Who is the main character of the play Boris Godunov. A.S. Pushkin "Boris Godunov": description, characters, analysis of the work. Question about the main character
| D.V. Odinokova |
| N o t e | ||
| 1 | On this see: Belinsky V.G. "Boris Godunov". Sobr. op. in 9 volumes - V.6. - M., 1981; Blagoy D.D. Pushkin's skill. - M., 1955. - S. 120-131; Alekseev M.P. Comparative historical research. - L., 1984. - S.221-252. | |
| 2 | This is evidenced by the title of the play, in a draft version (See letter to P.A. Vyazemsky dated July 13, 1825. From Mikhailovsky to Tsarskoye Selo. - Complete collection of works in 10 volumes - V.10. - L., 1979. - P. 120) formulated as follows: “A comedy about a real disaster for the Moscow State, o<аре>Boris and about Grishka Otr<епьеве>wrote the servant of God Alexander son of Sergeyev Pushkin in the summer of 7333, on the settlement of Voronich"), and a little later (in the white list) remade into "Comedy about Tsar Boris and Grishka Otrepiev". | |
| 3 | For more details see: Platonov S.F. Boris Godunov. - Petrograd, 1921. - S.3-6. | |
| 9 | See, for example: "Another legend" // Russian historical narrative of the XVI-XVII centuries. - M., 1984. - S. 29-89; "From the Chronograph of 1617" // Monuments of Literature of Ancient Russia. Late 16th - early 17th centuries. - M., 1987. - S.318-357; Job. "The Tale of the Life of Tsar Fedor Ivanovich" // Monuments of Literature of Ancient Russia. Late 16th - early 17th centuries. - M., 1987. - S.74-129. | |
| 10 | See, for example: Nadezhdin N.I. Literary criticism. Aesthetics. - M., 1972. - S.263. Belinsky V.G. "Boris Godunov". Sobr. op. in 9 volumes - V.6. - M., 1981.- P. 433. | |
| 11 | See, for example: Bazilevich K.V. Boris Godunov as Pushkin. // Historical notes. - T.1. - M., 1937; Gorodetsky B.P. Drama by Pushkin. - M.; L., 1953; Blagoy D.D. Pushkin's skill. - M., 1955. | |
| 12 | Belinsky V. G. "Boris Godunov". Sobr. op. in 9 volumes - V.6. - M., 1981. - S.427-453. | |
| 13 | There were attempts to remove this confrontation altogether, reducing everything that happens to the implementation of a certain principle - the principle of Divine retribution to a child killer (N. Karamzin spoke about this) or a historical law that implies the inevitable collapse of autocracy. The figures of Boris and the Pretender in such a situation become replaceable, and the main goal of the tragedy is to demonstrate the fundamental importance of the role of the masses in history. On this, see: B.P. Gorodetsky. Drama by Pushkin. - M.; L., 1953. - S.127-128, 131-132; Blagoy D.D. Pushkin's skill. - M., 1955. - S. 120-131; Alekseev M.P. Comparative historical research. - L., 1984. - S.221-252; Rassadin S.B. Dramatist Pushkin. - M., "Art", 1977. | |
| 14 | For more details on the comparison of the figures of Boris and the Pretender, see: Turbin V.N. Characters of impostors in Pushkin's works.// Philological sciences. - 1968. - N 6. - P.88. | |
| 15 | For more on this, see: Waldenberg V. Old Russian teachings on the limits of royal power. Essay on Russian political literature from Saint Vladimir to late XVI I century. - Pg., 1916; Dyakonov M. The power of the Moscow sovereigns. Essays from the history of political ideas of Ancient Russia up to the end of the 16th century. - St. Petersburg, 1889; Uspensky B.A. The Tsar and the Pretender: Imposture in Russia as a Cultural and Historical Phenomenon // Uspensky B.A. Selected works. - T.I. - M., 1996. - S. 142-166; Uspensky B.A. Tsar and God (semiotic aspects of the sacralization of the monarch in Russia) // Uspensky B.A. Selected works. - T.I. - S.204-311. | |
| 16 | Pushkin A.S. Full coll. op. in 10 tons - T.5. - L., 1978. - S.231. | |
| 17 | A similar point of view was expressed by V.N.Turbin. He said that in this case there is a kind of exchange and merger, cooperation - one person, on the one hand, destroyed himself, giving it to someone, since imposture is, first of all, a renunciation of oneself, the destruction of one's past and one's fate, and on the other hand, the destruction is compensated by the fact that he began to exist in the guise of a certain centaur, in which the name is from one, and the personality is from the second. See: Turbin V.N. Characters of impostors in Pushkin's works // Philological sciences. - 1968. - N 6. - S.91. | |
Ticket 16. Drama "Boris Godunov". Drama innovation. The theme of people and power. Question about the main character.
The main theme of the tragedy- the tsar and the people - determined the important place that Pushkin assigned to Boris Godunov in his play.
The image of Boris Godunov is revealed widely and diversified. Boris is shown both as a tsar and as a family man; his various spiritual qualities are noted.
