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 unity of action, and it must be written in a 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 the patience of a well-bred person.
Dobrolyubov makes this comparison with the canon in order to show that an approach to a work with a ready-made idea of what should be shown in it does not give true understanding. “What to think of a man who, at the sight of a pretty woman, suddenly begins to resonate that her 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.” The author then turns to others critical articles about "Thunderstorm", in particular, 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). 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 "Thunderstorm" is "the most decisive work Ostrovsky; mutual relations of tyranny are brought in it to the very 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 with a new life, which opens up 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 busy to understand the nature of Katerina’s emotions: “I can’t make out you, Katya,” he tells her, “then you won’t get a word from you, let alone affection, otherwise it’s like that 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. To live in " dark kingdom“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.
In Dobrolyubov's article titled "A Ray of Light in the Dark Realm", a summary of which is given below, in question about the work "Thunderstorm" by Ostrovsky, which has become a classic of Russian literature. The author (his portrait is presented below) in the first part says that Ostrovsky deeply understood the life of a Russian person. Further, Dobrolyubov conducts what other critics have written about Ostrovsky, while noting that they do not have a direct look at the main things.
The concept of drama that existed in the time of Ostrovsky
Nikolai Alexandrovich further compares The Thunderstorm with the standards of drama adopted at that time. In the article "A Ray of Light in the Dark Realm", a summary of which interests us, he examines, in particular, the principle established in literature on the subject of drama. In the struggle between duty and passion, there is usually an unhappy end when passion wins, and a happy one when duty wins. Drama, moreover, was supposed, according to existing tradition, to represent a single action. At the same time, it should have been written in literary, beautiful language. Dobrolyubov notes that he does not fit the concept in this way.
Why "Thunderstorm" cannot be considered a drama, according to Dobrolyubov?
Works of this kind must certainly make readers feel respect for duty and expose a passion that is considered harmful. However main character described by no means in gloomy and dark colors, although she is, according to the rules of the drama, a "criminal". Thanks to the pen of Ostrovsky (his portrait is presented below), we are imbued with compassion for this heroine. The author of "Thunderstorm" was able to vividly express how beautifully Katerina speaks and suffers. We see this heroine in a very gloomy environment and because of this we begin to involuntarily justify the vice, speaking out against the tormentors of the girl.
Drama, as a result, does not fulfill its purpose, its main semantic load does not carry. Somehow, the action itself flows in a work insecurely and slowly, the author of the article "A ray of light in a dark kingdom" believes. Summary it continues as follows. Dobrolyubov says that there are no bright and stormy scenes in the work. To "slackness" the work leads to a heap actors. The language does not stand up to scrutiny.
Nikolai Alexandrovich in his article "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom" brings the plays of special interest to him to meet the accepted standards, as he comes to the conclusion that the standard, ready-made idea of what should be in the work does not allow reflecting the actual state of things. What can you say about a young man who, after meeting a pretty girl, tells her that compared to the Venus de Milo, her figure is not so good? Dobrolyubov puts the question in this way, arguing about the standardization of the approach to works of literature. Truth lies in life and truth, and not in various dialectical attitudes, as the author of the article "A ray of light in a dark kingdom" believes. The summary of his thesis is that it cannot be said that a person is evil by nature. Therefore, in the book it is not necessary for good to win, and for evil to lose.
Dobrolyubov notes the importance of Shakespeare, as well as the opinion of Apollon Grigoriev
Dobrolyubov ("Ray of light in the dark kingdom") also says that long time writers did not pay much attention to the movement to the primordial principles of man, to his roots. Remembering Shakespeare, he notes that this author was able to raise human thought to a new level. After that, Dobrolyubov moves on to other articles devoted to "Thunderstorm". Mentioned, in particular, who noted the main merit of Ostrovsky that his work was popular. Dobrolyubov is trying to answer the question of what this "nation" is. He says that Grigoriev this concept does not explain, so the statement itself cannot be taken seriously.
Ostrovsky's works are "plays of life"
Dobrolyubov then discusses what can be called "plays of life". "A ray of light in a dark kingdom" (a summary notes only the main points) - an article in which Nikolai Alexandrovich says that Ostrovsky considers life as a whole, without trying to make the righteous happy or punish the villain. He appreciates general position things and makes the reader either deny or sympathize, but does not leave anyone indifferent. Those who do not participate in the intrigue itself cannot be considered superfluous, since without them it would not be possible, which Dobrolyubov notes.
