The image of Katerina as assessed by critics is brief. The image of Katerina as assessed by Dobrolyubov

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 passions; 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 of this nature will show our readers that Dobrolyubov’s view in this case is incorrect and that not a single bright phenomenon can either arise or develop in “ 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 a complete list of such facts, which in my story may seem too harsh, incoherent and, in the aggregate, 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 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 have asked himself: how could this happen? light image? 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; she confuses her every step of the way 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.

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

II. Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev(1840-1868) – literary critic, publicist. Born into a poor noble family. He studied at the Faculty of History and Philology of St. Petersburg University. It is at the university that the “poisonous seed of skepticism” sprouts in the young man. Since 1861 he has been working in the magazine “Russian Word”. Pisarev's articles quickly attracted the attention of readers with the sharpness of his thoughts, the fearlessness of the author's position, and brought him the fame of a daring and ardent polemicist who does not recognize anyone's authority.

After 1861, Pisarev pinned his hopes on useful scientific and practical activity, on awakening interest in exact, natural science knowledge. From an extremely pragmatic position, he approaches the analysis of some works of art. Pisarev insists that by all means we must increase the number of thinking people.

Tragically died in June 1868.

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

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).

He who does not know how to do anything to alleviate his own and others’ suffering cannot be called a bright phenomenon.: 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 of the specific problems of the new era that came after the crash 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. 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, to which he counts one of his best articles, “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom”... It is this article that Mr. Pisarev is trying to suppress muddy water his phrases and commonplaces... Pisarev calls Dobrolyubov’s views a mistake and equates him with the champions of pure art...”

“It seemed to Pisarev that Dobrolyubov imagined Katerina as a woman with a developed mind, who supposedly decided to protest only as a result of the education and development of her mind, and therefore was called a “ray of light”... Pisarev imposed his own fantasy on Dobrolyubov and began to refute it like this , as if it belonged to Dobrolyubov..."

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

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

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

Teacher's word: M. Antonovich was the initiator of the controversy between Sovremennik and Russkiy Slovo. These leading democratic journals differed in their understanding of the very paths of progressive change. Pisarev's emphasis on scientific progress led to a certain revision of the views of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov. This was clearly manifested in Pisarev’s interpretation of the image of Katerina. Antonovich, in his article “Mistakes,” sharply criticized this attempt to revise Dobrolyubov, accusing Pisarev of distorting the meaning of Dobrolyubov’s article.

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

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

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

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

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. The central conflict of the drama - the clash of the heroine defending her human rights with the world of the dark kingdom - expressed the essential aspects of people's life at the time of the 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 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 the position and heart of every 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.

After the publication of A. N. Ostrovsky’s play “The Thunderstorm,” many responses appeared in the periodical press, but the articles by N. A. Dobrolyubov “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom” and D. I. Pisarev “Motives of Russian Drama” attracted the most attention.

Speaking about how “the strong Russian character is understood and expressed in “The Thunderstorm,” Dobrolyubov in the article “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom” rightly noted Katerina’s “focused determination.” However, in determining the origins of her character, he completely abandoned the spirit of Ostrovsky's drama. Is it possible to agree that “upbringing and young life gave her nothing”? Without monologues and memories of her youth, is it possible to understand her freedom-loving character? Not feeling anything bright and life-affirming in Katerina’s reasoning, not worthy of her religious culture attention, Dobrolyubov reasoned: “Nature here replaces both considerations of reason and the demands of feeling and imagination.” Where in Ostrovsky we can see elements folk culture, Dobrolyubov has a somewhat straightforward (if not to say primitive) understood nature. Katerina’s youth, according to Ostrovsky, is a sunrise, joy of life, bright hopes and joyful prayers. Katerina’s youth, according to Dobrolyubov, is “the senseless ravings of wanderers,” “a dry and monotonous life.”