Boris is endowed with many positive traits. Attractive are his great mind, powerful will, responsiveness, desire "to calm his people in contentment, in glory." As a tender father, he sincerely mourns the grief of his daughter, shocked by the unexpected death of her fiancé:
What, Ksenia, what is my dear?
The brides are already a sad widow!
You keep crying about the dead fiance ...
Innocent, why are you suffering? "
As a person who deeply understands the benefits of education, he rejoices at the success of his son in science:
Learn my son, science cuts
We experience a fast-flowing life ...
Learn, my son, and easier and clearer -
Sovereign labor you will comprehend.
Boris is an experienced politician, he soberly takes into account the attitude of the boyars towards him, understands the whole difficult situation inside the country of his time and gives reasonable advice to his son in his dying will. Having betrothed his daughter to a Swedish prince, he thinks about strengthening the ties of Russia with the Western European states.
Despite all these qualities, the people do not like the king. Boris Godunov is a typical representative of the autocracy that began to take shape in Muscovite Russia from the time of Ivan III and reached its peak under Otherwise IV. Boris will continue the policy of Ivan IV - the concentration of all state power in the hands of the king. He continues the fight against the noble boyars and. like Ivan IV, he relies in this struggle on the service nobility. Appointing Basmanov as commander of the troops, Boris tells him: "I will send you to command them: I will put not the clan, but the mind, into governors." Boris continues the policy of the Moscow tsars in relation to the people: “Only by severity can we vigilantly restrain the people. So thought John (III), the calmer of storms, a reasonable autocrat, so thought the hundred and fierce grandson (Ivan IV). He continues the policy of enslaving the peasants, he "Yuryev's laziness planned to destroy", that is, to destroy the right of the peasants to move from one landowner to another and thereby finally fix the peasants to the landowners.
Such a feudal policy of Boris strengthens at first the distrustful, and then the hostile attitude of the people towards him.
But Boris differs from his predecessors in that he became king through crime, and not through legitimate succession to the throne. In the 17th century, as some writers of that time say, Boris Godunov was considered the murderer of Tsarevich Demetrius, son of Ivan IV. Karamzin was of the same opinion. Karamzin considered the very tragedy of Boris as a consequence of his crime: God punished Boris for the murder of the infant prince.
Pushkin, "resurrecting the past century in all its truth", also
draws Boris as the murderer of Dimitri. But, in contrast
writers of the 17th century and Karamzin, he is not by this crime
explains the unhappy reign of Boris and the
failure to establish the royal Godunov dynasty.
The murder of Demetrius causes Boris mental anguish, increases the hostility of the people towards him, but this is not main reason his tragic fate. The death of Boris is due to social causes, the struggle of class forces. The boyars, the Don Cossacks, the Polish gentry, and most importantly, the people opposed him. Gavrila Pushkin tells Basmanov that the Pretender is strong not by "Polish help" and not by Cossacks, but by "popular opinion." The people rebelled against Godunov, and this is the main reason for the death of Boris, since the people are the main, decisive force of history.
The people turned away from Boris and then rebelled against him because they saw in him a despot who not only did not care about the welfare of the people, but, on the contrary, worsened their position, enslaving the peasantry; saw in him the murderer of the prince; considered all his "good deeds" and "generosity" as "a means to restrain confusion and rebellion."
So Pushkin shows that the main reason for the tragedy of Boris is that he lost the respect, love and support of the people.
Drama innovation.
Pushkin has long and repeatedly reflected on the theory of dramaturgy. He posed these questions point blank while working on Boris Godunov. The first Russian truly national poet who had to say a new word, take a step forward in the artistic development of mankind, Pushkin He thought over and creatively mastered the experience of all the literary development that preceded him, especially appreciating the work of Shakespeare, opposing the "folk laws of Shakespeare's drama" to "the court custom of the tragedy of Racine." If Pushkin If the traditional system of classicism did not satisfy him at all, then the modern romantic dramaturgy, a vivid example of which he considered the plays of the revolutionary romanticist Byron, did not satisfy him either.
Dramaturgy by Byron not so much drawing images other people as they really are, as much as the personality of the author himself reflected. Byron, as Pushkin rightly noted, “distributed individual traits of his own character among his heroes; to one he gave his pride, to another his hatred, to a third his anguish, etc., and in this way he created several insignificant ones from one whole character, gloomy, energetic. Pushkin contrasts the one-sided and monotonous, subjective-romantic manner of Byron with a broad and truthful depiction of life, a deep and versatile development of human characters in Shakespeare's dramaturgy, the method of which Marx and Engels would later persistently set as an example to their compatriot Lassalle.
The tasks of creating a truly historical work, which would give a true reproduction of an entire historical epoch, could least of all correspond to the traditional forms of the dramaturgy of classicism. The wide and turbulent flow of historical life, which Pushkin wanted to open directly to the stage, did not fit the framework of any kind of "rules" and conventions. And Pushkin completely breaks these ossified forms and traditions, resolutely embarks on the path of a radical "transformation of our dramatic system", "obsolete forms of the theater" - the path of creative daring and innovation. The list of qualities necessary for a playwright, Pushkin ended expressively with the underlined word "freedom". In the name of a true depiction of life and history, the guiding and sole determining principle.
