The history of the creation of the dowry. You are here: Zhuravleva A.I., Makeev M.S.

Year of writing:

1878

Reading time:

Description of the work:

The play The Dowry was written by Alexander Ostrovsky in 1878. It is interesting that the play Dowry is his fortieth work, to which Ostrovsky devoted about four years of work, thereby honing all the details of the work and creating a masterpiece.

Ostrovsky himself said the following words: “This play begins a new type of my works.”

Read below for a summary of the play Dowry.

A large fictional city on the Volga - Bryakhimov. An open area near a coffee shop on Privolzhsky Boulevard. Knurov (“one of the big businessmen of recent times, an elderly man with a huge fortune,” as the stage directions say about him) and Vozhevatov (“a very young man, one of the representatives of a wealthy trading company, European in costume), having ordered champagne from a tea set, begin discuss the news: the well-known beauty and homeless woman Larisa Ogudalova is marrying a poor official Karandyshev. Vozhevatov explains the modest marriage by the desire of Larisa, who experienced a strong infatuation with the “brilliant master” Paratov, who turned her head, fought off all the suitors and suddenly left. After the scandal, when the next groom was arrested for embezzlement right in the Ogudalovs’ house, Larisa announced that she would marry the first one who wooed, and Karandyshev, a long-time and unlucky admirer, “and right there.” Vozhevatov reports that he is waiting for Paratov, who sold him his steamboat “Swallow”, which causes joyful revival of the owner of the coffee shop. The best quadruple in the city galloped to the pier with their owner on a box and gypsies in formal clothes.

The Ogudalovs and Karandyshev appear. Ogudalova is treated to tea, Karandyshev puts on airs and, as an equal, turns to Knurov with an invitation to dinner. Ogudalova explains that the dinner is in honor of Larisa, and she joins the invitation. Karandyshev reprimands Larisa for being too familiar with Vozhevatov, and several times condemningly mentions the Ogudalovs’ house, which offends Larisa. The conversation turns to Paratov, whom Karandyshev treats with envious hostility, and Larisa with delight. She is outraged by the groom’s attempts to compare himself with Paratov and declares: “Sergei Sergeich is the ideal man.” During the conversation, cannon shots are heard, Larisa gets scared, but Karandyshev explains: “Some tyrant merchant is getting off his barge,” meanwhile, from the conversation between Vozhevatov and Knurov, it is known that the shooting was in honor of Paratov’s arrival. Larisa and her groom leave.

Paratov appears accompanied by the provincial actor Arkady Schastlivtsev, whom Paratov calls Robinson, because he removed him from a desert island, where Robinson was landed for rowdy behavior. When asked by Knurov whether he would be sorry to sell the Lastochka, Paratov replies: “What is a pity, I don’t know that.<…>If I find a profit, I’ll sell everything, whatever,” and after this he announces that he is marrying a bride with gold mines, and has come to say goodbye to his bachelor’s will. Paratov invites him to a men’s picnic across the Volga, makes a rich order for the restaurateur and invites him to dine in the meantime. Knurov and Vozhevatov regretfully refuse, saying that they are having dinner with Larisa’s fiancé.

The second action takes place in the Ogudalovs' house, the main feature of the living room is a piano with a guitar on it. Knurov arrives and reproaches Ogudalova for giving Larisa away to a poor man, predicts that Larisa will not endure the miserable half-bourgeois life and will probably return to her mother. Then they will need a respectable and rich “friend” and offer themselves as such “friends”. After this, he asks Ogudalova, without stinting, to order Larisa’s dowry and wedding dress, and to send him the bills. And he leaves. Larisa appears and tells her mother that she wants to leave for the village as soon as possible. Ogudalova paints village life in dark colors. Larisa plays the guitar and sings the song “Don’t tempt me unnecessarily,” but the guitar is out of tune. Seeing the gypsy choir owner Ilya through the window, she calls him to tune his guitar. Ilya says that the master arrives, whom they “have been waiting for all year,” and runs away to the call of other gypsies, who announced the arrival of a long-awaited client. Ogudalova is worried: did they rush into the wedding and miss out on a more profitable match? Karandyshev appears, whom Larisa asks to leave for the village as soon as possible. But he does not want to rush to “glorify himself” (Ogudalova’s expression) with Larisa, to satisfy his pride, which for so long suffered from neglect of him, Karandyshev. Larisa reproaches him for this, without at all hiding the fact that she does not love him, but only hopes to love him. Karandyshev scolds the city for its attention to the depraved, squandered reveler, whose arrival drove everyone crazy: restaurateurs and sex workers, cab drivers, gypsies and townspeople in general, and when asked who it is, he irritably throws out: “Your Sergei Sergeich Paratov” and, looking out window, says that he came to the Ogudalovs. Frightened Larisa goes to other rooms with her groom.

Ogudalova kindly and familiarly receives Paratov, asks why he suddenly disappeared from the city, learns that he went to save the remains of the estate, and is now forced to marry a bride with a half-million dollar dowry. Ogudalova calls Larisa, an explanation takes place between her and Paratov in private. Paratov reproaches Larisa that she soon forgot him; Larisa admits that she continues to love him and is getting married in order to get rid of the humiliation of “impossible suitors.” Paratov's pride is satisfied. Ogudalova introduces him to Karandyshev, a quarrel occurs between them, as Paratov seeks to hurt and humiliate Larisa’s fiancé. Ogudalova settles the scandal and forces Karandyshev to invite Paratov to dinner. Vozhevatov appears, accompanied by Robinson, posing as an Englishman, and introduces him to those present, including Paratov, who himself recently lost Robinson to him. Vozhevatov and Paratov conspire to have fun at Karandyshev’s dinner.

The third act is in Karandyshev’s office, decorated poorly and tastelessly, but with great pretensions. On stage is Aunt Karandysheva, comically complaining about losses from lunch. Larisa appears with her mother. They discuss the terrible dinner, Karandyshev's humiliating misunderstanding of his position. Ogudalova says that the guests deliberately get Karandyshev drunk and laugh at him. After the women leave, Knurov, Paratov and Vozhevatov appear, complaining about the crappy dinner and terrible wines and rejoicing that Robinson, who can drink anything, helped get Karandyshev drunk. Karandyshev appears, putting on airs and bragging, not noticing that they are laughing at him. He is sent for cognac. At this time, the gypsy Ilya reports that everything is ready for the trip beyond the Volga. The men say among themselves that it would be nice to take Larisa, Paratov undertakes to persuade her. Larisa appears and is asked to sing, but Karandyshev tries to forbid her, then Larisa sings “Don’t tempt.” The guests are delighted, Karandyshev, about to say a long-prepared toast, leaves to get champagne, the rest leave Paratov alone with Larisa. He turns her head, saying that a few more moments like this, and he will give up everything to become her slave. Larisa agrees to go on a picnic in the hope of returning Paratov. Karandyshev appears and proposes a toast to Larisa, in whom the most valuable thing to him is that she “knows how to sort people out” and that’s why she chose him. Karandyshev is sent for more wine. Upon returning, he learns about Larisa’s departure for a picnic, finally understands that they laughed at him, and threatens to take revenge. He grabs the gun and runs away.

