The significance of Ostrovsky in the history of Russian theater is extracurricular. “The significance of Ostrovsky’s creativity for the ideological and aesthetic development of literature

In connection with the 35th anniversary of Ostrovsky’s activity, Goncharov wrote to him: “You alone built the building, the foundation of which was laid by Fonvizin, Griboyedov, Gogol. But only after you can we, Russians, proudly say: “We have our own, Russian, national theater.” It, in fairness, should be called “Ostrovsky Theater”.

The role played by Ostrovsky in the development of Russian theater and drama can well be compared with the importance that Shakespeare had for English culture, and Moliere for French culture. Ostrovsky changed the nature of the Russian theater repertoire, summed up everything that had been done before him, and opened new paths for dramaturgy. His influence on theatrical art was extremely great. This especially applies to the Moscow Maly Theater, which is traditionally also called the Ostrovsky House. Thanks to numerous plays by the great playwright, who established the traditions of realism on stage, the national school of acting was further developed. A whole galaxy of wonderful Russian actors, based on Ostrovsky’s plays, were able to clearly demonstrate their unique talent and establish the originality of Russian theatrical art.

At the center of Ostrovsky’s dramaturgy is a problem that has passed through all of Russian classical literature: the conflict of a person with the unfavorable living conditions opposing him, the diverse forces of evil; assertion of the individual’s right to free and comprehensive development. A wide panorama of Russian life is revealed to readers and spectators of the plays of the great playwright. This is, in essence, an encyclopedia of life and customs of an entire historical era. Merchants, officials, landowners, peasants, generals, actors, businessmen, matchmakers, businessmen, students - several hundred characters created by Ostrovsky gave a total idea of ​​Russian reality of the 40-80s . in all its complexity, diversity and inconsistency.

Ostrovsky, who created a whole gallery of wonderful female images, continued that noble tradition that had already been defined in Russian classics. The playwright exalts strong, integral natures, which in some cases turn out to be morally superior to the weak, insecure hero. These are Katerina (“The Thunderstorm”), Nadya (“The Pupil”), Kruchinina (“Guilty Without Guilt”), Natalya (“Labor Bread”), etc.

Reflecting on the uniqueness of Russian dramatic art, on its democratic basis, Ostrovsky wrote: “People’s writers want to try their hand at a fresh audience, whose nerves are not very pliable, which requires strong drama, great comedy, provocativeness.” great frank, loud laughter, warm, sincere feelings, lively and strong characters.” Essentially this is a characteristic of Ostrovsky’s own creative principles.

The dramaturgy of the author of “The Thunderstorm” is distinguished by genre diversity, a combination of tragic and comic elements, everyday and grotesque, farcical and lyrical. His plays are sometimes difficult to classify into one specific genre. He wrote not so much drama or comedy, but rather “plays of life,” according to Dobrolyubov’s apt definition. The action of his works is often carried out into a wide living space. The noise and chatter of life burst into action and become one of the factors determining the scale of events. Family conflicts develop into public conflicts. Material from the site

The playwright's skill is manifested in the accuracy of social and psychological characteristics, in the art of dialogue, in accurate, lively folk speech. The language of the characters becomes one of his main means of creating an image, a tool of realistic typification.

An excellent connoisseur of oral folk art, Ostrovsky made extensive use of folklore traditions, the richest treasury of folk wisdom. A song can replace a monologue, a proverb or a saying can become the title of a play.

Ostrovsky's creative experience had a tremendous impact on the further development of Russian drama and theatrical art. V. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko and K. S. Stanislavsky, the founders of the Moscow Art Theater, sought to create “a people’s theater with approximately the same tasks and plans as Ostrovsky dreamed.” The dramatic innovation of Chekhov and Gorky would have been impossible without their mastery of the best traditions of their remarkable predecessor.

Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the search

On this page there is material on the following topics:

• Essay on Ostpovsky's life and his significance in the development of Russian theater
• Ostrovsky articles about the theater
• summary of the Ostrovsky Theater

The playwright almost did not raise political and philosophical problems in his work, facial expressions and gestures, through playing out the details of their costumes and everyday furnishings. To enhance the comic effects, the playwright usually introduced minor persons into the plot - relatives, servants, hangers-on, random passers-by - and incidental circumstances of everyday life. Such, for example, is Khlynov’s retinue and the gentleman with a mustache in “A Warm Heart,” or Apollo Murzavetsky with his Tamerlane in the comedy “Wolves and Sheep,” or the actor Schastlivtsev with Neschastlivtsev and Paratov in “The Forest” and “Dowry,” etc. The playwright continued to strive to reveal the characters’ characters not only in the course of events, but no less through the peculiarities of their everyday dialogues - “characterological” dialogues, which he aesthetically mastered in “His People...”.
Thus, in the new period of creativity, Ostrovsky appears as an established master, possessing a complete system of dramatic art. His fame and his social and theatrical connections continue to grow and become more complex. The sheer abundance of plays created in the new period was the result of an ever-increasing demand for Ostrovsky's plays from magazines and theaters. During these years, the playwright not only worked tirelessly, but found the strength to help less gifted and beginning writers, and sometimes actively participate with them in their work. Thus, in the creative collaboration with Ostrovsky, a number of plays were written by N. Solovyov (the best of them are “The Marriage of Belugin” and “Savage”), as well as by P. Nevezhin.
Constantly promoting the production of his plays on the stages of the Moscow Maly and St. Petersburg Alexandria theaters, Ostrovsky was well aware of the state of theatrical affairs, which were mainly under the jurisdiction of the bureaucratic state apparatus, and was bitterly aware of their glaring shortcomings. He saw that he did not depict the noble and bourgeois intelligentsia in their ideological quests, as Herzen, Turgenev, and partly Goncharov did. In his plays, he showed the everyday social life of ordinary representatives of the merchants, bureaucrats, and nobility, life where personal, particularly love, conflicts revealed clashes of family, monetary, and property interests.
But Ostrovsky’s ideological and artistic awareness of these aspects of Russian life had a deep national-historical meaning. Through the everyday relationships of those people who were the masters and masters of life, their general social condition was revealed. Just as, according to Chernyshevsky’s apt remark, the cowardly behavior of the young liberal, the hero of Turgenev’s story “Asya,” on a date with a girl was a “symptom of the disease” of all noble liberalism, its political weakness, so the everyday tyranny and predation of merchants, officials, and nobles appeared a symptom of a more terrible disease is their complete inability to at least in any way give their activities national progressive significance.
This was quite natural and logical in the pre-reform period. Then the tyranny, arrogance, and predation of the Voltovs, Vyshnevskys, and Ulanbekovs were a manifestation of the “dark kingdom” of serfdom, already doomed to be scrapped. And Dobrolyubov correctly pointed out that, although Ostrovsky’s comedy “cannot provide the key to explaining many of the bitter phenomena depicted in it,” nevertheless, “it can easily lead to many analogous considerations related to everyday life that does not directly concern.” And the critic explained this by the fact that the “types” of tyrants drawn by Ostrovsky “are not. rarely contain not only exclusively merchant or bureaucratic, but also national (i.e. national) features.” In other words, Ostrovsky's plays of 1840-1860. indirectly exposed all the “dark kingdoms” of the autocratic-serf system.
In the post-reform decades, the situation changed. Then “everything turned upside down” and a new, bourgeois system of Russian life gradually began to “establish itself.” And of enormous, national importance was the question of how exactly this new system was “fitted”, to what extent the new ruling class, the Russian bourgeoisie, could take part in the struggle for the destruction of the remnants of the “dark kingdom” of serfdom and the entire autocratic-landowner system.
Almost twenty new plays by Ostrovsky on modern themes gave a clear negative answer to this fatal question. The playwright, as before, depicted the world of private social, everyday, family and property relations. Not everything was clear to him about the general trends of their development, and his “lyre” sometimes made not quite the “right sounds” in this regard. But in general, Ostrovsky's plays contained a certain objective orientation. They exposed both the remnants of the old “dark kingdom” of despotism and the newly emerging “dark kingdom” of bourgeois predation, money rush, and the death of all moral values ​​in an atmosphere of general buying and selling. They showed that Russian businessmen and industrialists are not capable of rising to the level of awareness of the interests of national development, that some of them, such as Khlynov and Akhov, are only capable of indulging in crude pleasures, others, like Knurov and Berkutov, can only subjugate everything around them with their predatory, “wolf” interests, and for still others, such as Vasilkov or Frol Pribytkov, the interests of profit are only covered up by external decency and very narrow cultural demands. Ostrovsky's plays, in addition to the plans and intentions of their author, objectively outlined a certain prospect for national development - the prospect of the inevitable destruction of all remnants of the old “dark kingdom” of autocratic-serf despotism, not only without the participation of the bourgeoisie, not only over its head, but along with the destruction of its own predatory "dark kingdom"
The reality depicted in Ostrovsky's everyday plays was a form of life devoid of nationally progressive content, and therefore easily revealed internal comic inconsistency. Ostrovsky dedicated his outstanding dramatic talent to its disclosure. Based on the tradition of Gogol's realistic comedies and stories, rebuilding it in accordance with the new aesthetic demands put forward by the “natural school” of the 1840s and formulated by Belinsky and Herzen, Ostrovsky traced the comic inconsistency of the social and everyday life of the ruling strata of Russian society, delving into the “world details,” looking thread by thread at the “web of daily relationships.” This was the main achievement of the new dramatic style created by Ostrovsky.

Essay on literature on the topic: The significance of Ostrovsky’s work for the ideological and aesthetic development of literature

Other writings:

1. A.S. Pushkin entered the history of Russia as an extraordinary phenomenon. This is not only the greatest poet, but also the founder of the Russian literary language, the founder of new Russian literature. “Pushkin’s muse,” according to V. G. Belinsky, “was nourished and educated by the works of previous poets.” On Read More......
2. Alexander Nikolaevich Ostrovsky... This is an unusual phenomenon. His role in the history of the development of Russian drama, performing arts and the entire national culture can hardly be overestimated. For the development of Russian drama, he did as much as Shakespeare in England, Lone de Vega in Spain, Moliere Read More ......
3. Tolstoy was very strict about artisan writers who composed their “works” without real passion and without the conviction that people needed them. Tolstoy retained his passionate, selfless dedication to creativity until the last days of his life. While working on the novel “Resurrection,” he admitted: “I Read More ......
4. A. N. Ostrovsky is rightfully considered a singer of the merchant milieu, the father of Russian everyday drama, Russian theater. He is the author of about sixty plays, of which the most famous are “The Dowry”, “Late Love”, “Forest”, “Simplicity is Enough for Every Wise Man”, “Our People – We Will Be Numbered”, “The Thunderstorm” and Read More ..... .
5. Discussing the power of “inertia, numbness” that hobbles a person, A. Ostrovsky noted: “It is not without reason that I called this force Zamoskvoretskaya: there, beyond the Moscow River, is its kingdom, there is its throne. She drives a man into a stone house and locks the iron gates behind him, she dresses Read More......
6. In European culture, the novel embodies ethics, just as church architecture embodies the idea of ​​faith, and the sonnet embodies the idea of ​​love. An outstanding novel is not only a cultural event; it means much more than just a step forward in the literary craft. This is a monument to the era; monumental monument, Read More ......
7. The merciless truth spoken by Gogol about his contemporary society, his ardent love for the people, the artistic perfection of his works - all this determined the role that the great writer played in the history of Russian and world literature, in establishing the principles of critical realism, in the development of democratic Read More .. ....
8. Krylov belonged to the Russian enlighteners of the 18th century, led by Radishchev. But Krylov was unable to rise to the idea of ​​uprising against autocracy and serfdom. He believed that the social system could be improved through the moral re-education of people, that social issues should be resolved Read More......

It is unlikely that it will be possible to briefly describe the work of Alexander Ostrovsky, since this man left a great contribution to the development of literature.

