Woe from mind on the stage of the art theater. "Woe from Wit" on the stage of the Moscow Art Theater

One great play - the comedy "Woe from Wit" - was enough for Alexander Sergeevich Griboedov (1795-1829) to firmly enter the history of Russian literature and become an object of scientific study. It has been going on for a century and a half and has virtually no breaks. Griboyedov’s relationship with the Russian dramatic stage is the same, which, since 1831 (the first full production of the comedy in St. Petersburg and Moscow), began its countdown of time and its chronology of understanding the masterpiece. Thus, literary criticism and the stage went in parallel, forming the image of the author, alternately giving their own view of dramaturgy, revealing the meanings of the text, its ideological and thematic connections with changing times, social circumstances, the level of philological science and the practice of performing arts.

The first responses to Griboyedov's play arose in 1824 and were oral in nature, since it was read many times in circles close to the author. Among her first listeners were writers, public figures, historians, editors and publishers: I.A. Krylov, N.I. Khmelnitsky, A.A. Shakhovskoy, A.A. Gendre, N.I. Grech, F.V. Bulgarin, M.Yu. Vielgorsky, A.A. Stolypin, as well as actors - V.A. Karatygin, A.M. Kolosova. “There is no end to thunder, noise, admiration, curiosity,” wrote the happy author of the comedy in July 1824 from St. Petersburg to Moscow to his friend S.N. Begichev.

At the beginning of 1825 F.V. Bulgarin managed to publish fragments of the comedy (four scenes of the first act and the third act) in the first theatrical almanac he organized, “Russian Waist”. Banned from publication and performance in its entirety, the play immediately acquired enormous social significance. And in the future, the reputation of “Woe from Wit” as a work of art has always been associated with its socio-political, meaning and critical orientation. Historian V.O. Klyuchevsky characterized it as “the most serious political work of Russian literature of the 19th century.” .

It is difficult to find a Russian writer - from Pushkin, as a contemporary of Griboedov, to Alexander Blok, a man of a different cultural and historical era - who would not reflect on comedy for one reason or another, would not turn to its characters in search of clues to Russian history and spiritual phenomenology. A.C. Pushkin provided one of the first seminal and prescient responses to comedy; M.Yu. Lermontov planned to write a novel about Griboyedov; V.K. spoke directly or indirectly (through their characters) about the play and its author. Kuchelbecker, V.G. Belinsky, A.I. Herzen, N.P. Ogarev, Ap. Grigoriev, D.I. Pisarev, A.N. Ostrovsky, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, I.A. Goncharov, H.A. Nekrasov, I.S. Turgenev, F.M. Dostoevsky. The inclusion of direct quotes from the comedy in works of art, references and allusions, the endless debate around the plot, conflict, artistic techniques, the character of the hero and other characters - all this quite early turned Woe from Wit into a monument of Russian literary and social thought. Despite all the differences in assessments dictated by the difference in artistic and political attitudes, “Woe from Wit” is recognized by everyone as an aesthetic and ideological phenomenon, alive and relevant at all times.

Among the Russian classic writers, Ivan Goncharov stands out, who gave the most complete, conceptual coverage of comedy in the critical sketch “A Million Torments” (1871). It was no coincidence that his work became the starting point for subsequent mushroom studies. It reveals the ideological foundations of comedy, the central conflict, gives detailed characteristics of the characters, and explains the most important quality - to remain modern, despite the change in historical realities and literary styles. Indeed, Goncharov takes on the analysis of “Woe from Wit” in a different historical and literary era, more than forty years after the birth of the comedy. This is not a simple test for any work of art; it is thereby tested for depth and multidimensionality. “The period of Russian history in which the Chatskys were the main figures was ending. Their generation was physically living out its life, and the question arose about the viability of the ideals that Chatsky had once declared. Moreover, half a century later, Russian reality has retained Famusov-Molchalin features in abundance,” writes researcher S.A. Fomichev.

Goncharov notes the pristine freshness and sharpness of “Woe from Wit.” The meanings of the text have not been lost, on the contrary, they have grown internally; the characters are not archaic, but alive and authentic; the language shines with exquisite aphorism. Time has only generalized the faces and issues and made them universal. This idea of ​​Goncharov is extremely important in today’s reflections on the work.

In order to simplify and adapt it for a wide audience (mainly school audiences), it was often interpreted by literary studies and pedagogy in an excessively journalistic way and served as an example of civil courage and resistance. Behind these often truly truthful words, the humanistic essence faded into the background. It was as if the long-changed historical context of Russia was not taken into account. Some writers at the end of the 20th century continued to fight against tsarism, serfdom, propagated the ideas of Decembrism, etc., completely not understanding that the very need for such a struggle and such social criticism had disappeared. Such approaches, to a certain extent, even compromised comedy, made it the prey of textbooks (in the worst sense of this concept) and closed the way for research into other aspects of its content. Which in turn resulted in the open desire of individual authors (mainly publicists) and theaters to break these academic norms as loudly and scandalously as possible.

The author of “A Million Torments” in the early stages of understanding comedy pointed out that it is alive with other impulses, it grows year by year in its universal and timeless meaning. This circumstance was emphasized by the best works about Griboyedov and the performances of the domestic stage, which in the 19th century laid the foundation for a stage tradition so that it would last and develop in the 20th century.

Actually, the external reason for Goncharov’s critical sketch was one of the theatrical performances “Woe from Wit” at the St. Petersburg Alexandrinsky Theater on December 10, 1871, during a benefit performance of the artist Ippolit Monakhov, who played Chatsky. Fundamentally important in the context of our topic is the combination in one literary work of two creative principles: literature and theater, the desire to bring together and harmonize these creative spheres in order to achieve the maximum effect of revealing dramaturgy. And Goncharov, in addition to analyzing the text, acts as a theater critic of the production. He recalls the first performances of the Moscow Maly Theater with the participation of great Russian actors: Shchepkin (Famusov), Mochalov (Chatsky), Lensky (Molchalin), Orlov (Skalozub), Saburov (Repetilov). He discusses the reasons for their success, attributing it, in addition to the merits of the play, to the ensemble of actors who knew what real manners were and could “read perfectly.” This reveals certain features of the premiere of “Woe from Wit”; from it we can count down further history and judge the movement of the theatrical fate of the play.

It began with the classical and solemn manner of the Maly and Alexandrinsky theaters, supported and welcomed by Goncharov. And it continued in modern times with benefit goals and in the manner of a “natural” school. By analogy with literature, the theater became attentive to naturalistic details. The ability to “read perfectly” was no longer a sign of stage truth. On the contrary, an intonationally reduced syllable, close to the natural, conversational structure, was considered truthful. There was no longer any talk of classical greatness. Modern researcher C.B. convincingly writes about this. Denisenko.

Despite Goncharov’s expressed regrets related to a specific performance, his prophetic delight came true and was fully justified: “the comedy of this century will not leave the stage, even when later exemplary plays have come off.”

The second century of her triumph on the stage of the world theater has already begun. The life of “Woe from Wit” in the 20th century had significant differences from the previous century. A fundamentally new relationship arose between the author of the work and his interpreters. With the emergence of the figure of the director as an independent creator, the reputation of classical texts on the stage was largely revised. Stage versions deepened the author's ideas, argued dialectically with them, and even entered into open polemics with the author. The work was used for discussion, political and other purposes, sometimes not within the scope of the canonical text.

This process opens at the very beginning of the century - in 1906, the production of Vl.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko at the young Moscow Art Theater, which was preceded by painstaking textual work with different versions of the play, checking with the just published lifetime pre-censored version of the comedy. Subsequently, “Woe from Wit” had several incarnations at the Moscow Art Theater, the last in 1992. And each of the appeals reflected a changing attitude towards the text and at the same time polemically correlated with the context of theatrical life of that time.

Throughout the 20th century, “Woe from Wit” remained a repertoire priority of the Moscow Maly Theater. In all stage versions on this stage, a full-blooded realistic style triumphed, inherited from the past and preserved to the present day, right up to the production in 2000, which “closed” the era.

Controversial, but extremely interesting was the experience of turning to the comedy of VS.E. Meyerhold in the theater named after him - GosTIM in 1928. The play was renamed “Woe to Wit” (the original title) and thus programmatically emphasized the co-authorship of the director and the playwright. In 1935, Meyerhold gave a second, more advanced version of the play.

The comedy took on new life in 1962 at the Leningrad Bolshoi Drama Theater. M. Gorky, staged by G.A. Tovstonogov. In this famous performance, which became a historical sensation in the interpretation of the classical text, a sharp intellectual debate unfolded, so in tune with the “time of the thaw,” but also bringing the comedy and its hero closer to Pushkin’s understanding. In that production, it was as if the efforts of theater and science were synchronized - all the valuable accumulations in both spheres were collected and melted into an exciting synthetic spectacle.

It is natural that the subsequent understanding of comedy by the domestic theater was influenced (or in dispute) with the Leningrad performance, in the sense that it freed up the creative imagination of the directors. “Woe from Wit” appeared at the Moscow Theater-Studio of Film Actors (1977), although it went completely unnoticed. It was directed by Erast Garin, who played the role of Chatsky in Meyerhold's first play. In 1976, “Woe from Wit” was performed at the Moscow Theater of Satire, read by V.N. Pluchek, who was also an artist with Meyerhold.

What is surprising is not the frequency of references to comedy in the last century, but the variety of approaches to it, as if it were tested for strength by many interpretations, genre shifts and inversions. In this sense, let us mention the experience of mastering “Woe from Wit” on the musical stage: in 1982, at the Minsk Operetta Theater, director R.G. Viktyuk staged the musical of the same name.

The evolution of understanding the images of Griboyedov and his protagonist Chatsky in the 20th century took place, as we noted, in scientific classrooms and on the stage. Philological and theatrical consciousness developed in parallel; there was no obvious counter-movement between theater and science. Although it seems to us that connections still existed indirectly, they are simply not sufficiently known to us yet.

Thus, the object of our research will be the total literary and theatrical process during which the comedy by A.S. was interpreted. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit” in the 20th century. The subject of the study is the trends that emerged during this process. Also, for the first time, the work sets the task of tracing these independent flows and finding in their movement the common and the different, the fruitful and the false, and identifying moments of convergence of positions that give a positive final result - a scientific discovery or a stage revelation. The science of literature and theatrical art, therefore, will be considered by us as equal sides of a single research process of cognition of A.S. comedy. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit". We specifically stipulate this fundamental position and include it in the system of our analysis as its main methodological basis. The role of theater as a meaningful instrument, capable of revealing in its unique living form inaccessible to literary studies, supra-theoretical spheres of artistic consciousness, is enormous. Philology cannot ignore the effect of reading literature inherent in the dramatic and musical scenes. As well as the resonance generated by the appeals of directors of various historical and aesthetic schools to the comedy “Woe from Wit”, and their practical result.

Here a long-standing, serious and independent problem (subtopic) arises: the interpretation of a literary work, which should be specifically addressed.

The main theoretical principles of Russian literary criticism about the analysis of a work and its subsequent interpretation by different types of art (including during the analytical and cognitive process itself) in relation to the play by A.S. Griboyedov’s “Woe from Wit” retain their meaning, but they also have their own characteristics. The meeting of science itself with the play dates back to a later period, to the beginning of the 20th century, and this meeting was preceded by a very solid history of theatrical interpretations. “Woe from Wit” became primarily the property of the theater and only then of journalism, essay writing and, finally, literary criticism (in that order). Thus, the logical chain seems to be broken - from primary formal analysis to secondary artistic authorship. According to V.E. Khalizev, “secondary artistic authorship” is the result of the “re-design” of artistic content into a different artistic language. Despite the censorship prohibitions of the first years, the “re-formulation” of the dramatic form into a stage text (that is, a performance) took place almost instantly. That is, the historically developed, as it were, reverse sequence created a situation in science in which literary criticism itself around “Woe from Wit” was faced with the need to correlate its own conclusions with the accumulated experience of interpreting a literary text using extraliterary methods.

