Pushkin Review/èÛ¯ÍËÌÒÍËÈ ‚ÂÒÚÌËÍ 3: 43–63, 2000.

Tempting Fate: Defiance and Subversionin the Writing of Boris Godunov*

Brett Cooke and Chester Dunning

Remarkably enough, even as we celebrate the bicentennial of the birth ofRussia’s greatest Russian, as many things are said in praise of AlexanderPushkin, one may still ask whether we give him sufficient credit. A casein point is the underappreciated boldness, defiance, and audacity he dis-played in writing Boris Godunov while he was a political prisoner sub-jected to surveillance and harassment by tsarist officials. Many readershave, of course, observed the formal daring of Pushkin’s “historicaltragedy.” Although the young poet had never put his hand to drama be-fore, let alone a large scale one on an issue of great national interest, heundertook radical innovations in dramatic form, language and versifica-tion, in his handling of the narod (the common people), and in his inquiryinto the nature of history. Yet Pushkin’s play also entailed very real polit-ical risk. The potential danger of his undertaking may explain whyPushkin cited Boris Godunov as his favorite work, which in turn wouldhelp us understand why he exposed himself to professional and personaldanger in so many respects while writing it (11: 40).1

Scholars have long been interested in the effects of Pushkin’s internalexile (1820–26) on his creative writing. Nevertheless, the impact ofPushkin’s house arrest on Boris Godunov is still not well understood.That is due primarily to a combination of continuing scholarly discomfortwith Pushkin’s “problematic” play and an inevitable focus on the text of

* Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the “Alexander Pushkin andHumanistic Study” Conference at Stanford University (April 1999) and the annualmeeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies (St.Louis, November 1999). We wish to acknowledge the generous support of the Officeof the Vice President for Research and the College of Liberal Arts, Texas A&MUniversity. Thanks also are due to Professor J. Thomas Shaw and the PushkinCenter at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, where much of this research wasconducted.1 Interlineal citations from the Jubilee Edition of Pushkin’s works will be pro videdwith volume number and page only. Also see Alexander Pushkin, The Letters ofAlexander Pushkin , trans. and ed. by J. Thomas Shaw (Madison: University ofWisconsin Press, 1967), 434, 458. Pushkin’s affection for Boris Godunov is striking,especially when we consider that he never attempted another work in a similarvein. He mentioned plans for dramas on Marina Mnishek and Vasilii Shuiskii —very likely as part of the same projected sequel–but apparently did not pursue them.

44 BRETT COOKE AND CHESTER DUNNING

Boris Godunov as published in 1831 rather than on the more provocativeoriginal version penned in 1824–25.2 When Pushkin wrote his play hewas a political prisoner stripped of his rights. Trapped and alone, hefound an outlet for his anger and frustration in writing what was origi-nally titled “Komediia o tsare Borise i o Grishke Otrep¢eve.” The originalversion of Boris Godunov was definitely not intended to win Pushkin’s re-lease from exile or to curry favor at the court of Tsar Alexander I—whomhe despised. Instead, the play was a boldly defiant and subversive workwritten by an unrepentant young genius who refused to humble himselfand was well aware that he was tempting fate with his bold pen. By ex-amining Pushkin’s frame of mind at the onset of writing Boris Godunov,his continuing defiance, his provocative use of historical sources, and hisboldly irreligious self-expression in the text of the play, it is possible togain a greater appreciation of the oppressed young artist’s proud, rebel-lious spirit.

I. Pushkin’s Frame of Mind at the Outset

Perhaps we may account for Pushkin’s emotional attachment to the playby noting how Boris Godunov marks a watershed in his work andthought. In this, the major work of his “northern exile” (house arrest athis family’s estate in Mikhailovskoe), Pushkin developed a distinctly dif-ferent voice in terms of the ambition of his works, his serious considera-tion of religion, and matters of similar philosophical weight. Heretofore anill-disciplined dilettante, a mediocre student in school, a time-marker inthe foreign service, and a poet who often took vacations from his muse,Pushkin suddenly became a remarkably avid student of Russian history.True, Boris Godunov would not have been written if Pushkin had not re-ceived volumes 10 and 11 of Karamzin’s History of the Russian State inthe fall of 1824.3 However, we need to look at the particulars of his per-

2 See, for example, Stephanie Sandler, Distant Pleasures: Alexander Pushkin andthe Writing of Exile (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1989), 9, 11–12, 77–79,108–09, 129, 136–37; Monika Greenleaf, Pushkin and Romantic Fashion: Fragment,Elegy, Orient, Irony (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994), 156–204.3 See E. F. Shmurlo, “Etiudy o Pushkine. Rol ¢ Karamzina v sozdanii Pushkinskogo‘Borisa Godunova,’” Pushkinskii Sbornik (Prague, 1929), 5–40; M. B. Rabinovich,“‘Boris Godunov’ Pushkina, “‘Istoriia’ Karamzina i letopisi,” Pushkin v shkole.Sbornik statei (Moscow: Izdatel ¢stvo Akademii Pedagogicheskikh nauk RSFSR,1951), 307–17; I. Toibin, “‘Istoriia Gosudarstva Rossiiskogo’ N. M. Karamzina i N.M. Karamzin v tvorcheskoi zhizni Pushkina,” Russkaia literatura 9 (1966), 37–48;L. N. Luzianina, “‘Istoriia Gosudarstva Rossiiskogo’ N. M. Karamzina i tragediiaPushkina ‘Boris Godunov,’” Russkaia literatura 14 (1971), 45–57; A. Orlov,“Tragediia Pushkina ‘Boris Godunov’ i ‘Istoriia Gosudarstva Rossiiskogo’Karamzina,” Filologicheskie nauki 6 (1981), 3–10; Caryl Emerson, Boris Godunov:Transpositions of a Russian Theme (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana

TEMPTING FATE 45

sonal situation in order to understand the strength and boldly defiantcharacter of his reaction to Karamzin. It appears that Karamzin’s Historyprovided the poet with a means of writing himself out of a very painfulcondition.

When we examine the materials that have already been well-studiedin combination with those that have not been given sufficient attention,we can approximate Pushkin’s frame of mind as he read Karamzin’s ac-count of the Time of Troubles that fall. He appears to have experiencedthe following emotions:

1. Lingering shock from his unexpected rearrest. When he heard thenews at Mikhail S. Vorontsov’s house in Odessa, Pushkin was sotaken aback that he wandered off, forgetting his hat and gloves.4

2. Contrition regarding how he contributed to his own misfortune.Pushkin wondered how his behavior in Odessa had so offendedthe authorities that they took the unusual step of placing him un-der house arrest. He later described the letter he wrote about hisinterest in atheism, which probably triggered his arrest, as “ill-considered.”5

3. Fear for his friends, who might be implicated. Pushkin immedi-ately advised friends not to correspond, lest they suffer by associ-ation with him (13: 106).6

4. A feeling of injustice. House arrest was an extreme measure. Itshould also be noted that Pushkin was bundled into a carriageand sent off to Mikhailovskoe almost immediately. VeraViazemskaia, one of Pushkin’s closest friends in Odessa, de-scribed this punishment as an “inhuman murder” and arguedthat it pertained to no law.7 Pushkin later said the tsar hadacted “unjustly.”8 He wrote to Vasilii A. Zhukovskii, telling himthat “I cannot calmly think all this through; perhaps I wouldanger you, if I poured out what I have on my heart.”9 A year laterPushkin wrote to Petr Viazemskii, stating that “if you were in my

University Press, 1986); Victor Terras, A History of Russian Literature (New Haven:Yale University Press, 1991), 280.4 A. M. Gordin, Pushkin v Mikhailovskom (Leningrad: Lenizdat, 1989), 109.5 Pushkin, Letters, 307.6 M. A. Tsiavlovskii, Letopis ¢ zhizni i tvorchestva A. S. Pushkina 1799–1826 , 2nded., Ia. L. Levkovich, ed. (Leningrad: “Nauka”, 1991), 529. Pushkin advised PetrViazemskii, who himself was under police surveillance, not to sign his letters; seeGordin, Pushkin v Mikhailovskom, 144.7 Tsiavlovskii, Letopis ¢, 456.8 Pushkin , Letters , 188.9 Pushkin, Letters, 182.

