ground from which you were taken, for you are dust and to dust you will return(Gen 3 :nineteen). Accordingly, Ilya Ilyich understands paradise as a kind of blissful doing nothing of a person freed from the need to work for the satisfaction of his primary needs:

“- Doesn't everyone achieve what I dream of? Have mercy! he added more boldly. - Yes, the purpose of all your running, passions, wars, trade and politics is not the dressing of rest, not striving for this ideal of paradise lost?

And you have Oblomov's utopia, ”objected Stolz.

Everyone is looking for rest and peace, - Oblomov defended himself.

Curve ideal

In the current, post-Soviet, reality, it is in demand with renewed vigor, and not necessarily among entrepreneurs - it is there that Stolz's views are much more widespread: "Labor is an image, content, element and purpose of life." But, according to statistics, only 3% of the population are entrepreneurs in our country. And is it not for Oblomov's lost paradise that some office worker is striving for a whole year in anticipation of a two-week summer vacation in a five-star hotel somewhere on the Antalya coast, with a servant - "three hundred Zakhars", gratuitous grub from the belly and the same gratuitous drink ?

Why is it so relevant at all times the opposition of these two ideas - work and rest as mutually exclusive meanings of human life? Who is right of the main characters of the novel - Oblomov or Stolz? It seems that an unambiguous answer is impossible here. Because both are wrong, although each also has its own truth behind it. Oblomov acutely feels a certain unnaturalness of labor, its burden and soreness, which all of his nature opposes. Stolz, on the contrary, sees in work the main purpose of a person. But since in the novel this concept is considered in the context of the lost paradise and the punishment of the ancestors of mankind, there is a reason to find out how the relationship between labor, idleness and paradise bliss is understood in the religious tradition to which Oblomov belonged - in Orthodox Christianity.

Where did the work come from

In the film "Formula of Love" the village blacksmith Stepan, having smashed the carriage of Count Cagliostro to smithereens, argued that it was more convenient to get to the wheels through the roof. And at the same time he was citing a Latin proverb: labor is already a pleasure in itself.

The thought is formally beautiful, but it is unlikely that this aphorism was born in the head of a Roman peasant or slave. Rather, some predecessor of Count Tolstoy, a patrician, who grew cabbage at his leisure for his own pleasure, found pleasure in work.

In the Church Slavonic language, the word work is one of the designations of illness, suffering. And this is quite consistent with the biblical understanding of labor. According to the Christian doctrine, the need to work in the sweat of one's brow, as well as the connection between labor and suffering, became for man a direct consequence of the Fall. This, of course, does not in any way mean that man was created for blissful idleness. It's just that the creative participation in the transformation of the face of the Earth, to which the first people were called by God, was really joyful and did not imply any painful manifestations. But labor in the modern sense appeared only when a person fell away from his Creator, deciding to live of his own free will. And immediately he faced the need to cultivate the land in the sweat of his brow, which began to grow weeds for him instead of cereals and instead of joy, feed him with sorrow. God gave him all the blessings of this world for free. But after the Fall, man was forced to make enormous efforts to extract the scanty grains of this God's gift, rejected by him.

Any work is the result of breaking the connection between man and God. Therefore, it would be naive to consider it outside the context of this gap - in Stoltz's way simply, as some kind of self-sufficient good. However, no less naive is Oblomov's attempt to evade work, hoping through this evasion to regain his lost paradise bliss. The fact is that there is no and cannot be paradise (and, therefore, paradise bliss) without God. “Where Christ is, there is Heaven,” said St. John Chrysostom. It is possible to return the lost paradise to a person only through a return to God. Any other path - evasion from labor or, on the contrary, its deification - by itself is equally incapable of leading to paradise. Although, of course, they carry in themselves their little pleasures, which are mistaken for a glimpse of paradise by both sloths and workaholics.

After all, Andrei Stolts, in a certain sense, is also a seeker of the lost paradise, as the true meaning and purpose of his own being. Moreover, he believes that he has already found this meaning: “So when will we live? - Oblomov objected with annoyance at Stolz's remarks. "Why then suffer the whole century?" - “For labor itself, nothing else. Labor is the image, content, element and purpose of life, at least mine. "

However, with all the outward nobility of these words, some kind of eerie metaphysical emptiness shines through them, likening a person to a social insect - a termite, bee, or ant. Oblomov's ideological idleness versus Stolz's unprincipled industriousness is the main opposition of Goncharov's novel. And no wonder that to this day, readers cannot agree on which of the two is right. Because horseradish is no sweeter than a radish.

