The main characters of the poem are boris godunov. D.V.OdinokovaSystem of images of the main characters in the tragedy of A.S. Pushkin “Boris Godunov. Historical sources of "Boris Godunov"
Russia at the end of the XVI - early XVII century and 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 way of thinking and the language of that time", - he himself told about his process creative work while adding: - “The sources are rich! Whether I knew how to use them - I don't know - at least my labors were zealous and conscientious. " In Boris Godunov, the poet brilliantly managed to use these sources.
This is one of the main reasons for the greatest artistic merit of Pushkin's tragedy. It is not conventional characters dressed in historical costumes, but really "people of bygone days, their minds, their prejudices." Instead of a pompous rhetorical, or a cutesy, conventional literary language, which is far from real living speech, in which the characters of the tragedies of classicism were expressed, Pushkin endows actors"Boris Godunov" deeply individualized, at the same time "generally understandable language", devoid of unnecessary external "historicity" (excessive abundance of outdated words, expressions) and at the same time truly historical, based on a deep study of historical sources and excellent mastery of the speech of the common people. The poet listened especially attentively to the speech of the people and studied it inquisitively during the period of work on his tragedy, during the years of exile in Mikhailovsky. Along and in parallel with the rejection of the "unity of the word" Pushkin no less decisively broke with the unity of the genre of "classical" tragedy, which was supposed to contain only the sublime and tragic, without the slightest - "defiling" - admixture of anything ordinary, comic.
The theorist of Russian classicism of the 18th century, the poet and playwright Sumarokov, in his Epistle about Poetry, separated tragedy and comedy from each other with an impenetrable wall, categorically forbidding to “irritate” the muse of comedy with tears, Thalia, and Melpomene, the muse of tragedy, with laughter. In Boris Godunov, Pushkin introduces, along with scenes filled with the deepest tragedy, not only scenes of everyday life, but also scenes of comic, “common people”. Moreover, in separate scenes Melpomene and Thalia - solemn and funny - freely mix with each other (scene at Novodevichy Convent and etc.). "The end of the world", which Sumarokov feared, did happen in Pushkin's "Boris Godunov". Instead of the aristocratic, “court” tragedy of Sumarokov, Pushkin created a dramatic work, both in terms of its ideological content and in its entire structure, deeply democratic, in his own word - “popular”.
Skillfully using the means of speech characterization, Pushkin freely and widely shows in his tragedy and human characters. In the sculpting of characters, the new method of Pushkin's depiction of life, people, the method artistic realism- "poetry of reality". Pushkin could not in any way satisfy the image of a person, of a human character in the works of classicism, even in those in which realistic tendencies were most strongly expressed. Living people were replaced in them by one-sided and schematic personifications of this or that "passion" - one or another separate psychological trait: avarice, lust for power, anger, or, conversely, honesty, love for the fatherland, etc.
As a result, in the tragedies of classicism, either monsters of vice or walking mannequins filled with the greatest virtue appeared before the audience. Almost to the same extent, Pushkin did not satisfy the arbitrary-subjective, romantic method of portraying character in Byron's drama. We have something completely different in Pushkin's tragedy. So, in the person of Boris Godunov himself, we are by no means a traditional "villain" of a classic tragedy, who was painted in solid black paint.
There are about 60 characters 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. Particular attention among minor heroes 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, Miloslavskys, Buturlins, Saltykov, etc. not to him, but to Godunov:
What an honor for us, for all of Russia!
Yesterday's slave, Tatar, Malyuta's son-in-law,
The executioner's son-in-law and the executioner himself in his soul,
Take the crown and berms of Monomakh ... -
he complains sarcastically and viciously to Vorotynsky. In the same conversation, Shuisky also outlines the tactics of fighting Godunov:
When Boris does not stop cunning,
Let the people skillfully excite ...
