27WHAT IS OBLOMOVISM?

By Nikolai Dobrolyubov

The essay which appears below in abbreviated form was first published in the radical journal Sovremennik (“The Contemporary”) in 1859, during the great publicdebate preceding the emancipation of the serfs. Its author (1836—61) was thentwenty-three-years old but was already considered a leading literary critic. In 1856he had become a follower of the materialist philosopher Nikolai Chernyshevski andin 1857 took over the literary column of Sovremennik. His chief contribution toliterary criticism was his formulation of the theory of social types as representedin Russian literature. As a follower of Belinsky, he believed that literature mustserve society as a positive guide, praising the good and condemning evil.

His essay on Oblomovism became the most celebrated of his writings. Immedi.ately upon its appearance, it was used by the radical camp in its fight with themoderates and the liberals. One of the latter, Alexander Herzen, answered Dobrol.yubov with an article entitled “Very dangerous.” The term “oblomovshchina” hasbeen incorporated into the Russian language. Lenin used it on many occasions andnot long before his death seemed to find the disease still prevalent in Russia. “Theold Oblomov,” he wrote, “has remained, and for a long while yet he will have to

be washed, cleaned, shaken and thrashed if something is to come of him.”For a biography of the creator of Oblomov, the writer Ivan Goncharov, see Janko

Lavrin’s Goncharov. F. Seeley’s “The Heyday of the ‘Superfluous Man’ in Russia,”

Slavonic and East European Review, XXXI, 92—112, is a study of the Oblomov phe.

nomenon. See also Franklin Reeve, “Oblomovism Revisited,” American Slavk andEast European Review, XV, 112—18, and Leon Stilman, “Oblomovka Revisited,”

American Slavk and East European Review, VII, 45—77. For another analysis of

Goncharov, see Helen Rapp, “The Art of Ivan Goncharov,” Slavonic and East Euro.

pean Review, XXXVI, 370-95. The novel itself is available in a paperback edition.

Where is the one who in the native lan-guage of the Russian soul could pronounce

for us the mighty word “forward”? Centuryafter century passes, and a half a millionstay-at-homes, lubbers and blockheads areimmersed in deep slumber, but rarely is a

man born in Rüs who is able to pronouncethis mighty word . . . G0G0L.1

1 The epigraph, slightly misquoted, is fromvolume two of Gogol’s Dead Souls.

From N. Dobrolyubov, Selected PhilosophicalEssays (Moscow, 1956) , pp. 182—94, 204-17.

343

344 What Is Oblomovism? What Is Oblomovism? 345

. . . Oblomov is not altogether a newpersonage in our literature, but neverhas he been presented to us so simpiyand naturally as he is in Goncharov’snovel. Not to go too far back into thepast, we shall say that we find the ge.neric features of the Oblomov type at.ready in Onegin;2 and then we findthem repeated several times in the bestof our literary productions. The point isthat this is our native, national type,which not one of our serious artistscould brush aside. But in the course oftime, as social consciousness developed,this type changed its shape, establisheda different relationship with life and acquired a new significance. To note thesenew phases of its existence, to determinethe substance of its new significance,has always been an enormous task, andthe talent who succeeded in doing italways did a great deal for the advance.ment of our literature. This is whatGoncharov has done with his Oblomov.We shall examine the main features ofthe Oblomov type, and then we shall tryto draw a slight parallel between it andseveral types of the same kind whichhave appeared in our literature at different times.

What are the main features of theOblomov character ? Utter inertness resulting from apathy towards everythingthat goes on in the world. The cause ofthis apathy lies partly in Oblomov’s external position and partly in the mannerof his mental and moral development.The external position is that he is a gen.tieman : “he has a Zakhar, and anotherthree hundred Zakhars,” as the authorputs it.3 Ilya Ilyich (Oblomov) explainsthe advantages of his position to Zakharin the following way:

2 Onegin : hero of Pushkin’s novel in verse,Eugene Onegin.

8 Zakhar: Oblomov’s personal servant, a serf.The “three hundred Zakhars” are the serfsowned by Oblomov as part of his estate.

Do I fuss and worry? Do I work? Don’tI have enough to eat? Do I look thin andhaggard? Am I in want of anything? Have Inot people to fetch and carry for me, to dothe things I want done? Thank God, I havenever in my life had to draw a pair ofstockings on. Do you think I would go to anytrouble? Why should I? . . . But I need nottell you all this. Haven’t you served mesince childhood? You know all about it.You have seen how tenderly I was broughtup. You know that I have never sufferedcold or hunger, that I have never knownwant, that I don’t have to earn my breadand, in general, have never done any work.

Oblomov is speaking the absolutetruth. The entire history of his upbring.ing confirms what he says. He becameaccustomed to lolling about at a veryearly age because he had people to fetchand carry for him, to do things for him.Under these circumstances he lived theidle life of a sybarite even when he did

Snot want to. And tell me, pray, what canyou expect of a man who grew up underthe following circumstances:

Zakhar—as his [Oblomov’s] nurse didin the old days—draws on his stockings andputs on his shoes while Ilyusha, alreadya boy of fourteen, does nothing but lieon his back and put up one foot and thenthe other ; and if it seems to him that Zakharhas done something not in the right way,he kicks him in the nose. If the disgruntledZakhar takes it into his head to complain,he gets his ears boxed by the adults. Afterthat Zakhar combs Ilya Ilyich’s hair, helpshim on with his coat, carefully puttinghis arms into the sleeves so as not to incommode him too much, and reminds him thathe must do so and so and so and so : onwaking up in the morning—to wash himself,etc.