In his reasoning, Dobrolyubov did not notice the main thing - the difference between Katerina’s religiosity and the Kabanovs’ religiosity (“everything emanates coldness and some kind of irresistible threat: the faces of the saints are so strict, and the church readings are so formidable, and the stories of the wanderers are so monstrous”). It was in her youth that Katerina’s freedom-loving and passionate character was formed, challenging the “dark kingdom.” Further, Dobrolyubov, speaking about Katerina, presents her as a complete, harmonious character, which “strikes us with its opposition to all tyrant principles.” The critic talks about strong personality, which opposed the oppression of the Wild and Kabanovs to freedom, even at the cost of life. Dobrolyubov saw in Katerina “the ideal national character”, so necessary in crucial moment Russian history.

D.I. Pisarev assessed “The Thunderstorm” from a different perspective in his article “Motives of Russian Drama.” Unlike Dobrolyubov, Pisarev calls Katerina a “crazy dreamer” and a “visionary”: “Katerina’s whole life consists of constant internal contradictions; every minute she rushes from one extreme to another; Today she repents of what she did yesterday, and yet she herself does not know what she will do tomorrow; At every step she confuses her own life and the lives of other people; finally, having mixed up everything she had at hand, she cuts the lingering knots with the most stupid means, suicide.”

Pisarev is completely deaf to the heroine’s moral experiences; he considers them a consequence of Katerina’s unreasonableness. It is difficult to agree with such categorical statements from the heights of which the “thinking realist” Pisarev judges. However, the article is perceived rather as a challenge to Dobrolyubov’s understanding of the play, especially in the part where we're talking about about the revolutionary potential of the people, rather than as a literary analysis of the play. After all, Pisarev wrote his article in an era of decline in the social movement and the disappointment of revolutionary democracy in the capabilities of the people. Since spontaneous peasant riots did not lead to a revolution, Pisarev assesses Katerina’s “spontaneous” protest as profound “nonsense.”

30. Funny and serious in Chekhov's stories.

Chekhov's works contain a huge number of shades of comedy and drama. The more the writer peered into the simplest life situations, the more unexpected conclusions he came to. Humorous circumstances suddenly turned into drama, and sad events turned into farce. All this is expressed in Chekhov’s works, where, as in life, the funny and the sad are intertwined.

The writer wants people to be people and live like people. This is probably why Anton Pavlovich’s stories are still more sad than funny. The drama of the content is hidden behind comic situations, the actions of the characters, and funny jokes. But gradually joyful intonations give way to disappointment.

The story “The Death of an Official” seems funny at first. The official Chervyakov sneezed on the general’s bald head and tortured him “ significant person” apologies. Having waited for the general’s anger, “coming home mechanically, without taking off his uniform, he lay down on the sofa and... died.” This story is tragic, as it paints a picture of the terrible destruction of man. After all, Chervyakov was afraid not of the general’s anger, but of the lack of any reaction. The official was so accustomed to obeying that he could not understand why the “radiant face” did not “scold” him. The story “Chameleon” is also ambiguous. Ochumeloz's behavior causes both laughter and tears. After all, he is a “chameleon” because he embodies the duplicity of the world, in which everyone must be a dumb slave and at the same time an arrogant ruler. Chekhov shows life, which is built according to the laws of domination and subordination. People have forgotten how to perceive the world differently. We find confirmation of this in the story “Thick and Thin”. The meeting of two schoolmates is overshadowed by the fact that one of them has a higher rank. At the same time, the “fat” man had no intention of humiliating his former friend. On the contrary, he is good-natured and sincerely glad to meet you. But the “thin one,” having heard about the secret adviser and the two stars, “shrank, hunched over, and narrowed.” The “sweetness and respectful acidity” necessary in such cases appeared on his face, he giggled disgustingly and began adding the particle “s” to all his words. From such voluntary servitude “ Privy Councilor vomited.” This is how a comic situation turns into a drama, because we are talking about the destruction of the human in a person. Bitter thoughts give way to a smile when you read the story “The Mask.” Before us the best people cities gathered for a masquerade ball. Someone starts a row in the reading room of the club, which outrages the intelligentsia to the core. However, as soon as the bully turns into a millionaire, everyone tries to make amends and does not know how to please the “honorary citizen.”

