Without a Dowry and Other Plays

by Alexander Ostrovsky

  In view of the above why does Alexandra tell her mother that Velikatov is a “disgusting man” for having written his letter to her?

  My guess is that she doesn’t find him disgusting at all but is putting out a safe feeler to learn the reaction of her mother, who probably was reared in a morally conservative milieu. After Mme. Nyegin finds Velikatov acceptable and the proposed enterprise quite feasible, Alexandra feels free to make her sudden decision to accept Velikatov’s offer, though the audience, which has been in suspense during the intermission between Acts III and IV, could only realize this in retrospect. Her choice is the play’s climax, the fourth act the denouement.

  Into the final meeting of Alexandra and Meluzov Ostrovsky sneaks a surprise. For Alexandra tells Meluzov that were she to give up the stage, she would lose her chance for fame! That in itself is enough to show that, devoted to theatrical art as she surely is, it’s not all she lives for.

  Finally something should be said of Alexandra’s decision to go with Velikatov. Obviously it gives her a guaranteed chance to act as well as security to her and her mother (whom Alexandra would never think of abandoning in any way), and we know that Velikatov attracts her. But is her step “immoral,” as Meluzov judges? She refuses to accept Meluzov’s verdict though I suspect she might have some misgivings if only because Meluzov, whom she so much respects, is so sure about it. While Alexandra is not one to philosophize about morality or, for that matter, anything, the play suggests to me that she has her own responsible moral code and that her realization, probably influenced by her attraction for Velikatov, that she does not really love Meluzov makes her understand that it would be marrying Meluzov without love which would be immoral.

  A key question for the interpretation of Velikatov is whether he is a thoroughgoing hypocrite, as some have maintained, or not. I’ll discuss the hypocrisy claim later, but for the immediate discussion I am assuming that Velikatov is by turns sincere and insincere.

  Enigmatic though he be, mostly because he is so reticent about himself and his views, there is still quite a bit we can say about Velikatov, especially if we’re willing to venture some conjectures.

  Velikatov did not inherit his wealth but, having rebuilt his father’s ruined estate, went on to accumulate others and to become a millionaire from his ownership of factories, especially a sugar-beet factory. However, Velikatov can hardly be summed up as just another moneymaker. Ostrovsky has informed us in the list of characters that Velikatov is a retired cavalry officer, which suggests the possibility that he loves horses and that he maintains his stud farm as a hobby. We also learn near the end that he has his own theater, which certainly suggests the possibility that he has cultural sympathies. Moreover, unlike some people of wealth, he seems able and willing to talk democratically with people regardless of their station. So we have enough to posit Velikatov as a man of parts, an unusual individual not readily pigeonholed. Ostrovsky tells us that Velikatov tries to imitate the tone and manners of the merchants he deals with, but that does not mean that he imitates their business methods.

  Given Velikatov’s shyness, when he falls in love with Alexandra at first sight, he has a tactical problem. My guess is that he decides to use the readily accessible Nina to get closer to Alexandra while feeling his way. If this suspicion be on the mark, I would consider his so using Nina his one clearly unforgivable sin in the play. In any case it seems reasonable to suppose that Velikatov’s first visit with Nina to Alexandra’s apartment was his idea and not that of Nina, whose remarks to Meluzov at one point show that she considered Alexandra a potential rival for Velikatov’s favor. In this scene Alexandra gives Velikatov encouragement with the result that he immediately has Nina bring Alexandra the dress material she needs. Moreover, being the brilliant opportunist he is, he has Nina invite Alexandra on his behalf to a farewell party he’s giving the troupe. The decision to give such a party was probably made on the spot on the basis of his reception by Alexandra.

  If at this point we can agree that Alexandra and Velikatov have been playing a game with each other involving either love or flirting, a game with each taking initiatives, then we can summarily dismiss the interpretation of Velikatov as predator and Alexandra as victim.

  If Velikatov loves Alexandra, then why, since he’s free, does he not propose marriage? We can only speculate. His conversation with Mme. Nyegin at one point suggests the possibility that as a bachelor of rather long standing he may be afraid of marriage. Perhaps he prefers to learn more about Alexandra at close quarters before making a binding commitment.

  Finally, there’s the charge that Velikatov is basely insincere, which is expressed most succinctly by the critic A. I. Revyakin when he writes that “Velikatov from beginning to end is insincere, false.”1 But how can we be so sure of that? Beginning to end? Every act and thought? Isn’t that a parti pris? To be sure, using the term rather loosely, Velikatov is often enough insincere in the sense of being manipulative (he butters Mme. Nyegin up shamelessly) and, more to the point, of being habitually agreeable, and of lying more than once. However, on this last point let me hasten to emphasize that his lies are the kind of white or perhaps even grayish lies which probably most of us have engaged in at one time or another (in the specific cases they don’t bother Alexandra or Nina), and none seem to do any great harm. I think it may be apropos to note that because a man lies sometimes doesn’t mean he lies all the time.

