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: “Whether what I wrote is good or bad, I don’t know, but in any case this will constitute an era in my life from which new activity…» (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” by Abraham Palitsyn, “The Legend and the Tale of the Hedgehog”, etc. For the image characters 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 was creative in his approach to historical materials, discarding their historical and philosophical evaluative elements and using mainly individual facts to characterize heroes 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 them. 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 tried to show his decisive role in historical events early XVII centuries. 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 printing, 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 off.” 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 “Notes of the Fatherland” (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 new play from your 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 by 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 “ general idea» 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, department 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 The fall of the Pretender was in 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 features historical era portrayed 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 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 female roles and the roles of the 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 stage Mariinsky Theater by the forces of the Alexandria troupe at the benefit performance of 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 scenery used in the 3rd act of the comedy “Woe from Wit”, and resembled Dmitry’s palace as much as a pig resembles a five-altyn one.” (“Petersburg leaflet”, 1872, No. 35, February 19). “The costumes struck everyone,” the reviewer of “The Citizen” 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 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)
Kommersant, March 6, 2007
It's arrived at the Maly Theater time of troubles
Maly Theater showed 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 Dmitry at Ostrovsky at first appeared almost 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 their 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 Imposter...”, I ran into the theater literally on the third bell, 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 sense, 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 is difficult to believe that Vasily Shuisky, as played by Boris Nevzorov, is capable of systematic intrigue - he is 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. Tragic twists and turns 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, 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 in the Maly Theater is growing 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 too, 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, constantly changing each other, hover over the stage, indicating the place 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, with which they sometimes do not know what to do, 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 cap 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 of 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 monologues, beautifully decorated with light changes and a solemn musical “atmosphere” (composer Grigory Gobernik), do their job in the hall. And this staged publicity 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 am sure that many spectators 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. It's about 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 makes a mistake 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 wants 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?
I was about 14 years old when I found in the district library and for no apparent reason gradually read the 10-volume collected works of Ostrovsky. And for some reason I liked his historical chronicles in verse, which “Russian Shakespeare”, as expected, wrote along with comedies and dramas from the life of the Russian merchants more than some “Dowry”. Why these plays by Ostrovsky are almost never staged is understandable; not only are they huge in volume, they also require extras, and are generally poorly received without decent “historical” preparation. “Dmitry the Pretender” was also torn up in Maly - but wisely, from a large-scale multi-figure play it turned out to be an almost intimate historical and psychological drama.
Ostrovsky clearly wrote his “Dmitry the Pretender” in a kind of “dialogue” with Pushkin’s “Boris Godunov”, and possibly in a correspondence polemic with Alex K. Tolstoy. Moreover, “Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky” is also part of a dramatic trilogy; Ostrovsky also has the relatively modest “Tushino” (about the period of False Dmitry II) and the incredible size “Kozma Zakharyich Minin, Sukhoruk” (about the events of 1613). That is, Ostrovsky created a dramatic picture of the events that followed those unfolding in Tolstoy’s trilogy (though Ostrovsky also wrote a play about the times of Ivan the Terrible, Vasilis Melentyev, written jointly with Gedeonov - but that’s separate). “The Pretender” was created in the 1860s, so it also reflects the ideological battles of “Westerners” and “Slavophiles.” The play is generally extremely interesting. It continues the theme of imposture, declared by Pushkin, and the problem of morality (and, accordingly, immorality) of power, in particular, Russian power. Ostrovsky has two antagonists - False Dmitry I and Prince Shuisky - worth each other. Both are smart politicians and not animals at all, not enemies of the people and country, each in his own way wants what is best. At the same time, both are impostors, both are unscrupulous in their means, both are subject to passions, only for False Dmitry these are ordinary, human passions, including male ones (he longs to marry Marina Mnishek, wants to please the disgraced princess Ksenia Godunova), and Vasily Shuisky has one fiery passion - Monomakh's hat. Actually, the essence of the events taking place in the play boils down to the fact that the intrigue invented at the beginning by Shuisky and his minions to seize the throne, where the Pretender is assigned the role of, if not a pawn, then at least a figure intended for sacrifice, will be crowned with unconditional success in the finale. But Shuisky, in turn, is doomed to follow in the footsteps of Godunov and False Dmitry - Golitsyn speaks about this at the end, switching from blank verse to rhymed.
