The novel “Oblomov” by I. A. Goncharov has not lost its relevance and its objective significance in our time, because it contains a universal philosophical meaning. The main conflict of the novel - between the patriarchal and bourgeois ways of Russian life - the writer reveals on the opposition of people, feelings and reason, peace and action, life and death. With the help of antithesis, Goncharov makes it possible to understand the idea of the novel with all the depth, to penetrate into the souls of the characters.
Ilya Oblomov and Andrei Stolz are the main characters of the work. These are people of the same class, society, time. It would seem that people of the same environment have similar characters and worldviews. But they are completely opposite to each other. Stolz, unlike Oblomov, is shown by the writer as an active person, in whom reason prevails over feeling. Goncharov makes attempts to understand why these people are so different, and he looks for the origins of this in origin, upbringing and education, since this lays the foundations of characters.
Stolz was brought up in a poor family. His father was a German by origin, and his mother was a Russian noblewoman. We see that the family spent all day at work. When Stolz grew up, his father began to take him to the field, to the market, forced him to work. At the same time, he taught him the sciences, taught the German language, that is, he brought up in his son respect for knowledge, the habit of thinking, doing business. Then Stolz began to send his son to the city with instructions, “and it never happened that he forgot something, changed it, overlooked it, made a mistake.” The writer shows us how zealously, persistently this person develops economic tenacity in Andrei, the need for constant activity. The mother taught her son literature and managed to give him an excellent spiritual education. So, Stolz was formed as a strong, intelligent young man.
But what about Oblomov? His parents were nobles. Their life in the village of Oblomovka followed its own special laws. The Oblomov family had a cult of food. The whole family decided "what dishes will be for lunch or dinner." And after dinner, the whole house fell asleep, plunged into a long sleep. And so passed every day in this family: only sleep and food. When Oblomov grew up, he was sent to study at the gymnasium. But we see that Ilyusha's parents were not interested in their son's knowledge. They themselves came up with pretexts in order to free their adored child from study, they dreamed of receiving a certificate proving that "Ilya went through all the sciences and arts." They didn’t even let him go outside again, because they were afraid that he would be crippled, would not get sick. Therefore, Oblomov grew up lazy, apathetic, did not receive a proper education.
But let's look deeper into the characters of the main characters. Rethinking the pages I read in a new way, I realized that both Andrei and Ilya have their own tragedy in life.
Stolz at first glance is a new, progressive, almost ideal person. Work for him is part of life, pleasure. He does not shun even the most menial work, leads an active life. From the moment he left home, he lives by work, thanks to which he became rich and famous to a wide circle of people. Stolz's ideal of happiness is material wealth, comfort, personal well-being. And he achieves his goal by hard work. His life is full of action. But despite the external well-being, it is boring and monotonous.
Unlike Oblomov, a man of a subtle soul, Stolz appears to the reader as a kind of machine: “He was all made up of bones, muscles and nerves, like a blooded English horse. He is thin; he has almost no cheeks at all, that is, bone and muscle ... his complexion is even, swarthy and no blush. Stolz lives strictly according to plan, his life is scheduled by the minute, and there are no surprises, interesting moments in it, he almost never gets worried, does not experience any event especially strongly. And we see that the tragedy of this man lies precisely in the monotony of his life, in the one-sidedness of his worldview.
And now let's turn to Oblomov. Work for him is a burden. He was a gentleman, which means that he did not have to devote a drop of time to work. And I'm not talking about physical labor, because he was even too lazy to get up from the sofa, leave the room to be cleaned there. He spends his whole life on the couch, doing nothing, not interested in anything (he can't bring himself to finish reading the book "Journey through Africa", even the pages of this book turned yellow). Oblomov's ideal of happiness is complete peace and good food. And he reached his ideal. Servants cleaned up after him, and at home he had no big problems with the household. And before us is revealed another tragedy - the moral death of the hero. Before our eyes, the inner world of this person is getting poorer, from a kind, pure person, Oblomov turns into a moral cripple.
But despite all the differences between Stolz and Oblomov, they are friends, friends since childhood. They are brought together by the most beautiful character traits: honesty, kindness, decency.
The essence of the novel is that inaction can destroy all the best feelings of a person, corrode his soul, destroy his personality, and work, the desire for education will bring happiness, subject to the rich inner world of a person.
