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 the distinctive features of a positive personality of his era (Katerina).

Other characters in the play, to one degree or another, oppose tyranny.

““Thunderstorm” is, without a doubt, the most decisive work Ostrovsky."

1. At the beginning of his article, Dobrolyubov writes that the controversy surrounding “The Thunderstorm” touched upon the most important problems of Russian pre-reform life and literature, and above all the problem of the people and the national character, the positive hero. 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, the assessments of N. Pavlov), and statements by critics of the liberal camp (A. Palkhovsky), and reviews of Slavophiles (A. Grigoriev), who viewed the people as a kind of homogeneous, dark and inert mass , unable to isolate from its environment strong personality. These critics, says Dobrolyubov, muting the strength of Katerina’s protest, painted her as a spineless, weak-willed, immoral woman. The heroine, in their interpretation, did not have the qualities positive personality and could not be called a bearer of national character traits. 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 combination of the best qualities of the 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 permeated everything Russian society whose voice is heard in all phenomena of our life, whose satisfaction is necessary condition 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 as immutable moral concepts, condemned precisely the evil that was being sentenced, and was imbued with respect only for that virtue that in the end 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, art form“Thunderstorms” 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 Feklushi.” 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 something wrong is happening in household affairs - young people violate established customs at every step.

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 folk 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 creative experience Pisemsky and Goncharov, whose heroes (Kalinovich in the novel “A Thousand Souls”, Stolz in “Oblomov”), strong in “practical sense”, adapt to the current 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 the demands of the new era. Failures occurred because writers were guided by abstract ideas, and not by the truth of life; 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 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, more than anyone else, she should be filled 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 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 ideological meaning the national character of the heroine in its 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 very 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): Tutorial. – M.: Higher School, 1990. – P. 126–133.

Publicist N.A. Dobrolyubov in his article analyzes the play “The Thunderstorm” by A.N. Ostrovsky, noting from the very first lines that the playwright perfectly understands the life of a Russian person. Dobrolyubov mentions several critical articles about the play, explaining that most of them are one-sided and have no basis.

This is followed by an analysis of the features of drama in the work: the conflict of duty and passion, the unity of the plot and high literary language. Dobrolyubov admits that “The Thunderstorm” does not fully reveal the danger that threatens everyone who blindly follows passion without listening to the voice of reason and duty. Katerina is presented not as a criminal, but as a martyr. The plot was characterized as overloaded with unnecessary details and characters that were completely unnecessary from the point of view storyline, and the language of the characters in the play is outrageous for an educated and well-mannered person. But the publicist notes that often the expectation of meeting any standard prevents one from seeing the value of a particular work and its essence. Dobrolyubov recalls Shakespeare, who managed to raise the level of general human consciousness to previously unattainable heights.

All of Ostrovsky’s plays are very life-like, and none of the characters, seemingly not involved in any way in the development of the plot, can be called superfluous, since they are all part of the environment in which the main characters find themselves. The publicist examines in detail the inner world and thoughts of each of minor characters. As well as in real life, in the plays there is no directive to necessarily punish a negative character with misfortune, and to reward a positive character with happiness in the finale.

The play has been called the playwright's most dramatic and decisive creation; in particular, Dobrolyubov notes the integral and a strong character Katerina, for whom death is better than vegetation. However, there is nothing destructive or evil in her nature; on the contrary, she is full of love and creativity. It is interesting to compare the heroine with a wide, full-flowing river: violently and noisily breaking through any obstacles in its path. The publicist considers the heroine’s escape with Boris to be the best outcome.

There is no sorrow for her death in the article; on the contrary, death seems like liberation from the “dark kingdom.” This idea is confirmed by the last lines of the play itself: the husband, bending over the body of the dead, will cry out: “Good for you, Katya! Why did I stay in the world and suffer!”

The significance of “The Thunderstorm” for Dobrolyubov lies in the fact that the playwright calls the Russian soul to a decisive cause.

Picture or drawing Dobrolyubov - A ray of light in the dark kingdom

Other retellings and reviews for the reader's diary

• Summary Who is to blame? Herzen

  The classic's work consists of two parts and is one of the first Russian novels with socio-psychological themes.

• Summary of Green Running on the Waves

  Thomas Harvey was stuck in Lissa due to serious illness. Having almost recovered, he whiled away the time playing cards at Steers's. It was on this evening that Thomas first heard an unfamiliar disembodied voice quietly but clearly pronouncing the phrase “Running on the Waves.”

• Summary of Andersen's Ugly Duckling

  Summer sunny days have arrived. A young duck was hatching white eggs in a dense thicket of burdock. She chose a quiet and peaceful place. Rarely anyone came to see her; everyone liked to relax on the water: swimming and diving.

• Summary Turgenev Forest and steppe

  This chapter from the work “Notes of a Hunter” is, rather, an essay. Of course, Turgenev always pays a lot of attention to the beautiful Russian nature, but here there are no heroes at all. Is the hunter with his senses of nature

• Summary of Tolstoy's Sevastopol Stories

  At dawn, the first rays of the sun appeared over Sapun Mountain and the still black sea. The bay was covered in thick fog. There is no snow, but it is very frosty. There is silence and silence all around, interrupted by the sound of sea waves

· What N.A. Dobrolyubov sees the task 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 the general assessment of N.A.’s play? Dobrolyubov? What 2 factors determine the “enlightenment” of the ending?

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

· 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. We consider the best way of criticism to be a 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 can have any meaning for 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 in life and depict in action. Thus, serving as the most complete representatives of the highest degree of human consciousness in a certain 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 consciousness of its living forces and natural inclinations. That was Shakespeare. Thus, recognizing the main importance of literature in explaining life phenomena, we demand from it one quality, without which there can be no merit in it, namely, truth. It is necessary that the facts from which the author proceeds and which he presents to us are presented correctly. As soon as this is not the case, a 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 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 so that the champions of pure art do not again accuse us 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 the truth of life. Piece of art may be an expression of a well-known 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, from the 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 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 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 blows on us 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 is the case in most cases ordinary life . 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? 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 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 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 has so disfigured him that no strong feeling, no decisive desire can develop in him. 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 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. 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 fear terrible punishment for the soul. .. This situation was unbearable for Katerina: days and nights she kept thinking, suffering, exalting her imagination, already hot, and the end was one that she could not endure - in front of all the people crowded in the gallery of the ancient church, she repented in everything to my husband. 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”. 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 perk 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, we spoke at length about the meaning of material dependence as the main basis of all the power of tyrants in the “dark kingdom” 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.

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. This is good only in light French vaudeville, and not in 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 our accepted rules.<…>

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 position 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 beckons to the shore, to the air, under open sky, 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 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 do not want to give in (and no one has yet demanded concessions from them), 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 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? 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 comprehend 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 general opinion the most main difference the wife's bast shoe lies in the fact that she brings with her a whole burden of worries, which the husband cannot get rid of, while the bast shoe only gives convenience, and if it is inconvenient, it can easily be thrown off... Being in a similar position, 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, therefore, 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. Nature 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 with Katerina, as a direct, lively personality, everything is done according to the instinct 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.<…>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 wanderers, in bows to the ground and in her lamentations she saw not a dead form, but something else, to which her heart was constantly striving. Based on them, she built her own perfect 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 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 visiting 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 wasn’t 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 doesn't study psychological analysis and therefore cannot express subtle observations of himself; 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 no longer about 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 person 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