If Ilya Ilyich wants anything he has onlyto make a sign—and at once three or fourservants rush to carry out his wishes ; if hedrops anything, if he reaches for somethinghe needs and cannot get at it, if somethinghas to be brought in, or it is necessary to runon some errand—he sometimes, like theactive boy he is, is just eager to run and

do it himself, but suddenly his mother andhis father and his three aunts shout in aquintet:

—“Where are you going? What for?What are Vaska and Vanka and Zakharkahere for? Hey! Vaska, Vanka, Zakharka!What are you all dawdling there for? I’ll letyou have it ! . . .“

And so Ilya Ilyich is simply not allowedto do anything for himself. Later on hefound that this was much more convenientand he learned to shout himself : “Hey,Vaska, Vanka, bring me this, bring me that!I don’t want this, I want that ! Go andbring it ! . . .“

The effect this position of the childhas upon his entire moral and intellec.tual development will be understood. Itsinternal strength necessarily “wilts andfades.” Even if the child tests thatstrength sometimes, it is only in whimsand arrogant demands that othersshould obey his orders. It is well knownthat the satisfaction of whims developsspinelessness and that arrogance is in-compatible with the ability really tomaintain one’s dignity. Becoming accustomed to make unreasonable de.mands, the boy soon loses the power tokeep his wishes within the bounds ofthe possible and practical, loses all ability to make means conform with aimsand is therefore baffled by the first oh-stacle that calls for the exercise of hisown efforts for its removal. When hegrows up he becomes an Oblomov, pos.sessing the latter’s apathy and spineless.ness to a greater or lesser degree, undera more or less skilful disguise, but al.ways with the same invariable quality—a repugnance for serious and independent activity.

An important factor here is the men-tal development of the Oblomovs, which,of course, is also moulded by their external position. From their earliest yearsthey see life turned inside out, as itwere, and until the end of their daysthey are unable to understand what their

relation to the world and to peopleshould reasonably be. Later on much isexplained to them and they begin toderstand something ; but the views thatwere inculcated in them in their child-hood remain somewhere in a corner andconstantly peep out from there, hinder.ing all new conceptions and preventingthem from sinking deep into theirhearts. . . . As a result, chaos reigns intheir heads : sometimes a man makes uphis mind to do something, but he doesnot know how to begin, where to turn.. . . This is not surprising : a normalman always wants to do only what hecan do ; that is why he immediately doesall that he wants to do. . . . But Oblomov. - . is not accustomed to do anything;consequently, he cannot really determinewhat he can do and what he cannot do—and consequently, he cannot serious-ly, actively, want anything. . . . Hiswishes always assume the form : “howgood it would be if this were done,” buthow this can be done he does not know.That is why he is so fond of dreamingand dreads the moment when hisdreams may come in contact with real-ity. When they do, he tries to shift theburden to another’s shoulders ; if thereare no other shoulders, why then, per-haps it will get done somehow. . .

All these features are splendidly notedand concentrated with extraordinarystrength and truth in the person of IlyaIlyich Oblomov. It must not be imaginedthat Ilya Ilyich belongs to some specialbreed of which inertness is an essentialand fundamental feature. It would bewrong to think that nature has deprivedhim of the ability to move of his ownvolition. This is not the case at all. Na.

ture has endowed him with the samegifts as she has endowed all men. As achild he wanted to run about and playsnowballs with other children, to getone thing or another himself, to rundown into the gully, to reach the near-

346 What Is Oblomovism? What Is Oblomovism? 347by birch wood by crossing the canal,climbing over fences and jumpingacross ditches. When everybody in theOblomov house was taking his or hercustomary afternoon nap he would getup to stretch his legs: he “ran to thegallery (where nobody was permitted togo because it threatened to collapse anymoment) , ran round the creaking floor,climbed up to the dovecote, wandereddown to the end of the garden and us-tened to a beetle droning and followedits flight with his eyes until it was faraway.” Sometimes he “got into thecanal, grubbed about, found some roots,peeled off the bark and ate them withthe utmost relish, preferring them to theapples and jam that Mama used to givehim.” All this might have served as theelements of a gentle and quiet character,but not of a senselessly indolent one. Be-sides, gentleness which grows into timid.ity and the habit of offering your backfor others to climb on is by no means anatural characteristic of a man, butpurely an acquired one, just like insolence and arrogance ; and the distancebetween these two characteristics is notso great as is usually believed. Nobodyis so able to hold his nose in the air as aflunkey is; nobody treats his subordi.nates so rudely as one who is obsequioustowards his own superiors. With all hisgentleness, Ilya Ilyich does not hesitateto kick Zakhar in the face when the latter is putting on his shoes ; and if hedoes not do the same to others later onin life, it is only because he anticipatesopposition which he would have to over-come. Willy-nilly he confines his activities to his three hundred Zakhars. If hehad a hundred, a thousand times moreZakhars, he would meet with no opposition, and he would boldly kick in theface everybody who had any dealingswith him. Conduct of this kind wouldnot be evidence of a brutal nature ; Oblomov himself, and all those around him,

would regard it as very natural and nec-essary. . . . It would not occur to any ofthem that it is possible and necessary tobehave differently. But unfortunately, orfortunately, Ilya Ilyich was born a smallcountry squire with an estate that pro.vided hhn with an income that did notexceed ten thousand rubles in assig.nats ; consequently, he could mould thedestiny of the world only in his dreams.But in his dreams he was fond of givinghimself up to bellicose and heroic ambitions.

