Pisarev about Katerina quotes. Internal contradictions of the image of Katerina

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 dramaturgical work served as a powerful stimulus further development realism. Evidence of this was the assessment given to the play by 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 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 him public opinion and the whole course of city life is 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. Network already in operation railways. In the near future, after Ostrovsky wrote the play (more precisely, since 1861, after Emperor Alexander II signed the "Manifesto", canceling 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 civil society instead of the "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, to capitulate before petty, completely surmountable life's difficulties Is that a virtue? 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? IN best case such a suicide can only cause, however, as a result, the struggle with social group rich people and manipulators should be led by strong-willed and educated people!

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 did not prepare her for adult life! 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 creative personality. It has the potential for a positive attitude towards reality. She intuitively feels the main need 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. Rather, it is about social conflict a lagging non-civil society in conflict with development needs.

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...

Essay text:

Kalinov town on the Volga. This is the world that A. N. Ostrovsky so talentedly reflected in the play Thunderstorm. This town stands on a high bank, from which a wonderful view opens. Harmony, beauty, the triumph of nature. The owners of the city are rich merchants, representatives of the dark kingdom. The rich merchant's wife Kabanikha also belongs to them. She pesters her loved ones with eternal reproaches and complaints of disrespect, disobedience. All innovations are hostile to it, hateful. And now about the history of the drama, Thunderstorm made a huge impression on the reader and viewer. After all, in the center was a Russian character, Katerina Kabanova, she was symbolic image striving for a new life. Two contemporaries of Ostrovsky, N. A. Dobrolyubov and D. I. Pisarev, having analyzed Ostrovsky’s drama, wrote critical articles. The critics had different opinions about the act of Katerina Kabanova. N. A. Dobrolyubov writes about the decisiveness and strength of character of Katerina, who, in his opinion, is an extraordinary nature, standing out from her environment. She is sensitive, romantic, capable of real feeling. No wonder Curly immediately finds out about whom in question when Boris tells him about the woman he saw in the church during the prayer service. Katerina is different from all the inhabitants of the city of Kalinov. She is a creative, loving, ideal character. Rude, superstitious stories and senseless ravings of wanderers turn into golden, poetic dreams of the imagination, not frightening, but clear, kind. But what does Dobrolyubov think about Katerina's decisive step, her suicide? In his opinion, Katerina had no way out of the current life situation. She could submit, become a slave, an unquestioning victim of her mother-in-law. Not such a character of Katerina. ... It was not then that a new type was reflected in it, created by Russian life, in order to affect only a fruitless attempt and perish after the first failure. The heroine decided to die, but she is not afraid of death, as she tries to prove to us and herself that she can be forgiven, since it is already very difficult for her. Katerina died, but her death, like a sunbeam, even for a moment, dispersed the impenetrable darkness of the old world. Her act shook the dark kingdom. Quite different conclusions are drawn by D. I. Pisarev in the article Motives of Russian Drama. He agrees that passion, tenderness and sincerity are really the predominant properties in Katerina's nature. But he also sees some contradictions in this image. Krikik notices the unjustified causes and effects in the actions of the heroine: Kabanikha vorchik Katerina is languishing; Boris Grigoryevich casts tender glances - Katerina falls in love. He does not understand Katerina's behavior. Illogical, according to Pisarev, last monologue Catherine. As a result, Pisarev concludes: The cruelty of a family despot, the fanaticism of an old hypocrite, the unhappy love of a girl for a scoundrel, outbursts of despair, jealousy, fraud, violent revelry, an educational rod, an educational caress, quiet daydreaming, all this motley mixture of feelings, qualities and actions ... comes down, in my opinion, to one common source that cannot arouse in us exactly any sensations, either high or low. All these are various manifestations of inexhaustible stupidity. Pisarev does not agree with Dobrolyubov in assessing the image of Katerina. In his opinion, Katerina cannot be called a ray of light in the dark realm, since she failed to do anything to alleviate her and others' suffering. Katherine's actions didn't change anything. What prompted Pisarev to argue with Dobrolyubov's article? main reason that Pisarev is looking at the heroine from another time. I understand why Katerina Dobrolyubov so warmly perceives in the world of the dark kingdom. He saw in Katerina the beginning of the growth of self-consciousness. Pisarev focused his main attention on something else: the storm did not start, the people did not wake up. Composed by anon [email protected]

