Ostrovsky, "Dowry": analysis and characteristics of the heroes. Life principles of the characters in play A

Studying the work of A.N. Ostrovsky, the first writer in the course of studying Russian literature in the 10th grade, poses a number of acute and important problems related to literary education for the teacher. Each teacher gets acquainted with the work of this writer in his own way.

I propose to study the topic “Creativity of A.N. Ostrovsky” using the example of several of his works with detailed analysis two plays: “The Thunderstorm” and “Dowry”. In the series of lessons on studying this topic, I propose to include the topic: “The richness and diversity of the world depicted by the playwright. Issues of morality, the fight against evil, etc.” For this lesson, students are asked to read ( at their choice) one of the plays: “We Will Be Numbered”, “Forest”, “Profitable Place”, “Wolves and Sheep”, etc. Next in the lesson, students are asked to analyze what they have read with the help of the teacher. Thus, students begin to form a more general idea of the nature of A.N. Ostrovsky’s plays, the uniqueness of the conflict of these plays, their themes and features of dramaturgy. I consider such a study appropriate, because students will be able to receive not only more general idea about the work of this writer, but also try to draw parallels with our modern life.

This methodological development offers a series of lessons on the study of A.N. Ostrovsky’s drama “Dowry”.

I suggest setting aside 8 hours to study this topic.

1st lesson. Creative history plays “Dowry”.

2nd lesson. Life and customs of the Russian province. Images of Knurov, Vozhevatov, Paratov. Two hours are allotted for this topic, because... The issues raised in this lesson are closely related to each other and it is inappropriate to divide this topic into two separate lessons.

3rd lesson. The tragedy of the “little man”. Image of Karandyshev.

I suggest spending one hour studying this problem, because... We will return to this problem later, talking about the image of Larisa Ogudalova.

4th lesson. Tragic fate Larisa in the world of purity. “I am a thing, not a person...” I suggest setting aside two hours to study one of the main problems of the play..

Lesson 5 The play “Dowry” on stage and in cinema.

This two-hour lesson provides students with material about the stage history of the play, as well as a number of creative activities.

MATERIALS FOR LESSON 1

Lesson topic: Creative history of the play “Dowry”.

The purpose of the lesson: to familiarize students with the historical situation, with the social life of the 70s of the 19th century, which influenced and created the basis for writing a new play, with new types of characters, to show what significance this play had for the author himself.

Objective of the lesson: based on a conversation with students who were given an assignment for the lesson, compose “ quotation description” images of Knurov, Vozhevatov and Paratov, analyze these images of the “masters of life”.

Teacher's story. Students take notes on the teacher's story.

With the rapid and rapid development of capitalist relations, in the 70s. Great changes are taking place in the merchant world. It becomes more and more complicated and breaks ties with the old folk morality, with Domostroevsky traditions. Merchants from small traders become millionaires, establish international connections, and receive a European education. Patriarchal simplicity of morals is becoming a thing of the past. Folk song is being replaced by romance. 70s The 19th century is an atmosphere of money rush, a wolfish struggle for a place in the sun, a time of selfishness and cynicism. (F.M. Dostoevsky “Teenager”, “Crime and Punishment”, etc.).

The world of patriarchal merchants, with whom Ostrovsky says goodbye, is replaced in his later work by the kingdom of predatory, tenacious and smart businessmen. Appeal to new social phenomena leads to great changes in the artistic essence of Ostrovsky's later dramas. This evolution of the writer’s dramatic talent is especially clearly noticeable in his drama “Dowry”.

According to the author's note on the draft of "Dowry", the drama was conceived on November 4, 1874. The original plot of the play was different. In the diary of I.A. Shlyapkin there is a record of the story of M.I. Pisarev, who conveyed the following outline of the plan from the words of the playwright: “On the Volga there is an old woman with three daughters. Two are rollicking - both to ride horses and to hunt. Their mother loves them very much and gives them a dowry. The youngest is quiet, thoughtful, and without a dowry. Two people are in love. One is a villager, a homebody; have fun, have so much fun, everything works out for him. Reads “The Apostle”, goes hunting. The other one grabbed the tops, but was empty. Lives in St. Petersburg, in the village in the summer, phraser. The girl fell in love with him, drama.”

After this story, students are asked to draw parallels between Ostrovsky’s plan and how he brought it to life - i.e. with the plot of the play itself.

Teacher's question. Which of the characters in the play do we recognize in this brief retelling the idea of the play?

Anticipated student response. In this condensed retelling, the contours of the characters of the future heroes of “Dowry” - “fraser” Paratov, thoughtful Larisa, etc. - are barely visible.

Teacher's word. Among the old-timers of the city of Kineshma, a legend persisted that the plot of “Dowry” was inspired by Ostrovsky’s criminal case, which was heard in the Kineshma court. The murder of his young wife by a husband out of jealousy was notable for the fact that behind the scenes of this tragic and scandalous incident stood the Volga “millionaire” Ivan Aleksandrovich Konovalov. This possible prototype of Knurov, outwardly a very representative and respectable businessman of the new century, secretly contained a whole harem. However, one can only guess to what extent this whole story influenced the formation of Ostrovsky’s plan.

The playwright had obviously been busy working on “The Dowry” since September 1875, but it entered the decisive stage in September-October 1876. “All my attention and all my strength,” wrote Ostrovsky from Shchelykov, “are directed towards the next big play, which was conceived more than a year ago and on which I worked continuously. I'm thinking of finishing it this year and I'll try to finish it as carefully as possible, because it will be fortieth my original work."

The play was completed on October 17, 1878. Ostrovsky wrote: “I have already read my play in Moscow five times, among the listeners there were people hostile to me, and everyone unanimously recognized “Dowry” as the best of all my works.” The hopes associated with this play, the awareness of the significance of his plan, were reflected in the inscription on the draft autograph: "OPUS 40" and in a line from a letter to the head of the repertoire of the imperial theaters Fedorov S.P., sent to St. Petersburg simultaneously with the manuscript: “With this play begins new variety my works."

The premiere at the Moscow Maly Theater took place on November 10, 1878. The first critical responses were associated with theatrical productions that preceded the publication of the play, and they were unfavorable for the author: “Is it really worth Mr. Ostrovsky to waste his energy and his time on the dramatic reproduction of a banal, old, uninteresting stories of a stupid, seduced girl? The one who expected a new word, new types from the venerable playwright was cruelly mistaken...” A new era in the stage history of “Dowry” began after Ostrovsky’s death, when on September 17, 1896, V. Komissarzhevskaya played the role of Larisa on the stage of the Alexandrinsky Theater. The same V. Komissarzhevskaya plays the role of Nina Zarechnaya in “The Seagull” by A.P. Chekhov, which personifies the opening of the second stage in the formation of the Russian national theater.

Explanation. It is possible to offer this material to one of the students in advance, so that later in the lesson he can do small message about the creative history of the play “Dowry””.

Materials for lesson 2 on the play “Dowry”

Life and customs of the Russian province.

Images of Knurov, Vozhevaty and Paratov.

In this lesson, the teacher moves with the students to a more detailed textual analysis of images.

Teacher's question. Try to determine the essence of the conflict in this play.

