Article “A Ray of Light in dark kingdom"Dobrolyubov" was written in 1860 and dedicated to the drama "The Thunderstorm" by A. N. Ostrovsky. The title of the critical article quickly became a popular phraseology denoting a bright, soul-encouraging phenomenon in some complex, confusing situation.

To better prepare for a literature lesson, we recommend reading online a summary of “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom.” A retelling of Dobrolyubov’s article will also be useful for the reader’s diary.

Nikolai Aleksandrovich begins his article with the recognition that “Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life and a great ability to depict sharply and vividly its most significant aspects.” Having mentioned several critical articles about the play “The Thunderstorm,” he explains that many of them did not fully reveal the essence of the work.

Next, the publicist cites the “main rules of drama,” among which he especially notes the “struggle of passion and duty,” in which duty necessarily prevails. In addition, in a true drama, “strict unity and consistency” must be observed, the denouement must be a logical continuation of the plot, all characters and all dialogues must take a direct part in the development of the drama, the language must not “deviate from literary purity and not turn into vulgarity” .

Starting to analyze Ostrovsky's play, Dobrolyubov points out that the author did not fully reveal the most important task of the drama - “to instill respect for moral duty and show the harmful consequences of being carried away by passion.” Katerina is presented as a martyr, not a criminal. According to Dobrolyubov, the plot is unnecessarily overloaded with details and characters, and the language “exceeds any patience of a well-bred person.”

But Nikolai Aleksandrovich immediately admits that criticism, squeezed in the grip of the dominant theory, dooms itself to hostility “to all progress, to everything new and original in literature.” As an example, he cites the work of Shakespeare, who managed to raise the level of human consciousness to previously unattainable heights.

The publicist notes that all the plays of A. N. Ostrovsky can be safely called “plays of life,” since they are dominated by “a common, independent characters, living environment." In his works, the writer “punishes neither the villain nor the victim”: both of them are often funny and not energetic enough to resist fate. Thus, “the struggle required by theory from drama” in Ostrovsky’s plays is carried out not through the monologues of the characters, but due to the circumstances prevailing over them.

As well as in real life, negative characters do not always suffer the deserved punishment, just as positive characters do not acquire the long-awaited happiness at the end of the work. The publicist carefully examines the inner world of each of the minor and episodic characters. He notes that in the play “the need for so-called “unnecessary” persons” is especially visible, with the help of which the character of the main character is most accurately and clearly outlined, and the meaning of the work becomes more understandable.

Dobrolyubov notes that “The Thunderstorm” is “Ostrovsky’s most decisive work,” but at the same time it produces “an impression less heavy and sad” than all the author’s other plays. There is "something refreshing and encouraging" about "The Thunderstorm".

Next, Dobrolyubov begins to analyze the image of Katerina, which “is a step forward” not only in Ostrovsky’s work, but in all of Russian literature. Reality has reached the point where it needs “people who, even if less beautiful, are more active and energetic.” Katerina’s strength of character lies in integrity and harmony: for a girl, her own death is preferable to life in circumstances that are contrary and alien to her. Her soul is full of “natural aspirations for beauty, harmony, contentment, happiness.”

Even in gloomy conditions new family Katerina “is looking for light, air, wants to dream and frolic.” At first, she seeks solace in religion and soul-saving conversations, but does not find the bright and fresh impressions she needs. Having realized what she needs, the heroine shows “the full strength of her character, not wasted in petty antics.”

Katerina is full of love and creativity. In her imagination, she tries to ennoble the reality that surrounds her. She has a strong “feeling of love for a person, a desire to find a kindred response in another heart.” However, the essence of Katerina is not given to her husband, the downtrodden Tikhon Kabanov, to understand. She tries to believe that her husband is her destiny, “that in him there is the bliss that she so anxiously seeks,” but soon all her illusions are shattered.

It is interesting to compare the heroine with a large, full-flowing river, which deftly and unhindered bypasses all obstacles in its path. Enraged, it even breaks through dams, but its seething is not caused by indignation and anger, but by the need to continue its path.

Analyzing the character and actions of Katerina, Dobrolyubov comes to the conclusion that the best solution for the heroine is her escape with Boris. She blames no one for her bitter fate, and sees death as her only consolation, as a quiet, calm haven. “This kind of liberation is sad, bitter,” but Katerina simply has no other choice. It is the woman’s determination to take this difficult step that makes a “refreshing impression” on readers.

Conclusion

In his article, Dobrolyubov emphasizes that you need to have sufficient courage and honesty with yourself in order to carry a living, warming light within yourself.

After familiarizing yourself with a brief retelling“A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom” we recommend reading Dobrolyubov’s article in the full version.

Article test

Check your memorization of the summary content with the test:

Retelling rating

Average rating: 4.5. Total ratings received: 443.

