General assessment of the play thunderstorm dobrolyubov. Drama A.N. Ostrovsky "Thunderstorm" in Russian criticism. Dobrolyubov notes the importance of Shakespeare, as well as the opinion of Apollon Grigoriev

In an article by Dobrolyubov titled "A Ray of Light in dark kingdom", summary which is described below, we are talking about the work "Thunderstorm" by Ostrovsky, which has become a classic of Russian literature. The author (his portrait is presented below) in the first part says that Ostrovsky deeply understood the life of a Russian person. Further, Dobrolyubov conducts what other critics have written about Ostrovsky, while noting that they do not have a direct look at the main things.

The concept of drama that existed in the time of Ostrovsky

Nikolai Alexandrovich further compares The Thunderstorm with the standards of drama adopted at that time. In the article "A Ray of Light in the Dark Realm", a summary of which interests us, he examines, in particular, the principle established in literature on the subject of drama. In the struggle between duty and passion, there is usually an unhappy end when passion wins, and a happy one when duty wins. Drama, moreover, was supposed, according to existing tradition, to represent a single action. At the same time, it should be written in a literary, beautiful language. Dobrolyubov notes that he does not fit the concept in this way.

Why "Thunderstorm" cannot be considered a drama, according to Dobrolyubov?

Works of this kind must certainly make readers feel respect for duty and expose a passion that is considered harmful. However, the main character is not described in gloomy and dark colors, although she is, according to the rules of the drama, a "criminal". Thanks to the pen of Ostrovsky (his portrait is presented below), we are imbued with compassion for this heroine. The author of "Thunderstorm" was able to vividly express how beautifully Katerina speaks and suffers. We see this heroine in a very gloomy environment and because of this we begin to involuntarily justify the vice, speaking out against the tormentors of the girl.

Drama, as a result, does not fulfill its purpose, does not carry its main semantic load. Somehow, the action itself flows in a work insecurely and slowly, the author of the article "A ray of light in a dark kingdom" believes. A summary of it continues as follows. Dobrolyubov says that there are no bright and stormy scenes in the work. To "slackness" the work leads to a heap actors. The language does not stand up to scrutiny.

Nikolai Alexandrovich in his article "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom" brings the plays of special interest to him to meet the accepted standards, as he comes to the conclusion that the standard, ready-made idea of what should be in the work does not allow reflecting the actual state of things. What can you say about a young man who, after meeting a pretty girl, tells her that compared to the Venus de Milo, her figure is not so good? Dobrolyubov puts the question in this way, arguing about the standardization of the approach to works of literature. Truth lies in life and truth, and not in various dialectical attitudes, as the author of the article "A ray of light in a dark kingdom" believes. The summary of his thesis is that it cannot be said that a person is evil by nature. Therefore, in the book it is not necessary for good to win, and for evil to lose.

Dobrolyubov notes the importance of Shakespeare, as well as the opinion of Apollon Grigoriev

Dobrolyubov ("Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom") also says that for a long time writers did not pay much attention to the movement to the primordial principles of man, to his roots. Remembering Shakespeare, he notes that this author was able to raise human thought to a new level. After that, Dobrolyubov moves on to other articles devoted to "Thunderstorm". Mentioned, in particular, who noted the main merit of Ostrovsky that his work was popular. Dobrolyubov is trying to answer the question of what this "nation" is. He says that Grigoriev does not explain this concept, therefore his statement itself cannot be taken seriously.

Ostrovsky's works are "plays of life"

Dobrolyubov then discusses what can be called "plays of life". "A ray of light in a dark kingdom" (a summary notes only the main points) - an article in which Nikolai Alexandrovich says that Ostrovsky considers life as a whole, without trying to make the righteous happy or punish the villain. He evaluates the general state of affairs and makes the reader either deny or sympathize, but does not leave anyone indifferent. Those who do not participate in the intrigue itself cannot be considered superfluous, since without them it would not be possible, which Dobrolyubov notes.

"Ray of light in the dark kingdom": analysis of the statements of secondary characters

Dobrolyubov in his article analyzes the statements of minor persons: Curly, Glasha and others. He tries to understand their condition, the way they look at the reality surrounding them. All the features of the "dark kingdom" are noted by the author. He says that these people's lives are so limited that they do not notice that there is another reality than their own closed little world. The author analyzes, in particular, Kabanova's concern for the future of the old orders and traditions.

What is the novelty of the play?

