Beam of light in the dark realm quote. "Dark Kingdom" in the play "Thunderstorm

“…Shortly before the Thunderstorm appeared on the stage, we analyzed in great detail all the works of Ostrovsky. Wishing 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 catch their general character and try to find out whether the meaning of these phenomena is in reality what it appears to us in the works of our playwright. If readers have not forgotten, then we have come to the conclusion that Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life and a great ability to depict sharply and vividly its most essential aspects. "Thunderstorm" soon served as a new proof of the validity of our conclusion ... "

* * *

The following excerpt from the book Ray of light in the dark kingdom (N. A. Dobrolyubov, 1860) provided by our book partner - the company LitRes.

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

Shortly before the Thunderstorm appeared on the stage, we analyzed in great detail all the works of Ostrovsky. Wishing 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 catch their general character and try to find out whether the meaning of these phenomena is in reality what it appears to us in the works of our playwright. If readers have not forgotten, then we came to the conclusion that Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life and a great ability to depict sharply and vividly its most essential aspects (1). "The Thunderstorm" soon served as a new proof of the validity of our conclusion. We wanted to talk about it at the same time, but we felt that in doing so we would have to repeat many of our previous considerations, and therefore decided to keep silent about Groz, leaving readers who asked for our opinion to check on it those general remarks that we spoke about Ostrovsky a few months before the appearance of this play. Our decision was even more confirmed in us when we saw that a whole series of large and small reviews appear in all magazines and newspapers about the Thunderstorm, interpreting the matter from the most diverse points of view. We thought that in this mass of articles something more would finally be said about Ostrovsky and about the significance of his plays than what we saw in the critics mentioned at the beginning of our first article on The Dark Kingdom. In this hope, and in the awareness 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 meeting Ostrovsky's play in a separate edition and recalling everything that has been written about it, we find that it will not be superfluous on our part to say a few words about it. It gives us occasion to add something to our notes on The Dark Kingdom, to carry on some of the thoughts that we expressed then, and - by the way - to explain ourselves in short words to some of the critics who honored us with direct or indirect abuse.

We must do justice to some of the critics: they were able to understand the difference that separates us from them. They reproach us for adopting the bad method of considering the author's work and then, as a result of this consideration, saying what it contains and what that content is. 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, according to their concepts). It is clear that with such a difference in views, they look with indignation at our analysis, which is likened by one of them to "finding a moral to a fable." But we are very glad that finally the difference is open, and we are ready to withstand any kind of comparison. Yes, if you like, our method of criticism is also like finding a moral conclusion in a fable: the difference, for example, in the application to the criticism of Ostrovsky’s comedies, will only be as great as far as a comedy differs from a fable and as far as 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 analyze the fable and say: “This is what morality it contains, and this morality seems to us good or bad, and this is why,” than to decide from the very beginning: this fable should have 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 negligence 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), then the fable is not good. We have seen this method of criticism more than once in the appendix to Ostrovsky, although, of course, no one will want to admit it, and we will also be blamed, from a sick head on a healthy one, that we are starting to analyze literary works with pre-adopted ideas. and requirements. And meanwhile, what is clearer, didn’t the Slavophiles say: one should portray a Russian person as virtuous and prove that the root of all goodness is life in the old days; in his first plays, Ostrovsky did not observe this, and therefore The Family Picture and His Own People are unworthy of him and are explained only by the fact that he was still imitating Gogol at that time. Didn't the Westerners shout: it is necessary to teach in comedy that superstition is harmful, and Ostrovsky saves one of his heroes from death with the ringing of bells; everyone should be taught that the true good lies in education, and Ostrovsky in his comedy dishonors the educated Vikhorev in front of the ignoramus Borodkin; it is clear that "Don't get into your sleigh" and "Don't live as you like" are bad plays. Didn't the adherents of artistry proclaim: art must serve the eternal and universal requirements of aesthetics, and Ostrovsky, in Profitable Place, reduced art to serving the miserable interests of the moment; therefore, "Profitable Place" is unworthy of art and must be counted among accusatory literature! .. Didn't Mr. Nekrasov from Moscow say: Bolshov should not arouse sympathy in us, and meanwhile the 4th act of “His People” was written in order to arouse sympathy in us for Bolshov; therefore, the fourth act is superfluous! .. (2) And Mr. Pavlov (N.F.) didn’t wriggle, making it clear such provisions: Russian folk life can provide material only for farcical performances; there are no elements in it in order to build something out of it in accordance with the "eternal" requirements of art; it is obvious, therefore, that Ostrovsky, who takes a plot from the life of the common people, is nothing more than a farcical writer ... (3) And did another Moscow critic draw such conclusions: the drama should present us with a hero imbued with lofty ideas; the heroine of The Storm, on the other hand, is all imbued with mysticism, and therefore unsuitable for drama, for she cannot arouse our sympathy; therefore, "Thunderstorm" has only the meaning of satire, and even then it is not important, and so on and so forth ... (4)

