Quotes from Dobrolyubov's article, a ray of light. Katerina is a ray of light in a dark kingdom (Option: Theme of conscience in Russian literature). Essay on the topic Katerina - A ray of light in the dark kingdom

In the play, among the 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's path she met Boris. 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, he 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.

The weak woman Katerina harbors enormous strength of character, a craving for freedom; in order to free herself from the oppression of 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” prevail. 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 a 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. The author compares Katerina’s life in her parents’ house with the foundations of Kabanikha. The heroine cannot come to terms with this. Katerina’s true faith is compared with 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 true path for the heroine. “You can’t live,” says Katerina, before committing suicide.

In conclusion, we can say that Katerina is the only positive character in the play, so she 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 the themes of the human soul, its unique adaptability, and also themes of human vices and misdeeds in his works. In his works, he liked to show his reader characters who in one way or another had bad character traits, in order to create some kind of negative image that would contrast with 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 of such an image is Katerina from the work “The Thunderstorm”.

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 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 her, still remains true to her principles, true to human honor, and remains true to all human ideals. In contrast to the rest of the characters in the work, Katerina is simply a real angel, sent into a very hard and dark world, which immediately rejects 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.

Sample 4

A.N. Ostrovsky wrote many interesting and instructive plays about the merchants. One of the best was the play “The Thunderstorm,” written in 1860. The author often said that he writes his works solely on the basis of real events and facts, and that any of them can teach a person something and show the bad sides of society for its further correction. That is why he wrote this play and presented it to the public. Immediately after the premiere, dirt poured on the author from the lips of uninformed citizens, as many saw themselves in the images of the characters in the play. But we should not forget that such a play can offend not just bad people, but also not entirely smart ones.

This work describes the “Dark Kingdom”, where all the inhabitants are not at all endowed with the gift of thought. They don't understand that they are living completely wrong. And no one understands this: “neither the tyrants nor their victims.” The focus of the work was a certain Katerina. She found herself in a difficult life situation after marriage. Before she got married, she lived in the family of a merchant who provided for her very well, and she did not need anything. But after marriage, she fell under the influence of her mother-in-law and became a victim of her tyranny. Being closed as if in a cage, she could not contact anyone other than members of her family. Her mother-in-law made her a deeply religious person, which is why she could not allow her love for Boris to be recognized, which is why she suffered greatly. The general situation in the house, where there were many praying mantises and wanderers telling all sorts of stories, Katerina’s secluded lifestyle took its toll and she became a very withdrawn person and did not communicate with almost anyone. In addition, she became very sensitive to everything. That is why, when a terrible thunderstorm came, she began to sincerely pray, and when she saw a terrible picture on the wall, her nerves could not stand it at all, and she confessed her love for Boris to her husband. The key to this story is the fact that in the “Dark Kingdom” none of the inhabitants know freedom, and, therefore, know happiness. Katerina’s revelation in this case showed that a resident of the dark kingdom can open up and make himself a person free from unnecessary thoughts and fears.

By her action, Katerina went against the system of the “Dark Kingdom” and gave rise to a bad attitude towards herself. Why, in the “dark kingdom” any manifestation of independence and freedom of choice was considered a mortal sin. That is why the story ends with the death of the main character, since she becomes not only lonely, but also suffers from pangs of conscience, since all those teachings and bad stories did not pass her ears. She constantly torments herself and cannot find peace anywhere and never, since she cannot escape from her thoughts.

You can endlessly condemn Katerina for her actions, but at the same time you should pay tribute to her courage. After all, not everyone can do this in the “Dark Kingdom.” Her death shocked everyone so much that even her husband Tikhon began to blame his mother for his wife’s death. By her act, Katerina proved that even in the “dark kingdom” bright natures can be born, making it a little brighter.

Several interesting essays

Mayakovsky's work cannot be called unambiguous. Quite conventionally, creativity can be divided before the revolution and after the revolution. After moving to Moscow from Georgia, he falls under the influence of members of the RSDLP

In my opinion, there is no way that every young girl would be able to keep up with her one and only business. And the impersonality of tsikah and romantic books about light-hearted love. The brightest book about romantic romance

Katerina - a ray of light in a dark kingdom (Option: Theme of conscience in Russian literature)

A. N. Ostrovsky had a huge influence on the development of Russian dramatic art. Before him, there were no such plays as “The Thunderstorm” in the Russian theater. According to the genre, “The Thunderstorm” is a folk tragedy, which is based on a complex social and everyday conflict. Katerina’s emotional drama, which played out in everyday life, in the family, leaves an imprint on the life of the entire people. After all, the situation in which the heroes of the play live is extremely tragic: poverty, rudeness of morals, ignorance, arbitrariness, that is, what is defined by the word “captivity.”

At the center of the drama “The Thunderstorm” is the image of Katerina. She is given the author's and audience's sympathy. Ostrovsky associated with the image of the main character the idea that the desire for freedom and happiness is natural and irresistible, no matter what obstacles life poses. High moral ideals have always had special significance.

In the play “The Thunderstorm,” Ostrovsky showed the struggle of the old merchant generation, brought up at Domostroy, and new, young people who were beginning to free themselves from outdated ideas about life.

Katerina, the main character of the play, is the only one who decided to challenge the “dark kingdom,” while other representatives of the younger generation are trying to adapt to it. Tikhon, Katerina's husband, seeks salvation from his mother in wine. Varvara became cunning and learned to hide her antics from Kabanikha. Boris is unable to do anything (and does not want to), since he is financially dependent on Dikiy. Only Kudryash, the most independent of all, can sometimes say a rude word to Dikiy, but he, too, gets used to Kalinov’s morals.

Katerina is completely different. And the reason for her special behavior is primarily related to her upbringing. As a child, she grew up surrounded by the care and affection of her mother, who loved her daughter and did not force her to work much. “I lived,” Katerina tells Varvara, “I didn’t worry about anything, like a bird in the wild.” Katerina sincerely believes in God, and visiting church is a holiday for her. The desire for beauty for the main character is expressed in prayers and church singing. Walking to the spring in the summer to get water, caring for flowers, embroidering on velvet - these are Katerina’s favorite activities, which developed great impressionability and dreaminess in her, and formed the bright poetic nature of the main character.

Outwardly, the Kabanovs’ life is no different from the one that Katerina led in her mother’s house, but here everything is “as if from under captivity.” Kabanikha also welcomes wanderers, but they spread rumors and gossip and tell incredible stories, and they cannot be called truly pious people.

Katerina found herself in a stuffy atmosphere of family slavery. She is forced at every step to experience her dependence on her mother-in-law, to endure undeserved reproaches and insults from her, without finding support and protection from her husband. Katerina seeks understanding from Varvara, tells her about her experiences, but she is not able to understand her subtle emotional movements. “You’re kind of tricky!” - she says to Katerina.

