Why is the dark kingdom in the play a thunderstorm? The Dark Kingdom in the play "The Thunderstorm" - what is it? Ostrovsky - a subtle connoisseur of Russian life
Each person is a one and only world, with his own actions, character, habits, honor, morality, self-esteem.
It is precisely the problem of honor and self-esteem that Ostrovsky raises in his play “The Thunderstorm”.
In order to show the contradictions between rudeness and honor, between ignorance and dignity, the play shows two generations: people of the older generation, the so-called “dark kingdom”, and people of the new trend, more progressive, not
Those who want to live according to old laws and customs.
Dikoy and Kabanova - typical representatives"dark kingdom" It was in these images that Ostrovsky wanted to show the ruling class in Russia at that time.
So who are Dikoy and Kabanova? First of all, these are the richest people in the city; in their hands is the “supreme” power, with the help of which they oppress not only their serfs, but also their relatives. Kuligin said well about the life of the philistines: “...And whoever has money, sir, tries to enslave the poor so that he can make even more money from his free labors...”, and again: “In the philistinism, sir, you are nothing but rudeness , you won’t see...” So they live, knowing nothing but money, ruthless exploitation, immeasurable profit
At someone else's expense. It was not without intention that Ostrovsky created these two types. Dikoy is a typical merchant, and his social circle is Kabanikha.
The images of Dikiy and Kabanova are very similar: they are rude, ignorant people. They are only engaged in tyranny. The wild one is annoyed by his relatives, who accidentally caught his eye: “...I told you once, I told you twice: “Don’t you dare come across me”; you're itching for everything! Not enough space for you? Wherever you go, here you are!..” And if someone comes to ask Dikiy for money, then there will be no way around it without swearing: “I understand that; What are you going to tell me to do with myself when my heart is like this! After all, I already know what I have to give, but I can’t do everything with goodness. You are my friend, and I must give it to you, but if you come and ask me, I will scold you. I will give, give, and curse. Therefore, as soon as you mention money to me, everything inside me will be ignited; It kindles everything inside, and that’s all...”
Kabanova doesn’t like it when Katerina defends her human dignity and tries to protect her husband from unnecessary abuse. Kabanikha is disgusted that someone dares to contradict her, to do something not at her command. But there is a slight difference between Dikiy and Kabanova in relation to their relatives and the people around them. Dikoy swears openly, “as if he’s broken free from a chain,” Kabanikha, “under the guise of piety”: “I know, I know that you don’t like my words, but what can I do, I’m not a stranger to you, my heart is about you it hurts... After all, it’s out of love that your parents are strict with you, it’s out of love that they scold you, that’s all
They think to teach good things. Well, I don’t like it now. And the children will go around praising people that their mother is a grumbler, that their mother does not allow them to pass, that they are squeezing them out of the world. But God forbid, you won’t please your daughter-in-law with some word, so the conversation started that the mother-in-law was completely fed up.”
Greed, rudeness, ignorance, tyranny will always be present in these people. These qualities were not eradicated because they were raised that way, they grew up in the same environment. People like Kabanova and Dikoy will always be together, it is impossible to separate them. Where one ignorant and tyrant appeared, another will appear. Whatever the society, there will always be people who, under the guise of progressive ideas and education, hide, or rather, try to hide their stupidity, rudeness and ignorance. They tyrannize those around them, without being at all embarrassed or afraid to bear any responsibility for it. Dikoy and Kabanova are that very “dark kingdom”, relics, supporters of the foundations of this “dark kingdom”. That's who they are, these Wild and Kabanovs, stupid, ignorant, hypocritical, rude. They preach the same peace and order. This is a world of money, anger, envy and hostility. They hate everything new and progressive. A. Ostrovsky’s idea was to expose the “dark kingdom” using the images of Dikiy and Kabanova. He denounced all rich people for lack of spirituality and meanness. Mainly in secular societies Russia XIX centuries there were such Wild and Kabanovs, as the author showed us in his drama “The Thunderstorm”.
The curtain opens. And the viewer sees the high bank of the Volga, the city garden, the residents of the charming town of Kalinova walking and talking. The beauty of the landscape evokes Kuligin’s poetic delight and is in surprising harmony with the free Russian folk song. The conversation of city inhabitants flows slowly, in which Kalinov’s life, hidden from prying eyes, is already slightly revealed.
The talented, self-taught mechanic Kuligin calls his morals “cruel.” How does he see this manifested? First of all, in the poverty and rudeness that reigns in the middle class. The reason is very clear: the dependence of the working population on the power of money concentrated in the hands of the rich merchants of the city. But, continuing the story about Kalinov’s morals, Kuligin by no means idealizes the relationship between the merchant class, which, according to him, undermines each other’s trade, writes “malicious slander.” The only educated person, Kalinova, pays attention to one important detail that clearly appears in funny story about how Dikoy explained to the mayor about the men’s complaint against him.
Let us remember Gogol's "The Inspector General", in which the merchants did not dare to make a word in front of the mayor, but meekly put up with his tyranny and endless exactions. And in “The Thunderstorm”, in response to the remark of the main person of the city about his dishonest act, Dika
He just condescendingly pats the government representative on the shoulder, not even considering it necessary to justify himself. This means that money and power have become synonymous here. Therefore, there is no justice for the Wild One, who insults the entire city. No one can please him, no one is immune from his frantic abuse. Dikoy is self-willed and tyrannical because he does not meet resistance and is confident in his own impunity. This hero, with his rudeness, greed and ignorance, personifies the main features of Kalinov’s “dark kingdom”. Moreover, his anger and irritation especially increase in cases when it comes either to money that needs to be returned, or to something inaccessible to his understanding. That's why he scolds his nephew Boris so much, because his very appearance
Reminds me of the inheritance that, according to the will, must be divided with him. That’s why he attacks Kuligin, who is trying to explain to him the principle of the lightning rod’s operation. Wild is outraged by the idea of a thunderstorm as an electrical discharge. He, like all Kalinovites, is convinced that a thunderstorm is coming! people as a reminder of responsibility for their actions. This is not just ignorance and superstition, it is passed down from generation to generation folk mythology, before which the language of the logical mind falls silent. This means that even in the violent, uncontrollable tyrant Dikiy this moral truth lives, forcing him to publicly bow at the feet of the peasant whom he scolded during Lent. Even if Dikiy has bouts of repentance, then at first the rich merchant widow Marfa Ignatievna Kabanova seems even more religious and pious. Unlike the Wild One, she will never raise her voice or rush at people like a chained dog. But the despotism of her nature is not at all a secret for the Kalinovites. Even before this heroine appears on stage, we hear biting and apt remarks from the townspeople addressed to her. “Prude, sir. She gives money to the poor, but completely eats up her family,” Kuligin tells Boris about her. And the very first meeting with Kabanikha convinces us of the correctness of this
Characteristics. Her tyranny is limited to the sphere of the family, which she mercilessly tyrannizes. Kabanikha crippled her own son, turning him into a pathetic, weak-willed man who does nothing but justify himself to her for non-existent sins. The cruel, despotic Kabanikha turned the life of her children and daughter-in-law into hell, constantly torturing them, tormenting them with reproaches, complaints and suspicions. Therefore, her daughter Varvara! , a brave, strong-willed girl, is forced to live by the principle: “...do what you want, as long as it’s sewn and covered.” Therefore, Tikhon and Katerina cannot be happy.
