Inability to cope with itself.

AN Ostrovsky's drama "The Thunderstorm" was published in 1860, on the eve of the revolutionary situation in Russia. The work reflected the impressions of the writer's journey along the Volga in the summer of 1856. But not some specific Volga city and not some specific persons are depicted in “The Thunderstorm”. Ostrovsky revised all his observations of the life of the Volga region and turned them into deeply typical pictures of Russian life.

The genre of drama is characterized by the fact that it is based on the conflict between the individual and the surrounding society. In The Thunderstorm, this person is Katerina Kabanova. Katerina personifies the moral purity, spiritual beauty of a Russian woman, her desire for will, for freedom, her ability not only to endure, but also to defend her rights, her human dignity. According to Dobrolyubov, she "did not kill human nature in herself."

Katerina is a Russian national character. First of all, this is reflected by Ostrovsky, who perfectly owned all the riches of the national language, in the speech of the heroine. When she speaks, she seems to be singing. In the speech of Katerina, associated with the common people, brought up on his oral poetry, colloquial vernacular vocabulary prevails, characterized by high poetry, imagery, emotionality. The naturalness, sincerity, simplicity of the heroine are also striking. Katerina is religious. But this is not Kabanikha's hypocrisy, but a sincere, deep faith in God. She often attends church and does it with pleasure and pleasure (“And until my death I loved to go to church! Precisely, I used to go into paradise ...”), she loves to talk about wanderers (“Our house was full of wanderers and pilgrims ”), Katerina's dreams are about“ temples of gold ”.

The heroine's love for Boris is not without reason. First, the need for love makes itself felt: after all, it is unlikely that her husband Tikhon, under the influence of "mama", showed his love for his wife very often. Secondly, the feelings of the wife and the woman are offended. Thirdly, the deathly longing of a monotonous life strangles Katerina. And, finally, the fourth reason is the desire for will, for space: after all, love is one of the manifestations of freedom. Katerina is struggling with herself, and this is the tragedy of her position, but in the end she internally justifies herself. Ending her life by suicide, committing, from the point of view of the church, a terrible sin, she thinks not about the salvation of her soul, but about the love that was revealed to her. "My friend! My joy! Goodbye!" - the last words of Katerina.

Another characteristic feature of Katerina is the desire for freedom, spiritual liberation. It is not for nothing that the image of a bird, a symbol of will, is repeatedly repeated in the play. Hence the constant epithet “free bird”. Katerina, recalling how she lived before marriage, compares herself to a bird in the wild. “... Why don't people fly like birds? she says to Varvara. "You know, sometimes it seems to me that I am a bird." But the free bird fell into an iron cage. And she fights and yearns in captivity.

The integrity, decisiveness of Katerina's character was expressed in the fact that she refused to obey the orders of the Kabanikha house and preferred death to life in captivity. And this was not a manifestation of weakness, but of spiritual strength and courage, ardent hatred of oppression and despotism.

So, the main character of the drama "The Thunderstorm" comes into conflict with the environment. In the fourth act, in the scene of repentance, it is as if the end is coming. Everything is against Katerina in this scene: the "Thunderstorm of the Lord", and the cursing half-mad "lady with two lackeys", and the ancient painting on the dilapidated wall, depicting "fiery hell." Poor Katerina was almost driven mad by all these signs of a leaving, but such a tenacious old world, and she repents of her sin in a semi-delirious state of darkness. She herself later confesses to Boris that “she was not free in herself,” “she did not remember herself.” If the drama “The Thunderstorm” ended with this scene, it would show the invincibility of the “dark kingdom”, because at the end of the fourth act Kabanikha triumphs: “What, son! Where will the will lead! " But the drama ends with a moral victory both over the external forces that fettered Katerina's freedom and over the dark ideas that fettered her will and reason. And her decision to die, just not to remain a slave, expresses, according to Dobrolyubov, "the need for the emerging movement of Russian life." The critic called Katerina a popular, national character, “a ray of light in the dark kingdom,” meaning the effective expression in her of direct protest, the liberation aspirations of the masses. Pointing to the deep typicality of this image, to its national significance, Dobrolyubov wrote that it represents "an artistic combination of homogeneous features that appear in different positions of Russian life, but serve as an expression of one idea." The heroine of Ostrovsky reflected in her feelings, in her actions, the spontaneous protest of the broad masses of the people against the hated conditions of the “dark kingdom”. That is why Dobrolyubov singled out “The Thunderstorm” from all progressive pre-reform literature and emphasized its revolutionary significance.

Dobrolyubov's article entitled "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom", a summary of which is set out below, refers to Ostrovsky's "The Thunderstorm", which has become a classic of Russian literature. The author (his portrait is presented below) in the first part says that Ostrovsky deeply understood the life of a Russian person. Further, Dobrolyubov conducts which other critics have written about Ostrovsky, noting that they do not have a direct look at the main things.

The concept of drama that existed during Ostrovsky's time

Nikolai Alexandrovich further compares The Thunderstorm with the drama standards adopted at that time. In the article "A ray of light in the dark kingdom", a brief summary of which interests us, he examines, in particular, the principle established in the literature on the subject of drama. In the struggle between duty and passion, usually an unhappy end occurs when passion wins, and a happy end occurs when duty wins. The drama, moreover, was supposed, according to the existing tradition, to represent a single action. At the same time, it should be written in a literary, beautiful language. Dobrolyubov notes that he does not fit the concept in this way.

