home › Miscellaneous › Dmitry Pretender and Vasily Shuisky. Maly Theater

Dmitry Pretender and Vasily Shuisky. Maly Theater

The play was first published in the journal Vestnik Evropy. 1867, no. 1.

Ostrovsky began work on the historical chronicle "Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky" in early February 1866.

Among the historical chronicles, the playwright himself singled out "Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky." In March 1866, he wrote to Nekrasov about this play: “I don’t know whether what I wrote is good or bad, but in any case it will be an era in my life from which a new activity will begin ...” (A. N. Ostrovsky, Poln. sobr. soch., M. 1949-1953, vol. XIV, p. 134. In the future, when referring to this edition, only the volume and page are indicated).

As Ostrovsky himself testifies, “Dmitry the Pretender” is “the fruit of fifteen years of experience and long-term study of sources” (Vol. XIV, p. 144). Ostrovsky carefully studied the "History of the Russian State" by H. M. Karamzin, which gave him information about the course of events of the depicted era. He also used the monuments of ancient Russian writing: "The Tale" by Abraham Palitsyn, "The Tale and the Tale, Hedgehog" and others. actors Drama Ostrovsky used the "Collection of State Letters and Treaties". The Tales of Contemporaries about Demetrius the Pretender published by N. G. Ustryalov were also deeply studied. (1859, ch. 1 and 2), which gave the playwright material for the last scene of the chronicle, as well as information about Marina Mnishek. Ostrovsky also got acquainted with the notes of Polish authors (“The Diary of Polish Ambassadors” and others. See N. P. Kashin, “The Dramatic Chronicle of A. N. Ostrovsky “Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky” (the experience of studying the chronicle)”- "Journal of the Ministry of National Education", 1917, No. 6).

The playwright creatively approached historical materials, discarding their historical and philosophical evaluative elements and using mainly individual facts to characterize heroes and events.

Ostrovsky wrote the chronicle “Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky” in four months: “I started with a great post ( great post in 1866 it began on February 7th. — N. G.) and finished by June” (vol. XIV, pp. 139-140). The first part of the chronicle was completed in late March - early April, the second Ostrovsky thought to complete by May 1, but finished it on May 31, 1866 - the author's date on the draft manuscript of the drama, stored in the State public library them. Saltykov-Shchedrin.

In a letter to F. A. Burdin (September 24-25, 1866) he testifies: “... I have been studying Russian history for a long time and I want to devote myself exclusively to it - I will write chronicles, but not for the stage; when asked why I do not stage my plays, I will answer that they are inconvenient, I take the form of "Boris Godunov" (Vol. XIV. pp. 138-139).

Developing the creative principles of Pushkin, Ostrovsky paid great attention to the image of the people (out of thirteen scenes, the people act in seven) and in the process of working on the play, he strove to show his decisive role in historical events start XVII century. In this regard, in the final version, Shuisky's reflections that "the people do not know about the" sacraments of government "", understandable only to the boyars, were excluded. Konev’s words: “The people are blind and look, but they don’t see”, “Our eyes are covered with a veil, our minds are darkened by a dream” - they were also not included in the printed text. But, remaining true to historical reality, Ostrovsky could not but imagine the people acting, for the most part, spontaneously.

In the draft manuscript, one can find notes indicating that the playwright first wanted to portray False Dmitry as a figure close to the people: “Give freedom to all these slaves. Enlighten their natural mind." Or the words of the Pretender: "Enough suffering, it's time for the people to breathe," "All the best, all that thirsts for freedom is destroyed." But then Ostrovsky abandoned the implementation of these plans, the image of the Pretender, at first somewhat idealized by him, in the final version acquires truly realistic features.

Having completed work on the chronicle for publication, Ostrovsky set about creating a stage version of the play. The discrepancies between the text for print and for the stage are very significant. (see vol. IV, pp. 393-406).

The corrections in the role of Dmitry the Pretender are especially significant. In the sixth scene of the second part, some monologues of the Pretender are completely excluded, for example, his reasoning that it would be easier to die without tasting the sweetness of power (from the words: “Not a thief! Not a thief!” to the words: “Sleep at the feet of heavenly beauty!”). In the stage version, Dmitry agrees without objection, contrary to Russian traditions and customs, to crown Marina before the wedding. In a different way in the stage version, the Pretender decides the fate of Osipov. Here the Pretender delivers a sentence to Osipov: "Execute him!" - which is carried out, but in the scene of the rebellion Osipov does not act, his words are conveyed to one of the rebels.

Additional strokes are introduced into the characterization of Marina: the scornful and contemptuous attitude towards her on the part of the boyars and the people intensifies. In the remarks of Shuisky and the cook (scenes three and four of the second part) she is now called not "Marina", but "Marinka". In the theatrical version, instead of asking Dmitry to “lock up tighter” the rebellious boyars, Marina demands: “Tell them to cut” (scene five of the second part).

Some significant changes in the ideological characterization of the characters (Dmitry Osipov's execution, Marina's order to "cut" the boyars) were made by Ostrovsky at the last moment, when the manuscript was sent to the journal and the text for the scene was already ready. During the period of creation of the printed and stage versions, there were no discrepancies here: in both texts, Osipov was executed by the Pretender, and Marina Mniszek demanded to “cut” the boyars. This is evidenced by a letter from M. N. Ostrovsky dated January 11, 1867: “He (Stasyulevich, editor of Vestnik Evropy. — N. G.), Kostomarov and Annenkov are delighted. Kostomarov made only two notes ... The first concerns the words of Marina " cut boyars". Marina was not at all bloodthirsty and therefore could not say this, and Dmitri, who did not like to hang or cut, could not have left such an outburst unanswered. Is it possible for you to replace the word "cut" with another, less harsh word ...

Another note concerns the death of Osipov. Historically it is known that he was not executed by Dmitry, that he broke into the palace during a riot and was killed by Basmanov ... Could it be corrected again ”(Manuscript Fund of the Central Theater Museum them. A. A. Bakhrushin, archive of A. N. Ostrovsky).

Nekrasov was looking forward to Ostrovsky's new play (letter dated April 20, 1866, N. A. Nekrasov, Complete collection of works and letters, vol. XI, M. 1952, p. 67). However, government repression (May 12 Sovremennik was suspended) and financial difficulties forced Nekrasov to advise Ostrovsky to print the play from Stasyulevich in the journal Vestnik Evropy (see letter dated May 18, 1866, ibid., p. 69). June 1 "Sovremennik" was closed. Nekrasov's intention to publish "Dmitry the Pretender" in a literary collection, which he intended to release in connection with the closure of the journal, did not materialize. The efforts to resume Sovremennik, edited by V.F. Korsh, who persistently asked Ostrovsky to provide him with a chronicle, were also unsuccessful. (see "Unpublished letters to A. N. Ostrovsky", M.-L. 1932, p. 162).

M. H. Ostrovsky negotiated with A. A. Kraevsky about the publication of "Dmitry the Pretender" in "Notes of the Fatherland" (see the letter of M. N. Ostrovsky to his brother dated June 13, 1866, Central Theater Museum named after A. A. Bakhrushin), but at the request of the playwright, the chronicle was published in M. M. Stasyulevich's Vestnik Evropy. In the same year, a separate edition of "Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky" was published. (censored 21 March 1867).

The first part of the chronicle immediately after completion, even before publication, was sent by Ostrovsky to Nekrasov and was read by the author in public meetings: September 20, 1866 - in the Artistic Circle, December 27, 1866 - in the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature at Moscow University. On May 14, 1866, I. F. Gorbunov read the first part of "Dmitry the Pretender" to N. I. Kostomarov.

Soon the playwright received the first enthusiastic responses to the new play from his friends and acquaintances. M. H. Ostrovsky informed his brother on May 10, 1866: “I read it four times and each time I found more and more beauty ... Annenkov, like me, is delighted with your play and is looking forward to the second part. He made, however, the following remarks: it would be desirable to give a greater role to the people, so that they would not only be Shuisky's tool, but so that it would be clear that in the mass of the people (at least in quite a few of the people) there was distrust of the Pretender, that many of the people recognized him, knowing that he was an impostor and yielding to circumstances and considerations of various kinds. Then the overthrow and murder of the impostor by the people will be a completely and legitimate phenomenon. Do you have hints of it though? (holy fool, kalachnik, Konev) but it wouldn't hurt to give it more development...

