Of all the works of Ostrovsky, the play "Thunderstorm" caused the greatest resonance in society and the most acute controversy in criticism. This was explained both by the nature of the drama itself (the severity of the conflict, its tragic outcome, the strong and original image of the main character), and the era in which the play was written - two years before the abolition of serfdom and the related reforms in socio-political life. Russia. It was an era of social upsurge, the flourishing of freedom-loving ideas and increased resistance to the "dark kingdom" in all its manifestations, including in the family and domestic area.

From this point of view, N.A. Dobrolyubov, who gave the most complete and detailed analysis of it. In the main character, Katerina Kabanova, he saw a welcome phenomenon, foreshadowing the near end of the kingdom of petty tyrants. Emphasizing the strength of Katerina's character, he emphasized the fact that even if a woman, that is, the most downtrodden and disenfranchised element of society, dares to protest, then the “end times” come to the “dark kingdom”. The title of Dobrolyubov's article perfectly expresses its main pathos.

The most consistent opponent of Dobrolyubov was D.I. Pisarev. In his article, he not only disagreed with Dobrolyubov in assessing the image of Katerina, but completely debunked it, focusing on the weaknesses of the heroine and concluding that all her behavior, including suicide, is nothing but "stupidity and absurdity" . However, it must be taken into account that Pisarev came up with his analysis after 1861 and after the appearance of such works as Turgenev's "Fathers and Sons" and "What is to be done?" Chernyshevsky. In comparison with the heroes of these novels - Bazarov, Lopukhov, Kirsanov, Rakhmetov, Vera Pavlovna and others, in whom Pisarev found his ideal of a revolutionary democrat - Katerina Ostrovsky, of course, lost a lot.

Polemic in relation to Dobrolyubov and the article by A.A. Grigoriev, one of the leading Russian critics of the mid-19th century, who stood on the positions of "pure art" and consistently opposed the sociological approach to literature. In contrast to the opinion of Dobrolyubov, Grigoriev argues that in the work of Ostrovsky and, in particular, in the play “Thunderstorm”, the main thing is not the denunciation of the social system, but the embodiment of the “Russian people”.

A major Russian writer I.A. Goncharov gave a completely positive review of the play, accurately and briefly describing its main merits. M. M. Dostoevsky, brother of the great Russian writer F.M. Dostoevsky, analyzed in detail the character of Katerina in all its inconsistency and, deeply sympathizing with the heroine, concluded that this character is truly Russian, 77, I. Melnikov-Pechorsky populist writer, in his review of the character of "Thunderstorm" approaches the position of Dobrolyubov , considering the motive of protest against tyranny to be the most important in this play. In this article, attention should be paid to a detailed analysis of the characters of Feklusha and Kuligin and the meaning of their opposition.

Readers of Sovremennik may remember that we placed Ostrovsky very highly, finding that he was very fully and comprehensively able to portray the essential aspects and demands of Russian life. Other authors took private phenomena, temporary, external demands of society and portrayed them with greater or lesser success, such as the demand for justice, religious tolerance, sound administration, the abolition of farming, the abolition of serfdom, etc. Other authors took the more internal side of life, but limited themselves to a very close circle and noticed such phenomena that were far from having a nationwide significance. Such, for example, is the depiction in countless stories of people who have become superior in development to their environment, but deprived of energy, will and perishing in inaction. These stories were significant, because they clearly expressed the unfitness of the environment, which hinders good activity, and although the vaguely recognized demand for the energetic application in practice of principles that we recognize as truth in theory. Depending on the difference in talents, stories of this kind had more or less significance; but all of them contained the disadvantage that they fell only into a small (comparatively) part of society and had almost nothing to do with the majority. Not to mention the mass of the people, even in the middle strata of our society we see many more people who still need to acquire and understand the correct concepts than those who, with the acquired ideas, do not know where to go. Therefore, the meaning of these short stories and novels remains very special and is felt more for a circle of a certain type than for the majority. It is impossible not to admit that Ostrovsky's work is much more fruitful: he captured such general aspirations and needs with which the whole of Russian society is permeated, whose voice is heard in all the phenomena of our life, whose satisfaction is a necessary condition for our further development. The modern aspirations of Russian life in the most extensive dimensions find their expression in Ostrovsky, as a comedian, from the negative side. Drawing to us in a vivid picture false relationships with all their consequences, he through the very same serves as an echo of aspirations that require a better device. Arbitrariness, on the one hand, and a lack of awareness of the rights of one's personality, on the other, are the foundations on which all the disgrace of mutual relations developed in most of Ostrovsky's comedies rests; the demands of law, legality, respect for a person - that's what every attentive reader hears from the depths of this disgrace. Well, will you begin to deny the vast significance of these demands in Russian life? Don't you confess that such a background of comedies corresponds to the state of Russian society more than any other in Europe? Take a story, remember your life, look around you - you will find justification for our words everywhere. This is not the place for us to embark on historical research; suffice it to note that our history, until modern times, did not contribute to the development of a sense of legality in us, did not create firm guarantees for the individual and gave an extensive field to arbitrariness. This kind of historical development, of course, resulted in the decline of public morality: respect for one's own dignity was lost, faith in the right, and consequently the consciousness of duty, weakened, arbitrariness trampled right, cunning was undermined by arbitrariness. Some writers, devoid of a sense of normal needs and bewildered by artificial combinations, while recognizing these undoubted facts, wanted to legitimize them, glorify them as the norm of life, and not as a distortion of natural aspirations produced by unfavorable historical development. But Ostrovsky, as a man with a strong talent and, consequently, with a sense of truth? with an instinctive inclination towards natural, sound demands, he could not succumb to temptation, and arbitrariness, even the widest, always came out with him, in accordance with reality, as heavy, ugly, lawless arbitrariness - and in the essence of the play there was always a protest against him. He knew how to feel what such breadth of nature meant, and branded, defamed her with several types and names of tyranny.

But he did not invent these types, just as he did not invent the word "tyrant". Both he took in life itself. It is clear that life, which provided the materials for such comic situations in which Ostrovsky's petty tyrants are often placed, the life that gave them a decent name, is not already completely absorbed by their influence, but contains the makings of a more reasonable, legitimate, correct order of affairs. And indeed, after each play by Ostrovsky, everyone feels this consciousness within himself and, looking around himself, notices the same in others. Following this thought more closely, peering into it longer and deeper, you notice that this striving for a new, more natural arrangement of relations contains the essence of everything that we call progress, constitutes the direct task of our development, absorbs all the work of new generations. Wherever you look, everywhere you see the awakening of the personality, its presentation of its legal rights, its protest against violence and arbitrariness, for the most part still timid, indefinite, ready to hide, but nevertheless already letting its existence be noticed.

In Ostrovsky you find not only the moral, but also the worldly, economic side of the issue, and this is the essence of the matter. In him you clearly see how tyranny relies on a thick purse, which is called "God's blessing", and how the unanswerability of people before it is determined by material dependence on it. Moreover, you see how this material side in all worldly relations dominates the abstract, and how people deprived of material support little value abstract rights and even lose a clear consciousness of them. In fact, a well-fed person can reason coolly and intelligently whether he should eat such and such a meal; but the hungry yearn for food, wherever it sees it, and whatever it may be. This phenomenon, which recurs in all spheres of social life, is well noticed and understood by Ostrovsky, and his plays, more clearly than any reasoning, show the attentive reader how a system of lack of rights and coarse, petty egoism, established by tyranny, is instilled in those who suffer from it; how they, if they retain the remnants of energy in themselves, try to use it to acquire the opportunity to live independently and no longer understand either the means or the rights. We have developed this theme in too much detail in our previous articles to return to it again; moreover, we, remembering the sides of Ostrovsky's talent, which were repeated in The Thunderstorm, as in his previous works, must nevertheless make a short review of the play itself and show how we understand it.

Even in Ostrovsky's previous plays, we noticed that these were not comedies of intrigue and not really comedies of characters, but something new, to which we would give the name "plays of life" if it were not too extensive and therefore not quite definite. We want to say that in his foreground is always the general environment of life, independent of any of the actors. He does not punish either the villain or the victim; both of them are pathetic to you, often both are ridiculous, but the feeling aroused in you by the play does not directly appeal to them. You see that their position dominates them, and you only blame them for not showing enough energy to get out of this position. The tyrants themselves, against whom your feelings should naturally resent, on closer examination 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 for them by routine and supported by their position; but the situation is such that full, healthy human development is impossible in it.

Thus, the struggle demanded by theory from drama takes place in Ostrovsky's plays not in the monologues of the actors, but in the facts dominating them. Often the comedy characters themselves do not have a clear, or even no, consciousness of the meaning of their position and their struggle; but on the other hand, the struggle is very clearly and consciously carried out in the soul of the spectator, who involuntarily revolts against the situation that gives rise to such facts. And that is why we do not 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 faces are just as necessary for the play as the main ones: they show us the environment in which the action takes place, they draw the position that determines the meaning of the activity of the main characters of the play. In order to know well the properties of the life of a plant, it is necessary to study it on the soil in which it grows; uprooted from the soil, you will have the form 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 relations of several persons who for some reason come into conflict with each other: here there will be only the businesslike, official side of life, while we need its everyday atmosphere. Extraneous, inactive participants in the drama of life, each apparently occupied only with their own business, often have such an influence on the course of affairs by their mere existence that nothing can reflect it. How many ardent ideas, how many vast plans, how many enthusiastic impulses collapse at one glance at the indifferent, prosaic crowd passing by us with contemptuous indifference! How many pure and kind 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 outbursts of arbitrariness and violence stop before the decision of this crowd, always seemingly indifferent and pliable, but, in essence, very uncompromising in what once it is recognized by it. Therefore, it is extremely important for us to know what are the ideas of this crowd about good and evil, what they consider to be true and what is false. 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 faces of the heroine and can easily distort the meaning of the whole play.

