A ray of sunshine in a dark kingdom. Essay “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom”

Analysis of the article by N.A. Dobrolyubov “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom”

Dobrolyubov’s article “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom” is one of the first reviews of A.N. Ostrovsky’s play. First published in the Sovremennik magazine in No. 10 for 1860.

It was a time of revolutionary democratic upsurge and fierce resistance to autocratic power. Tense anticipation of reforms. Hope for social change.

The era required a decisive, integral, strong character, capable of rising to protest against violence and tyranny and going through his fast to the end. Dobrolyubov saw such a character in Katerina.

Dobrolyubov called Katerina “a ray of light in the dark kingdom” because she is bright personality, a striking phenomenon and extremely positive. A person who does not want to be a victim of the “dark kingdom” and is capable of action. Any violence outrages her and leads to protest.

Dobrolyubov welcomes creativity in the character of the heroine.

He believed that the origins of protest lie precisely in harmony, simplicity, and nobility, which are incompatible with slave morality.

Katerina’s drama, according to Dobrolyubov, is in the struggle between the natural desires for beauty, harmony, and happiness arising from her nature with prejudices and the morality of the “dark kingdom.”

The critic sees something “refreshing, encouraging” in the drama “The Thunderstorm.” Reveals instability and the near end of tyranny. The character of Katerina breathes new life, although it is revealed to us in her very death.

Ostrovsky was far from thinking that the only way out of the “dark kingdom” could only be a decisive protest. Knowledge and education remained a “ray of light” for Ostrovsky.

Dobrolyubov, as a revolutionary democrat, during a period of powerful revolutionary upsurge, looked for facts in literature confirming that the masses do not want and cannot live in the old way, that a protest against autocratic orders is brewing in them, that they are ready to rise to a decisive struggle for social transformations. Dobrolyubov was convinced that readers, having read the play, should understand that living in the “dark kingdom” is worse than death. It is clear that in this way Dobrolyubov sharpened many aspects of Ostrovsky’s play and made direct revolutionary conclusions. But this was explained by the time of writing the article.

Dobrolyubov's critical manner is fruitful. The critic does not so much judge as study, explores the struggle in the heroine’s soul, proving the inevitability of the victory of light over darkness. This approach corresponds to the spirit of Ostrovsky's drama.

The justice of Dobrolyubov was also confirmed by the court of history. The “thunderstorm” was indeed news of a new stage in Russian folk life. Already in the movement of revolutionaries - the seventies, there were many participants whose life path made me remember Katerina. Vera Zasulich, Sofya Perovskaya, Vera Figner... And they began with an instinctive impulse towards will, born of the stuffiness of the family environment.

I love it critical article should hardly be considered the ultimate truth. Critical work, even the most multilateral, is still one-sided. The most brilliant critic cannot say everything about a work. But the best, like works of art, become monuments of the era. Dobrolyubov's article is one of the highest achievements of Russian XIX critics century. It sets the trend in the interpretation of “The Thunderstorm” to this day.

Our time brings its own accents to the interpretation of Ostrovsky's drama.

N. Dobrolyubov called the city of Kalinov a “dark kingdom”, and Katerina – a “ray of light” in it. But can we agree with this? The kingdom turned out to be not as “dark” as it might seem at first glance. And the beam? A sharp long light, mercilessly illuminating everything, cold, cutting, making you want to close yourself.

Is this Katerina? Let's remember how she prays...! What an angelic smile she has on her face, and her face seems to glow.

The light comes from within. No, it's not a beam. Candle. Trembling, defenseless. And from her there is light. Diffusing, warm, living light. They reached out to him - each for his own. It was from this breath of many that the candle went out.

Year of writing:

1860

Reading time:

Description of the work:

In 1860, Nikolai Dobrolyubov wrote a critical article, A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom, which became one of the first serious reviews to a play by Alexander Ostrovsky called "The Thunderstorm". The article was published by the Sovremennik magazine in the same 1860.

Let us mention only one character in the play - Katerina, in whom Dobrolyubov saw a decisive, integral, strong character, which was so necessary for society to resist the autocratic system at that time and carry out social reforms.

Below read a summary of the article A ray of light in a dark kingdom.

The article is devoted to Ostrovsky’s drama “The Thunderstorm”. At the beginning of it, Dobrolyubov writes that “Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life.” Next, he analyzes articles about Ostrovsky by other critics, writing that they “lack a direct view of things.”

