Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov

"A Ray of Light in a Dark Realm"

The article is devoted to Ostrovsky's drama "Thunderstorm". At the beginning of it, Dobrolyubov writes that "Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life." Further, he analyzes articles about Ostrovsky by other critics, writes that they "lack a direct look at things."

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

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

“The writer has so far been given a small role in this movement of mankind towards natural principles,” writes Dobrolyubov, after which he recalls Shakespeare, who “moved the general consciousness of people to several steps that no one had climbed before him.” Further, the author turns to other critical articles about the "Thunderstorm", in particular, Apollon Grigoriev, who claims that Ostrovsky's main merit is in his "nationality". "But Mr. Grigoriev does not explain what the nationality consists of, and therefore his remark seemed to us very amusing."

Then Dobrolyubov comes to the definition of Ostrovsky’s plays as a whole as “plays of life”: “We want to say that for him the general atmosphere of life is always in the foreground. He does not punish either the villain or the victim. You see that their position dominates them, and you only blame them for not showing enough energy to get out of this position. And that is why we do not dare to consider as unnecessary and superfluous those characters in Ostrovsky's plays who do not directly participate in the intrigue. From our point of view, these faces are just as necessary for the play as the main ones: they show us the environment in which the action takes place, draw the position that determines the meaning of the activity of the main characters of the play.

In "Thunderstorm" the need for "unnecessary" persons (secondary and episodic characters) is especially visible. Dobrolyubov analyzes the remarks of Feklusha, Glasha, Dikoy, Kudryash, Kuligin, etc. The author analyzes the internal state of the heroes of the “dark kingdom”: “everything is somehow restless, not good for them. In addition to them, without asking them, another life has grown up, with other beginnings, and although it is not yet clearly visible, it already sends bad visions to the dark arbitrariness of tyrants. And Kabanova is very seriously upset by the future of the old order, with which she has outlived a century. She foresees their end, tries to maintain their significance, but she already feels that there is no former reverence for them and that they will be abandoned at the first opportunity.

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

Further, Dobrolyubov analyzes the image of Katerina, perceiving it as "a step forward in all our literature": "Russian life has reached the point where there is a need for more active and energetic people." The image of Katerina is “steadily faithful to the instinct of natural truth and selfless in the sense that death is better for him than life under those principles that are repugnant to him. In this wholeness and harmony of character lies his strength. Free air and light, contrary to all the precautions of perishing tyranny, burst into Katerina's cell, she yearns for a new life, even if she had to die in this impulse. What is death to her? It doesn't matter - she does not consider life and the vegetative life that fell to her lot in the Kabanov family.

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

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

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

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

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

In this article, Dobrolyubov considers Ostrovsky's drama "Thunderstorm". In his opinion, Ostrovsky deeply understands Russian life. Then he analyzes articles written by other critics about Ostrovsky, which do not have a correct view of the work.

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

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

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

It is not typical for Katerina to be dissatisfied, to destroy, she is gentle, impeccable, loving to create. She rages, makes noise, only in the case of obstacles that have arisen in her way. Perhaps the decision to run away with Boris is the best way out of this situation. The only mistake in the implementation of the escape - Boris, although a literate young man, needs the material support of his uncle.

Katerina gets rid of the miserable existence that has befallen her fate by drowning in the river. This brings relief to the reader, according to Dobrolyubov's article. Tikhon Kabanov is jealous of the death of his wife, which causes reflections on a life in which death becomes the envy of the living.

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

Dobrolyubov's article titled "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom", a summary of which is given below, deals with the work "Thunderstorm" by Ostrovsky, which has become a classic of Russian literature. The author (his portrait is presented below) in the first part says that Ostrovsky deeply understood the life of a Russian person. Further, Dobrolyubov conducts what other critics have written about Ostrovsky, while noting that they do not have a direct look at the main things.