However, all these notes will lose, perhaps, all meaning when you [read?] the second part. (Manuscript fund of the Central Theater Museum named after A. A. Bakhrushin, archive of A. N. Ostrovsky).

The first reviews of the play appeared in the press in connection with its production on the stage of the Maly Theater and publication in Vestnik Evropy.

Reactionary and liberal criticism assessed "Dmitry the Pretender" mostly sharply negatively. Most of the reviewers accused Ostrovsky of completely borrowing his chronicle from the work of N. I. Kostomarov "The Named Tsar Dimitri" (see Moscow, 1867, No. 55, March 10; Russian Invalid, 1867, No. 77, March 18; Glasny Court, 1867, No. 155, March 12).

These accusations were refuted by N. I. Kostomarov himself and the newspaper “Voice”: “... In the spring of 1866, when my “Named Tsar Dimitri” had not yet been completely printed, the artist I. F. Gorbunov read me this dramatic chronicle. Mr. Ostrovsky could not see the second part of my work in print, and his chronicle embraces precisely those events that are depicted in this second part. In the manuscript, I did not report my work to Mr. Ostrovsky ... The similarity between the dramatic chronicle and my “Called Tsar Dimitri” occurred, no doubt, because Mr. Ostrovsky used the same sources that I used ” ("Voice", 1867, No. 89, March 30).

Representatives of conservative criticism believed that the chronicle "Dmitry the Pretender" "is distinguished by purely external historical fidelity, rough fidelity more than chronological and topographic properties" ("Moscow", 1867, No. 55, March 10). These critics denied that it contained both artistry and a "general idea" and bypassed the question of the role of the people, as it was solved by Ostrovsky. Reactionary criticism hastened to declare the artistic improbability of the characters in the chronicle, especially Vasily Shuisky (see "Moscow", 1867, No. 55, March 10), and the image of the Pretender was perceived by reviewers as "a mixture of contradictions, which is rather tricky to explain" (“Russian invalid”, 1867, No. 77, March 18).

From the general stream of negative reviews about "Dmitry the Pretender", an interesting article stands out in "Notes for Reading" (signed "A.P."). In assessing historical plays, the author of the article proceeds from the criterion: “To what extent the folk element will be developed in the drama, folk amateur performances are represented, to that extent this drama will be historically true and attractive for us, later, testing descendants” (“Notes for reading ”, 1867, No. 4, section VI, p. 2). It is from this point of view that he evaluates Ostrovsky's chronicle. The critic comes to the conclusion that Ostrovsky did not show the true role of the people in the rise and fall of the Pretender, that the playwright explains the death of the Pretender "by such easy reasons as a lack of restraint, dignity, foreign tread and techniques" (ibid., p. 4). The real reason for the fall of the Pretender was his misunderstanding of “his vocation”: he should, writes L.P., “first of all and most of all ... restore the will of the people, to prevent more than two hundred years of serfdom. Otherwise, it was not worth changing Boris for Dmitry. The people understood this very well, but our playwrights did not understand it” (ibid.). Ignoring the specifics historical era portrayed by Ostrovsky, the author of the article reproached the playwright for the absence of a “representative of the conscious people’s mind” in the chronicle.

Of the liberal writers, to a certain extent, objective and interesting review belongs to A. V. Nikitenko. A. V. Nikitenko refers "Dmitry the Pretender" to "the most remarkable works of our literature, rich in artistic beauties." He notes the harmony of the construction of the chronicle, its excellent language and verse, the completeness in the development of characters, shaded by "peculiar features."

“The action in ... the play,” writes A. V. Nikitenko, “develops in gradually increasing amusement by itself, without any artificial efforts on the part of the poet ... in plan and execution, the absence of any complication, confusion, cleverness is one of its essential qualities and virtues. (A. V. Nikitenko, “On the historical drama of Mr. Ostrovsky“ Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky “”. Collection of articles “Skladchina”, St. Petersburg 1874, p. 450). But Nikitenko reduced the idea of Ostrovsky's chronicle exclusively to the idea of a zemstvo tsar and did not accept Ostrovsky's sharply critical attitude towards V. Shuisky. Shuisky's fault, according to Nikitenko, is that he did not wait until he was elected to the throne (ibid., p. 449). Shuisky "can neither be despised nor hated ... In a word, he is the way history presents him to us" (ibid.).

Such a political rehabilitation of Shuisky by the liberal Nikitenko was naturally alien to Ostrovsky.

In Nikitenko's interpretation of the image of the Pretender, the same desire to present it in softened colors is observed.

Ostrovsky's play was highly appreciated by N. I. Kostomarov and M. M. Stasyulevich. On January 21, 1867, Stasyulevich wrote to the playwright: “Nikolai Ivanovich and I (Kostomarov - N. G..) read your work with pleasure; he was especially amazed at your secret of mastering the language of the epoch and of being faithful to its general character down to the last detail. Vasily Shuisky has been crafted to high perfection: in the depiction of this personality, the poet takes precedence over the historian ”(“ Unpublished letters to A. N. Ostrovsky ”, M.-L. 1932, p. 544).

Complications with the Sovremennik magazine prevented Nekrasov from expressing his "sincere and detailed opinion" on Ostrovsky's work. (N. A. Nekrasov, Complete collection of works and letters, vol. XI, M. 1952, p. 69). But, according to M. H. Ostrovsky. "Nekrasov ... the play also really likes" (letter from M. N. Ostrovsky to A. N. Ostrovsky dated May 10, 1866. Manuscript fund of the Central Theater Museum named after A. A. Bakhrushin, archive of A. N. Ostrovsky). Nekrasov saw in "Dmitry the Pretender" "a highly gifted thing" (N. A. Nekrasov, Complete collection of works and letters, vol. XI, M. 1952, p. 70).

The historical chronicle "Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky" was sent to the Academy of Sciences for the Uvarov Prize and ran for the eleventh Uvarov competition. On September 16, 1867, A. V. Nikitenko wrote in his diary: “Ostrovsky’s play Vasily Shuisky and Dmitry the Pretender was denied the Uvarov Prize. Four votes were for her and four against. I expected this" (A. V. Nikitenko, Diary, vol. 3, Goslitizdat, M. 1956, p. 97). Convincing evidence of the hostile attitude of the "higher spheres" to the democratic writer was the story of the production of "Dmitry the Pretender" on stage.

On July 16, 1866, the play was approved by the Theatrical and Literary Committee, and censorship permission for it was received only on December 24, 1866. All sorts of obstacles were placed on the stage for the production of Dmitry the Pretender. The directorate of the imperial theaters and the Ministry of the Imperial Court supported the "well-intentioned" playwright N. A. Chaev, who wrote a play of the same historical content. On October 25, 1866, F. A. Burdin informed Ostrovsky about the decision of the directorate to stage Chaev’s play.

Outraged by the flagrant injustice, P. V. Annenkov wrote to Ostrovsky on November 9, 1866: “The wildness and ignorance of her (of the theater management. — N. G.) were known to me before, but that they have developed in her to such an extent is news to me. Regrettable as this decision must be for you, you can take comfort in the thought that you have not been an exception to the battalion of remarkable writers whom life path was not easy and who met resistance and resentment precisely when they appeared with their most mature works ”(“ Unpublished letters to A. N. Ostrovsky ”, M.-L. 1932, p. 16).

Only thanks to the persistent efforts of the playwright himself (see Ostrovsky's letter dated October 25-26, 1866 to the Minister of the Court V.F. Adlerberg, vol. XIV, pp. 143-144) and the intervention of his brother M. N. Ostrovsky, who convinced Adlerberg that the production of Ostrovsky's play would cost less than the production of Chaev's play, the Minister of the Court canceled the decision of the theater directorate on November 15, 1866.

But the production of "Dmitry the Pretender" by Ostrovsky was allowed only on the Moscow stage: Chaev's play continued to run in St. Petersburg.