Then Dobrolyubov compares “The Thunderstorm” with dramatic canons: “The subject of the drama must certainly be an event where we see the struggle between passion and duty - with the unhappy consequences of the victory of passion or with the happy ones when duty wins.” Also, the drama must have unity of action, and it must be written in a high literary language. “The Thunderstorm”, at the same time, “does not satisfy the most essential goal of the drama - to instill respect for moral duty and show the harmful consequences of being carried away by passion. Katerina, this criminal, appears to us in the drama not only not in a sufficiently gloomy light, but even with the radiance of martyrdom. She speaks so well, suffers so pitifully, everything around her is so bad that you arm yourself against her oppressors and thus justify vice in her person. Consequently, drama does not fulfill its high purpose. All the action is sluggish and slow, because it is cluttered with scenes and faces that are completely unnecessary. Finally, the language in which the characters speak exceeds any patience of a well-bred person.”

Dobrolyubov makes this comparison with the canon in order to show that approaching a work with a ready-made idea of what should be shown in it does not give true understanding. “What do you think about a man who, when he sees a pretty woman, suddenly begins to resonate that her figure is not like that of the Venus de Milo? The truth is not in dialectical subtleties, but in the living truth of what you are discussing. It cannot be said that people are evil by nature, and therefore one cannot accept for literary works principles such as, for example, that vice always triumphs and virtue is punished.”

“The writer has so far been given a small role in this movement of humanity towards natural principles,” writes Dobrolyubov, after which he recalls Shakespeare, who “moved the general consciousness of people to several levels to which no one had risen before him.” Next, the author addresses others critical articles about “The Thunderstorm,” in particular, Apollo Grigoriev, who claims that Ostrovsky’s main merit is his “nationality.” “But Mr. Grigoriev does not explain what nationality consists of, and therefore his remark seemed very funny to us.”

Then Dobrolyubov comes to define Ostrovsky’s plays in general as “plays of life”: “We want to say that with him the general situation of life is always in the foreground. He punishes neither the villain nor the victim. You see that their situation dominates them, and you only blame them for not showing enough energy to get out of this situation. 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 depict the situation that determines the meaning of the activities of the main characters in the play.”

In “The Thunderstorm” the need for “unnecessary” persons (secondary and episodic characters). Dobrolyubov analyzes the remarks of Feklushi, Glasha, Dikiy, Kudryash, Kuligin, etc. The author analyzes internal state heroes " dark kingdom": "Everything is somehow restless, they are not feeling well. Besides them, without asking them, another life has grown up, with different beginnings, and although it is not yet clearly visible, it is already sending bad visions to the dark tyranny of tyrants. 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 and that at the first opportunity they will be abandoned.”

Then the author writes that “The Thunderstorm” is “Ostrovsky’s most decisive work; mutual relations of tyranny are brought to the most tragic consequences; and for all that, most of those who have read and seen this play agree that there is even something refreshing and encouraging in “The Thunderstorm”. This “something” is, in our opinion, the background of the play, indicated by us and revealing the precariousness and the near end of tyranny. Then the very character of Katerina, drawn against this background, also blows on us new life, which is revealed to us in its very death.”

Further, Dobrolyubov analyzes the image of Katerina, perceiving it as “a step forward in all of our literature”: “Russian life has reached the point where the need for more active and energetic people was felt.” The image of Katerina “is unswervingly faithful to the instinct of natural truth and selfless in the sense that it is better for him to die than to live under those principles that are disgusting to him. In this integrity and harmony of character lies his strength. Free air and light, despite all the precautions of dying tyranny, burst into Katerina’s cell, she is striving for a new life, even if she had to die in this impulse. What does death matter to her? All the same, she does not consider life to be the vegetation that befell her in the Kabanov family.”

The author analyzes in detail the motives of Katerina’s actions: “Katerina does not at all belong to the violent character, dissatisfied, who loves to destroy. On the contrary, this is a predominantly creative, loving, ideal character. That's why she tries to ennoble everything in her imagination. The feeling of love for a person, the need for tender pleasures naturally opened in a young woman." But it won’t be Tikhon Kabanov, who is “too downtrodden to understand the nature of Katerina’s emotions: “If I don’t understand you, Katya,” he tells her, “you won’t get a word from you, let alone affection, or you’ll do it yourself.” you’re climbing.” This is how spoiled natures usually judge a strong and fresh nature.”

Dobrolyubov comes to the conclusion that in the image of Katerina Ostrovsky embodied a great popular idea: “in other creations of our literature strong characters similar to fountains, depending on an extraneous mechanism. Katerina is like a big river: a flat, good bottom - it flows calmly, large stones are encountered - it jumps over them, a cliff - it cascades, they dam it - it rages and breaks through in another place. It bubbles not because the water suddenly wants to make noise or get angry at obstacles, but simply because it needs it to fulfill its natural requirements - for further flow.”

