Boris Godunov is the main character. A.S

Russia of the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th century is the main character, a kind of collective hero of Pushkin's tragedy. At the same time, Pushkin strives for historical truth in depicting each of the participants in this grandiose, moving, acting historical panorama in faces, achieving this through a close and in-depth study of historical materials, “... in the annals he tried to guess the mindset and language of that time,” he himself told about the process of his creative work, adding at the same time: - “Rich sources! Whether I knew how to use them - I don’t know - at least my labors were zealous and conscientious. In "Boris Godunov" the poet brilliantly managed to use these sources.

This is one of the main reasons for the greatest artistic merit of Pushkin's tragedy. It does not contain conventional characters dressed in historical costumes, but really “people of bygone days, their minds, their prejudices.” Instead of the pompous rhetorical, the cutesy, conditionally literary language, which is far from real lively speech, in which the characters of the tragedies of classicism spoke, Pushkin endows the characters of Boris Godunov with a deeply individualized, at the same time "common language" devoid of unnecessary external " historicity” (excessive abundance of obsolete words, expressions) and at the same time truly historical, based on a deep study of historical sources and an excellent mastery of the speech of the common people. The poet listened especially attentively to folk speech and inquisitively studied it just during the period of work on his tragedy, during the years of exile in Mikhailovsky. Along with and in parallel with the rejection of the "unity of the word", Pushkin no less decisively broke with the unity of the genre of the "classical" tragedy, which was supposed to contain only the sublime and tragic, without the slightest - "desecrating" - admixture of anything ordinary, comic.

The theorist of Russian classicism of the 18th century, the poet and playwright Sumarokov, in his Epistle on Poetry, separated tragedy and comedy from each other with an impenetrable wall, categorically forbidding to “irritate” the muse of comedy, Thalia, with tears, and Melpomene, the muse of tragedy, with laughter. In Boris Godunov, Pushkin introduces, along with scenes filled with the deepest tragedy, not only everyday scenes, but also comic, “common folk” scenes. Moreover, in separate scenes Melpomene and Thalia - solemn and funny - freely mix with each other (the scene at the Novodevichy Convent, etc.). The "decease of the world", which Sumarokov was afraid of, actually happened in Pushkin's "Boris Godunov". Instead of the aristocratic, "court" tragedy of Sumarokov, Pushkin created a dramatic work, both in ideological content and in its entire structure, deeply democratic, in his own word - "folk".

Masterfully using the means of speech characteristics, freely and widely shows Pushkin in his tragedy and human characters. In the modeling of characters, Pushkin's new method of depicting life, people, the method of artistic realism - "the poetry of reality" - is with particular force. Pushkin could in no way be satisfied with the depiction of a person, a human character in the works of classicism, even in those in which realistic tendencies were most pronounced. Living people were replaced in them by one-sided and schematic personifications of one or another "passion" - one or another individual psychological trait: stinginess, love of power, malice, or, conversely, honesty, love for the fatherland, etc.

As a result, in the tragedies of classicism, either the monsters of vice, or walking mannequins, filled with the greatest virtue, appeared before the audience. Almost to the same extent, Pushkin was not satisfied with the arbitrary-subjective, romantic method of depicting character in Byron's dramaturgy. We have something completely different in Pushkin's tragedy. So, in the face of Boris Godunov himself, we are by no means the traditional "villain" of the classical tragedy, who was written in solid black paint.

But Grishka Otrepiev "will not leave" this court either. At the very beginning of his adventure, he was already in front of Pimen's eyes - this is Pushkin's thought, embodied in the scene of the Chudov Monastery. Pimen was not only a chronicler, but also a poet of history. And in this regard, he is very similar to Pushkin: "A dramatic poet, impartial, like fate ...". "Fate" is the key word in Pushkin's "free novel" and in his dramaturgy. The plot is formed not from the old rational dilemma of love and duty, but from a real contradiction: "... the fate of man, the fate of the people."

One: What's that noise? Another:

Where only did not look for the source of this remark! Meanwhile, Karamzin says: “The voice of the fatherland was not heard in the praise of the private, greedy, and the silence of the people, serving as a reproach to the tsar, heralded an important change in the hearts of the Russians.” There is no outward proportion in the scenes of Pushkin's tragedy. For example, "Tavern on the Lithuanian border" takes up several pages of text, and the scene in the patriarch's chambers fits on one page. At the time of Pushkin, there was no stage technique that would have made such a quick change of scenery possible. To stage Boris Godunov, one would have to use the experience of London's Shakespeare's Globe Theatre, where there were no scenery at all.

