Composition “People and power (based on the tragedy “Boris Godunov”). The people and power - according to the tragedy "Boris Godunov" Maria Godunova is the queen. There is little information about her in the work. It is known to enhance the emotional perception of murder. It can be seen that the criminals stirrup
In tragedy
The deepest philosophical and
political problems. On par with them
Pushkin considers problems
Morality and conscience. great attention
A. S. Pushkin pays attention to the problem of the people and
Power, in his work he shows
The ideal of the Russian people, the ideal of truth and
conscience.
Immediately in
Exposition before us stands a crowd of people (scene
At the Novodevichy Convent), weeping and
Screaming. But many of them don't even know that
There happens why they came here. People
Boris is called to the throne:
"Be our father, our
Tsar! - but these words were dictated to them by the boyars.
Although almost everyone knew that Boris was a regicide,
He was still called to the kingdom.
In this
On the stage, Pushkin shows the people indifferent (to him
Don't care who ascends the throne), blind
A weapon in the hands of the boyars: What are they crying about? -
How can we know! then the boyars know, not like us
.
That's not so
Understanding what they themselves are doing, people choose for themselves
In the kings of the killer. They don't care, the killer is the king, he
Sinner, not them.
But when
Boris is dying, God's Judgment is being executed on him,
He doesn't roll on the death of the chief
Guilty. In the fate of a whole country cannot
Only one person is to be blamed. People
He also sinned and sinned greatly, choosing
Throne killer. God's judgment continues
Now the people are suffering.
Comes
The new ruler, and the people again blindly believe
Him and go after him. The action draws near
denouement, in the final scene, as in
Exposure, again the main role is played by the people.
people again
At the behest of the boyars, they are ready to elect a new
Tsar. But before their eyes, murder is being committed
Innocent prince. And if the crime
Boris Godunov was known to everyone by ear,
Then they themselves became witnesses of a new
Murders.
Done
New crime, the people will be deceived again
The truth is trampled. But the people are no longer the same.
Awakened conscience and consciousness. This consciousness
And he speaks in fatal silence. This
In silence, the people reject untruth, lies.
God punished the people for sin, and now they
They realized that they were on the wrong path.
Before the people, as before Boris, stands
Choice: go against
Conscience or choose the right way. But in
Unlike the king, the people make faithful
Choice.
People
I realized that at the beginning I went against my conscience and
Now repentant. The tragedy lies in
Awareness of the people, in its awakening.
People refuse to commit a new sin,
This protest is expressed in the fatal
Silence.
(No ratings yet)
Essay on literature on the topic: THE PROBLEM OF THE PEOPLE AND POWER IN THE TRAGEDY OF A. S. PUSHKIN “BORIS GODUNOV”
Other writings:
- The author begins his tragedy with the main theme, he declares it at once. In the exposition we see a crowd of people (the scene at the Novodevichy Convent), crying and screaming. But many of this crowd do not even know what is happening, why they came here. People Read More ......
- Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin was constantly interested in Russian history. Historical stories, poems, poems came out from under his pen, but the greatest work poet on this subject is the tragedy "Boris Godunov". In this philosophical work, the author discusses the essence of power and its influence on Read More ......
- The compositional structure of Pushkin's tragedy is remarkable. This was not understood by most contemporary critics of the poet, some of them even refused to recognize it as a work of dramatic art. “Boris Godunov” is “not a drama at all, but a piece of history, broken into small pieces in conversations,” wrote one Read More ......
- 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 the depiction of each of the participants in this grandiose, moving, acting historical panorama in faces, Read More ......
- The central character in A. S. Pushkin’s tragedy “Boris Godunov” is the monk-chronicler of the Chudov Monastery, “the meek and humble elder,” under whose command is the young monk Grigory Otrepyev, the future Pretender. The material for this image (as well as for others) Pushkin drew from N. M. Karamzin’s “History…”, Read More ......
- In an effort to bring the linguistic structure of tragedy closer to the structure of everyday, colloquial speech, Pushkin decides to replace the six-foot rhymed verse traditional for the tragedies of classicism with a five-foot “white”, that is, unrhymed, verse. He reports this in a letter that has not come down to us to his friend N. Read More ......
- The secondary characters are also distinguished by fidelity to the historical era and truthfulness in the depiction of characters. Belinsky noted that already in the first scene of the tragedy, “the character of Shuisky is depicted both historically and poetically.” This is the head of the boyar group, a descendant of the specific princes of the “Rurik Blood”. He himself Read More ......
- The main theme of the tragedy - the tsar and the people - determined the important place that Pushkin assigned to Boris Godunov in his play. The image of Boris Godunov is revealed widely and diversified. Boris is shown both as a tsar and as a family man; his various spiritual qualities are noted. Read More ......
Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin often turned to Russian history, its sharpest and most dramatic pages. In the tragedy "Boris Godunov" the poet resurrected "the past century in all its truth." The author managed to reach unprecedented heights in the art of drama... His characters are historically correct, they act and reason in accordance with their time and characters.
Boris Godunov is described by Pushkin comprehensively. He is a wonderful father who wants happiness for his children, a just and caring ruler who thinks about the welfare of the people, but why does he fail everywhere? There is no happiness for his children:
I may have angered the heavens
I could not arrange your happiness.
Innocent, why are you suffering?
He says to his daughter.
And you, my son, what are you doing?
And there are many dissatisfied people in the state. Boris comes to the conclusion that any tsar is hated by the people.
Living power is hateful for the mob,
They only know how to love the dead.
The accusation is in the very air that Godunov is the murderer of Tsarevich Dmitry. The boyars do not dare to express this to the tsar, they have something to lose, they want to save their privileges, parochialism, proximity to the throne by any means.
Among the people, dissatisfaction with their humiliated position, subordination to everything and everyone constantly wanders. Sometimes it results in riots that end in nothing. The rulers know how to stop the people in time, to cajole them not so much with effective measures as with momentary handouts and promises. Shuisky very well explains to Boris the essence of the people:
Senseless mob
changeable, rebellious, superstitious,
Easily betrayed by an empty hope.
Obedient to instant suggestion,
For the truth is deaf and indifferent,
And she feeds on fables.
Pushkin in the tragedy "Boris Godunov" very accurately defined and showed the national character. Eternally dissatisfied with the existing power, people are ready to rise to destroy it and rebel, instilling fear in the rulers - and nothing more. And as a result, they themselves remain offended, since the boyars and well-born nobles, standing at the throne of the sovereign, use the fruits of their victory.
The people are left with one thing - "to remain silent."
Through the mouth of Godunov, Pushkin speaks the obvious and bitter truth:
No, the people do not feel mercy:
Isn't this the highest truth? After all, no matter what the sovereign does, the fruits of these deeds are used by his inner circle, and the blessings do not reach the people. Because of this, the masses are always dissatisfied with the existing and dream of the best.
Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin was able to brilliantly show the essence of the confrontation between the people and the authorities, their eternal antagonism.
Years, decades, centuries pass, but nothing changes in this regard.
People are always prone to confusion;
So the greyhound gnaws at its reins;
The lad is so indignant at the power of his father;
But what? The rider calmly rules the horse,
And the father commands the child.
Composition Pushkin A. S. - Boris Godunov
Topic: - The people and power (based on the tragedy "Boris Godunov")
Oh terrible, unprecedented grief!
We have angered God, we have sinned:
Lord yourself a regicide
We named. A. S. Pushkin, "Boris Godunov"
Pushkin conceived "Boris Godunov" as a historical and political tragedy. The drama "Boris Godunov" opposed the romantic tradition. Like a political tragedy, it addressed contemporary issues: the role of the people in history and the nature of tyrannical power.
If in "Eugene Onegin" a harmonious composition appeared through the "collection of colorful chapters", then here it was masked by a collection of colorful scenes. Boris Godunov is characterized by a lively variety of characters and historical episodes. Pushkin broke with the tradition in which the author lays a proven and complete thought as a basis and then decorates it with "episodes".
With "Boris Godunov" and "Gypsies" a new poetics begins: the author, as it were, sets up an experiment, the outcome of which is not predetermined. The meaning of the work is in posing the question, not in solving it. The Decembrist Mikhail Lunin recorded an aphorism in Siberian exile: "Some works convey thoughts, others make you think." Consciously or unconsciously, he generalized Pushkin's experience. Prior literature "communicated thoughts." Since Pushkin, the ability of literature to "make one think" has become an integral part of art.
