Boris Godunov

Púchkin é de fato um gênio visionário: ele escreveu um troço absolutamente intolerável pros palcos mas excelente pràs telas.

Eu, bobo, gastei três vezes mais tempo lendo sobre o período das grandes turbulências e ivã o terrível do que lendo essa obra, achando que um vasto entendimento do contexto me faria apreciá-la mais profundamente. Um equívoco. Pode chegar sem saber nada que papai Sacha te explica tudo e você nem prercebe.

A fascinating story from history, told by a brilliant writer.

The play takes place over 1598-1605, the beginning of a period known in Russia as the “time of troubles,” after Feodor I (Ivan the Terrible’s son) died childless and his regent Boris Godunov became tsar. Godunov had been practically ruling already for 14 years, as Feodor was weak-minded and Ivan the Terrible had killed his other son, the heir to be, in a fit of rage (recall Repin’s brilliant painting of this in Tretyakov). Seven years into the reign of Feodor/Godunov, Ivan’s much younger son Dimitry from wife #7 died under very suspicious circumstances, and the rumors were that Godunov had had him killed to pave the way for his eventual rule.

While starting off with show more promise, Godunov’s reign soon grew unpopular, hindered by famine and the fact that the Russian nobility (the boyars) resented his lower-class origins. He began repressing dissent through tighter controls, murder, and exile. Suddenly in Poland a Russian claimed to be Dimitry, and thus should be tsar. This “pretender to the throne” was actually a monk, Grigory Otrepyev, and it’s hard to fathom how people could have believed his story, but then again, the Poles under Władysław IV and a segment of Russia were eager to go along with the ruse for political reasons. The populace was mostly ignorant, and as Pushkin tells it, easily duped.

Pushkin writes this story with his trademark brevity and grace, skating through scenes lightly and with great effectiveness. What could be a dry history is delightfully brought to life in a manner that rivals Shakespeare, who Pushkin admired. He skillfully paints portraits of all these characters – e.g. the tormented Godunov, the crafty Vasily Shuysky (who himself would later become tsar), and the ambitious Maryna Mniszech (the Polish aristocrat who married the false Dimitry). He gets into the psychology of these people, and the forces surrounding ambition and the will to power.

It’s remarkable that the play was constructed with such symmetry, scene 1 mirroring 25, scene 2 mirroring 24, etc, which is the subject of one of the fascinating appendices in this edition. Aside from how elegant this is, it also signals one of the play’s themes and Pushkin’s observation about history – namely, that the pattern of vying for power and corruption in the ruling class recurs, along with the masses simply going along for the ride out of ignorance, ambivalence, or fear.

While Pushkin was telling this story 200+ years in Russia’s past, the parallel to his own time was remarkable, and he was well aware of it. Alexander I had come to power under suspicious circumstances when his father Paul I had been assassinated, and over his reign had become increasingly reactionary. Pushkin himself had been exiled by Alexander when he was writing this. So while the tale is deeply historical, it was also highly relevant to Pushkin’s day (and thus suppressed for six years), and still relevant to our own.

Quotes:
On aging:
“In my old age I live my life anew,
The expired years pass before me in procession –
Was it so long ago that they swept by,
Full of events, tempestuous as the ocean?
Now they are calm and silent; just a few
Of the main actors live on in my mind,
Just a few words of theirs I still recall,
All else has perished irretrievably…”

On guilt:
“Our conscience, if it’s sound, will ride in triumph
Over black calumny and spitefulness…
But if by some unlucky chance a blemish,
One single blemish, should have lodged in it,
Then – trouble! For the soul becomes inflamed
As with the plague, the heart swells up with poison,
Reproaches ring in the ears like hammer blows,
There’s constant nausea and dizziness,
And visions of young boys streaming with blood…
One longs to escape; there’s nowhere, though … ugh, ghastly!
Yes, pity one whose conscience is unclean.”

