home
Psychology of love
A ray of light in the dark kingdom of dobrolyubov short.

A ray of light in the dark kingdom of dobrolyubov short.

05.04.2019

Current page: 1 (total book has 8 pages)

Nikolai Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov

(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 (1) . "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, meeting Ostrovsky's play again in separate edition and remembering all that has been written about her, we find that it would not be superfluous on our part to say a few words about her. 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 a 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 they will also blame us, from a sick head to a healthy one, that we are starting to analyze literary works with preconceived 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 comply with this, and therefore “ family picture” and “His People” are unworthy of him and are explained only by the fact that he still imitated 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 should be ranked among the accusatory literature! .. And Mr. Nekrasov from Moscow, didn’t he say: Bolshov should not arouse sympathy in us, and meanwhile the 4th act of “His People” was written in order to to arouse in us sympathy for Bolshov; therefore, the fourth act is superfluous! .. (2) And Mr. Pavlov (N. F.) didn’t wriggle, giving to understand such positions: Russian folk life can provide material only 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 ... (3) 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 that is not important, and so on and so forth ... (4)

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 famous work general laws set forth in the courses of the same theorists: 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 have expressed our opinion, somewhat disrespectfully reminded us that a judge's disrespectful treatment of a defendant is a crime (5) . 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 fail to 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 immovable 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 in the discussion of literary works: and when the critic-lawyer properly puts the question, groups the facts and throws on them the light of a certain conviction, - public opinion, ignoring the piitika codes, will already know what to hold on to.

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 an idea 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.

True, sometimes explaining the character of a well-known author or work, the critic himself can find in the work something that is not in it at all. But in these cases the critic always betrays himself. If he takes it into his head to give the work being analyzed a thought more lively and broad than what is really put at the foundation of its author, then, obviously, he will not be able to sufficiently confirm his idea by pointing to the work itself, and thus criticism, having shown how it could If a work is analyzed, it will only show more clearly the poverty of its conception and the insufficiency of its execution. As an example of such criticism, one can point, for example, to Belinsky's analysis of "Tarantass", written with the most malicious and subtle irony; this analysis was taken by many at face value, but even these many found that the meaning given to "Tarantas" by Belinsky is very well carried out in its criticism, but it does not go well with the very composition of Count Sollogub (6) . However, such critical exaggerations are very rare. Much more often, another case is that the critic really does not understand the author being analyzed and deduces from his work something that does not follow at all. So here, too, the trouble is not great: the critic's method of reasoning will now show the reader with whom he is dealing, and if only the facts are present in the criticism, the reader will not be deceived by false speculations. For example, one Mr. P - y, analyzing "The Thunderstorm", decided to follow the same method that we followed in the articles about the "Dark Kingdom", and, having outlined the essence of the content of the play, he began to draw conclusions. It turned out, in his opinion, that Ostrovsky in The Thunderstorm had ridiculed Katerina, wishing to disgrace Russian mysticism in her face. Well, of course, having read such a conclusion, you now see to what category of minds Mr. P - y belongs and whether one can rely on his considerations. Such criticism will not confuse anyone, it is not dangerous to anyone ...

Quite another thing is the criticism that approaches the authors, as if they were peasants brought into the recruiting presence, with a uniform measure, and shouts now “forehead!”, then “back of the head!”, Depending on whether the recruit fits the measure or not. There the reprisal is short and decisive; and if you believe in the eternal laws of art printed in a textbook, then you will not turn away from such criticism. She will prove to you on the fingers that what you admire is no good, and what makes you doze off, yawn or get a migraine, this is the real treasure. Take, for example, though "Thunderstorm": what is it? A daring insult to art, nothing more - and this is very easy to prove. Open the "Readings on Literature" by the distinguished professor and academician Ivan Davydov, compiled by him with the help of the translation of Blair's lectures, or take a look at Mr. Plaksin's Cadet Literature Course - the conditions for an exemplary drama are clearly defined there. The subject of the drama must certainly be an event where we see the struggle of passion and duty, with the unfortunate consequences of the victory of passion or with happy ones when duty wins. In the development of the drama, strict unity and consistency must be observed; the denouement should flow naturally and necessarily from the tie; each scene must certainly contribute to the movement of the action and move it to a denouement; therefore, there should not be a single person in the play who would not directly and necessarily participate in the development of the drama, there should not be a single conversation that does not relate to the essence of the play. Characters actors must be clearly marked, and gradualness must be necessary in their discovery, in accordance with the development of the action. The language must be commensurate with the situation of each person, but not deviate from the purity of the literary and not turn into vulgarity.

