- New!
Look for another scolder like our Savel Prokofich!.. Kabanikha is also good. A. Ostrovsky. The Thunderstorm In his drama “The Thunderstorm,” A. N. Ostrovsky vividly and vividly depicted the “dark kingdom” of the Russian province, suppressing the best human...
Was the love of Katerina Kabanova from A. N. Ostrovsky’s play “The Thunderstorm” a crime? Did the poor woman deserve such a terrible punishment? Katerina's misfortunes begin after she marries Tikhon Kabanov and moves into his house. There's a young...
Enmity between loved ones can be especially irreconcilable P. Tacitus There is no more terrible retribution for follies and errors than to see how one’s own children suffer because of them W. Sumner Play by A.N. Ostrovsky's "The Thunderstorm" tells about the life of a provincial...
The title of Ostrovsky’s drama “The Thunderstorm” plays a big role in understanding this play. The image of a thunderstorm in Ostrovsky's drama is unusually complex and multi-valued. On the one hand, the thunderstorm is a direct participant in the action of the play, on the other hand, it is a symbol of the idea of this work....
Katerina is a ray of light in a dark kingdom. “There is something refreshing and encouraging in “The Thunderstorm”. This “something” is, in our opinion, the background of the play, indicated by us and revealing the instability and the near end of tyranny. Then the very character of Katerina, drawn on this ...
Crisis patriarchal world and patriarchal consciousness remains the focus of the author’s attention in “The Thunderstorm”. But in this drama, Ostrovsky gives the problem a completely different sound, viewing it from a fundamentally new angle. Classic "fossil...
Teaching Note for Students
Isaac Levitan. Evening. Golden Ples (1889)
An incredible controversy surrounding A. Ostrovsky’s play “The Thunderstorm” began during the playwright’s lifetime. It's about about five articles:
- N. Dobrolyubov “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom” (1860);
- D. Pisarev “Motives of Russian Drama” (1864);
- M. Antonovich “Mistakes” (1864);
- A. Grigoriev “After Ostrovsky’s “Thunderstorm”. Letters to I. S. Turgenev" (1860);
- M. Dostoevsky “The Thunderstorm”. Drama in five acts by A. N. Ostrovsky" (1860).
Let's look at the points of view expressed by critics.
N. A. Dobrolyubov
"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 for all that most Those who have read and seen this play agree that it produces a less grave 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 he is performed in “The Thunderstorm,” constitutes a step forward not only in Ostrovsky’s dramatic work, but also in all of our literature. It corresponds to a new phase of our folk life, he had long demanded his realization in literature, our best writers; but they only knew how to understand its necessity and could not understand and feel its essence; Ostrovsky managed to do this.<...>
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 him and then grows organically with him. We see this, for example, in Katerina’s simple-minded story about her childhood and about life in his mother’s house. It turns out that her upbringing and young life gave her nothing: in her mother’s house it was the same as at the Kabanovs’ - they went to church, sewed with gold on velvet, listened to the stories of wanderers, dined, walked in the garden, again talked with the praying mantises and they prayed themselves... After listening to Katerina’s story, Varvara, her husband’s sister, remarks with surprise: “But it’s the same with us.” But Katerina defines the difference very quickly in five words: “Yes, everything here seems to be from under captivity!” And further conversation shows that in all this appearance, which is so commonplace everywhere, Katerina knew how to find her own special meaning, apply it to her needs and aspirations, until Kabanikha’s heavy hand fell on her. Katerina does not at all belong to the violent character, never satisfied, who loves to destroy at any cost. On the contrary, this is a predominantly creative, loving, ideal character. That is why she tries to comprehend and ennoble everything in her imagination; that mood in which, as the poet puts it, -
The whole world is a noble dream
Cleansed and washed before him, -
This mood does not leave Katerina to the last extreme.<...>
In Katerina’s situation we see that, on the contrary, all the “ideas” instilled in her from childhood, all the principles environment- rebel against her natural aspirations and actions. The terrible struggle to which the young woman is condemned takes place in every word, in every movement of the drama, and this is where the full importance of the introductory characters for which Ostrovsky is so reproached appears. Take a good look: you see that Katerina was brought up in concepts identical to the concepts of the environment in which she lives, and cannot renounce them, not having any theoretical education. Although the stories of wanderers and the suggestions of her family were processed by her in her own way, they could not help but leave an ugly trace in her soul: and indeed, we see in the play that Katerina, having lost her bright dreams and ideal, lofty