Listen! what's that noise?

Traditionally, a tragedy usually had five acts. Pushkin abandoned the division into acts and composed a tragedy of twenty-three scenes. It was also a kind of "free novel".

Thus begins the tragedy. "The people are silent in horror." “Why are you silent?” Mosalsky asks with involuntary fear, but also with arrogance. - Shout: long live Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich! This is followed by the famous remark: "The people are silent" the last line of "Boris Godunov".

The tragedy "Boris Godunov" is unusual in its form. Boris Godunov, after whom the tragedy is named, was by no means the main character in it. He only appears in a few scenes and receives no more attention than the Pretender.

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

Fugitive monks Mikhail and Varlaam meet the third fugitive monk Grishka Otrepyev in a tavern on the border. This whole scene is written in prose - otherwise it could not have been written: "Here is the Lithuanian border, which you so wanted to get to." Pushkin presents his heroes as multilateral characters. In different circumstances they act differently, but everywhere they are true to themselves. From the moment Pushkin brought them to the stage, he seemed not to interfere in their actions, leaving them to themselves. And they act in obedience to the role that they have chosen for themselves "in the theater of history."

Meanwhile, Pimen is perhaps the most important character in the tragedy. “The character of Pimen is not my invention,” writes Pushkin. “In it I collected features that captivated me in our old chronicles.” Pimen does not participate in events. But he sees how “fate works”, guessing the “will of God” in the events. His chronicle does not contradict popular opinion. Grigory Otrepiev in the cell of the chronicler says, referring to the "shadow" of Boris Godunov:

• . . . Hermit in a dark cell

There are about 60 actors in the tragedy "Boris Godunov". Many of them appear on stage only for a moment and disappear. Nevertheless, they are needed in the work, as they create a lively, multicolored, exciting background of the era. Among the minor heroes of the tragedy, Prince Vasily Shuisky and Marina Mniszek pay special attention.

Vasily Shuisky- an extremely characteristic figure of that time. This is the center around which the restless, dissatisfied, ambitious elite of the boyars is grouped: Prince Vorotynsky, Afanasy Pushkin, Miloslavsky, Buturlin, Saltykov and others. not to him, but to Godunov:

What an honor for us, for all Russia!

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

The son-in-law of the executioner and the executioner himself in the soul,

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

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

When Boris won't stop cheating,

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, flattering, and in the circle of secret like-minded people he is preparing a conspiracy. “The crafty courtier,” Vorotynsky characterizes him, and “Evasive, but brave and crafty,” Boris says about him. We know from history that Shuisky, skillfully understanding the moods 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 leaves, however, a vivid impression. In the scene at the fountain, the Pretender, entangled in the nets of the cunning beauty, reveals his secret to her and begs for love. But Marina loves not the Pretender, but her dream of the Moscow throne. She coldly interrupts the lover, laughs at him, threatens and arrogantly declares that she will give her love only to the Moscow Tsar. The further fate of Marina goes beyond the time outlined by the tragedy. It should be noted that this fate fully corresponded to the image drawn by Pushkin. Marina managed to realize her ambitious plan and after the Pretender's accession to the throne, she became the Moscow queen. But False Dmitry I soon died. Marina, returning from a short-term exile, became the wife of False Dmitry). Soon this impostor also died. 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 also died with her little son. Pushkin in one of his letters described Marina as follows: “Of course, she was the strangest of all pretty women; she had only one passion - ambition, but it was so strong, furious, which is hard to imagine.