"Ray of light in the dark kingdom": analysis of the statements of secondary characters
Dobrolyubov in his article analyzes the statements of minor persons: Curly, Glasha and others. He tries to understand their condition, the way they look at the reality surrounding them. All the features of the "dark kingdom" are noted by the author. He says that these people's lives are so limited that they do not notice that there is another reality than their own closed little world. The author analyzes, in particular, Kabanova's concern for the future of the old orders and traditions.
What is the novelty of the play?
"Thunderstorm" is the most decisive work created by the author, as Dobrolyubov further notes. "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom" - an article that says that the tyranny of the "dark kingdom", the relationship between its representatives, was brought by Ostrovsky to tragic consequences. The breath of novelty, which was noted by all those familiar with The Thunderstorm, is contained in the general background of the play, in people "unnecessary on the stage", as well as in everything that speaks of the imminent end of the old foundations and tyranny. The death of Katerina is a new beginning against this background.
The image of Katerina Kabanova
Dobrolyubov's article "A Ray of Light in the Dark Realm" further continues with the fact that the author proceeds to analyze the image of Katerina, the main character, devoting quite a lot of space to him. Nikolai Alexandrovich describes this image as a shaky, indecisive "step forward" in literature. Dobrolyubov says that life itself requires the appearance of active and determined heroes. The image of Katerina is characterized by an intuitive perception of the truth and its natural understanding. Dobrolyubov ("Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom") says about Katerina that this heroine is selfless, as she prefers to choose death than existence under the old order. The mighty strength of character lies in this heroine in her integrity.
Katerina's motives
Dobrolyubov, in addition to the very image of this girl, examines in detail the motives of her actions. He notices that Katerina is not a rebel by nature, she does not show discontent, does not require destruction. Rather, she is a creator who craves love. This explains her desire to ennoble her actions in her own mind. The girl is young, and the desire for love and tenderness is natural for her. However, Tikhon is so downtrodden and obsessed that he cannot understand these desires and feelings of his wife, which he tells her directly.
Katerina embodies the idea of the Russian people, says Dobrolyubov ("Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom")
The abstracts of the article are supplemented by one more statement. Dobrolyubov eventually finds in the image of the main character that the author of the work embodied in her the idea of the Russian people. He talks about this rather abstractly, comparing Katerina with a wide and even river. It has a flat bottom, it smoothly flows around the stones encountered on the way. The river itself only makes noise because it corresponds to its nature.
The only right decision of the heroine, according to Dobrolyubov
Dobrolyubov finds in the analysis of the actions of this heroine that the only right decision for her is to escape with Boris. The girl can run away, but dependence on a relative of his lover shows that this hero is essentially the same as Katerina's husband, only more educated.
End of the play
The ending of the play is gratifying and tragic at the same time. the main idea works - getting rid of the shackles of the so-called dark kingdom at any cost. It is impossible to live in his environment. Even Tikhon, when the corpse of his wife is pulled out, shouts that she is well now and asks: "But what about me?" The finale of the play and this cry itself give an unambiguous understanding of the truth. Tikhon's words make us look at Katerina's act not as love affair. Before us opens a world in which the dead are envied by the living.
This concludes Dobrolyubov's article "A Ray of Light in a Dark Realm". We have highlighted only the main points, briefly describing its brief content. However, some details and comments of the author were missed. "A Ray of Light in a Dark Realm" is best read in the original, since this article is a classic of Russian criticism. Dobrolyubov gave a good example of how works should be analyzed.
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 unable to isolate from its environment strong personality. 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 traits. national character. Such properties of the nature of the heroes as humility, humility, forgiveness were declared truly popular. Concerning the depiction in The Thunderstorm of representatives of the "dark kingdom", critics argued that Ostrovsky had in mind the old merchant class and that the concept of "tyranny" refers 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 this content is.”
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 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.”
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 with for the most part 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 whomever he wants .... The boar keeps ... his children in fear ... 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 a new phase of our folk 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 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 a passionate nature and a 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." Then weak woman and decides to fight for his rights, instinctively obeying only the dictates of his 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 nature. 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 - real opportunity revolutionary protest of the social classes. Calling Katerina "a ray of light in the dark realm", the critic reveals ideological meaning folk character heroines 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 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 most 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 entering universities): Tutorial. – M.: high school, 1990. - S. 126-133.
This article is a critical analysis of Ostrovsky's play "Thunderstorm". The author of the article, Dobrolyubov, gives a generalized, unquestionable assertion that Ostrovsky, like no one else, understands Russian life. The critic also analyzes the articles of other authors, noting in them the absence of a direct view of things.
