A. N. Ostrovsky wrote many plays about the merchant class. They are so truthful and bright that Dobrolyubov called them "plays of life." In these works, the life of the merchants is described as a world of hidden, quietly sighing sorrow, a world of dull, aching pain, a world of prison, deathly silence. And if a dull, meaningless murmur appears, then it freezes already at its birth. The critic N. A. Dobrolyubov called his article devoted to the analysis of Ostrovsky’s plays “The Dark Kingdom”. He expressed the idea that the tyranny of the merchants rests only on ignorance and humility. But a way out will be found, because in a person it is impossible to destroy the desire to live with dignity. He won't be subdued for long.
“Who will be able to throw a beam of light into the ugly darkness of the dark kingdom?” Dobrolyubov asked. The playwright's new play "Thunderstorm" served as an answer to this question.
Written in 1860, the play, both in its spirit and in its title, seemed to symbolize the process of renewal of a society that was shaking off its numbness. And in the play, a thunderstorm is not only a natural phenomenon, but also vivid image internal struggle that began in a dark life.
There are many characters in the play. But the main one is Katerina. The image of this woman is not only the most complex, it differs sharply from all others. No wonder the critic called her "a ray of light in dark kingdom". How is Katerina so different from other inhabitants of this kingdom?
There are no free people in this world! Neither petty tyrants nor their victims are like that. Here you can deceive, like Barbara, but you can’t live in truth and conscience without prevarication.
Although Katerina was brought up in a merchant family, she “lived at home, didn’t grieve about anything, like a bird in the wild.” But after marriage, this free nature fell into the iron cage of the mother-in-law's tyranny.
In Katerina's house there were always many wanderers and pilgrims, whose stories (and the whole situation in the house) made her very religious, sincerely believing in the commandments of the church. It is not surprising that she perceives her love for Boris as a grave sin. But Katerina in religion is a “poet” (in the words of the Gorky hero). She is endowed with a vivid imagination, she is dreamy and emotional. listening various stories She seems to be seeing them for real. She often dreamed paradise gardens and birds, and when she entered the church, she saw angels. Even her speech is musical and melodious, reminiscent of folk tales and songs.
However, religion, a closed life, the lack of an outlet for her extraordinary nature contributed to the awakening of an unhealthy sensitivity in Katerina. Therefore, during a thunderstorm, having heard the curses of the half-witted lady, she began to pray. When she saw on the wall a drawing of “gehenna fiery”, her nerves could not stand it, and she confessed to Tikhon her love for Boris.
Her religiosity even somehow sets off such features as the desire for independence and truth, courage and determination. The petty tyrant Wild and the Kabanikha, who always reproaches her relatives, are generally not able to understand other people. In comparison with them or with the spineless Tikhon, who only occasionally allows himself to go on a spree for a few days, with her beloved Boris, who is unable to appreciate true love, Katerina becomes especially attractive. She does not want and cannot deceive and directly declares: “I don’t know how to deceive; I can't hide anything!" Love for Boris is everything for Katerina: longing for freedom, dreams of real life. And in the name of this love, she enters into an unequal duel with the “dark kingdom”. She does not perceive her protest as an indignation against the whole system, she does not even think about it. But the “dark kingdom” is arranged in such a way that any manifestation of independence, independence, dignity of the individual is perceived by him as a mortal sin, as a rebellion against their foundations of domination by tyrants. That is why the play ends with the death of the heroine: after all, she is not only lonely, but also bifurcated by the inner consciousness of her “sin”.
The death of such a woman is not a cry of despair. No, this is a moral victory over the "dark kingdom" that fetters freedom, will, and reason. Suicide, according to the teachings of the church, is an unforgivable sin. But Katerina is no longer afraid of this. Having fallen in love, she declares to Boris: “If I am not afraid of sin for you, will I be afraid of human judgment.” And her last words were: “My friend! My joy! Goodbye!"
You can justify or blame Katerina for her decision that led to tragic ending, but one cannot but admire the integrity of her nature, her thirst for freedom, her determination. Her death shocked even people like Tikhon, who is already accusing his mother in the face of the death of his wife.
This means that Katerina's act was really "a terrible challenge to the tyranny of power." This means that in the “dark kingdom” light natures can be born, who, with their life or death, can illuminate this “kingdom”.
N. A. Dobrolyubov. "A Ray of Light in a Dark Realm"
Dobrolyubov's controversy with Ostrovsky's critics.
Ostrovsky's plays are "plays of life".
Tyrants in the "Thunderstorm".
Dobrolyubov about distinguishing features positive personality of his era (Katerina).
Other characters in the play who, to one degree or another, oppose tyranny.
"The Thunderstorm is, without a doubt, Ostrovsky's most decisive work."
1. At the beginning of his article, Dobrolyubov writes that the controversy around Groza touched upon the most important problems of Russian pre-reform life and literature, and above all the problem of the people and national character, goodie. Different attitudes towards the people largely determined the many opinions about the play. Dobrolyubov cites sharply negative assessments of reactionary critics who expressed feudal views (for example, N. Pavlov’s assessments), and statements by critics of the liberal camp (A. Palkhovsky), and reviews of Slavophiles (A. Grigoriev), who viewed the people as a kind of homogeneous dark and inert mass who is not able to single out a strong personality from his environment. These critics, says Dobrolyubov, blunting the force of Katerina's protest, painted her as a spineless, weak-willed, immoral woman. The heroine in their interpretation did not possess the qualities of a positive personality and could not be called the bearer of national character traits. Such properties of the nature of heroes as humility, humility, forgiveness were declared truly popular. Touching the image in the "Thunderstorm" of the representatives " dark kingdom”, critics argued that Ostrovsky had in mind the old merchant class and that the concept of “tyranny” applies only to this environment.
