What Dobrolyubov said about the play The Thunderstorm. Essays

Critical article “A Ray of Light in dark kingdom"was written by Nikolai Dobrolyubov in 1860 and then published in the Sovremennik magazine.

Dobrolyubov reflects in it on dramatic standards, where “we see the struggle of passion and duty.” In his opinion, drama has a happy ending if duty wins, and an unhappy ending if passion wins. The critic notes that in Ostrovsky's drama there is no unity of time and high vocabulary, which was the rule for dramas. "The Thunderstorm" does not satisfy the main goal of the drama - to respect the "moral duty" and show the destructive, fatal "consequences of being carried away by passion." Dobrolyubov notes that the reader unwittingly justifies Katerina, and that is why the drama does not fulfill its purpose.

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

Dobrolyubov continues his devastating criticism when analyzing the “unnecessary” heroes of the “dark kingdom”: their inner world limited within a small world. There are also villains in the work, described in an extremely grotesque way. Such are Kabanikha and Dikoy. However, unlike, for example, Shakespeare's characters, their tyranny is petty, although it can ruin the life of a good person. Nevertheless, “The Thunderstorm” is called by Dobrolyubov “the most decisive work” of the playwright, where tyranny is brought to “tragic consequences.”

A supporter of revolutionary changes in the country, Dobrolyubov happily notices signs of something “refreshing” and “encouraging” in the play. For him, a way out of the dark kingdom can only be as a result of the protest of the people against the tyranny of the authorities. In Ostrovsky's plays, the critic saw this protest in the act of Katerina, for whom living in the “dark kingdom” is worse than death. Dobrolyubov saw in Katerina the person the era required: decisive, with a strong character and will of spirit, although “weak and patient.” Katerina, “creative, loving, ideal,” is, according to the revolutionary democrat Dobrolyubov, the ideal prototype of a person capable of protest and even more. Katerina, a bright person with a bright soul, was called by a critic a “ray of light” in a world of dark people with their petty passions.

(Tikhon falls to his knees in front of Kabanikha)

Among them is Katerina’s husband Tikhon - “one of the many pathetic types” who are “as harmful as the tyrants themselves.” Katerina runs from him to Boris “more in solitude,” out of “the need for love,” which Tikhon is incapable of due to his moral underdevelopment. But Boris is by no means a hero. There is no way out for Katerina; her bright soul cannot get out of the sticky darkness of the “dark kingdom.”

The tragic ending of the play and the cry of the unfortunate Tikhon, who remains, in his words, to continue to “suffer,” “make the viewer - as Dobrolyubov wrote - think not about a love affair, but about the whole life, where the living envy the dead.”

Nikolai Dobrolyubov sets the real goal of his critical article to draw the reader to the idea that Russian life is shown by Ostrovsky in “The Thunderstorm” from such a perspective in order to call “to a decisive action.” And this matter is legal and important. In this case, as the critic notes, he will be satisfied “no matter what our scientists and literary judges say.”

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

Then Dobrolyubov compares “The Thunderstorm” with dramatic canons: “The subject of the drama must certainly be an event where we see the struggle between passion and duty - with the unhappy consequences of the victory of passion or with the happy ones when duty wins.” Also, the drama must have unity of action, and it must be written in high literary language. “The Thunderstorm” at the same time “does not satisfy the most essential goal of the drama - to instill respect for moral duty and show the harmful consequences of being carried away by passion. Katerina, this criminal, appears to us in the drama not only not in a sufficiently gloomy light, but even with the radiance of martyrdom. She speaks so well, suffers so pitifully, everything around her is so bad that you take up arms against her oppressors and thus justify vice in her person. Consequently, drama does not fulfill its high purpose. All the action is sluggish and slow, because it is cluttered with scenes and faces that are completely unnecessary. Finally, the language as they speak characters, exceeds all the patience of a well-bred person.”

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

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

Then Dobrolyubov comes to define Ostrovsky’s plays in general as “plays of life”: “We want to say that with him the general situation of life is always in the foreground. He punishes neither the villain nor the victim. You see that their situation dominates them, and you only blame them for not showing enough energy to get out of this situation. And that’s why we never dare to consider as unnecessary and superfluous those characters in Ostrovsky’s plays who do not directly participate in the intrigue. From our point of view, these persons are just as necessary for the play as the main ones: they show us the environment in which the action takes place, they depict the situation that determines the meaning of the activities of the main characters in the play.”

