What does a ray of light mean in a dark kingdom? Katerina - a ray of light in a dark kingdom - essay

“...Shortly before the appearance of “The Thunderstorm” on stage, we examined in great detail all of Ostrovsky’s works. Wanting to present a description of the author’s talent, we then drew attention to the phenomena of Russian life reproduced in his plays and tried to catch them general character and to find out whether the meaning of these phenomena is in reality as it appears to us in the works of our playwright. If the readers have not forgotten, we then came to the result that Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life and a great ability to depict sharply and vividly its most significant aspects. “The thunderstorm” soon served as new proof of the validity of our conclusion...”

* * *

The given introductory fragment of the book Ray of light in dark kingdom(N. A. Dobrolyubov, 1860) provided by our book partner - the company liters.

(“The Thunderstorm”, drama in five acts by A. N. Ostrovsky. St. Petersburg, 1860)

Shortly before “The Thunderstorm” appeared on stage, we examined in great detail all of Ostrovsky’s works. Wanting to present a description of the author's talent, we then paid attention to the phenomena of Russian life reproduced in his plays, tried to grasp their general character and find out whether the meaning of these phenomena in reality is the same as it appears to us in the works of our playwright. If the readers have not forgotten, we then came to the result that Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life and a great ability to depict sharply and vividly its most significant aspects (1). The “thunderstorm” soon served as new proof of the validity of our conclusion. We wanted to talk about it then, but felt that we would have to repeat many of our previous considerations, and therefore decided to remain silent about “The Thunderstorm,” leaving the readers who asked our opinion to test those general remarks, which we expressed about Ostrovsky several months before the appearance of this play. Our decision was confirmed in us even more when we saw that about “The Thunderstorm” was appearing in all magazines and newspapers whole line large and small reviews that interpreted the matter from a wide variety of points of view. We thought that in this mass of articles something would finally be said about Ostrovsky and the meaning of his plays. more than that, rather than what we saw in the critics who were mentioned at the beginning of our first article about the “Dark Kingdom”. In this hope and in the knowledge that our own opinion about the meaning and character of Ostrovsky’s works has already been expressed quite definitely, we considered it best to leave the analysis of “The Thunderstorm”.

But now, again encountering Ostrovsky's play in separate publication and recalling everything that has been written about her, we find that it would not be superfluous on our part to say a few words about her. It gives us a reason to add something to our notes about the “Dark Kingdom”, to further carry out some of the thoughts we expressed then, and - by the way - to explain ourselves in in short words with some of the critics who have honored us with direct or indirect abuse.

We must do justice to some of the critics: they knew how to understand the difference that separates us from them. They reproach us for adopting the bad method of examining the work of an author and then, as a result of this examination, saying what it contains and what its contents are. They have a completely different method: they first tell themselves that must contained in the work (according to their concepts, of course) and to what extent all due really is in it (again in accordance with their concepts). It is clear that with such a difference in views, they look with indignation at our analyzes, which one of them likens to “seeking morality in a fable.” But we are very glad that the difference is finally open, and we are ready to withstand any comparisons. Yes, if you like, our method of criticism is also similar to finding a moral conclusion in a fable: the difference, for example, is applied to the criticism of Ostrovsky’s comedies, and will only be as great as the comedy differs from the fable and to the extent human life, depicted in comedies, is more important and closer to us than the life of donkeys, foxes, reeds and other characters depicted in fables. In any case, it is much better, in our opinion, to dissect a fable and say: “This is the moral it contains, and this moral seems to us good or bad, and here’s why,” rather than deciding from the very beginning: this fable must contain such and such morality (for example, respect for parents), and this is how it should be expressed (for example, in the form of a chick that disobeyed its mother and fell out of the nest); but these conditions are not met, the moral is not the same (for example, the carelessness of parents about children) or is expressed in the wrong way (for example, in the example of a cuckoo leaving its eggs in other people’s nests), which means that the fable is not suitable. We have seen this method of criticism more than once applied to Ostrovsky, although no one, of course, will want to admit it, and they will also blame us, from a sore head on a healthy one, for starting to analyze literary works with previously accepted ideas and requirements. Meanwhile, what is clearer, didn’t the Slavophiles say: it is necessary to portray the Russian person as virtuous and prove that the root of all good is life in the old days; in his first plays Ostrovsky did not comply with this, and therefore “Family Picture” and “One’s Own People” are unworthy of him and can only be explained by the fact that he was still imitating Gogol at that time. But didn’t the Westerners shout: they should teach in comedy that superstition is harmful, and Ostrovsky, with the ringing of a bell, saves one of his heroes from death; everyone should be taught that the true good lies in education, and Ostrovsky in his comedy disgraces the educated Vikhorev in front of the ignorant Borodkin; It is clear that “Don’t get on your own sleigh” and “Don’t live the way you want” are bad plays. But didn’t the adherents of artistry proclaim: art must serve the eternal and universal requirements of aesthetics, and Ostrovsky in “A Profitable Place” reduced art to serving the pitiful interests of the moment; therefore, “A Profitable Place” is unworthy of art and should be counted among accusatory literature!.. And didn’t Mr. Nekrasov from Moscow assert: Bolshov should not arouse sympathy in us, and yet the 4th act of “His People” was written for this purpose, to arouse in us sympathy for Bolshov; therefore, the fourth act is superfluous! folk life can provide material only for farcical performances; there are no elements in it in order to construct from it something in accordance with the “eternal” requirements of art; it is obvious, therefore, that Ostrovsky, who takes the plot from common people’s life, is nothing more than a farcical writer... (3) And didn’t another Moscow critic draw such conclusions: drama should present us with a hero imbued with lofty ideas; the heroine of “The Thunderstorm,” on the contrary, is completely imbued with mysticism, and therefore is not suitable for drama, because she cannot arouse our sympathy; therefore, “Thunderstorm” only has the meaning of satire, and even that is not important, and so on and so forth... (4)

Anyone who has followed what has been written about “The Thunderstorm” will easily remember several other similar criticisms. It cannot be said that they were all written by people who were completely wretched mentally; How can we explain the lack of a direct view of things, which in all of them strikes the impartial reader? Without any doubt, it must be attributed to the old critical routine, which remained in many heads from the study of artistic scholasticism in the courses of Koshansky, Ivan Davydov, Chistyakov and Zelenetsky. It is known that, in the opinion of these venerable theorists, criticism is an application to a well-known work general laws, presented in the courses of the same theorists: fits the laws - excellent; doesn't fit - bad. As you can see, it was not a bad idea for aging old people: as long as such a principle lives in criticism, they can be sure that they will not be considered completely backward, no matter what happens in literary world. After all, the laws of beauty were established by them in their textbooks, on the basis of those works in the beauty of which they believe; as long as everything new is judged on the basis of the laws they have approved, until then only that which is in accordance with them will be recognized as elegant, nothing new will dare to lay claim to its rights; the old men will be right in believing in Karamzin and not recognizing Gogol, as the respectable people who admired Racine’s imitators and scolded Shakespeare as a drunken savage, following Voltaire, thought they were right, or worshiped the Messiad and on this basis rejected Faust. Routines, even the most mediocre ones, have nothing to fear from criticism, which serves as a passive verification of the immovable rules of stupid scholars - and at the same time, the most gifted writers have nothing to hope from it if they bring something new and original into art. They must go against all the criticism of “correct” criticism, in spite of it, make a name for themselves, in spite of it, found a school and ensure that some new theorist begins to take them into account when drawing up a new code of art. Then criticism will humbly recognize their merits; and until then she must be in the position of the unfortunate Neapolitans at the beginning of this September - who, although they know that Garibaldi will not come to them today or tomorrow, but still must recognize Francis as their king until his royal majesty is pleased to leave your capital.

