A ray of the sun in the dark kingdom 2 part. The only right decision of the heroine, according to Dobrolyubov

A ray of light in the dark realm

A ray of light in the dark realm
The title of the article (1860) of the publicist-democrat Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov (1836-1861), dedicated to the drama of N.A.
per". Dobrolyubov viewed the suicide of the heroine of this play, Katerina, as a kind of protest against the arbitrariness and ignorance of the "dark kingdom" ( cm. Dark kingdom), that is, the world of ignorant tyrant merchants. The author of the article called this protest "a ray of light in the dark kingdom."
Allegorically: a gratifying, bright phenomenon (a kind, pleasant person) in any difficult, depressing environment (jokingly ironic.).

Encyclopedic Dictionary of winged words and expressions. - M .: "Lokid-Press"... Vadim Serov. 2003.

A ray of light in the dark realm

The title of the article by N.A. Dobrolyubov (1860), dedicated to the drama of A.N. Ostrovsky's "Thunderstorm". Dobrolyubov regards the suicide of the drama's heroine, Katerina, as a protest against the arbitrariness and tyranny of the "dark kingdom." This protest is passive, but testifies to the fact that the consciousness of their natural rights is already awakening in the oppressed masses, that the time of submission is passing. Therefore, Dobrolyubov called Katerina "a ray of light in the dark kingdom." This expression characterizes any pleasant, light phenomenon in an environment of lack of culture.

Dictionary of winged words... Plutex. 2004.

See what a "Ray of light in the dark kingdom" is in other dictionaries:

A ray of light in the dark realm- wings. sl. The title of the article by N. A. Dobrolyubov (1860) dedicated to the drama A. N. Ostrovsky "The Thunderstorm". Dobrolyubov regards the suicide of the heroine of the drama, Katerina, as a protest against the arbitrariness and tyranny of the "dark kingdom." This protest is passive, ... ... Universal Additional Practical Explanatory Dictionary of I. Mostitsky

A ray of light in the dark kingdom is a popular phraseological unit based on the article of the same name in 1860 by the publicist democrat Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov, dedicated to the drama of A. Ostrovsky "The Thunderstorm" The article is the main character of the play Katerina ... Wikipedia

- (born January 17, 1836, died November 17, 1861) one of the most remarkable critics of Russian literature and one of the typical representatives of public excitement in the era of "great reforms". He was the son of a priest in Nizhny Novgorod. Father,… …

Dramatic writer, head of the repertoire of the Imperial Moscow Theater and director of the Moscow Theater School. A. N. Ostrovsky was born in Moscow on January 31, 1823. His father, Nikolai Fedorovich, came from the clergy, and by ... Big biographical encyclopedia

Alexander Nikolaevich (1823 1886) the largest Russian playwright. R. in Moscow, in the family of an official who later became a private practitioner in civil matters. In 1835 1840 he studied at the 1st Moscow gymnasium. In 1840 he was admitted to the legal ... ... Literary encyclopedia

Dobrolyubov N.A. DOBROLYUBOV Nikolai Alexandrovich (1836 1861) Russian critic of the 60s (pseudonyms: N. Laibov, N. bov, N. Turchaninov, N. Alexandrovich, N. L., N. D., N. T ov ). R. in N. Novgorod, in the family of a poor priest, studied in the spiritual ... ... Literary encyclopedia

- (1836 1861), Russian literary critic, publicist, revolutionary democrat. Since 1857 he has been a permanent employee of the Sovremennik magazine. Following V.G.Belinsky and N.G. Chernyshevsky, seeing the purpose of literature primarily in criticizing the existing system, ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

The title of the article (1859) by critic and publicist Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov (1836 1861), dedicated to the analysis of the play by A. N. Ostrovsky "The Thunderstorm". Taking advantage of the pictures of merchant tyranny, depicted by the playwright as an excuse, N.A. ... ... Dictionary of winged words and expressions

KINGDOM, kingdoms, cf. 1. The state ruled by the king. Muscovy. "Past the Buyan island to the kingdom of the glorious Saltan." Pushkin. 2.units only. The reign of some kind of king, reign. To the kingdom of Catherine II. “Jupiter sent to them on ... ... Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary

Nikolai Alexandrovich. (1836 61), Russian literary critic, publicist. Since 1857 he has been a permanent contributor to the Sovremennik magazine. Developed the aesthetic principles of V.G. Belinsky and N.G. Chernyshevsky, seeing the purpose of literature primarily in criticism ... ... Modern encyclopedia

Books

• Thunderstorm, A. N. Ostrovsky. A. N. Ostrovsky's work revolutionized Russian theater. Already his first plays showed on the stage a world perfectly familiar to the playwright himself, but completely unknown to the readers and ...

A.N. Ostrovsky, St. Petersburg., 1860)

Not long before the appearance of "The Thunderstorms" on the stage, we analyzed in great detail all of Ostrovsky's works. Wishing to present a characterization of the author's talent, we then turned our attention to the phenomena of Russian life reproduced in his plays, tried to grasp their general character and to find out whether the meaning of these phenomena in reality is what it seems to us in the works of our playwright. If the readers have not forgotten, then we came to the result that Ostrovsky possesses a deep understanding of Russian life and a great ability to depict its most essential aspects sharply and vividly. The "thunderstorm" soon served as further proof of the validity of our conclusion. We wanted to talk about it at the same time, but felt that we would have to repeat many of our previous considerations, and therefore decided to keep silent about the "Thunderstorm" we spoke about Ostrovsky a few months before the appearance of this play. Our decision became even more firmly established in you when we saw that a number of large and small reviews appeared in all magazines and newspapers concerning the "Groza", interpreting the matter from the most diverse points of view. We thought that in this mass of articles, something more than what we saw in the critics mentioned at the beginning of our first article on "The Dark Kingdom" * would finally affect Ostrovsky and the significance of his plays. In this hope and in the knowledge that our own opinion about the meaning and character of Ostrovsky's works had already been expressed quite definitely, we thought it best to leave the analysis of The Storm.

____________________

* See Sovremennik, 1959, E VII. (Note by N.A. Dobrolyubov.)

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 to say a few words about it on our part. It gives us a reason to supplement something in our notes on "The Dark Kingdom", to carry on some of the thoughts we expressed then, and - by the way - to explain in short words with some of the critics who have honored us with direct or indirect abuse.

We must give justice to some of the critics: they were able to understand the difference that separates us from them. They reproach us that we have adopted a bad method - to consider the author's work and then, as a result of this consideration, say what it contains and what the content is. They have a completely different method: they first tell themselves what should be contained in the work (according to their concepts, of course) and to what extent everything that should be really in it (again in accordance with their concepts). It is clear that with such a difference of views, they look with indignation at our analyzes, which are likened to one of them "searching for morality in a fable." But we are very glad that at last the difference is open, and we are ready to withstand any comparisons. Yes, if you like, our method of criticism is similar to the search for a moral conclusion in a fable: the difference, for example, in the application to criticism of Ostrovsky's comedy, and will be only as great as the comedy differs from the fable and as far as the 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 disassemble the fable and say: "This is the kind of morality it contains, and this morality seems to us good or bad, and this is why," rather than decide from the very beginning: this fable should 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 disobeying its mother and falling 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 expressed in a wrong way (for example, in the example of a cuckoo leaving its eggs in other people's nests) - this means that the fable is not good. We have seen this method of criticism more than once in the appendix to Ostrovsky, although no one, of course, will want to admit it, and they will blame us, from a sore head to a healthy one, that we are starting to analyze literary works with previously adopted ideas. and requirements. And yet, what is clearer, did not the Slavophiles say: one should 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 "Our People" are unworthy of him and are explained only by the fact that he was still imitating Gogol at that time. But the Westerners didn’t shout: one should teach in comedy that superstition is harmful, and Ostrovsky saves one of his heroes from death by ringing bells; everyone should be taught that the true good is education, and Ostrovsky in his comedy dishonors the educated Vikhorev in front of the ignorant Borodkin; it is clear that "Don't Get In Your Sleigh" and "Don't Live As You Want" are bad plays. And the adherents of artistry didn’t proclaim: art should serve the eternal and universal requirements of aesthetics, and Ostrovsky, in his "Profitable Place", reduced art to serving the pitiful interests of the minute; therefore "A profitable place" is unworthy of art and should be counted among accusatory literature! .. But Mr. Nekrasov from Moscow [*] * did not he assert: Bolshov should not arouse sympathy in us, and meanwhile the 4th act of "His people" written in order to arouse sympathy in us for Bolshov; therefore, the fourth act is superfluous! .. But Mr. Pavlov (N.F.) [*] did not he wriggle, letting him understand the following propositions: Russian folk life can only provide material for fancy ** 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 therefore obvious that Ostrovsky, who takes a plot from common life, is nothing more than a farcical writer ... And yet another Moscow critic did not draw such conclusions: the drama should present us a hero imbued with lofty ideas; the heroine of The Storm, on the contrary, is all imbued with mysticism ***, therefore, she is not suitable for drama, for she cannot arouse our sympathy; therefore, "The Thunderstorm" has only the meaning of satire, and even that is unimportant, and so on, and so forth ...

____________________

* For notes on words marked with [*], see the end of the text.

