Boris Godunov description of the work. Heroes of the tragedy "Boris Godunov

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."

One: What's that noise? Another:

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. At the time of Pushkin, there was no stage technique that would have made such a quick change of scenery possible. 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.

Listen! what's that noise?

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.

• Here a terrible denunciation against you writes:
• How can you escape God's judgment?
• And you will not leave the court of the world,

Fugitive monks Mikhail and Varlaam meet the third fugitive monk Grishka Otrepyev 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:

• . . . Hermit in a dark cell

It was no coincidence that Pushkin turned to the era of Grozny and Boris Godunov, a turning point for Russian history. In the 16th-17th centuries, a crisis of the traditional patriarchal foundations on which Russian society and the state of the previous centuries had been based began to be clearly revealed in Rus'. New, hitherto unknown historical forces entered the political struggle.

The image of Boris Godunov

The figure of Boris Godunov, the tsar who did not inherit the throne, but won it with cunning, intelligence and energy, is very symptomatic as an expression of the changes that began in his era. It was this that prompted Pushkin to place the image of Boris at the center of his historical tragedy, where Godunov's spiritual experiences and fate received a broad generalizing meaning.

Tsar Boris - in the image of Alexander Sergeevich - is a far-sighted and intelligent ruler. Thanks to his energy and intelligence, he pushed aside more well-born aspirants-boyars, clearing the way to the throne. In the future, the ambitious Boris dreams of consolidating the conquered power for his heirs through sober calculation, firmly thought out, far-sighted political plans. But, having seized the throne as a result of a skillful political game, he, by his example, showed the way to it to other ambitious people. From this point of view, the appearance of the Pretender in Pushkin's tragedy is not an accident, but a natural consequence of the same historical reasons that made possible the accession of Godunov himself.

Pushkin used in the tragedy the version also accepted by Karamzin (but rejected by many subsequent historians) about the murder by Boris Godunov of the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible, Tsarevich Dimitri. But Karamzin condemned Godunov as a usurper, a murderer of a legitimate monarch. Pushkin, on the other hand, interprets the murder of Demetrius as a link in the chain of numerous crimes inseparable from the very idea of ​​royal power. The moral trial of Godunov and the Pretender in tragedy develops into a condemnation of any - even an outstanding - historical figure who builds his activities on violence and crimes.

The character of Boris Godunov is covered by Pushkin in a wide and versatile way. All the main stages of his reign pass before the viewer - from accession to death. Boris appears before us in his relations with the boyars, the people, the patriarch, alone with himself, in various circumstances of his personal and state life. The tragedy depicts not only the steps leading to his rise and death, but also shows how differently, depending on the situation, the dissimilar facets of Godunov's character are revealed. This is a stern and powerful ruler, a caring father, a person who is able to soberly assess his position and face the truth, even if it threatens his peace and power, and at the same time suffering from impotence to change what has been done, to interfere with the historical movement, which, foreseeing that in the future it will inevitably turn against him, he himself called it.

Image of the Pretender

Pushkin's image of the Pretender is just as complex. This outstanding personality feels the tragic side of his new position. Forced to play someone else's role, to pretend, to calculate his own benefits, the Pretender suffers from loneliness. Both in politics and in love, as his verbal duel with Marina in the scene at the fountain speaks eloquently, he does not achieve what he wants.

Drama Heroes

So, both Boris and the Pretender in Pushkin carry within themselves - each - a special personal tragic theme, they are the centers of their own "small" drama, woven into the big drama of Russian national history. The same applies to a number of other, more episodic characters in "Boris Godunov" - Pimen, Ksenia Godunova, Basmanov, and the Fool. And, finally, the people with their sufferings, deaf discontent, fermentation, deep sense of justice, which Godunov and Dimitri are forced to reckon with, and at the same time doomed for the time being for the time being, to play a formidable but silent role in history.
Revealing the inevitability of the fall of Boris (which portends a similar fate to his winner, the Pretender, who is at the top of his short career at the end of the tragedy), Pushkin highlights the tragic personality traits of a historical figure of an individualistic type. Having reached the limit of power and calm for a long time, it would seem that the reigning Boris is not great, but pathetic, because deep down in his soul he does not find peace, foresees his death, he is tormented by the voice of conscience, which he is powerless to lull. And in exactly the same way, the Pretender, having assumed the role of the murdered Demetrius, is forced to take upon himself all the tragic consequences of this step, a step that makes him a toy in the hands of others, dooms him to the torments of irresistible, eternal loneliness, constantly reminding him at the same time of the fragility of his success.