Sometimes he liked to picture himselfan invincible general, compared with whomnot only Napoleon but even Veruslan Lazarevich was a nonentity ; he would picturea war and its cause : for example, Africanswould come pouring into Europe, or hewould organize new crusades and wouldfight, decide the fate of nations, sack towns,show mercy, execute, perform acts of kind.ness and generosity.

Sometimes he would picture himselfas a great thinker or artist who is fol.lowed by admiring crowds. . Clearly,Oblomov is not a dull, apathetic type,destitute of ambition and feeling ; hetoo seeks something in life, thinks aboutsomething. But the disgusting habit ofgetting his wishes satisfied not by hisown efforts but by the efforts of othersdeveloped in him an apathetic inertnessand plunged him into the wretched stateof moral slavery. This slavery is soclosely interwoven with Oblomov’s aristocratic habits that they mutually per.meate and determine each other, so thatit becomes totally impossible to drawany line of demarcation between them.This moral slavery of Oblomov’s is, per-haps, the most interesting side of hispersonality, and of his whole life. . .

But how could a man enjoying the inde.pendent position of Ilya Ilyich sink into

4 Assignats : paper currency of considerablyless value than the silver ruble. They werewithdrawn from circulation in 1843.

slavery? If anybody can enjoy freedom,surely he can ! He is not in the civilservice, he does not go into society, andhe has an assured income. . . . He him-self boasts that he does not have to bowand scrape and humiliate himself, thathe is not like “others” who work tire-lessly, fuss and run about, and if theydo not work they do not eat. . . . He in-spires the good widow Pshenitsyna withreverent love for himself precisely be.cause he is a gentleman, because heshines and glitters, because he walks andtalks so freely and independently, be.cause “he is not constantly copying pa-pers, does not tremble with fear that hemight be late at the office, because hedoes not look at everybody as if askingto be saddled and ridden on, but looksat everybody and everything boldly andfreely, as if demanding obedience.” Andyet, the whole life of this gentleman iswrecked because he always remains theslave of another’s will and never rises tothe level of displaying the least bit ofindependence. He is the slave of everywoman, of every newcomer ; the slave ofevery rascal who wishes to get him under his thumb. He is the slave of his serfZakhar, and it is hard to say which ofthem submits more to the power of theother. At all events, if Zakhar does notwish to do a thing Ilya Ilyich cannotmake him do it; and if Zakhar wants todo anything he will do it, even if hismaster is opposed to it—and his mastersubmits. . . - This is quite natural: Zakhar, after all, can at least do something;Oblomov cannot do anything at all. It isneedless to speak of Tarantyev and IvanMatveyich, who do everything they likewith Oblomov in spite of the fact thatthey are far inferior to him both in in-tellectual development and in moralqualities. . . . Why is this? Again theanswer is, because Oblomov, being agentleman, does not wish to work, norcould he even if he wanted to ; and he

cannot understand his own relation toeverything around him. He is not averseto activity as long as it is in the form ofa vision and is far removed from real.ity: thus, he draws up a plan for theimprovement of his estate and zealouslyapplies himself to this task—only “details, estimates and figures” frightenhim, and he constantly brushes themaside, for how can he bother with them!. - . He is a gentleman, as he himself explains to Ivan Matveyich:

Who am I? What am I ? you will ask. ...

Go and ask Zakhar, he will tell you. “Agentleman” he will say ! Yes, I am a gentle-man, and I can’t do anything ! You do it,if you known how, and help if you can,and for your trouble take what you like—that’s what knowledge is for!

Do you think that in this way he isonly shirking work, trying to cover uphis own indolence with the plea of igno.rance? No, he really does not knowhowto do anything and cannot do anything;he is really unable to undertake anyuseful task. As regards his estate (forthe reorganization of which he had already drawn up a plan) , he confesseshis ignorance to Ivan Matveyich in thefollowing way:

I don’t know what barshchina5is. I knownothing about husbandry. I don’t knowthe difference between a poor muzhik anda rich one. I don’t know what a quarter ofrye, or oats is, what its price is, in whichmonths different crops are sown and reaped,or how and when they are sold. I don’tknow whether I am poor or rich, whetherI will have enough to eat next year, orwhether I shall be a beggar—I don’t knowanything ! . . . Therefore, speak and adviseme as if I were a child. .

5 Barshchina: obligation of the serfs to workon the landowners’ land and perform variousservices. During the first half of the nineteenthcentury the customary obligation was threedays a week, though this was often exceeded.Equivalent to the French corvée before 1789.

348 What Is Oblomovism? What Is Oblomovism? 349

This is exactly how Ilya Ilyich lookedupon life. The ideal happiness that hedescribed to Stolz consisted in nothingmore than a life of plenty, with con-servatories, hothouses, picnics in thewoods with a samovar, etc.—a dressing-gown, sound sleep and by way of a restin between—idyllic walks with a meekbut plump wife, gazing at the peasants atwork. Oblomov’s mind was so mouldedfrom childhood that he was able, evenin the most abstract arguments, in themost utopian theories, to halt in the present and never leave this status quo inspite of all arguments. In depicting hisconception of ideal bliss Ilya Ilyichnever thought of asking himself what itsinherent meaning was, he never thoughtof asserting its lawfulness or truth, henever asked himself where these con-servatories and hothouses were to comefrom, who was to maintain them, and onwhat grounds he was to enjoy them. . .