At first sight, funny story“Intruder.” Main character- an illiterate little man. He is on trial for unscrewing the nut “with which the rails are attached to the sleepers” in order to make weights from it. The whole story is a dialogue between the “judicial investigator” and the “attacker”, built according to the laws of the absurd. Chekhov makes us laugh at the stupid, slow-witted man. But the whole of Russia stands behind him, downtrodden and poor, so I no longer want to laugh, but to cry.

More than anything else, Chekhov hated voluntary slavery. He was merciless towards slave people. By exposing them, Chekhov tried to save human souls from being crushed.

End of work -

This topic belongs to the section:

Epilogue of crime and punishment. Its connection with the general problems of the novel

Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov.. Raskolnikov and Sonya Marmeladova.. Raskolnikov and Luzhin Raskolnikov and PoRFiry Petrovich..

If you need additional material on this topic, or you did not find what you were looking for, we recommend using the search in our database of works:

What will we do with the received material:

If this material was useful to you, you can save it to your page on social networks:

All topics in this section:

Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov
Much has in common with Raskolnikov in the image of Svidrigailov. Dostoevsky by different means makes us feel the closeness of these spiritual counterparts, constantly draws parallels between them. Dissenter

Raskolnikov and Sonya Marmeladova
Rodion Raskolnikov and Sonya Marmeladova are the two main characters of the novel, appearing as two oncoming streams. Their worldview forms the ideological part of the work. Sonya Marmeladova - moral idea

Raskolnikov and Luzhin
Rodion Raskolnikov, the main character of the novel, is a young man, coming from an impoverished noble family, a university law student, forced to

Evgeny Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov
The ability to sensitively guess the problems and contradictions that are brewing in Russian society is important distinguishing feature Turgenev the writer.

Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov - the son of a military general, who took
Evgeny Bazarov and Arkady Kirsanov The great Russian writer I. S. Turgenev subtly felt everything that was happening in public life

Russia. In the novel “Fathers and Sons” he touches on a topical issue for the sixties of the last century.
Father and son Kirsanovs

“Fathers and Sons” is one of the central works of I. S. Turgenev. He wrote this novel in an alarming and, perhaps, the most dramatic period of his life.
It is generally accepted that the title of a novel contains

Evgeny Bazarov in the face of love and death
The main character of I. S. Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons” - Evgeny Vasilyevich Bazarov - dies at the end of the work. We can say that Bazarov treated those around him with a considerable amount of condescension What Evgeny Bazarov claims and denies

In the novel “Fathers and Sons” Turgenev showed the main
“Fathers and Sons” by Turgenev is a socio-psychological novel in which the main place is given to social conflicts. The action of the novel takes place in 1859. The novel "Fathers and Sons" was created

Ilya Ilyich Oblomov and Olga Ilyinskaya
Ilya Ilyich Oblomov and Olga Ilyinskaya, the heroes of Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov,” understand the meaning of life, love, and family happiness in different ways.

Oblomov was born in Oblomovka - a “blessed” corner of the earth
Poems by F.I Tyutchev about love F. I. Tyutchev entered the history of Russian poetry, first of all, as the author of philosophical lyrics, but he also wrote a number of wonderful works

on the theme of love. Love and philosophical poems of the poet
Features of Tyutchev's poems The main features of the poet’s lyrics are the identity of phenomena outside world and states human soul

, the universal spirituality of nature. This determined not only the philosophical content, but also the artistic
Lyrics by A.A Fet

Mostly in Fet's lyrics there are poems about the beauty of nature, its perfection, and the fact that a person should strive for that inner harmony that is present in nature. The closest to me are
Features of Fet's lyrics A.A. Fet is one of the outstanding Russians poets of the 19th century

century. He opened up to us an amazing world of beauty, harmony, perfection, Fet can be called a singer of nature. The approach of spring and autumn withering, soul
Features of Nekrasov's lyrics

