One of the main themes of the work is thunderstorm. Boris and Tikhon: comparative characteristics of these heroes

The method is realism. A) “The Thunderstorm” as a work of the 60s. XIX century. B) Typical characters in typical circumstances, social types. C) Original features of Ostrovsky’s realism:

Ostrovsky was one of the first in Russian drama to introduce landscape, which is not just a background, but embodies the natural element that opposes the “dark kingdom” (at the beginning of the work, scenes on the Volga, the death of Katerina).

Ostrovsky uses the traditions of folklore when creating the image of Katerina, Kuligin, Kudryash, and some fairy-tale features can be traced in the images of Dikiy and Kabanikha. The characters' speech is replete with colloquialisms. Use of symbols: thunderstorm is a symbol of discord in Katerina’s soul; the lightning rod proposed by Kuligin is a symbol of enlightenment, etc.

Genre - drama Drama is characterized by the fact that it is based on conflict, individual and the surrounding society. Tragedy is characterized by a feeling of tragic guilt that haunts the protagonist, leading him to death; the idea of ​​fate, fate; catharsis (a feeling of spiritual cleansing that arises in the viewer contemplating the death of the main character). “The Thunderstorm,” despite the fact that the main character dies, is considered to be a drama, since the work is based on the conflict between Katerina and the “dark kingdom.” Ostrovsky's comedic traditions: a satirical depiction of the mores of the patriarchal merchant environment.

The playwright's innovation is manifested in the fact that a real heroine from the people's environment appears in the play and the main attention is paid to the description of her character, while the little world of the city of Kalinov and the conflict itself are described in a more general way.

Means for creating the image of Katerina: folk type, natural principle, integrity of character, desire for freedom, for spiritual emancipation.

The play repeatedly repeats an image that helps to understand the main thing in Katerina’s character - the image of a bird. In folk poetry, the bird is a symbol of will. Katerina endures for the time being. Katerina's speech is imbued with high poetry, she speaks the impeccably correct folk language, her speech is musical and melodious.

Katerina struggles not only with the environment, but also with herself. she is poisoned by religious prejudices. Katerina’s religiosity is not hypocrisy, but rather a childish faith in fairy tales. religion forces Katerina to perceive the bright human honor of love as evil, a mortal sin.

The drama ends with Katerina's moral victory over the dark kingdom that fettered her will and reason. Suicide is an expression of protest in this extreme case for Katerina, when other forms of struggle are impossible.

Ostrovsky created the genre of drama (play of life) in Russia. Drama is characterized by an interest in the conflicts of everyday reality, behind which the viewer perceives the deep contradictions of the era. Ostrovsky’s artistic thought revealed a bizarre combination of the tragic and the comic in everyday life, and this also became one of the hallmarks of Russian drama. zat. was developed in Chekhov's TV.

24. The main motives of N.A.’s lyrics. Nekrasova, her artistic originality. Research on the poet's work. Periodization of creativity

Nekrasov can distinguish two major creative periods:

First: from 1845 to 1856, in which his poetry can be called “the muse of grief and sadness”; the main mood of the poems of this time is despondency; the main psychological trait of heroes from the people is eternal patience and passivity; the main characters are the peasant and urban poor, common workers, people of tragic social fate, the poor, the disadvantaged and the disenfranchised; the main attitude towards his heroes is compassionate love and pity; Nekrasov himself during this period acts as a “sorrower” of the people’s grief, formulating his poetic and civic task; “I was called to sing of your suffering, amazing the people with patience.”

The social essence of the lyrics of this period was democracy and compassionate humanism.

Among the poems of these 10-11 years, two groups stand out. In the poems of the first group there is grief and defense of the powerless and disadvantaged: “On the Road”, “Gardener”, “Troika”, “I’m Driving Down a Dark Street at Night”, “In the Village”, “ Uncompressed strip", "Vlas", "Forgotten Village", etc. Their leitmotif is love-sorrow. The second group includes satirical poems of open contempt “for the jubilant, idly chattering, staining their hands with blood”: “Lullaby,” “Moral Man,” “Modern Ode,” etc.; all this poetic satire would later be included in the major satirical poem “Contemporaries,” written in the 70s in parallel with the poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'?”

If in the first group of poems Nekrasov is psychologically close to Dostoevsky, then in the second group he is close to Gogol and Shchedrin.

Nekrasov's second period: from 1857 to 1877.

This second period begins with the social thaw in the country that occurred after the death of Nicholas I, after the defeat in the Crimean War and with the beginning of preparations and conduct peasant reform Tsar Alexander II.

New heroic notes begin to sound in Nekrasov’s poetry. Revolutionary-democratic optimism develops and strengthens in it, an intensive search begins for a positive hero, a conscious exponent of progressive ideas, an educator-fighter who seeks to throw a “ray of consciousness” into the elements of the people, that is, a hero of civil resistance, awakening the people to civic activity.

If Griboedov raised the problem of “woe from the mind” in Russian literature, then Nekrasov puts forward the problem of happiness from the mind,” that is, happiness from knowing what needs to be done for the common good. The leading ideological and psychological line is the idea of ​​unity between the heroes of civil resistance and the people. Poetry is imbued with the revolutionary music of labor and struggle. In this atmosphere of “great expectations”, which were felt by Turgenev in “Fathers and Sons”, and Ostrovsky in “The Thunderstorm”, and Chernyshevsky in “What to Do?”, Nekrasov’s mood also changed: from grief and compassion, he, along with Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov moves into the vanguard of the revolutionary upsurge, turning into the Petrel of the peasant revolution, or, in the words of Dobrolyubov, becoming “Garibaldi in his business.”