  The negative social types in the play are Dulyebov, Bakin, and Migaev. Dulyebov is a snobbish old noble whose self-importance overwhelms what intelligence he has. For him the theater is a convenience store stocked with actresses who will be only too honored to perform offstage to his satisfaction. He’s spent much time in the theater, but, despite his pretension of being a connoisseur, he clearly has no genuine esthetic appreciation of it.

  Bakin is bright and discerning but also a self-centered, coarse, and brazen cynic. He goes straight for whatever he wants regardless of others’ feelings, and his vaunted persistence makes him confident that he’ll get Alexandra into his stable, preferably quickly and without unnecessary fuss. Of course Bakin’s insolent aggressiveness is the worst approach to use with Alexandra, if for no other reason than it enhances Velikatov’s considerable tact.

  Migaev, reportedly representative of many provincial theater directors of the time, has risen from a low position in the theater to become director, but he has no understanding of theatrical art—his only concern is the take at the box office. He has no concept of honor or dishonor, but disgusting though we must find him, on reflection we might be willing to judge him less harshly than Dulyebov and Bakin since his evildoing is close to being unthinkingly animalistic.

  Narokov is the play’s defeated artistic conscience. A most likeable but pathetic old man, he has sacrificed his possessions for the theater he’s always loved. He idolizes Alexandra as an artistic ally with considerable justification, but Narokov is the only one whose entire life finds meaning solely in art, especially theatrical. He stands in sharp contrast to Dulyebov and Bakin, who tolerate him as a harmless eccentric but don’t take him seriously. They are not about to waste much of their valuable time with a man who can say that his “soul is full of fine perfumes.”

  Last, but certainly not least, there’s Meluzov, the play’s defeated moral conscience. As some have noted, he bears a resemblance to Bazarov, the gruffly independent medical-studies graduate in Ivan Turgenev’s novel Fathers and Sons, who deems art useless. Meluzov shows no appreciation of art until near the end of the play when his views start to change under the influence of Alexandra’s benefit performance, suggesting the possibility that he had not seen her act before.

  Meluzov is certainly quixotic, perhaps at his most honorably ridiculous when he tells Migaev roundly off for his maltreatment of Alexandra, and then is satisfied with himself for having done his duty (though it’s clear he hasn’t helped Alexandra’s cause at all). However, overly idealistic though we might consider Meluzov to be, we are sure that he ha
s the stuff to endure privations and troubles while fulfilling his mission as teacher. Ostrovsky bestows a deserved honor on Meluzov when he has him basically end the play with a stout rejoinder to his spiritual enemy Bakin: “A duel? What for? You and I have a duel as it is, a constant duel, an unending duel. I enlighten, and you deprave… So let’s fight. You do your business, and I’ll do mine. And we’ll see who gets tired first… As for me, I’ll do my business to the end.”

  NOTE

  1. Istoriia russkoi literatury XIX veka, v. 2, 336. Moscow, 1963.

  OSTROVSKY’S PLAYS IN RUSSIAN

  Translations of the titles are sometimes borrowed, in whole or in part, sometimes wholly my own. The first date is that of initial publication. The second is the date of the initial stage production as it has usually been given in Soviet sources. However, in some cases, some earlier performaces of a rather unsubstantial nature were given; for the details see the end commentaries in A. N. Ostrovskii: Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, Moscow, 1973-1980.

  1. Kartina semeinogo schast’ia (Picture of Family Happiness). 1847, 1857.

  2. Svoi liudi-sochtemsia (It’s All in the Family). 1850, 1861. Originally entitled Bankrot (The Bankrupt).

  3. Utro molodogo cheloveka (A Young Man’s Morning). 1850, 1853.

  4. Neozhidannyi sluchai (Unexpected Incident). 1851, 1902.

  5. Bednaia nevesta (The Poor Bride). 1852, 1853.

  6. Ne v svoi sani ne sadis’ (Don’t Sit in Another’s Sleigh). 1853, 1853.

  7. Bednost’ ne porok (Poverty’s No Vice.) 1854, 1854.

  8. Ne tak zhivi, kak khochetsia (Don’t Live as You Please). 1855, 1854.

  9. V chuzhom piru pokhmel’e (Trouble Caused by Another). 1856, 1856.

  10. Dokhodnoe mesto (A Profitable Position). 1857, 1863.

  11. Prazdnichnyi son—do obeda (A Holiday Dream Before Dinner). 1857, 1857.

  12. Ne soshlis’ kharakterami (Incompatibility of Character). 1858, 1858.

  13. Vospitannitsa (The Ward). 1859, 1863.

  14. Groza (The Thunderstorm). 1860, 1859.

  15. Staryi drug luchshe novykh dvukh (An Old Friend Is Better than Two New Ones). 1860, 1860.

  16. Svoi sobaki gryzutsia, chuzhaia ne pristavai (We Won’t Brook Interference). 1861, 1861.

  17. Za chem poidesh’, to i naidesh’ (You’ll Find What You Go After). 1861, 1863. Also called Zhenit’ba Bal’zaminova (Balzaminov’s Wedding).

