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. Ostrovsky is not the same: in him you find not only the moral, but also the worldly economic side of the issue, 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 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.
Analysis of the article by N.A. Dobrolyubov “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom”
Dobrolyubov's article "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom" is one of the first reviews of A.N. Ostrovsky's play. First published in the Sovremennik magazine in No. 10, 1860.
It was a time of revolutionary-democratic upsurge, fierce resistance to autocratic power. Tense expectation of reforms. Hope for social change.
The epoch demanded a resolute, integral, strong character, capable of rising to protest against violence and arbitrariness and going in his post to the end. Dobrolyubov saw such a character in Katerina.
Dobrolyubov called Katerina "a ray of light in a dark kingdom" because she is a bright personality, a bright phenomenon and extremely positive. A person who does not want to be a victim of the "dark kingdom", capable of an act. Any violence revolts her and leads to protest.
Dobrolyubov welcomes creativity in the character of the heroine.
He believed that the origins of protest are precisely in harmony, simplicity, nobility, which are incompatible with slave morality.
The drama of Katerina, according to Dobrolyubov, is in the struggle of natural aspirations for beauty, harmony, happiness, prejudices, morality of the "dark kingdom" arising from her nature.
The critic sees something "refreshing, encouraging" in the drama "Thunderstorm". Detects shakiness and the near end of tyranny. The character of Katerina breathes new life, although it is revealed to us in her very death.
Ostrovsky was far from thinking that the only way out of the "dark kingdom" could only be a resolute protest. Ostrovsky's "beam of light" was knowledge and education.
Dobrolyubov, as a revolutionary democrat, in a period of powerful revolutionary upsurge, looked for facts in literature confirming that the masses of the people do not want and cannot live in the old way, that protest against the autocratic order is ripening in them, that they are ready to rise to a decisive struggle for social transformations. Dobrolyubov was convinced that readers, having read the play, should understand that living in the "dark kingdom" is worse than death. It is clear that in this way Dobrolyubov sharpened many aspects of Ostrovsky's play and drew direct revolutionary conclusions. But this was due to the time of writing the article.
Dobrolyubov's critical manner is fruitful. The critic does not so much judge as studies, explores the struggle in the soul of the heroine, proving the inevitability of the victory of light over darkness. This approach corresponds to the spirit of Ostrovsky's drama.
Dobrolyubov's correctness was also confirmed by the court of history. "Thunderstorm" really was the news of a new stage in Russian folk life. Already in the movement of revolutionaries - the seventies there were many participants whose life path made me think of Katerina. Vera Zasulich, Sophia Perovskaya, Vera Figner... And they started with an instinctive impulse to freedom, born from the closeness of the family environment.
Any critical article should hardly be considered the ultimate truth. Critical work, even the most versatile, is still one-sided. The most brilliant critic cannot say everything about the work. But the best, like works of art, become monuments of the era. The Dobrolyubovskaya article is one of the highest achievements of Russian criticism of the 19th century. She sets the trend in the interpretation of the "Thunderstorm" to this day.
Our time brings its own accents to the interpretation of Ostrovsky's drama.
N. Dobrolyubov called the city of Kalinov a "dark kingdom", and Katerina - a "beam of light" in it. But can we agree with this? The kingdom turned out to be not so "obscure" as it might seem at first glance. And the beam? A sharp long light, mercilessly highlighting everything, cold, cutting, causing a desire to close.
Is it Katherine? Let's remember how she prays...! What an angelic smile she has on her face, and from her face it seems to glow.
Light comes from within. No, it's not a beam. Candle. Trembling, defenseless. And from her light. Scattering, warm, living light. They reached out to him - each for his own. It was from this breath of many that the candle went out.
In "Thunderstorm". First of all, he strikes us with his opposition to all self-imposed principles. Not with an instinct for violence and destruction, but also not with practical dexterity to settle his own affairs for high purposes, not with senseless, crackling pathos, but not with diplomatic, pedantic calculation, he appears before us. No, 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.
He is led not by abstract principles, not by practical considerations, not by momentary pathos, but simply by nature, by his whole being. In this integrity and harmony of character lies its strength and its essential necessity at a time when the old, wild relationships, having lost all internal strength, continue to be held together by an external mechanical connection.
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. The field in which Ostrovsky observes and shows us Russian life does not concern purely social and state relations, but is limited to the family; in a family, who bears the yoke of tyranny most of all, if not a woman?
