Ostrovsky's play caused a lot of articles and reviews. Among them, the article by N. A. Dobrolyubov “A ray of light in dark kingdom". Why was Katerina called "a ray of light"? Because the instinctive protest of the heroine of "Thunderstorm" was for the critic direct evidence of the doom of the "dark kingdom". “It is known,” Dobrolyubov argued, “that extremes are reflected by extremes and that the strongest protest is the one that finally rises from the chest of the weakest and most patient.” The image of Katerina in the interpretation of the critic received a generalizing meaning - as a statement of that hidden power, which cannot but awaken in the people's natural desire for freedom, as evidence of its intransigence to all manifestations of oppression, injustice, to any form of tyranny.
A few years later, in 1864, an article appeared by another famous critic D. I. Pisareva "Moti-you of Russian drama." Pisarev tried to justify a completely different interpretation of the image of Katerina. In his article, he argued not so much with Ostrovsky as with Dobrolyubov. For Pisarev, Katerina, with all her passion, tenderness, sincerity, which he readily admits, is still not a “beam of light”, primarily because she lives and acts not according to the laws of reason. For Pisarev, the necessary condition for “a bright phenomenon must be a strong and developed mind; where there is no this property, there can be no light phenomena.
In such statements of the critic-educator, both his strength and his weakness are quite clearly manifested. This is also the source of the direct opposition of Katerina to Pisarev's beloved hero, Bazarov (from Turgenev's novel "Fathers and Sons"). Even the mere fact that Bazarov is a natural scientist, engaged, in particular, in experiments on frogs, delights critics: “It is precisely here, in the frog itself, that the salvation and renewal of the Russian people lies. By God, reader, I am not joking and amusing you with paradoxes. All Pisarev's sympathies are given to the "Bazarov type", and Katerina is classified by him as "eternal children". material from the site
Finally, it is necessary to take into account the assessment of Ostrovsky's drama by Apollon Grigoriev, who saw in The Thunderstorm, first of all, "poetry folk life”, Past which both Dobrolyubov and Pisarev passed. A number of scientists in Lately develop precisely this concept: they seek to understand the origins of Katerina's character in the context of Russian national culture. However, in fairness, it should be noted that Dostoevsky, who constantly argued with Dobrolyubov, in a letter to N. N. Strakhov (April 18, 1869) made an important confession: “... you know, I am convinced that to the right of Grigoriev in his view of Ostrovsky. Perhaps the whole idea of the Dark Kingdom did not really occur to Ostrovsky, but Dobrolyubov prompted well and landed on good ground."
For a long time it was considered generally accepted that after Dobrolyubov nothing fundamentally new about the "Thunderstorm" would be said. However, Ostrovsky's drama is not a "monument", it still lives today, and today it is able to interest the inquisitive thought of both a schoolboy and an experienced literary critic.
Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the search
On this page, material on the topics:
- pisarev criticism of the thunderstorm summary
- criticism of the work of the storm
- fears of a thunderstorm Ostrovsky
- critical article storm
- summary of Grigoriev's article after a thunderstorm
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. Given dramatic 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 a dark kingdom." We will try to present to the readers our analysis of the above-mentioned work by Dmitry Pisarev. It occupies a special place in Russian literature. Ostrovsky managed to adequately continue in Russian dramaturgy the realism laid down by Griboyedov in Woe from Wit.
Fundamental disagreement with Dobrolyubov on the play "Thunderstorm"
Dmitri Ivanovich was undoubtedly a fine connoisseur and, undoubtedly, when starting to work, he thoroughly familiarized himself with the article of the outstanding literary critic Dobrolyubov, whom he knew and respected. However, obviously following the wisdom of the ancients (namely, “Socrates is my friend, but the truth is dearer”), Pisarev wrote his review about Ostrovsky’s drama “Thunderstorm”.
He realized the need to express his point of view, because he felt: Dobrolyubov tried to show Katerina as a "hero of the times." Dmitry Ivanovich fundamentally disagreed with this position, and, moreover, it is quite motivated. Therefore, he wrote his article "Motives of Russian Drama", where he criticized the main thesis in the work of Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov that Katerina Kabanova is "a ray of light in a dark kingdom."