Suggested answer. The conflict “Dowry” is a variation on the theme “Thunderstorms”. A young girl from a poor family, pure and loving life, artistically gifted, faces the world of businessmen, where her beauty is valued in “gold”.

Question. Where does the play take place?

Student response with teacher explanation.

The action takes place in the city of Bryakhimov. This is a fictional city by Ostrovsky. The name is borrowed from the chronicle: in ancient times Bryakhimov existed in the upper reaches of the Volga, in the vicinity of the present city of Vasilsursk.

Question. Why does Ostrovsky choose the Volga and the cities on its banks as the setting for his plays?

There was already a conversation about this with the students when we talked about the initial period of the playwright’s work. (Volga is the cradle of Russian cities, a shipping route, the main trade route, etc.).

Teacher's word. The drama is based on a social theme: Larisa is poor, she has no dowry, and this determines her tragic fate. She lives in a world where everything is bought and sold, including maiden honor, love and beauty. Larisa is a romantic person. As the action progresses in the drama, the discrepancy between Larisa’s romantic ideas and the prosaic world of the people who surround her and worship her grows. These people are complex and contradictory in their own way. Let's try to figure out what they are using specific examples.

Additional material.

The surnames in this play very accurately and figuratively reflect the main quality of a particular character, which is the basis for the surname. ( Analyzing the images of the characters, simultaneously touching on the anthroponymy of the play, students should come to the conclusion that most of the names, patronymics and all surnames in “Dowry” carry a significant semantic load). Over four decades of tireless creative activity (1846 - 1886), A.N. Ostrovsky used a wide variety of means to name the heroes of his works. Ostrovsky was a keen connoisseur of the riches of the Russian language and had an excellent knowledge of folk dialects.

(Students may be interested to know that the playwright carried out painstaking work on compiling a dictionary of the Russian language. The dictionary was not completed, but “Materials for the Dictionary” was included in the XIII volume of the collected works of A.N. Ostrovsky. The fact that the naming of heroes is carried out in accordance with the main qualities of their character, appearance, and demeanor will help students penetrate deeper into the essence of the character’s image, comprehensively examine it and carefully understand the sometimes unpredictable behavior of the hero, which is often so aptly reflected in his surname, first name, patronymic).

It is advisable for students to write this information in notebooks under the dictation of the teacher.

Writing in notebooks.

The surnames in this play very accurately and figuratively reflect the main quality of a particular character, which is the basis for the surname. Most of the names, patronymics and all surnames in “Dowry” carry a significant semantic load.

Write on the board and in your notebook.

Mokiy Parmenych Knurov

Mokiy - from Greek. mocker, mocker

Parmenych - from Greek. Parmenius- firmly standing

Knurov - from knur- hog, wild boar, boar (V.I.Dal)

Question. What do we learn about this hero from the remark?

Suggested answer.

Big businessman, “ old man with a huge fortune."

Questions. Who is the first to speak about this character in the play? How is he interacting with other characters? What habits and character traits of Knurov are revealed during the action of the play? What is the attitude of the characters in the play towards Knurov?

Anticipated student responses.

With emphasized respect, the barman Gavrilo classifies him as one of the “pure public” of the city of Bryakhimov. In the conversation between the barman and the servant Ivan, some of Knurov’s habits and character traits are mentioned. Showing constant concern for his health, Knurov constantly “for exercise” “every morning the boulevard measures back and forth, exactly as promised.” “What kind of lunches does he have!” explains Gavrilo, “can you eat such a lunch without exercise?” In communicating with people, Knurov is strictly selective, keeps his distance, and does not waste words. “Who should he talk to? There are two or three people in the city, and he talks with them, but with no one else; Well, he’s silent... But he goes to Moscow, St. Petersburg, and abroad to talk, where he has more space.” Those around him are clearly aware of the power of Knurov’s influence. Vozhevatov bows “respectfully” when meeting him. Ogudalova greets Knurova with special respect, excited by the honor shown to her home: “How can I write down such happiness?.. I’m so glad, I’m really confused... I don’t know where to put you”; “We give you special happiness for your visit; It can’t be compared to anything.” If Vozhevatov is his own person for Knurov and he “gives his hand” when meeting him, then Knurov behaves completely differently with others. As noted in the remark: “Knurov, silently and without getting up from his seat, offers his hand to Ogudalova, slightly nods to Karandyshev and immerses himself in reading the newspaper,” with which he demonstratively fences himself off from unwanted interlocutors. Bound reluctantly by his promise to be at dinner with Larisa’s fiancé, Knurov was delighted at the arrival of Paratov, who belonged to the people of his circle: “I’m very glad, after all, there will be someone to say at least a word with at dinner.”

This student work is based on knowledge of the text and the ability to work in it. It is expected that students should try not to retell the text in their own words, but to find precise wording in the text to answer the questions posed. This work will help students develop skills in working with literary text.

Question. Find in the text the key phrase that Knurov pronounces and which is a characteristic of his inner world, the leitmotif of the image.

Suggested answer. Knurov is always, first of all, a businessman. He values money, a profitable business (“It’s good for him, Vasily Danilych, who has a lot of money”). Bearing in mind his fortune, which, according to his concepts, can buy everything (even the love of a beautiful woman), Knurov confidently declares: “For me, the impossible is not enough.”

Question. How does Knurov feel about Larisa Ogudalova? How does he assess what happens to Larisa in the future?

Suggested answer. Knurov highly appreciates the beauty of Larisa Ogudalova, who could significantly decorate his life and add pleasant variety to it (for a lot of money, of course). “It would be nice to go to Paris with such a young lady to an exhibition.” Vozhevatov’s story about the Ogudalov family, about Larisa’s love for Paratov, who deceived her, about the desperate situation of a beautiful homeless woman who decided to marry Karandyshev, strengthened Knurov in his desire to buy Larisa’s favor. He calls it “an expensive diamond,” but Knurov has prepared for himself the role of an artist-jeweler who will be able to process this diamond and turn it into a priceless piece of jewelry that has become his property.

Question. How does Knurov accomplish his intention?

Suggested answer. To fulfill his intention, Knurov immediately gets down to business. During a visit to the Ogudalovs, without any emotion or words, he hints to Kharita Ignatievna that he is ready to become the patron of her daughter (“I will not regret anything for Larisa Dmitrievna”). And then, in accordance with his own concepts, he calmly explains: “Perhaps you think that such proposals are not disinterested?.. Find people who will promise you tens of thousands for nothing, and then scold me.” Knurov puts his patronage into concrete forms: he promises Ogudalova to take on all the expenses for Larisa’s wedding dress (“It will be a shame to see her dressed haphazardly. So you order all this in the best store, but don’t count on it and don’t spend a penny! But the bills send it to me, I’ll pay”), gives money to Ogudalova for a gift.

Question. How does Knurov evaluate what is happening between Larisa and Paratov on the ship?