The fourth act is again in the coffee shop. Robinson, who was not taken to the picnic, learns from a conversation with a servant that Karandyshev was seen with a pistol. He appears and asks Robinson where his comrades are. Robinson gets rid of him, explaining that these were casual acquaintances. Karandyshev leaves. Knurov and Vozhevatov, returning from the picnic, appear, believing that “the drama is beginning.” Both understand that Paratov made serious promises to Larisa, which he does not intend to fulfill, and therefore she is compromised and her situation is hopeless. Now their dream of going with Larisa to Paris for an exhibition can come true. In order not to disturb each other, they decide to toss a coin. The lot falls to Knurov, and Vozhevatov gives his word to leave.

Larisa appears with Paratov. Paratov thanks Larisa for the pleasure, but she wants to hear that she has now become his wife. Paratov replies that he cannot break up with his rich bride because of his passion for Larisa, and instructs Robinson to take her home. Larisa refuses. Vozhevatov and Knurov appear, Larisa rushes to Vozhevatov asking for sympathy and advice, but he resolutely evades, leaving her with Knurov, who offers Larisa a joint trip to Paris and maintenance for life. Larisa is silent, and Knurov leaves, asking her to think. In despair, Larisa approaches the cliff, dreaming of dying, but does not dare to commit suicide and exclaims: “As if someone would kill me now...” Karandyshev appears, Larisa tries to drive him away, talking about her contempt. He reproaches her, says that Knurov and Vozhevatov played her like a thing. Larisa is shocked and, picking up his words, says: “If you’re going to be a thing, it’s so expensive, very expensive.” She asks to send Knurov to her. Karandyshev tries to stop her, shouting that he forgives her and will take her away from the city, but Larisa rejects this offer and wants to leave. She does not believe his words about his love for her. Enraged and humiliated, Karandyshev shoots her. The dying Larisa gratefully accepts this shot, puts the revolver next to herself and tells those who come running to the shot that no one is to blame: “It’s me myself.” Gypsy singing can be heard behind the stage. Paratov shouts: “Tell him to shut up!”, but Larisa does not want this and dies to the accompaniment of a loud gypsy choir with the words: “... you are all good people... I love you all... I love you all.”

You have read the summary of the story The Dowry. We invite you to visit the Summary section to read other summaries of popular writers.

A.N. Ostrovsky created an amazing gallery of Russian characters. The main characters were representatives of the merchant class - from the "Domostroevsky" tyrants to real businessmen. The playwright’s female characters were no less bright and expressive. Some of them resembled the heroines of I.S. Turgenev: they were just as brave and decisive, had warm hearts and never gave up their feelings. Below is an analysis of Ostrovsky's "Dowry", where the main character is a bright personality, different from the people who surrounded her.

History of creation

The analysis of Ostrovsky's "Dowry" should begin with the history of its writing. In the 1870s, Alexander Nikolaevich was an honorary judge in one district. Participation in trials and familiarity with various cases gave him a new opportunity to search for topics for his works.

Researchers of his life and work suggest that he took the plot for this play from his judicial practice. It was a case that caused a lot of noise in the county - the murder of his young wife by a local resident. Ostrovsky began writing the play in 1874, but work progressed slowly. And only in 1878 the play was completed.

Characters and their brief descriptions

The next point in the analysis of Ostrovsky's "Dowry" is a small description of the characters in the play.

Larisa Ogudalova is the main character. A beautiful and impressionable noblewoman. Despite her sensitive nature, she is a proud girl. Its main drawback is poverty. Therefore, her mother tries to find her a rich groom. Larisa is in love with Paratov, but he leaves her. Then, out of despair, she decides to marry Karandyshev.

Sergei Paratov is a nobleman who is over 30 years old. An unprincipled, cold and calculating person. Everything is measured in money. He is going to marry a rich girl, but does not tell Larisa about it.

Yuliy Kapitonich Karandyshev is a minor official who has little money. Vain, his main goal is to win the respect of others and impress them. Larisa is jealous of Paratov.

Vasily Vozhevatov is a young rich merchant. I have known the main character since childhood. A cunning person without any moral principles.

Moky Parmenych Knurov is an elderly merchant, the richest man in the city. He likes young Ogudalova, but he is a married man. Therefore, Knurov wants her to become his kept woman. Selfish, only his own interests are important to him.

Kharita Ignatievna Ogudalova is Larisa’s mother, a widow. Cunningly, she tries to give her daughter away in marriage so that they don’t need anything. Therefore, he believes that any means are suitable for this.

Robinson is an actor, mediocrity, drunkard. Paratov's friend.

One of the points of analysis of Ostrovsky's "Dowry" is a brief description of the plot of the play. The action takes place in the Volga region town of Bryakhimov. In the first act, the reader learns from a conversation between Knurov and Vozhevatov that Sergei Paratov, a rich gentleman who loves to appear spectacularly in society, is returning to the city.

He left Bryakhimov so quickly that he did not say goodbye to Larisa Ogudalova, who was in love with him. She was in despair over his departure. Knurov and Vozhevatov say that she is beautiful, smart and performs romances incomparably. Only her suitors avoid her because she is without a dowry.

Realizing this, her mother constantly keeps the doors of the house open, in the hope that a rich groom will woo Larisa. The girl decides to marry a minor official, Yuri Kapitonich Karandyshev. During the walk, the merchants inform them about Paratov's arrival. Karandyshev invites them to a dinner party in honor of his bride. Yuliy Kapitonich creates a scandal with his bride because of Paratov.

Meanwhile, Paratov himself, in a conversation with the merchants, says that he was going to marry the daughter of the owner of the gold mines. And Larisa is no longer interested in him, but the news about her marriage makes him think.

Larisa quarrels with her fiancé because she wants to go to the village with him as soon as possible. Karandyshev, despite the lack of funds, is going to give a dinner party. Ogudalova has an explanation with Paratov. He accuses her of cheating and asks if she loves him. The girl agrees.

Paratov decided to humiliate Larisa’s fiance in front of the guests. He gets him drunk at dinner, and then persuades the girl to go on a boat trip with him. After spending the night with her, he tells her that he has a fiancee. The girl understands that she is disgraced. She agrees to become Knurov’s kept woman, who won her in a dispute with Vozhevatov. But Yuri Karandyshev shot Larisa out of jealousy. The girl thanks him and says that she is not offended by anyone.

Image of Larisa Ogudalova

In the analysis of Ostrovsky's "Dowry", one should also consider the image of the main character. Larisa appeared before the reader as a beautiful, educated noblewoman, but without a dowry. And, finding herself in a society where the main criterion is money, she was faced with the fact that no one took her feelings seriously.

Possessing an ardent soul and a warm heart, she falls in love with the treacherous Paratov. But because of his feelings, he cannot see his real character. Larisa feels lonely - no one even tries to understand her, everyone uses her like a thing. But despite her delicate nature, the girl has a proud disposition. And just like all heroes, she is afraid of poverty. Therefore, she feels even more contempt for her fiancé.

In the analysis of Ostrovsky's "Dowry", it should be noted that Larisa does not have great fortitude. She does not decide to commit suicide or start living the way she wants. She accepts the fact that she is a thing and refuses to fight any further. Therefore, the groom’s shot brought her peace of mind; the girl was glad that all her suffering was over and she had found peace.