Here, it seems, are all the main rules of drama. Let's apply them to the Thunderstorm.

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

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

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

The unity of the impression is also not observed: it is harmed by the admixture of an extraneous element - Katerina's relationship with her mother-in-law. The intervention of the mother-in-law constantly prevents us from focusing our attention on the inner struggle that should be going on in Katerina's soul.

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

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

The whole action is sluggish and slow, because it is cluttered with scenes and faces that are completely unnecessary. Kudryash and Shapkin, Kuligin, Feklusha, the lady with two lackeys, Dikoy himself - all these are persons who are not essentially connected with the basis of the play. Unnecessary faces constantly enter the stage, say things that do not go to the point, and leave, again it is not known why and where. All the recitations of Kuligin, all the antics of Kudryash and Dikiy, not to mention the half-mad lady and the conversations of city dwellers during a thunderstorm, could have been released without any damage to the essence of the matter.

In this crowd of unnecessary faces, we almost do not find strictly defined and finished characters, and there is nothing to ask about the gradualness in their discovery. They are to us directly ex abrupto, with labels. The curtain opens: Kudryash and Kuligin are talking about what a scolder Dikaya is, after that he is also Dikaya and swears behind the scenes ... Also Kabanova. In the same way, Kudryash from the first word makes himself known that he is "dashing at girls"; and Kuligin, at the very appearance, is recommended as a self-taught mechanic who admires nature. Yes, they remain with this until the very end: Dikoi swears, Kabanova grumbles, Kudryash walks at night with Varvara ... And we do not see the full comprehensive development of their characters in the whole play. The heroine herself is portrayed very unsuccessfully: apparently, the author himself did not quite clearly understand this character, because, without exposing Katerina as a hypocrite, he forces her, however, to utter sensitive monologues, but in fact shows her to us as a shameless woman, carried away by sensuality alone. There is nothing to say about the hero - he is so colorless. Dikoi and Kabanova themselves, the characters most in the genre "e of Mr. Ostrovsky, represent (according to the happy conclusion of Mr. Akhsharumov or someone else of that kind) (8) a deliberate exaggeration, close to libel, and give us not living faces, but "the quintessence of deformities" of Russian life.

Finally, the language with which the characters speak surpasses all patience of a well-bred person. Of course, merchants and philistines cannot speak in elegant literary language; but after all, one cannot agree that a dramatic author, for the sake of fidelity, can introduce into literature all the vulgar expressions in which the Russian people are so rich. The language of dramatic characters, whoever they may be, may be simple, but always noble and should not offend educated taste. And in Groz, listen to how all the faces say: “Shrill man! what are you doing with a snout! It kindles the whole interior! Women can’t work up their bodies in any way! ” What are these phrases, what are these words? Involuntarily, you will repeat with Lermontov:

From whom do they paint portraits?
Where are these conversations being heard?
And if they did,
So we don't want to listen to them (9) .

Perhaps "in the city of Kalinovo, on the banks of the Volga," there are people who speak in this way, but what do we care about that? The reader understands that we did not use special efforts to make this criticism convincing; that is why it is easy to notice in other places the living threads with which it is sewn. But we assure you that it can be made extremely convincing and victorious, it can be used to destroy the author, once taking the point of view of school textbooks. And if the reader agrees to give us the right to proceed with the play with prearranged requirements as to what and how in it must to be - we do not need anything else: everything that does not agree with the rules adopted by us, we will be able to destroy. Extracts from the comedy will appear very conscientiously to confirm our judgments; quotes from various scholarly books, from Aristotle to Fischer (10), which, as you know, constitute the last, final moment aesthetic theory will prove to you the solidity of our education; ease of presentation and wit will help us to captivate your attention, and you, without noticing it, will come to full agreement with us. Just don't let any doubt about our rightfully so prescribe duties to the author and then judge him, whether he is faithful to these duties or has been guilty of them ...

