A.N. Ostrovsky, St. Petersburg, 1860)
Shortly before the appearance of "The Thunderstorm" on stage, we examined in great detail all of Ostrovsky's works. Wanting to present a description of the author's talent, we then paid attention to the phenomena of Russian life reproduced in his plays, tried to grasp their general character and find out whether the meaning of these phenomena in reality is the same as it appears to us in the works of our playwright. If the readers have not forgotten, we then came to the result that Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life and a great ability to depict sharply and vividly its most significant aspects. The "thunderstorm" soon served as new proof of the validity of our conclusion. We wanted to talk about it then, but felt that we would have to repeat many of our previous thoughts, and therefore decided to remain silent about “The Thunderstorm,” leaving the readers who asked for our opinion to believe in it those general remarks that we spoke about Ostrovsky several months before the appearance of this play. Our decision was confirmed in you even more when we saw that regarding “The Thunderstorm” a whole series of large and small reviews appeared in all magazines and newspapers, interpreting the matter from a wide variety of points of view. We thought that in this mass of articles something more would finally be said about Ostrovsky and the significance of his plays than what we saw in the critics we mentioned at the beginning of our first article about “The Dark Kingdom”*. In this hope and in the knowledge that our own opinion about the meaning and character of Ostrovsky’s works has already been expressed quite definitely, we considered it best to leave the analysis of “The Thunderstorm”.
____________________
* See "Contemporary", 1959, E VII. (Note by N.A. Dobrolyubov.)
But now, encountering Ostrovsky’s play again in a separate publication and remembering everything that has been written about it, we find that it would not be superfluous for us to say a few words about it. It gives us a reason to add something to our notes about the “Dark Kingdom”, to further carry out some of the thoughts we expressed then, and - by the way - to explain ourselves in short words with some of the critics who have deigned us with direct or indirect abuse.
We must do justice to some of the critics: they knew how to understand the difference that separates us from them. They reproach us for adopting the bad method of examining the work of an author and then, as a result of this examination, saying what it contains and what its contents are. They have a completely different method: they first tell themselves what should be contained in the work (according to their concepts, of course) and to what extent everything that should really be contained in it (again, according to their concepts). It is clear that with such a difference in views, they look with indignation at our analyzes, which one of them likens to “seeking morality in a fable.” But we are very glad that the difference is finally open, and we are ready to withstand any comparisons. Yes, if you like, our method of criticism is also similar to finding a moral conclusion in a fable: the difference, for example, is applied to criticism of Ostrovsky’s comedy, and will only be as great as the comedy differs from the fable and to the extent that human life depicted in comedies is more important and closer to us than the life of donkeys, foxes, reeds and other characters depicted in fables. In any case, it is much better, in our opinion, to dissect a fable and say: “here is the moral it contains, and this morality seems good or bad to us, and here’s why,” rather than deciding from the very beginning: this fable should contain such and such morality (for example, respect for parents) and this is how it should be expressed (for example, in the form of a chick that disobeyed its mother and fell out of the nest); but these conditions are not met, the moral is not the same (for example, the carelessness of parents about children) or is expressed in the wrong way (for example, in the example of a cuckoo leaving its eggs in other people’s nests), which means that the fable is not suitable. We have seen this method of criticism more than once applied to Ostrovsky, although no one, of course, will want to admit it, and they will also blame us, from a sore head on a healthy one, for starting to analyze literary works with pre-adopted ideas and requirements. Meanwhile, what could be clearer, didn’t the Slavophiles say: one should portray the Russian person as virtuous and prove that the root of all good is life in the old days; in his first plays Ostrovsky did not comply with this, and therefore “Family Picture” and “One’s Own People” are unworthy of him and can only be explained by the fact that he was still imitating Gogol at that time. But didn’t the Westerners shout: they should teach in comedy that superstition is harmful, and Ostrovsky, with the ringing of a bell, saves one of his heroes from death; everyone should be taught that the true good lies in education, and Ostrovsky in his comedy disgraces the educated Vikhorev in front of the ignorant Borodkin; It is clear that “Don’t get on your own sleigh” and “Don’t live the way you want” are bad plays. But didn’t the adherents of artistry proclaim: art must serve the eternal and universal requirements of aesthetics, and Ostrovsky in “A Profitable Place” reduced art to serving the pitiful interests of the moment; therefore, “A Profitable Place” is unworthy of art and should be counted among accusatory literature!.. And didn’t Mr. Nekrasov from Moscow[*]* assert: Bolshov should not arouse sympathy in us, and yet the 4th act of “His People” written in order to arouse in us sympathy for Bolshov; therefore, the fourth act is superfluous!.. And didn’t Mr. Pavlov (N.F.)[*] squirm, making clear the following points: Russian folk life can provide material only for farcical** performances; there are no elements in it in order to construct from it something in accordance with the “eternal” requirements of art; it is obvious, therefore, that Ostrovsky, who takes the plot from common people’s life, is nothing more than a farcical writer... And didn’t another Moscow critic draw such conclusions: drama should present us with a hero imbued with lofty ideas; the heroine of "The Thunderstorm", on the contrary, is completely imbued with mysticism***, therefore, is not suitable for drama, because she cannot arouse our sympathy; therefore, “The Thunderstorm” only has the meaning of satire, and even that is unimportant, and so on, and so on...
