Dramaturgy A. N

Literature lesson by Lyapina N.V.

Topic: “Information from the biography of A.N. Ostrovsky. Socio-cultural

the novelty of the dramaturgy of A.N. Ostrovsky. Drama Storm. image of Katherine.

Didactic goal: to create conditions for understanding and understanding the block

new educational information.

Type of lesson: lesson of studying and consolidating new educational material.

Lesson form: lecture with elements of conversation.

Content Goals:

a) educational: to contribute to the formation of knowledge about A. N. Ostrov-

skom - a person and a playwright;

b) developing: continue learning the ability to take notes

biography of the writer, to promote the formation of the ability to write down

lecture;

c) educational: to promote awareness of the importance of A.N. Ostrovsky

for the Russian theater, the formation of a value attitude to dramaturgy

and theater arts.

Methods: reproductive, partially - search.

Forms of organization of cognitive activity of students: frontal,

individual, group.

Equipment: laptop, projector, whiteboard.

During the classes.

1. Org. moment. (greeting, attitude to work).

1. Checking homework. (written response to a question,

poem - reading by heart).

3.New material.

Write down the date and topic of the lesson. The years of the life of the writer (1823 - 1886)

Lesson Objectives:

Get acquainted with the life and work of the Russian playwright A.N. Ostrovsky;

Write a summary of the writer's biography;

Learn to record lectures.

Let's write an epigraph and lesson plan.

Father of Russian drama.

L.N. Tolstoy.

Plan.

1.Portrait of the writer. A.N. Ostrovsky is the creator of the Russian theater repertoire. (Kartseva, Bubenkova).

2.Childhood and youth writer. (Chvikalova)

3. Training and service. (Podlovchenko).

4. The main stages of the creative path of the writer.

5. Drama "Thunderstorm". (1859).

In the course of the lesson, make a summary of the writer's biography; main dates, events, works.

Question to point 1 of the plan. What was the name of the artist who painted the portrait of Ostrovsky? (Perov Vasily Grigorievich).

I.A. Goncharov wrote: “You alone completed the building, at the base of which the cornerstones Fonvizin, Griboyedov, Gogol were laid. But only after you, we, Russians, can proudly say: "We have our own, Russian national theater."

Conclusion: created the Russian repertoire, wrote in all dramatic genres.

Question to point 2 of the plan. What educational institution and how did Ostrovsky graduated? (1st Moscow gymnasium with a humanitarian bias with honors). What department of Moscow University did Ostrovsky study at? (legal department). What gave Ostrovsky service in the Conscientious and Commercial courts?

Conclusion: Ostrovsky's plays are "plays of life." They depict contemporary playwright the life of the people.

4 point of the plan. The main stages of the creative path of the writer.

1 period-early. 1847-1951 He is looking for his own creative way, writes in the spirit of a natural school. "Bankrupt".

2nd period "Moskvityansky".

3rd period. Pre-reform. 1856-1860s Friendship with the editors of Sovremennik, revolutionary democratic sentiments. Plays "Profitable place", "Thunderstorm".

4th period. Post-reform. 1861-1866. Most of the works written in different genres: comedies, historical plays, satirical comedies, psychological dramas. "Forest", "Dowry".

Conclusion: “He opened to the world a man of a new formation: an Old Believer merchant and a capitalist merchant, a merchant in an Armenian coat and a merchant in a “troika” ... Ostrovsky opened wide the door to the world hitherto locked behind high fences from prying eyes.” (V. Maratsman.) The result of the work is 48 plays, 29 of them are dedicated to Moscow. 46 plays were staged during the life of the playwright. “There is not a day in the year that my play is not shown in 5-6 theaters,” Ostrovsky wrote in 1871.

5 point of the plan. Textbook pp. 45-47. Work in groups. Group 1: the history of the creation of the drama "Thunderstorm". Group 2: the meaning of the title of the drama. Group 3: the system of actors.

Group 1: the premiere took place after the "literary expedition" along the Upper Volga. The fictional city of Kalinov. Materials on the case of the Klykov family.

Group 2: 1) a thunderstorm in nature (action 4) - a physical phenomenon, outwardly, independent of the heroes. 2) a thunderstorm in Katerina's soul - pangs of conscience from betrayal of her husband and to a sense of sin before people. 3) a thunderstorm in society - the awakening in the world of the lack of freedom of free feelings.

Group 3: Features of Ostrovsky's style - speaking surnames, specific author's remarks, originality of names (often proverbs), folklore moments.

... There was no such work as a drama in our literature. She undoubtedly occupies and, probably, will for a long time occupy the first place in high classical beauties. (I.A. Goncharov).

A quiz on the work of A.N. Ostrovsky. (Gorbov).

1. Remember the name of Ostrovsky's 1st play? (Picture of family happiness).

2. What journals did Ostrovsky publish in? (“Moskvityanin”, Sovremennik”, “Notes of the Fatherland”.)

3. What was the original title of the play “Our people, let's settle”? (Bankrupt).

4. For staging which play, Ostrovsky was forced to resign from public service, accused of political unreliability and given under the covert supervision of the police? (For the play "Bankrupt").

5. What theater calls itself the “Ostrovsky House”? (Moscow Maly Theatre.)

6. What was the name of A.N. Ostrovsky's contemporaries during his lifetime? (Knight of the theater).

7. Name the plays of A.N. Ostrovsky with proverb titles? (“Poverty is not a vice”, “Each sage is quite simple”, “There was not a penny suddenly altyn”, “Don’t get into your sleigh”, “Don’t live as you want”.

Homework: report “The life and work of A.N. Ostrovsky. A written answer to the question: "Why did Katerina die."

Summing up the lesson. (Reflection). - What did we learn at the lesson today, what did we get to know? Lesson grades.

Socio-ethical dramaturgy of Ostrovsky

Dobrolyubov said that Ostrovsky "extremely fully exposed two types of relations - family relations and property relations." But these relations are always given to them in a broad social and moral framework.

Ostrovsky's dramaturgy is socio-ethical. It raises and solves the problems of morality, human behavior. Goncharov rightly drew attention to this: “Ostrovsky is usually called a writer of everyday life, morals, but this does not exclude the mental side ... he does not have a single play where one or another purely human interest, feeling, vital truth". The author of "Thunderstorm" and "Dowry" has never been a narrow everyday worker. Continuing the best traditions of Russian progressive dramaturgy, he organically fuses in his plays family and everyday, moral and everyday motives with deeply social or even socio-political ones.

At the heart of almost any of his plays is the main, leading theme of great social resonance, which is revealed with the help of subordinate private themes, mostly everyday ones. Thus, his plays acquire a thematically complex complexity, versatility. So, for example, the leading theme of the comedy "Own people - let's settle!" - unbridled predation, which led to malicious bankruptcy - is carried out in an organic interweaving with its subordinate private topics: education, relationships between elders and younger, fathers and children, conscience and honor, etc.

Shortly before the appearance of "Thunderstorm" N.A. Dobrolyubov published the articles "Dark Kingdom", in which he argued that Ostrovsky "possesses a deep understanding of Russian life and is great at portraying its most essential aspects sharply and vividly."

The Thunderstorm served as new proof of the correctness of the propositions expressed by the revolutionary-democratic critic. In The Thunderstorm, the playwright so far showed with exceptional force the clash between old traditions and new trends, between the oppressed and the oppressors, between the aspirations of the oppressed people for the free manifestation of their spiritual needs, inclinations, interests and the social and family-household orders that dominated in the conditions of pre-reform life.

Solving the urgent problem of illegitimate children, their social powerlessness, Ostrovsky in 1883 created the play Guilty Without Guilt. This problem was touched upon in the literature both before and after Ostrovsky. Democratic fiction paid particular attention to it. But in no other work did this theme sound with such penetrating passion as in the play Guilty Without Guilt. Confirming its relevance, a contemporary of the playwright wrote: "The question of the fate of the illegitimate is a question inherent in all classes."

In this play, the second problem is also loud - art. Ostrovsky skillfully, justifiably tied them into a single knot. He turned a mother looking for her child into an actress and unfolded all the events in an artistic environment. Thus, two heterogeneous problems merged into an organically inseparable life process.

Ways to create a work of art are very diverse. The writer can go from the one who struck him real fact or a problem, an idea that agitated him, from a glut of life experience or from imagination. A.N. Ostrovsky, as a rule, started from the concrete phenomena of reality, but at the same time he defended a certain idea. The playwright fully shared Gogol's judgment that “idea, thought governs the play. Without it, there is no unity in it.” Guided by this position, on October 11, 1872, he wrote to his co-author N.Ya. Solovyov: “I worked on “The Savage Woman” all summer, and I thought for two years, I not only have not a single character or position, but there is not a single phrase that would not strictly follow from the idea ... "

The playwright has always been an opponent of the frontal didactics so characteristic of classicism, but at the same time he defended the need complete clarity author's position. In his plays, one can always feel the author-citizen, a patriot of his country, a son of his people, a champion of social justice, acting either as a passionate defender, lawyer, or as a judge and prosecutor.

Ostrovsky's social, ideological, and ideological position is clearly revealed in relation to the various depicted social classes and characters. Showing the merchants, Ostrovsky reveals with particular fullness his predatory egoism.

Along with selfishness, an essential feature of the bourgeoisie portrayed by Ostrovsky is acquisitiveness, accompanied by insatiable greed and shameless cheating. The acquisitive greed of this class is all-consuming. Kindred feelings, friendship, honor, conscience are exchanged here for money. The glitter of gold overshadows in this environment all the usual concepts of morality and honesty. Here, a wealthy mother gives her only daughter to an old man only because he “doesn’t peck for money” (“Family Picture”), and a rich father is looking for a groom for his, also only daughter, considering only that he has “ there were money and a smaller dowry ache "(" "Own people - let's settle!").

In the trading environment portrayed by Ostrovsky, no one takes into account other people's opinions, desires and interests, considering only their own will and personal arbitrariness as the basis of their activity.

An integral feature of the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie portrayed by Ostrovsky is hypocrisy. The merchants strove to hide their fraudulent nature under the mask of sedateness and piety. The religion of hypocrisy professed by the merchants became their essence.

Predatory egoism, acquisitive greed, narrow practicality, a complete lack of spiritual inquiries, ignorance, tyranny, hypocrisy and hypocrisy - these are the leading moral and psychological features of the pre-reform commercial and industrial bourgeoisie portrayed by Ostrovsky, its essential properties.

Reproducing the pre-reform commercial and industrial bourgeoisie with its pre-construction way of life, Ostrovsky clearly showed that in life the forces opposing it were already growing, inexorably undermining its foundations. The ground under the feet of self-indulgent despots became more and more shaky, foreshadowing their inevitable end in the future.

The post-reform reality has changed a lot in the position of the merchant class. Fast development industry, the growth of the domestic market, the expansion of trade relations with foreign countries have turned the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie not only into an economic, but also into a political force. The type of the old pre-reform merchant began to be replaced by a new one. A merchant of a different fold came to replace him.

Responding to the new that the post-reform reality introduced into the life and customs of the merchants, Ostrovsky even more sharply poses in his plays the struggle of civilization with patriarchy, of new phenomena with antiquity.

Following the changing course of events, the playwright in a number of his plays draws a new type of merchant, who was formed after 1861. Acquiring a European gloss, this merchant hides his selfish and predatory essence under external plausibility.

Drawing representatives of the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie of the post-reform era, Ostrovsky exposes their utilitarianism, narrow-mindedness, spiritual poverty, preoccupation with the interests of hoarding and domestic comfort. “The bourgeoisie,” we read in the Communist Manifesto, “tore away their touchingly sentimental veil from family relations and reduced them to purely monetary relations.” We see a convincing confirmation of this position in the family and everyday relations of both the pre-reform and, in particular, the post-reform Russian bourgeoisie, depicted by Ostrovsky.

Marriage and family relations are subordinated here to the interests of entrepreneurship and profit.

Civilization, undoubtedly, streamlined the technique of professional relations between the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie, instilled in it a gloss foreign culture. But the essence of the social practice of the pre-reform and post-reform bourgeoisie remained unchanged.

Comparing the bourgeoisie with the nobility, Ostrovsky prefers the bourgeoisie, but nowhere, except three plays- “Do not sit in your sleigh”, “Poverty is not a vice”, “Do not live as you want”, - does not idealize it as an estate. It is clear to Ostrovsky that the moral foundations of the representatives of the bourgeoisie are determined by the conditions of their environment, their social existence, which is a particular expression of the system, which is based on despotism, the power of wealth. The commercial and entrepreneurial activity of the bourgeoisie cannot serve as a source of spiritual growth of the human personality, humanity and morality. The social practice of the bourgeoisie can only disfigure the human personality, instilling in it individualistic, anti-social properties. The bourgeoisie, historically replacing the nobility, is vicious in its essence. But it has become a force not only economic, but also political. While the merchants of Gogol were afraid of the mayor like fire and wallowed at his feet, the merchants of Ostrovsky treat the mayor in familiarity.

Depicting the affairs and days of the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie, its old and young generation, the playwright showed a gallery of images full of individual originality, but, as a rule, without soul and heart, without shame and conscience, without pity and compassion.

The Russian bureaucracy of the second half of the 19th century, with its inherent properties of careerism, embezzlement, and bribery, was also subjected to harsh criticism by Ostrovsky. Expressing the interests of the nobility and the bourgeoisie, it was in fact the dominant socio-political force. “Tsarist autocracy is,” Lenin said, “the autocracy of officials.”

The power of the bureaucracy, directed against the interests of the people, was uncontrolled. Representatives of the bureaucratic world are the Vyshnevskys ("Profitable Place"), the Potrokhovs ("Labor Bread"), the Gnevyshevs ("The Rich Bride") and the Benevolenskys ("The Poor Bride").

The concepts of justice and human dignity exist in the bureaucratic world in an egoistic, extremely vulgar sense.

Revealing the mechanics of bureaucratic omnipotence, Ostrovsky paints a picture of the terrible formalism that brought to life such dark businessmen as Zakhar Zakharych (“Hangover at a Strange Feast”) and Mudrov (“Hard Days”).

It is quite natural that the representatives of autocratic-bureaucratic omnipotence are stranglers of any free political thought.

Embezzling, bribery, perjury, whitewashing the evil and drowning the just cause in a paper stream of casuistic cunning gossip, these people are morally devastated, everything human in them is weathered, there is nothing cherished for them: conscience and honor are sold for profitable places, ranks, money.

Ostrovsky convincingly showed the organic merging of the bureaucracy, the bureaucracy with the nobility and the bourgeoisie, the unity of their economic and socio-political interests.

Reproducing the heroes of the conservative bourgeois bureaucratic life with their vulgarity and impenetrable ignorance, carnivorous greed and rudeness, the playwright creates a magnificent trilogy about Balzaminov.

Looking ahead in his dreams to the future, when he marries a rich bride, the hero of this trilogy says: “Firstly, I would sew myself a blue cloak with a black velvet lining ... I would buy myself a gray horse and a racing droshky and drive along the Hook, mother, and he ruled ... ".

Balzaminov is the personification of vulgar petty-bourgeois bureaucratic limitations. This is a type of great generalizing power.

But a significant part of the petty bureaucracy, being socially between a rock and a hard place, itself endured oppression from the autocratic-despotic system. Among the petty bureaucracy there were many honest workers who stooped and often fell under the unbearable burden of social injustice, deprivation and want. Ostrovsky treated these workers with ardent attention and sympathy. He dedicated a number of plays to the little people of the bureaucratic world, where they act as they were in reality: good and evil, smart and stupid, but both of them are destitute, deprived of the opportunity to reveal their best abilities.

More acutely felt their social infringement, more deeply felt their futility people in one way or another outstanding. And so their lives were mostly tragic.

Representatives of the working intelligentsia in the image of Ostrovsky are people of spiritual vivacity and bright optimism, goodwill and humanism.

Principled directness, moral purity, a firm belief in the truth of one's deeds and the bright optimism of the working intelligentsia find ardent support from Ostrovsky. Depicting the representatives of the working intelligentsia as true patriots of their fatherland, as carriers of light, designed to dispel the darkness of the dark kingdom, based on the power of capital and privileges, arbitrariness and violence, the playwright puts his cherished thoughts into their speeches.

Ostrovsky's sympathies belonged not only to the working intelligentsia, but also to ordinary working people. He found them among the philistinism - a motley, complex, contradictory class. By their own aspirations, the petty-bourgeois are attached to the bourgeoisie, and by their labor essence, to the common people. Ostrovsky portrays from this estate mainly working people, showing obvious sympathy for them.

As a rule, ordinary people in Ostrovsky's plays are carriers of natural intelligence, spiritual nobility, honesty, innocence, kindness, human dignity and sincerity of the heart.

Showing the working people of the city, Ostrovsky penetrates with deep respect for their spiritual merits and ardent sympathy for the difficult situation. He acts as a direct and consistent defender of this social stratum.

Deepening the satirical tendencies of Russian dramaturgy, Ostrovsky acted as a merciless denunciator of the exploiting classes and, thereby, of the autocratic system. The playwright portrayed a social system in which the value of the human personality is determined only by its material wealth, in which poor workers experience heaviness and hopelessness, and careerists and bribe-takers prosper and triumph. Thus, the playwright pointed out his injustice and depravity.

That is why in his comedies and dramas all positive characters are predominantly in dramatic situations: they suffer, suffer and even die. Their happiness is accidental or imaginary.

Ostrovsky was on the side of this growing protest, seeing in it a sign of the times, an expression of a nationwide movement, the beginnings of what was to change all life in the interests of working people.

