Dark Kingdom article quotes about Katerina. Katerina is a ray of light in a dark kingdom (Option: Theme of conscience in Russian literature). Several interesting essays

The title of an article (1859) by critic and publicist Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov (1836-1861), dedicated to the analysis of A. N. Ostrovsky’s play “The Thunderstorm”.

Taking advantage of the pictures of merchant tyranny depicted by the playwright as a reason, N. A. Dobrolyubov likens all of feudal Russia with its ignorance and rude morals to the “dark kingdom,” “a stinking dungeon,” “a world of dull aching pain, a world of prison, deathly silence.” The critic writes: “Nothing holy, nothing pure, nothing right in this dark world: the tyranny that dominates it, wild, insane, wrong, has driven away all consciousness of honor and right... And they cannot exist where it is thrown into the dust and insolently human dignity, personal freedom, faith in love and happiness and the sanctity of honest labor have been trampled by tyrants.”

A. N. Ostrovsky himself gives the following definition of the “dark kingdom” through the lips of Dosuzhev, one of the heroes of his other play, “Hard Days” (act. 1, episode 2): “...I live in the part where the days are divided into light and heavy; where people are firmly convinced that the earth stands on three fish and that, according to the latest information, it seems that one is beginning to move: that means things are bad;

where people get sick from the evil eye and are cured by sympathy; where there are astronomers who watch comets and look at two people on the moon; where there is its own policy, and dispatches are also received, but more and more from White Arabia and the countries adjacent to it.”

Allegorically: dark and inert social environment (disapproved).

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

Notes:

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

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

depends on the position that inevitably falls to her lot between these

persons, in the way of life that was established under their influence. "Thunderstorm" exists, without

doubts, Ostrovsky's most decisive work;

mutual relations

tyranny and voicelessness are brought to the most tragic consequences;

and for all that, most of those who have read and seen this play agree that

it produces an impression less heavy and sad than other plays

Ostrovsky (not to mention, of course, his sketches of purely comic

character). There is even something refreshing and encouraging in "The Thunderstorm". It is something"

and there is, in our opinion, the background of the play, indicated by us and revealing

precariousness and the near end of tyranny. Then the very character of Katerina,

drawn against this background, also breathes on us a new life that opens

us in its 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 activity, but

and in all our literature. It corresponds to the new phase of our folk

life, he had long demanded his fulfillment in literature, around him

could not comprehend and feel its essence; managed to do it

Ostrovsky. Not a single one of the critics on "The Thunderstorm" wanted or was able to imagine

proper assessment of this character; therefore we decide to extend our

article in order to state with some detail how we understand

Katerina’s character and why we consider its creation so important for our

literature.

The Russian strong character is not understood and expressed in the same way in The Thunderstorm. He before

everything strikes us with its opposition to all tyrant principles. Not with

instinct of violence and destruction, but not with practical dexterity to settle

for high purposes, your own affairs, not with meaningless, boring

pathos, but not with diplomatic, pedantic calculation, he appears before

us. No, he is concentrated and decisive, unswervingly true to his natural instincts.

truth, full of faith in new ideals and selfless, in the sense that he

Better death than life under those principles that are disgusting to him. It's common

not by abstract principles, not by practical considerations, not by immediate

pathos, but simply by nature, with his whole being. In this wholeness and harmony

character lies in its strength and its essential necessity at that time,

when old, wild relationships, having lost all inner strength, continue

hold on by external, mechanical connection. A person who only understands logically

the absurdity of the tyranny of the Dikikhs and Kabanovs will not do anything against them

because before them all logic disappears; you are not using any syllogisms

convince the chain so that it falls apart on the prisoner, the fist so that there is no harm from him

painfully nailed; So you won’t convince the Wild One to act more wisely, but not

convince his family not to listen to his whims: he will beat them all up, yes

and just what are you going to do about it? It is obvious that characters who are strong alone

logical side, must develop very poorly and have a very weak

influence on life activities where all life is not controlled by logic,

but pure arbitrariness.

Decisive, integral Russian character, acting among the Wild and

Kabanov, is Ostrovsky’s female type, and this is not without its

of serious significance. It is known that extremes are reflected by extremes and that

the strongest protest is the one that finally rises from the chest of the most

weak and patient.

Thus, the emergence of the feminine energetic character is quite

corresponds to the situation to which tyranny has been brought in drama

Ostrovsky. In the situation represented by "Thunderstorm", it has reached an extreme,

to the point of denying all common sense; it is more hostile than ever

natural demands of humanity and is stronger than ever

stop their development, because in their triumph he sees the approach of his

imminent death. Through this, it even more causes murmuring and protest even in

the weakest creatures.

This is the basis of all the actions of the character depicted in The Thunderstorm. The basis

this is more reliable than all possible theories and pathos, because it lies in the very

essence of this situation, attracts a person to the task irresistibly, does not depend on

one or another ability or impression in particular, but relies on the whole

the complexity of the body's requirements, on the development of the entire human nature. Now

It’s interesting how such a character develops and manifests itself in private

cases. We can trace his development through Katerina's personality.

First of all, you are struck by the extraordinary originality of this

character. There is nothing external or alien in him, but everything comes out somehow from within.

his; every impression is processed in it and then merges with it

organically. We see this, for example, in Katerina’s simple-minded story about

his childhood and life in his mother’s house.

It turns out that

her upbringing and young life gave her nothing; it was the same at her mother's house,

like the Kabanovs: they went to church, sewed gold on velvet, listened

stories of wanderers, dined, walked around the garden, again talked with the praying mantises and

prayed themselves... After listening to Katerina’s story, Varvara, her husband’s sister,

He remarks in surprise: “But it’s the same with us.” But the difference is determined

Katerina very quickly in five words: “Yes, everything here seems to be from under

bondage!" And further conversation shows that in all this appearance,

which is so commonplace everywhere, Katerina knew how to find her special

meaning, apply it to your needs and aspirations before it becomes overwhelming

her heavy hand Kabanikha. Katerina is not at all one of the violent ones

characters who are never satisfied, who love to destroy at all costs...

On the contrary, this is a predominantly creative, loving, ideal character. Here

why she tries to comprehend and ennoble everything in her imagination; That

a 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. Any

she tries to reconcile external dissonance with the harmony of her soul, every

the stories and senseless ravings of wanderers turn into gold,

poetic dreams of the imagination, not frightening, but clear, kind. Poor her

images, because the materials presented to her by reality are so

monotonous: but even with these meager means her imagination works

tirelessly and takes her to a new world, quiet and bright. It's not rituals that occupy her

churches: she doesn’t even hear what they sing and read there; she has a different soul

music, other visions, for her the service ends imperceptibly, as if in one

give me a sec. She looks at the trees, strangely drawn on the images, and

imagines a whole country of gardens, where there are all these trees and everything is in bloom,

it smells fragrant, everything is full of heavenly singing. Otherwise she will see on a sunny day how

"from the dome there is such a light column going down and in this column there is smoke, as if

clouds,” and now she sees, “as if angels are flying and singing in this pillar.”

Sometimes she will present herself - why shouldn’t she fly? and when standing on the mountain,

then she’s drawn to fly: she’d run up like that, raise her arms, and

flew. She is strange, extravagant from the point of view of others; but this

because she cannot in any way accept their views and inclinations.