The rights to the essay "Who is right in describing the image of Katerina: Dobrolyubov or Pisarev?" belong to its author. When citing material, it is necessary to indicate a hyperlink to

The main provisions of the article by N. A. Dobrolyubov “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom” are well known.

The city of Kalinov, where the action of "Thunderstorm" takes place, behind the appearance of the idyll of the "dark kingdom" hides life under the yoke of arbitrariness. Here "everything depends on brute force," on "the unreasonable whim of a few Scavs," on the "superstitious stubbornness of some Kabanova" - in a word, on "tyrants of Russian life."

"Indisputable, irresponsible dark dominion", "arrogant whimsy", "moral corruption" ... It is not surprising, therefore, that the critic speaks of "heroism, which is manifested in ... Katerina's actions." Boris, Tikhon, Kuligin prefer to submit to the mores of Kalinov; Varvara and Kudryash are also adapting to life in this city - they alone do not want "to give in to something and make it easier", she brings her "protest against Kabanov's concepts of morality" to the end, proclaims it "both under domestic torture and over the abyss."

However, devoting his article to the problem, Dobrolyubov did not consider the play "Thunderstorm" as a whole ("... our goal was to indicate common sense play, and, carried away by the general, we could not enter into the analysis of all the details”). He even foresees the main accusation against him from those who disagree with "Ray ...": "... art has again been made an instrument of some extraneous idea." But D.D. argued with Dobrolyubov.

I. Pisarev. Katerina cannot be considered a “bright phenomenon”, although she is “not an invention, but a living person”, she “should have acted in reality exactly as she does in the drama” (“Motives of Russian Drama”). However, Pisarev, disagreeing with Dobrolyubov, speaks in his article about social ideas, and not about artistic value"Thunderstorms". Another point of view is that of the critic N. N. Strakhov. It is expressed with a touch of irony in relation to the author of articles about the "dark kingdom": "...

Generally speaking, one cannot but agree with Dobrolyubov that the world of Mr. Ostrovsky's dramas is a Dark Realm, replete with deformities of everyday life and speech. One cannot but agree with what Mr.

Ostrovsky denounce this kingdom, as Dobrolyubov believed, namely, he wanted in some way to elevate it to the pearl of creation. According to Ap. Grigoriev, it was a cult of depicted life, an attempt to capture all its living and political moments. Further, Strakhov remarks: “... Mr. Ostrovsky cannot be reproached for the everyday life that he reproduced in his dramas: if you recognize them to a certain extent as works of art, then you must together recognize the merit of Mr.

Ostrovsky that he kept to this way of life, but not any other. He honestly served the cause” (“The Poverty of Our Literature”). At least for the sake of justice, we must remember that in Russian criticism there was a person who immediately called The Thunderstorm "a highly artistic poetic work." This is the now forgotten Alexander Stepanovich Gieroglifov (1825-1901). In his response, he advocates "freedom poetic creativity, not limited by any theories and soon-coming goals. About Katerina Hieroglyphov writes: “...

this personality, placed in contradiction with the active life, contains in itself the universal idea and has folk meaning only in a few character articles; but the provisions of the drama give this personality a purely national significance. The play has "high life questions". But there is no "petty cold didactics". In the same short article, written almost a year before Dobrolyubov’s, Hieroglyphov called Katerina “a bright ray on dark sky”, although in general expressions of this kind cannot be considered something special: even Chaadaev in the published “ philosophical writing" was talking about unusual people as "about bright rays" cutting through the darkness. How many critics, so many opinions, but how did the author of The Thunderstorm, Ostrovsky, treat them all the same?

