The lack of dowry is the essence of the work. “Dowry” by A. N. Ostrovsky. Stage life of the play, film adaptation. Homelessness Information About

“Dowry”, act 1 – summary

In a coffee shop in one of the Volga cities, local wealthy businessmen - the elderly Knurov and the young Vozhevatov - are talking. They are discussing big news: the well-known young beauty Larisa Ogudalova is marrying an insignificant and poor official, Karandyshev.

Dowryless. Film-play based on the play of the same name by A.N. Ostrovsky (1974)

Larisa is a noblewoman, but without funds, homeless woman. Her mother, Kharita Ignatievna, trying to find the daughter of a rich groom, organized evenings at her home, inviting wealthy people to them. But none of them approached Larisa. The whole city remembers the story of her last year’s infatuation with the handsome and daring shipowner Sergei Paratov. He frequented the Ogudalovs’ house, fought off other suitors, but finally left without proposing. Larisa, passionately in love, rushed after him, but her mother turned her out of the way.

Vozhevatov tells Knurov: today Paratov must come to the city again to sell one of his ships.

Larisa and her mother and Karandyshev enter the coffee shop. After Larisa agrees to marry him, Karandyshev turns up his nose, but this only causes ridicule and mockery from the townspeople. Now, in the coffee shop, Karandyshev begins to find fault with Larisa with jealous pettiness. He reminds her of the story with Paratov. Larisa angrily tells the groom that he cannot stand any comparison with the brave and proud Paratov.

The Ogudalovs and Karandyshev leave. Paratov appears at the coffee shop, having just arrived on his own ship. The news about Larisa's marriage initially makes him worried and thoughtful. But he quickly pulls himself together and tells Knurov and Vozhevatov that he himself has decided to marry a rich girl. They give her gold mines as a dowry, and his own financial situation is greatly upset.

"Dowry", act 2 - summary

After the wedding, Karandyshev plans to go to a remote county, where it is easier to make a bureaucratic career. Larisa is not afraid even of a dull life in the wilderness among the forests. She wants to quickly leave the city, with which she has painful memories.

But Paratov suddenly approaches the house where she lives with her mother on trotters after a year’s absence. In a private conversation with Larisa, Paratov unfairly reproaches her for “forgetting him too quickly” and arrogantly mocks Karandyshev in Larisa’s eyes. Larisa in response admits that she still loves Paratov...

Karandyshev enters. Paratov talks down to him, even shouts at him. Karandyshev is clearly a coward, tolerates insults and, at the insistence of Larisa and her mother, invites Paratov to his place for today’s pre-wedding dinner.

Paratov decides to make fun of Karandyshev there with the help of a greasy, always drunk joker - actor Robinson. Paratov, Knurov and Vozhevatov are planning to go on a festivities across the Volga that same evening, after dinner, and hire boats and a gypsy choir for this.

“Dowry”, act 3 – summary

Having invited the city's rich to dinner, Karandyshev treats them with shameful poverty. His stingy aunt purchased the cheapest products for the festive table. The guests mockingly discuss this in their circle. Robinson, trained by Paratov, tries to get Karandyshev more drunk at dinner.

After dinner, the guests ask Larisa to perform a romance. She sadly takes the guitar and, looking at Paratov, sings: “Don’t tempt me unnecessarily with the return of your tenderness.” Paratov listens in great excitement.

Conversation between Paratov and Larisa alone. “Why did I run from you! - he exclaims. - Why did you lose such a treasure! With your singing you awakened noble feelings that have not yet completely faded away in my soul.” Paratov invites Larisa to go with him on a walk beyond the Volga: “It’s now or never.”

Larisa hesitates. Openly leaving the groom with strangers on the eve of the wedding is not an easy step. But Paratov begs with such passion that she decides to put her fate on the line. Larisa hopes that Paratov will propose to her at the picnic. “Either you rejoice, mom, or look for me in the Volga!” - she says to her worried mother.

The rich guests leave without even warning the drunken Karandyshev. Having learned about this, he almost cries from resentment. "I will take revenge!" - Karandyshev shouts, grabs the pistol hanging on the wall and runs out.

“Dowry”, act 4 – summary

In the evening, the participants of the festivities return from across the Volga. Knurov and Vozhevatov enter a coffee shop on the shore. Neither one nor the other believes that Paratov will marry Larisa, and now she may have to break up with the insulted Karandyshev. Knurov and Vozhevatov themselves are not indifferent to Larisa. To avoid rivalry, Knurov suggests tossing a coin: whoever is lucky will “take care” of Larisa in the future, and let the other one renounce claims to her. They abandon him - and happiness falls to Knurov.

Larisa and Paratov are walking in the distance. “You still haven’t said whether I’m your wife now or not?” – she asks hotly. Paratov at first avoids answering, and then says that he said his passionate words to Larisa before the picnic in a fleeting infatuation. Paratov now invites her to return to Karandyshev. “I can only hang myself or drown myself!” - Larisa gasps. Paratov says that he is already engaged and shows the ring. Larisa sinks into a chair in shock.

Old Knurov comes up and offers Larisa his entire fortune if she agrees to become his mistress. He cannot marry, because he already has a wife. Larisa shakes her head in tears. Knurov leaves. Larisa runs up to the steep Volga cliff, but when she sees the height, she recoils in horror. “I can’t kill myself! If only someone else had killed me!”

Karandyshev runs up to the coffee shop where she is sitting. He attacks Larisa with reproaches and tells what he learned from Robinson: Knurov and Vozhevatov played her with a coin. Larisa is stunned: “So I’m just thing for men!"

Karandyshev calls her shameless, but promises to forgive her if she returns to him. “Go away! - Larisa chases him. “I’m too expensive for you!” “So don’t let anyone get you!” - Karandyshev shouts, takes out a pistol and shoots at her.

Larisa clutches her chest: “Oh! What a blessing you have done for me!” “No one is to blame,” she convinces Paratov, Knurov and Vozhevatov who ran out of the coffee shop. - It's me. Live, live everything! You need to live, but I need... to die... I’m not offended by anyone... you’re all good people... I love you all... I love you all.”

Larisa dies to the sound of a gypsy song in the distance.

See more details in a separate article

Material from Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia

"Dowry"- play by Alexander Nikolaevich Ostrovsky. Work on it continued for four years - from 1874 to 1878. The premiere performances of “The Dowry” took place in the fall of 1878 and caused protest among spectators and theater critics. Success came to the work after the death of the author.

The play was first published in the journal Otechestvennye zapiski (1879, No. 1).

History of creation

In the 1870s, Alexander Ostrovsky served as an honorary justice of the peace in Kineshma district. Participation in trials and familiarity with criminal chronicles gave him the opportunity to find new topics for his works. Researchers suggest that the plot of “Dowry” was suggested to the playwright by life itself: one of the high-profile cases that shook up the entire county was the murder of his young wife by local resident Ivan Konovalov.

When starting a new work in November 1874, the playwright made a note: “Opus 40.” Work, contrary to expectations, proceeded slowly; In parallel with “The Dowry,” Ostrovsky wrote and published several more works. Finally, in the fall of 1878, the play was completed. In those days, the playwright told one of his actor acquaintances:

I had already read my play in Moscow five times; among the listeners there were people hostile to me, and everyone unanimously recognized “The Dowry” as the best of all my works.

Subsequent events also indicated that the new play was doomed to success: it easily passed censorship, the magazine Otechestvennye Zapiski began preparing the work for publication, and the troupes of first the Maly and then the Alexandrinsky Theater began rehearsals. However, the premiere performances in Moscow and St. Petersburg ended in failure; Reviews from critics were replete with harsh assessments. Only ten years after the author’s death, in the second half of the 1890s, did “Dowry” gain recognition from viewers; it was associated primarily with the name of actress Vera Komissarzhevskaya.

Characters

• Kharita Ignatievna Ogudalova - middle-aged widow, mother of Larisa Dmitrievna.
• Larisa Dmitrievna Ogudalova - a young girl surrounded by admirers, but without a dowry.
• Mokiy Parmenych Knurov - a big businessman, an elderly man, with a huge fortune.
• Vasily Danilych Vozhevatov - a young man who has known Larisa since childhood; one of the representatives of a wealthy trading company.
• Yuliy Kapitonich Karandyshev - poor official
• Sergei Sergeich Paratov - a brilliant gentleman, a shipowner, over 30 years old.
• Robinson - provincial actor Arkady Schastlivtsev.
• Gavrilo - club bartender and owner of a coffee shop on the boulevard.
• Ivan - servant in a coffee shop

Plot

Act one

The action takes place on the site in front of a coffee shop located on the banks of the Volga. Local merchants Knurov and Vozhevatov are talking here. During the conversation, it turns out that the shipowner Paratov is returning to the city. A year ago, Sergei Sergeevich hastily left Bryakhimov; the departure was so rapid that the master did not have time to say goodbye to Larisa Dmitrievna Ogudalova. She, being a “sensitive” girl, even rushed to catch up with her beloved; she was returned from the second station.

According to Vozhevatov, who has known Larisa since childhood, her main problem is the lack of a dowry. Kharita Ignatievna, the girl’s mother, trying to find a suitable groom for her daughter, keeps the house open. However, after Paratov’s departure, the candidates for the role of Larisa’s husband were unenviable: an old man with gout, the always drunk manager of some prince, and a fraudulent cashier who was arrested right in the Ogudalovs’ house. After the scandal, Larisa Dmitrievna announced to her mother that she would marry the first person she met. It turned out to be a poor official Karandyshev. Listening to a colleague’s story, Knurov notices that this woman was created for luxury; she, like an expensive diamond, needs an “expensive setting.”

Soon the Ogudalov mother and daughter appear on the site, accompanied by Karandyshev. Larisa Dmitrievna's fiance invites coffee shop visitors to his place for a dinner party. Kharita Ignatievna, seeing Knurov’s contemptuous bewilderment, explains that “it’s the same as we have lunch for Larisa.” After the merchants leave, Yuliy Kapitonovich arranges a scene of jealousy for the bride; to his question what is so good about Paratov, the girl replies that she sees in Sergei Sergeevich the ideal of a man.