Failing to put such questions to himself,failing to clear up his own relation tothe world and to society, Oblomov, ofcourse, could not grasp the meaning ofhis own life and, therefore, found every-thing he had to do irksome and tedious.When he was in the civil service hecould not for the life of him understandwhy all those documents were beingwritten ; and failing to understand, hecould think of nothing better than to resign and do no more writing. He went toschool, but he could not understand thepurpose of this instruction : and failingto understand, he piled his books up ina corner and indifferently watched thedust accumulating on them. He went in-to society, but he could not understandwhy people visited each other ; and fail-ing to understand, he gave up all hisacquaintances and lolled on his couchfor days on end He tried to become in-timate with women, but he began to askhimself what could be expected of them,

what one should expect of them ; andafter pondering over the matter, and fail-ing to find an answer, he began to avoidwomen. . . . Everything bored and weaned him, and he lolled on his couchfilled with utter contempt for the “human ant heap,” where people worriedand fussed, God knows what about. . .

Having reached this point in explain-ing Oblomov’s character we deem it appropriate to turn to the literary parallelwe drew above. The foregoing reflections have brought us to the conclusionthat Oblomov is not a being whom nature has completely deprived of the ability to move by his own volition. His in-dolence and apathy are the result of up-bringing and environment. The mainthing here is not Oblomov, but Oblomovshchina. Perhaps Oblomov wouldeven have started work had he found anoccupation to his liking ; but for that hewould have had to develop under some-what different conditions. In his presentposition he cannot find an occupation tohis liking because he sees no meaning inlife in general and cannot rationally define his own relations to others This iswhere he provides us with the occasionfor comparing him with previous types,which the best of our writers have depicted. It was observed long ago that allthe heroes in the finest Russian storiesand novels suffer from their failure tosee any purpose in life and their inability to find a decent occupation for them-selves. As a consequence, they find alloccupations tedious and repugnant, andin this they reveal an astonishing resemblance to Oblomov. Indeed, open,for example, Onegin, A Hero of OurTimes, Who Is To Blame? Rudin, Un-wanted, or Hamlet from ShchigryCounty6—in every one of these you will

6 A Hero of Our Times: a novel by Lermontoy. Who Is To Blame ? a novel by Herzen ; theother works are by Turgenev.

find features almost identical with Oblomov’s.

Onegin, like Oblomov, gives up society because he was

Weary of inconstancyAnd of friends and friendship too.

And so he took to writing:

Abandoning wild gaietyOnegin stayed at home,He picked his pen up with a yawnAnd wished to write, but diligenceTo him was loathsome ; nothingFrom his pen would come.

Rudin too launched out in this field andwas fond of reading to the chosen “thefirst pages of the essays and works heintended to write.” Tentetnikov7 alsospent many years writing “a colossalwork that was to deal with the whole ofRussia from all points of view,” but inthis case too, “this undertaking was con-fined mainly to thinking: his pen wasbitten to shreds, drawings appeared onthe paper, and then everything wasthrust aside.” Ilya Ilyich was not behindhis brothers in this respect ; he toowrote and translated—he even translated Say “Where is your work, yourtranslations?” Stolz asked him later. “Idon’t know, Zakhar put them awaysomewhere. They are lying in the corner, I suppose,” Oblomov answers. Itappears, therefore, that Ilya Ilyich mayhave done even more than the otherswho had set down to their tasks as determinedly as he had. . . . Nearly all thebrothers in the Oblomov family set towork in this field in spite of the differ-ence in their respective positions andmental development. Pechorin alonelooked down superciliously upon “thestorymongers and writers of bourgeoisdramas” ; but even he wrote his memoirs. As for Beltov,8 he must certainlyhave written something ; besides, he was

7 A character of Gogol’s Dead Souls.

an artist, he visited the Hermitage andsat behind an easel planning to paint alarge picture depicting the meeting be-tween Biren who was returning fromSiberia and Münnich who was going toSiberia. . . . What came out of this thereader knows. . . . The same Oblomovshchina reigned in the whole family. ...

“But this is not yet life, it is only thepreparatory school for life,” mused An-drei Ivanovich Tentetnikov as he, to-gether with Oblomov and the whole ofthat company, plodded through a hostof useless subjects, unable to apply evenan iota of them to actual life. “Real lifeis in the service.” And so, all our heroes,except Onegin and Pechorin, go intothe service ; and for all of them thisservice is a useless and senseless burden,and all end up by resigning, early andwith dignity. Beltov was fourteen yearsand six months short of qualifying for aclasp because, after working with in-tense zeal for a time, he soon cooled to-wards office work and became irritableand careless. . . Tentetnikov had somehigh words with his chief, and, more-over, he wanted to be useful to the stateby personally taking over the manage-ment of his estate. Rudin quarrelledwith the headmaster of the high schoolat which he served as a teacher. Oblomov disliked the fact that all the members of the staff spoke to the chief “notin their natural but in some other kindof voices, squeaky and disgusting.” Herebelled at the idea of having to explainto his chief in this voice why “he hadsent a certain document to Arkhangelskinstead of Astrakhan” and so he resigned. . . . Everywhere we see the sameOblomovshchina. .