The concept of drama that existed in the time of Ostrovsky

Nikolai Alexandrovich further compares The Thunderstorm with the standards of drama adopted at that time. In the article "A Ray of Light in the Dark Realm", a summary of which interests us, he examines, in particular, the principle established in literature on the subject of drama. In the struggle between duty and passion, there is usually an unhappy end when passion wins, and a happy one when duty wins. Drama, moreover, was supposed, according to existing tradition, to represent a single action. At the same time, it should be written in a literary, beautiful language. Dobrolyubov notes that he does not fit the concept in this way.

Why "Thunderstorm" cannot be considered a drama, according to Dobrolyubov?

Works of this kind must certainly make readers feel respect for duty and expose a passion that is considered harmful. However, the main character is not described in gloomy and dark colors, although she is, according to the rules of the drama, a "criminal". Thanks to the pen of Ostrovsky (his portrait is presented below), we are imbued with compassion for this heroine. The author of "Thunderstorm" was able to vividly express how beautifully Katerina speaks and suffers. We see this heroine in a very gloomy environment and because of this we begin to involuntarily justify the vice, speaking out against the tormentors of the girl.

Drama, as a result, does not fulfill its purpose, does not carry its main semantic load. Somehow, the action itself flows in a work insecurely and slowly, the author of the article "A ray of light in a dark kingdom" believes. A summary of it continues as follows. Dobrolyubov says that there are no bright and stormy scenes in the work. To "sluggishness" the work leads to a heap of characters. The language does not stand up to scrutiny.

Nikolai Alexandrovich in his article "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom" brings the plays of special interest to him to meet the accepted standards, as he comes to the conclusion that the standard, ready-made idea of ​​what should be in the work does not allow reflecting the actual state of things. What can you say about a young man who, after meeting a pretty girl, tells her that compared to the Venus de Milo, her figure is not so good? Dobrolyubov puts the question in this way, arguing about the standardization of the approach to works of literature. Truth lies in life and truth, and not in various dialectical attitudes, as the author of the article "A ray of light in a dark kingdom" believes. The summary of his thesis is that it cannot be said that a person is evil by nature. Therefore, in the book it is not necessary for good to win, and for evil to lose.

Dobrolyubov notes the importance of Shakespeare, as well as the opinion of Apollon Grigoriev

Dobrolyubov ("Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom") also says that for a long time writers did not pay much attention to the movement to the primordial principles of man, to his roots. Remembering Shakespeare, he notes that this author was able to raise human thought to a new level. After that, Dobrolyubov moves on to other articles devoted to "Thunderstorm". Mentioned, in particular, who noted the main merit of Ostrovsky that his work was popular. Dobrolyubov is trying to answer the question of what this "nation" is. He says that Grigoriev does not explain this concept, therefore his statement itself cannot be taken seriously.

Ostrovsky's works are "plays of life"

Dobrolyubov then discusses what can be called "plays of life". "A ray of light in a dark kingdom" (a summary notes only the main points) - an article in which Nikolai Alexandrovich says that Ostrovsky considers life as a whole, without trying to make the righteous happy or punish the villain. He evaluates the general state of affairs and makes the reader either deny or sympathize, but does not leave anyone indifferent. Those who do not participate in the intrigue itself cannot be considered superfluous, since without them it would not be possible, which Dobrolyubov notes.

"Ray of light in the dark kingdom": analysis of the statements of secondary characters

Dobrolyubov in his article analyzes the statements of minor persons: Curly, Glasha and others. He tries to understand their condition, the way they look at the reality surrounding them. All the features of the "dark kingdom" are noted by the author. He says that these people's lives are so limited that they do not notice that there is another reality than their own closed little world. The author analyzes, in particular, Kabanova's concern for the future of the old orders and traditions.

What is the novelty of the play?

"Thunderstorm" is the most decisive work created by the author, as Dobrolyubov further notes. "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom" - an article that says that the tyranny of the "dark kingdom", the relationship between its representatives, was brought by Ostrovsky to tragic consequences. The breath of novelty, which was noted by all those familiar with The Thunderstorm, is contained in the general background of the play, in people "unnecessary on the stage", as well as in everything that speaks of the imminent end of the old foundations and tyranny. The death of Katerina is a new beginning against this background.