But herein lies the misfortune that not a single reader can now escape such a doubt. The contemptible crowd, formerly reverently, open-mouthed, listening to our broadcasts, now presents a deplorable and dangerous spectacle for our authority of the masses, armed, in the beautiful expression of Mr. Turgenev, with the "double-edged sword of analysis" (11) . Everyone says, reading our thunderous criticism: “You offer us your “storm”, assuring us that what is in The Thunderstorm is superfluous, and what is needed is lacking. But the author of The Thunderstorm probably thinks quite the contrary; let us sort you out. Tell us, analyze the play for us, show it as it is, and give us your opinion about it on the basis of itself, and not on some outdated considerations, completely unnecessary and extraneous. In your opinion, this and that should not be; or maybe it fits well in the play, so then why shouldn’t it?” This is how every reader now dares to resonate, and this insulting circumstance must be attributed to the fact that, for example, N. F. Pavlov's magnificent critical exercises on The Thunderstorm suffered such a decisive fiasco. In fact, everyone, both writers and the public, rose to the criticism of The Thunderstorm in Nashe Vremya, and, of course, not because he took it into his head to show a lack of respect for Ostrovsky, but because in his criticism he expressed disrespect to the common sense and good will of the Russian public. Everyone has long seen that Ostrovsky has in many respects moved away from the old stage routine, that in the very conception of each of his plays there are conditions that necessarily carry him beyond famous theory which we pointed out above. The critic who does not like these deviations should have begun by noting them, characterizing them, generalizing them, and then directly and frankly raising the question between them and the old theory. It was the duty of the critic not only to the author being analyzed, but even more so to the public, which so constantly approves of Ostrovsky, with all his liberties and evasions, and with each new play becomes more and more attached to him. If the critic finds that the public is deluded in their sympathy for an author who turns out to be a criminal against his theory, then he should have begun by defending that theory and by giving serious evidence that deviations from it cannot be good. Then he, perhaps, would have managed to convince some and even many, since N. F. Pavlov cannot be taken away from the fact that he uses the phrase quite adroitly. And now what did he do? He did not pay the slightest attention to the fact that the old laws of art, while continuing to exist in textbooks and taught from gymnasium and university departments, had long since lost their sanctity of inviolability in literature and in the public. He boldly began to break down Ostrovsky on the points of his theory, by force, forcing the reader to consider it inviolable. He found it convenient only to sneer about the gentleman, who, being Mr. Pavlov’s “neighbor and brother” by his place in the first row of seats and by his “fresh” gloves, nevertheless dared to admire the play, which was so disgusting to N. F. Pavlov. Such a contemptuous treatment of the public, and indeed of the very question which the critic took up, naturally must have aroused the majority of readers rather against him than in his favour. Readers let the critics notice that he was spinning with his theory like a squirrel in a wheel, and demanded that he get out of the wheel onto a straight road. Rounded phrase and clever syllogism seemed to them insufficient; they demanded serious confirmations for the very premises from which Mr. Pavlov drew his conclusions and which he presented as axioms. He said: this is bad, because there are many characters in the play that do not contribute to the direct development of the course of action. And they stubbornly objected to him: why can't there be persons in the play who do not directly participate in the development of the drama? The critic assured that the drama is already devoid of meaning because its heroine is immoral; readers stopped him and asked the question: what makes you think that she is immoral? And on what are your moral concepts based? The critic considered vulgarity and smut, unworthy of art, and the night meeting, and Kudryash's daring whistle, and the very scene of Katerina's confession to her husband; he was again asked: why exactly does he find this vulgar and why secular intrigues and aristocratic passions are more worthy of art than petty-bourgeois passions? Why is the whistling of a young lad more vulgar than the poignant singing of Italian arias by some secular youth? N. F. Pavlov, as the top of his arguments, decided condescendingly that a play like The Thunderstorm was not a drama, but a farcical performance. And then they answered him: why are you so contemptuous of the booth? Another question is whether any slick drama, even if all three unities were observed in it, is better than any farcical performance. Regarding the role of the booth in the history of the theater and in the development of the people, we will argue with you. The last objection has been developed in some detail in the press. And where was it distributed? It would be nice in Sovremennik, which, as you know, has a Whistle with him, therefore he cannot scandalize with Kudryash's whistle and, in general, should be inclined to any farce. No, thoughts about the farce were expressed in the "Library for Reading", a well-known champion of all the rights of "art", expressed by Mr. Annenkov, whom no one will reproach for excessive adherence to "vulgarity" (12) . If we have correctly understood Mr. Annenkov's thought (for which, of course, no one can vouch for), he finds that modern drama with its theory has deviated further from the truth and beauty of life than the original booths, and that in order to revive the theater, it is necessary first to return to booth and start the journey again dramatic development. These are the opinions that Mr. Pavlov came across even in respectable representatives of Russian criticism, not to mention those who are accused by well-meaning people of contempt for science and of the denial of everything lofty! It is clear that here it was no longer possible to get away with more or less brilliant remarks, but it was necessary to begin a serious revision of the grounds on which the critic was affirmed in his sentences. But as soon as the question moved to this ground, the critic of Nashe Vremya turned out to be untenable and had to hush up his critical rantings.