When a cannon shot is heard on the shore, announcing the arrival of the master, Karandyshev takes Larisa away from the coffee shop. However, the establishment is not empty for long: a few minutes later the owner Gavrilo meets the same merchants and Sergei Sergeevich, who arrived in Bryakhimov along with the actor Arkady Schastlivtsev, nicknamed Robinson. The actor received the name of the book hero, as Paratov explains, because he was found on a deserted island. The conversation between long-time acquaintances revolves around Paratov’s sale of the steamship “Lastochka” - from now on Vozhevatov will become its owner. In addition, Sergei Sergeevich reports that he is going to marry the daughter of an important gentleman, and is taking gold mines as a dowry. The news of Larisa Ogudalova's upcoming marriage makes him think. Paratov admits that he feels a little guilty towards the girl, but now “the old scores are over.”

Act two

The events unfolding in the second act take place in the Ogudalovs' house. While Larisa is changing clothes, Knurov appears in the room. Kharita Ignatievna greets the merchant as a dear guest. Moky Parmenych makes it clear that Karandyshev is not the best match for such a brilliant young lady as Larisa Dmitrievna; in her situation, the patronage of a rich and influential person is much more useful. Along the way, Knurov reminds that the bride’s wedding dress should be exquisite, and therefore the entire wardrobe should be ordered from the most expensive store; he bears all expenses.

After the merchant leaves, Larisa informs her mother that she intends to leave with her husband immediately after the wedding for Zabolotye, a distant county where Yuliy Kapitonich will run for justice of the peace. However, Karandyshev, appearing in the room, does not share the bride’s wishes: he is annoyed by Larisa’s haste. In the heat of the moment, the groom makes a long speech about how all of Bryakhimov has gone crazy; cab drivers, tavern handlers, gypsies - everyone rejoices at the arrival of the master, who, having been wasted in carousing, is forced to sell his “last steamboat.”

Next it is Paratov’s turn to pay a visit to the Ogudalovs. First, Sergei Sergeevich sincerely communicates with Kharita Ignatievna. Later, left alone with Larisa, he wonders how long a woman can live apart from her loved one. This conversation is painful for the girl; When asked if she loves Paratov as before, Larisa answers yes.

Paratov’s acquaintance with Karandyshev begins with a conflict: having uttered a saying that “one loves watermelon, and the other loves pork cartilage,” Sergei Sergeevich explains that he learned the Russian language from barge haulers. These words arouse the indignation of Yuli Kapitonovich, who believes that barge haulers are rude, ignorant people. Kharita Ignatievna stops the flaring quarrel: she orders champagne to be brought. Peace has been restored, but later, in a conversation with the merchants, Paratov admits that he will find an opportunity to “make fun” of the groom.

Act three

There is a dinner party at Karandyshev's house. Yulia Kapitonovich's aunt, Efrosinya Potapovna, complains to the servant Ivan that this event takes too much effort, and the expenses are too high. It’s good that we managed to save on wine: the seller sold the batch for six hryvnia per bottle, re-sticking the labels.

Larisa, seeing that the guests did not touch the offered dishes and drinks, feels ashamed for the groom. The situation is aggravated by the fact that Robinson, who is tasked with making his owner drunk until he is completely insensitive, suffers loudly due to the fact that instead of the declared Burgundy he has to use some kind of “Kinder Balsam”.

Paratov, demonstrating affection towards Karandyshev, agrees to have a drink with his rival for brotherhood. When Sergei Sergeevich asks Larisa to sing, Yuliy Kapitonovich tries to protest. In response, Larisa takes the guitar and performs the romance “Don’t tempt me unnecessarily.” Her singing makes a strong impression on those present. Paratov admits to the girl that he is tormented by the fact that he lost such a treasure. He immediately invites the young lady to go beyond the Volga. While Karandyshev proposes a toast in honor of his bride and looks for new wine, Larisa says goodbye to her mother.

Returning with champagne, Yuliy Kapitonovich discovers that the house is empty. The desperate monologue of the deceived groom is dedicated to the drama of a funny man who, when angry, is capable of revenge. Grabbing a pistol from the table, Karandyshev rushes in search of the bride and her friends.

Act four

Knurov and Vozhevatov, returning from a night walk along the Volga, discuss Larisa’s fate. Both understand that Paratov will not exchange a rich bride for a dowry. To remove the question of possible rivalry, Vozhevatov proposes to resolve everything by drawing lots. The thrown coin indicates that Knurov will take Larisa to the exhibition in Paris.

Meanwhile, Larisa, climbing up the mountain from the pier, has a difficult conversation with Paratov. She is interested in one thing: is she now Sergei Sergeevich’s wife or not? The news that her lover is engaged comes as a shock to the girl.

She is sitting at a table not far from the coffee shop when Knurov appears. He invites Larisa Dmitrievna to the French capital, guaranteeing, if she agrees, the highest content and fulfillment of any whims. Karandyshev comes up next. He tries to open the bride’s eyes to her friends, explaining that they see her only as a thing. The found word seems successful to Larisa. Having informed her ex-fiancé that he is too petty and insignificant for her, the young lady passionately declares that, having not found love, she will look for gold.

Karandyshev, listening to Larisa, takes out a pistol. The shot is accompanied by the words: “So don’t get it to anyone!” In a fading voice, Larisa informs Paratov and the merchants who have run out of the coffee shop that she is not complaining about anything and is not offended by anyone.

Stage fate. Reviews

The premiere at the Maly Theater, where the role of Larisa Ogudalova was played by Glikeria Fedotova, and Paratov was Alexander Lensky, took place on November 10, 1878. The excitement around the new play was unprecedented; in the hall, as reviewers later reported, “all of Moscow, who loved the Russian stage, gathered,” including the writer Fyodor Dostoevsky. Expectations, however, were not met: according to a columnist for the newspaper Russkie Vedomosti, “the playwright tired the entire audience, right down to the most naive spectators.” This was the most deafening failure in Ostrovsky's creative biography.

The first production on the stage of the Alexandrinsky Theater, where Maria Savina played the main role, evoked fewer derogatory responses. Thus, the St. Petersburg newspaper “Novoye Vremya” admitted that the performance of “Dowry” made a “strong impression” on the audience. However, there was no need to talk about success: a critic of the same publication, a certain K., complained that Ostrovsky spent a lot of effort on creating a story about a “stupid seduced girl” that was of little interest to anyone:

Those who expected a new word, new types from the venerable playwright are sorely mistaken; in return, we received updated old motifs, we received a lot of dialogue instead of action.

The critics did not spare the actors who participated in “Dowry.” The capital's newspaper "Birzhevye Vedomosti" (1878, No. 325) noted that Glikeria Fedotova "did not understand the role at all and played poorly." Journalist and writer Pyotr Boborykin, who published a note in Russkie Vedomosti (1879, March 23), remembered only “the panache and falsehood from the first step to the last word” in the actress’s work. Actor Lensky, according to Boborykin, when creating the image, placed too much emphasis on the white gloves that his hero Paratov put on “unnecessarily every minute.” Mikhail Sadovsky, who played the role of Karandyshev on the Moscow stage, presented, in the words of the New Time columnist, “a poorly conceived type of official-groom.”

In September 1896, the Alexandrinsky Theater undertook to revive the play, which had long been removed from the repertoire. The role of Larisa Ogudalova, performed by Vera Komissarzhevskaya, initially caused the familiar irritation of reviewers: they wrote that the actress “played unevenly, in the last act she fell into melodrama.” However, the audience understood and accepted the new stage version of "Dowry", in which the heroine was not between suitors, and above them; The play gradually began to return to the country's theaters.

Productions

Main characters

Larisa, included in the gallery of notable female images of literature of the second half of the 19th century, strives for independent actions; she feels like a person capable of making decisions. However, the impulses of the young heroine collide with the cynical morality of society, which perceives her as an expensive, sophisticated thing.

The girl is surrounded by four fans, each of whom is trying to get her attention. At the same time, according to researcher Vladimir Lakshin, it is not love that drives Larisa’s suitors. So, Vozhevatov is not very upset when the lot in the form of a thrown coin points to Knurov. He, in turn, is ready to wait until Paratov comes into play, so that later he can “take revenge and take the broken heroine to Paris.” Karandyshev also perceives Larisa as a thing; however, unlike his rivals, he does not want to see his beloved stranger thing The simplest explanation for all the heroine’s troubles, associated with the lack of a dowry, is broken by the theme of loneliness that young Ogudalova carries within herself; her inner orphanhood is so great that the girl looks “incompatible with the world.”

Critics perceived Larisa as a kind of “continuation” of Katerina from Ostrovsky’s play “The Thunderstorm” (they are united by ardor and recklessness of feelings, which led to a tragic ending); at the same time, she revealed features of other heroines of Russian literature - we are talking about some of Turgenev’s girls, as well as Nastasya Filippovna from “The Idiot” and Anna Karenina from the novel of the same name:

Drawing a parallel between Karandyshev and Dostoevsky’s “humiliated” heroes, researchers emphasize that Yuliy Kapitonovich is infinitely far from Makar Devushkin from the novel “Poor People” and Marmeladov from the novel “Crime and Punishment”. His “literary brothers” are the hero of the story “Notes from Underground” and Golyadkin from “The Double”.

Karandyshev's shot is a complex action in its motives and in its results. One can see here just a criminal act of an owner and an egoist, obsessed with one thought: not for me, not for anyone. But you can also see in the shot the answer to Larisa’s secret thoughts - in a complex way they penetrate into the consciousness of Karandyshev, the only one of the four men who did not want to hand her over to anyone else’s hands.

Image of the city

If the fate of Larisa largely repeats the story of Katerina, transferred from the mid-19th century to the 1870s, then Bryakhimov is a development of the image of the city of Kalinov from the same “Thunderstorm”. Over the two decades separating one play by Ostrovsky from another, the main types of townspeople have changed: if previously the tyrant merchant Dikoy dominated in the outback, now he was replaced by the “businessman of the new formation” Knurov, dressed in a European suit. Kabanikha, who exterminates all living things around her, also became a character of a bygone era - she gave way to her “trading daughters” Kharita Ignatievna Ogudalova. Dikiy's nephew Boris, who gave in to the realities of life, according to the trends of the times, turned into a brilliant master Paratov.