Shuisky's element is intrigue. When Godunov took the throne, Shuisky is playing a double game: in the presence of the tsar he is servile, flattering, and in the circle of secret associates he is preparing a conspiracy. "A crafty courtier," Vorotynsky describes him, and "Evasive, but brave and crafty," says Boris 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, entangled in the nets of a cunning beauty, the Pretender 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. Further destiny Marina goes beyond the time outlined by tragedy. It should be noted that this fate was fully consistent with the image drawn by Pushkin. Marina managed to fulfill her ambitious plan and after the Pretender's accession to the throne became the Tsarina of Moscow. 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, surrendered 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 were also killed. In one of his letters, Pushkin characterized Marina as follows: “Of course, this was the strangest of all the pretty women; she had only one passion - ambition, but on the other hand it was so strong, frenzied, which is difficult to imagine. "
Introduction
Interest in drama and the desire for dramatic creativity did not leave Pushkin throughout his life. Pushkin attached particular importance to work in the field of drama, realizing the need to transform the entire Russian dramatic and theatrical system. "The spirit of the century," he wrote, "requires important changes on the dramatic stage as well." 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 Shakespeare's 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 tasks:
· Find out how Karamzin and Pushkin assess the events of the 17th century;
· To 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 great life truth. Not only all the characters of the tragedy are vitally true, but also the historical situations underlying it.
1. The history of the creation of the work
Russian reality at the beginning of the 1920s, characterized by the rapid growth of anti-serfdom sentiment among the broad masses and the developing movement of noble revolutionaries, could not but exert a strong influence on the ideological and artistic development Pushkin. Pushkin thought a lot about the nature of the broad popular movements in the past, and about the images of their leaders. In early November 1824, Pushkin asks his brother to send him The Life of Emelka Pugachev. In one of the following letters a new commission is given to him: “Ah! my god, I almost forgot! here's your task: historical, dry news about Stenka Razin, the only poetic person in Russian history. "
This is the basis on which the prerequisites for the conception of a work about the role of the people in Russian history arise.
Published in 1824, the next X and XI volumes of the "History of the Russian State" by N.M. Karamzin contained a narrative about the era of "many rebellions" and provided quite diverse and substantial factual material, which determined Pushkin's decision to dwell on the topic "about a real trouble The Moscow state, about Tsar Boris and about Grishka Otrepiev. "
In a large notebook in black leather bound, brought by Pushkin to Mikhailovskoye from Odessa, among the records of the end of 1824, historical notes begin, preceding the draft text of the tragedy.
The work begins with taking notes of individual passages of the X volume 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 gave a summary not in the sequence of reading, but guided by some of his own considerations, sometimes returning from the middle of the volume to its beginning - and back. In the records that have come down to us, Pushkin inspected certain parts of the X volume 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 methods for extracting and combining heterogeneous historical material, and still others, finally, were not based on the data of the source, but entirely depended only on 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 get 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 respect. The places where Pushkin created a dialogue on ample material were given to him easily and contain the least number of corrections and options. These include: the beginning of scene I, sketches of scenes II, III and IV.
The picture changes when Pushkin proceeds, for example, to the fifth scene, which has no direct correspondence in the text of Karamzin's "History". These are the most difficult pages of the manuscript, with an abundance of corrections and variations. The text is repeatedly interrupted by fragments and sketches of other works - stanzas from "Eugene Onegin", drafts of unfinished poems, confirming Pushkin's words: "... when I get to 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 (fifth) scene that demanded the greatest creative stress. With the back of sheet 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 reflections on Pimen follow. The work on the monologue demanded a lot of creative effort and, cutting off the text on the line: “And he did not close his eyes all night!”, Pushkin again turned to “Eugene Onegin”. The texts of "Eugene Onegin" are then replaced by rough sketches referring to the unfulfilled concept of Faust, the draft of the poem "I witnessed your golden spring ...", and only from the middle of sheet 55 Pushkin returns to the interrupted work: "How I love his calm face ..." ... Work on the fifth scene ends at the end of folio 56. Having not finished it, Pushkin proceeds to other notes. He returns to work on the tragedy on sheets that have not come down to us.