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 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 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.” The author then turns to others critical articles about "Thunderstorm", in particular, 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) is especially visible. Dobrolyubov analyzes the lines of Feklusha, Glasha, Dikoy, Kudryash, Kuligin, etc. The author analyzes the internal state of the characters " 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 The Thunderstorm is “Ostrovsky's most decisive work; 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 will not be Tikhon Kabanov, who is “too hammered 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 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! 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 a love affair, but about this whole life, where the living envy the dead.

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

The article is devoted to Ostrovsky's drama "Thunderstorm"

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."

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 Mr. Grigoriev does not explain what the nationality consists of, and therefore his remark seemed to us very amusing."

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.

e, but already feels that there is no former respect for them and that at the first opportunity they will be abandoned.

Then the author writes that The Thunderstorm is “Ostrovsky's most decisive work; 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.

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 will not 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 it’s like that climb." This is how spoiled natures usually judge a strong and fresh nature.

Good retelling? Tell your friends on the social network, let them prepare for the lesson too!

How to write an essay. To prepare for the exam Sitnikov Vitaly Pavlovich

Dobrolyubov N. A Ray of light in the dark kingdom (Thunderstorm. Drama in five acts by A. N. Ostrovsky, St. Petersburg, 1860)

Dobrolyubov N. A

Beam of light in the dark realm

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

In the development of the drama there must be observed strict unity and consistency; the denouement should flow naturally and necessarily from the tie; each scene must certainly contribute to the movement of the action and move it to a denouement; therefore, there should not be a single person in the play who would not directly and necessarily participate in the development of the drama, there should not be a single conversation that does not relate to the essence of the play. The characters of the characters must be clearly marked, and gradualness must be necessary in their discovery, in accordance with the development of the action. The language must be commensurate with the situation of each person, but not deviate from the purity of the literary and not turn into vulgarity.

Here, it seems, are all the main rules of drama. Let's apply them to the Thunderstorm.

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

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

The unity of impressions is also not observed: it is harmed by the admixture of an extraneous element - Katerina's relationship with her mother-in-law. The intervention of the mother-in-law constantly prevents us from focusing our attention on the inner struggle that should be going on in Katerina's soul.

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

The whole action is sluggish and slow, because it is cluttered with scenes and completely unnecessary faces. Kudryash and Shapkin, Kuligin, Feklusha, the lady with two lackeys, Dikoy himself - all these are persons who are not essentially connected with the basis of the play. Unnecessary faces constantly enter the stage, say things that do not go to the point, and leave, again it is not known why and where. All the recitations of Kuligin, all the antics of Kudryash and Dikiy, not to mention the half-mad lady and the conversations of city dwellers during a thunderstorm, could have been released without any damage to the essence of the matter.<…>

And if the reader agreed to give us the right to proceed with the play with prearranged requirements as to what and how in it must to be - we do not need anything else: everything that is not in accordance with the rules adopted by us, we will be able to destroy.<…>

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 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.<…>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 widest, always came out with him, in accordance with reality, heavy arbitrariness, 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 life itself. 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 called progress, constitutes the direct task of our development, absorbs all the work of new generations.<…>

Already in Ostrovsky's previous plays, we noticed that these were 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 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 voicing 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 characters of the comedy themselves have no clear or no consciousness at all about 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 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.<…>

The Thunderstorm, as you know, presents us with the 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 the open sky, under this breeze blowing refreshingly from the Volga ... And the inhabitants, as if, sometimes walk along the boulevard over 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, 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 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 a young age they still show some curiosity, but there is nowhere for her to get food: information comes to them<…>only from wanderers, and even now there are few of them, 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, - he says, - one enemy confuses everyone, but to us, strange people, to whom there are six, to whom twelve are assigned, so we must overcome them all. And they believe her. It is clear that the simple instinct of self-preservation should make her say a good word about what is being done in other lands.<…>

