609

p Dobrolyubov wrote three articles on Ostrovsky. The first two have a common title—"The Realm of Darkness"—and appeared in the seventh and ninth issues of the Sovremennik for 1859, the third is entitled: "A Ray of Light in the Realm of Darkness" and was published the following year in the tenth issue of the same journal. Already right at the beginning of the first of these three articles Dobrolyubov expressed his surprise at the fate which befell 610 Ostrovsky as a writer. The most contrary, mutually exclusive, accusations were levelled at him; the most contrary, mutually incompatible demands were made of him. Sometimes critics represented him as an obscurantist and rabid patriot, sometimes as the direct successor of Gogol in his best period, as a writer with a new world outlook or as a person with no understanding of the reality which he copied. "Up to now,” our critic says, "no one has given a full description of Ostrovsky, or even indicated the features which constitute the essence of his work.” The two articles on the "realm of darkness" are devoted to indicating these features.

p Dobrolyubov begins by asking what the reason was for the strange fate which befell Ostrovsky. "Perhaps Ostrovsky really does change direction so often that his style has not been moulded yet. Or perhaps, quite the reverse, right at the very beginning, as the critics of the Moskvityanin^^191^. assure us, he reached heights which are beyond the understanding of modern critics?" In Dobrolyubov’s opinion neither of these explanations is right. The reason for the “confusion” of opinion on Ostrovsky is precisely that people wanted to make him the representative of this or that system of views. Each critic recognised his outstanding talent. But, in doing so, each critic wanted to see him as the champion of the system of views to which he himself adhered. The Slavophils considered him one of them, the Westerners^^192^^ regarded him as belonging to their camp. Since he was in fact neither a Slavophil nor a Westerner, at least in his works, no one could be pleased with him in either camp. The Slavophil Russkaya Beseda^^193^^ complained that "at times he lacks decisiveness and boldness in carrying out his design”, that he "seems to be hindered by a false shame and meek habits inculcated in him by the Naturalist trend”; on the contrary, the Westerner Athenaeum^^194^ regretted the fact that in his dramatic works Ostrovsky subjected man’s feeling and free will to "what our Slavophils call popular" principles. The critics did not want to examine Ostrovsky purely and simply as a writer who portrayed the life of a certain section of Russian society. They regarded him as a preacher of morals that were in keeping with the ideas of this or that party. Hence the confusion in their opinions. The strange fate that befell Ostrovsky is, therefore, explained by the fact that he became a victim of the polemic between two opposing camps.

p For his part Dobrolyubov wishes to regard Ostrovsky purely and simply, irrespective of any party views, lie calls his viewpoint the viewpoint of real criticism, which is characterised as follows.

p Firstly, it does not prescribe, but studios. It docs not demand that an author write in a certain way and no other; it merely examines that and only that which he writes.

611

p “Of course,” Dobrolyubov makes the reservation, "we do not deny that it would have been better if Ostrovsky had combined in himself Aristophanes, Moliere and Shakespeare; but we know that he does not, that this is impossible, and nevertheless^.we recognise Ostrovsky as a splendid writer in our literature, and consider him to be very good in himself, just as he is, and worthy of our attention and study...."  [611•* 

p Secondly, real criticism does not ascribe its own ideas to an author. This means the following. Let us assume that in a certain work the author portrays a character who is extremely attached to old prejudices. At the same time this character is portrayed as being kind and good. Certain critics immediately conclude from this that the author wishes to defend the old days. Dobrolyubov attacks such conclusions most strongly.

“For real criticism,” he says, "the following fact is of prime importance here: the author is portraying a kind and sensible man infected by old prejudices. Then it examines whether such a character is really possible; having found that this character is true to reality, it proceeds to its own reflections on the causes which produced it, etc. If these causes are set out in the work of the author in question, real criticism makes use of them and thanks the author; if not, it does not pester him by demanding how he dare portray such a character without explaining the reasons for its existence. Real criticism adopts the same attitude to the writer’s work as to the phenomena of real life: it studies them, trying to determine their own standard and to ascertain their essential, characteristic features, without worrying about why this is oats and not rye, or coal and not diamonds."  [611•**