In "Boris Godunov" tragedies are intertwined: the tragedy of power and the tragedy of the people. Having before his eyes eleven volumes of Karamzin's "History ...", Pushkin could have chosen a different plot if his goal had been to condemn the despotism of the tsarist government. Contemporaries were shocked by the unheard-of courage with which Karamzin portrayed the despotism of Ivan the Terrible. Ryleev believed that it was here that Pushkin should look for the theme of the new work.
Pushkin chose Boris Godunov, a ruler who sought to win the love of the people and was not alien to statesmanship. It was such a king that made it possible to reveal the regularity of the tragedy of power, alien to the people.
Boris Godunov in Pushkin cherishes progressive plans and wants the people well, but to realize his intentions he needs power. And power is given only at the price of crime - the steps of the throne are always in the blood. Boris hopes that power used for good will atone for this step, but the unerring ethical sense of the people makes him turn away from "King Herod." Abandoned by the people, Boris, contrary to his good intentions, inevitably becomes a tyrant. The crown of his political experience is a cynical lesson:
The people do not feel mercy:
Do good - he will not say thank you;
Rob and execute - you will not be worse.
The degradation of power, abandoned by the people and alien to it, is not an accident, but a pattern (“... the sovereign occasionally / Informers interrogates himself”). Godunov senses danger. Therefore, he hurries to prepare his son Theodore to rule the country. Godunov emphasizes the importance of science and knowledge for the one who rules the state:
Learn my son: science cuts
We experience fast-flowing life -
Someday, and soon maybe
All areas that you are now
Depicted so cunningly on paper
All by the hand will get yours -
Learn, my son, and easier and clearer
Sovereign labor you will comprehend.
Tsar Boris believes that he atoned for his guilt (Dmitry's death) by the skillful management of the state. This is his tragic mistake. Good intentions - crime - loss of popular trust - tyranny - death. Such is the natural tragic path of power alienated from the people.
In the monologue "I have reached the highest power," Boris confesses to the crime. He is completely sincere in this scene, as no one can hear him:
And everything is sick, and the head is spinning,
And the boys are bloody in the eyes...
And I'm glad to run away, but there's nowhere ... terrible!
Yes, pitiful is the one in whom the conscience is unclean.
But the path of the people is also tragic. In depicting the people, Pushkin is alien to both enlightenment optimism and romantic complaints about the mob. He looks with Shakespeare's eyes. The people are present on stage throughout the tragedy. Moreover, it is he who plays a decisive role in historical conflicts.
However, the position of the people is contradictory. On the one hand, Pushkin's people have an unmistakable moral instinct - its spokesmen in tragedy are the holy fool and Pimen the chronicler. So, talking in a monastery with Pimen, Grigory Otrepiev concludes:
Boris. Boris! Everything trembles before you
No one dares to remind you
About the lot of the unfortunate baby -
Meanwhile, a hermit in a dark cell
Here a terrible denunciation against you writes:
And you will not leave the court of the world,
How can you escape God's judgment?
The image of Pimen is remarkable in its brightness and originality. This is one of the few images of a chronicler monk in Russian literature. Pimen is full of holy faith in his mission: diligently and truthfully to capture the course of Russian history.
Let the descendants know. Orthodox
Native land past fate,
They remember their great kings
For their labors, for glory, for good -
And for sins, for dark deeds
The Savior is humbly begged
Pimen instructs the young novice Grigory Otrepiev, advising him to subdue his passions with prayer and fasting. Pimen admits that in his youth he himself indulged in noisy feasts, "the fun of youth."
Believe me:
We are captivated from afar by glory, luxury
And female sly love.
Page 1 ]
Undoubtedly, power in the tragedy "Boris Godunov" has a charismatic dimension and is perceived as a connection with Divine Providence, with Divine will, with Divine blessing or Divine wrath. And it is no coincidence that Boris, “taking power,” turns to the late Tsar Theodore Ioannovich.
It cannot be said that the tragedy of A.S. Pushkin's "Boris Godunov" is deprived of the attention of researchers, but the inexhaustibility of the meanings contained in it again and again makes us turn to it.
Speaking about the philosophy of power in Pushkin's tragedy, one cannot fail to recall the beautiful words of Metropolitan Anastassy: ““Boris Godunov” with his Pimen is nothing but a vivid reflection of ancient holy Russia; from her, from her ancient chroniclers, from their wise simplicity, from their zeal, one might say, piety for the power of the tsar, given by God, Pushkin himself drew this instinctive love for the Russian monarchy and Russian sovereigns.
Undoubtedly, power in the tragedy "Boris Godunov" has a charismatic dimension and is perceived as a connection with Divine Providence, with Divine will, with Divine blessing or Divine wrath. And it is no coincidence that Boris, “taking power,” turns to the late Tsar Theodore Ioannovich:
And send down to the one you loved ...
Sacred blessing on power.
So, power is understood as a great, terrible and sacred thing, as a lot that can be too heavy: "Oh, you are heavy, Monomakh's hat." (Paradoxically, the heavy cap of Monomakh is associated - rhymed - with the "iron cap" of the holy fool.) This sacred lot can be fatal for its unworthy bearer. On the other hand, Divine Providence can not only spare and preserve, but also exalt an obviously illegal pretender, an unscrupulous Pretender, if this person fulfills his will. Here is what Gavrila Pushkin says about the Pretender:
Keeps it, of course, Providence;
And we, friends, will not lose heart.
At the end of the tragedy, Pushkin, sent by the impostor, addresses the Muscovites:
Do not anger the king and fear God.
Complex dialogical and dialectical relations are being built between the king, the people and God. Both the unrighteousness of the king and the sin of the people are capable of causing divine wrath and disasters:
Oh terrible unseen grief!
Lord yourself a regicide
We called -
the hermit Pimen is sure. We will return to his words.
Power, the kingdom, the fate of kings for the people are not something external, but become an important element of spiritual life, they are taken into the soul of the people, into prayer:
Yes, the descendants of the Orthodox know
Native land past fate,
They remember their great kings
For their labors, for glory, for good -
And for sins, for dark deeds
The Savior is humbly begged.
At modern man the question may arise: why should one humbly beg the Savior for the dark deeds of the former kings, to whom the descendants seem to have nothing to do and in which they are innocent? From the Orthodox point of view, this question is superfluous: the fate of the king and the people are inextricably linked, the people are responsible for the iniquities of the rulers, and, conversely, the rulers are responsible for the iniquities of the people. And if their exploits and goodness become a guarantee of the well-being of the state, then their sins can lead to disasters for the country. And therefore, praying for the "great kings", the descendants pray for themselves, including for their sins and "dark deeds". This is a universal connection between the king and the people, past, present and future.
This universal connection is conditioned in tragedy by a sense of sacred, God-given history, as Pushkin would later say in his reply to P.Ya. Chaadaev: "The history that God gave us." For the sense of responsibility of the sovereign and the people before God and the mutual responsibility of the people and the king is impossible without a sense of the sacredness of life, its sanctification, and the universal standing before the Creator. The enumeration of what Pimen orders Otrepyev to describe is noteworthy:
Describe, without further ado,
All that you will witness in life:
War and peace, government of sovereigns,
Saints holy miracles,
Prophecies and signs from heaven.
The sacred character of the kingdom is largely determined by the piety of the kings, their connection with monasticism and their ability to leave the earthly for the sake of the Heavenly Kingdom:
Think, son, about the great kings.
Who is above them? One God. Who dares
Against them? No one. But what? Often
The golden crown became heavy for him:
They changed it to a hood.
Below we will try to show that the attitude towards monasticism, towards the monastic feat is one of the defining criteria for characterizing kings in tragedy.
In "Boris Godunov" one can distinguish several types of rulers, each of which has its own relation to Providence, its own participation in its fate. There are five of them: “reasonable autocrat” (John III), “repentant sinner, penitent tormentor” (John the Terrible), “prayer-king” (Theodore), “legitimate Machiavellian” (Boris Godunov) and “illegitimate Machiavellian, revolutionary” (Imposter ).
The type of "reasonable autocrat" is those kings about whom Pimen says:
They remember their great kings,
For their labors, for glory, for good.