Anyone who followed what was written in our country about the Thunderstorm will easily recall a few more similar critics. It cannot be said that all of them were written by people who are completely mentally poor; how to explain the absence of a direct view of things, which strikes the impartial reader in all of them? Without any doubt, it must be attributed to the old critical routine, which remained in many minds 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 theoreticians, criticism is an application to a well-known work of general laws set forth in the courses of the same theoreticians: fits the laws - excellent; does not fit - bad. As you can see, it was not badly conceived for the dying 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 the literary world. After all, they established the laws of beauty in their textbooks, on the basis of those works in whose beauty they believe; as long as everything new will be judged on the basis of the laws approved by them, as long as only that which is in accordance with them will be elegant and recognized, nothing new will dare to lay claim to its rights; the old people will be right in believing in Karamzin and not recognizing Gogol, as the respectable people thought to be right, who admired the imitators of Racine and scolded Shakespeare as a drunken savage, following Voltaire, or bowed before the "Messiad" and on this basis rejected "Faust". Routiners, even the most mediocre, have nothing to fear from criticism, which serves as a passive verification of the immovable rules of stupid schoolchildren, and at the same time, the most gifted writers have nothing to hope for from it if they introduce something new and original into art. They must go against all the accusations of "correct" criticism, to spite it, to make a name for themselves, to spite it, to found a school and ensure that some new theoretician begins to think with them when compiling a new code of art. Then the criticism humbly recognizes 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 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. Indeed, by limiting it to the application of the “eternal and general” laws of art to particular and temporary phenomena, through this very thing they condemn art to immobility, and give criticism a completely commanding and police significance. And many do it from the bottom of their hearts! One of the authors, about whom we expressed our opinion, somewhat disrespectfully reminded us that a judge's disrespectful treatment of a defendant is a crime (5). O naive author! How full of 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 poetry is a sin against Apollo and that bad writers are punished by being drowned in the River Lethe! .. Otherwise, how can one not see the difference between a critic and a judge? People are dragged to court on suspicion of a misdemeanor or a crime, and it is up to the judge to decide whether the accused is right or wrong; But is a writer accused of anything when he is criticized? It seems that those times when the occupation of the book business was considered heresy and a crime are long gone. The critic speaks his mind whether he likes or dislikes a thing; and since it is assumed that he is not a windbag, but a reasonable person, he tries to present reasons why he considers one thing good and the other bad. He does not regard his opinion as a decisive verdict binding on all; if we take a comparison from the legal sphere, then he is more a lawyer than a judge. Having adopted a well-known 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 inspire them with his conviction in favor or against the author under consideration. It goes without saying that at the same time he can use all the means he finds suitable, so long as they do not distort the essence of the matter: he can bring you to horror or tenderness, to laughter or tears, to force the author to make confessions that are unfavorable to him or to bring him to the point of being impossible to answer. The following result may come from criticism thus executed: the theoreticians, having mastered their textbooks, may nevertheless see whether the analyzed work agrees with their immovable laws, and, playing the role of judges, decide whether the author is right or wrong. But it is known that in open proceedings there are cases when those present in court are far from sympathetic to the decision that the judge pronounces in accordance with such and such articles of the code: the 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 the critic-lawyer properly raises the question, groups the facts and throws on them the light of a certain conviction, public opinion, paying no attention to the codes of piitika, will already know what it needs. hold on.

If we look closely at the definition of criticism by "trial" over the 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 at whom our novelists used to laugh so wittily. Even today it is not uncommon to meet such families who look at the writer with some fear, because he "will write criticism on them." The unfortunate provincials, to whom such a thought once wandered into their heads, really represent a miserable spectacle of the defendants, whose fate depends on the handwriting of the writer's pen. They look into his eyes, 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 emerge in the most remote backwoods. At the same time, just as the right to “dare to have one’s own opinion” ceases to be the property of only a certain rank or position, but becomes available to everyone and everyone, at the same time, more solidity and independence appear in private life, less trembling before any extraneous court. Now they are already expressing their opinion simply because it is better to declare it than to hide it, they express it because they consider it useful to exchange thoughts, recognize for everyone the right to express their views and their demands, finally, they even consider it the duty of everyone to participate in the general movement, communicating their observations. and considerations, which one can afford. From here it is a long way to the role of a judge. If I tell you that you lost your handkerchief on the way, or that you are going in the wrong direction, etc., this does not mean that you are my defendant. In the same way, I will not be your defendant even if you begin to describe me, wishing to give an idea about me to your acquaintances. Entering for the first time into a new society, I know very well that observations are being made on me and opinions are formed about me; but should I therefore imagine myself in front of some kind of Areopagus - and tremble in advance, awaiting the verdict? Without any doubt, remarks about me will be made: one will find that my nose is large, another that I have a red beard, a third that my tie is badly tied, a fourth that I am gloomy, etc. Well, let them notice What do I care about this? After all, my red beard is not a crime, and no one can ask me for an account of how I dare to have such a big nose. So, there’s nothing for me to think about: whether I like my figure or not, this is a matter of taste, and I express my opinion about it. I can't forbid anyone; and on the other hand, it won’t hurt me if my taciturnity is noticed, if I’m really silent. Thus, the first critical work (in our sense) - noticing and pointing out facts - is done quite freely and harmlessly. Then the other work—judgment from facts—continues in exactly the same way to keep the one who judges perfectly on equal footing with the one he is judging. This is because, in expressing his conclusion from known data, a person always subjects himself to judgment and verification of others regarding the justice and soundness of his opinion. If, for example, someone, on the basis of the fact that my tie is not tied quite elegantly, decides that I am ill-bred, then such a judge runs the risk of giving others a not very high concept of his logic. Similarly, if any critic reproaches Ostrovsky for the fact that the face of Katerina in The Thunderstorm is disgusting and immoral, then he does not inspire much confidence in the purity of his own moral feeling. Thus, as long as the critic points out the facts, analyzes them and draws his conclusions, the author is safe and the work itself is safe. Here you can only claim that when the critic distorts the facts, 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 and factual reasoning, 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 already good in that it gives people who are not accustomed to focusing their thoughts on literature, so to speak, an extract of the writer and thereby facilitates the ability to understand the nature and meaning of his works. And as soon as the writer is properly understood, an opinion about him will not be slow to form and justice will be given to him, without any permission from the respected compilers of the codes.

True, sometimes explaining the character of a well-known author or work, the critic himself can find in the work something that is not in it at all. But in these cases the critic always betrays himself. If he takes it into his head to give the work being analyzed a thought more lively and broad than what is really put at the foundation of its author, then, obviously, he will not be able to sufficiently confirm his idea by pointing to the work itself, and thus criticism, having shown how it could If a work is analyzed, it will only show more clearly the poverty of its conception and the insufficiency of its execution. As an example of such criticism, one can point, for example, to Belinsky's analysis of "Tarantass", written with the most malicious 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 very well carried out in his criticism, but with the very composition of Count Sollogub it does not go well (6) . However, such critical exaggerations are 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 trouble 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, the reader will not be deceived by false speculations. For example, one Mr. P - y, 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, he began to draw conclusions. It turned out, in his opinion, that Ostrovsky in The Thunderstorm had ridiculed Katerina, wishing to disgrace Russian mysticism in her face. Well, of course, having read such a conclusion, you now see to what category of minds Mr. P - y belongs and whether it is possible to rely on his considerations. Such criticism will not confuse anyone, it is not dangerous to anyone ...

