Characters tragedy Boris Godunov. D.V.Dinokova Systems of the Main Heroes in the tragedy A.S. Pushkin "Boris Godunov

Introduction

Interest in dramaturgy and the desire for dramatic creativity did not leave Pushkin throughout his life. Work in the field of Dramaturgia Pushkin attached particular importance, realizing the need to transform the entire Russian dramatic and theater system. "The spirit of the century, he wrote," requires important changes and on the stage of dramatic. " The first of his completed tragedy "Boris Godunov" Pushkin regarded as a step of exceptional importance in this direction.

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

Created by Pushkin, the socio-historical and socio-philosophical realistic tragedy was a new phenomenon not only in Russian, but also in world dramaturgy. She was different from the tragedy of classicism, and from the Shakespeare tragedy, and from the Western European historical and romantic drama Schiller and Hugo.

The purpose of this work is to analyze the work of Pushkin "Boris Godunov" as a historical drama. To do this, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:

· Find out how the events of the XVII century Karamzin and Pushkin are evaluated;

· Give the characteristic of the images of Boris Godunova, an impostor, Pimen;

· Consider problems raised by Pushkin in the tragedy.

Based on the principles of strict realism, the tragedy of Pushkin is a dramatic work of a huge vitality. Vital truthful not only all the characters of the tragedy, but also the historical situations laid on her.

1. History of creating a work

The Russian reality of the beginning of the 20s, which was characterized by the rapid increase in the anti-quiliation sentiment of the wide masses and the developed movement of the noble revolutionaries, could not not have the strongest influence on the ideological and artistic development of Pushkin. Pushkin thought a lot about the character of wide folk movements in the past, and about the images of their leaders. At the beginning of November 1824, Pushkin asks his brother to send him the "life of the Pugacheva Emela". In one of the following letters, a new commission is given to him: "Ah! My God, I almost forgot! Here is your task: historical, dry news about the walls of Razin, the only poetic person of Russian history. "

Such is the soil on which the prerequisites arise to the plan of the work on the role of the people in Russian history.

The next X and XI volumes of the "history of the Russian state" N.M. Karamzin in 1824 contained a story about the era of "many recesses" and gave a sufficiently diverse and meaningful actual material, which determined the decision of Pushkin to dwell on the topic "On the real misfortune Moskovsky State, about Tsar Boris and about Grishke Deutsev. "

In a large notebook in a black leather binding, brought by Pushkin to Mikhailovskoe from Odessa, historical notes preceding the draft text of the tragedy begin among the records of the end of 1824.

Work begins with the outstanding of individual places of the Tom "Russian State History". The position of records in the book allows them to be attributed to the middle - the second half of November 1824.

Ospecting Pushkin not in the reading sequence, but guided by some kind of considerations, sometimes returning from the middle of Tom to its beginning - and back. In the records that came to us, Pushkin wrote off the individual places of volumes only in the part that ends the election of Godunov to the kingdom and directly related to the content of the tragedy does not have.

The peculiarity of the nature of the work of Pushkin over Boris Godunov was that individual scenes were created by direct following the source, others demanded almost research techniques for the extraction and combination of heterogeneous historical material, the third finally was not based on the source data, and only depended only from poetic inspiration. Pushkin wrote N.N. Raevsky in July 1825: "I am writing and reflecting. Most of the scenes require only reasoning; When I reach the scene that requires inspiration, I'm waiting for him or I miss this scene - this way of working for me is completely new. "

Chernoviki "Boris Godunova" is highly indicative in this regard. The places where Pushkin created a dialogue on a sufficient material was given to him easily and contain the smallest number of amendments and options. These include: Start I scene, sketches II, III and IV scenes.

The picture is changing when Pushkin starts, for example, to the fifth stage, which does not have direct conformity in the text of Karamzinskaya "History". It is the most difficult, with an abundance of amendments and options, manuscript pages. The text is repeatedly interrupted by fragments and sketches of other works - the stanzas "Eugene Onegin", drafts of unfinished poems, confirming the words of Pushkin: "... when I reach the scene that requires inspiration, I'm waiting for him or miss this scene."

The greatest creative tension required exactly the last of the scene that came to us in the draft (fifth) scene. With the turnover of Sheet 52, Pushkin returns to the tragedy and begins work on a monologue awakening Grigory. Unlike the final text in the draft Monologue, Grigory immediately begins with a story about a dream, and then follow his reflections on Pimen. The work on the monologue demanded a large creative tension and, breaking the text on the line: "And all night he did not close the eyes!", Pushkin again appeals to Evgenia Onegin. The texts of "Eugene Onegin" are further replaced by draft sketches belonging to the unfulfilled plan about Faust, the draft of the poem "I witnessed the kilt of your spring ...", and only from the middle of the sheet 55 Pushkin returns to the interrupted work: "How I love his calm face ..." . Work on the fifth scene is broken at the end of the sheet 56. Illicably it, Pushkin goes to other records. To work on the tragedy, he returns no longer to us sheets.

After a firmly established date - January 1825, when Pushkin still worked on the fifth stage, until mid-July of the same year - we do not have reliable evidence of the course of the poet over the tragedy. And only on July 13, 1825, Pushkin informed Vyazemsky.

The end time of work on Boris Godunov can only be determined approximately. The famous letter of Pushkin to Vyazemsky on the completion of work on the tragedy is dated presumably on October or early November 1825.

The end of the tragedy correspondence raided exactly the date of the white autograph - November 7, 1825.

In the white list, Pushkin's tragedy abandoned the initial archaised title, significantly reducing it:

"Comedy

Tsar Boris and about Grishke Defenev

By rewriting the tragedy, Pushkin made amendments to the selected text. Often, these corrections were quite numerous and attached to individual pages of the white list a obtained view.

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

Those dramatic principles, which Pushkin approached during work on the tragedy, led him to the need to practically resolve the most complicated issues of both the tragedy and interpretation and the embodiment of scenic images and characters.

In the desire to give the Russian theater, new forms other than the canons of the old classic tragedy, Pushkin refused the initial intention to divide the tragedy on acts and broke the entire action on 25 small scenes. The unity of the site is completely destroyed. The action of the tragedy with kaleidoscopic speed is transferred from one geographical point to another.

The unity of time is completely broken and the dates are the subtitles of individual scenes as if even more emphasize this bold innovation.