Suggested answer. Knurov perceives everything that subsequently happened to Larisa as events favorable to his plans. He understood what the trip across the Volga meant for Larisa, who had run away from her fiancé, and he understood that she again believed the words of Paratov, who treated her extremely cruelly. “It seems that the drama is beginning,” Knurov anticipates. Now that Larisa has compromised herself so much by committing such a reprehensible act in the eyes of society, and Paratov refuses her, Knurov acts decisively, accurately calculating the situation. “It seems to me that she is now in such a position that we close people are not only allowed, but we are even obliged to take part in her fate,” he tells Vozhevatov. The smart interlocutor clarifies, revealing the meaning of these words: “So you want to say that now is an opportunity to take her with you to Paris?”

Obstacles of a moral nature have already been eliminated by the situation in which Larisa, offended and having lost all hope for happiness, found herself, but a rival remained in the person of Vozhevatov. As a businessman with a businessman, Knurov conducts a conversation with him: “You keep disturbing me, and I’m bothering you.” Maybe you are not afraid of competition? I'm not very afraid either; but still awkward, restless; it’s much better when the field is clear.” And business people play Larisa like a toss. The winner, Knurov, sternly warns Vozhevatov: “You are a merchant, you must understand what the word means.”

Teacher's word. Here everything that was planned at the very beginning, in the second scene of Act I, came full circle, logically completed. Read this phenomenon again, think about its meaning. This is a skillful dramatic miniature, this is a sketch, a diagram of the performance that then played out before the eyes of the audience. And the director of this performance was Moky Parmenych Knurov. The main points of the proposed scenario were Knurov’s remarks, which students themselves must indicate in the text:

“However, her position is unenviable”;

“It would be nice to go to Paris with such a young lady to an exhibition”;

“It’s a pity for poor Larisa Dmitrievna, it’s a pity...”;

“Can’t you see that this woman is made for luxury. An expensive diamond is expensive and requires a setting.”

Vozhevatov notes: “And a good jeweler...”

It is advisable to write down in a notebook key points - Knurov’s remarks and the conclusion that the teacher and students make in the lesson.

Larisa's fate is sealed. Knurov is this idol modern world- outlined a goal, and for him, we remember, nothing is impossible.

Such is life, such is the cruel reality. And its horrors become even more terrible because they touched a poetically sublime person, capable of deeply loving and even idealizing everyone around him.

Question. What kind of happiness does Knurov want to offer Larisa?

Suggested answer.

Knurov really wants to make Larisa happy in the sense in which he himself understands happiness. When the girl realized how basely and inhumanly Paratov had treated her, Knurov made her an offer to go with him to Paris, to become his kept woman for “full provision for life.” “Don’t be afraid of shame, there will be no condemnation... I can offer you such enormous content that the most evil critics of other people’s morality will have to shut up and open their mouths in surprise,” he reassures, an experienced person who knows well how they can defend in similar situation money. Perhaps Knurov is not lying when he says: “I would not for one minute think about offering you my hand, but I am married.” If Larisa accepts his offer, he is ready to become her “most devoted servant,” “the most accurate fulfiller of her desires and even whims, no matter how strange and expensive they may be.” But, in essence, Knurov offers Larisa the path of debauchery, from which Karandyshev’s shot saved her.

Another “idol” of modern society, but still young

Vasily Danilych Vozhevatov

Let's turn to anthroponymy, which helps us see the essence of the hero's character.

V.I. Dahl’s dictionary gives us the following concepts:

(write in notebook)

leader - leader, one who knows how to get along with people, courteous, polite, friendly, entertaining conversationalist.

Students’ attention should again be drawn to the remarks and notes made by the author.

Questions. What is Vozhevatov like in communicating with people? Compare him with Knurov. What is the difference between them? What is his life credo? (It is necessary that students themselves find in the text the quote that answers this question.)

Suggested answer.

“I, Mokiy Parmenych, have nothing treasured, I’ll find a profit, so I’ll sell everything, whatever.” From Knurov’s conversation with Vozhevatov, it turns out that Paratov is failing in the practical, business sphere, currently needs money and therefore is selling the ship “Swallow”. “He doesn’t find any benefit,” concludes Vozhevatov, and Knurov adds: “Where is he! This is not a lord’s business... He’s a spendthrift.”

Question. When is Paratov’s name mentioned again in the play?

Suggested answer.

The name of Paratov is mentioned again when it comes to Larisa Ogudalova, a dowry girl from a “decent” family, where Paratov was completely certain types. He ensured that Larisa fell in love with him passionately, and he himself “beat off the suitors, and left no trace, disappeared, no one knows where,” as Vozhevatov said.

Teacher's explanations. In the “chic”, external splendor of such characters, the playwright sees only a pose; there is no genuine emotional life in them, no clarity of feelings. The mask became second nature to them. At the same time, Paratov easily combines the ability to waste money and simple unsightly calculation. The ability to theatricalize, to make any act spectacular, to present even outright baseness as something unusually noble (a conversation with Kharita Ignatievna about marriage). For Paratov at the moment, the only important thing is to look as impressive as possible and keep the mask. He has nothing behind his spectacular pose. He is a mirage, a phantom created by Larisa’s imagination. Larisa sees in him the “ideal man”, before which all other men (and above all Karandyshev) pale. She admires Paratov’s ostentatious courage, his spectacular poses and actions. She enthusiastically tells Karandyshev how Paratov, without turning pale or flinching, shot from a considerable distance at the coin that Larisa was holding in her hand, thereby risking the health and even the life of the girl. “He has no heart, that’s why he’s so brave,” sums up Karandyshev, who strongly disliked Paratov. The girl in love sees almost heroism in this act.

His appearance brings chaos into an already more or less established life, sharply disrupts the fragile balance in Larisa’s soul between the desire to come to terms with her fate and the longing for a bright and beautiful life. For him and because of him, all the events in the play take place.

Everywhere Paratov appears in style, attracting attention with every step and gesture (he dashingly rode along the Volga in a “Swallow”, under the thunder of guns he comes ashore, as he approaches Larisa’s house - “four pacers in a row and gypsies on a box,” etc. .d.).

Question. Is Paratov sincere in expressing his feelings?

Suggested answer.

Not without charm, he constantly plays some role depending on the situation and environment. Either he is a wild merchant, or a socialite, an irresistible conqueror of women's hearts, a tempter and fatal lover, or a calculating egoist, or a broad-minded, cheerful reveler. Life for him - endless game, sometimes associated with some degree of risk. And he himself is a screenwriter, a director, and a main performer.

Question. What is the relationship between Paratov and Larisa?

Suggested answer.

Saying goodbye to his bachelor life (he is in a difficult financial situation and he has a rich bride - “very rich, I’m taking gold mines as a dowry”), Paratov is going to “have as much fun as possible.” last days" His mood improved significantly when he learned about Larisa's upcoming marriage. This news completely frees him from any remorse and finally frees his hands. From his monologue, some circumstances of his relationship with Larisa become clear. A year ago he became interested in a girl, he even had serious intentions towards her, which now, a year later, he regards as unforgivable stupidity. “After all, I almost married Larisa - I wish I could make people laugh! Yes, he would play the fool,” he shares with Knurov and Vozhevatov. In the scene of his meeting with Larisa, Paratov puts on the mask of a man disappointed in women and offended. He influences a gullible girl with eloquence. Larisa is confused by the reproaches that she never expected. She is put in a position where she needs to make excuses, prove her innocence. Paratov hears a declaration of love from her and again triumphs. Now you can apologize. The winner’s apology looks like a generous forgiveness, which Larisa, stunned by Paratov’s arrival and the nature of the meeting with him, does not notice. Without ceasing to play for a minute, Paratov increasingly subjugates Larisa to himself: “I can give you up, I must due to circumstances; but it would be difficult to give up your love.”

