Woe from Wit Modern Productions. Staging the work "woe from wit" on stage. Stage story "Woe from Wit"

Stage story "Woe from Wit"

First performances of the play

In Yerevan, liberated in 1827, the staging of the brilliant work of A. S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit” was first staged. Moreover, in the presence of the author.

It is known that Griboedov's request to stage the play in Russian theaters was not granted, because they saw in it a "libel on Moscow." A different situation has developed in the newly annexed territories of Armenia. Highly educated officers, including exiled Decembrists, served in the Yerevan garrison, headed by General A. Krasovsky. A peaceful period, a break from hostilities made it possible to form a circle of avid fans of Melpomene. Both acquaintance with the author of the immortal comedy and longing for a sweet homeland played a role. The performance took place in December, in the mirror hall of the Sardar Palace. Its description is contained in Griboyedov's travel notes from the time of his first visit to Yerevan: "The hall is large, the floor is covered with expensive patterned carpets ... the convex ceiling represents a chaos of mirrored pieces ... On all the walls, in two rows, one above the other, there are paintings - the adventures of Rostom."

The performers of the play invited the famous author to evaluate the quality of the work, "what will he notice successful and unsuccessful in performance". The offer was accepted "and he made sure to express his opinions."

The activities of the circle of theater-goers were permanent. The production of "Woe from Wit" was accompanied by an expansion of the repertoire, improvement of design, and an increase in the performing level. In the "Confession" of the Decembrist E.E. Lachinov, under the date February 7, 1828. noted: " Our theater is improving hour by hour: scenery is being added, a wardrobe is being started; and as for the actors, Moscow theater lovers would have shouted cheers more than once if they had such. The last performances were very good, and the next one will be better.”

On Maslenitsa, "excerpts from the best comedies in verse by Russian writers" were performed. The fascination with the theater was endemic, covering the official time of the participants in the performances. This is evidenced by the report of I.F. Paskevich dated March 17 to the Chief of the General Staff, Count I.I. Dibich. Reporting on the inspection, he, among other things, pointed out: “A theater was opened in Erivan, where the officers played the roles of actors during even the guard post itself. Knowing that this is contrary to the regulations, he strictly forbade it.

The officers of the theater meant the presence of a high level of education and well-read performers. Hence the interest in "comedies in verse" is clear. Popular among Russian educated circles were the plays of Alexander Shakhovsky "If you don't like it - don't listen, but don't interfere with lying" and "Your own family or a married bride." In the last work, individual scenes were written by Griboyedov and N.I. Khmelnitsky. Khmelnytsky's comedy "Castles in the Air" was quite famous. But the palm in the productions was given to Griboyedov. By the same time, he completed the play "Rodamist and Zenobia". Political passions in the Rome-Armenia-Parthia triangle in the first century, tragic personalities and the activities of the "great man" formed the basis of the plot. The historical canvas was provided by the works of Movses Khorenatsi "History of Armenia" and Shagen Jrpet "Curious Extracts from the Ancient History of Asia". The play reflected Griboedov's acquaintance with the spiritual values ​​of the Armenian people, and Armavir is the scene of action.

You can name a number of members of the theater troupe dating back to the time of Paskevich's report. Appointed in February 1828. As an assistant to the head of the Yerevan fortress, the Decembrist A.S. Gangeblov testifies in his memoirs: “After a long wandering life, Erivan seemed to me the capital ... They looked into literature: so one evening, according to the general desire of our circle, I and Filosofov read Woe from Wit, according to a copy that I made back in St. Petersburg, shortly after Griboyedov himself read (as they said, for the first time) this creation of his by Fyodor Petrovich Lvov.
The activity of the troupe was stopped not only by the prohibition of Paskevich, but also by the outbreak of the Russian-Turkish war.

Participants of the officer-Decembrist theater requested to join the army. Theatrical passion, admiration for Griboyedov's work gave way to heated military battles: Gangeblov, Konovnitsyn, Lachinov and Colonel Koshkarev took part in the assault on the Kars fortress on June 23, 1828. Subsequent performances of the play "Woe from Wit" were carried out by Griboyedov's father-in-law, Prince Alexander Chavchavadze, in the hall of the Tiflis Armenian Theological Seminary on January 26, 1831, then on the St. Petersburg stage.

Maly theater and immortal comedy.

From the 19th century to the present daythe most visited and famous productions of "Woe from Wit" are those at the Maly Theatre.

In 1830, censorship allowed only certain scenes from the play to be presented, which became an important event in the life of Maly, and in 1831 theatrical Moscow saw it in its entirety for the first time. Two great masters of the Moscow stage took part in the performance - Shchepkin in the role of Famusov and Mochalov in the role of Chatsky.

Artists of the Maly Theater who played roles in Griboedov's play:

M. Tsarev - Chatsky, I. Likso - Sophia.

M. Tsarev - Chatsky (1938)

M. Klimov as Famusov

Vitaly Solomin as Chatsky

The production of "Woe from Wit", in which Vitaly Solomin played the role of Chatsky, gained great fame.

From the book by Yu.A. Dmitriev “Academic Maly Theatre. 1941-1995"

The premiere of a new production of "Woe from Wit" took place on December 4, 1975. The performance was staged by V. Ivanov, but under the artistic direction of M. Tsarev, and the performance was designed by E. Kumankov. Starting from this performance, he was approved as the chief artist of the Maly Theater.

The performance caused controversy. In particular, not everyone was happy with how V. Solomin played the role of Chatsky. Therefore, it is interesting to know what the actor himself thought about this character? He said: "Previously, I was interested in the meaning of Chatsky's monologues, now - the meaning of his behavior" (V. Solomin. Uniqueness. - "Sov. Russia", 1985, November 3).

The actor sought to show the lyrical essence of Chatsky. “My Chatsky perfectly understood what Famusov and his ilk were. But in Famusov's house he was kept by a deep and strong love for Sophia, he could not put his beloved on the same level with others. Hence his monologues. They are addressed to Sophia, and to no one else ”(Solomin V. Uniqueness. -“ Sov. Russia ”, 1985, November 3).

There were different opinions about the interpretation of the role of Chatsky by V. Solomin. The well-known philologist V.I. Kuleshov believed that the role of the artist was not successful, that Famusov outplayed Chatsky, that Chatsky looked like some archival youth, frail, with glasses. In those monologues that he uttered, there was no pressure, indignation. And from the road he appeared, though in a sheepskin coat, but in a shirt that was not at all suitable for the frost - apash (See: Kuleshov V. In search of accuracy and truth. M., Sovremennik, 1986, p. 226).
But there were also opposite opinions. It was argued that the actor, playing this role, acted as an innovator, that his image turned out to be peculiar, but certainly interesting.

Pushing away the servant, in an open sheepskin coat, Chatsky-Solomin burst into the Famusovsky house and suddenly fell with all his might. But he was not embarrassed, but laughed, as smart and happy people can laugh. Turning to Sophia, he said: “A little light - already on my feet! and I am at your feet." He is far from handsome: short, snub-nosed, fair-haired, with glasses. It had nothing of the romantic theatre. It is unlikely that Sophia could like him now.

The drama of Chatsky, as shown by Solomin, consisted in the incompatibility of direct feeling with the norms, with the whole way of the society with which he encountered. He turned out to be the exact opposite of this society. And when reading the monologue "The Frenchman from Bordeaux" the guests did not disperse, they listened attentively, but Chatsky turned to Sophia alone. However, she left, and the guests continued to crowd, and it was here for the first time that the guests had the idea that there was a madman among them.

And before leaving the Famusovs' house, after uttering an angry monologue, Chatsky rushed up the stairs to where Sofya was standing in order to peer into her eyes for the last time. And only then, coming very close to the door, he ordered: “Carriage for me, carriage!” As the critic wrote, it was not a defeat, not an escape, but a victory of the mind (See: Kachalov N. Meet Chatsky. - “Come, True”, 1976, April 8).

Solomin played Chatsky mischievous, not used to hiding his feelings. He entered, or rather, ran into Famusov's house very young, and left much older. “In this performance, they were not afraid to let Chatsky play, once Griboedov himself was not afraid of this” (Ovchinnikov S. Premiere without announcement. - “Soviet Culture”, 1980, June 20).