It is clear from this that if a woman wants to free herself from such a situation, then her case will be serious and decisive. It doesn't cost anything for some Curly to quarrel with Diky: both of them need each other, and, therefore, no special heroism is needed on the part of Curly to present his demands. On the other hand, his trick will not lead to anything serious: he, Dikoy, will quarrel, threaten to give him up as a soldier, but will not give him up; Curly will be pleased that he bit off, and things will go on as before again. Not so with a woman: she must already have a lot of strength of character in order to express her discontent, her demands. At the first attempt, she will be made to feel that she is nothing, that she can be crushed. She knows that this is true, and must accept; otherwise they will carry out a threat over her - they will beat her, lock her up, leave her to repentance, on bread and water, deprive her of the light of day, try all the domestic corrective means of the good old days and still lead to humility. A woman who wants to go to the end in her rebellion against the oppression and arbitrariness of her elders in the Russian family must be filled with heroic self-sacrifice, she must decide on everything and be ready for everything. How can she bear herself? Where does she get so much character? The only answer to this is that the natural tendencies of human nature cannot be completely destroyed. You can tilt them to the side, press, squeeze, but all this is only to a certain extent.
Thus, the emergence of a female energetic character fully corresponds to the position to which tyranny has been brought in Ostrovsky's drama. In the situation presented by The Thunderstorm, it went to the extreme, to the denial of all common sense; more than ever it is hostile to the natural requirements of mankind and more fiercely than ever tries to stop their development, because in their triumph it sees the approach of its inevitable death. Through this, it still more causes grumbling and protest even in the weakest beings. And at the same time, tyranny, as we have seen, lost its self-confidence, lost its firmness in actions, and lost a significant part of the power that consisted for it in instilling fear in everyone. Therefore, the protest against him is not silenced at the very beginning, but can turn into a stubborn struggle.
First of all, you are struck by the extraordinary originality of this character. There is nothing external, alien in him, but everything comes out somehow from within him; every impression is processed in it and then grows organically with it. We see this, for example, in Katerina's ingenuous story about her childhood and about life in her mother's house. It turns out that her upbringing and young life did not give her anything; in her mother's house it was the same as at the Kabanovs - they went to church, sewed with gold on velvet, listened to the stories of wanderers, dined, walked in the garden, again talked with pilgrims and prayed themselves ... After listening to Katerina's story, Varvara, sister her husband, remarks with surprise: "Why, we have the same thing." But the difference is determined by Katerina very quickly in five words: “Yes, everything here seems to be from bondage!” And further conversation shows that in all this appearance, which is so common with us everywhere, Katerina was able to find her own special meaning, apply it to her needs and aspirations, until the heavy hand of Kabanikha fell upon her. Katerina does not at all belong to violent characters who are never satisfied, who love to destroy at all costs. On the contrary, this character is predominantly creative, loving, ideal. That is why she tries to comprehend and ennoble everything in her imagination. She tries to harmonize any external dissonance with the harmony of her soul, she covers any shortcoming from the fullness of her inner forces.
She is strange, extravagant from the point of view of others; but this is because it cannot in any way accept their views and inclinations.
In the dry, monotonous life of her youth, in the coarse and superstitious notions of her environment, she was constantly able to take what agreed with her natural aspirations for beauty, harmony, contentment, happiness. In the conversations of wanderers, in prostrations and lamentations, she saw not a dead form, but something else, to which her heart was constantly striving. On the basis of them, she built her own ideal world, without passions, without need, without grief, a world devoted entirely to goodness and pleasure. But what is the real and true pleasure for a person, she could not determine for herself; that's why these sudden outbursts of some kind of unaccountable, vague aspirations.
In the gloomy surroundings of the new family, Katerina began to feel the lack of appearance, which she had thought to be content with before. Under the heavy hand of the soulless Kabanikh there is no scope for her bright visions, just as there is no freedom for her feelings. In a fit of tenderness for her husband, she wants to hug him, - the old woman shouts: “What are you hanging around your neck, shameless? Bow down at your feet!" She wants to be left alone and mourn quietly, as she used to, and her mother-in-law says: “Why don’t you howl? 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 recognize from all human aspirations that which is most inevitable and closest to her - the desire for love and devotion. . In the old days, her heart was too full of dreams, she did not pay attention to the young people who looked at her, but only laughed. When she married Tikhon Kabanov, she did not love him either, she still did not understand this feeling; they told her that every girl should get married, showed Tikhon as her future husband, and she went for him, remaining completely indifferent to this step. And here, too, a peculiarity of character is manifested: according to our usual concepts, she should be resisted if she has a decisive character; but she does not think of resistance, because she does not have sufficient grounds for this. In this one cannot see either impotence or apathy, but one can only find a lack of experience, and even too much readiness to do everything for others, taking little care of oneself.