Quite another thing is the criticism that approaches the authors, as if they were peasants brought into the recruiting presence, with a uniform measure, and shouts now “forehead!”, then “back of the head!”, Depending on whether the recruit fits the measure or not. There the reprisal is short and decisive; and if you believe in the eternal laws of art printed in a textbook, then you will not turn away from such criticism. She will prove to you on the fingers that what you admire is no good, and what makes you doze off, yawn or get a migraine, this is the real treasure. Take, for example, though "Thunderstorm": what is it? A daring 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 the translation of Blair's lectures, or look at least at the Cadet Course in Literature by Mr. Plaksin - 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 of passion and duty, with the unfortunate consequences of the victory of passion or with happy ones when duty wins. In the development of the drama, strict unity and consistency must be observed; the denouement should flow naturally and necessarily from the tie; each scene must certainly contribute to the movement of the action and move it to a 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 does not relate to the essence of the play. The characters of the characters must be clearly marked, and gradualness must be necessary in their discovery, in accordance with the development of the action. The language must be commensurate with the situation of each person, but not deviate from the purity of the literary and not turn into vulgarity.

Here, it seems, are all the main rules of drama. Let's apply them to the Thunderstorm.

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

And, firstly, The Thunderstorm does not satisfy the most essential internal goal of the drama - to inspire respect for moral duty and show the detrimental consequences of being carried away by passion. Katerina, this immoral, shameless (to use 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 in a rather gloomy light, but even with some kind of the radiance of martyrdom around the brow. She speaks so well, she suffers so plaintively, 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 you justify vice in her face. Consequently, the drama does not fulfill its lofty 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 indicated for us not quite clearly and strongly.

The unity of the impression is also not observed: it is harmed by the admixture of an extraneous element - Katerina's relationship with her mother-in-law. The intervention of the mother-in-law constantly prevents us from focusing our attention on the inner struggle that should be going on in Katerina's soul.

In addition, in Ostrovsky's play we notice a mistake 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 plot and denouement also sin against the requirements of art. The plot is in a simple case - in the departure of the husband; the denouement is also completely accidental and arbitrary: this thunderstorm, which frightened Katerina and forced her to tell her husband everything, is nothing but a deus ex machina, no worse than a vaudeville uncle from America.

The whole 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 lackeys, Dikoy himself - all these are persons who are not essentially connected with the basis of the play. Unnecessary faces constantly enter the stage, say things that do not go to the point, and leave, again it is not known why and where. All the recitations of Kuligin, all the antics of Kudryash and Dikiy, not to mention the half-mad lady and the conversations of city dwellers during a thunderstorm, could have been released without any damage to the essence of the matter.

In this crowd of unnecessary faces, we almost do not find strictly defined and finished characters, and there is nothing to ask about the gradualness 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 that he is also Dikaya and swears behind the scenes ... Also Kabanova. In the same way, Kudryash from the first word makes himself known that he is "dashing at girls"; and Kuligin, at the very appearance, is recommended as a self-taught mechanic who admires nature. Yes, they remain with this until the very end: Dikoi swears, Kabanova grumbles, Kudryash walks at night with Varvara ... And we do not see the full comprehensive development of their characters in the whole play. The heroine herself is depicted very unsuccessfully: apparently, the author himself did not quite clearly understand this character, because, without exposing Katerina as a hypocrite, he forces her, however, to utter 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. Dikoi and Kabanova themselves, the characters most in the genre "e of Mr. Ostrovsky, represent (according to the happy conclusion of Mr. Akhsharumov or someone else of that kind) (8) a deliberate exaggeration, close to libel, and give us not living faces, but "the quintessence of deformities" of Russian life.

Finally, the language with which the characters speak surpasses all patience of a well-bred person. Of course, merchants and philistines cannot speak in elegant literary language; but after all, one cannot agree that a dramatic author, for the sake of fidelity, can introduce into literature all the vulgar expressions in which the Russian people are so rich. The language of dramatic characters, whoever they may be, may be simple, but always noble and should not offend educated taste. And in Groz, listen to how all the faces say: “Shrill man! what are you doing with a snout! It kindles the whole interior! Women can’t work up their bodies in any way! ” What are these phrases, what are these words? Involuntarily, you will repeat with Lermontov:

From whom do they paint portraits?

Where are these conversations being heard?

And if they did,

So we do not want to listen to them (9).