Generic Character Types

Pushkin painted in "Boris Godunov" not only a vivid, unforgettable picture of the era he had chosen. Thanks to his penetration into the spirit of Russian history, the poet, skillfully depicting the political events and customs of the Time of Troubles, giving capacious, impressive, psychologically deep portraits of Boris Godunov, the Pretender, Shuisky, Basmanov, Marina Mnishek, was able at the same time to brilliantly describe a number of generalized characters - types and historical situations that recreate the general structure, the most national-historical atmosphere of the life of Moscow pre-Petrine Russia and, even more broadly, of Russian antiquity in general. It is no coincidence that even the first listeners and readers of the tragedy were especially struck by the image of Pimen, in which Pushkin tried to draw the type of an ancient Russian monk-chronicler. Pimen, the Holy Fool, the wandering monks Fathers Varlaam and Misail, the patriarch, the young Kurbsky, Ksenia Godunova, weeping over the portrait of her fiancé, are not only images-characters of one particular era, but also deep historical characters-types that embody the common features of everyday life and psychology of the people of ancient Rus'. Pushkin was able to give the same generalizing, typical meaning to the depiction of the main historical forces that acted and fought in the arena of the history of Rus', not only in the era of Godunov's reign, but over many other centuries and decades - the supreme power, spiritual and secular, the boyars, the service nobility, people. Little of. Just as the “Russian scenes” of “Boris Godunov” brilliantly recreate the general color of Russian history, which has developed over many eras of its development, absorbed the spirit and signs of not one, but many of its eras, so the “Polish” scenes and characters of the tragedy (as and in “Ivan Susanin” by M. I. Glinka, who relied on the experience of Pushkin as a historical playwright in working on the music of this brilliant opera) are a similar bunch of features and will take on many eras in the history of old aristocratic-gentry Poland, recreate its common local national -historical flavor.