"Thunderstorm", as you know, presents us with an idyll of the 3rd "dark kingdom", which little by little illuminates us with Ostrovsky's 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 fertile summer day beckons to the shore, to the air, under the open sky, under this breeze blowing refreshingly from the Volga ... And the inhabitants, as if, sometimes walk along the boulevard over the river, even though they have already looked at the beauties 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, do housework, eat, sleep - they go to bed very early, so it is difficult for an unaccustomed person to endure such a sleepy night as they ask themselves. But what should they do, how not to 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 open up, the face of the earth can change as it pleases, the world can start a new life on new principles - the inhabitants of the town of Kalinov will exist for themselves as before in complete ignorance of the rest of the world. From time to time an indefinite rumor will run to 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 people have dog heads: they will shake their heads, express surprise at the wonders of nature and go to have a bite to eat ... From an early age they still show some curiosity, but she has nowhere to get food : information comes to them, as if in ancient Russia only from wanderers, and even now there are not many real ones; one has to be content with those who "themselves, due to their weakness, did not go far, but heard a lot," like Feklusha in The Thunderstorm. From them only the inhabitants of Kalinovo learn about what is happening in the world; otherwise they would think that the whole world is the same as their Kalinov, and that it is absolutely impossible to live otherwise than them. But the information reported by the Feklushs is such that they are not able to inspire a great desire to exchange their life for another. Feklusha belongs to a patriotic and highly conservative party; she feels good among the pious and naive Kalinovites: she is both revered, and treated, and supplied with everything necessary; she can seriously assure that her very sins come from the fact that she is higher than other mortals: “ordinary people, she says, each one embarrasses one enemy, but to us, strange people, to whom there are six, to whom twelve are assigned, that’s all of them overcome." And they believe her. It is clear that the simple instinct of self-preservation should make her not say a good word about what is being done in other lands. And in fact, listen to the conversations of the merchants, the bourgeoisie, petty bureaucrats in the wilderness of the county - how many amazing information about the unfaithful and filthy kingdoms, how many stories about those times when people were burned and tortured, when robbers robbed the city, etc. , - and how little information about European life, about the best way of life! All this leads to the fact that Feklusha expresses so positively: “Bla-alepie, dear, blah-alepie, wondrous beauty! What can I say - you live in the promised land! It certainly goes like that, how to figure out what is being done in other lands. Listen to Feklush:

“They say there are such countries, dear girl, where there are no Orthodox tsars, and the Saltans rule the earth. In one land, the Turkish Saltan Mahnut sits on the throne, and in the other, the Persian Saltan Mahnut; And they do judgment, dear girl, over all people, and whatever they judge, everything is wrong, And they, dear girl, cannot judge a single case righteously - such a limit is set for them, We have a righteous law, and they , sweetheart, unrighteous; that according to our law it turns out that way, but according to theirs everything is the other way around. And all their judges, in their countries, are also all unrighteous: so, dear girl, they write in requests: “Judge me, unjust judge!” And that is still the land where all the people with dog heads.

“Why is she with the dogs?” Glasha asks. “For infidelity,” Feklusha replies shortly, considering any further explanations unnecessary. But Glasha is glad for that too; in the languid monotony of her life and thoughts, she is pleased to hear something new and original. In her soul, the thought is already vaguely awakening, “that, however, people live and not like us; it is certainly better with us, but by the way, who knows! After all, we are not well; but about those lands we still do not know well; you will only hear something from good people ... ”And the desire to know more and more solidly creeps into the soul. This is clear to us from the words of Glasha on the departure of the wanderer: “Here are some other lands! There are no miracles in the world! And we're sitting here, we don't know anything. It's also good that there are good people: no, no, yes, and you will hear what is happening in the world; otherwise they would have died like fools. As you can see, the unrighteousness and unfaithfulness of foreign lands does not arouse horror and indignation in Glasha; she is occupied only with new information, which seems to her something mysterious - "miracles", as she puts it. You see that she is not satisfied with Feklusha's explanations, which only arouse in her regret for her ignorance. She is obviously halfway to skepticism 4 . But where can she keep her distrust when it is constantly undermined by stories like Feklushin's? How can she reach correct concepts, even just reasonable questions, when her curiosity is locked in such a circle, which is outlined around her in the city of Kalinovo? Moreover, how could she dare not to believe and to inquire when older and better people are so positively reassured in the conviction that the concepts and way of life they have adopted are the best in the world and that everything new comes from evil spirits? It is terrible and hard for every newcomer to attempt to go against the requirements and convictions of this dark mass, terrible in its naivety and sincerity. After all, she will curse us, she will run away, as if from the plagued, - not out of malice, not out of calculations, but out of a deep conviction that we are akin to the Antichrist; it’s good if she only thinks she’s crazy and laughs at her. -.. She seeks knowledge, loves to reason, but only within certain limits, prescribed to her by basic concepts, in which reason is frightened. You can communicate some geographical knowledge to the Kalinov residents; but do not touch upon the fact that the earth stands on three pillars and that there is the navel of the earth in Jerusalem—they will not yield to you, although they have the same clear idea of ​​the navel of the earth as of Lithuania in The Thunderstorm. “This, my brother, what is it?” one civilian asks another, pointing to the picture. “And this is a Lithuanian ruin,” he replies. – Battle! See! How ours fought with Lithuania. – “What is this Lithuania?” “So she is Lithuania,” the explainer replies. “And they say, my brother, she fell on us from the sky,” continues the first; but his interlocutor is not enough to need it: “Well, from heaven, so from heaven,” he answers ... Then the woman intervenes in the conversation: “Explain more! Everyone knows that from the sky; and where there was a battle with her, mounds were poured there for memory. “What, my brother! It's so true!" exclaims the questioner, quite satisfied. And after that ask him what he thinks about Lithuania! All the questions asked here by natural curiosity have a similar outcome. And this is not at all because these people were stupider, more stupid than many others whom we meet in academies and learned societies. No, the whole point is that by their position, by their life under the yoke of arbitrariness, they have all been accustomed to see lack of accountability and senselessness and therefore find it awkward and even daring to persistently seek out reasonable grounds for anything. Ask a question - there will be more of them; but if the answer is such that “the cannon itself, and the mortar itself,” then they no longer dare to torture further and are humbly content with this explanation. The secret of such indifference to logic lies primarily in the absence of any logic in life relationships. The key to this mystery is given to us, for example, by the following line of Diky in The Thunderstorm. Kuligin, in response to his rudeness, says: “Why, sir Savel Prokofich, would you like to offend an honest man?” Dikoy replies:

“Report, or something, I will give you! I don't report to anyone more important than you. I want to think about you that way, and I think so. For others, you are an honest person, but I think that you are a robber - that's all. Would you like to hear it from me? So listen! I say that the robber, and the end! What are you going to sue, or what, will you be with me? You know that you are a worm. If I want - I will have mercy, if I want - I will crush.

What theoretical reasoning can stand where life is based on such principles! The absence of any law, any logic - that is the law and logic of this life. This is not anarchy 5 but something far worse (although the imagination of an educated European cannot imagine anything worse than anarchy). There really is no beginning in anarchy: everyone is good at his own model, no one orders anyone, everyone can answer the order of another that I, they say, don’t want to know you, and, thus, everyone is mischievous and won’t agree on anything. can. The condition of a society subject to such anarchy (if such anarchy is possible) is indeed terrible. But imagine that this same anarchist society was divided into two parts: one reserved the right to be naughty and not know any law, while the other was forced to recognize as law any claim of the first and meekly endure all its whims, all its outrages ... Isn't it true that it was would it be even worse? Anarchy would have remained the same, because there would still be no rational principles in society, mischief would have continued as before; but half of the people would be forced to suffer from them and constantly nourish them with themselves, with their humility and obsequiousness. It is clear that, under such conditions, mischief and lawlessness would assume such proportions as they could never have had under general anarchy. In fact, no matter what you say, a man alone, left to himself, will not fool much in society and will very soon feel the need to agree and come to an agreement with others in terms of common benefit. But a person will never feel this need if he finds a vast field for exercising his whims in a multitude of his kind, and if he sees in their dependent, humiliated position a constant reinforcement of his tyranny. Thus, having in common with anarchy the absence of any law and right obligatory for all, tyranny is, in essence, incomparably more terrible than anarchy, because it gives mischief more means and scope and makes a greater number of people suffer - and more dangerous than it in that respect, which can last much longer. Anarchy (let us repeat, if it is possible at all) can only serve as a transitional moment, which with every step must come to its senses and lead to something more sensible; tyranny, on the contrary, seeks to legitimize itself and establish itself as an unshakable system. That is why, together with such a broad concept of its own freedom, it tries, however, to take all possible measures to leave this freedom forever only for itself, in order to protect itself from all daring attempts. In order to achieve this goal, it does not seem to recognize some higher demands, and although it itself comes out against them, it stands firmly for them before others. A few minutes after the remark in which Dikoy so resolutely rejected, in favor of his own whim, all moral and logical grounds for judging a person, this same Dikoy attacked Kuligin when he uttered the word electricity to explain the thunderstorm.

“Well, why aren’t you a robber,” he shouts, “a thunderstorm is sent to us as a punishment, so that we feel, and you want to defend yourself with some poles and horns, God forgive me. What are you, a Tatar, or what? Are you Tatar? And, say: Tatar?

And here Kuligin does not dare to answer him: “I want to think so and think, and no one can tell me.” Where are you going - he can’t even present his own explanations: they accept him with curses, and they won’t let you speak. Involuntarily, you will stop resonating here when the fist answers every reason, and in the end the fist always remains right ...