She takes materials from them because there is nowhere else to get them from; but doesn't take it

conclusions, but searches for them herself and often comes to the wrong conclusion.

they calm down. We notice a similar attitude towards external impressions in

another environment, in people who, by their upbringing, are accustomed to abstract

reasoning and ability to analyze their feelings. The whole difference is that

Katerina, as a direct, lively person, everything is done according to desire

nature, without a distinct consciousness, but in people who are theoretically developed and strong

Logic and analysis play a major role in the mind. Strong minds are what make the difference

that inner strength that gives them the opportunity not to succumb to ready

views and systems, and create their own views and conclusions based on

live impressions. They don't reject anything at first, but they don't reject anything

stop, but only take note of everything and process

in my own way. Katerina presents us with similar results, although she

does not resonate and does not even understand her own feelings, but lives directly

in kind. In the dry, monotonous life of his youth, in the rude and superstitious

concepts of the environment, she was constantly able to take what agreed with her

natural aspirations for beauty, harmony, contentment, happiness. IN

in the conversations of the wanderers, in the prostrations and lamentations she saw not dead

form, but something else that her heart was constantly striving for. Based

with them she built her own ideal world, without passions, without need, without grief,

a world entirely dedicated to goodness and pleasure. But what is the real good and

true pleasure for a person, she could not determine for herself; that's why

these sudden impulses of some unaccountable, unclear aspirations, about which she

recalls: “Sometimes, it happened, early in the morning I’d go to the garden, it was still just sunny

rises, - I fall to my knees, I pray and cry, and I myself don’t know what I’m praying for and

what am I crying about? that's how they'll find me. And what did I pray for then, what did I ask for - not

I know; I don't need anything, I had enough of everything." Poor girl, no

received a broad theoretical education, not knowing everything that

the world is done, not understanding well even its own

needs, cannot, of course, give herself an idea of ​​what she needs.

For now she lives with her mother, in complete freedom, without any worldly cares,

while the needs and passions of an adult have not yet emerged in her, she

does not even know how to distinguish his own dreams, his inner world -

from external impressions. Losing yourself among the praying mantises in your rosy thoughts and

Walking in her bright kingdom, she still thinks that her contentment is happening

precisely from these praying mantises, from the lamps lit in all corners of the house, from

lamentations heard around her; with her feelings she animates the dead

the environment in which he lives, and merges with it the inner world of his soul. This

the period of childhood, which for many lasts a long time, a very long time, but still has

your end. If the end comes very late, if a person begins

understand what he needs only when most of his life has been lived out - in

In this case, he has almost nothing left except regret that so

For a long time he mistook his own dreams for reality. He is then

in the sad position of a man who, having endowed in his imagination with all

possible perfections of his beauty and having connected his life with her, suddenly

notices that all perfections existed only in his imagination, and in

she herself has no trace of them. But strong characters rarely succumb to this

decisive misconception: they have a very strong demand for clarity and

reality, which is why they do not dwell on uncertainties and try

get out of them at any cost. Noticing their dissatisfaction, they

they try to drive him away; but, seeing that it does not pass, they end up giving

complete freedom to express new demands arising in the soul, and then

they will not rest until they achieve their satisfaction. And here is life itself

comes to the rescue - for some it is favorable, by expanding the circle of impressions,

and for others it is difficult and bitter - with constraints and worries that destroy

harmonious harmony of young fantasies. The last path fell to the lot

Katerina, how it falls to the lot of most people in the “dark kingdom”

Dikikh and Kabanov.

In the gloomy atmosphere of the new family, Katerina began to feel

the insufficiency of appearance, which I thought I would be content with before. Under

with the heavy hand of the soulless Kabanikha there is no scope for her bright visions, just as there is no

freedom for her feelings. In a fit of tenderness for her husband, she wants to hug him, -

The old woman shouts: “Why are you hanging on your neck, shameless one? Bow down at your feet!” To her

I want to stay alone and be sad quietly, as before, and my mother-in-law

says: “Why don’t you howl?” She is looking for light, air, wants to dream and

frolic, water your flowers, look at the sun, the Volga, send your

hello to all living things - but she is kept in captivity, she is constantly suspected

unclean, depraved intentions. She still seeks refuge in religious

practice, in going to church, in soul-saving conversations; but not here either

finds already previous impressions. Killed by the day's work and eternal bondage,

she can no longer dream with the same clarity of angels singing in the dusty

pillar illuminated by the sun, cannot imagine the gardens of Eden with their

unperturbed look and joy. Everything is gloomy, scary around her, everything is blowing

cold and some kind of irresistible threat: the faces of the saints are so stern, and

church readings are so formidable, and the stories of wanderers are so monstrous... They are all the same

in essence, they have not changed at all, but she herself has changed: in her there is already

there is no desire to build aerial visions, and it doesn’t satisfy her

a vague imagination of the bliss she had previously enjoyed. She

she matured, other desires awoke in her, more real ones; not knowing otherwise

field, besides the family, another world, besides the one that has developed for her in

society of her town, she, of course, begins to realize from everyone

of human aspirations is that which is most inevitable and closest to it -

desire for love and devotion. In the old days her heart was too full

dreams, she did not pay attention to the young people who looked at her

looked at it, but just laughed. Marrying Tikhon Kabanov, she and him

she didn’t love, she still didn’t understand this feeling; they told her that everyone

the girl needs to get married, they showed Tikhon as her future husband, so she went

for him, remaining completely indifferent to this step. And here too

a character trait manifests itself: according to our usual concepts, she would

one should have resisted if she had a decisive character; but she doesn't even think about

resistance because it does not have sufficient grounds for this. She doesn't

there is no particular desire to get married, but there is no aversion to marriage; not in it

love for Tikhon, but no love for anyone else. She doesn't care for now, that's it

that's why she allows you to do whatever you want to her. You can't see anything in this

powerlessness, no apathy, but one can only find a lack of experience, and even

too much willingness to do everything for others, with little concern for oneself. U

she has little knowledge and a lot of gullibility, but father, for the time being she will not

shows opposition to others and decides to endure rather than

to spite them.

But when she understands what she needs and wants to achieve something, then

will achieve her goal at all costs: this is where her strength will fully manifest itself

character, not wasted in petty antics. First, by innate

kindness and nobility of her soul, she will make every possible effort,

so as not to disturb the peace and rights of others, in order to get what you want as possible

great compliance with all the requirements that people impose on her,

anything related to her; and if they manage to take advantage of it

initial mood and decide to give her complete satisfaction - good

then for her and for them. But if not, she will stop at nothing: the law,

kinship, custom, human court, rules of prudence - everything disappears for her

before the power of internal attraction; she does not spare herself and does not think about others.

This was exactly the way out that Katerina presented herself with, and nothing else could have been expected.

among the environment in which she is located.

A feeling of love for a person, a desire to find a related response in another

heart, the need for tender pleasures naturally opened in

young woman and changed her previous, vague and ethereal dreams.