Why "Thunderstorm" cannot be considered a drama, according to Dobrolyubov?

Writings of this kind should certainly make readers feel respect for duty and expose a passion that is considered harmful. However, the main character is not described in gloomy and dark colors, although she is, according to the rules of the drama, a "criminal". Thanks to Ostrovsky's pen (his portrait is presented below), we are imbued with compassion for this heroine. The author of "The Thunderstorm" was able to vividly express how beautifully Katerina speaks and suffers. We see this heroine in a very gloomy environment and because of this we begin to unwittingly justify the vice, speaking out against the girl's tormentors.

The drama, as a result, does not fulfill its purpose, does not carry its main semantic load. The action itself in the work is somehow uncertain and slow, says the author of the article "A ray of light in the dark kingdom." Its summary continues as follows. Dobrolyubov says that there are no bright and stormy scenes in the work. The work leads to "lethargy" by the pile-up of characters. The language does not stand up to any criticism.

Nikolai Aleksandrovich in his article "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom" brings the play that interests him specifically to the accepted standards, as he comes to the conclusion that the standard, ready-made idea of \u200b\u200bwhat should be in a work does not allow reflecting the actual state of affairs. What could you say about a young man who, after meeting a pretty girl, tells her that compared to Venus de Milo, her figure is not so good? Dobrolyubov poses the question in this way, arguing about the standardization of the approach to literary works. Truth lies in life and truth, and not in various dialectical attitudes, as the author of the article "A ray of light in the dark kingdom" believes. The summary of his thesis is that it cannot be said that a person is by nature evil. Therefore, in the book, good does not have to win, and evil does not have to lose.

Dobrolyubov notes the importance of Shakespeare, as well as the opinion of Apollo Grigoriev

Dobrolyubov ("A ray of light in the dark kingdom") also says that for a long time writers did not pay special attention to the movement towards the primordial principles of man, towards his roots. Remembering Shakespeare, he notes that this author was able to raise human thought to a new level. After that, Dobrolyubov moves on to other articles on "The Thunderstorm". It is mentioned, in particular, who noted Ostrovsky's main merit in the fact that his work was popular. Dobrolyubov is trying to answer the question of what this "nationality" is. He says that Grigoriev does not explain this concept, therefore his statement itself cannot be taken seriously.

Ostrovsky's works - "plays of life"

Dobrolyubov then discusses what can be called "plays of life". "A ray of light in the dark kingdom" (the summary notes only the main points) - an article in which Nikolai Alexandrovich says that Ostrovsky considers life as a whole, without trying to make the righteous person happy or punish the villain. He assesses the general state of affairs and makes the reader either deny or sympathize, but leaves no one indifferent. Those who do not participate in the intrigue itself cannot be considered superfluous, since without them it would be impossible, which Dobrolyubov notes.

"A ray of light in the dark kingdom": an analysis of the statements of minor characters

Dobrolyubov in his article analyzes the statements of minor persons: Kudryashka, Glasha and others. He tries to understand their condition, the way they look at the reality that surrounds them. All the features of the "dark kingdom" are noted by the author. He says that these people have such a limited life that they do not notice that there is another reality besides their own closed world. The author analyzes, in particular, Kabanova's concern about the future of the old orders and traditions.

What is the novelty of the play?

"The Thunderstorm" is the most decisive work created by the author, as Dobrolyubov further notes. "A ray of light in the dark kingdom" - an article which says that the tyranny of the "dark kingdom", the relationship between its representatives brought Ostrovsky to tragic consequences. The breath of novelty, which was noted by all those familiar with "The Storm", lies in the general background of the play, in people "unnecessary on stage", as well as in everything that speaks of the imminent end of the old foundations and tyranny. The death of Katerina is a new beginning against this background.

The image of Katerina Kabanova

Dobrolyubov's article "A ray of light in the dark kingdom" is continued by the fact that the author goes on to analyze the image of Katerina, the main character, giving him quite a lot of space. Nikolai Alexandrovich describes this image as a shaky, indecisive "step forward" in literature. Dobrolyubov says that life itself requires the appearance of active and decisive heroes. The image of Katerina is characterized by an intuitive perception of the truth and a natural understanding of it. Dobrolyubov ("A ray of light in the dark kingdom") says about Katerina that this heroine is selfless, as she prefers to choose death than existence under the old order. Powerful strength of character lies in this heroine in her integrity.

Motives of Katerina's actions

Dobrolyubov, in addition to the very image of this girl, examines in detail the motives of her actions. He notes that Katerina is not a rebel by nature, she does not show discontent, does not require destruction. Rather, she is a creator who longs for love. This is what explains her desire to refine her actions in her own mind. The girl is young, and the desire for love and tenderness is natural for her. However, Tikhon is so downtrodden and obsessed that he cannot understand these desires and feelings of his wife, which he says to her directly.

Katerina embodies the idea of \u200b\u200bthe Russian people, says Dobrolyubov ("A ray of light in the dark kingdom")

The theses of the article are supplemented with one more statement. Dobrolyubov finally finds in the image of the main character that the author of the work embodied in her the idea of \u200b\u200bthe Russian people. He speaks about this in a rather abstract way, comparing Katerina with a wide and flat river. It has a flat bottom, it smoothly flows around the stones encountered on the way. The river itself only makes noise because it corresponds to its nature.

The only right decision of the heroine, according to Dobrolyubov

Dobrolyubov finds in the analysis of the actions of this heroine that the only right decision for her is to run away with Boris. The girl can flee, but dependence on a relative of his lover shows that this hero is essentially the same as Katerina's husband, only more educated.