Next, the author compares The Thunderstorm with the extent to which the play meets the main criteria dramatic work. Dobrolyubov comes to the conclusion that the main idea of The Thunderstorm does not coincide with the purpose of the drama - to demonstrate the importance of duty and its superiority over earthly passions. On the contrary, in the person of the protagonist there is a justification of vice. Katerina, who should be condemned by the author and readers, is exposed in the light of martyrdom, causing pity and sympathy. Thus, the drama does not achieve the goal originally set for it - the victory of duty over passion. In addition, the critic points out that the play is somewhat overloaded with unnecessary details and characters.
Dobrolyubov speaks about the inconsistency with the dramatic canons not with the aim of criticizing, but with the aim of preparing the reader for the fact that in order to truly understand the work, it is necessary to approach its study freely, excluding stereotypical ideas. At the same time, one cannot submit works of art idea of the triumph of vice over virtue.
Further, the critic turns to the example of Shakespeare, who was able to show the power of natural principles that live in the soul of any person. Then the author analyzes a critical article by Apollon Grigoriev, where it is said that “nationality” is main merit Ostrovsky. The critic perceives this remark with irony, referring to the lack of arguments.
Dobrolyubov calls Ostrovsky's works "life plays". In the first place, according to the critic, the author always places big picture life, life. Ostrovsky does not punish either the victim or the villain. They are at the mercy of circumstances, and only one thing causes annoyance to the reader - the weakness of the heroes, which does not allow them from the situation of which they are prisoners. Thus, the critic comes to the conclusion that, at first glance, unnecessary characters are by no means superfluous. They build the environment in which the events of the play take place, determine the motives of the actions of the heroes of the drama.
The author characterizes the internal state of the characters as restless, unpleasant. They do not like that in their "dark kingdom" a new other person has appeared, completely different from them. The end of tyranny is coming, as every line of Ostrovsky's play resolutely declares. Many of those who have read the work note the fresh, encouraging feeling that it leaves after reading or viewing. According to Dobrolyubov, this effect is achieved by the same background, which was discussed above. The pinnacle of this novelty, its pure incarnation becomes the main character of the drama Katerina.
The author of the article perceives the image of Katerina as a new step in literature, a movement forward. This character personifies the strength that does not allow him to accept the circumstances. Katerina would rather prefer death than remain to live among the people she hates, having no freedom. The actions of the heroine are not motivated by a violent, impudent character. On the contrary, this is a person who is a priori loving, creative, striving for the ideal.
Dobrolyubov comes to the conclusion that Katerina is the personification of a folk idea: a girl is like a big strong river with a flat bottom and a calm course, which boils not because she wanted to throw water out of the channel, but because circumstances require it, it is necessary for its further development.
You can use this text for reader's diary
Dobrolyubov - A ray of light in a dark kingdom. Picture for the story
Reading now
- Summary of Rasputin Century live - century love
Fifteen-year-old Sanya suddenly decided to become independent. He was only child in the family and parents did not notice that he had already grown up and treated him like a little one.
- Summary of Block Aitmatov
Wolves live in the reserve - Tashchainar and Akbara. They had babies. Hunters came there to shoot saigas to fulfill the meat plan. The wolves were also killed.
Even in Ostrovsky's previous plays, we noticed 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" if it were not too extensive and therefore not quite definite. We want to say that in his foreground is always the general environment of life, independent of any of the actors. He does not punish either the villain or the victim; both of them are pitiful to you. Often both are funny, but the feeling aroused in you by the play does not directly appeal to them.
You see that their position dominates them, and you only blame them for not showing enough energy to get out of this position. The tyrants themselves, against whom your feelings should naturally 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 routine and supported by their position. But this situation is such that full, healthy human development is impossible in it...
Drama "Thunderstorm" as the "most decisive" work of A. N. Ostrovsky. Laws and logic of Kalinov's reality. ... "Thunderstorm" is, without a doubt, Ostrovsky's most decisive work; the mutual relations of tyranny and voicelessness are brought in it to the most tragic consequences... 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...
The absence of any law, any logic - that is the law and logic of this life. ... But a wonderful thing!
In their indisputable, irresponsible dark dominion, giving complete freedom to their whims, putting all sorts of laws and logic into nothing, the tyrants of Russian life, however, begin to feel some kind of discontent and fear, without themselves knowing what and why ... In addition them, without asking them, another life has grown up, with other beginnings, and although it is far away, it is still not clearly visible, but it already gives itself a presentiment and sends bad visions to the dark arbitrariness of tyrants. They are fiercely looking for their enemy, ready to attack the most innocent, some Kuligin. But there is neither an enemy nor a guilty person 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 power higher than them, which they cannot overcome, which they cannot even approach. know how... Images of Tikhon and Boris.
