Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation
Cherepovets State University
Humanitarian Institute
Department of Public Relations
Home test on domestic literature
Topic: “Dramaturgy by A.N. Ostrovsky"
Completed by: Staska Che
Specialist. 030602
"Public relations"
First course, group 2 CO 11 Teacher: Zelentsova M.V.
Cherepovets, 2006
Dramaturgy A.N. Ostrovsky became the starting point for all Russian drama. Before him, it was of a random nature, where mediocre writers, chasing momentary fame, created certain examples that were completely devoid of originality and charm. The plays of Fonvizin, Pushkin, Gogol and Griboyedov stood apart - once and for all raised to the top, they reigned silently. But on the one hand, the absence of a true genius, on the other, the most severe censorship and lack of proper remuneration (copyrights were trampled upon in a shameless manner), all this led to the scarcity of a truly Russian dramatic scene. It was Ostrovsky’s creativity that made it possible to get things moving; his genius not only created a significant stock of plays for producers, directors and actors, but also a stock of characters, typical characters for future playwrights, and set an example. That is why it is important to study Ostrovsky’s work now, when we are already very far from his era (it is no secret that his plays were topical, but now the “topic of the day” is different). Genre composition of dramaturgy by A.N. Ostrovsky.
According to M.M. Bakhtin, there is a “memory of genre” in literature. A clear genre orientation in a dramatic work acquires special significance, since only the perception of the play in relation to a certain genre tradition allows the co-creation of actors and the audience to arise, and this is a necessary condition for the stage existence of drama. The genre definition, as it were, sets the audience up for the appropriate type of perception of what will happen on stage; it sets the conditions of the game. Perhaps because Ostrovsky was a highly theatrical artist, genre thinking was organically inherent in him. Another thing is that Ostrovsky, like every significant artist, leaves the stamp of his creative individuality on the genre.
Ostrovsky entered literature as a brilliant comedian and immediately introduced into the reader’s consciousness his own artistic world, which was unusually stable. Already in the second comedy, “Our People - Let’s Be Numbered,” which made him famous, Ostrovsky’s own theatrical system was formed. And so Ostrovsky’s genre thinking turned out to have one significant feature for him: while expanding his genre repertoire, he nevertheless constantly correlated it with the main features of his early established, stable artistic world. We can say that in general he wrote only because he could not violate the laws of his world anywhere, without breaking with his system, but only clarifying the possibilities of its expansion, refracting everything new through it.
“According to my concepts of grace, considering comedy to be the best form for achieving moral goals and recognizing in myself the ability to reproduce life primarily in this form, I had to write a comedy or write nothing.” This confession was made by Ostrovsky in a letter of 1850 regarding the comedy “Our People - Let’s Be Numbered!”
The Ostrovsky Theater is primarily a comedy theater. He himself called half of his plays comedies, but even in those works that undoubtedly belong to the category of dramas, the comedic element is expressed quite clearly (I immediately recall the dialogues of Robinson, the hero of the drama “Dowry.” These dialogues are so comical that they cause laughter even in fairly tragic context). By the time Ostrovsky entered literature, two versions of a serious social comedy had already emerged: “Woe from Wit” and “The Inspector General”. In this regard, the playwright continues the tradition of Gogol, but enhanced, refracted in the artistic practice of the natural school. However, very soon Ostrovsky developed a unique type of comedy, which was of great importance in his system. A meaningful, genre-forming feature in realistic drama is a specific situation, a collision, going back to a certain typical life phenomenon. This collision, when implemented, develops a “language”, a system of means, and plot motifs characteristic of the genre.
In Russian literature of the 19th century, the most stable life situation that gave rise to a characteristic dramatic collision was the collision of a gifted, extraordinary personality with an inert environment that was superior in strength. It was first realized in “Woe from Wit,” a classic “high comedy.”