Dobrolyubov reveals a direct connection between the methodology of such criticism and socio-political views: “They first tell themselves what should be contained in the work (but their concepts, of course) and to what extent everything that should really be in it (again, according to their concepts).” Dobrolyubov points to the extreme subjectivism of these concepts, exposes the anti-popular position of aesthete critics, and opposes them with a revolutionary understanding of the people, which is objectively reflected in the works of Ostrovsky. In the working people, Dobrolyubov sees the totality of the best properties of the national character, and above all hatred for tyranny, under which the critic - revolutionary democrat- understands the entire autocratic-feudal system of Russia, and the ability (albeit only potential so far) to protest, rebellion against the foundations of the "dark kingdom". Dobrolyubov's method is to "consider the work of the author and then, as a result of this consideration, say what it contains and what is this content."
2. “Already in Ostrovsky’s previous plays,” Dobrolyubov emphasizes, “we notice that these are not comedies of intrigue and not comedies of characters proper, but something new, to which we would give the name “plays of life.” In this regard, the critic notes the fidelity to the truth of life in the works of the playwright, the wide coverage of reality, the ability to penetrate deeply into the essence of phenomena, the ability of the artist to look into the recesses human soul. Ostrovsky, according to Dobrolyubov, was precisely what was great because he “captured such common aspirations and needs that permeate everything Russian society whose voice is heard in all the phenomena of our life, whose satisfaction is necessary condition our further development". The breadth of artistic generalizations determines, according to the critic, the true nationality of Ostrovsky's work, makes his plays vitally truthful, expressing popular aspirations.
Pointing to dramatic innovation The writer, Dobrolyubov notes that if in the “comedies of intrigue” the main place was occupied by an intrigue arbitrarily invented by the author, the development of which was determined by the characters directly participating in it, then in Ostrovsky’s plays “in the foreground there is always a general, independent of any of the characters, environment of life." Usually playwrights strive to create characters who fight relentlessly and deliberately for their goals; the heroes are portrayed as the masters of their position, which is established by "eternal" moral principles. In Ostrovsky, on the other hand, "position dominates" the actors; in him, as in life itself, "often the characters themselves ... do not have a clear or no consciousness at all about the meaning of their situation and their struggle." “Comedies of intrigue” and “comedies of characters” were designed to make the viewer, without reasoning, accept the author’s interpretation of moral concepts as an indisputable one, condemn exactly the evil that was sentenced, imbued with respect only for that virtue that finally triumphed. Ostrovsky, on the other hand, “does not punish either the villain or the victim ...”, “the feeling aroused by the play does not directly appeal to them.” It turns out to be riveted to the struggle that takes place "not in the monologues of the actors, but in the facts that dominate them", disfiguring them. The spectator himself is involved in this struggle and as a result "unwittingly revolts against the situation that gives rise to such facts."
With such a reproduction of reality, the critic notes, a huge role is played by characters who are not directly involved in the intrigue. They, in essence, determine the compositional manner of Ostrovsky. “These faces,” writes Dobrolyubov, “are 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.”
According to Dobrolyubov, art form"Thunderstorms" fully corresponds to its ideological content. In terms of composition, he perceives the drama as a whole, all elements of which are artistically expedient. “In The Thunderstorm,” Dobrolyubov claims, “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 whole play, which happened to most of the critics.”
3. Analyzing the images of the "masters of life", the critic shows that in Ostrovsky's previous plays, petty tyrants, by nature cowardly and spineless, felt calm and confident, since they did not meet with serious resistance. At first glance, and in The Thunderstorm, says Dobrolyubov, “everything seems to be the same, everything is fine; Dikoi scolds whoever he wants.... The boar keeps... his children in fear... he considers himself completely infallible and is indulged by various Feklushas. But this is only at first glance. Tyrants have already lost their former calmness and confidence. They are already worried about their situation, watching, hearing, feeling how their way of life is gradually collapsing. According to Kabanikhi, Railway- a diabolical invention, driving on it is a mortal sin, but "people are driving more and more, not paying attention to its curses." Dikoi says that a thunderstorm is sent to people as a "punishment" so that they "feel", while Kuligin "does not feel ... and talks about electricity." Feklusha describes various horrors in the “unrighteous lands”, and in Glasha her stories do not arouse indignation, on the contrary, they awaken her curiosity and evoke a feeling close to skepticism: “After all, it’s not good with us, but we still don’t know well about those lands. ..” And something is wrong in household chores - young people violate established customs at every step.
However, the critic emphasizes, the Russian feudal lords did not want to reckon with the historical demands of life, they did not want to concede in anything. Feeling doomed, aware of impotence, fearing an unknown future, "The Kabanovs and the Wilds are now fussing about only continuing faith in their strength." In this regard, writes Dobrolyubov, two sharp features stood out in their character and behavior: “eternal discontent and irritability”, vividly expressed in Dikoy, “constant suspicion ... and captiousness”, prevailing in Kabanova.
According to the critic, the "idyll" of the town of Kalinov reflected the external, ostentatious power and internal rottenness and doom of the autocratic-feudal system of Russia.
4. “The opposite of all selfish beginnings” in the play, notes Dobrolyubov, is Katerina. The character of the heroine "is a step forward not only in Ostrovsky's dramatic activity, but in all of our literature. It corresponds to the new phase of our people's life."
According to the critic, the peculiarity of Russian life in its "new phase" is that "there was an urgent need for people ... active and energetic." She was no longer satisfied with "virtuous and respectable, but weak and impersonal beings." Russian life needed “entrepreneurial, resolute, persistent characters” capable of overcoming many obstacles set up by petty tyrants.
Before the Thunderstorm, Dobrolyubov points out, even attempts best writers to recreate a solid, decisive character ended "more or less unsuccessfully." The critic mainly refers to the creative experience of Pisemsky and Goncharov, whose heroes (Kalinovich in the novel "A Thousand Souls", Stolz in "Oblomov") are strong " practical sense' adapt to the circumstances. These, as well as other types with their "crackling pathos" or logical concept, Dobrolyubov argues, are claims for strong, integral characters, and they could not serve as spokesmen for the demands of the new era. The failures were due to the fact that the writers were guided by abstract ideas, and not by the truth of life; besides (and here Dobrolyubov is not inclined to blame the writers), life itself has not yet given a clear answer to the question: “In what features should the character be distinguished by which a decisive break will be made with the old, absurd and violent relationships of life?”
