(story)
Twenty-year-old Maria Naryshkina comes from a remote, sandy town Astrakhan province. It was young healthy man, looking like a youth, with strong muscles and firm legs.
Maria Nikiforovna owed all this goodness not only to her parents, but also to the fact that neither the war nor the revolution almost touched her. Her deaf desert homeland remained aloof from the marching roads of the Red and White armies, and her consciousness flourished in an era when socialism had already hardened.
The father-teacher did not explain the events to the girl, pitying her childhood, afraid to inflict deep, unhealed scars on her fragile growing heart.
Maria saw the sandy steppes of the Caspian region agitated by the lightest wind, caravans of camels leaving for Persia, tanned merchants hoarse from sand powder, and at home, in an enthusiastic frenzy, she read her father's geographical books. The desert was her home, and geography her poetry.
At the age of sixteen, her father took her to Astrakhan for pedagogical courses, where her father was known and appreciated.
And Maria Nikiforovna became a student.
Four years have passed - the most indescribable in a person's life, when the buds burst in a young breast and femininity, consciousness blossoms and the idea of life is born. It's strange that no one ever helps at this age young man overcome his tormenting anxieties; no one will support the thin trunk that the wind shakes with
opinions and shakes the earthquake of growth. Someday youth will not be defenseless.
Of course, Mary had both love and a thirst for suicide - this bitter moisture irrigates every growing life.
But it's all over. The end of the lesson has come. They gathered the girls into the hall, the head of the gubono came out and explained to the impatient beings the great significance of their future patient activity. The girls listened and smiled, vaguely conscious of speech. At their age, a person makes noise inside and the outside world is greatly distorted, because they look at him with shining eyes.
Maria Nikiforovna was appointed as a teacher in a distant region ─ the village of Khoshutovo, on the border with the dead Central Asian desert.
A sad, slow feeling seized the traveler ─ Maria Nikiforovna, when she found herself among the deserted sands on the way to Khoshutovo.
On a quiet July afternoon, a desert landscape opened up before her.
The sun emanated heat from the heights of the eerie sky, and the red-hot dunes from a distance seemed like blazing bonfires, among which the crust of salt licks whitened like a shroud. And during a sudden desert storm, the sun was dimmed by thick yellowish loess dust and the wind hissed streams of groaning sand. The stronger the wind becomes, the thicker the tops of the dunes smoke, the air is filled with sand and becomes opaque.
In the middle of the day, with a cloudless sky, it is impossible to determine the position of the sun, and a bright day seems like a gloomy moonlit night.
For the first time, Maria Nikiforovna saw a real storm in the depths of the desert.
By evening the storm was over. The desert took on its former form:
a boundless sea of dunes smoking on the tops, a dry, languishing space, beyond which one could imagine a moist, young, indefatigable land filled with the ringing of life.
Naryshkina arrived in Khoshutovo on the third day in the evening.
She saw a village of several dozen households, a stone zemstvo school and a rare bush - a hutch near deep wells. The wells in her homeland were the most precious structures, life in the desert oozed from them, and their construction required a lot of work and intelligence.
Khoshutovo was almost completely covered with sand. On the streets lay whole snowdrifts of the finest whitish sand blown up from the plateaus of the Pamirs. The sand approached the window sills of the houses, lay in mounds in the yards, and whetted the breath of the people. Shovels stood everywhere, and every day the peasants worked, clearing the estates from sand drifts.
Maria Nikiforovna saw hard and almost unnecessary work - because the cleared places were again covered with sand - silent poverty and humble despair. The tired, hungry peasant fought wildly many times, worked wildly, but the forces of the desert broke him, and he lost heart, waiting either for someone's miraculous help, or for resettlement to the wet northern lands.
Maria Nikiforovna settled in a room at the school. The caretaker, the old man, maddened by silence and loneliness, rejoiced at her as if she had returned to her daughter, and, not sparing his health, was fussing over the arrangement of her dwelling.
After equipping the school somehow, writing out the most necessary things from the district, Maria Nikiforovna began her studies two months later.
The guys went wrong. Five people will come, then all twenty.
Early winter has come, as vicious in this desert as summer. Terrible snowstorms groaned, mixed with sharp, stinging sand, shutters slammed in the village, and people finally fell silent. The peasants grieved from poverty.
The kids didn't have anything to wear or wear. The school was often completely empty. The bread in the village was coming to an end, and the children, in front of Maria Nikiforovna, were losing weight and losing interest in fairy tales.
By the New Year, two of the twenty disciples had died, and they were buried in unsteady sandy graves.
The strong, cheerful, courageous nature of Naryshkina began to get lost and go out.
Long evenings, entire epochs of empty days, Maria Nikiforovna sat and thought what she should do in this village, doomed to extinction. It was clear: you can not teach hungry and sick children.
The peasants looked at the school with indifference; they did not need it in their position. The peasants will go anywhere for those who will help them overcome the sands, and the school stood aside from this local peasant business.
And Maria Nikiforovna guessed: the main subject at school should be training in the fight against sands, training in the art of turning the desert into living land.
Then she called the peasants to school and told them about her intention. The peasants did not believe her, but said that this was a glorious thing.