Finale of the play

The ending of the play is both delightful and tragic. The main idea of \u200b\u200bthe work is to get rid of the shackles of the so-called dark kingdom at any cost. Life in his environment is impossible. Even Tikhon, when the corpse of his wife is pulled out, shouts that she is well now and asks: "But what about me?" The finale of the play and this cry itself give an unambiguous understanding of the truth. Tikhon's words make us look at Katerina's act not as a love affair. A world opens before us in which the living envy the dead.

This concludes Dobrolyubov's article "A ray of light in the dark kingdom." We have highlighted only the main points, briefly describing its summary. However, this omitted some of the author's details and comments. "A ray of light in the dark kingdom" is best read in the original, since this article is a classic of Russian criticism. Dobrolyubov gave a good example of how a piece should be analyzed.

Year of writing:

1860

Reading time:

Description of the work:

In 1860, Nikolai Dobrolyubov wrote a critical article A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom, which became one of the first serious reviews of Alexander Ostrovsky's play The Thunderstorm. The article was published by the Sovremennik magazine in the same 1860.

We will mention only one character in the play - Katerina, in which Dobrolyubov saw a decisive, solid, strong character that was so necessary for society to resist the autocratic system at that time and carry out social reforms.

Read the summary of the article A ray of light in the dark kingdom below.

The article is devoted to Ostrovsky's drama "The Thunderstorm". At the beginning of it, Dobrolyubov writes that "Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life." Further, he analyzes the articles about Ostrovsky by other critics, writes that they "lack a direct view of things."

Then Dobrolyubov compares The Thunderstorm with dramatic canons: "The subject of the drama must necessarily be an event where we see the struggle between passion and duty - with the unfortunate consequences of the victory of passion or with the happy ones when debt wins." Also in the drama there must be unity of action, and it must be written in a high literary language. At the same time, The Thunderstorm “does not satisfy the most essential purpose of the drama - to instill respect for moral duty and to show the harmful consequences of being carried away by passion. Katerina, this criminal, appears to us in the drama not only not in a sufficiently gloomy light, but even with the radiance of martyrdom. She speaks so well, suffers so pitifully, everything around her is so bad that you arm yourself against her oppressors and thus justify the vice in her face. Consequently, the drama does not fulfill its high purpose. The whole action proceeds sluggishly and slowly, because it is cluttered with scenes and faces that are completely unnecessary. Finally, the language spoken by the characters 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-made idea of \u200b\u200bwhat 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 body is not the same as that of Venus de Milo? The truth is not in dialectical subtleties, but in the living truth of what you are arguing about. It cannot be said that people were 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 on several steps, which no one had ever climbed before." Then the author turns to other critical articles about the "Thunder", in particular, Apollo Grigoriev, who claims that the main merit of Ostrovsky is in his "nationality". "But what the nationality consists of, Mr. Grigoriev does not explain, 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 in the foreground is always the general situation of life. 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 persons of Ostrovsky's plays who do not participate directly 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 activities of the main characters in the play. "

The need for “unnecessary” persons (secondary and episodic characters) is especially visible in The Thunderstorm. Dobrolyubov analyzes the remarks of Feklusha, Glasha, Dikiy, Kudryash, Kuligin, etc. The author analyzes the inner state of the heroes of the “dark kingdom”: “everything is somehow restless, it’s not good for them. In addition to them, without asking them, another life has grown, with different principles, 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 about 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 previous respect for them and that they will be abandoned at the first opportunity. "

Then the author writes that The Thunderstorm is “the most decisive work of Ostrovsky; the mutual relations of petty 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 Storm. This “something” is, in our opinion, the background of the play, indicated by us and revealing the instability and imminent end of tyranny. Then the very character of Katerina, drawn against this background, also blows on us with a new life, which is revealed to us in her very death. "

Further, Dobrolyubov analyzes the image of Katerina, perceiving it as "a step forward in all our literature": "Russian life has reached the point where it felt the need for more active and energetic people." The image of Katerina “is unswervingly faithful to the instinct of natural truth and selfless in the sense that it is better for him to die than to live on those principles that are repugnant to him. His strength lies in this integrity and harmony of character. Free air and light, in spite of all the precautions of dying tyranny, burst into Katerina's cell, she is striving for a new life, even if she had to die in this impulse. What is death to her? All the same - she does not consider life and the vegetation 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 is why she tries to ennoble everything in her imagination. The feeling of love for a person, the need for tender pleasures naturally opened up in the young woman. " But it will not be Tikhon Kabanov, who “is too overwhelmed to understand the nature of Katerina's emotions:“ I cannot understand you, Katya, ”he says to her,“ then you won’t get a word from you, let alone affection, but then so yourself you climb. " This is how the spoiled natures usually judge the strong and fresh nature. "

Dobrolyubov comes to the conclusion that in the image of Katerina Ostrovsky embodied the great popular idea: “in other creations of our literature, strong characters are like fountains, depending on an extraneous mechanism. Katerina is like a big river: a flat bottom, good - she flows calmly, large stones meet - she jumps over them, a cliff - flows in a cascade, dammed her - she rages and breaks through in another place. Not because it rages so that the water suddenly wants to make some noise or get angry with obstacles, but simply because it needs it to fulfill its natural requirements - for further flow. "

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

At the end of the play “we are glad 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 at his wife's corpse, pulled out of the water, shouts in self-forgetfulness: “Good for you, Katya! Why am I left to live in the world and suffer! “With this exclamation the play ends, and it seems to us that nothing could have been thought up 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 power have been summoned by the artist in the Groz to a decisive cause, and if they feel the legitimacy and importance of this matter, then we are happy, no matter what our scientists say and literary judges. "

You have read the summary of the article A Ray of Light in the Dark Realm. We invite you to visit the Abstracts section for other expositions of popular writers.

