What do you think?
Rate this book
The Trilogy - 3 book edition #1
Ogniem i mieczem
Ogniem i mieczem, pierwsza z powieści tworzących Trylogię, przedstawia dzieje Polski w dobie powstania Chmielnickiego (1648-1654). Pisarz, starając się wzbudzić w czytelnikach patriotyczne uczucia, nadał powieści cechy antycznego i rycerskiego eposu, wprowadził baśniowość oraz wyraźny podział na bohaterów reprezentujących dobro i zło. Jednoznacznie negatywną kwalifikację moralną przypisał Sienkiewicz zbuntowanym Kozakom, przedstawionym jako żądni krwi barbarzyńcy, zaś Polaków przedstawił jako odważnych obrońców ojczyzny i prawych, przestrzegających rycerskiego kodeksu żołnierzy. W czarno-biały schemat wpisani zostali także – wbrew prawdzie historycznej – przywódcy walczących stron. Głównym wątkiem spajającym fabułę pierwszej części Trylogii uczynił pisarz burzliwe dzieje miłości odważnego rycerza bez skazy – Jana Skrzetuskiego i urodziwej, niewinnej szlachcianki – Heleny Kurcewiczówny, którzy rozdzieleni przez wrogów i przeciwności losu, przeżywają liczne perypetie. Uwolnienie dziewczyny przez Zagłobę i ich wędrówka w przebraniu, ponowne wpadnięcie w ręce Bohuna..., wszystkie te przygody prowadzą do szczęśliwego zakończenia, w którym bohaterowie spotykają się i mogą stanąć na ślubnym kobiercu...
528 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1884
About the author
Henryk Sienkiewicz
974 books652 followersHenryk Adam Aleksander Pius Sienkiewicz (also known as "Litwos"; May 5, 1846–November 15, 1916) was a Polish journalist and Nobel Prize-winning novelist. He was one of the most popular Polish writers at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, and received the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1905 for his "outstanding merits as an epic writer."
Born into an impoverished gentry family in the Podlasie village of Wola Okrzejska, in Russian-ruled Poland, Sienkiewicz wrote historical novels set during the Rzeczpospolita (Polish Republic, or Commonwealth). His works were noted for their negative portrayal of the Teutonic Order in The Teutonic Knights (Krzyżacy), which was remarkable as a significant portion of his readership lived under German rule. Many of his novels were first serialized in newspapers, and even today are still in print. In Poland, he is best known for his historical novels "With Fire and Sword", "The Deluge", and "Fire in the Steppe" (The Trilogy) set during the 17th-century Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, while internationally he is best known for Quo Vadis, set in Nero's Rome. Quo Vadis has been filmed several times, most notably the 1951 version.
Sienkiewicz was meticulous in attempting to recreate the authenticity of historical language. In his Trilogy, for instance, he had his characters use the Polish language as he imagined it was spoken in the seventeenth century (in reality it was far more similar to 19th-century Polish than he imagined). In The Teutonic Knights, which relates to the Battle of Grunwald in 1410, he even had his characters speak a variety of medieval Polish which he recreated in part from archaic expressions then still common among the highlanders of Podhale.
In 1881, Sienkiewicz married Maria Szetkiewicz (1854-1885). They had two children, Henryk Józef (1882-1959) and Jadwiga Maria (1883–1969).
Born into an impoverished gentry family in the Podlasie village of Wola Okrzejska, in Russian-ruled Poland, Sienkiewicz wrote historical novels set during the Rzeczpospolita (Polish Republic, or Commonwealth). His works were noted for their negative portrayal of the Teutonic Order in The Teutonic Knights (Krzyżacy), which was remarkable as a significant portion of his readership lived under German rule. Many of his novels were first serialized in newspapers, and even today are still in print. In Poland, he is best known for his historical novels "With Fire and Sword", "The Deluge", and "Fire in the Steppe" (The Trilogy) set during the 17th-century Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, while internationally he is best known for Quo Vadis, set in Nero's Rome. Quo Vadis has been filmed several times, most notably the 1951 version.
Sienkiewicz was meticulous in attempting to recreate the authenticity of historical language. In his Trilogy, for instance, he had his characters use the Polish language as he imagined it was spoken in the seventeenth century (in reality it was far more similar to 19th-century Polish than he imagined). In The Teutonic Knights, which relates to the Battle of Grunwald in 1410, he even had his characters speak a variety of medieval Polish which he recreated in part from archaic expressions then still common among the highlanders of Podhale.
In 1881, Sienkiewicz married Maria Szetkiewicz (1854-1885). They had two children, Henryk Józef (1882-1959) and Jadwiga Maria (1883–1969).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 301 reviews
February 8, 2017
This novel is the first in a trilogy which is so famous in its native Poland that it is simply called "The Trilogy," in much the same way that people often use "Tolkien" as shorthand for "The Lord of the Rings."
It is a sprawling patriotic epic. The first thing that struck me was the importance of nature. The first description in the book is that of the landscape of the Steppe. And it continues to be important, affecting the outcome of a battle here, obstructing a desperate search there, providing obstacles or helps to heroes and villains alike.
Some of the characters are a little too stereotypical for my liking. The hero, Pan Yan, becomes the Knight in Shining Armour for much of the novel. His leading lady, Princess Helen, becomes the Damsel in Distress. However they do acquire some depth as the plot goes forward.
The most interesting characters for me were the hero's three friends, Michal, Longinus and Zagloba. Pan Michal is at first portrayed as a would-be Lothario, but surprises everyone including the reader in battle. Pan Longinus, a sort of Don Quixote, is a gentle giant and the butt of everyone's jokes because he has made a vow of chastity until he can perform an unlikely act of heroism; he eventually accomplishes much more than that. Pan Zagloba starts out as the "bragging soldier" who is a stock figure in Roman comedy; he would rather feast, drink himself into a stupor and boast about largely imaginary exploits than participate in an actual combat. But he surprised me by becoming the most likeable member of the whole cast.
All this transpires against a backdrop of bloody battles, political intrigue and "hair-breadth 'scapes." An unforgettable read, even if it's a very long one.
It is a sprawling patriotic epic. The first thing that struck me was the importance of nature. The first description in the book is that of the landscape of the Steppe. And it continues to be important, affecting the outcome of a battle here, obstructing a desperate search there, providing obstacles or helps to heroes and villains alike.
Some of the characters are a little too stereotypical for my liking. The hero, Pan Yan, becomes the Knight in Shining Armour for much of the novel. His leading lady, Princess Helen, becomes the Damsel in Distress. However they do acquire some depth as the plot goes forward.
The most interesting characters for me were the hero's three friends, Michal, Longinus and Zagloba. Pan Michal is at first portrayed as a would-be Lothario, but surprises everyone including the reader in battle. Pan Longinus, a sort of Don Quixote, is a gentle giant and the butt of everyone's jokes because he has made a vow of chastity until he can perform an unlikely act of heroism; he eventually accomplishes much more than that. Pan Zagloba starts out as the "bragging soldier" who is a stock figure in Roman comedy; he would rather feast, drink himself into a stupor and boast about largely imaginary exploits than participate in an actual combat. But he surprised me by becoming the most likeable member of the whole cast.
All this transpires against a backdrop of bloody battles, political intrigue and "hair-breadth 'scapes." An unforgettable read, even if it's a very long one.
July 24, 2007
published in 1884, this might be my favorite novel of all time. sienkiewicz is considered by many to be the polish tolstoy. he won the nobel prize for literature in 1905, and is probably the most beloved polish author of all time. wrote the classic 'quo vadis' which i've still yet to read. this novel is part of a trilogy - called THE trilogy by the poles, whose national identity these novels sustained throughout the nazi and stalinist occupations. they were banned by the soviets for that reason. epic, magnificent, stupefying, thrilling - it's not really possible to communicate how astoundingly great this book is. set in the 17th century polish-lithuanian commonwealth during the chymelnitski (sp) uprising, it follows the exploits of the hussars, polish knights, the winged horsemen of the steppes. like the two novels that followed it - the deluge and fire in the steppes - it is by turns exhilirating, tragic, heroic, sad and funny. an absolute masterpiece in the most noble sense of the word. heroic historical fiction at its best.
HEADS UP - READ THE W.S. KUNICZAK TRANSLATION. do NOT read the jeremiah curtain translation - it's a cumbersome, clumsy, near-unreadable waste of time. same goes for the rest of the trilogy - kuniczak, kuniczak, kuniczak.
HEADS UP - READ THE W.S. KUNICZAK TRANSLATION. do NOT read the jeremiah curtain translation - it's a cumbersome, clumsy, near-unreadable waste of time. same goes for the rest of the trilogy - kuniczak, kuniczak, kuniczak.
March 29, 2023
Mar 27, 230pm ~~ Review asap.
Mar 28, 1pm ~~ Many many years ago I read this author's novel Quo Vadis, like so many other reviewers. I never knew about this book or the other volumes in what is known in Poland as Trilogy. While Quo Vadis may be the book the rest of the world knows Sienkiewicz for, in his home country he is best known for the four volumes that make up the Trilogy.
Each book deals with the relationships between Poland and certain surrounding countries. With Fire And Sword takes place in the later days of what was known as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and mainly concerns Poland and Russia, but is set mostly in what we now know as Ukraine, which was at the time of the story (1650's) part of Poland. The introduction to the book explains the background which led up to the events in the book, so It would be a help to read it first in order to understand the why of things that take place. I never read introductions until I have finished the actual book, so I was going in blindfolded but once I learned to recognize names I felt caught up. Politics is politics and never seems to change, whether it is in the 1600's dealing with kings and princes or in our own time dealing with egomaniacs and wannabe dictators.
I've had this author and these books on my lists for a few years now, but the page numbers intimidated me until finally this year I said It's Now Or Never so here we are at last. I have to say that even at over 800 pages I was never bored. Disgusted at the brutality of the era many times, but never at all bored with the story.
We begin in the year 1647 with an unexpected meeting between a Polish officer and a Cossack hetman. This chance encounter will have consequences for everyone later, of course, but at the time it seemed nothing more than an unusual event taking place during the officer's journey home from his duties as envoy.
So we meet Yan Skshetuski, lieutenant of the armored regiment of Prince Yeremi Vishnyevetski, who is to be the main romantic lead of the story, but quite honestly was not nearly as interesting as many of his soldier/knight companions or even his servant/companion, who made me laugh every time he came into the scene. There is of course the love story between Yan and Helena. Jealousy and politics come into play here too, but bigger than the story of the young lovers is the story of the looming civil war.
Since the author was Polish, I expected some bias in the story. I expected the Cossacks who rebelled against Polish rule to be portrayed as beasts and they were indeed shown that way. But the Polish princes were cruel too. Their favorite punishment was to impale people. This is done by forcing their bodies onto a long sharpened stake and leaving them until they slowly sink further and further down the stake and at some point in the future finally die. This is just as horrible as the 'Cossack Candles' described when our Polish knights are passing through an area not long after the rebels had been there. Three hundred people along the road, each one fastened to stakes, with their arms tied up over their heads and their hands set on fire.
Anytime I read of wars in Medieval times I am amazed not only at the cruelties but at the numbers. Hundreds of thousands in the armies; battles that go on for three days with hand to hand fighting from horseback and on the ground if you can find the ground somewhere beneath the bodies of the dead. It must have been horrible. But it seems men will fight each other no matter what, especially if one side feels superior to the other. Nobles looked down their noses at the peasants, the free Cossacks turned up their noses at the Cossacks who chose to fight on the side of Poland, the 'rabble' hated everyone, ignoring all the rules of warfare to steal anything they could get from the dead of whichever side.
