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

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

thunderstorm Ostrovsky Dobrolyubov

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

Then Dobrolyubov compares “The Thunderstorm” with dramatic canons: “The subject of the drama must certainly be an event where we see the struggle between passion and duty - with the unhappy consequences of the victory of passion or with the happy ones when duty wins.” Also, the drama must have unity of action, and it must be written in a high literary language. “The Thunderstorm” at the same time “does not satisfy the most essential goal of the drama - to instill respect for moral duty and show the harmful consequences of being carried away by passion. Katerina, this criminal, appears to us in the drama not only not in a sufficiently gloomy light, but even with the radiance of martyrdom. She speaks so well, suffers so pitifully, everything around her is so bad that you 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 it cannot be accepted 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 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 Feklushi, Glasha, Dikiy, Kudryash, Kuligin, etc. The author analyzes internal state heroes " dark kingdom": "Everything is somehow restless, they are not feeling well. Besides them, without asking them, another life has grown up, with different beginnings, and although it is not yet clearly visible, it is already sending bad visions to the dark tyranny of tyrants. And Kabanova is very seriously upset about the future of the old order, with which she has outlived the century. She foresees their end, tries to maintain their significance, but already feels that there is no former respect for them and that at the first opportunity they will be abandoned.”

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

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

The author analyzes in detail the motives of Katerina’s actions: “Katerina does not at all belong to the violent character, dissatisfied, who loves to destroy. On the contrary, this is a predominantly creative, loving, ideal character. That's why she tries to ennoble everything in her imagination. The feeling of love for a person, the need for tender pleasures naturally opened 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. Live in " dark kingdom» worse than death. Tikhon, throwing himself on his wife’s corpse, pulled out of the water, shouts in self-forgetfulness: “Good for you, Katya! But why did I stay in the world and suffer!” This exclamation ends the play, and it seems to us that nothing could have been invented stronger and more truthful than such an ending. Tikhon's words make the viewer think not about 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."

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.” Happy ending In his opinion, there is drama if duty wins, and misfortune - if passion wins. The critic notes that in Ostrovsky's drama there is no unity of time and high vocabulary, which was the rule for dramas. "The Thunderstorm" does not satisfy the main goal of the drama - to respect the "moral duty" and show the destructive, fatal "consequences of being carried away by passion." Dobrolyubov notes that the reader unwittingly justifies Katerina, and that is why the drama does not fulfill its purpose.

The writer has a role in the movement of humanity. The critic cites as an example the high mission fulfilled by Shakespeare: he was able to raise the morality of his contemporaries. Dobrolyubov somewhat pejoratively calls Ostrovsky’s works “plays of life.” The writer “does not punish either the villain or the victim,” and this, according to the critic, makes the plays hopelessly everyday and mundane. But the critic does not deny them “nationality”, polemicizing in this context with Apollo Grigoriev. It is the reflection of the aspirations of the people that seems to be one of strengths works.

Dobrolyubov continues his devastating criticism when analyzing the “unnecessary” heroes of the “dark kingdom”: their inner world limited within a small world. There are also villains in the work, described in an extremely grotesque way. Such are Kabanikha and Dikoy. However, unlike, for example, Shakespeare’s characters, their tyranny is petty, although it can ruin life good man. Nevertheless, “The Thunderstorm” was called by Dobrolyubov “the most decisive work” 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, a 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 action of Katerina, for whom living in the “dark kingdom” is worse than death. Dobrolyubov saw in Katerina the person the era required: decisive, with strong character and the will of the spirit, albeit “weak and patient.” Katerina, “creative, loving, ideal,” is, according to revolutionary democrat Dobrolyubov, the ideal prototype of a person capable of protest and even more. Katerina - bright man with a bright soul - called by the critic a “ray of light” in the world of dark people with their petty passions.

(Tikhon falls to his knees in front of Kabanikha)

Among them is Katerina’s husband Tikhon - “one of the many pathetic types” who are “as harmful as the tyrants themselves.” Katerina runs from him to Boris “more in solitude,” out of “the need for love,” which Tikhon is incapable of due to 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 remains, in his words, to continue 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 his real task critical article to draw the reader to the idea that Russian life is shown by Ostrovsky in “The Thunderstorm” from such a perspective in order to call “to a decisive action.” And this matter is legal and important. In this case, as the critic notes, he will be satisfied “no matter what our scientists and literary judges say.”

Composition

Abstract of the article by N.A. Dobrolyubova

"RAY OF LIGHT IN THE DARK KINGDOM"

1. Merit of A.N. Ostrovsky

2. Distinctive properties of Katerina’s character

3. Assessment of the “dark kingdom”

4. Conclusions the critic reaches

Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life and a great ability to depict sharply and vividly its most significant aspects.