Image of Yuri Karandyshev

In the analysis of the play "Dowry" by Ostrovsky, one can also consider the image of the heroine's groom. Yuliy Kapitonich is shown to the reader as a small person for whom it is important to earn the recognition of others. For him, a thing has value if rich people have it.

This is a proud person who lives for show and only causes contempt from others because of his pathetic attempts to be like them. Karandyshev, most likely, did not love Larisa: he understood that all men would envy him, because she was the dream of many. And he hoped to receive the public recognition he so desired after their wedding. Therefore, Yuliy Kapitonich could not come to terms with the fact that she left him.

Comparison with Katerina

A comparative analysis of Ostrovsky's "The Thunderstorm" and "Dowry" helps to find not only similarities, but also differences between the works. Both heroines are bright personalities, and their chosen ones are weak and weak-willed people. Katerina and Larisa have warm hearts and fall madly in love with men who correspond to their imaginary ideal.

Both heroines feel lonely in society, and the internal conflict is heating up more and more. And here the differences appear. Larisa did not have the inner strength that Katerina had. Kabanova could not come to terms with life in a society where tyranny and despotism reigned. She rushed into the Volga. Larisa, realizing that she is a thing for everyone, cannot decide to take such a step. And the girl doesn’t even think about fighting - she simply decides to live now like everyone else. Perhaps this is why the viewer immediately liked the heroine Katerina Kabanova.

Stage productions

In the analysis of Ostrovsky's drama "Dowry", it can be noted that, contrary to expectations, the production failed. The viewer found the story about a provincial girl who was deceived by a fan boring. Critics also did not like the acting: for them it was too melodramatic. And only in 1896 the play was staged again. And even then the audience was able to accept and appreciate it.

An analysis of Ostrovsky's work "Dowry" allows us to show what a serious psychological subtext the play has. How detailed the characters are. And, despite the sentimental scenes, the play belongs to the genre of realism. And her characters joined the gallery of Russian characters masterfully described by A.N. Ostrovsky.

The psychological drama of Alexander Nikolaevich Ostrovsky “Dowry” is the strongest classical play of the 19th century. A typical Volga merchant town with bankrupt nobles, where serious passions flare up. It may seem that the basis of the play is love. Upon reading, instead of something creative, we see a calculation that becomes a miscalculation, and as a result, a failed “trade.” The image of Larisa Ogudalova appears as the embodiment of a beautiful and desirable “thing”.

How the play was created

The story of the creation of “Dowry” is as follows. The work, which today is considered a classic of world drama, is studied according to the school curriculum, but was not accepted during the author’s lifetime.

The premiere performance of the play “Dowry” took place in the fall of 1878 and aroused rejection from theater critics and spectators. The further fate of the play was not easy due to the failure of the first productions. The drama genre was not chosen by chance: in order to reveal the depth of the psychological experiences of the main characters.

The author actually spent five years working on the play, during which he either postponed the work (the plot of the work was somewhat modified) or returned again. Ostrovsky served as a justice of the peace, so there is an opinion that the play is based on real events: if the main character really had a prototype, it means that a specific person is to blame for the death of this girl.

Nowadays the concept of “dowry” is practically not used; its meaning has changed. Previously, a girl’s dowry was mandatory. Basically, who is this poor girl? - just a stone around her husband’s neck, because then a woman did not have the opportunity to work and increase her capital. Even a smart, beautiful girl, distinguished by a rich spiritual world, was perceived as a second-class person. The dowryless woman had to endure everything without complaint; there was almost no hope for sincere, mutual love.

Main characters

The main characters of the play are residents of a small county town on the banks of the Volga. Names and characteristics of the heroes:

1. Larisa Ogudalova is a bride of marriageable age, but without a dowry. The nature is dreamy, impetuous, creatively developed, passionately loving life, but forced to step on one’s own throat due to the severity of one’s financial situation. The author clearly described the character of Larisa Ogudalova in the play, showing active development.
2. Kharita Ignatievna is a mother, a noblewoman by birth, widowed and ruined. Clever, calculating, forgetting about moral values. The image of Larisa Ogudalova is shown by the author based on the principle of contrast with her.
3. Yuri Karandyshev is the image of a “little man” with an inordinate amount of pride. Although he is the groom and the winner, he is absurd and unlucky, and does not inspire respect from any of the characters. The image of Karandyshev in the drama is tragic and pathetic at the same time.
4. Sergei Paratov is a romantic hero, in behavior he is the “master of life,” but in essence he is a ruined nobleman, forced to enter into a marriage of convenience in order to improve his financial situation.
5. Vasily Vozhevatov is a merchant who came from the people and made himself. Initially he is presented as a friend of Larisa’s childhood and youth, but then the baseness of his thoughts is revealed. I am ready to sacrifice human lives and destinies for the sake of a bet.
6. Mokiy Knurov is a successful merchant who views people as things, from the perspective of a “commodity”. Knurov’s sympathy for the main character of the play is just a thirst for possessing a “beautiful thing.” The merchant is married, so he offers her to become his kept woman.
7. Robinson - Paratov's jester, was once an actor Schastlivtsev. He drank a lot, because of this he fell down the social ladder.
8. Gavrilo is the owner of the coffee shop.
9. Ivan is Gavrila's servant.

Larisa Ogudalova - marriageable bride

Exposition of the storyline

We offer a summary of the chapters. In the play “Dowry” the plot is structured as follows.

Act one

Near the city coffee shop, a meeting takes place between the merchants Knurov and Vozhevatov, who are awaiting Paratov’s return. Vozhevatov decided to buy the Lastochka from the shipowner.

In a conversation “over tea” (they drink champagne from tea cups), Vozhevatov tells the story of Larisa Ogudalova, who was forced to marry Karandyshev. Knurov is surprised by this choice: despairing after Paratov’s departure, the girl agreed to marry the first one who wooed her.

The newly-made groom also comes there. Karandyshev shows off and invites the merchants (as equals) to his place for a dinner dedicated to the bride.

Left alone with Larisa, he brings the girl to tears with his words. The “ideal man” for her is Sergei Paratov. A fireworks shot is heard regarding Paratov's arrival. Larisa, frightened, asks to be taken away.

Paratov returns after a year's absence, Robinson is with him. Knurov asks if it’s a pity to part with “Swallow”? Sergei Sergeevich replies that this feeling is alien to him and expresses his readiness to sell everything at a profit. Then he talks about his rich bride with gold mines. Before the imminent wedding, Paratov wants to have a lot of fun. Then Vozhevatov discusses an evening picnic with Gavrila, almost forgetting about Karandyshev’s invitation.

Act two

Knurov comes to the Ogudalovs, outraged by Karandyshev’s poverty and the future marriage in general. The merchant invites Kharita Ignatievna to make Larisa his kept woman, since he is confident in the advisability of leaving such a husband.

The prudent mother takes advantage of this offer, Knurov himself says that the girl should have nice outfits made and the bills sent to him.

