Lesson 1-

Literature lesson notes"ABOUT the character of Katerina in Russian literary criticism (N.A. Dobrolyubov, D.I. Pisarev, A.A. Grigoriev, M.A. Antonovich)"

Goals:

1. Introduce students to works of critical literature of the 1860s.
2. Teach some discussion techniques using the examples of the articles under consideration.
3. Strengthen the skill of selective note-taking of a literary critical article.
4. Summarize the material studied.

Educational:

3. expand the circle of associations,

Educational goals:

Text content of the lesson:

1. A.N. Ostrovsky. Drama "The Thunderstorm" (1859)
2. N.A. Dobrolyubov “Ray of light in dark kingdom"(1860)
3. A. Grigoriev “After Ostrovsky’s “Thunderstorm”” (1860)
4. D.I.Pisarev “Motives of Russian drama” (1864)
5. M.A. Antonovich “Mistakes” (1865)

Lesson design: the topic of the lesson is written on the board; top right - the names of the 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 layout of a table that will be filled out as the lesson progresses. The table has 2 columns: on the left is Dobrolyubov’s interpretation of the image of Katerina, on the right – by Pisarev.

During the classes

1.Org. moment.

2. introduction teachers.

Not a single truly talented work leaves anyone indifferent: some admire it, others express critical judgments. This happened with Ostrovsky’s drama “The Thunderstorm”. The writer’s fans called it a truly folk work and admired Katerina’s determination and courage; but there were also those who responded rather harshly, denying the heroine any intelligence. Such controversial 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.

3. Student messages.

I. Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov(1836-1861) – critic, publicist, poet, prose writer. Revolutionary democrat. Born into a priest's family. He studied at the Faculty of History and Philology of the Main Pedagogical Institute of St. Petersburg. During his years of study, 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, “he did not know how to live” as the majority live.

Dobrolyubov entered the history of Russian literature, first of all, as a critic, a successor of Belinsky’s ideas. Dobrolyubov's literary criticism is clearly journalistic.

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 person capable of deeply penetrating the essence of a work of art.

Develops the principles of “real criticism”, the essence of which is that a work must be treated as a phenomenon of reality, revealing its humanistic potential. Dignity literary work is placed in direct connection with his nationality.

Dobrolyubov’s most famous literary critical articles: “The Dark Kingdom” (1859), “When will the real day come?” (1859), “What is Oblomovism?” (1859), “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom” (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” sprouts in the young man. Since 1861 he has been working in the magazine “Russian Word”. Pisarev's articles quickly attracted the attention of readers with the sharpness of his thoughts, the fearlessness of the author's position, and brought him the fame of a daring and ardent polemicist who does not recognize anyone's authority.

After 1861, Pisarev pinned his hopes on useful scientific and practical activity, on awakening 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 we must increase the number of thinking people.

Tragically died in June 1868.

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

4.Teacher’s word: “Now, guys, let's see how these two critics interpreted the image of KaterinaKabanova, the heroine of Ostrovsky’s drama “The Thunderstorm”.(Students of option 1 read the theses of Dobrolyubov’s article; students of option 2 read the theses 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 different interpretations of the image of Katerina? Shouldshould I take into account the time of writing articles?

Pisarev openly and clearly polemicizes with Dobrolyubov. In his article he states: “Dobrolyubov was mistaken in his assessment feminine character" Pisarev remains deaf to Katerina’s spiritual tragedy; 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 of the 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.”

5. Discussion

Question to the class: Whose position is closer to you? Give reasons for your point of view.

The class is ambivalent about the interpretation of the image of Katerina by two critics.

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

6. Maxim Antonovich, an employee of the Sovremennik magazine, expressed his rejection of Pisarev’s interpretation of the image of Katerina in his article. You will come across the name of this critic when studying I. S. Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons.” Let's listen to a short biographical information about him.

Maxim Alekseevich Antonovich(1835-1918) - radical Russian literary critic, philosopher, publicist. Born into a sexton's family. He studied at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. He was an employee of Sovremennik. He defended the views on art of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov. He advocated democratic, raznochinsky literature. However, he vulgarized the provisions of materialist aesthetics. He argued with the magazine D.I. Pisarev "Russian Word".

The most famous works of M. Antonovich: “Asmodeus of our time” (1862), “Mistakes” (1864).

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

A trained student reads out the most striking statements from the fragment dedicated to the controversy with Pisarev.

“Pisarev decided to correct Dobrolyubov... and expose his mistakes, which he considers one of the most best articles his “Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom”... It is this article that Mr. Pisarev is trying to drown with the muddy water of his phrases and commonplaces... Pisarev calls Dobrolyubov’s views a 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 supposedly decided to protest only as a result of the education and development of her mind, and therefore was called a “ray of light”... Pisarev imposed his own fantasy on Dobrolyubov and began to refute it like this , as if it belonged to Dobrolyubov..."