The image of Katerina Kabanova

Dobrolyubov's article "A Ray of Light in the Dark Realm" further continues with the fact that the author proceeds to analyze the image of Katerina, the main character, devoting quite a lot of space to him. Nikolai Alexandrovich describes this image as a shaky, indecisive "step forward" in literature. Dobrolyubov says that life itself requires the appearance of active and determined heroes. The image of Katerina is characterized by an intuitive perception of the truth and its natural understanding. Dobrolyubov ("Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom") says about Katerina that this heroine is selfless, as she prefers to choose death than existence under the old order. The mighty strength of character lies in this heroine in her integrity.

Katerina's motives

Dobrolyubov, in addition to the very image of this girl, examines in detail the motives of her actions. He notices that Katerina is not a rebel by nature, she does not show discontent, does not demand destruction. Rather, she is a creator who craves love. This explains her desire to ennoble her actions in her own mind. The girl is young, and the desire for love and tenderness is natural for her. However, Tikhon is so downtrodden and obsessed that he cannot understand these desires and feelings of his wife, which he tells her directly.

Katerina embodies the idea of ​​the Russian people, says Dobrolyubov ("Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom")

The abstracts of the article are supplemented by one more statement. Dobrolyubov eventually finds in the image of the main character that the author of the work embodied in her the idea of ​​the Russian people. He talks about this rather abstractly, comparing Katerina with a wide and even river. It has a flat bottom, it smoothly flows around the stones encountered on the way. The river itself only makes noise because it corresponds to its nature.

The only right decision of the heroine, according to Dobrolyubov

Dobrolyubov finds in the analysis of the actions of this heroine that the only right decision for her is to escape with Boris. The girl can run away, but dependence on a relative of his lover shows that this hero is essentially the same as Katerina's husband, only more educated.

End of the play

The ending of the play is gratifying and tragic at the same time. The main idea of ​​the work is getting rid of the shackles of the so-called dark kingdom at any cost. It is impossible to live in his environment. Even Tikhon, when the corpse of his wife is pulled out, shouts that she is well now and asks: "But what about me?" The finale of the play and this cry itself give an unambiguous understanding of the truth. Tikhon's words make us look at Katerina's act not as a love affair. Before us opens a world in which the dead are envied by the living.

This concludes Dobrolyubov's article "A Ray of Light in a Dark Realm". We have highlighted only the main points, briefly describing its brief content. However, some details and comments of the author were missed. "A Ray of Light in a Dark Realm" is best read in the original, since this article is a classic of Russian criticism. Dobrolyubov gave a good example of how works should be analyzed.

The article is devoted to Ostrovsky's drama "Thunderstorm"

At the beginning of the article, Dobrolyubov writes that "Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life." Further, he analyzes articles about Ostrovsky by other critics, writes that they "lack a direct look at things."

Then Dobrolyubov compares The Thunderstorm with dramatic canons: "The subject of the drama must certainly be an event where we see the struggle of passion and duty - with the unfortunate consequences of the victory of passion or with happy ones when duty wins." Also in the drama there must be a unity of action, and it must be written in high literary language. The Thunderstorm, however, “does not satisfy the most essential goal of the drama - to inspire respect for moral duty and show the detrimental consequences of infatuation with passion. Katerina, this criminal, appears to us in the drama not only in a rather gloomy light, but even with the radiance of martyrdom. She speaks so well, she suffers so plaintively, everything around her is so bad that you arm yourself against her oppressors and thus justify vice in her face. Consequently, the drama does not fulfill its high purpose. The whole action is sluggish and slow, because it is cluttered with scenes and faces that are completely unnecessary. Finally, the language with which the characters speak surpasses all the patience of a well-bred person.