John III is one of them. Boris Godunov gives him a brief but exhaustive description:
Hold back the people. So John thought
A calmer of storms, a reasonable autocrat.
This definition succinctly assesses the brilliant reign (1462-1505), in which Novgorod, Tver, Seversky lands were annexed to Moscow, the Horde yoke was overthrown. Particular emphasis is placed on rationality, that is, state sobriety, reasonable caution, and the moderation of his policy. John III becomes a symbol of reasonable severity and rigidity, as well as state stability - that power on which the heavenly blessing rests.
Much more controversial is the image of Ivan the Terrible. On the one hand, he is also inscribed in this series of great kings. But it is precisely to him that the words apply: “And for sins, for dark deeds / They humbly beg the Savior.” The tragedy also recalls the glorious deeds of the Kingdom of John: the capture of Kazan, successful wars with Lithuania. Otrepiev says to Pimen:
How merrily you spent your youth!
You fought under the towers of Kazan,
You reflected the army of Lithuania under Shuisky,
You saw the court and the luxury of John!
But at the same time, Grozny is called "the ferocious grandson of a reasonable autocrat." And in tragedy there is terrible memory about the oprichnina terror, the bloody vapor of which did not dissipate even 20 years after the death of Ivan the Terrible. Boyar Pushkin compares the reign of Boris with the times of the fierce tsar:
... He rules over us,
Like Tsar Ivan (not by night be remembered).
What good is it that there are no obvious executions,
What's on the stake bloody publicly
We do not sing canons to Jesus,
That we are not burned in the square, but the king
Doesn't he rake coals with his staff?
Here Pushkin used A. Kurbsky's message from The History of Ivan the Terrible about the death of Prince Dmitry Shevyrev, impaled and singing the canon to Jesus, and the story of the torture of Mikhail Vorotynsky, when the tsar personally participated in the interrogation and raked coals under the tortured. By the way, Mikhail Vorotynsky was famous for the fact that in 1552 he was the first to break into Kazan and hoisted a cross on the tower, and in 1572 he saved Moscow from the Tatar invasion by defeating Devlet Giray at Molodi. Just ten months after that, he was taken on a false charge of sorcery, tortured, and died en route to exile. In the tragedy "Boris Godunov" the name of Vorotynsky becomes a symbol of honor, honesty and directness, tribal nobility, courage and gullibility. It is these features that Shuisky's interlocutor Vorotynsky is endowed with, who in 1598 was no longer in Moscow.
In the monologue of Athanasius Pushkin, Grozny appears as a kind of king - a persecutor of Christians, even a God-fighter. Picture: a martyr on a stake glorifies Christ, and the king looks at it - it is quite suitable for the lives of some saint from the time of Diocletian. Moreover, something infernal, demonic is introduced into the image of the Terrible - "be not remembered by night." It is, as it were, a demon-king, a night ghoul (something like the image of Justinian in Procopius' Secret History). As A.S. Pushkin, the era of Grozny left a deep mark on the minds and souls of the figures of Borisov’s time, and Boris himself is a “product” of the oprichnina: “Yesterday’s slave, Tatar, Malyuta’s son-in-law, the executioner’s son-in-law and the executioner himself in his soul.” A number of epithets “Tatar, son-in-law of Malyuta, executioner” have an associative connotation: in a sense, the times of Grozny are perceived as a new Tatar yoke. And it is no coincidence that their neighborhood in Otrepiev's questions:
I wanted to guess what he writes about?
Is it about the dark dominion of the Tatars?
Is it about the executions of the fierce John?
But Pushkin made an even deeper observation: The Time of Troubles is a consequence of the era of Grozny and retribution for him. Here are the words of the Pretender:
The Shadow of the Terrible adopted me,
I named Demetrius from the grave,
Around me the peoples angered
And she doomed Boris to me as a sacrifice.
Let's note in this maxim the biblical parallel - "around me the nations have revolted". This is a reminiscence from Psalm 2: “Why do the peoples rage” - “Into the staggering tongues” (). Psalm 2 has an eschatological meaning: it speaks of the revolt of the peoples against the anointed of God. It is known who revolts the nations - the spirit of darkness; and if we recall the suggestion of Afanasy Pushkin that “a certain spirit in the form of a prince” appeared in Lithuania, then it seemed that the image of the Terrible would be finally infernalized if he adopted a demonic ghost, to whom human sacrifices were made (“And she sacrificed Boris to me”). But such a conclusion would be wrong. Let's remember Pimen's monologue:
King John sought solace
In the likeness of monastic labors.
His palace, full of proud favorites,
The monastery took on a new look…
... here (that is, in the Miracle Monastery. - D. V.V.) I saw the king,
Tired of angry thoughts and executions ...
He said to the abbot and the brothers:
“My fathers, the longed-for day will come...
I will come to you, damned criminal,
And here I will accept an honest schema,
At your feet, holy father, fall down.
Thus spoke the sovereign sovereign,
And sweet speech flowed from his mouth,
And he cried. And we prayed in tears
May the Lord send love and peace
His soul is suffering and stormy.
This is a seeming paradox: the monks pray for the tormentor and his suffering soul. But, according to Orthodox teaching, the sinner suffers no less than the offended by him, and if not in this life, then in the next. John the Terrible suffered and was tormented by his sins and crimes and strove for repentance and purification. His desire for monasticism shows in him a thirst for renewal, the removal of the former decrepit, angry and malicious person. The tragedy of Ivan the Terrible is the tragedy of an unworthy holder of sacred power (something like an unworthy priest), who sins not out of love for sin and not for the sake of pleasure and benefit, but because, because of the passion, suffering of his soul, he cannot but sin, and therefore he sins and repents, gets up and falls again. And his excuse is that he does not admire power, but accepts it in obedience, he is, as it were, the abbot of the land of Holy Russia: “And the formidable tsar appeared as a humble abbot.” Terrible is presented as a penitent sinner, who, nevertheless, does not lose the charisma of power and remembers the Kingdom of Heaven (which shows his desire for monasticism) and is faithful to his ideal, although he sins in practice.
Tsar Theodore is a type of saint, or, better, blessed, on the throne:
And his son Theodore? on the throne
He sighed for a peaceful life
Silent. He is the king's palace
Transformed into a prayer cell...
God loved the king's humility,
And Russia with him in serene glory
comforted.
This is paradoxical, but the best king, the best boss, the leader of the people's life is the king who does not interfere in anything, only prays and intercedes before God for the people. On the contrary, the human, too human, I would say - humanistic, efforts of Boris Godunov, which do not have gracious support, inevitably fail and lead to the failure of both him and the people.
A.S. Pushkin puts into the mouth of Pimen a description of Theodore's reign, which sharply differs from the assessment given by N.M. Karamzin, for whom "Fyodor's life was like a slumber, for this is how the humble idleness of this miserable crowned bearer can be called." The main feature of Theodore's character is humility, and it turns out to be a "terrible force" (according to F.M. Dostoevsky). The outwardly invisible, discreet life of Theodore ends with great glory, a wondrous and terrible vision:
To his bed, the only visible king,
The husband appeared unusually bright,
And Theodore began to talk to him
And call the great patriarch.
And all around were seized with fear,
Understanding the heavenly vision...
When he passed away, the chambers
Filled with holy fragrance
And his face shone like the sun.
Karamzin does not have a story about this vision: obviously Pushkin, for whom Karamzin's "History of the Russian State" was the main source when working on the tragedy, drew it from "The Life of Tsar Theodore Ioannovich", written by Patriarch Job - his manuscript could be stored in the Svyatogorsk monastery.
Pushkin basically retained the outline of the story of St. Job, however, those details to which the poet paid special attention are important for us. The mention of an “extraordinarily bright husband” and a comparison of Theodore’s face with a shining sun are especially significant after the words about the “stormy soul” of his father Ivan the Terrible, as well as about “kromeshniks”: darkness and storm are replaced by the “quiet light” of love, mercy and forgiveness .
An important enough detail that is missing in the narrative of Patriarch Job is the fragrance in the royal chambers:
When he passed away, the chambers
Filled with holy fragrance.
Pushkin needed this detail, traditional for hagiographic narratives, to indicate the triumph of holiness over death: the chambers, where there should be a smell of decay and death, were filled with a heavenly fragrance, testifying to life and resurrection. The fragrance speaks of incorruption: we will see further that the theme of incorruption and the holiness of relics will be developed by Pushkin in the story of Tsarevich Dimitri.
