Search results

1

HISTORICKÝ ZÁBER PUŠKINOVEJ “DIMITRIÁDY”. OD PANOVANIA VASILIJA II. TEMNÉHO PO TEMNÉ ČASY SMUTY

100%

Hlaváčová A.

Slovenské divadlo (Slovak Theatre)

|

2014

|

vol. 62

|

issue 2

176 - 187

EN

In his drama Boris Godunov, Pushkin did not work solely on the Time of Troubles, but having chosen events that happened around 1600 he opened up the older issues that shaped them. Namely this concerns the polarization that occurred after the Council of Florence (1439). Although this council confirmed cultural plurality and recognized both Latin and Byzantine ritual practices and wordings of the Creed as valid, it was rejected during the reign of Grand Prince of Moscow Vasily II, the Blind. Dmitry, a pretender to the throne of Moscow, wished to replace the seclusionist image of Russia as the last bastion of Christendom by his messianic vision of unifying Christendom and liberating Constantinople. The study points out to the fact that the word Eastern being replaced by the word Northern. The reason of this modification was Pushkin’s effort to be as historically accurate as possible. We should also acknowledge Pushkin’s evolution as a historian between 1825 and 1831. Such precision implies that in 1831 he had a deeper consciousness of the different histories of the Greek and Slavic parts of Byzantine Christendom. Moreover, by introducing an unusual adjective instead of the traditional opposition of Eastern–Western, Pushkin might have included both Poles and Russians in the term Northern Church. In Pushkin’s understanding, Dmitry the Pretender is clearly a representative of a third (Uniat) tendency. Dimitry’s position is not purely defensive if we consider his plan to liberate the city of Constantinople. He has the intention to do so as he is animated by the idea of the Union of Florence, persisting in his native Galicia and among Hungarian Uniats – remote both from Moscow and Rome. The tragic conflict might have also resulted from the misunderstanding around 1600 between the Poles engaged in the local Brest-Litovsk Union (under Roman jurisdiction) and Dmitry, who was still a partisan of Florence (all Byzantine-rite Christians under the jurisdiction of Constantinople). Therefore, Dmitry clearly stands for a more pluralistic cultural concept of Christendom.

2

BORIS GODUNOV: MUSORGSKIJ VS. PUŠKIN

100%

Hlaváčová A.

Slovenské divadlo (Slovak Theatre)

|

2014

|

vol. 62

|

issue 1

49 - 68

EN

The fact that the existence of several variants of Pushkin's drama was caused by censorship often wrongly draws a parallel with Mussorgsky's opera – as if its variability was based on external factors. Dunning compared the two versions of text written by Pushkin, while Taruskin the two existing opera versions. The author of this study has decided to analyse Mussorgsky's Boris Godunov in relation to Pushkin's text corpus connected with the topic. The analysis is based on the historical and the study of religions approaches. What obstacles did Mussorgsky have to overcome when adapting Pushkin for opera genre? As the ideological polarization between supporters and opponents to the union of churches could be expressed just verbally, composer had no choice but transpose historical tensions into the speech of music – into the ritual opposition Latin/Byzantine. Through the enigmatic character of Rangoni, however, Mussorgsky stays true to Pushkin's philosophy of history (so convincingly expressed in dramatic character of Dimitri) and refers to the historical paradigm, which offers a real alternative to unification of Christians: The Union of Florence, where the communion with the bishop of Rome did not contradict the adherence to the Byzantine rite.

3

GODUNOVSKÉ ÚVAHY. MOŽNOSTI INSCENOVANIA HISTORICKEJ DRÁMY

75%

Hlaváčová A.

Slovenské divadlo (Slovak Theatre)

|

2012

|

vol. 60

|

issue 3

287 - 304

EN

The aim of the present paper, written after the 19th Pushkin festival in Pskov, is to explore Pushkin’s drama Boris Godunov that had never been staged despite its importance and attractiveness for Slovak culture and history. The author tries to prove her statement by analysing Pushkin’s play from the perspective of religious history. She shows that the problem is usually simplified to the struggle of Latin/byzantine, resp. Polish/ Russian conflict, omitting other possibilities. In accordance with Pushkin’s understanding of history, she sees the pretender Dmitri (Otrepiev) as a representative of the third – unionist – tendency. By founding the Moscow patriarchate (1589), Boris Godunov accomplished the process started by the refusal of the Union of Florence by Vasili II., the Blind. Reaction to it had been the local Brest-Litovsk Union (1595) changing Constantinople jurisdiction for that of Rome – thus, inevitably strengthening the Latin cultural influence over the byzantine Christendom. But Dmitri’s unionism is not purely defensive if we consider his plan to liberate the city of Constantinople. Classifying Dmitri´s tragic position in history as both utopian and visionary, the author draws attention to the last image of Pushkin´s drama where we encounter Dmitri quietly sleeping – and with him the idea of Florence. Faithfull to history, Pushkin never directly confronts the antagonist heroes of his play Boris and Dmitri, as we could expect from the title of drama, but he weights their positions employing an extremely radical symmetry of situations to express the archetypal positions of Russian society: nationalist and universalist. Drama is composed of suggestive scenes but at the same time, in its composition remains impartial and so its significance lay in the vibration of the question posed. Consequently, Pushkin’s compassion for Godunov’s tragic death, yet at the same time overt sympathy to Dmitri, had not been staged for reasons of ideology and the lack of general historical knowledge, respectively.

Refine search results

3 Slovenské divadlo (Slovak Theatre)

3 Hlaváčová A.

2 2014

1 2012

HISTORICKÝ ZÁBER PUŠKINOVEJ “DIMITRIÁDY”. OD PANOVANIA VASILIJA II. TEMNÉHO PO TEMNÉ ČASY SMUTY

BORIS GODUNOV: MUSORGSKIJ VS. PUŠKIN

GODUNOVSKÉ ÚVAHY. MOŽNOSTI INSCENOVANIA HISTORICKEJ DRÁMY