In search of a person to whom she can open her soul and trust, Katerina turns her attention to Boris. He differs from the residents of Kalinov in his good education and good manners, and Katerina sees in him hope for a better life. Realizing that betrayal is a great sin, she initially hides love even from herself, but the feeling turns out to be stronger than reason, and Katerina still decides to meet her lover. The dates continue for ten days, and for ten days Katerina is almost happy. However, she is tormented by the thought of God’s punishment for her sins, of “fiery hell.” When her husband returns, it becomes even worse for her, since his very appearance reminds her of the sin she committed. The precarious balance in Katerina’s soul is completely destroyed by a half-crazed lady who prophesies her imminent death in hellish torment.

Katerina cannot keep a terrible secret to herself, since her conscience torments her, her entire inner nature rebels against untruth. She tells everything to Tikhon, and most importantly to Kabanikha.

After this, Katerina’s life becomes completely unbearable. The mother-in-law “sharpenes her like rusting iron.” And Katerina decides on a desperate act: she runs away from home to say goodbye to Boris, whom Dikoy sends out of the city. This was a very decisive act, since Katerina understands that after this she will not be able to return home. Yes, she doesn’t want to return: “If I get really tired of being here, they won’t hold me back by any force.”

Katerina still had little hope that Boris would take her with him, but having received a refusal, she understands that there is only one option left for her - suicide. No, Katerina is not tired of life. She wants to live, but to live, and not to exist under the heavy yoke of Kabanikha.

Did Katerina do the right thing by making such a decision? Did she show strength or weakness of character? It's difficult to answer this question. On the one hand, you need to have considerable courage to take your own life, but for the religious Katerina this is many times more difficult, since suicide is a terrible sin. But, on the other hand, you need to have even more courage to stay and live in Kabanikha’s house and carry your cross or fight (is this possible?) with the “dark kingdom.”

And yet, it is no coincidence that Dobrolyubov calls Ostrovsky’s heroine “a ray of light in a dark kingdom.” She, a weak and religious woman, still found the strength to protest. She was the only one who rose up against rudeness and despotism, cruelty and injustice, hypocrisy and hypocrisy, and with her act, like a ray of light, she illuminated for a moment the dark sides of life.

In his heroine, Ostrovsky painted a new type of selfless Russian woman, whose decisiveness in her protest foreshadowed the inevitable death of the “dark kingdom.” And this, according to Dobrolyubov, introduced a “refreshing and encouraging” element into the play. Ostrovsky reflected all the brightest things in the character of the main character: kindness and sincerity, poetry and dreaminess, honesty and truthfulness, directness and determination. This is exactly how touching and pure Katerina remains in our memory in her quest to find love, family, self-respect and mutual understanding.

