Who said a ray of light in the dark kingdom. See what “A ray of light in the dark kingdom” is in other dictionaries

A ray of light in a dark kingdom

A ray of light in a dark kingdom
The title of an article (1860) by the democratic publicist Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov (1836-1861), dedicated to the drama by N. A. Ostrovsky “Gro-
behind". Dobrolyubov viewed the suicide of the heroine of this play, Katerina, as a kind of protest against the tyranny and ignorance of the “dark kingdom” ( cm. The Dark Kingdom), that is, the world of ignorant tyrant merchants.
The author of the article called this protest “a ray of light in a dark kingdom.”

Allegorically: a joyful, bright phenomenon (a kind, pleasant person) in some difficult, depressing situation (jokingly ironic). Encyclopedic Dictionary of winged words and expressions. - M.: “Locked-Press”

A ray of light in a dark kingdom

. Vadim Serov. 2003.

Title of the article by N.A. Dobrolyubov (1860), dedicated to the drama by A.N. Ostrovsky "Thunderstorm". Dobrolyubov views the suicide of the heroine of the drama, Katerina, as a protest against the tyranny and tyranny of the “dark kingdom.” This protest is passive, but it indicates that the consciousness of their natural rights is already awakening among the oppressed masses, that the time for submission is passing. That’s why Dobrolyubov called Katerina “a ray of light in a dark kingdom.” This expression characterizes any joyful, bright phenomenon in an environment of lack of culture. Dictionary of catch words

. Plutex. 2004.

A ray of light in a dark kingdom See what “A ray of light in the dark kingdom” is in other dictionaries: - wing. sl. The title of an article by N. A. Dobrolyubov (1860), dedicated to the drama “The Thunderstorm” by A. N. Ostrovsky. Dobrolyubov views the suicide of the heroine of the drama, Katerina, as a protest against the tyranny and tyranny of the “dark kingdom.” This protest is passive...

Universal additional practical explanatory dictionary by I. Mostitsky

A ray of light in the dark kingdom is a popular phraseological unit based on the 1860 article of the same name by democrat publicist Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov, dedicated to the drama “The Thunderstorm” by A. N. Ostrovsky. In the article, the main character of the play Katerina ... Wikipedia

Dramatic writer, head of the repertoire of the Imperial Moscow Theater and director of the Moscow Theater School. A. N. Ostrovsky was born in Moscow on January 31, 1823. His father, Nikolai Fedorovich, came from a clergy background, and... ... Large biographical encyclopedia

Alexander Nikolaevich (1823 1886) the largest Russian playwright. R. in Moscow, in the family of an official who later became a private intercessor in civil cases. In 1835-1840 he studied at the First Moscow Gymnasium. In 1840 he was admitted to law school... ... Literary encyclopedia

Dobrolyubov N. A. DOBROLYUBOV Nikolai Alexandrovich (1836 1861) Russian critic of the 60s (pseudonyms: N. Laibov, N. bov, N. Turchaninov, N. Alexandrovich, N. L., N. D., N. T ov ). R. in N. Novgorod, in the family of a poor priest, studied in theological... ... Literary encyclopedia

- (1836 1861), Russian literary critic, publicist, revolutionary democrat. Since 1857, he has been a permanent contributor to the Sovremennik magazine. Following V. G. Belinsky and N. G. Chernyshevsky, seeing the purpose of literature primarily in the criticism of the existing system,... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

The title of an article (1859) by critic and publicist Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov (1836 1861), dedicated to the analysis of A. N. Ostrovsky’s play “The Thunderstorm”. Taking advantage of the pictures of merchant tyranny depicted by the playwright as an occasion, N.A.... ... Dictionary of popular words and expressions

KINGDOM, kingdoms, cf. 1. A state ruled by a king. Moscow kingdom. “Past Buyan Island to the kingdom of the glorious Saltan.” Pushkin. 2. only units. The reign of some king, reign. To the kingdom of Catherine II. “Jupiter sent to them on... ... Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary

Nikolai Alexandrovich. (1836 61), Russian literary critic, publicist. Since 1857, he has been a permanent contributor to the Sovremennik magazine. Developed the aesthetic principles of V.G. Belinsky and N.G. Chernyshevsky, seeing the purpose of literature primarily in criticism... ... Modern encyclopedia

Books

• A ray of light in the dark kingdom, Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov. “...Shortly before the appearance of “The Thunderstorm” on stage, we examined in great detail all of Ostrovsky’s works. Wanting to present a description of the author’s talent, we then drew attention to the phenomena... audiobook

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

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

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

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

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

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

The publicist notes that all of A. N. Ostrovsky’s plays can be safely called “plays of life”, since they are dominated by “a general setting 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 required by theory from drama” in Ostrovsky’s plays is carried out not through the monologues of the characters, but due to the circumstances prevailing over them.

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

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

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

Even in 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. Having realized what she needs, the heroine shows “the full strength of her character, not wasted in petty antics.”

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

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

Analyzing the character and actions of Katerina, Dobrolyubov comes to the conclusion that the best solution for the heroine is her escape with Boris. She does not blame anyone for her bitter fate, and sees death as her only consolation, as a quiet, calm haven. “This kind of liberation is sad, bitter,” but Katerina simply has no other choice. It is the woman’s determination to take this difficult step that makes a “refreshing impression” on readers.

Conclusion

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

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

Article test

Check your memorization of the summary content with the test:

Retelling rating

Average rating: 4.5. Total ratings received: 443.

Year of writing:

1860

Reading time:

Description of the work:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then Dobrolyubov comes to define Ostrovsky’s plays in general as “plays of life”: “We want to say that with him the general situation of life is always in the foreground. He punishes neither the villain nor the victim. You see that their situation dominates them, and you only blame them for not showing enough energy to get out of this situation. And that’s why we never dare to consider as unnecessary and superfluous those characters in Ostrovsky’s plays who do not directly participate in the intrigue. From our point of view, these persons are just as necessary for the play as the main ones: they show us the environment in which the action takes place, they depict the situation that determines the meaning of the activities of the main characters in the play.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dobrolyubov wrote the article “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom” in 1860 and dedicated it to A. N. Ostrovsky’s drama “”. We recommend reading the summary of “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom” and a retelling of Dobrolyubov’s article for the reader’s diary. The title of the critical article quickly became a popular phraseology denoting a bright, soul-encouraging phenomenon in some complex, confusing situation.

“A ray of light in a dark kingdom” summary

A ray of light in the dark kingdom of Dobrolyubov briefly:

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

Then Dobrolyubov compares “The Thunderstorm” with dramatic canons: “The subject of the drama must certainly be an event where we see the struggle between passion and duty - with the unhappy consequences of the victory of passion or with the happy ones when duty wins.” Also, the drama must have unity of action, and it must be written in high literary language. “The Thunderstorm”, at the same time, “does not satisfy the most essential goal of the drama - to instill respect for moral duty and show the harmful consequences of being carried away by passion.

Katerina, this criminal, appears to us in the drama not only not in a sufficiently gloomy light, but even with the radiance of martyrdom. She speaks so well, suffers so pitifully, everything around her is so bad that you take up arms against her oppressors and thus justify vice in her person. Consequently, drama does not fulfill its high purpose. All the action is sluggish and slow, because it is cluttered with scenes and faces that are completely unnecessary. Finally, the language in which the characters speak exceeds any patience of a well-bred person.”

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

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

Then Dobrolyubov comes to define Ostrovsky’s plays in general as “plays of life”: “We want to say that with him the general situation of life is always in the foreground. He punishes neither the villain nor the victim. You see that their situation dominates them, and you only blame them for not showing enough energy to get out of this situation. And that’s why we never dare to consider as unnecessary and superfluous those characters in Ostrovsky’s plays who do not directly participate in the intrigue. From our point of view, these persons are just as necessary for the play as the main ones: they show us the environment in which the action takes place, they depict the situation that determines the meaning of the activities of the main characters in the play.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 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."