It was all a big mess. But within that mess, HS created some extraordinary characters on both sides of the battle line, teaching the reader not only about the history of a troubled region but the very human stories that can appear in such times. Maybe that is why we have never completely given up on the idea of war as a glorious and manly event. Bonds are formed, emotions are raw, life is the only thing to hope for, and death is a sacrifice worth making, at least in historical fiction. In real life, is war really so damned wonderful?! I very greatly doubt it.
I will be continuing in medieval Poland for a couple more months because I plan to read the entire trilogy in sequence. I have already started with volume one of The Deluge. After that will be volume two, then Pan Michael, and then one other by the same author about what was for him modern Poland, written in 1909.
Mar 28, 1pm ~~ Many many years ago I read this author's novel Quo Vadis, like so many other reviewers. I never knew about this book or the other volumes in what is known in Poland as Trilogy. While Quo Vadis may be the book the rest of the world knows Sienkiewicz for, in his home country he is best known for the four volumes that make up the Trilogy.
Each book deals with the relationships between Poland and certain surrounding countries. With Fire And Sword takes place in the later days of what was known as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and mainly concerns Poland and Russia, but is set mostly in what we now know as Ukraine, which was at the time of the story (1650's) part of Poland. The introduction to the book explains the background which led up to the events in the book, so It would be a help to read it first in order to understand the why of things that take place. I never read introductions until I have finished the actual book, so I was going in blindfolded but once I learned to recognize names I felt caught up. Politics is politics and never seems to change, whether it is in the 1600's dealing with kings and princes or in our own time dealing with egomaniacs and wannabe dictators.
I've had this author and these books on my lists for a few years now, but the page numbers intimidated me until finally this year I said It's Now Or Never so here we are at last. I have to say that even at over 800 pages I was never bored. Disgusted at the brutality of the era many times, but never at all bored with the story.
We begin in the year 1647 with an unexpected meeting between a Polish officer and a Cossack hetman. This chance encounter will have consequences for everyone later, of course, but at the time it seemed nothing more than an unusual event taking place during the officer's journey home from his duties as envoy.
So we meet Yan Skshetuski, lieutenant of the armored regiment of Prince Yeremi Vishnyevetski, who is to be the main romantic lead of the story, but quite honestly was not nearly as interesting as many of his soldier/knight companions or even his servant/companion, who made me laugh every time he came into the scene. There is of course the love story between Yan and Helena. Jealousy and politics come into play here too, but bigger than the story of the young lovers is the story of the looming civil war.
Since the author was Polish, I expected some bias in the story. I expected the Cossacks who rebelled against Polish rule to be portrayed as beasts and they were indeed shown that way. But the Polish princes were cruel too. Their favorite punishment was to impale people. This is done by forcing their bodies onto a long sharpened stake and leaving them until they slowly sink further and further down the stake and at some point in the future finally die. This is just as horrible as the 'Cossack Candles' described when our Polish knights are passing through an area not long after the rebels had been there. Three hundred people along the road, each one fastened to stakes, with their arms tied up over their heads and their hands set on fire.
Anytime I read of wars in Medieval times I am amazed not only at the cruelties but at the numbers. Hundreds of thousands in the armies; battles that go on for three days with hand to hand fighting from horseback and on the ground if you can find the ground somewhere beneath the bodies of the dead. It must have been horrible. But it seems men will fight each other no matter what, especially if one side feels superior to the other. Nobles looked down their noses at the peasants, the free Cossacks turned up their noses at the Cossacks who chose to fight on the side of Poland, the 'rabble' hated everyone, ignoring all the rules of warfare to steal anything they could get from the dead of whichever side.
It was all a big mess. But within that mess, HS created some extraordinary characters on both sides of the battle line, teaching the reader not only about the history of a troubled region but the very human stories that can appear in such times. Maybe that is why we have never completely given up on the idea of war as a glorious and manly event. Bonds are formed, emotions are raw, life is the only thing to hope for, and death is a sacrifice worth making, at least in historical fiction. In real life, is war really so damned wonderful?! I very greatly doubt it.
I will be continuing in medieval Poland for a couple more months because I plan to read the entire trilogy in sequence. I have already started with volume one of The Deluge. After that will be volume two, then Pan Michael, and then one other by the same author about what was for him modern Poland, written in 1909.
May 8, 2022
bohun and skrzetuski deserved to be gay, happy couple. screw you, pozytywizm
March 4, 2023
"The Perils of Pauline"---Polish Style
The Polish Commonwealth, a large, unwieldy nation consisting of two parts, Poland and Lithuania, was inhabited by many peoples. A rebellion by Cossacks, allied to the Crimean Tatars, injured the Commonwealth to such a degree that it never really recovered and 150 years later, disappeared from the map of Europe for over a century. This epic adventure takes place in the 1640s as Bogdan Chmielnitsky, the Cossack leader, loots, kills, rapes, and burns vast areas of what is now Ukraine. The Polish defenders and their allies struggle to contain this outburst of peasant and lumpen rage.
That may be history, but this story reminded me more than a little of a Hollywood blockbuster with "a cast of thousands". A handful of heroes line up against the bad guys in a 1,135 page monster adventure story in which twists, turns, and miraculous escapes loom large, just like in those old silent movies. When you think that brave, pure Yan Skshetuski will finally be united with his long-suffering love, Helen, Fate swerves and sends him off to fight elsewhere. Helen disappears into the demon-haunted boonies, a captive of the villain yet again. (Still, she remains virginal. The book was written in Victorian times. Actually, she's more symbolic than real. She probably represents "Poland".) Fat, cunning Zagloba talks his way out of most messes, he's brave, but a drunken comic figure used to bring relief from the endless series of battles. Then there's the Mutt and Jeff of Polish literature....the giant Lithuanian, Podbipyenta and the diminutive Michal Volodyovski.... the hero's sidekicks just like Pancho, Jingles, Tonto, Chester, and so many others in the old Westerns now long forgotten. You'd say that this novel imitated so many Hollywood cowboy sagas, but the fact is that this one is the original! OK, even if sabres were the weapon of choice, not six-guns.
If you flinch before gory impalements, piles of corpses, and long, bloody battles, probably you should give this one a miss. Though I've read some reviews that excoriated older translations for leaden language, the 1991 version that I have reads excellently. It's all very exciting and if you are into adventure novels, this one is a top choice.
BUT, I have something extra to say. No doubt this novel is a Polish classic which brings out a lot of the characteristics that Poles have, or at least, would like to think they have. The descriptions of nature, battle scenes, and the pocket portraits of personalities are all wonderful. A national epic dramatizing a tough time in Polish history, in other words, a book for the generations. All well and good. Still, it seems to me that Nobel prize standards have changed mightily. If Sienkiewicz got a Nobel for this (and other similar books) in 1905, then how come Jorge Amado never got one for his great depictions of Brazil, or Yashar Kemal for Turkey? They were overlooked because the Nobel honchos said their adventure stories did not amount to "Great Literature". If you are looking for modern Great Literature, then, I doubt if you will be satisfied here. If you're tired of modern angst, manias, and insecurity then this could be the ticket. Up to you. Give it a try.
The Polish Commonwealth, a large, unwieldy nation consisting of two parts, Poland and Lithuania, was inhabited by many peoples. A rebellion by Cossacks, allied to the Crimean Tatars, injured the Commonwealth to such a degree that it never really recovered and 150 years later, disappeared from the map of Europe for over a century. This epic adventure takes place in the 1640s as Bogdan Chmielnitsky, the Cossack leader, loots, kills, rapes, and burns vast areas of what is now Ukraine. The Polish defenders and their allies struggle to contain this outburst of peasant and lumpen rage.
That may be history, but this story reminded me more than a little of a Hollywood blockbuster with "a cast of thousands". A handful of heroes line up against the bad guys in a 1,135 page monster adventure story in which twists, turns, and miraculous escapes loom large, just like in those old silent movies. When you think that brave, pure Yan Skshetuski will finally be united with his long-suffering love, Helen, Fate swerves and sends him off to fight elsewhere. Helen disappears into the demon-haunted boonies, a captive of the villain yet again. (Still, she remains virginal. The book was written in Victorian times. Actually, she's more symbolic than real. She probably represents "Poland".) Fat, cunning Zagloba talks his way out of most messes, he's brave, but a drunken comic figure used to bring relief from the endless series of battles. Then there's the Mutt and Jeff of Polish literature....the giant Lithuanian, Podbipyenta and the diminutive Michal Volodyovski.... the hero's sidekicks just like Pancho, Jingles, Tonto, Chester, and so many others in the old Westerns now long forgotten. You'd say that this novel imitated so many Hollywood cowboy sagas, but the fact is that this one is the original! OK, even if sabres were the weapon of choice, not six-guns.
If you flinch before gory impalements, piles of corpses, and long, bloody battles, probably you should give this one a miss. Though I've read some reviews that excoriated older translations for leaden language, the 1991 version that I have reads excellently. It's all very exciting and if you are into adventure novels, this one is a top choice.
BUT, I have something extra to say. No doubt this novel is a Polish classic which brings out a lot of the characteristics that Poles have, or at least, would like to think they have. The descriptions of nature, battle scenes, and the pocket portraits of personalities are all wonderful. A national epic dramatizing a tough time in Polish history, in other words, a book for the generations. All well and good. Still, it seems to me that Nobel prize standards have changed mightily. If Sienkiewicz got a Nobel for this (and other similar books) in 1905, then how come Jorge Amado never got one for his great depictions of Brazil, or Yashar Kemal for Turkey? They were overlooked because the Nobel honchos said their adventure stories did not amount to "Great Literature". If you are looking for modern Great Literature, then, I doubt if you will be satisfied here. If you're tired of modern angst, manias, and insecurity then this could be the ticket. Up to you. Give it a try.
September 5, 2021
Henryk Adam Aleksander Pius Sienkiewicz (1846-1916) was a Polish, Nobel Prize winning, author. I had previously read his "Quo Vadis" and enjoyed it. "With Fire and Sword" is a much better work. It could be called a Polish "War and Peace". It is the first volume in a series known as The Trilogy. It tells the tale of a country and people that no longer exist.
Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (formally known as the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) existed from 1569-1795. The Commonwealth was a country and bifederation of Poland and Lithuania ruled by a common monarch, who was both King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania. Also included in this mix are the Ruthenians. This was what peoples of the Eastern Slavic states were called, especially those coming from the Kievian Rus, but it also included the ancestors of the modern Ukrainians, Rusyns and the most of Belarusians.
The Commonwealth, primarily incapacitated by bickering nobles, faces a grave uprising that signals the start of the decline of this entity. Sienkiewicz's novel covers the seminal event known as the Khmelnytsky Uprising (1647). Bohdan Khmelnytsky was Hetman of the Cossacks. His rebellion against the gentry, which eventually drew in the Tartars of the Crimea, is the start of a period known as "The Deluge" (which is the subject of The Trilogy) that is the end of the Commonwealth.
That is the basis for this story. It revolves around Pan Skshetuski, a lieutenant of the armoured cavalry (hussaria) regiment of Prince Yeremi Vishnyevetski. Prince Yeremi will be the principal fighter against the Cossack horde. It also follows his companions, Michal Volodyovski, Pan Longinus and Pan Zagłoba. It is an exciting story as it follows the evtns surrounding this bloody conflict.
