My thesis is that, 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...
moreMy thesis is that, 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 Muscovite Grand Duke Basil II, the Blind. Dmitry, a pretender to the throne of Muscovy, appearing almost 160 years later, wished to replace the seclusionist image of Russia as the last bastion of Christendom by his messianic vision of unifying Christendom and liberating Constantinople. When he appears for the first time as Dmitry in Pushkin's drama, he sounds very determined, immediately introducing the historical option he is standing for. Let us listen to him: Father, I see no difficulties at all. I am acquainted with my people's nature; their faith is not expressed in zealotry, the example of their tsar is sacred to them. And tolerance, need I say, is even-handed. In less than two years' time, I vouch to you, all my people, all the Eastern Church, will be obedient to the throne of Peter. This fragment of the drama remains unchanged in the printed version except for the word Eastern being replaced by the word Northern. In my opinion, the reason of 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