We are surprised how respectable people dare to recognize such an insignificant, such a humiliating role for criticism. After all, by limiting it to the application of the “eternal and general” laws of art to particular and temporary phenomena, through this they condemn art to immobility, and give criticism a completely commanding and police meaning. And many people do this pure heart! One of the authors about whom we expressed our opinion somewhat irreverently reminded us that disrespectful treatment of a judge by a judge is a crime (5). O naive author! How filled he is with the theories of Koshansky and Davydov! He takes quite seriously the vulgar metaphor that criticism is a tribunal before which authors appear as defendants! He probably also takes at face value the opinion that bad poems constitute a sin against Apollo and that bad writers are drowned in the Lethe River as punishment!.. Otherwise, how can one not see the difference between a critic and a judge? People are brought to court on suspicion of a misdemeanor or crime, and it is up to the judge to decide whether the accused is right or wrong; Is a writer really accused of anything when he is criticized? It seems those times when occupation book business considered heresy and a crime, have long since passed. The critic speaks his mind, whether he likes or dislikes a thing; and since it is assumed that he is not an empty talker, but a reasonable person, he tries to present reasons why he considers one thing good and the other bad. He does not consider his opinion a decisive verdict, binding on everyone; If we take a comparison from the legal sphere, then he is more of a lawyer than a judge. Having taken a certain point of view, which seems to him the most fair, he sets out to the readers the details of the case, as he understands it, and tries to instill in them his conviction in favor or against the author being analyzed. It goes without saying that he can use all the means that he finds suitable, as long as they do not distort the essence of the matter: he can bring you into horror or tenderness, into laughter or into tears, force the author to make confessions that are unfavorable for him or bring it is impossible to answer. From criticism carried out in this way, the following result can occur: theorists, having consulted their textbooks, can still see whether the analyzed work is consistent with their fixed laws, and, playing the role of judges, decide whether the author is right or wrong. But it is known that in public proceedings there are often cases when those present in court are far from sympathetic to the decision that is pronounced by the judge in accordance with certain articles of the code: public conscience reveals in these cases a complete discord with the articles of the law. The same thing can happen even more often when discussing literary works: and when a critic-lawyer properly will pose a question, group facts and throw light on them known belief, – public opinion, not paying attention to the codes of piitiki, will already know what to adhere to.

If we look closely at the definition of criticism as a “trial” of authors, we will find that it is very reminiscent of the concept that is associated with the word "criticism" our provincial ladies and young ladies, and which our novelists used to make fun of so wittily. Even today it is not uncommon to meet families who look at the writer with some fear, because he “will write criticism on them.” The unfortunate provincials, who once had such a thought in their heads, really represent a pitiful spectacle of defendants, whose fate depends on the handwriting of the writer’s pen. They look into his eyes, are embarrassed, apologize, make reservations, as if they were really guilty, awaiting execution or mercy. But it must be said that such naive people are now beginning to appear in the most distant outbacks. At the same time, as the right to “dare to have your own judgment” ceases to be the property of only a certain rank or position, but becomes accessible to everyone, at the same time, in private life, more solidity and independence appears, less trepidation before any outside court. Now they express their opinion simply because it is better to declare it than to hide it, they express it because they consider the exchange of thoughts useful, they recognize everyone’s right to state their views and their demands, and finally, they even consider it the duty of everyone to participate in general movement, reporting their observations and considerations, which are within their power. This is a long way from being a judge. If I tell you that you lost your handkerchief on the way or that you are going in the wrong direction where you need to go, etc., this does not mean that you are my defendant. In the same way, I will not be your defendant in the case when you begin to describe me, wanting to give an idea about me to your acquaintances. Entering a new society for the first time, I know very well that they are making observations about me and forming opinions about me; but should I really imagine myself in front of some kind of Areopagus - and tremble in advance, awaiting the verdict? Without any doubt, comments will be made about me: one will find that I have a big nose, another that my beard is red, a third that my tie is poorly tied, a fourth that I am gloomy, etc. Well, let them notice them, What do I care about that? After all, mine Red beard- not a crime, and no one can ask me why I dare to have such a big nose. So, there’s nothing for me to think about: whether I like my figure or not, it’s a matter of taste, and I can’t forbid anyone from expressing an opinion about it ; and on the other hand, it won’t hurt me if they notice my taciturnity, if I’m really silent. So the first critical work(in our sense) - noticing and indicating facts - is done completely freely and harmlessly. Then the other work - judging from facts - continues in the same way to keep the one who judges on a completely equal chance with the one about whom he judges. This is because, when expressing his conclusion from known data, a person always exposes himself to judgment and the verification of others regarding the fairness and validity of his opinion. If, for example, someone, based on the fact that my tie is not tied very gracefully, decides that I am poorly brought up, then such a judge risks giving others a not very high understanding of his logic. Likewise, if some critic reproaches Ostrovsky for the fact that Katerina’s face in “The Thunderstorm” is disgusting and immoral, then he does not inspire much confidence in the purity of his own moral sense. Thus, as long as the critic points out the facts, analyzes them and draws his own conclusions, the author is safe and the matter itself is safe. Here you can only claim when a critic distorts facts and lies. And if he presents the matter correctly, then no matter what tone he speaks, no matter what conclusions he comes to, from his criticism, as from any free reasoning supported by facts, there will always be more benefit than harm - for the author himself, if he good, and in any case for literature - even if the author turns out to be bad. Criticism - not judicial, but ordinary, as we understand it - is good because it gives people who are not accustomed to focusing their thoughts on literature, so to speak, an extract of the writer and thus makes it easier to understand the nature and meaning of his works. And as soon as the writer is properly understood, an opinion will soon be formed about him and justice will be given to him, without any permission from the venerable compilers of the codes.

True, sometimes explaining character famous author or a work, the critic himself can find in the work something that is not there at all. But in these cases the critic always gives himself away. If he decides to give the work he is examining a thought that is more lively and broader than what was actually laid down by its author, then, obviously, he will not be able to sufficiently confirm his thought with indications of the work itself, and thus criticism, having shown how it could If the work is to be analyzed, this will only show more clearly the poverty of its concept and the inadequacy of its execution. As an example of such criticism, one can point out, for example, Belinsky’s analysis of “Tarantas,” written with the most evil and subtle irony; This analysis was taken by many at face value, but even these many found that the meaning given to “Tarantas” by Belinsky is carried out very well in his criticism, but does not go well with the work of Count Sollogub itself (6). However, this kind of critical exaggeration is very rare. Much more often, another case is that the critic really does not understand the author being analyzed and deduces from his work something that does not follow at all. So here, too, the problem is not great: the critic’s method of reasoning will now show the reader with whom he is dealing, and if only the facts are present in the criticism, false reasoning will not deceive the reader. For example, one Mr. P—y, while analyzing “The Thunderstorm,” decided to follow the same method that we followed in the articles about “The Dark Kingdom,” and, having outlined the essence of the content of the play, began drawing conclusions. It turned out, for his reasons, that Ostrovsky made Katerina laugh in The Thunderstorm, wanting to disgrace Russian mysticism in her person. Well, of course, having read such a conclusion, you now see to what category of minds Mr. P—y belongs and whether you can rely on his considerations. Such criticism will not confuse anyone, it is not dangerous to anyone...