The merit of Ostrovsky is, the critic emphasizes, that he was able to sensitively grasp what “power is rushing out of the recesses of Russian life”, he was able to understand, feel and express it in the image of the heroine of the drama. Katerina’s character is “concentrated, resolutely, unswervingly faithful to the instinct of natural truth, full of faith in new ideals and selfless in the sense that death is better for him than life with those principles that are contrary to him.
Dobrolyubov, tracing the development of Katerina's character, notes the manifestation of his strength and determination in childhood. Having become an adult, she has not lost her "childish ardor". Ostrovsky shows his heroine as a woman with passionate nature and strong character: she proved this with her love for Boris and suicide. In suicide, in the “liberation” of Katerina from the oppression of tyrants, Dobrolyubov sees not a manifestation of cowardice and cowardice, as some critics claimed, but evidence of her decisiveness and strength of character: “Such a liberation is sad, bitter; But what to do when there is no other way out. It's good that the poor woman found determination at least for this terrible exit. That's the strength of her character, that's why the "Thunderstorm" makes a refreshing impression on us ... "
Ostrovsky creates his Katerina as a woman who is “clogged with the environment”, but at the same time endows her with positive qualities strong nature, capable of protesting against despotism to the end. Dobrolyubov notes this circumstance, arguing that "the strongest protest is the one that rises ... from the chest of the weakest and most patient." In family relationships, the critic said, a woman suffers most from tyranny. Therefore, she, more than anyone else, must seethe with grief and indignation. But in order to express her dissatisfaction, present her demands and go to the end in her protest against arbitrariness and oppression, she "must be filled with heroic self-denial, she must decide on everything and be ready for everything." But where is "to take her so much character!" - Dobrolyubov asks and answers: "In the impossibility of enduring what ... they are forced to." It is then that a weak woman decides to fight for her rights, instinctively obeying only the dictates of her human nature, her natural aspirations. “Nature,” the critic emphasizes, “replaces here both considerations of reason, and the demands of feeling and imagination: all this merges in the general feeling of an organism that requires air, food, freedom.” This, according to Dobrolyubov, is the "secret of integrity" of the female energetic character. That is the nature of Katherine. Its emergence and development was quite consistent with the prevailing circumstances. In the situation depicted by Ostrovsky, tyranny reached such extremes that could only be repelled by extremes of resistance. Here, inevitably, a passionately irreconcilable protest of the individual "against Kaban's notions of morality, a protest brought to the end, proclaimed both under domestic torture and over the abyss into which the poor woman threw herself" was inevitably born.
Dobrolyubov reveals ideological content image of Katerina not only in family and household terms. The image of the heroine turned out to be so capacious, its ideological significance appeared on such a scale that Ostrovsky himself did not even think about. Correlating The Thunderstorm with all Russian reality, the critic shows that objectively the playwright went far beyond family life. In the play, Dobrolyubov saw an artistic generalization of the fundamental features and characteristics of the feudal way of life in pre-reform Russia. In the image of Katerina, he found a reflection of the "new movement of people's life", in her character - typical traits of the character of the working people, in her protest - a real possibility of a revolutionary protest of the social lower classes. Calling Katerina "a ray of light in the dark realm", the critic reveals ideological meaning folk character of the heroine in its broad socio-historical perspective.
5. From the point of view of Dobrolyubov, Katerina's character, truly folk in its essence, is the only true measure of evaluation of all other characters in the play, who to one degree or another oppose tyranny.
The critic calls Tikhon "a simple-minded and vulgar, not at all evil, but extremely spineless creature." Nevertheless, the Tikhons "in a general sense are as harmful as the petty tyrants themselves, because they serve as their faithful assistants." The form of his protest against tyrannical oppression is ugly: he seeks to break free for a while, to satisfy his inclination to revelry. And although in the finale of the drama Tikhon in desperation calls his mother guilty of Katerina's death, he himself envies his dead wife. “... But that’s his grief, that’s why it’s hard for him,” writes Dobrolyubov, “that he can’t do anything, absolutely nothing ... this is a half-corpse, rotting alive for many years ...”
Boris, the critic argues, is the same Tikhon, only "educated." “Education took away from him the power to do dirty tricks ... but it did not give him the strength to resist the dirty tricks that others do ....” Moreover, obeying “other people's nasty things, he willy-nilly participates in them ...” In this “ educated sufferer "Dobrolyubov finds the ability to speak colorfully and at the same time cowardice and impotence, generated by a lack of will, and most importantly - material dependence on petty tyrants.
According to the critic, one could not rely on people like Kuligin, who believed in a peaceful, enlightening way of reorganizing life and tried to act on tyrants by force of persuasion. The Kuligins only logically understood the absurdity of tyranny, but were powerless in the struggle where "all life is governed not by logic, but by pure arbitrariness."
In Kudryash and Varvara, the critic sees characters with a strong “practical sense”, people who are able to deftly use circumstances to arrange their personal affairs.
6. Dobrolyubov called "Thunderstorm" Ostrovsky's "most decisive work". The critic points to the fact that in the play “the mutual relations of tyranny and voicelessness are brought ... to the very tragic consequences". Along with this, he finds in The Thunderstorm "something refreshing and encouraging", referring to the image of a life situation that reveals "shakyness and the near end of tyranny", and especially the personality of the heroine, who embodied the spirit of life. Claiming that Katerina is “a person who serves as a representative of the great people’s idea,” Dobrolyubov expresses deep faith in the revolutionary energy of the people, in their ability to go to the end in the struggle against the “dark kingdom”.
Literature
Ozerov Yu. A. Thinking before writing. ( Practical Tips applicants to universities): Textbook. – M.: graduate School, 1990. - S. 126-133.
