The main characters of Boris Godunov's tragedy. "Boris Godunov": heroes (Boris Godunov, Pretender and others)

In the tragedy "Boris Godunov" there are about 60 characters. Many of them appear on stage only for a moment and disappear. Nevertheless, they are needed in the work, as they create a living, multi-colored, exciting background of the era. Special attention among minor characters The tragedies are stopped by Prince Vasily Shuisky and Marina Mnishek.

Vasily Shuisky- an extremely characteristic figure of that time. This is the center around which the restless, dissatisfied, ambitious elite of the boyars are grouped: Prince Vorotynsky, Afanasy Pushkin, the Miloslavskys, Buturlins, Saltykovs and others. A representative of one of the most ancient princely families of Russia, a descendant of Rurik, Shuisky does not want to come to terms with the fact that the Russian throne is going to not to him, but to Godunov:

What an honor for us, for all of Rus'!

Yesterday's slave, Tatar, Malyuta's son-in-law,

The executioner's son-in-law is an executioner himself at heart,

He will take the crown and berms of Monomakh... -

He complains sarcastically and angrily to Vorotynsky. In the same conversation, Shuisky outlines the tactics of fighting Godunov:

When Boris doesn't stop being cunning,

Let's skillfully excite people...

Shuisky's element is intrigue. When Godunov took the throne, Shuisky plays a double game: in the presence of the tsar he is servile and flattering, and in the circle of secret like-minded people he is preparing a conspiracy. “A crafty courtier,” Vorotynsky characterizes him, and “Evasive, but brave and crafty,” Boris says about him. From history we know that Shuisky, skillfully understanding the mood of the boyars and the people, achieved his goal: after the death of the Pretender, he became king and reigned for four years (1606-1610).

The image of the proud beauty Marina Mnishek appears in only two scenes of the tragedy, but nevertheless leaves a vivid impression. In the scene at the fountain, the Impostor, entangled in the nets of a cunning beauty, reveals his secret to her and begs for love. But Marina does not love the Pretender, but her dream of the Moscow throne. She coldly interrupts the lover, laughs at him, threatens him and arrogantly declares that she will give her love only to the Tsar of Moscow. Further fate Marina goes beyond the time frame outlined by the tragedy. It should be noted that this fate fully corresponded to the image drawn by Pushkin. Marina managed to fulfill her ambitious plan and after the Pretender ascended the throne, she became the queen of Moscow. But False Dmitry I soon died. Marina, returning from a short-term exile, became the wife of False Demetrius). This impostor also died soon. Marina, obsessed with one dream - to reign, gave herself into the hands of the Cossack ataman Zarutsky, who promised the throne to her and her little son from False Dmitry II. “Zarutsky was captured in 1616 and executed; Marina and her little son also died. Pushkin, in one of his letters, characterized Marina as follows: “Of course, she was the strangest of all pretty women; She had only one passion - ambition, but it was so strong and furious that it’s hard to imagine.”

BORIS GODUNOV - central character historical drama (“people's tragedy”), which is based on the events described in the 10th and 11th volumes of “History of the Russian State” by N. M. Karamzin. The tragedy is dedicated to his “precious memory for Russians.” Not accepting much in Karamzin’s views, 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. Troubles are retribution for his sins. Boris Godunov and False Dmitry are connected in the 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 to the majestic St. Petersburg period of Russian history - all these topics have an indirect moral and political relationship to the modern times of the 1820s.

