Are you here: For the service sector

The play was first published in the journal Vestnik Evropy. 1867, no. 1.

Ostrovsky began work on the historical chronicle “Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky” in early February 1866.

Among the historical chronicles, the playwright himself singled out “Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky.” In March 1866, he wrote to Nekrasov about this play: “I don’t know whether what I wrote is good or bad, but in any case this will constitute an era in my life, from which a new activity will begin...” (A. N. Ostrovsky, Complete collected works, M. 1949-1953, vol. XIV, p. 134. In the future, when referring to this publication, only the volume and page are indicated).

As Ostrovsky himself testifies, “Dmitry the Pretender” is “the fruit of fifteen years of experience and long-term study of sources” (Vol. XIV, p. 144). Ostrovsky carefully studied the “History of the Russian State” by N. M. Karamzin, which gave him information about the course of events of the depicted era. He also used monuments of ancient Russian writing: “The Legend” of Abraham Palitsyn, “The Legend and the Tale of the Hedgehog,” etc. To depict the characters in the drama, Ostrovsky used the “Collection of State Charters and Treaties.” “Tales of Contemporaries about Demetrius the Pretender” published by N. G. Ustryalov also underwent in-depth study. (1859, parts 1 and 2), who gave the playwright material for the last scene of the chronicle, as well as information about Marina Mnishek. Ostrovsky also became acquainted with the notes of Polish authors (“Diary of Polish Ambassadors” and others. See N.P. Kashin, “Dramatic chronicle of A.N. Ostrovsky “Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky” (experience of studying the chronicle)"- “Journal of the Ministry of Public Education”, 1917, No. 6).

The playwright creatively approached historical materials, discarding their historical and philosophical evaluative elements and using mainly individual facts to characterize characters and events.

Ostrovsky wrote the chronicle “Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky” in four months: “I started with Great Lent (Lent in 1866 began on February 7. - N. G.) and finished by June” (vol. XIV, pp. 139-140). The first part of the chronicle was completed at the end of March - beginning of April, Ostrovsky thought to complete the second by May 1, but finished it on May 31, 1866 - the author's date on the draft manuscript of the drama, stored in the State Public Library. Saltykov-Shchedrin.

In a letter to F.A. Burdin (September 24-25, 1866) he testifies: “...I have been studying Russian history for a long time and I want to devote myself exclusively to it - I will write chronicles, but not for the stage; When asked why I don’t stage my plays, I will answer that they are inconvenient, I take the form of Boris Godunov.” (vol. XIV. pp. 138-139).

Developing the creative principles of Pushkin, Ostrovsky devoted great attention to the depiction of the people (out of thirteen scenes, people act in seven) and in the process of working on the play, he sought to show his decisive role in the historical events of the early 17th century. In this regard, Shuisky’s thoughts that “the people do not know about the ‘secrets of government’”, understandable only to the boyars, were excluded from the final edition. Konev’s words: “The people are blind and look, but do not see”, “Our eyes are covered like a veil, our minds are darkened by dreams” - were also not included in the printed text. But, remaining true to historical reality, Ostrovsky could not help but imagine the people acting mostly spontaneously.

In the draft manuscript one can find notes indicating that the playwright first wanted to portray False Demetrius as a figure close to the people: “Give all these slaves freedom. Enlighten their natural mind." Or the words of the Pretender: “Enough of the torment, it’s time for the people to breathe,” “All the best, all that thirsts for freedom, has been destroyed.” But then Ostrovsky abandoned the implementation of these plans; the image of the Pretender, initially somewhat idealized by him, in the final edition acquires truly realistic features.

Having completed work on the chronicle for publication, Ostrovsky began creating a stage version of the play. The differences between the text for print and for the stage are quite significant. (see vol. IV, pp. 393-406).

The corrections in the role of Dmitry the Pretender are especially significant. In the sixth scene of the second part, some monologues of the Pretender are completely excluded, for example, his reasoning that it would be easier to die without tasting the sweetness of power (from the words: “Not a thief! Not a thief!” to the words: “Sleep at the feet of heavenly beauty!”). In the stage version, Dmitry agrees without objection, contrary to Russian traditions and customs, to crown Marina before the wedding. Osipov’s fate is decided differently in the stage version by the Pretender. Here the Pretender pronounces a sentence on Osipov: “Execute him!” - which is carried out, but in the scene of the riot Osipov does not act, his words were conveyed to one of the rebels.

Additional touches are added to the characterization of Marina: the disdainful and contemptuous attitude towards her on the part of the boyars and the people intensifies. In remarks by Shuisky and the cook (scenes three and four of the second part) she is now called not “Marina”, but “Marinka”. In the theatrical version, instead of asking Dmitry to “lock up the rebellious boyars tighter,” Marina demands: “Tell them to cut them off.” (scene five of the second part).

Some significant changes in the ideological characteristics of the characters (Dmitry Osipov’s execution, Marina’s order to “cut” the boyars) were made by Ostrovsky at the last moment, when the manuscript was sent to the magazine and the text for the stage was already ready. During the creation of the printed and stage versions, there were no discrepancies: in both texts, Osipov was executed by the Pretender, and Marina Mnishek demanded that the boyars be “cut.” This is evidenced by a letter from M. N. Ostrovsky dated January 11, 1867: “He (Stasyulevich, editor of the “Bulletin of Europe.” - N.G.), Kostomarov and Annenkov are delighted. Kostomarov made only two notes... The first concerns Marina’s words “ cut boyars." Marina was not at all bloodthirsty and therefore could not say this, and Dmitry, who did not like hanging or cutting, could not have left such an outburst unanswered. Couldn’t you replace the word “cut” with another, less harsh word...

Another note concerns the death of Osipov. Historically it is known that he was not executed by Dmitry, that he broke into the palace during a riot and was killed by Basmanov... Is it possible to correct it again” (Manuscript collection of the Central Theater Museum named after A. A. Bakhrushin, archive of A. N. Ostrovsky).

Nekrasov was looking forward to Ostrovsky's new play (letter dated April 20, 1866, N. A. Nekrasov, Complete collection of works and letters, vol. XI, M. 1952, p. 67). However, government repression (On May 12, Sovremennik was suspended) and financial difficulties forced Nekrasov to advise Ostrovsky to publish Stasyulevich’s play in the journal “Bulletin of Europe” (see letter dated May 18, 1866, ibid., p. 69). On June 1, Sovremennik was closed. Nekrasov’s intention to publish “Dmitry the Pretender” in a literary collection, which he intended to release in connection with the closure of the magazine, did not come true. Efforts to renew Sovremennik under the editorship of V.F. Korsh, who persistently asked Ostrovsky to provide him with a chronicle, were also unsuccessful (see “Unpublished letters to A. N. Ostrovsky”, M. -L. 1932, p. 162).

M. N. Ostrovsky negotiated with A. A. Kraevsky about the publication of “Dmitry the Pretender” in “Domestic Notes” (see letter from M. N. Ostrovsky to his brother dated June 13, 1866. Central Theater Museum named after A. A. Bakhrushin), but at the request of the playwright, the chronicle was published in the “Bulletin of Europe” by M. M. Stasyulevich. In the same year, a separate edition of “Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky” was published. (censored March 21, 1867).

The first part of the chronicle immediately upon completion, even before publication, was sent by Ostrovsky to Nekrasov and was read by the author in public meetings: September 20, 1866 - in the Artistic Circle, December 27, 1866 - in the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature at Moscow University. On May 14, 1866, I. F. Gorbunov read the first part of “Dmitry the Pretender” to N. I. Kostomarov.

Soon the playwright received the first enthusiastic responses to the new play from his friends and acquaintances. M.H. Ostrovsky informed his brother on May 10, 1866: “I read it four times and each time I found more and more beauty... Annenkov, like me, is delighted with your play and is looking forward to the second part. He made, however, the following comments: it would be desirable to give a greater role to the people, so that they would not be only Shuisky’s tool, but so that it would be clear that among the mass of the people (at least in quite a few of the people) There was a distrust of the Pretender that many of the people recognized him, knowing that he was an impostor and yielding to circumstances and considerations of various kinds. Then the overthrow and killing of the impostor by the people will be a completely and legitimate phenomenon. However, you have hints about this (holy fool, kalachnik, Konev), but it wouldn’t hurt to give this more development...

However, all these notes will perhaps lose all meaning when you [read?] the second part.” (Manuscript collection of the Central Theater Museum named after A. A. Bakhrushin, archive of A. N. Ostrovsky).

The first reviews of the play appeared in print in connection with its production on the stage of the Maly Theater and publication in Vestnik Evropy.

Reactionary and liberal criticism assessed “Dmitry the Pretender” mostly very negatively. Most reviewers accused Ostrovsky of completely borrowing his chronicle from the work of N. I. Kostomarov “The Named Tsar Dimitri” (see "Moscow", 1867, No. 55, March 10; "Russian Invalid", 1867, No. 77, March 18; "Public Court", 1867, No. 155, March 12).

N. I. Kostomarov himself and the newspaper “Golos” rebutted these accusations: “...In the spring of 1866, when my “Named Tsar Dimitri” had not yet been completely published, the artist I. F. Gorbunov read this dramatic chronicle to me. Mr. Ostrovsky could not have seen the second part of my work in print, and his chronicle covers precisely those events that are depicted in this second part. In the manuscript I did not communicate my work to Mr. Ostrovsky... The similarity between the dramatic chronicle and my “Called Tsar Demetrius” occurred, no doubt, because Mr. Ostrovsky used the same sources that I used.” (“Voice”, 1867, No. 89, March 30).

Representatives of conservative criticism believed that the chronicle “Dmitry the Pretender” “is distinguished by purely external historical fidelity, crude fidelity more than a chronological and topographical property” (“Moscow”, 1867, No. 55, March 10). These critics denied the presence of both artistry and a “general idea” in it. and they avoided the question of the role of the people, as it was resolved by Ostrovsky. Reactionary criticism hastened to declare the artistic implausibility of the characters in the chronicle, primarily Vasily Shuisky (see “Moscow”, 1867, No. 55, March 10), and the image of the Pretender was perceived by reviewers as “a mixture of contradictions that is quite difficult to explain” (“Russian Invalid”, 1867, No. 77, March 18).