In Ostrovsky, the genre of “high comedy” does not appear in its pure form, but undergoes changes. The basis of Ostrovsky’s everyday drama is a love conflict; his heroes are not the elite, but ordinary people close to the common people. Heroes entail the formation of a special system of artistic embodiment in which these heroes could appear - this is how a specific, Ostrovsky version of “high comedy” is created, which should be called “folk comedy” (“Don’t sit in your own sleigh”, “Poverty is not a vice”). Another variety is very close: when interest is focused specifically on types, the central love line seems to be fragmented or presented in a parody. These are morally descriptive folk comedies (“We will be our own people,” all plays from the Balzamin cycle).
The type of folk comedy developed during the “Moscow period”; here Ostrovsky creates an ideal, “pre-personal” society. The ideal becomes the state of the people in those epic times when the personal has not yet stood out and opposed itself to the general. The epic nature of the worldview gave rise to special positive heroes - a young couple, written in a conventionally folklore manner, without the psychological individualization inherent in the literature of modern times. The “disturbing beginning” comes into Ostrovsky’s dramaturgy during the creation of “The Thunderstorm,” which shows the tragedy of the personal beginning, born in a patriarchal world in which this personal, individual has no place.
The understanding of the “hero of the time”, the noble intellectual (at the origins of this type is Chatsky) leads Ostrovsky to a new type of comedy. This is a group of satirical works: “Simplicity is enough for every wise man”, “Wolves and sheep” and others. Another concept of the hero led primarily to a sharp change in the nature of dramatic action. In a world where we are talking about an individualist hero, an element of intrigue seems to be unleashed. Intrigue in the meaning of intrigue begins to determine the nature of the plot, and reliance on the literary and theatrical tradition arises.
Folk comedy and the satirical anti-noble cycle are a kind of poles between which lies the real diversity of the playwright’s work. They correspond to two stylistic manners developed by the playwright. One, focusing on the manifestation of national identity in Russian life, is based in poetics on the folklore tradition. The other, formed in anti-noble satire, is connected with the general literary tradition of the 19th century, with the discoveries of narrative literary genres, with the study of the personal contemporary hero and prepares the formation of drama in Ostrovsky’s dramaturgy. There was no blank wall between these two types; on the contrary, there was such a powerful factor of stylistic super-unity as Ostrovsky’s nationally distinctive, characteristic speech, which in plays of any style acts as a measure of the viability of a particular character, as a unifying national element.
To generalize the idea of the genre composition of Ostrovsky’s dramaturgy, it is worth looking at the subtitles of his plays (they reflect the author’s genre self-determination, although not fully).
1847-1866 - 7 comedies, 1 - folk drama, 2 - dramas, 1 - stage, 1 - dramatic sketch, the rest - scenes or pictures of Moscow life.
In the next twenty years, a sharp predominance of comedies over all other genre designations is noticeable:
comedies - 16, several historical chronicles and five plays of a different title.
Ostrovsky uses the name “drama” extremely sparingly. Perhaps he was hampered by the fact that at that time this genre designation was usurped by the authors and translators of those plays that we now call melodramas. Also indicative is Ostrovsky’s complete absence of the tragedy genre. Although the character, for example, of “Thunderstorms”, the nature of the conflict in this play make it possible to challenge the author’s definition of the genre, it can be explained. Firstly, in Ostrovsky’s time it was not customary to call plays from the lives of private people tragedies (Even the tragedy “Romeo and Juliet” in the Russian translation was characterized as “drama”). Secondly, the literary reputation of this genre was inevitably associated with classicism.
Realistic social drama and psychological drama, which was formed in our country in the second half of the 19th century (and to a large extent in Ostrovsky’s work), developed for a very long time, as if in the bosom of serious comedy. This genre largely opposed such a literary miscarriage of the time as “tendentious drama” (it was repeatedly and mercilessly rejected by Ostrovsky, and subsequently ridiculed by Chekhov).