46 BRETT COOKE AND CHESTER DUNNING

place (which God preserve you from), then perhaps you wouldhave become even more enraged than I have.”10

5. Neglect (if not harassment) from his family. They had neitherhelped him financially nor comforted him during his “southern ex-ile” (1820–24). As Pushkin began the nine-day trip to his familyestate in order to begin his northern exile, Vera Viazemskaia wor-ried about how his family would receive him.11 In fact, familymembers did not protect him from his irate father, SergeiL¢vovich, who was the only nobleman in the area willing to spy onthe poet. This situation drove Pushkin to send off a plea that hebe imprisoned in a fortress instead of being made to live with hisparents.12 Family tensions effectively pushed Pushkin out of thesmall house until the others left Mikhailovskoe at the end ofOctober. Family members made no attempt to visit him there-after.13 Even when his family returned to St. Petersburg, Pushkinstill worried that his father might complain about him—andworsen the conditions of his arrest.14

6. Boredom. Once his family left, Pushkin spent more time at home.Though he complained in one of his letters that boredom is a“frigid Muse,” he admitted that he now enjoyed nearly ideal condi-tions for serious work.15 A poet who benefited from confinement,he began one of his most creative years.

7. Poverty. Expulsion from the foreign service cut off one of Pushkin’ssources of income, and he could not count on family help.Fortunately, his works were selling well; and he continually ex-horted his brother, who was acting as his agent, to be aggressivein getting his works sold. Pushkin’s exorbitant book orders are allthe more remarkable given the short rations he was living on atthe time, but these requests reveal the remarkable thirst for seri-ous thought which came over him in Mikhailovskoe.

8. Constraint. According to the agreement Pushkin signed for BorisAderkas, Governor of Pskov, he was supposed to limit his move-

10 Pushkin , Letters , 253.11 Tsiavlovskii, Letopis ¢, 456. A draft for Eugene Onegin’s travels apparentlyrecords this reception: “I byl pechalen moi priezd” (6: 492).12 Fortunately, Praskov ¢ia A. Osipova was able to retrieve the letter before it got tothe governor of Pskov, Boris A. Aderkas; see Gordin, Pushkin v Mikhailovskom, 116.13 Pushkin asked his brother why he would not visit; see Pushkin, Letters, 202.14 Indeed, he also feared that his friends might hurt matters by trying too hard tohelp him. However, at least he could count on some remarkably loyal friends. Instark contrast, his father’s loose tongue was still a threat to him a full year later;see Tsiavlovskii, Letopis ¢, 567.15 Pushkin, Letters, 182.

TEMPTING FATE 47

ments to the district of Pskov, to behave well, and not to composeor disseminate works or ideas indecent or harmful to society.

9. Philosophical disorientation. Pushkin’s “atheism letter” suggeststhat he had taken up an interest in metaphysics prior to his rear-rest. His subsequent request for a Bible and his reading of theKoran and other weighty books the following autumn give the im-pression that this interest waxed as a result of his problems, es-pecially after his quarrel with his father. Perhaps this helps usunderstand why Pushkin referred to himself as a hermit while inMikhailovskoe. As we shall see in our study of the original versionof Boris Godunov, it seems that Pushkin wondered “why badthings happen to good people.”

All of these themes are reflected in “Komediia o tsare Borise i oGrishke Otrep¢eve.” Much of the above has been adduced by scholars,though rarely in one place. However, few have noted another troublingdimension of Pushkin’s northern exile. Though the physical conditionswere, if anything, relatively comfortable, Pushkin was placed into a con-tinuous limbo, which could only have increased the stress on him. WhenPushkin promised not to write “indecent or socially harmful works” and tobehave well, he could not have known very well where the line was thathe must not cross. We should note further ambiguity in the terms of hisexile:

1. No one knew whether they could pay visits to him. Both A. I.Turgenev and V. L. Pushkin advised Ivan Pushchin against visit-ing the poet in January 1825.16 Pushchin persisted, but he tooksome interesting precautions. He travelled to his sister’s estatenearby, and then—although it was mid-winter—he made the lastleg at night, arriving in the morning. He left Mikhailovskoe thesame day—at midnight. This broke the ice for Anton A. Del¢vig inApril, but other good friends never made the attempt, eventhough they had not seen Pushkin in five years.17 The terms werenever defined for anyone to obey.

2. It was even unclear whether people could write to him. Pushkinoften instructed friends to send letters via the Osipovs in doubleenvelopes, so they could be forwarded to him, or to have them de-livered by hand with the help of people traveling to and from

16 Tsiavlovskii, Letopis ¢, 482.17  Some of those who considered visits but disappointed Pushkin were Evgenii A.Baratynskii and the future Decembrists Aleksandr A. Bestuzhev and Kondratii F.Ryleev; see Tsiavlovskii, Letopis¢, 529, 518.

48 BRETT COOKE AND CHESTER DUNNING

Trigorskoe.18 As late as May 1825, Turgenev warned PetrViazemskii to break off his correspondence with the poet.19

3. Pushkin never learned precisely why he had been arrested.20

Boris Aderkas told the poet’s father of Pushkin’s “godlessness”and “poor behavior,” and Sergei Pushkin himself accused the poetof instructing his siblings in atheism. However, Ivan Pushchinlater recalled that the matter was far from clear to Pushkin—judging from their conversation in mid-January 1825.21 Withoutspecific charges, how was Pushkin to know what he was permit-ted to do?

