In the article we will consider a brief summary of “A Ray of Light in dark kingdom" We will also talk about the author of this article, namely Nikolai Dobrolyubov. So let's get started.

About the author

The article “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom” belongs to the hand of Nikolai Dobrolyubov. He is a famous Russian literary critic of the 1850s-1860s. He is also a revolutionary democrat, poet and publicist in his political views. He never signed with his real name, but used pseudonyms, for example N. Laibov.

This man was born into the family of a priest, which largely influenced his further views in literature and politics. For eight years he was actively involved in a philosophy class. Friends always spoke warmly and kindly about him, emphasizing that he was always neat, friendly and open to communication. Unfortunately, this man died of tuberculosis at the age of 25. He received a lot of treatment and traveled around Europe to save his life. Also, before his death, he rented an apartment so that after his death he would not leave a negative aftertaste in the houses of his friends. The man was buried at the Volkovskoye cemetery near the grave of V. Belinsky.

Article “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom”

To begin with, we note that this article by Nikolai Dobrolyubov is dedicated to Ostrovsky’s drama called “The Thunderstorm”. Initially, Nikolai Alexandrovich focuses on the fact that the author really very clearly describes Russian life and understands it as a person from the people. After this, the author also pays attention to other articles regarding the criticism of this drama by Ostrovsky and pronounces the verdict that critics cannot look at things directly and simply, as the author of the work himself succeeds.

Genre Fit

Dobrolyubov in “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom” begins to analyze “The Thunderstorm” according to dramatic canons, that is, he tries to understand how much this work really is a drama. As we know, the subject of drama is the event itself, in which the viewer observes some kind of struggle between, for example, a sense of duty and personal passion. The drama ends with the hero suffering unfortunate consequences, especially if he makes the wrong choice in favor of his passions. Or a positive ending when he accepts responsibility for his sense of duty.

The chronology of the drama is characterized by unity of actions. In addition, beautiful literary language should be used. At the same time, in one of Dobrolyubov’s theses in “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom,” it is noted that Ostrovsky’s work is not a drama in essence, because it does not meet the main goal of a work of this genre. After all, the center or essence of the drama is actually to show the terrible and tragic possible consequences which can result from a violation of known moral laws.

Why is Katerina such a controversial character in “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom”? In fact, she is a criminal, but in the drama we see her not only as a negative character, but also as a martyr. She is so able to evoke compassion for herself, she can be so pitiful that she involuntarily makes people want to help her. Thus, we are convinced that everything around her is very bad, and the viewer sets himself up against her oppressors, but in fact we simply justify her vice in this way. That is, we see that in this work the basic principle of drama is not only not observed, but turned inside out.

Peculiarities

As you can see, all the actions are rather slow and monotonous, due to the fact that the reader watches the actions of unnecessary people who, in fact, are completely unnecessary. At the same time, the language used by the characters is of rather low quality and only the most patient person can listen to it. Dobrolyubov’s criticism of “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom” is based on the fact that the evaluation of a work cannot be approached with a certain set of canons and stereotypes, since then the truth will be inaccessible, because each work is unique and requires the abandonment of limiting frameworks.

The author of the article shows that the truth lies not in dialectical contradictions, but in the truth of what is being discussed. For example, we cannot say that all people are evil by nature, which is why in literary works we cannot promote the principles that, for example, vice always triumphs and virtue is punished or vice versa. In literature, you need to show life as it is, and it is always very different and rarely obeys certain stereotypes.

At the same time, the article “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom” turned out to be very controversial. Ostrovsky in “The Thunderstorm” described life as he saw it. N. Dobrolyubov recalls Shakespeare, who, in his opinion, raised all of humanity several steps to which it had not yet risen.

Next, the author of the article touches on the different views of other critics, for example, Apollo Grigoriev. He argued that Ostrovsky's main and main merit is that he writes in a very popular and understandable language. However, the critic himself did not explain what the writer’s nationality is. Therefore, his opinion is rather doubtful.

The whole picture

Another thesis of Dobrolyubov in “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom” is based on the fact that all Ostrovsky’s plays are, in principle, folk. In other words, he emphasizes that all stories are very real. The author always has a desire to show big picture life. At the same time, he does not punish either the villain or the victim. On the contrary, he tries to show their position in the situation from all sides. The only drawback that the author describes is that his characters do not try to get out of their difficult situation and do not make enough efforts to do so. That is why individuals in the play who are not directly involved in the story cannot be considered superfluous or unnecessary. But, in principle, they are just as necessary as the main characters, since they can show the background setting in which the action takes place. Only thanks to this component does the meaning of activity appear for all the main characters of the play.

Face analysis

Dobrolyubov in “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom” analyzes faces and characters, especially minor ones. So, he examines the essence of Glasha, Kuligin, Feklushi, Kudryasha. Ostrovsky shows that the inner life of the heroes is quite dark. They rush between something, cannot understand life and decide on it. Further, Dobrolyubov notes that this play is the author’s most decisive. He brings the relationships between the characters to the point of absurdity.

Katerina

Special attention is paid to this image. Why does Katerina in “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom” either blow a breath of life on us or plunge us into the depths of vice? She is also not only an evil or good character. The girl is real, and therefore contradictory, like all people. At the same time, Dobrolyubov tries to understand in detail the motives of the girl’s actions. She is ready to follow her impulses, even if it costs her life. The girl is not at all one of those characters who like to destroy or defame everything around her. However, Tikhon Kabanov is not able to understand her. Katerina in “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom” appears as a kind of folk idea. She won't get angry or make noise when she just wants to. If she does this, it is only when it is necessary for her path.

Nikolai Dobrolyubov notes that the best solution The situation in her case is to escape with Boris. However, here it appears new problem, which consists of financial dependence on Uncle Dikiy. In fact, the author himself says that Boris is the same as Tikhon, newly educated.

End of the play

At the end, Katerina in “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom” receives a long-awaited deliverance, albeit in the form of death. Nevertheless, her husband, Tikhon, in a fit of grief shouts that she is happy, but he will live and suffer. Dobrolyubov wrote “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom” rather to show readers the depth and ambiguity of this work. We see that Tikhon’s last words, with which the play ends, evoke different emotions, but rather decisive ones. A summary of “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom” shows that a better ending to this whole story could not have been found.