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

The image of Boris Godunov

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

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

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

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

Image of the Pretender

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

Drama Heroes

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

Generic Character Types

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

The tragedy of A.S. Pushkin "Boris Godunov" is a historical work based on real facts - the plot of the drama was the events of the Time of Troubles in Russia, and the actors were, among other things, genuine historical figures. Any essay devoted to the adventures of not fictional, but real personalities, is always considered from the point of view of compliance with historical truth, and the description of distant eras raises the question of the sources of information used by the author. Historical facts and historical personalities are usually not amenable to an unambiguous assessment, there are always several interpretations of an event or action. This is due to several factors. The contemporaries of the events in the formation of their opinion are more influenced by opportunistic considerations and their own concepts of morality, they cannot escape from the power of the prevailing institutions and adequately assess what is happening. With increasing time distance, personal interest decreases, it becomes possible to establish the correct scale of phenomena, but at the same time, unfortunately, there is a natural loss of historical facts, the advantage of "evidence" disappears, so that one has to use other people's evidence, which is possible only after careful criticism, i. e. adjusted for possible inaccuracy, subjectivity or personal considerations of the author. With regard to any period of history, there is usually a whole range of opinions, especially doubtful cases, of which either too little evidence has been preserved, or this evidence, although numerous, is contradictory, and thus there is a lot of room for conjecture and interpretation. An author who undertakes the development of a historical plot can choose from a number of concepts and assessments. What he stops at depends on which sources he prefers, since a certain point of view, from which everything that happens in the original source is considered, cannot but affect the interpretation of events in a work of art. Of no small importance is the general idea formed by the author, his initial intentions, because the selection of facts and the choice of attitude to a historical character to a large extent depend on what exactly the writer wanted to say with his work, on what problems he was going to focus his attention. Before Pushkin, when he settled on the idea of ​​a drama relating to the events of the Time of Troubles, there was a whole conglomerate of events that could not be unambiguously interpreted, traditionally evaluated differently. He had to make a choice - what point of view to accept, from what angle to consider what is happening and on what problems to focus his special attention. The author's concept of the drama "Boris Godunov" can be clarified by analyzing the images of the central characters with whom the main storylines and the main problems raised in the tragedy are connected. The drama has about 80 characters on stage, and many of them appear in only one episode. Drama is a peculiar literary phenomenon, due to which it is somewhat difficult to isolate one main character in the traditional sense of the word. Researchers have repeatedly noted that the character, whose name the play is named (and according to the canons of classicism, this is an undoubted indication of the person on whom the author's attention is focused, i.e., the main character) - Boris Godunov is not given much attention in the text - he appears in only six scenes out of the available 23. More often than Boris, only the Pretender appears on the scene, but he also has only nine episodes on his account - less than half. There is an opinion that it is generally incorrect to talk about the main character in this drama by Pushkin. Among other things, the position was expressed that the author's attention covers the fate of the entire people as a whole, without dwelling for a long time on one particular person, i.e. events develop as a result of the confluence of many efforts, desires, actions and motives, and tragedy demonstrates the historical process as a complex whole, and the people as a certain set of persons, represented, on the one hand, by individual characters, alternately brought to the fore, and on the other, as a kind of a unity whose appearance gradually grows out of the actions of its individual representatives. However, despite the absence of a single protagonist around whom the action unfolds, one cannot speak of the complete “amorphousness” of the tragedy in this regard. There is a certain “framework” in the drama, not one main character, but their system, and the main problematic of the work is connected with this system of images. The presence of several (limited number) personalities on which the main conflicts of the work rest is confirmed by the testimony of the author himself - Pushkin pointed to Boris and the Pretender as characters that attract his closest attention. In addition to these two figures, which Pushkin himself unequivocally focuses on, one more image presented in the tragedy should be noted. This is Tsarevich Dimitri, son of Ivan the Terrible, who was killed in Uglich. By the time the action of the play begins (1598), the prince, who died at the age of nine in 1591, has been lying in the grave for seven years. Personally, he cannot participate in the unfolding drama, however, so to speak, his shadow is constantly present in the play, building everything that happens in a certain perspective. It is with these three characters and their relationships that the main problems raised in the drama are connected. The line Boris Godunov - Tsarevich Dimitri is a "tragedy of conscience" and the tragedy of power obtained through crime, the line Boris - the Pretender raises the question of the true