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

“The writer has so far been given a small role in this movement of mankind towards natural principles,” writes Dobrolyubov, after which he recalls Shakespeare, who “moved the general consciousness of people to several steps that no one had climbed before him.” Further, the author turns to other critical articles about the "Thunderstorm", in particular, by Apollon Grigoriev, who claims that Ostrovsky's main merit is in his "nationality". "But Mr. Grigoriev does not explain what the nationality consists of, and therefore his remark seemed to us very amusing."

Then Dobrolyubov comes to the definition of Ostrovsky’s plays as a whole as “plays of life”: “We want to say that for him the general atmosphere of life is always in the foreground. He does not punish either the villain or the victim. You see that their position dominates them, and you only blame them for not showing enough energy to get out of this position. And that is why we do not dare to consider as unnecessary and superfluous those characters in Ostrovsky's plays who do not directly participate in the intrigue. From our point of view, these faces are just as necessary for the play as the main ones: they show us the environment in which the action takes place, draw the position that determines the meaning of the activity of the main characters of the play.

In "Thunderstorm" the need for "unnecessary" persons (secondary and episodic characters) is especially visible. Dobrolyubov analyzes the remarks of Feklusha, Glasha, Dikoy, Kudryash, Kuligin, etc. The author analyzes the internal state of the heroes of the “dark kingdom”: “everything is somehow restless, not good for them. In addition to them, without asking them, another life has grown up, with other beginnings, and although it is not yet clearly visible, it already sends bad visions to the dark arbitrariness of tyrants. And Kabanova is very seriously upset by the future of the old order, with which she has outlived a century. She foresees their end, tries to maintain their significance, but she already feels that there is no former reverence for them and that they will be abandoned at the first opportunity.

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

Further, Dobrolyubov analyzes the image of Katerina, perceiving it as "a step forward in all our literature": "Russian life has reached the point where there is a need for more active and energetic people." The image of Katerina is “steadily faithful to the instinct of natural truth and selfless in the sense that death is better for him than life under those principles that are repugnant to him. In this wholeness and harmony of character lies his strength. Free air and light, contrary to all the precautions of perishing tyranny, burst into Katerina's cell, she yearns for a new life, even if she had to die in this impulse. What is death to her? It doesn't matter - she does not consider life to be the vegetative life that fell to her lot in the Kabanov family.

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

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

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

At the end of the play, “we are pleased to see Katerina's deliverance - even through death, if it is impossible otherwise. Living in a "dark kingdom" is worse than death.

The article “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom” is about the work of Ostrovsky “Thunderstorm”, which, undoubtedly, has become a classic in Russian literature. In the first part, the author speaks of a deep understanding of the life of a Russian person by Ostrovsky himself. He then tries to make a deep analysis of the articles written by other critics about the personality of Ostrovsky, while noting the fact that in these articles there is no direct look at many things that are basic.
In the field, the author makes a certain comparison of the work "Thunderstorm" to the accepted standards of drama. Dobrolyubov considers the principle established in literature about the subject of a dramatic work, expressed by the main event itself, as well as a description of the struggle between duty and passion, summing up an unfortunate end in the finale if passion triumphs, and vice versa - a happy one if it turned out to be stronger for a long time. In addition, the drama should represent a single action written in beautiful literary language. Dobrolyubov notes the fact that The Thunderstorm does not fit the concept of drama, which should certainly make you feel some respect for duty in all its moral sense, while exposing a harmful infatuation with passion. In The Thunderstorm, we can see her main character in not sufficiently dark tones and gloomy colors, although according to all the rules established for the drama, she is a “criminal”, but in Ostrovsky we are forced to feel compassion for her and this very shade of martyrdom that arises from the reader, discussed in detail in Dobrolyubov's article. Ostrovsky was able to vividly express how Katerina suffers and speaks beautifully, we see her in the most gloomy surroundings and involuntarily begin to justify the vice, rallying against her tormentors. As a result, the drama does not carry its main semantic load, does not fulfill its purpose. The action itself in The Thunderstorm flows somehow slowly and uncertainly. There are no stormy and bright scenes, and the piling up of many actors leads to the "sluggishness" of the whole work. The language itself does not withstand criticism, because it does not allow even the most patient, well-mannered reader to withstand.