Oblomov's God

Oblomov is shown in the novel as a person who is not alien to spiritual life, who knows what prayer is. But even here God is not a goal for him, but rather an auxiliary means to achieve the real "deity" of Ilya Ilyich - rest and rest:

“In bitter moments he suffers from worries, turns from side to side, lies face down, sometimes even completely lost; then he will get out of bed on his knees and begin to pray hotly, fervently, begging Heaven to ward off a threatening storm in some way. Then, having surrendered the care of his fate to Heaven, he becomes calm and indifferent to everything in the world, and the storm there as it wants. "

God - as an anesthesiologist helping to get rid of suffering and worries - that is what stands behind the "ideal of rest and rest" in Ilya Ilyich. Of course, such religiosity will only drive a person deeper into the quagmire of his delusion. However, what is the right path to the lost paradise? It seems that this can be considered a certain synthesis of the best personality traits of both Oblomov and Stolz, with which they could mutually compensate for each other's deficiencies. For Stolz, this is the ability for planned, purposeful action, which is lacking only in a real, worthy goal. For Oblomov - dissatisfaction with the life of his contemporary society, longing for the happiness of mankind lost in the Fall. Obviously, the combination of these two qualities could give the result that we see in the biography of most Orthodox saints - many years of conscious work aimed at gaining the Kingdom of Heaven. Which, according to Christ, ... is taken by force, and those who use force delight him(Mt 11 :12).

... Evade evil

The universal formula of holiness is expressed in the words of Holy Scripture: shy away from evil and do good(Ps 33 :15). The paradox of Oblomov's figure, the amazing combination of mental beauty and everyday ugliness in him can be fully explained by a simple and obvious fact: he, as best he could, tried to implement this formula in himself, but ... only half! The sofa became a fortress for him, where he tried to hide from the evil and meaninglessness of secular society, the occupations, interests and motives of which (quite acceptable, from the point of view of Stolz) for Oblomov are a much more vile form of existence than his own sofa inaction:

“Light, society! You, surely, on purpose, Andrei, are sending me into this world and society in order to discourage more desire to be there. Life: life is good! What to look for there? interests of the mind, the heart? Look where the center around which all this revolves: there is no him, there is nothing deep that touches the living. All these are dead people, sleeping people, worse than me, these members of the world and society!

What drives them in life? Here they do not lie, but scurry about every day like flies, back and forth, but what's the use? You will enter the hall and not admire how the guests are seated symmetrically, how calmly and thoughtfully they sit - at the cards. Needless to say, glorious task of life! An excellent example for the mind movement seeker!

Aren't they dead? Do they not sleep sitting all their lives? Why am I more to blame than them, lying at home and not infecting heads with threes and jacks?

... And our best youth, what is it doing? Doesn't he sleep, walking, driving along the Nevsky, dancing? The daily empty shuffle of days! And look, with what pride and unknown dignity, with a repulsive gaze, they look who are not dressed as they are, who do not bear their name and title. And the unfortunate people imagine that they are still higher than the crowd: “We do serve, where, apart from us, no one serves; we are in the first row of armchairs, we are at Prince N's ball, wherever we are allowed “… And they will converge, get drunk and fight like wild ones! Are they living, not sleeping people? Yes, not only young people: look at the adults.

They gather, feed each other, no cordiality ... no kindness, no mutual attraction!

... The day before yesterday, at lunch, I did not know where to look, even to climb under the table, when the reputations of those absent began to torment: “That one is stupid, this low, the other is a thief, the third is ridiculous” - a real persecution! Saying this, they look at each other with the same eyes: “just go out the door, and the same will happen to you” ... Why do they converge, if they are? Why do they shake hands so tightly? "

This picture reminds something, doesn't it? It is enough to change a few outdated words - and here we have a completely adequate image of today's high society. The mores of the "elite", entertainment and criteria for the success of the "golden youth" - everything now remains approximately the same as in the times of Oblomov. Well, except that the "tormenting of other people's reputations" is now taking place also in social networks, and expensive cars and fashionable gadgets have become a source of pride, in addition to clothes. The people of the "creative class" themselves have changed very little since that distant time. And Oblomov's desperate question continues to sound today with no less tension than a hundred and fifty years ago:

God - as an anesthesiologist helping to get rid of suffering and worries - that is what stands behind the "ideal of rest and rest" in Ilya Ilyich.

“... It seems that people look so smart, with such dignity on their faces, but you just hear:“ This one was given something, he received a lease. ” - "Have mercy, for what?" someone shouts. “This one played yesterday at the club; he takes three hundred thousand! " Boredom, boredom, boredom! .. Where is the man here? Where is his wholeness? Where did he hide, how did he exchange for every little thing?