The Oblomovs resemble each othervery closely in domestic life too:

8 Pechorin : the principal character of A Heroof Our Times; Beltov: the hero of Who Is ToBlame?

350 What Is Obkmovism? What Is Obkmovism? 351

Sound sleep, a stroll, an entertaining book,A forest glade and a babbling brook,A dark-eyed beauty,Young and fresh to kiss sometimes,The bridle of a restive steed,Dinner to suit his fastidious needs,A bottle of light wine,Solitude, tranquillity,Holy is the life Onegin leads. ...

Word for word, except for the steed,this is the kind of life that Ilya Ilyichregards as the ideal of domestic bliss.Oblomov does not even forget the kiss-ing of a dark-eyed beauty.

“One of the peasant women,” musesIlya Ilyich, “with a tanned neck, hersleeves rolled up above her elbows, hersly eyes shyly drooping, just a little,only for appearance sake resisting thesquire’s embraces, but actually enjoyingthem . . . only—the wife mustn’t see,God forbid !“ (Oblomov imagines thathe is already married) . . .

The types which great talent has created are long lived ; even today there arepeople who seem to be copies of Onegin,Pechorin, Rudin and the others, and notin the way in which they might have developed under other circumstances, butexactly in the way they were depicted byPushkin, Lermontov and Turgenev. It isonly in the public mind that they be-come more and more transformed intoan Oblomov. It cannot be said that thistransformation has already taken place.No, even today thousands of peoplespend their time talking, and thousandsof others are willing to take this talk fordeeds. But the fact that this transformation has begun is proved by the Oblomov type which Goncharov has created.His appearance would have been impossible had society, at least some sectionof it, realized what nonentities all thosequasi-talented natures are, which it hadformerly admired. In the past theydecked themselves in cloaks and wigs ofdifferent fashions and were attractivebecause of their diverse talents ; but to-

day Oblomov appears before us in histrue colours, taciturn, reclining on asoft couch instead of standing on abeautiful pedestal, wearing a widedressing-gown instead of an austerecloak. The questions: What is he doing?What is the meaning and purpose of hislife? have been put plainly and bluntlywithout being obscured by any second-ary questions. This is because the timefor social activity has arrived, or willsoon arrive. . . And that is why we saidin the beginning of this essay that weregard Goncharov’s novel as a sign ofthe times.

Indeed, look at the change that hastaken place in public opinion concern-ing the educated and smooth-tongueddrones who were formerly regarded asgenuine leaders of society.

Before us stands a young man, veryhandsome, adroit and educated. Hemoves in high society and is successfulthere ; he goes to theatres, balls andmasquerades ; he dresses and dines magnificently; he reads books and writeswell. . . . His heart is stirred only by thedaily events in high society ; but he alsohas ideas about higher problems. He isfond of talking about passions,

About age-old prejudicesAnd the fatal secrets of the grave .

He has some rules of honour : he can

A lighter quitrent substituteFor the ancient yoke of barshchina,

sometimes he can refrain from takingadvantage of an unsophisticated youngwoman whom he does not love, and hedoes not overrate his successes in society. He stands sufficiently high abovethe society in which he moves to be con-scious of its vapidity ; he can even abandon this society and retire to his seat inthe country, but he finds it dull theretoo, and does not know what to turn hishand to. . . . Out of idleness he quarrelswith his friend and thoughtlessly kills

him in a duel. . . Several years later hereturns to society and falls in love withthe woman whose love he had formerlyspurned because it would have meantsurrendering his freedom to roam aboutthe world. - . . In this man you recognizeOnegin. But look more closely . . . it isOblomov.

Before us stands another man with amore ardent soul, with wider ambitions.This one seems to have been endowedby nature with all that which were mat-ters of concern for Onegin. He does nothave to worry about his toilet and hisclothes, he is a society man without that.He does not have to grope for words orsparkle with tinsel wit, his tongue is nat-urally as sharp as a razor. He reallydespises men, for he is aware of theirweaknesses. He can really capture theheart of a woman, not for a fleeting moment, but for long, perhaps forever. Hecan sweep away or crush every obstaclethat rises in his path. In only one matteris he unfortunate : he does not knowwhich path to take. His heart is emptyand cold to everything. He has triedeverything ; he was sated with all thepleasures that money could buy whenstill a youth. He is weary of the love ofsociety beauties because it has broughtno solace to his heart. Learning has alsowearied him because he has seen that itbrings neither fame nor happiness ; theignorant are the happiest, and fame is amatter of luck. The dangers of the bat-tiefield too soon bored him because hesaw no sense in them, and quickly be-came accustomed to them. And lastly,he even grows tired of the pure andsimple-hearted love of an untamed girlof whom he is really fond because evenin her he finds no satisfaction for hisimpulses. But what are these impulses?Whither do they lead? Why does he notyield to them with every fibre of hisbeing? Because he himself does not understand them and does not take the

trouble to think about what he shoulddo with his spiritual strength. And so hespends his life jeering at fools, disturb-ing the hearts of unsophisticated youngladies, interfering in the love affairs ofother people, picking quarrels, display-ing valour over trifles and fighting duelsover nothing at all. . . . You rememberthat this is the story of Pechorin, that hehimself has explained his own characterto Maxim Maximich to some extent, almost in the same words. Please lookcloser : here too you will see Oblomov.