Perhaps "in the city of Kalinovo, 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 did not use 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, it can be used to destroy the author, once taking the point of view of school textbooks. And if the reader agrees to give us the right to proceed with the play with prearranged requirements as to what and how in it must to be - we do not need anything else: everything that does not agree with the rules adopted by us, we will be able to destroy. Extracts from the comedy will appear very conscientiously to confirm our judgments; quotations from various learned books, beginning with Aristotle and ending with Fischer (10), which, as you know, constitute the last, final moment of aesthetic theory, will prove to you the solidity of our education; ease of presentation and wit will help us to captivate your attention, and you, without noticing it, will come to full agreement with us. Only let not for a moment a doubt enter your head in 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 herein lies the misfortune that not a single reader can now escape such a doubt. The contemptible crowd, which previously reverently, open-mouthed, listening to our broadcasts, now presents a deplorable and dangerous spectacle for our authority of the masses, armed, in the beautiful expression of Mr. Turgenev, with the "double-edged sword of analysis" (11). Everyone says, reading our thunderous criticism: “You offer us your “storm”, assuring us that what is in The Thunderstorm is superfluous, and what is needed is lacking. But the author of The Thunderstorm probably thinks quite the contrary; let us sort you out. Tell us, analyze the play for us, show it as it is, and give us your opinion about it on the basis of itself, and not on some outdated considerations, completely unnecessary and extraneous. In your opinion, this and that should not be; or maybe it fits well in the play, so then why shouldn’t it?” This is how any reader now dares to resonate, and this insulting circumstance must be attributed to the fact that, for example, N. F. Pavlov's magnificent critical exercises on The Thunderstorm suffered such a decisive fiasco. In fact, everyone, both writers and the public, rose to the criticism of The Thunderstorm in Nashe Vremya, and, of course, not because he took it into his head to show a lack of respect for Ostrovsky, but because in his criticism he expressed disrespect to the common sense and good will of the Russian public. Everyone has long seen that Ostrovsky has in many respects moved away from the old stage routine, that in the very conception of each of his plays there are conditions that necessarily carry him beyond the bounds of the well-known theory that we pointed out above. The critic who does not like these deviations should have begun by noting them, characterizing them, generalizing them, and then directly and frankly raising the question between them and the old theory. This was the duty of the critic not only to the author being analyzed, but even more so to the public, which so constantly approves of Ostrovsky, with all his liberties and evasions, and with each new play becomes more and more attached to him. If the critic finds that the public is deluded in their sympathy for an author who turns out to be a criminal against his theory, then he should have begun by defending that theory and by giving serious evidence that deviations from it cannot be good. Then he, perhaps, would have managed to convince some and even many, since N. F. Pavlov cannot be taken away from the fact that he uses the phrase quite adroitly. And 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 sanctity of inviolability in literature and in the public. He boldly began to break down Ostrovsky on the points of his theory, by force, forcing the reader to consider it inviolable. He found it convenient only to sneer about the gentleman, who, being Mr. Pavlov’s “neighbor and brother” in terms of his place in the first row of seats and in terms of “fresh” gloves, dared, however, to admire the play, which was so disgusting to N. F. Pavlov. Such a contemptuous treatment of the public, and even of the very question which the critic took up, naturally must have aroused the majority of readers rather against him than in his favour. 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 onto a straight road. Rounded phrase and clever syllogism seemed to them insufficient; they demanded serious confirmations 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 characters in the play that do not contribute to the direct development of the course of action. And they stubbornly objected to him: why can't there be persons in the play who do not directly participate in the development of the drama? The critic assured that the drama is already devoid of meaning because its heroine is immoral; readers stopped him and asked the question: what makes you think that she is immoral? And what are your moral concepts based on? The critic considered vulgarity and smut, unworthy of art, and the night meeting, and Kudryash's daring whistle, and the very scene of Katerina's confession to her husband; he was again asked: why exactly does he find this vulgar and why secular intrigues and aristocratic passions are more worthy of art than petty-bourgeois passions? Why is the whistle of a young lad more vulgar than the poignant singing of Italian arias by some secular youth? N. F. Pavlov, as the top of his arguments, decided condescendingly that a play like The Thunderstorm was 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 slick 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 the theater and in the development of the people, we will argue with you. The last objection has been developed in some detail in the press. And where was it distributed? It would be nice in Sovremennik, which, as you know, has a Whistle with him, therefore he cannot scandalize with Kudryash's whistle and, in general, should be inclined to any farce. No, thoughts about the farce were expressed in the "Library for Reading", a well-known champion of all the rights of "art", expressed by Mr. Annenkov, whom no one will reproach for excessive adherence to "vulgarity" (12). If we have correctly understood Mr. Annenkov's thought (for which, of course, no one can vouch for), he finds that modern drama with its theory has deviated further from the truth and beauty of life than the original booths, and that in order to revive the theater, it is necessary first to return to farce and start the path of dramatic development again. These are the opinions that Mr. Pavlov came across even in respectable representatives of Russian criticism, not to mention those who are accused by well-meaning people of contempt for science and of the denial of 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 was affirmed in his sentences. But as soon as the question moved to this ground, the critic of Nashe Vremya 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 miserable position: having condemned itself to slavery to the prevailing theory, it dooms itself at the same time to constant fruitless enmity towards everyone. progress, to everything new and original in literature. And the stronger the new literary movement, the more it becomes bitter against it and the more clearly it shows its toothless impotence. Looking for some kind of dead perfection, exposing us to obsolete, indifferent ideals for us, throwing fragments at us, torn off from the beautiful whole, adherents of such criticism constantly remain aloof from 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, they judge strictly, they are ready to blame any author for not being equal to their chefs-d'oeuvre's, and impudently disregard the author's living relationship to his public and to his era. This is all, you see, "the interests of the moment" - is it possible for serious critics to compromise art, being carried away by such interests! Poor, soulless people! how pitiful they are in the eyes of a person who knows how to cherish the work of life, its labors and blessings! An ordinary, sane person takes from life what it gives him and gives it what he can; but pedants always take things down and paralyze life with dead ideals and distractions. Tell me what to think of a man who, at the sight of a pretty woman, suddenly begins to resonate that her body is not the same as that of the Venus de Milo, the outline of the mouth is not as good as that of the Venus de Medicea, the look does not have the expression that we find in the Raphael Madonnas, etc., etc. All the arguments 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 in question is 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 does not lie in individual features and lines, but in the general expression of the face, in the vital sense that manifests itself in it. When this expression pleases me; when this sense is available and satisfactory to me, then I simply give myself to beauty with all my heart and sense, 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 catch in it this general meaning, this spirit of life, be able to point it out and explain it to me: only then will you achieve your goal. The same is true with truth: it is not in dialectical subtleties, not in the correctness of individual conclusions, but in the living truth of what you argue about. 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 by means of all sorts of syllogisms chosen to prove your thought. If ignorance and gullibility are still so strong in people, this is supported by the very way of critical reasoning that we attack. Everywhere and in everything synthesis prevails; they say in advance: this is useful, and they rush in all directions to tidy up arguments why it is useful; they stun you with a maxim: this is what morality should be, and then they condemn as immoral everything that does not fit the maxim. In this way, human meaning is constantly distorted, the desire and the opportunity to reason for each person are taken away. It would not turn out at all if people were accustomed to the analytical method of judgments: here is the matter, here are its consequences, here are its advantages and disadvantages; weigh and judge to what extent it will be useful. Then people would always have data before them and in their judgments would proceed from facts, not wandering in synthetic fogs, not binding themselves with abstract theories and ideals, once composed by someone. To achieve this, it is necessary that all people should be willing to live by their own mind, and not rely on someone else's guardianship. This, of course, will not soon await us in humanity. But that small part of the people that we call the "reading public" gives us the right to think that this desire for an independent intellectual life has already awakened in them. Therefore, we consider it very inconvenient to treat her haughtily and arrogantly throw her maxims and sentences based on God knows what theories. We believe that the best way of criticism is to present the case itself in such a way that the reader himself, on the basis of the facts presented, can draw his own conclusion. We group data, make considerations about the general meaning of the work, indicate its relation to the reality in which we live, draw our conclusion and try to frame it in the best possible way, but at the same time we always try to behave in such a way that the reader can pronounce his judgment quite conveniently. between us and the author. We have more than once taken 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 in the least: the reader received a not entirely flattering opinion about our critical ability - true; but our main goal was nevertheless achieved - a worthless book (which sometimes we could not directly condemn) seemed worthless to the reader thanks to the facts exposed 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 it contains; this is much better than indulging in considerations about what is not in it and what should be in it.