It seems there is evidence that he liked Dobrolyubov's articles, but this evidence is not very clear. Another thing is that in 1868 Ostrovsky wrote the play "Hot Heart". The action takes place in the same Kalinovo, the types of heroes are similar, but Parasha does not rush into the Volga, but fights for his happiness to the end.

Ostrovsky shows that in the same situation one can act differently: Katerina chose to fight against the rejection of lies, and Parasha chose to fight by any means. Note at the beginning of "Hot Heart": "The action takes place 30 years ago in the county town of Kalinovo" It looks like a hint that long before the action of "Thunderstorm" the dark kingdom was comical in its own way and caused laughter. By the way, Katerina once said about herself: “I was born like that, hot!

”(this remark of hers is given in Dobrolyubov’s article). Hieroglyphov calls Katerina the same - "hot heart".

So Ostrovsky wrote. The question remains: is it appropriate to talk about some kind of "ray" that opened everyone's eyes to injustice?

Based on dramatic works Ostrovsky, Dobrolyubov showed us in the Russian family that "dark kingdom" in which mental abilities wither and the fresh strength of our young generations is depleted. As long as the phenomena of the "dark kingdom" continue to exist, and as long as patriotic dreaminess turns a blind eye to them, until then we will constantly have to remind the reading society of Dobrolyubov's true and lively ideas about our family life. But at the same time, we will have to be stricter and more consistent than Dobrolyubov; we will need to defend his ideas against his own passions; where Dobrolyubov succumbed to an impulse of aesthetic feeling, we will try to reason in cold blood and see that our family patriarchy suppresses any healthy development. Ostrovsky's drama "Thunderstorm" caused a critical article from Dobrolyubov under the title " Ray of light in a 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. 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.

Katerina lives with her husband in the house of her mother-in-law, who constantly grumbles at all her household. Katerina cannot get used to her mother-in-law's manners and constantly suffers from her conversations. In the same city there is a young man, Boris Grigoryevich, who received a decent education. He glances at Katherine. Katerina falls in love with him, but wants to keep her virtue intact. Tikhon is leaving somewhere for two weeks; Out of kindness, Varvara helps Boris see Katerina, and the couple in love enjoys complete happiness for ten years. summer nights. Tikhon arrives; Katerina is tormented by remorse, grows thin and turns pale; then she is frightened by a thunderstorm, which she takes for an expression of heavenly wrath; at the same time, the words of the half-witted lady confuse her; on the street in front of the people, she throws herself on her knees before her husband and confesses her guilt to him. The husband "beat her a little"; the old Boar with redoubled zeal began to sharpen; a strong home guard was assigned to Katerina, but she managed to escape from the house; she met with her lover and learned from him that, on the orders of his uncle, he was leaving for Kyakhta, immediately after this meeting she rushed into the Volga and drowned. I gave my reader complete list such facts that in my story may seem too sharp, incoherent and in the totality even implausible. What kind of love arises from the exchange of several glances? What kind of harsh virtue that gives up at the first opportunity? Finally, what kind of suicide caused by such petty troubles, which are tolerated quite safely by all members of all Russian families?

I conveyed the facts quite correctly, but, of course, I could not convey in a few lines those shades in the development of the action, which, softening the external sharpness of the outlines, make the reader or viewer see in Katerina not an invention of the author, but a living person who is really capable of doing all the above-mentioned eccentricities. In each of Katerina's actions one can find an attractive feature; Dobrolyubov found these sides, put them together, made up perfect image, saw as a result of this "a ray of light in a dark kingdom", rejoiced at this ray with the pure and holy joy of a citizen and poet. If he looked calmly and attentively at his precious find, then the simplest question would immediately arise in his mind, which would lead to the destruction of an attractive illusion. Dobrolyubov would have asked himself: how could this bright image have been formed? he would have seen that upbringing and life could not give Katerina either a strong character or a developed mind.