He wrote about many things, but most of all in the history of literature he is remembered as a good playwright.

Popularity and features of creativity

Popularity of A.N. Ostrovsky brought the work “Our people - we will be numbered.” After it was published, his work was appreciated by many writers of that time.

This gave confidence and inspiration to Alexander Nikolaevich himself.

After such a successful debut, he wrote many works that played a significant role in his work. These include the following:

• "Forest"
• "Talents and Fans"
• "Dowry."

All of his plays can be called psychological dramas, since in order to understand what the writer wrote about, you need to delve deeply into his work. The characters in his plays were versatile personalities that not everyone could understand. In his works, Ostrovsky examined how the country’s values ​​were collapsing.

Each of his plays has a realistic ending; the author did not try to end everything with a positive ending, like many writers; for him, the most important thing was to show real, rather than fictional, life in his works. In his works, Ostrovsky tried to depict the life of the Russian people, and, moreover, he did not embellish it at all - but wrote what he saw around him.

Childhood memories also served as subjects for his works. A distinctive feature of his work can be called the fact that his works were not entirely censored, but despite this, they remained popular. Perhaps the reason for his popularity was that the playwright tried to present Russia to readers as it is. Nationality and realism are the main criteria that Ostrovsky adhered to when writing his works.

Work in recent years

A.N. Ostrovsky became particularly involved in creativity in the last years of his life; it was then that he wrote the most significant dramas and comedies for his work. All of them were written for a reason; mainly his works describe the tragic fates of women who have to deal with their problems alone. Ostrovsky was a playwright from God; it would seem that he managed to write very easily, thoughts themselves came to his head. But he also wrote works where he had to work hard.

In his latest works, the playwright developed new techniques for presenting text and expressiveness - which became distinctive in his work. His style of writing works was highly appreciated by Chekhov, which for Alexander Nikolaevich is beyond praise. He tried in his work to show the internal struggle of the heroes.

Alexander Nikolaevich Ostrovsky (1823-1886) rightfully occupies a worthy place among the largest representatives of world drama.

The significance of the activities of Ostrovsky, who for more than forty years annually published in the best magazines of Russia and staged plays on the stages of the imperial theaters of St. Petersburg and Moscow, many of which were events in the literary and theatrical life of the era, is briefly but accurately described in the famous letter of I.A. . Goncharov, addressed to the playwright himself.

“You have donated a whole library of works of art to literature, and you have created your own special world for the stage. You alone completed the building, the foundation of which was laid by Fonvizin, Griboyedov, Gogol. But only after you, we Russians can proudly say: “We have our own Russian, national theater.” It, in fairness, should be called the Ostrovsky Theater."

Ostrovsky began his creative journey in the 40s, during the lifetime of Gogol and Belinsky, and completed it in the second half of the 80s, at a time when A.P. Chekhov was already firmly established in literature.

The conviction that the work of a playwright creating a theater repertoire is a high public service permeated and directed Ostrovsky’s activities. He was organically connected with the life of literature.

In his youth, the playwright wrote critical articles and participated in the editorial affairs of Moskvityanin, trying to change the direction of this conservative magazine, then, publishing in Sovremennik and Otechestvennye Zapiski, he became friendly with N. A. Nekrasov and L. N. Tolstoy , I. S. Turgenev, I. A. Goncharov and other writers. He followed their work, discussed their works with them and listened to their opinions about his plays.

In an era when state theaters were officially considered “imperial” and were under the control of the Ministry of the Court, and provincial entertainment institutions were placed at the complete disposal of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs, Ostrovsky put forward the idea of ​​​​a complete restructuring of the theatrical business in Russia. He argued for the need to replace the court and commercial theater with a folk one.

Not limiting himself to the theoretical development of this idea in special articles and notes, the playwright practically fought for its implementation for many years. The main areas in which he realized his views on theater were his creativity and work with actors.

Ostrovsky considered dramaturgy, the literary basis of the performance, to be its defining element. The theater's repertoire, which gives the viewer the opportunity to “see Russian life and Russian history on stage,” according to his concepts, was addressed primarily to the democratic public, “for whom popular writers want to write and are obliged to write.” Ostrovsky defended the principles of author's theater.

He considered the theaters of Shakespeare, Moliere, and Goethe to be exemplary experiments of this kind. The combination in one person of the author of dramatic works and their interpreter on stage - a teacher of actors, a director - seemed to Ostrovsky to be a guarantee of artistic integrity and the organic activity of the theater.

This idea, in the absence of direction, with the traditional focus of theatrical performance on the performance of individual, “solo” actors, was innovative and fruitful. Its significance has not been exhausted even today, when the director has become the main figure in the theater. It is enough to recall B. Brecht’s theater “Berliner Ensemble” to be convinced of this.

Overcoming the inertia of the bureaucratic administration, literary and theatrical intrigues, Ostrovsky worked with actors, constantly directing the productions of his new plays at the Maly Moscow and Alexandrinsky St. Petersburg theaters.

The essence of his idea was to implement and consolidate the influence of literature on the theater. He fundamentally and categorically condemned what was becoming more and more apparent since the 70s. the subordination of dramatic writers to the tastes of actors - favorites of the stage, their prejudices and whims. At the same time, Ostrovsky could not imagine drama without theater.

His plays were written with real performers and artists in mind. He emphasized: in order to write a good play, the author must have full knowledge of the laws of the stage, the purely plastic side of the theater.

He was not ready to give power over stage artists to not every playwright. He was sure that only a writer who created his own unique dramaturgy, his own special world on stage, has something to say to the artists, has something to teach them. Ostrovsky's attitude to modern theater was determined by his artistic system. The hero of Ostrovsky's dramaturgy was the people.

The whole society and, moreover, the socio-historical life of the people were represented in his plays. It was not without reason that critics N. Dobrolyubov and A. Grigoriev, who approached Ostrovsky’s work from mutually opposite positions, saw in his works a holistic picture of the existence of the people, although they assessed the life depicted by the writer differently.

This writer’s orientation towards the mass phenomena of life corresponded to the principle of ensemble acting, which he defended, the inherent awareness of the playwright of the importance of unity, the integrity of the creative aspirations of the group of actors participating in the play.

In his plays, Ostrovsky depicted social phenomena that have deep roots - conflicts, the origins and causes of which often go back to distant historical eras.

He saw and showed the fruitful aspirations arising in society, and the new evil rising in it. The bearers of new aspirations and ideas in his plays are forced to wage a difficult struggle with old conservative customs and views, sanctified by tradition, and in them new evil collides with the ethical ideal of the people that has evolved over centuries, with strong traditions of resistance to social injustice and moral injustice.

Each character in Ostrovsky's plays is organically connected with his environment, his era, the history of his people. At the same time, the ordinary person, in whose concepts, habits and very speech his kinship with the social and national world is imprinted, is the focus of interest in Ostrovsky's plays.

The individual fate of the individual, the happiness and misfortune of the individual, ordinary person, his needs, his struggle for his personal well-being excite the viewer of the dramas and comedies of this playwright. The position of a person serves in them as a measure of the state of society.

Moreover, the typicality of personality, the energy with which the individual characteristics of a person “affect” the life of the people, in Ostrovsky’s dramaturgy has important ethical and aesthetic significance. The character is wonderful.

Just as in Shakespeare’s drama the tragic hero, be he beautiful or terrible in terms of ethical assessment, belongs to the sphere of beauty, in Ostrovsky’s plays the characteristic hero, to the extent of his typicality, is the embodiment of aesthetics, and in a number of cases, spiritual wealth, historical life and culture of the people .

This feature of Ostrovsky’s dramaturgy predetermined his attention to the performance of each actor, to the performer’s ability to present a type on stage, to vividly and captivatingly recreate an individual, original social character.

Ostrovsky especially appreciated this ability in the best artists of his time, encouraging and helping to develop it. Addressing A.E. Martynov, he said: “...from several features sketched by an inexperienced hand, you created final types, full of artistic truth. This is what makes you so dear to the authors.”

Ostrovsky ended his discussion about the nationality of the theater, about the fact that dramas and comedies are written for the whole people with the words: “...dramatic writers must always remember this, they must be clear and strong.”

The clarity and strength of the author's creativity, in addition to the types created in his plays, finds expression in the conflicts of his works, built on simple life incidents, which, however, reflect the main conflicts of modern social life.

In his early article, positively assessing A.F. Pisemsky’s story “The Mattress,” Ostrovsky wrote: “The intrigue of the story is simple and instructive, like life. Because of the original characters, because of the natural and highly dramatic course of events, a noble thought, gained from everyday experience, comes through.

This story is truly a work of art." The natural dramatic course of events, original characters, depiction of the life of ordinary people - by listing these signs of true artistry in Pisemsky’s story, young Ostrovsky undoubtedly came from his reflections on the tasks of dramaturgy as an art.

It is characteristic that Ostrovsky attaches great importance to the instructiveness of a literary work. The instructiveness of art gives him the basis to compare and bring art closer to life.

Ostrovsky believed that the theater, gathering within its walls a large and diverse audience, uniting it with a sense of aesthetic pleasure, should educate society, help simple, unprepared spectators “understand life for the first time,” and give the educated “a whole perspective of thoughts that cannot be escaped.” (ibid.).

At the same time, abstract didactics was alien to Ostrovsky. “Anyone can have good thoughts, but control over minds and hearts is given only to a select few,” he reminded, mocking writers who replace serious artistic issues with edifying tirades and naked tendencies. Knowledge of life, its truthful realistic portrayal, reflection on the most pressing and complex issues for society - this is what the theater should present to the public, this is what makes the stage a school of life.

The artist teaches the viewer to think and feel, but does not give him ready-made solutions. Didactic dramaturgy, which does not reveal the wisdom and instructiveness of life, but replaces it with declaratively expressed truisms, is dishonest, since it is not artistic, while it is precisely for the sake of aesthetic impressions that people come to the theater.

These ideas of Ostrovsky found a peculiar refraction in her attitude to historical drama. The playwright argued that “historical dramas and chronicles<...>develop people’s self-knowledge and cultivate conscious love for the fatherland.”

At the same time, he emphasized that it is not the distortion of the past for the sake of one or another tendentious idea, not the external stage effect of melodrama on historical subjects, and not the transposition of scholarly monographs into a dialogical form, but a truly artistic recreation of the living reality of bygone centuries on stage can be the basis patriotic performance.

Such a performance helps society to understand itself, encourages reflection, giving a conscious character to the immediate feeling of love for the homeland. Ostrovsky understood that the plays he created annually formed the basis of the modern theatrical repertoire.

Defining the types of dramatic works, without which an exemplary repertoire cannot exist, he, in addition to dramas and comedies depicting modern Russian life, and historical chronicles, named extravaganzas, fairy tale plays for festive performances, accompanied by music and dance, designed as a colorful folk spectacle.

The playwright created a masterpiece of this kind - the spring fairy tale "The Snow Maiden", in which poetic fantasy and a picturesque setting are combined with deep lyrical and philosophical content.

History of Russian literature: in 4 volumes / Edited by N.I. Prutskov and others - L., 1980-1983.

(1843 – 1886).

Alexander Nikolaevich “Ostrovsky is a “giant of theatrical literature” (Lunacharsky), he created the Russian theater, an entire repertoire on which many generations of actors were brought up, the traditions of stage art were strengthened and developed. His role in the history of the development of Russian drama and the entire national culture can hardly be overestimated. He did as much for the development of Russian drama as Shakespeare in England, Lope de Vega in Spain, Moliere in France, Goldoni in Italy and Schiller in Germany.

“History has reserved the title of great and brilliant only for those writers who knew how to write for the whole people, and only those works have survived the centuries that were truly popular at home; such works over time become understandable and valuable for other peoples, and finally, and for the whole world." These words of the great playwright Alexander Nikolaevich Ostrovsky can be attributed to his own work.