Being one of the brightest representatives of Russian critical realism, Ostrovsky not only denied, but also affirmed. Using all the possibilities of his skill, the playwright attacked those who oppressed the people and disfigured their souls. Permeating his work with democratic patriotism, he said: “As a Russian, I am ready to sacrifice everything I can for the fatherland.”

Comparing Ostrovsky’s plays with his contemporary liberal-accusatory novels and stories, Dobrolyubov rightly wrote in the article “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom”: “It is impossible not to admit that Ostrovsky’s work is much more fruitful: he captured such general aspirations and needs that permeate the entire Russian society whose voice is heard in all the phenomena of our life, whose satisfaction is a necessary condition for our further development.

Alexander
ARKHANGELSKY

Alexander Nikolayevich Ostrovsky (1823-1886)

The artistic world of the writer

WE CONTINUE THE PUBLICATION OF CHAPTERS FROM THE NEW TEXTBOOK “RUSSIAN LITERATURE OF THE XIX CENTURY. 10th CLASS", WHICH IS PREPARING FOR RELEASE AT THE DROFA PUBLISHING HOUSE.

It was Alexander Nikolaevich Ostrovsky who owes his birth to the Russian national theater. With his unique face, color, genre preferences. And most importantly - with their repertoire. That is, with an extensive set of plays that can be staged during the season, constantly played out on stage, changing the poster depending on the mood of the public.

Ostrovsky consciously sought to saturate the Russian theatrical repertoire with many "long-playing" exemplary compositions. And therefore his whole life turned into a tireless, without rest and pauses, literary work. But the result exceeded all expectations.

To Ostrovsky brilliant creations Fonvizin, Krylov, Gogol shone like bright, but rare stars in the flat theatrical sky. The basis of the Russian repertoire theaters XIX centuries were translated plays and "average" in terms of the level of domestic one-day vaudeville. (And the comedy "Woe from Wit", as you remember, was put on stage very late.) Ostrovsky, on the other hand, managed to make the same breakthrough in the field of drama that Pushkin, Gogol, Lermontov made in the field of poetry and prose. He finally fulfilled the "task" of the romantic era, which dictated new rules of the game to culture, demanded the creation of a national, original art. It is no coincidence that there is an equal sign between the concepts of "Ostrovsky's theater" and "Russian theater". As between the concepts of "Shakespeare's theater" and "English theater", "Moliere's theater" and "French theater".

Meanwhile, in terms of his artistic self-awareness, in terms of the picture of the world he created, in terms of theatrical poetics, Alexander Nikolayevich Ostrovsky was by no means a romantic. He belonged to that generation of domestic writers who were already guided by other, non-romantic models, professed other, not romantic ideas. His early literary experiments ("Notes of a Zamoskvoretsky Resident", 1847, and others) were connected with the artistic ideas of the natural school; his plays were based on the principles of the people. The constant, almost obsessive theme of his work was the power of money over the soul of a person, over his destiny. But at the same time, Ostrovsky himself felt himself not so much a writer of everyday life as an exponent of the national spirit.

The beginning of the way

And Alexander Nikolaevich Ostrovsky was born and raised on the patriarchal outskirts of Moscow, in Zamoskvorechye. It was a special world of merchants and petty officials, who lived according to their own separate laws. Here strictly observed church rites(mixing superstition with them), reigned here ancient customs, the native Russian speech sounded here. They even dressed here differently than in the center of the city - in a merchant's way, in an old manner. Ostrovsky's grandfather was a priest; father, having graduated from the Theological Academy, did not accept a spiritual title and entered the state service, in the judicial department. In the end, he even served the nobility - and moved from the state to the private judicial system, became a lawyer for the Moscow Commercial Court. Mother also came from a priestly family, was a priest.

Quiet life, ancient life, the customs of the Moscow merchants, who often settled in Zamoskvorechye - all these impressions shaped the personality of the young Ostrovsky. In general, he seemed to be related to the hospitable and slightly lazy Moscow; later, having already become a famous writer, he regularly left its limits only for the summer; he almost did not participate in theatrical tours, rarely made voyages, especially abroad.

Perhaps he himself would have become just a part of the outlying, merchant-petty-bourgeois Moscow world, would have grown roots in it, would have followed in his father's footsteps. But in 1831, when Alexander Nikolayevich had just turned 8 years old, the mother of the future playwright died. After some time, the father remarried; stepmother was from the Russified Swedes, belonged to the old noble family. And she not only transformed the life of the family, brought it closer to the cultural tradition of the nobility, but also attended to the upbringing of her children and stepchildren.

Ostrovsky graduated from the First City Gymnasium - the best gymnasium of that time in Moscow; Entered the law faculty of Moscow University. And although he never completed his studies at the university (literary aspirations interfered), it doesn’t matter: the good education received by Ostrovsky firmly lay down on the patriarchal impressions of the Moscow Region, like paint falls on a well-primed canvas.

Alexander Nikolaevich married early; in the 1840s, his common-law wife (that is, without the sacrament of a church wedding) was the petty bourgeois Agafya Ivanovna, whose last name is unknown. Without any education, she was smart and warm-hearted, managed to improve Ostrovsky's life, sang Russian songs wonderfully. Only after her death in 1867 did the playwright enter into a church marriage with the actress of the Maly Theater Maria Vasilyeva. Until 1851, Ostrovsky served in the courts - and wrote. The first play that brought him fame was the comedy “Our people - let's settle” (another name is “Bankrupt”). It was published in 1850 in the Moskvityanin magazine; shortly before her death, Gogol managed to support her. But then the matter never came to a theatrical premiere: censorship banned the production, and the young playwright was placed under the covert supervision of the police.

Security Question

• What role in creative destiny Ostrovsky was played by a biographical circumstance - life in Zamoskvorechye?

Folk comedy "Our people - let's get it right". Features of Ostrovsky's poetics

With ama in itself, the intrigue of the comedy, which was banned from being staged for as long as 11 years, was very traditional. Ostrovsky did not strive for plot novelty at all, he wrote: "A playwright does not invent plots ... They are given by life, history, a friend's story, sometimes a newspaper article. I ... have all the plots borrowed."

In the center of the comedy "Own people - let's settle" - a rich owner, a clever clerk, an insidious daughter. The merchant Bolshov started a false bankruptcy in order to deceive creditors, and the clerk Podkhalyuzin eventually deceived him himself - and embezzled his fortune, and "won" his daughter Lipochka. The action develops according to the hourglass principle: Bolshov's strength gradually weakens, his power "leaks", at some point the clock turns over - and Podkhalyuzin is on top ...

The onomastics of Ostrovsky, the system of names of his characters, also goes back to the traditions of the Russian theater of the 18th century.

Classicism prescribed strict rules for the comedian. The viewer had to know in advance how the author relates to this or that hero - therefore, the names and surnames were chosen by the speakers. Starodum and Skotinins in Fonvizin's "Undergrowth" - bright examples of such kind. Early Ostrovsky does not deviate from this rule. If in the center of the action is a petty swindler (in the dictionary of Vladimir Dal called a podkhalyuzin), then the surname Podkhalyuzin suggests itself. And it is natural to give the main character, a rich and powerful merchant, the puffy surname Bolshov, the biblical name Samson (in the Bible this is a mighty hero who has lost his strength) and the mockingly proud patronymic Silych.

New was not intrigue. The principle of choosing names was not new. The author's approach to heroes. Theatrical art is much more conventional than epic prose and even lyrics; stage action dictates its own strict rules to the playwright. An actor cannot play well if there is no audience response, a reciprocal "wave" of the audience. At the same time, the performance does not last long, it unfolds rapidly. In order for the viewer to immediately, without wasting time, join the course of events, emotionally respond to them, the characters should recognize common, typological traits. (Remember what theatrical roles are - we talked about them when we repeated Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit".)

Of course, in these recognizable roles, as in a kind of cones, the artist "infuses" new content, endows the heroes with individuality and character. But Ostrovsky from the very beginning focused on a different task. It was not for nothing that he took lessons from the "natural school". "Naturalists" painted the surrounding reality in detail, in detail, paying attention to trifles, including unsightly ones; they wanted the reader to check the literary image not with the cultural tradition, not with other people's books, but with the untidy Russian reality. So the early Ostrovsky correlated his characters not with theatrical types, not with theatrical masks (a clever maid, a deceived husband, a stingy master, a smart peasant woman), but with social types. That is, he did everything so that the viewer looked at the stage events through the prism of the surrounding life, compared the images of the characters with their social prototypes - merchants, servants, nobles.

In the image of Bolshov, the viewer immediately recognized the features of a modern merchant, a "model" of the 1850s. The same with Podkhalyuzin. The playwright's everyday observations were condensed, concentrated, focused in his characters. And only then these fresh observations were set off by an easily recognizable literary background. (In Podkhalyuzin, the type of Molchalin is recognized; some scenes with the suffering Bolshov resemble a parody of Shakespeare's King Lear.)

In Ostrovsky's first notable play, other features of his poetics were also determined.

Speech characteristics heroes not only brought additional colors to the image of the character, not only emphasized his individuality. Dialogues in Ostrovsky's comedies and dramas played much more serious role, they served as speech analogue of action. What does it mean? And here's what. When you read the plays of the great Russian playwright, you will surely pay attention: for all their fascination, they are not too dynamic. The exposition in them is very long, and climax And denouement, on the contrary, are swift and fleeting. The interest of the viewer and reader is provided by a completely different one: vivid description morals, the tension of moral conflicts that confront the heroes. How do we learn about these collisions? Just from dialogues heroes. How do we judge color and originality? By the speech of the characters. including on their monologues.

Ostrovsky transferred to the dramatic plane the psychological experience accumulated by Russian narrative prose. He deliberately romanizes his plays, that is, like the authors of Russian psychological novels, he shifts the center of gravity from intrigue to the inner world of man. (That's why they are so interesting to read - no less interesting than watching in the theater.)

The same explains one more feature of Ostrovsky's poetics. In his comedies, there is no figure of an educated reasoning hero (as, for example, Chatsky in Griboyedov). Almost all the characters belong to the same - merchant, less often noble, even more rarely philistine - class. In the modern merchant class, as in a drop of water, the whole of Russia is reflected, it turns out to be, as it were, the resultant of Russian history, a clot of the Russian people. And the merchant's house, in which the action of many of Ostrovsky's comedies is concentrated, appears as a small "model" of the whole of central Russia. The conflict between the older and younger generations of the domestic merchant class, between the old and the new, which is unfolding right in front of the viewer, sums up the contradictions of the era.

For all that - and this is another important principle of Ostrovsky - the playwright invariably looks at all social problems through the prism morality. His characters make their moral (or - more often - immoral) choice in strictly defined social circumstances, but the circumstances are not important in themselves. They only exacerbate eternal questions human life: where is the truth, where is the lie, what is worthy, what is unworthy, what the world stands on...

Security Question

• What was the novelty of Ostrovsky's early plays - in intrigue or in the depiction of heroes? What are the main features of his poetics?

The young edition of "Moskvityanin". The people of the early Ostrovsky. Disillusionment with Slavophilism

The censor, summing up the negative review of the comedy of the young playwright "Our people - let's settle", wrote: there is no "bright opposition" in the play. That is the ideal. He considered that in front of him was another "revealing" essay. And I was deeply mistaken. Because during this period of his creative biography, Ostrovsky was just trying to find an "opposite" to a critical view of modernity in the foundations of traditional Russian life. In a letter to the writer Mikhail Pogodin, he wrote: "... it is better for a Russian person to rejoice at seeing himself on stage than to yearn. Correctors will be found even without us." That is why the folk comedy became the favorite genre of the early Ostrovsky, in which most often the heroine fights for happiness with her lover. Full of humor, internally (with all its critical attitude) optimistic folk comedy is indulgent towards life.

So, in the comedy "Poverty is not a vice" (1854), the image of Lyubim Tortsov, an impoverished merchant, was displayed. Lyubim has fallen, he drinks, but (unlike his rich brother Gordey) remains faithful to his folk roots. And that means truth. He denounces Gordey, who decided to move to Moscow and for this he is going to marry his daughter to an old and evil widower. And in the end wins; Gordey humbles himself, the daughter will not be sacrificed for self-interest; comedy ends with a happy ending. Such happy ending, not prepared by the entire course of the play, in dramaturgy is sometimes called "deus ex machina", that is, "God from the machine." In ancient ancient drama, one of the "gods" could interfere in the action, who was lowered onto the stage with the help of a special device, a "machine" - hence the concept of "god from the machine." But if we look at everything deeper, more thoughtfully, then we will be convinced that Tortsov wins in comedy not by chance, it is not the plot that prepares his victory, but system of values early Ostrovsky.

After all, Lyubim is a Russian type who does not find himself in current life, but rooted in the past and therefore capable of defeating untruth. By the way, pay attention to the names of the characters. The play contrasts two Tortsov brothers, one of whom is good, the other is bad; first name love, second - Gordey, that is, proud, narcissistic, stubborn. A surname Tortsov indicates that in this family two "corners" of Russian life converged, crossed, as at the end of a house. And if Ostrovsky did not find "oppositions" around him, then he was ready to turn to the recent Russian past.

So, in the folk drama “Don’t Live As You Want” (1855), the action is transferred to late 18th centuries; the merchant's house, whose life is depicted by the playwright, is shrouded in a haze of memories, the events are timed to coincide with the joyful Russian holiday - Maslenitsa. Ostrovsky acted in those years according to the Pushkin principle: "What will pass, it will be nice ..." And he tried to arrange his own life in a patriarchal manner. In 1847, his father bought a small estate Shchelykovo in the Kostroma province; Ostrovsky literally fell in love with the beauty of Central Russian nature, he worked very well in Shchelykovo. In 1867, after the death of his father, Alexander Nikolaevich, together with his brother, bought the estate from his stepmother - and there is something symbolic in the fact that it was here, right at his desk, that he would die in 1886 ...

The ideal of the early Ostrovsky was connected with the past, with longing for the lost beauty of Russian life. It is no coincidence that in the first half of the 1850s the playwright was so close to the circle of younger Slavophiles. Sharply criticizing the Russian reality, they dreamed of the return of the former national harmony, of the restoration of the zemstvo and zemstvo. That is, local self-government, on which "held" old Russia. And young Slavophiles expected from art not just the preaching of humane ideas, not just the perfection of the artistic form. They saw in the writer, artist, musician the guardian of cultural tradition, the conductor of the people, the preacher of the foundations of Russian life. Therefore, they demanded from art that it appeal to folk life, folklore, to be lifelike.

The ideas of the young Slavophiles were largely shared by writers, artists, and musicians who united in 1852-1854 around the publisher of the Moskvityanin magazine, Mikhail Pogodin. And then they actually took the issue of this publication into their own hands. They believed that the basis of the nationality, of Russian identity, was "provided" not so much by the peasants as by the patriarchal merchant class. The culture of the nobility is saturated with the poison of individualism, while the merchant environment preserves the communal tradition. Young "Muscovites" went to Zamoskvoretsky taverns, listened to the stories of folk talkers, Russian songs, to which Ostrovsky was a great hunter.

The most serious role in this circle was played by Apollon Grigoriev, a poet and critic already familiar to you. Inspired, Ostrovsky even more actively began to put into action in his plays the images of people from the common people, songwriters, street vendors. He, who grew up in Zamoskvorechye, was extremely close to the Slavophil idea of ​​community, solidarity; not without reason, not having sufficient funds, working day after day for wear and tear, often in need, he took an active part in the creation and financing of the Literary Fund (1859). The purpose of this fund was to help the poor and drinking writers. Ostrovsky became the initiator of the creation of many drama societies ...

True, by 1859 he managed to become disillusioned with Slavophilism and switch to other cultural positions. Not because he renounced his former ideals, but because he looked more and more soberly at real life, saw a fatal discrepancy between the patriarchal dream and inescapable reality. Russia in the late 1850s seemed to freeze on the eve of the great reforms, hid; old forms of social and family life have already exhausted themselves, degenerated, and new ones have not yet developed.

Security Question

• Read the comedy Do Not Get into Your Sleigh (1853). How does the playwright solve the problem of the positive hero here?

Ostrovsky's "social" dramaturgy. Folk drama "Thunderstorm" (1859)

But this was a challenge that Russian reality threw to Ostrovsky's early work; There were also cultural reasons. In that era, everyone expected one thing from art: that it depict the influence of the economic, social, class "environment" on the human personality, on its behavior, fate, character. And despite the closeness to national forms life, to the organic principles of Russian life, Ostrovsky coincided in his artistic search with the "democratic" direction, with the ideologists of revolutionary Westernism, critics and publicists of Nekrasov's Sovremennik.

Exactly matched; as we have already said, he never derived the foundations of morality from the social conditions of life; on the contrary, Ostrovsky looked at reality through the prism of a moral ideal, believed it - to them. Nevertheless, since 1857 he has been a regular author of the Sovremennik, enthusiastic articles about his work are published here, the most popular critic of that time, Nikolai Dobrolyubov, in the article “The Dark Kingdom” (1859) interprets Ostrovsky's plays as examples of social, accusatory, critical art. Alexander Nikolaevich more and more stubbornly mastered a new theatrical genre for himself - folk drama; he now preferred a serious and sometimes catastrophic ending to the lightness of comedic denouement.

Started by him artistic research life assumed new dramatic solutions.

Then the term was in use - daguerreotype literature. The daguerreotype was a newly invented photograph. Therefore, daguerreotype literature exactly copies "life as it is", without embellishing it, without hiding it. dark sides reality. Of course, Ostrovsky was never daguerreotype realist, his work - in all periods - is incomparably wider and deeper. It is connected with the search for the ideal, with the feeling of the human person as a mystery that needs to be unraveled every minute. But in the second half of the 1850s and early 1860s, Ostrovsky deliberately took a step towards "daguerreotypes" and responded to the challenge of the times. To eventually overtake him and move in the direction set by his own talent.