Oblomov and Stolz are the main characters of the novel “Oblomov” by I. A. Goncharov. They are people of the same time, but, reading the novel, we are surprised to find that these people differ in the most essential features that make up their personality. What makes them different? I. A. Goncharov is a realist writer, and therefore, in order to answer this question, it is necessary to trace how the life of these two heroes develops.
Stolz was brought up in a poor family. His father was of German origin. Mother is a Russian noblewoman. All the days of the family were spent at work. When Stolz grew up, his father began to take him to the field, to the market, and taught him to work. At the same time, he taught him the sciences, taught him the German language. Then Stolz began to send his son to the city with instructions, “and it never happened that he forgot something, changed it, overlooked it, made a mistake.” His mother taught him literature and managed to give her son an excellent spiritual education. So, Stolz was accustomed to work from childhood, and besides, he was accustomed to the idea that anything can be achieved in life only by hard work.
Oblomov's parents were noblemen. Their life in the village of Ob-lomovka followed its own, special laws. The most important occupations in their lives were rest and food. The whole family decided “what dishes will be for lunch or dinner”, after dinner there was a long sleep. Any desire of Ilyusha to do at least something was suppressed: why should the little master bother himself when there are serfs in the house who are ready to immediately take on the work themselves? The boy was not even allowed to go far from home - they were afraid that he would not be killed, would not get sick. When Oblomov grew up, he was sent to study at the gymnasium. Parents were not interested in Ilyusha's knowledge. They only dreamed of receiving a document confirming that "Ilya went through all the sciences and arts."
Work for Stolz was part of his life, a pleasure. He did not shun even the most menial work. For Oblomov, it was a burden. Firstly, because he was not accustomed to work, and secondly, because he did not see the point in work. He did not have to provide for his existence, and he did not see the benefit of his service. He recognizes only the work of the soul. And all this led to the fact that at some point Oblomov was even too lazy to get up from the sofa, leave the room to put things in order there.
So, Oblomov spends his life on the couch. He does nothing, he is not interested in anything (he still cannot bring himself to finish reading the book “Journey in Africa”, although the pages of this book have already turned yellow). Stolz leads an active life. According to some remarks in the text of the novel, we can judge the scope of his activities: he has lunch with a gold miner, travels to Kyiv and Nizhny Novgorod - the largest shopping centers in Russia, as well as to London, Paris, Lyon. He works hard, his life is full of action.
But to whom do I. A. Goncharov's sympathies belong? Can it be argued that Stolz is the ideal that, according to the writer, should be equal? Having revealed to the readers the image of Stolz, I. A. Goncharov showed himself as a deep and accurate sociologist of Russian society, he realized that the time was coming for precisely such people as Oblomov's friend. But Goncharov also had a huge life experience acquired during his travels. That is why he voluminously judges the consequences of scientific and technological progress. He pays tribute to the latest achievements of society, admires the transformative activity of the “newest Englishman”, but he also sees the other side of the coin. Goncharov does not accept the mechanization of the human personality, which progress inevitably brings. Lack of spirituality, even if the most active and educated person would be its bearer, could not be accepted by a Russian humanist writer. True, it is not necessary to understand lack of spirituality as a lack of desire to help one's neighbor. Stolz seeks to “stir up” a childhood friend. Honesty, kindness, decency bring them closer to Oblomov. But the difference between them is too significant. If Stolz's activity is capable of changing everything around, then Oblomov completely focused on his inner world. He is lost in thought. Isn't this one of the main properties of a Russian person, described even before I. A. Goncharov? Oblomov's similar attitude to life leads to the fact that his estate falls into decay, his peasants are on the verge of ruin. The protagonist of the novel is just a “fragment” of the former greatness of Russian noble families. Not such people will contribute to the development of Russia. But only in such people lives a great need for doubt in everything, for a critical attitude towards oneself. They, unlike the Stolts, are able to understand that the truth is not necessarily what they imagine, that it may lie outside the limits of their way of life and their views.
So, despite the fact that it was Stolz who was ultimately given the love of Olga, the beloved heroine of I. A. Goncharov, he cannot be close to Goncharov's ideal of a person. But Oblomov is not perfect either. It seems to me that the writer did not at all seek to show the ideal in his novel. On the contrary, he showed two misfortunes, two extremes, living in Russian society: "Oblomovism" and Stoltsev, of whom many should "appear under Russian names."
Oblomov and Stolz Oblomov and Stolz are the main characters of Goncharov's novel Oblomov.