First of all, he decisively eliminated the notorious "three unities" of classicism. If the action of the “classical” tragedy was bound to, according to the once-for-all established theoretical rules, fit into a period of time not exceeding twenty-four hours, the action of “Boris Godunov” covers a period of more than seven years (from 1598 to 1605). Instead of a single place where all five acts of which the tragedy was supposed to consist (most often such a place was the royal palace), the action of "Boris Godunov" moves from the palace to the square, from the monastery cell to the tavern, from the chambers of the patriarch to the battlefields; moreover, even transferred from one country to another - from Russia to Poland. In accordance with this, instead of five acts, Pushkin divides his play into twenty-three scenes, which allows him to show the Russian historical life of that time from the most diverse sides, in its most diverse manifestations.
The plot in tragedy classicism was built on an indispensable love affair, the development of which formed the third unity - "the unity of action." Pushkin constructs his tragedy almost without love and, in any case, without a central love affair: the passionate infatuation of the impostor Marina Mnishek is one of the side episodes of the play and, in fact, plays an almost auxiliary role in it. “I was seduced by the thought of a tragedy without a love affair,” Pushkin himself wrote. But not to mention that love very suited to the romantic and passionate nature of my adventurer, I made Dimitri fall in love with Marina in order to better set off her unusual character. The traditional unity of action, about which Pushkin himself writes that he "barely preserved" it, is constantly violated by the fact that Pushkin's tragedy, not only as the place of its action, but also in essence, incessantly leaves the palace - from the royal chambers, unfolds, as it were, simultaneously and in parallel. on several social planes. What happens in the palace is explained by what happens in the boyar mansions, and the latter is due to what is happening in the square.
In direct connection With all this, and in general striving to cover the historical epoch he depicts as widely as possible, Pushkin goes far beyond the circle of actors in the tragedy of classicism, which is extremely narrow in class, and simply in quantitative terms. It usually had no more than ten, and most often much fewer characters, who belonged mainly to the court elite. In "Boris Godunov" we see a huge number - about sixty - characters, among whom we find representatives of all strata of the then society: from the tsar, patriarch, boyars, nobles, warriors, foreign mercenaries, Cossacks, townspeople, clerks, merchants to the hostess of a tavern, to black tramps, to a simple woman on the Maiden's Field, calming down a child who burst into tears at the wrong time, to a rebellious peasant on the pulpit, calling on the people to break into the royal chambers.
This breadth of coverage also corresponds to what tragedy Pushkin, again, contrary to all long-established traditions, there is no main "hero", the main character. The tragedy is called the name of Tsar Boris, but not only does it not end with his death (a circumstance that has led most contemporary critics of Pushkin to extreme bewilderment), but he also appears in only six scenes out of twenty-three. In “Boris Godunov” we have before us the whole historical reality of that time, all the motley and many-sided Russia of that era, passing in a living and moving, noisy, agitated, “like a sea-ocean”, panorama full of events.
Question about the main character.
Drama is a peculiar literary phenomenon, due to which it is somewhat difficult to isolate one main character in the traditional sense of the word. Researchers have repeatedly noted that the character, whose name the play is named (and according to the canons of classicism, this is an undoubted indication of the person on whom the author's attention is focused, i.e., the main character) - Boris Godunov is not given much attention in the text - he appears in only six scenes out of the available 23.
More often than Boris, only the Pretender appears on the scene, but he also has only nine episodes on his account - less than half. There is an opinion that it is generally incorrect to talk about the main character in this drama by Pushkin. Among other things, the position was expressed that the author's attention embraces the fate of the entire people as a whole, without dwelling for a long time on one particular person, i.e. events develop as a result of the confluence of many efforts, desires, actions and motives, and tragedy demonstrates the historical process as a complex whole, and the people as a certain set of persons, represented, on the one hand, by individual characters, alternately brought to the fore, and on the other, as a kind of unity, whose appearance gradually grows out of the actions of its individual representatives .
However, despite the absence of a single protagonist around whom the action unfolds, one cannot speak of the complete “amorphousness” of the tragedy in this regard. There is a certain “framework” in the drama, not one main character, but their system, and the main problematic of the work is connected with this system of images. The presence of several (limited number) personalities on which the main conflicts of the work rest is confirmed by the testimony of the author himself - Pushkin pointed to Boris and the Pretender as characters that attract his closest attention .
In addition to these two figures, which Pushkin himself unequivocally focuses on, one more image presented in the tragedy should be noted. This is Tsarevich Dimitri, son of Ivan the Terrible, who was killed in Uglich. By the time the action of the play begins (1598), the prince, who died at the age of nine in 1591, has been lying in the grave for seven years. Personally, he cannot participate in the unfolding drama, however, so to speak, his shadow is constantly present in the play, building everything that happens in a certain perspective.
It is with these three characters and their relationships that the main problems raised in the drama are connected. The line Boris Godunov - Tsarevich Dimitri is a "tragedy of conscience" and the tragedy of power obtained through crime, the line Boris - the Pretender raises the question of the true and untrue king, in the pair Dimitri-False Dmitry, the second without the first is simply unthinkable, the existence, and then the death of the little the prince is steadily leading to the tragedy on the throne of Boris Godunov and the appearance of an impostor. All three characters have their own characters, from the collision of which plot axes are formed. Pushkin outlined the characters taking into account the general concept of the drama, so that the idea came through brighter and all the problems that he wanted to highlight were touched upon. He had a choice of possible interpretations of the personalities of all three main characters and assessments of their actions, given by various sources.