Despite the oppression inflicted by the censorship, the theatrical and literary committee and the management of the imperial theaters, despite the criticism of reactionary circles, Ostrovsky's dramaturgy gained more and more sympathy every year among both democratic spectators and among artists.

Developing the best traditions of Russian dramatic art, using the experience of progressive foreign drama, tirelessly learning about the life of his native country, constantly communicating with the people, closely communicating with the most progressive contemporary public, Ostrovsky became an outstanding portrayer of the life of his time, embodying the dreams of Gogol, Belinsky and other progressive figures literature about the appearance and triumph of Russian characters on the Russian stage.

Ostrovsky's creative activity had a great influence on the entire further development of progressive Russian drama. It was from him that our best playwrights came and learned from him. It was to him that aspiring dramatic writers in their time gravitated.

The power of Ostrovsky’s influence on the young writers of his day can be evidenced by a letter to the playwright of the poetess A.D. Mysovskaya. “Do you know how great your influence was on me? It was not love for art that made me understand and appreciate you: but on the contrary, you taught me to both love and respect art. I owe it to you alone that I resisted the temptation to fall into the arena of pathetic literary mediocrity, and did not chase after cheap laurels thrown by the hands of sweet and sour half-educated people. You and Nekrasov made me fall in love with thought and work, but Nekrasov gave me only the first impetus, while you gave me the direction. Reading your works, I realized that rhyming is not poetry, and a set of phrases is not literature, and that only by cultivating intelligence and technique will an artist be a real artist.”

Ostrovsky had a powerful impact not only on the development of domestic drama, but also on the development of Russian theater. The colossal importance of Ostrovsky in the development of Russian theater is well emphasized in a poem dedicated to Ostrovsky and read in 1903 by M. N. Ermolova from the stage of the Maly Theater:

On the stage life itself, from the stage the truth blows,

And the bright sun caresses us and warms us...

The living speech of ordinary, living people sounds,

On stage there is not a “hero”, not an angel, not a villain,

But just a man... A happy actor

Hastens to quickly break the heavy shackles

Conventions and lies. Words and feelings are new,

But in the recesses of the soul there is an answer to them, -

And all lips whisper: blessed is the poet,

Tore off the shabby, tinsel covers

And shed a bright light into the dark kingdom

The famous artist wrote about the same thing in 1924 in her memoirs: “Together with Ostrovsky, truth itself and life itself appeared on the stage... The growth of original drama began, full of responses to modernity... They started talking about the poor, the humiliated and the insulted.”

The realistic direction, muted by the theatrical policy of the autocracy, continued and deepened by Ostrovsky, turned the theater onto the path of close connection with reality. Only it gave the theater life as a national, Russian, folk theater.

“You have donated a whole library of works of art to literature, and you have created your own special world for the stage. You alone completed the building, at the foundation of which Fonvizin, Griboyedov, Gogol laid the cornerstones.” This wonderful letter was received, among other congratulations, on the year of the thirty-fifth anniversary of literary and theatrical activity by Alexander Nikolaevich Ostrovsky from another great Russian writer, Goncharov.

But much earlier, about the very first work of the still young Ostrovsky, published in “Moskvityanin”, a subtle connoisseur of the elegant and sensitive observer V. F. Odoevsky wrote: “If this is not a momentary flash, not a mushroom squeezed out of the ground by itself, cut by all kinds of rot, then this man has enormous talent. I think there are three tragedies in Rus': “The Minor”, ​​“Woe from Wit”, “The Inspector General”. On “Bankrupt” I put number four.”

From such a promising first assessment to Goncharov’s anniversary letter - a full life, rich in work; labor, and which led to such a logical relationship of assessments, because talent requires, first of all, great work on itself, and the playwright did not sin before God - he did not bury his talent in the ground. Having published his first work in 1847, Ostrovsky has since written 47 plays, and translated more than twenty plays from European languages. And in total there are about a thousand characters in the folk theater he created.

Shortly before his death, in 1886, Alexander Nikolaevich received a letter from L.N. Tolstoy, in which the brilliant prose writer admitted: “I know from experience how people read, listen to and remember your works, and therefore I would like to help ensure that You have now quickly become in reality what you undoubtedly are - a writer of the entire people in the broadest sense.”

Even before Ostrovsky, progressive Russian drama had magnificent plays. Let’s remember Fonvizin’s “The Minor,” Griboyedov’s “Woe from Wit,” Pushkin’s “Boris Godunov,” Gogol’s “The Inspector General,” and Lermontov’s “Masquerade.” Each of these plays could enrich and decorate, as Belinsky rightly wrote, the literature of any Western European country.

But these plays were too few. And they did not determine the state of the theatrical repertoire. Figuratively speaking, they rose above the level of mass drama like lonely, rare mountains in an endless desert plain. The overwhelming majority of the plays that filled the theater stage of that time were translations of empty, frivolous vaudevilles and heartbreaking melodramas woven from horrors and crimes. Both vaudeville and melodrama, terribly far from life, were not even its shadow.

In the development of Russian drama and domestic theater, the appearance of A. N. Ostrovsky’s plays constituted an entire era. They sharply turned drama and theater towards life, towards its truth, towards what truly touched and worried people of the unprivileged segment of the population, working people. By creating “plays of life,” as Dobrolyubov called them, Ostrovsky acted as a fearless knight of truth, a tireless fighter against the dark kingdom of autocracy, a merciless denouncer of the ruling classes - the nobility, the bourgeoisie and the bureaucrats who faithfully served them.

But Ostrovsky did not limit himself to the role of a satirical exposer. He vividly and sympathetically portrayed victims of socio-political and family-domestic despotism, workers, lovers of truth, educators, warm-hearted Protestants against tyranny and violence.

The playwright not only made the positive heroes of his plays people of labor and progress, bearers of people's truth and wisdom, but also wrote in the name of the people and for the people.

Ostrovsky depicted in his plays the prose of life, ordinary people in everyday circumstances. Taking the universal human problems of evil and good, truth and injustice, beauty and ugliness as the content of his plays, Ostrovsky survived his time and entered our era as its contemporary.

The creative path of A.N. Ostrovsky lasted four decades. He wrote his first works in 1846, and his last in 1886.

During this time, he wrote 47 original plays and several plays in collaboration with Solovyov (“The Marriage of Balzaminov”, “Savage”, “It shines but does not warm”, etc.); made many translations from Italian, Spanish, French, English, Indian (Shakespeare, Goldoni, Lope de Vega - 22 plays). His plays have 728 roles, 180 acts; all of Rus' is represented. A variety of genres: comedies, dramas, dramatic chronicles, family scenes, tragedies, dramatic sketches are presented in his dramaturgy. He acts in his work as a romantic, everyday writer, tragedian and comedian.

Of course, any periodization is to some extent conditional, but in order to better navigate the entire diversity of Ostrovsky’s work, we will divide his work into several stages.

1846 – 1852 – the initial stage of creativity. The most important works written during this period: “Notes of a Zamoskvoretsky Resident”, the plays “Picture of Family Happiness”, “Our People – Let’s Be Numbered”, “Poor Bride”.

1853 – 1856 - the so-called “Slavophile” period: “Don’t get into your own sleigh.” “Poverty is not a vice,” “Don’t live the way you want.”

1856 – 1859 - rapprochement with the Sovremennik circle, return to realistic positions. The most important plays of this period: “A Profitable Place”, “The Pupil”, “At Someone Else’s Feast there is a Hangover”, “The Balzaminov Trilogy”, and, finally, created during the revolutionary situation, “The Thunderstorm”.

1861 – 1867 – deepening the study of national history, the result is the dramatic chronicles Kozma Zakharyich Minin-Sukhoruk, “Dmitry the Pretender” and “Vasily Shuisky”, “Tushino”, the drama “Vasilisa Melentyevna”, the comedy “The Voivode or the Dream on the Volga”.

1869 – 1884 – plays created during this period of creativity are dedicated to social and everyday relations that developed in Russian life after the reform of 1861. The most important plays of this period: “Every Wise Man Has Enough Simplicity”, “Warm Heart”, “Mad Money”, “Forest”, “Wolves and Sheep”, “The Last Sacrifice”, “Late Love”, “Talents and Admirers”, “ Guilty without guilt."

Ostrovsky's plays did not appear out of nowhere. Their appearance is directly related to the plays of Griboedov and Gogol, which absorbed everything valuable that the Russian comedy that preceded them achieved. Ostrovsky knew the old Russian comedy of the 18th century well, and specially studied the works of Kapnist, Fonvizin, and Plavilshchikov. On the other hand, there is the influence of the prose of the “natural school”.

Ostrovsky came to literature in the late 40s, when Gogol's dramaturgy was recognized as the greatest literary and social phenomenon. Turgenev wrote: “Gogol showed the way how our dramatic literature will go over time.” From the first steps of his activity, Ostrovsky recognized himself as a continuer of the traditions of Gogol, the “natural school”; he considered himself one of the authors of the “new direction in our literature.”

The years 1846 - 1859, when Ostrovsky worked on his first big comedy, “We Will Be Numbered Our Own People,” were the years of his formation as a realist writer.

The ideological and artistic program of Ostrovsky, the playwright, is clearly set out in his critical articles and reviews. Article “Mistake,” Mrs. Tour’s story” (“Moskvityanin”, 1850), unfinished article about Dickens’s novel “Dombey and Son” (1848), review of Menshikov’s comedy “Whims” (“Moskvityanin” 1850), “Note on the situation dramatic art in Russia at the present time" (1881), "Table talk about Pushkin" (1880).

Ostrovsky’s social and literary views are characterized by the following basic principles:

Firstly, he believes that drama should be a reflection of people's life, people's consciousness.

For Ostrovsky, the people are, first of all, the democratic masses, the lower classes, ordinary people.

Ostrovsky demanded that the writer study people's life, the problems that concern the people.

“In order to be a people’s writer,” he writes, “love for the homeland is not enough... you need to know your people well, get along with them, become akin to them.” The best school for talent is the study of one’s nationality.”

Secondly, Ostrovsky talks about the need for national identity for drama.

The nationality of literature and art is understood by Ostrovsky as an integral consequence of their nationality and democracy. “Only art that is national is national, for the true bearer of nationality is the popular, democratic mass.”

In “Table Word about Pushkin” - an example of such a poet is Pushkin. Pushkin is a national poet, Pushkin is a national poet. Pushkin played a huge role in the development of Russian literature because he “gave the Russian writer the courage to be Russian.”

And finally, the third point is about the socially accusatory nature of literature. “The more popular the work, the more accusatory element it contains, because the “distinctive feature of the Russian people” is “aversion from everything that has been sharply defined,” an unwillingness to return to “old, already condemned forms” of life, the desire to “look for the best.”

The public expects art to expose the vices and shortcomings of society, to judge life.

Condemning these vices in his artistic images, the writer arouses disgust for them in the public, forces them to be better, more moral. Therefore, “the social, accusatory direction can be called moral and public,” Ostrovsky emphasizes. Speaking about the socially accusatory or moral-social direction, he means:

accusatory criticism of the dominant way of life; protection of positive moral principles, i.e. protecting the aspirations of ordinary people and their desire for social justice.

Thus, the term “moral-accusatory direction” in its objective meaning approaches the concept of critical realism.

Ostrovsky’s works, written by him in the late 40s and early 50s, “Picture of Family Happiness”, “Notes of a Zamoskvoretsky Resident”, “Our People – We Will Be Numbered”, “Poor Bride” are organically connected with the literature of the natural school.

“The Picture of Family Happiness” is largely in the nature of a dramatized essay: it is not divided into phenomena, there is no completion of the plot. Ostrovsky set himself the task of depicting the life of the merchants. The hero is interested in Ostrovsky solely as a representative of his class, his way of life, his way of thinking. Goes beyond the natural school. Ostrovsky reveals the close connection between the morality of his heroes and their social existence.