"Already preserved," according to Pushkin's expression, and the unity of action, which provides for the development of the action around one plot rod of the play, with one central hero. In the Pushkin tragedy, essentially, the two main actors - Boris and the impostor, and the latter was given to nine scenes of tragedy, while the title hero appears only in six.

Another "unity" was destroyed, about which, according to Pushkin, "French criticism and does not mention - the unity of the syllable": The traditional Alexandrian verse Pushkin replaces five-colored white, interrupting it with prose inserts, some scenes writes entirely prose.

The abundance of acting persons is striking and incredible for the drama of that time - in Pushkin tragedy about 80.

Pushkin tragedy advanced the most complicated question of the possibility of creating a play, built not on the personal destiny of the hero or heroes, but on the fate of the people, epoch, state.

This complex problem of Pushkin permits, based on its most difficult option: it does not create any contrived plot by the deliberate selection and the corresponding grouping of historical facts, but with the greatest art is the storyline of the tragedy, without breaking even the chronological sequence of recreated historical events.

2. Historical sources of Boris Godunova

A number of major problems directly related to the historical and social concept of Boris Godunova cannot be comprehended without finding out the question of the nature of the historical material based on the Pushkin tragedy and the interpretation of this material Pushkin.

In the literature on Boris Godunov, repeated considerations about the fact that in parallel with the "history of the Russian state" Karamzin and Russian chronicles - the main historical sources of the Pushkin tragedy - Pushkin looked at some extent on the "Annals" of Tacitis. The interest of Pushkin to Tacitis and Pushkin comments on the "Annals" on time coincide with the work on the tragedy. On the attitude of Pushkin to Tacitis there are already quite extensive literature.

To understand the meaning of the work helps his detailed literary analysis. "Boris Godunov" (Pushkin, as you know, has always been interested in historical topics) - this is a play that has become a landmark event not only in domestic, but also in world dramaturgy. The tragedy has become a turning point in the work of the poet, marking his transition from romanticism to realism. For the writer himself, it was a very successful experience in working with historical material. The success of the essay determined the further work of the classics in this direction.

Writing a work

Initially, a few words should be said about how the work on the play and what is the history of the creation of Boris Godunova. Biography shurin Tsar Fyodor I Johnovichinterested writer because he was a very complex and conflicting personality. In addition, the period of his reign has become a turning point in the history of Russia, marking the beginning of the troubled time.

That is why the poet turned to the years of his reign, taking the foundation of the people's legends about him as a basis, as well as the famous "history of the Russian state" famous historian N. M. Karamzin. In the second half of the 1820s, the author was carried away by the work of W. Shakespeare and therefore decided to create his own large-scale tragedy, the plot of which would develop against the background of real events of the past. It is from this that should be repelled, telling about what was the story of the creation of Boris Godunova. This historic figure was interested in the poet that Boris was a strong, volitional and charismatic figure, who, according to his origin, could not claim the Moscow throne, but by virtue of his mind and talent achieved the desired: he was proclaimed by the king, and he ruled seven years.

Introduction

A brief description of the first scene of the work should start its analysis. "Boris Godunov" (Pushkin was interested in the tragedy of Shakespeare, and therefore he, as well as English playwright, began with a large-scale artistic sketch of the first picture of the action) - this is a play in which, according to the generally accepted opinion of critics, the main character is a simple Russian people. Therefore, the first scene immediately opens a wide panorama of the Kremlin Square in front of the reader, where, in fact, after the death of the last son of Ivan the Terrible Fedor, the fate of the kingdom was solved.

Representatives of the Zemsky Cathedral ordered the audience to ask Boris Godunov to adopt the royal title. The latter refuses for a long time, and this storyline is very much reminded of about the same scene from the Piece of Shakespeare Richard III. However, in the end, he agrees and promises to edit fair and wisely. The hero's right to the throne was explained by the fact that his sister was his wife who faded King Fyodor, who deceased childlessly. He himself refused to power and went to the monastery.

Scene in the monastery

A separate characteristic of the Pimen Monk must be included in this literary analysis. "Boris Godunov" (Pushkin always attracted the image of the Russian chronicler, whom he captured in his play) is a work that is different from the historical chronicles of Shakespeare a great coverage of the place and time of action. The next scene occurs five years after the events described above. The poet describes the peaceful work of the Monk Pimen, who is working on his chroniclee. His monologue is a wonderful example of an old speech, imbued with a deep philosophical meaning. It sounds the idea of \u200b\u200bthe fate of Russia and the place of man in history. The monk argues that the descendants should know the fate of their fatherland. His long labor and humble mood contrast sharply with the behavior of Grigoria Oreveyev, who decided to take the Moscow throne, called the name of the killed Tsarevich Dmitry Uglichsky, the younger king Ivan the Terrible.

History of Frepeva

The characteristic of this acting person must include artistic analysis. "Boris Godunov" (Pushkin always attracted the personalities of the adventurous warehouse, and this character embodies this type of hero) is a drama that is built on a dynamic plot that includes political intrigue and philosophical problems. So, Gregory fled from the monastery and tried to go through the Lithuanian border.

However, at the inn of his yard, he almost grabbed the guard. Gregory deceived his pursuers and managed to hide in Krakow. Here he began to collect forces for a hike to Moscow and at the same time cared for the daughter of local governor Marina Mnishek.

The image of the main hero

In the tragedy "Boris Godunov", the summary of which should be retelling on the main scenes of the drama, a psychological portrait of the king is given. Initially, the author shows him in a family circle, in a conversation with his daughter and son. In these passages, the reader sees a caring father in him, which is stirred about the happiness of his heirs.

From his conversation with his son it becomes obvious that Boris is a wise ruler who is engaged in state affairs and seeks to teach his successor. However, then follows the scene in which it appears in front of the reader in a completely different form. The king blame himself in the murder of Tsarevich Dmitry (this fact was not confirmed by historical science, but the author used a folk hearing) and is afraid that this crime will affect his fate. He tries to be fair and wise ruler with all their might, but the thought of the child's death does not give him peace. Thus, the author gave a detailed psychological portrait of the king, opening it on both sides and showing his secret mental suffering.

Characteristic of Freakyev

Of great importance, historical plots attached to A. S. Pushkin. The Drama "Boris Godunov" tells about one of the most dramatic events in the past Rus - about the beginning of the troubled time, which almost led to the fall of state independence.

