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”. Vadim Serov. 2003.

A ray of light in a dark kingdom

Title of the article by N.A. Dobrolyubov (1860), dedicated to the drama by A.N. Ostrovsky "The 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.

See what “A ray of light in the dark kingdom” is in other dictionaries:

A ray of light in a dark kingdom- 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

- (born January 17, 1836, died November 17, 1861) one of the most remarkable critics of Russian literature and one of the characteristic representatives of public excitement in the era of “great reforms.” He was the son of a priest in Nizhny Novgorod. Father,… …

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 the spiritual... ... 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

" 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 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, “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 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."

(“The Thunderstorm”, drama in five acts by A. N. Ostrovsky. St. Petersburg, 1860)

Shortly before “The Thunderstorm” appeared 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 considerations, and therefore decided to remain silent about “The Thunderstorm,” leaving the readers who asked our opinion to check on it those general remarks that we spoke about Ostrovsky several months before the appearance of this play. Our decision was confirmed in us even more when we saw that a number of large and small reviews appeared in all magazines and newspapers regarding “The Thunderstorm”, 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 meaning of his plays than what we saw in the critics who were 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”.

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 that must contained in the work (according to their concepts, of course) and to what extent all due really is in it (again in accordance with 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 the criticism of Ostrovsky’s comedies, 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: “This is the moral it contains, and this moral seems to us good or bad, and here’s why,” rather than deciding from the very beginning: this fable must 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 is clearer, didn’t the Slavophiles say: it is necessary to 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 classified as 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” was 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, and 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 not important, and so on and so forth...

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 this principle lives in criticism, they can be sure that they will not be considered completely backward, no matter what happens in the literary world. After all, the laws of beauty were 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 Racine’s imitators and scolded Shakespeare as a drunken savage, following Voltaire, thought they were right, or worshiped the Messiad and on this basis rejected Faust. Routines, even the most mediocre ones, have nothing to fear from criticism, which serves as a passive verification of the immovable rules of stupid scholars - and at the same time, the most gifted writers have nothing to hope from it if they bring something new and original into art. They must go against all the criticism of “correct” criticism, to spite it, to make a name for themselves, to spite it, to found a school, and to 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 or tomorrow, but still must recognize Francis as their king until his royal majesty is pleased to leave your capital.

We are surprised how respectable people dare to recognize such an insignificant, such a humiliating role for criticism. After all, by limiting it to the application of the “eternal and general” laws of art to particular and temporary phenomena, through this they condemn art to immobility, and give criticism a completely commanding and police meaning. And many do this from the bottom of their hearts! One of the authors about whom we expressed our opinion somewhat irreverently reminded us that disrespectful treatment of a judge by a judge is a crime. O naive author! How filled he is with the theories of Koshansky and Davydov! He takes quite seriously the vulgar metaphor that criticism is a tribunal before which authors appear as defendants! He probably also takes at face value the opinion that bad poetry constitutes a sin against Apollo and that bad writers are drowned in the Lethe River as punishment!.. Otherwise, how can one not see the difference between a critic and a judge? People are brought to court on suspicion of a misdemeanor or crime, and it is up to the judge to decide whether the accused is right or wrong; Is a writer really accused of anything when he is criticized? It seems that the times when book writing was considered a heresy and a crime are long gone. The critic speaks his mind, whether he likes or dislikes a thing; and since it is assumed that he is not an empty talker, but a reasonable person, he tries to present reasons why he considers one thing good and the other bad. He does not consider his opinion a decisive verdict, binding on everyone; If we take a comparison from the legal sphere, then he is more of a lawyer than a judge. Having taken a certain point of view, which seems to him the most fair, he sets out to the readers the details of the case, as he understands it, and tries to instill in them his conviction in favor or against the author being analyzed. It goes without saying that he can use all the means that he finds suitable, as long as they do not distort the essence of the matter: he can bring you into horror or tenderness, into laughter or tears, force the author to make confessions that are unfavorable for him or bring it is impossible to answer. From criticism carried out in this way, the following result can occur: theorists, having consulted their textbooks, can still see whether the analyzed work is consistent with their fixed laws, and, playing the role of judges, decide whether the author is right or wrong. But it is known that in public proceedings there are often cases when those present in court are far from sympathetic to the decision that is pronounced by the judge in accordance with certain articles of the code: public conscience reveals in these cases a complete discord with the articles of the law. The same thing can happen even more often when discussing literary works: and when the critic-advocate properly poses the question, groups the facts and throws the light of a certain conviction on them, public opinion, not paying attention to the codes of literature, will already know what it wants hold on.

