Plan of Pisarev's article motives of Russian drama. Pisarev D

Motives of Russian drama

Thank you for downloading the book for free. electronic library http://filosoff.org/ Happy reading! Motives of Russian drama. Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev I Based on dramatic works Ostrovsky, Dobrolyubov showed us in the Russian family that "dark kingdom" in which mental faculties wither and the fresh strength of our young generations is depleted. The article was read, praised, and then put aside. Fans of patriotic illusions (1), unable to make a single sound objection to Dobrolyubov, continued to revel in their illusions and will probably continue this occupation as long as they find readers for themselves. Looking at these constant kneeling before folk wisdom and before folk truth, noticing that gullible readers take at face value current phrases devoid of any content, and knowing that folk wisdom and the people's truth expressed itself most fully in the construction of our family life - conscientious criticism is placed in the sad need to repeat several times those positions that have long been expressed and proven. As long as the phenomena of the "dark kingdom" continue to exist and as long as patriotic dreaminess turns a blind eye to them, until then we will constantly have to remind the reading society of Dobrolyubov's true and lively ideas about our family life. But at the same time, we will have to be stricter and more consistent than Dobrolyubov; we will need to defend his ideas against his own passions; where Dobrolyubov succumbed to an impulse of aesthetic feeling, we will try to reason in cold blood and see that our family patriarchy suppresses any healthy development. Ostrovsky's drama "Thunderstorm" provoked a critical article from Dobrolyubov under the title "Ray of Light in dark kingdom". This article was a mistake on the part of Dobrolyubov; he was carried away by sympathy for the character of Katerina and took her personality for a bright phenomenon. Detailed Analysis This character will show our readers that Dobrolyubov's view in this case is wrong and that not a single bright phenomenon can either arise or take shape in the "dark kingdom" of the patriarchal Russian family, brought to the stage in Ostrovsky's drama. II Katerina, the wife of a young merchant Tikhon Kabanov, lives with her husband in the house of her mother-in-law, who constantly grumbles at everyone at home. The children of the old Kabanikha, Tikhon and Varvara, have long listened to this grumbling and know how to “let it go past their ears” on the grounds that “she really needs to say something” (2). But Katerina cannot get used to her mother-in-law's manners and constantly suffers from her conversations. In the same city where the Kabanovs live, there is a young man, Boris Grigorievich, who has received a decent education. He glances at Katerina in the church and on the boulevard, and Katerina, for her part, falls in love with him, but wants to keep her virtue intact. Tikhon is leaving somewhere for two weeks; Varvara, out of kindness, helps Boris see Katerina, and the couple in love enjoys complete happiness for ten years. summer nights. Tikhon arrives; Katerina is tormented by remorse, grows thin and turns pale; then she is frightened by a thunderstorm, which she takes for an expression of heavenly wrath; at the same time, she is embarrassed by the words of the half-witted lady about fiery hell; she takes it all personally; on the street, in front of the people, she throws herself on her knees before her husband and confesses her guilt to him. The husband, on the orders of his mother, "beat her a little" (3) after they returned home; the old Kabanikha, with redoubled zeal, began to sharpen the repentant sinner with reproaches and moralizing; a strong home guard was assigned to Katerina, but she managed to escape from the house; she met her lover and learned from him that, on the orders of his uncle, he was leaving for Kyakhta; - then, immediately after this meeting, she threw herself into the Volga and drowned. These are the data on the basis of which we must form an idea of ​​the character of Katerina. I have given my reader a bare list of such facts, which in my story may seem too abrupt, incoherent, and even implausible in the aggregate. What is this love that arises from the exchange of several glances? What is this harsh virtue that gives up at the first opportunity? Finally, what kind of suicide is this, caused by such petty troubles, which are tolerated quite safely by all members of all Russian families? I conveyed the facts quite correctly, but, of course, I could not convey in a few lines those shades in the development of the action, which, softening the external sharpness of the outlines, make the reader or viewer see in Katerina not an invention of the author, but living face, really capable of doing all of the above eccentricities. Reading The Thunderstorm or watching it on stage, you will never doubt that Katerina had to act in reality exactly as she does in the drama. You will see and understand Katerina before you, but, of course, you will understand her one way or another, depending on the point of view from which you look at her. Every living phenomenon differs from dead abstraction precisely in that it can be viewed from different angles; and, starting from the same basic facts, one can come to different and even opposite conclusions. Katerina experienced many different kinds of sentences; there were moralists who accused her of immorality, this was the easiest thing to do: one had only to compare each act of Katerina with the prescriptions of the positive law and take stock; for this work neither wit nor thought was required, and therefore it was really performed with brilliant success by writers who do not differ in either of these virtues; then aestheticians appeared and decided that Katerina was a bright phenomenon; the aestheticians, of course, stood immeasurably above the inexorable champions of decency, and therefore the former were listened to with respect, while the latter were immediately ridiculed. At the head of the aestheticians was Dobrolyubov, who constantly pursued aesthetic critics with their