We can distinguish two more special genres, defined by the playwright himself as scenes and pictures. Ostrovsky used them to designate plays that captured some more private phenomena of life than those he touched on in comedies. Moreover, there is also a difference between scenes and paintings: scenes are a series of episodes taken from the general flow of life, while paintings have a more plot-complete character. The initial period of creativity. “Our people - we will be numbered!” The topic of bankruptcy. The theme of betrayed trust.
Ostrovsky's formation occurs under the influence of Belinsky and Herzen; the playwright sees the highest expression of nationality in the accusatory-satirical direction, in the works of Kantemir, Fonvizin, Griboyedov, Gogol. He himself wrote: “The public is waiting for art to present its judgment on life in a living, elegant form, waiting for the modern vices and shortcomings noticed in the century to be combined into complete images.” The first dramatic works of A.N. Ostrovsky is devoted mainly to negative types, criticism of despotic tyranny in family and everyday relations. He mainly depicted the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie, which at that time was actively rising into the public arena. The playwright showed that the bourgeoisie, living by deception and trickery, is thoroughly vicious. For this class, the ruble is above all else.
For the plots of his plays, Ostrovsky chose not small everyday facts, but the most significant, typical, generally interesting, capable of touching millions of people from the most diverse social strata. Bankruptcy, which turned into a public danger in the 40s, the struggle for money, neglecting both family ties and moral rules - this is the basis of the plot of his first major comedy, “Our People - We Will Be Numbered!”
Ostrovsky's dramaturgy is the dramaturgy of the most frank, direct comedy and high dramatic passions. At the same time, drama and comedy in Ostrovsky’s plays, as in life, are realized in a complex interweaving. So, in the comedy “Our People - We Will Be Numbered!” we witness a stunning dramatic explanation between father and daughter, when the father, crying, asks his daughter for salvation, and the daughter to whom he gave his fortune rudely refuses him this. At the same time, the son-in-law, a stranger, is already inclined to save his father-in-law... but the daughter is adamant. But Bolshov, despite despotism, secrecy, unkindness, loves his daughter, goes to fraud for her sake (although personal gain is important to him)
It is interesting to reveal the truly Russian mentality in the topic of bankruptcy.
Bolshov suspects everyone of stealing, but he himself encourages it:
“Remember, Lazarus, how many times I noticed that you are unclean in your hand! Well? I didn’t drive you away... I made you the chief clerk.”
The situation at first glance is absurd: Samson Silych entrusts his position, his fortune and his daughter to a thief!
Bolshov is an old merchant, for him moral prohibitions and norms are alive. He deceives others, the state is only for the sake of the family - this basic value of the patriarchal world. And trusting the deceiver Lazarus, he sees in him the same fraudster; he is ready to seal the similarity in spirit by marriage, giving his only daughter in marriage. But Lazarus has his own family! And he lies and perjures himself to protect his family. Nevertheless, in Rus' the custom of caring for parents is alive, which Lazar and Olympiada Samsonovna are hypocritically violating. Drama is built on this contradiction; it is this that evokes Samson Silych’s insight.
The atmosphere of lies and deceit does not pass without leaving a trace. “To live with wolves is to howl like a wolf,” says a Russian proverb. Lies infect, morally disfigure and cripple people. The “educated” Lipochka turns out to be selfish and self-interested, which amazes even her father:
“Well, my dear, they are better than you and me... Well, will you order me to give you the money, and go back to wearing cotton dresses?”
Here even the hardened deceiver Bolshov asks: “Are you people?”
In this play, typification, language and composition are subordinated to satirical denunciation. All defining images are consistently negative, characterized by one sharply, prominent feature: Bolshov’s tyranny and predation; the deliberate fraud of Podkhalyuzin, who basely deceived the matchmaker, the solicitor, and even his father-in-law’s benefactor; Lipochka's carnivorous egoism and ignorance; the arrogant trickery and unbridled flattery of the matchmaker. The characters' language is emphatically comical. Lipochka, for example, makes you laugh with her mannered pretentiousness: “So melancholy dazzles in the eyes.”
