« Miserly knight”was conceived in 1826, and completed in the Boldin autumn in 1830. Published in 1836 in the Sovremennik magazine. Pushkin gave the play the subtitle "From Chenstone's tragicomedy". But the writer of the 18th century Shenstone (in the tradition of the 19th century his name was spelled Chenstone) there was no such play. Perhaps Pushkin referred to a foreign author so that his contemporaries would not suspect that the poet described the relationship with his father, known for stinginess.
Theme and plot
Pushkin's play "The Miserly Knight" - the first work in the cycle dramatic sketches, short plays, which were later called "Little Tragedies". Pushkin intended in each play to reveal some side human soul, all-consuming passion (stinginess in "The Miserly Knight"). Mental qualities, psychology are shown in sharp and unusual plots.
Heroes and images
The baron is rich but stingy. He has six chests full of gold, from which he does not take a penny. Money is not servants and not friends for him, as for the usurer Solomon, but the Lord. The Baron does not want to admit to himself that money has enslaved him. He believes that thanks to the money, quietly sleeping in chests, everything is subject to him: love, inspiration, genius, virtue, work, even villainy. The baron is ready to kill anyone who encroaches on his wealth, even his own son, whom he challenges to a duel. The duel is prevented by the duke, but the very possibility of losing money kills the baron. The passion that the baron is possessed consumes him.
Solomon has a different attitude to money: it is a way to achieve a goal, to survive. But, like the baron, for the sake of enrichment, he does not shun anything, offering Albert to poison his own father.
Albert is a worthy young knight, strong and brave, winning tournaments and enjoying the favor of the ladies. He is completely dependent on his father. The young man has nothing to buy a helmet and armor, a dress for a feast and a horse for the tournament, only out of desperation he decides to complain to the duke.
Albert has excellent spiritual qualities, he is kind, gives the last bottle of wine to the sick blacksmith. But he is broken by circumstances and dreams of the time when the gold will pass to him by inheritance. When the usurer Solomon offers to set Albert up with an apothecary who sells poison to poison his father, the knight casts him out in disgrace. And soon Albert already accepts the baron's challenge to a duel, he is ready to fight to the death with his own father, who insulted his honor. The duke calls Albert a monster for this act.
The Duke in the tragedy is a representative of the authorities who voluntarily assumed this burden. The duke calls his age and the hearts of people terrible. Through the mouth of the Duke, Pushkin also speaks of his time.
Issues
In every little tragedy, Pushkin peers intently at some vice. In The Miserly Knight, this pernicious passion is stinginess: the change in the personality of a once worthy member of society under the influence of vice; the hero's obedience to vice; vice as a cause of loss of dignity.
Conflict
The main conflict is external: between a stingy knight and his son, who claims his share. The Baron believes that wealth must be endured so as not to be wasted. The goal of the baron is to preserve and increase, the goal of Albert is to use and enjoy. The conflict is caused by the clash of these interests. It is aggravated by the participation of the duke, to whom the baron is forced to slander his son. The strength of the conflict is such that only the death of one of the parties can resolve it. Passion destroys the stingy knight, the reader can only guess about the fate of his wealth.
Composition
There are three scenes in the tragedy. From the first, the reader learns about the difficult financial situation Albert, associated with the stinginess of his father. The second scene is a monologue of a stingy knight, from which it is clear that passion has completely taken possession of him. In the third scene, the just duke intervenes in the conflict and unwittingly causes the death of the hero obsessed with passion. The climax (death of the baron) is adjacent to the denouement - the conclusion of the duke: “A terrible age, terrible hearts!»
Genre
"The Miserly Knight" is a tragedy, that is, a dramatic work in which main character dies. small size Pushkin achieved his tragedies, excluding everything unimportant. Pushkin's goal is to show the psychology of a person obsessed with the passion of stinginess. All "Little Tragedies" complement each other, creating a three-dimensional portrait of humanity in all its variety of vices.
Style and artistic originality
All "Little Tragedies" are intended not so much to be read as to be staged: how theatrical the stingy knight looks in a dark cellar among gold, flickering in the light of a candle! The dialogues of the tragedies are dynamic, and the stingy knight's monologue is a poetic masterpiece. The reader can see how bloodied villainy crawls into the basement and licks the hand of a miserly knight. The images of The Miserly Knight are impossible to forget.