A completely different matter is the criticism that approaches the authors, as if they were men brought into the recruit’s presence, with a uniform yardstick, and shouts first “forehead!”, then “back of the head!”, depending on whether the recruit fits the standard or not. There the punishment is short and decisive; and if you believe in the eternal laws of art, printed in the textbook, then you will not turn away from such criticism. She will prove to you with her fingers that what you admire is no good, and what makes you doze, yawn or get a migraine is a real treasure. Take, for example, “The Thunderstorm”: what is it? A blatant insult to art, nothing more - and this is very easy to prove. Open the “Readings on Literature” by the honored professor and academician Ivan Davydov, compiled by him with the help of a translation of Blair’s lectures, or take a look at Mr. Plaksin’s cadet literature course – the conditions for an exemplary drama are clearly defined there. The subject of the drama must certainly be an event where we see the struggle between passion and duty - with the unhappy consequences of the victory of passion or with the happy ones when duty wins. Strict unity and consistency must be observed in the development of the drama; the denouement should flow naturally and necessarily from the plot; each scene must certainly contribute to the movement of the action and move it towards the denouement; therefore, there should not be a single person in the play who would not directly and necessarily participate in the development of the drama, there should not be a single conversation that is not related to the essence of the play. Characters characters must be clearly marked, and their discovery must be gradual, in accordance with the development of the action. The language must be consistent with the position of each person, but not move away from literary purity and not turn into vulgarity.

These seem to be all the main rules of drama. Let's apply them to "Thunderstorm".

The subject of the drama really represents the struggle in Katerina between the sense of duty of marital fidelity and passion for the young Boris Grigorievich. This means that the first requirement has been found. But then, starting from this requirement, we find that the other conditions of an exemplary drama are violated in the most cruel way in The Thunderstorm.

And, firstly, “The Thunderstorm” does not satisfy the most essential internal goal of the drama - to inspire respect for moral duty and show the harmful consequences of being carried away by passion. Katerina, this immoral, shameless (in the apt expression of N. F. Pavlov) woman who ran out at night to her lover as soon as her husband left home, this criminal appears to us in the drama not only not in a sufficiently gloomy light, but even with some the radiance of martyrdom around the brow. She speaks so well, suffers so pitifully, everything around her is so bad that you have no indignation against her, you pity her, you arm yourself against her oppressors, and, in this way, justify vice in her person. Consequently, drama does not fulfill its high purpose and becomes, if not a harmful example, then at least an idle toy.

Further, from a purely artistic point of view, we also find very important shortcomings. The development of passion is not sufficiently represented: we do not see how Katerina’s love for Boris began and intensified and what exactly motivated it; therefore, the very struggle between passion and duty is not clearly and strongly indicated for us.

The unity of impression is also not respected: it is harmed by the admixture of a foreign element - Katerina’s relationship with her mother-in-law. The interference of the mother-in-law constantly prevents us from focusing our attention on the internal struggle that should be taking place in Katerina’s soul.

In addition, in Ostrovsky’s play we notice an error against the first and fundamental rules of any poetic work, unforgivable even for a novice author. This mistake is specifically called in the drama - “duality of intrigue”: here we see not one love, but two - Katerina’s love for Boris and Varvara’s love for Kudryash (7). This is good only in light French vaudeville, and not in serious drama, where the attention of the audience should not be entertained in any way.

The beginning and resolution also sin against the requirements of art. The plot lies in a simple case - the departure of the husband; the outcome is also completely random and arbitrary: this thunderstorm, which frightened Katerina and forced her to tell her husband everything, is nothing more than a deus ex machina, no worse than a vaudeville uncle from America.

All the action is sluggish and slow, because it is cluttered with scenes and faces that are completely unnecessary. Kudryash and Shapkin, Kuligin, Feklusha, the lady with two footmen, Dikoy himself - all these are persons who are not significantly connected with the basis of the play. Unnecessary people constantly enter the stage, say things that do not go to the point, and leave, again no one knows why or where. All Kuligin’s recitations, all the antics of Kudryash and Dikiy, not to mention the half-crazy lady and the conversations of city residents during a thunderstorm, could have been released without any damage to the essence of the matter.

We find almost no strictly defined and polished characters in this crowd of unnecessary persons, and there is nothing to ask about gradualism in their discovery. They appear to us directly ex abrupto, with labels. The curtain opens: Kudryash and Kuligin talk about what a scolder Dikaya is, after which Dikaya appears and swears behind the scenes... Kabanova too. In the same way, Kudryash makes it known from the first word that he is “dashing with girls”; and Kuligin, upon his very appearance, is recommended as a self-taught mechanic who admires nature. And so they remain with this until the very end: Dikoy swears, Kabanova grumbles, Kudryash walks at night with Varvara... And the complete comprehensive development We do not see their characters in the entire play. The heroine herself is portrayed very unsuccessfully: apparently, the author himself did not clearly understand this character, because, without presenting Katerina as a hypocrite, he nevertheless forces her to pronounce sensitive monologues, but in fact shows her to us as a shameless woman, carried away by sensuality alone. There is nothing to say about the hero - he is so colorless. Dikoy and Kabanova themselves, characters most in Mr. Ostrovsky’s genre, represent (according to the happy conclusion of Mr. Akhsharumov or someone else like that) (8) a deliberate exaggeration, close to a libel, and give us not living faces, but “quintessence of ugliness” of Russian life.

Finally, the language in which the characters speak exceeds any patience of a well-bred person. Of course, merchants and townspeople cannot speak gracefully literary language; but one cannot agree that a dramatic author, for the sake of fidelity, can introduce into literature all the common expressions in which the Russian people are so rich. The language of dramatic characters, whoever they may be, may be simple, but it is always noble and should not offend educated taste. And in “The Thunderstorm” listen to how all the faces say: “Shrill man! Why are you jumping in with your snout! It ignites everything inside! Women can’t improve their bodies!” What kind of phrases are these, what are these words? You will inevitably repeat with Lermontov:

Who do they paint portraits of?

Where are these conversations heard?

And if it happened to them,

So we don’t want to listen to them (9).

Maybe “in the city of Kalinov, on the banks of the Volga,” there are people who speak in this way, but what do we care about that? The reader understands that we have not made special efforts to make this criticism convincing; that is why it is easy to notice in other places the living threads with which it is sewn. But we assure you that it can be made extremely convincing and victorious, you can destroy the author with it, once you take the point of view of school textbooks. And if the reader agrees to give us the right to proceed to the play with pre-prepared requirements regarding what and how in it must to be - we don’t need anything else: we can destroy everything that disagrees with our accepted rules. Extracts from the comedy will appear very conscientiously to confirm our judgments; quotes from various learned books, starting with Aristotle and ending with Fischer (10), which, as we know, constitutes the last, final moment aesthetic theory, will prove to you the solidity of our education; ease of presentation and wit will help us capture your attention, and you, without noticing, will come to complete agreement with us. Just don’t let doubt for a minute enter into your head about our full right to prescribe duties to the author and then judge him, whether he is faithful to these duties or has been guilty of them...