  18. Koz’ma Zakhar’ich Minin-Sukhoruk (Kozma Zakharyich Minin-Sukhoruk). The first version was initially published in 1862 but never performed. The second version was first published in 1904 and first performed in 1866.

  19. Grekh da beda na kogo ne zhivet (Sin and Sorrow Are Common to All). 1863, 1863.

  20. Tiazhelye dni (Difficult Days). 1863, 1863.

  21. Shutniki (Jesters). 1864, 1864.

  22. Voevoda (Voivode). First version: 1865, 1865. Second version: 1890, 1886. Also called Son na Volge (Dream on the Volga).

  23. Na boikom meste (At the Jolly Spot). 1865, 1865.

  24. Puchina (The Abyss). 1866, 1866.

  25. Dmitrii Samozvanets i Vasilii Shuiskii (The False Dmitry and Vasily Shuisky). 1867, 1867.

  26. Tushino (Tushino). 1867, 1867.

  27. Vasilisa Melent’eva (Vasilisa Melentyeva). 1868, 1868. In collaboration with S. A. Gedeonov.

  28. Na vsiakogo mudretsa dovol’no prostoty (To Every Sage His Share of Folly). 1868, 1868.

  29. Goriachee serdtse (An Ardent Heart). 1869, 1869.

  30. Beshenye den’gi (Easy Come, Easy Go). 1870, 1870.

  31. Les (The Forest). 1871, 1871.

  32. Ne vse kotu maslianitsa (Feasting Can’t Last Forever). 1871, 1871.

  33. Ne bylo ni grosha, da vdrug altyn (Not Even a Copper, Then Lo a Goldpiece). 1872, 1872.

  34. Komik XVII stoletiia (Comic of the 17th Century). 1873, 1872.

  35. Snegurochka (The Snowmaiden). 1873, 1873.

  36. Pozdniaia liubov’ (Late Love). 1874, 1873.

  37. Trudovoi khleb (Hard-earned Bread). 1874, 1874.

  38. Volki i ovtsy (Wolves and Sheep). 1875, 1875.

  39. Bogatye nevesty (Rich Brides). 1876, 1875.

  40. Pravda khorosho, a schast’e luchshe (Truth Is Fine, but Good Luck’s Better). 1877, 1876.

  41. Schastlivyi den’ (Happy Day). 1877, 1877. In collaboration with N. Solovyov.

  42. Posledniaia zhertva (A Last Sacrifice). 1878, 1877.

  43. Zhenit’ba Belugina (Belugin’s Wedding). 1878, 1877. In collaboration with N. Solvyov.

  44. Bespridannitsa (Without a Dowry). 1879, 1878.

  45. Dikarka (Wild Woman). 1880, 1879. In collaboration with N. Solovyov.

  46. Serdtse ne kamen’ (The Heart Is not a Stone). 1880, 1879.

  47. Nevol’nitsy (Bondwomen). 1881, 1880.

  48. Svetit da ne greet (It Gives Light but not Warmth). 1881, 1880. In collaboration with N. Solovyov.

  49. Blazh’ (Whim). 1881, 1880. In collaboration with P. Nevezhin.

  50. Talanty i poklonniki (Talents and Admirers). 1882, 1881.

  51. Staroe po-novomu (The Old in a New-fashioned Way). 1882, 1882. In collaboration with P. Nevezhin.

  52. Krasavets-muzhchina (Handsome Man). 1883, 1882.

  53. Bez viny vinovatye (Without Guilt Guilty). 1884, 1884.

  54. Ne ot mira sego (Not of This World). 1885, 1885.

  OSTROVSKY’S PLAYS IN ENGLISH TRANSLATION

  Artistes and Admirers (Talanty i poklonniki). Tr. by Elisabeth Hanson. Manchester U. Press; Barnes and Noble, New York; 1970.

  At the Jolly Spot. Tr. by Jane Paxton Campbell and George R. Noyes. Poet Lore, no. 1, 1925.

  Bondwomen. Tr. by Schöne Charlotte Kurlandzik and George R. Noyes. Poet Lore, no. 4, 1925.

  A Cat Has Not Always Carnival (Ne vse kotu maslianitsa). Tr. by J. P. Campbell and G. R. Noyes. Poet Lore, no. 3, 1929.

