The theme of the people runs through the entire play. They not only talk about the people in the play, but for the first time in drama, Pushkin brought the people onto the stage. The people became the center of the tragedy "Boris Godunov", but in general concept The “people” are still fused together with the idea of the peasantry and the urban “rabble” of all classes. But it is important to note that all classes, in their opposition to the boyars, are combined into one concept “people”. If in Shakespeare the people were the background of the action, then in Pushkin they are the protagonist (folk scenes on the Maiden Field).
Pushkin shows the heterogeneity of the opinions of the crowd. Some sincerely beg Boris to accept the royal crown, but the majority are devoid of any special monarchical feelings and are deeply indifferent to everything that is happening. Pushkin's depiction of the people is distinguished by duality and inconsistency. On the one hand, the people are a powerful rebellious force, a formidable spontaneous mass. The fate of the kings and the fate of history depend on the support of the people, and on the other hand, the people are shown as a politically immature mass, they are a toy in the hands of the boyars, the boyars take advantage of the actions of the people, and the people still remain in slavery.
Thus, the leading main philosophical and historical thought of Pushkin: the people are the source of moral judgment. It was especially relevant during the period of its creation - on the eve of December 1825. Pushkin objectively addressed the advanced noble youth, spoke about the weakness of the noble movement, calling for them to join the people. In the historical concept underlying the tragedy, there is one more feature that limits broad understanding historical events, a feature noted in a letter to Benckendorf (April 16, 1830: rejecting intentions to hint at close political circumstances, but admitting that some similarity with recent events in the tragedy can be found, Pushkin adds: “All rebellions are similar to each other” .
Pushkin believed that he would completely agree with historical truth if his artistic generalization was based not only on the experience of Russian history early XIX centuries, but also on historical examples of imposture, usurpation, popular unrest of other times, other peoples, for all rebellions are the same. While working on Boris, he turns to Tacitus, whom he studies in those chapters that talk about the impostors of imperial Rome. Pushkin believed that it was enough to preserve the historical flavor of customs, speech, and external behavior in order to avoid reproaches of distorting historical truth. But the psychology of the characters had to be reconstructed not only from monuments, but also on the basis of knowledge of “human nature.” And therefore, not only in the chronicles, but also in Tacitus, Pushkin looked for historical analogies, typical features, characteristic formulas for depicting the events of the reign of Boris Godunov. Pushkin's reviews of the heroes of the tragedy are constantly based on historical analogies. Thus, in a letter to Raevsky (1829) he writes: “There is a lot of Henry IV in Dmitry. Like him, he is brave, gentle and just as boastful as he is indifferent to faith, both renounce their law in order to achieve a political goal, both are adherents of pleasure and war, both are carried away by chimerical plans, conspiracies take up arms against both.” When we're talking about about Boris’s involvement in the murder of Dmitry, Pushkin, objecting to Pogodin, writes: “And Napoleon, the murderer of Engensky, and when? Exactly 200 years after Boris.” What was the political subtext of “Boris Godunov” that Pushkin so insisted on?
A rebellious whisper wanders in the squares, Minds are boiling - they need to be cooled... Only with vigilant severity can we restrain the people...
IN historical tragedy 1825, as in the early “Vadim”, these are clear echoes of the era of the Holy Alliance and military migrations. In the spirit of Pushkin’s previous characterizations of Alexander I, as a participant in the Guards conspiracy on March 11, Pimen’s exclamations are heard in the tragedy: “We have named the regicide Master,” and the cry of the holy fool: “No, no! You can’t pray for King Herod!” The end of Boris's reign (“this is the sixth year”) is marked by the dark mysticism of the king: he locks himself with magicians, fortune-tellers, and sorceresses, seeking in their divination the reassurance of his indignant conscience. The analogy with Alexander I of the era of his last rapprochement with Archimandrite Foschius and Metropolitan Seraphim is obvious here. Godunov’s exclamation is also extremely characteristic: “The rebellious Pushkin family is disgusting to me,” obviously reflecting the reaction of the angry emperor to the famous epigrams, noels and “Liberty.” Away from the main stream of events, as if in the shadows and in the distance, one of the most significant and majestic figures of this historical fresco is revealed. As almost always with Pushkin, he is a figure of thought and speech, in in this case ancient writer, scientist medieval Rus', historian, biographer and memoirist - chronicler Pimen. In the original edition of his monologue, the artistic attraction of the learned monk to the creative recreation of the past was even more clearly reflected:
People appear before me again, those who have long since left the world, the rulers to whom I was subjugated, both enemies and old friends, comrades of my blossoming life, both in the noise of battles and in sweet conversations...