In all the actions and feelings of Katerina, first of all, a sharp disproportion between causes and effects is noticeable. Every external impression shakes her whole organism; the most insignificant event, the most empty conversation, produces whole revolutions in her thoughts, feelings and actions. The boar grumbles, Katerina languishes from this; Boris Grigorievich casts tender glances, Katerina falls in love; Varvara says a few words in passing about Boris, Katerina considers herself dead woman. Varvara gives Katerina the key to the gate, Katerina, holding on to this key for five minutes, decides that she will certainly see Boris, and ends her monologue with the words: “Oh, if only the night would come sooner!” Meanwhile, at the beginning of her monologue, she even found that the key was burning her hands and that she should definitely throw it away. When meeting with Boris, of course, the same story is repeated; first, “go away, damned man!”, and after that it throws itself on the neck. While the dates continue, Katerina thinks only that we will “take a walk”; as soon as Tikhon arrives, he begins to be tormented by remorse and reaches half-madness in this direction. Thunder struck - Katerina lost the last remnant of her mind. The final catastrophe, suicide, just like that happens impromptu. Katerina runs away from home with a vague hope of seeing her Boris; she does not think about suicide; she regrets that before they killed, but now they do not kill; she finds it uncomfortable that death is not; is Boris; when Katerina is left alone, she asks herself: “Where to now? go home?" and answers: “No, it’s all the same to me whether it’s home or in the grave.” Then the word "grave" leads her to new row thoughts, and she begins to consider the grave from a purely aesthetic point of view, from which people have so far managed to look only at other people's graves. At the same time, she completely loses sight of the fiery Gehenna, and yet she is not at all indifferent to this last thought.

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; she does not know what she will do tomorrow; she confuses her at every step 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. Aestheticians could not fail to notice what is striking in all the behavior of Katerina; contradictions and absurdities are too obvious, but they can be called a beautiful name; we can say that they express a passionate, tender and sincere nature.

Develops the principles 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.

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

II. Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev(1840-1868) - literary critic, publicist. Born in 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).

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 most best articles his "Ray of Light in the Dark Realm" ... Mr. Pisarev is trying to upload this article muddy water their phrases and common places... Pisarev calls Dobrolyubov's views a mistake and equates him with the champions of pure art ... "

“It seemed to Pisarev that Dobrolyubov imagines 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 ray of light” ... Pisarev imposed his own fantasy on Dobrolyubov and began to refute it 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 edits the magazine Russian word". 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 artwork. 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.

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 artistic sense and the public significance of the Thunderstorm. 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 folk life during a 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 her legal rights, the protest against violence and arbitrariness, for the most part still timid, indefinite, ready to hide, but all the same, already making it possible to notice its 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 be reconciled, she does not want to take advantage of the miserable existence she is given in exchange for her living soul... In the image of Katerina, according to Dobrolyubov, a great popular idea was embodied - the idea of ​​liberation. The critic considered the image of Katerina close to the position and to the heart of everyone 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.

Evaluation of the character of Katerina Kabanova (the heroine of the play "Thunderstorm" by A.N. Ostrovsky) according to the article by N.A. Dobrolyubov "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom"

Critical article ON THE. Dobrolyubov's "Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom" (1860) is dedicated to the drama by A.N. Ostrovsky "Thunderstorm". The focus of criticism is the figure of the main character of the play - Katerina Kabanova.

It is worth noting that he considers the character and actions of Katerina Dobrolyubov from the standpoint of revolutionary democracy, of which he was a staunch supporter. In particular, the critic "considered the equality of people as a 'state of nature'" human nature, and oppression is the result of an abnormal device that must be destroyed.