From the general flow of negative reviews about “Dmitry the Pretender,” an interesting article in “Notes for Reading” (signed “A.P.”) stands out. In assessing historical plays, the author of the article proceeds from the criterion: “To what extent the folk element will be developed in the drama, folk amateur performances will be presented, to that extent this drama will be historically true and attractive for us, later, testing descendants” (“Notes for Reading ", 1867, No. 4, Dept. VI, p. 2). It is from this point of view that he evaluates Ostrovsky’s chronicle. The critic comes to the conclusion that Ostrovsky did not show the true role of the people in the rise and fall of the Pretender, that the playwright explains the death of the Pretender by “such easy reasons as lack of restraint, dignity, foreign gait and techniques” (ibid., p. 4). The real reason for the fall of the Pretender was his lack of understanding of “his calling”: he should, writes L.P., “first of all and most of all... return freedom to the people, prevent more than two hundred years of serfdom. Otherwise, there was no point in changing Boris for Dmitry. The people understood this very well, but our playwrights did not understand this” (ibid.). Without taking into account the peculiarities of the historical era depicted by Ostrovsky, the author of the article reproached the playwright for the absence of a “representative of the conscious popular mind” in the chronicle.

Among liberal writers, A. V. Nikitenko has a somewhat objective and interesting review. A. V. Nikitenko classifies “Dmitry the Pretender” as “the most remarkable works of our literature, rich in artistic beauty.” He notes the harmony of the construction of the chronicle, its excellent language and verse, the completeness in the development of characters, shaded by “peculiar features.”

“The action in... the play,” writes A.V. Nikitenko, “develops in gradually increasing entertainingness by itself, without any artificial efforts on the part of the poet... In the play there are no arbitrarily and vainly invented persons, events and passions, and in general its simplicity in plan and execution, the absence of any complexity, intricacy, or cleverness constitutes one of its essential qualities and advantages.” (A. V. Nikitenko, “About the historical drama of Mr. Ostrovsky “Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky”. Collection “Skladchina”, St. Petersburg 1874, p. 450). But Nikitenko reduced the idea of Ostrovsky’s chronicle exclusively to the idea of a zemstvo tsar and did not accept Ostrovsky’s sharply critical attitude towards V. Shuisky. Shuisky’s fault, according to Nikitenko, is that he did not wait until he was elected to the throne (ibid., p. 449). Shuisky “can neither be despised nor hated... In a word, he is the way history presents him to us” (ibid.).

Such political rehabilitation of Shuisky by the liberal Nikitenko, naturally, was alien to Ostrovsky.

In Nikitenko’s interpretation of the image of the Pretender, the same desire is observed to present him in softened colors.

Ostrovsky's play was highly appreciated by N.I. Kostomarov and M.M. Stasyulevich. On January 21, 1867, Stasyulevich wrote to the playwright: “Nikolai Ivanovich (Kostomarov - N.G..) read your work with pleasure; He was especially amazed at your secret of mastering the language of the era and being faithful to its general character down to the smallest detail. You have crafted Vasily Shuisky to the highest perfection: in the depiction of this personality, the poet takes precedence over the historian” (“Unpublished letters to A. N. Ostrovsky,” M. -L. 1932, p. 544).

Complications with the Sovremennik magazine prevented Nekrasov from expressing his “sincere and detailed opinion” about Ostrovsky’s work (N. A. Nekrasov, Complete collection of works and letters, vol. XI, M. 1952, p. 69). But, according to M.H. Ostrovsky. “Nekrasov... really likes the play too” (letter from M. N. Ostrovsky to A. N. Ostrovsky dated May 10, 1866. Manuscript collection of the Central Theater Museum named after A. A. Bakhrushin, archive of A. N. Ostrovsky). Nekrasov saw in “Dmitry the Pretender” “a highly gifted thing” (N. A. Nekrasov, Complete collection of works and letters, vol. XI, M. 1952, p. 70).

The historical chronicle “Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky” was sent to the Academy of Sciences for the Uvarov Prize and was nominated for the eleventh Uvarov competition. On September 16, 1867, A.V. Nikitenko wrote in his diary: “Ostrovsky’s play “Vasily Shuisky and Dmitry the Pretender” was denied the Uvarov Prize. There were four votes for her and four against. I expected this" (A.V. Nikitenko, Diary, vol. 3, Goslitizdat, M. 1956, p. 97). Convincing evidence of the hostile attitude of the “higher spheres” towards the democratic writer was the history of the production of “Dmitry the Pretender” on stage.

On July 16, 1866, the play was approved by the Theater and Literary Committee, and censorship permission for it was received only on December 24, 1866. All sorts of obstacles were put in place for the production of “Dmitry the Pretender” on stage. The Directorate of Imperial Theaters and the Ministry of the Imperial Court supported the “well-intentioned” playwright N. A. Chaev, who wrote a play of the same historical content. On October 25, 1866, F.A. Burdin notified Ostrovsky about the directorate’s decision to stage Chaev’s play.

Outraged by the blatant injustice, P. V. Annenkov wrote to Ostrovsky on November 9, 1866: “The savagery and ignorance of it (the theater management. - N.G.) were already known to me, but for her to develop them to such an extent is news to me. No matter how regrettable such a decision must be for you, you can be consoled by the thought that you were no exception from that battalion of wonderful writers for whom the path of life was not easy and who met resistance and resentment precisely when they appeared with their most mature works." Unpublished letters to A. N. Ostrovsky,” M. -L. 1932, p. 16).

Only thanks to the persistent efforts of the playwright himself (see Ostrovsky’s letter dated October 25-26, 1866 to the Minister of the Court V.F. Adlerberg, vol. XIV, pp. 143-144) and the intervention of his brother M. N. Ostrovsky, who convinced Adlerberg that staging Ostrovsky’s play would cost less than staging Chaev’s play, the Minister of the Court canceled the decision of the theater management on November 15, 1866.

But the production of Ostrovsky’s “Dmitry the Pretender” was permitted only on the Moscow stage: Chaev’s play continued to be staged in St. Petersburg.

The premiere of “Dmitry the Pretender” at the Maly Theater took place on January 30, 1867, at a benefit performance by E. N. Vasilyeva. The roles were performed by: K. G. Vilde - Dmitry, S. V. Shumsky - V. Shuisky, K. P. Kolosov - D. Shuisky, P. M. Sadovsky - Osipov and Shchelkalov, P. G. Stepanov - Konev, A F. Fedotov - kalachnik, P. Ya. Ryabov - Afonya, E. N. Vasilyeva - Marfa, I. V. Samarin - Mnishek, E. O. Petrov - Mstislavsky, M. I. Lavrov - Golitsyn, V. A Dmitrevsky - Basmanov, D. V. Zhivokini 2nd - Margeret, N. A. Alexandrov - Skopin-Shuisky, G. N. Fedotova - Marina, M. N. Vladykin - Velsky.

The Moscow premiere of the play was a great success. On February 2, 1867, Ostrovsky reported to F.A. Burdin: “The Pretender was a huge success in Moscow. Shumsky, beyond expectations, was weak, but Vilde was excellent. I was called even among the acts, in the 3rd act after the scene with my mother, in the 5th after the folk scene and then at the end of the play, and they called me unanimously, by the whole theater and several times. Vasilyeva was presented with a golden wreath of great value at the first performance, and Vilda yesterday (to repeat) after the scene in the Golden Chamber a laurel wreath was presented" (Vol. XIV, pp. 151-152).

According to the reviewer of Russkiye Vedomosti, the performance was “truly brilliant”: the costumes are beautiful, especially Dmitry and Olesnitsky, “the decorations of the Golden and Faceted Chambers are truly artistic.”

Vilde played his role wonderfully. “Vilde emerged victorious,” wrote the same reviewer, “he put a lot of work and intelligence into his role. I read poetry beautifully. True, according to the reviewer, he lacked “natural heat,” but the play needs heat, and at a high degree. Vilde replaced it with artificial heat, but, as they say, he took it over the edge to the point that Dmitry left him completely daredevil».

Shumsky from the role of V. Shuisky “did everything he could... the role was understood and performed as well as possible.” Shumsky was especially successful in the scene in the Palace of Facets: “Shuisky’s pride, calmness, sense of dignity and his contempt for the boyars around him are expressed just as well as in another scene, in the palace, the flattery and hidden plans of this boyar after his disgrace was removed.” .

Of the other performers of the roles of boyars, the reviewer of Russkie Vedomosti notes Vladykina (Velsky), who was “the best.”

The reviewer was not satisfied with the performance of female roles and the roles of boyars. Sadovsky, who played clerk Osipov and Shchelkalov, seemed “very bad” in the first role: “motionless and indifferent,” and Shchelkalov “came out just fine” (“Russian Gazette”, 1867, No. 16, February 7).

In 1868, Ostrovsky and his friends again began efforts to stage “Dmitry the Pretender” in St. Petersburg.

On August 28, 1869, Burdin informed the playwright: “Things are very bad! I don’t see an outcome without a radical struggle - I came to St. Petersburg and found out that there was absolutely nothing for the next season... and despite all this, your “Impostor” will not be staged.” (“A. N. Ostrovsky and F. A. Burdin. Unpublished letters”, M-Pg. 1923, p. 98).

In 1871, efforts were resumed. Ostrovsky had a hard time with the theater management's intrigues against him. On September 18, 1871, he wrote bitterly to Burdin: “At the beginning of next year, the twenty-fifth anniversary of my dramatic activity will mark, and the production of The Pretender would be some reward for my labors. I really don’t have any hope for anything anymore, surely the management won’t do even this little for me in the 25 years of my work.” (Vol. XIV, p. 213).

The upcoming twenty-fifth anniversary of the famous playwright prompted the directorate of the imperial theaters to stage Ostrovsky’s chronicle in St. Petersburg.

Permission from theater censorship to stage Dmitry the Pretender was received on February 1, 1872.