Kalinov as a model of Russia
Undoubtedly, in the article Pisarev expressed his thoughts about the “Thunderstorm”, clearly realizing that Dobrolyubov gave such a “dark” characteristic formally to one county town, but in fact to all of Russia in the middle of the 19th century. Kalinov is a small model of a huge country. In it, public opinion and the whole course of city life are manipulated by two people: a merchant, unscrupulous in methods of enrichment, Savel Prokofich Wild, and a hypocrite of Shakespearean proportions, the merchant Kabanova Marfa Ignatievna (in the common people - Kabanikha).
In the 1860s, Russia itself was 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 a civil society instead of a “dark kingdom”.
However, dear readers… So to speak, hand on heart… Can our society today be called “the kingdom of light, goodness and reason”? Did Kuligin's Ostrovsky monologue write into the void: “Because we will never earn more with honest labor more money make money…”? Bitter, fair words...
Katerina is not a "beam of light"
Pisarev's criticism of The Thunderstorm begins with the formulation of a conclusion about the recklessness of Dobrolyubov's conclusion. He motivates him by citing arguments from the author's text of the play. His polemic with Nikolai Dobrolyubov is reminiscent of a pessimist's summary of the conclusions drawn by the optimist. According to the reasoning of Dmitry Ivanovich, the essence of Katerina is melancholic, there is no real virtue in her, characteristic of people who are called "bright". According to Pisarev, Dobrolyubov made a systematic mistake in the analysis of the image of the main character of the play. 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 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? At best, such a suicide can only cause, however, as a result, strong-willed and educated people should fight against the social group of the rich and manipulators!
At the same time, Pisarev does not speak derogatoryly about Katerina. "Thunderstorm", the critic believes, it is not in vain that she portrays her image so consistently, starting from childhood. The image of Katerina in this sense is similar to the unforgettable image of Ilya Ilyich Oblomov! The problem of her unformed personality is in her ideally comfortable childhood and youth. Her parents 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 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. Quicker, we are talking O 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...
Drama by A. N. Ostrovsky "Thunderstorm" in Russian criticism
critical history"Thunderstorm" begins even before its appearance. To argue about "a ray of light in a dark kingdom", it was necessary to open Dark Realm. An article under this title appeared in the July and September issues of Sovremennik in 1859. It was signed by the usual pseudonym of N. A. Dobrolyubova - N. - bov.
The reason for this work was extremely significant. In 1859, Ostrovsky summed up the interim literary activity: his two-volume collected works appear. “We consider it best to apply real criticism to Ostrovsky’s works, consisting in reviewing what his works give us,” Dobrolyubov formulates his main theoretical principle. - Real criticism treats the work of the artist in exactly the same way as the phenomena of real life: it studies them, trying to determine their own norm, to collect their essential, character traits, but not at all fussing about why this is oats - not rye, and coal - not a diamond ... "
What norm did Dobrolyubov see in Ostrovsky's world? “Public activity is little touched upon in Ostrovsky’s comedies, but Ostrovsky extremely fully and vividly displays two types of relations to which a person can still attach his soul to us - family relations and property relations. It is not surprising, therefore, that the plots and the very titles of his plays revolve around the family, the groom, the bride, wealth and poverty.
The "dark kingdom" is a world of senseless tyranny and suffering of "our younger brothers", "a world of hidden, quietly sighing sorrow", a world where "outward humility and stupid, concentrated grief, reaching complete idiocy and deplorable depersonalization" are combined with "slavish cunning, the most vile deceit, the most shameless treachery. Dobrolyubov examines in detail the "anatomy" of this world, its attitude to education and love, its moral convictions such as "than others steal, it's better for me to steal", "that's the will of the father", "so that she doesn't over me, but I swagger over her as much as you like", etc.
"But isn't there any way out of this darkness?" -- a question is asked at the end of the article on behalf of an imaginary reader. “It’s sad, it’s true; but what can we do? We must confess: we didn’t find a way out of the“ dark kingdom ”in Ostrovsky’s works,” the critic replies. “Should we blame the artist for this? demands on life itself, which weaves so sluggishly and monotonously around us ... But the way out must be sought in life itself: literature only reproduces life and never gives what is not in reality. Dobrolyubov's ideas had a great resonance. Dobrolyubov's "Dark Kingdom" was read with enthusiasm, with which, perhaps, not a single magazine article was read then, big role Dobrolyubov's article in asserting Ostrovsky's reputation was recognized by his contemporaries. "If you collect everything that was written about me before the appearance of Dobrolyubov's articles, then at least drop your pen." A rare, very rare case in the history of literature of absolute mutual understanding between a writer and a critic. Soon each of them will make a response "remark" in the dialogue. Ostrovsky - with new drama, Dobrolyubov - with an article about her, a kind of continuation of the "Dark Kingdom". In July 1859, just at the time when the printing of The Dark Kingdom began in Sovremennik, Ostrovsky began The Thunderstorm.
