The most textbook Russian comedy, an inexhaustible source of proverbs and a panopticon of immortal Russian types. Griboyedov combines a love affair with a social conflict and creates a universal image of a prophet who is not understood in his own country.
comments: Varvara Babitskaya
What is this book about?
In the mid-1820s, Alexander Chatsky - a young witty nobleman and ardent citizen - after a three-year absence returns to Moscow, where he grew up in the house of a major official Famusov, and hurries to his beloved girl - Famusov's daughter, Sophia. But the cultural distance turns out to be insurmountable: Sophia fell in love with the hypocrite and careerist Molchalin, and Chatsky himself is declared crazy for his inappropriate sermons.
A few years after the victory in the Patriotic War and the Moscow fire, the patriotic upsurge is replaced by a murmur against the ensuing reaction (“Arakcheevism”), and the patriarchal Moscow way of life fades into oblivion - and is finally captured by a sarcastic Muscovite.
Ivan Kramskoy. Portrait of the writer Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov. 1875 State Tretyakov Gallery
When was it written?
Griboyedov conceived his main play in 1820 in Persia, where he served as a diplomat (evidence that the plan arose earlier is unreliable). Griboyedov wrote the first two acts in Tiflis, where he managed to transfer in the fall of 1821 and where he subsequently made a career under General Ermolov. Having left service for a while in the spring of 1823 and collected new material for comedy at Moscow balls, Griboyedov wrote acts III and IV in the summer of 1823 in the village of Dmitrovskoye, Tula province, where he was visiting his old friend Stepan Begichev Stepan Nikitich Begichev (1785-1859) - military man, memoirist. Begichev, like Griboyedov, was an adjutant to General Andrei Kologrivov, rose to the rank of colonel and retired in 1825. In the 1820s, Odoevsky, Davydov, Kuchelbecker stayed in his house in Moscow, and Griboyedov lived for a long time. Begichev wrote one of the first articles in defense of “Woe from Wit,” which he did not publish at the insistence of Griboedov. He was a member of the Decembrist Union of Welfare, but left the organization before the uprising and was not brought to trial. . At the beginning of the summer of 1824, having gone to St. Petersburg to push the finished comedy through the censorship, Griboyedov came up with a new ending on the road and already in St. Petersburg greatly reworked the comedy. He asks Begichev not to read the remaining manuscript to anyone, because since then Griboedov “has changed more than eighty poems, or, better said, the rhymes, now it’s as smooth as glass.” Work on the comedy continued for a long time - the last authorized version is considered to be the so-called Bulgarin list, which Griboedov presented to his publisher and friend Thaddeus Bulgarin on June 5, 1828, on the eve of his return to the East.
The girl herself is not stupid, she prefers a fool to an intelligent person (not because we sinners have an ordinary mind, no! and in my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person)
Alexander GriboyedovHow is it written?
Spoken language and free iambic Typical examples of free iambic can be found in Krylov's fables. Here, for example, is “Council of Mice”: “It is a sign among mice that the one whose tail is longer / Always smarter / And more efficient everywhere. / Whether this is smart, we won’t ask now; / Moreover, we ourselves often judge intelligence / By a dress or a beard...” . Both were absolute innovations in Russian comedy. Before Griboyedov, free iambic, that is, iambic with alternating verses of different lengths, was used, as a rule, in small poetic forms, for example in Krylov’s fables, sometimes in poems with “frivolous content” - such as “Darling” Bogdanovich Ippolit Fedorovich Bogdanovich (1743-1803) - poet, translator. Bogdanovich was an official: he worked in the Foreign Collegium, the Russian embassy at the Saxon court, State Archives. In 1783, he published a story in verse, “Darling,” a free adaptation of La Fontaine’s novel “The Love of Psyche and Cupid.” Thanks to “Darling,” Bogdanovich became widely known, but his further works were not successful. . This size allows for the best use of both the attractiveness of poetic devices (meter, rhyme) and the intonation freedom of prose. Lines of different lengths make the verse more free, closer to natural speech; the language of “Woe from Wit” with many irregularities, archaisms and colloquialisms reproduces the Moscow accent of the era even phonetically: for example, not “Alexei Stepanovich”, but “Alexei Stepanoch”. Thanks to its aphoristic style, the play became proverbs immediately after its appearance.
Having finished the first version of the comedy, which was immediately banned by censorship, Griboedov went to St. Petersburg in June 1824, hoping there, thanks to his connections, to bring the play to the stage and into print. Meanwhile, “Woe from Wit” was already widely circulating on lists.
Having lost hope of publishing the comedy in its entirety, on December 15, 1824, the playwright published fragments (acts 7-10 of act I and all Act III) in the Bulgarin almanac "Russian Waist" The first theatrical almanac in Russian, published by Thaddeus Bulgarin in 1825 in St. Petersburg. In addition to Griboyedov’s “Woe from Wit,” “Talia” published translations of Moliere, Voltaire, texts by Shakhovsky, Katenin, Zhandre, and Grech. , where the text has been censored and abbreviated. The discussion in the press that followed the publication further stimulated reader interest and the circulation of handwritten copies. Andrey Zhandre said that he “had a whole office at hand: she copied “Woe from Wit” and became rich, because they demanded a lot lists" 2 Fomichev S. A. Author of “Woe from Wit” and readers of the comedy // A. S. Griboedov: Creativity. Biography. Traditions. L., 1977. S. 6-10. . The comedy was first published as a separate edition after the death of the author, in 1833 - in full, but with censored cuts. Neither this publication nor the subsequent one, in 1839, stopped the production of lists - Xenophon Field Ksenophon Alekseevich Polevoy (1801-1867) - writer, critic, translator. From 1829 to 1834 he edited the Moscow Telegraph, the magazine of his brother, writer Nikolai Polevoy. In 1839 he published “Woe from Wit” with his introductory article. In the 1850s, Polevoy published in the Northern Bee, Otechestvennye Zapiski, and published the Picturesque Russian Library. He wrote critical texts about Pushkin, Delvig, Bogdanovich, and became the author of memoirs about Nikolai Polevoy. wrote later: “How many examples can you find where a composition of twelve printed sheets was rewritten thousands of times, for where and who does not have a handwritten “Woe from Wit”? Have we ever had an even more striking example of a handwritten work becoming the property of literature, of being judged as a work known to everyone, knowing it by heart, citing it as an example, referring to it, and only in relation to it there was no need for Gutenberg’s invention? »
Thus, “Woe from Wit” became the first work to be widely circulated in samizdat. The comedy was published in its entirety and without cuts only in 1862.
What influenced her?
In "Woe from Wit" the influence of the French salon comedy, which reigned on the stage at that time, is obvious. Griboyedov at the beginning literary career and he himself paid tribute to this tradition - he parodied it in the play “The Young Spouses” and, together with Andrey Zhandre Andrei Andreevich Zhandre (1789-1873) - playwright, translator. Gendre began his career as a civil servant as a clerk and ended with the rank of Privy Councilor with the Order of St. Alexander Nevsky. In his spare time, Gendre translated from French: together with Griboyedov, he translated the comedy “Feigned Innocence” by Nicolas Barthes, and together with Shakhovsky, the opera “The Magic Lamp, or Cashmere Cakes.” Published in the anthology “Russian Waist”, magazines “Son of the Fatherland” and “Northern Observer”. wrote the comedy "Feigned Infidelity" - a reworking of the play by Nicolas Barth. Russian verse comedy of the 1810s also influenced Griboedov, in particular Alexander Shakhovskoy Alexander Alexandrovich Shakhovskoy (1777-1846) - playwright. In 1802, Shakhovskoy left military service and began working in the directorate of the Imperial Theaters. His first successful comedy was “New Stern”, a few years later the comedy “Semi-Bar Undertakings, or Home Theater” was staged, in 1815 - “A Lesson for Coquettes, or Lipetsk Waters”. In 1825, compromised by his connections with the Decembrists, Shakhovskoy left the theater directorate, but continued writing - in total he wrote more than a hundred works. , who developed the techniques of free verse back in “Lipetsk Waters” and in the comedy “If you don’t like it, don’t listen, but don’t bother me to lie,” with which “Woe from Wit” in places coincides both verbally and plot-wise.
Contemporary criticism of Griboyedov pointed out the plot similarity of “Woe from Wit” with Moliere’s “The Misanthrope” and with Christoph Wieland’s novel “The History of the Abderites”, in which the ancient Greek philosopher Democritus returns after wanderings to his hometown; Stupid and ignorant fellow citizens of Democritus consider his natural science experiments to be witchcraft and declare him insane.
Griboedov himself was largely guided by Renaissance dramaturgy - primarily by Shakespeare, whom (knowing English well) he read in the original and appreciated for his freedom from genre canons and restrictions: “Shakespeare wrote very simply: he thought a little about the plot, about the intrigue and took the first plot, but processed it in his own way. In this work he was great" 1 Bestuzhev-Marlinsky A. My acquaintance with Griboedov // A. S. Griboedov in the memoirs of his contemporaries. P. 190. .
Griboyedov learned the art of plotting from Beaumarchais. Finally, in the story of Sophia’s love for Molchalin, researchers see a ballad plot - a kind of parody of Zhukovsky’s ballad “Aeolian Harp”; apparently not without reason, because Zhukovsky was an important aesthetic opponent for Griboedov.
The earliest of the comedy manuscripts, 1823–1824. Belonged to Griboedov's friend Stepan Begichev
How was she received?