4. Pushkin was aware that he was under political and religioussurveillance, but this concerned the same ill-defined behavior. Hemust have suspected that there was a spy in the household, forthe monk Iona showed up during Pushchin’s visit, already know-ing his friend’s last name. Pushkin played with this situation; hequickly opened the Lives of the Saints and offered the monk somerum.22

5. Most troubling of all, his sentence was indefinite. Pushkin did notknow when it would end.23 There was also little he could doabout his sentence. Other than the help of friends at Court andpersonal appeals to the tsar, Pushkin had no legal means of pro-tecting himself. He wrote that he was “hors la loi,” that “there isno court for me.”24

18 “Pishi mne pokamest, esli po pochte, tak ostorozhno, a po okazii, chto khochesh ¢”(13: 58). But even hand delivery was dangerous, given the surveillance. L. I.Vol ¢pert notes how Pushkin desisted from political discussions and anti-reli giousjokes in his subsequent correspondence; see his “Druzheskaia perepiska PushkinaMikhailovskogo perioda (sentiabr ¢ 1824 g.–dekabr ¢ 1825 g.),” in E. A. Maimin, ed.,Pushkinskii sbornik: Sbornik nauchnykh trudov (Leningrad: Leningradskiigosudarstvennyi universitet, 1977), 55. Pushkin also tried to recover one poem—which has been lost—that he had sent by hand.19 Tsiavlovskii, Letopis ¢, 529.20 Indeed, this is a continuing issue for Pushkinists. Although the intercepted“atheism” letter played a role, Mikhail Vorontsov had already requested Pushkin’sremoval on several occasions earlier that year. It is still not certain precisely whatprecipitated the government’s decision.21 V. Veresaev, Pushkin v zhizni (Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel ¢, 1936), 262.22 Veresaev, Pushkin v zhizni , 263.23 Strangely, amongst scholars only A. M. Gordin wonders, albeit in passing, aboutthe lack of a fixed term for Pushkin’s house arrest; see his Pushkin vMikhailovskom, 112.24 Pushkin, Letters , 186. Pushkin felt this lack of legal protection keenly. In 1826 hetold Mikhail Zhukovskii “they can … easily convict me” of complicity in theDecembrist Revolt, even though he was under house arrest and not informed of theconspiracy at the time. See Pushkin, Letters , 302. “… Vnov ¢ ia posetil” recalls his“bor ¢ba neravnaia” (3: 996).

TEMPTING FATE 49

Pushkin must have been disoriented by the contradictory nature ofhis exile; though he was confined as a political prisoner, the authoritiesoften wrote of his potential as a great poet and of the need to nurturehim, to properly guide him. Pushkin was not subjected to special limita-tions on his expression—indeed, friends advised him to attempt a large,serious work.25 They and Pushkin agreed that Boris Godunov was to bethat work.

Pushkin’s situation was truly peculiar. While confined to his estate,he was the most popular composer in Russia of narrative poetry(Bakhchisaraiskii fontan), of texts for songs (Verstovskii’s setting ofChernaia shal¢) and drama (Shakhovskoi’s adaptation of Ruslan iLiudmilla into Finn). Despite his legal problems, Pushkin had been pub-lished in nearly twenty periodicals. While he was living under house ar-rest and was unable to visit the capitals, a condition which must havebeen known to all of literary Russia, many publishers clamored for hiswork, especially for the much-anticipated Boris Godunov. Was there anelement of defiance of tsarist oppression in Pushkin’s popularity? It isworth noting that some people destroyed their copies of unpublishedpoems by him during this time, no doubt fearing police scrutiny.26 So wemay expect in his work of this period a need for:

1. Relief from his painful exile, which was sufficient to drive him tosuch desperate measures as to draft a letter in mid-1825 toAlexander I, saying “I resolved to put so much impropriety and in-solence in my speech and writings that finally the authoritieswould be obliged to treat me as a criminal—I hoped for Siberia orthe fortress as rehabilitation.”27

2. A desire for vengeance. In a draft of “… Vnov¢ ia posetil,” writtenin 1835, Pushkin recalls how he came to his northern exile with“stormy feelings in [his] heart / And hate and a dream of palevengeance” (3: 996).28 This was probably directed against thetsar who ordered his arrest. Pushkin later boasted of “hissing”Alexander I to his grave, probably in the form of some of hisworks.29 He was also immensely pleased to hear that the tsar

25 Pushkin, 13: 230; Tsiavlovskii, Letopis ¢, 473, 567, 615. Pushkin may well havereceived exhortations from Karamzin and Zhukovskii to live up to his potential asbeing condescending; see Tsiavlovskii, Letopis ¢, 473, 564. On the other hand, evenwhile still in exile, Pushkin was suspected by Viazemskii of kowtowing to the gov -ernment—a painful charge much repeated after his release. See Tsiavlovskii,Letopis ¢, 520.26 Tsiavlovskii, Letopis ¢, 538, 579.27 Pushkin, Letters, 256.28 Gordin, Pushkin v Mikhailovskom, 112.29 Pushkin, Letters , 303.

50 BRETT COOKE AND CHESTER DUNNING

was alarmed at the news that a “Pushkin” had returned to St.Petersburg—this turned out to be his brother.30 Most telling is acurious prose fragment from the end of 1824 found in the draftsfor Boris Godunov, “An Imaginary Conversation with Alexander I,”in which the tsar recalls Pushkin’s accusation of parricide andwhich ends with Pushkin being sent to Siberia (11: 23–24).

3. Escape. Always keenly interested in foreign cultures, Pushkinplotted various modes of escaping from Russia over the next year.As Yuri Druzhnikov suggests, Grishka Otrep¢ev’s flight from avery cruel tsar and his subsequent popular return to the capitalin Boris Godunov may fulfill in fantasy Pushkin’s heartfeltdesire.31

4. An interest in the nature of monarchy and causality. The“Imaginary Conversation” is narrated by the tsar. Pushkin hereimagines what it must be like to be the all-powerful ruler of acountry. And, of course, much the same is accomplished by hisportrayal of Boris Godunov, especially in the “I have reached thehighest power” monologue—one of the portions which mostalarmed the tsar’s censor.

5. A search for justice, especially divine justice. Of course, the“Imaginary Conversation” provides in fantasy what was denied toPushkin and virtually all Russians at the time: an opportunity toconfront his accuser (and judge). Pushkin claims this as a naturalright.32 Significantly, Pushkin does not answer the imaginedtsar’s question about whether he is an atheist, but insteadclaims that his exile is contrary to tsarist law (11: 23–24).Perhaps even more significant, it was at this time that Pushkinbegan to read religious scriptures.

6. A drive to express himself, to demonstrate some personal auton-omy. The more Pushkin was constrained, the more one senses hisneed for physical and intellectual freedom. Pushkin boasted of theindependence of Russian writers, who, in his view, had atradition of speaking boldly to tsars.33 While he admitted that itwould be insane to oppose the government, he maintained that“to humble myself before the government would be a stupidity”—

30 Tsiavlovskii, Letopis ¢, 473, 492.31 Yuri Druzhnikov, Prisoner of Russia: Alexander Pushkin and the Political Usesof Nationalism, trans. Thomas Moore and Ilya Druzhnikov (New Brunswick andLondon: Transaction Publishers, 1999), 258–59.32 “I know that the right to complain, like everything else, amounts to little, but itexists in the nature of things.” See Pushkin, Letters, 254.33 Pushkin, Letters , 223.

TEMPTING FATE 51

brave words indeed for a prisoner, stripped of his rights and un-der surveillance.34

All of these drives, and more, are manifest in “Komediia o tsareBorise i o Grishke Otrep¢eve.” As he later recalled, “Success did not entermy calculations at all when I wrote it”; his personal agenda for the textwas sufficient motivation.35

II. Continuing Defiance

So Pushkin’s exile, which was intended to curb his perceived rebellious-ness, had the initial effect of increasing it. Only after the DecembristRevolt did Pushkin begin to speak of compromise. Although Pushkin washighly conscious that he was under close surveillance to watch for furthersubversive behavior and writing and that his house confinement mighteasily be replaced by more severe punishment, he nonetheless persistedin his defiance:

1. In Mikhailovskoe Pushkin continued to compose autobiographicalnotes which he later acknowledged to be politically dangerous. Wedo not know what these notes contained, but it is significant thatthis is the only manuscript we know he burned. That happenedsometime prior to mid-August 1826. When the police came inearly September to take him to meet the tsar, Pushkin hurriedlygathered some of “his papers” and threw them into the stove.36

2. He continued to compose defiant verse, such as an unknown“Christmas Carol.”37 He had second thoughts, however; and,thinking of the consequences should this lyric fall into the wronghands, he tried to recover it.

