Sections: Literature

Topic: Drama by A.N. Ostrovsky “Thunderstorm” in Russian criticism (2 hours).

Objectives: 1. To acquaint students with the complex and controversial struggle that unfolded around the drama of A.N. Ostrovsky.

2. Compare opposing opinions (Dobrolyubov - Pisarev), help to understand the essence of the disagreement between the two great critics, for which it is better to comprehend certain provisions of the articles by N.A. Dobrolyubov “Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom” and D.I. Pisarev “Motives of Russian Drama” .

3. To teach schoolchildren to perceive each critical article not only as a deep analysis of a work of art, but also as a specific document of the era.

4. Form "critical thinking" of high school students.

Equipment: portraits of N.A. Dobrolyubov and D.I. Pisarev.

During the classes.

I. Setting the topic of the lesson.

Today, the subject of reading, studying, discussing is literary criticism.

What is the role literary criticism? (Contains an assessment, interpretation of works of art and the phenomena of life reflected in them).

Lesson objectives: to get acquainted with the critical assessments of Ostrovsky's drama "Thunderstorm", to understand their essence, to try to form their own position.

So the topic of the lesson...

II. Teacher's lecture.

1. “Most amazing, great a product of a Russian, powerful, self-mastered talent, ”Turgenev wrote to Fet, after listening to the drama in the author’s reading.

2. "Thunderstorm" is a drama only in name, but in essence it is satire directed against the two most terrible evils deeply rooted in “ dark kingdom"- against family despotism and mysticism." (Palkhovsky in the article "Thunderstorm", Ostrovsky's drama, November 20, 1859)

3. “Without fear of being accused of exaggeration, I can honestly say that there has never been such a work as a drama in our literature. She undoubtedly occupies and, probably, will for a long time occupy the first place in high classical beauties, ”Goncharov wrote in his brief review.

4. The Thunderstorm is, without a doubt, Ostrovsky's most decisive work; the mutual relations of tyranny and voicelessness are brought in it to the most tragic consequences (N.A. Dobrolyubov).

5. "Thunderstorm" Ostrovsky is, in my opinion , deplorable essay, Leo Tolstoy wrote to Fet.

As you can see, the play was interpreted differently by contemporaries. But Katerina became the epicenter of the dispute.

1. “In Katerina, as an undeveloped woman, there is no consciousness of duty, moral duties, no developed sense of human dignity and fear of tarnishing it with some immoral act ... Katerina does not arouse the sympathy of the viewer, because there is nothing to sympathize with: there was no there is nothing reasonable, nothing humane in her actions...” (Palkhovsky).

2. “The infatuation of a nervous passionate woman and the struggle with debt, falling, repentance and heavy atonement for guilt - all this is filled with the liveliest dramatic interest and is conducted with extraordinary art and knowledge of the heart” (I. Goncharov).

3. Katerina “an immoral, shameless woman who ran out at night to her lover as soon as her husband left home.” (Critic Pavlov).

4. “In the face of Katerina, we see a bright beam in a dark sky.” (Hieroglyphs).

It can be said with confidence that few images created by Russian literature have caused such contradictory and polar opinions.

The peculiarity and complexity of the controversy around the "Thunderstorm" was that in the views on the drama and its main character dispersed not only ideological opponents.

The pinnacle of critical thinking about the "Thunderstorm" is the article by N.A. Dobrolyubov, a critic of the revolutionary-democratic trend, "A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom."

Dobrolyubov... A man of wonderful mind, clear and bright, a talented critic and poet, a brilliant organizer and a great worker.

Poor childhood in the house of a poor priest (there were 8 children in the family), poor half-starved teaching at the theological school, seminary, then at the St. years of feverish, tireless work in Sovremennik and, finally, a year abroad, spent in anticipation of death - that's the whole biography of Dobrolyubov. Dobrolyubov did not live long enough to be insulting - 25 years old (1836-1861). His literary and critical activity was short - only 4 years!