Having barely finished the comedy in June 1824 in St. Petersburg, Griboyedov read it in familiar houses - and, according to his own testimony, with constant success: “There is no end to the thunder, noise, admiration, curiosity.” After the publication of excerpts from the comedy in Russian Waist, the discussion moved to print - all important Russian magazines responded: "Son of the Fatherland" Literary magazine published from 1812 to 1852. The founder was Nikolai Grech. Until 1825, the magazine published authors from the Decembrist circle: Delvig, Bestuzhev, Zhukovsky, Pushkin, Kuchelbecker, Vyazemsky, Griboedov, Ryleev. After the defeat of the Decembrists, Thaddeus Bulgarin became a co-publisher of the magazine, combining his “Northern Archive” with “Son of the Fatherland.” Later, the magazine was headed by Alexander Nikitenko, Nikolai Polevoy, Osip Senkovsky. , "Moscow Telegraph" Encyclopedic magazine published by Nikolai Polev from 1825 to 1834. The magazine addressed to a wide circle readers and advocated the “education of the middle classes.” In the 1830s, the number of subscribers reached five thousand people, a record audience at that time. The magazine was closed by personal decree of Nicholas I due to a negative review of the play by Nestor the Puppeteer, which the emperor liked. , "Polar Star" Literary almanac of the Decembrists, published by Kondraty Ryleev and Alexander Bestuzhev from 1822 to 1825. It published poems by Pushkin, Vyazemsky, Baratynsky, and Ryleev. After the Decembrist uprising, the almanac was banned, and the 1825 edition was seized. Since 1855, Alexander Herzen began publishing a magazine of the same name in London as a sign of respect for the Decembrists. and so on. Here, along with praise for the lively picture of Moscow morals, fidelity to types and the new language of comedy, the first critical voices were heard. The controversy was caused primarily by the figure of Chatsky, whose criticism was as different in scale as Alexander Pushkin and the now forgotten Mikhail Dmitriev Mikhail Aleksandrovich Dmitriev (1796-1866) - poet, critic, translator. Dmitriev was an official most of his life: he served in the archives of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs, the Moscow Court, and a department of the Senate. Thanks to his uncle, the poet Ivan Dmitriev, he became acquainted with the literary environment and began to engage in criticism - he published articles in Vestnik Evropy, Moskovsky Vestnik, and Moskvityanin. His polemic with Vyazemsky about the nature of romanticism and the dispute with Polevoy over Griboyedov’s “Woe from Wit” became famous. In 1865, a collection of poems by Dmitriev was published. Translated Horace, Schiller, Goethe. , accused of lack of intelligence. The latter also pointed out to Griboyedov the unnatural development of the plot and the “hard, uneven and incorrect” language. Although Dmitriev’s claims gave rise to many years of discussion, he himself became the subject of ridicule, for example, in the epigram of Pushkin’s friend Sergei Sobolevsky Sergei Alexandrovich Sobolevsky (1803-1870) - poet. From 1822 he served in the archives of the College of Foreign Affairs. It was Sobolevsky who became the author of the expression “archive youth”, meaning young man from a wealthy family engaged in light work in the archives. Sobolevsky was known as a writer of especially caustic epigrams, communicated with Gogol, Lermontov, Turgenev, and was close friends with Pushkin. In the 1840-60s he was engaged in book publishing and collecting rare books. : “The schoolchildren gathered, and soon / Mich<айло>Dm<итриев>I scribbled the review, / In which I clearly proved, / That “Woe from Wit” is not Mishenka’s Woe.” Nadezhdin Nikolai Ivanovich Nadezhdin (1804-1856) - founder of the Telescope magazine and predecessor of Belinsky: largely under the influence of Nadezhdin, literary criticism in Russia acquires a conceptual basis. In 1836, Telescope was closed for publishing Chaadaev’s Philosophical Letter, and Nadezhdin himself was sent into exile. Upon returning, Nadezhdin abandoned criticism, got a job at the Ministry of Internal Affairs and devoted himself to ethnography. , who highly valued “Woe from Wit,” noted that the play was devoid of action and was not written for the stage, and Pyotr Vyazemsky called the comedy “a slander on morals.”
Griboyedov's language surprised many of Griboyedov's contemporaries, but this surprise was most often joyful. Bestuzhev-Marlinsky praised the “unprecedented fluency and nature of the spoken Russian language in poetry,” Odoevsky called Griboedov “the only writer who has comprehended the secret of translating our spoken language onto paper” and in whom “we find Russian flavor in one syllable.”
In general, with the exception of Belinsky alone, who wrote a devastating criticism of “Woe from Wit” in 1839, no one doubted the originality, talent and innovation of comedy. As for the political background of “Woe from Wit,” it, for understandable censorship reasons, was not directly discussed until the 1860s, when Chatsky increasingly began to be brought closer to the Decembrists - first Nikolai Ogarev, followed by Apollo Grigoriev and, finally, Herzen; It was precisely this interpretation of the image of Chatsky that subsequently reigned in Soviet literary criticism.
“I’m not talking about poetry, half of it should become a proverb,” said Pushkin immediately after the appearance of “Woe from Wit” and he turned out to be right. In terms of frequency of citations, Griboyedov was probably ahead of all Russian classics, including even the former champion Krylov. “Happy people don’t watch the clock”, “The legend is fresh, but hard to believe” - it’s pointless to multiply examples; even the line “And the smoke of the Fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us!” is now perceived as Griboyedov's aphorism, although Chatsky in this case quotes Derzhavin.
The Famusov society has become a household name, as have its individual representatives - “all these Famusovs, Molchalins, Skalozubs, Zagoretskys.” IN in a certain sense“Griboyedov’s Moscow” itself became a household name - this is how Mikhail Gershenzon titled the book, who described the typical Moscow lordly way of life using the example of a particular Rimsky-Korsakov family, and in all household members he directly saw Griboyedov’s characters, and supported quotes from documents with quotes from the comedy.
From the Griboyedov tradition arose the classic Russian drama of the 19th century: “Masquerade” by Lermontov, in whose disappointed hero Arbenin it is easy to recognize the features of Chatsky, “The Inspector General” by Gogol - a “social comedy”, where a county town with a gallery of caricatures embodies everything Russian society, social drama Alexander Sukhovo-Kobylin and Alexander Ostrovsky. From this time on, discussion of dramatic social conflicts comic means, which once amazed Griboyedov’s contemporaries, has become common place, and the genre boundaries have blurred. Moreover, the play set a kind of new canon. For a long time, theater troupes were recruited under “Woe from Wit”: it was believed that the cast of actors, between whom Griboyedov’s roles were well distributed, could play the entire theater repertoire 3 Sukhikh I. Cool reading from Gorukhshchi to Gogol. Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov 1795 (1790) - 1829. // Neva. 2012. No. 8 .
In moments of crisis in social thought, the Russian intelligentsia invariably returned to the image of Chatsky, who increasingly merged in the cultural consciousness with Griboedov himself: from Yuri Tynyanov, who in 1928 explored in “The Death of Vazir-Mukhtar” the eternal question of whether it is possible to serve in Russia “ to the cause, not to the persons” and not to turn from Chatsky into Molchalin - until Viktor Tsoi, who sang “My Woe from the Mind” (“Red-Yellow Days”) in 1990.
The Griboyedov House on the corner of Novinsky and Bolshoy Devyatinsky lanes. Moscow, XIX century
Griboedov's grave in Tiflis
How did “Woe from Wit” make its way onto the stage?
The first attempt to stage a comedy was made in May 1825 by students of the St. Petersburg Theater School with the live participation of Griboyedov himself, who dreamed of seeing his unsuccessful play “at least on the home stage” (the comedy was not allowed on the big stage as “a libel on Moscow”). However, on the eve of the performance, the performance was banned by the St. Petersburg Governor General Count Miloradovich Count Mikhail Andreevich Miloradovich (1771-1825) - general, participant in the Russian-Swedish War, Suvorov’s Italian and Swiss campaigns, Russian-Turkish War 1806-1812. In 1810, Miloradovich was appointed military governor of Kyiv. In the Patriotic War of 1812 he took part in the Battle of Borodino, the battle of Vyazma, and the capture of Paris. After the war - St. Petersburg military governor general. During the uprising on December 14, he was killed by the Decembrists on Senate Square; before his death, he bequeathed the release of all his peasants. , who considered that a play not approved by censorship could not be staged at a theater school.
The next attempt was made in October 1827 in Yerevan, in the building of the Sardar Palace, by officers of the Caucasian Corps, among whom were exiled Decembrists. The theater club was soon strictly prohibited, since the craze for theater distracted officers from their service.
According to some reports, amateur performances were made in Tiflis with the participation of the author, and in 1830 several young people “drove around St. Petersburg in carriages, sent a card to familiar houses on which was written “Act III of Woe from Wit,” entered the house and played there are some scenes from comedy" 4 Gamazov M. First performances of the comedy “Woe from Wit.” 1827-1832. From the memories of a student // Bulletin of Europe. 1875. No. 7. pp. 319-332. Quote by: Orlov Vl. Griboyedov. Essay on life and creativity. M.: State Publishing House of Fiction, 1954. P. 93. .
During his lifetime, Griboyedov never saw his comedy on the big stage, in a professional production. Since 1829, when the excerpt was staged in Bolshoi Theater, the play gradually made its way into the theater - first in separate scenes, which were played in an interlude-divertimento among “recitations, singing and dancing.” “Woe from Wit” was first presented in its entirety (albeit with censored cuts) in St. Petersburg, in Alexandrinsky Theater, in 1831 - the first professional performer of the role of Chatsky was the tragic actor Vasily Andreevich Karatygin, brother of Pyotr Karatygin, on whose initiative the students of the St. Petersburg Theater School enthusiastically staged the play five years earlier. Pyotr Karatygin himself, later a famous playwright, made his debut in literature in the same year with two vaudevilles - the second of them was called “Woe Without Mind.”
“Woe from Wit” at the Theater. Meyerhold, 1928. Staged by Vsevolod Meyerhold
Did the comedy heroes have real prototypes?
The critic Katenin, in a letter to Griboyedov, noted that in his comedy “the characters are portraits,” to which the playwright objected that although the heroes of the comedy had prototypes, their features are characteristic of “many other people, and others of the entire human race... I hate caricatures, in my opinion.” You won’t find a single picture.” Nevertheless, rumors and guesses about who exactly was cast in this or that role began to spread already in the winter of 1823/24, as soon as Griboyedov began reading the not yet completed play in familiar houses. His sister was worried that Griboyedov would make enemies for himself - and even more so for her, “because they would say that the evil Griboyedova pointed out to her brother originals" 5 .