In 1856, Alexander Nikolayevich took part in an expedition organized by the Marine ministry. He traveled on a steamboat almost the entire Volga, from source to mouth, observed the customs of the county Volga towns, with their patriarchy, which had long since turned into stagnation; this trip gave him material for creativity for many, many years.

From now on, the Volga has become an equal heroine of his dramas.

Probably the most famous of the plays of the "Volga" cycle is the folk drama "Thunderstorm". The scene is the fictional town of Kalinov on the high bank of the Volga. (Then this town will become the setting for his other dramas - "Forest", "Hot Heart".) The time of action is "our days". That is the very end of the 1850s.

The main character, Katerina, is a young merchant's wife; in the husband's family (his name - Tikhon - speaks for himself) the mother, Kabanikha, reigns supreme. Contrary to her own patriarchal views, Katerina suddenly falls in love with the Muscovite Boris, a poor but "decently educated" nephew of the local merchant-tyrant Dikiy; Wild also reigns supreme in his family ...

The story of Katerina in terms of plot is very simple; it is more suitable for a leisurely moralistic story than for a dynamic theatrical performance. No wonder the exposition takes up almost one and a half actions here. The plot of intrigue (the departure of the husband and the "finding" of the key) occurs only at the end of the second act, and already in the third act the first climax (the ravine) occurs. Very little time passes between the second climax - Katerina's confession - and the terrible denouement. But The Thunderstorm made a tremendous impression on the contemporaries of the playwright. This drama was directly connected with an alarming premonition of imminent and irreversible changes; only a year and a half will pass after its writing - and on February 19, 1861, Russia will learn about the liberation of the peasants. A new, unknown era of its age-old history will begin. The fracture of history will pass through human destinies, through human hearts.

This is what Ostrovsky's drama is about.

Image of Katherine. It is no coincidence that a woman is placed at the center of events here. The point is not only that the main, cross-cutting theme of Ostrovsky - the life of the family, the merchant's house - assumed a special role female images, their elevated plot status. Russian literature of that time in general often spoke of female lobe. You are already familiar with Olga Ilyinskaya from Goncharov's novel "Oblomov", with Elena Stakhova from Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev's novel "On the Eve". You probably remember Nekrasov's lines about Russian women. Ahead - acquaintance with Anna Karenina from the novel of the same name by Leo Tolstoy. A woman in Russian society in the second half of the 19th century is a being both dependent (on family, life, tradition) and strong, capable of decisive actions that have the most serious impact on the world of men.

Such is Katerina from Thunderstorm.

The men around her are weak, submissive, they accept the circumstances of life. Husband Tikhon hates his mother, but obeys, and as soon as he escapes from the house, he goes into drunkenness and revelry; Beloved Boris, who is sent to Siberia as a punishment, resignedly obeys the will of the Wild. In the last scene of the rendezvous (act 5, scene 3), Boris answers Katerina: "I'm not going of my own accord: my uncle is sending, the horses are already ready." And he does not hear, does not notice the internal contradiction in his own words, which he utters a minute later: "What is there to talk about me! I am a free bird!" freestyle bird - leaves his beloved unwillingly.

And Katerina, whom her mother-in-law "torments ... locks up," on the contrary, strives to be free. And it is not her fault that she, as between a rock and a hard place, is sandwiched between the old morality and the freedom she dreams of. This is not political freedom, not freedom from traditional values. Katerina is not at all emancipated, does not strive beyond the borders patriarchal world, does not want to free itself from its values; Moreover, in her conversations, in her childhood memories, the ancient harmony of Russian life seems to come to life. She speaks tenderly about her mother's house, about the quiet provincial summer, about the wanderers, about the flickering light of the lamp. And most importantly, about the affection that surrounded her in childhood.

In fact (Ostrovsky specifically draws the attention of the viewer and reader to this) even then, in childhood, everything was not so simple. Katerina, as if by chance, blurts out in the 2nd phenomenon of the 2nd act: once, when she was six years old, they offended her in her parents' house, she ran out to the Volga, "and it was in the evening, it was already dark", "sat down in boat, and pushed it away from the shore. The next morning they already found it, about ten miles away. " But in her mind lives a completely different image of "old" Rus', the Russia of her childhood. Image - heavenly.

The image of the city of Kalinov. And what she sees around her is reminiscent of hell. Instead of an affectionate mother - a senselessly stern Boar. Instead of a warm, sincere father's house - locked men's mansions. And instead of good wanderers - a flattering, hopelessly stupid walker Feklusha. Ostrovsky deliberately brings Feklusha onto the stage immediately after Kuligin's accusatory monologue (act 1, appearance 3).

"In philistinism, sir, you will see nothing but rudeness and naked poverty. And we, sir, will never break out of this crust! .. And among themselves, sir, how they live! They undermine each other's trade, and not so much out of greed, but out of envy. They quarrel with each other: they lure drunken clerks into their tall mansions, such clerks, sir, that there is no human appearance on him, his human appearance is lost. for a small favor, malicious slanders are scribbled on their neighbors on stamp sheets.

And then the deceitful old woman Feklusha appears with her famous half-chant: “Bla-alepie, dear, bla-alepie! Marvelous beauty! What can we say! You live in the promised land! And the merchants are all pious people, adorned with many virtues! !.." We already know what "blah-alepie" really is here ...

The city of Kalinov, under the pen of Ostrovsky, turns into an independent image, becomes one of the equal heroes of the play. He lives his own life, has his own character, his own temper. As the city sage Kuligin says, "cruel morals, sir, in our city, cruel!" Invisible, inaudible tears flow in it, and on the surface - silence and grace. If not for Katerina with her public rebellion against tradition, so everything would be quiet and smooth, the storm would pass by.

Two characters stand at opposite poles of the "thunderous" city. This tyrant merchant wild and philistine dreamer Kuligin, self-taught, raving about the idea of ​​a perpetual motion machine. Their images embody two principles that determine the life of the Russian province as a whole. Senseless, corrupting wealth - and powerless, with all its creative impulse, poverty. They are introduced into the play precisely - and only - in order to enhance its symbolic sound. Please note: Dikoy and Kuligin do not participate in the development of the main storyline at all - and even never do not exchange lines with the main character, Katerina. At least formal, meaningless.

They conduct a characteristic dialogue with each other in the 4th act - against the background of a pre-stormy sky! Kuligin asks Wild for money for lightning rod"for the common good" of the city; Dikoy irritably refuses.

"wild. Yes, a thunderstorm, what do you think? A? Well, speak!

Kuligin. Electricity.

wild(stomping foot). What else there elestrichestvo! Well, why aren't you a robber? A thunderstorm is sent to us as a punishment so that we feel ... "

Wild is right in his own way. But in fact, in Kalinovo, no one feels anything, and therefore no one changes anything. The city froze without movement, everything in it rotates in a circle, from day to day, from year to year - until the tragedy of Katerina.

Katerina and the patriarchal ideal. It is very important that you understand: Katherine does not protest against old customs, against patriarchy. On the contrary, she fights for them in her own way, she dreams of restoring the "former" with its beauty, love, peace and quiet. The playwright himself just understands that the past is no less complex and contradictory than the present. (That's why she "forces" Katerina to remember the insult that she had to endure in her parents' house.) She also professes the ideas that Ostrovsky himself held in the early period of his work, when he was close to the young editorial staff of Moskvityanin:

“I lived, I didn’t grieve about anything, like a bird in the wild. Mom did not have a soul in me, dressed me up like a doll, didn’t force me to work ... we’ll come from church, we’ll sit down for some work, more like gold velvet, and the wanderers will tell where they have been, what they have seen, different lives, or they sing poems. And so the time will pass before dinner. Here the old women will lie down to sleep, and I will walk in the garden. Then towards Vespers, and in the evening again stories and singing. Such is good was!"

And Katerina cheats on her husband not on her own whim, and not "in protest" against Kalinov's mores, and not for the sake of "emancipation." Once again, read the phenomenon of the 4th act of the 2nd: left alone with her husband, Katerina (already in love with Boris and already actually confessing this love to Varvara) asks him, even prays:

"Tisha, don't leave! For God's sake, don't leave! My dear, I beg you!

Kabanov. You can't, Katya. If mother sends, how can I not go!

Katerina. Well, take me with you, take me!

Kabanov. ... Yes, as I know now that there will be no thunderstorm over me for two weeks, there are no shackles on my legs, so am I up to my wife?

Katerina. How can I love you when you say such words?

And even after that, finally realizing that her husband does not need her, Katerina prays to him: "Take some terrible oath from me ..." But Tikhon does not do this either. AND only his indifference, only the lack of hope for domestic affection, which means that the collapse of the dream of "real" patriarchy pushes Katerina into the arms of Boris. Otherwise, she would have continued to fight with herself, would have suffered, but would have lived in accordance with the "commandment" of Pushkin's Tatyana: "But I am given to another // And I will be faithful to him for a century." (Remember this when you turn to the "Analysis of the Text" section and study the drama "Dowry"; there is a similar episode in this play.)

And no one expects love, real feelings, true fidelity from Katerina, no one demands. Kabanikha, who personifies the Kalinovskaya philistine tradition, insists only on the strictest observance external forms. What is going on in the soul, in fact, is happening, she does not care at all. This is especially clearly seen in the scene of Katerina’s farewell to Tikhon before his departure (act 2, appearances 4 and 5): “Why are you hanging around your neck, shameless! You don’t say goodbye to your lover! "Al you don't know order? Bow down at your feet!"

Katerina and Boris, Varvara and Kudryash. Conflict between Katerina and Kabanikha. It is not for nothing that the "plot shadows" of Katerina and Boris are introduced into the cast of characters. This is the daughter of Kabanikh Varvara and the nephew of Wild Vanya Kudryash. Varvara and Kudryash are also "walking"; moreover, it is Varvara who gives Katerina the key to the gate - without this, no date in the ravine would have taken place. But Varvara does everything "quietly", secretly, she observes external decorum, and what is really happening there - Kabanikha is ready to turn a blind eye to this.

This means that the conflict between Katerina and Kabanikha is not a conflict between the new consciousness of a young woman and the old consciousness of a supporter of the old order. The bearer of the "new" consciousness, which, together with patriarchal mores, rejects moral principles, turns out to be in Varya's play; she eventually runs away from Kalinovo with her Curly, defying all moral prohibitions. But Katerina is arranged quite differently. No, her opposition to Kabanikhe is a conflict between alive patriarchy and dead, between sincere attachment to the family, to the house and the dead "order". The internal tragedy of the conflict lies in the fact that it cannot be resolved by the victory of good. Moreover, Katerina faces a tough choice - either to submit to Kalinov's lifeless patriarchy, to become dead with it, or to go against all traditions, all virtues, to challenge the mores of her beloved antiquity. And still die.

Psychologism. Katerina chooses the latter. And her dying monologue (action 5th, phenomenon 4th) - this is no longer the quiet confession of a Russian woman full of suffering and stoicism. This is perhaps the first example in Russian literature psychological introspection; Katerina's words are filled with nervous, overstressed energy, she stands on a dangerous line between reason and madness. This is how the heroines of Russian and world literature of the 20th century will argue:

"... to go home, to the grave! so soft... the birds will fly to the tree, they will sing, they will bring out the children, the flowers will bloom: yellow, red, blue... all sorts (thinks), all sorts... ... It seems to me easier! I want to live again? No, no, don't... it's not good! And the people are disgusting to me, and the house is disgusting to me, and the walls are disgusting! I won't go there! No, no, I won't! You come to them, they go, they say, "Oh, it's getting dark! And they're singing somewhere again! What they're singing? You can't make out... If only they were going to die now... "Sin! They won't pray? Whoever loves will pray... They fold their hands crosswise... in the coffin! Yes, that's right... I remembered..."

A thunderstorm passes over the city of Kalinovo. And again the stuffiness reigns.

Open stage space. The symbolism of the play. At the same time, the stage events - contrary to Ostrovsky's previous experience - are taken outside the merchant's house. Of the five acts, only one is concentrated in a "closed" room, all the rest are taken outside, into an open urban space. Everything in this space is symbolic. It seems to be divided into three levels. At the top of this space is the high bank of the Volga. In the middle - a straight line of city houses. Below - a ravine, into which the path from the house of Kabanikhi leads, and the Volga whirlpool.

Most Kalinovskie residents are satisfied with the "average" level. They live, accepting the urban reality as it is. For some of them, the "walk" into the ravine, where Katerina meets Boris, is like a fall into sin, a descent into the underworld. For others - like for Varvara and Kudryash - the ravine is "just" a place of rendezvous, devoid of symbolic meaning. And for Katerina, going down into the ravine is like rising above the city, standing above its indifference. Alas, but for such ascent through descent she must pay a terrible price: eventually climb the high bank of the Volga - and throw herself off a cliff into whirlpool. The lower she descends, the higher she rises, and the higher she rises, the more terrible she falls - such is the paradoxical symbolism of the play.

In general, the sharper the social analysis undertaken by Ostrovsky in The Thunderstorm, the more detailed the sketch of the real provincial life, the more conventional are the forms in which the playwright wraps his story about Kalinov's life. The thunderstorm that swells on the horizon already at the beginning of the play and finally passes over the city in the fourth act symbolizes many things. For example, the atmosphere in the Kabanovs' house. (It is not for nothing that Tikhon says to Katerina before leaving: "... there will be no thunderstorm over me for two weeks.") And also the impossibility of a tragic, formidable cleansing from the moral stuffiness that has reigned in modern Russia. After all remark, an explanation from the author, prefixed to the last, fifth act, not by chance emphasizes: "The scenery of the first act. Twilight".

The plot, having described the circle, returns to the starting point; Katerina is on the verge of death, but nothing has really changed.

Security Question

• What is the conflict between Katerina and Kabanikha? Why is the pair Varvara-Kudryash introduced into the play?

Articles by N.A. Dobrolyubov "The Dark Kingdom" and "Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom"

Ostrovsky not only played a huge role in the development of the Russian national theater; magazine discussions invariably flared up around his plays - in this way he unwittingly contributed to the development of Russian literary and theater criticism.

In the early period, his main interpreter became Apollon Grigoriev. He explained the celebration petty tyrants in Ostrovsky's comedies with a distortion of the true beginnings of patriarchal life, he said that Ostrovsky revealed to the world the "new truth" of art, which differs sharply from the "old truth" of Shakespeare's theater.

And in the late 1850s and early 1860s, the most "noisy" articles about him were written by a young critic from Sovremennik Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov- this name has already met you more than once on the pages of the textbook.

Dobrolyubov considered himself a staunch enemy of the Slavophiles, but he was not a Westerner either. His views were distinguished by radical democratism; Literature interested him primarily as a reflection of the social processes taking place in society. Dobrolyubov defined his criticism as real- that is, he believed that art should always be trusted with the "truth of life." He believed that the main merit of Ostrovsky as a playwright was not at all in the "nationality" of his plays, and the main reason was not in the organic talent. What was more important, Dobrolyubov believed, was that thanks to his artistic instinct and contrary to his own preconceived ideas, Ostrovsky created a critical picture of modern life. This picture is the "dark kingdom" of merchant life, in which tyrants run the show and which is "exposed" by a talented playwright.

Of course, Dobrolyubov could not pass by the Thunderstorm and devoted an extensive article to it entitled “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom”, published in Sovremennik (1860). He directly connected the plot of the play with impending social upheavals. From Dobrolyubov's point of view, all the "negative" characters like Kabanikha and Dikoy anticipate this social storm and can no longer do anything about it. The image of Katerina embodies the energy of a spontaneously awakening people, and her suicide is tantamount to a protest against despotism. That is why she is a "beam of light"; this ray of the future cuts through the darkness of the present, as lightning cuts through a stormy sky.

Not all critics agreed with Dobrolyubov - even Dmitry Pisarev, who belonged to the same revolutionary-democratic camp, considered such interpretation too free. He saw in Katerina only a victim of the "dark kingdom", did not find any "solid character" in her, but all because in fact she turned to the past. Of course, the exact opposite position was taken by Apollon Grigoriev; he wrote an article about The Thunderstorm full of lyricism. According to Grigoriev, Ostrovsky does not set himself any satirical goals, depicts life with naive-epic immediacy, and the scene in the ravine is performed true passion and tenderness: "It's created in such a way as if not an artist, but a whole people created here!"

Advanced security question

• What is "real criticism"? How does it differ from "organic criticism"?

After Thunderstorm. Through historical drama to satirical comedy. “Sufficient simplicity for every wise man”

Meanwhile, Ostrovsky continued to develop rapidly - in the direction that was prompted to him not by criticism, but by the nature of his own talent and a special look at the tasks of the theater.

The playwright was convinced that the theater is an educational institution and should not only entertain and teach, but also bring the viewer the light of knowledge about their native history. That is why Ostrovsky took the next genre step - from folk drama to historical drama. In the early 1860s, one after another, plays were published from his pen, dedicated to fatal moments in the fate of the nation; some of them are in verse. (This immediately connected Ostrovsky's dramatic design with the tradition of Russian poetic tragedy.)

He was especially interested in the Time of Troubles, the moment of the collapse of the old statehood and the birth of a new one. Those bloody and majestic times are devoted to the dramatic chronicles Kozma Zakharyich Minin-Sukhoruk (1862), Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky (1867). However, these plays did not bring much success to Ostrovsky; critics - and the most different directions- considered them weak, not quite worthy of the true scale of the playwright.