Thus, the assessments of the personality of Boris Godunov, cited in the sources and literature, are scattered along the entire scale from the positive to the negative pole. Based on his character, the question of his fate was usually also decided: what was it - a just retribution for a villain or an evil fate that took up arms against an innocent sufferer.
The beginning of the perception of Boris as an unambiguous villain was laid back in the Time of Troubles, when Boris's successors on the throne officially accused him of all mortal sins (of many murders - in particular, in the death of the little prince Dimitri, - of usurpation of power, of arson and almost not in the organization of hunger). These accusations, given in continuous text, give the impression of being comical rather than convincing, but all of them individually were indeed attributed to Boris . The image of Boris as an operetta villain was quite often exploited in historical drama and in historical stories. All the failures of Boris on the throne, the people's hatred for him and his sudden death in this case were explained by a completely deserved punishment - the villain could not get any other lot, evil must always be punished.
However, many of the most serious charges, after a thorough investigation, can be dropped from Boris. Having freed him from the costume of an inveterate villain, the killer of an innocent baby and the poisoner of almost the entire royal family, one can try to see a different look of Godunov - after all, there was a purely positive assessment of his personality. In this case, they recalled the positive results of his reign: the end of the terror of Grozny, a well-thought-out foreign policy, the revival of contacts with foreigners, both cultural and commercial, the strengthening of the southern borders, territorial acquisitions, the development of Siberia, the improvement of the capital ... During the years of natural disasters When at the beginning of the 17th century several crop failures hit the country at once, Boris made every effort to smooth out the crisis, and it was not his fault that the state at that time was simply not adapted to get out of such a test with honor. The outstanding personal qualities of Boris were also noted - his governmental talent, sharp mind of a politician, love of virtue. In this case, his fall was explained by an unfortunate combination of circumstances that Boris did not have the strength to cope with. .
Somewhere in the middle between the two poles - positive and negative - lies another interpretation of Boris's personality, which looks like this - Boris' state activities and his abilities as a ruler are paid tribute, but it is noted that this person is guilty of many crimes and cannot be forgiven despite having some positive qualities. The fate of Boris is interpreted as the notorious "tragedy of conscience". Such a position was held, for example, by Karamzin, saying that Boris was an example of piety, diligence, parental tenderness, but his lawlessness still inevitably made him a victim of heavenly judgment. . Initially, Godunov's sins are so great that his subsequent positive behavior cannot help in any way - after the crime committed, Boris can no longer justify himself, no matter how exemplarily he behaves.
Estimates of the second significant figure - the Pretender - no longer vary within the framework of "positive-negative character", but rather, the pendulum oscillates between the definitions of "complete insignificance, pawn" and "clever adventurer". The Pretender has never been positively evaluated. In principle, the impostor still remains a vague figure - there were lies around him all the time, and very little confirmed documentary information remained. Until now, it is not known with full certainty who this person was. Researchers agree, however, that the man who occupied the Russian throne for 11 months could not be the real son of Grozny, too much does not agree, first of all, in the statements of the impostor himself and in his stories about his salvation. The most common version is that under the guise of Demetrius, Yuri (Grigory in monasticism) Otrepiev, the son of a poor nobleman, a shooter centurion, sat on the Moscow throne .
The fact that the Pretender was the miraculously saved Tsarevich Dmitry was believed only by ordinary people who joined his army and surrendered fortresses to him. But even among them it was not so much a faith based on knowledge as a faith backed by desire. It was absolutely not important who declared himself Dimitri - the real son of the Terrible or a person from the outside - the effect was the same. In the figure of Demetrius, regardless of who played this role, the people's dreams of a true just king were realized. Dimitri was an image and a name that any person could stand behind.
The question about the Pretender is as follows - did he himself brew up all the huge intrigue or was he simply used, seduced by generous promises. The resolution of this issue is closed on the characteristics of the character of the Pretender. If it was a really strong personality of a significant scale, an independent plan to seize power could have been born in his head, after which he moved towards his goal, skillfully playing on the interests of those who were able to help him . If this adventurer was by nature a complete nonentity, they could simply throw some idea at him, provoke him, and then use him in his game.
The third main character - Tsarevich Dimitry, who died in Uglich at the age of nine - is presented either from a purely negative point of view, or as a little angel. The negative image of the prince is drawn by N.I. Kostomarov, giving a portrait of a little sadist who loves to watch how chickens are slaughtered, hates Boris Godunov, suffers from epilepsy and, as a result, hysterical seizures, and in general clearly inherited the character of his father, Ivan the Terrible . Another option is the image of the prince as an innocently injured martyr, a meek baby, endowed with all conceivable virtues. This point of view is demonstrated by the lives of the prince, compiled both during the Time of Troubles and at a later time. The tragedy of premature death is emphasized, the high hopes that were associated with the boy, the innocence and defenselessness of the deceased, his "gentleness" .
