Dobrolyubov is a ray of sunshine. Dobrolyubov notes the importance of Shakespeare, as well as the opinion of Apollon Grigoriev
Publicist N.A. Dobrolyubov in his article analyzes the play "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 signs of drama in the work: the conflict of duty and passion, the unity of the plot and the high literary language. Dobrolyubov admits that The Thunderstorm does not fully reveal the danger that threatens everyone who blindly follows passion, not listening to the voice of reason and duty. Katerina is presented not as a criminal, but as a martyr. The plot was described as overloaded with superfluous details and characters, absolutely superfluous from the point of view of the storyline, and the language of the heroes of the play was outrageous for an educated and well-mannered person. But the publicist notes that often the expectation of compliance with a certain standard makes it difficult to see the value of a particular work and its essence. Dobrolyubov recalls Shakespeare, who managed to raise the level of general human consciousness to a previously unattainable height.
All Ostrovsky's plays are very vital, and none of the characters, seemingly not involved in the development of the plot, can be called superfluous, since they are all part of the situation in which the main characters are. The publicist analyzes in detail the inner world and reflections of each of the minor characters. Just like in real life, in the plays there is no intention to necessarily punish the negative character with misfortune, and reward the positive character with happiness in the end.
The play has been called the playwright's sharpest and most decisive work; in particular, Dobrolyubov notes the integral and strong character of 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 creation. 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 escape of the heroine with Boris to be the best outcome.
The article does not mourn her death; on the contrary, death seems to be a 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! And 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 - Ray of light in the dark kingdom
Other retellings and reviews for the reader's diary
- Brief summary of Bazhov Ognevushka jumping
They say that you need to believe, then everything will be fulfilled. So Fedyunka believed - with his own eyes. He and several adults "imagined" the fabulous Fireball. She appeared in the fire, out of herself - a cheerful girl
- Summary of Gaidar's Hot Stone
A lonely old man with a difficult fate once caught Ivashka Kudryashkin, a boy in his garden, who wanted to pick his apple tree. Left unpunished, the boy left aimlessly until he found himself in a swamp
- Summary Unknown Soldier Rybakov
After passing the last exam and graduating from school, Sergei Krasheninnikov arrives in a small town, to his grandfather. The young man begins to work in the construction team. Workers were engaged in the design and construction of roads
- Summary Gubarev Journey to the Morning Star
Three friends - Ilya, Nikita and Lesha - spend their holidays in a holiday village. There they meet a girl named Veronica and her grandfather, who turned out to be a magician. He invited his friends to go on a distant space journey.
- Summary of Yakovlev Bagulnik
Silent boy Costa constantly yawns in the classroom. The teacher Evgenia Ivanovna is angry with him and thinks that Costa is showing disrespect to her.
Analysis of the article by N.A. Dobrolyubov “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom”
Dobrolyubov's article "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom" is one of the first reviews of A.N. Ostrovsky's play. First published in the Sovremennik magazine in No. 10, 1860.
It was a time of revolutionary-democratic upsurge, fierce resistance to autocratic power. Tense expectation of reforms. Hope for social change.
The epoch demanded a resolute, integral, strong character, capable of rising to protest against violence and arbitrariness and going in his post to the end. Dobrolyubov saw such a character in Katerina.
Dobrolyubov called Katerina "a ray of light in a dark kingdom" because she is a bright personality, a bright phenomenon and extremely positive. A person who does not want to be a victim of the "dark kingdom", capable of an act. Any violence revolts her and leads to protest.
Dobrolyubov welcomes creativity in the character of the heroine.
He believed that the origins of protest are precisely in harmony, simplicity, nobility, which are incompatible with slave morality.
The drama of Katerina, according to Dobrolyubov, is in the struggle of natural aspirations for beauty, harmony, happiness, prejudices, morality of the "dark kingdom" arising from her nature.
The critic sees something "refreshing, encouraging" in the drama "Thunderstorm". Detects shakiness and the near end of tyranny. The character of Katerina breathes new life, although it is revealed to us in her very death.
Ostrovsky was far from thinking that the only way out of the "dark kingdom" could only be a resolute protest. Ostrovsky's "beam of light" was knowledge and education.
Dobrolyubov, as a revolutionary democrat, in a period of powerful revolutionary upsurge, looked for facts in literature confirming that the masses of the people do not want and cannot live in the old way, that protest against the autocratic order is ripening in them, that they are ready to rise to a decisive struggle for social transformations. Dobrolyubov was convinced that readers, having read the play, should understand that living in the "dark kingdom" is worse than death. It is clear that in this way Dobrolyubov sharpened many aspects of Ostrovsky's play and drew direct revolutionary conclusions. But this was due to the time of writing the article.
Dobrolyubov's critical manner is fruitful. The critic does not so much judge as studies, explores the struggle in the soul of the heroine, proving the inevitability of the victory of light over darkness. This approach corresponds to the spirit of Ostrovsky's drama.
Dobrolyubov's correctness was also confirmed by the court of history. "Thunderstorm" really was the news of a new stage in Russian folk life. Already in the movement of revolutionaries - the seventies there were many participants whose life path made me think of Katerina. Vera Zasulich, Sophia Perovskaya, Vera Figner... And they started with an instinctive impulse to freedom, born from the closeness of the family environment.
Any critical article should hardly be considered the ultimate truth. Critical work, even the most versatile, is still one-sided. The most brilliant critic cannot say everything about the work. But the best, like works of art, become monuments of the era. The Dobrolyubovskaya article is one of the highest achievements of Russian criticism of the 19th century. She sets the trend in the interpretation of the "Thunderstorm" to this day.
Our time brings its own accents to the interpretation of Ostrovsky's drama.