Page 1 ]
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, we see full picture degradation and decline. In "The Minor" the Prostakovs are shown 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. They often come to Dikiy to ask for money, knowing that he will humiliate them but not give them the required amount. Most negative emotions The merchant is called 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 number of money, which means others must 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 internal conflict Kati. 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 to deceive Tikhon in order to save 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 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
Dark Kingdom. Kingdom of darkness (foreign language) ignorance, backwardness... Michelson's Large Explanatory and Phraseological Dictionary (original spelling)
- (foreign language) ignorance, backwardness...
Dark kingdom (kingdom of darkness) (foreign) ignorance, backwardness... Michelson's Large Explanatory and Phraseological Dictionary
KINGDOM- (1) kingdom; 2) reign) 1) a state headed by a king; 2) the time of the reign of some king, reign; 3) a certain area of reality, the focus of certain objects and phenomena (for example, nature, dark color, sleepy color) ... Power. Policy. Civil service. Dictionary
"Dark Kingdom"- THE DARK KINGDOM is an expression that has become widespread. after the appearance of articles by N. A. Dobrolyubov The Dark Kingdom and the Ray of Light in the Dark Kingdom (1859 60), dedicated early creativity A. N. Ostrovsky. Began to be used as a designation. tyrant... Russian humanitarian encyclopedic dictionary
- (born January 17, 1836, died November 17, 1861) one of the most remarkable critics of Russian literature and one of characteristic representatives public excitement in the era of "great reforms". He was the son of a priest in Nizhny Novgorod. Father,… …
Dramatic writer, head of the repertoire of the Imperial Moscow Theater and director of the Moscow theater school. A. N. Ostrovsky was born in Moscow on January 31, 1823. His father, Nikolai Fedorovich, came from a clergy background, and... ... Large biographical encyclopedia
DARK, dark, dark; dark, dark, dark (dark, dark simple.). 1. Deprived of light, immersed in darkness, in darkness. “The flax was spread until dark in the dewy meadows.” Nekrasov. “There is one candle burning in a dark room.” A. Turgenev. "(Wolf) in the dark... ... Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary
Dobrolyubov, Nikolai Alexandrovich, the most famous Russian critic after Belinsky, the main representative of the method of journalistic consideration of literary works. The short life of a highly gifted young man turned out sadly, dazzlingly... ... Biographical Dictionary
- (Nikolai Alexandrovich) the most famous Russian critic after Belinsky, the main representative of the method of journalistic consideration of literary works. The short life of a highly gifted young man, dazzlingly brilliant in... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Ephron
Books
- Dark Kingdom. Stage versions, Potapov Nikolai Ivanovich. Nikolai Ivanovich Potapov - participant of the Great Patriotic War. After the war he graduated from the Navigation Aviation School. Flew as a navigator different types airplanes. Later he worked in newspapers and...
The article “The Dark Kingdom” is one of the most important literary and theoretical speeches of Dobrolyubov, combining a masterful critical analysis of Ostrovsky’s dramaturgy with far-reaching conclusions of a socio-political order. Characterizing the very great national-democratic significance of Ostrovsky’s comedies, which were equally misunderstood by critics from both the Slavophile and bourgeois-liberal camps, Dobrolyubov argued that the pathos of Ostrovsky as one of the most advanced Russian writers is the exposure of “the unnaturalness of social relations occurring as a result of the tyranny of some and the lack of rights of others.” . Having correctly and deeply defined the social content of Ostrovsky’s dramaturgy, his “plays of life,” Dobrolyubov showed the typical, generalizing meaning of his images, revealed to the reader a stunning picture of the “dark kingdom,” oppressive tyranny, and moral corruption of people.
(Works by A. Ostrovsky. Two volumes. St. Petersburg, 1859)
What kind of direction is this that you won’t have time to turn around, and then they’ll release the story - and at least there would be some meaning... However, they blew it up, so there must have been some reason.
Gogol {1}Not a single modern Russian writer has suffered such a strange fate in his literary activity as Ostrovsky. His first work (“Painting family happiness") was not noticed by absolutely anyone, did not cause a single word in the magazines - neither in praise nor in censure of the author (2). Three years later, Ostrovsky’s second work appeared: “Our people - we will be numbered”; the author was greeted by everyone as a completely new person in literature, and was immediately recognized by everyone as an unusually talented writer, the best, after Gogol, representative of dramatic art in Russian literature. But, according to one of those strange, for the ordinary reader, and very annoying for the author, accidents that are so often repeated in our poor literature, - Ostrovsky’s play was not only not performed at the theater, but could not even find a detailed and serious assessment in any magazine. “Our People,” first published in Moskvityanin, managed to come out as a separate print, but literary criticism and didn’t mention them. So this comedy disappeared - as if it sank into the water, for some time. A year later, Ostrovsky wrote a new comedy: “The Poor Bride.” Critics treated the author with respect, constantly called him the author of “His People” and even noticed that they were paying such attention to him more for his first comedy than for his second, which everyone recognized as weaker than the first. Then each new work of Ostrovsky aroused some excitement in journalism, and soon even two literary parties were formed about them, radically opposed to one another. One party was made up of the young editors of “Moskvityanin” (3), who proclaimed that Ostrovsky “with four plays created a folk theater in Russia” (4), that he -
Poet, herald of the new truth,
Surrounded us with a new world
And he told us a new word,
At least he served the old truth, -
and that this old truth, portrayed by Ostrovsky, -
Simpler, but more expensive
Healthier effect on the chest,(5)
than the truth of Shakespeare's plays.