Shortly before “The Thunderstorm” appeared on stage, we examined in great detail all of Ostrovsky’s works. Wanting to present a description of the author's talent, we then paid attention to the phenomena of Russian life reproduced in his plays, tried to grasp their general character and find out whether the meaning of these phenomena in reality is the same as it appears to us in the works of our playwright. If the readers have not forgotten, we then came to the result that Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life and a great ability to depict sharply and vividly its most significant aspects. The “thunderstorm” soon served as new proof of the validity of our conclusion. We wanted to talk about it then, but felt that we would have to repeat many of our previous considerations, and therefore decided to remain silent about “The Thunderstorm,” leaving the readers who asked our opinion to believe in it those general remarks that we spoke about Ostrovsky several months before the appearance of this play. Our decision was confirmed in us even more when we saw that about “The Thunderstorm” was appearing in all magazines and newspapers whole line large and small reviews that interpreted the matter from a wide variety of points of view. We thought that in this mass of articles something more would finally be said about Ostrovsky and the meaning of his plays than what we saw in the critics who were mentioned at the beginning of our first article about “The Dark Kingdom”. In this hope and in the knowledge that ours own opinion the meaning and nature of Ostrovsky’s works have already been stated quite definitely, we considered it best to leave the analysis of “The Thunderstorm”. But now, again encountering Ostrovsky’s play in a separate publication and remembering everything that has been written about it, we find that it would not be superfluous for us to say a few words about it. It gives us a reason to add something to our notes about the “Dark Kingdom”, to further carry out some of the thoughts we expressed then.. By painting a vivid picture of false relationships for us, with all their consequences, he thereby serves as an echo of aspirations that require a better structure. Arbitrariness, on the one hand, and a lack of awareness of the rights of one’s personality, on the other, are the foundations on which all the ugliness of mutual relations developed in most of Ostrovsky’s comedies rests; demands of law, legality, respect for man - this is what every attentive reader hears from the depths of this disgrace. Well, will you deny the vast significance of these demands in Russian life? Don't you realize that such a background of comedies corresponds to the state of Russian society more than any other in Europe? Take history, remember your life, look around you - you will find justification for our words everywhere. This is not the place for us to embark on historical research; It is enough to note that our history until modern times did not contribute to the development of a sense of legality in us (with which Mr. Pirogov agrees; see the Regulations on punishments in the Kiev district), did not create strong guarantees for the individual and gave a vast field to arbitrariness. This kind of historical development, of course, resulted in a decline in public morality: respect for one’s own dignity was lost, faith in the right, and therefore the consciousness of duty, weakened, arbitrariness trampled on the right, cunning was undermined by arbitrariness. Some writers, deprived of the sense of normal needs and confused by artificial combinations, admit known facts . So, for example, they wanted to assign arbitrariness to the Russian person as a special, natural quality of his nature - under the name “breadth of nature”; They also wanted to legitimize trickery and cunning among the Russian people under the name of sharpness and cunning. Look at what we are doing in this regard: the peasants are freeing themselves, and the landowners themselves, who previously argued that it was too early to give freedom to the peasant, are now convinced and admit that it is time to get rid of this issue, that it has really matured in the people’s consciousness... And what else lies at the basis of this question, if not the reduction of arbitrariness and the elevation of rights? our life, they wanted to legitimize them, glorify them as the norm of life, and not as a distortion of natural aspirations produced by unfavorable? The same applies to all other reforms and improvements. In the financial reforms, in all these commissions and committees discussing banks, taxes, etc., what did public opinion see, what did they expect from them, if not more correctly defining a clear system of financial management and, therefore, introducing legality instead of any arbitrariness ? What made it necessary to grant certain rights to publicity, which was previously so feared, if not the awareness of the strength of that general protest against lawlessness and arbitrariness, which for many years had developed in public opinion and finally could not restrain itself? What was the effect of the police and administrative reforms, of concerns about justice, of the assumption of open legal proceedings, of the reduction of severity towards schismatics, of the very abolition of tax farming?.. We are not talking about the practical significance of all these measures, we only assert that the very attempt to begin it proves the strong development of the general idea that we pointed out: even if they all collapsed or remained unsuccessful, this could only show the insufficiency or falsity of the means adopted for their implementation, but could not testify against the needs that caused them. The existence of these demands is so clear that even in our literature they were expressed immediately, as soon as the actual possibility of their manifestation appeared. They were also reflected in Ostrovsky’s comedies with a fullness and strength that we have encountered in few authors. But the dignity of his comedies does not lie in the degree of strength alone: ​​it is also important for us that he found the essence of the general requirements of life at a time when they were hidden and expressed by very few and very weakly. His first play appeared in 1847; was, of course, partly reflected in Ostrovsky; it may largely explain the degree of uncertainty in some of his subsequent plays, which gave rise to such attacks on him in the early fifties. But now, 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 sometimes did not appear at first glance, but was always at the root of his works. But whoever wanted to impartially seek out their root meaning could always find that the matter in them appears not from the surface, but from the very root. This feature keeps Ostrovsky’s works at their height even now, when everyone is trying to express the same aspirations that we find in his plays. In order not to dwell on this, let us note one thing: the demand for law, respect for the individual, protest against violence and arbitrariness you find in many of our literary works recent years ; 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 from it everything is deduced, indicated right. With Ostrovsky it’s not the same: with him you find not only the moral, but also the everyday, economic side of the issue, and this is the essence of the matter. In him you clearly see how tyranny rests on a thick purse, which is called “God’s blessing,” and how people’s irresponsibility to it is determined by their material dependence on it. Moreover, you see how this material side dominates the abstract side in all everyday relations and how people deprived of material security value abstract rights little and even lose a clear consciousness of them. In fact, a well-fed person can reason calmly and intelligently about whether he should eat such and such a dish, but a hungry person is eager for food, wherever he sees it and whatever it may be. This phenomenon, which is repeated in all spheres of public life, is well noticed and understood by Ostrovsky, and his plays show the attentive reader more clearly than any reasoning how a system of lawlessness and gross, petty egoism, established by tyranny, is grafted onto those who suffer from it; how they, if they retain more or less 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. We have developed this topic in too much detail in our previous articles to return to it again; Moreover, having recalled the aspects of Ostrovsky’s talent that were repeated in “The Thunderstorm,” as in his previous works, we must still make a short review of the play itself and show how we understand it. In reality this would not be necessary; but the critics still writing on "The Thunderstorm" show us that our remarks will not. Already in Ostrovsky’s previous plays, we noticed that these were not comedies of intrigue and not comedies of character, but something new, to which we would give the name “plays of life” if it were not too broad and therefore not entirely definite. We want to say that in his foreground there is always a general, independent of any of the characters, life situation. He punishes neither the villain nor the victim; Both of them are pitiful to you, often both are funny, but the feeling aroused in you by the play is not directly addressed to them. You see that their situation dominates them, and you only blame them for not showing enough energy to get out of this situation. The tyrants themselves, against whom your feelings should naturally be indignant, upon careful examination turn out to be more worthy of pity than your anger: they are virtuous and even smart in their own way, within the limits prescribed to them by routine and supported by their position; but this situation is such that complete, healthy human development is impossible in it... Thus, the struggle required by theory from drama is carried out in Ostrovsky’s plays not in the monologues of the characters, but in the facts that dominate them. Often the characters in the comedy themselves have no clear or no consciousness at all about the meaning of their situation and their struggle; but on the other hand, the struggle is very clearly and consciously taking place in the soul of the viewer, who involuntarily rebels against the situation that gives rise to such facts. And that’s why we never dare to consider those faces unnecessary and superfluous who are not directly involved in the intrigue. From our point of view, these persons are just as necessary for the play as the main ones: they show us the environment in which the action takes place, they draw the situation that determines the meaning of the activities of the main characters in the play. To know well the life properties of a plant, it is necessary to study it in the soil on which it grows; When torn from the soil, you will have the shape of a plant, but you will not fully recognize its life. In the same way, you will not recognize the life of society if you consider it only in the direct relationships of several individuals who for some reason come into conflict with each other: here there will be only the business, official side of life, while we need its everyday environment. Outsiders, inactive participants in the drama of life, apparently busy only with their own business, often have such an influence on the course of business by their mere existence that nothing can reflect it. How many hot ideas, how many extensive plans, how many enthusiastic impulses collapse at one glance at the indifferent, prosaic crowd passing us with contemptuous indifference! How many pure and good 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 impulses of arbitrariness and violence are stopped before the decision of this crowd, always seemingly indifferent and pliable, but in essence very unyielding in what is once recognized by it. Therefore, it is extremely important for us to know what this crowd’s concepts of good and evil are, what they consider to be true and what lies. This determines our view of the position in which the main characters of the play are located, and, consequently, the degree of our participation in them., under this breeze, refreshingly blowing from the Volga... And the residents, indeed, sometimes walk along the boulevard above the river, although they have already taken a closer look at the beauty of the Volga views; in the evening they sit on the rubble at the gate and engage in pious conversations; but they spend more time at home, doing housework, eating, sleeping - they go to bed very early, so that it is difficult for an unaccustomed person to endure such a sleepy night as they set themselves. But what should they do but not sleep when they are full? Their life flows smoothly and peacefully, no interests of the world disturb them, because they do not reach them; kingdoms can collapse, new countries can open up, the face of the earth can change as he pleases, the world can begin a new life on a new basis - the inhabitants of the town of Kalinov will continue to exist in complete ignorance of the rest of the world. Occasionally a vague rumor will run into them that Napoleon with two to ten tongues is rising again or that the Antichrist has been born; but they also take this more as a curious thing, like the news that there are countries where all the people have dog heads; they will shake their heads, express surprise at the wonders of nature and go get a snack... From a young age they still show some curiosity, but they have nowhere to get food from: information comes to them as if in ancient Rus' from the time of Daniel the Pilgrim, only from wanderers, and even those nowadays are few and far between; one has to be content with those who “themselves, due to their weakness, did not walk far, but heard a lot,” like Feklusha in “The Thunderstorm.” It is only from them that the residents of Kalinov learn about what is happening in the world; otherwise they would think that the whole world is the same as their Kalinov, and that it is absolutely impossible to live differently than them. But the information provided by the Feklushis is such that it is not capable of inspiring a great desire to exchange their life for another. Feklusha belongs to a patriotic and highly conservative party; she feels good among the pious and naive Kalinovites: she is revered, treated, and provided with everything she needs; she can very seriously assert that her very sins occur because she is superior to other mortals: “ ordinary people, some have six, some have twelve, so we must overcome them all.” And they believe her. It is clear that a simple instinct of self-preservation should make her not say a good word about what is being done in other lands. And in fact, listen to the conversations of the merchants, the philistines, and petty officials in the wilderness of the district - there is so much amazing information about infidel and filthy kingdoms, how many stories about those times when people were burned and tortured, when robbers robbed cities, etc. , and how little information is available about European life, about the best way of life! Even in the so-called educated society, in Europeanized people, for the many enthusiasts who admired the new Parisian streets and Mabilles, will you not find almost the same number of respectable connoisseurs who intimidate their listeners with the fact that nowhere except Austria is there order in all of Europe? and no justice can be found!.. All this leads to the fact that Feklusha expresses so positively: “blah-ale-pie, dear, blah-alepie, wondrous beauty! What can we say, - in promised land live!” It undoubtedly comes out that way, once you realize what is happening in other lands. Listen to Feklusha: “They say there are such countries, cute girl, where there are no Orthodox kings, and the Saltans rule the earth. In one land the Turkish saltan Makhnut sits on the throne, and in another - the Persian saltan Makhnut; and they carry out judgment, dear girl, on all people, and whatever they judge is all wrong. And they, dear girl, cannot judge a single case righteously - such is the limit set for them. Our law is righteous, but theirs, dear, is unrighteous; that according to our law it turns out this way, but according to them everything is the opposite. And all their judges, in their countries, are also all unrighteous; So, dear girl, they write in their requests: “Judge me, unjust judge!” And then there is also a land where all the people have dog heads.