- "The Miserly Knight", a summary of the scenes of Pushkin's play
- "The Captain's Daughter", a summary of the chapters of Pushkin's story
The young knight Albert is about to appear at the tournament and asks his servant Ivan to show him the helmet. The helmet was pierced through in the last duel with the knight Delorge. It's impossible to put it on. The servant comforts Albert with the fact that he repaid Delorge in full, knocking him out of the saddle with a powerful blow, from which Albert's offender lay dead for a day and has hardly recovered so far. Albert says that the reason for his courage and strength was fury over the damaged helmet. The guilt of heroism is stinginess. Albert complains about poverty, embarrassment, which prevented him from taking off his helmet from a defeated enemy, says that he needs a new dress, that he alone is forced to sit at the ducal table in armor, while other knights flaunt in satin and velvet. But there is no money for clothes and weapons, and Albert's father - the old baron - is a miser. There is no money to buy a new horse, and Alber's permanent creditor, the Jew Solomon, according to Ivan, refuses to continue to believe in a debt without a mortgage. But the knight has nothing to pawn. The usurer does not give in to any persuasion, and even the argument that Albert's father is old, will die soon and leave his son all his vast fortune, does not convince the lender.
At this time, Solomon himself appears. Albert tries to borrow money from him, but Solomon, although gently, nevertheless resolutely refuses to give money even on an honest knightly word. Albert, upset, does not believe that his father can survive him, Solomon says that everything happens in life, that “our days are not numbered by us”, and the baron is strong and can live another thirty years. In desperation, Albert says that in thirty years he will be already fifty, and then he will hardly need money. Solomon objects that money is needed at any age, only "the young man looks for nimble servants in them", "the old man sees reliable friends in them." Albert claims that his father himself serves the money, like an Algerian slave, "like a chain dog." He denies himself everything and lives worse than a beggar, and "the gold lies quietly in the chests." Albert still hopes that someday it will serve him, Albert. Seeing Albert's despair and his willingness to do anything, Solomon gives him hints that the death of his father can be brought closer with the help of poison. At first, Albert does not understand these hints. But, having clarified the matter, he wants to immediately hang Solomon on the gates of the castle. Solomon, realizing that the knight is not joking, wants to pay off, but Albert drives him out. When he comes to his senses, he intends to send a servant for the moneylender to accept the offered money, but changes his mind, because it seems to him that they will smell of poison. He demands wine, but it turns out that there is not a drop of wine in the house. Cursing such a life, Albert decides to seek justice for his father from the duke, who must force the old man to support his son, as befits a knight.
The baron goes down to his basement, where he keeps chests of gold, to pour a handful of coins into the sixth chest, which is not yet full. Looking at his treasures, he recalls the legend of the king who ordered his soldiers to put down handfuls of earth, and as a result, a giant hill grew from which the king could look out over vast expanses. The baron likens his treasures, collected bit by bit, to this hill, which makes him the master of the whole world. He recalls the history of each coin, behind which there are tears and grief of people, poverty and death. It seems to him that if all the tears, blood and sweat shed for this money came out of the bowels of the earth now, then a flood would occur. He pours a handful of money into the chest, and then unlocks all the chests, puts lighted candles in front of them and admires the glitter of gold, feeling like the lord of a mighty power. But the idea that after his death the heir will come here and squander his wealth, infuriates the baron and indignant. He believes that he has no right to this, that if he himself had amassed these treasures bit by bit with the hardest work, then, surely, he would not have thrown gold left and right.
In the palace, Albert complains to the duke about his father, and the duke promises to help the knight, to persuade the baron to support his son, as it should be. He hopes to awaken paternal feelings in the Baron, because the Baron was a friend of his grandfather and played with the Duke when he was still a child.