Maria Nikiforovna wrote a large statement to the district department of public education, collected the signatures of the peasants and went to the district.
In the district, she was treated sympathetically, but did not agree with something. They did not give her a special teacher in sand science, but gave her books and advised her to teach sand business herself.
And for help, you should contact the local agronomist.
Maria Nikiforovna laughed:
─ The agronomist lived about a hundred and fifty miles away and had never been to Khoshutov.
They smiled at her and shook hands as a sign of the end of the conversation and farewell.
Two years have passed. With great difficulty, by the end of the first summer, Maria Nikiforovna managed to convince the peasants to organize voluntary public Works─ a month in spring and a month in autumn.
And a year later, Khoshutov was unrecognizable. Shelyug plantations greened around the irrigated vegetable gardens in protective strips, surrounded Khoshutovo from the side of the desert winds in long ribbons and sheltered inhospitable estates.
Near the school, Maria Nikiforovna decided to set up a pine nursery in order to move on to a decisive struggle with the desert.
She had many friends in the village, especially two - Nikita Gavkin and Yermolai Kobozev - real prophets of the new faith in the desert.
Maria Nikiforovna read that crops enclosed between strips of pine plantations give double and triple yields, because the tree saves snow moisture and keeps the plant from exhaustion by the hot wind. Even shelugovye plantings have increased the yield of grasses much, and pine is a stronger tree.
Khoshutovo has suffered from a lack of fuel for centuries. They drowned almost only stinking dung and cow cakes.
Now the shelyuga gave the inhabitants fuel. The peasants had no side income and suffered from eternal lack of money.
The same shelyuga gave the inhabitants a rod, from which they learned to make baskets, boxes, and especially skillful ones - even chairs, tables and other furniture. This gave the village two thousand rubles in earnings during the first winter.
The settlers in Khoshutov began to live calmer and more well-fed, and the desert gradually turned green and became more welcoming.
Maria Nikiforovna's school has always been full of not only children, but also adults who listened to the teacher's reading about the wisdom of living in the sandy steppe.
Maria Nikiforovna grew stouter, in spite of her worries, and became even more undressed in her face.
In the third year of Maria Nikiforovna's life in Khoshutovo, when it was August, when the whole steppe was burned out and only pine and shelug plantings were green, disaster struck.
In Khoshutov, the old people knew that this year nomads with their herds should pass near the village: every fifteen years they passed here along their nomadic ring in the desert. These fifteen years the Khoshutovskaya steppe fell, and now the nomads have completed their circle and must come here again to pick up what the rested steppe extorted from itself.
But for some reason the nomads were late: they should be closer to spring, when there was still some vegetation.
─ They will come anyway, the old people said. - There will be trouble.
Maria Nikiforovna did not understand everything and waited. Steppe for a long time
died ─ birds flew away, turtles hid in holes, small animals went north, to natural reservoirs. On August 25, a well-builder ran up to Khoshutovo from a distant landing and began to run around the huts, tapping on the shutters:
─ Roam galloped! ..
The windless steppe at that hour smoked on the horizon: then thousands of nomad horses galloped and their herds trampled.
Three days later, nothing was left of either the shelugi or the pine - everything was gnawed, trampled and exterminated by horses and herds of nomads. The water was gone: the nomads drove the animals to the wells of the village at night and chose the water completely.
Khoshutovo froze, the settlers clung to each other and were silent.
Maria Nikiforovna rushed about from this first, real sadness in her life and with young anger went to the leader of the nomads.
The leader listened to her silently and politely, then said:
─ There is little grass, there are many people and cattle: there is nothing to do, young lady. If there are more people in Khoshutov than nomads, they will drive us to the steppe to die, and this will be just as fair as it is now. We are not evil, and you are not evil, but little grass. Someone dies and swears.
─ You're still a scoundrel! ─ said Naryshkina. ─ We worked for three years, and you pitted the landings in three days... I will complain about you to the Soviet authorities, and you will be judged...
─ The steppe is ours, young lady. Why did the Russians come? He who is hungry and eats the grass of his homeland is not a criminal.
Maria Nikiforovna secretly thought that the leader was smart, and that same night she left for the district with a detailed report.
In the district, she listened to her in a circle and answered:
─ You know what, Maria Nikiforovna, perhaps now Khoshutovo will manage even without you.
─ How is that? ─ Maria Nikiforovna was amazed and inadvertently thought about the smart leader of the nomads, who cannot be compared with this leader.
─ And so: the population has already learned how to deal with the sands and, when the nomads leave, they will start planting shelyuga again. Would you agree to transfer to Safuta?
─ Who is Safuta? ─ asked Maria Nikiforovna.
─ Safuta is also a village, ─ he replied in a circle, ─ only it is not Russian settlers who settle there, but nomads who are moving to a settled way of life. Every year there are more and more of them. In Safuta, the sands were sodden and did not work, but we are afraid of this - the sands will be trampled, move to Safuta, the population will become poorer and begin to roam again ...
─ What do I have to do with it? ─ asked Naryshkina. ─ What am I, nomad tamer, or what?