A very exciting novel about a relatively unknown people and times. If you enjoy a wonderful historical setting and enjoy learning about interesting wars, or just love a good story-then you will appreciate the classic "With Fire and Sword". I shall certainly be hunting down the second book in this series.
Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (formally known as the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) existed from 1569-1795. The Commonwealth was a country and bifederation of Poland and Lithuania ruled by a common monarch, who was both King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania. Also included in this mix are the Ruthenians. This was what peoples of the Eastern Slavic states were called, especially those coming from the Kievian Rus, but it also included the ancestors of the modern Ukrainians, Rusyns and the most of Belarusians.
The Commonwealth, primarily incapacitated by bickering nobles, faces a grave uprising that signals the start of the decline of this entity. Sienkiewicz's novel covers the seminal event known as the Khmelnytsky Uprising (1647). Bohdan Khmelnytsky was Hetman of the Cossacks. His rebellion against the gentry, which eventually drew in the Tartars of the Crimea, is the start of a period known as "The Deluge" (which is the subject of The Trilogy) that is the end of the Commonwealth.
That is the basis for this story. It revolves around Pan Skshetuski, a lieutenant of the armoured cavalry (hussaria) regiment of Prince Yeremi Vishnyevetski. Prince Yeremi will be the principal fighter against the Cossack horde. It also follows his companions, Michal Volodyovski, Pan Longinus and Pan Zagłoba. It is an exciting story as it follows the evtns surrounding this bloody conflict.
A very exciting novel about a relatively unknown people and times. If you enjoy a wonderful historical setting and enjoy learning about interesting wars, or just love a good story-then you will appreciate the classic "With Fire and Sword". I shall certainly be hunting down the second book in this series.
April 20, 2023
BOHUN BOHUN LOVER
a tak to czemu jacys anglicy to komentuja ocb
a tak to czemu jacys anglicy to komentuja ocb
September 4, 2024
3.75
Klub polskiej książki klasycznej
Sceny batalistyczne i charyzma postaci drugoplanowych to największe zalety książki.
Helena to jej największa wada.
Klub polskiej książki klasycznej
Sceny batalistyczne i charyzma postaci drugoplanowych to największe zalety książki.
Helena to jej największa wada.
March 12, 2012
This has been accurately described as the "Gone with the Wind" of Eastern Europe. In my humble opinion, this is the greatest work of Sienkiewicz, surpassing even "Quo Vadis" in breadth and detail. It is a sweeping historical saga of the Polish/Lithuanian kingdom pitted against the Zaporozhian Cossacks and Tatars of the Crimean region. It has the same flavor as "Taras Bulba" by Nikolai Gogol, but with much more depth and richness of story and character. It is a novel that requires and invites re-reading in order to capture its full magnificence. The characters are strong, memorable and three-dimensional. The places are richly described and historical details are woven into a fine tapestry of a tale.
My Polish in-laws and friends told me years ago that this was one of the best historical novels ever written to describe the events of 17th century Eastern Europe, and why there is still great animosity between some of the Catholic, Orthodox Christian, and Muslim peoples of that region. There are sweeping battles with Polish Knights and Swedish mercenaries against hordes of Cossack and Tatar cavalry. There are great love stories between knights and ladies. There are quests which seem impossible to survive. This book has everything...but it is LARGE. (e.g. Tolstoyan in size). It is well worth the time and energy.
My Polish in-laws and friends told me years ago that this was one of the best historical novels ever written to describe the events of 17th century Eastern Europe, and why there is still great animosity between some of the Catholic, Orthodox Christian, and Muslim peoples of that region. There are sweeping battles with Polish Knights and Swedish mercenaries against hordes of Cossack and Tatar cavalry. There are great love stories between knights and ladies. There are quests which seem impossible to survive. This book has everything...but it is LARGE. (e.g. Tolstoyan in size). It is well worth the time and energy.
April 17, 2021
Bohun.
October 12, 2010
You have probably heard of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. Your teacher might have made you read the adventures of Wallace or Defoe, but you have likely never heard of Henryk Sienkiewicz. You might enjoy “Lord of the Rings”, King Arthur, and Robin Hood, but not know “With Fire and Sword.” You have been missing out.
Published in 1884, “With Fire and Sword” is a Polish classic that takes place during the 17th century. Fairly accurate historical fiction, it tells the story of the rebellion of Hmyelnitski and the civil war that developed. Themes of patriotism, selflessness, love, growth, friendship, and courage mingle in the fading embers of a golden age of chivalry and knighthood in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It is also the first book in a trilogy known in Poland as “The Trilogy”.
There are several ‘main’ characters, though generally the book follows Skshetuski, known as Pan Yan. This young nobleman and soldier, whose dedication to country and prince, as well as his love for the noblewoman Helen, creates a character you can’t help but like. Helen is a strong yet feminine woman, who takes everything with a measure of depth and courage, including kidnapping, near death, and flight. She is also loved by the Cossack colonel, Bohun, whose fanatical worship is contrasted to Pan Yan’s selfless adoration, and whose hate for Pan Yan drives him to the rebellion. Bohun’s erstwhile companion is Pan Zagloba, a fat nobleman whose love of drink and good company is seconded only to his dedication and fatherly love for the orphaned Helen. His sharp wit and boastful tongue bring an element of comic relief, along with Pan Yan’s two companions, Pan Longinus and Michal. Michal is a flirtatious, tiny knight and a brilliant swordsman. Pan Longinus is nearly the opposite, an incredibly tall, skinny man whose vow of chastity and long, heavy sword create a memorable character. There is Hmyelnitski, the charismatic leader of the rebels, who instigated the Cossack’s revolt. Surrounded by his peasant, burgher, petty noble and Tartar allies, he is driven nearly to insanity as he watches the forces he has unleashed. And finally there is Prince Yeremi Vishnovyetzki, the leader of Pan Yan, Longinus, Michal and countless others of the finest soldiers. He is a beloved military commander who gives his strength and fortune for his country, only to be set aside repeatedly by greedy politicians.
Though these may be some of the main characters, the true beauty of “With Fire and Sword” is not found among them. It cannot be discerned in a chapter or with an event. There may be a climax, but that is not where the heart of the tale is found. The books is not about one lord or another. It is about Poland. Whether loyal or disloyal, protagonist or antagonist, every character you meet in this story breathes the life of a nation. Its essence is that of a country and its beauty is that of a people.
There are no words to describe this book. Epic might come close. The adventure, action, characters, and plot all create a masterful story that few can second. I absolutely loved it. The characters are unforgettable, the plot amazing, and the love of country genuine. Though the writing does have a tendency to get heavy, and the numerous name and nick-names of the many characters confusing, it is an absolute must-read.
Like most good books, the author is almost as unique as his work. Henryk Sienkiewicz was born into a family of impoverished Polish nobles and during his lifetime was a tutor, lawyer, journalist and popular novelist. He had a thorough knowledge of literature and Old Polish, married three times (his first wife died, his second left him, and the third was his niece), bought his family’s ancestral castle, and became a knight of the French Légion d'honneur. Sienkiewicz spent two years in California and traveled to London, Paris, Spain, and Africa. He wrote a ton and won the Nobel Peace Prize for Literature!
At 1135 pages, “With Fire and Sword” is an incredibly long book. Do not be intimidated! Action packed and intricate, it is well worth the read. Few can compare. To quote Tcharnyetzki, an old general from the book, “You’ll see all the greed and empty pride and love of luxury that live among us side by side with all those qualities that make our nation walk in glory as bright as the sun through more than six centuries.” You can walk in that glory.
Published in 1884, “With Fire and Sword” is a Polish classic that takes place during the 17th century. Fairly accurate historical fiction, it tells the story of the rebellion of Hmyelnitski and the civil war that developed. Themes of patriotism, selflessness, love, growth, friendship, and courage mingle in the fading embers of a golden age of chivalry and knighthood in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It is also the first book in a trilogy known in Poland as “The Trilogy”.
There are several ‘main’ characters, though generally the book follows Skshetuski, known as Pan Yan. This young nobleman and soldier, whose dedication to country and prince, as well as his love for the noblewoman Helen, creates a character you can’t help but like. Helen is a strong yet feminine woman, who takes everything with a measure of depth and courage, including kidnapping, near death, and flight. She is also loved by the Cossack colonel, Bohun, whose fanatical worship is contrasted to Pan Yan’s selfless adoration, and whose hate for Pan Yan drives him to the rebellion. Bohun’s erstwhile companion is Pan Zagloba, a fat nobleman whose love of drink and good company is seconded only to his dedication and fatherly love for the orphaned Helen. His sharp wit and boastful tongue bring an element of comic relief, along with Pan Yan’s two companions, Pan Longinus and Michal. Michal is a flirtatious, tiny knight and a brilliant swordsman. Pan Longinus is nearly the opposite, an incredibly tall, skinny man whose vow of chastity and long, heavy sword create a memorable character. There is Hmyelnitski, the charismatic leader of the rebels, who instigated the Cossack’s revolt. Surrounded by his peasant, burgher, petty noble and Tartar allies, he is driven nearly to insanity as he watches the forces he has unleashed. And finally there is Prince Yeremi Vishnovyetzki, the leader of Pan Yan, Longinus, Michal and countless others of the finest soldiers. He is a beloved military commander who gives his strength and fortune for his country, only to be set aside repeatedly by greedy politicians.
Though these may be some of the main characters, the true beauty of “With Fire and Sword” is not found among them. It cannot be discerned in a chapter or with an event. There may be a climax, but that is not where the heart of the tale is found. The books is not about one lord or another. It is about Poland. Whether loyal or disloyal, protagonist or antagonist, every character you meet in this story breathes the life of a nation. Its essence is that of a country and its beauty is that of a people.
There are no words to describe this book. Epic might come close. The adventure, action, characters, and plot all create a masterful story that few can second. I absolutely loved it. The characters are unforgettable, the plot amazing, and the love of country genuine. Though the writing does have a tendency to get heavy, and the numerous name and nick-names of the many characters confusing, it is an absolute must-read.
Like most good books, the author is almost as unique as his work. Henryk Sienkiewicz was born into a family of impoverished Polish nobles and during his lifetime was a tutor, lawyer, journalist and popular novelist. He had a thorough knowledge of literature and Old Polish, married three times (his first wife died, his second left him, and the third was his niece), bought his family’s ancestral castle, and became a knight of the French Légion d'honneur. Sienkiewicz spent two years in California and traveled to London, Paris, Spain, and Africa. He wrote a ton and won the Nobel Peace Prize for Literature!
At 1135 pages, “With Fire and Sword” is an incredibly long book. Do not be intimidated! Action packed and intricate, it is well worth the read. Few can compare. To quote Tcharnyetzki, an old general from the book, “You’ll see all the greed and empty pride and love of luxury that live among us side by side with all those qualities that make our nation walk in glory as bright as the sun through more than six centuries.” You can walk in that glory.
November 2, 2020
ENGLISH: This first part of Sienkiewicz's monumental trilogy on the beginning of the fall of the Polish-Lithuanian state in the seventeenth century is true to its title: It depicts faithfully, and without sparing the feelings of the reader, all the horrors of war; especially of a civil war, which is usually even worse.
The horrors of war, which Sienkiewicz describes accurately, are counterbalanced by the force with which the main characters express their love for their Fatherland, for which they are willing to give their lives. This is something that nineteen-century Poles had very clear, but we seem to have lost.
