Whose interpretation of the image of Katerina Kabanova - N.A. Dobrolyubova or D.I

Sections: Literature

1. To introduce students to the works of critical literature of the 1860s.
2. To teach some methods of discussion on the example of the articles under consideration.
3. Develop students' critical thinking.
4. To consolidate the ability to selectively take notes of a literary-critical article.
5. Summarize what you have learned.

Text content of the lesson:

1. A.N. Ostrovsky. Drama "Thunderstorm" (1859)
2. N.A. Dobrolyubov "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom" (1860)
3. A. Grigoriev "After Ostrovsky's Thunderstorm" (1860)
4. D.I. Pisarev "Motives of Russian drama" (1864)
5. M.A. Antonovich "Mistakes" (1865)

Homework for the lesson:

1. 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).
2. Determine your attitude to the abstracts of the article, pick up the argument.

Individual tasks for the lesson:

• prepare brief reports 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 design: the topic of the lesson is written on the board; at the 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.

During the classes

1. Introductory speech of the teacher.

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 of Dobrolyubov 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. The dignity of a 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 of 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 read 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).

Question to the class: What, in your opinion, is the reason for such a different interpretation of the image of Katerina? Should whether to 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: A now let's see what answer M. Antonovich gave to Pisarev in his article. Is he convincing in his judgments?

A prepared student reads out the most striking statements from the 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 a Dark Kingdom” ... Mr. Pisarev is trying to fill this article with muddy water of his phrases and commonplaces ... Pisarev calls Dobrolyubov’s views mistake and equates him with the champions of pure art ... "

“It seemed to Pisarev that Dobrolyubov imagined Katerina as a woman with a developed mind, who allegedly decided to protest only as a result of the education and development of her mind, because she was called a “beam of light” ... Pisarev imposed his own fantasy on Dobrolyubov and began to refute it like this 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 out rather rudely, for example, he uses such expressions as “the fanfare of Mr. Pisarev”, “the arrogant phrases of Mr. Pisarev”, “to criticize in this way is simply 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.

teacher's word: 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 Alexandrovich (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 the national Russian life: "The name of this writer is not a satirist, but a 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.

Ostrovsky's drama "Thunderstorm" caused a lot of ambiguous assessments with its appearance. 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, accusing Pisarev of being unable to make an objective assessment (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.

Analysis of the article by N.A. Dobrolyubov “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom”

Dobrolyubov's article "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom" is one of the first reviews of A.N. Ostrovsky's play. First published in the Sovremennik magazine in No. 10, 1860.

It was a time of revolutionary-democratic upsurge, fierce resistance to autocratic power. Tense expectation of reforms. Hope for social change.

The epoch demanded a resolute, integral, strong character, capable of rising to protest against violence and arbitrariness and going in his post to the end. Dobrolyubov saw such a character in Katerina.

Dobrolyubov called Katerina "a ray of light in a dark kingdom" because she is a bright personality, a bright phenomenon and extremely positive. A person who does not want to be a victim of the "dark kingdom", capable of an act. Any violence revolts her and leads to protest.

Dobrolyubov welcomes creativity in the character of the heroine.

He believed that the origins of protest are precisely in harmony, simplicity, nobility, which are incompatible with slave morality.

The drama of Katerina, according to Dobrolyubov, is in the struggle of natural aspirations for beauty, harmony, happiness, prejudices, morality of the "dark kingdom" arising from her nature.

The critic sees something "refreshing, encouraging" in the drama "Thunderstorm". Detects shakiness and the near end of tyranny. The character of Katerina breathes new life, although it is revealed to us in her very death.

Ostrovsky was far from thinking that the only way out of the "dark kingdom" could only be a resolute protest. Ostrovsky's "beam of light" was knowledge and education.

Dobrolyubov, as a revolutionary democrat, in a period of powerful revolutionary upsurge, looked for facts in literature confirming that the masses of the people do not want and cannot live in the old way, that protest against the autocratic order is ripening in them, that they are ready to rise to a decisive struggle for social transformations. Dobrolyubov was convinced that readers, having read the play, should understand that living in the "dark kingdom" is worse than death. It is clear that in this way Dobrolyubov sharpened many aspects of Ostrovsky's play and drew direct revolutionary conclusions. But this was due to the time of writing the article.

Dobrolyubov's critical manner is fruitful. The critic does not so much judge as studies, explores the struggle in the soul of the heroine, proving the inevitability of the victory of light over darkness. This approach corresponds to the spirit of Ostrovsky's drama.

Dobrolyubov's correctness was also confirmed by the court of history. "Thunderstorm" really was the news of a new stage in Russian folk life. Already in the movement of revolutionaries - the seventies there were many participants whose life path made me think of Katerina. Vera Zasulich, Sophia Perovskaya, Vera Figner... And they started with an instinctive impulse to freedom, born from the closeness of the family environment.

Any critical article should hardly be considered the ultimate truth. Critical work, even the most versatile, is still one-sided. The most brilliant critic cannot say everything about the work. But the best, like works of art, become monuments of the era. The Dobrolyubovskaya article is one of the highest achievements of Russian criticism of the 19th century. She sets the trend in the interpretation of the "Thunderstorm" to this day.

Our time brings its own accents to the interpretation of Ostrovsky's drama.

N. Dobrolyubov called the city of Kalinov a "dark kingdom", and Katerina - a "beam of light" in it. But can we agree with this? The kingdom turned out to be not so "obscure" as it might seem at first glance. And the beam? A sharp long light, mercilessly highlighting everything, cold, cutting, causing a desire to close.

Is it Katherine? Let's remember how she prays...! What an angelic smile she has on her face, and from her face it seems to glow.

Light comes from within. No, it's not a beam. Candle. Trembling, defenseless. And from her light. Scattering, warm, living light. They reached out to him - each for his own. It was from this breath of many that the candle went out.

The critical article "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom" was written by Nikolai Dobrolyubov in 1860 and then published in the Sovremennik magazine.

Dobrolyubov reflects in it on dramatic standards, where "we see the struggle of passion and duty." A happy ending, in his opinion, the drama has if duty wins, and an unhappy ending if passion. The critic notes that in Ostrovsky's drama there is no unity of time and high vocabulary, which was the rule for dramas. "Thunderstorm" does not satisfy the main goal of the drama - to respect the "moral duty", to show the destructive, fatal "consequences of infatuation with passion." Dobrolyubov notices that the reader involuntarily justifies Katerina, and that is why the drama does not fulfill its purpose.

The writer has a role to play in the movement of humanity. The critic cites as an example the lofty mission accomplished by Shakespeare: he was able to raise the morality of his contemporaries. "Plays of life" somewhat pejoratively calls the works of Ostrovsky Dobrolyubov. The writer "punishes neither the villain nor the victim", and this, according to the critic, makes the plays hopelessly mundane and mundane. But the critic does not deny them "nationality", arguing in this context with Apollon Grigoriev.It is the reflection of the aspirations of the people that is one of the strengths of the work.

Dobrolyubov continues his devastating criticism when analyzing the "unnecessary" heroes of the "dark kingdom": their inner world is limited within a small world. There are villains in the work, described in an extremely grotesque way. These are Kabanikha and Wild. However, unlike, for example, Shakespeare's characters, their tyranny is petty, although it can ruin the life of a good person. Nevertheless, "Thunderstorm" is called Dobrolyubov "the most decisive work" of the playwright, where tyranny is brought to "tragic consequences."

A supporter of revolutionary changes in the country, Dobrolyubov happily notices signs of something "refreshing" and "encouraging" in the play. For him, the way out of the dark kingdom can only be as a result of the protest of the people against the tyranny of the authorities. In Ostrovsky's plays, the critic saw this protest in the act of Katerina, for whom living in the "dark kingdom" is worse than death. Dobrolyubov saw in Katerina the person that the era demanded: decisive, with a strong character and will of spirit, although "weak and patient." Katerina, "creative, loving, ideal", is, according to the revolutionary democrat Dobrolyubov, the ideal prototype of a person capable of protest and even more. Katerina - a bright person with a bright soul - is called by the critic a "beam of light" in the world of dark people with their petty passions.

(Tikhon falls to his knees in front of Kabanikha)

Among them is the husband of Katerina Tikhon - "one of the many miserable types" who are "as harmful as the petty tyrants themselves." Katerina runs away from him to Boris "more in the wilderness", out of the "need for love", which Tikhon is not capable of because of his moral underdevelopment. But Boris is by no means "a hero." There is no way out for Katerina, her bright soul cannot get out of the sticky darkness of the “dark kingdom”.

The tragic ending of the play and the cry of the unfortunate Tikhon, who, according to him, continues to "suffer", "make the viewer - as Dobrolyubov wrote - think not about a love affair, but about the whole life, where the living envy the dead."

Nikolai Dobrolyubov sets the real task of his critical article to turn the reader to the idea that Russian life is shown by Ostrovsky in "Thunderstorm" in such a perspective in order to call "to decisive action." And this business is legal and important. In this case, as the critic notes, he will be satisfied "whatever our scientists and literary judges say."

The play by A.N. Ostrovsky "Thunderstorm" appeared on the stage in 1860 during the rise of the socio-political struggle in Russia on the eve of the abolition of serfdom. The leading critic of the Sovremennik magazine, N.A. Dobrolyubov, immediately noticed Ostrovsky’s drama among the literary novelties of the year and wrote a long article with the significant title “Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom” (1860). D.I. Pisarev expressed his view of the play in the article “Motives of Russian Drama” (1864), when Dobrolyubov had already died (1861), and the first revolutionary situation (1859-1861) had ended, giving way to a calmer historical period of reforms of the 60s years.

Although both authors discuss the same play, their articles differ significantly. Both critics do not confine themselves to the analysis of a particular literary work, but consider it useful and interesting to talk about the phenomena of Russian life reflected in it. Moreover, Dobrolyubov analyzes literature and life, and Pisarev analyzes life and literature. Therefore, we can say that Dobrolyubov wrote a literary-critical work, and Pisarev wrote a publicist article based on literary material. Dobrolyubov analyzes the artistic merits of the play and all of Ostrovsky's previous work; for Pisarev, both "Thunderstorm" and the image of Katerina Kabanova become an occasion for presenting his view of the positive "hero of our time."

At the beginning of his article, Dobrolyubov considers theoretical questions of literature: what are the signs of traditional drama as a kind of literature and modern (new) drama; how the truth should be expressed in a work of art; what is the nationality of literature? Then the critic defines the main theme of Ostrovsky's play (the depiction of the "dark kingdom", that is, modern Russian life) and analyzes the character and idea of ​​each character. Pisarev uses the play as an occasion to analyze the state of contemporary Russian society. True, he briefly retells the plot of The Thunderstorm, but he devotes his main attention not to the analysis of the play, but to the dispute with Dobrolyubov's article. Dobrolyubov divides the heroes of the play into "tyrants" and their "victims" and declares that this division of literary characters reflects the real state of modern Russian life; Pisarev believes that two types of people are represented in modern Russian life - “dwarfs” (always preoccupied with insignificant problems) and “eternal children” (subordinate to elders in the family, state and doomed to eternal suffering). It is these people, according to Pisarev, that are formed by modern social conditions and the system of education.

However, the main subject of dispute between Dobrolyubov and Pisarev is the assessment of the image of Katerina Kabanova and, consequently, the entire work of A. N. Ostrovsky. Dobrolyubov calls Katerina “a ray of light in the dark kingdom” and believes that she embodies the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bresistance to the “dark kingdom”, it expresses the people's desire for freedom: “In this person we see an already mature, from the depths of the soul of the whole organism, the demand for law and space that arises life." Pisarev argues that Katerina, a hysterical, poorly educated merchant's wife, cannot in any way be considered a “bright person”: “... she rushes from one extreme to another every minute; (...) at every step she confuses her own life and the lives of other people; (...) she cuts the lingering knots by the most stupid means, suicide ... ”(IV). Dobrolyubov notes passion, tenderness and sincerity in Katerina’s character, while Pisarev does not consider these qualities to be mandatory for a “bright personality” and sarcastically remarks: “I completely agree that all the contradictions and absurdities of her behavior are explained precisely by these properties” (IV) . Dobrolyubov sees in the suicide of the heroine "a terrible challenge to self-foolish power", and Pisarev - stupidity: "... the Russian Ophelia, Katerina, having committed many stupid things, throws herself into the water and thus does the last and greatest absurdity" (XI). Dobrolyubov’s article, according to Pisarev, was a mistake, since “a critic has the right to see a bright phenomenon only in a person who knows how to be happy, that is, to benefit himself and others, and, knowing how to live and act under adverse conditions, understands that at the same time, their unfavorability and, to the best of his ability, tries to rework these conditions for the better ”(VI). “Bright personalities” in modern literature are the so-called “new people”: Lopukhov from the novel by N.G. Chernyshevsky “What is to be done?” and, of course, Pisarev's favorite hero, Bazarov: “An intelligent and developed personality, without noticing it, acts on everything that touches it; her thoughts, her occupations, her humane treatment, her calm firmness - all this stirs around her the stagnant water of human routine ”(VI).

So which of the two critics gave the most correct interpretation of the image of Katerina? First of all, it must be recognized that a real work of art, which is the "Thunderstorm", can be considered from different points of view, that is, as Pisarev rightly notes, "starting from the same basic facts, one can come to different and even opposite conclusions. » (II). The different interpretations of the image of Katerina by Dobrolyubov and Pisarev are explained by the different socio-political views of critics. When Dobrolyubov wrote A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom, he believed in the possibility of a peasant revolution, as he saw with his own eyes the rise of the first revolutionary situation. Therefore, Dobrolyubov writes about the impossibility of reconciling with the "reigning evil" and about the brewing of popular protest, the symbol of which in the play "Thunderstorm" was the image of Katerina. Pisarev saw the “fading” of the revolutionary situation, in the article “Motives of the Russian Drama” he is worried about something else: what to do now, when mass popular uprisings have stopped? Pisarev argues as follows: the people are not capable of revolutionary creativity, because they are obscure and uneducated; the task of the intelligentsia at the present time is to simultaneously improve the life of the people and educate them. It is precisely the raznochintsy intelligentsia that can now play the most progressive social role. Therefore, real people like Bazarov are "bright personalities of our time."

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

Thus, the contradiction between the assessments of the image of Katerina, which belong to Dobrolyubov and Pisarev, is removed. It can be said that both assessments are essentially not opposed, but complement each other.