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 anything for some Curly to quarrel with Diky: both of them need each other, and, therefore, no special heroism is needed on the part of Curly to present his demands. On the other hand, his trick will not lead to anything serious: he, Dikoy, will quarrel, threaten to give him up as a soldier, but will not give him up; Curly will be pleased that he bit off, and things will go on as before again. Not so with a woman: she must already have a lot of strength of character in order to express her discontent, her demands. At the first attempt, she will be made to feel that she is nothing, that she can be crushed. She knows that this is true, and must accept; otherwise, they will execute a threat over her - they will beat her, lock her up, leave her to repentance, on bread and water, deprive her of the light of day, try all the domestic corrective means of the good old days and still lead to humility. A woman who wants to go to the end in her rebellion against the oppression and arbitrariness of her elders in the Russian family must be filled with heroic self-sacrifice, she must decide on everything and be ready for everything. How can she bear herself? Where does she get so much character? The only answer to this is that the natural tendencies 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 propositions only shows to what extent the elasticity of human nature can reach; but the more unnatural the situation, the nearer and more necessary is the way out of it. And it means that it is very unnatural when even the most flexible natures, who are most subject to the influence of the force that produces such positions, cannot withstand it. If even the flexible body of a child does not lend itself to any gymnastic trick, then it is obvious that it is impossible for adults, whose limbs are more rigid. Adults, of course, will not allow such a trick with them; but a child can easily taste it. And where does the child take the character in order to resist him with all his might, even if the most terrible punishment was promised for resistance? There is only one answer: in the impossibility of enduring what he is forced to ... The same must be said about weak woman, deciding to fight for her rights: it has come to the point that it is no longer possible for her to endure her humiliation any longer, so she is torn out of it no longer for reasons of what is better and what is worse, but only by an instinctive desire for what is bearable and, perhaps. Here, nature replaces the considerations of the mind, and the demands of feeling and imagination: all this merges into the general feeling of the organism, demanding 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 female energetic character fully corresponds to the position to which tyranny has been brought in Ostrovsky's drama. In the position presented by The Thunderstorm, it went to the extreme, to the denial of all common sense; more than ever, it is hostile to the natural requirements of humanity 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 still more causes grumbling and protest even in the weakest beings. And at the same time, tyranny, as we have seen, lost its self-confidence, lost its firmness in actions, and lost a significant part of the power that consisted for it in instilling fear in everyone. Therefore, the protest against him is not silenced at the very beginning, but can turn into a stubborn struggle. Those who still live tolerably do not want to risk such a struggle now, in the hope that tyranny will not live long anyway. Katerina’s husband, young Kabanov, although he suffers a lot from the old Kabanikh, is nevertheless more independent: he can run away to Savel Prokofich for a drink, he will go to Moscow from his mother and turn around in the wild, and if he is 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 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 Kabanikh. But free air and light, contrary to all the precautions of perishing tyranny, break into Katerina's cell, she feels the opportunity to satisfy the natural thirst of her soul and can no longer remain motionless: she yearns for a new life, even if she had to die in this impulse. What is death to her? It doesn't matter - she does not consider life and the vegetative life that fell to her lot in the Kabanov family.
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 situation, it irresistibly attracts a person to the matter, does not depend on this or that ability or impression in particular, but relies on the entire complexity of the requirements of the organism, on the development of the whole nature of man. . Now it is curious how such a character develops and manifests itself in particular cases. We can trace its development through Katerina's personality.
First of all, you are struck by the extraordinary originality of this character. There is nothing external, alien in him, but everything comes out somehow from within him; every impression is processed in it and then grows organically with it. We see this, for example, in Katerina's ingenuous story about her childhood and about life in her mother's house. It turns out that her upbringing and young life did not give her anything; in her mother's house it was the same as at the Kabanovs - they went to church, sewed gold on velvet, listened to the stories of wanderers, dined, walked in the garden, again talked with pilgrims and prayed themselves ... After listening to Katerina's story, Varvara, sister her husband, remarks with surprise: "Why, it's the same with us." But the difference is determined 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 common with us everywhere, Katerina was able to find her own special meaning, apply it to her needs and aspirations, until the heavy hand of Kabanikha fell upon her. Katerina does not at all belong to violent characters, never satisfied, loving to destroy at all costs. On the contrary, this character is predominantly creative, loving, ideal. That is why she tries to comprehend and ennoble everything in her imagination; the mood in which, according to the poet, -
The whole world is a noble dream
Before him cleansed and washed 21. -
Analysis of the article by N.A. Dobrolyubov “Ray of light in dark kingdom»
Dobrolyubov's article "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom" is one of the first reviews of A.N. Ostrovsky's play. First published in the Sovremennik magazine in No. 10, 1860.
