Борис Годунов

by Alexander Pushkin

Драматическое произведение, созданное в 1825 году во время ссылки в Михайловское. Входит в список обязательной литературы для средних школ.

Genres: Classics, Russia, Russian Literature, Plays, Fiction, Poetry, Drama

100 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1831

About the author

Works of Russian writer Aleksandr Sergeyevich Pushkin include the verse novel Eugene Onegin (1831), the play Boris Godunov (1831), and many narrative and lyrical poems and short stories.

See also:
Russian: Александр Сергеевич Пушкин
French: Alexandre Pouchkine
Norwegian: Aleksander Pusjkin
Spanish:Aleksandr Pushkin

People consider this author the greatest poet and the founder of modern literature. Pushkin pioneered the use of vernacular speech in his poems, creating a style of storytelling—mixing drama, romance, and satire—associated ever with greatly influential later literature.

Pushkin published his first poem at the age of 15 years in 1814, and the literary establishment widely recognized him before the time of his graduation from the imperial lyceum in Tsarskoe Selo. Social reform gradually committed Pushkin, who emerged as a spokesman for literary radicals and in the early 1820s clashed with the government, which sent him into exile in southern Russia. Under the strict surveillance of government censors and unable to travel or publish at will, he wrote his most famous drama but ably published it not until years later. People published his verse serially from 1825 to 1832.

Pushkin and his wife Natalya Goncharova, whom he married in 1831, later became regulars of court society. In 1837, while falling into ever greater debt amidst rumors that his wife started conducting a scandalous affair, Pushkin challenged her alleged lover, Georges d'Anthès, to a duel. Pushkin was mortally wounded and died two days later.

Because of his liberal political views and influence on generations of Russian rebels, Pushkin was portrayed by Bolsheviks as an opponent to bourgeois literature and culture and a predecessor of Soviet literature and poetry. Tsarskoe Selo was renamed after him.

Reviews

[Bill Kerwin · Rating 5 out of 5]

You can learn important things about a great writer by reading other great writers who have imitated him. I learned about Twain’s Huckleberry Finn by reading Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye and Doctorow’s Billy Bathgate, I learned about Sir Thomas Malory's Le Morte d’Arthur by reading Twain’s Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, and I learned about Shakespeare, his tragedies and histories, by reading Alexander Puskin’s Boris Godunov.

Shakespeare was fascinated by political history, the motivations of kings and would-be kings, and the young Pushkin—an early admirer of Byron, the philosophes, and the revolutions in America and France—was fascinated by political history too. His revolutionary sentiments earned the young poet an exile to his mother’s estate, and there, in his mid-twenties, he immersed himself in the histories and tragedies of Shakespeare (in a French translation) and in Karamzin’s History of the Russian State.

In Karamzin, Pushkin became fascinated with a period contemporaneous with Shakespeare: the reign of Boris Godunov (1598–1605) and the rise of the “False Dmitri.” Godunov acted as regent for Ivan the Terrible’s saintly but weak-willed son Feodor, and, after Feodor’s death, for Dmitri, Feodor’s son. When the boy, at the age of ten, was found dead, Godunov was thought responsible. Gudonov was soon acclaimed czar, but Dmitri’s death came back to haunt him: a young man (rumored to be a renegade monk) claiming to be the real Dmitri, recruited an army in Poland and marched on to Godunov's palace.

Pushkin must have been struck with the Shakespearean echoes: the saintly weak-willed king (Henry VI), the murderous Lord Protector (Richard Duke of Gloster), the guilty king unable to sleep (Henry IV, Macbeth), and a march on the stronghold of the king (Macduff and Birnam Wood, Richmond and Bosworth Field). To this he added some unusual, more surprising Shakespearean touches: a courtship scene with a Romeo and Juliet beginning and an ending with a bargain more like Macbeth; an idiot beggar who speaks the truth to Czar Boris like Lear’s fool speaks the truth to Lear; a Duke of Clarence style dream; and a low tavern with drunken monks, featuring a hair’s-breadth escape which looks a little like Falstaff’s Boar’s Head Inn. But Pushkin’s imitation consists of much more than an echoed scene here and there, for he perfectly captures the free, wide-ranging spirit of Shakespeare: unaffected by the shackles of the classical unities, generous and universal in its sympathies, comprehensive in its soul.