The premiere of "Dmitry the Pretender" at the Maly Theater took place on January 30, 1867, in the benefit performance of E. N. Vasilyeva. The roles were played by: K. G. Vilde - Dmitry, S. V. Shumsky - V. Shuisky, K. P. Kolosov - D. Shuisky, P. M. Sadovsky - Osipov and Shchelkalov, P. G. Stepanov - Konev, A F. Fedotov – kalachnik, P. Ya. Dmitrevsky - Basmanov, D. V. Zhivokini 2nd - Margeret, N. A. Alexandrov - Skopin-Shuisky, G. N. Fedotova - Marina, M. N. Vladykin - Velsky.

The Moscow premiere of the play was a great success. On February 2, 1867, Ostrovsky informed F. A. Burdin: “The Pretender was a huge success in Moscow. Shumsky, beyond expectation, was weak, but Vilde was excellent. I was called even in the middle of the acts, in the 3rd after the scene with the mother, in the 5th after the folk scene, and then at the end of the play, and they called me unanimously, by the whole theater and several times. Vasilyeva in the first performance was presented with a golden wreath of great price, and Vilda yesterday (in repetition) after the scene in the Golden Chamber, a laurel wreath was presented" (Vol. XIV, pp. 151-152).

According to the reviewer of Russkiye Vedomosti, the performance was "truly brilliant": the costumes are beautiful, especially those of Dmitry and Olesnitsky, "the decorations of the Golden and Faceted Chambers are truly artistic."

Vilde did an excellent job. “Vilde emerged victorious,” wrote the same reviewer, “a lot of work, he put his mind into his role. The poems were excellent. True, according to the reviewer, he lacked "natural heat", and heat is needed in the play, and in a high degree. Vilde replaced it with artificial heat, but, as they say, he intercepted it over the edge to the point that Dmitry went completely daredevil».

Shumsky from the role of V. Shuisky "did everything he could ... the role was understood and performed in the best possible way." Shumsky was especially successful in the scene in the Faceted Chamber: “The pride, calmness, sense of dignity of Shuisky and his contempt for the boyars around him are expressed by him just as well as in another scene, in the palace, the flattery and hidden plans of this boyar after removing disgrace from him” .

Of the other performers of the roles of the boyars, the reviewer of Russkiye Vedomosti notes Vladykin (Velsky), which was "the best".

The reviewer was not satisfied with the performance of female roles and the roles of boyars. Sadovsky, who played the clerk Osipov and Shchelkalov, appeared in the first role to be "very bad": "motionless and indifferent", and Shchelkalov "came out as well as possible" (“Russian Vedomosti”, 1867, No. 16, February 7).

In 1868, Ostrovsky and his friends again began to work on the production of "Dmitry the Pretender" in St. Petersburg.

On August 28, 1869, Burdin informed the playwright: “The case is very bad! Without a radical struggle, I don’t see the outcome - I came to St. Petersburg and found out that there was absolutely nothing for the next season ... and despite all this, your “Imposter” will not be staged. ” (“A. N. Ostrovsky and F. A. Burdin. Unpublished letters”, M-Pg. 1923, p. 98).

In 1871 the troubles were renewed. Ostrovsky was very upset by the intrigues of the theater directorate against him. On September 18, 1871, he wrote bitterly to Burdin: “At the beginning of next year, my dramatic activity will be twenty-five years old - the production of The Pretender would be some kind of reward for my labors. I don’t have any hope for anything else, and the management won’t do this little thing for me in 25 years of my work. ” (Vol. XIV, p. 213).

The upcoming twenty-fifth anniversary of the famous playwright prompted the directorate of the imperial theaters to stage Ostrovsky's chronicle in St. Petersburg.

Permission from the theatrical censorship for the production of "Dmitry the Pretender" was received on February 1, 1872.

The premiere of the play in St. Petersburg took place on February 17, 1872 on the stage Mariinsky Theater by the forces of the Alexandrian troupe for the benefit performance of E. N. Zhuleva. The performance was attended by: I. I. Monakhov - Dmitry, P. V. Vasiliev 2nd - V. Shuisky, P. P. Pronsky - D. Shuisky, P. I. Zubrov - clerk Osipov, V. Ya. Poltavtsev - Konev, F. A. Burdin - kalachnik, I. F. Gorbunov - Afonya, E. N. Zhuleva - Martha, N. N. Zubov - Mnishek, L. L. Leonidov - Mstislavsky, P. S. Stepanov - Golitsyn, P. I. Malyshev - Basmanov, V. G. Vasiliev 1st - Margeret, P. N. Dushkin - Skopin-Shuisky, Severtseva - Marina, P. A. Petrovsky - Belsky, D. I. Ozerov - clerk.

Petersburg production was not successful. This was facilitated by the extremely poor and careless design of the performance. “As for the new palace of the Pretender, it consisted of the scenery used in the 3rd act of the comedy Woe from Wit, and looked just as much like Dmitry’s palace as a pig looks like a five-kopeck piece” ("Petersburg leaflet", 1872, No. 35, February 19). “The costumes struck everyone,” the reviewer of Grazhdanin testifies, “with their dilapidation ... how everything smelled of contempt, inexorable contempt for the Russian theater and Russian talents!” (“Citizen”, 1872, No. 8, February 21, p. 274).

The performance of the roles by the artists, according to the majority of reviewers, was also not satisfactory. Monakhov from the role of the Pretender "did nothing" (“Petersburg leaflet”, 1872, No. 36, February 20). Vasiliev 2nd (Shuisky) spoke “in one tone both low flattery and speeches of a person preparing for a high feat”; spoiled the impression and his "quiet pronunciation of poetry."

In the failed performance, criticism singled out the game of Burdin (kalanik) and Zhuleva (Martha) and staging folk scenes (See St. Petersburg Gazette, 1872, No. 50, February 19; Exchange Gazette, 1872, No. 49, February 19).

After the performance of "Dmitry the Pretender" with the curtain down, the artists brought a golden wreath and an address to the hero of the day Ostrovsky. It was supposed to arrange this "presentation" publicly with a welcoming speech by the director A. A. Yablochkin, but this was not followed by the permission of the theater directorate.

In the future, the chronicle "Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky" was staged very rarely.

In 1879, E. N. Zhuleva again chose this play by Ostrovsky for her benefit performance, but her production was not allowed. (see "A. N. Ostrovsky and F. A. Burdin. Unpublished letters", M.-Pg. 1923, pp. 271-273).

At the Maly Theater in Moscow, "Dmitry the Pretender" was resumed in 1872 for the benefit performance of K. P. Kolosov, in 1881 for the benefit performance of M. V. Lentovsky, in 1892 for the benefit performance of O. A. Pravdin, in the season 1909- 1910 Prominent performers of the roles were: Pretender - A. I. Yuzhin, A. A. Ostuzhev; V. Shuisky - O. A. Pravdin, kalachnik - K. N. Rybakov, Martha - M. N. Yermolov and others. (See Yearbook of the Imperial Theatres, season 1892-1893, pp. 281-288).

In the Alexandria Theater in St. Petersburg, productions of "Dmitry the Pretender" were carried out in 1896 for the benefit of E. N. Zhuleva (there were two paintings: the 3rd - the Golden Chamber and the 5th - the Tent in the village of Taininsky), in the season of 1902-1903. The later performers here were: Pretender - R. B. Apollonsky, P. V. Samoilov, Yu. M. Yuryev; Martha - A. M. Dyuzhikova 1st; V. Shuisky - P. D. Lensky, A. E. Osokin; kalachnik - A. I. Kashirin and others. (See Yearbook of the Imperial Theatres, season 1902-1903, no. 13, pp. 25-40).

Footnotes

1. Your Majesty! (French)

2. I swear to God! (Polish)

3. Long live the emperor! (French)

4. Shout: "Long live the emperor!" (German)

5. We praise you, God! (lat.)

6. father! (lat.)

7. Servant (from Polish pacholek)

8. the most invincible monarch! (lat.)

9. only our God! (lat.)

10. of course (lat.).

11. pope (lat.)