The author pays a lot of attention to the image of the sinks, who became an impostor and took the Moscow throne. In the writer's presentation, this was a man of an adventurous warehouse: alive, cunning and very ambitious. In the scene in the cross-border restaurant, he showed a dexterity, a mixture, as well as an exposure, sowing from the chase. The work of "Boris Godunov", whose heroes are distinguished by a strong and extraordinary character, attracts readers not only in an interesting and dynamic plot, but also carefully registered characters who seemed to be made from the pages of the famous Caramzin. The impostor has become one of the main key pieces of the work, although in the play and its direct confrontation with the king is not shown.

Image of a monk

Based on the historical material built his work Pushkin. Boris Godunov (Chronicler Pimen in the drama under consideration turned out to be one of the most memorable actors) is a tragedy, which presents a whole gallery of portraits of the era of the end of the 16th - early 17th century. Monk Monastery, where for some time there lived in the play as the embodiment of wisdom, peace and rest. He is engaged in writing the chronicles of the events of the past times, and it is his eyes who sees the reader who sees the past, as he himself was an eyewitness of great events. From his monologue, we learn about his reverent and reverent attitude to their work: Pimen understands the importance of creating a chronicle about the national history. The whole play "Boris Godunov" is penetrated by historical accuracy. The passage describing the scene in the miracle monastery is especially solemn, as the speech of the monk breathes peace and peace, and his calm contrasts with the restless mood of Grigory Oreveyev.

People in drama

According to the generally accepted opinion of critics, the author brought to the fore, with ordinary people who are constantly present in the most important scenes of the work. At first, when the king is elected, ordinary residents of the capital gathered at the Kremlin Square in order to ask him to occupy the Moscow throne.

In the scene in the cross-border restaurant, there are persons from the social bases of society: the hostess of the restaurant, simple soldiers. This is exactly what is different from the historical chronicles of Shakespeare Piez "Boris Godunov". The passage in the final is particularly eloquent and meaningful: at a decisive minute of the proclamation of the king of the impostor, the crowd of the crowd is silent. This is the most the author showed that at the moment the fate was solved in the top, among the boyars who took the side of the subfreyev. This scene is, in fact, the culminated, although he is put in a poet at the very end.

So, the people in the tragedy "Boris Godunov" is a major person. This feature of the drama was reflected in the opera of the famous Russian composer M. Mussorgsky, in which the choral buses play paramount importance.

Start of war

The play "Boris Godunov", the summary of which is the subject of this review, consists of several scenes, which are united by one common idea - the confrontation of a person and power. The next scene begins with the description of the hostilities of the impostor. He moves to Moscow in the hope of seizing power. However, in the capital, meanwhile, Boris unexpectedly dies, but he managed to bless his eldest son Fyodor to the reign. Among the boyars, in the meantime, the idea of \u200b\u200braising a riot against children of the deceased ruler was ripened, and one of them proclaims the Samozvian king. The play ends with silence of the people.

BORIS GODUNOV - The central character of the historical drama ("People's Tragedy"), which is based on the events described in the 10th and 11th volumes of the "Russian State History" H. M. Karamzin. Its "precious for Russians" the tragedy is dedicated. Not accepting a lot in Karamzin's views, Pushkin fully accepts a version of the direct involvement of the Tsarist Shuris Boris Godunov to the Uglich kill of the only heir to the throne of Tsarevich Dimitri (1582-1591). Boris Godunov appears by the usurper of power, with a nationwide election. Smoot - Payback for his sins. Boris Godunov and Lzhedymitri are connected in the tragedy as a reason and consequence: "the illegality" of the first generated "lawlessness" of the second; Blood is attracted by blood. The collapse of the Moscow Kingdom, the approach of the University, the terrible prologue of the majestic Petersburg period of Russian history - all these topics have an indirect moral and political attitude to the modern day of the 1820s.

Already in the 1st stage ("Kremlin Chambers"), preceding the election of Boris Godunov, Boyarin Shuisky, who was investigated by the Uglich murder, tells the venery of Vorotnsky about Bityagovsky with Kadovov, whom Boris Godunov selected; The interlocutor concludes: Boris Godnov because for a month sits, putting himself from the sister, who was a monasticist of the queen Irina that "the blood of an innocent baby / he interferes with the throne." However, both agree on the fact that "yesterday's slave, Tatar, the son-in-law of small Utah, / and himself in the soul of the executioner," where they are a born, rather than they, still be king in Moscow: the times came when the courage became more important and power Gets to the one who is more decisive for her. 3rd ("Maiden Field. Novodevichi Monastery") and the 4th ("Kremlin chambers") scenes seem to confirm the Boyarsky "diagnosis". The people curious and indifferent to their political fate, crying and rejoicing, in the pointer of Boyar, I build Boris Godunov on the throne. Boyar and Patriarch is reverently (and partly Lukovo) listen to the speech of the new sovereign. The nature of Boris Godunova is not disclosed; All this is only an exposition that reveals the string of the global historical plot (the murder of Tsarevich is a moral defeat of the "winner" in the struggle for the royal vacancy - the phenomenon of the impostor). The actual stage intrigue will be covered later - in the scene of the "Chambers of Patriarch", when the reader (the audience) learns about the flight of the Inoka-Samostvanta Grigory Oreveyev from the monastery.

Starting from the 7th scene ("Tsarist Chambers") Boris enters the fore. The king, from which the sorcerer had just emerged (which indicates the uncertainty of the ruler in his power), pronounces the confessional monologue: he reigns the sixth year (as many years has passed between the death of Dimitria and the focus of Boris; chronological symmetry is indicative); The Board turned out to be unsuccessful - hunger, fires, "ungratefulness" of mobiles. The groom's beloved daughter is dead; one courage to possess the power of little; rightit must be supported by internal right:

And everything is nauseous, and the head is spinning,

And the boys bloody in the eyes ...

And I am glad to run, but nowhere ... terrible!

Yes, the pitiful pity, in whom the conscience of the unclean.

The soil goes from under the feet of Boris Godunova - he feels, although nothing else knows about the "Resurrection" of Dimitri (Patriarch did not solve the news of the sovereign about the flight of Grigory).