aspirations, retained one thing from her upbringing strong feeling - fear some dark forces, something unknown, which she could neither explain to herself well nor reject. She is afraid for her every thought, for the simplest feeling she expects punishment; it seems to her that the thunderstorm will kill her, because she is a sinner; the picture of fiery hell on the church wall seems to her to be a harbinger of her eternal torment... And everything around her supports and develops this fear in her: The Feklushis go to Kabanikha to talk about the last times; Dikoy insists that the thunderstorm is sent to us as punishment, so that we feel; the arriving lady, instilling fear in everyone in the city, appears several times in order to shout over Katerina in an ominous voice: “You will all burn in unquenchable fire.”<...>
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 before 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; from the fullness of her heart she says: “I’m already exhausted... How much longer should I suffer? Why should I live now - well, what for? I don’t need anything, nothing is nice to me, and God’s light is not nice! - but death does not come. You call for 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... To live 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 go... You come to them - they walk, they talk, - but what do I need that for? that semi-feverish state. At the last moment, all the domestic horrors flash especially vividly in her imagination. She screams: “They’ll catch me and force me back home!.. Hurry, hurry...” And the matter is over: she will no longer be a victim of a soulless mother-in-law, she will no longer languish locked up with a spineless and disgusting husband. She's freed!..
Such liberation is sad, bitter; but what to do when there is no other way out. It’s good that the poor woman found the determination to at least take this terrible way out. This is the strength of her character, which is why “The Thunderstorm” makes a refreshing impression on us, as we said above.<...>
D. A. Pisarev
Ostrovsky’s drama “The Thunderstorm” prompted a critical article from Dobrolyubov entitled “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom.” This article was a mistake on Dobrolyubov’s part; he was carried away by his sympathy for Katerina’s character and mistook her personality for a bright phenomenon. Detailed analysis This character will show our readers that Dobrolyubov’s view in this case is incorrect and that not a single bright phenomenon can arise or develop in the “dark kingdom” of the patriarchal Russian family brought to the stage in Ostrovsky’s drama.<...>
Dobrolyubov would ask himself: how could this bright image come about? To answer this question for himself, he would trace Katerina’s life from childhood, especially since Ostrovsky provides some materials for this; he would have seen that upbringing and life could not give Katerina either a strong character or a developed mind; then he would have looked again at those facts in which one attractive side caught his eye, and then Katerina’s whole personality would have appeared to him in a completely different light.<...>
Katerina's whole life consists of constant internal contradictions; every minute she rushes from one extreme to another; Today she repents of what she did yesterday, and yet she herself does not know what she will do tomorrow; at every step she confuses her own own life and the lives of other people; finally, having mixed up everything she had at hand, she cuts through the lingering knots with the most stupid means, suicide, and even a suicide that is completely unexpected for herself.<...>
M. A. Antonovich
G. Pisarev decided to correct Dobrolyubov, like Mr. Zaitsev Sechenov, and expose his mistakes, to which he counts one of his best and most thoughtful articles, “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom,” written about Mr. Ostrovsky’s “The Thunderstorm.” It is this instructive, deeply felt and thoughtful article that Mr. Pisarev is trying to drown in the muddy water of his phrases and commonplaces.<...>
It seemed to G. Pisarev that Dobrolyubov imagined Katerina as a woman with a developed mind and a developed character, who supposedly decided to protest only as a result of education and development of the mind, because she was supposedly called a “ray of light.” Having thus imposed his own fantasy on Dobrolyubov, Mr. Pisarev began to refute it as if it belonged to Dobrolyubov. How is it possible, Mr. Pisarev reasoned to himself, to call Katerina a ray of light when she is a simple, undeveloped woman; how could she protest against tyranny when her upbringing did not develop her mind, when she did not know at all natural sciences, which, according to the great historian Buckle, are necessary for progress, did not have such realistic ideas as, for example, Mr. Pisarev himself has, she was even infected with prejudices, she was afraid of thunder and the picture of hellfire painted on the walls of the gallery. This means, Mr. Pisarev concluded, Dobrolyubov is mistaken and is a champion of art for art’s sake when he calls Katerina a Protestant and a ray of light. Amazing proof!
