The controversy of critics around the drama "Thunderstorm". The play is assessed by N. Dobrolyubov, D. Pisarev, Grigoriev. The role of secondary characters in the drama "Thunderstorm". Drama "Thunderstorm" in the assessment of critics (N.A. I.A. Grigoriev, A.V. Druzhinin) N a dobrolyubov about a thunderstorm

Sections: Literature

To introduce students to the works of critical literature of the 1860s.
To teach some methods of discussion on the example of the articles under consideration.
Develop critical thinking students.
To consolidate the ability to selectively take notes of a literary-critical article.
Summarize what you have learned.

Text content of the lesson:

A.N. Ostrovsky. Drama "Thunderstorm" (1859)
N.A. Dobrolyubov “Ray of light in dark kingdom» (1860)
A. Grigoriev "After Ostrovsky's Thunderstorm" (1860)
D.I. Pisarev "Motives of Russian drama" (1864)
M.A. Antonovich "Mistakes" (1865)

Homework for the lesson:

Selective summary of the article by A.N. Dobrolyubov “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom” (I version) and the article by D.I. Pisarev “Motives of Russian Drama” (II version).
Determine your attitude to the abstracts of the article, pick up the argument.

Individual tasks for the lesson:

prepare brief messages on the literary-critical activities of Dobrolyubov, Pisarev, Grigoriev, Antonovich;
choose from M. Antonovich's article "Mistakes" fragments of the polemic with D. Pisarev;
to determine what are the features of the critical analysis of the drama "Thunderstorm" made by Apollon Grigoriev.

Lesson design: the topic of the lesson is written on the board; at the top right - the names of critics and their years of life; top left - key concepts: discussion, controversy, opponent, thesis, arguments, judgment, critical analysis.

In the center of the board is a table layout that will be filled in during the lesson. The table has 2 columns: on the left - Dobrolyubov's interpretation of the image of Katerina, on the right - Pisarev.

During the classes

1. introduction teachers.

Not a single truly talented work leaves anyone indifferent: some admire it, others express critical judgments. This happened with Ostrovsky's drama "Thunderstorm". The writer's admirers called it a truly folk work, admired Katerina's decisiveness and courage; but there were also those who responded rather sharply, denying the heroine the mind. Such ambiguous assessments were expressed by N.A. Dobrolyubov and D.I. Pisarev, famous literary critics of the 1860s.

To better understand what arguments they were guided by, let's listen to the messages prepared by the guys.

2. Messages from students.

I. Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov(1836-1861) - critic, publicist, poet, prose writer. Revolutionary Democrat. Born in the family of a priest. He studied at the Faculty of History and Philology of the Main Pedagogical Institute of St. Petersburg. During his studies, his materialistic views were formed. “I am a desperate socialist ...” Dobrolyubov said about himself. Permanent contributor to the Sovremennik magazine. According to the recollections of people who knew him closely, Dobrolyubov did not tolerate compromises, “did not know how to live,” as most people live.

Dobrolyubov entered the history of Russian literature, first of all, as a critic, a successor to Belinsky's ideas. Literary criticism of Dobrolyubov is brightly publicistic.

Question to the class: How do you understand these words?

Dobrolyubov has detailed parallels between literature and life, appeals to the reader - both direct and hidden, "Aesopian". The writer counted on the propaganda effect of some of his articles.

At the same time, Dobrolyubov was a sensitive connoisseur of beauty, a man capable of penetrating deeply into the essence of artwork.

He develops the principles of "real criticism", the essence of which is that the work must be treated as phenomena of reality, revealing its humanistic potential. The dignity of a literary work is put in direct connection with its nationality.

Dobrolyubov's most famous literary-critical articles are "Dark Kingdom" (1859), "When will the real day come?" (1859), "What is Oblomovism?" (1859), "A Ray of Light in a Dark Realm" (1860).

II. Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev(1840-1868) - literary critic, publicist. Born into a poor noble family. He studied at the Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg University. It is at the university that the “poisonous seed of skepticism” germinates in a young man. Since 1861 he has been working in the Russian Word magazine. Pisarev's articles quickly attracted the attention of readers with the sharpness of thought, the fearlessness of the author's position, brought him fame as a daring and ardent polemicist who does not recognize anyone's authorities.