Conclusion. (Which it is advisable to write down in notebooks).

His speech and behavior are characterized by a kind of theatricality, the ability to take, depending on the interlocutor and the situation, exactly the tone that will present him in the most advantageous light: with Knurov, Vozhevatov and Larisa’s mother, he speaks cynically, directly communicating his intentions to sell himself profitably; c Karandyshev, in the presence of Larisa, he takes on a defiant tone, demonstrating superiority over his opponent, etc.

Question. How does Paratov quickly find a common language when communicating with different people?

Suggested answer.

Paratov quite easily finds a common language with people, and at the same time plays with words quite cleverly. Just in case, he has sayings, proverbs, and quotes. He flaunts the fact that he “hung around with barge haulers,” from whom he learned the spoken language. In a polemic with Karandyshev, Paratov calls himself a barge hauler: “I am a ship owner and will stand up for them; I’m a barge hauler myself.” However, he was not used to meeting resistance in people. It is no coincidence that Ogudalova anxiously warns Karandyshev: “Be careful with him, otherwise you won’t be happy with life.”

Question. How is Paratov’s selfishness expressed?

Suggested answer.

Flirting with Larisa, Paratov does not value her at all. He wants to humiliate the groom in her eyes, to cruelly teach Karandyshev a lesson for the fact that he “puffs up” in front of him, “like a man, he also decided to cock up.” “I have a rule: do not forgive anyone, otherwise they will forget the fear, they will begin to forget,” these are not empty sounds, but one of Paratov’s qualities. He entered into an argument with Karandyshev in order to once again emphasize in the presence of the Ogudalovs how insignificant, low, and ridiculous Larisa’s fiancé is in comparison with him, with the brilliant master. No brotherhood stops Paratov in his scenario of humiliation and insult of the official Karandyshev, who dared to consider himself equal to him. Larisa is persuaded to go on a picnic. This turned out to be possible because Paratov hid the fact that he was engaged from Larisa. With all his speeches and actions, he advertises his “feeling”, inspires her that he loves her. The word, which for Larisa has a direct meaning, for Paratov is a fleeting means necessary to achieve his goals. “Sergei Sergeich does not think about anything” (Vozhevatov); “And the promises must have been definite and serious” (Knurov). Knurov accurately noted: “But no matter how brave he is, he won’t exchange his million-dollar bride for Larisa.” "Still would! What a calculation!” agrees Vozhevatov.

IN final scenes Paratov's tone changes noticeably. As soon as everyone has gone ashore, he moves away from Larisa with words, speaks to her not about love, but only thanks her for the trip - “for the happiness that you brought us.” Sensitive Larisa immediately realized that these were just “phrases.” From a direct answer to the question: “Just tell me: am I your wife or not?” Paratov leaves and invites Larisa to go home. Other words and phrases are used - about “food” “for conversation”, about a groom who “will be glad - radehonek”. Finally, he is forced to admit: “Do you admit that a person, shackled hand and foot with unbreakable chains, can get so carried away that he forgets everything in the world..., forgets his chains too?.. The frenzy of passion soon passes, the chains remain and sanity...I'm engaged.”

Paratov deliberately presents this news at the end of the walk. “I saw you, and nothing else existed for me.” There is both truth and terrible lies in Paratov’s words.

Question. Paratov, talking with Robinson, tells him about his life principle. What is this principle?

Suggested answer. A few minutes earlier, Paratov gives Robinson practical advice, which is his life principle: “Apply to the circumstances... The time of enlightened patrons, the time of philanthropists has passed, now the triumph of the bourgeoisie... in the full sense, a golden age is coming.” In one row he has the steamship “Swallow” (it can be sold later), the actor Robinson (he was useful for fun), Larisa. In one row there is something that can be used, enjoyed, amused, and then exchanged for something more valuable and profitable.

Conclusion, which students need to write down in their notebooks:

Paratov loves only himself and his well-being, not paying attention to how he simultaneously, unnoticed by himself, cripples the destinies of people.

Paratov accepted the rules of the game, based on sober calculation and boundless egoism, and does not intend to lose under any circumstances, because Paratov’s own benefits and pleasures are most valuable.

The students are invited to draw this conclusion themselves, so that the teacher can see whether the children have tried to understand, whether they have penetrated into those thoughts in inner world the heroes discussed in this lesson.

The teacher should also invite the students themselves to draw a general conclusion on the topic of the lesson. In my opinion, this conclusion should carry the following thought: in the world , where everything is bought and sold, there is no place for pity. The motif of sympathy and indifference, pity and heartlessness runs through the entire play. Thanks to the leitmotifs, the “undercurrent”, which became an important feature of Chekhov’s dramatic system ( this is complemented by the teacher), in “Dowry” Larisa’s drama acquires a deep general meaning. This is not just the story of a deceived girl, but tragic collision pure bright man with a world dominated by inhumanity.

Writing in a notebook.

In the world , where everything is bought and sold, there is no place for pity. The motif of sympathy and indifference, pity and heartlessness runs through the entire play. This is not just the story of a deceived girl, but a tragic collision of a pure, bright person with a world dominated by inhumanity.

HOMEWORK.

Students are invited to make a “quoted description” of the image of Karandyshev, and also think and remember how the “little man” is portrayed in XVIII literature in the beginning. XIX century (Gogol “The Overcoat”, Pushkin “Belkin’s Tales”, etc.).

MATERIALS for LESSON 3.

LESSON TOPIC: The tragedy of the “little man”. Image of Karandyshev.

The goals and objectives of this lesson: to help students understand, see, discern the tragedy of the “little man” Karandyshev, draw analogies with other heroes of Russian literature who joined the army of “little people”. To help students, in the words of Dostoevsky, “find the person in a person.”

Ostrovsky's favorite genre was comedy. But in his comedies there are always dramatic situations and dramatic heroes. In turn, Ostrovsky’s dramas contain funny episodes and comic characters.

At the center of the play “Dowry” is the tragic fate of the heroine, but there is also a comic character in it - Robinson. But not only he is funny, Karandyshev is funny too, although something about him is repulsive, and something evokes pity and sympathy.

Karandyshev has features already familiar to readers from the works of Pushkin, Gogol, Dostoevsky - he joined the gallery of characters for whom literary criticism has been established “ small man" Karandyshev is poor. He is on one of the low rungs of the social ladder. Among such masters of life as Paratov, Vozhevatov, like the powerful Knurov, who tells Larisa that for him “the impossible is not enough,” Karandyshev is constantly subjected to humiliation, ridicule and insults, to which he cannot respond. For Vozhevatov and Paratov, he is the object of evil ridicule. However, like other characters, Karandyshev is not an unambiguous, not a one-line figure.