So, the life of Theodore, briefly presented in the tragedy, is shown as the realization of the ideal of righteousness on the throne, so dear to both Russia and Byzantium; it is a prayer, an christification of all life, including power.
What type of ruler does Boris Godunov represent? The characteristic “legitimate Machiavellian” given to him, of course, does not exhaust all the facets of his image. Boris Godunov tragedy is multifaceted. The first facet of his character is the desire to emphasize the legitimacy of the succession from the former sovereigns, the desire to continue the state tradition:
I inherit the mighty Johns -
I will also inherit the angel-king!
O righteous! O my sovereign father!
Look from heaven to the tears of faithful servants
And send down to the one you loved ...
Sacred blessing on power:
May I rule my people in glory,
May I be good and righteous, like you!
These heartfelt lines are inspired by the words of N.M. Karamzin, relating, however, to the period of the interregnum: “Boris swore that he would never dare to take the scepter, consecrated by the hand of the deceased king-angel, his father and benefactor.” But if with Karamzin these words Boris renounces power, then with Pushkin he accepts. For the poet, it was important to emphasize Boris' desire to inspire the idea of the legitimacy and goodness of his kingdom, as well as to acquire the heavenly blessing that rested on the prayerful and blessed Theodore.
Godunov's appeal is also significant:
Now let's go bow to the coffins
The deceased rulers of Russia.
Worship of the tombs of the kings was part of the ceremonial of the royal wedding, but the very introduction of the theme of veneration of "coffins" is significant. From here a thread is drawn to the later poem "Two feelings are wonderfully close to us" (1830):
Two feelings are wonderfully close to us -
In them the heart finds food -
Love for native land
Love for father's coffins.
Based on them from the ages
By the will of God Himself
human self,
The pledge of his greatness.
The theme of veneration of tombs and cemeteries in Pushkin's work has been sufficiently studied, however, it should be emphasized that the worship of coffins in the drama is not only ceremonial in nature and not only serves to legitimize Boris's power, but also brings a bright line to his character - a reverent attitude towards the dead.
Basmanov enthusiastically speaks of Godunov: "The high spirit of the sovereign." Indeed, in Boris's speeches, not only experience is noticeable, but also a deep state mind, which organically combines traditionalism, a broad outlook and the ability to innovate. Here are his dying instructions to his son:
Don't change the course of things. Habit -
The Soul of the Powers...
With strictness keep the charter of the church.
On the other hand, in a conversation with Basmanov, he expresses a desire to destroy localism:
Let their arrogance about localism grieve;
It's time for me to despise the murmur of the noble mob
And a disastrous custom to destroy.
He commands his son to be open to foreigners:
Be merciful, available to foreigners,
Confidently accept their service.
Boris perfectly understands the benefits of teaching and enlightenment:
How good! Here is the sweet fruit of learning!
How can you see from the clouds
The whole kingdom suddenly: borders, cities, rivers!
Learn my son: science cuts
We experience a fast-flowing life ...
Learn, my son, and easier and clearer
Sovereign labor you will comprehend.
This maxim is not only a true historical observation; for Pushkin, it has a programmatic character: from these words a thread is drawn to the later Stanzas (1826), where it is said about Peter I:
autocratic hand
He boldly sowed enlightenment.
Boris is filled with deep regal dignity:
What a stark contrast to the fussy chatter of the Pretender, with his manner of making unfulfillable promises and flattering everyone!
The feeling of state dignity is also felt in the policy pursued by Boris. He refuses the help of the Swedish king in suppressing the rebellion and repelling the Polish invasion:
But we do not need alien help;
We have quite military people of our own,
To repel the traitor and the Pole.
I refused.
Although, in fact, foreign troops turn out to be the only reliable ones, Boris does not accept Swedish help, knowing how dearly he will have to pay for it. Again, what a contrast with the Pretender, pointing out "the cherished road to the enemy in Moscow."
So, Boris appears as a man full of great statesmanship and great abilities - but graceless abilities!
Vorotynsky's review is noteworthy:
And he knew how to fear and love,
And enchant the people with glory.
The key word here is "charm". For us, it already means little, but Pushkin and his contemporaries perfectly remembered its original meaning - “to charm, bewitch”.
Quite indicative is the contrast between the scenes of "The Cell in the Miracle Monastery" and "The Tsar's Chambers", separated only by the scene of "The Patriarch's Chamber". Pimen speaks enthusiastically about the piety and love for monasticism of the former kings, and it is said about Boris that
…his favorite conversation:
Wizards, fortune tellers, sorceresses -
Everything tells fortunes that the red bride.
Godunov's appeal to soothsayers and sorcerers is a historical fact, which Pushkin, of course, knew thanks to Karamzin. However, it is important for us that Pushkin chose precisely this trait in his character, obviously in order to show Boris's lack of grace, his connection with infernal forces. Paradoxically, the Christian sovereign is dressed in the clothes of Faust. This is not accidental, because they have a common philosophical and psychological attitude - the pursuit of happiness. Let's pay attention to Boris' monologue:
For the sixth year I reign quietly.
But my soul is not happy. Is not it
We fall in love from a young age and are hungry
The joys of love, but only quench
Heart smoothness by instant possession,
Already, having cooled, we miss and languish?
These words are vividly reminiscent of Pushkin's early youthful poem "K ***" ("Do not ask why with a dull thought ..."; 1817):
Who knew happiness, he will not know happiness,
For a brief moment, bliss is given to us:
From youth, from softness and voluptuousness
Only sadness remains.
Such an attitude can be characterized as hedonistic and pagan. The tragedy of Boris is that for him the object of voluptuous desire is power, which for a Christian is a sacred duty, but by no means an object of desire. And the fact that power is, first of all, a duty, Godunov himself perfectly understands. Here is how he addresses the boyars:
You saw that I take power
Great with fear and humility.
How heavy is my duty!
It is as if a split personality occurs: Boris is different in public and alone with himself, he is the guardian of the church charter and the questioner of sorcerers; a king who understands power as a great sacred duty and a lover of power who desires it for the sake of pleasure and happiness. From his monologue it becomes clear that even he does good selfishly:
I thought my people
In contentment, in glory to calm,
To win his love with generosity -
But put aside the empty cookie:
Living power is hateful for the mob,
They only know how to love the dead.
It becomes clear that Boris did good not for the sake of God, not for the sake of Christ's commandments, and not even for the sake of people, not for the people themselves, but in order to arouse people's love for him. Pushkin shows the selfish, selfish nature of Boris's "charity":
I opened granaries for them, I am gold
I scattered them, I found work for them ...
This triple "I" characterizes Boris' egoism and pragmatism better than anything else.
The words are also very characteristic: “Here is the black court: look for her love!”. The pessimism itself, expressed in these words of Boris, as well as his final choice between fear and love in favor of fear, are reminiscent of the judgments of Nicolo Machiavelli: “If you have to choose between fear and love, then it is safer to choose fear. For it can be said of people that they are ungrateful and fickle, they are frightened off by danger and attracted by gain: as long as you do them good, they are yours with all your soul, but when you need them, they will immediately turn away from you.
Another thing is also important: Boris does not really love the people, but seeks their love: he acts as a populist, as a Machiavellian, as a pragmatist, as a political technologist, similar to the technologists of the 20th century. And people feel it very well. Already in the very scene of the election to the kingdom, the feelings experienced by the people (at least part of it) are coldness and detachment, shown by Pushkin, not without a certain amount of irony in the scene “Maiden Field”: “One (quietly): What are they crying about ? / Other: How do we know? The boyars know that. / Not like us.”
In other words, the so-called "election" for the people is someone else's business, boyar games. Even more irony is felt in the words: “One: Everyone is crying. / Let's cry, brother, and we.
Other: I'm trying, brother, / but I can't. First: Me too. Is there an onion?
The people are clearly aware of the gracelessness of Boris's power: "Here it will be for them, the atheists." And the disasters that fall on Russia are perceived as a punishment for the election of a graceless, criminal tsar:
Oh terrible, unprecedented grief!
We have angered God, we have sinned:
Lord yourself a regicide
We named.