The critical article "A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom" was written by Nikolai Dobrolyubov in 1860 and then published in the Sovremennik magazine.

Dobrolyubov reflects in it on dramatic standards, where "we see the struggle between passion and duty." A happy ending, in his opinion, has a drama if duty wins, and an unhappy end if passion. The critic notes that in Ostrovsky's drama there is no unity of time and high vocabulary, which was the rule for dramas. "The Thunderstorm" does not satisfy the main goal of the drama - to respect the "moral duty", to show the destructive, fatal "consequences of passion." Dobrolyubov notes that the reader unwittingly justifies Katerina, and that is why the drama does not fulfill its purpose.

The writer has a role in the movement of humanity. The critic cites as an example the lofty mission performed by Shakespeare: he was able to raise the morality of his contemporaries. "Plays of Life" somewhat pejoratively calls the works of Ostrovsky Dobrolyubov. The writer “does not punish either the villain or the victim,” and this, according to the critic, makes the plays hopelessly mundane and mundane. But the critic does not deny them the "nationality", polemicizing in this context with Apollo Grigoriev.It is the reflection of the aspirations of the people that seems to be one of the strengths of the work.

Dobrolyubov continues his devastating criticism when analyzing the "unnecessary" heroes of the "dark kingdom": their inner world is limited within the confines of a small world. There are also villains in the work, described in an extremely grotesque way. Such are the Kabanikha and the Wild. However, unlike, for example, Shakespeare's characters, their petty tyranny, although it can ruin the life of a good person. Nevertheless, "The Thunderstorm" is called Dobrolyubov "the most decisive work" of the playwright, where tyranny is brought to "tragic consequences."

A supporter of revolutionary changes in the country, Dobrolyubov happily notices signs of something "refreshing" and "encouraging" in the play. For him, the way out of the dark kingdom can be only as a result of the people's protest against the tyranny of the authorities. In Ostrovsky's plays, the critic saw this protest in the act of Katerina, for whom living in the "dark kingdom" is worse than death. Dobrolyubov saw in Katerina the person whom the epoch demanded: decisive, with a strong character and will of spirit, although "weak and patient." Katerina, "creative, loving, ideal", is, according to the revolutionary democrat Dobrolyubov, the ideal prototype of a person capable of protest and even more. Katerina - a bright person with a bright soul - was called by the critic a "ray of light" in the world of dark people with their petty passions.

(Tikhon falls to his knees in front of Kabanikha)

Among them is the husband of Katerina Tikhon - "one of the many pathetic types" who "are just as harmful as the tyrants themselves." Katerina flees from him to Boris "more for solitude", out of the "need for love", which Tikhon is not capable of because of his moral underdevelopment. But Boris is by no means a “hero”. There is no way out for Katerina, her bright soul cannot get out of the sticky darkness of the "dark kingdom".

The tragic ending of the play and the cry of the unfortunate Tikhon, who, in his words, remains "tormented" further, "make the viewer - as Dobrolyubov wrote - think not of a love affair, but of all life, where the living envy the dead."

Nikolai Dobrolyubov sets the real task of his critical article to draw the reader to the idea that Russian life is shown by Ostrovsky in "The Thunderstorm" from such a perspective in order to provoke "a decisive deed." And this business is legal and important. In this case, as the critic notes, he will be pleased "no matter what our scientists and literary judges say."

Current page: 1 (total of the book has 8 pages)

Font:

100% +

Nikolay Alexandrovich Dobrolyubov

A ray of light in the dark kingdom

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

Not long before the appearance of "The Thunderstorm" on the stage, we analyzed in great detail all of Ostrovsky's works. Wishing to present a characterization of the author's talent, we then turned our attention to the phenomena of Russian life reproduced in his plays, tried to grasp their general character and find out whether the meaning of these phenomena in reality is what it seems to us in the works of our playwright. If the readers have not forgotten, then we came to the result that Ostrovsky possesses 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 further proof of the validity of our conclusion. We wanted to talk about it at the same time, but felt that we would have to repeat many of our previous considerations, and therefore decided to keep silent about the "Thunderstorm", leaving readers who asked for our opinion to check on it those general remarks which we spoke about Ostrovsky a few months before the appearance of this play. Our decision became even more firmly established in us when we saw that a number of large and small reviews appeared in all magazines and newspapers about The Groza, which interpreted the matter from the most diverse points of view. We thought that in this mass of articles, something more than what we saw in the critics mentioned at the beginning of our first article on "The Dark Kingdom" will finally affect Ostrovsky and the significance of his plays. In this hope and in the knowledge that our own opinion on the meaning and character of Ostrovsky's works had already been expressed quite definitely, we thought it best to leave the analysis of The Storm.

But now, again meeting Ostrovsky's play in a separate edition and recalling everything that has been written about it, we find that it will not be superfluous to say a few words about it on our part. It gives us a reason to add something in our notes on "The Dark Kingdom", to carry on some of the thoughts we expressed then, and - by the way - to explain in short words with some of the critics who have honored us with direct or indirect abuse.