“Why is this happening to dogs?” - asks Glasha. “For infidelity,” Feklusha answers briefly, considering any further explanations unnecessary. But Glasha is happy about that; in the languid monotony of her life and thoughts, she is pleased to hear something new and original. The thought is already vaguely awakening in her soul: “that, however, people live differently from us; Of course, it’s better here, but who knows! After all, things are not good here either; but we still don’t know very well about those lands; you only hear something from good people”... And the desire to know more and more thoroughly creeps into the soul. This is clear to us from Glasha’s words after the wanderer’s departure: “Here are some other lands! There are no miracles in the world! And we sit here, we don’t know anything. It’s also good that there are good people; no, no, and you will hear what is happening in this wide world; Otherwise they would have died like fools.” ? It is scary and difficult for every newcomer to try to go against the demands and beliefs of this dark mass, terrible in its naivety and sincerity. After all, she will curse us, will run around like people with the plague - not out of malice, not out of calculations, but out of a deep conviction that we are akin to the Antichrist; it would be good if she considered them crazy and laughed at them... She seeks knowledge, loves to reason, but only within certain limits prescribed to her by the basic concepts in which her mind is confused. You can impart some geographical knowledge to the Kalinovsky residents; but do not touch upon the fact that the earth stands on three pillars and that in Jerusalem there is the navel of the earth - they will not concede this to you, although they have the same clear concept of the navel of the earth as about Lithuania in The Thunderstorm. I don’t give an account to anyone more important than you. I want to think about you like that, and I do! For others you are an honest person, but I think you are a robber - that’s all. Did you want to hear this from me? So listen! I say I’m a robber, and that’s the end of it. So, are you going to sue me or something? So know that you are a worm. If I want, I will have mercy, if I want, I will crush. As you can see, the unrighteousness and infidelity of foreign lands does not arouse horror and indignation in Glasha; she is only interested in new information, which seems to her like something mysterious - “miracles,” as she puts it. are coming,” and when Feklusha tells her about various horrors of the present time - about railways, etc. - she prophetically remarks: “and it will be worse, dear.” “We just wouldn’t live to see this,” Feklusha answers with a sigh. “Maybe we’ll live,” Kabanova says again fatalistically, revealing her doubts and uncertainty. Why is she worried? People travel by railroad, but what does that matter to her? But you see: she, “even if you shower her with gold,” will not go according to the devil’s invention; and people travel more and more, not paying attention to her curses; Isn’t this sad, isn’t it evidence of her powerlessness? People learned about electricity - it seems that there is something offensive here for the Wild and Kabanovs? But, you see, Dikoy says that “a thunderstorm is sent to us as punishment, so that we feel,” but Kuligin does not feel, or feels something completely wrong, and talks about electricity. Isn’t this self-will, not a disregard for the power and importance of the Wild One? They don’t want to believe what he believes, which means they don’t believe him either, they consider themselves smarter than him; Think about what this will lead to? Seeing her son off on the road, she notices that everything is not being done as she should: her son doesn’t even bow at her feet - this is exactly what should be demanded of him, but he himself didn’t think of it; and he does not “order” his wife how to live without him, and he does not know how to give orders, and when parting, he does not require her to bow to the ground; and the daughter-in-law, having seen her husband off, does not howl or lie on the porch to show her love. If possible, Kabanova tries to restore order, but she already feels that it is impossible to conduct business completely in the old way; You see that she is not content with Feklusha’s explanations, which only arouse in her regret for her ignorance. She is obviously halfway to skepticism. But where can she maintain her distrust when it is constantly undermined by stories like Feklushin’s? How can she get to the right concepts, even just to reasonable questions, when her curiosity is locked in a circle that is outlined around her in the city of Kalinov?, - it is with them that the house is held together as long as they are alive. But they, too, are stupid, want to do their own thing; but when they are released, they get confused to shame and to the laughter of good people. Of course, no one will regret it, but most everyone laughs. But you can’t help but laugh: they’ll invite guests, they don’t know how to seat them, and, look, they’ll forget one of their relatives. Laughter, and that's all. This is how the old man comes out. While the old people die, until then the young people will have time to grow old - the old woman might not have to worry about this. But, you see, what is important to her is not, in fact, that there is always someone to keep order and teach the inexperienced; She needs precisely those orders to always be inviolably preserved, precisely those concepts that she recognizes as good to remain inviolable. everything over which their influence extends more retains the antiquities and seems more motionless than where people, having abandoned tyranny, are trying only to preserve the essence of their interests and meaning; but in fact, the internal significance of tyrants is much closer to its end than the influence of people who know how to support themselves and their principle with external concessions. This is where eternal dissatisfaction and irritability develops in him. He himself explains his situation when he talks about how difficult it is for him to give out money. It is clear that no reasonable convictions will stop him until an external force that is tangible to him is connected to them: he scolds Kuligin, not heeding any reason; and when he was once scolded by a hussar on a ferry on the Volga, he did not dare contact the hussar, but again took out his insult at home: for two weeks after that everyone hid from him in attics and closets... All such relationships make you feel that the position of the Dikikhs, Kabanovs and all similar tyrants is no longer as calm and firm as it once was, in the blissful times of patriarchal morals. This trait is extremely expressively manifested in “The Thunderstorm,” in Kabanova’s scene with the children, when she, in response to her son’s submissive remark: “Can I, mamma, disobey you,” objects: “They don’t really respect elders these days!” » - and then begins to nag his son and daughter-in-law, so that the soul is sucked out of an outside viewer. In the narrowness and coarseness of her egoism, she cannot rise even to the point of reconciling herself to the triumph of the principle, even with the sacrifice of existing forms; and this cannot be expected from her, since she, in fact, has no principle, no general conviction that would govern her life. In this case, she is much lower than the type of people who are usually called enlightened conservatives. They have somewhat expanded their egoism, merging with it the demand for general order, so that, in order to maintain order, they are even capable of sacrificing some personal tastes and benefits. If they were Kabanova, they would, for example, not make ugly and humiliating demands for prostrations and insulting “orders” from the husband to the wife, but would only be concerned about preserving the general idea - that the wife should fear her husband and obey her mother-in-law. The daughter-in-law would not experience such difficult scenes, although she would still be completely dependent on the old woman. And the result would be that no matter how bad the young woman felt, her patience would last incomparably longer, being tested by slow and even oppression, rather than when it burst into sharp and cruel antics. From here it is clear, of course, that for Kabanova herself and for the antiquity that she defends, it would be much more profitable to abandon some empty forms and make private concessions in order to preserve the essence of the matter. But the Kabanov breed does not understand this: they have not even gone so far as to represent or defend any principle outside themselves - they are the principle themselves, and therefore they recognize everything that concerns them as absolutely important. They need not only to be respected, but for this respect to be expressed in certain forms: that’s the level at which they stand! That's why, of course,. And after this realization, the old woman still continues to nag her son for two whole pages. She has no reason for this, but her heart is restless: her heart is prophetic, it makes her feel that something is wrong, that the internal, living connection between her and the younger members of the family has long been destroyed and now they are only mechanically connected with and would be glad to untie her at any opportunity., which is revealed to us in her very death. The fact is that the character of Katerina, as he is performed in “The Thunderstorm,” constitutes a step forward not only in Ostrovsky’s dramatic work, but also in all of our literature. It corresponds to the new phase of our national life, it has long demanded its implementation in literature, our best writers revolved around it; but they only knew how to understand its necessity and could not understand and feel its essence; Ostrovsky managed to do this. None of the critics of “The Thunderstorm” wanted or was able to provide a proper assessment of this character; Therefore, we decide to extend our article further in order to outline with some detail how we understand the character of Katerina and why we consider its creation so important for our literature., and then they tailored it in accordance with their concepts about the requirements of valor in general and Russian in particular... The Russian strong character in “The Thunderstorm” is not understood and expressed in the same way. First of all, he strikes us with his opposition to all tyrant principles. Not with the instinct of violence and destruction, but also not with the practical dexterity of arranging his own affairs for high purposes, not with senseless, rattling pathos, but not with diplomatic, pedantic calculation, he appears before us. No, he is concentrated and decisive, unswervingly faithful to the instinct of natural truth, full of faith in new ideals and selfless, in the sense that he would rather die than live under those principles that are disgusting to him. He is driven not by abstract principles, not by practical considerations, not by momentary pathos, but simply , with all my being. In this integrity and harmony of character lies his strength and his essential necessity at a time when old, wild relationships, having lost all internal strength, continue to be held on by an external, mechanical connection. A person who only logically understands the absurdity of the tyranny of the Dikikhs and Kabanovs will not do anything against them simply because before them all logic disappears; no syllogisms will convince the chain so that it breaks on the prisoner, the fist so that it does not hurt the nailed one; So you won’t convince the Wild One to act more wisely, and you won’t convince his family not to listen to his whims: he’ll beat them all up, and that’s all, what are you going to do about it? It is obvious that characters that are strong on one logical side should develop very poorly and have a very weak influence on life activities where all life is governed not by logic, but by pure arbitrariness. The dominance of the Wild is not very favorable for the development of people strong in the so-called practical sense. Whatever you say about this sense, in essence it is nothing more than the ability to use circumstances and arrange them in one’s favor. This means that practical sense can lead a person to direct and honest action only when circumstances are arranged in accordance with sound logic and, therefore, with the natural requirements of human morality. But where everything depends on brute force, where the unreasonable whim of a few Savages or the superstitious stubbornness of some Kabanova destroys the most correct logical calculations and brazenly despises the very first foundations of mutual rights, there the ability to take advantage of circumstances obviously turns into the ability to apply oneself to the whims of tyrants and imitate all their absurdities in order to pave the way for yourself to their advantageous position. The Podkhalyuzins and Chichikovs are strong practical characters of the “dark kingdom”; others do not develop between people of a purely practical nature, under the influence of the dominance of the Wild. The best thing that one can dream of for these practitioners is to be like Stolz, that is, the ability to make good money on their affairs without meanness; And since Dikoy and others like him are not at all capable of giving up their meaning and their power without resistance, since their influence has already cut deep traces into everyday life