Pushkin's concept, the assessment options that he eventually gave preference to, were understood and interpreted in different ways at different times. Contemporaries, almost immediately responding to the publication of "Boris Godunov", saw in the image of Boris only the tragedy of a guilty conscience. They focused on the relationship within the couple Boris - Tsarevich Dimitri, considering them the leitmotif of the drama. Such an understanding could be influenced by a very noticeable external connection of the tragedy with N.M. Karamzin, where the theory of Boris the villain, punished for sins, is developed in great detail .
Soviet researchers, on the other hand, completely denied the existence of a motive of a troubled conscience in the drama. They ignored the frequent mention of the name of Tsarevich Dimitri, reducing the number of main characters to two (Boris and the Pretender). The removal of the prince from the circle of the main characters completely removes the problem of guilt and forces us to look for the reasons for the fall of Boris in completely different areas and, accordingly, to interpret Pushkin's ideological concept expressed in his drama in a different way.
Soviet researchers were very much influenced by ideological considerations. In the depiction of the fall of a ruler, clearly distinguished by positive qualities, they willingly saw an example of the inevitability of the collapse of any autocratic power, the law of the development of society in action. In a certain way, the mention of V.G. Belinsky about the decisive role of popular opinion in the fate of Boris and the Pretender. From the Marxist position, the driving force of history is the masses, and if the people appear in the drama and, moreover, their participation determines the denouement of the fate of the main characters, then the tragedy is dedicated to demonstrating the people's influence on historical events. .
Analyzing the interpretation of the image of Godunov in the drama, one can be sure that the researchers read anything in it - from religious moralizing on the subject of heavenly punishment to a purely ideological anti-monarchist concept. In our opinion, despite the possible elimination of one or another person from the main characters, despite the transfer of the reader's attention from Boris and the Pretender to the people, reducing them to plot-insignificant units in some interpretations, the three-term system of plot axes Godunov - Pretender - Tsarevich Dimitri has its justification and quite fully covers the possibilities of interpreting the drama.
The image of Boris Godunov in the drama is ambiguous - Pushkin did not draw him in either exclusively black or exclusively light colors. Boris in Pushkin is presented in many respects in accordance with historical realities - in the text there are a lot of references to the real personality of Boris Godunov and to facts that reliably relate to him. Boris in the tragedy is an intelligent, skillful politician, diplomat (everyone recognizes his excellent qualities in this area - Afanasy Pushkin in the episode "Moscow. Shuisky's House" speaks of the "smart head" of Tsar Boris), he is cunning enough to be able to get around all his rivals and gain a throne to which he has dubious rights. Boris is distinguished by his tender affection for his children: his greatest desire is for his children to be happy, and his greatest fear is that his sins will be forgiven for his children. Boris protects children from all evil, raising them with love and care, and hopes that he alone will be responsible for everything, and good luck will come to his children.
Godunov is an outstanding personality, in which both good and bad are mixed. On the throne, he tries with all his might to earn people's love, but all his attempts are in vain - Boris has a grave sin of murder on his conscience, in connection with which his whole life is a tragedy of a restless conscience and death itself is a consequence of the fact that he cannot withstand the internal struggle . Boris came to power through a crime, and all of his, individually, such wonderful and appropriate actions, as well as positive qualities, are not able to atone for his guilt. He can be an ideal ruler, an exemplary family man, do a lot of good, but he is initially wrong, because in order to get the throne, he killed a child.
Pushkin did not use the existing theory of Boris the villain, since a purebred villain cannot experience pangs of conscience and a tragedy similar to that presented in a drama is excluded for him, which would completely destroy the entire author's intention. The villain is more likely to justify himself, rather than execute mentally, as Godunov does. This is also a plot worthy of an image, but Pushkin was not interested in it. The variant of Boris, the ideal tsar, also did not fit into the general concept - Boris must be guilty, otherwise the very idea of tragedy would collapse. The fact that Boris' participation in the murder of the prince is not supported by evidence, Pushkin left aside. Godunov is undoubtedly guilty of his tragedy - he himself talks about it, those around him talk about it. For this Pushkin was reproached by Belinsky, who found that some kind of melodrama had been made out of history - the whole tragedy of Boris was tied to his very dubious, unproven crime. Belinsky considered that Pushkin overdid it, following Karamzin, who rigidly connected the fall of Boris with his sins and motivated Godunov's failures solely by punishment for the murder he had committed. .
In our opinion, the idea of the tragedy is not limited to a demonstration of the torments of a sick conscience and is not reduced to a description of retribution for the murderer. The range of issues covered here is wider, and the personality of the character, whose name the work is named, is associated with the formulation of many problems, and is not the embodiment of only one trait. The personality of Boris Godunov collides with other central characters, and the main storylines are built inside this peculiar triangle. The elimination, belittling of any hero leads to a distortion of the entire system, to a change in emphasis and, ultimately, to a reshaping of the concept of tragedy.