N. Dobrolyubov called the city of Kalinov a "dark kingdom", and Katerina - a "beam of light" in it. But can we agree with this? The kingdom turned out to be not so "obscure" as it might seem at first glance. And the beam? A sharp long light, mercilessly highlighting everything, cold, cutting, causing a desire to close.
Is it Katherine? Let's remember how she prays...! What an angelic smile she has on her face, and from her face it seems to glow.
Light comes from within. No, it's not a beam. Candle. Trembling, defenseless. And from her light. Scattering, warm, living light. They reached out to him - each for his own. It was from this breath of many that the candle went out.
The critical article "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom" was written by Nikolai Dobrolyubov in 1860 and then published in the Sovremennik magazine.
Dobrolyubov reflects in it on dramatic standards, where "we see the struggle of passion and duty." A happy ending, in his opinion, the drama has if duty wins, and an unhappy ending if passion. The critic notes that in Ostrovsky's drama there is no unity of time and high vocabulary, which was the rule for dramas. "Thunderstorm" does not satisfy the main goal of the drama - to respect the "moral duty", to show the destructive, fatal "consequences of infatuation with passion." Dobrolyubov notices that the reader involuntarily justifies Katerina, and that is why the drama does not fulfill its purpose.
The writer has a role to play in the movement of humanity. The critic cites as an example the lofty mission accomplished by Shakespeare: he was able to raise the morality of his contemporaries. "Plays of life" somewhat pejoratively calls the works of Ostrovsky Dobrolyubov. The writer "punishes neither the villain nor the victim", and this, according to the critic, makes the plays hopelessly mundane and mundane. But the critic does not deny them "nationality", arguing in this context with Apollon Grigoriev.It is the reflection of the aspirations of the people that is one of the strengths of the work.
Dobrolyubov continues his devastating criticism when analyzing the "unnecessary" heroes of the "dark kingdom": their inner world is limited within a small world. There are villains in the work, described in an extremely grotesque way. These are Kabanikha and Wild. However, unlike, for example, Shakespeare's characters, their tyranny is petty, although it can ruin the life of a good person. Nevertheless, "Thunderstorm" is called Dobrolyubov "the most decisive work" of the playwright, where tyranny is brought to "tragic consequences."
A supporter of revolutionary changes in the country, Dobrolyubov happily notices signs of something "refreshing" and "encouraging" in the play. For him, the way out of the dark kingdom can only be as a result of the protest of the people against the tyranny of the authorities. In Ostrovsky's plays, the critic saw this protest in the act of Katerina, for whom living in the "dark kingdom" is worse than death. Dobrolyubov saw in Katerina the person that the era demanded: decisive, with a strong character and will of spirit, although "weak and patient." Katerina, "creative, loving, ideal", is, according to the revolutionary democrat Dobrolyubov, the ideal prototype of a person capable of protest and even more. Katerina - a bright person with a bright soul - is called by the critic a "beam of light" in the world of dark people with their petty passions.
(Tikhon falls to his knees in front of Kabanikha)
Among them is the husband of Katerina Tikhon - "one of the many miserable types" who are "as harmful as the petty tyrants themselves." Katerina runs away from him to Boris "more in the wilderness", out of the "need for love", which Tikhon is not capable of because of his moral underdevelopment. But Boris is by no means "a hero." There is no way out for Katerina, her bright soul cannot get out of the sticky darkness of the “dark kingdom”.
The tragic ending of the play and the cry of the unfortunate Tikhon, who, according to him, continues to "suffer", "make the viewer - as Dobrolyubov wrote - think not about a love affair, but about the whole life, where the living envy the dead."
Nikolai Dobrolyubov sets the real task of his critical article to turn the reader to the idea that Russian life is shown by Ostrovsky in "Thunderstorm" in such a perspective in order to call "to decisive action." And this business is legal and important. In this case, as the critic notes, he will be satisfied "whatever our scientists and literary judges say."
The article “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom” by Dobrolyubov was written in 1860 and is dedicated to the drama “Thunderstorm” by A. N. Ostrovsky. The title of a critical article quickly became a popular phraseological unit denoting a bright, soul-reassuring phenomenon in some complex, confusing environment.
For the best preparation for the literature lesson, we recommend reading the online summary of “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom”. A retelling of Dobrolyubov's article will also be useful for the reader's diary.
Nikolai Alexandrovich begins his article with the recognition that "Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life and a great ability to depict sharply and vividly its most essential aspects." Mentioning several critical articles about the play "Thunderstorm", he explains that many of them did not fully reveal the essence of the work.
Further, the publicist cites "the main rules of drama", among which he especially notes the "struggle of passion and duty", in which duty necessarily prevails. In addition, in a true drama, “strict unity and consistency” must be observed, the denouement must be a logical continuation of the plot, all characters and all dialogues must take a direct part in the development of the drama, the language must not “depart from literary purity and not turn into vulgarity” .
Starting to analyze Ostrovsky's play, Dobrolyubov points out that the author did not fully reveal the most important task of the drama - "to inspire respect for moral duty and show the detrimental consequences of passion". Katerina is presented as a martyr, not a criminal. According to Dobrolyubov, the plot is unnecessarily overloaded with details and characters, and the language "surpasses any patience of a well-bred person".
But immediately Nikolai Alexandrovich admits that criticism, squeezed in the grip of the dominant theory, dooms itself to enmity "to every progress, to everything new and original in literature." As an example, he cites the work of Shakespeare, who managed to raise the level of human consciousness to a previously unattainable height.
The publicist notes that all the plays of A. N. Ostrovsky can be safely called "plays of life", since they are dominated by "the general environment of life, independent of any of the characters." In his works, the writer "punishes neither the villain nor the victim": both of them are often funny and not energetic enough to resist fate. Thus, "the struggle demanded by theory from drama" in Ostrovsky's plays is carried out not at the expense of the characters' monologues, but due to the circumstances prevailing over them.