External comic devices are used liberally in the play. Agrafena Kondratyevna runs after her dancing daughter, and then cries with her for no reason. Tishka imitates herself in front of the mirror.
The play was written in 1849, published in 1850. It was read with success by the author and artists “almost every day.”
Welcomed by the entire progressive public, the comedy was met with hostility by reactionary circles and dramatic censorship. In addition to the ban on production, the play was even banned from reprinting - by aiming at portraying Bolshov as a merchant tyrant, Ostrovsky also ended up as an all-Russian tyrant. Therefore, the resolution of Nicholas I was as follows: “It is in vain that it was printed, but it is forbidden to play.” In connection with this, the playwright was placed under secret police and gendarmerie surveillance, and he was forced to leave his service in the Commercial Court. From that time on, literary work became his only source of existence. "Storm".
The problem of the dramatic genre. The emotional drama of Katerina. Theme of sin, retribution and repentance. “The Thunderstorm” became a turning point in Ostrovsky’s work. He departs from his Muscovite beliefs and makes full use of the means and method of critical realism. As already mentioned, an “alarming beginning” comes to Ostrovsky’s dramaturgy. The main image becomes the image of the tragedy of the personal principle, born in a patriarchal world, in which this personal, individual has no place.
It hardly makes sense to focus on the problem of the genre of the play - the main thing was outlined in the first part, in the general picture of the genre composition of Ostrovsky's dramaturgy. Therefore, I will give only general points:
The nature of the conflict in “Thunderstorm”, the presence of such a phenomenon as catharsis, make it possible to challenge the author’s definition of the genre, but it can be explained. Firstly, in Ostrovsky’s time it was not customary to call plays from the lives of private people tragedies (Even the tragedy “Romeo and Juliet” in the Russian translation was characterized as “drama”). Secondly, the literary reputation of this genre was inevitably associated with classicism. The author himself sometimes quite caustically ridiculed modern “tragians”, so he himself was in no hurry to label the play a tragedy.
The basis of the tragedy is a personal tragedy, the tragedy of Katerina. The personal principle, which arises as the antagonist of everything patriarchal, does not yet know how to express it as a socio-political tragedy, therefore it takes the form of love. Katerina herself feels this vaguely: “Some kind of dream is creeping into my head.” Still, this process is inevitable, she adds: “And I won’t leave her anywhere.” This confrontation is clearly shown throughout the play; all the characters here seem to be divided into two camps: people old and new. The tyranny and despotism of some and the courage and determination of others are clearly expressed, on the one hand, in the images of Dikiy, Kabanikha, and on the other, Varvara and Kuligin. There are also almost neutral characters, like Boris Grigorievich - smart, educated... but not strong enough to break off the chains imposed by society and, above all, by his uncle, the merchant Dikiy. He really loves Katerina, but is not ready to give up his inheritance (although he is unlikely to receive it even in this case), or his status. He values the opinion of the old world. Tikhon is even more enslaved: his mother’s tyranny is invincible, his quiet (note: quiet Tikhon, Ostrovsky is faithful to the tradition of significant names) protest and his only joy is drinking. “No, they say, it’s just his own mind. and, therefore, live as someone else’s. I’ll take the last one I have and drink it; Then let mummy babysit me like I’m a fool.” We see an implicit, but protest. Tikhon is stuck too deep - he believes that he has no mind of his own. But we see from the outside that Tikhon’s small mind is combined with a great tenderness of soul, which could replace reason in the new world. He says, “My wife committed a great sin against me,” but he himself weakly believes in it, and he realizes that she has long ago atoned for this sin with her spiritual cuttings: “She walks like a shadow, unrequited. It just cries and melts like wax.”