They are people of the same class, society, time. It would seem that living in the same environment, their characters, worldview should be similar. But reading the novel, we are surprised to find in Oblomov and Stolz the various components that make up their personality. What makes them different? To answer this question, let us trace their physical and spiritual development from childhood, as this lays the foundation of their characters. Stolz. He was brought up in a poor family. His father was of German origin. Mother is a Russian noblewoman. All the days of the family were spent at work. When Stolz grew up, his father began to take him to the field, to the market, forced him to work. At the same time, he taught him the sciences, taught him the German language. Then Stoltz began to send his son to the city with instructions, "and it never happened that he forgot something, changed it, overlooked it, made a mistake." His mother taught him literature and managed to give an excellent spiritual education to her son. So, Stolz was formed as a strong, intelligent young man.
Oblomov.
His parents were nobles. Their life in the village of Oblomovka followed its own special laws.
The most important thing in their lives was food. She devoted a lot of time. The whole family decided "what dishes will be for lunch or dinner." After dinner, a long sleep followed. The whole house fell asleep. So passed all the days: sleep and food. When Oblomov grew up, he was sent to study at the gymnasium. Parents were not interested in Ilyusha's knowledge. They dreamed of getting a certificate proving that "Ilya went through all the sciences and arts." As for physical education, he was not even allowed to go outside. They were afraid that he would not be killed, would not get sick. So, Oblomov grew up a downtrodden boy, without education, but kind in his soul. Now let's analyze their views on life. Work for Stolz was part of his life, a pleasure. He did not shun even the most menial work. For Oblomov, it was a burden. He was a gentleman, which means that he should not devote a single drop of time to work. I'm not even talking about physical labor. He was even too lazy to get up from the couch, leave the room to be cleaned up there. The character of the characters is also reflected in their way of life. Oblomov spends his life in existence on the couch. He does nothing, is not interested in anything (he still cannot bring himself to finish reading the book "Journey in Africa", even the pages of this book turned yellow). Stolz leads an active life. From the moment he left home, he lives by work. Thanks to work, willpower, patience, he became rich and known to a wide range of people. Oblomov's ideal of happiness is complete peace and good food. And he achieved this: he slept peacefully on the couch and ate well. Servants cleaned up after him and at home he had no big problems with the household. Stolz's ideal of happiness is life in work. He has it. He works hard, his life is full of action. But despite all the differences between them, they are friends, friends since childhood. They are brought together by the best parts of character: honesty, kindness, decency. You can also talk about Oblomov's love for Olga, if this, of course, can be called love. To achieve her love, he began to read, go to museums, walk. But this change is only external. Inside, Ilya Ilyich remains the same Oblomov. The essence of the novel is that inaction can destroy all the best feelings of a person, corrode his soul, destroy his personality, and work, the desire for education will bring happiness.
Oblomov and Stolz. Oblomov and Stolz are the main characters of Goncharov's novel Oblomov. They are people of the same class, society, time. It would seem that living in the same environment, their characters, worldview should be similar. But when reading the novel, we are surprised to find in Oblomov and Stolz the various components that make up their personality. What makes them different? To answer this question, let us trace their physical and spiritual development from childhood, as this lays the foundations of their characters. Stolz. He was brought up in a poor family. His father was German by origin. His mother was a Russian noblewoman. All the days of the family were spent at work. When Stolz grew up, his father began to take him to the field, to the market, forced him to work. his sciences, taught him the German language. Then Stolz began to send his son to the city with assignments, “and it never happened that he forgot something, changed it, overlooked it, made a mistake.” His mother taught him literature and managed to give an excellent spiritual education to her son. So, Stolz was formed as a strong, intelligent young man. Oblomov. His parents were noblemen. Their life in the village of Oblomovka followed its own special laws. The most important thing in their life was food. They devoted a lot of time to it. They decided with the whole family “what dishes would be for lunch or dinner.” After dinner, a long sleep followed. The whole house fell asleep. all days passed: sleep and food. When Oblomov grew up, he was sent to study at the gymnasium. Parents were not interested in Ilyusha's knowledge. They dreamed of getting a certificate proving that "Ilya went through all the sciences and arts." As for physical education, he was not even allowed out into the street. They were afraid how if he had not been killed, he would not have fallen ill. So, Oblomov grew up as a downtrodden boy, without education, but kind in his soul. Now let's analyze their views on life. Work for Stolz was part of his life, a pleasure. He did not shun even the most menial work. For Oblomov, it was a burden. He was a master, which means that he should not devote a drop of time to work. I'm not even talking about physical labor. He was even too lazy to get up from the sofa, leave the room to get out of there. Their lifestyle also speaks about the character of the heroes. Oblomov spends his life in existence on the sofa. He does nothing, is not interested in anything (he still cannot force myself to finish