Kelly Laurence, Diplomacy and Murder in Tehran
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
The circumstances dictating Anglo–Russian rivalry in Persia at the time
of Griboyedov’s murder are quite incomprehensible without an analysis in
depth of an important realignment that took place in London, in the minds
of British policy-makers about Russian policies in Persia, and those
required for its stability and the defence of India; it is true to say the rules
of the game had changed with Russian successes recognised in the Treaty
of Turkmanchai; policy-makers such as the Duke of Wellington, Lord
Ellenborough at the Board of Control, Lord William Bentinck as Governor
General in India, and Sir John Malcolm in Bombay as Governor, pri-
marily responsible for Indian defence strategy, now realised Fath Ali
Shah and Abbas Mirza were broken reeds, and the old policy of costly
subsidies to keep Persia in place as the buffer-state for India was nullified
by Russian victories, and that a new ‘forward policy’ to contain Russia was
required. Such British responses have been treated – almost as a matter of
Soviet party policy and, previously, as a patriotic nationalistic judgement
– as ‘russophobic’, and their proponents attacked for hatred of Russia and
her agents, notably Griboyedov, Nesselrode and Tsar Nicholas. It is well-
documented on the British side, and a shrill though lusty debate; essential
background material on this re-alignment in 1827–8 includes many British
and Western sources inaccessible to Soviet scholars and researchers, who
of course have as a result misjudged British policies: for a list of the key
books and articles for an understanding of these issues, see Malcolm E.
Yapp, Strategies of British India, Britain, Iran and Afghanistan, 1798–
1850 (op. cit.). For Yapp’s comment about the British realignment,
required after Turkmanchai to maintain the defence of India, see p.23;
for the view in Britain that Russia had become ‘a major threat to those
European liberties for which England had become the chief spokesman’,
see p.95; and for Macdonald’s view that Abbas Mirza could not be
depended upon, see his letter to the Governor General of Bombay (EM
D 556/1.). John McNeill took the same view: ‘in every communication
with Abbas Mirza on every subject, the Envoy must be prepared for every
description of meanness, deceit and treachery’ (Mrs Florence [Stewart]
224
APPENDIX III
Anglo–Russian Rivalry in Persia
Macalister, Memoir of the Rt Hon. Sir John MacNeill and of his Second
Wife Elizabeth Wilson by their Grand Daughter [London, 1910], p.74).
The other essential, authoritative and extremely well-researched
academic book on the new strategic perceptions in London and in India
is by Professor Edward Ingrams, The Beginnings of the Great Game in
Asia 1828–1834 (Oxford, 1979).
Both these books have exhaustive bibliographies. Professor Ingrams,
with impeccable scholarship, shows how the Great Game’s origins may
really be shown to begin with the Treaty of Turkmanchai, removing Persia
as a viable buffer-state for the defence of India, and making Afghanistan
the next cordon sanitaire, thus raising the value to Britain of the Punjab,
the Northwest Frontier and the basin of the Indus, ultimately requiring
the Sikhs to become reliable and compliant allies in the ‘forward policy’
which so materially changed the old lines drawn in the 1820s. Modern
scholarship, as detailed above, has unveiled most effectively the dominant
ideas in the minds of the policy-makers, notably Ellenborough, Wellington
and Malcolm, in the case of Wellington as Prime Minister. We even have,
in the second volume of Lord Ellenborough’s Political Diary, Wellington’s
actual reaction to the outrage in Tehran.
Having recorded the foregoing, it is relevant here to mention the
general change in tone of British public opinion, recording the growth of
Russian imperialism, described even today in Russian minds crudely
as ‘russophobia’; most experts on Persia, and travellers there and to
Georgia in the late 1820s, were not slow to voice their worries about
the growth of Russian territorial ambitions at the expense of the Sultan
and the Shah.
S.V. Shostakovich recognises this by quoting one of the most obvious
examples, notably the early views of J.B. Fraser in his Travels and
Adventures in the Persian Provinces in 1826. Later he refers to De Lacy
Evans’s book, On the Designs of Russia, on the Practicability of an Invasion
of British India (London, 1829) (in S.V. Shostakovich, Diplomaticheskaya
deyatel’nost’ A.S. Griboyedova [The Diplomatic Activity of A.S. Griboyedov]
[Moscow, 1960], p.177. 3). He rightly quotes Ellenborough’s Political
Diary, already foreseeing Anglo–Russian blood spilt on the Indus (p.178).
Sir John McNeill, in Progress and Present Position of Russia in the East
(2 vols, London, 1836), was to publish his own concerned pamphlet on
the same theme, pp.1810–12. Shostakovich failed to read the second
volume of Ellenborough’s Political Diary.