12. Living people - the middle class between the boyars, first-class citizens and black people.

13. there will be no pan out of a boor (Polish)

14. Amen! (lat.)

15. You scoundrels (German)

16. This is their chieftain! (German)

17. Thank you (Polish).

18. Rokosh - sedition, treason, rebellion

19. damn it! (Polish)

Keywords

HISTORICAL CHRONICLE/ REMARK / AUTHOR'S POSITION / SPEECH CHARACTERISTICS / LANGUAGE TOOLS / VOICE AND SYNTAX/ HISTORICAL CHRONICLE / STAGE DIRECTION / AUTHOR'S POSITION / SPEECH CHARACTERISTICS / LANGUAGE MEANS / LEXIS AND SYNTAX

annotation scientific article on linguistics and literary criticism, author of scientific work - Maslennikov Semyon Vladimirovich

The article deals with the structure, semantics and functions of remarks in historical chronicle A.N. Ostrovsky "Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky". Remarks in modern linguistics have not been sufficiently studied. Directions (stage directions) are a special type of compositional and stylistic units included in the text of a dramatic work and, along with monologues and replicas of characters, contribute to the creation of its integrity. Remarque has important functional and communicative features that make it possible to determine fairly strict norms in the construction of a work. IN historical chronicle A.N. Ostrovsky "Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky" uses a large number of remarks. The author of the chronicle often creates remarks to the lines of those characters who play a major role in storyline works. The number of stage directions increases towards the end of a dramatic work and increases in mass scenes, as stage directions convey the dynamics of events, show the development of the action. The concentration of remarks to the replicas of a particular character indicates that in order to reveal the inner world of this particular hero of the drama, the “voice” of the author is required. Remarks in Ostrovsky's chronicle are divided into several types and serve to reveal the images of characters, characterize the dramatic action of the chronicle. Reveals with the help of remarks author's position, a text modality is created.

Functions of stage directions in the historical chronicle by Alexander Ostrovsky “False Dmitriy and Vasili Shuysky”

In the article, the structure, semantics and functions of stage directions in the historical chronicle by Alexander Ostrovsky “False Dmitriy and Vasili Shuysky” are considered. Stage directions in modern linguistics are insufficiently studied. Stage directions (scenic instructions) are a special type of the composite and stylistic units included into the text of drama work and along with monologues and cues of the characters, promoting creation of integrity of the play. The stage direction possesses the important functional and communicative signs allowing to define rather rigid norms in construction. In the historical chronicle by Alexander Ostrovsky “False Dmitriy and Vasili Shuysky”, what is used is a large number of stage directions. The author of the chronicle often creates stage directions for cues of those characters who play a major role in the subject line of work. The number of stage directions increases by the final of the drama work and especially in crowd scenes as stage directions transfer dynamics of events, show action development. Concentration of stage directions for cues of the specific character tests that disclosure of the inner world of this character of the drama requires the author’s “voice”. Stage directions in Alexander Ostrovsky's chronicle are subdivided into some types and serve to disclosure of images of characters, characterize drama action of the chronicle. By means of stage directions, the author's position reveals, the text modality is created.

The text of the scientific work on the topic "Functions of remarks in the historical chronicle of A. N. Ostrovsky "Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky""

Functions of remarks in the historical chronicle of A.N. Ostrovsky "Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky"

UDC 821.161G19'

Maslennikov Semyon Vladimirovich

Kostroma State University named after N.A. Nekrasov

[email protected]

FUNCTIONS OF REMARKS IN A.N. OSTROVSKY "DMITRY THE IMPOSTOR AND VASILY SHUISKY"

The article deals with the structure, semantics and functions of remarks in the historical chronicle of A.N. Ostrovsky "Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky". Remarks in modern linguistics have not been sufficiently studied. Remarks (stage directions) are a special type of compositional and stylistic units included in the text of a dramatic work and, along with monologues and replicas of characters, contribute to the creation of its integrity. Remarque has important functional and communicative features that make it possible to determine fairly strict norms in the construction of a work. In the historical chronicle A.N. Ostrovsky "Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky" uses a large number of remarks. The author of the chronicle often creates remarks for the lines of those characters who play a major role in the storyline of the work. The number of stage directions increases towards the end of the dramatic work and increases in mass scenes, as the stage directions convey the dynamics of events, show the development of the action. The concentration of remarks to the replicas of a particular character indicates that in order to reveal the inner world of this particular hero of the drama, the “voice” of the author is required. Remarks in Ostrovsky's chronicle are divided into several types and serve to reveal the images of characters, characterize the dramatic action of the chronicle. With the help of remarks, the author's position is revealed, a text modality is created.

Key words: historical chronicle, remark, author's position, speech characteristics, language means, vocabulary and syntax.

Remarks in modern linguistics have not been studied enough. Let us name the names of scientists who studied the functions of remarks in dramatic works. The dissertation researches of K.K. Asanova, V.A. Bezrukova, A.V. Khizhnyak, V.P. Khodus, as well as scientific articles devoted to some aspects of the existence of remarks in an artistic context (E.K. Abramova, K.F. Baranova, M.B. Borisova, N.S. Gantsovskaya, O.V. Gladysheva, P.S. Zhuikova, I.P. Zaitseva, L.V. Ilyicheva, I.N. Levina, E.A. Pokrovskaya, T.V. Sedova, G.A. Ustimenko, M.Yu. Khvatova, L.A. Shuvalova and others).

Among literary works different nature concerning this topic, the studies of S.D. Balukhaty, T.G. Ivlieva, S.N. Kuznetsova, N.K. Piksanova, A.P. Skaftymova, V.V. Sperantova

S.V. Shervinsky. An analysis of the formal functions of remarks is proposed in the monograph by the German researcher G.Kh. Dams, essays by S.V. Krzhizhanovsky "Theatrical remark" and B.V. Golubovsky "Read the remark!", there are a number of publications and observations on private remark constructions in the plays of individual playwrights.

In our study, we focus on the definition and classification of remarks, which are given in the book by N.A. Nikolina "Philological analysis of the text". The author gives a system of remarks and traces their evolution from the 18th century to the 19th century. Remarks (stage directions), according to N.A. Nikolina, - a special type of compositional and stylistic units included in the text of a dramatic work and, along with monologues and replicas of characters, contribute to

which create its integrity. The main function of remarks is to express the intentions of the author. At the same time, this means of conveying the author's voice serves as a way of directly influencing the director, actors and the reader of the drama.

The main types of remarks developed in Russian dramaturgy of the 18th - early 19th centuries. (under the influence of Western European dramaturgy). In the same period, their leading functional and communicative features were also determined, which made it possible to determine fairly strict norms in the construction of remarks. Here are the rules that are specific to dramatic works XVIII-XIX centuries

1. Remarks directly express the position of the "omniscient" author and the communicative intentions of the playwright. At the same time, the author's consciousness is maximally objectified. The remarks do not use the forms of the 1st and 2nd person.

2. The time of the remark coincides with the time of the stage realization of the phenomenon (scene) of the drama (or its reading). Despite the fact that the stage direction can be correlated in duration with the action of the whole picture or act, the dominant time for it is the present, the so-called present stage time.

3. The local meaning of the remark is determined by the nature of the stage space and, as a rule, is limited by it.

4. A remark is a stating text. Accordingly, neither interrogative nor imperative sentences are used in it. Directions avoid evaluative means, means of expressing uncertainty and tropes, they are stylistically neutral.

5. Remarks are characterized by standardized construction and a high degree of repetition of certain speech means in them.

Bulletin of KSU im. ON THE. Nekrasov "S> No. 6, 2015

LINGUISTICS

Directions in drama are quite diverse in function. They model the artistic time and space of the work, point to:

Place or time of action: June 19, 1605 (hereinafter, examples are given from the play by A.N. Ostrovsky "Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky");

The actions of the heroes or their intentions: gives a silver kopeck to the holy fool;

Features of the behavior or psychological state of the characters at the moment of action (introspective remarks): in thought, stopping in front of Osinov;

Non-verbal communication: shrugging;

Addressee of the remark: Dmitry (to Basmanov);

Remarks aside, related to the self-reflection of the character, his decision, etc.: Cook (to himself).

It should be noted that the play "Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky" contains a large number of remarks (160 units), which are represented by verbs and verb forms expressing the semantics of processuality. Most of all remarks are verbal remarks (46 units) and participle remarks (32 units). Therefore, we see that in the chronicle there is more dynamics than statics.

The author of the chronicle often uses remarks only for the replicas of those characters who play a major role in the storyline of the work. For example, remarks are most often found next to the statements of Vasily Shuisky, Dmitry Pretender, Kalachnik, Basmanov. And the reader feels the attention of the author to the depicted characters. Interestingly, the number of remarks increases towards the end of the work and increases in crowd scenes. This can be explained by the fact that stage directions give the work dynamics and show the development of the action. Let's consider the most interesting remarks that we analyze taking into account their interaction with the characters' replicas.