Just as in real life, negative characters do not always receive their well-deserved punishment, just as positive characters do not acquire the long-awaited happiness at the end of the work. The publicist carefully analyzes the inner world of each of the minor and episodic characters. He notes that in the play “the need for so-called “unnecessary” persons is especially visible”, with the help of which the character of the main character is most accurately and vividly outlined, and the meaning of the work becomes more understandable.
Dobrolyubov notes that "Thunderstorm" is "Ostrovsky's most decisive work", but at the same time it makes an "impression less heavy and sad" than all the other plays of the author. There is "something refreshing and uplifting" about The Thunderstorm.
Further, Dobrolyubov begins to analyze the image of Katerina, which "is a step forward" not only in Ostrovsky's work, but throughout Russian literature. Reality has come to the point that it needs "people, even if they are less beautiful, but more active and energetic." The strength of Katerina's character lies in integrity and harmony: for a girl, her own death is preferable to life in nasty and alien circumstances. Her soul is full of "natural aspirations for beauty, harmony, contentment, happiness."
Even in the gloomy atmosphere of the new family, Katerina "is looking for light, air, wants to dream and frolic." At first, she seeks solace in religion and soul-saving conversations, but does not find the bright and fresh impressions she needs. Realizing what she needs, the heroine manifests "quite the strength of her character, not wasted in petty antics."
Katerina is full of love and creativity. In her imagination, she tries to ennoble the reality that surrounds her. It has a strong "feeling of love for a person, a desire to find a kindred response in another heart." However, the essence of Katerina is not given to understand her husband, the downtrodden Tikhon Kabanov. She tries to believe that her husband is her destiny, “that in him there is the bliss that she so anxiously seeks”, but soon all her illusions are broken.
It is interesting to compare the heroine with a large full-flowing river, which deftly and freely bypasses all obstacles in its path. Having raged, it even breaks through the dams, but its seething is not caused by indignation and anger, but by the need to continue on its way.
Analyzing the character and actions of Katerina, Dobrolyubov comes to the conclusion that the best solution for the heroine is her escape with Boris. She does not blame anyone for her bitter fate, and sees death as the only consolation for herself, as a quiet, calm haven. “It’s sad, such a release is bitter,” but Katerina simply has no other choice. It is the determination of the woman to take this difficult step that leaves readers with a "refreshing impression."
Conclusion
In his article, Dobrolyubov emphasizes that one must have sufficient courage and honesty with oneself in order to carry within oneself a living, warming light.
After reading the brief retelling of "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom", we recommend that you read Dobrolyubov's article in its full version.
Article test
Check the memorization of the summary with the test:
Retelling rating
Average rating: 4.5. Total ratings received: 468.
How to write an essay. To prepare for the exam Sitnikov Vitaly Pavlovich
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
Beam of light in the dark realm
(Thunderstorm. Drama in five acts by A. N. Ostrovsky, St. Petersburg, 1860)
In the development of the drama there must be observed strict unity and consistency; the denouement should flow naturally and necessarily from the tie; each scene must certainly contribute to the movement of the action and move it to a 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 does not relate to the essence of the play. The characters of the characters must be clearly marked, and gradualness must be necessary in their discovery, in accordance with the development of the action. The language must be commensurate with the situation of each person, but not deviate from the purity of the literary and not turn into vulgarity.
Here, it seems, are all the main rules of drama. Let's apply them to the Thunderstorm.
The subject of the drama really represents the struggle in Katerina between a sense of duty of marital fidelity and passion for the young Boris Grigorievich. So the first requirement is found. But then, starting from this demand, we find that the other conditions of exemplary drama are violated in The Thunderstorm in the most cruel way.
And, firstly, The Thunderstorm does not satisfy the most essential internal goal of the drama - to inspire respect for moral duty and show the detrimental consequences of being carried away by passion. Katerina, this immoral, shameless (according to 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 kind of the radiance of martyrdom around the brow. She speaks so well, she suffers so plaintively, 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 face. Consequently, the drama does not fulfill its lofty 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 indicated for us not quite clearly and strongly.
The unity of impressions is also not observed: it is harmed by the admixture of an extraneous element - Katerina's relationship with her mother-in-law. The intervention of the mother-in-law constantly prevents us from focusing our attention on the inner struggle that should be going on in Katerina's soul.
In addition, in Ostrovsky's play we notice a mistake against the first and basic 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 plot and denouement also sin against the requirements of art. The plot is in a simple case - in the departure of the husband; the denouement is also completely accidental 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.
The whole action is sluggish and slow, because it is cluttered with scenes and completely unnecessary faces. Kudryash and Shapkin, Kuligin, Feklusha, the lady with two lackeys, Dikoy himself - all these are persons who are not essentially connected with the basis of the play. Unnecessary faces constantly enter the stage, say things that do not go to the point, and leave, again it is not known why and where. All the recitations of Kuligin, all the antics of Kudryash and Dikiy, not to mention the half-mad lady and the conversations of city dwellers during a thunderstorm, could have been released without any damage to the essence of the matter.<…>
Finally, the language with which the characters speak surpasses all patience of a well-bred person. Of course, merchants and philistines cannot speak in elegant literary language; but after all, one cannot agree that a dramatic author, for the sake of fidelity, can introduce into literature all the vulgar expressions in which the Russian people are so rich.<…>
And if the reader agreed to give us the right to proceed with the play with prearranged requirements as to what and how in it must to be - we do not need anything else: everything that is not in accordance with the rules adopted by us, we will be able to destroy.<…>
The modern aspirations of Russian life, in the most extensive dimensions, find their expression in Ostrovsky, as a comedian, from the negative side. Drawing to us in a vivid picture false relationships, with all their consequences, he through the very same serves as an echo of aspirations that require a better device. 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 disgrace of mutual relations developed in most of Ostrovsky's comedies rests; the demands of law, legality, respect for a person - that's what every attentive reader hears from the depths of this disgrace.<…>But Ostrovsky, as a man with a strong talent and, consequently, with a sense of truth, with an instinctive inclination towards natural, sound demands, could not succumb to temptation, and arbitrariness, even the widest, always came out with him, in accordance with reality, heavy arbitrariness, ugly, lawless - and in the essence of the play there was always a protest against him. He knew how to feel what such breadth of nature meant, and branded, defamed her with several types and names of tyranny.