Already in the 1st scene (“Kremlin Chambers”), preceding the election of Boris Godunov, boyar Shuisky, who was investigating 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, secluded with his sister, the monastic Queen Irina, because “the blood of an innocent baby / prevents him from stepping onto the throne.” However, both agree that “Yesterday’s slave, Tatar, son-in-law of Malyuta, / and an executioner himself at heart,” much less noble than them, will still be the king of Moscow: the times have come when courage has become more important than nobility and power goes to the one who fights most decisively for it. The 3rd (“Maiden’s 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 direction of the boyars, elevate Boris Godunov to the throne. The boyars and the patriarch reverently (and partly slyly) listen to the speech of the new sovereign. The character of Boris Godunov is not revealed; all this is just an exposition revealing the origins of the global historical plot(the murder of the prince is the moral defeat of the “winner” in the struggle for the royal vacancy - the appearance of an impostor). The actual stage intrigue will begin later - in the scene of the “Chamber of the Patriarch”, when the reader (viewer) learns about the escape of the impostor monk Grigory Otrepyev from the monastery.

Starting from scene 7 (“The Royal Chambers”), Boris comes to the fore. The king, from whom the sorcerer has just left (which indicates the ruler’s lack of confidence in his abilities), pronounces a confessional monologue: he has been reigning for the sixth year (the same number of years have passed between the death of Demetrius and the accession of Boris; chronological symmetry is indicative); the reign 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 it must be supported by internal rightness:

And everything feels nauseous and my head is spinning,

And the boys have bloody eyes...

And I’m glad to run, but there’s nowhere... terrible!

Yes, pitiful is the one whose conscience is unclean.

The ground is leaving from under Boris Godunov’s feet - he feels it, although he still knows nothing about the “resurrection” of Demetrius (the Patriarch did not dare to notify the sovereign about Gregory’s flight).

Terrible news overtakes Godunov in scene 10 (also called “The Royal Chambers”); The cunning Shuisky hastens to tell it, with whom the Moscow boyar Pushkin the day before shared the news received from the Krakow nephew of Gavrila Pushkin. (In passing, the author of the tragedy put into the mouth of Pushkin’s ancestor the thoughts of the author of the tragedy about the ruin of the ancient boyar families - including the “Romanovs, the Fatherland of Hope” - as the political cause of the Time of Troubles. This reasoning changes all the “semantic proportions” of the tragedy, where the example of Shuisky shows the loss of dignity of the ancient boyars, and in the example of Basmanov - the resourceful meanness of the new boyars.) Shocked Boris is at a loss: what is the “legitimacy” of a government elected popularly and approved by the church, if the dead have the “right” to come out of the grave to interrogate the kings? Political consequences are generated by moral causes; False Demetrius is capable of instilling dangerous ideas in the crowd and leading them behind him; the shadow is ready to tear off the king’s purple: “So that’s why for thirteen years in a row / I kept dreaming about the murdered child!”

Scene 15 (“The Tsar’s Duma”) serves as the culmination of Godun’s plot line. The troops of False Dmitry are moving towards Moscow; Having sent Trubetskoy and Basmanov to war, Godunov holds advice with those close to him: how to stop the Troubles? The Patriarch, whom Pushkin (contrary to the historical prototype - Job) portrays as a stupid, good-natured simpleton, unaware of the background of the events, offers a moral way out of the current circumstances: to transfer the miraculous relics of Tsarevich Dimitri 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 immediate “mystical proximity” to his victim. This means that he is doomed in the fight against the Impostor whom he gave birth to. Realizing this, the resourceful Shuisky rejects the arguments of the simple-minded Patriarch (“Will they say that we are boldly / In worldly affairs creating a sacred thing with an instrument?”) and announces that he himself (instead of the holy relics!) will appear in the people’s square and discover “the evil deception of the vagabond” . The situation is tragicomic; and Godunov (who, during the patriarchal speech, covers his face with a handkerchief in horror) throughout the scene turns from an evilly majestic, tragic figure into a semi-comic figure. He is “pathetic” - because his “conscience is unclean.” He is no longer a ruler, as he depends on circumstances.

After this, Boris has only one thing left to do - die. Which is what he does in the 20th scene (“Moscow. The Royal Chambers”), having managed to promise Basmanov that after defeating the Pretender he will burn the “Rank 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 the books are discharged

With strife, with pride of lineage

Will be consumed by fire.

