Pisarev about the "Thunderstorm". Critical article by Pisarev on the "Thunderstorm" of Ostrovsky

What are you thinking about when you reread what Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev wrote about the "Thunderstorm" of Alexander Nikolaevich Ostrovsky? Perhaps the fact that literature follows geniuses ... Golden Russian literature of the XIX century, starting with the breakthrough of the international level in poetry, already by the middle of the century realized it in prose, serving as a "ray of light" for the entire Russian society. Speech, of course, is about the non-poetic works of Pushkin, Gogol, Ostrovsky.

Citizen article promulgation

The article about Pisarev's "Thunderstorm" is a response of a citizen to the sign play of the century before last. Written in 1959 by Alexander Nikolaevich Ostrovsky play in five acts takes a special place in the golden Russian literature. This dramatic work served as a powerful stimulus for the further development of realism. Evidence of this was the evaluation given to the play by critics. It shows a real pluralism of opinions. And the truth was born in the dispute! In understanding this, it is important to know that the article "The Motives of Russian Drama", in which Pisarev placed his "review" on "Groza", was written as a response to another critical article by the well-known literary critic Nikolai Dobrolyubov. The article, which Pisarev polemised against, was called brightly - "Ray of light in the dark kingdom". We will try to present our analysis to the readers of the above-mentioned work of Dmitry Pisarev. It occupies a special place in Russian literature. Ostrovsky was able to continue with dignity in Russian drama the realism that Griboyedov put in "Woe from Wit".

The fundamental disagreement with Dobrolyubov on the play "Groza"

Dmitri Ivanovich, undoubtedly, was a subtle connoisseur of Ostrovsky's work and, undoubtedly, getting down to work, he became thoroughly acquainted with the article of an 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 more expensive"), Pisarev wrote about Ostrovsky's drama "Groza".

He realized the need to express his point of view, because he felt: Dobroliubov tried to show Katerina "the hero of time". With such a position, Dmitry Ivanovich basically disagreed, and, quite motivated. Therefore, he wrote his article "The Motives of Russian Drama," where he criticized the main thesis in the work of Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov that Katerina Kabanova is "a ray of light in the dark kingdom."

Kalinov as a model of Russia

Undoubtedly, Pisarev described his thoughts about the "Thunderstorm" in the article, clearly realizing that Dobrolubov had given such a "dark" description formally to one district city, and in fact to all of Russia in the mid-19th century. Kalinov is a small model of a huge country. Two people manipulate public opinion and the entire course of city life: public merchant, illegible in the methods of enrichment, Savel Prokofich Dikoy, and a hypocrite of Shakespeare's sweep, merchant Kabanov Marfa Ignatyevna (in common people - Kabanikha).

In the 60 years of the century before last, Russia itself was a huge country with a population of forty million and developed agriculture. The network of railways already operated. In the near future, after writing Ostrovsky plays (more precisely, since 1861, after the signing of the Emperor Alexander II "Manifesto" abolishing serfdom), the number of proletariat increased and, accordingly, the industrial upsurge began.

However, the suffocating atmosphere of the pre-reform society shown in Ostrovsky's play was truly truthful. The work was claimed, suffered ...

The relevance of the ideas of the play

Using a simple argument, in a language that the reader understands, Pisarev creates a response about the "Thunderstorm." The summary of the play he accurately reproduces in his critical article. How else? After all, the problematics of the play are essential. And Ostrovsky did a great job, with his whole heart, wishing to build a civil society instead of a "dark kingdom".

However, dear readers ... So to speak, putting your hand on your heart ... Is it possible to call our society "the realm of light, goodness and reason"? Was it Ostrovsky's monologue Kuligin wrote in the void: "Because honest work never earns us more daily bread. And who has money, sir, who tries to enslave the poor, so that the gift money will be even more profitable for his works ... "? Bitter, fair words ...

Katerina is not a "ray of light"

Criticism of Pisarev about the "Thunderstorm" begins with the formulation of the conclusion about the recklessness of Dobrolyubov's conclusion. He motivates him, giving arguments from the author's text of the play. His polemic with Nikolai Dobrolyubov resembles the reshuffle of a pessimist, wise with experience, about the conclusions made by the optimist. According to the arguments of Dmitry Ivanovich, the essence of Katerina is melancholic, there is no real virtue in it that is characteristic of people who are called "bright." According to Pisarev, Dobrolyubov made a systematic mistake in analyzing the image of the protagonist of the play. He gathered all of its positive qualities into a single positive image, ignoring the shortcomings. In the opinion of Dmitry Ivanovich, the dialectical view of the heroine is important.