The book is somewhat slow and over 700 pages long. It could very well have been half that size, which would have made it more enjoyable. Of course we know how they wrote in the 19th century, although the author of the Harry Potter series does not lag behind in the last four books of the series, especially the fifth.
When Bogun kidnaps Helena, he takes her to a place inhabited by werewolves, vampires and demons, and puts her under the surveillance of a witch who presumes of predicting the future. Yes, I know that the love affair of the two main characters protagonists is not historical, but this part is so unlikely that in my opinion it becomes an unnecessary eyesore. And by the way, when Skshetuski's friends go to rescue Helena, vampires and other fauna are conspicuous by their absence, and the witch clearly proves that she isn't able to predict her own future.
The cunning Pan Zagloba is one of the most curious characters in the book. Always ready to exaggerate his own achievements (which are not small) and to claim some part in those of others, he is very well defined by what the Lithuanian martyr knight, Longin Podbipienta, says about him: "An evil mouth, but a golden heart."
ESPAÑOL: Esta primera parte de la monumental trilogía de Sienkiewicz sobre el comienzo de la caída del estado polaco-lituano en el siglo XVII es fiel a su título: describe con todo detalle, sin pagar tributo a los sentimientos del lector, todos los horrores de la guerra; especialmente de una guerra civil, que suele ser aun peor.
Los horrores de la guerra, que Sienkiewicz describe con exactitud, quedan contrapesados con la fuerza con que sus personajes principales expresan su amor a la Patria y están dispuestos a dar la vida por ella. Esto es algo que los polacos decimonónicos tenían muy claro, y que nosotros parece que hemos perdido.
El libro es algo lento y tiene más de 700 páginas, pero podía muy bien haber tenido la mitad, y habría sido más ameno. Claro que ya sabemos cómo escribían en el siglo XIX, aunque la autora de la serie de Harry Potter no les va a la zaga en los cuatro últimos libros de la serie, especialmente el quinto.
Cuando Bohun rapta a Helena, se la lleva a un lugar plagado de hombres-lobo, vampiros y demonios, y la pone bajo la vigilancia de una bruja que además pretende poder predecir el porvenir. Ya sé que los amores de los dos protagonistas no son históricos, pero esta parte es tan inverosímil, que en mi opinión se convierte en un pegote innecesario. Y por cierto, cuando los amigos de Skrzetuski van a rescatar a Helena, los vampiros y demás fauna brillan por su ausencia, y la bruja demuestra claramente no ser capaz de predecir su propio futuro.
El astuto Pan Zagloba es uno de los personajes más curiosos del libro. Siempre dispuesto a exagerar sus logros (que no son pequeños) y a adjudicarse los de los demás, al menos en parte, queda muy bien definido por lo que dice de él el caballero lituano mártir, Longinos Podbipieta: "Una boca maligna, pero un corazón de oro".
The horrors of war, which Sienkiewicz describes accurately, are counterbalanced by the force with which the main characters express their love for their Fatherland, for which they are willing to give their lives. This is something that nineteen-century Poles had very clear, but we seem to have lost.
The book is somewhat slow and over 700 pages long. It could very well have been half that size, which would have made it more enjoyable. Of course we know how they wrote in the 19th century, although the author of the Harry Potter series does not lag behind in the last four books of the series, especially the fifth.
When Bogun kidnaps Helena, he takes her to a place inhabited by werewolves, vampires and demons, and puts her under the surveillance of a witch who presumes of predicting the future. Yes, I know that the love affair of the two main characters protagonists is not historical, but this part is so unlikely that in my opinion it becomes an unnecessary eyesore. And by the way, when Skshetuski's friends go to rescue Helena, vampires and other fauna are conspicuous by their absence, and the witch clearly proves that she isn't able to predict her own future.
The cunning Pan Zagloba is one of the most curious characters in the book. Always ready to exaggerate his own achievements (which are not small) and to claim some part in those of others, he is very well defined by what the Lithuanian martyr knight, Longin Podbipienta, says about him: "An evil mouth, but a golden heart."
ESPAÑOL: Esta primera parte de la monumental trilogía de Sienkiewicz sobre el comienzo de la caída del estado polaco-lituano en el siglo XVII es fiel a su título: describe con todo detalle, sin pagar tributo a los sentimientos del lector, todos los horrores de la guerra; especialmente de una guerra civil, que suele ser aun peor.
Los horrores de la guerra, que Sienkiewicz describe con exactitud, quedan contrapesados con la fuerza con que sus personajes principales expresan su amor a la Patria y están dispuestos a dar la vida por ella. Esto es algo que los polacos decimonónicos tenían muy claro, y que nosotros parece que hemos perdido.
El libro es algo lento y tiene más de 700 páginas, pero podía muy bien haber tenido la mitad, y habría sido más ameno. Claro que ya sabemos cómo escribían en el siglo XIX, aunque la autora de la serie de Harry Potter no les va a la zaga en los cuatro últimos libros de la serie, especialmente el quinto.
Cuando Bohun rapta a Helena, se la lleva a un lugar plagado de hombres-lobo, vampiros y demonios, y la pone bajo la vigilancia de una bruja que además pretende poder predecir el porvenir. Ya sé que los amores de los dos protagonistas no son históricos, pero esta parte es tan inverosímil, que en mi opinión se convierte en un pegote innecesario. Y por cierto, cuando los amigos de Skrzetuski van a rescatar a Helena, los vampiros y demás fauna brillan por su ausencia, y la bruja demuestra claramente no ser capaz de predecir su propio futuro.
El astuto Pan Zagloba es uno de los personajes más curiosos del libro. Siempre dispuesto a exagerar sus logros (que no son pequeños) y a adjudicarse los de los demás, al menos en parte, queda muy bien definido por lo que dice de él el caballero lituano mártir, Longinos Podbipieta: "Una boca maligna, pero un corazón de oro".
December 28, 2017
Nie jestem fanką Sienkiewicza w ogóle, ale od żadnej jego powieści nie odbiłam się tak boleśnie jak od tej.
W razie wątpliwości: to nie będzie recenzja.
Skrzetuski i Helena są najbardziej papierowymi, nieinteresującymi, nieangażującymi bohaterami romansu ever. Helena ma dwie cechy: jest piękna i dobra. Li i jedynie. Przy czym jest taka zawsze, niezależnie od okoliczności. Można by pomyśleć, że szalone gonitwy po Dzikich Polach jakoś by na dziewczynę wpłynęły: skóra popękałaby jej od wiatru, włosy by się jej przetłuściły, brak odpoczynku i głód wprawiłyby ją w nieco mniej anielski humor, może nawet nabawiłaby się kataru. Gdzie tam, Helena nadal wygląda jak królowa i cierpliwie wznosi na kolejnych zachwyconych waćpanów wielkie, łzawe oczy. O, przepraszam: trochę się opaliła. Głębi: zero. A to i tak moja ulubiona postać z całej tej powieści!
Skrzetuski jest nie lepszy, przy czym płaskość jego charakteru jest o tyle bardziej bolesna, że pojawia się na kartach powieści dużo częściej. W końcu ma ponoć być jej głównym bohaterem. Z tym, że najciekawiej wypadają te rozdziały, w których się nie pojawia. Z pozostałych bohaterów - Zagłoby, Wołodyjowskiego, nawet Podbipięty - Sienkiewicz trochę sobie pokpiwa, choćby ustami innych bohaterów (vide: Zagłoba i jego ciągłe heheszki z Longinusa), więc automatycznie stają się trochę bardziej żywi. Tylko do Skrzetuskiego i narrator, i bohaterowie powieści mają stosunek tak nabożny i pełen zadęcia, że olaboga, czytać się tego nie da. To taki typowy, RPG-owy paladyn, charakter: praworządny dobry, nic więcej nie da się powiedzieć. Miałam wrażenie, że sam autor jest tą krystalicznie mdłą postacią znudzony, bo trochę dziwne jest to, że w jakiejś połowie "swoich" rozdziałów Skrzetuski jest nieprzytomny/chory/w gorączce. Strasznie wydelikacony ten niezłomny bohater, tak swoją drogą.
Stronniczość. Ja wiem. Sienkiewicz subtelnością nigdy nie grzeszył, pamiętam te wizje Maryi ochraniającej Jasną Górę z "Potopu", ale to, co wyrabia się w "Ogniem i mieczem", jest aż niewiarygodne. Dziki Bohun. Dzika czerń. Dziki Chmielnicki. Strona bez "dzikich" to strona stracona. Czytać hadko, waćpanie.
Nie, żarty Zagłoby z gwałtów nie są śmieszne. Nie, okradanie chłopów z ubrań i komentowanie tego na zasadzie "no i dobrze, należy im się, na pewno to zdrajcy" nie jest śmieszne.
Wizja Jaremy górującego nad całym krajobrazem i strzelającego laserami z księżyców w oczach długo mnie nie opuści.
Od powtarzanych co 10 stron opisów wspaniałego Jeremiego, niezwyciężonego lwa, który niczym ojciec bla bla bla... - niedobrze się robi.
Żeby nie było, że tylko marudzę: ciekawie wyszły Sienkiewiczowi wszystkie sceny, nazwijmy to, "paranormalne". Bohun eskortujący Helenę do wiedźmy, wszystkie te gusła, ta sama droga x stron później, Skrzetuski przedzierający się przez staw - to jest naprawdę klimatyczne, można się wczuć i nawet lekko przestraszyć. Dobrze się to czyta.
Tak czy inaczej, wreszcie mam za sobą całą Trylogię. Dziękuję, panie Henryku, miło było, ale pewnie się już nie spotkamy.
W razie wątpliwości: to nie będzie recenzja.
Skrzetuski i Helena są najbardziej papierowymi, nieinteresującymi, nieangażującymi bohaterami romansu ever. Helena ma dwie cechy: jest piękna i dobra. Li i jedynie. Przy czym jest taka zawsze, niezależnie od okoliczności. Można by pomyśleć, że szalone gonitwy po Dzikich Polach jakoś by na dziewczynę wpłynęły: skóra popękałaby jej od wiatru, włosy by się jej przetłuściły, brak odpoczynku i głód wprawiłyby ją w nieco mniej anielski humor, może nawet nabawiłaby się kataru. Gdzie tam, Helena nadal wygląda jak królowa i cierpliwie wznosi na kolejnych zachwyconych waćpanów wielkie, łzawe oczy. O, przepraszam: trochę się opaliła. Głębi: zero. A to i tak moja ulubiona postać z całej tej powieści!
Skrzetuski jest nie lepszy, przy czym płaskość jego charakteru jest o tyle bardziej bolesna, że pojawia się na kartach powieści dużo częściej. W końcu ma ponoć być jej głównym bohaterem. Z tym, że najciekawiej wypadają te rozdziały, w których się nie pojawia. Z pozostałych bohaterów - Zagłoby, Wołodyjowskiego, nawet Podbipięty - Sienkiewicz trochę sobie pokpiwa, choćby ustami innych bohaterów (vide: Zagłoba i jego ciągłe heheszki z Longinusa), więc automatycznie stają się trochę bardziej żywi. Tylko do Skrzetuskiego i narrator, i bohaterowie powieści mają stosunek tak nabożny i pełen zadęcia, że olaboga, czytać się tego nie da. To taki typowy, RPG-owy paladyn, charakter: praworządny dobry, nic więcej nie da się powiedzieć. Miałam wrażenie, że sam autor jest tą krystalicznie mdłą postacią znudzony, bo trochę dziwne jest to, że w jakiejś połowie "swoich" rozdziałów Skrzetuski jest nieprzytomny/chory/w gorączce. Strasznie wydelikacony ten niezłomny bohater, tak swoją drogą.