In the play, which finds Katerina already with the beginning of her love for Boris Grigorievich, Katerina's last, desperate efforts are still visible - to make her husband dear to herself. The scene of her parting with him makes us feel that even here everything is not lost for Tikhon, that he can everywhere retain his rights to the love of this woman. But this same scene, in short but sharp sketches, tells us the whole story of the tortures that forced Katerina to endure in order to push her first feeling away from her husband. Tikhon is ... simple-hearted and vulgar, not at all evil, but extremely spineless creature, not daring to do anything contrary to his mother ...
Between her and his wife, Tikhon represents one of the many pitiful types who are usually called harmless, although in a general sense they are just as harmful as the tyrants themselves, because they serve as their faithful assistants. Tikhon himself loved his wife and would be ready to do anything for her. But the oppression under which he grew up so disfigured him that there is no strong feeling, no resolute striving can develop. There is a conscience in him, there is a desire for good, but he constantly acts against himself and serves as a submissive instrument of his mother, even in his relations with his wife. ... Boris is not a hero, he is far away, not worth Katerina, she fell in love with him more in the wilderness.
He has enough "education" and will not be able to cope either with the old way of life, or with his heart, or with common sense- walks as if lost ... In a word, this is one of those very common people who do not know how to do what they understand, and do not understand what they are doing ...
Education took away from him the power to do dirty tricks - it is true, but it did not give him the strength to resist the dirty tricks that others do; it even developed in him the ability to behave in such a way as to remain alien to all the vile things that swarm around him. No, not only does he not oppose, he submits to other people's nasty things, he willy-nilly participates in them and must accept all their consequences. About Katherine. ... The character of Katerina, as it is performed in The Thunderstorm, 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 national life, it has long demanded its implementation in literature... Russian life has finally reached the point where virtuous and respectable, but weak and impersonal beings do not satisfy public consciousness and are deemed worthless.
There was an urgent need for people, though less beautiful, but more active and energetic. ... Russian strong character in "Groza" ... First of all, he strikes us with his opposition to any self-imposed principles. He is concentrated and resolute, unswervingly faithful to the instinct of natural truth, full of faith in new ideals and selfless, in the sense that death is better for him than life under those principles that are contrary to him.
The resolute, integral Russian character, acting among the Dikikhs and the Kabanovs, appears in Ostrovsky in the female type, and this is not without its serious significance. We know that extremes are repulsed by extremes, and that the strongest protest is the one that finally rises from the breasts of the weakest and most patient. ... 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.
Katerina does not at all belong to violent characters, never satisfied, loving to destroy, by all means ... On the contrary, this character is predominantly creative, loving, ideal. ... She is looking for light, air, wants to dream and frolic, water her flowers, look at the sun, the Volga, send her greetings to all living things - and she is kept in captivity, she is constantly suspected of impure, depraved plans. She still seeks refuge in religious practice, in church attendance, in soul-saving conversations.
But even here he does not find the former impressions. Killed by daily work and eternal bondage, she can no longer dream with the same clarity of angels singing in a dusty column illuminated by the sun, she cannot imagine the gardens of Eden with their unperturbed look and joy. Everything is gloomy, scary around her, everything breathes cold and some irresistible threat: the faces of the saints are so strict, and the church readings are so formidable, and the stories of the wanderers are so monstrous ... They are all the same, in essence, they have not changed at all, but she herself has changed: she no longer desires to build aerial visions, and even that indefinite imagination of bliss that she enjoyed before does not satisfy her.
She matured, other desires woke up in her, more real. Knowing no other career but her family, no other world than the one that has developed for her in the society of her town, she, of course, begins to realize from all human aspirations that which is most inevitable and closest to her - the desire for love and devotion.
She has little knowledge and a lot of gullibility, which is why until the time she does not show opposition to others and decides to endure better than to do it in spite of 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, not wasted in petty antics, will fully manifest itself. About the death of Katerina as the outcome of the conflict. ... This end seems to us gratifying; it is easy to understand why: in it a terrible challenge is given to the tyrannical force, he tells it that it is no longer possible to go further, it is impossible to continue to live 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 existence she is given in exchange for her living soul. Her death is the fulfilled song of the captivity of Babylon...
But even without any lofty considerations, just as a human being, it is gratifying for us to see Katerina's deliverance - at least through death, if it is impossible otherwise. In this regard, we have terrible evidence in the drama itself, telling us that living in the "dark kingdom" is worse than death.