"Thunderstorm" is the most decisive work created by the author, as Dobrolyubov further notes. "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom" - an article that says that the tyranny of the "dark kingdom", the relationship between its representatives, was brought by Ostrovsky to tragic consequences. The breath of novelty, which was noted by all those familiar with The Thunderstorm, is contained in the general background of the play, in people "unnecessary on the stage", as well as in everything that speaks of the imminent end of the old foundations and tyranny. The death of Katerina is a new beginning against this background.

The image of Katerina Kabanova

Dobrolyubov's article "A Ray of Light in the Dark Realm" further continues with the fact that the author proceeds to analyze the image of Katerina, main character giving him a lot of space. Nikolai Alexandrovich describes this image as a shaky, indecisive "step forward" in literature. Dobrolyubov says that life itself requires the appearance of active and determined heroes. The image of Katerina is characterized by an intuitive perception of the truth and its natural understanding. Dobrolyubov ("Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom") says about Katerina that this heroine is selfless, as she prefers to choose death than existence under the old order. The mighty strength of character lies in this heroine in her integrity.

Katerina's motives

Dobrolyubov, in addition to the very image of this girl, examines in detail the motives of her actions. He notices that Katerina is not a rebel by nature, she does not show discontent, does not require destruction. Rather, she is a creator who craves love. This explains her desire to ennoble her actions in her own mind. The girl is young, and the desire for love and tenderness is natural for her. However, Tikhon is so downtrodden and obsessed that he cannot understand these desires and feelings of his wife, which he tells her directly.

Katerina embodies the idea of the Russian people, says Dobrolyubov ("Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom")

The abstracts of the article are supplemented by one more statement. Dobrolyubov eventually finds in the image of the main character that the author of the work embodied in her the idea of the Russian people. He talks about this rather abstractly, comparing Katerina with a wide and even river. It has a flat bottom, it smoothly flows around the stones encountered on the way. The river itself only makes noise because it corresponds to its nature.

The only right decision of the heroine, according to Dobrolyubov

Dobrolyubov finds in the analysis of the actions of this heroine that the only right decision for her is to escape with Boris. The girl can run away, but dependence on a relative of his lover shows that this hero is essentially the same as Katerina's husband, only more educated.

End of the play

The ending of the play is gratifying and tragic at the same time. the main idea works - getting rid of the shackles of the so-called dark kingdom at any cost. It is impossible to live in his environment. Even Tikhon, when the corpse of his wife is pulled out, shouts that she is well now and asks: "But what about me?" The finale of the play and this cry itself give an unambiguous understanding of the truth. Tikhon's words make us look at Katerina's act not as a love affair. Before us opens a world in which the dead are envied by the living.

This concludes Dobrolyubov's article "A Ray of Light in a Dark Realm". We have highlighted only the main points, briefly describing its brief content. However, some details and comments of the author were missed. "A Ray of Light in a Dark Realm" is best read in the original, since this article is a classic of Russian criticism. Dobrolyubov gave a good example of how works should be analyzed.

"The Thunderstorm" caused the most stormy and most ambiguous responses in criticism. The most generalizing character had articles in something close (for example, in the rejection of "art for art's sake"), but in relation to Ostrovsky polemically opposed to each other critics: the soil activist A. A. Grigoriev and the democrat N. A. Dobrolyubov.

From the point of view of Grigoriev, The Thunderstorm only confirmed the view that the critic had of Ostrovsky’s plays before The Thunderstorm: the key concept for them is the concept of “nationality”, “poetry folk life».

Describing Ostrovsky as a whole, A. A. Grigoriev writes: “The name for this writer ... is not a satirist, but a folk poet. The word for unraveling his activities is not "tyranny", but "nationality".

N. A. Dobrolyubov, disagreeing with the point of view of A. A. Grigoriev, sees in the drama the answer to the question posed before: “But is there any way out of this darkness?” The key concept in the article about "The Thunderstorm" is still "tyranny", in Katerina's protest the critic sees "a terrible challenge to tyrannical power" - a challenge that is especially significant, because it comes from the depths of people's life in the turning point of the turn of the 1850s-1860s. With the help of The Thunderstorm, Dobrolyubov seeks to see and understand the fundamental movements of the social and spiritual life of the time on the eve of the abolition of serfdom.

The Thunderstorm... produces a less heavy and sad impression than Ostrovsky's other plays... There is even something refreshing and encouraging in The Thunderstorm. This “something” is, in our opinion, the background of the play, indicated by us and revealing the precariousness and the near end of tyranny. Then the very character of Katerina, drawn against this background, also blows on us. new life, which is revealed to us in her very death ... We have already said that this end seems to us gratifying; it is easy to understand why: in it a terrible challenge is given to self-conscious force, he tells it that it is no longer possible to go further, it is no longer possible to live with its violent, deadening principles.