well-aimed and fair ridicule. In his judgment on Katerina, he agreed with his usual opponents, and agreed because, like them, he began to admire the general impression, instead of subjecting this impression to calm analysis. In each of Katerina's actions one can find an attractive side; Dobrolyubov found these sides, put them together, made up an ideal image from them, as a result he saw "a ray of light in a dark kingdom" and, like a man, full of love , rejoiced at this ray with the pure and holy joy of a citizen and poet. If he had not succumbed to this joy, if he had tried for one minute to look calmly and attentively at his precious find, then the simplest question would immediately arise in his mind, which would immediately lead to the complete destruction of the attractive illusion. Dobrolyubov would have asked himself: how could this bright image have been formed? In order to answer this question for himself, he would trace Katerina's life from childhood, all the more so since Ostrovsky provides some materials for this; he would have seen that upbringing and life could not give Katerina either a firm character or a developed mind; then he would take another look at those facts in which one attractive side caught his eye, and then the whole personality of Katerina would appear to him in a completely different light. It is sad to part with a bright illusion, but there is nothing to do; this time too, one would have to be satisfied with the dark reality. III In all of Katerina's actions and feelings, one can first notice the sharp disproportion between causes and effects. Every external impression shakes her whole organism; the most insignificant event, the most empty conversation, produces whole revolutions in her thoughts, feelings and actions. The boar grumbles, Katerina languishes from this; Boris Grigorievich casts tender glances, Katerina falls in love; Varvara says a few words in passing about Boris, Katerina considers herself a dead woman in advance, although until then she had not even talked to her future lover; Tikhon leaves the house for several days, Katerina falls on her knees before him and wants him to take a terrible oath of marital fidelity from her. Varvara gives Katerina the key to the gate, Katerina, holding on to this key for five minutes, decides that she will certainly see Boris, and ends her monologue with the words: "Oh, if only the night would come sooner!" (4) Meanwhile, even the key was given to her mainly for the love interests of Varvara herself, and at the beginning of her monologue Katerina even found that the key was burning her hands and that she should definitely throw it away. When meeting with Boris, of course, the same story is repeated; first, "go away, damned man!" (5), and after that it throws itself on the neck. While the dates continue, Katerina thinks only that we will "take a walk"; as soon as Tikhon arrives and, as a result, night walks stop, Katerina begins to be tormented by remorse and reaches half-madness in this direction; meanwhile, Boris lives in the same city, everything goes on as before, and, resorting to little tricks and precautions, it would be possible to see each other and enjoy life sometime. But Katerina walks around as if lost, and Varvara is very thoroughly afraid that she will fall at her husband's feet, and that she will tell him everything in order. So it turns out, and this catastrophe is produced by a combination of the most empty circumstances. Thunder struck - Katerina lost the last vestige of her mind, and then a crazy lady walked across the stage with two lackeys and delivered a nationwide sermon on eternal torment; and here, on the wall, in the covered gallery, hellish flames are painted; and all this is one to one - well, judge for yourself, how can Katerina really not tell her husband right there, in front of Kabanikh and in front of the whole city public, how she spent all ten nights during Tikhon's absence? The final catastrophe, suicide, just like that happens impromptu. Katerina runs away from home with a vague hope of seeing her Boris; she is not thinking about suicide yet; she regrets that before they killed, but now they do not kill; she asks: "How long will I suffer?" She finds it uncomfortable that death is not; "You, he says, call her, but she does not come" (6). It is clear, therefore, that there is still no decision to commit suicide, because otherwise there would be nothing to talk about. But now, while Katerina argues in this way, Boris appears; there is a gentle rendezvous. Boris says: "I'm going." Katerina asks: "Where are you going?" - They answer her: "Far, Katya, to Siberia." - "Take me with you from here!" - "I can't, Katya" (7). After that, the conversation becomes less interesting and turns into an exchange of mutual tenderness. Then, when Katerina is left alone, she asks herself: "Where now? Go home?" and answers: "No, it's all the same to me what goes home, what goes to the grave." Then the word "grave" leads her to new row thoughts, and she begins to consider the grave from a purely aesthetic point of view, from which, however, people have so far managed to look only at other people's graves. “In the grave, he says, it’s better ... There is a grave under the tree ... how good! .. The sun warms it, it wets it with rain ... in the spring grass grows on it, so soft ... birds will fly to the tree, they will sing, children will be taken out, flowers will bloom: yellow, red, blue ... all sorts, all sorts. This poetic description of the grave completely captivates Katerina, and she declares that "I don't even want to think about life" (8). At the same time, carried away by an aesthetic sense, she even completely loses sight of the fiery Gehenna, and meanwhile she is not at all indifferent to this last thought, because otherwise there would be no scene of public repentance for sins, there would be no departure of Boris to Siberia, and the whole story of night walks would remain sewn and covered. But in her last moments, Katerina forgets to such an extent about afterlife that even folds his hands crosswise, as they fold in a coffin; and, making this movement with her hands, even here she does not bring the ideas of suicide closer to