On people being easily duped; compare it to the present today:
“As you know yourself, the unreasoning mob
Is superstitious, fickle and unruly,
Too ready to indulge in idle hope,
Too prone to obey the impulse of the moment;
They neither hear the truth nor wish to hear it;
Pure fabrication – that’s what they thrive best on.
They like a man to show brazen bravado;
And if this unknown vagabond in Cracow
Should cross the Polish frontier into Russia,
The idiots will flock to him, attracted
By the revival of Dimitry’s name.” show less

This is a splendid play by Pushkin focusing on the dramatic conflict at the beginning of the seventeenth century between Tsar Boris Godunov and the pretender to the throne, the False Dimitri. He was a young man who claimed to be the Tsarevich Dimitri, youngest son of Ivan the Terrible, and who had died at the age of seven. The story is vividly and clearly told and sticks pretty closely to the main historical facts. Quite a gem of a play.

Boris Godunov'u okudum. Daha önce Puşkin okumamıştım, bu yüzden yazara hangi kitabıyla başlasam kararsızlığı içindeydim. Bu kitabın oyun olduğunu öğrenince yazara bu kitapla başlamaya karar verdim.

Boris Godunov'un tarihi bir oyun olduğunu bilmiyordum. Kitaba başladıktan sonra ara verip araştırma yapınca kitaba adını veren bu karakterin gerçekte yaşamış bir Rus Çarı olduğunu öğrendim. Biraz araştırma yaptıktan sonra kitaba dönüp kitabı bir solukta okudum.

Kitapta Shakespeare'den esinlenmeler fark etsemde kitabı yine de sevdim. Puşkin'in diğer kitaplarını da eyakında okumayı planlıyorum.

Borís Godunov es, sin duda, la más perfecta y brillante de las obras dramáticas de Pushkin, cuya publicación supuso el fin del clasicismo vigente y transformó radicalmente el teatro en Rusia. Concebida durante uno de sus repetidos destierros, Pushkin fue consciente de que sería rechaza y la guardó consigo hasta que finalmente vio la luz, censurada, en 1831. Como su autor esperaba, fue criticada e incomprendida, pero pronto el realismo de Borís Godunov alcanzó el reconocimiento que merecía hasta el punto de ser definida por Máximo Gorki como «el mejor drama histórico ruso» o inspirar la gran ópera de Mussorgski. Borís Godunov retrata con una belleza y profundidad inusitadas la sociedad medieval de la Rusia de finales del show more siglo XV y principios del XVI a través de la figura del zar que le da nombre. show less

Usurpatorer och pretendenter är inte ett dåligt ämne för romaner; förvisso är ämnet romantiskt och lätt att skämma, men det har också naturligt inbyggd dramatik och förmåga att bära många typer av berättelser och huvudpersoner: den tragiske unge hjälten, den cyniske härskaren, den gode men svage monarken, den lättledde ynglingen som kastas in i något bortom sin kontroll, äventyrare och idealister: alla går att arrangera på olika sätt.

Titeln antyder dock att detta är ett verk om den tsar som tog makten när Ivan den förskräckliges fromme son Feodor avled: han har förvisso ett par viktiga scener, speciellt mot slutet, men huvuddelen av pjäsen är dock centrerad runt den unge upprorsman som vanligtvis kallas den show more falske Dmitrij (alltså den förste sådane; ytterligare två skulle sedan dyka upp under stora oredan).

Godunov sägs här definitivt vara den som dödat tronarvingen, Ivans tredje son (den äldste hade som bekant dött för sin fars hand), och detta hemsöker hans regering: trots att han i övrigt tycks vara en duglig härskare med sinne för det möjliga och nödvändiga, så plågas han ändå av uppror och motvilja. När så den falske Dmitrij leder sitt uppror mot honom ställs saker på sin spets.

Pjäsen sägs inspirerad av Shakespeare, och det stämmer säkerligen vad gäller versmått, och vissa scener. Eftersom de närmaste förebilderna tycks ha varit krönikespelen är det svårt att säga om detta också är orsaken till den lite obändiga dramaturgin; det är lite för många figurer, och lite för luftigt. Enstaka scener är bra, som när Dmitrij försöker undvika tsarens patruller (överlag finns ett visst tycke med svensk 1500-talshistoria: denna episod skulle nästan kunna vara berättad om Gustav Vasa i Dalarna, och Dmitrij är en intressant spegelbild av daljunkern) eller bekänner sin kärlek för en polsk adelsfröken. Överlag inte någon fantastisk läsupplevelse, men intressant nog, show less

First drama by Pushkin I've read. Would it be presumptuous to suggest that Pushkin could be called the Shakespeare of the Russian language? I'll know more perhaps once I've read Eugene Onegin...