So, many consider Sofya Alekseevna Griboedova to be the prototype of Sofia Famusova, cousin playwright - while her husband, Sergei Rimsky-Korsakov, was considered a possible prototype of Skalozub, and behind the house of her mother-in-law, Marya Ivanovna Rimskaya-Korsakova, in Moscow on Strastnaya Square the name “Famusov’s house” was assigned, its main staircase was reproduced in the play based on Griboyedov's play at the Maly Theater. Uncle Griboyedov is called the prototype of Famusov himself, based on one passage from the playwright: “I leave it to the historian to explain why in the generation of that time some kind of mixture of vices and courtesy was developed everywhere; from the outside there is chivalry in morals, but in the hearts there is an absence of any feeling.<...>Let us explain more clearly: everyone had dishonesty in their souls and deceit in their tongues. It seems that this is not the case today, but perhaps it is; but my uncle belongs to that era. He fought like a lion with the Turks under Suvorov, then groveled in front of everyone random people in St. Petersburg, in retirement he lived by gossip. The image of his teachings: “I, brother!..”
Nothing explains or justifies the unbridled indignation with which Chatsky destroys this, perhaps funny, but not criminal society.
Peter Vyazemsky
In the famous Tatyana Yuryevna, to whom “Officials and officials are / All her friends and all her relatives,” contemporaries recognized Praskovya Yuryevna Kologrivova, whose husband, “asked at a ball by one high-ranking person who he was, was so confused that he said that he was her husband Praskovya Yuryevna, probably believing that this title is more important than all his titles.” The old woman Khlestova deserves special mention - the portrait of Nastasya Dmitrievna Ofrosimova, the famous legislator of Moscow living rooms, who left a noticeable mark on Russian literature: she was portrayed in the person of the rude, but certainly pretty Marya Dmitrievna Akhrosimova in "War and Peace" by Leo Tolstoy.
In Chatsky's friend, Platon Mikhailovich Gorich, they often see features of Stepan Begichev, Griboyedov's close friend in the Irkutsk Hussar Regiment, as well as his brother Dmitry Begichev, once a member Union of Welfare The Decembrist organization, created in 1818 to replace the Union of Salvation. It consisted of about two hundred people. The declared goals of the society are the dissemination of knowledge and assistance to peasants. In 1821, the Welfare Union was dissolved due to mutual disagreements, and on its basis the Southern Society and the Northern Society arose. , an officer, and by the time of the creation of the comedy (which Griboedov wrote directly on the Begichev estate) retired and happily married.
Such a multitude of prototypes for the most common heroes of “Woe from Wit” can indeed be considered proof of the good intentions of Griboedov, who ridiculed not specific people, but typical traits. Probably the only absolutely unmistakably recognizable character of Griboyedov is off-stage. Everyone really immediately recognized the “night robber, duelist,” whom, according to Repetilov, “you don’t need to name, you’ll recognize him by his portrait.” Fyodor Tolstoy the American Count Fyodor Ivanovich Tolstoy, nicknamed the American (1782-1846) - military man, traveler. In 1803, he went on a voyage around the world with Captain Krusenstern, but due to hooligan antics he was put ashore in Kamchatka and had to return to St. Petersburg on his own. Tolstoy owes his nickname to his travels across Russian America - Kamchatka and the Aleutian Islands. Participated in Russian-Swedish war, Patriotic War of 1812, after the war he settled in Moscow. Tolstoy was known for his love of duels and card games, and married a gypsy dancer, with whom he had twelve children (only one daughter survived him). In his old age, Tolstoy became devout and considered the death of his children as punishment for the eleven people he killed in duels. , who was not offended - only suggested making a few corrections. Nikolai Piksanov, a specialist in Griboyedov’s work, studied in 1910 the list of “Woe from Wit”, which at one time belonged to the Decembrist Prince Fyodor Shakhovsky, where the hand of Tolstoy the American against the words “he was exiled to Kamchatka, returned as an Aleut and is strongly unclean” : “the devil carried to Kamchatka” (“for he was never exiled”) and “he is unclean in playing cards” (“for the fidelity of the portrait, this amendment is necessary so that they do not think that he is stealing snuff boxes from the table; at least, I thought to guess intention author") 6 Piksanov N.K. Creative history of “Woe from Wit.” M., L.: GIZ, 1928. P. 110. .
Stepan Begichev. Close friend of Griboyedov and possible prototype of Platon Mikhailovich Gorich
Dmitry Begichev. Another possible prototype of Gorich
Nastasya Ofrosimova. Prototype of the old woman Khlestova
Well, is Chatsky Chaadaev?
Contemporaries, of course, immediately thought so. In December 1823, Pushkin wrote from Odessa to Vyazemsky: “What is Griboyedov? I was told that he wrote a comedy based on Chedayev; in the current circumstances this is extremely noble of him.” With this sarcasm, Pushkin hinted at the forced resignation and departure abroad of Chaadaev, fallen victim slander; ridiculing the victim of political persecution was not very nice. Probably in final version Griboedov renamed Chadsky to Chatsky, among other reasons, to avoid such suspicions 7 Tynyanov Yu. The plot of “Woe from Wit” // Tynyanov Yu. N. Pushkin and his contemporaries. M.: Nauka, 1969. It is curious that if Chatsky was indeed based on Chaadaev, the comedy became a self-fulfilling prophecy: 12 years after the creation of the comedy, Pyotr Chaadaev was formally declared insane by order of the government after the publication of his first "Letters" From 1828 to 1830, Chaadaev wrote eight “philosophical letters.” In them, he reflects on progressive Western values, the historical path of Russia and the meaning of religion. in the magazine "Telescope" Educational magazine published by Nikolai Nadezhdin from 1831 to 1836. In 1834, Vissarion Belinsky became Nadezhdin’s assistant. Pushkin, Tyutchev, Koltsov, Stankevich were published in the magazine. After the publication of Chaadaev’s “Letter”, “Telescope” was closed, and Nadezhdin was sent into exile. . The magazine was closed, its editor was exiled, and the Moscow police chief placed Chaadaev himself under house arrest and compulsory medical supervision, which was lifted a year later on the condition that he not write anything else.
There is no less reason to assert that in Chatsky Griboedov brought out his friend, the Decembrist Wilhelm Kuchelbecker, who was slandered - namely, denounced in society as a madman - for the purpose of political discredit. When the old woman Khlestova complains about “boarding schools, schools, lyceums... lankartak mutual education” - this is a direct biography of Kuchelbecker, a student of the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum, teacher Main Pedagogical Institute Founded in 1816 on the basis of the Pedagogical Institute. It trained teachers for gymnasiums and higher education. educational institutions. In 1819 it was transformed into St. Petersburg University, almost ten years later it was restored, but already in 1859 it was closed, and all students were transferred to St. Petersburg University. and Secretary of the Mutual Education Society Lancaster system A system of peer teaching in which older students teach younger ones. Invented in Great Britain in 1791 by Joseph Lancaster. The Russian “Society of Mutual Training Schools” was founded in 1819. The Lancastrian system was supported by many members of secret societies; Thus, the Decembrist Vladimir Raevsky came under investigation in 1820 for “harmful propaganda among soldiers” precisely in connection with his teaching activities. .
However, another character also studied at the St. Petersburg Pedagogical Institute - the chemist and botanist Prince Fyodor, the nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskaya, who is not for nothing that she is indignant: “There they practice schisms and lack of faith / Professors!!”
In 1821, several professors were charged with denying the “truths of Christianity” and “calling for an attack on legitimate authority” in their lectures, and teaching was prohibited; the case caused a great stir and was used as an argument in favor of danger higher education. So it would be most correct to say that although Griboyedov used the traits of real people, including his own, when creating his hero, Chatsky is a collective portrait of the progressive part of his generation.
Pyotr Chaadaev. Lithograph by Marie-Alexandre Alof. 1830s
Is Chatsky smart?
This seems to go without saying and is postulated in the title of the comedy, which Griboyedov initially wanted to call even more specifically: “Woe to Wit.” In a letter to Pavel Katenin, the playwright, on this principle, contrasted Chatsky with all other characters (except perhaps Sophia): “In my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person.”
Contemporaries, however, disagreed on this matter. Pushkin was the first to reject Chatsky in his mind, writing to Pyotr Vyazemsky: “Chatsky is not at all smart person, but Griboedov is very smart.” This view was shared by many critics; Belinsky, for example, called Chatsky “a framer, an ideal buffoon, at every step profaning everything sacred he talks about.”
The accusation against Chatsky was based primarily on the discrepancy between his words and actions. “Everything he says is very smart,” notes Pushkin. - But who is he telling all this to? Famusov? Skalozub? At the ball for Moscow grandmothers? Molchalin? This is unforgivable. The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at first glance who you are dealing with and not throw pearls in front of the Repetilovs.”
Among the masterful features of this charming comedy, Chatsky’s incredulity in Sofia’s love for Molchalin is charming! - and how natural! This is what the whole comedy was supposed to revolve around.
Alexander Pushkin
The injustice of this reproach is shown by a careful reading of the text. Chatsky, say, does not throw beads in front of Repetilov at all - on the contrary, it is Repetilov who crumbles in front of him “about important mothers,” and Chatsky answers in monosyllables and rather rudely: “Yes, that’s enough nonsense.” Chatsky makes a speech about a Frenchman from Bordeaux, although at a ball, not to Moscow grandmothers, but to Sophia, whom he loves and considers an equal (and Griboyedov himself called “a smart girl”), in response to her question: “Tell me what makes you so angry ? Nevertheless, one cannot help but admit that Chatsky finds himself in funny and absurd situations that do not seem appropriate for a “smart” hero.