Nikolai Dobrolyubov ends with thoughts that if readers and viewers see in the work the decisive force that the author evokes through the use of Russian life, then the true goal has been achieved. A summary of “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom” provides only an indirect and incomplete understanding of all the characteristic richness of the characters, so it is better to read this article in the original. Before this, of course, it is much wiser to familiarize yourself with Ostrovsky’s unique work “The Thunderstorm”.

Comparison

And at the end of the presentation summary“A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom” I would like to tell you about one beautiful comparison. The author imagines Katerina as a river. If before this strong characters in literature were more like fountains, then in the image of Katerina we see exactly the river.

The girl's character is even and calm, like the bottom of a river. When large and serious obstacles arise, the river deftly jumps over them; when a cliff is expected, water cascades; when water is not allowed to flow, it begins to rage and breaks out in another place. Thus, water is not evil or good in itself. She just moves along her path.

How to write an essay. To prepare for the Unified State Exam Vitaly Pavlovich Sitnikov

Dobrolyubov N. A Ray of light in the dark kingdom (Thunderstorm. Drama in five acts by A. N. Ostrovsky, St. Petersburg, 1860)

Dobrolyubov N. A

A ray of light in a dark kingdom

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

There must be strict unity and consistency in the development of the drama; the denouement should flow naturally and necessarily from the plot; each scene must certainly contribute to the movement of the action and move it towards the denouement; therefore, there should not be a single person in the play who would not directly and necessarily participate in the development of the drama, there should not be a single conversation that is not related to the essence of the play. Characters characters must be clearly marked, and their discovery must be gradual, in accordance with the development of the action. The language must be consistent with the position of each person, but not move away from literary purity and not turn into vulgarity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, the language in which the characters speak exceeds any patience of a well-bred person. Of course, merchants and townspeople cannot speak elegant literary language; but one cannot agree that a dramatic author, for the sake of fidelity, can introduce into literature all the common expressions in which the Russian people are so rich.<…>

And if the reader has agreed to give us the right to proceed to the play with pre-prepared requirements regarding what and how in it should to be - we don’t need anything else: we can destroy everything that does not agree with the rules we have adopted.<…>

The modern aspirations of Russian life, on the most extensive scale, find their expression in Ostrovsky, as a comedian, from the negative side. By painting us a vivid picture of false relationships, with all their consequences, through this he serves as an echo of aspirations that require a better structure. Arbitrariness, on the one hand, and a lack of awareness of one’s personal rights, on the other, 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 man - this is what every attentive reader hears from the depths of this disgrace.<…>But Ostrovsky, as a man with strong talent and, therefore, with a sense of truth, with an instinctive inclination towards natural, healthy demands, could not succumb to temptation, and arbitrariness, even the broadest, always came out for him, in accordance with reality, as heavy, ugly arbitrariness, lawless - and in the essence of the play one could always hear a protest against him. He knew how to feel what such a breadth of nature meant, and he branded and defamed it with several types and the name of tyranny.

But he didn’t invent these types, just as he didn’t invent the word “tyrant.” He took both in life itself. It is clear that the life that provided the materials for such comic situations into which Ostrovsky’s tyrants are often placed, the life that gave them a decent name, is no longer completely absorbed by their influence, but contains the makings of a more reasonable, legal, correct order of affairs. And 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, peering into it longer and deeper, you notice that this desire for a new, more natural structure of relations contains the essence of everything that we called progress, constitutes the direct task of our development, absorbs all the work of new generations.<…>

Already in Ostrovsky’s previous plays, we noticed that these were not comedies of intrigue and not comedies of character, but something new, to which we would give the name “plays of life” if it were not too broad and therefore not entirely definite. We want to say that in his foreground there is always a general, independent of any of the characters, life situation. He punishes neither the villain nor the victim; Both of them are pitiful to you, often both are funny, but the feeling aroused in you by the play is not directly addressed to them. You see that their position dominates them, and you only blame them for not expressing enough energy to get out of this situation. The tyrants themselves, against whom your feelings should naturally be indignant, upon careful examination turn out to be more worthy of pity than your anger: they are virtuous and even smart in their own way, within the limits prescribed to them by routine and supported by their position; but this situation is such that complete, healthy human development is impossible in it.<…>

Thus, the struggle required by theory from 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 the comedy themselves do not have a clear or even any consciousness about the meaning of their situation and their struggle; but on the other hand, the struggle is very clearly and consciously taking place in the soul of the viewer, who involuntarily rebels against the situation that gives rise to such facts. And that’s why we never dare to consider as unnecessary and superfluous those characters in Ostrovsky’s plays who do not directly participate in the intrigue. From our point of view, these persons are just as necessary for the play as the main ones: they show us the environment in which the action takes place, they draw the situation that determines the meaning of the activities of the main characters in the play.<…>In “The Thunderstorm,” the need for so-called “unnecessary” faces is especially visible: without them we cannot understand the heroine’s face and can easily distort the meaning of the entire play, which is what happened to most critics.<…>

“The Thunderstorm,” as you know, presents us with an idyll of the “dark kingdom,” which Ostrovsky little by little illuminates for us with his talent. The people you see here live in blessed places: the city stands on the banks of the Volga, all in greenery; from the steep banks one can see distant spaces covered with villages and fields; a blessed summer day just beckons you to the shore, to the air, under the open sky, under this breeze blowing refreshingly from the Volga... And the residents, indeed, sometimes walk along the boulevard above the river, although they have already taken a closer look at the beauty of the Volga views; in the evening they sit on the rubble at 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 that it is difficult for an unaccustomed person to endure such a sleepy night as they set themselves. But what should they do but not sleep when they are full? Their life flows smoothly and peacefully, no interests of the world disturb them, because they do not reach them; kingdoms can collapse, new countries can open up, the face of the earth can change as it pleases, the world can begin a new life on a new basis - the inhabitants of the city of Kalinov will continue to exist in complete ignorance of the rest of the world.<…>From a young age they still show some curiosity, but she has nowhere to get food from: information comes to them<…>only from wanderers, and even those nowadays are few and far between, the real ones; one has to be content with those who “themselves, due to their weakness, did not walk far, but heard a lot,” like Feklusha in “The Thunderstorm.” It is only from them that the residents 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 than them. But the information provided by the Feklushis is such that it is not capable of inspiring a great desire to exchange their life for another. Feklusha belongs to the patriotic party and highest degree conservative; she feels good among the pious and naive Kalinovites: she is revered, treated, and provided with everything she needs; she can very seriously assure that her very sins stem from the fact that she is higher than other mortals: “ordinary people,” she says, “everyone is confused by one enemy, but for us, strange people, to whom six are assigned, to whom twelve are assigned, that’s what we need.” defeat them all." And they believe her. It is clear that a simple instinct of self-preservation should force her to say good words about what is happening in other lands.<…>

