Dark Kingdom. Katerina is a ray of light in a dark kingdom (Option: Theme of conscience in Russian literature) The image of Katerina Kabanova
In Dobrolyubov’s article entitled “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom,” a summary of which is presented below, we are talking about the work “The Thunderstorm” by Ostrovsky, 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 what 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 accepted at that time. In the article “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom,” a brief summary of which interests us, he examines, in particular, the principle established in literature about the subject of drama. In the struggle between duty and passion, usually an unhappy ending occurs when passion wins, and a happy ending when duty wins. Drama, moreover, should, according to existing tradition, represent a single action. At the same time, it should be written in literary, beautiful language. Dobrolyubov notes that he does not fit the concept in this way.
Why can’t “The Thunderstorm” be considered a drama, according to Dobrolyubov?
Works of this kind must 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 the pen of Ostrovsky (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 and does not carry its main semantic load. The action itself in the work flows somehow uncertainly and slowly, says the author of the article “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom.” Its summary continues as follows. Dobrolyubov says that there are no bright and stormy scenes in the work. The accumulation of characters leads to “lethargy” in a work. The language does not withstand any criticism.
Nikolai Aleksandrovich, in the article “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom,” checks the plays that specifically interest him for compliance with accepted standards, since he comes to the conclusion that the standard, ready-made idea of what should be in a work does not reflect the actual state of affairs. What could you say about a young man who, after meeting a pretty girl, tells her that compared to the Venus de Milo, her figure is not so good? Dobrolyubov poses the question in exactly this way, discussing the standardization of the approach to works of literature. Truth lies in life and truth, and not in various dialectical attitudes, as the author of the article “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom” believes. The summary of his thesis is that man cannot be said to be inherently evil. Therefore, in the book it is not necessary that good must win and evil must lose.
Dobrolyubov notes the importance of Shakespeare, as well as the opinion of Apollo Grigoriev
Dobrolyubov (“A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom”) also says that for a long time writers did not pay much attention to the movement towards the original beginnings of man, to his roots. Remembering Shakespeare, he notes that this author was able to raise human thought to a new level. After this, Dobrolyubov moves on to other articles devoted to “The Thunderstorm”. It is mentioned, in particular, that Ostrovsky’s main merit was that his work was popular. Dobrolyubov is trying to answer the question of what this “nationality” consists of. He says that Grigoriev does not explain this concept, so his statement itself cannot be taken seriously.
Ostrovsky's works are "plays of life"
Dobrolyubov then discusses what can be called “plays of life.” “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom” (the summary notes only the main points) is an article in which Nikolai Alexandrovich says that Ostrovsky considers life as a whole, without trying to make the righteous happy or punish the villain. He evaluates the general state of affairs and forces the reader to 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, as Dobrolyubov notes.
“A ray of light in a dark kingdom”: analysis of statements of minor characters
Dobrolyubov in his article analyzes the statements of minor persons: Kudryashka, Glasha and others. He tries to understand their state, the way they look at the reality around them. The author notes all the features of the “dark kingdom”. He says that these people's lives are so limited that they do not notice that there is another reality other than their own closed little world. The author analyzes, in particular, Kabanova’s concern for the future of the old orders and traditions.
What is new about the play?
“The Thunderstorm” is the most decisive work created by the author, as Dobrolyubov further notes. “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom” is an article that states that the tyranny of the “dark kingdom” and the relationships between its representatives were brought by Ostrovsky to tragic consequences. The breath of novelty, which was noted by everyone familiar with “The Thunderstorm,” is contained 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 a Dark Kingdom” further continues with the author proceeding to analyze the image of Katerina, the main character, devoting quite a lot of space to it. Nikolai Aleksandrovich describes this image as a shaky, indecisive “step forward” in literature. Dobrolyubov says that life itself requires the emergence 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 a Dark Kingdom”) says about Katerina that this heroine is selfless, since she prefers to choose death than existence under the old order. This heroine's powerful strength of character lies in her integrity.
Motives for Katerina's actions
In addition to the very image of this girl, Dobrolyubov examines in detail the motives of her actions. He notices that Katerina is not a rebel by nature, she does not show discontent, does not demand destruction. Rather, she is a creator who longs for love. This is precisely what explains her desire to ennoble 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 fixated that he cannot understand these desires and feelings of his wife, which he tells her directly.
Katerina embodies the idea of the Russian people, says Dobrolyubov (“A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom”)
The thesis of the article is supplemented by one more statement. Dobrolyubov ultimately finds in the image of the main character that the author of the work embodied in her the idea of the Russian people. He speaks about this rather abstractly, comparing Katerina to a wide and flat river. It has a flat bottom and smoothly flows around the stones encountered along the way. The river itself only makes noise because it corresponds to its nature.
The only right decision for 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 escape with Boris. The girl can run away, but her dependence on his lover’s relative 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 joyful and tragic. The main idea of the work is getting rid of the shackles of the so-called dark kingdom at any cost. Life is impossible in its environment. Even Tikhon, when his wife’s corpse is pulled out, shouts that she is fine now and asks: “What about me?” The ending of the play and this cry itself provide 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 dead are envied by the living.
This concludes Dobrolyubov’s article “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom.” We have highlighted only the main points, briefly describing its summary. However, some details and comments from the author were missed. “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom” is better read in the original, since this article is a classic of Russian criticism. Dobrolyubov gave a good example of how works should be analyzed.
Katerina is a ray of light in a dark kingdom.
Plan.
- The liberation of women from family slavery is one of the pressing issues of the late 50s of the 19th century.
- Katerina is “a ray of light in a dark kingdom.”
- The place of the image of Katerina among the images of drama.
- Katerina's life in her parents' house, her daydreaming.
- Katerina's living conditions after marriage. Katerina in the Kabanovs' house.
- Desire for love and devotion.
- The power of Katerina's love.
- Honesty and determination
- Dobrolyubov about the character of Katerina.
- Suicide is a protest against the dark kingdom
- Dobrolyubov about the ideological meaning of the image of Katerina
The strongest protest is the one that finally rises from the chests of the weakest and most patient - this already means that the end of the “Dark Kingdom” is near.
Epigraph: “The character of Katerina, as it is performed in The Thunderstorm, is a step forward not only in the dramatic activity of Ostrovsky, but also in all of our literature.” N.A. Dobrolyubov.
In his works, Ostrovsky reveals the themes of women's liberation from family slavery - this is one of the pressing issues of the 50s of the 19th century. The woman of the 50s, as a result of centuries-old oppression, is powerless against tyranny and is a victim of the “dark kingdom.”
The image of Katerina is the image of a free bird - a symbol of freedom. But the free bird ended up in an iron cage. And she struggles and yearns in captivity: “I lived, I didn’t worry about anything, like a bird in the wild,” she recalls her life with her mother: “Why don’t people fly like birds? - she says to Varvara. “You know, sometimes I think I’m a bird.” In the drama Katerina is the embodiment of “Russian living nature.” She would rather die than live in captivity. “It shows a protest against Kabanov’s concepts of morality, a protest that was carried to the end, proclaimed under the torture of the family and over the abyss into which Katerina threw herself. Her strong nature endures only for the time being. “And if I get really tired of it here,” she says, “no force can hold me back. I’ll throw myself out the window, throw myself into the Volga. I don’t want to live here, I won’t, even if you cut me!” The image of Katerina embodied the “great national idea” - the idea of liberation.
What makes Katerina stand out among the images of the “dark kingdom” is her open character, courage, and directness. “I don’t know how to deceive, I can’t hide anything,” she says to Varvara, who is trying to convince her that they can’t live in their house without deception. Katerina's character is manifested in her simple-minded story about her childhood and life in her parents' home.
Katerina tells Varvara how they went to church, sewed with gold on velvet, listened to the stories of wanderers, walked in the garden, how they again talked with the praying mantises and prayed themselves. “And to death I love going to church! It’s as if I’ve entered heaven, and I don’t see anyone and I don’t remember the time, and I don’t hear when the service ends.” Living as a free bird with her mother, Katerina loved to dream. “And what dreams I had, Varenka, what dreams! Or golden temples, or some extraordinary gardens, and everyone is singing invisible voices, and there is a smell of cypress, and the mountains and trees, as if not the same as usual, but as if they were painted in images. And it’s like I’m flying, and I’m flying through the air.”