But for him it was a necessary transitional stage. Being an extraordinarily systematic person, Ostrovsky had to complete his "ascent" along the genre ladder - from folk comedy to folk drama, then to historical drama. Only after that did he feel that he could return to comedy again. Return - changing the social scenery, leaving the narrow limits of the merchant's house, moving from humorous pictures of merchant life to a satirical depiction of the life of the nobility. And in the late 1860s, Ostrovsky, once again updating the arsenal of his artistic means, begins to create a new comedy cycle.

The heroes of his plays Enough Simplicity for Every Wise Man (1868), Mad Money (1870), Forest (1871), Wolves and Sheep (1875) are Russian nobles who survived the peasant reform, shifted to the sidelines of history, but retaining influence, power, and sometimes money.

There is no "bright opposition" in these comedies; only in Les is the disinterested poor artist Neschastlivtsev and the pure dowry girl opposed to the manor society of degenerate nobles. But here, too, it is the "estate" characters who win the plot victory, people who are very unworthy. There is another important difference here from Ostrovsky's former theatrical manner. Previously, he sacrificed the sharpness of the plot for the sake of a detailed depiction of merchant and petty-bourgeois mores. And in his satirical comedies of the late 1860s and early 1870s, the plot intrigue triumphs over everyday life, the characters of the characters are cut according to the pattern of ready-made theatrical "masks", their roles, they are closely connected with the dramatic and literary tradition (although with the everyday observations of the playwright - too).

You and I will easily be convinced of this by carefully reading the first of the plays of the new comedy "cycle" - "Enough simplicity for every wise man." It was written shortly after the editors of Sovremennik underwent government destruction (1866) and Nekrasov moved to the journal Domestic Notes (1867); Ostrovsky followed his favorite publisher.

Comedy plot- for the first time at Ostrovsky! - built according to the old, classical laws of intrigue. No protracted exposition, no moral description to the detriment of dynamics, no "superfluous" - from the point of view of the development of the main action - characters. (Like Kuligin and Diky, who had nothing to do with the main character of Groza.)

Yegor Dmitritch Glumov, a young but cynical wise guy from an impoverished noble family, intends to marry the daughter of the wealthy widow Tarusina. From his friend hussar Kurchaev, fiance Tarusina, he learns that a wealthy gentleman (and a distant relative of the Glumovs) Nil Fedoseich Mamaev goes to see apartments - for fun. A plan is immediately born in Glumov's head, which is not completely clear to the viewer. He steals a caricature of Mamaev from Kurchaev; then, having given a bribe to Mamaev's man, he lures "uncle" to his apartment; enters into his confidence and gives him a caricature. Kurchaev was dismissed from the house of the Mamaevs, Glumov was promoted.

So already within first actions the intrigue is fastened, all the prerequisites for its dynamic deployment have been created. At the same time, the preconditions for the coming catastrophic denouement have been created. Glumov has the imprudence to write down in his diary his expenses incurred for the implementation of the "plan", and sarcastic comments about those around him. From the very beginning, an attentive viewer can guess that the boomerang launched by Glumov against Kurchaev (the ill-fated caricature) will sooner or later fall on his own head (an even more ill-fated diary).

However, this shameful defeat is still far away. In second act Mamaev's wife, Cleopatra Lvovna, is introduced into the intrigue; Glumov's mother inspires her with the idea that Yegor Dmitritch is secretly in love with her, and the passionate Cleopatra Lvovna begins to actively "embed" Glumov into good society. Moreover, this society needs Glumov no less than he needs him. Or maybe more. New times have come, in which the rich and influential, but at the same time stupid and inactive nobles of the "pre-reform model" do not fit in at all.

Glumov is not idle either. He makes connections with the right people - with the retrograde Krutitsky, to whom he promises to draw up a treatise on the dangers of reforms in general, with the progressive Gorodulin. IN third act, having bribed the deceitful old woman Manefa (a type that is constantly present in Ostrovsky's comedies), Glumov makes his way into Tarusina's house and takes the vacant place of her daughter's fiancé, for whom they give 200 thousand dowry.

A well-thought-out plan is close to being realized. And then the intrigue, according to the law of the pendulum, begins to move in the opposite direction. All the situations that Glumov carefully created and turned to his advantage suddenly turn against him. Mamaeva learns about Glumov's bride; after explaining herself to Glumov, she pretends to accept his arguments, while she herself kidnaps secret diary. (Act four.)

And here in fifth act, a moment before the final triumph - his marriage to Masha Tarusina, Glumov receives two sensitive blows of fate. First, the servant brings his influential friends a newspaper in which a vindictive journalist, a friend of Kurchaev, details all Glumov's adventures. And then the diary, stolen by Cleopatra Lvovna and directly revealing the intentions of the hero, is made public. He is expelled from the society into which he penetrated with such difficulty. But the finale is open - it is clear that this society will not do without him and, having excommunicated for a while, roughly punishing him, will still someday return Glumov to his "ranks". (It is not for nothing that Ostrovsky again brings Glumov in the play Mad Money, 1870: Yegor Dmitrievich returned to good company, close to the mistress ...)

Readers, and then viewers of the new comedy, easily recognized the classic source in its plot patterns - Griboyedov's "Woe from Wit". The surname of the protagonist, Glumova, speaking; this is a SHELLING MIND that has opposed itself to the STUPIDITY of the surrounding world. The title of the play also refers us to "Woe from Wit". Moreover, its text contains numerous hidden and explicit quotations from Griboyedov, reminiscences. Why do they need the author and why do not interfere with the originality of his idea?

Remember, we noticed that two cross-cutting themes run through the artistic space of "Woe from Wit" - mind and madness? Chatsky talks all the time about the mind, but by an accidental reservation he gives Sophia a fatal thought - and she starts a rumor about his insanity; after all, everyone is talking about Chatsky's madness. And Glumov, on the contrary, invariably talks about his own stupidity; he asks "uncle" Mamaev to instruct him in everything, the unreasonable one. In a conversation with Cleopatra Lvovna, Glumov seems to echo Chatsky: "... you are an angel of kindness, you, beauty, have made a mad madman out of me, a prudent person. Yes, I'm crazy!" Talking with Krutitsky, he flatteringly asserts: "It is not from magazines to learn the mind," to which he philosophically remarks: "It is not difficult for a young man to go crazy." But nothing follows from these slips, nothing follows...

And the more distinct the parallels with Griboyedov become, the brighter the deep differences of the author's intentions come through. There is no reasoning hero, a bright personality capable of going against the general opinion, in Ostrovsky's comedy there is not and cannot be; Chatsky disappeared from the limits of Russian life, and Glumov, the direct "heir" of Molchalin, took his place.

He says in the second act of Mamaeva: “... If you were an old woman ... Mamaeva. And what will you pay the old woman? holidays and with everything that can only be congratulated.

But this is almost a direct repetition of the words of Mololinsky! Here are the "covenants" given to Molchalin by his father: "... to please all people without exception<...>// To the janitor's dog, to be affectionate." Or let us recall the conversation from the third act of "Woe from Wit" by Mololinsky: "Here is a Pomeranian - a lovely Spitz, no more than a thimble, // I stroked it all: like silk fur!"

It is the Molchalins who now oppose Moscow society. (Which hasn't changed at all.)

That is why Ostrovsky is not afraid of accusations of "non-originality", of "imitation". For him, reminiscences are not an end in themselves, but artistic medium. With their help, the playwright sharply sets off the image of modernity, creates his own, unborrowed picture of life. Moreover, he does not confine himself to parallels with Griboedov and draws another classical work of the Russian theater into his comedic orbit - he uses reminiscences from Gogol's The Inspector General.

Here is the phenomenon of the 5th act of the 4th: Glumov, having just spoken with Cleopatra Lvovna, is about to go to the house of a rich bride and delivers a monologue; during this monologue, he discovers that the diary is gone: “I have no rights to this bride and, most importantly, to this dowry. Everything is taken by one energy. A whole castle hangs in the air without a foundation ... In this pocket is a wallet, in this diary... What is it? Where is it?.. It falls, everything falls... and I fall, fall into a deep abyss. Why did I bring it? "

Strain your memory - or open the final scene of The Inspector General. The mayor, who had just found out whom he warmed on his chest, whom mistook for a real official from the capital, utters bitter words: "That's when he stabbed, so stabbed! Killed, killed, completely killed! I don’t see anything. I see some kind of pig snouts instead of faces; but no one else ... "I've got engaged to you!.. Now he's flooding the whole road with a bell! He's going to spread history all over the world... there's a clicker, a paper smear, he'll put you in a comedy."

And what happens in Ostrovsky's comedy when the "clicker" really describes Glum's "exploits" in the newspaper and immediately after that Mamaev's guests start reading the secret diary? The same thing that happened in the "Auditor", when the guests of the mayor began to read Khlestakov's letter, intercepted by the postmaster. They snatch the diary from each other, do not want to hear about themselves, but willingly reproduce the assessments attributed to others.

Read both of these scenes, by Gogol and Ostrovsky, compare them - and you will be amazed at the similarity. And after that, ask yourself the question again: why does Ostrovsky, an original playwright who created a unique artistic world, use stranger dramatic experience? And is it that obvious?

Russian writers of the 19th century felt themselves to be participants in a single cultural process, inhabitants of open space Russian and world culture. They called to each other, called back, carried on an endless dialogue with writers - predecessors and contemporaries. This dialogue did not turn into a complex literary game, into a poetic puzzle to be solved at your leisure, surrounded by reference books. No, it was a correspondence conversation of free artists about life, about art - and the reader, guessing the similarities between the works of different writers, immediately understood what was happening. This happened with the plays of Ostrovsky. The author of the comedy Enough Stupidity for Every Wise Man hoped that the reader, the viewer compare his picture of life with the picture of life that Gogol reveals in The Government Inspector. And, having compared, they will feel the originality of Ostrovsky's decisions even more sharply.

What brings his comedy closer to The Inspector General? The absence of a "positive face", a hero who (like Lyubim Tortsov or Katerina) would be somehow connected with the author's ideal. The only positive hero of Gogol's comedy, as you and I know, is laughter; the same can be said about Ostrovsky's comedy.

And what is the fundamental difference?

In that main character Gogol, Khlestakov, does not at all seek to deceive the stupid inhabitants of the county town; he fantasizes almost disinterestedly, lies with inspiration; he seems to overcome insurmountable social barriers with the help of this lie, jumps out of his miserable world, humiliated position and rushes up the hierarchical ladder of his imagination. And Glumov is smart and prudent, there is no naivety in his lies and cannot be. But the reason for his insidious deceit and Khlestakov's carefree lies is the same: modern Russian life puts class, property, bureaucratic barriers in the way of the human personality. And it is impossible to get around these barriers in an honest way.

Exercise

• Prepare a message on the topic “The satirical image of modern Russian society by A.N. Ostrovsky and M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin.

Ostrovsky in the 1870s. Return to the genre of folk comedy and folk drama. Influence of folklore

Until the end of the 1860s, along with all Russian literature, Alexander Nikolayevich developed in his work a "accusatory", satirical beginning. But at the same time, his view of culture, of life, remained truly broad; the playwright depended on the tastes of his era, but did not completely coincide with them.

Not without reason, for all his incredible employment, he maintained friendly relations with the "rising star" of Russian literature, Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy. (The friendship survived even though Ostrovsky was sharply critical of Tolstoy's play The Infected Family, and the author was very offended.) He was friends with Turgenev. And he appreciated communication with the composer Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. Indeed, in their writings - Tolstoy, Turgenev, Tchaikovsky - a new picture of life, unlike the one created by the natural school, much more natural, free, voluminous and therefore deeper than even the best writers of the natural school.

And so, in the early 1870s, Ostrovsky consciously returned to his own origins. From satirical comedies, he again turns to folk comedies and dramas full of humor, having a "bright contrast". Although now these folk dramas and comedies have become a little more skeptical, bitter than before. One after another, he creates the comedies “Not Everything is Carnival for the Cat” (1871), “There was not a penny, but suddenly Altyn” (1872), “Truth is good, but happiness is better” (1877). Critics of the "social" direction wrote approvingly that merchants reappear in the new plays, as well as representatives of strata and estates that previously had no place in Ostrovsky's dramaturgy: lawyers, bureaucrats, poor officials, ordinary inhabitants. Critics also liked the fact that the conflict between the "younger" and the "older", the dispute between generations, finally began to be resolved by Ostrovsky in favor of the "younger ones"; they ceased to obediently obey someone else's will, began to show independence and even insolence.

And what did the critics of the democratic camp not like? First of all - artistic direction of the "new" Ostrovsky. They, in full accordance with the tasks of their profession, expressed modern tastes, made demands on art that were dictated by today's ideas about the "correct" literary or theatrical work. And he looked to the future.

What did readers and viewers of the 1870s expect from their favorite authors? "Proximity to life", struggle with conventionality, with familiar images. And in the depths of Russian culture - simultaneously with European culture - a new algorithm for its development was already emerging. And Ostrovsky, intuitively feeling this, acted in accordance with the new algorithm.

He no longer strove for a constant renewal of dramatic situations, he finally ceased to be afraid of conditional, traditional "moves" and techniques. His theatrical manner became much more conditional. From play to play, the same set of "propositions" were now repeated: rich old abusers oppress young men and young girls dependent on their wealth. Weakened attention to everyday life, to the external side of life, to a detailed description of mores. And the main interest of the playwright finally focused on the problem of moral choice, on the mental suffering of heroes and heroines, on the preaching of universal principles that are inherent in any estate and at any time.

Especially in such a dynamic, contradictory, which Russia experienced in the 1870s.

As before, the image of a woman was often at the center of Ostrovsky's plays - sacrificially loving, able to forgive, dreaming of happiness, but never finding this happiness. In the plot center of the comedy "Talents and Admirers" (1881) and the melodrama "Guilty Without Guilt" (1884) - the image of an actress who did not work out personal life, which feels completely unprotected in the face of fate, but which finds an outlet in creativity, in theatrical self-expression, in the service of art. It is around the heroines that the plot action revolves in the plays “The Heart is Not a Stone” (1880), “It Shines, But Doesn't Warm” (1880). And the pinnacle of this peculiar "female" cycle in Ostrovsky's late dramaturgy - and a real masterpiece of the Russian national theater - was the drama "Dowry" (1878), which you will get acquainted with in the "Analysis of the work" section.

But behind all these external changes in Ostrovsky's poetics, deeper internal shifts. He did not just "simplify" the plots of his plays, not only willingly used situations of the same type, put on the characters the usual theatrical "masks". In fact, Alexander Nikolayevich deliberately brought modern culture closer to its folk, folklore foundations. In Russian fairy tales, the same "set" of characters operates (Ivan Tsarevich, Gray wolf, Vasilisa the Wise) - so in his plays the characters are endowed with typical features. In the plays of the "folk theater" a strictly defined "set" of provisions, plot twists is used - and in the late Ostrovsky, the plots are built from ready-made "blocks".

No wonder one of Ostrovsky's brightest and most mysterious plays was musical drama in verse - "spring tale", which was called "The Snow Maiden" (1873). The production involved not only dramatic artists, but also opera and ballet troupes; The music for the play was written by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. (A few years later, the composer Rimsky-Korsakov composed an opera based on her.)

Many contemporaries who expected from Ostrovsky more and more pictures of the "dark kingdom", accusatory sketches from reality, were deeply disappointed. Nekrasov offered the playwright such a low fee for The Snow Maiden that he was forced to submit the play to the Vestnik Evropy magazine. On the fresh tracks of the production, the critic V.P. Burenin wrote: “... from under his real pen ... ghostly and meaningless images of Snow Maidens, Lelei, Mizgiri and similar persons began to emerge, inhabiting the bright kingdom of the Berendeys - a people as stupid as fantastic ... Compare the “Snegurochka " with "His people" or with "Thunderstorm": what an immense distance between these works!"

So what really was the idea of ​​the great playwright? And who was right - Ostrovsky or Nekrasov and the entire democratic literary camp?

The poetic drama was based on one of eternal stories Russian folklore - about how a beautiful snow girl comes into the world and dies from a sunbeam. And the closest source was the folk tale about the Snow Maiden, published in 1862 by the collector I.A. Khudyakov. The playwright read very carefully another book - a study by the famous mythologist and folklorist A.N. Afanasiev "Poetic views of the Slavs on nature" (1865-1869). But you and I have known for a long time that in the literature of modern times, a "borrowed" plot is just occasion for the birth of an original artistic concept. So Ostrovsky repelled from the story of the Snow Maiden, from the scientists of the reconstruction of the Slavic mythology and creates a fantastic image of the Berendeev kingdom, in which the images of Slavic paganism come to life: Spring-Krasna, Sun-Yarilo, Kupavna; Goblin, the companions of Spring, flicker on the stage...

Ostrovsky recreates on the stage the "golden age" of the Slavs, when the mythical "Berendeys" (the name of such a tribe is found in The Tale of Bygone Years, but Ostrovsky thought up everything else) lived happily and serenely. And most importantly - in full compliance with the laws great Nature. "Berendeys, beloved by the gods, lived honestly<...>And the wreath was never violated by treason, and the girls did not know deceit. "And Tsar Berendey was the keeper of the natural faith in natural forces, the kind and mighty father of his people.

You already know what is Utopia. But the utopian dream of a just, beautiful world does not have to be future-oriented. It can also be associated with a fabulous past. This is exactly what we encounter at Ostrovsky's.

But in Russian culture, the utopian picture of universal happiness almost always precedes tragic outcomes. So in the "Snegurochka" everything ends catastrophically. In the warm, but completely devoid of personal, individual beginning, the world of the Berendeys is the daughter of Spring and Frost - the Snow Maiden. Berendei, obeying the law of Nature, put love above all else: "Every living thing in the world must love." That is why they perform a wedding celebration on a special Yarilin day - and see this as the best "sacrifice" to the supreme deity. And the Snow Maiden is beautiful with a completely different, cold beauty; she doesn't know what love is.