To be fair to some of the critics, they were able to understand the difference that separates us from them. They reproach us for having adopted a bad method - to consider the author's work and then, as a result of this consideration, say what it contains and what the 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 in accordance with their concepts). It is clear that with such a difference of views, they look with indignation at our analyzes, which one of them likens to "seeking morality in a fable." But we are very glad that the difference is finally revealed, and we are ready to withstand any comparisons. Yes, if you like, our method of criticism is similar to seeking a moral conclusion in a fable: the difference, for example, in the application to criticism of Ostrovsky's comedies, and will be only as great as the comedy differs from the fable and as far as the 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 disassemble the fable and say: “This is the kind of morality it contains, and this morality seems to us good or bad, and this is why,” rather than decide from the very beginning: this fable should contain such and such morality (for example, reverence for parents), and this is how it should be expressed (for example, in the form of a chick disobeying its mother and falling 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 expressed in a wrong way (for example, in the example of a cuckoo leaving its eggs in other people's nests) - this means that the fable is not good. We have seen this method of criticism more than once in the appendix to Ostrovsky, although no one, of course, will want to admit it, and they will also blame us, from a sore head to a healthy one, that we are proceeding to the analysis of literary works with previously adopted ideas and requirements. And yet what is clearer - did not the Slavophiles say: one should portray the Russian person as virtuous and prove that the root of all good is life in the old days; in his first plays Ostrovsky did not observe this, and therefore The Family Picture and Our People are unworthy of him and are explained only by the fact that he was still imitating Gogol at that time. But the Westerners didn’t shout: one should teach in comedy that superstition is harmful, and Ostrovsky saves one of his heroes from death with a bell ringing; everyone should be taught that the true good is education, and Ostrovsky in his comedy dishonors the educated Vikhorev in front of the ignorant Borodkin; it is clear that “Don't Get In Your Sleigh” and “Don't Live As You Want” are bad plays. And the adherents of artistry didn’t proclaim: art should serve the eternal and universal requirements of aesthetics, and Ostrovsky in his "Profitable Place" reduced art to serving the pitiful interests of the minute; therefore "Profitable Place" is unworthy of art and should be counted among accusatory literature! .. But Mr. Nekrasov from Moscow did not assert: Bolshov should not arouse sympathy in us, and meanwhile the 4th act of "His People" was written in order to arouse in us sympathy for Bolshov; therefore, the fourth act is superfluous! .. (2) But Mr. Pavlov (N.F.) didn’t wriggle, letting him understand the following propositions: Russian folk life can provide material only for farce performances; there are no elements in it to build something out of it in accordance with the "eternal" requirements of art; it is therefore obvious that Ostrovsky, who takes a plot from common life, is nothing more than a farcical writer ... (3) And yet another Moscow critic did not draw such conclusions: the drama should present us a hero imbued with lofty ideas; the heroine of The Storm, on the contrary, is all permeated with mysticism, therefore, she is not suitable for drama, for she cannot arouse our sympathy; therefore, "Thunderstorm" has only the meaning of satire, and even then not important, and so on and so forth ... (4)

Those who followed what we wrote about The Storm will easily remember a few more similar critics. It cannot be said that they were all written by people who are completely poor in the intellectual sense; how can one explain the absence of a direct view of things, which in all of them strikes the impartial reader? Without a doubt, it must be ascribed to the old critical routine, which remained in many heads from the study of artistic scholasticism in the courses of Koshansky, Ivan Davydov, Chistyakov and Zelenetsky. It is known that, in the opinion of these venerable theorists, criticism is an application to a well-known product of general laws set forth in the courses of the same theoreticians: fits the laws - excellent; does not fit - bad. As you can see, it was not a bad idea for the moribund old people: as long as such a beginning lives in criticism, they can be sure that they will not be considered completely backward, no matter what happens in the literary world. After all, the laws of the beautiful are established by them in their textbooks, on the basis of those works in the beauty of which they believe; as long as everything new will be judged on the basis of the laws they have approved, as long as elegant and only that which is consistent with them will be recognized, nothing new will dare to claim its rights; old men will be right, believing in Karamzin and not recognizing Gogol, as the respectable people thought to be right, admiring the imitators of Racine and cursing Shakespeare as a drunken savage, following Voltaire, or worshiping the Messiada and on this basis rejecting Faust. Rutiners, even the most mediocre ones, have nothing to fear from criticism, which serves as a passive test of the immovable rules of dull scholars - and at the same time, the most gifted writers have nothing to hope from it if they bring something new and original into art. They must go against all the criticisms of the "correct" criticism, in spite of it, make a name for itself, in spite of it to found a school and make sure that some new theorist begins to think with them when drawing up a new code of art. Then the criticism humbly recognizes their merits; until then, she should be in the position of the unfortunate Neapolitans at the beginning of this September - who, although they know that Garibaldi will not come to them today, they should still recognize Francis as their king, until his royal majesty will not want to leave your capital.