Light and society should be interested in something, - said Stolz, - everyone has their own interests. That's what life is for ... "

But this is only for him, Andrei Stolz, - life. For Ilya Ilyich, such a pastime is an obvious evil, from which he tries to evade with all his might. However, in order to acquire the Kingdom of Heaven, it is not enough just to retire from evil. It is still necessary to create good.

... And do good

Goncharov's contemporary, Saint Theophan the Recluse, referring to the great teachers of the Church, wrote: “Evasion from evil and the creation of good are two legs with which God-fearing people make their way through a godly life. Experienced people, however, find differences between them in distinguishing spiritual orders, which are not useless to know for zealots of moral perfection. ... Basil the Great says: “Abstaining from evil is proper not for the one who is perfect, but only for the beginner. One must first, as from a bad path, move away from the habit of a vicious life, and then begin to do good deeds. "

Blessed Augustine adds to this: « little - not to harm, not to kill, not to steal, not to fornicate, not to deceive, not to testify perjury. Eluding evil, you cannot yet say with certainty: now I am safe, I have done everything, I will have a restful life, I will see good days. For one should not only shy away from evil, but also do good. It is not enough - not to rob: you need to clothe the naked. Did not rob: you evaded evil. But you will not do good with this, if you do not bring the strange into the house, do not put it to rest and do not supply it with what is needed. And it is always so necessary to evade evil in order to immediately do good, or to evade evil, not by inaction, but by doing good opposite to it. "

Faith without works is dead. But in the same way, friendship, and love, and the mental abilities of a person, and his best intentions, are dead without deeds. Cogito ergo sum! "I think, therefore I am!" - Rene Descartes once said. But it is not enough for a person to simply exist and be aware of his existence. A person's personality consists of his actions in a situation of choice, when he needs to overcome himself in order to rise above himself, the present. In a person there is a certain preoccupation, dissatisfaction with what you are now, and an aspiration for what you should become. Without efforts in this direction, his life will remain just a thinking existence.

Are you smart? - put your mind to some kind of good deed. Are you friends - find out how your friend is doing and help him if he needs your help. You like? - do at least something for the sake of your beloved, start rebuilding your life in accordance with this love.

Ilya Ilyich largely managed to evade the evil that pervaded the society of his day. And this noble purity of his soul, his categorical rejection of lies and hypocrisy, his good-naturedness and devotion to friendship make Oblomov so dear and close to the author of the novel, and with him - to the readers. However, evading evil, Oblomov did not do any good. On this "leg" in

For a Christian, life is a way of becoming like Christ. And Christ, as you know, did not have a sofa.

In the matter of piety, Ilya Ilyich was not just limping - he generally atrophied from many years of idleness. And, alas, Oblomov's story could not have had any other ending, except for the one about which his friend Andrei Stolts speaks with bitterness:

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

Lazy real name

So what kind of misfortune fatally plowed the fate of Oblomov, and together with him - destroyed and continues to destroy a huge number of other people, just as kind and noble in soul? This quiet evil is so imperceptible that it is far from always possible to pay attention to it, although it is inseparably present in each of us from the very moment of our birth. Its action was very accurately described in a funny poem by the poet Igor Guberman:

It happens that you wake up like a bird

Winged spring on the cocked

And I want to live and work ...

But it goes away by breakfast.

Only by understanding why a person does not want to live and work, one can understand what Oblomovism is.

As already mentioned, any work is the result of man's falling away from God. Even the prayer work of the saints is a direct consequence of this metaphysical catastrophe, when the most natural occupation for a person - communication with his Creator, suddenly turned out to be associated with a painful effort and overcoming some dark, inert principle in himself. Goncharov called this beginning Oblomovism. In a broader sense, people are used to calling it laziness. But if we consistently develop the idea of ​​people's falling away from God, then inevitably we will have to admit: this dark principle in man is ... death. We feel this soft touch of her when we lie on the couch in gentle languor after waking up or having a hearty dinner. It is her voice that insinuates about any business: “Drop it, put it aside, because you can do it tomorrow. And now - rest, sleep for an hour or two. " Laziness is nothing more than a desire for decay, for the irreversible dissipation of energy, for the complete cessation of all processes in the human body and soul. Laziness is dying, an image of death that permeates every second of a person's life. Its ideal is the gradual assimilation of man, first to an animal, and then to inanimate organic matter, a pitiful heap of rotting meat.

