This play by Alexander Pushkin is by all dimensions a colorful and deeper reflection of the kind of society people lived in the early years. Looking at it keenly, it tells you without doubt that in the early centuries, knowledge, ability and quality of leadership were not very vocal in determining the leader. However, when we relate the life in the play with the current trend where democracy is sweeping the whole world, then as scholars we are able to discern the great lengths the world has taken in order to make it (the world) more just for everybody (Carl, 1969).
There is also an outstanding religious aspect in the whole drama. In fact, the whole story can be looked at in terms of two opposing forces where one is religious and the other is not. Vorotinsky religiously believe that the blood of the innocent child will prevent Boris from ascending to power. This assertion without doubt illustrates how people in Russia in these early periods embedded their faith on religious teachings. Shchelkalov who is one of the important men in the society, a Minister in the government makes announcement that is full of religious undertones, ‘bestowing the power of supplication’. Such announcement is only possible in a society where the masses are extremely religious and have understanding of metaphysical reality. Boris also commands his Boyars that together with him they should go and kneel before the tombs of the Great Russian leaders in a bid to seek some blessings and be able to run the society well (Carl, 1969).
The play cannot be understood completely without looking at social orientation adopted in Russia during these early periods. The characterization of this society leaves no doubt that it is more of a caste system. For instance, both Vorotinsky and Shuisky boast of themselves as born princes compared to Boris who by default was born from ordinary lineage and such should not have the capacity to be ruler. At the same time, Boyars, Patriarchs among other noble men in the society are considered instrumental in the governance of the society and make important decisions such as bestowing the power of supplication to Boris (Carl, 1969).
Another trend that is significant in the play is that of oppression and despair and is clearer at the Fence of Monastery. Gregory admits his oppression and despair in his conversation with the Monk. Day come and goes and the only thing heard and seen is the black cassocks. All these are words of one citizen who is tired of the leadership at the moment and is not seeing any light at the end of the tunnel.
In conclusion, I find it completely consequential to believe that the play is a honorary yard stick that can be used to reflect the deepest and sorrowful paths travelled by a country like Russia. In other words, it makes it important to look at where Russia is and where it should be in the years to come.
References:
Carl R (1969).The Critical Prose of Alexander Pushkin. Edited and translated by. Proffer. University of Indiana Press.