This day is not far off;

Just let the people's confusion first

I need to 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 lips 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 to blame for the death of Demetrius - and for that he will answer to God; but the election itself was legal, therefore, the innocent heir to the throne Fedor will rule “by right.” The same thought in the finale will be repeated by the “man of the people” (“The father was a villain, but the children were innocent”); but in vain: the children of one “false king,” Fyodor and Ksenia, 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 - perpetrators, accomplices, participants, witnesses, victims. The role of innocent victims is, naturally, played by the king's children. The chronicler Pimen, the Holy Fool, people from the people in the scenes “The Square in front of the Cathedral in Moscow” and “The Kremlin. Borisov's house. The guards at the porch" do not participate in historical evil, but testify to it - denouncing it (like the Holy Fool), discussing it (like people from the crowd) or passing on the news about it to posterity (like Pimen). The stupid Patriarch, the mercenary commanders of the Russian troops Margeret and V. Rosen, the captive of False Dmitry “Moscow nobleman” Rozhnov, the son of Prince Kurbsky and others minor characters from different camps directly participate in history, but are not responsible for its bloody break, because they do not have personal intent. People from the crowd who indifferently elect the Tsar (scene “Maiden’s Field. Novodevichy Convent”) and willingly run to “drown” the innocent “Boris’s puppies” (scene “The Kremlin. House of Boris”); the Polish nobility in the person of Marina Mnishek, her father and Vishnevetsky, the Jesuits in the person of pater Chernikovsky; the deceitful Russian boyars know what they are doing, which means they are complicit in the tragedy of Rus'. Their guilt is different; the author’s attitude towards them is ambiguous (towards Grigory Pushkin rather sympathetic, extremely hostile towards Shuisky).

The attitude towards the two main characters, who act in the story from the first person, and therefore bear full responsibility for everything that happens, is also ambiguous. Pushkin gives False Dmitry the opportunity to show himself from different sides, because in some ways he likes him. Boris Godunov is monumentally monotonous and motionless; he seemed numb from the horror of his situation, fed up with the bitterness of power, and from scene to scene, from monologue to monologue, he varied the same set of themes. His ethical connection with all the characters, with all the events depicted in the drama (not excluding those that occur after his “physical” death), is undoubted; its plot connection with them is not always obvious.

Here Pushkin sharply diverges from the genre tradition of Russian political tragedy: he places at the center neither an anti-state villain (cf. “Dimitri the Pretender” by A.P. Sumarokov) nor a state hero. But it is precisely the villain - the state one. This was impossible 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 outlined 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 greater volume - and less theatricality.

Pushkin also diverges from tradition in that he does not strive for direct political allusions, preferring historical authenticity to topicality. (Although it is impossible to avoid anachronisms in the image of Boris Godunov, so, reflecting on the thirst for power, the ruler of the 16th century switches to the language of Russian lyric poetry of the 19th century:

Isn't it

We fall in love and hunger from a young age

The joys of love, but only to quench

Heartfelt pleasure of instant possession,

Are we already growing cold, bored and languishing?..

Wed. in Pushkin’s letter to Chaadaev - “We wait with languorous hope / for the moment of holy freedom, / as a young lover waits / for the minutes of their first date...”) And yet there is a parallel between the “lawful-lawless” accession of Boris Godunov and the bloody accession of Alexander I after the murder Paul I arose by itself; the trial of Godunov - following Karamzin - is carried out not so much from the position of folk-religious (the true tsar is destined for the kingdom from eternity; he can be replaced - no matter on the basis of the law or not; then any person who has proven his “pre-election” can be a contender for the throne "and hereditary right to power), as much in terms of its legitimacy. Meanwhile, the philosophy of legitimate government (the principle of heredity enshrined in law) was developed precisely in the Alexander era, during the post-war congresses.

Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin

"Boris Godunov"

February 20, 1598 It has already been a month since Boris Godunov shut himself up with his sister in a monastery, leaving “everything worldly” and refusing to accept the Moscow throne. The people explain Godunov’s refusal to be crowned king in the spirit necessary for Boris: “He is afraid of the radiance of the throne.” Godunov’s game is perfectly understood by the “crafty courtier” boyar Shuisky, shrewdly guessing further development events:

The people will still howl and cry,
Boris will wince a little more,<…>
And finally, by my grace
He will humbly agree to accept the crown...

Otherwise, “the blood of the baby prince was shed in vain,” for whose death Shuisky directly blames Boris.

Events are developing as Shuisky predicted. The people, “like waves, next to each other,” fall to their knees and with “howling” and “crying” beg Boris to become king. Boris hesitates, then, interrupting his monastic seclusion, accepts “the Great Power (as he says in his speech from the throne) with fear and humility.”

Four years have passed. Night. In the cell of the Chudov Monastery, Father Pimen is preparing to complete the chronicle with the “last legend.” The young monk Gregory, who was sleeping right there in Pimen’s cell, awakens. He complains about the monastic life that he has had to lead since adolescence, and envies Pimen’s cheerful “youth”:

You reflected the army of Lithuania under Shuisky,
You have seen the court and luxury of John!
Happy!

Exhorting the young monk (“I lived a long time and enjoyed a lot; / But from that time on I only know bliss, / How the Lord brought me to the monastery”), Pimen cites the example of kings John and Theodore, who sought peace “in the likeness of monastic labors.” Gregory asks Pimen about the death of Demetrius the Tsarevich, the same age as the young monk - at that time Pimen was on obedience in Uglich, where God brought him to see the “evil deed”, “bloody sin”. The old man perceives the election of a regicide to the throne as a “terrible, unprecedented grief.” “With this sad story” he is going to complete his chronicle and transfer its further management to Gregory.

Gregory flees the monastery, declaring that he will be “tsar in Moscow.” The abbot of the Chudov Monastery reports this to the patriarch.

The Patriarch gives the order to catch the fugitive and exile him to the Solovetsky Monastery for eternal settlement.

Royal chambers. The king enters after a “favorite conversation” with the sorcerer. He's gloomy. For the sixth year he reigned “calmly,” but possessing the Moscow throne did not make him happy. But Godunov’s thoughts and deeds were lofty:

I thought my people
In contentment, in glory to calm,<…>
I opened the granaries for them, I am gold
Scattered them<…>
I built them new homes...

The stronger the disappointment that befell him: “Neither power nor life amuses me<…>“I’m not happy.” And yet, the source of the tsar’s severe mental crisis lies not only in his awareness of the futility of all his labors, but also in the torment of a bad conscience (“Yes, pitiful is the one whose conscience is bad”).

Tavern on the Lithuanian border. Grigory Otrepyev, dressed in a secular dress, sits at a table with the black tramps Misail and Varlam. He finds out from the hostess the way to Lithuania. The bailiffs enter. They are looking for Otrepyev, in their hands they have the royal decree with its signs. Gregory volunteers to read the decree and, reading it, replaces his signs with Misail’s signs. When the deception is revealed, he deftly escapes the hands of the confused guards.

House of Vasily Shuisky. Among Shuisky's guests is Afanasy Pushkin. He has news from Krakow from Gavrila Pushkin’s nephew, which he shares with the owner after the guests leave: Dimitri, “a sovereign youth, killed by Boris’s mania…” appeared at the court of the Polish king. Dimitri is “smart, friendly, dexterous, everyone likes him,” the king brought him closer to him and, “they say, he promised to help.” For Shuisky, this news is “important news! and if She reaches the people, then there will be a great thunderstorm.”