But Katerina is the most difficult. She is not a person of the past, not a person of the future... but she is too direct to be neutral, in the middle. When Katerina tells how carefree she lived before, Varvara objects to her: “But it’s the same with us.”
Katerina: “Yes, everything here seems to be from under captivity. And until death
I loved going to church!”
One can perceive this slip of the tongue not just as an idiom, an expression, but also as an important point: Katerina died long before her suicide. How else can we explain the fact that fear (“fear, such and such fear comes over me! It’s as if I’m standing over an abyss and someone is pushing me there, but I have nothing to hold on to”) appears almost at the very beginning of the play, even before the imaginary Katerina’s sin, but at the same time, at the moment of suicide, she is completely calm?
What is she most afraid of? Thunderstorms, because “It’s not so scary what will kill you, but what death will suddenly find
as you are, with all your sins, with all your evil thoughts. I'm not afraid to die."
In my opinion, Katerina dies at the moment when she timidly opens her soul towards a new world: when she falls in love and meets Boris Grigorievich, when she confesses everything (the honesty of her soul is an innate quality, but clearly incompatible with the patriarchal foundations of centuries-old lies). But old Katerina, who belongs to the world of Wild and Boars, dies. By dying, she gains freedom. Saying goodbye to Tikhon, who is going to Moscow, she says goodbye, “God be with you!” - together with the departed Tikhon, she loses both faith in God and her former self. So she prays, “For God’s sake, don’t leave.” And Tikhon himself lets her go, albeit unconsciously: “What are you doing! What you! What a sin! I don’t even want to listen!”
Katerina herself understands that this was the last obstacle on the path of the elements that had broken through: “I should even die and see him,” she says to herself. And from now on she is free. But she is also dead - for the old world, for her former self: a pious girl with an “angelic smile”, believing in God, loving her husband...
A strange feature lies in the mention of the thunderstorm itself in the play. Only people from the “old camp” talk about her: the rich lady, Dikoy and Katerina herself, even before her liberation. For them, this is a symbol of God’s punishment: Dikoy explains that “The thunderstorm is sent to us as punishment, so that we can feel it.” But a thunderstorm, lightning, rain are for nature a symbol of purification and freshness! A representative of the new people, Kuligin, says:
“Well, why are you afraid!.. Now every grass, every flower is rejoicing... this is not a thunderstorm, but grace! Yes, grace!
And washing away the remnants of the dirt of the old world, Katerina confesses to her sin. This is already a new Katerina, although she is tormented by doubts and remorse, but these are just honest remorse, which are inherent in a free person and which are deprived of the inhabitants of the patriarchal world, who have a different ideal - “as long as it’s covered.”
The word "sin" appears most often in the play. Katerina is afraid of him, everyone around her reproaches her for her sin. But this is the concept of the old, hypocritical, deceitful world, where sin is only a way to command, intimidate, and subjugate. Katerina herself mentions sin long before he himself, but after that this concept is heard only from other people’s lips - because pure love ceased to be a sin for her when old Katerina died. Katerina speaks calmly about her death - the way she should speak about something that has already happened: “It’s easier to die.” And when Tikhon says that “it’s not enough to kill her for this” - but it’s true. What is death to someone who is already dead? Trifle.
But still, the liberated Katerina cannot completely break ties with this inert world; the pressure of patriarchal foundations forces her to finally say goodbye to them. Boris is also aware of this need:
“We only need to ask God for one thing: that she die as soon as possible, so that she does not suffer for a long time.” She has already died, but is still tormented - Boris intends to ask God (and Katerina herself asks that she give to every beggar on the road, and they pray for her soul) - she herself is already dead and cannot ask.
Aware of the contradiction between inner freedom and the pressure of the world, Katerina says “it’s all the same that death will come, that it itself... but you can’t live!”