He is not dispassionate and not divorced from life, this ancient publicist, angrily rebelling against the evil of the world and the vices of the system. Under the monk's hood it is political thinker, above all concerned with the “government of the state.” The inexperienced monk Grigory Otrepyev made a mistake when he compared him to an imperturbable clerk who “calmly looks at the right and the guilty, listening to good and evil indifferently...”. In fact, the chroniclers defended their idea of serving the homeland and protecting its national power. No wonder Pimen “fought under the towers of Kazan and repelled the army of Lithuania at Shuisky...”. He remains a faithful warrior in his “Tale of Bygone Years.” This is not a calm registration of current incidents, it is a menacing sentence and a “terrible voice” to posterity in the name of the steady triumph of truth and justice, at least in the distant future. Such was this kindred image. The author of “Boris Godunov” himself more than once branded the “crowned soldier” in his poems in the name of the struggle for a free homeland, reflecting in the appearance of the ancient ruler the features of a monk, whose injured conscience and dark mysticism threatened new disasters for the country and people. But when Pushkin was finishing Boris Godunov, Alexander I was dying in Taganrog.
By this time, Pushkin had already developed a certain view of history, different from Shakespeare’s. This view proceeds from the fact that history has a purpose. In relation to the plot of “Boris Godunov”, this goal is to awaken the conscience of people and it is “set” at the very beginning of the tragedy, in the words of Pimen: “We angered God, we sinned: (We called the regicide Master for ourselves.” The entire historical process depicted in tragedy, as if aimed at ensuring that these words become an expression of the entire people, “the opinion of the people”; and here it is necessary to note that this process is cleared of accidents in Pushkin; remark, which will be the end of the tragedy: “The people are silent,” and will mean that the people, having once sinned, no longer want to condone lies and crime “The most amazing thing is that Pushkin, who only recently wrote about “lessons of pure atheism” and before. who still considers himself not so much a believer as a seeker of faith, in practice creates - not without the influence of Karamzin - a deeply religious concept of the historical process as an action, the main person of which is that highest, guiding will, which in the European manner is called providence, and in Russian - By trade.
The theme of the people in the drama "Boris Godunov"
Other essays on the topic:
- "Boris Godunov" marks a new stage in addressing historical theme. This stage differs from the previous time in the principle of historical fidelity. For...
- The tasks of depicting the past and present of the Russian people in the spirit of historicism and a realistically understood nationality, in the spirit of realism with all its severity...
- In the literature about “Boris Godunov”, considerations have been expressed more than once that, in parallel with Karamzin’s “History of the Russian State” and the Russians...
- Pushkin set himself the task of creating a folk tragedy as opposed to a court tragedy, and he brilliantly accomplished it. “What develops in a tragedy? What...
- Age of Troubles ( end XVI- beginning of the 17th century) attracted the attention of Russian playwrights as an exclusively dramatic, turning point national history....
- Ideological and literary intent and ideological content the tragedy "Boris Godunov" defined it artistic features: composition, realism of images, historicism in reproduction...
- “Little tragedies” is the conventional name of a cycle that consists of four dramatic works: « Stingy Knight"(1830), "Mozart and Salieri" (1830), " Stone Guest»...
- February 20, 1598 It has already been a month since Boris Godunov shut himself up with his sister in a monastery, leaving “everything worldly” and...
- In an effort to bring the linguistic structure of tragedy closer to the structure of everyday life, colloquial speech Pushkin decides to replace the rhymed hexameter, traditional for tragedies of classicism...