Is this how you, Mr. Pisarev, are attentive to Dobrolyubov, and this is how you understand what you want to refute? Where did you find it, as if Dobrolyubov presented Katerina as a woman with a developed mind, as if her protest stems from some specific concepts and conscious theoretical principles, which really requires development of the mind to understand? We have already seen above that, according to Dobrolyubov, Katerina’s protest was of such a kind that it did not require either the development of the mind, or knowledge of the natural sciences and Buckle, or an understanding of electricity, or freedom from prejudice, or reading articles by Mr. Pisarev; it was a direct protest, so to speak, instinctive, a protest of an integral normal nature in its in its original form how she came out by herself without any means of artificial education.<...>
Thus, all this fanfare of Mr. Pisarev is essentially very pathetic. It turns out that he did not understand Dobrolyubov, reinterpreted his thought and, based on his misunderstanding, accused him of unprecedented mistakes and non-existent contradictions...
A. A. Grigoriev
The strong, deep and mainly positively general impression was made not by the second act of the drama, which, although with some difficulty, can still be drawn to the punitive and accusatory type of literature, but by the end of the third, in which (at the end) there is absolutely nothing there is nothing else but the poetry of people's life - boldly, widely and freely captured by the artist in one of its most essential moments, which does not allow not only denunciation, but even criticism and analysis: this is how this moment is captured and conveyed poetically, directly. You haven’t been to the performance yet, but you know this moment, magnificent in its bold poetry - this hitherto unprecedented night of meeting in a ravine, all breathing with the proximity of the Volga, all fragrant with the smell of the herbs of its wide meadows, all sounding with free songs, “funny”, secret speeches , all full of the charm of cheerful and riotous passion and no less charm of deep and tragically fatal passion. It was created as if it was not an artist, but an entire people who created it here! And this was precisely what was most strongly felt in the work by the masses, and moreover, by the masses in St. Petersburg, it would have been amazing in Moscow - a complex, heterogeneous mass - felt with all the inevitable (although much less than usual) falsehood, with all the frightening sharpness of the Alexandrian execution .
M. M. Dostoevsky
Only Katerina dies, but she would have died without despotism. This a victim of his own purity and his beliefs. <...>Katerina's life is broken even without suicide. Will she live, will she take monastic vows, will she commit suicide - the result is the same regarding her state of mind, but completely different regarding the impression. G. Ostrovsky wanted her to perform this last act of her life with full consciousness and reach it through reflection. A beautiful thought, further enhancing the colors so poetically generously spent on this character. But, many will say and are already saying, doesn’t such suicide contradict her religious beliefs? Of course it contradicts, completely contradicts, but this trait is essential in Katerina’s character. The fact is that, due to her highly lively temperament, she cannot get along in the narrow sphere of her beliefs. She fell in love, fully aware of the whole sin of her love, and yet she still fell in love, come what may; she later repented of seeing Boris, but she still ran to say goodbye to him. This is exactly how she decides to commit suicide, because she does not have the strength to endure despair. She is a woman of high poetic impulses, but at the same time weak. This inflexibility of beliefs and frequent betrayal of them constitutes the entire tragedy of the character we are examining.
An essay on the works of A. N. Ostrovsky on the topic:
The image of Katerina from the drama “The Thunderstorm” based on materials
articles by D. Pisarev and N. Dobrolyubov
Katerina is undoubtedly a multifaceted and not entirely unambiguous character. Many people have different opinions about it, like D. Pisarev and N. Dobrolyubov.
For Dobrolyubov, Katerina is “a ray of light in a dark kingdom.” He sees her as a bright and pure person, striving for freedom. He takes pity on her, claiming that Boris is not worth Katerina, and as Dobrolyubov himself wrote about him, “if it were another person in a different position, then there would be no need to rush into the water.” In this article, Katerina is described as a strong person, and her strength lies in the fact that she decides to take such a step as suicide, because she had no choice. Katerina’s actions are in harmony with her nature, they are natural for her. And until the very end, she is guided precisely by her nature, and not by any given decision. For Dobrolyubov, the character of Katerina is a step forward in all Russian literature.