This, in my opinion, is the explanation of the long-standing mystery: how could a pious heroine decide on the grave sin of suicide? For the already dead, “melting like wax” Katerina, there is no difference. She recalls: “Will they not pray? He who loves will pray...” She no longer cares about the assessment of the old world. And whoever loves, who is pure, far from ossified norms and rules - he will understand, he will pray from a pure heart. And she doesn’t need false prayers. And as if emphasizing indifference to the outside, she adds “Hands folded crosswise ... in a coffin
“But who sees them in the coffin? And the position of the bones will not be important to the immortal soul.
Pulling Katerina out of the water, people notice: “Exactly, guys, she looks like she’s alive.
!
a small
on the temple , and
there’s only
one
drop of blood.”
"Dowry" as a psychological drama.
Larisa Ogudalova in the character system. Theme of buying and selling. In 1878, A.N. Ostrovsky completed his play “Dowry”; in 1879 it was first published and staged. Since then, she has practically never disappeared from the stage, enjoying enormous success. Even now it is one of the most popular plays in the classical repertoire; the film “Cruel Romance” was based on it. What attracts the viewer to this drama?
In comparison with The Thunderstorm, Ostrovsky used a completely different method - the method of psychological authenticity. Recreating the environment, the situation, creating a plot, the genius of the playwright creates realistic characters and masterfully shows the inner train of thought, justifying every action, every impulse of the soul. This drama most fully reflected the realistic tendencies of Ostrovsky's work.
The situation underlying the plot and the title of the play is not new. Dowrylessness is a typical phenomenon for that time. Dramatic tension increases due to the internal contradiction of Larisa Ogudalova. Born into a noble family, she is deprived of wealth. Abandoned by a profitable, prominent groom - Paratov, she is forced to look for a new couple. Due to the straightforwardness of her character, many rich gentlemen, who could make her at least a decent match, venture away from her mother’s house - because Larisa does not hesitate to tell the truth to her face. The last one who, despite three years of humiliation, is ready to marry her is Karandyshev (according to the author’s commentary, a poor official).
True realization comes to Larisa only at the last moment, when she agrees with Karandyshev:
“The thing...yes, the thing! " But “Every thing has its own price,” and “if you are a thing, there is only one consolation - to be expensive, very expensive.”
Knurov and Vozhevatov spoke about this much earlier:
Knurov: “...this woman is created for luxury. An expensive diamond requires an expensive setting.”
Vozhevatov: “And a good jeweler.”
Karandyshev cannot be a good jeweler; he is poor and unable to provide Larisa with a decent frame. But she consoles herself with the thought that she can break herself by changing the entire situation, which is why she is so eager to go to the village. But Karandyshev does not know how to understand this complex mental struggle; he wants to “show off.” Ostrovsky’s psychologism is valuable here, as he conveys Larisa’s tossing with the smallest strokes. She was also resigned, then again encouraged by hope for Paratov, then completely crushed.
Larisa's death is not accidental - she searches for her and finds her. Unlike the same Katerina, she has not yet had time to come to terms with herself, she is feverishly looking for ways to salvation... but Karandyshev’s accidental, in the heat of the moment, shot is much better than anything she was ready for - money for her is not a determining factor, she has a husband must at least respect...but above all, respect yourself.
“It’s me myself” justifies Karandyshev Larisa, since he really did the greatest and noblest thing in his life - he saved Larisa from torment.
“I don’t want to disturb anyone!” Larisa says and this describes her best. Unlike other heroes, whose behavior is based only on personal interest, she is deeply altruistic. This is the special place of Larisa Ogudalova among the characters in the play - the world of the other characters is built solely on personal gain.