Larisa feels bad in the city, the girl thinks about the village - a “quiet corner”. She wants to play a romance on the guitar - she is upset. Seeing the gypsy Ilya, he calls him to her. He talks about Paratov’s return. The mother considers this circumstance as the appearance of another groom, although her daughter refuses to tolerate such humiliation.

Karandyshev arrives, cruelly condemning the morals of the city, and opposes leaving, although the bride asks him to do so. Unexpectedly for everyone, Paratov comes to them.

While talking with his mother, the ex-groom talks about his upcoming wedding, then asks to call the girl. Left alone, he reproaches her and talks about her frivolity, like any other woman. She is offended, but at the end of the conversation she lets slip about her love for Paratov, and in response she hears an offer to remain friends. Having achieved his goal, while talking, he touches Karandyshev, who came to them, and a quarrel occurs between them. The mother forces the future son-in-law to invite Paratov to dinner. Then Vozhevatov arrives and tries to pass off Robinson, who accompanied him, as a foreigner.

Act three

In the groom's office, the girl and her mother are discussing how this dinner party went wrong. Everyone laughed at the owner and even got him drunk on purpose. Guests come here too. Knurov is outraged by how bad the wines and appetizers were.

All the men laugh at the owner again. Karandyshev, who came here, continues to show off and does not react to the bride’s remarks. At Paratov’s request, Larisa performs a romance with the gypsy, although the groom is strongly against it, and then, delighted, leaves to get champagne.

Paratov, left alone with Larisa, persuades her to go with them on the ship. She recognizes him as her master and agrees to everything. While Karandyshev once again goes for wine, everyone runs away. Returning, he swears revenge, takes a pistol and runs away.

Act four

Karandyshev is in a coffee shop, trying to ask Robinson about where everyone else is, but he pretends that he doesn’t understand anything.

The picnic is over. Knurov and Vozhevatov discuss the current situation. It is clear to them that Paratov will not refuse a profitable wedding. Each of the men is ready to take a compromised girl as his mistress, they play her toss. Knurov wins.

Paratov is grateful to Larisa for being with them on the picnic, but reminds him that he cannot get married, since he has a fiancée. She consoles her with the fact that Karandyshev will accept her back even now, and gives Robinson instructions to take her home.

Desperate, the girl turns to Vozhevatov for help, but he hands her over to Knurov, and he calls her with him to Paris for full support. Larisa doesn't answer.

She is found by Karandyshev, who was ready to become her protector, but this is precisely what the girl perceives as an insult. Then the groom, blinded by jealousy, says that she is a toss for everyone.

The girl agrees to be a thing, but does not intend to belong to him, so she decides to go with Knurov. In a fit of anger, Karandyshev shoots her. Full of gratitude, the heroine dies, saying that it was all herself. And behind the stage the gypsies sing. It is difficult to say who is really to blame for Larisa’s death.

Attention! The gypsies sing at all key moments in the play.

Ostrovsky specifically introduces this technique of contrast to show how a Russian person loves the “celebration of life” and is drawn to it and, at the same time, that this fun is alien, not characteristic of him.

"Dowry." Alexander Ostrovsky

A brief retelling of the drama by A. N. Ostrovsky “Dowry”.

Conclusion

The author shows in the play “Dowry” the unsightly side of his contemporary society, where everything is bought and sold. Circumstances lead to the death of a young girl who could not survive among cruelty and...

A.I. ZHURAVLEVA, M.S. MAKEEV. CHAPTER 6

Ostrovsky's genre of psychological drama.

“DOWER”, “TALENTS AND FANS”

Along with the genre of satirical comedy, it is customary to talk about the formation of the genre of psychological drama in Ostrovsky’s late work. Thus, the creator of the national theater solves the problem of maintaining the repertoire at the level of modern contemporary artistic discoveries, at the forefront of which were narrative prose genres.

Literature has always strived to more or less adequately portray a person and his inner life in accordance with certain ideas. The emergence of psychologism in prose is not simply connected with breaking stereotypes in the description of the hero. In prose of the mid-19th century. the falsity of any rationalizing principle in understanding his inner world is affirmed, the rejection of everything “ready-made” in the depiction of the human personality. Thus, a person appears as a problem that must be posed and understood anew every time, in every new text, in every new situation.

L.N. Tolstoy and F.M. Dostoevsky, whose work is the pinnacle of the world psychological novel, in his works developed an original and highly complex technique, a system of techniques for constructing characters in such a way that they were both part of the whole author’s plan and went beyond it, raising the question of the essence of man in general, i.e. .e. would be open outward, into the world of empirical reality of human existence.

The dominant element of classical dramaturgy was intense action, therefore the embodiment of the human personality in drama was based on the role system. Role is a specifically theatrical way of portrayal in which a person and his inner world are identified with several qualities or character traits (“mean”, “chatterbox”, etc.). At the same time, the set of such roles in each dramaturgical system is quite limited, and variations of the same types migrate from play to play, from history to history, acquiring private new features, but essentially remaining unchanged.

This principle replaces a real person with his simplified likeness, making it possible to turn him into an integral part of the plot, a dramatic character (a combination of a set of traits of a stable role with the addition of additional ones that do not contradict the main ones, but give the image a new color), whose actions coincide with those what are called theatrical springs that move the action.

Ostrovsky's theater, as mentioned above, is also based on the role system. Its originality is associated with its change, the introduction of new types, but the very principle of reflecting the human personality remains traditional. Being limited in human understanding, the role system is not limited in another respect: using repeating types, it is capable of generating an infinite number of texts with a very different range of problems and ideas. And Ostrovsky himself, who created more than 40 original plays based on it, is an example of this.

Psychological drama in Ostrovsky’s theater arises on the basis of a kind of compromise between action that requires “reducing” the complexity of the human personality, and attention to its problematic nature. A certain gap between the role to which the dramatic character belongs, his texture, and his individuality has always existed in Ostrovsky: “In Ostrovsky’s world, everything is decided by the harmonization of speech images, the incorporation of individual speech experience into the general image of the type, role... But such incorporation and Harmony does not at all mean depersonalization, the destruction of individuality.” Usually this gap in the playwright’s plays is erased by the fact that “not only the genre, not only the author typifies the characters: the character is like a living person, individuality actively participates in this.” The writer’s task when creating a psychological drama is to identify this gap and tell the story, create a dynamic plot, discover the limitations of his own artistic system, its inability to cope with the image of the individual inner world.

For this purpose, Ostrovsky uses two techniques borrowed from prose: the first is the paradoxization of the characters’ behavior, which calls into question the perfect role selection and hierarchy of the character’s properties; the second is silence, which, without outwardly violating the integrity of the role, seems to indicate the existence in the character of traits and properties that do not fit into his stage role. Two plays that are the pinnacles of Ostrovsky's psychologism - "Dowry" and "Talents and Admirers" - give us the opportunity to see how these techniques are combined with traditional dramatic means of creating action and depicting its participants. In both, the images of the central heroines become the object of artistic experimentation.