The performance of the role of Famusov by Tsarev in the theater itself was assessed as follows: “Playing Famusov, Tsarev entered the fight against modern philistinism, he opposed Famusovism at all times. And at every performance he is different in his thoughts about his hero ”(“ Sov. Rossiya ”, 1983, November 30).

V. Solomin - Chatsky, M. Tsarev - Famusov

Sofya-N. Kornienko did not immediately hide from Chatsky that she did not need him. She is a smart, business-like girl who is well aware of her position in the family and in society, and she does not need Chatsky's “false” ideas at all. She will be able to arrange her life, and Chatsky is not her assistant in this. Her intonations are dry, businesslike, sometimes ironic. You have to be blinded by love, like Chatsky, in order not to notice all this.

Molchalin, as B. Klyuev showed him, was extremely restrained, but there was no servility in him. He developed his own understanding of life and followed it, in a friendly way he explained to Chatsky how he should behave. He is not angry, not vile, just do not interfere with him, he did not forgive this. A career awaited him, and he was quite ready for it.

The role of Skalozub was played by R. Filippov. First of all, he was monumental and distinguished by enviable health. He is a service officer, and all sorts of high ideas simply did not reach him. He is accustomed to listen and execute only commands. What Chatsky said, he did not understand, and especially did not listen to his speeches. He even liked Chatsky for his spontaneity, ardor, in any case, he had no evil against him.

Griboyedov began to read his comedy in the salons of the nobility as early as 1823, arousing everyone's attention. Then, in 1824, he continued public readings in St. Petersburg, at the same time seeking permission to stage it. But the commotion she caused aroused suspicion: the director of the Moscow theaters, Kokoshin, told the Moscow Governor-General Golitsyn that this was "a direct libel against Moscow." And the comedy was published only in fragments in 1825.

In St. Petersburg, on the initiative of Karatygin and Grigoriev, students of the theater school managed to stage a comedy. But it was strictly forbidden to play it in front of the public.

Only in 1828 did Griboedov see his comedy on stage for the first time in the Caucasus; it was played in Erivan, which had just been taken by the Russian troops, in the Sardinian palace but Ray officers of the 2nd Infantry Division. It was an amateur performance.

In 1829 Griboedov was killed in Tehran. Public attention to the tragic death of the poet forced the government to abandon the ban on the play, and on December 2, 1829 in St. Petersburg, at the Bolshoi Theater, one scene from the first act was played for the first time. Sosnitsky played Chatsky, Boretsky played Famusov. This scene was staged as a divertissement after a five-act tragedy. ( In the Russian theater for many decades, a tradition was preserved when, after a five-act performance, a vaudeville or a scene from a comedy was given as a divertissement).

In 1830, the third act was also played as a divertissement (a ball at Famusov's). Then, in the same year in St. Petersburg, at the Maly Theater, the fourth act was also played as a divertissement (driving after the ball).

And only on January 26, 1831, at the benefit performance of the actor Bryansky for the first time was played all a comedy, although it was garbled with cuts and censorship. Chatsky was played by V. Karatygin, Sofya - by E. Semenova, Repetilov - by Sosnitsky. Karatygin played Chatsky in the archaic-classicist manner of the "theatrical hero of antiquity."

At the same time, and in the same way, comedy also penetrated the Moscow stage. On November 27, 1831, the premiere took place at the Maly Theatre. Chatsky was played by P. Mochalov, Famusov - by M. Shchepkin. In Shchepkin's game, the realistic beginning of the play came into conflict with the theatrical routine, he created an image of great accusatory power. And Mochalov conveyed the civic pathos of Chatsky with enthusiasm and expression. Since 1839 I. Samarin began to play Chatsky. In his performance, a harmonious combination of Chatsky's public and personal drama was achieved.

In provincial theaters, the production of "Woe from Wit" was not allowed.

On the interpretation of the image of Chatsky on stage

Until the 1860s the performers of the role of Chatsky put forward journalistic moments in the first place, and a tradition has developed of playing the role of Chatsky as an accuser of the Famus society.

In 1864, the actor of the Moscow Maly Theater S.V. Shumsky for the first time put the question in a different way: one cannot make Chatsky only an accuser of the mores of society, from this he becomes stilted. It is impossible to demand only skillful pronunciation of monologues. Chatsky is a young man who is passionately in love with Sophia, and he does everything to evoke mutual feelings in her. He suffers deeply from love. Thus, Shumsky tried to break the tradition of Chatsky's performance. His Chatsky became "more humane". But this showed another extreme: the accusatory side of the comedy disappeared. This tradition of interpreting Chatsky survived until the beginning of the 20th century. This is how Chatsky played at the Maly Theater Lensky, Gorev, Ostuzhev, P. Sadovsky (grandson). And in Alexandrinsky - Maksimov, Dolmatov.

In 1906 Woe from Wit was staged at the Moscow Art Theatre. Regarding the interpretation of Chatsky, Nemirovich-Danchenko wrote that Chatsky is primarily a young man in love. Later, he will become an accuser, even against his will.

Later, already on the Soviet stage, the task of organically combining elements of personal drama and social struggle in the image of Chatsky was set. This tradition of interpreting Chatsky survived until the middle of the 20th century.

Of undoubted interest is the production of the comedy "Woe from Wit" by Vs.E. Meyerhold (the first edition of the play "Woe to the Wit" - 1928, the second edition - 1935). The difficulty was that the play had already acquired the character of a collection of winged words, favorite sayings and sayings, became a museum picture of an obsolete era. And I wanted to return to her poetry, a living life, full of pain, thoughts, anger, love, disappointments, the courage of human thought and the strength of feeling. Meyerhold sought to move away from the tradition of interpreting comedy. In his reading of the play, he introduced discoveries, insights and conjectures characteristic of his temperament, the depth and sharpness of his artistic vision.

He divided the text of the four-act comedy into 17 episodes; introduced into the canonical text inserts from the original editions of the play and arbitrary cuts; music played a significant and active role in the performances, which was not only a background, but also acted as a character. The distribution of roles also shocked contemporaries: Chatsky was played by the comic actor Erast Garin (role - a simpleton).

Here are some of the episodes that Meyerhold introduced into the performance: “Tavern”, “Anteroom”, “Dance class”, “Portrait”, “Sofa”, “Library and billiard room”, “Tir”, “Upper vestibule”, “Dining room”, “ Fireplace”, “Ladder”, etc. The action took place in different parts of Famusov’s large house, as well as outside it (“Zucchini”, where the hussars are drinking, “Tir”). Freedom-loving poems were read in the library, in the pub Molchalin, Sofya listened to Parisian songs in Repetilov's company - these and other episodes painted a picture of the life of the era.

And the very name of the performance is “Woe to the Mind”. This is not an invention of Meyerhold, but a version of Griboyedov himself. Chatsky - Garin expressed the lyrical and dramatic line of comedy to a greater extent than the satirical, accusatory one, for which Meyerhold was reproached by critics. But in fact, this was the main discovery of the director: a perky boy, not a tribune! He saw in Chatsky a lyrical hero. And Molchalin - the actor Mukhin - is tall, stately, able to wear a tailcoat. Such a juxtaposition of characters was unexpected, but this is precisely what is interesting in Meyerhold's interpretation. Chatsky is alone. And he is opposed not by a decaying, decrepit, powerless world, but by a world full of living juices, strong traditions, a world confident in the unshakable fortress of its existence. All Chatsky's opponents are "healed" by directing. This is Famusov, and Skalozub, and Molchalin, and even Khlestova. The very denial of their world seems to them a disease, madness, and Chatsky seems to them an eccentric. The scene of the growing gossip about Chatsky's madness was built like this. On the stage from portal to portal is a table where Famusov's guests are having dinner. The same pieces of text sound in different corners of the table, the gossip repeats, varies, floats and captures more and more new guests, and Famusov, who is sitting in the center of the table, conducts its development. This climactic scene is built according to the laws of the growth of the musical theme. Chatsky, having appeared in the foreground, realizes that he has got to the wrong place; this chewing mass of guests, as if chewing it, drives him off the stage. And it is understandable why, at the end of the performance, Chatsky, completely exhausted by the events of the day, quietly, almost in a whisper, says: "Carriage for me, carriage ...".

The performance was not well received by critics. The first performances were uneven, but from performance to performance he became slimmer, stricter in composition, and finally, he gained well-deserved success with the audience. (More about this performance in the book: A. Gladkov. Meyerhold, volume 1. - M .: STD, 1990).