____________________
* For notes on words marked [*], see the end of the text.
** Balagan is a fair folk theatrical performance with primitive stage technology; farcical - here: primitive, common people.
*** Mysticism (from Greek) is a tendency to believe in the supernatural world.
Anyone who has followed what has been written about “The Thunderstorm” will easily remember several other similar criticisms. It cannot be said that they were all written by people who were completely wretched mentally; How can we explain the lack of a direct view of things, which in all of them strikes the impartial reader? Without any doubt, it must be attributed to the old critical routine, which remained in many heads from the study of artistic scholasticism in the courses of Koshansky, Ivan Davydov, Chistyakov and Zelenetsky[*]. It is known that, in the opinion of these venerable theorists, criticism is an application to a well-known work of general laws set forth in the courses of the same theorists: it fits the laws - excellent; doesn't fit - bad. As you can see, it was not a bad idea for aging old people; As long as such a principle lives in criticism, they can be sure that they will not be considered completely backward, no matter what happens in the literary world. After all, the laws are beautifully established by them in their textbooks, on the basis of those works in the beauty of which they believe; as long as everything new is judged on the basis of the laws they have approved, until then only that which is in accordance with them will be recognized as elegant, nothing new will dare to lay claim to its rights; the old men will be right in believing in Karamzin[*] and not recognizing Gogol, as the respectable people who admired the imitators of Racine[*] and scolded Shakespeare as a drunken savage, following Voltaire[*], or bowed before the "Messiad" and on this, thought to be right who rejected “Faust”[*], routiners, even the most mediocre ones, have nothing to fear from criticism, which serves as a passive verification of the fixed rules of stupid scholars, and at the same time, the most gifted writers have nothing to hope from it if they bring something new and original into art . They must go against all the criticism of “correct” criticism, in spite of it, make a name for themselves, in spite of it, found a school and ensure that some new theorist begins to take them into account when drawing up a new code of art. Then criticism will humbly recognize their merits; and until then she must be in the position of the unfortunate Neapolitans, at the beginning of this September, who, although they know that Garibaldi[*] will not come to them today, but still must recognize Francis as their king until His Royal Majesty he will be willing to leave his capital.
The article is devoted to Ostrovsky’s drama “The Thunderstorm”. At the beginning of it, Dobrolyubov writes that “Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life.” Next, he analyzes articles about Ostrovsky by other critics, writing that they “lack a direct view of things.”
Then Dobrolyubov compares “The Thunderstorm” with dramatic canons: “The subject of the drama must certainly be an event where we see the struggle between passion and duty - with the unhappy consequences of the victory of passion or with the happy ones when duty wins.” Also, the drama must have unity of action, and it must be written in high literary language. “The Thunderstorm”, at the same time, “does not satisfy the most essential goal of the drama - to instill respect for moral duty and show the harmful consequences of being carried away by passion. Katerina, this criminal, appears to us in the drama not only not in a sufficiently gloomy light, but even with the radiance of martyrdom. She speaks so well, suffers so pitifully, everything around her is so bad that you arm yourself against her oppressors and thus justify vice in her person. Consequently, drama does not fulfill its high purpose. All the action is sluggish and slow, because it is cluttered with scenes and faces that are completely unnecessary. Finally, the language in which the characters speak exceeds any patience of a well-bred person.”