─ Listen to me, Maria Nikiforovna, ─ the manager said and stood in front of her. ─ If you, Maria Nikiforovna, went to Safuta and taught the nomads who settled there the culture of the sands, then Safuta would attract the rest of the nomads, and those who had already settled there would not run away. Do you understand me now, Maria Nikiforovna?.. The landings of Russian settlers would be exterminated less and less... By the way, we have not been able to find a candidate for Safuta for a long time: the wilderness, the distance - everyone refuses. How do you look at this, Maria Nikiforovna? ..
Maria Nikiforovna thought:
"Surely youth will have to be buried in sandy desert among wild nomads and die in a shelugovy bush, considering this half-dead tree in the desert to be the best monument for yourself and the highest glory of life? .. "
And where is her husband and companion? ..
Then Maria Nikiforovna for the second time remembered the clever and calm leader of the nomads, the complex and profound life of the desert tribes, understood the whole hopeless fate of the two peoples, squeezed into the sand dunes, and said with satisfaction:
- All right. I agree ... I will try to come to you in fifty years as an old woman ... I will not come along the sand, but along a forest road. Stay healthy and wait!
Zavokrono approached her in surprise.
─ You, Maria Nikiforovna, could be in charge of a whole nation, not a school. I am very glad, I somehow feel sorry for you and for some reason feel ashamed... But the desert is the future world, you have nothing to be afraid of, and people will be noble when a tree grows in the desert...
I wish you all the best.
_________________________________________
Andrey Platonovich Klimentov was born on August 28, 1899 in Voronezh, in the family of a railway mechanic Platon Firsovich Klimentov (1870-1952). He studied at the parochial school, then at the city school. At the age of 15 (according to some reports, already at the age of 13) he began to work to support his family. Participated in civil war as a front correspondent. From 1919 he published his works, collaborating with several newspapers as a poet, essayist and critic. In 1920, he changed his surname from Klimentov to Platonov (a pseudonym derived from the name of the writer's father). In 1924 he graduated from the Polytechnic and began working as a reclamator and electrical engineer. In 1926, "Epifan Gateways", "Ethereal Path", "City of Gradov" were written. Gradually, Platonov's attitude to revolutionary transformations changes to the point of not accepting them. In 1931, the published work "For the future" caused sharp criticism by A. A. Fadeev and I. V. Stalin. After that, Platonov was no longer published. The exception was the story "The Potudan River", which was published in 1937. In May of the same year, his 15-year-old son Platon was arrested, who returned after the hassle of Platonov's friends from prison in the fall of 1940, terminally ill with tuberculosis. In January 1943, Andrei Platonov's son died. During the Great Patriotic War Platonov's military stories appear in print. There is an opinion that this was done with the personal permission of Stalin. At the end of 1946, Platonov's story, "The Return" ("Ivanov's Family"), was published, for which the writer was attacked in 1947 and accused of slander. After that, the opportunity to print his works was closed for Platonov. In the late 1940s, deprived of the opportunity to earn a living by writing, Platonov engaged in literary processing Russian and Bashkir fairy tales, which are published in children's magazines. Platonov's worldview evolved from a belief in the reorganization of socialism to an ironic depiction of the future. Platonov died of tuberculosis, which he contracted while caring for his son, on January 5, 1951 in Moscow, and was buried in the Armenian cemetery. The name of the writer is a street in Voronezh, a monument has been erected.
Year of writing:
1860
Reading time:
Description of the work:
In 1860, Nikolai Dobrolyubov wrote a critical article on Ray of Light in dark kingdom, which became one of the first serious reviews of the play by Alexander Ostrovsky called "Thunderstorm". The article was published by the Sovremennik magazine in the same 1860.
Let us mention only one character in the play - Katerina, in whom Dobrolyubov saw a decisive, integral, strong character, which was so necessary for society to resist the autocratic system at that time and carry out social reforms.
Below, read the summary of the article A ray of light in the dark realm.
The article is devoted to Ostrovsky's drama "Thunderstorm". At the beginning of it, 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 unity of action, and it must be written in a 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 true understanding. “What to think about 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 it cannot be accepted for literary works principles like 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 Mr. Grigoriev does not explain what the nationality consists of, and therefore his remark seemed to us very amusing."
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). Dobrolyubov analyzes the lines of Feklusha, Glasha, Dikiy, Kudryash, Kuligin, etc. The author analyzes internal state heroes" dark kingdom": "everything is somehow restless, it is 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 "Thunderstorm" is "the most decisive work Ostrovsky; mutual relations of tyranny are brought in it to the very 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? All the same, 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, “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 the great folk idea: “in other works of our literature strong characters look like fountains dependent on an outside 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! But why did I stay in the world and suffer! “The play ends with this exclamation, and it seems to us that nothing could be invented stronger and more truthful than such an ending. Tikhon's words make the viewer think not about love affair but about all this 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.
You have read the summary of the article A ray of light in the dark realm. We invite you to visit the Summary section for other essays by popular writers.
Critical article
Drama A.N. Ostrovsky's "Thunderstorm" was published in 1960, on the eve of the revolutionary situation in Russia. The work reflects the impressions of the writer's journey along the Volga in the summer of 1856. But not some specific Volga city and not some specific persons depicted in "Thunderstorm". Ostrovsky reworked all his observations on the life of the Volga region and turned them into deeply typical paintings Russian life.