Of course, there are general concepts and laws that every person certainly has in mind when discussing any subject. But one must distinguish between these natural laws, arising from the very essence of the matter, from the regulations and rules established in some system. There are well-known axioms without which thinking is impossible, and every author presupposes them in his reader just as every speaker presupposes them in his interlocutor. It is enough to say of a man that he is a hunchback or a scythe, for everyone to see in this 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, for no one to consider this a virtue. But when you say that a man wears a cap and not a hat, this is still not enough for me to get a bad opinion about him, although it is customary in a certain circle that a decent person should not wear a cap. So it is in a literary work - if you find that some unities are not observed or you see faces that are not necessary for the development of intrigues, this still says nothing to the reader who is not prejudiced in favor of your theory. On the contrary, what must appear to every reader as a violation of the natural order of things and an insult to simple common sense, I can consider as not requiring refutation from me, assuming that these refutations will automatically appear in the mind of the reader, at my mere pointing to the fact. But such an assumption must never be carried too far. Critics like N. F. Pavlov, Mr. Nekrasov from Moscow, Mr. Palkhovsky, etc., especially sin because they assume unconditional agreement between themselves and the general opinion on a much larger number of points than they should. In other words, they consider as immutable, obvious to all axioms a lot of such opinions that only they seem to be absolute truths, and for most people they even represent a contradiction with some generally accepted concepts. For example, everyone understands that an author who wants to do something decent must not distort reality: both theorists and general opinion agree on this requirement. But theorists at the same time demand and also believe 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 requirement, Ostrovsky was attacked many times with great fury; and meanwhile, it is not only not an axiom, but is even in clear contradiction with the requirement regarding the fidelity of real life, which is recognized by everyone as necessary. How can you really make me believe that in the course of a half hour, ten people come one after another into one room or one place on the square, exactly those who are needed, exactly at the time they are needed here, they meet whom they need, start an ex abrupto conversation about what they need, leave and do what they need, then reappear when they are needed. Is it done this way in 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 money in order to direct all the means that the writer so easily disposes of to his work. The right people don't come, the letters don't come through, the conversations don't go in the right direction to move things forward. Everyone has many things to do in life, and rarely, as in our dramas, does anyone serve as a machine that the author moves, as it suits him for the action of his play. The same must be said about the plot with the denouement. How many cases do we see which at their end represent the pure, logical development of the beginning? In history, we can still notice this through the ages; but not in private life. It is true that the historical laws are the same here, but the difference is in distance and size. Speaking absolutely and taking infinitesimal quantities into consideration, we will of course find that the ball is the same polygon; but try to play billiards with polygons - it will not work out at all. Similarly, the historical laws of logical development and necessary retribution are presented in the incidents of private life far from being as clear and complete as in the history of peoples. To give them this clarity on purpose means to force and distort the existing reality. As if, in fact, every crime carries its own punishment in itself? As if it is always accompanied by torments 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 a general rule... It cannot be said that people are evil by nature, and therefore it is impossible to accept principles for literary works 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 relations are rarely arranged on the basis of reasonable calculation, but are mostly formed by chance, and then a significant proportion of the actions of some with others are performed, as it were, unconsciously, according to routine, according to a momentary disposition, due to the influence of many extraneous reasons. The author, who dares to cast aside all these accidents in favor of the logical requirements of the development of the plot, usually loses the average measure and becomes like a person who measures everything to the maximum. For example, he found that a person can, without immediate harm to himself, work fifteen hours a day, and on this calculation he bases his demands on the people who work for him. It goes without saying that this calculation, which is possible for emergency cases, for two or three days, turns out to be completely absurd as the norm of constant work. The logical development of everyday relations, required by theory from the drama, often turns out to be the same.

We will be told that we fall 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, having no right to discard anything and adjust anything on purpose for his goal, finds himself in the need to simply write down all the unnecessary conversations of all the people he meets, so that an action that lasted a week would require the same week in the drama to be presented at the theatre, and for another incident, the presence of all the thousands of people strolling along Nevsky Prospekt or along the Angliskaya Embankment would be required. Yes, it will have to be so, if we leave the theory with which we have just disputed the propositions as the highest criterion in the literature. But we are not heading towards that at all; we do not want to correct two or three points of the theory; 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 worth of authors and works, on the basis of which we hope not to come to any absurdities and not to disagree with the common sense of the masses of the public. We have already spoken of these grounds both in the first articles on Ostrovsky and later in the article on "On the Eve"; but it may be necessary to recapitulate them once more.