We are surprised how respectable people dare to recognize such an insignificant, such humiliating role for criticism. After all, limiting it to the application of the "eternal and general" laws of art to particular and temporary phenomena, through this very thing art is condemned to immobility, and criticism is given a completely ordered and police meaning. And many do it from a pure heart! One of the authors, about whom we expressed our opinion, somewhat disrespectfully reminded us whose disrespectful treatment of a judge with a defendant is a crime (5). Oh naive author! How filled with the theories of Koshansky and Davydov! He takes quite seriously the vulgar metaphor that criticism is a tribunal before which the authors appear as defendants! Probably, he also takes at face value the opinion that bad poetry is a sin before Apollo and that bad writers are drowned in the river Lethe as punishment! .. Otherwise - how can you not see the difference between a critic and a judge? People are dragged to court on suspicion of misconduct or crime, and it is up to the judge to decide whether the accused is right or guilty; and is the writer really accused of anything when he is criticized? It seems that the days when the book business was considered heresy and a crime are long gone. The critic says his opinion, whether he likes or dislikes a thing; and since it is assumed that he is not a windbag, but a reasonable person, then he tries to present reasons why he considers one thing good and the other bad. He does not regard his opinion as a decisive judgment binding on everyone; if we take a comparison from the legal sphere, then he is more of a lawyer than a judge. Having adopted a well-known point of view, which seems to him the most fair, he expounds 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 examination. It goes without saying that at the same time he can use all the means that he finds suitable, so long as they do not distort the essence of the matter: he can terrify you or emotion, laugh or cry, force the author to make confessions unfavorable for him or bring it is impossible to answer. From criticism performed in this way, the following result can occur: theorists, having coped with their textbooks, can nevertheless see whether the analyzed work is consistent with their immovable laws, and, playing the role of judges, they decide whether the author is right or wrong. But it is known that in public proceedings there are frequent cases when those present in the court are far from sympathetic to the decision that is pronounced by the judge 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 can happen even more often when discussing literary works: and when the critic-advocate properly poses the question, groups the facts and throws the light of a certain belief on them, public opinion, regardless of the codes of poetry, will already know what it needs hold on.

If we look closely at the definition of criticism by "trial" over authors, we will find that it is very reminiscent of the concept that is combined with the word "criticism" our provincial ladies and young ladies, and at which our novelists used to laugh so wittily. Even now, 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, who once had such a thought, really are a pitiful sight of the defendants, whose fate depends on the handwriting of the writer. They look into his eyes, get embarrassed, apologize, make a reservation, as if they were really guilty, awaiting execution or mercy. But I must say that such naive people are now beginning to breed in the most remote provinces. At the same time, as the right to “dare to have your own judgment” ceases to be the property of only a certain rank or position, but becomes available to everyone and everyone, at the same time, in private life there is more solidity and independence, less trepidation before any outside 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 an exchange of thoughts useful, they recognize that everyone has the right to state their views and their demands, finally, they even consider everyone's duty to participate in the general movement, reporting their observations and considerations, which are within their power. From here it is far from being a judge. If I tell you that you lost your handkerchief on the way, or that you are going in the wrong direction, where you need it, etc., this does not mean that you are my accused. In the same way, I will not be your defendant in the case when you begin to describe me, wishing to give a concept to your friends about me. Entering for the first time into a new society, I know very well that observations are made on me and opinions are formed about me; But should I really, therefore, imagine myself before some Areopagus - and tremble in advance, awaiting the verdict? No doubt, remarks about me will be made: one will find that my nose is big, the other that my beard is red, the third that the tie is badly tied, the fourth that I am gloomy, etc. Well, let them be noticed, What does it matter to me? After all, my red beard is not a crime, and no one can ask me a report on how dare I have such a big nose.Therefore, there is nothing for me to think about: whether I like my figure or not, this is a matter of taste, and I will express my opinion about it I cannot forbid anyone; and on the other hand, it will not make me less of the fact that they will notice my taciturnity, if I am really silent. Thus, the first critical work (in our sense) - noting and indicating facts - is done completely freely and harmlessly. Then another job — judging from facts — continues in the same way to keep the one who is judging in exactly the same chance as the one about whom he is judging. This is because, expressing his conclusion from known data, a person always subjects himself to the judgment and verification of others regarding the justice and soundness of his opinion. If, for example, someone, on the basis that my tie is not quite elegantly tied, decides that I am badly brought up, then such a judge risks giving others a not very high idea of \u200b\u200bhis logic. Likewise, if some critic reproaches Ostrovsky for the fact that Katerina's face in The Storm 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 own conclusions, the author is safe and the very thing is safe. Here you can only pretend that the critic distorts the facts, lies. And if he presents the matter correctly, then in whatever tone he speaks, to whatever conclusions he comes, from his criticism, as from any reasoning that is free and confirmed by facts, there will always be more benefit than harm - for the author himself, if he good, and in any case for literature - even if the author turns out to be bad. Criticism - not judicial, but ordinary, as we understand it - is also good because people who are not accustomed to focusing their thoughts on literature are given, so to speak, the extract of the writer and thus facilitates the ability to understand the nature and meaning of his works. And as soon as a 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 venerable compilers of codes.

True, sometimes explaining the character of a famous author or work, the critic himself can find in the work that which is not in it at all. But in these cases the critic always betrays himself. If he decides to give the analyzed creation a thought that is more lively and wider than what is really laid in the foundation of its author, then, obviously, he will not be able to sufficiently confirm his thought with indications of the composition itself, and thus criticism, showing what he could to be a work to be analyzed, through this only it will more clearly show the poverty of its design and the inadequacy of its execution. As an example of such criticism, one can point, for example, to Belinsky's analysis of the "Tarantas", written with the most evil and subtle irony; This analysis was accepted by many at face value, but these many also found that the meaning given to "Tarantas" by Belinsky was very well carried out in his criticism, but with the very composition of Count Sollogub they got along badly (6). However, this kind of critical exaggeration is very rare. Much more often, another case is that the critic really will not understand the author under examination and will deduce from his work what he does not follow at all. So the trouble is not great here either: the critic's way of reasoning will now show the reader who he is dealing with, and if only the facts are present in the criticism, false speculations will not puff up the reader. For example, one Mr. P - s, analyzing the "Thunderstorm", decided to follow the same method that we followed in the articles on "The Dark Kingdom", and, having outlined the essence of the play's content, began to draw conclusions. It turned out, for his reasons, that Ostrovsky in "The Thunderstorm" made Katerina laugh, wishing to disgrace Russian mysticism in her face. Well, of course, having read this conclusion, now you see to which category of minds Mr. P - s belongs and whether it is possible to rely on his considerations. Such criticism will not confuse anyone, it is not dangerous to anyone ...