The premiere of the play in St. Petersburg took place on February 17, 1872 on the stage of the Mariinsky Theater by the Alexandria troupe at a benefit performance by E. N. Zhuleva. Participants in the performance: I. I. Monakhov - Dmitry, P. V. Vasiliev 2nd - V. Shuisky, P. P. Pronsky - D. Shuisky, P. I. Zubrov - clerk Osipov, V. Ya. Poltavtsev - Konev, F. A. Burdin - kalachnik, I. F. Gorbunov - Afonya, E. N. Zhuleva - Marfa, N. N. Zubov - Mnishek, L. L. Leonidov - Mstislavsky, P. S. Stepanov - Golitsyn, P. I. Malyshev - Basmanov, V. G. Vasiliev 1st - Margeret, P. N. Dushkin - Skopin-Shuisky, Severtseva - Marina, P. A. Petrovsky - Belsky, D. I. Ozerov - clerk.

The St. Petersburg production was not successful. This was facilitated by the extremely poor and careless design of the performance. “As for... the new palace of the Pretender, it consisted of the decoration used in the 3rd act of the comedy “Woe from Wit”, and was as much like Dmitry’s palace as a pig is like a five-altyn one.” (“Petersburg leaflet”, 1872, No. 35, February 19). “The costumes struck everyone,” the reviewer of “Grazhdanin” testifies, “with their dilapidation... and everything smelled of contempt, inexorable contempt for the Russian theater and for Russian talent!” (“Citizen”, 1872, No. 8, February 21, p. 274).

The performance of the roles by the artists, according to most reviewers, was also not satisfactory. Monakhov from the role of the Pretender “didn’t do anything” (“Petersburg leaflet”, 1872, No. 36, February 20). Vasiliev 2nd (Shuisky) spoke “in one tone both low flattery and the speech of a man preparing for a high feat”; His “quiet pronunciation of poetry” also spoiled the impression.

In a failed performance, critics singled out Burdin's performance (kalachnik) and Zhuleva (Martha) and staging folk scenes (see St. Petersburg Gazette, 1872, No. 50, February 19; Exchange Gazette, 1872, No. 49, February 19).

After the performance of “Dmitry the Pretender” with the curtain down, the artists presented a golden wreath and address to the hero of the day Ostrovsky. It was supposed to organize this “offering” publicly with a welcoming speech by director A. A. Yablochkin, but this did not receive permission from the theater management.

Subsequently, the chronicle “Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky” was staged on stage very rarely.

In 1879, E. N. Zhuleva again chose this play by Ostrovsky for her benefit performance, but its production was not allowed (see “A. N. Ostrovsky and F. A. Burdin. Unpublished letters”, M. -Pg. 1923, pp. 271-273).

At the Maly Theater in Moscow, “Dmitry the Pretender” was revived in 1872 for a benefit performance by K. P. Kolosov, in 1881 for a benefit performance by M. V. Lentovsky, in 1892 for a benefit performance by O. A. Pravdin, in the 1909- 1910 Outstanding performers of the roles were: The Pretender - A. I. Yuzhin, A. A. Ostuzhev; V. Shuisky - O. A. Pravdin, kalachnik - K. N. Rybakov, Marfa - M. N. Ermolova, etc. (see "Yearbook of the Imperial Theaters", season 1892-1893, pp. 281-288).

At the Alexandria Theater in St. Petersburg, productions of “Dmitry the Pretender” were performed in 1896 for a benefit performance by E. N. Zhuleva (there were two paintings: 3rd - Golden Chamber and 5th - Tent in the village of Taininsky), in the season of 1902-1903. The later performers here were: Pretender - R. B. Apollonsky, P. V. Samoilov, Yu. M. Yuryev; Marfa - A. M. Dyuzhikova 1st; V. Shuisky - P. D. Lensky, A. E. Osokin; kalachnik - A. I. Kashirin and others. (see "Yearbook of the Imperial Theaters", season 1902-1903, issue 13, pp. 25-40).

Footnotes

1. Your Majesty! (French)

2. I swear to God! (Polish)

3. Long live the emperor! (French)

4. Shout: “Long live the Emperor!” (German)

5. We praise you, God! (lat.)

6. father! (lat.)

7. Servant (from Polish pacholek)

8. the most invincible monarch! (lat.)

9. only our God! (lat.)

10. of course (lat.).

11. pope (lat.)

12. Living people are the middle class between the boyars, first-class citizens and black people.

13. from a boor there will be no master (Polish)

14. Amen! (lat.)

15. You scoundrels (German)

16. This is their chieftain! (German)

17. Thank you (Polish).

18. Rokosh - sedition, treason, rebellion

19. damn it! (Polish)

In disputes about Russia: A. N. Ostrovsky Moskvina Tatyana Vladimirovna

International and national in Ostrovsky’s play “Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky”

Those “gleams and reflections of various truths” that Markov wrote about when reflecting on the problem of “Ostrovsky’s moralism” can be recognized as a fundamental, defining feature of his dramaturgy. Not only characters, not only their interests, but also different truths about life collide. It’s as if they collide in a “court”, a “conscientious court” of the playwright.

In his youth, Ostrovsky served in an institution established by Catherine the Second, namely in the Conscience Court. They judged there not according to the law - but according to their souls, trying to reconcile the warring parties. The cases were small, family and property related. But if the service itself in this archaic institution provided Ostrovsky with material for creativity, then the idea of a trial “according to conscience” can be considered essential for the entire structure of his plays.

Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky, two equal heroes of the tragedy, at the same time, two different truths. “I’m not afraid, I’m right,” Dmitry shouts to Shuisky at the end of the play. “Let them judge between you and me!”

The play begins with the accession of the Pretender and ends with the accession of Shuisky. It begins with an unsteady, relative, but still undoubted calm of moral feeling among the people (the legitimate son of John on the throne), ends with his terrible murder and the Troubles, directly leading to the chaos of a fratricidal war, to a cruel moral crisis of the nation. Ostrovsky knows that the nation has gone through a crisis, he has already created “Minin,” but in “Minin” the sin that Ostrovsky wrote about in “The Pretender” is atoned for. This is the story of how one was going to reign “with generosity and mercy” and was ground in the meat grinder of history, and the other corrupted the people with lies and brought them to crime.

Ostrovsky did not read Kostomarov’s work “The Named Dmitry” while working on the play, but, having studied the same historical sources, he came to the same conclusions - the Impostor was not Otrepyev.

"Darkie?" - Osipov asks Shuisky, who has just returned from the Tsar. " Shuisky. Well, no, he doesn’t look like a black man... Boris and I were mistaken. There is no monastic behavior visible in him. Speeches are quick and bold, and his steps are nimble, he is war-loving and brave, and his eyes are sharp.”

Dmitry first appears in Shuisky's speeches - an unprecedented king, insulting "splendor, decorum and order." “This is not a royal posture,” Shuisky is indignant, “he is not dignified,” “he is the nurse of straight, boastful lords!”

Dmitry is complete news for the Moscow state. It is the will of the earth to accept or reject this strange, unstrict, cheerful, free king, full of the best intentions.

Who is he? He doesn't know himself. A. Suvorin, responding to the play, noted: “Ostrovsky’s impostor is not Otrepiev, and not a Jesuit, and not a real prince, but the Lord knows who he is.” The way it is. “...Who am I? Well, if I am not Dmitry, then I am the son of love or the princess’s whim... I feel that it is not ordinary blood flowing in me.”

The impostor is the embodiment of life “by free will”, which will collide with life “by custom”. Free from the knowledge of his own origin, free to act (autocrat!), and another freedom along with him came to Rus' as an alluring opportunity. The boyars dream about her while waiting for Dmitry near the Kremlin cathedrals: “ Golitsyn. It’s time for the sun to leap above us... The past was like a heavy, painful dream, past irrevocably, it seems to me... Dmitriy. Given by God, he saw other kingdoms and statutes, a different life of the boyars and kings; he will leave the Tatar order; benefits for the people, freedom for us, the boyars...” And Dmitry actually proclaims: “Enough of the torment, Basmanov! Now mercy, mercy alone, reigns over you.”

The king is literate and educated, reminiscent of Romulus, Caesar and Alexander the Great. Appointing a court in the Duma with elected officials “from all ranks of the people” to sort out the case of treason against their boyar (mercy! liberty! publicity! how times rhyme!). Apart from the carelessness and frivolity of youth, there is not a single bad feature in the human face of the Pretender. Ostrovsky does not consider his Europeanism and his Polish surroundings to be grounds for artistic humiliation.

Ornate, bookish, pompous speech. Stranger, different, lonely. One against all. “There’s an abyss of nobility, but no sense,” as they will say later on another occasion in the play “The Forest.” The impostor is a variation of Ostrovsky's idealist type. Having read books (good ones), delirious about the novelty (fair), Ostrovsky’s idealist - Zhadov, Meluzov, Zybkin - enters the battle with some vital foundations. And life brutally beats the idealist - and therefore the entire sum of ideas that lie at his foundation.

Having decided that his kingdom will be the kingdom of truth, the Impostor throughout the entire play cannot believe in any treachery, deception, or lie. He does not propagate the Latin faith, but only allows foreigners to visit the Russian church during services. And he does not think of setting the Poles against the Russians, trying to fairly sort out mutual displeasures.

But this glorious king, a dashing warrior and a kind man, does not know at all and cannot understand the land that was given to him to rule. And his speech seems to be translated from a foreign language - rhetoric, logic... Latin... noble liberties... music... mazurka...

And Rus'. And so, after Grozny and Godunov, she is offered to dance the mazurka and enjoy life. The attempts of this Dmitry to make Russian life cheerful and overcome its gloomy flavor look tragicomic. The experiment of introducing a beautiful-minded foreigner into this soil turns into a mutual tragedy.

Dmitry - Europe, Dmitry - government, Dmitry - reform. Europe - reform - government. It can also be the other way around: government - reform - Europe. It doesn’t matter, because liberal dreams, whether they are decomposed or not into thoughts and evidence, still represent rather a feeling of this cherished unity, a passionate feeling, one might say, a chord. Ostrovsky reproduces this chord in its historical arrangement.