“At night, Varya, I can’t sleep,” she says, “I keep imagining some whisper

then: someone speaks to me so affectionately, like a dove cooing. I'm not dreaming anymore

To me, Varya, as before, the trees of paradise and the mountains; and someone is definitely hugging me

so hot, so hot and leads me somewhere, and I follow him, I go..." She realized

and caught these dreams quite late; but, of course, they pursued

tormented her long before she herself could give herself an account of them. At

at their first appearance, she immediately turned her feeling to the fact that only

it was closer to her - to her husband. For a long time she tried to unite her soul with him,

to convince herself that she doesn’t need anything with him, that in him there is bliss,

which she is so anxiously searching for. She looked at him with fear and bewilderment.

the opportunity to seek mutual love in someone other than him. In the play that

finds Katerina already with the beginning of her love for Boris Grigorych, still visible

Katerina’s last, desperate efforts are to make her husband cute. Scene

her farewell to him makes us feel that all is not lost for

the scene, in short but sharp sketches, conveys to us the whole story of torture,

which forced Katerina to endure in order to push away her first feeling from

husband Tikhon is simple-minded and vulgar here, not at all evil, but

extreme characterless creature, not daring to do anything in spite of

mother. And the mother is a soulless creature, a fist-woman, imprisoned in Chinese

ceremonies - love, religion, and morality. Between her and between his

his wife Tikhon represents one of the many pathetic types who

are usually called harmless, although in a general sense they are just as

harmful, like the tyrants themselves, because they serve as their faithful assistants. Tikhon

he himself loved his wife and would be ready to do anything for her; but the oppression under which

he grew up, he was so disfigured that there was no strong feeling in him, no

there cannot be a decisive desire to develop. He has a conscience, he has a desire

good, but he constantly acts against himself and serves as a submissive instrument

mother, even in his relationship to his wife. Even in the first scene of his appearance

of the Kabanov family on the boulevard we see what Katerina’s position is between

husband and mother-in-law. Kabanikha scolds her son that his wife is not afraid of him; he decides

object: “Why should she be afraid? It’s enough for me that she

loves." The old woman immediately jumps up at him: "Why, why be afraid? How,

why be afraid! Are you crazy, or what? He won't be afraid of you, me or

Even more so: what kind of order will there be in the house! After all, you, tea, are in law with her

you live. Ali, in your opinion, the law means nothing?" Under such principles,

Of course, the feeling of love in Katerina does not find scope and hides inside

her, manifesting itself only at times in convulsive outbursts. But even with these impulses

the husband does not know how to use it: he is too downtrodden to understand the power of her passionate

languor. “I can’t understand you, Katya,” he tells her: “there’s no word from you.”

you'll get, let alone affection, otherwise you'll climb on your own." That's how ordinary people usually

and spoiled natures judge a strong and fresh nature: they, judging by themselves, do not

understand the feelings that are hidden in the depths of the soul, and all

concentration is mistaken for apathy; when finally, without being in

able to hide longer, inner strength will flow from the soul wide and fast

flow - they are surprised and consider it some kind of trick, a whim, like

how sometimes they themselves have the fantasy of falling into pathos or carousing. A

Meanwhile, these impulses constitute a necessity in a strong nature and are therefore

It’s more striking how long it takes them to find a way out. They are unintentional, not

thought out, but caused by natural necessity. The power of nature that doesn't exist

the opportunity to develop actively, is expressed passively - by patience,

restraint. But just don’t confuse this patience with that which

comes from the weak development of personality in a person and which ends up

that gets used to insults and hardships of all kinds.

No, Katerina is not

will never get used to them; she still doesn’t know what and how she will decide, she

does not violate his duties to his mother-in-law in any way, does everything possible to

it’s good to get along with her husband, but it’s clear that she feels her way

situation and that she is drawn to break out of it. She never complains, no

scolds mother-in-law; the old woman herself cannot bear this on her; and yet

mother-in-law feels that Katerina is doing something inappropriate for her,

hostile. Tikhon, who is afraid of his mother like fire and, moreover, is no different

special delicacy and tenderness, however, he is ashamed of his wife when

by order of his mother, he must punish her so that without him she “should not look into the windows

stared" and "didn't look at young guys." He sees that it's bitter

insults her with such speeches, although he cannot properly understand her condition.

After his mother leaves the room, he consoles his wife in this way: “everything is to the heart.”

take it, you'll soon end up in consumption. Why listen to her? She

something needs to be said. Well, let her talk and you turn a deaf ear

let me pass!" This indifference is definitely bad and hopeless; but Katerina

can never reach it; although in appearance she is even smaller

is upset than Tikhon, complains less, but in essence she suffers

much more. Tikhon also feels that he does not have something he needs; in him

there is also dissatisfaction; but it is in him to the extent to which,

depraved imagination. He can't push very hard

independence and his rights - already because he does not know what’s wrong with them

do; his desire is more cerebral, external, but his actual nature,

succumbing to the pressure of upbringing, she remained almost deaf to the natural

aspirations. Therefore, the very search for freedom in him takes on an ugly character.

and becomes disgusting, like the cynicism of a ten-year-old boy is disgusting, without meaning

and the internal need of repeating the nasty things heard from big ones. Tikhon,

you see, I heard from someone that he is “also a man” and therefore should be in the family

have a certain amount of power and importance; that's why he puts himself much higher

wife and, believing that God had destined her to endure and humble herself,

The position under the mother's command is viewed as bitter and humiliating. Then,

he is inclined towards revelry, and it is in this that he primarily places freedom: exactly

like the same boy who does not know how to comprehend the real essence, why it is so sweet

woman's love, and knowing only the external side of the matter, which he and

turns into greasy: Tikhon, getting ready to leave, with shameless cynicism

says to his wife, begging him to take her with him: “out of such captivity from

You can run away with whatever beautiful wife you want! Just think: no matter what, I

after all, he’s a man - live like this all your life, as you see, you’ll run away from

wives. How do I know now that there won’t be any thunderstorms for two weeks,

There are no shackles on my legs, so what do I care about my wife?" Katerina can only

answer him to this: “how can I love you when you say such words

you say?" But Tikhon does not understand the full importance of this gloomy and decisive

reproach; like a man who has already waved his hand at his reason, he answers

casually: “words are like words! What other words should I say!” - And

is in a hurry to get rid of his wife. What for? What does he want to do, what to take

soul, breaking free? He himself later tells Kuligin about this: “on

Mama read and read instructions to me along the way, and as soon as I left,

went on a spree. I’m very glad that I broke free. And he drank all the way, and in Moscow

I drank everything; so this is a bunch of whatever. So that for a whole year

take a walk!..” That’s all! And I must say that in the old days, when

consciousness of the individual and his rights has not risen in the majority, almost only

Protests against tyrant oppression were limited to such antics. Yes and

Nowadays you can still find many Tikhons, reveling in, if not wine, then

with some reasoning and speeches and taking away the soul in the noise of verbal

orgy. These are the people who constantly complain about their cramped

position, and meanwhile are infected with the proud thought of their privileges and their

superiority over others: “no matter what I am, I’m still a man,” so

what is it like for me to endure." That is: "you endure, because you are a woman, and a herd

be rubbish, but I need freedom - not because it was human,

natural requirement, but because these are the rights of my privileged

persons"... It is clear that from such people and manners it has never been wet or

nothing may come of it.