and untrue king, in the pair Dimitri-False Dmitry, the second without the first is simply unthinkable, the existence, and then the death of the little the prince is steadily leading to the tragedy on the throne of Boris Godunov and the appearance of an impostor. All three characters have their own characters, from the collision of which plot axes are formed. Pushkin outlined the characters taking into account the general concept of the drama, so that the idea came through brighter and all the problems that he wanted to highlight were touched upon. He had a choice of possible interpretations of the personalities of all three main characters and assessments of their actions, given by various sources. Thus, the assessments of the personality of Boris Godunov, cited in the sources and literature, are scattered along the entire scale from the positive to the negative pole. Based on his character, the question of his fate was usually also decided: what was it - a just retribution for a villain or an evil fate that took up arms against an innocent sufferer. The beginning of the perception of Boris as an unequivocal villain was laid back in the Time of Troubles, when Boris's successors on the throne officially accused him of all mortal sins (of many murders - in particular, in the death of the little prince Dimitri - of usurpation of power, of arson and almost not in the organization of hunger). These accusations, given in continuous text, give the impression of being more comical than convincing, but all of them individually were indeed attributed to Boris. The image of Boris as an operetta villain was quite often exploited in historical drama and in historical stories. All the failures of Boris on the throne, the people's hatred for him and his sudden death in this case were explained by a completely deserved punishment - the villain could not get any other lot, evil must always be punished. However, many of the most serious charges, after a thorough investigation, can be dropped from Boris. Having freed him from the costume of an inveterate villain, the killer of an innocent baby and the poisoner of almost the entire royal family, one can try to see a different look of Godunov - after all, there was also a purely positive assessment of his personality. In this case, they recalled the positive results of his reign: the end of the terror of Grozny, a well-thought-out foreign policy, the revival of contacts with foreigners - both cultural and commercial, - the strengthening of the southern borders, territorial acquisitions, the development of Siberia, the improvement of the capital ... During the years of natural disasters When at the beginning of the 17th century several crop failures hit the country at once, Boris made every effort to smooth out the crisis, and it was not his fault that the state at that time was simply not adapted to come out of such a test with honor. The outstanding personal qualities of Boris were also noted - his governmental talent, sharp mind of a politician, love of virtue. In this case, his fall was explained by an unfortunate combination of circumstances with which Boris did not have the strength to cope. Somewhere in the middle between the two poles - positive and negative - lies another interpretation of Boris's personality, which looks like this - Boris' state activities and his abilities as a ruler are paid tribute, but it is noted that this person is guilty of many crimes and cannot be forgiven despite having some positive qualities. The fate of Boris is interpreted as the notorious "tragedy of conscience". Such a position was held, for example, by Karamzin, saying that Boris was an example of piety, diligence, parental tenderness, but his lawlessness still inevitably made him a victim of heavenly judgment. Initially, Godunov's sins are so great that his subsequent positive behavior cannot help in any way - after the crime committed, Boris can no longer justify himself, no matter how exemplarily he behaves. Estimates of the second significant figure - the Pretender - no longer vary within the framework of "positive-negative character", but rather, the pendulum oscillates between the definitions of "complete insignificance, pawn" and "clever adventurer". The Pretender has never been positively evaluated. In principle, the impostor still remains a vague figure - there were lies around him all the time, and very little confirmed documentary information remained. Until now, it is not known with full certainty who this person was. Researchers agree, however, that the man who occupied the Russian throne for 11 months could not be the real son of Grozny, too much does not agree, first of all, in the statements of the impostor himself and in his stories about his salvation. The most common version is that under the guise of Demetrius, Yuri (in monasticism Grigory) Otrepyev, the son of a poor nobleman, a shooter centurion, sat on the Moscow throne. The fact that the Pretender was the miraculously saved Tsarevich Dmitry was believed only by ordinary people who joined his army and surrendered fortresses to him. But even among them it was not so much a faith based on knowledge as a faith backed by desire. It was absolutely not important who declared himself Dimitri - the real son of the Terrible or a person from the outside - the effect was the same. In the figure of Demetrius, regardless of who played this role, the people's dreams of a true just king were realized. Dimitri was an image and a name that any person could stand behind. The question about the Pretender is as follows - did he himself brew up all the huge intrigue or was he simply used, seduced by generous promises. The resolution of this issue is closed on the characteristics of the character of the Pretender. If it was a really strong personality of a significant scale, an independent plan to seize power could be born in his head, after which he moved towards his goal, skillfully playing on the interests of those who were able to help him. If this adventurer was by nature a complete nonentity, they could simply throw some idea at him, provoke him, and then use him in his game. The third main character - Tsarevich Dimitri, who died in Uglich at the age of nine - is presented either from a purely negative point