[In the following essay, Janecek asserts that many critics neither appreciate the complexity of Sofia's character nor how the ambiguity associated with her enhances Woe from Wit.]

“Sof'ja is unclearly drawn. …”

A. S. Puškin

Critiques of Woe from Wit (Gore ot uma) usually center on Čackij. Mirsky's attitude is, in this respect, typical: “Chatsky is the principal thing in the play. He is its imaginative and emotional focus, its yeast and its zest.” But Mirsky precedes this with a remark on Sof'ja which is not typical and which highlights a feature of the play that is peculiar, if not paradoxical:

Sophia is not a type, but she is a person. She is a rare phenomenon in classical comedy: a heroine that is neither idealized not caricatured. There is a strange, drily romantic flavor in her, with her fixity of purpose, her ready wit, and her deep, but reticent, passionateness. She is the principal active force in the play, and the plot is advanced mainly by her actions.¹

With this brief but pointed statement, Mirsky is more generous to her than most other critics. Many critics, Soviet critics in particular, give Sof'ja much less note—some even omitting mention of her in fairly extensive articles.² Yet Mirsky sees her, not the purported hero, Čackij, as “the principal active force in the play.” Certainly, then, Sof'ja's position in Woe from Wit deserves reexamination.

In spite of its early status as a classic, Griboedov's play continued to be controversial until Soviet times when a narrow view, based on the usual political considerations, became canonized. Early critics representing the conservative, Neoclassical tradition found that the play was not a typical comedy of manners with love intrigue, but a mixed form involving elements not only of serious social criticism, but also of tragedy.³ From a different perspective, Belinskij considered the play a failure as a work of art because of internal disorganization and inconsistency, but ultimately gave the play high marks since the author's “external goal” was admirable. Commenting on Čackij as one of the author's mouthpieces, Belinskij concluded: “He has many ridiculous and false ideas, but they all issue from a noble source, from the hot spring of pulsing life.”⁴ Belinskij's provocative critique contains a number of points in regard to Sof'ja and Čackij that bear repeating.

It is striking that Belinskij characterizes Čackij as “half-witted” (poloumnyi, 472), whereupon follows a description of Čackij's faux pas and ill-considered actions, all of which are justly so described.⁵ Čackij, in a word, makes a fool of himself. Belinskij sees the problem in that Čackij is expected to be both “high-society” (svetskij) and “profound” (glubokij), and neither the character nor the author can manage the combination successfully in a situation where high society is shallow. In this view, Čackij comes off poorly as a character, although the implied criticism of society is nonetheless effective. With such a weakening of the moral position of the hero, his relationship to Sof'ja is cast in a different light. If he is not as obviously admirable as he (and perhaps the author) thinks, then it is understandable that Sof'ja does not dismiss Molčalin at the first sight of Čackij, and does not fall into Čackij's arms even at the end.

The question of who loves whom is always seen as a problem for Čackij, namely: “Does she or does she not love me?” Most critics assume that Sof'ja does not and would never come to love Čackij;⁶ and the denouement merely involves his final establishment of that fact. However, if one were to change the traditional focus so as to read the play from Sof'ja's viewpoint, then a more interesting question arises for her: “Should I, or should I not love him?” It is then Čackij, and not just Sof'ja, who is on the scales. Puškin's remark, quoted as an epigraph to this article, is remarkably perspicacious, considering his admission of having heard the play only once and without full attention.⁷ Sof'ja is indeed ambiguously drawn in that her attitude to Čackij and her moral essence are unclear. However, this is not necessarily a weakness—it is just what makes her fascinating and worthy of closer attention.

Piksanov's excellent study compares the several extant drafts of the play in an attempt to understand some of the anomalies in the figure of Sof'ja. He uncovers a number of inconsistencies, and concludes that the image of Sof'ja is not fully worked out even in the “final” draft:

The image of Sof'ja was conceived with unusual originality and complexity. As is now clear from the collation of variants from different times, the poet wanted to accomplish a two-fold task: to depict a nature deep and complex, but combined with traces of sentimentality. This conception was in the poet's consciousness from the very beginning, from the earliest drafts of the comedy. However, it is not worked out, not achieved in the final text. On the contrary, certain characteristic traits sketched in the early versions subsequently disappeared as a result of which the image lost clarity. This smoothing out, this dimming of sharp traits is an interesting peculiarity of the play's creative genesis.

(65.)