I’ll end with a portion of Boris' famous soliloquy (and one of the finest arias in Mussorgsky’s opera too). The echos of Richard III, Henry IV, and Macbeth are strong here:

I have attained the highest power. Six years
Already have I reigned in peace; but joy
Dwells not within my soul. Even so in youth
We greedily desire the joys of love,
But only quell the hunger of the heart
With momentary possession. We grow cold,
Grow weary and oppressed! In vain the wizards
Promise me length of days, days of dominion
Immune from treachery--not power, not life
Gladden me; I forebode the wrath of Heaven
And woe. For me no happiness. . . .
Ah! Now I feel it; naught can give us peace
Mid worldly cares, nothing save only conscience!
Healthy she triumphs over wickedness,
Over dark slander; but if in her be found
A single casual stain, then misery.
With what a deadly sore my soul doth smart;
My heart, with venom filled, doth like a hammer
Beat in mine ears reproach; all things revolt me,
And my head whirls, and in my eyes are children
Dripping with blood; and gladly would I flee,
But nowhere can find refuge--horrible!
Pitiful he whose conscience is unclean!

[Debbie Zapata · Rating 4 out of 5]

When doing the tasks for a literary birthday Challenge I am participating in, I try each month to pick authors I have never read. For June my choice was Alexander Pushkin, and I selected three titles of his, the first being Boris Godunov.

I wanted to read a bit about Pushkin himself before starting so I visited wiki and while there read a separate link about this play which gave a short outline of the main details leading up to Boris becoming Tsar in the late 1500's and what went on after that. I am embarrassed to admit I had not known that Boris Godunov had been a real person.

This is a play with only 25 short scenes, but a lot happens throughout. Court intrigue, mysterious deaths, battles, romance, treachery and murder. But was Boris really guilty of causing the death of Ivan the Terrible's youngest but illegitimate son? According to the wiki article, his guilt was never established in real life but Pushkin chose to believe Boris was guilty, in order to add more drama to the play. He also
modeled this work on Shakespeare's Henry IV, which of course I will want to read soon so I can compare the two while Boris is still fresh in my mind.

I liked the play; it flowed smoothly from scene to scene, and I was so caught up in the action I found myself holding my breath in more than one spot. This is another work that has shown me that Russian history and literature is not always as intimidating as I have thought. I am looking forward to exploring Russia more thoroughly, and will start with two more works by Pushkin.

[Aylin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hem Shakespeare hem Rus Edebiyatı sevenler için paha biçilmez bir örnek “Boris Godunov” tragedyası. Bana Macbeth’i hatırlattı. Puşkin’in öykülerini, romanlarını ve Yevgeni Onegin’ini okumuştum. Dovlatov’un “Puşkin Tepeleri” kitabını okuduktan sonra Puşkin okumayı özlediğimi hissedip ilk kez bir oyununu okudum ve çok sevdim👌🏻. Diğer oyunlarını da kesin okuyacağım. Tarihi tragedya sevenler mutlaka okumalı.

[Amirsaman · Rating 3 out of 5]

مردم چندان دل خوشی از حاکم فعلی ندارند و کسی که خود را ولیعهد می‌داند، با ناجوانمردی می‌خواهد تخت شاهی روسیه را غصب کند. در واقع هیچ یک از این دو (حاکم فعلی و بعدی) در اصل نباید شاه می‌بودند، اما این به این معنی نیست که ایوان مخوف یا ولیعهدانِ به حقشْ سزاوار پاداشاهی‌اند. هر کسی که تزار شود مردم در رنج و فقر خود خواهند بود.
سنت انتقال پیامِ دهان به دهان، باعث می‌شود تا هیبت دروغین سپاهِ شوروشی، یک کلاغ چهل کلاغانه، بیشتر به چشم آید و نبود سنت انتقادی باعث می‌شود که هرکس که با وعده‌ی شل کردن اعدام‌ها و «لطف» به خلق ظاهر شود، مورد حمایت مردم قرار گیرد.