After 1861, Pisarev placed his hopes on useful scientific and practical activity, on the awakening of interest in exact, natural science knowledge. From an extremely pragmatic position, he approaches the analysis of some works of art. Pisarev insists that by all means it is necessary to increase the number of thinking people.

Tragically died in June 1868.

The most famous critical works of Pisarev: "Bazarov" (1862), "Motives of Russian Drama" (1864), "Realists" (1864), "Thinking Proletariat" (1865).

III. And now, guys, let's see how these two critics interpreted the image of Katerina Kabanova, the heroine of Ostrovsky's drama "Thunderstorm".(Students of the first option read the abstracts of Dobrolyubov’s article; students of the second option read the abstracts of Pisarev’s article. The teacher briefly writes them down in a table on the board. Such work will make it possible to more clearly present the different approaches of critics to the image of Katerina).

ON THE. Dobrolyubov	DI. Pisarev
1. Katerina's character is a step forward ... in all our literature	1. Dobrolyubov took the personality of Katerina for a bright phenomenon
2. Resolute, integral Russian character	2. Not a single bright phenomenon can arise in the "dark kingdom" ...
3. This character is predominantly creative, loving, ideal	3. What is this harsh virtue that gives up at the first opportunity? What kind of suicide caused by such petty annoyances?
4. Katerina does everything according to the inclination of nature	4.Dobrolyubov found ... the attractive sides of Katerina, put them together, made up an ideal image, as a result he saw a ray of light in a dark kingdom
5. In Katerina we see a protest against Kaban's notions of morality, a protest carried through to the end...	5. Upbringing and life could not give Katerina either a strong character or a developed mind ...
6 Such a liberation is bitter; But what to do when there is no other way out. That is the strength of her character.	6. Katerina cuts the lingering knots by the most stupid means - suicide.
7 We are glad to see Katerina's deliverance.	7. He who does not know how to do anything to alleviate his own and other people's suffering cannot be called a bright phenomenon.

Question to the class: What, in your opinion, is the reason for such a different interpretation of the image of Katerina? Should whether to take into account the time of writing articles?

Pisarev openly and clearly polemicizes with Dobrolyubov. In his article, he states: “Dobrolyubov made a mistake in assessing female character". Pisarev remains deaf to the spiritual tragedy of Katerina, he approaches this image from a frankly pragmatic position. He does not see what Dobrolyubov saw - Katerina's piercing conscientiousness and uncompromisingness. Pisarev, based on his own understanding of the specific problems of the new era that came after the collapse revolutionary situation, believes that the main sign of a truly bright phenomenon is a strong and developed mind. And since Katerina has no mind, she is not a ray of light, but just an "attractive illusion."

IV. Discussion

Question to the class: Whose position do you prefer? Argument your point of view.

Klass is ambivalent about the interpretation of Katerina's image by the two critics.

The guys agree with Dobrolyubov, who saw the poetry of the image of Katerina, understand the position of the critic, who sought to explain the fatal step of the girl by the terrible conditions of her life. Others agree with Pisarev, who considers the suicide of the heroine not the best way out of this situation. However, they do not accept harsh judgments about Katerina's mind.

v. The rejection of the interpretation of the image of Katerina Pisarev was expressed in his article by Maxim Antonovich, an employee of the Sovremennik magazine. You will meet the name of this critic when studying I.S. Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons”. Let's hear a brief biographical note about him.

Maxim Alekseevich Antonovich (1835-1918) - a radical Russian literary critic, philosopher, publicist. Born in the family of a deacon. He studied at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. Was an employee of Sovremennik. He defended the views on the art of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov. He advocated democratic, raznochinskaya literature. However, he vulgarized the principles of materialistic aesthetics. He argued with the journal D.I. Pisarev "Russian Word".

Most notable works M. Antonovich: "Asmodeus of our time" (1862), "Mistakes" (1864).

Question to the class: A now let's see what answer M. Antonovich gave to Pisarev in his article. Is he convincing in his judgments?

A prepared student reads out the most striking statements from the fragment devoted to the controversy with Pisarev.

“Pisarev decided to correct Dobrolyubov ... and expose his mistakes, to which he ranks one of the best articles of his “Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom” ... Mr. Pisarev is trying to fill this article with muddy water of his phrases and commonplaces ... Pisarev calls Dobrolyubov’s views mistake and equates him with the champions of pure art ... "

“It seemed to Pisarev that Dobrolyubov imagined Katerina as a woman with a developed mind, who allegedly decided to protest only as a result of the education and development of her mind, because she was called a “beam of light” ... Pisarev imposed his own fantasy on Dobrolyubov and began to refute it like this as if it belonged to Dobrolyubov…”

“Is that how you, Mr. Pisarev, are attentive to Dobrolyubov, and how do you understand what you want to refute?”