As for Pisarev, he sees Katerina differently. He claims that Dobrolyubov was mistaken when he “took her personality for a bright phenomenon.” Katerina’s problems seem small and insignificant to Pisarev, and Katerina herself seems like a weak woman. “What kind of love arises from the exchange of a few glances? (...) Finally, what kind of suicide is this, caused by such minor troubles that are tolerated completely safely by all members of all Russian families?
Pisarev’s position is not close to me, I agree with Dobrolyubov. Katerina seems to me like a free bird locked up. She did not betray herself until the very end and took responsibility for her sin. I think she suffered because she simply couldn't choose between her desire for a free life and her duty to God.
Analysis of the article by N.A. Dobrolyubov “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom”
Dobrolyubov’s article “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom” is one of the first reviews of A.N. Ostrovsky’s play. First published in the Sovremennik magazine in No. 10 for 1860.
It was a time of revolutionary democratic upsurge and fierce resistance to autocratic power. Tense anticipation of reforms. Hope for social change.
The era demanded a decisive, integral, strong character, capable of rising to protest against violence and tyranny and going to the end in his fast. Dobrolyubov saw such a character in Katerina.
Dobrolyubov called Katerina “a ray of light in a dark kingdom” because she is a bright personality, a bright phenomenon and extremely positive. A person who does not want to be a victim of the “dark kingdom” and is capable of action. Any violence outrages her and leads to protest.
Dobrolyubov welcomes creativity in the character of the heroine.
He believed that the origins of protest lie precisely in harmony, simplicity, and nobility, which are incompatible with slave morality.
Katerina’s drama, according to Dobrolyubov, is in the struggle of natural desires for beauty, harmony, happiness arising from her nature with prejudices and the morality of the “dark kingdom”.
The critic sees something “refreshing, encouraging” in the drama “The Thunderstorm.” Reveals instability and the near end of tyranny. Katerina's character blows new life, although it is revealed to us in her very death.
Ostrovsky was far from thinking that the only way out of the “dark kingdom” could only be a decisive protest. Knowledge and education remained a “ray of light” for Ostrovsky.
Dobrolyubov, as a revolutionary democrat, during a period of powerful revolutionary upsurge, looked for facts in literature confirming that the masses do not want and cannot live in the old way, that a protest against autocratic orders is brewing in them, that they are ready to rise to a decisive struggle for social transformations. Dobrolyubov was convinced that readers, having read the play, should understand that living in the “dark kingdom” is worse than death. It is clear that in this way Dobrolyubov sharpened many aspects of Ostrovsky’s play and made direct revolutionary conclusions. But this was explained by the time of writing the article.
Dobrolyubov's critical manner is fruitful. The critic does not so much judge as study, explores the struggle in the heroine’s soul, proving the inevitability of the victory of light over darkness. This approach corresponds to the spirit of Ostrovsky's drama.
The justice of Dobrolyubov was also confirmed by the court of history. The “thunderstorm” really was the news of a new stage in Russian folk life. Already in the movement of revolutionaries - the seventies, there were many participants whose life path made me remember Katerina. Vera Zasulich, Sofya Perovskaya, Vera Figner... And they began with an instinctive impulse towards will, born of the stuffiness of the family environment.
Any critical article should hardly be considered the ultimate truth. Critical work, even the most multilateral, is still one-sided. The most brilliant critic cannot say everything about a work. But the best ones are like works of art, become monuments of the era. Dobrolyubov’s article is one of highest achievements Russian XIX critics century. It sets the trend in the interpretation of “The Thunderstorm” to this day.
Our time brings its own accents to the interpretation of Ostrovsky's drama.
N. Dobrolyubov named the city Kalinov “ dark kingdom”, and Katerina - a “ray of light” in him. But can we agree with this? The kingdom turned out to be not as “dark” as it might seem at first glance. And the beam? A sharp long light, mercilessly illuminating everything, cold, cutting, making you want to close yourself.
Is this Katerina? Let's remember how she prays...! What an angelic smile she has on her face, and her face seems to glow.
The light comes from within. No, it's not a beam. Candle. Trembling, defenseless. And from her there is light. Diffusing, warm, living light. They reached out to him - each for his own. It was from this breath of many that the candle went out.