** Balagan - fair folk theatrical show with primitive stage technique; farce - here: primitive, common.

*** Mysticism (from Greek) - a tendency to believe in the supernatural world.

Those who followed what we wrote about The Thunderstorm will easily remember a few more similar critics. It cannot be said that all of them were written by people who are completely poor in the intellectual sense; how can we explain the lack of a direct view of things, which in all of them strikes the impartial reader? Undoubtedly, 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 theoreticians, a critic 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 invented badly for moribund old people; while such a beginning lives on in criticism, they can be sure that they will not be considered completely backward, no matter what happens in the literary world. After all, the laws are perfectly established by them in their textbooks, on the basis of those works in the beauty of which they believe; as long as everything new will be judged on the basis of the laws they have approved, as long as elegant and only that which is consistent with them will be recognized, nothing new will dare to assert its rights; old men will be right, believing in Karamzin [*] and not recognizing Gogol, as the respectable people thought to be right, who admired the imitators of Racine [*] and cursed Shakespeare as a drunken savage, following Voltaire [*], or worshiped "Messiada" and on this On the grounds that they rejected "Faust" [*], Rutiners, even the most mediocre ones, have nothing to fear from criticism, which serves as a passive test of the immovable rules of stupid scholars, and at the same time, the most gifted writers have nothing to hope from it if they introduce something new and original into art ... They must go against all the criticisms of the "correct" criticism, in spite of it to make a name for itself, in spite of it to found a school and make sure that some new theorist begins to think with them when drawing up a new code of art. Then the criticism humbly recognizes their merits; until then, she should 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 like that tomorrow [*], but still should recognize Francis as their king, until his royal majesty he will be pleased to leave his capital.

Dobrolyubov's article entitled "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom", a summary of which is set out below, refers to Ostrovsky's "Thunderstorm", 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 which other critics wrote about Ostrovsky, noting that they do not have a direct look at the main things.

The concept of drama that existed at the time of Ostrovsky

Nikolai Aleksandrovich further compares The Thunderstorm with the drama standards adopted at that time. In the article "A ray of light in the dark kingdom", the summary of which interests us, he examines, in particular, the principle established in the literature on the subject of drama. In the struggle between duty and passion, usually an unhappy end occurs when passion wins, and a happy end occurs when duty wins. The drama, moreover, was supposed, according to the 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 "The Thunderstorm" cannot be considered a drama, according to Dobrolyubov?

Writings of this kind are imperative to 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 Ostrovsky's pen (his portrait is presented below), we are imbued with compassion for this heroine. The author of "The 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 unwittingly justify the vice, speaking out against the girl's tormentors.

The drama, as a result, does not fulfill its purpose, it does not carry its main semantic load. The action itself in the work is somehow uncertain and slow, says the author of the article "A ray of light in the dark kingdom." Its summary continues as follows. Dobrolyubov says that there are no bright and stormy scenes in the work. The work leads to "lethargy" by the pile-up of the characters. The language does not stand up to any criticism.

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

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

Dobrolyubov ("A ray of light in the dark kingdom") also says that for a long time the writers did not pay special attention to the movement towards the primordial principles of man, towards 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 on The Thunderstorm. It is mentioned, in particular, who noted the main merit of Ostrovsky in the fact that his work was popular. Dobrolyubov is trying to answer the question of what this "nationality" is. He says that Grigoriev does not explain this concept, therefore his statement itself cannot be taken seriously.

Ostrovsky's works - "plays of life"

Dobrolyubov then discusses what can be called "plays of life". "A ray of light in the dark kingdom" (the summary notes only the main points) - an article in which Nikolai Aleksandrovich says that Ostrovsky considers life as a whole, without trying to make the righteous man 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 be impossible, which Dobrolyubov notes.

"A ray of light in the dark kingdom": analysis of the statements of minor characters

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

What is the novelty of the play?

"The 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, brought Ostrovsky to tragic consequences. The breath of novelty, which was noted by all those familiar with "The Storm", lies in the general background of the play, in the people "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 Kingdom" is continued by 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 decisive heroes. The image of Katerina is characterized by an intuitive perception of the truth and a natural understanding of it. Dobrolyubov ("A 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. Powerful strength of character lies in this heroine in her integrity.

Motives of Katerina's actions

Dobrolyubov, in addition to the very image of this girl, examines in detail the motives of her actions. He notes that Katerina is not a rebel by nature, she does not show discontent, does not demand destruction. Rather, she is a creator who longs for love. This is what explains her desire to refine 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 says to her directly.

Katerina embodies the idea of ​​the Russian people, says Dobrolyubov ("A ray of light in the dark kingdom")

The theses of the article are supplemented with 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 in a rather abstract way, comparing Katerina with a wide and flat 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 correct decision for her is to run away with Boris. The girl can flee, but dependence on a relative of his lover shows that this hero is essentially the same as Katerina's husband, only more educated.

Finale of the play

The finale of the play is delightful 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. Life in his environment is impossible. 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. A world opens before us in which the living envy the dead.

This concludes Dobrolyubov's article "A ray of light in the dark kingdom." We have highlighted only the main points, briefly describing its summary. However, some of the details and comments of the author were overlooked. "A ray of light in the dark kingdom" is best read in the original, as this article is a classic of Russian criticism. Dobrolyubov gave a good example of how a piece should be analyzed.

Of all Ostrovsky's works, The Thunderstorm has caused the greatest resonance in society and the most heated controversy in criticism. This was explained both by the nature of the drama itself (the severity of the conflict, its tragic outcome, the strong and original image of the main character), and the era in which the play was written - two years before the abolition of serfdom and related reforms in socio-political life Russia. It was an era of social upsurge, the flourishing of freedom-loving ideas and increased resistance to the "dark kingdom" in all its manifestations, including in the family and everyday life.

From this point of view, N.A. Dobrolyubov, who gave the most complete and detailed analysis of it. In the main character, Katerina Kabanova, he saw a gratifying phenomenon, foreshadowing the imminent end of the tyrant kingdom. Emphasizing the strength of Katerina's character, he emphasized the fact that even if a woman, that is, the most downtrodden and disenfranchised element of society, dares to protest, then “the last times” come to the “dark kingdom”. The title of Dobrolyubov's article expresses its main pathos in the best possible way.

Dobrolyubov's most consistent opponent was D.I. Pisarev. In his article, he not only disagreed with Dobrolyubov in assessing the image of Katerina, but completely debunked it, focusing on the heroine's weaknesses and concluding that all her behavior, including suicide, is nothing more than "stupidity and absurdity." ... However, it should be noted that Pisarev came out with his analysis after 1861 and after the appearance of such works as "Fathers and Sons" by Turgenev and "What is to be done?" Chernyshevsky. In comparison with the heroes of these novels - Bazarov, Lopukhov, Kirsanov, Rakhmetov, Vera Pavlovna and others, in whom Pisarev found his ideal of a revolutionary democrat - Katerina Ostrovsky, of course, was very much behind.

Polemic in relation to Dobrolyubov is also the article by A.A. Grigoriev, one of the leading Russian critics of the mid-19th century, who held the position of "pure art" and consistently opposed the sociological approach to literature. In contrast to Dobrolyubov's opinion, Grigoriev argues that in Ostrovsky's work and, in particular, in the play "The Thunderstorm", the main thing is not denouncing the social order, but the embodiment of the "Russian nationality."

A major Russian writer I.A. Goncharov gave a completely positive review of the play, accurately and briefly describing its main merits. M.M.Dostoevsky, brother of the great Russian writer F.M. Dostoevsky, examined in detail the character of Katerina in all its contradictions and, deeply sympathizing with the heroine, concluded that this character is truly Russian, 77, I. Melnikov-Pechora populist writer, in his review of the character of "The Storm" approaches the position of Dobrolyubov , considering the motive of protest against tyranny to be the most important in this play. In this article, you should pay attention to a detailed analysis of the characters of Feklushi and Kuligin and the meaning of their opposition.

Readers of Sovremennik remember, perhaps, that we put Ostrovsky very highly, finding that he was very fully and many-sided able to portray the essential aspects and requirements of Russian life 1. Other authors took private phenomena, temporary, external demands of society and portrayed them with more or less success, such as the demand for justice, religious tolerance, sound administration, the abolition of farms, the abolition of serfdom, etc. Other authors took a more internal side of life, but confined themselves to a very close circle and noticed such phenomena that were far from having national significance. Such, for example, is the depiction in countless stories of people who, in their development, have become higher than their environment, but deprived of energy, will and perishing in inaction. These stories were significant, because they clearly expressed the uselessness of the environment that interferes with good activity, and although the vaguely recognized demand for the energetic application in practice of the principles that we recognize as truth in theory. Depending on the difference in talents, stories of this kind had more or less significance; but they all contained the disadvantage that they fell into only a small (comparatively) part of society and had almost nothing to do with the majority. Not to mention the mass of the people, even in the middle strata of our society, we see many more people who still need to acquire and understand the correct concepts than those who, with the acquired ideas, do not know where to go. Therefore, the significance of these stories and novels remains very special and is felt more for a circle of a certain type than for the majority. It is impossible not to admit that Ostrovsky's work is much more fruitful: he captured such common aspirations and needs that permeate the entire Russian society, whose voice is heard in all the phenomena of our life, which satisfaction is a necessary condition for our further development. The modern aspirations of Russian life in the most extensive dimensions find their expression in Ostrovsky, as a comedian, from the negative side. Drawing us in a vivid picture of a false relationship with all their consequences, he thereby serves as an echo of aspirations that require a better arrangement. Arbitrariness on the one hand and lack of awareness of the rights of one's personality on the other - these are the foundations on which all the ugliness of mutual relations, developed in most of Ostrovsky's comedies, rests; demands of law, legality, respect for a person - that's what every attentive reader hears from the depths of this outrage. Well, will you begin to deny the vast significance of these requirements in Russian life? Do you not admit that such a background of comedies corresponds to the state of Russian society more than any other in Europe? Take history, remember your life, look around you - you will find an excuse for our words everywhere. This is not the place for us to indulge in historical research; Suffice it to note that our history until modern times did not contribute to the development of a sense of legality in our country, did not create lasting guarantees for the individual and gave a vast field of arbitrariness. This kind of historical development, of course, resulted in a decline in public morality: respect for one's own dignity was lost, faith in law and, consequently, the consciousness of duty weakened, arbitrariness trampled on law, and cunning was undermined by arbitrariness. Some writers, devoid of a sense of normal needs and bewildered by artificial combinations, recognizing these certain facts, wanted to legitimize them, to glorify them as a norm of life, and not as a distortion of natural aspirations produced by unfavorable historical development. But Ostrovsky, as a person with strong talent and, therefore, with a sense of truth? with an instinctive inclination to natural, sound requirements, he could not succumb to temptation, and arbitrariness, even the widest, always came out with him, in accordance with reality, as a heavy, ugly, lawless arbitrariness - and in essence the play always heard a protest against him. He knew how to feel what this kind of breadth of nature meant, and branded and defamed her with several types and names of tyranny.