The genre of drama is characterized by the fact that it is based on the conflict between the individual and the surrounding society. In The Thunderstorm, this person is Katerina Kabanova.
Katerina personifies moral purity, spiritual beauty Russian woman, her desire for will, for freedom, her ability not only to endure, but also to defend her rights, her human dignity. According to Dobrolyubov, she "did not kill in herself human nature".
Katerina - Russian national character. First of all, this is reflected by Ostrovsky, who perfectly owned all the wealth vernacular, in the speech of the heroine. When she speaks, she seems to be singing. Katerina's speech, associated with the common people, brought up on their oral poetry, is dominated by colloquial vernacular vocabulary, which is distinguished by high poetry, figurativeness, and emotionality. The reader feels the musicality and melodiousness, Katya's dialect reminds folk songs. The language of the Ostrov heroine is characterized by repetitions (“on the top three on a good one”, “people are disgusting to me, and the house is disgusting to me, and the walls are disgusting!”), An abundance of caressing and diminutive words (“sunshine”, “voditsa”, “grave”) , comparison ("did not grieve about anything, like a bird in the wild", "someone affectionately speaks to me, like a dove cooes"). Yearning for Boris, at the moment of the greatest tension of her mental strength, Katerina expresses her feelings in the language of folk poetry, exclaiming: "Wild winds, bear my sadness and longing to him!"
The naturalness, sincerity, simplicity of the Ostrov heroine is striking. “I don’t know how to deceive; I can’t hide anything,” she answers Varvara, who says that you won’t live in their house without deception. Let's look at Katerina's religiosity. This is not the hypocrisy of Kabanikhi, but a childishly genuine faith in God. She often attends church and does it with pleasure and delight (“And I loved going to church to death! It’s like, I used to go to heaven ...”), loves to talk about wanderers (“We had a house full of wanderers and praying women”) , Katerina's dreams about "golden temples".
The love of the Ostrov heroine is unreasonable. Firstly, the need for love makes itself felt: after all, it is unlikely that her husband Tikhon, under the influence of "mother", showed his love for his wife very often. Secondly, the feelings of the wife and the woman are offended. Thirdly, the mortal anguish of a monotonous life suffocates Katerina. And, finally, the fourth reason is the desire for will, space: after all, love is one of the manifestations of freedom. Katerina struggles with herself, and this is the tragedy of her situation, but in the end she internally justifies herself. Committing suicide, committing, from the point of view of the church, a terrible sin, she thinks not about the salvation of her soul, but about the love that was revealed to her. "My friend! My joy! Farewell!" - Here last words Catherine.
Another one characteristic Ostrov's heroine is a "mature, from the depths of the whole organism, the demand for the right and scope of life", the desire for freedom, spiritual emancipation. To Varvara’s words: “Where will you go? You are a husband’s wife,” Katerina replies: “Oh, Varya, you don’t know my character! Of course, God forbid this happens! And if I get cold here, they won’t keep me by any force. I’ll throw myself out the window, I’ll throw myself into the Volga. I don’t want to live here, so I won’t, even if you cut me! It is not for nothing that the image of a bird, a symbol of will, is repeatedly repeated in the play. From here permanent epithet"free Bird". Katerina, remembering how she lived before marriage, compares herself to a bird in the wild. "... Why do people do not fly like birds? she says to Barbara. “You know, sometimes it seems to me that I am a bird.” But the free bird got into an iron cage. And it beats and yearns in captivity.
The integrity, decisiveness of Katerina's character was expressed in the fact that she refused to obey the routines of the Kabanikhinsky house and preferred death to life in captivity. And this was not a manifestation of weakness, but of spiritual strength and courage, of ardent hatred of oppression and despotism.
So, the main character of the drama "Thunderstorm" comes into conflict with environment. In the fourth act, in the scene of repentance, the denouement seems to be coming. Everything is against Katerina in this scene: both the “thunderstorm of the Lord”, and the cursing half-crazy “lady with two lackeys”, and the ancient painting on the dilapidated wall depicting “gehenna fiery”. poor girl all these signs of the outgoing, but such a tenacious old world almost drove her crazy, and she repents of her sin in a semi-delusion, a state of stupefaction. She herself later confesses to Boris that "she was not free in herself", "she did not remember herself." If the drama "Thunderstorm" ended with this scene, then it would show the invincibility of the "dark kingdom": after all, at the end fourth act The boar triumphs: "What a son! Where will the will lead!"
But the drama ends with a moral victory over external forces that fettered Katerina's freedom, and over the dark ideas that fettered her will and mind. And her decision to die, if only not to remain a slave, expresses, according to Dobrolyubov, "the need for the emerging movement of Russian life."
The critic called Katerina a national, national character, "a bright ray in a dark kingdom," meaning the effective expression in her of direct protest, the liberation aspirations of the masses. Pointing to the deep typicality of this image, to its nationwide significance, Dobrolyubov wrote that he represents "an artistic combination of homogeneous features, manifested in different provisions Russian life, but serving as an expression of one idea.