- The plot of the tragedy “Tsar Boris” is based on Boris’s fruitless struggle with the ghost of the murdered man, a struggle that leads to the death of a new type of autocrat....
- V. G. Belinsky said about Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin’s novel “Eugene Onegin” that this work is truly folk work, a real encyclopedia...
- The theme of remorse is the most important element of the king’s individual characterization; as the action develops, it even becomes the main means of this characterization....
- On the day of Boris’s enthronement, the boyars count the fruits of his reign: the suppressed pestilence, the completed wars, and the harvests. They...
- As a truly great realist artist, Pushkin reflected in his works the essential aspects of the reality of that historical era of which he was a contemporary. Pushkin...
Loyalty historical era and secondary characters are distinguished by truthfulness in their portrayal of characters. characters.
Belinsky noted that already in the first scene of the tragedy “the character of Shuisky is depicted both historically and poetically.” This is the head of the boyar group, a descendant of the appanage princes of the “Rurik blood”. He himself is not averse to taking the throne of the Moscow Tsars, which was vacated after the death of Tsar Fedor. But Shuisky understands very well that he cannot achieve his goal without the help of the people, and therefore invites Vorotynsky to “skillfully excite the people.” But when Boris is elected, Shuisky turns into a “crafty courtier.” He expresses his devotion to Boris, but fully shares the rebellious aspirations of Afanasy Pushkin. Shuisky is a typical courtier, “evasive, but brave and crafty.”
Other boyars were also depicted in the tragedy: the timid and simple-minded Vorotynsky; the true exponent of boyar views Afanasy Pushkin; who went over to the side of the Pretender Gavrila Pushkin, the poet’s ancestor, Golitsyn, Masalsky and others.
Pushkin needed these images in the tragedy to show the relationship between the tsar and the boyars, ruling class and the people.
Transferring the action of the tragedy to Poland, Pushkin also depicts the feudal Polish aristocracy: Mniszko, Vishnevetsky and others. Much attention is paid to Marina Manishek. “Marble nymph”, cold beauty, Marina is ambitious, arrogant, cunning. It is not a feeling of love, but a thirst to become the queen of Moscow that guides her when she agrees to become the wife of the Pretender.
Pushkin shows that real reason The death of Boris lies in the forces that rebelled against him. Here the first and main place belongs to the people. The people are the main characters of Pushkin's tragedy. The people in the composition of the tragedy are given central place: the people appear at the very beginning of the tragedy, and they also complete it, after the death of Boris and before the entry of the Pretender into Moscow; the latter, after the scene in the forest, no longer appears in the tragedy. It is not individual heroes (Boris and the Pretender), but the people who complete the tragedy.
The people are the creator of history, the true foundation of the state. Without the support of the people, both kings and boyars are powerless. The people supported the election of Boris to the throne, and when they turned away from him, Boris died. The people ensured victory for the Pretender. The power of the people is limitless.
The people have an ineradicable desire for freedom, for the fight against tyranny. The people are a rebellious element, always inclined to rebel against their oppressors. Afanasy Pushkin confidently declares to Shuisky: “If the Pretender tries to promise them the old St. George’s Day, then the fun will follow.” Clever Basmanov says to Boris: “People are always secretly inclined to confusion.”
The strength of the people lies in its inherent high moral purity, in aversion to crime. He cannot forgive Boris for killing the baby. The people cannot forgive the Pretender for the death of Godunov’s widow and son. Thus, the people act as a formidable judge of the lawlessness and crimes of the royal power.
Pushkin on the material history XVII century provides answers to the most important questions of our time. The Decembrist uprising was approaching; their weakness was that they acted in isolation from the broad masses.
Surpassing the historians and writers of his time with the brilliant instinct of a great poet, approaching our understanding of the role of the people in history, Pushkin shows both the enormous strength of the people and their historically conditioned weakness at that time - in early XVII century. The people can overthrow tyrants, but ensure their own good and freedom, take advantage of public interests he is not able to achieve his victory. The reason for this is darkness, the political ignorance of the masses. Taking advantage of this darkness of the people, it is the tsars and boyars who create politics, not the people; fruit people's victory they appropriate it to themselves. Pushkin clearly shows this in the first scenes of the tragedy (“Red Square”, “Maiden’s Field”), and in final scene.