He places the family life of the merchants in direct connection with the monetary and material relations of this environment.

Ostrovsky completely condemns his heroes. His heroes express their views on family, marriage, education, as if demonstrating the wildness of these views.

This technique was common in satirical literature of the 40s - the technique of self-exposure.

The most significant work of Ostrovsky in the 40s. - the comedy “Our People - Let's Be Numbered” (1849) appeared, which was perceived by contemporaries as a major achievement of the natural school in drama.

“He started out in an extraordinary way,” Turgenev writes about Ostrovsky.

The comedy immediately attracted the attention of the authorities. When the censorship submitted the play to the Tsar for consideration, Nicholas I wrote: “It was printed in vain! It’s forbidden to play, in any case.”

Ostrovsky's name was included in the list of unreliable persons, and the playwright was placed under secret police surveillance for five years. The “Case of the writer Ostrovsky” was opened.

Ostrovsky, like Gogol, criticizes the very foundations of relationships that dominate society. He is critical of contemporary social life and in this sense he is a follower of Gogol. And at the same time, Ostrovsky immediately identified himself as an innovating writer. Comparing the works of the early stage of his creativity (1846 -1852) with the traditions of Gogol, we will trace what new things Ostrovsky brought to literature.

The action of Gogol’s “high comedy” takes place as if in the world of unreasonable reality - “The Inspector General”.

Gogol tested a person in his attitude to society, to civic duty - and showed - this is what these people are like. This is the center of vices. They don't think about society at all. They are guided in their behavior by narrowly selfish calculations and selfish interests.

Gogol does not focus on everyday life - laughter through tears. For him, the bureaucracy acts not as a social layer, but as a political force that determines the life of society as a whole.

Ostrovsky has something completely different - a thorough analysis of social life.

Like the heroes of the essays of the natural school, Ostrovsky’s heroes are ordinary, typical representatives of their social environment, which is shared by their ordinary everyday life, all its prejudices.

a) In the play “Our People – We Will Be Numbered,” Ostrovsky creates a typical biography of a merchant, talks about how capital is made.

Bolshov sold pies from a stall as a child, and then became one of the first rich people in Zamoskvorechye.

Podkhalyuzin made his capital by robbing the owner, and, finally, Tishka is an errand boy, but, however, already knows how to please the new owner.

Here are given, as it were, three stages of a merchant's career. Through their fate, Ostrovsky showed how capital is composed.

b) The peculiarity of Ostrovsky’s dramaturgy was that he showed this question - how capital is composed in a merchant environment - through consideration of intra-family, daily, ordinary relationships.

It was Ostrovsky who was the first in Russian drama to examine, thread by thread, the web of daily, everyday relationships. He was the first to introduce into the sphere of art all these little things of life, family secrets, small household affairs. A huge amount of space is occupied by seemingly meaningless everyday scenes. Much attention is paid to the poses, gestures of the characters, their manner of speaking, and their speech itself.

Ostrovsky's first plays seemed unusual to the reader, not stage-like, more like narrative rather than dramatic works.

The circle of Ostrovsky’s works, directly related to the natural school of the 40s, is closed with the play “The Poor Bride” (1852).

In it, Ostrovsky shows the same dependence of a person on economic and monetary relations. Several suitors seek the hand of Marya Andreevna, but the one who gets it does not have to make any effort to achieve the goal. The well-known economic law of a capitalist society works for him, where money decides everything. The image of Marya Andreevna begins in Ostrovsky’s work a new theme for him about the position of a poor girl in a society where everything is determined by commercial calculation. (“Forest”, “Nurse”, “Dowry”).

Thus, for the first time in Ostrovsky (unlike Gogol) not only a vice appears, but also a victim of vice. In addition to the masters of modern society, there appear those who oppose them - aspirations whose needs are in conflict with the laws and customs of this environment. This entailed new colors. Ostrovsky discovered new sides of his talent - dramatic satirism. “We will be our own people” - satirical.

Ostrovsky's artistic style in this play is even more different from Gogol's dramaturgy. The plot loses all its edge here. It is based on an ordinary case. The theme that was heard in Gogol’s “Marriage” and received satirical coverage - the transformation of marriage into buying and selling, here acquired a tragic sound.

But at the same time, it is a comedy in terms of its characters and situations. But if Gogol’s heroes evoke laughter and condemnation from the public, then in Ostrovsky the viewer saw their everyday life, felt deep sympathy for some, and condemned others.

The second stage in Ostrovsky’s activity (1853 – 1855) was marked by Slavophile influences.

First of all, this transition of Ostrovsky to Slavophile positions should be explained by the strengthening of the atmosphere, the reaction, which was established in the “gloomy seven years” of 1848 - 1855.

Where exactly did this influence appear, what ideas of the Slavophiles turned out to be close to Ostrovsky? First of all, Ostrovsky’s rapprochement with the so-called “young editorial staff” of Moskvityanin, whose behavior should be explained by their characteristic interest in Russian national life, folk art, and the historical past of the people, which was very close to Ostrovsky.

But Ostrovsky failed to discern in this interest the main conservative principle, which manifested itself in the existing social contradictions, in a hostile attitude towards the concept of historical progress, in admiration for everything patriarchal.

In fact, the Slavophiles acted as ideologists of the socially backward elements of the petty and middle bourgeoisie.

One of the most prominent ideologists of the “Young Editorial Board” of “Moskvityanin”, Apollon Grigoriev, argued that there is a single “national spirit” that forms the organic basis of people’s life. Capturing this national spirit is the most important thing for a writer.

Social contradictions, class struggle are historical layers that will be overcome and which do not violate the unity of the nation.

The writer must show the eternal moral principles of the people's character. The bearer of these eternal moral principles, the spirit of the people, is the “middle, industrial, merchant” class, because it was this class that preserved the patriarchy of the traditions of old Rus', preserved the faith, morals, and language of their fathers. This class has not been affected by the falsehood of civilization.

The official recognition of this doctrine of Ostrovsky is his letter in September 1853 to Pogodin (editor of Moskvityanin), in which Ostrovsky writes that he has now become a supporter of the “new direction,” the essence of which is to appeal to the positive principles of everyday life and national character.

The old view of things now seems to him “young and too cruel.” Exposing social vices does not seem to be the main task.

“There will be correctors even without us. In order to have the right to correct the people without offending them, you need to show them that you know the good in them” (September 1853), writes Ostrovsky.

A distinctive feature of Ostrovsky’s Russian people at this stage seems to be not its willingness to renounce outdated standards of life, but patriarchy, commitment to unchanging, fundamental conditions of life. Ostrovsky now wants to combine “the sublime with the comic” in his plays, understanding by the sublime the positive features of merchant life, and by the “comic” - everything that lies outside the merchant circle, but exerts its influence on it.

These new views of Ostrovsky found expression in three so-called “Slavophile” plays by Ostrovsky: “Don’t get on your own sleigh,” “Poverty is not a vice,” “Don’t live the way you want.”

All three Slavophile plays by Ostrovsky have one defining beginning - an attempt to idealize the patriarchal foundations of life and family morality of the merchants.

And in these plays Ostrovsky turns to family and everyday subjects. But behind them there are no longer economic and social relations.

Family and everyday relationships are interpreted in a purely moral sense - everything depends on the moral qualities of people, there are no material or monetary interests behind this. Ostrovsky is trying to find the possibility of resolving contradictions in moral terms, in the moral regeneration of heroes. (The moral enlightenment of Gordey Tortsov, the nobility of the soul of Borodkin and Rusakov). Tyranny is justified not so much by the existence of capital, economic relations, but by the personal characteristics of a person.

Ostrovsky depicts those aspects of merchant life in which, as it seems to him, the national, the so-called “national spirit” is concentrated. Therefore, he focuses on the poetic, bright sides of merchant life, introduces ritual and folklore motifs, showing the “folk-epic” beginning of the heroes’ lives to the detriment of their social certainty.

Ostrovsky emphasized in the plays of this period the closeness of his merchant heroes to the people, their social and everyday ties with the peasantry. They say about themselves that they are “simple” people, “ill-mannered”, that their fathers were peasants.

From an artistic point of view, these plays are clearly weaker than the previous ones. Their composition is deliberately simplified, the characters are less clear, and the endings are less justified.

The plays of this period are characterized by didacticism; they openly contrast light and dark principles, the characters are sharply divided into “good” and “evil,” and vice is punished at the denouement. The plays of the “Slavophile period” are characterized by open moralizing, sentimentality, and edification.

At the same time, it should be said that during this period Ostrovsky, in general, remained on a realistic position. According to Dobrolyubov, “the power of direct artistic feeling could not abandon the author here, and therefore particular situations and individual characters are distinguished by genuine truth.”

The significance of Ostrovsky’s plays written during this period lies primarily in the fact that they continue to ridicule and condemn tyranny in whatever forms it manifests itself / We love Tortsov /. (If Bolshov is a rude and straightforward type of tyrant, then Rusakov is softened and meek).

Dobrolyubov: “In Bolshov we saw a vigorous nature, subjected to the influence of merchant life, in Rusakov it seems to us: but this is how even honest and gentle natures turn out with him.”

Bolshov: “What am I and my father for if I don’t give orders?”

Rusakov: “I will not give it up for the one she loves, but for the one I love.”

The praise of patriarchal life is contradictorily combined in these plays with the formulation of pressing social issues, and the desire to create images that would embody national ideals (Rusakov, Borodkin), with sympathy for young people who bring new aspirations, opposition to everything patriarchal and old. (Mitya, Lyubov Gordeevna).

These plays expressed Ostrovsky's desire to find a bright, positive beginning in ordinary people.

This is how the theme of folk humanism arises, the breadth of nature of the common man, which is expressed in the ability to boldly and independently look at the environment and in the ability to sometimes sacrifice one’s own interests for the sake of others.

This theme was then heard in such central plays by Ostrovsky as “The Thunderstorm”, “Forest”, “Dowry”.

The idea of ​​​​creating a folk performance - a didactic performance - was not alien to Ostrovsky when he created “Poverty is not a vice” and “Don’t live the way you want.”

Ostrovsky sought to convey the ethical principles of the people, the aesthetic basis of their life, and to evoke a response from a democratic viewer to the poetry of their native life and national antiquity.

Ostrovsky was guided by the noble desire to “give the democratic viewer an initial cultural inoculation.” Another thing is the idealization of humility, obedience, and conservatism.

The assessment of Slavophil plays in the articles by Chernyshevsky “Poverty is not a vice” and Dobrolyubov “The Dark Kingdom” is interesting.

Chernyshevsky came up with his article in 1854, when Ostrovsky was close to the Slavophiles, and there was a danger of Ostrovsky moving away from realistic positions. Chernyshevsky calls Ostrovsky’s plays “Poverty is not a vice” and “Don’t sit in your own sleigh” “false,” but further continues: “Ostrovsky has not yet ruined his wonderful talent, he needs to return to the realistic direction.” “In truth, the power of talent, the wrong direction destroys even the strongest talent,” concludes Chernyshevsky.

Dobrolyubov's article was written in 1859, when Ostrovsky freed himself from Slavophile influences. It was pointless to recall previous misconceptions, and Dobrolyubov, limiting himself to a vague hint on this score, focuses on revealing the realistic beginning of these same plays.

The assessments of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov mutually complement each other and are an example of the principles of revolutionary-democratic criticism.

At the beginning of 1856, a new stage in Ostrovsky’s work began.

The playwright is getting closer to the editors of Sovremennik. This rapprochement coincides with the period of the rise of progressive social forces, with the maturation of a revolutionary situation.

He, as if following Nekrasov’s advice, returns to the path of studying social reality, the path of creating analytical plays that give pictures of modern life.