After the firmly established date - January 1825, when Pushkin was still working on the fifth scene, until mid-July of the same year - we have no reliable evidence of the poet's progress on the tragedy. And only on July 13, 1825, Pushkin notified Vyazemsky.
The time of completion of work on "Boris Godunov" can be determined only approximately. Pushkin's famous letter to Vyazemsky about the completion of work on the tragedy dates from presumably the beginning of October or the beginning of November 1825.
The end of the tragedy's correspondence is clearly established by the date of the white autograph - November 7, 1825.
In the white list of the tragedy, Pushkin abandoned the original archaized title, significantly reducing it:
"Comedy
Tsar Boris and about Grishka Otrepiev
Rewriting the tragedy whitewashed, Pushkin amended the whitewashed text. Often these corrections were quite numerous and gave the individual pages of the white list a half-draft look.
After finishing the correspondence in November 1825, Pushkin continued from time to time to make new amendments to the text of the tragedy 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 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 split the whole action into 25 small scenes. The unity of the place is completely destroyed. The action of the tragedy is transferred from one geographical point to another with kaleidoscopic speed.
The unity of time is completely broken, and the dates - the subtitles of individual scenes, as it were, emphasize this bold innovation even more.
"Barely preserved", in the words of Pushkin, and the unity of the action, providing for the development of the action around one pivot of the play, with one the central character her. In Pushkin's tragedy, there are essentially two main characters - Boris and the Pretender, the latter being given nine scenes of the tragedy, while the title character appears only in six.
Another “unity” was destroyed, which, according to Pushkin, “the French criticism does not even mention - the unity of the syllable”: Pushkin replaces the traditional Alexandrian verse with a white pentameter, interrupting it with prosaic inserts, while he writes some scenes entirely in prose.
The abundance of characters, incredible for the drama of that time, is also striking - there are about 80 of them in Pushkin's tragedy.
The Pushkin 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, state.
Pushkin solves this most difficult problem proceeding from the most difficult version of it: he does not create any far-fetched plot by deliberate selection and the appropriate grouping historical facts, nose greatest art outlines the storyline of the tragedy, without even breaking chronological order recreated historical events.
2. Historical sources Boris Godunov
A number of the most important problems directly related to the historical and social concept of "Boris Godunov" cannot be comprehended 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", the views have been expressed more than once that, in parallel with the "History of the Russian State" by Karamzin and the 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 remarks on the Annals coincide in time with the work on the tragedy. There is already a fairly extensive literature on Pushkin's attitude to Tacitus.
It was not by chance that Pushkin turned to the era of Ivan the Terrible and Boris Godunov, a turning point for Russian history. In the XVI - XVII centuries in Russia, the crisis of the traditional patriarchal foundations on which they were based Russian society and the state of previous centuries. New, previously unknown historical forces entered the political struggle.
The image of Boris Godunov
The figure of Boris Godunov, a tsar who did not inherit the throne, but conquered it with cunning, intelligence and energy, is very symptomatic, as an expression of the changes that began in his era. This prompted Pushkin to place the image of Boris at the center of his historical tragedy, where the emotional experiences and fate of Godunov 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 the more noble pretenders-boyars, clearing the way to the throne. In the future, the ambitious Boris dreams of consolidating the conquered power for his heirs by means of sober calculation, firmly thought-out, far-sighted political plans. But, having seized the throne as a result of a skillful political game, by his example, he showed the way to him for 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 it possible for Godunov to reign.
In the tragedy, Pushkin took advantage of the version accepted by Karamzin (but rejected by many subsequent historians) about the murder of the youngest son of the Terrible, Tsarevich Dimitri by Boris Godunov. But Karamzin condemned Godunov as a usurper, the murderer of the legitimate monarch. Pushkin, on the other hand, interprets the murder of Demetrius as a link in a chain of numerous crimes inseparable from the very idea of tsarist power. The moral trial of Godunov and the Pretender in the tragedy grows into condemnation of any - even an outstanding - historical personality who builds its activities on violence and crime.