And this is not at all because these people were dumber and 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 the 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?” Wild answers this: “A report, or something, I will give you! I don't report to anyone more important than you. I want to think about you like that, I think so! For others you fair man and I think you're a robber, that's all. Would you like to hear it from me? So listen! I say that the robber, and the end. Well, are you going to sue, or what, will you be with me? So 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, but something much worse (although the imagination of an educated European cannot imagine anything worse than anarchy).<…>The condition of a society subject to such anarchy (if such anarchy is possible) is indeed terrible.<…>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 in a multitude of people like himself a vast field for exercising his whims and if he sees in their dependent, humiliated position a constant reinforcement of his tyranny.<…>

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 self-satisfiedly answers: "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 for the time being demands concessions from them), but shrink, shrink; 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 want to live to see this,” Feklusha replies with a sigh. “Maybe we will live,” Kabanova says again fatalistically, revealing her doubts and uncertainty. Why is she worried? people by railways travels, - but 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 thunderstorm is sent to us as a punishment, so that we feel," but Kuligin does not feel or feels not at all, 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: “The times have come, what teachers have appeared! If the old man talks like that, what can you demand from the young! 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 looks with despair as it gradually floods the colorful flower beds of her whimsical superstitions.<…>

That is why, of course, the outward appearance of everything to which their influence extends preserves the antiquities more and seems more immovable than where people, having abandoned tyranny, are already trying only to preserve the essence of their interests and significance; but in fact, the inner significance of petty tyrants is much closer to its end than the influence of people who know how to support themselves and their principle by external concessions. That is why Kabanova is so sad, and that is why Dikoya is so furious: until the last moment they did not want to tame their broad manners and now they are in the position of a rich merchant on the eve of bankruptcy.<…>

But, to the great chagrin of arrogant parasites,<…>now the position of the Wild and Kabanovs is far from being so pleasant: they must take care to strengthen and protect themselves, because demands arise from everywhere, hostile to their arbitrariness and threatening them with a struggle with the awakening common sense of the vast majority of mankind. Constant suspicion, scrupulousness and captiousness of petty tyrants arise from everywhere: realizing internally that they have nothing to respect for, but not admitting this even to themselves, they reveal a lack of self-confidence in the pettiness of their demands and constant, incidentally and inopportunely, reminders and suggestions that that they should be respected. This trait is extremely expressive in The Thunderstorm, in Kabanova's scene with the children, when she, in response to her son's submissive remark: "Can I, mama, disobey you?" - and then begins to nag his son and daughter-in-law, so that he pulls the soul out of an outside viewer.<…>

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.<…>

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 Diky: both of them need each other, and, therefore, no special heroism is needed on the part of Curly to present his demands. But his trick will not lead to anything serious: he will quarrel, Wild will threaten to give him up as a soldier, but he will not give him up; Curly will be pleased that he snapped, 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 to repentance, on bread and water, deprive her of the light of day, try all the domestic corrective means 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? This can only be answered by the fact that natural aspirations human nature cannot be completely destroyed. You can tilt them to the side, press, squeeze, but all this is only to a certain extent. The triumph of false propositions only shows to what extent the elasticity of human nature can reach; but the more unnatural the situation, the nearer and more necessary is the way out of it. And, therefore, it is already very unnatural when even the most flexible natures, most subject to the influence of the force that produced such positions, cannot withstand it.<…>The same must be said about a weak woman who decides to fight for her rights: it has come to the point that it is no longer possible for her to endure her humiliation, so she breaks out of it no longer for reasons of what is better and what is worse, but only by an instinctive desire for what is tolerable and possible. Nature here it 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.<…>

Katerina’s husband, young Kabanov, although he suffers a lot from the old Kabanikh, is nevertheless more independent: 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 free air and light, contrary to all the precautions of perishing tyranny, break 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? It doesn't matter - she considers life and the vegetative life that fell to her lot in the Kabanov family.