The terrible news overtakes Godunov in the 10th stage (also named "Tsarist Chambers"); She is in a hurry to inform the tricky Shuisky, with whom the Moscow boyar Pushkin shared the news received from Krakow's nephew Gavrila Pushkin. (In terms of the mouth of the Pushkin ancestor, the thoughts of the author of the tragedy about the ruin of ancient boyar birth - including the "Romanov, the Fatherland of Hope" - as a political cause of the troubles. This reasoning changes all the "semantic proportions" of the tragedy, where the example of Shuisky shows the loss of advantage of the ancient Boyars, and on the example of Basmanov - Didnawing dishonestness of the new.) Shocked Boris in bewilderment: what is the "legality" of the authorities, selected popularly and approved churchly, if the dead have "right" to leave the coffin to interrogate the kings? Political consequences are generated by moral reasons; Liedmitry is able to inspire dangerous ideas and lead her for himself; The shadow is ready to rip the porphira from the king: "So why do you have to rush to eat thirteen years old / all reducing the killed child!".

The scene 15th ("Tsarist Duma") serves as the culmination of the "Godunov" line of the plot. Liedmitria troops are moving to Moscow; By sending Trubetskoy and Basmanov to war, Godunov holds advice with approximate: how to stop confusion? Patriarch, whom Pushkin (contrary to the historical prototype - IOVA) depicts a stupid goodness, a simple way, without knowing the background of events, offers a moral way out of the circumstances created: to transfer the miraculous relics of Tsarevich Dimitri from the Uglich to the Archangel Cathedral of the capital.

put them in the cathedral

Arkhangelsky; People see clear

Then deception of the godless villain,

And the power of demons will disappear.

But the fact of the matter is that to transfer power and to be in the immediate "mystical proximity" from their victim of Godunov. So he is doomed in the fight against the impostor, which he gave rise to. Understanding this, a dodgy shuisky will assign the arguments of an incentive patriarch ("Would you tell me that we are shridly / in the affairs of the world-wearing weapons?") And announces that he himself (instead of the saints of power!) It will appear on the People's Square and will detect the "evil tribulation" . Situation tragicomic; And Godunov (which during the patriarchairs speech from horror closes his face with a handkerchief) throughout the scene from the figure of the vicious-majestic, the tragedy turns into a semi-homing figure. He is "pity" - for in it "Conscience of the Unclean." He is no longer the ruler, as it depends on the circumstances.

After that, Boris remains one thing - to die. What he does in the 20th stage ("Moscow. Tsarist Chambers"), having time to promise Basmanov that after the victory over an impostor burns "discharge books", will destroy to know and the mind will put in place of the kind:

Basmanov

Ah, sovereign, stock is blessed

That will be a day when the books are discharged

With discords, with pride pedigree

Fit fire.

This day is not far;

Just give first confusion of the people

I pacify me.

The kingdom of Godunova began blood, the blood continued, blood and ends: "On the throne, he sat and suddenly fell - / the blood hung out of the mouth and from the ears."

The last hope of the dying and preparing to take Schima Godunov on the fact that at least his death will eliminate moral disharmony and restore political equilibrium. He is personally beyond the death of Dimitria - and will answer for God before; But the election in itself was legitimate, therefore, the innocent heir to the throne Fedor will rule "right." The same thought in the final will repeat the "man from the people" ("Father was a villain, but children of innocent"); But in vain: the children of one "Liazar", Fyodor and Ksenia will be killed by servants of another "false gener".

Place in the system of characters. The tragedy has five major groups of characters - culprits, accomplices, participants, witnesses, sacrifices. The role of innocent victims is played, naturally, the children of the king. Chronicler Pimen, Yreeny, People from the people in the scenes "Square in front of the Cathedral in Moscow" and "Kremlin. House Borisov. The guardian of the porch is not involved in historic evil, but testify to him - by refring (as an oarodily), discussing (as people from the crowd) or transferring the news about it to offspring (like Pimen). Stupil Patriarch, hired commanders of the Russian troops Generet and V. Rosen, Prisoner of Flaming "Moscow Nobleman" Roznov, son of Prince Kurbsky and other secondary characters from different camps directly participate in history, but are not responsible for her bloody break, because they do not have personal intent. People from the crowd indifferently choosing the king (the scene "Maiden Field. Novodevichy Monastery") and willingly running "Turning" innocent "Borisov Puppies" (Scene "Kremlin. House Borisov"); Polish to know in the face of Marina Mnishek, her father and Vishnevetsky, Jesuita in the face of Pater "A Chernikovsky; false Russian boyars are made that they are doing, and therefore they say in the tragedy of Russia. They are different; the author's attitude to them is ambiguous (to Gregory Pushkin more Sympathetic, to Shui extremely hostile).

An ambiguous attitude towards two main characters acting in the history of the first person, which means that the fullest responsibility for everything that happens. Liedmitry Pushkin makes it possible to manifest itself from different sides, because he impresses him in something. Boris Godunov monumental-monotony and immobile; He seems to be discovered from the horror of his position, he was killed by the tripping of power and from the stage in the scene, from the monologue to the monologue varies the same set of topics. His ethical connection with all actors, with all the events depicted in the drama (not excluding those that occur after its "physical" death) is undoubted; His plot connection with them is obvious not always.

Here Pushkin is sharply dispersed with the genre tradition of the Russian political tragedy: it puts into the center of not anti-state villain (cf. "Dimitriya Samozvance" A. P. Sumarov) and not a state hero. But precisely the villain - state. It was impossible before the release of the 9-11st volumes of "History ..." Karamzin, where the official rulers of Russia, Ivan the Terrible and Boris Godunov, were first depicted negatively. Putting Boris Godunov to the center and clearly denoting his attitude towards him, Pushkin is in no hurry to close the entire multi-digital composition of the drama on this center. As a result, there is a feeling of greater volume - and less scene.

Pushkin dismisses with a tradition and in that it does not seek direct political alluses, preferring historical accuracy of topicality. (Although an anachronism in the image of Boris Godunov could not be avoided - so, reflecting on the thirst for power, the ruler of the XVI century. Goes into the language of Russian lyrics of the XIX century:

Is not it

We fall in love with a smalle and alch

Uteshe love, but only quench

Heart glad instant possession,

Oh, cool, miss and languish? ..

Cf. In Pushkin Message to Chaaadaev - "We are waiting with Torzheny Velanya / minutes of the Saint Volost, / How the lover is waiting for the young / minute of the first date ...".) And yet the parallel between the "legally soldering" to the top of Boris Godunov and the bloody joint of Alexander I after murder Paul I arose sate himself; Court of Godunov - Wheel Karamzin - not so much from the standpoint of national religious (the true king is meant to the kingdom of the century; it can be replaced - no matter, on the basis of the law or not; then any person who has proven to the throne may be the applicant for the throne "And the hereditary right to power), as from the point of view of its legitimacy. Meanwhile, the philosophy of legitimate rule (the principle of heredity enshrined by law) was developed precisely in the Alexander Epoch, during post-war congresses.