This is the core of the tragic conflict. Yarila, angry that people violate the main law of nature, the law of impersonal love, deprives them of the fertile warmth; from year to year, the already short northern summer is getting shorter, "and the springs are getting colder." And when one of the Berendeys, Mizgir, cheats on the beautiful Kupava for the sake of the Snow Maiden, the "golden age" comes to an end. Natural harmony does not tolerate personal willfulness, individual choice; the generic wholeness of the universe disintegrates, turns into chaos. But the individual cannot enjoy the "victory" he has won; the ancestral principle absorbs it. The Snow Maiden, wanting to join the world of people, asks Mother Spring for the gift of love - and having received it, she melts from the inner love heat - and from the rays of the omnipotent Yarila: "There is fire in the eyes ... and in the heart ... and in the blood .. // I love and melt, melt from the sweet feelings of love". And Mizgir rushes into the lake from Yarilina Mountain: "If the gods are deceivers, it's not worth living in the world!"

The fate of the Snow Maiden tragic, but also majestic; her death is sad, but without this death the triumph of Light over Cold is impossible... The idea of ​​sacrifice, sacrifice, the mythological image of Nature, mystical overtones, the use of folklore images calendar poetry- all this was extremely close to the trends that were just taking shape in European dramaturgy. The Russian comedian Ostrovsky, who was famous for his attention to everyday details, who grew up on the principles of the natural school, turned to intense symbolism at the same time as the best European playwrights of the new generation. "You might think that this ... t<ак>n<азываемый>realist and bytovik ... was not interested in anything other than pure poetry and romance, "the great director Konstantin Sergeevich Stanislavsky would write years later. And contemporaries, as usual, did not understand the meaning of The Snow Maiden, which hurt and offended Ostrovsky.

Exercise

• Read the play "Snow Maiden". Remember what a calendar lyric is. Show with examples how the tradition of Russian calendar poetry, fairy tale motifs are used in the construction of the plot of "The Snow Maiden".

Summary of a busy life

Ostrovsky was a real hard worker. He did not know rest, did not allow himself to relax - and dreamed only of being able to influence the fate of the Russian theater even more strongly, to contribute to its development.

In 1881, he was invited to the Commission to review the statutes for all parts of the theater department. The playwright worked for half a year on a program of change; alas, his proposals ran into a wall of indifference. Only in 1886, already receiving a lifetime pension of 3,000 rubles from the Sovereign, he was appointed head of the repertoire of the Moscow theaters, the Maly and Bolshoi, and head of the theater school. Ostrovsky was truly happy, the artists rejoiced ... But there was no physical strength left. As the playwright bitterly writes, "they gave the squirrel a whole cartload of nuts for its faithful service, but only when it had no more teeth ... This situation is deeply tragic."

By this time, Ostrovsky had long suffered from attacks of angina pectoris (which was then called "angina pectoris"). From one of these attacks he died - right at his desk, in his beloved Shchelykovo; at that moment he was working on a translation of Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra...

Ostrovsky is gone. But the work of his life was carried out - the Russian national theater was created, the construction of the grandiose temple of arts was completed, at the foundation of which, according to Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov, "the cornerstones of Fonvizin, Griboyedov, Gogol were laid."

Questions and tasks

• Why do we associate the concept of "Russian national theater" with the work of Alexander Nikolayevich Ostrovsky?
• Who was Ostrovsky in his views - a Slavophile, a Westerner? Why was he supported by such diverse critics as Apollon Grigoriev and Nikolai Dobrolyubov in different periods of his work?
• Why did merchants so often become the heroes of Ostrovsky's comedies and dramas, while the action was concentrated in a merchant's house?
• In what direction did the Russian and world dramaturgy at the end of the 19th century?

Questions and tasks of increased complexity

• Prepare a report on your own on the topic “Repetilov in the comedy of A.S. riboyedov "Woe from Wit" and Gorodulin in the comedy by A.N. Ostrovsky "For every wise man there is enough simplicity".
• Read the drama "Dowry". Draw in the workbook its plot scheme (from which phenomenon to which the exposition unfolds, at what point does the plot occur, is there a false climax, what do you consider the denouement). Now refresh your memory of Karamzin's story "Poor Lisa". Draw her storyline. Point out obvious matches plot schemes Ostrovsky and Karamzin. Do you think this is a coincidence or Ostrovsky deliberately focuses on "Poor Liza"? To give the correct answer, remember what we talked about Pushkin's "The Young Lady-Peasant Woman" and Baratynsky's poem "Eda", scroll through the pages of the first part of the textbook devoted to these works.

1. Ashukin N.S., Ozhegov S.I., Filippov V.A. Dictionary for Ostrovsky's plays. M., 1983.
2. Ostrovsky's drama "Thunderstorm" in Russian criticism. L., 1990.
3. Zhuravleva A.I., Nekrasov V.N. Ostrovsky Theatre. M., 1986.
4. Lakshin V.Ya. Alexander Nikolaevich Ostrovsky. M., 1982.
5. Lotman L.M. Ostrovsky's dramaturgy // History of Russian dramaturgy: The second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries. Until 1917. L., 1987.

Case №7 Lecture on the topic: A. N. Ostrovsky. Socio-cultural novelty of A. Ostrovsky's dramaturgy.

Plan:

Biography of A. Ostrovsky

Ostrovsky Theater

creative path

Ostrovsky Alexander Nikolaevich (03/31/1823, Moscow - 06/02/1886, Shchelykovo, now the Ostrovsky district of the Kostroma region)- the famous Russian playwright. It was Alexander Nikolaevich Ostrovsky who owes his birth to the Russian national theater. With its unique face, color, genre preferences. And most importantly - with their repertoire. That is, with an extensive set of plays that can be staged during the season, constantly played on stage, changing the poster depending on the mood of the public.

Alexander Nikolayevich Ostrovsky was born on March 31 (April 12), 1823 in Moscow on Malaya Ordynka. His father, Nikolai Fedorovich, was the son of a priest; he himself graduated from the Kostroma Seminary, then the Moscow Theological Academy, but began to practice as a court lawyer, dealing with property and commercial matters; rose to the rank of titular councilor, and in 1839 received the nobility. Mother, Lyubov Ivanovna Savvina, the daughter of a sexton, passed away early, when Alexander was only eight years old. There were four children in the family. The family lived in abundance, paid great attention to the study of children who received home education. Five years after the death of his mother, his father married Baroness Emilia Andreevna von Tessin, the daughter of a Russified Swedish nobleman. The children were lucky with their stepmother - she surrounded them with care and continued to educate them.

He spent his childhood and part of his youth in the center of Zamoskvorechye. Thanks to his father's large library, Ostrovsky got acquainted early with Russian literature and felt an inclination towards writing, but his father wanted to make him a lawyer. After graduating in 1840 from the gymnasium course at the 1st Moscow Gymnasium (entered in 1835), Ostrovsky entered the law faculty of Moscow University, but he failed to complete the course (he studied until 1843).

At the request of his father, Alexander entered the service of a court scribe. He served in Moscow courts until 1851; the first salary was 4 rubles a month, after a while it increased to 15 rubles. By 1846, many scenes from merchant life had already been written, and the comedy “The Insolvent Debtor” was conceived (according to other sources, the play was called “The Picture of Family Happiness”; later - “Own People - Let's Reckon”). The sketches for this comedy and the essay “Notes of a Resident from the Moscow Region” were published in one of the issues of the “Moscow City List” in 1847. Under the text were the letters: “A. ABOUT." and "D. G.", that is, A. Ostrovsky and Dmitry Gorev, a provincial actor who offered him cooperation. Cooperation did not go beyond one scene, and subsequently served as a source of great trouble for Ostrovsky, as it gave his ill-wishers a reason to accuse him of appropriating someone else's literary work.

Ostrovsky's literary fame was brought by the comedy "Our people - let's settle!" (original title - "Bankrut"), published in 1850. The play evoked favorable responses from H.V. Gogol, I. A. Goncharov. The comedy was forbidden to be staged. Influential Moscow merchants, offended for their entire class, complained to the "bosses"; and the author was dismissed from service and placed under police supervision on the personal order of Nicholas I (supervision was removed only after the accession of Alexander II). The play was admitted to the stage only in 1861.

Beginning in 1853 and for more than 30 years, new plays by Ostrovsky appeared at the Maly Moscow Theater and the Alexandrinsky Theater in St. Petersburg almost every season. Since 1856, Ostrovsky became a permanent contributor to the Sovremennik magazine. In 1856, when, according to the idea of ​​Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolayevich, a business trip of outstanding writers took place to study and describe various areas of Russia in industrial and domestic terms, Ostrovsky took over the study of the Volga from the upper reaches to Nizhny Novgorod. In 1859, in the edition of Count G. A. Kushelev-Bezborodko, two volumes of Ostrovsky's works were published. This edition was the reason for the brilliant assessment that Dobrolyubov gave to Ostrovsky and which secured his fame as a depicter of the "dark kingdom". In 1860, The Thunderstorm appeared in print, prompting an article by Dobrolyubov (A Ray of Light in a Dark Realm). From the second half of the 1860s, Ostrovsky took up the history of the Time of Troubles and entered into correspondence with Kostomarov.

In 1863 Ostrovsky was awarded the Uvarov Prize and elected a corresponding member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. In 1866 (according to other sources - in 1865) in Moscow he created the Artistic Circle, which later gave the Moscow stage many talented figures. Ostrovsky's house was visited by I. A. Goncharov, D. V. Grigorovich, I. S. Turgenev, A. F. Pisemsky, F. M. Dostoevsky, I. E. Turchaninov, P. M. Sadovsky, L. P. Kositskaya-Nikulina, M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, L. N. Tolstoy, P. I. Tchaikovsky, M. N. Ermolova, G. N. Fedotova.

Since January 1866 he was the head of the repertoire of the Moscow imperial theaters. In 1874 (according to other sources - in 1870) the Society of Russian Drama Writers and Opera Composers was formed, whose permanent chairman Ostrovsky remained until his death. Working in the commission "for the revision of legal provisions in all parts of the theater management", established in 1881 under the directorate of the Imperial Theaters, he achieved many changes that significantly improved the position of artists. In 1885, Ostrovsky was appointed head of the repertoire of Moscow theaters and head of the theater school.

Despite the fact that his plays made good collections and that in 1883 Emperor Alexander III granted him an annual pension of 3 thousand rubles, money problems did not leave Ostrovsky until last days his life. Health did not meet the plans that he set for himself. hard work quickly exhausted the body; On June 14 (according to the old style - June 2), 1886, Ostrovsky died in his Kostroma estate Shchelykovo. The writer was buried in the same place, Alexander III granted 3,000 rubles from the sums of the cabinet for burial, the widow, inseparably with 2 children, was granted a pension of 3,000 rubles, and 2,400 rubles a year for the upbringing of three sons and a daughter.

Ostrovsky Theater

It is with Ostrovsky that the Russian theater in its modern sense begins: the writer created a theater school and a holistic concept of acting in the theater.

The essence of Ostrovsky's theater is the absence of extreme situations and opposition to the actor's gut. Alexander Nikolaevich's plays depict ordinary situations with ordinary people, whose dramas go into everyday life and human psychology.

The main ideas of the theater reform:

The theater must be built on conventions (there is a 4th wall separating the audience from the actors);

The invariability of attitude to language: the mastery of speech characteristics, expressing almost everything about the characters;

The bet is not on one actor;

- "People go to watch the game, not the play itself - you can read it."

Ostrovsky's theater demanded a new stage aesthetics, new actors. In accordance with this, Ostrovsky creates an ensemble of actors, which includes such actors as Martynov, Sergei Vasilyev, Evgeny Samoilov, Prov Sadovsky.

Naturally, innovations met opponents. They were, for example, Shchepkin. The dramaturgy of Ostrovsky demanded from the actor a detachment from his personality, which MS Shchepkin did not do. For example, he left the dress rehearsal of The Thunderstorm, being very dissatisfied with the author of the play.

Ostrovsky's ideas were carried to their logical end by Stanislavsky.

Ostrovsky's creative path

Early, 1847-1851 , the period of searching for ways and entering into great literature with the play “Our people - let's get along”1847-1850

History of Ostrovsky's first play:

the original titlesInsolvent debtor », « Bankrupt " And "Bankrupt, or Our people - let's settle »)

The play was under arrest for 10 years, because, according to Dobrolyubov, “…thrown to dust and brazenly trampled on by tyrants human dignity, freedom of the individual, faith in love and happiness, and the sacredness of honest labor."

"Muscovitian", 1852-1854 when the folk comedies “Do not sit in your sleigh”, “Poverty is not a vice” are created.

Pre-reform, 1855-1860 , when the literary and worldview position of Ostrovsky is finally determined, the plays “Hangover in someone else's pen”, “Profitable place2”, “Dowry”, “Thunderstorm” are created.

Post-reform, 1861-1886.

The first work is the play "Insolvent Debtor"

- "Thunderstorm" (1860) - a play about an awakening, protesting personality who no longer wants to live according to the laws that suppress personality.

- "Forest" (1870) - the play raises the eternal questions of human relationships, tries to solve the problem of moral and immoral.

- "The Snow Maiden (1873) - a look at the ancient, patriarchal, fairy-tale world, in which material relations also dominate (Bobyl and Bobylikha).

- "Dowry" (1879) - the playwright's view 20 years later on the problems raised in the drama "Thunderstorm".

Features of Ostrovsky's style.

Speaking surnames;

For example, in the play "Thunderstorm" there are no random names and surnames. Tikhonya, weak-willed drunkard and sissy Tikhon Kabanov fully justifies his name. The image of Lazar Elizarych Podkhalyuzin from the play “Our people - let's settle!”.

Vladimir Dal gives it a fairly clear definition:“Podkhaluza is a climber, a clever rogue; crafty, secretive and flattering person.

An unusual presentation of the characters in the poster, defining the conflict that will develop in the play;

The role of the scenery presented by the author in determining the space of the drama and the time of action;

The originality of names (often from Russian proverbs and sayings);
The end is the crown

Folk moments;

Parallel consideration of compared heroes;

The significance of the first replica of the hero;

- "prepared appearance", the main characters do not appear immediately, others first talk about them;

The peculiarity of the speech characteristics of the characters.

Final questions

Can we talk about the modernity of Ostrovsky's plays? Prove your point.

Why do modern theaters constantly turn to the playwright's plays?

Why is it so difficult to "modernize" the plays of A. N. Ostrovsky?

Lesson summary . A. N. Ostrovsky opened a page unfamiliar to the viewer, bringing a new hero onto the stage - a merchant. Before him Russian theater history only had a few names. The playwright made a huge contribution to the development of the Russian theater. His work, continuing the traditions of Fonvizin, Griboyedov, Pushkin, Gogol, is innovative in the depiction of heroes, in the language of characters and in the socio-moral problems raised.

Lesson No. 1 on the work of A.N. Ostrovsky "Thunderstorm"

Topic: "The most decisive work of Ostrovsky"

Plan:

History of creation

image system,

Techniques for characterizing heroes in Ostrovsky's play "Thunderstorm"

The controversy around the play "Thunderstorm"

Group work.

1st group. The history of the creation of the play (messages about homework with additional literature).

It is necessary to note the general meaning of the work, it is no accident that Ostrovsky called his fictional, but surprisingly real city with the non-existent name of Kalinov. In addition, the play is based on impressions from a trip along the Volga as part of an ethnographic expedition to study the life of the inhabitants of the Volga region. Katerina, remembering her childhood, talks about sewing on gold velvet. The writer could see this craft in the city of Torzhok, Tver province.

2nd group. The meaning of the title of the play "Thunderstorm" (reports on independent observations of the text).

A thunderstorm in nature (act 4) is a physical phenomenon, external, independent of the heroes.

A thunderstorm in Katerina's soul - from the gradual confusion caused by love for Boris, to the pangs of conscience from betrayal of her husband and to the feeling of sin before people, which pushed her to repentance.

A thunderstorm in society is a feeling by people who stand up for the immutability of the world, something incomprehensible. Awakening in the world of unfreedom of free feelings. This process is also shown gradually. At first, only touches: there is no due respect in the voice, does not observe decency, then - disobedience.

Thunderstorm in nature is external cause, which provoked both a thunderstorm in Katerina's soul (it was she who pushed the heroine to confession), and a thunderstorm in a society that was dumbfounded because someone went against it.

Conclusion. Title meaning:

thunderstorm in nature - refreshing,

a thunderstorm in the soul - cleanses,

a thunderstorm in society - illuminates.

3rd group. The system of characters in the play . (Reports on independent observations of the text.)

Studying the list of characters, one should ignore the speaking names and the distribution of heroes by age: young - old. Then, when working with the text, students' knowledge deepens, and the system of characters becomes different. The teacher, together with the class, makes a table, which is written in notebooks.

« Masters of life "" Victims "

Dikoy: "You're a worm. If I want - I will have mercy, if I want - I will crush.

Kabanikha: "For a long time I see that you want freedom." "That's where the will leads."

Curly: "Well, that means I'm not afraid of him, but let him be afraid of me."

Feklusha: "And the merchants are all pious people, adorned with many virtues." Kuligin: "It's better to endure."

Barbara: "And I was not a liar, but I learned." “But in my opinion, do whatever you want, as long as it’s sewn and covered.”

Tikhon: “Yes, mother, I don’t want to live by my own will. Where can I live with my will!

Boris: "I don't want food: my uncle sends it."