But he did not invent these types, just as he did not invent the word "tyrant" either. Both he took in life itself. It is clear that life, which provided materials for such comic positions in which Ostrovsky's tyrants are often put, the life that gave them a decent name, is not already absorbed by their entire influence, but contains the makings of a more reasonable, legal, correct order of affairs. Indeed, after each play by Ostrovsky, everyone feels this consciousness within themselves and, looking around themselves, notices the same in others. Following this thought more closely, looking at it longer and deeper, you notice that this striving for a new, more natural structure of relations contains the essence of everything that we call progress, constitutes the direct task of our development, absorbs all the work of new generations. Wherever you look, everywhere you see the awakening of the personality, the presentation by it of its legal rights, the protest against violence and arbitrariness, for the most part still timid, indefinite, ready to hide, but nevertheless already making it possible to notice its existence.

In Ostrovsky 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 is based on a thick bag, which is called "God's blessing", and how the irresponsibility of people before it is determined by material dependence on it. Moreover, you see how this material side dominates the abstract in all everyday relationships and how people deprived of material support value abstract rights little and even lose a clear consciousness about them. Indeed, a well-fed person can reason coolly and intelligently whether he should eat such and such a meal; but the hungry is eager for food, wherever he envies it and whatever it may be. This phenomenon, which is repeated in all spheres of social life, is well noticed and understood by Ostrovsky, and his plays, more clearly than any reasoning, show the attentive reader how the system of lawlessness and rude, petty egoism, established by tyranny, is grafted onto those who suffer from it; how they, if in the slightest degree retain the remnants of energy, try to use it to acquire the opportunity to live independently and no longer disassemble either means or rights. We developed this topic in too much detail in our previous articles to return to it again; moreover, having recalled the sides of Ostrovsky's talent, which were repeated in The Storm, as in his previous works, we must nevertheless make a short review of the play itself and show how we understand it.

Already in Ostrovsky's previous plays, we noticed that these are not comedies of intrigue and not comedies of characters in fact, but something new, which we would give the name "plays of life" if it were not too extensive and therefore not quite definite. We want to say that in his foreground is always the general, independent of any of the characters, the situation of life. He does not punish either the villain or the victim; both of them are pitiful to you, often both are ridiculous, but the feeling aroused in you by the play does not directly appeal to them. You see that their position dominates them, and you only blame them for not showing enough energy to get out of this position. The tyrants themselves, against whom your feelings should naturally be indignant, on close examination turn out to be more pitiable than your anger: they are virtuous and even clever in their own way, within the limits prescribed for them by routine and supported by their position; but this position is such that complete, healthy human development is impossible in it.

Thus, the struggle demanded by the theory from the drama takes place in Ostrovsky's plays not in the monologues of the characters, but in the facts that dominate them. Often the characters in comedy themselves do not have a clear, or even no, consciousness about the meaning of their position and their struggle; but on the other hand, the struggle takes place very clearly and consciously in the soul of the spectator, who involuntarily rebelles against the situation that gives rise to such facts. And that is why we in no way dare to consider as unnecessary and superfluous those persons of Ostrovsky's plays who do not participate directly in the intrigue. From our point of view, these faces are just as necessary for the play as the main ones: they show us the environment in which the action takes place, they draw the position that determines the meaning of the activities of the main characters in the play. To know well the properties of the life of a plant, it is necessary to study it on the soil on which it grows; torn away from the soil, you will have the form of a plant, but you will not fully recognize its life. In exactly the same way, you will not recognize the life of society if you consider it only in the direct relations of several persons who for some reason come into collision with each other: there will be only the business, official side of life, while we need its everyday environment. Outsiders, inactive participants in a life's drama, apparently engaged only in their own business, each, often have such an influence on the course of affairs by their very existence 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 by us with contemptuous indifference! How many pure and kind feelings freeze in us for fear of being ridiculed and reviled by this crowd! On the other hand, how many crimes, how many outbursts of arbitrariness and violence stop before the decision of this crowd, always seemingly indifferent and malleable, but, in essence, very uncompromising in that once it is recognized by it. Therefore, it is extremely important for us to know what the concepts of this crowd about good and evil are, what they consider to be true and what kind of lie. This determines our view of the position in which the main persons of the play are, and, consequently, the degree of our participation in them.

The need for so-called “unnecessary” faces is especially evident in The Thunderstorm: without them we cannot understand the heroine's face and can easily distort the meaning of the entire play.

"Thunderstorm", as you know, presents us with the idyll of the third "dark kingdom", which little by little illuminates Ostrovsky with his talent. The people you see here live in blessed places: the city stands on the banks of the Volga, all green; distant areas covered with villages and cornfields are visible from the steep banks; a blessed summer day just beckons to the shore, to the air, under the open sky, under this breeze blowing refreshingly from the Volga ... And residents, for sure, sometimes walk along the boulevard above the river, even though they have already looked closely at the beauties of the Volga views; in the evening they sit on the heaps of the gate and engage in pious conversations; but they spend more time at home, doing housework, eating, sleeping - they go to bed very early, so it is difficult for an unaccustomed person to endure such a sleepy night, which they ask themselves. But what can they do if not sleep when they are full? Their life flows so smoothly and peacefully, no interests of the world disturb them, because they do not reach them; kingdoms can collapse, new countries open up, the face of the earth can change as it pleases, the world can start a new life on a new basis - the inhabitants of the town of Kalinova will continue to exist in complete ignorance of the rest of the world. From time to time, an indefinite rumor will run to them that Napoleon with twenty tongues rises again, or that the Antichrist was born; but they also accept this more as a curious thing, like the news that there are countries where all people with dog-headed heads: shake their heads, express surprise at the wonders of nature and go to eat ... They still show some curiosity when they are young, but she has nowhere to take food : information comes to them, as if in ancient Russia only from wanderers, and even today there are not many real ones; we have to be content with those who “themselves, due to their weakness, did not go far, but heard a lot,” like Feklusha in The Thunderstorm. From them only the inhabitants of Kalinov learn about what is happening in the world; otherwise they would think that the whole world is the same as their Kalinov, and that it is absolutely impossible to live differently from them. But the information provided by the Feklushas is such that they are not able to inspire a great desire to exchange their life for another. Feklusha belongs to a patriotic and highly conservative party; she feels good among the pious and naive Kalinovites: she is revered, and treated, and supplied with everything she needs; she can seriously assure that her very sins are due to the fact that she is superior to other mortals: “ordinary people, she says, each one is confused by one enemy, but to us, strange people, to whom six, to whom twelve are assigned, that is what they all need overcome. " And they believe her. It is clear that a simple instinct for self-preservation should make her not say a good word about what is happening in other lands. And in fact, listen to the conversations of the merchants, the petty bourgeoisie, the petty bureaucracy in the wilderness of the county - how many amazing information about the unfaithful and filthy kingdoms, how many stories about those times when people were burned and tortured, when robbers robbed cities, etc. - and how little information about European life, about the best way of life! All this leads to the fact that Feklusha expresses it so positively: “Bla-alepie, dear, bla-alepie, wonderful beauty! But what can I say - you live in the promised land! " It undoubtedly comes out like that, how to figure out what is happening in other lands. Listen to Feklus:

“They say there are such countries, dear girl, where there are no Orthodox kings, but the Saltans rule the earth. In one land the Turkish Saltan Makhnut sits on the throne, and in the other - the Persian Saltan Makhnut; and they do judgment, dear girl, over all people, and whatever they judge, everything is wrong, And they, dear girl, cannot judge a single case righteously, - such a limit is set for them, We have a righteous law, but they have dear, unrighteous; that according to our law it turns out that way, but according to their language everything is the opposite. And all their judges, in their countries, are also all unrighteous: so to them, dear girl, and in their requests they write: "Judge me, unrighteous judge!" And then there is also the land, where all the people with the heads of the dogs ”.