Kurakin (quietly to Golitsyn)

But Belsky remembers everything about Ivan;

Who cares what, he dreams about it ...

Masalsky

(quietly to Basmanov)

And Shuisky is proud of his relatives.

Dmitry Shuisky (quietly to Vasily Shuisky)

Golitsyn all will

Not enough.

In this episode, remarks are similar in structure: they contain an indication of the addressee in combination

quietly with an adverb. In this passage, the boyars are talking about the coming to power of Dmitry the Pretender, they are afraid of something to anger him, and therefore they are talking in a whisper. Thanks to the note quietly, a special, conspiratorial atmosphere is created in the scene.

Margeret

Vive l'empereur!

(To the soldiers.)

Ruft: "Hoch! vivat der Kaiser!"

Vivat! hoch! hoch!

Kalachnik

Wail, dogs.

Laughter among the people.

The remark among the people, laughter, shows the reader the ironic reaction of the people to the speech of the Germans, which for a Russian person is similar to the barking of a dog. Ostrovsky managed to depict the speech of the Germans in the form of onomatopoeia. The word dog has a negative connotation. Thus, we see the negative attitude of the people towards foreign interventionists.

Belsky

(takes a reed from a German)

Can't be tolerated! Free our hands

And we will tear it apart!

Basmanov

(takes a reed from another)

A traitor is one who can be indifferent

To listen to such speeches in the eyes of the king!<...>

Basmanov

(bringing the reed)

Do not spew out your bad curses,

And then I'll kill you!

Belsky

(bringing the reed)

Be quiet! Not another word! .

This scene is interesting to us because the remark is repeated takes a reed, which explains the actions of the characters. Berdysh is a wide long ax with a crescent-shaped blade on a long shaft. It can be assumed that the berdysh in this scene is a symbol of punishment and judgment. The action of this scene takes place in the chambers of Dmitry the Pretender, where he is trying to condemn Osipov for organizing a popular revolt. Basmanov and Belsky, faithful servants of the Pretender, are trying to intimidate the character with the help of reeds and want to get a confession. Consequently, the remark in this context acquires a symbolic meaning and adds additional emotionality to the scene.

Let them run! native

They drag to themselves.

Poles with a girl at the gate of the house where Vishnevetsky stands

Kalachnik

Daily robbery, robots!

Bulletin of KSU im. ON THE. Nekrasov jij- № 6, 2015

Functions of remarks in the historical chronicle of A.N. Ostrovsky "Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky"

For profit! Work with anything.

They break the racks on which they put the trays, and fight with the Poles with the wreckage. They beat the girl.

Vishnevetsky's people come out of the gate with guns.

Kalachnik

With squeakers?! Call people, robyata!

Get down, people! Fuck the Poles! .

In the last scene there is an uprising of the people and the overthrow of Dmitry the Pretender. Mass scenes predominate here, almost all the key characters meet, and in order to more accurately convey the dynamics, to show the actors the sequence of actions, Ostrovsky introduces a large number of remarks, which are whole sentences.

Thus, the number of remarks accompanying the monologues and replicas of the characters is associated with the images of the characters to which Ostrovsky wanted to draw the attention of the reader and the viewer. For example, there are many remarks in the monologues of Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky, while the remarks of other characters are made out with a minimum number of remarks. The remarks introducing the lines of the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky or pointing to their actions are diverse in lexical content, name different addressees of the speech or mark the fact of self-addressing, emphasize the rapid change of emotions of the characters. The concentration of remarks introducing or accompanying the speech of certain characters indicates that the “voice” of the author is required to reveal the inner world of this particular character in the drama. As our study showed, the remarks in the chronicle of A.N. Ostrovsky are subdivided into non-

how many types that perform different functions in the work. First of all, they serve to reveal the images of the characters and characterize the dramatic action of the chronicle. With the help of remarks, the author's position is expressed, a text modality is created.

Bibliographic list

2. Nikolina N.A. Philological analysis of the text: textbook. allowance. - M.: Publishing Center "Academy", 2003. - 256 p.

3. Ostrovsky A.N. complete collection works: in 12 volumes - M .: Art, 1973.

4. Ostrovsky A.N. Encyclopedia / ch. ed. [and comp.] I.A. Ovchinina. - Kostroma: Kostromaiz-dat; Shuya: Publishing House of FGBOU VPO "TTTGPU", 2012. -660 p.

5. Piksanov N.K. Comedy A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" // Griboyedov A.S. Woe from the mind. - M.: Nauka, 1987. - 478 p.

6. Skaftymov A.P. On the question of the principles of constructing plays by A.P. Chekhov // Chekhov A.P. Three sisters: plays. - St. Petersburg: Azbuka-Klassika, 2008. -544 p.

7. Ushakov D.N. Dictionary modern Russian language. - M.: Alta-Print, 2008. - 512 p.

8. Fokina M.A. Philological analysis of the text: textbook. allowance. - Kostroma: KSU im. ON THE. Nekrasova, 2013. - 140 p.

9. Khodus V.P. Remarque in the dramatic text of A.P. Chekhov: stereotypes and new models // Changing language world: abstracts of reports of the international. scientific conf. - Perm, 2001. - S. 34-36.

Bulletin of KSU im. ON THE. Nekrasov "S> No. 6, 2015

According to ed. A. N. Ostrovsky. Collected works in 10 volumes. Under total ed. G. I. Vladykina, A. I. Revyakina, V. A. Filippov. -- M.: State. publishing house literature, 1960. - Volume 5. - Comments by N. S. Grodskaya. OCR: Peter. A. N. Ostrovsky DMITRY THE PRETENDER AND VASILY SHUISKY (1866) Dramatic chronicle in two parts I SCENE ONE PERSONS: Prince Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky. Prince Dmitry Ivanovich Shuisky. Timofey Osipov, clerk from the order. Fedor Konev, Moscow merchant. Ivan, kalanik. Afonya, holy fool. Moscow, Novgorod, Pskov merchants; clerks, jobless priests, wanderers, petty traders, pedlars and peasants.

Canopy in the house of Vasily Shuisky.

Merchants and clerks sit on benches; common people - on the floor.

1st merchant of Moscow

Bring the Lord! Tsarevich born On the thrones of his grandfather and father And on his own in all the great kingdoms He sat down again and established himself ...

2nd merchant of Moscow

The Great Miracle has happened! God's providence punished the traitors with dignity And preserved the leprogenous branch From the tribe of pious kings.

clerk

Here's a holiday! Moscow has not seen this for a long time. In cherished attire, With triumph shining on their faces, The people walk in merry steps In the forefront of banners and icons ...

(Quiet.)

Meet the Antichrist!

1st peasant

2nd peasant

It’s time for freedom, they cleaned the fields, Sowed, but not suddenly haymaking ... Well, they agreed ...

3rd peasant

And yet, brothers, glad and cheerful! Joy is such, What about the saint, on the great day of Christ.

What a sin! What a sin!

clerk

They chatted that in Uglich the prince was killed, And they believed then; and here he is with us! And, therefore, God kept it for us.

1st peasant

There was a rumor, and before that it was said that Dmitry, Tsarevich of Uglitsky, was alive...

Merchant of Novgorod

There is a rumor in Moscow, and even more so in the cities ...

clerk

And there is no miracle, and there is nothing to be surprised that the Lord kept him alive.

1st merchant of Moscow

No one marvels at this - they know that everything is possible for the Lord: he can also raise the dead from the tomb.

Peasant

By itself!

Wanderer

If God wants, He will do so.

Peasant

Well, what to say!

1st merchant of Moscow

(Novgorod)

And do you believe it, when the news came to us About the death of the prince, weeping tears went through all of Moscow; they said, That it is easier for us again Tsar Ivan Torment than to become an orphan Without royal offspring; although it was terrifying It happened to us, but nevertheless we knew That he was the tsar's branch, not serfs ... And here again the offspring of Monomakh Enters the formidable table of the parents!

Spiritual joy and universal joy...