And this is not at all because these people are more stupid and stupid than many others whom we meet in academies and learned societies. No, the whole point is that by their position, by their life under the yoke of arbitrariness, they are all accustomed to seeing unaccountability and meaninglessness and therefore find it awkward and even daring to persistently seek rational grounds in anything. Ask a question - there will be more to answer; but if the answer is that “the gun is on its own, and the mortar is on its own,” then they no longer dare to torture further and humbly content themselves with this explanation. The secret of such indifference to logic lies primarily in the absence of any logic in life relationships. The key to this secret is given to us, for example, by the following replica of the Wild One in “The Thunderstorm”. Kuligin, in response to his rudeness, says: “Why, sir Savel Prokofich, would you like to offend an honest man?” Dikoy answers this: “I’ll give you a report, or something!” I don’t give an account to anyone more important than you. I want to think about you like that, and I do! For others you are an honest person, but I think you are a robber - that’s all. Did you want to hear this from me? So listen! I say I’m a robber, and that’s the end of it. So, are you going to sue me or something? So you know that you are a worm. If I want, I’ll have mercy, if I want, I’ll crush.”

What theoretical reasoning can survive where life is based on such principles! The absence of any law, any logic - this is the law and logic of this life. This is not anarchy, but something much worse (although the imagination of an educated European cannot imagine anything worse than anarchy).<…>The situation of a society subject to such anarchy (if it is possible) is truly terrible.<…>In fact, no matter what you say, a person alone, left to himself, will not fool around much in society and will very soon feel the need to agree and come to terms with others for the common good. But a person will never feel this need if he finds in many others like himself a vast field for exercising his whims and if in their dependent, humiliated position he sees constant reinforcement of his tyranny.<…>

But - a wonderful thing! - in their indisputable, irresponsible dark dominion, giving complete freedom to their whims, putting all laws and logic into nothing, the tyrants of Russian life begin, however, to feel some kind of discontent and fear, without knowing what and why. Everything seems to be the same, everything is fine: Dikoy scolds whoever he wants; when they say to him: “How is it that no one in the whole house can please you!” - he answers smugly: “Here you go!” Kabanova still keeps her children in fear, forces her daughter-in-law to observe all the etiquettes of antiquity, eats her like rusty iron, considers herself completely infallible and indulges herself with various Feklush. But everything is somehow restless, it’s not good for them. Besides them, without asking them, another life has grown, with different beginnings, and although it is far away and not yet clearly visible, it is already giving itself a presentiment and sending bad visions to the dark tyranny 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 culprit 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 higher than them, which they cannot overcome, which they cannot even approach know how. They do not want to give in (and no one has yet demanded concessions from them), but they shrink and shrink; Previously 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 things will turn out for their lifetime... Kabanova argues that “ last times are coming,” and when Feklusha tells her about various horrors of the present time - about railways, etc. - she prophetically remarks: “And it will be worse, dear.” “We just wouldn’t live to see this,” Feklusha answers with a sigh. “Maybe we’ll live,” Kabanova says again fatalistically, revealing her doubts and uncertainty. Why is she worried? People by railways she drives, but what does that matter to her? But you see: she, “even if you shower her with gold,” will not go according to the devil’s invention; and people travel more and more, not paying attention to her curses; Isn’t this sad, isn’t it evidence of her powerlessness? People learned about electricity - it seems that there is something offensive here for the Wild and Kabanovs? But, you see, Dikoy says that “a thunderstorm is sent to us as punishment, so that we feel,” but Kuligin does not feel or feels something completely wrong, and talks about electricity. Isn’t this self-will, not a disregard for the power and importance of the Wild One? They don’t want to believe what he believes, which means they don’t believe him either, they consider themselves smarter than him; Think about what this will lead to? No wonder Kabanova remarks about Kuligin: “The times have come, what teachers have appeared! If the old man thinks like this, what can we demand from the young!” And Kabanova is very seriously upset about the future of the old order, with which she has outlived the century. She foresees their end, tries to maintain their significance, but already feels that there is no former respect for them, that they are being preserved reluctantly, only unwillingly, and that at the first opportunity they will be abandoned. She herself had somehow lost some of her knightly fervor; She no longer cares with the same energy about observing old customs; in many cases she has already given up, bowed down before the impossibility of stopping the flow and only watches with despair as it little by little floods the colorful flower beds of her whimsical superstitions.<…>

That's why, of course, appearance everything where their influence extends retains more of its antiquity and seems more motionless than where people, having abandoned tyranny, are trying only to preserve the essence of their interests and meaning; but in fact, the internal significance of tyrants is much closer to its end than the influence of people who know how to support themselves and their principle with external concessions. That is why Kabanova is so sad, and that is why Dikoy is so furious: until the last moment they did not want to tame their broad ambitions and are now in the position of a rich merchant on the eve of bankruptcy.<…>

But, to the great chagrin of the tyrant parasites,<…>Now the position of the Wild and Kabanovs is far from so pleasant: they must take care to strengthen and protect themselves, because demands arise from everywhere that are hostile to their arbitrariness and threaten them with a struggle with the awakening common sense of the vast majority of humanity. Constant suspicion, scrupulousness and pickiness of tyrants arise from everywhere: recognizing internally that there is nothing to respect them for, but not admitting this even to themselves, they reveal a lack of self-confidence by the pettiness of their demands and constant, by the way and inappropriately, reminders and suggestions about that that they should be respected. This trait is extremely expressively manifested in “The Thunderstorm,” in Kabanova’s scene with the children, when she, in response to her son’s submissive remark: “Can I, Mama, disobey you,” objects: “They don’t really respect elders these days!” - and then begins to nag his son and daughter-in-law, so that the soul is sucked out of an outside viewer.<…>

We spent a very long time dwelling on the dominant persons of “The Thunderstorm” because, in our opinion, the story that played out with Katerina decisively depends on the position that inevitably falls to her lot among these persons, in the way of life that was established under their influence. "The Thunderstorm" is, without a doubt, Ostrovsky's most decisive work; the mutual relations of tyranny and voicelessness are brought to the most tragic consequences; and with all this, most of those who have read and seen this play agree that it produces a less serious and sad impression than Ostrovsky’s other plays (not to mention, of course, his sketches of a purely comic nature). There's 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 precariousness and the near end of tyranny. Then the very character of Katerina, drawn against this background, also blows on us new life, which is revealed to us in her very death.