Carefully considering the totality of his works, we find that the instinct for the true needs and aspirations of Russian life never left him; it sometimes did not appear at first glance, but was always at the root of his works.

You find the demand for law, respect for the individual, protest against violence and arbitrariness in many literary works; but in them for the most part the matter is not carried out in a vital, practical way, the abstract, philosophical side of the issue is felt and everything is deduced from it, the right is indicated, but the real possibility is left without attention. This is not the case with Ostrovsky: with him you find not only the moral, but also the everyday economic side of the issue, and this is the essence of the matter. In him you clearly see how tyranny rests on a thick purse, which is called “ God's blessing“, and how people’s irresponsibility to him is determined by their material dependence on him. Moreover, you see how this material side dominates the abstract in all everyday relations and how people deprived material support, value abstract rights little and even lose a clear consciousness about them. In fact, a well-fed person can reason calmly and intelligently whether he should eat such and such a dish; but a hungry man strives for food, wherever he sees it and whatever it may be. This is a phenomenon that repeats itself in all areas. public life, is well noticed and understood by Ostrovsky, and his plays show more clearly than any reasoning how a system of lawlessness and rude, petty egoism, established by tyranny, is grafted onto those who suffer from it; how they, if they retain more or less the remnants of energy in themselves, try to use it to acquire the opportunity to live independently and no longer understand either the means or the rights.

Ostrovsky always has in the foreground the general, independent of any of the characters, living environment. He punishes neither the villain nor the victim; Both of them are pitiful to you, often both are funny, but the feeling aroused in you by the play is not directly addressed to them. You see that their situation dominates them, and you only blame them for not showing enough energy to get out of this situation. The tyrants themselves, against whom your feelings should naturally be indignant, upon careful examination turn out to be more worthy of pity than your anger: they are virtuous and even smart in their own way, within the limits prescribed to them by the routine supported by their position; but this situation is such that complete, healthy human development.

Thus, the struggle takes place in Ostrovsky’s plays not in the monologues of the characters, but in the facts that dominate them. Outsiders have a reason for their appearance and even turn out to be necessary for the completeness of the play. Inactive participants in the drama of life, apparently busy only with their own business, often have such an influence on the course of business by their mere existence that nothing can reflect it. How many hot ideas, how many extensive plans, how many enthusiastic impulses collapse at one glance at the indifferent, prosaic crowd passing us with contemptuous indifference! How many clean and good feelings freezes in us out of fear, so as not to be ridiculed and scolded by this crowd. And on the other hand, how many crimes, how many impulses of arbitrariness and violence stop before the decision of this crowd, always seemingly indifferent and pliable, but, in essence, very unyielding in what is once recognized by it. Therefore, it is extremely important for us to know what this crowd’s concepts of good and evil are, what they consider to be true and what lies. This determines our view of the position in which the main characters of the play are located, and, consequently, the degree of our participation in them.

Katerina is completely led by her nature, and not by given decisions, because for decisions she would need to have logical, solid foundations, and yet all the principles that are given to her for theoretical reasoning are decisively contrary to her natural inclinations. That is why she not only does not take heroic poses and does not utter sayings that prove her strength of character, but even on the contrary, she appears in the form of a weak woman who does not know how to resist her desires, and tries to justify the heroism that is manifested in her actions. She doesn’t complain about anyone, doesn’t blame anyone, and nothing like that even comes to her mind. There is no anger, no contempt in her, nothing that is usually so flaunted by disappointed heroes who voluntarily leave the world. The thought of the bitterness of life that will have to be endured torments Katerina to such an extent that it plunges her into some kind of semi-feverish state. At the last moment, all the domestic horrors flash especially vividly in her imagination. She screams: “They’ll catch me and force me back home!.. Hurry, hurry...” And the matter is over: she will no longer be a victim of a soulless mother-in-law, she will no longer languish locked up with a spineless and disgusting husband. She's freed!..

Such liberation is sad, bitter; but what to do when there is no other way out. It’s good that the poor woman found the determination to at least take this terrible way out. This is the strength of her character, which is why “The Thunderstorm” makes a refreshing impression on us.

This end seems joyful to us; it is easy to understand why: it gives a terrible challenge to tyrant power, he tells it that it is no longer possible to go further, it is impossible to live any longer with its violent, deadening principles. In Katerina we see a protest against Kabanov’s concepts of morality, a protest carried to the end, proclaimed both under domestic torture and over the abyss into which the poor woman threw herself. She doesn’t want to put up with it, doesn’t want to take advantage of the miserable vegetation that is given to her in exchange for her living soul.