The tragedy of A.S. Pushkin "Boris Godunov" is a historical work based on real facts - the plot of the drama was the events of the Time of Troubles in Russia, and the actors were, among other things, genuine historical figures. Any essay devoted to the adventures of not fictional, but real personalities, is always considered from the point of view of compliance with historical truth, and the description of distant eras raises the question of the sources of information used by the author. Historical facts and historical personalities are usually not amenable to an unambiguous assessment, there are always several interpretations of an event or action. This is due to several factors. The contemporaries of the events in the formation of their opinion are largely influenced by opportunistic considerations and their own concepts of morality, they cannot escape from the power of the prevailing institutions and adequately assess what is happening. With increasing time distance, personal interest decreases, it becomes possible to establish the correct scale of phenomena, but at the same time, unfortunately, there is a natural loss of historical facts, the advantage of "evidence" disappears, so that one has to use other people's evidence, which is possible only after careful criticism, i.e. e. adjusted for possible inaccuracy, subjectivity or personal considerations of the author. There are usually a number of opinions about any period of history, especially doubtful cases, about which there is either too little evidence, or these evidence, although numerous, are contradictory, and thus there is a lot of room for conjecture and interpretation. An author who undertakes the development of a historical plot can choose from a number of concepts and assessments. What he stops at depends on which sources he prefers, since a certain point of view, from which everything that happens in the original source is considered, cannot but affect the interpretation of events in a work of art. Of no small importance is the general idea formed by the author, his initial intentions, because the choice of facts and the choice of attitude to a historical character to a large extent depend on what exactly the writer wanted to say with his work, on what problems he was going to focus his attention. Before Pushkin, when he settled on the idea of ​​a drama relating to the events of the Time of Troubles, there was a whole conglomerate of events that could not be unambiguously interpreted, traditionally evaluated differently. He had to make a choice - what point of view to accept, from what angle to consider what is happening and on what problems to focus his special attention. The author's concept of the drama "Boris Godunov" can be clarified by analyzing the images of the central characters with whom the main storylines and the main problems raised in the tragedy are connected. The drama has about 80 characters on stage, and many of them appear in only one episode. 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 covers 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 a 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 Dimitry 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 more comical 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 come 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 with which Boris did not have the strength to cope. Somewhere in the middle between the two poles - positive and negative - lies another interpretation of Boris's personality, which is as follows - 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 (in monasticism Grigory) Otrepyev, 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 this was a really strong personality of a significant scale, an independent plan to seize power could be 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 Dimitri, 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 chickens being 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, the high hopes that were associated with the boy, the innocence and defenselessness of the deceased, his “mildness” are emphasized. 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 the “History of the Russian State” by 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 standpoint, the masses of the people are the driving force of history, 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 man, a skilled politician, a 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 raised 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 incorruptible, 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. The next axial storyline is the Boris vs. Pretender clash. In Pushkin's tragedy, the Pretender is really an impostor, Grishka Otrepyev, a "poor Chernorian" who used someone else's name, without actually being a prince, the son of Grozny. The play shows how Otrepiev came up with the idea to call himself Dimitry, i.e. there is no mystery in his appearance as a prince, not the slightest doubt - what if it is after all the surviving Demetrius? Pushkin's impostor is the creator of his own adventure. He independently thought over the idea that came to his mind without anyone's help (it is possible, by the way, that, in order not to weaken Otrepiev's merit in tying an intrigue, Pushkin removed a ready-made scene when publishing, where a certain evil black man throws up the idea of ​​imposture to Grigory) . He figured out where he could get help from, and cunningly took advantage of the support of the Poles, playing on their interests. He is well aware that they are trying to use him, but pretends not to notice anything, in turn hoping to fool supporters around his finger and get his way. Otrepyev is a clever diplomat. In search of help, he manages to bypass all the people he needs in such a way that they gladly provide him with everything he needs. His diplomatic talent is especially evident in the reception scene in Krakow, in Wisniewiecki's house, where he talks to a wide variety of visitors and says exactly what is appropriate at any particular moment. He is resolute and courageous, as he risks such a thing as an open struggle with the reigning monarch and the seizure of the throne. His courage and willingness to take risks are demonstrated for the first time in the scene "Korchma on the Lithuanian Border", where Grigory escapes directly from the clutches of the bailiffs who are instructed to arrest him. He is capable of strong feelings, as evidenced by his love for Marina Mnishek. Under the influence of this feeling, he refuses to deceive, in which he persists in front of everyone - only Marina the Pretender admits who he really is. In Pushkin's tragedy, the Pretender is an ambiguous personality, but clearly extraordinary, just like Boris Godunov. In some way, these two figures converge, so that their comparison is natural and suggests itself. Both do not have legal rights to the throne (that is, they are not noble enough and do not belong to