Dobrolyubov specifically cites this comparative analysis of The Thunderstorm for compliance with established standards, since he comes to the conclusion that a ready-made, standard idea of ​​\u200b\u200bwhat should be in the work does not allow creating a true reflection of things. What would you say about a man who meets a pretty girl and starts saying that her body is not as good as Venus de Milo? - This is how Dobrolyubov puts the question, speaking about the standardization of the approach to a literary work. Truth is in truth and life, and not in dialectical attitudes. It is impossible to say that a person is evil by nature and, therefore, it cannot be said that in a book good must always triumph or vice lose.

Dobrolyubov notes that for a long time writers were assigned a very small role in the movement of a person to his roots - the primordial principles. He recalls the great Shakespeare and says that it was he who was the first to raise humanity to a new level, which was simply inaccessible before him. After that, the author moves on to other critical articles about Groz. He mentions Apollon Grigoriev, who speaks of the main merit of Ostrovsky in the nationality of his work. Dobrolyubov asks the question, what does this “nationality” itself consist of? The author answers the question himself and says that Mr. Grigoriev does not give us an explanation of this concept, and therefore this statement itself can only be considered as funny, but no more.

In the rest of the article, Dobrolyubov says that Ostrovsky's works themselves are "plays of life." He considers life as a whole and does not deliberately try to punish the villain or make the righteous happy. He looks at the state of things and makes either sympathize or deny, but does not leave anyone indifferent. It is impossible to consider superfluous those who do not participate in the intrigue itself, for it would not be possible without them.

Dobrolyubov analyzes the statements of the so-called secondary persons: Glasha, Curly, and many others. He tries to understand their inner state, their world and how they see the reality around them. He considers all the subtleties of the "dark kingdom" itself. He says that the life of these people is so limited that they do not notice that there is another reality around. We see the author's analysis of Kabanova's concern about the future of the old traditions and practices.

Further, Dobrolyubov notes the fact that The Thunderstorm is the most decisive work of all written by Ostrovsky. The very relationships and tyranny of the dark kingdom are brought to the most tragic consequences of all possible. However, almost everyone familiar with the work itself noticed that some kind of breath of novelty can be traced in it - the author decides that this is hidden in the background of the play, in people “unnecessary” on the stage, in everything that suggests the imminent end of the old order and tyranny . Yes, and the death of Katerina - it opens up a new beginning on the background we have designated.

There could not have been an article by Dobrolyubov without an analysis of the image of the main character - Katerina. He describes this given image as a kind of shaky, not yet decisive "step forward" in all of Russian literature. The life of the Russian people requires the appearance of more resolute and active ones, says Dobrolyubov. The very image of Katerina is saturated with natural understanding and intuitive perception of the truth, it is selfless, because Katerina would rather choose death than life under the old order. It is in the very harmony of integrity that the mighty strength of the character of the heroine lies.

In addition to the image of Katerina, Dobrolyubov examines in detail her actions, their motives. He notices that she is not a rebel by nature, she does not demand destruction and does not show biased discontent. She is more of a creator who wants to love. It is these inclinations that explain her desire in her own mind to somehow ennoble everything. She is young and the desire for tenderness and love is natural for her. However, Tikhon is so obsessed and downtrodden that he will not be able to understand these feelings and desires of Katerina themselves. He himself says about this: "Something Katya, I don't understand you ...".

Ultimately, in considering the image of Katerina, Dobrolyubov finds that in her Ostrovsky embodied the very idea of ​​​​the Russian people, which he speaks about rather abstractly, comparing Katerina with a flat and wide river, which has a flat bottom, and it flows around the stones it meets smoothly. This river itself makes noise only because it is necessary by the natural nature of things and nothing more.