It cannot be said that he is entirely a victim of the world in which Larisa suffocates and dies. Karandyshev is part of this world, he is generated by it, he accepts the rules and prejudices established in it. His character was formed by the atmosphere of post-reform Russian life, which was clearly defined by the 70s of the 19th century. This is an atmosphere of money rush, a wolfish struggle for a place in the sun, this is a time of selfishness and cynicism. Karandyshev was shaped by this time, this atmosphere. This is where he gets his exaggerated sense of envy, painful pride, and exorbitant ambitions. Marriage to Larisa, whom he loves in his own way, is, after all, for him, first of all, an opportunity to assert himself, to settle accounts with those who looked at him with contempt, from top to bottom, to enjoy his superiority. Karandyshev does not hide his triumph: “Larisa Dmitrievna, for three years I suffered humiliation, for three years I endured ridicule right in the face from your friends; I, in turn, need to laugh at them.” Having become Larisa’s fiancé, Karandyshev believes that he has received the right to manage her life, to dictate rules of behavior to her in a masterly manner: “You need to give up old habits,” he declares to Larisa, “you can’t tolerate what you have had so far.” “I see that I am a doll for you,” this is Larisa telling her mother and Karandyshev, “you will play and throw it away.” And Karandyshev, having become the owner of this very beautiful “doll,” grows greatly in his own eyes. Out of vanity, he plans a luxurious dinner, trying to outdo Paratov, who, in his words, “shows off”, he wants to amaze everyone with his scope, and also show off. Karandyshev cannot understand Larisa, he is too busy with himself.

However, Ostrovsky shows that Karandyshev, having experienced a moral shock, is able to see the light, realize what he really is, and look the tragic truth in the eye. Karandyshev’s monologue after Larisa’s departure is, finally, “the hero’s word about himself.” Here Karandyshev speaks not only about himself - about the inhumanity of the world around him. His words sound like a protest against depersonalization and humiliation of a person. They are preparing the final episode of the play, in which Karandyshev tells Larisa extremely important words about the alienation of a person in a world where everything is for sale: “They don’t look at you as a woman, as a person - a person controls his own destiny; they look at you as if you were a thing.”

Having regained his sight, Karandyshev already has a different attitude towards Larisa, he tells her those words that she was waiting for and which she could not hear from anyone: “I am ready for any sacrifice, I am ready to endure any humiliation for you... Tell me, what can I do?” deserve your love? These words were spoken too late, her heart was broken, her fate was broken. And Karandyshev’s shot for her is deliverance from an ugly, hateful life. And she says words to Karandyshev that she would never have said before: “My dear, what a good deed you have done for me!..”

Karandyshev's crazy act - expression true love, that love from which they shoot, because of which they kill. This is the kind of love Larisa was looking for, and after an explanation with Paratov, who betrayed her, she stopped believing that such love exists, that it is possible: “...I was looking for love and didn’t find it...,” she sums up a terrible conclusion for herself, “.. .she is not in the world... there is nothing to look for.”

Dostoevsky believed that his task as an artist was “to find the person in man.” Ostrovsky, creating the image of Karandyshev, followed this principle, trying to discover the person in a person. Ostrovsky wrote “Dowry” in such a way that the viewer considers not Karandyshev, but Paratov and those who are at the same time with him, the true culprits of Larisa’s death. Larisa's last words after fatal shot: “It’s me myself... No one is to blame, no one... It’s me myself...” - most of all they relate to Karandyshev, she wants to remove the blame from him.

Ostrovsky’s “little man” becomes just a man.

MATERIALS FOR 4TH LESSON.

Lesson topic: The tragic fate of Larisa in the world of “chistogan”.

The goals and objectives of the lesson are intended to help students understand how a beautiful poetic nature perishes in this cruel world of “clean”.

Anthroponymy.

Writing in a notebook.

Kharita Ignatievna Ogudalova

Charita - kind, lovely (Greek).

Harites “were called the gypsies from the choir, and

Every gypsy in Moscow was usually called “Ignati”... Larisa’s mother is one of the gypsies...”.

Ogudalova - from ogudat - “to seduce, deceive, deceive, deceive...” (V.I. Dal).

Larisa Dmitrievna Ogudalova

Larisa the seagull (Greek).

Meaningful name. Dreamy and artistic, she does not notice the vulgar sides in people, sees them through the eyes of the heroine of a Russian romance and acts in accordance with it. Larisa's poetic nature flies on the wings of music: she sings beautifully. She plays the piano, the guitar sounds in her hands.

Larisa Ogudalova is not a simple-minded girl from a bourgeois environment, like other heroines of Ostrovsky’s plays (“ Late love” - Lyudmila, “Labor Bread” - Natasha). She embodies the traditions of noble upbringing, and her character reveals a sharp contradiction between the desire for external splendor, for the ostentatious nobility of life and the deeper, internal properties of her nature - seriousness, truthfulness, a thirst for genuine and sincere relationships. Such a contradiction was then a phenomenon encountered in the lives of the best representatives of the privileged strata of society. But the Ogudalov family has become impoverished and occupies an ambiguous position in provincial “society.” Under these conditions, the contradiction in Larisa's character inevitably leads her to a dramatic conflict.

All this puts the extraordinary girl in extremely difficult situation. Around Larisa is a motley and dubious crowd of admirers and contenders for her hand, among whom there are quite a few “rabble.” Life in her house is like a “bazaar” or “ gypsy camp" Larisa must not only endure the falsehood, cunning, and hypocrisy that surrounds her, but also take part in them.

If the inconsistency of Larisa's life were only external, she could have found a way out of this situation. Larisa could meet and fall in love with a sincere person and leave the “gypsy camp” with him. But this inconsistency lies at the heart of the girl’s character. Larisa herself is sincerely drawn to the splendor and nobility of life; any manifestation of simplicity and unpretentiousness is offensive to her. This is manifested in her relationship with Paratov.

Larisa loves Paratov as a person who embodies and is able to give her a different life. She was, as it were, “poisoned” by Paratov, with him the idea of a completely different, poetic and light world entered her consciousness once and for all, which certainly exists, but is inaccessible to her, although she is intended, in the opinion of everyone around her, for him. For Larisa, this is a fantasy world, much more poetic than it actually is; the traces of this world in her own life are her favorite poems, romances, dreams, which make her image attractive. Getting ready to marry Karandyshev, she feels humiliated, unfairly sentenced to the life that a petty official can give her. Moreover, she cannot see his personal humiliation, his failures in trying to equal Paratov, the difference between them becomes more and more obvious to her: “Who are you equaling with! Is such blindness possible!” She constantly convinces him that she does not love him, that he is infinitely inferior to Paratov, whom she will marry at his first request: “Of course, if Sergei Sergeich appeared and was free, then one look from him would be enough...”

In her soul there is a struggle between the desire to come to terms with the inevitable fate of the wife of a poor official and the longing for a bright and beautiful life. The feeling of humiliation by her lot and the craving for a different life prompt Larisa to try to decide her own fate. It seems that the path to the romantic world lies through the same romantic, reckless and spectacular act. But this act is reckless, leading to death, because it was committed in pursuit of the ghost that Paratov personifies, the world that exists only in poetry and romances. Just like Karandyshev, she makes a choice in favor of illusion rather than reality. For Ostrovsky, this attempt to immediately, with one reckless act, receive love and happiness looks like a refusal, an escape from one’s own destiny.

