Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T21:25:11.464Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dobroliubov's Critique of Oblomov: Polemics and Psychology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Alfred Kuhn
Alfred Kuhn*
Affiliation:
University of Rochester
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

N. A. Dobroliubov's critical essays on Goncharov, Turgenev, Ostrovsky, and Dostoevsky, written in the brief period of two years preceding his death in 1861, established a reputation and influence second only to Belinsky's in the history of Russian literary criticism. Of these essays “What Is Oblomovism?” holds particular interest. Published in the May 1859 issue of Nekrasov's Sovremennik (The Contemporary), it was Dobroliubov's first major review and possibly his best. It is a central document in the history of the conflict between the liberals of the 1840s and the radicals of the 1860s, or, in the phrasing of Turgenev's title, between “fathers and sons.”

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , March 1971 , pp. 93 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1971

References

1. Goncharov, I. A., Sobranie sochinenii, 8 vols. (Moscow, 1952-55), 8: 323 Google Scholar.

2. Dobroliubov, N. A., Sobranie sochinenii, 9 vols. (Moscow, 1961-64), 4: 313 Google Scholar. Subsequent references in the text will be to this edition.

3. E., Lampert, Sons Against Fathers: Studies in Russian'Radicalism and Revolution (Oxford, 1965), p. 270 Google Scholar.

4. Belinsky, V. G., Sobranie sochinenii, 3 vols. (Moscow, 1948), 3: 813 Google Scholar.

5. A. V., Druzhinin, “Russkie v Iaponii v kontse 1853 i v nachale 1854 godov” Sovremennik, no. 1, 1856, p. 10 Google Scholar.

6. Druzhinin, A. V., Sobranie sochinenii, 8 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1865-67), 7: 214–15 Google Scholar. Subsequent references in the text will be to this volume.

7. For the fullest account of this quarrel see Kozmin, B. P., “Vystuplenie Gertsena protiv ‘Sovremennika’ v 1859 godu,” Iz istorii revoliutsionnoi mysli v Rossii (Moscow, 1961), pp. 606–37 Google Scholar.

8. Gertsen, A. I., Sobranie sochinenii, 30 vols. (Moscow, 1954-65), 14: 116 Google Scholar. Subsequent references in the text will also be to volume 14.

9. Bushkanets, E. G., “Dobroliubov i Gertsen,” Problems izucheniia Gertsena (Moscow, 1963), pp. 288–91 Google Scholar. For an opposing viewpoint see S. A., Reiser, “Neobosnovannaia gipoteza,” Voprosy literatury, 1961, no. 2, pp. 56–63Google Scholar.

10. To my knowledge T. G. Masaryk was the first to spot Dobroliubov's resemblance to Oblomov. See his Spirit of Russia, trans. Eden and Cedar Paul, 2 vols., 2nd ed. (London and New York, 19SS), 2: 24. Recently Fred Weinstein has remarked on the resemblance in his essay, “The Origins of ‘Nihilist’ Criticism,” Canadian Slavic Studies, 3, no. 2 (Summer 1969): 165-77.

11. Mathewson, Rufus W., Jr., The Positive Hero in Russian Literature (New York, 1958), p. 76 Google Scholar.

12. “Ability to whistle” is a reference to Svistok (The Whistle), a satirical supplement of Sovremennik.

13. Dostoevsky, F. M., Polnoe sobranie khudoshestvennykh proisvedenii (Moscow 1926-30), 13: 73 Google Scholar.