It was a time of revolutionary-democratic upsurge, fierce resistance to autocratic power. Tense expectation of reforms. Hope for social change.
The epoch demanded a resolute, integral, strong character, capable of rising to protest against violence and arbitrariness and going in his post to the end. Dobrolyubov saw such a character in Katerina.
Dobrolyubov called Katerina "a ray of light in a dark kingdom" because she is a bright personality, a bright phenomenon and extremely positive. A person who does not want to be a victim of the "dark kingdom", capable of an act. Any violence revolts her and leads to protest.
Dobrolyubov welcomes creativity in the character of the heroine.
He believed that the origins of protest are precisely in harmony, simplicity, nobility, which are incompatible with slave morality.
The drama of Katerina, according to Dobrolyubov, is in the struggle of natural aspirations for beauty, harmony, happiness, prejudices, morality of the "dark kingdom" arising from her nature.
The critic sees something "refreshing, encouraging" in the drama "Thunderstorm". Detects shakiness and the near end of tyranny. The character of Katerina breathes new life, although it is revealed to us in her very death.
Ostrovsky was far from thinking that the only way out of the "dark kingdom" could only be a resolute protest. Ostrovsky's "beam of light" was knowledge and education.
Dobrolyubov, as a revolutionary democrat, in a period of powerful revolutionary upsurge, looked for facts in literature confirming that the masses of the people do not want and cannot live in the old way, that protest against the autocratic order is ripening in them, that they are ready to rise to a decisive struggle for social transformations. Dobrolyubov was convinced that readers, having read the play, should understand that living in the "dark kingdom" is worse than death. It is clear that in this way Dobrolyubov sharpened many aspects of Ostrovsky's play and drew direct revolutionary conclusions. But this was due to the time of writing the article.
Dobrolyubov's critical manner is fruitful. The critic does not so much judge as studies, explores the struggle in the soul of the heroine, proving the inevitability of the victory of light over darkness. This approach corresponds to the spirit of Ostrovsky's drama.
Dobrolyubov's correctness was also confirmed by the court of history. "Thunderstorm" really was the news of a new stage in Russian folk life. Already in the movement of revolutionaries - the seventies there were many participants, whose life path made me think of Katherine. Vera Zasulich, Sophia Perovskaya, Vera Figner... And they started with an instinctive impulse to freedom, born from the closeness of the family environment.
Any critical article should hardly be considered the ultimate truth. Critical work, even the most versatile, is still one-sided. The most brilliant critic cannot say everything about the work. But the best, like works of art become monuments of the era. The Dobrolyubovskaya article is one of the highest achievements of Russian criticism of the 19th century. She sets the trend in the interpretation of the "Thunderstorm" to this day.
Our time brings its own accents to the interpretation of Ostrovsky's drama.
N. Dobrolyubov called the city of Kalinov a "dark kingdom", and Katerina - a "beam of light" in it. But can we agree with this? The kingdom turned out to be not so "obscure" as it might seem at first glance. And the beam? A sharp long light, mercilessly highlighting everything, cold, cutting, causing a desire to close.
Is it Katherine? Let's remember how she prays...! What an angelic smile she has on her face, and from her face it seems to glow.
Light comes from within. No, it's not a beam. Candle. Trembling, defenseless. And from her light. Scattering, warm, living light. They reached out to him - each for his own. It was from this breath of many that the candle went out.
Year of writing:
1860
Reading time:
Description of the work:
In 1860, Nikolai Dobrolyubov wrote a critical article A ray of light in a dark kingdom, which became one of the first serious reviews of Alexander Ostrovsky's play called The Thunderstorm. The article was published by the Sovremennik magazine in the same 1860.
Let us mention only one character in the play - Katerina, in whom Dobrolyubov saw a decisive, integral, strong character, which was so necessary for society to resist the autocratic system at that time and carry out social reforms.
Below, read the summary of the article A ray of light in the dark realm.
The article is devoted to Ostrovsky's drama "Thunderstorm". At the beginning of it, Dobrolyubov writes that "Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life." Further, he analyzes articles about Ostrovsky by other critics, writes that they "lack a direct look at things."
Then Dobrolyubov compares The Thunderstorm with dramatic canons: "The subject of the drama must certainly be an event where we see the struggle of passion and duty - with the unfortunate consequences of the victory of passion or with happy ones when duty wins." Also in the drama there must be a unity of action, and it must be written in high literary language. The Thunderstorm, however, “does not satisfy the most essential goal of the drama - to inspire respect for moral duty and show the detrimental consequences of infatuation with passion. Katerina, this criminal, appears to us in the drama not only in a rather gloomy light, but even with the radiance of martyrdom. She speaks so well, she suffers so plaintively, everything around her is so bad that you arm yourself against her oppressors and thus justify vice in her face. Consequently, the drama does not fulfill its high purpose. The whole action is sluggish and slow, because it is cluttered with scenes and faces that are completely unnecessary. Finally, the language they speak characters surpasses all the patience of a well-bred man."