Analyzing Katerina’s actions, the author writes that he considers it possible for Katerina and Boris to escape as best solution. Katerina is ready to flee, but here another problem emerges - Boris’s financial dependence on his uncle Dikiy. “We said a few words above about Tikhon; Boris is the same, in essence, only educated.”

At the end of the play, “we are pleased to see Katerina’s deliverance - even through death, if it is impossible otherwise. Living in the “dark kingdom” is worse than death. Tikhon, throwing himself on his wife’s corpse, pulled out of the water, shouts in self-forgetfulness: “Good for you, Katya!” Why did I stay in the world and suffer!“ With this exclamation the play ends, and it seems to us that nothing could have been invented stronger and more truthful than such an ending. Tikhon's words make the viewer think not about love affair, but about this whole life, where the living envy the dead.”

In conclusion, Dobrolyubov addresses the readers of the article: “If our readers find that Russian life and Russian strength are called by the artist in “The Thunderstorm” to a decisive cause, and if they feel the legitimacy and importance of this matter, then we are satisfied, no matter what our scientists say and literary judges."

You have read the summary of the article A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom. We invite you to visit the Summary section to read other summaries of popular writers.

ARTICLE N.A. DOBROLYUBOV “RAY OF LIGHT IN THE DARK KINGDOM”

thunderstorm Ostrovsky Dobrolyubov

At the beginning of the article, Dobrolyubov writes that “Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life.” Next, he analyzes articles about Ostrovsky by other critics, writing that they “lack a direct view of things.”

Then Dobrolyubov compares “The Thunderstorm” with dramatic canons: “The subject of the drama must certainly be an event where we see the struggle between passion and duty - with the unhappy consequences of the victory of passion or with the happy ones when duty wins.” Also, the drama must have unity of action, and it must be written in high literary language. “The Thunderstorm”, at the same time, “does not satisfy the most essential goal of the drama - to instill respect for moral duty and show the harmful consequences of being carried away by passion. Katerina, this criminal, appears to us in the drama not only not in a sufficiently gloomy light, but even with the radiance of martyrdom. She speaks so well, suffers so pitifully, everything around her is so bad that you take up arms against her oppressors and thus justify vice in her person. Consequently, drama does not fulfill its high purpose. All the action is sluggish and slow, because it is cluttered with scenes and faces that are completely unnecessary. Finally, the language in which the characters speak exceeds any patience of a well-bred person.”

Dobrolyubov makes this comparison with the canon in order to show that approaching a work with a ready-made idea of what should be shown in it does not provide true understanding. “What to think about a man who, upon seeing a pretty woman, suddenly begins to resonate that her figure is not like that of the Venus de Milo? The truth is not in dialectical subtleties, but in the living truth of what you are discussing. It cannot be said that people are evil by nature, and therefore one cannot accept for literary works principles such as, for example, that vice always triumphs and virtue is punished.”

“The writer has so far been given a small role in this movement of humanity towards natural principles,” writes Dobrolyubov, after which he recalls Shakespeare, who “moved the general consciousness of people to several levels to which no one had risen before him.” Next, the author turns to other critical articles about “The Thunderstorm,” in particular, by Apollo Grigoriev, who argues that Ostrovsky’s main merit lies in his “nationality.” “But what nationality consists of, Grigoriev does not explain, and therefore his remark seemed very funny to us.”

In “The Thunderstorm,” the need for “unnecessary” persons (minor and episodic characters) is especially visible. Dobrolyubov analyzes the remarks of Feklusha, Glasha, Dikiy, Kudryash, Kuligin, etc. The author analyzes the internal state of the heroes of the “dark kingdom”: “everything is somehow restless, it’s not good for them. Besides them, without asking them, another life has grown up, with different beginnings, and although it is not yet clearly visible, it is already sending bad visions to the dark tyranny of tyrants. 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 and that at the first opportunity they will be abandoned.”

Then the author writes that “The Thunderstorm” is “Ostrovsky’s most decisive work; mutual relations of tyranny are brought to the most tragic consequences; and for all that, most of those who have read and seen this play agree that there is even something refreshing and encouraging in The Thunderstorm. This “something” is, in our opinion, the background of the play, indicated by us and revealing the precariousness and the near end of tyranny. Then the very character of Katerina, drawn against this background, also breathes on us with new life, which is revealed to us in her very death.”