The baron approaches the palace, and the duke asks Albert to bury himself in the next room while he talks with his father. The baron appears, the duke greets him and tries to evoke in him the memories of his youth. He wants the baron to appear at court, but the baron excuses himself with old age and infirmity, but promises that in case of war he will have the strength to draw his sword for his duke. The duke asks why he does not see the baron's son at court, to which the baron replies that the gloomy disposition of his son is an obstacle. The duke asks the baron to send his son to the palace and promises to accustom him to fun. He demands that the baron assign to his son an allowance befitting a knight. Gloomy, the baron says that his son is not worthy of the duke's care and attention, that "he is vicious", and refuses to comply with the duke's request. He says that he is angry with his son for plotting parricide. The duke threatens to put Albert on trial for this. The Baron reports that his son intends to rob him. Hearing these slanders, Albert bursts into the room and accuses his father of lying. The enraged Baron throws down the glove to his son. With the words "Thank you. Here is the first gift of his father.” Albert accepts the challenge of the baron. This incident plunges the duke into amazement and anger, he takes away the glove of the baron from Albert and drives the father and son away from him. At that moment, with the words about the keys on his lips, the baron dies, and the duke complains about "a terrible age, terrible hearts."
MEAN KNIGHT
(Scenes from Chenstone's tragicomedy The Covetous Knight, 1830)
Albert- a young knight, the son of a miserly baron, the hero of a tragedy stylized as a translation from a non-existent work by Chenstone (Shenstone). In the center of the plot is a conflict between two heroes, a father (Baron) and a son (A.). Both belong to the French knighthood, but to different eras his history. A. is young and ambitious; for him, the idea of chivalry is inseparable from tournaments, courtesy, demonstrative courage and equally ostentatious extravagance. The feudal stinginess of the father, elevated to a principle, not only dooms the son to bitter poverty, but simply deprives him of the opportunity to be a knight in the "modern" sense of the word. That is, a noble rich man who despises his own wealth.
The tragedy begins with a conversation between A. and the servant Ivan; A. discusses the sad consequences of the tournament (the helmet is broken, the horse Emir is lame; the reason for the victory heroic victory- stinginess, anger due to a damaged helmet; so the name - "The Miserly Knight" - applies in full to both the Baron and A.). The tragedy continues with the scene of A.'s humiliation in front of the Jew Solomon (whom the knight despises and, in fact, is not averse to hanging). knightly word- nothing for the usurer, transparently hinting to the heir to the opportunity to "accelerate" the long-awaited moment of receiving the inheritance. A. is enraged by the baseness of Solomon, but a scene immediately follows in the Duke's palace. Heeding the complaints of A., the Duke tries to exhort the stingy father; The baron slanders his son (“... he wanted to kill me /<...>/ he attempted / me<...>rob"); the son accuses his father of lying - and receives a challenge to a duel. Here Pushkin tests his hero: A. does not just accept the challenge of the Baron (that is, he demonstrates that he is ready to kill his father); he raises the glove hastily before the father changes his mind and deprives his son of the opportunity to make the "Solomonic decision".
Yes, for the “new” chivalry, unlike the “old”, money is important not in itself, not as a mystical source of secret power over the world; for him it is only a means, the price of a "knight's" life. But in order to pay this price, to achieve this goal, A., who professes a “noble” philosophy, is ready to follow the vile advice of the “despicable” usurer. So far - acting as if in a chivalrous way, not agreeing to a secret, vile patricide, but no longer disdainful of explicit patricide, allowing you to maintain the appearance of nobility. (The duel was stopped only by the will of the Duke.) The question of whether A. would have refrained from the next step, would not have resorted to the remedy proposed by Solomon, if it were not for the sudden “natural” death of his father in the finale, remains open.
All interpretations of the image of A. (and the Baron) are reduced to two "options". According to the first, the spirit of the times is to blame (“A terrible age, terrible hearts!” - the words of the Duke); behind each of the heroes is his own truth, the truth of a social principle - new and outdated. According to the second, both heroes are to blame; the plot collides two equally large untruths - Baron and A.; each of them has its own idefix, absorbing the extra-classical truth of humanity. The latter point of view is preferable; although Pushkin's humanity is not so rigidly opposed to the idea of estate justice of the nobility. The Duke, personifying this idea, evaluates the behavior of the heroes from the inside of knightly ethics, calling the older one “mad”, and the younger one “fiend”. And such an assessment does not contradict Pushkin's own.