the direct heirs of the ruling dynasty), but, nevertheless, both achieve power - only by cunning and perseverance, skillful manipulations and a subtle understanding of how to act in this moment. Pushkin deliberately emphasizes that, in essence, Godunov is the same impostor as Otrepiev, as far as the issue of succession to the throne is concerned: Boris, although a relative of the tsar, is quite distant - Tsar Fedor was married to Godunov's sister, - and at the same time in the state there are many families much more well-born than the Godunovs. On the way to the throne, both stop at nothing - neither before hypocrisy, nor before outright crime. Pushkin specifically emphasizes that False Dmitry is guilty of the same thing as Boris - by order of Boris, the legal heir to the throne, the young Dimitri, is eliminated, while the supporters of the Pretender kill the young son of Godunov, who should inherit his father. And False Dmitry is also waiting for a bleak end - the fall of Godunov is shown in the drama, the fall of the Pretender is taken out of the brackets, but it is read in Grigory's prophetic dream, in the final scene of the silence of the crowd. Godunov's deliberate approach to the figure, seemingly infinitely distant from him, gives additional shades to the image of Boris. Despite a certain "equality" of the characters, the clash between the Pretender and Godunov does not have the character of a personal struggle between two rivals. If it were only a fight between two contenders for the throne, the one with the advantage of strength would win - Godunov, who has at his disposal the troops and resources of the whole state. But there is more to this conflict. Researchers tried to interpret this "greater" either as God's punishment, or as the realization of the historical inevitability of the fall of any monarch. What is actually presented in Pushkin's tragedy? An impostor for Boris is not just a rebel who has swung at the throne: Boris would have been able to deal with a rebel by defeating his small troops or sending assassins to the camp of the enemy. The whole point is in the name that Otrepyev hides behind. In this confrontation, Boris does not have inner confidence in his rightness, because the mere name of Dimitri, as if risen from the grave, terrifies him, an impossible, unthinkable situation arises for him - the long-dead prince suddenly showed up and starts a war. Otherwise, it is difficult to perceive this as retribution from above. Godunov's internal hesitation, caused by pangs of conscience, does not allow him to act decisively and turn the tide of events in his favor. This is superimposed by a general unfavorable situation for Boris - the dislike of the people for him, the intrigues of the environment. The reasons for the defeat of Boris in the fight against the Pretender should be sought in the problem of the true and untrue king. This question is connected with a special understanding of royal power in Rus'. In Russia, the tsar was God's anointed and, in principle, it did not matter at all how he behaved, as long as his rights to the throne were undeniable. In determining the relationship of the people to their king, law was primary, the behavior of the monarch was secondary. Grozny flooded the country with streams of blood, but at the same time continued to remain in his right in the eyes of the people - he was a true king. A nationwide revolt against Grozny was impossible; he was a sacred figure. When even the slightest doubt arose about the right - the natural, hereditary right of a person to be on the throne - neither an impeccable personal reputation, nor success in government could save him. It was in this position that Boris found himself - in the eyes of the common people, he was not overshadowed by Divine grace. If Boris's rights to the throne had been indisputable, if the Rurik dynasty had not been cut short on Fyodor Ioannovich, the very situation of imposture and confusion would never have arisen. All the accusations against Boris were only a pretext, their reason lay not in a negative attitude towards the crimes he had committed, but much deeper - in the initial distrust of the people in their monarch. The sins of Godunov were not so great in comparison with the sins of the same Terrible, but the Terrible sat quietly on the throne, and Godunov was defeated in the fight against an insignificantly small figure - the Pretender, whose whole strength lay in the fact that he covered himself with the name of the true tsar - the name Demetrius. The similarity of the position of Boris and False Dmitry in the tragedy is emphasized precisely in order to show that the positive qualities of Boris do not play any role, because initially Godunov is perceived as an impostor, who also deprived the country of the true king - Dimitri. The impostor wins, because, firstly, he falls into the general stream of dissatisfaction with Boris, and secondly, he uses the name sacred to everyone. Yes, the name, in fact, wins - it instills fear in Godunov, ensuring his inaction, and it attracts many supporters to the Pretender who has taken refuge behind this name. A situation that Godunov does not believe in is becoming a reality: He really loses the duel with the shadow - with pure fiction, with the sound that, like a shield, is blocked by a man who is no different from Godunov himself - a native of the lower classes, a cunning, crafty adventurer, obsessed with a thirst for power. From this situation - when the Pretender hides behind the name of Dimitri - the relations in the Otrepiev-Tsarevich pair follow, which are the closing plot axis in building a system of conflicts based on the clash of the central characters. The impostor is inseparable from the prince and is impossible without him - he appears only because Demetrius once existed and was killed. These two act as symbionts - the Pretender receives the name of Demetrius, his power and rights, and the prince - the opportunity to come to life, and not just rise from the grave, but even achieve something, eventually sit on the throne, refuting the finality of the sentence pronounced on him by order of Godunov. They endow each other with what they are rich and what the other lacks - one has a name and the right to the throne, the second has life, the ability to act and win. Such is the system of images that has developed in the tragedy according to the author’s intention, a system consisting of three main characters and many secondary ones, and, due to its balance, the elimination of any of the elements or variations in the interpretation of images dramatically change all the accents and allow us to talk about a completely different understanding of the author’s intention. . The main plot axes are connected with the figures of the main characters, and the interpretation of historical figures is made dependent on the construction of conflicts and on the ideas expressed through plot clashes.