But - a wonderful thing! - in their indisputable, irresponsible dark dominion, giving complete freedom to their whims, putting all sorts of laws and logic into nothing, the tyrants of Russian life begin, however, to feel some kind of discontent and fear, without knowing what and why. Everything seems to be as before, everything is fine: Dikoy scolds whomever he wants; when they say to him: “How can no one in the whole house please you!” - he smugly replies: “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 by various Feklushas. And everything is somehow restless, not good for them. In addition to them, without asking them, another life has grown, with other beginnings, and although it is far away, it is still not clearly visible, but it already gives itself a presentiment and sends bad visions to the dark arbitrariness 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 guilty person 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 power higher than them, which they cannot overcome, which they cannot even approach know how. They do not want to give in (and no one is demanding concessions from them for the time being), but they are shrinking, shrinking: before they wanted to establish their system of life forever indestructible, and now they are also trying to preach; but already hope is betraying them, and they, in essence, are only busy with how it would be in their lifetime, Kabanova talks about the fact that “the last times are coming,” and when Feklusha tells her about the various horrors of the present time - about railways etc., - she prophetically remarks: "And it will be worse, dear." “We just don’t live to see it,” Feklusha answers with a sigh, “Maybe we will live,” Kabanova says fatalistically again, revealing her doubts and uncertainty. Why is she worried? People travel by railroads, “what does it matter to her? But you see: she, “even though you are all scree of gold,” will not go according to the devil’s invention; and the people travel more and more, ignoring her curses; Isn't that sad, isn't it a testament to her impotence? People have found out about electricity - it seems that there is something offensive for the Wild and Kabanovs? But you see, Dikoi says that "a storm is sent as a punishment to us, so that we feel," but Kuligin does not feel or feels completely wrong and talks about electricity. Isn't this self-will, not a disregard for the power and importance of the Wild One? They don’t want to believe what he believes, which means that they don’t believe him either, they consider themselves smarter than him; think about what it will lead to? No wonder Kabanova remarks about Kuligin:

“Now the time has come, what teachers have appeared! If the old man talks like that, what can you demand from the young ones!”

And Kabanova is very seriously upset by the future of the old order, with which she has outlived a century. She foresees their end, tries to maintain their significance, but already feels that there is no former reverence for them, that they are no longer willingly preserved, only involuntarily, and that at the first opportunity they will be abandoned. She herself had somehow lost some of her knightly fervor; no longer with the same energy she takes care of observing the old customs, in many cases she has already waved her hand, drooped before the impossibility of stopping the stream, and only look with despair as it gradually floods the motley flower beds of her whimsical superstitions. Just like the last pagans before the power of Christianity, the offspring of tyrants, caught in the course of a new life, droop and are erased. They do not even have the determination to come out in a direct, open struggle; they only try somehow to deceive the time and overflow in fruitless complaints against the new movement. These complaints were always heard from the old people, because new generations always brought something new into life, contrary to the old order; but now the complaints of the petty tyrants are taking on a particularly gloomy, funeral tone. Kabanova is consoled only by the fact that somehow, with her help, the old order will stand until her death; and there - let there be anything - she will not see. Seeing her son on the road, she notices that everything is not being done the way she should: her son does not even bow at her feet - this is precisely what must be demanded of him, but he himself did not guess; and he does not “order” his wife how to live without him, and he does not know how to order, and at parting does not require her to bow to the ground; and the daughter-in-law, after seeing off her husband, does not howl and does not lie on the porch to show her love. If possible, Kabanova tries to restore order, but she already feels that it is impossible to conduct business completely in the old way; for example, regarding howling on the porch, she only notices her daughter-in-law in the form of advice, but does not dare to demand urgently ...

Until the old people die, until then the young ones have time to grow old - on this account the old woman could not worry. But, you see, it is not important for her, in fact, that there is always someone to look after the order and teach the inexperienced; it needs that precisely those orders should always be inviolably preserved, precisely those concepts that it recognizes as good remain inviolable. In the narrowness and rudeness of its egoism, it cannot even rise to the point of reconciling itself at the triumph of principle, even with the sacrifice of existing forms; indeed, this cannot be expected of her, since she, in fact, has no principle, no general conviction that would govern her life. The Kabanovs and the Wilds are now fussing about only continuing faith in their strength. They do not expect to improve their affairs; but they know that their willfulness will still have enough scope as long as everyone will be shy before them; and that is why they are so stubborn, so arrogant, so formidable even in their last moments, of which there are already few left to them, as they themselves feel. The less they feel the real power, the more they are struck by the influence of free, common sense, which proves to them that they are deprived of any rational support, the more impudently and madly they deny all the demands of reason, putting themselves and their own arbitrariness in their place. The naivete with which Dikoy says to Kuligin:

“I want to consider you a fraudster, and I think so; and I don’t care that you are an honest person, and I don’t give an account to anyone why I think so, ”this naivety could not have expressed itself in all its self-foolish absurdity if Kuligin had not called her out with a modest request:“ Yes, why Are you offending an honest man?..” Dikoi wants, you see, from the very first time to cut off any attempt to demand an account from him, he wants to show that he is above not only accountability, but even ordinary human logic. It seems to him that if he recognizes over himself the laws of common sense common to all people, then his importance will suffer greatly from this. And indeed, in most cases, this really happens - because his claims are contrary to common sense. Hence, eternal discontent and irritability develop in him. He himself explains his situation when he talks about how hard it is for him to give out money.

“What will you order me to do when my heart is like that! After all, I already know what I need to give, but I can’t do everything with good. You are my friend, and I must give it back to you, but if you come and ask me, I will scold you. I will give - I will give, but I will scold. Therefore, just give me a hint about money, it will start to kindle my whole interior; kindles the whole interior, and only ... Well. and in those days I will not scold a person for anything.

The return of money, as a material and visual fact, even in the mind of the Wild awakens some reflection: he realizes how absurd he is, and shifts the blame on the fact that “his heart is like that!” In other cases, he is not even well aware of his absurdity; but by the nature of his character, he must certainly feel the same irritation at every triumph of common sense as when he has to give out money. This is why it is hard for him to pay: out of natural egoism, he wants to feel good; everything around him convinces him that this good thing comes with money; hence the direct attachment to money. But here his development stops, his egoism remains within the limits of an individual and does not want to know its relationship to society, to its neighbors. He needs more money - he knows this and therefore would only want to receive it, and not give it away. When, in the natural course of affairs, it comes to bestowal, he becomes angry and swears: he accepts this as a misfortune, a punishment, like a fire, a flood, a fine, and not as a due, legal retribution for what others do for him. So it is in everything: at the desire for good for himself, he wants space, independence; but does not want to know the law that determines the acquisition and use of all rights in society. He only wants more, as many rights as possible for himself; when it is necessary to recognize them for others, he considers this an encroachment on his personal dignity, and becomes angry, and tries in every possible way to delay the matter and prevent it. Even when he knows that he must certainly give in, and he will give in later, but still he will try to play a dirty trick first. “I will give - I will give, but I will scold!” And it must be assumed that the more significant the issuance of money and the more urgent the need for it, the more strongly Dikoy curses ... if he had given up on money and thought that it was impossible to get it, he would have acted very stupidly; secondly, that it would be in vain to hope for the correction of Diky by means of some kind of admonishment: the habit of fooling is already so strong in him that he obeys it even contrary to the voice of his own common sense. It is clear that no reasonable convictions will stop him until an external force that is tangible for him is connected with them: he scolds Kuligin, not heeding any reasons; and when a hussar scolded him once on the ferry, on the Volga, he did not dare to contact the hussar, but again he took out his insult at home: for two weeks after that everyone hid from him in attics and closets ...

We dwelled for a very long time on the dominant persons of The Thunderstorm, because, in our opinion, the story played out with Katerina depends decisively 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 in it to the most tragic consequences; and for all that, most of those who have read and seen this play agree that it makes an impression less heavy and sad than Ostrovsky's other plays (not to mention, of course, his sketches of a purely comic nature). There is 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 a new life, which opens up to us in her very death.

The fact is that the character of Katerina, as he is portrayed in The Thunderstorm, is a step forward not only in Ostrovsky's dramatic activity, but in all of our literature. It corresponds to the new phase of our people's life, it has long demanded its implementation in literature, our best writers circled around it; but they could only understand its need and could not comprehend and feel its essence; Ostrovsky managed to do this.

Russian life has finally reached the point where virtuous and respectable, but weak and impersonal creatures do not satisfy the public consciousness and are recognized as worthless. There was an urgent need for people, though less beautiful, but more active and energetic. Otherwise, it is impossible: as soon as the consciousness of truth and right, common sense woke up in people, they certainly demand not only an abstract agreement with them (which the virtuous heroes of the past always shone so much), but also their introduction into life, into activity. But in order to bring them into life, it is necessary to overcome many obstacles set up by the Wild, Kabanovs, etc.; to overcome obstacles, enterprising, decisive, persevering characters are needed. It is necessary that they be embodied, merged with them, that general demand for truth and right, which finally breaks through in people through all the barriers set up by the Wild Tyrants. Now the big problem was how the character required in our country by the new turn in social life should be formed and manifested.

The Russian strong character is not so understood and expressed in The Thunderstorm. First of all, he strikes us with his opposition to all self-imposed principles. Not with an instinct for violence and destruction, but also not with practical dexterity to settle his own affairs for high purposes, not with senseless, crackling pathos, but not with diplomatic, pedantic calculation, he appears before us. No, he is concentrated and resolute, unswervingly faithful to the instinct of natural truth, full of faith in new ideals and selfless in the sense that death is better for him than life under those principles that are contrary to him. He is led not by abstract principles, not by practical considerations, not by momentary pathos, but simply by nature, by his whole being. The strength of this wholeness and harmony of character lies in its strength and its essential necessity at a time when the 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 Wild and Kabanovs will not do anything against them, just because before them all logic disappears; no syllogisms 7 can convince the chain that it breaks up on the prisoner, kula k, so that it does not hurt the nailed; so you won’t convince Dikiy to act wiser, and won’t convince his family not to listen to his whims: he will beat them all, and nothing more - what will you do with it? Obviously, characters that are strong on one logical side must develop very poorly and have a very weak influence on general activity where all life is governed not by logic, but by pure arbitrariness.