The student reports that, according to Antonovich, Pisarev humiliates Katerina with his analysis. However, Antonovich himself, in the heat of the controversy, speaks out rather rudely, for example, he uses such expressions as “the fanfare of Mr. Pisarev”, “the arrogant phrases of Mr. Pisarev”, “to criticize in this way is simply stupid”, etc.

The guys, having become acquainted with Antonovich's critical manner, note that his arguments are not very convincing, since Antonovich does not provide evidence-based arguments based on a good knowledge of the material. Simply put, in a polemic with Pisarev, Antonovich does not hide his personal dislike well.

teacher's word: M. Antonovich was the initiator of the controversy between Sovremennik and Russkoe Slovo. These leading Democratic journals differed in their understanding of the very paths of progressive change. Pisarev's emphasis on scientific progress led to a certain revision of the views of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov. This was clearly manifested in Pisarev's interpretation of the image of Katerina. Antonovich in his article "Mistakes" sharply criticized this attempt to revise Dobrolyubov, accusing Pisarev of distorting the meaning of Dobrolyubov's article.

VI. A completely different approach to the analysis of the work is demonstrated by Apollon Grigoriev.

A Word to the Prepared Student:

Grigoriev Apollon Alexandrovich (1822-1864) - poet, literary and theater critic. Graduated from the Faculty of Law of Moscow University. He began to publish as a poet in 1843. He heads the young editorial board of the Moskvityanin magazine, being a leading critic. Later, he edited the Russian Word magazine. Grigoriev himself called himself "the last romantic."

As a critic, he is known for his works on Ostrovsky (“After Ostrovsky’s Thunderstorm”, 1860), Nekrasov (“Poems by N. Nekrasov, 1862), L. Tolstoy (“Count L. Tolstoy and his writings”, 1862).

Let's see how A. Grigoriev evaluates Ostrovsky's drama "Thunderstorm". Think about the features of this critique.

A student prepared at home reads out brief abstracts of the article "After Ostrovsky's Thunderstorm."

The guys pay attention to the fact that for the first time in front of them is a critical article written by a poet. Hence its significant differences from previous works, in particular, by Dobrolyubov and Pisarev. A. Grigoriev tried to see in the "Thunderstorm" primarily a work of art. In his article, he pointed out that the merit of Ostrovsky is the ability to authentically and poetically depict the national Russian life: "The name of this writer is not a satirist, but a folk poet." The critics were not interested in the blind fences of the city of Kalinov, but in the picturesque cliff over the Volga. Where Dobrolyubov was looking for exposure, the poet Grigoriev tried to find admiration. Grigoriev noticed in The Thunderstorm only the beauty of Russian nature and the charm of provincial life, as if forgetting about the tragedy of the events depicted in the play. The writer considered the opinion of some "theoreticians" "to sum up instantaneous results for any strip of life" a mistake. Such "theorists", he believed, had little respect for life and its boundless mysteries.

Teacher's word. Today you guys have been introduced to the work of some of the most famous critics of the 1860s. The subject of their critical analysis was one and the same work - Ostrovsky's drama "Thunderstorm". But look how differently they evaluate it! What do you think is the reason for this?

The guys answer that the decisive role is played by such factors as the time of writing articles, the political convictions of opponents, the view of art and, undoubtedly, the personality of the critics themselves, which is manifested in a polemically polished word.

VII. Conclusions.

Ostrovsky's drama "Thunderstorm" caused a lot of ambiguous assessments with its appearance. This was especially true of the interpretation of the image of Katerina Kabanova, a girl with a warm heart. Some critics perceived her as a heroine who, with her decisive act, managed to illuminate the gloomy world of the "dark kingdom" and thereby contribute to its destruction (Dobrolyubov). Others believed that without a sufficiently developed mind, Katerina was not capable of becoming a “beam of light”, this was just an “attractive illusion” (Pisarev). Still others agreed with Dobrolyubov's interpretation, accusing Pisarev of being unable to make an objective assessment (Antonovich). But there were also those who stood "above the fray", not wanting to see anything but a beautifully written work of art. Such was the view of A. Grigoriev.