But the Grishka Fravev "will not leave" from this court. At the very beginning of his adventure, he was already before the eyes of Pimen - here is the thought of Pushkin, embodied in the scene of the miracle of the monastery. Pimen was not only a chronicler, the poet of history. And in this regard, it is very similar to Pushkin: "Dramatic poet, impartial, like fate ...". "Fate" is a key word in the "free novel" Pushkin, and in his drama. The plot is formed not from the old rational dilemma of love and debt, but from the present contradiction: "... the fate of human, the fate of people."

Where they just did not look for the source of this remark! Meanwhile, Karamzin said: "The partician voice was not heard in the praise of private, korestolubivoy, and the silence of the Sea, serving for the king of the ukriznaya, has taken an important change in the hearts of Russians." In the scenes of Pushkin tragedy there is no external proportionality. For example, "Korchma on the Lithuanian border" takes several pages of the text, and the scene in the wards of the patriarch fits on one page. In the time of Pushkin there was no such stage technology, with which it would be possible to carry out such a quick decoration change. To produce Boris Godunov, I would have to take advantage of the experience of the London Shakespearean Globus Theater, where there was no decorations at all.

Tragedy by tradition usually had five acts. Pushkin refused to divide the acts and made a tragedy of twenty-three scenes. It was also a kind of "free novel".

So begins the tragedy. "People in horror silent." "What are you silent?" With an invalid fear, but with a arrogance asks Mosalsky. - Scream: Long live Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich! ". Then the famous remark follows: "The people silently" the last line "Boris Godunova".

The tragedy "Boris Godunov" is extraordinary in shape. Boris Godunov, whose name was named tragedy, was not at all in it the main acting person. It appears only in several scenes, and he paid attention not more than the impostor.

• Here you have a terrible denunciation:
• How you won't leave God.
• And you will not leave the court of worldly,

Mikhail's ruthless monks and Varlaam meet in Korchme on the border of the third fluid monk Grishchie Spreveva. All this scene is written by prose - otherwise she could not be written: "That's the Lithuanian border, which I so wanted to get to you." Pushkin presents its heroes as multilateral characters. In different circumstances, they act in different ways, but everywhere is true to themselves. Since the minute, as Pushkin brought them to the stage, he would not intervene in their actions, providing them with himself. And they act, obeying the role that they themselves have chosen "on the story theater".

Meanwhile, Pimen is hardly the most important acting face of the tragedy. "Pimen's character is not my invention," Pushkin writes. "I gathered the features that captured me in our old chronicles." Pimen does not participate in events. But he sees how "fate works", guessing in the events of God by God. His chronicle does not contradict the folk view. Gregory Fravev in the chronicle hangwood says, turning to the "Shadows" of Boris Godunova:

• . . . Hermit in Dark Pole

Ticket 16. Drama "Boris Godunov". Innovation of drama. The theme of the people and power. The question of the main hero.

Basic theme of tragedy - The sir and the people - identified the important place that Pushkin divered in his play Boris Godunov.

The image of Boris Godunov is disclosed extensively and versatile. Boris is shown both as a king, and as a family man; Its various mental quality is noted.

Boris is endowed with many positive features. His great mind is attractive, mighty will, responsiveness, desire "His people in contentment, in glory to calm down." As a gentle father, he sincerely grieve about his daughter's grief, a shocked unexpected death of his groom:

What, Ksenia, what is my sweet?

In the brides, sad widow!

All crying you about the dead groom ...

Evilless, why do you suffer? "

As a person, deeply understanding the benefit of education, he rejoices the success of the Son in science:

Learn, my son, science cuts

We experience a fast-minded life ...

Learn, my son, and easier and clearer

Holding work you will comprehend.

Boris is an experienced politician, he soberly takes into account the attitude towards him Boyar, understands the whole difficult situation within the country of the country and gives reasonable advice to his son in a suicide testament. Wrouding his daughter for the Swedish Kingaicha, he thinks about strengthening Russia's communications with Western European states.

Despite all these qualities, the people do not like the king. Boris Godunov - a typical representative of that autocracy, which began to develop in Moscow Rus since Ivan III and his heyday reached in otherwise IV. Boris will continue the policy of Ivan IV - the concentration of all state power in the hands of the king. He continues to fight a born boyars and. As Ivan IV, it relies in this struggle to the service of the nobility. Appointing Basmanov commander of the troops, Boris tells him: "Let's go to command you: not a genus, and I will put the mind to the governor." Boris continues the policies of the Moscow kings and in relation to the people: "Only we rigorously we can restrain the people. So John (III) thought, the speaker of the storm, a reasonable autocrat, so I thought a hundred fierce grandson (Ivan IV). " He continues the policy of challenging the peasants, he "Yuryev Lena conceived to destroy", that is, to destroy the right of the peasants to move from one landowner to another to finally fasten the peasants behind the landowners. "

Such a serf policy of Boris strengthens the incredulous first, and then hostile attitude towards him of the people.

But Boris is different from its predecessors by the fact that he became a king with the help of a crime, and not in the order of the legitimate prestolia. In the XVII century, as some of the writers of that time say about this, Boris Godunov considered the killer of Dimitri-Tsarevich, the son of Ivan IV. Karamzin adhered to the same opinion. Karamzin The tragedy of Boris considered as a consequence of his crime: God punished Boris for the murder of the Tsarevich-Baby.

Pushkin, "Resecting the age of passed in all its truth", too

draws Boris as a killer Dimitria. But, in contrast

writers of the XVII century and Karamzin, he is not this crime

explains the unfortunate reign of Boris and his comprehension

fail to establish the tsarist dynasty Godunov.

The murder of Dimitria causes Boris spiritual torment, strengthens the hostility of the people to him, but not this is the main cause of his tragic destiny. The death of Boris is due to social reasons, the struggle of class forces. A boyars, Don Cossacks, the Polish gentry, the most importantly, were opposed to the fight against him. Gabril Pushkin tells Basmanov that the self-serurator is not "Polish me" and not the Cossacks, but "the opinion of people". The people rebelled against Godunov, and this is the main reason for the death of Boris, as the people are the main, decisive power of history.