Dobrolyubov makes this comparison with the canon in order to show that an approach to a work with a ready idea of what should be shown in it does not give a true understanding. “What to think about a man who, at the sight of a pretty woman, suddenly begins to resonate that her camp is not the same as that of the Venus de Milo? The truth is not in dialectical subtleties, but in the living truth of what you are talking about. It cannot be said that people are evil by nature, and therefore it cannot be accepted for literary works principles like 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 to several steps that no one had climbed before him.” Further, the author turns to other critical articles about the "Thunderstorm", in particular, by Apollon Grigoriev, who claims that Ostrovsky's main merit is in his "nationality". "But Mr. Grigoriev does not explain what the nationality consists of, 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 for him the general atmosphere of life is always in the foreground. 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 do not 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 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 activity of the main characters of the play.
In "Thunderstorm" the need for "unnecessary" persons (secondary and episodic characters) is especially visible. Dobrolyubov analyzes the lines of Feklusha, Glasha, Dikiy, Kudryash, Kuligin, etc. The author analyzes internal state heroes" dark kingdom": "everything is somehow restless, it is not good for them. In addition to them, without asking them, another life has grown up, with other beginnings, 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 she already feels that there is no former reverence for them and that they will be abandoned at the first opportunity.
Then the author writes that The Thunderstorm is “Ostrovsky's most decisive work; the mutual relations of 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 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.
Further, Dobrolyubov analyzes the image of Katerina, perceiving it as "a step forward in all our literature": "Russian life has reached the point where there is a need for more active and energetic people." The image of Katerina is “steadily 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. In this wholeness and harmony of character lies his strength. Free air and light, contrary to all the precautions of perishing tyranny, burst into Katerina's cell, she yearns for a new life, even if she had to die in this impulse. What is death to her? It doesn't matter - she does not consider life to be the vegetative life that fell to her lot in the Kabanov family.
The author analyzes 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's why she tries to ennoble everything in her imagination. The feeling of love for a person, the need for tender pleasures naturally opened up in a young woman. But it will not be Tikhon Kabanov, who is “too hammered to understand the nature of Katerina’s emotions: “I can’t make out you, Katya,” he tells her, “you won’t get a word from you, let alone affection, otherwise it’s like that yourself 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 folk idea: “in other works of our literature, strong characters are like fountains that depend on an extraneous mechanism. Katerina is like a big river: a flat bottom, good - it flows calmly, large stones met - it jumps over them, a cliff - it cascades, they dam it - it rages and breaks in another place. It boils not because the water suddenly wants to make noise or get angry at obstacles, but simply because it is necessary for it to fulfill its natural requirements - for the further flow.
Analyzing the actions of Katerina, the author writes that he considers it possible for Katerina and Boris to escape as the best solution. Katerina is ready to run away, but here another problem comes up - Boris's financial dependence on his uncle Diky. “We said a few words about Tikhon above; Boris is the same, in essence, only educated.
At the end of the play, “we are pleased to see Katerina's deliverance - even through death, if it is impossible otherwise. Living in a "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! But why did I stay in the world and suffer! “The play ends with this exclamation, and it seems to us that nothing could be invented stronger and more truthful than such an ending. Tikhon's words make the viewer think not 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 strength are called by the artist in The Thunderstorm to a decisive cause, and if they feel the legitimacy and importance of this matter, then we are satisfied, no matter what our scientists say. and literary judges.
You have read the summary of the article A ray of light in the dark realm. We invite you to visit the Summary section for other essays by popular writers.
Answer left Guest
Beam of light in the dark realm
The article is devoted to Ostrovsky's drama "Thunderstorm"
At the beginning of the article, Dobrolyubov writes that "Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life." Further, he analyzes articles about Ostrovsky by other critics, writes that they "lack a direct look at things."
