Customer Reviews

The Uncensored Boris Godunov: The Case for Pushkin's Original Comedy, with Annotated Text and Translation (Wisconsin Center for Pushkin Studies)

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Occasionally a book is encountered that is completely satisfying, not just at the first read but as a resource that you keep nearby to refer to again and again. 'The Uncensored Boris' is just such a book. It happens to be about (and include the translation of) a masterpiece that shares the same qualities.

For anyone with an interest in and appreciation for Pushkin and 'Boris Godunov' (originally titled 'Comedy about Tsar Boris and Grishka Otrepiev') this is a treat, consisting of three parts.

First, authors Dunning, Emerson, and Fomichev collectively contribute six essays that provide wonderful perspective on the 1825 version of Pushkin's work and how it differs from the 1831 version, as well as the circumstances surrounding its changes ("it is possible to conclude that his eminently practical decision [to publish the revised version] was influenced primarily by his staggering debt" - pg. 115). One easily imagines that when Pushkin thought of 'Boris Godunov' (which he considered his finest work) he thought of the original version. This book makes a very good case that we should, too.

The 1831 version suffered three scene deletions, altered dialogue, and, most famously, a different ending.

Second, Antony Wood provides an impressive English translation of the 1825 version. While unable to read Russian and therefore unable to comment on the "accuracy" of the translation (but given the authors involved, there should be little doubt), it certainly has more verve than several of the 1831 versions I've read. Since acquiring this book I've not picked up any of the other editions on my shelves.

In essence the book delivers a scholarly commentary (when the endnotes are considered - see below) wrapped around a new translation of the masterpiece itself.

Third, there are 276 endnotes compiled by Dunning, Lotman, and Wood for the translation that explain such things as historical matters, translation issues, and comments about the works original reception. These are a treasure trove of information and, for those of us who appreciate footnotes, could be profitably read start to finish without interruption and as a body be considered edifying all on its own.

Although the text is scholarly and extensive, it is markedly readable.

There is a review of the book in a 2007 issue of Slavic Review by Pushkin scholar J. Douglas Clayton that mildly criticizes the book, but the points can be considered prickly quibbles to the nonacademic reader.

For bibliophiles it is books like this that remind us, "Life is good!" Indeed, very good.