Further, Dobrolyubov analyzes the image of Katerina, perceiving it as “a step forward in all of our literature”: “Russian life has reached the point where the need for more active and energetic people was felt.” The image of Katerina “is unswervingly faithful to the instinct of natural truth and selfless in the sense that it is better for him to die than to live under those principles that are disgusting to him. In this integrity and harmony of character lies his strength. Free air and light, contrary to all the precautions of dying tyranny, burst into Katerina’s cell, she strives for a new life, even if she has to die in this impulse. What does death matter to her? All the same, she does not consider life to be the vegetation that befell her in the Kabanov family.”

The author analyzes in detail the motives of Katerina’s actions: “Katerina does not at all belong to the violent character, dissatisfied, who loves to destroy. On the contrary, this is a predominantly creative, loving, ideal character. That's why she tries to ennoble everything in her imagination. The feeling of love for a person, the need for tender pleasures naturally opened up in the young woman.” But it won’t be Tikhon Kabanov, who is “too downtrodden to understand the nature of Katerina’s emotions: “If I don’t understand you, Katya,” he tells her, “you won’t get a word from you, let alone affection, or else you’ll do it yourself.” you’re climbing.” This is how spoiled natures usually judge a strong and fresh nature.”

Dobrolyubov comes to the conclusion that in the image of Katerina, Ostrovsky embodied a great popular idea: “in other creations of our literature, strong characters are like fountains, dependent on an extraneous mechanism. Katerina is like a big river: a flat, good bottom - it flows calmly, large stones are encountered - it jumps over them, a cliff - it cascades, they dam it - it rages and breaks through in another place. It bubbles not because the water suddenly wants to make noise or get angry at obstacles, but simply because it needs it to fulfill its natural requirements - for further flow.”

Analyzing Katerina's actions, the author writes that he considers the escape of Katerina and Boris possible as the best solution. Katerina is ready to flee, but here another problem emerges - Boris’s financial dependence on his uncle Dikiy. “We said a few words above about Tikhon; Boris is the same, in essence, only educated.”

At the end of the play, “we are pleased to see Katerina’s deliverance - even through death, if it is impossible otherwise. Living in the “dark kingdom” is worse than death. Tikhon, throwing himself on his wife’s corpse, pulled out of the water, shouts in self-forgetfulness: “Good for you, Katya! But 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 make the viewer think not about a love affair, but about this whole life, where the living envy the dead.”

Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov

"A ray of light in a dark kingdom"

Then Dobrolyubov compares “The Thunderstorm” with the dramatic canons: “The subject of the drama must certainly be an event where we see the struggle between passion and duty - with the unhappy consequences of the victory of passion or with the happy ones when duty wins.” Also, the drama must have unity of action, and it must be written in high literary language. “The Thunderstorm” at the same time “does not satisfy the most essential goal of the drama - to instill respect for moral duty and show the harmful consequences of being carried away by passion. Katerina, this criminal, appears to us in the drama not only not in a sufficiently gloomy light, but even with the radiance of martyrdom. She speaks so well, suffers so pitifully, everything around her is so bad that you arm yourself against her oppressors and thus justify vice in her person. Consequently, drama does not fulfill its high purpose. All the action is sluggish and slow, because it is cluttered with scenes and faces that are completely unnecessary. Finally, the language in which the characters speak exceeds any patience of a well-bred person.”

Dobrolyubov makes this comparison with the canon in order to show that approaching a work with a ready-made idea of what should be shown in it does not provide true understanding. “What do you think about a man who, when he sees a pretty woman, suddenly begins to resonate that her figure is not like that of the Venus de Milo? The truth is not in dialectical subtleties, but in the living truth of what you are discussing. It cannot be said that people are evil by nature, and therefore one cannot accept for literary works principles such as, for example, that vice always triumphs and virtue is punished.”

“The writer has until now been given a small role in this movement of humanity towards natural principles,” writes Dobrolyubov, after which he recalls Shakespeare, who “moved the general consciousness of people to several levels to which no one had risen before him.” Next, the author turns to other critical articles about “The Thunderstorm,” in particular, by Apollo Grigoriev, who argues that Ostrovsky’s main merit lies in his “nationality.” “But Mr. Grigoriev does not explain what nationality consists of, and therefore his remark seemed very funny to us.”