All Pushkin's works are filled with galleries of various images. Many conquer the reader with their nobility, feeling dignity or courage. On wonderful work Alexander Sergeevich has grown more than one generation. Reading his poems, poems and fairy tales, people of the different ages get great pleasure. The same can be said about the work "The Miserly Knight". His heroes and their actions make even the youngest lover of Alexander Sergeevich's creativity think.
Acquaintance with a brave but poor knight
Our article will only present summary. "The Miserly Knight", however, is worthy of familiarizing yourself with the tragedy in the original. So let's get started...
A young knight, whose name is Albert, is going to the next tournament. He asked Ivan's servant to bring his helmet. As it turned out, he was pierced through. The reason for this was the previous participation in the battle with the knight Delorge. Albert is upset. But Ivan tries to comfort his master, saying that one should not be sad because of the damaged helmet. After all, young Albert still repaid the offender. The enemy has not yet recovered from the terrible blow.
But the knight replies that it was the damaged helmet that gave him heroism. It was stinginess that became the reason to finally defeat the enemy. Albert complains about his poverty and modesty, which did not allow him to take off his helmet from Delorge. He tells the servant that during dinners at the duke's, all the knights sit at the table in chic outfits, which are sewn from expensive fabrics, while Albert, due to lack of money to buy new clothes have to be present in armor ...
This is how the tragedy itself begins, and from this we began to present its summary.
"The Miserly Knight": the emergence of a new hero of the work
Young Albert, in his conversation with a servant, mentions his father, who is such a stingy old baron that he not only does not allocate money for clothes, but also regrets new weapons and a horse. There is also an old Jewish moneylender, whose name is Solomon. The young knight often used his services. But now this creditor refuses to give him a loan. Only with a deposit.
But what can a poor knight bail out but his uniform and good name! Albert even tried to persuade the moneylender, saying that his father was already very old and would probably die soon, and, accordingly, all the huge fortune that he owns would go to Albert. Then he will definitely be able to pay off all his debts. But Solomon was not convinced by this argument either.
The meaning of money in a person's life, or his attitude towards them
Solomon himself mentioned by the knight appears. Albert, taking this opportunity, wants to beg him for another amount. But the usurer, though gently, but firmly refuses him. He explains young knight that the father is still quite healthy and will live even thirty years. Albert is crushed. After all, then he will be fifty years old and the money will no longer be needed.
To which the Jewish usurer reprimands the young man that he is wrong. At any age, a person needs money. Just in every period of life, people relate to wealth in different ways. The young are mostly too careless, and the elderly find true friends in them. But Albert argues with Solomon, describing his father's attitude towards wealth.
He denies himself everything, and puts the money in chests, which he then guards like a dog. And the only hope for young man- that the time will come when he will be able to use all this wealth. How do the events that our summary describes develop further? The Miserly Knight will tell the reader about the terrible advice that Solomon gives to the young Albert.
When Solomon sees the plight of the young knight, he advises him in hints to hasten his father's departure to the other world, giving him poison to drink. When the meaning of the usurer's hints reached Albert, he was even about to hang him, he was so indignant. The frightened Jew tries to offer him money to avoid punishment, but the knight kicks him out.
Frustrated, Albert asks the servant to bring some wine. But Ivan says that he is not left in the house at all. And then the young man decides to turn to the duke for help and tell him about his misfortunes, as well as about his stingy father. Albert cherishes the hope that he will at least be able to get his father to support him, as it should be.
The greedy baron, or a description of a new character
What happens next in the tragedy? Let's continue with the summary. The miserly knight finally appears to us in person: the author introduces the reader to the father of poor Albert. The old man went to the basement, where he hides all his gold, in order to carry another handful of coins. Having opened all the chests full of wealth, the baron lights a few candles and sits nearby to admire his fortune. All Pushkin's works very vividly convey the images of the characters, and this tragedy is no exception.
The Baron remembers how he got each of these coins. Many of them brought people a lot of tears. Some even caused poverty and death. It even seems to him that if you collect all the tears shed because of this money together, then a flood will certainly happen. And then the thought comes to his mind that after his death, the heir, who did not deserve it at all, will begin to use all this wealth.