Nekrasov's poetic world is surprisingly rich and diverse. The talent that nature generously endowed him with and his extraordinary hard work helped the poet create such polyphonic and melodious lyrics.
The originality of the lyrical hero in Nekrasov’s poems

For lyric poetry, the most subjective kind of literature, the main thing is the state of a person’s soul. These are feelings, experiences, reflections, moods expressed directly through the image of the lyrical hero, the highest
Nekrasov's poems about love

Nikolai Alekseevich Nekrasov is almost never perceived as a poet who worked in the mainstream of love poetry. His original and familiar works are considered to be “Peasant Children”, “Women
To the lover How to report difficult road

, Once passed by myself, I listen to the reckless speech, Your rosy hopes.
Love with crazy dreams And I...

The city of Kalinov and its inhabitants
A. N. Ostrovsky, in the play “The Thunderstorm,” which he wrote in 1859, showed the life and customs of Russian provincial society of that time. He exposed the moral problems and shortcomings of this society that we and

Katerina among the inhabitants of the city
A.N. Ostrovsky in his play “The Thunderstorm” divided people into two categories. One category is the oppressors, representatives of the “dark kingdom”, the other is the people humiliated and downtrodden by them. Representatives of the first group

Dating scene in the drama thunderstorm
In Ostrovsky's drama "The Thunderstorm" the main character is Katerina. The drama talks about tragic fate

a girl who couldn't fight for her love.
Of "love and How Doctor Startsev turned into Ionych Who is to blame for being young, full of strength and

vital energy
Has Dmitry Startsev turned into Ionych? At the beginning of the story, Chekhov shows Dmitry Startsev as young, wealthy, and full of strength. Like all

Features of Chekhov's dramaturgy
Anton Pavlovich Chekhov gravitated towards the theater all his life. Plays for amateur performances were his first youthful works. Chekhov's stories are so rich in dialogues, with the help of which the author Two families in the novel War and Peace Kuragins and Bolkonskys At the Center for the Novel "War and Peace" there are three families: the Kuragins, the Rostovs,

Bolkonsky Family
Bolkonskikh is described with undoubted sympathy. It shows three generations: the senior prince Nikolai Andreevich, his Natasha Rostova Natasha Rostova - central

female character
the novel “War and Peace” and, perhaps, the author’s favorite. Tolstoy presents us with the evolution of his heroine during the fifteen-year period, from 1805 to 1820,

My favorite episode in the novel War and Peace
In the work “War and Peace” the most important episode, in my opinion, is the episode of the council where the fate of Moscow is decided - the fate of Russia. The action takes place in the best hut of the peasant Andrei Savostyanov War on the pages of the novel War and Peace L. N. Tolstoy sought to reveal in his work

national significance

war, which united the entire society, all Russian people in a common impulse, to show that the fate of the campaign was not decided in the headquarters and hundred
An essay on the works of A. N. Ostrovsky on the topic:

The image of Katerina from the drama “The Thunderstorm” based on materials

For Dobrolyubov, Katerina is “a ray of light in a dark kingdom.” He sees her as a bright and pure person, striving 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.

The name of Ostrovsky is well known and memorable to everyone who cherishes national Russian culture. Dobrolyubov called Ostrovsky’s plays “plays of life.” His contemporaries and descendants were amazed by the naturalness of his works, their simplicity, and truthfulness, unusual for that time. A thoughtful reader or viewer sees in Ostrovsky not only a describer of everyday life, but also a sharp satirist, lyricist, and dramatic poet.

Most critics valued in A. Ostrovsky not so much the talent of the writer as his outstanding playwright; many of his plays were staged during the writer’s lifetime at the Moscow Maly Theater, or “Ostrovsky House,” as residents of the capital called it. Many of them are still going on there.

Ostrovsky deeply understood people's lives and knew how to vividly depict it in the most character traits. A. Ostrovsky's play "" is in this sense another manifestation of his talent.