3. He sketched portraits of Voltaire, leaders of the FrenchRevolution, and himself in a similar mode on the eve of writinghis play.38

4. He suggested to his brother that they draft an introduction to hiscomplete verse which would note that they were not complete.39

As was the case with his “vreden sever dlia menia” reference tohis southern exile in the beginning of Eugene Onegin, Pushkin

34 Pushkin, Letters , 201.35 Pushkin , Letters , 458.36 Veresaev, Pushkin v zhizni , 295; Gordin, Pushkin v Mikhailovskom , 141;Tsiavlovskii, Letopis ¢, 615–16. See also Pushkin, 12: 304, 310.37 Pushkin, Letters , 195.38 Tsiavlovskii, Letopis ¢, 479.39 Pushkin, Letters , 211.

52 BRETT COOKE AND CHESTER DUNNING

counted on readers realizing that his “unofficial” verse had beenomitted—and therefore wondering about the thoughts the poetkept to himself (6: 6).

5. Pushkin wrote about the strange promise he made to Karamzin,apparently in 1820, to behave well for two years and to hide hisown (i.e., seditious) thoughts.40 This promise begs several ques-tions, such as what happens after two years. By late 1824 andthe “Imaginary Conversation,” Pushkin was acutely aware of howhis “atheism letter” had affected his fate—and that there was nofreedom of personal thought in Russia. Two sentences in a privateletter may have sufficed to get him exiled in 1824. Nonetheless,he persisted in making similar statements while writing“Komediia.”

6. Pushkin continually asked for justice, an implicit claim that hewas unjustly arrested and punished. Given the personal nature ofhis sentence, this could only be seen as criticism of the Court.

7. Pushkin certainly would have brought on sterner conditions if theauthorities learned of his plans for fleeing from Russia. Accordingto one scenario, he planned to smuggle himself to Dorpat in theguise of Aleksandr Vul¢f’s servant.41

Whereas some of these actions might have gotten Pushkin into fur-ther trouble, others of a milder sort indicate that the poet was anythingbut contrite and certainly not trying his best to please the tsar and winhis release. These included such pranks as ordering a funeral mass to besung for Lord Byron, a known “freethinker.” He also continued to orderbooks which could be associated with free thought. His first request wasfor a biography of the rebel leader Emilian Pugachev, while in a letter hedescribed Stenka Razin as “the only poetic figure in Russian history.”42

And it was during this time that he wrote “Komediia o tsare Borise i oGrishke Otrep¢eve.”

III. Provocative Use of Historical Sources

Why did Pushkin decide to present portions of Karamzin’s History in aplay, and how did he interpret Karamzin’s text in late 1824? Before hissouthern exile, Pushkin had been a member of the Arzamas Society whenall members of that group of influential progressive nationalists still felt

40 Pushkin, Letters , 218, 294 n7.41 I. L. Al ¢mi, “Ob avtobiograficheskom podtekste dvukh epizodov v proizvedeni iakhA. S. Pushkina,” Pushkinskie chteniia: Sbornik statei (Tallinn: “Eesti Raamat,”1990), 63; Druzhnikov, Prisoner of Russia , 227.42 Pushkin , Letters , 187; Tsiavlovskii, Letopis¢, 475.

TEMPTING FATE 53

comfortable praising Karamzin. Nevertheless, they did not always agreewith the official Romanov interpretation as expressed in his History.43

Pushkin discussed Karamzin’s work with such Arzamasians as S. S.Uvarov, D. V. Dashkov, V. A. Zhukovskii, M. A. Dmitriev, A. I. Turgenev,N. I. Turgenev, P. A. Viazemskii, and his uncle Vasilii Pushkin. Theyoung poet actually lived in Karamzin’s home for a few months and en-gaged him in a lively debate about Russian history.44 Pushkin sharedmany of the same reservations about Karamzin’s History expressed bythe Turgenev brothers. Members of Arzamas and others tended to scoff atmuch of the conservative, propagandistic main text. However, evenKaramzin’s strongest critics praised his extensive “Primechaniia,” whichcarefully explored sources and not infrequently pointed to conclusions dif-fering from the politically-safe main text. Controversial topics tended to behandled fairly objectively in the “Primechaniia,” which stood as a model ofacademic rigor in the early 19th century.45 Indeed, the sober, detailedscholarly prose of the “Primechaniia” contrasts sharply with the style ofKaramzin’s emotionally-charged main text, which is often reminiscent ofancient Church Slavonic pletenie sloves (word-weaving). This excessive lyri-cism is often applied inappropriately, such as when Karamzin describesin liturgical style the coronation of Boris, whom he considers guilty of aheinous crime. Karamzin even says “sei den¢ prinadlezhit k torzhestven-neishim dniam Rossii v ee istorii.”46 It is this sort of contradiction, nodoubt, that explains the “stol¢ko slavnykh shutok” in Karamzin thatPushkin refers to—that is, the notes both support the text and subvert it.

Of particular interest to Pushkin and A. I. Turgenev in the“Primechaniia” was Karamzin’s groundbreaking use of early modernWestern European sources which frequently fleshed out or clashed directlywith more familiar Russian sources.47 Karamzin’s portrayal of Boris

43 J. L. Black, Nicholas Karamzin and Russian Society in the Nineteenth Century(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1975), 68–72; Alexander Martin, Romantics,Reformers, Reactionaries (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1997), 187 –88.44 Karamzin was impressed by the young Pushkin, who did not always agree withhis own “official” views. See Black, Karamzin , 68–69.45 J. L. Black, “The Primechanija: Karamzin as a ‘Scientific’ Historian of Russia,”in J. L. Black, ed., Essays on Karamzin (The Hague: Mouton, 1975), 127–47;Emerson, Boris Godunov , 32–35. Pushkin shared this evaluation: “Karamzin is thefirst of our historians and the last chronicler … wherever his tale is unsatisfac -tory, one can turn to his sources; he does not make guesses in them” (11: 120).4 6  Cited in A. S. Pushkin, Boris Godunov: Tragediia , ed. D. M. Klimova (St.Petersburg: Akademicheskii proekt, 1996), 382.47 See Black, “Primechanija ,” 134–35. A. I. Turgenev eventually published his owncollection of Latin sources concerning Russian history: Historica RossiaeMonumenta (St. Petersburg, 1841–42). In fact, Karamzin’s interest in those sourcesled directly to the systematic gathering and copying of manuscripts and the repub-

54 BRETT COOKE AND CHESTER DUNNING

Godunov and his influential exploration of the parallel fates of TsarevichDmitrii in 1591 and Boris Godunov’s son Fedor in 1605 depended heavilyupon early 17th century Western European sources. In his “Primechaniia”he also explored other interpretations of the Time of Troubles not found inthe main text.48