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 Sergeev 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 Rus'. 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 Rus'. 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 the end of the 17th century. - Pg., 1916; Dyakonov M. The power of the Moscow sovereigns. Essays from the history of political ideas of Ancient Rus' 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 a kind of exchange and merger takes place, 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.

BORIS GODUNOV- the central character of the historical drama (“folk tragedy”), which is based on the events described in the 10th and 11th volumes of the “History of the Russian State” by N. M. Karamzin. The tragedy is dedicated to his “memory precious for Russians”. Not accepting much in the views of Karamzin, Pushkin fully accepts the version of the direct involvement of the tsar's brother-in-law Boris Godunov in the Uglich murder of the only heir to the throne, Tsarevich Dimitri (1582-1591). Boris Godunov appears as a usurper of power, hiding behind popular election. Trouble is the retribution for his sins. Boris Godunov and False Dmitry are connected in tragedy as cause and effect: the “illegality” of the first is generated by the “lawlessness” of the second; blood is attracted to blood. The collapse of the Muscovite kingdom, the approach of the Time of Troubles, the terrible prologue of the majestic St. Petersburg period of Russian history - all these topics have an indirect moral and political relation to the present of the 1820s.

Already in the 1st scene (“Kremlin chambers”), preceding the election of Boris Godunov, the boyar Shuisky, who investigated the Uglich murder, tells the nobleman Vorotynsky about the Bityagovskys and Kachalov, who were sent by Boris Godunov; the interlocutor concludes: Boris Godunov has been sitting for a month now, shutting himself up with his sister, the monastic tsarina Irina, because “the blood of an innocent baby / Prevents him from stepping on the throne.” However, both agree that “Yesterday’s slave, Tatar, Malyuta’s son-in-law, / and the executioner himself in his soul”, much less well-born than they, will still be the tsar in Moscow: the times have come when courage has become more important than nobility and power goes to the one who fights for it more resolutely. The 3rd (“Maiden Field. Novodevichy Convent”) and 4th (“Kremlin Chambers”) scenes seem to confirm the boyar “diagnosis”. Curious and indifferent to their political fate, the people, crying and rejoicing, at the behest of the boyars, raise Boris Godunov to the throne. The boyars and the patriarch reverently (and somewhat slyly) listen to the speech of the new sovereign. The character of Boris Godunov is not revealed; all this is just an exposition that reveals the beginning of a global historical plot (the murder of a prince is the moral defeat of the “winner” in the struggle for the royal vacancy - the phenomenon of an impostor). Actually, the stage intrigue will start later - in the scene of "The Chamber of the Patriarch", when the reader (spectator) learns about the escape of the self-proclaimed monk Grigory Otrepyev from the monastery.

Starting from the 7th scene ("Royal Chambers") Boris comes to the fore. The king, from whom the sorcerer has just emerged (which indicates the ruler's lack of confidence in his powers), utters a confessional monologue: he reigns for the sixth year (the same number of years have passed between the death of Dimitri and the accession of Boris; chronological symmetry is indicative); the board turned out to be unsuccessful - famine, fires, "ungratefulness" of the mob. Beloved daughter's fiancé is dead; Courage alone is not enough to wield power; right on it must be supported by an internal rightness:

And everything is sick, and the head is spinning,

And the boys are bloody in the eyes ...

And glad to run, but nowhere ... terrible!

Yes, pitiful is the one in whom the conscience is unclean.

The soil is slipping from under Boris Godunov's feet - he feels it, although he still does not know anything about the "resurrection" of Demetrius (the Patriarch did not dare to inform the sovereign about Grigory's flight).

Terrible news overtakes Godunov in the 10th scene (also called "The Tsar's Chambers"); the cunning Shuisky hurries to tell her, with whom the Moscow boyar Pushkin shared the news received from the Krakow nephew Gavrila Pushkin the day before. (At the same time, the thoughts of the author of the tragedy about the ruin of the ancient boyar families - including the "Romanovs, the fatherland of hope" - as a political cause of the Troubles were put into the mouth of the Pushkin ancestor. This reasoning changes all the "semantic proportions" of the tragedy, where, using the example of Shuisky, the loss of dignity of the ancients is shown boyars, and on the example of Basmanov - the quirky meanness of the new boyars.) Shocked, Boris is at a loss: what is the "legality" of power, elected popularly and approved by the church, if the dead have the "right" to come out of the coffin to interrogate the kings? Political effects are generated by moral causes; False Dmitry is able to inspire the crowd with dangerous ideas and lead them along; the shadow is ready to pluck the purple from the king: "So that's why I've been thirteen years in a row / I dreamed of a murdered child!".

Scene 15 ("The Tsar's Thought") serves as the culmination of the "Godunov" plot line. The troops of False Dmitry are moving towards Moscow; having sent Trubetskoy and Basmanov to the war, Godunov is holding a council with those close to him: how to stop the Time of Troubles? The patriarch, whom Pushkin (contrary to the historical prototype - Job) portrays as a stupid kind-hearted, simpleton, unaware of the underlying reason for the events, offers a moral way out of the circumstances: to transfer the miraculous relics of Tsarevich Dimitry from Uglich to the Archangel Cathedral of the capital.

put them in the cathedral

Arkhangelsk; people will see clearly

Then the deception of the godless villain,

And the power of demons will disappear like dust.

But the fact of the matter is that Godunov cannot transfer the relics and find himself in the immediate "mystical proximity" of his victim. So - he is doomed to fight with the Pretender, whom he gave birth to. Understanding this, the dodgy Shuisky rejects the arguments of the ingenuous Patriarch (“Won’t they say that we boldly create a shrine / In worldly affairs we create tools?”) And announces that he himself (instead of holy relics!) Will appear on the people’s square and discover the “evil deceit of a tramp” . The situation is tragicomic; and Godunov (who during the patriarchal speech covers his face in horror with a handkerchief) throughout the scene from a maliciously majestic, tragic figure turns into a semi-comic figure. He is "miserable" - for he has "an unclean conscience." He is no longer the ruler, as he depends on the circumstances.

After that, Boris is left with one thing - to die. What he does in the 20th scene (“Moscow. The Tsar’s Chambers”), having managed to promise Basmanov that after defeating the Pretender, he will burn the “Class Books”, destroy the nobility and put the mind in the place of the clan:

Basmanov

Ah, sir, blessed a hundred times

That will be the day when books are bit

With strife, with pride of pedigree

Eat fire.

This day is not far off;

Just give people confusion first

I calm down.

Godunov's kingdom began with blood, continued with blood, and ends with blood: "He was sitting on the throne and suddenly fell - / Blood gushed from his mouth and from his ears."

The last hope of Godunov, who is dying and preparing to accept the schema, is that at least his death will eliminate moral disharmony and restore political balance. He is personally guilty of the death of Demetrius - and for that he will answer before God; but the election itself was legal, therefore, the innocent heir to the throne, Fedor, would rule "by right." The same thought in the finale will be repeated by “a man from the people” (“The father was a villain, and the children are innocent”); but in vain: the children of one "false tsar", Fedor and Xenia, will be killed by the servants of another "false ruler".