"Thunderstorm" caused a mass different opinions from Russian criticism, many of which were directly opposed to each other. The image that caused the most controversy main character plays - Katerina. The outstanding Russian critic Dobrolyubov considered her “a ray of light in the dark kingdom of Russian reality” with a character “primarily creative, loving, ideal.”

Dobrolyubov compares Katerina to a large, high-water river. Katerina withstands all adversities, will endure everything, despite any obstacles; “and when there is not enough strength, he will die, but will not betray himself.” According to N.A. Dobrolyubov, Katerina is condemned to fight; whether she submits or commits deception, she will still “reach her end.” Dobrolyubov highly appreciates Katerina’s ability to protest against “Kabanov’s” concepts of morality. He sees in her a woman “who does not want to put up with or take advantage of the miserable existence.”

Another point of view on this image is expressed in the article by D. I. Pisarev “Motives of Russian Drama.” Pisarev emphasizes that Katerina’s life is full of internal contradictions. In her soul “there are constantly colliding, as it were, two different women". Katerina, according to the critic, "confuses her own life," and having tangled the knot to the end, she cuts it "in the simplest and stupidest way - suicide."

In my opinion, the point of view of F. M. Dostoevsky is closest to the truth. He considers Katerina’s personal drama to be completely natural and thus rejects the arguments of those who are trying to derive from “The Thunderstorm” the idea of ​​“the harmfulness of patriarchal despotism.” He claims that “... the evil one, who tormented Katerina, loves such natures. If she were surrounded by the most kind people, having committed her sin, she would have been executed and grieved in the same way. There might not have been a suicide, but her life would still have been ruined." And this is really so, you just have to read the text of the play more carefully. Katerina is so sincere, honest, pure in soul that, having fallen in love with Boris and thereby accepting “heavy” sin on the soul, she cannot help but experience pangs of conscience. And, of course, it was not the patriarchal way of life that forced her to take the most terrible step - suicide, but simply truthfulness, deep faith and purity. moral principles they did not allow Katerina to continue her “sinful” existence on earth.

We remember that in parental home she “lived and did not grieve for anything, like a bird in the wild.” Her mother “doted on her and didn’t force her to work.” And although everything is “the same” in her mother-in-law’s house, Katerina feels some kind of oppression, everything is “as if from under captivity.” Members of the family into which Katerina ended up treat the situation in the house differently. Tikhon has completely submitted, he does not want to “live by his own will,” although he is sometimes glad to break free. Varvara adapted more successfully, slowly deceiving her mother and pursuing, first of all, her own interests.

Katerina is firmly convinced that once she gets married, she is “as if buried.” However, this does not prevent her, having fallen in love with Boris, to give vent to her feelings, thus violating age-old traditions. But Katerina is deeply pious. Having cheated on her husband, she cannot live with such a sin in her heart, which seems even worse to her than suicide. In her last monologue, after saying goodbye to Boris, Katerina says that she cannot return home, that “she doesn’t even want to think about life,... people, the house, the walls - everything is disgusting,” and whoever loves, “doesn’t care.” will pray." Thus, the discord between what is going on in Katerina’s soul, between her feelings, desires and the norms of Kalinov’s reality becomes more and more tragic. Tikhon’s last exclamation, in which his envy of deceased wife, emphasizes, in my opinion, all that horror Everyday life, in which the living “envy” the dead.

You can interpret the image of Katerina in different ways; you can see manifestations in her actions human weakness, but it seems to me that one cannot condemn Katerina for them and one cannot help but sympathize with a heroine so rare in her inner beauty.

We remember that in her parents’ house she “lived and did not worry about anything, like a bird in the wild.” Her mother “doted on her and didn’t force her to work.”

A. Dobrolyubova, Katerina is sentenced to fight; whether she submits or commits deception, she will still “reach her end.” Dobrolyubov highly appreciates Katerina’s ability to protest against “Kabanov’s” concepts of morality. He sees in her a woman “who does not want to put up with or take advantage of the miserable existence.” Another point of view on this image is expressed in the article by D.I.