But this is the unfortunate thing that now not a single reader can be protected from such doubts. The despicable crowd, which previously reverently, with their mouths open, listened to our broadcasts, now presents a deplorable and dangerous for our authority spectacle of a mass armed, beautiful expression Mr. Turgenev, “the double-edged sword of analysis” (11). Everyone says, reading our thunderous criticism: “You offer us your “storm”, assuring us that in the “Thunderstorm” what is there is superfluous, and what is needed is missing. But the author of “The Thunderstorm” probably seems completely disgusted; let us sort you out. Tell us, analyze the play for us, show it as it is, and give us your opinion about it based on it itself, and not on some outdated considerations, completely unnecessary and extraneous. In your opinion, such and such should not exist; and maybe it fits well in the play, so why shouldn’t it?” This is how every reader now dares to resonate, and this offensive circumstance must be attributed to the fact that, for example, N. F. Pavlov’s magnificent critical exercises regarding “The Thunderstorm” suffered such a decisive fiasco. In fact, everyone rose up against the criticism of “The Thunderstorm” in “Our Time” - both writers and the public, and, of course, not because he decided to show a lack of respect for Ostrovsky, but because in his criticism he expressed disrespect to common sense and goodwill of the Russian public. For a long time now, everyone has seen that Ostrovsky has largely moved away from the old stage routine, that in the very concept of each of his plays there are conditions that necessarily take him beyond the boundaries of the well-known theory that we pointed out above. A critic who does not like these deviations should have started by noting them, characterizing them, generalizing them, and then directly and frankly raising the question between them and the old theory. This was the responsibility of the critic not only to the author under review, but even more to the public, which so constantly approves of Ostrovsky, with all his liberties and deviations, and with every new play becomes more and more attached to him. If the critic finds that the public is mistaken in its sympathy for an author who turns out to be a criminal against his theory, then he should have begun with a defense of this theory and with serious proof that deviations from it cannot be good. Then, perhaps, he would have managed to convince some and even many, since N. F. Pavlov cannot be taken away from the fact that he speaks phrases quite deftly. Now what did he do? He did not pay the slightest attention to the fact that the old laws of art, while continuing to exist in textbooks and taught from gymnasium and university departments, had long since lost their sacred inviolability in literature and in the public. He bravely began to break Ostrovsky point by point of his theory, forcibly, forcing the reader to consider it inviolable. He found it convenient only to be ironic about the gentleman who, being Mr. Pavlov’s “neighbor and brother” in terms of his place in the first row of seats and “fresh” gloves, nevertheless dared to admire the play, which was so disgusting to N. F. Pavlov. Such disdainful treatment of the public, and indeed of the very question the critic had taken on, naturally should have aroused the majority of readers against him rather than in his favor. Readers let the critics notice that he was spinning with his theory like a squirrel in a wheel, and demanded that he get out of the wheel and onto a straight road. The rounded phrase and clever syllogism seemed insufficient to them; they demanded serious confirmation for the very premises from which Mr. Pavlov drew his conclusions and which he presented as axioms. He said: this is bad, because there are many people in the play who do not contribute directly to the development of the course of action. And they stubbornly objected to him: why can’t there be people in the play who are not directly involved in the development of the drama? The critic insisted that the drama was already devoid of meaning because its heroine was immoral; readers stopped him and asked the question: why do you think that she is immoral? and what are yours based on? moral concepts? The critic considered it vulgar and greasy, unworthy of art, - and the night date, and Curly’s daring whistle, and the very scene of Katerina’s confession to her husband; they asked him again: why exactly does he find this vulgar and why are social intrigues and aristocratic passions more worthy of art than bourgeois hobbies? Why is the whistling of a young guy more vulgar than the tearful singing of Italian arias by some secular youth? N. F. Pavlov, as the culmination of his arguments, decided from a haughty manner that a play like “The Thunderstorm” is not a drama, but a farcical performance. And then they answered him: why are you so contemptuous of the booth? Another question is whether any sleek drama, even if all three unities were observed in it, is better than any farcical performance. Regarding the role of the booth in the history of theater and in business people's development we will argue with you again. The last objection was developed in some detail in print. And where did it come from? It would be good in Sovremennik, which, as you know, itself has a “Whistle” with it, therefore cannot be scandalized by Kudryash’s whistling and in general should be inclined towards any kind of farce. No, thoughts about the booth were expressed in the “Library for Reading”, a well-known champion of all the rights of “art”, expressed by Mr. Annenkov, whom no one would blame for excessive adherence to “vulgarity” (12). If we correctly understood Mr. Annenkov’s thought (for which, of course, no one can vouch), he finds that contemporary drama with her theory she deviated further from the truth and beauty of life than the original booths, and that in order to revive the theater it is necessary to first return to the booth and start the path again dramatic development. These are the opinions Mr. Pavlov encountered even among respectable representatives of Russian criticism, not to mention those who are accused by right-thinking people of contempt for science and of denying everything lofty! It is clear that here it was no longer possible to get away with more or less brilliant remarks, but it was necessary to begin a serious revision of the grounds on which the critic asserted himself in his verdicts. But as soon as the question turned to this ground, the critic of Our Time turned out to be untenable and had to hush up his critical rantings.

It is obvious that criticism, which becomes an ally of scholars and takes upon itself the revision of literary works according to paragraphs of textbooks, must very often put itself in such a pitiful position: having condemned itself to slavery to the dominant theory, it dooms itself at the same time to constant fruitless hostility to any progress, to everything new and original in literature. And the stronger the new literary movement, the more she becomes bitter against him and the more clearly she shows her toothless powerlessness. Looking for some dead perfection, presenting to us outdated ideals that are indifferent to us, throwing at us fragments torn from the beautiful whole, adherents of such criticism constantly remain on the sidelines of the living movement, close their eyes to the new, living beauty, do not want to understand the new truth. , the result of a new course of life. They look down on everything, judge strictly, are ready to blame any author for not being equal to their chefs-d'oeuvres, and impudently neglect the author's living relationship with his audience and his era. This is all, you see, “the interests of the moment” - is it possible for serious critics to compromise art by being carried away by such interests! Poor, soulless people! how pitiful they are in the eyes of a person who knows how to value the work of life, its labors and benefits! An ordinary, sensible person takes from life what it gives him and gives to it what he can; but pedants always take things down and paralyze life with dead ideals and distractions. Tell me what to think about a man who, at the sight of a pretty woman, suddenly begins to resonate that her figure is not the same as that of the Venus de Milo, the outline of her mouth is not as good as that of the Venus de Medicea, her gaze does not have the expression that we find in Raphael's Madonnas, etc., etc. All the reasoning and comparisons of such a gentleman can be very fair and witty, but what can they lead to? Will they prove to you that the woman about whom we're talking about, not pretty? Are they even able to convince you that this woman is less good than this or that Venus? Of course not, because beauty lies not in individual features and lines, but in the overall facial expression, life sense, which manifests itself in it. When this expression pleases me; when this meaning is accessible and satisfactory to me, then I simply surrender to beauty with all my heart and meaning, without making any dead comparisons, without making claims sanctified by the traditions of art. And if you want to have a living effect on me, you want to make me fall in love with beauty, then be able to grasp this general meaning in it, this spirit of life, be able to point out and explain it to me: only then will you achieve your goal. It’s the same with truth: it is not in dialectical subtleties, not in the correctness of individual conclusions, but in the living truth of what you are discussing. Let me understand the nature of the phenomenon, its place among others, its meaning and significance in the general course of life, and believe that in this way you will lead me to a correct judgment about the matter much more accurately than through all sorts of syllogisms selected to prove your thoughts. If ignorance and credulity are still so strong among people, this is supported by precisely the mode of critical reasoning that we attack. Synthesis prevails everywhere and in everything; they say in advance: this is useful, and rush in all directions to tidy up the arguments why it is useful; they stun you with the maxim: this is what morality should be, and then they condemn as immoral everything that does not fit the maxim. Thus it is constantly distorted human meaning, the desire and opportunity for everyone to reason for themselves is taken away. It would be completely different if people were accustomed to the analytical method of judgment: here is the matter, here are its consequences, here are its benefits and disadvantages; weigh and judge to what extent it will be useful. Then people would constantly have data before them and in their judgments would proceed from facts, without wandering in synthetic mists, without binding themselves to abstract theories and ideals, once compiled by someone. To achieve this, it is necessary that all people have the desire to live with their own minds, and not rely on the care of others. Of course, we will not see this in humanity any time soon. But that small part of people, which we call the “reading public,” gives us the right to think that in them this desire for independent mental life has already awakened. Therefore, we consider it very inconvenient to bully her down and arrogantly throw at her maxims and sentences based on God knows what theories. The most the best way As critics, we consider the presentation of the case itself so that the reader himself, based on the facts presented, can draw his own conclusion. We group data, make considerations about in a general sense work, point out its relationship to the reality in which we live, draw our conclusion and try to frame it as possible in the best possible way, but at the same time we always try to behave in such a way that the reader can completely comfortably pronounce his judgment between us and the author. More than once we have had the opportunity to receive reproaches for some ironic analysis: “From your own extracts and presentation of the content, it is clear that this author is bad or harmful,” we were told, “and you praise him, shame on you.” We admit that such reproaches did not upset us at all: the reader received a not entirely flattering opinion about our critical ability - it’s true; but our main goal was nevertheless achieved - the worthless book (which sometimes we could not directly condemn) seemed worthless to the reader thanks to the facts displayed before his eyes. And we have always been of the opinion that only factual, real criticism can have any meaning for the reader. If there is anything in the work, then show us what is in it; this is much better than indulging in thoughts about what is not in it and what should be in it.