organic criticism. Article by A. A. Grigoriev After Ostrovsky's "Thunderstorm" the critic continued to think about one of the most beloved and important writers for him in Russian literature. Grigoriev considered himself, and in many respects justified, one of the "discoverers" of Ostrovsky. “Ostrovsky alone, in the present literary era, has his own strong, new and at the same time ideal world outlook. “Ostrovsky’s new word was nothing more, nothing less than a nationality, in the sense of the word: nationality, national.”
According to their concept Grigoriev highlights the "poetry of folk life" in "Thunderstorm", most clearly embodied at the end of the third act (the meeting between Boris and Katerina). “You haven’t been to a performance yet,” he turns to Turgenev, “but you know this moment, magnificent in its poetry, this hitherto unprecedented night of rendezvous in a ravine, all breathing the proximity of the Volga, all fragrant with the smell of herbs, its wide meadows, all sounding free songs, "amusing", secret speeches, all full of charm of cheerful and wild passion and no less charm of deep and tragic-fatal passion. whole nation created here!
A similar circle of thoughts, with the same high assessment of the poetic merits of "Thunderstorm" as Grigoriev's, develops in great article M. M. Dostoevsky (brother of F. M. Dostoevsky). The author, however, without naming Grigoriev by name, refers to him at the very beginning.
M. Dostoevsky considers Ostrovsky's previous work in the light of the disputes between "Westerners" and "Slavophiles" and tries to find a different, third position: "In our opinion, Mr. Ostrovsky in his writings is not a Slavophile or a Westerner, but simply an artist, a deep connoisseur of Russian life and Russian heart. In an obvious polemic with Dobrolyubov's "Dark Kingdom" ("This idea, or if you like it better, the idea of domestic despotism and a dozen other no less humane ideas, perhaps, lie in Mr. Ostrovsky's play. But, probably, not he wondered about them when he began his drama") M. Dostoevsky sees central conflict"Thunderstorms" are not in Katerina's collision with the inhabitants and customs of the city of Kalinov, but in the internal contradictions of her nature and character: "Katerina alone dies, but she would die without despotism. She is a victim of her own purity and her beliefs." Later in the article, this idea acquires a generalized philosophical character: "The chosen natures have their own fate. Only it is not outside of them: they carry it in their own hearts."
Is Ostrovsky's world a "dark realm" or a realm of "poetry of folk life"? "A word to unravel his activities": tyranny or nationality?
A year later, N.A. joined the dispute about the "Thunderstorm". Dobrolyubov.
"Most the best way In criticism, we consider the presentation of the case itself in such a way that the reader himself, on the basis of the facts presented, can draw his conclusion ... And we have always been of the opinion that only factual, real criticism can have any meaning for the reader. If there is anything in the work, then show us what it contains; this is much better than indulging in thoughts about what is not in it and what should be in it.
Extracts from the article by N. A. Dobrolyubov “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom”
“We want to say that the general atmosphere of life is always in the foreground for him. He does not punish either the villain or the victim. You see that their position dominates them, and you only blame them for not showing enough energy to get out of this position. And that is why we do not dare to consider as unnecessary and superfluous those characters in Ostrovsky's plays who do not directly participate in the intrigue. From our point of view, these faces are just as necessary for the play as the main ones: they show us the environment in which the action takes place, draw the position that determines the meaning of the activity of the main characters of the play.
"Thunderstorm" is, without a doubt, the most decisive work Ostrovsky; the mutual relations of tyranny and voicelessness are brought in it to the very 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 ... 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 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 portrayed in The Thunderstorm, is a step forward not only in Ostrovsky's dramatic activity, but in all of our literature ... Russian life has finally reached the point where the virtuous and respectable, but the weak and impersonal beings do not satisfy public consciousness and are deemed worthless. There was an urgent need for people, even if less beautiful, but more active and energetic.