Then the author writes that “The Thunderstorm” is “Ostrovsky’s most decisive work; mutual relations of tyranny are brought to the most tragic consequences; and for all that, most of those who have read and seen this play agree that there is even something refreshing and encouraging in “The Thunderstorm”. This “something” is, in our opinion, the background of the play, indicated by us and revealing the precariousness and the near end of tyranny. Then the very character of Katerina, drawn against this background, also breathes on us with new life, which is revealed to us in her very death.”

Further, Dobrolyubov analyzes the image of Katerina, perceiving it as “a step forward in all of our literature”: “Russian life has reached the point where the need for more active and energetic people was felt.” The image of Katerina “is unswervingly faithful to the instinct of natural truth and selfless in the sense that it is better for him to die than to live under those principles that are disgusting to him. In this integrity and harmony of character lies his strength. Free air and light, despite all the precautions of dying tyranny, burst into Katerina’s cell, she is striving for a new life, even if she had to die in this impulse. What does death matter to her? All the same, she doesn’t even consider the vegetation that befell her in the Kabanov family to be life.”

The author analyzes in detail the motives of Katerina’s actions: “Katerina does not at all belong to the violent character, dissatisfied, who loves to destroy. On the contrary, this is a predominantly creative, loving, ideal character. That's why she tries to ennoble everything in her imagination. The feeling of love for a person, the need for tender pleasures naturally opened up in the young woman.” But it won’t be Tikhon Kabanov, who is “too downtrodden to understand the nature of Katerina’s emotions: “If I don’t understand you, Katya,” he tells her, “then you won’t get a word from you, let alone affection, or you’ll do it yourself.” you’re climbing.” This is how spoiled natures usually judge a strong and fresh nature.”

Analyzing Katerina's actions, the author writes that he considers the escape of Katerina and Boris possible as the best solution. Katerina is ready to escape, but here another problem emerges - Boris’s financial dependence on his uncle Dikiy. “We said a few words above about Tikhon; Boris is the same, in essence, only educated.”

At the end of the play, “we are pleased to see Katerina’s deliverance - even through death, if it is impossible otherwise. Living in the “dark kingdom” is worse than death. Tikhon, throwing himself on his wife’s corpse, pulled out of the water, shouts in self-forgetfulness: “Good for you, Katya!” Why did I stay in the world and suffer!“ With this exclamation the play ends, and it seems to us that nothing could have been invented stronger and more truthful than such an ending. Tikhon’s words make the viewer think not about a love affair, but about this whole life, where the living envy the dead.”

In this article, Dobrolyubov examines Ostrovsky’s drama “The Thunderstorm”. In his opinion, Ostrovsky deeply understands Russian life. Then he analyzes articles written by other critics about Ostrovsky, who do not have the correct view of the works.

Does "The Thunderstorm" follow the rules of drama? In drama there must be a phenomenon in which the struggle between commitment and passion can be observed. The author of a drama must have good literary language. The main purpose of the drama - to influence the desire to comply with moral codes and to demonstrate the destructive consequences of strong attachment is not present in the drama "The Thunderstorm". The heroine of this drama, Katerina, should evoke negative feelings in the reader, such as condemnation; instead, the writer presented her in such a way that one wants to treat her with pity and sympathy. Therefore, the reader forgives her for all her wrongdoings. There are many characters in the drama, without whom you can do without, so that the scenes with them do not overwhelm the work. Also, the dialogues are not written in literary language.

Dobrolyubov dwelt in detail on the analysis of goals in order to draw the reader’s attention to an understanding of reality. Evil does not always win, and good is not always punished. Analyzing all of Ostrovsky’s plays, Dobrolyubov says that all the characters in the play are necessary to understand the overall picture of the work, therefore the role minor characters is also obvious. According to the literary critic, Ostrovsky was unshakable in creating this drama. Thanks to the context, the reader expects a quick dramatic ending to tyranny.

The image of Katerina is further analyzed. The country already needs more active people, so Katerina opens new era V literary images. Her image personifies a strong nature, she is selfless, ready for death, because it is not enough for her to simply exist in the Kabanov family.

It is not typical for Katerina to be dissatisfied or to destroy; she is gentle, impeccable, and loves to create. She goes on a rampage and makes noise only when obstacles arise in her path. Perhaps the decision to run away with Boris is the best way out of this situation. The only mistake in the escape is that Boris, although a literate young man, needs the financial support of his uncle.

Katerina gets rid of the miserable existence that befell her by drowning in the river. This brings relief to the reader, according to Dobrolyubov’s article. Tikhon Kabanov envies the death of his wife, which causes reflections on life in which death becomes the envy of the living.

Summing up, Dobrolyubov emphasizes the importance of actions that challenge Russian life and Russian strength.