This is the basis of all the actions of the character depicted in The Storm. This basis is more reliable than all possible theories and pathos, because it lies in the very essence of this situation, it irresistibly attracts a person to the matter, does not depend on this or that ability or impression in particular, but relies on the entire complexity of the requirements of the organism, on the development of the whole nature of man. .<…>First of all, you are struck by the extraordinary originality of this character. There is nothing external, alien in him, but everything comes out somehow from within him; every impression is processed in it and then grows organically with it. We see this, for example, in Katerina's ingenuous story about her childhood and about life in her mother's house. It turns out that her upbringing and young life did not give her anything; in her mother's house it was the same as at the Kabanovs; they went to church, sewed gold on velvet, listened to the stories of wanderers, dined, walked in the garden, again talked with pilgrims and prayed themselves ... After listening to Katerina’s story, Varvara, her husband’s sister, remarks with surprise: ". But the difference is determined by Katerina very quickly in five words: “Yes, everything here seems to be from bondage!” And further conversation shows that in all this appearance, which is so common with us everywhere, Katerina was able to find her own special meaning, apply it to her needs and aspirations, until the heavy hand of Kabanikha fell upon her. Katerina does not at all belong to violent characters, never satisfied, loving to destroy at all costs ... On the contrary, this character is predominantly creative, loving, ideal. That is why she tries to comprehend and ennoble everything in her imagination ...<…>She tries to harmonize any external dissonance with the harmony of her soul, she covers any shortcoming from the fullness of her inner forces. Rude, superstitious stories and senseless ravings of wanderers turn in her into golden, poetic dreams of the imagination, not frightening, but clear, kind. Her images are poor, because the materials presented to her by reality are so monotonous; but even with these meager means, her imagination works tirelessly and carries her away to a new world, quiet and bright. It is not the rites that occupy her in the church: she does not hear at all what is being sung and read there; she has other music in her soul, other visions, for her the service ends imperceptibly, as if in one second. She is occupied with trees, strangely painted on images, and she imagines a whole country of gardens, where all such trees and everything bloom, smell fragrant, everything is full of heavenly singing. Otherwise, on a sunny day, she will see how “such a bright pillar goes down from the dome and smoke is walking in this pillar, like clouds,” and now she already sees, “as if angels are flying and singing in this pillar.” Sometimes she will introduce herself - why shouldn't she fly? And when she stands on a mountain, she is drawn to fly like that: she would run like that, raise her hands, and fly. 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.<…>The whole difference is that with Katerina, as a direct, living person, everything is done according to the inclination of nature, without a distinct consciousness, while for people who are theoretically developed and strong in mind leading role plays logic and analysis.<…>In the dry, monotonous life of my youth, in coarse and superstitious terms 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 her own ideal 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, obscure aspirations, which she recalls: what I pray and what I cry 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. ” The poor girl, who has not received a broad theoretical education, who does not know everything that is going on in the world, who does not understand well even her own needs, cannot, of course, give herself an account of what she needs. For the time being, she lives with her mother, in complete freedom, without any worldly care, until the needs and passions of an adult have yet been identified in her, she does not even know how to distinguish her own dreams, her own inner peace from external impressions.<…>

In a gloomy environment new family Katerina began to feel the insufficiency 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, - the old woman shouts: “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 the church readings are so formidable, and the stories of the wanderers are so monstrous ...<…>

When she married Tikhon Kabanov, she did not love him either, she still did not 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; she does not think about resistance, because she does not have enough reason to do so. 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 in 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 be expected in the midst of the situation in which she finds herself.<…>

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 rests 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!<…>Katerina is not like that: the denouement of her love for all home environment visible in advance - even when it only approaches the matter. She doesn't work psychological analysis and therefore cannot express subtle observations of himself; what she says about herself, it means that she strongly makes herself known to her. And she, at the first proposal of Varvara about her meeting with Boris, cries out: “No, no, don’t! What are you, God save: if I see him even once, I will run away from home, I will not go home for anything in the world!” It is not a reasonable precaution that speaks in it, it is a 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 good troika, embracing ...”<…>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. She makes an attempt to stand somewhat aloof from herself and judge the act she has decided on as an extraneous matter; but her thoughts are all directed towards the justification of this act. “Here,” he says, “is it a long time to die ... Someone has fun in captivity ... At least now I live, toil, I don’t see a gap for myself ... my mother-in-law crushed me ...”, etc. - all exculpatory articles. And then more accusatory considerations: “it’s obvious that fate wants it that way ... But what a sin in this if I look at it once ... Yes, even if I talk, it’s not a problem. Or maybe such a case will not happen in a lifetime ... "<…>The struggle, in fact, is already over, only a little thought remains, the old rag still covers Katerina, and she gradually throws her off her. The end of the monologue betrays her heart. “Come what may, and I’ll see Boris,” she concludes, and in the oblivion of foreboding she exclaims: “Oh, if only the night would come sooner!”<…>