The line Boris - Tsarevich Dimitri, as already mentioned, embodies the tragedy of a restless conscience. The whole drama should not be reduced to this idea, but the existence of such a motive should not be completely denied either. The motive of guilt does not prevail, but is present in the work as one of the structural elements. Both the image of Boris and the image of Dimitri stand in a rigid connection with the need to develop this problem in its entirety. Boris in the drama is not a negative person, but once, in order to get through to the throne, he took sin upon his soul. Now he rules safely, but the shadow of the murdered boy haunts him, and since he is not a complete villain, he constantly hears the voice of a reproachful conscience. Boris loses the fight with an imaginary shadow, and then with a real person, in whom the shadow is embodied - in the confrontation with False Dmitry against Boris, there are circumstances: the discontent of the people and those close to him, but unfavorable circumstances can still yield to human will, but Boris himself gives up - he has no inner confidence in one's own rightness and sinlessness.
The appearance of the prince in the play is endowed with those features that give Godunov's tragedy a special salience. Pushkin paints a portrait close to those images that are presented in hagiographic literature. The small age of the child is emphasized (he is called “baby” everywhere), his innocence and almost holiness are emphasized (the body of the child, laid after death in the church, remains incorrupt, which is an integral sign of holiness, miraculous healings at the tomb of the prince speak of the same) .
It is precisely the tragedy of a man who, on his way to the throne, steps over the corpse of an innocent baby, possesses the greatest power of persuasiveness. Deepening into the character of Dimitri, a reminder of his cruelty and bad heredity would give a slightly different shade to the whole tragedy - one thing is the murder of an innocent boy, and the other is the death of a little sadist who promises to turn into a second Ivan the Terrible in the future. Pushkin disregards the information he undoubtedly knows about the atrocities of the tsarevich (rumors of his viciousness are given in Karamzin's History of the Russian State). The tragedy gives precisely that interpretation of the image of Demetrius, which corresponds to the general plan and ensures the realization of the necessary idea in its entirety.
Russia at the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th century and is the main actor, a kind of collective hero of Pushkin's tragedy. At the same time, Pushkin strives for historical truth in depicting each of the participants in this grandiose, moving, acting historical panorama in faces, achieving this through a close and in-depth study of historical materials, “... in the annals he tried to guess the way of thinking and the language of that time,” he spoke about the process of his creative work, adding at the same time: - “The sources are rich! Whether I knew how to use them - I don’t know - at least my labors were zealous and conscientious. In "Boris Godunov" the poet brilliantly managed to use these sources.
This is one of the main reasons for the greatest artistic merit of Pushkin's tragedy. It does not contain conditional characters dressed in historical costumes, but really “people of bygone days, their minds, their prejudices.” Instead of the pompous rhetorical, the cutesy, conditionally literary language, which is far from real lively speech, in which the characters of the tragedies of classicism spoke, Pushkin endows the characters of Boris Godunov with a deeply individualized, at the same time "comprehensible language", devoid of unnecessary external " historicity” (excessive abundance of obsolete words, expressions) and at the same time truly historical, based on a deep study of historical sources and an excellent mastery of the speech of the common people. The poet listened especially attentively to folk speech and inquisitively studied it just during the period of work on his tragedy, during the years of exile in Mikhailovsky. Along with and in parallel with the rejection of the "unity of the word", Pushkin no less decisively broke with the unity of the genre of "classical" tragedy, which was supposed to contain only the sublime and tragic, without the slightest - "desecrating" - admixture of anything ordinary, comic.
The theorist of Russian classicism of the 18th century, the poet and playwright Sumarokov, in his Epistle on Poetry, separated tragedy and comedy from each other with an impenetrable wall, categorically forbidding the muse of comedy, Thalia, to be “irritated” with tears, and Melpomene, the muse of tragedy, with laughter. In "Boris Godunov" Pushkin introduces, along with scenes filled with the deepest tragedy, not only domestic scenes, but also comic, "common" scenes. Moreover, in separate scenes Melpomene and Thalia - solemn and funny - freely mix with each other (the scene at the Novodevichy Convent, etc.). The "decease of the world", which Sumarokov was afraid of, actually happened in Pushkin's "Boris Godunov". Instead of the aristocratic, "court" tragedy of Sumarokov, Pushkin created a dramatic work, and ideological content and profoundly democratic in its entire structure, to use its own word, "of the people."
Skillfully using resources speech characteristics, freely and widely shows Pushkin in his tragedy and human characters. In the modeling of characters with special force affects new method Pushkin's images of life, people, the method of artistic realism - "the poetry of reality". Pushkin in no way could be satisfied with the image of a man, human nature in the works of classicism, even in those in which realistic tendencies were most pronounced. Living people were replaced in them by one-sided and schematic personifications of one or another "passion" - one or another individual psychological trait: stinginess, love of power, malice, or, conversely, honesty, love for the fatherland, etc.
As a result, in the tragedies of classicism, either the monsters of vice, or walking mannequins, filled with the greatest virtue, appeared before the audience. Almost to the same extent, Pushkin was not satisfied with the arbitrary-subjective, romantic method of depicting character in Byron's dramaturgy. Quite different we have in Pushkin's tragedy. So, in the face of Boris Godunov himself, we are by no means the traditional "villain" of the classical tragedy, who was written in solid black paint.