· What N.A. Does Dobrolyubov see the task of a literary critic?

· What demands does a critic place on literature?

· What type of hero was first depicted by A.N. Ostrovsky?

· What is the “dark kingdom”, by what principles is it more alive and what is its state in the era depicted in “The Thunderstorm”?

· What is overall rating plays by N.A. Dobrolyubov? What 2 factors determine the “enlightenment” of the ending?

· What kind of character does Katerina appear in Dobrolyubov’s article? How are the psychological and social reasons for her love for Boris explained?

· What are the characteristics of the images of Tikhon and Boris?

· How does the critic evaluate the events of the fifth act of the play? What, according to Dobrolyubov, is the general tone of the finale?

Shortly before the appearance of "The Thunderstorm" on stage, we examined in great detail all of Ostrovsky's works. 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. The most the best way As critics, we consider the presentation of the case itself so that the reader himself, based on the facts presented, can draw his own conclusion. We group the data, make considerations about the general meaning of the work, point out its relationship to the reality in which we live, draw our conclusion and try to frame it as possible in the best possible way, but at the same time we always try to behave in such a way that the reader can completely comfortably pronounce his judgment between us and the author. And we have always been of the opinion that only factual, real criticism and may have some meaning to the reader. If there is something in a work, then show us what is in it: this is much better than indulging in considerations about what is not in it and what should be in it. The measure of a writer's worth or separate work we accept the extent to which they serve as an expression of the natural aspirations of a certain time and people. The natural aspirations of humanity, reduced to the simplest denominator, can be expressed in two words: “so that it would be good for everyone.” It is clear that, striving for this goal, people, by the very essence of the matter, first had to move away from it: everyone wanted it to be good for him, and, asserting his own good, interfered with others; They didn’t yet know how to arrange things so that one wouldn’t interfere with the other. The writer has so far been given a small role in this movement of humanity towards the natural principles from which it has deviated. In its essence, literature has no active meaning; it only either suggests what needs to be done, or depicts what is already being done and done. In the first case, that is, in the assumptions of future activity, it takes its materials and foundations from pure science; in the second - from the very facts of life. Thus, generally speaking, literature is a service force, the value of which lies in propaganda, and its dignity is determined by what and how it propagates. In literature, however, there have so far appeared several figures who stand so high in their propaganda that they will not be surpassed either by practical workers for the benefit of humanity or by people of pure science. These writers were so richly gifted by nature that they knew how, as if by instinct, to approach natural concepts and aspirations, which the philosophers of their time were only looking for with the help of strict science. Moreover, the truths that philosophers only predicted in theory brilliant writers were able to grasp life and depict it in action. Thus, serving as the fullest representatives of the highest degree of human consciousness in known era and from this height, surveying the life of people and nature and drawing it before us, they rose above the service role of literature and became one of the ranks of historical figures who contributed to humanity in the clearest awareness of its living forces and natural inclinations. That was Shakespeare. Thus, recognizing the main importance of explanation for literature life phenomena, we demand from her one quality, without which there can be no merit in her, namely truth. It is necessary that the facts from which the author proceeds and which he presents to us are presented correctly. How soon is this gone? literary work loses all meaning, it even becomes harmful, because it does not serve to enlighten human consciousness, but, on the contrary, to even greater darkness. And here it would be in vain for us to look for any talent in the author, except perhaps the talent of a liar. In works of a historical nature, the truth must be factual; in fiction, where incidents are fictitious, it is replaced by logical truth, that is, reasonable probability and conformity with the existing course of affairs. But truth is a necessary condition, and not yet the merit of a work. We judge merit by the breadth of the author's view, the correctness of understanding and the vividness of the depiction of the phenomena he touched upon. Let us repeat here only one remark necessary for the advocates pure art They did not accuse us again of imposing “utilitarian themes” on the artist. We do not at all think that every author should create his works under the influence of a known theory; he can have any opinions, as long as his talent is sensitive to life's truth. Piece of art could be an expression famous idea- not because the author set himself with this idea when creating it, but because the author was struck by such facts of reality from which this idea follows by itself. Readers of Sovremennik may remember that we rated Ostrovsky very highly, finding that he was very fully and comprehensively able to portray the essential aspects and requirements of Russian life. The modern aspirations of Russian life, on the most extensive scale, find their expression in Ostrovsky, as a comedian, with negative side. 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. But he didn’t invent these types, just as he didn’t invent the word “tyrant.” He took both in his life. 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 within itself the makings of a more reasonable, legal, correct order business And indeed, after each play by Ostrovsky, everyone feels this consciousness within themselves and, looking around themselves, notices the same in others. Wherever you look, everywhere you see the awakening of the individual, the representation of his legal rights, a protest against violence and tyranny, for the most part still timid, vague, ready to hide, but still already making its existence noticeable. Thus, the struggle required by theory from drama is carried out in Ostrovsky’s plays not in monologues 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 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. 