But he did not invent these types, just as he did not invent the word "tyrant". Both he took in life itself. It is clear that life, which provided the materials for such comical situations, in which Ostrovsky's petty tyrants are often placed, life, which gave them a decent name, is not already completely absorbed by their influence, but contains the makings of a more reasonable, legitimate, correct order of affairs. And indeed, after each play by Ostrovsky, everyone feels this consciousness within himself and, looking around himself, notices the same in others. Following this thought more closely, peering into it longer and deeper, you notice that this striving for a new, more natural arrangement 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 really comedies of characters, but something new, to which we would give the name "plays of life" if it were not too extensive and therefore not quite definite. We want to say that in his foreground is always the general environment of life, independent of any of the actors. He does not punish either the villain or the victim; both of them are pathetic to you, often both are ridiculous, but the feeling aroused in you by the play does not directly appeal to them. You see that their position dominates them, and you only blame them for not voicing enough energy to get out of this position. The tyrants themselves, against whom your feelings should naturally resent, on closer examination turn out to be more worthy of pity than your anger: they are both virtuous and even smart in their own way, within the limits prescribed for them by routine and supported by their position; but the situation is such that full, healthy human development is impossible in it.<…>
Thus, the struggle demanded by theory from drama takes place in Ostrovsky's plays not in the monologues of the actors, but in the facts dominating them. Often the characters of the comedy themselves have no clear or no consciousness at all about the meaning of their position and their struggle; but on the other hand, the struggle is very clearly and consciously carried out in the soul of the spectator, who involuntarily revolts against the situation that gives rise to such facts. 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, they draw the situation that determines the meaning of the activity of the main characters of the play.<…>In The Thunderstorm, the need for so-called "unnecessary" faces is especially visible: without them, we cannot understand the faces of the heroine and can easily distort the meaning of the whole play, which happened to most of the critics.<…>
The Thunderstorm, as you know, presents us with the idyll of the "dark kingdom", which little by little illuminates us with Ostrovsky's 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 fertile summer day beckons to the shore, to the air, under the open sky, under this breeze blowing refreshingly from the Volga ... And the inhabitants, as if, sometimes walk along the boulevard over the river, although they have already got accustomed to the beauties 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, do housework, eat, sleep - they go to bed very early, so it is difficult for an unaccustomed person to endure such a sleepy night as they ask themselves. But what should they do, how not to 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 open up, the face of the earth can change as it pleases, the world can start a new life on new principles - the inhabitants of the city of Kalinov will exist for themselves as before in complete ignorance of the rest of the world.<…>From a young age they still show some curiosity, but there is nowhere for her to get food: information comes to them<…>only from wanderers, and even now there are few of them, real ones; one has to be content with those who "themselves, due to their weakness, did not go far, but heard a lot," like Feklusha in The Thunderstorm. From them only the inhabitants of Kalinovo 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 otherwise than them. But the information reported by the Feklushs is such that they are not able to inspire 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 both revered, and treated, and supplied with everything necessary; she can seriously assure that her very sins come from the fact that she is higher than other mortals: “ordinary people,” she says, “everyone is embarrassed by one enemy, but to us, strange people, to whom there are six, to whom twelve are assigned, that’s it. overcome them all." And they believe her. It is clear that the simple instinct of self-preservation should make her say a good word about what is being done in other lands.<…>
And this is not at all because these people were 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 have all been accustomed to see the lack of accountability and senselessness and therefore find it awkward and even daring to persistently seek out reasonable grounds for anything. Ask a question - there will be more of them; but if the answer is such that “the cannon itself, and the mortar itself,” then they no longer dare to torture further and are humbly content 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 mystery is given to us, for example, by the following line of Diky in The Thunderstorm. Kuligin, in response to his rudeness, says: “Why, sir Savel Prokofich, would you like to offend an honest man?” Wild answers this: “A report, or something, I will give you! I don't report to anyone more important than you. I want to think about you like that, I think so! For others, you are an honest person, but I think that you are a robber - that's all. Would you like to hear it from me? So listen! I say that the robber, and the end. Well, are you going to sue, or what, will you be with me? So you know that you are a worm. If I want - I will have mercy, if I want - I will crush.
