The article discusses the situation associated with changes in the portrait of Oblomov in two canonical editions of the novel, 1859 and 1862. Along with the existing explanations for the disappearance of the “free thought” metaphor from the second edition of the portrait, which is associated with the elimination of romantic style or with the writer’s haste in preparing the 1862 edition, the article puts forward another version of the transformation of the text. It is motivated by Goncharov’s literary controversy with that line of the “physiological” direction in the literature of the middle of the 19th century, which was presented in the essays of F.V. Bulgarin. The article shows that in both early editions of the novel, the initial and 1859, there are metaphors of “sleepy mind” and “free thought”, which were presented in one of the essays included in the publication “Mosquitoes, or All sorts of things by Thaddeus Bulgarin” under title “Running Thought”. In the early version of Oblomov’s portrait, the situation described in this “physiology” is read, when the “owner” of “mind” and “thought” living in St. Petersburg only coexists with his sleepy mind, and his thought completely leaves him and travels like a “free bird” to other houses of St. Petersburg, observing the “dead kingdom” everywhere. The essay offers a naturalistic section of the city. The interest in Bulgarin on the part of Goncharov is regarded by the author of the article not as an accidental phenomenon, but is associated with the controversy of two lines of “naturalism” in the literature of the 1840s and with the ironic tactics of Goncharov’s narrative. A significant role is also played by personal motives, Goncharov’s negative attitude towards Bulgarin’s personality as a writer and critic. Goncharov in his other writings and letters of the 1830-1850s often reproduces the style of Bulgarin, and Bulgarin’s subtexts always work for him to create an ironic mode, and Goncharov’s narration itself is sustained in a polemical manner. These examples are also systematized in the article. And in general in the opinion of the author of the article, the vector of controversy with Bulgarin should also be extended to the novel “Oblomov”, work on which began in early of 1840s, in the period of commercial success of Bulgarin’s physiological enterprises. Goncharov’s attempt to eliminate Bulgarin’s “traces” in the second edition of Oblomov’s portrait, and then return to them in later editions of the novel, is considered in the article as a kind of “organic contradiction” in the writer’s poetics and publishing tactics, which probably require additional scholarly reflection.
Read full abstract