Leads to resentment. This is how Alexander Sergeevich describes Father Albert in his work The Miserly Knight. An analysis of the entire tragedy will help the reader figure out what the baron's attitude towards money and neglect of his own son led to.
The meeting of a greedy father and a poor son
In fashion, the knight at this time tells the duke about his misfortunes, about his greedy father and lack of maintenance. And he promises the young man to help convince the baron to be more generous. After some time, the father himself appeared in the palace. The duke ordered the young man to hide in the next room, and he himself began to inquire about the health of the baron, about why he appeared so rarely at court, and also about where his son was.
The old man suddenly begins to complain about the heir. Allegedly, young Albert wants to kill him and take possession of the wealth. The Duke promises to punish the young man. But he himself runs into the room and calls the baron a liar. Then the angry father throws the glove to his son, and the young man accepts it. The Duke is not only surprised, but outraged. He took away this symbol of the upcoming duel and drove both of them out of the palace. But the health of the old man could not withstand such shocks, and he died on the spot. This is how it ends latest events works.
"The Miserly Knight" - which not only introduced the reader to all his characters, but also made him think about one of the human vices - greed. It is she who often destroys the relationship between close friends and relatives. Money sometimes makes people go to inhuman acts. Many of Pushkin's works are filled with deep meaning and point the reader to one or another shortcoming of a person.
Omsk
Moral and philosophical problems of the tragedy "The Miserly Knight"
“There is nothing to say about the idea of the poem “The Miserly Knight: it is too clear both in itself and by the name of the poem. The passion of stinginess is not a new idea, but a genius knows how to make the old new ... ”, - he wrote, defining ideological character works. G. Lesskis, noting some "mysteriousness" of the tragedy in relation to its publication (Pushkin's unwillingness to publish the tragedy under his own name, attributing authorship to the non-existent playwright of English literature Chenston), believed that ideological orientation yet extremely clear and simple: "In contrast to the rather mysterious external history of the play, its content and conflict seem to be simpler than in the other three." Apparently, the starting point for understanding the ideological nature of the work was, as a rule, the epithet that forms the semantic center of the name and is keyword in the code meaning of conflict resolution. And that is why the idea of the first play of the Little Tragedies seems to be “simple” - stinginess.
We see that this tragedy is devoted not so much to stinginess itself, but to the problem of its comprehension, the problem of comprehension of morality and spiritual self-destruction. The object of philosophical, psychological and ethical research is a person whose spiritual convictions turn out to be fragile in the ring of temptation.
The world of chivalrous honor and glory was struck with vicious passion, the arrow of sin pierced the very foundations of being, destroyed the moral pillars. Everything that was once defined by the concept of "knightly spirit" has been rethought by the concept of "passion".
The displacement of vital centers leads a person into a spiritual trap, a kind of way out of which can only be a step taken into the abyss of non-being. The reality of sin conscious and determined by life is terrible in its reality and tragic in its consequences. However, the power of understanding this axiom is possessed by only one hero of the tragedy "The Miserly Knight" - the Duke. It is he who becomes an unwitting witness to a moral catastrophe and an uncompromising judge of its participants.
Avarice, indeed, is the "engine" of the tragedy (stinginess as a cause and effect of the wasted spiritual forces). But its meaning is seen not only in the pettiness of the miser.
The baron is not just a stingy knight, but also a stingy father - stingy in communication with his son, stingy in revealing to him the truths of life. He closed his heart to Albert, thereby predetermining his end and destroying the still unstrengthened spiritual world his heir. The baron did not want to understand that the son inherited not so much his gold as his life wisdom, memory and experience of generations.
Sparing with love and sincerity, the Baron closes in on himself, on his individuality. He withdraws from the truth family relations, from the "vanity" (which he sees outside his basement) of light, creating his own own world and Law: The Father is realized in the Creator. The desire to possess gold develops into an egoistic desire to possess the Universe. There should be only one ruler on the throne, only one God in heaven. Such a message becomes the “foot” of the Power and the reason for hatred for the son, who could be the successor of the Father’s Cause (meaning not the destructive passion for hoarding, but the business of the family, the transfer from father to son of the spiritual wealth of the family).