Already Goncharov’s essay “A Million Torments,” as just mentioned, was initiated by the fact of staging a comedy on stage. In the next century, the activities of N.K. Piksanov, the author of classical works on Griboyedov’s play, who gave the basic principles to subsequent generations of researchers, was closely connected with the practice of the contemporary stage, which will be shown below. The general mission of interpreting the play took shape precisely in the 20th century. Research and stage flows intertwined, in some periods they went in a consistent parallel order (1930-50s), and in others they diverged (1970-90), as if they did not need each other, so that at some point meet again to sum up and reconcile the accumulated problems around Griboyedov’s play.

Thus, the comparison of literary studies and theater studies in Griboyedov’s question is both natural and inevitable. The literary study of “Woe from Wit” was carried out by a number of authors of different generations, had breaks, but in general relied on methods of description and analysis recognized and developed by science. Given the similarity of analytical approaches, the authors came to independent conclusions regarding the genre nature of the work, its ideological composition, plan, plot development, system and content of images. In other words, the strictly analytical principle quickly outgrew the framework of its own attitudes and shifted into the sphere of interpretation, introducing the author’s own understanding. Most of the works about the play “Woe from Wit”, therefore, have the character of interpretations - broad or less broad - but precisely interpretations that allow hypothetical judgments, versions, a tangible subjective element.

On the one hand, this approach was provoked by the play. Its internal variability allowed researchers to be flexible in their reasoning. On the other hand, like no other Russian play of the 19th century, accurate, objective knowledge of the historical context was required. What was not required, say, when analyzing other, even brilliant creations. The study of Lermontov's "Masquerade", "The Government Inspector", "Marriage" and "The Players" by Gogol, and the plays of Alexander Ostrovsky often does without a deep immersion in the era of their creation and without preliminary study of the historical situation around the heroes. “Woe from Wit” is unthinkable without a political context, and its analysis is unthinkable without a historical connection to the era, persons, sometimes specific ones, to the entire complex of social and political realities of Russia in the 1820s - primarily such a phenomenon as Decembrism. Moreover, periodically arising disputes around this period, generated partly by social order, partly by the lack of reliable materials I or the slow introduction of archival sources into scientific circulation, significantly extended the study of Griboyedov’s question over time. This created a certain dispersion of the topic itself in the scientific world. Knowledge accumulated gradually and was generalized slowly. The first scientific biography of the author, “Woe from Wit,” was published in 2003! The first complete collection of Griboyedov's works and letters - in the late 1990s. In the early 1970s, a debate suddenly broke out about the authenticity of the play's accepted text. In the 1990s, a new understanding of Decembrism appeared, critical assessments of the figures of Decembrism arose, direct accusations against them - all this contradicted the many years of efforts of domestic historiography and literary criticism, and mushroom scholars of the older and new generations had to reckon with this.

The problem of interpretation arising from the analysis of a classical text entered Russian literary criticism in the 1920s. At this time, Griboyedov’s play was also experiencing an active phase in the theater of testing new directorial principles. In the famous work of A.P. Skaftymov “On the question of the relationship between theoretical and historical consideration in the history of literature” (1923) emphasized that the act of interpretation is inextricably linked with the work itself; the immanent properties of artistry are contained within it, and not outside it. Interpretation itself is preceded by analytics, knowledge of the properties of a work that are in a certain natural connection with each other. The interpreter is not uncontrollable; there are certain boundaries that he must be aware of when working with the text and without breaking away from the distance, breaking the very connection with the object of study. One of the important provisions of A.P. Skaftymov is to establish a personal subjective connection between the researcher and the author: “A work of art is accessible to a researcher only in his personal aesthetic experience. In this sense, of course, its perception is subjective. But subjectivism is not arbitrariness. In order to understand, you need to be able to give yourself to someone else's point of view. You need to read it honestly. The researcher gives himself entirely to the artist, only repeats it in aesthetic experience, he only recognizes those facts of spiritual and aesthetic experience that the author unfolds in him.”

An important stage in the scientific development of the problem of interpretation later became the ideas of M.M. Bakhtin about the dialogic nature of the process of cognition, in which two parties interact through writing: the creator (author) and the perceiver (reader). Dialogue is contained in the cognitive process itself, since the interpenetration of two consciousnesses occurs, “the activity of the knower is combined with the activity of the one who opens (.) The horizon of the knower interacts with the horizon of the knower.” And also: “Exact sciences are a monologue form of knowledge; the intellect contemplates a thing and speaks about it. There is only one subject here - the knower (contemplating) and the speaker (expressed). Only a silent thing opposes him<.>But the subject (personality) as such cannot be perceived and studied as a thing, because, as a subject, he cannot, while remaining a subject, be silent, therefore, his knowledge can only be dialogical.” As a result of such a dialogue, new ideas and expanded meanings are introduced into the work, and an interpretation itself emerges, marked by a new cognitive quality. Moreover, knowledge can only be carried out to some extent by formal-logical methods of the exact sciences. In the future, they give way to “foreign” forms of knowledge. For here the humanitarian specificity is reflected, in which the criterion is “not the accuracy of knowledge, but the depth of penetration.” And since the process of cognition is endless, then, accordingly, the number of interpretations of one work is not limited. As long as there is a dialogue between the creator and his reader, the process of interpretation continues.

The theory of an infinite multiplicity of interpretations (A.A. Potebnya and supporters of his school), disputed by other researchers (primarily A.P. Skaftymov), had a certain spread. An attempt to overcome the extremes of the two theories is expressed by the idea of ​​V.E. Khalizeva about the range of scientifically correct, objectively reliable interpretations of the same work of art: “This concept allows us to abandon both the Schelling-Potebnian extreme of proclaiming the “infinite multiplicity” of artistic meanings brought into the work by readers, and the dogmatic one-sided belief in unambiguity, static and unchangeable content of a work, which can be exhausted by its single scientific interpretation.”

Along with these theories, there were other approaches to the interpretation of literary text. In an effort to get closer to scientific authenticity, some considered interpretive activity to be the dominant feature of literary criticism, while others, on the contrary, partially or completely removed it from the scope of this discipline. Proponents of the analytical approach argued with intuitionist methodology. Structuralism's attempts to approach mathematical precision in the analysis of a work were debatable and generally untenable (but in general, structuralism did not affect mushroom studies). Etc. In all disputes, one way or another, the desire to find a certain conventional perspective in literary criticism was expressed. To direct the theory to solve the fundamental problem of science - the establishment of objective laws inherent in the subject.

In the disputes of time, mushroom science made its choice. Methodologically, classical hermeneutics with its central problem of the adequacy of interpretation of a literary text became the basis for him. Most of the works on “Woe from Wit” were created in the classical hermeneutic direction. The best of them exclude the extremes of methods and provide an example of the correspondence of analytical calculations to the original work, the balance of the objective and subjective in its analysis.

But even in considering the problem of adequacy (within the framework of hermeneutics), extremes were revealed. E.A. Avdeenko notes two fundamental scientific approaches: “some scientists defend the path of the most accurate reconstruction of the style of someone else’s era, which would be free from any introduction of problems of modernity and the personality of the interpreter (.), others (.) associate the development of someone else’s subjectivity with the active identification of the individual principle the researcher himself. It is classical hermeneutics that has the greatest value for literary criticism, since its goal is to combine in one view the “vitality” of an artistic whole and the “scientific” nature of its interpretation, the direct reliability of self-awareness and cultural tradition.”

G.K. Kosikov points out the differences in the hermeneutic and scientific-explanatory approaches: “hermeneutics establishes subject-subject, “dialogical” relations with literature, and science establishes subject-object, subject-cognitive relations; hermeneutics talks to literature, and science talks about it; hermeneutics, explicating the implicit meanings of a work, subjects it to endless interpretations and reinterpretations, while science describes the generally valid laws to which it is subject; The historically fluid conclusions of hermeneutics depend on the culturally variable “position of the observer,” but the stable results of science do not depend on such a position.”

The problem of interpretation, and all researchers come to this conclusion, is most closely connected with the correlation of objective and subjective principles in the perception of a literary text and the subsequent translation of one’s own judgment about it. Without sharing the provisions of the theory of infinite multiplicity of interpretations, we are inclined to the three-stage structuring of the process itself, proposed by A.B. Yesin, which contains the idea of ​​scientific self-discipline and the desired adequacy achievable on its basis. He writes: “There is a distinction between reader (primary), scientific and creative-imaginative interpretation. The primary interpretation is based on the general impression and understanding of the work of art that the reader receives when reading it; the primary interpretation is not always formalized in the reader’s mind into logical constructions, often remaining in the form of an experience, mood, feeling. A literary critic, starting from his reader’s impressions (primary interpretation), formulates them quite clearly and then checks them with analysis, as a result of which a scientific interpretation is born, which already claims the status of objective truth and from which factual, logical and emotional evidence is therefore required. Creative-imaginative interpretation is a “translation” of literary and artistic works into the language of other arts (film adaptation, stage production, etc.).

These are the general principles that regulated relations in Russian literary criticism in the field of analysis and interpretation. What are the specifics of the overall research work with Griboyedov’s play?

Woe from Wit" has generated a huge scientific literature. Classical mushroom science as a whole had developed by the 1940s. Griboyedov's monographic volume “Literary Heritage” was published (1946). The works of N.K. were published. Piksanova, M.V. Nechkina, V.A. Filippov, who compiled the conceptual, scientific basis on the Griboyedov issue. In 1939 in Smolensk with a circulation of 300 copies. The first edition of the Dictionary of the Comedy “Woe from Wit” by Professor V.F. was published. Chistyakov (letters A-B). On January 26, 1945, a scientific conference dedicated to the 150th anniversary of A.S. was held at the State Institute of Theater Arts (GITIS). Griboedova. It was attended by N.K. Piksanov, V.N. Vsevolodsky-Gerngross, B.J1. Slonimsky, V.A. Filippov; G. O. Vinokur made a report “The language of “Woe from Wit” as a form of stage action in comedy.” He, in particular, emphasized the idea of ​​​​the inextricable connection between the literary text and its subsequent embodiment on the dramatic stage: “Without any doubt, “Woe from Wit” "Like a number of outstanding works of Russian drama, there is, first of all, the theater of the word." meaningful work around Griboyedov and are equally responsible for its results.

The creative image of the writer, the problematics and poetics of his works were later summarized in multi-volume histories of Russian literature, drama, theater and criticism and received in the works of V.N. Orlova, S.A. Fomicheva, A.J1. Grishunina, A.A. Lebedeva, L.A. Stepanova, S.M. Petrova, N.H. Medvedeva has a completely finished look.

In connection with memorable dates, the scientific community regularly concentrated its efforts on the Griboyedov topic. In November 1974, a scientific conference was held at the Institute of Russian Literature (IRLI) to mark the 150th anniversary of “Woe from Wit.” Scientific collections appeared periodically (Khmelitsky in Smolensk, etc.); anthological books were published: “A.C. Griboyedov in the memoirs of contemporaries”, “Woe from Wit” in Russian criticism, etc.