Dobrolyubov's literary heritage is great (4 volumes of essays). The most important thing in this legacy is his critical articles on the work of Goncharov, Turgenev, Ostrovsky, Shchedrin, Dostoevsky.

Dobrolyubov called his painting “real”. "Real criticism" is based on the demand life truth. “Real criticism” implies a comparison of a work of art with reality and indicates to readers the meaning that works have for society.

The dignity and significance of a literary work is determined by "how deeply the writer's view penetrates into the very essence of phenomena, how widely he captures various aspects of life in his images."

Ostrovsky's plays Dobrolyubov called "the plays of life", as they reflect the most essential aspects of life. In the article "A Ray of Light in the Dark Realm". Dobrolyubov points out to the readers the "general meaning" that "Thunderstorm" has for Russian society.

III. Analysis of Dobrolyubov's critical article "A Ray of Light in a Dark Realm".

Dobrolyubov's article "A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom" is one of the first reviews of Ostrovsky's play.

(In the journal Sovremennik, No. 10, 1860).

What was that time? (The peak of the revolutionary-democratic upsurge, the fierce resistance of the autocratic power. The tense expectation of reforms. The hope for social change).

1. What character did the era require? (Resolute, integral - a strong character, capable of rising to a protest against violence and arbitrariness and going to the end in his post. Dobrolyubov saw such a character in Katerina).

2. Why did Dobrolyubov believe that Katerina's character was “a step forward not only in Ostrovsky's dramatic work, but in all of our literature”?

3. Why does Dobrolyubov attach great importance to the fact that “a strong Russian character appears in Ostrovsky in the “female type”?

4. Why did Dobrolyubov call Katerina “a ray of light in a dark kingdom”? (A bright personality. A bright phenomenon and extremely positive. A person who does not want to be a victim of the "dark kingdom", capable of an act. Any violence revolts her and leads to protest).

5. It may seem that criticism of this character is dear only to protest, denial. Is it so? (Dobrolyubov welcomes creativity in the character of the heroine).

6. Think about the judgment of the critic: Katerina is a “creative, loving, ideal” character. How does the “protest against Kaban's concepts of morality, a protest carried through to the end” fit in with the creative nature of the heroine? (The origins of the protest are precisely in harmony, simplicity, nobility, which are incompatible with slave morality).

7. What, according to Dobrolyubov, is Katerina's drama? (In the struggle of the natural aspirations for beauty, harmony, happiness, arising from her nature, with prejudices, the morality of the “dark kingdom”).

8. Why does the critic see something “refreshing, uplifting” in the drama “Thunderstorm”? (Reveals unsteadiness and the near end of tyranny. Katerina's character breathes new life, although it is revealed to us in her very death).

9. Is Dobrolyubov right in asserting that Katerina had no other way out for release?

10. Is Boris worthy of Katerina's love and is he guilty of her death?

11. Why is Tikhon a “living corpse”?

12. How does Dobrolyubov evaluate the tragic denouement of "Thunderstorm"? Do you agree with the critic's opinion?

13. Does Dobrolyubov's understanding of Katerina's character differ from the author's?

Ostrovsky was far from thinking that the only way out of the "dark kingdom" could only be a resolute protest. Ostrovsky's "beam of light" was knowledge and education.

Dobrolyubov, as a revolutionary democrat, in the period of a powerful revolutionary upsurge, looked for facts in literature confirming that the masses of the people do not want and cannot live in the old way, that a protest against the autocratic order is ripening in them, that they are ready to rise to a decisive struggle for social transformations. Dobrolyubov was convinced that readers, having read the play, should understand that living in a “dark kingdom” worse than death. It is clear that in this way Dobrolyubov sharpened many aspects of Ostrovsky's play and drew direct revolutionary conclusions. But this was due to the time of writing the article.