[B. Han Varli · Rating 3 out of 5]

rus edebiyatı odacığıma yeni eklediğim puşkin'in trajik, öğretilerle dolu, dostoyevski akıcılığındaki kitabı boris godunov.

bitirdiğimde hissettiğim tatmin hissinden bi' tık daha akılda kalıcı bir olay vardı, o da, puşkin'in puşkin isimli bir karakter yaratmış olması ve sık sık onu konuşturması...

ilkokulda kendi kendimi eğlendirmek için yazdığım öyküleri okuyan türkçe öğretmenim bir sonraki öykümde bir karaktere kendi ismimi vermemi ve nasıl bir his olduğunu ona anlatmamı istemişti.

deneyimim çok eğlenceliydi, hem benden bağımsız olan hem de ne yaparsam yapayım hakkımda ipuçları veren bir karakteri konuşturmaya çalışmak, en basit tabiriyle garip bir şeydi.

aklıma o öykü geldi puşkin konuştukça...

neyse, özne olmaktan çıkıyorum ve tekrar kitaba dönüyorum.

''belki dimitri'dir, belki düzmece'' gibi bir cümle var bir yerlerde. okuduğumda kitabın kalbinin orası olduğunu düşündüm nedense.

aslında puşkin biraz ters köşe yaptı beni. hızlıca bitireceğimi zannederken, sayfa sonlarında düşünüyor halde buldum kendimi, güzel şeyleri sorguladım, güzel şeyler öğrendim.

mesela şöyle bir kısım vardı: ''sevgili oğlum,
kadın yüzünün kanını coşturduğu yaşa giriyorsun,
kutsal temizliğini, masumluğunu,
gururlu utangaçlığını kaybetme.
gençliğinde duygularını
iğrenç zevklere kaptırmaya alışmış olanlar,
yaşlandıkça kederli,
kan dökücü olurlar.
zekaları vaktinden önce sönmeye yüz tutar''

piiiiiifiyt...

''gururlu utangaçlık'' çok güzel bir tanımlama olmamış mı?

[Javad Azadi · Rating 2 out of 5]

دو و نیم شاید.

باریس گادونوف هیچ‌چیز جدیدی برای من نداشت. خط داستانی و محتواش کاملا برام تکراری بود. شاید ارزش تاریخی خود داستان به سلطنت رسیدن باریس تو روسیه و البته، نمایسنامه‌ای که پوشکین تو اون سال‌ها از این داستان نوشته جذابیت داشته برای مردم ولی برای من که جذابیت خاصی نداشت.

به نظر من، مجموعه‌ی تراژدی‌های کوچک حقیقا نمایشنامه‌هایی به شدت جذاب‌تر و جالب‌تری از پوشکین هستند تا باریس گادونوف.

[Hoda P · Rating 3 out of 5]

داستانی است از قدرت، خیانت و عذاب وجدان. این نمایشنامه تاریخی، روایتگر زندگی باریس گادونوف است که برای رسیدن به تاج‌وتخت، باعث قتل دمیتری کوچک، ولیعهد روسیه، می‌شود. بوریس به تزار تبدیل می‌شود، اما آرامشی در زندگی ندارد.
در همین زمان، مردی ظاهر می‌شود و ادعا می‌کند که دمیتری واقعی است و از مرگ گریخته است. این مدعی، با حمایت نیروهای خارجی و اشراف، علیه بوریس قیام می‌کند و کشور را دچار آشوب می‌سازد.
بوریس که از درون شکسته شده و از بیرون تحت فشار دشمنان است، سرانجام در برابر سرنوشتش تسلیم می‌شود. مرگ او پایانی است بر حکومتی که بر پایه خون و خیانت بنا شده بود.
این داستان در عین حال که تصویری از تاریخ روسیه است، به مفاهیمی جهانی چون تأثیر گناه، قدرت‌طلبی و سرنوشت می‌پردازد. پوشکین با قلمی ساده و زیبا نشان می‌دهد که چگونه جاه‌طلبی می‌تواند به سقوطی ناگزیر منجر شود.

[Aeroyou · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pièce injustement inconnue du maître alors qu’elle est très bien !!!! C’est révoltant….

Les notes de Markowicz nous permettent de mieux comprendre cette période méconnue de l’histoire russe, je recommande cette édition.

