Evaluation of Katerina by Dobrolyubov and Pisarev. Pisarev about Katerina quotes

A. N. Ostrovsky’s play “The Thunderstorm” appeared on stage in 1860 during the period of rising socio-political struggle in Russia on the eve of the abolition of serfdom. Leading critic of Sovremennik magazine N.A. Dobrolyubov immediately noticed Ostrovsky’s drama among literary novelties year and wrote big article with the significant title “A Ray of Light in a 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) ended, giving way to a calmer historical period reforms of the 60s.

Although both authors discuss the same play, their articles differ significantly. Both critics are not limited to analyzing the specific 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 journalistic article on literary material. Dobrolyubov sorts it out artistic merit plays and all of Ostrovsky’s previous works; for Pisarev, both “The 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 considers theoretical issues literature: what are the signs of traditional drama as a type of literature and modern (new) drama; how truth should be expressed in a work of art; What is the nationality of literature? The critic then determines main topic Ostrovsky's plays (image " dark kingdom”, that is, modern Russian life) and analyzes the character and idea of ​​​​each character. Pisarev uses the play as a reason to analyze the state of modern Russian society. True, he briefly retells the plot of “The Thunderstorm,” but his main attention is paid not to the analysis of the play, but to the dispute with Dobrolyubov’s article. Dobrolyubov divides the characters of the play into “tyrants” and their “victims” and states that this division literary characters reflects the real state of modern Russian life; Pisarev believes that in modern Russian life there are two types of people - “dwarfs” (always preoccupied with insignificant problems) and “eternal children” (subordinate to elders in the family, state and doomed to eternal suffering). It is precisely these people, according to Pisarev, who form modern social conditions and the education system.

However, the main subject of dispute between Dobrolyubov and Pisarev is the assessment of the image of Katerina Kabanova and, consequently, 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 ​​​​resistance to the “dark kingdom”, it expresses popular desire to freedom: “In this personality we see an already matured demand for the right and spaciousness of life arising from the depths of the soul of the whole organism.” Pisarev proves that Katerina, a hysterical, poorly educated merchant’s wife, cannot in any way be considered a “bright personality”: “...she rushes from one extreme to the other every minute; (...) at every step she confuses her own own life and the lives of other people; (...) she cuts the lingering knots with the most stupid means, suicide...” (IV). Dobrolyubov notes passion, tenderness and sincerity in Katerina’s character, but Pisarev does not classify these qualities as 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 the heroine’s suicide as “a terrible challenge to tyrant power,” and Pisarev sees stupidity: “... Russian Ophelia, Katerina, having committed many stupid things, throws herself into the water and thus commits 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 that person who knows how to be happy, that is, to benefit himself and others, and, being able to live and act in unfavorable conditions, understands at the same time their unfavorability and, to the best of his ability, tries to rework these conditions for the better” (VI). "Bright personalities" in modern literature- these are the so-called “new people”: Lopukhov from N.G. Chernyshevsky’s novel “What is to be done?” and, of course, Pisarev’s favorite hero is Bazarov: “An intelligent and developed personality, without noticing it, affects everything that touches her; her thoughts, her activities, her humane treatment, her calm firmness - all this stirs the stagnant water of human routine around her” (VI).

So which of the two critics gave the most correct interpretation of the image of Katerina? First of all, we must admit that a real work of art, which is “The Thunderstorm,” can be viewed with different points view, that is, as Pisarev rightly notes, “coming from the same basic facts, one can come to different and even opposite conclusions” (II). Different interpretation The image of Katerina in Dobrolyubov and Pisarev is 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, since he witnessed with his own eyes the rise of the first revolutionary situation. Therefore, Dobrolyubov writes about the impossibility of any longer putting up with the “reigning evil” and about the maturation of popular protest, the symbol of which in the play “The Thunderstorm” was the image of Katerina. Pisarev saw the “fading” of the revolutionary situation, in the article “Motives of Russian Drama” he is concerned about something else: what to do now, when mass popular performances stopped? Pisarev reasons like this: the people are not capable of revolutionary creativity because they are dark and uneducated; The task of the intelligentsia at the present time is to simultaneously improve the lives of the people and educate them. It is the heterogeneous intelligentsia that can now play the most progressive role. public role. That's why real people like Bazarov are “bright personalities of our time.”