After this production, theaters repeatedly turned to comedy. But its interpretations remained in the traditions of social optimism, and Chatsky again stood up on the cothurnas of the accuser of the Famus society.

But in 1962 in Leningrad at the Bolshoi Drama Theater G.A. Tovstonogov staged "Woe from Wit" unconventionally. At first, the distribution of roles was surprising: Chatsky - S. Yursky, Molchalin - K. Lavrov, Sofya - T. Doronina, Lizanka, the maid - L. Makarova, Famusov - V. Politseymako, Repetilov - V. Strzhelchik, etc. And there was one more character - "the face of the theater" (S. Karnovich-Valois). This character started the play by introducing the actors. He ended the performance, solemnly proclaiming: "The performance is over." “A face from the theater” emphasized the theatricality of what was happening, reminded you that you are present in the theater and that what is happening on the stage is separated from the present time by a large distance. And everything that happened in the performance accurately reflected the Griboedov era - in costumes, props, setting, etiquette. And yet it was a sharp contemporary performance. (More about this in the book: Yu. Rybakov. G.A. Tovstonogov. Problems of directing. - Leningrad branch of Art, 1977, pp. 85-95)

"To the 180th anniversary of the first performance"

"Woe from Wit" AT THE SMALL THEATER

Essay by Vl.Filippov from the booklet "Woe from Wit". M., 1947.

In the creative life of the oldest Russian theater, there can hardly be another dramatic work that would be as significant as Griboedov's brilliant comedy.
"Woe from Wit" was the first Russian play that highly artistically reflected the advanced ideas of its time. Staged five years before Gogol's "Inspector General", "Woe from Wit" allowed the wonderful (masters of the Maly Theater - and above all the brilliant Shchepkin) to widely reveal the social significance of the profession of an actor. "Woe from Wit" was the first play staged on the stage that realistically reproduced modern "Woe from Wit" could not play a huge role in the upbringing of many acting generations. A number of actors of the Maly Theater for decades recreated individual images of comedy, finding ever newer and more significant colors to embody them.
You can name the actors of the Maly Theater, who performed in Woe from Wit in several roles. Those who played, for example, Chatsky later switched to the role of Famusov, as was the case, say, with I. V. Samarin and A. P. Lensky or with P. M. Sadovsky and M. F. Lenin. Many during their artistic life embodied on the stage the three characters of "Woe from Wit". So, for example, V. I. Zhivokini played the roles of Repetilov, Zagoretsky, Gorich; F. P. Gorev played Chatsky, Repetilov, Prince Tugoukhovsky; A. I. Yuzhin - Chatsky, Repetilov, Famusov; M. M. Klimov - Zagoretsky, Repetilov, Famusov, etc., etc. Or, for example, A. A. Yablochkina, who started with Sophia, then switched to the role of Natalya Dmitrievna, and then played in four different interpretations Khlyostov, and E. D. Turchaninova, who started with Liza, later played Countess Hryumina-grandmother and Princess Tutoukhovskaya. Finally, among the troupe of the Maly Theater, those who created four images in Woe from Wit can be named - suffice it to name K. N. Rybakov, who in his youth acted as Molchalin, then embodied Skalozub and Platon Mikhailovich and in the last years of his life who created the image of Famusov.
But not only the actors were brought up on the reproduction of “Woe from Wit”: whole generations of spectators, perceiving this brilliant creation in the brilliant performance of the actors of the Maly Theater, learned to understand the beauty of the poetic form of comedy, learned to appreciate the artistically completed images created by Griboyedov in acting performance. The audience, thanks to the typical reproduction of the best masters of the Maly Theater, began to be fully and concretely aware of such phenomena as Famusism, Skalozubovism, silence and Repetilovism, and to hate the social vices generalized in them. The audience left the theater, carried away in their souls the love for Chatsky, a brave fighter against inertia, cringing, servility, they left, inspired to fight in defense of humanism, national independence and the free development of the human personality.
More than a hundred years have passed since the first production of Woe from Wit, and the immortal comedy has been in the repertoire of the Maly Theater all this time. Only the illness or death of the actor who played Famusov caused a temporary break in the performance of Woe from Wit. So it was in 1863, when the first Famusov of the Maly Theater, Mikhailo Semyonovich Shchepkin, died. So it was in 1884, when IV Samarin fell ill and the play was not performed for two years. She did not go for several seasons after the death of A.P. Lensky (from 1908 to 1910), K.N. Rybakov (from 1917 to 1921) and A.I. Yuzhin (from 1927 to 1930).
Sometimes the play was only “furnished” in a new way (as they used to say in the old days, when new performers were introduced into the performance), sometimes it was “rearranged” (when not only the descriptions of the participants changed, but something new was introduced into the decorative design or mise-en-scene). More often (which happened in the 20th century) they gave a new “production”, entrusting it to another director and another artist. But each renewal of "Woe from Wit" brought something essentially new to the interpretation of the great comedy.
This was primarily due to the fact that not a single genuine actor of the Maly Theater - a theater that has always sought to cultivate the individual characteristics of the talents of its masters - did not repeat the great predecessors, but revealed in his creations his own inherent understanding of the image and introduced into his performance that new , which was caused by the development of performing arts.
No matter how different individual images were in each renewal, they, however, always - however, with one exception (we will talk about it later), - were resolved realistically, and the play retained its socially accusatory content.
It is impossible not to recall the names of the outstanding actors of the Maly Theater who made a valuable contribution to the stage history of Griboedov's comedy.
First of all, Shchepkin, Samarin, Lensky, Rybakov, Yuzhin should be mentioned, who created the image of Famusov, or those who wonderfully embodied Chatsky on the stage - Samarin, Shumsky, Yuzhin, or the excellent performers of the role of Lisa - N. A. Nikulina, E. D. Turchaninova, V. N. Ryzhova, V. N. Pashennaya. It is impossible not to recall that the role of Khlestova was played by N. M. Medvedeva, M. N. Ermolova, A. A. Yablochkin, or that N. I. Muzil and V. N. Davydov created impressive images from the wordless role of Prince Tugoukhovsky. A. A. Yablochkina, who performed in this role from her first appearance at the Maly Theater in 1882 until 1908, is rightfully recognized as the best Sophia of the Russian stage. Repetilov, brilliantly played by A. I. Yuzhin since 1909, is always called one of the most striking creations in the field of Russian classical comedy. The most perfect stage performance of Countess Khryumina-grandmother was given by the brilliant actress of the Maly Theater Olga Osipovna Sadovskaya.
Thus, with full responsibility it can be argued that not only Woe from Wit entered the creative history of the Moscow Maly Theater, but the Maly Theater also brought a number of exceptionally valuable creations to the gallery of stage images of the great comedy.

Along with the many, many achievements of the Maly Theater, there could not have been a wide variety of mistakes and shortcomings in the stage destinies of Woe from Wit, some of which, being repeated in every performance, created “false traditions”.
Most of these false traditions concern the very text of the comedy, which for many decades sounded from the stage far from the way it was written by Griboyedov. The theater was not guilty of misrepresenting this classic. Much depended on the organs of the tsarist censorship, which did not allow "Woe from Wit" during the life of the playwright, neither for (Print (only individual scenes could be published in 1825), nor, even more so, for the stage. When, after the tragic death of Griboedov, did the the question of permission to put "Woe from Wit" on stage, this was achieved only under the condition of significant "blackouts", changes and distortions of the text.
The prohibition of "Woe from Wit" for publication caused a huge number of handwritten lists during Griboyedov's lifetime. The absence of a text printed during the playwright's lifetime and the unavailability of the author's autograph of the play, in the presence of various handwritten versions, contributed to the conviction that the final version of the text, owned by Griboedov himself, has not been preserved. Therefore, each theater and even individual actors "created" their own version of the text.
And as soon as a new edition of “Woe from Wit” appeared in print, new layers of all kinds of variants were superimposed on the text that had previously sounded from the stage (and in itself, thanks to censorship, was incorrect). This was how a consolidated text was formed, which differed significantly from the genuine Griboedov's.
In 1903, the Moscow Historical Museum published the manuscript of Woe from Wit, kept here, written by the playwright himself. Despite the fact that this so-called “Museum Autograph” was an early version of the comedy, obviously not yet finalized by the playwright, it had a strong influence on many theaters, including the Alexandrinsky and Moscow Art Theaters in St. Petersburg. He also influenced the new production of the Maly Theater, carried out in 1910 under the direction of E. A. Lepkovsky. In 1912, a manuscript was published that belonged to Griboyedov's friend Gendru, corrected by the playwright's own hand. After that, thanks to the research of N.K. Piksanov, the final canonical text of "Woe from Wit", published by the Academy of Sciences, was established. However, the Maly Theater was able to make only a few corrections to the performances that continued to go on. Only after
October, the text of the comedy was significantly changed, but still it did not quite coincide with the original Griboedov. The theater was sorry to part with a number of familiar and often very expressive lines, rejected by Griboyedov, but approved by the long-term traditions of stage performance. So, for example, the theater continued to pronounce words through the mouths of Famusov - Yuzhin, which Griboyedov himself had removed not only from the final version, which the Bulgarin list is recognized as, but also from the earlier one - Gendrov's, and supplementing Famusov's well-known exclamation "Eat three hours, and three days will not cook »:

Mushrooms, jelly, cabbage soup, porridge in a hundred pots,
Mark: on Thursday I am called to the funeral,
And the takeaway from "Nikola in Boots."