The director does not completely reject this formulation of the question, but at times Boris Nevzorov, playing Shuisky, with the director’s connivance, seems to forget that Prince Vasily Ivanovich is a charlatan worse than both False Dmitrievs and Boris Godunov to boot - he was “Godunov’s slave” (he says so himself) , then swore allegiance to False Dmitry I and became his most trusted boyar, betraying everyone for personal gain. However, when Shuisky makes an “appeal to the people” and Nevzorov broadcasts from the proscenium, shedding tears, with a trembling voice, talking about the desecration of the Orthodox faith by the damned Busurmans and about the export of the Russian treasury abroad by foreigners, it is by no means obvious that Shuisky at this moment remains the same the same demagogue that he was before and will be after, that his religious-patriotic fervor is empty and false. He is sold by the actor and director, and bought by the public, at face value. Like the final wordless thoughts of Shuisky, who “reached the highest power.” Boris Nevzorov in the play generally evokes mixed feelings. In demonstrating Shuisky’s human essence, when he is drinking with his minions in exile or gloatingly grimacing in front of the boyars, he is certainly good and convincing. But when it comes to political matters and questions of history, confusion begins, as if the artist did not fully understand his hero. Although the conflict between the monarch and his own conscience should not be new either for Nevzorov himself, once upon a time, even under Lansky, who played at the Theater. Stanislavsky in “Thomas Becket” by Anuya, nor for Maly with his textbook “Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich” and the legendary “Fiesco Conspiracy in Genoa” with Vitaly Solomin and Mikhail Tsarev. Nevertheless, the theater became entangled in this conflict. Yes, probably not only the theater - there are now many misunderstandings with such issues at different levels.
In this sense, Gleb Podgorodinsky in the role of the Pretender is much more interesting. Podgorodinsky has played so many leading roles, but it seems that this is the first time he has produced such mature work. He plays his hero brightly, modernly in in a good way words and as much as one can be “modern” without going beyond the traditions of the “Ostrovsky house”. Hence, another conflict unexpectedly arises in the play - the conflict of artistic generations. Moreover, Nevzorov, who recently came to Maly, finds himself together with the “veterans” of the theater, and, surprisingly, the director and set designer are on Podgorodinsky’s side. The performance, by Maly’s standards, is perhaps not “avant-garde.” Conventional design of the scene, represented by charred scraps of graphic drawings of the boyars' chambers. Conventional suits, especially those made to Western cut. Beardless boyars, one even smokes a pipe. By the way, things turned out to be interesting with the boyars. They say that during the general run-through, Boris Klyuev (Golitsyn) came out with a glued-on beard. Dragunov, we must give him his due, showed directorial firmness, stopped the run and forced the boyar to get rid of his beard. If at the same time there had been a full-fledged acting ensemble in the play, the result would probably have been worthy. Alas, the action rests on several performers of the main roles, the rest, including the “masters”, for example, Vladimir Nosik (Mstislavsky), perform a purely official function in in accordance with the plot and text of the play.
And the strongest episode turns out to be not one of the historically climactic scenes of the two title characters, not murder or betrayal, but the meeting of False Dmitry with Queen Martha. Tatyana Lebedeva, who plays Pelageya Egorovna so puppet-flatly in “Poverty is not a Vice,” seems to be replaced here. The duet of Lebedeva and Podgorodinsky is truly touching. He is an orphan who has appropriated someone else's name and someone else's destiny. She - former queen, forcibly tonsured a nun, who lost her son. He asks her to recognize him as her son. This is an extremely difficult situation for Martha. Agreeing with False Dmitry means, on the one hand, betraying the memory of her slaughtered son, who died in her arms and was buried, and on the other, it is an opportunity to belatedly take revenge on his killers. But the murderer Godunov himself has long been in the grave, Martha does not want revenge. And he wants to find his son again - at least in the Pretender. But False Dmitry also wants the same thing, and not just to get additional evidence of his “legitimate” rights to the throne. Podgorodinsky and Lebedeva in this scene play two absolutely lonely people, not related either by blood or a special community of interests, but gradually, due to the personal restlessness of each, they are imbued with a mutual and fundamentally selfless feeling. What confuses Marfa most of all is not the memory of the bloody Dmitry and not the hatred of the dead Godunov, but the fact that her newly-made “son” has another mother, a real one, and she is afraid that her son will be taken away from her, as Dmitry was once taken away from Marfa herself. The impostor reassures Marfa by saying that he does not have a mother. AND last argument in favor of recognizing the Pretender is the opportunity to find her son again years later, and not at all False Dmitry’s promise to return her royal honors. This whole complex bundle of emotions, fear, hatred, love, vengeance, forgiveness, ambition, humility - is played without false pathos, simply, subtly and poignantly.