itself and therefore cannot be destroyed at once, then there is no point in looking at pathetic characters as something something serious. in kind Russian life, but serving as an expression of one idea. The decisive, integral Russian character acting among the Wild and Kabanovs appears in Ostrovsky in the female type, and this is not without its serious significance. It is known that extremes are reflected by extremes and that the strongest protest is that which finally rises from the breasts of the weakest and most patient. The field in which Ostrovsky observes and shows us Russian life does not concern purely social and state relations, but is limited to the family; in the family, who bears the brunt of tyranny more than anything else, if not the woman? What clerk, worker, servant of the Wild One can be so driven, downtrodden, and alienated from his personality as his wife? Who can feel so much grief and indignation against the absurd fantasies of a tyrant? And, at the same time, who less than she has the opportunity to express her murmur, to refuse to do what is disgusting to her? Servants and clerks are connected only financially, in a human way; they can leave the tyrant as soon as they find another place for themselves. The wife, according to prevailing concepts, is inextricably linked with him, spiritually, through the sacrament; no matter what her husband does, she must obey him and share his meaningless life with him. And even if she could finally leave, where would she go, what would she do? Kudryash says: “The Wild One needs me, so I’m not afraid of him and I won’t let him take liberties with me.” from marriage: “Your wife is not a bast shoe, you can’t throw her off her feet”! A woman who wants to go to the end in her rebellion against the oppression and tyranny of her elders in the Russian family must be filled with heroic self-sacrifice, must decide on anything and be ready for anything. How can she stand herself? Where does she get so much character? The only answer to this is that the natural aspirations of human nature cannot be completely destroyed. You can tilt them to the side, press, squeeze, but all this is only to a certain extent. The triumph of false positions only shows to what extent the elasticity of human nature can reach; It’s easy for a person who has come to the realization that others really need him; but a woman, a wife? Why is it needed? Isn't she, on the contrary, taking everything from her husband? Her husband gives her a place to live, gives her water, feeds her, clothes her, protects her, gives her a position in society... Isn’t she usually considered a burden for a man? Don't prudent people say when holding here it replaces considerations of reason and the demands of feeling and imagination: all this merges into the general feeling of the organism, demanding air, food, freedom. This is where the secret of the integrity of the characters lies, appearing in circumstances similar to those we saw in “The Thunderstorm”, in the environment surrounding Katerina. Now it is curious how such a character develops and manifests itself in particular cases. We can trace his development through Katerina's personality. young people. Rough, superstitious stories and senseless ravings of wanderers turn into golden, poetic dreams of the imagination, not frightening, but clear, kind. Her images are poor because the materials presented to her by reality are so monotonous; but even with these meager means, her imagination works tirelessly and takes her to a new world, quiet and bright. It’s not the rituals that occupy her in the church: she doesn’t even hear what they sing and read there; she has different music in her soul, different visions, for her the service ends imperceptibly, as if in one second. She looks at the trees, strangely drawn on the images, and imagines a whole country of gardens, where all the trees are like this and everything is blooming, fragrant, everything is full of heavenly singing. Otherwise, on a sunny day, she will see how “such a bright pillar comes down from the dome and smoke moves in this pillar, like clouds,” and now she sees, “as if angels are flying and singing in this pillar.” Sometimes she will present herself - why shouldn’t she fly? and when she stands on the mountain, she just wants to fly: she would run like that, raise her arms, and fly. She is strange, extravagant from the point of view of others; but this is because she cannot in any way accept their views and inclinations. She takes materials from them because there is nowhere else to get them from; but she does not draw conclusions, but searches for them herself and often comes to a conclusion that is not at all what they settle on. We notice a similar attitude to external impressions in other environments, in people who, by their upbringing, are accustomed to abstract reasoning and know how to analyze their feelings. The whole difference is that with Katerina, as a direct, lively personality, everything is done according to the desire of nature, without a clear consciousness, but with people who are theoretically developed and strong in mind main role Logic and analysis play a role. Strong minds are precisely distinguished by that inner strength that gives them the opportunity not to succumb to ready-made views and systems, but to create their own views and conclusions based on living impressions. They do not reject anything at first, but they do not stop at anything, but only take note of everything and process it in their own way. Katerina also presents us with similar results, although she does not resonate and does not even understand her own feelings, but is driven directly by nature. In the dry, monotonous life of his youth, in rude and superstitious concepts she constantly knew how to take what agreed with her natural aspirations for beauty, harmony, contentment, happiness. In the conversations of the wanderers, in the prostrations and lamentations, she saw not a dead form, but something else, to which her heart was constantly striving. Based on them, she built her ideal world, without passions, without need, without grief, a world entirely dedicated to goodness and pleasure. But what is real good and true pleasure for a person, she could not determine for herself; This is why these sudden impulses of some unaccountable, unclear aspirations, which she recalls: “Sometimes, it used to be, early in the morning I would go to the garden, the sun was still rising, I would fall on my knees, pray and cry, and I myself don’t know, about what I pray for and what I cry about; That's how they'll find me. And what I prayed for then, what I asked for - I don’t know; I don’t need anything, I had enough of everything.” A poor girl who has not received a broad theoretical education, who does not know everything that is going on in the world, who does not even properly understand her own needs, cannot, of course, give herself an account of what she needs. While she lives with her mother, in complete freedom, without any everyday cares, while the needs and passions of an adult have not yet become apparent in her, she does not even know how to distinguish her own dreams, her - from external impressions. Losing herself among the praying mantises in her iridescent thoughts and walking in her bright kingdom, she keeps thinking that her contentment comes precisely from these praying mantises, from the lamps lit in all corners of the house, from the lamentations heard around her; She still seeks refuge in religious practice, in going to church, in soul-saving conversations; but even here he no longer finds the same impressions. Killed by her daily work and eternal bondage, she can no longer dream with the same clarity of angels singing in a dusty pillar illuminated by the sun, she cannot imagine the Gardens of Eden with their undisturbed appearance and joy. Everything is gloomy, scary. Around her, everything emanates coldness and some kind of irresistible threat; and the faces of the saints are so stern, and the church readings are so menacing, and the stories of the wanderers are so monstrous... They are still the same in essence, they have not changed at all, but she herself has changed: she no longer has the desire to construct aerial visions, and indeed what satisfies her is the vague imagination of the bliss that she enjoyed before. She matured, other desires awoke in her, more real ones; At first, out of the innate kindness and nobility of her soul, she will make every possible effort so as not to violate the peace and rights of others, in order to get what she wants with the greatest possible compliance with all the requirements that are imposed on her by people connected with her in some way; and if they are able to take advantage of this initial mood and decide to give her complete satisfaction, then it will be good for both her and them. But if not, she will stop at nothing: law, kinship, custom, human court, rules of prudence - everything disappears for her before the power of internal attraction; she does not spare herself and does not think about others. This was exactly the way out that presented itself to Katerina, and nothing else could have been expected given the situation in which she found herself. inner world in anyone other than him. In the play, which finds Katerina already at the beginning of her love for Boris Grigoryich, Katerina’s last, desperate efforts are still visible - to make her husband sweet. The scene of her farewell to him makes us feel that all is not lost for Tikhon, that he can still retain his rights to the love of this woman; but this same scene, in short but sharp outlines, conveys to us the whole story of the torture that Katerina was forced to endure in order to push away her first feeling from her husband. Tikhon is here simple-minded and vulgar, not at all evil, but an extremely spineless creature who does not dare to do anything in spite of his mother. And the mother is a soulless creature, a fist-woman, who embodies love, religion, and morality in Chinese ceremonies.: What kind of order will there be in the house! After all, you, tea, live with her in law. Ali, do you think the law means nothing?” Under such principles, of course, the feeling of love in Katerina does not find scope and hides inside her, only manifesting itself at times in convulsive impulses. But the husband does not know how to use these impulses either: he is too overwhelmed to understand the power of her passionate yearning. “I can’t figure you out, Katya,” he tells her: “you won’t get a word from you, let alone affection, otherwise you’ll get in your way.” This is how ordinary and spoiled natures usually judge a strong and fresh nature: they, judging by themselves, do not understand the feeling that is hidden in the depths of the soul, and take any concentration for apathy; when, finally, not being able to hide any longer, inner strength pours out of the soul in a wide and rapid stream, they are surprised and consider it some kind of trick, a whim, like how they themselves sometimes get the fantasy of falling into pathos or carousing. Meanwhile, these impulses constitute a necessity for a strong nature and are all the more striking the longer they do not find a way out. They are unintentional, not deliberate, but caused by natural necessity. patience with that which comes from the weak development of personality in a person and which ends up getting used to insults and hardships of all kinds. No, Katerina will never get used to them; She still does not know what and how she will decide, she does not violate her duties to her mother-in-law, she does everything possible to get along well with her husband, but from everything it is clear that she feels her position and that she is drawn to break out of it. She never complains or scolds her mother-in-law; the old woman herself cannot bear this on her; and, however, the mother-in-law feels that Katerina represents something inappropriate and hostile for her. Tikhon, who is afraid of his mother like fire and, moreover, is not particularly distinguished by delicacy and tenderness, is ashamed, however, before his wife when, by order of his mother, he must punish her so that without him she “shouldn’t stare into the windows” and “shouldn’t look at young guys.” . The strength of nature, which does not have the opportunity to develop actively, is also expressed passively - by patience, restraint. But just don't mix this real essence, why is a woman’s love so sweet, and knowing only the external side of the matter, which for him turns into greasy things: Tikhon, getting ready to leave, with the most shameless cynicism says to his wife, begging him to take her with him: “from some kind of bondage from whatever beauty you want You'll run away from your wife! Think about it: no matter what I am, I’m still a man, And he drank all the way, and he drank all the time in Moscow; so it's a bunch, whatever. So that you can take a break for the whole year!.. " That's all! And it must be said that in the past, when the consciousness of the individual and his rights had not yet risen in the majority, protests against tyrant oppression were almost exclusively limited to such antics. And even today you can still meet many Tikhons, reveling, if not in wine, then in some kind of reasoning and matches and letting their souls go in the noise of verbal orgies. These are precisely the people who constantly complain about their cramped situation, and yet are infected with the proud thought of their privileges and their superiority over others: “no matter what I am, I am still a man, so what must I endure.” That is: “you endure, because you are a woman and, therefore, rubbish, and I need freedom - not because this is a human, natural demand, but because these are the rights of my privileged person”... Clearly, that nothing could and never could come of such people and habits. The next morning they found it, about ten miles away...” This childish fervor remained in Katerina; Only along with her general maturity did she gain the strength to withstand impressions and dominate them. The adult Katerina, forced to endure insults, finds the strength to endure them for a long time, without vain complaints, half-resistance and any noisy antics. She endures until some interest speaks up in her, especially close to her heart and legitimate in her eyes, until such a demand of her nature is insulted in her, without the satisfaction of which she cannot remain calm. Then she will not look at anything. She will not resort to diplomatic tricks, deceptions and tricks - that’s not who she is. If she absolutely has to deceive, she’d better try to get over herself. I will love my husband. Silence, my darling, I won’t exchange you for anyone!