The measure of the merit of a writer or an individual work is the extent to which it serves as an expression of the natural aspirations of a certain time and people. The natural aspirations of humanity, reduced to the simplest denominator, can be expressed in two words: “so that everyone has a good time.” It is clear that, striving for this goal, people, by the very essence of the matter, first had to move away from it: everyone wanted it to be good for him, and, asserting his own good, interfered with others; They didn’t yet know how to arrange things so that one wouldn’t interfere with the other. ??? The worse people get, the more they feel the need to feel good. Deprivations will not stop demands, but will only irritate them; Only eating can satisfy hunger. Until now, therefore, the struggle is not over; natural aspirations, now seeming to be muffled, now appearing stronger, everyone is looking for their satisfaction. This is the essence of history.
At all times and in all spheres of human activity, people have appeared who are so healthy and gifted by nature that natural aspirations speak in them extremely strongly, unmuffled. In practical activities they often became martyrs of their aspirations, but they never passed without a trace, they never remained alone; in social activities they acquired a party, in pure science they made discoveries, in the arts, in literature they formed a school. We are not talking about public figures whose role in history should be clear to everyone??? But let us note that in the matter of science and literature, great personalities have always retained the character that we outlined above - the power of natural, living aspirations. The distortion of these aspirations among the masses coincides with the installation of many absurd concepts about the world and man; these concepts, in turn, interfered with the common good. ???
The writer has so far been given a small role in this movement of humanity towards the natural principles from which it has deviated. In essence, literature has no active meaning; it only either suggests what needs to be done, or depicts what is already being done and done. In the first case, that is, in the assumptions of future activity, it takes its materials and foundations from pure science; in the second - from the very facts of life. Thus, generally speaking, literature is a service force, the value of which lies in propaganda, and its dignity is determined by what and how it propagates. In literature, however, there have so far appeared several figures who stand so high in their propaganda that they will not be surpassed either by practical workers for the benefit of humanity or by people of pure science. These writers were so richly gifted by nature that they knew how, as if by instinct, to approach natural concepts and aspirations, which the philosophers of their time were still looking for with the help of strict science. Moreover, what philosophers only predicted in theory, brilliant writers were able to grasp it in life and depict it in action. Thus, serving as the most complete representatives of the highest degree of human consciousness in a certain era and from this height surveying the life of people and nature and drawing it before us, they rose above the service role of literature and became one of the ranks of historical figures who contributed to humanity in the clearest consciousness of its living forces and natural inclinations. That was Shakespeare. Many of his plays can be called discoveries in the field of the human heart; his literary activity advanced the general consciousness of people to several levels, to which no one had risen before him and which were only indicated from afar by some philosophers. And this is why Shakespeare has such worldwide significance: he marks several new stages of human development. But Shakespeare stands outside the usual range of writers; the names of Dante, Goethe, and Byron are often attached to his name, but it is difficult to say that in each of them a whole new phase of human development is so fully indicated, as in Shakespeare. As for ordinary talents, for them exactly the service role that we talked about remains. Without presenting to the world anything new and unknown, without outlining new paths in the development of all mankind, without moving it even along the accepted path, they must limit themselves to more private, special service: they bring into the consciousness of the masses what has been discovered by the leading figures of mankind, reveal and They clarify for people what still lives vaguely and uncertainly in them. Usually this does not happen in such a way, however, that a writer borrows his ideas from a philosopher and then implements them in his works. No, both of them act independently, both proceed from the same principle - real life, but they only get to work in different ways. The thinker, noticing in people, for example, dissatisfaction with their current situation, considers all the facts and tries to find new principles that could satisfy the emerging demands. A literary poet, noticing the same discontent, paints a picture of it so vividly that the general attention focused on it naturally leads people to think about what exactly they need. The result is the same, and the meaning of the two actors would be the same; but the history of literature shows us that, with a few exceptions, writers are usually late. While thinkers, clinging to the most insignificant signs and relentlessly pursuing a thought that comes their way to its very last foundations, often notice a new movement in its most insignificant embryo, writers for the most part turn out to be less sensitive: they notice and draw an emerging movement only when it is quite clear and strong. But, however, they are closer to the concepts of mass and have more success in it: they are like a barometer, which everyone can cope with, while no one wants to know meteorological and astronomical calculations and predictions. Thus, recognizing the main significance of propaganda in literature, we demand from it one quality, without which there can be no merit in it, namely - truth. It is necessary that the facts from which the author proceeds and which he presents to us are conveyed correctly. As soon as this is not the case, a literary work loses all meaning, it even becomes harmful, because it does not serve to enlighten human consciousness, but, on the contrary, to even greater darkness. And here it would be in vain for us to look for any talent in the author, except perhaps the talent of a liar. In works of a historical nature, the truth must be factual; in fiction, where incidents are fictitious, it is replaced by logical truth, that is, reasonable probability and conformity with the existing course of affairs.
Already in Ostrovsky’s previous plays we noticed that these were not comedies of intrigue and not comedies of character, but something new, to which we would give the name “plays of life” if it were not too broad and therefore not entirely definite. We want to say that in his foreground there is always a general, independent of any of the characters, life situation. 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 consideration, turn out to be more worthy of pity than your anger: they are both virtuous and even smart in their own way, within the limits prescribed to them by routine and supported by their position; but this situation is such that complete, healthy human development is impossible in it. ???
Thus, the struggle required by theory from drama takes place in Ostrovsky’s plays not in the monologues of the characters, but in the facts that dominate them. Often the characters in the comedy themselves have no clear or no consciousness at all about the meaning of their situation and their struggle; but on the other hand, the struggle is very clearly and consciously taking place in the soul of the viewer, who involuntarily rebels against the situation that gives rise to such facts. 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. To know well the life properties of a plant, it is necessary to study it in the soil on which it grows; When torn from the soil, you will have the shape of a plant, but you will not fully recognize its life. In the same way, you will not recognize the life of society if you consider it only in the direct relationships of several individuals who for some reason come into conflict with each other: here there will be only the business, official side of life, while we need its everyday environment. Outsiders, 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 pure and good feelings freeze 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 are stopped 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.
In “The Thunderstorm,” the need for so-called “unnecessary” faces is especially visible: without them we cannot understand the heroine’s face and can easily distort the meaning of the entire play, which is what happened to most critics. Perhaps they will tell us that after all the author is to blame if he is so easily misunderstood; But we will note in response to this that the author writes for the public, and the public, if it does not immediately grasp the full essence of his plays, does not distort their meaning. As for the fact that some details could have been handled better, we don’t stand for that. Without a doubt, the gravediggers in Hamlet are more opportune and closer connected with the course of the action than, for example, the half-crazed lady in The Storm; but we do not interpret that our author is Shakespeare, but only that his extraneous persons have a reason for their appearance and even turn out to be necessary for the completeness of the play, considered as it is, and not in the sense of absolute perfection.
“The Thunderstorm,” as you know, presents us with an idyll of the “dark kingdom,” which Ostrovsky little by little illuminates for us with his talent. The people you see here live in blessed places: the city stands on the banks of the Volga, all in greenery; from the steep banks one can see distant spaces covered with villages and fields; a blessed summer day just beckons you to the shore, to the air, under the open sky, under this breeze blowing refreshingly from the Volga... And the residents, indeed, sometimes walk along the boulevard above the river, even though they have already taken a closer look at the beauty of the Volga views; in the evening they sit on the rubble at the gate and engage in pious conversations; but they spend more time at home, doing housework, eating, sleeping - they go to bed very early, so that it is difficult for an unaccustomed person to endure such a sleepy night as they set themselves. But what should they do but not sleep when they are full? Their life flows so smoothly and peacefully, no interests of the world disturb them, because they do not reach them; kingdoms can collapse, new countries can open up, the face of the earth can change as it pleases, the world can begin a new life on a new basis - the inhabitants of the town of Kalinov will continue to exist in complete ignorance of the rest of the world. Occasionally a vague rumor will run into them that Napoleon with twenty tongues is rising again or that the Antichrist has been born; but they also take this more as a curious thing, like the news that there are countries where all the people have dog heads; they will shake their heads, express surprise at the wonders of nature and go get themselves a snack...