Dobrolyubov makes this comparison with the canon in order to show that approaching a work with a ready-made idea of what should be shown in it does not provide true understanding. “What do you think about a man who, when he sees a pretty woman, suddenly begins to resonate that her figure is not like that of the Venus de Milo? The truth is not in dialectical subtleties, but in the living truth of what you are discussing. It cannot be said that people are evil by nature, and therefore one cannot accept for literary works principles such as, for example, that vice always triumphs and virtue is punished.”
“The writer has so far been given a small role in this movement of humanity towards natural principles,” writes Dobrolyubov, after which he recalls Shakespeare, who “moved the general consciousness of people to several levels to which no one had risen before him.” Next, the author turns to other critical articles about “The Thunderstorm,” in particular, by Apollo Grigoriev, who argues that Ostrovsky’s main merit lies in his “nationality.” “But Mr. Grigoriev does not explain what nationality consists of, and therefore his remark seemed very funny to us.”
Then Dobrolyubov comes to define Ostrovsky’s plays in general as “plays of life”: “We want to say that with him the general situation of life is always in the foreground. He punishes neither the villain nor the victim. You see that their situation dominates them, and you only blame them for not showing enough energy to get out of this situation. And that’s why we never dare to consider as unnecessary and superfluous those characters in Ostrovsky’s plays who do not directly participate in the intrigue. From our point of view, these persons are just as necessary for the play as the main ones: they show us the environment in which the action takes place, they depict the situation that determines the meaning of the activities of the main characters in the play.”
In “The Thunderstorm” the need for “unnecessary” persons (minor and episodic characters) is especially visible. Dobrolyubov analyzes the remarks of Feklusha, Glasha, Dikiy, Kudryash, Kuligin, etc. The author analyzes the internal state of the heroes of the “dark kingdom”: “everything is somehow restless, it’s not good for them. Besides them, without asking them, another life has grown up, with different beginnings, and although it is not yet clearly visible, it is already sending bad visions to the dark tyranny of tyrants. And Kabanova is very seriously upset about the future of the old order, with which she has outlived the century. She foresees their end, tries to maintain their significance, but already feels that there is no former respect for them and that at the first opportunity they will be abandoned.”
Then the author writes that “The Thunderstorm” is “Ostrovsky’s most decisive work; mutual relations of tyranny are brought to the most tragic consequences; and for all that, most of those who have read and seen this play agree that there is even something refreshing and encouraging in “The Thunderstorm”. This “something” is, in our opinion, the background of the play, indicated by us and revealing the precariousness and the near end of tyranny. Then the very character of Katerina, drawn against this background, also breathes on us with new life, which is revealed to us in her very death.”
Further, Dobrolyubov analyzes the image of Katerina, perceiving it as “a step forward in all of our literature”: “Russian life has reached the point where the need for more active and energetic people was felt.” The image of Katerina “is unswervingly faithful to the instinct of natural truth and selfless in the sense that it is better for him to die than to live under those principles that are disgusting to him. In this integrity and harmony of character lies his strength. Free air and light, 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, “you won’t get a word from you, let alone affection, or you’ll do it yourself.” you’re climbing.” This is how spoiled natures usually judge a strong and fresh nature.”
Dobrolyubov comes to the conclusion that in the image of Katerina, Ostrovsky embodied a great popular idea: “in other creations of our literature, strong characters are like fountains, dependent on an extraneous mechanism. Katerina is like a big river: a flat, good bottom - it flows calmly, large stones are encountered - it jumps over them, a cliff - it cascades, they dam it - it rages and breaks through in another place. It bubbles not because the water suddenly wants to make noise or get angry at obstacles, but simply because it needs it to fulfill its natural requirements - for further flow.”
Analyzing Katerina's actions, the author writes that he considers the escape of Katerina and Boris possible as the best solution. Katerina is ready to flee, but here another problem emerges - Boris’s financial dependence on his uncle Dikiy. “We said a few words above about Tikhon; Boris is the same, in essence, only educated.”