The theater seemed too colorful both the description of Moscow dinners and the mention of a church that actually existed in Moscow, which bore a name typical for Moscow - there was not only Nikola in Boots, but also Nikola on Chicken Legs, Trinity Drops and even Spas-Bolvanovsky ... Next the production, carried out by N. O. Volkonsky in 1930, again introduced a number of very different options into Griboedov's text, including those rejected by the playwright himself. Finally, in the last production of 1938, the text, cleansed of all sorts of impurities, appeared again in a version close to Griboedov's original. But it still retained some echoes of traditional deviations from the text. Resumed during the Great Patriotic War, this production largely improved the text spoken from the stage. Undoubtedly, in the process of further work on Woe from Wit, the Maly Theater, which is called upon to preserve the classical heritage in all its purity, will ensure that the original text of Griboyedov sounds from its stage.

As you know, Griboedov's efforts to obtain censorship permission to print Woe from Wit were not crowned with success - the satirical orientation of the accusatory comedy was too clearly felt. But a different formal pretext for the ban was found.
The censor wrote: “I was reading the manuscript “Woe from Wit”, a comedy by A. S. Griboyedov, and found that in the 1st and 3rd appearances of the first act, a noble girl appears who spent the whole night with a single man in her bedroom and goes out from it with him without any shame, and in the 11th and 12th appearances of the fourth act, the same girl sends her maid after midnight to call the same man to her for the night. The censor, finding these scenes contrary to decency and morality, cannot approve this manuscript for publication. As a result of this resolution, only scenes from the first act and the third act of the comedy were published during the playwright's lifetime. They were printed in the almanac "Russian Thalia" for 1825.
Moreover, it was impossible to dream of a stage production. Only 10 months after the tragic death of Griboedov, it became possible to raise the issue of permission to play Woe from Wit.
But here a new obstacle arose: the permission of Griboyedov's heirs was required. Thaddeus Bulgarin considered himself such. Having a list of "Woe from Wit", on which the playwright, leaving for Persia, wrote "My Woe I entrust to Bulgarin", the latter claimed that Griboyedov gave him "the right to dispose of this comedy and transferred ownership of it with a handwritten inscription on a genuine comedy and a particularly formal paper” (it is interesting that this “formal paper” has not yet been found in any repository). Bulgarin, in an effort to extract the maximum benefit from this right, sold Woe from Wit to the theater in parts and, first of all, gave it to the St. Petersburg actress Valberkhova for her benefit performance of the scene from the first act. Having no independent significance, they were inserted by the beneficiary into an "interlude divertissement", "composed of recitations, singing, dancing and dancing" called "The Theater Foyer, or Stage Behind the Stage".
On December 2, 1829, an excerpt from the first act was presented in St. Petersburg. As soon as Shchepkin found out about this, he turned to his friend, artist of the St. Petersburg Alexandria Theater I. I. Sosnitsky: “Do me a favor, my friend, do not refuse to fulfill my request. I was promised a vaudeville for my benefit performance, but I see that it cannot be ready in any way; then, in order to at least somewhat replace, I want to give a divertisman in which to place some scenes. And therefore, order, as soon as possible, to write out from Woe from Wit those scenes that you played for the benefit of Mrs. Valberkhova.
Sosnitsky complied with the request, and Shchepkin, putting in his benefit performance, which took place on January 31, 1830, Moliere's "Miserly", accompanied by an "interlude-divertisman" called "Masquerade", an interlude, "which, as the poster reported, is decorated with new scenes from tragedy Ermak and from the immortal comedy Woe from Wit.
Four months later, in the benefit performance of N. V. Repina, which took place on May 25, 1830, after the big magic opera in 4 acts The Devil's Mill and the one-act vaudeville Husband and Wife, the third act from the comedy in poems "Woe from Wit". Moreover, the poster unexpectedly added "with dances belonging to it." Following the custom of the era to give separate names to each act, this passage was announced as "Moscow Ball". At the same time, it was specified in detail who would dance the “new French quadrille in 8 pairs” and who in 4 pairs would dance the “new mazurka”, and that “in this ball they would play the roles” of Chatsky - Mochalov, Famusova - Shchepkin, Sophia - Potanchikova, Molchalin - Lensky, Skalozuba - Orlov. Among the performers was the famous Zhivokini, who played Zagoretsky, and Pyotr Stepanov, the only one who in this performance aroused unanimous approval, playing Prince Tugoukhovsky.
The staging of the Moscow Ball in St. Petersburg and in Moscow marked the beginning of one of the false traditions that had been kept in the theater for many years. The third act interested the audience not in the accusatory monologues of Chatsky and not in the satirical depiction of the Famus society, but in the “divertisman” with which the act ended and which went to the sounds of the orchestra, located not in the living room of the Famus house or backstage, but in front of the stage in front of the public. Despite the fact that Griboyedov accurately defines through Sophia's lips that "home friends will come to dance to the piano"; despite the fact that the playwright changes the motives three times, emphasizing why what is happening on stage is not a ball (“great post, so you can’t give a ball,” Sofya says in the original version, which Griboedov changes to the words: “the house is not big, so you can’t give a ball ”, and, finally, the final text is approved: “we are in mourning, so we can’t give a ball”), the Maly Theater for fifty years depicted a ball with an orchestra on stage.
On February 25, 1831, the fourth act, “Departure after the Ball,” was added to the “Moscow Ball” for the benefit performance of the actress of the Maly Theater A. T. Saburova, who played Natalya Dmitrievna. “I must admit that the play was arranged very badly,” wrote the Moscow Telegraph.
The performers of these first performances of the scenes from Woe from Wit followed the line of least resistance and remained within their usual vaudeville roles. Only a few actors, feeling for completely new images for the Russian theater, limited themselves to “reading” Woe from Wit. And it is not their fault, but their misfortune that they did not read Griboyedov's text, but a text distorted by Bulgarin's corrections and censorship marks.
Such is the prehistory of the performance of Woe from Wit on the Moscow stage.
The first performance, "in which all four acts of Woe from Wit were played, took place in the 1831-1832 season. We were unable to find a poster for this significant performance, and the available printed and handwritten sources do not agree on everything. Only the following characters are indisputable: Famusov - Shchepkin, Liza - Nechaeva, Molchalin - D. Lensky, Chatsky - Mochalov, Skalozub - Orlov, Platon Mikhailovich - Tretyakov, Tugoukhovsky: Prince - P. Stepanov, Princess - Kuraeva, Hryumina-grandmother-Bozhevskaya , Khlestova - Kovalerova, G. D. and G. N. - Bogdanov and Nikiforov. As for Sophia, she was apparently played by Potanchikova, Natalya Dmitrievna - or Saburova or Rykalova, the Countess-granddaughter - Richard or Karnakova, V. Stepanov replaced Zhivokini in the role of Zagoretsky, who, for his part, replaced Repetilov in the role Saburov, who played this role when only the third and fourth acts were staged.