IV. Comparison of the opinion of Dobrolyubov with the opinion of Pisarev.

How do you react to the following opinion? (The author has not yet been named. The teacher reads the main provisions of Pisarev's article "Motives of Russian Drama" and comments on them).

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

The spiritual world of Katerina - Ridiculous impulses from impotent despair.

Behavior - contradictions and absurdities”, Katerina does a lot of stupid things.

Where does this critic differ from Dobrolyubov?

Dobrolyubov spiritual world Katerina - dreams, aspirations, impulses ... They are constantly faced with the morality of the "dark kingdom". Oppressors bend Katerina's nature, break it. In the soul of Katerina, a spiritual drama is going on.

The critic sees no drama in Katerina's soul. All her impulses seem unnecessary to him.

For Dobrolyubov, Katerina's suicide is a challenge to tyranny.

The critic is not a heroic challenge to the “dark kingdom”.

2. "Dobrolyubov was too carried away by sympathy for the character of Katerina and took her personality for a bright phenomenon." Yes, with sympathy and love, like a sister.

How is it expressed? (In the title, in the tone of the story. Focused on the ideal side of the character. Distracted from consideration of ignorance, religiosity).

3. "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."

Why? It bears the disadvantages of its environment.

4. "A bright phenomenon should be considered only that which, to a greater or lesser extent, can contribute to the cessation or alleviation of suffering", "which accelerates the development of human well-being." “He who does not know how to do anything to alleviate his own and other people's suffering, he cannot be called a “bright phenomenon”.

“What is fruitless is not light.”

A person who has killed himself does not relieve the suffering of others.

5. "Ray of light", according to the critic, a smart, developed personality. And Katerina is an "eternal child."

Yes, Katerina is uneducated, you cannot call her developed. The heart is naive, but not corrupted either. She lives in a perfect world.

6. Katerina is a "passive personality", formed by affectionate upbringing. You should not sympathize with them, because. such personalities are the reverse side of the "dark kingdom".

Isn't the critic talking about Katerina too dryly, caustically?

7. "The people need only one thing, which contains all the other benefits of human thought, and this movement is excited and supported by the acquisition of knowledge ..."

"Let society not stray from this straight and only road to progress, let it not think that it needs to acquire some virtues." "All this bubble, all this is a cheap imitation of real progress, all these are swamp lights that lead us into a quagmire of sublime eloquence.

"Only a living and independent activity of thought, only solid and positive knowledge renews life, drives away darkness, destroys stupid vices and stupid virtues."

Dobrolyubov Katerina has a loving character. Stupid? Man must live in love. And Katherine got stuck.

The world has changed. Our contemporary is an intellectual, businesslike, energetic, independent, liberated woman. What is the fear of sin? But fundamentally, the woman remained loving.

The world is strong with love.

Which critic do you agree with and why?

V. Teacher's lecture.

Born in 1840 and died in 1868 (drowned). 4 years 4 months and 18 days spent in prison, in solitary confinement. It was an unusually intense period of his creative work. Pisarev also visited a psychiatric clinic. Twice suffered an unhappy love.

Pisarev was perhaps the most cheerful, bright person from all former writers (excluding Pushkin). Pisarev was a very lonely man.

His appearance on the stage of Russian public life was accompanied by noisy exclamations of indignation, ridicule and no less noisy cries of delight. They called him "The Whistle". He was almost booed. He, as they used to say, generally made a lot of noise.

In 1864, more than 4 years later, when The Thunderstorm was staged less and less, and Dobrolyubov was no longer alive, Pisarev acted in the usual role of a troublemaker, writing the article Motives of Russian Drama.

Pisarev’s analysis of the Thunderstorm is built as a consistent refutation of the views of Dobrolyubov (Controversy is the basis of Pisarev’s critical method). At the same time, Pisarev agreed with Dobrolyubov’s interpretation of the “dark kingdom”, in which the mental abilities wither and the fresh strength of our young generations is depleted, ”admitted that on he "cannot be looked through the fingers," but considers the article "A Ray of Light in the Dark Realm" a mistake on the part of Dobrolyubov.