During this period, two groups of poems are also distinguished. The first group includes, firstly, poems about the poet-citizen: “Poet and Citizen”, “Elegy”; secondly, poems about the heroism of the people, their work and fate: “Reflections at the Main Entrance”, “Peddlers”, “Railway”, “Arina - the Soldier’s Mother” and the poem “Frost the Red Nose”.

Thirdly, poems glorifying the civil feat and moral purity of ascetics and fighters for the people who are the poet’s contemporaries: “In Memory of a Friend” (about Belinsky), “On the Death of Shevchenko”, “In Memory of Dobrolyubov”, “In Memory of Pisarev” and “Prophet” (about Chernyshevsky); interesting is the ascending triad of the image or idea of ​​the hero in poems about fighters: friend (“In Memory of a Buddy” - Belinsky) - citizen (“Poet a Citizen”, “Blessed is the Gentle Poet”) - prophet (“Prophet” - Chernyshevsky).

The second group of poems includes confessional and love poems, the main theme of which is the theme of one’s own tragic guilt and personal responsibility to the people, to dead and arrested comrades in the struggle, to one’s conscience, and to unrealized poetic possibilities.

This mournful, suffering, tragic theme of his own sin and repentance (partly caused by the poet’s severe physical illness) was embodied by him in a collection of poems from the last two years of his life, called “Last Songs” by Nekrasov himself and representing the “Chronicle of an Unhappy Existence” of the poet himself. In these poems of the dying Nekrasov, suffering is expressed from the insufficient activity of his people, insufficient revolutionary spirit, and the poet perceives the poverty of consciousness of the people and their civic immaturity as the result of personal guilt and his own sinfulness, which evokes the pathos of self-reproach, self-reproach, lynching.

Thus, poetry becomes self-criticism, fearlessly exposing the author's weaknesses, breakdowns, retreats, and hesitations. In these poems, Nekrasov suffered and grieved because he could not be constantly uncompromising, persistent and monolithic, like Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov.

By exposing himself, Nekrasov appeared before the reader as a highly moral person, and at the same time he debunked the artificial myth about the superhumanity of the hero of civil resistance, that is, the hero-citizen who is supposedly alien to human weaknesses (verses: “That’s why I deeply despise myself,” “Literature with crackling phrases”, “A knight for an hour”, “The enemy rejoices, is silent, in bewilderment”, “I will soon die. A pitiful inheritance ...”, “I will soon become a prey to decay”, etc.). The entire collection “Last Songs” is permeated with open sobbing. Note that Nekrasov is the poet who has the most poems about death in Russian poetry.

All these themes and aspects of Nekrasov’s poetry, collected together, make, firstly, his poetry an “encyclopedia of Russian life”, and secondly, they represent him not only as a poet-agitator, but above all as an all-Russian poet, characterized by ethical maximalism, a Russian poet of a wounded soul, publicly admitting himself to be a sinner, and in this fearless recognition turning into a righteous man.

In Nekrasov’s poetry, two difficult-to-combine extreme tendencies coexist and mate: on the one hand, the prosaic mercilessness of introspection, on the other, a song-like sobbing cry. This connection makes Nekrasov the poet unique to this day.

There has long been a traditional idea of ​​N. A. Nekrasov as a “singer of the peasant lot”, “a woman’s destiny”. At the same time, the poet’s poetic heritage is distinguished by thematic and genre diversity.

Nekrasov’s poetry was not limited to solving social problems. His pen includes heartfelt words of love confessions, wonderful messages to friends, subtle landscape sketches, strikingly psychologized scenes of city and country life. The poet’s lyrics reflected not only all aspects of life at that time, but also the poet’s philosophical thoughts about the fate of the people, his country, the meaning of life and the purpose of man in it, his own innermost feelings and experiences were conveyed. The works of N. A. Nekrasov at the beginning of the 21st century sound no less relevant than at the time when they were created, because the main motives of the poet’s work were such moral concepts as conscience, sympathy, empathy, compassion.

25. Development of the poem genre in the works of N.A. Nekrasova. A wide panorama of the pre-reform and post-reform life of peasants in the poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'.” The poet's skill in depicting the Russian national character

Nekrasov's poems: “Sasha”, “Peddlers”, “Frost, Red Nose”, “Grandfather”, “Russian Women”, satirical poem"Contemporaries"

The poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'” occupies a central place in Nekrasov’s work. It became a kind of artistic result of more than thirty years of work by the author.

All the motives of Nekrasov’s lyrics are developed in the poem; all the problems that worried him were rethought; his highest artistic achievements were used.

Nekrasov not only created a special genre of socio-philosophical poem. He subordinated it to his ultimate task: to show the developing picture of Russia in its past, present and future. Having begun to write “hot on the heels,” that is, immediately after the reform of 1862, a poem about a liberating, reborn people, Nekrasov endlessly expanded the original plan.