Katerina - "a ray of light in a dark kingdom."
The drama "Thunderstorm", written in 1859, is the pinnacle of the work of A. N. Ostrovsky. It is part of a cycle of plays about the "dark kingdom" of tyrants.
At that time, Dobrolyubov raised the question: “Who will throw a ray of light into the darkness of the dark kingdom?” The answer to this question was given by A. N. Ostrovsky new play"Storm". Two tendencies of the writer's dramaturgy - denunciation and psychologism - were very well revealed in this work of his. "Thunderstorm" - a drama about fate younger generation. The author created a play of life, the heroes of which were ordinary people: merchants, their wives and daughters, philistines, officials.
The image of Katerina, the main character of the play, is the most vivid. Dobrolyubov, analyzing this work in detail, writes that Katerina is “a ray of light in a dark kingdom.” Why exactly is she? Because only Katerina, a weak woman, protested, only we can speak of her as strong nature. Although, if we consider Katerina's actions superficially, we can say the opposite. This is a dreamer girl who regrets her childhood years, when she lived like a bird in the wild, with a constant feeling of happiness, joy, and her mother did not have a soul in her. She loved to go to church and did not suspect what life awaited her.
But childhood is over. Katerina did not marry for love, she ended up in the Kabanovs' house, from which her suffering begins. main character Drama is a bird that has been caged. She lives among the representatives of the "dark kingdom", but she cannot live like that. Already in the first meeting with the audience, the heroine speaks, perhaps not so much against Kabanova as defending herself. But this is already the first step. Quiet, modest Katerina, from whom you sometimes don’t hear a word, as a child, offended by something at home, sailed away alone in a boat along the Volga.
In the very character of the heroine, integrity and fearlessness were laid. She herself knows this and says: “I was born so hot.” In a conversation with Varvara, Katerina cannot be recognized. She speaks strange words: Why do people don’t fly?”, which seem strange and incomprehensible to Varvara, but mean a lot for understanding Katerina’s character and her position in the boar’s house. The heroine wants to feel like a free bird that can flap its wings and fly, but, alas, she is deprived of such an opportunity. With these words of a young woman, A. N. Ostrovsky shows how hard it is for her to endure oppressive bondage, the despotism of an imperious and cruel mother-in-law (“Yes, everything is like from bondage”). The randomly escaped words of the heroine speak of her cherished dream to be freed from this dungeon, where every living feeling is suppressed and killed.
But the heroine struggles against the “dark kingdom” with all her might, and it is precisely this inability to fully reconcile herself to the boar oppression that aggravates the conflict that has long been brewing. Her words addressed to Varvara sound prophetic: “And if it gets too cold for me here, they won’t hold me back by any force. I'll throw myself out the window, I'll throw myself into the Volga. I don’t want to live here, so I won’t, even if you cut me!”
An all-consuming feeling seized Katerina when she met Boris. The heroine wins over herself, she discovers the ability to love deeply and strongly, sacrificing everything for the sake of her beloved, who speaks of her living soul, that they did not die in the boar world sincere feelings Catherine. She is no longer afraid of love, is not afraid of talking: “If I am not afraid of sin for myself, will I be afraid of human shame?” The girl fell in love with a man in whom she found something different from those around her, but this was not so. We see a clear contrast between the sublime, spiritualized, boundless love of the heroine and the mundane, cautious passion of Boris.
But even in such difficult situation girl trying to be true to herself, her life principles, she seeks to suppress the love that promises so much happiness and joy. The heroine begs her husband to take her with him, as he foresees what might happen to her. But Tikhon is indifferent to her pleas. Katerina wants to take an oath of allegiance, but even here Tikhon does not understand her. She keeps trying to get away from the inevitable. At the moment of the first meeting with Boris, Katerina hesitates. “Why have you come, my destroyer?” she says. But by the will of fate, what she was so afraid of happens.
Katerina could not live with sin, in the fourth act of the play we see her repentance. And the cries of the crazy lady, the thunderclaps, the unexpected appearance of Boris lead the impressionable heroine into unprecedented excitement, makes her repent of her deed, especially since Katerina was afraid all her life to die “with her sins” - without repenting. But this is not only weakness, but also the strength of the spirit of the heroine, who, like Varvara and Kudryash, could not live in the joys of hidden love, was not afraid of human judgment. It wasn't a thunderclap that struck down the young woman. She herself throws herself into the pool, she decides her own fate, seeking liberation from the unbearable torments of such a life. She believes that going home, that to the grave, even "in the grave is better." She commits suicide. Great courage is needed for such a decision, and it is not without reason that Tikhon, who remained “to live ... and suffer,” envy her, dead. By her act, Katerina proved her innocence, a moral victory over the “dark kingdom”.
Katerina combined in herself proud strength, independence, which Dobrolyubov regarded as a sign of deep protest against external, including social conditions life. Katerina, who is hostile to this world with her sincerity, integrity and recklessness of feelings, undermines the “dark kingdom”. A weak woman was able to oppose him and won.
The heroine of Ostrovsky is truly a ray of light in the “dark kingdom”. It strikes loyalty to ideals, spiritual purity, moral superiority over others. In the image of Katerina, the writer embodied the best features - love of freedom, independence, talent, poetry, high moral and ethical qualities.
Composition
Synopsis of the article by N.A. Dobrolyubova
"RAY OF LIGHT IN A DARK REALD"
1. The merit of A.N. Ostrovsky
2. Distinctive properties of the character of Katerina
3. Evaluation of the “dark kingdom”
4. Conclusions reached by the critic
Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life and a great ability to depict sharply and vividly its most essential aspects.
Carefully considering the totality of his works, we find that the instinct for the true needs and aspirations of Russian life never left him; it was sometimes not shown at first glance, but was always at the root of his works.