But - a wonderful thing! - in their indisputable, irresponsible, dark dominion, giving complete freedom to their whims, putting all laws and logic at nothing, the tyrants of Russian life, however, begin to feel some kind of discontent and fear, without knowing what and why. Everything seems to be the same, everything is fine: Dikoy scolds whoever he wants; when they say to him: “How is it that no one in the whole house can please you!” - he replies smugly: “Here you go!” Kabanova still keeps her children in fear, forces her daughter-in-law to observe all the etiquettes of antiquity, eats her like rusty iron, considers herself completely infallible and is pleased with various Feklush. But everything is somehow restless, it’s not good for them. Besides them, without asking them, another life has grown, with different beginnings, and although it is far away and not yet clearly visible, it is already giving itself a presentiment and sending bad visions to the dark tyranny of tyrants. They are fiercely looking for their enemy, ready to attack the most innocent, some Kuligin; but there is neither an enemy nor a culprit whom they could destroy: the law of time, the law of nature and history takes its toll, and the old Kabanovs breathe heavily, feeling that there is a force higher than them, which they cannot overcome, which they cannot even approach know how. They do not want to give in (and no one has yet demanded concessions from them), but they shrink and shrink; Previously, they wanted to establish their system of life, forever indestructible, and now they are trying to preach the same; but hope is already betraying them, and they, in essence, are only concerned about how things will turn out for their lifetime...
We spent a very long time dwelling on the dominant persons of “The Thunderstorm,” because, in our opinion, the story that played out with Katerina decisively depends on the position that inevitably falls to her lot among these persons, in the way of life that was established under their influence. "The Thunderstorm" is, without a doubt, Ostrovsky's most decisive work; the mutual relations of tyranny and voicelessness are brought to the most tragic consequences; and with all this, most of those who have read and seen this play agree that it produces a less serious and sad impression than Ostrovsky’s other plays (not to mention, of course, his sketches of a purely comic nature). There's even something refreshing and encouraging about The Thunderstorm. This “something” is, in our opinion, the background of the play, indicated by us and revealing the precariousness and the near end of tyranny. Then the very character of Katerina, drawn against this background, also breathes on us with new life, which is revealed to us in her very death.
The fact is that the character of Katerina, as portrayed in “The Thunderstorm,” constitutes a step forward not only in Ostrovsky’s dramatic work, but in all of our literature. It corresponds to the new phase of our national life, it has long demanded its implementation in literature, our best writers revolved around it; but they only knew how to understand its necessity and could not understand and feel its essence; Ostrovsky managed to do this. None of the critics of “The Thunderstorm” wanted or was able to provide a proper assessment of this character; Therefore, we decide to extend our article further in order to outline with some detail how we understand the character of Katerina and why we consider its creation so important for our literature.
First of all, he strikes us with his opposition to all tyrant principles. Not with the instinct of violence and destruction, but also not with the practical dexterity of arranging his own affairs for lofty purposes, not with senseless, rattling pathos, but not with diplomatic pedantic calculation, he appears before us. No, he is concentrated and decisive, unswervingly faithful to the instinct of natural truth, full of faith in new ideals and selfless, in the sense that he would rather die than live under those principles that are disgusting to him. He is driven not by abstract principles, not by practical considerations, not by momentary pathos, but simply in kind , with all my being. In this integrity and harmony of character lies its strength and its essential necessity at a time when old, wild relationships, having lost all internal strength, continue to be held together by an external mechanical connection. A person who only logically understands the absurdity of the tyranny of the Dikikhs and Kabanovs will not do anything against them simply because before them all logic disappears; no syllogisms will convince the chain that it broke on the prisoner, a fist, so that it does not hurt the nailed one; So you won’t convince the Wild One to act more wisely, and you won’t convince his family not to listen to his whims: he’ll beat them all up, and that’s all, what are you going to do about it? It is obvious that characters that are strong on one logical side should develop very poorly and have a very weak influence on overall activity where all life is governed not by logic, but by pure arbitrariness. The dominance of the Wild is not very favorable for the development of people strong in so-called practical sense. Whatever you say about this sense, but, in essence, it is nothing more than the ability to use circumstances and arrange them in one’s favor. This means that practical sense can lead a person to direct and honest action only when circumstances are arranged in accordance with sound logic and, therefore, with the natural requirements of human morality. But where everything depends on brute force, where the unreasonable whim of a few Savages or the superstitious stubbornness of some Kabanova destroys the most correct logical calculations and brazenly despises the very first foundations of mutual rights, there the ability to take advantage of circumstances obviously turns into the ability to apply oneself to the whims of tyrants and imitate all their absurdities in order to pave the way for yourself to their advantageous position. The Podkhalyuzins and Chichikovs are the strong practical characters of the “dark kingdom”: others do not develop between people of a purely practical nature, under the influence of the dominance of the Wild. The best thing that one can dream of for these practitioners is to be like Stolz, that is, the ability to make good money on their affairs without meanness; but a living public figure will not appear among them. One can place no more hope in pathetic characters who live in moments and in flashes. Their impulses are random and short-lived; their practical significance is determined by luck. As long as everything goes according to their hopes, they are cheerful and enterprising; as soon as the opposition is strong, they lose heart, become cold, retreat from the matter and limit themselves to fruitless, albeit loud exclamations. And since Dikoy and others like him are not at all capable of giving up their meaning and their power without resistance, since their influence has already cut deep traces into everyday life itself and therefore cannot be destroyed at once, then there is no point in looking at pathetic characters as something something serious. Even under the most favorable circumstances, when visible success would encourage them, that is, when tyrants could understand the precariousness of their position and began to make concessions, even then pathetic people would not do very much. They are distinguished by the fact that, being carried away by the appearance and immediate consequences of the matter, they almost never know how to look into the depths, into the very essence of the matter. That is why they are very easily satisfied, deceived by some private, insignificant signs of the success of their beginnings. When their mistake becomes clear to themselves, then they become disappointed, fall into apathy and do nothing. Dikoy and Kabanova continue to triumph.
Thus, going through the various types that appeared in our lives and were reproduced in literature, we constantly came to the conviction that they cannot serve as representatives of the social movement that we feel now and about which we spoke in as much detail as possible above. Seeing this, we asked ourselves: how, however, will new aspirations be determined in an individual? What features should be distinguished by a character that will make a decisive break with the old, absurd and violent relationships of life? In the real life of an awakening society, we saw only hints of solutions to our problems, in literature - a weak repetition of these hints; but in “The Thunderstorm” a whole is made up of them, already with fairly clear outlines; here a face appears before us, taken directly from life, but clarified in the mind of the artist and placed in such positions that allow it to reveal itself more fully and decisively than as happens in most cases of ordinary life. Thus, there is no daguerreotype precision of which some critics accused Ostrovsky; but there is precisely an artistic combination of homogeneous features that appear in different situations of Russian life, but serve as an expression of one idea.
