Historical Reality and Legend in Alexander Pushkin's Short Story “Kirdjali” — An Episode from the Greek Insurrection of 1821 in the Romanian Principalities
Main Article Content
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to analyze, discuss, and delineate the historical facts from the legendary and fictional elements in Pushkin’s short’ story Kirdjali. From the time of its publication in 1834. the story produced a spirited debate among scholars, literary critics, and historians, which continued down to the 20th century. The controversy centered on the question whether the
story is an historical or a fictional account, and whether the prototype of Pushkin’s hero, Kirdjali, was a living historical person or merely a legendary character of a folk brigand.
The majority of the Pushkinian scholars agree that Kirdjali is a short narrative dealing with an episode from the Greek or Hetairist insurrection in the Romanian Principalities in 1821. But they disagree on the question whether Kirdjali was an historical person or simply a fictional character.
One group of critics considers Pushkin’s hero an inventive, fictitious, anecdotal, and romantic character. The second group argues that Kirdjali was a authentic historical person; that he fought in the ranks of Ypsilanti’s army in the Romanian Principalities in the summer of 1821; and that the account
of the story is based on authentic historical sources.
Both groups of scholars and critics raised several important points in their works in defense of their arguments. This study attempts to separate those elements which constitute the anecdotal part of the story from those facts which are based on historical reality.
The author concludes that Pushkin’s story is a combination of fictional and historical narrative. It contains reliable aspects from the Ypsilanti’s movement in the Principalities. Some of Kirdjali’s actions are often fictionalized and his fame as a brigand is achieved through the aura of a folk hero
based on popular tales and legends which circulated in Bessarabia and Moldavia at the beginning of the 19th century. At the same time, Pushkin ascribes to Kirdjali the qualities of a rebel who struggles against social injustice. He is a daring and humble individual; an avenger on the Turkish masters, punishing the powerful, condemning the predatory for suppressing and exploiting the poor and downtrodden, and glorifying freedom.
story is an historical or a fictional account, and whether the prototype of Pushkin’s hero, Kirdjali, was a living historical person or merely a legendary character of a folk brigand.
The majority of the Pushkinian scholars agree that Kirdjali is a short narrative dealing with an episode from the Greek or Hetairist insurrection in the Romanian Principalities in 1821. But they disagree on the question whether Kirdjali was an historical person or simply a fictional character.
One group of critics considers Pushkin’s hero an inventive, fictitious, anecdotal, and romantic character. The second group argues that Kirdjali was a authentic historical person; that he fought in the ranks of Ypsilanti’s army in the Romanian Principalities in the summer of 1821; and that the account
of the story is based on authentic historical sources.
Both groups of scholars and critics raised several important points in their works in defense of their arguments. This study attempts to separate those elements which constitute the anecdotal part of the story from those facts which are based on historical reality.
The author concludes that Pushkin’s story is a combination of fictional and historical narrative. It contains reliable aspects from the Ypsilanti’s movement in the Principalities. Some of Kirdjali’s actions are often fictionalized and his fame as a brigand is achieved through the aura of a folk hero
based on popular tales and legends which circulated in Bessarabia and Moldavia at the beginning of the 19th century. At the same time, Pushkin ascribes to Kirdjali the qualities of a rebel who struggles against social injustice. He is a daring and humble individual; an avenger on the Turkish masters, punishing the powerful, condemning the predatory for suppressing and exploiting the poor and downtrodden, and glorifying freedom.
Article Details
Issue
Section
Articles