These poems were published in “Moskvityanin” (1854, No. 4) about the play “Poverty is not a vice,” and mainly about one of its faces, Lyubim Tortsov. They laughed a lot at their eccentricities in their time, but they were not pedantic license, but rather served as a fairly faithful expression of the critical opinions of the party, which certainly admired every line of Ostrovsky. Unfortunately, these opinions were always expressed with amazing arrogance, vagueness and uncertainty, so that even a serious dispute was impossible for the opposing party. Ostrovsky's praisers shouted what he said new word (6) . But to the question: “What is this new word?” – for a long time They didn’t answer anything, and then they said that it was new word is nothing more than – what do you think? – nationality! But this nation was so awkwardly dragged onto the stage about Lyubim Tortsov and so intertwined with him that criticism, unfavorable to Ostrovsky, did not fail to take advantage of this circumstance, stuck out its tongue at the awkward praisers and began to tease them: “So yours.” new word- in Tortsov, in Lyubim Tortsov, in the drunkard Tortsov! The drunkard Tortsov is your ideal,” etc. This sticking out of the tongue was, of course, not entirely convenient for a serious speech about Ostrovsky’s works; but it also needs to be said - who could maintain a serious look after reading such poems about Lyubim Tortsov:
The poet's images are alive
The tall comedian put on flesh...
That's why now first
A single current flows through them all.
That's why the theater hall
From top to bottom in one
Sincere, sincere, dear
Everything trembled with delight.
We love Tortsov alive in front of her
Worth with raised head,
Burnus put on a shabby one,
With a disheveled beard,
Unhappy, drunk, emaciated,
But with a Russian, pure soul.
Is the comedy in it crying before us,
Does tragedy laugh with him, -
We don’t know and we don’t want to know!
Hurry to the theater! They're bursting in crowds there,
There is now a familiar way of life there:
There the Russian song flows freely and loudly;
There is a man now crying and laughing,
There is a whole world out there, a world full and alive.
And to us, simple, humble children of the century,
It’s not scary, it’s fun now for the person:
The heart is so warm, the chest breathes so freely.
We love Tortsov, the path seems so straight to the soul!(Where?)
Great Russian life feasts on stage,
The Great Russian beginning triumphs,
Great Russian speech warehouse
And in the dashing saying, and in the song playful.
Great Russian mind, Great Russian look,
Like Mother Volga, wide and gurgling...
Warm, free, we like it,
Tired of living with painful deception!..
These verses were followed by curses against Ragdel(7) and those who admired her, revealing that spirit of slavish, blind imitation(8) . Even if she is a talent, even if she is a genius,” the author of the poem exclaimed, “but we out of place her art has arrived!” We, he says, need the truth, unlike others. And with this sure opportunity, the poetic critic scolded Europe and America and praised Rus' in the following poetic expressions:
Let falsehood be sweet
Or toothless-young America,
Sick of canine old age...
But our Rus' is strong!
There is a lot of strength and heat in her;
And Rus' loves the truth; and understand the truth
Holy grace was given to her by the Lord;
And now he finds shelter in her alone
All that ennobles a person!..
It goes without saying that such outcries about Tortsov, about what honors a person, could not lead to a healthy and impartial consideration of the case. They only gave criticism of the opposite direction a fair reason to fall into noble indignation and exclaim in turn about Lyubim Tortsov:
- And some people call it new word, it comes in sight as the best color of all our literary productivity for last years! Why such ignorant blasphemy on Russian literature? Indeed, such words it had never yet been said in it, such a hero had never even been dreamed of, thanks to the fact that the old literary legends were still fresh in it, which would not have allowed such a distortion of taste. We love Tortsov could appear on stage in all his ugliness only at the time when they began to fall into oblivion... What surprises and incomprehensibly amazes us is that the drunken figure of some Tortsov could grow to the ideal, that they want to be proud of it as the purest reproduction of the nationality in poetry, that the successes of literature are measured against Tortsov and imposed upon everyone loves him under the pretext that he is “one of our own”, that he is “at our yard!” Is this not a distortion of taste and a complete oblivion of all pure literary traditions? But there is shame, there is literary decency, which remain even after the best legends are lost, for Why are we going to shame ourselves? calling Tortsov “one of our own” and elevating him to our poetic ideals? (Ot. Zap., 1854, No. VI).
We made this extract from Otechestven. notes”(9) because it shows how much the polemics between his detractors and praisers always harmed Ostrovsky. “Domestic. Notes" constantly served as an enemy camp for Ostrovsky, and most of their attacks were directed at critics who extolled his works. The author himself constantly remained on the sidelines, until very recently, when Otechestven. notes" announced that Ostrovsky, together with Mr. Grigorovich and Mrs. Evgenia Tur, had already finished his poetic career(see “Domestic Notes”, 1859, No. VI)(10). Meanwhile, all the same, the full weight of the accusation of worshiping Lyubim Tortsov, of enmity towards European enlightenment, in adoration of our pre-Petrine antiquity, etc. The shadow of some kind of old belief, almost obscurantism, fell on his talent. And his defenders kept interpreting him about a new word- without uttering it, however, - they proclaimed that Ostrovsky is the first of the modern Russian writers, because he has some kind of special worldview... But they also explained very confusingly what this feature was. For the most part they got off with phrases, for example. like this:
U Ostrovsky, one in the present literary era, is its strong new and at the same time ideal worldview with a special touch(!), conditioned both by the data of the era and, perhaps, by the data of the poet’s own nature. We'll call this shade without any hesitation, the indigenous Russian worldview, healthy and calm, humorous without morbidity, straightforward without being carried away to one extreme or another, ideal, finally, in the fair sense of idealism, without false grandiosity or just as much false sentimentality (Moscow, 1853, No. 1) (11).