Theater experts have had their say. In the works of S.N. Durylina, Yu.A. Dmitrieva, B.V. Alpersa, P.A. Markova, L.M. Freidkina, K.L. Rudnitsky, I.L. Vishnevskaya, O.M. Feldman, N.G. Litvinenko, A.M. Smelyansky also reproduced the multidimensional image of the author of “Woe from Wit”. It arose in a broad theatrical context, in the extended two-century panorama of Russian theater. The collections were general in nature: ““Woe from Wit” on the stage of the Moscow Art Theater” (1979) and ““Woe from Wit” on the Russian and Soviet stage: testimonies of contemporaries” (1987). To the main body of scientific literature should be added monographs about Russian actors and directors: Lensky, Mochalov, Ostuzhev, Gzovskaya, Stanislavsky, Meyerhold, Tsarev, etc. In them, “Woe from Wit” surfaced indirectly, but quite vividly, since a rare Russian actor passed it work in creative biography. We also note that reprints of classic writers and major Russian critics have been actively introduced into modern mushroom studies: V.F. Khodasevich, B.V. Alpersa, P.A. Markova. Thus, their works, created on occasion in the 1920-30s, again became historically relevant and additional evidence in the long-term controversy surrounding the work and its protagonist. A more detailed review of the literature on the topic is given in Appendix 1 and in one of our works.

We highlight a number of features in the research around “Woe from Wit”:

1) Research on Griboyedov is distributed in several thematic areas: the genre nature of the work, socio-political ideology and the relationship between the categories “hero - author”, issues of composition and linguistic (verse) poetics. Other, less pronounced research vectors (psychological and effective analysis, spatio-temporal factors of drama, content and dialectics of images, a play in foreign language perception, issues of text interpretation by different types of art, etc.), one way or another, are generous^^mmda^sch^ ny^ flows" and are inscribed in their context. th ^ "V, ?1

P!RSh 2) The contradictory nature of responses to the play, entrenched in Griboedov’s lifetime journalism and corporate correspondence, for a long time set certain norms for the perception of “Woe from Wit” and oriented modern literary criticism in a special way. It seemed to inherit the disputes of previous periods and conveyed something along the lines of

90 Yu 1.0 historical relay race. This is one of the features of studying a play. For example, critical reviews of Pushkin, Belinsky, and other contemporaries, as well as their admiration for Griboedov’s talent, stand at the origins of all today’s thoughts about comedy.

3) This leads to the following distinctive4 feature of the analytical procedure around “Woe from Wit”: the repetition of certain commonplaces that migrate from work to work. The use of a circle of established ideas in itself is not only a negative factor. The frequency of “pronunciation” and the ability to put forward new concepts on this basis is a sign of a great literary work. It is through the repetition of ideas that a research tradition is consolidated and continued, and a scientific school is formed. “Woe from Wit,” due to its rich resource base of long-known and hitherto hidden meanings, periodically gives them away, and thereby reveals the facets of its form. At the same time, the form (composition) remains unchanged, but our ideas about it change. This dialectic helps to understand the reasoning of the French poet Paul Valéry, who acts as a writer who senses these mechanisms at a laboratory level. On the other hand, he is an art critic, an esthetician, capable, while distancing himself, of identifying patterns and formulating them. He writes: “We arrive at the form, trying to limit as much as possible the possible role of the reader - and, moreover, to minimize uncertainty and arbitrariness in ourselves.

The bad form is the one we try to change and change involuntarily; good is the one that we recreate and inherit, trying unsuccessfully to improve it.

Form by its nature is associated with repetition."

Likewise, “Woe from Wit” withstands many repetitions in interpretation, remaining an indestructible poetic structure. There is an emission of meaning while the form is constant.

4) Continuing the thought of form as an objective given with which the researcher deals, let us clarify that we mean a meaningful form.

Let us ask ourselves: is it a coincidence that Mitrofan Prostakov (“The Minor” by D. Fonvizin), Alexander Chatsky (“Woe from Wit”), Evgeny Arbenin (“Masquerade” by M. Lermontov) are heroes of drama as a literary genre? It is dramaturgy that has the ability to be the first to capture new types of life in its mobile, lively and acutely conflicting form. The nature of dramatic writing is focused on the embodiment of the author's text by a living actor in front of a live spectator, therefore the theater reveals and enhances the content resource laid down by the playwright. There is a separate, extremely interesting topic here that concerns issues of genre originality, in which the conflicting novelty of life itself reveals itself. We don't go deep into it, we just touch on it. But we are convinced that the semantic content of the images of the central characters of classical works directly depends on the initial genre orientation: verse comedy and verse novel, romantic, psychological or social drama, etc. These given genre constants in themselves are capable of revealing the author’s position, view of person. The form of essays is in many ways their content. Chatsky is the hero of a poetic comedy; Eugene Onegin - a poetic novel, the lyric-epic presentation of his life is a different, unique literary device; Arbenin is the hero of a romantic drama, which in its own way colors the character and events associated with him.

In a poetic drama (comedy), the action is organized in a special way - metro-rhythmically. That is, space, time and poetic language (as in ancient drama) are the basic compositional elements of “Woe from Wit”. It is important that comedy not only carries them within itself, but, as it were, forms and reveals itself through them. And in this sense, the play is truly classic in that it is not a textbook, but a living life that is destined only for masterpieces, no matter at what time they were created. Aristotelian normativity is combined in it with an endless increase in meaning and meaning circulation.

The ideological, thematic and formal features in “Woe from Wit” are so closely fused that an attempt to separate them and consider them separately is not productive in science. Here is a case of original artistic synthesis coming from the author, which is fixed at the compositional and linguistic level. Therefore, in a theatrical performance it is voiced almost instrumentally by the polyphony of stage speech - rebellious, aphoristic, precise in words and programmatic in ideological and civic content.

5) Repetition as such, regardless of the content and without a constant increase in meaning, does “Woe from Wit” a disservice - it gives rise to dogmatism in assessments, leads to the formation of ideological blocs, workshop cliches and, ultimately, to stagnation in the communicative space.

Entering the educational program of a secondary school, the play is interpreted with a naturally inherent didactic bias. This is how one of the levels of its interpretation arises, and it is quite stable, since pedagogy is programmatically built on the assimilation and consolidation of the material. By this we do not mean to say that high school causes irreparable damage to a literary masterpiece. A thoughtful approach to the work, the revelation in it at the early stages of youthful consciousness of its true meanings and aesthetic uniqueness, on the contrary, lays a positive image of the play for life, fosters respect for its humanistic content and sympathy for the characters. In this case, a periodic update of the perception of the play is required, a more flexible approach to its interpretation within the framework of the lesson. This is one of the side but relevant problems of literary interpretation of classical texts.

And finally:

6) “Woe from Wit” in the 20th century is actively being rethought from the point of view of the functions of a work of art. Traditionally, cognitive (or epistemological) and evaluative (or axiological) functions took first place. In scientific and theatrical perception, the play has repeatedly become a document of the era, accurately conveying the morals of the time, details of Moscow life, social realities, and thus contributed to a reliable reflection of Russian culture of the 1820s.

It is clear, and does not require special evidence, that the play served to an even greater extent as a socio-political characteristic of the time. Its ideological orientation corresponded with the class consciousness of the post-revolutionary and Soviet periods, educated consciousness, strengthened moral principles and was also a “sentence on the phenomena of life” (according to N.G. Chernyshevsky).

Precisely because the play in the process of interpretation was “loaded” with a pre-specified ideology, so to speak “overheated” along the evaluative (axiological) line, it revealed its aesthetic function to a lesser extent. Its emotional, humanistic content remained for a long time not fully disclosed.

For a long time, “Woe from Wit” did not reveal its function of self-expression. We find an interpretation of this aspect in A.B. Esina: “The function of self-expression (.), undoubtedly, should be ranked among the most important functions of a work of art. Without it, it is difficult, and sometimes impossible, to understand the real life of a work in the minds and souls of readers, to appreciate the importance and indispensability of literature and art in the cultural system.” The author has in mind the response of the work to the reader and the subsequent process of self-identification as a literary hero. In relation to “Woe from Wit”, a significant clarification is required: the hero Chatsky was never an object of adoration and worship for millions, but his presence in culture and consciousness was constant and most important. And over the years, comedy has acquired persistent semantic and even world-modeling significance (a lone hero facing the unjust judgment of society). The image of Chatsky was actively in demand during transitional historical periods (through him, in particular, the idea of ​​political change in the 1960s expressed itself in the theater). And a feature of the last few decades has been the fact of active and protest self-expression of domestic theater directors (to a lesser extent literary critics) through “Woe from Wit.” And the image of Chatsky in these constructions sometimes receives a reverse transformation: from a hero to an anti-hero. "

In the dispute between the director and the author - essentially, in the same Bakhtinian dialogue - self-expression of one side of the dialogue occurs, namely, the director. Here lies a phenomenon not yet formulated by aesthetics: the active process of co-authorship with a classic through its distortion.

The functions of “Woe from Wit” as a work of art change over time. From cognitive and aesthetic - to protest self-expression of the interpreter as an equal participant in the “dialogue” with the classics. In this regard, noting the existence of many interpretations, we identify among them those that are aesthetically significant, and therefore form a “range” of scientifically correct ones.

Let us once again listen to the conclusions of scientists, which allow us to combine into a logical order the two concepts that lie at the basis of our topic: analysis and the interpretation that follows. A.C. Bushmin: “Analysis is only a necessary condition for achieving a higher goal - scientific synthesis. And this goal is achieved the more successfully the deeper, more detailed, more differentiated the analysis.”

A.P. Skaftymov: “The variability of interpretation indicates varying degrees of perfection of comprehension, but in no way legitimizes any comprehension, whatever it may be. To recognize the legitimacy of arbitrariness in the understanding of works of art would mean to destroy their factuality in front of science. Every science, instead of knowledge about facts, should turn into a list of opinions about facts. Is such science necessary?!” .

As noted above, creative-imaginative interpretation is the essence of a “translation” of a literary work into the language of other arts. Translating a literary text into a stage text is a problem that is perhaps more complex and still relevant. Firstly, the interpretation of a play in the theater is a collective process and is associated with the efforts and will of more than one interpreter - the director. The performance, as the final result of interpretation, combines the creative efforts of many people, not always like-minded people of the leader, but having their own strong creative will, identity, psychological attitudes, style guidelines, etc. The addition of different vectors (director, artist, composer, actors ) and their result is a complex semantic and aesthetic complex. Secondly, even this alloy cannot be recorded as a given, because the life of the performance directly depends on society, which in turn is mobile. The auditorium, as a resonant space, facilitates and often determines artistic consensus. The best interpretations of the classics, and Griboyedov's comedies among them, prove the active mutual influence of different components. And it is often not easy to identify in them the individual (director's, actor's), collective (performing ensemble) and universal - cultural, historical, political context, everything that goes beyond the boundaries of the theatrical space and correlates with the very life of society at the moment.

The path of theatrical and journalistic development of “Woe from Wit” and the path of scientific study of comedy by literary criticism turned out to be contradictory, but also meaningful. It can be stated that Griboyedov’s work was thoroughly studied by literary and theater studies by the 70s of the last century.

However, life went on, many things changed in the spiritual mood of the contemporary, and moved from their usual places in creative practice, scientific and social consciousness. Science and the dramatic stage still played a huge ideological and artistic role. But it appeared in a changing problem field - socio-historical, philosophical and aesthetic. Accordingly, the following turns arose in the study of Griboyedov, reflecting the modern relationship between the classic and his interpreters. The activity of scientists and creative figures in the last third of the 20th century not only did not weaken, but brought evidence of interest in the playwright and his work. This interest has not yet been recorded or generalized by science, although such a need is obvious. The last thirty years seem important in terms of summing up, and our work will, if possible, fill this gap and contribute to the completion of a holistic picture of Griboedov’s theatrical life on the domestic stage in the 20th century - this will be the final goal of the study.

Limiting our research to the twentieth century and summing up its results, we must also point out the fact that the first decade of the 21st century did not stop the process of understanding comedy and the personality of its creator. Moreover, the dispute has intensified with alarming and clearly unhealthy trends in the theater. This refers to the almost simultaneous appearance of new versions of “Woe from Wit” in two leading Moscow theaters: Sovremennik and the Taganka Drama and Comedy Theater.