The character of Boris Godunov is illuminated by Pushkin in a wide and versatile way. All the main stages of his reign pass before the viewer - from accession to death. Boris appears before us in his relations with the boyars, the people, the patriarch, alone with himself, in various circumstances of his personal and state life. The tragedy depicts not only the steps leading to his rise and death, but also shows how differently, depending on the situation, the dissimilar facets of Godunov's character are revealed. This is a stern and domineering ruler, a caring father, a person who is able to soberly assess his position and look the truth in the eyes, even if it threatens his calmness and power, and at the same time suffers from powerlessness to change what he has done, to hinder the historical movement, which, foreseeing that it is inevitable in the future, will turn against him, he himself caused it.
Impostor image
The image of the Pretender is just as complex for Pushkin. This outstanding personality feels the tragic sides of his new position. Forced to play someone else's role, to pretend, to calculate their benefits, the Pretender suffers from loneliness. Both in politics and in love, as his verbal duel with Marina in the scene near the fountain eloquently speaks of, he does not achieve what he wants.
Hero dramas
So, both Boris and the Pretender in Pushkin carry in themselves - each - a special personal tragic theme, are the centers of their "small" drama, woven into the big Russian drama. national history... The same applies to a number of other, more episodic characters in Boris Godunov - Pimen, Ksenia Godunova, Basmanov, and the Fool. And, finally, the people with their sufferings, deaf discontent, fermentation are going through their Drama - about which researchers have rightly written more than once - in Pushkin's tragedy, deep feeling justice, which Godunov and Dimitri are forced to reckon with, and at the same time doomed for the time being to play a formidable but tacit role in history.
Revealing the inevitability of the fall of Boris (which foreshadows a similar fate to his winner - the Pretender, who is at the end of the tragedy at the top of his short career), Pushkin illuminates the tragic features of the personality of a historical figure of an individualistic type. Having reached the utmost power and having long been calm, it would seem, the reigning Boris is not great, but pitiful, because in the depths of his soul he does not find peace, he foresees his death, he is tormented by the voice of conscience, which he is powerless to lull. And in the same way, the Pretender, assuming 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 wrong hands, condemns him to torment of irresistible, eternal loneliness, constantly reminding him at the same time of the fragility of his success.
Generalized character types
Pushkin painted in Boris Godunov not only a bright, unforgettable picture of the era he had chosen. Thanks to his penetration into the spirit of Russian history, the poet, masterfully 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 the first listeners and readers of the tragedy were especially struck by the image of Pimen, in which Pushkin strove to draw the type of an ancient Russian monk-chronicler. Pimen, the Holy Fool, the wandering monks fathers Varlaam and Misail, the patriarch, young Kurbsky, Ksenia Godunova, crying over the portrait of her fiance - not only the character images of one particular era, but also the deep historical characters-types in which they are embodied common features life and psychology of people ancient Russia... Pushkin managed 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 during the reign of Godunov, but for many other centuries and decades - the supreme power, spiritual and secular, boyars, serving nobility, people. Little of. Just as the “Russian scenes” of “Boris Godunov” brilliantly recreate the general flavor of Russian history, which has developed over many eras of its development, absorbed the spirit and signs of not one, but many of its eras, so the “Polish” scenes and characters of the tragedy (as and in "Ivan Susanin" by M. I. Glinka, based on the experience of Pushkin - the historical playwright in the work on the music of this brilliant opera of his) are a similar clot of features and signs of many eras in the history of old aristocratic gentry Poland, recreate its common local national -historical flavor.