"Why is that k, with the dogs?" - Glasha asks. “For infidelity,” Feklusha responds shortly, considering any further explanations superfluous. But Glasha is glad for that too; in the languid monotony of her life and thoughts, she is pleased to hear something new and original. The thought is vaguely awakening in her soul, “that, nevertheless, people live differently than we do; it is certainly better with us, but who knows! After all, we are not good either; but we don't know very well about those lands yet; you just hear something from kind people ... ”And the desire to know more and more reasonably creeps into the soul. This is clear to us from the words of Glasha on the departure of the wanderer: “Here are some other lands! There are no miracles in the world! And we are sitting here, we do not know anything. It is also good that there are good people: no, no, yes, and you will hear what is happening in this world; otherwise they would have died like fools. " As you can see, the unrighteousness and unfaithfulness of foreign lands does not arouse horror and indignation in Glasha; she is only interested in new information, which seems to her to be something mysterious - "miracles," as she puts it. You see that she is not content with Feklusha's explanations, which arouse in her only regret for her ignorance. She is obviously halfway to skepticism 4. But where can she keep her distrust when it is constantly undermined by stories like the Feklushins? How can she get to the correct concepts, even just to reasonable questions, when her curiosity is locked in such a circle that is outlined around her in the city of Kalinov? Moreover, not only would she dare not to believe and to question when older and better people so positively calm down in the conviction that the concepts and way of life they have adopted are the best in the world and that everything new comes from evil spirits? It is terrible and difficult for every newcomer to try to go against the demands and convictions of this dark mass, terrible in its naivety and sincerity. After all, she will curse us, she will run as if from the plague — not out of malice, not out of calculations, but out of a deep conviction that we are akin to the Antichrist; it’s also good if she only thinks crazy and laughs .- .. She seeks knowledge, loves to reason, but only within certain limits prescribed to her by basic concepts, in which reason is frightened. You can inform the Kalinovsky inhabitants of some geographic knowledge; but do not touch the fact that the earth stands on three whales and that there is a navel of the earth in Jerusalem - they will not yield to you, although they have the same clear concept of the navel of the earth as they do about Lithuania in The Thunderstorm. "This, my brother, what is it?" One civilian asks another, pointing to the picture. “And this is Lithuanian ruin,” he replies. - Battle! You see! How ours fought with Lithuania ”. - "What is this Lithuania?" “So she is Lithuania,” the explainer replies. “And they say, my brother, she fell on us from the sky,” the first continues; but his interlocutor is not so much in need: “Well, from heaven, so from heaven,” he replies ... Then the woman intervenes in the conversation: “Interpret again! Everyone knows that from the sky; and where there was a fight with her, there were burial mounds for memory. " - “And what, my brother! It's so accurate! " - exclaims the questioner, quite satisfied. And then ask him what he thinks about Lithuania! All the questions asked here by natural curiosity have a similar outcome. And this is not at all because these people were more stupid, more stupid than many others whom we meet in academies and scientific societies. No, the whole point is that by their position, by their lives under the yoke of arbitrariness, they are all already accustomed to see the irresponsibility and meaninglessness and therefore find it awkward and even daring to persistently seek reasonable grounds for anything. Ask a question - there will be more of them; but if the answer is that "the gun is by itself, and the mortar is by itself," then they no longer dare to torture further and are humbly content with this explanation. The secret of such indifference to logic lies primarily in the absence of any logic in life relations. The key to this secret is given to us, for example, by the following remark of Dikiy in "The Thunderstorm". Kuligin, in response to his rudeness, says: "Why, sir Savel Prokofich, would you please to offend an honest man?" Dikoy answers this:

“I’ll give you a report or something! I don’t give a report to anyone more important than you. I want to think so of you, and I think so. For others, you are an honest man, but I think you are a robber - that's all. Would you like to hear it from me? So listen! I say that a robber, and the end! Why are you going to sue, or what, you will be with me? You know that you are a worm. If I want - I will have mercy, if I want - I will crush ”.

What theoretical reasoning can stand where life is based on such principles! The absence of any law, of any logic - this is the law and logic of this life. This is not anarchy, 5 but something even much worse (although the imagination of an educated European cannot imagine anything worse than anarchy). There is no beginning in anarchy: everyone is good at his own model, no one decree to anyone, everyone can answer to the order of another that I, they say, do not want to know you, and thus everyone is mischievous and disagrees with anything. can. The position of a society subject to such anarchy (if only possible) is truly dire. But imagine that this most anarchist society was divided into two parts: one left for itself the right to be mischievous and not know any law, and the other was forced to recognize every claim as the first law and resignedly endure all its whims, all outrageousness ... Isn't it true that it was even worse? The anarchy would remain the same, because there would be no rational principles in society, the mischief would continue as before; but half of the people would be forced to suffer from them and constantly feed them with themselves, with their humility and obsequiousness. It is clear that under such conditions, mischief and lawlessness would take on such dimensions that they could never have had under general anarchy. In fact, whatever you say, a person alone, left to himself, will not fool a lot in society and very soon will feel the need to agree and come to an agreement with others for the sake of common good. But a person will never feel this need if he finds a vast field for exercising his whims in a multitude of his own kind and if in their dependent, humiliated position he sees constant reinforcement of his tyranny. Thus, having in common with anarchy the absence of any law and right obligatory for all, tyranny is, in essence, incomparably more terrible than anarchy, because it gives mischief more means and scope and makes a greater number of people suffer - and even more dangerous in that respect. which can last much longer. Anarchy (let us repeat, if only it is possible at all) can only serve as a transitional moment, which with each step must bring itself to reason and lead to something more healthy; tyranny, on the contrary, seeks to legitimize itself and establish itself as an unshakable system. That is why, together with such a broad concept of its own freedom, it tries, however, to take all possible measures in order to leave this freedom forever only for itself, in order to protect itself from any daring attempts. In order to achieve this goal, it does not seem to recognize certain higher requirements, and although it itself also stands out against them, it stands firmly for them in front of others. A few minutes after the remark, in which Dee to oh so decisively rejected, in favor of his own whim, all moral and logical grounds for judging a person, this same Dikoy assaulted Kuligin when he uttered the word electricity to explain the thunderstorm.

“Well, how are you not a robber,” he shouts, “a thunderstorm is sent to us as punishment, so that we feel, and you want to defend yourself with poles and rods of some sort, God forgive me. What are you, Tatar, or what? Are you a Tatar? Oh, say: Tatar? "

And here Kuligin does not dare to answer him: "I want to think so and think so, and no one decides to me." Where are you going - he can't even present his own explanations: they accept them with curses, and they don't even let them talk. Against your will, you stop resonating here, when the fist responds for any reason, and always in the end the fist remains right ...

But - a wonderful thing! - in their indisputable, irresponsible dark dominion, giving complete freedom to their whims, putting any laws and logic at all, the tyrants of Russian life, however, begin to feel some kind of discontent and fear, without knowing what and why. Everything seems to be the same, everything is fine: Dikoy scolds anyone he wants; when they say to him: "How can no one in the whole house please you!" - he smugly replies: "There you go!" Kabanova still keeps her children in awe, makes her daughter-in-law observe all the etiquette of antiquity, eats her like rust, considers herself completely infallible and indulges in various Feklushas. And everything is somehow restless, it is not good for them. In addition to them, without asking them, another life has grown, with different principles, and although it is far away, it is not yet clearly visible, it already gives itself a presentiment and sends bad visions to the dark arbitrariness of tyrants. They are fiercely looking for their enemy, ready to attack the most innocent, some Kuligin; but there is neither an enemy nor a guilty one whom they could destroy: the law of time, the law of nature and history takes its toll, and the old Kabanovs breathe heavily, feeling that there is a force above them, which they cannot overcome, which they cannot even approach know how. They do not want to give in (and so far no one is demanding concessions from them), but they shrink, shrink: before they wanted to establish their system of life forever indestructible, and now they are also trying to preach; but hope is already betraying them, and they, in essence, are only concerned about how it would be for their age, Kabanova argues that "the last times are coming", and when Feklusha tells her about the various horrors of the present time - about the railways and so on, - she prophetically notes: "And it will be worse, dear." “We just don't have to live to see this,” Feklusha replies with a sigh. Why is she worried? People travel by rail, “but what does it matter to her? But you see: she, "even though you scatter her all with gold," will not go according to the devil's invention; and the people travel more and more, not paying attention to her curses; isn't it sad, isn't it a testament to her powerlessness? People have found out about electricity - it seems that this is offensive for the Wild and Kabanovs? But you see, Dikoy says that "a thunderstorm is sent to us as a punishment, so that we feel," but Kuligin does not feel, or does not feel at all, and talks about electricity. Isn't this self-will, a disregard for the power and significance of the Wild One? They do not want to believe what he believes, which means that they do not believe him either, they consider themselves smarter than him; judge, what will this lead to? No wonder Kabanova notes about Kuligin:

“The times have come, what kind of teachers have appeared! If the old man thinks like that, what can we demand from the young! "

And Kabanova is very seriously upset by the future of the old order, with which she has outlived a century. She foresees their end, tries to maintain their significance, but already feels that there is no previous respect for them, that they are being kept reluctantly, only against their will, and that they will be abandoned at the first opportunity. She herself had somehow lost some of her knightly heat; it is no longer with the same energy that she cares about the observance of old customs, in many cases she has already given up her hand, bowed before the impossibility of stopping the stream, and only with despair we watch how it gradually floods the colorful flower beds of her whimsical superstitions. Like the last pagans before the power of Christianity, this is how the offspring of tyrants, caught up in the course of a new life, sink and obliterate. They do not even have the determination to take a direct, open fight; they are only trying to somehow deceive the times, and they are filled with fruitless complaints about the new movement. These complaints have always been heard from old people, because new generations have always brought something new into life, contrary to the old order; but now the complaints of the tyrants take on a particularly gloomy, funeral tone. Kabanova is consoled only by the fact that somehow, with her help, the old order will stand until her death; and there - let it be anything - she won't see. Seeing her son on the road, she notices that everything is not done the way it should for her: the son does not bow at her feet - it is necessary to demand this from him, but he himself did not guess; and he does not "order" his wife how to live without him, and he does not know how to order, and at parting he does not demand an earthly bow from her; and the daughter-in-law, seeing off her husband, does not howl and does not lie on the porch to show her love. Whenever possible, Kabanova tries to establish order, but already feels that it is impossible to conduct business in a completely old fashion; for example, regarding howling on the porch, she already only notices the daughter-in-law in the form of advice, but does not dare to insist ...