But the lyrics are lyrics, but the play and performance are still about something else. False Dmitry strives as painlessly as possible, “without shedding Russian blood,” to turn Russia around to face the West, to give more rights to both the people and the boyar Duma, while sacrificing the usual way of local life, the monopoly Orthodox Church on the souls of believers and, in part, with the royal treasury, paying with it to their Polish patrons. Shuisky plays the Orthodox-patriotic card, although he uses it only as a means of achieving power; he speaks calmly about temporary loyalty to Catholicism - they say, in old age you can repent, but for now serve; governs popular opinion as he sees fit; He does not trust his “comrades-in-arms” in the Boyar Duma and does not at all intend to share with them the power gained by such victims (after all, Shuisky’s head had already been on the chopping block before the Pretender pardoned the future traitor). The consequences of Ostrovsky's four-year reign of Shuisky are dramatically played out in the following plays of the cycle about the "time of troubles", but are clear from the very beginning, to the rhymed morality from Golitsyn. Over all the boyar squabbles looms the shadow of Grozny, constantly remembered by heroes from different camps - an unrestricted, mercilessly bloody dictatorship as the inevitable result of any easing, reforms and democratization; and at the same time - thoughts about calling the Polish prince Vladislav to the kingdom, since it is easier for Russians to submit to external force than to peacefully agree among themselves. Like Godunov, the Pretender, and then Shuisky, are doomed, and behind them - a new fall into chaos or a new tyrant with a silent people. Somehow, the performance, having passed the temptation of demagogic speeches about the desecration of Russian shrines by cursed foreigners and the plunder of Russia, taxis to this thought, seemingly obvious even to Pushkin.
"Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky"- a play (actually, “a dramatic chronicle in two parts”) by Alexander Ostrovsky. Written in 1866.
History of writing
Ostrovsky began work on “Dmitry the Pretender...” in early February 1866. As Ostrovsky himself testifies, “Dmitry the Pretender...” is “the fruit of fifteen years of experience and long-term study of sources.”
Having completed work on the chronicle for printing, Ostrovsky began creating a stage version of the play. The differences between the text for print and for the stage are quite significant.
Characters
scene one
- 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.
scene two
- Dmitry Ivanovich, impostor.
- Shuisky, Prince Vasily Ivanovich.
- Shuisky, Prince Dmitry Ivanovich.
- Kurakin, Prince Ivan Semyonovich.
- Rubets-Masalsky, Prince Vasily Mikhailovich,
- Jan Buchinsky, Dmitry's secretary.
- Jacob Margeret, captain of a German company.
- Korela, Don Ataman.
- Kutska, Zaporozhye ataman.
- Savitsky, Jesuit.
- Konev.
- Kalachnik.
- Tens, Hungarians, Poles, Cossacks, Cossacks, Tatars, Germans, Polish men-at-arms, boyars, nobles, merchants, archers and every people of both sexes.
Write a review about the article "Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky"
Links
Excerpt characterizing Dmitry the Pretender and Vasily Shuisky
– Does he love you?- Does he love you? – Natasha repeated with a smile of regret about her friend’s lack of understanding. – You read the letter, did you see it?
- But if he doesn't noble man?
– Is he!... an ignoble person? If only you knew! - Natasha said.
“If he is a noble man, then he must either declare his intention or stop seeing you; and if you don’t want to do this, then I will do it, I will write to him, I will tell dad,” Sonya said decisively.
- Yes, I can’t live without him! – Natasha screamed.
- Natasha, I don’t understand you. And what are you saying! Remember your father, Nicolas.
“I don’t need anyone, I don’t love anyone but him.” How dare you say that he is ignoble? Don't you know that I love him? – Natasha shouted. “Sonya, go away, I don’t want to quarrel with you, go away, for God’s sake go away: you see how I’m suffering,” Natasha shouted angrily in a restrained, irritated and desperate voice. Sonya burst into tears and ran out of the room.
Natasha went to the table and, without thinking for a minute, wrote that answer to Princess Marya, which she could not write the whole morning. In this letter, she briefly wrote to Princess Marya that all their misunderstandings were over, that, taking advantage of the generosity of Prince Andrey, who, when leaving, gave her freedom, she asks her to forget everything and forgive her if she is guilty before her, but that she cannot be his wife . It all seemed so easy, simple and clear to her at that moment.
On Friday the Rostovs were supposed to go to the village, and on Wednesday the count went with the buyer to his village near Moscow.
On the day of the count's departure, Sonya and Natasha were invited to a big dinner with the Karagins, and Marya Dmitrievna took them. At this dinner, Natasha again met with Anatole, and Sonya noticed that Natasha was saying something to him, wanting not to be heard, and throughout the dinner she was even more excited than before. When they returned home, Natasha was the first to begin with Sonya the explanation that her friend was waiting for.
“You, Sonya, said all sorts of stupid things about him,” Natasha began in a meek voice, the voice that children use when they want to be praised. - We explained it to him today.
- Well, what, what? Well, what did he say? Natasha, how glad I am that you are not angry with me. Tell me everything, the whole truth. What did he say?