(In a review of the play “Don’t Live the Way You Want,” Nekrasov advised him, abandoning all preconceived ideas, to follow the path along which his own talent would lead: “to give free development to your talent” - the path of depicting real life).

Chernyshevsky emphasizes “Ostrovsky’s wonderful talent, strong talent. Dobrolyubov - “the power of artistic flair” of the playwright.

During this period, Ostrovsky created such significant plays as “The Pupil”, “Profitable Place”, the trilogy about Balzaminov and, finally, during the revolutionary situation - “The Thunderstorm”.

This period of Ostrovsky’s work is characterized, first of all, by an expansion of the scope of life phenomena and an expansion of themes.

Firstly, in the field of his research, which included the landowner, serf environment, Ostrovsky showed that the landowner Ulanbekova (“The Pupil”) mocks her victims just as cruelly as the illiterate, shady merchants.

Ostrovsky shows that in the landowner-noble environment, as in the merchant environment, the same struggle is going on between rich and poor, older and younger.

In addition, during the same period, Ostrovsky raised the topic of philistinism. Ostrovsky was the first Russian writer to notice and artistically discover the philistinism as a social group.

The playwright discovered in the philistinism a predominant and eclipsing all other interests interest in material things, what Gorky later defined as “a monstrously developed sense of property.”

In the trilogy about Balzaminov (“Holiday sleep - before lunch”, “Your own dogs are biting, don’t pester someone else’s”, “What you go for is what you will find”) /1857-1861/, Ostrovsky denounces the bourgeois way of existence, with its mentality and limitations , vulgarity, thirst for profit, absurd dreams.

The trilogy about Balzaminov reveals not just ignorance or narrow-mindedness, but some kind of intellectual wretchedness, the inferiority of the bourgeoisie. The image is built on the opposition of this mental inferiority, moral insignificance - and complacency, confidence in one’s right.

This trilogy contains elements of vaudeville, buffoonery, and features of external comedy. But internal comedy predominates in it, since the figure of Balzaminov is internally comic.

Ostrovsky showed that the kingdom of the philistines is the same dark kingdom of impenetrable vulgarity, savagery, which is aimed at one goal - profit.

The next play, “Profitable Place,” indicates Ostrovsky’s return to the path of “moral and accusatory” dramaturgy. During the same period, Ostrovsky was the discoverer of another dark kingdom - the kingdom of officials, the royal bureaucracy.

During the years of the abolition of serfdom, denunciation of bureaucratic orders had a special political meaning. Bureaucracy was the most complete expression of the autocratic-serf system. It embodied the exploitative and predatory essence of autocracy. This was no longer just everyday arbitrariness, but a violation of common interests in the name of the law. It is in connection with this play that Dobrolyubov expands the concept of “tyranny”, understanding by it autocracy in general.

“A Profitable Place” is reminiscent of N. Gogol’s comedy “The Inspector General” in terms of its themes. But if in The Inspector General the officials who commit lawlessness feel guilty and fear retribution, then Ostrovsky’s officials are imbued with the consciousness of their rightness and impunity. Bribery and abuse seem to them and those around them to be the norm.

Ostrovsky emphasized that the distortion of all moral norms in society is a law, and the law itself is something illusory. Both officials and the people dependent on them know that the laws are always on the side of the one who has power.

Thus, for the first time in literature, Ostrovsky shows officials as a kind of merchants of the law. (The official can turn the law the way he wants).

A new hero also came into Ostrovsky’s play - a young official, Zhadov, who had just graduated from university. The conflict between representatives of the old formation and Zhadov acquires the force of an irreconcilable contradiction:

a/ Ostrovsky was able to show the inconsistency of illusions about an honest official as a force capable of stopping the abuses of the administration.

b/ fight against “Yusovism” or compromise, betrayal of ideals - Zhadov was given no other choice.

Ostrovsky denounced the system, the living conditions that give rise to bribe-takers. The progressive significance of the comedy lies in the fact that in it the irreconcilable denial of the old world and “Yusovism” merged with the search for a new morality.

Zhadov is a weak person, he cannot stand the fight, he also goes to ask for a “lucrative position.”

Chernyshevsky believed that the play would have been even stronger if it had ended with the fourth act, i.e., with Zhadov’s cry of despair: “We’re going to uncle to ask for a lucrative position!” In the fifth, Zhadov faces the abyss that almost destroyed him morally. And, although Vyshimirsky’s end is not typical, there is an element of chance in Zhadov’s salvation, his words, his belief that “somewhere there are other, more persistent, worthy people” who will not compromise, will not reconcile, will not give in, talk about the prospect of further development of new social relations. Ostrovsky foresaw the coming social upsurge.

The rapid development of psychological realism, which we observe in the second half of the 19th century, also manifested itself in drama. The secret of Ostrovsky's dramatic writing lies not in the one-dimensional characteristics of human types, but in the desire to create full-blooded human characters, the internal contradictions and struggles of which serve as a powerful impulse for the dramatic movement. G.A. Tovstonogov spoke well about this feature of Ostrovsky’s creative style, referring in particular to Glumov from the comedy “Simplicity is Enough for Every Wise Man,” a far from ideal character: “Why is Glumov charming, although he commits a number of vile acts? After all, if “He is unsympathetic to us, then there is no performance. What makes him charming is his hatred of this world, and we internally justify his way of paying it back.”

Interest in the human personality in all its states forced writers to seek means for their expression. In drama, the main such means was the stylistic individualization of the characters’ language, and the leading role in the development of this method belonged to Ostrovsky. In addition, Ostrovsky made an attempt to go further in psychologism, along the path of providing his characters with the maximum possible freedom within the framework of the author’s plan - the result of such an experiment was the image of Katerina in “The Thunderstorm”.

In The Thunderstorm, Ostrovsky rose to the level of depicting the tragic collision of living human feelings with the deadening Domostroevsky life.

Despite the variety of types of dramatic conflicts presented in Ostrovsky's early works, their poetics and their general atmosphere were determined, first of all, by the fact that tyranny was presented in them as a natural and inevitable phenomenon of life. Even the so-called “Slavophile” plays, with their search for bright and good principles, did not destroy or disturb the oppressive atmosphere of tyranny. The play “The Thunderstorm” is also characterized by this general coloring. And at the same time, there is a force in her that resolutely resists the terrible, deadening routine - this is the element of the people, expressed both in folk characters (Katerina, first of all, Kuligin and even Kudryash), and in Russian nature, which becomes an essential element of dramatic action .

The play “The Thunderstorm,” which posed complex questions of modern life and appeared in print and on stage just before the so-called “liberation” of the peasants, testified that Ostrovsky was free from any illusions regarding the paths of social development in Russia.

Even before publication, "The Thunderstorm" appeared on the Russian stage. The premiere took place on November 16, 1859 at the Maly Theater. The play featured magnificent actors: S. Vasiliev (Tikhon), P. Sadovsky (Dikoy), N. Rykalova (Kabanova), L. Nikulina-Kositskaya (Katerina), V. Lensky (Kudryash) and others. The production was directed by N. Ostrovsky himself. The premiere was a huge success, and subsequent performances were a triumph. A year after the brilliant premiere of "The Thunderstorm", the play was awarded the highest academic award - the Great Uvarov Prize.

In “The Thunderstorm,” the social system of Russia is sharply exposed, and the death of the main character is shown by the playwright as a direct consequence of her hopeless situation in the “dark kingdom.” The conflict in “The Thunderstorm” is built on the irreconcilable collision of the freedom-loving Katerina with the terrible world of wild and wild boars, with animal laws based on “cruelty, lies, mockery, and humiliation of the human person. Katerina went against tyranny and obscurantism, armed only with the power of her feelings, consciousness the right to life, to happiness and love. According to Dobrolyubov’s fair remark, she “feels the opportunity to satisfy the natural thirst of her soul and cannot continue to remain motionless: she strives for a new life, even if she has to die in this impulse.”

From childhood, Katerina was brought up in a unique environment, which developed in her romantic dreaminess, religiosity and a thirst for freedom. These character traits later determined the tragedy of her situation. Brought up in a religious spirit, she understands the “sinfulness” of her feelings for Boris, but cannot resist the natural attraction and gives herself entirely to this impulse.

Katerina speaks out not only against “Kabanov’s concepts of morality.” She openly protests against immutable religious dogmas that affirm the categorical inviolability of church marriage and condemn suicide as contrary to Christian teaching. Bearing in mind this fullness of Katerina’s protest, Dobrolyubov wrote: “This is the true strength of character, which in any case you can rely on! This is the height to which our national life reaches in its development, but to which very few in our literature were able to rise, and no one knew how to stay at it as well as Ostrovsky.”

Katerina does not want to put up with the deadening environment around her. “I don’t want to live here, I won’t, even if you cut me!” she says to Varvara. And she commits suicide. “Sad, bitter is such liberation,” Dobrolyubov noted, “but what to do when there is no other way out” Katerina’s character is complex and multifaceted. This complexity is most eloquently evidenced, perhaps, by the fact that many outstanding performers, starting from the seemingly completely opposite dominants of the main character’s character, have not been able to fully exhaust all these different ones. the interpretations did not fully reveal the main thing in Katerina’s character: her love, to which she surrenders with all the spontaneity of her young nature. Her life experience is insignificant; most of all, her nature has a developed sense of beauty, a poetic perception of nature. However, her character is given in movement, in development. Contemplation of nature alone, as we know from the play, is not enough for her. Other areas of application of spiritual forces are needed. Prayer, service, myths are also means of satisfying the poetic feeling of the main character.

Dobrolyubov wrote: “It’s not the rituals that occupy her in the church: she doesn’t even hear what they sing and read there; she has different music in her soul, different visions, for her the service ends imperceptibly, as if in one second. She is occupied by trees, strangely drawn on images, and she imagines a whole country of gardens, where all the trees are like this, and everything is blooming, fragrant, everything is full of heavenly singing. Otherwise, on a sunny day, she will see how “such a bright pillar is coming down from the dome, and smoke is moving in this pillar, like clouds,” and now she sees, “as if angels are flying and singing in this pillar.” Sometimes she will present herself - why shouldn’t she fly? And when she’s standing on a mountain, she’s drawn to fly: just like that, she’d run up, raise her arms, and fly...”

A new, yet unexplored sphere of manifestation of her spiritual powers was her love for Boris, which ultimately became the cause of her tragedy. “The passion of a nervous, passionate woman and the struggle with debt, the fall, repentance and difficult atonement for guilt - all this is filled with the liveliest dramatic interest, and is conducted with extraordinary art and knowledge of the heart,” I. A. Goncharov rightly noted.

How often the passion and spontaneity of Katerina’s nature are condemned, and her deep spiritual struggle is perceived as a manifestation of weakness. Meanwhile, in the memoirs of the artist E. B. Piunova-Schmidthof we find Ostrovsky’s curious story about his heroine: “Katerina,” Alexander Nikolaevich told me, “is a woman with a passionate nature and a strong character. She proved this with her love for Boris and suicide. Katerina, although overwhelmed by her environment, at the first opportunity gives herself over to her passion, saying before this: “Come what may, I will see Boris!” In front of the picture of hell, Katerina does not rage and scream, but only with her face and whole figure must depict mortal fear. In the scene of farewell to Boris, Katerina speaks quietly, like a patient, and only the last words: “My friend! My joy! Goodbye!" - pronounces as loudly as possible. Katerina's situation became hopeless. You can’t live in your husband’s house... There’s nowhere to go. To parents? Yes, at that time they would have tied her up and brought her to her husband. Katerina came to the conclusion that it was impossible to live as she lived before, and, having a strong will, she drowned herself...”