Until the old people die, until then the young have time to grow old - on this score the old woman need not worry. But, you see, it is not important for her, in fact, that there is always someone to keep order and teach the inexperienced; it needs that precisely those orders should always be preserved indestructible, that precisely those concepts that it recognizes as good remain inviolable. In the narrowness and coarseness of her egoism, she cannot rise even to the point of making peace with the triumph of principle, even if only with the sacrifice of existing forms; and one cannot expect this from her, since she, in fact, has no principle, no common conviction that would govern her life. The Kabanovs and the Wilds are now bothering to keep faith in their power. They do not expect to improve their affairs; but they know that their willfulness will still have ample scope as long as everyone is shy in front of them; and that is why they are so stubborn, so arrogant, so formidable even in the last minutes, of which they already have few left, as they themselves feel. The less they feel the real power, the more the influence of free, common sense, which proves to them that they are deprived of any reasonable support, is more striking, the more impudent and insane they deny any demands of reason, putting themselves and their arbitrariness in their place. The naivety with which Dikoy speaks to Kuligin:

“I want to consider you a fraud, and I think so; and I don’t care that you are an honest person, and I don’t give an account to anyone why I think so ”- this naivety could not have been expressed in all its self-styled absurdity if Kuligin had not summoned it with a modest request:“ But why do you offend an honest person? .. ”Dikoy wants, you see, to cut short any attempt to demand an account from him from the very first time, wants to show that he is above not only accountability, but also ordinary human logic. It seems to him that if he recognizes above himself the laws of common sense, common to all people, then his importance will suffer greatly from this. And in most cases, this really happens - because his claims are contrary to common sense. Hence, eternal discontent and irritability develops in him. He himself explains his position when he talks about how hard it is for him to give out money.

“What do you command me to do when I have such a heart! After all, I already know that I must give, but I can’t do everything good. You are my friend, and I must give you back, but if you come and ask me, I will swear. I will give - I will give, but I will scold. Therefore, just give me a hint about money, I will start to kindle all my insides; kindles all the insides, and only ... Well. and in those days I will never swear at a person. "

The return of money, as a material and visual fact, even in the minds of the Dikiy himself awakens some reflection: he realizes how ridiculous he is, and blames the fact that "his heart is like that!" In other cases, he is not even fully aware of his absurdity; but by the essence of his character he must certainly feel the same irritation at any triumph of common sense as when it is necessary to give out money. It is hard for him to pay that is why: by natural egoism, he wants him to feel good; everything around him convinces him that this good comes from money; hence the direct attachment to money. But here his development stops, his egoism remains within the confines of an individual person and does not want to know her relationship to society, to his neighbors. He needs more money - he knows this, and therefore he would only like to receive it, not give it away. When, according to the natural course of affairs, it comes to giving, then he gets angry and swears: he accepts this as a misfortune, a punishment, like a fire, a flood, a fine - and not for granted, legal retribution for what others are doing for him. So it is in everything: at the will of his own good, he wants space, independence; but does not want to know the law governing the acquisition and use of all rights in society. He only wants more, as many rights as possible for himself; when it is necessary to recognize them for others, he considers this an encroachment on his personal dignity, and gets angry, and tries in every possible way to delay the matter and prevent it. Even when he knows that he must surely give in, and will give in later, but nevertheless he will try to play a dirty trick first. "I will give - I will give, but I will swear!" And we must assume that the more significant the issue of money and the more urgent the need for it, the more Dikaya swears ... From this it follows that - firstly, the curse and all his rage, although unpleasant, are not particularly scary, and who, being afraid of them, he would have abandoned the money and thought that it was impossible to get it, he would have acted very stupidly; secondly, that it would be in vain to hope for the correction of the Wild by means of some kind of admonition: the habit of fooling is already so strong in him that he obeys it even in spite of the voice of his own common sense. It is clear that no rational convictions will stop him until a tactile external force is connected to them: he scolds Kuligin, not listening to any reasons; and when a hussar scolded him once on a ferry, on the Volga, he did not dare to contact the hussar, but again took out his resentment at home: for two weeks after that, everyone hid from him in the attics and in the closets ...

For a very long time we dwelled on the dominant persons of The Groza, because, in our opinion, the story played out with Katerina decisively depends on the position that inevitably falls to her share between these persons, in the way of life that was established under their influence. The Thunderstorm is undoubtedly Ostrovsky's most decisive work; the mutual relations of petty tyranny and speechlessness have been brought to the most tragic consequences in her; and for all that, the majority of those who read and saw this play agree that it gives a less grievous and sad impression than other plays by Ostrovsky (not to mention, of course, his sketches of a purely comic nature). There is even something refreshing and encouraging about The Thunderstorm. This "something" is, in our opinion, the background of the play, indicated by us and revealing the instability and imminent end of tyranny. Then the very character of Katerina, drawn against this background, also blows on us with a new life, which opens up to us in her very death.

The fact is that the character of Katerina, as it is performed in The Storm, is a step forward not only in Ostrovsky's dramatic activities, but also in all of our literature. It corresponds to the new phase of our people's life, it has long demanded its implementation in literature, our best writers have been circling around it; but they could only understand its necessity and could not comprehend and feel its essence; Ostrovsky managed to do this.

Russian life has finally reached the point that virtuous and respectable, but weak and impersonal beings do not satisfy public consciousness and are recognized as worthless. An urgent need was felt for people, albeit less beautiful, but more active and energetic. It is impossible otherwise: as soon as the consciousness of truth and law, common sense woke up in people, they certainly require not only an abstract consent with them (which the virtuous heroes of the past have always shone with), but also their introduction into life, into activity. But in order to bring them into life, it is necessary to overcome many obstacles set up by the Wilds, Kabanovs, etc .; to overcome obstacles, you need entrepreneurial, decisive, persistent characters. It is necessary for them to be embodied, to merge with them that general demand of truth and law, which finally breaks through in people through all the barriers set up by the wild tyrants. Now the big task was how the character demanded by a new turn in social life should be formed and manifested.

The Russian strong character is not so understood and expressed in The Storm. First of all, it amazes us with its opposite to all self-styled principles. Not with the instinct of violence and destruction, but also not with practical dexterity to settle his own affairs for lofty goals, not with senseless, noisy pathos, but not with diplomatic, pedantic calculation, does he appear before us. No, he is focused and decisive, unswervingly faithful to the instinct of 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 repugnant to him. He is guided not by abstract principles, not by practical considerations, not by instant pathos, but simply by his nature, with his whole being. This integrity and harmony of character is its strength and essential necessity for it at a time when the old, wild relations, having lost all inner strength, continue to be held by an external, mechanical connection. A person who only logically understands the absurdity of the tyranny of the Dikikhs and Kabanovs will not do anything against them, just because before them all logic disappears; no syllogisms 7 will convince the chain that it breaks on the prisoner, kula to, so that it does not hurt the nailed one; so you will not convince Dikiy to act more sensibly, nor will you convince his household not to listen to his whims: he will pin them all, and only - what will you do with this? It is obvious that characters strong in one logical side should develop very poorly and have a very weak influence on general activity where all life is governed not by logic, but by sheer arbitrariness.

The decisive, integral Russian character, acting among the Dikikhs and Kabanovs, appears in Ostrovsky's female type, and this is not devoid of its serious significance. It is known that extremes are reflected by extremes and that the strongest protest is the one that finally rises from the chest of the weakest and most patient. The field in which Ostrovsky observes and shows us Russian life does not concern purely social and state relations, but is limited to the family; in the family, who most of all withstands all the oppression of tyranny, if not a woman? What bailiff, worker, servant of the Wild One can be so driven, beaten, detached from his personality, like his wife? Who can boil so much grief and indignation against the absurd fantasies of a tyrant? And at the same time, who less than her has the opportunity to express her murmur, to refuse to perform what is disgusting to her? Servants and clerks are connected only in a material, human way; they can leave the tyrant as soon as they find another place for themselves. The wife, according to prevailing concepts, is inextricably linked with him, spiritually, through the sacrament; whatever her husband does, she must obey him and share a meaningless life with him. Yes, if, finally, she could leave, then where would she go, what would she start? Kudryash says: "The Wild one needs me, so I am not afraid of him and will not let him take liberties over me." It is easy for a person who has come to the realization that he is really needed for others; but woman, wife? What is it for? Isn't she herself, on the contrary, taking everything from her husband? Her husband gives her a dwelling, gives her drink, feeds, clothes, protects her, gives her a position in society ... Isn't she usually considered a burden for a man? Do not prudent people say, keeping young people from marrying: "A wife is not a bast, you can't throw off your feet"? And in general opinion, the most important difference between a wife and a bast shoe is that she brings with her a whole burden of worries that her husband cannot get rid of, while bast shoe gives only convenience, and if it is inconvenient, it can be easily discarded ... in such a position, a woman, of course, must forget that she is the same person, with the same rights as a man. She can only demoralize, and if the personality is strong in her, then get a tendency to the same tyranny from which she suffered so much. This is what we see, for example, in Kabanikha. Her tyranny is only narrower and smaller and therefore, perhaps, even more senseless than a man's: its size is smaller, but within its own limits, on those who have already fallen to him, it acts even more intolerable. Wild swears, Kabanova grumbles; he will beat him down, and it’s over, but this one gnaws at her victim for a long time and relentlessly; he makes a noise because of his fantasies and is rather indifferent to your behavior, until it touches him; The boar has created for herself a whole world of special rules and superstitious customs, for which she stands with all the stupidity of petty tyranny.In general, in a woman who has even reached the position of an independent and con amore practicing petty tyranny, her comparative powerlessness is always visible, a consequence of her age-old oppression: she is heavier, more suspicious , soulless in their demands; she does not lend itself to sound reasoning, not because she despises him, but rather because she is afraid of not coping with him: "You start, they say, to reason, and what else will come of this, they will just braid" adheres to antiquity and various instructions given to her by some Feklusha ...