[Czarny Pies · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am reluctantly giving "Boris Godunov" four stars because much as I disliked the French prose version that I read I could still see how it provided the base for what is a truly great opera.
If you have not seen the opera or about to, you would be crazy to read Pushkin's play.
"Boris Godunov", (the play and the opera), follows the formula of Nietzsche; that is to say it describes the tragic life of a great man who takes on a challenge and then fails not because of his faults but because fate is against him. In Nietzsche's view, the opera of the second half of the nineteenth century had returned to the values of Greek Tragedy in that it celebrated the absurdity of man's existence. Nietzsche felt that it was primarily Wagner who was composing works in this tragic tradition. Mussorgsky's Boris Godunov follows the same Wagnerian/Nietzschean recipe and works brilliantly. Pushkin's play as rendered into French by Turgenev and Viardot is much less successful.
Boris Godunov, a courtier at the court of Ivan the Terrible, becomes the regent of Ivan's feeble-minded son Fedor when Ivan dies. Realizing that the son lacks the ability to rule, Godunov has him murdered and usurps the throne. A faction of unhappy nobles, dominated by a strong Polish contingent, revolt. Under stress, Godunov dies of natural causes. The rebels place an impostor claiming to be Dmitry, another son of Ivan, on the throne. The play and opera stop at this point. The false Dmitry is overthrown two years after the death of Godunov. Six years later Michael Romanov will found a new dynasty that will be universally accepted by the nobility. Boris Gudunov is about in other words the attempts of a flawed man to seize control in a power vacuum and avert anarchy. It is does not deal in any way with the creation of a legitimate dynasty. The concept works as an opera but not as a play.
Go the opera at the first opportunity. Read the play if you are curious about the origins of the libretto.

[Saaye Tafreshi · Rating 4 out of 5]

نمايشنامه قوي و گيرايي بود

[Natalia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Думаю, что если бы эту пьесу внимательно читали те, кто занимается политикой, наша жизнь была бы намного лучше. Такие тексты надо наизусть учить всем чиновникам и начальникам. И в школьную программу я бы его тоже включила обязательно.

[Justine · Rating 4 out of 5]

Update 13/5/19

Still really like this play!

Update 4/2/19

After rereading it to compare it with Cinna by Corneille, Richard III by Shakespeare and The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui by Bertold Brecht, I liked it even more. (and made some great parallels!)

Clearly, this play shows a vicious circle of corruption which pollutes the power of Russia and its tsars. The Russian people is depicted as credulous, and wanting vengeance for Dimitri's death; for them, Boris will always be tainted by the blood of the child he murdered. But, when, finally, the false Dimitri succeeds in reaching power, and becomes a tsar, he kills Boris's children, when they are innocent. Fiodor and Xenia, and their mother, die because he is afraid of their power? The people can't celebrate the false Dimitri anymore, because he did exactly what Boris did before I became a tsar: kill the tsarevitch, an innocent and promising boy.

Moreover, it's clear that Grigori wants to become tsar, not because he believes he is Dimitri, or because he wants to save Russia from Boris, but because he wants to have fun while he is young, because he wants to live an adventurous life!

I also learnt maybe things about Russia and its History: I know next to nothing about it, and it's something that I'm really interested in!
_______________________________

I didn't know this part of Russia's History! Between treachery, intrigue, usurpation and hypocrisy, power is coveted, but doesn't always protects.

[Bettie · Rating 2 out of 5]

A nutty NUUT read

Translated by Alfred Hayes

http://youtu.be/UEBq-gsdI58

blurb - Pushkin takes many lines straight from Henry IV - P was impressed by the guilt ridden King after he had ordered the murder of Richard II and here is his version. It is written for the Tsar Nikoli I as an apology for his Decemberist friends. It is interesting to note that P was supposed to be in St.Petersberg to support his friends but a black cat had crossed his path so he returned home instead.

Later the Tsar asked P which side he would of been on and the poet answers truthfully; the Tsar then puts himself forward as to act as censor to P in future works.

bwhahaha nutty as fruitcakes but it is only 57 pages long.

#32 TBR Busting 2013

[Kadir Kılıç · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Sebastian Harrison · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excelente recreación histórica de una época.
Más allá que está escrita como una obra de teatro, podríamos decir que Pushkin se adelantó a lo que hoy se conoce como "Novela histórica".
Me gustó mucho.