But here is another man who is moreconscious of the path he is treading. Henot only knows that he is endowed withgreat strength, he knows also that he hasa great goal before him. . . It seemsthat he even suspects what kind of goalit is and where it is situated. He ishonourable, honest (although he oftenfails to pay his debts) , ardently discusses not trifling matters, but loftysubjects, and asserts that he is ready tosacrifice himself for the good of man-kind In his mind all problems havebeen solved, and everything is linked upin a living harmonious chain. He en-raptures unsophisticated youths with hisoverpowering eloquence, and hearinghim speak they too feel that they aredestined to perform something great. ..

But how does he spend his life? In be-ginning everything and finishing nothing, attending to everything at once,passionately devoting himself to every-thing, but unable to devote himself toanything . . . He falls in love with agirl who at last tells him that she is will-ing to give herself to him although hermother has forbidden her to do so—andhe answers : “Good God ! Your Mamadisapproves ! What an unexpected blow!God, how soon ! . . There is nothing tobe done, we must be resigned . . .“ Andthis is an exact picture of his whole life.- - - You have already guessed that this

352 What Is Oblomovism? What Is Oblomovism? 353

is Rudin. . . . No, even he is now Oblomov. If you examine this characterclosely and bring it face to face with therequirements of present-day life youwill be convinced that this is so.

The feature common to all these menis that nothing in life is a vital necessityfor them, a shrine in their hearts, a religion, organically merged with theirwhole being, so that to deprive them ofit would mean depriving them of theirlives. Everything about them is super.ficial, nothing is rooted in their natures.They, perhaps, do something when external necessity compels them to, just asOblomov went visiting the places thatStolz dragged him to, he bought musicand books for Olga and read what shecompelled him to read ; but their heartsdo not lie in the things they do merelyby force of circumstances. If each ofthem were offered gratis all the externaladvantages that they obtain by theirwork they would gladly give up work-ing. By virtue of Oblomovshchina, anOblomov government official would notgo to his office every day if he couldreceive his salary and regular promo.tion without having to do so. A soldierwould vow not to touch a weapon if hewere offered the same terms and, in ad-dition, were allowed to keep his splendid uniform, which can be very usefulon certain occasions. The professorwould stop delivering lectures, the student would give up his studies, the author would give up writing, the actorwould never appear on the stage againand the artist would break his chiseland palette, to put it in high-flown style,if he found a way of obtaining gratis allthat he now obtains by working. Theyonly talk about lofty strivings, con-sciousness of moral duty and commoninterests ; when put to the test, it allturns out to be words, mere words.Their most sincere and heartfelt strivingis the striving for repose, for the dress-

ing-gown, and their very activities arenothing more than an honourable dress-ing-gown (to use an expression that isnot our own) with which they cover uptheir vapidity and apathy. Even the besteducated people, people with lively natures and warm hearts, are prone intheir practical lives to depart from theirideas and plans, very quickly resignthemselves to the realities of life, which,however, they never cease to revile asvulgar and disgusting. This shows thatall the things they talk and dream aboutare really alien to them, superficial ; inthe depth of their hearts they cherishonly one dream, one ideal—undisturbedrepose, quietism, Oblomovshchina. Manyeven reach such a stage that they can-not conceive of man working willingly,with enthusiasm. Read the argument inEkonomicheskii Ukazatel’ to the effectthat everybody would die of starvationresulting from idleness if by the equaldistribution of wealth people wererobbed of the incentive to accumulatecapital. . .

.

Now the riddle has been answered,A word for it has now been found.

That word is—Oblomovshchina.Now, when I hear a country squire

talking about the rights of man and urg.ing the necessity of developing personal-ity, I know from the first words heutters that he is an Oblomov.

When I hear a government officialcomplaining that the system of administration is too complicated and cumbersome, I know that he is an Oblomov.

When I hear an army officer complaining that parades are exhausting,and boldly arguing that marching at aslow pace is useless, etc., I have not theslightest doubt that he is an Oblomov.

When, in the magazines, I read liberaldenunciations of abuses and expressions

9 Ekonomicheskii Ukazatel’ (EconomicGuide) : a St. Petersburg economic journal oflaissez faire leanings.

of joy over the fact that at last some-thing has been done that we have beenwaiting and hoping for for so long, Ithink to myself that all this has beenwritten from Oblomovka.

When I am in the company of educated people who ardently sympathizewith the needs of mankind and who formany years have been relating with undiminished heat the same (and some-times new) anecdotes about bribery,acts of tyranny and lawlessness of everykind, I, in spite of myself, feel that Ihave been transported to old Oblomovka. .

Who, then, will in the end shift themfrom the spot to which they are rootedby the mighty word “forward !“ whichGogol dreamed of, and for which Rãshas been longing and waiting for solong? So far we find no answer to thisquestion either in society or in literature Goncharov, who understood andwas able to reveal our Oblomovshchjnato us, could not, however, avoid payingtribute to the common error which isprevalent in our society to this day: heset out to bury Oblomovshchina and deliver a panegyric over its grave. “Fare.well, old Oblomovka, you have outlivedyour time,” he says through the mouthof Stolz, but what he says is not true. AllRussia which has read, or will read,Oblomov will disagree with him. No,Oblomovka is our own motherland, herowners are our teachers, her three hun.dred Zakhars are always at our service.There is a large portion of Oblomovwithin every one of us, and it is tooearly to write our obituary. We and IlyaIlyich have not deserved the descriptioncontained in the following lines:

He possessed what is more precious thanintelligence : an honest and loyal heart!This is natural gold ; he has carried ituntarnished through life. Jostled on everyside, he fell, cooled, at last fell asleep,worn out, disillusioned, having lost the

strength to live, but not his honesty andloyalty. His heart has never uttered a singlefalse note, no mud has stuck to him. Nobedecked lie will ever flatter him, and nothing can divert him to a false path ; letan ocean of baseness and evil surge aroundhim ; let the whole world poison itself withvenom and turn upside down—Oblomovwill never bow down to the idol of false-hood, his soul will ever remain pure, brightand honest. . . . His is a soul that is crystalclear ; there are few men like him ; he isa pearl among the mob ! You could notbribe his heart with anything, you canrely on him always and everywhere.