It is no coincidence that money, profit and other attributes of a merchant appear so often in conversations. The critical power of Ostrovsky has not disappeared anywhere, even in his early comedies he denounced the growing strength of the bourgeoisie, the tribe to which the silver ruble is most dear. It’s just that the denunciation has outgrown the comedy genre and has become more subtle - the playwright shows how the lives of open, honest people are ruined by the dry, cold calculation of merchants. Psychologically, Ostrovsky shows that a person cannot change his mindset, his habit of thinking: if he is a merchant during the day, then at night he will be a merchant, still soberly assessing the chances, possibilities, consequences. And he doesn’t care about the soul, the fate of others, his goal is personal gain.
The theme of buying and selling permeates the entire drama; the plot line is assembled on it, like on a spit; the unfolding tragedy is subtly and mercilessly strung onto it. This is the right place to mention the symbolism of names. The use of characteristic first and last names is very characteristic of Ostrovsky’s creative method. And if we can guess the surnames right away, then it’s worth taking a closer look at the names. Larisa means “seagull”, because this is not without reason. Paratov sells “Swallow” because he needs capital - to get married. He abandons Larissa the Seagull for exactly the same reason. The two birds are very close to each other in fate, which gives the right to talk about a metaphor, to equate “Swallow” and Larisa. In general, conversations about “Swallow” are very pragmatic, as is the attitude towards Larisa, her feelings, her soul. Even from the lips of those who sympathize with Ogudalova’s fate, the evaluative characteristics “Cheap”, “looks like a bazaar”, “they are cheap” (about Larisa’s tears) constantly come out. Vozhevatov pronounces a wonderful phrase:
“You have to pay for pleasures... and being in their house is a great pleasure.” And he is ready to pay for Larisa as for a thing. And Knurov is ready. And even Karandyshev, who, “going broke,” arranges a “chic feast” with “expensive” wines and cigars. Karandyshev’s only problem is that he is ready to pay, but he has nothing to pay with! And he is not an artist, not a jeweler (using Knurov’s metaphor) - he cannot even swing enough to show off at a level worthy of Larisa the Thing.
Paratov himself describes himself and his attitude towards Larisa in one phrase. Knurov asks him: Don’t you mind selling “Swallow”? (and we remember that Larisa is hiding behind the witty metaphor).
Paratov: “What a pity, I don’t know... I’ll find a profit, so I’ll sell everything, anything.”
Larisa's mental suffering is of concern only to herself. Those around her can only understand her desire for profit and at the last moment she gives in under pressure, she is ready to live on Knurov’s support... but then a shot from a fake, cheap pistol puts everything in its place.
Larisa thanks Karandyshev for being the only one who pleased her soul. He did not allow her to become a thing, a pragmatic detail of this world of traders, and for this she thanks him “tenderly.” Poor Karandyshev was partly saved precisely by his poverty - if he had been richer, the last remnants of true feeling would have disappeared in him. This is how the conflict of the drama is resolved: Larisa dies, forgiving everyone. The world is being brought into balance: now there are no “alien elements” in it that are outside the monetary Kabbalah.
The ending is deeply tragic; the words “Let those who have fun have fun” only emphasize that Larisa is not the only one who cannot live only for profit. By dying, she relieves everyone of an irritating factor that does not fit into the financial summary - from the heart. She is here alone, so she must leave so as not to interfere.
“You are good people...you need to live, but I need...to die,” we conclude together with Ostrovsky. Volga in "The Thunderstorm" and "Dowry".
“The Thunderstorm” and “Dowry” are two different stages of the great playwright’s work, two different approaches. There are 20 years between them, during which life in Russia has undergone radical changes. These changes were reflected in the plays. The merchants in “The Dowry” are no longer ignorant and tyrant representatives of the “dark kingdom”, but people who pretend to be educated, read foreign newspapers, and dress in European style. The city of Bryakhimov is not separated from the rest of the world, like Kalinov, it is not excluded from historical time, it is open, people come and go to it.
In “The Thunderstorm,” the Volga River is perceived primarily as a border, beyond which a world inaccessible to the city’s inhabitants extends, and in “The Dowry,” it becomes a means of communication with the world; steamships constantly ply along it—a thing completely unimaginable in Kalinov.