Granted this alternative view is of some merit, nevertheless an attempt will be made here to examine only the final draft and to see it in its best light. So positive an approach is well supported by Nemirovič-Dančenko, who comments:

Is it perhaps that Griboedov failed with Sof'ja, as many critics have suggested? Not in the least, Griboedov has drawn Sof'ja with extreme subtlety and finish, with great care for artistic proportion. But the whole sketch is so subtle, delicate and careful that it easily pales in the crude art known as theatre.

(51.)

Čackij's entrance in Act I is prepared with considerable subtlety in the scenes preceding it. Sof'ja is the central figure in these scenes, and the characterizations of Čackij's two rivals are given from her point of view and mainly in her words. She dismisses Skalozub with irony and a tone of finality in response to Liza's remark on his desirability as a wealthy man with a promising military career ahead of him (.“A bag of gold and he's aiming to be a general”):

Kuda кaк mil! i visilо mni strak
Vyslusivats о фrunti i rydak;
On slоva umpоgо ni vygоvоril srоdu,—
Mni vsi ravnо, ctо za nigо, ctо v vоdu.

(I.5.)⁸

How nice he is! and I dearly enjoy / listening about the front and the ranks; / He hasn't uttered a witty word from birth,— / I'd just as soon jump in the lake as marry him.

The main ground for rejection relates to the lack of um which characterizes not only Čackij, but also Molčalin. Considering Sof'ja's own wit, just demonstrated in her handling of her indulgent but not unintelligent father in Scene 4, it is hard to feel that she would be happily matched with anyone lacking comparable wit. Thus, from the start Skalozub is not a serious alternative, although Sof'ja might later settle for him if necessary.

Sof'ja's attitude to Molčalin is more complex. One version of the dramatis personae (Nemirovič-Dančenko, 28) includes the comment “in love with Molčalin” after her name. Is this accurate? To a degree. Sof'ja's remarks on parting from Molčalin (I. 3.) have the ring of sentimental clichés taken from continental Sentimental novels: “Ah, it has indeed dawned! Both light and sadness. How quick the nights!” (“Ax, v samom dele rassvelo! I svet i grust'. Kak bystry noči!”) “The happy don't count the hours.” (“Ščastlivye časov ne nabljudajut.”) “Go; we will the whole day yet bear our boredom.” (“Idite; celyj den' ešče poterpim skuku.”) She appears to be living a self-made romance modelled on the books she reads. One wonders whether it is merely a sentimental game to pass the time, or whether she is serious. The issue is not completely resolved even at the end of the play.

The dream invented as a ruse to distract Famusov contains Sof'ja's characterization of Molčalin: “… a dear person … both ingratiating and intelligent, But shy. … You know, one born in poverty. …” (“… milij čelovek … i vkradčiv, i umen, No robok. … Znaete, kto v bednosti rožden. …” (I. 4.) The poverty fits well the part of the dream where “Some creatures, neither people nor beasts, Separated us—and tormented the one sitting with me.” (IV. 1.). (The lovers are social outcasts because of their rejection of social norms.) The lover is, of course, umen. However, the other two traits are hardly flattering for a man, although they are part only of Molčalin's public character, for which Sof'ja is the main audience. Evidently Sof'ja values precisely the security and simplicity of the relationship: “It's as if fate protected us; No troubles, no doubts. … While woe waits around the corner.” (I. 5.) Sof'ja is as clearly in control of the affair as she is of the household.

Liza eventually turns the conversation to Čackij as a third possibility who has the liveliness and wit that Sof'ja misses in Skalozub. Sof'ja agrees that Čackij is amusing, but ends with a caustic comment, “Laughter one can share with anyone” (“Delit' so vsjakim možno smex”), which smacks of the wounded pride that emerges more clearly in the ensuing prehistory of Čackij. Liza's implication that Sof'ja has “betrayed” Čackij's love elicits from Sof'ja a defense of her actions in which one can read a sense of hurt at having been abandoned without good reason:

On ssikal, uz u nas imu кazalоss sкucnо, …
Vоt оb sibi zadumal оn vysоко——————
Okоta stranstvоvats napala na nigо,
                    аk, isli lybit кtо коgо,
Zacim uma isкats, i izdits taк daliко?

(I.5.)

He left, by now he found us boring, … / He held a high opinion of himself————— / A yen to travel fell upon him, / Ah, if one person loves another, / Why look for wit and go so far away?