But the new movement of people's life, which we are talking about, is not like them

spoke above and which was reflected in the character of Katerina. In this

personality we see already matured, emerging from the depths of the whole organism

demand for right and space in life. There is no longer imagination, no hearsay, no

an artificially excited impulse appears to us, and a vital necessity

nature. Katerina is not capricious, does not flirt with her discontent and

anger - this is not in her nature; she doesn't want to impress others,

show off and boast. On the contrary, she lives very peacefully and is ready for anything.

to submit, whatever is not contrary to her nature; her principle, if she could

to recognize and define it, it would be that as little as possible of its personality

to embarrass others and disturb the general course of affairs. But, recognizing and respecting

aspirations of others, she demands the same respect for herself, and any violence,

any constraint outrages her deeply, deeply. If she could, she would

I drove away from myself everything that lives wrong and harms others; but not

being able to do this, she goes the opposite way - she herself runs away from

destroyers and offenders. Just not to obey their principles, contrary to your own

nature, just not to come to terms with their unnatural demands, and then what

June 09 2012

Speaking about how “the strong Russian character is understood and expressed in “The Thunderstorm,” Dobrolyubov in the article “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom” rightly noted “focused determination.” However, in determining its origins, he completely abandoned the spirit and letter of Ostrovsky’s tragedy. Is it possible to agree that “her upbringing and her youth gave her nothing”? Without the heroine's 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 deserving her religious culture of enlightened attention, Dobrolyubov reasoned: “Nature here replaces both considerations of reason and the demands of feeling and imagination.” Where in Ostrovsky folk religion triumphs, in Dobrolyubov an abstractly understood nature sticks out. Katerina’s youth, according to Ostrovsky, is the morning of nature, the solemn sunrise, bright hopes and joyful prayers. Katerina’s youth, according to Dobrolyubov, is “the senseless ravings of wanderers,” “a dry and monotonous life.” Having replaced culture with kind, Dobrolyubov did not feel the main thing - the fundamental difference between Katerina’s religiosity and the Kabanovs’ religiosity. The critic, of course, did not ignore that in the Kabanovs “everything emanates coldness and some kind of irresistible threat: the faces of the saints are so stern, and the church readings are so menacing, and the stories of the wanderers are so monstrous.” But what did he connect this change with? With Katerina's mood. “They are still the same,” that is, in the heroine’s youth the same “Domostroy”, “they have not changed at all, but she herself has changed: she no longer has the desire to build aerial visions.” But in tragedy it’s the other way around! “Aerial visions” just broke out in Katerina under the yoke of the Kabanovs: “Why don’t people fly!”

And, of course, in the Kabanovs’ house one encounters a decisive “wrong”: “Everything here seems to have come from under captivity,” here the life-loving generosity of the Christian worldview has evaporated, here it has died. Even the pilgrims in the Kabanovs’ house are different, from among those bigots who “due to their weakness did not walk far, but heard a lot.” And they talk about “the last times,” about the imminent end of the world. Here reigns a religiosity distrustful of life, which plays into the hands of the pillars of society, who greet the living life that has broken through the Domostroevsky dams with an angry grumble. Perhaps the main mistake in Katerina’s stage interpretations was and remains the desire to either blur her key monologues or give them an overly mystical meaning. In one of the classic productions of “The Thunderstorm,” where Strepetova played Katerina and Kudrina played Varvara, the action unfolded in sharp contrast between the heroines. Strepetova played a religious fanatic, Kudrina - an earthly, cheerful and reckless girl. There was some one-sidedness here. After all, Katerina is also earthly; no less, but rather more deeply than Varvara, she feels the beauty and fullness of being: “And such a thought will come to me that, if it were my will, I would now ride along the Volga, on a boat, with songs, or in a troika on good, hugging…” Only the earthly in Katerina is more poetic and subtle, more warmed by the warmth of moral Christian truth. It triumphs in the love of life of the people, who sought in religion not the denial of the earth with its joys, but its sanctification and spiritualization.

“...Shortly before the appearance of “The Thunderstorm” on the 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...”

* * *

The given introductory fragment of the book A ray of light in the dark kingdom (N. A. Dobrolyubov, 1860) provided by our book partner - the company liters.

(“The Thunderstorm”, drama in five acts by A. N. Ostrovsky. St. Petersburg, 1860)

Shortly before “The Thunderstorm” appeared 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 (1). The “thunderstorm” soon served as new proof of the validity of our conclusion. We wanted to talk about it at the same time, but felt that we would have to repeat many of our previous considerations, and therefore decided to remain silent about “The Thunderstorm,” leaving the readers who asked our opinion to check on it those general remarks that we spoke about Ostrovsky several months before the appearance of this play. Our decision was confirmed in us even more when we saw that a number of large and small reviews appeared in all magazines and newspapers regarding “The Thunderstorm”, 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”.

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 in short words with some of the critics who have deigned us to 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 that must contained in the work (according to their concepts, of course) and to what extent all due really is in it (again in accordance with 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 the criticism of Ostrovsky’s comedies, 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: “This is the moral it contains, and this moral seems to us good or bad, and here’s why,” rather than deciding from the very beginning: this fable must 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. And yet, what is clearer, didn’t the Slavophiles say: it is necessary to 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 classified as 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” was written in order to arouse in us sympathy for Bolshov; therefore, the fourth act is superfluous!..(2) 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 therefore obvious that Ostrovsky, who takes the plot from common people’s life, is nothing more than a farcical writer... (3) 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, and 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 not important, and so on and so forth... (4)

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 this 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 of beauty were 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 Racine’s imitators and scolded Shakespeare as a drunken savage, following Voltaire, thought they were right, or worshiped the “Messiad” and on this basis rejected “Faust.” Routines, 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 or tomorrow, but still must recognize Francis as their king until his royal majesty is pleased to leave your capital.

We are surprised how respectable people dare to recognize such an insignificant, such a humiliating role for criticism. After all, by limiting it to the application of the “eternal and general” laws of art to particular and temporary phenomena, through this they condemn art to immobility, and give criticism a completely commanding and police meaning. And many do this from the bottom of their hearts! One of the authors about whom we expressed our opinion somewhat irreverently reminded us that disrespectful treatment of a judge by a judge is a crime (5). O naive author! How filled he is with the theories of Koshansky and Davydov! He takes quite seriously the vulgar metaphor that criticism is a tribunal before which authors appear as defendants! He probably also takes at face value the opinion that bad poetry constitutes a sin against Apollo and that bad writers are drowned in the Lethe River as punishment!.. Otherwise, how can one not see the difference between a critic and a judge? People are brought to court on suspicion of a misdemeanor or crime, and it is up to the judge to decide whether the accused is right or wrong; Is a writer really accused of anything when he is criticized? It seems that the times when book writing was considered a heresy and a crime are long gone. The critic speaks his mind, whether he likes or dislikes a thing; and since it is assumed that he is not an empty talker, but a reasonable person, he tries to present reasons why he considers one thing good and another bad. He does not consider his opinion a decisive verdict, binding on everyone; If we take a comparison from the legal sphere, then he is more of a lawyer than a judge. Having taken a certain point of view, which seems to him the most fair, he sets out to the readers the details of the case, as he understands it, and tries to instill in them his conviction in favor or against the author being analyzed. It goes without saying that he can use all the means that he finds suitable, as long as they do not distort the essence of the matter: he can bring you into horror or tenderness, into laughter or tears, force the author to make confessions that are unfavorable for him or bring it's impossible to answer. From criticism carried out in this way, the following result can occur: theorists, having consulted their textbooks, can still see whether the analyzed work is consistent with their fixed laws, and, playing the role of judges, decide whether the author is right or wrong. But it is known that in public proceedings there are often cases when those present in court are far from sympathetic to the decision that is pronounced by the judge in accordance with such and such articles of the code: public conscience reveals in these cases a complete discord with the articles of the law. The same thing can happen even more often when discussing literary works: and when the critic-advocate properly poses the question, groups the facts and throws the light of a certain conviction on them, public opinion, not paying attention to the codes of literature, will already know what it wants hold on.