Pisarev does not question the aesthetic viability of the drama, the typical character of the heroine: "Reading" Storm ", you will never doubt that Katerina should have acted in reality the way she does in the drama." But he resolutely refuses to regard the heroine of The Thunderstorm as a "beam of light". Why?

The answer to this question lies outside Ostrovsky's play. The opinions of critics are explained by the time of writing the works and the difference in the views of their authors.

From 1860 to 1864 the situation in Russia changed dramatically. The revolutionary situation did not develop into a revolution. It was prevented by the peasant reform. Peasant and student unrest subsided. The reaction streak started. Convinced that Dobrolyubov’s calculation for the participation in the revolution of the mass of “victims dark kingdom"Wrong, Pisarev puts forward a different hero - a thinking proletarian, a realist who is able to understand what is happening.

As a tactic for the struggle of democratic forces, Pisarev proposes the development and dissemination of the knowledge that is most useful for society, which form a thinking youth like Bazarov. From these positions, Pisarev disputes the interpretation of the image of Katerina in the well-known article by Dobrolyubov.

Which of the critics is closer to the truth? Whose article makes it possible to better understand the drama of Ostrovsky and the character of Katerina?

Preference should be given to Dobrolyubov's article.

Pisarev's analysis of a work of art often turns into a straightforward trial of the characters in the name of the triumph of the ideas of the critic himself. The critic constantly appeals to reason.

Dobrolyubov's critical manner is more fruitful. Dobrolyubov also sees those aspects on which Pisarev focused his attention. But Dobrolyubov does not so much judge as studies, explores the struggle in the soul of the heroine, proving the inevitability of the victory of light over darkness. This approach corresponds to the spirit of Ostrovsky's drama.

Dobrolyubov's correctness was also confirmed by the court of history. "Thunderstorm" really was the news of a new stage in Russian folk life. Already in the movement of revolutionaries - the seventies there were many participants, whose life path made me think of Katherine. Vera Zasulich, Sofya Perovskaya, Vera Figner... And they started with an instinctive impulse to freedom, born from the closeness of the family environment.

Pisarev was not destined to know this. He died in 1868. He was 28 years old. He was buried in St. Petersburg at the Vilkovo cemetery next to Dobrolyubov.

Final word from the teacher.

Any critical article should hardly be considered the ultimate truth. Critical work, even the most versatile, is still one-sided. The most brilliant critic cannot say everything about the work. But the best, like works of art become monuments of the era. The Dobrolyubovskaya article is one of the highest achievements of Russian criticism of the 19th century. It sets the trend in the interpretation of the "Thunderstorm" to this day.

Our time brings its own accents to the interpretation of Ostrovsky's drama.

N. Dobrolyubov called the city of Kalinov a "dark kingdom", and Katerina - a "beam of light" in it. But can we agree with this? The kingdom turned out to be not so "dark" as it might seem at first glance.

And the beam? A sharp long light, mercilessly highlighting everything, cold, cutting, causing a desire to close.

Is it Katherine? Remember!

“- How she prays…! What an angelic smile she has on her face, and from her face it seems to glow.”

Here! Light comes from within. No, it's not a beam. Candle. Trembling, defenseless. And from her light. Scattering, warm, lively light. They reached out to him - each for his own. It was from this breath of many that the candle went out.” (T. I. Bogomolova.) *

* T.I. Bogomolov. The use of reference schemes in literature lessons in high school. Kaluga, 1994, p. 49.

Dobrolyubov's "ray" is a warm, outwardly soft creature, but inside it has its own fortress. Katerina's character is solid. She won't change for anything.