What theoretical reasoning can stand where life is based on such principles! The absence of any law, any logic - that 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 condition of a society subject to such anarchy (if such anarchy is possible) is indeed terrible.<…>In fact, no matter what you say, a man alone, left to himself, will not fool much in society and will very soon feel the need to agree and come to an agreement with others in terms of common benefit. But a person will never feel this need if he finds a vast field for exercising his whims in a multitude of his kind, and if he sees in their dependent, humiliated position a constant reinforcement of his tyranny.<…>
But - a wonderful thing! - in their indisputable, irresponsible dark dominion, giving complete freedom to their whims, putting all sorts of 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 as before, everything is fine: Dikoy scolds whomever he wants; when they say to him: “how can no one in the whole house please you!” - he self-satisfiedly answers: "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 by various Feklushas. And everything is somehow restless, not good for them. In addition to them, without asking them, another life has grown, with other beginnings, and although it is far away, it is still not clearly visible, but it already gives itself a presentiment and sends bad visions to the dark arbitrariness 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 guilty person 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 power higher than them, which they cannot overcome, which they cannot even approach know how. They do not want to give in (and no one for the time being demands concessions from them), but shrink, shrink; before they wanted to establish their system of life, forever indestructible, and now they are also trying to preach; but already hope is betraying them, and they, in essence, are only busy with how it would be in their lifetime ... Kabanova talks about the fact that “the last times are coming”, and when Feklusha tells her about the various horrors of the present time - about railways etc., - she prophetically remarks: "And it will be worse, dear." “We just don’t want to live to see this,” Feklusha replies with a sigh. “Maybe we will live,” Kabanova says again fatalistically, revealing her doubts and uncertainty. Why is she worried? People travel by railroads - what does it matter to her? But you see: she, “even though you are all scree of gold,” will not go according to the devil’s invention; and the people travel more and more, ignoring her curses; Isn't that sad, isn't it a testament to her impotence? People have found out about electricity - it seems that there is something offensive for the Wild and Kabanovs? But, you see, Dikoi says that "a thunderstorm is sent to us as a punishment, so that we feel," but Kuligin does not feel or feels not at all, 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 that they don’t believe him either, they consider themselves smarter than him; think about what it will lead to? No wonder Kabanova remarks about Kuligin: “The times have come, what teachers have appeared! If the old man talks like that, what can you demand from the young! 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 already feels that there is no former reverence for them, that they are no longer willingly preserved, only involuntarily, and that at the first opportunity they will be abandoned. She herself had somehow lost some of her knightly fervor; no longer with the same energy she takes care of observing the old customs, in many cases she has already waved her hand, drooped before the impossibility of stopping the stream, and only looks with despair as it gradually floods the colorful flower beds of her whimsical superstitions.<…>
That is why, of course, the outward appearance of everything to which their influence extends preserves the antiquities more and seems more immovable than where people, having abandoned tyranny, are already trying only to preserve the essence of their interests and significance; but in fact, the inner significance of petty tyrants is much closer to its end than the influence of people who know how to support themselves and their principle by external concessions. That is why Kabanova is so sad, and that is why Dikoya is so furious: until the last moment they did not want to tame their broad manners and now they are in the position of a rich merchant on the eve of bankruptcy.<…>
But, to the great chagrin of arrogant parasites,<…>now the position of the Wild and Kabanovs is far from being so pleasant: they must take care to strengthen and protect themselves, because demands arise from everywhere, hostile to their arbitrariness and threatening them with a struggle with the awakening common sense of the vast majority of mankind. Constant suspicion, scrupulousness and captiousness of petty tyrants arise from everywhere: realizing internally that they have nothing to respect for, but not admitting this even to themselves, they reveal a lack of self-confidence in the pettiness of their demands and constant, incidentally and inopportunely, reminders and suggestions that that they should be respected. This trait is extremely expressive 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?" - and then begins to nag his son and daughter-in-law, so that he pulls the soul out of an outside viewer.<…>
We dwelled for a very long time on the dominant persons of The Thunderstorm because, in our opinion, the story played out with Katerina depends decisively 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 in it to the most tragic consequences; and for all that, most of those who have read and seen this play agree that it makes an impression less heavy and sad than Ostrovsky's other plays (not to mention, of course, his sketches of a purely comic nature). There is 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 a new life, which opens up to us in her very death.
The fact is that the character of Katerina, as he is portrayed in The Thunderstorm, is a step forward not only in Ostrovsky's dramatic activity, but in all of our literature. It corresponds to the new phase of our people's life, it has long demanded its implementation in literature, our best writers circled around it; but they could only understand its need and could not comprehend and feel its essence; Ostrovsky managed to do this.<…>
The resolute, integral Russian character, acting among the Dikikhs and the Kabanovs, appears in Ostrovsky in the female type, and this is not without its serious significance. It is known that extremes are reflected by extremes, and that the strongest protest is the one that finally rises from the breasts of the weakest and most patient. The field in which Ostrovsky observes and shows us Russian life does not concern purely social and state relations, but is limited to the family; in a family, who bears the yoke of tyranny most of all, if not a woman?<…>And, at the same time, who less than she has the opportunity to express her grumbling, to refuse to do what is disgusting to her? Servants and clerks are connected only materially, in a human way; they can leave the tyrant as soon as they find another place for themselves. The wife, according to the prevailing concepts, is inextricably linked with him, spiritually, through the sacrament; whatever her husband does, she must obey him and share his meaningless life with him. And if, finally, she could leave, then where would she go, what would she do? Curly says: "The Wild One needs me, so I'm not afraid of him and I won't let him take liberties over me." It is easy for a man who has come to realize that he is really needed for others; but a woman, a wife? Why is she needed? Isn't she herself, on the contrary, taking everything from her husband? Her husband gives her a home, waters, feeds, clothes, protects her, gives her a position in society ... Isn't she usually considered a burden for a man? Do not prudent people say, keeping young people from marrying: “A wife is not a bast shoe, you can’t kick it off your feet!” And in the general opinion, the main difference between a wife and a bast shoe lies in the fact that she brings with her a whole burden of worries that the husband cannot get rid of, while the bast shoe gives only convenience, and if it is inconvenient, it can easily be thrown off ... Being in such a 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 anything for some Curly to quarrel with Diky: both of them need each other, and, therefore, no special heroism is needed on the part of Curly to present his demands. But his trick will not lead to anything serious: he will quarrel, Wild will threaten to give him up as a soldier, but he 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 already have a lot of strength of character in order to express her discontent, her demands. At the first attempt, she will be made to feel that she is nothing, that she can be crushed. She knows that this is true, and must accept; otherwise, they will execute a threat over her - they will beat her, lock her up, leave her to repentance, on bread and water, deprive her of the light of day, try all the domestic corrective means of the good old days and still lead to humility. A woman who wants to go to the end in her rebellion against the oppression and arbitrariness of her elders in the Russian family must be filled with heroic self-sacrifice, she must decide on everything and be ready for everything. How can she bear herself? Where does she get so much character? The only answer to this is that the natural tendencies of human nature cannot be completely destroyed. You can tilt them to the side, press, squeeze, but all this is only to a certain extent. The triumph of false propositions only shows to what extent the elasticity of human nature can reach; but the more unnatural the situation, the nearer and more necessary is the way out of it. And, therefore, it is already very unnatural when even the most flexible natures, most subject to the influence of the force that produced such positions, cannot withstand it.<…>The same must be said about a weak woman who decides to fight for her rights: it has come to the point that it is no longer possible for her to endure her humiliation, so she breaks out of it no longer for reasons of what is better and what is worse, but only by an instinctive desire for what is tolerable and possible. Nature here it replaces the considerations of the mind, and the demands of feeling and imagination: all this merges into the general feeling of the organism, demanding air, food, freedom. Here lies the secret of the integrity of the characters that appear 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 the old Kabanikh, is nevertheless more independent: he can run away to Savel Prokofich for a drink, he will go to Moscow from his mother and turn around in the wild, and if he is 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 educates his character, good for nothing, all in the secret hope that he will somehow break free. His wife has no hope, no consolation, she cannot breathe; 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 Kabanikh. But free air and light, contrary to all the precautions of perishing tyranny, break into Katerina's cell, she feels the opportunity to satisfy the natural thirst of her soul and can no longer remain motionless: 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 considers life and the vegetative life that fell to her lot in the Kabanov family.