Stronniczość. Ja wiem. Sienkiewicz subtelnością nigdy nie grzeszył, pamiętam te wizje Maryi ochraniającej Jasną Górę z "Potopu", ale to, co wyrabia się w "Ogniem i mieczem", jest aż niewiarygodne. Dziki Bohun. Dzika czerń. Dziki Chmielnicki. Strona bez "dzikich" to strona stracona. Czytać hadko, waćpanie.
Nie, żarty Zagłoby z gwałtów nie są śmieszne. Nie, okradanie chłopów z ubrań i komentowanie tego na zasadzie "no i dobrze, należy im się, na pewno to zdrajcy" nie jest śmieszne.
Wizja Jaremy górującego nad całym krajobrazem i strzelającego laserami z księżyców w oczach długo mnie nie opuści.
Od powtarzanych co 10 stron opisów wspaniałego Jeremiego, niezwyciężonego lwa, który niczym ojciec bla bla bla... - niedobrze się robi.
Żeby nie było, że tylko marudzę: ciekawie wyszły Sienkiewiczowi wszystkie sceny, nazwijmy to, "paranormalne". Bohun eskortujący Helenę do wiedźmy, wszystkie te gusła, ta sama droga x stron później, Skrzetuski przedzierający się przez staw - to jest naprawdę klimatyczne, można się wczuć i nawet lekko przestraszyć. Dobrze się to czyta.
Tak czy inaczej, wreszcie mam za sobą całą Trylogię. Dziękuję, panie Henryku, miło było, ale pewnie się już nie spotkamy.
September 15, 2013
'With Fire and Sword', Sienkiewicz's epic that follows the love story involving Jan, Helena and Bohun against the backdrop of the Khmelnytsky Uprising can be described in two words : boring and biased. I'll explain each of them:
1. Boring - this is a subjective term that mainly applies to the love story between Jan and Helen. It is slightly more interesting than the one between Marius Pontmercy and Cosette from Les Misérables, so if you enjoyed that story you will certainly like this one. My opinion might be biased but far less than Sienkiewicz's novel.
2. Biased - Now don't get me wrong, I know national epics are meant to inspire patriotism and glorify the deeds of past leaders and the history of one's country but the way the author describes the events is simply wrong. On one side you have the brave, honest and civilized Polish soldiers who fight for a righteous cause and on the other you have the weak, drunken and savage Cossacks who rebel against their lawful leader. Even the Aeneid, an epic that was written with the clear intent of glorifying emperor Augustus and the Roman Empire portrayed their enemies not as mindless savages but as brave soldiers that fought and lost. The pagan Romans that Sienkiewicz portrays as immoral and decadent in his 'Quo Vadis' had a more fair and rightful view of their enemies than him.
1. Boring - this is a subjective term that mainly applies to the love story between Jan and Helen. It is slightly more interesting than the one between Marius Pontmercy and Cosette from Les Misérables, so if you enjoyed that story you will certainly like this one. My opinion might be biased but far less than Sienkiewicz's novel.
2. Biased - Now don't get me wrong, I know national epics are meant to inspire patriotism and glorify the deeds of past leaders and the history of one's country but the way the author describes the events is simply wrong. On one side you have the brave, honest and civilized Polish soldiers who fight for a righteous cause and on the other you have the weak, drunken and savage Cossacks who rebel against their lawful leader. Even the Aeneid, an epic that was written with the clear intent of glorifying emperor Augustus and the Roman Empire portrayed their enemies not as mindless savages but as brave soldiers that fought and lost. The pagan Romans that Sienkiewicz portrays as immoral and decadent in his 'Quo Vadis' had a more fair and rightful view of their enemies than him.
July 10, 2021
Romanul care mi-a trezit simpatia pentru poporul polonez.
February 8, 2023
5/5 ⭐️
Gdyby parę lat temu ktoś mi powiedział, że tak się wciągnę w „Ogniem i mieczem” to chyba bym nie uwierzyła. Uwielbiam tę historię, tych bohaterów. Świetne to jest. Tylko opisy bitew momentami trochę mi się dłużyły, ale przez to można przelecieć. A audiobook czytany przez Krzysztofa Globisza to mistrzostwo.
Gdyby parę lat temu ktoś mi powiedział, że tak się wciągnę w „Ogniem i mieczem” to chyba bym nie uwierzyła. Uwielbiam tę historię, tych bohaterów. Świetne to jest. Tylko opisy bitew momentami trochę mi się dłużyły, ale przez to można przelecieć. A audiobook czytany przez Krzysztofa Globisza to mistrzostwo.
July 30, 2023
This is the best book I've ever read and I will not hear a single bad word about it.
April 18, 2023
Książka istnie wspaniała, ale nie tak wspaniała jak lesbijskie fanfiction Horpyna x Helena na ao3, gorąco polecam, Sienkiewicz mógłby się od autora dużo nauczyć😩💅
April 30, 2024
4,5/5
Gdyby mi ktoś kilka lat temu powiedział, że jakaś książka Henryka Sienkiewicza trafi do moich ulubieńców, to zabiłabym go śmiechem. Tymczasem.. no cóż, "Ogniem i mieczem" zdecydowanie skradło moje serce! Zakochałam się w Skrzetuskim prawie jak Helena, serio.
To nie jest tak, że ta książka jest idealna. Ma kilka wad (jak chociażby długie opisy bitew, w których czasem się gubiłam), ale patrząc na tę historię całościowo jestem w stanie wybaczyć jej każdą z tych drobnych rys. Samo wykreowanie tych postaci i przedstawienie relacji, jakie między nimi były, zasługuje na ogromne uznanie!
Rozumiem zarzuty, że jest tu trochę z bajki, bo dobrzy zawsze wygrywają i wszystko, mimo przeciwności, układa się zawsze pomyślnie. Patrząc na tę książkę obiektywnie zgadzam się z tym, że nie wszystko, co jest w niej opisane, mogłoby być realne. Mam jednak takie poczucie, że trzeba wziąć pod uwagę, że Sienkiewicz pisał te książki w taki sposób z premedytacją, by dać Polakom choćby jakąś namiastkę nadziei. Wiecie, jak to w szkole mówili - ku pokrzepieniu serc.
Konkluzja jest bardzo prosta: kocham "Ogniem i mieczem".
Gdyby mi ktoś kilka lat temu powiedział, że jakaś książka Henryka Sienkiewicza trafi do moich ulubieńców, to zabiłabym go śmiechem. Tymczasem.. no cóż, "Ogniem i mieczem" zdecydowanie skradło moje serce! Zakochałam się w Skrzetuskim prawie jak Helena, serio.
To nie jest tak, że ta książka jest idealna. Ma kilka wad (jak chociażby długie opisy bitew, w których czasem się gubiłam), ale patrząc na tę historię całościowo jestem w stanie wybaczyć jej każdą z tych drobnych rys. Samo wykreowanie tych postaci i przedstawienie relacji, jakie między nimi były, zasługuje na ogromne uznanie!
Rozumiem zarzuty, że jest tu trochę z bajki, bo dobrzy zawsze wygrywają i wszystko, mimo przeciwności, układa się zawsze pomyślnie. Patrząc na tę książkę obiektywnie zgadzam się z tym, że nie wszystko, co jest w niej opisane, mogłoby być realne. Mam jednak takie poczucie, że trzeba wziąć pod uwagę, że Sienkiewicz pisał te książki w taki sposób z premedytacją, by dać Polakom choćby jakąś namiastkę nadziei. Wiecie, jak to w szkole mówili - ku pokrzepieniu serc.
Konkluzja jest bardzo prosta: kocham "Ogniem i mieczem".
August 16, 2011
The best book, I have read in a long time, if not my life. Honor, duty, fraternal love and all the violence you can imagine. It is like a Cormac McArthy book on steriods (I referring to Blood Meridien here). The violence in the wild west has nothing on the Ukraine. The main difference is that in this retelling of the period, there still existed men with virtue, while McArthy omits virtue from his world. It is just that virtue that makes the biggest difference in life - without it , all is useless and worthless. If I could, I'd give a higher grade as this book exceeds all others, in my humble opinion. I am awaiting the arrival of The Deluge (book 2 of the trilogy).
December 1, 2023
Neįtikėtino gerumo knyga! Herojai, kovos, meilė, draugystė, humoras. Pradėjau popierinę, bet atsitraukti negalėjau nuo audio, įskaitytos Mieczyslowo Voito. Koks balsas! Koks artistiškumas!
Įkliuvus buvau smarkiai, nes klausiau visur ir kur galėdama – ryte prie pusryčių, važiuodama į darbą, iš jo, prieš miegą, darydama valgyti, nes gi toks įtemptas veiksmas! Apie ką? Galima sakyti apie meilę Bogdano Chmielnickio sukilimo metu. Girdėjote apie tokį? Vat ir aš iki knygos tik girdėjau 😊 o skaitydama nuolat googlinau, nes kas tas Vyšnioveckis? O koks ten karalius mirė? O kodėl toks sostą užėmė? O kur tai? O kada? O baigus dar paskaičiau ką lenkų ir ukrainiečių istorikai mąsto apie tą sukilimą. Tai jeigu rimtai – ne visai ten apie meilę. Labiau apie pareigą tėvynei, konkrečiai Abiejų Tautų Respublikai. Dramatiškai ir su patosu. Nes sukilimai – vidiniai karai yra blogai. Ypač blogai yra sukilus pasikviesti į pagalbą beveik priešus. Nes š*kna būna – ir atsitiko. Tad keturi itin skirtingi, likimo suvesti draugai – o Sienkiewicziaus herojai puikūs – žmogiški, spalvingi, karas, labai nedaug moterų, šiek tiek religijos ir humoras. Aišku bele kiek kraujo, lavonų, bado ir purvo, bet nesureikšminant. Na taip, yra meilės trikampis, bet nesakyčiau, kad jis čia knygos variklis.
Itin smagiai skaitėsi „įgarsintos“ laikotarpio (ne romano parašymo, o romano veiksmo) mintys – kaip ukrainiečiai turėtų žinoti „savo vietą“. Lenkų bajorų nepamatuota puikybė – nes gerti ukrainiečio sąskaita tai gi čia garbę jam daryti. Kazokų žiaurumas („ko čia cackiniesi su boba, sugalvojo dar vesti, juk galėjau kazokiškai „pažaisti“, tada akmenį po kaklu ir į upę“), beatodairiškai didvyriškumas, bandant prasiveržti pro apgultį, sąmoningai krikščioniška mirtis (kokia ten scena!!!), riteriškumas, kai sergančio priešo negalima užmušti, reikia palaukti kol pasveiks ir iškviesti į dvikovą ir taip toliau, arba vokiečių samdinių sąmoninga mirtis, nes į kitą pusę jie gali pereiti tik pasibaigus sutarčiai su Respublika, po savaitės, o dabar – ne, nė už ką, nors ir iššaudys juos. Miela.