The search for “lucky people” in Rus' took him from modernity to the origins: the poet strives to understand not only the results of the abolition of serfdom, but also the very philosophical nature of the concepts of HAPPINESS, FREEDOM, HONOR, PEACE, because without this philosophical understanding it is impossible to understand the essence of the present moment and see the future people.

The fundamental novelty of the genre explains the fragmentation of the poem, built from internally open chapters. United by the image-symbol of the road, the poem breaks down into stories, the fates of dozens of people. Each episode in itself could become the plot of a song or a story, a legend or a novel. All together, in their unity, they constitute the fate of the Russian people, their historical path from slavery to freedom. That is why only in last chapter the image of the “people's defender” Grisha Dobrosklonov appears - the one who will lead people to freedom.

Only at this moment did the author himself fully see the compositional and artistic solution of his poem and, dying, regretted that he did not have time to implement it: “The only thing I regret,” he said, “is that I do not have time to finish writing “To whom in Rus' ... “Now I see that this is a thing that will only have its entire meaning.” The author’s task determined not only genre innovation, but also the entire originality of the poetics of the work.

Nekrasov repeatedly turned to folklore motifs and images in his lyrics. Poem about folk life he builds entirely on a folklore basis. In “Who Lives Well in Rus',” all the main genres of folklore are “involved” to one degree or another: fairy tale, song, epic, legend.

The place and meaning of folklore in the poem

Folklore has its own special ideas, style, techniques, figurative system, their laws and their artistic means. The most basic difference between folklore and fiction is the lack of authorship in it: the people compose, the people tell, the people listen.

Nekrasov repeatedly turned to folklore motifs and images in his lyrics. He builds a poem about folk life entirely on a folklore basis. In “Who Lives Well in Rus'?,” all the main genres of folklore are “involved” to one degree or another: fairy tale, song, epic, legend.

Author's literature turns to folklore when it is necessary to penetrate deeper into the essence of national morality; when the work itself is addressed not only to the intelligentsia (the bulk of readers of the 19th century), but also to the people. Nekrasov set both of these tasks for himself in the poem “Who can live well in Rus'?”

And one more important aspect distinguishes original literature from folklore. Oral creativity does not know the concept of “canonical text”: each listener becomes a co-author of the work, retelling it in his own way. Nekrasov strove for such active co-creation between the author and the reader. That is why his poem was written “in a free language, as close as possible to common speech.

“Researchers call the verse of the poem Nekrasov’s “brilliant find.” Free and flexible poetic meter, independence from rhyme opened up the possibility:

Generously convey the originality of the folk language, preserving all its precision, aphorism and special proverbial phrases; organically weave village songs, sayings, lamentations, and elements of folk tales into the fabric of the poem (a magic self-assembled tablecloth treats wanderers);

Skillfully reproduce the perky speeches of tipsy men at the fair, and the expressive monologues of peasant speakers, and the absurdly self-righteous reasoning of a tyrant landowner, colorful folk scenes, full of life and movements, a lot characteristic persons and figures... - all this creates a unique polyphony of Nekrasov’s poem, in which the voice of the author himself seems to disappear, and instead the voices and speeches of his countless characters are heard.”

Ideological and artistic originality:

1. The problematic is based on the correlation of folklore images and specific historical realities. The problem of national happiness is the ideological center of the pr-ya. Images of 7 wandering men - a symbolic image of Russia moving from its place

2. The poem reflected the contradictions of Russian reality in the post-reform period:

a) class contradictions (landowner Obolt-Obolduev does not understand why he needs to study and work, because he is “not a peasant lapotnik, but, by the grace of God, a Russian nobleman”)

b) contradictions in the peasant consciousness (on the one hand, the people are great workers, on the other, the drunken, ignorant masses)

c) contradictions between the high spirituality of the people and ignorance, illiteracy and downtroddenness (Nekrasov’s dream of the time when a man “will carry Belinsky and Gogol from the market”)

d) Contradictions between strength, the rebellious spirit of the people and humility, long-suffering, obedience (images of Savely - the hero of the Russian army and Yakov the faithful, exemplary slave)

3. The reflection of revolutionary democratic ideas is associated with the image of the people's defender Grisha Dobrosklonov (prototype of Dobrolyubov)

4. The reflection of the evolution of national consciousness is associated with the images of 7 men

5. This is a sign of critical realism, because

a) historicism (depicting the contradictions in the life of peasants in post-reform Russia)

b) depiction of typical characters in typical circumstances (collective image of 7 men, typical images of a priest, landowner, peasants)

c) the original features of Nekrasov’s realism - the use of folklore traditions, in cat. he was a follower of Lermontov and Ostrovsky

The poem is characterized by an abundant use of folklore genres:

A fairy tale - prologue

Bylina - Saveliy - the hero

Ritual song (wedding, harvest, lamentation songs) and work song

Legend (About two great sinners)

Proverbs, sayings, riddles

The play is based on the conflict between an individual and the surrounding society (Katerina and the “dark kingdom”).

The action of “The Thunderstorm” takes place on the banks of the Volga, in an ancient city, where, as it seems, nothing has changed for centuries and cannot change, and it is in the conservative patriarchal family of this city that Ostrovsky sees manifestations of an irresistible renewal of life, its selfless and rebellious beginning. A conflict “breaks out” between two opposing characters, human natures. Two opposing forces are embodied in the young merchant's wife Katerina Kabanova and her mother-in-law, Marfa Kabanova. Kabanikha is a convinced and principled keeper of antiquities, once for all found and established standards and rules of life. Katerina is an ever-searching, creative person who takes bold risks for the sake of the living needs of her soul.