Arzamasians and others who followed the dialogue betweenKaramzin’s notes and his text encountered a startling contrast betweenthe observations of Western Europeans living in Russia during the Timeof Troubles and the interpretation found in Karamzin’s main text.Foreign accounts made it clear that the Russian people had either beenmanipulated or forced to cheer for the new Tsar Boris in 1598, eventhough many of them actually regarded him as an evil usurper.Furthermore, those same sources tell us that the Russian people wel-comed Tsar Dmitrii with joy and helped put him on the throne.49 Pushkinsought access to some of the sources cited in the “Primechaniia” and, ineffect, did serious research for the first time in his life.50

One of the most important foreign accounts Karamzin used was pub-lished in 1607 by Captain Jacques Margeret (co-commander of foreigntroops under Tsar Boris and captain of Tsar Dmitrii’s bodyguard).Margeret’s account had been used extensively by French historians in the18th century and was vaguely known to Russia’s first serious historians,

lication of rare books, as well as the subsequent production of Russian transla -tions of many Western European accounts of the Time of Troubles by N. G.Ustrialov—the man who eventually succeeded Karamzin as ImperialHistoriographer. See Conrad Bussow, The Disturbed State of the Russian Realm ,trans. and ed. G. Edward Orchard (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press,1994), xxxiv–xxxv; Chester Dunning, “The Use and Abuse of the First PrintedFrench Account of Russia,” Russian History 10 (1983), 359–60; Jacques Margeret,Sostoianie Rossiiskoi Derzhavy i Velikago Kniazhestva Moskovskago , trans. anded. N. G. Ustrialov (St. Petersburg: Tip. Glavnago Upravleniia PuteiSoobshcheniia, 1830); N. G. Ustrialov, ed., Skazaniia sovremennikov o DmitriiSamozvantse, 3rd ed., 2 vols. (St. Petersburg: Tip. Imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk,1859). The study of foreign accounts of early modern Russia quickly blossomed intoa vigorous branch of Russian historiography. See, for example, Friedrich vonAdelung, Kritisch-literärische Übersicht der Reisenden in Russland bis 1700, 2 vols.(St. Petersburg: Eggers, 1846); V. O. Kliuchevskii, Skazaniia inostrantsev omoskovskom gosudarstve (Moscow: “Prometei” MGPI im. V. I. Lenina, 1991).48 Bussow, Disturbed State , xxxiv–xxxv; N. M. Karamzin, Istoriia GosudarstvaRossiiskago, vol. 11 (St. Petersburg: Voennaia Tip. Glav. shtaby, 1824),“Primechaniia,” 1–79.49 See, for example, Bussow, Disturbed State , 9–12; Jacques Margeret, The RussianEmpire and Grand Duchy of Muscovy: A Seventeenth-Century French Account ,trans. and ed. Chester Dunning (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1983),16–18, 60–64, 66–68; Isaac Massa, A Short History of the Muscovite Wars, trans. anded. by G. Edward Orchard (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982), 25–26, 30–43, 72–110.50 Tsiavlovskii, Letopis ¢, 558.

TEMPTING FATE 55

V. N. Tatishchev and M. M. Shcherbatov; but it was Karamzin’s interestin Margeret’s book which led to its republication and widespread use bywriters and historians in the 19th century.51 So rare was Margeret’s bookby the time Karamzin wanted to use it that he had to get Russia’sambassador to France, Prince Grigorii Gagarin, to commission a new edi-tion of the French text.52 Interestingly enough, Prince Gagarin hiredHeinrich Julius Klaproth (the most celebrated “Orientalist” of his day) toproduce the 1821 Paris edition even though Tsar Alexander I had ex-pelled Klaproth from the Imperial Academy of Sciences and had revokedhis title of nobility several years earlier for being too pro-French.53 PrinceGagarin paid for the publication of one hundred copies of Margeret’s book.The 1821 edition never came on the market but was privately distributedby Gagarin—and a copy reached Pushkin.54

Karamzin had a particularly high regard for the French captain’swork, in part at least because Margeret shared Karamzin’s belief thatabsolute monarchy was the best form of government for Russia.5 5

Pushkin himself was so taken by Margeret that he made him a characterin the play and even had him speak some of the lines from his book (7:73).56 Pushkin also found in Margeret’s account extremely positive as-sessments of the pretender Dmitrii and clear evidence that Dmitrii cameto power by means of popular uprisings in support of his claim to thethrone. Pushkin became fascinated by the character of Dmitrii as well as

51 Margeret’s account was used extensively by Pierre Charles LeVesque in volume 3of his Histoire de Russie, et des principales Nations de l’Empire Russe, 5 vols.(Paris, 1782–83). LeVesque’s Histoire was translated into Russian by 1787 and wentthrough four French editions by 1812. On early Russian historians’ awareness o fMargeret, see I. I. Smirnov, Vosstanie Bolotnikova 1606–1607 (Leningrad: AN SSSR,1951), 12–13; V. N. Tatishchev, Istoriia Rossiiskaia, 7 vols. (Moscow: AN SSSR,1962–68), 7: 449.5 2  The rarity of Margeret’s book by the early 19th century is made clear inKaramzin’s correspondence; see N. M. Karamzin, Pis ¢ma N. M. Karamzina k I. I.Dmitrievu (St. Petersburg: Tip. Imperatorskoi Akademii nauk, 1866), 378–79 n. 165.See also Dunning, “Use and Abuse,” 359–60; von Adelung, Kritisch-literärischeÜbersicht , 2: 21; Jacques Margeret, Estat de l’Empire de Russie et Grand Duché deMoscovie , edited by Henri Chevreul (Paris: L. Potier, 1860), xvii.53 Nouvelle Biographie Gén érale depuis les temps les plus reculés jusqu’ a 1850–60(Copenhagen: Rosenkilde et Bagger, 1967), vol. 27–28, cols. 814–18.54 Von Adelung, Kritisch-literärische Übersicht, 2: 21; Margeret, Estat de l’Empirede Russie, xvii; Entsiklopedicheskii slovar ¢ Russkogo bibliograficheskogo instituta“Granat” (Moscow: s.n., 1933–40), vol. 12: col. 265; B. L. Modzalevskii, Biblioteka A.S. Pushkina (St. Petersburg: Tip. Imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk, 1910), 281, no.1131.55 Black, “Primechanija ,” 134–35; idem, Karamzin, 45; Karamzin, Pis ¢ma, 378–79.Margeret’s book became the very first foreign account Ustrialov translated a n dpublished.56 Cf. Margeret, Russian Empire , 62, 155 n. 203.