"Look carefully: you see that Katerina was brought up in concepts that are the same as the concepts of the environment in which she lives and cannot get rid of them, having no theoretical education." This protest is all the more valuable: “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 continue to live with violent, deadening principles. In Katerina we see a protest against Kabanov’s concepts of morality, a protest carried to the end , proclaimed both under domestic torture and over the abyss into which the poor woman threw herself ... What a gratifying, fresh life a healthy person breathes on us, finding in herself the determination to end this rotten life at all costs!
Dobrolyubov analyzes the lines of Feklusha, Glasha, Dikiy, Kudryash, Kuligin, etc. The author analyzes internal state heroes" dark kingdom". “Besides them, without asking them, another life has grown up, with other beginnings, and although it is not yet clearly visible, it already sends bad visions to the dark arbitrariness of tyrants. And Kabanova is very seriously upset by the future of the old order, with which she has outlived a century. She foresees their end, tries to maintain their significance, but she already feels that there is no former reverence for them and that they will be abandoned at the first opportunity.
“We are pleased to see the deliverance of Katerina - even through death, if it is impossible otherwise. Living in a "dark kingdom" is worse than death. Tikhon, throwing himself on the corpse of his wife, pulled out of the water, shouts in self-forgetfulness: “It’s good for you, Katya! But why did I stay in the world and suffer! “The play ends with this exclamation, and it seems to us that nothing could be invented stronger and more truthful than such an ending. Tikhon's words make the viewer think not about a love affair, but about this whole life, where the living envy the dead.
The meaning of Dobrolyubov's article is not just a thorough and deep analysis of the conflict and the heroes of Ostrovsky's drama. As we have seen, other critics approached a similar understanding even earlier. Dobrolyubov, through The Thunderstorm, tries to see and understand the essential tendencies of Russian life (the article was written a few months before the peasant reform).
"A Ray of Light...", like "The Dark Kingdom", also ends with a question highlighted by Dobrolyubov in insistent italics: "... is the Russian living nature exactly expressed in Katerina, is the Russian situation exactly - in everything surrounding her, is the need the emerging movement of Russian life affected the meaning of the play, as it is understood by us? The best of the critical works have enormous aftereffects. They read the text with such depth and express the time with such force that, like the works of art themselves, they become monuments of the era, already inseparable from it. Dobrolyubovskaya "dilogue" (two works connected with each other) about Ostrovsky is one of the highest achievements of the Russian nineteenth V. She really sets a trend in the interpretation of the "Thunderstorm", which exists to this day.
But next to Dobrolyubovskaya, another line, the "Grigorievskaya" line, also took shape. In one instance, "Thunderstorm" was read as tough social drama, in another - as a high poetic tragedy.
More than four years have passed. "Thunderstorm" was staged less and less. In 1864 it took place three times at the Maly Theater and six times at the Alexandrinsky Theatre, in 1865 three more times in Moscow and never once in St. Petersburg. And suddenly D. I. Pisarev. "Motives of Russian drama"
There are also two polemical objects in "Motives of Russian Drama": Katerina and Dobrolyubov. Pisarev builds his analysis of The Thunderstorm as a consistent refutation of Dobrolyubov's view. Pisarev fully agrees with the first part of the Dobrolyubov dilogy about Ostrovsky: "Based on dramatic works Ostrovsky, Dobrolyubov showed us in the Russian family that "dark kingdom" in which mental capacity and the fresh forces of our young generations are depleted... As long as the phenomena of the "dark kingdom" 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 he resolutely refuses to consider the heroine of The Thunderstorm a "ray of light": "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.
Like Dobrolyubov, Pisarev proceeds from the principles " real criticism", without questioning either the aesthetic viability of the drama or the typical character of the heroine: "Reading The Thunderstorm or watching it on stage, you will never doubt that Katerina should have acted in reality exactly as she does in the drama ". But the assessment of her actions, her relations with the world is fundamentally different from Dobrolyubov's. "Katerina's whole life, according to Pisarev, 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, having confused 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.
Pisarev speaks of "a lot of stupid things" committed by the "Russian Ophelia" and quite clearly contrasts with her "the lonely personality of the Russian progressive", "a whole type that has already found its expression in literature and which is called either Bazarov or Lopukhov" (Heroes of the works of I. S. Turgenev and N. G. Chernyshevsky, commoners prone to revolutionary ideas, supporters of the overthrow of the existing system).