This is the highest court of the hermit Pimen, the bearer of the people's righteousness. In addition to the direct meaning - the election of the killer of an innocent child, there is another plan here - a change in the state and moral paradigm. Firstly, the king is no longer given by God, does not rise “by nature”, but is elected, named by the people, he is a “self-made” king. Secondly, Boris becomes a “regicide” also because, ascending the throne through murder, he tramples on the rule of law, the very foundations of royal power, kills “royalty”, so to speak, and in some sense is a revolutionary. There is a characteristic parallel to these words of Pimen in the poem "Andrei Chenier" (1825):
Oh grief! oh crazy dream!
Where is liberty and law? Above us
One ax rules.
We have overthrown the kings. Killer with executioners
We have chosen to be king. Oh God! oh shame!
The pinnacle of the people's assessment of Boris is the words of the holy fool: "You cannot pray for Tsar Herod, the Mother of God does not order." Herod is not only a child-killer, he is also a persecutor of Christ.
Boris feels this attitude towards himself and responds to it with anger.
Perhaps Godunov's desire at the beginning of his sole reign to continue the traditions of Theodorov's reign is sincere, but, nevertheless, other memories are alive in him; it is no coincidence that Shuisky says about him: "Malyuta's son-in-law, the executioner's son-in-law and the executioner himself at heart."
Boyarin Athanasius Pushkin defines Godunov's reign as follows: "He rules us / Like Tsar Ivan (don't remember by night)", although he stipulates that "there are no obvious executions." This characteristic has several motivations. The first is the dissatisfaction of a well-born boyar, whose class interests are infringed by the supreme power: “Here, Yuryev decided to destroy the day.” The second layer is the aversion of a decent person to flattery and denunciation:
We are at home, like Lithuania,
Besieged by unfaithful slaves;
All languages ready to sell
Government bribed thieves.
And, perhaps at the deepest level, disgust for the child killer.
Boris Godunov himself refers to the legacy of Grozny. It is no coincidence that he threatens Shuisky:
I swear, an evil execution will befall you -
Such an execution that Tsar Ivan Vasilyich
From horror in a coffin will shudder.
After the Pretender invades, the threats from the king get down to business:
To whom the tongue will be cut off, and to whom
And the head - such, right, a parable!
What a day, then an execution. The prisons are packed.
On the square where there are three people
They will come together - look - the scout is already winding,
And the sovereign at times idle
Scammers interrogate himself.
This picture is reminiscent of the worst times of Grozny - those that the boyar Afanasy Pushkin recalled.
In the end, Boris Godunov directly refers to the example of Ivan the Terrible:
Only severity can we vigilant
Hold back the people. So John thought...
So did his fierce grandson.
No, the people do not feel mercy:
Do good - he will not say thank you.
Rob and execute - you will not be worse.
Thus, the tsar, who began with a vow "to spare life and blood and the criminals themselves," striving to be "good and righteous, like Theodore Ioannovich," ends with terror in the spirit of Ivan the Terrible. But if John was on the side of the people's trust and the desire of the people to endure everything from the legitimate "natural king", then Boris was deprived of all this: "the opinion of the people" was not for him.
Nevertheless, the listed features do not exhaust the character of Godunov, otherwise the dramatic conflict would not have taken place: the whole essence of the tragedy would have consisted only in the well-deserved death of an inveterate villain. But the essence of the problem is that Boris is not at all a villain like Iago, Macbeth or Richard III - people who consciously hate good and are ready to go to the last limits of evil. Boris Godunov appears in the tragedy not only as an intelligent man and a great ruler, but also as a loving father: he wholeheartedly sympathizes with his daughter who lost her fiancé, and his son “is dearer to him than spiritual salvation.” In communicating with children, his best sides awaken: in his will to his son, he commands him to do mercy, observe dignity, “keep holy purity”, “observe the church charter with strictness.” Boris is trying with all his might to hide his crime from his son, and not only because he is afraid of losing his respect, but also in order to keep him from sin. One passage from his dying conversation with his son is characteristic:
But I have attained supreme power... with what?
Do not ask. Enough: you're innocent
You will now reign by right.
I, I alone will answer to God.
In empathy with the misfortune of his daughter, Boris awakens a conscience and a sense of guilt:
I may have angered the heavens
I couldn't arrange your happiness
Innocent, why are you suffering?
Through many sufferings, Boris Godunov understands the meaning of conscience as the voice of God, its meaning in a person's life as the basis of his self-reliance and peace:
Oh! feel: nothing can us
Calm down among worldly sorrows;
Nothing, nothing ... Is there only one conscience.
So, sane, she will triumph
Over malice, over dark slander.
These words are reminiscent of the saying of John Chrysostom from the Commentary on the 2nd Epistle to the Corinthians: “For our praise is the testimony of our conscience, that is, the conscience that is not able to condemn us; and even if we endure thousands of calamities, it is enough for our consolation, but rather not only for consolation, but also for crowning, a clear conscience, testifying to us that we are undergoing this not because of something bad, but pleasing to God. .
However, in the midst of the disasters that visit Boris, he is not given comfort in his conscience. The tragedy of Godunov consists precisely in the torment of an unclean, sick conscience:
But if it has a single spot
One, accidentally wound up,
Then - trouble! like a pestilence
The soul will burn, the heart will be filled with poison,
Like a hammer knocking in the ears of a reproach,
And everything is sick, and the head is spinning,
And the boys are bloody in the eyes ...
And glad to run, but nowhere ... terrible!
Yes, pitiful is the one in whom the conscience is unclean.
In this fragment, the influence of church writing and church phraseology is noticeable. The expression “the soul will burn” has a parallel both in the words of the Apostle Paul about “burned by conscience” (), and in the saying of John Chrysostom: “We are not afraid of sin, which is truly terrible and conscience eats with fire”.
The expression "poison in the heart" is also typical of church literature; it is found, in particular, in the Shepherd of Hermas (see: Visions. 3.9.7) and in other places.
Finally, the famous words "and the boys are bloody in the eyes." At first glance, everything is simple with them: there is a Pskov dialect expression “before the bloody boys”, which denotes the highest degree of tension associated with a rush of blood. However, let us think about what it means in the mouth of Boris, at whose command the prince was slaughtered. Correlating expression to it are the following words:
So that's why I've been thirteen years in a row
Everything dreamed of a murdered child!
Let's pay attention to the words "like a hammer knocking in the ears of a reproach" - a certain voice asks, "interrogates the criminal king." Thus, Boris's monologue is by no means about a rush of blood to the head, but about a specific vision of the murdered prince, relentlessly pursuing him: "And I'm glad to run, but nowhere." And then the question arises about the source of such an image - an obsessive vision of a murdered youth relentlessly pursuing the murderer. In this regard, it is worthwhile to draw on another hagiographic source - the "Sinai Patericon", which is also called the "Spiritual Meadow", completed by St. John Mosch by the year 622. In the 10th century, this text was translated into Church Slavonic, and from the 11th century it was in use in Russia. It is very likely that Pushkin knew this monument. It contains very interesting and unconventional stories. One of them, the 166th story, speaks of a robber who came to Abba Zosima with the words: “Make love, since I am the culprit of many murders; make me a monk, so that the rest will be silent from my sins. And the elder, having instructed, clothed him in a schema, then sent him to the famous Abba Dorotheus, where the former robber spent eight years in unceasing prayer and obedience. Eight years later, he again came to Abba Zosima and asked: "Make love, give me my worldly clothes and take monastic ones." The elder was saddened and asked: “Why, child?” And then the monk said: “For nine years already, you know, Father, I have been in kennel, fasting and abstaining, and with all silence and fear of God I lived in obedience, and I know that God has forgiven me with His goodness many of my wickedness. ; I only see every hour a youth (or a child - παιυδιον) saying to me: “Why did you kill me?” I see him in a dream, and in the church, and in the refectory, telling me this. And not a single hour gives me rest. Therefore, father, I wish to leave in order to die for the lad. In my madness, I killed him." Taking clothes and putting them on, he left the monastery and withdrew to Diospol, and the next day he was seized and beheaded.
Of course, the parallel is not complete: Boris by no means comes to monasticism; on the contrary, even on his deathbed, he almost brushes it off, is afraid of him, he in every way delays the moment of tonsure - for him, monasticism is associated with death:
A! scheme... so! holy shrine...
The hour has struck, the king goes to the monks -
And my dark coffin will be my cell ...
Wait a bit, Vladyka Patriarch,
I am still king...