The demand for law, respect for the individual, protest against violence and arbitrariness, you find in a multitude of literary works; but in them for the most part the case is not carried out in a vital, practical way, the abstract, philosophical side of the issue is felt and everything is deduced from it, the right is indicated, but is left without attention real opportunity. Not so with Ostrovsky: in him you find not only the moral, but also the worldly economic side of the question, and this is the essence of the matter. In him you can clearly see how tyranny rests on a thick purse, which is called "God's blessing", and how the unanswerability of people in front of him is determined by material dependence on him. Moreover, you see how this material side in all worldly relations dominates the abstract and how people, deprived of material support, little value abstract rights and even lose a clear consciousness of them. In fact, a well-fed person can reason coolly and intelligently whether he should eat such and such a meal; but the hungry yearn for food, wherever it sees it, and whatever it may be. This is a phenomenon that recurs in all areas public life, well noticed and understood by Ostrovsky, and his plays show more clearly than any reasoning how a system of lack of rights and coarse, petty egoism, established by tyranny, is instilled in those who suffer from it; how they, if they retain the remnants of energy in themselves, try to use it to acquire the opportunity to live independently and no longer understand either the means or the rights.
For Ostrovsky, in the foreground is always the general environment of life, independent of any of the characters. He does not punish either the villain or the victim; both of them are pathetic to you, often both are ridiculous, but the feeling aroused in you by the play does not directly appeal to them. You see that their position dominates them, and you only blame them for not showing enough energy to get out of this position. The petty tyrants themselves, against whom your feeling should naturally resent, on closer examination turn out to be more worthy of pity than your anger: they are both virtuous and even smart in their own way, within the limits prescribed for them by the routine supported by their position; but the situation is such that full, healthy human development is impossible in it.
Thus, the struggle takes place in Ostrovsky's plays not in the monologues of the actors, but in the facts that dominate them. Extraneous persons have a reason for their appearance and are even necessary for the completeness of the play. The inactive participants in the drama of life, each apparently occupied only with their own business, often have such an influence on the course of affairs by their mere existence that nothing can reflect it. How many ardent ideas, how many vast plans, how many enthusiastic impulses collapse at one glance at the indifferent, prosaic crowd, passing us with contemptuous indifference! How many clean and good feelings freezes in us out of fear, so as not to be ridiculed and scolded by this crowd. And on the other hand, how many crimes, how many outbursts of arbitrariness and violence stop before the decision of this crowd, always seemingly indifferent and pliable, but, in essence, very uncompromising in what once it is recognized by it. Therefore, it is extremely important for us to know what are the ideas of this crowd about good and evil, what they consider to be true and what is false. This determines our view of the position in which the main characters of the play are, and, consequently, the degree of our participation in them.
Katerina is guided to the end by her nature, and not by given decisions, because for decisions she would need to have logical, solid foundations, and yet all the principles that are given to her for theoretical reasoning are resolutely contrary to her natural inclinations. That is why she not only does not take heroic poses and does not utter sayings that prove the strength of her character, but on the contrary, she appears in the form weak woman who does not know how to resist her desires, and tries to justify the heroism that is manifested in her actions. She complains about no one, blames no one, and nothing like that even comes to her mind. There is no malice, no contempt in it, nothing that usually flaunts disappointed heroes who arbitrarily leave the world. The thought of the bitterness of life, which will have to be endured, torments Katerina to such an extent that it plunges her into some sort of semi-feverish state. IN last moment all domestic horrors flicker especially vividly in her imagination. She cries out: “They will catch me and bring me back home by force! .. Hurry, hurry ...” And the matter is over: she will no longer be a victim of a soulless mother-in-law, she will no longer languish locked up with her spineless and disgusting husband. She's released!
Sad, bitter is such a liberation; But what to do when there is no other way out. It's good that the poor woman found determination at least for this terrible exit. That is the strength of her character, which is why The Thunderstorm makes a refreshing impression on us.
This end seems to us gratifying; it is easy to understand why: in it a terrible challenge is given to self-conscious force, he tells it that it is no longer possible to go further, it is impossible to live any longer with its violent, deadening principles. In Katerina we see a protest against Kabanov's conceptions of morality, a protest carried to the end, proclaimed both under domestic torture and over the abyss into which the poor woman threw herself. She does not want to be reconciled, she does not want to take advantage of the miserable vegetative life that is given to her in exchange for her living soul.
Dobrolyubov ranked Ostrovsky very highly, finding that he was very fully and comprehensively able to portray the essential aspects and demands of Russian life. Some authors took private phenomena, temporary, external requirements of society and depicted them with more or less success. Other authors took the more inner side of life, but limited themselves to a very narrow circle and noticed such phenomena that were far from having a national significance. Ostrovsky's work is much more fruitful: he captured such general aspirations and needs that permeate the whole of Russian society, whose voice is heard in all the phenomena of our life, whose satisfaction is a necessary condition for our further development.
Dobrolyubov, Nikolai Alexandrovich
Russian critic, publicist. Born January 24 (February 5), 1836 in Nizhny
Novgorod in the family of a priest. My father was a well-educated and respected man in the city, a member of the consistory. Dobrolyubov, the eldest of eight children, received elementary education at home under the guidance of a teacher-seminarian.
A huge home library contributed to early initiation to reading. IN
1847 Dobrolyubov entered the last class of the Nizhny Novgorod Theological School, in 1848 - the Nizhny Novgorod Theological Seminary. In the seminary he was the first student and, in addition to the books necessary for studying, “read everything that came to hand: history, travel, reasoning, odes, poems, novels,
- mostly novels. The register of books read, which was kept by Dobrolyubov, recording his impressions of what he read, in 1849–1853, has several thousand titles. Dobrolyubov also kept diaries, wrote Notes,
Memoirs, poems (“In the world everyone lives by deceit ..., 1849, etc.), prose
(Adventures at Shrovetide and its consequences (1849), tried his hand at dramaturgy.
Together with his classmate Lebedev, he published a handwritten journal Akhineya, in which in 1850 he published two articles about Lebedev's poems. He sent his own poems to the magazines "Moskvityanin" and "Son of the Fatherland" (they were not published).