In his article “A Ray of Light in dark kingdom“Dobrolyubov wrote about the play: ““The Thunderstorm” represents the idyll of the “dark kingdom”... The mutual relations of tyranny and voicelessness are brought to the most tragic consequences in it...”

Kabanikha does not recognize the legitimacy of individual differences between people and the diversity of life of peoples. Everything in which the life of other places differs from the life of the city of Kalinov testifies to “infidelity”: people who live differently from the Kalinovites must have the heads of dogs. The center of the Universe is the pious city of Kalinov, the center of this city is the house of the Kabanovs, - this is how the experienced wanderer Feklusha characterizes the world to please the stern mistress. Any change seems to Kabanikha to be the beginning of sin.

Throughout the entire action of the play, Katerina is accompanied by the motif of flight and fast driving. She wants to fly like a bird, and she dreams about flying, she tried to sail along the Volga, and in her dreams she sees herself racing in a troika. She turns to both Tikhon and Boris with a request to take her with them, to take her away. However, this movement has one feature - the absence of a clearly defined goal.

The “dispute” of Katerina and Kabanikha is accompanied by the dispute of Kuligin and Dikiy, the drama of the slavish position of feelings in the world of calculation is here accompanied by a depiction of the tragedy of the mind in the “dark kingdom”, the tragedy of the desecration of beauty and poetry is the tragedy of the enslavement of science by wild “patrons”.

“The Thunderstorm” is usually called a drama, not a tragedy, despite the death of Katerina. The play also traces the comedic traditions of satirical depiction the morals of the merchants.

Ostrovsky introduces a landscape that acts not only as a background, but also as the embodiment of the elements opposing the “dark kingdom” (scenes on the Volga, the death of Katerina).

When creating the images of Katerina, Kuligin and Kudryash, the author uses folklore traditions. The characters' speech is filled with colloquialisms. Ostrovsky introduces symbols that carry a semantic load in the text: thunderstorm - contradictions in Katerina’s soul; lightning rod - a symbol of enlightenment, etc.

"Dark Kingdom" and its victims

Dobrolyubov speaks of the inhabitants of the city of Kalinov in the following way: “Their life flows smoothly and peacefully, no interests of the world disturb them, because they do not reach them; kingdoms can collapse, new countries open up, the face of the earth... change... - the inhabitants of the town of Kalinov will continue to exist in complete ignorance of the rest of the world... The concepts and way of life they adopted * are the best in the world, everything new comes from evil spirits... they find it awkward and even impudent to persistently search for reasonable grounds... The information reported by the Feklushis is such that they are not capable of inspiring a great desire to exchange their life for another... A dark mass, terrible in its naivety and sincerity.”

The wanderers in the play are of no small importance, as they characterize the downtroddenness of the people. “Because of their weakness they themselves did not go far, but they heard a lot”: about sins, six or twelve embarrassing enemies, about distant countries where the Saltans rule the earth, about people with dog heads, about the endless bustle in Moscow, where “the last times are coming ", about the "fiery serpent", etc.

In the play, the tyrants are Dikaya and Kabanova, to whom Dobrolyubov gave the following assessment: “The absence of any law, any logic - this is the law and logic of this life... The tyrants of Russian life begin, however, to feel some kind of discontent and fear, without knowing what and why... Apart from them, without asking them, another life grew up... the old Kabanovs breathe heavily, feeling that there is a power higher than them, which they cannot overcome, which they do not know how to approach... The Wild and Kabanovs, meeting themselves with a contradiction and not being able to defeat him, but wanting to stand on their own, they directly declare themselves against logic, that is, they make fools of themselves in front of the majority of people.”

Kabanikha demands obedience and self-respect from the spineless Tikhon, whom he does not perceive as an independent person, and scolds him. For this reason, he cannot form an independent relationship with Katerina, whom Kabanikha hates with unconscious hatred.

Dobrolyubov characterizes Diky as follows: “It seems to him that if he recognizes over himself the laws of common sense, common to all people, then his importance will greatly suffer from this... He realizes that he is absurd... The habit of fooling around in him is so strong that he even submits to it contrary to the voice of my own common sense.”

At first glance, Varvara and Kudryash are opposed to the “dark kingdom,” but in fact they are connected with it internally. They leave only because they could not adapt to it.

Kuligin opposes the ignorance of the “dark kingdom” and is the bearer of the ideas of enlightenment. He passively observes, although he really wants to benefit society, trying to change something in it. His abilities cannot develop in the conditions of the “dark kingdom”, since his dependence on him is too great.

Dobrolyubov about Tikhon: “Simple-hearted and vulgar, not at all evil, but extremely characterless... from the many pathetic types who are usually called harmless, although in a general sense they are as harmful as the tyrants themselves, because they serve them faithful assistants... there is no strong feeling, there can be no decisive desire to develop.”

Dobrolyubov says about Boris: “Not a hero... He has had enough education and cannot cope with the old way of life, nor with his heart, nor with common sense- he walks around as if lost... one of those people who don’t know how to do what they understand, and don’t understand what they do.”

Boris understands that he will be left without an inheritance, but despite this, he will never decide to break off relations with Dikiy, since he has no inner strength (“Oh, if only there was strength!”).