[Marius van Blerck · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pushkin was a great poet, but, on the evidence of this work, not a great playwright. The work, based on Shakepeare's Macbeth, suffers in comparison. While it is eminently readable, and well-constructed, it lacks variation. Shakespeare knew the value of breaking the narrative with interludes, whether sinister (the witches in Macbeth) or humorous, as in the case of Falstaff's various appearances in his historical plays. In contrast, Pushkin doggedly pursues the narrative. Oh well, we can't ALL be Shakespeare ...

[Alberto Martín de Hijas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pushkin construye Boris Godunov como una fábula sobre el poder con claros tintes shakespearianos, pero dota a su protagonista de una ambigüedad fascinante: sobre él pesa siempre el misterio de si ordenó realmente el asesinato del hijo de su predecesor. Desde la perspectiva privilegiada de quien conoce el caos que desatarían las Dimitríadas, el autor emplea elementos shakespearianos —como coros trágicos y monólogos angustiados—, junto a una estructura fragmentaria que subraya la imposibilidad de escapar al destino. Así, crea una atmósfera de fatalismo en la que se desarrolla la tragedia de un personaje formidable, abrumado por un destino que se le antoja inescapable.

El pueblo, presentado como un coro trágico, actúa no solo como testigo, sino como juez moral, reflejando la idea de que el poder legítimo depende de su voluntad. Esta dualidad entre el individuo y la colectividad, junto al uso de un lenguaje poético y directo, marcó un antes y después en el teatro ruso, liberándolo del neoclasicismo e influyendo en autores posteriores como Dostoievski y Gógol.

En contraste, su oponente —el falso Dimitri— es retratado como un mero farsante al que nadie cree, pero cuyas mentiras resultan útiles para demasiados.

En definitiva, Boris Godunov es una obra maestra que explora la culpa, el poder y el destino, fusionando el drama histórico con una profundidad psicológica y literaria que trasciende su época.

[Negar Noshadi · Rating 2 out of 5]

پوشكين مى تونست خيلى بهتر از اين باشه!
ايده ى كتاب خوبه. اما پرداختِ منسجم و درستى نداره.

[Illiterate · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pushkin does Shakespearean history: Tsars, usurpers, plots, and pretenders.

[Adia · Rating 4 out of 5]

is this supposed to be a comedy? because it was actually funny. case in point:

A MAN
They're all crying, let us cry also, brother.
ANOTHER MAN
Brother, I'm straining but i can't.
FIRST MAN
Me too. Does anyone have onions?

Comedic gold. i'm going to include a few other scenes too, because i really got a kick out of this.

PRISONER
Our Russian sort can manage without sabers: how would you like a bit of this instead,
(shows him his fist—general laughter)
DESERTER
Quack quack! A foreign frog like you can quack all he wants at a Russian prince

VARLAAM
Lithuania or Russia, here or there: it's all dandy if drink is handy...and here's the brandy!

VOROTYNSKY
Sly palace rat!

Humor aside, this play had some lovely soliloquys — i experienced intense Shakespeare vibes more than once. i will say that a bit of background history goes a long way in understanding this piece.
Overall, very nice. Is Pushkin the Shakespeare of Russia?

[Diario de un lector · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pushkin y el teatro. Claro reflejo de la sociedad rusa de la época.
Me ha recordado a Shakespeare (salvando distancias) en el sentido de hablar sobre pasiones llevadas al extremo.
Pushkin siempre bien.

[Özer Öz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Musorgski’nin Boris Godunov operası konusunu burdan alıyor.

[dănuț]

this kinda slayed penis ngl

[Tinoubliable · Rating 3 out of 5]

Il y a eu 2 ou 3 fois le mot "orage" dans le livre, qui m’a fait pensé à "ah Varia j’ai le péché dans les pensées!". C’est tout.