Dobrolyubov also wrote articles for the Nizhny Novgorod Gubernskiye Vedomosti newspaper, collected local folklore (more than a thousand proverbs, sayings, songs, legends, etc.), compiled a dictionary of local words and a bibliography on
Nizhny Novgorod province.
In 1853 he left the seminary and received permission from the Synod to study in
Petersburg Theological Academy. However, upon arrival in St. Petersburg, he passed the exams in the Main pedagogical institute to the Faculty of History and Philology, for which he was dismissed from the clergy. During the years of study at the institute
Dobrolyubov studied folklore, wrote Notes and additions to the collection of Russian proverbs by Mr. Buslaev (1854), On the poetic features of the Great Russian folk poetry in expressions and turns (1854) and other works.
In 1854, Dobrolyubov experienced a spiritual turning point, which he called "the feat of remaking" himself. Disappointment in religion contributed to the shocking
Dobrolyubov, the almost simultaneous death of his mother and father, as well as the situation of public upheaval associated with the death of Nicholas I and Crimean War
1853–1856 Dobrolyubov began to fight against the abuses of the institute authorities, a circle of opposition-minded students formed around him, discussing political issues and reading illegal literature. For a satirical poem in which Dobrolyubov denounced the tsar as a "sovereign gentleman" (On the 50th anniversary of his Excellency
Nick. Iv. Grecha, 1854), was put in a punishment cell. A year later, Dobrolyubov sent
I recite a freedom-loving poem on February 18, 1855, which the addressee sent to the III department. In a poetic pamphlet Duma at the tomb of Olenin
(1855) Dobrolyubov called for "a slave ... to raise an ax against a despot."
In 1855, Dobrolyubov began to publish an illegal newspaper, Rumors, in which he posted his poems and revolutionary notes - Secret societies V
Russia 1817–1825, the debauchery of Nikolai Pavlovich and his close favorites, etc. In the same year he met N.G.
Chernyshevsky attracted Dobrolyubov to cooperate in the Sovremennik magazine.
Dobrolyubov signed articles published in the journal with pseudonyms (Laibov and others). In an article that attracted public attention, Interlocutor of Lovers of the Russian Word (1856) denounced the "dark phenomena" of the autocracy. IN
Dobrolyubov's articles appeared in Sovremennik. V.A. Sollogub
(1857) and others. In 1857, at the suggestion of Chernyshevsky and Nekrasov, Dobrolyubov headed the department of criticism of Sovremennik.
In 1857, Dobrolyubov brilliantly graduated from the institute, but was deprived of a gold medal for free-thinking. For some time he worked as a home tutor for Prince.
Kurakin, and from 1858 became a tutor in Russian literature in the 2nd cadet corps. He continued to work actively in Sovremennik: in 1858 alone he published about 75 articles and reviews, a story by Delets and several poems. In the article On the degree of participation of the people in the development of Russian literature (1958), Dobrolyubov gave an assessment of Russian literature from a social point of view.
By the end of 1858, Dobrolyubov already played a central role in the combined department of criticism, bibliography and contemporary notes of Sovremennik, influenced the choice works of art for publication. His revolutionary democratic views, expressed in the articles Literary Trifles of the Past Year (1859), What is Oblomovism? (1859), Dark Realm
(1859) made him the idol of the raznochintsy intelligentsia.
In his program articles 1860 When the real one will come day? (analysis of I. Turgenev's novel On the Eve, after which Turgenev broke off relations with
"Contemporary") and Ray of light in the dark kingdom (about the drama of A.N. Ostrovsky
Thunderstorm) Dobrolyubov directly called for the liberation of the motherland from the "internal enemy", which he considered the autocracy. Despite numerous censorship cuts, the revolutionary meaning of Dobrolyubov's articles was obvious.
Dobrolyubov also wrote for Whistle, a satirical supplement to
"Contemporary". Worked in the genres of poetic parody, satirical review, feuilleton, etc., hiding behind the images of the "bard" Conrad
Lilienschwager, "Austrian chauvinist poet" Jacob Ham, "young talent"
Anton Kapelkin and others. fictional characters.
Due to intensive work and unsettled personal life, the disease intensified
Dobrolyubova. In 1860 he treated tuberculosis in Germany, Switzerland, Italy,
France. Political situation in Western Europe, meetings with well-known figures revolutionary movement(Z. Serakovsky and others) were reflected in the articles Incomprehensible Strangeness (1860) and others, in which Dobrolyubov doubted the possibility of “instant, miraculous disappearance of all age-old evil” and called for a closer look at what life itself suggests to get out of an unfair social structure. I. Fiocchi's unhappy love for an Italian woman brought to life poems 1861 There is still a lot of work in life ... No, he is not nice to me either, our majestic north ... and others.
In 1861 Dobrolyubov returned to St. Petersburg. In September 1861, his last article, Downtrodden People, was published in Sovremennik. dedicated to creativity
F.M. Dostoevsky. IN last days life of Dobrolyubov visited daily
Chernyshevsky, Nekrasov and other like-minded people were nearby. Feeling the proximity of death, Dobrolyubov wrote a courageous poem Let me die
little sadness...
Dobrolyubov died in St. Petersburg on November 17 (29), 1861.