At the end of the play, “we are pleased to see Katerina’s deliverance - even through death, if it is impossible otherwise. Living in the “dark kingdom” is worse than death. Tikhon, throwing himself on his wife’s corpse, pulled out of the water, shouts in self-forgetfulness: “Good for you, Katya!” Why did I stay in the world and suffer!“ With this exclamation the play ends, and it seems to us that nothing could have been invented stronger and more truthful than such an ending. Tikhon’s words make the viewer think not about a love affair, but about this whole life, where the living envy the dead.”
In conclusion, Dobrolyubov addresses the readers of the article: “If our readers find that Russian life and Russian strength are called by the artist in “The Thunderstorm” to a decisive cause, and if they feel the legitimacy and importance of this matter, then we are satisfied, no matter what our scientists say and literary judges."
The article is devoted to Ostrovsky’s drama “The Thunderstorm”
At the beginning of the article, Dobrolyubov writes that “Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life.” Next, he analyzes articles about Ostrovsky by other critics, writing that they “lack a direct view of things.”
Then Dobrolyubov compares “The Thunderstorm” with dramatic canons: “The subject of the drama must certainly be an event where we see the struggle between passion and duty - with the unhappy consequences of the victory of passion or with the happy ones when duty wins.” Also, the drama must have unity of action, and it must be written in high literary language. “The Thunderstorm”, at the same time, “does not satisfy the most essential goal of the drama - to instill respect for moral duty and show the harmful consequences of being carried away by passion. Katerina, this criminal, appears to us in the drama not only not in a sufficiently gloomy light, but even with the radiance of martyrdom. She speaks so well, suffers so pitifully, everything around her is so bad that you take up arms against her oppressors and thus justify vice in her person. Consequently, drama does not fulfill its high purpose. All the action is sluggish and slow, because it is cluttered with scenes and faces that are completely unnecessary. Finally, the language in which the characters speak exceeds any patience of a well-bred person.”
Dobrolyubov makes this comparison with the canon in order to show that approaching a work with a ready-made idea of what should be shown in it does not provide true understanding. “What to think about a man who, upon seeing a pretty woman, suddenly begins to resonate that her figure is not like that of the Venus de Milo? The truth is not in dialectical subtleties, but in the living truth of what you are discussing. It cannot be said that people are evil by nature, and therefore one cannot accept for literary works principles such as, for example, that vice always triumphs and virtue is punished.”
“The writer has so far been given a small role in this movement of humanity towards natural principles,” writes Dobrolyubov, after which he recalls Shakespeare, who “moved the general consciousness of people to several levels to which no one had risen before him.” Next, the author turns to other critical articles about “The Thunderstorm,” in particular, by Apollo Grigoriev, who argues that Ostrovsky’s main merit lies in his “nationality.” “But Mr. Grigoriev does not explain what nationality consists of, and therefore his remark seemed very funny to us.”
Then Dobrolyubov comes to define Ostrovsky’s plays in general as “plays of life”: “We want to say that with him the general situation of life is always in the foreground. He punishes neither the villain nor the victim. You see that their situation dominates them, and you only blame them for not showing enough energy to get out of this situation. And that’s why we never dare to consider as unnecessary and superfluous those characters in Ostrovsky’s plays who do not directly participate in the intrigue. From our point of view, these persons are just as necessary for the play as the main ones: they show us the environment in which the action takes place, they depict the situation that determines the meaning of the activities of the main characters in the play.”
In “The Thunderstorm” the need for “unnecessary” persons (minor and episodic characters) is especially visible. Dobrolyubov analyzes the remarks of Feklusha, Glasha, Dikiy, Kudryash, Kuligin, etc. The author analyzes the internal state of the heroes of the “dark kingdom”: “everything is somehow restless, it’s not good for them. Besides them, without asking them, another life has grown up, with different beginnings, and although it is not yet clearly visible, it is already sending bad visions to the dark tyranny of tyrants. And Kabanova is very seriously upset about the future of the old order, with which she has outlived the century. She foresees their end, tries to maintain their significance, but already feels that there is no former respect for them and that at the first opportunity they will be abandoned.”