In the Kabanovs’ house, Katerina’s life was the same as her mother’s; the difference was that with the Kabanovs, all this was done as if under captivity.
Katerina’s feeling of love merges with longing for will, with the dream of a real human life. Katerina loves not like the pitiful victims of the “dark kingdom.” To the words of her lover: “No one will know about our love,” she replies: “Let everyone know, everyone can see what I do.” And in the name of her love, she enters into an unequal battle with the “dark kingdom.”
Katerina’s religiosity is not Kabanikha’s oppression, but most likely a child’s belief in fairy tales. Katerina is characterized by religious prejudices, forcing the young woman to perceive love as a mortal sin. “Oh, Varya, sin is on my mind! How long am I, poor thing? I cried, which is something I didn’t do to myself! I can't escape this sin. Can't go anywhere. It’s not good, it’s a terrible sin, Varenka, that I love someone else!”
Katerina’s character is “focused and decisive, unswervingly faithful to natural truth, filled with faith in new ideals and selfless in the sense that it is better for him to die than to live under those principles that are disgusting to him.” It is this integrity and inner harmony, the ability to always be yourself, without ever changing yourself in anything, that constitutes the irresistible strength of Katerina’s character.
Killing herself, committing a great sin from the point of view of the church, Katerina thinks not about the salvation of her soul, but about the love that was revealed to her. "My friend! My joy! Goodbye!" - these are Katerina’s last words. Suicide can occur in the most exceptional cases, when no form of struggle is possible. Her determination to die, just not to be a slave, expresses, according to Dobrolyubov, “The need of the emerging movement of Russian life.”
Dobrolyubov said about the ideological meaning of the image of Katerina: “The strongest protest is the one that finally rises from the chests of the weakest and most patient - this already means that the end of the “Dark Kingdom” is near.”
In the play, among the dark personalities: liars, opportunists and oppressors, the appearance of pure Katerina appears.
The girl’s youth passed in a carefree, free time space. Her mother loved her very much. She liked going to church. And she didn’t know what awaited her ahead. Our young woman compares her young actions with the behavior of a free bird in the wild.
My childhood years flew by. They gave Katerina away in marriage to someone she didn’t love. She found herself in a strange environment. It was as if she had been put in a cage. Her husband does not have the right to vote and cannot stand up for his wife. When communicating with Varya, the heroine will explain herself in a language that is incomprehensible to her husband’s sister. Like a ray of sunshine penetrates the darkness of vices and “dark” people. She wants to rise high and fly. She experiences a struggle between her desire to escape and her duty to her husband.
There is a confrontation against the “darkness”, rejection and unwillingness to adapt to the order of Kabanikha’s house. There is a sense of protest against oppressive life. She says that it is better for her to drown in the Volga than to endure all the torment and humiliation of her mother-in-law.
On her life's path she met Boris. She is not afraid of people's rumors. Our heroine gives herself over to love without a trace and is ready to follow her lover to the ends of the earth. But Boris is afraid of responsibility and does not take it with him. She cannot return to her old life. Having felt true love, he rushes into the waters of the Volga. In her opinion, it’s better in the grave! And she leaves the cruel, deceitful world. And while dying he thinks about love and tries, with the help of death, to get rid of the hated life in someone else’s house. Katerina's death makes him think about what is happening, and for the first time he fights back against his mother. Which surprises her. Like a bright ray, our heroine penetrated and opened her eyes. But she paid a huge price for it – equal to her life.
The weak woman Katerina harbors enormous strength of character, a craving for freedom; in order to free herself from the oppression of dark forces, she is ready to give her life. He flies like a free bird and feels no remorse. He only remembers that he loves! Katerina's death means gaining freedom of soul and body. Weak men come across her way and, not wanting to put up with what is happening, she is freed from physical and mental torment. The soul left the body, but the desire to be free turned out to be higher than the fear of death.
Essay on the topic Katerina - A ray of light in the dark kingdom
Ostrovsky in the play depicts the city of Kalinov, where “cruel morals” prevail. Residents of the city live by their own laws. The reader learns these details from the dialogue between Boris and Kuligin in the first act. In the first scene of the same action, Ostrovsky characterizes Kabanikha and Wild. The author shows that in the city of Kalinov it is impossible to live by honest labor, “and whoever has money tries to enslave the poor.” The wild “shrill guy” swears at everyone. The author gives him a telling surname from the word “wild”. And Marfa Ignatievna Kabanova does everything “under the guise of piety,” that is, she does it according to the law, for show. These people have money and feel permissive. Kabanikha and Dikoy are shown as guardians of the traditions and foundations of the city.
Therefore, Ostrovsky creates his main character Katerinna, who cannot come to terms with Kalinov’s laws. She is the only one who lives correctly, so everything that happens around her depresses her. From the dialogue between Katerina and Varvara, the reader can learn that the heroine before her marriage was free “like a bird in the wild.” She grew up in a family where, where no one forced anyone to do anything, everything was natural. The author compares Katerina’s life in her parents’ house with the foundations of Kabanikha. The heroine cannot come to terms with this. Katerina’s true faith is compared with the faith of Kabanikha, who does everything according to the law so that nothing bad is said about her.
The culmination of the work is Katerina’s recognition. Ostrovsky describes how a woman makes a “confession” and repents of her fall from grace. But the place of forgiveness receives reproach and bullying from the mother-in-law. Unable to exist in this world, abandoned by her beloved Boris, the author finds one true path for the heroine. “You can’t live,” says Katerina, before committing suicide.
In conclusion, we can say that Katerina is the only positive character in the play, so she can be called “a ray of light in a dark kingdom”
The Thunderstorm essay based on the play by Ostrovsky The Thunderstorm - Katerina Kabanova a ray of light in a dark kingdom
Option 3
Ostrovsky, as an author, always touched upon the themes of the human soul, its unique adaptability, and also themes of human vices and misdeeds in his works. In his works, he liked to show his reader characters who, in one way or another, had bad character traits, in order to create some kind of negative image that would contrast with other images, and would show the reader all the unpleasantness, or the attractiveness of these very images. He showed the emotional and personal component of the soul so clearly and clearly that there was no doubt about their authenticity and reality. A good example of such an image is Katerina from the work “The Thunderstorm”.
The work “The Thunderstorm” got its name, of course, for a reason. The work is filled with strong emotional experiences of the characters, which are emphasized by the strong and difficult to perceive themes that the author placed in his work. In this work, the author focuses on topics that are interesting for discussion with the reader, which, one way or another, are close to every person, unless he is a hermit. It raises themes of human relationships, human character, the character of the entire society and humanity as a whole. He also puts a lot of emphasis on human misdeeds, saying that even if a person has committed an incredible stupidity, he can still improve. However, his works also contain images that the author specifically idealized. An example of such an image is the image of Katerina.
Katerina is without a doubt the brightest image of all the characters in the work. It is not surprising; the work itself is filled with a rather gloomy atmosphere that depresses the reader, forcing him to plunge into the harsh reality of Ostrovsky’s literary works. However, Katerina, even despite the unfriendly environment around her, still remains true to her principles, true to human honor, and remains true to all human ideals. In contrast to the rest of the characters in the work, Katerina is simply a real angel, sent into a very hard and dark world, which immediately rejects a person with its malice and dark, even mystical atmosphere. The author probably created the image of Katerina as a kind of bright island of goodness and positivity in this dark, unattractive world, in order to tell his reader that even in such dark places there is goodness, albeit a small amount, but there is.
Sample 4
A.N. Ostrovsky wrote many interesting and instructive plays about the merchants. One of the best was the play “The Thunderstorm,” written in 1860. The author often said that he writes his works solely on the basis of real events and facts, and that any of them can teach a person something and show the bad sides of society for its further correction. That is why he wrote this play and presented it to the public. Immediately after the premiere, dirt poured on the author from the lips of uninformed citizens, as many saw themselves in the images of the characters in the play. But we should not forget that such a play can offend not just bad people, but also not entirely smart ones.