of view, or as a little angel. The negative image of the prince is drawn by N.I. Kostomarov, giving a portrait of a little sadist who loves to watch chickens being slaughtered, hates Boris Godunov, suffers from epilepsy and, as a result, hysterical seizures, and in general clearly inherited the character of his father, Ivan the Terrible. Another option is the image of the prince as an innocently injured martyr, a meek baby, endowed with all conceivable virtues. This point of view is demonstrated by the lives of the prince, compiled both during the Time of Troubles and at a later time. The tragedy of premature death, the high hopes that were associated with the boy, the innocence and defenselessness of the deceased, his “mildness” are emphasized. Pushkin's concept, the assessment options that he eventually gave preference to, were understood and interpreted in different ways at different times. Contemporaries, almost immediately responding to the publication of "Boris Godunov", saw in the image of Boris only the tragedy of a guilty conscience. They focused on the relationship within the couple Boris - Tsarevich Dimitri, considering them the leitmotif of the drama. Such an understanding could be influenced by a very noticeable external connection of the tragedy with the “History of the Russian State” by N. M. Karamzin, where the theory of Boris the villain, punished for sins, is developed in great detail. Soviet researchers, on the other hand, completely denied the existence of a motive of a troubled conscience in the drama. They ignored the frequent mention of the name of Tsarevich Dimitri, reducing the number of main characters to two (Boris and the Pretender). The removal of the prince from the circle of the main characters completely removes the problem of guilt and forces us to look for the reasons for the fall of Boris in completely different areas and, accordingly, to interpret Pushkin's ideological concept expressed in his drama in a different way. Soviet researchers were very much influenced by ideological considerations. In the depiction of the fall of a ruler, clearly distinguished by positive qualities, they willingly saw an example of the inevitability of the collapse of any autocratic power, the law of the development of society in action. In a certain way, the mention of V.G. Belinsky about the decisive role of popular opinion in the fate of Boris and the Pretender. From Marxist positions, the masses of the people are the driving force of history, and if the people appear in the drama and, moreover, their participation determines the denouement of the fate of the main characters, then the tragedy is dedicated to demonstrating the people's influence on historical events. Analyzing the interpretation of the image of Godunov in the drama, one can be sure that the researchers read anything in it - from religious moralizing on the subject of heavenly punishment to a purely ideological anti-monarchist concept. In our opinion, despite the possible elimination of one or another person from the main characters, despite the transfer of the reader's attention from Boris and the Pretender to the people, reducing them to plot-insignificant units in some interpretations, the three-term system of plot axes Godunov - Pretender - Tsarevich Dimitri has its justification and quite fully covers the possibilities of interpreting the drama. The image of Boris Godunov in the drama is ambiguous - Pushkin did not draw him in either exclusively black or exclusively light colors. Boris in Pushkin is presented in many respects in accordance with historical realities - in the text there are a lot of references to the real personality of Boris Godunov and to the facts that reliably relate to him. Boris in the tragedy is an intelligent man, a skilled politician, a diplomat (everyone recognizes his excellent qualities in this area - Afanasy Pushkin in the episode "Moscow. Shuisky's House" speaks of the "smart head" of Tsar Boris), he is cunning enough to be able to get around all his rivals and gain a throne to which he has dubious rights. Boris is distinguished by his tender affection for his children: his greatest desire is for his children to be happy, and his greatest fear is that his sins will be forgiven for his children. Boris protects children from all evil, raising them with love and care, and hopes that he alone will be responsible for everything, and good luck will come to his children. Godunov is an outstanding personality, in which both good and bad are mixed. On the throne, he is trying with all his might to earn people's love, but all his attempts are in vain - Boris has a grave sin of murder on his conscience, and therefore his whole life is a tragedy of a restless conscience and death itself is a consequence of the fact that he cannot withstand the internal struggle . Boris came to power through a crime, and all of his, individually, such wonderful and appropriate actions, as well as positive qualities, are not able to atone for his guilt. He can be an ideal ruler, an exemplary family man, do a lot of good, but he is initially wrong, because in order to get the throne, he killed a child. Pushkin did not use the existing theory of Boris the villain, since a purebred villain cannot experience pangs of conscience and a tragedy similar to that presented in a drama is excluded for him, which would completely destroy the entire author's intention. The villain is more likely to justify himself, rather than execute mentally, as Godunov does. This is also a plot worthy of an image, but Pushkin was not interested in it. The variant of Boris, the ideal tsar, also did not fit into the general concept - Boris must be guilty, otherwise the very idea of ​​tragedy would collapse. The fact that Boris' participation in the murder of the prince is not supported by evidence, Pushkin left aside. Godunov is undoubtedly guilty of his tragedy - he himself talks about it, those around him talk about it. For this, Pushkin was reproached by Belinsky, who found that some kind of melodrama had been made out of history - the whole tragedy of Boris was tied to his very dubious, unproven crime. Belinsky considered that Pushkin overdid it in following Karamzin, who rigidly connected Boris's fall with his sins and motivated