Of course there is general concepts and the laws that every person certainly has in mind when discussing any subject. But it is necessary to distinguish these natural laws, arising from the very essence of the matter, from the provisions and rules established in some system. There are well-known axioms without which thinking is impossible, and every author assumes them in his reader, just as every speaker assumes them in his interlocutor. It is enough to say about a person that he is hunchbacked or braided for everyone to see this as a disadvantage and not an advantage of his organization. So, it is enough to notice that such and such a literary work is illiterate or full of lies, so that no one would consider this an advantage. But when you say that a person wears a cap and not a hat, this is not enough for me to get a bad opinion about him, although in known circle and it is accepted that honest man should not wear a cap. It’s the same in a literary work - if you find some unities not observed or see faces that are not necessary for the development of intrigue, this still does not say anything to the reader who is not biased in favor of your theory. On the contrary, what should seem to every reader a violation of the natural order of things and an insult to simple common sense, I can consider that does not require refutations from me, assuming that these refutations will appear of themselves in the mind of the reader, with my one indication of the fact. But one should never stretch such an assumption too far. Critics like N.F. Pavlov, Mr. Nekrasov from Moscow, Mr. Palkhovsky, etc., especially sin in that they assume unconditional agreement between themselves and the general opinion on many more points than they should. In other words, they consider as immutable, obvious axioms for everyone, many such opinions that only seem to them absolute truths, and for most people even represent a contradiction with some generally accepted concepts. For example, everyone understands that an author who wants to do something decent should not distort reality: both theorists and general opinion agree on this requirement. But theorists at the same time demand and also assume as an axiom that the author must improve reality, discarding everything unnecessary from it and choosing only what is specifically required for the development of intrigue and for the denouement of the work. In accordance with this second demand, Ostrovsky was attacked many times with great fury; and yet it is not only not an axiom, but is even in clear contradiction with the requirement regarding fidelity to real life, which is recognized by everyone as necessary. How can you really make me believe that in the course of just half an hour, ten people, one after another, come to one room or to one place in the square, exactly those who are needed, exactly at the time that they are needed here? they meet whoever they need, start an ex abrupto conversation about what is needed, leave and do what is needed, then show up again when they are needed. Is this done in real life? Does it look like the truth? Who does not know that the most difficult thing in life is to adjust one favorable circumstance to another, to arrange the course of affairs in accordance with logical necessity. Usually a person knows what to do, but he cannot spend so much time as to direct all the funds that a writer so easily disposes of to his business. The right people don't come, letters don't get through, conversations don't go well enough to move things forward. Everyone has a lot of things to do in life, and rarely does anyone serve, as in our dramas, as a machine that the author moves, as it is more convenient for him for the action of his play. The same must be said about the beginning and ending. How many cases do we see that in their end would represent pure, logical development started? In history we can still notice this throughout the centuries; but in private life it’s not the same. It is true that the historical laws are the same here, but the difference is in distance and size. Speaking absolutely and taking into account infinitesimal quantities, of course we will find that the ball is the same polygon; but try playing billiards with polygons - it won’t work out at all. Likewise, the historical laws about logical development and necessary retribution are not presented in the incidents of private life as clearly and completely as in the history of peoples. To deliberately give them this clarity means to force and distort the existing reality. As if, in fact, every crime carries its own punishment? As if it is always accompanied by torment of conscience, if not external execution?

As if frugality always leads to prosperity, honesty is rewarded with general respect, doubt finds its solution, virtue brings inner contentment? Don’t we see the opposite more often, although, on the other hand, the opposite cannot be affirmed, as general rule... It cannot be said that people are evil by nature, and therefore it is impossible to accept for literary works principles such as, for example, vice always triumphs, and virtue is punished. But it has become impossible, even ridiculous, to build dramas on the triumph of virtue! The fact is that human relationships are rarely arranged on the basis of reasonable calculation, but are formed for the most part by chance, and then a significant proportion of the actions of some with others are carried out as if unconsciously, according to routine, according to momentary disposition, under the influence of many extraneous reasons. An author who decides to throw aside all these accidents in favor of the logical requirements of plot development usually loses the average measure and becomes like a person who measures everything at the maximum. He, for example, found that a person can, without direct harm to himself, work fifteen hours a day and based his demands from the people who work for him on this calculation. It goes without saying that this calculation, possible for emergency cases, for two or three days, turns out to be completely ridiculous as the norm permanent job. The logical development of everyday relationships, required by theory from drama, often turns out to be the same.

They will tell us that we are falling into the denial of all creativity and do not recognize art except in the form of a daguerreotype. Even more, we will be asked to carry our opinions further and reach their extreme results, that is, that the dramatic author, not having the right to discard anything and adjust anything deliberately for his own purpose, finds himself in the need to simply record all the unnecessary conversations of all the people he meets, so that an action that lasted a week will require the same week in a drama for its presentation at the theater, and for another event the presence of all the thousands of people walking along Nevsky Prospekt or along the English Embankment will be required. Yes, it will have to be so, if the highest criterion in literature remains the theory with which we have now challenged the provisions. But that’s not where we’re going at all; It’s not just two or three points of the theory that we want to correct; no, with such corrections it will be even worse, more confusing and contradictory; we just don't want it at all. We have other grounds for judging the merits of authors and works, adhering to which we hope not to come to any absurdities and not to diverge from common sense masses of the public. We have already talked about these reasons in the first articles about Ostrovsky and then in the article about “On the Eve”; but perhaps it is necessary to briefly outline them again.

The measure of the merit of a writer or an individual work is the extent to which it serves as an expression of the natural aspirations of a certain time and people. The natural aspirations of humanity, reduced to the simplest denominator, can be expressed in two words: “So that it would be good for everyone.” It is clear that, striving for this goal, people, by the very essence of the matter, first had to move away from it: everyone wanted it to be good for him, and, asserting his own good, interfered with others; They didn’t yet know how to arrange things so that one wouldn’t interfere with the other. Thus, inexperienced dancers do not know how to control their movements and constantly collide with other couples, even in a fairly spacious hall. After getting used to it, they will begin to disperse better even in a smaller hall and with a larger number of dancers. But until they have acquired dexterity, until then, of course, it is impossible to allow many couples to waltz in the hall; in order not to bump into each other, it is necessary for many to wait out, and for the most awkward ones to give up dancing altogether and, perhaps, to sit down at cards, lose, and even a lot... So it was in the structure of life: the more dexterous continued to find their good, others sat , they took on something they shouldn’t have, they lost; the general celebration of life was disrupted from the very beginning; many had no time for fun; Many have come to the conclusion that only those who dance skillfully are called to have fun. And the dexterous dancers, who had established their well-being, continued to follow their natural inclination and took for themselves more and more space, more and more means for fun. Finally they lost their measure; the rest felt very crowded from them, and they jumped up from their seats and jumped up - not because they wanted to dance, but simply because they felt awkward even sitting. Meanwhile, in this movement, it turned out that among them there were people who were not without some lightness - and they tried to join the circle of those having fun. But the privileged, original dancers looked at them very hostilely, as if they were uncalled, and did not let them into the circle. A struggle began, varied, long, mostly unfavorable for the newcomers: they were ridiculed, pushed away, they were condemned to pay the costs of the holiday, their ladies were taken away from them, and their gentlemen were taken away from the ladies, they were completely driven out of the holiday. But the worse it gets for people, the more they feel the need to feel good. Deprivations will not stop demands, but will only irritate them; Only eating can satisfy hunger. Until now, therefore, the struggle is not over; natural aspirations, now seeming to be muffled, now appearing stronger, everyone is looking for their satisfaction. This is the essence of history.