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

This removes the contradiction between Dobrolyubov’s and Pisarev’s assessments of Katerina’s image. We can say that both assessments are not essentially opposed, but complement each other.

An essay based on the work of A.N. Ostrovsky "The Thunderstorm".

The image of Katerina as assessed by Dobrolyubov.

The image of Katerina is the most complex of all the images of “The Thunderstorm”. Ostrovsky wanted to show Katerina as a heroic nature, as a person protesting against the foundations of the “Dark Kingdom”. One-piece strong nature, Katerina endures her difficult situation only for the time being. “And if I get really tired of it here,” she says, “no force can hold me back. I’ll throw myself out the window, throw myself into the Volga. I don’t want to live here, I won’t, even if you cut me!” Katerina is distinguished by her open character and courage of nature. For Katerina, the feeling of love that has awakened in her is her whole life: love merges with her longing for will, embodies the dream of constant, human life. She doesn’t love like everyone sees what I do!” - she tells Boris about her feeling. And in the name of this free love that knows no boundaries, she enters into an unequal battle with the forces of the “dark kingdom.”

Ostrovsky very correctly reveals the tragedy and severity of the conflicts between her and the dark forces. She fights not only with herself, but also with environment. The tyrant force did not bend her, did not force her to resort to meanness and hypocrisy, but still the psychology of the “Dark Kingdom” penetrated her consciousness. She is poisoned by religious prejudices. Katerina’s religiosity is not hypocrisy, not Kabanikha’s dark fanaticism, but simply faith in fairy tales. Katerina is attracted to religion by its aesthetic side: the beauty of legends, church music, and icon painting. But religious prejudices force a young woman to perceive love as an obsession, a temptation, a mortal sin. The poor woman is driven crazy by the ghosts of a passing, but so tenacious world.

She's scared and ancient painting on a dilapidated wall, drawing a “fiery hyena”, and the prophecies of a crazy lady. And if the drama “The Thunderstorm” ended with the fourth act, a scene of repentance, then one could consider that the forces of the dark kingdom had won. But the drama ends with Katerina’s complete moral victory. She defeated both the external forces that fettered her freedom and the dark ideas that fettered her will and mind.

The question arises. Why did Katerina rush into the Volga? She was ready to go free, she was not afraid of either distant Siberia, or the difficulty of the path, or the possibility of persecution. "Take me with you!" - she prays to Boris. But her lover is weak and downtrodden. “I can’t, Katya,” is his answer. And the path to a free life is cut off. “Where to now? Should I go home? No, I don’t care whether I go home or go to the grave.”

Committing suicide, committing from the point of view of the church, terrible sin, she thinks not about the afterlife, but about love. "My friend! My joy! Goodbye! - here it is last words. Suicide can be an expression of protest in the most exceptional cases, when other forms of struggle are not possible. And Katerina cannot be called a conscious fighter against slavery, but her determination and strength of character cannot command respect. And we see that the death of Katerina awakened a protest against the “Dark Kingdom” from the downtrodden Tikhon, and caused an open protest from Kuligin.

Dobrolyubov gave a correct assessment of the image of Katerina in his article “A Ray of Light in dark kingdom».

Based on dramatic works Ostrovsky, Dobrolyubov showed us in the Russian family that “dark kingdom” in which the mental abilities wither and the fresh strength of our young generations is 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 living ideas about our family life. But at the same time, we will have to be stricter and more consistent than Dobrolyubov; we will need to defend his ideas against his own hobbies; where Dobrolyubov succumbed to the impulse of aesthetic feeling, we will try to reason calmly and see that our family patriarchy suppresses any healthy development. Ostrovsky’s drama “The Thunderstorm” prompted a critical article from Dobrolyubov entitled “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom.” This article was a mistake on Dobrolyubov’s part; he was carried away by his sympathy for Katerina’s character and mistook her personality for a bright phenomenon. Detailed analysis This character will show our readers that Dobrolyubov’s view in this case is incorrect and that not a single bright phenomenon can arise or develop in the “dark kingdom” of the patriarchal Russian family brought to the stage in Ostrovsky’s drama.