The people in the tragedy are shown in movement, in development. The scene on Red Square, where the people first appear, speaks of some confusion among the masses who find themselves without a tsar:
Oh my God, who will rule us?
Oh woe to us!
In the next scene - on the Maiden's Field - the people beg Boris to become king. But this is done on the orders of the boyars: “The boyars know that.” The remarks exchanged by those gathered here indicate that, in essence, a significant part of the people are completely indifferent to the election of a king. For her it's just a curious sight.
At the end of the tragedy, the people are no longer like that: they themselves take an active part in the events, without hiding their hatred of royal family.
M uz h i k na m v o n e.
People, people! to the Kremlin, to the royal chambers!
Go breed Borisov's puppy!
(People rush in a crowd.)
Pushkin conceived "Boris Godunov" as a historical and political tragedy. The drama "Boris Godunov" opposed romantic tradition. As a political tragedy, it addressed contemporary issues: the role of the people in history and the nature of tyrannical power.
If in "Eugene Onegin" a harmonious composition appeared through the "collection motley chapters", here it was masked by a collection of motley scenes. "Boris Godunov" is characterized by a lively variety of characters and historical episodes. Pushkin broke with the tradition in which the author lays a proven and complete thought as the basis and then decorates it with "episodes."
With "Boris Godunov" and "Gypsies" a new poetics begins; the author seems to be setting up an experiment, the outcome of which is not predetermined. The point of the work is to pose a question, not to solve it. The Decembrist Mikhail Lunin wrote down an aphorism in Siberian exile: “Some works communicate thoughts, others make you think.” Consciously or unconsciously, he generalized Pushkin's experience. Previous literature "informed the thoughts." Since Pushkin, the ability of literature to “make one think” has become an integral part of art.
In "Boris Godunov" two tragedies are intertwined: the tragedy of the authorities and the tragedy of the people. Having before his eyes eleven volumes of Karamzin’s “History...”, Pushkin could have chosen a different plot if his goal had been to condemn the despotism of the tsarist government. Contemporaries were shocked by the unprecedented courage with which Karamzin depicted the despotism of Ivan the Terrible. Ryleev believed that this is where Pushkin should look for the theme of a new work.
Pushkin elected Boris Godunov as a ruler who sought to gain people's love and not alien to statesmanship. It was precisely such a king who made it possible to reveal the pattern of the tragedy of power alien to the people.
Pushkin's Boris Godunov cherishes progressive plans and wants good for the people. But to realize his intentions, he needs power. And power is given only at the price of crime; the steps of the throne are always covered in blood. Boris hopes that power used for good will atone for this step, but the unmistakable ethical sense of the people forces him to turn away from “Tsar Herod.” Abandoned by the people, Boris, despite his good intentions, inevitably becomes a tyrant. The crowning achievement of his political experience is a cynical lesson:
The people do not feel mercy:
Do good - he won’t say thank you;
Rob and execute - it won't be worse for you.
The degradation of power, abandoned by the people and alien to them, is not an accident, but a pattern (“... the sovereign, at idle times/ interrogates informers himself”). Godunov senses danger. Therefore, he hurries to prepare his son Theodore to rule the country. Godunov emphasizes the importance of science and knowledge for the one who rules the state:
Learn, my son: science reduces
We experience fast-paced life
Someday, and maybe soon,
All areas that you are now
He depicted it so cleverly on paper,
Everyone will get yours
Learn, my son, both easier and clearer
You will comprehend the work of a sovereign.
Tsar Boris believes that he has redeemed himself (the death of Dmitry) by skillfully managing the state. This is his tragic mistake. Good intentions crime loss of public trust tyranny death. This is the natural tragic path of a government alienated from the people.
In the monologue “I have reached the highest power,” Boris confesses to the crime. He is completely sincere in this scene, since no one can hear him:
And everything feels nauseous and my head is spinning,
And the boys have bloody eyes...
