p A new life is beginning around the antediluvian monsters of the realm of darkness, around the Bolshovs, Bruskovs, Tortsovs, Kabanovs, Dikois and their like.^^198^^ And only because it is beginning, only because the foundations of obduracy are tottering, was the appearance in our literature of such a character as Katerina Kabanova possible. Dobrolyubov was, one might say, in love with this woman.

p “The fact is,” he is almost justifying himself, "that the character of Katerina, as it is portrayed in The Storm, is a step forward not only in Ostrovsky’s dramatic activity, but also in our literature as a whole.... Our best writers hovered round it, but they could only understand the need for it and could not comprehend and feel its essence: Ostrovsky was able to do that."  [625•** 

p Katerina attracts Dobrolyubov primarily because in her actions she is guided not by abstract principles, but by her “nature”, the whole of her being. Hers is an integrated character. Its strength and necessity lies in its integrity. The old, savage relations continue only because of an external, mechanical link. In order to destroy them one needs not so much logic—you will not get at obduracy with logic—as the spontaneous strength of the “nature” that makes itself felt in each of Katerina’s actions. In her talk with Varvara (in the first scene of the second act) Katerina says: "If I don’t want to live here, I won’t, whatever you do to me.” This firm declaration sends our critic into raptures. He exclaims:

p “Here is true strength of character, on which one can at least rely! Here are the heights which our popular life is reaching in its development, but which only a very few have managed to attain in our literature, and no one has managed to stay there as well as Ostrovsky."

p A man is governed not by abstract views and beliefs, but by the facts of life.  [625•***  Therefore what is needed most of all for struggle in general and for the struggle against obduracy in particular, is 626 spontaneous natural integrity, inexorable strength of character. The heroes of other works of Russian literature have rarely been notable for this quality, as we know. Dobrolyubov found that they were all very akin to Oblomov. In his opinion, even Pechorin, who possessed remarkable energy, was not lacking in oblomovism.^^199^^ Such is the corrupting influence of a privileged position. All of us, who regard ourselves as educated and were brought up at the expense of the people, have been subject to some degree or other to moral corruption and the gradual destruction of spiritual forces. This is what makes us all similar to Oblomov. Those who come from the people lack this great defect. They could not be infected with oblomovism because oblomovism assumes the exploitation of someone else’s labour, whereas the people lives off its own labour as well as bearing the Lord Oblomovs on its broad back. That is why those who come from the people are more integrated than us who come from the privileged estates; that is why they act where we only reason.  And that is their great advantage. In the article "Features for a Characterisation of the Russian People”, written in connection with Marko Vovchok’s stories, Dobrolyubov compares peasants with educated people and says: "We philosophise usually to pass the time, sometimes for the digestion, and for the most part on subjects which are of no concern to us and which we are entirely unable to change, and have no intention of doing so. The peasant has no time for such intellectual luxuries; he is a working man, he reflects on things that can bear a relation to his life, and reflects precisely in order to find in his soul a basis for practical action."  [626•*  Prior to Dobrolyubov, Chernyshevsky wrote in the same vein. To describe his view of the educated people of his day it is enough to refer to the article "A Russian at the Rendezvous”. This highly unflattering view of the educated man of that day shows not only the impatience of a progressive preacher who is irritated by the insufficient responsiveness of his audience, and not only democratic sympathy for the people. It reveals the conviction of the materialists that it is not consciousness that determines being, but being that determines consciousness. It is not without reason that Dobrolyubov says that when the peasant begins to reflect he thinks about things that can bear a relation to his life, whereas “we” philosophise about subjects which are of no concern to us and which we have neither the desire nor the ability to change. The progressive enlighteners of the sixties, while portraying the struggle o! our social forces as a fight of obduracy against education, nevertheless understood that education is not always irreconcilable with obduracy and that in certain circumstances it can, on the contrary, be of service to obduracy. They realised that what was needed for 627 victory over obduracy was a force which would be compelled to struggle against it not because of abstract considerations but because of its very position.  And they sought sucli a force in the "common people".  [627•*  Katerina Kabanova delighted Dobrolyubov precisely because she seemed to him to be very close to the "common people" in her way of thinking and her character. He saw in her a guarantee that our people would have the ability and desire to fight against obduracy. This is why the appearance of the play The Storm marked an epoch, as he put it, in the history of our literature.

p At the end of the article "A Ray of Light in the Realm of Darkness" Dobrolyubov himself says that the aesthetic merits of the play in question have by no means been exhausted by him in his review. He foresees that literary judges will again be displeased with him and will again say that he has turned art into the instrument of a foreign idea. To this reproach, which is not new to him, he replies with the question: is the idea to which he has referred really foreign to The Storm or does it in fact proceed from the play itself? He also formulates this question in the following way:

p “Is not the living Russian nature expressed in Katerina, is there not a Russian atmosphere in all that surrounds her, has not the need for the emerging movement of Russian life made itself felt in the meaning of the play as we understand it?"  [627•** 

p This question is printed in italics in Dobrolyubov’s article. And this is not surprising: it was of prime importance to him. Dobrolyubov himself declared that he would consider his work wasted if the readers replied to his question in the negative. It would be a different matter if their answer was in the affirmative.

“If it is ’yes’, if our readers, on considering our remarks, find that Russian life and Russian strength are summoned by the author in The Storm to decisive action, and if they feel the legitimacy and importance of this action, then we shall be content, whatever our scholars and literary judges may say."  [627•***