The name of Ostrovsky is well known and memorable to everyone who cherishes national Russian culture. Dobrolyubov called Ostrovsky’s plays “plays of life.” His contemporaries and descendants were amazed by the naturalness of his works, their simplicity, and truthfulness, unusual for that time. A thoughtful reader or viewer sees in Ostrovsky not only a describer of everyday life, but also a sharp satirist, lyricist, and dramatic poet. Most critics appreciated A.

Pisarev “Motives of Russian drama”. Pisarev emphasizes that Katerina’s life is full of internal contradictions. In her soul, “it’s as if two different women are constantly colliding.”

Ostrovsky is not so much a writer’s talent as his gift as an outstanding playwright; many of his plays were staged during the writer’s lifetime at the Moscow Maly Theater, or “Ostrovsky House,” as residents of the capital called it. Many of them are still going on there. Ostrovsky deeply understood people's lives and knew how to vividly depict its most characteristic features. A. Ostrovsky's play “The Thunderstorm” is in this sense another manifestation of his talent. “The Thunderstorm” aroused a lot of different opinions from Russian critics, many of which were directly opposite to each other. The greatest controversy was caused by the image of the main character of the play, Katerina.

However, this does not prevent her, having fallen in love with Boris, to give vent to her feelings, thus violating age-old traditions. But Katerina is deeply pious. Having cheated on her husband, she cannot live with such a sin in her heart, which seems even worse to her than suicide. In her last monologue, after saying goodbye to Boris, Katerina says that she cannot return home, that “she doesn’t even want to think about life, ... people, house, walls - everything is disgusting,” and whoever loves, “will still pray " Thus, the discord between what is going on in Katerina’s soul, between her feelings, desires and the norms of Kalinov’s reality becomes more and more tragic.

Varvara adapted more successfully, slowly deceiving her mother and pursuing, first of all, her own interests. Katerina is firmly convinced that once she gets married, she is “as if buried.”

The outstanding Russian critic Dobrolyubov considered her “a ray of light in the dark kingdom of Russian reality” with a character “primarily creative, loving, ideal.” Dobrolyubov compares Katerina to a large, high-water river. Katerina withstands all adversity, will endure everything, despite any obstacles; “And when there is not enough strength, he will die, but will not betray himself.” According to N.

Tikhon’s last exclamation, in which his envy of his dead wife is evident, emphasizes, in my opinion, all the horror of everyday life in which the living “envy” the dead. You can interpret the image of Katerina in different ways, you can see manifestations of human weakness in her actions, but it seems to me that you cannot condemn Katerina for them and you cannot help but sympathize with a heroine so rare in her inner beauty.

If she had been surrounded by the kindest people, having committed her sin, she would have been executed and grieved in the same way. There might not have been a suicide, but her life would still have been ruined.” And this is true, you just have to read the text of the play more carefully. Katerina is so sincere, honest, and pure in soul that, having fallen in love with Boris and thereby accepting a “grave” sin on her soul, she cannot help but experience pangs of conscience. And, of course, it was not the patriarchal way of life that forced her to take the most terrible step - suicide, but simply truthfulness, deep faith and purity of moral principles did not allow Katerina to continue her “sinful” existence on earth.

Katerina, according to the critic, “confuses her own life,” and having tangled the knot to the end, she cuts it “in the simplest and stupidest way - suicide.” In my opinion, the point of view of F. M. Dostoevsky is closest to the truth. He considers Katerina’s personal drama to be completely natural and thus rejects the arguments of those who are trying to derive from “The Thunderstorm” the idea of ​​“the harmfulness of patriarchal despotism.” He claims that “... the evil one, who tormented Katerina, loves such natures.

And although everything is “the same” in her mother-in-law’s house, Katerina feels some kind of oppression, everything is “as if from under captivity.” Members of the family into which Katerina ended up treat the situation in the house differently. Tikhon completely submitted to his mother; he does not want to “live by his own will,” although he is sometimes glad to break free.