Dobrolyubov rated Ostrovsky very highly, finding that he was very fully and comprehensively able to portray the essential aspects and requirements of Russian life. Some authors took private phenomena, temporary, external demands of society and depicted them with greater or lesser success. Other authors took more inner side life, but were limited to a very close circle and noticed phenomena that were far from having national significance. Ostrovsky’s work is much more fruitful: he captured such common aspirations and needs that permeate everything Russian society whose voice is heard in all phenomena of our life, whose satisfaction is necessary condition our further development.

In the play among dark personalities: liars, opportunists and oppressors, the appearance of pure Katerina appears.

The girl’s youth passed in a carefree, free time space. Her mother loved her very much. She liked going to church. And she didn’t know what awaited her ahead. Our young woman compares her young actions with the behavior of a free bird in the wild.

My childhood years flew by. They gave Katerina away in marriage to someone she didn’t love. She found herself in a strange environment. It was as if she had been put in a cage. Her husband does not have the right to vote and cannot stand up for his wife. When communicating with Varya, the heroine will explain herself in a language that is incomprehensible to her husband’s sister. Like a ray of sunshine penetrates the darkness of vices and “dark” people. She wants to rise high and fly. She experiences a struggle between her desire to escape and her duty to her husband.

There is a confrontation against the “darkness”, rejection and unwillingness to adapt to the order of Kabanikha’s house. There is a sense of protest against oppressive life. She says that it is better for her to drown in the Volga than to endure all the torment and humiliation of her mother-in-law.

on her life path Boris met. She is not afraid of people's rumors. Our heroine gives herself over to love without a trace and is ready to follow her lover to the ends of the earth. But Boris is afraid of responsibility and does not take it with him. She cannot return to her old life. Having felt true love, rushes into the waters of the Volga. In her opinion, it’s better in the grave! And she leaves the cruel, deceitful world. And while dying he thinks about love and tries, with the help of death, to get rid of the hated life in someone else’s house. Katerina's death makes him think about what is happening, and for the first time he fights back against his mother. Which surprises her. Like a bright ray, our heroine penetrated and opened her eyes. But she paid a huge price for it – equal to her life.

In a weak woman Katerina hides enormous strength character, craving for freedom, to free oneself from oppression dark forces she is ready to give her life. He flies like a free bird and feels no remorse. He only remembers that he loves! Katerina's death means gaining freedom of soul and body. Weak men come across her path and, not wanting to put up with what is happening, she is freed from physical and mental torment. The soul left the body, but the desire to be free turned out to be higher than the fear of death.

Essay on the topic Katerina - A ray of light in the dark kingdom

Ostrovsky in the play depicts the city of Kalinov, where " cruel morals" Residents of the city live by their own laws. The reader learns these details from the dialogue between Boris and Kuligin in the first act. In the first scene of the same action, Ostrovsky characterizes Kabanikha and Wild. The author shows that in the city of Kalinov it is impossible to live by honest labor, “and whoever has money tries to enslave the poor.” The wild “shrill guy” swears at everyone. The author gives him telling surname from the word "wild". And Marfa Ignatievna Kabanova does everything “under the guise of piety,” that is, she does it according to the law, for show. These people have money and feel permissive. Kabanikha and Dikoy are shown as guardians of the traditions and foundations of the city.

Therefore, Ostrovsky creates his main character Katerinna, who cannot come to terms with Kalinov’s laws. She is the only one who lives correctly, so everything that happens around her depresses her. From the dialogue between Katerina and Varvara, the reader can learn that the heroine before her marriage was free “like a bird in the wild.” She grew up in a family where, where no one forced anyone to do anything, everything was natural. Katerina's life parental home compare the author with the foundations of Kabanikha. The heroine cannot come to terms with this. True Faith Katerina is compared to the faith of Kabanikha, who does everything according to the law, so that nothing bad is said about her.

The culmination of the work is Katerina’s recognition. Ostrovsky describes how a woman makes a “confession” and repents of her fall from grace. But the place of forgiveness receives reproach and bullying from the mother-in-law. Unable to exist in this world, abandoned by her beloved Boris, the author finds one for the heroine the right way. “You can’t live,” says Katerina, before committing suicide.

In conclusion, we can say that Katerina is the only positive character play, so it can be called “a ray of light in a dark kingdom”

The Thunderstorm essay based on the play by Ostrovsky The Thunderstorm - Katerina Kabanova a ray of light in a dark kingdom

Option 3

Ostrovsky, as an author, always touched upon themes in his works human soul, her unique adaptability, and also themes of human vices and misdeeds. In his works, he liked to show his readers characters who somehow had bad character traits in order to create a certain negative image, which would contrast with the other images, and would show the reader all the unpleasantness, or the attractiveness of these very images. He showed the emotional and personal component of the soul so clearly and clearly that there was no doubt about their authenticity and reality. A good example similar image Katerina from the work “The Thunderstorm” will serve.

