Dobrolyubov is a ray of light in the dark realm quotes. Katerina - a ray of light in the dark kingdom (Option: The theme of conscience in Russian literature)

June 09 2012

Speaking about how “the strong Russian character is understood and expressed in Groz”, Dobrolyubov rightly noted “concentrated determination” in the article “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom”. However, in determining its origins, he completely departed from the spirit and letter of Ostrovsky's tragedy. Is it possible to agree that “upbringing and the young did not give her anything”? Without monologues-memoirs of the heroine about her youth, is it possible to understand her freedom-loving character? Feeling nothing bright and life-affirming in Katerina's reasoning, without honoring her religious culture enlightened attention, Dobrolyubov reasoned: "Nature here replaces both the considerations of the mind, and the demands of feeling and imagination." Where Ostrovsky's popular religion triumphs, Dobrolyubov's abstractly understood nature sticks out. The youth of Katerina, according to Ostrovsky, is the morning of nature, the solemn sunrise, bright hopes and joyful prayers. The youth of Katerina, according to Dobrolyubov, is “the meaningless nonsense of wanderers”, “dry and monotonous life”. Having replaced culture with nature, Dobrolyubov did not feel the main thing - the fundamental difference between the religiosity of Katerina and the religiosity of the Kabanovs. The critic, of course, did not ignore that the Kabanovs “everything breathes cold and some kind of irresistible threat: the faces of the saints are so strict, and the church readings are so formidable, and the stories of the wanderers are so monstrous.” But what did he attribute this change to? With the mindset of Katherine. “They are still the same,” that is, in the youth of the heroine, the same “Domostroy”, “they have not changed in the least, but she herself has changed: she no longer wants to build aerial visions.” But in tragedy it's the other way around! “Aerial visions” just broke out at Katerina under the yoke of the Kabanovs: “ Why do people don't fly!"

And, of course, in the house of the Kabanovs he encounters a resolute “not that”: “Everything here seems to be from under captivity,” here the cheerful generosity of the Christian worldview has died out. Even the wanderers in the Kabanovs' house are different, from among those hypocrites who "due to their weakness did not go far, but heard a lot." And they talk about last times”, about the imminent end of the world. Religiosity, distrustful of life, reigns here, which plays into the hands of the pillars of society, who greet living life that has broken through the house-building dams with an evil grunt. Perhaps the main mistake in Katerina's stage interpretations was and remains the desire to either obscure her key monologues, or give them too much mystical meaning. In one of classical productions"Thunderstorms", where Strepetova played Katerina, and Kudrina played Varvara, the action unfolded on sharp opposition heroines. Strepetova played a religious fanatic, Kudrina - an earthly girl, cheerful and reckless. There was some one-sidedness here. After all, Katerina is also earthly; no less, but rather more deeply than Varvara, she feels the beauty and fullness of being: good, embracing ... ”Only the earthly in Katerina is more poetic and subtle, more warmed by the warmth of moral Christian truth. The love of life of the people triumphs in it, which sought in religion not the negation of the earth with its joys, but its sanctification and spiritualization.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then the author writes that "Thunderstorm" is "the most decisive work Ostrovsky; the mutual relations of tyranny are brought in it to the most tragic consequences; and for all that, most of those who have read and seen this play agree that there is even something refreshing and encouraging in The Thunderstorm. This “something” is, in our opinion, the background of the play, indicated by us and revealing the precariousness and the near end of tyranny. Then the very character of Katerina, drawn against this background, also blows on us. 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 our literature": "Russian life has reached the point where there is a need for more active and energetic people." The image of Katerina is “steadily faithful to the instinct of natural truth and selfless in the sense that death is better for him than life under those principles that are repugnant to him. In this wholeness and harmony of character lies his strength. Free air and light, contrary to all the precautions of perishing tyranny, burst into Katerina's cell, she yearns for a new life, even if she had to die in this impulse. What is death to her? It doesn't matter - she does not consider life to be the vegetative life that fell to her lot in the Kabanov family.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The concept of drama that existed in the time of Ostrovsky

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ostrovsky's works are "plays of life"

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

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

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

What is the novelty of the play?

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

The image of Katerina Kabanova

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

Katerina's motives

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

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

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

The only right decision of the heroine, according to Dobrolyubov

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

End of the play

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

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