Retelling of the article “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom” by Dobrolyubov

N. A. Dobrolyubov Ray of light in the dark kingdom summary:

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

The publicist further cites “ main rules of drama", among which he especially notes " fight between passion and duty”, in which duty necessarily prevails. Moreover, in true drama, " strict unity and consistency", the denouement should be a logical continuation of the plot, all characters and all dialogues should take a direct part in the development of the drama, the language should not " move away 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 harmful consequences of being carried away by passion" Katerina is presented as a martyr, not a criminal. According to Dobrolyubov, the plot is overloaded with details and characters, and the language “ exceeds all the patience of a well-bred person».

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

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

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

Dobrolyubov notes that “Thunderstorm” - “ Ostrovsky's most decisive work", but at the same time produces " the impression is less heavy and sad"than all the author's other plays. In “The Thunderstorm” one feels “ something refreshing and encouraging».

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

Even in the gloomy atmosphere of Katerina’s new family “ seeks light, air, wants to dream and frolic" At first, she seeks solace in religion and soul-saving conversations, but does not find the bright and fresh impressions she needs. Having realized what she needs, the heroine 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. She has a lot of a feeling of love for a person, a desire to find a kindred response in another heart" However, the essence of Katerina is not given to her husband, the downtrodden Tikhon Kabanov, to understand. She tries to believe that her husband is her destiny, " that in him there is the bliss that she so anxiously seeks“, however, soon all her illusions are shattered.

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

Analyzing the character and actions of Katerina, Dobrolyubov comes to the conclusion that the best solution for the heroine is her escape with Boris. She does not blame anyone for her bitter fate, and sees death as her only consolation, as a quiet, calm haven. " It’s sad, bitter, such liberation,” but Katerina simply has no other choice. It is the woman’s determination to take this difficult step that impresses readers “ the impression is refreshing».

Conclusion

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

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

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

Shortly before the appearance of "The Thunderstorm" on stage, we examined in great detail all of Ostrovsky's works. Wanting to present a description of the author's talent, we then paid attention to the phenomena of Russian life reproduced in his plays, tried to grasp their general character and find out whether the meaning of these phenomena in reality is the same as it appears to us in the works of our playwright. If the readers have not forgotten, we then came to the result that Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life and a great ability to depict sharply and vividly its most significant aspects. The "thunderstorm" soon served as new proof of the validity of our conclusion. We wanted to talk about it then, but felt that we would have to repeat many of our previous thoughts, and therefore decided to remain silent about “The Thunderstorm,” leaving the readers who asked for our opinion to believe in it those general remarks that we spoke about Ostrovsky several months before the appearance of this play. Our decision was confirmed in you even more when we saw that regarding “The Thunderstorm” a whole series of large and small reviews appeared in all magazines and newspapers, interpreting the matter from a wide variety of points of view. We thought that in this mass of articles something more would finally be said about Ostrovsky and the significance of his plays than what we saw in the critics we mentioned at the beginning of our first article about “The Dark Kingdom”*. In this hope and in the knowledge 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 "Contemporary", 1959, E VII. (Note by N.A. Dobrolyubov.)

But now, encountering Ostrovsky’s play again in a separate publication and remembering everything that has been written about it, we find that it would not be superfluous for us to say a few words about it. It gives us a reason to add something to our notes about the “Dark Kingdom”, to further carry out some of the thoughts we expressed then, and - by the way - to explain in short words with some of the critics who have deigned us to direct or indirect abuse.