In “The Thunderstorm,” the Volga is perceived as the border of another world; one must pass through it in order to plunge into the new world. “They should take me and throw me into the Volga,” Katerina prays.
In “The Dowry,” the Volga builds all the intrigue and action: Paratov sails along it, and he and the gypsies sail along it for a walk. In her, Larisa is looking for a way out: “Either you rejoice, mom, or look for me in the Volga.”
For her, the Volga means “Lots of space.”
Interestingly, both heroines are planning to commit suicide. But Katerina is pure, solid (like a stone, as evidenced by the symbolism of her patronymic), her choice is the Volga. But the river does not kill her, death is caused by a blow to the anchor - the river has remained an insurmountable border of the old world, from which you can only escape by dying.
Larisa never decided to commit suicide: she did not go through purification, only at the last moment she forgives everyone. Therefore, it is very symbolic that even when preparing for suicide, she is about to fall on the rocks - the river for her means freedom, happiness, which she refuses, intending to die.
A.N.
Ostrovsky skillfully used language, many linguistic means, but above all, symbolism. I believe that this topic has not yet been sufficiently developed, and excellent material for future research can be found here. Thank you for your attention!!! Literature.
- A.N. Ostrovsky "Selected Plays"
- A.N. Ostrovsky “Letters, speeches, notes”
- Revyakin A.N. "The Art of Ostrovsky's Drama"
- Zhuravleva A.I. Nekrasov A.N. "Theatre A.N. Ostrovsky"
- Electronic online dictionary of symbols https://www.slovarik.ru/slovari/sim/
- Electronic online dictionary of names https://www.slovarik.ru/slovari/nam/
Features of the dramaturgy of A. N. Ostrovsky
The plays of the great Russian playwright Alexander Nikolaevich Ostrovsky were staged on many stages around the world. Meanwhile, they are distinguished by the versatility of their themes, which is associated with the evolution of his views on the social and political situation in Russia.
Ostrovsky began his career with satire. He chooses the merchants as the subject of his satire. Thus, in the comedy “Our People - Let's Be Numbered,” the writer with amazing accuracy describes the merchant environment in which fraud and scams are perceived as the order of things. The hero, the merchant Bolshov, personifies the typical characteristic features of the commercial and industrial environment.
Does your teacher check for plagiarism? Order a unique work from us for 250 rubles
Connect with us:
The theme of bureaucracy is touched upon by Ostrovsky in the play “The Poor Bride,” which describes the life and customs of bureaucracy in deeply realistic colors. Using the example of the story of the poor bride Marya Andreevna Nezabudkina, the general hopelessness of a woman’s position under serfdom is shown.
Under the influence of the reactionary Slavophile environment, Ostrovsky begins to take an interest in patriarchal antiquity, his views on which were clearly manifested in such plays as “Poverty is not a vice”, “Don’t live as you want” and “Don’t sit in your own sleigh”. In them, the playwright poses mainly not social and property issues, but moral and everyday ones.
Ostrovsky was not under the influence of Slavophile ideas for long, largely thanks to the criticism of Chernyshevsky and Nekrasov. This was facilitated by the powerful rise of the liberation movement during this period. In the plays “Profitable Place”, “The Thunderstorm”, “The Pupil” the author, to one degree or another, touches on the conflicts between the rich and the poor, the oppressed and the oppressors, progressive-minded members of society and conservatives, and opposes the entire bureaucratic system.
The play “The Thunderstorm” is considered a kind of culmination of the playwright’s creative achievements, since after it he devoted almost all his free time to historical topics. And this was not accidental, because in the existing socio-political conditions the eyes of all progressive-minded people were turned to the historical past of the country. It was there that they tried to find answers to pressing questions of our time. An example is such works of the writer as “Kozma Zakharych Minin-Sukhoruk”, “Voevoda”, “Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky”.