56 BRETT COOKE AND CHESTER DUNNING

the fact that in the Time of Troubles the Russian people had dared torebel against reigning tsars.57

In Boris Godunov, as originally written, the opening and closingscenes were paralleled to good effect. Pushkin contrasted the narod beingforced to cheer for Tsar Boris at the opening of the play with the narod’scheer of “Long live Tsar Dmitrii Ivanovich!” at the end. The original end-ing of the play is dramatically quite powerful in its cathartic, reunifyingstructure. It also happens to be historically accurate, even though it de-parted from Karamzin’s main text.58 The original version of BorisGodunov contains a sophisticated—and decidedly unofficial—meditationon the Time of Troubles. It challenged a number of Karamzin’s assump-tions about Tsar Dmitrii, popular consciousness, and the meaning andnature of popular rebellion in early Russian history. As such, it was cer-tainly not calculated to curry favor with the Court. It is important to re-member that at the time Pushkin wrote his play there was a hot debategoing on among professional historians and others concerning Karamzin’sinterpretation of these issues. Many “progressives,” including someArzamasians, rejected Karamzin’s conservative interpretation.59 WhenPushkin joined in the on-going debate with his own well-informed versionof the dialogue between Karamzin’s main text and the “Primechaniia,” no

57 In fact, although downplayed by Karamzin, both Tatishchev’s and Shcherbatov’searlier published work suggested a connection between the establishment ofserfdom in the 1590s and popular uprisings in Dmitrii’s name during the Time ofTroubles. See Tatishchev, Istoriia Rossiiskaia, 7: 367; M. M. Shcherbatov, IstoriiaRossiiskaia , 7 vols. (St. Petersburg: Imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk, 1770–91), 7(2):147–48, 181–82. The eminent historian S. M. Solov ¢ev was the first to claim thatrebellions in Dmitrii’s name amounted to a social revolution or “peasant war”; seeS. M. Solov ¢ev, “Obzor sobytii russkoi istorii ot konchiny tsaria FeodoraIoannovicha do vstupleniia na prestol doma Romanovykh,” Sovremennik 13, no. 1,part 2 (1849), 11.58 See, for example, the contemporary account of the Time of Troubles written by theDutch merchant Isaac Massa, then living in Moscow. Massa notes that duringDmitrii’s triumphal entry into the capital people shouted, “Long live our DmitriiIvanovich, tsar of all the Russias!”; see Massa, Short History , 110. Cf. Bussow,Disturbed State , 50: “The spectators were without number in all the streets andalleys as Dmitrii passed by. The Muscovites prostrated themselves and said . . . ‘You are the true sun which is shining over Russia’.”59 See, for example, M. P. Pogodin, Istoriko-politicheskie otryvki (Moscow: A. Semen,1846), 305; Hans Rothe, “Karamzin and His Heritage: History of a Legend,” in J. L.Black, ed., Essays on Karamzin (The Hague: Mouton, 1975), 150–53; P. A.Viazemskii, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii , vol. 2 (St. Petersburg: S. D. Sheremetev,1884), 216–18; N. Barsukov, Zhizn¢ i trudy Pogodina, vol. 1 (St. Petersburg: Tip. M.M. Stasiulevicha, 1888), 79; Stephanie Sandler, “The Problem of History inPushkin: Poet, Pretender, Tsar” (Ph. D. dissertation, Yale University, 1981), 85.

TEMPTING FATE 57

doubt he was proud of his radical stance against autocracy and serf-dom.60

IV. Irreverent Self-Expression

As we have noted, early in his northern exile Pushkin heard that if hewere to compose a large-scale work of a serious nature, it would help hisfriends argue for his release. It was soon clear to Pushkin’s correspon-dents that his historical drama was to be this work. No other work ofPushkin’s was so anticipated by so many people. But would Pushkin’s in-tended audience understand the many formal innovations, which amountto a revolt against genre expectations? If Pushkin wished to appease theauthorities, this is not evident in “Komediia o tsare Borise i o GrishkeOtrep¢eve,” which he almost boasted was “ne dlia prekrasnogo polu”—asif proud of its indecency.61 Given what had been asked of him, thisamounts to defiance.

Though Pushkin later argued (an important distinction) that his playwas a work “written in good faith,” scholars have noted a possible sub-text referring to Alexander I’s regicide of his father Paul I.62 They haveimplied that Pimen, as he passes judgment on tsars, expresses Pushkin’sviews. And Pushkin pointedly included in his play a brave and bold an-cestor, Gavrila Pushkin—no doubt like himself, an “opalnyi izgnannik” (7:94).63 Both tsars hate their respective Pushkins who are, nevertheless,popular.

Various scholars, especially Irena Ronen, have cited parallels betweenPushkin and Grishka—including the motif of flight in disguise.64 BothPushkin and Grishka are, in a sense, poets who seek justice and self-ex-pression; both could also be said to be tricksters accused of involvementwith the devil. Pushkin and his character also share a sense of religious

60 In a future article, Professor Dunning plans to explore the reasons why Pushkinomitted scenes and altered the final line of the play in the version he pub lished in1831. That complex and controversial subject is beyond the scope of this article.61 Tsiavlovskii, Letopis ¢, 606.62 Pushkin , Letters , 407; G. W. Bowersock, “The Roman Emperor Tiberius asRussian Tsar: Tacitus and Pushkin,” Proceedings of the American PhilosophicalSociety 143, no. 1 (March 1999), 134–37; B. V. Varneke, “Istochniki i zamysel ¢ ‘BorisaGodunova,’” in M. P. Alekseev, ed., Pushkin: Stat ¢i i materialy (Odessa:Pushkinskaia komissiia, 1925), 17–19; M. B. Zagorskii, Pushkin i teatr (Moscow-Leningrad: Iskusstvo, 1940), 117–19.63 See Pushkin, Letters, 366; Massa, Short History, 104.64 Irena Ronen, Smyslovoi stroi tragedii Pushkina “Boris Godunov” (Moscow: “ITs -Garant,” 1996), 50.

58 BRETT COOKE AND CHESTER DUNNING

freedom, and warrants are issued to arrest both for political crimes.65

Nonetheless, Moscow eagerly awaits their return.Judging by Pushkin’s letters, there is little doubt that he also saw

himself as a iurodivyi (holy fool), able to speak the bitter truth to the tsar.As he worked on the play, he asked Viazemskii, “Why shouldn’t I becomea holy fool?”66 Indeed, when he announced the completion of the play toViazemskii, he added: “ Zhukovskii says that the Tsar will forgive me, asa result of my tragedy—hardly, my dear one. Although it is written in agood spirit, there’s no way I could hide my ears completely under thepointed cap of the holy fool. They stick out!”67

Whatever may have been Pushkin’s intentions regarding using theplay to secure his pardon, it is clear from this and other passages that hishistorical drama meant too much to him to shape it to that purpose.Instead, the text contains many lines which are self-expressive of his sit-uation and frame of mind in Mikhailovskoe. Grigorii complains about hisisolation and consequent boredom in the Chudov Monastery, thinking—like Pushkin—about how he missed his friends and was wasting hisyouth. Given the monastery’s location in the Moscow Kremlin, this senti-ment makes little sense in the play; it more likely reflects the poet’s placeof exile. Pushkin uses the figures of Varlaam and Missail to jeer atpriests, no doubt thinking of Iona, who had a weakness for drink. Theplay is set in a harsh police state, and there are spies amongst the ser-vants. Indeed, one delivers a donos (denunciation) to Tsar Boris. Andthere is the original ending of the play, in which the Russian people en-thusiastically greet the impostor as tsar. Whatever Pushkin may have in-tended to convey with that controversial ending, it was definitely not in-tended to please the tsar.