We must do justice to some of the critics: they knew how to understand the difference that separates us from them. They reproach us for adopting the bad method of examining the work of an author and then, as a result of this examination, saying what it contains and what its contents are. They have a completely different method: they first tell themselves what should be contained in the work (according to their concepts, of course) and to what extent everything that should really be contained in it (again, according to their concepts). It is clear that with such a difference in views, they look with indignation at our analyzes, which one of them likens to “seeking morality in a fable.” But we are very glad that the difference is finally open, and we are ready to withstand any comparisons. Yes, if you like, our method of criticism is also similar to finding a moral conclusion in a fable: the difference, for example, is applied to criticism of Ostrovsky’s comedy, and will only be as great as the comedy differs from the fable and to the extent that 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 dissect a fable and say: “here is the moral it contains, and this morality seems good or bad to us, and here’s why,” rather than deciding from the very beginning: this fable should contain 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 carelessness of parents about children) or is expressed in the wrong way (for example, in the example of a cuckoo leaving its eggs in other people’s nests), which means that the fable is not suitable. We have seen this method of criticism more than once applied to Ostrovsky, although no one, of course, will want to admit it, and they will also blame us, from a sore head on a healthy one, for starting to analyze literary works with pre-adopted ideas and requirements. Meanwhile, what could be clearer, didn’t the Slavophiles say: one should portray the Russian person as virtuous and prove that the root of all good is life in the old days; in his first plays Ostrovsky did not comply with this, and therefore “Family Picture” and “One’s Own People” are unworthy of him and can only be explained by the fact that he was still imitating Gogol at that time. But didn’t the Westerners shout: they should teach in comedy that superstition is harmful, and Ostrovsky, with the ringing of a bell, saves one of his heroes from death; everyone should be taught that the true good lies in education, and Ostrovsky in his comedy disgraces the educated Vikhorev in front of the ignorant Borodkin; It is clear that “Don’t get on your own sleigh” and “Don’t live the way you want” are bad plays. But didn’t the adherents of artistry proclaim: art must serve the eternal and universal requirements of aesthetics, and Ostrovsky in “A Profitable Place” reduced art to serving the pitiful interests of the moment; therefore, “A Profitable Place” is unworthy of art and should be counted among accusatory literature!.. And didn’t Mr. Nekrasov from Moscow[*]* assert: Bolshov should not arouse sympathy in us, and yet the 4th act of “His People” written in order to arouse in us sympathy for Bolshov; therefore, the fourth act is superfluous!.. And didn’t Mr. Pavlov (N.F.)[*] squirm, making clear the following points: Russian folk life can provide material only for farcical** performances; there are no elements in it in order to construct from it something in accordance with the “eternal” requirements of art; it is obvious, therefore, that Ostrovsky, who takes the plot from common people’s life, is nothing more than a farcical writer... And didn’t another Moscow critic draw such conclusions: drama should present us with a hero imbued with lofty ideas; the heroine of "The Thunderstorm", on the contrary, is completely imbued with mysticism***, therefore, is not suitable for drama, because she cannot arouse our sympathy; therefore, “The Thunderstorm” only has the meaning of satire, and even that is unimportant, and so on, and so on...

____________________

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

** Balagan is a fair folk theatrical performance with primitive stage technology; farcical - here: primitive, common people.

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

Anyone who has followed what has been written about “The Thunderstorm” will easily remember several other similar criticisms. It cannot be said that they were all written by people who were completely wretched mentally; How can we explain the lack of a direct view of things, which in all of them strikes the impartial reader? Without any doubt, it must be attributed to the old critical routine, which remained in many heads 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 theorists: it fits the laws - excellent; doesn't fit - bad. As you can see, it was not a bad idea for aging old people; As long as such a 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 is judged on the basis of the laws they have approved, until then only that which is in accordance with them will be recognized as elegant, nothing new will dare to lay claim to its rights; the old men will be right in believing in Karamzin[*] and not recognizing Gogol, as the respectable people who admired the imitators of Racine[*] and scolded Shakespeare as a drunken savage, following Voltaire[*], or bowed before the "Messiad" and on this, thought to be right who rejected “Faust”[*], routiners, even the most mediocre ones, have nothing to fear from criticism, which serves as a passive verification of the fixed 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 criticism of “correct” criticism, in spite of it, make a name for themselves, in spite of it, found a school and ensure that some new theorist begins to take them into account when drawing up a new code of art. Then criticism will humbly recognize 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 not come to them today, but still must recognize Francis as their king until His Royal Majesty he will be willing to leave his capital.