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 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; 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 harsh to persistently search for reasonable grounds in anything. Tyranny seeks to legitimize itself and establish itself as an unshakable system. That is why, along with such a broad concept of its own freedom, it nevertheless tries to take all possible measures to leave this freedom forever only for itself, in order to protect itself from any daring attempts. To achieve this goal, it seems to recognize certain higher demands, and although it itself also stands against them, it stands firmly for them before others. A few minutes after the remark in which Dikoy so decisively rejected, in favor of his own whim, all moral and logical grounds for judging a person, this same Dikoy attacks Kuligin when he uttered the word “electricity” to explain the thunderstorm. “Well, how can you not be a robber,” he shouts: “a thunderstorm is sent to us as punishment, so that we can feel it, and you want to defend yourself, God forgive me, with poles and some kind of rods. What are you, a Tatar, or what? A Tatar Are you? Oh, say: Tatar?" And here Kuligin does not dare answer him: “I want to think so, and I do, and no one can tell me.” “Where are you going?” he can’t even imagine his own explanations: they are received with curses, and they are not allowed to speak. Inevitably, you stop resonating here when the fist responds to every reason, and in the end the fist always remains right... 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 rusting iron, considers herself completely infallible and indulges herself in various Feklushami. But everything is somehow restless, 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). 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? It is not for nothing that Kabanova remarks about Kuligin: “the times have come, what kind of teachers have appeared! If the old man thinks like that, 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. 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. This gives rise to the constant suspicion, scrupulousness and pickiness of tyrants: 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, 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. "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 is even something refreshing and encouraging in "The Thunderstorm". This “something” is, in our opinion, the background of the play, indicated by us and revealing the precariousness and the near end of tyranny. Then the very character of Katerina, drawn against this background, also breathes on us with new life, which is revealed to us in her very death. The fact is that the character of Katerina, as portrayed in “The Thunderstorm,” constitutes a step forward not only in Ostrovsky’s dramatic work, but in all of our literature. It corresponds to the new phase of our national life, it has long demanded its implementation in literature. [The character of Katerina] first of all strikes us with its 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 guided not by abstract principles, not by practical considerations, not by instant pathos, but simply by nature, by his whole 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. We asked ourselves: how, however, will new aspirations be determined in an individual? What features should characterize in order to make a decisive break with the old, absurd and violent relationships of life? IN real life of the awakening society, we saw only hints of solutions to our problems, in literature - a weak repetition of these hints; but in “The Thunderstorm” a whole is made up of them, already with fairly clear outlines; here a face appears before us, taken directly from life, but clarified in the mind of the artist and placed in such positions that allow him to reveal it more fully and decisively than as happens in most cases of ordinary life. The decisive, integral Russian character acting among the Wild and Kabanovs appears in Ostrovsky in 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? 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 bit off, 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. Nature here replaces 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 is where the secret of the integrity of the characters lies, appearing in circumstances similar to those we saw in “The Thunderstorm” in the situation surrounding Katerina. 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 is why she tries to comprehend and ennoble everything in her imagination; that mood in which, as the poet puts it, the whole world is cleansed and washed before him by a noble dream... this mood does not leave Katerina to the last extreme. She tries to reconcile every external dissonance with the harmony of her soul; she covers every shortcoming from the fullness of her own. internal forces. 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 carries her away into new world, quiet and bright. She matured, other desires arose in her, more real ones; not knowing any other career than the family, any other world than the one that has developed for her in the society of her town, she, of course, begins to recognize of all human aspirations the one that is most inevitable and closest to her - the desire for love and devotion . In the past, her heart was too full of dreams, she did not pay attention to the young people who looked at her, but only laughed. When she married Tikhon Kabanov, she did not love him either, she still did not understand this feeling; They told her that every girl should get married, showed Tikhon as her future husband, and she married him, remaining completely indifferent to this step. She has little knowledge and a lot of gullibility, which is why for the time being 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. 