If we look closely at the definition of criticism as a “trial” of authors, we will find that it is very reminiscent of the concept that is associated with the word "criticism" our provincial ladies and young ladies, and which our novelists used to make fun of so wittily. Even today it is not uncommon to meet families who look at the writer with some fear, because he “will write criticism on them.” The unfortunate provincials, who once had such a thought in their heads, really represent a pitiful spectacle of defendants, whose fate depends on the handwriting of the writer’s pen. They look into his eyes, are embarrassed, apologize, make reservations, as if they were really guilty, awaiting execution or mercy. But it must be said that such naive people are now beginning to appear in the most distant outbacks. At the same time, as the right to “dare to have your own judgment” ceases to be the property of only a certain rank or position, but becomes accessible to everyone, at the same time, in private life, more solidity and independence appears, less trepidation before any outside court. Now they express their opinion simply because it is better to declare it than to hide it, they express it because they consider the exchange of thoughts useful, they recognize everyone’s right to state their views and their demands, and finally, they even consider it the duty of everyone to participate in the general movement by reporting their observations and considerations that are within anyone's power. This is a long way from being a judge. If I tell you that you lost your handkerchief on the way or that you are going in the wrong direction where you need to go, etc., this does not mean that you are my defendant. In the same way, I will not be your defendant in the case when you begin to describe me, wanting to give an idea about me to your acquaintances. Entering a new society for the first time, I know very well that they are making observations about me and forming opinions about me; but should I really imagine myself in front of some kind of Areopagus - and tremble in advance, awaiting the verdict? Without any doubt, comments will be made about me: one will find that I have a big nose, another that my beard is red, a third that my tie is poorly tied, a fourth that I am gloomy, etc. Well, let them notice them, What do I care about that? After all, my red beard is not a crime, and no one can ask me why I dare to have such a big nose. So, there’s nothing for me to think about: whether I like my figure or not, it’s a matter of taste, and I can express an opinion about it I can’t forbid anyone; and on the other hand, it won’t hurt me if they notice my taciturnity, if I’m really silent. Thus, the first critical work (in our sense) - noticing and indicating facts - is performed completely freely and harmlessly. Then the other work - judging from facts - continues in the same way to keep the one who judges on a completely equal chance with the one he judges. This is because, when expressing his conclusion from known data, a person always exposes himself to judgment and the verification of others regarding the fairness and validity of his opinion. If, for example, someone, based on the fact that my tie is not tied very gracefully, decides that I am poorly brought up, then such a judge risks giving others a not very high understanding of his logic. Likewise, if some critic reproaches Ostrovsky for the fact that Katerina’s face in “The Thunderstorm” is disgusting and immoral, then he does not inspire much confidence in the purity of his own moral sense. Thus, as long as the critic points out the facts, analyzes them and draws his own conclusions, the author is safe and the matter itself is safe. Here you can only claim when a critic distorts facts and lies. And if he presents the matter correctly, then no matter what tone he speaks, no matter what conclusions he comes to, from his criticism, as from any free reasoning supported by facts, there will always be more benefit than harm - for the author himself, if he good, and in any case for literature - even if the author turns out to be bad. Criticism - not judicial, but ordinary, as we understand it - is good because it gives people who are not accustomed to focusing their thoughts on literature, so to speak, an extract of the writer and thus makes it easier to understand the nature and meaning of his works. And as soon as the writer is properly understood, an opinion about him will soon be formed and justice will be given to him, without any permission from the respectable compilers of the codes.

True, sometimes when explaining the character of a famous author or work, the critic himself can find in the work something that is not there at all. But in these cases the critic always gives himself away. If he decides to give the work he is examining a thought that is more lively and broader than what was actually laid down by its author, then, obviously, he will not be able to sufficiently confirm his thought with indications of the work itself, and thus criticism, having shown how it could If the work is analyzed, this will only show more clearly the poverty of its concept and the inadequacy of its execution. As an example of such criticism, one can point out, for example, Belinsky’s analysis of “Tarantas,” written with the most evil and subtle irony; This analysis was taken by many at face value, but even these many found that the meaning given to “Tarantas” by Belinsky is carried out very well in his criticism, but does not go well with the work of Count Sollogub itself (6). However, this kind of critical exaggeration is very rare. Much more often, another case is that the critic really does not understand the author being analyzed and deduces from his work something that does not follow at all. So here, too, the problem is not great: the critic’s method of reasoning will now show the reader with whom he is dealing, and if only the facts are present in the criticism, false reasoning will not deceive the reader. For example, one Mr. P—y, analyzing “The Thunderstorm,” decided to follow the same method that we followed in the articles about “The Dark Kingdom,” and, having outlined the essence of the content of the play, began to draw conclusions. It turned out, for his reasons, that Ostrovsky made Katerina laugh in The Thunderstorm, wanting to disgrace Russian mysticism in her person. Well, of course, having read such a conclusion, you now see to what category of minds Mr. P—y belongs and whether you can rely on his considerations. Such criticism will not confuse anyone, it is not dangerous to anyone...

A completely different matter is the criticism that approaches the authors, as if they were men brought into the recruit’s presence, with a uniform yardstick, and shouts first “forehead!”, then “back of the head!”, depending on whether the recruit fits the standard or not. There the punishment is short and decisive; and if you believe in the eternal laws of art, printed in the textbook, then you will not turn away from such criticism. She will prove to you with her fingers that what you admire is no good, and what makes you doze, yawn or get a migraine is a real treasure. Take, for example, “The Thunderstorm”: what is it? A blatant insult to art, nothing more - and this is very easy to prove. Open the “Readings on Literature” by the distinguished professor and academician Ivan Davydov, compiled by him with the help of a translation of Blair’s lectures, or take a look at Mr. Plaksin’s cadet literature course – the conditions for an exemplary drama are clearly defined there. 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. Strict unity and consistency must be observed in the development of the drama; the denouement should flow naturally and necessarily from the plot; each scene must certainly contribute to the movement of the action and move it towards the denouement; therefore, there should not be a single person in the play who would not directly and necessarily participate in the development of the drama, there should not be a single conversation that is not related to the essence of the play. The characters of the characters must be clearly defined, and in their discovery gradualness must be necessary, in accordance with the development of the action. The language must be consistent with the position of each person, but not move away from literary purity and not turn into vulgarity.

These seem to be all the main rules of drama. Let's apply them to "Thunderstorm".

The subject of the drama really represents the struggle in Katerina between the sense of duty of marital fidelity and passion for the young Boris Grigorievich. This means that the first requirement has been found. But then, starting from this requirement, we find that the other conditions of an exemplary drama are violated in the most cruel way in The Thunderstorm.

And, firstly, “The Thunderstorm” does not satisfy the most essential internal goal of the drama - to instill respect for moral duty and show the harmful consequences of being carried away by passion. Katerina, this immoral, shameless (in the apt expression of N. F. Pavlov) woman who ran out at night to her lover as soon as her husband left home, this criminal appears to us in the drama not only not in a sufficiently gloomy light, but even with some the radiance of martyrdom around the brow. She speaks so well, suffers so pitifully, everything around her is so bad that you have no indignation against her, you pity her, you arm yourself against her oppressors, and, in this way, justify vice in her person. Consequently, drama does not fulfill its high purpose and becomes, if not a harmful example, then at least an idle toy.