The heroine of Ostrovsky reflected in her feelings, in her actions, the spontaneous protest of the broad masses of the people against the hated conditions of the "dark kingdom". That is why Dobrolyubov singled out The Thunderstorm from all progressive pre-reform literature and emphasized its objectively revolutionary significance.
"A ray of light in a dark kingdom."
Drama A.N. Ostrovsky's "Thunderstorm" was published in 1960, on the eve of the revolutionary situation in Russia. The work reflects the impressions of the writer's journey along the Volga in the summer of 1856. But not any specific Volga city and not any specific persons are depicted in "Thunderstorm". Ostrovsky reworked all his observations on the life of the Volga region and turned them into deeply typical pictures of Russian life.
The genre of drama is characterized by the fact that it is based on the conflict between the individual and the surrounding society. In The Thunderstorm, this person is Katerina Kabanova.
Katerina personifies the moral purity, spiritual beauty of a Russian woman, her desire for will, for freedom, her ability not only to endure, but also to defend her rights, her human dignity. According to Dobrolyubov, she "did not kill human nature in herself."
Katerina - Russian national character. First of all, this is reflected by Ostrovsky, who perfectly mastered all the riches of the national language, in the speech of the heroine. When she speaks, she seems to be singing. Katerina's speech, associated with the common people, brought up on their oral poetry, is dominated by colloquial vernacular vocabulary, which is distinguished by high poetry, figurativeness, and emotionality. The reader feels the musicality and melodiousness, Katya's dialect is reminiscent of folk songs. The language of the Ostrov heroine is characterized by repetitions (“on the top three on a good one”, “people are disgusting to me, and the house is disgusting to me, and the walls are disgusting!”), An abundance of caressing and diminutive words (“sunshine”, “voditsa”, “grave”) , comparison ("did not grieve about anything, like a bird in the wild", "someone affectionately speaks to me, like a dove cooes"). Yearning for Boris, at the moment of the greatest tension of her mental strength, Katerina expresses her feelings in the language of folk poetry, exclaiming: "Wild winds, bear my sadness and longing to him!"
The naturalness, sincerity, simplicity of the Ostrov heroine is striking. “I don’t know how to deceive; I can’t hide anything,” she answers Varvara, who says that you won’t live in their house without deception. Let's look at Katerina's religiosity. This is not the hypocrisy of Kabanikhi, but a childishly genuine faith in God. She often attends church and does it with pleasure and delight ("And I loved to go to church to death! It's like, I used to go to heaven"), loves to talk about wanderers ("We had a house full of wanderers and praying women"), Katerina's dreams about "golden temples".
The love of the Ostrov heroine is unreasonable. Firstly, the need for love makes itself felt: after all, it is unlikely that her husband Tikhon, under the influence of "mother", showed his love for his wife very often. Secondly, the feelings of the wife and the woman are offended. Thirdly, the mortal anguish of a monotonous life suffocates Katerina. And, finally, the fourth reason is the desire for will, space: after all, love is one of the manifestations of freedom. Katerina struggles with herself, and this is the tragedy of her position, but in the end she internally justifies herself. Committing suicide, committing, from the point of view of the church, a terrible sin, she thinks not about the salvation of her soul, but about the love that was revealed to her. "My friend! My joy! Farewell!" - these are the last words of Katerina.
Another characteristic feature of the Ostrov heroine is "a mature demand for the right and space of life that arises from the depths of the whole organism", the desire for freedom, spiritual emancipation. To Varvara’s words: “Where will you go? You are a husband’s wife,” Katerina replies: “Oh, Varya, you don’t know my character! Of course, God forbid this happens! And if I get cold here, they won’t keep me by any force. I’ll throw myself out the window, I’ll throw myself into the Volga. I don’t want to live here, so I won’t, even if you cut me! It is not for nothing that the image of a bird, a symbol of will, is repeatedly repeated in the play. Hence the constant epithet "free bird". Katerina, remembering how she lived before marriage, compares herself to a bird in the wild. "Why don't people fly like birds?" she says to Varvara. "You know, sometimes I think I'm a bird." But the free bird got into an iron cage. And she struggles and yearns in captivity.
The integrity, decisiveness of Katerina's character was expressed in the fact that she refused to obey the routines of the Kabanikhinsky house and preferred death to life in captivity. And this was not a manifestation of weakness, but of spiritual strength and courage, of ardent hatred of oppression and despotism.
So, the main character of the drama "Thunderstorm" comes into conflict with the environment. In the fourth act, in the scene of repentance, the denouement seems to be coming. Everything is against Katerina in this scene: both the “thunderstorm of the Lord”, and the cursing half-crazy “lady with two lackeys”, and the ancient painting on the dilapidated wall depicting “gehenna fiery”. All these signs of the outgoing, but such a tenacious old world, almost drove the poor girl crazy, and she repents of her sin in a semi-delusion, a state of stupefaction. She herself later confesses to Boris that "she was not free in herself", "she did not remember herself." If the drama "Thunderstorm" ended with this scene, then it would show the invincibility of the "dark kingdom": after all, at the end of the fourth act, Kabanikha triumphs: "What a son! Where will the will lead!"