reading the book "Journey in Africa", even the pages of this book turned yellow). Stolz leads an active life. From the moment he left home, he lives by work. Thanks to work, willpower, patience, he became rich and famous to a wide range of people. Oblomov's ideal of happiness is complete peace and good food. And he achieved this: he slept peacefully on the couch and ate well. Servants cleaned him up and he didn’t have big problems with the household at home. Stolz’s ideal of happiness is life in work. He has it. But despite all the differences between them, they are friends, friends since childhood. They are brought together by the best parts of their character: honesty, kindness, decency. You can also talk about Oblomov’s love for Olga, if this, of course, can be called love. To achieve He began to read her love, go to museums, walk. But this change is only external. Inside, Ilya Ilyich remains the same Oblomov. The essence of the novel is that inaction can destroy all the best feelings of a person, corrode his soul, destroy his personality, and work, the desire for education will bring happiness.##
Oblomov and Stolz are the main characters of the novel Oblomov by I. A. Goncharov. They are people of the same time, but, reading the novel, we are surprised to find that these people differ in the most essential features that make up their personality. What makes them different? I. A. Goncharov is a realist writer, and therefore, in order to answer this question, it is necessary to trace how the life of these two heroes develops. Stolz was brought up in a poor family. His father was of German origin. Mother is a Russian noblewoman. All the days of the family were spent at work. When Stolz grew up, his father began to take him to the field, to the market, and taught him to work. At the same time, he taught him the sciences, taught him the German language. Then Stoltz began to send his son to the city with instructions, "and it never happened that he forgot something, changed it, overlooked it, made a mistake." His mother taught him literature and managed to give her son an excellent spiritual education. So, Stolz was accustomed to work from childhood, and besides, he was accustomed to the idea that anything can be achieved in life only by hard work.
Oblomov's parents were noblemen. Their life in the village of Oblomovka followed its own, special laws. The most important occupations in their lives were rest and food. The whole family decided “what dishes will be for lunch or dinner”, after dinner there was a long sleep. Any desire of Ilyusha to do at least something was suppressed: why should the little master bother himself when there are serfs in the house who are ready to immediately take on the work themselves? The boy was not even allowed to go far from home - they were afraid that he would not be killed, would not get sick. When Oblomov grew up, he was sent to study at the gymnasium. Parents were not interested in Ilyusha's knowledge. They only dreamed of receiving a document confirming that "Ilya went through all the sciences and arts."
Work for Stolz was part of his life, a pleasure. He did not shun even the most menial work. For Oblomov, it was a burden. Firstly, because he was not accustomed to work, and secondly, because he did not see the point in work. He did not have to provide for his existence, and he did not see the benefit of his service. He recognizes only the work of the soul. And all this led to the fact that at some point Oblomov was even too lazy to get up from the sofa, leave the room to put things in order there.
So, Oblomov spends his life on the couch. He does nothing, is not interested in anything (he still cannot bring himself to finish reading the book "Journey in Africa", although the pages of this book have already turned yellow). Stolz leads an active life. According to some remarks in the text of the novel, we can judge the scope of his activities: he has lunch with a gold miner, travels to Kyiv and Nizhny Novgorod - the largest shopping centers in Russia, as well as to London, Paris, Lyon. He works hard, his life is full of action.
But to whom do I. A. Goncharov's sympathies belong? Can it be argued that Stolz is the ideal that, according to the writer, should be equal? Having revealed to the readers the image of Stolz, I. A. Goncharov showed himself as a deep and accurate sociologist of Russian society, he realized that the time was coming for precisely such people as Oblomov's friend. But Goncharov also had a huge life experience acquired during his travels. That is why he voluminously judges the consequences of scientific and technological progress. He pays tribute to the latest achievements of society, admires the transformative activity of the "newest Englishman", but he also sees the other side of the coin. Goncharov does not accept the mechanization of the human personality, which progress inevitably brings. Lack of spirituality, even if the most active and educated person would be its bearer, could not be accepted by a Russian humanist writer. True, it is not necessary to understand lack of spirituality as a lack of desire to help one's neighbor. Stolz seeks to "stir up" a childhood friend. Honesty, kindness, decency bring them closer to Oblomov. But the difference between them is too significant. If Stolz's activity is capable of changing everything around, then Oblomov completely focused on his inner world. He is lost in thought. Isn't this one of the main properties of a Russian person, described even before I. A. Goncharov? Oblomov's similar attitude to life leads to the fact that his estate falls into decay, his peasants are on the verge of ruin. The protagonist of the novel is only a “fragment” of the former greatness of Russian noble families. Not such people will contribute to the development of Russia. But only in such people lives a great need for doubt in everything, for a critical attitude towards oneself. They, unlike the Stolts, are able to understand that the truth is not necessarily what they imagine, that it may lie outside the limits of their way of life and their views.