The fact is that the character of Katerina, as portrayed in “The Thunderstorm,” constitutes a step forward not only in Ostrovsky’s dramatic work, but in all of our literature. It corresponds to the new phase of our national life, it has long demanded its implementation in literature, our best writers; but they only knew how to understand its necessity and could not understand and feel its essence; Ostrovsky managed to do this.<…>

The decisive, integral Russian character acting among the Wild and Kabanovs appears in Ostrovsky in the female type, and this is not without its serious significance. It is known that extremes are reflected by extremes and that the strongest protest is that which finally rises from the breasts 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 bears the brunt of tyranny more than anything else, if not the woman?<…>And, at the same time, who less than she has the opportunity to express her murmur, to refuse to do what is disgusting to her? Servants and clerks are connected only financially, in a human way; they can leave the tyrant as soon as they find another place for themselves. The wife, according to prevailing concepts, is inextricably connected with him, spiritually, through the sacrament; no matter what her husband does, she must obey him and share his meaningless life with him. And even if she could finally leave, where would she go, what would she do? Kudryash says: “The Wild One needs me, so I’m not afraid of him and I won’t let him take liberties with me.” It’s easy for a person who has come to the realization that others really need him; but a woman, a wife? Why is it needed? Isn't she, on the contrary, taking everything from her husband? Her husband gives her a place to live, gives her water, feeds her, clothes her, protects her, gives her a position in society... Isn’t she usually considered a burden for a man? Don’t prudent people say, keeping young people from getting married: “Your wife is not a bast shoe, you can’t throw her off your feet!” And in the 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 the husband cannot get rid of, while a bast shoe only gives convenience, and if it is inconvenient, it can easily be thrown off... Being in such a situation, a woman, of course, must forget that she is the same person, with the same rights as a man.<…>

It is clear from this that if a woman wants to free herself from such a situation, then her case will be serious and decisive. It doesn’t cost any Kudryash anything to quarrel with the Wild: they both need each other, and, therefore, there is no need for special heroism on Kudryash’s part to present his demands. But his prank will not lead to anything serious: he will quarrel, Dikoy will threaten to give him up as a soldier, but will not give him up; Curly will be pleased that he snapped, and things will go on as before again. It’s not the same with a woman: she must have a lot of strength of character even 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 really so, and must come to terms with it; otherwise they will fulfill the threat over her - they will beat her, lock her up, leave her to repent, on bread and water, deprive her of daylight, try all the home remedies of the good old days and finally lead her to submission. A woman who wants to go to the end in her rebellion against the oppression and tyranny of her elders in the Russian family must be filled with heroic self-sacrifice, must decide on anything and be ready for anything. How can she stand herself? Where does she get so much character? The only answer to this is that the natural aspirations of human nature cannot be completely destroyed. You can tilt them to the side, press, squeeze, but all this is only to a certain extent. The triumph of false positions only shows to what extent the elasticity of human nature can reach; but the more unnatural the situation, the closer and more necessary the way out of it. And this means that it is very unnatural when even the most flexible natures, most subordinate to the influence of the force that produced such situations, cannot withstand it.<…>The same must be said about weak woman, deciding to fight for her rights: things have reached the point where it is no longer possible for her to withstand her humiliation, 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. Nature Here it replaces both considerations of reason and the demands of feeling and imagination: all this merges into the general feeling of the organism, demanding air, food, freedom. This is where the secret of the integrity of the characters lies, appearing in circumstances similar to those we saw in “The Thunderstorm” in the environment surrounding Katerina.<…>

Katerina’s husband, young Kabanov, although he suffers a lot from old Kabanikha, he is still more independent: he can run to Savel Prokofich for a drink, he will go to Moscow from his mother and there he will turn around in freedom, and if it’s bad he will really have to old women, so there is someone to pour out his heart on - he will throw himself at his wife... So he lives for himself and cultivates his character, good for nothing, all in the secret hope that he will somehow break free. There is no hope for his wife, no consolation, she cannot catch her breath; 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 free air and light, despite all the precautions of dying tyranny, burst into Katerina’s cell, she feels the opportunity to satisfy the natural thirst of her soul and cannot remain motionless any longer: she strives for a new life, even if she has to die in this impulse. What does death matter to her? It doesn’t matter - she also considers the vegetation that befell her in the Kabanov family to be life.