"Motives of Russian Drama" (1864). The play came alive again in the stream modern life when the critic of the later generation of democrats D. I. Pisarev published an article about it. Pisarev agrees with Dobrolyubov in everything when it comes to the "dark kingdom". He does not question either the method of "real criticism" or the social typicality of the main character. But the assessment of her actions, their human and social value Pisarev completely disagrees with the estimates of Dobrolyubov and A. A. Grigoriev.

The critic proceeds from the fact that Katerina's type did not play the progressive role destined for him in Russian reality. Apparently, Dobrolyubov "carried away" the personality of Katerina, which was partly justified by the historical moment. Now the "thinking proletariat" must enter the public arena - people like Bazarov or the heroes of Chernyshevsky. Only they, armed with theory and extensive knowledge, can really move life for the better. From this point of view, Katerina is not a “beam of light” at all, and her death is not tragic - it is ridiculous and meaningless.

Commenting on the reviews of critics about The Thunderstorm that do not coincide in the main, the modern literary critic A. I. Zhuravleva notes:

“It was precisely from Dobrolyubov’s article that a strong tradition of interpreting Katerina as a heroic personality, in which powerful potencies are concentrated, has developed in Russian culture. folk character. The grounds for such an interpretation are undoubtedly laid down in Ostrovsky's play itself. When in 1864, in the context of a decline in the democratic movement, Pisarev challenged Dobrolyubov's interpretation of Katerina in the article "Motives of Russian Drama", then, perhaps, sometimes more accurate in details, on the whole he turned out to be much further from the very spirit of Ostrovsky's play.

"The Unavoidable Questions". In the plays of the fourth, last period of the playwright's work - from 1861 to 1886 - those "inevitable questions" (A. A. Grigoriev), which sounded loudly in his works of the previous time, deepen. Everyday "scenes" and "pictures" are created, going back to the "physiological" manner of the early plays. Basically, these works are published in Sovremennik, the democratic edition of which since the end of the 1850s has become spiritually close to Ostrovsky. The center of the new plays is " small man”, as he performs in the 1860s in the daily struggle for a piece of bread, modest family happiness, the opportunity to somehow defend his human dignity(“Labor bread”, “Hard days”, “Abyss”, etc.).

New in the work of Ostrovsky was a purposeful appeal to the themes of national history - in the chronicles "Kuzma Zakharych Minin-Sukhoruk", "Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky", "Tushino", in the historical comedies "Voevoda, or Dream on the Volga", "Comedian XVII century”, in the psychological drama “Vasilisa Melentyeva”. The playwright is not interested in outstanding personalities in themselves and not in climactic moments of history that captivate the imagination. IN historical genres he remains, in a broad sense, a writer of everyday life who illuminated the diverse manifestations of the national character.

A THUNDER IN THE ASSESSMENT OF DOBROLUBOV.

It is difficult to talk about this work, bypassing those judgments that are contained in the famous article of the critic - A ray of light in a dark kingdom. Written in 1860, this article revealed the artistic meaning and public importance Thunderstorms. The play and the article, as it were, united in the minds of the readers and acquired an enormous power of influence.

The thunderstorm, according to Dobrolyubov, is Ostrovsky's most decisive work, for it marks the near end of selfish force. The central conflict of the drama - the clash of the heroine, defending her human rights, with the world of the dark kingdom - expressed the essential aspects of folk life at the time revolutionary situation. And that is why the critic considered the drama Thunderstorm a truly folk work.

Describing the social atmosphere of the 60s, Dobrolyubov wrote: Wherever you look, everywhere you see the awakening of the individual, the presentation of his legal rights, a protest against violence and arbitrariness, for the most part still timid, uncertain, ready to hide, but still already giving notice your existence. Dobrolyubov saw the manifestation of an awakened and ever-growing protest against the oppression of tyrants in feelings and actions, in the very death of Katerina.

The critic assessed Ostrovsky's drama as a work expressing the urgent needs of his time - the demand for law, legality, respect for a person. In the image of Katerina, he sees the embodiment of Russian living nature. Katerina prefers to die than to live in captivity.