So, Dobrolyubov calls Ostrovsky's "Thunderstorm" "the most decisive work» author - in it the playwright frankly shows the most dark sides life of the Russian people. Despite this, however, there is "something refreshing and encouraging" about the play. And this, above all, is "Katerina's very character." From him "blows at us new life which is revealed to us in her very death.

The critic believes that the image of Katerina, her character is a decisive "step forward not only in the dramatic work of Ostrovsky, but also in all our literature." This character is as relevant as ever, because it "corresponds to a new phase of our people's life", it "has long demanded its implementation in literature".

According to Dobrolyubov, Katerina’s character is strong because she is “steadily faithful to the instinct of natural truth, full of faith in new ideals and selfless, in the sense that death is better for him than life under those principles that are contrary to him.”

Katerina listens to herself and does what her heart tells her to do. It is “in this integrity and harmony of character that his strength lies,” the critic is convinced. - 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.

Further, Dobrolyubov carefully analyzes the motives of Katerina's behavior. The critic considers it deeply symbolic that Ostrovsky chose a woman as his heroine - "the strongest protest is the one that finally rises from the chest of the weakest and most patient." In Russian patriarchal society, a woman is the most powerless creature, which is why if a woman wants to change her fate, then her case will be serious and decisive.

Dobrolyubov emphasizes that the heroine, by nature, is not at all a violent character in need of constant destruction. “This character is predominantly creative”, in need of love and warmth.

In addition, Katerina is a subtle, poetic character: "That's why she tries to comprehend and ennoble everything in her imagination." The heroine needs to “feed off” external impressions, the beauty of the world, people and their relationships. But in the gloomy atmosphere new family Katerina began to feel the lack of appearance. The heroine “still seeks refuge in religious practice, in church attendance, in soul-saving conversations; but even here he does not find the former impressions. As a result - "everything is gloomy, scary around her, everything breathes cold and some kind of irresistible threat."

But these horrific conditions only helped the heroine to grow up: she "matured, she woke up other desires, more real." Katerina is clearly aware that she wants "love and devotion." Previously, when she got married, the heroine did not resist anything, although she did not love Tikhon. Dobrolyubov explains this by the fact that the girl had "little knowledge and a lot of gullibility."

But now everything has changed. And in these new circumstances appeared a strong character Katerina: “But when she understands what she needs and wants to achieve something, she will achieve her goal at all costs: then the strength of her character, not wasted in petty tricks, will manifest itself completely.”

The heroine fell in love and went in her feelings to the end. We see that her upbringing, the environment in which she grew up, make themselves felt: she “kept one thing from her upbringing. strong feeling- some fear dark forces, something unknown, which she could not explain to herself well, nor reject. But even here, according to the critic, Katerina conquers herself, her fears. She listens to her nature and goes in her desire to the end. And when it turns out betrayed by Boris and understands that she will have to return to the "dark kingdom", she decides to "free herself" forever.

Dobrolyubov concludes: “Such a release is sad, bitter; 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, that's why the "Thunderstorm" makes a refreshing impression on us ... "

I largely agree with Dobrolyubov's assessments of Katerina. I also consider her a very whole and harmonious nature, listening to the voice of her soul. Katerina is a bright person, that's why she is so poetic, that's why she sincerely believes in God, that's why she fell in love with Boris with all her heart.

But I do not agree with Dobrolyubov that the heroine dies because she protests against the "dark kingdom". It seems to me that Katerina rushes into the Volga, punishing herself. In my opinion, she could not overcome in herself those views that were instilled in her upbringing. Just deciding on an affair with Boris, she says that she will die soon, because she commits big sin. I think that at the last moment, horror, despair, loneliness won over even Katerina's fear of God, and she commits the biggest sin - she commits suicide.

However, I agree with Dobrolyubov that Katerina is “a ray of light in a dark kingdom.” She is the only natural, sincere, beautiful in her desire to live a "bright" life, to exist in accordance with God's laws.