However, Chatsky himself admits that his “mind and heart are not in harmony.” The hero’s reputation was finally cleared by Ivan Goncharov, who noted in the article “A Million Torments” that Chatsky is a living person experiencing a love drama, and this cannot be written off: “Every step of Chatsky, almost every word in the play is closely connected with the play of his feelings for Sophia" - and this internal struggle“served 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, a role of much greater, higher significance than unsuccessful love, in a word, the role for which the whole comedy was born” . According to the critic, Chatsky not only stands out from other comedy heroes - he is “positively smart. His speech is full of intelligence and wit.<...>...Chatsky begins new century- and this is all its meaning and all "mind" 8 Goncharov I. A. Million of torments (Critical etude) // Goncharov I. A. Collected works: In 8 volumes. T. 8. M.: GIHL, 1955. P. 7-40. .
Even Pushkin, Chatsky’s first accuser, paid tribute to the “thoughts, witticisms and satirical remarks” that Chatsky imbibed, according to the poet, from a “very smart man” - Griboyedov. The poet was confused only by the inconsistency of the hero, who thinks so clearly about abstractions and acts so absurdly in practical circumstances. But he immediately noted that the blindness of Chatsky, who does not want to believe in Sophia’s coldness, is psychologically very reliable. In other words, if you do not try to squeeze Chatsky into the narrow role of a walking idea-reasoner, into which he does not fit, there is no reason to doubt his intelligence: a romantic hero who finds himself in a comedy inevitably plays comic role- but this situation is not funny, but tragic.
Dmitry Kardovsky. Illustration for the comedy "Woe from Wit". 1912
Why did Pushkin call Sofya Famusova an unprintable word?
Pushkin’s well-known unprintable expression from a letter to Bestuzhev - “Sophia is not written clearly: otherwise<б....>, not that Moscow cousin According to Yuri Lotman, “the Moscow cousin is a stable satirical mask, a combination of provincial panache and mannerism.” - today seems too harsh, but the same bewilderment was shared by many contemporaries. In the first home and theater productions, six acts from the first act were usually omitted: the scenes of Sophia’s date with Molchalin (as well as the flirtations of both Molchalin and Famusov with Liza) seemed too shocking to be presented to the ladies, and amounted to almost a large amount for censorship problem than the political subtext of the comedy.
Today, the image of Sophia seems somewhat more complex and prettier than Pushkin’s formula. In the famous article “A Million Torments,” Ivan Goncharov stood up for the reputation of the girl Famusova, noting in her “the strong inclinations of a remarkable nature, a lively mind, passion and feminine softness” and comparing her with the heroine of “Eugene Onegin”: in his opinion, Sophia, although spoiled environment, but, like Tatyana, she is childishly sincere, simple-minded and fearless in her love.
Neither Onegin nor Pechorin would have acted so foolishly in general, especially in the matter of love and matchmaking. But they have already turned pale and turned into stone statues for us, and Chatsky remains and will always remain alive for this “stupidity” of his.
Ivan Goncharov
This is not an unreasonable comparison. Pushkin became acquainted with “Woe from Wit” in the midst of work on “Eugene Onegin”; Traces of Griboyedov's comedy can be seen in the comic gallery of guests at Tatiana's name day, and in her dream, a variation of Sophia's fictitious dream; Pushkin directly compares Onegin with Chatsky, who got “from the ship to the ball.” Tatyana, a kind of improved version of Sophia, a lover of novels like her, endows a completely unsuitable candidate with the traits of her favorite literary heroes - Werther or Grandison. Like Sophia, she shows a love initiative that was indecent by the standards of her time - she composes a “letter for a dear hero,” who did not fail to reprimand her for this. But if Pushkin condemned Sofia Pavlovna’s love recklessness, then he treats his heroine sympathetically in a similar situation. And when Tatyana marries a general without love, just as Sophia could have married Skalozub, the poet took care to clarify that Tatyana’s husband was “mutilated in battle” - unlike Skalozub, who obtains the rank of general through various channels that are far from military valor. As theater critic Sergei Yablonovsky put it in 1909 in the article “In Defense of S.P. Famusova,” “Pushkin cries over sweet Tanya and dissolves our hearts so that we can better hide this... sleeping girl and woman in it,” but Griboedov “does not wanted to bring Sophia closer to us.<...>She is not even given last word defendant" 9 “The present century and the past...” Comedy by A. S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit” in Russian criticism and literary criticism. St. Petersburg: Azbuka-Classics, 2002. P. 249 .
Sophia was often perceived as a girl of dubious morality, a typical representative of a vicious Famusov society, and Tatyana Larina - as the ideal of a Russian woman. This happened largely because the author refused sympathy for Sophia - this was required by the interests of the main character, Chatsky. It’s interesting that in the first edition of the comedy, Griboyedov did give Sophia the opportunity to justify himself:
What baseness! waylay!
Sneaking up and then, of course, dishonoring him,
Well? Did you think that this would attract me to you?
And make you love me with fear and horror?
I owe the report to myself,
However, my action is for you
Why does it seem so evil and so insidious?
I was not a hypocrite and I was right all around.
And although in the final version the author took away this monologue from the heroine, which showed Chatsky in a bad light, he allowed her to maintain her dignity: “Reproaches, complaints, my tears // Don’t you dare expect them, you’re not worth them...” - neither could have said that *****, nor the Moscow cousin.
Powder sprayer. Germany, XVIII–XIX centuries
Powder compact. France, 19th century
What do Griboyedov's characters' surnames mean?
Griboyedov, in the tradition of classic comedy, gives almost all of his heroes speaking names. Such surnames usually highlighted the main property of a character, a personified vice, virtue, or some other one-dimensional quality: for example, in Fonvizin, stupid landowners are nicknamed Prostakovs, a government official who restores order bears the surname Pravdin, and Tsyfirkin teaches arithmetic to the underage Mitrofanushka. In “Woe from Wit” everything is less straightforward: all the speaking names in one way or another embody one idea - the idea of verbal communication, mostly difficult. Thus, Famusov’s surname is derived from the Latin fama - “rumor” (it is not without reason that his main sadness at the end is “What will Princess Marya Aleksevna say!”). The name of Molchalin, “who does not dare to have his own opinion,” speaks for itself. A double meaning can be seen in the name Repetilov (from the French répéter - “to repeat by heart”, “to repeat after someone”): this character, on the one hand, silently listens to important conversations conducted by the “juice of smart youth”, and then repeats to others , and on the other hand, he acts as a comic double of Chatsky, illustrating his spiritual impulses with his own physical clumsy movements. Prince Tugoukhovsky is deaf, Colonel Skalozub - “He’s also good at joking, because nowadays who doesn’t joke!” - a master of barracks witticisms. In Khlestova’s surname you can see a hint of a biting word, which you can’t refuse her - for example, she was the only one in the whole comedy who made the main wit Chatsky laugh, who noted that Zagoretsky “would not be well off from such praise.” Khlestova’s remark about Chatsky and Repetilov (the first “will be treated, maybe cured,” while the second is “incurable, no matter what”) anticipates later observations of literary scholars regarding the relationship between these two characters.
Various researchers associated the surname of Chatsky himself (in an early edition - Chadsky) with the word “chad” on the basis of his general ardor and analysis of his remarks (“Well, the day has passed, and with it / All the ghosts, all the smoke and smoke / Hopes that filled my soul” or maxims about the sweet and pleasant “smoke of the Fatherland”). But a more direct association, of course, is with Chaadaev.
Dmitry Kardovsky. Illustration for the comedy "Woe from Wit". 1912
Is Chatsky a Decembrist?
The opinion that for Chatsky, as Griboyedov wrote him, the direct road lay on Senate Square, was first expressed by Ogarev, substantiated by Herzen, who argued that “Chatsky walked the straight road to hard labor,” and subsequently became undividedly established in Soviet literary criticism - especially after the book of Academician Militsa Nechkina “A. S. Griboyedov and the Decembrists” received the Stalin Prize in 1948. Today, however, the question of Chatsky’s Decembrism is no longer resolved so clearly.
The argument in this dispute often revolves around another question: was Griboyedov himself a Decembrist?
The writer was friends with many Decembrists, was, like many of them, a member of the Masonic lodge, and at the beginning of 1826 he spent four months in the guardhouse of the General Staff under investigation - he later described this experience in an epigram as follows:
- According to the spirit of the times and taste
He hated the word "slave"...
“That’s why I got caught in the General Staff.”
And he was drawn to Jesus!..
In the case of the Decembrists, Griboyedov, however, was acquitted, released “with a cleansing certificate” and an annual salary and sent to his place of service in Persia, where a brilliant, although, unfortunately, short-lived career awaited him. And although his personal sympathies towards the Decembrists are beyond doubt, he himself was not a member of the secret society, as Bestuzhev and Ryleyev showed during interrogations, and spoke skeptically about their program: “One hundred ensigns want to change the entire state life of Russia.” Moreover: there is one directly named member of the “secret union” in his comedy - the caricature Repetilov, over whom Chatsky ironizes: “Are you making noise? And that’s all?”
To this, supporters of the “Decembrist” concept object that Repetilov is, although crooked, a mirror of Chatsky. Chatsky “writes and translates nicely” - Repetilov “makes a vaudeville show with six of us”, his quarrel with his father-in-law, the minister, is a reflection of Chatsky’s connection and break with the ministers, at the first appearance on stage Repetilov “falls with all his might” - just like Chatsky, who “fell how many times,” galloping from St. Petersburg to be at Sophia’s feet. Repetilov is like a circus clown who, during breaks between the performances of trainers and tightrope walkers, repeats their heroic acts in an absurd light. Therefore, it can be considered that the author put into his mouth all those speeches that Chatsky himself, as the author’s mouthpiece, could not utter for censorship reasons.