On the eve of the peasant reform, Dobrolyubov optimistically pinned his hopes on Katerina's strong character. Four years later, Pisarev, already on this side of the historical border, sees: the revolution did not work out; hopes that the people would decide their own fate did not come true. We need a different path, we need to look for a way out of the historical impasse. "Our social or popular life needs not at all strong characters, which she has enough behind her eyes, but only and exclusively in one consciousness ... We need only people of knowledge, i.e., knowledge must be mastered by those iron characters, with which our folk life is full, Dobrolyubov, estimating Katerina only from one side, concentrated all his attention as a critic only on the spontaneously rebellious side of her nature; Pisarev was struck exclusively by the darkness of Katerina, the antediluvian nature of her social consciousness, her peculiar social "Oblomovism", political bad manners.
("Letters to Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev")
The play by A. Ostrovsky "Thunderstorm" after its performance on the stage gave rise to many responses and disputes. Reviews from critics were mixed and often contradictory, which caused a whole controversy among writers and publicists. The poet A. Grigoriev is not among the critics-publicists, which he himself readily admits. A. Grigoriev's article cannot be called a full review. Rather, these are just thoughts about Ostrovsky's work in general and about The Thunderstorm in particular.
There is no complete analysis and retelling of the play in the article. The author analyzes in detail all of Ostrovsky's work, expressing his opinion on the development of the ideas embodied in the writer's plays. He writes that Ostrovsky paints a broad, dense folk life without falling into comedy. The poet does not agree with the opinion of democratic critics, who considered Ostrovsky, first of all, an accuser of the "dark kingdom" of tyranny and even a satirist. For Grigoriev, it is not satire, not denunciation that is more important, but the folk spirit, which he saw in all Ostrovsky's plays and in The Thunderstorm too. The author urges not to denounce, but “to humble yourself before folk truth' before life. Otherwise, critics will only become uninvited and useless "teachers of life", in fact, they are no teachers at all.
A. Grigoriev believed that democratic critics adjust Ostrovsky's work to fit their theories, and the life shown in his play is wider and deeper than theories. He believes that Ostrovsky does not so much criticize and denounce vices as he shows people's life in all its manifestations. Shows in detail, with good humor, and not with evil satire. And often with love and sympathy for their heroes. It shows not only and not so much tyranny, but life itself in many of its various manifestations. keyword A. Grigoriev considers the work of the writer not “tyranny”, but “nationality”. Nationality is the culture of the peasantry and merchants, proximity to the land and traditions, the natural course of social relations
Along the way, A. Grigoriev argues in his article with Dobrolyubov, who considered Katerina a “protest character” and a rebel.
For democratic critics, social relationships reflected in a work of art were important, and most importantly, social protest. And for A. Grigoriev, development was more important human soul. Therefore, the tragedy of the play fades into the background for him, and in the first place - the beauty and poetry of Russian nature, details provincial life and life.
According to A. Grigoriev, Ostrovsky's plays reflect a whole people's peace, with all its contradictions. And he considers Ostrovsky, first of all, a people's poet, and only secondarily - a critic of social shortcomings. Therefore, one of the most important points for the poet there was a scene of a date between Katerina and Boris in a ravine, not far from the Volga. According to A. Grigoriev, this is one of the most poetic scenes in the play, all imbued with folk spirit And folk culture. If even the first and second acts could at least somehow be called the word "denunciation", then the scene of a meeting in the third act is described only by the word "poetry".
(Fragment from a dramatic production)
A. Grigoriev called his view of this play and other plays by Ostrovsky ideal-artistic. As opposed to other views on art: the real one, which seeks to drive everything works of art into a theoretical framework and aesthetic, professing the principle of "art for art's sake". Both the poet considered unacceptable. For him, the most important criterion was the principle of "nationality", which was fully embodied in the "Thunderstorm".
For A. Grigoriev, the play "Thunderstorm" is not the personification of the "dark kingdom", but the poetic kingdom of folk life. The scope of the theory of the "dark kingdom" is too narrow for this drama, it is much broader and deeper in meaning.