[Shakiba Bahrami · Rating 4 out of 5]

از متن کتاب :


یکی از مردم [آهسته]: برای چه گریه می‌کنند؟
دیگری: ما از کجا بدانیم؟ درباریها از این چیزها سر در می‌آورند، عقل ما قد نمی‌دهد.
زن[همراه بچه]: یعنی چه؟ حالا که موقع گریه است، آرام گرفت! الان حسابت را می‌رسم! الان لولو! گریه کن، بی‌مصرف! [بچه را به زمین می‌اندازد، جیغ بچه بلند می‌شود] آهان، حالا شد!
یکی از مردم: همه گریه می‌کنند، ما هم گریه کنیم، برادر.
🍃
🍃
🍃
از نظر داستان و محتوا و... که هیچی ولی پوشکین بیشترین زحمت رو واسه ادبیات روسیه کشیده. هرچه قدر الان اسم ادبیات روس سر زبون‌هاست، کار پوشکینه💖🧷

[Lui · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Manik Sukoco · Rating 3 out of 5]

Adrian Mitchell's adaption of Alexander Pushkin's "Boris Gudonov" is bright and fresh and a lot less "stodgy" than some translations of Pushkin's tale of 1600's Russia that he wrote as an allegory of 1820's Russian politics. Pushkin drew heavily on Shakespeare for inspiration and there are clear flashes of "Macbeth" and the Histories, notably "Richard III" in the play. As well as livening up the text - and introducing some comic rhyming drunken monks - the main deviation from the original is in one change in scene order which makes logical sense and improves the flow. As an adaptation it's very strong and is a fitting last project for Mitchell.
The play itself though remains fraught with issues. Unlike virtually all Shakespeare plays (in my view with the exception of Julius Caesar), it is a play that tends to work better as a read than in production in my view. The story is fascinating though. Boris Gudonov is the Tsar having murdered the young son of Ivan, Dimitry, who would normally have led the country. However a bright young monk, Grigory, decides to adopt the persona of the murdered young prince, gaining support of the masses and international support to his claim.
The problem in production with the play is that, while we are told of Boris's evil nature, whenever he appears on stage with the masses, he's behaving quite well and the advice he gives his own son on ruling is not too bad. Grigory on the other hand is no more than an upstart with high ambitions. Shakespeare, for all his rounded characters, always made the evilness of his villains clear but it's not clear here who we should be siding with. Mitchell isn't able to solve this fundamental issue with the play, but it is, nevertheless, a strong, modern adaptation of this Russian classic play.

[Viktoriya · Rating 4 out of 5]

Мой любимейший поэт. Один из любимых писателей.
Драма задела за живое. По-моему в этом прекрасном произведении (Пушкин и есть Пушкин) выражена вся суть народа (русского, российского). Крайности, присущие народу, от который веками страдает он сам. Возвышение Бориса, призыв на правление, поклонение и достойная слезы умиления безграничная любовь простых людей к своему Государю. Он еще ничем ее не заслужил, но они и не требуют. Не нужно, заслуг, батюшка, мы уже тебя любим безгранично. Заканчивается трагедия тоже типично "по-нашему", с таким же остервенением снесенный с пьедестала еще недавно любимый царь, гоньба, проклятья и не только на него, а, по обычаю, на всю семью царскую. Это драма не жизни Бориса, это не его личная трагедия. Это трагедия народа.
Произведение, надо сказать глубоко запало в душу и прочно обосновалось там.

[John Hatley · Rating 3 out of 5]

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...

[Özgün Onat · Rating 4 out of 5]