This end seems to us gratifying, - writes the critic, - it is easy to understand why: it gives a terrible challenge to the self-conscious force, it tells it that it is no longer possible to go further, it is impossible to live longer with its violent, deadening principles. In Katerina we see a protest against Kabanov's conceptions of morality, a protest carried to the end, proclaimed both under domestic torture and over the abyss into which the poor woman has thrown herself. She does not want to put up with it, does not want to take advantage of the miserable vegetative life that they give her in exchange for her living soul ... In the image of Katerina, according to Dobrolyubov, the great folk idea - idea liberation. The critic considered the image of Katerina close to the position and heart of every decent person in our society.

Of course, Dobrolyubov is far from considering Katerina a revolutionary. But if a woman - the most disenfranchised creature, and even in the dark, inert environment of the merchant class - can no longer put up with the oppression of tyrannical power, then indignation is ripening among the destitute, downtrodden people. This indignation must spread more and more widely and incite the people to a determined struggle. A critic could not pronounce the word revolution in a censored article, but his entire article is permeated with a revolutionary spirit.

LITERATURE

Dobrolyubov N. A. The Dark Kingdom.

Ostrovsky in Russian criticism. Staten collection. Ed. 2. M., 1953

Rozanova L. A. Ostrovsky. Student aid. M.-L., 1965.

Study note for students

Isaac Levitan. Evening. Golden Ples (1889)

Incredible controversy around the play by A. Ostrovsky "Thunderstorm" began during the life of the playwright. It's about about five articles:

N. Dobrolyubov "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom" (1860);
D. Pisarev "Motives of Russian drama" (1864);
M. Antonovich "Mistakes" (1864);
A. Grigoriev “After Ostrovsky's Thunderstorm. Letters to I. S. Turgenev” (1860);
M. Dostoevsky “The Thunderstorm”. Drama in five acts by A. N. Ostrovsky (1860).

Let's look at the points of view expressed by critics.

N. A. Dobrolyubov

The Thunderstorm is, without a doubt, Ostrovsky's most decisive work; the mutual relations of tyranny and voicelessness are brought in it to the most tragic consequences; and for all that, most of those who have read and seen this play agree that it makes an impression less heavy and sad than Ostrovsky's other plays (not to mention, of course, his sketches of a purely comic nature). There is even something refreshing and encouraging about The Thunderstorm. This “something” is, in our opinion, the background of the play, indicated by us and revealing the precariousness and the near end of tyranny. Then the very character of Katerina, drawn against this background, also breathes on us with a new life, which opens up to us in her very death.

The fact is that the character of Katerina, as he is portrayed in The Thunderstorm, is a step forward not only in Ostrovsky's dramatic activity, but in all of our literature. It corresponds to the new phase of our people's life, it has long demanded its implementation in literature, our best writers circled around it; but they could only understand its need and could not comprehend and feel its essence; Ostrovsky managed to do this.<...>

First of all, you are struck by the extraordinary originality of this character. There is nothing external, alien in him, but everything comes out somehow from within him; every impression is processed in it and then grows organically with it. We see this, for example, in Katerina's ingenuous story about her childhood and about life in her mother's house. It turns out that her upbringing and young life did not give her anything: in her mother's house it was the same as at the Kabanovs - they went to church, sewed with gold on velvet, listened to the stories of wanderers, dined, walked in the garden, again talked with pilgrims and they themselves prayed... Having listened to Katerina's story, Varvara, her husband's sister, remarks with surprise: "Why, it's the same with us." But the difference is determined by Katerina very quickly in five words: “Yes, everything here seems to be from bondage!” And further conversation shows that in all this appearance, which is so common with us everywhere, Katerina was able to find her own special meaning, apply it to her needs and aspirations, until the heavy hand of Kabanikha fell upon her. Katerina does not at all belong to violent characters, never satisfied, loving to destroy at all costs. On the contrary, this character is predominantly creative, loving, ideal. That is why she tries to comprehend and ennoble everything in her imagination; the mood in which, according to the poet, -