Analysis of the plot of the drama "Boris Godunov". Characteristics of the heroes of the drama. General analysis of the work.Drama "Boris Godunov"- a multifaceted work created by Pushkin on the basis of real historical events. In the drama, several important topics, which allows you to reveal the characters of the characters in all their depth and versatility. You can see that the plot of the work reproduces some key points... For example, at the very beginning of the tragedy, it is said that the son of Tsar Ivan the Terrible, the legitimate heir, Tsarevich Dimitri, died at the hands of a sent assassin. Thanks to this, the throne goes to Boris Godunov, who does not have "Rurik blood". Meanwhile, the scene of the murder of the crown prince is repeated again in the finale. Godunov's son, Tsarevich Theodore, perishes at the hands of the sent assassins. The royal throne is occupied by False Dmitry - the impostor Grigory Otrepiev.
The plot-forming line of the tragedy is the struggle for power between Tsar Boris Godunov and the fugitive monk Grigory Otrepiev, posing as Tsarevich Dimitri.
After a number of years of rule over the country, Godunov renounced the "supreme power". However, at the request of the people and the patriarch, after long hesitation, he agrees to re-occupy the royal throne:
“I have reached the highest power; For the sixth year, I have been reigning calmly, ”Godunov possesses all the fullness of autocratic power.
Former monk Grigory Otrepiev, impostor False Dmitry hopes to remove Godunov from the royal throne, relying on the support of the Polish nobility, and seize power:
“Now I am going - death or a crown awaits my head in Russia,” the impostor decides to become the ruler of Russia.
Much attention is paid to the love of Grigory Otrepiev for Marina Mnishek. The impostor falls passionately in love with "pretty Marina":
"Marina! See in me the lover you have chosen ... Oh, listen to the prayers of love ... Your love ... that I am without it, "- Otrepyev cannot live without his beloved.
At the same time, Otrepiev longs for a reciprocal declaration of love on the part of his chosen one:
“Your love, my only bliss,” the impostor dreams of love.
The characters in the drama are driven by certain ideas. Characters often act according to a premeditated plan. So, while still a monk, Otrepiev thought carefully about the meaning of his actions:
“As a monastic involuntarily bored, under my hood I thought over my brave plan, I was preparing a miracle for the world,” the monk conceived to reveal himself to the world.
For comparison, Godunov sees the meaning of his rule in benefiting the people:
"I thought to calm my people in pleasure and glory, to win their love with generosity."
The heroes try to understand the meaning of what is happening around. For example, Godunov considers it necessary to know the true state of affairs in the country in order to take adequate measures in time:
“I want to understand the news; otherwise we will not know the truth, ”the tsar seeks to understand the essence of the current situation.
Thus, the characters of the tragedy are inherent in the desire for power, love and meaning. At the same time, the heroes do not always achieve what they want, as a result of which they feel their own powerlessness.
Sometimes the characters feel hatred, and also commit unconscious actions.
Indeed, characters are often powerless to change anything in their fate. For example, during the reign of Godunov, the once powerful boyars lose their influence:
“We are dependent on the first slave whom we want to punish ... We are not in power in our estates,” Gavrila Pushkin laments about the powerlessness of the boyars under Godunov.
Among the characters in the tragedy are many simple forced people, powerless to influence the course of events:
“What to do, not our will,” the captive Rozhnov fulfilled the orders of others, as well as all the other soldiers.
At times heroes of the work feel hatred. So, the feeling of love for Marina Mnishek in Otrepiev's soul is replaced by hatred for the “proud Polish girl” who rejected his claims:
"Oh, how I will hate you when the heat of the shameful passion passes!" - Otrepiev hated the woman: “Snake! Snake!"
Likewise, the impostor hates his army, which did not bring him victory in the battle with Godunov's army:
"I'll hang the tenth, robbers!" - Otrepyev is indignant at his soldiers after a lost battle.
At some point, the characters perform unconscious actions. So, in a fit of love outpourings, Otrepiev confesses to Marina Mnishek that he “called himself Dimitri and deceived the mindless Poles”, by which he exposed himself:
“Where did the gust of annoyance lure me! ... What have I done, madman? " - the impostor laments about his thoughtless step.
For comparison, the boyars close to the throne believe that ordinary people are not aware of what is really happening:
“The senseless rabble is changeable, rebellious, superstitious, easily betrayed to empty hope, obedient to instant suggestion,” Shuisky believes that the people know nothing about state affairs.