As Pushkin wrote the play, he must have realized that the represen-tation of religious figures would prevent any stage production—and henever mentioned the possibility of one. Instead of trying to curry favorwith the authorities, Pushkin used his work on the play as a means ofdeveloping his position on religious life and other matters of philosophicalweight—a vital matter regarding personal self-expression, but a danger-ous activity for a supposed atheist. Pushkin’s choice of Karamzin’sHistory may in part be due to his growing interest in religious matters.Despite Karamzin’s relaxed syntax in other works, his History is replete

65 Notably, Pushkin neither believed nor included in his play Dmitrii’s alleged rapeof Boris’ daughter, Kseniia—which would have reflected very badly on thePretender; see Pushkin , Letters , 367.66 Pushkin , Letters , 254.67 Pushkin , Letters, 261. Notably, the iurodivyi who confronts Boris in the play isan anachronism. Pushkin knew that his model for this character died in 1589, nineyears before Boris’ coronation, but imported him, nevertheless, for reasons otherthan historical accuracy. See Pushkin , Letters, 292 n7.

TEMPTING FATE 59

with religious language, including many Church Slavonicisms (“vnemlet,”“vozzri,” “lik”), pletenie sloves, and many references to God’s intercession inhuman affairs. The presence of these same features in Pushkin’s play,which he began writing immediately upon reading these volumes, sug-gests that they played a significant role in his exuberant attraction to theHistory.68

Given Pushkin’s expressed bitterness regarding his punishment forperceived religious misbehavior, it stands to reason that his concerns re-garding religiosity should figure prominently in the play. He drew besy(devils) in the margins (18: 406) and filled the work with images critical ofRussian Orthodoxy. In the opening scenes Boris takes refuge in amonastery as a political ruse intended to smooth his path to the throne(7: 5). At the end of the play, a namesake of Pushkin announces to thenarod that God saved the tsarevich from assassination (7: 95)—but thespectator knows better. In between, there is no lack of objectionable im-ages. Pimen’s portrait of Ivan IV retiring to a monastery amounts to awhitewash of this infamous torturer and murderer, and the censor under-standably objected to the “razvratnyi” (depraved) depiction of wanderingmonks in the figures of Varlaam and Missail, demanding that the entireInn scene be “softened.”69 After all, in that scene the monks request“whatever God gives,” correctly expecting this to include alcohol (7: 28);they mock Grishka Otrep¢ev as a “postnik” for refusing to join them indrink; and, finally, Varlaam sings an obscene folk song about a novicehaving sexual relations with a woman in his monastic cell (7: 29, 28).Meanwhile, Boris consults with sorcerers, evidently placing insufficientfaith in Orthodox prayer.

Indeed, there is ample evidence for the Soviet critic A. Teplov’s asser-tion that this play constitutes the “apogee of Pushkin’s atheism.”7 0

Teplov bolsters his controversial case (obviously influenced by the officialatheism of the Soviet Union) by deconstructing portions of the text. Thatthe Church played a leading role in choosing Boris as tsar is taken asPushkin’s observation of the evident fallibility of liturgical practice. In thecontext of the play, religious leaders are cognizant of rumors about Boris’guilt. Nevertheless, through the guidance of prayer, they settle on a regi-cide as “selected by God.”71 That Grishka should be declared a “heretic”and condemned in absentia to hanging for his mere words that he “will be

68 Alexander Dolinin recently explored providential themes in Karamzin’s Historyand Pushkin’s work in “Historicism or Providentialism? Pushkin’s History ofPugachev in the Context of French Romantic Historiography,” Slavic Review 52,no. 2 (Summer 1999), 291–308.69 Pushkin, Boris Godunov: Tragediia , 488.70 A. Teplov, “Ateisticheskaia tema v ‘Borise Godunove,’” Pushkinskii sbornik(Pskov: Pskovskii gosudarstvennyi pedagogicheskii institut, 1962), 21.71 Teplov, “Ateisticheskaia tema,” 24.

60 BRETT COOKE AND CHESTER DUNNING

tsar in Moscow” not only possibly reflects Pushkin’s thoughts about hisown punishment for a private communication, but also betrays a glaringmisuse of canonical law.72

A close reading of the play reveals yet more suspicious gaps in reli-gious logic. For example, Pimen refers to God as the source of temptations(7: 20). Whereas, according to various statements, God deemed thatPimen would write chronicles (7: 17) and the real Dmitrii would not rule,he is also apparently to blame for Missail’s illiteracy (7: 34). Borisstrangely quizzes Shuiskii about whether murdered children can rise fromtheir graves to confront properly elected tsars—as if this happens all thetime; evidently, Boris is psychologically disturbed (7: 47). Grishka laterboasts how he deceived God—but how could he be sure (7: 62)? Shuiskiiclaims that no one really knows the ways of God—an understandablecomment, but one which obviously has disturbing implications (7: 71).Finally, the holy fool triggers more distress in Boris by saying that theMother of God forbids him to pray for the tsar (7: 78). Some readers mayfind that this clashes with Gospel passages on Christian forgiveness.73

Many of the religious shortcomings follow the pattern of questioningtheodicy. The absence of a divine justice active in the world very likely re-flects Pushkin’s heartfelt need (as expressed while in Mikhailovskoe) forsome sort of curb on the misuse of absolute monarchic power. The poet of-ten complained of the injustice of his punishment but had absolutely nocourt to appeal to.74 This helps us understand the repeated invocation ofdivine justice over the tsar in the play. Pimen reminds us that God issuperior to monarchs (7: 20), that there is no escape from justice—noteven for the crown (7: 270, 281, 23). Of course, the image of a guilty tsarundermines the ideology of “divine right,” that God somehow anointssome heads of state with relative infallibility. Pimen himself also claimsto be impartial even though he has already come to some definite conclu-sions regarding Boris’ guilt (7: 18, 282–83).75

Boris wearing the crown may constitute a case of good things happen-ing to bad people. However, he does not escape his real guilt; he is ac-cused in Pimen’s chronicle, abused at the hands of the iurodivyi, and—quite possibly—dies suddenly for his crime (7: 95). As he dies, Boris, forhis part, takes all blame upon himself, saying “ia za vse otvechu Bogu”(7: 89). The plan for the play calls for his “repentance” (7: 289). Yet thereis more to come. Grishka, now “Dmitrii Samozvanets,” puts Boris’s wife

72 Teplov, “Ateisticheskaia tema,” 22.73 Ewa M. Thompson also noted the unchristian behavior of the holy fool in BorisGodunov ; see her Understanding Russia: The Holy Fool in Russian Culture (NewYork: University Press of America, 1987), 128–30.74 Pushkin , Letters , 182, 188, 202.75 Caryl Emerson also shows how Pimen is far from being an idealized Holy Father;see her Boris Godunov , 192–97.

TEMPTING FATE 61

and son to death. As Irena Ronen notes, it is hardly fair that children payfor the sins of their fathers.76 By the end of the play the Time of Troublesis well under way, bringing more misfortune to Russia.

Of course, this is presented in the drama along the lines of the tradi-tional Russian concept, “for our sins.” Indeed, there are many sins of badjudgment. Grishka is hardly prime material for a monk. The historicalGrishka worked much more closely with Patriarch Iov than is representedin the play. Pushkin later admitted he had been at fault in depicting thePatriarch as a “durak.”77 One wonders how the “zloi chernets” of the1825 version—based on a “zloi inok” in Karamzin’s History—worked hisway into the holy brotherhood at Chudov Monastery. More seriously,Pimen says Russia deserves its hard times, having picked a child-mur-derer as a tsar. In this the Church has significant complicity. All theprayers expended in the process of selecting Boris surely were expended invain.