The whole world is a noble dream
Before him cleansed and washed, -

this mood does not leave Katerina to the last extreme.<...>

In Katerina's position, we see that, on the contrary, all the "ideas" instilled in her from childhood, all the principles environment- rebel against her natural aspirations and actions. The terrible struggle to which the young woman is condemned takes place in every word, in every movement of the drama, and this is where all the importance of the introductory characters for which Ostrovsky is so reproached turns out. Take a good look: you see that Katerina was brought up in the same concepts with the concepts of the environment in which she lives, and cannot get rid of them, having no theoretical education. The stories of the wanderers and the suggestions of the household, although they were reworked by her in her own way, could not but leave an ugly trace in her soul: and indeed, we see in the play that Katerina, having lost her rosy dreams and ideal, lofty aspirations, retained one thing from her upbringing. strong feeling - fear some dark forces, something unknown, which she could neither explain to herself well, nor reject. For every thought she fears, for the simplest feeling she expects punishment for herself; she thinks that the storm will kill her, because she is a sinner; the picture of fiery hell on the church wall seems to her already a harbinger of her eternal torment... And everything around her supports and develops this fear in her: last times; Wild insists that a thunderstorm is sent to us as punishment, so that we feel; the mistress who has come, inspiring fear in everyone in the city, is shown several times in order to shout over Katerina in an ominous voice: “You will all burn in fire in unquenchable.”<...>

In Katerina's monologues it is clear that even now she has nothing formulated; she is guided to the end by her nature, and not by given decisions, because for decisions she would need to have logical, solid foundations, and yet all the principles that are given to her for theoretical reasoning are resolutely contrary to her natural inclinations. That is why she not only does not take heroic poses and does not utter sayings that prove the strength of her character, but on the contrary, she appears in the form weak woman who is unable to resist her instincts, and tries justify the heroism that manifests itself in her actions. She decided to die, but she is terrified by the thought that this is a sin, and she seems to be trying to prove to us and to herself that she can be forgiven, since it is already very difficult for her. She would like to enjoy life and love; but she knows that this is a crime, and therefore she says in her own justification: “Well, it doesn’t matter, I’ve ruined my soul!” She complains about no one, blames no one, and even the thought of nothing like that comes to her; on the contrary, she is to blame for everyone, she even asks Boris if he is angry with her, if he curses ... There is neither malice nor contempt in her, nothing that usually flaunts disappointed heroes who arbitrarily leave the world. But she can't live any longer, she can't, and that's all; from the fullness of her heart she says: “I am exhausted ... How much longer will I suffer? Why should I live now, well, why? I don't need anything, nothing is nice to me, and the light of God is not nice! - and death does not come. You call her, but she doesn't come. Whatever I see, whatever I hear, only here (pointing to heart) hurt". At the thought of the grave, she becomes lighter - calmness seems to pour into her soul. “So quiet, so good... But I don’t even want to think about life... To live again?... No, no, don’t... it’s not good. And the people are disgusting to me, and the house is disgusting to me, and the walls are disgusting! I won't go there! No, no, I won’t go ... If you come to them - they go, they say, - but what do I need it for? then semi-heated state. At the last moment, all domestic horrors flash especially vividly in her imagination. She cries out: “They will catch me and bring me back home by force! .. Hurry, hurry ...” And the matter is over: she will no longer be a victim of a soulless mother-in-law, she will no longer languish locked up with her spineless and disgusting husband. She's released!

Sad, bitter is such a liberation; But what to do when there is no other way out. It's good that the poor woman found determination at least for this terrible exit. That is the strength of her character, which is why "Thunderstorm" makes a refreshing impression on us, as we said above.<...>

D. A. Pisarev

Ostrovsky's drama "Thunderstorm" caused a critical article from Dobrolyubov under the title "Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom". This article was a mistake on the part of Dobrolyubov; he was carried away by sympathy for the character of Katerina and took her personality for a bright phenomenon. A detailed analysis of this character will show our readers that Dobrolyubov's view in this case is wrong and that not a single bright phenomenon can either arise or take shape in the "dark kingdom" of the patriarchal Russian family, brought to the stage in Ostrovsky's drama.<...>

Dobrolyubov would have asked himself: how could this bright image have been formed? In order to answer this question for himself, he would trace Katerina's life from childhood, all the more so since Ostrovsky provides some materials for this; he would have seen that upbringing and life could not give Katerina either a firm character or a developed mind; then he would look again at those facts in which one attractive side caught his eye, and then the whole personality of Katerina would appear to him in a completely different light.<...>

Katerina's whole life consists of constant internal contradictions; every minute she rushes from one extreme to another; today she repents of what she did yesterday, and yet she herself does not know what she will do tomorrow; at every step she confuses her own life and the lives of other people; finally, having mixed up everything that was at her fingertips, she cuts the tightened knots with the most stupid means, suicide, and even such suicide, which is completely unexpected for herself.<...>

M. A. Antonovich

G. Pisarev decided to correct Dobrolyubov, as Mr. Sechenov's Zaitsev, and to expose his mistakes, among which he lists one of the best and most thoughtful articles of his "Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom", written in connection with Mr. Ostrovsky's "Thunderstorm". It is this instructive, deeply felt and thoughtful article that Mr. Pisarev is trying to drown in the muddy water of his phrases and commonplaces.<...>