Yes, Ostrovsky confused everyone with his play and pleased no one, not one camp, not one stronghold of belief. Dmitry the Pretender is good, but “Masha is good, but not ours.” He's doomed. The playwright knows this for sure and is equally far from condemning and praising such a law of life. The entire play is permeated by the conflict between Dmitry and Russian life - both in tragic essence and in comic details. Even his mercy was inappropriate: Dmitry ordered Shuisky to be forgiven on the scaffold, under a raised ax, at which he was mortally offended. “Execute me, but don’t joke with me! Joking with the enemy is both stupid and dangerous. Destroy your enemies! Perishes, surrounded by emptiness, a man who decided of your own free will take control of the destiny of the nation. And in this fate he gets the most woeful lot.

A national drama is taking place, a drama of the collision of the radical, organic, common with the individual, special, inorganic. Not cold-blooded reasoning, not adoration of the original “blooded”, not sweet captivity among the phantoms of freedom, not pity for the romantically valiant hero - no, the painful grief of complete and accurate knowledge of the inevitability of this drama, this collision, it seems, possessed Ostrovsky. The organic and general destroys the foreign, the individual and the inorganic. Russian life destroys Dmitry, guilty without guilt. This is such a strong, durable, self-sufficient life that it will not accept, in essence, anything that is not developed by it, not within itself. Nothing. Even if these are universal human ideals.

When something foreign appears in the national element in the form of fashions and attire, sayings and stories, or even in the form of ideas and opinions, this is the source of the comic in Ostrovsky’s plays. But their direct meeting, in person, turns into a tragedy.

The national element is represented in the chronicle in three forms. These are the boyars, Prince Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky and the people.

The boyars are grated rolls, poisoned wolves, bearing the imprint of all the ugliness of Russian life for half a century. “Boris’s disciples, we were raised by Ivan the Terrible, and you can’t fool us.” All the properties of this high, but not supreme, power are known - servility and arrogance, fear and the habit of violence. You won't find any clean ones. " Belsky. Tsar Ivan was forgotten early; There were no mistakes, he impaled them for them, it happened. Shuisky. No, Ivan only gave orders; you and Malyuta Skuratov did the imprisonment.” No one can forget Tsar Ivan - the possibility of freedom brought by Dmitry will go with him into oblivion. The boyars' departure from the tsar begins when Dmitry, instead of impaling him, organizes a public trial for Shuisky with elected officials from all ranks of the people. The public court, which also has not forgotten Tsar Ivan, pronounces a death sentence on the traitor, as it was supposed to do from time immemorial. Dmitry cancels it, since freedom is incompatible with mercy. And the boyars, seeing such a gentle tsar, cease to perceive him as a ruler.

A handful of people between the king and the people, being neither power nor strength, exist in a constant desire to seize power and strength, the king and the people. Under many years of pressure from fear, good and evil, truth and lies mixed and merged in a friendly alliance. This environment forms a genius of its kind - Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky.

Feel like a ruler for once

Feel what's between me and God

There is no power, no strength!

By intelligence, deception, even crime

I will achieve the crown.

There is in Vasily Ivanovich some kind of heavy, wild truth of a strong, blood connection with the earth. It has grown from it over many historical years - it may be ugly, but it is strong, you won’t knock it down, you won’t break it. He is known to everyone here, accessible to everyone, people crowd to him first at the beginning of the play to ask about the new king.

Shuisky has an integral program of relationships between lies, truth and the people. She is so good that it would be a shame not to bring her:

By choice, both lies and truth serve

We have in our hands an instrument for good

People's The people need the truth -

And we give it; we hide the truth

When deception brings salvation to the people.

We lie to him: they both die and come to life

By our will people; through the bazaars

Word will spread about miraculous signs;

The poor, the blessed prophesy,

The stone will groan, the tree will cry,

Verbs will be heard from the bowels of the earth,

And our lies among the people will be true -

It will go to chronographs for the truth...

Much greater and more terrible than simple deceit is the conviction drawn from the “school” of Grozny and Godunov: they do not serve lies and truth, but lie and truth serve “by choice,” “for the good.” The words about the blessed and the wretched who prophesy, and about the lies that pass into chronographs for the truth are a clear echo of the images of Pimen and the Holy Fool in Pushkin. Yes, both holy fools and chroniclers are the voice of the people, the opinion of the people. Only people can be deceived.

Shuisky is an authority, the sole keeper of the truth. “I won’t lie for nothing, I buried the prince; I know who is alive and who is not, I alone know the truth.” The willfulness of Shuisky, who, like Dmitry, encroaches on the possession of national destiny, is supported by enormous power: knowledge of the truth and the ability to control it. Whereas the Impostor does not know who he is.

“What is the value of light? He only holds on to truth and conscience,” says Tsar Berendey, dear to Ostrovsky’s heart, in “The Snow Maiden.” That's right: where there is truth, there is power. Only instead of the truth there may be a clever game, a substitution.

The task of “Vasily Prince Ivanovich” is to prepare the murder of the Tsar and pass it off as a holy and popular cause.

Murder can be neither holy nor popular, believed A. N. Ostrovsky. It would be strange to think that he thought otherwise. Ostrovsky, for the first time in literature about the Pretender, unfolds the hidden or obvious disgust of Russian historians towards the May 17 rebellion into a colossal picture of a national crime.

This text is an introductory fragment. From the book “The White Guard” Deciphered. Secrets of Bulgakov author Sokolov Boris Vadimovich

From the book Volume 2. Soviet literature author Lunacharsky Anatoly Vasilievich

Preface [To T. Maiskaya’s play “Stop Stations”]* I advised the Petro[ograd] Soviet Publishing House to publish the play “Stop Stops” for three reasons. Firstly, it is a talented thing. She can even be blamed for the excessive brilliance of the dialogue, excessive “elegantity” and

From the book Noisy "Benois" author Burliuk David Davidovich

The noisy “Benois” and the New Russian National Art (Conversation between Mr. Burliuk, Mr. Benois and Mr. Repin about art) Burliuk (Listens, throughout the conversation, to the words of his interlocutors, is polite and attentive). A museum of Russian street signs would be a hundred times more interesting

From the book Russian Criticism author Koksheneva Capitolina

National consciousness and the problem of universal humanity

From the book History of the Russian Novel. Volume 2 author Philology Team of authors --

NATIONAL IDENTITY AND WORLD SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RUSSIAN NOVEL 1 The desire to comprehend the national originality of the Russian novel of the 19th century often led and still leads many bourgeois literary historians to a mechanical opposition of the Russian novel

From the book Far Island author Franzen Jonathan

Authentic, but terrible About Frank Wedekind's play "Spring Awakening" Frank Wedekind played the guitar all his life. Had he been born a hundred years later, he would almost certainly have become a rock star; The only thing that could have prevented this was the small circumstance that he grew up in Switzerland. What he

From the book In Disputes about Russia: A. N. Ostrovsky author Moskvina Tatyana Vladimirovna

Dmitry the Pretender as a historical figure Considering the works of the most authoritative historians in the 19th century - N. Karamzin, S. Solovyov and N. Kostomarov (and it should be noted that hardly anyone in the 20th century surpassed them in authority, originality, style and thoroughness of thought) - with

From the book All essays on literature for grade 10 author Team of authors

Dmitry the Pretender in Russian drama The key event of the Time of Troubles - the appearance in the arena of history of the imaginary son of Ivan the Terrible - creatively excited many Russian writers. And not only Russians. Several years after the death of the Pretender Lope de

From the book Favorites: Prose. Dramaturgy. Literary criticism and journalism [collection] author Gritsenko Alexander Nikolaevich

1. “The Dark Kingdom” and its victims (based on the play “The Thunderstorm” by A. N. Ostrovsky) “The Thunderstorm” was published in 1859 (on the eve of the revolutionary situation in Russia, in the “pre-storm” era). Its historicism lies in the conflict itself, the irreconcilable contradictions reflected in the play. She answers the spirit

From the book Literature 8th grade. Textbook-reader for schools with in-depth study of literature author Team of authors

2. The tragedy of Katerina (based on A. N. Ostrovsky’s play “The Thunderstorm”) Katerina is the main character in Ostrovsky’s drama “The Thunderstorm,” Tikhon’s wife, Kabanikha’s daughter-in-law. The main idea of the work is the conflict of this girl with the “dark kingdom”, the kingdom of tyrants, despots and ignoramuses. Find out why

From the book Literature 9th grade. Textbook-reader for schools with in-depth study of literature author Team of authors

3. “Tragedy of Conscience” (based on A. N. Ostrovsky’s play “The Thunderstorm”) In “The Thunderstorm,” Ostrovsky shows the life of a Russian merchant family and the position of women in it. Katerina’s character was formed in a simple merchant family, where love reigned and the daughter was given complete freedom. She

From the book How to Write an Essay. To prepare for the Unified State Exam author Sitnikov Vitaly Pavlovich

4. “Little Man” in the world of Ostrovsky (based on A. N. Ostrovsky’s play “Dowry”) A special hero in Ostrovsky’s world, who belongs to the type of poor official with self-esteem, is Yuliy Kapitonovich Karandyshev. At the same time, there is pride in him

From the author's book

Critics' opinions about the play "The Bearer" A. Gritsenko's play "The Bearer" is very biographically specific, truthful, clear, and looks especially realistic against the background of the symbolistic "Midnight Suicide" by A. Svetlitsky with long monologues and conventional characters. Alice

From the author's book

National originality of medieval Russian literature We can talk about the beginning of the development of Russian literature only from the 10th century, when writing appeared in Rus'. However, already in the 11th and 12th centuries, Russian national literature not only amazes readers with its maturity,

From the author's book

National originality of Russian romanticism I have already had to draw your attention to the fact that any national literature follows its own independent path, although it is subject to the general laws of the development of poetic art. At one time there was an opinion that

From the author's book

The search for truth and the meaning of life in M. Gorky’s play “At the Depths” I. What truth about man did Gorky dream of creating? Hatred of vulgarity, the boredom of life and aversion to patience and suffering.II. A dispute about truth is like a dispute about the meaning of life.1. The fate of the night shelters is an indictment of the inhuman

According to ed. A. N. Ostrovsky. Collected works in 10 volumes. Under general ed. G. I. Vladykina, A. I. Revyakina, V. A. Filippova. - M.: State. publishing house Literary, 1960. - Volume 5. - Comments by N. S. Grodskaya. OCR: Peter. A. N. Ostrovsky DMITRY THE IMPOSTOR AND VASILY SHUISKY (1866) Dramatic chronicle in two parts I SCENE ONE PERSONS: Prince Vasily Ivanovich Shuisky. Prince Dmitry Ivanovich Shuisky. Timofey Osipov, clerk from the order. Fyodor Konev, Moscow merchant. Ivan, kalachnik. Afonya, holy fool. Moscow, Novgorod, Pskov merchants; clerks, homeless priests, wanderers, petty traders, peddlers and peasants.