In “The Thunderstorm” the need for “unnecessary” persons (minor and episodic characters) is especially visible. Dobrolyubov analyzes the remarks of Feklusha, Glasha, Dikiy, Kudryash, Kuligin, etc. The author analyzes the internal state of the characters “ dark kingdom": "Everything is somehow restless, they are not feeling well. Besides them, without asking them, another life has grown up, with different beginnings, and although it is not yet clearly visible, it is already sending bad visions to the dark tyranny of tyrants. And Kabanova is very seriously upset about the future of the old order, with which she has outlived the century. She foresees their end, tries to maintain their significance, but already feels that there is no former respect for them and that at the first opportunity they will be abandoned.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. We are talking 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 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 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 life in her 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, loving 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 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; 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... 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 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 the natural sciences at all, which, according to the great historian Buckle, are necessary for progress, did not have such realistic ideas as, for example, Mr. Pisarev himself has , was even infected with prejudices, 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, the understanding of which really requires the development of the mind? 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) falseness, 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.

After the publication of A. N. Ostrovsky’s play “The Thunderstorm,” many responses appeared in the periodical press, but the articles by N. A. Dobrolyubov “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom” and D. I. Pisarev “Motives of Russian Drama” attracted the most attention.

Speaking about how “the strong Russian character is understood and expressed in “The Thunderstorm,” Dobrolyubov in the article “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom” rightly noted Katerina’s “focused determination.” However, in determining the origins of her character, he completely abandoned the spirit of Ostrovsky's drama. Is it possible to agree that “upbringing and young life gave her nothing”? Without monologues and memories of her youth, is it possible to understand her freedom-loving character? Not feeling anything bright and life-affirming in Katerina’s reasoning, not deigning her religious culture with attention, Dobrolyubov reasoned: “Nature here replaces both considerations of reason and the demands of feeling and imagination.” Where in Ostrovsky we can see elements of folk culture, in Dobrolyubov we see a somewhat straightforward (if not to say primitive) understanding of nature. Katerina’s youth, according to Ostrovsky, is a sunrise, joy of life, bright hopes and joyful prayers. Katerina’s youth, according to Dobrolyubov, is “the senseless ravings of wanderers,” “a dry and monotonous life.”

In his reasoning, Dobrolyubov did not notice the main thing - the difference between Katerina’s religiosity and the Kabanovs’ religiosity (“everything emanates coldness and some kind of irresistible threat: the faces of the saints are so strict, and the church readings are so menacing, and the stories of the wanderers are so monstrous”). It was in her youth that Katerina’s freedom-loving and passionate character was formed, challenging the “dark kingdom.” Further, Dobrolyubov, speaking about Katerina, presents her as a complete, harmonious character, which “strikes us with its opposition to all tyrant principles.” The critic talks about strong personality, which opposed the oppression of the Wild and Kabanovs to freedom, even at the cost of life. Dobrolyubov saw in Katerina “the ideal national character”, so necessary at a turning point in Russian history.

D.I. Pisarev assessed “The Thunderstorm” from a different perspective in his article “Motives of Russian Drama.” Unlike Dobrolyubov, Pisarev calls Katerina a “crazy dreamer” and a “visionary”: “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 life and the lives of other people; finally, having mixed up everything she had at hand, she cuts the lingering knots with the most stupid means, suicide.”

Pisarev is completely deaf to the heroine’s moral experiences; he considers them a consequence of Katerina’s unreasonableness. It is difficult to agree with such categorical statements from the heights of which the “thinking realist” Pisarev judges. However, the article is perceived more as a challenge to Dobrolyubov’s understanding of the play, especially in the part where it deals with the revolutionary capabilities of the people, rather than as a literary analysis of the play. After all, Pisarev wrote his article in an era of decline in the social movement and the disappointment of revolutionary democracy in the capabilities of the people. Since spontaneous peasant riots did not lead to a revolution, Pisarev assesses Katerina’s “spontaneous” protest as profound “nonsense.”

30. Funny and serious in Chekhov's stories.

Chekhov's works contain a huge number of shades of comedy and drama. The more the writer peered into the simplest life situations, the more unexpected conclusions he came to. Humorous circumstances suddenly turned into drama, and sad events turned into farce. All this is expressed in Chekhov’s works, where, as in life, the funny and the sad are intertwined.

The writer wants people to be people and live like people. This is probably why Anton Pavlovich’s stories are still more sad than funny. The drama of the content is hidden behind comic situations, the actions of the characters, and funny jokes. But gradually joyful intonations give way to disappointment.