So, despite the fact that it was Stolz who was ultimately given the love of Olga, the beloved heroine of I. A. Goncharov, he cannot be close to Goncharov's ideal of a person. But Oblomov is not perfect either. It seems to me that the writer did not at all seek to show the ideal in his novel. On the contrary, he showed two misfortunes, two extremes, living in Russian society: "Oblomovism" and Stoltsy, of whom many should "appear under Russian names."
The novel by I. A. Goncharov "Oblomov" is one of those that have taken a worthy place among the masterpieces of Russian classical literature. With the help of the reception of antithesis in the novel, the characters of the characters are best revealed, the image of the master Ilya Ilyich Oblomov is contrasted with the image of the pedantic German Andrei Stolz. Goncharov thus demonstrates both the similarity and difference between the characters in the work. Ilya Ilyich Oblomov is a typical representative of the lordly class of the 19th century. Goncharov describes Oblomov's position in society as follows: "Oblomov, a nobleman by birth, collegiate secretary by rank, has been living in St. Petersburg for the twelfth year." Being by nature a gentle and calm person, Ilya Ilyich tries to practically not disturb his way of life. “His movements, when he was even alarmed, were also kept by gentleness and laziness not devoid of a kind of grace.” Oblomov's days fly by in dreams of great changes in his family estate Oblomovka.
Goncharov wonderfully conveys to us the expression on the face of Ilya Ilyich: “The thought walked like a free bird across his face, fluttered in his eyes, sat on half-open lips, hid in the folds of his forehead, then completely disappeared, and then an even light of carelessness glowed all over his face.” In his own house, "he was lost in the tide of worldly worries and kept lying, tossing and turning from side to side." Not liking secular society, trying to go out as little as possible, Oblomov communicated through force with rare visitors who came with selfish goals in their heads. For example, Tarantiev borrows large and small amounts from Ilya Ilyich and does not return them, in other words, he robs Oblomov.
Not thinking about the real plans of his visitors, Oblomov constantly becomes a victim of human cunning. Oblomov also does not understand the frequent rotations in secular circles. “No sincere laughter, no glimmer of sympathy ... what kind of life is this?” Oblomov asks in surprise. Life should be quiet and calm, according to the main character.
And suddenly Stolz, an old friend of Oblomov, famously breaks into this measured rut. “Stolz is the same age as Oblomov: and he is already over thirty years old. He served, retired, went about his business and actually made a house and money. The son of a burgher, Stolz, can be called the complete opposite of Oblomov. Seeing the hard life of his father, living in harsh conditions, Stolz developed in his mind the habit of difficulties and overcoming them. Taking absolutely nothing from his mother (Russian by origin), Stolz inherited a lot from his German father, a practical and purposeful person. Stolz clearly repeated his parent, was "all made up of bones, muscles and nerves, like a blooded English horse."
Stolz, in contrast to Oblomov, "was afraid of any dream", "the mysterious, the mysterious had no place in his soul." Oblomov's normal state - lying on the couch - at least embarrassed Stolz, who had a love for constant movement. Stolz's motto was, as the author writes, "a simple, that is, a direct, real look at life."
So what invisible thread connected these completely different people so firmly? What kept them from moving away from each other? Childhood and school years spent together became that invisible chain that held them tightly next to each other. It turns out that such a dreamer as Oblomov was enthusiastic and active in his youth. Together with Stolz, they spent their days reading books, studying various sciences.
But the role of nature turned out to be more important: Oblomov's mild nature somewhat alienated him from Stolz, who was striving forward. No matter how Andrei tried to save his friend, the quagmire of "Oblomovism" swallowed up the soul, thoughts and heart of Ilya Ilyich.
In conclusion, I would like to summarize. I. And Goncharov in the best way, using the method of antithesis, managed to reveal the characters of Oblomov and Stolz, to compare not only these heroes, but also the life and reality surrounding them.