Well, the joy is not great Under an oath to live! The Holy Hierarch's curse Lies on us and our children. How long have we been the representative before God, the patriarch, During the service, in full dress, We brought down from the pulpit, dressed in rags, Shamefully dragged through the streets?! And he raised his right hand to us, And cursed all of Moscow and those living in it, And, like a stone. crushed our souls with a Curse... Our deeds and thoughts, All the wombs are covered with a curse; Our prayers to God do not reach ...

clerk

You would not talk loudly in front of the people, Otherwise you will just end up in the dungeons.

Silence.

1st peasant

Oh, sins! Oh, Lord have mercy!

2nd peasant

At least chew something, for the sake of boredom.

3rd peasant

There is a puff in his bosom ... What do you have: a purse or a rug?

1st peasant

My purse has gone to people, Yes, and it won’t go home.

2nd peasant

You, apparently, are also Unmercenary?

1st peasant

Nag does not save gold! Krayuha is in stock, an hour with kvass, And even so. In the morning I left the house, And the belly - the enemy - does not remember yesterday.

2nd peasant

Drag it, break it, give it to us! Let's share!

Not about one bread...

Be quiet!

clerk

What a stupid breed! He wormed his way into the boyar mansions, Sits like a guest; his Adam's apple will dissolve, And you won't stop; not past it says: "You plant a pig ..."

1st peasant

Don't be angry! We will shut up: robots, chew more quietly!

Silence.

2nd peasant

Why sit like that, let's have a break.

What, you went into the barn?!

clerk

Call the lackey Yes, push you in the neck out of the gate.

Enter the kalachnik and the holy fool.

Kalachnik

Judges, clerks and you, honest fathers, To merchant guests and other people - Bow to the mother of the damp earth.

(Sits down on the floor.)

Wretched, sit next to me!

holy fool

I'm afraid of the Antichrist!

But is it soon, Afonya, to wait for him?

holy fool

The unexpected has arrived!

1st merchant of Moscow

I won't be surprised! Boyarin, Prince Vasily Ivanovich, equalizes the best trading people with market traders; Goes to him and smart and crazy, And a buffoon and a thoughtful nobleman.

Kalachnik

Why are you going to the boyar? Mind borrow? .. And I'm trading in my little things. Oh, big beards, You would be glad to eat ordinary people, Yes, there is no will!

petty trader

(Kalachnik)

Where did it take you? Neither at the auction, nor in the shops can not be seen ...

Kalachnik

I was in Tula.

petty trader

For what?

Kalachnik

I wanted to be a Cossack...

holy fool

Cossack is a Pole!

Kalachnik

Life has come to the Poles and Cossacks, Afonya; Tsar Demetrius Forward the boyars to their hand admits. The Cossacks almost beat the boyars ...

holy fool

Boyar - Tatar!

Kalachnik

What a marvel that the boyars - Tatarovya: the Tatar was the king!

1st merchant of Moscow

What was, is gone! Now Dimitri Ivanovich, the noble prince From the tribe of St. Vladimir ...

holy fool

In the grave of Dmitry!

clerk

We will bind your hands, blessed one, and smear your mouth...

Kalachnik

He is simple, you can not collect from him.

(gives a silver kopeck to the holy fool)

Blessed, for a pretty penny! Pray for us sinners!

petty trader

(Kalachnik)

You said, in the Cossacks ...

Kalachnik

I went hunting; yes, not much, they said ...

petty trader

What didn't happen?

Kalachnik

Stealing is not smart! Than to steal, so it is better to trade I will become gold, Ugric. The price is now good for them: The need came to the king to carry a gift.

1st merchant of Moscow

Is it full of rolls?

Kalachnik

There is little benefit. Here you buy Polish kuntush, So you will make money, the goods will not be stale! .. There is a rumor that Prince Rubets-Masalsky, Pyotr Fedorych Basmanov and others Want to change their boyar caftans For kuntushs ...

clerk

You loosened your tongue, you would keep it shorter.

Osipov and the butler enter.

Haven't been like that?

Butler

Everything is still there for a while, In Kolomenskoye camp, at the sovereign.

And soon to be, do you have tea?

Butler

Yes, it would be time; You look, his boyar mercy The people have been waiting for so long - they have accumulated.

PS what?

Butler

They came from Novgorod, Pskov Posad princes to meet, Moscow marketplace traders, Peasants from nearby villages, Priests without jobs, deacons from orders, Wretched and all sorts of orphans, Both business and wandering people. Not everyone saw the eyes of the Sovereign Dimitri Ivanovich, so flattering To visit our boyar About the royal health; not to hear About what kind of favors for the people ... Do not blame me! There is some noise at the gate, So run ... Everything is somehow out of place A servile soul; everything is imagining, What's going to run into ... Wait an hour.

(Exits.)

(near the window)

Original language: Date of writing: Date of first publication:

"Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky"- a play (actually, a "dramatic chronicle in two parts") by Alexander Ostrovsky. Written in 1866.

History of writing

Ostrovsky began work on "Dmitry the Pretender ..." in early February 1866. As Ostrovsky himself testifies, "Dmitry the Pretender ..." is "the fruit of fifteen years of experience and long-term study of sources."

Having completed work on the chronicle for publication, Ostrovsky set about creating a stage version of the play. The discrepancies between the text for print and for the stage are quite significant.

Characters

scene one

Prince Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky.
Prince Dmitry Ivanovich Shuisky.
Timofey Osipov, clerk from the order.
Fedor Konev, Moscow merchant.
Ivan, kalanik.
Afonya, holy fool.
Moscow, Novgorod, Pskov merchants; clerks, jobless priests, wanderers, petty traders, pedlars and peasants.

scene two

Dmitry Ivanovich, impostor.
Shuisky, Prince Vasily Ivanovich.
Shuisky, Prince Dmitry Ivanovich.
Kurakin, Prince Ivan Semyonovich.
Rubets-Masalsky, Prince Vasily Mikhailovich,
Yan Buchinsky, Dmitry's secretary.
Jacob Margeret, captain of a German company.
Korela, Don ataman.
Kutska, Zaporizhzhya ataman.
Savitsky, Jesuit.
Konev.
Kalachnik.

Desyatsky, Hungarians, Poles, Cossacks, Cossacks, Tatars, Germans, Polish men at arms, boyars, nobles, merchants, archers and all people of both sexes.

Write a review on the article "Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky"

Links

An excerpt characterizing Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky

- Does he love you?
- Does he love? Natasha repeated with a smile of regret at her friend's dullness. “You read the letter, did you see it?”
But if he doesn't noble man?
"He! ... an ignoble person?" If you knew! Natasha said.
- If he is a noble person, then he must either declare his intention, or stop seeing you; and if you do not want to do this, then I will do it, I will write to him, I will tell him dad, ”Sonya said decisively.
- Yes, I can not live without him! Natasha screamed.
Natasha, I don't understand you. And what are you talking about! Remember your father, Nicolas.
“I don’t need anyone, I don’t love anyone but him. How dare you say he's ignoble? Don't you know that I love him? Natasha screamed. “Sonya, go away, I don’t want to quarrel with you, go away, for God’s sake go away: you see how I am tormented,” Natasha shouted angrily in a restrained, irritated and desperate voice. Sonya burst into tears and ran out of the room.
Natasha went up to the table and, without thinking for a minute, wrote that answer to Princess Mary, which she could not write all morning. In this letter, she briefly wrote to Princess Marya that all their misunderstandings were over, that, taking advantage of the generosity of Prince Andrei, who, when leaving, gave her freedom, she asks her to forget everything and forgive her if she is guilty before her, but that she cannot be his wife . All this seemed so easy, simple and clear to her at that moment.

On Friday, the Rostovs were supposed to go to the village, and on Wednesday the count went with the buyer to his suburban area.
On the day of the count's departure, Sonya and Natasha were invited to a big dinner at the Karagins, and Marya Dmitrievna took them. At this dinner, Natasha met Anatole again, and Sonya noticed that Natasha was talking to him, wanting not to be heard, and all the time of the dinner she was even more excited than before. When they returned home, Natasha was the first to start with Sonya the explanation that her friend was waiting for.
“Here you are, Sonya, talking all sorts of nonsense about him,” Natasha began in a meek voice, that voice that children speak when they want to be praised. “We talked to him today.
- Well, what, what? Well, what did he say? Natasha, how glad I am that you are not angry with me. Tell me everything, the whole truth. What did he say?