"DOWER" (1878)

Creating a scandalous and touching story that took place in the provincial town of Bryakhimov, where they live “in the old days...: from late mass everything to pie and cabbage soup, and then, after bread and salt, seven hours of rest,” Ostrovsky builds the usual for his previous plays plot: a struggle for a bride, a young girl of marriageable age, between several rivals. An astute critic and reader, both in the main character and in the contenders for her favor, easily saw a modification of the roles familiar from previous plays: these are two types of “money bags”, a “romantic hero” of the Pechorin type and a small official leading a modest working life.

However, while remaining recognizable, the initial situation is modified to become a new story with original problems. What the change is, the reader learns immediately from the exposition: outwardly, the struggle is already in the past, an engagement took place, and the heroine’s hand went to one of the applicants, a small official preparing for service in a place even more remote and distant than the city of Bryakhimov itself. Where, for example, the comedy “Labor Bread” and a lot of Ostrovsky’s other comedies end, the drama “Dowry” is just beginning.

The poor official Karandyshev is the only one who was able to offer his hand and heart to the poor bride. However, outwardly, Larisa’s consent to marry him, made out of hopelessness, looks like a preference for respectable or bright people for a person whom all other fans consider an absolute nonentity, and this consent hurts their pride. Therefore, the unquestioned love for the beauty, the undiminished desire to possess her, is combined with the desire to take revenge on the opponent, showing him his real place, to humiliate him, despite the fact that Larisa will also be humiliated with him. Possession itself will now become at the same time a means of humiliating an insignificant rival.

Thus, the subject of the new history becomes the transformation of love from “an example and guarantee of pure human relations between people in contrast to everything<…>monetary, vain and corrupt”, according to A.P. Skaftymova, in love-humiliation. The plot will be subordinated to the confrontation between love and pride. Accordingly, representatives of Ostrovsky’s traditional roles are endowed with such features that, while remaining recognizable, they simultaneously become participants in this new history. At the same time, by changing, representatives of the role seem to bring with them into the new play traces of their lives from previous plays, complicating its problems, introducing additional nuances into the action.

Knurov and Vozhevatov are characters representing variations in the role of a rich man in love (they can be compared, for example, with Flor Fedulych or many business people from Ostrovsky’s previous and subsequent plays), moreover, a “new” rich man, outwardly civilized, reading foreign newspapers, a potential theater fan or some other type of art. The traditional contradiction for this type between the desire for real feeling, the craving for the beautiful, the noble and the rational desire for profit, the coldness and rationality of nature indicates that such people lack the ability for a deep emotional perception of the world. Wealth, according to Ostrovsky, makes a person’s life easier, but at the same time deprives it of depth and authenticity.

Knurov (“one of the big businessmen of recent times, an elderly man, with a huge fortune; European in costume) embodies the power of money, a calm, cold-blooded and unusually calculating force, represents a person whose wealth makes him, as it were, a born master of life. Knurov is a real businessman, outwardly the least emotional of all the heroes, he understands the situation most rationally and sees its benefit for himself. He is less annoyed than other candidates by Larisa’s connection with Karandyshev. He understands that after marriage with this impostor leads her to disappointment, it will be possible to safely take possession of her with the help of money, and before the wedding he talks with Larisa’s mother about his views on her daughter after marriage.

Knurov’s character shows a combination of love, the desire to possess with a lack of spiritual attention to the object of passion. Appreciating the sophistication, grace and poetry of Larisa’s inner world, Knurov, in a moment of her despair, directly turns to her with an offer to become a kept woman, arguing his action by the hopelessness of her situation and the fact that no one will dare to publicly reproach her (“... I can offer you this enormous content that the most evil critics of other people’s morality will have to shut up and open their mouths in surprise”). This is a passion that is unable to overcome selfishness, self-confidence and faith in calculation.

Modern director's theater, starting with Stanislavsky, has taught us the principle of mise-en-scène, for example, to think about what the hero who is on stage thinks during a remark or monologue of another character. In part, such a vision seems legitimate when analyzing the image of Knurov, who is silent more than other heroes and is even characterized as the most and rightfully silent of all the characters, as the richest man in the city.

Ostrovsky does not attach any additional importance to this. Knurov's silence is a sign of arrogance and isolation. Hiding himself with a newspaper, he does not peek out of the corner of his eye and thereby does not hide any feelings. Knurov demonstrates his position, closing the possibility of any layman unworthy of such an honor approaching him.

Vozhevatov (“a very young man, one of the representatives of a wealthy company,” who, like Knurov, “is European in dress”) is characterized as an inexperienced person compared to Knurov and therefore more open and impulsive. This variation of the role also embodies the power of money, but the owner of the power himself, being younger, does not rely only on the crushing power of wealth to win a woman’s heart. He is much more expansive than Knurov and more active on stage, and his courtship of Larisa is manifested not in bribing her mother, but in a kind of seduction, seducing the poor girl with expensive gifts. Therefore, in him, unlike Knurov, there is no calm confidence, a duality arises between wounded pride and love for Larisa. He actively participates in the ridicule and persecution of Karandyshev, very emotionally perceives all the vicissitudes of their relationship with Larisa, it is he who owns the evil and ironic story about the background of everything that is happening. At the same time, he especially emphasizes the desire to play, a peculiar lightness of nature, a combination of calculation and a frivolous attitude towards life as pleasure and towards people as toys that can brighten it up (this is emphasized by the joy with which Vozhevatov takes Robinson as a jester). And the story with Larisa is to some extent a game for him, naturally ending in a game of toss, in which he also easily admits defeat.

When Knurov and Vozhevatov talk about a trip with Larisa to Paris for an exhibition, both mean different things: a long relationship - the first and fleeting pleasure - the second. But resolving the dispute over who will get Larisa by tossing a coin, as it were, unites them again into one whole, demonstrating both the identical nature of the images of the heroes and their equality in the duel for Larisa: their rivalry cannot be resolved in any other way.

The most organic image for this story is Sergei Sergeich Paratov. The remark relating to him is indicative: “...a brilliant gentleman, one of the ship owners, over 30 years old.” Paratov, who gives the impression of a “brilliant master,” is a much more primitive character than Larisa, Karandyshev and even Knurov and Vozhevatov. This hero is closely associated with the role of a chic playmaker, a handsome man, a gentleman, who in the end turns out to be a dowry seeker, a contender for the hand of a rich merchant’s wife, whose passionate heart and affection will put an end to his life’s search (compare with such Ostrovsky characters as Dulcin from “ The Last Victim" or Okoyomov from "Handsome Man"),

All the traits that Larisa admires in Paratov are of no value in Ostrovsky’s world. In the “chic”, external splendor of such characters, the playwright sees only a pose; they lack genuine emotional life, there is no harmony of feelings. They differ from a hero like Karandyshev in that it is in this position that they feel most comfortable. The mask has become second nature to Paratov, while he easily combines lordly irrationality (the ability to waste money, a risky bet involving shooting the woman he loves, etc.) and simple, unsightly calculation. However, the ability to theatricalize, to make any of his actions spectacular and mysterious, based on an accurate feeling of the requirements of that mask of a rich master and at the same time a “fatal hero” that Paratov wears (and this feeling is sorely lacking in such “amateurs” as Karandyshev), gives him the ability even outright baseness should be presented as something extraordinarily noble.