Then the author writes that “The Thunderstorm” is “Ostrovsky’s most decisive work; mutual relations of tyranny are brought to the most tragic consequences; and for all that, most of those who have read and seen this play agree that there is even something refreshing and encouraging in “The Thunderstorm”. This “something” is, in our opinion, the background of the play, indicated by us and revealing the precariousness and the near end of tyranny. Then the very character of Katerina, drawn against this background, also breathes on us with new life, which is revealed to us in her very death.”
Further, Dobrolyubov analyzes the image of Katerina, perceiving it as “a step forward in all of our literature”: “Russian life has reached the point where the need for more active and energetic people was felt.” The image of Katerina “is unswervingly faithful to the instinct of natural truth and selfless in the sense that it is better for him to die than to live under those principles that are disgusting to him. In this integrity and harmony of character lies his strength. Free air and light, contrary to all the precautions of dying tyranny, burst into Katerina’s cell, she strives for a new life, even if she has to die in this impulse. What does death matter to her? All the same, she does not consider life to be the vegetation that befell her in the Kabanov family.”
The author analyzes in detail the motives of Katerina’s actions: “Katerina does not at all belong to the violent character, dissatisfied, who loves to destroy. On the contrary, this is a predominantly creative, loving, ideal character. That's why she tries to ennoble everything in her imagination. The feeling of love for a person, the need for tender pleasures naturally opened up in the young woman.” But it won’t be Tikhon Kabanov, who is “too downtrodden to understand the nature of Katerina’s emotions: “If I don’t understand you, Katya,” he tells her, “then you won’t get a word from you, let alone affection, otherwise you yourself you’re climbing.” This is how spoiled natures usually judge a strong and fresh nature.”
Dobrolyubov comes to the conclusion that in the image of Katerina, Ostrovsky embodied a great popular idea: “in other creations of our literature, strong characters are like fountains, dependent on an extraneous mechanism. Katerina is like a big river: a flat, good bottom - it flows calmly, large stones are encountered - it jumps over them, a cliff - it cascades, they dam it - it rages and breaks through in another place. It bubbles not because the water suddenly wants to make noise or get angry at obstacles, but simply because it needs it to fulfill its natural requirements - for further flow.”
Analyzing Katerina's actions, the author writes that he considers the escape of Katerina and Boris possible as the best solution. Katerina is ready to flee, but here another problem emerges - Boris’s financial dependence on his uncle Dikiy. “We said a few words above about Tikhon; Boris is the same, in essence, only educated.”
At the end of the play, “we are pleased to see Katerina’s deliverance - even through death, if it is impossible otherwise. Living in the “dark kingdom” is worse than death.
Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life and a great ability to depict sharply and vividly its most significant aspects.
Carefully considering the totality of his works, we find that the instinct for the true needs and aspirations of Russian life never left him; it sometimes did not appear at first glance, but was always at the root of his works. You find the demand for law, respect for the individual, protest against violence and arbitrariness in many literary works; but in them, for the most part, the matter is not carried out in a vital, practical way; the abstract, philosophical side of the question is felt and everything is deduced from it, the right is indicated, but the real possibility is left without attention. This is not the case with Ostrovsky: with him you find not only the moral, but also the everyday economic side of the issue, and this is the essence of the matter. In him you clearly see how tyranny rests on a thick purse, which is called “God’s blessing,” and how people’s irresponsibility to it is determined by their material dependence on it. Moreover, you see how this material side dominates the abstract side in all everyday relations and how people deprived of material security value abstract rights little and even lose a clear consciousness of them. In fact, a well-fed person can reason calmly and intelligently whether he should eat such and such a dish; but a hungry man strives for food, wherever he sees it and whatever it may be. Thus, the struggle takes place in Ostrovsky’s plays not in the monologues of the characters, but in the facts that dominate them. Outsiders have a reason for their appearance and even turn out to be necessary for the completeness of the play. 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, and, consequently, the degree of our participation in them. Katerina 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 to justify the heroism that is manifested in her actions. She doesn’t complain about anyone, doesn’t blame anyone, and nothing like that even comes to her mind. There is no malice in her, no contempt, nothing that is usually so flaunted by disappointed heroes who voluntarily leave the world. 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! ... 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. This end seems joyful 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 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. Dobrolyubov rated Ostrovsky very highly, finding that he was very fully and comprehensively able to depict the essential aspects and requirements of Russian life. Some authors took private phenomena, temporary, external demands of society and depicted them with greater or lesser success. Ostrovsky’s work is more fruitful: he captured such common aspirations and needs that permeate all Russian society
Even before “The Thunderstorm” was released, we examined other works by Ostrovsky in the article, and came to the conclusion that this author deeply understands the life of the people. At first we didn’t want to write anything about “The Thunderstorm”, since we would have to repeat ourselves, but after reading the controversy of critics, we decided that it was still worth expressing some thoughts on this matter.
