A variation of the "Beauty and the Beast" fairy tale that is quite similar to the version by Madame de Beaumont that it's easy to see why some would believe this is a Russified version of her tale, although apparently Sergei Aksakov didn't read Beaumont until after he wrote his, or so he claimed. I can believe he didn't read it before writing his version, but I have a hard time believing the version he grew up hearing as a child didn't come from France without him being aware of it, because Villeneuve's and Beaumont's versions already existed so it's possible the oral tale he heard as a child from his housekeeper, Pelageya, that he then transformed into "The Scarlet Flower" might've been inspired by or influenced by Villeneuve or Beaumont. That would be my guess, anyway, because this tale is just too similar to not think it didn't come from the French. For reference, Villeneuve's fairy tale was published in 1740, Beaumont's summed up version in 1756, and Aksakov's in 1858, a full century later, so I definitely do think there's a strong case to suspect it came from the French.
In any case, Aksakov's tale has enough differences and characteristics of its own, and has some obvious folklore components as well that are peculiar to the culture it sprang from. Here's the main differences between "The Little Scarlet Flower" and "Beauty and the Beast":
- the merchant father never loses his fortune.
- his daughters aren't lazy and evil ne'er-do-wells, they do want the beast to die abandoned in his castle and do try to delay her return, though.
- the beautiful youngest daughter asks to bring her a scarlet flower of singular beauty from a business trip instead of a rose.
- the merchant gets trapped in an enchanted forest before stumbling into Beast's castle and steals the scarlet flower. (Why replace roses with a generic scarlet flower, I wonder? Too vague. Many flowers are scarlet, so it could be any.)
- the beast here doesn't want to show himself to the girl (who is never named in this version unlike in Beaumont's) until she demands it from him, so they communicate through letters that appear on the wall and then through conversations in the gardens where he'd still hide from her. When he finally consents to showing his ugly self, she faints.
- The reason for the curse is that a wicked witch was cross at the prince's father for . . . reasons? For all the wordy speech the prince gives, he had no time to explain why and simply says he was kidnapped and transformed into a beast until someone would love him.
There's several editions of this fairy tale by now, with different illustrators. The one I'm reviewing has artwork by Boris Diodorov, which isn't much to my liking. Art-wise, I prefer the Soviet animated motion picture from 1952, which is visually lovely and that I watched before reading the fairy tale on recommendation of a friend who was a big fan of Beauty & Beast like me. I should add that I'm not fond of this variant, because I find it reads like a melodramatic rendition of B&B, with wordy and exaggerated dialogue, a rushed relationship with very little in terms of believability (one moment she faints at seeing his ugly mug, next she's in love?), and a curse that doesn't make sense. Also, the girl is so very generic, doesn't have a defined personality, and not even a name, she's no star in her own story like in Villeneuve/Beaumont, just a generic pretty and kind fairy tale heroine.