Questions. What place does Katerina occupy in this system of images? Why were Kudryash and Feklusha among the "masters of life"? How to understand the definition - "mirror images"?

4th group. Features of revealing the characters of heroes . (Student reports about their observations on the text.)

Speech characteristic (individual speech characterizing the hero):

Katerina is a poetic speech, reminiscent of a spell, lamentation or song, filled with folk elements.

Kuligin is the speech of an educated person with "scientific" words and poetic phrases.

Wild - speech is replete with rude words and curses.

The role of the first replica, which immediately reveals the character of the hero:

Kuligin: "Miracles, truly it must be said: miracles!"

Curly: "What?"

Dikoy: “You’ve come to beat the ships! Parasite! Get lost!”

Boris: “Holiday; what to do at home!

Feklusha: “Bla-alepie, dear, blah-alepie! Amazing beauty."

Kabanova: "If you want to listen to your mother, then when you get there, do as I ordered you."

Tikhon: “Yes, how can I, mother, disobey you!”

Barbara: "You won't respect you, how can you!"

Katerina: “For me, mother, it’s all the same that your own mother, that you, and Tikhon loves you too.”

Using the technique of contrast and comparison:

Feklusha's monologue - Kuligin's monologue,

life in the city of Kalinov - the Volga landscape,

Katerina - Barbara,

Tikhon - Boris.

We enter the city of Kalinov from the side of the public garden. Let's stop for a minute, look at the Volga, on the banks of which there is a garden. Beautiful! Eye-catching! So Kuligin also says: “The view is extraordinary! Beauty! The soul rejoices! People probably live here peaceful, calm, measured and kind. Is it so? How is the city of Kalinov shown?

Work on two monologues of Kuligin (act 1, yavl. 3; act 3, yavl. 3).

Highlight the words that especially characterize life in the city.

"Cruel morals"; "rudeness and naked poverty"; “Honest labor will never earn more than daily bread”; “trying to enslave the poor”; “to make even more money on free labor”; “I won’t pay a penny”; "trade is undermined out of envy"; “they are at enmity”, etc. - these are the principles of life in the city.

Highlight the words that most vividly characterize family life.

“Boulevard was made, not walked”; "the gates are locked and the dogs are let down"; “so that people do not see how they eat their own home, and tyrannize the family”; “tears flow behind these locks, invisible and inaudible”; “behind these locks is the debauchery of the dark and drunkenness,” etc. - these are the principles of life in the family.

If it's so bad in Kalinovo, then why at first - a wonderful view, the Volga, the same beautiful nature in the scene of Katerina and Boris's meeting?

Conclusion . The city of Kalinov is controversial. On the one hand - a wonderful place where the city is located. With another - terrible life in this city. The beauty is that it does not depend on the owners of the city, they cannot subjugate nature.

Issues for discussion

How can you evaluate the monologues of Feklusha (act 1, yavl. 2; act 3, yavl. 1)? How does the city appear in her perception? (Bla-alepie, wondrous beauty, promised land, paradise and silence.)

What are the people who live here? (They believe the stories of Feklusha, which show her darkness and ignorance: a story about a fiery serpent; about someone with a black face; about time that is getting shorter - act 3, yavl. 1; about other countries - act 2, yavl. 1 They are afraid of thunderstorms - act 4, scene 4. They believe that Lithuania has fallen from the sky - act 4, scene 1.)

How is it different from the inhabitants of the city of Kuligin? (An educated person, a self-taught mechanic - the surname resembles the surname Kulibin. Feels the beauty of nature. Aesthetically stands above other heroes: sings songs, quotes Lomonosov. Advocates for the improvement of the city, tries to persuade Wild to give money for a sundial, for a lightning rod. Tries to influence residents , enlighten them, explaining the thunderstorm as a natural phenomenon.Thus, Kuligin personifies the best part of the city's inhabitants, but he is alone in his aspirations, which is why he is considered an eccentric. Eternal motive crazy.)

Who prepares their appearance? (Kudryash introduces Wild, Feklusha - Boar.)

Wild and Kabanikha are the "masters" of the "dark kingdom". The main method of revealing their characters is a speech characteristic. You should pay attention to the analysis of their main remarks:

wild

Boar

About him:

"scold"; "Like I got off the chain"

Himself:

"parasite"; "damn"; "fail you"; "foolish man"; "go away"; “What am I to you - even or something”; “with a snout and climbs to talk”; "robber"; "asp"; "fool", etc.

Conclusion. Wild - a scolder, a rude person, feels his power over people, a petty tyrant

About her: “everything under the guise of piety”; “a hypocrite, she clothes the poor, but she completely ate the household”; "scolds"; "sharpen like iron rust"

She herself:

“I see that you want the will”; “you will not be afraid, and even more so of me”; “Do you want to live by your will”; "fool"; "order your wife"; “must do what the mother says”; "where the will leads" etc.

Conclusion. The boar is a hypocrite, does not tolerate will and disobedience, acts with fear

General conclusion. The boar is scarier than the Wild Boar, since her behavior is hypocritical. Wild is a scolder, a tyrant, but all his actions are open. The boar, under the guise of religion and concern for others, suppresses the will. She is most afraid that someone will live their own will.

The results of the actions of these heroes:

The talented Kuligin is considered an eccentric and says: “There is nothing to do, we must submit!”

The kind, but weak-willed Tikhon drinks and dreams of escaping from the house: "... and with a sort of bondage, you can run away from whatever beautiful wife you want." He is completely subordinate to his mother.

Varvara adapted to this world and began to deceive: "And I was not a liar before, but I learned when it became necessary."

Educated Boris is forced to adapt to the tyranny of the Wild in order to receive an inheritance.

So "breaks" the "dark kingdom" of good people, forcing them to endure and be silent.

Katerina's protest against the "dark kingdom"

In the system of actors, Katerina stands separately.

Issues for discussion

Why can't we call her either "victim" or "mistress"? (The answer is in her character traits.)

What traits of her character appear in the very first remarks? (Inability to be hypocritical, lie, directness. The conflict is outlined immediately: the Boar does not tolerate feelings in people dignity, disobedience, Katerina does not know how to adapt and submit.)

Where did these traits come from in the heroine? Why does the author only talk about Katerina in such detail, talk about her family, childhood? How was Katerina brought up? What atmosphere surrounded her in her childhood and in her husband's family?

In childhood - “It’s like a bird in the wild”, “mother didn’t have a soul”, “she didn’t force me to work.” Katerina's features: love of freedom (the image of a bird); independence; self-esteem; dreaminess and poetry (a story about visiting a church, about dreams); religiosity; decisiveness (a story about an act with a boat)

In the Kabanov family - Katerina's occupations: she looked after flowers, went to church, listened to wanderers and praying women, embroidered on velvet with gold, walked in the garden “I have withered completely”, “yes, everything here seems to be from under captivity”.

The atmosphere at home is fear. “You will not be afraid, and even more so me. What kind of order will this be in the house?

The principles of the house of Kabanovs: complete submission; renunciation of one's will; humiliation by reproaches and suspicions; lack of spiritual principles; religious hypocrisy

For Katerina, the main thing is to live according to her soul

(The relationship of the characters is in a state of sharp contrast and gives rise to an irreconcilable conflict.)

What is Katerina's protest expressed in? Why can we call her love for Boris a protest? (Love is the desire to live according to the laws of your soul.)

What is the difficulty internal state heroines? (Love for Boris is: a free choice dictated by the heart; a deceit that puts Katerina on a par with Barbara; rejection of love is submission to the world of the Boar. Love-choice dooms Katerina to torment.)

How are the heroine's torments, the struggle with herself and her strength shown in the scene with the key and the scenes of meeting and parting with Boris? Analyze vocabulary, sentence structure, folklore elements, connection with folk song. (Scene with the key: “Yes, what am I saying, that I am deceiving myself? I can even die, but see him.” Dating scene: “Let everyone know, let everyone see what I am doing! If I am not afraid of sin for you am I afraid human court? Farewell scene: “My friend! My joy! Goodbye!" All three scenes show the determination of the heroine. She did not betray herself anywhere: she decided on love at the behest of her heart, confessed to treason from an inner sense of freedom (a lie is always lack of freedom), she came to say goodbye to Boris not only because of a feeling of love, but also because of guilt: he suffered from -for her. She threw herself into the Volga at the demand of her free nature.)

Prove that Katerina's death is a protest. (Katerina's death is a protest, a riot, a call to action. Varvara ran away from home, Tikhon blamed his mother for the death of his wife, Kuligin reproached him for mercilessness.)

Will the city of Kalinov be able to live in the old way?

Lesson No. 2 on the work of A.N. Ostrovsky "Thunderstorm"

Topic: "Disputes around the play" Thunderstorm ""

The disputes around The Thunderstorm are determined, firstly, by the nature of the genre, since a work intended for the stage involves various interpretations, secondly, by the originality of the content, since there is a social and moral conflict in the play, and thirdly, by the active development of critical thought during this period.

Goals:

Introduce students to art critical literature 1860s.

To teach some methods of discussion on the example of the articles under consideration.

Develop students' critical thinking.

To consolidate the ability to selectively take notes of a literary-critical article.

Summarize what you have learned.

Text content of the lesson:

A.N. Ostrovsky. Drama "Thunderstorm" (1859)

N.A. Dobrolyubov "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom" (1860)

A. Grigoriev "After Ostrovsky's Thunderstorm" (1860)

D.I. Pisarev "Motives of Russian drama" (1864)

M.A. Antonovich "Mistakes" (1865)

Homework for the lesson:

Selective summary of the article by A.N. Dobrolyubov “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom” (I version) and the article by D.I. Pisarev “Motives of Russian Drama” (II version).

Determine your attitude to the abstracts of the article, pick up the argument.

Individual tasks for the lesson :

prepare brief messages on the literary-critical activities of Dobrolyubov, Pisarev, Grigoriev, Antonovich;

choose from M. Antonovich's article "Mistakes" fragments of the polemic with D. Pisarev;

to determine what are the features of the critical analysis of the drama "Thunderstorm" made by Apollon Grigoriev.

Lesson layout: the topic of the lesson is written on the board; top right - the names of critics and their years of life; top left - key concepts: discussion, controversy, opponent, thesis, arguments, judgment, critical analysis.

In the center of the board is a table layout that will be filled in during the lesson. The table has 2 columns: on the left - Dobrolyubov's interpretation of the image of Katerina, on the right - Pisarev.

Lesson progress

1. introduction teachers.

Not a single truly talented work leaves anyone indifferent: some admire it, others express critical judgments. This happened with Ostrovsky's drama "Thunderstorm". The writer's admirers called it a truly folk work, admired Katerina's decisiveness and courage; but there were also those who responded rather sharply, denying the heroine the mind. Such ambiguous assessments were expressed by N.A. Dobrolyubov and D.I. Pisarev, famous literary critics of the 1860s.

To better understand what arguments they were guided by, let's listen to the messages prepared by the guys.

2. Messages from students.

I. Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov (1836-1861) - critic, publicist, poet, prose writer. Revolutionary Democrat. Born in the family of a priest. He studied at the Faculty of History and Philology of the Main Pedagogical Institute of St. Petersburg. During his studies, his materialistic views were formed. “I am a desperate socialist,” Dobrolyubov said about himself. Permanent contributor to the Sovremennik magazine. According to the recollections of people who knew him closely, Dobrolyubov did not tolerate compromises, “did not know how to live,” as most people live.

Dobrolyubov entered the history of Russian literature, first of all, as a critic, a successor to Belinsky's ideas. Literary criticism Dobrolyubova is brightly publicistic.

Question to the class: How do you understand these words?

Dobrolyubov has detailed parallels between literature and life, appeals to the reader - both direct and hidden, "Aesopian". The writer counted on the propaganda effect of some of his articles.

At the same time, Dobrolyubov was a sensitive connoisseur of beauty, a man capable of penetrating deeply into the essence of a work of art.

He develops the principles of "real criticism", the essence of which is that the work must be treated as phenomena of reality, revealing its humanistic potential. Dignity literary work is put in direct connection with its nationality.

Dobrolyubov's most famous literary-critical articles are "Dark Kingdom" (1859), "When will the real day come?" (1859), "What is Oblomovism?" (1859), "A Ray of Light in a Dark Realm" (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” germinates in a young man. Since 1861 he has been working in the Russian Word magazine. Pisarev's articles quickly attracted the attention of readers with the sharpness of thought, the fearlessness of the author's position, brought him fame as a daring and ardent polemicist who does not recognize anyone's authorities.

After 1861, Pisarev placed his hopes on useful scientific and practical activity, on the awakening of 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 it is necessary to increase the number of thinking people.

Tragically died in June 1868.

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

III. And now, guys, let's see how these two critics interpreted the image of Katerina Kabanova, the heroine of Ostrovsky's drama Thunderstorm. (Students of the first option read the abstracts of Dobrolyubov's article; students of the second option - the abstracts of Pisarev's article. The teacher briefly writes them down in a table on the board. Such work will make it possible to more clearly present the different approaches of critics to the image of Katerina).

ON THE. Dobrolyubov

1. The character of Katerina constitutes a step forward in all our literature.

2. Decisive, integral Russian character

3. This character is predominantly creative, loving, ideal 4. Katerina does everything according to the attraction of nature

DI. Pisarev

1. Dobrolyubov took the personality of Katerina for a bright phenomenon

2. Not a single bright phenomenon can arise in the "dark kingdom"

3. What is this harsh virtue that gives up at the first opportunity? What kind of suicide caused by such petty annoyances?

4. Dobrolyubov found the attractive sides of Katerina, put them together, made up an ideal image, as a result he saw a ray of light in a dark kingdom

5. In Katerina we see a protest against Kaban's concepts of morality, a protest carried to the end

5. Upbringing and life could not give Katerina either a strong character or a developed mind.

6 Bitter is such a deliverance; But what to do when there is no other way out. That is the strength of her character.

6. Katerina cuts the tightened knots by the most stupid means - suicide.

7 We rejoice to see Katerina's deliverance.

7. He who does not know how to do anything to alleviate his own and other people's suffering, he cannot be called a bright phenomenon.

Question to the class: What, in your opinion, is the reason for such a different interpretation of the image of Katerina? Should I take into account the time of writing articles?

Pisarev openly and clearly polemicizes with Dobrolyubov. In his article, he states: "Dobrolyubov made a mistake in assessing the female character." Pisarev remains deaf to the spiritual tragedy of Katerina, 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 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 do you prefer? Argument your point of view.

Klass is ambivalent about the interpretation of Katerina's image by the two critics.

The guys agree with Dobrolyubov, who saw the poetry of the image of Katerina, understand the position of the critic, who sought to explain the fatal step of the girl by the terrible conditions of her life. Others agree with Pisarev, who considers the suicide of the heroine not the best way out of this situation. However, they do not take harsh judgments about Katerina's mind.

V. The rejection of the interpretation of the image of Katerina Pisarev was expressed in his article by Maxim Antonovich, an employee of the Sovremennik magazine. You will meet the name of this critic when studying I.S. Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons”. Let's hear a brief biographical note about him.

Maxim Alekseevich Antonovich (1835-1918) - a radical Russian literary critic, philosopher, publicist. Born in the family of a deacon. He studied at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. Was an employee of Sovremennik. He defended the views on the art of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov. He advocated democratic, raznochinskaya literature. However, he vulgarized the principles of materialistic aesthetics. He argued with the journal D.I. Pisarev "Russian word".

The most famous works of M. Antonovich: "Asmodeus of our time" (1862), "Mistakes" (1864).

Question to the class: And now let's see what answer M. Antonovich gave to Pisarev in his article. Is he convincing in his judgments?

A prepared student reads the most vivid statements from a fragment devoted to the controversy with Pisarev.

“Pisarev decided to correct Dobrolyubov and expose his mistakes, to which he ranks one of the best articles of his “Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom.” This is the article Mr. Pisarev is trying to upload 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 imagines Katerina as a woman with a developed mind, who allegedly decided to protest only as a result of the education and development of her mind, because she was called “a ray of light” Pisarev imposed his own fantasy on Dobrolyubov and began to refute it in such a way that as if it belonged to Dobrolyubov"

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

The student reports that, according to Antonovich, Pisarev humiliates Katerina with his analysis. However, Antonovich himself, in the heat of the controversy, speaks rather rudely, for example, he uses such expressions as “the fanfare of Mr. Pisarev”, “the arrogant phrases of Mr. Pisarev”, “to criticize In a similar way just stupid" etc.

The guys, having become acquainted with Antonovich's critical manner, note that his arguments are not very convincing, since Antonovich does not provide evidence-based arguments based on a good knowledge of the material. Simply put, in a polemic with Pisarev, Antonovich does not hide his personal dislike well.

Word of the teacher: M. Antonovich was the initiator of the controversy between Sovremennik and Russkoe 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. A completely different approach to the analysis of the work is demonstrated by Apollon Grigoriev.

A Word to the Prepared Student:

Grigoriev Apollon Aleksandrovich (1822-1864) - poet, literary and theater critic. Graduated from the Faculty of Law of Moscow University. He began to publish as a poet in 1843. He heads the young editorial board of the Moskvityanin magazine, being a leading critic. Later, he edited the Russian Word magazine. Grigoriev himself called himself "the last romantic."

As a critic, he is known for his works on Ostrovsky (“After Ostrovsky’s Thunderstorm”, 1860), Nekrasov (“Poems by N. Nekrasov, 1862), L. Tolstoy (“Count L. Tolstoy and his writings”, 1862).

Let's see how A. Grigoriev evaluates Ostrovsky's drama "Thunderstorm". Think about the features of this critique.

A student prepared at home reads out brief abstracts of the article "After Ostrovsky's Thunderstorm."