“So he wrote - darkly and sluggishly” (12) - and did not in the least explain the question of the peculiarities of Ostrovsky’s talent and its significance in modern literature. Two years later the same critic suggested whole line articles “On Ostrovsky’s comedies and their significance in literature and on the stage” (Moscow, 1855, No. 3), but stopped at the first article (13), and even in that one he showed more claims and broad manners, than the real deal. He very unceremoniously found that the current criticism was too much for me Ostrovsky's talent, and therefore she became a very comical position for him; he even announced that “His People” were not dismantled only because they had already expressed new word, which even though critics see, yes it hurts... It seems that the author of the article could have positively known the reasons for the silence of criticism about “Our People”, without indulging in abstract considerations! Then, offering the program of his views on Ostrovsky, the critic says what, in his opinion, was expressed originality of talent, which he finds in Ostrovsky - and here are his definitions. “She expressed herself - 1) in everyday news, deduced by the author and still unexplored before him, if we exclude some essays by Veltman and Lugansky(good predecessors for Ostrovsky!!); 2) in relationship news the author to the life he depicts and the persons depicted; 3) in the news manners Images; 4) in language news- in his floweriness (!), peculiarities(?)". That's it for you. These provisions are not explained by the critic. In the continuation of the article, several more contemptuous comments are thrown about the criticism, it is said that “She’s sick of this life(portrayed by Ostrovsky) Solon is his tongue, solon are his types, – salty according to her own condition",- and then the critic, without explaining or proving anything, calmly moves on to Chronicles, Domostroi and Pososhkov to present “an overview of the relationship of our literature to the people.” This was the end of the matter of the critic, who undertook to be Ostrovsky’s lawyer against the opposing party. Soon afterwards, sympathetic praise of Ostrovsky entered the limits in which it appears in the form of a weighty cobblestone thrown into a person’s forehead by a helpful friend (14): in the first volume of “Russian Conversation” an article by Mr. Tertius Filippov about the comedy “Don’t Live That Way” was published "as you wish." The Sovremennik at one time exposed the wild disgrace of this article, preaching that a wife should willingly expose her back to a drunken husband who beats her, and praising Ostrovsky for allegedly sharing these thoughts and being able to express them clearly...(15) . This article was met with general indignation among the public. In all likelihood, Ostrovsky himself (who again got it here because of his uninvited commentators) was not happy with it; at least since then he has given no reason to slap such nice things on him again.
Thus, Ostrovsky's enthusiastic praisers did little to explain to the public his significance and the characteristics of his talent; they only prevented many from looking at him directly and simply. However, enthusiastic praisers are rarely truly useful in explaining to the public the real significance of a writer; in this case, critics are much more reliable: looking for shortcomings (even where there are none), they still present their demands and make it possible to judge how much the writer satisfies or does not satisfy them. But in relation to Ostrovsky, his detractors turned out to be no better than his fans. If we combine into one all the reproaches that have been made to Ostrovsky from all sides for ten whole years and are being made to this day, then it will be absolutely necessary to abandon all hope of understanding what they wanted from him and how his critics looked at him. Each presented his own demands, and each at the same time scolded others who had opposite demands, each certainly took advantage of some of the advantages of one of Ostrovsky’s works in order to impute them to another work, and vice versa. Some reproached Ostrovsky for changing his original direction and, instead of a living depiction of the vulgarity of merchant life, began to present it in an ideal light. Others, on the contrary, praising him for his idealization, constantly stipulated that they considered “Our People” to be a half-thought-out, one-sided, even false work. In Ostrovsky’s subsequent works, along with reproaches for his cloying embellishment of that vulgar and colorless reality from which he took plots for his comedies, one could also hear, on the one hand, praise for this very embellishment, and on the other, reproaches for the fact that he daguerreotypically depicts all the dirt of life. This contrast in the most basic views on Ostrovsky’s literary activity would already be enough to confuse simple-minded people who would decide to trust criticism in their judgments about Ostrovsky. But the contradiction did not stop there; it extended to many more private notes about the various advantages and disadvantages of Ostrovsky’s comedies. The diversity of his talent, the breadth of content covered by his works, constantly gave rise to the most opposite reproaches. So, for example, for “Profitable Place” they reproached him for the fact that the bribe takers he brought out not quite disgusting; for “The Kindergarten” they condemned that the persons depicted in it too disgusting. For “The Poor Bride,” “Don’t Get in Your Sleigh,” “Poverty is not a Vice,” and “Don’t Live the Way You Want,” Ostrovsky had to listen to comments from all sides that he had sacrificed the completion of the play for his main task, and for those same work, the author happened to hear advice such as that he should not be content with slavish imitation of nature, but should try expand your mental horizon. Moreover, he was even reproached for the fact that he devotes himself too exclusively to the faithful depiction of reality (i.e., execution), without caring about idea of their works. In other words, he was reproached precisely for the absence or insignificance tasks, which other critics recognized as too broad, too superior to the means of their implementation.
In a word, it is difficult to imagine the possibility of a middle ground on which it would be possible to stay in order to at least somewhat agree with the demands that were presented to Ostrovsky over the course of ten years by different (and sometimes the same) critics. First, why does he denigrate Russian life too much, then why does he whiten and blush it? That is why he indulges in didacticism, then why not moral basis in his works?.. Either he conveys reality too slavishly, or he is unfaithful to it; sometimes he cares very much about the external decoration, sometimes he is careless in this decoration. Then - his action is too sluggish; then - a turn was made too quickly, for which the reader was not sufficiently prepared by the previous one. Sometimes the characters are very ordinary, sometimes they are too exceptional... And all this was often said about the same works by critics who, apparently, must have agreed on the basic views. If the public had to judge Ostrovsky only by the critics who have been writing about him for ten years, then it should have been left in extreme bewilderment about: what should it finally think about this author? Then he came out, according to these critics, a leavened patriot, an obscurantist, then a direct successor of Gogol in his best period; sometimes a Slavophile, sometimes a Westerner; now the creator of the folk theatre, now the Gostinodvorsky Kotzebue (16), now a writer with a new special worldview, now a man who does not in the least comprehend the reality that he is copying. No one has yet given not only full characteristics Ostrovsky, but did not even indicate those features that constitute the essential meaning of his works.