It seemed to G. Pisarev that Dobrolyubov imagined Katerina as a woman with a developed mind and a developed character, who allegedly decided to protest only as a result of the education and development of her mind, which is why she was called “a ray of light”. Having thus imposed on Dobrolyubov his own fantasy, Mr. Pisarev began to refute it as if it were Dobrolyubov's. How is it possible, Mr. Pisarev reasoned to himself, to call Katerina a ray of light when she is a simple, undeveloped woman; how could she protest against tyranny when her upbringing did not develop her mind, when she did not know the natural sciences at all, which, in the opinion of the great historian Buckle, are necessary for progress, did not have such realistic ideas as, for example, Mr. Pisarev himself has , was even infected with prejudice, was afraid of thunder and the picture of hellfire painted on the walls of the gallery. So, Mr. Pisarev concluded, Dobrolyubov is mistaken and is a champion of art for art's sake when he calls Katerina a Protestant and a ray of light. Amazing proof!

Is that how you, Mr. Pisarev, are attentive to Dobrolyubov, and how do you understand what you want to refute? Where did you find this, as if Dobrolyubov portrays Katerina as a woman with a developed mind, as if her protest stems from some definite concepts and conscious theoretical principles, the understanding of which really requires the development of the mind? We have already seen above that, according to Dobrolyubov, Katerina's protest was of such a kind that it did not require either the development of the mind, or knowledge of the natural sciences and Buckle, or understanding of electricity, or freedom from prejudices, or reading the articles of Mr. Pisarev; it was a direct, so to speak, instinctive protest, a protest of an integral normal nature in its primitive form, as it came out of itself without any means of artificial education.<...>

Thus, all this fanfare of Mr. Pisarev is, in essence, very pathetic. It turns out that he did not understand Dobrolyubov, reinterpreted his thought and, on the basis of his lack of understanding, accused him of unprecedented mistakes and non-existent contradictions ...

A. A. Grigoriev

A strong, deep, and mostly positively general impression was made not by the second act of the drama, which, although with some difficulty, can still be drawn to the punishing and accusatory kind of literature, but by the end of the third, in which (the end) there is absolutely nothing there is no other than the poetry of folk life - boldly, widely and freely captured by the artist in one of its most essential moments, which does not allow not only denunciation, but even criticism and analysis: this moment is captured and conveyed poetically, directly. You have not yet been to the performance, but you know this moment, magnificent in its bold poetry - this hitherto unprecedented night of rendezvous in the ravine, all breathing with the proximity of the Volga, all fragrant with the smell of herbs of its wide meadows, all sounding with free songs, "funny", secret speeches , all full of charm of cheerful and wild passion and no less charm of passion deep and tragically fatal. After all, it was created as if not an artist, but a whole people created here! And this was precisely what was most strongly felt in the work by the masses, and, moreover, by the masses in St. Petersburg, divi in Moscow, - a complex, heterogeneous mass - felt with all the inevitable (although much less than usual) falsehood, with all the frightening harshness of the Alexandrian execution .

M. M. Dostoevsky

Only Katerina perishes, but she would perish even without despotism. This a victim of one's own purity and one's beliefs. <...>Katerina's life is broken and without suicide. Whether she will live, whether she will take the veil of a nun, whether she will lay hands on herself - the result is one regarding her state of mind, but completely different in relation to the impression. G. Ostrovsky wanted her to complete this last act of her life with full consciousness and reach it through reflection. The thought is beautiful, even more intensifying the colors so poetically generously spent on this character. But, many will say and are already saying, does not such a suicide contradict her religious beliefs? Of course it contradicts, it completely contradicts, but this trait is essential in Katerina's character. The fact is that, due to her extremely lively temperament, she can in no way get along in the narrow sphere of her convictions. She fell in love, fully conscious of all the sin of her love, and yet she fell in love all the same, come what may; later she repented of seeing Boris, but she herself nevertheless ran to say goodbye to him. In the same way, she decides to commit suicide, because she does not have enough strength to endure despair. She is a woman of high poetic impulses, but at the same time very weak. This inflexibility of beliefs and frequent betrayal of them is the whole tragedy of the character we are analyzing.

The tragedy of the work.

Critics' score

1. Oblomov - Stolz.

2. Oblomov - Olga Ilinskaya

The problem of love.

The tragedy of the work.

The action of the tragedy takes place in the city of Kalinov, which is spread among the greenery of gardens on the steep bank of the Volga. “For fifty years I have been looking beyond the Volga every day and I can’t see enough of everything. The view is extraordinary! Beauty! The soul rejoices,” Kuligin admires. It would seem that the life of the people of this city should be beautiful and joyful. However, the life and customs of the wealthy merchants created "a world of prison and grave silence." Savel Dikoy and Marfa Kabanova are the personification of cruelty and tyranny. Orders in merchant's house are based on obsolete religious dogmas of Domostroy. Dobrolyubov says about Kabanikha that she "nibbles on her sacrifice ... for a long time and relentlessly." She forces her daughter-in-law Katerina to bow at the feet of her husband when he leaves, scolds her for not “howling” in public when seeing her husband off.

Kabanikha is very rich, this can be judged by the fact that the interests of her affairs go far beyond Kalinov, on her behalf Tikhon travels to Moscow. She is respected by Dikoy, for whom the main thing in life is money. But the merchant understands that power also gives the humility of the environment. She seeks to kill at home any manifestation of resistance to her power. The boar is hypocritical, she only hides behind virtue and piety, in the family she is an inhuman despot and tyrant. Tikhon does not contradict her in anything. Barbara learned to lie, hide and dodge.

The main character of the play, Katerina, is marked by a strong character, she is not used to humiliation and insults and therefore conflicts with her cruel old mother-in-law. In her mother's house, Katerina lived freely and easily. In the House of Kabanovs, she feels like a bird in a cage. She quickly realizes that she cannot live here for long.

Katerina married Tikhon without love. Everything in the house of Kabanikh trembles at the mere imperious cry of the merchant's wife. Life in this house is hard for the young. And now Katerina meets a completely different person and falls in love. For the first time in her life, she knows a deep personal feeling. One night she goes on a date with Boris. Which side is the playwright on? He is on the side of Katerina, because one cannot destroy the natural aspirations of a person. Life in the Kabanov family is unnatural. And Katerina does not accept the inclinations of those people to whom she fell. Hearing Varvara’s offer to lie and pretend, Katerina replies: “I can’t deceive, I can’t hide anything.”

Katerina's directness and sincerity commands respect from the author, the reader, and the viewer. She decides that she can no longer be a victim of a soulless mother-in-law, cannot languish locked up. She is free! But she saw a way out only in her death. And this could be argued. Critics also disagreed on whether it was worth paying Katerina for freedom at the cost of her life. So, Pisarev, unlike Dobrolyubov, considers Katerina's act meaningless. He believes that after Katerina's suicide, everything will return to normal, life will go on as usual, and the “dark kingdom” is not worth such a sacrifice. Of course, Kabanikha brought Katerina to her death. As a result, her daughter Varvara runs away from home, and her son Tikhon regrets that he did not die with his wife.

Interestingly, one of the main, active images of this play is the image of the thunderstorm itself. Symbolically expressing the idea of the work, this image directly participates in the action of the drama as a real natural phenomenon, enters into action at its decisive moments, largely determines the actions of the heroine. This image is very meaningful, it illuminates almost all aspects of the drama.

So, already in the first act, a thunderstorm broke out over the city of Kalinov. It burst like a harbinger of tragedy. Katerina already said: “I will die soon,” she confessed to Varvara in sinful love. The prediction of a crazy lady that a thunderstorm does not pass in vain, and a sense of her own sin with a real clap of thunder, were already combined in her imagination. Katerina rushes home: “Still, it’s better, everything is calmer, I’m at home - to the images and pray to God!”.

After that, the storm stops for a while. Only in the grumbling of Kabanikha are her echoes heard. There was no thunderstorm that night, when Katerina, for the first time after her marriage, felt free and happy.

But the fourth, culminating act, begins with the words: "It's raining, no matter how the storm gathers?". And after that, the motive of the thunderstorm does not stop.

The dialogue between Kuligin and Diky is interesting. Kuligin talks about lightning rods (“we have frequent thunderstorms”) and provokes the wrath of Diky: “What kind of electricity is there? Well, why aren't you a robber? A thunderstorm is sent to us as a punishment so that we feel, and you want to defend yourself with poles and some kind of horns, God forgive me. What are you, a Tatar, or what? And to the quote from Derzhavin, which Kuligin cites in his defense: “I rot in the ashes with my body, I command thunder with my mind,” the merchant does not find anything to say at all, except: “And for these words, send you to the mayor, so he will tell you ask!”.

Undoubtedly, in the play, the image of a thunderstorm takes on a special meaning: it is a refreshing, revolutionary beginning. However, the mind is condemned in the dark realm, it met with impenetrable ignorance, reinforced by stinginess. But all the same, the lightning that cut through the sky over the Volga touched Tikhon, who was silent for a long time, flashed over the fates of Varvara and Kudryash. The storm shook everyone up. Inhuman morals will sooner or later come to an end. The struggle between the new and the old has begun and continues. This is the meaning of the work of the great Russian playwright.

The role of secondary characters in the drama "Thunderstorm". Drama "Thunderstorm" in the assessment of critics (N.A. Dobrolyubov, D.I. Pisarev, A.A. Grigoriev, A.V. Druzhinin).

The secondary characters in the play not only form the background against which the personal drama of Katerina, the main character of the work, unfolds. They show us different types of people's attitudes towards their lack of freedom. The system of images in the play is such that all secondary characters form conditional pairs, and only Katerina is alone in her true desire to escape from the yoke of "tyrants".

Dikoy and Kabanova are people who keep in constant fear those who are somehow dependent on them. Dobrolyubov very aptly called them "tyrants", since the main law for everyone is their will. It is no coincidence that they treat each other very respectfully: they are the same, only the sphere of influence is different. Wild disposes of the city, Kabanikha - in his family.

Katerina's constant companion is Varvara, the sister of her husband Tikhon. She is the main opponent of the heroine.

Critics' score

The thunderstorm, according to Dobrolyubov, is Ostrovsky's most decisive work, for it marks the near end of selfish force. The central conflict of the drama - the clash of the heroine, defending her human rights, with the world of the dark kingdom - expressed the essential aspects of people's life at the time of the revolutionary situation. And that is why the critic considered the drama Thunderstorm a truly folk work.

3.A.I. Goncharov "Oblomov" The principle of plot antithesis in the novel (Oblomov-Stoltz, Oblomov-Olga). The problem of love in the novel.

1. Oblomov - Stolz.

2. Oblomov - Olga Ilinskaya

Stolz is not positive hero novel, his activity sometimes resembles the activity of Sudbinsky from the despised Stolz of Oblomov's Petersburg entourage: work, work, work again, like a machine, without rest, entertainment and hobbies.

His practicality is far from high ideals, he resembles a businessman, a tourist. The image of Stolz is schematic, emotionally faceless.

Goncharov does not know what deed can save Russia from Oblomovism. The writer can answer only one eternal question "who is to blame?" - autocracy, serfdom. He does not know the answer to the second problematic question: “What to do?”

The main plot situation in the novel is the relationship between Olga Ilyinskaya and Oblomov.

Goncharov follows the path that has become traditional in Russian literature: a person is morally weak when tested by love, if he is able to respond to a strong feeling of love. Oblomov reinforces this conclusion. Olga Ilyinskaya is characterized by harmony of mind, heart, will, activity and kindness. Goncharov poeticizes Oblomov's sudden outbreak of love. There is a feeling that Oblomov will be reborn, as a person, to the fullest. The inner life of the hero came into motion, along with a feeling of love for Olga in Oblomov, an active interest in the spiritual life, in art, in the mental demands of that time awakens. Oblomov's feeling of love for Olga was a short-term flash. Illusions on this score are quickly dissipated by Oblomov. The gap between Olga and Oblomov is natural. Their natures are too different. More expensive than romantic dates was for Oblomov the thirst for a serene sleepy state. “A man sleeps serenely” - this is the ideal of the existence of Ilya Ilyich.

Life in Pshenitsina's house is physically inert, and therefore unhealthy. Oblomov goes quickly to meet his eternal dream - death. He gradually fits into a wide and spacious coffin. Dobrolyubov saw Oblomov's predecessors, who are also historically conditioned - these are images extra people People: Onegin, Pechorin, Rudin (Turgenev).

The problem of love.

In his work “Oblomov”, I. A. Goncharov tries to find answers to those eternal questions that a person asks himself at least once in his life. And one of such multifaceted worlds, the study and understanding of which the author devoted his novel to, is the world of harmony, happiness, love. Love, as it were, permeates the whole work, filling it different colors, revealing the most unexpected features of the hero, awakening in them a thirst for action and knowledge.

The second, no less significant function of the love plot in the novel is opposition. In this work, there are two collective images that are a complete opposite when comparing characters or appearance - they both pass the test of love. Both Oblomov and Stolz are connected by a thread of relationship with Olga. How unlike their behavior when they fall in love with her, and how much more it gives than any other comparison.