Royal chambers. Boris learns from Shuisky about the impostor who appeared in Krakow, and “that the king and the lords are for him.” Hearing that the impostor is impersonating Tsarevich Dimitri, Godunov begins to excitedly question Shuisky, who investigated this case in Uglich thirteen years ago. Calming Boris, Shuisky confirms that he saw the murdered prince, but among other things mentions the incorruptibility of his body - for three days the corpse of Dimitri Shuisky “visited the cathedral<…>, But the prince’s childish face was clear, / And fresh, and quiet, as if lulled to sleep.”

Krakow. In the house of Vishnevetsky, Grigory (now he is the Pretender) seduces his future supporters, promising each of them what he expects from the Pretender: the Jesuit Chernikovsky promises to subjugate Rus' to the Vatican, promises freedom to the fugitive Cossacks, and retribution to the disgraced servants of Boris.

In the castle of Voivode Mnishka in Sambir, where the Pretender stays for three days, he ends up “in the net” of his lovely daughter Marina. Having fallen in love, he confesses to her that he is an impostor, since he does not want to “share his mistress with a dead man.” But Marina does not need the love of a fugitive monk; all her thoughts are directed towards the Moscow throne. Appreciating the “impudent deception” of the Impostor, she insults him until his self-esteem awakens and he gives her a proud rebuke, calling himself Dimitri.

October 16, 1604. The impostor with his regiments approaches the Lithuanian border. He is tormented by the thought that he “called his enemies to Rus',” but immediately finds an excuse for himself: “But let my sin fall not on me, but on you, Boris the regicide!”

At a meeting of the Tsar's Duma, it is discussed that the Pretender has already laid siege to Chernigov. The Tsar gives Shchelkalov the order to send “decrees to the governors everywhere” so that “people<…>they were sent to the service.” But the most dangerous thing is that the rumor about the Pretender caused “anxiety and doubt”, “a rebellious whisper is wandering in the squares.” Shuisky personally volunteers to calm the people by revealing the “evil deception of the tramp.”

On December 21, 1604, the army of the Pretender defeated the Russian army near Novgorod-Seversky.

The square in front of the cathedral in Moscow. The mass in the cathedral has just ended, where anathema to Gregory was proclaimed, and now they are singing “ eternal memory"To Tsarevich Dimitri. There is a crowd of people in the square, the holy fool Nikolka is sitting near the cathedral. The boys tease him and take away his money. The king comes out of the cathedral. Nikolka turns to him with the words: “Little children offend Nikolka.<…>Order them to be slaughtered, just as you stabbed the little prince.” And then, in response to the king’s request to pray for him, he throws after him: “No, no! You can’t pray for King Herod—the Mother of God doesn’t command.”

At Sevsk, the army of False Dmitry was “completely” defeated, but the catastrophic defeat by no means plunges the Pretender into despair. “Providence, of course, protects him,” sums up the Pretender’s comrade-in-arms Gavrila Pushkin.

But this victory of the Russian troops is “vain.” “He again gathered the scattered army,” Boris tells Basmanov, “And he threatens us from the walls of Putivl.” Dissatisfied with the boyars, Boris wants to appoint the unborn, but intelligent and talented Basmanov as governor. But a few minutes after the conversation with Basmanov, the tsar “fell ill,” “He was sitting on the throne and suddenly fell - / Blood gushed from his lips and ears.”

The dying Boris asks him to be left alone with the prince. Fervently loving his son and blessing him to reign, Boris strives to take full responsibility for his deeds: “You will now reign by right. I, I alone will answer to God for everything...”

After the king’s parting words to his son, the patriarch, boyars, queen and princess enter. Godunov takes an oath of the cross from Basmanov and the boyars to serve Theodore “with zeal and truth,” after which the rite of tonsure is performed on the dying man.

Bid. Basmanov, highly exalted by Theodore (he “commands the army”), talks with Gavrila Pushkin. He offers Basmanov, on behalf of Dimitri, “friendship” and “the first rank according to him in the Muscovite kingdom” if the governor sets “a prudent example of proclaiming Dimitri king.” The thought of possible betrayal terrifies Basmanov, and yet he begins to hesitate after Pushkin’s words: “But do you know why we are strong, Basmanov? Not by army, no, not by Polish help, but by opinion; Yes! popular opinion."