A completely different thing is the criticism that approaches the authors, as if they were peasants brought into a recruiting presence, with a uniform measure, and shouts either “forehead!” Then “back of the head!”, Depending on whether the recruit fits in or not. The reprisal there 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 worthless, and from what you doze, yawn or get a migraine, this is a real treasure. Take, for example, "Thunderstorm": what is it? A daring insult to art, nothing else - and it's very easy to prove. Expand the "Readings on Literature" by Honored Professor and Academician Ivan Davydov, compiled by him with the help of translating Blair's lectures, or even look into Mr. Plaksin's Cadet Course on Literature — the conditions of an exemplary drama are clearly defined. The subject of drama must necessarily be an event where we see the struggle between passion and duty - with the unfortunate consequences of the victory of passion or with the happy ones when duty wins. Strict unity and consistency must be observed in the development of the drama; the denouement should naturally and must flow out of the tie; each scene must by all means contribute to the movement of the action and push it towards the denouement; therefore, there should not be a single person in the play who would not directly and necessarily participate in the development of the drama, there should not be a single conversation that 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 detection, in accordance with the development of the action. The language should be consistent with the position of each person, but not move away from literary purity and not turn into vulgarity.

These seem to be all the main rules of the drama. Let us 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 passion for the young Boris Grigorievich. This means that the first requirement has been found. But then, starting from this demand, we find that other conditions of the exemplary drama are violated in The Storm in the most brutal way.

And, firstly, “The Thunderstorm” does not satisfy the drama's most essential inner goal - to instill respect for moral duty and to show the harmful consequences of being carried away by passion. Katerina, this immoral, shameless (in the apt expression of N.F. Pavlov) woman who ran out to her lover at night as soon as her husband left home, this criminal appears to us in the drama not only not in a rather gloomy light, but even with some the radiance of martyrdom around the brow. She speaks so well, suffers so pitifully, everything around her is so bad that you have no resentment against her, you pity her, you arm yourself against her oppressors, and thus, in her face you justify the vice. 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 was motivated by 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 to her mother-in-law. The intervention of the mother-in-law constantly prevents us from focusing our attention on the inner struggle that should take place in the soul of Catherine.

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 specially called in the drama "the 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 a serious drama, where the audience's attention should not be entertained on the sides.

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

The whole action goes sluggishly and slowly, because it is cluttered with scenes and faces that are completely unnecessary. Kudryash and Shapkin, Kuligin, Feklusha, a lady with two lackeys, Dikoy himself - all these are persons who are not significantly associated with the basis of the play. Unnecessary faces constantly enter the stage, say things that are irrelevant, and leave, again no one knows why and where. All of Kuligin's recitations, all the antics of Kudryash and the Wild, not to mention the half-mad lady and the conversations of city dwellers during a thunderstorm, could have been released without any prejudice to the essence of the matter.

We hardly find strictly defined and trimmed characters in this crowd of unnecessary faces, and there is nothing to ask about the gradualness of their detection. They appear to us directly ex abrupto, with labels. The curtain opens: Kudryash and Kuligin talk about what a scolding Dikoy is, then Dika appears and also swears behind the scenes ... Kabanova, too. Likewise, Kudryash from the first word makes himself known that he is "dashing for girls"; and Kuligin, at its very appearance, is recommended as a self-taught mechanic who admires nature. And so they stay with this until the very end: Dikoy swears, Kabanova grumbles, Kudryash walks at night with Varvara ... And we do not see the full all-round development of their characters in the whole play. The heroine herself is portrayed very unsuccessfully: as you can see, the author himself did not quite definitely understand this character, because, without exposing Katerina as a hypocrite, he makes her, however, pronounce sensitive monologues, but in fact shows her to us as a shameless woman, carried away by sensuality alone. There is nothing to say about the hero - he is so colorless. Dikoy and Kabanova themselves, the characters most in the genre "e of Mr. Ostrovsky, represent (according to the happy conclusion of Mr. Akhsharumov or someone else of this kind) (8) deliberate exaggeration, close to libel, and give us not living faces, but "The quintessence of ugliness" of Russian life.