D. I. Pisarev
NOTES
This three-volume edition consists of selected literary-critical articles by D. I. Pisarev. Most of of these works was originally published in various magazines and collections of the 1860s ("Dawn", " Russian word", "Ray", "Case", " Domestic notes"). Then, along with some new articles, they were included in the first edition of the works of D. I. Pisarev, undertaken by the progressive publisher F. F. Pavlenkov close to Pisarev. Later, in the 1870s, the same composition came out (however, according to censorship due to circumstances was not fully implemented) the second edition. Since 1894, Pavlenkov began to publish a more complete, six-volume collection of Pisarev's works (five, and for some volumes - six editions were published); the last, most complete and free from censorship omissions and distortions - in 1909-1912, with an additional issue (its first edition - 1907, the third - 1913), which contained articles that had not been published before or were prosecuted by censorship. Soviet time the most significant in composition (although far from complete) was the publication of the works of D. I. Pisarev in four volumes (M., 1955-1956). The texts in it were verified with the most authoritative sources, primarily with the first edition, free from censorship omissions and distortions (it came out without prior censorship) and from the "corrections" of a stylistic nature that took place in later editions of Pavlenkov. Separate omissions and errors of the first edition are corrected according to the first printed journal texts (the autographs of the articles included in this edition, like almost all of Pisarev's other works, have not reached us). All other most significant discrepancies in the journal text are given in the notes. Texts are reproduced with the preservation of those features of spelling and punctuation that reflect the norms literary language 1860s and individual characteristics Pisarev style. For this edition, the texts are again checked against the first edition; corrected some proofreading errors and eliminated inconsistencies in the text of previous publications. The following abbreviations are adopted in the notes: 1) Belinsky - Belinsky VG Sobr. op. in 9 volumes, vols. 1-6. M 1976-1981 (ed. cont.); 2) Herzen - Herzen A.I. Sobr. op. in 30 vols. M., 1954-1965; 3) Dobrolyubov - Dobrolyubov N.A. Sobr. op. in 9 vols. M.-L., 1961-1964; 4) 1st ed. -- Pisarev D. I. Ed. F. Pavlenkov in 10 hours of St. Petersburg, 1866-1869; 5) Pisarev (Pavl.) - Pisarev D. I. Op. in 6 volumes. Ed. 5th F. Pavlenkov. St. Petersburg, 1909-1912; 6) Pisarev - Pisarev D.I. Op. in 4 vols. M., 1955-1956; 7) Saltykov-Shchedrin - Saltykov-Shchedrin M.E. Sobr. op. in 20 vols. M., 1965-1974; 8) TsGAOR - Central state. archive October revolution; 9) Chernyshevsky - Chernyshevsky N. G. Full. coll. op. in 15 vols. M., 1939-1953.
MOTIVES OF RUSSIAN DRAMA
For the first time - "Russian Word", 1864, No 3, otd. II "Literary Review", p. 1-58. Then - part I of the 1st ed. (1866), p. 210-242. Date under article in 1st ed. The article expanded and deepened the controversy between Russkiy Slovo and Sovremennik, which had begun earlier (see note to Flowers of Innocent Humor). If at its first stage Saltykov-Shchedrin was primarily affected by polemical attacks on the part of the Russian Word, as a writer not quite "one of his own" in Sovremennik, and the editors of Sovremennik were reproached for departing from the traditions of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, then in In this article, Pisarev directly points to the article "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom" by Dobrolyubov (1860) as his "mistake". Pisarev sharply disputes Dobrolyubov's interpretation of Katerina from Ostrovsky's "Thunderstorm" in this article, believing that Katerina cannot be regarded as a "resolute integral Russian character", but is only one of the offspring, a passive product of the "dark kingdom". Thus, the idealization of this image is attributed to Dobrolyubov, and the debunking of this image seems to be the true task of "real criticism." "It is sad to part with the bright illusion," notes Pisarev, "but there is nothing to be done; this time, too, one would have to be satisfied with the dark reality." Moreover, Pisarev leaves no doubt that this is not about particulars - the interpretation of one image and the assessment of one work of the playwright, but "about general issues our life". Dobrolyubov, in the whole direction of his article, led the reader to the idea of the growing revolutionary situation in the country, the maturation of national consciousness, the strength of the spontaneous resistance of the people to the "dark kingdom", the impossibility for the people to put up with the old and live in the old way. Pisarev , in the era of the decline of the democratic movement, does not see the conditions for the direct