Sof'ja feels she has been rejected by Čackij because his pride and intellectual aspirations could not be satisfied by her—in other words, because she is not good enough for him. His departure is a wound that still festers. In the intervening three years she has matured remarkably and is certainly his equal, but she has also come to enjoy her position of power and superiority in the house, and so is more comfortable with the bland, subordinate Molčalin than she might be with the passionate, unpredictable, and willful Čackij.⁹

Sof'ja may be conscious that her relationship with Molčalin is unworthy of her, and this is hinted at in the interchange at the end of Scene 5 when Liza is caught smiling at Sof'ja's description of her nights spent with Molčalin. There is indeed something for a sophisticated maid to smile at in the evidently chaste handholding and flute-playing that seem to be the substance of the night-long rendezvous in Sof'ja's room. But it is precisely in the innocence of these sessions of chaste adoration that their charm lies for Sof'ja. There is, however, a fault in the script in regard to the nocturnal flute-playing which, in even a large house, could not but be overheard by other inhabitants (Piksanov, 49).

Liza produces (invents?) an explanation for the merriment in a recollection of a love affair between Sof'ja's aunt and a young Frenchman who eventually abandoned her. Sof'ja's annoyance at this (“This is how they'll talk about me later, too”) indicates an appreciation of the potential parallel between her present situation and that of her aunt.

At the point of Čackij's arrival, then, the following disposition of thoughts and feelings can be perceived in Sof'ja: she has reviewed and rejected the most socially satisfactory suitor, Skalozub; she has been reminded of Čackij's departure and the hurt it caused her, which revives her anger and sense of wounded pride; she has reviewed her relationship with Molčalin and found it comforting but not overly flattering to her self-esteem and also possibly not as secure as she had assumed—she may have sensed that it cannot be permanent. At the same time the audience can perceive that Čackij is the only one of the three choices that could be a good match, provided Sof'ja is willing to enter into a relationship between equals in which she would have a great deal to contribute but in which she would have to surrender some of her exclusive control. Her position is so perfectly balanced between youth (she is only seventeen years old) and maturity (she has evidently ruled the house for some time) that the choice is a difficult one.

Čackij enters unexpectedly, and launches on a chatty speech about the hardships of the journey. Evidently without giving Sof'ja a chance to get a word in, he begins to reproach her for her cold reception. Her first words to him are not cold, but only reserved and dignified: “Ah! Čackij, I'm very glad to see you” (“Ax! Čackij, ja vam očen' rada”). Čackij is unreasonable to expect her to throw herself on his neck at this first surprise meeting, considering the past history of their relationship. Čackij's reproaches continue. Liza objects and then even Sof'ja defends herself:

                    Ni mоziti mni sdilats vy upriкa.
                                        Ktо prоmilsкnit, оtvоrit dvirss,
Prоizdоm, slucaim, iz cuza, iz daliкa—
                                        S vоprоsоm y, kоts buds mоryк:
Ni pоvstrical li gdi v pоctоvоj vas кariti?

(I.7.)

You cannot reproach me. / Whomever flitted by, opened the door, / passing through, by chance, from distant lands— / I would ask, though he might only be a sailor: / Did he not perhaps meet you somewhere in a post carriage?

This could be said with irony or obvious insincerity, but there is no reason why it could not be said in seriousness. In any case, Čackij dismisses her defense with a skeptical remark: “Let us assume it's so. Blessed is he who believes, the world is a warm place for him!—” (“Položimte, čto tak. Blažen, kto veruet, teplo emu na svete!—”). He begins to reminisce about the good old days, which Sof'ja in her turn dismisses as “Childishness!” (Rebjačestvo) so as to serve notice that things are different now (she is a mature woman and not to be treated as before).¹⁰ However, Čackij does not take the hint and crudely asks: “Are you not in love? I ask you to give me an answer, Without reflection, there's been enough confusion” (“Ne vljubleny li vy? prošu mne dat' otvet, Bez dumy, polnote smuščat'sja”). To this she is justifiably evasive. He interrupts with a few jabs at Moscow but she counters with, “What's the point of seeing the world! Where is it better?” (“Čto značit videt' svet! Gde ž lučše?”). This is perhaps not so much a defense of Moscow as a reference to the conventional wisdom about finding happiness in one's own backyard. But Čackij continues with a series of rhetorical questions (which drip with contempt) about her family, relatives, and friends. This speech ends with an insulting epigram directed at Molčalin—“No doubt he'll reach illustrious ranks, For nowadays they love the meek”—which provokes Sof'ja into a wholly justified counterattack:

SофSY
(v stоrоnu)
Ni cilоviк, zmiy!
          (Grоmко i prinuzdinnо)
                                                                      Kоcu u vas sprоsits
Slucilоss li, ctоb vy, smiyss? ili v picali?
Osibкоy? Dоbrо о коm-nibuds sкazali?
          Kоts ni tipirs, a v ditstvi mоzit byts.
SOF'JA
(aside): / Not a man, a viper! / (Loudly and forcedly): / I want to ask you / whether it ever happened that you, in laughter?, or in sadness? / By mistake? Said something good about anyone? / Perhaps not now, but maybe in childhood.