The decisive, integral Russian character acting among the Wild and Kabanovs appears in Ostrovsky in the female type, and this is not without its serious significance. It is known that extremes are reflected by extremes and that the strongest protest is the one that finally rises from the chests of the weakest and most patient. The field in which Ostrovsky observes and shows us Russian life does not concern purely social and state relations, but is limited to the family; in the family, who bears the brunt of tyranny more than anything else, if not the woman? What clerk, worker, servant of the Wild One can be so driven, downtrodden, and alienated from his personality as his wife? Who can feel so much grief and indignation against the absurd fantasies of a tyrant? And at the same time, who less than she has the opportunity to express her murmur, to refuse to do what is disgusting to her? Servants and clerks are connected only financially, in a human way; they can leave the tyrant as soon as they find another place for themselves. The wife, according to prevailing concepts, is inextricably connected with him, spiritually, through the sacrament; no matter what her husband does, she must obey him and share a meaningless life with him. And even if she could finally leave, where would she go, what would she do? Kudryash says: “The Wild One needs me, so I’m not afraid of him and I won’t let him take liberties with me.” It’s easy for a person who has come to the realization that others really need him; but a woman, a wife? Why is it needed? Isn't she, on the contrary, taking everything from her husband? Her husband gives her a place to live, gives her water, feeds her, clothes her, protects her, gives her a position in society... Isn’t she usually considered a burden for a man? Don’t prudent people say, when keeping young people from getting married: “Your wife is not a bast shoe, you can’t throw her off her feet”? And in the general opinion, the most important difference between a wife and a bast shoe is that she brings with her a whole burden of worries that the husband cannot get rid of, while a bast shoe only gives convenience, and if it is inconvenient, it can easily be discarded. Being in such a position, a woman, of course, must forget that she is the same person, with the same rights as a man. She can only become demoralized, and if the personality in her is strong, then become prone to the same tyranny from which she suffered so much. This is what we see, for example, in Kabanikha, exactly as we saw in Ulanbekova. Her tyranny is only narrower and smaller, and therefore, perhaps, even more meaningless than that of men: its dimensions are smaller, but within its limits, on those who have already come across it, it has an even more unbearable effect. Dikoy swears, Kabanova grumbles; he will kill him, and that’s it, but this one gnaws at her victim for a long time and relentlessly; he makes noise because of his fantasies and is rather indifferent to your behavior until it touches him; Kabanikha has created for herself a whole world of special rules and superstitious customs, for which she stands with all the stupidity of tyranny. In general, in a woman, even who has reached an independent position and con a more * exercises tyranny, one can always see her comparative powerlessness, a consequence of her centuries-old oppression: she is heavier, more suspicious, soulless in her demands; she no longer succumbs to sound reasoning, not because she despises it, but rather because she is afraid of not being able to cope with it: “If you start, they say, to reason, and what will come of it, they will just braid,” and as a result she strictly adheres to the old days and various instructions imparted to her by some Feklusha...
*Out of love (Italian).
It is clear from this that if a woman wants to free herself from such a situation, then her case will be serious and decisive. It doesn’t cost any Kudryash anything to quarrel with the Wild: they both need each other, and, therefore, there is no need for special heroism on Kudryash’s part to present his demands. But his prank will not lead to anything serious: he will quarrel, Dikoy will threaten to give him up as a soldier, but will not give him up, Kudryash will be satisfied that he bit off, and things will go on as before again. Not so with a woman: she must have a lot of strength of character in order to express her dissatisfaction, her demands. At the first attempt, they will make her feel that she is nothing, that they can crush her. She knows that this is really so, and must come to terms with it; otherwise they will fulfill the threat over her - they will beat her, lock her up, leave her to repent, on bread and water, deprive her of daylight, try all the home remedies of the good old days and finally lead her to submission. A woman who wants to go to the end in her rebellion against the oppression and tyranny of her elders in the Russian family must be filled with heroic self-sacrifice, must decide on anything and be ready for anything. How can she stand herself? Where does she get so much character? The only answer to this is that the natural aspirations of human nature cannot be completely destroyed. You can tilt them to the side, press, squeeze, but all this is only to a certain extent. The triumph of false positions only shows to what extent the elasticity of human nature can reach; but the more unnatural the situation, the closer and more necessary the way out of it. And this means that it is very unnatural when even the most flexible natures, most subordinate to the influence of the force that produced such situations, cannot withstand it. If the flexible body of a child does not lend itself to some kind of gymnastic trick, then it is obvious that it is impossible for adults, whose members are harder. Adults, of course, will not allow such a trick to happen to them; but they can easily try it on a child. Where does a child get the character to resist him with all his might, even if the most terrible punishment was promised for resistance? There is only one answer: in the inability to withstand what he is forced to do... The same must be said about a weak woman who decides to fight for her rights: it has come to the point that it is no longer possible for her to withstand her humiliation, so she breaks out from it no longer according to considerations of what is better and what is worse, but only according to the instinctive desire for what is bearable and possible. Nature Here it replaces both considerations of reason and the demands of feeling and imagination: all this merges into the general feeling of the organism, demanding air, food, freedom. This is where the secret of the integrity of the characters lies, appearing in circumstances similar to those we saw in “The Thunderstorm”, in the environment surrounding Katerina.
Thus, the emergence of a feminine energetic character fully corresponds to the situation to which tyranny has been brought in Ostrovsky’s drama. It has gone to the extreme, to the denial of all common sense; it is more hostile than ever to the natural demands of humanity and is trying more fiercely than ever to stop their development, because in their triumph it sees the approach of its inevitable destruction. Through this, it even more causes murmur and protest even in the weakest creatures. And at the same time, tyranny, as we have seen, lost its self-confidence, lost its firmness in action, and lost a significant share of the power that it contained in instilling fear in everyone. Therefore, the protest against it is not drowned out at the very beginning, but can turn into a stubborn struggle. Those who still have a tolerable life do not want to risk such a struggle now, in the hope that tyranny will not live long anyway. Katerina’s husband, young Kabanov, although he suffers a lot from old Kabanikha, he is still freer: he can run to Savel Prokofich for a drink, he will go to Moscow from his mother and turn around there in freedom, and if it’s bad he will really have to old women, there is someone to pour out his heart on - he will throw himself at his wife... So he lives for himself and cultivates his character, good for nothing, all in the secret hope that he will somehow break free. There is no hope for his wife, no consolation, she cannot catch her breath; if he can, then let him live without breathing, forget that there is free air in the world, let him renounce his nature and merge with the capricious despotism of the old Kabanikha. But free air and light, despite all the precautions of dying tyranny, burst into Katerina’s cell, she feels the opportunity to satisfy the natural thirst of her soul and cannot remain motionless any longer: 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.
This is the basis of all the actions of the character depicted in The Thunderstorm. This basis is more reliable than all possible theories and pathos, because it lies in the very essence of this position, attracts a person to the task irresistibly, does not depend on one or another ability or impression in particular, but is based on the entire complexity of the requirements of the body, on the development of the entire human nature . Now it is curious how such a character develops and manifests itself in particular cases. We can trace his development through Katerina's personality.
First of all, you are struck by the extraordinary originality of this character. There is nothing external or alien in him, but everything somehow comes out from within him; every impression is processed in it and then grows organically with it.
In the gloomy atmosphere of the new family, Katerina began to feel the insufficiency of her appearance, with which she had thought to be content before. Under the heavy hand of the soulless Kabanikha there is no scope for her bright visions, just as there is no freedom for her feelings. In a fit of tenderness for her husband, she wants to hug him, - the old woman shouts: “Why are you hanging around your neck, shameless one? Bow down at your feet!” She wants to stay alone and be sad quietly, as before, but her mother-in-law says: “Why aren’t you howling?” She is looking for light, air, she wants to dream and frolic, water her flowers, look at the sun, at the Volga, send her greetings to all living things - but she is kept in captivity, she is constantly suspected of unclean, depraved intentions. She still seeks refuge in religious practice, in going to church, in soul-saving conversations; but even here he no longer finds the same impressions. Killed by her daily work and eternal bondage, she can no longer dream with the same clarity of angels singing in a dusty pillar illuminated by the sun, she cannot imagine the Gardens of Eden with their unperturbed appearance and joy. Everything is gloomy, scary around her, everything emanates coldness and some kind of irresistible threat: the faces of the saints are so stern, and the church readings are so menacing, and the stories of the wanderers are so monstrous... They are still the same, in essence, they have not changed at all, but she herself has changed: she no longer has the desire to construct aerial visions, and the vague imagination of bliss that she enjoyed before does not satisfy her. She matured, other desires awoke in her, more real ones; not knowing any other career than the family, any other world than the one that has developed for her in the society of her town, she, of course, begins to recognize of all human aspirations the one that is most inevitable and closest to her - the desire for love and devotion . In the past, her heart was too full of dreams, she did not pay attention to the young people who looked at her, but only laughed. When she married Tikhon Kabanov, she did not love him either; She still didn’t understand this feeling; They told her that every girl should get married, showed Tikhon as her future husband, and she married him, remaining completely indifferent to this step. And here, too, a peculiarity of character is manifested: according to our usual concepts, she should be resisted if she has a decisive character; but she does not even think about resistance, because she does not have enough reasons for this. She has no particular desire to get married, but she also has no aversion to marriage; There is no love in her for Tikhon, but there is no love for anyone else either. She doesn’t care for now, that’s why she allows you to do whatever you want to her. In this one cannot see either powerlessness or apathy, but one can only find a lack of experience and even too great a readiness to do everything for others, caring little about oneself. She has little knowledge and a lot of gullibility, which is why for the time being she does not show opposition to those around her and decides to endure better than to spite them.