BORIS GODUNOV / ALEKSANDR PUŞKİN
İş Bankası kampanyasından alıp, hemen okuduğum ama yorumunu ancak yazdığım kitap. Puşkin sevdiğim yazarlardan ( aramızda kalsın aslında sevmediğim tek Rus yazar var: Dostoyevski )
Aleksandr Puşkin (1799-1837), Rusya'nın "ulusal şair"i ve modern Rus Edebiyatının kurucusu olarak kabul edilir. 8 yaşında Fransızca öğrenmiş, 11 yaşında Fransızca şiirler ve güldürüler yazmaya başlamıştı. Puşkin; Klasik Batı edebiyatını ve Rus halkının ruhunu sentezleyerek, Rus edebiyatında "gerçekçilik akımını başlatan öncü isimlerden olmuştur. Otuz sekiz yıl süren kısa hayatı, komploya çok benzeyen bir düelloyla son bulduğunda Puşkin; şiirleri, romanları, öyküleri ve oyunlarıyla çoktan 19. Yüzyılın ve Rus Edebiyatının öncü yazarlarından biri olmuştu.
Puşkin, Shakespeare’in tarihi oyunlarından etkilenerek yazdığı Boris Godunov tragedyasında insanın iktidarla ilişkisini gayet yalın, gerçekçi bir şiir diliyle aktarmaktadır. Puşkin’in 1825 yılında sürgündeyken yazdığı oyun, sansür dolayısıyla ve sahnelenmesinin güç olduğu düşünüldüğünden ancak ölümünden sonra 1865’te sahnelenebilmiştir. Daha sonra pek çok kez başarıyla sahnelenen oyun, Musorgski’nin aynı adlı operasına da esin kaynağı olmuştur.
Oyunun başında:” Dehasından ilhamla yazılmış bu eser, Rus halkı için pek saygıdeğer Nikolay Mihayloviç Karamzin’in anısına, saygı ve minnettarlıkla ithaf edilmiştir.” Diyor. Aleksandr Puşkin’in ithaf yazısını okuyunca Karamzin’i araştırmam gerekti. Türk asıllı Nikolay Mihayloviç Karamzin (1766—1826) Rus edebiyatındaki duygusal akımın öncüsü olmuş. Karamzin'in 1789 yılında "Gerçek Bir Rus Hikâyesi" başlığı altında yayımladığı "Yevgeniy ve Yuliya " da genç kahraman Yevgeniy'in ölümüyle sonuçlanan dramatik son, edebi geleneğe ters düşer. Eser, Rus edebiyatında daima "iyiliğin" zaferiyle sonuçlanan roman ve hikâyelerin saltanatına son vermiştir. Karamzin'in hikâyelerinde duygu ve düşüncelerini özgürce aktarması, dili büyük ölçüde kilise Slavcasından arındırması, ritmik ve lirik üslubu, macera romanlarına özgü karmaşık ve didaktik anlatım biçiminden kaçınması, psikolojiye önem vermesi, kahramanlarının ruh halinden bahsetmesi, doğa tasvirleri sunması ve özellikle insanı ahlaki yönden yücelterek ele alması 19. yüzyıl Rus edebiyatının gelişmesini etkileyen yeniliklerdi.
Eserde şiirsel bir dil kullanılmış. Genelde karşılıklı diyaloglar şeklinde oyun akıyor.
Anlatım olarak diğer tiyatro pek eserlerine benzemiyor. Çünkü tiyatro metinlerinde; sahne, dekor ve olan hareket detaylı olarak ( salonda iki koltuk vardır, kapı çalınır, adam kalkar, çalan kapıyı açar gibi) anlatılır. Burada ise bir iki kelime ile sadece hareket söyleniyor.(hizmetçi girer, bir kağıt uzatır, odalar boşalır gibi)
”Evvela iyice düşünmeliyiz değil mi?
Bunu yaparsak dünya işleri için
Kullanmakla dine saygısızlık ettiğimizi söylemezler mi?”
İddialı ama doğru bir cümle değil mi? Yazılmasının üzerinden 200 sene geçmesine rağmen değişen bir şey yok. Din, dünya işleri için kullanılıyor. Aslında değişen şeylerde var. O zaman Çar halkın tepkisinden çekiniyor ve manevi duyguları kullanmıyor. Bugün ise en büyüğünden küçüğüne çekinmeden maneviyat kullanılıyor çünkü halk tepkisiz.
Tüm klasik kitaplar gibi okunması gereken bir eser.
Boris Godunov’dan replikler:
📜Ya hükümdar gerçekten
Bıkmışsa devlet işlerinden,
Ya çıkmazsa başsız kalmış tahta?
📜Sen aklını bilgiyle aydınlattın,
Ben de eserimi sana bırakıyorum.
📜Ama kaçamayacaksın dünyevi adaletten,
Tıpkı Tanrı’nın adaletinden
Kaçamayacağın gibi.
📜Dünya büyük: Dört bucağı bana yol olur.
Ardımdan adımı anan olmaz.
📜Oku oğlum, oku. Bilim, hızla gelip geçen
Hayatın tecrübelerini
Kısa zamanda kazanmamıza yarar.