This work describes the “Dark Kingdom”, where all the inhabitants are not at all endowed with the gift of thought. They don't understand that they are living completely wrong. And no one understands this: “neither the tyrants nor their victims.” The focus of the work was a certain Katerina. She found herself in a difficult life situation after marriage. Before she got married, she lived in the family of a merchant who provided for her very well, and she did not need anything. But after marriage, she fell under the influence of her mother-in-law and became a victim of her tyranny. Being closed as if in a cage, she could not contact anyone other than members of her family. Her mother-in-law made her a deeply religious person, which is why she could not allow her love for Boris to be recognized, which is why she suffered greatly. The general situation in the house, where there were many praying mantises and wanderers telling all sorts of stories, Katerina’s secluded lifestyle took its toll and she became a very withdrawn person and did not communicate with almost anyone. In addition, she became very sensitive to everything. That is why, when a terrible thunderstorm came, she began to sincerely pray, and when she saw a terrible picture on the wall, her nerves could not stand it at all, and she confessed her love for Boris to her husband. The key to this story is the fact that in the “Dark Kingdom” none of the inhabitants know freedom, and, therefore, know happiness. Katerina’s revelation in this case showed that a resident of the dark kingdom can open up and make himself a person free from unnecessary thoughts and fears.
By her action, Katerina went against the system of the “Dark Kingdom” and gave rise to a bad attitude towards herself. Why, in the “dark kingdom” any manifestation of independence and freedom of choice was considered a mortal sin. That is why the story ends with the death of the main character, since she becomes not only lonely, but also suffers from pangs of conscience, since all those teachings and bad stories did not pass her ears. She constantly torments herself and cannot find peace anywhere and never, since she cannot escape from her thoughts.
You can endlessly condemn Katerina for her actions, but at the same time you should pay tribute to her courage. After all, not everyone can do this in the “Dark Kingdom.” Her death shocked everyone so much that even her husband Tikhon began to blame his mother for his wife’s death. By her act, Katerina proved that even in the “dark kingdom” bright natures can be born, making it a little brighter.
Several interesting essays
Mayakovsky's work cannot be called unambiguous. Quite conventionally, creativity can be divided before the revolution and after the revolution. After moving to Moscow from Georgia, he falls under the influence of members of the RSDLP
In my opinion, there is no way that every young girl would be able to keep up with her one and only business. And the impersonality of tsikah and romantic books about light-hearted love. The brightest book about romantic romance
Ostrovsky's play "The Thunderstorm" caused a strong reaction in the field of literary scholars and critics. A. Grigoriev, D. Pisarev, F. Dostoevsky dedicated their articles to this work. N. Dobrolyubov, some time after the publication of “The Thunderstorm,” wrote the article “A Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom.” Being a good critic, Dobrolyubov emphasized the author's good style, praising Ostrovsky for his deep knowledge of the Russian soul, and reproached other critics for the lack of a direct view of the work. In general, Dobrolyubov’s view is interesting from several points of view. For example, the critic believed that dramas should show the harmful influence of passion on a person’s life, which is why he calls Katerina a criminal. But Nikolai Alexandrovich nevertheless says that Katerina is also a martyr, because her suffering evokes a response in the soul of the viewer or reader. Dobrolyubov gives very accurate characteristics. It was he who called the merchants the “dark kingdom” in the play “The Thunderstorm”.
If we trace how the merchant class and adjacent social strata were displayed over the decades, a complete picture of degradation and decline emerges. In “The Minor” the Prostakovs are shown as limited people, in “Woe from Wit” the Famusovs are frozen statues who refuse to live honestly. All these images are the predecessors of Kabanikha and Wild. It is these two characters that support the “dark kingdom” in the drama “The Thunderstorm”.
The author introduces us to the morals and customs of the city from the very first lines of the play: “Cruel morals, sir, in our city, cruel!” In one of the dialogues between residents, the topic of violence is raised: “Whoever has money, sir, tries to enslave the poor... And among themselves, sir, how they live!... They quarrel with each other.” No matter how much people hide what is happening inside families, others already know everything. Kuligin says that no one has prayed to God here for a long time. All the doors are locked, “so that people don’t see how... they eat their family and tyrannize their family.” Behind the locks there is debauchery and drunkenness. Kabanov goes to drink with Dikoy, Dikoy appears drunk in almost all scenes, Kabanikha is also not averse to having a glass - another in the company of Savl Prokofievich.
The entire world in which the inhabitants of the fictional city of Kalinov live is thoroughly saturated with lies and fraud. Power over the “dark kingdom” belongs to tyrants and deceivers. The residents are so accustomed to dispassionately fawning over wealthier people that this lifestyle is the norm for them. People often come to Dikiy to ask for money, knowing that he will humiliate them and not give them the required amount. The merchant's most negative emotions are caused by his own nephew. Not even because Boris flatters Dikoy in order to get money, but because Dikoy himself does not want to part with the inheritance he received. His main traits are rudeness and greed. Dikoy believes that since he has a large amount of money, it means that others should obey him, fear him and at the same time respect him.
Kabanikha advocates for the preservation of the patriarchal system. She is a real tyrant, capable of driving anyone she doesn't like crazy. Marfa Ignatievna, hiding behind the fact that she reveres the old order, essentially destroys the family. Her son, Tikhon, is glad to go as far as possible, just not to hear his mother’s orders, her daughter does not value Kabanikha’s opinion, lies to her, and at the end of the play she simply runs away with Kudryash. Katerina suffered the most. The mother-in-law openly hated her daughter-in-law, controlled her every action, and was dissatisfied with every little thing. The most revealing scene seems to be the farewell scene to Tikhon. Kabanikha was offended by the fact that Katya hugged her husband goodbye. After all, she is a woman, which means she should always be inferior to a man. A wife’s destiny is to throw herself at her husband’s feet and sob, begging for a quick return. Katya does not like this point of view, but she is forced to submit to the will of her mother-in-law.
Dobrolyubov calls Katya “a ray of light in a dark kingdom,” which is also very symbolic. Firstly, Katya is different from the residents of the city. Although she was brought up according to the old laws, the preservation of which Kabanikha often talks about, she has a different idea of life. Katya is kind and pure. She wants to help the poor, she wants to go to church, do household chores, raise children. But in such a situation, all this seems impossible because of one simple fact: in the “dark kingdom” in “The Thunderstorm” it is impossible to find inner peace. People constantly walk in fear, drink, lie, cheat on each other, trying to hide the unsightly sides of life. In such an atmosphere it is impossible to be honest with others, honest with oneself. Secondly, one ray is not enough to illuminate the “kingdom”. Light, according to the laws of physics, must be reflected from some surface. It is also known that black has the ability to absorb other colors. Similar laws apply to the situation with the main character of the play. Katerina does not see in others what is in her. Neither the city residents nor Boris, a “decently educated man,” could understand the reason for Katya’s internal conflict. After all, even Boris is afraid of public opinion, he is dependent on Diky and the possibility of receiving an inheritance. He is also bound by a chain of deception and lies, because Boris supports Varvara’s idea of deceiving Tikhon in order to maintain a secret relationship with Katya. Let's apply the second law here. In Ostrovsky’s “The Thunderstorm,” the “dark kingdom” is so all-consuming that it is impossible to find a way out of it. It eats Katerina, forcing her to take on one of the most terrible sins from the point of view of Christianity - suicide. "The Dark Kingdom" leaves no other choice. It would find her anywhere, even if Katya ran away with Boris, even if she left her husband. No wonder Ostrovsky transfers the action to a fictional city. The author wanted to show the typicality of the situation: such a situation was typical of all Russian cities. But is it only Russia?