Then Dobrolyubov compares The Thunderstorm with dramatic canons: “The subject of the drama must certainly be an event where we see the struggle of passion and duty - with the unfortunate consequences of the victory of passion or with happy ones when duty wins.” Also in the drama there must be a unity of action, and it must be written in high literary language. The Thunderstorm, however, “does not satisfy the most essential goal of the drama - to inspire respect for moral duty and show the detrimental consequences of infatuation with passion. Katerina, this criminal, appears to us in the drama not only in a rather gloomy light, but even with the radiance of martyrdom. She speaks so well, she suffers so plaintively, everything around her is so bad that you arm yourself against her oppressors and thus justify vice in her face. Consequently, the drama does not fulfill its high purpose. The whole action is sluggish and slow, because it is cluttered with scenes and faces that are completely unnecessary. Finally, the language with which the characters speak surpasses all 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 idea of what should be shown in it does not give a true understanding. “What to think of a man who, at the sight of a pretty woman, suddenly begins to resonate that her camp is not the same as that of the Venus de Milo? The truth is not in dialectical subtleties, but in the living truth of what you are talking about. It cannot be said that people are evil by nature, and therefore one cannot accept principles for literary works 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 to several steps that no one had climbed before him.” Further, the author turns to other critical articles about "Thunderstorm", in particular, by Apollon 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 for him the general atmosphere of life is always in the foreground. 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 do not 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 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 situation that determines the meaning of the activity of the main characters of the play.
In The Thunderstorm, the need for “unnecessary” persons (secondary and episodic characters) is especially visible. Dobrolyubov analyzes the remarks of Feklusha, Glasha, Dikoy, Kudryash, Kuligin, etc. The author analyzes the internal state of the heroes of the “dark kingdom”: “everything is somehow restless, not good for them. In addition to them, without asking them, another life has grown up, with other beginnings, 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 former reverence for them and that they will be abandoned at the first opportunity.
The critical article "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom" was written by Nikolai Dobrolyubov in 1860 and then published in the Sovremennik magazine.
Dobrolyubov reflects in it on dramatic standards, where "we see the struggle of passion and duty." A happy ending, in his opinion, the drama has if duty wins, and an unhappy ending if passion. The critic notes that in Ostrovsky's drama there is no unity of time and high vocabulary, which was the rule for dramas. "Thunderstorm" does not satisfy the main goal of the drama - to respect the "moral duty", to show the destructive, fatal "consequences of infatuation with passion." Dobrolyubov notices that the reader involuntarily justifies Katerina, and that is why the drama does not fulfill its purpose.
The writer has a role to play in the movement of humanity. The critic cites as an example the lofty mission accomplished by Shakespeare: he was able to raise the morality of his contemporaries. "Plays of life" somewhat pejoratively calls the works of Ostrovsky Dobrolyubov. The writer "punishes neither the villain nor the victim", and this, according to the critic, makes the plays hopelessly mundane and mundane. But the critic does not deny them "nationality", arguing in this context with Apollon Grigoriev.It is the reflection of the aspirations of the people that is one of the strengths of the work.
Dobrolyubov continues his devastating criticism in the analysis of the "unnecessary" heroes of the "dark kingdom": their inner world limited to a small world. There are villains in the work, described in an extremely grotesque way. These are Kabanikha and Wild. However, unlike, for example, Shakespeare's characters, their tyranny is petty, although it can ruin life. good man. Nevertheless, "Thunderstorm" is called Dobrolyubov "the most decisive work" of the playwright, where tyranny is brought to "tragic consequences."
A supporter of revolutionary changes in the country, Dobrolyubov happily notices signs of something "refreshing" and "encouraging" in the play. For him, the way out of the dark kingdom can only be as a result of the protest of the people against the tyranny of the authorities. In Ostrovsky's plays, the critic saw this protest in the act of Katerina, for whom living in the "dark kingdom" is worse than death. Dobrolyubov saw in Katerina the person that the era demanded: decisive, with a strong character and will of spirit, although "weak and patient." Katerina, "creative, loving, ideal", is, according to the revolutionary democrat Dobrolyubov, the ideal prototype of a person capable of protest and even more. Katerina is a bright person with bright soul- called by the critic "a ray of light" in the world of dark people with their petty passions.
(Tikhon falls to his knees in front of Kabanikha)
Among them is the husband of Katerina Tikhon - "one of the many miserable types" who are "as harmful as the petty tyrants themselves." Katerina runs away from him to Boris "more in the wilderness", out of the "need for love", which Tikhon is not capable of because of his moral underdevelopment. But Boris is by no means "a hero." No way out for Katerina, can't her light soul get out of the sticky darkness of the "dark kingdom".
The tragic ending of the play and the cry of the unfortunate Tikhon, who, according to him, continues to "suffer", "make the viewer - as Dobrolyubov wrote - think not about a love affair, but about the whole life, where the living envy the dead."
Nikolai Dobrolyubov sets the real task of his critical article to turn the reader to the idea that Russian life is shown by Ostrovsky in "Thunderstorm" in such a perspective in order to call "to decisive action." And this business is legal and important. In this case, as the critic notes, he will be satisfied "whatever our scientists and literary judges say."