The people turned away from Boris and then rebelled against him because he saw a despot in him, who not only does not care about the good of the people, but, on the contrary, he worsens his position, fixing the peasantry; I saw in him the king of Tsarevich; He considered all his "benefits" and "generotes" as a "means to keep the confusion of the resentment."

So Pushkin shows that the main cause of the Boris tragedy is that he lost respect, love and support of the people.

Innovation of drama.

Pushkin Predated and repeatedly reflected on the theory of drama. He put these questions in front of him during work on Boris Godunov. The first Russian is genuinely national poetwho had to say a new word, take a step forward in the artistic development of humanity, Pushkin He thought out and creatively mastered the experience of all the literary development preceding him, especially assessing the work of Shakespeare, opposing the "Folk Laws of the Drama Shakespeare" "Courtually custom of the Rasin tragedy." If a Pushkin The traditional system of classicism at all was not satisfied, it did not satisfy him and the modern new romantic drama, a bright example of which he considered the plays of revolutionary romance - Bairon.

Dramaturgia Byrona Not so much drawing images Other people like they are in reality, how much did the identity of the author himself reflect. Bayron., as Pushkin comes rightly, "distributed certain features of their own between his heroes; To one, he gave his pride, to another - his hatred, the third to his longing, etc., and in this way, from one whole character, gloomy, energetic, created several insignificant. " One-sided and monotonous, the subjectively romantic manner of Bairon Pushkin contrasts the wide and true image of life, the deep and versatile development of human characters in Shakespeare's drama, the method of which will be later insistently in the example of its compatriot Lassala Marx and Engels.

Create tasks A truly historical work that would give the truthful reproduction of a whole historical era, the traditional forms of classicism drama could be less common. A wide and stormy stream of historical life, direct access to which Pushkin wanted to open on theatrical layouts, did not hold the framework of all kinds of "rules" and conventions. And Pushkin thoroughly breaks these infinite forms and traditions, it decisively joins the path of the indigenous "transformation of the drama of our system", "the outdated form of the theater" is the path of creative donning and innovation. The list of qualities necessary by the drama, Pushkin ended in an expressiveness of them in the word "freedom". In the name of the truthful image of life and history by the leading and uniquely determining principle.

PrimarilyHe resolutely eliminated the notorious "three unities" of classicism. If the action of the "classic" tragedy should certainly have been, according to the forever established theoretical rules, stacked in a period of time not exceeding twenty-four hours, the action of Boris Godunov covers the period of seven years (from 1598 to 1605). Instead of the only place where all five acts had to happen, of which there were a tragedy (most often there were tsarist draws in such a place), the action of Boris Godunova passes from the palace to the square, from the monastic cell in Korchmu, from Patriarch's chambers on battlefields; Moreover, it is even transferred from one country to another - from Russia to Poland. In accordance with this, instead of five acts, Pushkin divides his play by twenty-three scenes, which allows him to show the Russian historical life of the time from a wide variety of its diverse manifestations.

Fabul in tragedy Classicism was built on an indispensable love intrigue, the development of which was formed by the third unity - "unity of action". Pushkin builds his tragedy almost without love And, in any case, without the central love intrigue: the passionate passion for the Marina Mnishki's self-shutdown is one of the side episodes of the play and, in essence, plays an almost official role in it. "I was glad about the tragedy without love intrigue," Pushkin himself wrote. But, not to mention that love It is very suitable for the nomanic and passionate character of my adventurerist, I made Dimitri fell in love with Marina to better strain her unusual character. " The traditional unity of action, about whom Pushkin himself writes that "barely retained" him is constantly violated and the fact that the Pushkin tragedy is not only the place of its action, but in essence, incessantly coming out of the palace - from the royal chambers, it is deployed at the same time and in parallel In several social plans. What is performed in the palace is explained by what is happening in Boyar sorry, and the latter is due to what is happening on the square.

In direct communication With all this and in general, in an effort to cover the historical era as possible as possible, Pushkin goes far and it is extremely narrowed in the estate, and just in quantitatively the circle of actors of the tragedy of classicism. It usually acted no more than ten, and most often significantly fewer characters belonging mainly to the court tip. In Boris Godunov, we have a huge quantity - about sixty-acting persons, including we find representatives of all the layers of the then society: from the king, Patriarch, Boyar, nobles, warriors, foreign mercenaries, Cossacks, citizens, ordinary merchants before Hostess Corchma, to the Broadchanges Chernets, to a simple woman on the maiden field, calming the blurred child in time, before the rebellious man on the amon, calling the people to break into the royal chambers.

This latitude coverage corresponds to the fact that tragedy Pushkin, again, again, contrary to everyone has long been established traditions, there is no major "hero", the main acting person. The tragedy is called the name of Tsar Boris, but she not only does not end him with death (the circumstance that led to extreme bewilderment most of the modern Pushkin critics), but also appears only in six scenes from twenty-three. In Boris Godunov, we are before us - the whole historical reality of that time, all the motley and many-sided Russia of that era passing in a living and moving, noisy, increasing, "like a sea-ocean", full of events by panorama.

The question of the main hero.

The drama is a peculiar literary phenomenon, which is why the exhaustion of one main character in the traditional understanding of this word is somewhat difficult. Researchers have repeatedly noted that the character, the name of which the play was named (and on the canons of classicism it is an undoubted indication of the person on which the author's focus is focused, i.e. on the main character) - Boris Godunov is paid to the text not so much attention - he It appears only in six scenes from the available 23.

More often than Boris, only an impostor appears on the scene, but he only has nine episodes on his account - less than half. There is an opinion that it is generally incorrect to talk about the main hero in this drama Pushkin. Including the situation was expressed that the author's attention covers the fate of the entire people as a whole, without stopping for a long time on one person, i.e. Events develop as a result of the merger of many efforts, desires, actions and motives, and the tragedy demonstrates the historical process as a complex whole, and the people as some combustibility of persons presented, on the one hand, individual characters, alternately derived to the extent, and on the other - as some kind Unity, whose appearance gradually grows from the actions of its individual representatives .

However, despite the absence of the only main character around which the action unfolds, it is impossible to talk about the full "amorphousness" of the tragedy in this regard. In the drama there is a "carcass", not one main character, but their system, and this system of images associated the main problem of the work. The presence of several (limited numbers) of personalities on which the main conflicts of the work are held, confirmed by the evidence of the author himself - Pushkin pointed to Boris and the impostor as the characters attracting his close attention .