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

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

The guys, having become acquainted with Antonovich’s critical style, note that his arguments are not very convincing, since Antonovich does not provide evidence-based argumentation based on a good knowledge of the material. Simply put, in his polemics with Pisarev, Antonovich does a poor job of hiding his personal hostility.

Teacher's word : M. Antonovich was the initiator of the controversy between Sovremennik and Russkiy 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.

7. Apollon Grigoriev demonstrates a completely different approach to the analysis of the work.

Word to a prepared student:

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

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

Let's see how A. Grigoriev evaluates Ostrovsky's drama "The Thunderstorm". Think about what is special about this critique.

A student prepared at home reads out the brief abstract of the article “After Ostrovsky’s “The Thunderstorm.”

The guys pay attention to what is in front of them for the first time critical article, written by the poet. Hence its significant differences from previous works, in particular, Dobrolyubov and Pisarev. A. Grigoriev tried to see in “The Thunderstorm”, first of all, a work of art. In his article, he pointed out that Ostrovsky’s virtue is his ability to authentically and poetically portray national Russian life: “The name of this writer is not a satirist, but a people’s poet.” The critic was interested not in the blank fences of the city of Kalinov, but in the picturesque cliff above the Volga. Where Dobrolyubov sought reproof, 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 “theorists” to “sum up instant results for every phase of life” to be a mistake. Such “theorists,” he believed, had little respect for life and its boundless mysteries.

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

The guys answer that the determining role is played by such factors as the time of writing the articles, the political beliefs of opponents, the view of art and, undoubtedly, the personality of the critics themselves, which is manifested in polemically sharpened words.

8. Conclusions.

Ostrovsky's drama "The Thunderstorm" caused many mixed reviews with its appearance.This was especially true for 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 action, 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 is not capable of becoming a “ray of light”; this is just an “attractive illusion” (Pisarev). Still others agreed with Dobrolyubov’s interpretation, convicting Pisarev of his inability to make an objective assessment (Antonovich). But there were also those who stood “above the fray,” not wanting to see anything other than a beautifully written work of art. This was A. Grigoriev’s view.

It seems to us that each 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, and Pisarev noticed only the exceptional darkness of the young woman.

9. Lesson summary, grading.

10. Homework to the lesson:

1. 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).
2. Determine your attitude to the theses of the article, select an argument.

Drama theory homework.

Figure No. 1 Work with text. Drawing up a verbal diagram based on the image of Katerina.

Figure No. 2 Katerina: value and moral coordinates

Figure No. 3 Is there a way out for Katerina?

Figure No. 4 City of Kalinov: closed art space

• Who is leaving the city of Kalinov?
• Do the Kalinovites have the upper hand? And how do you understand it?

After Ostrovsky's "The Thunderstorm"

Letters to Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev

A thunderstorm clears the air.

Physical axiom

Humility before the people's truth.

Lavretsky's words 1

Will the people say something?..

Gogol's "Ride" 2

Letter one

INEVITABLE QUESTIONS

That's what the people will say!.. I thought, leaving the box into the corridor after the third act of "The Thunderstorm", which ended with a sincere explosion of general delight and ardent challenges from the author 3.

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

For me personally, a person who believes in the people and has long, before your Lavretsky, cultivated in himself humility before the people's truth, the understanding and feeling of the people constitute the highest criterion, allowing oneself to be verified in necessary cases by one, only the last, most general criterion of Christianity. The people do not exist for literature, but literature (in the broadest sense, that is, as all the diverse manifestations of life in words) for the people - and it is not literature that creates the people, but literature by the people. Any literature that thinks to create or re-create a people... But here I’d better stop my speech for now and not finish my thoughts, just as Hamlet doesn’t finish the phrase: “And if the sun gives birth to worms in a dead dog...” 4