Further, from a purely artistic point of view, we also find very important shortcomings. The development of passion is not sufficiently represented: we do not see how Katerina’s love for Boris began and intensified and what exactly motivated it; therefore, the very struggle between passion and duty is not clearly and strongly indicated for us.

The unity of impression is also not respected: it is harmed by the admixture of a foreign element - Katerina’s relationship with her mother-in-law. The interference of the mother-in-law constantly prevents us from focusing our attention on the internal struggle that should be taking place in Katerina’s soul.

In addition, in Ostrovsky’s play we notice an error against the first and fundamental rules of any poetic work, unforgivable even for a novice author. This mistake is specifically called in the drama - “duality of intrigue”: here we see not one love, but two - Katerina’s love for Boris and Varvara’s love for Kudryash (7). This is good only in light French vaudeville, and not in serious drama, where the attention of the audience should not be entertained in any way.

The beginning and resolution also sin against the requirements of art. The plot lies in a simple case - the departure of the husband; the outcome is also completely random and arbitrary: this thunderstorm, which frightened Katerina and forced her to tell her husband everything, is nothing more than a deus ex machina, no worse than a vaudeville uncle from America.

All the action is sluggish and slow, because it is cluttered with scenes and faces that are completely unnecessary. Kudryash and Shapkin, Kuligin, Feklusha, the lady with two footmen, Dikoy himself - all these are persons who are not significantly connected with the basis of the play. Unnecessary people constantly enter the stage, say things that do not go to the point, and leave, again no one knows why or where. All Kuligin’s recitations, all the antics of Kudryash and Dikiy, not to mention the half-crazy lady and the conversations of city residents during a thunderstorm, could have been released without any damage to the essence of the matter.

We find almost no strictly defined and polished characters in this crowd of unnecessary persons, and there is nothing to ask about gradualism in their discovery. They appear to us directly ex abrupto, with labels. The curtain opens: Kudryash and Kuligin talk about what a scolder Dikaya is, after which Dikaya appears and swears behind the scenes... Kabanova too. In the same way, Kudryash makes it known from the first word that he is “dashing with girls”; and Kuligin, upon his very appearance, is recommended as a self-taught mechanic who admires nature. And so they remain with this until the very end: Dikoy swears, Kabanova grumbles, Kudryash walks at night with Varvara... But we do not see the complete comprehensive development of their characters in the entire play. The heroine herself is portrayed very unsuccessfully: apparently, the author himself did not clearly understand this character, because, without presenting Katerina as a hypocrite, he nevertheless forces her to pronounce sensitive monologues, but in fact shows her to us as a shameless woman, carried away by sensuality alone. There is nothing to say about the hero - he is so colorless. Dikoy and Kabanova themselves, characters most in Mr. Ostrovsky’s genre, represent (according to the happy conclusion of Mr. Akhsharumov or someone else like that) (8) a deliberate exaggeration, close to a libel, and give us not living faces, but “quintessence of ugliness” of Russian life.

Finally, the language in which the characters speak exceeds any patience of a well-bred person. Of course, merchants and townspeople cannot speak elegant literary language; but one cannot agree that a dramatic author, for the sake of fidelity, can introduce into literature all the common expressions in which the Russian people are so rich. The language of dramatic characters, whoever they may be, may be simple, but it is always noble and should not offend educated taste. And in “The Thunderstorm” listen to how all the faces say: “Shrill man! Why are you jumping in with your snout! It ignites everything inside! Women can’t improve their bodies!” What kind of phrases are these, what are these words? You will inevitably repeat with Lermontov:

Who do they paint portraits of?

Where are these conversations heard?

And if it happened to them,

So we don’t want to listen to them (9).

Perhaps “in the city of Kalinov, on the banks of the Volga,” there are people who speak in this way, but what do we care about that? The reader understands that we have not made special efforts to make this criticism convincing; that is why it is easy to notice in other places the living threads with which it is sewn. But we assure you that it can be made extremely convincing and victorious, you can use it to destroy the author, once you take the point of view of school textbooks. And if the reader agrees to give us the right to proceed to the play with pre-prepared requirements regarding what and how in it must to be - we don’t need anything else: we can destroy everything that disagrees with our accepted rules. Extracts from the comedy will appear very conscientiously to confirm our judgments; quotations from various learned books, starting with Aristotle and ending with Fisher (10), which, as is known, constitute the last, final moment of aesthetic theory, will prove to you the solidity of our education; ease of presentation and wit will help us capture your attention, and you, without noticing, will come to complete agreement with us. Just don’t let doubt for a minute enter into your head about our full right to prescribe duties to the author and then judge him, whether he is faithful to these duties or has been guilty of them...

But this is the unfortunate thing that now not a single reader can be protected from such doubts. The despicable crowd, previously reverently, with their mouths open, listening to our broadcasts, now presents a deplorable and dangerous for our authority spectacle of a mass armed, in the wonderful expression of Mr. Turgenev, with “the double-edged sword of analysis” (11). Everyone says, reading our thunderous criticism: “You offer us your “storm”, assuring us that in the “Thunderstorm” what is there is superfluous, and what is needed is missing. But the author of “The Thunderstorm” probably seems completely disgusted; let us sort you out. Tell us, analyze the play for us, show it as it is, and give us your opinion about it based on it itself, and not on some outdated considerations, completely unnecessary and extraneous. In your opinion, such and such should not exist; and maybe it fits well in the play, so then why shouldn’t it?” This is how every reader now dares to resonate, and this offensive circumstance must be attributed to the fact that, for example, N. F. Pavlov’s magnificent critical exercises regarding “The Thunderstorm” suffered such a decisive fiasco. In fact, everyone rose up against the criticism of “The Thunderstorm” in “Our Time” - both writers and the public, and, of course, not because he decided to show a lack of respect for Ostrovsky, but because in his criticism he expressed disrespect to common sense and goodwill of the Russian public. For a long time now, everyone has seen that Ostrovsky has largely moved away from the old stage routine, that in the very concept of each of his plays there are conditions that necessarily take him beyond the boundaries of the well-known theory that we pointed out above. A critic who does not like these deviations should have started by noting them, characterizing them, generalizing them, and then directly and frankly raising the question between them and the old theory. This was the responsibility of the critic not only to the author under review, but even more to the public, which so constantly approves of Ostrovsky, with all his liberties and deviations, and with each new play becomes more and more attached to him. If the critic finds that the public is mistaken in its sympathy for an author who turns out to be a criminal against his theory, then he should have begun with a defense of this theory and with serious proof that deviations from it cannot be good. Then, perhaps, he would have managed to convince some and even many, since N. F. Pavlov cannot be taken away from the fact that he speaks phrases quite deftly. Now what did he do? He did not pay the slightest attention to the fact that the old laws of art, while continuing to exist in textbooks and taught from gymnasium and university departments, had long since lost their sacred inviolability in literature and in the public. He bravely began to break Ostrovsky point by point of his theory, forcibly, forcing the reader to consider it inviolable. He found it convenient only to be ironic about the gentleman who, being Mr. Pavlov’s “neighbor and brother” in terms of his place in the first row of seats and “fresh” gloves, nevertheless dared to admire the play, which was so disgusting to N. F. Pavlov. Such disdainful treatment of the public, and indeed of the very question the critic had taken on, naturally should have aroused the majority of readers against him rather than in his favor. Readers let the critics notice that he was spinning with his theory like a squirrel in a wheel, and demanded that he get out of the wheel and onto a straight road. The rounded phrase and clever syllogism seemed insufficient to them; they demanded serious confirmation for the very premises from which Mr. Pavlov drew his conclusions and which he presented as axioms. He said: this is bad, because there are many people in the play who do not contribute directly to the development of the course of action. And they stubbornly objected to him: why can’t there be people in the play who are not directly involved in the development of the drama? The critic insisted that the drama was already devoid of meaning because its heroine was immoral; readers stopped him and asked the question: why do you think that she is immoral? and what are your moral concepts based on? The critic considered the night date, the daring whistle of Curly, and the very scene of Katerina’s confession to her husband to be vulgar and greasy, unworthy of art; they asked him again: why exactly does he find this vulgar and why are social intrigues and aristocratic passions more worthy of art than bourgeois hobbies? Why is the whistling of a young guy more vulgar than the tearful singing of Italian arias by some secular youth? N. F. Pavlov, as the culmination of his arguments, decided from a haughty manner that a play like “The Thunderstorm” is not a drama, but a farcical performance. And then they answered him: why are you so contemptuous of the booth? Another question is whether any sleek drama, even if all three unities were observed in it, is better than any farcical performance. We will still argue with you about the role of the booth in the history of theater and in the cause of national development. The last objection was developed in some detail in print. And where did it come from? It would be good in Sovremennik, which, as you know, itself has a “Whistle” with it, therefore cannot be scandalized by Kudryash’s whistling and in general should be inclined towards any kind of farce. No, thoughts about the booth were expressed in the “Library for Reading”, a well-known champion of all the rights of “art”, expressed by Mr. Annenkov, whom no one would blame for excessive adherence to “vulgarity” (12). If we correctly understood Mr. Annenkov’s thought (for which, of course, no one can vouch for), he finds that modern drama with its theory has deviated further from life’s truth and beauty than the original farces, and that in order to revive the theater it is first necessary to return to farce and begin the path of dramatic development all over again. These are the opinions Mr. Pavlov encountered even among respectable representatives of Russian criticism, not to mention those who are accused by right-thinking people of contempt for science and of denying everything sublime! It is clear that here it was no longer possible to get away with more or less brilliant remarks, but it was necessary to begin a serious revision of the grounds on which the critic asserted himself in his verdicts. But as soon as the question turned to this ground, the critic of Our Time turned out to be untenable and had to hush up his critical rantings.