Why did this happen? strange phenomenon? “So there was some reason?” Maybe Ostrovsky really changes his direction so often that his character has not yet been able to decide? Or, on the contrary, from the very beginning he rose, as the Moskvityanin critics assured, to a height that surpasses the level of understanding of modern criticism? (17) It seems neither one nor the other. The reason for the carelessness that still prevails in judgments about Ostrovsky is precisely that they wanted to make him a representative of a certain kind of convictions, and then punished him for being unfaithful to these convictions or exalted him for strengthening them, and vice versa. Everyone recognized Ostrovsky’s remarkable talent, and as a result, all critics wanted to see in him a champion and conductor of those beliefs with which they themselves were imbued. People with Slavophile overtones really liked that he depicted Russian life well, and without ceremony they declared Ostrovsky a fan "benign Russian antiquity" in defiance of the pernicious West. As a person who really knows and loves the Russian people, Ostrovsky really gave the Slavophiles many reasons to consider him “one of their own,” and they took advantage of this so immoderately that they gave the opposing party a very solid reason to consider him an enemy of European education and a writer of a retrograde trend. But, in essence, Ostrovsky was never one or the other, at least in his works. Perhaps the influence of the circle had an effect on him, in the sense of recognizing certain abstract theories, but it could not destroy in him the correct instinct for real life, could not completely close before him the path shown to him by his talent. That is why Ostrovsky’s works constantly eluded both completely different standards that were applied to him from two opposite ends. Slavophiles soon saw in Ostrovsky features that did not at all serve to preach humility, patience, adherence to the customs of their fathers and hatred of the West, and considered it necessary to reproach him - either for understatement or for concessions negative view. The most absurd of the critics of the Slavophile party very categorically expressed that everything would be fine with Ostrovsky, “but he sometimes lacks decisiveness and courage in fulfilling his plans: he seems to be hampered by false shame and timid habits brought up in him natural direction. That's why he often starts something lofty or wide and memory about natural measurements and his plan will be frightened away; he should give free rein to happy suggestion, but he seems to be frightened by the height of the flight, and the image comes out somehow unfinished” (“Russian demon.”) (18). In turn, people who were delighted with “Our People” soon noticed that Ostrovsky, comparing the ancient principles of Russian life with the new principles of Europeanism in merchant life, constantly leans towards the side of the former. They did not like this, and the most absurd of the critics of the so-called Westernizing party expressed his judgment, also very categorical, as follows: “The didactic direction that determines the nature of these works does not allow us to recognize true poetic talent in them. It is based on those principles that our Slavophiles call folk. It was to them that Mr. Ostrovsky in comedies and drama subordinated the thought, feeling and free will of man” (“Athenaeus”, 1859) (19). In these two opposite passages one can find the key to why criticism until now could not directly and simply look at Ostrovsky as a writer depicting the life of a certain part of Russian society, and everyone saw him as a preacher of morality in accordance with the concepts of one or another. another party. Having rejected this pre-prepared standard, criticism would have to proceed to Ostrovsky’s works simply to study them, with determination to take what the author himself gives. But then you would have to give up the desire to recruit him into your ranks, you would have to put your prejudices towards the opposing party in the background, you would have to not pay attention to the smug and rather arrogant antics of the other side... and this was extremely difficult for that , and for another batch. Ostrovsky became a victim of the controversy between them, having taken several wrong chords to please both, and even more so, knocking them out of whack. to no avail.
Fortunately, the public cared little about critical disagreements and read Ostrovsky’s comedies themselves, watched at the theater those that were allowed to be presented, re-read them again and thus became quite familiar with the works of their favorite comedian. Thanks to this circumstance, the critic’s work is now greatly facilitated. There is no need to analyze each play separately, tell the content, follow the development of the action scene by scene, pick up minor awkwardness along the way, praise successful expressions, etc. Readers already know all this very well: everyone knows the content of the plays, a lot has been said about private mistakes times, successful, apt expressions have long been picked up by the public and used in colloquial speech like sayings. On the other hand, it is also not necessary to impose your own way of thinking on the author, and it is also inconvenient (unless with such courage as was shown by the critic of the Athenaeum, Mr. N. P. Nekrasov, from Moscow): now it is clear to every reader that Ostrovsky is not an obscurantist, not a preacher of the whip as the basis of family morality, not a champion of vile morality that prescribes endless patience and renunciation of the rights of one’s own personality, nor is he a blind, bitter libeler, trying at all costs to expose dirty spots Russian life. Of course, free will: recently another critic (20) tried to prove that the main idea of the comedy “Don’t Get in Your Own Sleigh” is that it is immoral for a merchant’s wife to marry a nobleman, and it is much more respectable to marry an equal, on the orders of a parent. The same critic decided (very energetically) that in the drama “Don’t live as you want,” Ostrovsky preaches that “complete submission to the will of elders, blind faith in the justice of the anciently prescribed law and complete renunciation of human freedom, of any claim to the right to declare their human feelings much better than the very thought, feeling and free will of man.” The same critic very wittily realized that “in the scenes “A festive nap before dinner” superstition in dreams was ridiculed”... But now two volumes of Ostrovsky’s works are in the hands of readers - who will believe such a critic?
So, assuming that readers know the content of Ostrovsky’s plays and their very development, we will only try to recall the features common to all of his works or most of them, reduce these features to one result, and from them determine the significance of this writer’s literary activity. Having accomplished this, we will only present in a general outline what has long been familiar to most readers even without us, but which many may not have brought into proper harmony and unity. At the same time, we consider it necessary to warn that we do not assign any program to the author, we do not draw up for him any preliminary rules, in accordance with which he should conceive and execute his works. We consider this method of criticism very offensive for a writer whose talent is recognized by everyone and who has already gained the love of the public and a certain share of significance in literature. Criticism, which consists in showing that oh must what the writer did and how well he did his job job title, It is still appropriate occasionally, in application to a novice author who shows some promise, but is walking a decidedly wrong path and therefore needs guidance and advice. But in general it is unpleasant, because it puts the critic in the position of a school pedant who is about to examine some boy. Regarding a writer like Ostrovsky, one cannot afford this scholastic criticism. Every reader can remark to us with complete thoroughness: “Why are you tormented by the idea that this and that is needed here, and that something is missing here? We do not at all want to recognize your right to give lessons to Ostrovsky; we are not at all interested in knowing how you think the play he composed should have been composed. We read and love Ostrovsky, and from criticism we want it to comprehend in front of us what we are often passionate about unconsciously, so that it brings into some system and explains to us our own impressions. And if, after this explanation, it turns out that our impressions are erroneous, that their results are harmful, or that we attribute to the author something that is not in him, then let criticism begin to destroy our delusions, but again on the basis of what it gives the author himself." Recognizing such demands as quite fair, we consider it best to apply criticism to Ostrovsky’s works real, consisting in reviewing what his works give us. There will be no demands here like why Ostrovsky doesn’t portray characters like Shakespeare, why doesn’t he develop comic action like Gogol, etc. All similar requirements, in our opinion, are as unnecessary, fruitless and unfounded as the demands, for example, that Ostrovsky be a comedian of passions and give us Moliere’s Tartuffes and Harpagons, or that he be like Aristophanes and give comedy political significance. Of course, we do not reject the fact that it would be better if Ostrovsky combined Aristophanes, Moliere and Shakespeare; but we know that this is not the case, that it is impossible, and yet we recognize Ostrovsky as a wonderful writer in our literature, finding that he himself, as he is, is very good and deserves our attention and study...