After all, who is Čackij to be making endless nasty cracks about everyone in sight? He is being plainly rude!

This reaction has an effect on Čackij: he retreats to the theme of hardships of the journey and the cold reception, and indicates that his love is so strong that he is willing to be patient:

I кaк vas nakоzu? v кaкоm-tо strоgоm cini!
          Vоt pоlcasa [!] kоlоdnоsti tirply!
                    Liцо svytijsij bоgоmоlкi! …—
I vsi-taкi y vas biz pamyti lybly.—

And how do I find you? in some sort of stern demeanor! / Alright, I bear a half-hour of coldness! / The face of the holiest pilgrim! …— / And all the same I love you madly.—

In fact, after a moment of further reflection, he seems to realize that he has perhaps gone too far with the speech and tries to rationalize it away:

Pоslusajti, uzli tlоva mоi vsi коlкi?
          I кlоnytsy к csimu-nibuds vridu?
          Nо isli taк: um s sirdцim ni v ladu.
                    Я v cudaкak inоmu cudu
                    Raz pоsmiyss, pоtоm zabudu:
Viliti z mni v оgоns: pоpdu кaк na оbid.

Say, are all my words sharp, really? / And tending to anyone's harm? / If so: my mind is not in harmony with my heart. / Among oddballs at another oddity / I'll laugh once and then forget it: / Order me into the fire; I'll go as if to dinner.

Famusov interrupts and Sof'ja escapes with a puzzling remark, “Oh, Daddy, the dream's come true” (“Ax, batjuška, son v ruku”).¹¹ These words are intended to refer to the dream in Scene 4. How so? Possibly Sof'ja is beginning to perceive the disruptive effect of Čackij and number him among the “neither people nor beasts” of the dream.¹² (Remember that she has already called him “a viper.”) On the other hand, Famusov, in the final scene of the act wonders why she said this to him aloud, evidently perceiving that the remark might have been intentionally directed to Čackij. In that case, since Čackij was not present for the narration of the invented dream, he could not have been expected to understand the reference, but only to understand her in the more general meaning of “a nightmare (or dream) come true,” which could be negative or positive.¹³ Thus the remark is piquantly ambiguous and quite coy.¹⁴ However, Čackij refuses to rise to the challenge of this sort of game (“I'm not an interpreter of dreams”) and goes off to brood—but not before indicating the wonderful impression she has made on him, “How lovely!”

On the other hand, Čackij has clearly made a poor first impression on Sof'ja. He has shown himself to be insulting, abrupt, aggressive, sardonic, inconsiderate, demanding, and egotistical. This behavior is perhaps to be attributed to the impetuosity of youthful ardor,¹⁵ but it does nothing to draw Sof'ja away from remembering her wounded pride and Čackij's upsetting, impetuous departure. In short, he has deserved the cold reception.

In Act II, after Čackij has refused Famusov's request to keep his tongue in rein while Famusov plays host to Skalozub, Sof'ja bursts in, runs to the window, and faints at the sight of Molčalin falling from a horse. The scenes that follow (8-11) seem almost unequivocal proof that Sof'ja not only does not love Čackij, but has nearly come to despise him. Yet a close reading yields uncertainties. Čackij skillfully revives Sof'ja, and for this receives a rebuff—perhaps deserved again, since his reply to her immediate inquiries about Molčalin upon regaining consciousness is: “So what if he might have broken his neck, he was almost the death of you” (“Puskaj sebe slomil by šeju, Vas čut' bylo ne umoril,” II. 8). The comment rightly angers her again. He is remarkably insensitive and unsolicitous. She says to everyone present that misfortunes to others, even those not close to her, upset her greatly. Yet who would believe this? Least of all, Čackij. This “scene” is perhaps contrived by Sof'ja to dramatize her relationship to Molčalin in front of Čackij. One might also wonder whether it is part of the Sentimental secret romance in which “depth” of emotion is shown by accidental revelation of the secret in a moment of danger for the beloved. Is it part of the game, or a sincere unguarded moment? The lines to Molčalin could be either, depending on whether they were read with slight exaggeration or pure sincerity:

          Otкuda sкrytоsts pоcirpnuts!
Gоtоva y byla v окоsко, к vam prygnuts.
Da ctо mni dо коgо? dо nik? dо vsij vsilinny?
Smisnо?—pusts sutyt ik; dоsadnо?—pusts branyt.