It is obvious that criticism, which becomes an ally of scholars and takes upon itself the revision of literary works according to paragraphs of textbooks, must very often put itself in such a pitiful position: having condemned itself to slavery to the dominant theory, it dooms itself at the same time to constant fruitless hostility to any progress, to everything new and original in literature. And the stronger the new literary movement, the more bitter it becomes against it and the more clearly it shows its toothless impotence. Looking for some dead perfection, exposing us to outdated ideals that are indifferent to us, throwing at us fragments torn from the beautiful whole, adherents of such criticism constantly remain on the sidelines of the living movement, close their eyes to the new, living beauty, do not want to understand the new truth , the result of a new course of life. They look down on everything, judge strictly, are ready to blame any author for not being equal to their chefs-d'oeuvres, and impudently neglect the author's living relationship with his audience and his era. This is all, you see, “the interests of the moment” - is it possible for serious critics to compromise art by being carried away by such interests! Poor, soulless people! how pitiful they are in the eyes of a person who knows how to value the work of life, its labors and benefits! An ordinary, sensible person takes from life what it gives him and gives to it what he can; but pedants always take things down and paralyze life with dead ideals and distractions. Tell me what to think about a man who, at the sight of a pretty woman, suddenly begins to resonate that her figure is not the same as that of the Venus de Milo, the outline of her mouth is not as good as that of the Venus de Medicea, her gaze does not have the expression that we find in Raphael's Madonnas, etc., etc. All the reasoning and comparisons of such a gentleman can be very fair and witty, but what can they lead to? Will they prove to you that the woman in question is not pretty? Are they even able to convince you that this woman is less good than this or that Venus? Of course not, because beauty lies not in individual features and lines, but in the general expression of the face, in the sense of life that manifests itself in it. When this expression pleases me; when this meaning is accessible and satisfactory to me, then I simply surrender to beauty with all my heart and meaning, without making any dead comparisons, without making claims sanctified by the traditions of art. And if you want to have a living effect on me, you want to make me fall in love with beauty, then be able to grasp this general meaning in it, this spirit of life, be able to point out and explain it to me: only then will you achieve your goal. It’s the same with truth: it is not in dialectical subtleties, not in the correctness of individual conclusions, but in the living truth of what you are discussing. Let me understand the nature of the phenomenon, its place among others, its meaning and significance in the general course of life, and believe that in this way you will lead me to a correct judgment about the matter much more accurately than through all sorts of syllogisms selected to prove your thoughts. If ignorance and credulity are still so strong among people, this is supported by precisely the mode of critical reasoning that we are attacking. Synthesis prevails everywhere and in everything; they say in advance: this is useful, and rush in all directions to tidy up the arguments why it is useful; They stun you with the maxim: this is what morality should be, and then they condemn as immoral everything that does not fit the maxim. In this way, human meaning is constantly distorted, the desire and opportunity for everyone to reason for themselves is taken away. It would be completely different if people were accustomed to the analytical method of judgment: here is the matter, here are its consequences, here are its benefits and disadvantages; weigh and judge to what extent it will be useful. Then people would constantly have data before them and in their judgments would proceed from facts, without wandering in synthetic mists, without binding themselves to abstract theories and ideals, once compiled by someone. To achieve this, it is necessary that all people have the desire to live with their own minds, and not rely on the care of others. Of course, we will not see this in humanity any time soon. But that small part of people, which we call the “reading public,” gives us the right to think that in them this desire for independent mental life has already awakened. Therefore, we consider it very inconvenient to bully her down and arrogantly throw at her maxims and sentences based on God knows what theories. We consider the best way of criticism to be a presentation of the case itself so that the reader himself, based on the facts presented, can draw his own conclusion. We group the data, make considerations about the general meaning of the work, point out its relationship to the reality in which we live, draw our conclusion and try to present it in the best possible way, but at the same time we always try to keep ourselves in such a way that the reader can pronounce his judgment completely comfortably between us and the author. More than once we have had the opportunity to accept reproaches for some ironic analysis: “From your own extracts and presentation of the content, it is clear that this author is bad or harmful,” we were told, “and you praise him, shame on you.” We admit that such reproaches did not upset us at all: the reader received a not entirely flattering opinion about our critical ability - it’s true; but our main goal was nevertheless achieved - the worthless book (which sometimes we could not directly condemn) seemed worthless to the reader thanks to the facts displayed before his eyes. And we have always been of the opinion that only factual, real criticism can have any meaning for the reader. If there is anything in the work, then show us what is in it; this is much better than indulging in thoughts about what is not in it and what should be in it.