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. Between her and his wife, Tikhon represents one of the many pitiful types who are usually called harmless, although in a general sense they are as harmful as the tyrants themselves, because they serve as their faithful assistants. Tikhon himself loved his wife and would be ready to do anything for her; but the oppression under which he grew up so disfigured him that there was no strong feeling, no decisive desire can develop. He has a conscience, a desire for good, but he constantly acts against himself and serves as a submissive instrument of his mother, even in his relations with his wife. Tikhon also feels that he does not have something he needs; there is discontent in him too; but it is in him to the same degree as, for example, a ten-year-old boy with a depraved imagination may be attracted to a woman. Therefore, the very search for freedom in him takes on an ugly character and becomes disgusting, just as the cynicism of a ten-year-old boy is disgusting, repeating the nasty things he heard from big people without meaning or inner need. Tikhon, you see, heard from someone that he is “also a man” and therefore should have a certain share of power and importance in the family; Therefore, he places himself much higher than his wife and, believing that God destined her to endure and humble herself, he looks at his position under his mother as bitter and humiliating. Katerina is not capricious, does not flirt with her discontent and anger - this is not in her nature; she does not want to impress others, to show off and boast. On the contrary, she lives very peacefully and is ready to submit to everything that is not contrary to her nature; her principle, if she could recognize and define it, would be to embarrass others with her personality as little as possible and disturb the general course of affairs. 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 won't look at anything. She will not resort to diplomatic tricks, deceptions and tricks - that’s not who she is. Everything is against Katerina, even her own concepts of good and evil. 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 an answer in her husband, and by the offended feeling of a wife and woman, and by her mortal melancholy. monotonous life, and the desire for freedom, space, hot, unfettered freedom. Her husband arrived, and life became difficult for her. It was necessary to hide, to be cunning; she didn’t want it and couldn’t do it; she had to return again to her callous, dreary life - this seemed to her more bitter than before. Moreover, I had to be afraid every minute for myself, for my every word, especially in front of my mother-in-law; one also had to be afraid of a terrible punishment for the soul... This situation was unbearable for Katerina: days and nights she kept thinking, suffering, exalting her imagination, which was already hotter, and the end was one that she could not endure - with to all the people crowded in the gallery of the ancient church, she repented of everything to her husband. What remains for her? 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 is for her to submit, to 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 discover her demands... But no, this is not Katerina’s character; not then reflected in her new type, created by Russian life, only to be reflected in a fruitless attempt and die after the first failure. No, she will no longer return to her former life: if she cannot enjoy her feeling, her will, completely lawfully and sacredly, in the light broad daylight , in front of all the people, if they snatch away from her what she found and what is so dear to her, then she doesn’t want anything in life, she doesn’t even want life. 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”. 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. 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 those around her become capable of satisfying those living aspirations with which she is imbued, to recognize the legality of her natural demands, to renounce all compulsory rights to 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 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. 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; Dikoy and the Kabanovs agreed to send him to Kyakhta, and, of course, they will not allow him to take Katerina with him. That’s why he answers her: “It’s impossible, Katya; I’m not going of my own free will, my uncle is sending me, and the horses are ready,” etc. Boris is not a hero, he is far from worthy of Katerina, she fell in love with him more in solitude . He has had enough “education” and cannot cope with the old way of life, nor with his heart, nor with common sense - he walks around as if lost. In a word, this is one of those very common people who do not know how to do what they understand, and do not understand what they do. Their type has been portrayed many times in our fiction - sometimes with exaggerated compassion for them, sometimes 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. There is no need to expand on Boris: he, in fact, should also be attributed to the situation in which the heroine of the play finds herself. He represents one of the circumstances that makes her fatal end necessary. If it were a different person and in a different position, then there would be no need to throw yourself into the water. But the fact of the matter is that an environment subordinated to the power of the Wild and Kabanovs usually produces Tikhonovs and Borisovs, unable to rise up and accept their human nature, even when faced with characters such as Katerina. We said a few words above about Tikhon; Boris is essentially the same, only “educated”. Education took away from him the power to do dirty tricks, it’s true; but it did not give him the strength to resist the dirty tricks that others do; it has not even developed in him the ability to behave in such a way as to remain alien to everything disgusting that swarms around him. No, not only does he not resist, he submits to other people’s nasty things, he willy-nilly participates in them and must accept all their consequences. However, about the meaning of material dependence, how main basis all the power of tyrants in the “dark kingdom,” we spoke at length in our previous articles. Therefore, here we only remind you of this in order to indicate the decisive necessity of the 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 live any longer with its violent, deadening principles. In Katerina we see a protest against Kabanov’s concepts of morality, a protest carried to the end, proclaimed both under domestic torture and over the abyss into which the poor woman threw herself.