What do you think about when you re-read what Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev wrote about the “Thunderstorm” by Alexander Nikolayevich Ostrovsky? Perhaps the fact that literature follows geniuses ... Golden Russian literature of the 19th century, starting with a breakthrough of international level in poetry, already in the middle of the century realized it in prose, serving as a "ray of light" for the whole of Russian society. We are, of course, talking about non-poetic works of Pushkin, Gogol, Ostrovsky.
Civil promise of the article
The article about Pisarev’s “Thunderstorm” is a citizen’s response to the landmark play of the century before last. Written in 1859 by Alexander Nikolayevich Ostrovsky, the play in five acts occupies a special place in golden Russian literature. This dramatic work served as a powerful incentive for the further development of realism. Evidence of this was the assessment given to the play by critics. It testifies to the true pluralism of opinions. And in a dispute, truth was truly born! In understanding this, it is important to know that the article “Motives of Russian drama”, in which Pisarev put his review about “Thunderstorm”, was written as an answer to another critical article by the famous literary critic Nikolai Dobrolyubov. The article with which Pisarev argued was called brightly - “Ray of light in the dark kingdom”. We will try to present to our readers our analysis of the aforementioned work of Dmitry Pisarev. It occupies a special place in Russian literature. Ostrovsky was able to adequately continue in Russian drama the realism laid down by Griboedov in “Woe from Wit”.
Fundamental Disagreement with Dobrolyubov on the Storm
Dmitry Ivanovich, undoubtedly, was a keen connoisseur of Ostrovsky’s work and, undoubtedly, getting down to work, he deeply familiarized himself with the article by the outstanding literary critic Dobrolyubov, whom he knew and respected. However, obviously, following the wisdom of the ancients, (namely, “Socrates is my friend, but truth is more expensive”), Pisarev wrote his review about Ostrovsky’s drama “Thunderstorm”.
He realized the need to express his point of view because he felt: Dobrolyubov tried to show Katerina the “hero of the time”. Dmitry Ivanovich fundamentally disagreed with this position, and, moreover, is quite motivated. Therefore, he wrote his article “Motives of Russian drama”, where he criticized the main thesis in the work of Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov that Katerina Kabanova is “a ray of light in the dark kingdom”.
Kalinov as a model of Russia
Undoubtedly, Pisarev stated his thoughts about the “Thunderstorm” in the article, clearly realizing that the Dobrolyubov gave such a “dark” characteristic to a formally one county town, and in fact, to all of Russia in the middle of the 19th century. Kalinov is a small model of a huge country. In it, public opinion and the whole course of city life are manipulated by two people: a merchant, promiscuous in the methods of enrichment Savel Prokofich Dikoy, and a prude of Shakespearean scale, the merchant Kabanova Marfa Ignatyevna (in the common people - Kabanikh).
In the 60s of the century before last, Russia itself was a huge country with a population of forty million and developed agriculture. A railway network was already operating. In the near future, after Ostrovsky wrote the play (more precisely, since 1861, after the signing of the “Manifesto” by the Emperor Alexander II, abolishing serfdom), the number of proletariat increased and, accordingly, the industrial upsurge began.
However, the suffocating atmosphere of the pre-reform society shown in Ostrovsky’s play was truly true. The work was in demand, suffered ...
The relevance of the ideas of the play
Using simple argumentation, in a language that is understandable to the reader, Pisarev creates his own review of the Thunderstorm. He accurately reproduces the summary of the play in his critical article. How else? After all, the problematics of the play is vital. And Ostrovsky did a great thing, with his work wholeheartedly wishing to build a civil society instead of a "dark kingdom."
However, dear readers ... So to speak, with a hand on the heart ... Can our society today be called the "kingdom of light, goodness and reason"? Is Ostrovsky monologue Kuligina wrote in a void: “Because by honest labor we will never earn more than our daily bread. And whoever has money, sir, is trying to enslave the poor, so that he can earn even more money on his works ... "? Bitter, fair words ...
Katerina is not a “ray of light”
Pisarev’s criticism of the Storm begins with a statement of the conclusion about the recklessness of Dobrolyubov’s conclusion. He motivates him by citing arguments from the author's text of the play. His polemic with Nikolai Dobrolyubov recalls a summary of the pessimist's wise experience regarding the conclusions made by the optimist. According to the arguments of Dmitry Ivanovich, the essence of Katerina is melancholy, there is no real virtue in her that is characteristic of people who are called "bright". According to Pisarev, Dobrolyubov made a systematic mistake in analyzing the image of the main character of the play. He gathered all her positive qualities into a single positive image, ignoring the flaws. According to Dmitry Ivanovich, the dialectical view of the heroine is important.
The main character as a suffering part of the dark kingdom
The young woman lives with her husband Tikhon at the mother-in-law, a rich merchant, who has (as they say now) “heavy energy”, which Pisarev’s critical article subtly emphasizes. Thunderstorm, like a tragic play, is largely due to this image. The boar (this is her street name) is pathologically obsessed with the moral oppression of those around her by constant reproaches, eating them “like iron rust”. She does this in a hypocritical way: that is, constantly trying to ensure that the homeworkers “act in order” (more precisely, following her instructions).