Canopy in the house of Vasily Shuisky.

Merchants and clerks sit on benches; ordinary people - on the floor.

1st Moscow merchant

The Lord has brought! The born prince On his grandfather's and father's thrones And on his own in all the great kingdoms He sat down again and established himself...

2nd merchant of Moscow

A great miracle has happened! God's providence deservedly punished the traitors and preserved the leopard-born branch from the tribe of pious kings.

Clerk

What a holiday! Moscow has not seen this for a long time. In careful attire, With triumph shining on their faces, the people walk in merry feet, preceded by banners and icons...

(Quiet.)

Meet the Antichrist!

1st peasant

2nd peasant

It's time for freedom, they cleaned up the fields, sowed, but haymaking didn't happen all of a sudden... Well, we got together...

3rd peasant

And that’s all, brothers, happy and cheerful! There is such joy, What about the saint, on the great day of Christ.

What a sin! What a sin!

Clerk

They chatted that the prince was killed in Uglich, And they believed then; and here he is with us! And that means God kept it for us.

1st peasant

There was a rumor, and before it was said that Dmitry, Tsarevich of Uglitsky, was alive...

Merchant of Novgorod

There is word of mouth in Moscow, and even more so in the cities...

Clerk

And there is no miracle, and there is nothing to marvel at, that the Lord preserved him alive.

1st Moscow merchant

No one is surprised at this - they know that everything is possible with the Lord: He can even raise the dead from the grave.

Peasant

By itself!

Wanderer

If God wants, He will do so.

Peasant

Well, what can I say!

1st Moscow merchant

(to Novgorod)

And would you believe it, when the news came to us about the death of the prince, tearful sobbing went throughout all of Moscow; they began to say that it is easier for us to suffer from Tsar Ivan’s Torment again than to become an orphan without royal offspring; although it was terrible for us, we still knew that he was the king’s branch, not a slave... And here again Monomakh’s offspring enters the formidable parental table!

Spiritual joy and universal joy...

Well, there is no great joy in living under an oath! The saint's curse lies on us and our children. How long ago have we taken the Representative before God, the Patriarch, during the service, in full regalia, from the pulpit, dressed him in rubbish, and dragged him shamefully through the streets?! And he raised his right hand against us, And cursed all of Moscow and those living in it, And like a stone. crushed our souls with a Curse... Our deeds and thoughts, Our wombs are all covered with a curse; Our prayers do not reach God...

Clerk

You wouldn't talk loudly in front of people, otherwise you'd end up in a dungeon.

Silence.

1st peasant

Oh, sins! Oh, Lord have mercy!

2nd peasant

At least chew something, for the sake of boredom.

3rd peasant

There's a puff in his bosom... What do you have: a purse or a rug?

1st peasant

My purse has gone to people, and it’s not going home.

2nd peasant

Apparently you are also Unmercenary?

1st peasant

A nag doesn't hoard gold! There is some crust in stock, an hour with kvass, and even so. I left home in the morning, but my belly, the enemy, doesn’t remember yesterday.

2nd peasant

Pull it, break it and give it to us! Let's share!

Not about just bread...

Quiet!

Clerk

What a stupid breed! He worms his way into the boyars' mansions, sits like a guest; his Adam's apple will loosen, and you won't stop; not in passing it is said: “You plant a pig...”

1st peasant

Don't be angry! We will be silent: shy guys, chew more quietly!

Silence.

2nd peasant

Why sit like this, let's take a break.

What, did you go into the barn?!

Clerk

Call your servants and push you out of the gate.

Enter the kalachnik and the holy fool.

Kalachnik

To the judges, clerks and you, honest fathers, to the guests-merchants and other people - I bow to the mother of the damp earth.

(Sits on the floor.)

You wretched one, sit next to me!

Holy Fool

I'm afraid of the Antichrist!

Is it too soon, Afonya, to wait for him?

Holy Fool

Arrived unexpectedly!

1st Moscow merchant

I wouldn't be surprised! The boyar, Prince Vasily Ivanovich, compares the best trading people with the market traders; Both the smart and the crazy, the buffoon and the thoughtful nobleman come to him.

Kalachnik

Why are you going to the boyar? Keep your mind busy?.. And I trade mine in little things. Eh, big beards, you would be happy to eat the common people, but there is no will!

Petty trader

(to the kalachnik)

Where were you going? You can’t see it either at the auctions or in the shops...

Kalachnik

I was in Tula.

Petty trader

For what?

Kalachnik

I wanted to become a Cossack...

Holy Fool

A Cossack is a Pole!

Kalachnik

Life has come to the Poles and Cossacks, Afonya; Tsar Dimitri allows the boyars to reach their hand. The Cossacks almost beat the boyars...

Holy Fool

Boyar - Tatar!

Kalachnik

What a wonder that the boyars are Tatars: the Tatar was king!

1st Moscow merchant

What has happened has passed! Now Dimitri Ivanovich, the noble prince from the tribe of Saint Vladimir...

Holy Fool

Dmitry is in the grave!

Clerk

We, blessed one, will tie your hands and cover your mouth...

Kalachnik

It’s simple, you can’t recover from it.

(gives a silver penny to the holy fool)

Blessed, for a pretty penny! Pray for us sinners!

Petty trader

(to the kalachnik)

You said Cossacks...

Kalachnik

I went hunting; not much, they said...

Petty trader

What happened?

Kalachnik

Stealing is not clever! It’s better to trade than to steal. I will become gold and Ugric. The price is now good for them: Need came to the king to bring as a gift.

1st Moscow merchant

Is it full of rolls?

Kalachnik

There is little benefit. If you buy Polish kuntushes, you’ll make a profit, the goods won’t last!.. There is a rumor that Prince Rubets-Masalsky, Pyotr Fedorych Basmanov and others want to exchange their boyar caftans for kuntushes...

Clerk

You've loosened your tongue, you should have kept it shorter.

Osipov and the butler enter.

Hasn’t that happened?

Butler

Everything is still there, in Kolomenskoye camp, with the sovereign.

Will it be soon, are you having tea?

Butler

It's about time; Just look at his boyar mercy. The people have been waiting for so long - they have accumulated.

PS what?

Butler

They came from Novgorod, Pskov Posad princes to meet, Moscow market traders, Peasants from nearby villages, Priests without jobs, sextons from the orders, The poor and all sorts of orphans, And the business and wandering people. Not everyone has seen the eyes of Sovereign Dimitri Ivanovich, it is so flattering to inquire from our boyar about the royal health; Haven’t you heard about the kind of favors for the people... Don’t blame me! There is some noise at the gate, So run... Everything is somehow out of place Little servile soul; I keep imagining that it’s going to hit me... Wait an hour.

(Leaves.)

(near the window)

Keywords

HISTORICAL CHRONICLE/ REMARK / AUTHOR'S POSITION / SPEECH CHARACTERISTICS / LANGUAGE FEATURES / VOCABULARY AND SYNTAX/ HISTORICAL CHRONICLE / STAGE DIRECTION / AUTHOR'S POSITION / SPEECH CHARACTERISTICS / LANGUAGE MEANS / LEXIS AND SYNTAX

annotation scientific article on linguistics and literary criticism, author of the scientific work - Maslennikov Semyon Vladimirovich

The article discusses the structure, semantics and functions of remarks in historical chronicle A.N. Ostrovsky "Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky." Remarks in modern linguistics have not been sufficiently studied. Directions (stage directions) are a special type of compositional and stylistic units included in the text of a dramatic work and, along with monologues and remarks from characters, contributing to the creation of its integrity. The remarque has important functional and communicative features that make it possible to determine fairly strict standards in the construction of the work. IN historical chronicle A.N. Ostrovsky's "Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky" uses a large number of stage directions. The author of the chronicle often creates stage directions for the remarks of those characters who play a major role in the storyline of the work. The number of remarks increases towards the end of a dramatic work and increases in crowd scenes, as stage directions convey the dynamics of events and show the development of the action. The concentration of remarks to the remarks of a particular character indicates that in order to reveal the inner world of this particular character in the drama, the “voice” of the author is required. The stage directions in Ostrovsky's chronicle are divided into several types and serve to reveal the images of the characters and characterize the dramatic action of the chronicle. With the help of remarks it is revealed author's position, a text modality is created.

Functions of stage directions in the historical chronicle by Alexander Ostrovsky “False Dmitriy and Vasili Shuysky”

In the article, the structure, semantics and functions of stage directions in the historical chronicle by Alexander Ostrovsky “False Dmitriy and Vasili Shuysky” are considered. Stage directions in modern linguistics are insufficiently studied. Stage directions (scenic instructions) are a special type of the composite and stylistic units included into the text of drama work and along with monologues and cues of the characters, promoting creation of integrity of the play. The stage direction possesses the important functional and communicative signs allowing to define rather rigid norms in construction. In the historical chronicle by Alexander Ostrovsky “False Dmitriy and Vasili Shuysky”, what is used is a large number of stage directions. The author of the chronicle often creates stage directions for cues of those characters who play a major role in the subject line of work. The number of stage directions increases by the final of the drama work and especially in crowd scenes as stage directions transfer dynamics of events, show action development. Concentration of stage directions for cues of the specific character tests that disclosure of the inner world of this character of the drama requires the author’s “voice”. Stage directions in Alexander Ostrovsky’s chronicle are subdivided into some types and serve to disclose images of characters, characterize drama action of the chronicle. By means of stage directions, the author’s position reveals, the text modality is created.