This is the basis of all the actions of the character depicted in The Storm. This basis is more reliable than all possible theories and pathos, because it lies in the very essence of this situation, it irresistibly attracts a person to the matter, does not depend on this or that ability or impression in particular, but relies on the entire complexity of the requirements of the organism, on the development of the whole nature of man. .<…>First of all, you are struck by the extraordinary originality of this character. There is nothing external, alien in him, but everything comes out somehow from within him; every impression is processed in it and then grows organically with it. We see this, for example, in Katerina's ingenuous story about her childhood and about life in her mother's house. It turns out that her upbringing and young life did not give her anything; in her mother's house it was the same as at the Kabanovs; they went to church, sewed gold on velvet, listened to the stories of wanderers, dined, walked in the garden, again talked with pilgrims and prayed themselves ... After listening to Katerina’s story, Varvara, her husband’s sister, remarks with surprise: ". But the difference is determined by Katerina very quickly in five words: “Yes, everything here seems to be from bondage!” And further conversation shows that in all this appearance, which is so common with us everywhere, Katerina was able to find her own special meaning, apply it to her needs and aspirations, until the heavy hand of Kabanikha fell upon her. Katerina does not at all belong to violent characters, never satisfied, loving to destroy at all costs ... On the contrary, this character is predominantly creative, loving, ideal. That is why she tries to comprehend and ennoble everything in her imagination ...<…>She tries to harmonize any external dissonance with the harmony of her soul, she covers any shortcoming from the fullness of her inner forces. Rude, superstitious stories and senseless ravings of wanderers turn in her 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 to a new world, quiet and bright. It is not the rites that occupy her in the church: she does not hear at all what is being sung and read there; she has other music in her soul, other visions, for her the service ends imperceptibly, as if in one second. She is occupied with trees, strangely painted on images, and she imagines a whole country of gardens, where all such trees and everything bloom, smell fragrant, everything is full of heavenly singing. Otherwise, on a sunny day, she will see how “such a bright pillar goes down from the dome and smoke is walking in this pillar, like clouds,” and now she already sees, “as if angels are flying and singing in this pillar.” Sometimes she will introduce herself - why shouldn't she fly? And when she stands on a mountain, she is drawn to fly like that: she would run like that, raise her hands, and fly. She is strange, extravagant from the point of view of others; but this is because it cannot in any way accept their views and inclinations.<…>The whole difference is that with Katerina, as a direct, living person, everything is done according to the inclination of nature, without a clear consciousness, while for people who are theoretically developed and strong in mind, logic and analysis play the main role.<…>In the dry, monotonous life of her youth, in the coarse and superstitious notions of the environment, she was constantly able to take what agreed with her natural aspirations for beauty, harmony, contentment, happiness. In the conversations of wanderers, in prostrations and lamentations, she saw not a dead form, but something else, to which her heart was constantly striving. On the basis of them, she built her own ideal world, without passions, without need, without grief, a world devoted entirely to goodness and pleasure. But what is the real good and true pleasure for a person, she could not determine for herself; that's why these sudden impulses of some kind of unconscious, obscure aspirations, which she recalls: what I pray and what I cry about; so they will 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. ” The 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 understand well even her own needs, cannot, of course, give herself an account of what she needs. For the time being, she lives with her mother, in complete freedom, without any worldly concern, until the needs and passions of an adult have yet been identified in her, she does not even know how to distinguish her own dreams, her inner world from external impressions.<…>
In the gloomy surroundings of the new family, Katerina began to feel the lack of appearance, which she had thought to be content with before. Under the heavy hand of the soulless Kabanikh there is no scope for her bright visions, just as there is no freedom for her feelings. In a fit of tenderness for her husband, she wants to hug him, the old woman shouts: “What are you hanging around your neck, shameless? Bow down at your feet!" She wants to be left alone and mourn quietly, as she used to, and her mother-in-law says: “why don’t you howl?” She is looking for light, air, wants to dream and frolic, water her flowers, look at the sun, the Volga, send her greetings to all living things - and she is kept in captivity, she is constantly suspected of impure, depraved plans. She still seeks refuge in religious practice, in church attendance, in soul-saving conversations; but even here he does not find the former impressions. Killed by daily work and eternal bondage, she can no longer dream with the same clarity of angels singing in a dusty column illuminated by the sun, she cannot imagine the gardens of Eden with their unperturbed look and joy. Everything is gloomy, scary around her, everything breathes cold and some irresistible threat: the faces of the saints are so strict, and the church readings are so formidable, and the stories of the wanderers are so monstrous ...<…>