On the eve of the performance of "The Thunderstorm" I talked with you for a long time about many things 5 ​​that for me and, judging by your sympathy for the conversation, for you yourself constitutes an essential belief in relation to art and life. I was going to write to you a series of letters in which, with possible and necessary - not for you, of course, but for other readers - clarity, with possible and completely unnecessary, but considered necessary in our time, unaccustomed to abstract thinking, distinctly, to present the provisions and logically vital consequences of that general view of art and the relationship of art to life, which I have more than once called ideal-artistic. This view is not something new, and, therefore, I have no pretension to call it mine glance; I call it that way, that is, ideal-artistic, in contrast to the other two: 1) the view, which recently appropriated to itself the name of the real 6, but, in essence, theoretical, spreading poor life on Procrustean bed, subordinating it to a more or less narrow theory, that is, the totality of the latest results obtained by the mind at the last minute modern life, and 2) a view that gives itself the name aesthetic, preaching his amateurish indifference to life and its essential issues, in the name of some kind of art for art’s sake, and therefore much more deserving of the name of a material view, 7 whether coarsely material, or subtly material, it makes absolutely no difference. Naturally, contrasting the ideal artistic view with the aesthetic one in this sense, I do not think of setting art any external goals or objectives. Art exists for the human soul and expresses its eternal essence in the free creativity of images, and for this reason it is independent, exists in itself and for itself, like everything organic, but it has soul and life, and not empty play, as its organic content.

Instead of developing these general principles, instead of the purely philosophical conversations I had planned, which are postponed for an indefinite time, but nevertheless, if they ever boil up, they will be addressed to you, I, all under the influence of the living and, with all its shortcomings, truly powerful artistic phenomenon, I decided to give you many long speeches about Ostrovsky and the significance of his poetic activity - speeches that, first of all and most of all, will be sincere, that is, they will relate to the very essence of the matter, and not to anything extraneous , outside business to the one lying down, and the very matter to the one intentionally or unintentionally obscuring.

If some of the basic provisions and consequences of the ideal-artistic view, as applied to the phenomena under consideration, require, in essence, a rather detailed development, I will, without fear, surrender to such demands on a very understandable the desire to be perfect understandable to my readers.

Regarding this, I allow myself to make a small, purely personal digression: to confess to you frankly, I am seriously tired of complaints about the incomprehensibility of my usual presentation; 8 For I, as a man of conviction, allow myself to value my conviction. Conviction - if it is a real conviction - is bought for the most part at the price of mental and moral processes, more or less prolonged upheavals in the mental organism - processes and upheavals, not always, as you know, easy - and does not come from the wind . Whoever has a strong need to express his convictions, it is very natural for him to desire that with them, with these components moral life a person's beliefs, or agreed or, just as important, argued. Until now, I have not yet had the pleasure of arguing with anyone theorists, neither with any of the estheticians.

Ready to admit with complete sincerity the sin of a certain darkness of presentation and a certain excessive attachment to analysis, I remain, however, with the conviction that mental laziness, laziness to think and follow the development of someone else’s thought, should not be truly pampered either in yourself or in others. Condensed forms of philosophical presentation - of course, where they are needed - replace entire pages of reasoning, although, of course, they require self-thinking from the reader, which is not at all required by reasoning.

Without giving up, therefore, in any way the right to assume in my readers the ability to think and follow the development of someone else’s thought, in the present case I will only try, as far as possible, to avoid the condensed formulas and terms of the philosophy of identity, 9 but I would consider it a sin to replace them with reasoning. Reasoning is absolutely disgusting to anyone whose thinking masters truths even slightly more complex than 2X2 = 4. There are thoughts, and not only women’s ones - unfortunately, you didn’t finish this - in which 2X2 gives not 4, but stearic a candle... 10 It is for these thoughts that reasoning was especially created. Stirring and irritating mental voluptuousness, reasoning, this process without results, this true and only art for art’s sake is good because it seems to be similar to business, that is, it gives a certain degree of pleasure, and it does not lead to anything, that is does not require any mental or moral self-sacrifice from those involved in it.

Philosophical truth, like an elegant work, is connected with a certain wholeness, is an organic link of the whole world - and the whole world shines through in it as a whole, indivisible. If your soul has accepted it, you have already been enveloped by a whole world of thoughts necessarily connected with it: it has connections, kinship, history and, as a result, an irresistible force that draws you forward - the force of life.

Reasoning is a daguerreotype, random, dry, dead, not rationally connected with anything, a mental drone, a mental eunuch, a product of moral philistinism, his beloved child, hatched by him like a homunculus by Wagner.

Having allowed myself, as absolutely necessary, this short introduction and having somewhat eased my soul with the outpouring of my deep hatred for the reasoning that is so popular with the majority, I get down to business.