If we look closely at the definition of criticism as a “trial” of authors, we will find that it is very reminiscent of the concept that is associated with the word "criticism" our provincial ladies and young ladies, and which our novelists used to make fun of so wittily. Even today it is not uncommon to meet families who look at the writer with some fear, because he “will write criticism on them.” The unfortunate provincials, who once had such a thought in their heads, really represent a pitiful spectacle of defendants, whose fate depends on the handwriting of the writer’s pen. They look into his eyes, are embarrassed, apologize, make reservations, as if they were really guilty, awaiting execution or mercy. But it must be said that such naive people are now beginning to appear in the most distant outbacks. At the same time, as the right to “dare to have your own judgment” ceases to be the property of only a certain rank or position, but becomes accessible to everyone, at the same time, in private life, more solidity and independence appears, less trepidation before any outside court. Now they express their opinion simply because it is better to declare it than to hide it, they express it because they consider the exchange of thoughts useful, they recognize everyone’s right to state their views and their demands, and finally, they even consider it the duty of everyone to participate in the general movement by communicating their observations and considerations that are within anyone's power. This is a long way from being a judge. If I tell you that you lost your handkerchief on the way or that you are going in the wrong direction where you need to go, etc., this does not mean that you are my defendant. In the same way, I will not be your defendant in the case when you begin to describe me, wanting to give an idea about me to your acquaintances. Entering a new society for the first time, I know very well that they are making observations about me and forming opinions about me; but should I really imagine myself in front of some kind of Areopagus - and tremble in advance, awaiting the verdict? Without any doubt, comments will be made about me: one will find that I have a big nose, another that my beard is red, a third that my tie is poorly tied, a fourth that I am gloomy, etc. Well, let them notice them, What do I care about that? After all, my red beard is not a crime, and no one can ask me why I dare to have such a big nose. So, there’s nothing for me to think about: whether I like my figure or not, it’s a matter of taste, and I can express an opinion about it I can’t forbid anyone; and on the other hand, it won’t hurt me if they notice my taciturnity, if I’m really silent. Thus, the first critical work (in our sense) - noticing and indicating facts - is performed completely freely and harmlessly. Then the other work - judging from facts - continues in the same way to keep the one who judges on a completely equal chance with the one about whom he judges. This is because, when expressing his conclusion from known data, a person always exposes himself to judgment and the verification of others regarding the fairness and validity of his opinion. If, for example, someone, based on the fact that my tie is not tied very gracefully, decides that I am poorly brought up, then such a judge risks giving others a not very high understanding of his logic. Likewise, if some critic reproaches Ostrovsky for the fact that Katerina’s face in “The Thunderstorm” is disgusting and immoral, then he does not inspire much confidence in the purity of his own moral sense. Thus, as long as the critic points out the facts, analyzes them and draws his own conclusions, the author is safe and the matter itself is safe. Here you can only claim when a critic distorts facts and lies. And if he presents the matter correctly, then no matter what tone he speaks, no matter what conclusions he comes to, from his criticism, as from any free reasoning supported by facts, there will always be more benefit than harm - for the author himself, if he good, and in any case for literature - even if the author turns out to be bad. Criticism - not judicial, but ordinary, as we understand it - is good because it gives people who are not accustomed to focusing their thoughts on literature, so to speak, an extract of the writer and thus makes it easier to understand the nature and meaning of his works. And as soon as the writer is properly understood, an opinion will soon be formed about him and justice will be given to him, without any permission from the venerable compilers of the codes.

Dobrolyubov is referring to N. P. Nekrasov (1828–1913), a literary critic, whose article “Ostrovsky’s Works” was published in the magazine “Atheneum”, 1859, No. 8.

N. F. Pavlov’s article about “The Thunderstorm” was published in the reptilian newspaper “Our Time,” which was subsidized by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Speaking about Katerina, the critic argued that “the writer, for his part, did everything he could, and it was not his fault if this unscrupulous woman appeared before us in such a form that the pallor of her face seemed to us like a cheap dressing” (“Our Time”, 1860, No. 1, p. 16).

We are talking about A. Palkhovsky, whose article about “The Thunderstorm” appeared in the newspaper “Moskovsky Vestnik”, 1859, No. 49. Some writers, including Ap. Grigoriev, were inclined to see Dobrolyubov’s “student and seid” in Palkhovsky. Meanwhile, this imaginary follower of Dobrolyubov took directly opposite positions. So, for example, he wrote: “Despite the tragic end, Katerina still does not arouse the viewer’s sympathy, because there is nothing to sympathize with: there was nothing reasonable, nothing humane in her actions: she fell in love with Boris for no reason, no reason.” , repented for no reason, for no reason, threw herself into the river for no reason, no reason. That is why Katerina cannot possibly be the heroine of a drama, but she serves as an excellent subject for satire... So, the drama “The Thunderstorm” is a drama only in name, but in essence it is a satire directed against two terrible evils deeply rooted in the “dark kingdom” "-against family despotism and mysticism." Sharply dissociating himself from his imaginary student and vulgarizer, Dobrolyubov polemically calls his article “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom,” since in A. Palkhovsky’s review the following lines were struck: “there is no point in bursting out with thunder against Katerina: they are not to blame for what they did of them is an environment into which not a single ray of light has yet penetrated” (“Moskovsky Vestnik”, 1859, No. 49).

Dobrolyubov is referring to N.A. Miller-Krasovsky, the author of the book “Basic Laws of Education,” who in his letter to the editors of “Northern Bee” (1859, No. 142) protested against the mocking interpretation of his work by a reviewer of “Sovremennik” (1859, No. VI). The author of this review was Dobrolyubov.

Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov

"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 arm yourself 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 do you think about a man who, when he sees 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 until now 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.”

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 doesn’t even 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, or you’ll do it yourself.” you’re climbing.” This is how spoiled natures usually judge a strong and fresh nature.”

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 escape, 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.”

In this article, Dobrolyubov examines Ostrovsky’s drama “The Thunderstorm”. In his opinion, Ostrovsky deeply understands Russian life. Then he analyzes articles written by other critics about Ostrovsky, who do not have the correct view of the works.

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

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

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

It is not typical for Katerina to be dissatisfied or to destroy; she is gentle, impeccable, and loves to create. She goes on a rampage and makes noise only when obstacles arise in her path. Perhaps the decision to run away with Boris is the best way out of this situation. The only mistake in the escape is that Boris, although a literate young man, needs the financial support of his uncle.

Katerina gets rid of the miserable existence that befell her by drowning in the river. This brings relief to the reader, according to Dobrolyubov’s article. Tikhon Kabanov envies the death of his wife, which causes reflections on life in which death becomes the envy of the living.

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

A ray of light in the kingdom of darkness summary. Why “The Thunderstorm” cannot be considered a drama, according to Dobrolyubov

See what “A ray of light in the dark kingdom” is in other dictionaries:

Books

"A ray of light in a dark kingdom"