Moscow. Pushkin on Execution Place addresses the “Moscow citizens” from Tsarevich Dimitri, to whom “Russia submitted,” and “Basmanov himself, with diligent repentance, swore his regiments to him.” He calls on the people to kiss the cross to the “rightful ruler” and to beat the “forehead to the father and sovereign.” After him, a man rises to the pulpit, throwing a cry into the crowd: “People, people! to the Kremlin! to the royal chambers! / Go! knit Borisov's puppy! The people, supporting the cry, “rush in a crowd” with the words: “Knit! Stoke! Long live Dimitri! / Let the family of Boris Godunov perish!”

Kremlin. Boris's house is taken into custody. At the window are Boris's children - Feodor and Ksenia. Remarks are heard from the crowd that show pity for the king’s children: “poor children, like birds in a cage,” “the father was a villain, but the children are innocent.” The stronger the moral shock of people when, after noise, a fight, and a woman’s squealing in the house, boyar Mosalsky appears on the porch with the message: “People! Maria Godunova and her son Theodore poisoned themselves. We saw their dead bodies. (The people are silent in horror.) Why are you silent? shout: long live Tsar Dimitri Ivanovich! The people are silent."

February 20, 1598 A month has passed since Boris Godunov locked himself in the monastery. He decided to leave worldly life. The blood of the baby prince was shed in vain, for whose death Shuisky blames Boris. Four years have passed. Night in the cell of the Chudov Monastery, Father Pimen completes his chronicle. Right there in the cell, young Gregory complains about the monastic life, envying have a fun life Pimena.

Pimen lived a long time and enjoyed much at court. He saw the luxury of John, but felt bliss while in the monastery. Gregory is interested in the death of Dmitry the Tsarevich, the same age as the young Monk, where he witnesses the bloody massacre of the Tsarevich. Gregory flees the monastery, announcing that he will be king in Moscow. For six years the king reigns calmly on the throne, but possessing the royal throne does not make him happy. The source of his crisis lies in his awareness of the futility of all his labors and the torments of his bad conscience.

There are guests in the house of Vasily Shuisky, among whom is Afanasy Pushkin. From Gavrila Pushkin's nephew, he learns that Demetrius the Youth appears at the court of the Polish king. He is smart, dexterous, close to the king and is waiting for help.

In Vishnevetsky’s house, Gregory promises the Jesuit to subordinate Rus' to the Vatican, because he promises freedom to the fugitive Cossacks, and retribution to Boris’s servants. Gregory, while in Mnishka Castle, falls in love with Marina, but she does not want the love of a fugitive monk, she aims for the throne of Moscow. On October 16, 1604, an impostor with regiments approaches Lithuanian Mountain. And in the royal Duma there was a rumor that he had laid siege to Chernigov. On the square in front of the Cathedral in Moscow they sing “eternal memory” to Tsarevich Dimitri. Dissatisfied with the boyars, Boris appoints the smart and talented Basmanov as governor, but Boris falls and dies, he asks for his son and blesses him to reign.

Moscow. Pushkin, at the place of execution, addresses the Moscow citizens from Tsarevich Dimitri, calling on the people to beat their foreheads to their father and sovereign. But the people are against Boris, and his house is taken into custody. After noise and a fight, boyar Mosalsky appears on the porch with the message that Maria Godunova and her son Fyodor poisoned themselves. The people are silent and speechless.

Essays

Introduction

Interest in drama and the desire for dramatic creativity did not leave Pushkin throughout his life. Pushkin attached special importance to work in the field of drama, understanding the need to transform the entire Russian dramatic and theatrical system. “The spirit of the century,” he wrote, “demands important changes on the dramatic stage.” Pushkin regarded his first completed tragedy, “Boris Godunov,” as a step of exceptional importance in this direction.