The main character as a suffering part of the dark kingdom

A young woman lives with her husband Tikhon near her mother-in-law, a rich merchant who has (as they say now) "heavy energy", which is subtlely emphasized by a critical article by Pisarev. "Thunderstorm", as a tragic play, is largely conditioned in this way. Kabanikha (so street-call her) is pathologically fixated on the moral oppression of others, with constant reproaches, eating them, "like a rusty iron." This she does in hypocrisy: that is, constantly soliciting that the domestic "act in order" (more precisely, following its instructions).

Tikhon and his sister Varvara adapted to her mother's speeches. Especially sensitive to her cavils and humiliations her sister-in-law, Katerina. She, who has a romantic, melancholic psyche, is really unhappy. Her color dreams and dreams reveal a completely childish worldview. It's sweet, but it's not virtue!

Inability to co-operate with itself

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 grinful Boris Grigoryevich, the nephew of the merchant Diky, smiled at her, and the matter was ready: Katya was rushing to a secret meeting. At the same time, she, getting close to this, in principle, a stranger, completely does not think about the consequences. "Does the author depict" a bright beam ?! "- a critical article of Pisarev asks the reader. "Thunderstorm" reflects an extremely illogical heroine, who can not only cope with the circumstances, but also to manage with herself. After betraying her husband, being depressed, childishly frightened by the thunder and the wit of the half-witted lady, she confesses her deed and immediately identifies herself with the victim. It's trite, is not it?

On the advice of her mother Tikhon, she "a little", "for order" beats. However, the mockery of the mother-in-law becomes an order of magnitude more sophisticated. After Katerina learns that Boris G. goes to Kyakhta (Transbaikalia), she, who has neither the will nor the character, decides to commit suicide: she throws himself into the river and drowns.

Katerina is not a "hero of the time"

Pisarev about the "Thunderstorm" Ostrovsky reflects philosophically. He asks himself whether in a slave society a person who is not endowed with a deep mind, not possessing the will, not engaged in self-education, not versed in people - in principle, become a ray of light. Yes, this woman is touchingly meek, kind and spiritual, she does not know how to defend her point of view. ("She crushed me," says Katerina about Kabanich). Yes, she has a creative, impressionable nature. And this type can really enchant (as it happened with Dobrolyubov). But this does not change the essence ... "A person can not arise under the circumstances described in the play -" a ray of light "!" - asserts Dmitry Ivanovich.

Maturity of the soul - the condition of adulthood

Moreover, the critic continues his thought, capitulating to small, completely surmountable life difficulties, is this 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 slavish Russia, oppressed by local "princes" like Kabanikhi and Wild? At best, such a suicide can only cause a public outcry. However, as a result, strong-willed and educated people must fight the social group of rich people and manipulators!

At the same time, Pisarev does not derogate from Katerina. "Thunderstorm," the critic believes, knowingly so consistently depicts her image, since 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 a perfectly cozy childhood and youth. Parents did not prepare her for an adult life! Moreover, they did not give her proper education.

However, we must admit that unlike Illya Ilyich, get Catherine to a more favorable environment than the Kabanovs' family, she would most likely have taken place as a person. Ostrovsky gives this justification ...

What is the positive image of the main character

This artistically holistic, positive image - tells Pisarev about Katerina. "Thunderstorm", when read, leads the reader to the realization that the main character really has an internal emotional charge, characteristic of a creative person. She has a potential for a positive attitude to reality. She intuitively feels the main need of Russian society - human freedom. She has a hidden energy (which she feels, but has not learned to control it). Therefore, Katya exclaimed the words: "Why are people not birds?". The author did not accidentally conceive 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 lacks mental strength ...

Conclusion

To what conclusions does Pisarev's "Motives for Russian Drama" lead his article? "Thunderstorm" depicts not a "hero of the time", not a "ray of light". This image is much weaker, but not artistically (it's all right here), but by the maturity of the soul. The "hero of time" can not "break down" as a person. After all, people who are called "rays of light", you can rather kill than to break. And Katerina is weak ...

There are both critics and the general direction of reflection: the article about the "Thunderstorm" Pisarev, like the article by Dobrolyubov, equally treat the title of the play. This is not only an atmospheric phenomenon, which scared Caterina to death. Rather, we are talking about the social conflict of a straggled non-citizen society, which has come into conflict with the needs of development.

Ostrovsky's play is a kind of indictment. Both critics have shown, following Alexander Nikolaevich, that people are powerless, they are not free, they are essentially subordinate to "Kabanih" and "Wild." Why did Dobrolyubov and Pisarev write about Groza so differently.

The reason for this is, undoubtedly, the depth of the work, in which there is not one semantic "bottom". It has both psychology and sociality. Each of the literary critics in their own way comprehended them, differently prioritized them. And both one and the other did it in a talented way, and Russian literature only benefited from it. Therefore it is completely stupid to ask the question: "Did Pisarev write about the play" Groza "more accurately, or did Dobrolyubov?" Sure, you should read both articles ...