A trip to a men's picnic opens Larisa's eyes to her true position - a prize that men compete with each other. “I am a thing, not a person.” Dying, she thanks her killer, Karandyshev, for giving her the opportunity to leave a world in which a high ideal is trampled and where she feels like an object of sale: “I was looking for love and did not find it. They looked at me and look at me as if I was funny. No one ever tried to look into my soul, I didn’t see sympathy from anyone, I didn’t hear a warm, heartfelt word. It's not my fault, I was looking for love and didn't find it. She’s not in the world... there’s nothing to look for.”

A trip beyond the Volga is a disaster of a lifetime for Larisa. Now she has no dowry or maiden honor. Now she can either sell her beauty, or, like Katerina (“The Thunderstorm”), die by throwing herself off the cliff of the Volga. Larisa tries to do this, but she does not have the moral strength to overcome the natural fear of torture and death. Her monologue at the embankment grating shows the difference between her character and Katerina’s character.

Katerina, even in her difficult marriage, did not lose her romantic aspirations, which, while feeding her vague dreams of freedom, at the same time contain a naive conviction in the immortality of the soul. For her, death is not the destruction of personality, but liberation from an unbearable existence. Larisa doesn't have this. Her character reflects not the end of the era of family authority, but the beginning of the era of naked power of the pure. She has kind and sincere feelings, but there are no strong moral foundations, no sense of purpose. She is weak, full of hesitation and therefore easily susceptible to temptation.

In her speech and behavior, the style of a cruel romance is used, which at the same time has a peculiar poetry and borders on vulgarity, falsehood, and “beautifulness”: quotes from Lermontov and Baratynsky are combined with statements like: “Sergey Sergeich... is the ideal of a man,” “You are my Lord". This reflects the quality of the ideal itself that attracts Larisa; it is poetic in its own way and at the same time empty and false. In her gestures and remarks, a touch of melodrama is combined with genuine penetration and depth of experienced feeling: “For unfortunate people there is a lot of space in God’s world: here is the garden, here is the Volga.” ( This combination makes the role of Larisa extremely advantageous; she attracted such actresses as M. Ermolova, V. Komissarzhevskaya).

Before her death, Larisa discovers her true moral qualities. She dies to the “loud choir of gypsies,” she dies, reconciling herself with her bitter fate, without complaining about anyone, without blaming anyone. But objectively, this death is a heavy indictment of the entire order of things in which a young, pure, gifted woman became the toy of frivolous passions and the subject of unscrupulous trade.

HOMEWORK:

Prepare reports on the stage history of the play “Dowry”. (See further).

MATERIALS FOR LESSON 5.

Lesson topic: The play “Dowry” on stage and in cinema.

The goals and objectives of this lesson involve familiarizing students with material about the stage history of the play “Dowry” and a small creative work related to this topic.

You can offer students some topics in advance for preparing a story about the stage history of the play “Dowry” and its modern interpretation. For example, I propose several topics: “The connection between the drama “Dowry” and contemporary Russian prose by Ostrovsky”, “The life and fate of an artist in Ostrovsky’s plays”, “Interpretation of “Dowry” in cinema: films by A.Ya. Protazanov (1881-1945) “Dowry” ” (1937) and E.Ya. Ryazanova ( Cruel romance” (1983).”

We draw the students' attention to the actress who very correctly understood the meaning of the play and also correctly and interestingly conveyed it to the audience - V.F. Komissarzhevskaya. She did not play a “provincial lioness of the gypsy variety” , colliding on the “paths of love with a predatory man,” and Larisa “suffering and dying for all women,” as the actress herself said. That is why the romance nature of the play became decisive in revealing the tragic fate of the heroine. The first productions of “The Dowry” at the Maly Theater featured excellent artists: N.I.Muzil-Robinson, Lensky-Paratov, M.P.Sadovsky-Karandyshev, N.M.Medvedeva-Ogudalova, I.V.Samarin-Knurov, M.A. Reshimov-Vozhevatov and others. The role of Larisa was performed by G.N. Fedotova and M.N. Ermolova. Of course, the actresses understood the play as a whole differently and interpreted the image of Larisa differently. At the Alexandrinsky Theater the role of Larisa was played by actress M.G. Savina - and also in an excellent acting ensemble. As they wrote in “Birzhevye Vedomosti”, M.G. Savina “created an unusually poetic and graceful image.” At the same time, Savina’s lyrical interpretation of the heroine’s image combined with an emphasis on the motives of sadness and depression.

Revived on the St. Petersburg stage in 1896, “Dowry” sounded completely different, thanks mainly to the talented and amazing performance of the role of Larisa V.F. Komissarzhevskaya. She emphasized Larisa’s “impulsive, constantly searching nature” and revealed her deep inner tragedy. About V.F. Komissarzhevskaya’s performance of the role of Larisa in 1898-1905, the writer A.N. Tikhonov (Serebrov) wrote: “Larissa’s monologue before her death: “A thing!.. yes, a thing... They are right, I am a thing, not a person !.. “there was not only a cry exhausted woman, but also a protest against a society where such abuse of a person is possible. And the public understood well that this protest was not limited only to the stage, but applied to all the Paratovs, Karandyshevs and Knurovs who were in the theater and far beyond its walls. Young people went to the performance as if it were a political demonstration. Her success in this role was unparalleled.”

Ostrovsky’s play “Dowry” has become one of the most popular in the Russian repertoire drama theaters. She also attracted the attention of filmmakers. So, in 1936, director Y.A. Protazanov staged a film based on Ostrovsky’s play, in which the main roles were played by N.U. Alisova (Larisa), A.P. Ktorov (Paratov), M.M. Klimov (Knurov). In the 80-90s, our modern director E. Ryazanov addressed the same topic. He directed a film based on this play - “Cruel Romance”, where the main roles were: L. Guzeeva - (Larissa), A. Freindlikh (Kharita Ignatievna), N. Mikhalkov (Paratov), Petrenko (Knurov), V. Proskurin (Vozhevatov) and others.

In this lesson, students are asked to compare the images that Ostrovsky created in his play and the images that E. Ryazanov created in his film. If a teacher has the opportunity to show films by Y. Protazanov and E. Ryazanov, then this can be done outside of class time, or show excerpts from this film in class.

Materials for this lesson can be found in the book from the “School of Classics” series. A book for students and teachers. A.N. Ostrovsky.”

You can prepare material for a story about stage history and about the actress V. Komissarzhevskaya from the books:

1. A.N. Serebrov (Tikhonov). Time and people. M., 1960

2. A.N. Ostrovsky. Full composition of writings. v.15 (appendix to “Dowry”).

3.V.F.Komissarzhevskaya. Album. M., 1915

Another creative task is possible: compare the texts of romances (an old Italian romance performed by V.F. Komissarzhevskaya “He told me: be you mine...”; a romance based on poems by B. Akhmadulina, performed in E. Ryazanov’s film “Cruel Romance ” - “And finally, I will say...”; a romance based on the poems of E. Baratynsky, included in the text of the play by A.N. Ostrovsky “Do not tempt me unnecessarily...”) and try to explain which of the presented texts best expresses the author's thought and explains the main idea of the work. (Texts attached).

Thus, in this methodological development I in detail I tried to present the material for the first lesson in the series of lessons on studying the play “Dowry”. Materials for lessons 2,3,4 are offered in a condensed form, outlining only the outline for conversation on the proposed topics. I tried to highlight only those points that I consider possible and necessary to draw students’ attention to. And then each teacher decides for himself how and what it is necessary to draw students’ attention to when studying A.N. Ostrovsky’s play “Dowry.” I hope that the material that I have accumulated during my experience working on this topic will help a teacher who recently encountered teaching this work in a Russian literature course in the 10th grade.

Annex 1

Romance based on verses by E. Baratynsky, included in the text of the play by A. N. Ostrovsky: Do not tempt me unnecessarily

The return of your tenderness.
Alien to the disappointed
All the seductions of former days.

I don’t believe the assurances
I don't believe in love anymore
And I don't want to give in again
Once upon a time deceiving dreams.

An ancient Italian romance performed by V.F. Komissarzhevskaya:

He told me: “Be you mine,
And I will begin to live, burning with passion.
The beauty of a smile, the bliss in the gaze
They promise me the joys of heaven.”
This is what he said to the poor heart,

He told me: “Bright star
You illuminated a gloomy soul,
You gave me hope in my heart,
Filling dreams with sweet dreams.
Sometimes he smiled, sometimes he cried he poured,
But he didn’t love, no, he didn’t love me.
He promised me, my poor heart,
Happiness and dreams, passions, delights.
Tenderly he swore to make my life sweeter
Eternal love, eternal bliss.
With sweet speech he ruined the heart,
But he didn’t love, no, he didn’t love me.”

Romance based on poems by B. Akhmadulina, heard in E. Ryazanov’s film “Cruel Romance”:

And finally I will say: “Goodbye,
You don't have to commit to love. I'm going crazy
Or ascending to a high degree of madness.
How you loved - you sipped
Death is not the point.
How you loved - you ruined
But he ruined it so clumsily!”

The temple is still doing a little work,
But the hands fell, and in a flock diagonally
Smells and sounds go away.
“How you loved - you sipped
Death is not the point!
How you loved - you ruined
But he ruined it so clumsily...”

1. Life priorities of merchants.
2. The mask and inner essence of Paratov.
3. Kharita Ignatievna Ogudalova and Larisa.
4. Karandyshev and his life priorities.

A. N. Ostrovsky’s play “The Dowry” is one of the works that are unlikely to ever lose their relevance and modernity. Although the plot of the play belongs to its time, the essence of the characters' characters, their life principles are very tenacious.

The images of two merchants, Knurov and Vozhevatov, embodied the “make money” principle. The principle of a prudent, even cynical attitude among them extends not only to business sphere. “No, somehow I, Mokiy Parmenych, don’t notice this in myself at all,” Vozhevatov coolly speaks of love, although he is quite young. Both merchants are well aware that the money is in in a certain sense elevate them above those who have no means of subsistence. Knurov does not deign to talk to everyone; for example, he defiantly shields himself from Karandyshev with a newspaper.

The attitude of these people towards Larisa is similar to admiration for an elegant and expensive thing: one could, of course, buy it with money for a while, but one can also do without it. It is indicative how the merchants resolve the dispute over who to offer Larisa a trip to Paris: they cast lots. On the one hand, this gesture clearly demonstrates their attitude towards the girl as a thing, on the other hand, this method is dictated by the reluctance to quarrel over some kind of prank. Thus, Knurov and Vozhevatov highly value their friendly relations, probably cemented by mutually beneficial cooperation. It is also interesting that, despite all their focus on profit, they still have some semblance of a code of honor, even if it is used only in a narrow circle of “their own”. “The merchant’s honest word” is how they seal their agreement.

Despite the cynicism of this agreement, it can be said that the merchants are quite honest towards Larisa herself: Knurov directly states that he offers the girl, if she accepts his offer, to go to him for support. There is no doubt that he would have kept his promises.

This is not what Paratov, a brilliant gentleman, a squandered entrepreneur, does. The image of the “broad Russian soul”, the “ideal man”, which he is in the eyes of Larisa, sharply contrasts with the true essence of this man: “I, Mokiy Parmenych, have nothing cherished; If I find a profit, I’ll sell everything, anything.” Paratov does not intend to offer Larisa anything specific; moreover, he is engaged to someone else. But if Knurov honestly admits that he is married, then Paratov entangles the gullible Larisa with clever half-promises: “... A few more minutes like this... I will give up all calculations, and no force will snatch you from me; perhaps together with my life.”

Nevertheless, despite the duplicity of this man, Larisa believes him until he tells her himself that he is engaged to another, and she is free. In fact, Paratov has no moral principles: he is ready for meanness not only for the sake of profit, but also for the sake of momentary entertainment. Knurov and Vozhevatov perfectly understand the essence of their friend and business partner: “...Do you think that this is not without deception, that he again lured her with words?” - “Yes, certainly. And the promises must have been definite and serious, otherwise how could she have believed a man who had already deceived her!” Why did Larisa really believe Paratov? Apparently, because Larisa does not understand people well, she sees in them not what is, but what she would like to see. Larisa's life priority is sincerity. She is “simple,” according to Vozhevatov’s definition: “She’s not stupid, but she has no cunning, not like her mother. This one is all cunning and flattery, but this one suddenly, out of the blue, says that it’s not necessary.”

Larisa's mother is indeed an active and dexterous woman. All her worries were aimed at getting her daughters married better and more profitably. However, her endeavors are not successful. It seems that Kharita Ignatievna managed to develop a sophisticated system of extracting money from potential suitors and rich guests; she married off Larisa’s two sisters, but “you need to ask them if life is sweet for them.”

Thus, Kharita Ignatievna’s life priority is the same benefit, practical use: “We are poor people, we have to humiliate ourselves all our lives. It’s better to humiliate yourself from a young age, so that later you can live like a human being.” Karandyshev, of course, does not really fit into this system - Ogudalova agreed to marry her daughter to him only because Larisa herself insisted on it. “...Even if you give up, the loss is small!” - Kharita Ignatievna judiciously notes, believing that Larisa is better off riding along the Volga with rich people than holding on to Karandyshev.

However, Larisa does not share the reasonable principles of life of her mother. Larisa hopes to erase the dream of failed love for Paratov with quiet joys family life, however, these hopes are soon dashed. Finally, Larisa saw both her beloved and her fiancé in the true light: one turned out to be a scoundrel, the other a nonentity. She is almost ready to agree to go to Knurov for support, but this is by no means a thoughtful, sober decision, but a desperate attempt to find at least something definite, an attempt to overcome the feeling of the collapse of everything she believed in: “I didn’t find love, so I’ll look for gold " Among the life priorities of Yuli Kapitonich Karandyshev, Larisa’s fiancé, the first thing that stands out is his possessive, petty instincts. He tries in every possible way to emphasize his exclusive right to Larisa. “Ban when you have the right, but now wait a minute to ban, it’s too early,” Larisa’s mother strongly objects when Karandyshev tries to forbid his bride to sing for guests. Karandyshev’s shot at the end of the play is the highest manifestation of his view of Larisa as his property, although the same Karandyshev is indignant at the fact that Knurov and Vozhevatov look at the girl “as a thing.”