According to the spirit of the times and taste
Alexander Griboyedov
I hated the word "slave"
I was called to the General Headquarters
And pulled to Jesus
Of course, “Woe from Wit” had a political subtext - this is evidenced by the long-term censorship ban and the fact that the Decembrists themselves recognized Chatsky as one of their own and in every possible way contributed to the dissemination of the play (for example, in the apartment of the Decembrist poet Alexander Odoevsky for several evenings a whole the workshop rewrote “Woe from Wit” under general dictation from Griboedov’s original manuscript, in order to later use it for propaganda purposes). But there is no reason to consider Chatsky a revolutionary, despite the civic pathos with which he criticizes the arbitrariness of the serf owners, sycophancy and corruption.
"Carbonarius" From Italian - “coal miner”. Member of a secret Italian society that existed from 1807 to 1832. The Carbonari fought against the French and Austrian occupation, and then for the constitutional order of Italy. The society practiced complex rites and rituals, one of them was the burning of charcoal, symbolizing spiritual purification. , « dangerous person“, who “wants to preach freedom” and “does not recognize the authorities,” calls Chatsky Famusov - who covered his ears and did not hear what Chatsky was telling him, who at this time was not calling for the overthrow of the system, but only for intellectual independence and meaningful activity in the good of the state. His spiritual brothers are the “physicist and botanist” Prince Fyodor, the nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskaya, and Skalozub’s cousin, who “suddenly left his service and began reading books in the village.” His, as we would say today, positive agenda is clearly expressed in the play:
Now let one of us
Among the young people there will be an enemy of quest,
Without demanding either places or promotion,
He will focus his mind on science, hungry for knowledge;
Or God himself will stir up heat in his soul
To the creative, high and beautiful arts...
Yuri Lotman, in his article “The Decembrist in Everyday Life,” actually put an end to this dispute, considering “Decembrism” not as a system of political views or a type of activity, but as a worldview and style of behavior of a certain generation and circle, to which Chatsky definitely belonged: “ Contemporaries highlighted not only the “talkativeness” of the Decembrists - they also emphasized the harshness and directness of their judgments, the peremptory nature of their sentences, “indecent” from the point of view of secular norms...<…>...a constant desire to express one’s opinion bluntly, without recognizing the ritual and hierarchy of secular speech behavior established by custom.” The Decembrist openly and “publicly calls things by their proper names, “thunders” at the ball and in society, since it is in this naming that he sees the liberation of man and the beginning of the transformation of society.” Thus, having resolved the issue of Chatsky’s Decembrism, Lotman at the same time freed him from suspicions of stupidity, once aroused among critics by his “inappropriate” behavior.
Before Griboyedov, Russian comedy of the 1810s-20s developed as is customary count 10 Zorin A. L. “Woe from Wit” and Russian comedy of the 10-20s of the 19th century // Philology: Collection of works of students and graduate students of the Faculty of Philology of Moscow State University. Vol. 5. M., 1977. S. 77, 79-80. , in two directions: a pamphlet-satirical comedy of manners (prominent representatives are Alexander Shakhovskoy and Mikhail Zagoskin) and a salon comedy of intrigue (primarily Nikolay Khmelnitsky Nikolai Ivanovich Khmelnitsky (1789-1845) - playwright. Khmelnitsky served in the Collegium of Foreign Affairs and was involved in the theater: he published theater reviews in the St. Petersburg Bulletin and translated plays. Khmelnitsky’s success was brought by the productions of the comedies “Talker” and “Pranks of Lovers.” It was in his house that the first reading of Griboyedov’s “Woe from Wit” took place. After the War of 1812, Khmelnitsky served as a state councilor and was the governor of Smolensk, then Arkhangelsk. In 1838, he was imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress for embezzlement, but was later found innocent. ). The comedy of intrigue was written mainly from French models, often representing a directly adapted translation. Griboedov also paid tribute to this tradition in his early comedies. And he builds the love affair in “Woe from Wit” according to a seemingly familiar pattern: the despotic father of a pretty girl with the traditional name Sophia (meaning, note, “Wisdom”) and two seekers - the hero-lover and his antagonist. In this classical scheme, as Andrei Zorin notes, the rivals were certainly endowed with a number of opposing qualities. The positive hero was distinguished by modesty, silence, respect, prudence, in general, “moderation and accuracy”, the negative one was a malicious braggart and a disrespectful mocker (for example, in Khmelnitsky’s comedy “Govorun” the positive and negative characters bear the speaking surnames Modestov and Zvonov, respectively). In short, in the literary context of his time, Chatsky was recognized at first glance as a negative hero, a clownish lover - and his correctness, as well as the obvious author’s sympathy for him, caused cognitive dissonance in readers.
Let us add to this that before Griboyedov, love in comedy could not be wrong: the obstacle on the path of the lovers was the poverty of the seeker, the unfavorability of the girl’s parents towards him - but in the end these obstacles were happily resolved, often due to external intervention ( deus ex machina "God Ex Machina" A Latin expression meaning the unexpected resolution of a situation due to external intervention. Originally a technique in ancient drama: one of the gods of Olympus descended onto the stage with the help of a mechanical device and easily solved all the problems of the heroes. ), lovers were united, and the ridiculed vicious rival was expelled. Griboedov, contrary to all comedy rules, completely deprived Woe from Wit of a happy ending: vice is not punished, virtue does not triumph, the reasoner is expelled as a buffoon. And this happens because the playwright excluded the latter from the classic triad of unities of time, place and action: in his comedy there are two equal conflicts, love and social, which was impossible in a classic play. Thus, he, in the words of Andrei Zorin, blew up the entire comedy tradition, turning both the usual plot and role inside out - sympathizing with yesterday's negative character and ridiculing former positives.
A Moscow young lady, a girl with not high feelings, but with strong desires, barely restrained by secular decency. As many believe, she cannot possibly be a romantic girl: for in the most ardent frenzy of imagination it is impossible to daydream to the point of giving your soul and heart to a doll Molchalin».
However, if Sophia is just an empty Moscow young lady and she herself is not far from Molchalin, why does Chatsky himself, who knows her well, love her? It was not because of the vulgar Moscow young lady that when he was three years old, “the whole world seemed like dust and vanity.” This is a psychological contradiction - meanwhile, Pushkin, among the merits of the comedy, noted its psychological authenticity: “Chatsky’s incredulity in Sofia’s love for Molchalin is charming! - and how natural!”
In attempts to explain this discrepancy, many critics have had to indulge in psychological speculation. Goncharov believed, for example, that Sophia was guided by a kind of maternal feeling - “the desire to patronize a loved one, poor, modest, who does not dare raise his eyes to her, to elevate him to herself, to her circle, to give him family rights.”
Chatsky is broken by the amount of old power, inflicting a fatal blow on it in turn with the quality of fresh power
Ivan Goncharov
Another psychological motivation for Sophia’s choice can be seen in the history of her relationship with Chatsky, which is set out in the play in some detail.
Once upon a time they were connected by a tender childhood friendship; then Chatsky, as Sophia recalls, “moved out, he seemed bored with us, / And rarely visited our house; / Then again he pretended to be in love, / Demanding and distressed!!”
Then the hero went to travel and “didn’t write two words for three years,” while Sophia asked any visitor about him - “even if he was a sailor”!
It is clear after this that Sophia has reasons not to take Chatsky’s love seriously, who, among other things, “travels to women” and does not miss the opportunity to flirt with Natalya Dmitrievna, who is “fuller than before, fear prettier” (just like Sophia “ blossomed charmingly, inimitably").
) - for popular plays in early XIX centuries this was common practice, but what was unusual was the number and literary scale. Mikhail Bestuzhev-Ryumin Mikhail Alekseevich Bestuzhev-Ryumin (1800-1832) - poet, journalist. Published literary newspaper“Northern Mercury” and almanacs “Garland”, “Sirius”, “May Leaf”, “Northern Star”. He published his poems in them and critical articles under the pseudonym of Aristarchus the Treasured. His attacks on Pushkin and his fierce polemics with the editor of “Literary Supplements to the Russian Invalid”, Alexander Voeikov, which ended with threats to expel the journalist from St. Petersburg, became famous. published in his almanac "Sirius" short story in the letters “Consequence of the comedy “Woe from Wit”,” where Sophia, first sent by her father to the village, soon returns to Moscow, marries an elderly “ace”, who earned his ranks by servility and drives in a train A zug is a team in which horses go in several pairs, tail to tail. Only very rich people could afford to travel in a train. , and is looking for an opportunity to reconcile with Chatsky in order to cuckold his husband with him.Dmitry Begichev, a friend of Griboedov, on whose estate the comedy was written and who was considered one of the prototypes of Platon Mikhailovich Gorich, in the novel “The Kholmsky Family” brought out Chatsky in old age, poor, living “quieter than the grass” in his village with a grumpy wife, then I have fully repaid my friend for the caricature.
In 1868, Vladimir Odoevsky published his “Intercepted Letters” from Famusov to Princess Marya Aleksevna in Sovremennye Zapiski. Evdokia Rostopchina in the comedy “Chatsky’s Return to Moscow, or Meeting of Familiar Faces after Twenty-Five Years of Separation” (written in 1856, published in 1865) ridiculed both political parties Russian society of that time - Westerners and Slavophiles. The crown of this literary tradition became a cycle of satirical essays “Lord Molchalin”, written in 1874-1876 by Saltykov-Shchedrin: there Chatsky fell, lost his former ideals, married Sophia and lived out his life as director of the department of “State Insanity”, where his godfather Molchalin, an official, was assigned -a reactionary who has “reached the known levels.” But the most odious future was painted for Chatsky at the beginning of the 20th century by Viktor Burenin in the play “Woe from Stupidity” - a satire on the revolution of 1905, where Chatsky, following the author, preaches Black Hundred ideas, branding not reactionaries, but revolutionaries, and instead of “a Frenchman from Bordeaux” his target becomes “the blackest Jew of the lawyers.”
bibliography
- A. S. Griboyedov in the memoirs of his contemporaries: Collection. Introductory article by S. A. Fomichev. M.: Fiction, 1980.
- “The present century and the past...” Comedy by A. S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit” in Russian criticism and literary criticism. St. Petersburg: Azbuka-Classics, 2002.
- Gershenzon M. O. Griboyedovskaya Moscow // Gershenzon M. O. Griboedovskaya Moscow. P. Ya. Chaadaev. Essays on the past. M.: Moscow worker, 1989.
- Lotman Yu. M. Decembrist in everyday life (everyday behavior as a historical and psychological category) // Literary heritage Decembrists: Sat. / ed. V. G. Bazanova, V. E. Vatsuro. L.: Nauka, 1975. pp. 25–74.
- Nechkina M. V. A. S. Griboyedov and the Decembrists. M.: GIHL, 1947.
- Orlov Vl. Griboyedov. Brief essay life and creativity. M.: Art, 1952.
- Piksanov N.K. Chronicle of the life and work of A. S. Griboyedov. 1791–1829. M.: Heritage, 2000.
- Piksanov N.K. Creative history of “Woe from Wit.” M., L.: GIZ, 1928.
- Slonimsky A. “Woe from Wit” and the comedy of the Decembrist era (1815–1825) // A. S. Griboedov, 1795–1829: Collection. Art. M.: Goslitmuseum, 1946. pp. 39–73.
- Tynyanov Yu. N. The plot of “Woe from Wit” // Tynyanov Yu. N. Pushkin and his contemporaries. M.: Nauka, 1969.
- Fomichev S. A. Griboyedov: Encyclopedia. St. Petersburg: Nestor-History, 2007.
- Tsimbaeva E. Artistic image in a historical context (Analysis of biographies of characters in “Woe from Wit”) // Questions of literature. 2003. No. 4. pp. 98–139.
Full list of references
The history of the creation of the comedy by A.S. Griboyedov’s “Woe from Wit” will tell about what prompted the author to write the essay.
"Woe from Wit" creation story
"Woe from Wit"- a comedy in verse by A. S. Griboedov, a satire on aristocratic Moscow society of the first half of the 19th century
When was the comedy "Woe from Wit" written?
Date of writing: 1822-1824
For the first time, the comedy “Woe from Wit” with significant cuts was published after the death of the author in 1833, and it was published in full only in 1861.
Griboedov entered the history of Russian literature as the author of the first Russian realistic comedy “Woe from Wit,” although he also wrote other works written earlier (the comedies “Young Spouses”, “Student” and others). Already Griboyedov’s early plays contained attempts to combine different styles in order to create a new one, but the comedy “Woe from Wit” became a truly innovative work, which in 1825, together with the tragedy “Boris Godunov” by Pushkin, opened a realistic stage in the development of Russian literature.
The idea for the comedy arose in 1820 (according to some sources already in 1816), but active work on the text began in Tiflis after Griboedov’s return from Persia. By the beginning of 1822, the first two acts were written, and in the spring and summer of 1823 the first version of the play was completed in Moscow. It was here that the writer could supplement his observations of the life and customs of the Moscow nobility, and “breathe the air” of secular drawing rooms. But even then the work does not stop: in 1824 a new option, entitled “Woe and No Mind” (originally “Woe to Wit”).
Creating "Woe from Wit" as satirical comedy morals, Griboyedov used Moliere’s classic play “The Misanthrope” as a role model. The main character of this play, Alceste, is related to the main character of “Woe from Wit” Chatsky in the role of an “evil wise guy”: both characters openly and fiercely expose hypocrisy and other vices of the society in which they live.
Upon arrival in St. Petersburg, Griboyedov was invited by the playwright N. I. Khmelnitsky to read his new play in his house, in a narrow circle of friends, among whom were actors I. I. Sosnitsky, V. A. and P. A. Karatygin and playwright V. M. Fedorov. Just before the start of the reading, Griboyedov had a quarrel with the latter: Fedorov inadvertently allowed himself to compare the comedy, which he had not yet read, with his work “Liza, or the Consequences of Pride and Seduction.” This offended the author, so he declared that he would not read in front of Fedorov - the owner of the house failed to hush up the situation, and he was forced to leave the company: “The playwright, because of his unfortunate drama, had to play a comic role, and the comedian almost acted out dramas from -for his comedy."
“Woe from Wit” is a comedy with deep content, satirically depicting the life and morals of aristocratic society in the first half of the 19th century. Remarkable in concept and execution, it belongs to the number of works of Russian literature that do not lose their relevance and attractiveness “at all times.”
The action of the play takes place in Moscow, in the rich house of Famusov, in which everything rests on deception. Love for the daughter of this influential master brought Chatsky here after a three-year absence. But Sophia is cold, she is irritated by his “bilious” tongue.
Why is this educated, witty girl not happy to meet you? Who is Chatsky’s rival: the narrow-minded, rude, but rich Colonel Skalozub or the taciturn hypocrite Molchalin, indifferent to everything except his career? In search of an answer to these questions, a love affair ensues in the work.
From the moment Famusov appears on stage, dreaming of an enviable groom for his daughter, public intrigue begins to develop, and a confrontation arises: Chatsky is the Moscow nobility. In order to paint a holistic and broad world of the image of a serf camp, the author included many characters in the play.
Chatsky, who came to Moscow to see Sophia, and not to enter into a confrontation, hurt by the girl’s coldness and her father’s instructions, begins to return blow for blow. He boldly expresses his progressive beliefs to the aristocratic society gathered in Famusov’s house, and with an accusatory word he comes into conflict with it.
The critical mind and progressive views of the protagonist, who opposes the habitual, convenient way of life for the famus world, based on veneration of rank, desire for enrichment, lies and intrigue, empty pastime, cause fear and protest. This society of aristocrats, which does not want to part with the old way of life, blindly imitates everything foreign, despises its native culture and the Russian people, does not intend to change its views. Chatsky is declared crazy and expelled from this society.
The language of the play deserves special attention. This poetic comedy is written in simple Russian, witty and apt. Many phrases have become catchphrases, have become proverbs.
The title of the work also seems unusual. It reflects the drama of a progressive mind, faced in a struggle with the inertia and routine of lordly Moscow. The mind also becomes the cause of love drama.
Comedy A.S. Griboyedov's "Woe from Wit" takes a worthy place among the works of Russian classical literature, found a long and unusually varied life on theater stages.
Brief information about the book “Woe from Wit” by Griboyedov.
Griboyedov wrote the play for two years (1822-1824). Since Alexander Sergeevich served as a diplomat and was considered an influential person, he hoped that his creation would easily pass censorship and would soon become a full-fledged performance. However, he soon realized: there is no skipping comedy. It was possible to publish only fragments (in 1825 in the almanac “Russian Waist”). The entire text of the play was published much later, in 1862. First theatrical production took place in 1831. However, in handwritten copies (samizdat of that time) the book spread rapidly and became very popular among the reading public.
Comedy feature
Theater is the most conservative form of art, therefore, while romanticism and realism were developing in literature, classicism still dominated on the stage. Griboyedov’s play combines features of all three directions: “Woe from Wit” is a classic work in form, but realistic dialogues and issues related to the realities of Russia in the 19th century bring it closer to realism, and the romantic hero (Chatsky) and the conflict of this hero with society - a characteristic opposition for romanticism. How are the classicist canon, romantic motifs and a general realistic attitude towards vitality combined in “Woe from Wit”? The author managed to harmoniously weave contradictory components together due to the fact that he was brilliantly educated by the standards of his time, often traveled around the world and read in other languages, and therefore absorbed new literary trends before other playwrights. He did not move among writers, he served in a diplomatic mission, and therefore his mind was free from many stereotypes that prevented authors from experimenting.
Drama genre "Woe from Wit". Comedy or drama?
Griboedov believed that “Woe from Wit” is a comedy, but since tragic and dramatic elements are very developed in it, the play cannot be classified exclusively in the comedy genre. First of all, we need to pay attention to the ending of the work: it is tragic. Today it is customary to define “Woe from Wit” as a drama, but in the 19th century there was no such division, so it was called “ high comedy"By analogy with Lomonosov's high and low calms. This formulation contains a contradiction: only tragedy can be “high”, and comedy is by default “low” calm. The play was not unambiguous and typical, it broke out of existing theatrical and literary clichés, which is why it was so highly appreciated by both contemporaries and the current generation of readers.
Conflict. Composition. Issues
The play traditionally highlights two types of conflict: private (love drama) and public (contrasting old and new times, “Famus society” and Chatsky). Since this work partially relates to romanticism, we can argue that in the play there is a romantic conflict between the individual (Chatsky) and society (Famusovsky society).
One of the strict canons of classicism is the unity of action, which presupposes a cause-and-effect relationship between events and episodes. In “Woe from Wit” this connection has already been significantly weakened; it seems to the viewer and reader that nothing significant is happening: the characters walk here and there, talk, that is, the external action is rather monotonous. However, the dynamics and drama are inherent precisely in the dialogues of the characters; you must first listen to the play in order to grasp the tension of what is happening and the meaning of the production.
The peculiarity of the composition is that it is built according to the canons of classicism, the number of acts does not coincide with it.
If the comedies of writers of the late 18th and early 19th centuries exposed individual vices, then Griboyedov’s satire attacked the entire conservative way of life, saturated with these vices. Ignorance, careerism, martinet, cruelty and bureaucratic inertia - all these are realities Russian Empire. The Moscow nobility with its ostentatious puritanical morality and unscrupulousness in business is represented by Famusov, stupid military careerism and blinkered consciousness is represented by Skalozub, servility and hypocrisy of the bureaucracy is represented by Molchalin. Thanks to episodic characters, the viewer and reader get acquainted with all the types of “Famus society” and see that their cohesion is the result of the solidarity of vicious people. The many-sided and motley clique has absorbed all the vulgarity, lies and stupidity that society is accustomed to worship and yield to. Characters not only on stage, but also behind the scenes, mentioned in the remarks of the characters (the moral lawmaker Princess Marya Aleksevna, the author of “exemplary nonsense” Foma Fomich, the influential and omnipotent Tatyana Yuryevna and others).