“But the effort is already beyond her capabilities; a minute later she feels that she cannot get rid of the love that has arisen. “Do I really want to think about him,” she says: “but what should I do if I can’t get it out of my head?” In these in simple words It is very clearly expressed how the power of natural aspirations, unnoticed by Katerina herself, triumphs in her over all external demands, prejudices and artificial combinations in which her life is entangled. Note that theoretically Katerina could not reject any of these demands, could not free herself from any backward opinions; she went against all of them, armed only with the strength of her feelings, the instinctive consciousness of her direct, inalienable right to life, happiness and love... She does not resonate at all, but with amazing ease she resolves all the difficulties of her position. Here is her conversation with Varvara: Varvara. You are some kind of tricky one, God bless you! But in my opinion, do whatever you want, as long as it’s safe and covered. Katerina. I don’t want it that way, and what’s good! I'd rather be patient as long as I can . Varvara. If you can’t bear it, what will you do? Katerina. What will I do? Varvara. Yes, what will you do? This is true strength of character, which you can rely on in any case! Katerina. some dark forces, something unknown, which she could not explain to herself well, nor reject. She is afraid for her every thought, for the simplest feeling she expects punishment; It seems to her that the thunderstorm will kill her, because she is a sinner, the pictures of fiery hell on the church wall seem to her to be a harbinger of her eternal torment... And everything around her supports and develops this fear in her: Feklushi go to Kabanikha to talk about the last times; Dikoy insists that the thunderstorm is sent to us as punishment, so that we feel; the arriving lady, instilling fear in everyone in the city, appears several times in order to shout over Katerina in an ominous voice: “You will all burn in unquenchable fire.” Everyone around is full of superstitious fear, and everyone around, in agreement with the concepts of Katerina herself, should look at her feelings for Boris as the greatest crime. Even the daring Kudryash, the esprit-fort of this environment, even finds that girls can hang out with guys as much as they want - that’s okay, but women need to sit locked up. This conviction is so strong in him that, having learned about Boris’s love for Katerina, he, despite his daring and some kind of outrage, says that “this matter must be abandoned.” Everything is against Katerina, even her own concepts of good and evil; everything must force her to drown out her impulses and wither in the cold and gloomy formalism of family muteness and humility, without any living aspirations, without will, without love, or learn to deceive people and conscience. But do not be afraid for her, do not be afraid even when she herself speaks against herself: she can either apparently submit for a while, or even resort to deception, just as a river can hide underground or move away from its bed; but the flowing water will not stop and will not go back, but will still reach its end, to the place where it can merge with other waters and run together to the waters of the ocean. The environment in which Katerina lives requires her to lie and deceive; “It’s impossible without this,” Varvara tells her, “remember where you live; Our whole house rests on this. And I was not a liar, but I learned when it became necessary.” Katerina succumbs to her position, goes out to Boris at night, hides her feelings from her mother-in-law for ten days... You might think: here is another woman who has lost her way, learned to deceive her family and will secretly debauch herself, falsely caressing her husband and wearing a disgusting mask of a meek woman! It would be impossible to strictly blame her for this either: her situation is so difficult! But then she would have been one of the dozens of faces of the type that has already been so worn out in stories that showed how “the environment is seizing Then I'll do whatever I want. Varvara. Try it, they'll eat you here. “It’s not reasonable precaution that speaks in her, it’s passion; and it is clear that no matter how she restrains herself, passion is higher than her, higher than all her prejudices and fears, higher than all suggestions. heard by her since childhood. Her whole life lies in this passion; all the strength of her nature, all her living aspirations merge here. What attracts her to Boris is not just the fact that she likes him, that he, both in appearance and in speech, is not like the others around her; She is drawn to him by the need for love, which has not found a response in her husband, and the offended feeling of a wife and woman, and the mortal melancholy of her monotonous life, and the desire for freedom, space, hot, unfettered freedom. She keeps dreaming of how she could “fly invisibly wherever she wants”; and then such a thought comes: “if it were up to me, I would now ride on the Volga, on a boat, with songs, or on a good troika, hugging each other”... “Just not with my husband,” Varya tells her, and Katerina doesn’t can hide his feelings and immediately opens up to her with the question: “how do you know?” It is clear that Varvara’s remark explained a lot to her: while telling her dreams so naively, she did not yet fully understand their meaning. But one word is enough to give her thoughts the certainty that she herself was afraid to give them. Until now, she could still doubt whether this new feeling really contained the bliss that she was so painfully seeking. But once she has uttered the word of secret, she will not give up on it even in her thoughts. Fear, doubt, the thought of sin and human judgment - all this comes to her mind, but no longer has power over her; This is just a formality, to clear your conscience. In the monologue with the key (the last one in the second act) we see a woman in whose soul a decisive step has already been taken, but who only wants to somehow “talk” herself. .. In these transactions, it is not the individuals who are to blame, but those concepts that have been hammered into their heads from childhood and which are so often contrary to the natural course of the living aspirations of the soul. Until these concepts are driven out of society, until the complete harmony of ideas and the needs of nature is restored in the human being, such transactions are inevitable. It’s also good if, when doing them, they come to what seems natural and common sense, and do not fall under the yoke of conventional instructions of artificial morality. This is precisely what Katerina gained strength for, and the stronger her nature speaks, the calmer she faces the childish nonsense that those around her have taught her to fear. Therefore, it even seems to us that the artist playing the role of Katerina on the St. Petersburg stage is making a small mistake, giving the monologue we are talking about too much heat and tragedy. Katerina. What about me? I will leave, and I was like that. , and from this point of view she conveys a difficult monologue perfectly. But it seems to us that it is more consistent with Katerina’s character and position in this case to give her words more calmness and lightness. The struggle, in fact, is already over, only a little thought remains, the old rags still cover Katerina, and little by little she throws them off. The end of the monologue betrays her heart. “Come what may, I will see Boris,” she concludes, and in the oblivion of foreboding, she exclaims: “Oh, if only the night would come quickly!” What remains for her? To regret the unsuccessful attempt to break free and leave her dreams of love and happiness, just as she had already left the rainbow dreams of wonderful gardens with heavenly singing. All that remains for her is to submit, renounce independent life and become an unquestioning servant of her mother-in-law, a meek slave of her husband, and never again dare to make any attempts to again reveal her demands... But no, this is not Katerina’s character; It was not then that the new type created by Russian life was reflected in it - only to be reflected in a fruitless attempt and perish after the first failure. No, she will not return to her former life: if she cannot enjoy her feelings, her will, completely lawfully and sacredly, in broad daylight, in front of all the people, if they snatch from her what she found and what is so dear to her, she is nothing. then she doesn’t want in life, she doesn’t want life either. The fifth act of “The Thunderstorm” constitutes the apotheosis of this character, so simple, deep and so close to the position and to the heart of every decent person in our society. The artist did not put any stilts on his heroine, he did not even give her heroism, but left her the same simple, naive woman as she appeared before us before her “sin”. .. There is no malice, no contempt in her, nothing that is usually so flaunted by disappointed heroes who voluntarily leave the world. But she can’t live anymore, she can’t, and that’s all; from the fullness of her heart she says: “I’m already exhausted... How much longer do I have to suffer? Why should I live now - well, what for? I don’t need anything, nothing is nice to me, and God’s light is not nice! - but death does not come. You call her, but she doesn’t come. Whatever I see, whatever I hear, only here ( Varvara. Where will you go! You are a man's wife. ) hurt". When she thinks about the grave, she feels better - calmness seems to pour into her soul. “So quiet, so good... But I don’t even want to think about life... To live again?.. No, no, don’t... it’s not good. And people are disgusting to me, and the house is disgusting to me, and the walls are disgusting! I won't go there! No, no, I won’t go... You come to them - they walk, they talk, - but what do I need? that semi-feverish state. At the last moment, all the domestic horrors flash especially vividly in her imagination. She screams: “They’ll catch me and force me back home!.. 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 a spineless and disgusting husband. She is freed!.. Such liberation is sad, bitter; but what to do when there is no other way out. It’s good that the poor woman found the determination to at least take this terrible way out. This is the strength of her character, which is why “The Thunderstorm” makes a refreshing impression on us, as we said above. Without a doubt, it would be better if it were possible for Katerina to get rid of her tormentors in a different way, or if the tormentors around her could change and reconcile her with themselves and with life. But neither one nor the other is in the order of things. Kabanova cannot leave what she was raised with and lived with for a century; her spineless son cannot suddenly, for no apparent reason, acquire firmness and independence to such an extent as to renounce all the absurdities instilled in him by the old woman; everything around cannot suddenly turn around in such a way as to make the life of a young woman sweet. In this state of affairs, it goes without saying that Katerina cannot be satisfied with a generous forgiveness from tyrants and the return of her former rights in the family: she knows what Kabanova’s mercy means and what the position of a daughter-in-law with such a mother-in-law could be... No, she would need not that something would be conceded and made easier for her, but that her mother-in-law, her husband, and everyone around her would become able to satisfy those living aspirations with which she is imbued, recognize the legality of her natural demands, renounce all compulsory rights to her and be reborn before to become worthy of her love and trust. There is nothing to say about the extent to which such a rebirth is possible for them... Another solution would be less impossible - to flee with Boris from the tyranny and violence of their family. Despite the strictness of the formal law, despite the cruelty of rude tyranny, such steps do not represent an impossibility in themselves, especially for such characters as Katerina. And yet he lives with his uncle and endures his curses; For what? - unknown. On her first date with Katerina, when she talks about what awaits her for this, Boris interrupts her with the words: “Well, what should we think about it, fortunately we’re good now.” And when Katerina. Eh, Varya, you don’t know my character! cries: “Who knew that we would have to suffer so much with you for our love! It would be better for me to run then!” 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 do. Their type has been portrayed many times in our fiction, either with exaggerated compassion for them or with excessive bitterness against them. Ostrovsky gives them to us as they are, and with his special skill he depicts with two or three features their complete insignificance, although, however, not devoid of a certain degree of spiritual nobility. even if they were “educated” it is absolutely impossible. If we look at who is to blame here, then it will be not so much the nephews who are to blame as the uncles, or, better said, their inheritance. Of course, God forbid this happens, and if I get really sick of it here, they won’t hold me back by any force. I’ll throw myself out the window, throw myself into the Volga. I don’t want to live here, I won’t, even if you cut me. . Her destruction is the realized song of the Babylonian captivity, play and sing to us the songs of Zion, their conquerors told the Jews; , etc. This is because our goal was to indicate the general meaning of the play, and, being carried away by the general, we could not sufficiently go into the analysis of all the details. Literary judges will again be dissatisfied: the measure of the artistic merit of the play is not sufficiently defined and clarified, the best parts are not indicated, the secondary and main characters are not strictly separated, and most of all - art is again made an instrument of some extraneous idea!.. We know and have all this. only one answer: let the readers judge for themselves (we assume that everyone has read or seen “The Thunderstorm”) - fear good people or does it really follow from the play itself?, constitutes its essence and determines its direct meaning?.. If we are mistaken, let them prove it to us, give another meaning to the play, more suitable for it... If our thoughts are consistent with the play, then we ask you to answer one more question: Was the Russian living nature accurately expressed in Katerina, was the Russian situation accurately expressed in everything around her, was the need for the emerging movement of Russian life accurately reflected in the meaning of the play, as we understand it? If “no,” if readers do not recognize here anything familiar, dear to their hearts, close to their urgent needs, then, of course, our work is lost. But if “yes”, if our readers, having understood our notes, find that Russian life and Russian power are precisely 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 and literary judges spoke.
Сon amore - with passion, out of love ( Italian). From Lermontov’s poem “Journalist, Reader and Writer.” Freethinker ( French).