Oblomov's striving for the lost paradise can be viewed as a spontaneous attempt to escape from this quiet but merciless enemy - death: after all, in paradise, man was immortal. However, the path of Ilya Ilyich to heavenly bliss was initially doomed to failure. Death watched him just under the guise of laziness - the very inaction in which he hoped to find salvation from the evil of the world around him. And Oblomov didn’t have enough life to recognize it under this seemingly so harmless guise.

Why do we live?

Saint Ignatius (Brianchaninov) wrote: "Earthly life is not life itself, but an incessant struggle between life and death: alternately we deviate from one to the other, hesitate between them, are challenged by them."

But one way or another, each of us will have to die. Two meters of land in the cemetery, and a burdock over the grave - this is the end of the life path of both a sloth and a workaholic. Is it all the same whether we spend our whole life on the couch or will we work tirelessly? One can reason like this, but only if death is considered as the final and absolute point in human existence.

Ilya Ilyich was by no means a convinced materialist. And his main mistake as a Christian was in the wrong assessment of his own earthly life. Oblomov viewed her as a kind of annoying obstacle to eternal peace and joy that should come after death. He hoped to at least partially find this peace here, on Earth, hiding on the sofa from the bustle that surrounded him. But earthly life is not a natural disaster that must be patiently waited out under a warm blanket. The path to the lost paradise is the labor of correcting oneself, one's sick inclinations, the properties of one's soul distorted by sin. In other words, the labor of re-creating in oneself the person that God would like us to be. For a Christian, life is a way of becoming like Christ. And Christ, as you know, did not have a sofa.

Photo materials provided by the Mosfilm Cinema Concern

The quiet death of Oblomov is not the death of the blessed one. The entire fourth part of the novel is a description of the hero's spiritual death before his physical death. And the main motive here is Oblomov's spiritual defeat, which looks like a plunge into a new, now final "death dream." Before us is already a living dead man who does not want to think about what awaits him tomorrow (it is not for nothing that it is said: "He had a presentiment of imminent death and was afraid of it"), but is only satisfied that now he still has the opportunity not to worry about the final outcome of his life, about the need for repentance. The key words of the fourth part are: "peace", "silence", "hopelessness", "carelessness", "sleep", "laziness", "lulling".

The hero in this part is characterized by two unequally presented states. The first is short-lived outbursts of remorse, which are "less and less frequent." However, this repentance is not active, as in the romance with Olga Ilyinskaya, but contemplative and therefore dull, desperate. Oblomov then "cries with cold tears of hopelessness." The second state is alarmingly named by Goncharov: "inner triumph". This is a complete rejection of all repentance, complete self-justification and reassurance in sin. Goncharov writes about his hero that he "will taste temporary blessings and calm down", that "there is nothing to repent".

Self-justification lies in the fact that under his sin, under his sinful state, Ilya Ilyich brings a philosophical basis: "Finally he will decide that his life not only took shape, but was created, even intended so simply, no wonder, to express the possibility of an ideally deceased side of human existence. Others, he thought, had to express its alarming aspects, to move by creating and destructive forces: everyone has his own purpose! "

The outcome of Oblomov's life is rather unimpressive. He is brought up in a conversation with Stolz already at the final farewell: "I have long been ashamed to live in the world! But I can't go your way with you, even if I wanted to ..." And Stolz's words look like the final sentence: "You are dead, Ilya. .. ".

However, Oblomov's novel is clearly imbued with an evangelical spirit. Even the final spiritual death of the hero still leaves hope for the mercy of the Lord God. The author hopes for this mercy when, only in a hint, he gives the image of an angel guarding Oblomov's grave: "It seems that the angel of silence himself is guarding his sleep." Hope is also visible in how Ilya Ilyich was preserved in the memory of people. The widow Agafya Matveyevna Pshenitsyna prays for him weekly in the church. Zakhar remembers him with a kind word: "The Lord took such a master away! To the joy of people he lived ... You can't make such a master…. Remember, Lord, his darling in His Kingdom!"

Oblomov died for the world, for people, he died spiritually. But all the same, without doing good, he did not do evil either. From the Christian point of view, God gave him such gifts as a pure heart, meekness, poverty of spirit, crying, etc. (although all this is in an everyday, everyday, not spiritual form). Oblomov could not overcome the power of repentance, the will to repentance and repentance - the "mortal sleep", "despondency" of the spiritual. In this sense, he seemed to have wasted the priceless gifts given to him by God. Nevertheless, the author does not pass judgment on him, but highlights as the final result - the possibility of God's mercy.