“Without fear of being accused of exaggeration,” wrote I. A. Goncharov, “I can say in all conscience that there was no such work as a drama in our literature. She undoubtedly occupies and will probably for a long time occupy first place in high classical beauties. From whatever side it is taken, whether from the side of the creation plan, or the dramatic movement, or, finally, the characters, it is everywhere captured by the power of creativity, the subtlety of observation and the grace of decoration.” In “The Thunderstorm,” according to Goncharov, “a broad picture of national life and morals has settled down.”

Ostrovsky conceived The Thunderstorm as a comedy, and then called it a drama. N. A. Dobrolyubov spoke very carefully about the genre nature of “The Thunderstorm”. He wrote that “the mutual relations of tyranny and voicelessness are brought to the most tragic consequences.”

By the middle of the 19th century, Dobrolyubov’s definition of a “play of life” turned out to be more capacious than the traditional division of dramatic art, which was still experiencing the burden of classicist norms. In Russian drama, there was a process of bringing dramatic poetry closer to everyday reality, which naturally affected their genre nature. Ostrovsky, for example, wrote: “The history of Russian literature has two branches that have finally merged: one branch is grafted and is the offspring of a foreign, but well-rooted seed; it goes from Lomonosov through Sumarokov, Karamzin, Batyushkov, Zhukovsky and others. to Pushkin, where he begins to converge with another; the other - from Kantemir, through the comedies of the same Sumarokov, Fonvizin, Kapnist, Griboyedov to Gogol; both were completely merged in him; dualism is over. On the one hand: laudable odes, French tragedies, imitations of the ancients, the sensibility of the late 18th century, German romanticism, frantic youthful literature; and on the other: satires, comedies, comedies and “Dead Souls”, Russia seemed at the same time, in the person of its best writers, to live, period after period, the life of foreign literature and educate its own to universal significance.”

Comedy, thus, turned out to be closest to the everyday phenomena of Russian life; it responded sensitively to everything that worried the Russian public, and reproduced life in its dramatic and tragic manifestations. That is why Dobrolyubov so stubbornly clung to the definition of “play of life,” seeing in it not so much a conventional genre meaning, but the very principle of reproducing modern life in drama. Actually, Ostrovsky also spoke about the same principle: “Many conventional rules have disappeared, and some more will disappear. Now dramatic works are nothing more than dramatized life." This principle determined the development of dramatic genres throughout the subsequent decades of the 19th century. In terms of its genre, “The Thunderstorm” is a social and everyday tragedy.

A. I. Revyakin rightly notes that the main feature of the tragedy - “the depiction of irreconcilable life contradictions that determine the death of the main character, who is an outstanding person” - is evident in “The Thunderstorm”. The depiction of a national tragedy, of course, entailed new, original constructive forms of its implementation. Ostrovsky repeatedly spoke out against the inert, traditional manner of constructing dramatic works. “The Thunderstorm” was also innovative in this sense. He spoke about this, not without irony, in a letter to Turgenev dated June 14, 1874, in response to a proposal to publish “The Thunderstorm” in a French translation: “It doesn’t hurt to print “The Thunderstorm” in a good French translation, it can make an impression with its originality; but whether it should be put on stage is something to think about. I highly value the ability of the French to make plays and am afraid of offending their delicate taste with my terrible ineptitude. From the French point of view, the construction of the “Thunderstorm” is ugly, and I must admit that it is not very coherent at all. When I wrote “The Thunderstorm,” I was carried away by the finishing of the main roles and “treated the form with unforgivable frivolity, and at the same time I was in a hurry to be in time for the benefit performance of the late Vasiliev.”

A.I. Zhuravleva’s reasoning regarding the genre uniqueness of “The Thunderstorm” is interesting: “The problem of genre interpretation is the most important when analyzing this play. If we turn to the scientific-critical and theatrical traditions of interpretation of this play, we can identify two prevailing trends. One of them is dictated by the understanding of “The Thunderstorm” as a social and everyday drama; it attaches special importance to everyday life. The attention of the directors and, accordingly, the audience is distributed equally among all participants in the action, each person receives equal importance.”

Another interpretation is determined by the understanding of “The Thunderstorm” as a tragedy. Zhuravleva believes that such an interpretation is deeper and has “greater support in the text,” despite the fact that the interpretation of “The Thunderstorm” as a drama is based on the genre definition of Ostrovsky himself. The researcher rightly notes that “this definition is a tribute to tradition.” Indeed, the entire previous history of Russian drama did not provide examples of tragedy in which the heroes were private individuals, and not historical figures, even legendary ones. The “thunderstorm” remained a unique phenomenon in this regard. The key point for understanding the genre of a dramatic work in this case is not the “social status” of the characters, but, first of all, the nature of the conflict. If we understand Katerina’s death as the result of a collision with her mother-in-law, and see her as a victim of family oppression, then the scale of the heroes really looks too small for a tragedy. But if you see that Katerina’s fate was determined by the collision of two historical eras, then the tragic nature of the conflict seems quite natural.

A typical feature of a tragic structure is the feeling of catharsis experienced by the audience during the denouement. By death, the heroine is freed from both oppression and the internal contradictions tormenting her.

Thus, the social and everyday drama from the life of the merchant class develops into a tragedy. Through love and everyday conflict, Ostrovsky was able to show the epoch-making change taking place in the popular consciousness. The awakening sense of personality and a new attitude to the world, based not on individual expression of will, turned out to be in irreconcilable antagonism not only with the real, everyday reliable state of Ostrovsky’s contemporary patriarchal way of life, but also with the ideal idea of ​​morality inherent in the high heroine.

This transformation of drama into tragedy also occurred thanks to the triumph of the lyrical element in “The Thunderstorm.”

The symbolism of the play's title is important. First of all, the word “thunderstorm” has a direct meaning in its text. The title character is included by the playwright in the development of the action and directly participates in it as a natural phenomenon. The thunderstorm motif develops in the play from the first to the fourth act. At the same time, Ostrovsky also recreated the image of a thunderstorm as a landscape: dark clouds filled with moisture (“as if a cloud is curling in a ball”), we feel the stuffiness in the air, we hear the rumble of thunder, we freeze in front of the light of lightning.

The title of the play also has a figurative meaning. A thunderstorm rages in Katerina’s soul, is reflected in the struggle between creative and destructive principles, the collision of bright and dark forebodings, good and sinful feelings. The scenes with Grokha seem to push forward the dramatic action of the play.

The thunderstorm in the play also takes on a symbolic meaning, expressing the idea of ​​the entire work as a whole. The appearance of people like Katerina and Kuligin in the dark kingdom is a thunderstorm over Kalinov. The thunderstorm in the play conveys the catastrophic nature of existence, the state of a world split in two. The diversity and versatility of the play's title becomes a kind of key to a deeper understanding of its essence.

“In Mr. Ostrovsky’s play, which bears the name “The Thunderstorm,” wrote A.D. Galakhov, “the action and atmosphere are tragic, although many places excite laughter.” “The Thunderstorm” combines not only the tragic and the comic, but, what is especially important, the epic and the lyrical. All this determines the originality of the composition of the play. V.E. Meyerhold wrote excellently about this: “The originality of the construction of “The Thunderstorm” is that Ostrovsky gives the highest point of tension in the fourth act (and not in the second scene of the second act), and the intensification noted in the script is not gradual (from the second act through the third to the fourth), but with a push, or rather, with two pushes; the first rise is indicated in the second act, in the scene of Katerina’s farewell to Tikhon (the rise is strong, but not yet very strong), and the second rise (very strong - this is the most sensitive shock) in the fourth act, at the moment of Katerina’s repentance.

Between these two acts (staged as if on the tops of two unequal, but sharply rising hills), the third act (with both scenes) lies, as it were, in a valley.”

It is not difficult to notice that the internal scheme of the construction of “The Thunderstorm”, subtly revealed by the director, is determined by the stages of development of Katerina’s character, the stages of development of her feelings for Boris.

A. Anastasyev notes that Ostrovsky’s play has its own, special destiny. For many decades, “The Thunderstorm” has not left the stage of Russian theaters; N. A. Nikulina-Kositskaya, S. V. Vasiliev, N. V. Rykalova, G. N. Fedotova, M. N. Ermolova became famous for playing the main roles. P. A. Strepetova, O. O. Sadovskaya, A. Koonen, V. N. Pashennaya. And at the same time, “theater historians have not witnessed complete, harmonious, outstanding performances.” The unsolved mystery of this great tragedy lies, according to the researcher, “in its multi-ideational nature, in the strongest fusion of undeniable, unconditional, concrete historical truth and poetic symbolism, in the organic combination of real action and deeply hidden lyrical principles.”

Usually, when they talk about the lyricism of “The Thunderstorm,” they mean, first of all, the system of worldview of the main character of the play that is lyrical in nature; they also talk about the Volga, which in its most general form is opposed to the “barn” way of life and which evokes Kuligin’s lyrical outpourings . But the playwright could not - due to the laws of the genre - include the Volga, the beautiful Volga landscapes, or nature in general, into the system of dramatic action. He showed only the way in which nature becomes an integral element of stage action. Nature here is not only an object of admiration and admiration, but also the main criterion for assessing all things, allowing us to see the illogicality and unnaturalness of modern life. “Did Ostrovsky write The Thunderstorm? Volga wrote “Thunderstorm”!” - exclaimed the famous theater expert and critic S. A. Yuryev.

“Every true everyday person is at the same time a true romantic,” the famous theater figure A. I. Yuzhin-Sumbatov would later say, referring to Ostrovsky. A romantic in the broad sense of the word, surprised by the correctness and severity of the laws of nature and the violation of these laws in public life. This is exactly what Ostrovsky discussed in one of his early diary entries after arriving in Kostroma: “And on the other side of the Volga, directly opposite the city, there are two villages; “One is especially picturesque, from which the most curly grove stretches all the way to the Volga; the sun at sunset somehow miraculously climbed into it, from the roots, and created many miracles.”

Starting from this landscape sketch, Ostrovsky reasoned:

“I was exhausted looking at this. Nature - you are a faithful lover, only terribly lustful; no matter how much I love you, you are still dissatisfied; unsatisfied passion boils in your gaze, and no matter how much you swear that you are unable to satisfy your desires, you do not get angry, you do not move away, but you look at everything with your passionate eyes, and these gazes full of expectation are execution and torment for a person.”

The lyricism of “The Thunderstorm,” so specific in form (Ap. Grigoriev subtly remarked about it: “... as if it was not a poet, but a whole people who created here...”), arose precisely on the basis of the closeness of the world of the hero and the author.

Orientation towards a healthy natural beginning became in the 50s and 60s the social and ethical principle not of Ostrovsky alone, but of all Russian literature: from Tolstoy and Nekrasov to Chekhov and Kuprin. Without this peculiar manifestation of the “author’s” voice in dramatic works, we cannot fully understand the psychologism of “The Poor Bride,” and the nature of the lyrical in “The Thunderstorm” and “Dowry,” and the poetics of the new drama of the late 19th century.

By the end of the sixties, Ostrovsky's work thematically expanded extremely. He shows how the new is mixed with the old: in the familiar images of his merchants we see polish and worldliness, education and “pleasant” manners. They are no longer stupid despots, but predatory acquirers, holding in their fist not only a family or a city, but entire provinces. A wide variety of people find themselves in conflict with them; their circle is infinitely wide. And the accusatory pathos of the plays is stronger. The best of them: “Warm Heart”, “Mad Money”, “Forest”, “Wolves and Sheep”, “The Last Victim”, “Dowry”, “Talents and Admirers”.

The shifts in Ostrovsky’s work during his last period are very clearly visible if we compare, for example, “Warm Heart” with “Thunderstorm”. Merchant Kuroslepov is a famous merchant in the city, but not as formidable as Dikoy, he is rather an eccentric, does not understand life and is busy with his dreams. His second wife, Matryona, is clearly having an affair with the clerk Narkis. They both rob the owner, and Narkis wants to become a merchant himself. No, the “dark kingdom” is no longer monolithic. The Domostroevsky way of life will no longer save the willfulness of Mayor Gradoboev. The unbridled carousings of the rich merchant Khlynov are symbols of wasted life, decay, and nonsense: Khlynov orders the streets to be watered with champagne.