And I’m glad to run, but there’s nowhere... terrible!
Yes, pitiful is the one whose conscience is unclean.
But the path of the people is also tragic. In his depiction of the people, Pushkin is alien to both educational optimism and romantic complaints about the mob. He looks with "Shakespeare's eyes." The people are present on stage throughout the tragedy. Moreover, it is he who plays a decisive role in historical conflicts.
However, the position of the people is contradictory. On the one hand, Pushkin’s people have an unmistakable moral sense, and its exponents in the tragedy are the holy fool and Pimen the Chronicler. Thus, communicating with Pimen in the monastery, Grigory Otrepiev concludes:
Boris, Boris! Everything trembles before you,
No one dares to remind you
About the lot of the unfortunate baby
Meanwhile, the hermit in a dark cell
Here a terrible denunciation of you writes:
And you will not escape the judgment of the world,
How can you not escape God's judgment?
The image of Pimen is remarkable in its brightness and originality. This is one of the few images of a chronicler monk in Russian literature. Pimen is full of holy faith in his mission: to diligently and truthfully record the course of Russian history.
May the descendants of the Orthodox know
The native land has a past fate,
They commemorate their great kings
For their labors, for glory, for good And for sins, for dark deeds
They humbly implore the Savior.
Pimen instructs the young novice Grigory Otrepyev, advising him to subdue his passions with prayer and fasting. Pimen admits that in his youth he himself indulged in noisy feasts, “the fun of his youth.”
Believe me:
We are captivated from afar by glory, luxury
And women's crafty love.
I have lived a long time and enjoyed much;
But since then I have only known bliss,
How the Lord brought me to the monastery.
Pimen witnessed the death of Tsarevich Dimitri in Uglich. He tells the details of what happened to Gregory, not knowing that he was planning to become an impostor. The chronicler hopes that Gregory will continue his work. In Pimen's speech it sounds folk wisdom, which puts everything in its place, gives everything its strict and correct assessment.
On the other hand, the people in the tragedy are politically naive and helpless, they easily entrust the initiative to the boyars: “... the boyars know / They are no match for us...”. Welcoming the election of Boris with a mixture of trust and indifference, the people turn away, recognizing him as “Tsar Herod.” But he can only oppose the authorities with the ideal of a persecuted orphan. It is the impostor’s weakness that turns into his strength, as it attracts the sympathy of the people to him. Resentment against the criminal government degenerates into rebellion in the name of the impostor. The poet boldly brings the people into action and gives them a voice The man on the pulpit:
People, people! To the Kremlin! To the royal chambers!
Go! Knit Borisov's puppy!
The popular uprising was victorious. But Pushkin does not end his tragedy with this. The impostor has entered the Kremlin, but in order to ascend the throne, he must still commit murder. The roles have changed: the son of Boris Godunov, young Fyodor, is now himself a “persecuted baby,” whose blood, with almost ritual fatality, must be shed by the impostor ascending the steps of the throne.
In the last scene, Mosalsky comes out onto the porch of Boris’s house with the words: “People! Maria Godunova and her son Theodore poisoned themselves. We saw their dead corpses. (The people are silent in horror.) Why are you silent? Shout: long live Tsar Dimitri Ivanovich !"
The sacrifice is made, and the people notice with horror that he has elevated to the throne not an offended orphan, but the murderer of the orphan, the new king Herod.
The final remark: “The people are silent” says a lot. This phrase symbolizes the moral judgment of the new king, and the future doom of another representative of the criminal government, and the powerlessness of the people to break out of this circle.
Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin often turned to Russian history, its most poignant and dramatic pages. In the tragedy "Boris Godunov" the poet resurrected " last century in all its truth." The author managed to reach unprecedented heights in the art of drama... His characters are historically correct, they act and reason in accordance with their time and characters.
Boris Godunov is depicted by Pushkin comprehensively. He is a wonderful father who wants happiness for his children, a fair and caring ruler who thinks about the good of the people, but why does he fail everywhere? There is no happiness for his children:
I may have angered the heavens
I could not arrange your happiness.
Guilty one, why are you suffering?