When she married Tikhon Kabanov, she did not love him either, she still did not understand this feeling; they told her that every girl should get married, showed Tikhon as her future husband, and she went for him, remaining completely indifferent to this step. And here, too, a peculiarity of character is manifested: according to our usual concepts, she should be resisted if she has a decisive character; she does not think about resistance, because she does not have enough reason to do so. She has no special desire to get married, but there is no aversion from marriage either; there is no love in her for Tikhon, but there is no love for anyone else either. She doesn't care for the time being, which is why she lets you do whatever you want with her. One cannot see in this either impotence or apathy, but one can only find a lack of experience, and even too much readiness to do everything for others, taking little care of oneself. She has little knowledge and a lot of gullibility, which is why in time she does not show opposition to others and decides to endure rather 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, not wasted in petty antics, will fully manifest itself. At first, according to the innate kindness and nobility of her soul, she will make every possible effort not to violate the peace and the rights of others, in order to get what she wants with the greatest possible observance of all the requirements that are imposed on her by people who are somehow connected with her; and if they manage to take advantage of this initial mood and decide to give her complete satisfaction, then it is good both for her and for them. But if not, she will stop at nothing: law, kinship, custom, human judgment, rules of prudence - everything disappears for her before the power of inner attraction; she does not spare herself and does not think about others. This was precisely the exit presented to Katerina, and another could not be expected in the midst of the situation in which she finds herself.<…>
The situation in which Katerina lives requires that she lie and deceive, “it’s impossible without this,” Varvara tells her, “you remember where you live, our whole house rests on this. And I was not a liar, but I learned when it became necessary. Katerina succumbs to her position, goes out to Boris at night, hides her feelings from her mother-in-law for ten days ... You might think: another woman has gone astray, learned to deceive her family and will debauchery on the sly, pretending to caress her husband and wearing the disgusting mask of a humble woman!<…>Katerina is not like that: the denouement of her love, with all the homely surroundings, is visible in advance - even when she only approaches the matter. She does not engage in psychological analysis and therefore cannot express subtle observations of herself; what she says about herself, it means that she strongly makes herself known to her. And she, at the first proposal of Varvara about her meeting with Boris, cries out: “No, no, don’t! What are you, God save: if I see him even once, I will run away from home, I will not go home for anything in the world!” It is not a reasonable precaution that speaks in it, it is a passion; and it is clear that no matter how hard she restrains herself, passion is above her, above all her prejudices and fears, above all the suggestions she has heard since childhood. In this passion lies her whole life; all the strength of her nature, all her living aspirations merge here. She is attracted to Boris not only by the fact that she likes him, that he is not like the others around her both in appearance and speech; she is attracted to him by the need for love, which has not found a response in her husband, and the offended feeling of the wife and woman, and the mortal anguish of her monotonous life, and the desire for freedom, space, hot unrestricted freedom. She keeps dreaming about how she could “fly invisibly wherever she wanted”; otherwise such a thought comes: “If it were my will, I would now ride on the Volga, on a boat, with songs, or on a good troika, embracing ...”<…>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 “speak” herself somehow. She makes an attempt to stand somewhat aloof from herself and judge the act she has decided on as an extraneous matter; but her thoughts are all directed towards the justification of this act. “Here,” he says, “is it a long time to die ... Someone has fun in captivity ... At least now I live, toil, I don’t see a gap for myself ... my mother-in-law crushed me ...”, etc. - all exculpatory articles. And then more accusatory considerations: “it’s obvious that fate wants it that way ... But what kind of sin is it if I look at it once ... Yes, even if I talk about it, it’s not a problem. Or maybe such a case will not happen in a lifetime ... "<…>The struggle, in fact, is already over, only a little thought remains, the old rag still covers Katerina, and she gradually throws her off her. The end of the monologue betrays her heart. “Come what may, and I’ll see Boris,” she concludes, and in the oblivion of foreboding she exclaims: “Oh, if only the night would come sooner!”<…>
Such a liberation is sad, bitter, but what to do when there is no other way out. It's good that the poor woman found determination at least for this terrible exit. That is the strength of her character, which is why "Thunderstorm" makes a refreshing impression on us, as we said above. Without a doubt, it would have been better if it had been possible for Katerina to get rid of her tormentors in some other way, or if the tormentors surrounding her could change and reconcile her with themselves and with life.<…>The most they can do is to forgive her, to lighten somewhat the burden of her confinement at home, to say a few kind words to her, perhaps to give her the right to have a voice in the household when her opinion is asked. Maybe that would be enough for another woman...<…>No, what she needed was not something to give in to her and make it easier, but that her mother-in-law, her husband, all those around her become able to satisfy the living aspirations with which she is imbued, to recognize the legitimacy of her natural requirements, to renounce all coercive rights. upon her and be reborn to the point of becoming worthy of her love and trust. There is nothing to say about the extent to which such a rebirth is possible for them ...
Less impossibility would have been another solution - to run with Boris from the arbitrariness and violence of the home. Despite the severity of the formal law, despite the bitterness of crude tyranny, such steps are not impossible 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 to die 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 emerges in front of us for a minute, which keeps people in the depths of the whirlpool, which we called the “dark kingdom”. This stone is material dependence. Boris has nothing and is completely dependent on his uncle, Wild;<…>That is why he answers her: “It is impossible, Katya; not of my own will, I'm going, my uncle sends; the horses are already ready, ”and so on. Boris is not a hero, he is far from being worth Katerina, she fell in love with him more in the desert.<…>
However, we spoke at length about the significance 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 recall this in order to indicate the decisive need for that fatal end that Katerina has in The Thunderstorm, and, consequently, the decisive need for a character that, in the given situation, would be ready for such an end.