(II.11.)

Why this secretiveness! / I was ready to jump out the window to you. / About whom should I worry? them? the whole universe? / Is it ridiculous?—Let it amuse them; a nuisance?—let them scold.

Sof'ja wants to be open about their affair, but Molčalin is a coward, perhaps realizing better than she the consequences that such an admission might have for him (dismissal from the house). Sof'ja is, of course, willing to “suffer the consequences” as part of the game, since they would be not so material for her. On the other hand, Čackij has complicated her life by his presence: “You want to? … I'll go and be gracious through my tears; I'm afraid I can't maintain the pretense. Why did God bring Čackij here!” (“Xotite vy? … Pojdu ljubezničat' skvoz' slez; Bojus', čto vyderžat' pritvorstva ne sumeju. Začem sjuda bog Čackogo prines!”). (II. 11.)

In the very next scene (12) it becomes obvious that one other pretense in the situation involves the genuineness of Molčalin's love for Sof'ja. Molčalin makes a pass at Liza. This lays the foundation for a dramatic irony in the next act when Čackij forces Sof'ja into a defense of Molčalin's character. Act III, Scene 1 is the key scene in the love intrigue of the play. Čackij confronts Sof'ja with the blunt question: “Whom do you love?” The interrogation has already gotten off to a bad start with Čackij's haughty-sounding opening words to Sof'ja: “You're here? I'm very glad, this is what I desired” (“Vy zdes'? ja očen' rad, Ja ètogo želal”). Sof'ja reacts with proper hostility: in answer to Čackij's emotion-laden (but rude) question, she is again suitably evasive and, as before, she counterattacks her aggressive interlocutor:

SофSY
Kоtiti li znats istiny dva slоva?
Malijsay v коm strannоsts cuts vidna,
                    Visilоsts vasa ni sкrоmna,
          U vas tоtcas uz оstrоta gоtоva,
          а sami vy …
CAцкIJ
                    Я sam? ni pravda li, smisоn?
SофSY
                    Da! grоznyj vzglyd, i rizкij tоn,
          I etik v vas оsоbinnоstij bizdna;
а nad sоbоj grоza кuda ni bizpоlizna.
CAцкIJ
                    Я stranin, a ni stranin кtо z?
                    Tоt, кtо na vsik glupцоv pоkоz;
Mоlcalin naprimir …
SофSY
                                                                      Primiry mni ni nоvy;
Zamitnо, ctо vy zilcs na vsik izlits gоtоvy;
а y, ctоb ni misats, оtsyda uкlоnyss.
SOF'JA:
You want to hear a few words of truth? / If the faintest strangeness is just visible in someone, / Your merriness is not modest, / You've right away a witticism ready, / Yet you yourself …
ČACKIJ:
I, myself? you don't say, am ridiculous?
SOF'JA:
Yes! the stormy gaze, and caustic tone, / you've no end of these things; / But a storm against a storm is of little value.
ČACKIJ:
I'm strange, but who isn't? / One who is just like all the other idiots; / Molčalin, for example …
SOF'JA:
The examples are not new to me; / I notice you are ready to pour your spleen on everyone; / But I, so as not to interfere, will bow out.

Seeing the tables turned Čackij pretends “for once in a lifetime” to a certain mental distraction caused by an excess of love and passion. Here again he makes the tactical error of drawing an invidious comparison between himself and Molčalin:

Nusкaj v Mоlcalini um bоjкij, ginij smilyj,
Nо ists li v nim ta strasts? tо cuvstvо? pylкоsts ga?
          Ctоb кrоmi vas imu mir цilyj
          Kazalsy prak i suita?

Let's grant Molčalin a nimble mind, a brave spirit, / But is there in him the passion? the feeling? the ardor? / That except for you the whole world / Seems to him but vanity and dust?

He ends by wondering aloud if Molčalin is worthy of her, while demonstrating (even if in pretense) an unstable personality of questionable sanity and maturity. In fact this whole speech is a grave error on Čackij's part because he lowers himself to Molčalin's level instead of showing the nobility and reserve that might have won her over. By trying to prove Molčalin's unworthiness, he has only proved his own.

Sof'ja reacts with significant directness, revealing to him his failures. He objected to her being upset over Molčalin's fall, that is, objected to the idea that “one can be kind to all without exception.” He has shown he can not keep control of his nasty tongue, and never stops joking at the expense of others. He showers contempt even on the meek. Hidden in this is an indication that her main objection might be that he does not take her relationship with Molčalin seriously—which is a profound insult to her womanhood and sense of dignity. He does not treat her as an equal worthy of respect. This is partly because he has not had time to adjust psychologically to the maturity she has acquired in three years. No doubt, however, he does love her.