At the same time, literary criticism produced fundamental, in many ways turning-point works, containing truly new interpretations, introducing important sources, documents and observations into scientific circulation. The publication of serious scientific collections continued, new books by long-time researcher S.A. appeared. Fomichev, in particular the encyclopedia “Griboyedov” created by him. And also J1.A. Stepanova, A.A. Lebedeva, V.P. Meshcheryakova, A.A. Dubrovina, Yu.E. Khechinova, B.A. Goller. Special mention should be made of the monograph by E.H. Tsimbaeva "Griboedov". Also published: “Chronicle of the life and work of A.S. Griboedov”, compiled by N.K. Piksanov; a complete Dictionary of the Language of Comedy, a painstaking lexical, semantic and grammatical study compiled by a group of authors. The book by Englishman Lawrence Kelly “Diplomacy and murder in Tehran” (London, New York, 2002) has been published, based on a large array of documents from diplomatic sources in Turkey, India, Canada, Great Britain and requiring scientific and critical understanding .

Woe from Wit" is one of the most repertoire titles on the Russian stage, numbering hundreds of stage performances. Realizing this circumstance, we mainly consider historically significant, landmark performances that exhibit certain production trends or are indicative of some other characteristics. At the same time, for the first time we propose to significantly expand the panorama of stage interpretations of “Woe from Wit” and include in our consideration an impressive number of productions from peripheral theaters. They in their own way reflected the tendency to assimilate the experience of the leaders of the process, and we can thus more accurately judge the dynamics of the spread of Griboyedov’s idea and aesthetics on the scale of the domestic theater. This knowledge will prove factually, and not declaratively (as is often accepted in relation to a play), its spiritual influence on generations of spectators and professionals. “Woe from Wit” is the eternal companion of man and the theater, an eternal mystery and an ideal creative goal.

The theatrical fate of a classical text is part of its general semantic interpretation in the course of the historical process of cognition. It seems that the combination of an effective psychological analysis of the play with an interdisciplinary approach to it will allow us to delve deeper into the following areas of study of Russian literature: individual writerly and typological expressions of genre and style features in their historical development, as well as the interaction of literature with other types of art. (Clause 9 and 19 of the “Passport of specialty 10.01.01 Russian literature”).

This work is being undertaken for the first time and is of practical importance. It will allow modern theater - directors, actors, artists, composers - to take a broader look at the historical production tradition, discover new artistic resources of comedy, and create deeper stage interpretations of it. At the same time, it will allow philologists, in the light of obvious stage achievements, to clarify some positions regarding the effective analysis of the play, the deep human motivations of the characters, the emotional nature of the work itself and its ethical lessons. Studying the historical fate of the great play contributes to the creation of a general theory of art.

The work has the following structure: it consists of three chapters and a conclusion. The logic of the narrative follows from the indicated plan. The first chapter, “The author of the text and the author of the play - unequal rights: “Woe from Wit” and the problems of directing the 20th century,” reveals the fundamentally new relationships that arose in the 20th century between the author of the work and his interpreters in Russian theaters. Here the author compares dramaturgical ideas in their classical expression, comedies based on the text, and stage versions born of new times. This chapter analyzes how fruitful ways the theater has understood the comedy “Woe from Wit” (In L.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, K.S. Stanislavsky and O.N. Efremov in Moscow Art Theater; V.E. Meyerhold - in GosTIM; G.A. Tovstonogov - in Leningradsky

BDT; M.I. Tsarev and S.B. Zhenovachem at the Maly Theater; V.A. Pluchek - at the Moscow Satire Theater), as well as polemical solutions with their characteristic ideological and thematic shifts, a system of images, poetics, etc.

The second chapter, “From Comedy to Drama: The Evolution of the Main Character in the Play and on Stage,” reveals the embodiment of the main character of Chatsky’s comedy in the top performances of the Russian theater in the 20th century. Namely, the images created by V.I. Kachalov, E.P. Garin, M.I. Tsarev, S.Yu. Yursky, V.M. Solomin, A.A. Mironov, M.O. Efremov and others. New approaches to understanding one of the central images of Russian drama, the novelty of psychological problems revealed by the dramatic scene in dramatic literature are analyzed. Specially I compares the ideological interpretations of Chatsky that simultaneously emerged in literary criticism and in the theater.

In the third chapter, “Social and psychological in the comedy “Woe from Wit” as a problem of theatrical choice,” the social-critical and lyrical-psychological principles of the comedy are emphasized as the main aesthetic dispute in the understanding of the work by literary criticism and theater. A noticeable shift in ideological and semantic priorities in the understanding of “Woe from the mind" in the 20th century is caused by a changed historical consciousness, new assessments of the events of the century before last, reflected in the comedy. The question is raised of how theater and literary criticism react to these objective changes, with what accumulations they came to the end of the twentieth century.

The “Conclusion” reviews the ideas expressed and formulates conclusions about the continuation of the life of the classic - at the researcher’s table and in the light of the theatrical footlights. Practical advice is offered on how to comprehend and actualize comedy in the theater. An overview of the latest premieres related chronologically to the 21st century is given.

In addition to the bibliography, we considered it necessary to add a number of Appendices to the work, in particular, compiled by us and published

Bibliography on the Griboyedov issue over the last forty years. It characterizes the activity of scientific and theatrical work around the comedy “Woe from Wit” and the personality of its author. Introductory explanations to it are given before the bibliography.

The basic historical and theoretical sources of a general nature that we relied on in our work were: “The History of Russian Literature” in four volumes (L.: Nauka, 1981-1983), “The History of Russian Drama. XVII - first half of the XIX century" (L.: Nauka. 1982); “History of the Russian Drama Theater” in seven volumes (M.: Iskusstvo, 1977-1980); “Essays on the history of Russian theater criticism” (L.: Art, 1975, 1976, 1979); "Russian writers. 1800-1917: Biographical Dictionary" (M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. 1989-2008, first five volumes). References to monographs and other sources used in the work will appear as the research progresses. The play has serious comments and we take them into account. However, striving to be as independent as possible, we do not become attached to any established interpretations. We understand that many of our arguments will inevitably coincide with those previously expressed, and in this case we will not always refer to our predecessors.

Conclusion

Comedy A.C. Griboyedov’s “Woe from Wit” in the 20th century was actively interpreted by scientists and theater workers, which led to new research and performances that expanded the understanding of the author’s creative personality and his work. Remaining in the rank of a national classic, being a textbook text, “Woe from Wit”, at the same time, developed as a moving poetic and artistic structure, its internal meanings were revealed, and problem fields expanded. The play remained artistically relevant and more than once demonstrated the immanent signs of its own ongoing and therefore not exhausted debatability. With each new appeal to “Woe from Wit” - either at the researcher’s desk or in the spotlight - the universality of this text was revealed.

The play responded flexibly to scientific concepts, director's interpretations and socio-historical transformations in the country. It was embodied in a wide genre range: as a political manifesto and socio-historical canvas, as a psychological drama and tragicomedy, as a social comedy and a comedy of love intrigue, as vaudeville and psychodrama. “Woe from Wit” served purely aesthetic purposes - the creation of a “theater of words”, the development of a radical stage language and, at the same time, the preservation of traditional theatrical style and method. The play seemed to respond to a variety of approaches, each time turning with new facets, while invariably maintaining its integrity, internally resisting destruction and arbitrariness.

Having examined a vast array of performances (more than 40) created in Moscow, St. Petersburg (Leningrad), cities of Russia and neighboring countries, and comparing their appearance with the research stream on Griboedov and his play “Woe from Wit,” we come to the following conclusions:

1. The overwhelming number of productions of the first half of the 20th century on the domestic stage were based on the classical traditions of Russian realistic and psychological theater. Subsequently, with the establishment of the figure of the director as an independent creator, a fundamentally new relationship arose between the author of the work and theatrical interpreters, and the reputation of the classical text on the stage was largely revised. Some stage versions deepened the author's ideas, argued dialectically with them, and even entered into open polemics with the author. In other cases, the work was used for discussion, political and other purposes, not always correlated with the space of the canonical text.

2. The play has known in its history periods of active circulation (1930-1940) and zones of oblivion (1950, 1970-90), when it left the repertoire and lost relevance for some period in the eyes of theater workers.

3. Understanding the play by A.C. Griboyedov's "Woe from Wit" and its role in the domestic theatrical repertoire were determined both by global socio-historical changes in the life of Russia, and by the subjective factor of the presence of a director in the creative process, who defended his rights of co-authorship with the classic. Consciously or forcedly, by approving them, theaters are ambitiously editing the very foundations of Griboyedov’s work. Or they understand them narrowly - from the point of view of the development of their specific tools.

4. The stages of theatrical mastery of a play in terms of choosing priorities between the social and psychological in the content of the text are determined as follows: politicization - depoliticization - desemantization. Chronologically they correspond to the following periods: from the beginning of the 20th century. until the 1960s, 1960 - 1980, and from the mid-1980s to the present.

5. In artistic terms, the perception of “Woe from Wit” by the domestic theater and the directions of its stage implementations had a fairly pronounced stage: academicism - new academicism - modern intellectualism - left radicalism. These directions existed and continue to exist regardless of a certain historical period, and sometimes simultaneously and independently of each other. In this regard, “Woe from Wit” in the theatrical space is also a multicultural phenomenon.

6. Research flow and theatrical practice are not synchronized in the general cultural process and coexist in parallel. Cases of coincidence between the efforts of science and the stage, their common focus on results, are extremely rare.

7. Theatres, exercising their right to creative freedom, driven by the search for their own ways of mastering a literary text and putting forward radical interpretations, as a rule, ignore the ideological foundations of the author's intention and the aesthetic nature of the work. In terms of mastering the content, the play has been repeatedly used as material for the actualization and manifestation of certain political and other aspects of the current moment.

8. The most stable transformation of “Woe from Wit”, entrenched in theater practice, has become the genre: in the vast majority of productions and in a sufficient number of scientific works, comedy is understood as drama, as psychological drama, satirical grotesque, sarcastic absurdity, etc. By the end of the 20th century, the original genre features of comedy were noticeably erased in the minds of directors, actors, and spectators.

9. The theater predominantly replaces the concept of “mind”, which underlies the conflict of the play, with the concept of “feeling”. Over the past century, “mind” has almost never acted as the main means of evidence, the hero’s weapon, or argument in an ideological dispute with the enemy. Intellectual struggle as such is extremely rarely placed at the center of director's constructions.

10. Moving through time, “Woe from Wit” becomes more and more difficult to implement. In the course of the changing external cultural and historical context, it is necessary to solve a lot of internal problems of the play, problematic-characteristic and purely textual. The text, moving away from the era of its creation, becomes more “darker” and incomprehensible without additional comments. Making it publicly accessible is becoming more difficult every time, and even very strong theater troupes and directors do not undertake this work.

11. The accumulated theatrical experience proves that artistic discoveries are possible within the framework of the canonical text, and not outside it. The current tasks of Griboyedov's theater include identifying related meanings, the problem of reception of Griboyedov's ideas and images in Russian literature and drama and their adequate stage development.

12. Despite the negative trends and not all optimistic conclusions, it should be noted that the highest reputation of “Woe from Wit” as a play for the theater and as an object of scientific consideration is still beyond doubt. It remains an eternal spiritual value of humanity, without losing its keen debatability. Her intellectual and artistic resources will be in demand among new generations of scientists and creative figures.