Ipocrite (

from Greek

) is a hypocrite.

One of the psalms (songs) attributed to the Hebrew king David; repeatedly translated into poetry by Russian poets.

N. A. Dobrolyubov. "A ray of light in a dark kingdom" Dobrolyubov's polemic with Ostrovsky's critics. Ostrovsky's plays are “plays of life.”

Tyrants in "The Thunderstorm".

Dobrolyubov about

distinctive features positive personality of her era (Katerina).. The different attitudes towards the people largely determined many opinions about the play. Dobrolyubov cites sharply negative assessments of reactionary critics who expressed serfdom 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 distinguish a strong personality from her environment. These critics, says Dobrolyubov, muting the strength 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 a bearer of the traits national character. Such properties of the heroes’ nature as humility, obedience, and forgiveness were declared truly popular. Referring to the image in “The Thunderstorm” of representatives “ dark kingdom“, critics argued that Ostrovsky had in mind the ancient merchants 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 according to their concepts, of course) and to what extent everything that should really be contained in it (again in accordance with their concepts).” Dobrolyubov points out the extreme subjectivism of these concepts, exposes the anti-national position of aesthete critics, and contrasts them with the revolutionary understanding of nationality, objectively reflected in Ostrovsky’s works. In the working people, Dobrolyubov sees a totality best properties national character, and above all hatred of tyranny, by which the critic - a revolutionary democrat - understands the entire autocratic serfdom system of Russia, and the ability (even if only potential for now) for protest, rebellion against the foundations of the “dark kingdom”. Dobrolyubov’s method is “to examine the author’s work and then, as a result of this examination, to 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 character, but something new, to which we would give the name “plays of life.” In this regard, the critic notes the fidelity to life's truth in the playwright's works, the wide scope of reality, the ability to deeply penetrate into the essence of phenomena, the artist's ability to look into the recesses of the human soul. Ostrovsky, according to Dobrolyubov, was precisely what was great because he “captured such common aspirations and needs that permeate all Russian society, whose voice is heard in all phenomena of our life, the satisfaction of which is a necessary condition for our further development" The breadth of artistic generalizations determines, in the critic’s opinion, the true nationality of Ostrovsky’s work, making his plays vitally truthful, expressing popular aspirations.

Pointing to the dramatic innovation of the writer, Dobrolyubov notes that if in “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 one, not dependent on anyone.” of the characters, the setting of life.” Typically, 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 contrary, “position dominates” over the characters; in his case, 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 character” were designed so that the viewer, without reasoning, would accept the author’s interpretation of moral concepts as immutable, condemn precisely the evil that was being condemned, and be imbued with respect only for that virtue that ultimately triumphed. Ostrovsky “does not punish either the villain or the victim...”, “the feeling aroused by the play is not directly directed at them.” It turns out to be chained to a struggle that takes place “not in the monologues of the characters, but in the facts that dominate them,” disfiguring them. The viewer himself is drawn into this struggle and, as a result, “unwittingly becomes indignant 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 Ostrovsky’s compositional style. “These persons,” writes Dobrolyubov, “are just as necessary for the play as the main ones: they show us the environment in which the action takes place, they draw the situation that determines the meaning of the activities of the main characters in the play.”

According to Dobrolyubov, the artistic form of “The Thunderstorm” fully corresponds to its ideological content. Compositionally, he perceives drama as a single whole, all elements of which are artistically appropriate. “In The Thunderstorm,” says Dobrolyubov, “the need for so-called “unnecessary” faces is especially visible: without them we cannot understand the heroine’s face and can easily distort the meaning of the entire play, which is what happened to most of the critics.”

3. Analyzing the images of the “masters of life,” the critic shows that in Ostrovsky’s previous plays the tyrants, cowardly and spineless by nature, felt calm and confident because they did not encounter serious resistance. At first glance, in “The Thunderstorm,” says Dobrolyubov, “everything seems to be the same, everything is fine; Dikoy scolds whoever he wants.... Kabanikha keeps... her children in fear... considers herself completely infallible and is pleased by various Feklush. But this is only at first glance. The tyrants have already lost their former calm and confidence. They are already worried about their situation, watching, hearing, feeling how their way of life is gradually collapsing. According to Kabanikha, the railway is a diabolical invention, traveling on it is a mortal sin, but “people travel more and more, not paying attention to its curses.” Dikoy says that a thunderstorm is sent to people as “punishment” so that they “feel,” but Kuligin “doesn’t feel... and talks about electricity.” Feklusha describes various horrors in the “unjust 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, things are not good here, but we don’t know well about those lands yet. ..” And in household affairs something wrong is happening - the young people violate established customs.

However, the critic emphasizes, Russian serf owners did not want to take into account the historical demands of life and did not want to concede anything. Feeling doom, aware of powerlessness, fearing an unknown future, “The Kabanovs and the Wild are now trying to ensure that faith in their strength continues.” In this regard, writes Dobrolyubov, two sharp features stood out in their character and behavior: “eternal discontent and irritability”, clearly expressed in Dikiy, “constant suspicion... and pickiness”, 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 serfdom system of Russia.

4. “The opposite of all tyrant principles” in the play, Dobrolyubov notes, is Katerina. The character of the heroine “constitutes a step forward not only in Ostrovsky’s dramatic activity, but also in all of our literature. It corresponds to a new phase of our national life.”

According to the critic, the peculiarity of Russian life in its “new phase” is that “an urgent need was felt for people... active and energetic.” She was no longer satisfied with “virtuous and respectable, but weak and impersonal beings.” Russian life needed “enterprising, decisive, persistent characters” capable of overcoming many obstacles caused by tyrants.

Before “The Thunderstorm,” Dobrolyubov points out, even the best writers’ attempts to recreate an integral, decisive character ended “more or less unsuccessfully.” The critic refers mainly to the creative experience of Pisemsky and Goncharov, whose heroes (Kalinovich in the novel “A Thousand Souls”, Stolz in “Oblomov”), strong in “practical sense,” adapt to the prevailing circumstances. These, as well as other types with their “crackling pathos” or logical concept, Dobrolyubov argues, are claims to strong, integral characters, and they could not serve as exponents of demands new era. Failures occurred because writers were guided by abstract ideas, and not life truth; in addition (and here Dobrolyubov is not inclined to blame the writers), life itself has not yet given a clear answer to the question: “What features should distinguish a character that will make a decisive break with the old, absurd and violent relationships of life?”

Ostrovsky’s merit, the critic emphasizes, is that he was able to sensitively grasp what “force is rushing out from the recesses of Russian life,” was able to understand, feel and express it in the image of the heroine of the drama. Katerina’s character is “focused and decisive, unswervingly faithful to the instinct of natural truth, filled with faith in new ideals and selfless in the sense that it is better for him to die than to live under those principles that are disgusting to him.

Dobrolyubov, tracing the development of Katerina’s character, notes the manifestation of his strength and determination in childhood. As an adult, she did not lose her “childish fervor.” 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 Katerina’s “liberation” from the oppression of tyrants, Dobrolyubov sees not a manifestation of cowardice and cowardice, as some critics argued, but evidence of the determination and strength of her character: “Sad, bitter is such liberation; but what to do when there is no other way out. It’s good that the poor woman found the determination to at least take this terrible way out. This is the strength of her character, and that is why “The Thunderstorm” makes a refreshing impression on us...”

Ostrovsky creates his Katerina as a woman who is “clogged by the environment,” but at the same time empowers her positive qualities a 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 chests of the weakest and most patient.” In family relationships, the critic said, the woman suffers most from tyranny. Therefore, she, more than anyone else, should be boiling with grief and indignation. But in order to declare her dissatisfaction, present her demands and go to the end in her protest against tyranny and oppression, she “must be filled with heroic self-sacrifice, must decide on anything and be ready for anything.” But where can she “get so much character!” - asks Dobrolyubov and answers: “In the impossibility of withstanding what... they are forced to do.” 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 into the general feeling of the organism, which requires air, food, and freedom.” This, according to Dobrolyubov, is the “secret of the integrity” of a woman’s energetic character. This is exactly the character of Katerina. Its emergence and development were fully consistent with the prevailing circumstances. In the situation depicted by Ostrovsky, tyranny reached such extremes that could only be reflected by extremes of resistance. Here, a passionate and irreconcilable protest of the individual “against Kabanov’s concepts of morality, a protest that was carried to the end, proclaimed both under domestic torture and over the abyss into which the poor woman threw herself,” was inevitably supposed to be born.”

Dobrolyubov reveals the ideological content of Katerina’s image not only in family and everyday terms. The image of the heroine turned out to be so capacious, its ideological significance appeared on a scale that Ostrovsky himself had never thought about. Correlating “The Thunderstorm” with the entire Russian reality, the critic shows that objectively the playwright went far beyond the boundaries of family life. In the play, Dobrolyubov saw an artistic generalization of the fundamental features and characteristics of the serfdom of pre-reform Russia. In the image of Katerina, he found a reflection of the “new movement of people’s life”, in her character - the typical character traits of the working people, in her protest - the real possibility of a revolutionary protest of the lower social classes. Calling Katerina “a ray of light in the dark kingdom,” the critic reveals the ideological meaning folk character heroines in his broad socio-historical perspective.

5. From Dobrolyubov’s point of view, 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 tyrant power.

The critic calls Tikhon “simple-minded and vulgar, not at all evil, but an extremely spineless creature.” Nevertheless, the Tikhons “in a general sense are as harmful as the tyrants themselves, because they serve as their faithful assistants.” The form of his protest against tyrant oppression is ugly: he strives to break free for a while, to satisfy his tendency to revelry. And although in the finale of the drama Tikhon in despair calls his mother guilty of Katerina’s death, he himself envies his dead wife. “...But that’s his grief, that’s what’s hard for him,” writes Dobrolyubov, “that he can’t do anything, absolutely nothing... he’s 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, submitting to “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 powerlessness generated by a lack of will, and most importantly, financial dependence on tyrants.