The resolute, integral Russian character, acting among the Dikikhs and the 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 a family, who bears the yoke of tyranny most of all, if not a woman? What clerk, worker, servant of Dikoy can be so driven, downtrodden, cut off from his personality as his wife? Who can boil 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 grumbling, to refuse to do what is disgusting to her? Servants and clerks are connected only materially, in a human way; they can leave the tyrant as soon as they find another place for themselves. The wife, according to the prevailing concepts, is inextricably linked with him, spiritually, through the sacrament; whatever her husband does, she must obey him and share a meaningless life with him. And if, finally, she could leave, then where would she go, what would she do? Curly says: "The Wild One needs me, so I'm not afraid of him and I won't let him take liberties over me." It is easy for a man who has come to realize that he is really needed for others; but a woman, a wife? Why is she needed? Isn't she herself, on the contrary, taking everything from her husband? Her husband gives her a home, waters, feeds, clothes, protects her, gives her a position in society ... Isn't she usually considered a burden for a man? Do not prudent people say, keeping young people from marrying: “A wife is not a bast shoe, you can’t kick it off your feet”? And in the general opinion, the main difference between a wife and a bast shoe lies in the fact that she brings with her a whole burden of worries that the husband cannot get rid of, while the bast shoe gives only convenience, and if it is inconvenient, it can easily be thrown off ... 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 she will get a tendency to the same tyranny from which she suffered so much. This is what we see, for example, in Kabanikh. Her tyranny is only narrower and smaller, and therefore, perhaps, even more senseless than that of a man: its size is smaller, but within its limits, on those who have already fallen for it, it acts even more intolerably. Wild swears, Kabanova grumbles; he will kill, and it’s over, but this one gnaws at its victim for a long time and relentlessly; he makes a noise about his fantasies and is rather indifferent to your behavior until it touches him; The boar has created for herself a whole world of special rules and superstitious customs, for which she stands with all the stupidity of tyranny. , soulless in their 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: keeps to antiquity and various instructions communicated to her by some Feklusha ...

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 anything for some Curly to quarrel with Dikiy: both of them need each other and, therefore, no special heroism is needed on the part of Curly to present his demands. On the other hand, his trick will not lead to anything serious: he will quarrel, Dikoy will threaten to give him up as a soldier, but he will not give him up, Curly will be pleased that he bit off, and things will go on as before again. Not so with a woman: she must already have a lot of strength of character in order to express her discontent, her demands. At the first attempt, she will be made to feel that she is nothing, that she can be crushed. She knows that this is true, and must accept; otherwise they will execute a threat over her - they will beat her, lock her up, leave her in repentance, on bread and water, deprive her of the light of day, try all the home remedies of the good old days and still lead to humility. A woman who wants to go to the end in her rebellion against the oppression and arbitrariness of her elders in the Russian family must be filled with heroic self-sacrifice, she must decide on everything and be ready for everything. How can she bear herself? Where does she get so much character? The only answer to this is that the natural tendencies of human nature cannot be completely destroyed. Things have reached the point where it is no longer possible for her to endure her humiliation, so she is torn out of it, no longer on the basis of what is better and what is worse, but only on an instinctive desire for what is bearable and possible. Here, nature replaces the considerations of the mind and the demands of feeling and imagination: all this merges into the general feeling of the organism, demanding air, food, freedom. Here lies the secret of the integrity of the characters that appear in circumstances similar to those we saw in The Thunderstorm, in the environment surrounding Katerina.

Thus, the emergence of a female energetic character fully corresponds to the position to which tyranny has been brought in Ostrovsky's drama. It has gone to the extreme, to the denial of all common sense; more than ever, it is hostile to the natural requirements of mankind and, more fiercely than before, is trying to stop their development, because in their triumph it sees the approach of its inevitable death. Through this, it still more causes grumbling and protest even in the weakest beings. And at the same time, tyranny, as we have seen, lost its self-confidence, lost its firmness in actions, and lost a significant part of the power that consisted for it in instilling fear in everyone. Therefore, the protest against him is not silenced at the very beginning, but can turn into a stubborn struggle. Those who still live tolerably 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 the old Kabanikh, is nevertheless freer: he can run away to Savel Prokofich for a drink, he will go to Moscow from his mother and turn around in the wild, and if he is bad, he will really have to old women, so there is someone to pour out his heart on - he will throw himself at his wife ... So he lives for himself and educates his character, good for nothing, all in the secret hope that he will somehow break free. His wife has no hope, no consolation, she cannot breathe; 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 Kabanikh. But the ashy air and light, contrary to all the precautions of perishing tyranny, burst into Katerina's cell, she feels the opportunity to satisfy the natural thirst of her soul and can no longer remain motionless: she yearns for a new life, even if she had to die in this impulse. What is death to her? All the same - she does not consider life and the vegetative life that fell to her lot in the Kabanov family.

Katerina does not at all belong to violent characters, never satisfied, loving to destroy at all costs. Against; this character is predominantly creative, loving, ideal. She is strange, extravagant from the point of view of others; but this is because it cannot in any way accept their views and inclinations into itself. She takes materials from them, because otherwise there is nowhere to take them from; but does not draw conclusions, but looks for them herself, and often does not come to what they rest on. In the dry, monotonous life of her youth, in the coarse and superstitious notions of the environment, she was constantly able to take what agreed with her natural aspirations for beauty, harmony, contentment, happiness. In the conversations of wanderers, in prostrations and lamentations, she saw not a dead form, but something else, to which her heart was constantly striving. On the basis of them, she built for herself a different world, without passions, without need, without grief, a world devoted entirely 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 kind of unconscious, vague aspirations, which she recalls:

“Sometimes, it used to happen that early in the morning I’ll go to the garden, as soon as the sun rises, I’ll fall on my knees, pray and cry, and I myself don’t know what I’m praying about and what I’m crying about; so they will find me. And what I prayed for then, what I asked for, I don’t know; I don’t need anything, I had enough of everything. ”

In the gloomy surroundings of the new family, Katerina began to feel the lack of appearance, which she had thought to be content with before. Under the heavy hand of the soulless Kabanikh 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 - she shouts to the old woman: “What are you hanging around your neck, shameless? Bow down at your feet!" She wants to be left alone and mourn quietly, as she used to, and her mother-in-law says: “Why don’t you howl?” She is looking for light, air, wants to dream and frolic, water her flowers, look at the sun, the Volga, send her greetings to all living things - and she is kept in captivity, she is constantly suspected of impure, depraved plans. She still seeks refuge in religious practice, in church attendance, in soul-saving conversations; but even here he does not find the former impressions. Killed by daily work and eternal bondage, she can no longer dream with the same clarity of angels singing in a dusty column illuminated by the sun, she cannot imagine the gardens of Eden with their unperturbed look and joy. Everything is gloomy, scary around her, everything breathes cold and some irresistible threat: the faces of the saints are so strict, and church readings are so formidable, and the stories of wanderers are so monstrous ... They are still the same in essence, they have not changed at all, but she has changed herself: there is no desire in her to build aerial visions, and even that indefinite imagination of bliss, which she enjoyed before, does not satisfy her. She matured, other desires woke up in her, more real; knowing no other career but her family, no other world than the one that has developed for her in the society of her town, she, of course, begins to realize of all human aspirations that which is most inevitable and closest to her - the desire of love and devotion. In the old days, 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 did not yet understand this feeling; they told her that every girl should get married, showed Tikhon as her future husband, and she went for 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 think of resistance, because she does not have sufficient grounds for this. She has no special desire to get married, but there is no aversion from marriage either; there is no love in her for Tikhon, but there is no love for anyone else either. She doesn't care for the time being, which is why she lets you do whatever you want with her. One cannot see in this either impotence or apathy, but one can only find a lack of experience, and even too much readiness to do everything for others, taking little care of oneself. She has little knowledge and a lot of gullibility, which is why until the time she does not show opposition to others and decides to endure better than to do it in spite of 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, not wasted in petty antics, will fully manifest itself. At first, according to the innate kindness and nobility of her soul, she will make every possible effort not to violate the peace and the rights of others, in order to get what she wants with the greatest possible observance of all the requirements that are imposed on her by people who are somehow connected with her; and if they manage to take advantage of this initial mood and decide to give her complete satisfaction, then it is good both for her and for them. But if not, she will stop at nothing - law, kinship, custom, human judgment, rules of prudence - everything disappears for her before the power of inner attraction; she does not spare herself and does not think about others. This was precisely the exit presented to Katerina, and another could not have been expected given the situation in which she finds 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 a young woman and changed her former, uncertain and fruitless dreams. “At night, Varya, I can’t sleep,” she says, “I keep imagining some kind of whisper: someone is talking to me so affectionately, like a dove cooing. I no longer dream, Varya, as before, paradise trees and mountains; but it’s as if someone hugs me so warmly, passionately, or leads me somewhere, and I follow him, I follow ... ”She realized and caught these dreams quite late; but, of course, they pursued and tormented her long before she herself could give an account of them. At their first manifestation, she immediately turned her feelings to that which was closest to her - to her husband. For a long time she struggled to make her soul akin to him, to assure herself that she needed nothing with him, that in him there was the bliss 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 with the beginning of her love for Boris Grigorych, Katerina's last, desperate efforts are still visible - to make her husband dear to herself. The scene of her parting with him makes us feel that even here Tikhon is not yet lost, that he can still retain his rights to the love of this woman; but this same scene, in short but sharp sketches, tells us the whole story of the tortures that forced Katerina to endure in order to alienate her first feeling from her husband. Tikhon is here simple-hearted and vulgar, not at all evil, but extremely spineless creature, not daring to do anything contrary to his mother. And the mother is a soulless creature, a fist-baba, which contains in Chinese ceremonies both love, and religion, and morality. Between her and between his wife, Tikhon represents one of the many pitiful types who are usually called harmless, although in a general sense they are just as harmful as the tyrants themselves, because they serve as their faithful assistants. Tikhon loves his wife by himself and would be ready to do anything for her; but the oppression under which he grew up has so disfigured him that no strong feeling, no resolute striving can develop in him. to his wife.