It is clear from this that if a woman really wants to free herself from such a situation, then her business will be serious and decisive. Some Kudryash does not need to quarrel with Dikim: they both need each other and, therefore, Kudryash does not need special heroism to present his demands. But his trick will not lead to anything serious: he will swear, Dikoy will threaten to give him up as a soldier, but he will not give him up, Kudryash will be pleased that he has bitten off, but things will go on as before. Not so with a woman: she must have a lot of strength of character already in order to express her dissatisfaction, her demands. At the first attempt, they will make her feel that she is nothing, that they can crush her. She knows that this is indeed the case, and must accept; otherwise, they will fulfill a threat over her - they will beat her, lock her up, leave her to repentance, on bread and water, deprive her of daylight, experience all the domestic remedies of the good old days, and still lead to obedience. A woman who wants to go to the end in her uprising against the oppression and tyranny of the elders in the Russian family must be filled with heroic self-sacrifice, must decide on everything and be ready for everything. How can she endure herself? Where can she get so much character? The only answer to this is that the natural tendencies of human nature cannot be completely destroyed. It got to the point that it is no longer possible for her to withstand her humiliation any longer, so she breaks out of it, no longer out of consideration of what is better and what is worse, but only out of an instinctive desire for what is bearable and possible. Here nature replaces the considerations of reason and the requirements of feeling and imagination: all this merges in the general feeling of the organism, which requires air, food, freedom. Here lies the secret of the integrity of the characters that appear in circumstances similar to those we saw in The Thunderstorm, in the environment surrounding Katerina.

Thus, the emergence of a feminine energetic character is fully consistent with the position to which tyranny is brought in Ostrovsky's drama. It went to the extreme, to the denial of all common sense; it is more than ever hostile to the natural demands of mankind and more fiercely than ever tries to stop their development, because in their triumph it sees the approach of its inevitable death. Through this, it evokes even more murmur and protest even in the weakest beings. At the same time, tyranny, as we have seen, lost its self-confidence, lost its firmness in action, and lost a significant portion of the strength that consisted for him in instilling fear in everyone. Therefore, the protest against him is not drowned out at the very beginning, but can turn into a stubborn struggle. Those who are still tolerable to live do not want to risk such a struggle now, in the hope that they will not live through tyranny for a long time. Katerina's husband, young Kabanov, although he suffers a lot from the old Kabanikha, but nevertheless he is freer: he can run off to Savel Prokofich, he will go to Moscow from his mother and there will turn around in freedom, old women, so there is someone to pour out his heart on - he will throw himself on his wife ... So he lives for himself and educates his character, good for nothing, all in the secret hope that he will somehow break free. His wife has no hope, no consolation, she cannot breathe; if he can, then let him live without breathing, forget that there is free air in the world, let him renounce his nature and merge with the capricious despotism of the old Kabanikha. But the ash air and light, in spite of all the precautions of dying tyranny, burst into Katerina's cell, she feels the opportunity to satisfy the natural thirst of her soul and can no longer remain motionless: she is eager for a new life, even if she had to die in this impulse. What is death to her? All the same - she does not consider life and the vegetation that fell to her lot in the Kabanov family.

Katerina does not at all belong to violent characters, never happy, loving to destroy at all costs. Against; this character is predominantly creative, loving, ideal. She is strange, extravagant from the point of view of others; but this is because she cannot in any way accept their views and inclinations. She takes materials from them, because there is no other way to get them; but he does not take conclusions, but searches for them herself, and often does not come to what they are satisfied with. In the dry, monotonous life of her youth, in the coarse and superstitious concepts of the environment, she constantly knew how to take what agreed with her natural aspirations for beauty, harmony, contentment, happiness. In the conversations of the wanderers, in prostrations and lamentations, she saw not a dead form, but something else, to which her heart was constantly striving. On the basis of them, she built for herself another world, without passions, without need, without grief, a world all dedicated to goodness and pleasure. But what is the real good and the true pleasure for a person, she could not define for herself; this is why these sudden impulses of some unaccountable, vague aspirations, of which she recalls:

“Sometimes, it happened, early in the morning I go to the garden, the sun is still rising, - I will fall on my knees, I pray and cry, and I myself do not know what I am praying for and what I am crying about; so they will find me. And what I prayed for then, what I asked, I don't know; I don't need anything, I had enough of everything. "

In the gloomy atmosphere of the new family, Katerina began to feel the inadequacy of her appearance, which she had thought to be content with before. Under the heavy hand of the soulless Kabanikha there is no room for her bright visions, just as there is no freedom for her feelings. In a fit of tenderness for her husband, she wants to hug him, - the old woman shouts: “What are you hanging around your neck, shameless woman? Bow down at your feet! " She wants to be left alone and mourn quietly, as it used to be, and her mother-in-law says: "Why aren't you howling?" She is looking for light, air, wants to dream and frolic, water her flowers, look at the sun, at the Volga, send her greetings to all living things - and she is kept in captivity, she is constantly suspected of unclean, depraved plans. She still seeks refuge in religious practice, in church attendance, in soul-saving conversations; but even here he does not find the previous impressions. Killed by day's work and eternal bondage, she can no longer dream with the former clarity of angels singing in a dusty pillar, illuminated by the sun, cannot imagine the Gardens of Eden with their undisturbed appearance and joy. Everything is gloomy, scary around her, everything blows with cold and some kind of irresistible threat: the faces of the saints are so strict, and the church readings are so formidable, and the stories of the pilgrims are so monstrous ... They are still the same in essence, they have not changed at all, but she has changed herself: in her there is no longer a desire to construct aerial visions, and she is not satisfied with that vague imagination of bliss, which she enjoyed before. She has matured, other desires, more real, have awakened in her; Not knowing any other field than the family, another world, besides the one that has developed for her in the society of her town, she, of course, begins to realize from all human aspirations that which is most inevitable and closest to her - the desire for love and devotion. In the old days, her heart was too full of dreams, she did not pay attention to the young people who looked at her, but only laughed. When she married Tikhon Kabanov, she did not love him either; she still did not understand this feeling; they told her that every girl should get married, showed Tikhon as her future husband, and she went for him, remaining completely indifferent to this step. And here, too, a peculiarity of character is manifested: according to our usual concepts, she should be opposed if she has a decisive character; but she does not even think about resistance, because she does not have enough reason to do so. She has no particular desire to get married, but she also has no aversion to marriage; there is no love in her for Tikhon, but there is no love for anyone else either. She doesn't care for the time being, which is why she allows her to do whatever she wants with herself. In this one cannot see either powerlessness or apathy, but one can only find a lack of experience, and even too much readiness to do everything for others, taking little care of oneself. She has little knowledge and a lot of gullibility, which is why for the time being she does not show opposition to others and decides to endure better than to spite them. But when she realizes what she needs and wants to achieve something, she will achieve her goal at all costs: here the strength of her character, not wasted in petty antics, will manifest itself. First, by the innate goodness and nobility of her soul, she will make every possible effort not to violate the peace and the rights of others, in order to get what she wants with the greatest possible observance of all the requirements that are imposed on her by people who are somehow connected with her; and if they manage to take advantage of this initial mood and decide to give her full satisfaction, then it is good for her and for them. But if not, she will stop at nothing - the law, kinship, custom, human judgment, the rules of prudence - everything disappears for her under the force of internal attraction; she does not spare herself and does not think about others. This was precisely the way out presented to Katerina, and another could not have been expected in the midst of the situation in which she finds herself.

The feeling of love for a person, the desire to find a kindred response in another heart, the need for tender pleasures naturally opened up in the young woman and changed her former, vague and fruitless dreams. “At night, Varya, I can't sleep,” she says, “I keep dreaming of some kind of whisper: someone speaks to me so affectionately, as if a dove is cooing. I do not dream, Varya, as before, of paradise trees and mountains; as if someone was embracing me so hotly, hotly, or was leading me somewhere, and I was following him, going ... ”She realized and caught these dreams quite late; but, of course, they persecuted and tormented her long before she herself could give herself an account of them. At their first manifestation, she immediately turned her feeling to what was closest in her - to her husband. For a long time she intensified to make her soul akin to him, to assure herself that she didn’t need anything with him, that in him there was the bliss that she was so anxiously seeking. She looked with fear and bewilderment at the possibility of seeking mutual love in someone other than him. In the play, which catches Katerina already with the beginning of her love for Boris Grigorich, one can still see Katerina's last desperate efforts to make her husband sweetheart. The scene of her farewell to him makes us feel that even here it is not lost for Tikhon, that he can still retain his rights to the love of this woman; but the same scene, in short but sharp sketches, conveys to us the whole story of the tortures that forced Katerina to endure in order to push her first feelings away from her husband. Tikhon is here a simple-minded and vulgar, not at all evil, but extremely spineless creature who does not dare to do anything in spite of his mother. And the mother is a soulless creature, a fist-baba, enclosing love, religion and morality in Chinese ceremonies. Between her and between his wife, Tikhon represents one of the many miserable types who are usually called harmless, although in a general sense they are just as harmful as the tyrants themselves, because they serve as their faithful helpers. Tikhon himself loves his wife and would be ready to do anything for her; but the oppression under which he grew up so disfigured him that in him no strong feeling, no decisive striving can develop, he has a conscience, there is a desire for good, but he constantly acts against himself and serves as a submissive instrument of his mother even in his relations to my wife.

But the new movement of folk life, which we talked about above and which we found in the character of Katerina, does not look like them. In this personality, we see the already mature, from the depths of the whole organism, a demand for the right and space of life. Here it is no longer imagination, not hearsay, not an artificially excited impulse that appears to us, but the vital necessity of nature. Katerina is not capricious, does not flirt with her discontent and anger - this is not in her nature; she does not want to impress 8 on others, show off and boast. On the contrary, she lives very peacefully and is ready to submit to everything, which is only not contrary to her nature; her principle, if she could recognize and define it, would be that as little as possible with her personality to constrain others and disturb the general course of affairs. But on the other hand, recognizing and respecting the aspirations of others, she demands the same respect for herself, and any violence, any restraint revolts her deeply, deeply. If she could, she would drive away from herself everything that lives in the wrong and harms others; but, not being able to do this, she goes the opposite way - she herself flees from destroyers and offenders. If only not to submit to their principles, contrary to her nature, if only not to reconcile with their unnatural demands, and then what happens - whether the fate is better for her or death - she does not look at that: in either case, deliverance is for her.