Are the findings really that disappointing? The power of the tyrants is gradually beginning to weaken. Kabanikha and Dikoy feel this. They feel that soon other people, new ones, will take their place. People like Katya. Honest and open. And, perhaps, it is in them that those old customs that Marfa Ignatievna zealously defended will be revived. Dobrolyubov wrote that the ending of the play should be viewed in a positive way. “We are glad to see Katerina’s deliverance - even through death, if it is impossible otherwise. Living in the “dark kingdom” is worse than death.” This is confirmed by the words of Tikhon, who for the first time openly opposes not only his mother, but also the entire order of the city. “The play ends with this exclamation, and it seems to us that nothing could have been invented stronger and more truthful than such an ending. Tikhon’s words make the viewer think not about a love affair, but about this whole life, where the living envy the dead.”
The definition of the “dark kingdom” and the description of the images of its representatives will be useful to 10th grade students when writing an essay on the topic “The Dark Kingdom in the play “The Thunderstorm” by Ostrovsky.”
Work test
“...Shortly before the appearance of “The Thunderstorm” on stage, we examined in great detail all of Ostrovsky’s works. Wanting to present a description of the author's talent, we then paid attention to the phenomena of Russian life reproduced in his plays, tried to grasp their general character and find out whether the meaning of these phenomena in reality is the same as it appears to us in the works of our playwright. If the readers have not forgotten, we then came to the result that Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life and a great ability to depict sharply and vividly its most significant aspects. “The thunderstorm” soon served as new proof of the validity of our conclusion...”
* * *
The given introductory fragment of the book A ray of light in the dark kingdom (N. A. Dobrolyubov, 1860) provided by our book partner - the company liters.
(“The Thunderstorm”, drama in five acts by A. N. Ostrovsky. St. Petersburg, 1860)
Shortly before “The Thunderstorm” appeared on stage, we examined in great detail all of Ostrovsky’s works. Wanting to present a description of the author's talent, we then paid attention to the phenomena of Russian life reproduced in his plays, tried to grasp their general character and find out whether the meaning of these phenomena in reality is the same as it appears to us in the works of our playwright. If the readers have not forgotten, we then came to the result that Ostrovsky has a deep understanding of Russian life and a great ability to depict sharply and vividly its most significant aspects (1). The “thunderstorm” soon served as new proof of the validity of our conclusion. We wanted to talk about it then, but felt that we would have to repeat many of our previous considerations, and therefore decided to remain silent about “The Thunderstorm,” leaving the readers who asked our opinion to check on it those general remarks that we spoke about Ostrovsky several months before the appearance of this play. Our decision was confirmed in us even more when we saw that a number of large and small reviews appeared in all magazines and newspapers regarding “The Thunderstorm”, interpreting the matter from a wide variety of points of view. We thought that in this mass of articles something more would finally be said about Ostrovsky and the meaning of his plays than what we saw in the critics whom we mentioned at the beginning of our first article on “The Dark Kingdom.” In this hope and in the knowledge that our own opinion about the meaning and character of Ostrovsky’s works has already been expressed quite definitely, we considered it best to leave the analysis of “The Thunderstorm”.
But now, encountering Ostrovsky’s play again in a separate publication and remembering everything that has been written about it, we find that it would not be superfluous for us to say a few words about it. It gives us a reason to add something to our notes about the “Dark Kingdom”, to further carry out some of the thoughts we expressed then, and - by the way - to explain in short words with some of the critics who have deigned us to direct or indirect abuse.
We must do justice to some of the critics: they knew how to understand the difference that separates us from them. They reproach us for adopting the bad method of examining the work of an author and then, as a result of this examination, saying what it contains and what its contents are. They have a completely different method: they first tell themselves that must contained in the work (according to their concepts, of course) and to what extent all due really is in it (again in accordance with their concepts). It is clear that with such a difference in views, they look with indignation at our analyzes, which one of them likens to “seeking morality in a fable.” But we are very glad that the difference is finally open, and we are ready to withstand any comparisons. Yes, if you like, our method of criticism is also similar to finding a moral conclusion in a fable: the difference, for example, is applied to the criticism of Ostrovsky’s comedies, and will only be as great as the comedy differs from the fable and to the extent that human life depicted in comedies is more important and closer to us than the life of donkeys, foxes, reeds and other characters depicted in fables. In any case, it is much better, in our opinion, to dissect a fable and say: “This is the moral it contains, and this moral seems to us good or bad, and here’s why,” rather than deciding from the very beginning: this fable must contain such and such morality (for example, respect for parents), and this is how it should be expressed (for example, in the form of a chick that disobeyed its mother and fell out of the nest); but these conditions are not met, the moral is not the same (for example, the carelessness of parents about children) or is expressed in the wrong way (for example, in the example of a cuckoo leaving its eggs in other people’s nests), which means that the fable is not suitable. We have seen this method of criticism more than once applied to Ostrovsky, although no one, of course, will want to admit it, and they will also blame us, from a sore head on a healthy one, for starting to analyze literary works with pre-adopted ideas and requirements. Meanwhile, what is clearer, didn’t the Slavophiles say: it is necessary to portray the Russian person as virtuous and prove that the root of all good is life in the old days; in his first plays Ostrovsky did not comply with this, and therefore “Family Picture” and “One’s Own People” are unworthy of him and can only be explained by the fact that he was still imitating Gogol at that time. But didn’t the Westerners shout: they should teach in comedy that superstition is harmful, and Ostrovsky, with the ringing of a bell, saves one of his heroes from death; everyone should be taught that the true good lies in education, and Ostrovsky in his comedy disgraces the educated Vikhorev in front of the ignorant Borodkin; It is clear that “Don’t get on your own sleigh” and “Don’t live the way you want” are bad plays. But didn’t the adherents of artistry proclaim: art must serve the eternal and universal requirements of aesthetics, and Ostrovsky in “A Profitable Place” reduced art to serving the pitiful interests of the moment; therefore, “A Profitable Place” is unworthy of art and should be classified as accusatory literature! .. And didn’t Mr. Nekrasov from Moscow assert: Bolshov should not arouse sympathy in us, and yet the 4th act of “His People” was written in order to arouse in us sympathy for Bolshov; therefore, the fourth act is superfluous!..(2) And didn’t Mr. Pavlov (N.F.) squirm, making clear the following points: Russian folk life can provide material only for farcical performances; there are no elements in it in order to construct from it something in accordance with the “eternal” requirements of art; it is obvious, therefore, that Ostrovsky, who takes the plot from common people’s life, is nothing more than a farcical writer... (3) And didn’t another Moscow critic draw such conclusions: drama should present us with a hero imbued with lofty ideas; the heroine of “The Thunderstorm,” on the contrary, is completely imbued with mysticism, and therefore is not suitable for drama, because she cannot arouse our sympathy; therefore, “Thunderstorm” only has the meaning of satire, and even that is not important, and so on and so forth... (4)
Anyone who has followed what has been written about “The Thunderstorm” will easily remember several other similar criticisms. It cannot be said that they were all written by people who were completely wretched mentally; How can we explain the lack of a direct view of things, which in all of them strikes the impartial reader? Without any doubt, it must be attributed to the old critical routine, which remained in many heads from the study of artistic scholasticism in the courses of Koshansky, Ivan Davydov, Chistyakov and Zelenetsky. It is known that, in the opinion of these venerable theorists, criticism is an application to a well-known work of general laws set forth in the courses of the same theorists: it fits the laws - excellent; doesn't fit - bad. As you can see, it was not a bad idea for aging old people: as long as this principle lives in criticism, they can be sure that they will not be considered completely backward, no matter what happens in the literary world. After all, the laws of beauty were established by them in their textbooks, on the basis of those works in the beauty of which they believe; as long as everything new is judged on the basis of the laws they have approved, until then only that which is in accordance with them will be recognized as elegant, nothing new will dare to lay claim to its rights; the old men will be right in believing in Karamzin and not recognizing Gogol, as the respectable people who admired Racine’s imitators and scolded Shakespeare as a drunken savage, following Voltaire, thought they were right, or worshiped the Messiad and on this basis rejected Faust. Routines, even the most mediocre ones, have nothing to fear from criticism, which serves as a passive verification of the immovable rules of stupid scholars - and at the same time, the most gifted writers have nothing to hope from it if they bring something new and original into art. They must go against all the criticism of “correct” criticism, to spite it, to make a name for themselves, to spite it, to found a school, and to ensure that some new theorist begins to take them into account when drawing up a new code of art. Then criticism will humbly recognize their merits; and until then she must be in the position of the unfortunate Neapolitans at the beginning of this September - who, although they know that Garibaldi will not come to them today or tomorrow, but still must recognize Francis as their king until his royal majesty is pleased to leave your capital.