Colleagues criticize us for studying a work first and then proceeding to analyze it. While they first determine what should be present in what is written, and then evaluate it according to their criteria.
But criticism is intended to facilitate perception, to force the reader to think, and not to check compliance with standards!
If you study “The Thunderstorm” according to their laws, it turns out that in it, as it should be, there is a struggle between a sense of duty and passion. However, drama does not inspire respect for duty. On the contrary, we empathize with the main character and justify her vice. There are also “shortcomings” in the artistic part: the lack of motivation for Katerina’s feelings and actions, the duality of the intrigue, the action being loaded with unnecessary people, the non-literary language. But we believe that the main criterion for evaluating a work is the extent to which it serves to express the aspirations of the time and the people. All virtues are worthless if there is no truth. Ostrovsky was able to express the main aspirations and needs that permeate Russian society. Having drawn a false relationship - arbitrariness on the one hand and ignorance of one's own rights on the other, he demands respect for a person.
Ostrovsky's works are not comedies of intrigue or character, but plays of life. He always justifies both the villain and the victim, and the main evil in dramas is the system. After all, his tyrants are even virtuous in their own way. They were only placed in conditions under which normal moral development was impossible. In order to understand what these conditions are, we need “extra” characters.
Kalinov is a quiet, beautiful town. No interests of the world reach him, and if they do, it is only thanks to wanderers whose stories cannot inspire a desire to change anything. Feklusha tells how outside of Kalinov everything happens against the will of the Lord, and only this city is a blessed corner.
Kalinov's law and logic - the absence of law and logic. This is anarchy, in which one part of society meekly endures all the outrages of the other. However, members of the “dark kingdom” begin to feel some kind of causeless anxiety. It seems that everything is the same, but a new life with new ideals is breaking out from under their yoke. People allow themselves to think differently. Kabanikha sees that her son and daughter-in-law do not follow traditions, scolds them, but no longer demands, but asks Katerina to howl on the porch. However, it is very difficult for Kabanova to partially renounce “empty forms” while maintaining actual power in the family. After all, she understands that the last moments of her greatness have come, and she is strong only as long as the regiments are afraid of her. The views of the Wild One contradict human logic. Hence his constant dissatisfaction. He is sometimes aware of his own absurdity, but shifts the blame to his character. All this shows that the merchant’s rage is not particularly scary. All this makes it possible to feel how precarious the position of the Wild and Kabanovs is. Hence the suspicion and pickiness. Knowing deep down that they have nothing to respect, they show their lack of self-confidence through pettiness and constant reminders that they need to be respected.
We see that, despite all the drama, this is a hopeful work, because its background reveals the precariousness of inhuman orders. The character of the main character is also bright. He is faithful to the instinct of natural truth, filled with faith in new ideals. He is guided not by abstract ideas of the mind, but by human nature itself. It is also important that Ostrovsky presented such a character in a female person, because the strongest protest rises from the chests of the weak, and the position of women in Rus' has always been the most difficult.
Upbringing did not give Katerina anything - in her mother’s house everything was the same as in Kalinov. Only then she knew how to reconcile any external dissonance with internal harmony. In the environment of a new family, where everything seems to be out of captivity, she can no longer romanticize the surrounding reality. Real desires have awakened in her - love and devotion, and everything disappears before the power of internal attraction. Natural aspirations triumph over her. Katerina goes to the end and dies, not thinking about high selflessness.
Such a release is sad, but this is the strength of her character. If it is impossible to reconcile her nature, she could run away with Boris, but he turns out to be as dependent as Tikhon. Education took away from him the opportunity to commit nasty things, but did not give him the ability to resist them. The tragedy of such people is even more terrible - it is the painful internal decay of a person who does not have the strength to free himself from a world where the living envy the dead.