The characters of the work are distinguished not only by a certain set of aspirations, but also by the ways of realizing their intentions. For the sake of achieving their goals, some heroes do not reckon with anything and are ready for any tricks. Others take into account the interests of other people.
For example, False Dmitry, having gained the support of the influential Polish nobility striving to come to power in Russia, assures himself of his own power:
"The shadow of the terrible adopted me, ... around me the peoples angered and doomed Boris as a sacrifice to me," Otrepiev dreams of his chosenness.
In contrast to an impostor who wants to seize the royal throne by force and deception, Godunov in every possible way demonstrates to those around him that he “accepts power”, exclusively obeying the will of the people:
“You, Father Patriarch, you are all boyars ... you saw that I accept great power with fear and humility. How heavy is my duty! " - the ruler assures everyone that he obeys the choice of people.
Having fallen in love with Marina Mnishek, Otrepiev is so absorbed in feelings for his beloved that for her sake he is ready to renounce all his plans:
“Your love ... what is my life without it, and glory, and the Russian state? ... You will replace my royal crown, your love, ”the impostor flared up with an all-consuming passion.
Meanwhile, having met only cold calculation on the part of the “arrogant Marina” instead of reciprocal love, the impostor is ready to leave his beloved:
“Goodbye forever. ... The fate of my vast worries, the melancholy of love, I hope, will drown out, ”Otrepiev denies his feelings.
Having accidentally let it slip, Otrepiev convinces Marina Mnishek that it makes sense for both of them to keep his frank confessions a secret:
“I swear to you that never, nowhere ... these grave secrets will not be revealed by my tongue. ... You, rebel! Believe me, they will force you to be silent, ”the impostor explains to the Pole.
Convinced that he is fulfilling the predestination from above, Otrepiev moralizes about Godunov:
"Boris! ... You will not get away from human judgment, just as you will not get away from God's judgment. "
For comparison, Godunov often doubts the correctness of his actions:
"What if the ruler is really bored with sovereign concerns and will not ascend to the powerless throne?" - states Vorotynsky that Godunov hesitates in making a decision.
It is noteworthy that Otrepiev is revealed as a self-actualizing person capable of development. Indeed, the fugitive monk manages to reach regal heights:
“Finally, I hear the speech not of a boy, but of a husband,” Marina notes the progressive changes taking place in Otrepiev's personality.
Otrepiev has creative abilities. For example, he has a need for play. Actually, what is happening around the impostor perceives nothing other than a game:
"The game of bloody war" - the hero sees the war as terrible fun.
Otrepiev is inclined to self-expression. So, he seeks to express the fieryness of his feelings for Marina Mnishek:
“Oh, listen to the prayers of love, let me say everything that the heart is full of,” the impostor longs to say the words of love to the chosen one.
Otrepiev is no stranger to aesthetic experiences. He appreciates poetry, and even presents the poet with a ring:
“I love Parnassian flowers,” the impostor admits that he is not devoid of aesthetic feelings and advocates “the union of the sword and the lyre”.
Otrepiev is sensitive to any situation. For example, while waiting for a date with Marina Mnishek, he sensitively listens to any rustle:
“But something suddenly flashed ... rustle ... quieter,” the lover tries to orient himself in the dark.
Thus, one of the main characters of the work is distinguished by the desire for self-expression, play, orientation. The character has aesthetic needs, as well as a desire for self-actualization. Such needs are characteristic of the creative, or creative type of personality.
It can be noted that a number of characters in the drama are familiar with the state of creative upsurge.
Thus, according to Pimen, the ascetic life completely transformed Tsar Theodore:
“He transformed the royal palaces into a prayer cell,” the king's way of life was transformed beyond recognition.
For comparison, Otrepiev confesses to the poet that he once tried to create poetic works:
“I know the voice of the Latin muse,” the character tried to create.