This is the basis of all the actions of the character depicted in The Thunderstorm. This basis is more reliable than all possible theories and pathos, because it lies in the very essence of this position, attracts a person to the task irresistibly, does not depend on one or another ability or impression in particular, but is based on the entire complexity of the requirements of the body, on the development of the entire human nature .<…>First of all, you are struck by the extraordinary originality of this character. There is nothing external or alien in him, but everything somehow comes out from within him; every impression is processed in it and then grows organically with it. We see this, for example, in Katerina’s simple-minded story about her childhood and about life in his mother’s house. It turns out that her upbringing and young life gave her nothing; in her mother’s house it was the same as at the Kabanovs’; went to church, sewed gold on velvet, listened to the stories of wanderers, dined, walked in the garden, again talked with the pilgrims and prayed themselves... After listening to Katerina’s story, Varvara, her husband’s sister, remarks with surprise: “But it’s the same with us.” " But the difference is defined by Katerina very quickly in five words: “Yes, everything here seems to be from under captivity!” And further conversation shows that in all this appearance, which is so commonplace everywhere, Katerina knew how to find her own special meaning, apply it to her needs and aspirations, until Kabanikha’s heavy hand fell on her. Katerina does not at all belong to the violent character, never satisfied, who loves to destroy at all costs... On the contrary, this is a predominantly creative, loving, ideal character. That’s why she tries to comprehend everything and ennoble it in her imagination...<…>She tries to reconcile any external dissonance with the harmony of her soul, covering any shortcoming from the fullness of her inner strength. Rough, superstitious stories and senseless ravings of wanderers turn into golden, poetic dreams of her imagination, not frightening, but clear, kind. Her images are poor because the materials presented to her by reality are so monotonous; but even with these meager means her imagination works tirelessly and takes her into new world, quiet and bright. It’s not the rituals that occupy her in the church: she doesn’t even hear what they sing and read there; she has different music in her soul, different visions, for her the service ends imperceptibly, as if in one second. She is occupied by trees, strangely drawn on images, and she imagines a whole country of gardens, where all the trees are like this and everything is blooming, fragrant, everything is full of heavenly singing. Otherwise, on a sunny day, she will see “such a bright pillar coming down from the dome and smoke moving in this pillar, like clouds,” and now she sees, “as if angels are flying and singing in this pillar.” Sometimes she will present herself - why shouldn’t she fly? And when she’s standing on the mountain, she’s drawn to fly: she’d run up like that, raise her arms, and fly. 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.<…>The whole difference is that with Katerina, as a direct, lively personality, everything is done according to the desire of nature, without a clear consciousness, but with people who are theoretically developed and strong in mind main role Logic and analysis play a role.<…>In the dry, monotonous life of her youth, in the rude 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 wanderers, in bows to the ground and in her lamentations she saw not a dead form, but something else, to which her heart was constantly striving. Based on them, she built her ideal world for herself, without passions, without need, without grief, a world entirely dedicated to goodness and pleasure. But what is real good and true pleasure for a person, she could not determine for herself; This is why these sudden impulses of some unaccountable, unclear aspirations, which she recalls: “Sometimes, it used to be, early in the morning I would go to the garden, the sun was still rising, I would fall on my knees, pray and cry, and I myself don’t know what I pray for and what I cry about; that's how they'll find me. And what I prayed for then, what I asked for, I don’t know; I don’t need anything, I had enough of everything.” A poor girl who has not received a broad theoretical education, who does not know everything that is going on in the world, who does not even properly understand her own needs, cannot, of course, give herself an account of what she needs. While she lives with her mother, in complete freedom, without any everyday worries, while the needs and passions of an adult have not yet become apparent in her, she does not even know how to distinguish her own dreams, her inner world from external impressions.<…>

In the gloomy atmosphere of the new family, Katerina began to feel the insufficiency of her appearance, with which she had thought to be content before. Under the heavy hand of the soulless Kabanikha there is no scope 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: “Why are you hanging around your neck, shameless one? Bow down at your feet!” She wants to stay alone and be sad quietly, as before, but her mother-in-law says: “Why aren’t you howling?” She is looking for light, air, she wants to dream and frolic, water her flowers, look at the sun, at the Volga, send her greetings to all living things - but she is kept in captivity, she is constantly suspected of unclean, depraved intentions. She still seeks refuge in religious practice, in visiting church, in soul-saving conversations; but even here he no longer finds the same impressions. Killed by her daily work and eternal bondage, she can no longer dream with the same clarity of angels singing in a dusty pillar illuminated by the sun, she cannot imagine the Gardens of Eden with their unperturbed appearance and joy. Everything is gloomy, scary around her, everything emanates coldness and some kind of irresistible threat: the faces of the saints are so stern, and the church readings are so menacing, and the stories of the wanderers are so monstrous...<…>

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 married him, remaining completely indifferent to this step. And here, too, a peculiarity of character is manifested: according to our usual concepts, she should be resisted if she has a decisive character; she doesn't think about resistance because she doesn't have enough reasons 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 now, that’s why she allows you to do whatever you want to her. In this one cannot see either powerlessness or apathy, but one can only find a lack of experience, and even too great a readiness to do everything for others, caring little about oneself. She has little knowledge and a lot of gullibility, which is why over time she does not show opposition to others and decides to endure better than to spite them.

But when she understands what she needs and wants to achieve something, she will achieve her goal at all costs: then the strength of her character will fully manifest itself, not wasted in petty antics. At first, out of the innate kindness and nobility of her soul, she will make every possible effort so as not to violate the peace and rights of others, in order to get what she wants with the greatest possible compliance with all the requirements that are imposed on her by people connected with her in some way; and if they are able to take advantage of this initial mood and decide to give her complete satisfaction, then it will be good for both her and them. But if not, she will stop at nothing: law, kinship, custom, human court, rules of prudence - everything disappears for her before the power of internal attraction; she does not spare herself and does not think about others. This was exactly the way out that presented itself to Katerina, and nothing else could have been expected given the situation in which she found herself.<…>

The situation in which Katerina lives requires her to lie and deceive, “it’s impossible without this,” Varvara tells her, “remember where you live, our whole house rests on this.” And I was not a liar, but I learned when it became necessary.” 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 is another woman who has lost her way, learned to deceive her family and will secretly debauch herself, falsely caressing her husband and wearing a disgusting mask of a meek woman!<…>Katerina is not like that: the denouement of her love, despite all the homely surroundings, is visible in advance, even when she is just approaching the matter. She does not engage in psychological analysis and therefore cannot express subtle observations about herself; what she says about herself means that she strongly makes herself known to her. And she, at Varvara’s first proposal about a date with Boris, screams: “No, no, don’t! What are you, God forbid: If I see him even once, I’ll run away from home, I won’t go home for anything in the world!” It is not reasonable precaution that speaks in her, it is passion; and it is clear that no matter how she restrains herself, passion is higher than her, higher than all her prejudices and fears, higher than all the suggestions she has heard since childhood. Her whole life lies in this passion; all the strength of her nature, all her living aspirations merge here. What attracts her to Boris is not just that she likes him, that in appearance and in speech he is not like the others around her; She is drawn to him by the need for love, which has not found a response in her husband, and the offended feeling of a wife and woman, and the mortal melancholy of her monotonous life, and the desire for freedom, space, hot, unfettered freedom. She keeps dreaming of how she could “fly invisibly wherever she wants”; and then this thought comes: “If it were up to me, I would now ride on the Volga, on a boat, singing, or on a good troika, hugging…”<…>In the monologue with the key (the last one in the second act) we see a woman in whose soul a dangerous step has already been taken, but who only wants to somehow “talk” herself. She makes an attempt to stand somewhat aside from herself and judge the action she has decided to take as an extraneous matter; but her thoughts are all directed towards justifying this act. “Now,” he says, “how long will it take to die... In captivity, someone has fun... At least now I live, toil, I don’t see any light for myself... my mother-in-law crushed me...”, etc. - all exculpatory articles. And then there are also accusatory considerations: “it’s obvious that fate wants it this way... But what a sin is it, if I look at him once... Yes, even if I talk, it won’t matter. Or maybe such an opportunity will never happen again in my entire life...”<…>The struggle, in fact, is already over, only a little thought remains, the old rags still cover Katerina, and little by little she throws them off. The end of the monologue betrays her heart. “Come what may, I will see Boris,” she concludes, and in the oblivion of foreboding, she exclaims: “Oh, may the night come soon!”<…>