VI. Homework.

2. Draw up a plan and theses of the article by N. A. Dobrolyubov "A ray of light in a dark kingdom."

The play by A.N. Ostrovsky "Thunderstorm" appeared on the stage in 1860 during the rise of the socio-political struggle in Russia on the eve of the abolition of serfdom. The leading critic of the Sovremennik magazine, N.A. Dobrolyubov, immediately noticed Ostrovsky’s drama among the literary novelties of the year and wrote a long article with the significant title “Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom” (1860). D.I. Pisarev outlined his view of the play in the article “Motives of Russian Drama” (1864), when Dobrolyubov had already died (1861), and the first revolutionary situation (1859-1861) had ended, giving way to a calmer historical period of reforms of the 60s years.

Although both authors discuss the same play, their articles differ significantly. Both criticisms do not confine themselves to the analysis of a particular literary work, but they consider it useful and interesting to talk about the phenomena of Russian life reflected in it. Moreover, Dobrolyubov analyzes literature and life, and Pisarev analyzes life and literature. Therefore, we can say that Dobrolyubov wrote a literary-critical work, and Pisarev wrote a publicist article based on literary material. Dobrolyubov analyzes the artistic merits of the play and all of Ostrovsky's previous work; for Pisarev, both "Thunderstorm" and the image of Katerina Kabanova become an occasion for presenting his view of the positive "hero of our time."

At the beginning of his article, Dobrolyubov examines the theoretical issues of literature: what are the signs of traditional drama as a kind of literature and modern (new) drama; how the truth should be expressed in a work of art; what is the nationality of literature? The critic then defines main theme plays by Ostrovsky (the image of the "dark kingdom", that is, modern Russian life) and analyzes the character and idea of ​​each character. Pisarev uses the play as an occasion to analyze the state of the modern Russian society. True, he briefly retells the plot of The Thunderstorm, but he devotes his main attention not to the analysis of the play, but to the dispute with Dobrolyubov's article. Dobrolyubov divides the heroes of the play into "tyrants" and their "victims" and declares that this division of literary characters reflects the real state of modern Russian life; Pisarev believes that two types of people are represented in modern Russian life - “dwarfs” (always preoccupied with insignificant problems) and “eternal children” (subordinate to elders in the family, state and doomed to eternal suffering). It is these people, according to Pisarev, that are formed by modern social conditions and the system of education.

However main subject the dispute between Dobrolyubov and Pisarev is an assessment of the image of Katerina Kabanova and, consequently, of the entire work of A. N. Ostrovsky. Dobrolyubov calls Katerina “a ray of light in the dark kingdom” and believes that she embodies the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bresistance to the “dark kingdom”, it expresses the people's desire for freedom: “In this person we see an already mature, from the depths of the soul of the whole organism, the demand for law and space that arises life." Pisarev argues that Katerina, a hysterical, poorly educated merchant's wife, cannot in any way be considered a “bright person”: “... she rushes from one extreme to another every minute; (...) at every step she confuses her own life and the lives of other people; (...) she cuts the lingering knots by the most stupid means, suicide ... ”(IV). Dobrolyubov notes passion, tenderness and sincerity in Katerina’s character, while Pisarev does not consider these qualities to be mandatory for a “bright personality” and sarcastically remarks: “I completely agree that all the contradictions and absurdities of her behavior are explained precisely by these properties” (IV) . Dobrolyubov sees in the suicide of the heroine "a terrible challenge to self-foolish power", and Pisarev - stupidity: "... the Russian Ophelia, Katerina, having committed many stupid things, throws herself into the water and thus does the last and greatest absurdity" (XI). Dobrolyubov’s article, according to Pisarev, was a mistake, since “a critic has the right to see a bright phenomenon only in a person who knows how to be happy, that is, to benefit himself and others, and, knowing how to live and act under adverse conditions, understands that at the same time, their unfavorability and, to the best of his ability, tries to rework these conditions for the better ”(VI). "Bright Personalities" contemporary literature- these are the so-called "new people": Lopukhov from the novel by N.G. Chernyshevsky "What to do?" and, of course, Pisarev's favorite hero, Bazarov: “An intelligent and developed personality, without noticing it, acts on everything that touches it; her thoughts, her occupations, her humane treatment, her calm firmness - all this stirs around her the stagnant water of human routine ”(VI).

So which of the two critics gave the most correct interpretation of the image of Katerina? First of all, it must be recognized that a real work of art, which is The Thunderstorm, can be considered from different points of view, that is, as Pisarev rightly notes, “starting from the same basic facts, one can come to different and even opposite conclusions. » (II). The different interpretations of the image of Katerina by Dobrolyubov and Pisarev are explained by the different socio-political views of critics. When Dobrolyubov wrote A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom, he believed in the possibility of a peasant revolution, as he saw with his own eyes the rise of the first revolutionary situation. Therefore, Dobrolyubov writes about the impossibility of reconciling with the "reigning evil" and about the brewing of popular protest, the symbol of which in the play "Thunderstorm" was the image of Katerina. Pisarev saw the “fading” of the revolutionary situation, in the article “Motives of the Russian Drama” he is worried about something else: what to do now, when mass popular uprisings have stopped? Pisarev argues as follows: the people are not capable of revolutionary creativity, because they are obscure and uneducated; the task of the intelligentsia at the present time is to simultaneously improve the life of the people and educate them. It is precisely the raznochintsy intelligentsia that can now play the most progressive social role. So real people such as Bazarov are "bright personalities of our time."

Pisarev several times states that Dobrolyubov was mistaken in assessing the image of Katerina. But at the same time, his reasoning, which concludes the article “Motives of Russian Drama”, is essentially consistent with the ideas of Dobrolyubov: outstanding historical heroes - “in our history Minin, and in French - John d" Arc - are understandable only as products of the strongest popular enthusiasm "(XI ) In other words, the tireless natural-science and social work of people like Bazarov can give a lot to the people, but without the people (Katerina Kabanova is just the embodiment of the people seeking truth and justice) and Bazarov himself, who is so sympathetic to Pisarev, will not do anything serious in life.

Thus, the contradiction between the assessments of the image of Katerina, which belong to Dobrolyubov and Pisarev, is removed. It can be said that both assessments are essentially not opposed, but complement each other.

    Was the love of Katerina Kabanova from A. N. Ostrovsky's play "Thunderstorm" a crime? Did the poor woman deserve such a terrible punishment? Katerina's misfortunes begin after, having married Tikhon Kabanov, she moves into his house. There is a young...

  1. New!

    Look for some more scolding like Savel Prokofich with us! .. Kabanikha is also good. A. Ostrovsky. Thunderstorm In his drama "Thunderstorm" A. N. Ostrovsky vividly and vividly portrayed the "dark kingdom" of the Russian province, overwhelming the best human ...

    2. Enmity between loved ones can be especially irreconcilable P. Tacitus There is no worse retribution for folly and delusion than to see your own children suffer because of them W. Sumner A play by A.N. Ostrovsky's "Thunderstorm" tells about the life of a provincial...

    The name of Ostrovsky's drama "Thunderstorm" plays a big role in understanding this play. The image of a thunderstorm in Ostrovsky's drama is unusually complex and ambiguous. On the one hand, a thunderstorm is a direct participant in the action of the play, on the other hand, it is a symbol of the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthis work ....

    Katerina is a ray of light in a dark kingdom. “There is something refreshing and encouraging in The Thunderstorm. This “something” is in our opinion, the background of the play, indicated by us and revealing shakiness and the near end of tyranny. Then the very character of Katerina, drawn on this ...

    A crisis patriarchal world and patriarchal consciousness remains in the center of the author's attention in "Thunderstorm". But in this drama, Ostrovsky gives the problem a completely different sound, considering it from a fundamentally new angle. The classic "fossil...