However, the pace of city life has not changed. Life in Bryakhimov is subject to familiar rituals - every day there is mass, vespers and long tea parties near the samovars. Then, according to the bartender Gavrila, the city is covered with a feeling of “first melancholy”, which is relieved by long walks - so, Knurov “every morning the boulevard measures back and forth, exactly as promised.”

All the characters in the play are connected by a “common interest”: they feel unbearable in this city. Even Knurov’s silence is evidence of the “conflict situation” into which he entered with the hated Bryakhimov. And Vozhevatov? He is also in “conflict with Bryakhimov’s boredom.” Larisa is oppressed not only by the situation in her house, but by “the whole atmosphere of Bryakhimov.”

Names and surnames of characters

Boris Kostelyanets is convinced that Ostrovsky put a special meaning into the names and surnames of his heroes. So, Knurov, according to the author’s remarks, is “a man with an enormous fortune.” The character’s surname enhances the feeling of power coming from the “big businessman”: "knur"(according to Dahl) - this is a hog, wild boar. Paratov, whom the playwright characterizes as a “brilliant gentleman,” also found his last name on the pages of the play not by chance: "paratami" called a particularly fast, unstoppable breed of dog.

Kharita Ignatievna, who knows how to deceive and flatter herself when necessary, bears the surname “Ogudalova”, which is based on the verb "to guess", meaning “to entangle”, “to entangle”.

Film adaptations

• The first film adaptation of “Dowry” took place in 1912 - the film was directed by Kai Hansen, the role of Larisa Ogudalova was played by Vera Pashennaya.
• Among the most famous film versions of the work is the film by Yakov Protazanov, released in 1936.

Larisa in the film is not endowed with the traits of tragic doom.<…>In accordance with Ostrovsky's plan, Larisa is presented by the director of the film as cheerful, reaching out to life with all the strength of her sensitive nature until the last minute. To show this particular Larisa, the authors of the film reveal her life long, a whole year before the events with which the play begins and which last only twenty-four hours.

Music

• - ballet “Dowry” by Alexander Friedlander.
• - opera “Dowry” by Daniil Frenkel.

Write a review about the article "Dowry"

Notes

1. Alexander Ostrovsky.. - M.: Olma-Press Education, 2003. - P. 30-31. - 830 s. - ISBN 5-94849-338-5.
2. Eldar Ryazanov. Unsummarized results. - M.: Vagrius, 2002. - P. 447.
3. , With. 215.
4. // Russian Gazette. - 1878. - No. 12 November.
5. Eldar Ryazanov. Unsummarized results. - M.: Vagrius, 2002. - P. 446.
6. Vladimir Lakshin.. - M.: Vremya, 2013. - 512 p. - ISBN 978-5-9691-0871-4.
7. Lotman L. M. dramaturgy of the second half of the 19th century]. - M.: Nauka, 1991. - T. 7. - P. 71.
8. , With. 228.
9. , With. 229.
10. Derzhavin K.N.. - M., Leningrad: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1956. - T. 8. - P. 469.
11. Isakova I. N.. Linguistic and cultural thesaurus “Humanitarian Russia”. Retrieved April 30, 2015.
12. . Encyclopedia of Russian Cinema. Retrieved April 30, 2015.
13. Eldar Ryazanov. Unsummarized results. - M.: Vagrius, 2002. - P. 451.

Literature

• Kostelyanets B.O.. - M.: Coincidence, 2007. - 502 p. - (Theatrum Mundi). - ISBN 978-5-903060-15-3.
• Ostrovsky A. N. Dramaturgy. - M.: Astrel, 2000. - ISBN 5-271-00300-6.

An excerpt characterizing the Dowryless

The squadron drove around the infantry and battery, who were also in a hurry to go faster, went down the mountain and, passing through some empty village without inhabitants, climbed the mountain again. The horses began to lather, the people became flushed.
- Stop, be equal! – the division commander’s command was heard ahead.
- Left shoulder forward, step march! - they commanded from the front.
And the hussars along the line of troops went to the left flank of the position and stood behind our lancers who were in the first line. On the right stood our infantry in a thick column - these were reserves; above it on the mountain, our guns were visible in the clean, clear air, in the morning, oblique and bright light, right on the horizon. Ahead, behind the ravine, enemy columns and cannons were visible. In the ravine we could hear our chain, already engaged and cheerfully clicking with the enemy.
Rostov, as if hearing the sounds of the most cheerful music, felt joy in his soul from these sounds, which had not been heard for a long time. Tap ta ta tap! – suddenly, then several shots clapped quickly, one after another. Again everything fell silent, and again it was as if firecrackers were cracking as someone walked on them.
The hussars stood in one place for about an hour. The cannonade began. Count Osterman and his retinue rode behind the squadron, stopped, talked with the regiment commander and rode off to the guns on the mountain.
Following Osterman’s departure, the lancers heard a command:
- Form a column, line up for the attack! “The infantry ahead of them doubled their platoons to let the cavalry through. The lancers set off, their pike weather vanes swaying, and at a trot they went downhill towards the French cavalry, which appeared under the mountain to the left.
As soon as the lancers went down the mountain, the hussars were ordered to move up the mountain, to cover the battery. While the hussars were taking the place of the lancers, distant, missing bullets flew from the chain, squealing and whistling.
This sound, not heard for a long time, had an even more joyful and exciting effect on Rostov than the previous sounds of shooting. He, straightening up, looked at the battlefield opening from the mountain, and with all his soul participated in the movement of the lancers. The lancers came close to the French dragoons, something was tangled there in the smoke, and five minutes later the lancers rushed back not to the place where they stood, but to the left. Between the orange lancers on red horses and behind them, in a large heap, were visible blue French dragoons on gray horses.

Rostov, with his keen hunting eye, was one of the first to see these blue French dragoons pursuing our lancers. Closer and closer the lancers and the French dragoons pursuing them moved in frustrated crowds. One could already see how these people, who seemed small under the mountain, collided, overtook each other and waved their arms or sabers.
Rostov looked at what was happening in front of him as if he were being persecuted. He instinctively felt that if he now attacked the French dragoons with the hussars, they would not resist; but if you hit, you had to do it now, this minute, otherwise it will be too late. He looked around him. The captain, standing next to him, did not take his eyes off the cavalry below in the same way.
“Andrei Sevastyanich,” said Rostov, “we will doubt them...
“It would be a dashing thing,” said the captain, “but in fact...
Rostov, without listening to him, pushed his horse, galloped ahead of the squadron, and before he had time to command the movement, the entire squadron, experiencing the same thing as him, set off after him. Rostov himself did not know how and why he did it. He did all this, as he did on the hunt, without thinking, without thinking. He saw that the dragoons were close, that they were galloping, upset; he knew that they could not stand it, he knew that there was only one minute that would not return if he missed it. The bullets screeched and whistled around him so excitedly, the horse begged forward so eagerly that he could not stand it. He touched his horse, gave the command, and at the same moment, hearing behind him the sound of the stomping of his deployed squadron, at full trot, he began to descend towards the dragoons down the mountain. As soon as they went downhill, their trot gait involuntarily turned into a gallop, which became faster and faster as they approached their lancers and the French dragoons galloping behind them. The dragoons were close. The front ones, seeing the hussars, began to turn back, the rear ones stopped. With the feeling with which he rushed across the wolf, Rostov, releasing his bottom at full speed, galloped across the frustrated ranks of the French dragoons. One lancer stopped, one foot fell to the ground so as not to be crushed, one riderless horse got mixed up with the hussars. Almost all the French dragoons galloped back. Rostov, having chosen one of them on a gray horse, set off after him. On the way he ran into a bush; a good horse carried him over, and, barely able to cope in the saddle, Nikolai saw that in a few moments he would catch up with the enemy whom he had chosen as his target. This Frenchman was probably an officer - judging by his uniform, he was bent over and galloping on his gray horse, urging it on with a saber. A moment later, Rostov’s horse hit the rear of the officer’s horse with its chest, almost knocking it down, and at the same moment Rostov, without knowing why, raised his saber and hit the Frenchman with it.
The instant he did this, all the animation in Rostov suddenly disappeared. The officer fell not so much from the blow of the saber, which only slightly cut his arm above the elbow, but from the push of the horse and from fear. Rostov, holding back his horse, looked for his enemy with his eyes to see whom he had defeated. The French dragoon officer was jumping on the ground with one foot, the other was caught in the stirrup. He, squinting in fear, as if expecting a new blow every second, wrinkled his face and looked up at Rostov with an expression of horror. His face, pale and splattered with dirt, blond, young, with a hole in the chin and light blue eyes, was not the face of a battlefield, not an enemy’s face, but a very simple indoor face. Even before Rostov decided what he would do with him, the officer shouted: “Je me rends!” [I give up!] In a hurry, he wanted and could not untangle his leg from the stirrup and, without taking his frightened blue eyes off, looked at Rostov. The hussars jumped up and freed his leg and put him on the saddle. Hussars from different sides fiddled with the dragoons: one was wounded, but, with his face covered in blood, did not give up his horse; the other, hugging the hussar, sat on the croup of his horse; the third, supported by a hussar, climbed onto his horse. The French infantry ran ahead, shooting. The hussars hastily galloped back with their prisoners. Rostov galloped back with the others, experiencing some kind of unpleasant feeling that squeezed his heart. Something unclear, confusing, which he could not explain to himself, was revealed to him by the capture of this officer and the blow he dealt him.
Count Osterman Tolstoy met the returning hussars, called Rostov, thanked him and said that he would report to the sovereign about his brave deed and would ask for the St. George Cross for him. When Rostov was demanded to appear before Count Osterman, he, remembering that his attack had been launched without orders, was fully convinced that the boss was demanding him in order to punish him for his unauthorized act. Therefore, Osterman’s flattering words and the promise of a reward should have struck Rostov all the more joyfully; but the same unpleasant, unclear feeling sickened him morally. “What the hell is tormenting me? – he asked himself, driving away from the general. - Ilyin? No, he's intact. Have I embarrassed myself in any way? No. Everything is wrong! “Something else tormented him, like remorse.” - Yes, yes, this French officer with a hole. And I remember well how my hand stopped when I raised it.”
Rostov saw the prisoners being taken away and galloped after them to see his Frenchman with a hole in his chin. He, in his strange uniform, sat on a winding hussar horse and restlessly looked around him. The wound on his hand was almost not a wound. He feigned a smile at Rostov and waved his hand as a greeting. Rostov still felt awkward and ashamed of something.
All this day and the next, Rostov's friends and comrades noticed that he was not boring, not angry, but silent, thoughtful and concentrated. He drank reluctantly, tried to remain alone and kept thinking about something.
Rostov kept thinking about this brilliant feat of his, which, to his surprise, bought him the St. George Cross and even made him a reputation as a brave man - and he just couldn’t understand something. “So they are even more afraid of us! - he thought. – So that’s all there is to it, what’s called heroism? And did I do this for the fatherland? And what is he to blame with his hole and blue eyes? And how scared he was! He thought that I would kill him. Why should I kill him? My hand trembled. And they gave me the St. George Cross. Nothing, I don’t understand anything!”
But while Nikolai was processing these questions within himself and still did not give himself a clear account of what had so confused him, the wheel of happiness in his career, as often happens, turned in his favor. He was pushed forward after the Ostrovnensky affair, they gave him a battalion of hussars and, when it was necessary to use a brave officer, they gave him instructions.