Sof'ja's defense of Molčalin involves presenting him as a model of how Čackij ought to act if he is to gain her sympathy. Molčalin is solicitous, mild-mannered and taciturn, polite even to boring elders. She concludes that these features are better qualifications for family life than the traits Čackij has displayed.

Very interesting are Čackij's three asides during this defense: “She doesn't respect him. … She doesn't think him worth a penny. … She jests, she doesn't love him.” (“Ona ego ne uvažaet. … Ona ne stavit v groš ego. … Šalit, ona ego ne ljubit.”) They might be an accurate assessment of Sof'ja's true feelings and show that Čackij perceives a subtext to her argument. But this is a perception of the mind, not the heart. His mind's accurate perception produces a continuation of the same behavior as before, which results in further alienating Sof'ja. There are more sarcasms, witticisms, and attacks on Molčalin and other members of Sof'ja's circle. Instead of learning the lesson Sof'ja hoped he would, Čackij, in his investigation of Molčalin's personality in Scene 3, reaches the conclusion: “With these feelings, this soul, Loved … ! Deceiver, she is mocking me!” (“S takimi čuvstvami, s takoj dušoju Ljubim … ! Obmanščica smejalas' nado mnoju!”) The dramatic irony is further intensified here. Čackij's assessment of Molčalin is more penetrating than Sof'ja's own. Yet this knowledge leads to the wrong conclusion and to further misbehavior, thus justifying Sof'ja's rejection of Čackij as a potential mate.

Two episodes germane to this investigation remain to be examined. The first occurs in Scenes 13 and 14 of Act III. Čackij and Sof'ja meet at the ball, and the stupidities surrounding Čackij have irritated him into another sarcastic comment on Molčalin in Sof'ja's presence. She reacts as usual: “Ah! This man is always the cause of terrible upset in me! He loves to humiliate, to jab; he's envious, proud and nasty!” One might ask, if Sof'ja's love of Molčalin is secure and divinely ordained (“God brought us together” she says about him in Act III Scene 1 to Čackij), and her contempt for Čackij so clear-cut, why are Čackij's witticisms the cause of “terrible upset”? One would expect her to ignore or dismiss them with less emotion. That she cannot do so is another indication that she harbors real doubts about Molčalin and feels that Čackij's criticisms are perhaps justified. In her pique, she takes advantage of a slight misunderstanding by Mr. N. of her statement that “he is not in his right mind” (“on ne v svoem ume”) to have her revenge on Čackij by subtly and deliberately initiating the rumor of his insanity. Here she shows herself to be a brilliant society lady in complete command of her milieu.

The second episode is, of course, the denouement. Within earshot of the hidden Čackij, Sof'ja discovers Molčalin's deception and confesses her error: “It's as if I hadn't known you until now.” However, instead of playing the gentleman and stealing away unnoticed, perhaps to use this knowledge to press his suit on a more graceful occasion, and instead of feeling sympathy for her painful plight, Čackij attacks her without justification.¹⁶ He accuses her of deception merely because she has told Molčalin she was glad Čackij was not present to see her shame. And he attacks her merely because she had preferred Molčalin to him: “So it's for him I've been sacrificed! I don't know how I controlled my rage!” (“Vot ja požertvovan komu! Ne znaju, kak v sebe ja bešenstvo umeril!”). (IV. 13.) In tears at this unfairness, Sof'ja again confesses her mistake: “Don't continue, I blame myself completely. But who could have thought that he was so perfidious!” (“Ne prodolžajte, ja vinju sebja krugom. No kto by dumat' mog, čtob byl on tak kovaren!”). At this point they are interrupted and Čackij concludes with a tirade in which he accuses her of having betrayed the relationship he assumed still to exist between them. Interestingly, Griboedov does not allow Sof'ja to reply to Čackij's indictment. Or perhaps it is Čackij who, in his passionate indignation, does not allow it, because he immediately (and thus prematurely) storms out. Had she replied, the final ambiguity of her view of Čackij might have been resolved in the mind of the audience. Essentially, however, her negative view of Čackij is amply justified by his final, ungallant actions. In any case, she has lost both Molčalin and Čackij, her only fault being a lack of perfect simplicity in her behavior, a fault common to Molčalin and Čackij as well. And so she is an object of pity, perhaps even a tragic figure.

It is possible that Sof'ja sincerely loved Čackij or Molčalin, or both, or neither. It is also possible that she did not clearly understand what her true feelings were in regard to either man. It should be obvious that critics who unequivocally assume one position or another for Sof'ja do not adequately account for the complexity and ambiguity of her character, and thus underestimate the play's dramatic interest. It is further arguable that this ambiguity is a great asset to the play and one of the factors contributing to its longevity. The role of Sof'ja, if subtly played by a gifted actress, can be one of great richness and grace.¹⁷ Sof'ja might be made a commanding presence and the focal point of the dramatic action.

Finally, another aspect of this situation is noteworthy. In a previous study of character, the “undetermined” character of Ol'ga Il'inskaja in Oblomov was seen as the most artistically advanced in that novel.¹⁸ Perhaps the same can be said about the female lead in this play of forty years earlier. (There are also certain obvious parallels between Sof'ja and the married Tat'jana when she is confronted by Onegin, also newly returned from abroad.) Piksanov aptly points out in this regard the limitation imposed on Griboedov by the genre in which he was working (65-66). The psychological depth toward which the author seems to have been striving in the figure of Sof'ja might have found a better medium of expression in the novel. In any case, perhaps it is time to shift our attention from Čackij who stands at an opposite pole from Moscow society because of his radical rejection of that society, and turn to Sof'ja who holds the moderate and wise central position that is expressed in her very name.¹⁹

Notes

1. D. S. Mirsky, A History of Russian Literature from its Beginnings to 1900 (New York: Vintage, 1958), 116.

2. See for instance the articles by Lunačarskij and Leonov in A. L. Gordin, ed., A. S. Griboedov v russkoj kritike. Sbornik statej (M.: GIXL, 1958), 324-42 and 343-56. Lunačarskij discusses all the other major characters, including Liza, without mentioning Sof'ja. In the entry on Griboedov by O. I. Popova for the Kratkaja literaturnaja ènciklopedija (M.: Sov. ènciklopedija, 1964), II, 366-72, even the existence of the love intrigue itself is not mentioned. The major exceptions to this neglect of Sof'ja in the history of Griboedov criticism are the book by V. I. Nemirovič-Dančenko, Gore ot uma v postanovke Moskovskogo xudožestvennogo teatra (M.-SPb.: Gos. Izd., 1923), and a little known study by N. Piksanov, “Sof'ja Pavlovna Famusova,” Atenej, I-II (1924), 37-71, which will be discussed below. In recent criticism, a balanced view is presented by Jean Bonamour, A. S. Griboedov et la vie littéraire de son temps (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1965) 264-69. I. Medvedeva, “‘Gore ot uma’ A. C. Griboedova” [published together with G. Makogonenko, “‘Evgenij Onegin’ A. S. Puškina”] (M.: GIXL, 1971), 8-19, reviews the relationship of Sof'ja to Čackij with considerable subtlety, but does not fundamentally depart from a negative view of her.

3. For a discussion of early major critics (Puškin, Belinskij, Gogol', Gončarov) on the question of genre see the article by V. Asmus, “‘Gore ot uma’ kak èstetičeskaja problema,” Literaturnoe nasledstvo, 47-48 (1946), 189-212.

4. V. G. Belinskij, Polnoe sobranie sočinenij (13 vols.; M.: AN SSSR, 1953), III, 484.

5. The places that Belinskij singles out as instances that do not do credit to Čackij's intelligence are several. He arrives at Famusov's at 6:00 a.m. and begins to reproach Sof'ja for receiving him coldly. He thereafter launches into an attack on the “good old times” in the presence of Famusov, who does not understand him and refuses to listen. He undertakes the meaningless task of discovering whom Sof'ja loves, Molčalin or Skalozub. After confessing his love for her in trite clichés, he bluntly asks Sof'ja if she loves him. He delivers his most acid liberal attacks to a Moscow society gathering of people not smart or deep enough to follow his meaning. He fails to take Sof'ja's actions in Act IV as the “bitter truth,” and does not steal away unnoticed, but insists on confronting her with an unjust accusation of duplicity—thus making himself appear to be a sneaky, eavesdropping fool. (475-80.)