According to the critic, one could not rely on people like Kuligin, who believed in a peaceful, educational way of rebuilding life and tried to influence tyrants with the power of persuasion. The Kuligins only logically understood the absurdity of tyranny, but were powerless in the struggle where “all life is ruled not by logic, but by pure arbitrariness.”

In Kudryash and Varvara, the critic sees characters strong in “practical sense”, people who know how to deftly use circumstances to organize their personal affairs.

6. Dobrolyubov called “The Thunderstorm” Ostrovsky’s “most decisive work.” The critic points out 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,” meaning the depiction of a life situation that reveals “precariousness 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 fight against the “dark kingdom.”

Literature

Ozerov Yu. A. Reflections before writing. ( Practical advice applicants to universities): Textbook. – M.: Higher School, 1990. – P. 126–133.

What do you think about when you re-read what Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev wrote about “The Thunderstorm” by Alexander Nikolaevich Ostrovsky? Perhaps, the fact that literature follows geniuses... The golden Russian literature of the 19th century, having begun with an international breakthrough in poetry, had already realized it in prose by the middle of the century, serving as a “ray of light” for the entire Russian society. We are, of course, talking about the non-poetic works of Pushkin, Gogol, Ostrovsky.

Civil message of the article

The article about Pisarev’s “The Thunderstorm” is a citizen’s response to the iconic play of the century before last. The play in five acts, written in 1859 by Alexander Nikolaevich Ostrovsky, occupies a special place in golden Russian literature. This dramatic work served as a powerful stimulus for the further development of realism. Evidence of this was the assessment given to the play by critics. It demonstrates a real pluralism of opinions. And in the dispute, the truth was really born! In understanding this, it is important to know that the article “Motives of Russian Drama”, in which Pisarev placed his review of “The Thunderstorm”, was written as a response to another critical article by the famous literary critic Nikolai Dobrolyubov. The article with which Pisarev argued was brightly called “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom.” We will try to present to readers our analysis of the above-mentioned work by Dmitry Pisarev. It occupies a special place in Russian literature. Ostrovsky managed to worthily continue in Russian drama the realism laid down by Griboyedov in “Woe from Wit.”

Fundamental disagreement with Dobrolyubov on the play “The Thunderstorm”

Dmitry Ivanovich, undoubtedly, was a subtle expert and, undoubtedly, when starting work, he became deeply acquainted with the article of the outstanding literary critic Dobrolyubov, whom he knew and respected. However, obviously, following the wisdom of the ancients (namely, “Socrates is my friend, but the truth is dearer”), Pisarev wrote his review of Ostrovsky’s drama “The Thunderstorm”.

He realized the need to express his point of view because he felt: Dobrolyubov tried to show Katerina as a “hero of the time.” Dmitry Ivanovich fundamentally disagreed with this position, and with good reason. Therefore, he wrote his article “Motives of Russian Drama,” where he criticized the main thesis in the work of Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov that Katerina Kabanova is “a ray of light in a dark kingdom.”

Kalinov as a model of Russia

Undoubtedly, in the article Pisarev expressed his thoughts about “The Thunderstorm,” clearly realizing that the Dobrolyubovs gave such a “dark” characterization formally to one county town, but in fact to all of Russia in the middle of the 19th century. Kalinov is a small model of a huge country. In it, public opinion and the entire course of city life are manipulated by two people: a merchant, unscrupulous in his methods of enrichment, Savel Prokofich Dikoy, and a hypocrite of Shakespearean proportions, merchant Marfa Ignatievna Kabanova (in common parlance - Kabanikha).

In the 60s of the century before last, Russia itself was a huge country with a population of forty million and developed agriculture. A network of railways was already in operation. In the near future, after Ostrovsky wrote the play (more precisely, from 1861, after Emperor Alexander II signed the “Manifesto” abolishing serfdom) the number of the proletariat increased and, accordingly, industrial growth began.

However, the suffocating atmosphere of pre-reform society shown in Ostrovsky’s play was truly true. The work was in demand, suffered...

Relevance of the play's ideas

Using simple argumentation, Pisarev creates his review of “The Thunderstorm” in a language understandable to the reader. Summary he accurately reproduces the plays in his critical article. How could it be otherwise? After all, the problems of the play are vital. And Ostrovsky did a great job, with his work he wished with all his heart to build a civil society instead of the “dark kingdom.”

However, dear readers... So to speak, putting your hand on your heart... Can our society today be called “the kingdom of light, goodness and reason”? Did Ostrovsky write Kuligin’s monologue into the void: “Because we can never earn more through honest work, and whoever has the money, sir, tries to enslave the poor so that he can make even more money from his free labor...”? Bitter, fair words...

Katerina is not a “ray of light”

Pisarev’s criticism of “The Thunderstorm” begins with the formulation of the conclusion about the recklessness of Dobrolyubov’s conclusion. He motivates him by citing arguments from the author's text of the play. His polemic with Nikolai Dobrolyubov resembles the summing up of a seasoned pessimist about the conclusions drawn by an optimist. According to Dmitry Ivanovich’s reasoning, Katerina’s essence is melancholic, there is no real virtue in her, characteristic of people who are called “light”. According to Pisarev, Dobrolyubov made a systematic error in analyzing the image of the main character of the play. He collected all her positive qualities into a single positive image, ignoring her shortcomings. According to Dmitry Ivanovich, a dialectical view of the heroine is important.

The main character as a suffering part of the dark kingdom

A young woman lives with her husband Tikhon with her mother-in-law, a wealthy merchant who has (as they say now) “heavy energy,” which is subtly emphasized by Pisarev’s critical article. "The Thunderstorm", as a tragic play, is largely determined by this image. Kabanikha (that’s her street name) is pathologically fixated on the moral oppression of those around her, with constant reproaches, eating them “like rusty iron.” She does this in a sanctimonious manner: that is, constantly asking her family to “act in order” (more precisely, following her instructions).

Tikhon and his sister Varvara adapted to their mother’s speeches. Her daughter-in-law, Katerina, is especially sensitive to her nagging and humiliation. She, who has a romantic, melancholic psyche, is truly unhappy. Her colorful dreams and daydreams reveal a completely childish worldview. This is nice, but it is not a virtue!

Inability to cope with oneself

At the same time, Pisarev’s criticism of “The Thunderstorm” objectively points to Katerina’s infantility and impulsiveness. She doesn't marry for love. The majestic Boris Grigorievich, the nephew of the merchant Dikiy, just smiled at her, and the thing was ready: Katya hurries off to a secret meeting. At the same time, having become close to this, in principle, a stranger, she does not think at all about the consequences. “Is the author really depicting a “ray of light?!” - Pisarev’s critical article asks the reader. “The Thunderstorm” depicts an extremely illogical heroine who cannot not only cope with circumstances, but also cannot cope with herself. After cheating on her husband, being depressed, childishly frightened by a thunderstorm and the hysteria of a crazy lady, she admits to what she did and immediately identifies herself with the victim. It's corny, isn't it?

On his mother’s advice, Tikhon beats her “a little,” “for the sake of order.” However, the bullying of the mother-in-law herself becomes much more sophisticated. After Katerina learns that Boris Grigorievich is going to Kyakhta (Transbaikalia), she, having neither the will nor the character, decides to commit suicide: she throws herself into the river and drowns.

Katerina is not a “hero of the time”

Pisarev thinks philosophically about Ostrovsky’s “The Thunderstorm.” He asks the question of whether in a slave society a person who is not endowed with a deep mind, who does not have will, who does not engage in self-education, who does not understand people - in principle, can become a ray of light. Yes, this woman is touchingly meek, kind and sincere, she does not know how to defend her point of view. (“She crushed me,” says Katerina about Kabanikha). Yes, she has a creative, impressionable nature. And this type can really charm (as happened with Dobrolyubov). But this does not change the essence... “Under the circumstances set out in the play, a person - a “ray of light” cannot arise!” - says Dmitry Ivanovich.

Maturity of the soul is a condition of adult life

Moreover, the critic continues his thought, is it really a virtue to capitulate to minor, completely surmountable life difficulties? This obvious, logical question is asked by Pisarev about Ostrovsky’s “The Thunderstorm”. Can this be an example for a generation whose destiny is to change slave Russia, oppressed by local “princelings” like Kabanikha and Dikiy? At best, such a suicide can only cause, however, the result is a fight against social group rich people and manipulators must be led by strong-willed and educated people!

At the same time, Pisarev does not speak disparagingly about Katerina. “The Thunderstorm,” the critic believes, is not for nothing that it portrays her image so consistently, starting from childhood. The image of Katerina in this sense is similar to the unforgettable image of Ilya Ilyich Oblomov! The problem of her unformed personality is her ideally comfortable childhood and youth. Her parents didn't prepare her for adulthood! Moreover, they did not give her a proper education.

However, it should be recognized that, unlike Ilya Ilyich, if Katerina had found herself in a more favorable environment than the Kabanov family, she would most likely have flourished as an individual. Ostrovsky gives reasons for this...

What is the positive image of the main character?

This is an artistically holistic, positive image - Pisarev tells about Katerina. “The Thunderstorm”, when read, leads the reader to the realization that main character really has an internal emotional charge characteristic of a creative person. It has the potential for a positive attitude towards reality. She intuitively feels the main need of Russian society - human freedom. She has hidden energy (which she feels, but has not learned to control). That’s why Katya exclaimed the words: “Why are people not birds?” It is no coincidence that the author conceived such a comparison, because the heroine subconsciously wants freedom, similar to that which a bird feels in flight. That freedom, for which she lacks the mental strength to fight...

Conclusion

What conclusions does Pisarev draw with his article “Motives of Russian Drama”? “The Thunderstorm” does not depict a “hero of the times”, not a “ray of light”. This image is much weaker, but not artistically (everything is in order here), but in terms of the maturity of the soul. The “hero of the time” cannot “break” as a person. After all, people who are called “rays of light” can be killed rather than broken. And Katerina is weak...