The significance and innovation of the play "Woe from Wit"
In the play, which the author himself considered a comedy, oddly enough, the most pressing problems of that period were highlighted: the injustice of serfdom, an imperfect state apparatus, ignorance, the problem of education, etc. Griboyedov also included, it would seem, vital debates about boarding schools, jury trials, censorship and institutions in his entertaining work.
Moral aspects, which are no less important for the playwright, give rise to the humanistic pathos of the work. The author shows how under the pressure of “Famus society” the best qualities in a person perish. For example, Molchalin is not devoid of positive qualities, but is forced to live by the laws of Famusov and others like him, otherwise he will never achieve success. That is why “Woe from Wit” occupies a special place in Russian drama: it reflects real conflicts and non-fictional life circumstances.
The composition of the drama is in a classic style: adherence to three unities, the presence of large monologues, telling names of the characters, etc. The content is realistic, which is why the performance is still sold out in many theaters in Russia. The heroes do not personify one vice or one virtue, as was customary in classicism; they are diversified by the author, their characters are not devoid of both negative and positive qualities. For example, critics often call Chatsky a fool or an overly impulsive hero. It is not Sophia’s fault that during his long absence she fell in love with someone who was nearby, but Chatsky immediately becomes offended, jealous and hysterically denounces everything around him only because his beloved has forgotten him. A hot-tempered and quarrelsome character does not suit the main character.
It is worth noting the spoken language of the play, where each character has his own speech patterns. This plan was complicated by the fact that the work was written in verse (in iambic meter), but Griboyedov managed to recreate the effect of a casual conversation. Already in 1825, writer V.F. Odoevsky stated: “Almost all the verses of Griboedov’s comedy became proverbs, and I often happened to hear in society whose entire conversations were mostly verses from “Woe from Wit.”
Worth noting speaking names in "Woe from Wit": for example, “Molchalin” means the hidden and hypocritical nature of the hero, “Skalozub” is an inverted word for “teething,” meaning boorish behavior in society.
Why is Griboedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit” readable now?
Nowadays, people often use Griboedov's quotes without knowing it. Phraseologisms “the legend is fresh, but it’s hard to believe”, “ happy hours they don’t observe”, “and the smoke of the fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us” - all these catchphrases are familiar to everyone. The play is still relevant due to Griboyedov’s light, aphoristic author’s style. He was one of the first to write a drama in real Russian, which people still speak and think in. The ponderous and pompous vocabulary of his time was not remembered by his contemporaries in any way, but Griboyedov’s innovative style found its place in the linguistic memory of the Russian people. Can the play “Woe from Wit” be called relevant in the 21st century? Yes, if only because we use quotes from him in everyday life.
Interesting? Save it on your wall!
Here is the story of the very successful career of the “rootless” Molchalin:
I warmed up the rootless one and brought him into my family,
He gave the rank of assessor and took him on as secretary;
Transferred to Moscow through my assistance;
And if it weren’t for me, you would be smoking in Tver.
Is assessor good or not so good? The rank of collegiate assessor (VIII class of the Table of Ranks) gave the right to hereditary nobility, that is, at a minimum, it equated Molchalin with Chatsky, and corresponded military rank major The collegiate assessor Kovalev, the hero of Gogol’s “The Nose,” liked to call himself a major: “Kovalev was a Caucasian collegiate assessor. He had only been in this rank for two years and therefore could not forget it for a minute; and in order to give himself more nobility and weight, he never called himself a collegiate assessor, but always a major.”. Griboyedov himself, when he wrote “Woe from Wit,” was a titular adviser (IX class).
Alexander Yuzhin as Famusov in the play “Woe from Wit.” Maly Theatre, Moscow, 1915What is the secret of Molchalin’s success? It can be assumed that partly because he was born in Tver, and, for example, not in Tula or Kaluga. Tver is located on the road connecting Moscow and St. Petersburg; the manager at the government office, Famusov, probably passed through Tver more than once, and, perhaps, some efficient local fellow (was it the son of the station superintendent?) was able to successfully provide him with some kind of service. And then, taking advantage of the patronage of Famusov and Tatyana Yuryevna, Molchalin quickly and very successfully began to move up the career ladder.
Socially, Molchalin begins his journey precisely as a “little man” who does not reconcile himself with his position, but strives with all his might to become one of the people. “This is a man who, in swaddling clothes, has known the onslaught of fate and is therefore ready to give himself into slavery to anyone and anywhere, ready to worship both the true God and an empty idol, having neither the ability nor the skill to penetrate into the essence of things.<…>Everything in the activities of these people is imprinted with lack of understanding and a firm determination to retain for themselves the miserable piece that fate threw out to them,” Saltykov-Shchedrin wrote about Molchalin.
2. The secret of Sophia's dream
Alexander Yuzhin as Famusov and Vera Pashennaya as Sophia in the play “Woe from Wit.” Maly Theatre, Moscow, 1915 Billy Rose Theater Collection / New York Public Library Here Sophia tells Famusov a dream that she clearly invented:
Then the doors opened with thunder
Some are not people or animals,
We were separated - and they tortured the one sitting with me.
It’s like he’s dearer to me than all the treasures,
I want to go to him - you bring with you:
We are accompanied by moans, roars, laughter, and whistling monsters!
He shouts after him!..
What does all this even mean? Sophia invented her dream for a reason, but based on literature, namely a romantic ballad: the heroine finds herself in an otherworldly world inhabited by villains and monsters.
The object of parody for Griboedov here is, first of all, Zhukovsky and his free translations of the ballad of the German poet Bürger “Lenora” - “Lud-mila” (1808) and “Svetlana” (1811), in which dead suitors appear to the heroines and are carried away to the afterlife world. It’s unlikely that Famusov has read Zhukovsky, but Griboyedov puts into his mouth a caustic maxim, very similar to the ending of the ballad “Svetlana”: “Everything is there, if there is no deception: / And devils and love, and fears and flowers.” And here is “Svetlana”:
Smile, my beauty,
To my ballad;
There are great miracles in it,
Very little stock.
In Sophia's dream, ballad cliches thicken: the innocent heroine and her lover are separated by a tormentor - a character from the afterlife (it is no coincidence that in the dream Famusov appears from under the opening floor). In the first edition, Famusov was completely described as an infernal hero: “Death on the cheeks, and hair standing on end.”
However, not only Sophia’s dream, but also her relationship with Molchalin resembles a ballad plot. Their love affair is modeled after Zhukovsky’s ballad “Eolian Harp” (1814). Minvana, the daughter of a noble feudal lord, rejects the claims of eminent knights and gives her heart to the poor singer Arminius:
Young and beautiful
Like a fresh rose is the joy of the valleys,
Sweet singer...
But not a noble, not a prince’s son by birth:
Minwana forgot
About your rank
And loved with my heart,
Innocent, innocent heart in him.
Griboyedov parodies the picture perfect love, created by Zhukovsky. The poor singer Arminius seems to be replaced by the scoundrel Molchalin; the tragic expulsion of Arminius by Minvana’s father is the finale of the comedy, when Sophia overhears Molchalin’s conversation with Liza and expels the unlucky lover.
This parody is not accidental. In the literary controversy between archaists and Archaists and innovators- supporters of opposite concepts of the development of Russian literature in the 1810s. The controversy between two literary societies - "Conversation of Lovers of the Russian Word" and "Arzamas" - revolved around the system of genres, language and style of literary behavior. Griboyedov adhered to the position of the younger archaists, who were very skeptical of Zhukovsky, and ridiculed the then fashionable daydreaming: “God be with them, with dreams,” he wrote in an analysis of the translations of the Burger ballad “Lenora” in 1816, “now in any book.” look, no matter what you read, a song or a message, dreams are everywhere, but not a hair’s breadth of nature.” Molchalin is a parody of the sublime and quiet hero of sentimental stories and ballads.
3. The secret of Aunt Sophia and Chatsky’s humor
Making fun of Moscow, Chatsky sarcastically asks Sophia:
At conventions, at big ones, on parish holidays?
A confusion of languages still prevails:
French with Nizhny Novgorod?
Why French mixed specifically with the Nizhny Novgorod dialect? The fact is that during the War of 1812 this became a reality: Moscow nobles were evacuated to Nizhny Novgorod Vasily Lvovich Pushkin (the poet’s uncle and the poet himself), addressing the Nizhny Novgorod residents, wrote: “Take us under your protection, / Pets of the Volga banks.”. At the same time, in a patriotic upsurge, the nobles tried to abandon French speech and speak Russian (Leo Tolstoy described this in “War and Peace”), which led to a comic effect - a mixture of French pronunciation with Nizhny Novgorod Okanye.
No less funny were the lexical incidents (and not only those from Nizhny Novgorod!). Thus, the Smolensk landowner Svistunova in one of her letters asked to buy her “English lace in the style of drums.” (Brabantian), "little cla-netka (lorgnette), since I am close with my eyes" (myopic), "serogi" (earrings) pisa-gram (filigree) works, fragrant alambre perfumes, and for decorating the rooms - paintings from Talyan (Italian) in the manner of Rykhvaleeva (Rafaeleva) works on canvas and a tray with cups, if you can get them, with peony flowers.”
In addition, it is possible that Chatsky is simply quoting the famous journalistic text from the time of the Napoleonic Wars, written by Ivan Muravyov-Apostol, the father of three future Decembrists. It is called “Letters from Moscow to Nizhny Novgorod”, and it contains a famous fragment about how the French language is mercilessly treated in the Moscow Assembly of Nobility:
“I stood in the middle of the hall; waves of people rustled around me, but alas!.. The noise was all in French. Rarely, rarely did a Russian word pop up.<…>Out of a hundred people among us (and this is the most moderate proportion) one speaks a fair amount of French, and ninety-nine speaks Gascon; no less, everyone babbles in some barbaric dialect, which they consider French only because we call it speak in Frenchtsuzski. Ask them: why is this? - because, they will say, it was introduced this way. - My God! - When will this come out?<…>Enter any society; A most amusing mixture of languages! Here you will hear Norman, Gascon, Roussillon, Provencal, Genevan dialects; sometimes Russian is half and half with the above. “Ears are withering!”