It cannot be emphasized that the two largest actors of that time - Shchepkin and Mochalov did not immediately master such new images for them as Famusov and Chatsky. At the same time, both of them were well aware of the complex and responsible tasks Griboyedov set for the theater. No wonder Mochalov complained that he was not so afraid of any role, as for the role of Chatsky.
“Here, for example,” he said to his partner, “from the very first act, I feel that I am not in my role, not in my place. This cheekiness of Chatsky and playful chatter, laughter, his caustic sarcasms, brilliant witticisms with genuine cheerfulness and jokes - yes, I have never played such roles and I don’t know how to play ... The second act especially baffles me. Well, how is this tirade: "And who are the judges?" - will draw me into a tragic tone? The same is true in the rest of the acts, especially in the fourth, where Chatsky, like a madman, rushes about with curses at everything and everyone; I, with my tragic manners, can distort the immortal creation of Griboyedov. Correctly understanding the complexity of the new task facing him, Mochalov did his best not to fall into his usual "tragic rut". It is no coincidence that the Northern Bee wrote: "Flaming Mochalov, contrary to his usual habit, was colder in the role of Chatsky than in any other, requiring much less heat."
Where the role benefited from a simplification of tone, Mochalov was undoubtedly very good, despite the fact that the audience, accustomed to "Mochalovsky pauses", "Mochalovsky tragic whisper" and "Mochalov's gut", remained unsatisfied. On the other hand, Mochalov, who played each performance by inspiration and did not know how to fix the successful moments found in individual performances.
Of course, Chatsky also played differently at every performance. A modern connoisseur of the theater Pimen Arapov, pointing out that Mochalov "played this role by improvisation", added: "Mochalov often succeeded in the role of Chatsky." Another description of his playing in this role, made by the theater worker N. I. Kulikov, has also been preserved, which clearly indicates that Mochalov, in the role of Chatsky, was looking for new ways to play. But the main reproach, which was unanimously made by the reviewers, was that Mochalov "represented a non-secular person." The Moscow Telegraph and Telescope wrote about this, and it was noted that he “dismissed himself from all secular propriety” and - as the Intermission later pointed out - in the fourth act “he was very good, despite his clumsiness in a tailcoat”.
The new thing that Chatsky Mochalov tried to convey in the role was alien to his contemporary auditorium. Unusual for the artist, the “salon costume” did not turn Chatsky performed by Mochalov (who perfectly understood the role and knew how to convey both irony, and hidden bile, and tenderness for Sophia, and undisguised contempt for others) into the “legend of the theater”, which became his Hamlet, Mortimer and Othello. Ivan Vasilyevich Samarin became a legend, who replaced Mochalov in the role of Chatsky during his lifetime ... Famusov Shchepkina also became a legend.
In the same way, Shchepkin, who was always dissatisfied with himself (“S.T. Aksakov called him a demanding artist”) complained more than once that he lacked a “lordly note” for the role of Famusov. But with Shchepkin, “the roles did not lie idle,” and from season to season, from performance to performance, the great actor improved his performance. And if at the first sketches of the image he did not satisfy the critics, then later the image became artistically complete, solid and convincing, and Shchepkin's Famusov entered the history of Russian stage art as the first full-fledged realistic image that typified the modern Moscow nobility.
“I, in the person of Famusov,” Shchepkin writes to Annenkov in a letter dated November 12, 1853, about one of his later performances “Woe from Wit” - became animated and absorbed Famusov’s thoughts in such a way that his every expression convinced me of his madness, and I, indulging in this thought, he often smiled, looking at Chatsky, so that, finally, he could hardly restrain himself from laughing. All this was so natural that the audience, carried away, burst into laughter. It would seem, what is better? - the actor "entered the role", lived on stage the life of the person being portrayed, and the audience appreciated his game. But Shchepkin, based on the artistic material "Woe from Wit", concludes: "It was a mistake on my part, the stage suffered from this." Shchepkin reproaches himself for forgetting the rule that "one must indulge in feelings with caution, and especially in a scene where Famusov is not in the foreground." “My daughter and I,” he adds, “make up the situation, and the whole thing was in Chatsky.” And contact with such a masterpiece of dramaturgy as “Woe from Wit” prompts Shchepkin to the fundamental conclusion: “A real feeling should be allowed as much as the author’s idea requires.” Not only that: “Naturality and true feeling are necessary in art, but to the extent that the general idea allows. This is what all art consists of - to catch this line and stand on it.
Shchepkin's close assistant in promoting the principles of artistic realism was Ivan Vasilyevich Samarin, the famous performer of the role of Chatsky. Actor, director and entrepreneur N. M. Medvedev in his memoirs, dwelling on the game of Samarin, says: “It was great. His first act and exit is perfection. The viewer believed that Chatsky was "in a hurry", "flying", "enlivened by the date". In my memory, no one knew how to experience poetry and master them, as I. V. did. What a flexibility of voice intonations, the speed of transitions from one subject to another - amazing! How much fun, humor with childhood memories! How he painted with Griboedov's poems - he painted portraits of Moscow society! Youth, sarcasm, sometimes bile, regret for Russia, the desire to awaken her - all this was in full swing and covered with a fiery love for Sophia.
This is how Chatsky-Samarin remained in the memory of those who saw him. But the immediate impression was similar, and not only in Moscow, but also in St. Petersburg, where Samarin in 1846 “risked to appear in the role of Chatsky after V. Karatygin and G. Maksimov in front of the St. Petersburg public, which was accustomed to playing these artists, loves them and became related to the image of Chatsky precisely in their face ”(as modern magazines noted), and came out the winner. “From his first step on stage, we saw Chatsky in him, as he should be, an enlightened, intelligent, noble secular person ... His playing, his conversation were natural to the highest degree, and this, in our opinion, adds the magazine“ Repertoire and Pantheon" is one of the main advantages of the young artist." The genuine "secularism" of Chatsky performed by Samarin, who owned "manners", who perfectly knew how to wear a tailcoat and nowhere raised his voice to a cry - which seemed unacceptable for Chatsky brought up in the Famus circle - along with the "naturalness" of his game made Samarin "the best Chatsky of the Russian stage.
Needless to say, the convincing and vivid realistic performance of the central roles of "Woe from Wit" by such artists as Shchepkin and Samarin could not but affect the embodiment of the other images of the play in terms of their realistic disclosure.
In this regard, it is difficult to overestimate the importance of "Woe from Wit" for the establishment and development of realistic stage art, the convinced founders of which were Shchepkin and Samarin.