1. Abalkin N. Theater and society / Maly Theater. 1824-1917. T. 1. M.: All-Russian Theater Society. 1978.

2. Avdeenko E.A. Hermeneutics / Literary encyclopedic dictionary. M.: Sov. encyclopedia. 1987.

3. Alpers B. “Woe from Wit” in Moscow and Leningrad // Theater. 1963. No. 6.

4. Alpers B. Victorious laughter / B.V. Alpers. Theater essays in two volumes. M.: Art. 1977. T. 2.

5. Andreev Leonid. Letter from Vl.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko. 23 Feb 1915 / Scientist. zap. Tartu State un-ta. Vol. 266. Tartu. 1971.

6. Babochkin B. Traditional classics and classical tradition // Znamya. 1963. No. 5.

7. Bazhenov A. Triangle “Grief” // Literary studies. 1994. No. 5.

8. Bakhtin M.M.K methodology of literary criticism // Context 1974. Literary and theoretical studies. M., 1975.

9. Belinsky V.G. Collection Op. in 9 vols. M.: Khud. literature. 1977. Vol. P, Sh.

10. Benyash R. Without makeup and in makeup: Theater portraits / P.M. Benyash. -L.: Art. 1971.

11. Benyash R. Mastery: About the play “Woe from Wit” at the Leningrad Bolshoi Drama Theater. M. Gorky. // Theater. 1973. No. 12.

12. Brodskaya G. Sophia and Alexander. Portrait against the background of Repetilov // Theater. 1993. No. 3.

13. Bryusov V.Ya. “Woe from Wit” at the Art Theater // Libra. 1906. No. 10.

14. Bushmin A.S. The science of literature: Problems. Judgments. Disputes / A.S. Bushmin. -M.: Contemporary. 1980.

15. Vail P., Genis A. Someone else’s grief: Griboedov / P. Vail, A. Genis. -Native speech: Lessons in fine literature. Preface by A. Sinyavsky. M.: Nezavisimaya gazeta. 1991.

16. Valerie Paul. About art / Paul Valery. M.: Art. 1976.

17. Varshavsky Y. Social, life, theatrical truth // Soviet art. 1938.21.Vinokur G.O. “Woe from Wit” as a monument to Russian artistic speech / G.O. Distiller. Philological studies: Linguistics and poetics. M.: Science. 1990.

18. Vishnevskaya I. Famusov and Chatsky // Theater. 1976. No. 8.23. Vlashchenko V.I. Dreams in the works of Griboyedov and Pushkin: “Woe from Wit” and “Blizzard”. // Literature at school. 2007. No. 9.

19. Volkonsky Nick. Encrypted creativity: To the centenary of the death of the author of “Woe from Wit” // Modern theater. 1929. No. 7.25. Voloshin M.A. “Woe from Wit” on the stage of the Moscow Art Theater // Oko. 1906. 7 (20) Oct.

22. Herzen A.I. Collection Op. in eight volumes. M.: True. 1975. T. 8.

23. Gzovskaya O.V. Memories of V.I. Kachalov / V.V. Kachalov. Collection of articles, memoirs, letters. M.: Art. 1954.

24. Verb Sergey S.S. Goloushev. Art Theater and “Woe from Wit” // Moscow Weekly. 1906. 30 Sep.

25. Gnedich P.P. “Woe from Wit” as a stage performance: Comedy staging project / Yearbook of the Imperial Theaters. 1899-1900. Adj. I.

26. Kommersant Goller B. “Woe from Wit” in a Changing World // Questions of Literature. 2009. July-August. pp. 220-290.

27. Grossman L. Anniversary production / “Woe from Wit.” Maly Theater. 1947.

29. Delta Talnikov D.L. On the ground: [“Woe from Wit” as a “zoological garden”] // Theater and Drama. 1934. No. 10. P. 43.45. Denisenko S.V. “A Million Torments” by I.A. Goncharov in theatrical discourse // Russian literature. 2008. No. 2.

30. Dolgopoloe L.K., Lavrov A.B. Griboyedov in Russian criticism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. / Creation. Biography. Traditions. L.: Science. 1977.

31. Dorizo ​​N. Sofya Famusova // Soviet Russia. 1986. March 23. No. 73.48. (Dostoevsky F. M. Complete collected works: In 14 volumes. 6th edition. St. Petersburg: Nauka. 1995. Vol. 8.

32. Dubrovin A.A. A.C. Griboyedov and the artistic culture of his time / A.A. Dubrovin. M.: MGOPI. 1993.50 Durylin S. Zavadsky Chatsky // Soviet art. 1938. June 4. No. 72.51.Monthly essays. 1901. No. 10, 11.

33. Esin A.B. Principles and techniques for analyzing a literary work: textbook / A.B. Yesin. M.: Flint. The science. 2000. Ed. 3rd.

34. Zhegin N. “Well, ball!” Well, Famusov! // Theater. 1993. No. 3.

35. Zagorsky M. At performances of the Rostov Theater. Gorky // Soviet art 1938. May 10. No. 75.

36. Zaslavsky D. “Woe from Wit”: Moscow Order of Lenin

37. Red Banner Art Academic Theater named after Gorky // Pravda. 1938. 30 Oct.

38. Zubkov Yu. Mikhail Tsarev at the Maly Theater / Yu.A. Zubkov. M.: Art. 1978.

39. I. I.N. Ignatov. “Woe from Wit” at the Art Theater // Russian Vedomosti. 1906. 28 September.

40. Ilyev S.P. “Mind” and “grief” in Griboedov’s comedy / Problems of creativity by A.S. Griboyedova: Answer. Editor S.A. Fomichev. Smolensk: Trust-Imacom. 1994.

41. Iovlev A. Alena Chekhanovets / Artist and Stage: Collection. M.: Soviet artist. 1988.

42. Katz Is. Misunderstood Griboyedov: “Woe from Wit” at the Smolgorteatre // Bolshevik Young People. Smolensk 1934. November 5.61. Klyuchevsky V.O. Course of Russian history / V.O. Klyuchevsky. -Works in nine volumes. T.V.M.: Thought. 1989.

43. Kolesnikova S.A. Creativity A.S. Griboyedov as an object of bibliography: A.S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit”: bibliography 1970-2009. // Bibliography. 2009. No. 5.

44. Kosikov G.K. “Structure” and/or “text” (strategies of modern semiotics) // French semiotics: From structuralism to poststructuralism: Collection. Art. / Ed. G.K. Kosikova. M., 2000.

45. Kostelyanets B. Dramaturgy “Woe from Wit”: to the 175th anniversary of the birth of A.S. Griboyedova // Neva. 1970. No. 1.

46. ​​Kochur G. Touches to the portrait of Maxim Rylsky / The Mastery of Translation. Seventh collection. 1970. M.: Soviet writer. 1970.

47. Krasnodar Drama Theater named after. M. Gorky: A.S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit”: Booklet for the production. Krasnodar: Printing house named after. Limansky. B.d. .

48. See: Krigmova N.A. Vladimir Yakhontov / H.A. Krymova. M.:

49. Art. 1978. pp. 188-190, 192-193; also: Lebedev A.A. Griboyedov: Facts and hypotheses / Lebedev A.A. -M.: Art. 1980. pp. 141-156; Mikhalovskaya N.V. Through the eyes and heart of an actress / N.V. Mikhalovskaya. -M.: Art. 1986. pp. 89-90.

50. Krymova N. Names: Stories about theater people / N.A. Krymova. M.: Art. 1971.71 .Kuzyakina N. Theater on Solovki and Bear Mountain / Questions of the theater: Collection of articles and publications. 1990.

51. Kunarev A.A. Comedy A.C. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit”: Commentary / V.A. Kunarev. M.: Russian edition. 2004.73 .Kupreyanova E.H. A.C. Pushkin / History of Russian literature in four volumes. T. 2. L.: Science. 1981.74.Courier. Aug 31 1902.

52. Kuchelbecker V.K. Journey. Diary. Articles. L.: Science. 1979. (Series “Literary Monuments”).

53. Lavrova A. Classics of free breathing: “Woe from Wit” at the Russian Theater of Estonia. // Strastnoy Boulevard, 10. 2008. No. 4 (114)11. Lebedev A.A. Griboyedov: Facts and hypotheses / A.A. Lebedev. M.: Art. 1980.

54. Lebedeva O.B. Russian high comedy of the 18th century: Genesis and poetics of the genre / O.B. Lebedeva. Tomsk 1996.

55. Litvinenko N. “Uniform! One uniform!." // Theater. 1985. No. 3.

56. Literary heritage. A.C. Griboyedov. M.: Publishing house. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. 1946. T. 47-48.81. Litovsky O. Captured by the classics // Komsomolskaya Pravda. 1930. 13 Feb.

57. Lunacharsky A.B. A.C. Griboyedov / Collection. Op. in 8 vols. M.: Khud. literature. 1963. T. 1.

58. Makogonenko G. Why is it necessary to argue? // Neva. 1963. No. 2.

60. Markov P.A. "Woe from Wit." Moscow Art Theater // Pravda. 1925. 28 Jan. Yu.Markov P.A. Essays on theatrical life: On the issue of stage reading of the classics / P.A. Markov. About the theater. In four volumes. M.: Art. 1976. T. 3.

61. Matyushina M. Tambov: “Woe from Wit” at the Tambov Drama Theater. // Strastnoy Boulevard, 10. 2009. No. 4 (124). pp. 21, 22. Photo.

62. Medvedeva I.N. "Woe from Wit" A.S. Griboyedova / I.N. Medvedev. M: Hood. literature. 1971.

63. Meyerhold V.E. “Woe to Wit” // Leningradskaya Pravda. 1935. 21 September. 9\.Meshcheryakov V. Life and deeds of Alexander Griboedov / V.P.

64. Meshcheryakov. -M.: Contemporary. 1989.

66. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky D.N. History of the Russian intelligentsia / D.N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky. M., 1906. T. I.

67. Orlov V. Griboyedov: an essay on life and creativity / V.N. Orlov. Ed. 2nd, add. M.: Khud. literature. 1954.

68. Reviews of peripheral productions of “Woe from Wit” see also:

69. Piksanov N.K. Comedy by A.S. Griboedov “Woe from Wit” / Griboyedov A.S. Woe from the mind. M., 1969.101. Piksanov N.K. Griboedov and “Woe from Wit” / A.S. Griboyedov: Collection. M.: Nikitin subbotniks. 1929. [Series “Classics in Marxist Lighting”.

70. Piksanov N.K. Another point of view // Neva. 1963. No. 2.

71. Piksanov N.K. Creative history of “Woe from Wit” / N.K. Piksanov. -M.: Science. 1971.

72. Piksanov N.K. Chronicle of the life and work of A.S. Griboedova. 17911829 / N.K. Piksanov; Ross. acad. Sci. Institute of World Lit. them. A.M. Gorky M.: Heritage. 2000.

73. Pokrovsky N. “Woe from Wit”: For production in the regional theater // Work Path. Smolensk 1939. November 5.

74. Radomskaya T.N. Genre strategy of “Woe from Wit” by A.S. Griboyedova: Author and hero // Bulletin of the Tyumen State. university. 2006. No. 8.

75. Revyakin A.I. Genre originality of “Woe from Wit” // Russian literature. 1961. No. 4.

76. Rehearsals of “Woe from Wit.” 1937-1938. Verbatim notes / “Woe from Wit” on the stage of the Moscow Art Theater.

77. Receptor V.E. Last season, or Proposed circumstances / V.E. Recipe. L.: Art. 1989.

78. S.P. C.B. Yablonovsky (Potresov). Maly Theater. “Woe from Wit” // Russian Word. 1902. 31 Aug.

80. Silina I. And again “a million torments”: “Woe from Wit” at the Moscow Satire Theater. // Theater. 1977. No. 8. i

81. Skatov N. “Phalanx of Heroes”: On the moral and aesthetic experience of Decembrism // Literary newspaper. 2011. February 2-8. No. 4 (6309).

82. Skaftymov A.P. On the issue of the relationship between theoretical and historical consideration in the history of literature / Introduction to literary criticism. Reader. M.: Higher school. 1988.