And of course, Boris does not go to his death for the murdered prince, he clings to power and life with all his might, to the last. However, we see similarities in the main thing - in an obsessive vision, a constant nightmare that does not leave Tsar Boris for a minute either in a dream or in reality, just as the boy killed by him does not leave the robber, asking: “Why did you kill me?”. In both cases, one can speak of a certain "objectivity" of visions; it can be assumed with a certain degree of caution that Boris's visions are shown not as hallucinations, the fruit of an unhinged imagination, but some kind of reality, which is confirmed by events. On the other hand, the robber does not become a victim of delusion, otherwise his elder simply would not have let him go to his death. In both cases, conscience becomes the reaction of the soul to the actual presence of the supernatural.
(Ending follows.)
Deacon Vladimir Vasilyk
Notes
Anastasy (Gribanovsky), Metropolitan. Pushkin and his attitude to the Orthodox Church. M., 1991. S. 50.
Karamzin N.M. History of Russian Goverment. M., 1995. Volume 9. C. 35. See also: Works of Prince Kurbsky // Russian Historical Library. T. 31. St. Petersburg, 1914. S. 280. Mikhail Shevyrev was executed in 1565.
Karamzin N.M. History of Russian Goverment. T. 9. C. 108; Works of Prince Kurbsky. S. 289.
Procopius of Caesarea tells that those close to the emperor Justinian saw him walking around the palace at night without his head (Procopius. Historia arcana. 12: 22–23).
The tragic irony of fate was that if, on the side of his father, Ivan the Terrible descended from Dmitry Donskoy, then on the side of his mother, Elena Glinskaya, from Mamai, and the winner of the Tatar kingdoms arranged life in his fatherland no better than the Tatar yoke: “Over the yoke of the Mongols, Russia should was to experience the storm of the autocrat-tormentor ... And if the yoke of Batyevo humiliated the spirit of the Russians, then, without a doubt, the reign of Ioannov did not exalt it either ”(Karamzin N.M. History of the Russian State. T. 9. P. 177–178).
This conclusion was reached by many Russian historians, including modern ones, in particular R.G. Skrynnikov: “The terror of Grozny was one of the important factors that paved the way for the Time of Troubles” (Skrynnikov R.G. The Kingdom of Terror. St. Petersburg, 1992, p. 528).
Grozny repeatedly expressed his desire to leave the throne and take monastic vows, in particular in a letter to the Kirillo-Belozersky elders. In the same message, there are also repentant motives: “It is fitting for you, our sovereigns (that is, Belozersky fathers. - D. V.V.), to enlighten us, the lost ones. And to me, a stinking dog, who should I teach and what should I punish? Bo himself is always in drunkenness, in fornication, in filth, in murder, in robbery, in theft, in hatred, in every villainy. (Messages of John the Terrible. M., 1951. S. 162.). According to R.G. Skrynnikov, it was this passage that gave Pushkin a reason to poetize the image of Grozny “with his suffering and stormy soul” (see: R. G. Skrynnikov, The Kingdom of Terror, p. 503).
Karamzin N.M. History of Russian Goverment. T. 10. C. 232.
“In the summer of 7106, on the 6th of January, the pious tsar began to be very exhausted and ordered to call his father and the pilgrim Iev the patriarch with the illuminated cathedral. Before the coming of the patriarch, he sees a certain bright man come to him in hierarchal robes, and the pious tsar suddenly speaks to his forthcoming boyar, commands him to step back from his bed, let them make a place for a certain one, calling him a patriarch and commanding him to pay an honor worthy of him. They said to him: “The pious king and Grand Duke Feodor Ivanovich of All Russia, whom, sovereign, do you see and with whom do you speak? Unless you come to your father Jev, and to whom do you command to make a place?” He answered and said to them, “Do you see? My husband will be bright in the clothes of hierarchs, and he commands me with a verb with himself. They are wondering a lot. And at the ninth hour, the faithful Tsar Theodore Ioannovich of All Russia departed, then his face would shine like the sun ”(Complete collection of Russian chronicles. Vol. 14. Ch. 1. SPb., 1910. P. 16-17).
There is much in common between Tsar Theodore and the holy fool Nikolka the Iron Cap: external madness and internal wisdom, external impotence and dependence and internal strength. A kind of triangle is built in the tragedy: the simple Tsar Theodore, the patriarch Job - “a foolish judge in worldly affairs”, the holy fool Nikolka.
The designation of Theodore as an angel-king is an anachronism, possibly related to the fact that Alexander I was so called.
Historically, the last words have a very distant correspondence to the words of Boris during the wedding, addressed to the patriarch: “Father Job! God is my witness, there will be no beggars and poor in my kingdom.” Then, holding the collar of his shirt, Boris added: “And I will share this last one with everyone” (Karamzin N.M. History of the Russian State. T. 11. C. 330). It is significant that Pushkin did not use this phrase, despite its showiness; something else is much more important to him. An appeal to Theodore Ioannovich with a call to send down a “sacred blessing on power” corresponds to the rite of crowning the kingdom - a prayer before laying a crown, in which a prayer is addressed to God the Father “Send down from the throne of Thy Glory blessing” (see: Barsov E. Old Russian wedding monuments on kingdom // Readings in the Imperial Society of History. 1883; Popov K. The rite of the sacred coronation // Theological Bulletin. 1896. April-May).
Karamzin N.M. History of Russian Goverment. T. 11. S. 287
See at least the article by A.A. Akhmatova "Pushkin and the Neva seaside".
Pushkinist S.A. Fomichev believes that, on the contrary, this maxim is a manifestation of Boris’s cynicism, since the murdered Tsarevich Dimitri should be remembered at the word “coffin” (Fomichev S.A. Pushkin’s dramaturgy // Russian dramaturgy of the 17th–19th centuries. M., 1982. P. 273 ). Respectfully referring to the researcher’s work, however, we consider it necessary to point out that, firstly, the worship of coffins was part of the ceremony of crowning the kingdom, and, secondly, Dimitri’s coffin was far away in Uglich and, in the vision of a blind elder, is called the “grave ” as opposed to the majestic royal tombs.
Historical feature: “Having understood the great truth with the natural mind that public education there is a state power, and seeing the undoubted superiority of other Europeans in it, he called to himself from England, Holland, Germany not only doctors, artists, artisans, but also officials in the service ”(Karamzin N.M. History of the Russian State. T. 11. S. 355).
“In his zealous love for civic education, Boris surpassed all the oldest crowned bearers of Russia, having the intention of founding schools and even universities in order to teach Russians European languages and sciences” (Ibid.). The map of Russia drawn by the tsar's son Feodor Borisovich, which is mentioned in the tragedy, was published in 1614 by Gerard.
“Having a rare mind, Boris believed, however, in the art of fortunetellers, called some of them at a quiet hour of the night and asked what awaits him in the future” (Karamzin N.M. History of the Russian State. T. 10. P. 273).
Machiavelli N. Sovereign. SPb., 1993. S. 289.
In the draft version of the tragedy, there is an even more ironic version: “First: Let me pinch you or tear a tuft from your beard. Second: Shut up. You're joking at the wrong time. First. Is there an onion? Again we observe some departure from Karamzin’s view: “And at that very moment, at the given sign, all the countless people - in cells, in the fence, outside the monastery - fell to their knees with an unheard-of cry: everyone demanded the king, father, Boris! Mothers threw their babies on the ground and did not listen to their cry. Sincerity won over pretense; inspiration acted both on the indifferent and on the most hypocrites!” (Karamzin N.M. History of the Russian state. T. 10. S. 290–291). Of course, Pushkin took advantage of this plot, but for comic purposes.
Of course, both the tragedy "Boris Godunov" and the poem "Andrey Chenier" contain another hidden plan - invectives against Alexander I, whom public opinion not quite rightly accused of participating in regicide.
Karamzin N.M. History of Russian Goverment. T. 11. C. 331.
Commentary on 2 Corinthians. 3:1 // PG. 61. 441. The interpretations of John Chrysostom on the apostolic epistles were translated into Church Slavonic, and Pushkin could have known them, including this particular passage.
A word about statues // PG. 49.64c.
Perhaps this is an allusion to Ps. 139:7: "Where can I go from Your Spirit, and where can I flee from Your presence?" However, there is another possible source - the tragedy of W. Shakespeare "Richard III". Wed words from Richard's monologue in act 5: "Run? But from what? Push?"