Such a liberation is sad, bitter, 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 the tormentors surrounding her could change and reconcile her with themselves and with life.<…>The most they can do is to forgive her, ease the burden of her confinement at home, say a few kind words to her, perhaps give her the right to have a voice in the household when her opinion is asked. Maybe that would be enough for another woman...<…>No, what she needed was not something to give in to her and make it easier, but that her mother-in-law, her husband, all those around her become able to satisfy the living aspirations with which she is imbued, to recognize the legitimacy of her natural requirements, to renounce all coercive rights. upon her and be reborn to the point of becoming worthy of her love and trust. There is nothing to say about the extent to which such a rebirth is possible for them ...

Less impossibility would have been another solution - to run with Boris from the arbitrariness and violence of the home. Despite the severity of the formal law, despite the bitterness of crude tyranny, such steps are not impossible in themselves, especially for such characters as Katerina. And she does not neglect this way out, because she is not an abstract heroine who wants to die on principle. Having run away from home to see Boris, and already thinking about death, she, however, is not at all averse to escaping; having learned that Boris is going far to Siberia, she very simply tells him: "Take me with you from here." But then a stone emerges in front of us for a minute, which keeps people in the depths of the whirlpool, which we called the “dark kingdom”. This stone is material dependence. Boris has nothing and is completely dependent on his uncle, Wild;<…>That is why he answers her: “It is impossible, Katya; not of my own free will I go, my uncle sends; the horses are already ready, ”etc. Boris is not a hero, he is far from being worth Katerina, she fell in love with him more in the desert.<…>

However, we spoke at length about the significance of material dependence as the main basis of all the power of tyrants in the "dark kingdom" in our previous articles. Therefore, here we only recall this in order to indicate the decisive need for that fatal end that Katerina has in The Thunderstorm, and, consequently, the decisive need for a character that, in the given situation, would be ready for such an end.

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 the tyrannical force, he tells it that it is no longer possible to go further, it is impossible to continue to live with its violent, deadening principles.<…>

But even without any lofty considerations, just as a human being, we are pleased to see Katerina's deliverance - at least 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 did 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! As a matter of fact, Tikhon's exclamation is stupid: the Volga is close, who is stopping 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.<…>But what a joyful, fresh life a healthy person breathes in us, finding in himself the determination to put an end to this rotten life at all costs! ..<…>

GRIND - THE FLOUR WILL BE. A comedy in five acts by I. V. Samarin Last theatrical season we had a drama by Mr. Stebnitsky, a comedy by Mr. Chernyavsky, and, finally, a comedy by Mrs. Sebinova "Democratic feat" - three works in which our positive

From the book Articles. Journal controversy author Saltykov-Shchedrin Mikhail Evgrafovich

NERO. Tragedy in five acts by N. P. Zhandra. St. Petersburg. 1870 When the tragedy of Gendre appears on the stage Mariinsky Theater our newspaper reviewers treated it rather unfavorably, and the big magazines did not even mention this work in a single word, as

From the book All Works school curriculum Literature in brief. 5-11 grade author Panteleeva E. V.

<«Слово и дело». Комедия в пяти действиях Ф Устрялова «Карл Смелый». Опера в трех действиях, музыка Дж. Россини.>I haven't been to Petersburg for seventeen years. I left this city at the time when Mrs. Zhuleva first appeared in "Beginners in Love", when Mr. Samoilov played

From the book Writer-Inspector: Fedor Sologub and F.K. Teternikov author Pavlova Margarita Mikhailovna

<«Слово и дело». Комедия в пяти действиях Ф. Устрялова «Карл Смелый». Опера в трех действиях, музыка Дж. Россини>For the first time - in the journal "Sovremennik", 1863, No. 1–2, dep. II, pp. 177–197 (censored cut - February 5). Without a signature. Authorship is indicated by A. N. Pypin ("M. E. Saltykov", St. Petersburg. 1899,

From the book Russian Literature in Evaluations, Judgments, Disputes: Reader of Literary Critical Texts author Esin Andrey Borisovich

"Thunderstorm" (Drama) Retelling The main characters: Savel Prokofievich Wild - a merchant, a significant person in the city. Boris Grigorievich - his nephew, an educated young man.