The guys pay attention to the fact that for the first time in front of them is a critical article written by a poet. Hence its significant differences from previous works, in particular, by Dobrolyubov and Pisarev. A. Grigoriev tried to see in the "Thunderstorm" primarily a work of art. In his article, he pointed out that the merit of Ostrovsky is the ability to authentically and poetically depict national Russian life: “The name of this writer is not a satirist, but folk poet". The critics were not interested in the blind fences of the city of Kalinov, but in the picturesque cliff over the Volga. Where Dobrolyubov was looking for exposure, 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 "theoreticians" "to sum up instantaneous results for any strip of life" a mistake. Such "theorists", he believed, had little respect for life and its boundless mysteries.

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

The guys answer that the decisive role is played by such factors as the time of writing articles, the political convictions of opponents, the view of art and, undoubtedly, the personality of the critics themselves, which is manifested in a polemically polished word.

VII. Conclusions.

Drama Ostrovsky "Thunderstorm" with its appearance caused a lot of mixed ratings. This was especially true of 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 act, 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 was not capable of becoming a “beam of light”, this was just an “attractive illusion” (Pisarev). Still others agreed with Dobrolyubov's interpretation, convicting Pisarev of his inability to objective evaluation(Antonovich). But there were also those who stood "above the fray", not wanting to see anything but a beautifully written work of art. Such was the view of A. Grigoriev.

It seems to us that every 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, while Pisarev noticed only the exceptional darkness of the young woman.

Storm

1859

Summary plays.

The events take place in the first half of the 19th century, in the fictional town of Kalinovo on the Volga. The first act is in a public garden on the high bank of the Volga. The local self-taught mechanic Kuligin talks with young people - Kudryash, the clerk of the rich merchant Diky, and the tradesman Shapkin - about the rude antics and tyranny of Diky. Then Boris, Diky's nephew, appears, who, in response to Kuligin's questions, says that his parents lived in Moscow, gave him an education at the Commercial Academy, and both died during the epidemic. He came to Dikoy, leaving his sister with his mother's relatives, in order to receive part of the grandmother's inheritance, which Dikoy must give him according to the will, if Boris is respectful to him. Everyone assures him: under such conditions, Dikoy will never give him money. Boris complains to Kuligin that he can't get used to life in Dikoy's house, Kuligin talks about Kalinov and ends his speech with the words: “Cruel morals, sir, in our city, cruel!

Kalinovtsy disperse. Together with another woman, the wanderer Feklusha appears, praising the city for "bla-a-lepie", and the house of the Kabanovs for their special generosity towards wanderers. "Kabanovs?" - Boris asks again: “The hypocrite, sir, clothes the poor, but completely ate at home,” explains Kuligin. Kabanova comes out, accompanied by her daughter Varvara and son Tikhon with his wife Katerina. She grumbles at them, but finally leaves, allowing the children to walk along the boulevard. Varvara releases Tikhon secretly from his mother to drink at a party and, left alone with Katerina, talks with her about domestic relations, about Tikhon. Katerina talks about a happy childhood in her parents' house, about her fervent prayers, about what she experiences in the temple, imagining angels in a sunbeam falling from the dome, dreams of spreading her arms and flying, and, finally, admits that “something is wrong” with her something". Varvara guesses that Katerina has fallen in love with someone, and promises to arrange a meeting upon Tikhon's departure. This proposal horrifies Katerina. A crazy lady appears, threatening that “beauty leads to the very whirlpool”, and prophesies hellish torments. Katerina is terribly frightened, and then “a thunderstorm sets in”, she hurries Varvara home to pray for the icons.

The second act, which takes place in the Kabanovs' house, begins with Feklusha's conversation with the maid Glasha. The wanderer asks about the household affairs of the Kabanovs and conveys fabulous stories about distant lands, where people with dog heads "for infidelity", etc. Katerina and Varvara, who have appeared, gathering Tikhon on the road, continue the conversation about Katerina's hobby, Varvara calls the name of Boris, reports a bow from him and persuades Katerina to sleep with her in the gazebo in the garden after Tikhon's departure. Kabanikha and Tikhon come out, the mother tells her son to strictly punish his wife, how to live without him, Katerina is humiliated by these formal orders. But, left alone with her husband, she begs him to take her on a trip, after his refusal she tries to give him terrible oaths of fidelity, but Tikhon does not want to listen to them: “You never know what comes to mind ...” The returned Kabanikha orders Katerina to bow to her husband in legs. Tikhon leaves. Varvara, leaving for a walk, informs Katerina that they will spend the night in the garden, and gives her the key to the gate. Katerina does not want to take it, then, after hesitating, she hides it in her pocket.

The next action takes place on a bench at the gate of the boar's house. Feklusha and Kabanikha are talking about " last times”, Feklusha says that “for our sins” “time began to come down”, talks about the railway (“they began to harness the fiery serpent”), about the bustle of Moscow life as a devilish obsession. Both are waiting for even worse times. Dikoy appears with complaints about his family, Kabanikha reproaches him for his erratic behavior, he tries to be rude to her, but she quickly stops this and takes him to the house to drink and eat. While Dikoy is eating, Boris, sent by Dikoy's family, comes to find out where the head of the family is. Having completed the assignment, he exclaims with longing about Katerina: “If only to look at her with one eye!” The returned Varvara tells him to come at night to the gate in the ravine behind the boar garden.

The second scene represents the nightly festivities of the youth, Varvara comes out on a date with Kudryash and tells Boris to wait - "you'll wait for something." There is a date between Katerina and Boris. After hesitation, thoughts about sin, Katerina is unable to resist the awakened love. “What to feel sorry for me - no one is to blame, - she herself went for it. Don't be sorry, kill me! Let everyone know, let everyone see what I'm doing (hugs Boris). If I was not afraid of sin for you, will I be afraid of human judgment?

The entire fourth act, which takes place on the streets of Kalinov - on the gallery of a dilapidated building with the remains of a fresco representing fiery Gehenna, and on the boulevard - takes place against the backdrop of a gathering and finally bursting thunderstorm. It starts to rain, and Dikoy and Kuligin enter the gallery, who begins to persuade Dikoy to give money to install a sundial on the boulevard. In response, Dikoy scolds him in every possible way and even threatens to declare him a robber. Having endured the scolding, Kuligin begins to ask for money for a lightning rod. At this point, Dikoy confidently declares that it is a sin to defend against the thunderstorm “with some kind of poles and horns, God forgive me, God forgive me.” The stage is empty, then Varvara and Boris meet in the gallery. She reports the return of Tikhon, Katerina's tears, Kabanikh's suspicions, and expresses fear that Katerina will confess to her husband of treason. Boris begs to dissuade Katerina from confessing and disappears. The rest of the Kabanovs enter. Katerina waits with horror that she, who has not repented of sin, will be killed by lightning, a crazy lady appears, threatening hellish flames, Katerina can no longer hold on and publicly admits to her husband and mother-in-law that she “walked” with Boris. The boar gloatingly declares: “What, son! Where will the will lead? […] So I waited!”

The last action is again on the high bank of the Volga. Tikhon complains to Kuligin about his family grief, about what his mother says about Katerina: “She must be buried alive in the ground so that she will be executed!” "But I love her, I'm sorry to touch her with my finger." Kuligin advises to forgive Katerina, but Tikhon explains that this is impossible under Kabanikh. He speaks not without pity about Boris, whom his uncle sends to Kyakhta. The maid Glasha enters and reports that Katerina has disappeared from the house. Tikhon is afraid that “she wouldn’t kill herself out of boredom!”, And together with Glasha and Kuligin he leaves to look for his wife.

Katerina appears, she complains about her desperate situation in the house, and most importantly, about her terrible longing for Boris. Her monologue ends with a passionate incantation: “My joy! My life, my soul, I love you! Reply!" Boris enters. She asks him to take her to Siberia with him, but she understands that Boris's refusal is caused by a really complete impossibility to leave with her. She blesses him on his way, complains about the oppressive life in the house, about disgust for her husband. After saying goodbye to Boris forever, Katerina begins to dream alone of death, of a grave with flowers and birds that “fly up a tree, sing, have children.” "To live again?" she exclaims in horror. Approaching the cliff, she says goodbye to the departed Boris: “My friend! My joy! Goodbye!" and leaves.

The scene is filled with anxious people, in the crowd and Tikhon with his mother. A cry is heard behind the scenes: “A woman threw herself into the water!” Tikhon tries to run to her, but his mother does not let him in with the words: “I’ll curse you if you go!” Tikhon falls to his knees. After some time, Kuligin brings in Katerina's body. "Here's your Katherine. Do with her what you want! Her body is here, take it; and the soul is not yours now; she is now before a judge who is more merciful than you!”

Rushing to Katerina, Tikhon accuses his mother: “Mother, you ruined her!” and, ignoring the menacing cries of the Kabanikh, falls on the corpse of his wife. “Good for you, Katya! Why am I left to live in the world and suffer!” - with these words of Tikhon the play ends. Retold by A. I. Zhuravleva

Independent work No. 1

Subject: Historical - cultural process and periodization of Russian literature of the 19th century.

Russian literature of the first half of the 19th century. The 19th century is called the "Golden Age" of Russian poetry and the century of Russian literature on a global scale. At the beginning of the century, art was finally separated from court poetry and "album" poems, in the history of Russian literature for the first time the features of a professional poet appeared, the lyrics became more natural, simpler, more humane. This century has given us such masters. It should not be forgotten that the literary leap that took place in the 19th century was prepared by the entire course of the literary process of the 17th and 18th centuries. The 19th century is the time of the formation of the Russian literary language. The 19th century began with the heyday of sentimentalism and the formation of romanticism. These literary trends found expression primarily in poetry. Sentimentalism: Sentimentalism declared feeling, not reason, to be the dominant feature of "human nature", which distinguished it from classicism. Sentimentalism believed that the ideal of human activity was not the "reasonable" reorganization of the world, but the release and improvement of "natural" feelings. His hero is more individualized, his inner world is enriched by the ability to empathize, sensitively respond to what is happening around. By origin and conviction, the sentimentalist hero is a democrat; the rich spiritual world of the common man is one of the main discoveries and conquests of sentimentalism. Romanticism: ideological and artistic direction in the culture of the end of the 18th century - the first half of the 19th century. It is characterized by the assertion of the intrinsic value of the spiritual and creative life of the individual, the image of strong (often rebellious) passions and characters, spiritualized and healing nature. In the 18th century, everything that was strange, fantastic, picturesque, and existing in books, and not in reality, was called romantic. IN early XIX century, romanticism became the designation of a new direction, opposite to classicism and the Enlightenment. Romanticism affirms the cult of nature, feelings and the natural in man. The image of the “noble savage”, armed with “folk wisdom” and not spoiled by civilization, is in demand. Along with poetry began to develop prose. The prose writers of the beginning of the century were influenced by the English historical novels of W. Scott, whose translations were very popular. The development of Russian prose of the 19th century began with the prose works of A.S. Pushkin and N.V. Gogol. Since the middle of the 19th century, the formation of Russian realistic literature has been taking place, which is created against the backdrop of a tense socio-political situation that developed in Russia during the reign of Nicholas I. A crisis in the serf system is brewing, contradictions between the authorities and common people. There is a need to create a realistic literature that sharply reacts to the socio-political situation in the country. Writers turn to the socio-political problems of Russian reality. Socio-political and philosophical problems prevail. Literature is distinguished by a special psychologism. Realism in art, 1) the truth of life, embodied by the specific means of art. 2) The historically concrete form of the artistic consciousness of the new time, which originates either from the Renaissance ("Renaissance realism"), or from the Enlightenment ("Enlightenment realism"), or from the 30s. 19th century ("proper realism"). The leading principles of realism in the 19th - 20th centuries: an objective reflection of the essential aspects of life in combination with the height of the author's ideal; reproduction of typical characters, conflicts, situations with the completeness of their artistic individualization (i.e. specification of both national, historical, social signs, and physical, intellectual and spiritual features

^ critical realism- an artistic method and literary direction that developed in the 19th century. Its main feature is the depiction of the human character in organic connection with social circumstances, along with a deep social analysis of the inner world of a person.

Independent work No. 2

Subject: Romanticism is the leading trend in Russian literature in the first half of the 19th century.

Romanticism(- a phenomenon of European culture in the 18th-19th centuries, which is a reaction to the Enlightenment and the scientific and technological progress stimulated by it; the ideological and artistic direction in European and American culture of the late 18th century - the first half of the 19th century. It is characterized by the assertion of the intrinsic value of the spiritual and creative life of the individual , depicting strong (often rebellious) passions and characters, spiritualized and healing nature. various areas human activity. In the 18th century, everything that was strange, fantastic, picturesque, and existing in books, and not in reality, was called romantic. At the beginning of the 19th century, romanticism became the designation of a new direction, opposite to classicism and the Enlightenment.

Romanticism replaces the Age of Enlightenment and coincides with the industrial revolution, marked by the appearance of the steam engine, the steam locomotive, the steamboat, photography, and factory outskirts. If the Enlightenment is characterized by the cult of reason and civilization based on its principles, then romanticism affirms the cult of nature, feelings and the natural in man. It was in the era of romanticism that the phenomena of tourism, mountaineering and picnics were formed, designed to restore the unity of man and nature. The image of the “noble savage”, armed with “folk wisdom” and not spoiled by civilization, is in demand. That is, the romanticists wanted to show an unusual person in unusual circumstances. In a word, the romanticists opposed progressive civilization.

It is usually believed that in Russia romanticism appears in the poetry of V. A. Zhukovsky (although some Russian poetic works of the 1790-1800s are often attributed to the pre-romantic movement that developed from sentimentalism). In Russian romanticism, freedom from classical conventions appears, a ballad, a romantic drama, is created. A new idea of ​​the essence and meaning of poetry is affirmed, which is recognized as an independent sphere of life, an expression of the highest, ideal aspirations of man; the old view, according to which poetry was an empty pastime, something completely serviceable, is no longer possible.

The early poetry of A. S. Pushkin also developed within the framework of romanticism. The poetry of M. Yu. Lermontov, the “Russian Byron”, can be considered the pinnacle of Russian romanticism. The philosophical lyrics of F. I. Tyutchev are both the completion and the overcoming of romanticism in Russia.

The first decades of the 19th century passed under the sign of romanticism. Zhukovsky is popular, the genius of Pushkin flourishes, Lermontov declares himself, Gogol's creative path begins, and the critic Belinsky actively participates in the development of Russian literature. Literature is increasingly becoming an integral part of the spiritual life of society.

Youth, students create associations that have a socio-political orientation. Thus, at Moscow University, in the circle of N. V. Stankevich, V. G. Belinsky, M. A. Bakunin, K. S. Aksakov take part; in the circle of A. I. Herzen - N. P. Ogarev. As Herzen argued, "Russia of the future" existed precisely among these "boys who had just emerged from childhood" - they had "the heritage of universal science and purely folk Rus'."

Autocratic power proclaims the ideological formula of Russian society: “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationalism. It was voiced in 1833 in the circular of the Minister of Public Education, Count S. S. Uvarov, where it was said that “public education should be carried out in the united spirit of Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality.”

For Russian literature of the 19th century, realism can be considered the leading direction. In the literature of different countries, it arose in parallel with the successes of the exact sciences. The position of a realist writer is close to the position of a scientist, since they consider the world around them as a subject of study, observation, research.

Romanticism gravitated towards depicting an extraordinary personality, unusual plots, spectacular contrasts and vivid forms of expression. Realism strives to depict the everyday existence of ordinary people, to reproduce the real course of life. “To accurately and strongly reproduce the truth, the reality of life, is the greatest happiness for a writer, even if this truth does not coincide with his own sympathies,” I. S. Typgenev argued.

Independent work No. 3

Subject: The main themes and motives in the lyrics of A.S. Pushkin.

Reading the lyrics of A. S. Pushkin, the great Russian writer N. V. Gogol asked himself the question: “What became the subject of A. S. Pushkin's poetry? : And he himself answered: "Everything has become an object." In his work, the poet turned to the themes of love and friendship, he was worried about the problems of freedom and the appointment of the poet. All the lyrics of A. S. Pushkin can be represented as endless romance in verse, the main subject of the image of which is the inner world of the lyrical hero with his feelings, experiences and aspirations, whether it is a rush of passion, a premonition of love or disappointment in the ideal. One of the most important in the poet's work for me was the theme of love, which develops, like all the motives of his lyrics. In his youth, the lyrical hero of A. S. Pushkin sees joy and great universal value in love: ... Flow, streams of love, flow full of you. In the darkness, your eyes shine before me, They smile at me - and I hear the sounds: My friend, my tender friend ... I love ... yours ... yours! .. But gradually, with the maturation of the lyrical hero, the theme of love is rethought, and now for A. S. Pushkin become more important than the feelings and experiences of the beloved woman: But you tore your lips from the bitter kiss; From the land of gloomy exile You called me to another land. Lyrical hero Pushkin is able to appreciate any feeling and enjoy even the sadness of love: On the hills of Georgia lies the darkness of the night; Noisy Aragva before me. I'm sad and easy; my sadness is light; My sorrow is full of you...

