How Does Pushkin Convey Guilt of Godunov - Book Report/Review Example

How does Pushkin convey Godunov's guilt in his play Alexander Pushkin began to work in earnest on Boris Godunov in November, 1824, and finished the play one year later. He was at the time turning away from Lord Byron as a literary model and toward William Shakespeare. The complexity and variety he found in Shakespeare's characters had a strong appeal for him, as did the English playwright's willingness to treat both history and tragedy with more freedom than had been allowed by the formal constraints f the French neoclassicism that had until then been the dominant influence on the Russian theater. Boris Godunov consists f twenty-three loosely connected scenes. f the dramatic unities (time, place, and action) Pushkin observed only the unity f action, and he cast the poetry in iambic pentameter, which is closer to natural speech than the hexameters f neoclassic drama, and intermixed poetry with prose. A large number f speaking characters is further augmented by crowd scenes. (Briggs 10-11) Though the play is a historical tragedy, Pushkin includes snatches f comedy. In short, Pushkin exhibited in Boris Godunov the romantic sensibility f his day in creating a poetic drama that placed the arresting confusions f history above the theoretic requirements f art. Russian history in the early seventeenth century was somewhat confused, but Pushkin chose to set up several definite determinants. He took as the source for his play Nikolay Karamzin's History f the Russian State (1816-1829), which maintained that Boris Godunov was culpable in the death in 1591 f Dmitri, the half brother f the ruling czar, Feodor. There is in fact no clear evidence for this, Boris Godunov was first called to be czar after Feodor died in 1598, and initially he seems to have been a popular ruler. When the situation changed, however, people began to remember that Godunov had not been part f any ruling dynasty and that he had achieved power because, as Feodor's brother-in-law, he was strategically placed at a moment when Russia needed a ruler. This led many to suspect that he may have engineered his own rise to power by evil means. Karamazin also claimed that the false Dmitri was an ambitious monk with determination and ability but no legitimate claim to power. This put Pushkin in a difficult spot, for in order to remain faithful to his source, he could not develop a dramatic opposition f good and evil in his characters. A Boris Godunov who was a vicarious assassin and a Dmitri who was a crass imposter did not provide effective theater. Pushkin could f course have altered the historical premise, but that would have conflicted with his motive in writing the play, which was to record a critical epoch in Russia's past. Pushkin resolved his dilemma by finding the point in the story where history gives way to tragedy. He made his title character, Boris Godunov, a man who was capable and even in many ways honorable but in whose internal struggle between conscience and ambition, ambition had been the victor. Dmitri, on the other hand, is shown to possess few admirable traits so that in the conflict between the two ambitious men, Boris Godunov is the likeliest figure who can be seen as a tragically flawed hero. Another problem Pushkin had to surmount was the unexciting nature f Godunov's death. He resolved this difficulty by concluding the play with the death f Boris Godunov's children at the hands f Dmitri's agents. Having shown that Godunov was responsible for the death f the true Dmitri, Pushkin implied a rough justice in showing Godunov's children being destroyed by the agency f the false Dmitri. (Vickery 1-3) For the purposes f theater, history is more readily married to tragedy than to comedy. The dramatist must try to find in history patterns f human conduct that are somehow heroic, even if flawed. Shakespeare, Pushkin's model, often chose historical figures sufficiently remote in time or clouded in circumstance so that he could revise the past to fit a tragic mold. Plays treating more recent history could be shaped to gratify contemporary political sentiments. Boris Godunov, in many ways an excellent subject for dramatic treatment, posed a certain problem for Pushkin because it was Godunov's failure, as well as the failures f various pretenders (for eventually more than one man claimed to be Dmitri), that led to the emergence f the Romanov dynasty, which held power in Pushkin's lifetime. Insofar as the poet needed to write a play that would secure the approval f rulers in his own era, there was an advantage to showing both Boris Godunov and the pretender to possess great flaws. The title character nevertheless exhibits enough f the qualities f a tragic hero to allow the audience's attention to center on Boris Godunov. The play is not exclusively a tragedy f ambition, but it is far more than a simple chronicle f history. Moreover, it proved a suitable record f a difficult moment in Russia's past. Boris Godunov, a privy councilor, was a schemer. He had planned the assassination f Czarevitch Dmitri so that the actual assassins had been caught and promptly executed by a mob, and no suspicion fell on Boris. He even ordered the nobleman Shuisky to investigate the crime. Shuisky returned and told with a straight face the version f the murder that Boris had suggested to him. (Sandler 5-9) When the people began to clamor for Boris to become czar, Boris and his sister took refuge in a monastery, ostensibly to escape the pressure f the populace who had acclaimed him their ruler. With a great show f humility and hesitation, he finally accepted the great honor. In spite f his initial popular appeal, Boris proved to be a cruel ruler, binding the serfs more firmly than ever to their masters and crushing ruthlessly nobles who might have opposed him. There were a few, however, who did not forget that Boris had murdered Dmitri. Father Pimen was an old monk, a writer f chronicles. At night he wrote his observations f Russia's troubled times, while a young monk named Grigory Otrepyev slept nearby. Grigory was troubled by grandiose dreams. It seemed to him that he was mounting a great staircase from the top f which all Moscow was spread out before him. When he awoke, Father Pimen counseled him to forget the call f the world, for lust and power were illusory. Grigory scarcely listened, for he knew that in his youth Pimen had been a soldier and had had his fill f secular life. When a wicked monk tempted Grigory by reminding him that he was the same age as the murdered Dmitri would have been, Grigory quickly