We shall not dilate on this passage,but every reader will observe that it con-tains a great untruth. Indeed, there is onegood feature about Oblomov, namely,he never tries to fool anybody, but always appears what he is—an indolentdrone. But pray, in what can he be relied on? Only, perhaps, when nothingneed be done ; here he will certainly dis.tinguish himself. But if nothing need bedone we can do without him. He wouldnot bow down to the idol of evil! Butwhy not ? Because he was too lazy to getup from his couch. And if he weredragged from his couch and forced tohis knees in front of that idol he wouldnot have the strength to get up. He can-not be bribed with anything. But whatis there to bribe him for? To make himmove? Well, that is a really difficulttask. Mud would never stick to him!Yes, as long as he lies alone on hiscouch everything goes well ; but as soonas Tarantyev, Zaterty and Ivan Matveyich arrive—ugh ! What awful and dis.gusting things begin to take placearound Oblomov. They eat him out ofhouse and home, they drink up his wine,they drive him to drink, they induce himto sign a false promissory note (fromwhich Stolz, somewhat unceremonious-ly, in the Russian manner, releases himwithout trial or investigation) , they ruinhim and say his peasants are the cause

354 What Is Oblomovism? What Is Oblomovism? 355of it, they extort enormous sums ofmoney from him for nothing at all. Hesuffers all this in silence and, for thatreason, of course, never utters a falsenote. . .

Paying tribute to his times, Mr. Gon.charov provided an antidote to Oblomovin the shape of Stolz ; but as regardsthat individual, we must repeat the opin.ion that we have always expressed,namely, that literature must not run toofar ahead of life. Stolzes, men of an in-tegral and active character that makesevery idea a striving and translates itinto deeds the moment it arises, do notyet exist in our society (we have inmind the educated section of society,which is capable of loftier strivings;among the masses, where ideas andstrivings are confined to a few and verypractical objects, we constantly comeacross such people) . The author himselfadmits this when he says about our society:

There ! Eyes have opened after slumber,brisk, wide footsteps, animated voices areheard. . . . How many Stoizes with Russiannames must appear!

Many must appear, there can be nodoubt about that ; but for the time beingthere is no soil for them. And that iswhy all we can gather from Goncharov’snovel is that Stolz is a man of action, al.ways busy with something, runningabout, acquiring things, saying that tolive means to work, and so forth. Butwhat he does and how he manages to dosomething worthwhile where others cando nothing, remains a mystery to us. Hesettled the affairs of the Oblomov estatefor Ilya Ilyich in a trice—but how?That we do not know. He got rid of IlyaIlyich’s false promissory note in a trice—but how? That we know. He went tosee the chief of Ivan Matveyich, to whomOblomov had given the promissorynote, had a friendly talk with him, and

after this Ivan Matveyich was called tothe chief’s office, and not only was heordered to return the note, but was alsoasked to resign. It served him right, ofcourse : but judging by this case, Stolzhad not yet reached the stage of theideal Russian public leader. Nor couldhe have done so ; it is too early. For thetime being, even if you are as wise asSolomon, all you can do in the way ofpublic activity is, perhaps, to be aphilanthropic tavern licensee like Murazov, who performs good deeds out of hisfortune of ten million, or a noble land-lord like Kostanzhoglo10—but furtherthan that you cannot go. . . . And wecannot understand how in his activitiesStolz could rid himself of all the strivings and requirements that overcameeven Oblomov, how he could be satisfiedwith his position, rest content with hissolitary, individual, exclusive happiness.. . . It must not be forgotten that under

‘

his feet there was a bog, that the oldOblomovka was near by, that he wouldhave had to clear the forest to reach thehighroad and thus escape from Oblomovshchina. Whether Stolz did anythingin this direction, what he did, and howhe did it—we do not know. But until weknow we cannot be satisfied with hispersonality. . . . All we can say is thathe is not the man who “will be able topronounce in a language intelligible tothe Russian soul that mighty word : ‘for.ward!’”

Perhaps Olga Ilyinskaya is more capable of doing this than Stolz, for shestands nearer to our new life. We havesaid nothing about the women that Goncharov created, nothing about Olga, orabout Agafya Matveyevna Pshenitsyna( or even about Anissya or Akulina,women also with peculiar characters),because we realized that we were totallyunable to say anything coherently

10 Murazov and Kostanzhoglo : characters inDead Souls.

about them. To attempt to analyze thefeminine types created by Goncharovwould be to lay claim to expert knowledge of the feminine heart. Lacking thisquality, we can only admire Goncharoy’s women. The ladies say that Goncharov’s psychological analysis is amazing for its truth and subtlety, and in thismatter the ladies must be believed. . .

We would not dare to add any-thing to their comment because we areafraid of setting foot in a land that iscompletely strange to us. But we take theliberty, in concluding this essay, to saya few words about Olga, and about herattitude towards Oblomovshchina.