Katerina, put in the need to endure grievances, finds the strength to endure them for a long time, without vain complaints, half-resistances and any noisy antics. She endures until some interest speaks in her, especially close to her heart and legitimate in her eyes, until such a demand of her nature is insulted in her, without the satisfaction of which she cannot remain calm. Then she won't look at anything. She will not resort to diplomatic tricks, deceit and trickery - not such is the power of natural aspirations, imperceptibly for Katerina herself, winning in her over all external demands, prejudices and artificial combinations in which her life is entangled. Note that theoretically Katerina could not reject any of these combinations, could not free herself from any backward opinions; she went against all of them, armed with the sole force of her feeling, the instinctive consciousness of her direct, inalienable right to life, happiness and love ...

Here is the true strength of character, which in any case you can rely on! This is the height to which our national life reaches in its development, but to which in our literature very few were able to rise, and no one knew how to hold on to it as well as Ostrovsky. He felt that not abstract beliefs, but facts of life govern a person, that not a way of thinking, not principles, but nature is needed for the formation and manifestation of a strong character, and he knew how to create such a person who serves as a representative of a great popular idea, without carrying great ideas neither on the tongue nor in the head, selflessly goes to the end in an uneven struggle and dies, not at all dooming himself to high selflessness. Her actions are in harmony with her nature, they are natural for her, necessary, she cannot turn out to be from them, even if it had the most disastrous consequences.

In the position of Katerina, we see that, on the contrary, all the "ideas" instilled in her since childhood, all the principles of the environment - rebel against her natural aspirations and actions. The terrible struggle, to which the young woman was condemned, takes place in every word, in every movement of the drama, and this is where the whole importance of the introductory persons, for whom Ostrovsky is so reproached, turns out to be. Take a good look: you see that Katerina was brought up in concepts that are the same as the concepts of the environment in which she lives, and she cannot renounce them without having any theoretical education. The stories of the wanderers and the suggestions of the household, although she was reworked by her in her own way, could not help but leave an ugly mark in her soul: indeed, we see in the play that Katerina, having lost her rainbow dreams and ideal, lofty aspirations, kept one thing from her upbringing. a strong feeling - fear of some dark forces, of something unknown, which she could neither explain to herself properly, nor reject. She fears for every thought, for the simplest feeling she expects herself to be punished; it seems to her that the storm will kill her, because she is a sinner; the picture of fiery hell on the church wall seems to her already a foreshadowing of her eternal torment ... And everything around her supports and develops this fear in her: The Feklushi go to Kabanikha to talk about the last times; Dikoy insists that a thunderstorm is sent to us as a punishment, so that we feel; a lady who has come, instilling fear in everyone in the city, is shown several times in order to shout over Katerina in an ominous voice: "Everything will burn in the fire in the inextinguishable." Everyone around is full of superstitious fear, and everyone around, in accordance with the concepts of Katerina herself, should look at her feelings for Boris as the greatest crime. Even the daring Kudryash, the espritfort of this environment, finds that girls can walk with the guys as much as you want - that's nothing, but women should really be locked up. This conviction is so strong in him that, upon learning of Boris's love for Katerina, he, in spite of his daring and some kind of outrage, says that "this business must be abandoned." Everyone is against Katerina, even her own notions of good and evil; everything must force her - to stifle her impulses and wither in the cold and gloomy formalism of family mute and obedience, without any living aspirations, without will, without love, or learn to deceive people and conscience. But do not be afraid for her, do not be afraid even when she herself speaks against herself: for a while, she can either submit, apparently, or even go for a deception, like a river can hide under the ground or move away from its bed; but the flowing water will not stop and will not go back, but nevertheless it will reach its end, to the point where it can merge with other waters and run together to the waters of the ocean. The environment in which Katerina lives requires her to lie and deceive: “You cannot live without this,” Varvara tells her, “you remember where you live; we have the whole house on this. And I was not a deceiver, but I learned when I needed to. " Katerina succumbs to her position, goes out to Boris at night, hides her feelings from her mother-in-law for ten days ... You might think: here's a woman who has gone astray, learned to deceive her family and will secretly lewd her, pretending to caress her husband and wearing a disgusting mask of humility! One could not strictly blame her for this: her position is so difficult! But then she would be one of the dozen people of the type who is so worn out in the stories that showed how "the environment seizes good people." Katherine is not like that; the denouement of her love, with all the home environment, is visible in advance, even when she just gets down to business. She does not engage in psychological analysis and therefore cannot express subtle observations of herself; what she says about herself, so it means, strongly lets her know herself. And at the first proposal of Varvara to meet her with Boris, she cries out: “No, no, don't! What are you, God forbid: if I see him at least once, I'll run away from home, I won't go home for anything in the world! " It is not a reasonable precaution in her that speaks, it is passion; and it is already clear that no matter how she restrained herself, passion is higher than her, higher than all her prejudices and fears, higher than all the suggestions she had heard since childhood. In this passion lies her whole life; all the strength of her nature, all her living aspirations merge here. She is attracted to Boris not only by the fact that she likes him, that he, both in appearance and in speech, is not like the others around her; she is attracted to him by the need for love, which did not find a response in her husband, and the offended feeling of the wife and woman, and the mortal melancholy of her monotonous life, and the desire for will, space, ardent, unforbidden freedom. She keeps dreaming of how to “fly invisibly wherever she wants”; but then such a thought comes: "If it was my will, I would now ride on the Volga, on a boat, with songs, or in a troika on a good one, embracing ..." - "Only not with my husband," Varya prompts her, and Katerina cannot hide her feelings and immediately opens up to her with a question: "How do you know?" It can be seen that Varvara's remark explained a lot for her herself: while telling her dreams so naively, she still did not fully understand their meaning. But one word is enough to convey to her thoughts the certainty that she herself was afraid to give them. Until now, she could still doubt whether this new feeling was precisely the bliss for which she was so painfully seeking. But once having uttered a word of mystery, she will not abandon her in her thoughts. Fear, doubts, the thought of sin and human judgment - all these come to her mind, but no longer have power over her; this is so, formalities, to clear the conscience. In the monologue with the key (the last in the second act), we see a woman in whose soul a dangerous step has already been taken, but who only wants to somehow "speak" herself.

The struggle, in fact, is already over, only a little thought remains, the old rags still cover Katerina, and she gradually throws it off ... forgetting forebodings exclaims: "Oh, if the night is quick!"

Such love, such a feeling will not get along with pretense and deception within the walls of the boar's house.

And, for sure, she is not afraid of anything, except for the deprivation of the opportunity to see her chosen one, to talk with him, to enjoy with him these summer nights, these new feelings for her. Her husband arrived, and her life was out of life. It was necessary to hide, to be cunning; she did not want to and did not know how; she had to return again to her callous, dreary life — that seemed to her bitter than before. Moreover, one had to be afraid every minute for oneself, for every word, especially in front of the mother-in-law; one had to be afraid of a terrible punishment for the soul ... This situation was unbearable for Katerina: days and nights she kept thinking, suffering, exalted 9 her imagination, already hot, and the end was that she could not bear - with all the people , crowded in the gallery of the old church, repented of everything to her husband. The will and peace of the poor woman is over: before they could not reproach her, even though she could feel her complete righteousness in front of these people. And now, one way or another, she is to blame for them, she violated her duties to them, brought grief and shame to the family; now the most cruel treatment of her already has reasons and justification. What is left for her? To regret the unsuccessful attempt to break free and leave her dreams of love and happiness, as she had already left the rainbow dreams of wonderful gardens with paradise singing. It remains for her to submit, renounce independent life and become an unquestioning servant of her mother-in-law, the meek slave of her husband and never again dare to try again to reveal her demands ... But no, this is not the nature of Katerina; it was not then that a new type was reflected in it, created by Russian life, in order to make itself felt only by a fruitless attempt and perish after the first failure. No, she will not return to her former life; if she cannot enjoy her feeling, her will, quite legitimately and sacredly, in broad daylight, in front of all the people, if they tear out from her what she has found and what is so dear to her, then she does not want anything in life, she doesn’t want life either. wants.

And the thought of the bitterness of life, which will have to be endured, torments Katerina so much that it plunges her into a kind of semi-hot state. At the last moment, all the horrors of the house are especially vividly flashed in her imagination. She cries out: “But they will catch me and bring me home by force! .. 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 her spineless and disgusting husband. She is released! ..

It is sad, bitter such a liberation; but what to do when there is no other way out. It's good that the poor woman found the determination to even take this terrible way out. This is the strength of her character, which is why “Thunderstorm” makes a refreshing impression on us, as we said above. Undoubtedly, it would have been better if it were possible for Katerina to get rid of her tormentors in a different way, or if these tormentors could change and reconcile her with themselves and with life. But neither one nor the other is not in the order of things.

We have already said that this end seems to us gratifying; it is easy to understand why: in him a terrible challenge to the tyrannical force is given, he tells her that it is no longer possible to go further, it is no longer possible to live with its violent, deadening principles. In Katerina we see a protest against Kaban's notions 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 does not want to be reconciled, does not want to take advantage of the miserable vegetation that is given to her in exchange for her living soul.

But even without any lofty considerations, just for humanity, it is gratifying for us to see the deliverance of Katerina - even through death, if it is impossible otherwise. On this score, we have terrible evidence in the drama itself, telling us that living in the "dark kingdom" is worse than death. Tikhon, throwing himself on the corpse of his wife, pulled out of the water, shouts in self-forgetfulness: “It's good for you, Katya! Why am I left to live in the world and suffer! " The play ends with this exclamation, and it seems to us that nothing could have been more stronger and more truthful than such an ending. Tikhon's words give the key to understanding the play for those who would not even have understood its essence earlier; they make the viewer think no longer about a love affair, but about this whole life, where the living envy the dead, and even what suicides! As a matter of fact, Tikhon's exclamation is stupid: the Volga is close, who prevents him from rushing, if life is sick? But that is his grief, that is why it is hard for him, that he can do nothing, absolutely nothing, not even that in which he recognizes his goodness and salvation. This moral corruption, this destruction of man affects us more heavily than any, the most tragic, incident: there you see simultaneous death, the end of suffering, often getting rid of the need to serve as a pitiful instrument of some vileness; but here - constant, oppressive pain, relaxation, half-corpses, rotting alive for many years ... And to think that this living corpse is not one, not an exception, but a whole mass of people subject to the pernicious influence of the Wild and Kabanovs! And do not expect deliverance for them - this, you see, is terrible! But what a gratifying, fresh life a healthy person blows upon us, finding within himself the determination to end this rotten life at all costs!