  The Diary of a Scoundrel (Na vsiakogo mudretsa dovol’no prostoty). Adapted by Rodney Ackland. Marston, London, 1948. Included in vol. 2 of The Modern

  Theatre (Eric Bentley, ed.). Doubleday, Garden City, 1955. Also published as Too Clever by Half by Applause Theatre Bk. Pubs., 1988.

  A Domestic Picture (Kartina semeinogo schast’ia). Tr. by E. L. Voynich in The Humour of Russia. Walter Scott, London; Scribner, New York, 1909.

  Easy Money (Beshenye den’gi), and two other plays: Even a Wise Man Stumbles (Na vsiakogo mudretsa dovol’no prostoty), and Wolves and Sheep. Tr. by David Magarshack. Allen & Unwin, London, 1944. Reprinted by Greenwood Press, Inc.; Westport, Conn. Easy Money is included in From the Modern Repertoire, Series II (Eric Bentley, ed.), Indiana U. Press.

  Enough Stupidity in Every Wise Man (Na vsiakogo mudretsa dovol’no prostoty). Tr. by Polya Kasherman. In The Moscow Art Theatre Series of Russian Plays. Second series, New York, 1923.

  Fairy Gold (Beshenye den’gi). Tr. by Camille Chapin Daniles and G. R. Noyes. Poet Lore, no. 1, 1929.

  Five Plays. Tr. by Eugene K. Bristow. Pegasus, New York, 1969. Contents: It’s a Family Affair—We’ll Settle It Ourselves, The Poor Bride, The Storm, The Scoundrel (Na nsiakogo mudretsa dovol’no prostoty), The Forest.

  The Forest. Tr. by Clara Vostrovsky Winlow and G. R. Noyes. S. French, New York, 1926.

  The Forest. Tr. by Serge Bertennson. Reproduction of typewritten copy in New York Public Library.

  Incompatibility of Temper. Tr. by E. L. Voynich. In The Humour of Russia (see above under A Domestic Picture).

  The King of Comedy Is Speaking to You. Vol. One. Tr. by J. McPetrie. Contents: A Sprightly Spot, Late Love. Stockwell, London, 1938. Copies in the British Museum, Library of Congress, and Grosvenor Library at Buffalo.

  Larisa (Bespridannitsa) Tr. by Michael Green and Jerome Katsell, The Unknown Russian Theater, Ardis, Ann Arbor, 1991.

  A Last Sacrifice. Tr. by Eugenia Korvin-Kroukovsky and G. R. Noyes. Poet Lore, no. 3, 1928.

  Plays. Edited by G. R. Noyes. Contents: A Protégée of the Mistress (Vospitannitsa), Poverty Is No Crime, Sin and Sorrow
Are Common to All, It’s a Family Affair—We’ll Settle It Ourselves. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1917. Reprinted by AMS Press, Inc., New York, London.

  Plays. Tr. by Margaret Wettlin. Contents: Poverty Is No Crime, The Storm, Even the Wise Can Err (Na vsiakogo mudretsa dovol’no prostoty), More Sinned Against than Sinning (Bez viny vinovatye). Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1974.

  The Poor Bride. Tr. by John Laurence Seymour and G. R. Noyes. In Masterpieces of the Russian Drama, vol. one (G. R. Noyes, ed.). Dover, New York, 1960 (originally D. Appleton, New York, 1933).

  The Storm. Tr. by Constance Garnett. Duckworth, London, 1899.

  The Storm. Tr. by George F. Holland and Malcolm Morley. Allen & Unwin, London, 1930.

  The Storm. Tr. by F. D. Reeve. In An Anthology of Russian Plays, vol. one. Vintage, New York, 1961.

  The Storm. Tr. by David Magarshack. In The Storm and Other Russian Plays. Hill and Wang, New York, 1960. Also Ardis, Ann Arbor, 1988.

  Thunder. Tr. by Joshua Cooper. In Four Russian Plays. Penguin Books, Baltimore, 1972.

  The Thunderstorm. Tr. by Florence Whyte and G.R. Noyes. S. French, New York, 1927. Included in World Drama, vol. two (Barrett H. Clark, ed.) Dover, New York, 1933.

  The Thunderstorm. Tr. by Andrew MacAndrew. In 19th Century Russian Drama. Bantam, New York, 1963. Also in A Treasury of the Theatre, vol. one, ed. by John Gassner.

  Too Clever by Half. See The Diary of a Scoundrel.

  We Won’t Brook Interference. Tr. by J. L. Seymour and G. R. Noyes. Banner Play Bureau, San Francisco and Cincinnati, 1938.

  Wolves and Sheep. Tr. by Inez Sachs Colby and G. R. Noyes. Poet Lore, no. 2, 1926.

  You Can’t Live Just as You Please. Tr. by Philip Winningstad, G. R. Noyes, and John Heard, Poet Lore, no. 3, 1943.

  OSTROVSKY CRITICISM IN ENGLISH

  I am indebted to Herbert R. Smith for some items below.