It is this stinginess that destroys and marks with its shadow all manifestations of life becomes the subject of dramatic reflection. However, the author's view does not escape the latent, "looming" gradually causal foundations of depravity. The author is interested not only in the results of completeness, but also in their primary motives.
What makes the Baron become an ascetic? The desire to become God, the Almighty. What makes Albert want his father dead? The desire to become the owner of the baron's gold reserves, the desire to become a free, independent person, and most importantly, respected for both courage and fortune (which in itself as a message to existence, but not to being, is quite understandable and characteristic of many people of his age) .
“The essence of a person,” wrote V. Nepomniachtchi, “is determined by what he ultimately wants and what he does to fulfill his desire. Therefore, the "material" of "little tragedies" are human passions. Pushkin took three main ones: freedom, creativity, love [...]
From the desire for wealth, which, according to the Baron, is a guarantee of independence, freedom, his tragedy began. Albert strives for independence - also through wealth ... ".
Freedom as an impetus, as a call for the realization of what was conceived, becomes an indicator, an accompanying "element" and at the same time a catalyst for action that has a moral significance (positive or negative).
Everything in this work is maximally combined, syncretically focused and ideologically concentrated. The inversion of the commanded sources of being and the disharmony of relations, family rejection and tribal interruption (moral fragmentation of generations) - all this is marked by the fact of the reality of synth e PS (synthetically organized indicators) of spiritual drama.
The illogism of relations at the Father-Son level is one of the indicators moral tragedy precisely because the ethical significance of the conflict dramatic work receives not only (and not so much) when it is resolved vertically: God - Man, but also when the hero becomes a god-forsaken in real-situational facts, when consciously or unconsciously "ideal" replaces "absolute".
The multilevel nature of meanings and resolutions of the conflict also determines the polysemy of subtextual meanings and their interpretations. We will not find unambiguity in the understanding of this or that image, this or that problem, marked by the attention of the author. The dramatic work of Pushkin is not characterized by categorical assessments and the utmost obviousness of conclusions, which was characteristic of a classic tragedy. Therefore, in the course of analyzing his plays, it is important to carefully read every word, note the changes in the intonations of the characters, see and feel the author's thought in each remark.
An important point in understanding the ideological and content aspect of the work is also the analytical “reading” of the images of the main characters in their inextricable correlation and direct relation to the level facts of resolving the conflict, which has an ambivalent nature.
We cannot agree with the opinion of some literary critics, who see in this work, just as in Mozart and Salieri, only one protagonist, endowed with the power and right to move the tragedy. So, M. Kostalevskaya noted: “The first tragedy (or dramatic scene) - “The Miserly Knight” - corresponds to the number one. Chief, and in fact the only hero- Baron. The remaining characters of the tragedy are peripheral and serve only as a background for the central person. Both philosophy and psychology of character are concentrated and fully expressed in the monologue of the Miserly Knight [...] ".
The baron is undoubtedly the most important, deeply psychologically "written out" sign-image. It is in correlation with him, with his will and his personal tragedy that graphically marked realities of Albert's co-existence are also visible.
However, despite all the apparent (external) parallelism of their life lines, they are still the sons of one vice, historically predetermined and actually existing. Their visible difference is largely explained and confirmed by age, and therefore temporal, indicators. The baron, struck by an all-consuming sinful passion, rejects his son, giving rise to the same sinfulness in his mind, but aggravated by the hidden motive of parricide (at the end of the tragedy).
Albert is as driven by conflict as the Baron. The mere realization that the son is the heir, that he is the one who will be after, makes Philip hate and fear him. The situation, in its intense insolubility, is similar to the dramatic situation of “Mozart and Salieri”, where envy and fear for his own creative failure, an imaginary, justifying desire to “save” Art and restore justice, force Salieri to kill Mozart. S. Bondi, reflecting on this problem, wrote: “In The Miserly Knight and Mozart and Salieri, a shameful passion for profit, avarice that does not disdain crimes, envy that leads to the murder of a friend, brilliant composer, covered by people who are accustomed to universal respect, and, most importantly, who consider this respect well deserved [...] And they try to assure themselves that their criminal acts either high principled considerations (Salieri), or if passion, then some other, not so shameful, but high (Baron Philip) are leading.