End of introductory fragment.

Drama A.N. Ostrovsky's "The Thunderstorm" was published in 1960, on the eve of the revolutionary situation in Russia. The work reflected the impressions of the writer’s trip along the Volga in the summer of 1856. But not any specific Volga city and not any specific persons are depicted in “The Thunderstorm”. Ostrovsky reworked all his observations on the life of the Volga region and turned them into deeply typical pictures of Russian life.
The drama genre is characterized by the fact that it is based on the conflict between an individual and the surrounding society. In "The Thunderstorm" this person is Katerina Kabanova.
Katerina personifies the moral purity, spiritual beauty of a Russian woman, her desire for will, for freedom, her ability not only to endure, but also to defend her rights, her human dignity. According to Dobrolyubov, she “did not kill human nature in herself.”
Katerina is a Russian national character. First of all, this is reflected by Ostrovsky, who owned all the wealth in perfection vernacular, in the heroine’s speech. When she speaks, it seems like she is singing. In the speech of Katerina, associated with the common people, brought up on their oral poetry, colloquial vocabulary predominates, characterized by high poetry, imagery, and emotionality. The reader feels musicality and melodiousness; Katya’s speech is reminiscent of folk songs. The language of the Ostrovskaya heroine is characterized by repetitions (“a good C grade”, “people are disgusting to me, and the house is disgusting to me, and the walls are disgusting!”), an abundance of affectionate and diminutive words (“sun”, “voditsa”, “grave”). , comparison (“she didn’t grieve about anything, like a bird in the wild,” “someone speaks kindly to me, like a dove coos”). Longing for Boris, at the moment of greatest tension mental strength Katerina expresses her feelings in the language of folk poetry, exclaiming: “Violent winds, bear with him my sadness and melancholy!”
The naturalness, sincerity, and simplicity of the island heroine is striking. “I don’t know how to deceive; I can’t hide anything,” she answers Varvara, who says that you can’t live in their house without deception. Let's take a look at Katerina's religiosity. This is not Kabanikha’s hypocrisy, but a childish, genuine faith in God. She often attends church and does it with pleasure and enjoyment (“And to death I loved going to church! Surely, it happened that I would enter heaven...”), loves to talk about pilgrims (“Our house was full of pilgrims and praying mantises”) , Katerina’s dreams about “golden temples”.
The love of the island heroine is not without reason. Firstly, the need for love makes itself felt: after all, it is unlikely that her husband Tikhon, under the influence of “mama,” showed his love for his wife very often. Secondly, the feelings of the wife and woman are offended. Thirdly, the mortal melancholy of a monotonous life strangles Katerina. And finally, the fourth reason is the desire for freedom, space: after all, love is one of the manifestations of freedom. Katerina is fighting with herself, and this is the tragedy of her situation, but in the end she internally justifies herself. Committing suicide, committing, from the point of view of the church, terrible sin, she thinks not about the salvation of her soul, but about the love that has been revealed to her. "My friend! My joy! Farewell!" - these are Katerina’s last words.
Another one characteristic the Ostrovskaya heroine is “a mature demand for the right and spaciousness of life arising from the depths of the whole organism,” the desire for freedom, spiritual emancipation. To Varvara’s words: “Where are you going? You’re a husband’s wife,” Katerina replies: “Eh, Varya, you don’t know my character! Of course, God forbid this happens! And if I get tired of being here, they won’t hold me back by any force. "I'll throw myself out the window, I'll throw myself into the Volga. I don't want to live here, I won't, even if you cut me!" It is not for nothing that the image of a bird - a symbol of will - is repeatedly repeated in the play. Hence the constant epithet “free bird”. Katerina, remembering how she lived before her marriage, compares herself to a bird in the wild. “...Why don’t people fly like birds?” she says to Varvara. “You know, sometimes it seems to me that I’m a bird.” But the free bird ended up in an iron cage. And she struggles and yearns in captivity.
The integrity and decisiveness of Katerina’s character was expressed in the fact that she refused to obey the rules of the Kabanikha house and preferred death to life in captivity. And this was not a manifestation of weakness, but of spiritual strength and courage, ardent hatred of oppression and despotism.
So, the main character of the drama "The Thunderstorm" comes into conflict with environment. In the fourth act, in the scene of repentance, the denouement seems to be coming. Everything is against Katerina in this scene: the “thunderstorm of God,” the cursing half-crazed “lady with two lackeys,” and the ancient painting on a dilapidated wall depicting “fiery Gehenna.” The poor girl was almost driven crazy by all these signs of a passing, but tenacious old world, and she repents of her sin in a semi-delirious state of darkness. She herself later admits to Boris that “she was not free in herself,” “she didn’t remember herself.” If the drama “The Thunderstorm” ended with this scene, then it would show the invincibility of the “dark kingdom”: after all, at the end fourth act The boar is triumphant: “What a son! Where will the will lead!”
But the drama ends with a moral victory both over the external forces that fettered Katerina’s freedom, and over the dark ideas that fettered her will and mind. And her decision to die, rather than remain a slave, expresses, according to Dobrolyubov, “the need of the emerging movement of Russian life.”
The critic called Katerina a folk, national character, “a bright ray in a dark kingdom,” meaning the effective expression in her of direct protest and liberation aspirations masses. Pointing out the deep typicality of this image, its national significance, Dobrolyubov wrote that it represents “an artistic combination of homogeneous features that appear in different situations of Russian life, but serve as an expression of one idea.”
Ostrovsky’s heroine reflected in her feelings and in her actions the spontaneous protest of the broad masses against the conditions of the “dark kingdom” that he hated. That is why Dobrolyubov singled out “The Thunderstorm” from all progressive pre-reform literature and emphasized its objectively revolutionary significance.

Year of writing:

1860

Reading time:

Description of the work:

In 1860, Nikolai Dobrolyubov wrote a critical article, A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom, which became one of the first serious reviews to a play by Alexander Ostrovsky called "The Thunderstorm". The article was published by the Sovremennik magazine in the same 1860.

Let us mention only one character in the play - Katerina, in whom Dobrolyubov saw a decisive, integral, strong character, which was so necessary for society to resist the autocratic system at that time and carry out social reforms.

Below read a summary of the article A ray of light in a dark kingdom.

The article is devoted to Ostrovsky’s drama “The Thunderstorm”. At the beginning of it, Dobrolyubov writes that “Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life.” Next, he analyzes articles about Ostrovsky by other critics, writing that they “lack a direct view of things.”