4. Mystery of August 3
Boasting of his successes, Skalozub mentions the battle, for his participation in which he was awarded the order:
For the third of August; We settled into a trench:
Given to him with a bow, around my neck The lower orders, that is, III and IV degrees, were worn in the buttonhole, and the order ribbon was tied with a bow, orders higher degrees- on the neck. Skalozub emphasizes that he received the award over high level than his cousin, and that by that time he already had the rank of staff officer..
The exact date was named for a reason. Among Griboedov's contemporaries, who remembered well Patriotic War 1812 and the events that followed, this phrase could not help but cause laughter. The fact is that no battle took place that day.
Sergei Golovin as Skalozub in the play “Woe from Wit.” Maly Theatre, Moscow, 1915 Billy Rose Theater Collection/New York Public Library On June 4, 1813, the Pleswitz Truce was declared, which lasted until mid-August, and on August 3, a meeting between Russian Emperor Alexander I and Franz II, Emperor of Austria, took place in Prague. Franz II- Holy Roman Emperor (1792-1806), who ruled as Austrian Emperor under the name of Franz I., which received many awards. Skalozub had no need to “sit in the trench.”
The static nature of Skalozub (“Wherever you order, just to sit down”) sharply contradicts the dynamism of Chatsky (“The wind, the storm swept by more than seven hundred miles; / And he was all confused, and fell so many times...”). However, in conditions military service In the last years of the reign of Alexander I, it was Skalozub’s life strategy that turned out to be in demand. The fact is that promotion to the next rank was carried out when there were vacancies; if Skalozub’s more active comrades died in battles or were “turned off” for political reasons, then he calmly and systematically moved towards the rank of general:
I am quite happy in my comrades,
The vacancies are just open;
Then the elders will turn off others,
The others, you see, have been killed.
5. The Mystery of the Broken Rib
Scene from the play "Woe from Wit". Maly Theatre, Moscow, 1915 Billy Rose Theater Collection/New York Public Library Here Skalozub tells an anecdote about Countess Lasova:
Let me tell you the news:
There is some kind of Princess Lasova here,
Rider, widow, but there are no examples,
So that many gentlemen travel with her.
The other day I was completely bruised;
Joke didn’t support it; he thought there were flies. -
And without that she is, as you can hear, clumsy,
Now the rib is missing
So she is looking for a husband for support.
The meaning of this anecdote is an allusion to the biblical legend about the origin of Eve from the rib of Adam, that is, the secondary nature of woman in relation to man. In the Moscow world, everything happens exactly the opposite: the primacy here always and in everything belongs to women. In Griboyedov's Moscow, mat-ri-ar-hat reigns, the feminine principle is consistently replacing the masculine. Sophia teaches Molchalin to music (“You can hear a flute, then it’s like a piano”); Natalya Dmitrievna surrounds the completely healthy Platon Mikhailovich with petty care; Tugoukhovsky, like a puppet, moves according to his wife’s commands: “Prince, prince, here,” “Prince, prince!” Back!" The feminine principle also predominates behind the scenes. Tatyana Yurievna turns out to be Molchalin’s high patroness Her prototype was Praskovya Yuryevna Kologrivova, whose husband, according to the recollections of the Decembrist Zavalishin, “asked at a ball by a high person who he was, was so confused that he said that he was Praskovya Yuryevna’s husband, probably believing that this title is more important than all his titles.”. Famusov tries to influence Skalozub through Nastasya Nikolaevna and recalls some unknown to the reader, but important to him, Irina Vlasyevna, Lukerya Aleksevna and Pulcheria Andrevna; The final verdict on what happened in the Famusovs’ house must be passed by Princess Marya Aleksevna.
“This female regime, to which the characters in Woe from Wit are subject, clarifies a lot,” writes Yuri Tynyanov. - There was autocracy for many years female Even Alexander I still took into account the power of his mother. Griboyedov knew, as a diplomat, what influence a woman had at the Persian court.” “Women’s power” and “male decline” become signs of the times: Griboyedov describes that turning point in Russian life, in which the courageous life of 1812 becomes a thing of the past, and gossip turns out to be more important than actions. In this situation, slander against Chatsky arises.
6. The Mystery of the Yellow House
Mikhail Lenin as Chatsky in the play “Woe from Wit.” Moscow Art Theater, Moscow, 1911 Billy Rose Theater Collection/New York Public Library Towards the end of the play, almost all the guests at the Famusovs’ ball are sure that Chatsky has gone crazy:
His uncle, the rogue, put him away in the madhouses;
They grabbed me, took me to the yellow house, and put me on a chain.
Why is this so scary? The fact is that the gossip about the hero’s madness, acquiring more and more new details Gossip about Chatsky's madness develops like an avalanche. He himself is the first to pronounce the words about madness (“I can beware of madness...”), meaning his unhappy love; in the same sense, Sophia picks them up (“I reluctantly drove you crazy!”), and only on the third turn, enraged by Chatsky’s attacks on Molchalin, Sophia out of revenge says: “He’s out of his mind” - giving opportunity for Mr. N. to interpret these words in the literal sense. Further, the slander is spread anonymously through Messrs. N. and D., then acquires fantastic details in the remarks of Zagoretsky, who in fact does not know Chatsky (“Which Chatsky is here? - A famous family. / With some Chatsky I once knew each other"). Griboedov knew very well about the practice of spreading gossip and its influence on the fate of people from his diplomatic activities., essentially turns into a political denunciation. It is reported about Chatsky that he is a “farmazon” (that is, a freemason Freemasons- free masons; members of a secret religious charitable society that spread throughout Europe from the 18th century. In 1822, by the highest order, all Masonic lodges in Russia were closed, Freemasonry became synonymous with freethinking.), “damned Voltairian”, “in the Pusurmans”, taken to prison, given up as a soldier, “changed the law”.
Accusation of insanity as a way to deal with a rival, an objectionable person or a political opponent was a well-known technique. So, in January 1817, rumors spread about Byron's madness, and his wife and her relatives started them. Slander and noise around the poet’s personal life spread almost throughout Europe. Rumors of madness also circulated around Griboyedov himself. According to the testimony of his biographer Mikhail Semevsky, on one of Griboyedov’s letters to Bulgarin there is a note from the latter: “Griboyedov in a moment of madness.”
Twelve years after the creation of “Woe from Wit,” one of Chatsky’s prototypes, Pyotr Yakovlevich Chaadaev, will be accused of insanity. After the publication of his first “Letter” in the magazine “Telescope”, it was closed, and the Moscow police chief announced to Chaadaev that now, by order of the government, he was crazy. A doctor came to see him every day for an examination; Chaadaev was considered to be under house arrest and could only go for a walk once a day. A year later, the doctor’s supervision over the “patient” was removed - but only on the condition that he would no longer write anything.
7. The secret of Ippolit Markelych
Vasily Luzhsky as Repetilov in the play “Woe from Wit.” Moscow Art Theatre, Moscow, 1906 Billy Rose Theater Collection/New York Public Library Repetilov tells Chatsky about a secret society reminiscent of the Decembrist one:
But if you order a genius to be named:
Udushiev Ippolit Markelych!!!
You are writing it
Have you read anything? Even a little thing?
Read, brother, but he doesn’t write anything;
These are the kind of people who should be flogged
And say: write, write, write;
However, you can find in magazines
His excerpt, look and something.
What are you talking about? something? - about everything;
He knows everything, we are herding him for a rainy day.
And how does Chatsky himself feel about participants in secret societies? The idea that the main character of the play is a Decembrist (if not by formal membership in a secret society, then by his spirit) was first expressed by Herzen, and then became a common place in school studies of “Woe from Wit”.
In fact, Griboyedov’s attitude towards the Decembrists was very skeptical, and he ridiculed the very mystery of the societies. Repetilov immediately tells the first person he meets about the place and time of the meetings (“We have a society and secret meetings / On Thursdays. The most secret union ...”), and then lists all its members: Prince Grigory, Evdokim Vorkulov, Levon and Borinka (“Wonderful guys! You don’t know what to say about them”) - and, finally, their head - the “genius” Ippolit Markelych.
The surname Udushev, given to the leader of the secret meeting, clearly shows that Griboyedov hardly harbored illusions regarding the Decembrist programs. Among Udushev's prototypes were the head of the Southern Society Pavel Pestel, the Decembrist Alexander Yakubovich and even the poet Pyotr Vyazemsky The hero, bearing the surname Udushev, also appears in the novel by Griboedov’s friend Dmitry Begichev “The Kholmsky Family” (1832). It is interesting that his prototype there is Fyodor Tolstoy the American, an unnamed off-stage character in “Woe from Wit,” about whom Repetilov also talks: “A night robber, a duelist, / Was exiled to Kamchatka, returned as an Aleut, / And firmly unclean in his hand; / Yes, an intelligent person cannot help but be a rogue.”. In a word, the only member of the secret society among the heroes of “Woe from Wit” turns out to be Repetilov - and not Chatsky.
Sources
- Levchenko O. A. Griboedov and the Russian ballad of the 1820s (“Woe from Wit” and “Predators on Chegem”). Materials for the biography.
- Markovich V. M. Comedy in verse by A. S. Griboedov “Woe from Wit.”
Analysis of a dramatic work. L., 1988.
- Tynyanov Yu. N. The plot of "Woe from Wit".
- Fomichev S. A Comedy by Griboyedov "Woe from Wit". Comment. Book for teachers.
- “The present century and the past century...”
Comedy by A. S. Griboedov “Woe from Wit” in Russian criticism and literary criticism.:: St. Petersburg, 2002.