Text of scientific work on the topic “Functions of remarks in the historical chronicle of A. N. Ostrovsky “Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky””

Functions of remarks in the historical chronicle of A.N. Ostrovsky "Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky"

UDC 821.161G19’

Maslennikov Semyon Vladimirovich

Kostroma State University named after N.A. Nekrasova

[email protected]

FUNCTIONS OF REMARKS IN THE HISTORICAL CHRONICLE A.N. OSTROVSKY "DIMITRY THE IMPOSTER AND VASILY SHUISKY"

The article examines the structure, semantics and functions of remarks in the historical chronicle of A.N. Ostrovsky "Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky." Remarks in modern linguistics have not been sufficiently studied. Directions (stage directions) are a special type of compositional and stylistic units included in the text of a dramatic work and, along with monologues and remarks from characters, contributing to the creation of its integrity. The remarque has important functional and communicative features that make it possible to determine fairly strict standards in the construction of the work. In the historical chronicle of A.N. Ostrovsky's "Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky" uses a large number of stage directions. The author of the chronicle often creates stage directions for the remarks of those characters who play a major role in the storyline of the work. The number of remarks increases towards the end of a dramatic work and increases in crowd scenes, as stage directions convey the dynamics of events and show the development of the action. The concentration of remarks to the remarks of a particular character indicates that in order to reveal the inner world of this particular character in the drama, the “voice” of the author is required. The stage directions in Ostrovsky's chronicle are divided into several types and serve to reveal the images of the characters and characterize the dramatic action of the chronicle. With the help of remarks, the author's position is revealed and a text modality is created.

Key words: historical chronicle, remark, author's position, speech characteristics, linguistic means, vocabulary and syntax.

Remarks in modern linguistics have not been studied enough. Let us name the names of scientists who studied the functions of stage directions in dramatic works. The dissertation research of K.K. is devoted to the analysis of the semantic possibilities of remarks in the linguistic aspect. Asanova, V.A. Bezrukova, A.V. Khizhnyak, V.P. Khodus, as well as scientific articles devoted to some aspects of the existence of stage directions in an artistic context (E.K. Abramova, K.F. Baranova, M.B. Borisova, N.S. Gantsovskaya, O.V. Gladysheva, P.S. Zhuikova, I.P. Zaitseva, L.V. Ilyicheva, I.N. Levina, E.A. Pokrovskaya, T.V. Sedova, G.A. Ustimenko, M.Yu. Khvatova, L.A. Shuvalova and others).

Among the literary works of various nature related to this topic, the studies of S.D. Balukhaty, T.G. stand out. Ivlieva, S.N. Kuznetsova, N.K. Piksanova, A.P. Skaftymova, V.V. Sperantova

S.V. Shervinsky. An analysis of the formal functions of remarks is proposed in the monograph of the German researcher G.H. Dames, S.V.’s essays are based primarily on stage experience. Krzhizhanovsky “Theater Remark” and B.V. Golubovsky “Read the stage directions!”, there are a number of publications and observations on private stage directions in the plays of individual playwrights.

In our research, we focus on the definition and classification of remarks given in the book by N.A. Nikolina “Philological analysis of the text”. The author gives a system of remarks and traces their evolution, starting from the 18th century and ending with the 19th century. Directions (stage directions), according to N.A. Nikolina, is a special type of compositional and stylistic units included in the text of a dramatic work and, along with monologues and replicas of characters, contributes to

contributing to the creation of its integrity. The main function of remarks is to express the author’s intentions. At the same time, this means of transmitting the author’s voice serves as a way of directly influencing the director, actors and reader of the drama.

The main types of stage directions developed in Russian drama of the 18th - early 19th centuries. (under the influence of Western European drama). During the same period, their leading functional communicative features were also determined, making it possible to determine fairly strict norms in the construction of remarks. Let us list these norms characteristic of dramatic works of the 18th-19th centuries.

1. Directions directly express the position of the “omniscient” author and the communicative intentions of the playwright. At the same time, the author's consciousness is maximally objectified. The stage directions do not use the 1st and 2nd person forms.

2. The time of the stage directions coincides with the time of the stage realization of the phenomenon (scene) of the drama (or its reading). Despite the fact that a stage direction can be correlated in duration with the action of an entire picture or act, the dominant time for it is the present, the so-called stage present.

3. The local meaning of the stage directions is determined by the nature of the stage space and, as a rule, is limited by it.

4. The remark is a stating text. Accordingly, it does not use either interrogative or incentive sentences. Remarks avoid evaluative means, means of expressing uncertainty and tropes; they are stylistically neutral.

5. Remarks are characterized by standardized construction and a high degree of repetition of certain speech means in them.

Bulletin of KSU named after. ON THE. Nekrasova “S> No. 6, 2015

LINGUISTICS

Directions in drama are quite varied in function. They model the artistic time and space of a work, pointing to:

Place or time of action: June 19, 1605 (hereinafter examples are given from the play by A.N. Ostrovsky “Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky”);

Actions of the heroes or their intentions: gives a silver penny to the holy fool;

Features of the behavior or psychological state of the characters at the moment of action (introspective remarks): stopping in thought in front of Osinov;

Nonverbal communication: shrugging;

Addressee of the remark: Dmitry (to Basmanov);

Replies to the side related to the character’s self-reflection, his decision-making, etc.: Cook (to himself).

Note that the play “Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky” contains a large number of remarks (160 units), which are represented by verbs and verbal forms expressing the semantics of procedurality. The majority of all remarks are verb remarks (46 units) and gerund remarks (32 units). Consequently, we see that there is more dynamics in the chronicle than statics.

The author of the chronicle often uses stage directions only for the remarks of those characters who play a major role in the storyline of the work. For example, remarks are most often found next to statements by Vasily Shuisky, Dmitry the Pretender, Kalachnik, and Basmanov. And the reader feels the author’s attention to the characters depicted. It is interesting that the number of remarks increases towards the end of the work and increases in crowd scenes. This can be explained by the fact that stage directions give the work dynamics and show the development of the action. Let's look at the most interesting remarks that we analyze taking into account their interaction with the characters' remarks.

Kurakin (quietly to Golitsyn)

And Belsky remembers everything about Ivan;

Anyone who loves something dreams about it...

Masala

(quietly to Basmanov)

And Shuisky still boasts of his relatives.

Dmitry Shuisky (quietly to Vasily Shuisky)

Golitsyn has all the will

Missing.

In this episode, the remarks are similar in structure: they contain an indication of the addressee in combination

with the adverb quietly. In this passage, the boyars talk about the coming to power of Dmitry the Pretender, they are afraid of doing something to anger him, and therefore they talk in a whisper. Thanks to the quiet stage direction, a special, conspiratorial atmosphere is created in the scene.

Margeret

Vive l'empereur!

(To the soldiers.)

Ruft: “Hoch! Vivat der Kaiser!

Vivat! hoch! hoch!

Kalachnik

The dogs groaned.

People laugh.

The remark among the people's laughter shows the reader the ironic reaction of the people to the speech of the Germans, which for a Russian person is similar to the barking of a dog. Ostrovsky managed to depict the speech of the Germans in the form of onomatopoeia. The word dog has a negative connotation. Thus, we see the negative attitude of the people towards foreign invaders.

Belsky

(takes the berdysh from the German)

Can't be tolerated! Free our hands

And we will tear it to pieces!

Basmanov

(takes a berdysh from another)

A traitor is one who can indifferently

In the eyes of the king, listen to such speeches!<...>

Basmanov

(raising the reed)

Don't spew out your nasty curses,

Otherwise I'll kill you!

Belsky

(raising the reed)

Shut up! Not another word! .

This scene is interesting to us because the remark is repeated, taking a berdysh, which explains the actions of the heroes. Berdysh is a wide, long ax with a crescent-shaped blade on a long shaft. It can be assumed that the berdysh in this scene is a symbol of punishment and judgment. The action of this scene takes place in the chambers of Dmitry the Pretender, where he is trying to condemn Osipov for organizing a popular revolt. Basmanov and Belsky, faithful servants of the Pretender, are using berdysh to intimidate the character and want to extract a confession. Consequently, the remark in this context acquires a symbolic meaning and adds additional emotionality to the scene.

They're running away! Native

They drag you to their place.

Poles with a girl at the gate of the house where Vishnevetsky stands

Kalachnik

Daytime robbery, guys!

Bulletin of KSU named after. ON THE. Nekrasova jij- No. 6, 2015

Functions of remarks in the historical chronicle of A.N. Ostrovsky "Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky"

To the rescue! Work with anything.

They break the spreaders on which the trays are placed and fight with the Poles with the debris. They beat the girl off.

Vishnevetsky's men come out of the gate with guns.

Kalachnik

With squeaks?! Call people, guys!

Get out, people! The Poles offended me! .

In the last scene there is an uprising of the people and the overthrow of Dmitry the Pretender. Crowd scenes predominate here, almost all the key characters meet, and in order to more accurately convey the dynamics and show the actors the sequence of actions, Ostrovsky introduces a large number of remarks that represent entire sentences.

Thus, the number of remarks accompanying the monologues and remarks of the characters is associated with the images of the characters to which Ostrovsky wanted to draw the attention of the reader and viewer. For example, there are a lot of remarks in the monologues of Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky, while the remarks of other characters are formalized with a minimum number of remarks. The remarks introducing the remarks of the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky or indicating their actions are varied in lexical content, name different addressees of the speech or note the fact of self-addressing, and emphasize the rapid change of emotions of the characters. The concentration of remarks introducing or accompanying the speech of certain characters indicates that the “voice” of the author is required to reveal the inner world of this particular character in the drama. As our research has shown, the remarks in the chronicle of A.N. Ostrovsky are divided into non-

how many types that perform different functions in the work. First of all, they serve to reveal the images of the characters and characterize the dramatic action of the chronicle. With the help of remarks, the author's position is expressed and a text modality is created.