Having received the news of Natasha’s illness, the Countess, still not entirely healthy and weak, came to Moscow with Petya and the whole house, and the entire Rostov family moved from Marya Dmitrievna to their own house and completely settled in Moscow.
Natasha’s illness was so serious that, to her happiness and to the happiness of her family, the thought of everything that was the cause of her illness, her action and the break with her fiancé became secondary. She was so sick that it was impossible to think about how much she was to blame for everything that happened, while she did not eat, did not sleep, was noticeably losing weight, was coughing and was, as the doctors made her feel, in danger. All I had to think about was helping her. The doctors visited Natasha both separately and in consultations, spoke a lot of French, German and Latin, condemned each other, prescribed a wide variety of medicines for all the diseases known to them; but not one of them had the simple thought that they could not know the disease that Natasha suffered, just as no disease that plagues a living person could be known: for every living person has his own characteristics and always has a special and its own new, complex, unknown to medicine disease, not a disease of the lungs, liver, skin, heart, nerves, etc., recorded in medicine, but a disease consisting of one of the countless compounds in the suffering of these organs. This simple thought could not occur to doctors (just as the thought that he cannot cast magic cannot occur to a sorcerer) because their life’s work was to heal, because they received money for this, and because They spent the best years of their lives on this matter. But the main thing is that this thought could not occur to the doctors because they saw that they were undoubtedly useful, and were truly useful for all the Rostovs at home. They were useful not because they forced the patient to swallow mostly harmful substances (this harm was little sensitive, because harmful substances were given in small quantities), but they were useful, necessary, inevitable (the reason is why there are and will always be imaginary healers, fortune tellers, homeopaths and allopaths) because they satisfied the moral needs of the patient and the people who love the patient. They satisfied that eternal human need of hope for relief, the need for sympathy and activity that a person experiences during suffering. They satisfied that eternal, human - noticeable in a child in the most primitive form - need to rub the place that is bruised. The child is killed and immediately runs into the arms of the mother, the nanny, so that they can kiss and rub the sore spot, and it becomes easier for him when the sore spot is rubbed or kissed. The child does not believe that his strongest and wisest do not have the means to help his pain. And the hope of relief and expressions of sympathy while his mother rubs his lump comfort him. The doctors were useful to Natasha because they kissed and rubbed the bobo, assuring that it would pass now if the coachman went to the Arbat pharmacy and took seven hryvnia worth of powders and pills in a nice box for a ruble, and if these powders would certainly be in two hours, no more and no less, the patient will take it in boiled water.
What would Sonya, the count and countess do, how would they look at the weak, melting Natasha, doing nothing, if there weren’t these pills by the hour, drinking something warm, a chicken cutlet and all the details of life prescribed by the doctor, which were the task of observing? and comfort for others? The stricter and more complex these rules were, the more comforting it was for those around them. How would the count bear the illness of his beloved daughter if he did not know that Natasha’s illness cost him thousands of rubles and that he would not spare thousands more to do her good: if he did not know that if she did not recover, he would not he will spare thousands more and take her abroad and hold consultations there; if he had not had the opportunity to tell details about how Metivier and Feller did not understand, but Frieze understood, and Mudrov defined the disease even better? What would the Countess do if she could not sometimes quarrel with the sick Natasha because she did not fully comply with the doctor’s instructions?
“You’ll never get well,” she said, forgetting her grief out of frustration, “if you don’t listen to the doctor and take your medicine at the wrong time!” After all, you can’t joke about it when you could get pneumonia,” said the countess, and in the pronunciation of this word, which was incomprehensible to more than one word, she already found great consolation. What would Sonya do if she did not have the joyful knowledge that she did not undress for three nights at first in order to be ready to carry out exactly all the doctor’s orders, and that she now does not sleep at night in order not to miss the clock , in which you should give low-harm pills from a golden box? Even Natasha herself, who, although she said that no medicine would cure her and that all this was nonsense, was happy to see that they made so many donations for her, that she had to take medicine at certain times, and even she was happy was that, by neglecting to follow the instructions, she could show that she did not believe in treatment and did not value her life.
The doctor went every day, felt her pulse, looked at her tongue and, not paying attention to her murdered face, joked with her. But when he went into another room, the countess hurriedly followed him out, and he, assuming a serious look and shaking his head thoughtfully, said that, although there was danger, he hoped that this last medicine would work, and that he had to wait and see ; that the disease is more moral, but...
The Countess, trying to hide this act from herself and from the doctor, slipped a gold piece into his hand and each time returned to the patient with a calmed heart.
The signs of Natasha's illness were that she ate little, slept little, coughed and never perked up. The doctors said that the patient could not be left without medical care, and therefore they kept her in the stuffy air in the city. And in the summer of 1812 the Rostovs did not leave for the village.
Despite the large number of swallowed pills, drops and powders from jars and boxes, from which Madame Schoss, a hunter for these things, collected a large collection, despite the absence of the usual village life, youth took its toll: Natasha’s grief began to be covered with a layer of impressions of the life she had lived, it It stopped being such an excruciating pain on her heart, it began to become a thing of the past, and Natasha began to physically recover.

Natasha was calmer, but not more cheerful. She not only avoided all external conditions of joy: balls, skating, concerts, the theater; but she never laughed so hard that tears could not be heard from her laughter. She couldn't sing. As soon as she began to laugh or tried to sing to herself alone, tears choked her: tears of repentance, tears of memories of that irrevocable, pure time; tears of frustration that she had ruined her young life, which could have been so happy, for nothing. Laughter and singing especially seemed to her a blasphemy to her grief. She never thought about coquetry; she didn't even have to abstain. She said and felt that at that time all men were for her exactly the same as the jester Nastasya Ivanovna. The inner guard firmly forbade her any joy. And she didn’t have all the old interests of life from that girlish, carefree, hopeful way of life. Most often and most painfully, she remembered the autumn months, the hunt, her uncle and the Christmastide spent with Nicholas in Otradnoye. What would she give to bring back just one day from that time! But it was over forever. The premonition did not deceive her then that that state of freedom and openness to all joys would never return again. But I had to live.
She was pleased to think that she was not better, as she had previously thought, but worse and much worse than everyone, everyone in the world. But this was not enough. She knew this and asked herself: “What next?” And then there was nothing. There was no joy in life, and life passed. Natasha, apparently, was only trying not to be a burden to anyone and not to disturb anyone, but she didn’t need anything for herself. She moved away from everyone at home, and only with her brother Petya did she feel at ease. She loved being with him more than with others; and sometimes, when she was with him face to face, she laughed. She almost never left the house and of those who came to them, she was only happy with Pierre. It was impossible to treat her more tenderly, more carefully and at the same time more seriously than Count Bezukhov treated her. Natasha Oss consciously felt this tenderness of treatment and therefore found great pleasure in his company. But she was not even grateful to him for his tenderness; nothing good on Pierre's part seemed like an effort to her. It seemed so natural to Pierre to be kind to everyone that there was no merit in his kindness. Sometimes Natasha noticed Pierre's embarrassment and awkwardness in her presence, especially when he wanted to do something pleasant for her or when he was afraid that something in the conversation would bring up difficult memories for Natasha. She noticed this and attributed it to his general kindness and shyness, which, according to her ideas, the same as with her, should have been with everyone. After those unexpected words that if he were free, he would be on his knees asking for her hand and love, spoken in a moment of such strong excitement for her, Pierre never said anything about his feelings for Natasha; and it was obvious to her that those words, which had so comforted her then, were spoken as all sorts of meaningless words are spoken to console a crying child. Not because Pierre was a married man, but because Natasha felt between herself and him to the highest degree that force of moral barriers - the absence of which she felt with Kyragin - it never occurred to her that she could get out of her relationship with Pierre not only love on her part, or, even less, on his part, but even that kind of tender, self-recognizing, poetic friendship between a man and a woman, of which she knew several examples.
At the end of Peter's Lent, Agrafena Ivanovna Belova, the Rostovs' neighbor from Otradnensky, came to Moscow to bow to the Moscow saints. She invited Natasha to fast, and Natasha happily seized on this idea. Despite the doctor’s prohibition from going out early in the morning, Natasha insisted on fasting, and fasting not as they usually fasted in the Rostovs’ house, that is, to attend three services at home, but to fast as Agrafena Ivanovna fasted, that is, for the whole week without missing a single vespers, mass or matins.
The Countess liked this zeal of Natasha; In her soul, after unsuccessful medical treatment, she hoped that prayer would help her with more medicine, and although with fear and hiding it from the doctor, she agreed to Natasha’s wishes and entrusted her to Belova. Agrafena Ivanovna came to wake Natasha at three o’clock in the morning and mostly found her no longer sleeping. Natasha was afraid to oversleep during matins. Hastily washing her face and humbly dressing in her worst dress and old mantilla, shuddering with freshness, Natasha went out into the deserted streets, transparently illuminated by the morning dawn. On the advice of Agrafena Ivanovna, Natasha fasted not in her parish, but in the church, in which, according to the devout Belova, there was a very strict and high-living priest. There were always few people in the church; Natasha and Belova took their usual place in front of the icon of the Mother of God, embedded in the back of the left choir, and a new feeling for Natasha before the great, incomprehensible, covered her when at this unusual hour of the morning, looking at the black face of the Mother of God, illuminated by candles , burning in front of him, and the morning light falling from the window, she listened to the sounds of the service, which she tried to follow, understanding them. When she understood them, her personal feeling with its nuances joined her prayer; when she did not understand, it was even sweeter for her to think that the desire to understand everything was pride, that it was impossible to understand everything, that one only had to believe and surrender to God, who at those moments—she felt—ruled her soul. She crossed herself, bowed, and when she did not understand, she only, horrified at her abomination, asked God to forgive her for everything, for everything, and to have mercy. The prayers to which she devoted herself most were prayers of repentance. Returning home in the early hours of the morning, when there were only masons going to work, janitors sweeping the street, and everyone in the houses was still sleeping, Natasha experienced a new feeling for her of the possibility of correcting herself from her vices and the possibility of a new, clean life and happiness.
During the entire week during which she led this life, this feeling grew every day. And the happiness of joining or communicating, as Agrafena Ivanovna told her, joyfully playing with this word, seemed to her so great that it seemed to her that she would not live to see this blissful Sunday.
But the happy day came, and when Natasha returned from communion on this memorable Sunday, in a white muslin dress, for the first time after many months she felt calm and not burdened by the life that lay ahead of her.
The doctor who arrived that day examined Natasha and ordered her to continue the last powders that he prescribed two weeks ago.
“We must continue, morning and evening,” he said, apparently conscientiously pleased with his success. - Just please be more careful. “Be calm, Countess,” the doctor said jokingly, deftly picking up the gold in the pulp of his hand, “soon he’ll start singing and frolicking again.” The last medicine is very, very good for her. She's very refreshed.
The Countess looked at her nails and spat, returning to the living room with a cheerful face.