We are surprised how respectable people dare to recognize such an insignificant, such a humiliating role for criticism. After all, by limiting it to the application of the “eternal and general” laws of art to particular and temporary phenomena, through this they condemn art to immobility, and give criticism a completely commanding and police meaning. And many do this from the bottom of their hearts! One of the authors about whom we expressed our opinion somewhat irreverently reminded us that disrespectful treatment of a judge by a judge is a crime (5). O naive author! How filled he is with the theories of Koshansky and Davydov! He takes quite seriously the vulgar metaphor that criticism is a tribunal before which authors appear as defendants! He probably also takes at face value the opinion that bad poetry constitutes a sin against Apollo and that bad writers are drowned in the Lethe River as punishment!.. Otherwise, how can one not see the difference between a critic and a judge? People are brought to court on suspicion of a misdemeanor or crime, and it is up to the judge to decide whether the accused is right or wrong; Is a writer really accused of anything when he is criticized? It seems that the times when book writing was considered a heresy and a crime are long gone. The critic speaks his mind, whether he likes or dislikes a thing; and since it is assumed that he is not an empty talker, but a reasonable person, he tries to present reasons why he considers one thing good and the other bad. He does not consider his opinion a decisive verdict, binding on everyone; If we take a comparison from the legal sphere, then he is more of a lawyer than a judge. Having taken a certain point of view, which seems to him the most fair, he sets out to the readers the details of the case, as he understands it, and tries to instill in them his conviction in favor or against the author being analyzed. It goes without saying that he can use all the means that he finds suitable, as long as they do not distort the essence of the matter: he can bring you into horror or tenderness, into laughter or into tears, force the author to make confessions that are unfavorable for him or bring it is impossible to answer. From criticism carried out in this way, the following result can occur: theorists, having consulted their textbooks, can still see whether the analyzed work is consistent with their fixed laws, and, playing the role of judges, decide whether the author is right or wrong. But it is known that in public proceedings there are often cases when those present in court are far from sympathetic to the decision that is pronounced by the judge in accordance with certain articles of the code: public conscience reveals in these cases a complete discord with the articles of the law. The same thing can happen even more often when discussing literary works: and when the critic-advocate properly poses the question, groups the facts and throws the light of a certain conviction on them, public opinion, not paying attention to the codes of literature, will already know what it wants hold on.
If we look closely at the definition of criticism as a “trial” of authors, we will find that it is very reminiscent of the concept that is associated with the word "criticism" our provincial ladies and young ladies, and which our novelists used to make fun of so wittily. Even today it is not uncommon to meet families who look at the writer with some fear, because he “will write criticism on them.” The unfortunate provincials, who once had such a thought in their heads, really represent a pitiful spectacle of defendants, whose fate depends on the handwriting of the writer’s pen. They look into his eyes, are embarrassed, apologize, make reservations, as if they were really guilty, awaiting execution or mercy. But it must be said that such naive people are now beginning to appear in the most distant outbacks. At the same time, as the right to “dare to have your own judgment” ceases to be the property of only a certain rank or position, but becomes accessible to everyone, at the same time, in private life, more solidity and independence appears, less trepidation before any outside court. Now they express their opinion simply because it is better to declare it than to hide it, they express it because they consider the exchange of thoughts useful, they recognize everyone’s right to state their views and their demands, and finally, they even consider it the duty of everyone to participate in the general movement by communicating their observations and considerations that are within anyone's power. This is a long way from being a judge. If I tell you that you lost your handkerchief on the way or that you are going in the wrong direction where you need to go, etc., this does not mean that you are my defendant. In the same way, I will not be your defendant in the case when you begin to describe me, wanting to give an idea about me to your acquaintances. Entering a new society for the first time, I know very well that they are making observations about me and forming opinions about me; but should I really imagine myself in front of some kind of Areopagus - and tremble in advance, awaiting the verdict? Without any doubt, comments will be made about me: one will find that I have a big nose, another that my beard is red, a third that my tie is poorly tied, a fourth that I am gloomy, etc. Well, let them notice them, What do I care about that? After all, my red beard is not a crime, and no one can ask me why I dare to have such a big nose. So, there’s nothing for me to think about: whether I like my figure or not, it’s a matter of taste, and I can express an opinion about it I can’t forbid anyone; and on the other hand, it won’t hurt me if they notice my taciturnity, if I’m really silent. Thus, the first critical work (in our sense) - noticing and indicating facts - is performed completely freely and harmlessly. Then the other work - judging from facts - continues in the same way to keep the one who judges on a completely equal chance with the one about whom he judges. This is because, when expressing his conclusion from known data, a person always exposes himself to judgment and the verification of others regarding the fairness and validity of his opinion. If, for example, someone, based on the fact that my tie is not tied very gracefully, decides that I am poorly brought up, then such a judge risks giving others a not very high understanding of his logic. Likewise, if some critic reproaches Ostrovsky for the fact that Katerina’s face in “The Thunderstorm” is disgusting and immoral, then he does not inspire much confidence in the purity of his own moral sense. Thus, as long as the critic points out the facts, analyzes them and draws his own conclusions, the author is safe and the matter itself is safe. Here you can only claim when a critic distorts facts and lies. And if he presents the matter correctly, then no matter what tone he speaks, no matter what conclusions he comes to, from his criticism, as from any free reasoning supported by facts, there will always be more benefit than harm - for the author himself, if he good, and in any case for literature - even if the author turns out to be bad. Criticism - not judicial, but ordinary, as we understand it - is good because it gives people who are not accustomed to focusing their thoughts on literature, so to speak, an extract of the writer and thus makes it easier to understand the nature and meaning of his works. And as soon as the writer is properly understood, an opinion will soon be formed about him and justice will be given to him, without any permission from the venerable compilers of the codes.
True, sometimes when explaining the character of a famous author or work, the critic himself can find in the work something that is not there at all. But in these cases the critic always gives himself away. If he decides to give the work he is examining a thought that is more lively and broader than what was actually laid down by its author, then, obviously, he will not be able to sufficiently confirm his thought with indications of the work itself, and thus criticism, having shown how it could If the work is to be analyzed, this will only show more clearly the poverty of its concept and the inadequacy of its execution. As an example of such criticism, one can point out, for example, Belinsky’s analysis of “Tarantas,” written with the most evil and subtle irony; This analysis was taken by many at face value, but even these many found that the meaning given to “Tarantas” by Belinsky is carried out very well in his criticism, but does not go well with the work of Count Sollogub itself (6). However, this kind of critical exaggeration is very rare. Much more often, another case is that the critic really does not understand the author being analyzed and deduces from his work something that does not follow at all. So here, too, the problem is not great: the critic’s method of reasoning will now show the reader with whom he is dealing, and if only the facts are present in the criticism, false reasoning will not deceive the reader. For example, one Mr. P—y, while analyzing “The Thunderstorm,” decided to follow the same method that we followed in the articles about “The Dark Kingdom,” and, having outlined the essence of the content of the play, began drawing conclusions. It turned out, for his reasons, that Ostrovsky made Katerina laugh in The Thunderstorm, wanting to disgrace Russian mysticism in her person. Well, of course, having read such a conclusion, you now see to what category of minds Mr. P—y belongs and whether you can rely on his considerations. Such criticism will not confuse anyone, it is not dangerous to anyone...