Notes (edit)

1 This refers to article H, A. Dobrolyubov's "The Dark Kingdom", also published in Sovremennik.

2 Indifferentism - indifference, indifference.

3 Idyll - a happy, blissful life; in this case, Dobrolyubov uses this word ironically,

4 Skepticism is doubt.

5 Anarchy - anarchy; here: the absence of any organizing principle in life, chaos.

6 Resonate - here: reason sensibly, prove your thought.

7 Syllogism - logical argument, proof.

8 Impress - please, make an impression,

9 To exalt - here: to excite.

With enthusiasm, out of love (Italian)

Freethinker (fr.)

Dobrolyubov wrote the article "A ray of light in the dark kingdom" in 1860 and dedicated to the drama of A. N. Ostrovsky "". We recommend reading the summary "A ray of light in the dark kingdom" and the retelling of Dobrolyubov's article for the reader's diary. The headline of a critical article quickly became a popular phraseological unit, denoting a bright, encouraging phenomenon in any complex, confusing environment.

"A ray of light in the dark kingdom" summary

A ray of light in the dark kingdom of Dobrolubov briefly:

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

Then Dobrolyubov compares "The Thunderstorm" with dramatic canons: "The subject of the drama must necessarily be an event where we see the struggle between passion and duty - with the unfortunate consequences of the victory of passion or with the happy ones when debt wins." Also in the drama there must be unity of action, and it must be written in a high literary language. At the same time, The Thunderstorm “does not satisfy the most essential purpose of the drama — to instill respect for moral duty and to show the harmful consequences of being carried away by passion.

Katerina, this criminal, appears to us in the drama not only not in a rather 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, in her face, you justify the vice. Consequently, the drama does not fulfill its lofty purpose. The whole action is sluggish and slow, because it is cluttered with scenes and faces that are completely unnecessary. Finally, the language spoken by the characters surpasses any patience of a well-bred person. "

Dobrolyubov makes this comparison with the canon in order to show that an approach to a work with a ready-made idea of ​​what should be shown in it does not give true understanding. “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 Venus de Milo? The truth is not in dialectical subtleties, but in the living truth of what you are arguing about. It cannot be said that people were evil by nature, and therefore one cannot accept for literary works principles such as that, for example, vice always triumphs, and virtue is punished. "

"The writer has so far been given a small role in this movement of mankind towards natural principles," writes Dobrolyubov, after which he recalls Shakespeare, who "moved the general consciousness of people on several steps, which no one had ever climbed before." Then the author turns to other critical articles about the "Thunderstorm", in particular, Apollo Grigoriev, who claims that Ostrovsky's main merit is in his "nationality". "But what the nationality consists of, Mr. Grigoriev does not explain, and therefore his remark seemed to us very amusing."

Then Dobrolyubov comes to the definition of Ostrovsky's plays as a whole as “plays of life”: “We want to say that in the foreground is always the general situation of life. He does not punish either the villain or the victim. You see that their position dominates them, and you only blame them for not showing enough energy to get out of this position. And that is why we in no way dare to consider as unnecessary and superfluous those persons of Ostrovsky's plays who do not participate directly in the intrigue. From our point of view, these faces are just as necessary for the play as the main ones: they show us the environment in which the action takes place, draw the position that determines the meaning of the activities of the main characters in the play. "

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

Then the author writes that The Thunderstorm is “the most decisive work of Ostrovsky; the mutual relations of petty tyranny are brought in it to the most 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 Storm. This “something” is, in our opinion, the background of the play, indicated by us and revealing the precariousness and imminent end of tyranny. Then the very character of Katerina, drawn against this background, also blows on us with a new life, which is revealed to us in her very death. "

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

The author examines in detail the motives of Katerina's actions: “Katerina does not at all belong to violent characters, dissatisfied, loving to destroy. On the contrary, this character is predominantly creative, loving, ideal. That is 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 a young woman. " But it will not be Tikhon Kabanov, who is “too overwhelmed to understand the nature of Katerina's emotions:“ I cannot understand you, Katya, ”he says to her,“ then you won’t get a word from you, not only affection, but then so yourself you climb. " 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 are like fountains, depending on an extraneous mechanism. Katerina is like a big river: a flat bottom, good - she flows calmly, large stones meet - she jumps over them, a cliff - flows in a cascade, dammed her - she rages and breaks through in another place. Not because it seethes so that the water suddenly wants to make some noise or get angry with obstacles, but simply because it needs it to fulfill its natural requirements - for further flow. "

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

At the end of the play “we are glad 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 at his wife's corpse, pulled out of the water, shouts in self-forgetfulness: “Good for you, Katya! And why did I stay to live in the world and suffer! “With this exclamation the play ends, and it seems to us that nothing could be thought of stronger and more truthful than such an ending. Tikhon's words make the viewer think no longer about a 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 power have been summoned by the artist in the Groza to a decisive cause, and if they feel the legitimacy and importance of this matter, then we are happy, no matter what our scientists say and literary judges ”.

Retelling of the article "A ray of light in the dark kingdom" by Dobrolyubov

N.A.Dobrolyubov A ray of light in the dark kingdom summary:

Nikolai Aleksandrovich begins his article by admitting that “ Ostrovsky possesses a deep understanding of Russian life and a great ability to depict sharply and vividly its most essential aspects.". Mentioning several critical articles about the play "The Thunderstorm", he explains that many of them did not fully disclose the essence of the work.

Further, the publicist cites “ the main rules of the drama", Among which he especially notes" struggle between passion and duty", In which debt necessarily prevails. Moreover, in true drama it must be observed “ strict unity and consistency", The denouement should be a logical continuation of the plot, all characters and all dialogues should be directly involved in the development of the drama, the language should not" move away from literary purity and not turn into vulgarity».

Starting to analyze Ostrovsky's play, Dobrolyubov points out that the author did not fully disclose the most important task of the drama - “ instill respect for moral duty and show the harmful effects of passion". Katerina is portrayed as a martyr, not a criminal. According to Dobrolyubov, the plot is overloaded with details and characters, and the language “ surpasses all the patience of a well-bred person».

But Nikolai Aleksandrovich immediately admits that criticism, squeezed in the grip of the prevailing theory, dooms itself to enmity " to all progress, to everything new and original in literature". As an example, he cites the work of Shakespeare, who managed to raise the level of human consciousness to a previously unattainable height.

The publicist notes that all the plays of A. N. Ostrovsky can be safely called “ plays of life", Because they are dominated by" general, not dependent on any of the actors, the situation of life". In his works, the writer "does not punish either the villain or the victim": both of them are often funny and not energetic enough to resist fate. Thus " the fight theory demanded from the drama”, In Ostrovsky's plays is carried out not due to the monologues of the characters, but due to the circumstances prevailing over them.

Just as in real life, negative characters do not always bear the punishment they deserve, just like positive characters do not acquire the long-awaited happiness in the finale of the work. The publicist carefully examines the inner world of each of the secondary and episodic characters. He notes that in the play “ the need for so-called "unnecessary" persons is especially visible", With the help of which the character of the main character is most accurately and vividly outlined, and the meaning of the work becomes clearer.

Dobrolyubov notes that the "Thunderstorm" - " Ostrovsky's most decisive work", But at the same time produces" the impression is less heavy and sad”Than all the other plays of the author. In the "Thunderstorm" one can feel " something refreshing and invigorating».

Further Dobrolyubov begins to analyze the image of Katerina, which “ is a step forward " not only in the work of Ostrovsky, but in all Russian literature. The reality has come to the point that it needs " in people, albeit less beautiful, but more active and energetic". The strength of Katerina's character lies in integrity and harmony: for a girl, her own death is preferable, rather than life in circumstances that are nasty and alien to her. Her soul is full " natural aspirations for beauty, harmony, contentment, happiness».

Even in the gloomy atmosphere of the new family Katerina " looking for light, air, wants to dream and frolic". At first, she seeks consolation in religion and soul-saving conversations, but she does not find those bright and fresh impressions that she needs. Realizing what she needs, the heroine manifests “ quite the strength of her character, not wasted in petty antics».

Katerina is filled with love and creativity. In her imagination, she tries to ennoble the reality that surrounds her. It has strong " a feeling of love for a person, a desire to find a kindred response in another heart". However, the essence of Katerina is not given to her husband, the downtrodden Tikhon Kabanov, to understand. She tries to believe that her husband is her destiny, " that in him there is the bliss that she is so anxiously seeking”, But soon all her illusions are shattered.

It is interesting to compare the heroine with a large full-flowing river, which deftly and without hindrance bypasses all obstacles in its path. Raging, she breaks through even dams, but her seething is caused not by indignation and anger, but by the need to continue on her way.

Analyzing the character and actions of Katerina, Dobrolyubov comes to the conclusion that the best solution for the heroine is her escape with Boris. She does not blame anyone for her bitter fate, and sees death as the only consolation for herself as a quiet, calm haven. " Such liberation is sad, bitter, ” but Katerina simply has no other choice. It is the woman’s determination to take this difficult step that produces on the readers “ refreshing impression».

Conclusion

In his article, Dobrolyubov emphasizes the need to have sufficient courage and honesty before oneself in order to carry a living, warming light within oneself.

After reading a short retelling of "A ray of light in the dark kingdom", we recommend that you read Dobrolyubov's article in the full version.