At the beginning of July, more and more alarming rumors about the progress of the war were spreading in Moscow: they were talking about the sovereign’s appeal to the people, about the arrival of the sovereign himself from the army to Moscow. And since the manifesto and appeal were not received before July 11, exaggerated rumors circulated about them and about the situation in Russia. They said that the sovereign was leaving because the army was in danger, they said that Smolensk had been surrendered, that Napoleon had a million troops and that only a miracle could save Russia.
On the 11th of July, Saturday, the manifesto was received, but not yet printed; and Pierre, who was visiting the Rostovs, promised to come for dinner the next day, Sunday, and bring a manifesto and an appeal, which he would get from Count Rastopchin.
This Sunday, the Rostovs, as usual, went to mass at the Razumovskys’ home church. It was a hot July day. Already at ten o'clock, when the Rostovs got out of the carriage in front of the church, in the hot air, in the shouts of the peddlers, in the bright and light summer dresses of the crowd, in the dusty leaves of the trees of the boulevard, in the sounds of music and the white trousers of the battalion marching on the march, in the thunder of the pavement and in the bright shine of the hot sun there was that summer languor, contentment and dissatisfaction with the present, which is felt especially sharply on a clear hot day in the city. In the Razumovsky church there were all the Moscow nobility, all the acquaintances of the Rostovs (this year, as if expecting something, a lot of rich families, usually traveling to the villages, remained in the city). Passing behind the livery footman, who was parting the crowd near her mother, Natasha heard the voice of a young man speaking about her in a too loud whisper:
- This is Rostova, the same one...
- She’s lost so much weight, but she’s still good!
She heard, or it seemed to her, that the names of Kuragin and Bolkonsky were mentioned. However, it always seemed that way to her. It always seemed to her that everyone, looking at her, only thought about what happened to her. Suffering and fading in her soul, as always in a crowd, Natasha walked in her purple silk dress with black lace the way women can walk - the calmer and more majestic the more painful and ashamed she was in her soul. She knew and was not mistaken that she was good, but this did not please her now as before. On the contrary, this was what tormented her most recently, and especially on this bright, hot summer day in the city. “Another Sunday, another week,” she said to herself, remembering how she was here on that Sunday, “and still the same life without life, and all the same conditions in which it was so easy to live before. She’s good, she’s young, and I know that now I’m good, before I was bad, but now I’m good, I know,” she thought, “and so the best years pass in vain, for no one.” She stood next to her mother and exchanged words with nearby acquaintances. Natasha, out of habit, examined the ladies’ dresses, condemned the tenue [demeanor] and the indecent way of crossing herself with her hand in the small space of one lady standing nearby, again thought with annoyance that she was being judged, that she too was judging, and suddenly, hearing the sounds of the service, she was horrified by her abomination, horrified that her former purity had again been lost.
The handsome, quiet old man served with that gentle solemnity that has such a majestic, calming effect on the souls of those praying. The royal doors closed, the curtain slowly closed; a mysterious quiet voice said something from there. Tears, incomprehensible to her, stood in Natasha’s chest, and a joyful and painful feeling worried her.
“Teach me what I should do, how I can improve forever, forever, what I should do with my life...” she thought.
The deacon went out to the pulpit, straightened his long hair from under his surplice, holding his thumb wide, and, placing a cross on his chest, loudly and solemnly began to read the words of the prayer:
- “Let us pray to the Lord in peace.”
“In peace - all together, without distinction of classes, without enmity, and united by brotherly love - let us pray,” thought Natasha.
- About the heavenly world and the salvation of our souls!
“For the peace of angels and the souls of all incorporeal creatures that live above us,” Natasha prayed.
When they prayed for the army, she remembered her brother and Denisov. When they prayed for those sailing and traveling, she remembered Prince Andrei and prayed for him, and prayed that God would forgive her for the evil that she had done to him. When they prayed for those who loved us, she prayed for her family, for her father, mother, Sonya, for the first time now understanding all her guilt before them and feeling all the strength of her love for them. When they prayed for those who hated us, she invented enemies and haters for herself in order to pray for them. She counted creditors and all those who dealt with her father among her enemies, and every time, when she thought about enemies and haters, she remembered Anatole, who had done her so much harm, and although he was not a hater, she joyfully prayed for him as for enemy. Only during prayer did she feel able to clearly and calmly remember both Prince Andrei and Anatol, as people for whom her feelings were destroyed in comparison with her feeling of fear and reverence for God. When they prayed for the royal family and for the Synod, she bowed especially low and crossed herself, telling herself that if she did not understand, she could not doubt and still loved the ruling Synod and prayed for it.
Having finished the litany, the deacon crossed the orarion around his chest and said:
- “We surrender ourselves and our lives to Christ God.”
“We will surrender ourselves to God,” Natasha repeated in her soul. “My God, I surrender myself to your will,” she thought. - I don’t want anything, I don’t desire anything; teach me what to do, where to use my will! Take me, take me! - Natasha said with tender impatience in her soul, without crossing herself, lowering her thin hands and as if expecting that an invisible force would take her and deliver her from herself, from her regrets, desires, reproaches, hopes and vices.
Several times during the service, the Countess looked back at the tender, sparkling-eyed face of her daughter and prayed to God to help her.
Unexpectedly, in the middle and not in the order of service, which Natasha knew well, the sexton brought out a stool, the same one on which kneeling prayers were read on Trinity Day, and placed it in front of the royal doors. The priest came out in his purple velvet skufia, straightened his hair and knelt down with an effort. Everyone did the same and looked at each other in bewilderment. It was a prayer just received from the Synod, a prayer for the salvation of Russia from enemy invasion.
“Lord God of hosts, God of our salvation,” the priest began in that clear, unpompous and meek voice, which is read only by spiritual Slavic readers and which has such an irresistible effect on the Russian heart. - Lord God of hosts, God of our salvation! Look now in mercy and generosity on your humble people, and kindly hear, and have mercy, and have mercy on us. Behold, the enemy has troubled your land and, although he has left the entire universe empty, has risen up against us; All these lawless people have gathered together to destroy your property, to destroy your honorable Jerusalem, your beloved Russia: desecrate your temples, dig up your altars and desecrate our shrine. How long, Lord, how long will sinners be praised? How long to use illegal power?
Lord God! Hear us praying to you: strengthen with your power the most pious, autocratic great sovereign of our Emperor Alexander Pavlovich; remember his righteousness and meekness, reward him according to his goodness, with which we, your beloved Israel, protect us. Bless his advice, undertakings and deeds; establish his kingdom with your almighty right hand and grant him victory over the enemy, as Moses did against Amalek, Gideon against Midian, and David against Goliath. Preserve his army; put the bow of the coppers on the armies that have taken up arms in your name, and gird them with strength for battle. Take a weapon and a shield, and rise up to help us, so that those who think evil against us will be ashamed and put to shame, may they be before the face of your faithful army, like dust before the face of the wind, and may your mighty angel insult and persecute them; let a net come to them that they do not know, and let their catch, having hidden it, embrace them; let them fall under the feet of your servants and be trampled underfoot by our howls. God! You will not fail to save in many and in small; You are God, let no man prevail against you.

A. N. Ostrovsky described quite accurately the picture of indifference and heartlessness of those times. Today we will look at the characteristics of the heroes. “Dowry” is a work that has entered the annals of world literature. So let's get started.

Karandyshev

In the play, Yuliy Kapitonich is a poor official who cannot boast of either a full wallet or self-respect. The main feature of the hero is pride, which, in principle, led to a tragic end. What are the characteristics of the heroes? “The Dowry” by A. N. Ostrovsky is a work that is a little simplified by the fact that the outstanding playwright endowed his characters with meaningful names. Let's consider this technique of the author using the example of the same Karandyshev.