We have already said that this end seems to us gratifying; it is easy to understand why: in it a terrible challenge is given to self-conscious force, he tells it that it is no longer possible to go further, it is impossible to continue to live with its violent, deadening principles.<…>
But even without any lofty considerations, just as a human being, we are pleased to see Katerina's deliverance - at least through death, if it is impossible otherwise. In this regard, 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: “It’s good for you, Katya! Why am I left to live in the world and suffer!” The play ends with this exclamation, and it seems to us that nothing could have been invented stronger and more truthful than such an ending. Tikhon's words give the key to the understanding of the play for those who did not even understand its essence before; they make the viewer think not about a love affair, but about this whole life, where the living envy the dead, and even some suicides! Strictly speaking, Tikhon's exclamation is stupid: the Volga is close, who prevents him from throwing himself if life is nauseating? But that is his grief, that is what is hard for him, that he can do nothing, absolutely nothing, even that in which he recognizes his good and salvation.<…>But what a joyful, fresh life a healthy person breathes in us, finding in himself the determination to put an end to this rotten life at all costs! ..<…>
GRIND - THE FLOUR WILL BE. A comedy in five acts by I. V. Samarin Last theatrical season we had a drama by Mr. Stebnitsky, a comedy by Mr. Chernyavsky, and, finally, a comedy by Mrs. Sebinova "Democratic feat" - three works in which our positive
From the book Articles. Journal controversy author Saltykov-Shchedrin Mikhail EvgrafovichNERO. Tragedy in five acts by N. P. Zhandra. St. Petersburg. 1870 When the tragedy of Mr. Gendre appeared on the stage of the Mariinsky Theater, our newspaper reviewers reacted rather unfavorably to it, and the big magazines did not even mention this work in a single word, as
From the book All works of the school curriculum in literature in brief. 5-11 grade author Panteleeva E. V.<«Слово и дело». Комедия в пяти действиях Ф Устрялова «Карл Смелый». Опера в трех действиях, музыка Дж. Россини.>I haven't been to Petersburg for seventeen years. I left this city at the time when Mrs. Zhuleva first appeared in "Beginners in Love", when Mr. Samoilov played
From the book Writer-Inspector: Fedor Sologub and F. K. Teternikov author Pavlova Margarita Mikhailovna<«Слово и дело». Комедия в пяти действиях Ф. Устрялова «Карл Смелый». Опера в трех действиях, музыка Дж. Россини>For the first time - in the journal "Sovremennik", 1863, No. 1–2, dep. II, pp. 177–197 (censored cut - February 5). Without a signature. Authorship is indicated by A. N. Pypin (“M. E. Saltykov”, St. Petersburg. 1899,
From the book Russian Literature in Evaluations, Judgments, Disputes: Reader of Literary Critical Texts author Esin Andrey Borisovich"Thunderstorm" (Drama) Retelling The main characters: Savel Prokofievich Wild - a merchant, a significant person in the city. Boris Grigorievich - his nephew, an educated young man.
From the book All essays on literature for grade 10 author Team of authors From the book How to write an essay. To prepare for the exam author Sitnikov Vitaly PavlovichDrama A.N. Ostrovsky "Thunderstorm" Of all the works of Ostrovsky, the play "Thunderstorm" caused the greatest resonance in society and the most acute controversy in criticism. This was explained as the nature of the drama itself (the severity of the conflict, its tragic outcome, a strong and original image
From the author's bookON THE. Dobrolyubov A ray of light in a dark kingdom
From the author's bookI.A. Goncharov Review of the drama "Thunderstorm" Ostrovsky<…>Without fear of an accusation of exaggeration, I can honestly say that there has never been such a work as a drama in our literature. It undeniably occupies and probably will for a long time occupy the first place in high
From the author's bookM. M. Dostoevsky "Thunderstorm". Drama in 5 acts by A.N. Ostrovsky<…>For this pure, unsullied nature1 only the bright side of things is available; obeying everything around her, finding everything lawful, she knew how to create her own out of the meager2 life of a provincial town.
From the author's bookP.I. Melnikov-Pechersky "Thunderstorm". Drama in five acts by A.N. Ostrovsky<…>We will not analyze the previous works of our gifted playwright - they are known to everyone and a lot, a lot is said about them in our magazines. Let's just say one thing, that all the former
From the author's book1. "The Dark Kingdom" and its victims (based on the play by A. N. Ostrovsky "Thunderstorm") "Thunderstorm" was published in 1859 (on the eve of the revolutionary situation in Russia, in the "pre-storm" era). Its historicism lies in the conflict itself, the irreconcilable contradictions reflected in the play. She answers the spirit
From the author's book2. The tragedy of Katerina (based on the play by A. N. Ostrovsky "Thunderstorm") Katerina is the main character in Ostrovsky's drama "Thunderstorm", Tikhon's wife, Kabanikh's daughter-in-law. The main idea of the work is the conflict of this girl with the "dark kingdom", the kingdom of tyrants, despots and ignoramuses. Find out why
From the author's book3. "The Tragedy of Conscience" (based on the play by A. N. Ostrovsky "Thunderstorm") In "Thunderstorm" Ostrovsky shows the life of a Russian merchant family and the position of a woman in it. The character of Katerina was formed in a simple merchant family, where love reigned and her daughter was given complete freedom. She is
From the author's bookBykova N. G. Drama by A. N. Ostrovsky “Thunderstorm” “Thunderstorm” is a drama written by A. N. Ostrovsky in 1859. The play was created on the eve of the abolition of serfdom. The action takes place in the small merchant town of Kalinov on the Volga. Life there is slow, sleepy, boring.Home