Godunov's failures solely as a punishment for the murder he had committed. In our opinion, the idea of ​​the tragedy is not limited to a demonstration of the torments of a sick conscience and is not reduced to a description of retribution for the murderer. The range of issues raised here is wider, and the personality of the character, whose name the work is named, is associated with the formulation of many problems, and is not the embodiment of only one trait. The personality of Boris Godunov collides with other central characters, and the main storylines are built inside this peculiar triangle. The elimination, belittling of any hero leads to a distortion of the entire system, to a change in emphasis and, ultimately, to a reshaping of the concept of tragedy. The line Boris - Tsarevich Dimitri, as already mentioned, embodies the tragedy of a restless conscience. The whole drama should not be reduced to this idea, but the existence of such a motive should not be completely denied either. The motive of guilt does not prevail, but is present in the work as one of the structural elements. Both the image of Boris and the image of Dimitri stand in a rigid connection with the need to develop this problem in its entirety. Boris in the drama is not a negative person, but once he took sin upon his soul in order to break through to the throne. Now he rules safely, but the shadow of the murdered boy haunts him, and since he is not a complete villain, he constantly hears the voice of a reproachful conscience. Boris loses the fight with an imaginary shadow, and then with a real person, in whom the shadow is embodied - in the confrontation with False Dmitry against Boris, there are circumstances: the discontent of the people and those close to him, but unfavorable circumstances can still yield to human will, but Boris himself gives up - he has no inner confidence in one's own rightness and sinlessness. The appearance of the prince in the play is endowed with those features that give Godunov's tragedy a special salience. Pushkin paints a portrait close to those images that are presented in hagiographic literature. The small age of the child is emphasized (he is called “baby” everywhere), his innocence and almost holiness are emphasized (the body of the child, laid after death in the church, remains incorruptible, which is an integral sign of holiness, miraculous healings at the tomb of the prince speak of the same) . It is precisely the tragedy of a man who, on his way to the throne, stepped over the corpse of an innocent baby, possesses the greatest power of persuasiveness. Deepening into the character of Dimitri, a reminder of his cruelty and bad heredity would give a slightly different shade to the whole tragedy - one thing is the murder of an innocent boy, and the other is the death of a little sadist who promises to turn into a second Ivan the Terrible in the future. Pushkin disregards the information he undoubtedly knows about the atrocities of the tsarevich (rumors of his viciousness are given in Karamzin's History of the Russian State). The tragedy gives precisely that interpretation of the image of Demetrius, which corresponds to the general plan and ensures the realization of the necessary idea in its entirety. The next axial storyline is the Boris vs. Pretender clash. In Pushkin's tragedy, the Pretender is really an impostor, Grishka Otrepiev, a "poor Chernorian" who used someone else's name, without actually being a prince, the son of Grozny. The play shows how Otrepiev came up with the idea to call himself Dimitry, i.e. there is no mystery in his appearance as a prince, not the slightest doubt - what if it is after all the surviving Dimitri? Pushkin's impostor is the creator of his own adventure. He independently thought over the idea that came to his mind without anyone's help (perhaps, by the way, that, in order not to weaken Otrepyev's merit in tying an intrigue, Pushkin removed a ready-made scene when publishing, where a certain evil blackguard throws up the idea of ​​imposture to Grigory) . He figured out where he could get help from, and cunningly took advantage of the support of the Poles, playing on their interests. He is well aware that they are trying to use him, but pretends not to notice anything, in turn hoping to fool supporters around his finger and get his way. Otrepiev is a clever diplomat. In search of help, he manages to bypass all the people he needs in such a way that they gladly provide him with everything he needs. His diplomatic talent is especially evident in the reception scene in Krakow, in Wisniewiecki's house, where he talks to a wide variety of visitors and says exactly what is appropriate at any given moment. He is resolute and courageous, as he risks such a thing as an open struggle with the reigning monarch and the seizure of the throne. His courage and willingness to take risks are demonstrated for the first time in the scene "Korchma on the Lithuanian Border", where Grigory escapes directly from the clutches of the bailiffs who are instructed to arrest him. He is capable of strong feelings, as evidenced by his love for Marina Mnishek. Under the influence of this feeling, he refuses to deceive, in which he persists in front of everyone - only Marina the Pretender admits who he really is. In Pushkin's tragedy, the Pretender is an ambiguous, but clearly extraordinary person, just like Boris Godunov. In some way, these two figures converge, so that their comparison is natural and suggests itself. Both do not have legal rights to the throne (that is, they are not noble enough and do not belong to the direct heirs of the ruling dynasty), but, nevertheless, both achieve power - only by cunning and perseverance, skillful manipulations and a subtle understanding of how to act in this moment. Pushkin deliberately emphasizes that, in essence, Godunov is the same impostor as Otrepyev, with regard to the issue of succession to the throne: Boris, although a relative of the tsar, is quite distant - Tsar Fedor was married to Godunov's sister, - and at the same time in the state there are many families much more well-born than the Godunovs. On the way to the throne, both stop at nothing - neither before hypocrisy, nor before outright crime. Pushkin specifically emphasizes