action of the masses, considers them not ready for conscious action. The emphasis is shifted to the formation of thinking workers like the Bazarovs, who are "not like Katerina" and who can take on the difficult task of educating the people. of this type should put all their efforts into preparing the conditions for a radical reorganization public life on new reasonable and fair principles, to enlighten the people. "How much, how little time we will have to go to our goal, which is to enrich and enlighten our people, it is useless to ask about this. This is the right road, and there is no other right way." In addition to this main subject of the article - the justification and defense of the new tactics of the democratic movement, opposed to the old tactics, justified by Sovremennik during the years of the revolutionary situation of 1859-1861 - Pisarev argues here with " literary program"Sovremennik." He accuses the editors of the magazine of ideological illegibility. This line is used to criticize Ostrovsky's works "Kozma Zakharyich Minin Sukhoruk" and " hard days". Later, criticism of the novel by A. Ya. Panaeva (N. Stanitsky) will unfold in the same direction in the article "Puppet tragedy with a bouquet of civil sorrow" (August 1864). In Sovremennik, in polemical notes and articles by M. A. Antonovich, Pisarev’s attitude to Dobrolyubov’s article and his assessment of the image of Katerina were repeatedly criticized. The most meaningful analysis was given by Antonovich in the article "Mistakes" ("Contemporary", 1865, No 4). 1 Lovers of patriotic illusions... - D. I. Pisarev probably has in mind the Slavophiles and representatives of the so-called "pochvennichestvo". Compare, for example, A. Grigoriev's article "After Ostrovsky's Thunderstorm. Letters to I. S. Turgenev" in the Russkiy Mir newspaper, 1860, No. 5-6, 9, 11. 2 Words by Tikhon Kabanov (d. I , yavl 4) with some deviation from the text of the drama. 3 The words of Kabanov (d. V, yavl. 1). 4 From Katerina's monologue (d. II, yavl. 10). 5 Katerina's words (case III, scene 2, scene 3). 6 From Katerina's monologue (d. V, yavl. 2). 7 See file V, yavl. 3. 8 From Katerina's monologue (d. V, yavl. 4). 9 These three fables ... - "The Hermit and the Bear", "Musicians", "Nobleman". 10 From the fable "The Hermit and the Bear". 11 This refers to the book of the English positivist J. G. Lewis "Physiology everyday life"(1860; Russian translation 1861-1862), which was also very successful with Russian readers. Pisarev highly appreciated the merits of the popular presentation in it (see his preface to T. G. Huxley's book "Lessons in Elementary Physiology" - "Lewis and Huxley ". - See Pisarev (Pavl.), vol. 5, st. 567). See about Lewis as a popularizer also in the article "Realists" (vol. 2 present, ed., ch. XXXIII). 12 See. end of section XV of chapter four of What Is to Be Done? The Second Marriage. 13 Owen Richard (1804-1892) -- English zoologist and anatomist, author " Comparative Anatomy Vertebrates" and "Comparative Anatomy of the Invertebrates" (1855); an opponent of Darwinism. T. G. Huxley argued with him and argued that the anatomical differences between humans and higher apes are less than between higher and lower apes (see the Russian translation of his book " On the position of man among organic beings "; St. Petersburg, 1864). 14 Wagner Rudolf (1805-1864) - German physiologist and anatomist, idealist, fideist. K. Focht sharply argued with him in the brochure "Faith and Knowledge" (" Kohlerglaube und Wissenschaft "; 1856). 15 Conversations about the honesty of the zipun and the need for soil ... - These ironic words refer to the "pochvenniks" and the magazine "Vremya", published by M. M. Dostoevsky. Putting forward the idea of nationality, interpreted from idealistic positions, the magazine constantly wrote about the need to appeal to the "soil", to the people. The announcement of the publication of the magazine said, among other things: "Zipun - honest clothing." 16 Quote from the novel in verse by Ya. "Time", 1861, No 6 and 10; 1862, No 1); the publication of this work, not completed by the author, caused sharp polemical comments in democratic journalism. 17 O Sunday schools-- see note. 4 to the article "Stagnation water". 18 Wed. in ch. XXVII "Fathers and Sons": "Self-confident Bazarov did not even suspect that he was in them (muzhiks. - Yu. S. 19 Boys is a nickname used by M.N. instead of a modern chronicle" ("Russian Messenger", 1861, vol. 31, January, p. 482): "Will it be good for Russia that we remain eternal whistling boys? .." 20 See about this in Chapter XXIII 21 Of all Pisarev's negative reviews of Ostrovsky's dramatic chronicle (see note 47 to the article "Flowers of Innocent Humor"), this one, which likens it to N. V. Kukolnik's official-patriotic drama "The Hand of the Almighty Saved the Fatherland" ( 1834); typical work liberal accusatory literature of the 1850s.