Karandyshev’s actions are guided not so much by clear principles as by an exaggerated sense of injured pride, a desire to “glorify himself.” However, all his attempts to catch up with the rich are doomed to failure. Karandyshev would have acted more wisely if he had not thrown a dinner party that made Larisa and her mother blush with shame for him.

The play also shows the life principles of Aunt Karandyshev. Her bourgeois frugality, of course, looks a little funny: but in any case, it is at least justified from a practical point of view, because Karandyshev’s salary is small.

In conclusion, it should be noted that the life principles of each character in Ostrovsky’s play, of course, strongly depend on the environment in which this or that character was and is, but not everything is determined by the environment. Paratov's duplicity, that is, his lack of any moral values is a personal position based on selfish aspirations. Larisa’s exalted attitude towards the object of her love is not supported by objective conditions: the girl’s nobility, as well as her reluctance to give up her ideals and look closely at a living person, do not allow Larisa to doubt Paratov’s sincerity.

Knurov, Vozhevatov and Larisa

Knurov and Vozhevatov are typical representatives of the merchant class of the 19th century. These heroes are driven by cold calculation, and the main thing in their lives is money.

Knurov’s, like Vozhevatov’s, attitude towards people is determined by their financial situation. Therefore, Karandyshev’s behavior causes disapproval among merchants, and even reaches the point of open bullying.

It is also impossible not to mention speaking surnames, because this brief characteristics heroes. “Knur” means boar, boar. Knurov even walks solely for exercise, to work up an appetite and eat his sumptuous lunch. He is secretive and taciturn, but Gavrilo says about him: “How do you want him to talk, if he has millions?...And he goes to Moscow, St. Petersburg and abroad to talk, where he has more space.” Mokiy Parmenych is also distinguished by his determination, pursuing Larisa, although his attitude towards her is swinish. In his opinion, Larisa is an “expensive diamond” that requires an expensive setting, so Knurov offers the girl the humiliating position of a kept woman.

Vozhevatov, unlike Knurov, was young and could marry Larisa. But he does not know the feeling of love, he is cold, practical and sarcastic. “What’s my brother-

anger? - says Vozhevatov. - “Sometimes I’ll pour an extra glass of champagne on the sly from my mother [Larissa’s mother], I’ll learn a song, I’ll carry novels that girls are not allowed to read.” And he adds: “I don’t force it. What should I say about her moral-

to care; I’m not her guardian.” Vasily Danilovich treats Larisa irresponsibly; she is like a toy for him. When a girl asks Vozhev for help,

tova, he says: “Larisa Dmitrievna, I respect you and would be glad... I can’t do anything. Believe my word! By the way, it is Vozhevatov who comes up with the idea to decide Larisa’s fate with the help of a toss.

So, we can say that in this work A.N. Ostrovsky wanted to show what money does to people. Even in the title of the play you can already guess what it will be about. Money kills love, conscience, and makes you look down on those people who don’t have it. The coin decides the fate of a person, literally and figuratively.

Plan

1. Introduction

2. Knurov in life

3. Knurov and Larisa

4.Conclusion

Mokiy Parmenych Knurov - collective image person new era with fabulous capital. This is a representative of that inexorable force that slowly but steadily crushes everything under itself. “The owner of factories, newspapers, ships” feels like a complete master in this life. The only power which he recognizes is money.

Knurov leads a prosperous, measured life. Any of his whims can be instantly fulfilled. Mokiy Parmenych was accustomed to universal veneration. He clearly divides people into two classes: those who have money and those who do not. From the point of view of the availability of capital, he evaluates the opportunities and benefits of others.

Knurov's social circle is small. In the play, it includes only Vozhevatov, Paratov and the Ogudalov family. He is associated with the first business relationship. Mokiy Parmenych understands perfectly how important it is to support a good relationship with business partners. This communication can hardly be called friendship. In any case, in a provincial town there are still no people closer, much less equal to him.

Mokiy Parmenych is kind in his own way, but his disposition towards people again depends on possible benefits. He can express sincere sympathy for someone else's grief, but will provide help only if it brings him some benefit. Knurov’s high opinion of himself is most clearly manifested in his attitude towards Karandyshev. The capitalist openly despises the petty official who could not achieve a higher position.

Mokiy Parmenych had long noted for himself the beauty of his daughter Kharita Ignatievna. the main problem is that the businessman is married. He is not averse to taking Larisa “to support”, but the girl has not yet tarnished her reputation. Knurov honestly admits to Vozhevatov that it is too late for him to openly compete with Larisa’s many fans. He prefers to act in roundabout ways. The concept of love is completely unfamiliar to Knurov. He even praises Vozhevatov for the absence of this feeling, which is useless in trade matters.

Love for Mokiy Parmenych is the same commodity, and Larisa is an “expensive diamond” that requires an “expensive frame.” Knurov despises Kharita Ignatievna in the same way, but maintains good relations with her and gives money in order to take possession of Larisa. He goes to this goal long and persistently. The girl's upcoming wedding seems like a convenient opportunity for him. Karandashev will not be able to adequately provide for Larisa. That's when Knurov hopes to take his chance.

All the baseness and heartlessness of Mokiy Parmenych and Vozhevatov is manifested in the scene of Larisa's toss. Thus, they decide the fate of a living girl without even asking her opinion. Larisa seems to them to be a simple, but incredibly beautiful thing that will definitely have an owner. The “victorious” Knurov, casting aside all shame, directly turns to Larisa with an offer to become his kept woman. He reinforces his words with a significant phrase: “For me, the impossible is not enough.”

Mokiy Parmenych is not just an all-powerful, incredibly rich businessman. Money distorted his thinking. For Knurov, everything around him (even people) is an object of purchase and sale. His attitude towards Larisa as a thing underlies the tragedy of the entire play.

Knurov, Vozhevatov and Larisa

Knurov and Vozhevatov are typical representatives of the merchant class of the 19th century. These heroes are driven by cold calculation, and the main thing in their lives is money.

Knurov’s, like Vozhevatov’s, attitude towards people is determined by their financial situation. Therefore, Karandyshev’s behavior causes disapproval among merchants, and even reaches the point of open bullying.

It is also impossible not to mention the speaking surnames, because these are brief characteristics of the heroes. “Knur” means boar, boar. Knurov even walks solely for exercise, to work up an appetite and eat his sumptuous lunch. He is secretive and taciturn, but Gavrilo says about him: “How do you want him to talk, if he has millions?...And he goes to Moscow, St. Petersburg and abroad to talk, where he has more space.” Mokiy Parmenych is also distinguished by his determination, pursuing Larisa, although his attitude towards her is swinish. In his opinion, Larisa is an “expensive diamond” that requires an expensive setting, so Knurov offers the girl the humiliating position of a kept woman.

Vozhevatov, unlike Knurov, was young and could marry Larisa. But he does not know the feeling of love, he is cold, practical and sarcastic. “What’s my brother-

to care; I’m not her guardian.” Vasily Danilovich treats Larisa irresponsibly; she is like a toy for him. When a girl asks Vozhev for help,