But the new movement of people's life, which we spoke about above and which we found reflected in the character of Katerina, is not like them. In this personality we see already mature, from the depths of the whole organism, the demand for the right and the scope of life that arises. 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 8 on 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 as little as possible with her personality and disturb the general course of affairs. But on the other hand, recognizing and respecting the aspirations of others, it demands the same respect for itself, and any violence, any constraint revolts it vitally, deeply. If she could, she would drive far from herself everything that lives wrong and harms others; but, not being able to do this, she goes the opposite way - she herself runs from the destroyers and offenders. If only not to submit to their principles, contrary to her nature, if only not to reconcile with their unnatural demands, and then what will come out - whether the best lot for her or death - she no longer looks at this: in both cases, deliverance is for her.

Katerina, forced to endure insults, finds in herself the strength to endure them for a long time, without vain complaints, half-resistances and all sorts of noisy antics. She endures until some interest speaks in her, especially close to her heart and legitimate in her eyes, until such a requirement of her nature is offended in her, without the satisfaction of which she cannot remain calm. Then she won't look at anything. She will not resort to diplomatic tricks, to deceit and trickery - it is not such that she has the power of natural aspirations, inconspicuously for Katerina herself, triumphs in her over all external demands, prejudices and artificial combinations in which her life is tangled. Let us note that, theoretically, Katerina could not reject any of these combinations, could not free herself from any backward opinions; she went against all of them, armed only with the power of her feelings, the instinctive consciousness of her direct, inalienable right to life, happiness and love ...

Here is the true strength of character, which in any case can be relied upon! This is the height to which our popular life reaches in its development, but to which very few in our literature have been able to rise, and no one has been able to hold on to it as well as Ostrovsky. He felt that not abstract beliefs, but life facts govern a person, that not a way of thinking, not principles, but nature is needed for the formation and manifestation of a strong character, and he knew how to create such a person who serves as a representative of a great popular idea, without carrying great ideas. neither in the tongue nor in the head, selflessly goes to the end in an uneven struggle and perishes, without at all dooming himself to high self-sacrifice. Her actions are in harmony with her nature, they are natural for her, necessary, she cannot be from them, even if this had the most disastrous consequences.

In Katerina's position, we see that, on the contrary, all the "ideas" instilled in her from childhood, all the principles of the environment, rebel against her natural aspirations and actions. The terrible struggle to which the young woman is condemned takes place in every word, in every movement of the drama, and this is where all the importance of the introductory characters for which Ostrovsky is so reproached turns out. Take a good look: you see that Katerina was brought up in the same concepts with the concepts of the environment in which she lives, and cannot get rid of them, having no theoretical education. The stories of the wanderers and the suggestions of the household, although they were reworked by her in her own way, could not but leave an ugly trace in her soul: and indeed, we see in the play that Katerina, having lost her bright dreams and ideal, lofty aspirations, retained from her upbringing one thing a strong feeling - the fear of some dark forces, something unknown, which she could neither explain to herself well, nor reject. For every thought she fears, for the simplest feeling she expects punishment for herself; she thinks that the storm will kill her, because she is a sinner; the picture of fiery hell on the church wall seems to her already a foreshadowing of her eternal torment ... And everything around her supports and develops this fear in her: Feklushis go to Kabanikha to talk about the last times; Wild insists that a thunderstorm is sent to us as punishment, so that we feel; the mistress who has come, inspiring fear in everyone in the city, is shown several times in order to shout over Katerina in an ominous voice: “You will all burn in fire in unquenchable.” Everyone around is full of superstitious fear, and everyone around, in accordance with the concepts of Katerina herself, should look at her feelings for Boris as the greatest crime. Even the daring Curly, the espritfort of this environment, and he finds that the girls can hang out with the guys as much as they want - that's nothing, but the women should already be locked up. This conviction is so strong in him that, having learned about Boris's love for Katerina, he, despite his daring and some kind of outrage, says that "this business must be abandoned." Everything is against Katerina, even her own notions of good and evil; everything must make her - to drown out her impulses and wither in the cold and gloomy formalism of family silence and humility, without any living aspirations, without will, without love - or else learn to deceive people and conscience. But do not be afraid for her, do not be afraid even when she herself speaks against herself: she can either submit for a while, apparently, or even go to deceit, just as a river can hide under the ground or move away from its channel; but flowing water will not stop and will not go back, but nevertheless it will reach its end, to the point where it can merge with other waters and run together to the waters of the ocean. The situation in which Katerina lives requires that she lie and deceive: “It’s impossible without this,” Varvara tells her, “you remember where you live; Our whole house is based on this. And I was not a liar, but I learned when it became necessary. Katerina succumbs to her position, goes out to Boris at night, hides her feelings from her mother-in-law for ten days ... You might think: another woman has gone astray, learned to deceive her family and will debauchery on the sly, pretending to caress her husband and wearing the disgusting mask of a humble woman! One could not strictly blame her for this: her situation is so difficult! But then she would have been one of the dozens of faces of the type that is already so worn out in stories that showed how "environment seizes good people." Katerina is not like that; the denouement of her love with all the homely atmosphere is visible in advance, even when she only approaches the matter. She does not engage in psychological analysis and therefore cannot express subtle observations of herself; what she says about herself, it means that she strongly makes herself known to her. And at the first suggestion of Varvara about a meeting with Boris, she cries out: “No, no, don’t! What are you, God forbid: if I see him at least once, I will run away from home, I won’t get home for anything in the world!” It is not reasonable precaution that speaks in her, this is passion; and it is clear that no matter how hard she restrains herself, passion is above her, above all her prejudices and fears, above all the suggestions she has heard since childhood. In this passion lies her whole life; all the strength of her nature, all her living aspirations merge here. She is attracted to Boris not only by the fact that she likes him, that he is not like the others around her both in appearance and speech; she is attracted to him by the need for love, which has not found a response in her husband, and the offended feeling of the wife and woman, and the mortal anguish of her monotonous life, and the desire for freedom, space, hot, unrestricted freedom. She keeps dreaming about how she could “fly invisibly wherever she wanted”; otherwise such a thought comes: “If it were my will, I would now ride on the Volga, on a boat, with songs, or on a troika on a good one, embracing ...” - “Not with my husband,” Varya tells her, and Katerina cannot hide her feelings and immediately opens up to her with the question: “How do you know?” It is evident that Varvara's remark explained a lot to herself: in telling her dreams so naively, she did not yet fully understand their significance. But one word is enough to give her thoughts the certainty that she herself was afraid to give them. Until now, she could still doubt whether this new feeling really contained the bliss for which she was so languidly seeking. But once she has uttered the word of mystery, she will not depart from it even in her thoughts. Fear, doubts, the thought of sin and human judgment - all this comes to her mind, but no longer has power over her; this is so, formalities, to clear the conscience. In the monologue with the key (the last one in the second act), we see a woman in whose soul a dangerous step has already been taken, but who only wants to “speak” herself somehow.

The struggle, in fact, is already over, there is only a little thought left, the old rag still covers Katerina, and she gradually throws her off herself ... The end of the monologue betrays her heart: “Come what may, but I will see Boris,” she concludes in oblivion of foreboding exclaims: “Oh, if only the night would come sooner!”

Such love, such a feeling will not get along within the walls of a boar's house with pretense and deceit.

And for sure, she is not afraid of anything, except for depriving her of the opportunity to see her chosen one, to talk with him, to enjoy these summer nights with him, these new feelings for her. Her husband arrived, and her life became unrealistic. It was necessary to hide, to be cunning; she did not want to and did not know how; she had to go back to her callous, dreary life—it seemed to her bitterer than before. Moreover, I had to be afraid every minute for myself, for my every word, especially in front of my mother-in-law; one also had to be afraid of a terrible punishment for the soul ... Such a situation was unbearable for Katerina: days and nights she kept thinking, suffering, exalted 9 her imagination, already hot, and the end was one that she could not endure - in front of all the people , crowded in the gallery of an old church, repented of everything to her husband. The will and peace of the poor woman are over: before, at least they could not reproach her, at least she could feel that she was completely right in front of these people. And now, after all, one way or another, she is guilty before them, she violated her duties to them, brought grief and shame to the family; now the most cruel treatment of her already has reasons and justification. What is left for her? To regret the unsuccessful attempt to break free and leave her dreams of love and happiness, as she had already left her rainbow dreams of wonderful gardens with heavenly singing. It remains for her to submit, renounce independent life and become an unquestioning servant of her mother-in-law, a meek slave of her husband and never again dare to make any attempts to reveal her demands again ... But no, this is not the nature of Katerina; not then was a new type reflected in it, created by Russian life, only to show itself as a fruitless attempt and perish after the first failure. No, she will not return to her former life; if she cannot enjoy her feelings, her will, quite legally and sacredly, in the light of a broad day, in front of all the people, if they tear out from her what she has found and what is so dear to her, then she does not want anything in life, she does not even live. wants.

And the thought of the bitterness of life, which one will have to endure, torments Katerina to such an extent that it plunges her into some sort of semi-feverish state. At the last moment, all domestic horrors flash especially vividly in her imagination. She cries out: “But they will catch me and bring me back home by force! .. 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 her spineless and disgusting husband. She's released!

Sad, bitter is such a liberation; But what to do when there is no other way out. It's good that the poor woman found determination at least for this terrible exit. That is the strength of her character, which is why "Thunderstorm" makes a refreshing impression on us, as we said above. Without a doubt, it would have been better if it had been possible for Katerina to get rid of her tormentors in some other way, or if these tormentors could change and reconcile her with herself and with life. But neither one nor the other is in the order of things.