Dobrolyubov about Katerina: “Katerina did not kill the human nature in herself... The Russian strong character... amazes us with its opposition to all tyrant principles... Character... creative, loving, ideal... She tries to smooth out any external dissonance... she covers every shortcoming from the fullness of her own internal forces... She is strange, extravagant from the point of view of those around her, but this is because she cannot in any way accept their views and inclinations ... She is striving for a new life, even if she had to die in this impulse ... A mature demand arising from the depths of the whole organism rights and spaciousness of life... In the dry, monotonous life of his youth, in rude and superstitious concepts environment she constantly knew how to take what agreed with her natural aspirations for beauty, harmony, contentment, happiness... All the ideas instilled in her from childhood, all the principles of the environment rebel against her natural aspirations and actions. Everything is against Katerina, even her own concepts of good and evil.”

Katerina fights with herself and in the end internally justifies herself. The need to love and be loved is felt with particular force; offended feelings of the wife and woman in the mother-in-law's house; mortal melancholy caused by the monotony and monotony of her life; desire of will.

The author, creating the image of Katerina, refers to folklore traditions(motives folk songs; appeals to “dear friend”, to “violent winds”; the image of a “grave”), thereby emphasizing her belonging to the people.

The comedy "The Thunderstorm" is one of the most famous works Russian playwright A. N. Ostrovsky. The idea and characters of the work can be explored forever. The images of the characters in "The Thunderstorm" are quite remarkable.

Problems of the play "The Thunderstorm"

All characters can be divided into 2 groups: representatives of the older and younger generations. The eldest represents Kabanikh and Dikoy. They are representatives patriarchal world where selfishness and poverty rule. Other characters suffer from the tyranny of Kabanikha and Wild. These are primarily Varvara, Katerina, Boris and Tikhon. A comparative description of the characters shows that all the heroes have resigned themselves to their fate, and only Katerina is not able to go against her conscience and her desires.

The entire work "The Thunderstorm" is dedicated to history main character Katerina. She is one of the participants. Katerina has to choose between two men, and these men are Boris and Tikhon. These characters will help you understand in detail the behavior of the characters in the play.

Boris's fate

Before analyzing the character of Boris, it is necessary to familiarize yourself with his history.

Boris is not Kalinova. He gets there by the will of his parents. Boris was supposed to get the inheritance, which for the time being was managed by Dikoy. For good behavior and obedience, Dikoy is obliged to give the inheritance to Boris, but readers understand that due to Dikoy’s greed this will never happen. Therefore, Boris has to stay in Kalinov and live there according to the rules established by Dikiy and Kabanikha.

Tikhon's fate

Among all the characters, two heroes stand out, two men - Boris and Tikhon. The comparative characteristics of these heroes can say a lot.

Tikhon depends on Kabanikha - his mother. He has to obey her in everything. Kabanikha does not hesitate to interfere in the personal life of her son, dictating how he should treat his wife. Kabanikha literally takes his daughter-in-law out of the world. Kabanikha constantly finds fault with Katerina.

One day Tikhon is forced to leave for another city for several days. The reader clearly sees how glad he is at the opportunity to be alone and show his independence.

What Boris and Tikhon have in common

So, we have two characters - Boris and Tikhon. A comparative description of these heroes is impossible without an analysis of their lifestyle. So, both characters live with tyrants, both heroes are forced to obey the will of others. Both heroes lack independence. Both heroes love Katerina.

At the end of the play, both suffer greatly after the death of Katerina. Tikhon is left alone with his mother, and orders Boris Dika to leave Kalinov. Of course, he definitely won’t see an inheritance after the incident with Katerina.

Boris and Tikhon: differences

There are more differences between Boris and Tikhon than they have in common. So, Boris and Tikhon - Comparative characteristics. The table below will help systematize knowledge about these heroes.

Such are Boris and Tikhon. The comparative characteristics of the characters given in the table above are quite brief and succinct. It is worth noting that mostly readers sympathize with Boris rather than Tikhon.

The main idea of ​​the play "The Thunderstorm"

The characterization of Boris and Tikhon suggests that the two men loved Katerina. However, neither one nor the other could save her. Katerina threw herself off a cliff into the river, no one stopped her. It was Boris and Tikhon, whose comparative characteristics were given above, who should have saved her, who should have rebelled against the power of the Kalinovsky tyrants. However, they failed, and Katerina’s lifeless body was taken out of the river.

Kalinov is a town that lives by its own rules. Dobrolyubov called Katerina “a ray of light in a dark kingdom,” and this is true. Katerina could not change her fate, but perhaps she could change the whole city. Her death is the first catastrophe that disrupted the patriarchal structure of the family. Kabanikha and Dikoy feel that young people are leaving their power, which means changes are coming.

Thus, A. Ostrovsky was able to show not only family tragedy. Before us is the tragedy of an entire city perishing under the despotism of the Wild and Kabanikha. Kalinov is not fictional city, but there are a lot of such “Kalinovs” throughout Russia.

The main character of Ostrovsky's drama "The Thunderstorm". The main idea of ​​the work is the conflict of this girl with the “dark kingdom”, the kingdom of tyrants, despots and ignoramuses. You can find out why this conflict arose and why the end of the drama is so tragic by looking into Katerina’s soul and understanding her ideas about life. And this can be done thanks to the skill of playwright Ostrovsky. From Katerina's words we learn about her childhood and adolescence. The girl didn't get it good education.