Although he has the name of a great man (Julius Caesar), the surname comes from the word “karatysh”. The author shows us the discrepancy between his desires and real possibilities. Larisa is a way of self-affirmation for him, this is how he cherishes his pride. The Ogudalov family considers him a backup option, the only possible way out of the situation, although not a very successful one. Yuliy Kapitonich is greatly offended. His “beloved” is a way to defeat a stronger opponent, Paratov.

What do the characteristics of the heroes say? “The Dowry” is a work that does not require much effort to understand, since the author accurately and in detail describes his characters, their feelings and true being. The tragic end is another moment with which A. N. Ostrovsky ridicules Karandyshev’s nature. Since Yuliy Kapitonich cannot defeat his rival, he kills the subject of their dispute. The figure of this man is very pitiful and funny.

Paratov

This character continues our characterization of heroes. “The Dowry” is a work that cannot do without an analysis of the image of the main rival Yuli Kapitonich. We have already talked above about the distinctive feature of A. N. Ostrovsky and about telling names. So, Sergei Sergeich’s surname originates from the word “paraty”, which means “predator”.

Note that his behavior in the play can also be characterized: “He has no heart, that’s why he’s so brave.” This is a quote that characterizes the hero as a heartless and cruel character. He is young and ambitious, a very prudent and greedy person: “And now, gentlemen, I have other matters and other calculations. I will marry a very rich girl and take gold mines as a dowry.”

Larisa

Who else can continue the characterization of the heroes? “The Dowry” is a work that cannot ignore the main character, who has become the subject of a dispute between two heartless and greedy people. She evokes a feeling of compassion, since she is truly passionate about Sergei Sergeich, who betrayed her for the sake of profit. Larisa Ogudalova is a homeless girl, a girl from a poor family, but she is an incredibly subtle and sensual person.

When Paratov rejected her, she has her last hope - to marry Karandyshev, since she considers him a man with a kind soul and heart, incomprehensible to anyone, but incredibly kind. When Larisa realized that she was a toy in the wrong hands, she tried to kill herself, but she did not have the strength to do it. Only Karandyshev’s shot helps her get rid of her torment.

“Dowry”: characteristics of the heroes. Table

Let's try to systematize the analysis of the main characters of the drama using a table.

This is how we presented the characteristics of the main characters. In order to draw your own conclusions, we advise you to read this work.

Women a girl who is married without requiring a dowry, for her beauty and dignity. A dowryless person is a joking name for a poor groom or one who has been deceived by his dowry. A dowryless bride, a poor one who has nothing. Unattached exchange, in which there is no... Dahl's Explanatory Dictionary

Bride, Slavic Dictionary of Russian synonyms. dowry noun, number of synonyms: 3 dowry (1) ... Synonym dictionary

DOWRYLESS, dowryless, female. In a bourgeois noble society, a girl who is not provided with a dowry or a girl who will be willingly married for her merits without a dowry. Ushakov's explanatory dictionary. D.N. Ushakov. 1935 1940 ... Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary

DOWNLOAD, s, female. In the old days: a poor girl with no dowry. Ozhegov's explanatory dictionary. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova. 1949 1992 … Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary

- “DOWER”, USSR, Roth Front, 1936, b/w, 85 min. Drama. Based on the play of the same name by A. N. Ostrovsky. The film entered the collection of Soviet film classics thanks to its social interpretation of the drama, vivid imagery in depicting the morals of the Russian merchants and... ... Encyclopedia of Cinema

- (foreigner) a beautiful girl (who will be taken as a wife without a dowry) A dowryless, foolish, what is, is what it is. Wed. Well, Avdotya Vlasyevna, I said: your grandson is growing up without a dowry; look what a beauty she will be! Dahl. New paintings by Russian... Michelson's Large Explanatory and Phraseological Dictionary

Dowryless (foreigner), a beautiful girl (who will be taken as a wife even without a dowry). The dowryless woman is a fool, what she has is what she is. Wed. Well, Avdotya Vlasyevna I said: your grandson is growing up without a dowry; look how beautiful she will be! Dal... ... Michelson's Large Explanatory and Phraseological Dictionary (original spelling)

The girl is a bride, her parents are not able to give her a dowry. (Source: Dictionary of Sexual Terms) ... Sexological encyclopedia

G. A bride girl who has no dowry. Ephraim's explanatory dictionary. T. F. Efremova. 2000... Modern explanatory dictionary of the Russian language by Efremova

The dowryless, the dowryless, the dowryless, the dowryless, the dowryless, the dowryless, the dowryless, the dowryless, the dowryless, the dowryless, the dowryless, the dowryless, the dowryless (Source: “Full accentuated paradigm according to ... Forms of words

Books

• Dowryless woman, Alexander Nikolaevich Ostrovsky. An eternal story about deceived love, unfulfilled hopes, rightly called a “cruel romance” in the cinema - this is A. N. Ostrovsky’s play “Dowry”. Written in the 19th century, it is not at all...
• Dowryless woman, Alexander Nikolaevich Ostrovsky. The book presents Alexander Ostrovsky's drama "Dowry". For middle school age...

“Dowry” - drama by A.N. Ostrovsky, the fortieth (“anniversary”) play written by the great Russian playwright. The amazing, even exceptional stage fate of this 19th-century play continues to attract the attention of theater historians and literary scholars today. Theatrical productions and film adaptations of “The Dowry,” which have long become classics, continue to enjoy the love of domestic audiences.

Nina Alisova as Larisa

How could it happen that out of all the huge literary heritage of the great Russian playwright A.N. Ostrovsky, only this play, unaccepted and misunderstood by the author’s contemporaries, crossed all time boundaries and gained true immortality?

Let's try to figure it out.

Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, the attitude of viewers and critics towards the work of A.N. Ostrovsky underwent many changes. Democratic criticism of the late 1850s and early 1860s tried to see in the playwright’s works a kind of social protest against the inertia and stagnation of the surrounding reality. Some contemporaries (in particular the writer and critic P. Boborykin) generally denied Ostrovsky the right to be a playwright, noting the lack of stage presence, even the epic quality of his most successful plays.

Ostrovsky's drama "The Thunderstorm" caused the most heated controversy. According to most literary scholars, A.N. himself. Ostrovsky gained universal fame as a playwright solely through the efforts of N. Dobrolyubov. Dobrolyubov’s detailed critical analyzes of Ostrovsky’s plays on the pages of Nekrasov’s Sovremennik became textbook already in the 19th century. It was Dobrolyubov who invented the “dark kingdom”, and the “ray of light”, and a lot of other cliches that are still actively used in school essays. However, next to Dobrolyubov’s, a different line in the interpretation of A.N.’s work almost immediately took shape. Ostrovsky. This is the line of A. Grigoriev, a personal friend of the playwright, who considered the world of his works not a “dark kingdom” at all, but the kingdom of “the poetry of folk life.” (The articles of M. M. Dostoevsky and M. I. Pisarev gravitate towards it). Dobrolyubov and Grigoriev included “The Thunderstorm” in different aesthetic contexts (depending on the worldview of the critics, their understanding of historical patterns and the driving forces of Russian life). In one case it was read as a tough social drama, in another - as a high poetic tragedy.

The play "Dowry" was much less fortunate. If in the late 1850s - early 1860s Dobrolyubov, Grigoriev, M. Pisarev and other leading critics broke their spears in disputes: is Katerina from “The Thunderstorm” “a ray of light in the dark kingdom,” then in 1878, when "Dowry", the play was practically not noticed.

Despite the fact that A.N. himself Ostrovsky considered his fortieth play the best dramatic work; its productions in Moscow and St. Petersburg disappointed not only critics, but also long-time fans of the playwright’s work. “The Dowry” was labeled as a very mediocre, boring play with a banal plot and was forgotten about for many years.

But truly talented works, as a rule, outlive their authors and find a response in the hearts of future generations. The play “Dowry” provided A.N. Ostrovsky immortality for centuries. The playwright accurately foresaw this immortality, taking the plot of a cruel urban romance as the basis for the play. The eternal, enduring theme of the relationship between the ideal and material principles (love and poverty) has forever “caught in the net” the Russian viewer. In our opinion, this is precisely what explains the phenomenon of the “Dowry Girl,” which outlived all its critics and persecutors. For almost a century and a half, the play has not left the stages of the country's leading theaters, and its cinematic versions - "Dowry" by Protazanov (1936) and Khudyakov (1974), "Cruel Romance" by E. Ryazanov (1982) - remained and remain favorite films for several generations of both Soviet and post-Soviet people.

History of the play

A. N. Ostrovsky, being very dependent on the theater, an exclusively theatrical playwright, usually wrote his works in a relatively short time. For 30 years (from 1853 to 1883), his new plays were staged every season on the stages of the main Moscow and St. Petersburg theaters. During his creative life A.N. Ostrovsky managed to compose fifty-four plays (of which only seven were in collaboration with other playwrights). However, the author deliberately removed his fortieth play “Dowry” from the usual theatrical assembly line, thought about and created it for several years.

As evidenced by Ostrovsky’s note on the first page of the autograph, the drama was conceived on November 4, 1874 in Moscow, and completed only in the fall of 1878.

In parallel with his work on “The Dowry,” the playwright managed to create several very famous plays, which were immediately accepted for production by the Maly Theater: “Wolves and Sheep” (1875), “Rich Brides” (1876), “Truth is good, but happiness is better” (1877 ), "The Last Victim" (1878). All of them were a great success.

But, as evidenced by the correspondence of A.N. Ostrovsky, for four years the author literally lived with his “Dowry.” He constantly returned to this particular play, pondering the plot lines, characters and monologues of the main characters; not wanting to miss the slightest detail, he finished his fortieth item in the most careful manner.

On October 1, 1876, informing his friend, actor of the Alexandrinsky Theater F. A. Burdin about his work on the comedy “Truth is good, but happiness is better,” Ostrovsky wrote: “All my attention and all my strength are directed to the next big play, which was conceived more than a year ago and on which I have been continuously working. I’m thinking of finishing it this same year and I’ll try to finish it as carefully as possible, because this will be my fortieth original work.”