But Grishka Otrepiev "will not leave" this court either. At the very beginning of his adventure, he was already in front of Pimen's eyes - this is Pushkin's thought, embodied in the scene of the Chudov Monastery. Pimen was not only a chronicler, but also a poet of history. And in this regard, he is very similar to Pushkin: "A dramatic poet, impartial, like fate ...". "Fate" is the key word in Pushkin's "free novel" and in his dramaturgy. The plot is formed not from the old rational dilemma of love and duty, but from a real contradiction: "... the fate of man, the fate of the people."
Where only did not look for the source of this remark! Meanwhile, Karamzin says: “The voice of the fatherland was not heard in the praise of the private, greedy, and the silence of the people, serving as a reproach to the tsar, heralded an important change in the hearts of the Russians.” There is no outward proportion in the scenes of Pushkin's tragedy. For example, "Tavern on the Lithuanian border" takes up several pages of text, and the scene in the patriarch's chambers fits on one page. In Pushkin's time there was no such stage technology, with which it would be possible to carry out such a quick change of scenery. To stage Boris Godunov, one would have to use the experience of London's Shakespeare's Globe Theatre, where there were no scenery at all.
- Here a terrible denunciation against you writes:
- How can you escape God's judgment?
- And you will not leave the court of the world,
- . . . Hermit in a dark cell
Traditionally, a tragedy usually had five acts. Pushkin abandoned the division into acts and composed a tragedy of twenty-three scenes. It was also a kind of "free novel".
Thus begins the tragedy. "The people are silent in horror." “Why are you silent?” Mosalsky asks with involuntary fear, but also with arrogance. - Shout: long live Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich! This is followed by the famous remark: "The people are silent" the last line of "Boris Godunov".
The tragedy "Boris Godunov" is unusual in its form. Boris Godunov, after whom the tragedy is named, was by no means the main character in it. He only appears in a few scenes and receives no more attention than the Pretender.
Fugitive monks Mikhail and Varlaam meet the third fugitive monk Grishka Otrepiev in a tavern on the border. This whole scene is written in prose - otherwise it could not have been written: "Here is the Lithuanian border, which you so wanted to get to." Pushkin presents his heroes as multilateral characters. In different circumstances they act differently, but everywhere they are true to themselves. From the moment Pushkin brought them to the stage, he seemed not to interfere in their actions, leaving them to themselves. And they act in obedience to the role that they have chosen for themselves "in the theater of history."
Meanwhile, Pimen is perhaps the most important character in the tragedy. “The character of Pimen is not my invention,” writes Pushkin. “In it I collected features that captivated me in our old chronicles.” Pimen does not participate in events. But he sees how “fate works”, guessing the “will of God” in the events. His chronicle does not contradict popular opinion. Grigory Otrepiev in the cell of the chronicler says, referring to the "shadow" of Boris Godunov:
To understand the meaning of the work helps its detailed literary analysis. "Boris Godunov" (Pushkin, as you know, was always interested in historical themes) is a play that has become a landmark event not only in domestic, but also in world drama. The tragedy became a turning point in the poet's work, marking his transition from romanticism to realism. For the writer himself, it was a very successful experience in working with historical material. The success of the composition determined the further work of the classic in this direction.
Writing a piece
First, a few words should be said about how the work on the play went and what is the history of the creation of Boris Godunov. Biography brother-in-law of Tsar Fedor I Ioannovich interested the writer because he was a very complex and controversial personality. In addition, the period of his reign became a turning point in the history of Russia, marking the beginning of the Time of Troubles.
That is why the poet turned to the years of his reign, taking as a basis the folk tales about him, as well as the famous "History of the Russian State" by the famous historian N. M. Karamzin. In the second half of the 1820s, the author became interested in the work of W. Shakespeare and therefore decided to create his own large-scale tragedy, the plot of which would develop against the backdrop of real events of the past. It is from this that one should build on when talking about what the history of the creation of Boris Godunov was like. This historical figure interested the poet in that Boris was a strong, strong-willed and charismatic figure who, by his origin, could not claim the Moscow throne, but by virtue of his mind and talent he achieved what he wanted: he was proclaimed king, and he ruled for seven years.
Introduction
A brief description of the first scene of the work should begin its analysis. Boris Godunov (Pushkin was interested in Shakespeare's tragedies, and therefore, like the English playwright, he began with a large-scale artistic sketch of the first picture of the action) is a play in which, according to the generally accepted opinion of critics, the protagonist is the simple Russian people. Therefore, the first scene immediately opens before the reader a wide panorama of the Kremlin Square, where, in fact, after the death of the last son of Ivan the Terrible, Fyodor, the fate of the kingdom was decided.
Representatives of the Zemsky Sobor ordered the audience to ask Boris Godunov to accept the royal title. The latter refuses for a long time, and this plot move is very reminiscent of approximately the same scene from Shakespeare's play "Richard III". However, he finally agrees and promises to rule justly and wisely. The rights of the hero to the throne were explained by the fact that his sister was the wife of the deceased Tsar Fedor, who died childless. She herself gave up power and went to the monastery.