See: Golyshenko S., Dubrovina V.I. Sinai Patericon. M., 1967.
P.G. 87.3033 AC; Sinai Patericon. S. 200.
The people and power in the tragedy of A.S. Pushkin "Boris Godunov"
Grade 9
Lesson - analytical conversation with elements of dispute and role-playing game
Teacher: Mishina E.M.
Saransk - 2015
Plan
I. A.S. Pushkin is a man deeply concerned about the fate of his homeland.
II. A.S. Pushkin is the creator of the first Russian folk drama.
III. Power and people in Russia in the late 16th - early 17th centuries.
- Who claims to the Russian throne and why?
- What role does the people play?
IV. The poet's view of the problem of "power and people".
During the classes
I. Introductory speech of the teacher
- 1 Biographical note. A.S. Pushkin and Alexander I.
- A.S. Pushkin and the Decembrist uprising. Appeal to history. November 7, 1825 - work on the tragedy is completed.
- II Artistic skill of A.S. Pushkin.
- 3 A.S. Pushkin is the founder of Russian folk tragedy.
- What is the difference between the tragedy "Boris Godunov" and classical tragedies?
- Let us recall the features of the classical tragedy, compare them with the features of the tragedy of A.S. Pushkin "Boris Godunov".
1. Composition. The tragedy consisted of 5 acts.
2. Unity of place (The events of the tragedy "Boris Godunov" take place in the Kremlin chambers, on the square, in the Novo-Devichy Monastery, in the monk's cell in the Miracle Monastery, in a tavern on the Lithuanian border, in Krakow, in the forest, on the plain near Novgorod - Seversky etc.)
3. Unity of time. Events must take place within one day. (In tragedy - from February 20, 1598 to June 1605 - 6.5 years.)
4. Unity of action (According to the author, "barely saved." All events develop around Boris Godunov.)
5. The entertainment of dramas was achieved thanks to
extraordinary events;
serious atrocities;
supernatural suffering.
A.S. Pushkin chooses credibility and naturalness, since "the depiction of passions and the human soul for him (the people) is always entertaining, great and instructive." Pushkin shows his heroes in such conditions in which their personality is most clearly manifested.
6. Language - overly solemn, decorated with various means.
Style - high (tragedy!). Is it possible to attribute the speech of the heroes of the tragedy "Boris Godunov" to high style? In no case! This is ordinary speech of ordinary people. (Heroes are endowed with a language that is characteristic of their environment and their inner world. Pushkin called the style mixed: “He went and low where he had to display vulgar and rude faces.” Pushkin’s review of the language of Shakespeare’s heroes: “And if sometimes heroes are expressed in his tragedies, like grooms, then this is not strange to us, for we feel that noble people should also express simple concepts, like ordinary people.")
7. Mandatory size - solemnly majestic "Alexandrian bang" - rhymed iambic six-meter. (Pushkin has blank verse, without rhyme, sometimes prose. Why? - This achieves naturalness and simplicity.)
8. Actors - no more than 10 - representatives of the court elite. (In the tragedy "Boris Godunov" there are about 60 characters representing all sectors of society.)
9. The main character. Images are schemes of virtues or vices. (There is no main character. Russia of the late 16th - early 17th centuries is the main character.)
10. The unity of the genre - the scenes are only sublime and tragic, without the slightest admixture of the comic. (Along with the scenes filled with the deepest tragedy, everyday and comic scenes, "common people" are included.)
11. Aristocratic court tragedy. (Democratic folk tragedy. Realistic)
III . Power and people in Russia.
So, the end of the XVI - beginning. 17th century - the time of unrest is not uncommon for Russia. What's happening? Intrigues, struggle for power, people endure, trying to survive.
Russia, Russia - this word has many meanings. For example, in the North, Rus is called a bright place. Where is the sun. Russia is a bright place, a land of light.
Have there been many bright periods in the history of our country? Quicker in memory emerge "dark, troubled times". Why such a contradiction? Or maybe life is vague, but the soul is bright?
Let's return to the tragedy "Boris Godunov".
After the death of Ivan the Terrible, Godunov, Shuisky, and later the Pretender (Grigory Otrepiev) claim the Russian throne.
Who are they and why dare to claim the Russian throne?
Role-playing game. Task: based on the material of the tragedy, tell about yourself (on behalf of Godunov, Shuisky and the Pretender).
Questions for the characters:
What attracts you to the throne?
Where does such courage come from?
What were you hoping for?
How would you like to rule the country?
Boris Godunov.
Did you have people supporting you?
- Yes. I turned to them.
So, why was Boris Godunov worthy of becoming the Russian Tsar? (There is no evidence of his guilt in the death of Dmitry, he earned respect by ruling the country during the reign of Fedor).
Yes, you tried to appease “your people” in contentment, in glory, to win their love with generosity. But people have disappointed you. (“God sent gladness to our land, the people howled, dying in torment; I opened the granaries for them, I scattered gold for them, I found work for them - they cursed me, maddeningly.”
You oppose yourself to the “rabble” (as you call the people) and do not even guess what the reasons for such ingratitude are. Everything is very simple: perhaps wishing well, in fact, you only aggravated the situation of the people: by canceling St. George's Day, you thereby legalized serfdom, made the peasants slaves of their masters. By distributing bread and gold in Moscow, you attracted huge crowds of people. There was not enough bread and money (they stole it), epidemics began, people were dying.
Last question.
Even if we assume that you are not involved in the death of Dmitry, admit that you wished for this death in your soul?
(This was the only obstacle on the way to the throne.)
How can you justify yourself?
(- I saw Dmitry's inability, he is a sick man, small; I was sure that I had the features necessary for the tsar.)
And before the reign and during it, you constantly had to unravel intrigues, deal with opponents. It means that there were always people around you who considered the reign illegal. Why?
In your heart, wishing the death of the prince, you committed a moral crime. To step over a person in the interests of the country - do you think this is an acceptable calculation?
You stepped over the law of succession, and then wanted to restore it again. But history does not turn back. Your last word.
Vasily Shuisky.
Royal blood flows in your veins. You are smart, resourceful, cunning, prudent. The interests of the people are nothing to you.
You swear and swear allegiance to people behind whose backs you immediately slander. Why?
You are ready for betrayal. Why?
You are a prince - a representative of the high society of your time.
It never crossed your mind that a noble birth requires from a person a steady fulfillment of duty - a duty of honor, a duty to the country.
To be honest, it seems that you have no such concepts at all.
All your words are against you.
Let us turn to the observation diaries and analyze the speech characteristics of the characters. Read them with comments.
Pretender (Grigory Otrepiev)
You are somewhat reminiscent of Mtsyri from the poem by M.Yu. Lermontov. The difference lies in the fact that that romantic hero dreams of freedom, a homeland, a life far from prayers and constant humility of spirit and flesh, and you wanted nothing more, nothing less - to become a king.
What made you believe your legend of miraculous salvation?
Why is it so easy for you to impersonate a prince?
Why are people on your side?
In a fit of passionate love, you confess to Marina Mniszek that you are just a “poor Chernorian”.
“Now I look with indifference at his throne, at the royal power,” you frankly admit.
Russian tsars, on the contrary, sacrificed themselves - they married themselves and married their children, based on the interests of the state.
You are ready to forget about the throne for the sake of love. Does this mean that the fate of the country and the people is of little concern to you?
Analytical group
- The guys worked on the problem of power in Russia.
- Power - what is so attractive about it?
- Why is it so difficult to govern Russia?
- Why do they say that the government is against the people?
- What should be the Russian ruler for the country to prosper, to become a powerful power?
A little historical background:
The path to the throne became possible after the death of Tsarevich Dmitry.
How often were crimes committed in the struggle for power?
Is it possible to say that the brutal reprisal against rivals for the possession of power is a way of fighting for power, characteristic of Russia?
People on the pages of the tragedy "Boris Godunov"
Conversation on:
What role does the people play? Decisive? Or does it have nothing to do with it?
Let us turn to the scenes in which the people are shown. (Expressive reading of tragedy scenes)
How do people behave?
What scenes characterize him?
Can a skilled politician manipulate the people?
Are the people a puppet that will humbly endure everything?
Can we say that people make history?
Can a ruler change anything without the support of the people?