There is nothing behind Paratov’s spectacular pose. He is an empty place, a man leading an ephemeral, illusory existence, which is well understood by Knurov and Vozhevatov, who oppose him as the true masters of life. For example, they, truly rich people, drink champagne from cups so as not to attract attention, while he, the squandered gentleman, is greeted with cannon fire and gypsy singing.

From the background reported by Vozhevatov, we see that it was Paratov, and not Karandyshev, who seemed destined for Larisa. He is her real master, who suddenly, for unknown reasons, lost her to her rivals. In relation to Larisa, Paratov now occupies a position similar to Knurov and Vozhevatov, sharing their state of mind: on the one hand, he realizes that everything has been resolved for the better and Larisa’s engagement to Karandyshev saves him from unnecessary troubles; on the other hand, she experiences a feeling of annoyance and humiliation from her choice.

The image of Karandyshev is developed in detail in the play. This “young man, a poor official” is a special hero in Ostrovsky’s world, adjacent to the role of the “little man,” the type of poor worker with self-esteem. In constructing the character of Karandyshev, Ostrovsky shows the same “degradation” of love, which is in a complex relationship with pride. At the same time, pride in Karandyshev is so hypertrophied that it becomes a substitute for any other feeling. “Getting” Larisa for him means not just taking possession of the girl he loves, but also taking away his woman from Paratov, who irritates him, and triumphing over him, at least in this way, by taking possession of a second-hand thing, but still having value for Paratov.

Feeling like a benefactor, taking as his wife a dowryless woman, who is also partly compromised by her relationship with Paratov, Karandyshev is at the same time faced with the fact that he is constantly being made to understand: he was chosen simply because of unfortunate circumstances, if they changed, he would not be They would have been allowed into this house at all. Even being almost an official groom, he is perceived by the Ogudalovs as a “backup option” in case the rich and handsome “ideal man” does not turn up. And this humiliates Karandyshev, deprives him of the feeling of victory, triumph, the feeling of completeness and authenticity of possession.

Karandyshev rejects the path to true possession that Larisa offers him: “You see, I stand at a crossroads; support me, I need approval, sympathy; treat me gently, with affection! Seize the minutes, don’t miss them!” - the path of humility, trying to earn love with meekness and devotion, by the way, the same way that he won her hand. Karandyshev, like Larisa, is in captivity of a phantom, in captivity of the illusion of the greatness and brilliance of Paratov. His irritated, painful pride takes precedence over love, the desire to look like Paratov’s happy rival in the eyes of others turns out to be higher than the desire to truly possess and be loved. To Larisa’s requests to go into the wilderness from city life, he replies: “Only to get married - definitely here; so that they don’t say that we are hiding, because I am not your groom, not a couple, but only that straw that a drowning man grabs at...”

Thus, a situation arises when the hero is not able to become a real owner; he wants not so much to get a bride as to make this fact publicly known. With amazing tenacity, Karandyshev seems to present it to his rivals, as if the engagement does not end, but only begins the struggle. And his weakness in such a fight brings the heroine herself more and more to the fore.

In the remark, Larisa Dmitrievna Ogudalova is described laconically: “dressed richly, but modestly,” we learn more about her appearance from the reactions of others. her image is adjacent to the most important role for the plot of Ostrovsky’s plays of the poor bride, who is the subject of rivalry between several contenders for her feelings or hand. Ostrovsky's idea of ​​female psychology is quite simple if we consider it from the point of view of the “psychological method” in literature. All such brides can be divided into two groups: either they are girls with a strong character who stand their ground, and then one of the applicants must persevere to rise to her level, or they are girls without an inner core and therefore capable of falling under the absolute influence of superficial “beauty” and eccentricity and do crazy things for them. Moreover, the character of such a heroine is, as it were, made up of traits embodied by the contenders vying for her hand and heart.

Larisa, of course, belongs to the second type. In her soul there is a struggle between a feeling of high love for the “fatal hero” - Paratov and the desire to come to terms with the fate of the wife of the poor official Karandyshev.

In Paratov's absence, his image is transformed in her mind. For her, this is no longer just a loved one with external beauty, but a distant image, romanticized through the haze of memories and in contrast with the gray and boring reality. 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 forbidden to her, although she is intended, in the opinion of those around her, precisely for such a world: a beauty , possessing irresistible power over men’s hearts, delicate and noble (“After all, in Larisa Dmitrievna there is no earthly, this worldly... After all, this is ether... She was created for brilliance").

It is often noted that Larisa’s passion for Paratov is reflected in her craving and love for luxury and wealth. This is true, but only partly. Ostrovsky significantly limits the possibility of such an understanding of the character of the main character, contrasting her with Kharita Ignatievna, in whom it is precisely respect and love for wealth that erase the difference between the position of a faithful wife and a kept woman (let us recall that with hints about his views on Larisa, Knurov first turns to Kharita and does not meet with a decisive refusal), for whom there is no difference between Knurov’s business proposal and an eccentric escape with a romantic hero, as long as both bring wealth. For Larisa, Paratov’s world is a world of fantasy, a world much more poetic than it really is. As if echoes of this world in her own life are the poems she pronounces, the romances she performs, her dreams - all this gives the image of the heroine attractiveness.

The world that Larisa dreams of can be given by a strong and handsome man, always triumphant, proud, easily winning the hearts of women and men, completely opposite to her future husband. Marrying Karandyshev, Larisa feels even more humiliated, unfairly sentenced to the life that a petty official can give her, constantly suffering humiliation in attempts to catch up with Paratov. For her, the difference between them becomes more and more obvious: “Who do you look up to! - she turns to Karandyshev. “Is such blindness possible!” It is his absurd mistakes that make the prospect of living with him more and more disgusting; in his love she sees only humiliation: “There is no worse shame than this, when you have to be ashamed of others. We’re not guilty of anything, but it’s a shame, a shame, I wish I could run away somewhere.” All this makes her an unusually organic participant in the unfolding drama, the center of the game of vanity and rivalry of egos. This duality is reflected in Larisa's speech and behavior. For her remarks and monologues, she used primarily the style of a cruel romance, which at the same time has a peculiar poetry and borders on vulgarity, falsehood, and “beautifulness”; Quotes from Lermontov and Boratynsky are combined in her speech with statements like “Sergei Sergeich... is the ideal of a man,” “You are my master.” This reflects the quality of the ideal itself that attracts Larisa, an ideal that is poetic in its own way, although empty and false. She tries to see her future life with Karandyshev in a poetic light: “Soon the summer will pass, and I want to walk through the forests, pick berries, mushrooms...” But she doesn’t need someone who is not able to stand up for himself, not someone who who is humiliated, and the one who is easily able to humiliate another.

Thus, all the characters, being, as always, different from each other, which is due to both their “previous life” and belonging to different roles, vary the same features in their character, becoming similar to parts of one phrase, precisely and dramatically. emotionally expressing a judgment about the world and human life.

After Ostrovsky’s traditional extensive exposition, the action develops along two parallel lines: the humiliation and ridicule of Karandyshev and the enticement of Larisa, the symmetry of which is subtly managed by the playwright. The beginning is the return of Paratov. His appearance causes opposite reactions in the main characters. Larisa wants to run away, Karandyshev, on the contrary, strengthens his desire to stay. Larisa knows that the fight is lost in advance, Karandyshev believes that it has already been won and all he can do is reap the laurels, which will be even sweeter from the direct presence of his main rival.