Parasha is a girl with a “warm heart”. But if Katerina in “The Thunderstorm” turns out to be a victim of an unrequited husband and a weak-willed lover, then Parasha is aware of her powerful spiritual strength. She also wants to “fly up”. She loves and curses her lover’s weak character and indecisiveness: “What kind of guy is this, what kind of crybaby has forced himself on me... Apparently, I have to think about my own head.”

The development of Yulia Pavlovna Tugina’s love for the unworthy young reveler Dulchin in “The Last Victim” is shown with great tension. In Ostrovsky's later dramas there is a combination of action-packed situations with detailed psychological characteristics of the main characters. Great emphasis is placed on the vicissitudes of the torment they experience, in which the struggle of the hero or heroine with himself, with his own feelings, mistakes, and assumptions begins to occupy a large place.

In this regard, "Dowry" is typical. Here, perhaps for the first time, the author’s attention is focused on the very feeling of the heroine, who has escaped from the care of her mother and the ancient way of life. In this play, there is not a struggle between light and darkness, but the struggle of love itself for its rights and freedom. Larisa herself preferred Paratova to Karandysheva. The people around her cynically violated Larisa’s feelings. She was abused by a mother who wanted to “sell” her “dowryless” daughter for a moneyed man who was vainglorious that he would be the owner of such a treasure. Paratov abused her, deceiving her best hopes and considering Larisa’s love one of the fleeting joys. Both Knurov and Vozhevatov abused each other, playing a toss with each other.

We learn from the play “Wolves and Sheep” what cynics the landowners in post-reform Russia turned into, ready to resort to forgery, blackmail, and bribery for selfish purposes. The “wolves” are the landowner Murzavetskaya, the landowner Berkutov, and the “sheep” are the young rich widow Kupavina, the weak-willed elderly gentleman Lynyaev. Murzavetskaya wants to marry her dissolute nephew to Kupavina, “scaring” her with her late husband’s old bills. In fact, the bills were forged by the trusted attorney Chugunov, who also serves as Kupavina. Berkutov, a landowner and businessman, arrived from St. Petersburg, more vile than the local scoundrels. He instantly realized what was going on. He took Kupavina with her huge capital into his hands without talking about his feelings. Having deftly “scared” Murzavetskaya by exposing the forgery, he immediately concluded an alliance with her: it was important for him to win the election for leader of the nobility. He is the real “wolf”, everyone else next to him is “sheep”. At the same time, in the play there is no sharp division between scoundrels and innocents. There seems to be some kind of vile conspiracy between the “wolves” and the “sheep.” Everyone plays war with each other and at the same time easily makes peace and finds common benefit.

One of the best plays in Ostrovsky’s entire repertoire, apparently, is the play “Guilty Without Guilt.” It combines the motifs of many previous works. The actress Kruchinina, the main character, a woman of high spiritual culture, experienced a great tragedy in her life. She is kind and generous, warm-hearted and wise. At the pinnacle of goodness and suffering stands Kruchinina. If you like, she is a “ray of light” in the “dark kingdom”, she is the “last victim”, she is a “warm heart”, she is a “dowry”, there are “fans” around her, that is, predatory “wolves”, money-grubbers and cynics. Kruchinina, not yet assuming that Neznamov is her son, instructs him in life, reveals her unhardened heart: “I am more experienced than you and have lived more in the world; I know that there is a lot of nobility in people, a lot of love, selflessness, especially in women.”

This play is a panegyric to the Russian woman, the apotheosis of her nobility and self-sacrifice. This is also the apotheosis of the Russian actor, whose real soul Ostrovsky knew well.

Ostrovsky wrote for the theater. This is the peculiarity of his talent. The images and pictures of life he created are intended for the stage. That’s why the speech of Ostrovsky’s heroes is so important, that’s why his works sound so vivid. No wonder Innokenty Annensky called him an “auditory realist.” Without staging his works on stage, it was as if his works were not completed, which is why Ostrovsky took the ban on his plays by theater censorship so hard. (The comedy “We Will Be Numbered Our Own People” was allowed to be staged in the theater only ten years after Pogodin managed to publish it in the magazine.)

With a feeling of undisguised satisfaction, A. N. Ostrovsky wrote on November 3, 1878 to his friend, artist of the Alexandria Theater A. F. Burdin: “I have already read my play in Moscow five times, among the listeners there were people hostile to me, and that’s all.” unanimously recognized "The Dowry" as the best of all my works."

Ostrovsky lived with the “Dowry”, at times only on it, his fortieth thing in a row, he directed “his attention and strength”, wanting to “finish” it in the most careful way. In September 1878, he wrote to one of his acquaintances: “I am working on my play with all my might; it seems that it will not turn out badly.”

Already a day after the premiere, on November 12, Ostrovsky could, and undoubtedly did, learn from Russkiye Vedomosti how he managed to “tire the entire public, down to the most naive spectators.” For she - the audience - has clearly “outgrown” the spectacles that he offers her.

In the seventies, Ostrovsky's relationship with critics, theaters and audiences became increasingly complex. The period when he enjoyed universal recognition, which he won in the late fifties and early sixties, was replaced by another, increasingly growing in different circles of cooling towards the playwright.

Theatrical censorship was stricter than literary censorship. This is no accident. In its essence, theatrical art is democratic; it addresses the general public more directly than literature. Ostrovsky, in his “Note on the State of Dramatic Art in Russia at the Present Time” (1881), wrote that “dramatic poetry is closer to the people than other branches of literature. All other works are written for educated people, and dramas and comedies are written for the whole people; dramatic works writers must always remember this, they must be clear and strong. This closeness to the people does not in the least degrade dramatic poetry, but, on the contrary, doubles its strength and does not allow it to become vulgar and crushed.” Ostrovsky talks in his “Note” about how the theatrical audience in Russia expanded after 1861. Ostrovsky writes about a new viewer, not experienced in art: “Fine literature is still boring and incomprehensible for him, music too, only the theater gives him complete pleasure, there he experiences everything that happens on stage like a child, sympathizes with good and recognizes evil, clearly presented." For a “fresh public,” Ostrovsky wrote, “a strong drama, major comedy, defiant, frank, loud laughter, hot, sincere feelings are required.” It is the theater, according to Ostrovsky, which has its roots in the folk farce, that has the ability to directly and strongly influence the souls of people. Two and a half decades later, Alexander Blok, speaking about poetry, will write that its essence lies in the main, “walking” truths, in the ability to convey them to the heart of the reader.

Ride along, mourning nags!

Actors, master your craft,

So that from the walking truth

Everyone felt pain and light!

("Balagan"; 1906)

The enormous importance that Ostrovsky attached to the theater, his thoughts about theatrical art, about the position of theater in Russia, about the fate of actors - all this was reflected in his plays.

In the life of Ostrovsky himself, the theater played a huge role. He took part in the production of his plays, worked with the actors, was friends with many of them, and corresponded with them. He put a lot of effort into defending the rights of actors, seeking the creation of a theater school and his own repertoire in Russia.

Ostrovsky knew well the inner, behind-the-scenes life of the theater, hidden from the eyes of the audience. Starting with "The Forest" (1871), Ostrovsky develops the theme of the theater, creates images of actors, depicts their fates - this play is followed by "Comedian of the 17th Century" (1873), "Talents and Admirers" (1881), "Guilty Without Guilt" ( 1883).

The theater as depicted by Ostrovsky lives according to the laws of the world that is familiar to the reader and viewer from his other plays. The way the destinies of artists develop is determined by morals, relationships, and circumstances of “general” life. Ostrovsky's ability to recreate an accurate, vivid picture of time is fully manifested in plays about actors. This is Moscow in the era of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich ("Comedian of the 17th Century"), a provincial city contemporary with Ostrovsky ("Talents and Admirers", "Guilty Without Guilt"), a noble estate ("Forest").

In the life of the Russian theater, which Ostrovsky knew so well, the actor was a forced person, repeatedly dependent. “Then it was the time of favorites, and all the managerial orders of the repertoire inspector consisted of instructions to the chief director to take every possible care when compiling the repertoire so that the favorites, who receive large payments for the performance, played every day and, if possible, in two theaters,” Ostrovsky wrote in “Note on draft rules for imperial theaters for dramatic works" (1883).

In Ostrovsky's portrayal, the actors could turn out to be almost beggars, like Neschastlivtsev and Schastlivtsev in "The Forest", humiliated, losing their human appearance due to drunkenness, like Robinson in "Dowry", like Shmaga in "Guilty Without Guilt", like Erast Gromilov in "Talents" and fans”, “We, artists, our place is at the buffet,” says Shmaga with challenge and evil irony.

Theatre, the life of provincial actresses in the late 70s, around the time when Ostrovsky wrote plays about actors, also showed M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin in the novel "The Golovlevs." Judushka’s nieces Lyubinka and Anninka become actresses, escaping Golovlev’s life, but end up in a den. They had neither talent nor training, they were not trained in acting, but all this was not required on the provincial stage. The life of the actors appears in Anninka’s memoirs as hell, as a nightmare: “Here is a scene with smoky, captured and slippery from damp scenery; here she herself is spinning on stage, just spinning, imagining that she is acting... Drunken and pugnacious nights; passers-by landowners hastily taking out a little green card from their skinny wallets; merchants cheering on the “actors” almost with a whip in their hands.” And the life behind the scenes is ugly, and what is played out on stage is ugly: “...And the Duchess of Gerolstein, stunning with a hussar’s cap, and Cleretta Ango, in a wedding dress, with a slit in front right up to the waist, and Beautiful Helena, with a slit in the front, from behind and from all sides... Nothing but shamelessness and nakedness... that’s how life was spent!” This life drives Lyubinka to suicide.

The similarities between Shchedrin and Ostrovsky in their depiction of the provincial theater are natural - they both write about what they knew well, they write the truth. But Shchedrin is a merciless satirist, he thickens the colors so much that the image becomes grotesque, while Ostrovsky gives an objective picture of life, his “dark kingdom” is not hopeless - it was not for nothing that N. Dobrolyubov wrote about a “ray of light”.

This feature of Ostrovsky was noted by critics even when his first plays appeared. “...The ability to depict reality as it is - “mathematical fidelity to reality”, the absence of any exaggeration... All of this is not the distinctive features of Gogol’s poetry; all of these are the distinctive features of the new comedy,” wrote B. Almazov in the article “A Dream According to occasion of a comedy." Already in our time, literary critic A. Skaftymov in his work “Belinsky and the Drama of A.N. Ostrovsky” noted that “the most striking difference between the plays of Gogol and Ostrovsky is that Gogol does not have a victim of vice, while in Ostrovsky there is always a suffering victim vice... By portraying vice, Ostrovsky protects something from it, protects someone... Thus, the entire content of the play changes. The play is colored with suffering lyricism, it enters into the development of fresh, morally pure or poetic feelings; "to sharply highlight the inner legality, truth and poetry of true humanity, oppressed and expelled in an environment of prevailing self-interest and deception." Ostrovsky’s approach to depicting reality, different from Gogol’s, is explained, of course, by the originality of his talent, the “natural” properties of the artist, but also (this also should not be missed) by changing times: increased attention to the individual, to his rights, recognition of his value.

IN AND. Nemirovich-Danchenko in the book “The Birth of the Theater” writes about what makes Ostrovsky’s plays especially scenic: “an atmosphere of goodness,” “clear, firm sympathy on the side of the offended, to which the theater hall is always extremely sensitive.”