As a measure of the dignity of a writer or an individual work, we take the extent to which they serve as an expression of the natural aspirations of a certain time and people. The natural aspirations of mankind, reduced to the simplest denominator, can be expressed in a nutshell: "So that everyone is well." 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; to arrange themselves in such a way that one does not interfere with the other, they still did not know how. So inexperienced dancers do not know how to manage their movements and constantly collide with other couples, even in a rather spacious hall. After getting used to it, they will begin to diverge 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 fight each other, it is necessary for many to wait out, and the most awkward ones to completely abandon dancing and, perhaps, sit down at cards, lose, and even a lot ... So it was in the structure of life: the more dexterous continued to seek their good, others sat , taken for what they should not have lost; the common celebration of life was violated from the very beginning; many were not up to fun; many came to the conclusion that only those who are deftly dancing are called to fun. And the dexterous dancers, having arranged their well-being, continued to follow the natural inclination and took away more and more space for themselves, more and more means for fun. Finally they lost their measure; the rest became very crowded from them, and they jumped up from their seats and jumped - no longer because they wanted to dance, but simply because they even felt uncomfortable to sit. Meanwhile, in this movement, it turned out that among them there are people who are not devoid of some lightness - and they tried to join the circle of those having fun. But the privileged, original dancers already looked at them very hostilely, as if they were uninvited, and did not let them into the circle. A struggle began, varied, long, mostly unfavorable for the newcomers: they were ridiculed, repulsed, they were condemned to pay the expenses of the holiday, their ladies were taken away from them, and from the ladies of the gentlemen, they were completely driven away from the holiday. But the worse it gets for people, the more they feel the need to feel good. Deprivation does not stop demands, but only irritates; only eating can satisfy hunger. Until now, therefore, the struggle is not over; natural aspirations, now as if drowning out, now appearing stronger, everyone seeks their satisfaction. This is the essence of history.

End of introductory segment.

Katerina is a ray of light in a dark kingdom.

Plan.

1. The liberation of women from family slavery is one of the topical issues of the late 50s of the 19th century.
2. Katerina - "a ray of light in a dark kingdom."
   1. The place of the image of Katerina among the images of the drama.
   2. Katerina's life in her parents' house, her daydreaming.
   3. Katerina's living conditions after marriage. Katerina in the Kabanovs' house.
   4. Desire for love and devotion.
   5. The power of Katerina's love.
   6. Honesty and decisiveness
   7. Dobrolyubov about the character of Katerina.
   8. Suicide is a protest against the dark kingdom
3. Dobrolyubov about the ideological meaning of the image of Katerina

The strongest protest is the one that finally rises from the chest of the weakest and most patient - this already means that the end of the "Dark Kingdom" is near.

Epigraph: "The character of Katerina, as it is performed in The Thunderstorm, is a step forward not only in Ostrovsky's dramatic activity, but also in all our literature." N.A. Dobrolyubov.

In his works, Ostrovsky reveals the themes of the liberation of women from family slavery - this is one of the topical issues of the 50s of the 19th century. A woman of the 50s, due to centuries of oppression, is powerless in the face of tyranny and is a victim of the “dark kingdom”.

The image of Katerina is the image of a free bird - a symbol of freedom. But the free bird got into an iron cage. And she struggles and yearns in captivity: “I lived, didn’t grieve about anything, like a bird in the wild,” she recalls her life with her mother: “Why don’t people fly like birds? she says to Barbara. “You know, sometimes I feel like I’m a bird.” In the drama, Katerina is the embodiment of "Russian living nature." She would rather die than live in captivity. “You can see in her a protest against Kabanov’s concepts of morality, a protest brought to the end, proclaimed under torture by the family and over the abyss into which Katerina threw herself. Her strong nature endures only for the time being. “And if I get very cold here,” she says, “so no force can hold me back. 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!” The image of Katerina embodied the "great people's idea" - the idea of ​​liberation.

The selection of Katerina among the images of the "dark kingdom" is made up in her open character, courage, directness. “I don’t know how to deceive, I can’t hide anything,” she says to Varvara, who tries to convince her that one cannot live in their house without deception. Katerina's character is manifested in her ingenuous story about her childhood and life in her parents' house.

Katerina tells Varvara how they went to church, sewed gold on velvet, listened to the stories of wanderers, walked in the garden, how they again talked with pilgrims and prayed themselves. “And I love going to church to death! It was as if I would go into paradise, and I don’t see anyone, I don’t remember the time, and I don’t hear when the service ends. Living as a free bird with her mother, Katerina loved to dream. “And what dreams I had, Varenka, what dreams! Or golden temples, or some extraordinary gardens, and everyone sings invisible voices, and smells of cypress, and mountains, and trees, as if not the same as usual, but as they are written on the images. And it’s like I’m flying, and I’m flying through the air. ”

In the house of the Kabanovs, Katerina's life passed in the same way as that of her mother, the difference was that the Kabanovs did all this as if from captivity.

Katerina's feeling of love merges with longing for will, with a dream of real human life. Katerina loves not like the pitiful victims of the "dark kingdom". To the words of her lover: “No one will know about our love,” she replies: “Let everyone know, everyone can see what I am doing.” And in the name of her love, she enters into an unequal battle with the “dark kingdom”.

Katerina's religiosity is not the oppression of Kabanikh, but rather a child's faith in fairy tales. Katerina is characterized by religious prejudices that make a young woman perceive love as a mortal sin. “Ah, Varya, sin is on my mind! How much am I, poor. I was crying, what have I not done to myself! I can't get away from this sin. Nowhere to go. After all, this is not good, because this is a terrible sin, Varenka, that I love another!

Katerina’s character is “concentrated and resolute, unswervingly faithful to natural truth, full of faith in new ideals and selfless in the sense that death is better for him than life under those principles that are contrary to him.” It is in this integrity and inner harmony, the ability to always be yourself, in nothing and never betraying yourself, that the irresistible strength of Katerina's character consists.

Killing herself, committing a great sin from the point of view of the church, Katerina thinks not about the salvation of her soul, but about the love that was revealed to her. "My friend! My joy! Goodbye!" - these are the last words of Katherine. Suicide can be in the most exceptional cases, when no form of struggle is possible. Her determination to die, if only not to be a slave, expresses, according to Dobrolyubov, "The need for the emerging movement of Russian life."