Are people cruel or kind?
Conclusion: about the role of the people in history; about the relationship between the royal power and the people.
The people are humane and fair. The people's conscience does not tolerate the massacre of innocent people.
IV . The poet's view of the problem of "power and people".
Studying the work of A.S. Pushkin, we notice that more and more often the poet turns to historical subjects. Why do you think?
(Turning to historical subjects was a way of thinking about the past, present and future of Russia, about those forces that determine the nature and results of the most important events in the life of society).
V . What statement would you take as an epigraph to our lesson? Justify your choice.
1 . “The treasures bestowed on us by Pushkin are really great…
The first merit of a great poet is that through him everything that can become wiser will become wiser. (A.N. Ostrovsky)
2 . The moral law….acquires decisive force in history.
3 . “Oh terrible, invisible grief!
We have angered God, we have sinned:
We called the regicide our lord.”
VI. Homework. My reflections on what should be the power in Russia today.
In the struggle for power in the tragedy, two historical figures collide: Boris Godunov and the Pretender. The victory remains with the Pretender. However, neither the Pretender nor Boris Godunov are the main characters of the tragedy. This protagonist, who decides the outcome of the struggle, is the mass of the people. The tragedy begins with a description of the events connected with the election of Boris Godunov to the Russian throne. Noteworthy is the fact that Boris does not appear in the tragedy immediately. We still do not see Boris on the stage, but we already feel that the situation in the country is not in his favor: the people are indifferent to his election, and laughter and jokes are heard in the crowd on the Maiden's Field; the boyars are also dissatisfied with the candidacy of Boris and are going to "skillfully excite the people." With the support of the Patriarch and certain circles of the boyars, Boris nevertheless takes the throne. Seven years later, shocked by rumors about the success of the Pretender, he dies. What was the strength of his opponent? Not in himself, but in the hostile attitude of the people towards Boris, in the mood of the masses. “But do you know how strong we are, Basmanov?” - asks Gavrila Pushkin Basmanov and answers:
Not with the army, no, do not help the Polish,
But by opinion; Yes! the opinion of the people.
Karamzin saw the reason for the change in the attitude of the people towards Boris in the change in the character of Boris, Pushkin sees it in the course of historical events, in the mood of various social groups. Pushkin is right. It was the mood of the people that paved the way for the Pretender to the throne. But was this mood reliable and lasting? The tragedy ends with a scene when Mosalsky appears on the porch of Boris's house and declares that Godunov's wife and son "poisoned themselves with poison." The people are horrified and silent. “Why are you silent? - Mosalsky addresses the people, - shout: Long live Tsar Dimitri Ivanovich! The people are silent. This silence was a living sentence to the Pretender. He had not yet ascended the throne, but the mood of the people already served as an ominous omen that the new reign would not meet with the support of the masses. Indeed, after 11 months, the Pretender died. So, the tragedy both begins and ends with the depiction of the mood of the people. And it is precisely in the moods of the masses, determined by real class interests, that one must look for the cause of the unrest and events of that time. The strength of power is only in the unity of the ruler with the people - this is the main idea of the tragedy. It must be taken into account that the tragedy was written by Pushkin in
1825, at a time when dissatisfaction with the autocratic regime was already clearly visible in the advanced layers of Russian society. Pushkin, the creator of freedom-loving lyrics, the singer of the Decembrist ideas, was concerned about the relationship between the people and state power. Can an autocratic regime survive without the support of the people? On the other hand, can the struggle of the Decembrists against the autocracy succeed without relying on populace? These questions confronted Pushkin when he set about creating Boris Godunov. The tragedy was artwork, in which the question of the struggle for power, deeply contemporary for Pushkin, was decided by the poet on the basis of Russian history of the late 16th and early 17th centuries.
Expressing fears for the fate of his tragedy, Pushkin wrote to Vyazemsky: “... I could not hide all my ears under the cap of the holy fool. They're sticking out!"
In the depiction of the people, their relationship to the tsar, Pushkin had a hidden thought. No wonder Pushkin, when Zhukovsky said that the tsar would forgive him for the tragedy, doubted this and
wrote to Prince Vyazemsky: “... Hardly, my dear. Although it was written in a good spirit, he could not hide all my ears under the cap of the holy fool. They're sticking out!" Pushkin very well chose the era of Godunov to show special treatment people to power: the disunity of people and power is characteristic of our history. He objected to those who justified autocracy by the primordial patriarchal devotion of the people to the kings. In one of his letters in 1827, Pushkin wrote that in Pimen he wanted to highlight the feature that captivated him in the chronicles: "devout zeal for the power of the tsar, given by God." But this trait is overshadowed by the ingenuous impassivity of the chronicler, with whom he writes both about the ferocious executions of John, and about the stormy Novgorod veche, and "calmly looks at the right and the guilty." In the depiction of the people, there is not even a trace of such "devout zeal for the power of the king." On the contrary, the people and the king are depicted as two elements that are divided and hostile to each other.
The people are always secretly prone to confusion:
So the greyhound gnaws at its reins;
The lad is so indignant at the power of his father ... -
Basmanov says in the tragedy, -
But what? the rider calmly rules the horse,
And the father commands the child.
Boris replies:
The horse sometimes knocks down the rider,
The son of the father is not forever in full will.
Only severity can we vigilant
Hold back the people.
The same thought about disunity between the people and the government in Boris's monologue:
I thought my people
In contentment, in glory to calm,
To earn his love with generosity -
But put aside the empty cookie:
Living power is hateful for the mob,
They only know how to love the dead...
What power is hateful for the mob? Against what authority are the people always secretly prone to confusion? Against the power that keeps the people in complete submission, like a horse rider, like a father of a boy; against the power that tries to “adopt the hearts of its slaves” with graces, but leaves them slaves, which is convinced that the people can be restrained only by “vigilant severity.” About the special “spirit of the Russian people,” only the Pretender speaks in the tragedy, and when - in a boastful speech before Father Chernikovsky, to whom he promises to convert the entire Russian people to Catholicism in two years:
I know the spirit of my people;
In it, piety knows no frenzy:
To him is sacred the example of his king.
But the meaning of these words is immediately weakened by the third feature of the people:
Always, moreover, tolerance is indifferent.
This is the main reason for the disunity between the tsar and the people: the people are oppressed to such an extent that they have become indifferent to everything, even to a change of faith. Is it any wonder that he cannot be touched by the graces of Boris, no matter how great they are. In this role of the oppressed to the point of complete indifference to changes on the throne, the people invariably act throughout the tragedy - the "senseless mob", which
changeable, rebellious, superstitious,
Obedient to instant suggestion,
Easily betrayed by an empty hope,
For the truth is deaf and indifferent ...
This is how the people appear in the first scenes of the tragedy, during the election of Tsar Boris; he is the same in the last scenes during the accession of False Dmitry. By the decision of the boyars, he passively agrees to the election of False Dmitry, weeps feignedly, begging Godunov to accept the throne, and then just as hypocritically welcomes the new tsar. Pushkin vividly emphasizes this passivity, comparing first the howls and cries of the people, then the cries of welcome with the mocking conversations in the crowd:
What are they crying about? —
How are we to know? the boyars know
Not us couple.
Everyone is crying
Let's cry, brother, and we.
What else is there? —
Who will understand them? —
Crown for him! he is a king! he agreed!
Boris is our king! long live Boris!
There are no independent actions of the people in the last scenes of the recognition of False Dmitry as king and the murder of Boris's children. The people are again acting at the behest of the boyars. The boyar makes a speech, inviting False Dmitry to be beaten with his forehead, and the people answer:
What to interpret? Boyar spoke the truth.
Long live Demetrius, our father!
At the suggestion of a peasant who has climbed onto the pulpit, the crowd rushes to knit and drown the "Boris Puppy", but stops in front of the palace. The boyars are coming. The people part respectfully. The boyars enter the house of Borisov. The people are perplexed: “Why did they come? “That’s right, to swear in Feodor Godunov.” Mosalsky comes out and unexpectedly announces that Feodor and Maria Godunov have been poisoned. "The people are silent in horror." But even after the words of the boyar: “Why are you silent? shout: long live Tsar Dimitri Ivanovich! “The people are silent.” This famous phrase, with which the tragedy ends, further emphasizes the almost automatic obedience of the people to the authorities.