I'm going to, as I said, lead with you long and completely sincere speeches about the significance of Ostrovsky’s activity in connection with his latest work, which, as usual, arouses, as all previous ones, various rumors, sometimes, and even very often, completely opposite, sometimes smart, sometimes positively wild, but in any case for the most part insincere, that is, not related to the matter, but about the matter expressing certain social and moral theories of critics and publicists. Publicist critics are generally extremely well-intentioned people, imbued with the most legitimate and serious sympathy for public issues; Their theories, even if they are subject to dispute at many points, like all theories, but nevertheless, by consistently pursuing known points of view on life, they necessarily contribute to the clarification of the essential issues of life; but the fact is that these theories, no matter how smart they may be, from whatever legitimate points they originate, follow in a work of art, and can only follow that the life that is seen from certain points, and not the one that is in it, if it is true piece of art, shines through with all its comprehensive and often ironic meaning in relation to theories. Art, as a synthetic matter, a matter of what is called inspiration, captures life much more widely than any theory, so that theory, in comparison with it, always remains behind.

Thus, Ostrovsky’s last work left behind all the theories, apparently so victoriously and truly brilliantly expressed by the remarkably gifted publicist of Sovremennik in articles about the “Dark Kingdom” 11.

These articles caused a lot of noise, and indeed one side of life, reflected in Ostrovsky’s works, was captured in them so accurately, executed with such merciless consistency, branded with such a true and typical word that Ostrovsky appeared before the public quite unexpectedly as an exposer and punisher of tyranny. That's how it is. Depicting life in which tyranny plays such an important role, tragic in principle and in its consequences, and comic in its manifestations, Ostrovsky does not treat tyranny with love and tenderness. It does not treat with love and tenderness - consequently, it treats with reproof and punishment - a direct conclusion for all who love to sum up instantaneous results for every period of life illuminated by the light of art, for all theorists who have little respect for life and its boundless secrets, who delve little into in her ironic antics.

Wonderful! Ostrovsky's word is a denunciation of the tyranny of our lives. This is his significance, his merit as an artist; This is his strength, the power of his action on the masses, on this last authority for him as a playwright.

Is this true?

I take the most striking fact, not even the one with which I began my rhapsodies, but only a possible fact (alas! once, finally, possible?) - I take the possible, or, perhaps, impossible, representation of his first comedy “My People” - let's reckon... 12

The witty author of the articles “The Dark Kingdom” positively, for example, refuses his sympathy for Bolshov even at the tragic moment of the latter’s life... Will the masses deny him regret and, therefore, a certain sympathy?.. The publicist - what will he not bring him to? human theory is almost on Lipochka’s side; at least, he included her among the Protestants and Protestants in everyday life, overwhelmed and suppressed by tyranny 13. I ask you: How the mass will relate to Protestant Lipochka?.. Will she understand Lipochka how Protestant?

In other comedies by Ostrovsky, the sympathies and antipathies of the masses will just as surely diverge from the sympathies and antipathies of Mr. Bov, as I will try to prove with facts and in detail later. But these are irresistible questions. Ostrovsky is first and foremost a playwright: after all, he creates his types not for Mr. Bov, the author of articles about the “Dark Kingdom”, - not for you, not for me, not for anyone, but for the masses for whom he, perhaps, as her poet, the people's poet, is also a teacher, but the teacher has since highest points points of view that are accessible to it, the mass, and not to you, not to me, not to Mr. -Bov, from the points of view, it, the mass, understood, shared by it.

A poet is a teacher of the people only when he judges and orders life in the name of ideals - life itself, and not created by them, the poet. Don’t think, and you probably won’t think, that here I would call a mass any part of the great whole called the people. I call mass, the feeling of mass, that which at a certain moment is expressed by an involuntary general mood, contrary to the private and personal, conscious or unconscious mood in you, in me, even in the city of Bov - along with the merchant from the Apraksin row. This is something that expresses itself in us as something physiological, simple, indecomposable; we can suppress it in ourselves only through the fanaticism of theory.

But look at the consequences of forcibly suppressing this simple, physiological feeling in oneself; admire how young and ardent souls, carried away by the fanaticism of theory, gallop through all three in pursuit of the first who expressed in a certain positive way a well-known theory of contemporary significance, and not only in pursuit, but in race, for theory is an inexorably greedy idol, constantly demanding new and new sacrificial demands.