She lived with her mother in the village. Katerina's mood was joyful and cloudless. “she doted on her” and did not force her to do housework. Katya lived freely: she got up early, washed her face spring water, crawled flowers, went to church with her mother, then sat down to do some work and listened to wanderers and praying mantises, of which there were many in their house. Katerina had magical dreams in which she flew under the clouds. And how strongly it contrasts with such a quiet one, happy life the act of a six-year-old girl, when Katya, offended by something, ran away from home to the Volga in the evening, got into a boat and pushed off from the shore! ... We see that Katerina grew up as a happy, romantic, but limited girl.

She was very devout and passionately loving. She loved everything and everyone around her: nature, the sun, the church, her home with wanderers, the beggars whom she helped. But the most important thing about Katya is that she lived in her dreams, apart from the rest of the world. From everything that existed, she chose only that which did not contradict her nature; the rest she did not want to notice and did not notice.

That’s why the girl saw angels in the sky, and for her the church was not an oppressive and oppressive force, but a place where everything is light, where you can dream. We can say that Katerina was naive and kind, brought up in a completely religious spirit. But if she encountered something on her way that contradicted her ideals, then she turned into a rebellious and stubborn nature and defended herself from that extraneous person who dared to disturb her soul. This was the case with the boat.

After marriage, Katya's life changed a lot. From a free, joyful, sublime world in which she felt united with nature, the girl found herself in a life full of deception, cruelty and desolation. The point is not even that Katerina did not marry Tikhon of her own free will: she did not love anyone at all and she did not care who she married. The fact is that the girl was taken away from her old life, which she created for herself. Katerina no longer feels such delight from visiting church; she cannot do her usual activities. Sad, anxious thoughts do not allow her to calmly admire nature. Katya can only endure as long as she can and dream, but she can no longer live with her thoughts, because cruel reality returns her to earth, to where there is humiliation and suffering.

Katerina is trying to find her happiness in her love for Tikhon: “I will love my husband. Silence, my darling, I won’t exchange you for anyone.” But sincere manifestations of this love are stopped by Kabanikha: “Why are you hanging around your neck, shameless woman, you’re not saying goodbye to your lover.” Katerina has a strong sense of external humility and duty, which is why she forces herself to love her unloved husband. Tikhon himself, because of his mother’s tyranny, cannot truly love his wife, although he probably wants to. And when he, leaving for a while, leaves Katya to walk around to his heart's content, the girl (already a woman) becomes completely lonely.

Why did Katerina fall in love with Boris? After all, he did not exhibit his masculine qualities, like Paratov, and did not even talk to her. Probably the reason was that she lacked something pure in the stuffy atmosphere of Kabanikha’s house. And love for Boris was this pure, did not allow Katerina to completely wither away, somehow supported her. She went on a date with Boris because she felt like a person with pride and basic rights. It was a rebellion against submission to fate, against lawlessness. Katerina knew that she was committing a sin, but she also knew that it was still impossible to live any longer. She sacrificed the purity of her conscience to freedom and Boris.

In my opinion, when taking this step, Katya already felt the approaching end and probably thought: “It’s now or never.” She wanted to be satisfied with love, knowing that there would be no other opportunity. On the first date, Katerina told Boris: “You ruined me.”

Boris is the reason for the disgrace of her soul, and for Katya this is tantamount to death. Sin hangs like a heavy stone on her heart. Katerina is terribly afraid of the approaching thunderstorm, considering it a punishment for what she did.

Katerina has been afraid of thunderstorms ever since she started thinking about Boris. For her pure soul even the thought of loving to a stranger- sin. Katya cannot live any longer with her sin, and she considers repentance to be the only way to at least partially get rid of it. She confesses everything to her husband and Kabanikha.

Such an act seems very strange and naive in our time. “I don’t know how to deceive; I can’t hide anything,” that’s Katerina. Tikhon forgave his wife, but did she forgive herself, being very religious.

Katya fears God, but her God lives in her, God is her conscience. The girl is tormented by two questions: how will she return home and look into the eyes of the husband she cheated on, and how will she live with a stain on her conscience. The only way out from this situation, Katerina sees death: “No, it’s all the same to me whether I go home or go to the grave... It’s better in the grave... To live again No, no, don’t... it’s not good” Haunted by her sin, Katerina passes away, to save your soul.

Dobrolyubov defined Katerina’s character as “decisive, integral, Russian.” Decisive, because she decided to take the last step, to die in order to save herself from shame and remorse. Whole, because in Katya’s character everything is harmonious, one, nothing contradicts each other, because Katya is one with nature, with God. Russian, because who, if not a Russian person, is capable of loving so much, capable of sacrificing so much, so seemingly obediently enduring all hardships, while remaining himself, free, not a slave. Ostrovsky wrote the play “The Thunderstorm” in 1859 at a time when a change in social foundations was imminent in Russia, on the eve of the peasant reform.

Therefore, the play was perceived as an expression of the spontaneous revolutionary sentiments of the masses. It was not for nothing that Ostrovsky gave his play the name “The Thunderstorm”. A thunderstorm occurs not only a natural phenomenon, the action unfolds to the sounds of thunder, but also as an internal phenomenon - the characters are characterized through their attitude to the thunderstorm. For each hero, a thunderstorm is a special symbol, for some it is a harbinger of a storm, for others it is purification, the beginning of a new life, for others it is a “voice from above” that predicts some important events or warns against any actions.