In the analysis of Katerina's actions, Dobrolyubov comes to the conclusion that her and Boris's escape itself is the only right decision. Katerina can escape, but Boris's dependence on his relative shows that he himself is the same as Tikhon, only more educated.
The finale of the play is tragic and encouraging at the same time. Getting rid of the shackles of the dark kingdom, albeit in this way, is the main idea of ​​the work itself. Life itself in this gloomy realm is not possible. Even Tikhon, when they pull out the corpse of his wife, shouts that she is now well, and wonders: - “But what about me?”. This cry itself and the finale of the play give an unambiguous understanding of the full power and truth of the finale. Tikhon's words make you think not about the usual love affair and the gloom of the finale, but about a world in which the living envy the dead.
In the final part of the article, the author addresses the reader with the words that he will be pleased if the readers find Russian life and strength decisive, and also urges them to feel the importance and legitimacy of this matter itself.

Please note that this is only a summary of the literary work "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom". This summary omits many important points and quotations.

A.N. Ostrovsky, St. Petersburg, 1860)

Shortly before The Thunderstorm appeared on the stage, we analyzed in great detail all the works of Ostrovsky. Wishing to present a description of the author's talent, we then drew attention to the phenomena of Russian life reproduced in his plays, tried to catch their general character and try to find out whether the meaning of these phenomena is in reality what it appears to us in the works of our playwright. If readers have not forgotten, then we have come to the conclusion that Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life and a great ability to depict sharply and vividly its most essential aspects. "The Thunderstorm" soon served as a new proof of the validity of our conclusion. We wanted to talk about it at the same time, but we felt that in doing so we would have to repeat many of our previous considerations, and therefore decided to keep silent about Groz, leaving readers who asked for our opinion to believe on it those general remarks that we spoke about Ostrovsky a few months before the appearance of this play. Our decision was even more confirmed in you when we saw that a whole series of large and small reviews appear in all magazines and newspapers regarding the Thunderstorm, interpreting the matter from the most diverse points of view. We thought that in this mass of articles something more would finally be said about Ostrovsky and about the significance of his plays than what we saw in the critics mentioned at the beginning of our first article on The Dark Kingdom*. In this hope, and in the awareness that our own opinion about the meaning and character of Ostrovsky's works has already been expressed quite definitely, we considered it best to leave the analysis of The Thunderstorm.

____________________

* See Sovremennik, 1959, E VII. (Note by N.A. Dobrolyubov.)

But now, again meeting Ostrovsky's play in a separate edition and recalling everything that has been written about it, we find that it will not be superfluous on our part to say a few words about it. It gives us occasion to add something to our notes on the "Dark Kingdom", to carry on some of the thoughts that we expressed then, and - by the way - to explain ourselves in short words to some of the critics who have honored us with direct or indirect abuse.