Then Dobrolyubov compares “The Thunderstorm” with dramatic canons: “The subject of the drama must certainly be an event where we see the struggle between passion and duty - with the unhappy consequences of the victory of passion or with the happy ones when duty wins.” Also, the drama must have unity of action, and it must be written in high literary language. “The Thunderstorm”, at the same time, “does not satisfy the most essential goal of the drama - to instill respect for moral duty and show the harmful consequences of being carried away by passion. Katerina, this criminal, appears to us in the drama not only not in a sufficiently gloomy light, but even with the radiance of martyrdom. She speaks so well, suffers so pitifully, everything around her is so bad that you arm yourself against her oppressors and thus justify vice in her person. Consequently, drama does not fulfill its high purpose. All the action is sluggish and slow, because it is cluttered with scenes and faces that are completely unnecessary. Finally, the language in which the characters speak exceeds any patience of a well-bred person.”

Dobrolyubov makes this comparison with the canon in order to show that approaching a work with a ready-made idea of ​​what should be shown in it does not provide true understanding. “What do you think about a man who, when he sees a pretty woman, suddenly begins to resonate that her figure is not like that of the Venus de Milo? The truth is not in dialectical subtleties, but in the living truth of what you are discussing. It cannot be said that people are evil by nature, and therefore one cannot accept for literary works principles such as, for example, that vice always triumphs and virtue is punished.”

“The writer has so far been given a small role in this movement of humanity towards natural principles,” writes Dobrolyubov, after which he recalls Shakespeare, who “moved the general consciousness of people to several levels to which no one had risen before him.” Next, the author turns to other critical articles about “The Thunderstorm,” in particular, by Apollo Grigoriev, who argues that Ostrovsky’s main merit lies in his “nationality.” “But Mr. Grigoriev does not explain what nationality consists of, and therefore his remark seemed very funny to us.”

Then Dobrolyubov comes to define Ostrovsky’s plays in general as “plays of life”: “We want to say that with him the general situation of life is always in the foreground. He punishes neither the villain nor the victim. You see that their situation dominates them, and you only blame them for not showing enough energy to get out of this situation. And that’s why we never dare to consider as unnecessary and superfluous those characters in Ostrovsky’s plays who do not directly participate in the intrigue. From our point of view, these persons are just as necessary for the play as the main ones: they show us the environment in which the action takes place, they depict the situation that determines the meaning of the activities of the main characters in the play.”

In “The Thunderstorm” the need for “unnecessary” persons (secondary and episodic characters). Dobrolyubov analyzes the remarks of Feklushi, Glasha, Dikiy, Kudryash, Kuligin, etc. The author analyzes internal state heroes of the “dark kingdom”: “everything is somehow restless, it’s not good for them. Besides them, without asking them, another life has grown up, with different beginnings, and although it is not yet clearly visible, it is already sending bad visions to the dark tyranny of tyrants. And Kabanova is very seriously upset about the future of the old order, with which she has outlived the century. She foresees their end, tries to maintain their significance, but already feels that there is no former respect for them and that at the first opportunity they will be abandoned.”

Then the author writes that “Thunderstorm” is “the most decisive work Ostrovsky; mutual relations of tyranny are brought in her to the very tragic consequences; and for all that, most of those who have read and seen this play agree that there is even something refreshing and encouraging in “The Thunderstorm”. This “something” is, in our opinion, the background of the play, indicated by us and revealing the precariousness and the near end of tyranny. Then the very character of Katerina, drawn against this background, also blows on us new life, which is revealed to us in its very death.”

Further, Dobrolyubov analyzes the image of Katerina, perceiving it as “a step forward in all of our literature”: “Russian life has reached the point where the need for more active and energetic people was felt.” The image of Katerina “is unswervingly faithful to the instinct of natural truth and selfless in the sense that it is better for him to die than to live under those principles that are disgusting to him. In this integrity and harmony of character lies his strength. Free air and light, despite all the precautions of dying tyranny, burst into Katerina’s cell, she is striving for a new life, even if she had to die in this impulse. What does death matter to her? All the same, she does not consider life to be the vegetation that befell her in the Kabanov family.”

The author analyzes in detail the motives of Katerina’s actions: “Katerina does not at all belong to the violent character, dissatisfied, who loves to destroy. On the contrary, this is a predominantly creative, loving, ideal character. That's why she tries to ennoble everything in her imagination. The feeling of love for a person, the need for tender pleasures naturally opened up in the young woman.” But it won’t be Tikhon Kabanov, who is “too downtrodden to understand the nature of Katerina’s emotions: “If I don’t understand you, Katya,” he tells her, “you won’t get a word from you, let alone affection, or you’ll do it yourself.” you’re climbing.” This is how spoiled natures usually judge a strong and fresh nature.”

Dobrolyubov comes to the conclusion that in the image of Katerina Ostrovsky embodied a great popular idea: “in other creations of our literature strong characters similar to fountains, depending on an extraneous mechanism. What about Katerina? big river: a flat bottom, good - it flows calmly, large stones are encountered - it jumps over them, a cliff - it pours in a cascade, they dam it - it rages and breaks through in another place. It bubbles not because the water suddenly wants to make noise or get angry at obstacles, but simply because it needs it to fulfill its natural requirements - for further flow.”

Analyzing Katerina’s actions, the author writes that he considers it possible for Katerina and Boris to escape as best solution. Katerina is ready to flee, but here another problem emerges - Boris’s financial dependence on his uncle Dikiy. “We said a few words above about Tikhon; Boris is the same, in essence, only educated.”

At the end of the play, “we are pleased to see Katerina’s deliverance - even through death, if it is impossible otherwise. Living in the “dark kingdom” is worse than death. Tikhon, throwing himself on his wife’s corpse, pulled out of the water, shouts in self-forgetfulness: “Good for you, Katya!” Why did I stay in the world and suffer!“ With this exclamation the play ends, and it seems to us that nothing could have been invented stronger and more truthful than such an ending. Tikhon's words make the viewer think not about love affair, but about this whole life, where the living envy the dead.”

In conclusion, Dobrolyubov addresses the readers of the article: “If our readers find that Russian life and Russian strength are called by the artist in “The Thunderstorm” to a decisive cause, and if they feel the legitimacy and importance of this matter, then we are satisfied, no matter what our scientists say and literary judges."

You have read the summary of the article A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom. We invite you to visit the Summary section to read other summaries of popular writers.

A. N. Ostrovsky's drama “The Thunderstorm” was published in 1860, on the eve of the revolutionary situation in Russia. The work reflected the impressions of the writer’s trip along the Volga in the summer of 1856. But not any specific Volga city and not any specific persons are depicted in “The Thunderstorm”. Ostrovsky reworked all his observations on the life of the Volga region and turned them into deeply typical pictures of Russian life.

The drama genre is characterized by the fact that it is based on the conflict between an individual and the surrounding society. In “The Thunderstorm” this person is Katerina Kabanova. Katerina personifies the moral purity, spiritual beauty of a Russian woman, her desire for will, for freedom, her ability not only to endure, but also to defend her rights, her human dignity. According to Dobrolyubov, she “did not kill human nature in herself.”

Katerina is a Russian national character. First of all, this is reflected by Ostrovsky, who perfectly mastered all the riches of the folk language, in the speech of the heroine. When she speaks, it seems like she is singing. In Katerina's speech related to common people, brought up on his oral poetry, the colloquial vocabulary predominates, characterized by high poetry, imagery, and emotionality. The naturalness, sincerity, and simplicity of the heroine are also striking. Katerina is religious. But this is not Kabanikha’s hypocrisy, but a sincere, deep faith in God. She often visits church and does it with pleasure and enjoyment (“And to death I loved going to church! Surely, it used to be, I will enter heaven...”), loves to talk about pilgrims (“Our house was full of pilgrims and praying mantises "), Katerina’s dreams are about “golden temples”.