Such liberation is sad and bitter, but what to do when there is no other way out. It’s good that the poor woman found the determination to at least take this terrible way out. This is the strength of her character, which is why “The Thunderstorm” makes a refreshing impression on us, as we said above. Without a doubt, it would be better if it were possible for Katerina to get rid of her tormentors in a different way, or if the tormentors around her could change and reconcile her with themselves and with life.<…>The most they can do is forgive her, alleviate some of the burden of her home confinement, say a few kind words to her, maybe give her the right to have a voice in the household when her opinion is asked. Maybe this would be enough for another woman...<…>No, what she would need is not that something be conceded and made easier for her, but that her mother-in-law, her husband, and everyone around her become able to satisfy those living aspirations with which she is imbued, to recognize the legality of her natural demands, to renounce all coercive rights on her and be reborn to become worthy of her love and trust. There is nothing to say about the extent to which such a rebirth is possible for them...

Another solution would have been less impossible - to flee with Boris from the tyranny and violence of the family. Despite the strictness of the formal law, despite the cruelty of rude tyranny, such steps do not represent an impossibility in themselves, especially for such characters as Katerina. And she does not neglect this way out, because she is not an abstract heroine who wants death on principle. Having run away from home to see Boris, and already thinking about death, she, however, is not at all averse to escaping; Having learned that Boris is going far to Siberia, she very simply tells him: “Take me with you from here.” But then a stone appears in front of us for a minute, which keeps people in the depths of the pool that we call the “dark kingdom.” This stone is material dependence. Boris has nothing and is completely dependent on his uncle, Dikiy;<…>That’s why he answers her: “It’s impossible, Katya; I’m not going of my own free will, my uncle is sending me; the horses are ready,” etc. Boris is not a hero, he is far from worthy of Katerina, and she fell in love with him more in solitude.<…>

However, we spoke at length about the importance of material dependence as the main basis of all the power of tyrants in the “dark kingdom” in our previous articles. Therefore, here we only remind you of this in order to indicate the decisive necessity of the fatal end that Katerina has in “The Thunderstorm”, and, consequently, the decisive necessity of a character who, given the situation, would be ready for such an end.

We have already said that this end seems gratifying to us; it is easy to understand why: it gives a terrible challenge to tyrant power, he tells it that it is no longer possible to go further, it is impossible to continue living with its violent, deadening principles.<…>

But even without any lofty considerations, simply as a human being, we are pleased to see Katerina’s deliverance - 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: “Good for you, Katya! Why did I stay in the world and suffer!” This exclamation ends the play, and it seems to us that nothing could have been invented stronger and more truthful than such an ending. Tikhon's words provide the key to understanding the play for those who did not even understand its essence before; they make the viewer think not about a love affair, but about this whole life, where the living envy the dead, and even what suicides! Strictly speaking, Tikhon’s exclamation is stupid: The Volga is close, who’s stopping him from rushing in if life is sickening? But this is his grief, this is what is hard for him, that he cannot do anything, absolutely nothing, even what he recognizes as his goodness and salvation.<…>But what a joyful, fresh life a healthy personality breathes upon us, finding within himself the determination to end this rotten life at any cost!..<…>

THERE WILL BE FLOUR. Comedy in five acts by I. V. Samarin Last theater season we had a drama by Mr. Stebnitsky, a comedy by Mr. Chernyavsky and, finally, a comedy by Ms. Sebinova “Democratic Feat” - three works in which our positive

From the book Articles. Magazine controversy author Saltykov-Shchedrin Mikhail Evgrafovich

NERO. Tragedy in five acts by N. P. Zhandre. St. Petersburg. 1870 When the tragedy of Mr. Gendre appeared on the stage Mariinsky Theater our newspaper reviewers reacted rather unfavorably to it, and the big magazines didn’t even mention this work in a single word, as

From the book All works school curriculum on literature in summary. 5-11 grade author Panteleeva E. V.

<«Слово и дело». Комедия в пяти действиях Ф Устрялова «Карл Смелый». Опера в трех действиях, музыка Дж. Россини.>I haven't been to St. Petersburg for seventeen years. I left this city back at the time when Mrs. Zhuleva first appeared in “Newcomers in Love”, when Mr. Samoilov played

From the book Writer-Inspector: Fyodor Sologub and F.K. Teternikov author Pavlova Margarita Mikhailovna

<«Слово и дело». Комедия в пяти действиях Ф. Устрялова «Карл Смелый». Опера в трех действиях, музыка Дж. Россини>For the first time - in the magazine “Sovremennik”, 1863, No. 1–2, dep. II, pp. 177–197 (censored February 5). No signature. Authorship indicated by A. N. Pypin (“M. E. Saltykov”, St. Petersburg, 1899,

From the book Russian Literature in Assessments, Judgments, Disputes: A Reader of Literary Critical Texts author Esin Andrey Borisovich

“The Thunderstorm” (Drama) Retelling Main characters: Savel Prokofievich Dikoy - a merchant, a significant person in the city. Boris Grigorievich - his nephew, an educated young man. Marfa Ignatievna Kabanova (Kabanikha) - a widow, a rich merchant's wife. Tikhon Ivanovich Kabanov - her