Analysis of the article by N.A. Dobrolyubov “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom”

Dobrolyubov's article "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom" is one of the first reviews of A.N. Ostrovsky's play. First published in the Sovremennik magazine in No. 10, 1860.

It was a time of revolutionary-democratic upsurge, fierce resistance to autocratic power. Tense expectation of reforms. Hope for social change.

The epoch demanded a resolute, integral, strong character, capable of rising to protest against violence and arbitrariness and going in his post to the end. Dobrolyubov saw such a character in Katerina.

Dobrolyubov called Katerina "a ray of light in a dark kingdom" because she is a bright personality, a bright phenomenon and extremely positive. A person who does not want to be a victim of the "dark kingdom", capable of an act. Any violence revolts her and leads to protest.

Dobrolyubov welcomes creativity in the character of the heroine.

He believed that the origins of protest are precisely in harmony, simplicity, nobility, which are incompatible with slave morality.

The drama of Katerina, according to Dobrolyubov, is in the struggle of natural aspirations for beauty, harmony, happiness, prejudices, morality of the "dark kingdom" arising from her nature.

The critic sees something "refreshing, encouraging" in the drama "Thunderstorm". Detects shakiness and the near end of tyranny. The character of Katerina breathes new life, although it is revealed to us in her very death.

Ostrovsky was far from thinking that the only way out of the "dark kingdom" could only be a resolute protest. Ostrovsky's "beam of light" was knowledge and education.

Dobrolyubov, as a revolutionary democrat, in the period of a powerful revolutionary upsurge, looked for facts in literature confirming that the masses of the people do not want and cannot live in the old way, that a protest against the autocratic order is ripening in them, that they are ready to rise to a decisive struggle for social transformations. Dobrolyubov was convinced that readers, having read the play, should understand that living in the "dark kingdom" is worse than death. It is clear that in this way Dobrolyubov sharpened many aspects of Ostrovsky's play and drew direct revolutionary conclusions. But this was due to the time of writing the article.

Dobrolyubov's critical manner is fruitful. The critic does not so much judge as studies, explores the struggle in the soul of the heroine, proving the inevitability of the victory of light over darkness. This approach corresponds to the spirit of Ostrovsky's drama.

Dobrolyubov's correctness was also confirmed by the court of history. "Thunderstorm" really was the news of a new stage in Russian folk life. Already in the movement of revolutionaries - the seventies there were many participants whose life path made me think of Katerina. Vera Zasulich, Sophia Perovskaya, Vera Figner... And they started with an instinctive impulse to freedom, born from the closeness of the family environment.

Any critical article should hardly be considered the ultimate truth. Critical work, even the most versatile, is still one-sided. The most brilliant critic cannot say everything about the work. But the best, like works of art, become monuments of the era. The Dobrolyubovskaya article is one of the highest achievements of Russian criticism of the 19th century. She sets the trend in the interpretation of the "Thunderstorm" to this day.

Our time brings its own accents to the interpretation of Ostrovsky's drama.

N. Dobrolyubov called the city of Kalinov a "dark kingdom", and Katerina - a "beam of light" in it. But can we agree with this? The kingdom turned out to be not so "obscure" as it might seem at first glance. And the beam? A sharp long light, mercilessly highlighting everything, cold, cutting, causing a desire to close.

Is it Katherine? Let's remember how she prays...! What an angelic smile she has on her face, and from her face it seems to glow.

Light comes from within. No, it's not a beam. Candle. Trembling, defenseless. And from her light. Scattering, warm, living light. They reached out to him - each for his own. It was from this breath of many that the candle went out.


Study note for students

Isaac Levitan. Evening. Golden Ples (1889)

Incredible controversy around the play by A. Ostrovsky "Thunderstorm" began during the life of the playwright. There are five articles:

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

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

N. A. Dobrolyubov

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D. A. Pisarev

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

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

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

M. A. Antonovich

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

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

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

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

A. A. Grigoriev

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

M. M. Dostoevsky

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