But the drama ends with a moral victory both over the external forces that fettered Katerina's freedom and over the dark ideas that fettered her will and mind. And her decision to die, if only not to remain a slave, expresses, according to Dobrolyubov, "the need for the emerging movement of Russian life."
The critic called Katerina a national, national character, "a bright ray in a dark kingdom," meaning the effective expression in her of direct protest, the liberation aspirations of the masses. Pointing to the deep typicality of this image, to its nationwide significance, Dobrolyubov wrote that it represents "an artistic combination of homogeneous features that appear in different situations in Russian life, but serve as an expression of one idea."
The heroine of Ostrovsky reflected in her feelings, in her actions, the spontaneous protest of the broad masses of the people against the hated conditions of the "dark kingdom". That is why Dobrolyubov singled out The Thunderstorm from all progressive pre-reform literature and emphasized its objectively revolutionary significance.
Current page: 3 (total book has 6 pages)
____________________
* Utilitarian (from Latin) - applied, highly practical.
But, as we have already said, the natural aspirations of man and sound, simple concepts about things are sometimes distorted in many. As a result of incorrect development, people often seem perfectly normal and natural to what in essence constitutes the most absurd violence of nature. With the passage of time, humanity is more and more freed from artificial distortions and approaches natural requirements and views: we no longer see mysterious forces in every forest and lake, in thunder and lightning, in the sun and stars; we no longer have castes and pariahs in educated countries; we do not mix the relations of the two sexes, like the peoples of the East; we do not recognize the class of slaves as an essential part of the state, as was the case with the Greeks and Romans; we renounce the inquisitorial** principles that dominated in medieval Europe. If all this is still found today in places, it is only as an exception; the general situation has changed for the better. But still, even now people are far from having come to a clear consciousness of all natural needs and cannot even agree on what is natural for a person and what is not. General formula- that it is natural for a person to strive for the best - everyone accepts; but disagreements arise over what should be considered good for mankind. We believe, for example, that the good is in labor, and therefore we consider labor to be natural for a person; and the Economic Index[*] assures that it is natural for people to be lazy, for the good consists in the use of capital. We think that theft is an artificial form of acquisition, to which a person is sometimes forced by extremes; and Krylov says that this is a natural quality of other people and that -
____________________
* Caste (from Latin caslus - clean) - closed community group, isolated by the origin and legal status of its members; pariah (from Ind.) - among the Hindus, a person of the lower class, deprived of any rights.
** Inquisition (from Latin) - an investigative and punitive body catholic church, who cruelly persecuted any manifestation of free thought in the advanced circles of society.
Give the thief at least a million
He won't stop stealing.
Meanwhile, Krylov is a famous fabulist, and the "Economic Index" is published by Mr. Vernadsky, a doctor and state adviser: it is impossible to neglect their opinions. What to do here, how to solve? It seems to us that no one can take the final decision here; everyone can consider his opinion as the most just, but the decision in this case more than ever needs to be left to the public. This matter concerns her, and only in her name can we affirm our positions. We say to society: “It seems to us that this is what you are capable of, this is what you feel, this is what you are dissatisfied with, this is what you want.” It is up to society to tell us whether we are wrong or not. Especially in such a case as the analysis of Ostrovsky's comedies, we can directly rely on the general court. We say: “this is what the author depicted; this is what, in our opinion, the images reproduced by him mean; this is their origin, this is the meaning; we find that all this has a vital bearing on your life and manners and explains these needs, the satisfaction of which is necessary for your good. Tell me, who else is to judge the justice of our words, if not to the very society about which in question And who is she referring to? His decision should be equally important and final - both for us and for the author being analyzed.
Our author is received very well by the public; this means that one half of the issue is resolved in a positive way: the public recognizes that he correctly understands and portrays her. Another question remains: do we understand Ostrovsky correctly, attributing him to the works known sense? Some hope for a favorable answer is given to us, firstly, by the fact that critics opposed to our view were not particularly approved by the public, and, secondly, by the fact that the author himself agrees with us, since in The Thunderstorm we find new confirmation of many of our thoughts about Ostrovsky's talent and the significance of his works. However, once again, our articles and the very foundations on which we affirm our judgments are before everyone's eyes. Whoever does not want to agree with us, reading and verifying our articles according to their observations, can come to their own conclusion. We will be happy with that too.
Now, having explained the grounds for our criticism, we ask readers to excuse us for the length of these explanations. Of course, they could have been presented on two or three pages, but then these pages would not have seen the light of day for a long time. The length comes from the fact that often an endless paraphrase explains what could be denoted simply by one word; but that's the trouble, that these words, very common in others European languages, a Russian article is usually given such a form in which it cannot appear before the public. And one has to involuntarily turn over in every possible way with the phrase in order to somehow introduce the reader into the essence of the thought being expressed [*].