We have already said that this end seems to us gratifying; it is easy to understand why: in it a terrible challenge is given to self-conscious force, 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 conceptions of morality, a protest carried to the end, proclaimed both under domestic torture and over the abyss into which the poor woman threw herself. She does not want to be reconciled, she does not want to take advantage of the miserable vegetative life that is given to her in exchange for her living soul.

But even without any lofty considerations, simply for humanity, it is gratifying for us to see Katerina's deliverance - even through death, if it is impossible otherwise. In this regard, we have terrible evidence in the drama itself, telling us that living in the "dark kingdom" is worse than death. Tikhon, throwing himself on the corpse of his wife, pulled out of the water, shouts in self-forgetfulness: “It’s good for you, Katya! Why am I left to live in the world and suffer!” The play ends with this exclamation, and it seems to us that nothing could have been invented stronger and more truthful than such an ending. Tikhon's words give the key to the understanding of 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 some suicides! Strictly speaking, Tikhon's exclamation is stupid: the Volga is close, who prevents him from throwing himself if life is nauseating? But that is his grief, that is what is hard for him, that he can do nothing, absolutely nothing, even that in which he recognizes his good and salvation. This moral corruption, this annihilation of man, affects us harder than any, the most tragic, event: there you see simultaneous death, the end of suffering, often deliverance from the need to serve as a miserable instrument of some kind of vile thing; and here - constant, oppressive pain, relaxation, a half-corpse, rotting alive for many years ... And to think that this living corpse is not one, not an exception, but a whole mass of people subject to the corrupting influence of the Wild and Kabanovs! And do not expect deliverance for them - this, you see, is terrible! But what a gratifying, fresh life a healthy person breathes upon us, finding in himself the determination to put an end to this rotten life at all costs!

Notes

1 This refers to article H, A. Dobrolyubov "Dark Kingdom", also published in Sovremennik.

2 Indifferentism - indifference, indifference.

3 Idyll - happy, blissful life; in this case, Dobrolyubov uses this word ironically,

4 Skepticism is doubt.

5 Anarchy - anarchy; here: the absence of any organizing principle in life, chaos.

6 Resonate - here: to reason sensibly, to prove your point.

7 Syllogism is a logical argument, proof.

8 to impress - to like, to impress,

9 To exalt - here: to excite.

With passion, out of love (Italian)

Freethinker (fr.)

ARTICLE N.A. DOBROLUBOV "RAY OF LIGHT IN THE DARK KINGDOM"

Thunderstorm Ostrov Dobrolyubov

At the beginning of the article, Dobrolyubov writes that "Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life." Further, he analyzes articles about Ostrovsky by other critics, writes that they "lack a direct look at things."

Then Dobrolyubov compares The Thunderstorm with dramatic canons: "The subject of the drama must certainly be an event where we see the struggle of passion and duty - with the unfortunate consequences of the victory of passion or with happy ones when duty wins." Also in the drama there must be a unity of action, and it must be written in high literary language. The Thunderstorm, however, “does not satisfy the most essential goal of the drama - to inspire respect for moral duty and show the detrimental consequences of infatuation with passion. Katerina, this criminal, appears to us in the drama not only in a rather gloomy light, but even with the radiance of martyrdom. She speaks so well, she suffers so plaintively, everything around her is so bad that you arm yourself against her oppressors and thus justify vice in her face. Consequently, the drama does not fulfill its high purpose. The whole action is sluggish and slow, because it is cluttered with scenes and faces that are completely unnecessary. Finally, the language with which the characters speak surpasses all the patience of a well-bred person.

Dobrolyubov makes this comparison with the canon in order to show that an approach to a work with a ready idea of ​​​​what should be shown in it does not give a true understanding. “What to think of a man who, at the sight of a pretty woman, suddenly begins to resonate that her camp is not the same as that of the Venus de Milo? The truth is not in dialectical subtleties, but in the living truth of what you are talking about. It cannot be said that people are evil by nature, and therefore one cannot accept principles for literary works such as that, for example, vice always triumphs, and virtue is punished.

“The writer has so far been given a small role in this movement of mankind towards natural principles,” writes Dobrolyubov, after which he recalls Shakespeare, who “moved the general consciousness of people to several steps that no one had climbed before him.” Further, the author turns to other critical articles about the "Thunderstorm", in particular, by Apollon Grigoriev, who claims that Ostrovsky's main merit is in his "nationality". “But what the nationality consists of, Grigoriev does not explain, and therefore his remark seemed very amusing to us.”

Then Dobrolyubov comes to the definition of Ostrovsky’s plays as a whole as “plays of life”: “We want to say that for him the general atmosphere of life is always in the foreground. He does not punish either the villain or the victim. You see that their position dominates them, and you only blame them for not showing enough energy to get out of this position. And that is why we do not 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 faces are just as necessary for the play as the main ones: they show us the environment in which the action takes place, draw the position that determines the meaning of the activity of the main characters of the play.

In "Thunderstorm" the need for "unnecessary" persons (secondary and episodic characters) is especially visible. Dobrolyubov analyzes the remarks of Feklusha, Glasha, Dikoy, Kudryash, Kuligin, etc. The author analyzes the internal state of the heroes of the “dark kingdom”: “everything is somehow restless, not good for them. In addition to them, without asking them, another life has grown up, with other beginnings, and although it is not yet clearly visible, it already sends bad visions to the dark arbitrariness of tyrants. And Kabanova is very seriously upset by the future of the old order, with which she has outlived a century. She foresees their end, tries to maintain their significance, but she already feels that there is no former reverence for them and that they will be abandoned at the first opportunity.

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

Further, Dobrolyubov analyzes the image of Katerina, perceiving it as "a step forward in all our literature": "Russian life has reached the point where there is a need for more active and energetic people." The image of Katerina is “steadily faithful to the instinct of natural truth and selfless in the sense that death is better for him than life under those principles that are repugnant to him. In this wholeness and harmony of character lies his strength. Free air and light, contrary to all the precautions of perishing tyranny, burst into Katerina's cell, she yearns for a new life, even if she had to die in this impulse. What is death to her? It doesn't matter - she does not consider life to be the vegetative life that fell to her lot in the Kabanov family.

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

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

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

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

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

The article “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom” is about the work of Ostrovsky “Thunderstorm”, which, undoubtedly, has become a classic in Russian literature. In the first part, the author speaks of a deep understanding of the life of a Russian person by Ostrovsky himself. He then tries to make a deep analysis of the articles written by other critics about the personality of Ostrovsky, while noting the fact that in these articles there is no direct look at many things that are basic.
In the field, the author makes a certain comparison of the work "Thunderstorm" to the accepted standards of drama. Dobrolyubov considers the principle established in literature about the subject of a dramatic work, expressed by the main event itself, as well as a description of the struggle between duty and passion, summing up an unfortunate end in the finale if passion triumphs, and vice versa - a happy one if it turned out to be stronger for a long time. In addition, the drama should represent a single action written in beautiful literary language. Dobrolyubov, notes the fact that, according to the goal set out in it, The Thunderstorm does not fit the concept of drama, which should certainly make you feel some respect for duty in all its moral sense while exposing a harmful infatuation with passion. In The Thunderstorm, we can see her main character in not sufficiently dark tones and gloomy colors, although according to all the rules established for the drama, she is a “criminal”, but in Ostrovsky we are forced to feel compassion for her and this very shade of martyrdom that arises from the reader, discussed in detail in Dobrolyubov's article. Ostrovsky was able to vividly express how Katerina suffers and speaks beautifully, we see her in the most gloomy surroundings and involuntarily begin to justify the vice, rallying against her tormentors. As a result, the drama does not carry its main semantic load, does not fulfill its purpose. The action itself in The Thunderstorm flows somehow slowly and uncertainly. There are no stormy and bright scenes, and the piling up of many actors leads to the "sluggishness" of the whole work. The language itself does not withstand criticism, because it does not allow even the most patient, well-mannered reader to withstand.

Dobrolyubov specifically cites this comparative analysis of The Thunderstorm for compliance with established standards, since he comes to the conclusion that a ready-made, standard idea of ​​\u200b\u200bwhat should be in the work does not allow creating a true reflection of things. What would you say about a man who meets a pretty girl and starts saying that her body is not as good as Venus de Milo? - This is how Dobrolyubov puts the question, speaking about the standardization of the approach to a literary work. Truth is in truth and life, and not in dialectical attitudes. It is impossible to say that a person is evil by nature and, therefore, it cannot be said that in a book good must always triumph or vice lose.

Dobrolyubov notes that for a long time writers were assigned a very small role in the movement of a person to his roots - the primordial principles. He recalls the great Shakespeare and says that it was he who was the first to raise humanity to a new level, which was simply inaccessible before him. After that, the author moves on to other critical articles about Groz. He mentions Apollon Grigoriev, who speaks of the main merit of Ostrovsky in the nationality of his work. Dobrolyubov asks the question, what does this “nationality” itself consist of? The author answers the question himself and says that Mr. Grigoriev does not give us an explanation of this concept, and therefore this statement itself can only be considered as funny, but no more.

In the rest of the article, Dobrolyubov says that Ostrovsky's works themselves are "plays of life." He considers life as a whole and does not deliberately try to punish the villain or make the righteous happy. He looks at the state of things and makes either sympathize or deny, but does not leave anyone indifferent. It is impossible to consider superfluous those who do not participate in the intrigue itself, for it would not be possible without them.

Dobrolyubov analyzes the statements of the so-called secondary persons: Glasha, Curly, and many others. He tries to understand their inner state, their world and how they see the reality around them. He considers all the subtleties of the "dark kingdom" itself. He says that the life of these people is so limited that they do not notice that there is another reality around. We see the author's analysis of Kabanova's concern about the future of the old traditions and practices.