The article is devoted to Ostrovsky's drama "Thunderstorm"
At the beginning of the article, Dobrolyubov writes that "Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life." Further, he analyzes articles about Ostrovsky by other critics, writes that they "lack a direct look at things."
Then Dobrolyubov compares The Thunderstorm with dramatic canons: "The subject of the drama must certainly be an event where we see the struggle of passion and duty - with the unfortunate consequences of the victory of passion or with happy ones when duty wins." Also in the drama there must be a unity of action, and it must be written in high literary language. The Thunderstorm, however, “does not satisfy the most essential goal of the drama - to inspire respect for moral duty and show the detrimental consequences of infatuation with passion. Katerina, this criminal, appears to us in the drama not only in a rather gloomy light, but even with the radiance of martyrdom. She speaks so well, she suffers so plaintively, everything around her is so bad that you arm yourself against her oppressors and thus justify vice in her face. Consequently, the drama does not fulfill its high purpose. The whole action is sluggish and slow, because it is cluttered with scenes and faces that are completely unnecessary. Finally, the language with which the characters speak surpasses all 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 idea of what should be shown in it does not give a true understanding. “What to think of a man who, at the sight of a pretty woman, suddenly begins to resonate that her camp is not the same as that of the Venus de Milo? The truth is not in dialectical subtleties, but in the living truth of what you are talking about. It cannot be said that people are evil by nature, and therefore one cannot accept principles for literary works such as that, for example, vice always triumphs, and virtue is punished.
“The writer has so far been given a small role in this movement of mankind towards natural principles,” writes Dobrolyubov, after which he recalls Shakespeare, who “moved the general consciousness of people to several steps that no one had climbed before him.” Further, the author turns to other critical articles about the "Thunderstorm", in particular, by Apollon Grigoriev, who claims that Ostrovsky's main merit is in his "nationality". "But Mr. Grigoriev does not explain what the nationality consists of, and therefore his remark seemed to us very amusing."
Then Dobrolyubov comes to the definition of Ostrovsky’s plays as a whole as “plays of life”: “We want to say that for him the general atmosphere of life is always in the foreground. He does not punish either the villain or the victim. You see that their position dominates them, and you only blame them for not showing enough energy to get out of this position. And that is why we do not dare to consider as unnecessary and superfluous those characters in Ostrovsky's plays who do not directly participate in the intrigue. From our point of view, these faces are just as necessary for the play as the main ones: they show us the environment in which the action takes place, draw the position that determines the meaning of the activity of the main characters of the play.
In "Thunderstorm" the need for "unnecessary" persons (secondary and episodic characters) is especially visible. Dobrolyubov analyzes the remarks of Feklusha, Glasha, Dikoy, Kudryash, Kuligin, etc. The author analyzes the internal state of the heroes of the “dark kingdom”: “everything is somehow restless, not good for them. In addition to them, without asking them, another life has grown up, with other beginnings, and although it is not yet clearly visible, it already sends bad visions to the dark arbitrariness of tyrants. And Kabanova is very seriously upset by the future of the old order, with which she has outlived a century. She foresees their end, tries to maintain their significance, but she already feels that there is no former reverence for them and that they will be abandoned at the first opportunity.
Then the author writes that The Thunderstorm is “Ostrovsky's most decisive work; the mutual relations of tyranny are brought in it to the most tragic consequences; and for all that, most of those who have read and seen this play agree that there is even something refreshing and encouraging in The Thunderstorm. This “something” is, in our opinion, the background of the play, indicated by us and revealing the precariousness and the near end of tyranny. Then the very character of Katerina, drawn against this background, also blows on us 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. Living in a "dark kingdom" is worse than death. Tikhon, throwing himself on the corpse of his wife, pulled out of the water, shouts in self-forgetfulness: “It’s good for you, Katya! But why did I stay in the world and suffer! “The play ends with this exclamation, and it seems to us that nothing could be invented stronger and more truthful than such an ending. Tikhon's words make the viewer think not about a love affair, but about this whole life, where the living envy the dead.