"Boris Godunov" is the highest peak of Russian historical realistic drama.

The socio-historical and socio-philosophical realistic tragedy created by Pushkin was a new phenomenon not only in Russian, but also in world drama. It differed from the tragedy of classicism, and from Shakespearean tragedy, and from the Western European historical-romantic drama of Schiller and Hugo.

The purpose of this work is to analyze Pushkin’s work “Boris Godunov” as a historical drama. To do this, it is necessary to solve the following problems:

· find out how Karamzin and Pushkin evaluate the events of the 17th century;

· characterize the images of Boris Godunov, the Pretender, Pimen;

· consider the problems raised by Pushkin in the tragedy.

Based on the principles of strict realism, Pushkin's tragedy is dramatic work huge life truth. Not only all the characters in the tragedy are life-like, but also the historical situations on which it is based.

1. History of the creation of the work

Russian reality of the early 20s, characterized by the rapid growth of anti-serfdom sentiments among the broad masses and the developed movement of noble revolutionaries, could not but have a strong influence on the ideological and artistic development Pushkin. Pushkin thought a lot about the nature of broad popular movements in the past and about the images of their leaders. At the beginning of November 1824, Pushkin asks his brother to send him “The Life of Emelka Pugachev.” In one of the following letters a new instruction is given to him: “Ah! oh my god, I almost forgot! Here’s your task: historical, dry news about Stenka Razin, the only poetic face of Russian history.”

This is the ground on which the prerequisites arise for the idea of ​​a work about the role of the people in Russian history.

The next X and XI volumes of N.M. Karamzin’s “History of the Russian State”, published in 1824, contained a narrative about the era of “many rebellions” and provided quite diverse and meaningful factual material, which determined Pushkin’s decision to dwell on the topic “of real trouble.” To the Moscow State, about Tsar Boris and Grishka Otrepiev.”

In a large notebook bound in black leather, brought by Pushkin to Mikhailovskoye from Odessa, among the entries of the end of 1824, historical notes, preceding the draft text of the tragedy.

The work begins with taking notes on individual passages in Volume X of the “History of the Russian State.” The position of the entries in the book allows us to attribute them to the middle - second half of November 1824.

Pushkin took notes not in the reading sequence, but guided by some of his own considerations, sometimes returning from the middle of the volume to its beginning - and back. In the notes that have reached us, Pushkin outlined individual passages in volume X only in the part that ends with the election of Godunov to the kingdom and has no direct relation to the content of the tragedy.

The peculiarity of the nature of Pushkin’s work on “Boris Godunov” was that individual scenes were created by directly following the source, others required almost research techniques for extracting and combining heterogeneous historical material, and still others, finally, were not based on the data of the source, but were entirely dependent only from poetic inspiration. Pushkin wrote to N.N. Raevsky in July 1825: “I write and reflect. Most of the scenes only require reasoning; when I come to a scene that requires inspiration, I wait for it or skip this scene - this way of working is completely new to me.”

The drafts of “Boris Godunov” are highly indicative in this regard. Those places where Pushkin created the dialogue on ample material were easy for him and contain the least number of amendments and variations. These include: the beginning of scene I, sketches of scenes II, III and IV.

The picture changes when Pushkin begins, for example, the fifth scene, which has no direct correspondence in the text of Karamzin’s History. These are the most complex pages of the manuscript, with many amendments and variations. The text is repeatedly interrupted by fragments and sketches of other works - stanzas of “Eugene Onegin”, drafts of unfinished poems, confirming the words of Pushkin: “... when I reach a scene that requires inspiration, I wait for it or skip this scene.”