It seems to us that every critic is right in his own way. It all depends on the angle from which the object of criticism is viewed. Dobrolyubov saw only the rebellious side of Katerina's character, while Pisarev noticed only the exceptional darkness of the young woman.

". At the beginning of it, Dobrolyubov writes that "Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life." Further, he analyzes articles about Ostrovsky by other critics, writes that they "lack a direct look at things."

Then Dobrolyubov compares The Thunderstorm with dramatic canons: "The subject of the drama must certainly be an event where we see the struggle of passion and duty - with the unfortunate consequences of the victory of passion or with happy ones when duty wins." Also in the drama there must be a unity of action, and it must be written in high literary language. The Thunderstorm, however, “does not satisfy the most essential goal of the drama - to inspire respect for moral duty and show the detrimental consequences of infatuation with passion. Katerina, this criminal, appears to us in the drama not only in a rather gloomy light, but even with the radiance of martyrdom. She speaks so well, she suffers so plaintively, everything around her is so bad that you arm yourself against her oppressors and thus justify vice in her face. Consequently, the drama does not fulfill its high purpose. The whole action is sluggish and slow, because it is cluttered with scenes and faces that are completely unnecessary. Finally, the language with which the characters speak surpasses all the patience of a well-bred person.

Dobrolyubov makes this comparison with the canon in order to show that an approach to a work with a ready idea of what should be shown in it does not give a true understanding. “What to think of a man who, at the sight of a pretty woman, suddenly begins to resonate that her camp is not the same as that of the Venus de Milo? The truth is not in dialectical subtleties, but in the living truth of what you are talking about. It cannot be said that people are evil by nature, and therefore it cannot be accepted for literary works principles like that, for example, vice always triumphs, and virtue is punished.

“The writer has so far been given a small role in this movement of mankind towards natural principles,” writes Dobrolyubov, after which he recalls Shakespeare, who “moved the general consciousness of people to several steps that no one had climbed before him.” Further, the author turns to other critical articles about the "Thunderstorm", in particular, by Apollon Grigoriev, who claims that Ostrovsky's main merit is in his "nationality". "But Mr. Grigoriev does not explain what the nationality consists of, and therefore his remark seemed to us very amusing."

Then Dobrolyubov comes to the definition of Ostrovsky’s plays as a whole as “plays of life”: “We want to say that for him the general atmosphere of life is always in the foreground. He does not punish either the villain or the victim. You see that their position dominates them, and you only blame them for not showing enough energy to get out of this position. And that is why we do not dare to consider as unnecessary and superfluous those characters in Ostrovsky's plays who do not directly participate in the intrigue. From our point of view, these faces are just as necessary for the play as the main ones: they show us the environment in which the action takes place, draw the position that determines the meaning of the activity of the main characters of the play.

In "Thunderstorm" the need for "unnecessary" persons (secondary and episodic characters) is especially visible. Dobrolyubov analyzes the lines of Feklusha, Glasha, Dikiy, Kudryash, Kuligin, etc. The author analyzes internal state heroes" dark kingdom": "everything is somehow restless, it is not good for them. In addition to them, without asking them, another life has grown up, with other beginnings, and although it is not yet clearly visible, it already sends bad visions to the dark arbitrariness of tyrants. And Kabanova is very seriously upset by the future of the old order, with which she has outlived a century. She foresees their end, tries to maintain their significance, but she already feels that there is no former reverence for them and that they will be abandoned at the first opportunity.

Then the author writes that The Thunderstorm is “Ostrovsky's most decisive work; the mutual relations of tyranny 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 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.

Further, Dobrolyubov analyzes the image of Katerina, perceiving it as "a step forward in all our literature": "Russian life has reached the point where there is a need for more active and energetic people." The image of Katerina is “steadily faithful to the instinct of natural truth and selfless in the sense that death is better for him than life under those principles that are repugnant to him. In this wholeness and harmony of character lies his strength. Free air and light, contrary to all the precautions of perishing tyranny, burst into Katerina's cell, she yearns for a new life, even if she had to die in this impulse. What is death to her? It doesn't matter - she does not consider life to be the vegetative life that fell to her lot in the Kabanov family.

The author analyzes in detail the motives of Katerina's actions: “Katerina does not at all belong to violent characters, dissatisfied, loving to destroy. On the contrary, this character is predominantly creative, loving, ideal. That's why she tries to ennoble everything in her imagination. The feeling of love for a person, the need for tender pleasures naturally opened up in a young woman. But it will not be Tikhon Kabanov, who is “too busy to understand the nature of Katerina’s emotions: “I can’t make out you, Katya,” he tells her, “then you won’t get a word from you, let alone affection, otherwise it’s like that climb." This is how spoiled natures usually judge a strong and fresh nature.

Dobrolyubov comes to the conclusion that in the image of Katerina Ostrovsky embodied the great folk idea: “in other works of our literature strong characters look like fountains dependent on an outside mechanism. Katerina is like a big river: a flat bottom, good - it flows calmly, large stones met - it jumps over them, a cliff - it cascades, they dam it - it rages and breaks in another place. It boils not because the water suddenly wants to make noise or get angry at obstacles, but simply because it is necessary for it to fulfill its natural requirements - for the further flow.

Analyzing the actions of Katerina, the author writes that he considers it possible for Katerina and Boris to escape as the best solution. Katerina is ready to run away, but here another problem comes up - Boris's financial dependence on his uncle Diky. “We said a few words about Tikhon above; Boris is the same, in essence, only educated.

At the end of the play, “we are pleased to see Katerina's deliverance - even through death, if it is impossible otherwise. Living in a "dark kingdom" is worse than death. Tikhon, throwing himself on the corpse of his wife, pulled out of the water, shouts in self-forgetfulness: “It’s good for you, Katya! But why did I stay in the world and suffer! “The play ends with this exclamation, and it seems to us that nothing could be invented stronger and more truthful than such an ending. Tikhon's words make the viewer think not about a love affair, but about this whole life, where the living envy the dead.

In conclusion, Dobrolyubov addresses the readers of the article: “If our readers find that Russian life and Russian strength are called by the artist in The Thunderstorm to a decisive cause, and if they feel the legitimacy and importance of this matter, then we are satisfied, no matter what our scientists say. and literary judges.

What do you think about when you re-read what Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev wrote about Alexander Nikolayevich Ostrovsky's Thunderstorm? Perhaps the fact that literature follows geniuses ... Golden Russian literature XIX century, starting with a breakthrough at the international level in poetry, by the middle of the century it had already made it in prose, serving as a "beam of light" for the entire Russian society. This, of course, is about the non-verse works of Pushkin, Gogol, Ostrovsky.

Civic message of the article

The article about Pisarev's "Thunderstorm" is a citizen's response to the landmark play of the century before last. Written in 1859 by Alexander Nikolayevich Ostrovsky, the play in five acts occupies a special place in golden Russian literature. This dramatic work served as a powerful stimulus for the further development of realism. This was evidenced by the evaluation given to the play critics. It testifies to a real pluralism of opinions. And the truth was really born in the dispute! In understanding this, it is important to know that the article “Motives of Russian Drama”, in which Pisarev placed his review of The Thunderstorm, was written as a response to another critical article by the famous literary critic Nikolai Dobrolyubov. The article, with which Pisarev argued, was called brightly - "A ray of light in a dark kingdom." We will try to present to the readers our analysis of the above-mentioned work by Dmitry Pisarev. It occupies a special place in Russian literature. Ostrovsky managed to adequately continue in Russian dramaturgy the realism laid down by Griboyedov in Woe from Wit.

Fundamental disagreement with Dobrolyubov on the play "Thunderstorm"

Dmitri Ivanovich was undoubtedly a fine connoisseur and, undoubtedly, when starting to work, he thoroughly familiarized himself with the article of the outstanding literary critic Dobrolyubov, whom he knew and respected. However, obviously following the wisdom of the ancients (namely, “Socrates is my friend, but the truth is dearer”), Pisarev wrote his review about Ostrovsky’s drama “Thunderstorm”.

He realized the need to express his point of view, because he felt: Dobrolyubov tried to show Katerina as a "hero of the times." Dmitry Ivanovich fundamentally disagreed with this position, and, moreover, it is quite motivated. Therefore, he wrote his article "Motives of Russian Drama", where he criticized the main thesis in the work of Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov that Katerina Kabanova is "a ray of light in a dark kingdom."

Kalinov as a model of Russia

Undoubtedly, in the article Pisarev expressed his thoughts about the “Thunderstorm”, clearly realizing that Dobrolyubov gave such a “dark” characteristic formally to one county town, but in fact to all of Russia in the middle of the 19th century. Kalinov is a small model of a huge country. In it, public opinion and the entire course of city life are manipulated by two people: a merchant, unscrupulous in the methods of enrichment, Savel Prokofyich Dikoy, and a hypocrite of Shakespearean proportions, merchantwoman Kabanova Marfa Ignatievna (in the common people - Kabanikha).

In the 60s of the century before last, Russia itself was a huge country with a population of forty million and developed agriculture. The railway network was already in operation. In the near future, after Ostrovsky wrote the play (more precisely, since 1861, after the signing of the Manifesto by Emperor Alexander II, which abolished serfdom), the number of the proletariat increased and, accordingly, an industrial boom began.

However, the suffocating atmosphere of pre-reform society shown in Ostrovsky's play was really true. The product was in demand, suffered ...

The relevance of the ideas of the play

Using simple argumentation, in a language understandable to the reader, Pisarev creates his review of the Thunderstorm. Summary he accurately reproduces the plays in his critical article. How else? After all, the problematic of the play is urgent. And Ostrovsky did a great deed, wishing with all his heart to build a civil society instead of a “dark kingdom”.

However, dear readers… So to speak, hand on heart… Can our society today be called “the kingdom of light, goodness and reason”? Did Kuligin's Ostrovsky monologue write into the void: “Because we will never earn more with honest labor more money make money…”? Bitter, fair words...

Katerina is not a "beam of light"

Pisarev's criticism of The Thunderstorm begins with the formulation of a conclusion about the recklessness of Dobrolyubov's conclusion. He motivates him by citing arguments from the author's text of the play. His polemic with Nikolai Dobrolyubov is reminiscent of a pessimist's summary of the conclusions drawn by the optimist. According to the reasoning of Dmitry Ivanovich, the essence of Katerina is melancholic, there is no real virtue in her, characteristic of people who are called "bright". According to Pisarev, Dobrolyubov made a systematic mistake in the analysis of the image main character plays. He gathered all her positive qualities into a single positive image, ignoring the shortcomings. According to Dmitry Ivanovich, a dialectical view of the heroine is important.

The main character as a suffering part of the dark kingdom

The young woman lives with her husband Tikhon with her mother-in-law, a wealthy merchant who has (as they say now) "heavy energy", which is subtly emphasized by Pisarev's critical article. "Thunderstorm" as tragic play, is largely due to this pattern. The boar (as they call her in the street) is pathologically obsessed with the moral oppression of others, with constant reproaches, she eats them, "like rusty iron." She does this in a sanctimonious way: that is, constantly trying to make the household "act in order" (more precisely, following her instructions).

Tikhon and his sister Varvara adapted to their mother's speeches. Particularly sensitive to her nit-picking and humiliation is her daughter-in-law, Katerina. She, who has a romantic, melancholic psyche, is really unhappy. Her colorful dreams and dreams reveal a completely childish worldview. It's nice, but not a virtue!

Inability to cope with oneself

At the same time, Pisarev's criticism of The Thunderstorm objectively points to Katerina's infantilism and impulsiveness. She does not marry for love. Only the majestic Boris Grigoryevich, the nephew of the merchant Diky, smiled at her, and - the deed is ready: Katya hurries to a secret meeting. At the same time, having become close to this, in principle, a stranger, she does not think at all about the consequences. “Is the author really depicting a “light beam ?!” - Pisarev's critical article asks the reader. "Thunderstorm" displays an extremely illogical heroine, unable not only to cope with circumstances, but also to cope with herself. After betraying her husband, being depressed, childishly frightened by a thunderstorm and the hysteria of a crazy lady, she confesses to her deed and immediately identifies herself with the victim. Banal, isn't it?

On the advice of mother, Tikhon beats her "a little", "for the sake of order". However, the bullying of the mother-in-law herself becomes an order of magnitude more sophisticated. After Katerina learns that Boris Grigorievich is going to Kyakhta (Transbaikalia), she, having neither will nor character, decides to commit suicide: she throws herself into the river and drowns.