Drama A.N. Ostrovsky's "Thunderstorm" was published in 1860, on the eve of the revolutionary situation in Russia. The work reflects the impressions of the writer's journey along the Volga in the summer of 1856. But not some specific Volga city and not some specific persons depicted in "Thunderstorm". Ostrovsky reworked all his observations on the life of the Volga region and turned them into deeply typical paintings Russian life. Ostrovsky's play takes us to merchant environment where domostroevskie orders were supported most stubbornly. Inhabitants provincial town live a life closed and alien to public interests, in ignorance of what is happening in the world, in ignorance and indifference. The range of their interests is limited to household chores. Behind the external calmness of life lie gloomy thoughts, the dark life of tyrants who do not recognize human dignity. Representatives of the "dark kingdom" are Wild and Boar. The first is the finished type of a tyrant merchant, whose meaning of life is to make capital by any means. Ostrovsky showed from life. The domineering and stern Kabanikha is an even more sinister and gloomy representative of the house-building. She strictly observes all the customs and orders of patriarchal antiquity, eats
household, breeds hypocrisy, bestowing gifts on the poor, does not tolerate the manifestation of personal will in anyone. Ostrovsky draws Kabanikha as a staunch defender of the foundations
"dark realm" But even in her family, where everyone resignedly obeys her, she sees the awakening of something new, alien and hated by her. And Kabanikha bitterly complains, feeling how life is destroying her usual relationships: “They don’t know anything, there’s no order. They don’t know how to say goodbye. If the light stays on, I don't know. Well, it's good that I won't see anything." Beneath this humble complaint of Kabanikhi is misanthropy, inseparable from religious bigotry. The genre of drama is characterized by the fact that it is based on conflict. individual and the surrounding society. In "Thunderstorm" this person - Katerina Kabanova - is a poetic, dreamy, freedom-loving nature. The world of her feelings and moods was formed in her parents' house, where she was surrounded by the care and affection of her mother. In an atmosphere of hypocrisy and importunity, petty guardianship, the conflict between
The "dark kingdom" and the spiritual world of Katerina are gradually maturing. Katerina suffers only for the time being. “And if I get really sick of it here, then no force can hold me back. I’ll throw myself out the window, throw myself into the Volga, I don’t want to live here, so I won’t, even if you cut me!” she says. Katerina personifies moral purity, the spiritual beauty of a Russian woman, her desire for will, for freedom, her ability not only to endure, but also to defend her rights, her human dignity. According to Dobrolyubov, she "did not kill in herself human nature". Katerina - Russian national character.
First of all, this is reflected by Ostrovsky, who perfectly owned all the wealth vernacular, in the speech of the heroine. When she speaks, she seems to be singing. Katerina's speech, associated with the common people, brought up on their oral poetry, is dominated by colloquial vernacular vocabulary, which is distinguished by high poetry, figurativeness, and emotionality. The reader feels the musicality and melodiousness, Katya's dialect reminds folk songs.
The language of the Ostrov heroine is characterized by repetitions (“on the top three on a good one”, “people are disgusting to me, and the house is disgusting to me, and the walls are disgusting!”), An abundance of caressing and diminutive words (“sunshine”, “voditsa”, “grave”) , comparison ("did not grieve about anything, like a bird in the wild", "someone affectionately speaks to me, like a dove cooes"). Yearning for Boris, at the moment of the greatest tension of her spiritual forces, Katerina expresses her feelings in the language of folk poetry, exclaiming: "Wild winds, you transfer my sadness and longing to him!" The naturalness, sincerity, simplicity of the Ostrov heroine is striking.
“I don’t know how to deceive; I can’t hide anything,” she replies.
Barbara, who says that without deceit you cannot live in their house. Let's look at Katerina's religiosity. This is not the hypocrisy of Kabanikhi, but a childishly genuine faith in God. She often attends church and does so with pleasure and enjoyment (“And I loved going to church to death!
For sure, it used to be that I would go into paradise"), likes to talk about wanderers ("Our house was full of wanderers and praying women"), Katerina's dreams about "golden temples".
The love of the Ostrov heroine is unreasonable. Firstly, the need for love makes itself felt: after all, it is unlikely that her husband Tikhon, under the influence of "mother", showed his love for his wife very often. Secondly, the feelings of the wife and the woman are offended. Thirdly, the mortal anguish of a monotonous life suffocates Katerina. And, finally, the fourth reason is the desire for will, space: after all, love is one of the manifestations of freedom. Katerina struggles with herself, and this is the tragedy of her position, but in the end she internally justifies herself. Committing suicide, committing, from the point of view of the church, a terrible sin, she thinks not about the salvation of her soul, but about the love that was revealed to her. "My friend! My joy! Farewell!" - Here last words Catherine. Another one characteristic Ostrov's heroine is a "mature, from the depths of the whole organism, the demand for the right and scope of life", the desire for freedom, spiritual emancipation. To Varvara’s words: “Where will you go? You are a husband’s wife,” Katerina replies: “Oh, Varya, you don’t know my character!
Of course, God forbid this happens! And if I get cold here, they won't hold me back by any force. I'll throw myself out the window, I'll throw myself into the Volga. I don’t want to live here, so I won’t, even if you cut me! "It is not for nothing that the image of a bird is repeatedly repeated in the play - a symbol of will. Hence permanent epithet"free Bird". Katerina, remembering how she lived before marriage, compares herself to a bird in the wild. "Why don't people fly like birds?" she says
Varvara. “You know, sometimes it seems to me that I’m a bird.” But the free bird fell into an iron cage. And it beats and yearns in captivity. And this was not a manifestation of weakness, but of spiritual strength and courage, of ardent hatred of oppression and despotism. environment. In the fourth act, in the scene of repentance, the denouement seems to be coming. Everyone is against
Katerina in this scene: both the "storm of the Lord" and the cursing half-crazy
"lady with two lackeys", and an ancient painting on a dilapidated wall depicting "fire hell". poor girl all these signs of the outgoing, but such a tenacious old world almost drove her crazy, and she repents of her sin in a semi-delusion, a state of stupefaction. She herself later confesses to Boris that "she was not free in herself", "she did not remember herself." If the drama "Thunderstorm" ended with this scene, then it would show invincibility
"dark kingdom": after all, at the end fourth act The boar triumphs:
"What a son! Where will the will lead!" But the drama ends with a moral victory both over the external forces that fettered Katerina's freedom and over the dark ideas that fettered her will and mind. And her decision to die, if only not to remain a slave, expresses, according to Dobrolyubov, "the need for the emerging movement of Russian life." The critic called Katerina a national, national character, "a bright ray in a dark kingdom," meaning the effective expression in her of direct protest, the liberation aspirations of the masses. Pointing to the deep typicality of this image, to its national significance, Dobrolyubov wrote that he represents
"an artistic combination of homogeneous features, manifested in different provisions Russian life, but serving as an expression of one idea. "The heroine
Ostrovsky reflected in her feelings, in her actions, the spontaneous protest of the broad masses of the people against the hated conditions of the "dark kingdom".