He says to his daughter.
And you, my son, what are you doing?
And there are many dissatisfied people in the state. Boris comes to the conclusion that the people hate any king.
Living power is hateful to the mob,
They only know how to love the dead.
There is an accusation in the very air that Godunov is the murderer of Tsarevich Dmitry. The boyars do not dare to express this to the tsar, they have something to lose, they want to save their privileges, localism, and proximity to the throne by any means necessary.
The people are constantly dissatisfied with their humiliated position, their subordination to everything and everyone. Sometimes it results in riots that end in nothing. The rulers know how to stop the people in time, to cajole them not so much with effective measures as with momentary handouts and promises. Shuisky very well explains to Boris the essence of the people:
Mindless rabble
Changeable, rebellious, superstitious,
Easily betrayed by empty hope.
Obedient to instant suggestion,
Deaf and indifferent to the truth,
And she feeds on fables.
Pushkin in the tragedy “Boris Godunov” very accurately defined and showed folk character. Eternally dissatisfied with the existing government, people are ready to rise up to destroy it and rebel, instilling terror in the rulers - and that’s all. And as a result, they themselves remain offended, since the fruits of their victory are enjoyed by the boyars and high-born nobles standing at the throne of the sovereign.
The people have only one thing left to do - “keep silent.”
Through the mouth of Godunov, Pushkin speaks the obvious and bitter truth:
No, the people do not feel mercy:
Do good - he will not say thank you;
Rob and execute - you won't get any worse.
Isn't this the highest truth? After all, no matter what the sovereign does, his immediate circle enjoys the fruits of these deeds, but the benefits do not reach the people. Because of this, the masses are always dissatisfied with what exists and dream of something better.
Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin managed to brilliantly show the essence of the confrontation between the people and the authorities, their eternal antagonism.
Years, decades, centuries pass, but nothing changes in this regard.
People are always prone to confusion;
So a greyhound gnaws at its reins;
The boy is so indignant at his father’s power;
But what? The rider calmly rules the horse,
And the father commands the boy.
Essay Pushkin A. S. - Boris Godunov
Topic: - People and power (based on the tragedy “Boris Godunov”)
O terrible, unprecedented grief!
We angered God and sinned:
Ruler for himself the regicide
We named it. A. S. Pushkin, “Boris Godunov”
Pushkin conceived "Boris Godunov" as a historical and political
Yes, pitiful is the one whose conscience is unclean. A. Pushkin Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin often turned to Russian history, its most poignant and dramatic pages. In the tragedy “Boris Godunov” the poet resurrected “the past century in all its truth”....
1. Historical memory and its understanding. 2. Memory of a courtier. 3. Memory of a criminal ruler. 4. The memory of the people in the understanding of the author of the drama. The plot of the drama “Boris Godunov” by A. S. Pushkin was taken from “The History of the Russian State” by N. M. Karamzin. This...
THE JURODY - central character tragedy by A.S. Pushkin “Boris Godunov” (1825). In Rus', holy fools were called the blessed ones who renounced earthly blessings “for Christ’s sake” and became the people’s “sorrowers.” The holy fools led a beggarly lifestyle, wore rags and usually...
The secondary characters are also distinguished by their fidelity to the historical era and truthfulness in their portrayal of characters. Belinsky noted that already in the first scene of the tragedy “the character of Shuisky is depicted both historically and poetically.” This is the head of the boyar...
Not only in classical tragedy XVII-XVIII centuries, but also among Western romantic playwrights contemporary to Pushkin, the outcome of the historical struggle was determined by the clash of wills and passions of individual outstanding historical “heroes”, elevated high above the crowd of more ordinary ones, ordinary people. With Pushkin the situation is different. And Boris Godunov, and the boyars, and the Pretender in his tragedy constantly feel the presence of the people near them as a special - decisive - historical force, on which they depend and whose opinion they are forced to reckon with. Already at the beginning of the tragedy, in order to give external legitimacy to his accession to the throne, Boris is forced to appeal to the voice of the people. But his popular recognition of the throne, staged at the will of Boris and the boyars, remains a comedy that cannot mislead anyone. The people equally condemn both Boris and the Pretender, because for them the road to power lies through crime and violence. He denies them his moral sanction. This is especially eloquently evidenced by the tragic and menacing silence of the people in the last scene of “Boris Godunov” - the scene that crowns this great, truly national tragedy.