Shchepkin died in 1863. In the same year, a passionate admirer of the Maly Theatre, a thoughtful and strict critic A. N. Bazhenov wrote an article entitled “The need to update the stage production of “Woe from Wit”. In it, he pointed out a number of errors that had crept into the stage text and into the production of the comedy. He was especially indignant at the actors, of which only Shchepkin, Stepanov, Nikiforov and Orlov, "to their credit, have long understood the need for proper costume, at least for their roles, although for that they always made up an exception that was too conspicuous" while everyone else, and especially the guests at Famusov’s ball, were dressed in fashion not from those years when the action of “Woe from Wit” takes place (as Bazhenov defined, “not later than the 23rd year”), but from that year when the performance was on, or at best the year of its first production. Thanks to this, new-fashioned tailcoats and crinolines, ladies' fashion dresses of the 32nd year and costumes of the first twenty years of the 19th century appeared on the stage at the same time. The situation was no better in terms of decoration: no special decorations were made; the pavilions were selected from the existing ones, just as the available furniture was selected, and the hours required in the course of the action, which in the first act "beat and play", were "false" - drawn.
In the same year, on October 19, "Woe from Wit" was rearranged by the director Bogdanov, who resumed the play for his benefit performance. “In terms of decorative and props, the setting of the comedy was treated with great attention,” Bazhenov stated. “For the last two acts, new scenery was written and written very successfully. The furniture in the third act is new or renovated and seems new, even the old fake clock in the room of the first two acts is replaced by real ones, in the nature of the old time.
But in the field of costumes, the same mixture of eras, fashions and hairstyles dominated. It was difficult to deal with this. Very few understood at the time the need to reproduce costumes appropriate to the years in which the action takes place. Not only that: even such subtle artists as Goncharov, who gave a wonderful analysis of "Woe from Wit" in his classic article "A Million of Torments", in 1872 insisted that "old-fashioned tailcoats, with a very high or very low waist, women's dresses with a high bodice, high bonnets - in all this, the characters will seem like fugitives from the second-hand market, ”why, in his opinion, it is impossible to dress actors in historical costumes. If the theater treated the problem of costumes in this way, then there were also fundamental considerations for this: “Woe from Wit was not recognized as a play depicting a life that had departed into the distant past, but was perceived as a work written on a topic that continues to be modern and expressing ideas close to the present.
When the comedy was staged in 1864, an attempt was made to "purify the immortal comedy from all the vulgarities that distorted it on the Russian stage." It was decided “to stage Woe from Wit” in complete accordance with the author’s plans and taking into account that he did not call his play a “comedy with dancing”, that the dances themselves, in the form of a clownish, in which they have been staged hitherto, served only to amuse the district and that in the upper stratum of society, in the circle of which the author has brought his action, dances have never been performed with areal antics that give them all the value in performance. The theater "wanted to throw them out altogether" and limit itself, according to Griboedov's text, to a waltz that begins with the sounds of the piano during Chatsky's last monologue in the third act.
Rumors about this "reform" undertaken by the Maly Theater reached the Moscow military governor, who in an official letter warned the theater authorities "about the responsibility that lies with the directorate in the event of any manifestations": it turns out that the restoration of the playwright's will could cause a manifestation from outside public! Moreover, the St. Petersburg authorities intervened in the matter, ordering the dances to be preserved, motivating the order by the fact that they were introduced “from the first time of the aforementioned act in the performance” (remember the “Moscow Ball”!) And that “the majority of the public got used to them.” “As for their performance in a clownish form,” wrote the director of the imperial theaters, Count Borch, “I completely agree that they should not be allowed to be too caricatured (but “just” in a caricature” should it be? - V.F.), apart from some originality of manner in Skalozub's mazurka, as an army officer of that time, and some awkwardness between other dancers, as is observed in home meetings. Naturally, with such a directive, the theater could not fulfill its intention, and for more than two decades the question of the destruction of dances was not raised. Only with the resumption of 1887 did the director S. A. Chernevsky finally achieve that only the waltz was danced on stage and danced to the piano.
In the play "Woe from Wit", staged by Bogdanov, there were a number of new performers, including Famusov for the first time played by I. V. Samarin, who later received general recognition as one of the remarkable incarnations of this image. Already after his first performance in a new role, A. I. Bazhenov wrote: “Samarin, as we, however, expected, was good in the role of Famusov. The lordliness and importance of not quite a real test and more forced ones affected him everywhere, where it was necessary, and in the manner of speaking, and in posture, and in all movements. Famusov's ability to adapt to circumstances, his ability to quickly change and put himself in different relationships with different people, the most difficult properties of Famusov's character to convey, found a fairly truthful and detailed expression in the performer. Joking, but not dropping his dignity with Liza, strict with his daughter and Molchalin, restrainedly affectionate when meeting with Chatsky, irritable in further conversations with him, fawning and insinuating with Skalozub, very quick-tempered, and therefore a little scary in anger, Famusov appeared before us, performed by Mr. Samarin, all these aspects of our own, which make him such a living person. Samarin, who was famous for his excellent reading of verse, in the role of Famusov brilliantly knew how to convey the features of Griboedov's poetic form, which, apparently, was obscured by Shchepkin, who achieved maximum simplicity and naturalness of stage speech.
In the same production, on December 7 of the same 1864, S. V. Shumsky performed in his benefit performance in the role of Chatsky, who replaced the relatively weak performer Vilde.
The clever and subtle master Shumsky is the first to embody the image of the central character of Woe from Wit in a harmonious combination of social drama with personal drama. He himself wrote: “Chatsky was portrayed on stage as a brilliant reasoner, an ardent debunker of the hardened concepts and mores of society, which is why he seemed to be a stilted face; all that was required of the artist was that he skillfully pronounce well-known monologues. But Chatsky is above all a man passionately in love; all his thoughts are focused on Sophia; in life there is nothing higher for him than to inspire her with reciprocity; if attention had been paid to this, if Chatsky the accuser had been relegated to the background, and Chatsky, deeply suffering from love, would have appeared in the first place, then he would have received a very definite physiognomy. And I will try to do it."
Shumsky managed to embody Chatsky exactly in this way. In addition, he “promoted the consciousness of his own dignity, the mental aristocracy inherent in this person. Chatsky in his performance was already a man of not the first youth, who did not lose the youth of the heart, but acquired the maturity of the mind and the ability of a deliberate judgment; everything he said seemed to be the result of experience and comparison, something completely independent and (belonging to him), wrote Shumsky's biographer Koropchevsky.
For twenty years, Bogdanov's production was kept on stage. Individual performers changed, new ones entered. Among them were those who later became outstanding masters of the Maly Theater. So, for example, in 1874 M. N. Ermolova began to play Sophia, Lisa in 1868-N. A. Nikulin, Zagoretsky -M. P. Sadovsky (1877) and O. A. Pravdam (1880), Princess Tugoukhovskaya-O. O. Sadovskaya (1882), Molchalin - Reshimov (1877) and M. P. Sadovsky (1882). In the same production in 1882, N. M. Medvedeva performed for the first time, creating the classic image of the Moscow lady Khlestova. In the same production, they made their debut in the role of Chatsky: in 1869 - Reshimov, in 1876 - A. P. Lensky, in 1882 - A. I. Yuzhin and F. N. Gorev.
After Samarin's death, Woe from Wit went off the stage for three seasons. The famous performer of the role of Famusov played him for the last time on May 20, 1883, and only on September 16, 1887, director S. A. Chernevsky decided to resume the comedy: there was no actor who was in any way suitable for the role of Famusov. At the same time, the presence in the troupe of two very different, but bright Chatskys - the ardent and romantic Gorev and the smart, educated, hot young Yuzhin (regarding his debut in this role, he himself wrote: “he had great external success - three calls for leaving fourth act ... But I played, although hot, but badly”), and most importantly, the realization that “Woe from Wit” cannot be absent from the repertoire led to its renewal.
Many lines previously prohibited by censorship were included in the text, quadrille and mazurka were removed from the third act, a number of new performers were introduced, including the role of Skalozub-K. N. Rybakov, Gorev played the role of Repetilov, and Vilde, who did not cope with the role, played Famusov at the premiere, and he was replaced on November 6 by A.P. Lensky.
The great actor did not immediately succeed in this difficult role. For a long time he did not dare to perform in it, and each difficulty (as he wrote to the director Chernevsky) “involuntarily” made him think: “Is this not a warning of fate? Say: do not play, you will fail. But, of course, there could be no failure. Improving the image that he played until his death (in 1908), Lensky turned it into one of his masterpieces. Harmonic fusion of colloquial natural speech with the masterful pronunciation of Griboedov's verse, in which the actor was able to set off both the peculiarities of rhythm and the originality of rhymes, the filigree finishing of details, the typical reproduction of the social, psychological and everyday side of Famusov's image, the subtlest characteristic of the inner world and the external appearance of the character, and not only brought Lensky the general recognition of his contemporaries, but also captured him Famusov in the creative history of the acting skills of the Maly Theater.
The image of Chatsky performed by Yuzhin also evolved. The well-known critic of that time, S. V. Vasiliev-Flerov, wrote in 1897: “I followed Mr. Yuzhin in this role from the moment he first appeared in it on the stage of the Maly Theater. In my eyes, the process of the artist’s constant work on the role, constant dressing up of details was gradually taking shape ... The role came out more and more whole and harmonious every time, ”and, finally, now, as the critic concluded, his performance “because of the amazing consistency of tone and the harmony of the whole, it is possible be called exemplary." At the same time, in this image, which at first brightly and convincingly revealed Chatsky's personal drama, Yuzhin gradually introduced a protesting beginning more and more. As a result, Chatsky Yuzhina became the first Chatsky who made the Decembrists remember (as V. Mikhailovsky pointed out when speaking about the performance of 1889).
In this production, since 1888, the role of Sophia was played by A. A. Yablochkina. The living face she created, which combined the typical features of a Moscow young lady of the thirties, the characteristic features of a representative of the Famus society and individual characteristics