In addition to the two of these figures, at which the Pushkin himself explicitly focuses, one more image presented in the tragedy should be noted. This is Tsarevich Dimitri, the son of Ivan the Terrible, killed in Uglich. By the time the play was begins (1598), Tsarevich, who died at the nine-year-old age in 1591, has been in the grave for seven years. Personally, he cannot participate in the unfolding drama, however, if you can express it, his shadow is constantly present in the play, building everything that happens in a certain perspective.

It is with three of these characters that the main problems raised in the drama are associated with their relationship. Boris Godunov - Tsarevich Dimitri is a "tragedy of conscience" and the tragedy of the power, mined through the crime, the Boris line - the impostor affects the question of the true and inexistant Tsar, in a pair of Dimitri-Lhadmitry, the second without the first is simply unthinkable, existence, and then the death of a small Tsarevich steadily lead to the tragedy on the throne of Boris Godunova and to the appearance of an impostor. All three characters have their own characters, from the collision of which the story axes are formed. Pushkin outlined acting persons, taking into account the general concept of drama, in order to be brightened the idea and were affected by all the problems that he wanted to highlight. He had a choice of possible interpretations of the personalities of all three main characters and evaluating their actions given by various sources.

Thus, the assessment of the Personality of Boris Godunov, cited in the sources and literature, scattered throughout the scale from a positive to the negative pole. Based on his nature, the question of his fate was usually solved: what it was - a fair retribution of villain or an evil rock, faded on an innocent sufferer.

The beginning of the perception of Boris as an unequivocal villain was laid back in troubled times, when Boris's successors on the throne completely officially accused him of all mortal sins (in many murders - in particular, in the death of the little Tsarevich Dimitria, - in the usurpation of power, in arson and almost Not in the organization of hunger). These accusations given by solid text, it seems more comic, rather than convincing, but all of them individually were attributed to Boris . The image of Boris - the creep villain is often exploited quite often in the historical drama and in historical standards. All the failures of Boris on the throne, the folk to him, hatred and his supreme death, in this case, were explained by a completely deserved punishment - a rascal and could not get a different lotion, evil should always be punished.

However, many of the most serious accusations after a thorough investigation can be removed from Boris. After freeing it from the costume of the sewing villain, the killers of an innocent baby and the poisoner almost all the royal family can be tried to see another appearance of Godunov - after all, there was a purely positive assessment of his personality. In this case, they remembered the positive results of his reign: the cessation of terror of formidable, thoughtful foreign policy, the revival of contacts with foreigners - both cultural and trade, is to strengthen the southern borders, territorial acquisitions, the development of Siberia, the landscaping of the capital ... during the echicifications of disasters When at the beginning of the XVII century, several faults hit the country at once, Boris took every effort to smooth the crisis, and not his fault was that the state at that time turned out to be simply not adapted to get out of such a test with honor. The outstanding personal qualities of Boris were noted - his government talent, a sharp mind policy, love for virtue. In this case, the fall due to the unsuccessful coincidence with which Boris had enough strength to cope .

Somewhere in the middle between two poles - positive and negative - there is another option to interpret the Personality of Boris, which is as follows - due to the state activities of Boris and his abilities of the ruler, but it is noted that this man is responsible in many crimes and can not be forgiven Despite the presence of some positive qualities. Boris's fate is interpreted as the notorious "tragedy of conscience." Such a position was adhered to, for example, Karamzin, speaking that Boris was an example of piety, hardworking, parental tenderness, but his lawlessness still inevitably made him a victim of the Heavenly Court . Initially, the sins of Godunova are so great that his subsequent positive behavior cannot help anything - after a perfect crime, Boris is no longer justified, as if exemplary he behaved.

Estimates of the second significant figure - an impostor - vary no longer as part of a "positive-negative character", but rather, the pendulum ranges between the definitions of the "Full Note, Pawn" and "Little Adventurer". A positive impostor never evaluated. In principle, the impostor still remains a foggy figure - there was a lie around him all the time, and very few confirmed documentaries remained. Until now, it is not known with the complete accuracy who was this man. Researchers agree, however, in the fact that the real son of a Terrible person, 11 months held by the Russian throne, could not be, too much does not converge, first of all, in the allegations of the most impostor himself and in his stories about his salvation. The most common version - Under the distortion of Dimitria on the Moscow throne, Sidel Yuri (in the monastic of Grigory), the son of a poor nobleman, Sagittsky and Salt .

In the fact that the impostor and there is a wonderfully escaped Tsarevich Dmitry, only ordinary people who joined his army believed and giving him fortresses. But even they were not so much faith based on knowledge, how much faith, supported by desire. It was absolutely not fundamentally, who declares themselves Dimitri - the real son of the Terrible or the person from the side - the effect was the same. In the figure of Dimitria, regardless of who performed this role, the dreams of the people about the true fair Tsar were realized. Dimitri was an image and a name that any person could stand.

The question of the impostor is as follows - whether he himself brewed all the huge intrigue or simply used it, seducing generous backs. The resolution of this issue is closed on the characteristics of the character of the impostor. If it was a truly strong personality of a significant scale, in his head could be born an independent plan for the capture of power, after which he moved to his goal, skillfully playing the interests of those who were able to help him . If this adventurer from nature was a complete insignificance, he could simply throw some idea, provoke it, and then use in his game.

The third main character - Tsarevich Dimitri, who died in Uglich at the age of nine, it seems either with a purely negative point of view, or as a small angel. Negative image of Tsarevich draws N.I. Kostomarov, giving a portrait of a little sadist who loves to look at how to cut chickens, hates Boris Godunov, suffers from epilepsy and, as a result, hysterical seizures and generally inherited the character of his father - Ivan the Terrible . Another option is the image of Tsarevich, as an innocently affected martyr, a meek baby endowed with all imaginable advantages. This point of view demonstrates Tsarevich's lives, drawn up both in the period of Disame and at a later time. Stresses the tragity of premature death, high hopes that bind to the boy, the innocence and the defenselessness of the deceased, his "non-maltness" .

Pushkin concept, options for estimates that he eventually gave preference, at different times were understood and interpreted in different ways. Contemporaries, almost immediately responding to the publication of Boris Godunov, saw in the image of Boris only the tragedy of the guilty conscience. They focused on the relationships within the pair of Boris - Tsarevich Dimitri, consider their drama leitmotif. The impact on such an understanding was able to have a very noticeable external connection of the tragedy with the "Russian state history" N.M. Karamzin, where the theory of Boris-villain, punished for sins, develops in very detailed .