Kommersant, March 6, 2007

It has come to the Maly Theater Time of Troubles

The Maly Theater showed the premiere of a performance based on Ostrovsky's half-forgotten historical chronicle "Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky". The impostor appeared to ROMAN DOLZHANSKY as a ray of light in a dark realm.

The chronicle of Alexander Nikolayevich Ostrovsky has not been staged on the stage of the Maly Theater for a hundred years, and on other stages it’s not that they have been dragged out to indecent. This is the case when not to exclaim "Where did everyone look!" I want to, but ask the theater again: maybe there is some reason that the people were not eager for this play? Maybe not everything that came out of the pen of a genius is worth worrying about? True, Alexander Nikolayevich himself highly appreciated his composition, but he had such an excusable weakness: to declare each new play almost the best of his own.

"Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky" is a kind of sequel to "Boris Godunov", reminiscent of Pushkin's tragedy in structure. The chronicle begins after the death of Godunov and describes the short reign of Tsar Dmitry, who went down in history with the prefix "false": the conquest of Moscow, the intrigues of the boyars, the arrival of the Poles and Marina Mnishek, the condemnation of Vasily Shuisky, his return and election to the kingdom after the death of the impostor.

Not the best, to put it mildly, Ostrovsky's play in Maly was staged by Vladimir Dragunov. Directing it, to tell the truth, is not worth the paper on which it can be described: these exit from the right, those exit from the left, disturbing music is turned on at disturbing moments, emotions are conveyed by voice modulations, the actors are dressed in approximately historical costumes. It seems that the artist Larisa Lomakina tried to set a certain degree of detachment with her design of the performance - this is a system of lifting concert curtains imitating half-burnt drawings with views of Moscow. But there is no agreement on the stage, and the actors play the way they would probably play on an empty stage or among tons of natural scenery. In general, we have before us a typical pseudo-academic production, marked by signs of deafness and the discord of the theater with life.

There is, however, one curious circumstance. It concerns the contrast between the protagonist, Dmitry the Pretender, and Vasily Shuisky. It is known that Dmitry at Ostrovsky at first appeared almost goodie- a reformer, a rather merciful person who tried to make the state he inherited more rational and modern. Then, however, the author corrected the image of the king. But even in the current edition of the Maly Theater, Dmitry looks like a much more attractive character than the half-cartoon boyars-schemers who first swore allegiance to him and then killed him. We can say that the Polish protege in the current performance illustrates a rather popular historical theory, which consists in the fact that the reign of Dmitry was a missed chance for Russia to follow the European path of development.

I don't think that was the director's intention. Judging by his statements, placed in the program, the director's sympathies are on the side of Shuisky, and it would probably be strange to expect such a heresy as sympathy for a foreigner on the patriotic stage. The conflict of the main characters is concluded not so much in actions as in the manner of performance and stage drawings. Boris Nevzorov, under the leadership of Vladimir Dragunov, does everything to bring the viewer together with Vasily Shuisky, a person, according to historians, unattractive in every sense. The stocky, solid Shuisky is strong in his epic power. Mr. Nevzorov is loud, unhurried, he suffers pompously and soulfully on the proscenium, changes little from scene to scene, even after the chopping block on which he was laid, before reading the decree on pardon, and in the finale meaningfully wanders around the stage, apparently depicting painful thoughts about the fate of the state.

Gleb Podgorodinsky, who plays Dmitry, is not entrusted with such theatrical outrages. He is a very gifted actor - very mobile, technical, independent, modern. And he does his role not according to the laws of a cardboard booth, but with a nerve and a lively eye. So his character becomes sympathetic: he likes to be kind of insidious, and looks human, and wants the state to do well.

By the way, about Russian customs. Since your observer is never invited to the Maly Theater (apparently, my criticism is considered unfair, the same will be considered written above), I usually buy a ticket for premieres at the Ostrovsky House. It so happened that I was late for The Pretender, ran into the theater literally with the third call, immediately to the ticket window, and the cashier offered the remaining single ticket. Names the price - a thousand rubles. Not cheap, but nothing to do, you have to write a review, so I put a bill in the window, grabbed a ticket and ran to my seat. Then, already late in the evening, I began to examine the ticket for nothing: bah, yes, there is no price on it at all, and below you can see traces of the overprint "free", inaccurately cut off with scissors. And they sold it to me, I emphasize, at the box office of the theater - national treasure. Oh, impostor father, where are you...

Novye Izvestia, March 6, 2007

Olga Egoshina

A vague play

Another tsar was shown at the Maly Theater

The premiere of Alexander Ostrovsky's dramatic chronicle "Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky" took place on the stage of the Maly Theater. The performance continues the "historical and everyday" repertory line of the theater, in the playbill of which are the plays "Tsar Ivan the Terrible", "Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich", "Tsar Boris", "Tsar Peter and Alexei".

Having finished the chronicle “Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky” in 1866, still not cooled down from work, Alexander Ostrovsky wrote to Nekrasov: “I don’t know whether I wrote well or badly, but, in any case, this will constitute an era in my life a new activity will start; everything I have written so far has been only attempts, but this, I repeat again, badly or well written, is a decisive work. Regarding the merits of the chronicle, Ostrovsky doubted in vain: the carefully drawn out wide historical background (it was not for nothing that the playwright spent so much time studying the annals), the excellent role of the Pretender - all this is clearly written "well". Regarding the place of this play in his dramatic heritage, Ostrovsky was decisively mistaken: the rarely staged play was by no means included in his "golden canon".

"Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky" rarely appears on stage, and the history of its productions is not rich in success. It seems that this time too, when choosing a play, the theater was guided not so much by its merits as by the needs of the repertoire. The Maly Theater is one of the few theaters today, in relation to which we can talk about the "construction" of the repertoire, about the repertoire line verified for centuries. Maly insists on his loyalty to the author. At a time when district committees monitored "fidelity to the letter", the perseverance of the leadership the oldest theater Moscow was perplexed. Now, the more freedom and even frivolity around the classical text, the more respect is given to the Maly Theater, which continues to observe copyright. In a sense, it gives our messy life a sense of permanence (at least in one particular place). In England, there are shops that preserve the assortment of the 18th century (natural wax for boots and fixatives for mustaches). The Maly Theater keeps unchanged not only principles, but also whims.

150 years ago, Ostrovsky suffered from the stinginess of the management, which resolutely did not want to spend money on a historical play, preferring to use the scenery "from the selection." Today's scenery and costumes for "Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky" were probably created by the artist Larisa Lomakina specifically for this production, but they seem to be rented. There is a wooden platform on the stage and hanging panels with architectural drawings (as if slightly singed along the edges). Anything can be played in this environment, but artistic energy and meaning cannot be extracted from it.

Template mise-en-scène directed by Vladimir Dragunov; the intonations of the actors are familiar, correct, but taken, as it were, from a general dramatic selection. Finally, the choice of performers is not very accurate. It is hard to believe that Vasily Shuisky, as played by Boris Nevzorov, is capable of systematic intrigue - too noble, open and hot. It is even more difficult to believe in the boundless passion of Dmitry the Pretender - Gleb Podgorodinsky for Marina Mnishek - Elena Kharitonova, who is more suitable for him as an aunt than as a bride (the habit of the Maly Theater to give the role of brides to honored actresses sometimes interferes).

But not obscured by the director's decisions and the talents of the actors, Ostrovsky's text, as they say, "clings" the audience. The tragic vicissitudes of native history, the characters of the Time of Troubles, the clash between Russia and the West - all this resonates in a surprisingly receptive auditorium.

Without becoming an artistic event, the new production organically fit into the repertoire line. And, by God, when a theater is built as a whole, the quality of an individual performance brick is not as important as its integration into the whole. Once upon a time, 150 years ago, reviewers joked that Moscow schoolchildren could be taught history from the playbill of the Maly Theater. Now the enlightenment pathos does not seem to be the subject of jokes, and the goal of “teaching native history” seems quite worthy.