that False Dmitry is guilty of the same thing as Boris - by order of Boris, the legal heir to the throne, the young Dimitry, is eliminated, while the supporters of the Pretender kill the young son of Godunov, who should inherit his father. And False Dmitry is also waiting for a bleak end - the fall of Godunov is shown in the drama, the fall of the Pretender is taken out of brackets, but it is read in Grigory's prophetic dream, in the final scene of the silence of the crowd. Godunov's intentional approach to the figure, seemingly infinitely distant from him, gives additional shades to the image of Boris. Despite some "equality" of the characters, the clash between the Pretender and Godunov does not have the character of a personal struggle between two rivals. If it were only a fight between two contenders for the throne, the one with the advantage of strength would win - Godunov, who has at his disposal the troops and resources of the whole state. But there is more to this conflict. Researchers tried to interpret this "greater" either as God's punishment, or as the realization of the historical inevitability of the fall of any monarch. What is actually presented in Pushkin's tragedy? An impostor for Boris is not just a rebel who has swung his hand at the throne: Boris would have been able to deal with the rebel by defeating his small troops or sending hired killers to the camp of the enemy. The whole point is in the name that Otrepyev hides behind. In this confrontation, Boris does not have inner confidence in his rightness, because the mere name of Dimitri, as if rising from the grave, terrifies him, an impossible, unthinkable situation arises for him - the long-dead prince suddenly showed up and starts a war. Otherwise, it is difficult to perceive this as retribution from above. Godunov's internal hesitation, caused by pangs of conscience, does not allow him to act decisively and turn the tide of events in his favor. This is superimposed on a general unfavorable situation for Boris - the dislike of the people for him, the intrigues of the environment. The reasons for the defeat of Boris in the fight against the Pretender should be sought in the problem of the true and untrue king. This question is connected with a special understanding of royal power in Russia. In Russia, the tsar was God's anointed and, in principle, it was absolutely not important how he behaved, as long as his rights to the throne were undeniable. In determining the relationship of the people to their king, law was primary, the behavior of the monarch was secondary. Grozny flooded the country with streams of blood, but at the same time continued to remain in his right in the eyes of the people - he was a true king. A nationwide revolt against Grozny was impossible; he was a sacred figure. When even the slightest doubt arose about the right - the natural, hereditary right of a person to be on the throne - neither an impeccable personal reputation, nor success in government could save him. It was in this position that Boris found himself - in the eyes of the common people, he was not overshadowed by Divine grace. If Boris' rights to the throne had been indisputable, if the Rurik dynasty had not been cut short on Fyodor Ioannovich, the very situation of imposture and confusion would never have arisen. All the accusations against Boris were only a pretext, their reason lay not in a negative attitude towards the crimes he had committed, but much deeper - in the initial distrust of the people in their monarch. The sins of Godunov were not so great in comparison with the sins of the same Terrible, but the Terrible sat quietly on the throne, and Godunov was defeated in the fight against a negligible figure - the Pretender, whose whole strength lay in the fact that he covered himself with the name of the true tsar - the name Demetrius. The similarity of the position of Boris and False Dmitry in the tragedy is emphasized precisely in order to show that the positive qualities of Boris do not play any role, because initially Godunov is perceived as an impostor, who also deprived the country of the true king - Dimitri. The impostor wins, because, firstly, he falls into the general stream of dissatisfaction with Boris, and secondly, he uses a name sacred to everyone. Yes, the name, in fact, wins - it instills fear in Godunov, ensuring his inaction, and it attracts many supporters to the Pretender who has taken refuge behind this name. A situation that Godunov does not believe in is becoming a reality: He really loses the duel with the shadow - with pure fiction, with the sound that, like a shield, is blocked by a man who is no different from Godunov himself - a native of the lower classes, a cunning, crafty adventurer, obsessed with a thirst for power. From this situation - when the Pretender hides behind the name of Dimitri - the relationship in the Otrepiev-Tsarevich pair follows, which is the closing plot axis in building a system of conflicts based on the clash of the central characters. The impostor is inseparable from the prince and is impossible without him - he appears only because Demetrius once existed and was killed. These two act as symbionts - the Pretender receives the name of Demetrius, his power and rights, and the prince - the opportunity to come to life, and not just rise from the coffin, but even seem to achieve something, eventually sit on the throne, refuting the finality of the sentence pronounced on him by order of Godunov. They endow each other with what they are rich and what the other lacks - one has a name and the right to the throne, the second has life, the ability to act and win. Such is the system of images that has developed in the tragedy according to the author’s intention, a system consisting of three main characters and many secondary ones, and due to its balance, the elimination of any of the elements or variations in the interpretation of the images dramatically change all the accents and allow us to talk about a completely different understanding of the author’s intention. . The main plot axes are connected with the figures of the main characters, and the interpretation of historical figures is made dependent on the construction of conflicts and on the ideas expressed through plot clashes.