Dobrolyubov said about the ideological meaning of the image of Katerina: “The strongest protest is the one that finally rises from the chest of the weakest and most patient - this already means that the end of the “Dark Kingdom” is near.

The title of the article (1859) by the critic and publicist Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov (1836-1861), devoted to the analysis of the play by A. N. Ostrovsky "Thunderstorm".

Taking advantage of the pictures of merchant tyranny depicted by the playwright as an excuse, N. A. Dobrolyubov likens the whole of feudal Russia with its ignorance and rough morals to the “dark kingdom”, “stinking dungeon”, “the world of dull aching pain, the world of prison, deathly silence”. The critic writes: “There is nothing holy, nothing pure, nothing right in this dark world: the tyranny that reigns over it, wild, crazy, wrong, drove away any consciousness of honor and right ... And they cannot be where they are thrown into dust and brazenly human dignity, freedom of the individual, faith in love and happiness, and the sacredness of honest labor have been trampled on by tyrants.”

A. N. Ostrovsky himself gives such a definition to the “dark kingdom” through the lips of Dosuzhev, one of the heroes of his other play, “Hard Days” (act. 1, phenom. 2): “... I live in the direction where the days are divided into light and heavy; where people are firmly convinced that the earth stands on three fish and that, according to the latest information, it seems that one is beginning to move: it means that things are bad; where people get sick from the evil eye, but are cured by sympathy; where there are astronomers who watch comets and look at two people on the moon; where it has its own policy, and dispatches are also received, but more and more from White Arapia and the countries adjacent to it.

Allegorically: a dark and inert social environment (disapproved).

See also Beam of light in the dark realm.

Dobrolyubov's article titled "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom", a summary of which is given below, deals with the work "Thunderstorm" by Ostrovsky, which has become a classic of Russian literature. The author (his portrait is presented below) in the first part says that Ostrovsky deeply understood the life of a Russian person. Further, Dobrolyubov conducts what other critics have written about Ostrovsky, while noting that they do not have a direct look at the main things.

The concept of drama that existed in the time of Ostrovsky

Nikolai Alexandrovich further compares The Thunderstorm with the standards of drama adopted at that time. In the article "A Ray of Light in the Dark Realm", a summary of which interests us, he examines, in particular, the principle established in literature on the subject of drama. In the struggle between duty and passion, there is usually an unhappy end when passion wins, and a happy one when duty wins. Drama, moreover, was supposed, according to existing tradition, to represent a single action. At the same time, it should be written in a literary, beautiful language. Dobrolyubov notes that he does not fit the concept in this way.

Why "Thunderstorm" cannot be considered a drama, according to Dobrolyubov?

Works of this kind must certainly make readers feel respect for duty and expose a passion that is considered harmful. However, the main character is not described in gloomy and dark colors, although she is, according to the rules of the drama, a "criminal". Thanks to the pen of Ostrovsky (his portrait is presented below), we are imbued with compassion for this heroine. The author of "Thunderstorm" was able to vividly express how beautifully Katerina speaks and suffers. We see this heroine in a very gloomy environment and because of this we begin to involuntarily justify the vice, speaking out against the tormentors of the girl.

Drama, as a result, does not fulfill its purpose, does not carry its main semantic load. Somehow, the action itself flows in a work insecurely and slowly, the author of the article "A ray of light in a dark kingdom" believes. A summary of it continues as follows. Dobrolyubov says that there are no bright and stormy scenes in the work. To "sluggishness" the work leads to a heap of characters. The language does not stand up to scrutiny.

Nikolai Alexandrovich in his article "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom" brings the plays of special interest to him to meet the accepted standards, as he comes to the conclusion that the standard, ready-made idea of ​​what should be in the work does not allow reflecting the actual state of things. What can you say about a young man who, after meeting a pretty girl, tells her that compared to the Venus de Milo, her figure is not so good? Dobrolyubov puts the question in this way, arguing about the standardization of the approach to works of literature. Truth lies in life and truth, and not in various dialectical attitudes, as the author of the article "A ray of light in a dark kingdom" believes. The summary of his thesis is that it cannot be said that a person is evil by nature. Therefore, in the book it is not necessary for good to win, and for evil to lose.

Dobrolyubov notes the importance of Shakespeare, as well as the opinion of Apollon Grigoriev

Dobrolyubov ("Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom") also says that for a long time writers did not pay much attention to the movement to the primordial principles of man, to his roots. Remembering Shakespeare, he notes that this author was able to raise human thought to a new level. After that, Dobrolyubov moves on to other articles devoted to "Thunderstorm". Mentioned, in particular, who noted the main merit of Ostrovsky that his work was popular. Dobrolyubov is trying to answer the question of what this "nation" is. He says that Grigoriev does not explain this concept, therefore his statement itself cannot be taken seriously.

Ostrovsky's works are "plays of life"

Dobrolyubov then discusses what can be called "plays of life". "A ray of light in a dark kingdom" (a summary notes only the main points) - an article in which Nikolai Alexandrovich says that Ostrovsky considers life as a whole, without trying to make the righteous happy or punish the villain. He evaluates the general state of affairs and makes the reader either deny or sympathize, but does not leave anyone indifferent. Those who do not participate in the intrigue itself cannot be considered superfluous, since without them it would not be possible, which Dobrolyubov notes.

"Ray of light in the dark kingdom": analysis of the statements of secondary characters

Dobrolyubov in his article analyzes the statements of minor persons: Curly, Glasha and others. He tries to understand their condition, the way they look at the reality surrounding them. All the features of the "dark kingdom" are noted by the author. He says that these people's lives are so limited that they do not notice that there is another reality than their own closed little world. The author analyzes, in particular, Kabanova's concern for the future of the old orders and traditions.

What is the novelty of the play?

"Thunderstorm" is the most decisive work created by the author, as Dobrolyubov further notes. "A ray of light in the dark kingdom" - an article that says that the tyranny of the "dark kingdom", the relationship between its representatives, was brought by Ostrovsky to tragic consequences. The breath of novelty, which was noted by all those familiar with The Thunderstorm, is contained in the general background of the play, in people who are "unnecessary on the stage", as well as in everything that speaks of the imminent end of the old foundations and tyranny. The death of Katerina is a new beginning against this background.