Culture, March 15, 2007

Irina Alpatova

Kush served

"Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky". Maly Theater

By kush, of course, one should understand the Russian throne, which for so many centuries in a row beckoned sovereigns, both called and self-appointed, indigenous and foreign, worthy and not quite. The endless royal history in the Maly Theater is full of year after year. Ivan the Terrible and Fyodor Ioannovich, Tsar Boris, Emperor Peter with Tsarevich Alexei, and even in perestroika times, the last Russian autocrat Nicholas II - all appeared on this stage. Now the turn of "Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky" has come.

This play by Ostrovsky is one of the little-known ones, even in the theater that they used to call the Ostrovsky House. In the capital (and probably not only) it has not been staged for a hundred years. On the one hand, it is understandable - the "dramatic chronicle" is long, ponderous and in places very high-flown, although all these signs are legitimate companions of the genre. On the other hand, her current appearance on these stages is quite understandable. Ostrovsky remains a good psychologist here too, trying to deduce the universal laws of eternal Russian turmoil and human adaptation to it. Historical nuances are, of course, important, but they do not determine everything. Moreover, it seems that it is people who place all these accents - according to their desire and understanding.

Perhaps that is why they did not begin to build luxurious, everyday-like interiors on the stage of the Maly this time. On the contrary, everything is very sparingly and creates a deceptive image of the historical distance. The artist Larisa Lomakina seemed to have found all these cathedrals, bell towers, chambers on the pages of old handwritten books that miraculously survived numerous Moscow fires. Burnt pages, changing every now and then each other, hang over the stage, marking the scene of action - both conditional and quite definite, where the main thing still dominates - the Russian square for popular riots and royal revelations with the indispensable Execution Ground.

Director Vladimir Dragunov also did not neglect the historical circumstances of the Time of Troubles, he nevertheless tried to make a play about the ever-repeating signs of "palace coups" of all times and eras. Where the people, hearing the "ringing" of the speeches of the rulers, at first revolt senselessly and mercilessly, and then, as usual, remain silent. Where real and potential sovereigns and their retinue flatter, incite, hypocritically repent and occasionally try to understand themselves. Where the throne is a coveted toy, with which they sometimes do not know what to do, a deadly toy.

Dmitry the Pretender - Gleb Podgorodinsky and Vasily Shuisky - Boris Nevzorov in Dragunov's play not so much oppose each other as they exist in parallel, but in one situation - the thirst for the throne. The first one has already got it: The Pretender - Podgorodinsky appears to the "people" on stage and in the hall in a Monomakh hat and with other attributes of power. He is young and frisky, somewhat cunning, but more ingenuous, despite the "Jesuit" background. A kind of "young reformer", echoing enlightened Europe only because the dresses there are more comfortable, the customs are freer and the music is not so mournful. Ready, due to his youth, to throw everything at the feet of the adored Marina Mnishek (Elena Kharitonova), whose power appetites are growing hour by hour. However, this Pretender is no stranger to nobility and youthful romanticism in the desire to "know oneself", unravel the mysteries of the dark past and understand one's own destiny. But in his virtuoso game with the imaginary mother, Queen Martha (Tatyana Lebedeva), one can already clearly feel not only the desire, but also the ability to go to the goal in any way.

Shuisky - Nevzorov, in terms of strength of mind and experience in power intrigues, is no match for young Dmitry. Despite the boyar dignity, this Vasily Ivanovich is a strong Russian peasant, with a deceptively democratic simplicity, but able to calculate everything a hundred moves ahead. However, a certain glorification of the next Russian autocrat nevertheless happened here, although there is not a hint of operatic stiltedness in Nevzorov's acting. But all these beautifully decorated with light differences and a solemn musical "atmosphere" (composer Grigory Gobernik) of his monologues in the hall do their job. And this staged publicity of internal monologues, perhaps, gives them a tinge of declarativeness - not in the manner of performance, but in the form of presentation. Although Shuisky - Nevzorov remains so sincere and temperamental that the audience, already reverently listening to what is happening throughout the performance, immediately bursts into applause.

The audience of Maly generally surprises in a good way with its spontaneous "selection" and understanding of where and what it is going to. With his attention and respect for what is happening on stage. This, judging by the contrast with many other performances on other stages, the Maly Theater, despite all the ups and downs of the times and the change of stage styles, stubbornly retains its serious traditionalism and does not need any justification. Although this full contact with your viewer can serve as such an excuse. Well, someone must eventually maintain stability in an unstable world. It may not be to everyone's taste, but to each his own. In addition, in the Maly, actors, especially of the older generation, already involuntarily stray into an ensemble, where each one solos (Boris Klyuev - Golitsyn, Vladimir Safronov - Tatishchev, Vladimir Bogen - Basmanov, Vladimir Nosik - Mstislavsky, and others), and the general melody of the themes most only asserts.

The end of Shuisky's sovereign ambitions is predetermined by history, Ostrovsky, and the director. Despite the appearance of a "kind" and "wise" king, justified in every possible way by the artist, in this situation he is one of the many throne holders, whose age is short and inglorious. The director releases Shuisky-Nevzorov onto an empty and bare stage, only illuminated by bloody reflections, and seems to be ready to give him the floor again. But Shuisky is doomedly silent in this eerie emptiness. And this silence is much more eloquent than many fiery monologues.

Results, March 12, 2007

Elena Sizenko

Hats off!

The Maly Theater turned to the chronicles of Alexander Ostrovsky

I am sure that many viewers went to the premiere of Ostrovsky's dramatic chronicle "Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky" not without fear: again these boyar hats and bows, caftans and false beards, which are obligatory in a historical performance. In a word, live pictures, mummers. And then there's white, as if "epic" verse. The director of the play, Vladimir Dragunov, seems to have foreseen these disturbing forebodings and tried his best to overcome the established "decorative" canon. He relied on underlined asceticism, dryish graphics. The events of the Time of Troubles of 1605-1606, the invasion of foreigners, the confrontation between the Pretender and Shuisky, the fierce struggle for power of different boyar parties - all this unfolds on an empty stage board with a dim, oscillating candle flame against the background of monochrome lifting curtains, reminiscent of burnt drawings-drawings of cathedrals, Kremlin chambers (artist Larisa Lomakina). Yes, and in costumes, historicism is very conditional. Not to mention the fact that luxurious glued beards, as well as wigs and all kinds of thickness, were given a well-deserved resignation here. The director is passionate about something else. And he tries to captivate the viewer either with the study of the then sophisticated political technologies, or with a completely ideological dispute. About what? About the past and future of the country, about "Westernism" and "Slavophilism". It turns out? Sometimes yes. And then the audience, surprised by the relevance of what is happening, reacts vividly to the remarks, as if taken from yesterday's newspaper. We are talking about imposture - a very typical Russian phenomenon, and also about the fault of the boyars before the people, about the export of the Russian treasury by strangers abroad. In general, the fingers are not enough to bend. But the main thing is, of course, thinking about the essence of Russian statehood, about the sad cyclicity in its development, when a fall into chaos is inevitably replaced by the emergence of a new tyrant, and so on ad infinitum. Pushkin's idea in essence.

Curious, you say, but how is it staged? Not in the form of a real dispute? Of course not. At the best moments, the outlines of an even if not outstanding, but serious dramatic performance appear, sincere in its desire to reach the foundation, to the roots of what has been happening to us for many centuries. Another thing is that it could not have done without posterity and a template. But I want to blame not only the director, but also the play, which, frankly, is not the most successful in the classic. (It is not for nothing that she has not been disturbed in the theater for more than a hundred years.) Actors have to heroically overcome the schematism of characters and situations. Someone pierces at the very first phrase and then begins to habitually grab onto clichés: breaking a hat in his hands like a servile, tearing a shirt on his chest or, like Marina Mnishek (Elena Kharitonova), portray high-society arrogance. And someone manages to get off the voice and other "cothurn". This is especially true for Gleb Podgorodinsky. One wants to peer into his Pretender, he is so accurate, modern in intonations, in every gesture. Charming, uncommon and, what is most interesting in the interpretation of the actor, clearly wishes the best for Russia. But Boris Nevzorov (Vasily Shuisky), apparently, still does not understand everything in the role. And that is why it is tempting to present our statesman as simply a thick-set, epic "hope-sovereign" ... In a word, an amazing thing, but sometimes it is much easier for us to play some Shakespearean chronicle than our own, dear. Maybe a little more distance is needed?

Popular in category: