One of Griboyedov’s closest friends, S.N. Begichev, wrote: “... I know that the plan for this comedy was made by him back in St. Petersburg in 1816, and even several scenes were written; but I don’t know whether in Persia or in Georgia, Griboyedov changed it in many ways and destroyed some characters, and by the way, Famusov’s wife, a sentimental fashionista and a Moscow aristocrat (at that time fake sensitivity was still somewhat in vogue among Moscow ladies), and at the same time the already written scenes were thrown out." A close friend of Griboyedov Bulgarin recalled: "While in Persia in 1821 ., Griboedov dreamed of St. Petersburg, of Moscow, of his friends, relatives, acquaintances, of the theater, which he loved passionately, and of artists. He went to sleep in a kiosk in the garden, and had a dream that presented him with a dear fatherland, with everything that remained dear to his heart in it. He dreamed that among his friends he was talking about the plan for a comedy that he had written, and even reading some passages from it. Having awakened, Griboedov takes a pencil, runs into the garden and that same night draws up the plan for “Woe from Wit” and composes several scenes of the first act.
A letter from Griboyedov, written by him on November 17, 1820 in Tabriz, confirms Bulgarin’s story: “I enter the house, it’s a festive evening; I have never been in this house before. The owner and hostess, Paul and his wife, welcome me to the door. I run through first hall and several others. Everywhere the lighting is crowded, sometimes spacious. There are many faces, one of them seems to be my uncle, others are also familiar; there is a crowd of people, some at dinner, some at conversation; they were sitting in the corner, leaning towards someone, whispering, and yours was next to you. An unusually pleasant feeling, not new, but from memory, flashed through me, I turned and went somewhere else, I was somewhere, you came back from that one; come out to meet me. Your first word: is it A.S., how you have changed? , my cheek flushed, and marvel! It took you a lot of effort, bending down to touch my face, and I, it seems, was always much taller than you. But in a dream, quantities are distorted, and this is all a dream, don’t forget.
Here you have been pestering me for a long time with questions, have I written anything for you? “They forced me to admit that I had long ago recoiled, put aside all writing, had no desire, no mind—you were annoyed. - Give me a promise that you will write. - What do you want? - You know it yourself. - When should it be ready? - In a year, certainly. - I promise. - In a year, take an oath... And I gave it with trepidation. At that moment, a short man, at a close distance from us, but whom I, who had been blind for a long time, had not seen, clearly uttered these words: laziness destroys every talent... And you, turning to the man: look who’s here?.. He raised head, gasped, rushed to my neck with a squeal... strangling me in a friendly manner... Katenin!.. I woke up.
This describes the options for starting to write the comedy "Woe from Wit".
At the beginning of 1823, Griboedov received a long leave and came to Moscow. S. N. Begichev says: “Only two acts were written from his comedy “Woe from Wit”. He read them to me, on the first act I made him some comments, he argued, and it even seemed to me that he did not take them well. The next day I came to him early and found him just getting out of bed: he was sitting undressed in front of the melted stove and throwing his first act into it, one by one. I shouted: “Listen, what are you doing?!” “- he answered, “yesterday you told me the truth, but don’t worry: everything is already ready in my head.” And a week later the first act was already written.”
“I wanted to forget myself again in the same pleasant sleep. I couldn’t. I got up and went out to freshen up. Wonderful sky! Nowhere do the stars shine as brightly as in this boring Persia! The muezzin from the height of the minar in a ringing voice announced the early hour of prayer (after midnight), to him echoed from all the mosques, finally the wind blew stronger, the cold of the night dispelled my unconsciousness, lit the candle in my temple, I sat down to write, and vividly remember my promise made in a dream, it will come true in reality.”
At the end of July 1823, Griboyedov left for Begichev’s estate, where he completed work on the last two acts of “Woe from Wit” and gave the play its final title instead of the original “Woe to Wit.”
In June 1824, Griboyedov, leaving for St. Petersburg, left the manuscript of the comedy with Begichev, but took a copy with him. From St. Petersburg he writes to Begichev: “By the way, I ask you not to read my manuscript to anyone and to consign it to the fire if you decide: it is so imperfect, so unclean; imagine that more than eighty verses, or better to say, the rhymes have changed, now smoothly, like glass. In addition, on the way, it occurred to me to attach a new ending; I inserted it between Chatsky’s scene, when he saw his villain with a candle above the stairs, and before he denounced her, the living, fast thing, the poems rained down with sparks; , on the very day of my arrival, and in this form I read it to Krylov, Zhandre, Khmelnitsky, Shakhovsky, Grech and Bulgarin, Kolosova, Karatygin..." - but this manuscript survived and is kept in the Department of Written Sources of the State Historical Museum in Moscow.
One of Griboyedov’s friends, A. A. Gendre, talks about the further fate of the manuscript: “When Griboedov arrived in St. Petersburg and remade his comedy in his mind, he wrote such terrible brouillons* that it was impossible to figure it out. Seeing that the most brilliant creation was almost dying , I asked him for his half-sheets. He gave them with complete carelessness. I had a whole office at hand; she copied “Woe from Wit” and got rich, because they demanded a lot of copies, corrected by Griboedov himself. ".
Griboyedov hoped to get his comedy into print and onto the stage, but by mid-October he began to encourage the distribution of handwritten copies, of which, according to researchers, there were about 40 thousand, since these hopes were not realized
The usual circulation of books at that time was 1200 and 2400 copies - the enormous popularity of "Woe from Wit" was caused by its political and socio-philosophical topicality: having arrived in January 1825 to the exiled Pushkin in Mikhailovskoye for just one day, Pushchin brought with him a list of " "Fire from Mind" to read a comedy to a disgraced friend.
P. A. Katenin, a close friend of the author, expressed a number of critical comments in a letter to him. Only Griboedov’s answer, written in January 1825, has survived: “You find the main flaw in the plan: it seems to me that it is simple and clear in purpose and execution; the girl herself is not stupid, prefers a fool to an intelligent man (not because we sinners have intelligence ordinary, no! and in my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person); and this person, of course, is in conflict with the society around him, no one understands him, no one wants to forgive him, why is he a little taller than others, at first he is cheerful, and that’s it. vice: “To joke and joke forever, how will you like it!” Slightly goes over the oddities of former acquaintances, what can you do if there is no noblest noticeable feature in them? ! snake!”, and then, when a person intervenes, “ours have been affected,” he anathematizes: “I’m glad to humiliate, to prick, I’m envious! proud and angry!" Does not tolerate meanness: "ah! My God, he is a Carbonari." Someone out of anger made up the idea that he was crazy, no one believed it, and everyone repeated it, the voice of general hostility reaches him, and, moreover, the dislike of the girl for whom he only appeared in Moscow, he completely explains, he didn’t give a damn to her and everyone was like that. The Queen was also disappointed about her sugar medovich. “The scenes are connected arbitrarily.” : the more sudden it is, the more it lures me into curiosity. I write for people like me, and when I guess the tenth scene from the first scene, I gape and run out of the theater. “Yes, the characters are portraits, too!” at least more sincere than him; portraits and only portraits are part of comedy and tragedy, however, they contain features characteristic of many other persons, and others of the entire human race, as much as each person resembles his two-legged fellows. You won’t find a single one of my paintings. Here is my poetics; You are free to enlighten me, and if you come up with something better, I will take it from you with gratitude. In general, I have not hidden from anyone and how many times I repeat (witnessed by Gendre, Shakhovsky, Grech, Bulgarin, etc., etc.) that I owe you the maturity, volume and even originality of my talent, if I have it. I’ll add one thing about Moliere’s characters: The tradesman in the nobility, The imaginary patient - portraits, and excellent ones; The miser is an anthropos of his own factory, and is intolerable.
"There is more talent than art." The most flattering praise you could give me, I don’t know if I’m worth it? Art consists only in imitating talent, and in someone who has a more mature, acquired by sweat and sitting, art of pleasing theorists, that is, doing stupid things, in whom, I say, there is more ability to satisfy school requirements, conditions, habits, grandmother's legends rather than your own creative power - if you are an artist, break your palette and throw your brush, chisel or pen out of the window; I know that every craft has its tricks, but the fewer of them, the more contentious the matter, and isn’t it better without tricks at all? nugae difficilis. I both live and write freely and freely.”
In the almanac "Russian Waist" came out of print on December 15, 1824 with censorship cuts and corrections 7-10 of the first act and the third act.
Even in such an abbreviated form, the play caused a storm of emotions among critics, who were immediately divided into two camps, for and against the play.
In 1825, the first attempt was made to stage a comedy on the educational stage of a theater school in St. Petersburg. The famous actor P. A. Karatygin recalled this: “Grigoriev and I suggested that Alexander Sergeevich perform “Woe from Wit” at our school theater, and he was delighted with our proposal... we quickly set to work; in a few days we painted roles, they were learned within a week, and things went well. Griboyedov himself came to our rehearsals and taught us very diligently... You should have seen with what simple-minded pleasure he rubbed his hands when he saw his “Woe from Wit” on ours. children's theater... He brought A. Bestuzhev and Wilhelm Kuchelbecker with him to one of the rehearsals - and they also praised us... Finally, the comedy was already completely prepared, the performance was scheduled for the next day... but, alas, that’s it! our worries and hopes burst like a soap bubble! On the eve of the performance itself, at the very last rehearsal, Inspector Bok comes to us and announces to us the formidable firman of Count Miloradovich (who then had the main command over the imperial theaters and to whom someone reported about our undertakings) “So that we should not dare to be so liberal and that a play not approved by the censors should not be allowed to be played at a theater school.” This is how this attempt ended.
Before his last departure from St. Petersburg in 1828, Griboedov made the inscription on the Bulgarin copy of “Woe from Wit”: “I entrust my grief to Bulgarin...”, in the hope that he would be able to get the comedy into print. But the first separate edition of “Woe from Wit” appeared after the death of Griboyedov, in 1833, and the complete edition, not distorted by censorship, was published only in 1862.
“Griboyedov is a man of one book,” noted V.F. Khodasevich. “If it weren’t for Woe from Wit, Griboyedov would have no place at all in Russian literature.”
Creative history The comedy, which the playwright has been working on for several years, is extremely complex. The idea of a “stage poem,” as Griboyedov himself defined the genre of the planned work, arose in the second half of the 1810s. - in 1816 (according to S.N. Begichev) or in 1818-1819. (according to the memoirs of D.O. Bebutov). The writer, apparently, began working on the text of the comedy only in the early 1820s. The first two acts of the original edition of “Woe from Wit” were written in 1822 in Tiflis. Work on them continued in Moscow, where Griboyedov arrived during his vacation, until the spring of 1823. Fresh Moscow impressions made it possible to develop many scenes that were barely outlined in Tiflis. It was then that Chatsky’s famous monologue “Who are the judges?” was written. The third and fourth acts of the original edition of “Woe from Wit” were created in the summer of 1823 on the Tula estate of S.N. Begichev. However, Griboedov did not consider the comedy complete. In the course of further work (late 1823 - early 1824), not only the text changed - the surname of the main character changed somewhat: he became Chatsky (previously his surname was Chadsky), the comedy, called "Woe to Wit", received its final name.
In June 1824, having arrived in St. Petersburg, Griboyedov made significant stylistic changes to the original edition, changed part of the first act (Sofia’s dream, dialogue between Sofia and Lisa, Chatsky’s monologue), and in the final act a scene of Molchalin’s conversation with Lisa appeared. The final edition was completed in the fall of 1824. After this, hoping for the publication of the comedy, Griboyedov encouraged the appearance and distribution of its lists. The most authoritative of them are the Zhandrovsky list, “corrected by the hand of Griboedov himself” (belonged to A.A. Zhandre), and the Bulgarinsky copy, a carefully corrected clerk’s copy of the comedy, left by Griboedov to F.V. Bulgarin in 1828 before leaving St. Petersburg. On the title page of this list, the playwright made the inscription: “I entrust my grief to Bulgarin...”. He hoped that an enterprising and influential journalist would be able to get the play published.
Already in the summer of 1824, Griboyedov tried to publish a comedy. Excerpts from the first and third acts first appeared in the anthology “Russian Waist” in December 1824, and the text was “softened” and shortened by censorship. “Inconvenient” for printing, too harsh statements of the characters were replaced by faceless and “harmless” ones. Thus, instead of the author’s “To the Scientific Committee”, “Among the Scientists Who Settled” was printed, Molchalin’s “programmatic” remark “After all, one must depend on others” was replaced with the words “After all, one must keep others in mind.” The censors did not like the mentions of the “royal person” and the “reigns”. The publication of excerpts from the comedy, well known from handwritten copies, evoked many responses in the literary community. “His handwritten comedy: “Woe from Wit,” recalled Pushkin, “produced an indescribable effect and suddenly placed him alongside our first poets.”
The full text of “Woe from Wit” was never published during the author’s lifetime. The first edition of the comedy appeared translated into German in Reval in 1831. The Russian edition, with censored corrections and cuts, was published in Moscow in 1833. Two uncensored editions of the 1830s are also known. (printed in regimental printing houses). For the first time, the entire play was published in Russia only in 1862. The scientific publication of “Woe from Wit” was carried out in 1913 by the famous researcher N.K. Piksanov in the second volume of the academic Complete Works of Griboyedov.
The fate of theatrical productions of comedy turned out to be no less difficult. For a long time, theater censorship did not allow it to be staged in full. Back in 1825, the first attempt to stage “Woe from Wit” on the stage of a theater school in St. Petersburg ended in failure: the play was banned because the play was not approved by the censor. The comedy first appeared on stage in 1827, in Erivan, performed by amateur actors - officers of the Caucasian Corps (the author was present at the performance). Only in 1831, with numerous censored notes, “Woe from Wit” was staged in St. Petersburg and Moscow. Censorship restrictions on theatrical productions of comedy ceased to apply only in the 1860s.
Story critical interpretations The play reflects the complexity and depth of its social and philosophical issues, indicated in the very title of the comedy: “Woe from Wit.” Problems of intelligence and stupidity, insanity and insanity, tomfoolery and buffoonery, pretense and hypocrisy posed and solved by Griboyedov on a variety of everyday, social and psychological material. Essentially, all the characters in the comedy, including minor, episodic and off-stage ones, are drawn into a discussion of questions about the relationship to the mind and various forms of stupidity and madness. The main figure around whom all the diversity of opinions about comedy was immediately concentrated was the smart “madman” Chatsky. The overall assessment of the author’s intention, issues and artistic features comedies.
Let's look at just some of the most notable critical judgments and assessments.
From the very beginning, approval of the comedy was by no means unanimous. Conservatives accused Griboedov of exaggerating his satirical colors, which, in their opinion, was a consequence of the author’s “brawling patriotism,” and in Chatsky they saw a clever “madman,” the embodiment of the “Figaro-Griboyedov” philosophy of life. Some contemporaries who were very friendly towards Griboyedov noted many errors in “Woe from Wit”. For example, a longtime friend and co-author of the playwright P.A. Katenin, in one of his private letters, gave the following assessment of the comedy: “It’s like a chamber of intelligence, but the plan, in my opinion, is insufficient, and the main character is confused and knocked down (manque); The style is often charming, but the writer is too pleased with his liberties.” According to the critic, annoyed by the deviations from the rules of classical drama, including the replacement of “good Alexandrian verses” usual for “high” comedy with free iambic, Griboyedov’s “phantasmagoria is not theatrical: good actors will not take these roles, but bad ones will ruin them.”
A remarkable auto-commentary to “Woe from Wit” was written in January 1825 by Griboyedov’s response to the critical judgments expressed by Katenin. This is not only an energetic “anti-criticism”, representing the author’s view of comedy (this must be taken into account when analyzing the play), but also aesthetic manifesto of an innovative playwright, refusing “to please the theorists, i.e. do stupid things,” “satisfy school requirements, conditions, habits, grandmother’s legends.”
In response to Katenin’s remark about the imperfection of the “plan” of the comedy, that is, its plot and composition, Griboyedov wrote: “You find the main error in the plan: it seems to me that it is simple and clear in purpose and execution; the girl herself is not stupid, she prefers a fool to an intelligent person (not because our sinners have an ordinary mind, no! and in my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person); and this person, of course, is in contradiction with the society around him, no one understands him, no one wants to forgive him, why is he a little higher than others... “The scenes are connected arbitrarily.” Just as in the nature of all events, small and important: the more sudden, the more it attracts curiosity.”
The playwright explained the meaning of Chatsky’s behavior as follows: “Someone, out of anger, invented about him that he was crazy, no one believed it, and everyone repeated it, the voice of general hostility reaches him, and, moreover, the dislike of the girl for whom he only appeared to Moscow, it is completely explained to him, he didn’t give a damn to her and everyone and was like that. The queen is also disappointed about her honey sugar. What could be more complete than this?
Griboyedov defends his principles of depicting heroes. He accepts Katenin’s remark that “the characters are portraits,” but considers this not an error, but the main advantage of his comedy. From his point of view, satirical images-caricatures that distort the real proportions in the appearance of people are unacceptable. "Yes! and if I do not have the talent of Moliere, then at least I am more sincere than him; Portraits and only portraits are part of comedy and tragedy; however, they contain features that are characteristic of many other persons, and others that are characteristic of the entire human race, to the extent that each person is similar to all his two-legged fellows. I hate caricatures; you won’t find one in my painting. Here is my poetics...”
Finally, Griboedov considered Katenin’s words that his comedy contained “more talent than art” as the most “flattering praise” for himself. “Art consists only of imitating talent...” noted the author of “Woe from Wit.” “As I live, I write freely and freely.”
Pushkin also expressed his opinion about the play (the list of “Woe from Wit” was brought to Mikhailovskoye by I.I. Pushchin). In letters to P.A. Vyazemsky and A.A. Bestuzhev, written in January 1825, he noted that the playwright was most successful in “characters and a sharp picture of morals.” In their depiction, according to Pushkin, Griboyedov’s “comic genius” manifested itself. The poet was critical of Chatsky. In his interpretation, this is an ordinary hero-reasoner, expressing the opinions of the only “intelligent character” - the author himself: “... What is Chatsky? An ardent, noble and kind fellow, who spent some time with a very smart man (namely Griboedov) and was imbued with his thoughts, witticisms and satirical remarks. Everything he says is very smart. But to whom is he telling all this? Famusov? Skalozub? At the ball for Moscow grandmothers? Molchalin? This is unforgivable. First sign smart person— to know at first glance who you are dealing with, and not to throw pearls in front of Repetilov and the like.” Pushkin very accurately noticed the contradictory, inconsistent nature of Chatsky’s behavior, the tragicomic nature of his position.
At the beginning of 1840, V.G. Belinsky, in an article about “Woe from Wit,” as decisively as Pushkin, denied Chatsky practical intelligence, calling him “the new Don Quixote.” According to the critic, the main character of the comedy is a completely ridiculous figure, a naive dreamer, “a boy on a stick on horseback who imagines that he is sitting on a horse.” However, Belinsky soon corrected his negative assessment of Chatsky and comedy in general, emphasizing in a private letter that “Woe from Wit” is “a most noble, humanistic work, an energetic (and still the first) protest against the vile racial reality.” It is characteristic that the previous condemnation “from an artistic point of view” was not canceled, but only replaced by a completely different approach: the critic did not consider it necessary to understand the real complexity of Chatsky’s image, but assessed the comedy from the standpoint of the social and moral significance of his protest.
Critics and publicists of the 1860s went even further from the author's interpretation of Chatsky. For example, A.I. Herzen saw in Chatsky the embodiment of the “ultimate thoughts” of Griboyedov himself, interpreting the hero of the comedy as a political allegory. “... This is a Decembrist, this is a man who ends the era of Peter I and is trying to discern, at least on the horizon, the promised land...” And for the critic A.A. Grigoriev, Chatsky is “our only hero, that is, the only one who is positively fighting in the environment where fate and passion threw him,” which is why the whole play turned into his critical interpretation from “high” comedy to “high” tragedy (see article “Concerning the new edition of an old thing. “Woe from Wit.” St. Petersburg, 1862”). In these judgments, Chatsky’s appearance is rethought, interpreted not only in an extremely general way, but also one-sidedly.
I. A. Goncharov responded to the production of “Woe from Wit” at the Alexandrinsky Theater (1871) with a critical sketch “A Million Torments” (published in the journal “Bulletin of Europe”, 1872, No. 3). This is one of the most insightful analyzes of comedy. Goncharov gave deep characteristics of individual characters, appreciated the skill of Griboyedov the playwright, and wrote about the special position of “Woe from Wit” in Russian literature. But perhaps the most important advantage of Goncharov’s sketch is careful attitude to the author's concept embodied in comedy. The writer abandoned the one-sided sociological and ideological interpretation of the play, carefully examining the psychological motivation for the behavior of Chatsky and other characters. “Every step of Chatsky, almost every word in the play is closely connected with the play of his feelings for Sophia, irritated by some lie in her actions, which he struggles to unravel until the very end,” Goncharov emphasized, in particular. Indeed, without taking into account the love affair (its importance was noted by Griboyedov himself in a letter to Katenin), it is impossible to understand the “woe from the mind” of a rejected lover and a lonely lover of truth, the simultaneously tragic and comic nature of Chatsky’s image.
The main feature of comedy is interaction of two plot-shaping conflicts: a love conflict, the main participants of which are Chatsky and Sofia, and a socio-ideological conflict, in which Chatsky faces conservatives gathered in Famusov’s house. From the point of view of problems, the conflict between Chatsky and Famusov’s society is in the foreground, but in the development of the plot action the traditional love conflict is no less important: after all, it was precisely for the sake of meeting with Sofia that Chatsky was in such a hurry to Moscow. Both conflicts - love and socio-ideological - complement and strengthen each other. They are equally necessary in order to understand the worldview, characters, psychology and relationships of the characters.
In the two storylines of “Woe from Wit” all the elements of the classical plot are easily revealed: exposition - all the scenes of the first act preceding Chatsky’s appearance in Famusov’s house (phenomena 1-5); the beginning of a love conflict and, accordingly, the beginning of the action of the first, love plot - the arrival of Chatsky and his first conversation with Sofia (D. I, Rev. 7). The socio-ideological conflict (Chatsky - Famusov’s society) is outlined a little later - during the first conversation between Chatsky and Famusov (d. I, ep. 9).
Both conflicts are developing in parallel. Stages of development of a love conflict - dialogues between Chatsky and Sofia. The hero is persistent in his attempts to call Sofia to openness and find out why she became so cold towards him and who her chosen one is. Chatsky’s conflict with Famusov’s society includes a number of private conflicts: Chatsky’s verbal “duels” with Famusov, Skalozub, Silent and other representatives of Moscow society. Private conflicts in “Woe from Wit” literally throw a lot of minor characters, force them to reveal their position in life in remarks or actions. Griboyedov creates not only a broad “picture of morals”, but also shows the psychology and life principles of people literally surrounding Chatsky from all sides.
The pace of action in the comedy is lightning fast. Many events that form fascinating everyday “micro-plots” take place before readers and viewers. What happens on stage causes laughter and at the same time makes you think about the contradictions of the society of that time, and about universal human problems. The development of the action is somewhat slowed down by the lengthy, but extremely important monologues-“programs” of Chatsky and other characters (Famusov, Molchalin, Repetilov): they not only aggravate the ideological conflict, but are also an important means of social, moral and psychological characterization of the warring parties.
The climax of “Woe from Wit” is an example of Griboedov’s remarkable dramatic skill. At the heart of the culmination of the socio-ideological plot (society declares Chatsky crazy; d. III, appearances 14-21) is a rumor, the reason for which was given by Sofia with her remark “to the side”: “He is out of his mind.” The annoyed Sofia dropped this remark by chance, meaning that Chatsky had “gone crazy” with love and had become simply unbearable for her. The author uses a technique based on the play of meanings: Sofia’s emotional outburst was heard by the social gossip Mr. N. and understood it literally. Sofia decided to take advantage of this misunderstanding to take revenge on Chatsky for his ridicule of Molchalin. Having become the source of gossip about Chatsky’s madness, the heroine “burned the bridges” between herself and her former lover.
Thus, the culmination of the love plot motivates the culmination of the socio-ideological plot. Thanks to this, both are externally independent storylines the plays intersect at a common climax - a lengthy scene, the result of which is the recognition of Chatsky as crazy. It should, however, be emphasized that just as the arrival of the lover Chatsky gave rise to fundamental disputes between him, representing the “present century,” and those who stubbornly cling to the life values of the “past century,” so Sofia’s annoyance and anger at the “madman” the lover led society to a complete ideological separation from Chatsky and everything new in public life that stands behind him. In fact, any dissent, the reluctance of Chatsky and his like-minded people outside the stage to live as “public opinion” prescribed, was declared “madness.”
After the climax, the storylines diverge again. The denouement of a love affair precedes the denouement of a socio-ideological conflict. The night scene in Famusov's house (d. IV, appearances 12-13), in which Molchalin and Liza, as well as Sofia and Chatsky participate, finally explains the position of the heroes, making the secret obvious. Sofia becomes convinced of Molchalin’s hypocrisy, and Chatsky finds out who his rival was:
Here is the solution to the riddle at last!
Here I am donated to!
The denouement of the storyline, based on Chatsky’s conflict with Famus society, is Chatsky’s last monologue, directed against the “crowd of persecutors.” Chatsky declares his final break with Sofia, and with Famusov, and with the entire Moscow society (d. IV, iv. 14): “Get out of Moscow! I don’t go here anymore.”
IN character system Comedy Chatsky, connecting both storylines, occupies a central place. Let us emphasize, however, that for the hero himself the paramount importance is not the socio-ideological conflict, but the love conflict. Chatsky understands perfectly well what kind of society he has found himself in; he has no illusions about Famusov and “all the Moscow people.” The reason for Chatsky’s stormy accusatory eloquence is not political or educational, but psychological. The source of his passionate monologues and well-aimed caustic remarks is love experiences, “impatience of the heart,” which is felt from the first to the last scene with his participation. Of course, sincere, emotional, open Chatsky cannot help but come into conflict with people alien to him. He is unable to hide his assessments and feelings, especially if he is openly provoked by Famusov, Molchalin, and Skalozub, but it is important to remember that it is love that opens all the “floodgates,” making the flow of Chatsky’s eloquence literally unstoppable.
Chatsky came to Moscow with the sole purpose of seeing Sofia, finding confirmation of his former love and, probably, getting married. He is driven by the ardor of love. Chatsky’s animation and “talkativeness” are initially caused by the joy of meeting with his beloved, but, contrary to expectations, Sofia greets him very coldly: the hero seems to come across a blank wall of alienation and poorly hidden annoyance. The former lover, whom Chatsky recalls with touching tenderness, has completely changed towards him. With the help of the usual jokes and epigrams, he tries to find a common language with her, “sorts out” his Moscow acquaintances, but his witticisms only irritate Sofia - she responds to him with barbs. The strange behavior of his beloved arouses Chatsky’s jealous suspicions: “Is there really some kind of groom here?”
The actions and words of Chatsky, who is smart and sensitive to people, seem inconsistent and illogical: his mind is clearly not in harmony with his heart. Realizing that Sofia does not love him, he does not want to come to terms with this and undertakes a real “siege” of his beloved who has lost interest in him. A feeling of love and a desire to find out who has become Sofia’s new chosen one keeps him in Famusov’s house: “I’ll wait for her and force a confession: / Who is finally dear to her? Molchalin! Skalozub!
He pesters Sofia, trying to provoke her into frankness, asking her tactless questions: “Is it possible for me to find out / ... Who do you love? "
The night scene in Famusov’s house revealed the whole truth to Chatsky, who had seen the light. But now he goes to the other extreme: he cannot forgive Sophia for his love blindness, he reproaches her for having “lured him with hope.” The outcome of the love conflict did not cool Chatsky's ardor. Instead of love passion, the hero was possessed by others strong feelings- rage and anger. In the heat of rage, he shifts responsibility for his "labour's fruitless" to others. Chatsky was offended not only by the “betrayal,” but also by the fact that Sofia preferred him to the insignificant Molchalin, whom he so despised (“When I think about who you preferred!”). He proudly declares his “breakup” with her and thinks that he has now “sobered up... completely,” intending at the same time to “pour out all the bile and all the frustration on the whole world.”
It is interesting to trace how love experiences exacerbate Chatsky’s ideological confrontation with Famus’s society. At first, Chatsky calmly treats Moscow society, almost does not notice its usual vices, sees only the comic sides in it: “I am an eccentric of another miracle / Once I laugh, then I forget...”.
But when Chatsky becomes convinced that Sofia does not love him, everything in Moscow begins to irritate him. Replies and monologues become impudent, sarcastic - he angrily denounces what he previously laughed at without malice.
In his monologues, Chatsky touches on pressing problems of the modern era: the question of what real service is, problems of enlightenment and education, serfdom, national identity. But, being in an excited state, the hero, as I.A. Goncharov subtly noted, “falls into exaggeration, almost into drunkenness of speech... He also falls into patriotic pathos, reaching the point that he finds the tailcoat contrary to “reason and the elements” , is angry that madame and madame moiselle... have not been translated into Russian...".
Behind the impulsive, nervous verbal shell of Chatsky’s monologues lie serious, hard-won convictions. Chatsky is a person with an established worldview, a system life values and morality. The highest criterion for assessing a person for him is “a mind hungry for knowledge”, the desire “for creative, high and beautiful arts.” Chatsky’s idea of service—Famusov, Skalozub, and Molchalin literally force him to talk about it—is connected with his ideal of a “free life.” One of its most important aspects is freedom of choice: after all, according to the hero, every person should have the right to serve or refuse to serve. Chatsky himself, according to Famusov, “does not serve, that is, he does not find any benefit in it,” but he has clear ideas about what service should be. According to Chatsky, one should serve “the cause, not the persons,” and not confuse personal, selfish interest and “fun” with “business.” In addition, he associates service with people’s ideas about honor and dignity, therefore, in a conversation with Famusov, he deliberately emphasizes the difference between the words “serve” and “serve”: “I would be glad to serve, but it is sickening to be served.”
His philosophy of life puts him outside the society gathered in Famusov’s house. Chatsky is a person who does not recognize authorities and does not share generally accepted opinions. Above all, he values his independence, causing horror among his ideological opponents, who see the ghost of a revolutionary, a “Carbonari.” “He wants to preach freedom!” - exclaims Famusov. From the point of view of the conservative majority, Chatsky’s behavior is atypical, and therefore reprehensible, because he does not serve, travels, “knows the ministers,” but does not use his connections, does not make a career. It is no coincidence that Famusov, the ideological mentor of all those gathered in his house, the trendsetter of ideological “fashion,” demands that Chatsky live “like everyone else,” as is customary in society: “I would say, firstly: don’t be a whim, / In honor, brother, Don’t mismanage, / And most importantly, come and serve.”
Although Chatsky rejects generally accepted ideas about morality and public duty, one can hardly consider him a revolutionary, radical, or even a “Decembrist”: there is nothing revolutionary in Chatsky’s statements. Chatsky is an enlightened person who proposes that society return to simple and clear ideals of life, to cleanse from extraneous layers something that is talked about a lot in Famus society, but about which, in Chatsky’s opinion, they do not have a correct understanding - service. It is necessary to distinguish between the objective meaning of the hero’s very moderate educational judgments and the effect they produce in a conservative society. The slightest dissent is regarded here not only as a denial of the usual ideals and way of life, sanctified by the “fathers” and “elders,” but also as a threat of a social revolution: after all, Chatsky, according to Famusov, “does not recognize the authorities.” Against the backdrop of the inert and unshakably conservative majority, Chatsky gives the impression of a lone hero, a brave “madman” who rushed to storm a powerful stronghold, although among freethinkers his statements would not shock anyone with their radicalism.
Sofia- Chatsky’s main plot partner - occupies a special place in the system of characters in “Woe from Wit”. The love conflict with Sofia involved the hero in a conflict with the entire society and served, according to Goncharov, as “a motive, a reason for irritation, for that “millions of torments”, under the influence of which he could only play the role indicated to him by Griboyedov.” Sofia does not take Chatsky’s side, but she does not belong to Famusov’s like-minded people, although she lived and was raised in his house. She is a closed, secretive person and difficult to approach. Even her father is a little afraid of her.
Sofia’s character has qualities that sharply distinguish her from the people of Famus’s circle. This is, first of all, independence of judgment, which is expressed in its disdainful attitude towards gossip and rumors (“What do I hear? Whoever wants, judges that way...”). Nevertheless, Sofia knows the “laws” of Famus society and is not averse to using them. For example, she cleverly uses “public opinion” to take revenge on her former lover.
Sofia’s character has not only positive, but also negative traits. “A mixture of good instincts with lies” was seen by Goncharov in her. Willfulness, stubbornness, capriciousness, complemented by vague ideas about morality, make her equally capable of good and bad deeds. After all, by slandering Chatsky, Sofia acted immorally, although she remained, the only one among those gathered, convinced that Chatsky was a completely “normal” person. He finally became disillusioned with Sophia precisely when he learned that he owed her “this fiction.”
Sofia is smart, observant, rational in her actions, but her love for Molchalin, at the same time selfish and reckless, puts her in an absurd, comical position. In a conversation with Chatsky, Sofia extols Molchalin’s spiritual qualities to the skies, but is so blinded by her feelings that she does not notice “how the portrait turns out vulgar” (Goncharov). Her praises to Molchalin (“He plays all day long!”, “He’s silent when he’s scolded!”) have the completely opposite effect: Chatsky refuses to understand everything Sofia says literally and comes to the conclusion that “she doesn’t respect him.” Sofia exaggerates the danger that threatened Molchalin when he fell from a horse - and an insignificant event grows in her eyes to the size of a tragedy, forcing her to recite:
Molchalin! How my sanity remained intact!
You know how dear your life is to me!
Why should she play, and so carelessly?
(D. II, Rev. 11).
Sofia, a lover of French novels, is very sentimental. Probably, like Pushkin’s heroines from Eugene Onegin, she dreams of “Grandison”, but instead of the “guard sergeant” she finds another “example of perfection” - the embodiment of “moderation and accuracy”. Sofia idealizes Molchalin, without even trying to find out what he really is, without noticing his “vulgarity” and pretense. “God brought us together” - this “romantic” formula exhausts the meaning of Sofia’s love for Molchalin. He managed to please her, first of all, by the fact that he behaves like a living illustration of a novel he has just read: “He will take your hand, press it to your heart, / He will sigh from the depths of your soul...”.
Sofia's attitude towards Chatsky is completely different: after all, she does not love him, therefore she does not want to listen, does not strive to understand, and avoids explanations. Sofia is unfair to him, considering him callous and heartless (“Not a man, a snake!”), attributing to him an evil desire to “humiliate” and “prick” everyone, and does not even try to hide her indifference to him: “What do you need me for?” In her relationship with Chatsky, the heroine is just as “blind” and “deaf” as in her relationship with Molchalin: her idea of her former lover is far from reality.
Sofia, the main culprit of Chatsky’s mental torment, herself evokes sympathy. Sincere and passionate in her own way, she completely surrenders to love, not noticing that Molchalin is a hypocrite. Even the oblivion of decency (nightly dates, the inability to hide her love from others) is evidence of the strength of her feelings. Love for her father’s “rootless” secretary takes Sofia beyond Famus’s circle, because she deliberately risks her reputation. For all its bookishness and obvious comedy, this love is a kind of challenge to the heroine and her father, who is preoccupied with finding her a rich careerist groom, and to society, which only excuses open, uncamouflaged debauchery. The height of feelings, not typical of Famusovites, makes her internally free. She is so happy with her love that she is afraid of exposure and possible punishment: “Happy people don’t watch the clock.” It is no coincidence that Goncharov compared Sofia with Pushkin’s Tatyana: “... She, in her love, is just as ready to give herself away as Tatyana: both, as if sleepwalking, wander in infatuation with childish simplicity. And Sofia, like Tatyana, begins an affair themselves, not finding anything reprehensible in it.”
Sofia has a strong character and developed sense self-esteem. She is self-loving, proud, and knows how to inspire self-respect. At the end of the comedy, the heroine begins to see clearly, realizing that she was unfair to Chatsky and loved a man unworthy of her love. Love gives way to contempt for Molchalin: “My reproaches, complaints, tears / Don’t you dare expect them, you’re not worth them...”.
Although, according to Sofia, there were no witnesses to the humiliating scene with Molchalin, she is tormented by a feeling of shame: “I am ashamed of myself, of the walls.” Sofia realizes her self-deception, blames only herself and sincerely repents. “All in tears,” she says her last line: “I blame myself all around.” In the last scenes of “Woe from Wit,” not a trace remains of the former capricious and self-confident Sophia - the “optical illusion” is revealed, and the features of a tragic heroine clearly appear in her appearance. The fate of Sofia, at first glance, unexpectedly, but in full accordance with the logic of her character, comes close to the tragic fate of Chatsky, whom she rejected. Indeed, as I.A. Goncharov subtly noted, in the finale of the comedy she has “the hardest time of all, harder even than Chatsky, and she gets “a million torments.” The outcome of the love plot of the comedy turned into “grief” and a life catastrophe for the smart Sofia.
Not individual characters in the play, but a “collective” character - the many-sided Famus society - Chatsky’s main ideological opponent. The lonely lover of truth and ardent defender of “free life” is opposed by large group actors and off-stage characters, united by a conservative worldview and the simplest practical morality, the meaning of which is “to win awards and have fun.” The life ideals and behavior of the heroes of the comedy reflected the morals and way of life of real Moscow society “after the fire” era - the second half of the 1810s.
Famus society is heterogeneous in its composition: it is not a faceless crowd in which a person loses his individuality. On the contrary, staunch Moscow conservatives differ among themselves in intelligence, abilities, interests, occupation and position in the social hierarchy. The playwright discovers both typical and individual features in each of them. But everyone is unanimous on one thing: Chatsky and his like-minded people are “crazy”, “madmen”, renegades. The main reason for their “madness,” according to Famusites, is an excess of “intelligence,” excessive “learning,” which is easily identified with “freethinking.” In turn, Chatsky does not skimp on critical assessments of Moscow society. He is convinced that nothing has changed in “after the fire” Moscow (“The houses are new, but the prejudices are old”), and condemns the inertia, patriarchal nature of Moscow society, its adherence to the outdated morality of the century of “obedience and fear.” The new, enlightening morality frightens and embitters conservatives - they are deaf to any arguments of reason. Chatsky almost screams in his accusatory monologues, but each time one gets the impression that the “deafness” of the Famusites is directly proportional to the strength of his voice: the louder the hero “screams,” the more diligently they “close their ears.”
Depicting Chatsky’s conflict with Famusov’s society, Griboyedov makes extensive use of the author’s remarks, which report on the reaction of conservatives to Chatsky’s words. Stage directions complement the characters' remarks, enhancing the comedy of what is happening. This technique is used to create the main comic situation of the play - situations of deafness. Already during the first conversation with Chatsky (d. II, appearances 2-3), in which his opposition to conservative morality was first outlined, Famusov “ sees and hears nothing" He deliberately plugs his ears so as not to hear Chatsky’s seditious, from his point of view, speeches: “Okay, I plugged my ears.” During the ball (d. 3, yavl. 22), when Chatsky pronounces his angry monologue against the “alien power of fashion” (“There is an insignificant meeting in that room ...”), “everyone is twirling in a waltz with the greatest zeal. The old men scattered to the card tables.” The situation of the feigned “deafness” of the characters allows the author to convey mutual misunderstanding and alienation between the conflicting parties.
Famusov is one of the recognized pillars of Moscow society. His official position is quite high: he is a “government manager.” The material well-being and success of many people depend on it: the distribution of ranks and awards, “patronage” for young officials and pensions for old people. Famusov’s worldview is extremely conservative: he takes hostility to everything that is at least somewhat different from his own beliefs and ideas about life, he is hostile to everything new - even to the fact that in Moscow “roads, sidewalks, / Houses and everything are new okay." Famusov’s ideal is the past, when everything was “not like it is now.”
Famusov is a staunch defender of the morality of the “past century.” In his opinion, living correctly means doing everything “as our fathers did,” learning “by looking at our elders.” Chatsky, on the other hand, relies on his own “judgments” dictated by common sense, so the ideas of these antipodean heroes about “proper” and “improper” behavior do not coincide. Famusov imagines rebellion and “debauchery” in Chatsky’s freethinking, but completely harmless statements; he even predicts that the freethinker will be put “on trial.” But he sees nothing reprehensible in his own actions. In his opinion, the real vices of people - debauchery, drunkenness, hypocrisy, lies and servility do not pose a danger. Famusov says about himself that he is “known for his monastic behavior,” despite the fact that before that he tried to flirt with Lisa. Society is initially inclined to attribute the reason for Chatsky’s “madness” to drunkenness, but Famusov authoritatively corrects the “judges”:
Here you go! great misfortune
What will a man drink too much?
Learning is the plague, learning is the reason,
What is worse now than then,
There were crazy people, deeds, and opinions.
(D. III, Rev. 21)
Listening to Famusov’s advice and instructions, the reader seems to find himself in a moral “anti-world”. In it, ordinary vices turn almost into virtues, and thoughts, opinions, words and intentions are declared “vices”. The main “vice,” according to Famusov, is “learnedness,” an excess of intelligence. He considers stupidity and buffoonery to be the basis of practical morality for a decent person. Famusov speaks of the “smart” Maxim Petrovich with pride and envy: “He fell painfully, but got up well.”
Famusov’s idea of “mind” is down-to-earth, everyday: he identifies intelligence either with practicality, the ability to “get comfortable” in life (which he evaluates positively), or with “free-thinking” (such a mind, according to Famusov, is dangerous). For Famusov, Chatsky’s mind is a mere trifle that cannot be compared with traditional noble values - generosity (“honor according to father and son”) and wealth:
Be bad, but if you get enough
Two thousand ancestral souls, -
He's the groom.
The other one, at least be quicker, puffed up with all sorts of arrogance,
Let yourself be known as a wise man,
But they won’t include you in the family.
(D. II, iv. 5).
Famusov finds a clear sign of madness in the fact that Chatsky condemns bureaucratic servility:
I’ve been wondering for a long time how no one will tie him up!
Try talking about the authorities - and God knows what they'll tell you!
Bow a little low, bend like a ring,
Even in front of the royal face,
That's what he'll call you a scoundrel!..
(D. III, Rev. 21).
The theme of education and upbringing is also connected with the theme of the mind in comedy. If for Chatsky the highest value is “a mind hungry for knowledge,” then Famusov, on the contrary, identifies “learning” with “freethinking,” considering it the source of madness. He sees such a huge danger in enlightenment that he proposes to fight it using the proven method of the Inquisition: “If evil is to be stopped: / Take away all the books and burn them.”
Of course, the main question for Famusov is the question of service. Service in the system of his life values is the axis around which the entire social and private life of people. The true goal of the service, Famusov believes, is to make a career, “to achieve well-known degrees,” and thereby secure a high position in society. Famusov treats people who succeed in this, for example Skalozub (“Not today or tomorrow general”) or those who, like the “businesslike” Molchalin, strive for this, recognizing them as his like-minded people. On the contrary, Chatsky, from Famusov’s point of view, is a “lost” person who deserves only contemptuous regret: after all, although he has good data for a successful career, he does not serve. “But if you wanted to, it would be businesslike,” notes Famusov.
His understanding of service, thus, is as far from its true meaning as it is “upside down,” just like his ideas about morality. Famusov does not see any vice in outright neglect of official duties:
And for me, what matters and what doesn’t matter,
My custom is this:
Signed, off your shoulders.
(D. I, iv. 4).
Famusov even makes abuse of official position a rule:
How will you begin to introduce yourself to a small cross or a small town?
Well, how can you not please your loved one!..
(D. II, iv. 5).
Molchalin- one of the most prominent representatives of Famus society. His role in the comedy is comparable to the role of Chatsky. Like Chatsky, Molchalin is a participant in both love and socio-ideological conflict. He is not only a worthy student of Famusov, but also Chatsky’s “rival” in love for Sofia, the third person who has arisen between the former lovers.
If Famusov, Khlestova and some other characters are living fragments of the “past century,” then Molchalin is a man of the same generation as Chatsky. But, unlike Chatsky, Molchalin is a staunch conservative, so dialogue and mutual understanding between them is impossible, and conflict is inevitable - their life ideals, moral principles and behavior in society are absolutely opposite.
Chatsky cannot understand “why are other people’s opinions only sacred.” Molchalin, like Famusov, considers dependence “on others” to be the basic law of life. Molchalin is a mediocrity that does not go beyond the generally accepted framework; he is a typical “average” person: in ability, intelligence, and aspirations. But he has “his own talent”: he is proud of his qualities - “moderation and accuracy.” Molchalin's worldview and behavior are strictly regulated by his position in the official hierarchy. He is modest and helpful, because “in ranks... small,” he cannot do without “patrons,” even if he has to depend entirely on their will.
But, unlike Chatsky, Molchalin organically fits into Famus society. This is “little Famusov”, because he has a lot in common with the Moscow “ace”, despite the big difference in age and social status. For example, Molchalin’s attitude towards service is purely “Famusov’s”: he would like to “win awards and have fun.” Public opinion for Molchalin, as for Famusov, is sacred. Some of his statements (“Ah! Evil tongues are worse than a pistol,” “At my age one should not dare / Have one’s own judgment”) are reminiscent of Famus’s: “Ah! My God! what will Princess Marya Aleksevna say?
Molchalin is the antipode of Chatsky not only in his beliefs, but also in the nature of his attitude towards Sofia. Chatsky is sincerely in love with her, nothing exists higher for him than this feeling, in comparison with him “the whole world” seemed like dust and vanity to Chatsky. Molchalin only skillfully pretends that he loves Sophia, although, by his own admission, he does not find “anything enviable” in her. Relations with Sofia are entirely determined by Molchalin’s life position: this is how he behaves with all people without exception, this is a life principle learned from childhood. In the last act, he tells Lisa that his “father bequeathed to him” to “please all people without exception.” Molchalin is in love “by position”, “to please the daughter of such a man” as Famusov, “who feeds and waters, / And sometimes gives rank...”.
The loss of Sofia's love does not mean Molchalin's defeat. Although he made an unforgivable mistake, he managed to get away with it. It is significant that Famusov brought down his anger not on the “guilty” Molchalin, but on the “innocent” Chatsky and the insulted, humiliated Sofia. At the end of the comedy, Chatsky becomes an outcast: society rejects him, Famusov points to the door and threatens to “publicize” his imaginary depravity “to all the people.” Molchalin will probably redouble his efforts to make amends to Sofia. It is impossible to stop the career of a person like Molchalin - that’s the point author's attitude to the hero. Chatsky rightly noted in the first act that Molchalin “will reach the well-known levels.” The night incident confirmed the bitter truth: society rejects the Chatskys, and “The silent ones are blissful in the world.”
Famusov's society in "Woe from Wit" consists of many minor and episodic characters, Famusov's guests. One of them, Colonel Skalozub, is a martinet, the embodiment of stupidity and ignorance. He “hasn’t uttered a smart word in his life,” and from the conversations of those around him he understands only what, as it seems to him, relates to the army topic. Therefore, to Famusov’s question “How do you feel about Nastasya Nikolaevna?” Skalozub busily replies: “She and I didn’t serve together.” However, by the standards of Famus society Skalozub - eligible bachelor: “And the golden bag, and aims to become a general,” so no one notices his stupidity and uncouthness in society (or does not want to notice). Famusov himself is “very delusional” about them, not wanting any other groom for his daughter.
Skalozub shares the attitude of the Famusovites towards service and education, finishing with “soldier’s directness” what is shrouded in the fog of eloquent phrases in the statements of Famusov and Molchalin. His abrupt aphorisms, reminiscent of commands on the parade ground, contain the entire simple everyday “philosophy” of careerists. “Like a true philosopher,” he dreams of one thing: “I just wish I could become a general.” Despite his “cudgel-like dexterity,” Skalozub very quickly and successfully moves up the career ladder, causing respectful amazement even from Famusov: “You’ve been colonels for a long time, but you’ve only been serving recently.” Education does not represent any value for Skalozub (“learning won’t fool me”), army drill, from his point of view, is much more useful, if only because it can knock the learned nonsense out of your head: “I am Prince Gregory and you / Sergeant Major in Walter I'll give you." A military career and discussions “about the front and the ranks” are the only things that interest Skalozub.
All the characters who appear in Famusov’s house during the ball actively participate in the general opposition to Chatsky, adding more and more fictitious details to the gossip about the “madness” of the main character, until in the minds of Countess Granny it turns into a fantastic plot about how Chatsky went “ to nusurmans." Each of the minor characters acts in its own comic role.
Khlestova, like Famusov, is a colorful type: she is an “angry old woman,” an imperious serf-lady of Catherine’s era. “Out of boredom,” she carries with her “a blackaa girl and a dog,” has a weakness for young Frenchmen, loves when people “please” her, so she treats Molchalin favorably and even Zagoretsky. Ignorant tyranny is the life principle of Khlestova, who, like most of Famusov’s guests, does not hide her hostile attitude towards education and enlightenment:
And you'll really go crazy from these, from some
From boarding schools, schools, lyceums, you name it,
Yes from lankartachnyh mutual trainings.
(D. III, Rev. 21).
Zagoretsky- “an out-and-out swindler, a rogue,” an informer and a sharper (“Beware of him: it’s too much to bear, / And don’t sit down with cards: he’ll sell you”). The attitude towards this character characterizes the morals of Famus society. Everyone despises Zagoretsky, not hesitating to scold him to his face (“He’s a liar, a gambler, a thief,” Khlestova says about him), but in society he is “scold / Everywhere, and accepted everywhere,” because Zagoretsky is “a master of serving.”
"Talking" surname Repetilova indicates his tendency to mindlessly repeat other people’s reasoning “about important mothers.” Repetilov, unlike other representatives of Famusov’s society, is in words an ardent admirer of “learning.” But he caricatures and vulgarizes the educational ideas that Chatsky preaches, calling, for example, for everyone to study “from Prince Gregory,” where they “will give you champagne to kill.” Repetilov nevertheless let it slip: he became a fan of “learning” only because he failed to make a career (“And I would have climbed into ranks, but I met failures”). Enlightenment, from his point of view, is only a forced replacement for a career. Repetilov is a product of Famus society, although he shouts that he and Chatsky have “the same tastes.” “The most secret union” and “secret meetings” that he tells Chatsky about - most interesting material, allowing us to conclude that Griboedov himself has a negative attitude towards the “noisy secrets” of secular freethinking. However, one can hardly consider the “most secret union” a parody of the Decembrist secret societies; it is a satire on the ideological “idle dancers” who made “secret”, “conspiratorial” activity a form of social pastime, because everything comes down to idle chatter and shaking the air - “we make noise, brother, we’re making noise.”
In addition to those heroes who are listed in the “poster” - the list of “characters” - and appear on stage at least once, “Woe from Wit” mentions many people who are not participants in the action - these are off-stage character. Their names and surnames appear in the monologues and remarks of the characters, who necessarily express their attitude towards them, approve or condemn their life principles and behavior.
Off-stage characters are invisible “participants” in the socio-ideological conflict. With their help, Griboedov managed to expand the scope of the stage action, which was concentrated on a narrow area (Famusov's house) and completed within one day (the action begins early in the morning and ends in the morning of the next day). Off-stage characters have a special artistic function: they represent society, of which all participants in the events in Famusov’s house are part. Without playing any role in the plot, they are closely connected with those who fiercely defend the “past century” or strive to live by the ideals of the “present century” - they scream, are indignant, indignant, or, conversely, experience “a million torments” on stage.
It is the off-stage characters who confirm that the entire Russian society is split into two unequal parts: the number of conservatives mentioned in the play significantly exceeds the number of dissidents, “crazy people.” But the most important thing is that Chatsky, a lonely lover of truth on stage, is not at all alone in life: the existence of people spiritually close to him, according to Famusovites, proves that “nowadays there are more crazy people, deeds, and opinions than ever.” Among Chatsky’s like-minded people are Skalozub’s cousin, who abandoned a brilliant military career in order to go to the village and start reading books (“The rank followed him: he suddenly left the service, / In the village he began to read books”), Prince Fyodor, the nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskaya (“ Chinov doesn’t want to know! He’s a chemist, he’s a botanist..."), and the St. Petersburg “professors” with whom he studied. According to Famusov’s guests, these people are just as crazy, crazy because of “learning,” as Chatsky.
Another group of off-stage characters are Famusov’s “like-minded people.” These are his “idols”, whom he often mentions as models of life and behavior. Such, for example, is the Moscow “ace” Kuzma Petrovich - for Famusov this is an example of a “commendable life”:
The deceased was a venerable chamberlain,
With the key, he knew how to deliver the key to his son;
Rich, and married to a rich woman;
Married children, grandchildren;
Died; everyone remembers him sadly.
(D. II, iv. 1).
Another worthy role model, according to Famusov, is one of the most memorable off-stage characters, the “dead uncle” Maxim Petrovich, who made a successful court career (“he served under the Empress Catherine”). Like other “nobles of the occasion,” he had an “arrogant disposition,” but, if the interests of his career required it, he knew how to deftly “curry favor” and easily “bent over backwards.”
Chatsky exposes the morals of Famus society in the monologue “And who are the judges?..” (d. II, iv. 5), talking about the unworthy lifestyle of the “fatherland of their fathers” (“spill themselves in feasts and extravagance”), about the wealth they unjustly acquired ( “rich in robbery”), about their immoral, inhumane acts, which they commit with impunity (“they found protection from the court in friends, in kinship”). One of the off-stage characters mentioned by Chatsky “traded” the “crowd” of devoted servants who saved him “in the hours of wine and fight” for three greyhounds. Another “for the sake of the idea / He drove many wagons to the serf ballet / From the mothers and fathers of rejected children,” who were then “sold off one by one.” Such people, from Chatsky’s point of view, are a living anachronism that does not correspond to modern ideals of enlightenment and humane treatment of serfs:
Who are the judges? For the antiquity of years
Their enmity towards a free life is irreconcilable,
Judgments are drawn from forgotten newspapers
The times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of Crimea...
(D. II, iv. 5).
Even a simple listing of off-stage characters in the monologues of the characters (Chatsky, Famusov, Repetilov) complements the picture of the morals of the Griboyedov era, giving it a special, “Moscow” flavor. In the first act (episode 7), Chatsky, who has just arrived in Moscow, in a conversation with Sofia, “sorts out” many mutual acquaintances, ironizing over their “oddities.”
From the tone in which some characters speak about Moscow ladies, one can conclude that women enjoyed enormous influence in Moscow society. Famusov speaks enthusiastically about the powerful “socialites”:
What about the ladies? - anyone, try it, master it;
Judges of everything, everywhere, there are no judges above them<...>
Order the command in front of the front!
Be present, send them to the Senate!
Irina Vlasevna! Lukerya Aleksevna!
Tatyana Yuryevna! Pulcheria Andrevna!
(D. II, iv. 5).
The famous Tatyana Yuryevna, about whom Molchalin spoke with reverence to Chatsky, apparently enjoys unquestioned authority and can provide “patronage” on occasion. And the formidable princess Marya Aleksevna awes even the Moscow “ace” Famusov himself, who, as it unexpectedly turns out, is concerned not so much with the meaning of what happened, but with the publicity of his daughter’s “depraved” behavior and the merciless evil tongue of the Moscow lady.
Dramatic innovation Griboyedov was manifested primarily in the rejection of some genre canons of classic “high” comedy. The Alexandrian verse, with which the “standard” comedies of the classicists were written, was replaced by a flexible poetic meter, which made it possible to convey all the shades of lively colloquial speech - free iambic. The play seems “overpopulated” with characters in comparison with the comedies of Griboyedov’s predecessors. It seems that Famusov’s house and everything that happens in the play is only part big world, who is brought out of his usual half-asleep state by “madmen” like Chatsky. Moscow is a temporary refuge for an ardent hero traveling “around the world”, a small “postal station” on the “main road” of his life. Here, not having time to cool down from the frantic gallop, he made only a short stop and, having experienced “a million torments,” set off again.
In “Woe from Wit” there are not five, but four acts, so there is no situation characteristic of the “fifth act”, when all the contradictions are resolved and the lives of the heroes resume their unhurried course. The main conflict of the comedy, social-ideological, remained unresolved: everything that happened is only one of the stages of the ideological self-awareness of conservatives and their antagonist.
An important feature of “Woe from Wit” is the rethinking of comic characters and comic situations: in comic contradictions the author discovers hidden tragic potential. Without allowing the reader and viewer to forget about the comedy of what is happening, Griboyedov emphasizes the tragic meaning of the events. The tragic pathos is especially intensified in the finale of the work: all the main characters of the fourth act, including Molchalin and Famusov, do not appear in traditional comedic roles. They are more like heroes of a tragedy. The true tragedies of Chatsky and Sophia are complemented by the “small” tragedies of Molchalin, who broke his vow of silence and paid for it, and the humiliated Famusov, tremblingly awaiting retribution from the Moscow “thunderer” in a skirt - Princess Marya Aleksevna.
The principle of “unity of characters”—the basis of the dramaturgy of classicism—turned out to be completely unacceptable for the author of “Woe from Wit.” “Portraitness,” that is, the life truth of the characters, which the “archaist” P.A. Katenin attributed to the “errors” of comedy, Griboyedov considered the main advantage. Straightforwardness and one-sidedness in the portrayal of the central characters are discarded: not only Chatsky, but also Famusov, Molchalin, Sophia are shown as complex people, sometimes contradictory and inconsistent in their actions and statements. It is hardly appropriate and possible to evaluate them using polar assessments (“positive” - “negative”), because the author seeks to show not “good” and “bad” in these characters. He is interested in the real complexity of their characters, as well as the circumstances in which their social and everyday roles, worldview, system of life values and psychology are manifested. The words spoken by A.S. Pushkin about Shakespeare can rightfully be attributed to the characters of Griboyedov’s comedy: these are “living creatures, filled with many passions...”
Each of the main characters appears to be the focus of a variety of opinions and assessments: after all, even ideological opponents or people who do not sympathize with each other are important to the author as sources of opinions - their “polyphony” makes up the verbal “portraits” of the heroes. Perhaps rumor plays no less a role in comedy than in Pushkin’s novel Eugene Onegin. Judgments about Chatsky are especially rich in various information - he appears in the mirror of a kind of “oral newspaper” created before the eyes of the viewer or reader by the inhabitants of Famus’s house and his guests. It is safe to say that this is only the first wave of Moscow rumors about the St. Petersburg freethinker. “Crazy” Chatsky gave secular gossips food for gossip for a long time. But “evil tongues,” which for Molchalin are “more terrible than a pistol,” are not dangerous to him. Chatsky is a man from another world, only for a short moment he came into contact with the world of Moscow fools and gossips and recoiled from it in horror.
The picture of “public opinion”, masterfully recreated by Griboyedov, consists of the oral statements of the characters. Their speech is impulsive, impetuous, reflecting an instant reaction to other people's opinions and assessments. The psychological authenticity of speech portraits of characters is one of the most important features of comedy. The verbal appearance of the characters is as unique as their place in society, manner of behavior and range of interests. In the crowd of guests gathered in Famusov’s house, people often stand out precisely because of their “voice” and peculiarities of speech.
Chatsky’s “voice” is unique: his “speech behavior” already in the first scenes reveals him as a convinced opponent of the Moscow nobility. The hero’s word is his only, but most dangerous “weapon” in the truth-seeker’s “duel” with Famus society that lasts the whole long day. Chatsky contrasts the idle and “evil tongues” of “indomitable storytellers, / Clumsy wise men, crafty simpletons, / Sinister old women, old men, / Decrepit over inventions and nonsense,” with the hot word of truth, in which bile and vexation, the ability to express in words the comic aspects of them existence are connected with the high pathos of affirming genuine life values. The language of comedy is free from lexical, syntactic and intonation restrictions; it is a “rough”, “uncombed” element of colloquial speech, which under the pen of Griboyedov, the “speech creator”, turned into a miracle of poetry. “I’m not talking about poetry,” Pushkin noted, “half of it should become a proverb.”
Despite the fact that Chatsky the ideologist opposes the inert Moscow nobility and expresses the author’s point of view on Russian society, he cannot be considered an unconditionally “positive” character, as, for example, the characters of the comedians who preceded Griboyedov were. Chatsky’s behavior is that of an accuser, a judge, a tribune, fiercely attacking the morals, life and psychology of the Famusites. But the author indicates the motives for his strange behavior: after all, he did not come to Moscow as an emissary of St. Petersburg freethinkers. The indignation that grips Chatsky is caused by a special psychological state: his behavior is determined by two passions - love and jealousy. In them main reason his ardor. That is why, despite the strength of his mind, Chatsky in love does not control his feelings, which are out of control, and is not able to act rationally. The anger of an enlightened man, combined with the pain of losing his beloved, forced him to “throw pearls in front of the Repetilovs.” His behavior is comical, but the hero himself experiences genuine mental suffering, “a million torments.” Chatsky is a tragic character caught in comic circumstances.
Famusov and Molchalin do not look like traditional comedy “villains” or “dumb people”. Famusov is a tragicomic figure, because in the final scene not only do all his plans for Sofia’s marriage collapse, but he is threatened with the loss of his reputation, his “good name” in society. For Famusov, this is a real disaster, and therefore at the end of the last act he exclaims in despair: “Isn’t my fate still deplorable?” The situation of Molchalin, who is in a hopeless situation, is also tragicomic: captivated by Liza, he is forced to pretend to be a modest and resigned admirer of Sophia. Molchalin understands that his relationship with her will cause Famusov’s irritation and bossy anger. But rejecting Sofia’s love, Molchalin believes, is dangerous: the daughter has influence on Famusov and can take revenge and ruin his career. He found himself between two fires: the “lordly love” of his daughter and the inevitable “lordly anger” of his father.
Sincere careerism and feigned love are incompatible, an attempt to combine them turns out to be humiliation and “fall” for Molchalin, albeit from a small, but already “taken” official “height”. “The people created by Griboedov are taken from life in full height, drawn from the bottom of real life,” emphasized the critic A.A. Grigoriev, “they do not have their virtues and vices written on their foreheads, but they are branded with the seal of their insignificance, branded with a vengeful hand executioner-artist."
Unlike the heroes of classic comedies, the main characters of Woe from Wit (Chatsky, Molchalin, Famusov) are depicted in several social roles. For example, Chatsky is not only a freethinker, a representative of the younger generation of the 1810s. He is both a lover, and a landowner (“he had three hundred souls”), and a former military man (Chatsky once served in the same regiment with Gorich). Famusov is not only a Moscow “ace” and one of the pillars of the “past century”. We see him in other social roles: a father trying to “place” his daughter, and a government official “managing a government place.” Molchalin is not only “Famusov’s secretary, living in his house” and Chatsky’s “happy rival”: he, like Chatsky, belongs to the younger generation. But his worldview, ideals and way of life have nothing in common with Chatsky’s ideology and life. They are characteristic of the “silent” majority of noble youth. Molchalin is one of those who easily adapt to any circumstances for the sake of one goal - to rise as high as possible up the career ladder.
Griboedov neglects an important rule of classic dramaturgy - the unity of plot action: in “Woe from Wit” there is no single event center (this led to reproaches from literary Old Believers for the vagueness of the “plan” of the comedy). Two conflicts and two storylines in which they are realized (Chatsky - Sofia and Chatsky - Famus society) allowed the playwright to skillfully combine the depth of social problems and subtle psychologism in the depiction of the characters' characters.
The author of “Woe from Wit” did not set himself the task of destroying the poetics of classicism. His aesthetic credo is creative freedom (“I live and write freely and freely”). The use of certain artistic means and dramatic techniques was dictated by specific creative circumstances that arose during the work on the play, and not by abstract theoretical postulates. Therefore, in those cases where the requirements of classicism limited his capabilities, not allowing him to achieve the desired artistic effect, he resolutely rejected them. But often it was the principles of classicist poetics that made it possible to effectively solve an artistic problem.
For example, the “unities” characteristic of the dramaturgy of the classicists - the unity of place (Famusov’s house) and the unity of time (all events take place within one day) are observed. They help to achieve concentration, “thickening” of action. Griboedov also masterfully used some particular techniques of the poetics of classicism: the depiction of characters in traditional stage roles (an unsuccessful hero-lover, his nosy rival, a servant - her mistress's confidant, a capricious and somewhat eccentric heroine, a deceived father, a comic old woman, a gossip, etc. .). However, these roles are necessary only as a comedic “highlight”, emphasizing the main thing - the individuality of the characters, the originality of their characters and positions.
In comedy there are many “characters of the setting”, “figurants” (as in the old theater they called episodic characters who created the background, “living scenery” for the main characters). As a rule, their character is fully revealed by their “speaking” surnames and given names. The same technique is used to emphasize main feature in the appearance or position of some central characters: Famusov - known to everyone, on everyone’s lips (from Latin fama - rumor), Repetilov - repeating someone else’s (from French repeter - repeat), Sofia - wisdom (ancient Greek sophia), Chatsky in the first edition he was Chadian, that is, “being in the child”, “beginning”. The ominous surname Skalozub is “shifter” (from the word “zuboskal”). Molchalin, Tugoukhovskiye, Khlestova - these names “speak” for themselves..
In “Woe from Wit,” the most important features of realistic art were clearly revealed: realism not only frees the writer’s individuality from deadening “rules,” “canons,” and “conventions,” but also relies on the experience of other artistic systems.
HISTORY OF THE TEXT “WORN FROM WITH” AND PRINCIPLES OF THIS EDITION
The first page of the Bulgarin list “Woe from Wit” with the inscription by A. S. Griboyedov
The question of the text of “Woe from Wit”, due to a number of unfavorable circumstances, remained unresolved for decades in scientific literature. During Griboyedov's life, only excerpts of the comedy were published in a form disfigured by censorship. The first edition (1833), second (1839) and subsequent ones were also published with great censorship distortions. But when the opportunity arose in the 60s to print the text in full, the editors did not have authoritative manuscripts in their hands or were unable to take full advantage of them.
The latest of the four authorized texts of “Woe from Wit” is the Bulgarin list, named after the surname of its owner. The exact time of its creation cannot be determined. Perhaps it was made and kept by Bulgarin long before Griboyedov made the famous inscription on its title page: “I entrust my grief to Bulgarin. True friend Griboyedov. June 5, 1828,” which was on the eve of Alexander Sergeevich’s departure to the East (he left St. Petersburg on June 6, 1828). We read about this in a letter from F.V. Bulgarin to M.A. Dondukov-Korsakov dated March 1, 1832: “Griboyedov, leaving as an envoy to Persia, gave me every right dispose of this comedy and transferred ownership of it with a handwritten inscription on the original comedy and special formal paper.”301 This “formal paper” has not reached us.
The manuscript was copied extremely carefully in one clear clerical hand. The text contains a number of corrections, partly later, partly of unknown origin; several corrections were made in a handwriting similar to that of A. S. Griboyedov. In any case, leaving for the East with a premonition of imminent death and entrusting Bulgarin with the fate of the best of his creations, Griboedov, of course, looked through the text he was leaving for the stage and for print. There are a few copyist errors in the manuscript that were not noticed by Griboyedov, but they are self-evident and therefore not dangerous.
After the death of Griboyedov, the Bulgarin list remained with F.V. Bulgarin, who willingly showed it to those interested, but hardly allowed it to be studied in detail, and thus in the comedy editions of the 50s and 60s there are often references to it, but checking the printed the text was carried out on it extremely superficially. In 1879, the sons of F. V. Bulgarin brought the manuscript as a gift to the Public Library in St. Petersburg.302 But back in 1874, they provided the manuscript for study to I. D. Garusov, who, in the appendix to his edition of “Woe from Wit” (see . further) reproduced it in print for the first time with great care (but not without significant errors, despite the assurance of “literal accuracy”). However, I. D. Garusov in his publication did not at all appreciate its great significance and gave great faith to another list, Lopukhinsky, who falsifies the text of Griboyedov’s masterpiece.
Garusov's attacks and the unfavorable reputation of F. Bulgarin strengthened distrust of the Bulgarin list in literary circles, and two other precious sources - the Museum Autograph and the Zhandrovsky Manuscript - long years remained unknown. Only in 1902 did the Moscow Historical Museum receive an autograph - a manuscript, nine-tenths written by Griboyedov himself and containing many characteristic differences from the generally accepted text, and in 1903 his text, beautifully edited by V. E. Yakushkin, appeared in print.303 High the authority of this manuscript prompted later editors to introduce its peculiar discrepancies into the printed text of the comedy, although the Museum Autograph represents an early edition of the play, which was subsequently significantly altered by the author himself.
Due to these circumstances, a skeptical view of the reliability of the text of “Woe from Wit” was established. They thought that Griboyedov did not have time to finish editing the comedy at all, or they expected that somewhere in the archives there would still be an original text that sharply diverged from the traditional one. These erroneous views were also strengthened by the fact that one of the authorized manuscripts - Zhandrovskaya - remained unstudied until 1912, when it was examined and printed by me using all the rules of the latest paleography, textology and printing technology.304 Before that, it was extremely superficial and the text of the comedy was casually compared in the second, revised edition of Nikolai Tiblen (St. Petersburg, 1862), and when publishing the Museum Autograph in 1903, in the notes of V. E. Yakushkin a number of random comparisons were made with the Zhandrovsky manuscript.
After the Museum Autograph, the Zhandrovsky manuscript is the second important document in the textual history of Woe from Wit. Before leaving Moscow for St. Petersburg in 1824, Griboyedov presented an autograph (later called Museum) to S. N. Begichev. “On the road,” he later wrote to him, “it occurred to me to attach a new interchange; I inserted it between the scene of Chatsky, when he saw his scoundrel with a candle above the stairs, and before he denounced her; a living, fast thing, the poems showered with sparks on the very day of my arrival”305 (i.e. June 1, 1824). Having made this large insert, Griboyedov revised the previous text. He wrote to Begichev: “By the way, I ask you not to read my manuscript to anyone and to burn it if you decide, it is so imperfect, so unclean; imagine that I changed too many eighty verses, or better yet, rhymes, now it’s as smooth as glass.”306 A. A. Gendre later reported to D. A. Smirnov: “When Griboyedov arrived in St. Petersburg and in his mind remade his comedy , he wrote such terrible broths that it was impossible to make them out. Seeing that the most brilliant creation was almost dying, I begged him for his half-sheets. He gave them away with complete carelessness. I had a whole office at hand; she copied “Woe from Wit” and became rich because they demanded many lists. The main list, corrected by the hand of Griboedov himself, is in my possession.”307 This “main list” is the Zhandrovsky manuscript. It was kept by A. A. Gendre, who reluctantly allowed researchers to see it, and after his death (1873) - in his family; and in 1901 it entered the Moscow Historical Museum. “Terrible Brouillons,” representing the transitional edition from the Museum Autograph to the Gendrovsky manuscript, have not survived.
The original layer of the Zhandrovskaya manuscript, transmitted by the copyist, is in many ways similar to the Museum Autograph, but is completely covered with new corrections by Griboedov.
The third authorized source for the text of “Woe from Wit” is the only lifetime publication of fragments of the comedy in the almanac “Russian Waist”.308 The almanac was approved by censorship on November 15, 1824, but appeared only in January 1825.
In the text of this publication, already fragmentary (7-10 events of the first act and the entire third act were printed), the censor made many withdrawals and alterations. Thus, in Chatsky’s remark: “They will become related to all of Europe” (d. I, 370), the word “Europe” is replaced by “universe”; instead of: “In the scientific committee that settled” (d. I, 380) it was printed: “Among the scientists that settled”; missing characterization of Skalozub:
Khripun, strangled, bassoon,
A constellation of maneuvers and mazurkas!
(etc. - d. III, 6-7), instead of: “He stands up for the army” (d. III, 129) - “He stands up for his own.” In general, the army was carefully protected from satire, as was the civil bureaucracy. Instead of the dialogue from Part III:
Molchalin
Have you not been given ranks, have you had no success in your career?
Ranks are given by people;
And people can be deceived.
Molchalin
How surprised we were!
What a miracle is this?
Molchalin
They felt sorry for you.
Wasted work.
Molchalin
Returning from St. Petersburg,
With ministers about your connection,
Then the break...
printed:
Molchalin
You were not given ranks.
Not everyone is successful.
Molchalin
Tatyana Yuryevna said something,
Returning from St. Petersburg,
With other important people about your connection,
Then the break...
Instead of Molchalin’s words about Foma Fomich: “Under three ministers, he was the head of the department, he was transferred here” (d. III, 203-204) - it stands: “Of excellent intelligence and behavior, he was transferred to us from St. Petersburg.” Instead of his remark “After all, you have to depend on others” (d. III, 217) - it is put: “After all, you have to keep others in mind” (and further, instead of: “In ranks we are small” - “so as not to get into trouble "). In Skalozub’s remark, the words: “In His Highness, you want to say” (d. III, 404) are redone: “That is, you want to say.” In the Countess-Grandma’s replica the words are missing: “What? to the farmazons in the club?” (d. III, 482). In Famusov’s remark, instead of: “At least in front of the monarch’s face” (d. III, 504) it is put: “In front of any person.” Further, the statements of Famusov, Khlestova, the princess, Skalozub and Zagoretsky about boarding schools, lyceums, pedagogical institute, burning of books, censorship of fables, etc. In Chatsky’s monologue about the “Frenchman from Bordeaux” the words are missing:
These four sources: the Museum autograph, the Zhandrovsky manuscript, the text of “Russian Waist” and the Bulgarin list - form a chain of authorized texts of the comedy that have come down to us.
A comparison of the Zhandrovskaya manuscript with the first printed text of “Russian Waist” shows that Griboedov told Bulgarin for the almanac the text of “Woe from Wit” after he completed all the corrections of the Zhandrovskaya manuscript, and in “Russian Waist” it was reproduced in this way (if we ignore the fragmentary nature of the publication and censorship distortions) the final text of this manuscript. The few discrepancies are insignificant and accidental. It is impossible to say with certainty whether Griboyedov himself read the proofs of “Russian Waist,” but the list of “corrections” placed at the end of the almanac certifies that Griboedov was not indifferent to the publication of excerpts from “Woe from Wit” in the almanac.
The study of the Zhandrovskaya manuscript has unshakably established the important fact that its text, corrected by the hand of Griboyedov himself in 1824, almost literally coincides with the text of the Bulgarin list, authorized in 1828. This latter is so close to the Zhandrovskaya manuscript that if not for two or three characteristic discrepancies, one could argue that it was copied from the Zhandrovsky manuscript. In textual terms, Griboedov made almost no changes and did not subtract a single verse, did not change a single rhyme, did not rearrange words - that is, he left the text of the Zhandrovsky manuscript in the new list completely intact. The new list respects all the characteristic features of Griboyedov’s writing, its spelling and punctuation; the same forms of living language are used (“rumatism”, “three days”, “other”, “other”, “seven hundred”, etc.). It is obvious that the final edition of “Woe from Wit” was created by Griboyedov back in 1824 and then reconfirmed in 1828.
It has been suggested more than once that there were other manuscripts of “Woe from Wit” that came from A. S. Griboyedov or were reviewed and corrected by him. However, these instructions are for the most part unclear, confusing, sometimes based on fantastic assumptions and therefore not reliable enough. According to the Tbilisi writer I.K. Enikolopov, Griboyedov’s work on comedy continued after 1824, and the original manuscript reflecting this work perished along with the author in Tehran. Due to these considerations, Enikolopov is inclined to value primarily the supposedly “authorized” manuscripts kept by Griboyedov’s Caucasian friends and relatives. As a reliable source for the text of “Woe from Wit,” he points to a list that belonged to his grandfather, M. A. Enikolopov (Enikalopashvili), who knew Griboyedov personally. The researcher does not attach significant importance to other surviving manuscripts, including Bulgarin’s, and insists on a critical revision of the text of “Woe from Wit” that I established.309
V. S. Shaduri reported on the manuscript “Woe from Wit,” supposedly “with the author’s amendments,” which belonged to A. P. Opochinin (1807-1885), which, however, turned out to be lost, but was restored by the owner from memory.310
It was reported about the so-called Gomel list of “Woe from Wit”, which belonged to I.F. Paskevich and allegedly contained the author’s own handwritten notes or corrections.311 Special scientific examination of this, however, did not confirm this.312 The search undertaken in the Caucasus for the “authentic” manuscript of “Woe” from the mind” took on the character of a campaign with sensational noise in the press and, as one would expect, did not produce any results.313
Since “Woe from Wit” was not allowed to be published by censors until 1833, it was distributed in many unauthorized lists, which were essential for studying the text of the comedy.
The appearance of the first copies of the original text dates back to the winter of 1823/24. From the moment when the text of “Woe from Wit” was finally edited by Griboedov in the Zhandrovskaya manuscript, i.e., from the middle of 1824, lists began to be distributed in St. Petersburg and from there to the provinces in huge quantities. Griboyedov himself wrote about this in a letter to S.N. Begichev dated June 10, 1825: “Everyone asks me for a manuscript and gets bored”;314 A.A. Gendre organized the reproduction of copies by the “entire office”, the Decembrists did the same ; New copies were made from these copies everywhere, and at the beginning of 1830 F. Bulgarin could already state in print: “Nowadays there is not a single small town, there is not a house where they love literature, where there would not be a list of this comedy, unfortunately, distorted by copyists .315 Not a single book was printed then in as many copies as the copies of “Woe from Wit” were sold.
The remark about copyist distortions is true of the vast majority of lists. Poorly parsing the copied manuscripts, scribes distorted individual words and entire phrases. Thus, Famusov, instead of “a manager of a state-owned place,” is certified in some lists as a “manager of a state-owned forest”; instead of “symphony” it is written “simoropia”, instead of “swaddle” - “rinse”, etc. The text was distorted not only due to the illegibility of the manuscripts and the ignorance of the copyists, but also arbitrarily, at the whim of amateurs who dared to “correct” Griboyedov. In this regard, the list previously owned by Prof. O. F. Miller and is now the property of the Pushkin House: its text is so full of distortions of words and phrases that one might think that it is a conscious reworking of Griboyedov’s text. For example, instead of the verse: “Without a thought, you are completely embarrassed” (d. I, 349), it is written here: “When you are innocent, why be embarrassed”; instead of: “Yes, whatever the Lord seeks, he will exalt!” (d. II, 236) - “Yes, God will lower one, raise another,” etc. Such options do not coincide either with the Museum Autograph, in its main and final texts and corrections, or with the Zhandrovsky manuscript, and are generally not justified by everyone the progress of Griboyedov’s textual works; sometimes they violate the elementary requirements of verse, so that they are obvious examples of willful alteration. Numerous repeated handwritten copies of “Woe from Wit” have created an endless number of “options” that have no reliability or value. Descriptions of many lists were printed, some were reproduced in their entirety.
According to P. S. Krasnov,316 in the main libraries and archives of Moscow alone there are about 300 lists of “Woe from Wit”, including in the State Theater Museum - 49, in the Historical Museum - 37, in the Lenin Library - 36, in Central state archive literature and art - 40, in Literary Museum- 9, etc. A significant number of comedy lists are stored in the State Public Library. Saltykov-Shchedrin (Leningrad), in the manuscript department of the Library of the Academy of Sciences, in Pushkin House(about a hundred), in many other institutions and individuals. The number of handwritten copies of Woe from Wit, created before the advent of printed editions, was so great that until very recently, copies of the comedy were found in the antiquarian book trade and could be purchased.
But even since the first separate edition of “Woe from Wit” (1833) appeared, the handwritten tradition of comedy has not stopped. Printed publications up to the 60s of the 19th century. came out with huge censorship restrictions; readers, purchasing such a publication, often wrote into it by hand what was missing, drawing from complete handwritten copies of “Woe from Wit.”
A special group consists of the so-called “theatrical” lists, according to which “Woe from Wit” was performed at state-owned theaters in the first years of stage productions, in St. Petersburg and Moscow. In the 50s of the XIX century. they were given great importance as an authoritative edition of the text, but their later study showed that the theatrical lists did not live up to the hopes placed on them.
The St. Petersburg theater lists go back to the Bulgarin manuscript, but the text in them is greatly damaged, on the one hand, by censorship, and on the other, by extremely careless rewriting. Many individual phrases and replicas were removed by censorship and a lot of things were redone in accordance with this. Moscow theater lists depend on St. Petersburg ones and are copied from them (stored in the library of the Moscow Maly Theater).
There are a huge number of printed editions of “Woe from Wit”; they can be counted in hundreds.
Among the editions of the comedy there were many duplicates, without textual value or even waste paper, and only a few have a known significance in the history of the printed text of “Woe from Wit”
After partial publication in “Russian Waist for 1825,” despite the diligent efforts of Griboedov himself, F.V. Bulgarin, and then the poet’s heirs, censorship did not allow a separate publication of the play, although it was already being performed at state theaters, and in 1831 was published in Reval, with the permission of the censor, German translation.
In February 1831, the issue of printing “Woe from Wit” was considered in the Main Directorate of Censorship on the recommendation of the St. Petersburg Censorship Committee: “At the meeting of the Committee on February 13, they listened to the presentation of the city censor, collegiate adviser Senkovsky about the famous comedy by Griboyedov “Woe from Wit”. mind,” which his heirs wish to publish by means of printing. Mr. Censor explained that, in his opinion, this comedy was written with a well-intentioned purpose and could be published completely without any changes or exceptions. He finds in it only a verse containing a reprehensible ambiguity, namely: “Whatever you say, they (i.e. Lions and Eagles), although they are animals, are still kings.” But this verse was also corrected by him, in accordance with the wishes of the late author, as follows: “Whatever you say, they are all kings.” Mr. Senkovsky, the censor, believed that even many significant respects require the admission of this comedy to print, without any changes or exceptions in its original text: according to the news published in the Northern Bee, there are over 40 thousand copies of this creation of Griboyedov in Russia. Even if “Woe from Wit” contained dubious passages (which in fact are not in this comedy), then two or three thousand printed copies with certain omissions will not bring any benefit to society, in comparison with such an extraordinary multitude of lists, multiplying and purchased at a very cheap price. On the contrary, such omissions would be extremely harmful as an unnecessary precaution: for as soon as it becomes known that the printed edition is incomplete and has been cleared by censorship, then this kind of official persecution in relation to a work beloved by the public will only impart new importance to its manuscripts; handwritten books are much more dangerous than printed ones, especially because they present an open field for spontaneous additions. It can very easily happen that ill-intentioned people or naughty people will begin to add various reprehensible verses and allusions to the original text, and “Woe from Wit” will suffer the fate of all almost handwritten works ancient world, which have come down to us distorted by what is called loca spuria or in some places forged. One way to avert this important inconvenience is to allow Woe from Wit to be published without any changes, which Mr. Censor Senkovsky considers all the more necessary since the opinion has spread among the public that this comedy is not published because the censorship wants to exclude from it everything entertaining and witty. . Thus, its complete publication would even be a means of reconciling censorship with general opinion, which, as Mr. Censor believes, should in no case be neglected for the benefit of the institution itself. Moreover, one should not lose sight of the fact that there is almost no one educated person from the Russians, who would not have read the manuscript and did not know by heart all the remarkable passages of “Woe from Wit.” Many even poems, and precisely those that, with too strict censorship, could be subject to exclusion, turned into apothegms and proverbs. So, to exclude them now from the printed publication would only mean to draw attention to them excessive attention public and give rise to inappropriate rumors<…>Mr. Senkovsky also presented the Committee with a preface to this comedy, which should be published along with it and gives it a completely well-intentioned direction, showing in what spirit the work of Griboedov’s witty pen should be considered and how the reasoning of the various characters should be understood. Mr. Senkovsky, the censor, explained that he was mentally convinced of the harmlessness of this play; that when 40,000 correct lists of it did not produce any reprehensible consequence in Russia, then two or three thousand copies printed from these lists are all the less able to cause it, and that he himself, without bothering the Committee with the presentation of all the above-described considerations, would fully approve of its publication , if only I could part with the thought that I was personally friendly with the late writer, and that, harboring boundless wonder at his great talent, I might in this case be carried away by some passion for the excellent monument of his genius.”317
However, an evasive response was received from the Main Directorate of Censorship, and the publication did not take place.
Soon after this, Griboyedov's widow Nina Aleksandrovna and his sister, M. S. Durnovo, formalized their rights as the only heirs of the poet and, through E. S. Lassen-Gefner (a relative of M. S. Durnovo) and medical student Ivan Vasiliev, were presented to the Moscow censorship committee manuscript of the comedy “Woe from Wit” on 63 sheets.318 Prof. who censored it. L. Tsvetaev returned the manuscript to the Committee with the following report: “As assigned by this Committee, I read the manuscript: Woe from Wit, Comedy, essay by A. S. Griboyedov and found that in the 1st and 2nd scenes of the first act a noble girl is introduced , who spent the whole night with a single man in her bedroom and left it with him without any shame, and in the 11th and 12th scenes of the fourth act, the same girl sends her maid after midnight to invite the same man to her place for the night and she goes out to meet him; Finding these scenes contrary to decency and morality, approve this manuscript for publication on the basis of § 3, p. I cannot comply with the 3rd censorship regulations, but since this comedy was performed several times at the Moscow Theater, I have the honor to present my opinion for the consideration of the committee.”319 Having agreed with this judgment as “absolutely fair,” the Moscow Censorship Committee, and after it The Main Directorate of Censorship refused to approve the comedy for publication. At the same time, the Main Directorate motivated the refusal not only by the “immorality” of the work in moral and everyday terms, but also by the general ideological and political orientation of the comedy. However, Minister S.S. Uvarov, who headed the censorship department, taking into account that the comedy was already staged imperial theaters both capitals, did not consider it convenient to prohibit its publication without the “highest” “permission” for this.320 The resolution of Nicholas I in “fact” was: “It is possible to print word by word, as it is played; Why take the manuscript from the local theater? After this, on August 21, 1833, L. Tsvetaev gave censorship permission. Three months later the first Russian edition“Woe from Wit” has finally come out. The 1833 edition321 indeed reproduces the theatrical text and reflects many of the defects of the theatrical copies. For example, a characteristic feature of theatrical lists has been preserved: in the dialogue with Zagoretsky (d. III, appearance 17), the Countess’s granddaughter’s remarks are attributed, contrary to the author’s text, to Natalya Dmitrievna. There are as many censorship seizures as in theater lists, although, in comparison with “Russian Waist”, 15 verses in Chatsky’s monologue (d. III, appearance 22) are restored here. 31 verses were removed from Famusov’s monologue (d. II, yavl. 2) (vv. 65-95: “We, for example, or a dead uncle ~ You, the current ones, are nootka!”). 7 verses were removed from the dialogue between Famusov and Skalozub (appearance 5 - art. 237-240; 248-250). Another 7 verses were thrown out in the same place from Famusov’s monologue about Moscow (about “retired chancellors according to their minds” and about the King of Prussia - art. 294-296 and 305-308). In Chatsky’s response monologue (“And who are the judges?..”), 12 verses are missing (“Uniform! one uniform ~ And they threw caps into the air!” - art. 384-395). 6 verses about the guards and the first army were removed from Skalozub’s remark (d. II, 402-407).
In Act IV, poems about secret meetings (94-104) are removed from the conversation between Repetilov and Chatsky; from Repetilov’s monologue addressed to Skalozub - 8 verses about “corrupt secretaries” and “radical drugs” (215-222).
Many poems in the 1833 edition were subject to censorship alterations. For example, instead of Famusov’s remarks (from the second episode): “He wants to preach freedom.” “Yes, he doesn’t recognize the authorities” - it is printed: “That’s what he decided to preach” and “He doesn’t recognize anything.” In Chatsky’s monologue, the phrase “Their enmity towards a free life is irreconcilable” (d. II, 340) is redone: “Their enmity towards us is irreconcilable.” In Repetilov’s remark, instead of “but it’s a matter of state” (d. IV, 121), it is printed: “literary is a matter.”
The 1833 edition, however, quickly sold out. There are copies in which readers filled in what was missed or distorted by censorship by hand. Bold “practical advice” on this matter was contained in O. Senkovsky’s review: “In this edition, some unimportant omissions are noted against the handwritten copies with which Russia is flooded: the memory of today’s readers will easily replenish such passages when reading...”322
The next edition of “Woe from Wit” appeared only six years later, in 1839 (censorship permission from A. Freygang on December 14, 1838).323 The publication published an article by K. Polevoy “On the life and writings of A. S. Griboedov.” Textually, this elegant miniature edition stands no higher than the first. It also contains many censorship exceptions and the original source is no more authoritative. True, some corrections were made (for example, the lines in the dialogue with Zagoretsky in the 17th episode of the 3rd century were returned as appropriate). But such fixes are few.
Such persistence of censorship was absurd: more complete handwritten copies of “Woe from Wit” were circulated than could be produced in any printed edition. Persecuted words and phrases have long become part of living speech as catchphrases. But the Nikolaev censorship stubbornly and stupidly created an illegality out of “Woe from Wit”. Many readers preferred the usual complete lists to the damaged 1833 edition. From the thirties and forties of the XIX century. Many dated lists of “Woe from Wit” have reached us. Griboedov's comedy, like an underground pamphlet or Herzen's "The Bell", was imported by Russian travelers from abroad in complete foreign editions. It is known that the play was published, unprecedented at that time, in two anonymous underground publications without censorship marks and without indicating the year and place of publication. One of them (a copy of it is in the Saltykov-Shchedrin State Public Library - XVIII.154.1.43) gives the full text of the comedy, identical with the final one, but severely damaged by an ignorant copyist and typesetter.
Almost the same should be said about another anonymous publication, which is known only in a single copy, which is stored in my possession (previously belonged to I. O. Serzhputovsky). Printed in a different format and in a different font, it gives the full text of the comedy; Chatsky's last monologue is presented in the so-called intermediate edition.
Both publications were probably printed in some provincial headquarters or regimental printing houses; Due to the lack of a French font, all French phrases in both editions were omitted by the typesetter and then written in ink by hand.
After 1839, there was another break in the censored editions of Woe from Wit, which lasted fourteen years.
On January 30, 1854, the term of literary ownership of “Woe from Wit” expired, and this year seven separate editions of the comedy and the first collected works of Griboedov in the famous series of A. Smirdin “Complete Works of Russian Authors” were published. All these editions, as well as the ones that followed them, 1855-1857, went back in their text to the first edition of 1833 and repeated its shortcomings. The censorship distortions remained the same (or new ones were added, such as, for example, instead of the words “to yawn at the calendar”, allowed in the 1833 edition, it appeared: “to yawn at books”). Sometimes, however, it was possible to fill in one or another of the gaps (in this regard, the publication of A. Smirdin the Son in 1857 should be noted).
Among further publications, the publication by E. Serchevsky should be highlighted.324 This publication, equipped with extensive biographical and literary materials about Griboyedov, greatly contributed to familiarizing readers with him. As for the text of “Woe from Wit,” it is printed here “based on the manuscript used when presenting this comedy at the imperial theaters,” and is no higher than Smirdinsky and other publications of that time. More valuable is the text prepared in 1857 by P. E. Basistov for publication, which, however, did not take place.325
Since 1858, foreign uncensored complete editions of Woe from Wit have appeared. The first of them was the “only complete edition” of the comedy by Yuri Privalovsky (Leipzig, Gustav Baer, 1858); the second is the “complete edition” (Berlin, Ferdinand Schneider, 1858). Their whole interest lies in the fact that they offered the complete text of “Woe from Wit,” without censorship, based on one or another anonymous list circulating in Russia. The best of these editions was published in Berlin in 1860 by Rudolf Wagner, and was apparently edited by M. N. Longinov with the assistance of P. I. Bartenev.326 Without offering a particularly carefully researched text of “Woe from Wit” , the Berlin edition for the first time provided abundant and accurate bibliographic and literary notes, which served a lot in the future for Griboyedov’s researchers.
The first complete Russian legal publication was the publication of Nikolai Tiblen, St. Petersburg, 1862 (censorship permission from V. Beketov on March 25, 1862). However, it contains many errors, since the publisher did not have an authoritative manuscript. The “second, corrected” edition of Tiblen, published in the same year, as the publisher claimed, “was finally verified using the manuscript of A. A. Zhandre, corrected by Griboyedov himself” (i.e., according to the Zhandre manuscript). But the verification was superficial and applied only to the second half of the comedy. However, from that time on, the text of “Woe from Wit” was published in full.
The first publication for schools was the publication of Y. A. Isakov.327 The third edition in the same series was published under the editorship of I. D. Garusov (St. Petersburg, 1873) - “with the omission of verses unusual for a child’s ear.”
In 1875, “Woe from Wit” was published, edited by I. D. Garusov.328
The editor himself qualified his publication as “the fortieth edition, in content the first complete edition, containing, with a new edition of the text, 129 poems that have not yet been published anywhere, all hitherto known variations of the comedy, an assessment of all editions and manuscripts of “Woe from Wit” and literally - the exact text of the manuscript given by Griboedov to Bulgarin.” In addition, I. D. Garusov placed a huge number of notes in the publication - historical, literary, real and others.
However, the text of the comedy reproduced by Garusov in many ways completely diverges from the generally accepted one, which usually goes back to the Bulgarin list. At the same time, Garusov relied on one manuscript, the history of which he outlined as follows. Arriving in Moscow in 1823, Griboedov visited the Lopukhins’ house and met there with their pupil, A.D. Yumatova. Griboyedov left Lopukhin “in 1823 full list comedy in its original, but complete form, without cuts or abbreviations. While passing through Moscow in 1826, he gave Lopukhin a version of several scenes, which he intended to correct for printing. Thus Dunyushka [A. D. Yumatova] became the owner of the complete manuscript.” “In 1826, Griboedov himself looked through her own list, made some minor corrections, and hastily wrote on top of the text on page 1: “I’m correcting from memory: I didn’t capture my Grief.” Moscow, 1826 Al. Griboedov." “The events of 1825 also influenced the Lopukhin family. The Griboyedov manuscript, according to Yumatova, was lost in the 30s, and she became the only owner of the complete text, which was brought from Moscow in 1827 to her estate.” On this estate (in the Yaroslavl province) in 1842, I. D. Garusov, then still a high school student, “spent many summer days literally making a copy of the manuscript, in its corrected form, releasing, unfortunately, everything that had been crossed out by the author , not understanding then the price and importance of precision work, and in August 1842 he brought his list to Yaroslavl.” In Yaroslavl, by November 5, 1842, the list was “copied completely” under the leadership of P. M. Perevlessky, and in August 1873 Garusov “took a copy from it and handed it over to the handwritten department of the imp. Publ. libraries." But this new list Garusov, “due to circumstances beyond his control,” could not include those options that appeared in his edition of 1875 and which allegedly “were acquired by him from A.D. Yumatova in December 1844,” when Garusov again visited her in the village of Protivye . After Yumatova’s death, her own manuscript disappeared, and Garusov could no longer find it. Garusov attached special, exceptional importance to the text of “Woe from Wit,” obtained from Yumatova, in the sense of authority and reliability. With this text, as the only true one, he measured the merits of other manuscripts and printed editions of the comedy available to him and in their detailed description, given in the 1875 edition, he systematically noted all their differences from his text.
Leaving aside the huge number of relatively minor differences between the Garusov text and the well-known and generally accepted one, we will give only a few examples of the most significant differences.
The following verses are inserted into Gorich’s remark characterizing Zagoretsky (d. III, yavl. 9):
The other day he broke the bank like a cheater.
Winked with a sharpie with the same note
And he beat me. God bless him!
Yesterday I stole a ticket, I heard how I lied.
In yavl. 10 of the same action a huge insert is made:
Khlestova. (Pointing to Platon Mikhailovich, sitting with his back to her.)
What kind of stuffed animal is this? Tell me who is he?
Sophia
Natalya Dmitrievna's husband, Platon Mikhailovich.
Platon Mikhailovich turns around and bows.
Khlestova
A! I know. - Hello! Spouse
It’s true here: you two are inseparable friends.
Natalya Dmitrievna, approaching.
I bowed, you didn’t look closely.
Kissing
Khlestova
No wonder, the eyes looked like they were old.
Natalya Dmitrievna leaves.
Well, here's a couple! Honestly - a sight for sore eyes!
Seeing two princesses approaching.
Oh! My God; niece, look,
Like the second princess’s back is crumpled...
How low the notch is! - Well, really, disgusting!
Oh, how disheveled she is,
It's like being at home and alone!
The other two princesses pass by.
Everyone's chemisettes are dirty and wrinkled.
Seeing the princess, she loudly:
Princess! How beautiful your children are!
Brides, everyone is nice, at least down the aisle.
The princess moves aside with annoyance.
Old age of evil!
Aloud:
They are growing. - Oh, my Creator!
How long has it been since I myself...
Khlestova, interrupting:
We are together with you
They went to the crown...
Princess, interrupting her:
Completeness! I was a child.
Khlestova Sophia:
Looks noticeably younger.
To the princess:
Maybe with us
Are you tomorrow? Tatyana Yuryevna called us.
Princess
And she called us; we'll be together.
Prince, prince! mark! - We really won’t forget.
Goes to the guests.
Khlestova, pointing to Sophia Skalozub.
And who is that standing there by the column?
Sophia, without hearing it, goes to the guests.
What are the fashions now?
End of centuries! - What waists! - Freaks!
Well, what kind of ties? like - like clamps.
Seeing Countess Grandmother:
Well, what a huge cap she put on!
Look, Sonyushka... Niece! Where are you?
Sophia comes up.
Look how tightly the soul is held in!
Deaf, toothless, pockmarked, not good...
It's time for her to go to her grave long ago...
And the ball, right, is in the first place here.
Seeing the countess-granddaughter:
And the granddaughter... What a shame! - Ugh... all in the hole!
Almost naked... I can’t even look.
Both countesses approach and bow.
Dear Countess, my friend! been with you for a long time
We did not play picket or imperial. With us…
Oh! It seems that there is a small debt for that?
So with the prince, you, as you have to,
And then somehow it will be reckoned with.
Kisses the countess-granddaughter.
Sit down, my dear friend!
How sweet you are!
How it blossomed!
To the Countess Grandmother:
Countess, my friend! I am so glad,
I swear I see you... I won’t remember... without a soul...
I live in such a wilderness
It's a joy to see friends.
In yavl. 21, in Zagoretsky’s remark:
Novels?.. What harm!..
And here is where evil is, the cause of troubles:
Scientists... Leave them alone!..
Some kind of scientific morality
Yesterday I read, sweated, worked to understand,
What was the learned liar saying?
I didn't achieve it at all.
Yavl. Act 9 IV in Garus's text began with the following verses:
Repetilov, looking in Khlestova’s wake.
Failed! - Unfortunately, I was late.
This one would suit us:
He will speak and will not let you disappear.
It's a tongue! Granny is so impudent!..
Oh, poor Chatsky! What's wrong with you?
Are they really saying it?..
What a pity!.. With such a head
For our collection - a treasure.
And Zagoretsky!.. I doubt it;
It’s unlikely that he would become ours...
Look, like Skalozub! Let me try...
There is no intelligence in him, just a golden channel.
Appearing in 1875, Garusov’s edition did not encounter any strong objections, and subsequent editors, although not without hesitation, were ready to recognize the authenticity of Garusov’s insertions.329 Meanwhile, as is clear from the analysis, the text published by Garusov was undoubtedly falsified.
The Museum's autograph and Zhandrov's manuscript of "Woe from Wit" remained inaccessible to Garusov; he did not see them, and therefore the history of the comedy text seemed to him in a distorted form. He also underestimated the importance of the Bulgarin list as a source of text. All this deprived Garusov of the opportunity to take a critical look at the text of the Lopukhin-Yumatov manuscript. He presented the history of this text in a confusing and contradictory way. He, for example, claims that the text of the Lopukhin list was completely completed “at the end of 1823”; but according to the testimony of Griboyedov’s closest friend, S.N. Begichev, when Griboyedov arrived in Moscow in March 1823, he only had the first two acts of the comedy written in rough form, while the second two were written in the summer in the village of Begichev and became known in Moscow in the original edition only in the fall of 1823. Garusov was completely unaware that in the text of 1823 there was no scene of Molchaliv flirting with Liza (IV d.): it, however, is in the Lopukhinsky list. Garusov claims that, “driving, already under arrest, through Moscow” in 1826, Griboyedov saw the Lopukhins, which, however, could not have happened, since during a short stop Griboedov saw only S.N. Begichev in Moscow and with his brother Dmitry. The aesthetically ugly inserts in the third act cannot belong to Griboyedov, since it was the third act that was published in the almanac “Russian Waist for 1825,” when Griboedov himself lived in St. Petersburg and probably oversaw the publication. In the Bulgarin list, authorized by Griboyedov in 1828, the printed text of 1825 was left unchanged. In general, in all three authorized manuscripts of “Woe from Wit”, the Museum, Zhandrovskaya and Bulgarinskaya, there is not the slightest hint of the huge inserts in the third and fourth acts that appeared in the Garusovsky text.
A closer look at this text reveals its compilability. Quite arbitrarily, Garusov includes in his text, which he himself considers final, variants of the original text, recently published by Alexei N. Veselovsky (Russian Archive, 1874, No. 6). Then it is discovered that Garusov’s printed text diverges from his own lists. As already mentioned, in 1873 Garusov donated to the Public Library a handwritten copy of the list, which he made from the Yumatov manuscript, “not wanting to release this list from his family.” The “list” remaining with Garusov turned out to be in two copies (now kept in the collection of N.K. Piksanov). On the first there is an inscription: “Copied from a manuscript corrected by Griboyedov and found in the Lopukhins’ library by a student of the 7th grade of the Yaroslavl provincial gymnasium, Ivan Garusov. The spelling and line breakdown are the same as corrected by Griboyedov. The manuscript is currently in Yarosl. lips, angle district, in the village of Protivye, with Avdotya Dmitrievna Yumatova, a former pupil of the Lopukhins.” This list, on the cover of which Garusov himself put No. 1, is obviously the one that he, in his own words, made on Yumatova’s estate and “brought to Yaroslavl in August 1842.” On the second list it is marked twice (at the beginning and at the end): “finished on November 5, 1842.” Obviously, this is the list that, according to Garusov, was again “rewritten under the editorship of Perevlessky in full by November 5, 1842.” Both lists are covered with later corrections, and these inscriptions contain references to printed publications of the 60-70s.
A comparison of these two lists of 1842 with the copy of 1873 and with the printed edition of Garusov in 1875 easily convinces that all four editions differ in many respects from each other. The second list was not an exact copy of the first, and it obviously contained traces of an arbitrary “edition by Perevlessky”, who, according to Garusov, “recognized almost the entire text of the list as undoubtedly belonging to Griboedov”, but “noted all that were not subject to time prints, poems" (?). The third list, made by Garusov thirty years later, is an arbitrary compilation of the first two, contradicting first one and then the other. Finally, the printed text was subjected to new alterations by Garusov, which put it at odds with all three lists.
Thus, Garusov’s text “Woe from Wit” was subjected to triple falsification: someone made huge insertions into the Lopukhin-Yumatov list; corruption of the text was allowed by Garusov in his three lists; new damage was made in the printed edition of 1875.
All this was clearly discovered later, but already at the time of the noisy appearance of Garusov’s publication, some doubtfulness of his discoveries was felt, and soon M. A. Gamazov formulated this in print: “Here there are poems that my feeling does not allow me to unconditionally recognize as truly Griboyedov’s... None of these insertions are in complete harmony with the general tone of the entire play; on the contrary, they produce some kind of annoying cacophony.<…>It’s the same as if someone decided to decorate a sewn dress with the remaining scraps, just because they belonged to the same piece of material from which it was cut.”330
The main value and merit of the Garusov edition is the reproduction of the Bulgarin list. A review of manuscripts (a few, however, and not the most valuable ones, which remained inaccessible to Garusov), printed editions and translations of the comedy is also useful. However, Garusov’s assessments of the textual merits of various publications are often erroneous, since he considered his own text, which was objectively obviously unreliable, to be their measure. The extensive “explanations and notes” to the text reported by Garusov - historical, literary and real - are also of some value. Some of them, however, are confusing and indicate a low level of knowledge and understanding of the commentator himself.331
The earliest researcher of the text “Woe from Wit” was D. A. Smirnov (1819-1866). The “Materials for the History of “Woe from Wit”” he collected set out in detail the history of printed editions of the comedy, reproduced its text with variants from the autograph kept by Begichev, and a complete anthology of all critical reviews of Griboedov that appeared in print. But during the life of the collector, Smirnov’s materials were not published, and after his death they entered the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature and disappeared from there in the 80s. To some extent they were used in the article by Alexei N. Veselovsky “Essay on the initial history of “Woe from Wit.”332 In this article, based on materials from D. A. Smirnov, options for the early, i.e., Museum edition of the comedy were reported and some points were outlined in the poet's work on the text. For a long time, the article by A. N. Veselovsky, in the absence of other information in print about the early edition of “Woe from Wit,” was the primary source for studying the creative history of comedy, until the original text of the Museum Autograph was made public in 1903.
This work in next year was used by A. N. Veselovsky for a separate edition of the comedy he edited.333 The publication included a biography of Griboyedov; some of his works and letters were published here for the first time; As for “Woe from Wit,” then, as stated in the editor’s note, “in this edition of the comedy, a set of the most reliable editions has been made, the notes contain options, indications of the original characters in the comedy and the relationship of its various places to modern times, which can be accepted with reasonable grounds as reliable; Some incomprehensible words characteristic of the secular language of Griboyedov’s times are also explained there, as well as those details that can contribute to a better understanding of the plan of the play and the author’s goals.”
Comedy “Woe from Wit” by A.S. Griboyedova brought immortal glory to her creator. It is dedicated to the split in noble society that emerged at the beginning of the 19th century, the conflict between the “past century” and the “present century,” between the old and the new. The play ridicules the foundations of secular society of that time. Like any accusatory work, “Woe from Wit” had a difficult relationship with censorship, and as a result, a difficult creative destiny. In the history of the creation of "Woe from Wit" there are several key points that should be noted.
The idea of creating the play “Woe from Wit” probably arose from Griboyedov in 1816. At this time, he came to St. Petersburg from abroad and found himself at an aristocratic reception. Like the main character of “Woe from Wit,” Griboedov was outraged by the Russian people’s craving for everything foreign. Therefore, seeing at the evening how everyone bowed to one foreign guest, Griboyedov expressed his extremely negative attitude towards what was happening. While the young man was pouring out an angry monologue, someone voiced the assumption of his possible madness. The aristocrats received this news with joy and quickly spread it. It was then that it occurred to Griboyedov to write a satirical comedy, where he could mercilessly ridicule all the vices of the society that treated him so mercilessly. Thus, one of the prototypes of Chatsky, the main character of “Woe from Wit,” was Griboyedov himself.
In order to more realistically show the environment that he was going to write about, Griboedov, while at balls and receptions, noticed various cases, portraits, characters. Subsequently, they were reflected in the play and became part of the creative history of “Woe from Wit.”
Griboyedov began reading the first excerpts of his play in Moscow in 1823, and the comedy, then called “Woe to Wit,” was completed in 1824 in Tiflis. The work was repeatedly subject to changes at the request of censorship. In 1825, only excerpts of the comedy were published in the anthology “Russian Waist”. This did not prevent readers from getting acquainted with the work in its entirety and sincerely admiring it, because the comedy was circulated in handwritten copies, of which there are several hundred. Griboedov supported the appearance of such lists, because this way his play had the opportunity to reach the reader. In the history of the creation of the comedy “Woe from Wit” by Griboedov, there are even cases of insertion of foreign fragments into the text of the play by copyists.
A.S. Pushkin already became familiar with the full text of the comedy in January 1825, when Pushchin brought “Woe from Wit” to a poet friend who was at that moment in exile in Mikhailovskoye.
When Griboedov went to the Caucasus and then to Persia, he gave the manuscript to his friend F.V. Bulgarin with the inscription “I entrust my grief to Bulgarin...”. Of course, the writer hoped that his enterprising friend would assist in publishing the play. In 1829, Griboyedov died, and the manuscript that remained with Bulgarin became the main text of the comedy “Woe from Wit.”
Only in 1833 the play was published in Russian in its entirety. Before this, only fragments of it were published, and theatrical productions of the comedy were significantly distorted by censorship. Without censorship intervention, Moscow saw “Woe from Wit” only in 1875.
The history of the creation of the play "Woe from Wit" has much in common with the fate of the main character of the comedy. Chatsky found himself powerless in the face of the outdated views of the society in which he was forced to find himself. He failed to convince the nobles of the need for change and a change in their worldview. Likewise, Griboedov, having thrown his accusatory comedy in the face of secular society, was unable to achieve any significant changes in the views of the nobles of that time. However, both Chatsky and Griboedov sowed the seeds of Enlightenment, reason and progressive thinking in aristocratic society, which later bore rich fruit in a new generation of nobles.
Despite all the difficulties during publication, the play has a happy creative destiny. Thanks to her light style and aphorism, she was widely quoted. The sound of “Woe from Wit” is still modern today. The problems raised by Griboedov are still relevant today, because the collision of old and new is inevitable at all times.
Work test
It is known that by 1816 Griboyedov had a plan for a comedy ready. Based on the recollections of the writer's friends, we can partially reconstruct the original plan. His close friend S.N. Begichev wrote: “... Griboedov changed it [the plan] in many ways and destroyed some of the characters, and by the way, Famusov’s wife, a sentimental fashionista and a Moscow aristocrat (at that time fake sensitivity was still somewhat in vogue among Moscow ladies) and at the same time Scenes already written were also thrown out.”
Few of the writers you know from the early 19th century did not ever participate in a duel. The last duels between Pushkin and Lermontov turned out to be great tragedies for Russian literature. Griboyedov took part in the sensational brutal duel between Sheremetev and Zavadovsky. It was a so-called quadruple duel, that is, after the main duelists, their seconds had to fight.
Officially, duels were prohibited and punishment followed. His mother insisted that Alexander leave St. Petersburg for a while until the rumors died down and the anger of his superiors subsided. Persia became the place of refuge: Griboyedov was appointed to the post of secretary of the embassy. After a long journey through Russia, Griboedov arrived in Tehran in the spring of 1819 and was then sent to Tabriz.
What Griboyedov encountered in Tabriz (Tabriz) deeply shocked him. It turned out that dozens of Russian prisoners of war were languishing in Persia and could not return to their homeland. At the cost of enormous diplomatic efforts, Griboyedov rescued them and brought them, hungry and half-raged, to Tiflis. General Ermolov was shocked by Griboyedov’s persistence and mercy. He realized that in front of him was not just an embassy official, but a person capable of unexpected noble deeds and feeling his life’s purpose. The general ensured that Griboedov was appointed “secretary for foreign affairs under the commander-in-chief in the Caucasus.”
It was in Tabriz that the first two acts of the comedy “Woe from Wit” were written in rough form, which he later rewrote in Tiflis. But further work was not easy: Griboedov’s isolation from the capital, from literary circles, and from the Moscow world was reflected. This honorable exile lasted for five whole years. Only in 1823 did Griboyedov return to his friends. On the estate of his friend Begichev in the summer of 1824, he finished Woe from Wit.
Although at first only the poet’s sister knew about the manuscript, it turned out to be impossible to keep the secret for a long time. Reproaches and indignation rained down from all sides. Griboyedov had to remake his favorite comedy, into which he invested all his talent. Convinced that there is no hope of publication, Griboedov encourages distribution on lists. It is estimated that 40,000 handwritten copies were distributed. This is a huge amount! In 1825, the first attempt was made to stage a comedy on the educational stage of a theater school in St. Petersburg.
Griboyedov managed to publish only a few scenes from the comedy - in Thaddeus Bulgarin’s almanac “Russian Waist for 1825”. According to contemporaries, Griboedov became irritable, bilious, quarrelsome, and his cheerfulness left him forever.
He was friendly with many officers who later became Decembrists. After the arrest of the Decembrists, many were found to have the text “Woe from Wit” copied by hand. After the failed uprising, a specially sent courier took Griboyedov to the investigators. At first, Griboyedov declared his moral support for the rebels, but then investigators who sympathized with him persuaded Griboyedov to change his testimony. He wrote that he knew nothing about the upcoming armed uprising. Finally, in June 1826, Griboedov was released and returned to the diplomatic service. He was depressed by life's troubles. His mother took an oath from him to return to service, and Griboyedov again went to the Caucasus. He participated in military operations, in the battles of the Russian-Persian War of 1827-1828, but most of all he turned out to be useful, as always, in the diplomatic field: having achieved the Turkmanchay Treaty with Persia, which was extremely beneficial for Russia, he was sent to Russia on an extremely honorable mission - be the first to report the conclusion of a peace agreement.
Before his last departure from St. Petersburg in 1828, Griboyedov made the inscription on the Bulgarin list of “Woe from Wit”: “I entrust my grief to Bulgarin...” - in the hope that he would be able to achieve the publication of the comedy.
At the same time, Griboedov met the young princess Nina Chavchavadze, the daughter of his friend, whom he knew as a child. Now in front of him was a girl with whom he fell passionately in love and to whom he very soon proposed.
The happiness did not last long. On January 30, 1829, the Russian mission in Persia was attacked during the War in the North Caucasus (1818-1864). Only one of the employees was accidentally saved. Griboyedov's mutilated body was hardly identified in a pile of corpses. He was buried by a young widow in Tiflis on the territory of an ancient monastery next to the Church of St. David, from where he had previously admired the view of the city and where he wished to one day be buried.
The first separate edition of “Woe from Wit” appeared after the death of Griboyedov, in 1833, and the complete edition, not distorted by censorship, was published only in 1862.
Source (abbreviated): Literature: 9th grade: in 2 hours. Part 1 / B.A. Lanin, L.Yu. Ustinova; edited by B.A. Lanina. - 2nd ed., rev. and additional - M.: Ventana-Graf, 2016