D.V. Odinokova

N o t e
1		On this see: Belinsky V.G. "Boris Godunov". Sobr. op. in 9 volumes - V.6. - M., 1981; Blagoy D.D. Pushkin's skill. - M., 1955. - S. 120-131; Alekseev M.P. Comparative historical research. - L., 1984. - S.221-252.
2		This is evidenced by the title of the play, in a draft version (See letter to P.A. Vyazemsky dated July 13, 1825. From Mikhailovsky to Tsarskoye Selo. - Complete collection of works in 10 volumes - V.10. - L., 1979. - P. 120) formulated as follows: “A comedy about a real disaster for the Moscow State, o<аре>Boris and about Grishka Otr<епьеве>wrote the servant of God Alexander son of Sergeyev Pushkin in the summer of 7333, on the settlement of Voronich”), and a little later (in the white list) remade into “Comedy about Tsar Boris and Grishka Otrepyev”.
3		For more details see: Platonov S.F. Boris Godunov. - Petrograd, 1921. - S.3-6.
9		See, for example: "Another legend" // Russian historical narrative of the XVI-XVII centuries. - M., 1984. - S. 29-89; "From the Chronograph of 1617" // Monuments of Literature of Ancient Russia. Late 16th - early 17th centuries. - M., 1987. - S.318-357; Job. "The Tale of the Life of Tsar Fedor Ivanovich" // Monuments of Literature of Ancient Russia. Late 16th - early 17th centuries. - M., 1987. - S.74-129.
10		See, for example: Nadezhdin N.I. Literary criticism. Aesthetics. - M., 1972. - S.263. Belinsky V.G. "Boris Godunov". Sobr. op. in 9 volumes - V.6. - M., 1981.- P. 433.
11		See, for example: Bazilevich K.V. Boris Godunov as Pushkin. // Historical notes. - T.1. - M., 1937; Gorodetsky B.P. Drama by Pushkin. - M.; L., 1953; Blagoy D.D. Pushkin's skill. - M., 1955.
12		Belinsky V. G. "Boris Godunov". Sobr. op. in 9 volumes - V.6. - M., 1981. - S.427-453.
13		There were attempts to remove this confrontation altogether, reducing everything that happens to the implementation of a certain principle - the principle of Divine retribution to a child killer (N. Karamzin spoke about this) or a historical law that implies the inevitable collapse of autocracy. The figures of Boris and the Pretender in such a situation become replaceable, and the main goal of the tragedy is to demonstrate the fundamental importance of the role of the masses in history. On this, see: B.P. Gorodetsky. Drama by Pushkin. - M.; L., 1953. - S.127-128, 131-132; Blagoy D.D. Pushkin's skill. - M., 1955. - S. 120-131; Alekseev M.P. Comparative historical research. - L., 1984. - S.221-252; Rassadin S.B. Dramatist Pushkin. - M., "Art", 1977.
14		For more details on the comparison of the figures of Boris and the Pretender, see: Turbin V.N. Characters of impostors in Pushkin's works.// Philological sciences. - 1968. - N 6. - P.88.
15		For more on this, see: Waldenberg V. Old Russian teachings on the limits of royal power. Essay on Russian political literature from Saint Vladimir to the end of the 17th century. - Pg., 1916; Dyakonov M. The power of the Moscow sovereigns. Essays from the history of political ideas of Ancient Russia up to the end of the 16th century. - St. Petersburg, 1889; Uspensky B.A. The Tsar and the Pretender: Imposture in Russia as a Cultural and Historical Phenomenon // Uspensky B.A. Selected works. - T.I. - M., 1996. - S. 142-166; Uspensky B.A. Tsar and God (semiotic aspects of the sacralization of the monarch in Russia) // Uspensky B.A. Selected works. - T.I. - S.204-311.
16		Pushkin A.S. Full coll. op. in 10 t. - T.5. - L., 1978. - S.231.
17		A similar point of view was expressed by V.N.Turbin. He said that in this case a kind of exchange and merger takes place, cooperation - one person, on the one hand, destroyed himself, giving it to someone, since imposture is, first of all, a renunciation of oneself, the destruction of one's past and one's fate, and on the other hand, the destruction is compensated by the fact that he began to exist in the guise of a certain centaur, in which the name is from one, and the personality is from the second. See: Turbin V.N. Characters of impostors in Pushkin's works // Philological sciences. - 1968. - N 6. - S.91.