The story “The Death of an Official” seems funny at first. The official Chervyakov sneezed on the general’s bald head and tortured him “ significant person” apologies. Having waited for the general’s anger, “coming home mechanically, without taking off his uniform, he lay down on the sofa and... died.” This story is tragic, as it paints a picture of the terrible destruction of man. After all, Chervyakov was afraid not of the general’s anger, but of the lack of any reaction. The official was so accustomed to obeying that he could not understand why the “radiant face” did not “scold” him. The story “Chameleon” is also ambiguous. Ochumeloz's behavior causes both laughter and tears. After all, he is a “chameleon” because he embodies the duplicity of the world, in which everyone must be a dumb slave and at the same time an arrogant ruler. Chekhov shows life, which is built according to the laws of domination and subordination. People have forgotten how to perceive the world differently. We find confirmation of this in the story “Thick and Thin”. The meeting of two gymnasium comrades is overshadowed by the fact that one of them has a higher rank. At the same time, the “fat” man had no intention of humiliating his former friend. On the contrary, he is good-natured and sincerely glad to meet you. But the “thin one,” having heard about the secret adviser and the two stars, “shrank, hunched over, and narrowed.” The “sweetness and respectful acidity” necessary in such cases appeared on his face, he giggled disgustingly and began adding the particle “s” to all his words. Such voluntary servility made the “privy councilor sick.” This is how a comic situation turns into a drama, because we are talking about the destruction of the human in a person. Bitter thoughts give way to a smile when you read the story “The Mask.” Before us are the best people of the city, gathered for a masquerade ball. Someone starts a row in the reading room of the club, which outrages the intelligentsia to the core. However, as soon as the bully turns into a millionaire, everyone tries to make amends and does not know how to please the “honorary citizen.”

At first glance, funny story“Intruder.” Main character- an illiterate little man. He is on trial for unscrewing the nut “with which the rails are attached to the sleepers” in order to make weights from it. The whole story is a dialogue between the “judicial investigator” and the “attacker”, built according to the laws of the absurd. Chekhov makes us laugh at the stupid, slow-witted man. But the whole of Russia stands behind him, downtrodden and poor, so he no longer wants to laugh, but to cry.

More than anything else, Chekhov hated voluntary slavery. He was merciless towards slave people. By exposing them, Chekhov tried to save human souls from being crushed.

End of work -

This topic belongs to the section:

Epilogue of crime and punishment. Its connection with the general problems of the novel

Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov.. Raskolnikov and Sonya Marmeladova.. Raskolnikov and Luzhin Raskolnikov and PoRFiry Petrovich..

If you need additional material on this topic, or you did not find what you were looking for, we recommend using the search in our database of works:

What will we do with the received material:

If this material was useful to you, you can save it to your page on social networks:

All topics in this section:

Raskolnikov and Svidrigailov
Much has in common with Raskolnikov in the image of Svidrigailov. Dostoevsky, through various means, makes us feel the closeness of these spiritual counterparts and constantly draws parallels between them. Dissenter

Raskolnikov and Sonya Marmeladova
Rodion Raskolnikov and Sonya Marmeladova are the two main characters of the novel, appearing as two oncoming streams. Their worldview forms the ideological part of the work. Sonya Marmeladova - moral idea

Raskolnikov and Luzhin
Rodion Raskolnikov, the main character of the novel, is a young man, coming from an impoverished noble family, a university law student, forced to

Evgeny Bazarov and Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov
The ability to sensitively guess the problems and contradictions that are brewing in Russian society is important distinguishing feature Turgenev the writer. Pavel Petrovich Kirsanov - the son of a military general, who took

Evgeny Bazarov and Arkady Kirsanov
The great Russian writer I. S. Turgenev subtly felt everything that was happening in public life Russia. In the novel “Fathers and Sons” he touches on a topical issue for the sixties of the last century.