Bibliography

2. Nikolina N.A. Philological analysis of text: textbook. allowance. - M.: Publishing Center "Academy", 2003. - 256 p.

3. Ostrovsky A.N. Complete works: in 12 volumes - M.: Art, 1973.

4. Ostrovsky A.N. Encyclopedia / ch. ed. [and comp.] I.A. Ovchinina. - Kostroma: Kostromaiz-dat; Shuya: Publishing house of the Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "TTTGPU", 2012. -660 p.

5. Piksanov N.K. Comedy A.S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit” // Griboyedov A.S. Woe from the mind. - M.: Nauka, 1987. - 478 p.

6. Skaftymov A.P. On the question of the principles of constructing plays by A.P. Chekhov // Chekhov A.P. Three sisters: plays. - St. Petersburg: Azbuka-Classics, 2008. -544 p.

7. Ushakov D.N. Explanatory dictionary of modern Russian language. - M.: Alta-Print, 2008. - 512 p.

8. Fokina M.A. Philological analysis of text: textbook. allowance. - Kostroma: KSU named after. ON THE. Nekrasova, 2013. - 140 p.

9. Khodus V.P. Remarque in the dramatic text by A.P. Chekhov: stereotyping and new models // Changing linguistic world: abstracts of international reports. scientific conf. - Perm, 2001. - pp. 34-36.

Bulletin of KSU named after. ON THE. Nekrasova “S> No. 6, 2015

Kommersant, March 6, 2007

Troubled times have come at the Maly Theater

The Maly Theater presented the premiere of the play based on Ostrovsky’s half-forgotten historical chronicle “Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky.” The impostor seemed to ROMAN DOLZHANSKY to be a ray of light in a dark kingdom.

The chronicle of Alexander Nikolayevich Ostrovsky has not been staged on the stage of the Maly Theater for a hundred years, and on other stages it’s not like it’s been worn out to the point of indecency. This is the very case when you can’t exclaim “Where was everyone looking!” I would like to ask the theater again: maybe there is some reason that people were not eager to see this play? Maybe not everything that came from the pen of a genius is worth worrying about? True, Alexander Nikolaevich himself rated his work highly, but he had such a forgivable weakness: he declared every new play to be almost his best.

"Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky" is a kind of sequel to "Boris Godunov", whose structure is reminiscent of Pushkin's tragedy. The chronicle begins after the death of Godunov and describes the short reign of Tsar Dmitry, who went down in history with the prefix “false”: the conquest of Moscow, the intrigues of the boyars, the arrival of the Poles and Marina Mnishek, the condemnation of Vasily Shuisky, his return and election to the kingdom after the death of the impostor.

To put it mildly, Ostrovsky’s play in Maly was not staged by Vladimir Dragunov. Its direction, to tell the truth, is not worth the paper on which it can be described: these come out from the right, those come out from the left, in alarming moments, disturbing music is turned on, emotions are conveyed by voice modulations, the actors are dressed in approximately historical costumes. It seems that the artist Larisa Lomakina tried to give the performance a certain degree of detachment with her design - this is a system of lifting concert curtains imitating half-burnt drawings with views of Moscow. But on stage there is no agreement, and the actors play as they would probably play on an empty stage or among tons of natural scenery. In general, we have before us a typical pseudo-academic production, marked by signs of deafness and discord between theater and life.

There is, however, one curious circumstance. It concerns the contrast between the protagonist, Dmitry the Pretender, and Vasily Shuisky. It is known that Ostrovsky’s Dmitry initially appeared as almost a positive hero - a reformer, a rather merciful person who tried to make the state he inherited more rational and modern. Then, however, the author corrected the image of the king. But even in the current edition of the Maly Theater, Dmitry looks like a much more attractive character than the semi-caricatured boyars and intriguers who first swore allegiance to him and then killed him. We can say that the Polish protégé in the current performance illustrates a fairly popular historical theory, which is that Dmitry’s reign was Russia’s missed chance to follow the European path of development.

I don't think that was the director's intention. Judging by his statements included in the program, the director’s sympathies are on Shuisky’s side, and it would probably be strange to expect such a heresy as sympathy for a foreigner on a patriotic stage. The conflict between the main characters lies not so much in their actions as in the manner of performance and stage designs. Boris Nevzorov, under the direction of Vladimir Dragunov, does everything to bring about the unity of the viewer with Vasily Shuisky, a personality, according to historians, in every sense unattractive. The stocky, solid Shuisky is strong with his epic power. Mr. Nevzorov is loud, unhurried, he suffers pathetically and soulfully on the proscenium, changes little from scene to scene, even after the scaffold on which he was laid, before reading out the decree of pardon, and in the finale wanders meaningfully around the stage, apparently depicting painful thoughts about the fate of the state.

Gleb Podgorodinsky, who plays Dmitry, is not tasked with such theatrical outrages. He is a very gifted actor - very agile, technical, independent, modern. And he plays his role not according to the laws of a cardboard booth, but with nerve and a lively eye. So his character becomes likable: he seems to have an insidious character, looks like a human being, and wants good things for the state.

By the way, about Russian morals. Since your columnist is never invited to the Maly Theater (apparently, my criticism is considered unfair, and the above will be considered the same), I usually buy a ticket to premieres at the Ostrovsky House. It so happened that I was late for “The Pretender...”, I ran into the theater literally on the third ring, straight to the box office window, and the cashier offered the remaining single ticket. He names the price - a thousand rubles. It’s not cheap, but there’s nothing to do, I have to write a review, so I put a bill in the window, grabbed the ticket and ran to my seat. Then, late in the evening, I started looking at the ticket out of nothing to do: wow, there’s no price on it at all, and below you can see traces of the “free” overprint, carelessly cut off with scissors. And they sold it to me, I emphasize, at the box office of the theater - a national treasure. Eh, impostor father, where are you...

New news, March 6, 2007

Olga Egoshina

A Vague Play

Another Tsar was shown at the Maly Theater

The premiere of Alexander Ostrovsky’s dramatic chronicle “Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky” took place on the stage of the Maly Theater. The performance continues the “historical and everyday” repertoire line of the theater, the playbill of which includes the plays “Tsar Ivan the Terrible”, “Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich”, “Tsar Boris”, “Tsar Peter and Alexei”.

Having finished the chronicle “Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky” in 1866, still not having cooled down from work, Alexander Ostrovsky wrote to Nekrasov: “Whether I wrote it well or badly, I don’t know, but, in any case, this will constitute an era in my life from which new activity will begin; Everything I have written so far has been only attempts, and this, I repeat again, whether poorly or well written, is a decisive work.” Ostrovsky had no reason to doubt the merits of the chronicle: the carefully written broad historical background (it was not for nothing that the playwright spent so much time studying the chronicles), the excellent role of the Pretender - all this was clearly written “well.” Regarding the place of this play in his dramatic heritage, Ostrovsky was decisively mistaken: the rarely staged play was by no means included in his “golden canon.”

“Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky” rarely appears on stage, and the history of its productions is not rich in successes. It seems that this time, when choosing a play, the theater was guided not so much by its merits as by the needs of the repertoire. The Maly Theater is one of the few theaters today, in relation to which we can talk about the “construction” of the repertoire, about a repertoire line that has been verified for centuries. Maly insists on his loyalty to the author. At a time when district committees monitored “fidelity to the letter,” the persistence of the management of the oldest theater in Moscow caused bewilderment. Now, the more freedom and even frivolity there is in handling classical texts, the more respect the Maly Theater evokes, which continues to respect copyright. In a way, it gives our chaotic lives a sense of permanence (at least in one particular place). In England there are shops that preserve the assortment of the 18th century (natural polish for boots and fixatories for mustaches). The Maly Theater preserves not only its principles, but also its whims.

150 years ago, Ostrovsky suffered from the stinginess of the management, which resolutely did not want to spend money on a historical play, preferring to use the scenery “from the selection”. Today's sets and costumes for "Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky" were probably created by artist Larisa Lomakina specifically for this production, but they seem to have been rented. On the stage there is a wooden platform and hanging panels with architectural drawings (as if slightly scorched at the edges). You can play anything in this setting, but you cannot extract artistic energy and meaning from it.

Templates of mise-en-scène directed by Vladimir Dragunov; The intonations of the actors are familiar, correct, but taken as if from a general dramatic selection. Finally, the choice of performers itself is not very accurate. It’s hard to believe that Vasily Shuisky, as played by Boris Nevzorov, is capable of systematic intrigue - he’s too noble, open-minded and hot-tempered. It is even more difficult to believe in the reckless passion of Dmitry the Pretender - Gleb Podgorodinsky for Marina Mnishek - Elena Kharitonova, who is more suited to him as an aunt than as a bride (the Maly Theater’s habit of giving the roles of brides to honored actresses sometimes interferes).

But unclouded by the director’s decisions and the actors’ talents, Ostrovsky’s text, as they say, “catches” the audience. The tragic vicissitudes of our native history, the characters of the Time of Troubles, the clashes between Russia and the West - all this resonates in a surprisingly receptive audience.

Without becoming an artistic event, the new production organically fit into the repertoire line. And, by God, when a theater is built as a whole, the quality of an individual brick-performance is not as important as its fit into the whole. Once upon a time, 150 years ago, reviewers joked that Moscow high school students could learn history from Maly Theater posters. Nowadays, educational pathos does not seem to be the subject of jokes, and the goal of “teaching native history” seems quite worthy.

Culture, March 15, 2007

Irina Alpatova

Kush served

"Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky." Maly Theater

By jackpot, of course, one should understand the Russian throne, which for so many centuries in a row has attracted sovereigns, called and self-proclaimed, native and foreign, worthy and not quite. The endless royal history at the Maly Theater continues to grow year after year. Ivan the Terrible and Fyodor Ioannovich, Tsar Boris, Emperor Peter and Tsarevich Alexei, and even in perestroika times, the last Russian autocrat Nicholas II - all appeared on this stage. Now it’s the turn of “Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky.”