Place in the character system. There are five main groups of characters in the tragedy - the perpetrators, accomplices, participants, witnesses, victims. The role of innocent victims is naturally played by the children of the king. Chronicler Pimen, Holy Fool, people from the people in the scenes “The Square in front of the Cathedral in Moscow” and “Kremlin. House of Borisov. Guards at the porch "do not participate in historical evil, but testify to it - denouncing (like the Holy Fool), discussing (like people from the crowd) or passing on the news of it to posterity (like Pimen). The stupid Patriarch, the hired commanders of the Russian troops Margeret and V. Rosen, the prisoner of False Dmitry "Moscow nobleman" Rozhnov, the son of Prince Kurbsky and other secondary characters from different camps are directly involved in history, but are not responsible for its bloody break, because they have no personal intent. People from the crowd, indifferently electing the tsar (the scene "Maiden's Field. Novodevichy Convent") and willingly running to "drown" the innocent "Boris Puppies" (the scene "The Kremlin. House of Borisov"); Polish nobility in the person of Marina Mnishek, her father and Vishnevetsky, the Jesuits in the person of pater "a Chernikovsky; deceitful Russian boyars know what they are doing, which means they participate in the tragedy of Rus'. Their guilt is different; the author's attitude towards them is ambiguous (to Grigory Pushkin rather sympathetic, extremely hostile to Shuisky).

There is also an ambiguous attitude towards the two main characters, who act in the story in the first person, and therefore bear full responsibility for everything that happens. Pushkin gives False Dmitry the opportunity to appear from different sides, because in some ways he impresses him. Boris Godunov is monumentally monotonous and motionless; he seemed to be petrified by the horror of his position, fed up with the bitterness of power, and from scene to scene, from monologue to monologue, the same set of themes varies. His ethical connection with all the actors, with all the events depicted in the drama (not excluding those that occur after his "physical" death), is undeniable; his plot connection with them is far from always obvious.

Here Pushkin sharply diverges from the genre tradition of Russian political tragedy: he puts at the center not an anti-state villain (cf. A. P. Sumarokov's "Dimitri the Pretender") and not a state hero. But it is the villain - the state. This was not possible until the publication of volumes 9-11 of Karamzin's "History ...", where the official rulers of Rus', Ivan the Terrible and Boris Godunov, were portrayed negatively for the first time. Having placed Boris Godunov in the center and clearly delineating his attitude towards him, Pushkin is in no hurry to close the entire multi-figure composition of the drama to this center. As a result, there is a feeling of its greater volume - and less stage presence.

Pushkin diverges from tradition in that he does not strive for direct political allusions, preferring historical authenticity to topicality. (Although anachronisms in the image of Boris Godunov cannot be avoided, - thus, reflecting on the thirst for power, the ruler of the 16th century switches to the language of Russian lyrics of the 19th century:

Is not it

We fall in love from a young age and are hungry

The joys of love, but only quench

Heart smoothness by instant possession,

Already, having cooled, we miss and languish? ..

Wed in Pushkin's letter to Chaadaev - "We are waiting with languor of hope / Minutes of freedom of the saint, / As a young lover waits / Minutes of the first meeting ... ".) And yet, the parallel between the "legal-lawless" accession of Boris Godunov and the bloody accession of Alexander I after the assassination Paul I arose by itself; the trial of Godunov - following Karamzin - is carried out not so much from the standpoint of the people's religion (the true tsar is destined for the kingdom from time immemorial; he can be replaced - no matter on the basis of the law or not; then any person who has proved his "pre-election" can be a contender for the throne ” and hereditary right to power), how much in terms of its legitimacy. Meanwhile, the philosophy of legitimate government (the principle of heredity, fixed by law) was developed precisely in the Alexander era, during the post-war congresses.

A detailed literary analysis helps to understand the meaning of the work. "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 was 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 Rus', 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 throne of Moscow, 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 an old speech imbued with a deep philosophical meaning. It sounds about the fate of Rus' 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 Moscow throne, calling himself the name of the murdered Tsarevich Dmitry Uglichsky, the younger Tsar Ivan the Terrible.

History of Otrepiev

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", a summary of which should be retold according to the main scenes of the drama, a psychological portrait of the tsar is given. 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 by 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 Rus' - 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 who 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 Otrepiev. 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.