A completely different matter is the criticism that approaches the authors, as if they were men brought into the recruit’s presence, with a uniform yardstick, and shouts first “forehead!”, then “back of the head!”, depending on whether the recruit fits the standard or not. There the punishment is short and decisive; and if you believe in the eternal laws of art, printed in the textbook, then you will not turn away from such criticism. She will prove to you with her fingers that what you admire is no good, and what makes you doze, yawn or get a migraine is a real treasure. Take, for example, “The Thunderstorm”: what is it? A blatant insult to art, nothing more - and this is very easy to prove. Open the “Readings on Literature” by the distinguished professor and academician Ivan Davydov, compiled by him using a translation of Blair’s lectures, or take a look at Mr. Plaksin’s cadet literature course – the conditions for an exemplary drama are clearly defined there. The subject of the drama must certainly be an event where we see the struggle between passion and duty - with the unhappy consequences of the victory of passion or with the happy ones when duty wins. Strict unity and consistency must be observed in the development of the drama; the denouement should flow naturally and necessarily from the plot; each scene must certainly contribute to the movement of the action and move it towards the denouement; therefore, there should not be a single person in the play who would not directly and necessarily participate in the development of the drama, there should not be a single conversation that is not related to the essence of the play. The characters of the characters must be clearly defined, and in their discovery gradualness must be necessary, in accordance with the development of the action. The language must be consistent with the position of each person, but not move away from literary purity and not turn into vulgarity.
These seem to be all the main rules of drama. Let's apply them to "Thunderstorm".
The subject of the drama really represents the struggle in Katerina between the sense of duty of marital fidelity and passion for the young Boris Grigorievich. This means that the first requirement has been found. But then, starting from this requirement, we find that the other conditions of an exemplary drama are violated in the most cruel way in The Thunderstorm.
And, firstly, “The Thunderstorm” does not satisfy the most essential internal goal of the drama - to instill respect for moral duty and show the harmful consequences of being carried away by passion. Katerina, this immoral, shameless (in the apt expression of N. F. Pavlov) woman who ran out at night to her lover as soon as her husband left home, this criminal appears to us in the drama not only not in a sufficiently gloomy light, but even with some the radiance of martyrdom around the brow. She speaks so well, suffers so pitifully, everything around her is so bad that you have no indignation against her, you pity her, you arm yourself against her oppressors, and, in this way, justify vice in her person. Consequently, drama does not fulfill its high purpose and becomes, if not a harmful example, then at least an idle toy.
Further, from a purely artistic point of view, we also find very important shortcomings. The development of passion is not sufficiently represented: we do not see how Katerina’s love for Boris began and intensified and what exactly motivated it; therefore, the very struggle between passion and duty is not clearly and strongly indicated for us.
The unity of impression is also not respected: it is harmed by the admixture of a foreign element - Katerina’s relationship with her mother-in-law. The interference of the mother-in-law constantly prevents us from focusing our attention on the internal struggle that should be taking place in Katerina’s soul.
In addition, in Ostrovsky’s play we notice an error against the first and fundamental rules of any poetic work, unforgivable even for a novice author. This mistake is specifically called in the drama - “duality of intrigue”: here we see not one love, but two - Katerina’s love for Boris and Varvara’s love for Kudryash (7). This is good only in light French vaudeville, and not in serious drama, where the attention of the audience should not be entertained in any way.
The beginning and resolution also sin against the requirements of art. The plot lies in a simple case - the departure of the husband; the outcome is also completely random and arbitrary: this thunderstorm, which frightened Katerina and forced her to tell her husband everything, is nothing more than a deus ex machina, no worse than a vaudeville uncle from America.
All the action is sluggish and slow, because it is cluttered with scenes and faces that are completely unnecessary. Kudryash and Shapkin, Kuligin, Feklusha, the lady with two footmen, Dikoy himself - all these are persons who are not significantly connected with the basis of the play. Unnecessary people constantly enter the stage, say things that do not go to the point, and leave, again no one knows why or where. All Kuligin’s recitations, all the antics of Kudryash and Dikiy, not to mention the half-crazy lady and the conversations of city residents during a thunderstorm, could have been released without any damage to the essence of the matter.
We find almost no strictly defined and polished characters in this crowd of unnecessary persons, and there is nothing to ask about gradualism in their discovery. They appear to us directly ex abrupto, with labels. The curtain opens: Kudryash and Kuligin talk about what a scolder Dikaya is, after which Dikaya appears and swears behind the scenes... Kabanova too. In the same way, Kudryash makes it known from the first word that he is “dashing with girls”; and Kuligin, upon his very appearance, is recommended as a self-taught mechanic who admires nature. And so they remain with this until the very end: Dikoy swears, Kabanova grumbles, Kudryash walks at night with Varvara... But we do not see the complete comprehensive development of their characters in the entire play. The heroine herself is portrayed very unsuccessfully: apparently, the author himself did not clearly understand this character, because, without presenting Katerina as a hypocrite, he nevertheless forces her to pronounce sensitive monologues, but in fact shows her to us as a shameless woman, carried away by sensuality alone. There is nothing to say about the hero - he is so colorless. Dikoy and Kabanova themselves, characters most in Mr. Ostrovsky’s genre, represent (according to the happy conclusion of Mr. Akhsharumov or someone else like that) (8) a deliberate exaggeration, close to a libel, and give us not living faces, but “quintessence of ugliness” of Russian life.
Finally, the language in which the characters speak exceeds any patience of a well-bred person. Of course, merchants and townspeople cannot speak elegant literary language; but one cannot agree that a dramatic author, for the sake of fidelity, can introduce into literature all the common expressions in which the Russian people are so rich. The language of dramatic characters, whoever they may be, may be simple, but it is always noble and should not offend educated taste. And in “The Thunderstorm” listen to how all the faces say: “Shrill man! Why are you jumping in with your snout! It ignites everything inside! Women can’t improve their bodies!” What kind of phrases are these, what are these words? You will inevitably repeat with Lermontov:
Who do they paint portraits of?
Where are these conversations heard?
And if it happened to them,
So we don’t want to listen to them (9).
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 that? The reader understands that we have not made special efforts to make this criticism convincing; that is why it is easy to notice in other places the living threads with which it is sewn. But we assure you that it can be made extremely convincing and victorious, you can 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 proceed to the play with pre-prepared requirements regarding what and how in it must to be - we don’t need anything else: we can destroy everything that disagrees with our accepted rules. Extracts from the comedy will appear very conscientiously to confirm our judgments; quotations from various learned books, starting with Aristotle and ending with Fisher (10), which, as is known, constitute the last, final moment of aesthetic theory, will prove to you the solidity of our education; ease of presentation and wit will help us capture your attention, and you, without noticing, will come to complete agreement with us. Just don’t let doubt for a minute enter into your head about our full right to prescribe duties to the author and then judge him, whether he is faithful to these duties or has been guilty of them...