But when she understands what she needs and wants to achieve something, she will achieve her goal at all costs: then the strength of her character will fully manifest itself, not wasted in petty antics. At first, out of the innate kindness and nobility of her soul, she will make every possible effort so as not to violate the peace and rights of others, in order to get what she wants with the greatest possible compliance with all the requirements that are imposed on her by people connected with her in some way; and if they are able to take advantage of this initial mood and decide to give her complete satisfaction, then it will be good for both her and them. But if not, she will stop at nothing - law, kinship, custom, human court, rules of prudence - everything disappears for her before the power of internal attraction; she does not spare herself and does not think about others. This was exactly the way out that presented itself to Katerina, and nothing else could have been expected given the situation in which she found herself.
The feeling of love for a person, the desire to find a kindred response in another heart, the need for tender pleasures naturally opened up in the young woman and changed her previous, vague and fruitless dreams. “At night, Varya, I can’t sleep,” she says, “I keep imagining some kind of whisper: someone speaks to me so affectionately, like a dove cooing. I don’t dream, Varya, as before, of paradise trees and mountains, but as if someone is hugging me so warmly, warmly, or leading me somewhere, and I’m following him, walking...” She recognized and grasped these dreams already quite late; but, of course, they pursued and tormented her long before she herself could give herself an account of them. At their first manifestation, she immediately turned her feelings to what was closest to her - to her husband. For a long time she tried to unite her soul with him, to assure herself that with him she did not need anything, that in him there was the bliss that she was so anxiously seeking. She looked with fear and bewilderment at the possibility of seeking mutual love in someone other than him. In the play, which finds Katerina already at the beginning of her love for Boris Grigoryich, Katerina’s last desperate efforts are still visible - to make her husband sweet. The scene of her farewell to him makes us feel that all is not lost for Tikhon, that he can still retain his rights to the love of this woman; but this same scene, in short but sharp outlines, conveys to us the whole story of the torture that Katerina was forced to endure in order to push away her first feeling from her husband. Tikhon is here simple-minded and vulgar, not at all evil, but an extremely spineless creature who does not dare to do anything in spite of his mother. And the mother is a soulless creature, a fist-woman, who embodies love, religion, and morality in Chinese ceremonies. Between her and his wife, Tikhon represents one of the many pitiful types who are usually called harmless, although in a general sense they are as harmful as the tyrants themselves, because they serve as their faithful assistants.
But the new movement of people’s life, which we talked about above and which was reflected in the character of Katerina, is not like them. In this personality we see a mature demand for the right and spaciousness of life arising from the depths of the whole organism. Here it is no longer imagination, not hearsay, not an artificially excited impulse that appears to us, but the vital necessity of nature. Katerina is not capricious, does not flirt with her discontent and anger - this is not in her nature; she does not want to impress others, to show off and boast. On the contrary, she lives very peacefully and is ready to submit to everything that is not contrary to her nature; her principle, if she could recognize and define it, would be to embarrass others with her personality as little as possible and disturb the general course of affairs. But, recognizing and respecting the aspirations of others, she demands the same respect for herself, and any violence, any constraint outrages her deeply, deeply. If she could, she would drive away from herself everything that lives wrong and harms others; but, not being able to do this, she goes the opposite way - she herself runs away from destroyers and offenders. If only she would not submit to their principles, contrary to her nature, if only she would not come to terms with their unnatural demands, and what will come of it - whether it is a better fate for her or death - she no longer cares about this: in either case there will be deliverance for her. ..
In Katerina’s monologues it is clear that even now she has nothing formulated; she 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 justify the heroism that is manifested in her actions. She decided to die, but she is afraid of the thought that this is a sin, and she seems to be trying to prove to us and herself that she can be forgiven, since it is very difficult for her. She would like to enjoy life and love; but she knows that this is a crime, and therefore she says in her justification: “Well, it doesn’t matter, I’ve already ruined my soul!” She doesn’t complain about anyone, doesn’t blame anyone, and nothing like that even comes to her mind; on the contrary, she is guilty in front of everyone, she even asks Boris if he is angry with her, if he is cursing her... There is no anger, no contempt in her, nothing that is usually so flaunted by disappointed heroes who leave the world without permission. But she can’t live anymore, she can’t, and that’s all; she says from the fullness of her heart:
“I’m already exhausted... How much longer do I have to suffer? Why should I live now - well, what for? I don’t need anything, nothing is nice to me, and the light of God is not nice! - but death does not come. You call her, but she doesn’t come. Whatever I see, whatever I hear, only here (pointing to heart) hurt".
When she thinks about the grave, she feels better - calmness seems to pour into her soul.
“So quiet, so good... But I don’t even want to think about life... Living again?.. No, no, don’t... it’s not good. And people are disgusting to me, and the house is disgusting to me, and the walls are disgusting! I won't go there! No, no, I won’t... You come to them - they walk, talk, - but what do I need this for?..”
And 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!..
We have already said that this end seems gratifying 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 brought 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. Her destruction is the realized song of the Babylonian captivity: play and sing to us the songs of Zion, their victors told the Jews; but the sad prophet responded that it is not in slavery that one can sing the sacred songs of the homeland, that it is better for their tongue to stick to the larynx and their hands to wither, than for them to take up the harp and sing Zion’s songs for the amusement of their rulers. Despite all its despair, this song produces a highly joyful, courageous impression: you feel that the Jewish people would not have perished if they had always been animated by such feelings...
But even without any lofty considerations, simply out of humanity, we are pleased to see Katerina’s deliverance - even through death, if it is impossible otherwise. On this score, we have terrible evidence in the drama itself, telling us that 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!” 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 provide the key to understanding the play for those who would not even understand its essence before; they make the viewer think not about a love affair, but about this whole life, where the living envy the dead, and what kind of suicides too! Strictly speaking, Tikhon’s exclamation is stupid: The Volga is close, who’s stopping him from rushing in if life is sickening? But this is his grief, this is what is hard for him, that he cannot do anything, absolutely nothing, even what he recognizes as his goodness and salvation. This moral corruption, this destruction of man, affects us more severely than any, even the most tragic incident: there you see simultaneous death, the end of suffering, often deliverance from the need to serve as a pathetic instrument of some abominations: and here - constant, oppressive pain, relaxation, half-corpse, in for many years, rotting alive... And to think that this living corpse is not one, not an exception, but a whole mass of people subject to the corrupting influence of the Wild and Kabanovs! And not expecting deliverance for them is, you see, terrible! But what a joyful, fresh life a healthy personality breathes upon us, finding within himself the determination to end this rotten life at any cost!..
This is where we end. We did not talk about many things - about the scene of the night meeting, about the personality of Kuligin, which is also not without significance in the play, about Varvara and Kudryash, about Dikiy’s conversation with Kabanova, etc., etc. This is because our goal was to indicate the general meaning of the play , and, being carried away by the general, we could not sufficiently go into the analysis of all the details. Literary judges will again be dissatisfied: the measure of the artistic merit of the play is not sufficiently defined and clarified, the best parts are not indicated, the secondary and main characters are not strictly separated, and most of all - art is again made an instrument of some extraneous idea!.. We know and have all this. only one answer: let the readers judge for themselves (we assume that everyone has read or seen “The Thunderstorm”) - Is it really true that the idea we have indicated is completely foreign to the Thunderstorm?", imposed by us forcibly, or does it really follow from the play itself?, constitutes its essence and determines its direct meaning?.. If we are mistaken, let them prove it to us, give another meaning to the play, more suitable for it... If our thoughts are consistent with the play, then we ask you to answer one more question: Was the Russian living nature accurately expressed in Katerina, was the Russian situation accurately expressed in everything surrounding her, was the need for the emerging movement of Russian life accurately reflected in the meaning of the play, as we understand it? If “no,” if readers do not recognize here anything familiar, dear to their hearts, close to their urgent needs, then, of course, our work is lost. But if “yes,” if our readers, having understood our notes, find that, indeed, Russian life and Russian power 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 pleased that no matter what our scientists and literary judges say.