The heroine's love for Boris is not without reason. Firstly, the need for love makes itself felt: after all, it is unlikely that her husband Tikhon, under the influence of “mama,” showed his love for his wife very often. Secondly, the feelings of the wife and woman are offended. Thirdly, the mortal melancholy of a monotonous life strangles Katerina. And finally, the fourth reason is the desire for freedom, space: after all, love is one of the manifestations of freedom. Katerina is fighting with herself, and this is the tragedy of her situation, but in the end she internally justifies herself. Committing suicide, committing, from the point of view of the church, a terrible sin, she thinks not about the salvation of her soul, but about the love that was revealed to her. "My friend! My joy! Goodbye!" - Katerina’s last words.

Another characteristic feature of Katerina is the desire for freedom and spiritual emancipation. It is not for nothing that the image of a bird - a symbol of will - is repeatedly repeated in the play. Hence the constant epithet “free bird”. Katerina, remembering how she lived before her marriage, compares herself to a bird in the wild. “...Why don’t people fly like birds? - she says to Varvara. “You know, sometimes I feel like I’m a bird.” But the free bird ended up in an iron cage. And she struggles and yearns in captivity.

The integrity and decisiveness of Katerina’s character was expressed in the fact that she refused to obey the rules of the Kabanikha house and preferred death to life in captivity. And this was not a manifestation of weakness, but of spiritual strength and courage, ardent hatred of oppression and despotism.

So, the main character of the drama “The Thunderstorm” comes into conflict with the environment. In the fourth act, in the scene of repentance, the denouement seems to be coming. Everything is against Katerina in this scene: the “thunderstorm of the Lord,” and the cursing half-crazed “lady with two lackeys,” and the ancient painting on a dilapidated wall depicting “fiery hell.” Poor Katerina was almost driven crazy by all these signs of a passing, but tenacious old world, and she repents of her sin in semi-delirium, a state of darkness. She herself later admits to Boris that “she was not free in herself,” “she didn’t remember herself.” If the drama “The Thunderstorm” ended with this scene, then it would show the invincibility of the “dark kingdom,” because at the end of the fourth act Kabanikha triumphs: “What, son! Where will the will lead!” But the drama ends with a moral victory both over the external forces that fettered Katerina’s freedom, and over the dark ideas that fettered her will and mind. And her decision to die, rather than remain a slave, expresses, according to Dobrolyubov, “the need for the emerging movement of Russian life.” The critic called Katerina a popular, national character, “a ray of light in a dark kingdom,” meaning the effective expression in her of direct protest and the liberation aspirations of the masses. Pointing out the deep typicality of this image, its national significance, Dobrolyubov wrote that it represents “an artistic combination of homogeneous features that appear in different situations of Russian life, but serve as an expression of one idea.” Ostrovsky’s heroine reflected in her feelings and in her actions the spontaneous protest of the broad masses against the hated conditions of the “dark kingdom.” That is why Dobrolyubov singled out “The Thunderstorm” from all progressive pre-reform literature and emphasized its revolutionary significance.

Perhaps you find the demand for law, respect for the individual, protest against violence and tyranny in many literary works; but in them, for the most part, the matter is not carried out in a vital, practical way; the abstract, philosophical side of the question is felt and everything is deduced from it, the right is indicated, but the real possibility is left without attention. This is not the case with Alexander Ostrovsky: with him you find not only the moral, but also the everyday economic side of the issue, and this is the essence of the matter. In him you clearly see how tyranny rests on a thick purse, which is called “God’s blessing,” and how people’s irresponsibility to it is determined by their material dependence on it. Moreover, you see how this material side dominates the abstract side in all everyday relations and how people deprived of material security value abstract rights little and even lose a clear consciousness of them.

Indeed - well-fed man can reason calmly and intelligently about whether he should eat such and such a dish; but a hungry man strives for food, wherever he sees it and whatever it may be. This is a phenomenon that repeats itself in all areas. public life, is well noticed and understood by Ostrovsky, and his plays show more clearly than any reasoning how the system of lawlessness and rude, petty egoism established tyranny, is grafted onto those who suffer from it; how they, if they retain more or less the remnants of energy in themselves, try to use it to acquire the opportunity to live independently and no longer understand either the means or the rights.

In the foreground is always the general, independent of any of the characters, life situation. He punishes neither the villain nor the victim; Both of them are pitiful to you, often both are funny, but the feeling aroused in you by the play is not directly addressed to them. You see that their situation dominates them, and you only blame them for not showing enough energy to get out of this situation. The tyrants themselves, against whom your feelings should naturally be indignant, upon careful examination turn out to be more worthy of pity than your anger: they are virtuous and even smart in their own way, within the limits prescribed to them by the routine supported by their position; but this situation is such that complete, healthy human development is impossible in it.

Thus, the struggle takes place in Ostrovsky’s plays not in the monologues of the characters, but in the facts that dominate them. Outsiders have a reason for their appearance and even turn out to be necessary for the completeness of the play. Inactive participants in the drama of life, each apparently busy only with his own business, often by their mere existence have such an influence on the course of business that nothing can reflect it. How many hot ideas, how many extensive plans, how many enthusiastic impulses collapse at one glance at the indifferent, prosaic crowd passing us with contemptuous indifference! How many pure and good feelings freeze in us out of fear, so as not to be ridiculed and scolded by this crowd. And on the other hand, how many crimes, how many impulses of arbitrariness and violence are stopped before the decision of this crowd, always seemingly indifferent and pliable, but, in essence, very unyielding in what is once recognized by it. Therefore, it is extremely important for us to know what this crowd’s concepts of good and evil are, what they consider to be true and what lies. This determines our view of the position in which the main characters of the play are, and, consequently, the degree of our participation in them.

Katerina is completely led by her nature, and not by given decisions, because for decisions she would need to have logical, solid foundations, and yet all the principles that are given to her for theoretical reasoning are decisively contrary to her natural inclinations. That is why she not only does not take heroic poses and does not utter sayings that prove her strength of character, but even on the contrary, she appears in the form weak woman who does not know how to resist her desires, and tries to justify the heroism that is manifested in her actions.

She doesn’t complain about anyone, doesn’t blame anyone, and nothing like that even comes to her mind. There is no malice in her, no contempt, nothing that is usually so flaunted by disappointed heroes who voluntarily leave the world. The thought of the bitterness of life that will have to be endured torments Katerina to such an extent that it plunges her into some kind of semi-feverish state. IN last moment All domestic horrors flash especially vividly in her imagination.

She screams:

“And they’ll catch me and force me back home!.. Hurry, hurry...”

And the matter is over: she will no longer be a victim of a soulless mother-in-law, she will no longer languish locked up with a spineless and disgusting husband. She's freed!..

Such liberation is sad, bitter; but what to do when there is no other way out. It’s good that the poor woman found the determination to at least take this terrible way out. This is the strength of her character, which is why she makes a refreshing impression on us.

This end seems joyful to us; it is easy to understand why: it gives a terrible challenge to tyrant power, he tells it that it is no longer possible to go further, it is impossible to live any longer with its violent, deadening principles. In Katerina we see a protest against Kabanov’s concepts of morality, a protest carried to the end, proclaimed both under domestic torture and over the abyss into which the poor woman threw herself. She doesn’t want to put up with it, doesn’t want to take advantage of the miserable vegetation that is given to her in exchange for her living soul.

Dobrolyubov put very highly, finding that he was very fully and comprehensively able to depict the essential aspects and requirements of Russian life. Some authors took private phenomena, temporary, external demands of society and depicted them with greater or lesser success. Other authors took more inner side life, but were limited to a very close circle and noticed phenomena that were far from having national significance. Ostrovsky’s work is much more fruitful: he captured such common aspirations and needs that permeate all Russian society, whose voice is heard in all phenomena of our life, the satisfaction of which is necessary condition our further development.