Further, Dobrolyubov notes the fact that The Thunderstorm is the most decisive work of all written by Ostrovsky. The very relationships and tyranny of the dark kingdom are brought to the most tragic consequences of all possible. However, almost everyone familiar with the work itself noticed that there was some kind of breath of novelty in it - the author decides that this is hidden in the background of the play, in the “unnecessary” people on the stage, in everything that suggests the imminent end of the old order and tyranny . Yes, and the death of Katerina - it opens up a new beginning on the background we have designated.

There could not have been an article by Dobrolyubov without an analysis of the image of the main character - Katerina. He describes this given image as a kind of shaky, not yet decisive "step forward" in all of Russian literature. The life of the Russian people requires the appearance of more resolute and active ones, says Dobrolyubov. The very image of Katerina is saturated with natural understanding and intuitive perception of the truth, it is selfless, because Katerina would rather choose death than life under the old order. It is in the very harmony of integrity that the mighty strength of the character of the heroine lies.

In addition to the image of Katerina, Dobrolyubov examines in detail her actions, their motives. He notices that she is not a rebel by nature, she does not demand destruction and does not show biased discontent. She is more of a creator who wants to love. It is these inclinations that explain her desire in her own mind to somehow ennoble everything. She is young and the desire for tenderness and love is natural for her. However, Tikhon is so obsessed and downtrodden that he will not be able to understand these feelings and desires of Katerina themselves. He himself says about this: "Something Katya, I don't understand you ...".

Ultimately, in considering the image of Katerina, Dobrolyubov finds that in her Ostrovsky embodied the very idea of ​​​​the Russian people, which he speaks about rather abstractly, comparing Katerina with a flat and wide river, which has a flat bottom, and it flows around the stones it meets smoothly. This river itself makes noise only because it is necessary by the natural nature of things and nothing more.

In the analysis of Katerina's actions, Dobrolyubov comes to the conclusion that her and Boris's escape itself is the only right decision. Katerina can escape, but Boris's dependence on his relative shows that he himself is the same as Tikhon, only more educated.
The finale of the play is tragic and encouraging at the same time. Getting rid of the shackles of the dark kingdom, albeit in this way, is the main idea of ​​the work itself. Life itself in this gloomy realm is not possible. Even Tikhon, when they pull out the corpse of his wife, shouts that she is now well, and wonders: - “But what about me?”. This cry itself and the finale of the play give an unambiguous understanding of the full power and truth of the finale. Tikhon's words make you think not about the usual love affair and the gloom of the finale, but about a world in which the living envy the dead.
In the final part of the article, the author addresses the reader with the words that he will be pleased if the readers find Russian life and strength decisive, and also calls to feel the importance and legitimacy of this matter itself.

Please note that this is only a summary of the literary work "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom". This summary omits many important points and quotations.

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

Shortly before the Thunderstorm appeared on the stage, we analyzed in great detail all the works of Ostrovsky. Wishing to present a description of the author's talent, we then drew attention to the phenomena of Russian life reproduced in his plays, tried to catch their general character and try to find out whether the meaning of these phenomena is in reality what it appears to us in the works of our playwright. If readers have not forgotten, then we came to the conclusion that Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life and a great ability to depict sharply and vividly its most essential aspects. "The Thunderstorm" soon served as a new proof of the validity of our conclusion. We wanted to talk about it at the same time, but we felt that in doing so we would have to repeat many of our previous considerations, and therefore decided to keep silent about Groz, leaving readers who asked for our opinion to check on it those general remarks that we spoke about Ostrovsky a few months before the appearance of this play. Our decision was even more confirmed in us when we saw that a whole series of large and small reviews appear in all magazines and newspapers about the Thunderstorm, interpreting the matter from the most diverse points of view. We thought that in this mass of articles something more would finally be said about Ostrovsky and about the significance of his plays than what we saw in the critics mentioned at the beginning of our first article on The Dark Kingdom. In this hope, and in the awareness 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, again meeting Ostrovsky's play in a separate edition and recalling everything that has been written about it, we find that it will not be superfluous on our part to say a few words about it. It gives us occasion to add something to our notes on The Dark Kingdom, to carry forward some of the thoughts that we expressed then, and - by the way - to explain ourselves in short words to some of the critics who honored us with direct or indirect abuse.

We must do justice to some of the critics: they were able to understand the difference that separates us from them. They reproach us for adopting the bad method of considering the author's work and then, as a result of this consideration, saying what it contains and what that content is. 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, according to their concepts). It is clear that with such a difference in views, they look with indignation at our analysis, which is likened by one of them to "finding a moral to a fable." But we are very glad that finally the difference is open, and we are ready to withstand any kind of comparison. Yes, if you like, our method of criticism is also similar to finding a moral conclusion in a fable: the difference, for example, in the application to the criticism of Ostrovsky's comedies, will only be as great as far as the comedy differs from the fable and how much 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 analyze the fable and say: “This is what morality it contains, and this morality seems to us good or bad, and this is why,” than to decide from the very beginning: this fable should have 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 negligence 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), then the fable is not good. We have seen this method of criticism more than once in the appendix to Ostrovsky, although, of course, no one will want to admit it, and we will also be blamed, from a sick head to a healthy one, that we are starting to analyze literary works with pre-adopted ideas. and requirements. And meanwhile, what is clearer, didn’t the Slavophiles say: one should portray a Russian person as virtuous and prove that the root of all goodness is life in the old days; in his first plays, Ostrovsky did not observe this, and therefore The Family Picture and His Own People are unworthy of him and are explained only by the fact that he was still imitating Gogol at that time. Didn't the Westerners shout: it is necessary to teach in comedy that superstition is harmful, and Ostrovsky saves one of his heroes from death with the ringing of bells; everyone should be taught that the true good lies in education, and Ostrovsky in his comedy dishonors the educated Vikhorev in front of the ignoramus Borodkin; it is clear that "Don't get into your sleigh" and "Don't live as you like" are bad plays. Didn't the adherents of artistry proclaim: art must serve the eternal and universal requirements of aesthetics, and Ostrovsky, in Profitable Place, reduced art to serving the miserable interests of the moment; therefore, "Profitable Place" is unworthy of art and must be counted among accusatory literature! .. But Mr. Nekrasov from Moscow did not say: Bolshov should not arouse sympathy in us, and meanwhile the 4th act of “His People” was written in order to arouse sympathy in us for Bolshov; therefore, the fourth act is superfluous!.. Didn't Mr. Pavlov (N. F.) writhe, giving the following propositions to be understood: Russian folk life can only provide material for farcical performances; there are no elements in it in order to build something out of it in accordance with the "eternal" requirements of art; it is obvious, therefore, that Ostrovsky, who takes a plot from the life of the common people, is nothing more than a farcical writer... And did another Moscow critic draw such conclusions: the drama should present us with a hero imbued with lofty ideas; the heroine of The Storm, on the other hand, is all imbued with mysticism, and therefore unsuitable for drama, for she cannot arouse our sympathy; therefore, "Thunderstorm" has only the meaning of satire, and even then it is not important, and so on and so forth ...

Anyone who followed what was written in our country about the Thunderstorm will easily recall a few more similar critics. It cannot be said that all of them were written by people who are completely mentally poor; how to explain the absence of a direct view of things, which strikes the impartial reader in all of them? Without any doubt, it must be attributed to the old critical routine, which remained in many minds 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 theoreticians, criticism is an application to a well-known work of general laws set forth in the courses of the same theoreticians: fits the laws - excellent; does not fit - bad. As you can see, it was not badly conceived for the dying old people: as long as such a principle lives in criticism, they can be sure that they will not be considered completely backward, no matter what happens in the literary world. After all, they established the laws of beauty in their textbooks, on the basis of those works in whose beauty they believe; as long as everything new will be judged on the basis of the laws approved by them, as long as only that which is in accordance with them will be elegant and recognized, nothing new will dare to lay claim to its rights; the old people will be right in believing in Karamzin and not recognizing Gogol, as the respectable people thought to be right, who admired the imitators of Racine and scolded Shakespeare as a drunken savage, following Voltaire, or bowed before the Messiah and on this basis rejected Faust. Routiners, even the most mediocre, have nothing to fear from criticism, which serves as a passive verification of the immovable rules of stupid schoolchildren, and at the same time, the most gifted writers have nothing to hope for from it if they introduce something new and original into art. They must go against all the accusations of "correct" criticism, in spite of it, make a name for themselves, in spite of it, establish a school and ensure that some new theoretician begins to think with them when compiling a new code of art. Then the criticism humbly recognizes 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 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. Indeed, by limiting it to the application of the “eternal and general” laws of art to particular and temporary phenomena, through this very thing they condemn art to immobility, and give criticism a completely commanding and police significance. And many do it from the bottom of their hearts! One of the authors, about whom we expressed our opinion, somewhat disrespectfully reminded us that a judge's disrespectful treatment of a defendant is a crime. O naive author! How full of 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 is a sin against Apollo and that bad writers are punished by being drowned in the river Lethe! .. Otherwise, how can one not see the difference between a critic and a judge? People are dragged to court on suspicion of a misdemeanor or a crime, and it is up to the judge to decide whether the accused is right or wrong; Is a writer accused of anything when he is criticized? It seems that those times when the occupation of the book business was considered 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 a windbag, but a reasonable person, he tries to present reasons why he considers one thing good and the other bad. He does not regard his opinion as a decisive verdict binding on all; if we take a comparison from the legal sphere, then he is more a lawyer than a judge. Having adopted a well-known 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 inspire them with his conviction in favor or against the author under consideration. It goes without saying that at the same time he can use all the means he finds suitable, so long as they do not distort the essence of the matter: he can bring you to horror or tenderness, to laughter or tears, to force the author to make confessions that are unfavorable to him or to bring him to the point of being impossible to answer. The following result can come from a criticism thus executed: the theoreticians, having mastered their textbooks, can still see whether the analyzed work agrees 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 cases when those present in court are far from sympathetic to the decision that the judge pronounces in accordance with such and such articles of the code: the 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-lawyer properly raises the question, groups the facts and throws on them the light of a certain conviction, public opinion, paying no attention to the codes of piitika, will already know what it needs. hold on.