But this is the unfortunate thing that now not a single reader can be protected from such doubts. The despicable crowd, previously reverently, with their mouths open, listening to our broadcasts, now presents a deplorable and dangerous for our authority spectacle of a mass armed, in the wonderful expression of Mr. Turgenev, with “the double-edged sword of analysis” (11). Everyone says, reading our thunderous criticism: “You offer us your “storm”, assuring us that in the “Thunderstorm” what is there is superfluous, and what is needed is missing. But the author of “The Thunderstorm” probably seems completely disgusted; let us sort you out. Tell us, analyze the play for us, show it as it is, and give us your opinion about it based on it itself, and not on some outdated considerations, completely unnecessary and extraneous. In your opinion, such and such should not exist; and maybe it fits well in the play, so why shouldn’t it?” This is how every reader now dares to resonate, and this offensive circumstance must be attributed to the fact that, for example, N. F. Pavlov’s magnificent critical exercises regarding “The Thunderstorm” suffered such a decisive fiasco. In fact, everyone rose up against the criticism of “The Thunderstorm” in “Our Time” - both writers and the public, and, of course, not because he decided to show a lack of respect for Ostrovsky, but because in his criticism he expressed disrespect to common sense and goodwill of the Russian public. For a long time now, everyone has seen that Ostrovsky has largely moved away from the old stage routine, that in the very concept of each of his plays there are conditions that necessarily take him beyond the boundaries of the well-known theory that we pointed out above. A critic who does not like these deviations should have started by noting them, characterizing them, generalizing them, and then directly and frankly raising the question between them and the old theory. This was the responsibility of the critic not only to the author under review, but even more to the public, which so constantly approves of Ostrovsky, with all his liberties and deviations, and with each new play becomes more and more attached to him. If the critic finds that the public is mistaken in its sympathy for an author who turns out to be a criminal against his theory, then he should have begun with a defense of this theory and with serious proof that deviations from it cannot be good. Then, perhaps, he would have managed to convince some and even many, since N. F. Pavlov cannot be taken away from the fact that he speaks phrases quite deftly. Now what did he do? He did not pay the slightest attention to the fact that the old laws of art, while continuing to exist in textbooks and taught from gymnasium and university departments, had long since lost their sacred inviolability in literature and in the public. He bravely began to break Ostrovsky point by point of his theory, forcibly, forcing the reader to consider it inviolable. He found it convenient only to be ironic about the gentleman who, being Mr. Pavlov’s “neighbor and brother” in terms of his place in the first row of seats and “fresh” gloves, nevertheless dared to admire the play, which was so disgusting to N. F. Pavlov. Such disdainful treatment of the public, and indeed of the very question the critic had taken on, naturally should have aroused the majority of readers against him rather than in his favor. Readers let the critics notice that he was spinning with his theory like a squirrel in a wheel, and demanded that he get out of the wheel and onto a straight road. The rounded phrase and clever syllogism seemed insufficient to them; they demanded serious confirmation for the very premises from which Mr. Pavlov drew his conclusions and which he presented as axioms. He said: this is bad, because there are many people in the play who do not contribute directly to the development of the course of action. And they stubbornly objected to him: why can’t there be people in the play who are not directly involved in the development of the drama? The critic insisted that the drama was already devoid of meaning because its heroine was immoral; readers stopped him and asked the question: why do you think that she is immoral? and what are your moral concepts based on? The critic considered the night date, the daring whistle of Curly, and the very scene of Katerina’s confession to her husband to be vulgar and greasy, unworthy of art; they asked him again: why exactly does he find this vulgar and why are social intrigues and aristocratic passions more worthy of art than bourgeois hobbies? Why is the whistling of a young guy more vulgar than the tearful singing of Italian arias by some secular youth? N. F. Pavlov, as the culmination of his arguments, decided from a haughty manner that a play like “The Thunderstorm” is not a drama, but a farcical performance. And then they answered him: why are you so contemptuous of the booth? Another question is whether any sleek drama, even if all three unities were observed in it, is better than any farcical performance. We will still argue with you about the role of the booth in the history of theater and in the cause of national development. The last objection was developed in some detail in print. And where did it come from? It would be good in Sovremennik, which, as you know, itself has a “Whistle” with it, therefore cannot be scandalized by Kudryash’s whistling and in general should be inclined towards any kind of farce. No, thoughts about the booth were expressed in the “Library for Reading”, a well-known champion of all the rights of “art”, expressed by Mr. Annenkov, whom no one would blame for excessive adherence to “vulgarity” (12). If we correctly understood Mr. Annenkov’s thought (for which, of course, no one can vouch for), he finds that modern drama with its theory has deviated further from life’s truth and beauty than the original farces, and that in order to revive the theater it is necessary first to return to farce and begin the path of dramatic development all over again. These are the opinions Mr. Pavlov encountered even among respectable representatives of Russian criticism, not to mention those who are accused by right-thinking people of contempt for science and of denying everything sublime! It is clear that here it was no longer possible to get away with more or less brilliant remarks, but it was necessary to begin a serious revision of the grounds on which the critic asserted himself in his verdicts. But as soon as the question turned to this ground, the critic of Our Time turned out to be untenable and had to hush up his critical rantings.
It is obvious that criticism, which becomes an ally of scholars and takes upon itself the revision of literary works according to paragraphs of textbooks, must very often put itself in such a pitiful position: having condemned itself to slavery to the dominant theory, it dooms itself at the same time to constant fruitless hostility to any progress, to everything new and original in literature. And the stronger the new literary movement, the more bitter it becomes against it and the more clearly it shows its toothless impotence. Looking for some dead perfection, presenting to us outdated ideals that are indifferent to us, throwing at us fragments torn from the beautiful whole, adherents of such criticism constantly remain on the sidelines of the living movement, close their eyes to the new, living beauty, do not want to understand the new truth. , the result of a new course of life. They look down on everything, judge strictly, are ready to blame any author for not being equal to their chefs-d'oeuvres, and impudently neglect the author's living relationship with his audience and his era. This is all, you see, “the interests of the moment” - is it possible for serious critics to compromise art by being carried away by such interests! Poor, soulless people! how pitiful they are in the eyes of a person who knows how to value the work of life, its labors and benefits! An ordinary, sensible person takes from life what it gives him and gives to it what he can; but pedants always take things down and paralyze life with dead ideals and distractions. Tell me what to think about a man who, at the sight of a pretty woman, suddenly begins to resonate that her figure is not the same as that of the Venus de Milo, the outline of her mouth is not as good as that of the Venus de Medicea, her gaze does not have the expression that we find in Raphael's Madonnas, etc., etc. All the reasoning and comparisons of such a gentleman can be very fair and witty, but what can they lead to? Will they prove to you that the woman in question is not pretty? Are they even able to convince you that this woman is less good than this or that Venus? Of course not, because beauty lies not in individual features and lines, but in the general expression of the face, in the sense of life that manifests itself in it. When this expression pleases me; when this meaning is accessible and satisfactory to me, then I simply surrender to beauty with all my heart and meaning, without making any dead comparisons, without making claims sanctified by the traditions of art. And if you want to have a living effect on me, you want to make me fall in love with beauty, then be able to grasp this general meaning in it, this spirit of life, be able to point out and explain it to me: only then will you achieve your goal. It’s the same with truth: it is not in dialectical subtleties, not in the correctness of individual conclusions, but in the living truth of what you are discussing. Let me understand the nature of the phenomenon, its place among others, its meaning and significance in the general course of life, and believe that in this way you will lead me to a correct judgment about the matter much more accurately than through all sorts of syllogisms selected to prove your thoughts. If ignorance and credulity are still so strong among people, this is supported by precisely the mode of critical reasoning that we attack. Synthesis prevails everywhere and in everything; they say in advance: this is useful, and rush in all directions to tidy up the arguments why it is useful; they stun you with the maxim: this is what morality should be, and then they condemn as immoral everything that does not fit the maxim. In this way, human meaning is constantly distorted, the desire and opportunity for everyone to reason for themselves is taken away. It would be completely different if people were accustomed to the analytical method of judgment: here is the matter, here are its consequences, here are its benefits and disadvantages; weigh and judge to what extent it will be useful. Then people would constantly have data before them and in their judgments would proceed from facts, without wandering in synthetic mists, without binding themselves to abstract theories and ideals, once compiled by someone. To achieve this, it is necessary that all people have the desire to live with their own minds, and not rely on the care of others. Of course, we will not see this in humanity any time soon. But that small part of people, which we call the “reading public,” gives us the right to think that in them this desire for independent mental life has already awakened. Therefore, we consider it very inconvenient to bully her down and arrogantly throw at her maxims and sentences based on God knows what theories. We consider the best way of criticism to be a presentation of the case itself so that the reader himself, based on the facts presented, can draw his own conclusion. We group the data, make considerations about the general meaning of the work, point out its relationship to the reality in which we live, draw our conclusion and try to present it in the best possible way, but at the same time we always try to keep ourselves in such a way that the reader can pronounce his judgment completely comfortably between us and the author. More than once we have had the opportunity to receive reproaches for some ironic analysis: “From your own extracts and presentation of the content, it is clear that this author is bad or harmful,” we were told, “and you praise him, shame on you.” We admit that such reproaches did not upset us at all: the reader received a not entirely flattering opinion about our critical ability - it’s true; but our main goal was nevertheless achieved - the worthless book (which sometimes we could not directly condemn) seemed worthless to the reader thanks to the facts displayed before his eyes. And we have always been of the opinion that only factual, real criticism can have any meaning for the reader. If there is anything in the work, then show us what is in it; this is much better than indulging in thoughts about what is not in it and what should be in it.