Katerina lives with her husband in the house of her mother-in-law, who constantly grumbles at everyone in her household. Katerina cannot get used to her mother-in-law’s manners and is constantly suffering from her conversations. In the same city there is a young man, Boris Grigorievich, who received a decent education. He looks at Katerina. Katerina falls in love with him, but wants to keep her virtue intact. Tikhon is leaving somewhere for two weeks; Varvara, out of good nature, helps Boris see Katerina, and the loving couple enjoys complete happiness for ten summer nights. Tikhon arrives; Katerina is tormented by remorse, loses weight and turns pale; then she is frightened by a thunderstorm, which she takes as an expression of heavenly wrath; at the same time, the words of the crazy lady confuse her; on the street in front of people, she throws herself on her knees in front of her husband and confesses to him her guilt. The husband “beat her a little”; Old Kabanikha began sharpening with redoubled zeal; A strong home guard was assigned to Katerina, but she managed to escape from home; She met her lover and learned from him that, on the orders of his uncle, he was leaving for Kyakhta; immediately after this meeting, she rushed into the Volga and drowned. I gave my reader full list such facts that in my story may seem too harsh, incoherent and, in the totality, even implausible. What kind of love arises from the exchange of a few glances? What kind of stern virtue is it that gives in at the first opportunity? Finally, what kind of suicide is caused by such minor troubles that are tolerated completely safely by all members of all Russian families?

I conveyed the facts absolutely correctly, but, of course, I could not convey in a few lines those shades in the development of the action that, softening the external sharpness of the outlines, force the reader or viewer to see in Katerina not an invention of the author, but a living person who is really capable of doing all the above. eccentricity. In each of Katerina’s actions one can find an attractive feature; Dobrolyubov found these sides, put them together, composed them perfect image, as a result of this he saw “a ray of light in the dark kingdom,” and rejoiced at this ray with the pure and holy joy of a citizen and poet. If he had looked calmly and carefully at his precious find, then the simplest question would have immediately arisen in his mind, which would have led to the destruction of the attractive illusion. Dobrolyubov would ask himself: how could this bright image come about? he would have seen that upbringing and life could not give Katerina either a strong character or a developed mind.

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

Katerina's whole life consists of constant internal contradictions; every minute she rushes from one extreme to another; today she repents of what she did yesterday; she does not know what she will do tomorrow; at every step she confuses her own life and the lives of other people; finally, having mixed up everything she had at hand, she cuts through the lingering knots with the most stupid means, suicide, and even a suicide that is completely unexpected for herself. Aestheticians could not help but notice what was striking in Katerina’s entire behavior; the contradictions and absurdities are too obvious, but they can be called by a beautiful name; we can say that they express a passionate, tender and sincere nature.

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

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

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

The most famous critical works Pisareva: “Bazarov” (1862), “Motives of Russian Drama” (1864), “Realists” (1864), “ Thinking proletariat"(1865).

III. Now, guys, let's see how these two critics interpreted the image of Katerina Kabanova, the heroine of Ostrovsky’s drama “The Thunderstorm”.(Students of option 1 read the abstracts of Dobrolyubov’s article; students of option 2 read the abstracts of Pisarev’s article. The teacher briefly writes them down in a table on the board. Such work will allow for a more visual representation different approach critics to the image of Katerina).

Question for the class: What, in your opinion, is the reason for such different interpretations of the image of Katerina? Should should 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 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.”

IV. 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.

V. 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 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 the Dark Kingdom”... It is this article that Mr. Pisarev is trying to drown in the muddy water of his phrases and common places… Pisarev calls Dobrolyubov’s views a mistake and equates him with the champions of pure art...”

“It seemed to Pisarev that Dobrolyubov 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.