From the book All essays on literature for grade 10 author Team of authors

From the book How to write an essay. To prepare for the exam author Sitnikov Vitaly Pavlovich

Drama A.N. Ostrovsky "Thunderstorm" 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 as the nature of the drama itself (the severity of the conflict, its tragic outcome, a strong and original image

From the author's book

ON THE. Dobrolyubov A ray of light in a dark kingdom

From the author's book

I.A. Goncharov Review of the drama "Thunderstorm" Ostrovsky<…>Without fear of an accusation of exaggeration, I can honestly say that there has never been such a work as a drama in our literature. It undeniably occupies and probably will for a long time occupy the first place in high

From the author's book

M. M. Dostoevsky "Thunderstorm". Drama in 5 acts by A.N. Ostrovsky<…>For this pure, unsullied nature1 only the bright side of things is available; obeying everything around her, finding everything lawful, she knew how to create her own out of the meager2 life of a provincial town.

From the author's book

P.I. Melnikov-Pechersky "Thunderstorm". Drama in five acts by A.N. Ostrovsky<…>We will not analyze the previous works of our gifted playwright - they are known to everyone and a lot, a lot is said about them in our magazines. Let's just say one thing, that all the former

From the author's book

1. "The Dark Kingdom" and its victims (based on the play by A. N. Ostrovsky "Thunderstorm") "Thunderstorm" was published in 1859 (on the eve of the revolutionary situation in Russia, in the "pre-storm" era). Its historicism lies in the conflict itself, the irreconcilable contradictions reflected in the play. She answers the spirit

From the author's book

2. The tragedy of Katerina (based on the play by A. N. Ostrovsky "Thunderstorm") Katerina is the main character in Ostrovsky's drama "Thunderstorm", Tikhon's wife, Kabanikh's daughter-in-law. The main idea of the work is the conflict of this girl with the "dark kingdom", the kingdom of petty tyrants, despots and ignoramuses. Find out why

From the author's book

3. "The Tragedy of Conscience" (based on the play by A. N. Ostrovsky "Thunderstorm") In "Thunderstorm" Ostrovsky shows the life of a Russian merchant family and the position of a woman in it. The character of Katerina was formed in a simple merchant family, where love reigned and her daughter was given complete freedom. She

From the author's book

Bykova N. G. Drama by A. N. Ostrovsky “Thunderstorm” “Thunderstorm” is a drama written by A. N. Ostrovsky in 1859. The play was created on the eve of the abolition of serfdom. The action takes place in the small merchant town of Kalinov on the Volga. Life there is slow, sleepy, boring.Home

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 as the nature of the drama itself (the severity of the conflict, its tragic outcome, a strong and original image main character), and the era in which the play was written - two years before the abolition of serfdom and related reforms in the socio-political life of 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 completely positive feedback about 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 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 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 that permeate everything. Russian society whose voice is heard in all the phenomena of our life, whose satisfaction is a necessary condition of 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 most extensive, 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 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.

"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 continue to exist 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 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 good that good people there is: no, no, yes, and you will hear what is happening in the wide 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 dare she not believe and 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 in a multitude of people like himself a vast field for exercising his whims 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, in essence, is incomparably more terrible than anarchy, because it gives mischief more means and scope and makes one suffer. more people - and even more dangerous than it in the sense that it 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, how can you not be a robber,” he shouts, “a thunderstorm is sent to us as a punishment, so that we feel, and you want to defend yourself with poles and some kind of 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 her egoism, she cannot rise even to the point of reconciling herself at the triumph of principle, even with a donation. 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 them, and not give them 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 rational convictions will stop him until a tangible for him is combined with them. external force: He scolds Kuligin, not heeding any reason; 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.

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 something be embodied in them, something merge with them. general requirement truth and law, 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. $ of this integrity and harmony of character lies its strength and its essential need at a time when old, wild relationships, having lost all inner strength continue to be held 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 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 folk 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 national idea, without carrying great ideas either in his tongue or in his head, selflessly goes to the end in an uneven struggle and perishes, not 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 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 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 "the 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 remains only a little thought, 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, 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 it's time cruel treatment with 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 reflected in it new type, created by Russian life, in order to make itself felt only by 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. IN last moment all domestic horrors flicker 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! As a matter of fact, Tikhon's exclamation is stupid: the Volga is close, who is stopping 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 pernicious influence Wild and Boar! 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!