"The Prophecies of the Piites" inspire the impostor to "feat":
“Delight boils in their fiery breasts: the feat will be blessed, and they have glorified it,” Otrepyev's “inspired hymn” encourages.
Otrepiev is fascinated by the beauty of the beautiful Marina Mnishek:
"Pretty Marina" - the impostor is seduced by the girl's charms.
At a crucial moment, the characters set themselves up for important events upcoming in their lives. For example, before his death, Godunov prepares to accept the schema:
"Holy Father, draw near, I am ready," - the tsar was in the mood for the ceremony of tonsure.
Meanwhile, the state of creative take-off in the characters is often replaced by the experience of creative decline.
For example, having fallen in love with Marina Mnishek, Otrepiev forgets about his plans, and his position degrades before our eyes:
“You hesitate - and meanwhile the adherence of your minions grows cold, from hour to hour the danger and work becomes more dangerous and difficult,” notes Marina Otrepieva, that events that have been left to chance develop in an unfavorable way.
The first battle lost by the impostor threatens to destroy all his plans:
"I'll hang the tenth, robbers!" - out of anger he is ready to destroy Otrepiev part of his army.
Sometimes characters are discouraged. So, when Godunov achieves what he wants, depressive moods take over him:
“Only let us satisfy our heart with instant possession, when we have cooled down, we are bored and languishing,” the king's spirit decays.
Godunov pinned many hopes on the success of his reign, but he is deeply disappointed with the results of his reign:
“But he put aside the empty care,” the tsar was disappointed in his people, who did not appreciate his labors.
Sometimes the characters do not go the way they would like, which is why they are very upset:
“Well, that's what he regrets! About the horse! When our entire army is beaten to dust, ”Gavrila Pushkin is upset by the defeat in the battle, while Grigory Otrepiev laments the death of his horse.
Thus, a number of the heroes of the work reveal the creative side of their nature. At the same time, the characters are inherent in both the state of creative upsurge and creative decline.
Analysis of the characters' characters drama "Boris Godunov" shows that the heroes of the work are inherent in a certain set of inclinations. Characters differ both in the types of aspirations and in the ways of realizing their intentions, coupled with their character traits.
The plot-forming line of the work is the struggle for power. At the same time, some characters are powerless to influence the situation. In contrast to Otrepiev, who believes himself to be the chosen one, and therefore is confident in his own power, Godunov demonstrates in every possible way that he accepts power, submitting to the will of the people.
The theme of love occupies a significant place in the work. So, Otrepiev is so absorbed in feelings for Marina Mnishek that for the sake of love for her he is ready to renounce all his plans. However, having met on the part of the girl not a reciprocal feeling, but a cold calculation, Otrepiev flared up with hatred for the "proud Pole" and was even ready to leave his beloved forever.
The heroes of the work are driven by certain ideas. Characters tend to delve into the meaning of what is happening, but at some moments they perform unconscious actions. If Otrepiev is convinced that his actions are directed by a higher craft, then Godunov often doubts the correctness of his decisions.
It should also be noted that a number of the heroes of the work are revealed as creative natures. They experience both a state of creative upsurge and a sense of creative decline.
Some heroes appear as self-actualizing personalities capable of development. The life of a number of characters is being transformed right before our eyes. At the same time, the situation is not developing in a favorable way for everyone, on the contrary, degrading.
Some characters perceive life as a game. The heroes try to create favorable conditions for the implementation of their plans, but life often destroys their plans.
A number of heroes are prone to self-expression. Each of them is inspired by something. At the same time, in case of failure, the characters are often possessed by depressive moods.
The characters are not alien to aesthetic experiences, they are fascinated by the beautiful. At the same time, heroes are often disappointed in something, having misjudged the real state of affairs.
Some characters are sensitive to the most difficult situation. At a crucial moment heroes of the work set themselves up for the future in their life an important event... At the same time, not all heroes are doing as they would like, which is why they are upset.
Analysis of characters characterization of the plot of Pushkin's drama Boris Godunov.
Loading...