On the draft autograph of “The Dowry”, stored in the Manuscripts Department of the USSR State Library named after. V.I. Lenin, Ostrovsky marked: “Opus 40”. A secondary mention of work on “Dowry” is found in the playwright’s letter to Burdin dated February 3, 1878 from Moscow: “... I am now busy with a large original play; I want to finish it in the winter for the next season, in order to be freer in the summer.”

In September 1878, the playwright also wrote to one of his acquaintances: “I am working on my play with all my might; It seems like it won’t turn out bad.”

Hopes, it would seem, were justified. Soon after the completion of the work, on November 3, 1878, the playwright reported from Moscow: “I have already read my play in Moscow five times, among the listeners there were people who were hostile to me, and everyone unanimously recognized The Dowry as the best of all my works.”

At the same time, Ostrovsky was negotiating the production of “Dowry” in Moscow and St. Petersburg. On October 28, 1878, “Dowry” was already approved for production by the Theater and Literary Committee.

Failure in Moscow

The premiere of “Dowry” took place on the stage of the Maly Theater in Moscow on November 10, 1878. It was marked by a benefit performance for actor N.I.Muzil, who played Robinson. The second time the play was given at a benefit performance by M.P. Sadovsky (Karandyshev). Ostrovsky has repeatedly testified to the great success of the play in Moscow (see his letter to F.A. Burdin dated December 27, 1878, as well as the “Note on the draft “Rules on prizes ... for dramatic works” of 1884).

However, according to most reviewers, the play “Dowry” was a complete, undoubted and even final failure.

The production of Ostrovsky's new work was carried out in just ten days. Now it's hard to even believe. However, for that time this was a completely ordinary phenomenon. It is clear that in such a short time, neither the actors nor the director could even really comprehend the work that was to be presented to the public from the stage.

Glykeria Fedotova

The first performer of the role of Larisa Ogudalova on the Moscow stage was actress Glikeria Nikolaevna Fedotova. G. Fedotova was a bright actress who was equally successful in both dramatic and comedic roles. However, the role of Larisa played by Fedotova is considered extremely unsuccessful. Here are some remarks from critics: “It has completely deprived us of truth and originality”; “the gap between the melodramatic tone taken by the actress and “the rest of the everyday environment” made the actress’s face “false and banal,” etc.

In subsequent productions of “The Dowry” at the Maly Theater, Larisa was played by M.N. Ermolova. The role of Karandyshev was performed by M.P. Sadovsky, who had the role of “everyday simpleton” and “comedian” in the theater. He also failed to reveal one of the most psychologically complex images of the play.

A day after the Moscow premiere, on November 12, a review of Ostrovsky’s longtime and constant opponent P. Boborykin appeared in Russkie Vedomosti. According to the reviewer, “all of Moscow, who loves the Russian stage,” gathered for the benefit performance of the artist N. Musil (he played Robinson). Everyone expected a good play, but it didn’t happen. “The playwright has tired the entire audience, right down to the most naive spectators,” because the audience “has clearly outgrown the spectacles” that Ostrovsky offers them. The reviewer was especially indignant at the simple plot of “The Dowry”, because there is no interest in the story of how “some provincial girl fell in love with a scoundrel, agreed to marry an antipathetic vulgar and, rejected another time by the object of her passion, exposes her breasts to the groom’s gun " The heroine also got it: “...this girl with her suffering could attract our attention if she were a colorful, large, socially significant person. Alas... there is none of this in her, Larisa speaks banalities, her story about why she considers Paratov, “a libertine and an impudent person,” to be a “hero” is simply ridiculous because of her mental and moral “baseness.”

Maria Ermolova

In Larisa, Boborykin saw a complete repetition of the heroines from “Mad Money” and other plays by Ostrovsky, and in Paratov, another scoundrel from a whole series of dissolute vulgarities in the playwright’s previous plays (including Vadim Dulchin in “The Last Victim”). Karandyshev was named most aptly, but critics were very confused by his inconsistency and duality. Theater actors of the 19th century did not yet know how to play it. Even a very good actor would hardly be able to “disguise” Karandyshev’s duality at the end of the third and fourth acts.

It is very significant that the experienced writer, author of novels and plays, P. Boborykin, turned out to be unable either to comprehend the plot of the play or to understand the complexity of the characters and the relationships connecting them. He simplified everything to the extreme, coarsened it, did not grasp the main thing either in the problems of the play or in its artistic embodiment, did not even come close to the core of the idea.

The rest of Moscow criticism either echoed Boborykin or remained silent altogether.

Unfortunately, in 1878, when neither N. Dobrolyubov nor the most faithful admirer of A.N.’s work was no longer alive. Ostrovsky Apollon Grigoriev, there was no one to appreciate the Dowry. The playwright outlived all his talented critics, giving the right to distant descendants to evaluate his fortieth, “anniversary” work.

Premiere in St. Petersburg

In St. Petersburg, “Dowry” evoked more sympathetic responses. The premiere took place on the stage of the Alexandrinsky Theater on November 22, 1878, during a benefit performance by F.A. Burdin, with the participation of Prime Minister M. G. Savina, who played the role of Larisa. The performance also featured: Polonsky (Karandyshev), Burdin (Knurov), Sazonov (Vozhevatov), ​​Nilsky (Paratov), ​​Chitau (Ogudalova), Ardi (Robinson), Vasiliev 1st (Gavrilo), Gorbunov (Ivan), Konstantinov (Ilya), Natarova 1st (Evfrosinya Potapovna).

The actors of the Alexandrinsky Theater, among whom Ostrovsky had many friends, reacted very coolly to the new play. Burdin initially objected to Knurov's role. She seemed to him episodic and unimportant for a benefit performance (“accessory role”). N.F. Sazonov refused to play Karandyshev, demanding that the author make significant cuts to the text.

Theater criticism noted the excellent performance of M.G. Savina, but the actress herself did not like the play, just as she did not like her own work in it. On tour in the provinces, where Savina took her favorite roles, she played “The Dowry” only three times and quit forever. She played Larisa “too ideal”, “too incomprehensible” from the point of view of common sense, theater critics and a few reviewers.

The St. Petersburg newspapers “Novoye Vremya” and “Golos” twice returned to their assessment of “Dowry.” The play made a “strong impression” on the reviewer of “New Time,” but he did not see anything new in the plot: neither the type of the main character nor the other figures are new; the play lacks stage movement, action, etc. Reviewers of "Voice" on the one hand praised Ostrovsky as a writer of everyday life, emphasizing the precise characteristics and complex characters of her characters. But at the same time, they could not forgive the playwright for being too crudely realistic, the undisguised cynicism of his characters (Paratov, Knurova and Vozhevatov, even Larisa). It turned out that critics appreciated “The Dowry” for its realistic depiction of “shameless and cold heartlessness,” which became the main sign of modern progress, but immediately accused the author of underestimating the positive aspects of this notorious progress and impenetrable pessimism.

The discrepancy in critical assessments, in our opinion, is caused by the innovative nature of the play itself, its scenic, compositional, and psychological complexity, which was far ahead of the canons of its time. Unfortunately, the author's contemporary theater critics, directors and actors, who were not accustomed to going beyond their stage roles, were unable to understand Ostrovsky's innovation. On the contrary, in the 1870s, the playwright was more and more often reproached for ideological backwardness, hackneyedness, stereotypes, and the exhaustion of his dramatic poetics. The public urgently demanded the appearance on stage of other characters, free from pessimism and remnants of the “dark kingdom”, that is, heroes who live in the present, respond to the social and political problems of our time, heroic workers, innovators, fighters.

But the author of “The Thunderstorm”, “The Forest”, “The Dowry” was sharply different from the playwrights who wrote on the “spite of the day” and indulged the momentary interests of the viewer. He called for the comprehension of deep, hard-to-reach truths and therefore believed not only in the viewer of today, but also of tomorrow, in the viewer of the future. That is why Ostrovsky’s deeply thought-out play, which was in many ways ahead of its time, did not appeal to either theater critics or the general public in the 70s of the 19th century. Despite the full acting ensemble, in the 1878-79 season the play was staged in the repertoire of the Alexandrinsky Theater extremely rarely, and then it was completely forgotten. In St. Petersburg, “Dowry” left the stage already in 1882 and did not appear on it for 15 years. In Moscow the play lasted longer - until 1891. “The Dowry” was resumed on both capital stages in the 1896-1897 season. But this was already a new life for a well-forgotten play.

Second life of "Dowry"

Return of "Dowry" by A.N. Ostrovsky on the stage of capital and provincial theaters is associated with the name of the great Russian actress Vera Fedorovna Komissarzhevskaya. It was Komissarzhevskaya who truly discovered the role of Larisa, and the already largely changed era itself breathed new life into this character.

Vera Komissarzhevskaya

At the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, the theater, like the rest of society, was experiencing a shift in worldviews, a reassessment of values, and could not stay away from new trends in literature and art. In the wake of modernist quests of the late 1890s, simple plays by A.N. Ostrovsky's depictions of the life of the provincial merchants looked completely archaic and indigestible.

18 years have passed since the writing of “Dowry”. And in 1896, ten years after the death of A.N. Ostrovsky, the Alexandrinsky Theater decided to re-stage the once failed play.

It is known that V.F. Komissarzhevskaya herself urgently demanded that the Alexandrinka directorate appoint her to the role of Larisa Ogudalova. At the same time, the actress even resorted to blackmail: either you give me the role of Larisa in “Dowry”, or I leave the theater. The directors still did not set out to give Ostrovsky’s old play a new interpretation, but they did not want to lose the talented actress. However, no one except Komissarzhevskaya herself counted on success...