In intellectual development, Olga isthe highest ideal that a Russian artistcan find in our present Russian life.That is why the extraordinary clarityand simplicity of her logic and theamazing harmony of heart and mindastonish us so much that we are readyto doubt even her imaginary existenceand say : “There are no such youngwomen.” But following her through thewhole novel we find that she is alwaystrue to herself and to her development,that she is not merely the creation of theauthor, but a living person, only onethat we have not yet met. She more thanStolz gives us a glimpse of the new Rus.sian life ; from her we may expect tohear the word that will consume Oblo.movshchina with fire and reduce it toashes. . . . She begins by falling in lovewith Oblomov, by believing in him andin the possibility of his moral transformation. . . . She toils long and stubborn.ly, with loving devotion and tender solic.itude, in an effort to fan the spark oflife in this man and to stimulate him toactivity. She refuses to believe that he isso incapable of doing good ; cherishingher hopes in him, her future creation,she does everything for him. She evenignores conventional propriety, goes tosee him alone without telling anybody,

and, unlike him, is not afraid of losingher reputation. But with astonishingtact she at once discerns every falsestreak in his character, and she explainsto him why it is false and not true in anextremely simple way. He, for example,writes her the letter we referred to aboveand later assures her that he had writtenit solely out of concern for her, completely forgetting himself, sacrificinghimself, and so forth.

No, she answers, that is not true. If youhad thought only of my happiness and hadbelieved that for it it was necessary thatwe should part, you would simply havegone away without sending any letters.

He says that he fears that she will beunhappy when she learns that she hadbeen mistaken in him, ceases to lovehim, and loves another. In answer tothis she asks him:

Where do you see my unhappiness?I love you now and I feel good ; later I willlove another, hence, I will feel good withhim. You need not worry about me.

This simplicity and clarity of thoughtare elements of the new life, not the oneunder the conditions of which present-day society grew up. . . . And then—how obedient Olga’s will is to her heart!She continues her relations with Oblo.mov and persists in her love for him, inspite of unpleasantness, jeers, etc., fromoutside, until she is convinced of hisutter worthlessness. Then she bluntlytells him that she had been mistaken inhim and cannot combine her fate withhis. She continues to praise and pet himwhile she rejects him, and even later,but by her action she annihilates him asno other Oblomov was ever annihilatedby a woman. Tatyana says to Onegin atthe end of the romance:

I love you (why conceal it?),But to another my troth is plighted,To him forever I’ll be true.

356 What Is Oblomovism?

And so, only formal moral duty savesher from this empty-headed fop ; if shewere free she would have flung her armsaround his neck. Natalya leaves Rudinonly because he himself was obduratefrom the very outset, and on seeing himoff she realizes that he does not love herand she grieves sorely over this. Thereis no need to speak of Pechorin, whomanaged only to earn the hatred ofPrincess Mary. No, Olga did not behaveto Oblomov in that way. She said to himsimply and gently:

I learned only recently that I loved in youwhat I wanted you to have, what Stolzpointed out to me, and what he and I con-jured up. I loved the future Oblomov! Youare unassuming and honest, Ilya ; you aretender . . . like a dove ; you hide your headunder your wing—and you want nothingmore ; you want to coo in the loft all yourlife. . . . But I am not like that : that is notenough for me; I want something more, butwhat—I don’t know!

And so she leaves Oblomov andstrives towards her something, althoughshe does not quite know what it is. Atlast she finds it in Stolz, she joins himand is happy ; but even here she doesnot halt, does not come to a dead stop.Certain vague problems and doubts dis.turb her, there are things she is tryingto fathom. The author did not fully reveal her emotions to us and we may errin our assumptions concerning theirnature. But it seems to us that her heartand mind were disturbed by the spiritof the new life, to which she was immeasurably nearer than Stolz. We thinkso because we find several hints of thisin the following dialogue:

“What shall I do? Yield and pine?”she asked.

“No,” he answered. “Arm yourself with

firmness and serenity. We two are notTitans,” he continued, embracing her.“We shall not follow the Manfreds andFausts and challenge disturbing problemsto mortal combat, nor shall we accept theirchallenge. We shall bow our heads andwait humbly until the hard times pass, andlife, happiness, will smile again. . .

“But suppose they never leave us : sup-pose grief disturbs us more and more?”she asked.

“Well, we’ll accept it as a new elementof life. . . . But no, that cannot be, it cannothappen to us! It is not your grief alone,it is the common ailment of mankind. Youhave suffered only one drop. . . . All thisis frightful when a man loses his gripon life, when he has no support. But in ourcase. . . .“

He did not specify the our case, butit is evident that it is he who does notwish to “challenge disturbing problemsto mortal combat,” that it is he whowants to “humbly bow his head. . . .“

She is ready for this fight, she longs forit and is always afraid that her tranquilhappiness with Stolz may grow intosomething that resembles the Oblomovapathy. Clearly, she does not wish tobow her head and wait humbly until thehard times pass, in the hope that lifewill smile again later. She left Oblomovwhen she ceased to believe in him ; shewill leave Stolz if she ceases to believein him. And this will happen if she con-tinues to be tormented by problems anddoubts, and if he continues to advise herto accept them as a new element of lifeand bow her head. She is thoroughlyfamiliar with Oblomovshchina, she willbe able to discern it in all its differentshapes, and under all masks, and willalways be able to find strength enoughto pronounce ruthless judgement on it.