Finally, the language spoken by the characters surpasses all the patience of a well-bred person. Of course, merchants and bourgeois cannot speak in an elegant literary language; but one cannot agree that a dramatic author, for the sake of fidelity, can introduce into literature all the commonplace 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 Thunderstorm, listen to all the faces say: “Piercing man! that you are climbing with a snout! He kindles all the insides! Women cannot work up their bodies in any way ”! What are these phrases, what are the words? Against your will you repeat with Lermontov:

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

Maybe “in the city of Kalinov, on the banks of the Volga,” there are people who speak in this way, but what do we care about this? The reader understands that we did not use much effort to make this criticism convincing; that is why it is easy to notice in it in other places the living threads with which it is sewn. But we assure you that it can be made extremely convincing and victorious, you can destroy the author with it, once you take the point of view of school textbooks. And if the reader agrees to give us the right to start the play with pre-prepared requirements as to what and how in it must to be, we do not need anything else: everything that does not agree with our rules, we will be able to destroy. Extracts from the comedy will appear in good faith to confirm our judgments; quotations from various scholarly books, starting with Aristotle and ending with Fischer (10), who, as you know, constitute the last, final moment of aesthetic theory, will prove to you the solidity of our education; ease of presentation and wit will help us to captivate your attention, and you, without noticing yourself, will come to full agreement with us. Just do not let the doubt enter your head for a minute about our full right to prescribe duties to the author and then judge him, whether he is faithful to these duties or guilty before them ...

But it is in this that not a single reader can escape from such a doubt. The despicable crowd, formerly reverently, open-mouthed, listening to our broadcasts, now presents a deplorable and dangerous for our authority spectacle of the masses, armed, in the beautiful expression of Mr. Turgenev, with "a double-edged sword of analysis" (11). Everyone says, reading our thundering criticism: “You are offering us your“ storm ”, assuring us that in the“ Storm ”what is is superfluous, and what is needed is lacking. But the author of "The Thunderstorm" probably seems completely opposite; let us take you apart. Tell us, analyze the play to us, show it as it is, and give us your opinion about it on the basis of its own, and not for some outdated considerations, completely unnecessary and outsiders. In your opinion, this and that should not be; and maybe it fits well in the play, so why shouldn't it? " This is how every reader dares to resonate now, and it must be attributed to this offensive circumstance that, for example, N.F. Pavlov's magnificent critical exercises on The Storm suffered such a decisive fiasco. Indeed, everyone rose up to criticize Thunderstorms in Nashe Vremya - both writers and the public, and, of course, not because he decided to show a lack of respect for Ostrovsky, but because in his criticism he expressed disrespect to the common sense and goodwill of the Russian public. For a long time already everyone can see that Ostrovsky has largely moved away from the old stage routine, that in the very concept of each of his plays there are conditions that necessarily carry him beyond the limits of the well-known theory, which we pointed out above. The critic who dislikes these deviations had to begin by noting, characterizing, generalizing, and then directly and frankly putting the question between them and the old theory. It was the duty of the critic not only to the author in question, but even more to the public, which so constantly approves of Ostrovsky, with all his liberties and evasions, and becomes more and more attached to him with each new play. If a critic finds that the public is mistaken in its sympathy for an author who turns out to be a criminal against his theory, then he should start by defending that theory and with strong evidence that evading it cannot be good. Then, perhaps, he would have had time to convince some and even many, since it is impossible to take away from N.F. Pavlov that he masters the phrase quite deftly. Now what did he do? He did not pay the slightest attention to the fact that the old laws of art, continuing to exist in textbooks and taught from gymnasium and university departments for a long time, however, have lost the sanctuary of inviolability in literature and in the public. He bravely began to break Ostrovsky on the points of his theory, forcibly, forcing the reader to consider it inviolable. He found it convenient only to be ironic about the gentleman who, being Mr. Pavlov's "neighbor and brother" in his seat in the first row of armchairs and wearing "fresh" gloves, dared, however, admire the play, which was so disgusting to N.F. Pavlov. Such a contemptuous treatment of the public, and indeed with the very question that the critic has tackled, naturally should have aroused the majority of readers rather against him than in his favor. Readers let the criticism notice that he was spinning with his theory like a squirrel in a wheel, and demanded that he get out of the wheel and onto a straight road. The rounded phrase and clever syllogism seemed to them insufficient; they demanded serious confirmation of 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 persons in the play who do not contribute to the direct development of the course of action. And they objected stubbornly to him: why can't there be persons in the play who are not directly involved in the development of the drama? The critic insisted that the drama was already devoid of meaning, because its heroine was immoral; readers stopped him and asked a question: where do you get the idea that she is immoral? and what are your moral concepts based on? The critic considered vulgarity and greediness, unworthy of art - and a 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 philistine hobbies? Why is the whistle of a young guy more vulgar than the rebellious singing of Italian arias by some socialite youth? NF Pavlov, as the pinnacle of his arguments, decided condescendingly that a play like The Storm is not a drama, but a farcical performance. He was answered here too: why are you so contemptuous of the booth? It is also a question whether any slick drama, even if only all three unities were observed in it, is better than any farce. We will argue with you about the role of the booth in the history of the theater and in the development of the people. The latter objection has been developed in some detail in print. And where did it come from? It would be good in Sovremennik, which, as you know, has the Whistle with him, therefore cannot be scandalized by Kudryash's whistle and, in general, should be inclined to all squeamishness. No, thoughts about the booth were expressed in the "Library for Reading", a well-known champion of all the rights of "art", expressed by Mr. Annenkov, whom no one 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), 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 farce and start again the path of dramatic development. These are the opinions that Mr. Pavlov has encountered even in respectable representatives of Russian criticism, not to mention those who are accused by good-minded people of contempt for science and of denying everything that is high! It is clear that here it was no longer possible to get off with more or less brilliant remarks, but it was necessary to begin a serious revision of the grounds on which the critic asserted in his sentences. But, as soon as the question moved to this soil, the critic of Nashe Vremya turned out to be untenable and had to hush up his critical rantings.