Notes:

For the first time - S, 1860, No. 10. Signature: N.-bov. We print from: “Thunderstorm” in criticism (with abbreviations).

Compare: “those who captivated us demanded from us words of song, and our oppressors demanded joy: “Sing to us from the songs of Zion.” How can we sing the song of the Lord in a foreign land?” - Psalms, 133, 3-4.

Another solution would have been less impossible - to flee with Boris from the tyranny and violence of the family. Despite the strictness of the formal law, despite the cruelty of rude tyranny, such steps do not represent an impossibility in themselves, especially for such characters as Katerina. And she does not neglect this way out, because she is not an abstract heroine who wants death on principle. Having run away from home to see Boris, and already thinking about death, she, however, is not at all averse to escaping; Having learned that Boris is going far away, to Siberia, she very simply tells him: “Take me with you from here.” But then a stone appears in front of us for a minute, which keeps people in the depths of the pool that we call the “dark kingdom.” This stone is material dependence. Boris has nothing and is completely dependent on his uncle, Dikiy; Dikoy and the Kabanovs agreed to send him to Kyakhta, and, of course, they will not allow him to take Katerina with him. That’s why he answers her: “It’s impossible, Katya; I’m not going of my own free will, my uncle is sending me, and the horses are ready,” etc. Boris is not a hero, he’s far from worthy of Katerina, she fell in love with him more in solitude . He has had enough “education” and cannot cope with the old way of life, nor with his heart, nor with common sense - he walks around as if lost. He lives with his uncle because he must give him and his sister part of his grandmother’s inheritance, “if they are respectful to him.” Boris understands well that Dikoy will never recognize him as respectful and, therefore, will not give him anything; Yes, that's not enough. Boris reasons like this: “No, he will first break with us, scold us in every possible way, as his heart desires, but he will still end up not giving anything or so, just some little thing, and will even begin to tell that he gave out of mercy, that even this should not have happened." And yet he lives with his uncle and endures his curses; For what? - unknown. On her first date with Katerina, when she talks about what awaits her for this, Boris interrupts her with the words: “Well, what should we think about it, fortunately we’re good now.” And at the last meeting she cries: “Who knew that we would have to suffer so much with you for our love! It would be better for me to run away then!” In a word, this is one of those very common people who do not know how to do what they understand, and do not understand what they do. Their type has been portrayed many times in our fiction - sometimes with exaggerated compassion for them, sometimes with excessive bitterness against them. Ostrovsky gives them to us as they are, and with his special skill he depicts with two or three features their complete insignificance, although, however, not devoid of a certain degree of spiritual nobility. There is no need to expand on Boris: he, in fact, should also be attributed to the situation in which the heroine of the play finds herself. He represents one of the circumstances that makes her fatal end necessary. If it were a different person and in a different position, then there would be no need to throw yourself into the water. But the fact of the matter is that an environment subordinated to the power of the Wild and Kabanovs usually produces Tikhonovs and Borisovs, unable to perk up and accept their human nature, even when faced with characters such as Katerina. We said a few words above about Tikhon; Boris is essentially the same, only “educated”. Education took away from him the power to do dirty tricks, it’s true; but it did not give him the strength to resist the dirty tricks that others do; it has not even developed in him the ability to behave in such a way as to remain alien to everything disgusting that swarms around him. No, not only does he not resist, he submits to other people’s nasty things, he willy-nilly participates in them and must accept all their consequences. But he understands his position, talks about it and often even deceives, for the first time, truly living and strong natures, who, judging by themselves, think that if a person thinks so, understands so, then he should do so. Looking from their point of view, such natures do not find it difficult to say to “educated” sufferers who are moving away from the sad circumstances of life: “Take me with you, I will follow you everywhere.” But this is where the powerlessness of the sufferers turns out to be; it turns out that they did not foresee it, and that they curse themselves, and that they would be glad, but they cannot, and that they have no will, and most importantly, that they have nothing in their souls and that in order to continue their existence they must serve that to the Wild One, from whom we would like to get rid of...

There is nothing to praise or scold these people, but you need to pay attention to the practical ground on which the question moves; it must be admitted that it is difficult for a person expecting an inheritance from his uncle to shake off his dependence on this uncle, and then he must give up unnecessary hopes for his nephews expecting an inheritance, even if they were “educated” to the best of their ability. If we sort out who is to blame here, then it will be not so much the nephews who are to blame; how much uncle, or better said, their inheritance.

However, we spoke at length about the importance of material dependence as the main basis of all the power of tyrants in the “dark kingdom” in our previous articles. Therefore, here we only remind you of this in order to indicate the decisive necessity of that fatal end, which Katerina has in “The Thunderstorm,” and, consequently, the decisive necessity of a character who, given the situation, would be ready for such an end.

We have already said that this end seems gratifying 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 does not want to put up with it, does not want to take advantage of the miserable vegetation that is given to her in exchange for her living soul. Her destruction is the realized song of the Babylonian captivity...