84. Slonova N. An actor works with a director: Memories of the 1933 production in Sverdlovsk. / Directing art today. M.: Art. 1962.

85. Smelyansky A. Our interlocutors: Russian classical drama on the stage of the Soviet theater of the 70s / A.M. Smelyansky. M.: Art. 1981.

86. I8. Contemporary. 1837. T. 5. No. 1.

87. Stepanov A.B. Mind as a word-concept in “Woe from Wit” // Russian Literature. 2004. No. 1.

88. Stepanov L.A. Aesthetic and artistic thinking of A.S. Griboyedova / L.A. Stepanov. Krasnodar: Kuban State. univ. 2001.

89. Tovstonogov G. About the profession of a director / G. A. Tovstonogov. M.: All-Russian Theater Society. 2nd ed. 1967.

90. Tovstonogov G. Together, but in parallel // Theater. 1977. No. 8.

91. Todorov L.V. Dramatic verse by Griboyedov // Literature at school. 2007. No. 9.

92. Feldman O. The fate of “Woe from Wit” on stage / “Woe from Wit” on the Russian and Soviet stage: Evidence from contemporaries: Ed., comp., introduction, article by O.M. Feldman. M.: Art. 1987.

93. Fomichev S.A. Griboyedov: Encyclopedia / S.A. Fomichev. Griboyedov: Encyclopedia. St. Petersburg: Nestor-History. 2007. - 396 p.

94. Fomichev S.A. Comedy A.C. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit”: Commentary / S.A. Fomichev. -M.: Enlightenment. 1983.

95. Fomichev S.A. Griboedov's characters in the works of M.E. Saltykova-Shchedrin / From Griboyedov to Gorky: From the history of Russian literature: interuniversity collection. JL: Leningrad State University Publishing House, 1979.

96. Khalizev V.E. To the theory of literary criticism // Scientific reports of higher school. Philological sciences. 1977. No. 1.

97. Khalizev V.E. Interpretation / Literary encyclopedic dictionary. M.: Sov. encyclopedia. 1987.

98. Khikhadze L.D. At the origins of the Russian psychological novel / Problems of creativity A.S. Griboyedova: Answer. editor S.A. Fomichev. Smolensk: Trust-Imacom. 1994.

99. Tsarev M. What is theater / M.I. Tsarev. M.: Young Guard. 1960.

100. Tsimbaeva E. Artistic image in a historical context: Analysis of the biographies of the characters in “Woe from Wit.” // Questions of literature. 2003. No. 8.

101. Tsimbaeva E.H. Griboyedov / E.H. Tsimbaeva. M.: Young Guard. 2003. (Series ZhZL) - 545 15. p.

102. Ch. G.I. Chulkov. Performances of the Moscow Art Theater. “Woe from Wit” // Comrade. 1907. April 25

103. Chistyakov V.F. Dictionary of the comedy “Woe from Wit” A.S. Griboedova. First issue. Smolensk 1939.

104. Shtilman S. About the mind of Molchalin // Russian literature. 2001. No. 11.141. Eisenstein S.M. Selected works in six volumes. T. 5. M.: Art. 1968.

105. Engel-Kron V. Production “Woe from Wit” / Regional Drama Theater named after. M. Gorky. “Woe from Wit”: Booklet. Stalingrad. 1937.

107. Ermans V. Ivanovo Theater in Moscow: “Woe from Wit” // Soviet art. 1937. No. 26. June 5.

108. Yuzhin-Sumbatov A.I. Records. Articles. Letters/A.I. Yuzhin-Sumbatov. -M.: Art. 1951. Ed. 2nd.

110. Yakhontov V. Theater of one actor / V.N. Yakhontov. M.: Art. 1958.

111. Leningrad State. Academic Drama Theater (Lengosdrama). Resumption of the 1903 production. Dir. E.P. Karpov1925 Moscow Art Theater. Dir. Vl.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko1928 GUEST. Dir. Vs.E. Meyerhold

112. Leningrad State. drama theater (Lengosdrama). Dir. K.P. Khokhlov1930 Moscow Maly Theater. Dir. BUT. Volkonsky1932 Leningrad State. Academic Drama Theater (Lengosdrama). Dir. N.V. Petrov

113. Stalingrad Drama Theater named after. M. Gorky. Dir. V.M. Engel-Kron

114. Rostov-on-Don Drama Theatre. Dir. Yu.A. Zavadsky1938 Moscow Maly Theater. Dir. P.M. Sadovsky, I.Ya Sudakov, S.P. Alekseev

115. Accordingly, he was Nirod. The younger generation of theatergoers had to be brought up in a classical tone, without “isms.” The time for new ideas, especially for the Youth Theater, has not yet come.

117. A.C. Griboedov “Woe from Wit”: bibliography 1970-20101. From the compiler

118. Benyash R. Without makeup and in makeup: Theater portraits / P.M. Benyash. L.: Art. 1971. (See chapters: T.V. Doronina, S.Yu. Yursky, K.Yu. Lavrov)

119. Krymova N. Names: Stories about theater people / N.A. Krymova. M.: Art. 1971. (Chapter S.Yu. Yursky-Chatsky)

120. Medvedeva I.N. "Woe from Wit" A.S. Griboyedova / I.N. Medvedev. M: Hood. lit. 1971. 2nd ed. M.: Khud. lit. 1974.

121. Piksanov N.K. Creative story “Woe from Wit” / N.K. Piksanov. M.: Science. 1971.

122. Anikst A.A. Theory of drama in Russia from Pushkin to Chekhov: History of teachings about drama / A.A. Anyxt. M.: Science. 1972.

123. Benyash P.M. Pavel Mochalov / P.M. Benyash. L.: Art. 1976. (Chatsky -S. 161-173)

124. Gzovskaya O. Paths and crossroads: Portraits: Articles and memories of O.V. Gzovskoy. / O.V. Gzovskaya. M.: WTO. 1976. (On the performance of Sophia - S. 205, 220, 275, 324-327,371-371)

125. A.C. Griboyedov: Creativity. Biography. Traditions: Collection of articles. USSR Academy of Sciences Institute of Russian Lit. (Pushkin House). Rep. Ed. S.A. Fomichev L.: Science. 1977.

126. Aikhenvald Yu. Ostuzhev / Yu.I. Aikhenwald. M.: Art. 1977. (Chatsky - P. 113-118; Repetilov - P. 202-203)

127. Alpers B. Theater of the Social Mask / B.V. Alpers. Theater essays in two volumes. T. 1 Theater monographs. M.: Art. 1977. (See name and drama indexes on Woe from Wit)

128. Alpers B. Victorious laughter: To the 100th anniversary of the death of A.S. Griboedova / B.V. Alpers. Theater essays in two volumes. T. 2. Theater premieres and discussions. M.: Art. 1977. pp. 125-129.

129. Alpers B. “Woe from Wit” in two theaters. Right there. pp. 423-429.

130. Gorbunova E.V. Problems of the Griboyedov Theater / E.V. Gorbunova. M.: GITIS. 1977. (Author's abstract of a dissertation for the degree of candidate of art history)

131. Nechkina M.B. Griboyedov and the Decembrists / M.V. Nechkina. 3rd ed. M.: Khud. lit. 1977.

132. Borisov Yu.N. “Woe from Wit” and Russian poetic comedy: At the origins of the genre. Ed. E.I. Pokusaeva / Yu.N. Borisov. Saratov. Publishing house of Saratov University. 1978.

133. Zubkov Yu. Mikhail Tsarev at the Maly Theater / Yu.A. Zubkov. M.: Art. 1978. (Chatsky, Famusov - S. 21-41, 113, 115-128)

134. Krymova N.A. Vladimir Yakhontov: one-man show “Woe from Wit”. /H.A. Krymova. M.: Art. 1978. pp. 188-190, 192-193.

135. Play and performance: Collection of articles: Ed.-comp. E.S. Kalmanovsky. L.: LGITMIK. 1978.

136. Abalkin N. Mikhail Tsarev: Famusov. / Stage Masters Heroes of Socialist Labor: [Collection]. M.: WTO. 1979. Vol. 1. pp. 495-500.

137. Alpers B. Theater of Mochalov and Shchepkin / B.A. Alpers. M.: Art. 1979. (See index to "Woe from Wit").

138. Woe from Wit" on the stage of the Moscow Art Theater: Experience of four editions 1906, 1914, 1925, 1938: Comp., introduction, article and comments by L.M. Freidkina. M.: WTO. 1979.

139. Kuchelbecker V.K. Journey. Diary. Articles / V.K. Kuchelbecker. L.: Science. 1979. (Series “Literary Monuments”),

140. A.C. Griboyedov in the memoirs of his contemporaries: Collection. Introductory article by S.A. Fomicheva. M.: Fiction. 1980.

141. Lebedev A.A. Griboyedov: facts and hypotheses / A.A. Lebedev. M.: Art. 1980.

142. Traditions of stage realism: Academic Drama Theater named after. A.C. Pushkin: Collection of scientific works. L.: LGITMIK. 1980.

143. Petrov S.M. "Woe from Wit" comedy by A.S. Griboyedov: A manual for teachers / - S.M. Petrov. M.: Enlightenment. 1981.

144. Rudnitsky K.L. Meyerhold / K.L. Rudnitsky. M.: Art. 1981. (Series “Life in Art”). pp. 354-362, 412-413.

145. Kichkova B.A. Genre originality of comedy A.S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit” / B.A. Kichkova. M.: Publishing house. Moscow State University. 1982. (Author's abstract of the dissertation for the degree of Candidate of Philosophy).

146. Nechkina M.V. The function of the artistic image in the historical process: Collection. / M.V. Nechkina. M.: Science. 1982. (Birth of “Woe from Wit” S. 84119)

147. Nechkina M.V. Investigative case A.S. Griboyedova / M.V. Nechkina. M.: Thought. 1982. 2nd ed.

148. Fomichev S.A. Griboyedov in St. Petersburg / S.A. Fomichev. L.: Lenizdat. 1982.

149. Vishnevskaya IM. Drama is true to time / I.L. Vishnevskaya. M.: Enlightenment. 1983. pp. 15-16.

150. Kudryashov O.JI. Theater A.C. Griboedova: Director's commentary / O.L. Kudryashov. M.: Sov. Russia. 1983.

151. Meshcheryakov V.P. A.C. Griboyedov: Literary environment and perception (XIX early XX century) / - V.P. Meshcheryakov. L.: Science. 1983.

152. Fomichev S.A. Comedy A.C. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit”: Commentary / -S.A. Fomichev. M.: Enlightenment. 1983.

153. Kuleshov V.I. How do we play the classics? / IN AND. Kuleshov. In search of accuracy and truth. M., 1986. (Famusov - M. Tsarev. P. 202-218).

154. Mikhalovskaya N.V. Through the eyes and heart of an actress: memories of V.N. Yakhontov in “Woe from Wit”. / N.V. Mikhalovskaya. M.: Art. 1986. P. 8990.

155. Ordovskaya S.D. Olga Osipovna Sadovskaya is a great Russian actress. Lecture / - S.D. Ordovskaya. M.: GITIS. 1986. (about playing the role of the Countess Grandmother-S. 39-41)

156. Smolnikov I.F. Comedy A.C. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit”: A book for students / I.F. Smolnikov. M.: Enlightenment. 1986.

157. Surkov E.D. What do we need Hecuba? Problems of interpretation of classics in theater and cinema / E.D. Surkov. M.: Sov. writer. 1986. (“Woe from Wit” - pp. 27, 30, 5864, 67-69)

158. Woe from Wit” on the Russian and Soviet stage: Evidence from contemporaries: Ed., comp. and ed. will enter, articles by O.M. Feldman. M.: Art. 1987.