That is why Dobrolyubov singled out The Thunderstorm from all progressive pre-reform literature and emphasized its objectively revolutionary significance.
For its time, when Russia experienced a period of tremendous social upsurge before the peasant reform, the drama "Thunderstorm" was of great importance.
The image of Katerina belongs to the best images women not only in art
Ostrovsky, but also in all Russian and world literature.
Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life and a great ability to depict sharply and vividly its most essential aspects.
Carefully considering the totality of his works, we find that the instinct for the true needs and aspirations of Russian life never left him; it was sometimes not shown at first glance, but was always at the root of his works.
You find the demand for law, respect for the individual, protest against violence and arbitrariness in many literary works; but in them for the most part the matter is not carried out in a vital, practical way, the abstract, philosophical side of the question is felt and everything is deduced from it, the right is indicated, and the real possibility is left without attention. Not so with Ostrovsky: in him you find not only the moral, but also the worldly economic side of the question, and this is the essence of the matter. You can clearly see in him how tyranny rests on a thick purse, which is called "God's blessing", and how the unanswerability of people in front of him is determined by material dependence on him. Moreover, you see how this material side in all worldly relations dominates the abstract, and how people deprived of material support little value abstract rights and even lose a clear consciousness of them. In fact, a well-fed person can reason coolly and intelligently whether he should eat such and such a meal; but the hungry yearn for food, wherever it sees it, and whatever it may be. This phenomenon, recurring in all spheres of public life, is well noticed and understood by Ostrovsky, and his plays show more clearly than any reasoning how a system of lack of rights and coarse, petty egoism, established by tyranny, is instilled in those who suffer from it; how they, if they retain the remnants of energy in themselves, try to use it to acquire the opportunity to live independently and no longer understand either the means or the rights.
For Ostrovsky, in the foreground is always the general environment of life, independent of any of the characters. He does not punish either the villain or the victim; both of them are pathetic to you, often both are ridiculous, but the feeling aroused in you by the play does not directly appeal to them. You see that their position dominates them, and you only blame them for not showing enough energy to get out of this position. The petty tyrants themselves, against whom your feeling should naturally resent, on closer examination turn out to be more worthy of pity than your anger: they are both virtuous and even smart in their own way, within the limits prescribed for them by the routine supported by their position; but the situation is such that full, healthy human development is impossible in it.
Thus, the struggle takes place in Ostrovsky's plays not in the monologues of the actors, but in the facts that dominate them. Extraneous persons have a reason for their appearance and are even necessary for the completeness of the play. The inactive participants in the drama of life, each apparently occupied only with their own business, often have such an influence on the course of affairs by their mere existence that nothing can reflect it. How many ardent ideas, how many vast plans, how many enthusiastic impulses collapse at one glance at the indifferent, prosaic crowd, passing us with contemptuous indifference! How many pure and kind feelings freeze in us out of fear, so as not to be ridiculed and scolded by this crowd. And on the other hand, how many crimes, how many outbursts of arbitrariness and violence stop before the decision of this crowd, always seemingly indifferent and pliable, but, in essence, very uncompromising in what once it is recognized by it.
Therefore, it is extremely important for us to know what are the ideas of this crowd about good and evil, what they consider to be true and what is false. This determines our view of the position in which the main characters of the play are, and, consequently, the degree of our participation in them.
Katerina is guided to the end by her nature, and not by given decisions, because for decisions she would need to have logical, solid foundations, and yet all the principles that are given to her for theoretical reasoning are resolutely contrary to her natural inclinations. That is why she not only does not take heroic poses and does not utter sayings that prove her strength of character, but on the contrary, she appears in the form of a weak woman who cannot resist her instincts, and tries to justify the heroism that is manifested in her actions. She complains about no one, blames no one, and nothing like that even comes to her mind. There is no malice, no contempt in it, nothing that usually flaunts disappointed heroes who arbitrarily leave the world. The thought of the bitterness of life, which will have to be endured, torments Katerina to such an extent that it plunges her into some sort of semi-feverish state. At the last moment, all domestic horrors flash especially vividly in her imagination. She cries out: “They will catch me and bring me back home by force! .. Hurry, hurry ...” And the matter is over: she will no longer be a victim of a soulless mother-in-law, she will no longer languish locked up with her spineless and disgusting husband. She's released!
Sad, bitter is such a liberation; But what to do when there is no other way out. It's good that the poor woman found determination at least for this terrible exit. That is the strength of her character, which is why The Thunderstorm makes a refreshing impression on us.
This end seems to us gratifying; it is easy to understand why: in it a terrible challenge is given to self-conscious force, he tells it that it is no longer possible to go further, it is impossible to live any longer with its violent, deadening principles. In Katerina we see a protest against Kabanov's conceptions of morality, a protest carried to the end, proclaimed both under domestic torture and over the abyss into which the poor woman threw herself. She does not want to be reconciled, she does not want to take advantage of the miserable vegetative life that is given to her in exchange for her living soul.
Dobrolyubov ranked Ostrovsky very highly, finding that he was very fully and comprehensively able to portray the essential aspects and demands of Russian life. Some authors took private phenomena, temporary, external requirements of society and depicted them with more or less success. Other authors took the more inner side of life, but limited themselves to a very narrow circle and noticed such phenomena that were far from having a national significance. Ostrovsky's work is much more fruitful: he captured such general aspirations and needs that permeate the whole of Russian society, whose voice is heard in all the phenomena of our life, whose satisfaction is a necessary condition for our further development.