resolved that he would indeed be Dmitri. To get support for his enterprise Grigory went to Lithuania, where, so as to pass unnoticed through the country, he attached himself to two beggar monks. Somehow Boris heard f the impostor's intentions. A description f Dmitri was broadcast, and the czar's agents were instructed to arrest him on sight. In a remote tavern, several officers came upon Grigory and his two companions. Grigory drew his dagger and fled. Both the Lithuanians and the Poles were delighted to help Grigory march on Moscow. The Poles, especially, were eager to attack the hated Muscovites. As rumors f the impending rebellion spread, many Russians came into Poland to join the swelling ranks f Grigory's supporters. Before long, Grigory found another powerful ally in a Jesuit priest who promised to throw the influence f Rome behind the pretender. Grigory at the head f a rebellious army in Poland was a real menace to Boris' throne and life. Yet Grigory, comfortably installed at an estate near the Russian border, lingered in Poland. He could not bring himself to give orders to advance because Maryna, the daughter f the house, had captured his heart. She had been cold to him and finally asked him outright whether he was really Dmitri or an unfrocked monk, as some people were saying. When Grigory, unnerved by love, confessed that he was a baseborn monk, Maryna haughtily refused to ally her noble blood with his. Stung by her actions, Grigory thereupon proudly declared that he would be czar, and if Maryna denounced him, he would use his power to punish her. Satisfied that he had an indomitable spirit, Maryna overlooked his birth and agreed to be his czarina. The next morning, Grigory began his conquering march, and for a while all went well. Towns and villages joined his campaign willingly, for the name f Dmitri was a powerful one. In Moscow, Boris was greatly perturbed and asked the patriarch to give his best counsel. He was told that Dmitri's grave had become noted for its cures; the patriarch himself knew f an old man who had been blind for many years before a visit to the tomb restored his sight. If Dmitri's remains were brought into the Kremlin and a miracle were to happen before all the people, Moscow would have prof that Dmitri was dead and the pretender was a fraud. Boris paled at the suggestion. Tactfully Shuisky proposed another course. Rather than appear to use religious means in a political quarrel, he would go before the people and denounce Grigory. Surely, when the people knew the truth they would desert the baseborn monk who called himself Dmitri. For a time, events seemed to favor Boris. Grigory was beaten back in several attacks on strongholds held by Boris' troops. Nevertheless, Grigory remained cheerful and confident, even after his forces had been defeated. Boris entrusted the command f his whole defense to Basmanov, an able leader though not f noble birth. Basmanov was gratified at the honor, for he had as little patience with the intrigues f the court as he did with the fickle loyalties f the mob. His conference with Boris was interrupted by the arrival f a delegation f foreign merchants. Boris had hardly left the room before an alarm was sounded; the czar had suddenly been taken ill. Blood gushed from his mouth and ears. Before his death, Boris had time formally to name his son Feodor the next czar. As his life ebbed away, he advised Feodor to name Basmanov the military leader, to retain all the stately court procedures that gave dignity to the government, and to preserve strictly the discipline f the Church. After the last rites were administered, Boris died. (Bayley 1-7) At army headquarters, Pushkin, a supporter f Grigory, had an interview with Basmanov. Pushkin admitted that Grigory's army was only a rabble and that Cossacks and Poles alike were not to be trusted. If, however, Basmanov would declare for Grigory, the new czar would make him commander f all the Russian armies. At first, Basmanov hesitated, but Pushkin reminded him that even if Grigory were an impostor, the magic name f Dmitri was enough to ensure that Feodor had no chance f retaining his czardom. Basmanov, convinced, publicly led his troops to Grigory's side. Basmanov's defection spread. The people f Moscow listened to Pushkin when he made an inflammatory speech in the great square. As he reminded them f all they had suffered under Boris and f the justice f Dmitri's accession, the crowd shouted their allegiance to the false Dmitri. Impassioned, the mob surged into Boris' palace to seek out Feodor. Feodor looked hopelessly out f the window. Some in the crowd felt pity, but their voices were overruled. The boyars forced their way inside, presumably to make Feodor swear allegiance to Dmitri. Out f the uproar came screams. At last the door opened. One f the boyars made an announcement: Feodor and his mother had taken poison. He had seen the dead bodies. The boyar urged the people to acclaim Dmitri, but the people stood silent, speechless. Works Cited Bayley, John. Pushkin: A Comparative Commentary. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1971. One f the best English-language studies f Pushkin. A long chapter on drama treats Boris Godunov in relation to Shakespeare, the German poet Friedrich Schiller, and others. Briggs, A. D. P. Alexander Pushkin. New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1983. In the chapter on drama, Briggs argues that Pushkin's success as a dramatist was limited, but that his plays are more interesting than is sometimes allowed. Discusses such aspects f Boris Godunov as the work's historical background, Shakespearean influence, structure, characters, language, and poetry. Magarshack, David. Pushkin. New York: Grove Press, 1969. This biography f Pushkin places Boris Godunov in the context f the poet's life and literary career. A good starting place for the general reader. Pushkin, Alexander., (Translated by James E. Falen) Boris Godunov and Other Dramatic Works. 2007 Sandler, Stephanie. Distant Pleasures: Alexander Pushkin and the Writing f Exile. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1989. Scholarly and subtle, this book is better suited to the serious student f Pushkin than to the general reader. Boris Godunov is discussed at considerable length. Vickery, Walter N. Alexander Pushkin Revisited. Rev. ed. New York: Twayne, 1992. A brief but clear account f the historical circumstances leading to Boris Godunov's rule is useful to those not familiar with the background for Pushkin's play. Many f the established topics in the study f Boris Godunov are included. Read More