159. Rec.: Maksimov A. How many Chatskys were there? // Literary review. 1988. No. 2. P. 67-68; Proskurina V. Briefly about books // Questions of literature. 1988. No. 3. P. 250-253.

160. Pajitnov JJ.H. Alexander Pavlovich Lensky: Russian actor / L.N. Pajitnov. M.: Art. 1988. (Series “Life in Art”) (Chatsky - P. 78; Famusov-S. 257-261)

161. A.C. Griboyedov: materials for the biography: Collection of scientific works. Rep. editor S.A. Fomichev. L.: Science. Academy of Sciences. Institute rus. lit. (Pushkin House). 1989.

162. Gershenzon M. O. Griboyedovskaya Moscow / M.O. Gershenzon. M.: Moscow worker. 1989.

163. Meshcheryakov V. Life and deeds of Alexander Griboyedov / V.P. Meshcheryakov. M.: Contemporary. 1989.

164. Receptor V.E. Last season, or Suggested circumstances: the actor about working on the images of Griboyedov. / -V.E. Recipe. L.: Art. 1989. P. 46 and others.

165. Rudnitsky K.L. Russian directing art. 1898-1907/ K.L. Rudnitsky. M.: Science. 1989. (“Woe to Wit” by Meyerhold - pp. 246-253)

166. Eidelman N.Ya. Perhaps beyond the ridge of the Caucasus. (Russian literature and social thought of the first half of the 19th century. Caucasian context) / N.Ya. Eidelman. M.: Science. 1990.

167. Bilinskis J. S. Rebellious art: On the process of artistic development: Essays. / -I'M WITH. Bilinskis. L.: Sov. writer. 1991.

168. Paleeva N.H. The problem of personality in Russian classical drama: Philosophical aspects / - H.H. Paleeva. M.: Enlightenment. 1992. pp. 13-21.

169. Dubrovin A.A. A.C. Griboyedov and the artistic culture of his time / -A.A. Dubrovin. M.: MGOPI. 1993.

170. Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov: Point of view. Series "Classical Gymnasium". Compiled, biographer, references and notes by A.I. Ostrovskaya. M.: Laida. 1994.

171. Problems of creativity A.S. Griboyedova: Collection. Smolensk 1995.

172. Lebedeva O.B. Russian high comedy of the 18th century: Genesis and poetics of the genre / - O.B. Lebedeva. Tomsk 1996.

173. A.C. Griboedov: Khmelitsky collection. Smolensk 1998.

174. A.C. Griboyedov: life and work: Album: Authors-compilers: P.S. Krasnov, S.A. Fomichev, H.A. Tarkhova. Author of the text S.A. Fomichev. M.: Russian book. 1999.

175. Griboyedov and Pushkin. Khmelitsky collection. Issue 2. Smolensk: SGPU. 2000.

176. Piksanov N.K. Chronicle of the life and work of A.S. Griboedova. 1791-1829 / -N.K. Piksanov; Ross. acad. Sci. Institute of World Lit. them. A.M. Gorky M.: Heritage. 2000.

177. Solovyova I.N. Drama of the 19th century / Comp. H.H. Solovyova. M.: Word. 2000.

178. Stepanov L.A. Aesthetic and artistic thinking A.S. Griboyedova / Stepanov L.A. Krasnodar: Kuban State. univ. 2001.

179. Noseless E.L. A.C. Griboyedov. Woe from Wit: Text Analysis: Main Contents. Op. / Auto-stat. E.L. Beznosov. M.: Bustard. 2002.

180. Stein A.L. A story about Griboedov / A. L. Stein. M.: Maly Theater Library. 2002.

181. Khechinov Yu.E. The life and death of Alexander Griboyedov / Yu.E. Khechinov. / -M.: Flint; The science. 2003.

182. Tsimbaeva E.H. Griboyedov / E.H. Tsimbaeva. M.: Young Guard. 2003. (ZhZL series)

183. Rec.: Filippov A. What the autopsy of the era showed // Nezavisimaya Gazeta. 2003. May 15. P. 7 (Ex libris); Kantor V. Why is it always “Woe to Wit”? // Questions of literature. 2004. No. 2. P. 348-356.

184. Kunarev A.A. Comedy A.C. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit”: Commentary / A.A. Kunarev. M., 2004.

185. Rec.: Nikitin O.V. "Woe from Wit" A.S. Griboedova. Comment // Literature at school. M. 2005. No. 11. P. 44-45.

186. Radomskaya T. I. A. S. Griboedov. Woe from the mind. “Strange” comedy by a “strange” writer / T.N. Radomskaya, comp., Art. M.: IMLI RAN. 2004.

187. Staroselskaya N.D. Tovstonogov / N.D. Staroselskaya. M.: Young Guard. 2004. pp. 202-210.

188. Staroselskaya N.D. Maly Theater. 1975-2005 / N.D. Staroselskaya; ed. O.A. Petrenko. Moscow: Languages ​​of Slavic culture. 2006.

189. Zolotussky I.P. From Griboyedov to Solzhenitsyn: Russia and the intelligentsia / I.P. Zolotussky. M.: Young Guard. 2006.

190. Wolf V.Ya. Angelina Stepanova: Actress of the Art Theater / V.Ya. Wulf. M.: ACT: Zebra E. (Actress in the role of Sophia - P. 46-52)

191. Fomichev S.A. Griboedov: Encyclopedia / - S.A. Fomichev. St. Petersburg: Nestor-History. 2007.

192. Lebedev A.A. Griboyedov / A.A. Lebedev. Three faces of the moral muse. M. 2010.1. Articles

193. Kostelyanets B. Dramaturgy “Woe from Wit”: to the 175th anniversary of the birth of A.S. Griboyedova // Neva. 1970. No. 1. P. 184-191.

194. Korman B.O. To the discussion about the comedy A.S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit” / Izvestia of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Ser. lit. and language 1970. T. XXIX. Vol. 6. pp. 522-531.

195. Levin V.I. Griboyedov and Chatsky / Izvestia of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Ser. lit. and language 1970. T. XXIX. Vol. 1.S. 33-47.

196. Maimin E.A. Notes on “Woe from Wit” by Griboedov, (experience of reading the text of the comedy) / Izvestia of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Ser. lit. and language 1970. T. XXIX. Vol. 1. P. 4859.

197. Soloviev Vladimir. Living and tenants: Philosophy and composition “Woe from Wit” // Questions of Literature. 1970. No. 11. P. 155-176.

198. Eremina L.I. Language mask and face: after “Woe from Wit.” // Russian speech. M. 1972. No. 3. pp. 3-13.

199. Prokopenko 3. T. Chatsky in Russian criticism of the 19th century and the satire of Saltykov-Shchedrin // Russian literature. 1972. No. 3. P. 139-150.

200. Benyash R. Mastery: “Woe from Wit” at the Leningrad Bolshoi Drama Theater. M. Gorky. // Theater. 1973. No. 12. P. 66.

201. Kurginyan M. Unity of aesthetic and historical criticism: From the methodological precepts of V.G. Belinsky // Questions of literature. 1974. No. 1.S. 171-193.

202. Fomichev S.A. “Woe from Wit” in Ostrovsky’s legacy / A.N. Ostrovsky and the literary and theatrical movement of the 19th-20th centuries. L.: Science. 1974. pp. 7-27.

203. Lane A. Artist famous and unknown: C.B. Shumsky Chatsky. // Questions of theatrical art: Sat. articles. M., 1975. S. 203-206.

204. First translation of “Woe from Wit”: translation into German by K. Knorring; 1831. // Questions of literature. 1975. No. 7. P. 307.

205. Borisov Yu.N. Chatsky from Saltykov-Shchedrin // Russian literature. 1976. No. 1. P. 217-219.

206. Vishnevskaya I. Famusov and Chatsky: Maly Theater. // Theater. 1976. No. 8. P. 3134.

207. Kachalov N.V. Solomin Chatsky: “Woe from Wit” at the Maly Theater // Theater. 1976. No. 12. P. 74.

208. Kravtsov A. Brothers: V. Solomin Chatsky. // Theater life. 1976. No. 24. pp. 12-15.

209. Assev B. Graceful and passionate comedy: “Woe from Wit”, Moscow Satire Theater. // Theater life. 1977. No. 11. pp. 13-14.

210. BarmakA. Tsarev plays Famusov: Maly Theater. // Theater. 1977. No. 1. P. 4042.

211. Gorbatova Elena. The secrets of art and the “cunning of the craft”: Some issues of drama and comedy by A.S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit” // Literary Georgia. Tbilisi. 1977. No. 8. P. 82-87.

212. Grishunin A.L. Disregarding scientific arguments: controversy surrounding the text “Woe from Wit.” // Questions of literature. 1977. No. 4. P. 225-232.

213. Enikolopov I. On the problem of the canonical list of “Woe from Wit” // Questions of literature. 1977. No. 4. P. 218-225.

214. Litavrina M. Chatsky’s choice: Moscow Theater of Satire, Chatsky A. Mironov. //Moscow. 1977. No. 6. P. 194-198.

215. Maksimova V. And generations meet: “Woe from Wit” at the Maly Theater. // Theater. 1977. No. 6. P. 65-75.

216. Silina I. And again “a million torments”: “Woe from Wit” at the Moscow Satire Theater. // Theater. 1977. No. 8. P. 22-28.

217. Timrot A. Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov (1795-1829) / Russian writers in Moscow: Collection. M.: Moscow worker. 1977. pp. 213-237.

218. Tsarev Mikhail. Time. Human. Art: “Woe from Wit” at the Maly Theater. // Theater. 1977. No. 12. P. 38-39.

219. Velehova N. Director Pluchek: “Woe from Wit”, Moscow Theater of Satire. // Theater. 1978. No. 6. pp. 26-46.

220. Kuleshov V.I. How do we play the classics?: Through the eyes of a philologist // New World. 1978. No. 11. P. 303-314.

221. Tolchenova N. Always a personality: M. Tsarev Famusov; Maly Theater. // Theater life. 1978. No. 11. pp. 14-15.

222. Grishunin A.L. “Woe from Wit” in the literary and social consciousness of the 19th-20th centuries. / Russian literature in historical and functional light. M.: Science. 1979. pp. 229-236.

223. Fomichev S.A. Griboedov's characters in the works of M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin / From Griboyedov to Gorky: Collection. D.: Ed. LSU. 1979.

224. Vishnevskaya I. Solo for striking clocks: masters of the older generation: Famusov M. Tsarev. And the Theater. 1980. No. 6. P. 47-57.

225. Set design by V.Ya. Leventhal to “Woe from Wit”, Moscow Theater of Satire // Theater. 1980. No. 2. S. between 96-97.

226. Lyabina N.K. On the question of defining some structural elements of A.S.’s comedy. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit” / Issues of plot and composition: Interuniversity collection. Bitter. Ed. Gorky State un-ta. 1980. P. 120121.

227. Smelyansky A. Our interlocutors: Russian classical drama on the stage of the Soviet theater of the 70s: chapter A.S. Griboyedov. M.: Art. 1981. pp. 11-41.

228. Fomichev S.A. Dramaturgy of the early 19th century. Creativity A.S. Griboedova. Comedy “Woe from Wit” / History of Russian literature in four volumes. L.: Science. 1981. T. 2. P. 204-234.

229. Date of fishing Savva. The gift of novelty: Mikhail Tsarev from Clausen to Famusov // Theater. 1982. No. 9. pp. 87-96.

230. Zorin Andrey. From the history of the great comedy // Librarian. 1982. No. 4. P. 46-48.

231. Poltavskaya G. Tatyana Vasilyeva: Sophia, “Woe from Wit”, Moscow Theater of Satire. // Theater. 1982. No. 1. P. 50-51.