Of course, there are general concepts and laws that every person certainly has in mind when discussing any subject. But it is necessary to distinguish these natural laws, arising from the very essence of the matter, from the provisions and rules established in some system. There are well-known axioms without which thinking is impossible, and every author assumes them in his reader, just as every speaker assumes them in his interlocutor. It is enough to say about a person that he is hunchbacked or braided for everyone to see this as a disadvantage and not an advantage of his organization. So, it is enough to notice that such and such a literary work is illiterate or full of lies, so that no one would consider this an advantage. But when you say that a person wears a cap and not a hat, this is not enough for me to get a bad opinion about him, although in certain circles it is accepted that a decent person should not wear a cap. It’s the same in a literary work - if you find some unities not observed or see faces that are not necessary for the development of intrigue, this still does not say anything to the reader who is not biased in favor of your theory. On the contrary, what should seem to every reader a violation of the natural order of things and an insult to simple common sense, I can consider that does not require refutations from me, assuming that these refutations will appear of themselves in the mind of the reader, with my one indication of the fact. But one should never stretch such an assumption too far. Critics like N.F. Pavlov, Mr. Nekrasov from Moscow, Mr. Palkhovsky, etc., especially sin in that they assume unconditional agreement between themselves and the general opinion on many more points than they should. In other words, they consider as immutable axioms, obvious to everyone, many such opinions that only to them seem to be absolute truths, and for most people even represent a contradiction with some generally accepted concepts. For example, everyone understands that an author who wants to do something decent should not distort reality: both theorists and general opinion agree on this requirement. But theorists at the same time demand and also assume as an axiom that the author must improve reality, discarding everything unnecessary from it and choosing only what is specifically required for the development of intrigue and for the denouement of the work. In accordance with this second demand, Ostrovsky was attacked many times with great fury; and yet it is not only not an axiom, but is even in clear contradiction with the requirement regarding fidelity to real life, which is recognized by everyone as necessary. How can you really make me believe that in the course of just half an hour, ten people come one after another into one room or one place in the square, exactly those who are needed, exactly at the time they are needed? they meet whoever they need, start an ex abrupto conversation about what is needed, leave and do what is needed, then show up again when they are needed. Is this done in real life? Does it look like the truth? Who does not know that the most difficult thing in life is to adjust one favorable circumstance to another, to arrange the course of affairs in accordance with logical necessity. Usually a person knows what to do, but he cannot spend so much time as to direct all the funds that a writer so easily disposes of to his business. The right people don't come, letters don't get through, conversations don't go well enough to move things forward. Everyone has a lot of things to do in life, and rarely does anyone serve, as in our dramas, as a machine that the author moves, as it is more convenient for him for the action of his play. The same must be said about the beginning and ending. How many cases do we see that at their end represent a pure, logical development of the beginning? In history we can still notice this throughout the centuries; but in private life it’s not the same. It is true that the historical laws are the same here, but the difference is in distance and size. Speaking absolutely and taking into account infinitesimal quantities, of course we will find that the ball is the same polygon; but try playing billiards with polygons - it won’t work out at all. Likewise, the historical laws about logical development and necessary retribution are not presented in the incidents of private life as clearly and completely as in the history of peoples. To deliberately give them this clarity means to force and distort the existing reality. As if, in fact, every crime carries its own punishment? As if it is always accompanied by torment of conscience, if not external execution?

As if frugality always leads to prosperity, honesty is rewarded with general respect, doubt finds its solution, virtue brings inner contentment? Don’t we more often see the opposite, although, on the other hand, the opposite cannot be affirmed as a general rule... It cannot be said that people are evil by nature, and therefore one cannot accept principles for literary works such as the following, for example, that vice is always triumphs, and virtue is punished. But it has become impossible, even ridiculous, to build dramas on the triumph of virtue! The fact is that human relationships are rarely arranged on the basis of reasonable calculation, but are formed for the most part by chance, and then a significant proportion of the actions of some with others are carried out as if unconsciously, according to routine, according to momentary disposition, under the influence of many extraneous reasons. An author who decides to throw aside all these accidents in favor of the logical requirements of plot development usually loses the average measure and becomes like a person who measures everything at the maximum. He, for example, found that a person can, without direct harm to himself, work fifteen hours a day and based his demands from the people who work for him on this calculation. It goes without saying that this calculation, possible for emergency cases, for two or three days, turns out to be completely absurd as a norm for permanent work. The logical development of everyday relationships, required by theory from drama, often turns out to be the same.

They will tell us that we are falling into the denial of all creativity and do not recognize art except in the form of a daguerreotype. Even more, we will be asked to carry our opinions further and reach their extreme results, that is, that the dramatic author, not having the right to discard anything and adjust anything deliberately for his own purpose, finds himself in the need to simply record all the unnecessary conversations of all the people he meets, so that an action that lasted a week will require the same week in a drama for its presentation at the theater, and for another event the presence of all the thousands of people walking along Nevsky Prospekt or along the English Embankment will be required. Yes, it will have to be so, if the highest criterion in literature remains the theory with which we have now challenged the provisions. But that’s not where we’re going at all; It’s not just two or three points of the theory that we want to correct; no, with such corrections it will be even worse, more confusing and contradictory; we just don't want it at all. We have other grounds for judging the merits of authors and works, adhering to which we hope not to come to any absurdities and not to diverge from the common sense of the mass of the public. We have already talked about these reasons in the first articles about Ostrovsky and then in the article about “On the Eve”; but perhaps it is necessary to briefly outline them again.

The measure of the merit of a writer or an individual work is the extent to which it serves as an expression of the natural aspirations of a certain time and people. The natural aspirations of humanity, reduced to the simplest denominator, can be expressed in two words: “So that everyone has a good time.” It is clear that, striving for this goal, people, by the very essence of the matter, first had to move away from it: everyone wanted it to be good for him, and, asserting his own good, interfered with others; They didn’t yet know how to arrange things so that one wouldn’t interfere with the other. Thus, inexperienced dancers do not know how to control their movements and constantly collide with other couples, even in a fairly spacious hall. After getting used to it, they will begin to disperse better even in a smaller hall and with a larger number of dancers. But until they have acquired dexterity, until then, of course, it is impossible to allow many couples to waltz in the hall; in order not to bump into each other, it is necessary for many to wait out, and for the most awkward ones to give up dancing altogether and, perhaps, to sit down at cards, lose, and even a lot... So it was in the structure of life: the more dexterous continued to find their good, others sat , they took on something they shouldn’t have, they lost; the general celebration of life was disrupted from the very beginning; many had no time for fun; Many have come to the conclusion that only those who dance skillfully are called to have fun. And the dexterous dancers, who had established their well-being, continued to follow their natural inclination and took for themselves more and more space, more and more means for fun. Finally they lost their measure; the rest felt very crowded from them, and they jumped up from their seats and jumped up - not because they wanted to dance, but simply because they felt awkward even sitting. Meanwhile, in this movement, it turned out that among them there were people who were not without a certain lightness - and they tried to join the circle of those having fun. But the privileged, original dancers looked at them very hostilely, as if they were uncalled, and did not let them into the circle. A struggle began, varied, long, mostly unfavorable for the newcomers: they were ridiculed, pushed away, they were condemned to pay the costs of the holiday, their ladies were taken away from them, and their gentlemen were taken away from the ladies, they were completely driven out of the holiday. But the worse it gets for people, the more they feel the need to feel good. Deprivations will not stop demands, but will only irritate them; Only eating can satisfy hunger. Until now, therefore, the struggle is not over; natural aspirations, now seeming to be muffled, now appearing stronger, everyone is looking for their satisfaction. This is the essence of history.

End of introductory fragment.