Katerina is not a "hero of time"

Pisarev reflects philosophically on Ostrovsky's The Thunderstorm. He wonders whether in a slave society a person who is not endowed with a deep mind, who does not have a will, who does not educate himself, who does not understand people - in principle, can become a ray of light. Yes, this woman is touchingly meek, kind and sincere, she does not know how to defend her point of view. (“She crushed me,” Katerina says about Kabanikh). Yes, she has a creative, impressionable nature. And this type can really charm (as it happened with Dobrolyubov). But this does not change the essence ... "Under the circumstances set forth in the play, a person cannot arise -" a ray of light "!" - says Dmitry Ivanovich.

Maturity of the soul is a condition of adulthood

Moreover, the critic continues his thought, is it a virtue to surrender to petty, completely surmountable life difficulties? This obvious, logical question is asked by Pisarev about Ostrovsky's Thunderstorm. Can this be an example for a generation whose destiny is to change slave Russia, which is oppressed by local "princes" like Kabanikhi and Diky? At best, such a suicide can only cause, however, as a result, strong-willed and educated people should fight against the social group of the rich and manipulators!

At the same time, Pisarev does not speak derogatoryly about Katerina. "Thunderstorm", the critic believes, it is not in vain that she portrays her image so consistently, starting from childhood. The image of Katerina in this sense is similar to the unforgettable image of Ilya Ilyich Oblomov! The problem of her unformed personality is in her ideally comfortable childhood and youth. Her parents didn't prepare her for adulthood! Moreover, they did not give her a proper education.

However, it should be recognized that, unlike Ilya Ilyich, if Katerina were in a more favorable environment than the Kabanov family, she would most likely have taken place as a person. Ostrovsky justifies this ...

What is the positive image of the main character

This is an artistically holistic, positive image - Pisarev tells about Katerina. "Thunderstorm" in its reading leads the reader to the realization that the main character really has an internal emotional charge, characteristic of a creative person. It has the potential for a positive attitude towards reality. She intuitively feels the main need of Russian society - human freedom. She has a hidden energy (which she feels but hasn't learned how to control). Therefore, Katya exclaimed the words: “Why are people not birds?”. It was not by chance that the author conceived such a comparison, because the heroine subconsciously wants freedom, similar to that felt by a bird in flight. That freedom, to fight for which she does not have enough mental strength ...

Conclusion

What conclusions does Pisarev draw with his article “Motives of Russian Drama”? "Thunderstorm" depicts not a "hero of time", not a "beam of light". This image is much weaker, but not artistically (everything is just right here), but by the maturity of the soul. The "hero of time" cannot "break" as a person. After all, people who are called "rays of light" are more likely to be killed than broken. Katherine is weak...

Both critics have general direction reflections: Pisarev's article on The Thunderstorm, like Dobrolyubov's article, interprets the title of the play in the same way. This is not only an atmospheric phenomenon that scared Katerina to death. Quicker, we are talking about the social conflict of a lagging non-civil society that came into conflict with the needs of development.

Ostrovsky's play is a kind of indictment. Both critics showed, following Alexander Nikolaevich, that people are powerless, they are not free, they are, in fact, subordinate to the Boars and the Wild. Why did Dobrolyubov and Pisarev write about The Thunderstorm so differently.

The reason for this is, undoubtedly, the depth of the work, in which there is more than one semantic “bottom”. It has both psychologism and sociality. Each of the literary critics comprehended them in their own way, set priorities differently. Moreover, both one and the other did it with talent, and Russian literature only benefited from this. Therefore, it is completely stupid to ask the question: “Pisarev wrote more precisely about the play“ Thunderstorm ”or Dobrolyubov?”. Definitely worth reading both articles...

Ostrovsky wrote the drama "Thunderstorm" under the impression of the expedition to the cities of the Volga region. It is not surprising that the text of the work reflected not only the customs, but also the life of the inhabitants of the province. Attention should be paid to the time of writing - 1859, a year before the abolition of serfdom. The theme of serfdom is not reflected in the work in any way, however, when analyzing Ostrovsky's "Thunderstorm", a sharp conflict is visible that has matured in society by the middle of the 19th century. We are talking about the confrontation between the old and the new, the world of people of a new formation and the "dark kingdom".

The events of the play unfold in the fictional city of Kalinov on the Volga. It should be noted that the author not without reason points to the conventionality of the place of action - Ostrovsky wanted to show that such an atmosphere was characteristic of all Russian cities of that time.