Both have critics and general direction reflections: the article about “The Thunderstorm” by Pisarev, like the article by Dobrolyubov, interprets the title of the play in the same way. This is not only an atmospheric phenomenon that scared Katerina to death. Quicker, we're talking about about the social conflict of a backward, uncivil society that has come into conflict with the needs of development.

Ostrovsky's play is a kind of indictment. Both critics showed, following Alexander Nikolaevich, that people have no rights, they are not free, they are essentially subordinate to the “Boars” and “Wild Ones”. Why did Dobrolyubov and Pisarev write about “The Thunderstorm” in such different ways?

The reason for this is, undoubtedly, the depth of the work, in which there is more than one semantic “bottom”. It has both psychologism and sociality. Each of the literary scholars interpreted them in their own way and set priorities differently. Moreover, both one and the other did it with talent, and Russian literature only benefited from this. Therefore, it is completely stupid to ask the question: “Did Pisarev write about the play “The Thunderstorm” more accurately, or did Dobrolyubov write it?” You should definitely read both articles...

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

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

Dobrolyubov N. A

A ray of light in a dark kingdom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But - a wonderful thing! - in their indisputable, irresponsible dark dominion, giving complete freedom to their whims, putting all laws and logic into nothing, the tyrants of Russian life begin, however, to feel some kind of discontent and fear, without knowing what and why. Everything seems to be the same, everything is fine: Dikoy scolds whoever he wants; when they say to him: “How is it that no one in the whole house can please you!” - he answers smugly: “Here you go!” Kabanova still keeps her children in fear, forces her daughter-in-law to observe all the etiquettes of antiquity, eats her like rusty iron, considers herself completely infallible and is pleased with various Feklush. But everything is somehow restless, it’s not good for them. Besides them, without asking them, another life has grown, with different beginnings, and although it is far away and not yet clearly visible, it is already giving itself a presentiment and sending bad visions to the dark tyranny of tyrants. They are fiercely looking for their enemy, ready to attack the most innocent, some Kuligin; but there is neither an enemy nor a culprit whom they could destroy: the law of time, the law of nature and history takes its toll, and the old Kabanovs breathe heavily, feeling that there is a force higher than them, which they cannot overcome, which they cannot even approach know how. They don’t want to give in (and no one is demanding concessions from them yet), but they shrink and shrink; Previously, they wanted to establish their system of life, forever indestructible, and now they are also trying to preach; but hope is already betraying them, and they, in essence, are only concerned about how things would turn out in their lifetime... Kabanova talks about how “the last times are coming,” and when Feklusha tells her about various horrors of the present time - about the railways etc., - she prophetically remarks: “And it will be worse, dear.” “We just wouldn’t live to see this,” Feklusha answers with a sigh. “Maybe we’ll live,” Kabanova says again fatalistically, revealing her doubts and uncertainty. Why is she worried? People by railways she drives, but what does that matter to her? But you see: she, “even if you shower her with gold,” will not go according to the devil’s invention; and people travel more and more, not paying attention to her curses; Isn’t this sad, isn’t it evidence of her powerlessness? People learned about electricity - it seems that there is something offensive here for the Wild and Kabanovs? But, you see, Dikoy says that “a thunderstorm is sent to us as punishment, so that we feel,” but Kuligin does not feel or feels something completely wrong, and talks about electricity. Isn’t this self-will, not a disregard for the power and importance of the Wild One? They don’t want to believe what he believes, which means they don’t believe him either, they consider themselves smarter than him; Think about what this will lead to? No wonder Kabanova remarks about Kuligin: “The times have come, what teachers have appeared! If the old man thinks like this, what can we demand from the young!” And Kabanova is very seriously upset about the future of the old order, with which she has outlived the century. She foresees their end, tries to maintain their significance, but already feels that there is no former respect for them, that they are being preserved reluctantly, only unwillingly, and that at the first opportunity they will be abandoned. She herself had somehow lost some of her knightly fervor; She no longer cares with the same energy about observing old customs; in many cases she has already given up, bowed down before the impossibility of stopping the flow and only watches with despair as it little by little floods the colorful flower beds of her whimsical superstitions.<…>

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

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

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

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

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

It is clear from this that if a woman wants to free herself from such a situation, then her case will be serious and decisive. It doesn’t cost any Kudryash anything to quarrel with Dikiy: they both need each other, and, therefore, there is no need for special heroism on Kudryash’s part to present his demands. But his prank will not lead to anything serious: he will quarrel, Dikoy will threaten to give him up as a soldier, but will not give him up; Curly will be pleased that he snapped, and things will go on as before again. Not so with a woman: she must have a lot of strength of character in order to express her dissatisfaction, her demands. At the first attempt, they will make her feel that she is nothing, that they can crush her. She knows that this is really so, and must come to terms with it; otherwise they will fulfill the threat over her - they will beat her, lock her up, leave her to repent, on bread and water, deprive her of daylight, try all the home remedies of the good old days and finally lead her to submission. A woman who wants to go to the end in her rebellion against the oppression and tyranny of her elders in the Russian family must be filled with heroic self-sacrifice, must decide on anything and be ready for anything. How can she stand herself? Where does she get so much character? The only answer to this is that the natural aspirations of human nature cannot be completely destroyed. You can tilt them to the side, press, squeeze, but all this is only to a certain extent. The triumph of false positions only shows to what extent the elasticity of human nature can reach; but the more unnatural the situation, the closer and more necessary the way out of it. And this means that it is very unnatural when even the most flexible natures, most subordinate to the influence of the force that produced such situations, cannot withstand it.<…>The same must be said about a weak woman who decides to fight for her rights: things have come to the point where it is no longer possible for her to withstand her humiliation, so she breaks out of it no longer based on considerations of what is better and what is worse, but only by instinctive desire for what is bearable and possible. It’s easy for a person who has come to the realization that others really need him; but a woman, a wife? Why is it needed? Isn't she, on the contrary, taking everything from her husband? Her husband gives her a place to live, gives her water, feeds her, clothes her, protects her, gives her a position in society... Isn’t she usually considered a burden for a man? Don't prudent people say when holding Here it replaces both considerations of reason and the demands of feeling and imagination: all this merges into the general feeling of the organism, demanding air, food, freedom. This is where the secret of the integrity of the characters lies, appearing in circumstances similar to those we saw in “The Thunderstorm” in the environment surrounding Katerina.<…>

Katerina’s husband, young Kabanov, although he suffers a lot from old Kabanikha, he is still more independent: he can run to Savel Prokofich for a drink, he will go to Moscow from his mother and there he will turn around in freedom, and if it’s bad he will really have to old women, so there is someone to pour out his heart on - he will throw himself at his wife... So he lives for himself and cultivates his character, good for nothing, all in the secret hope that he will somehow break free. There is no hope for his wife, no consolation, she cannot catch her breath; if he can, then let him live without breathing, forget that there is free air in the world, let him renounce his nature and merge with the capricious despotism of the old Kabanikha. But free air and light, despite all the precautions of dying tyranny, burst into Katerina’s cell, she feels the opportunity to satisfy the natural thirst of her soul and cannot remain motionless any longer: she strives for a new life, even if she has to die in this impulse. What does death matter to her? It doesn’t matter - she also considers the vegetation that befell her in the Kabanov family to be life.

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

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

When she married Tikhon Kabanov, she did not love him either, she still did not understand this feeling; They told her that every girl should get married, showed Tikhon as her future husband, and she married him, remaining completely indifferent to this step. And here, too, a peculiarity of character is manifested: according to our usual concepts, she should be resisted if she has a decisive character; she doesn't think about resistance because she doesn't have enough reasons to do so. She has no particular desire to get married, but she also has no aversion to marriage; There is no love in her for Tikhon, but there is no love for anyone else either. She doesn’t care for now, that’s why she allows you to do whatever you want to her. In this one cannot see either powerlessness or apathy, but one can only find a lack of experience, and even too great a readiness to do everything for others, caring little about oneself. She has little knowledge and a lot of gullibility, which is why over time she does not show opposition to those around her and decides to endure better than to spite them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But even without any lofty considerations, just as a human being, we are pleased to see Katerina’s deliverance - even through death, if there is no other way. On this score, we have terrible evidence in the drama itself, telling us that living in the “dark kingdom” is worse than death. Tikhon, throwing himself on the corpse of his wife, pulled out of the water, shouts in self-forgetfulness: “Good for you, Katya! Why did I stay in the world and suffer!” This exclamation ends the play, and it seems to us that nothing could have been invented stronger and more truthful than such an ending. Tikhon’s words provide the key to understanding the play for those who did not even understand its essence before; they make the viewer think not about a love affair, but about this whole life, where the living envy the dead, and even what suicides! Strictly speaking, Tikhon’s exclamation is stupid: The Volga is close, who’s stopping him from rushing in if life is sickening? But this is his grief, this is what is hard for him, that he cannot do anything, absolutely nothing, even what he recognizes as his goodness and salvation.<…>But what a joyful, fresh life a healthy personality breathes upon us, finding within himself the determination to end this rotten life at any cost!..<…>

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

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

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

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

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

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

<«Слово и дело». Комедия в пяти действиях Ф. Устрялова «Карл Смелый». Опера в трех действиях, музыка Дж. Россини>For the first time - in the magazine “Sovremennik”, 1863, No. 1–2, dep. II, pp. 177–197 (censored February 5). Without a signature. Authorship indicated by A. N. Pypin (“M. E. Saltykov”, St. Petersburg, 1899,

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

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

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

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

Drama A.N. Ostrovsky's "The Thunderstorm" Of all Ostrovsky's works, the play "The Thunderstorm" caused the greatest resonance in society and the most heated controversy in criticism. This was explained by the nature of the drama itself (the severity of the conflict, its tragic outcome, a strong and original image

From the author's book

ON THE. Dobrolyubov Ray of light in the dark kingdom

From the author's book

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

From the author's book

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

From the author's book

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

From the author's book

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

From the author's book

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

From the author's book

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

From the author's book

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