Also in the work of A. S. Pushkin, one can see another understanding of freedom: the romantic perception of liberty. One of my favorite poems is the work "To the Sea", in which the principle of romantic duality is manifested. The lyrical hero thinks of himself as an extraordinary person, he cannot find anything equal to himself in society and therefore turns to the world of nature, to the elements: The limit of my soul is desirable! How often I wandered along your shores, quiet and foggy, I languish with a cherished intent! The pinnacle of the theme of freedom is the poem (From Pindemonti), which is a hymn to personal freedom. Especially close to me are the lines dedicated to the chanting of the honor and dignity of a person: Depend on the king, depend on the people - Is it all the same to us? God is with them. Do not give an Account to anyone, only yourself Serve and please, for power, for livery Do not bend your conscience, thoughts, or neck ... Since Pushkin in his work turned to the themes of the poet and poetry, time and eternity, we must not forget about philosophical lyrics of the poet. The young lyric poet perceived death very tragically, but he realized that life does not stop, since A. S. Pushkin thought of himself as a very important link in the chain of generations, he manages to overcome the tragedy of death: Hello, young, unfamiliar tribe! not I will see your mighty late age When you outgrow my acquaintances And you shield their old head From the eyes of a passerby. But let my grandson Hear your welcoming noise, when, Returning from a friendly conversation, Full of merry and pleasant thoughts, He will pass by you in the darkness of the night, And remember me. The problem of time and eternity, in my opinion, is one of the main problems in the philosophical lyrics of A. S. Pushkin.

The problem of time and eternity, in my opinion, is one of the main problems in the philosophical lyrics of A. S. Pushkin. The lyrical hero realizes that a person lives within the framework of time, and nature is eternal, and therefore it is indifferent to the tragedy of man: And let young life play at the coffin entrance, And indifferent nature Shine with eternal beauty.

At the end life path A. S. Pushkin returns to the theme of the poet and poetry in the poem "Monument", where the lyrics are concerned with the theme of poetic immortality. In this work, political freedom and the freedom of the creative person merge. The main meaning is contained in the lines: No, all of me will not die - the soul in the cherished lyre My ashes will survive and run away from decay - And I will be glorious, as long as at least one piit is alive in the sublunar world. The belief that the works will remain in the hearts and souls of generations fills the life of the poet with meaning and significance not only for A. S. Pushkin, but also for admirers of his talent. The older I get, the more the works of the great Russian lyricist acquire new and new meaning for me. Each time, re-reading familiar works from childhood, I discover a new Pushkin, because throughout his life the poet followed His moral ideals, which are so close to me.

Independent work No. 4

Subject: The main motives of the lyrics of M.O. Lermontov.

“Like any real, and even more so great poet, Lermontov confessed his poetry, and leafing through the volumes of his works, we can read the history of his soul and understand him as a poet and a person,” wrote Irakli Andronikov. Lermontov's talent flourished at a time when the revolution of the nobility was crushed, and new generations of fighters were still being formed. Therefore, the motives of bitterness, longing and loneliness occupy a considerable place in his work. Faith in the people, in their mighty forces, helped him in many ways to overcome these moods. Lermontov is a national poet. We are captivated by the beauty and humanity of Lermontov's poems. We hear in his poetry a stormy protest against "gloomy reality", a proud call for freedom and justice. The themes of Lermontov's lyrics are varied. Many of his works are a bitter thought about the fate of the younger generation of his era. One of the leading themes of Lermontov's poetry is the theme of hatred for autocracy. It illuminates the entire creative path of the poet. The heroic beginning of his struggle against the autocracy and the "light" was the poem "The Death of a Poet", written with heartache and anger. Lermontov castigates the "envious and stifling light", the "executioners of Freedom", the "greedy crowd" standing at the throne. He contrasts them with Pushkin, who rebelled against the "opinions of the world", whose death calls for vengeance. It was she who announced to Russia the emergence of a new poet, the successor to the great Pushkin. In Russia in the 1930s, Lermontov was one of the few poets who openly challenged ruling society. A vivid example of this is the poem “How often, surrounded by a motley crowd ...”. Forced to live among the secular mob, the poet deeply despises the intrigue, lies, emptiness and soullessness of these people. The poem ends with a challenge to the “light”: Oh, how I want to embarrass their gaiety, And boldly throw an iron verse in their eyes, Drenched in bitterness and anger! Even the best representatives of the youth of that time did not know how and where to apply their strength. In the end, many of them became indifferent to everything, became "superfluous people." The poem "Duma" is a civil judgment over one's generation. The author shows his passivity and emptiness of life in an era when the struggle is necessary. A large place in Lermontov's lyrics is occupied by the theme of the motherland (“Motherland”, “Borodino”). Lermontov opposes his “strange” love for the fatherland to the false patriotism of the ruling classes. In no other work did he achieve such poetic clarity as in the poem "Motherland". Broad lines, like the expanse of the steppe, accompany the poet's thoughts when his gaze turns to the Russian nature dear to his heart. At the sight of the occasional contentment and simple fun of the hardworking peasants, the poet is seized by a feeling of joy, incomprehensible to the “patriots” from the nobility, who cannot look “with joy, unfamiliar to many ...”. Lermontov road native nature, but even more expensive is a simple Russian person. Belinsky called this poem "Pushkin's best" thing, referring to Pushkin's optimism, faith in life and the people, which Lermontov inherited. But now the dagger has turned into a “golden toy”, inglorious and harmless. Previously, the voice of the poet called for a fight: “It used to be that the measured sound of your mighty words / Inflamed a fighter for battle ...” But now Lermontov does not see such a singer among his contemporaries. The poem ends with an appeal: Will you wake up again, mocked prophet? Or never at the voice of vengeance From the golden scabbard will you pull out your blade, Covered with rust of contempt?.. Years of reaction lay like a heavy burden on the shoulders of advanced people. Deep sadness and anxiety sound in many of Lermontov's poems: “I go out alone on the road ...”, “An oak leaf came off a dear branch ...”, “Clouds”, “Cliff”. In the poem “And boring and sad,” the poet writes: And it’s boring and sad, and there’s no one to give a hand In a moment of spiritual adversity ... Desire! The poet is tired of following his “flinty path”. Nature, sounding in each of his poems, calls to rest (“The earth sleeps in the radiance of blue ...”). The sad tone of Lermontov's poems never turned into despair. The poet never resigned himself to fate. The rebellious spirit of poetry, its lyricism, depth of thought, amazing musicality and perfection of poetry put Lermontov among the greatest poets.

Independent work No. 5

Subject: The value of N.V. Gogol in Russian literature.

The merciless truth spoken by Gogol about contemporary society, the ardent love for the people, the artistic perfection of his works - all this determined the role that the great writer played in the history of Russian and world literature, in establishing the principles of critical realism, in the development of democratic public consciousness.

Relying on the creative achievements of his glorious predecessors (Fonvizin, Griboyedov, Krylov, Pushkin), Gogol blazed new trails in literature, continuing and developing its wonderful traditions: connection with life, nationality, humanism. In science recent years Increasingly, there are doubts about the validity of the judgments of the outstanding literary critic M. M. Bakhtin that Gogol’s laughter is “purely folk-festive laughter”, which has nothing to do with satire. Meanwhile, most of Gogol's works, as D. P. Nikolaev showed in a special study, are to some extent imbued with satirical pathos. Gogol acutely felt the unnaturalness of all the then existing social and social forms of life, their anti-humanistic essence.

This critical direction grew in Gogol from a belief in the unlimited spiritual possibilities of the individual, from the idea of ​​moral values ​​embedded in the people's consciousness, ideals, from the height of which the satirist opposed everything that disfigured and distorted the human personality. The concept of the ideal also existed in romantic literature. But there the ideal was often perceived as an unattainable dream opposed to reality.

For Gogol, the ideal is not divorced from reality, it is perceived by the writer as a norm of life that existed in the past (“Taras Bulba”) and, therefore, is possible and achievable in the present.

From this comes the power of satirical negation, which is organically connected with a passionate desire by means of fiction to achieve the speedy achievement of the public good, to affirm the lofty purpose of a person, to help him get rid of everything that can lead to moral death.

The harsh and wise lessons of Gogol, so important and necessary for us today, are the lessons of love for the Motherland, respect and admiration for its history, nature, people, this is a warning about the formidable danger that the loss of moral criteria brings with it, the lack of spirituality that always accompanies the acquirers , predators, people absorbed in the pursuit of rank or wealth, alien to high spiritual interests.

Gogol's immortal work enriched the principles of artistic representation of reality, revealed the inexhaustible possibilities of using the grotesque, fantasy, and symbolism in realistic literature. “Gogol's range was unlimited,” wrote M. T. Rylsky.

Not only laughter, but also the terrible fantasy of "Terrible Revenge" and "Evenings on the Eve of Ivan Kupala", and the heroic pathos, patriotic solemnity of "Taras Bulba", and the poetic melodiousness of "May Night", and the deep emotion of "Portrait", and the grotesqueness of "The Nose "- one of the most fantastic and most realistic works of world literature, and boundless pity for the poor man, which manifested itself so strongly in The Overcoat and found its continuation in the early (and not only early) works of Dostoevsky, and in the works of Turgenev, Leskov , Gleb Uspensky, Garshin, Chekhov.

Independent work No. 6

Subject: Socio-cultural novelty of Ostrovsky's dramaturgy.

Dramaturgy is a genre that involves the active interaction of the writer and the reader in considering the social issues raised by the author. A. N. Ostrovsky believed that dramaturgy has a strong impact on society, the text is part of the performance, but the play does not live without staging. Hundreds and thousands will view it, and much less will read it. Nationality is the main feature of the drama of the 1860s: heroes from the people, a description of the life of the lower strata of the population, the search for a positive national character. Drama has always had the ability to respond to topical issues. Creativity Ostrovsky was at the center of the dramaturgy of this time, Yu. M. Lotman calls his plays the pinnacle of Russian drama. I. A. Goncharov called Ostrovsky the creator of “, the “Russian national theater”, and N. A. Dobrolyubov called his dramas “plays of life”, since in his plays the private life of the people is formed into a picture of modern society. In the first big comedy "Our People - Let's Settle" (1850), it is through intra-family conflicts that public contradictions are shown. It was with this play that Ostrovsky's theater began, it was in it that new principles of stage action, the behavior of an actor, and theatrical entertainment first appeared.

Creativity Ostrovsky was new to Russian drama. His works are characterized by the complexity and complexity of conflicts, his element is a socio-psychological drama, a comedy of manners. The features of his style are speaking surnames, specific author's remarks, peculiar titles of plays, among which proverbs are often used, comedies based on folklore motives. The conflict of Ostrovsky's plays is mainly based on the incompatibility of the hero with the environment. His dramas can be called psychological, they contain not only an external conflict, but also an internal drama of a moral principle. Everything in the plays historically accurately recreates the life of society, from which the playwright takes his plots. The new hero of Ostrovsky's dramas - a simple man - determines the originality of the content, and Ostrovsky creates a "folk drama". He accomplished a huge task - he made the "little man" a tragic hero. Ostrovsky saw his duty as a dramatic writer in making the analysis of what was happening the main content of the drama. “A dramatic writer ... does not compose what was - it gives life, history, legend; his main task is to show on the basis of what psychological data some event took place and why it was so and not otherwise ”- this, according to the author, is the essence of the drama. Ostrovsky treated dramaturgy as mass art educating people, defined the purpose of the theater as a "school of public morals". His very first performances shocked with their truthfulness and simplicity, honest heroes with a "hot heart". The playwright created, "combining the high with the comic", he created forty-eight works and invented more than five hundred heroes.

Ostrovsky's plays are realistic. In the merchant environment, which he observed day after day and believed that the past and present of society were combined in it, Ostrovsky reveals those social conflicts that reflect the life of Russia. And if in "The Snow Maiden" he recreates the patriarchal world, through which modern problems are only guessed, then his "Thunderstorm" is an open protest of the individual, a person's desire for happiness and independence. This was perceived by playwrights as an affirmation of the creative principle of love of freedom, which could become the basis of a new drama. Ostrovsky never used the definition of "tragedy", designating his plays as "comedies" and "dramas", sometimes providing explanations in the spirit of "pictures of Moscow life", "scenes from village life", "scenes from backwater life", pointing out that that we are talking about the life of a whole social environment. Dobrolyubov said that Ostrovsky created a new type of dramatic action: without didactics, the author analyzed the historical origins of modern phenomena in society. Historical approach to family and social relations- the pathos of Ostrovsky's creativity. Among his heroes are people of different ages, divided into two camps - young and old. For example, as Yu. M. Lotman writes, in The Thunderstorm Kabanikha is the “keeper of antiquity”, and Katerina “carries the creative beginning of development”, which is why she wants to fly like a bird.

The dispute between antiquity and newness, according to the literary critic, is an important aspect of the dramatic conflict in Ostrovsky's plays. Traditional forms of everyday life are regarded as eternally renewing, and only in this the playwright sees their viability... The old enters the new, into modern life, in which it can play the role of either a “fettering” element, oppressing its development, or stabilizing, ensuring the strength of the emerging novelty, depending on the content of the old that preserves the people's life. The author always sympathizes with young heroes, poeticizes their desire for freedom, selflessness. The title of the article by A. N. Dobrolyubov “A ray of light in a dark kingdom” fully reflects the role of these heroes in society. They are psychologically similar to each other, the author often uses already developed characters. The theme of the position of a woman in the world of calculation is also repeated in "The Poor Bride", "Hot Heart", "Dowry".

Independent work No. 7

Subject: Comprehension of the ideal of a person living in a transitional era (based on the novel by I.A. Goncharov "Oblomov").

The novel "Oblomov" was written by I.A. Goncharov in 1859 and immediately attracted the attention of critics with the problems posed in the novel. "Oblomov" is a socio-psychological novel depicting the destructive influence of the nobility and landlord environment on the human personality. The author with objective accuracy and completeness depicted Russian life in the first half of the 19th century, which he had observed since childhood. The main character of the novel is Ilya Ilyich Oblomov - a man of about thirty-two or three years old, of medium height, pleasant appearance, with dark gray eyes, but with the absence of any definite idea, any concentration in facial features. The plot of the novel is the life path of Ilya Ilyich, from childhood until his death. The main theme of the novel is "Oblomovism" - a way of life, a vital ideology; this is apathy, passivity, isolation from reality, contemplation of life around you, but the main thing is the absence of labor, practical inactivity. The concept of "Oblomovism" is far from applicable to Oblomovka alone with its inhabitants, it is a "reflection of Russian life", the key to unraveling many of its phenomena. In the 19th century, the life of many Russian landowners was similar to the life of the Oblomovites, and therefore "Oblomovism" can be called the "dominant disease" of that time. The essence of "Oblomovism" is revealed by Goncharov through the depiction of Oblomov's life, most of which the hero spends lying on the sofa, dreaming and making all kinds of plans. Education, the atmosphere in which little Oblomov grew up played a huge role in shaping his character and worldview. Ilya Ilyich was born in Oblomovka - this "blessed corner of the earth", where "there is nothing grandiose, wild and gloomy", there are no "neither terrible storms nor destruction", where deep silence, peace and imperturbable calm reign. At the Oblomov estate, the midday "all-consuming, invincible sleep, a true likeness of death" was traditional. And little Ilyusha grew up in this atmosphere, was surrounded by care and attention: his mother, nanny and the entire large retinue of the Oblomov family showered the boy with caresses and praises. The slightest attempt by the child to do something on his own was immediately suppressed: he was often forbidden to run anywhere, at the age of fourteen he was not even able to dress himself. Thus, Ilya Ilyich was more and more "impregnated with Oblomovism", the ideal of life was gradually formed in his mind. Already an adult, Oblomov was characterized, in my opinion, by a childish reverie. Life in his dreams seemed to him calm, measured, stable, and the beloved woman - in her qualities more reminiscent of a mother - loving, caring, sympathetic. Oblomov was so immersed in the world of his dreams that he completely broke away from reality, which he was unable to accept. But the habit of obtaining the satisfaction of his desires not from his own efforts, but from others, developed in him moral slavery. By the age of 32, Ilya Ilyich turned into a “baybaka” - an apathetic creature whose life is limited to an apartment on Gorokhovaya Street, a dressing gown made of Persian fabric and lying on a sofa. Why this struggle, when you can live on the money he receives from the estate. Gradually, he breaks with the service, and then with society. Lying down became his normal state. A bathrobe and a sofa replace all the joys of life for him. Sometimes Oblomov tried to read, but reading tired him. Such a state kills positive human qualities in Oblomov, of which there are many in him. He is honest, humane, smart. The writer repeatedly emphasizes in it "pigeon meekness." Stolz recalls that once, about ten years ago, he had spiritual ideals. He read Rousseau, Schiller, Goethe, Byron, studied mathematics, studied English, thought about the fate of Russia, wanted to serve his homeland. But Oblomov did not find an application for his enormous moral, spiritual potential, he turned out to be "an extra person." It seems to me that if it were not for the upbringing that gave rise to Oblomov’s inability to work, this person would benefit others and would not live his life in vain. But, as Ilya Ilyich himself says, "Oblomovism" ruined him, it was she who did not let him get up from the couch, start a new, full life. Stolz, Volkov, Sudbinsky, Penkin, Alekseev, Tarantiev - they all tried to bring Oblomov out of a state of dead rest, to include him in life. Unfortunately, nothing came of this, because Ilya Ilyich rooted too tightly to rest: "He has grown to this pit with a sore spot: try to tear it off - there will be death." Oblomov completely absorbed Ilya Ilyich, who surrounded him in childhood, she did not leave him until his death. A kind, intelligent man, Oblomov, lies on the sofa in a comfortable dressing gown, and life is gone forever. The wonderful girl Olga Ilyinskaya, who fell in love with Oblomov and tried in vain to save him, asks: "What ruined you? There is no name for this evil ... - There is ... "Oblomovism," our hero answers. look, lack of will and laziness. These are the pernicious properties of character that do not allow Oblomov to serve his ideals, work on himself. In his present position, he could not find something to his liking anywhere, because he did not understand the meaning of life at all, and could not reach a reasonable perspectives on one's relationship with others.