From the book All essays on literature for grade 10 author Team of authors

From the book How to Write an Essay. To prepare for the Unified State Exam author Sitnikov Vitaly Pavlovich

Drama A.N. Ostrovsky's "The Thunderstorm" Of all Ostrovsky's works, the play "The Thunderstorm" 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, strong and original image

From the author's book

N.A. Dobrolyubov Ray of light in the dark kingdom

From the author's book

I.A. Goncharov Review of the drama “The Thunderstorm” by Ostrovsky<…>Without fear of being accused of exaggeration, I can say in all conscience that there has never been such a work as a drama in our literature. It undoubtedly occupies and, probably, will occupy first place for a long time in terms of high

From the author's book

M. M. Dostoevsky “Thunderstorm”. Drama in 5 acts by A.N. Ostrovsky<…>For this pure, unsullied nature1 only the bright side of things is available; submitting to everything around her, finding everything legal, she knew how to create her own from the meager life of a provincial town.

From the author's book

P.I. Melnikov-Pechersky "Thunderstorm". Drama in five acts by A.N. Ostrovsky<…>We will not analyze the previous works of our gifted playwright - they are known to everyone and a lot, a lot has been said about them in our magazines. Let's just say one thing: everything is the same

From the author's book

1. “The Dark Kingdom” and its victims (based on the play “The Thunderstorm” by A. N. Ostrovsky) “The Thunderstorm” was published in 1859 (on the eve of the revolutionary situation in Russia, in the “pre-storm” era). Its historicism lies in the conflict itself, the irreconcilable contradictions reflected in the play. She answers the spirit

From the author's book

2. The tragedy of Katerina (based on the play by A. N. Ostrovsky “The Thunderstorm”) Katerina - main character Ostrovsky's drama "The Thunderstorm", Tikhon's wife, Kabanikha's daughter-in-law. The main idea of ​​the work is the conflict of this girl with the “dark kingdom”, the kingdom of tyrants, despots and ignoramuses. Find out why

From the author's book

3. “Tragedy of Conscience” (based on A. N. Ostrovsky’s play “The Thunderstorm”) In “The Thunderstorm,” Ostrovsky shows the life of a Russian merchant family and the position of women in it. Katerina’s character was formed in a simple merchant family, where love reigned and the daughter was given complete freedom. She

From the author's book

Bykova N. G. Drama by A. N. Ostrovsky “The Thunderstorm” “THE THUNDER” is a drama written by A. N. Ostrovsky in 1859. The play was created on the eve of the abolition of serfdom. The action takes place in the small Volga merchant town of Kalinov. Life there is slow, sleepy, boring.Home

Whose point of view is closer to me? (According to the articles by N. A. Dobrolyubov “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom” and D. I. Pisarev “Motives of Russian Drama”)

- this is the merchant world that A. N. Ostrovsky so talentedly reflected in the play “The Thunderstorm”. This town is located on a high bank, from which a wonderful view opens. Kulitin says he has lived for half a century, but has never seen such beauty. The Volga and open spaces are truly Levitan’s places. Harmony, beauty, triumph of nature. What about in people's lives? Where is this harmony and beauty? Merchants' warehouses, an old church, a ruined gallery, high fences, a public garden over the river, where on holidays, having drunk tea "to the point of melancholy", ordinary people come for a sedate walk. How do these people live, what are they interested in?

“A thunderstorm is sent to us as punishment, so that we can feel it, but you want to defend yourself, God forgive me, with poles and some kind of rods.”

The owners of the city are rich merchants - representatives of the "dark kingdom". " Cruel morals, sir, in our city, they are cruel...”, says Kuligin. Relationships in families are based on fear, tyranny and despotism. The wild tyrannizes the family, humiliates his nephew, ordinary people he doesn’t want to talk at all: “Maybe I don’t want to talk to you. You should have found out first whether I’m in the mood to listen to you or not. That I’m your equal, or what?”

All her words have a touch of piety, but in her soul she has a rough, unbridled nature. All innovations are hostile and hateful to her. Kabanikha is a staunch defender of the “dark kingdom.”

and resistance. But this inner weakness and cowardice indicate that the reign of the Wild Ones is coming to an end.

The drama "The Thunderstorm" made a huge impression on the reader and viewer. The play was criticized or praised, but no one was indifferent. After all, at the center of the work was the original Russian character, Katerina Kabanova, who was perceived by contemporaries as symbolic image, striving for change, for a new life. Namely, this was the atmosphere that reigned in society on the eve of the abolition of serfdom (remember that the play was written in 1859 and staged already in 1860). Two contemporaries of Ostrovsky, N.A. Dobrolyubov and D.I. Pisarev, having analyzed Ostrovsky’s drama, wrote critical articles. Critics differed in their assessment of Katerina Kabanova’s action. N.A. Dobrolyubov, in the article “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom,” writes about the determination, integrity and strength of character of Katerina, who, in his opinion, although she grew up in the conditions of the “dark kingdom,” is an extraordinary nature, “breaking out” from her environment. She is sensitive, romantic, capable of real feeling. It is not for nothing that Kudryash immediately recognizes who he is talking about when Boris tells him about the woman he saw in the church during a prayer service. Katerina is different from everyone (even from Kuligin, although these heroes have common points) of the inhabitants of the city of Kalinov. “There is nothing externally alien in this character,” writes Dobrolyubov, “everything somehow comes out from within him; every impression is processed in him and then grows organically with him.”

- creative, loving, ideal character. “Rough, superstitious stories and senseless ravings of wanderers turn into golden, poetic dreams of the imagination, not frightening, but clear, kind.” But what motivates Dobrolyubov for Katerina’s decisive step, her suicide? In his opinion, Katerina had no way out of the current life situation. She could submit, become a slave, an unquestioning victim of her mother-in-law and never dare to express her desires or discontent. But this is not Katerina’s character. "... It was not then that the new type created by Russian life was reflected in it, only to be reflected in a fruitless attempt and perish after the first failure." The heroine decided to die, but she is not afraid of death, since “she is trying to prove to us and herself that she can be forgiven, since it is already very difficult for her.” As a result, Dobrolyubov writes: “In Katerina we see a protest against Kabanov’s concepts of morality, a protest brought to the end, proclaimed both under domestic torture and over the abyss into which the poor woman threw herself. She does not want to suffer, does not want to take advantage of the miserable vegetation, which is given to her in exchange for her living soul"Katerina died, but her death, like a ray of sunshine, even if only for a moment, dispersed the impenetrable darkness of the old world. Her act shook the foundations of the “dark kingdom.” N. A. Dobrolyubov comes to this conclusion.