6. This judgment depends on whether one assumes that Sof'ja is a part of the Moscow circle (even though its highest manifestation) or somehow an exception—an outsider like Čackij. If the former position is taken, then one concludes with most critics that there can be no permanent grounds for a relationship between her and the bitter enemy of that circle, Čackij. In its simplest terms, the argument runs: “Sof'ja belongs completely to Famusov's world. She cannot love Čackij, who is in opposition to this world with the whole make-up of his mind and soul.” See V. Orlov, “Xudožestvennaja problematika Griboedova,” Literaturnoe nasledstvo, 47-48 (1946), 50. The opposing position is held by the actress V. A. Mičurina-Samojlova, Šest'desjat let v iskusstve, (M.-L.: Iskusstvo, 1946), 104. “[Sof'ja] continues to love Čackij. Sof'ja's feminine self-love is wounded by his leaving her. In order to forget Čackij, she tries to love Molčalin, but she does not succeed in this.” It is interesting that to step into the role conceived in this way the actress resorts to a fantasy: “So, to find and define the place of my Sof'ja among the other characters of Gore ot uma it helped me to think that she was not Famusov's daughter, but that her mother conceived her by someone else.” In any case, it is necessary to posit in Sof'ja a certain degree of independence from her environment. This is not unreasonable when we think of the fact that there must be some reason why Čackij loves her. She must once have had, and probably still has some qualities in common with him.

7. A. S. Puškin, Polnoe sobranie sočinenij (16 vols. and suppl. vol.; M.-L.: AN SSSR, 1937-55), XIII, 138. Letter to A. A. Bestužev (Jan. 1825): “Sof'ja načertana ne jasno. …” In fact, Puškin's remarks are very close to Belinskij's views. On Čackij Puškin says: “Everything he says is very witty. But to whom is he saying all this? To Famusov? To Skalozub? To the Moscow grannies at the ball? To Molčalin? This is unforgivable. The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at first glance with whom he is dealing and not to cast pearls before Repetilovs and the like.” Interestingly, he also notes: “Čackij's lack of confidence in Sof'ja's love of Molčalin is charming!—and how natural! That's what the whole comedy should have centered on, but Griboedov evidently didn't want to—that's his decision.”

8. The text used here is A. S. Griboedov, Sočinenija (M.: GIXL, 1956). References are to act and scene.

9. A similar view of Sof'ja's reasons for preferring Molčalin is presented by Vasil'ev, in Aleksandr Sergeevič Griboedov: ego žizn' i sočinenija, ed. V. Pokrovskij, 2nd ed. (M., 1908), 94-98.

10. A point made also by V. A. Ušakov, “Moskovskij bal, tret'e dejstvie iz komedii ‘Gore ot uma,’” A. S. Griboedov v russkoj kritike, 51.

11. Although the expression son v ruku is ambiguous—son can be either pleasant or unpleasant in content—it often has the meaning “the nightmare has come true.”

12. This view is advanced by S. Vasil'ev (Flerov), as quoted in Piksanov, 60.

13. The view that the phrase is intended to confuse Čackij rather than just Famusov is advanced by P. P. Gnedič, as cited in Piksanov, 60.

14. Piksanov, 58-61, devotes much attention to this line. On the basis of earlier drafts, he considers the line to be a reflex of the dream which was intended, it seems, originally to be a test on Sof'ja's part to see if Famusov would react favorably to a match with Molčalin, in which case she would confess her love for Molčalin openly to her father. Of course, Famusov reacts negatively. In any event, this motivation for the invention of the dream has been so obliterated in the final draft as to be negligible. The subtle complexities of the phrase are also noted by Nemirovič-Dančenko, 73.

15. Nemirovič-Dančenko, 136, emphasizes that Čackij is indeed a young man and not suitably played by the senior actors who often claimed the role.

16. I. A. Gončarov also makes this point: “He eavesdropped on the rendezvous of Sof'ja and Molčalin and played the role of Othello, having no right to do so.” See “‘Mil'on terzanij’,” Sobranie sočinenij (8 vols.; M.: GIXL, 1955), VIII, 24.

17. I direct the reader to Nemirovič-Dančenko's book for a full description of a conception and theatrical realization of the play that appears to be wholly in consonance with the interpretation presented here. This production received a fairly positive review by Sergej Jablonovskij, O teatre (M., 1909), 139-64. MXAT's version stimulated that critic to reread the role of Sof'ja with much greater sympathy. On the other hand, Mejerxol'd's famous revivals of the play (1928 and 1935) emphasized social criticism and the heroic qualities of Čackij, and are less consonant with this view. See Marjorie L. Hoover, Meyerhold: The Art of Conscious Theater (Amherst: Univ. of Massachusetts Press, 1974), 171-79, for a description of these productions.

18. Gerald Janecek, “Some Comments on Character in Oblomov,” Scando-Slavica, 21 (1975), 41-50.

19. For this last insight I am indebted to Jesse Zeldin, who acted as discussant when I read this paper at the Southern Conference on Slavic Studies, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22 October 1976.