VI. Apollo Grigoriev demonstrates a completely different approach to analyzing 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 home-prepared student reads brief abstracts articles “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 Russian national life: “The name of this writer is not a satirist, but folk 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 articles, political beliefs opponents, a view of art and, undoubtedly, the personality of the critics themselves, which manifests itself in a polemically sharpened word.

VII. 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 what was 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.

THE THUNDERSHIP IN DOBROLUBOV'S ASSESSMENT.

It is difficult to talk about this work without passing through the judgments contained in the critic’s famous article - A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom. Written in 1860, this article revealed artistic sense and the social significance of the Thunderstorm. The play and the article seemed to merge in the minds of the readers and acquired enormous power of influence.

A thunderstorm, according to Dobrolyubov, is the most decisive work Ostrovsky, for it marks the near end of tyrant power. Central conflict drama - the clash of the heroine defending her human rights with the world of the dark kingdom - expressed the essential aspects folk life during a revolutionary situation. And that is why the critic considered the drama Thunderstorm a truly folk work.

Characterizing the social atmosphere of the 60s, Dobrolyubov wrote: Wherever you look, everywhere you see the awakening of the individual, the presentation of his legal rights, protest against violence and tyranny, for the most part still timid, vague, ready to hide, but still already making his existence noticeable. Dobrolyubov saw the manifestation of an awakened and ever-growing protest against the oppression of tyrants in his feelings and actions, in the very death of Katerina.

The critic assessed Ostrovsky's drama as a work that expresses the urgent needs of its time - the demand for law, legality, respect for man. In the image of Katerina, he sees the embodiment of Russian living nature. Katerina prefers to die than to live in captivity.

“This end seems gratifying to us,” the critic writes, “it’s easy to understand why: it gives a terrible challenge to tyrant power, it tells it that it is no longer possible to go further, it is impossible to live any longer with its violent, deadening principles. In Katerina we see a protest against Kabanov’s concepts of morality, a protest brought to the end, proclaimed both under domestic torture and over the abyss into which the poor woman threw herself. She doesn’t want to put up with it, doesn’t want to take advantage of the miserable vegetation that is given to her in exchange for her living soul... In the image of Katerina, according to Dobrolyubov, a great national idea was embodied - the idea of ​​liberation. The critic considered the image of Katerina close to everyone’s position and heart decent person in our society.

Of course, Dobrolyubov is far from considering Katerina a revolutionary. But if a woman - the most powerless creature, and even in the dark, inert environment of the merchants - can no longer put up with the oppression of tyrant power, it means that indignation is brewing among the disadvantaged, downtrodden people. This indignation must spread wider and wider and motivate the people to a decisive struggle. The critic could not utter the word revolution in the censored article, but his entire article was imbued with a revolutionary spirit.

LITERATURE

Dobrolyubov N.A. Dark Kingdom.

Ostrovsky in Russian criticism. Collection of staten. Ed. 2. M., 1953

Rozanova L. A. Ostrovsky. A manual for students. M. -L., 1965.

Essay text:

Kalinov town on the Volga. This is the world that A. N. Ostrovsky so talentedly reflected in the play The Thunderstorm. This town stands on a high bank, from which a wonderful view opens. Harmony, beauty, triumph of nature. The owners of the city are rich merchants, representatives of the dark kingdom. They also include the wealthy merchant Kabanikha. She pesters her loved ones with eternal reproaches and complaints about disrespect and disobedience. All innovations are hostile and hateful to her. And now about the history of the drama, the thunderstorm made a huge impression on the reader and viewer. After all, the Russian character stood in the center, Katerina Kabanova, she was symbolic image yearning for a new life. Two contemporaries of Ostrovsky, N.A. Dobrolyubov and D.I. Pisarev, having analyzed Ostrovsky’s drama, wrote critical articles. The critics had different opinions about the action of Katerina Kabanova. N.A. Dobrolyubov writes about the determination and strength of character of Katerina, who, in his opinion, is an extraordinary nature, standing out from her environment. She is sensitive, romantic, capable of real feeling. No wonder Kudryash immediately finds out about whom we're talking about, when Boris tells him about the woman he saw in the church during a prayer service. Katerina is different from all the inhabitants of the city of Kalinov. She is a creative, loving, ideal character. Rough, superstitious stories and senseless ravings of wanderers turn into golden, poetic dreams of her imagination, not frightening, but clear, kind. But what does Dobrolyubov think about Katerina’s decisive step, her suicide? In his opinion, Katerina had no way out of the current life situation. She could submit, become a slave, an unquestioning victim of her mother-in-law. This is not Katerina’s character. ...It was not then that the new type created by Russian life was reflected in her, only to be reflected in a fruitless attempt and perish after the first failure. The heroine decided to die, but she is not afraid of death, since she is trying to prove to us and herself that she can be forgiven, since it is already very difficult for her. Katerina died, but her death, like sunbeam, even if only for a moment, dispersed the impenetrable darkness of the old world. Her act shook the dark kingdom. D.I. Pisarev makes completely different conclusions in his article Motives of Russian Drama. He agrees that passion, tenderness and sincerity really constitute the predominant properties in Katerina’s nature. But he also sees some contradictions in this image. The critic notices the unjustification of causes and consequences in the heroine’s actions: Kabanikha grumbling Katerina is languishing; Boris Grigorievich casts tender glances - Katerina falls in love. He does not understand Katerina’s behavior. According to Pisarev, Katerina’s last monologue is illogical. As a result, Pisarev concludes: The cruelty of a family despot, the fanaticism of an old bigot, the girl’s unhappy love for a scoundrel, impulses of despair, jealousy, fraud, riotous revelry, educational rod, educational affection, quiet dreaminess, all this motley mixture of feelings, qualities and actions... comes down to , in my opinion, to one common source, which cannot excite in us exactly any sensations, neither high nor low. These are all various manifestations of inexhaustible stupidity. Pisarev does not agree with Dobrolyubov in assessing the image of Katerina. In his opinion, Katerina cannot be called a ray of light in the dark kingdom, since she was unable to do anything to alleviate her own and others’ suffering. Katerina's action did not change anything. What prompted Pisarev to argue with Dobrolyubov’s article? main reason the fact that Pisarev looks at the heroine from another time. I understand why Dobrolyubov perceives Katerina so warmly in the world of the dark kingdom. He saw in Katerina the beginning of a growth in self-awareness. Pisarev focused his main attention on something else: the thunderstorm did not start, the people did not wake up. Author of the essay: anton [email protected]

Rights to the essay “Who is right in describing the image of Katerina: Dobrolyubov or Pisarev?” belong to its author. When quoting material, it is necessary to indicate a hyperlink to

An essay on the works of A. N. Ostrovsky on the topic:

The image of Katerina from the drama “The Thunderstorm” based on materials
articles by D. Pisarev and N. Dobrolyubov

Katerina is undoubtedly a multifaceted and not entirely unambiguous character. Many people have different opinions about it, like D. Pisarev and N. Dobrolyubov.

For Dobrolyubov, Katerina is “a ray of light in a dark kingdom.” He sees her as bright and a pure person, yearning for freedom. He takes pity on her, claiming that Boris is not worth Katerina, and as Dobrolyubov himself wrote about him, “if it were another person in a different position, then there would be no need to rush into the water.” In this article, Katerina is described as strong man, and her strength lies in the fact that she decides to take such a step as suicide, because she had no choice. Katerina’s actions are in harmony with her nature, they are natural for her. And until the very end, she is guided precisely by her nature, and not by any given decision. For Dobrolyubov, the character of Katerina is a step forward in all Russian literature.

As for Pisarev, he sees Katerina differently. He claims that Dobrolyubov was mistaken when he “took her personality for a bright phenomenon.” Katerina’s problems seem small and insignificant to Pisarev, and Katerina herself seems weak woman. “What kind of love arises from the exchange of a few glances? (...) Finally, what kind of suicide is this, caused by such minor troubles that are tolerated completely safely by all members of all Russian families?

Pisarev’s position is not close to me, I agree with Dobrolyubov. Katerina seems to me like a free bird locked up. She did not betray herself until the very end and took responsibility for her sin. I think she suffered because she simply couldn't choose between wanting free life and duty to God.