It was the last scene that came down to us in the draft (the fifth) that required the greatest creative effort. On the back of page 52, Pushkin returns to the tragedy and begins work on the monologue of the awakening Gregory. Unlike the final text in the draft, Gregory’s monologue immediately begins with a story about a dream, and then his thoughts about Pimen follow. Working on the monologue required a lot of creative effort and, breaking the text at the line: “And all night he did not close his eyes!”, Pushkin again turns to “Eugene Onegin.” The texts of “Eugene Onegin” are then replaced by rough sketches related to the unrealized plan for Faust, a draft of the poem “I witnessed your golden spring...”, and only from the middle of page 55 Pushkin returns to the interrupted work: “How I love his calm face...” . Work on the fifth scene ends at the end of sheet 56. Having not finished it, Pushkin moves on to other notes. He returns to work on the tragedy on sheets that have not reached us.

After a firmly established date - January 1825, when Pushkin was still working on the fifth scene, until mid-July of the same year - we do not have reliable evidence about the progress of the poet’s work on the tragedy. And only on July 13, 1825, Pushkin notified Vyazemsky.

The completion time of work on “Boris Godunov” can only be approximately determined. The famous letter from Pushkin to Vyazemsky about the completion of work on the tragedy supposedly dates back to the beginning of October or the beginning of November 1825.

The end of the correspondence of the tragedy is clearly established by the date of the white autograph - November 7, 1825.

In the white list of the tragedy, Pushkin abandoned the original archaic title, significantly shortening it:

"Comedy

Tsar Boris and Grishka Otrepiev

Rewriting the tragedy in white, Pushkin made amendments to the whitewashed text. Often these corrections were quite numerous and gave individual pages of the whitelist a semi-drafted appearance.

Having completed the correspondence in November 1825, Pushkin continued to make new amendments to the text of the tragedy from time to time until his departure to Moscow in September 1826.

The dramatic principles that Pushkin approached during the period of work on the tragedy led him to the need to practically resolve the most complex issues of both the construction of the tragedy itself and the interpretation and embodiment of stage images and characters.

In an effort to give the Russian theater new forms, different from the canons of the old classical tragedy, Pushkin abandoned the original intention to divide the tragedy into acts and divided the entire action into 25 small scenes. The unity of the place is completely destroyed. The action of the tragedy moves with kaleidoscopic speed from one geographical point to another.

The unity of time is also completely violated, and the dates - the subtitles of individual scenes seem to further emphasize this bold innovation.

“Barely preserved,” as Pushkin put it, and the unity of action, providing for the development of action around one plot core of the play, with one central character her. In Pushkin's tragedy, there are essentially two main characters - Boris and the Pretender, and the latter is given nine scenes of the tragedy, while the title character appears in only six.

Another “unity” has also been destroyed, which, according to Pushkin, “French criticism does not even mention - the unity of the syllable”: Pushkin replaces the traditional Alexandrian verse with white pentameter, interrupting it with prose inserts, and writes some scenes entirely in prose.

The abundance of characters, incredible for the drama of that time, is also striking - in Pushkin’s tragedy there are about 80 of them.

Pushkin's tragedy raised the most difficult question for that time about the possibility of creating a play built not on the personal fate of the hero or heroes, but on the fate of the people, era, and state.

Pushkin resolves this most complex problem based on its most difficult version: he does not create any far-fetched plot through a deliberate selection and appropriate grouping of historical facts, but with the greatest art he outlines storyline tragedy, without even violating the chronological sequence of the recreated historical events.

2. Historical sources of “Boris Godunov”

A number of the most important problems directly related to the historical and social concept of “Boris Godunov” cannot be understood without clarifying the question of the nature of the historical material underlying Pushkin’s tragedy and Pushkin’s interpretation of this material.

In the literature about “Boris Godunov”, considerations have been repeatedly expressed that, in parallel with Karamzin’s “History of the Russian State” and Russian chronicles - the main historical sources of Pushkin’s tragedy - Pushkin to some extent relied on Tacitus’s “Annals”. Pushkin's interest in Tacitus and Pushkin's comments on the Annals coincide in time with his work on the tragedy. There is already quite an extensive literature on Pushkin’s attitude towards Tacitus.