Abstract on the topic:

"Motives of Russian drama" by D.I. Pisarev.

The play "Thunderstorm" was written in 1859, when Russia was in anticipation of change. The play aroused interest and how literary work, repeatedly staged on various stages, and as a phenomenon public life the middle of the last century, which stirred up and split the already excited about the upcoming peasant reform society. The play aroused the interest of the public and critics. Ostrovsky's contemporaries wrote articles - responses to the play. Among them are the most famous: Dobrolyubova "A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom" (1860), Pisareva "Motives of Russian Drama" (1864), Ap. Grigoriev "After Ostrovsky's Thunderstorm" (1860). Each of them accepted Ostrovsky's play and saw in it, apart from a work worthy of contemporary scene also a social phenomenon. But everyone in Groz discovered a different content. Let us dwell on Pisarev's article "Motives of Russian Drama".

The article was first published in the March issue of the magazine Russian word"for 1864 in the third issue, in the second department of the Literary Review, on pages 1 - 58. Then - in the first part of the first edition (1866), on pages 210 - 242. The article expanded and deepened the controversy between the "Russian Word" and "Contemporary", which began earlier. If at its first stage, Saltykov-Shchedrin was primarily affected by polemical attacks on the part of the Russian Word, as a writer not quite “one of his own” in Sovremennik, and the deviation from the traditions of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov was reproached by the editors of Sovremennik, then in In this article, Pisarev directly points to the article “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom” by Dobrolyubov, believing that Katerina cannot be considered as a “resolute integral Russian character”, but is only one of the generations, a passive product of the “dark kingdom”. Thus, the idealization of this image is attributed to Dobrolyubov, and the debunking of this image seems to be a true task. real criticism". “It is sad to part with the bright illusion,” notes Pisarev, “but there is nothing to be done, this time we would have to be satisfied with the dark reality.” “Moreover, Pisarev leaves no doubt that this is not about particulars - the interpretation of one image and the assessment of one playwright’s work, but “about general issues of our life” (Sorokin Yu., 378-379).

Dobrolyubov's article "A Ray of Light in a Dark Realm" was written immediately in the footsteps of the play. Dobrolyubov worked on the previous article "The Dark Kingdom" almost simultaneously with Ostrovsky's writing "Thunderstorm". It is dedicated to the work of Ostrovsky in general. In The Thunderstorm, Dobrolyubov saw the light, and this light is brought by Katerina.

Dobrolyubov defined the purpose of criticism in this way: the best way criticism, we consider the presentation of the case itself in such a way that the reader himself, on the basis of the facts presented, can draw his own conclusion. What does Dobrolyubov expect from literature? “We demand,” he says, “of her one quality, namely, the truth.” What is the truth that Ostrovsky brings out in his works? “We do not mean merchants at all, pointing out the main features of the relations that dominate our life and are so well reproduced in Ostrovsky's comedies. The modern aspirations of Russian life ... find their expression in Ostrovsky from the negative side.

Dobrolyubov evaluates Katerina, her actions, character as a challenge to the world in which she lives, joyfully meets her appearance in modern life. Dobrolyubov sees even the finale of the play as gratifying: “It gives a terrible challenge to the self-conscious force, he tells her that it is no longer possible to go further, it is impossible to live any longer with her violent, deadening principles. In Katerina we see a protest against Kabanov's notions of morality, a protest carried to the end, proclaimed both under domestic torture and over the abyss into which the poor woman threw herself. She does not want to be reconciled, she does not want to take advantage of the miserable existence she is given in exchange for her living soul. Her death is a fulfilled song of the Babylonian captivity ... it is gratifying to see the deliverance of Katerina - even through death, if it is impossible otherwise.

Pisarev, in his article, argues in many respects with Dobrolyubov. The very language of Pisarev, sharp, sharp, ironic, contrasts with narrative style Dobrolyubov's speeches. The article considers the phenomenon of "Thunderstorm" from a different angle, and while reading this work, one must not forget that it was written four years after the play was staged. Pisarev only briefly dwells on the events taking place in the play, while Dobrolyubov analyzes the scenes of the play step by step. Why?

In Dobrolyubov's article, in his reflections on Katerina, we often come across the word "nature". In Pisarev, the word “personality” dominates. Are these synonyms, or are two critics talking about different phenomena and the play became only an impetus for solving important problems? This is what is for Pisarev the starting point of his analysis: “A smart and developed personality, without noticing it, acts on everything that touches her: her thoughts, her activities, her humane treatment, her calm firmness - all this moves around her standing water of human routine.

What is a critic to do here? - Pisarev asks a question that we have already met with Dobrolyubov, but answers it differently: “He must tell society today, and tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow, and ten years in a row ... speak in such a way that he is understood ... that the people need not only one thing, in which all other goods are already contained human life. He needs the movement of thought, and this increase is excited and supported by the acquisition of knowledge.

The tragedy of Katerina, according to Pisarev, is that she has not yet been able to become a developed personality. For Pisarev, Katerina is a spontaneous, contradictory nature, her actions are unconscious. Blind devotion to feeling makes her helpless before life. He is surprised that the critics could not "make a single objection to Dobrolyubov." Pisarev says about Katerina: “What kind of love is this that arises from the exchange of several glances? .. Finally, what kind of suicide is this, caused by such minor troubles that are tolerated quite safely by all members of all Russian families?” “Suicide ... is completely unexpected for herself,” notes Pisarev. The critic claims that Dobrolyubov, having seen something good in every act of Katerina, made up an ideal image, as a result he saw "a ray of light in the" dark kingdom ". Pisarev cannot agree with this, since “upbringing and life could not give Katerina either a strong character or a developed mind. The mind is the most precious thing, or, rather, the mind is everything.

Why are the views of Pisarev and Dobrolyubov so divergent? What caused such a demonstrative difference in the interpretation of the same artistic image among the critics of the revolutionary-democratic camp? What prompted Pisarev to argue with Dobrolyubov's article almost three and a half years after its appearance in Sovremennik, two years after the death of the author of the article? What makes one write about the strength of Katerina's character, and the other about the weakness of this character? The reasons for such a performance were serious. And the main thing is that Pisarev decided to evaluate the character of Katerina from the standpoint of a different, albeit separated by only a few years, historical period. Russia, we know, was going through a time when “people and ideas grew very quickly, so many deeds and events took place in a year, as in other times it would not happen even in ten or twenty years.” Recall that Dobrolyubov's article was published in 1860 on the pages of the Sovremennik magazine, during a revolutionary upsurge, when bold and determined heroes stood in the foreground, striving for a new life, ready to die for it. At that time there could be no other protest, but even such a protest affirmed the strength of the personality's character. In the whole direction of his article, Dobrolyubov led the reader to the idea of ​​the growing revolutionary situation in the country, the maturation of people's self-consciousness, the strength of the spontaneous resistance of the people to the "dark kingdom", the impossibility for the people to put up with the old and live in the old way. Dobrolyubov made the main emphasis on fundamentally new human phenomena in a world of tyranny, despotic self-rule, a dark kingdom. He saw in the fate and character of Katerina the symptoms of a popular awakening, emancipation, the growth of self-consciousness of the masses and joyfully welcomed the approaching nationwide thunderstorm.

Pisarev, in the era of the decline of the democratic movement, does not see the conditions for the direct action of the masses, considers them not ready for conscious action.

Pisarev's article was written in 1864, in the era of reaction, when thinking people were needed. Therefore, D.I. Pisarev writes about Katerina’s act in this way: “... Having committed many stupid things, he throws himself into the water and thus does the last and greatest absurdity.” In 1864, Pisarev focused his main attention on something else: the storm did not start, the people did not wake up. Katerina, according to the critic, is the flesh of the flesh of the dark kingdom. Pisarev, having subordinated his analysis of the drama to specific sociological tasks, in essence, passed by the most important thing that Ostrovsky discovered in his heroine: deep poetic spirituality, remarkable strength of moral feeling, piercing conscience, uncompromisingness distinguish Katerina Kabanova ...

In 1864, Pisarev will say that he considers the article “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom” “a mistake on the part of Dobrolyubov; he was carried away by sympathy for the character of Katerina and took her personality for a bright phenomenon. And Pisarev seeks to consistently substantiate his point of view.

Yes, the publicist of The Russian Word agrees, "passion, tenderness and sincerity are really the predominant properties in Katerina's nature." But after all, “every human property,” he recalls, “has in all languages ​​at least two meanings, of which one is reprehensible, and the other is laudatory, - stinginess and thrift, cowardice and caution, cruelty and firmness, stupidity and innocence, lies and poetry, flabbiness and tenderness, eccentricity and passion, and so on ad infinitum. Bearing in mind the content of Ostrovsky’s play, its main dramatic collision, arbitrarily interpreting them, Pisarev categorically concludes: “The cruelty of a family despot, the fanaticism of an old hypocrite, the unhappy love of a girl for a scoundrel, the meekness of a patient victim of family autocracy, outbursts of despair, jealousy, self-interest, fraud, violent revelry, educational rod, educational caress, quiet dreaminess, enthusiastic sensitivity - all this motley mixture of feelings, qualities and actions ... all this mixture comes down, in my opinion, to one common source, which, as far as it seems to me, can excite in us exactly no sensations, either high or low. All these are various manifestations of inexhaustible stupidity.

Pisarev remained deaf to the lofty spiritual tragedy of Ostrovsky's heroine. In the article “Motives of Russian Drama”, a method of “allusional” analysis gave a noticeable misfire, in which piece of art is just a convenient pretext for the critic's own journalistic constructs. Pisarev's words sound like an unfair verdict to Katerina Kabanova: "... whoever does not know how to do anything to alleviate his own and others' suffering, in no case can be called a bright phenomenon."

The prisoner of Petropavlovka is interested not so much in the dramatic collision of The Thunderstorm as in the need to give one more detailed substantiation of the theory of realism. Pisarev proceeds from the specific problems of the time, believing that the leading sign of a truly bright phenomenon is “a strong and developed mind, love for the useful and true, the desire for mental pursuits and a passionate attraction to work and knowledge.”

“According to Pisarev, the heroes of the new historical period, which came after the writing of the article “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom”, after the death of its author, are young people who are able to “love the idea”, “expand the forces of their fresh mind”, start new life, "full of charming work and inexhaustible pleasure" (Prozorov V.V., 58).

“The emphasis is shifted to the formation of thinking workers like the Bazarovs, who are “not like Katerina” and who can take on the difficult task of educating the people. People of this type should devote all their efforts to preparing the conditions for a radical reorganization of social life on new reasonable and just principles, to enlighten the people. “How much, how little time we will have to go to our goal, which is to enrich and enlighten our people, it is useless to ask about this. This is the right way, and there is no other right way” (Sorokin Yu., 379).

Pisarev notes: “But the time will come - and it is not at all far away - when all the intelligent part of the youth, without distinction of class and status, will live a full intellectual life and look at things judiciously and seriously. Then the young landowner will put his farm on a European footing; then the young capitalist will start those factories that we need, and arrange them in the way that the common interests of the owner and workers require ... ”.

According to Pisarev, there are negligibly few Bazarovs in Russia. And this is a misfortune, it must be eliminated by all possible forces: “As long as there is one Bazarov per hundred square miles, and even then it is unlikely, until then everyone, both homemakers and gentlemen, will consider the Bazarovs to be absurd boys and funny eccentrics.”

What to do with these "eccentrics"? Educate the people? Write books for him? Until recently, Pisarev, who so ardently defended the idea of ​​popular education, now regards it with a certain degree of doubt. Of course, the doubt istimelinessrealization of an idea, not its truth. “Even such a pure and holy cause as Sunday schools is still doubtful,” he remarks ruefully. What then to do with Bazarov? “While one Bazarov is surrounded by thousands of people who are not able to understand him, until then Bazarov should sit at a microscope and cut frogs and print books and articles with anatomical drawings ...”, concludes the critic.

“Appeal to exact knowledge, rational organization of labor - this is the best and only possible school for the people. Pisarev recalls the workshop that the heroine of Chernyshevsky's novel What to Do? Vera Pavlovna: “Here, indeed, our progressives are given the most correct and fully feasible program of activity. How much, how little time we will have to go to our goal, which is to enrich and enlighten our people, it is useless to ask about this. This is the right way, and there is no other right way.” In other words, spontaneous combustion of the people does not occur, and therefore to rely bye it is possible and necessary only for young realists-raznochintsev. The decisive word in modern Russian life must be expected not from Katerina Kabanova, but from Evgeny Bazarov - this is main result articles "Motives of Russian drama" (Prozorov V.V., 59).

And Bazarov and Katerina are not easy for Pisarev literary heroes, but the equivalents of this or that program of action, this or that line of conduct of revolutionary democracy in 1863-1866. However, Katerina was the same for Dobrolyubov - and Pisarev perfectly understood this. In the atmosphere of a pre-stormy revolutionary situation, Katerina's protest, albeit a narrow-minded, spontaneous one, was for Dobrolyubov a herald of the coming explosion, an occasion for sharply raising the question of the revolutionary possibilities of the peasant masses.

Pisarev clearly understood this plan of Dobrolyubov. And it is deeply sympathetic that in 1864, several years after the publication of The Thunderstorm, Pisarev, in a special article, again returns to this drama only to challenge Dobrolyubov’s point of view on Katerina, and in reality Dobrolyubov’s view on the revolutionary possibilities of the masses.

Pisarev's disagreements with Dobrolyubov, according to Pisarev's own testimony, concerned the question: what should be considered bright phenomena in our folk life?

Dobrolyubov sees in Katerina "a character that will make a decisive break with the old, absurd and violent relationships of life." Pisarev, analyzing the character of Katerina, speaks of her darkness, the spontaneity, unconsciousness of her protest and therefore its complete unreliability and exclaims: “And from such a hopelessly plagued personality, Dobrolyubov expectsdecisive break!»

Pisarev's skepticism about the seriousness of Katerina's protest is fed by experience freedom movement, which received the Russian revolutionary democracy in 1862-1866. The elemental impulse of such, according to Pisarev, "a hopelessly plagued person" as Katerina, Pisareva opposes the activities of Bazarov: it is he who is "a real ray of light."

“Both strength is stupid, and innocence is stupid, and only because they are both stupid, strength tends to oppress, and innocence is immersed in stupid patience ...”. Thus, knowledge, Pisarev argues in 1864, achieves a twofold purpose: it awakens the masses from sleepy "stupid patience" and convinces the exploiters not to "oppress".

That is why "all the new characters that appear in our novels and dramas can either belong to the Bazarov type, or to the section of dwarfs and eternal children."

This opposition of Bazarov to Katerina, as well as the interpretation of these images in the articles of 1864, bear a sharp stamp of deep disappointment in the revolutionary possibilities of the people, the conviction that in the bowels of Russian life there are “no rudiments of independent renewal; it contains only raw materials that must be fertilized and processed by the influence of universal human ideas.

“This disappointment was so strong that from a man of colossal revolutionary energy who “won’t retreat in the face of obstacles and won’t flinch in the face of danger,” Bazarov, in Pisarev’s articles of that time, threatened to turn into a pure educator - a propagandist of socialist and natural science ideas” (Kuznetsov F., 499 - 500).

In addition to this main subject of the article - the justification and defense of the new tactics of the democratic movement, opposing the old tactics, justified by Sovremennik during the years of the revolutionary situation of 1859-1861 - Pisarev argues here with " literary program"Contemporary". He accuses the editors of the journal of ideological illegibility. Criticism of Ostrovsky's works "Kozma Zakharyich Minin Sukhoruk" and "Hard Days" follows this line.

“A bold, sincere critic, deeply convinced of the rightness of his cause, of the need for social progress, of the power scientific knowledge, Pisarev attracted the attention of more than one generation of readers. Best Samples his literary criticism combined passionate journalism, a bold statement of the most important problems of public life with deep analysis literary phenomena, revealing their social significance. The strength of his thought, his vivid, expressive speech retain their influence on modern readers as well” (Sorokin Yu., 40).

Bibliography.

History of Russian literary criticism: Proc. for universities / V. V. Prozorov, O. O. Milovanova, E. G. Elina and others; Ed. V. V. Prozorova. - M .: Higher. school, 2002. - 463 p.

Krupchanov, L. M . History of Russian literary criticism of the 19th century: Proc. allowance. / L. M. Krupchanov. - M .: Higher. school, 2005. - 383 p.

Kuznetsov, F. F. Nihilists? D. I. Pisarev and the journal "Russian Word". 2nd ed., revised. and additional / F. F. Kuznetsov. – M.: Art. lit., 1983. - 592 p.

Kuleshov, V. I. Russian history XVIII- the beginning of the XX centuries: Proc. for students ped. in-t on spec. "Rus. lang. or T." / V. I. Kuleshov. - M.: Enlightenment, 1991. - 432 p.

Plotkin, L. D. I. Pisarev. Life and activity. / L. Plotkin. - M. - Leningrad: Art. lit., 1962. - 232 p.

Prozorov, V. V . D. I. Pisarev: Book. for the teacher. / V. V. Prozorov. – M.: Enlightenment, 1984. – 112 p.

Prokofieva N.N. Alexander Nikolaevich Ostrovsky. / N.N. Prokofiev: Enter. Art. and comment. // Ostrovsky A.N. Plays. - M.: Bustard, 2007. - S. 5 - 27, 444 - 446.

Revyakin A. Masterpieces by A. N. Ostrovsky. / A. Revyakin: Enter. Art. // Ostrovsky, A. N. Groza. - Leningrad: "Children's Literature", 1964.

Sorokin, Yu. Pisarev as a literary critic. / Y. Sorokin: Enter. Art. // Pisarev, D.I. Literary criticism: In 3 volumes - Leningrad: Khudozh. lit., 1981. T. 1. Articles 1859 - 1864: "Oblomov", " Noble Nest”, “Three deaths”, “Flowers of innocent humor” and others. – 384 p.

Pisarev refers in "Motives of Russian Drama" to the analysis of "Thunderstorm" by Ostrovsky. Assessing Katerina's character, Pisarev declares his disagreement with the main conclusion of Dobrolyubov's article.
He "debunks" Katerina, considering her as an ordinary, ordinary phenomenon in the dark kingdom. He agrees that "passion, tenderness and sincerity are really the predominant properties in Katerina's nature." But he also sees some contradictions in this image. Pisarev asks himself and the reader the following questions. What kind of love arises from the exchange of a few glances? What kind of harsh virtue that gives up at the first opportunity? He notices the disproportion between causes and effects in the actions of the heroine: “The boar grumbles - Katerina is languishing”; “Boris Grigoryevich casts tender glances - Katerina falls in love.” He does not understand Katerina's behavior. Quite ordinary circumstances pushed her to confess to her husband: a thunderstorm, a crazy lady, a picture of fiery hell on the wall of the gallery. Finally, according to Pisarev, Katerina's last monologue is illogical. She looks at the grave from an aesthetic point of view, while completely forgetting about the fiery hell, to which she was previously not indifferent. As a result, Pisarev concludes: “The cruelty of a family despot, the fanaticism of an old hypocrite, the unhappy love of a girl for a scoundrel, outbursts of despair, jealousy, fraud, violent revelry, educational rod, educational caress, quiet daydreaming - all this motley mixture of feelings, qualities and actions .. comes down, in my opinion, to one common source, which cannot arouse in us exactly any sensations, either high or low. All these are various manifestations of inexhaustible stupidity.” Pisarev does not agree with Dobrolyubov in assessing the image of Katerina. In his opinion, Katerina cannot be called "a ray of light in the dark kingdom", since she failed to do anything to alleviate her and others' suffering, to change life in the "dark kingdom". Katerina's act is meaningless, it has not changed anything. This is a barren, not a bright phenomenon, concludes Pisarev.
The main reason is that Pisarev assesses the character of the heroine from the standpoint of another historical time filled with great events, when “ideas grew very quickly, so many deeds and events took place in a year, as in other times it would not happen even in ten to twenty years.”
It is characteristic that Bazarov again comes to the fore, who is directly opposed to Katerina. Bazarov, and not Katerina, considers Pisarev a genuine "beam of light in a dark kingdom."
The main task of time, according to Pisarev, is to train such figures who will be able to introduce into society the correct ideas about folk labor and prepare the conditions for a fundamental solution of social issues.

D. I. Pisarev

NOTES

This three-volume edition consists of selected literary-critical articles by D. I. Pisarev. Most of of these works was originally published in various magazines and collections of the 1860s ("Dawn", "Russian Word", "Ray", "Delo", "Domestic Notes"). Then, along with some new articles, they were included in the first edition of the works of D. I. Pisarev, undertaken by the progressive publisher F. F. Pavlenkov, who was close to Pisarev. Later, in the 1870s, the second edition appeared in the same composition (however, due to censorship circumstances, it was not carried out in full). Since 1894, Pavlenkov began to publish a more complete, six-volume collection of Pisarev's works (five, and for some volumes - six editions were published); the last, most complete and free from censorship omissions and distortions - in 1909-1912, with an additional issue (its first edition - 1907, the third - 1913), which contained articles that had not previously been published or were prosecuted by censorship. AT Soviet time the most significant in composition (although far from complete) was the publication of the works of D. I. Pisarev in four volumes (M., 1955-1956). The texts in it were verified with the most authoritative sources, primarily with the first edition, free from censorship omissions and distortions (it came out without prior censorship) and from the "corrections" of a stylistic nature that took place in later editions of Pavlenkov. Separate omissions and errors of the first edition are corrected according to the first printed journal texts (the autographs of the articles included in this edition, like almost all of Pisarev's other works, have not reached us). All other most significant discrepancies in the journal text are given in the notes. Texts are reproduced with the preservation of those features of spelling and punctuation that reflect the norms literary language 1860s and the individual features of Pisarev's style. For this edition, the texts are again checked against the first edition; corrected some proofreading errors and eliminated inconsistencies in the text of previous publications. The following abbreviations are accepted in the notes: 1) Belinsky - Belinsky VG Sobr. op. in 9 volumes, vols. 1-6. M 1976-1981 (ed. continued); 2) Herzen - Herzen A.I. Sobr. op. in 30 vols. M., 1954-1965; 3) Dobrolyubov - Dobrolyubov N.A. Sobr. op. in 9 vols. M.-L., 1961-1964; 4) 1st ed. -- Pisarev D. I. Ed. F. Pavlenkov in 10 hours of St. Petersburg, 1866-1869; 5) Pisarev (Pavl.) - Pisarev D. I. Op. in 6 volumes. Ed. 5th F. Pavlenkov. St. Petersburg, 1909-1912; 6) Pisarev - Pisarev D.I. Op. in 4 vols. M., 1955-1956; 7) Saltykov-Shchedrin - Saltykov-Shchedrin M.E. Sobr. op. in 20 vols. M., 1965-1974; 8) TsGAOR - Central state. archive of the October Revolution; 9) Chernyshevsky - Chernyshevsky N. G. Full. coll. op. in 15 vols. M., 1939-1953.

MOTIVES OF RUSSIAN DRAMA

For the first time - "Russian Word", 1864, No 3, otd. II "Literary Review", p. 1-58. Then - part I of the 1st ed. (1866), p. 210-242. Date under article in 1st ed. The article expanded and deepened the controversy between Russkiy Slovo and Sovremennik, which had begun earlier (see note to Flowers of Innocent Humor). If at its first stage Saltykov-Shchedrin was primarily affected by polemical attacks on the part of the Russian Word, as a writer not quite “one of his own” in Sovremennik, and the deviation from the traditions of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov was reproached by the editors of Sovremennik, then in In this article, Pisarev directly points to the article "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom" by Dobrolyubov (1860) as his "mistake". Pisarev sharply disputes Dobrolyubov's interpretation of Katerina from Ostrovsky's Thunderstorm, believing that Katerina cannot be regarded as a "resolute integral Russian character", but is only one of the offspring, a passive product of the "dark kingdom". Thus, the idealization of this image is attributed to Dobrolyubov, and the debunking of this image seems to be the true task of "real criticism." "It's sad to part with the bright illusion," notes Pisarev, "but there's nothing to be done; this time, too, we would have to be satisfied with the dark reality." Moreover, Pisarev leaves no doubt that this is not about particulars - the interpretation of one image and the evaluation of one work of the playwright, but "about the general issues of our life." In the whole direction of his article, Dobrolyubov led the reader to the idea of ​​the growing revolutionary situation in the country, the maturation of people's self-consciousness, the strength of the spontaneous resistance of the people to the "dark kingdom", the impossibility for the people to put up with the old and live in the old way. Pisarev, in the era of the decline of the democratic movement, does not see the conditions for the direct action of the masses, considers them not ready for conscious action. The emphasis is shifted to the formation of thinking workers like the Bazarovs, who are "not like Katerina" and who can take on the difficult task of educating the people. People of this type should devote all their efforts to preparing the conditions for a radical reorganization of social life on new reasonable and just principles, to enlighten the people. “How much, how little time we will have to go to our goal, which is to enrich and enlighten our people, it is useless to ask about this. This is the right road, and there is no other right way.” In addition to this main subject of the article - the justification and defense of the new tactics of the democratic movement, opposed to the old tactics, justified by Sovremennik during the years of the revolutionary situation of 1859-1861. - Pisarev argues here with the "literary program" of Sovremennik. He accuses the editors of the journal of ideological illegibility. Criticism of Ostrovsky's works "Kozma Zakharyich Minin Sukhoruk" and "Hard Days" follows this line. Later, criticism of the novel by A. Ya. Panaeva (N. Stanitsky) in the article "A Puppet Tragedy with a Bouquet of Civil Sorrow" (August 1864) will unfold in the same direction. In "Sovremennik", in polemical notes and articles by M.A. Antonovich, Pisarev's attitude to Dobrolyubov's article and his assessment of the image of Katerina were repeatedly criticized. The most informative analysis was given by Antonovich in the article "Mistakes" ("Sovremennik", 1865, No 4). 1 Lovers of patriotic illusions... - D. I. Pisarev probably has in mind the Slavophiles and representatives of the so-called "pochvennichestvo". Compare, for example, A. Grigoriev's article "After Ostrovsky's Thunderstorm. Letters to I. S. Turgenev" in the Russkiy Mir newspaper, 1860, No. 5-6, 9, 11. 2 Words by Tikhon Kabanov (d. I , yavl 4) with some deviation from the text of the drama. 3 The words of Kabanov (d. V, yavl. 1). 4 From Katerina's monologue (d. II, yavl. 10). 5 Katerina's words (case III, scene 2, scene 3). 6 From Katerina's monologue (d. V, yavl. 2). 7 See file V, yavl. 3. 8 From Katerina's monologue (d. V, yavl. 4). 9 These three fables ... - "The Hermit and the Bear", "Musicians", "Nobleman". 10 From the fable "The Hermit and the Bear". 11 This refers to the book of the English positivist J. G. Lewis "Physiology everyday life"(1860; Russian translation 1861-1862), which used great success and Russian readers. Pisarev highly appreciated the merits of the popular presentation in it (see his preface to T. G. Huxley's book "Lessons in Elementary Physiology" - "Lewis and Huxley". - See Pisarev (Pavl.), vol. 5, st. 567 ). See about Lewis as a popularizer also in the article "Realists" (vol. 2 present, ed., ch. XXXIII). 12 See the end of section XV of chapter four of What Is To Be Done? "Second Marriage" 13 Owen Richard (1804-1892) -- English zoologist and anatomist, author of " Comparative Anatomy vertebrates" and "Comparative Anatomy of the Invertebrates" (1855); an opponent of Darwinism. T. G. Huxley argued with him and argued that the anatomical differences between man and higher apes less than between the higher and lower monkeys (see the Russian translation of his book "On the position of man among organic beings"; St. Petersburg, 1864). 14 Wagner Rudolf (1805-1864) - German physiologist and anatomist, idealist, fideist. K. Focht sharply argued with him in the brochure "Faith and Knowledge" ("Kohlerglaube und Wissenschaft"; 1856). 15 Conversations about the honesty of the zipun and the need for soil... - These ironic words refer to the "soilers" and the magazine "Vremya" published by M. M. Dostoevsky. Putting forward the idea of ​​nationality, interpreted from an idealistic standpoint, the magazine constantly wrote about the need to turn to the "soil", to the people. The announcement about the publication of the magazine said, among other things: "Zipun - honest clothes." 16 Quote from the novel in verse by Ya. P. Polonsky " fresh legend"("Time", 1861, No. 6 and 10; 1862, No. 1); the publication of this work, not completed by the author, caused sharp polemical reviews in democratic journalism. 17 O Sunday schools-- see note. 4 to the article "Stagnation water". 18 Wed. in ch. XXVII "Fathers and Sons": "Self-confident Bazarov did not even suspect that he was in them (muzhiks. - Yu.S. 19 Boys is a nickname used by M.N. instead of a modern chronicle" ("Russian Messenger", 1861, vol. 31, January, p. 482): "Will it be good for Russia that we remain eternal whistling boys? .." 20 See about this in Chapter XXIII 21 Of all Pisarev's negative reviews of Ostrovsky's dramatic chronicle (see note 47 to the article "Flowers of Innocent Humor"), this one, which likens it to N. V. Kukolnik's official-patriotic drama "The Hand of the Almighty Saved the Fatherland" ( 1834), the most blunt. 22 The ideal deadlift is an allusion to the hero of N. M. Lvov's comedy "Prejudice, or It's not the place that makes the man, but the man the place" (1858), typical work liberal accusatory literature of the 1850s.

Based on the dramatic works of Ostrovsky, Dobrolyubov showed us in the Russian family that “dark kingdom” in which mental capacity and the fresh strength of our young generations is being exhausted. As long as the phenomena of the “dark kingdom” continue to exist and as long as patriotic daydreaming will turn a blind eye to them, until then we will constantly have to remind the reading society of Dobrolyubov’s true and lively ideas about our family life. But at the same time, we will have to be stricter and more consistent than Dobrolyubov; we will need to defend his ideas against his own passions; where Dobrolyubov succumbed to an impulse of aesthetic feeling, we will try to reason in cold blood and see that our family patriarchy suppresses any healthy development. Ostrovsky's drama "Thunderstorm" caused a critical article from Dobrolyubov under the title "Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom". This article was a mistake on the part of Dobrolyubov; he was carried away by sympathy for the character of Katerina and took her personality for a bright phenomenon. A detailed analysis of this character will show our readers that Dobrolyubov's view in this case is wrong and that not a single bright phenomenon can either arise or take shape in the "dark kingdom" of the patriarchal Russian family, brought to the stage in Ostrovsky's drama.

Katerina lives with her husband in the house of her mother-in-law, who constantly grumbles at all her household. Katerina cannot get used to her mother-in-law's manners and constantly suffers from her conversations. In the same city there is a young man, Boris Grigoryevich, who received a decent education. He glances at Katherine. Katerina falls in love with him, but wants to keep her virtue intact. Tikhon is leaving somewhere for two weeks; Varvara, out of kindness, helps Boris see Katerina, and the couple in love enjoys complete happiness for ten summer nights. Tikhon arrives; Katerina is tormented by remorse, grows thin and turns pale; then she is frightened by a thunderstorm, which she takes for an expression of heavenly wrath; at the same time, the words of the half-witted lady confuse her; on the street in front of the people, she throws herself on her knees before her husband and confesses her guilt to him. The husband "beat her a little"; the old Boar with redoubled zeal began to sharpen; a strong home guard was assigned to Katerina, but she managed to escape from the house; she met with her lover and learned from him that, on the orders of his uncle, he was leaving for Kyakhta, immediately after this meeting she rushed into the Volga and drowned. I gave my reader complete list such facts that in my story may seem too sharp, incoherent, and in the totality even implausible. What kind of love arises from the exchange of several glances? What kind of harsh virtue that gives up at the first opportunity? Finally, what kind of suicide caused by such petty troubles, which are tolerated quite safely by all members of all Russian families?

I conveyed the facts quite correctly, but, of course, I could not convey in a few lines those shades in the development of the action that, softening the external sharpness of the outlines, make the reader or viewer see in Katerina not an invention of the author, but a living person who is really capable of doing all of the above. eccentricity. In each of Katerina's actions one can find an attractive feature; Dobrolyubov found these sides, put them together, made up an ideal image from them, saw as a result "a ray of light in a dark kingdom", rejoiced at this ray with the pure and holy joy of a citizen and poet. If he looked calmly and attentively at his precious find, then the simplest question would immediately arise in his mind, which would lead to the destruction of an attractive illusion. Dobrolyubov would have asked himself: how could this bright image have been formed? he would have seen that upbringing and life could not give Katerina either a strong character or a developed mind.

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

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

Every human property has at least two names in all languages, one of which is reprehensible and the other is laudatory - stinginess and frugality, cowardice and caution, cruelty and firmness, eccentricity and passion, and so on ad infinitum. Each individual person has, in relation to moral character its own special vocabulary, which almost never completely converges with the lexicons of other people.

We must take raw facts in all their rawness, and the rawer they are, the less they are disguised by laudatory or deprecating words, the more chances we have to understand and catch a living phenomenon, and not a colorless phrase. Resentments for human dignity nothing will happen here, but the benefits will be great.

A smart and developed personality, without noticing it, acts on everything that touches it; her thoughts, her occupations, her humaneness, her calm firmness - all this stirs around her the stagnant water of human routine; who is no longer able to develop, he at least respects in an intelligent and developed personality good man. whoever is young, having become close to an intelligent and developed personality, may perhaps begin a new life, full of charming work and inexhaustible pleasure. If a supposed bright personality in this way gives the society two or three young workers, if she inspires two or three old men with an involuntary respect for what they previously ridiculed and oppressed, then will you really say,

That such a person did absolutely nothing to facilitate the transition to best ideas and more tolerable living conditions? It seems to me that she did in small sizes what they do in large sizes greatest historical figures. The difference between them lies only in the number of forces, and therefore their activity can and should be evaluated using the same methods. So that's what "rays of light" should be - not Katerina's couple.