Ne itin skanių pavadinkim moteriškų detalių, kurios neprarado „aktualumo“ ir šiais laikais – kad moteris karo metu yra prievartos objektas. Kad išprievartaus, išžudys, išsiveš į vergiją. Kai mergina ją lydinčių vyrų prašo neleisti, kad ji gyva pateiktų į totorių nelaisvę. Ir kitas – savotiškesnis, kai mylimasis, galvodamas, kad gal ji buvo išniekinta nusiteikia, kad ji „ras paguodą vienuolyne“, kaip ir jis. Nes tokios jau vesti negalima, taip? Ir kaip kazokai tyčiojosi iš lenkų, kad jų – kazokų – vaikai jau bus šlėktos. Patys suprantate kodėl.
Puikusis lietuvis Podbipienta (na ir pavardė) – drąsus, riteriškas, skaistus, itin padorus, religingas, o dar ir aukštas, stiprus, turtingas, puikiai besirengiantis ir puikių manierų. Tebūnie, mes tokie, užskaitom.
Ar romanas tendencingas? Gal ne. Nes aiškiai rašo apie Respublikos griūties pradžią, apie vidinius nesutarimus, apie neteisingą elgesį, nei vienas herojus ten nėra tiesiog geras, ar tiesiog blogas.
Rekomenduoju, jeigu jums patiko „Aivenhas“ ir „Trys muškietininkai“ (perspėju, moterų ten saikingai). Ar yra lietuviškai? Hmm. Vat ir sužinokit.
Kitas trilogijos dalis (Tvaną ir Poną Wolodijovskį) pasiliksiu kitiems metams. Nes reikia pertraukos. Seniai skaičiau ką nors taip kokybiško. Ok, klausiau, nors turiu ir popierines knygas. Bet tas Voito balsas.....
Ir nežinau kaip pavadinti tą jausmą, kai suprantu, kad prieš gerus trisdešimt metų babytė apgailestavo, kad neskaičiau (tada ir nemokėjau skaityti) lenkiškai, nes "tokios geros knygos". Nieko, skaitau dabar. Ir su kiekviena knyga šiek tiek pabūnu su babyte....
Įkliuvus buvau smarkiai, nes klausiau visur ir kur galėdama – ryte prie pusryčių, važiuodama į darbą, iš jo, prieš miegą, darydama valgyti, nes gi toks įtemptas veiksmas! Apie ką? Galima sakyti apie meilę Bogdano Chmielnickio sukilimo metu. Girdėjote apie tokį? Vat ir aš iki knygos tik girdėjau 😊 o skaitydama nuolat googlinau, nes kas tas Vyšnioveckis? O koks ten karalius mirė? O kodėl toks sostą užėmė? O kur tai? O kada? O baigus dar paskaičiau ką lenkų ir ukrainiečių istorikai mąsto apie tą sukilimą. Tai jeigu rimtai – ne visai ten apie meilę. Labiau apie pareigą tėvynei, konkrečiai Abiejų Tautų Respublikai. Dramatiškai ir su patosu. Nes sukilimai – vidiniai karai yra blogai. Ypač blogai yra sukilus pasikviesti į pagalbą beveik priešus. Nes š*kna būna – ir atsitiko. Tad keturi itin skirtingi, likimo suvesti draugai – o Sienkiewicziaus herojai puikūs – žmogiški, spalvingi, karas, labai nedaug moterų, šiek tiek religijos ir humoras. Aišku bele kiek kraujo, lavonų, bado ir purvo, bet nesureikšminant. Na taip, yra meilės trikampis, bet nesakyčiau, kad jis čia knygos variklis.
Itin smagiai skaitėsi „įgarsintos“ laikotarpio (ne romano parašymo, o romano veiksmo) mintys – kaip ukrainiečiai turėtų žinoti „savo vietą“. Lenkų bajorų nepamatuota puikybė – nes gerti ukrainiečio sąskaita tai gi čia garbę jam daryti. Kazokų žiaurumas („ko čia cackiniesi su boba, sugalvojo dar vesti, juk galėjau kazokiškai „pažaisti“, tada akmenį po kaklu ir į upę“), beatodairiškai didvyriškumas, bandant prasiveržti pro apgultį, sąmoningai krikščioniška mirtis (kokia ten scena!!!), riteriškumas, kai sergančio priešo negalima užmušti, reikia palaukti kol pasveiks ir iškviesti į dvikovą ir taip toliau, arba vokiečių samdinių sąmoninga mirtis, nes į kitą pusę jie gali pereiti tik pasibaigus sutarčiai su Respublika, po savaitės, o dabar – ne, nė už ką, nors ir iššaudys juos. Miela.
Ne itin skanių pavadinkim moteriškų detalių, kurios neprarado „aktualumo“ ir šiais laikais – kad moteris karo metu yra prievartos objektas. Kad išprievartaus, išžudys, išsiveš į vergiją. Kai mergina ją lydinčių vyrų prašo neleisti, kad ji gyva pateiktų į totorių nelaisvę. Ir kitas – savotiškesnis, kai mylimasis, galvodamas, kad gal ji buvo išniekinta nusiteikia, kad ji „ras paguodą vienuolyne“, kaip ir jis. Nes tokios jau vesti negalima, taip? Ir kaip kazokai tyčiojosi iš lenkų, kad jų – kazokų – vaikai jau bus šlėktos. Patys suprantate kodėl.
Puikusis lietuvis Podbipienta (na ir pavardė) – drąsus, riteriškas, skaistus, itin padorus, religingas, o dar ir aukštas, stiprus, turtingas, puikiai besirengiantis ir puikių manierų. Tebūnie, mes tokie, užskaitom.
Ar romanas tendencingas? Gal ne. Nes aiškiai rašo apie Respublikos griūties pradžią, apie vidinius nesutarimus, apie neteisingą elgesį, nei vienas herojus ten nėra tiesiog geras, ar tiesiog blogas.
Rekomenduoju, jeigu jums patiko „Aivenhas“ ir „Trys muškietininkai“ (perspėju, moterų ten saikingai). Ar yra lietuviškai? Hmm. Vat ir sužinokit.
Kitas trilogijos dalis (Tvaną ir Poną Wolodijovskį) pasiliksiu kitiems metams. Nes reikia pertraukos. Seniai skaičiau ką nors taip kokybiško. Ok, klausiau, nors turiu ir popierines knygas. Bet tas Voito balsas.....
Ir nežinau kaip pavadinti tą jausmą, kai suprantu, kad prieš gerus trisdešimt metų babytė apgailestavo, kad neskaičiau (tada ir nemokėjau skaityti) lenkiškai, nes "tokios geros knygos". Nieko, skaitau dabar. Ir su kiekviena knyga šiek tiek pabūnu su babyte....
May 10, 2020
Uważaj komu składasz obietnice, jeżeli to Kozak o diabelskim usposobieniu, możesz marnie skończyć.
Chociaż nie mam już piętnastu lat (bo wtedy zachwycałam się tą książką) i urok tej opowieści lekko się przykurzył, to uczciwie muszę przyznać, że Sienkiewicz wymyślił bardzo przyjemną historię. Losy miłości Heleny Kurcewiczówny i Jana Skrzetuskiego wplótł zgrabnie w wydarzenia powstania Chmielnickiego, doprawił kilkoma charakterystycznymi postaciami i tak właśnie powstała pierwsza część słynnej Trylogii.
Po ponownym przeczytaniu brak wielkich rozczarowań i irytacji. Element pokrzepiający obecny, wiadomo. Bohuna chyba tylko bardziej żal niż kiedyś, bo najbardziej winne całej tej aferze są krętactwa majątkowe opiekunki Kurcewiczówny. Sama Helena mniej mimozowata niż Danuśka czy Nel, ale za to z imponującym porostem włosia (na koniec książki macha już na powrót warkoczami, które jej ucięto). Przyznaję, że bawi mnie dowcip Zagłoby, a i Wołodyjowskiego ciężko nie lubić.
To nie jest książka bez wad, ale z drugiej strony - to się po prostu dobrze czyta. Oczywiście dla tych, którzy nie lubią powieści historycznych to będzie katorga, ale ja się zawsze przy tej książce dobrze bawię.
8/10
Chociaż nie mam już piętnastu lat (bo wtedy zachwycałam się tą książką) i urok tej opowieści lekko się przykurzył, to uczciwie muszę przyznać, że Sienkiewicz wymyślił bardzo przyjemną historię. Losy miłości Heleny Kurcewiczówny i Jana Skrzetuskiego wplótł zgrabnie w wydarzenia powstania Chmielnickiego, doprawił kilkoma charakterystycznymi postaciami i tak właśnie powstała pierwsza część słynnej Trylogii.
Po ponownym przeczytaniu brak wielkich rozczarowań i irytacji. Element pokrzepiający obecny, wiadomo. Bohuna chyba tylko bardziej żal niż kiedyś, bo najbardziej winne całej tej aferze są krętactwa majątkowe opiekunki Kurcewiczówny. Sama Helena mniej mimozowata niż Danuśka czy Nel, ale za to z imponującym porostem włosia (na koniec książki macha już na powrót warkoczami, które jej ucięto). Przyznaję, że bawi mnie dowcip Zagłoby, a i Wołodyjowskiego ciężko nie lubić.
To nie jest książka bez wad, ale z drugiej strony - to się po prostu dobrze czyta. Oczywiście dla tych, którzy nie lubią powieści historycznych to będzie katorga, ale ja się zawsze przy tej książce dobrze bawię.
8/10
Shelved as 'onhold'
January 10, 2020WOOT! Gutenberg has it: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37027
An Historical Novel
OF
POLAND AND RUSSIA.
BY
HENRYK SIENKIKWICZ.
AUTHORIZED AND UNABRIDGED TRANSLATION FROM
THE POLISH BY
JEREMIAH CURTIN.
Dedication:
TO
PROF. JOHN FISKE,
MY CLASSMATE AND FRIEND, MY FELLOW-TRAVELLER IN
BOTH HEMISPHERES, THE LUMINOUS HISTORIAN
OF DECISIVE PERIODS IN AMERICA,
IS DEDICATED THIS VOLUME CONCERNING A MOMENTOUS
CONFLICT IN EUROPE.
Opening: The history of the origin and career of the two Slav States, Poland and Russia, is interesting not merely because it contains a vast number of surprising scenes and marvellous pictures of life, not merely because it gives us a kaleidoscope as it were of the acts of men, but because these acts in all their variety fall into groups which may be referred each to its proper source and origin, and each group contains facts that concern the most serious problems of history and political development.
The history of these two States should be studied as one, or rather as two parts of one history, if we are to discover and grasp the meaning of either part fully. When studied as a whole, this history gives us the life story of the greater portion of the Slav race placed between two hostile forces,--the Germans on the west, the Mongols and Tartars on the east.
An Historical Novel
OF
POLAND AND RUSSIA.
BY
HENRYK SIENKIKWICZ.
AUTHORIZED AND UNABRIDGED TRANSLATION FROM
THE POLISH BY
JEREMIAH CURTIN.
Dedication:
TO
PROF. JOHN FISKE,
MY CLASSMATE AND FRIEND, MY FELLOW-TRAVELLER IN
BOTH HEMISPHERES, THE LUMINOUS HISTORIAN
OF DECISIVE PERIODS IN AMERICA,
IS DEDICATED THIS VOLUME CONCERNING A MOMENTOUS
CONFLICT IN EUROPE.
Opening: The history of the origin and career of the two Slav States, Poland and Russia, is interesting not merely because it contains a vast number of surprising scenes and marvellous pictures of life, not merely because it gives us a kaleidoscope as it were of the acts of men, but because these acts in all their variety fall into groups which may be referred each to its proper source and origin, and each group contains facts that concern the most serious problems of history and political development.