In Ostrovsky’s plays about theater and actors, there is certainly an image of a true artist and a wonderful person. In real life, Ostrovsky knew many excellent people in the theatrical world, highly valued them, and respected them. L. Nikulina-Kositskaya, who brilliantly performed Katerina in “The Thunderstorm,” played a big role in his life. Ostrovsky was friends with the artist A. Martynov, had an unusually high regard for N. Rybakov, G. Fedotov and M. Ermolov played in his plays; P. Strepetova.

In the play “Guilty Without Guilt,” actress Elena Kruchinina says: “I know that people have a lot of nobility, a lot of love, selflessness.” And Otradina-Kruchinina herself belongs to such wonderful, noble people, she is a wonderful artist, smart, significant, sincere.

“Oh, don’t cry; they are not worth your tears. You are a white dove in a black flock of rooks, so they peck at you. Your whiteness, your purity is offensive to them,” Narokov says in “Talents and Admirers” to Sasha Negina.

The most striking image of a noble actor created by Ostrovsky is the tragedian Neschastlivtsev in “The Forest.” Ostrovsky portrays a “living” person, with a difficult fate, with a sad life story. Neschastlivtsev, who drinks heavily, cannot be called a “white dove.” But he changes throughout the play; the plot situation gives him the opportunity to fully reveal the best features of his nature. If at first Neschastlivtsev’s behavior reveals the posturing inherent in a provincial tragedian and his predilection for pompous declamation (at these moments he is ridiculous); if, while playing the master, he finds himself in absurd situations, then, having realized what is happening on the Gurmyzhskaya estate, what rubbish his mistress is, he takes an ardent part in Aksyusha’s fate and shows excellent human qualities. It turns out that the role of a noble hero is organic for him, it is truly his role - and not only on stage, but also in life.

In his view, art and life are inextricably linked, the actor is not an actor, not a pretender, his art is based on genuine feelings, genuine experiences, it should have nothing to do with pretense and lies in life. This is the meaning of the remark that Gurmyzhskaya throws at her and her entire company of Neschastlivtsev: “...We are artists, noble artists, and you are the comedians.”

The main comedian in the life performance that is played out in “The Forest” turns out to be Gurmyzhskaya. She chooses for herself the attractive, sympathetic role of a woman of strict moral rules, a generous philanthropist who devotes herself to good deeds (“Gentlemen, do I really live for myself? Everything I have, all my money belongs to the poor. I’m just a clerk with my money, but every poor, every unfortunate one is their master,” she inspires those around her). But all this is acting, a mask hiding her true face. Gurmyzhskaya is deceiving, pretending to be kind-hearted, she didn’t even think of doing anything for others, helping anyone: “Why did I get emotional! You play and play a role, and then you get carried away.” Gurmyzhskaya not only plays a role that is completely alien to her, she also forces others to play along with her, imposes on them roles that should present her in the most favorable light: Neschastlivtsev is assigned to play the role of a grateful nephew who loves her. Aksyusha is the role of the bride, Bulanov is Aksyusha’s groom. But Aksyusha refuses to put on a comedy for her: “I won’t marry him; so why this comedy?” Gurmyzhskaya, no longer hiding the fact that she is the director of the play being staged, rudely puts Aksyusha in her place: “Comedy! How dare you? Even if it’s a comedy, I’ll feed you and clothe you, and I’ll make you play a comedy.”

The comedian Schastlivtsev, who turned out to be more insightful than the tragedian Neschastlivtsev, who first took Gurmyzhskaya’s performance on faith, figured out the real situation before him, says to Neschastlivtsev: “The high school student is apparently smarter; he plays the role here better than yours... He’s the lover plays, and you are... a simpleton."

The viewer is presented with the real Gurmyzhskaya, without the protective pharisaical mask - a greedy, selfish, deceitful, depraved lady. The performance she performed pursued low, vile, dirty goals.

Many of Ostrovsky's plays present such a deceitful "theater" of life. Podkhalyuzin in Ostrovsky's first play "Our People - Let's Be Numbered" plays the role of the most devoted and faithful person to the owner and thus achieves his goal - having deceived Bolshov, he himself becomes the owner. Glumov in the comedy “Every Wise Man Has Enough Simplicity” builds a career for himself on a complex game, putting on one mask or another. Only chance prevented him from achieving his goal in the intrigue he started. In "Dowry" not only Robinson, entertaining Vozhevatov and Paratov, introduces himself as a lord. The funny and pathetic Karandyshev tries to look important. Having become Larisa’s fiancé, he “... raised his head so high that, just behold, he would bump into someone. Moreover, he put on glasses for some reason, but never wore them. He bows and barely nods,” says Vozhevatov. Everything that Karandyshev does is artificial, everything is for show: the pitiful horse he got, the carpet with cheap weapons on the wall, and the dinner he throws. Paratov is a man - calculating and soulless - plays the role of a hot, uncontrollably broad nature.

Theater in life, impressive masks are born from the desire to disguise, to hide something immoral, shameful, to pass off black as white. Behind such a performance there is usually calculation, hypocrisy, and self-interest.

Neznamov in the play “Guilty Without Guilt”, finding himself a victim of the intrigue started by Korinkina, and believing that Kruchinina was only pretending to be a kind and noble woman, says with bitterness: “Actress! actress! Just play on stage. There they pay money for good pretense.” And to play in life over simple, gullible hearts, who do not need a game, who ask for the truth... we must be executed for this... we don’t need deception! Give us the truth, the pure truth! The hero of the play here expresses a very important idea for Ostrovsky about the theater, about its role in life, about the nature and purpose of acting. Ostrovsky contrasts comedy and hypocrisy in life with art on stage full of truth and sincerity. Real theater and an artist’s inspired performance are always moral, bring goodness, and enlighten people.

Ostrovsky's plays about actors and theater, which accurately reflected the circumstances of Russian reality in the 70s and 80s of the last century, contain thoughts about art that are still alive today. These are thoughts about the difficult, sometimes tragic fate of a true artist who, in realizing himself, spends and burns himself out, about the happiness of creativity he finds, about complete dedication, about the high mission of art that affirms goodness and humanity. Ostrovsky himself expressed himself, revealed his soul in the plays he created, perhaps especially openly in plays about theater and actors. Much in them is consonant with what the poet of our century writes in wonderful verses:

When a line is dictated by a feeling,

It sends a slave to the stage,

And this is where the art ends,

And the soil and fate breathe.

(B. Pasternak " Oh, I wish I knew

that this happens...").

Entire generations of wonderful Russian artists grew up watching productions of Ostrovsky’s plays. In addition to the Sadovskys, there are also Martynov, Vasilyeva, Strepetova, Ermolova, Massalitinova, Gogoleva. The walls of the Maly Theater saw the living great playwright, and his traditions are still being multiplied on the stage.

Ostrovsky's dramatic mastery is the property of modern theater and the subject of close study. It is not at all outdated, despite the somewhat old-fashioned nature of many techniques. But this old-fashionedness is exactly the same as that of the theater of Shakespeare, Moliere, Gogol. These are old, genuine diamonds. Ostrovsky's plays contain limitless possibilities for stage performance and acting growth.

The main strength of the playwright is the all-conquering truth, the depth of typification. Dobrolyubov also noted that Ostrovsky depicts not just types of merchants and landowners, but also universal types. Before us are all the signs of the highest art, which is immortal.

The originality of Ostrovsky's dramaturgy and its innovation are especially clearly manifested in typification. If ideas, themes and plots reveal the originality and innovation of the content of Ostrovsky’s dramaturgy, then the principles of character typification also concern its artistic depiction and its form.

A. N. Ostrovsky, who continued and developed the realistic traditions of Western European and Russian drama, was attracted, as a rule, not by exceptional personalities, but by ordinary, ordinary social characters of greater or less typicality.

Almost every Ostrovsky character is unique. At the same time, the individual in his plays does not contradict the social.

By individualizing his characters, the playwright discovers the gift of the deepest penetration into their psychological world. Many episodes of Ostrovsky's plays are masterpieces of realistic depiction of human psychology.

“Ostrovsky,” Dobrolyubov rightly wrote, “knows how to look into the depths of a person’s soul, knows how to distinguish nature from all externally accepted deformities and growths; That’s why external oppression, the weight of the whole situation that oppresses a person, is felt in his works much more strongly than in many stories, terribly outrageous in content, but with the external, official side of the matter completely overshadowing the internal, human side.” In the ability to “notice nature, penetrate into the depths of a person’s soul, capture his feelings, regardless of the depiction of his external official relationships,” Dobrolyubov recognized one of the main and best properties of Ostrovsky’s talent.

In his work on characters, Ostrovsky constantly improved the techniques of his psychological mastery, expanding the range of colors used, complicating the coloring of images. In his very first work we have bright, but more or less one-line characters of the characters. Further works provide examples of a more in-depth and complicated disclosure of human images.

In Russian drama, the Ostrovsky school is quite naturally designated. It includes I. F. Gorbunov, A. Krasovsky, A. F. Pisemsky, A. A. Potekhin, I. E. Chernyshev, M. P. Sadovsky, N. Ya. Solovyov, P. M. Nevezhin, I. . A. Kupchinsky. Studying from Ostrovsky, I. F. Gorbunov created wonderful scenes from the life of the bourgeois merchant and craftsman. Following Ostrovsky, A. A. Potekhin revealed in his plays the impoverishment of the nobility (“The Newest Oracle”), the predatory essence of the rich bourgeoisie (“The Guilty One”), bribery, the careerism of the bureaucracy (“Tinsel”), the spiritual beauty of the peasantry (“A Sheep’s Fur Coat - the human soul”), the emergence of new people of a democratic bent (“The Cut Off Chunk”). Potekhin’s first drama, “The Human Court is Not God,” which appeared in 1854, is reminiscent of Ostrovsky’s plays, written under the influence of Slavophilism. At the end of the 50s and at the very beginning of the 60s, the plays of I. E. Chernyshev, an artist of the Alexandrinsky Theater and a permanent contributor to the Iskra magazine, were very popular in Moscow, St. Petersburg and the provinces. These plays, written in a liberal-democratic spirit, clearly imitating Ostrovsky’s artistic style, impressed with the exclusivity of the main characters and the acute presentation of moral and everyday issues. For example, in the comedy “Groom from the Debt Branch” (1858) it was about a poor man trying to marry a wealthy landowner; in the comedy “Money Can’t Buy Happiness” (1859) a soulless predatory merchant was depicted; in the drama “Father of the Family” (1860) a tyrant landowner, and in the comedy “Spoiled Life” (1862) they depict an extremely honest, kind official, his naive wife and a dishonestly treacherous fool who violated their happiness.

Under the influence of Ostrovsky, such playwrights as A.I. Sumbatov-Yuzhin, Vl.I. were formed later, at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. Nemirovich-Danchenko, S. A. Naydenov, E. P. Karpov, P. P. Gnedich and many others.

Ostrovsky's unquestioned authority as the country's first playwright was recognized by all progressive literary figures. Highly appreciating Ostrovsky’s dramaturgy as “national”, listening to his advice, L. N. Tolstoy sent him the play “The First Distiller” in 1886. Calling Ostrovsky “the father of Russian drama,” the author of “War and Peace” asked him in an accompanying letter to read the play and express his “fatherly verdict” about it.

Ostrovsky's plays, the most progressive in dramaturgy of the second half of the 19th century, constitute a step forward in the development of world dramatic art, an independent and important chapter.

The enormous influence of Ostrovsky on the dramaturgy of Russian, Slavic and other peoples is undeniable. But his work is connected not only with the past. It actively lives in the present. In terms of his contribution to the theatrical repertoire, which is an expression of current life, the great playwright is our contemporary. Attention to his work does not decrease, but increases.

Ostrovsky will for a long time attract the minds and hearts of domestic and foreign viewers with the humanistic and optimistic pathos of his ideas, the deep and broad generalization of his heroes, good and evil, their universal human properties, and the uniqueness of his original dramatic skill.