232. Regina Lyudmila. The key to joy // Aurora. 1982. No. 9. P. 94-110.

233. Stepanov L.A. Dramaturgy A.S. Griboyedova / History of Russian drama. XVII first half of the XIX century. L.: Science. 1982. pp. 296-326.

234. Kravtsova A. Tatyana Vasilyeva: Sophia, “Woe from Wit”, Moscow Theater of Satire. // Theater life. 1983. No. 20. pp. 16-17.

235. Fesenko Yu.P. Pushkin and Griboyedov: Two episodes of creative relationships. / Temporary document of the Pushkin commission. 1980: [Collection]. L.: Science. 1983.

236. Grishunin A.L. A.C. Griboyedov and his legacy / A.S. Griboyedov. Essays. M.: True. 1985.

237. Litvinenko N. “Uniform! One uniform!.": "Woe from Wit" at the Finnish Drama Theater, Petrozavodsk. // Theater. 1985. No. 3. P. 78-82.

238. Porudominsky Vl. Your mind and deeds are immortal.: To the 190th anniversary of the birth of A.S. Griboedova // Change. 1985. No. 1. P. 24-26.

240. Kuleshov V.I. How we play the classics: “Woe from Wit”, Moscow Satire Theater. / IN AND. Kuleshov. In search of accuracy and truth. M. 1986. S. 202-238.

241. Kichkova B.A. “Wheezer, strangler, bassoon.” // Russian speech. 1987. No. 6. P. 26-32.

243. Vladimirova 3. Passed unnoticed: “Woe from Wit”; Maly Theater. // Theater. 1988. No. 3. pp. 33-36.

244. Goller B. Drama of one comedy: “Woe from Wit.” // Questions of literature. 1988. No. 1. P. 109-145.

245. Iovlev A. Alena Chekhanovets: her scenography “Woe from Wit” in Leningrad. / Artist and stage: [Collection] M.: Soviet artist. 1988. P. 193.

246. Krugloe V.F. Fiction and creative practice of the masters of the St. Petersburg New Society of Artists (1904-1917) / Russian literature and fine arts of the 17th beginning. XX century: Collection of scientific works of the USSR Academy of Sciences. L.: Nauka 1988. pp. 254-284.

247. Skorochkina O.E. How our word will respond / Actor in the modern theater: Collection of scientific works. L. 1989. pp. 34-46. (M. Tsarev and V. Solomin at the Maly Theater).

248. Vinokur G. O. “Woe from Wit” as a monument to Russian artistic speech / -G.O. Distiller. Philological studies: Linguistics and poetics. M.: Science. 1990. pp. 196-240.

249. “Woe to Wit”: Transcript of rehearsals by V.E. Meyerhold: GosTIM, 1928. // Theatre. 1990. No. 1. P. 124-125.

250. Zabozlaeva T.B. Andrey Mironov: Chatsky. / T.B. Zabozlaeva. Peers: portraits of actors born in 1941. Kyiv. 1990. pp. 87-88.

251. Zabozlaeva T.B. Vitaly Solomin: Chatsky. / Zabozlaeva T.B. Peers: Portraits of actors born in 1941. Kyiv. 1990. pp. 95-116.

252. Rudnitsky K.JI. Farewell to Andrei Mironov: “Woe from Wit”, Moscow Satire Theater. / K.L. Rudnitsky. Public favorites. Kyiv. 1990. pp. 299-301.

253. Weil P., Genis A. Someone else’s grief: Griboyedov / Weil P., Genis A. Native speech: Lessons in fine literature. Preface by A. Sinyavsky. M., 1991. P. 38-45.

254. Freydkina L. Chatsky / Andrei Mironov: Collection. M., 1991. S. 244-253.

255. Steingold A.M. The power of the moment in literary criticism // Russian literature. 1992. No. 1. P. 69-84.

256. Bogomolova O. Moscow: “Woe from Wit”, Moscow Art Theater, dir. HE. Efremov. // St. Petersburg theater magazine. 1993. No. 2. P. 125-126.

257. Vasilinina I. Everything is mixed up: “Woe from Wit”, Moscow Art Theater, dir. HE. Efremov. //Theater. 1993. No. 4. pp. 2-8.

258. Garon Lana. Better stay at home: Imitation of Vlas Doroshevich: “Woe from Wit”, Moscow Art Theater, dir. HE. Efremov. // Playwright. 1993. No. 2. P. 147157.

259. Sedykh M. “Woe” by Efremov: “Woe from Wit”, Moscow Art Theater, dir. HE. Efremov. // Moscow observer. 1993. No. 2-3. pp. 25-29.

260. Khodasevich Vladislav. Griboyedov // Playwright. M., 1993. No. 2. P. 142-144. (Reprint of the writer's article from 1929).

261. Bagration-Mukhraneli Irina. Griboyedov’s “West-Eastern Divan” // Modern Drama. 1994. No. 4. P. 158-170.

262. Woe from Wit” in America: new translation by Beatrice Useem. // Ogonyok. 1994. No. 9-10. S. 3.

263. Platek J. Great amateur?: To the 200th anniversary of the birth of Alexander Griboyedov: a writer as a musician. // Music life. 1995. No. 1. P. 2327.

264. Tarabukin N.M. Analysis of the composition “Woe to Wit” staged by Vs.E. Meyerhold / N.M. Tarabukin about Vs.E. Meyerhold: preparation by O.M. Feldman and V.A. Shcherbakova. M: O.G.I. 1998. pp. 83-92.

265. Griboyedov / Russian writers. 1800-1917. Biographical Dictionary. M.: 19891999. T. 2.

266. Salnikova E. Sergei Zhenovach in a changed world: “Woe from Wit”, Maly Theater. // Theater life. 2000. No. 9. pp. 12-15.

267. Vishnevskaya I. Purely personal: About the character of Chatsky. // Theater life. 2001. No. 10. P. 3.

268. Gaevskaya M. “And I feel sorry for Chatsky.”: “Woe from Wit”, Maly Theater, dir. C.B. Zhenovach. // Modern dramaturgy. 2001. No. 2. P. 159-161.

269. Ovchinnikova S. If I had known the purchase, I would have lived in Sochi: “Woe from Wit”, Maly Theatre, dir. C.B. Zhenovach. // Theater life. 2001. No. 4. P. 30-34.

270. Ovchinnikova S. One day twenty times later: “Woe from Wit”, Maly Theater, dir. C.B. Zhenovach. // Theater life. 2001. (No. 10). pp. 37-39.

271. Timasheva M. House of the Fatherland // St. Petersburg Theater Magazine. 2001. No. 23. P. 68-69.

272. Shtilman Sergey. About Molchalin’s mind // Russian literature. 2001. No. 11.

273. KuzichevaA. “Not Evening” of the Russian hero: “The Extra Man” at the beginning of the 21st century: “Woe from Wit”, Maly Theater, dir. C.B. Zhenovach. // Theater. 2002. No. 2. P. 6-11.

274. Kaminskaya N. Flight of something over something // Theater. 2003. No. 3. P. 47-53.

275. Radzinsky E. The beginning of a theatrical novel: memories of “Woe from Wit” at the Leningrad Bolshoi Drama Theater. M. Gorky. // October 2003. No. 10. P. 124.

276. Staroselskaya N. The depth of Yuri Solomin: Famusov, “Woe from Wit”, Maly Theater, dir. C.B. Zhenovach. // Theater life. 2003. No. 3. P. 5-7.

277. Staroselskaya N. Revelation: G. Podgorodinsky Chatsky, “Woe from Wit”, Maly Theater, dir. C.B. Zhenovach. // Theater life. 2003. No. 3. P. 13-15.

278. Tsimbaeva E. Artistic image in a historical context: Analysis of the biographies of the characters in “Woe from Wit.” // Questions of literature. 2003. No. 8. P. 98-139.

279. Stepanov A.B. Mind as a word-concept in “Woe from Wit” // Russian literature. 2004. No. 1.S. 59-63.

280. Solomin Yuri: The Museum is proud!: Interview: “Woe from Wit”, Maly Theater, dir. C.B. Zhenovach. // Theater life. 2005. No. 3. P. 29-31.

281. Utkov G.N. The image of the reader in the comedy of A.S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit” (Sophia’s Dream): // Language. Text. Discourse. Stavropol, Pyatigorsk. 2005. Issue. 3. pp. 128-136.

282. Vishnevskaya I. “Grief” from Artsybashev: “Woe from Wit”, Moscow Theater “On Pokrovka”. // Theater. 2006. No. 4. P. 32-33.

283. Gorfunkel E. Popular prints, farces and other academic phenomena: “Woe from Wit”, Maly Theatre, dir. C.B. Zhenovach. // Modern dramaturgy. 2006. No. 1. P. 180-181.

284. Kuznetsova A. And once again about love: “Woe from Wit” in Belgorod. // Literary newspaper. 2006. No. 23. P. 9.

285. Radomskaya T.I. Motifs of strangeness and wanderers in A.S. Griboyedov and M.Yu. Lermontov // Russian speech. 2006. No. 5. P. 15-19.

286. Radomskaya T.I. Genre strategy of “Woe from Wit” by A.S. Griboyedova: Author and hero // Bulletin of the Tyumen State. un-ta. 2006. No. 8. P. 3-8.

287. Staroselskaya N. Where did Chatsky go?: “Woe from Wit” in Belgorod. // Theater life. 2005. No. 6. P. 36-38.

288. Timasheva M. Russian light: “Woe from Wit”, Maly Theater, dir. C.B. Zhenovach. //Theater. 2006. No. 1. P. 11-12.

289. Vlashchenko V.I. Dreams in the works of Griboyedov and Pushkin: “Woe from Wit” and “Blizzard”. // Literature at school. 2007. No. 9. P. 2-7.

290. Todorov JJ.B. Dramatic verse by Griboyedov // Literature at school. 2007. No. 9. pp. 7-11.

291. Denisenko S.B. “A Million Torments” by I.A. Goncharov in theatrical discourse // Russian literature. 2008. No. 2. P. 122-130.

292. Lavrova A. Classics of free breathing: “Woe from Wit” at the Russian Theater of Estonia, Tallinn. // Strastnoy Boulevard, 10. 2008. No. 4 (114) P. 121-124.209)

293. Kolesnikova S.A. From Chatsky to Arbenin: the evolution of a literary type / Bulletin of the student scientific society: Kuban State. univ. Issue 11. -Krasnodar. 2009. pp. 100-104.

294. Kolesnikova S. Alexander Chatsky: from mind to madness: “Woe from Wit” A.S. Griboyedov to music. stage. // Music life. 2009. No. 4. pp. 11-13.

295. Kolesnikova S.A. A.C. Griboedov: scientific understanding and experience of bibliography (technical aspect) / Innovation processes in higher education: Materials of the XV Anniversary All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference. Krasnodar: State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education KubSTU, 2009. P. 147148.

296. Kolesnikova S.A. Creativity A.S. Griboyedov as an object of bibliography: A.S. Griboedov “Woe from Wit”: bibliography 1970-2009. // Bibliography. 2009. No. 5. P. 67-75.

297. Kolesnikova S.A. "Woe from Wit" A.S. Griboyedov: stage chronotope and transformations of meaning / Continuity and discreteness in language and speech: materials of the II International Scientific Conference. Krasnodar: Kuban State. Univ., 2009. pp. 152-153.

298. Lavrova A. The bow has grown, the butterfly has woken up: “Woe from Wit” at the Yaroslavl Academic Drama Theater named after. F. Volkova. // Strastnoy Boulevard, 10. 2010. No. 5 (125). pp. 52-53.

299. Peshkova Victoria. It’s really not a sin to laugh: “Woe from Wit” at the “School of Modern Play” theater; Moscow. // Strastnoy Boulevard, 10. 2010. No. 8 (128) pp. 99-100.