Karandyshev's line is tragicomic. He is crushed by his rival immediately, at the very first clash over a trivial matter, and then in the ridiculous dinner scene. Inspired by the illusion of victory, Karandyshev goes not to defeat, but to the discovery of the truth. For greater humiliation, he is given Robinson - a jester, a living toy in the hands of a rich bar, hired to play the role of a noble foreigner. Another comic figure appearing on stage to humiliate the little official in his claim to a luxurious dinner party is his aunt with the funny name Efrosinya Potapovna, who with her stinginess thwarts Karandyshev’s attempt to amaze the rich with the sophistication of dishes and wines: “Again he wanted to buy expensive wine in a ruble or more, but the merchant was an honest man; take it, he says, around six hryvnia per bottle, we’ll put on the labels you want! I’ve already let go of the wine! You could say it's an honor. I tried a glass, and it smells like cloves, and roses, and something else. How can it be cheap when it contains so many expensive perfumes!”

In the dinner scene we see a traditional dramatic device: the spouse is fooled and exposed to ridicule while a lucky rival seduces his wife. However, for this story, it is not just the deception of the supposedly “happiest of mortals” that is important; the sight of his humiliation is the surest way to arouse the bride’s contempt for him and win her heart. The traditional technique turns out to be a connecting link between two storylines.

Paratov's visit to the Ogudalovs' house seems ambiguous. On the one hand, he is extremely defiant and insulting after Paratov’s sudden departure, which is very reminiscent of an escape from a girl who is practically perceived by everyone as his fiancée. However, Paratov is a hero who creates an aura of mystery around himself with his eccentric actions, and, on the other hand, his visit also seems mysterious: everyone tends to look for some hidden meaning behind his action, and this hidden meaning is present in Paratov’s conversations with Kharita Ignatievna and with Larisa.

In fact, Larisa’s fall is predetermined by the entire essence of her role. The mere appearance of the “handsome man” is enough to make the ending completely predictable, regardless of whether the “fatal man” has a conscious intention to win the heroine’s heart. The first dialogue between Larisa and Paratov is written as if in a dotted manner, with omissions that are easily restored with the help of context. Paratov came here with a purpose that was not entirely clear to him, out of curiosity, and acts as if automatically, guided by the principle of always and everywhere looking impressive and being a winner in any situation. This is also the specific behavior of a Don Juan, a “fatal man,” with a woman.

Accustomed to playing with women's feelings, Paratov, alone with Larisa, seeks to hurt her and challenge her with almost Pechorin-like phrases: “I want to know how soon a woman forgets a passionately loved person: the next day after separation from him, a week or a month... Is Hamlet right to tell his mother that she “hasn’t worn out her shoes yet,” and so on. He very subtly operates with understatement, not revealing the reasons for his return, only attacking, provoking, forcing him to solve the riddle. This is also an extremely traditional gallant duel for world drama, the result of which is predetermined, but the very fabric of the verbal game, the alternation of “pricks” and defensive maneuvers can be varied endlessly. Ostrovsky in this case is quite laconic, as if saving the rhetorical resources of Larisa’s role for subsequent scenes.

I would like to make one remark. The last performer of the role of Paratov in the cinema, N. Mikhalkov, brings an ironic shade to Paratov’s words about Hamlet. His Paratov seems to be making fun of his own rhetoric, looking at it from the position of modern taste or from the point of view of Ostrovsky himself, thereby inviting Larisa to similar irony. And yet the whole scene is taken seriously. Paratov’s words, in which we feel vulgarity and unbearable falsehood, really hurt Larisa, but to her and to Paratov himself they seem nobly sublime.

The duel continues and reaches its climax in the third act. In the scene of a shameful dinner in Karandyshev's house, two storylines come to a climax: Karandyshev is endlessly humiliated, and Paratov is at the pinnacle of success. Larisa's game ends. The Paratov principle wins in it, and its further fate is approximately clear to the viewer. She “made sure” that Paratov had come for her and deciphered all his misunderstandings. Paratov’s world seems to suddenly become available to her again.

It seems that the path to this romantic world lies through an equally strong, reckless (free from petty calculations, such as Karandyshev’s desire to run for office in Zabolotye, where there are no competitors) and spectacular act, with which she must prove her equality with Paratov (analogous to the one shown once readiness to stand under his gun). And Larisa achieves such heights of eccentricity when she goes on a men’s picnic across the Volga.

This act is a continuation of her role and is very traditional for her role. As always, running away with the “fatal man” leads nowhere, and the frivolous girl has to return home. This act is reckless, pushing towards the abyss, because it was committed in pursuit of a ghost, which in this case represents Paratov, the world that exists only in poetry and romances. Just like Karandyshev, Larisa makes a choice in favor of illusion rather than reality. For Ostrovsky, this attempt to get love and happiness right away, with the help of one spectacular act, looks like a refusal, an escape from one’s own destiny.

Faced with a terrible reality for himself at the end of his unsuccessful dinner, Karandyshev waits for Larisa to return from the picnic (act four). This new situation is key to understanding his personality.

At first glance, Karandyshev undergoes the same procedure as Dostoevsky’s heroes: having gone through a scandal that spilled out everything hidden from prying eyes, depriving a person of his shell, the hero can no longer hide behind his appearance. This is the moment of identity with oneself, the only moment when a person appears in his own self.

And here we also see Karandyshev, as if at the moment of tearing off his mask: if he once threatened Paratov at a masquerade, now he has a real pistol in his hands and real anger is seething in him at the entire world that humiliates him (hence some uncertainty of his intentions). It is interesting that in the last threatening monologue (third act) Karandyshev never utters Larisa’s name; he is going to take revenge on the whole world: “If all I can do in this world is either hang myself out of shame and despair, or take revenge, then I will take revenge. For me now there is no fear, no law, no pity; Only fierce anger and thirst for revenge choke me. I will take revenge on everyone until they kill me.”

However, if in Dostoevsky’s novels the situation of scandal, putting the hero before new problems, reveals paradoxical, unpredictable resources in the human soul, then here we see something different. For Karandyshev, the same situation of humiliation of a person who is not loved, but tolerated for the time being, is repeated, but on a new level. This situation is characterized in two ways. On the one hand, Karandyshev feels that his suffering and humiliation of a “ridiculous” person confirmed his right to Larisa. This right is reinforced by both her sin and her crime against him. On the other hand, he encounters Larisa, who does not recognize this right and responds to his words with contempt. From her point of view, everything is different: humiliation and suffering deprive Karandyshev of this right.

Scandal is a common means of classical drama to create theatrical effects, allowing the characters on stage to speak louder and make gestures more sharply, but does not change the idea of ​​them. As a result, in a situation of discarded masks, we see the same Karandyshev as before, whose inner world does not go beyond the previously outlined framework of the struggle of love and pride and whose actions remain within the standard for the role of an avenger and defender of desecrated honor - the role that he now takes at himself, although all his feelings are demonstrated as if at a higher intensity.