Father and son Kirsanovs
“Fathers and Sons” is one of the central works of I. S. Turgenev. He wrote this novel in an alarming and, perhaps, the most dramatic period of his life. It is generally accepted that the title of a novel contains

Evgeny Bazarov in the face of love and death
The main character of I. S. Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons” - Evgeny Vasilyevich Bazarov - dies at the end of the work. We can say that Bazarov treated those around him with a considerable amount of condescension

What Evgeny Bazarov claims and denies
In the novel “Fathers and Sons,” Turgenev showed the main social conflict of the 60s of the 19th century - the conflict between liberal nobles and democratic commoners. So, in Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and

The novel fathers and sons and its time
“Fathers and Sons” by Turgenev is a socio-psychological novel in which the main place is given to social conflicts. The action of the novel takes place in 1859. The novel "Fathers and Sons" was created

Ilya Ilyich Oblomov and Olga Ilyinskaya
Ilya Ilyich Oblomov and Olga Ilyinskaya, the heroes of Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov,” understand the meaning of life, love, and family happiness in different ways. Oblomov was born in Oblomovka - a “blessed” corner of the earth

Poems by F.I Tyutchev about love
F. I. Tyutchev entered the history of Russian poetry, first of all, as the author of philosophical lyrics, but he also wrote a number of remarkable works on the theme of love. Love and philosophical poems of the poet

Features of Tyutchev's poems
The main features of the poet’s lyrics are the identity of external world phenomena and states human soul, the universal spirituality of nature. This determined not only the philosophical content, but also the artistic

Lyrics by A.A Fet
Mostly in Fet's lyrics there are poems about the beauty of nature, its perfection, and the fact that a person should strive for that inner harmony that is present in nature. The closest to me are

Features of Fet's lyrics
A.A. Fet is one of the outstanding Russian poets of the 19th century. He opened to us an amazing world of beauty, harmony, perfection, Fet can be called a singer of nature. The approach of spring and autumn withering, soul

Features of Nekrasov's lyrics
Poetic world Nekrasov is surprisingly rich and varied. The talent that nature generously endowed him with and his extraordinary hard work helped the poet create such polyphonic and melodious lyrics.

The originality of the lyrical hero in Nekrasov’s poems
For lyric poetry, the most subjective kind of literature, the main thing is the state of a person’s soul. These are feelings, experiences, reflections, moods expressed directly through the image lyrical hero, high

Nekrasov's poems about love
Nikolai Alekseevich Nekrasov is almost never perceived as a poet who worked in line with love poetry. His original and familiar works are considered to be “Peasant Children”, “Women

To the lover
How to tell about a difficult road, Once traversed by yourself, I listen to the reckless speech, Your rose-colored hopes. Love with crazy dreams And I...

The city of Kalinov and its inhabitants
The writer’s imagination takes us to a small merchant town on the banks of the Volga, to admire the local beauties and take a walk along the boulevard. Residents have already taken a closer look at the beautiful nature in the surrounding area

Kabanikha and Dikoy
A. N. Ostrovsky, in the play “The Thunderstorm,” which he wrote in 1859, showed the life and customs of Russian provincial society of that time. He revealed the moral problems and shortcomings of this society that we and

Katerina among the inhabitants of the city
A.N. Ostrovsky in his play “The Thunderstorm” divided people into two categories. One category is the oppressors, representatives of the “dark kingdom”, the other is the people humiliated and downtrodden by them. Representatives of the first group

Date scene in the drama thunderstorm
In Ostrovsky's drama "The Thunderstorm" main character- Katerina. The drama talks about tragic fate a girl who couldn't fight for her love. Of "love and

How Doctor Startsev turned into Ionych
Who is to blame for being young, full of strength and vital energy Has Dmitry Startsev turned into Ionych? At the beginning of the story, Chekhov shows Dmitry Startsev as young, wealthy, and full of strength. Like everyone else

Features of Chekhov's dramaturgy
Anton Pavlovich Chekhov gravitated towards the theater all his life. Plays for amateur performances were his first youthful works. Chekhov's stories are so rich in dialogues, with the help of which the author

Two families in the novel War and Peace Kuragins and Bolkonskys
At the Center for the Novel "War and Peace" there are three families: the Kuragins, the Rostovs, Bolkonsky Family Bolkonskikh is described with undoubted sympathy. It shows three generations: the senior prince Nikolai Andreevich, his

Natasha Rostova
Natasha Rostova is the central female character in the novel “War and Peace” and, perhaps, the author’s favorite. Tolstoy presents us with the evolution of his heroine during the fifteen-year period, from 1805 to 1820,

My favorite episode in the novel War and Peace
In the work “War and Peace”, the most important episode, in my opinion, is the episode of the council, where the fate of Moscow - the fate of Russia - is decided. The action takes place in the best hut of the peasant Andrei Savostyanov

War on the pages of the novel War and Peace
L. N. Tolstoy sought in his work to reveal the national significance of the war, which united the entire society, all Russian people in a common impulse, to show that the fate of the campaign was not decided in the headquarters and hundred