In Katerina’s soul there is, to no one, an invisible thunderstorm, a thunderstorm for her is heavenly punishment, “the hand of the Lord,” which should punish her for betraying her husband: “It’s not so scary that it will kill you, but that death will suddenly overtake you with all evil thoughts." Katerina is afraid and waits for a thunderstorm. She loves Boris, but this depresses her. She believes that she will burn in “fiery hell” for her sinful feelings. For mechanic Kuligin, a thunderstorm is a crude manifestation of natural forces, consonant with human ignorance, which must be fought. Kuligin believes that by introducing mechanization and enlightenment into life, one can achieve power over “thunder,” which carries the meaning of rudeness, cruelty and immorality: “I decay with my body in dust, I command thunder with my mind.”

Kuligin dreams of building a lightning rod to rid people of the fear of thunderstorms. For Tikhon, a thunderstorm is anger, oppression on the part of his mother. He is afraid of her, but as a son he must obey her. Leaving home on business, Tikhon says: “How can I know that there won’t be any thunderstorms over me for two weeks, I don’t have these shackles on my legs.” Dikoy believes that it is impossible and sinful to resist lightning. For him, a thunderstorm means submission.

Despite his wild and evil disposition, he obediently obeys Kabanikha. Boris fears human thunderstorms more than natural ones. That's why he leaves, abandons Katerina alone and not with people's rumors. “It’s scarier here! “- says Boris, running away from the place of prayer of the entire city.

The thunderstorm in Ostrovsky's play symbolizes both ignorance and anger, heavenly punishment and retribution, and purification, insight, and the beginning of a new life. This is evidenced by a conversation between two townspeople of Kalinov; changes began to occur in the residents’ worldview, and their assessment of everything that was happening began to change. Perhaps people will have a desire to overcome their fear of thunderstorms, to get rid of the oppression of anger and ignorance that reigns in the city. After terrible rumbles of thunder and lightning strikes, the sun will shine above our heads again.

N.A. Dobrolyubov, in the article “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom,” interpreted the image of Katerina as “a spontaneous protest brought to the end,” and suicide as a force of freedom-loving character: “such liberation is bitter; but what to do when there is nothing else.”

I believe that Ostrovsky’s play “The Thunderstorm” was timely and contributed to the fight against the oppressors.

The main character of Ostrovsky's drama "The Thunderstorm". The main idea of ​​the work is the conflict of this girl with the “dark kingdom”, the kingdom of tyrants, despots and ignoramuses. You can find out why this conflict arose and why the end of the drama is so tragic by looking into Katerina’s soul and understanding her ideas about life. And this can be done thanks to the skill of the playwright Ostrovsky. From Katerina's words we learn about her childhood and adolescence. The girl did not receive a good education. She lived with her mother in the village. Katerina's childhood was joyful and cloudless. Her mother “doted on her” and did not force her to do housework.

Katya lived freely: she got up early, washed herself with spring water, climbed flowers, went to church with her mother, then sat down to do some work and listened to wanderers and praying mantises, of which there were many in their house. Katerina had magical dreams in which she flew under the clouds. And how strongly contrasted with such a quiet, happy life is the action of a six-year-old girl, when Katya, offended by something, ran away from home to the Volga in the evening, got into a boat and pushed off from the shore! ... We see that Katerina grew up as a happy, romantic, but limited girl. She was very devout and passionately loving. She loved everything and everyone around her: nature, the sun, the church, her home with wanderers, the beggars whom she helped. But the most important thing about Katya is that she lived in her dreams, apart from the rest of the world. From everything that existed, she chose only that which did not contradict her nature; the rest she did not want to notice and did not notice. That’s why the girl saw angels in the sky, and for her the church was not an oppressive and oppressive force, but a place where everything is light, where you can dream. We can say that Katerina was naive and kind, brought up in a completely religious spirit. But if she encountered something on her way that contradicted her ideals, then she turned into a rebellious and stubborn nature and defended herself from that extraneous person who dared to disturb her soul. This was the case with the boat. After marriage, Katya's life changed a lot. From a free, joyful, sublime world in which she felt united with nature, the girl found herself in a life full of deception, cruelty and desolation.

The point is not even that Katerina did not marry Tikhon of her own free will: she did not love anyone at all and she did not care who she married. The fact is that the girl was robbed of her former life, which she created for herself. Katerina no longer feels such delight from visiting church; she cannot do her usual activities. Sad, anxious thoughts do not allow her to calmly admire nature. Katya can only endure as long as she can and dream, but she can no longer live with her thoughts, because cruel reality returns her to earth, to where there is humiliation and suffering. Katerina is trying to find her happiness in her love for Tikhon: “I will love my husband. Silence, my darling, I won’t exchange you for anyone.” But sincere manifestations of this love are stopped by Kabanikha: “Why are you hanging around your neck, shameless woman, you’re not saying goodbye to your lover.” Katerina has a strong sense of external humility and duty, which is why she forces herself to love her unloved husband. Tikhon himself, because of his mother’s tyranny, cannot truly love his wife, although he probably wants to. And when he, leaving for a while, leaves Katya to walk around to his heart's content, the girl (already a woman) becomes completely lonely. Why did Katerina fall in love with Boris? After all, he did not exhibit his masculine qualities, like Paratov, and did not even talk to her. Probably the reason was that she lacked something pure in the stuffy atmosphere of Kabanikha’s house. And love for Boris was this pure, did not allow Katerina to completely wither away, somehow supported her. She went on a date with Boris because she felt like a person with pride and basic rights. It was a rebellion against submission to fate, against lawlessness. Katerina knew that she was committing a sin, but she also knew that it was still impossible to live any longer.