In conclusion, Dobrolyubov addresses the readers of the article: “If our readers find that Russian life and Russian strength are called by the artist in The Thunderstorm to a decisive cause, and if they feel the legitimacy and importance of this matter, then we are satisfied, no matter what our scientists say. and literary judges.
Bibliography
For the preparation of this work, materials from the site http://briefly.ru/
Typical features and, albeit indirectly, indicate who, in the author's opinion, is the future of Russia. (6-8) The theme of human fate in one of the works of Russian literature In the January issue of 2001, V. Astafiev's story "Pioneer is an example to everything" was published. The date of writing the story is indicated by the author as "late 50 - August 2000". Like many of the latest works of the famous ...
I do not impose love, but if you want my love, then know how to protect it ”(V, 258). In "A Warm Heart" - within the same artistic space as in "Thunderstorm", within the same "city of Kalinov" and with the same characters - a fundamentally different conflict unfolds, suggesting other ways of resolution. It seems that this was precisely the thought of Ostrovsky, who named the city in "Hot ...
The critical article "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom" was written by Nikolai Dobrolyubov in 1860 and then published in the Sovremennik magazine.
Dobrolyubov reflects in it on dramatic standards, where "we see the struggle of passion and duty." A happy ending, in his opinion, the drama has if duty wins, and an unhappy ending if passion. The critic notes that in Ostrovsky's drama there is no unity of time and high vocabulary, which was the rule for dramas. "Thunderstorm" does not satisfy the main goal of the drama - to respect the "moral duty", to show the destructive, fatal "consequences of infatuation with passion." Dobrolyubov notices that the reader involuntarily justifies Katerina, and that is why the drama does not fulfill its purpose.
The writer has a role to play in the movement of humanity. The critic cites as an example the lofty mission accomplished by Shakespeare: he was able to raise the morality of his contemporaries. "Plays of life" somewhat pejoratively calls the works of Ostrovsky Dobrolyubov. The writer "punishes neither the villain nor the victim", and this, according to the critic, makes the plays hopelessly mundane and mundane. But the critic does not deny them "nationality", arguing in this context with Apollon Grigoriev.It is the reflection of the aspirations of the people that is one of the strengths of the work.
Dobrolyubov continues his devastating criticism when analyzing the "unnecessary" heroes of the "dark kingdom": their inner world is limited within a small world. There are villains in the work, described in an extremely grotesque way. These are Kabanikha and Wild. However, unlike, for example, Shakespeare's characters, their tyranny is petty, although it can ruin the life of a good person. Nevertheless, "Thunderstorm" is called Dobrolyubov "the most decisive work" of the playwright, where tyranny is brought to "tragic consequences."
A supporter of revolutionary changes in the country, Dobrolyubov happily notices signs of something "refreshing" and "encouraging" in the play. For him, the way out of the dark kingdom can only be as a result of the protest of the people against the tyranny of the authorities. In Ostrovsky's plays, the critic saw this protest in the act of Katerina, for whom living in the "dark kingdom" is worse than death. Dobrolyubov saw in Katerina the person that the era demanded: decisive, with a strong character and will of spirit, although "weak and patient." Katerina, "creative, loving, ideal", is, according to the revolutionary democrat Dobrolyubov, the ideal prototype of a person capable of protest and even more. Katerina - a bright person with a bright soul - is called by the critic a "beam of light" in the world of dark people with their petty passions.
(Tikhon falls to his knees in front of Kabanikha)
Among them is the husband of Katerina Tikhon - "one of the many miserable types" who are "as harmful as the petty tyrants themselves." Katerina runs away from him to Boris "more in the wilderness", out of the "need for love", which Tikhon is not capable of because of his moral underdevelopment. But Boris is by no means "a hero." There is no way out for Katerina, her bright soul cannot get out of the sticky darkness of the “dark kingdom”.
The tragic ending of the play and the cry of the unfortunate Tikhon, who, according to him, continues to "suffer", "make the viewer - as Dobrolyubov wrote - think not about a love affair, but about the whole life, where the living envy the dead."
Nikolai Dobrolyubov sets the real task of his critical article to turn the reader to the idea that Russian life is shown by Ostrovsky in "Thunderstorm" in such a perspective in order to call "to decisive action." And this business is legal and important. In this case, as the critic notes, he will be satisfied "whatever our scientists and literary judges say."