Tikhon and his sister Varvara adapted to the speeches of mother. Her sister-in-law, Katerina, is especially sensitive to her nit-picking and humiliation. She, possessing a romantic, melancholy psyche, is truly unhappy. Her colorful dreams and dreams reveal a completely childish worldview. This is sweet, but not a virtue!
Inability to cope with herself
At the same time, Pisarev’s criticism of the Storm objectively points to Katerina’s infantilism and impulsiveness. She does not marry for love. Only the majestic Boris Grigorievich, the nephew of the merchant Wild, smiled at her, and the case was ready: Katya was in a hurry for a secret meeting. At the same time, having come close to this, in principle, by a stranger, she does not at all think about the consequences. “Does the author portray a“ light ray ?! ” - asks the reader a critical article by Pisarev. Thunderstorm depicts an extremely illogical heroine who can not only cope with circumstances, but also cope with herself. After the betrayal of her husband, being depressed, childishly frightened by a thunderstorm and the frenzy of a madwoman, she confesses to the deed and immediately identifies herself with the victim. Trite, isn't it?
On the advice of mother Tikhon, she “beats” a little, “for the sake of order”. However, the bullying of the mother-in-law itself becomes an order of magnitude more sophisticated. After Katerina learns that Boris Grigorievich is going to Kyakhta (Transbaikalia), she, who has neither will nor character, decides to commit suicide: she rushes into the river and drowns.
Katerina is not a “hero of the time”
Pisarev reflects on Ostrovsky’s “Thunderstorm” philosophically. He wonders whether, in a slave society, a person who is not endowed with a deep mind, does not have a will, is not self-educated, does not understand people - in principle, can become a ray of light. Yes, this woman is touchingly gentle, kind and sincere, she does not know how to defend her point of view. (“She crushed me,” Katerina says of the Boar). Yes, she has a creative, impressionable nature. And this type can really charm (as it happened with Dobrolyubov). But this does not change the essence ... "A person cannot arise under the circumstances set out in the play - a" ray of light "!" - claims Dmitry Ivanovich.
Maturity of the soul - a condition of adulthood
Moreover, the critic continues his thought, to capitulate to small, quite surmountable life difficulties, is this a virtue? This obvious, logical question is asked by Pisarev about the “Thunderstorm” of Ostrovsky. Can this be an example for a generation whose destiny is to change slavish Russia, oppressed by local "princes" like the Kabanikh and the Wild? In the best case, such a suicide can only cause a public outcry. However, as a result of the struggle with a social group of rich people and manipulators, strong-willed and educated people must wage!
However, Pisarev did not derogatoryly say about Katerina. “Thunderstorm,” the critic believes, not in vain so consistently depicts her image, starting from childhood. The image of Katerina in this sense is similar to the unforgettable image of Ilya Ilyich Oblomov! The problem of her unformed personality is in a perfectly cozy childhood and youth. Parents did not prepare her for adulthood! Moreover, they did not give her the proper education.
However, it should be recognized that, unlike Ilya Ilyich, if Katerina had been in a more favorable environment than the Kabanov family, she would most likely have taken place as a person. Ostrovsky gives a justification for this ...
What is the positivity of the image of the main character
This is an artistically holistic, positive image - tells Pisarev about Katerina. “Thunderstorm”, upon reading it, leads the reader to the realization that the main character really has an internal emotional charge characteristic of a creative person. She has the potential of a positive attitude towards reality. She intuitively feels the main need of Russian society - human freedom. She has a hidden energy (which she feels, but has not learned to control it). Therefore, Katya exclaimed the words: “Why are people not birds?” The author did not accidentally conceive such a comparison, because the heroine subconsciously wants freedom, similar to that which a bird feels in flight. That freedom, for which she lacks mental strength ...
Conclusion
What conclusions does Pisarev's “Motives of Russian Drama” draw in his article? “Thunderstorm” does not represent a “hero of the time”, not a “ray of light”. This image is much weaker, but not artistically (everything is just fine here), but by the maturity of the soul. The “hero of time” cannot “break down” like a person. After all, people who are called "rays of light" can be killed rather than broken. And Katerina is weak ...
Both critics have a general line of thought: an article about Pisarev's The Storm, as well as an article by Dobrolyubov, interpret the title of the play equally. This is not only an atmospheric phenomenon that scared Katerina to death. Rather, it is a social conflict of a lagging non-civil society that has come into conflict with development needs.
Ostrovsky's play is a kind of indictment. Both critics showed, following Alexander Nikolayevich, that people are powerless, they are not free, they are, in fact, subordinate to the Boars and the Wild. Why did Dobrolyubov and Pisarev write about Storm so differently?
The reason for this is, of course, the depth of the work, in which there is more than one semantic “bottom”. It has both psychologism and sociality. Each of the literary scholars in their own way comprehended them, set priorities in different ways. Moreover, one and the other did it talentedly, and Russian literature only benefited from this. Therefore, it is completely stupid to ask the question: "Pisarev wrote about the play" The Storm "more precisely, or did Dobrolyubov? Surely you should read both articles ...