We must do justice to some of the critics: they were able to understand the difference that separates us from them. They reproach us for adopting the bad method of considering the author's work and then, as a result of this consideration, saying what it contains and what that content is. They have a completely different method: they first tell themselves what should be contained in a work (according to their concepts, of course) and to what extent everything that should really be in it (again, according to their concepts). It is clear that with such a difference of views, they look with indignation at our analyzes, which are likened by one of them to "searching for a moral to a fable." But we are very glad that finally the difference is open, and we are ready to withstand any kind of comparison. Yes, if you like, our method of criticism is also similar to finding a moral conclusion in a fable: the difference, for example, in the application to the criticism of Ostrovsky's comedy, will only be as great as far as the comedy differs from the fable and how much human life depicted in comedies is more important and closer to us than the life of donkeys, foxes, reeds and other characters depicted in fables. In any case, it is much better, in our opinion, to analyze the fable and say: "this is what morality it contains, and this morality seems to us good or bad, and this is why," than to decide from the very beginning: in this fable there should be such and such morality (for example, respect for parents) and this is how it should be expressed (for example, in the form of a chick that disobeyed its mother and fell out of the nest); but these conditions are not met, the moral is not the same (for example, the negligence of parents about children) or is expressed in a wrong way (for example, in the example of a cuckoo leaving its eggs in other people's nests), then the fable is not good. We have seen this method of criticism more than once in the appendix to Ostrovsky, although, of course, no one will want to admit it, and we will also be blamed, from a sick head to a healthy one, that we are starting to analyze literary works with pre-adopted ideas. and requirements. And meanwhile, what is clearer, didn’t the Slavophiles say: one should portray a Russian person as virtuous and prove that the root of all goodness is life in the old days; in his first plays, Ostrovsky did not observe this, and therefore The Family Picture and His Own People are unworthy of him and are explained only by the fact that he was still imitating Gogol at that time. Didn't the Westerners shout: it is necessary to teach in comedy that superstition is harmful, and Ostrovsky saves one of his heroes from death with the ringing of bells; everyone should be taught that the true good lies in education, and Ostrovsky in his comedy dishonors the educated Vikhorev in front of the ignoramus Borodkin; it is clear that "Don't get into your sleigh" and "Don't live as you like" are bad plays. Didn't the adherents of artistry proclaim: art must serve the eternal and universal requirements of aesthetics, while Ostrovsky, in Profitable Place, reduced art to serving the miserable interests of the moment; therefore, "Profitable Place" is unworthy of art and should be counted among accusatory literature! written in order to arouse in us sympathy for Bolshov; therefore, the fourth act is superfluous!.. And Mr. Pavlov (N.F.)[*] didn’t wriggle, making it clear that the following provisions could be understood: Russian folk life can provide material only for farce ** ideas; there are no elements in it in order to build something out of it in accordance with the "eternal" requirements of art; it is obvious, therefore, that Ostrovsky, who takes a story from the life of the common people, is nothing more than a farcical writer... Didn't another Moscow critic make such conclusions: the drama should present us with a hero imbued with lofty ideas; the heroine of The Thunderstorm, on the other hand, is all imbued with mysticism ***, therefore, is not suitable for drama, because she cannot arouse our sympathy; therefore, "Thunderstorm" has only the meaning of satire, and even that is unimportant, etc., etc. ...

____________________

* For notes on words marked with [*], see the end of the text.

** Balagan - a fair folk theatrical spectacle with a primitive stage technique; farcical - here: primitive, common people.

*** Mysticism (from Greek) - a tendency to believe in the supernatural world.

Anyone who followed what was written in our country about the Thunderstorm will easily recall a few more similar critics. It cannot be said that all of them were written by people who are completely mentally poor; how to explain the absence of a direct view of things, which strikes the impartial reader in all of them? Without any doubt, it must be attributed to the old critical routine, which remained in many minds from the study of artistic scholasticism in the courses of Koshansky, Ivan Davydov, Chistyakov and Zelenetsky[*]. It is known that, in the opinion of these venerable theorists, criticism is an application to a well-known work of general laws set forth in the courses of the same theoreticians: fits the laws - excellent; does not fit - bad. As you can see, it was not badly conceived for the obsolescent old people; as long as this principle lives in criticism, they can be sure that they will not be considered completely backward, no matter what happens in the literary world. After all, the laws are beautifully established by them in their textbooks, on the basis of those works in the beauty of which they believe; as long as everything new will be judged on the basis of the laws approved by them, as long as only that which is in accordance with them will be elegant and recognized, nothing new will dare to lay claim to its rights; the old people will be right in believing in Karamzin[*] and not recognizing Gogol, as the respectable people thought to be right, who admired the imitators of Racine[*] and scolded Shakespeare as a drunken savage, following Voltaire[*], or bowed before the "Messiad" and on this Rutiners, even the most mediocre ones, have nothing to fear from criticism, which serves as a passive verification of the immovable rules of stupid scholars, and at the same time, the most gifted writers have nothing to hope from it if they bring something new and original into art. . They must go against all the accusations of "correct" criticism, in spite of it, make a name for themselves, in spite of it, found a school and ensure that some new theoretician begins to think with them when compiling a new code of art. Then the criticism humbly recognizes their merits; and until then, she must be in the position of the unfortunate Neapolitans, at the beginning of this September, who, although they know that Garibaldi will come to them not today, tomorrow, nevertheless must recognize Francis as their king, until his royal majesty will leave their capital.