The history of these two States should be studied as one, or rather as two parts of one history, if we are to discover and grasp the meaning of either part fully. When studied as a whole, this history gives us the life story of the greater portion of the Slav race placed between two hostile forces,--the Germans on the west, the Mongols and Tartars on the east.
Shelved as 'abandoned'
July 31, 2016Over the course of 11 days I plowed through 133 pages out of a whopping 1135, and am ready to be done. Had this been a 300-page book I'd have finished and perhaps given a 3-star review. But you have to really enjoy something to want to go 1135 pages, and I wasn't looking forward to picking this up. The comparisons to War and Peace are misplaced: while Tolstoy had excellent character development and insight into human nature, this book's characters are drawn in broad strokes and their emotional reactions cliched; no one in it has sparked any interest in me thus far. It doesn't help that names of places and groups of people that presumably needed no explanation to the original 19th century Polish audience are thrown around to the confusion of this 21st century American. While I did pick up the more modern Kuniczak translation, I suspect this book is much better in the original.
January 31, 2012
This book was amazing! I cannot believe it's not at the top of every Classics in World Lit list. It has it all: epic battles, duels, humor, unspeakable tragedy, triumph of the human spirit, friendship and the endless mercy of God. What a treasure.
June 11, 2017
Bottom Line First
Other reviewers have stressed their inability to put this book down. They correctly argue that With Fire and Sword is at least comparable to Gone with the Wind or Dr. Zhivago. I found it necessary to put the book down but I always found it more necessary to resume reading. Despite the overabundance of historical detail and unnecessary personalities With Fire and Sword is a great novel. I look forward to completing the trilogy.
In 1905 Nobel Prize to for literature went to Henryk Sienkiewicz. If this name is known at all in 2014 it is as the author of the original book behind the movie Quo Vadis. This is a shame. Henryk Sienkiewicz was a Polish novelist of vast knowledge and when he chose to write them, nuanced characters. His trilogy known it to his fellow Poles has The Trilogy begins with the epic With Fire and Sword.
As a historic high romance novel it rates well above the likes of Ivanhoe and the Three Musketeers. As a serious historical novel I place it only slightly below War and Peace- more on this point shortly. Having not yet read books 2 and three of the trilogy it is clear to me that this is a national epic on a scale of importance that would place it comfortably on the shelf with the likes of the Song of Roland and perhaps even Homer's Iliad.
I have always prided myself on my ability to keep track of characters in Russian novels. With Fire and Sword draws on a period of 17 Century Eastern European history during the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth. Specifically this is a fictionalized retelling what is variously described as the Khmelnytsky Uprising or the Zaporizhia Uprising or what was taught to me in Russian history as the Cossack Ukrainian Revolt or the Chmielnicki, Cossack revolt. In this copy Chmielnicki will be called: Bohdan Hmelnitski. This revolt would take place at a time when the Polish Empire was possibly the largest in Europe and while the other, was him and a major loss in Polish standing it is clear that the purpose of this book is to reinforce Polish national pride. Reviewing of the different names for this revolution begins to give you some idea of the challenges of keeping track with events and people.
Early on we are introduced to Lt Michael Skshetuski , here lieutenant means a military leader, as in a senior assistant chosen as much for his military skills as his rank in the local feudal system. His is also called Pan Michael, as Pan is roughly Mr. or Sir. He is a key soldier in the forces of Prince Yeremi Vishnyevetski who is, of the most important of the local Commonwealth political leaders and the most feared military leaders in the Ukraine. Lt SkShetuski will in a matter of pages save the life of future leader of the Zaporizhia rebellion, Bohdan Hmelnitski, fall in love with the Princess Helena Kurcewiczówna and earn the enmity of a future senior commander in Hmelnitski' revolution, Bogun.
Pan Michael will form close association with fellow knights Longinus Podbipyenta, a man on a mission, Pan Zagloba, more of a Falstaff figure than a traditional questing knight , his close friend, fierce swordsman and ladies' man, Michal Volodyovski, who will together from something of a three musketeers of adventurers.
In case you missed it, there is a huge cast of characters and a multitude of titles. I will not try to outline the various Ukrainian, Cossack ranks, the local nobility and the more traditional titles at the level of Poles, Swedes, Moldavians and Lithuanians and Turks. You may get the hang of hetman, ataman, voevoda , starosta among others.
While the love between SkShetuski and Kurcewiczówna is supposed to be the central drama in the flow of personal rather than military events, it will be Zagloba who tends to get the most attention. He is an older man, a fabulous spinner of braggadocio, posturing and excuses for over drinking. He will also be the man who can as occasion requires; devise and execute critical schemes, achieve undeserved greatness in battle and provide most of the humor. Think of him as Falstaff meets Ulysses
This brings me to my criticisms of With Fire and Sword. It is over burdened with details, historical backgrounds and characters. Women especially, come and go often adding little to the main story line. Almost all of the women are either; helpless, hapless or restricted to typical supporting rolls. There is one witch, who has the strength and independence that make her a powerful woman demanding respect, but she is an agent for the bad guys.
This brings me to the nuances of this novel. The reader is expected to take the cause of the Commonwealth. This is a novel by a Polish Writer, seeking to memorialize Polish greatness. Yet the Cossack forces have cause to revolt against the Polish Empire. The local Cossack and Zaporizhia have been robbed by people with better connections due to their national relation to the throne. Hmelnitski has been humiliated and has letters to prove that the Cossacks of the Ukraine can expect some support from the Commonwealth if they t can end the power of the various under-kings,local Polish and Lithuanians and other minor nobility who have been abusing their power. As the rebellion gains momentum, it does so in part on the superior discipline of Hmelnitski's best troops and the genuine desire of the Cossacks to gain their political independence.
In the course of prosecuting this revolution or attempting to put it down, and it local villages and Manor homes will be torched. There will be stories of widespread use of violence including the use of stakes, fire and torture to murder populations. Both sides will overindulge in the spilling of innocent blood. Hmelnitski's most important allies will be the Turks. The taking of plunder and slaves will be the payment to ensure their loyalty.
Other reviewers have stressed their inability to put this book down. They correctly argue that With Fire and Sword is at least comparable to Gone with the Wind or Dr. Zhivago. I found it necessary to put the book down but I always found it more necessary to resume reading. Despite the overabundance of historical detail and unnecessary personalities With Fire and Sword is a great novel. I look forward to completing the trilogy.
In 1905 Nobel Prize to for literature went to Henryk Sienkiewicz. If this name is known at all in 2014 it is as the author of the original book behind the movie Quo Vadis. This is a shame. Henryk Sienkiewicz was a Polish novelist of vast knowledge and when he chose to write them, nuanced characters. His trilogy known it to his fellow Poles has The Trilogy begins with the epic With Fire and Sword.
As a historic high romance novel it rates well above the likes of Ivanhoe and the Three Musketeers. As a serious historical novel I place it only slightly below War and Peace- more on this point shortly. Having not yet read books 2 and three of the trilogy it is clear to me that this is a national epic on a scale of importance that would place it comfortably on the shelf with the likes of the Song of Roland and perhaps even Homer's Iliad.
I have always prided myself on my ability to keep track of characters in Russian novels. With Fire and Sword draws on a period of 17 Century Eastern European history during the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth. Specifically this is a fictionalized retelling what is variously described as the Khmelnytsky Uprising or the Zaporizhia Uprising or what was taught to me in Russian history as the Cossack Ukrainian Revolt or the Chmielnicki, Cossack revolt. In this copy Chmielnicki will be called: Bohdan Hmelnitski. This revolt would take place at a time when the Polish Empire was possibly the largest in Europe and while the other, was him and a major loss in Polish standing it is clear that the purpose of this book is to reinforce Polish national pride. Reviewing of the different names for this revolution begins to give you some idea of the challenges of keeping track with events and people.
Early on we are introduced to Lt Michael Skshetuski , here lieutenant means a military leader, as in a senior assistant chosen as much for his military skills as his rank in the local feudal system. His is also called Pan Michael, as Pan is roughly Mr. or Sir. He is a key soldier in the forces of Prince Yeremi Vishnyevetski who is, of the most important of the local Commonwealth political leaders and the most feared military leaders in the Ukraine. Lt SkShetuski will in a matter of pages save the life of future leader of the Zaporizhia rebellion, Bohdan Hmelnitski, fall in love with the Princess Helena Kurcewiczówna and earn the enmity of a future senior commander in Hmelnitski' revolution, Bogun.
Pan Michael will form close association with fellow knights Longinus Podbipyenta, a man on a mission, Pan Zagloba, more of a Falstaff figure than a traditional questing knight , his close friend, fierce swordsman and ladies' man, Michal Volodyovski, who will together from something of a three musketeers of adventurers.
In case you missed it, there is a huge cast of characters and a multitude of titles. I will not try to outline the various Ukrainian, Cossack ranks, the local nobility and the more traditional titles at the level of Poles, Swedes, Moldavians and Lithuanians and Turks. You may get the hang of hetman, ataman, voevoda , starosta among others.
While the love between SkShetuski and Kurcewiczówna is supposed to be the central drama in the flow of personal rather than military events, it will be Zagloba who tends to get the most attention. He is an older man, a fabulous spinner of braggadocio, posturing and excuses for over drinking. He will also be the man who can as occasion requires; devise and execute critical schemes, achieve undeserved greatness in battle and provide most of the humor. Think of him as Falstaff meets Ulysses
This brings me to my criticisms of With Fire and Sword. It is over burdened with details, historical backgrounds and characters. Women especially, come and go often adding little to the main story line. Almost all of the women are either; helpless, hapless or restricted to typical supporting rolls. There is one witch, who has the strength and independence that make her a powerful woman demanding respect, but she is an agent for the bad guys.
This brings me to the nuances of this novel. The reader is expected to take the cause of the Commonwealth. This is a novel by a Polish Writer, seeking to memorialize Polish greatness. Yet the Cossack forces have cause to revolt against the Polish Empire. The local Cossack and Zaporizhia have been robbed by people with better connections due to their national relation to the throne. Hmelnitski has been humiliated and has letters to prove that the Cossacks of the Ukraine can expect some support from the Commonwealth if they t can end the power of the various under-kings,local Polish and Lithuanians and other minor nobility who have been abusing their power. As the rebellion gains momentum, it does so in part on the superior discipline of Hmelnitski's best troops and the genuine desire of the Cossacks to gain their political independence.
In the course of prosecuting this revolution or attempting to put it down, and it local villages and Manor homes will be torched. There will be stories of widespread use of violence including the use of stakes, fire and torture to murder populations. Both sides will overindulge in the spilling of innocent blood. Hmelnitski's most important allies will be the Turks. The taking of plunder and slaves will be the payment to ensure their loyalty.
Read
August 30, 2024Podtrzymuję stanowisko Miecia, że gdyby Sienkiewicz wpierdzielił tutaj jakiegoś maga to wchodziłaby ta książka nieco lepiej.
November 7, 2022
No i nadszedł ten moment, kiedy stwierdziłam, że pora zmierzyć się z trylogią Sienkiewicza. Jak poszło?