In the same way, real criticism does not allow the imposition of other people's thoughts on the author. The persons created by the author and their actions stand before her court; she must say what impression these faces make on her, and can blame the author only if the impression is incomplete, unclear, ambiguous. She will never allow herself, for example, the following conclusion: this person is distinguished by his attachment to ancient prejudices; but the author presented him as kind and intelligent, therefore the author wanted to present him as good light old prejudices. No, for real criticism here, first of all, the fact is presented: the author brings out a kind and intelligent person, infected with ancient prejudices. Criticism then examines whether such a person is possible and real; Having found that it is true to reality, it moves on to its own considerations about the reasons that gave rise to it, etc. If these reasons are indicated in the work of the author being analyzed, criticism uses them too and thanks the author; if not, he doesn’t pester him with a knife to his throat, how, they say, did he dare to bring out such a face without explaining the reasons for its existence? Real criticism treats the artist’s work in exactly the same way as the phenomena of real life: she studies them, trying to determine their own norm, to collect their essential, character traits, but not at all fussing about why oats are not rye, and coal is not diamond... There were, perhaps, such scientists who were engaged in experiments that were supposed to prove the transformation of oats into rye; There were also critics who were engaged in proving that if Ostrovsky had changed such and such a scene in such and such a way, then Gogol would have come out, and if such and such a face had been decorated like this, he would have turned into Shakespeare... But one must assume that such scientists and critics have done little good to science and art. Much more useful were those who brought into the general consciousness several previously hidden or not entirely clear facts from life or from the world of art as a reproduction of life. If nothing similar has been done in relation to Ostrovsky so far, then we can only regret this strange circumstance and try to correct it to the best of our strength and skill.
But in order to put an end to Ostrovsky’s previous critics, we will now collect those comments in which almost all of them agreed and which may deserve attention.
Firstly, everyone recognized Ostrovsky’s gift of observation and ability to present a true picture of the life of those classes from which he took the subjects of his works.
Secondly, everyone noticed (although not everyone gave her due justice) accuracy and loyalty vernacular in Ostrovsky's comedies.
Thirdly, according to the agreement of all critics, almost all the characters in Ostrovsky’s plays are completely ordinary and do not stand out as anything special, do not rise above the vulgar environment in which they are staged. This is blamed by many on the author on the grounds that such persons, they say, must necessarily be colorless. But others rightly find very bright typical features in these everyday faces.
Fourthly, everyone agrees that most of Ostrovsky’s comedies “lack (in the words of one of his enthusiastic praisers) economy in the plan and construction of the play” and that as a result (in the words of another of his admirers) “the dramatic action does not develop in them consistently and continuously, the intrigue of the play does not organically merge with the idea of the play and appears to be somewhat extraneous to it” (21).
Fifthly, no one likes too cool, random, denouement of Ostrovsky's comedies. As one critic puts it, at the end of the play “it’s as if a tornado sweeps through the room and at once turns over all the heads of the characters” (22).
This, it seems, is everything that all criticism has hitherto agreed upon when talking about Ostrovsky... We could build our entire article on the development of these generally recognized provisions and, perhaps, we would choose the good part. Readers, of course, would be a little bored; but we would have gotten off extremely easily and would have deserved sympathy aesthetic critics and even - why know? - would, perhaps, acquire the title of a subtle connoisseur of artistic beauties and the same shortcomings. But, unfortunately, we do not feel a calling within ourselves cultivate the aesthetic taste of the public, and therefore it is extremely boring for us to take up the school pointer in order to talk at length and thoughtfully about the subtlest shades of artistry. By providing this Messrs. Almazov, Akhsharumov (23) and the like, we will present here only those results that the study of Ostrovsky’s works gives us regarding the reality he depicts. But first let us make a few remarks about the relationship of artistic talent to the abstract ideas of the writer.
In works talented artist, no matter how diverse they are, you can always notice something in common that characterizes all of them and distinguishes them from the works of other writers. In the technical language of art it is customary to call this worldview artist. But in vain would we bother to bring this worldview into definite logical constructions, to express it in abstract formulas. These abstractions usually do not exist in the artist’s consciousness itself; often, even in abstract reasoning, he expresses concepts that are strikingly opposite to what is expressed in his artistic activity, - concepts accepted by him on faith or obtained by him through false, hastily, purely externally composed syllogisms. His own view of the world, which serves as the key to characterizing his talent, must be sought in the living images he creates. This is where the significant difference lies between the talent of an artist and a thinker. In essence, the thinking force and creativity both are equally inherent and equally necessary - both for the philosopher and the poet. The greatness of the philosophizing mind and the greatness of the poetic genius equally consist in the fact that, when looking at an object, you can immediately distinguish its essential features from the accidental ones, then correctly organize them in your consciousness and be able to master them so as to be able to freely call them up for all possible combinations . But the difference between a thinker and an artist is that the latter’s sensibility is much more lively and stronger. Both of them draw their view of the world from the facts that have managed to reach their consciousness. But a person with a more lively sensibility, an “artistic nature,” is greatly amazed by the very first fact of a certain kind that presented itself to him in the surrounding reality. He does not yet have theoretical considerations that could explain this fact; but he sees that there is something special here that deserves attention, and with greedy curiosity he peers into the fact itself, assimilates it, carries it in his soul, first as a single idea, then adds to it other, homogeneous facts and images and, finally, he creates a type that expresses in itself all the essential features of all particular phenomena of this kind, previously noticed by the artist. The thinker, on the contrary, is not so quickly and not so strongly affected. The first fact of a new kind does not make a living impression on him; He for the most part barely notices this fact and passes by it as if it were a strange accident, without even bothering to assimilate it to himself. (We are not talking, of course, about personal relationships: fall in love, get angry, become sad - any philosopher can just as quickly, at the first appearance fact, like a poet.) Only later, when many homogeneous facts have accumulated in consciousness, will a person with weak receptivity finally turn his attention to them. But here the abundance of particular ideas, previously collected and quietly resting in his consciousness, gives him the opportunity to immediately form a general concept from them and, thus, immediately transfer a new fact from living reality to the abstract sphere of reason. And here the proper place for the new concept is sought among other ideas, its meaning is explained, conclusions are drawn from it, etc. At the same time, the thinker - or, more simply, the reasoning person - uses both actual facts and those images that are reproduced from life through the art of an artist. Sometimes even these very images lead a reasoning person to formulate correct concepts about some of the phenomena of real life. Thus, it becomes completely clear the importance of artistic activity among other activities public life: the images created by the artist, collecting in themselves, as if in focus, the facts of real life, greatly contribute to the compilation and dissemination among people of correct concepts about things.