Of course, there are general concepts and laws that every person certainly has in mind when discussing any subject. But it is necessary to distinguish these natural laws, arising from the very essence of the matter, from the provisions and rules established in some system. There are well-known axioms without which thinking is impossible, and every author assumes them in his reader, just as every speaker assumes them in his interlocutor. It is enough to say about a person that he is hunchbacked or braided for everyone to see this as a disadvantage and not an advantage of his organization. So, it is enough to notice that such and such a literary work is illiterate or full of lies, so that no one would consider this an advantage. But when you say that a person wears a cap and not a hat, this is not enough for me to get a bad opinion about him, although in certain circles it is accepted that a decent person should not wear a cap. It’s the same in a literary work - if you find some unities not observed or see faces that are not necessary for the development of intrigue, this still does not say anything to the reader who is not biased in favor of your theory. On the contrary, what should seem to every reader a violation of the natural order of things and an insult to simple common sense, I can consider that does not require refutations from me, assuming that these refutations will appear of themselves in the mind of the reader, with my one indication of the fact. But one should never stretch such an assumption too far. Critics like N.F. Pavlov, Mr. Nekrasov from Moscow, Mr. Palkhovsky, etc., especially sin in that they assume unconditional agreement between themselves and the general opinion on many more points than they should. In other words, they consider as immutable axioms, obvious to everyone, many such opinions that only to them seem to be absolute truths, and for most people even represent a contradiction with some generally accepted concepts. For example, everyone understands that an author who wants to do something decent should not distort reality: both theorists and general opinion agree on this requirement. But theorists at the same time demand and also assume as an axiom that the author must improve reality, discarding everything unnecessary from it and choosing only what is specifically required for the development of intrigue and for the denouement of the work. In accordance with this second demand, Ostrovsky was attacked many times with great fury; and yet it is not only not an axiom, but is even in clear contradiction with the requirement regarding fidelity to real life, which is recognized by everyone as necessary. How can you really make me believe that in the course of just half an hour, ten people, one after another, come to one room or to one place in the square, exactly those who are needed, exactly at the time that they are needed here? they meet whoever they need, start an ex abrupto conversation about what is needed, leave and do what is needed, then show up again when they are needed. Is this done in real life? Does it look like the truth? Who does not know that the most difficult thing in life is to adjust one favorable circumstance to another, to arrange the course of affairs in accordance with logical necessity. Usually a person knows what to do, but he cannot spend so much time as to direct all the funds that a writer so easily disposes of to his business. The right people don't come, letters don't get through, conversations don't go well enough to move things forward. Everyone has a lot of things to do in life, and rarely does anyone serve, as in our dramas, as a machine that the author moves, as it is more convenient for him for the action of his play. The same must be said about the beginning and ending. How many cases do we see that at their end represent a pure, logical development of the beginning? In history we can still notice this throughout the centuries; but in private life it’s not the same. It is true that the historical laws are the same here, but the difference is in distance and size. Speaking absolutely and taking into account infinitesimal quantities, of course we will find that the ball is the same polygon; but try playing billiards with polygons - it won’t work out at all. Likewise, the historical laws about logical development and necessary retribution are not presented in the incidents of private life as clearly and completely as in the history of peoples. To deliberately give them this clarity means to force and distort the existing reality. As if, in fact, every crime carries its own punishment? As if it is always accompanied by torment of conscience, if not external execution?
As if frugality always leads to prosperity, honesty is rewarded with general respect, doubt finds its solution, virtue brings inner contentment? Don’t we more often see the opposite, although, on the other hand, the opposite cannot be affirmed as a general rule... It cannot be said that people are evil by nature, and therefore one cannot accept principles for literary works such as the following, for example, that vice is always triumphs, and virtue is punished. But it has become impossible, even ridiculous, to build dramas on the triumph of virtue! The fact is that human relationships are rarely arranged on the basis of reasonable calculation, but are formed for the most part by chance, and then a significant proportion of the actions of some with others are carried out as if unconsciously, according to routine, according to momentary disposition, under the influence of many extraneous reasons. An author who decides to throw aside all these accidents in favor of the logical requirements of plot development usually loses the average measure and becomes like a person who measures everything at the maximum. He, for example, found that a person can, without direct harm to himself, work fifteen hours a day and based his demands from the people who work for him on this calculation. It goes without saying that this calculation, possible for emergency cases, for two or three days, turns out to be completely absurd as a norm for permanent work. The logical development of everyday relationships, required by theory from drama, often turns out to be the same.
They will tell us that we are falling into the denial of all creativity and do not recognize art except in the form of a daguerreotype. Even more, we will be asked to carry our opinions further and reach their extreme results, that is, that the dramatic author, not having the right to discard anything and adjust anything deliberately for his own purpose, finds himself in the need to simply record all the unnecessary conversations of all the people he meets, so that an action that lasted a week will require the same week in a drama for its presentation at the theater, and for another event the presence of all the thousands of people walking along Nevsky Prospekt or along the English Embankment will be required. Yes, it will have to be so, if the highest criterion in literature remains the theory with which we have now challenged the provisions. But that’s not where we’re going at all; It’s not just two or three points of the theory that we want to correct; no, with such corrections it will be even worse, more confusing and contradictory; we just don't want it at all. We have other grounds for judging the merits of authors and works, adhering to which we hope not to come to any absurdities and not to diverge from the common sense of the mass of the public. We have already talked about these reasons in the first articles about Ostrovsky and then in the article about “On the Eve”; but perhaps it is necessary to briefly outline them again.
The measure of the merit of a writer or an individual work is the extent to which it serves as an expression of the natural aspirations of a certain time and people. The natural aspirations of humanity, reduced to the simplest denominator, can be expressed in two words: “So that it would be good for everyone.” It is clear that, striving for this goal, people, by the very essence of the matter, first had to move away from it: everyone wanted it to be good for him, and, asserting his own good, interfered with others; They didn’t yet know how to arrange things so that one wouldn’t interfere with the other. Thus, inexperienced dancers do not know how to control their movements and constantly collide with other couples, even in a fairly spacious hall. After getting used to it, they will begin to disperse better even in a smaller hall and with a larger number of dancers. But until they have acquired dexterity, until then, of course, it is impossible to allow many couples to waltz in the hall; in order not to bump into each other, it is necessary for many to wait out, and for the most awkward ones to give up dancing altogether and, perhaps, to sit down at cards, lose, and even a lot... So it was in the structure of life: the more dexterous continued to find their good, others sat , they took on something they shouldn’t have, they lost; the general celebration of life was disrupted from the very beginning; many had no time for fun; Many have come to the conclusion that only those who dance skillfully are called to have fun. And the dexterous dancers, who had established their well-being, continued to follow their natural inclination and took for themselves more and more space, more and more means for fun. Finally they lost their measure; the rest felt very crowded from them, and they jumped up from their seats and jumped up - not because they wanted to dance, but simply because they felt awkward even sitting. Meanwhile, in this movement, it turned out that among them there were people who were not without some lightness - and they tried to join the circle of those having fun. But the privileged, original dancers looked at them very hostilely, as if they were uncalled, and did not let them into the circle. A struggle began, varied, long, mostly unfavorable for the newcomers: they were ridiculed, pushed away, they were condemned to pay the costs of the holiday, their ladies were taken away from them, and their gentlemen were taken away from the ladies, they were completely driven out of the holiday. But the worse it gets for people, the more they feel the need to feel good. Deprivations will not stop demands, but will only irritate them; Only eating can satisfy hunger. Until now, therefore, the struggle is not over; natural aspirations, now seeming to be muffled, now appearing stronger, everyone is looking for their satisfaction. This is the essence of history.
End of introductory fragment.