But let us turn to our real subject - the author of The Thunderstorm.
x x x
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. We are not talking about those authors who 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. But those writers who took the more inner side of life, limited themselves to a very narrow circle and noticed such phenomena that were far from having a national significance. Such, for example, is the image 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 the circle. famous variety than for most. One cannot but agree that Ostrovsky's case is much more fruitful: he captured such common aspirations and needs that permeate everything Russian society whose voice is heard in all the phenomena of our life, whose satisfaction is necessary condition our further development. We will not now repeat what we spoke about in detail in our first articles; but by the way, let us note here the strange bewilderment that occurred regarding our articles in one of the critics of the Thunderstorm - Mr. Apollon Grigoriev. It should be noted that Mr. A. Grigoriev is one of the enthusiastic admirers of Ostrovsky's talent; but - probably from an excess of delight - he never succeeds in expressing with some clarity what exactly he appreciates Ostrovsky for. We read his articles and could not get any sense. Meanwhile, while examining The Thunderstorm, Mr. Grigoriev devotes several pages to us and accuses us of attaching labels to the faces of Ostrovsky's comedies, dividing them all into two categories: tyrants and downtrodden personalities, and of developing relations between them, ordinary V merchant life concluded the whole matter of our comedian. Having expressed this accusation, Mr. Grigoriev exclaims that no, this is not the peculiarity and merit of Ostrovsky, but in the nationality. But Mr. Grigoriev does not explain what the nationality consists of, and therefore his remark seemed to us very amusing. As if we did not recognize the nationality of Ostrovsky! Yes, we started with her, continued with her and finished. We were looking for how and to what extent Ostrovsky's works serve as an expression folk life, popular aspirations: what is this, if not nationality? But we didn't shout about her. exclamation points every two lines, but tried to determine its content, which Mr. Grigoriev did not feel like doing even once. And if he had tried this, then perhaps he would have come to the same results that he condemns with us, and would not needlessly accuse us that we conclude Ostrovsky's merit in the correct image family relations merchants living in the old days. Anyone who read our articles could see that we did not mean merchants at all, pointing out the main features of the relations that dominate our life and are so well reproduced in Ostrovsky's comedies. Modern aspirations Russian life, in the most extensive dimensions, find their expression in Ostrovsky, as a comedian, with negative side. Drawing to us in a vivid picture false relationships, with all their consequences, he through the 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? Do you not realize that such a backdrop of comedies corresponds to the state of Russian society more than any other in Europe? Take history, 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 (with which Mr. Pirogov agrees; see the Regulations on Punishments in the Kiev District) [*], did not create strong 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 dignity was lost, faith in the right, and consequently, the consciousness of duty, weakened, arbitrariness trampled on the right, cunning was undermined under arbitrariness. Some writers, devoid of a sense of normal needs and bewildered by artificial combinations, while recognizing the known facts of our life, wanted to legitimize them, glorify them as the norm of life, and not as a distortion of natural aspirations produced by an unfavorable historical development. So, for example, they wanted to assign arbitrariness to a Russian person as a special, natural quality of his nature - under the name "breadth of nature"; trickery and cunning also wanted to be legitimized among the Russian people under the name of sharpness and cunning. Some critics even wanted to see in Ostrovsky a singer of broad Russian natures; that is why such a frenzy was once raised because of Lyubim Tortsov, above which nothing was found from our author. But Ostrovsky, as a man with a strong talent and, consequently, with a sense of truth, with an instinctive inclination towards natural, sound demands, could not succumb to temptation, and arbitrariness, even the most extensive, always came out with him, in accordance with reality, arbitrariness heavy, ugly, lawless - 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 his life. It is clear that life, which provided the materials for such comical situations, in which Ostrovsky's petty tyrants are often placed, life, which 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 individual, the presentation of his legal rights, the protest against violence and arbitrariness, for the most part still timid, indefinite, ready to hide, but all the same, already making it possible to notice its existence. Take, for example, the legislative and administrative side, which, although in its particular manifestations always has much fortuitous, but in its general character nevertheless serves as an indicator of the position of the people. This pointer is especially true when legislative measures are imprinted by the nature of benefits, concessions and expansion of rights. Burdensome measures, restricting the people in their rights, may be brought about, contrary to the demands of the life of the people, simply by the act of arbitrariness, in accordance with the advantages of a privileged minority, which enjoys the oppression of others; but the measures by which privileges are diminished and general rights, can have their origin in nothing else than in the direct and unrelenting demands of popular life, irresistibly affecting a privileged minority, even in spite of their personal, immediate benefits. Take a look at what we are doing in this regard: the peasants are being emancipated, and the landlords themselves, who previously argued that it was too early to give freedom to the peasant, are now convinced and confess that it is time to get rid of this question, that it has really matured in the people's consciousness ... And what but something else lies at the basis of this question, if not a decrease in arbitrariness and not an elevation of rights human personality? It is the same in all other reforms and improvements. In financial reforms, in all these commissions and committees that discussed banks, taxes, etc., what did public opinion see, what was expected of them, if not the definition of a more correct, distinct system of physical administration and, consequently, the introduction of legality instead of any arbitrariness ? What made it necessary to grant certain rights to publicity, which they had previously been so afraid of - what, if not the consciousness of the strength of that general protest against lack of rights and arbitrariness, which for many years has developed in public opinion and finally could not restrain himself? What has affected the police and administrative reforms, the concern for justice, the assumption of open court proceedings, the reduction of strictness towards schismatics, the very abolition of tax farms?.. We are not talking about practical value of all these measures, we only affirm that the very attempt