Shakespeare's favorite hero in his tragedies was a simple-minded, straightforward and generous bearer of an epic, knightly-heroic consciousness, living and dying in an era that, along with the flowering of a free personality, gave birth to political cunning and refined, cynical "Machiavellianism." Problems of Pushkin folk drama different. The main node of its socio-political and moral content is the problem of the growing tragic alienation between the supreme power and the people, the question of the causes of this alienation, as well as the historical paths and possibilities that could help overcome it.
The poet depicted the people in “Boris Godunov” as that historical force whose relationship to the persons acting on the proscenium historical life, plays a decisive role in the final development of events, determining the success or failure of their plans and enterprises. Already at the beginning of the tragedy, in the scene of Godunov’s election to the throne, it becomes obvious to the viewer that the people, living their own lives and their own interests, are indifferent to the supreme power, do not sympathize with Godunov and do not want his election. Only the intervention of the boyars and the patriarch prompts the people to participate in the cleverly staged scene of Godunov’s calling to the throne. And later Godunov never managed to win the trust and support of the people. This is what ultimately decides the fate of Boris and his heirs. And in the same way, the harsh “silence” of the people in response to the call to greet False Dmitry with a cry: “Long live Tsar Dimitri Ivanovich!” testifies to his negative attitude towards Boris's successor, who began his reign with a new - similar to Boris's crime - cruel and bloody crime. This negative attitude of the people foreshadows the Pretender's imminent inglorious end.
It should be noted that the tragedy emphasizes two different motives for the people’s negative attitude towards Boris. One of them is the discrepancy between Boris’s image and actions and the people’s ideal of truth and justice. Boris paved his way to the throne by crime. He is a murderer, and, moreover, the murderer of an innocent baby. No wonder the Holy Fool calls him “King Herod.” Godunov’s crime, the fact that in the name of personal ambition he killed Demetrius, thereby clearing the way for himself to the throne, is condemned by both Pimen and the Fool, and the entire nameless, multifaceted mass of people standing behind them. As a criminal king, a child killer, Godunov does not meet the requirements of popular morality: he is a criminal not only from the point of view of the official law, but also from the point of view of the people's ethical ideal, and therefore the people cannot and do not want to give their sanction to his election , is mutely hostile to Godunov, despite his “generosity.”
But according to Pushkin, the people have, as tragedy testifies, not only the right of the highest moral judgment over Godunov and other historical figures of the foreground, who can only be strong in “popular opinion” (and therefore their success and failure depend entirely on the support of the people). The people also have their own special interests in history. They may or may not coincide with the interests of the monarch and the boyars. To this side historical thought Pushkin in “Boris Godunov” is hinted by the mention of the “ancient St. George’s Day” canceled by Godunov.
And yet, although the moral verdict of the people coincides with the demands of the uncompromising and infallible supreme, universal moral court, in the era depicted by the poet, the people did not have their own historical initiative, the ability for active, purposeful historical action. He had the historical right to give or not give his sanction to the claims of the heroes of the first plan, to condemn or justify them. But he was not given the opportunity to nominate from his midst persons capable of acting independently, and not supporting one or another of the fighting heroes, coming from a boyar (or noble) environment and representing in history, on the one hand, their personal ambitious interests, and on the other - the historical aspirations of this environment. This is the tragic shade of folk “silence” at the end of Pushkin’s great folk drama. Therefore, the ending of “Boris Godunov” is not only the apotheosis of the highest people’s truth and people’s court, but also the people’s reproach to themselves, artistic reflection tragic and painful awareness of the impossibility for him to realize that ideal of truth and goodness, which constitutes an integral feature of his inner moral life. This ideal lives spontaneously in the soul of the people and determines their rejection of Boris and the Pretender. But it cannot manifest itself in word and action.