From this it is clear that the main advantage of a writer-artist is truth his images; otherwise some of them will false conclusions, by their grace, false concepts will be formed. But how to understand the truth artistic images? As a matter of fact, absolute untruth writers never invent: about the most absurd novels and melodramas one cannot say that those presented in them passions and the vulgarities were absolutely false, that is, impossible even as an ugly accident. But not true Such novels and melodramas consist precisely in the fact that they take random, false features of real life, which do not constitute its essence, its characteristic features. They also seem to be lies in the sense that if you use them to formulate theoretical concepts, you can arrive at completely false ideas. There are, for example, authors who devoted their talent to glorifying voluptuous scenes and depraved adventures; They portray voluptuousness in such a way that if you believe them, then in it alone lies the true bliss of man. The conclusion, of course, is absurd, although, of course, there really are people who, according to the degree of their development, are not able to understand any other bliss than this... There were other writers, even more absurd, who extolled the valor of warlike feudal lords who shed rivers of blood, burning cities and robbing their vassals. There was no outright lie in the description of the exploits of these robbers; but they are presented in such a light, with such praise, which clearly indicate that in the soul of the author who sang them there was no sense of human truth. Thus, any one-sidedness and exclusivity already interferes with the artist’s full observance of the truth. Consequently, the artist must either preserve his simple, childishly direct view of the whole world completely intact, or (since this is completely impossible in life) save himself from one-sidedness by possibly expanding his view, through the assimilation of those general concepts that have been developed by reasoning people. This may express the connection between knowledge and art. Free transformation of the highest speculations into living images and, at the same time, full consciousness of the highest, general meaning in every most particular and random fact of life - this is an ideal that represents a complete fusion of science and poetry and has not yet been achieved by anyone. But an artist, guided by correct principles in his general concepts, still has the advantage over an undeveloped or falsely developed writer that he can more freely indulge in the suggestions of his artistic nature. His immediate feeling always correctly points him to objects; but when general concepts are false, then struggle, doubt, and indecision inevitably begin in him, and if his work does not therefore become completely false, it still comes out weak, colorless and discordant. On the contrary, when the artist’s general concepts are correct and are in complete harmony with his nature, then this harmony and unity are reflected in the work. Then reality is reflected in the work more clearly and vividly, and it can more easily lead a reasoning person to the correct conclusions and, therefore, have more meaning for life.
If we apply everything that has been said to the works of Ostrovsky and remember what was said above about his critics, then we will have to admit that his literary activity She was not completely alien to those fluctuations that occur as a result of a disagreement between the inner artistic feeling and abstract, externally acquired concepts. These fluctuations explain the fact that criticism could draw completely opposite conclusions about the meaning of the facts presented in Ostrovsky's comedies. Of course, his accusations that he preaches the renunciation of free will, idiotic humility, obedience, etc., should be attributed most of all to the stupidity of the critics; but still, it means that the author himself did not sufficiently protect himself from such accusations. And indeed, in the comedies “Don’t Get in Your Own Sleigh,” “Poverty is Not a Vice,” and “Don’t Live the Way You Want,” there are essentially bad sides of our ancient life are surrounded in action by such accidents that seem to force one not to consider them bad. Being used as the basis for the named plays, these accidents prove that the author attached more importance to them than they actually have, and this incorrectness of view damaged the integrity and brightness of the works themselves. But the power of direct artistic feeling could not abandon the author here either - and therefore particular provisions and individual characters, taken by him, are constantly distinguished by genuine truth. Rarely, rarely, passion for an idea led Ostrovsky to the point of exaggeration in the presentation of characters or individual dramatic situations, as, for example, in that scene in “Don’t Get in Your Own Sleigh,” where Borodkin announces his desire to marry Rusakov’s disgraced daughter. Throughout the play, Borodkin is presented as noble and kind in the old way; His last act is not at all in the spirit of the category of people whom Borodkin serves as a representative. But the author wanted to attribute all sorts of good qualities to this person, and among them he even ascribed one that the real Borodkins would probably have renounced with horror. But Ostrovsky has very few such stretches: a sense of artistic truth constantly saved him. Much more often he seemed to retreat from his idea, precisely because he wanted to stay true to reality. People who wanted to see in Ostrovsky a supporter of their party often reproached him for not expressing clearly enough the idea that they wanted to see in his work. For example, wanting to see in “Poverty is not a vice” the apotheosis of humility and obedience to elders, some critics reproached Ostrovsky for the fact that the denouement of the play is an unnecessary consequence of the moral virtues of the humble Mitya. But the author knew how to understand the practical absurdity and artistic falsity of such a denouement and therefore used the accidental intervention of Lyubim Tortsov for it. So, exactly for the face of Pyotr Ilyich in “Don’t Live As You Want,” the author was reproached for not giving this face that breadth of nature, that powerful scope, which, they say, is characteristic of a Russian person, especially in revelry (24). But the author’s artistic flair made him understand that his Peter, who comes to his senses from the ringing of bells, is not a representative of the broad Russian nature, a rambunctious head, but a rather petty tavern reveler. Some rather funny accusations were also heard regarding “Profitable Place”. They said why Ostrovsky brought out such a bad gentleman as Zhadov as a representative of honest aspirations; They were even angry that Ostrovsky’s bribe takers were so vulgar and naive, and expressed the opinion that “it would be much better to put on public trial those people who deliberately and deftly create, develop, support bribery, servility and with all your energy They resist with everything they can the introduction of fresh elements into the state and social organism.” At the same time, adds the demanding critic, “we would be the most tense, passionate spectators of the sometimes stormy, sometimes deftly sustained clash of two parties” (“Athenaeus”, 1858, No. 10) (25). Such a desire, valid in abstraction, proves, however, that the critic was completely unable to understand the dark kingdom that is depicted by Ostrovsky and itself prevents any bewilderment about why such and such faces are vulgar, such and such situations are accidental, such and such collisions weak. We do not want to impose our opinions on anyone; but it seems to us that Ostrovsky would have sinned against the truth, would have riveted phenomena completely alien to it into Russian life, if he had decided to present our bribe-takers as a properly organized, conscious party. Where did you find similar parties here? What traces of conscious, deliberate actions did you discover? Believe me, if Ostrovsky began to invent such people and such actions, then no matter how dramatic the plot was, no matter how clearly all the characters of the play were exposed, the work as a whole would still remain dead and false. And then in this comedy there is already a false tone in Zhadov’s face; but the author himself felt it, even before all the critics. From halfway through the play, he begins to lower his hero from the pedestal on which he appears in the first scenes, and in the last act he shows him decisively incapable of the struggle that he took upon himself. Not only do we not blame Ostrovsky for this, but, on the contrary, we see proof of the strength of his talent. He, without a doubt, sympathized with the wonderful things that Zhadov says; but at the same time he knew how to feel what to force Zhadov do all these beautiful things would mean distorting the real Russian reality. Here the demand for artistic truth stopped Ostrovsky from being carried away by external trends and helped him deviate from the path of Messrs. Sollogub and Lvov (26). The example of these mediocre phrase-mongers shows that making a mechanical doll and calling it an honest official not difficult at all; but it is difficult to breathe life into her and make her speak and act like a human being. Having taken up the image of an honest official, Ostrovsky did not overcome this difficulty everywhere; but still, in his comedy, human nature is reflected many times due to Zhadov’s loud phrases. And in this ability to notice nature, to penetrate into the depths of a person’s soul, to capture his feelings, regardless of the depiction of his external, official relationships - in this we recognize one of the main and best properties of Ostrovsky’s talent. And therefore we are always ready to exonerate him from the reproach that in his portrayal of character he did not remain faithful to the basic motive that thoughtful critics would like to find in him.