The work “The Thunderstorm” got its name, of course, for a reason. The work is filled with strong emotional experiences of the characters, which are emphasized by the strong and difficult to perceive themes that the author placed in his work. IN this work The author focuses attention on topics that are interesting for discussion with the reader, which, one way or another, are close to every person, unless he is a hermit. It raises themes of human relationships, human character, the character of the entire society and humanity as a whole. He also puts a lot of emphasis on human misdeeds, saying that even if a person has committed an incredible stupidity, he can still improve. However, his works also contain images that the author specifically idealized. An example of such an image is the image of Katerina.

Katerina is without a doubt the brightest image of all the characters in the work. It is not surprising; the work itself is filled with a rather gloomy atmosphere that depresses the reader, forcing him to plunge into the harsh reality of Ostrovsky’s literary works. However, Katerina, even despite the unfriendly environment around, still remains true to her principles, true to human honor, and remains true to everyone human ideals. In contrast to the rest of the characters in the work, Katerina is simply a real angel, sent to a very tough and dark world, which immediately alienates a person with its malice and dark, even mystical atmosphere. The author probably created the image of Katerina as a kind of bright island of goodness and positivity in this dark, unattractive world, in order to tell his reader that even in such dark places there is goodness, albeit a small amount, but there is.

One of the minor characters in Mikhail Bulgakov's novel The Master and Margarita, Professor Stravinsky is not just a doctor in psychiatric clinic, he is endowed with the features of a fair arbitrator

Katerina - a ray of light in a dark kingdom - essay.

Plan

1. Drama by A. Ostrovsky "". The relevance of the conflict.

2. Katerina Kabanova - main character plays:

A) relationship with Kabanikha;

b) relations with Tikhon;

C) relationship with Boris.

3. “Why don’t people fly…”

In his play "The Thunderstorm" he presented social drama XIX century using the example of the Kabanov family. The author offers the reader an acute conflict between two “worlds”. Old world represented by the harsh foundations of the Kabanov house. Its inhabitants were raised by Domostroy. A new world- pure and honest Katerina, who could not come to terms with the “Kabanovsky” rules. The drama of A.N. Ostrovsky withstood a lot of criticism and criticism. But she radically changed the attitude of literature to dramatic work.

One of the critics of that time, Nikolai Dobrolyubov, wrote an article based on the play “The Thunderstorm”, “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom.” In it, he describes Katerina’s character and calls her a “ray of light” fighting “dark forces.” Katerina is an honest girl. She is modest, pure and religious. In the “dark kingdom” of the Kabanovs, she feels stuffy. Everything in this house is based on lies, Kabanikha herself speaks about this.

The mother-in-law pesters Katerina and does not allow her passage. She teaches her how to behave in her husband's house. Kabanova is a very powerful woman. Everyone in the house obeys her - husband, son, daughter, and daughter-in-law. She keeps everything that happens in the family under control. Tyranny is hers main feature. Katerina does not contradict her mother-in-law, she lives in obedience, but Kabanikha constantly offends her. Tikhon also lives under oppression. He leaves home with pleasure, just so as not to see or hear his own mother.

Tikhon leaves Katerina alone, not thinking about what it will be like for her in the house of her tyrant mother-in-law. Silent, obedient, indifferent Tikhon does not save his wife from her mother’s rudeness. This leads Katerina to complete lack of faith in family life.

Boris - the only hope Katerina. He is different from other residents of Kalinin. But he is also dependent on the Kabanovs’ relative, Dikiy. Wealth and condition attract him more. Experiencing sincere feelings love, Katerina, in the absence of her husband, spends time with Boris. She's almost happy. But hopes were not justified - Boris leaves and does not invite Katerina with him. What should a poor girl do when there is no support or support nearby? None soul mate? Katerina decides to take a very serious step - suicide. Did she have another way out of this situation? After Katerina confesses her sin to her husband and Kabanikha, life becomes unbearable. More and more aware of her grave “misconduct,” Katerina chooses “not life,” life in captivity. It would seem that the heroine’s religiosity does not allow her to do just that. But what is the greatest sin? Life in a stuffy, unfair world or is it death?

Katerina’s death is a challenge to the “dark kingdom”, which is unable to give a person love and hope. A challenge to a world that cannot dream. The heroine’s monologue “Why don’t people fly like birds?..” reveals her soul. Katerina dreams of being free. She happily remembers her years before marriage. And there - in that girl's world- she felt good. In the Kabanovs' house, the girl dies. She does not put up with rudeness and dishonesty, she does not become Kabanova. She finds peace in church. She remains “a ray of light in a dark kingdom.” Katerina's death is a victory over the dark forces that could not break a pure soul.