This play by Ostrovsky is one of the little-known ones, even in the theater that is usually called the Ostrovsky House. It hasn’t been staged in the capital (and probably not only) for a hundred years. On the one hand, it is clear that the “dramatic chronicle” is long, ponderous and in places very pompous, although all these signs are legitimate companions of the genre. On the other hand, her appearance today on this stage is quite understandable. Ostrovsky remains a good psychologist here, trying to deduce the universal laws of eternal Russian unrest and human adaptation to it. Historical nuances are, of course, important, but they do not determine everything. Moreover, it seems that it is people who place all these accents - according to their desire and understanding.

Perhaps that’s why they didn’t build luxurious, everyday-like interiors on the Maly stage this time. On the contrary, everything is very sparing and creates a deceptive image of a historical distance. The artist Larisa Lomakina seemed to have found all these cathedrals, bell towers, and chambers on the pages of ancient handwritten books that miraculously survived numerous Moscow fires. Burnt pages, every now and then replacing each other, hover over the stage, indicating the scene of action - both conventional and quite definite, where the main thing still dominates - the Russian square for popular riots and royal revelations with the indispensable Execution Place.

Director Vladimir Dragunov also did not neglect the historical circumstances of the Time of Troubles; he still tried to make a play about the ever-repeating signs of “palace coups” of all times and eras. Where the people, hearing the “ringing” of the speeches of the rulers, at first riot senselessly and mercilessly, and then, as usual, remain silent. Where real and potential sovereigns and their retinue flatter, incite, hypocritically repent and occasionally try to understand themselves. Where the throne is a coveted toy, which they sometimes don’t know what to do with, a deadly toy.

Dmitry the Pretender - Gleb Podgorodinsky and Vasily Shuisky - Boris Nevzorov in Dragunov's play do not so much oppose each other as they exist in parallel, but in one situation - the thirst for the throne. The first one has already got it: The impostor - Podgorodinsky appears to the “people” on stage and in the hall wearing a Monomakh hat and with other attributes of power. He is young and playful, partly cunning, but more simple-minded, despite the “Jesuitish” background. A sort of “young reformer”, echoing enlightened Europe only because the dresses there are more comfortable, the customs are freer and the music is not so mournful. Due to his youth, he is ready to throw everything at the feet of the adored Marina Mnishek (Elena Kharitonova), whose power appetites are growing hour by hour. However, this Impostor is not a stranger to nobility and youthful romanticism in the desire to “know himself,” unravel the mysteries of the dark past and understand his own destiny. But in his masterly game with his imaginary mother, Queen Martha (Tatyana Lebedeva), not only the desire, but also the ability to reach the goal by any means is clearly felt.

Shuisky - Nevzorov is no match for young Dmitry in terms of fortitude and experience in power intrigues. Despite his boyar rank, this Vasily Ivanovich is a strong Russian man, with deceptively democratic simplicity, but able to calculate everything a hundred moves ahead. However, some glorification of the next Russian autocrat did happen here, although there is not a hint of operatic stiltedness in Nevzorov’s performance. But all these beautifully designed light changes and a solemn musical “atmosphere” (composer Grigory Gobernik) of his monologues do their job in the hall. And this staged publicity of internal monologues, perhaps, gives them a touch of declarativeness - not in the manner of execution, but in the form of presentation. Although Shuisky - Nevzorov remains so sincere and temperamental that the audience, already reverently listening to what is happening throughout the entire performance, immediately explodes with applause.

Maly’s audience generally surprises in a good way with its spontaneous “selection” and understanding of where it is going and what it is going for. With your attention and respect for what is happening on stage. This, judging by the contrast with many other performances on other stages, the Maly Theater, despite all the vicissitudes of times and the change of stage styles, stubbornly retains its serious traditionalism and does not need any justification. Although this full contact with your viewer can serve as such an excuse. Well, someone must ultimately maintain stability in an unstable world. It may not be to everyone's taste, but to each their own. In addition, in the Maly, the actors, especially the older generation, involuntarily form an ensemble, where each performs solos (Boris Klyuev - Golitsyn, Vladimir Safronov - Tatishchev, Vladimir Bogen - Basmanov, Vladimir Nosik - Mstislavsky, and others), and the general melody of the themes it just asserts.

The end of Shuisky’s sovereign ambitions is predetermined by history, Ostrovsky, and the director. Despite the appearance of a “kind” and “wise” king, justified by the artist in every possible way, in this situation he is one of many throne holders whose life is short and inglorious. The director releases Shuisky - Nevzorov onto an empty and bare stage, only illuminated by bloody reflections, and as if he is ready to give him the floor again. But Shuisky is doomedly silent in this eerie emptiness. And this silence is much more eloquent than many fiery monologues.

Results, March 12, 2007

Elena Sizenko

Hats off!..

The Maly Theater turned to the chronicles of Alexander Ostrovsky

I’m sure many viewers went to the premiere of Ostrovsky’s dramatic chronicle “Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky” not without apprehension: again those boyar hats and bows, caftans and false beards that are obligatory in a historical performance. In a word, living pictures, mummers. And then there is the white, as if “epic” verse. The director of the play, Vladimir Dragunov, seems to have foreseen these alarming premonitions and tried as best he could to overcome the established “decorative” canon. The emphasis was placed on emphasized asceticism and a rather dry graphic quality. The events of the Time of Troubles of 1605-1606, the invasion of foreigners, the confrontation between the Pretender and Shuisky, the fierce struggle for power of different boyar parties - all this unfolds on an empty stage board with a dim, fluctuating candle flame against the background of monochrome lifting curtains, reminiscent of burnt drawings of cathedrals, Kremlin chambers (artist Larisa Lomakina). And in costumes, historicism is very conventional. Not to mention the fact that luxurious glued beards, as well as wigs and all kinds of thickness, were given a well-deserved retirement here. The director is passionate about something else. And he tries to captivate the viewer either with a study of the sophisticated political technologies of that time, or with a completely ideological debate. About what? About the past and future of the country, about “Westernism” and “Slavophilism.” It turns out? Sometimes yes. And then the audience, surprised by the relevance of what is happening, reacts vividly to remarks that seem to have been taken from yesterday’s newspaper. We are talking about imposture - a very typical Russian phenomenon, and also about the guilt of the boyars before the people, about the export of the Russian treasury abroad by foreigners. In general, it’s not enough to bend your fingers. But the main thing, of course, is thinking about the essence of Russian statehood, about the sad cyclical nature of its development, when a fall into chaos is inevitably replaced by the emergence of a new tyrant, and so on ad infinitum. Pushkin's idea in essence.

Curious, you say, but how is this expressed on stage? Not in the form of a real dispute? Of course not. In the best moments, the outlines of a perhaps not outstanding, but serious dramatic performance appear, sincere in its desire to get to the bottom, to the roots of what has been happening to us for many centuries. Another thing is that posters and templates could not be avoided here either. But I want to blame for this not only the director, but also the play, which, frankly speaking, is not the most successful of the classic. (It’s not for nothing that she was not disturbed in the theater for more than a hundred years.) The actors have to heroically overcome the schematism of characters and situations. Someone gets confused at the very first phrase and then begins to habitually grab onto cliches: breaking a hat in their hands like a servile, tearing a shirt on the chest, or, like Marina Mnishek (Elena Kharitonova), portraying high-society arrogance. But some people manage to get away from voice and other “busters”. This especially applies to Gleb Podgorodinsky. You want to look closely at his Impostor, he is so precise, modern in his intonations, in every gesture. Charming, extraordinary and, what is most interesting in the actor’s interpretation, he clearly wishes the best for Russia. But Boris Nevzorov (Vasily Shuisky), apparently, still doesn’t understand everything about the role. And therefore, it’s tempting to imagine our statesman as simply a stocky, epic “hopeful sovereign”... In a word, it’s an amazing thing, but sometimes it’s much easier for us to play some Shakespearean chronicle than our own, dear one. Maybe a little more distance is needed?

Editor's Choice

The magical world of crystals

Purpose of the study: With the help of literary and Internet sources, find out what crystals are, what science studies - crystallography. To know...

How to salt milk mushrooms: a quick recipe

WHERE DOES PEOPLE'S LOVE FOR SALTY COME FROM? The widespread use of salt has its reasons. Firstly, the more salt you consume, the more you want...

Ten Surprisingly Profitable Illegal Trades

The Ministry of Finance intends to submit a proposal to the government to expand the experiment on taxation of the self-employed to include regions with high...

Management project based on the example of an enterprise presentation

To use presentation previews, create a Google account and sign in:...

Abstract: Elementary particles

William Gilbert formulated a postulate approximately 400 years ago that can be considered the main postulate of the natural sciences. Despite...

Presentation on the topic "management"

Functions of management Slides: 9 Words: 245 Sounds: 0 Effects: 60 The essence of management. Key concepts. Management Manager Key...

History of the development of computer technology presentation for a lesson on the topic Historical development of computer technology presentation

Mechanical period Arithmometer - a calculating machine that performs all 4 arithmetic operations (1874, Odner) Analytical engine -...

Astronomy Presentations Interesting Topics for Astronomy Presentations

To use presentation previews, create a Google account and sign in:...

Presentation on history "counting years in history"

Preview: To use presentation previews, create a Google account and...

New

Popular

Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky. Maly Theater. Press about the performance. Dmitry the impostor and Vasily Shuisky Troubled times have come at the Maly Theater

annotation scientific article on linguistics and literary criticism, author of the scientific work - Maslennikov Semyon Vladimirovich

Related topics scientific works on linguistics and literary criticism, the author of the scientific work is Semyon Vladimirovich Maslennikov

Functions of stage directions in the historical chronicle by Alexander Ostrovsky “False Dmitriy and Vasili Shuysky”

Text of scientific work on the topic “Functions of remarks in the historical chronicle of A. N. Ostrovsky “Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky””

Kommersant, March 6, 2007

Troubled times have come at the Maly Theater

New news, March 6, 2007

Olga Egoshina

A Vague Play

Another Tsar was shown at the Maly Theater

Culture, March 15, 2007

Irina Alpatova

Kush served

"Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky." Maly Theater

Results, March 12, 2007

Elena Sizenko

Hats off!..

The Maly Theater turned to the chronicles of Alexander Ostrovsky