Do you have any idea about the article that appeared in Moskovsky Vestnik about Ostrovsky's "The Thunderstorm"? 14 The article is one of those curiosities that will be dear to posterity, and even to very short-lived posterity; will be looked for by him as wonderful indications of the diseases of our tense and working era. The author of it even before surprised readers with a frantically intense article about a Russian woman, about the broken nature (if you can call it nature) of Olga in the novel “Oblomov” 15. But the surprise aroused by the article about “The Thunderstorm” surpasses in many degrees the surprise generated by the previous one. With how naive, purely scientist, that is, with cerebral, and not heartfelt faith, the young (in all likelihood) reviewer of the Moskovsky Vestnik assimilated the witty and brilliantly expressed theory of the author of the Dark Kingdom articles. I don’t know whether Mr. Bov himself would have had as much courageous consistency in carrying out his thoughts as his student and seid. I even doubt that it will happen; the author of the articles "The Dark Kingdom", judging by his mature, masterful presentation, is an adult; I’m even ready to suspect that Mr. -bov is secretly laughing at the zeal of his seid, secretly because to laugh would obviously be dishonest with sides of Mr. Bov. After all, “with his goodness, and with his brow,” after all, the reviewer of “Moskovsky Vestnik”, in fact, only conscientiously applies the ideas of the author of “The Dark Kingdom” to “The Thunderstorm”, just as in the article about the Russian woman he only consistently and with hot enthusiasm the coldly bilious ideas of the author of articles about Oblomovism. Mr. Palkhovsky - the name of the young reviewer - deeply believed that Ostrovsky was a punisher and an exposer of tyranny and other things, and so his “Thunderstorm” came out only as satire, and only in the sense of satire, he gave it meaning. The idea itself is wild, but admire it in its appendices: they have all the power, they have all the charm: Katerina is not a Protestant, and if she is a Protestant, then she is powerless, unable to bear her own

“The Thunderstorm” evoked the most stormy and most controversial responses in criticism. The most generalizing articles were in something similar (for example, in the rejection of “art for art’s sake”), but in relation to Ostrovsky, polemically opposing critics: the soil scientist A. A. Grigoriev and the democrat N. A. Dobrolyubov.

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

Characterizing Ostrovsky as a whole, A. A. Grigoriev writes: “The name for this writer... is not a satirist, but a folk poet. The word for clues to 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 earlier: “But is there any way out of this darkness?” Key concept in the article about “The Thunderstorm” there is still “tyranny”; in Katerina’s protest the critic sees “a terrible challenge to tyrant power” - a challenge that is especially significant because it comes from the depths of people’s life in the turning point era of the 1850-1860s. With the help of “The Thunderstorm,” Dobrolyubov strives 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”... gives the impression of being less heavy and sad than Ostrovsky’s other plays... There is even something refreshing and encouraging in “The Thunderstorm”. This “something” is, in our opinion, the background of the play, indicated by us and revealing the precariousness and the near end of tyranny. Then the very character of Katerina, drawn against this background, also blows on us new life, which reveals itself to us in her very death... We have already said that this end seems joyful to us; It’s easy to understand why: it presents a terrible challenge to tyrant power, it 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 to life again in the stream of 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 where we're talking about about the "dark kingdom". He does not question either the method of “real criticism” or social typicality main character. But Pisarev’s assessment of her actions, their human and social significance is completely at odds with the assessments 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 was “carried away” by Katerina’s personality, which was partly justified by the historical moment. Now the “thinking proletariat” must enter the public arena - people like Bazarov or Chernyshevsky’s heroes. Only they, armed with theory and extensive knowledge, can truly move life for the better. From this point of view, Katerina is not a “ray of light” at all, and her death is not tragic - it is absurd and meaningless.

Commenting on critics’ reviews of “The Thunderstorm” that do not agree in the main, modern literary critic A. I. Zhuravleva notes:

“It was from Dobrolyubov’s article that a strong tradition emerged in Russian culture of interpreting Katerina as a heroic personality in whom powerful potentials are concentrated folk character. The basis for such an interpretation, undoubtedly, lies in Ostrovsky’s play itself. When in 1864, in the context of the decline of the democratic movement, Pisarev challenged Dobrolyubov’s interpretation of Katerina in the article “Motives of Russian Drama,” then, perhaps sometimes more accurate in detail, in general he turned out to be much further from the very spirit of Ostrovsky’s play.”

"Inevitable Questions." In the plays of the fourth and last period of the playwright’s work - from 1861 to 1886 - those “inevitable questions” (A. A. Grigoriev) that were heard loudly in his works of the previous time are deepened. Everyday “scenes” and “pictures” are created, going back to the “physiological” manner of early plays. Mostly these works are published in Sovremennik, whose democratic edition has become spiritually close to Ostrovsky since the late 1850s. The center of the new plays is the “little man” as he appears in the 1860s in the everyday struggle for a piece of bread, modest family happiness, the opportunity to somehow defend his human dignity(“Labor Bread”, “Hard Days”, “Abyss”, etc.).

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

Russian literature in assessments, judgments, disputes: a reader of literary critical texts Andrey Borisovich Esin

A. A. Grigoriev After Ostrovsky’s “Thunderstorm”. Letters to Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev

A thunderstorm clears the air.

Physical axiom

... humility before the people's truth

Words by Lavretsky 1

...Will the people say something?..

Gogol's "Ride" 2