Characters

To begin with, you need to pay attention to actors. The main character of the work is Katerina Kabanova. Dobrolyubov calls her "a ray of light in a dark kingdom." The girl is different from the rest of the characters. She does not want to subordinate everyone to her will, like Kabaniha, she does not want to teach the old ways. Katerina wants to live honestly and freely. She does not want to humiliate herself and lie to her relatives, as her husband does. He does not want to hide and deceive, as Varvara Kabanova did. Her desire to be honest with herself and with others leads to disaster. It seems that it is impossible to get out of the vicious circle that Katya got into by the will of circumstances. But Boris, Diky's nephew, comes to town. He, like Katerina, does not want to suffocate "in this backwater", he does not accept the orders prevailing in Kalinovo, he does not want to have anything to do with the limited inhabitants of a provincial town. Boris falls in love with Katerina, and the feeling is mutual. Thanks to Boris, Katerina understands that she has the strength to fight the tyrants who dictate the laws. She thinks about a possible break with her husband, that she can leave with Boris, despite public opinion. But Boris turns out to be a little different from what Katya seems to be. He certainly does not like the hypocrisy and lies that help the people of Kalinov achieve their goals, but nevertheless Boris does exactly the same: he tries to establish relations with the person he despises in order to receive an inheritance. Boris does not hide this, he speaks openly about his intentions (conversation with Kuligin).

Conflict

When analyzing Ostrovsky's drama "Thunderstorm", one cannot fail to mention the main conflict of the drama, which is revealed through the image of the main character. Katerina, who found herself in a hopeless situation by the will of circumstances, is compared with other heroes who choose their own fate. For example, Varvara changes the lock on the gate in the garden so that she has the opportunity to meet her lover, and Tikhon, complaining about his mother's control, continues to obey her orders.

The second side of the conflict is embodied at the level of ideas. Katerina undoubtedly belongs to the new people who want to live honestly. The rest of the inhabitants of Kalinov are accustomed to daily lies and condemnation of others (for example, Feklusha's conversations with Glasha). It is a conflict between the old and the new. Time conflict. Boris, according to the author, is an educated person. The reader understands that this man was "formed" in the 19th century. Kuligin, who dreams of inventions, resembles a humanist of the era late Renaissance. Katerina, on the other hand, was brought up in the traditions of house building, the laws of which ceased to be relevant already in the 19th century. The conflict develops not between these characters, but within Katerina. She understands that she does not want and cannot live “in the old way” anymore, but she will not be able to live “in the new way” either: the old laws are strong, and their defenders do not want to give up.

Criticism

Analyzing the play "Thunderstorm" by Ostrovsky, it is impossible not to mention the critical assessment of the work. Despite the fact that at that time the concept of "drama for reading" did not yet exist, many literary critics and writers expressed their opinion about this play. Many writers turned to criticism of Ostrovsky's "Thunderstorm". Some, for example, Apollon Grigoriev, considered the folk life reflected in the work to be the most significant. Fyodor Dostoevsky entered into a controversy with him, arguably stating that, first of all, it is not the national component that is important, but the internal conflict of the main character. Dobrolyubov most of all appreciated the absence of the author's conclusions in the finale of the play. Thanks to this, the reader himself could "make his own conclusion." Unlike Dostoevsky, Dobrolyubov saw the conflict of the drama not in the personality of the heroine, but in Katerina's opposition to the world of tyranny and stupidity. The critic appreciated the revolutionary ideas embodied in the "thunderstorm": claims to the truth, respect for rights and respect for a person.

Pisarev responded to this play by Ostrovsky only 4 years after it was written. In his article, he entered into a controversy with Dobrolyubov, since he did not accept the latter's views on the work. Calling Katerina "Russian Ophelia", the critic puts her on a par with Bazarov, a hero who sought to break the existing order of things. Pisarev saw in Katerina's character something that could serve as a catalyst for the abolition of serfdom. However, this was on the eve of 1861. Pisarev's hopes for a revolution and for the people to be able to achieve democracy did not come true. It was through this prism that Pisarev later considered the death of Katerina - the death of hopes for improving the social situation.

Thanks to brief analysis of the work "Thunderstorm" you can not only understand the plot and features of the work, but also get some information about public life that time. The Thunderstorm became a landmark work not only for Ostrovsky himself, but also for the history of Russian drama as a whole, opening up new sides and ways of posing the problem.

Artwork test

"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 with a new life, which opens up 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.