She sacrificed the purity of her conscience to freedom and Boris. In my opinion, when taking this step, Katya already felt the approaching end and probably thought: “It’s now or never.” She wanted to be satisfied with love, knowing that there would be no other opportunity. On the first date, Katerina told Boris: “You ruined me.” Boris is the reason for the disgrace of her soul, and for Katya this is tantamount to death. Sin hangs like a heavy stone on her heart. Katerina is terribly afraid of the approaching thunderstorm, considering it a punishment for what she did. Katerina has been afraid of thunderstorms ever since she started thinking about Boris. For her pure soul, even the thought of loving a stranger is a sin. Katya cannot live any longer with her sin, and she considers repentance to be the only way to at least partially get rid of it. She confesses everything to her husband and Kabanikha. Such an act seems very strange and naive in our time. “I don’t know how to deceive; I can’t hide anything,” that’s Katerina. Tikhon forgave his wife, but did she forgive herself, being very religious. Katya fears God, but her God lives in her, God is her conscience. The girl is tormented by two questions: how will she return home and look into the eyes of the husband she cheated on, and how will she live with a stain on her conscience.

Katerina sees death as the only way out of this situation: “No, I don’t care whether I go home or go to the grave... It’s better in the grave... Living again No, no, don’t... it’s not good.” Haunted by her sin, Katerina leaves life to save your soul. Dobrolyubov defined Katerina’s character as “decisive, integral, Russian.” Decisive, because she decided to take the last step, to die in order to save herself from shame and remorse. Whole, because in Katya’s character everything is harmonious, one, nothing contradicts each other, because Katya is one with nature, with God. Russian, because who, if not a Russian person, is capable of loving so much, capable of sacrificing so much, so seemingly obediently enduring all hardships, while remaining himself, free, not a slave.

Ostrovsky wrote the play “The Thunderstorm” in 1859 at a time when a change in social foundations was imminent in Russia, on the eve of the peasant reform. Therefore, the play was perceived as an expression of the spontaneous revolutionary sentiments of the masses. It was not for nothing that Ostrovsky gave his play the name “The Thunderstorm”. occurs not only as a natural phenomenon, the action unfolds to the sounds of thunder, but also as an internal phenomenon - the characters are characterized through their attitude to the thunderstorm. For each hero, a thunderstorm is a special symbol, for some it is a harbinger of a storm, for others it is purification, the beginning of a new life, for others it is a “voice from above” that predicts some important events or warns against any actions.

In Katerina’s soul there is, to no one, an invisible thunderstorm, a thunderstorm for her is heavenly punishment, “the hand of the Lord,” which should punish her for betraying her husband: “It’s not so scary that it will kill you, but that death will suddenly overtake you with all evil thoughts." Katerina is afraid and waits for a thunderstorm. She loves Boris, but this depresses her. She believes that she will burn in “fiery hell” for her sinful feelings.

For mechanic Kuligin, a thunderstorm is a crude manifestation of natural forces, consonant with human ignorance, which must be fought. Kuligin believes that by introducing mechanization and enlightenment into life, one can achieve power over “thunder,” which carries the meaning of rudeness, cruelty and immorality: “I decay with my body in dust, I command thunder with my mind.” Kuligin dreams of building a lightning rod to rid people of the fear of thunderstorms.

For Tikhon, a thunderstorm is anger, oppression on the part of his mother. He is afraid of her, but as a son he must obey her. Leaving home on business, Tikhon says: “How can I know that there won’t be any thunderstorms over me for two weeks, I don’t have these shackles on my legs.”

Dikoy believes that it is impossible and sinful to resist lightning. For him, a thunderstorm means submission. Despite his wild and evil disposition, he obediently obeys Kabanikha.

Boris fears human thunderstorms more than natural ones. That's why he leaves, abandons Katerina alone and not with people's rumors. “It’s scarier here!” - says Boris, running away from the place of prayer of the entire city.

The thunderstorm in Ostrovsky's play symbolizes both ignorance and anger, heavenly punishment and retribution, and purification, insight, and the beginning of a new life. This is evidenced by a conversation between two townspeople of Kalinov; changes began to occur in the residents’ worldview, and their assessment of everything that was happening began to change. Perhaps people will have a desire to overcome their fear of thunderstorms, to get rid of the oppression of anger and ignorance that reigns in the city. After terrible rumbles of thunder and lightning strikes, the sun will shine above our heads again.

N.A. Dobrolyubov, in the article “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom,” interpreted the image of Katerina as “a spontaneous protest brought to the end,” and suicide as a force of freedom-loving character: “such liberation is bitter; but what to do when there is nothing else.”

I believe that Ostrovsky’s play “The Thunderstorm” was timely and contributed to the fight against the oppressors.