Author Archives: Gabe Batista

Manipulation and Ivan IV’s influence in Boris Godunov

Leave a reply

Throughout the opera Boris Godunov and the Pretender Dmitry, or at least the excerpts we watched, manipulation was an omnipresent theme that dictated many of the actions undertaken by many of the characters. The actions ranged from small, such as the Tsar turning away from the peasant child in the second clip, to majorly consequential when the monk lied his way into being Tsar, but manipulation was a key factor in most of the clips we watched.

My question, which I would like to pose to the rest of the class, is the following: How much of this instability and manipulation do you think can be attributed to Ivan the Terrible’s manic and cruel actions as Tsar? My contention is that much of the conniving nature of the characters can be traced to Ivan’s rule. I believe this based on how Ivan made the Boyars’ power uncertain during his rule, and represented them losing their traditionally inherited power. This would inspire them to commit several of the actions that occurred in this opera and in real life. In the opera, a boyar forced peasants to beg for a Tsar in order to shore up his own power and legitimize his position. I call this manipulation because the boyar had the Boris believing that the people wanted him as the Tsar, and the boyar did it for his own personal gain. The boyar definitely had something to gain, as his power under Ivan the Terrible was always going to be in question, but with a new Tsar that would bend to their whims as he did later when imagining the dead children, the boyar wouldn’t have to worry about losing his power.

Finally, the False Dmitry’s manipulation to gain the throne by pretending to be Ivan’s lost son is definitely attributable to Ivan’s manic actions. The primary reason this power struggle even occurred was because Ivan left behind no clear, functional heir after he killed his eldest son. Without killing him, there wouldn’t have been this power vacuum that led to a monk lying to the throne by pretending to be the son of Ivan IV. While manipulation was a key theme to this opera and the time period it encapsulated, I say that much of that manipulation stemmed from Ivan’s frenzied, unhinged actions against the boyars and his own family. Now I’d like to know what everybody else thinks.

Desires and how they relate to gender in The Tsar’s Bride

Leave a reply

Throughout The Tsar’s Bride, love was something seen as fluid and different to all who experienced it. For some, like Liubasha, it meant commitment above all else, but for others, like Grigory, it lead to betrayal.

Take Liubasha, for example. In the beginning of the film, she was shown to love Grigory with all her heart, and couldn’t bear to see him unhappy with her. After the dinner scene, she interrogated him to understand why he didn’t show her the love he once did. Upon finding out that he loved another woman, she lashed out at him and his lack of commitment towards their love. She cited how when he took her from her village, she was separated from her family and loved ones, but she never batted an eye because it meant that she would be with Grigory, her greatest love. Her commitment towards Grigory made her all the more frustrated when he wouldn’t love her in the same way.

Like Liubasha, Martha was committed to her love Ivan Lykov, since they knew each other from childhood. She even expressed that love to her friend, saying that she wanted him as a husband above all else, and was upset when the Tsar chose her as a wife.

To some characters, however, love is not that same binding force others feel it is. The main culprit in this regard is Grigory, who was in love with Liubasha, until another woman caught his eye. Instead of remaining committed to Liubasha, who, may I remind you he abducted, he asks a man to create a potion that would have Martha fall in love with him. In doing so, he abandons his relationship that started through conquest.

These differences in treatments towards loved ones are illustrative of how women were viewed at the time; not as people but as trophies to be pursued and won, while women were expected to fully throw themselves into their relationships. This is evident in the Tsar’s choosing of Martha as a bride. He simply had his men scout young women, lined them all up, and chose the one he wanted. He gave no thought of what she wanted; only what he could get from a woman. Likewise, Grigory clearly put little stock into commitment in a relationship, as he was on the lookout for a younger woman to chase after despite having abducted a woman previously.

Russian Exceptionalism In Loss

1 Reply

Throughout The Lay of Igor’s Campaign, the author attempts to exhibit Russian exceptionalism even in defeat through two methods, including the uneven coverage of battle and calling on the great rulers of the past.

There is a noticeable difference in the author’s depictions of battles won vs. battles lost. When Russia won a battle, the combat itself was glossed over, and rather the author described the spoils of victory, referring to the treasure that they rode off with, thus focusing on the glory gained from the fighting. This was markedly different from how subsequent battles were described. In these descriptions, the attention was shifted from exclusively the outcome and more towards the fighting itself. The fighting was described valiantly, languishing in the power and vigor with which the Russians fought. Though their loss was recognized and lamented, there was a much stronger emphasis on the strength of the Russian soldiers. In doing so, the author brought attention to the might of the army, displaying power even in defeat.

There was also heavy emphasis put onto the great leaders of the past, especially Prince Sviatoslav. There was a passage following the defeat that stated that Germans and Venetians still sang of his victories, inserting Russia’s power and regional influence into a story of great loss to the country. There are several more instances of the author praising the work of Sviatoslav in glorifying the nation, and though there is an underlying air of despair for the loss and the great work thrown away by warring princes, the presence of such glorification in the text exhibits strong feelings of Russian exceptionalism.

That being said, I’m not making the argument that the author thought Russia was perfect. In fact, they were very vocal about how the country had fallen under control of people they saw as inferior, as evidenced by the continued use of the term “infidel,” and they continually used language that exuded despair regarding Russia’s situation after their loss. Instead, I’m merely stating how I find it interesting that Russian exceptionalism was still present in a story about a horrible loss Russia experienced. While they may be completely unrelated, I also wonder if this pervasive sense of excellence is related to later expressions of Russian importance and superiority in the 19thand 20thcenturies.