The Soviet researchers, on the contrary, have completely denied the presence of a motive of the irreclined conscience in the drama. They ignored the frequent mention of the name of Tsarevich Dimitri, bring the number of main characters to two (Boris and the impostor). The elimination of Tsarevich from the circle of the main heroes completely relieves the problem of guilt and makes it look for the causes of the fall of Boris in completely different areas and, accordingly, to interpret the ideological concept of Pushkin, expressed in his drama.

At the Soviet researchers, ideological considerations were influenced in a very large extent. In the image of the ruler's fall, which is clearly distinguished by positive qualities, they willingly see an example of the inevitability of the collapse of any autocratic power, the law of development of society in action. In a certain way influenced a similar interpretation and reinforced its arguments, the mention of V.G. Belinsky on the determining role of people's opinion in the fate of Boris and the Samostor. From the Marxist positions of the driving force of history are the masses, and, if the people appear in the drama and, moreover, its participation determines the decoupling of fate of the main characters, it means that the tragedy is devoted to the demonstration of national influence on historical events .

Analyzing the interpretation of the image of Godunov in Drama, you can make sure that the researchers have read everything in it, from religious morality on the topic of heavenly punctures to a purely ideological antimonarchic concept. In our opinion, despite the possible elimination of the main characters of one or another, despite the transfer of reader's attention from Boris and the impostor to the people, mixing them in plotically minor units in some interpretations, the three-dead system of the plot axes of Godunov - Samvan - Tsarevich Dimitri has Its excuse and fully covers the ability to interpret the drama.

The image of Boris Godunov in the drama is ambiguous - Pushkin did not draw it in either solely black, nor in exclusively bright colors. Boris U Pushkin is represented in many ways in accordance with historical realities - there is a lot of references in the text for a real personality of Boris Godunov and the facts that are reliably related to it. Boris in the tragedy - a smart man, a skillful politician, a diplomat (his excellent qualities in this area recognize everything - Athanasius Pushkin in the Episode "Moscow." House Shuisky "speaks about the" smart head "of Tsar Boris), he is enough heter to be able to bypass all his rivals and get the throne, which he has dubious rights. Boris has a delicate attachment to his children: his greatest desire is that his children are happy, and the biggest fear - that his sins will unfold. Children Boris protects against any evil, raising them with love and care, and hopes that he will be alone for all, a luck will come to children.

Godunov is an outstanding personality, which is intended and good and bad. In the throne, he tries to earn a folk love with all their forces, but all attempts are in vain - on the conscience of Boris lies a grave sin of murder, in connection with which his whole life is a tragedy of the abundant conscience and death itself - the consequence of the fact that he does not withstand the inner struggle . Boris came to power through a crime and all it, individually such beautiful and relevant actions, as well as positive qualities, are not able to redeem him. It can be an ideal ruler, an exemplary family man, do a lot of good, but it is not initially right, because to get the throne, killed the child.

Pushkin did not take advantage of the existing theory of Boris-villain, as the purebred villain cannot experience the flour of conscience and the tragedy is excluded for him, similar to those represented in the drama, which would completely destroy the entire author's intent. The villain will rather meet himself, rather than execute mentally, as Godun does. This is also a plot, a decent image, but he was not interested in Pushkin. The version of Boris-ideal king also did not fit into the overall concept - Boris should be guilty, otherwise the idea of \u200b\u200bthe tragedy would be collapsed. The fact that Boris's participation in the murder of Tsarevich is not supported by evidence, Pushkin left aside. In his tragedy, Godunov is undoubtedly guilty - he himself says about it, they are talking about it. For this, Pushkin Belinsky reproached that some melodrama was made from history - the whole tragedy of Boris is tied to his very dubious, unproved crime. Belinsky found that Pushkin overreed, following Karamzin, who rigidly knitted the fall of Boris with his sins and motivated the failure of Godunov exclusively punishment for the committed murder .

In our opinion, the intention of the tragedy is not exhausted only by the demonstration of the torment of the sick conscience and does not boil down to the description of the retribution killer. The circle of affected problems is wider, and the personality of the character, the name of which the work is called, is associated with the formulation of many problems, and not the embodiment of only one feature. The identity of Boris Godunova faces other central characters and inside this peculiar triangle are built the main storylines. Elimination, the derivation of any hero leads to the distortion of the entire system, to the change of accents and ultimately to re-form the concept of the tragedy.

Boris-Tsarevich Dimitri Line, as already mentioned, embodies the tragedy of the inscountable conscience. The whole drama should not be reduced to this idea, but also to deny the existence of such a motive is also not worth it. The motive of guilt does not prevail, but is present in the work of one of the structural elements. And the image of Boris, and the image of Dimitria is in a tight connection with the need to deploy this problem entirely. Boris in Drama - the face is not negative, but once he, to make his way to the throne, took sin on the soul. Now he is safely ruled, but the shadow of the killed boy pursues him, and because he is not a complete villain, he constantly hears the voice of the reproaching conscience. Boris loses to fight an imaginary shadow, and then with a real man in which the shadow is embodied - in confrontation with Lhadmitria vs. Boris Circumstances: displeasure to the people and approximate, but adverse circumstances can still give way to human will, but Boris himself lowers hands - he does not have Internal confidence in its own rightness and sinlessness.

The appearance of Tsarevich in the play is endowed with those features that the Godunov tragedies give a special bulge. Pushkin draws a portrait close to the images that are presented in the living literature. The small age of the child will be emphasized (it is called "baby" everywhere), his innocence is emphasized and almost holiness (the body of the child, laid after death in the church, remains ample that there is an integral sign of holiness, the wonderful healing of Tsarevich's miraculous healing .

It was the most powerful force of a person, the tragedy of man is, on the way to the throne of the innocent baby over the corpse. Dimitri's deepening, a reminder of his cruelty and bad heredity would give a somewhat different shade of the entire tragedy - one thing is the murder of an innocent boy, and the other is the death of a little sadist who promises in the future to turn into the second Ivan the Terrible. Pushkin neglects the information undoubtedly known to him about the desires of Tsarevich (rumors about his evilness are given in the "history of the Russian state" Karamzin). The tragedy is given exactly the interpretation of the image of Dimitria, which corresponds to the overall intent and ensures the implementation of the desired idea in its entirety.