Prayers are singularly ineffectual in Boris Godunov. Pimen blessesGrishka, but the novice does not follow his lead in becoming a chronicler;instead he sets off to make some history himself. Boris asks monks topray for his army, but to little avail (7: 69). More to the point, a youth atShuiskii’s house prays for the health of Boris and his family (7: 37). Hisprayer is unanswered on all counts.

On the other hand, our supposedly atheistic poet seems to expresssome hope for divine intercession in the narration of the miraculous heal-ing of the blind shepherd. According to the Patriarch, who purportedly re-lates the miracle in order to comfort Boris, the shepherd’s prayers are fi-nally answered by none other than the murdered tsarevich, who also hasbeen the agent of other wonders near his gravesite (7: 71). True, this ac-count comes to us third-hand, much as all of the other miracles mentionedin the play are presented second-hand, leaving very much open the possi-bility of deception and self-deception. The dying Tsar Fedor Ivanovichmay have been delusional when he conversed with an invisible visitor athis deathbed, but Pimen personally recalls the wonderful scent that filledthe tsar’s cell (7: 21). Pimen also claims to have seen the tsarevich’s bodyquiver in the presence of his murderers (7: 22), and Shuiskii swears thatthe tsarevich’s body remained untouched by decomposition (7: 43).Grishka is bedeviled by the same recurring dream, one that could be readas portentous. And Pimen’s harsh judgement of Boris does come to pass.

In the 1825 version of Boris Godunov there is sarcasm directed to-ward religion and religious figures quite reminiscent of what Sergei

76 Ronen, Smyslovoi stroi, 54.77 Pushkin, Letters, 367.

62 BRETT COOKE AND CHESTER DUNNING

Davydov termed Pushkin’s early and playful “Parnassian atheism.”78 Inthe draft title of his play, which Pushkin previewed for Viazemskii, heidentified himself as “rab bozhii” (7: 290), which, given his house arrestat the time, could be read as a double entendre. The original version of theplay ended with “Slava Bogu i Synu i Sviatomu Dukhu, Amin¢” (7: 302).Coming immediately after the entrance of the Pretender into Moscow, thiswould seem to approve of the manner in which the Time of Troubles pro-ceeded.

Even the passages which express positive feelings for Orthodoxy, reli-gion, and faith bear a subversive character. Tsar Nicholas I apparently soloved Boris’s devout dying instructions to young Fedor Borisovich that hememorized the monologue and often recited it.79 Pimen seemed to besympathetically drawn by Pushkin; he was praised by the censor himself.Stephanie Sandler has suggested that this sympathetic portrait mayhave been intended to help Pushkin evade the charge of being an athe-ist.80 It should also be noted that while most of the events and person-ages reproduce the actual history in remarkable detail, Pimen is a fic-tional character. Indeed, his name is borrowed from the wandering monkwho conducted the original Grishka to the Lithuanian border.81 There aresome suggestions that Pushkin saw something of himself in Pimen. Bothare writers who attempt to confront their monarchs with charges ofregicide. Pimen uses Boris’ phrase “dostig vysshei vlasti” (7: 285), andsurely it is significant that the monk writes his denunciation “bezmolvno”(7: 281). In effect, he engages in a dialogue with a tsar he never meets inthe play.

V. Conclusion

It should be obvious by now that the play Pushkin wrote while in exilecontains many defiant and subversive elements. Indeed the young poet’sdaring is also evident in his subsequent handling of the 1825 text.Pushkin did not submit “Komediia o tsare Borise i o Grishke Otrep¢eve”for publication upon completion. Instead he kept the play to himself foralmost a year, clearly using it as bait.82 He refused to send copies to hisfriends, but, rather, wrote saying he looked forward to reading it to them

7 8  Sergej Davydov, “Pushkin’s Easter Triptych: ‘Ottsy pustinniki i zhenyneporochny,’ ‘(Podrazhanie Italianskomu),’ and ‘Mirskaia vlast ¢ , ’” in PushkinToday , ed. David Bethea (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993), 38–58.79 P. M. Bitsilli, “Pushkin i Nikolai I,” Moskovskii pushkinist 3 (1996), 319.80 Sandler, “Problem of History,” 89–90.81 Karamzin, Istoriia, vol. 11: 76.82 Pushkin, Letters, 267, 306; Tsiavlovskii, Letopis ¢, 615–16, 620.

TEMPTING FATE 63

in person—i.e., back in Moscow or St. Petersburg.83 Within days of hisrelease in 1826, Pushkin read portions of his play to a large, illustriouscrowd in Moscow and received the greatest public acclaim he ever experi-enced. He apparently did not suspect that these public readings consti-tuted a violation of his new arrangement with Nicholas I. Pushkin thengave what he said was his only copy of the play to the chief of the tsar’sgendarmes, Count Benckendorff, seeking permission for publication; nev-ertheless, during the next four years he refused to accede to the censorand the tsar’s demands for major revisions. Instead, he politely, buttartly, responded, “I regret that I have not the power to re-do what I haveonce written.”84

It is well known that in 1830—when Pushkin was deeply in debt,was under enormous pressure from the government and his enemies, anddesperately needed to raise funds for his approaching marriage—the poetfinally agreed to demands for revisions in “Komediia o tsare Borise i oGrishke Otrep¢eve.” The published version of the play, retitled BorisGodunov, noticeably softened Pushkin’s critique of Karamzin’s Historyand Russian Orthodoxy. By then Pushkin’s frame of mind was obviouslyof a different character; and, in any case, he could no longer afford to clingto the subversive, rebellious spirit on display in “Komediia.”

Boris Godunov is extremely famous and has long been studied anddebated by scholars and literary critics, but the original version ofPushkin’s play remains curiously neglected. That is unfortunate because“Komediia” was the brilliant product of a unique and tortuous experiencein the young poet’s life and deserves to be much better known. It shouldreceive more scholarly attention than it has so far attracted and shouldbe made available in an accessible form.85 In “Komediia” the younggenius boldly displayed his defiance and, in the process, really did temptfate.

Texas A&M University

83 Pushkin did read portions to friends who visited him in Mikhailovskoe: I. I.Pushchin, A. M. Gorchakov, and, in an all-night session, A. N. Vul ¢f. SeeTsiavlovskii, Letopis ¢, 522, 563, 581.84 Pushkin , Letters , 338.85 It is possible but difficult and frustrating to attempt to reconstruct Pushkin’s“Komediia” by using the appendix of variants of Boris Godunov found in theJubilee Edition (7: 263–302). Unfortunately, S. A. Fomichev’s beautiful limited edi -tion of Pushkin’s Komediia o tsare Borise i o Grishke Otrep¢eve (Paris-St.Petersburg: Notabene, 1993) is extremely hard to obtain. However, there are still oldcopies of P. O. Morozov’s various prerevolutionary editions of Komediia floatingaround on library shelves; see, for example, P. O. Morozov, ed., Sochineniia i pis ¢maA. S. Pushkina , 8 vols. (St. Petersburg: Prosveshchenie, 1903–06), 3: 264–354, 639 –40.