In The Miserly Knight, the fear of giving everything to someone who doesn’t deserve it gives rise to perjury (an act, according to its end results in no way inferior to the action of poison thrown into the "cup of friendship").
A vicious circle of contradictions. Perhaps this is how conflict should be characterized this work. Here everything is “nurtured” and closed on contradictions, opposites. It would seem that father and son are opposed to each other, antinomic. However, this impression is deceptive. Indeed, the initially visible attitude to the "sorrows" of poor youth, poured out by the angry Albert, give reason to see the difference between the characters. But one has only to carefully follow the course of the son's thought, as the immanent, even if marked in its fundamental principle by signs of opposite polarity, their moral affinity with the father becomes obvious. Although the baron did not teach Albert to appreciate and cherish what he devoted his life to.
In the time period of the tragedy, Albert is young, frivolous, wasteful (in his dreams). But what will happen next. Perhaps Solomon is right, predicting a stingy old age for the young man. Probably, Albert will someday say: “I didn’t get all this for nothing ...” (referring to the death of his father, which opened the way to the basement for him). The keys, which the baron tried so unsuccessfully to find at the moment when his life was leaving him, will be found by his son and "will give the dirt the royal oil to drink."
Philip did not convey, but according to the logic of life, according to the will of the author of the work and according to the will of God, who tests the spiritual stamina of his children with a test, against own desire"threw" the inheritance, as he threw the glove to his son, challenging him to a duel. Here the motif of temptation reappears (stating the invisible presence of the Devil), a motif that sounds already in the first scene, in the very first voluminous monologue-dialogue (about a pierced helmet) and the very first ideologically significant dialogue (dialogue between Albert and Solomon about the possibility of getting father's money as soon as possible). This motive (the motive of temptation) is as eternal and old as the world. Already in the first book of the Bible we read about the temptation, the result of which was the expulsion from Paradise and the acquisition of earthly evil by man.
The baron understands that the heir wants his death, which he accidentally admits, which Albert himself blurts out: “Will my father outlive me?”
We must not forget that Albert still did not take advantage of Solomon's offer to poison his father. But this fact does not in the least refute the existence of his thoughts, desires. speedy death(but: not killing!) baron. Wishing for death is one thing, but killing is quite another. The knight's son turned out to be incapable of committing an act that the “son of harmony” could decide: “Pour ... three drops into a glass of water ...”. Yu. Lotman noted in this sense: “The Baron's feast took place in The Miserly Knight, but another feast, at which Albert should have poisoned his father, is only mentioned. This feast will take place in "Mozart and Salieri", linking these two otherwise very different pieces into a single "montage phrase" by "rhyme of positions". .
In "Mozart and Salieri" the words of the hero of the first tragedy, detailing the entire process of murder, are restructured into the author's remark with the meaning "action - result": "Throws poison into Mozart's glass." However, at the moment of the strongest spiritual tension, the son accepts the “first gift of the father”, ready to fight with him in the “game”, the stake of which is life.
The ambiguity of the conflict-situational characteristics of the work is determined by the difference in the initial motives for their occurrence and the multidirectional resolution. Level sections of the conflict are found in the vectors of moral movements and signs of spiritual disharmony, marking all the ethical messages and actions of the characters.
If in "Mozart and Salieri" the opposition is defined by the semantics of "Genius - Craftsman", "Genius - Villainy", then in "The Miserly Knight" the opposition takes place in the semantic field of the antithesis "Father - Son". The level difference in the initial indicators of the spiritual drama also leads to the difference in the final signs of its development.
Comprehending the moral and philosophical issues of The Miserly Knight, one should conclude that the ethical sound of Pushkin's tragedy is all-important, the inclusiveness of the topics raised and the universal level of conflict resolution. All vector lines of development of the action pass through the ethical subtext space of the work, affecting the deep, ontological aspects of a person's life, his sinfulness and responsibility before God.
Bibliographic list
1. Belinsky Alexander Pushkin. - M., 1985. - S. 484.
2. Lesskis G. Pushkin's way in Russian literature. - M., 1993. - P.298.
3. "Mozart and Salieri", Pushkin's tragedy, Movement in time. - M., 19s.