In the same way, we justify Ostrovsky in the randomness and apparent unreasonableness of the endings in his comedies. Where can we get rationality when it is not in the life itself depicted by the author? Without a doubt, Ostrovsky would have been able to imagine some more valid reasons for keeping a person from drunkenness than the ringing of bells; but what to do if Pyotr Ilyich was such that he could not understand reasons? You can’t put your mind into a person, you can’t change people’s superstition. To give it a meaning that it does not have would mean to distort it and lie to the very life in which it manifests itself. It’s the same in other cases: to create unyielding dramatic characters, evenly and deliberately striving for one goal, to invent a strictly conceived and subtly executed intrigue would mean imposing on Russian life something that is not in it at all. To be honest, none of us have met in our lives dark intriguers, systematic villains, or conscious Jesuits. If a person is mean to us, it is more due to weakness of character; if he makes up fraudulent speculations, it is more because those around him are very stupid and gullible; if he oppresses others, it’s more because it doesn’t cost any effort, everyone is so pliable and submissive. Our intriguers, diplomats and villains constantly remind me of one chess player who told me: “It is nonsense that you can calculate your game in advance; players are just in vain. boast about it; but in fact, it is impossible to calculate more than three moves forward.” And this player still beat many: others, therefore, did not even plan three moves, but just looked at what was under their noses. This is our whole Russian life: whoever sees three steps ahead is already considered a sage and can deceive and entangle thousands of people. And here they want the artist to present to us some Tartuffes, Richards, Shylocks in Russian skin! In our opinion, such a demand is completely unsuitable for us and strongly echoes scholasticism. According to scholastic requirements, a work of art should not allow for chance; everything in it must be strictly thought out, everything must develop sequentially from one given point, with logical necessity and at the same time natural! But if naturalness requires absence logical sequence? According to scholastics, there is no need to take such plots in which chance cannot be brought under the requirements of logical necessity. In our opinion, all sorts of plots are suitable for a work of art, no matter how random they may be, and in such plots it is necessary to sacrifice even abstract logic for naturalness, in full confidence that life, like nature, has its own logic and that this logic, perhaps it will turn out to be much better than the one we often impose on it... This question, however, is still too new in the theory of art, and we do not want to present our opinion as an immutable rule. We only take this opportunity to express it regarding the works of Ostrovsky, in whom everywhere in the foreground we see fidelity to the facts of reality and even some contempt for the logical isolation of the work - and whose comedies, despite the fact, have both entertaining and internal meaning.
Having made these cursory remarks, we must make the following reservation before moving on to the main subject of our article. Recognizing the main advantage of a work of art is its vital truth, we thereby indicate the standard by which it is determined for us degree of dignity and the meaning of each literary phenomenon. Judging by how deeply the writer’s gaze penetrates into the very essence of phenomena, how widely he captures in his images different sides life, one can also decide how great his talent is. Without this, all interpretations will be in vain. For example, Mr. Fet has talent, and Mr. Tyutchev has talent: how to determine their relative importance? Without a doubt, no other way than by considering the sphere accessible to each of them. Then it will turn out that the talent of one is capable of manifesting itself in full force only in capturing fleeting impressions from quiet phenomena of nature, while the other has access, in addition, to sultry passion, and severe energy, and deep thought, excited not only by spontaneous phenomena, but also moral issues, interests of public life. In showing all this, the assessment of the talent of both poets should, in fact, consist. Then readers, even without any aesthetic (usually very vague) considerations, would understand what place in literature belongs to both poets. We propose to do the same with Ostrovsky’s works. The entire previous presentation has led us so far to the recognition that fidelity to reality, the truth of life, is constantly observed in Ostrovsky’s works and stands in the foreground, ahead of all tasks and second thoughts. But this is still not enough: after all, Mr. Fet very correctly expresses the vague impressions of nature, and, however, it does not at all follow from this that his poems are of great importance in Russian literature. In order to say anything definite about Ostrovsky’s talent, it is impossible, therefore, to limit ourselves to general conclusion that he accurately depicts reality; it is still necessary to show how vast the sphere subject to his observations is, to what extent those aspects of the facts that occupy him are important, and how deeply he penetrates into them. For this, a real consideration of what is in his works is necessary.
The general considerations which should guide us in this consideration are the following:
Ostrovsky knows how to look into the depths of a person’s soul, knows how to distinguish in kind from all externally accepted deformities and growths; That’s why external oppression, the weight of the whole situation that oppresses a person, is felt in his works much more strongly than in many stories, terribly outrageous in content, but with the external, official side of the matter completely overshadowing the internal, human side.
Ostrovsky's comedy does not penetrate the upper strata of our society, but is limited only to the middle ones, and therefore cannot provide the key to explaining many of the bitter phenomena depicted in it. But nevertheless, it can easily lead to many analogous considerations that also apply to everyday life, which it does not directly concern; this is because Ostrovsky’s types of comedies often contain not only exclusively merchant or bureaucratic, but also national features.
Social activity is little touched upon in Ostrovsky’s comedies, and this, no doubt, is because our civil life itself, replete with formalities of all kinds, presents almost no examples of real activity in which one could freely and widely express oneself. Human. But Ostrovsky extremely fully and vividly displays two types of relationships to which a person can still attach his soul in our country - relationships family and relationships by property. It is no wonder, therefore, that the plots and the very names of his plays revolve around family, the groom, the bride, wealth and poverty.
Dramatic collisions and disasters in Ostrovsky's plays all occur as a result of a clash between two parties - seniors And younger, rich And poor, self-willed And unrequited. It is clear that the outcome of such clashes, by the very essence of the matter, should have a rather abrupt character and feel random.
With these preliminary considerations, let us now enter this world revealed to us by the works of Ostrovsky, and we will try to take a closer look at the inhabitants who inhabit it. dark kingdom. You will soon see that it was not for nothing that we named it dark.