in / about, 202 gr.

Essay on Russian literature

The first theatrical productions of "Woe from Wit".

(from 1827 to 1906)

Moscow, 2011

The only bright play "Woe from Wit" was enough for Griboyedov to enter the history of Russian literature as the greatest playwright. In the circle of contemporaries, where Griboyedov read, as he wrote, the acts of the play, the work received recognition and success; the Decembrists greeted him with particular enthusiasm. Pushkin gave a brilliant description of comedy, noting in it "characters and a sharp picture of morals."

But the path of the play to the minds of the general reader was fraught with difficulties. The reactionary wing received Woe from Wit with hostility. The comedy was severely censored, the most biting and memorable lines were cut, without which the play lost its originality. Griboyedov never saw his brainchild printed in full. In Russia, the first authorized complete edition of the play was published only in 1862, only thirty-eight years after its creation. The stage fate of the play was a little better. In the play, echoes of Decembristism were noticeably read, it was unthinkable to take her on stage: in 1825 this would have been a political demonstration.

The first time the production of "Woe from Wit" was attempted by students of the St. Petersburg Theater School in May 1825. All this happened without the knowledge of censorship. The actor P. A. Karatygin took the initiative into his own hands. Griboedov personally supervised the preparation of the performance. Karygin recalls in his notes: “We quickly set to work, painted the roles in a few days, learned them in a week, and things went smoothly. Griboyedov himself came to our rehearsals and taught us very diligently... One should have seen with what ingenuous pleasure he rubbed his hands, seeing his "Woe from Wit" at our childish theater... He brought with him to one of the rehearsals A. A. Bestuzhev and Wilhelm Kuchelbecker - and they also praised us.

Unfortunately, at the final run of the performance, right before the upcoming performance, the production was banned, because they saw in it a "libel on Moscow." Petersburg governor-general gr. M. A. Miloradovich explained this by the fact that "a play that is not approved by the censors cannot be allowed to play in a theater school." This, of course, greatly upset Griboyedov.

The next attempt, in 1827, was crowned with great success. In the Yerevan garrison, headed by General A. Krasovsky, educated officers served, among whom were exiled Decembrists. This played its role, and the performance took place in December, in the mirror hall of the Sardar Palace. Its description is contained in Griboedov's travel notes: "The hall is large, the floor is covered with expensive patterned carpets ... the convex ceiling represents chaos from mirrored pieces ... On all the walls, in two rows, one above the other, there are paintings - the adventures of Rostom."

There were other, later, amateur productions of Griboyedov's comedy. In 1830, several young people traveled around St. Petersburg in carriages, sent a card with the inscription “Act III of Woe from Wit” to familiar houses, entered the house and played out separate scenes from the comedy there. The play was also played on January 26, 1831 by Prince Alexander Chavchavadze, Griboyedov's father-in-law, in the hall of the Tiflis Armenian Theological Seminary. On the big stage, "Woe from Wit" was presented after the death of Griboyedov.

December 2, 1829 in St. Petersburg at the Bolshoi Theater for the first time, as part of an interlude, one scene from Act I of the comedy was presented. It was a benefit performance for actress M. I. Valberkhova; to the drama "John, Duke of Finland" was added "Theatrical foyer, or: The stage behind the stage, an interlude divertissement, composed of recitations, singing, dancing and dancing." It was announced that “in one of the interludes a scene from the comedy Woe from Wit will be played, in verse, Op. A. Griboedov” (an excerpt from the first act, phenomena 7 - 10). The actor included: Chatsky - I. I. Sosnitsky, Famusov - Boretsky, Sophia - Semenova Jr., Lisa - a pupil of the Montgotier theater school. So, in divertissement, between singing and dancing, this passage was hidden, one of the most innocent episodes of the comedy.

The program of the performance gradually expanded. On February 5, 1830, the entire third act was held there for the first time; On June 16 of the same 1830, two acts of the comedy were shown - the third and fourth. Starting from October 9, they were joined by one scene from Act I. Completely, but in a distorted censored version, Woe from Wit was first presented in St. Petersburg on January 26, 1831, at the benefit performance of Ya. G. Bryansky, with the participation of the most famous actors of that time - V. A. Karatygin (Chatsky) and I. I. Sosnitsky (Repetilov).

The entertaining nature of the passage helped him reach and soon appear on the Moscow stage. In a letter dated 1830, M. S. Shchepkin wrote to I. I. Sosnitsky: “Do me a favor, my friend, do not refuse to fulfill my request. A vaudeville is promised to me for my benefit performance; but I see that he cannot be ready in any way; then, in order to somehow replace, I want to give a divertisman in which to place some scenes. And therefore, order me to write out as soon as possible, from Woe from Wit, those scenes that you played and the benefit performance of Mrs. Valberkhova. “And if they write it out,” Shchepkin added prudently, “then present it to your office, so that it approves that the scenes were played at the St. Petersburg Theater.”

Censorship allowed only certain scenes from the comedy to be presented; it was not until November 27, 1831 that the play was shown in its entirety for the first time. Theatrical critics about the productions in both "capitals" responded negatively.

But among the public, the first, still fragmentary performances of "Woe from Wit" were held with great success. About the first production of the third act in 1830 in St. Petersburg, the theater reviewer of The Northern Bee wrote: “All lovers of dramatic art are grateful to Ms. Karatygina for choosing this passage for their benefit performance ... what a rapturous applause! If they were not afraid to interfere with the course of the performance, then applause would be heard after each verse. In "Northern Mercury" the reviewer also noted: "During the whole act of applause almost did not stop."

I. E. Gognieva in private correspondence (1830) with A. K. Balakirev enthusiastically wrote about the early performances of Woe from Wit: “No matter how often they play, they cannot quench the thirst of the public<...>

In his diary on February 16, 1831, professor and censor A. V. Nikitenko noted the other side of success: “I was at the theater at a performance of Griboedov's comedy Woe from Wit. Someone sharply and rightly remarked that this play, too, was left with nothing but grief: it had been so distorted by the fatal knife of the Benckendorff literary council. The acting is also not good. Many, not excluding Karatygin the Great, do not at all understand the characters and positions created by the witty and brilliant Griboyedov. This play is played every week. The theater directorate, they say, makes a lot of money from her. All seats are always occupied, and already at two o'clock on the eve of the performance it is impossible to get a ticket either in the box or in the chairs.

Acts in the theater program of the Maly Theater seeped gradually. Act III of “Woe from Wit” was played on May 23, 1830. On January 31, 1830, in Shchepkin’s benefit performance, after Moliere’s “Miserly” in divertissement, an excerpt from “Woe from Wit” was performed instead of vaudeville, and Shchepkin played the role of Famusov in it . He wrote to Sosnitsky about the "great success" of this production. Instead of vaudeville with dancing, the third act of the comedy slipped through theatrical censorship to the benefit performance of A. M. Karatygina on February 5, 1830: the tragedy “The Death of Agamemnon” translated from French was given, and after it - “Moscow Ball”, the third act of Griboedov’s comedy “with belonging dancing to her." The poster said: “The dancers will be: Mrs. Bartrand-Atryux, Istomina, Zubova and Alexis; Messrs. Alexis, Goltz b., Spiridonov M. and Striganov French quadrille; Ms. Spiridonova M., Shemayeva b., Avoshnikov and Seleznev; Messrs. Shemaev b., Eberhard, Marcel and Artemiev Mazurka. This ballet "tradition" passed through all the 30s, 40s and 50s and reached the 60s. They danced a polonaise, a French quadrille, a mazurka to the orchestra. Famusov-Schepkin was also involved in dancing; outstanding ballet dancers took part in them, and some dramatic artists, such as, for example, N. M. Nikiforov, became famous for the fact that they performed “caricature steps” “inimitably”. The Moscow Maly Theater in 1864 tried to "purify Griboyedov's immortal creation from all the vulgarities that distorted it on stage", and above all from dancing "in a caricature form." But the St. Petersburg theatrical authorities ordered the dances "to be left unchanged", since "the majority of the public got used to them." The dances softened sharp corners and neutralized the satirical poison of the text. In pursuit of success with an undemanding public, theater directors and directors encouraged this intrusion of ballet into drama. Not only in the 60s or 80s, but also in the 90s and later, dance divertissement still existed in the productions of Woe from Wit.

There were known ambiguities, difficulties, even partial contradictions in the text of the comedy, which made it difficult to stage it. On its first appearance on stage, Woe from Wit collided with old traditions that were alien or hostile to the playwright's bold innovation. I had to overcome backwardness and inertia in the methods of staging and acting. This struggle has dragged on to the present day, and "Woe from Wit" had to overcome styles alien to realism - from classicism to expressionism. On the other hand, the high talents of the best performers and directors revealed the treasures of a brilliant work and gradually created a rich tradition of stagecraft.