In Ostrovsky’s plays, the hero in a similar situation was given two possibilities: the first was to offer the girl, no matter what, his hand and heart, which in this case meant refusing compensation for hurt pride, with humility to win her love, or at least gratitude, which could later develop into love. This behavior of the hero usually embodies in Ostrovsky the superiority of modest but genuine love and life over illusory life and selfish love. The second possibility is related to the reaction of the deceived husband (to whose position Karandyshev has some right) - the position of a cruel, unyielding moralist, covering up the thirst for satisfying wounded pride.

But the ambiguity of the situation, arising from Larisa’s specific behavior and the tension between the feeling of love and pride in the motivations for the actions of the “little man” himself, “splits” Karandyshev’s behavior into several types of reaction simultaneously. He tries to humiliate her to the limit, taking the position of a moralist (“Your friends are good! What respect for you! They don’t look at you as a woman, as a person - a person controls his own destiny, they look at you as a thing”) , and reward yourself with a moral victory, take the position of its defender (“I must always be with you to protect you”).

When Karandyshev throws himself on his knees and shouts “I love, I love,” this spectacular gesture is obviously useless: he does not have the opportunity to defeat Larisa with the power of passion. The confession is followed by murder: “Don’t let anyone get you” - this is a manifestation of the pose of the “little man”, asserting himself in the possession of a woman who is “not a match” for him. These are actions and words that seem to continue and develop the motive of a woman-thing serving as a subject of rivalry among men. Karandyshev cannot possess this living woman and asserts power over her dead; the only option left for him to take possession of her is murder. He does not have the money of Knurov and Vozhevatov, the beauty and chic nature of Paratov, which gives the right to possession, and he resorts to weapons as a last resort.

Karandyshev thereby differs, for example, from Krasnov from the play “Sin and misfortune lives on no one.” Karandyshev’s act, which is outwardly similar to Krasnov’s act, has a different meaning and motivation. This is not a variation on the Othello theme. The murder he commits is not retribution for the desecrated ideas of virtue, but an act of appropriation, a last attempt to triumph over rivals who are superior to him in everything.

We will not dwell on the question of how a small, insignificant person turns out to be capable of committing murder - an act that only a strong person can commit. But such an angle of view, being, of course, possible, will lead us away from understanding the play. He is not adequate to the world of Ostrovsky precisely because murder, as a theatrical writer, does not evoke such sacred awe as, for example, Dostoevsky. In the theater, the hero who commits murder is a scoundrel, a villain, etc. Killing here is not considered as a specific human ability, as an act isolated from everything else, i.e. murder is not a subject of psychological consideration; it is associated with and is the manifestation of other affects or functions of the character as their extreme and most effective manifestation. But at the same time, it would be incorrect to say that a murder in a theater, as a common expression goes, is “pure convention.” This is a functionally extremely significant gesture that does not have a purely psychological load.

In the last act, Larisa suffers punishment for a rash act, paying first of all with the loss of the ideal embodied for her in Paratov, from whom she hears: “But you hardly have the right to be so demanding of me,” everyday and social supports. The humiliation is intensified by Vozhevatov’s behavior, which she, not knowing its true background, probably takes as a demonstration of contempt for her act, then Knurova, and finally Karandyshev completes the scene of her humiliation with the message that two rich men played her at toss. Ostrovsky uses an extremely effective technique that is theatrical in nature: in the final act, all the contenders for Larisa appear one after another to confront her with a manifestation of love-humiliation. The extreme point of humiliation is the awareness of oneself as a thing, an object of purchase and sale.

The situation of a woman - a thing, a prize that goes to a man in a fight - is an integral part of Ostrovsky's theater. However, in the world of the writer, this position of a woman is softened and compensated for by the love that A.P. writes about. Skaftymov. The hero who gets the bride not only appropriates the woman for himself, but also takes responsibility for her. This responsibility is embodied primarily in the readiness for compassion, which is especially clearly manifested at the moment of its “fall.”

After the trip beyond the Volga, Larisa, who has already paid for her act with a fall, a complete collapse of life’s illusions, goes beyond the sphere of evaluation and condemnation and falls into the sphere of compassion and pity, which is higher than justice. But the world of “The Dowry” is structured in such a way that among the motivating reasons for the actions of the heroes there is no pity or compassion. Therefore, in Larisa’s monologue following the last explanation with Paratov, the motive of suicide prevails as the only possible outcome.

Suicide in the theater is the same stable technique as murder, the same way to picturesquely complete an action that has come to its logical conclusion, in this case to put an effective end to the story of the meaninglessness and impossibility of human existence in a world where the only incentive for a person is the satisfaction of pride , and love deceives and humiliates (“But it’s cold to live like this. It’s not my fault, I was looking for love and didn’t find it... it doesn’t exist in the world... there’s nothing to look for”). And it seems that Ostrovsky himself, with a skillful hand, brings the action to just such a conclusion, outlining a vicious circle around the heroine.

But if just now, in a conversation with Paratov, Larisa easily threatened him with suicide (“For unfortunate people there is a lot of space in God’s world: here is the garden, here is the Volga. Here you can hang yourself on every branch, on the Volga - choose any place. It’s easy to drown yourself everywhere if you want may she have enough strength"), then now her attitude towards such an act is changing. And although Karandyshev’s shot still puts an end to Larisa’s fate, replacing suicide with murder, her refusal to commit suicide, the paradoxical desire to live when “it is impossible and there is no need to live,” suddenly, at the very end of the action, raises a problem completely alien to the meaning of the entire play .

This trembling of a living being, seemingly determined to do anything before the horror of death, leads the reader’s attention beyond the role of Larisa in the plot of “The Dowry” - to the problem of the human personality in general, to the combination of strength and weakness in it, as if feeding each other. And the paradoxical continuation and consequence of this refusal to commit suicide is the desire to fight at the bottom of the fall, to respond with humiliation to humiliation, the readiness to oppose the cruel and immoral world with adequately cruel and immoral behavior and the feeling of Christian forgiveness and universal love that suddenly arises at the end.

All these impulses suddenly violate the hierarchy of Larisa’s character traits, dictated by her role in the system of the play, discover and bring to the fore overtones and details of her behavior, which are not important for the plot and do not play a role in the story of love and pride. The image of Larisa turns out to be broader than just a variation of a stable role, showing its insufficiency, inability to cope, to subjugate an integral and incredibly complex human personality. In order to combine all the elements of the heroine’s behavior, to create a holistic picture of her inner world, it is necessary to understand the essence of man in general.

At the same time, simultaneously exploding an unusually accurately and subtly constructed system, the image of Larisa reinforces the main idea of ​​the play. It is the feeling of an absolutely living life, taken in all its problematic and irrationality, that enhances the feeling of the tragedy of the fate depicted on the stage, the hostility of the cold world to a truly living, at the same time weak and courageous human heart, thirsting for love and compassion.

1 For more information about the concept of psychologism, see: Ginzburg L.Ya. About psychological prose. L., 1971. Ch. "The problem of the psychological novel."

Zhuravleva A.I., Nekrasov V.N. Ostrovsky Theater. M., 1986. P. 135.

Skaftymov A.P. Moral quests of Russian writers. M., 1972. P. 502.