"Motives of Russian drama". He agrees that “passion, tenderness and sincerity are truly the predominant properties in Katerina’s nature.” But he also sees some contradictions in this image. Pisarev asks himself and the reader the following questions. What kind of love arises from the exchange of a few glances? What kind of stern virtue is it that gives in at the first opportunity? He notices the disproportion between causes and consequences in the heroine’s actions: “The boar grumbles - Katerina languishes”; "Boris Grigorievich casts tender glances - Katerina falls in love." He does not understand Katerina’s behavior. She was pushed to confess to her husband by completely ordinary circumstances: a thunderstorm, a crazy lady, a picture of fiery hell on the wall of the gallery. Finally, according to Pisarev, Katerina’s last monologue is illogical. She looks at the grave from an aesthetic point of view, while completely forgetting about fiery hell, to which she was previously partial. As a result, Pisarev concludes: “The cruelty of a family despot, the fanaticism of an old prude, the unhappy love of a girl for a scoundrel, impulses of despair, jealousy, fraud, riotous revelry, educational rod, educational affection, quiet daydreaming - all this motley mixture of feelings, qualities and actions... "reduces, in my opinion, to one common source, which cannot arouse in us exactly any sensations, neither high nor low. All these are various manifestations of inexhaustible stupidity." Pisarev does not agree with Dobrolyubov in assessing the image of Katerina. In his opinion, Katerina cannot be called “a ray of light in a dark kingdom,” since she failed to do anything to alleviate her own and others’ suffering, to change life in the “dark kingdom.” Katerina’s action is meaningless, it did not change anything. This is a barren, not a bright phenomenon, Pisarev concludes.

What causes such opposing opinions about the same image among critics? What prompted Pisarev to argue with Dobrolyubov’s article almost three and a half years after its appearance in Sovremennik, two years after the death of the author of the article? Main reason is that Pisarev evaluates the character of the heroine from the perspective of another historical time, filled with great events, when “ideas grew very quickly, so many things and events were accomplished in a year that in other times would not happen in ten to twenty years.”

I understand why Dobrolyubov perceives Katerina so warmly, pointing out new human phenomena in the world of tyrants, in the world of the “dark kingdom”. He saw in Katerina’s character signs of a national awakening and growth of self-awareness. Pisarev focused his main attention on something else: the thunderstorm did not start, the people did not wake up.

"rulers of thoughts."

A ray of light in a dark kingdom

A ray of light in a dark kingdom
The title of an article (1860) by the democratic publicist Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov (1836-1861), dedicated to the drama by N. A. Ostrovsky “Gro-
for". Dobrolyubov viewed the suicide of the heroine of this play, Katerina, as a kind of protest against the tyranny and ignorance of the “dark kingdom” ( cm. The Dark Kingdom), that is, the world of ignorant tyrant merchants. The author of the article called this protest “a ray of light in a dark kingdom.”
Allegorically: a joyful, bright phenomenon (kind, nice person) in some difficult, depressing situation (jokingly ironic).

Encyclopedic dictionary of popular words and expressions. - M.: “Locked-Press”. Vadim Serov. 2003.

A ray of light in a dark kingdom

Title of the article by N.A. Dobrolyubov (1860), dedicated to the drama by A.N. Ostrovsky "The Thunderstorm". Dobrolyubov views the suicide of the heroine of the drama, Katerina, as a protest against the tyranny and tyranny of the “dark kingdom.” This protest is passive, but it indicates that the consciousness of their natural rights is already awakening among the oppressed masses, that the time of submission is passing. That’s why Dobrolyubov called Katerina “a ray of light in a dark kingdom.” This expression characterizes any joyful, bright phenomenon in an environment of lack of culture.

Dictionary of catch words. Plutex. 2004.

See what “A ray of light in the dark kingdom” is in other dictionaries:

A ray of light in a dark kingdom- wing. sl. The title of an article by N. A. Dobrolyubov (1860), dedicated to the drama “The Thunderstorm” by A. N. Ostrovsky. Dobrolyubov views the suicide of the heroine of the drama, Katerina, as a protest against the tyranny and tyranny of the “dark kingdom.” This protest is passive... Universal additional practical explanatory dictionary by I. Mostitsky

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

- (born January 17, 1836, died November 17, 1861) one of the most remarkable critics of Russian literature and one of characteristic representatives 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 a clergy background, and... ... Large biographical encyclopedia

Alexander Nikolaevich (1823 1886) the largest Russian playwright. R. in Moscow, in the family of an official who later became a private intercessor in civil cases. In 1835-1840 he studied at the First Moscow Gymnasium. In 1840 he was admitted to law school... ... 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. Tov ). R. in N. Novgorod, in the family of a poor priest, studied in theological... ... Literary encyclopedia

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

The title of the article (1859) by the critic and publicist Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov (1836 1861), dedicated to the analysis of A. N. Ostrovsky’s play “The Thunderstorm”. Taking advantage of the pictures of merchant tyranny depicted by the playwright as an occasion, N.A.... ... Dictionary of popular words and expressions

KINGDOM, kingdoms, cf. 1. A state ruled by a king. Moscow kingdom. “Past Buyan Island to the kingdom of the glorious Saltan.” Pushkin. 2. only units. The reign of some 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 aesthetic principles V.G. Belinsky and N.G. Chernyshevsky, seeing the purpose of literature primarily in criticism... ... Modern encyclopedia

Books

• A ray of light in the dark kingdom, Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov. “...Shortly before the appearance of “The Thunderstorm” on stage, we examined in great detail all of Ostrovsky’s works. Wanting to present a description of the author’s talent, we then drew attention to the phenomena... audiobook

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

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

____________________

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

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

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

____________________

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

** Balagan is a fair folk theatrical performance with primitive stage technology; farcical - here: primitive, common people.

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

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