The stage performance of Woe from Wit was enriched by literary criticism, scientific literary criticism and theater studies. They helped to reveal the ideological content, psychological richness, everyday life features, dramatic structure, high merits of language and verse, preserved and passed on to other performers and directors the accumulated tradition from the distant and recent past. The artists who designed the performances created make-up, costumes, scenery, and furnishings that contributed to the historical and aesthetic understanding of the comedy.

However, the very text of "Woe from Wit" was not always protected from distortion by actors and directors. A painful yoke was the censorship distortion of the text that took place during the stage performance of Woe from Wit for almost a century - until 1917.

The first even fragmentary performances of "Woe from Wit" were held with great success. About the first performance of the third act on the St. Petersburg stage in 1830, the theatrical reviewer of The Northern Bee wrote: “All lovers of dramatic art are grateful to Ms. Karatygina for choosing this passage for their benefit performance ... With what intense attention they listened to each verse in the theater, with what enthusiasm they applauded! If they were not afraid to interfere with the course of the performance, then applause would be heard after each verse. “During the whole act of applause almost did not stop,” wrote a reviewer of the journal “Northern Mercury”.

In a private correspondence between I. E. Gognieva and A. K. Balakirev (dated July 1, 1830), she wrote about the same early performances of “Woe from Wit”: “No matter how often they play, they cannot quench the thirst of the public<...>Every week two or three times "Woe from Wit"! "Woe from Wit"! such was Griboedov! such is his comedy! Only the last two actions are played: the Moscow Ball and the Departure after the Ball. Miracle! miracle! Oh dear, what a pity that I admire her without you. What revelry, what liveliness on the stage! Laughter, joy, applause throughout the theater!.. Such joy! what a holiday to look at all this!”

A. V. Nikitenko, professor and censor, in his diary on February 16, 1831, presented a different point of view: “I was at the theater at a performance of Griboedov's comedy Woe from Wit. Someone sharply and rightly remarked that this play, too, was left with nothing but grief: it had been so distorted by the fatal knife of the Benckendorff literary council. The acting is also not good. Many, not excluding Karatygin the Great, do not at all understand the characters and positions created by the witty and brilliant Griboyedov. This play is played every week. The theater directorate, they say, makes a lot of money from her. All seats are always occupied, and already at two o'clock on the eve of the performance it is impossible to get a ticket either in the box or in the chairs. Love for "Woe from Wit" in Russian society became a beneficial factor in stage history; in the fight against censorship, against the administration for staging Woe from Wit, theater workers have always relied on society, on spectators and readers. According to the apt definition of the theater critic V. Maslikh, “the viewer was familiar with Griboyedov’s comedy from numerous lists that the censor’s red pencil did not touch, and the actors played from a copy mutilated by censorship. For the viewer, the image of Famusov grew out of the full text of the comedy, and the actor sculpted his image from the remnants of the text left by the censorship, devoid of many of the most characteristic features of the character.

From Famusov's famous monologue "That's it, you are all proud!", containing 34 verses, censorship left only the first three verses in the theatrical text, the most innocent; everything else was mercilessly thrown away. Meanwhile, this monologue is one of the foundations of the socio-ethical characterization of Famusov and, at the same time, of the "noble" nobility of Catherine's time. Needless to say, how much this complicated the task of the actor, how many rich opportunities perished at the same time for artistic embodiment in intonations, facial expressions, in the entire acting of the actor. From the replicas of the same Famusov, theatrical censorship threw out many other important and weighty words, for example:

Sergey Sergeyevich, no! If evil is to be stopped:

Take away all the books, but burn them.

Instead of the verse: "Try about the authorities, and the devil will tell you nothing" - a meaningless phrase was added to the text: "Try to speak, and you will say nothing." Large exceptions were made in Chatsky's lines and monologues. And other roles suffered from the violence of censorship. The entire theatrical text of the comedy was crippled. Not only was the socio-political satire softened or etched out, but even the psychological and everyday features were erased. So, the following self-characterization of Famusov was not allowed:

Look at me: I do not brag about my constitution;

However, cheerful and fresh, and lived to gray hair,

Free, widows, I am my master ...

Known for monastic behavior! ..

And the actor, who knew the original, complete Griboedov's text, was forced to choke on words in front of the audience.

The disastrous state of the theatrical text "Woe from Wit" in the 30s - 50s of the XIX century. prevented the Russian drama theater from revealing the high realism of the play in the stage performance.

But in the very theatrical environment of that time there were internal limitations that prevented the innovative achievements of comedy from being revealed in the stage embodiment.

Griboyedov was an innovator in dramatic art and a great realist. And in the Russian drama theater, classicism (or, rather, pseudo-classicism) still dominated in the tragic repertoire and performance, and in the comedy - "moliereism". In the conditions of political reaction, a passion for light comedy and vaudeville was noticeable.

"Woe from Wit" invaded the repertoire like a foreign body. “... For each role of “Woe from Wit,” N. A. Polevoy wrote in the Moscow Telegraph, “a new role is needed ... For such roles there are no samples, no examples, in a word, no French legends.” Even Shchepkin, in his performance of the role of Famusov, the then criticism found strong echoes of the Moliere roles he played. “Mrs. Semyonova,” wrote the Russian Disabled newspaper in 1831, “resolutely did not understand the character of Sofya Pavlovna. She presented a cutesy uniform mistress from some old printed comedy. However, the critics themselves sometimes found themselves at the mercy of the usual old ideas and associations, admiring, for example, that Karatygin in the role of Chatsky "was Agamemnon, looked at everyone from the heights of Olympus and read tirades - satirical antics on our morals - like sentences of fate." The actor of the opposite direction, Mochalov, also turned out to be unsuccessful in the role of Chatsky: “He represented not a modern person, different from others only in his view of objects, but an eccentric, a misanthrope who even speaks differently than others, and directly goes into a quarrel with the first comer” .

Comedy "Woe from Wit" A.S. Griboedova brought immortal glory to her creator. It is dedicated to the split in the noble society that had matured 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 the 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 fate. There are several key points in the history of the creation of "Woe from Wit" that should be noted.

The idea to create the play "Woe from Wit" probably originated with Griboyedov in 1816. At this time, he arrived in St. Petersburg from abroad and found himself at an aristocratic reception. Like the protagonist of Woe from Wit, Griboyedov was outraged by the craving of Russian people for everything foreign. Therefore, when he saw at the evening how everyone bowed to one foreign guest, Griboedov expressed his extremely negative attitude towards what was happening. While the young man was pouring into an angry monologue, someone voiced the assumption of his possible insanity. The aristocrats gladly accepted this news and quickly spread it. Then it occurred to Griboyedov to write a satirical comedy, where he could ruthlessly ridicule all the vices of society, which treated him so mercilessly. Thus, Griboedov himself became one of the prototypes of Chatsky, the main character of Woe from Wit.

In order to more realistically show the environment that he was going to write about, Griboedov, being 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 to read 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 subjected to changes at the request of censorship. In 1825, only excerpts from the comedy were published in the almanac Russian Thalia. This did not prevent readers from getting acquainted with the work in its entirety and sincerely admiring it, because the comedy went in handwritten lists, of which there are several hundred. Griboedov supported the appearance of such lists, because in this way his play got the opportunity to reach the reader. In the history of the creation of the comedy "Woe from Wit" by Griboyedov, there are even cases of inserting foreign fragments into the text of the play by scribes.

A.S. Pushkin already in January 1825 got acquainted with the full text of the comedy, when Pushchin brought "Woe from Wit" to a poet friend who was at that moment in exile in Mikhailovsky.

When Griboyedov went to the Caucasus, and then to Persia, he handed over 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 the publication of the play. In 1829, Griboyedov died, and the manuscript that Bulgarin had left became the main text of the comedy Woe from Wit. It was only in 1833 that the play was printed in Russian in its entirety. Prior to this, only fragments of it were published, and theatrical performances of the comedy were significantly distorted by censorship. Without censorship, 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 protagonist of the comedy. Chatsky was powerless in the face of the outdated views of the society in which he was forced to be. He failed to convince the nobles of the need for change and changing their worldview. Also, Griboedov, throwing his accusatory comedy into the face of secular society, could not 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 gave a rich shoot in a new generation of nobles.

Despite all the difficulties in publishing, the play has a happy creative destiny. Thanks to her light style and aphorism, she went into quotations. The sound of "Woe from Wit" is modern today. The problems raised by Griboyedov are still relevant, because the clash of the old and the new is inevitable at all times.

Artwork test