to proceed with them proves a strong development of the general idea to which we pointed out: even if they all collapsed or remained unsuccessful, this could only show the insufficiency or falsity of the means adopted for their implementation , but could not testify against the needs that caused them. The existence of these requirements is so clear that even in our literature they were expressed immediately, as soon as the actual possibility of their manifestation appeared. They also made themselves felt in Ostrovsky's comedies with a fullness and force that we have seen from a few authors. But not only in the degree of strength of the dignity of his comedies: it is also important for us that he found the essence general requirements life at a time when they were hidden and expressed by very few and very weakly. His first play appeared in 1847; it is known that from that time until recent years, even our best authors almost lost track of the natural aspirations of the people and even began to doubt their existence, and if they sometimes felt their influence, it was very weakly, indefinitely, only in some particular cases and, with a few exceptions, they almost never knew how to find a true and decent expression for them. The general situation was, of course, partly reflected in Ostrovsky; it perhaps explains to a large extent the degree of uncertainty in some of his subsequent plays, which gave rise to such attacks on him in the early fifties. But now, 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. On the other hand, anyone who wanted to impartially seek out their fundamental meaning could always find that the point in them is presented not from the surface, but from the very root. This feature keeps Ostrovsky's works at their height even now, when everyone is already trying to express the same aspirations that we find in his plays. In order not to expand on this, we note one thing: the demand for law, respect for the individual, protest against violence and arbitrariness, you find in many of our literary works of recent years; but in them for the most part the matter is not carried out in a vital, practical manner, the abstract, philosophical side of the issue is felt, and everything is deduced from it, the right is indicated, but is left without attention real opportunity. In Ostrovsky, not only in him 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 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 dish, but a hungry person rushes to food, wherever he sees it and whatever it is. This is a phenomenon that recurs in all areas public life, 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.
In fact, this would not be necessary; but the critics hitherto written on Groza show us that our remarks will not be superfluous.
Even in Ostrovsky's previous plays, we noticed that these are not comedies of intrigue and not comedies of characters proper, 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 a common, independent of any of actors, environment of life. 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. We saw this especially in the analysis of Rusakov's character.
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 characters in the comedy themselves have no clear or 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. 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 hot days, how many vast plans, how many enthusiastic impulses collapse at one glance at the indifferent, prosaic crowd, passing us with contemptuous indifference! How many clean and good feelings freezes 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, which happened to most of the critics. Perhaps we will be told that after all the author is to blame if he is so easily misunderstood; but we note in response that the author writes for the public, and the public, if not immediately mastering the full essence of his plays, then does not distort their meaning. As for the fact that some of the details could be done better - we do not stand for it. Without a doubt, the gravediggers in Hamlet are more appropriately and more closely connected with the course of action than, for example, the half-mad lady in The Thunderstorm; but we do not interpret that our author is Shakespeare, but only that his extraneous persons have a reason for their appearance and turn out to be even necessary for the completeness of the play, considered as it is, and not in the sense of absolute perfection.
"Thunderstorm", as you know, presents us with an idyll of the "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 open sky, under this breeze blowing refreshingly from the Volga ... And the inhabitants, as if, sometimes walk along the boulevard above the river, although they have already got accustomed to 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, doing housework, eating, sleeping - they go to bed very early, so unaccustomed person it is also difficult 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 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 city 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 even this they take 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 and have a bite to eat ... From their youth, they still show some curiosity, but there is nowhere for her to get food: information comes to them, as if in ancient Rus' the time of Daniel the Pilgrim[*], only from wanderers, and even those now are few 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 "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 the Patriotic Party and in the highest degree conservative; 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, “everyone is embarrassed by one enemy, but to us, strange people, to whom there are six, to whom twelve are assigned, that’s it overcome them all." And they believe her. It is clear that the simple instinct of self-preservation should make her not say good word about what is happening in other lands. And in fact, listen to the conversations of the merchants, the bourgeoisie, petty bureaucrats in the district wilderness - 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 cities, etc. , and how little information about European life, about the best way of life! Even in the so-called educated society, in the Europeanized people, in the multitude of enthusiasts who admired the new Parisian streets and the Mabil, don't you find almost the same number of respectable connoisseurs who intimidate their listeners with the fact that nowhere but Austria, in all of Europe, is there any order? and no justice can be found! .. All this leads to the fact that Feklusha expresses so positively: “bla-alepie, dear, bla-alepie, marvelous beauty! promised land live!" It undoubtedly goes like this, how to figure out what is happening in other lands. Listen to Feklusha:
They say there are such countries, dear girl, where there are no kings
Orthodox, and the Saltans rule the earth. In one land sits on
on the throne, Saltan Mahnut is Turkish, and on the other, Saltan Mahnut
Persian; and they do justice, dear girl, over all people, and
whatever they judge is wrong. And they can't, dear girl,
not a single case to judge righteously - such a limit is set for them. At
we have a righteous law, but they, dear, have an unrighteous one, which is according to our
the law goes that way, but according to theirs everything is the other way around. And all the judges they have, in
their countries, also all unrighteous, so to them, dear girl, and in
requests write: "Judge me, unjust judge!" And then there is
land where all the people with dog heads.