On September 17, 1896, the theater was full. The respectable audience came to see the obstinate Komissarzhevskaya in the famous play. For the first two acts, the audience was perplexed. They got used to Savinskaya Larisa - a pretty bourgeoisie who leads a reckless life in her mother's house. And suddenly Larisa - Komissarzhevskaya: fragile, shy, dim, speaks quietly, at first it seemed even uninteresting. During intermissions, the audience talked among themselves in disappointment about the failure of the performance, but individual spectators had already appeared, mainly from the gallery, who began to understand that before them was an actress who embodied the image of a “wounded”, deeply suffering woman, that this had never happened on the stage of the Russian theater . In the third act, the coughing, whispering, and rustling of programs stopped. Komissarzhevskaya became the sole ruler of the public. And when the last chord of the guitar broke off, the audience was afraid to move.

Criticism spoke very favorably about Komissarzhevskaya’s performance. Her Larisa did not have typical gypsy features or the imprint of the old province, although other performers of the role (Fedotova, Ermolova, Savina) considered these features to be the main ones.

One of the critics, Yuri Belyaev, noted that with her performance Komissarzhevskaya “raises the prestige” of Larisa - a girl who has fallen to the position of “a precious trinket on which lots are cast.” The critic admired the actress, but believed that she created an image that was strikingly different from the heroine Ostrovsky. He believed that Vera Fedorovna showed Larisa to be some kind of “white seagull”, and not at all a girl with boiling gypsy blood. Another critic, Fyodor Stepun, appreciated in Komissarzhevskaya’s performance that from her very first phrase (“I just kept looking at the Volga, how nice it is on the other side”) she raises Larisa’s inner world to enormous spiritual heights.

Another critic, A. Kugel, considered Vera Fedorovna’s performance charming, but incorrect. In his opinion, Larisa came out too sad and elegiac. Perhaps it is true that Komissarzhevskaya’s performance was too “over-the-top.”

Komissarzhevskaya, perhaps, contrary to all the performers who preceded her, as well as theater directors and critics, understood what the main drama of Ostrovsky’s play was. The author called “Dowry” a drama not only because of the tragic ending. Almost all of her heroes are complex, ambiguous, and in many ways ambivalent people.

Larisa, of course, is not “a ray of light in a dark kingdom,” but she is also not a carefree fool who was deceived by a visiting scoundrel and then accidentally shot by a local madman. Larisa is a thinking person, deeply feeling, perfectly understanding the absurdity of her situation (“I am a doll for you. You will play with me, break me and throw me away”; “Why do you constantly reproach me with this camp? Did I really like this kind of life?”, etc.) d.). She needs love like a beautiful flower needs water and sunlight. Larisa is torn between the world of her beautiful dreams and hopes and the world of cruel reality, into which she is drawn in by her own mother and selfish, predatory admirers. In search of a way out, the girl rushes to everyone who promises to love her, even to Karandyshev, but “everyone only loves themselves.” And the best way out for her turns out to be death.

This is exactly how Larisa sounded in Komissarzhevskaya’s interpretation, tragically doomed, hysterically, hopelessly. This became a new birth of the play. “Dowry” occupied the imagination of theatrical St. Petersburg for many days. It was impossible to get a ticket to the performance. Komissarzhevskaya brought to the theater that part of the Russian intelligentsia who for many years considered the theater only a place of vulgar entertainment.

In the 1930s, “Dowry” was one of Ostrovsky’s plays that enjoyed the greatest love among Soviet audiences. On the stage of the Soviet theater, it was the social pathos of this wonderful drama that was most acutely expressed. It was staged in many drama theaters in Moscow, Leningrad and on the periphery. Of the Moscow productions of “The Dowry,” the productions of the Drama Theater (b. Korsh) with V.N. Popova in the role of Larisa (1932) and the Central Theater of Transport (1946) are especially significant. In 1948, “Dowry” was revived on the stage of the Maly Theater.

Film adaptations

However, to the mass audience the play by A.N. Ostrovsky's "Dowry" became familiar only thanks to the successful film versions by Y. Protazanov (1936) and E. Ryazanov (1984), rightfully considered classics of Russian cinema.

Unlike most other dramatic works of the 19th century, “The Dowry” was filmed four times in our country.

The first attempt belongs to director Kai Hansen. In 1912, he made a non-sound film of the same name, in which Vera Pashennaya and Nikolai Vasiliev played the main roles.

In 1936, “The Dowry” by Y. Protazanov appeared (starring N. Alisova and A. Ktorov). Protazanov did not change the plot, but Vladimir Schweitzer, the same one who worked on the scripts for Soviet fairy tale films “Vasilisa the Beautiful”, “The Little Humpbacked Horse”, “Kashchei the Immortal”, and others, worked significantly on the script.

Protazanov and Schweitzer literally “anatomized” Ostrovsky’s play, but did not blindly follow the text. The possibilities of a film production were much broader than the possibilities of a theatrical performance and, in general, the possibilities of dramatic action. Therefore, a lot of new episodes appeared in the film (the wedding of Larisa’s sister, Robinson’s adventures, wonderful location shooting, etc.).

The acting ensemble was impeccable: A. Ktorov (Paratov), ​​B. Tenin (Vozhevatov), ​​M. Klimov (Knurov), O. Pyzhova (Larissa’s mother), V. Balikhin (Karandyshev). Protazanov invited a very young student, first-year VGIK student Nina Alisova, to play the role of Larisa. Location filming took place in Kineshma, Kaluga, Kostroma and Plyos.

Protazanov's "Dowry" immediately became a landmark film for the entire Soviet pre-war cinema. The film immediately, as they say, “went to the people.” For many years, the Soviet audience was sure that the famous episodes with the beaver coat thrown into the mud, the steamboat race and Robinson's outrages were Ostrovsky's original text. A. Guerich’s song “No, he didn’t love” was sung by all the girls of the 1930s and 40s, sincerely considering it an old gypsy romance, which was performed by Larisa Ogudalova in the play.

The film adaptation by Protazanov and Schweitzer turned out to be so successful that it suited the Soviet audience for almost fifty years.

The teleplay “The Dowry” by K. Khudyakov (1974), despite the excellent constellation of actors (T. Doronina, A. Dzhigarkhanyan, V. Gaft), only disappointed with its “theatricality” and “chamberness”. After the pro-Tazan film, which was based on the interpretation of the image of Larisa Komissarzhevskaya, T. Doronina’s return to Larisa of the “pre-Komissarzhevskaya” period looked original, but was no longer interesting.

Therefore, when E. Ryazanov’s film “Cruel Romance” was released in 1984, it became almost a revelation for viewers who had not seen or fundamentally had not watched Protazanov’s film, which was somewhat “outdated” by that time.

So much has been written and said about E. Ryazanov’s wonderful film that it makes no sense to repeat all the critical reviews in this essay.

However, today many people no longer remember that when it appeared, “Cruel Romance” caused a lot of controversy and criticism, especially among people of the older generation - fans of “Dowry” of 1936. The director and screenwriter of the film, E. Ryazanov, admitted more than once in his numerous interviews: when he wrote the script for “Cruel Romance,” his motto was the maximum departure from the text of Ostrovsky’s play in order to deprive the film of its “chamber quality” and make it interesting for the modern viewer. But then, during the filming process, the director called out: “back to Ostrovsky!” And the film only benefited from this. All (with rare exceptions) lines of the characters in the play “Dowry” are heard in “Cruel Romance”, all the characters are presented vividly and vividly, the action of the film fully corresponds to the author’s concept of A.N. Ostrovsky.

There were especially many complaints about the film “Cruel Romance” for the original interpretation, even the development of the image of Paratov (N. Mikhalkov). The older generation could not forgive Ryazanov for the overly democratic Mikhalkov, whose temperament was more reminiscent of a Mexican macho and not a Russian gentleman. One of my elderly relatives, brought up on Protazanov’s version, after watching Ryazanov’s film, was indignant for a long time at the episode where Paratov, getting off his white horse, moves a dirty carriage with his own hands: “He is a master, not a binder!” Of course, the episode with the fur coat in Protazanov’s film looked much more impressive, but it was already used 50 years ago, and the repetition of this gesture by actor Mikhalkov would look more like a parody. It was obvious to all viewers of the 1980s that Mikhalkov was not Ktorov, and Ktorov was not Mikhalkov. Types such as Protazanovsky's Paratov became extinct in the first half of the century.

That is why, in our opinion, Ryazanov in his film very successfully removed from Paratov both the mask of an inveterate scoundrel and the socially charged white-handed gentleman, a slave of class prejudices. Having psychologically developed the image of the central character of the play, the director brought him closer to the realities of Russian life in the 70s of the 19th century, and made him interesting to people of the 20th century. In essence, Paratov is not an insidious seducer and far from a calculating businessman. A bankrupt nobleman, a former shipowner, he himself fell victim to his difficult time, the time of the Knurovs and Vozhevatovs. Ostrovsky by no means equates Paratov with the Bryakhimov money-bag merchants. For him, money is not a goal, but a means of existence, meaningless and aimless, because this person cannot have any specific goal. Paratov is the same thing, the same meaningless trinket, like Larisa. The only difference is that all his suffering and tossing at the moment of “selling” himself for money remain outside the scope of the stage action and are not visible to the viewer. We see an unfortunate man who has already resigned himself to his fate, who finally shows off, but also dies, crushed, broken. Larisa dies, remaining herself - loving and free.

The theme of “Dowry” became especially close to the Russian audience at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries, in the era of a total revision of previous values, the breakdown of human relationships, and thoughtless worship of the “golden calf”. No statistics can tell how many of these Larisas - beautiful, smart, talented girls with a university education - went to be kept women by the modern Knurovs or Vozhevatovs. Perhaps some of them still believe that they did the right thing by grasping at material well-being, trampling on everything that they once considered the main thing in their lives. God is their judge.

But one thing is clear: the phenomenon of “Dowry” as an eternal plot for all times does not let us go even today. Thirty years after the release of “A Cruel Romance,” the film is still a breeze to watch, and modern youth have an idea of ​​the work of the great Russian playwright A.N. Ostrovsky exclusively from this film. And this is not the worst option.

In 2011, director A. Puustusmaa based on Ostrovsky’s drama shot another “Dowry”. The plot of the film generally follows the plot of the play, but the action is moved to the present day.