But even without any lofty considerations, simply out of humanity, we are pleased to see Katerina’s deliverance - even through death, if it is impossible otherwise. On this score, we have terrible evidence in the drama itself, telling us that living in the “pace kingdom” is worse than death. Tikhon, throwing himself on the corpse of his wife, 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 provide the key to understanding the play for those who would not even understand its essence before; they make the viewer think not about a love affair, but about this whole life, where the living envy the dead, and what kind of suicides too! Strictly speaking, Tikhon’s exclamation is stupid: The Volga is close, who’s stopping him from rushing in if life is sickening? But this is his grief, this is what is hard for him, that he cannot do anything, absolutely nothing, even what he recognizes as his goodness and salvation. This moral corruption, this destruction of man, affects us more severely than any, even the most tragic incident: there you see simultaneous death, the end of suffering, often deliverance from the need to serve as a pitiful instrument of some abomination; and here - constant, oppressive pain, relaxation, a half-corpse, rotting alive for many years... And to think that this living corpse is not one, not an exception, but a whole mass of people subject to the corrupting influence of the Wild and Kabanovs! And not expecting deliverance for them is, you see, terrible! But what a joyful, fresh life a healthy personality breathes upon us, finding within himself the determination to end this rotten life at any cost!..

This is where we end. We did not talk about many things - about the scene of the night meeting, about the personality of Kuligin, which is also not without significance in the play, about Varvara and Kudryash, about Dikiy’s conversation with Kabanova, etc., etc. This is because our goal was to indicate the general meaning of the play , and, being carried away by the general, we could not sufficiently go into the analysis of all the details. Literary judges will again be dissatisfied: the measure of the artistic merit of the play is not sufficiently defined and clarified, the best parts are not indicated, the secondary and main characters are not strictly separated, and most of all - art is again made an instrument of some extraneous idea!.. We know and have all this. only one answer: let the readers judge for themselves (we assume that everyone has read or seen “The Thunderstorm”) - whether the idea we indicated is completely alien to “The Thunderstorm”, imposed by us by force, or whether it really follows from the play itself, constitutes its essence and determines its direct meaning?.. If we are mistaken, let them prove it to us, give another meaning to the play, more suitable for it... If our thoughts are consistent with the play, then we ask you to answer one more question: is the Russian really alive? nature was expressed in Katerina, was it true that the Russian situation in everything around her, was it true that the need for the emerging movement of Russian life was reflected in the meaning of the play, as we understand it? If “no,” if readers do not recognize here anything familiar, dear to their hearts, close to their urgent needs, then, of course, our work is lost. But if “yes,” if our readers, having understood our notes, find that Russian life and Russian power are precisely 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 and literary judges spoke.

Katerina is a ray of light in a dark kingdom.

Plan.

1. The liberation of women from family slavery is one of the pressing issues of the late 50s of the 19th century.
2. Katerina is “a ray of light in a dark kingdom.”
   1. The place of the image of Katerina among the images of drama.
   2. Katerina's life in her parents' house, her daydreaming.
   3. Katerina's living conditions after marriage. Katerina in the Kabanovs' house.
   4. Desire for love and devotion.
   5. The power of Katerina's love.
   6. Honesty and determination
   7. Dobrolyubov about the character of Katerina.
   8. Suicide is a protest against the dark kingdom
3. Dobrolyubov about the ideological meaning of the image of Katerina

The strongest protest is the one that finally rises from the chests of the weakest and most patient - this already means that the end of the “Dark Kingdom” is near.

Epigraph: “The character of Katerina, as it is performed in The Thunderstorm, is a step forward not only in the dramatic activity of Ostrovsky, but also in all of our literature.” N.A. Dobrolyubov.

In his works, Ostrovsky reveals the themes of women's liberation from family slavery - this is one of the pressing issues of the 50s of the 19th century. A woman of the 50s, as a result of centuries-old oppression, is powerless against tyranny and is a victim of the “dark kingdom.”

The image of Katerina is the image of a free bird - a symbol of freedom. But the free bird ended up in an iron cage. And she struggles and yearns in captivity: “I lived, I didn’t worry about anything, like a bird in the wild,” she recalls her life with her mother: “Why don’t people fly like birds? - she says to Varvara. “You know, sometimes I feel like I’m a bird.” In the drama Katerina is the embodiment of “Russian living nature.” She would rather die than live in captivity. “It shows a protest against Kabanov’s concepts of morality, a protest carried to the end, proclaimed under torture at home and over the abyss into which Katerina threw herself. Her strong nature endures only for the time being. “And if I get really tired of it here,” she says, “no force can hold me back. I’ll throw myself out the window, throw myself into the Volga. I don’t want to live here, I won’t, even if you cut me!” The image of Katerina embodied the “great national idea” - the idea of ​​liberation.

What makes Katerina stand out among the images of the “dark kingdom” is her open character, courage, and directness. “I don’t know how to deceive, I can’t hide anything,” she says to Varvara, who is trying to convince her that they can’t live in their house without deception. Katerina's character is manifested in her simple-minded story about her childhood and life in her parents' home.

Katerina tells Varvara how they went to church, sewed with gold on velvet, listened to the stories of wanderers, walked in the garden, how they again talked with the praying mantises and prayed themselves. “And to death I love going to church! It’s as if I’ve entered heaven, and I don’t see anyone and I don’t remember the time, and I don’t hear when the service ends.” Living as a free bird with her mother, Katerina loved to dream. “And what dreams I had, Varenka, what dreams! Or golden temples, or some extraordinary gardens, and everyone is singing invisible voices, and there is a smell of cypress, and the mountains and trees, as if not the same as usual, but as if they were painted in images. And it’s like I’m flying, and I’m flying through the air.”

In the Kabanovs’ house, Katerina’s life was the same as her mother’s, the difference was that with the Kabanovs all this was done as if from captivity.

Katerina’s feeling of love merges with longing for free will, with the dream of a real human life. Katerina loves not like the pitiful victims of the “dark kingdom.” To the words of her lover: “No one will know about our love,” she replies: “Let everyone know, everyone can see what I do.” And in the name of her love, she enters into an unequal battle with the “dark kingdom.”

Katerina’s religiosity is not Kabanikha’s oppression, but most likely a child’s belief in fairy tales. Katerina is characterized by religious prejudices, forcing the young woman to perceive love as a mortal sin. “Oh, Varya, sin is on my mind! How long am I, poor thing? I cried, which is something I didn’t do to myself! I can't escape this sin. Can't go anywhere. It’s not good, it’s a terrible sin, Varenka, that I love someone else!”

Katerina’s character is “focused and decisive, unswervingly faithful to natural truth, filled with faith in new ideals and selfless in the sense that it is better for him to die than to live under those principles that are disgusting to him.” It is this integrity and inner harmony, the ability to always be yourself, without ever changing yourself in anything, that constitutes the irresistible strength of Katerina’s character.

Killing herself, committing a great sin from the point of view of the church, Katerina thinks not about the salvation of her soul, but about the love that was revealed to her. "My friend! My joy! Goodbye!" - these are Katerina’s last words. Suicide can occur in the most exceptional cases, when no form of struggle is possible. Her determination to die, just not to be a slave, expresses, according to Dobrolyubov, “The need of the emerging movement of Russian life.”

Dobrolyubov said about the ideological meaning of the image of Katerina: “The strongest protest is the one that finally rises from the chests of the weakest and most patient - this already means that the end of the “Dark Kingdom” is near.”