Zgodnie z kolejnością na pierwszy ogień poszło "Ogniem i mieczem". Akcja rozgrywa jest w latach 1648-1654, kiedy to było powstanie Chmielnickiego. W mocnym skrócie polegało to na tym, że miała być wojna Rzeczpospolitej z Turcją, gdzie Kozacy mogli sporo zyskać oraz poprawić swój stan majątkowy, ale koniec końców wojny nie było, więc Kozacy zawiązali siły z Tatarami i tłukli się z polską szlachtą. Oczywiście to bardzo spłaszczona wersja, ale co nieco nakreśla ogólne nastroje.
W tej książce oprócz zawirowań ściśle politycznych jest również miejsce na miłość. Jan Skrzetuski pomógł damom w potrzebie. Jedną z nich była Helena Kurcewiczówna. Mężczyzna zapałał do niej od razu uczuciem, ona zresztą do niego również, a między nimi staje Jurko Bohun, który jest zakochany z Helenie bez wzajemności, ale rości sobie prawa do tej kobiety, bo została mu obiecana.
Ogólnie to jestem zaskoczona tym jak dobrze bawiłam się przy tej książce. Bardzo podobnie jak przy Krzyżakach. Pojawia się wiele scen walk, przepychanek, kwestia honoru, oczywiście musi być ślub rycerski dotyczący ścięcia trzech głów równocześnie i wątek romantyczno-obyczajowy. Czasami zdarzało się, że parskałam śmiechem, a czasami czułam lekkie obrzydzenie. W książce pojawia się więcej scen brutalnych niż przy "Krzyżakach". Jeśli u kogoś budzi dyskomfort czytanie o przykładowo ścinaniu głowy i kopanie nią jak piłką lub rozrywanie kogoś gołymi rękoma przez tłumek ludzi to niech ma świadomość, że coś takiego pojawia się w tej historii. W książce czuć ogólne zamiary autora czyli wzbudzenie takich wzniosłych, patriotycznych uczuć. Porażki są opisywane bardzo lakonicznie oraz z hasłem "następnym razem ich pokonamy", wygrane bitwy są godne pieśni pochwalnych, Kozacy to barbarzyńcy, których widok przyprawia o gęsią skórkę, a walczący Polacy to bohaterowie. Nawet jeśli historycznie nie do końca to ma przełożenie to wiadomo.. ta trylogia miała określony cel i autor trzymał się tego.
Jestem bardzo zadowolona oraz przede wszystkim ciekawa jak wydarzenia zostaną przedstawione w "Potopie" i "Panu Wołodyjowskim".
Zgodnie z kolejnością na pierwszy ogień poszło "Ogniem i mieczem". Akcja rozgrywa jest w latach 1648-1654, kiedy to było powstanie Chmielnickiego. W mocnym skrócie polegało to na tym, że miała być wojna Rzeczpospolitej z Turcją, gdzie Kozacy mogli sporo zyskać oraz poprawić swój stan majątkowy, ale koniec końców wojny nie było, więc Kozacy zawiązali siły z Tatarami i tłukli się z polską szlachtą. Oczywiście to bardzo spłaszczona wersja, ale co nieco nakreśla ogólne nastroje.
W tej książce oprócz zawirowań ściśle politycznych jest również miejsce na miłość. Jan Skrzetuski pomógł damom w potrzebie. Jedną z nich była Helena Kurcewiczówna. Mężczyzna zapałał do niej od razu uczuciem, ona zresztą do niego również, a między nimi staje Jurko Bohun, który jest zakochany z Helenie bez wzajemności, ale rości sobie prawa do tej kobiety, bo została mu obiecana.
Ogólnie to jestem zaskoczona tym jak dobrze bawiłam się przy tej książce. Bardzo podobnie jak przy Krzyżakach. Pojawia się wiele scen walk, przepychanek, kwestia honoru, oczywiście musi być ślub rycerski dotyczący ścięcia trzech głów równocześnie i wątek romantyczno-obyczajowy. Czasami zdarzało się, że parskałam śmiechem, a czasami czułam lekkie obrzydzenie. W książce pojawia się więcej scen brutalnych niż przy "Krzyżakach". Jeśli u kogoś budzi dyskomfort czytanie o przykładowo ścinaniu głowy i kopanie nią jak piłką lub rozrywanie kogoś gołymi rękoma przez tłumek ludzi to niech ma świadomość, że coś takiego pojawia się w tej historii. W książce czuć ogólne zamiary autora czyli wzbudzenie takich wzniosłych, patriotycznych uczuć. Porażki są opisywane bardzo lakonicznie oraz z hasłem "następnym razem ich pokonamy", wygrane bitwy są godne pieśni pochwalnych, Kozacy to barbarzyńcy, których widok przyprawia o gęsią skórkę, a walczący Polacy to bohaterowie. Nawet jeśli historycznie nie do końca to ma przełożenie to wiadomo.. ta trylogia miała określony cel i autor trzymał się tego.
Jestem bardzo zadowolona oraz przede wszystkim ciekawa jak wydarzenia zostaną przedstawione w "Potopie" i "Panu Wołodyjowskim".
April 30, 2022
Aceasta nu a fost o carte pentru mine, clar! De ce spun asta?! Pentru ca desi mi-a placut, trebuie abordata avand in spate un background cultural si istoric ale Poloniei si Ucrainei, pe care eu, recunosc, nu l-am avut.
Am localizat in timp si spatiu conflictul militar si au inceput usor, usor sa mi se contureze personaje remarcabile, indiferent de ce parte s-ar afla.
Secolul al XVII-lea. O rascoala condusa de Bohdan Chmielnicki a cazacilor si zaporojenilor, dar si a taranilor ruteni, aliati cu tatarii condusi de catre Tuhai-bei, toti contra Republicii sleahtice polonezo- lituaniana, avandu-l in frunte pe Printul Jeremi Wisniowecki. Stepa salbatica si stranie a Ucrainei de azi, dintre Nistru si Nipru, pana sus, la mlastinile Lituaniei de azi.
Dupa cum probabil banuiti, mi-au dat de furca toate acestea, pana le-am putut stapani, mai ales diferentele dintre popoare si gradele militare, dar cateva aspecte au "imblanzit" lectura, cele care-l fac pe Sienkiewicz sa se remarce ca unul dintre cei mai buni scriitori de fictiune istorica ai literaturii universale, in opinia mea.
Pe fondul acestui episod istoric important al statelor est-europene specificate mai sus, se individualizeaza povesti ale unor personaje simpatice sau antipatice.
Iubirea dintre porucinicul Jan Skrezutki si cneaghina Helena Kurcewicz, minunata floare de stepa, incomparabila in frumusete, pare a fi motivul pentru care se vor inchega prietenii, se vor evidentia curajul lui Pan Wolodijowski si viclenia jupanului Zagloba, impotriva vestitului si aprigului cazac Bohun. Aceste caractere extrem de bine prezentate, descrise minutios cu trairi si sentimente, mi-au transformat aceasta cronica istorica, aparent plictisitoare, intr-o adevarata placere literara. Cine ar fi crezut?
Scenele de lupta sunt extrem de detaliate si deloc repetitive, sunt prezentate calitatile cavalerilor, fizice si morale, cinstea si respectul, dar si geniul sau momentele de inspiratie ale comandantilor. Sunt descrise extrem de real foametea, frica, sacrificiul si dragostea de patrie, tradarea si ura.
Cartea face parte din Trilogia Poloniei, impreuna cu "Potopul" si "Pan Wolodijowski", dar nu cred ca le voi mai citi in urmatorii zece ani 😬.
I-am oferit nota 4/5 si va recomand cartea doar daca ati citit bine tot ce am scris eu aici si sunteti extrem de pregatiti pentru tot "haosul" ce ar urma...
Mai jos va las cateva citate extrem de reprezentative:
"Cu toţii aveau să-şi năclăiască în
curând mâinile de fraţi în propriile măruntaie."
"De-i mică încăierarea, mică e şi slava; un război mare adună întotdeauna o slavă nepieritoare."
"Priveste ce se intampla in Ucraina! Hei! Pamantul e bogat si bun ca o mama, dar cine e sigur de ziua de maine, cine e fericit? Cine nu e lipsit de credinta si de libertate, cine nu plange si nu ofteaza?"
"Ura se statornicise in inimi si otravea sangele fratilor."
"Razboiul e o mama rea care isi mananca proprii copii, ca Saturn, iar pe cei pe care nu-i infuleca, ii roade cum rod cainii oasele de carne."
Am localizat in timp si spatiu conflictul militar si au inceput usor, usor sa mi se contureze personaje remarcabile, indiferent de ce parte s-ar afla.
Secolul al XVII-lea. O rascoala condusa de Bohdan Chmielnicki a cazacilor si zaporojenilor, dar si a taranilor ruteni, aliati cu tatarii condusi de catre Tuhai-bei, toti contra Republicii sleahtice polonezo- lituaniana, avandu-l in frunte pe Printul Jeremi Wisniowecki. Stepa salbatica si stranie a Ucrainei de azi, dintre Nistru si Nipru, pana sus, la mlastinile Lituaniei de azi.
Dupa cum probabil banuiti, mi-au dat de furca toate acestea, pana le-am putut stapani, mai ales diferentele dintre popoare si gradele militare, dar cateva aspecte au "imblanzit" lectura, cele care-l fac pe Sienkiewicz sa se remarce ca unul dintre cei mai buni scriitori de fictiune istorica ai literaturii universale, in opinia mea.
Pe fondul acestui episod istoric important al statelor est-europene specificate mai sus, se individualizeaza povesti ale unor personaje simpatice sau antipatice.
Iubirea dintre porucinicul Jan Skrezutki si cneaghina Helena Kurcewicz, minunata floare de stepa, incomparabila in frumusete, pare a fi motivul pentru care se vor inchega prietenii, se vor evidentia curajul lui Pan Wolodijowski si viclenia jupanului Zagloba, impotriva vestitului si aprigului cazac Bohun. Aceste caractere extrem de bine prezentate, descrise minutios cu trairi si sentimente, mi-au transformat aceasta cronica istorica, aparent plictisitoare, intr-o adevarata placere literara. Cine ar fi crezut?
Scenele de lupta sunt extrem de detaliate si deloc repetitive, sunt prezentate calitatile cavalerilor, fizice si morale, cinstea si respectul, dar si geniul sau momentele de inspiratie ale comandantilor. Sunt descrise extrem de real foametea, frica, sacrificiul si dragostea de patrie, tradarea si ura.
Cartea face parte din Trilogia Poloniei, impreuna cu "Potopul" si "Pan Wolodijowski", dar nu cred ca le voi mai citi in urmatorii zece ani 😬.
I-am oferit nota 4/5 si va recomand cartea doar daca ati citit bine tot ce am scris eu aici si sunteti extrem de pregatiti pentru tot "haosul" ce ar urma...
Mai jos va las cateva citate extrem de reprezentative:
"Cu toţii aveau să-şi năclăiască în
curând mâinile de fraţi în propriile măruntaie."
"De-i mică încăierarea, mică e şi slava; un război mare adună întotdeauna o slavă nepieritoare."
"Priveste ce se intampla in Ucraina! Hei! Pamantul e bogat si bun ca o mama, dar cine e sigur de ziua de maine, cine e fericit? Cine nu e lipsit de credinta si de libertate, cine nu plange si nu ofteaza?"
"Ura se statornicise in inimi si otravea sangele fratilor."
"Razboiul e o mama rea care isi mananca proprii copii, ca Saturn, iar pe cei pe care nu-i infuleca, ii roade cum rod cainii oasele de carne."
Displaying 1 - 30 of 301 reviews