Scene in the monastery
A separate characteristic of the monk Pimen must be included in this literary analysis. "Boris Godunov" (Pushkin was always attracted by the image of the Russian chronicler, whom he captured in his play) is a work that differs from Shakespeare's historical chronicles in a greater coverage of the place and time of action. The next scene takes place five years after the events described above. The poet describes the peaceful work of the monk Pimen, who is working on his chronicle. His monologue is a wonderful example of ancient speech, imbued with deep philosophical sense. It sounds about the fate of Russia and the place of man in history. The monk argues that the descendants should know the fate of their Fatherland. His long work and humble mood contrast sharply with the behavior of Grigory Otrepiev, who decided to take the throne of Moscow, calling himself the name of the murdered Tsarevich Dmitry Uglichsky, the younger Tsar Ivan the Terrible.
History of Otrepyev
The characterization of this character must necessarily include artistic analysis. Boris Godunov (Pushkin has always been attracted to adventurous personalities, and this character embodies just such a type of hero) is a drama that is built on a dynamic plot that includes political intrigue and philosophical problems. So, Gregory fled from the monastery and tried to cross the Lithuanian border.
However, at the inn, he was nearly captured by the guards. Gregory deceived his pursuers and managed to escape to Krakow. Here he began to gather strength for a campaign against Moscow and at the same time looked after the daughter of the local governor, Marina Mnishek.
The image of the main character
In the tragedy "Boris Godunov" summary which should be retold through the main scenes of the drama, given psychological picture king. At first, the author shows him in the family circle, in conversation with his daughter and son. In these passages, the reader sees in him a caring father who cares about the happiness of his heirs.
From his conversation with his son, it becomes obvious that Boris is a wise ruler who is engaged in state affairs and seeks to teach his successor the same. However, this is followed by a scene in which he appears before the reader in a completely different form. The tsar blames himself for the murder of Tsarevich Dmitry (this fact is not confirmed historical science, but the author used a popular rumor) and is afraid that this crime will affect his fate. He tries with all his might to be a just and wise ruler, but the thought of the death of a child haunts him. Thus, the author gave a detailed psychological portrait of the king, opening it from two sides and showing his secret mental suffering.
Characteristics of Otrepiev
A. S. Pushkin attached great importance to historical subjects in his work. The drama "Boris Godunov" tells about one of the most dramatic events in the past of Russia - the beginning of the Time of Troubles, which almost led to the fall of state independence.
The author pays much attention to the image of Otrepiev, who became an impostor and took the Moscow throne. In the writer's mind, he was an adventurous person: lively, cunning and very ambitious. In the scene in the border tavern, he showed dexterity, ingenuity, and endurance, managing to get away from the chase. The work "Boris Godunov", whose characters are distinguished by a strong and outstanding character, attracts readers not only with an interesting and dynamic plot, but also with carefully written characters who seem to have descended from the pages of Karamzin's famous work. The impostor became one of the main key figures of the work, although his direct confrontation with the king is not shown in the play.
The image of a monk
Pushkin built his work on the basis of historical material. “Boris Godunov” (the chronicler Pimen turned out to be one of the most memorable characters in the drama under consideration) is a tragedy in which a whole gallery of portraits of the era of the late 16th and early 17th centuries is presented. The monk of the monastery where he lived for some time is presented in the play as the embodiment of wisdom, peace and tranquility. He is busy writing chronicles about the events of past times, and it is through his eyes that the reader sees the past, since he himself was an eyewitness to great events. From his monologue, we learn about his reverent and reverent attitude to his work: Pimen understands the importance of creating a chronicle about national history. The entire play "Boris Godunov" is imbued with historical authenticity. The passage describing the scene in the Miracle Monastery is especially solemn, since the monk's speech breathes peace and tranquility, and his calmness contrasts with the restless mood of Grigory Otrepyev.
people in drama
According to the generally accepted opinion of critics, the author brought to the fore ordinary people, which are constantly present in the most important scenes of the work. Initially, when the tsar was elected, ordinary residents of the capital gathered on the Kremlin square in order to ask him to take the Moscow throne.
In the scene in the border tavern, there are again persons from the social lower classes of society: the hostess of the tavern, ordinary soldiers. This is what distinguishes the play "Boris Godunov" from Shakespeare's historical chronicles. The passage at the end is especially eloquent and meaningful: at the decisive moment when the impostor is proclaimed king, the assembled crowd is silent. By this, the author showed that at the moment fate was decided at the top, among the boyars, who took the side of Otrepyev. This scene is, in fact, the climax, although it was carried out by the poet at the very end.
So, the people in the tragedy "Boris Godunov" is the main character. This feature of the drama was also reflected in the opera of the same name by the famous Russian composer M. Mussorgsky, in which choral parts are of paramount importance.
The beginning of the war
The play "Boris Godunov", a summary of which is the subject of this review, consists of several scenes that are united by one common idea - the confrontation between man and power. The next scene begins with a description of the impostor's military actions. He moves to Moscow in the hope of seizing power. However, in the meantime, Boris unexpectedly dies in the capital, but manages to bless his eldest son Fedor for the reign before his death. Meanwhile, among the boyars, a plan has matured to raise a rebellion against the children of the deceased ruler, and one of them proclaims the impostor king. The play ends with the silence of the people.
Search
We may notify you of new articles,