If we look closely at the definition of criticism by "trial" over 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 at whom our novelists used to laugh so wittily. Even today it is not uncommon to meet such families who look at the writer with some fear, because he "will write criticism on them." The unfortunate provincials, to whom such a thought once wandered into their heads, really represent a pitiful spectacle of the defendants, whose fate depends on the handwriting of the writer's pen. They look into his eyes, 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 emerge in the most remote backwoods. At the same time, just as the right to “dare to have one’s own opinion” ceases to be the property of only a certain rank or position, but becomes available to everyone and everyone, at the same time, more solidity and independence appear in private life, less trembling before any extraneous court. Now they are already expressing 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 the right of everyone to express their views and their demands, finally, they even consider it the duty of everyone to participate in the general movement, communicating their observations. and considerations, which one can afford. From here it is a long way to the role of a judge. If I tell you that you lost your handkerchief on the way, or that you are going in the wrong direction, etc., this does not mean that you are my defendant. In the same way, I will not be your defendant even if you begin to describe me, wishing to give an idea about me to your acquaintances. Entering for the first time into a new society, I know very well that observations are being made on me and opinions are formed about me; but should I therefore imagine myself in front of some kind of Areopagus - and tremble in advance, awaiting the verdict? Without any doubt, remarks about me will be made: one will find that my nose is large, another that I have a red beard, a third that my tie is badly tied, a fourth that I am gloomy, etc. Well, let them notice, What do I care about this? After all, my red beard is not a crime, and no one can ask me for an account of how I dare to have such a big nose. So, there’s nothing for me to think about: whether I like my figure or not, this is a matter of taste, and I express my opinion about it. I can't forbid anyone; and on the other hand, it won’t hurt me if my taciturnity is noticed, if I’m really silent. Thus, the first critical work (in our sense) - noticing and pointing out facts - is done quite freely and harmlessly. Then the other work—judgment from facts—continues in the same way to keep the one who judges perfectly on equal footing with the one he is judging. This is because, in expressing his conclusion from known data, a person always subjects himself to judgment and verification of others regarding the justice and soundness of his opinion. If, for example, someone, on the basis of the fact that my tie is not tied quite elegantly, decides that I am ill-bred, then such a judge runs the risk of giving others a not very high concept of his logic. Similarly, 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 feeling. Thus, as long as the critic points out the facts, analyzes them and draws his conclusions, the author is safe and the work itself is safe. Here you can only claim that when the critic distorts the facts, 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 and factual reasoning, 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 already good in that it gives people who are not accustomed to focusing their thoughts on literature, so to speak, an extract of the writer and thereby facilitates the ability to understand the nature and meaning of his works. And as soon as the writer is properly understood, an opinion about him will not be slow to form and justice will be given to him, without any permission from the respected compilers of the codes.

Dobrolyubov is referring to N. P. Nekrasov (1828–1913), a literary critic, whose article “Ostrovsky’s Works” was published in the journal Ateney, 1859, No. 8.

N. F. Pavlov's article about Groz was published in the reptilian newspaper Nashe Vremya, which was subsidized by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Speaking of Katerina, the critic argued that “the writer, for his part, did everything he could, and it was not his fault if this shameless woman appeared before us in such a form that the pallor of her face seemed to us a cheap ointment” (“Our Time”, 1860, No. 1, p. 16).

We are talking about A. Palkhovsky, whose article about the "Thunderstorm" appeared in the newspaper "Moskovsky Vestnik", 1859, No. 49. Some writers, including Ap. Grigoriev, were inclined to see in Palkhovsky a "student and seid" of Dobrolyubov. Meanwhile, this imaginary follower of Dobrolyubov stood on directly opposite positions. So, for example, he wrote: “Despite the tragic end, Katerina still does not arouse the sympathy of the viewer, because there is nothing to sympathize with: there was nothing reasonable, nothing humane in her actions: she fell in love with Boris for no reason, no reason , repented for no reason, for no reason at all, she also rushed into the river for no reason at all. That is why Katerina cannot be the heroine of a drama, but she serves as an excellent plot for satire ... So, the drama "Thunderstorm" is a drama only in name, but in essence it is a satire directed against two terrible evils that are deeply rooted in the "dark kingdom "- against family despotism and mysticism." Sharply dissociating himself from his imaginary student and vulgarizer, Dobrolyubov polemically calls his article “A ray of light in a dark kingdom”, since the following lines were beaten in A. Palkhovsky’s review - “there is nothing to burst into thunder against Katherine: they are not to blame for what they did of these, the environment into which not a single ray of light has yet penetrated” (“Moskovsky Vestnik”, 1859, No. 49).

Dobrolyubov is referring to N. A. Miller-Krasovsky, the author of the book The Basic Laws of Education, who, in his letter to the editors of the Northern Bee (1859, No. 142), protested against the mocking interpretation of his work by the reviewer of Sovremennik (1859, No. VI). The author of this review was Dobrolyubov.

Composition

Synopsis of the article by N.A. Dobrolyubova

"RAY OF LIGHT IN A DARK REALD"

1. The merit of A.N. Ostrovsky

2. Distinctive properties of the character of Katerina

3. Evaluation of the “dark kingdom”

4. Conclusions reached by the critic

Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life and a great ability to depict sharply and vividly its most essential aspects.

Carefully considering the totality of his works, we find that the instinct for the true needs and aspirations of Russian life never left him; it was sometimes not shown at first glance, but was always at the root of his works.

You find the demand for law, respect for the individual, protest against violence and arbitrariness in many literary works; but in them for the most part the matter is not carried out in a vital, practical way, the abstract, philosophical side of the question is felt and everything is deduced from it, the right is indicated, and the real possibility is left without attention. Not so with Ostrovsky: in him you find not only the moral, but also the worldly economic side of the question, and this is the essence of the matter. In him you can clearly see how tyranny rests on a thick purse, which is called "God's blessing", and how the unanswerability of people in front of him is determined by material dependence on him. Moreover, you see how this material side in all worldly relations dominates the abstract, and how people deprived of material support little value abstract rights and even lose a clear consciousness of them. In fact, a well-fed person can reason coolly and intelligently whether he should eat such and such a meal; but the hungry yearn for food, wherever it sees it, and whatever it may be. This phenomenon, recurring in all spheres of public life, is well noticed and understood by Ostrovsky, and his plays show more clearly than any reasoning how a system of lack of rights and coarse, petty egoism, established by tyranny, is instilled in those who suffer from it; how they, if they retain the remnants of energy in themselves, try to use it to acquire the opportunity to live independently and no longer understand either the means or the rights.

For Ostrovsky, in the foreground is always the general environment of life, independent of any of the characters. He does not punish either the villain or the victim; both of them are pathetic to you, often both are ridiculous, but the feeling aroused in you by the play does not directly appeal to them. You see that their position dominates them, and you only blame them for not showing enough energy to get out of this position. The petty tyrants themselves, against whom your feeling should naturally resent, on closer examination 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 for them by the routine supported by their position; but the situation is such that full, healthy human development is impossible in it.

Thus, the struggle takes place in Ostrovsky's plays not in the monologues of the actors, but in the facts that dominate them. Extraneous persons have a reason for their appearance and are even necessary for the completeness of the play. The inactive participants in the drama of life, each apparently occupied only with their own business, often have such an influence on the course of affairs by their mere existence that nothing can reflect it. How many ardent ideas, how many vast plans, how many enthusiastic impulses collapse at one glance at the indifferent, prosaic crowd, passing us with contemptuous indifference! How many pure and kind 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 outbursts of arbitrariness and violence stop before the decision of this crowd, always seemingly indifferent and pliable, but, in essence, very uncompromising in what once it is recognized by it. Therefore, it is extremely important for us to know what are the ideas of this crowd about good and evil, what they consider to be true and what is false. This determines our view of the position in which the main characters of the play are, and, consequently, the degree of our participation in them.

Katerina is guided to the end 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 resolutely 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 on the contrary, she appears in the form of a weak woman who cannot resist her instincts, and tries to justify the heroism that is manifested in her actions. She complains about no one, blames no one, and nothing like that even comes to her mind. There is no malice, no contempt in it, nothing that usually flaunts disappointed heroes who arbitrarily leave the world. The thought of the bitterness of life, which will have to be endured, torments Katerina to such an extent that it plunges her into some sort of semi-feverish state. At the last moment, all domestic horrors flash especially vividly in her imagination. She cries out: “They will catch me and bring me back home by force! .. 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 her spineless and disgusting husband. She's released!

Sad, bitter is such a liberation; But what to do when there is no other way out. It's good that the poor woman found determination at least for this terrible exit. That is the strength of her character, which is why The Thunderstorm makes a refreshing impression on us.

This end seems to us gratifying; it is easy to understand why: in it a terrible challenge is given to self-conscious force, 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 conceptions of morality, a protest carried to the end, proclaimed both under domestic torture and over the abyss into which the poor woman threw herself. She does not want to be reconciled, she does not want to take advantage of the miserable vegetative life that is given to her in exchange for her living soul.

Dobrolyubov ranked Ostrovsky very highly, finding that he was very fully and comprehensively able to portray the essential aspects and demands of Russian life. Some authors took private phenomena, temporary, external requirements of society and depicted them with more or less success. Other authors took the more inner side of life, but limited themselves to a very narrow circle and noticed such phenomena that were far from having a national significance. Ostrovsky's work is much more fruitful: he captured such general aspirations and needs that permeate the whole of Russian society, whose voice is heard in all the phenomena of our life, whose satisfaction is a necessary condition for our further development.