The image of Katerina Kabanova

Dobrolyubov's article "A Ray of Light in the Dark Realm" further continues with the fact that the author proceeds to analyze the image of Katerina, the main character, giving him quite a lot of space. Nikolai Alexandrovich describes this image as a shaky, indecisive "step forward" in literature. Dobrolyubov says that life itself requires the appearance of active and determined heroes. The image of Katerina is characterized by an intuitive perception of the truth and its natural understanding. Dobrolyubov ("Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom") says about Katerina that this heroine is selfless, as she prefers to choose death than existence under the old order. The mighty strength of character lies in this heroine in her integrity.

Katerina's motives

Dobrolyubov, in addition to the very image of this girl, examines in detail the motives of her actions. He notices that Katerina is not a rebel by nature, she does not show discontent, does not require destruction. Rather, she is a creator who craves love. This explains her desire to ennoble her actions in her own mind. The girl is young, and the desire for love and tenderness is natural for her. However, Tikhon is so downtrodden and obsessed that he cannot understand these desires and feelings of his wife, which he tells her directly.

Katerina embodies the idea of ​​the Russian people, says Dobrolyubov ("Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom")

The abstracts of the article are supplemented by one more statement. Dobrolyubov eventually finds in the image of the main character that the author of the work embodied in her the idea of ​​the Russian people. He talks about this rather abstractly, comparing Katerina with a wide and even river. It has a flat bottom, it smoothly flows around the stones encountered on the way. The river itself only makes noise because it corresponds to its nature.

The only right decision of the heroine, according to Dobrolyubov

Dobrolyubov finds in the analysis of the actions of this heroine that the only right decision for her is to escape with Boris. The girl can run away, but dependence on a relative of his lover shows that this hero is essentially the same as Katerina's husband, only more educated.

End of the play

The ending of the play is gratifying and tragic at the same time. The main idea of ​​the work is getting rid of the shackles of the so-called dark kingdom at any cost. It is impossible to live in his environment. Even Tikhon, when the corpse of his wife is pulled out, shouts that she is well now and asks: "But what about me?" The finale of the play and this cry itself give an unambiguous understanding of the truth. Tikhon's words make us look at Katerina's act not as a love affair. Before us opens a world in which the dead are envied by the living.

This concludes Dobrolyubov's article "A Ray of Light in a Dark Realm". We have highlighted only the main points, briefly describing its brief content. However, some details and comments of the author were missed. "A Ray of Light in a Dark Realm" is best read in the original, since this article is a classic of Russian criticism. Dobrolyubov gave a good example of how works should be analyzed.

The critical article "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom" was written by Nikolai Dobrolyubov in 1860 and then published in the Sovremennik magazine.

Dobrolyubov reflects in it on dramatic standards, where "we see the struggle of passion and duty." A happy ending, in his opinion, the drama has if duty wins, and an unhappy ending if passion. The critic notes that in Ostrovsky's drama there is no unity of time and high vocabulary, which was the rule for dramas. "Thunderstorm" does not satisfy the main goal of the drama - to respect the "moral duty", to show the destructive, fatal "consequences of infatuation with passion." Dobrolyubov notices that the reader involuntarily justifies Katerina, and that is why the drama does not fulfill its purpose.

The writer has a role to play in the movement of humanity. The critic cites as an example the lofty mission accomplished by Shakespeare: he was able to raise the morality of his contemporaries. "Plays of life" somewhat pejoratively calls the works of Ostrovsky Dobrolyubov. The writer "punishes neither the villain nor the victim", and this, according to the critic, makes the plays hopelessly mundane and mundane. But the critic does not deny them "nationality", arguing in this context with Apollon Grigoriev.It is the reflection of the aspirations of the people that is one of the strengths of the work.

Dobrolyubov continues his devastating criticism when analyzing the "unnecessary" heroes of the "dark kingdom": their inner world is limited within a small world. There are villains in the work, described in an extremely grotesque way. These are Kabanikha and Wild. However, unlike, for example, Shakespeare's characters, their tyranny is petty, although it can ruin the life of a good person. Nevertheless, "Thunderstorm" is called Dobrolyubov "the most decisive work" of the playwright, where tyranny is brought to "tragic consequences."

A supporter of revolutionary changes in the country, Dobrolyubov happily notices signs of something "refreshing" and "encouraging" in the play. For him, the way out of the dark kingdom can only be as a result of the protest of the people against the tyranny of the authorities. In Ostrovsky's plays, the critic saw this protest in the act of Katerina, for whom living in the "dark kingdom" is worse than death. Dobrolyubov saw in Katerina the person that the era demanded: decisive, with a strong character and will of spirit, although "weak and patient." Katerina, "creative, loving, ideal", is, according to the revolutionary democrat Dobrolyubov, the ideal prototype of a person capable of protest and even more. Katerina - a bright person with a bright soul - is called by the critic a "beam of light" in the world of dark people with their petty passions.

(Tikhon falls to his knees in front of Kabanikha)

Among them is the husband of Katerina Tikhon - "one of the many miserable types" who are "as harmful as the petty tyrants themselves." Katerina runs away from him to Boris "more in the wilderness", out of the "need for love", which Tikhon is not capable of because of his moral underdevelopment. But Boris is by no means "a hero." There is no way out for Katerina, her bright soul cannot get out of the sticky darkness of the “dark kingdom”.

The tragic ending of the play and the cry of the unfortunate Tikhon, who, according to him, continues to "suffer", "make the viewer - as Dobrolyubov wrote - think not about a love affair, but about the whole life, where the living envy the dead."

Nikolai Dobrolyubov sets the real task of his critical article to turn the reader to the idea that Russian life is shown by Ostrovsky in "Thunderstorm" in such a perspective in order to call "to decisive action." And this business is legal and important. In this case, as the critic notes, he will be satisfied "whatever our scientists and literary judges say."