Amongst contemporary experts raising their voices in alarm, mention
must be made of Lieutenant-General Sir William Monteith, in Kars and
Erzerum, with the Campaigns of Prince Paskiewitch in 1828 and 1829,
and an account of the Conquests of Russia Beyond the Caucasus, from the
Time of Peter the Great to the Treaties of Turcoman Chie and Adrianople
Appendix III
225
(London, 1856), and Captain R. Mignan, in A Winter Journey through
Russia, the Caucasian Alps, and Georgia, thence into Koordistan (2 vols,
London, 1839), especially Chapter 6, ‘Russian Ambition’.
I must also mention the honourable roll-call of early minor players in
the game, such as Burnes and Connolly – these are all to be found in
Peter Hopkirk’s excellent survey of the later moves, in The Great Game.
Brief mention should also be made of early Russian explorers sent
either by Yermolov or the Tsar on Central Asian reconaissances, men
such as Count Muravyov with his Voyages en Turcomanie et à Khiva
faits en 1819–20, and Baron Georg von Meyendorff, whose Voyage
d’Orenburg à Bokhara fait en 1820 was calculated to excite and alarm
the anti-Russian imperialist lobby in Britain.
Amongst other valuable contributions to the debate about the
defence of India, attention should be drawn to the Raleigh Lecture on
history given by Professor H.W.C. Davis, entitled ‘The Great Game in
Asia 1800–1844’, published in The Proceedings of the British Academy,
vol. 12 (1926). Davis addresses the necessary changes after Turkmanchai,
which had nullified Wellesley’s earlier policies of treating Persia as the
buffer state for India (pp.230–3).
Diplomacy and Murder in Tehran
226
Notes on the Text
General Notes
1. All dates in the text are in old style (OS), according to the Julian calen-
dar, which in the nineteenth century was 12 days behind the Gregorian
calendar used in the West. They follow the chronology established by
Piksanov and Shlyapkin in Complete Collected Works (see Bibliography).
2. The complex story of Russian influence in Persia after 1828 requires
clear ideas of British views on ‘the Eastern question’, notably the cause
of Greek independence at the expense of the Sultan, and secondly the
disintegration of the Ottoman empire, and Russian policies affecting
this. Some general reading about British foreign policy in the Middle
East is germane to these issues; the literature is vast, but a good start
for foreigners interested in the background can be made by reading the
following works: Bourne, The Foreign Policy of Victorian England (see
Bibliography), especially helpful about Canning’s policies and views (see
introduction and later Palmerston on the perceived threat to India,
pp.34–5). A major point of British diplomacy before Griboyedov’s death
was the abrogation of the obnoxious treaty clauses requiring subsidies
to Russia; this issue is clearly dealt with in Macalister, Memoir (see
Bibliography), pp.114–24. Dodwell, The Cambridge History of the British
Empire (see Bibliography), is most relevant to all these issues. It describes
the development of the ‘forward policy’ after Griboyedov’s death. Ward and
Gooch, The Cambridge History of British Foreign Policy (see Bibliography)
covers the ground in respect of Greece and its independence and the
Treaty of Adrianople; chapter V, dealing with India between 1833 and
1849, treats adequately the beginnings of the Great Game (pp.199–201).
Chapter I: A Moscow Education
1. Griboyedov family background: P. Nikolayev, G.D. Ovchinnikov and
Ye.V Tsymbal, ‘The History of the Griboyedov Family’ in Fomichev (ed.),
A.S. Griboyedov, Materialy k biografii (see Bibliography), pp.76–83.
2. Payment of Father’s debts: ibid., pp.90–1.
3. Birthday 4 January 1795. For the best summary of the known evidence
and arguments for or against the date for Griboyedov’s birth, 1790 or
1795: M.V. Stroganov, ‘The date of birth of Griboyedov, or halfway
through his life’ in ibid., pp.10–19.
227
4. M.V. Fekhner, ‘The house of the Griboyedovs in Moscow’, Memorials of
Culture (see Bibliography), pp.124–5.
5. Childhood years in Moscow and Khmelita: Volkov-Muromtsov,
Yunost’ ot Vyazma (see Bibliography); Razgonov, Penati Vtoraya Zhisn
Khmelita (see Bibliography); Sychev, Vyazma (see Bibliography);
Fomichev (ed.), A.S. Griboyedov, Materialy k biografii (see
Bibliography); Gershenzon, Griboyedov’s Moscow (see Bibliography);
Roosevelt, Life (see Bibliography), pp.22–5, including excellent plans
and photos of Khmelita.
6. On his mother: Piksanov and Shlyapkin (eds), Complete Collected
Works (see Bibliography), vol. 1, pp.i–iv; on family origins: p.iv; on
school and Moscow: pp.i–xvii.
7. Khmelita details: N.A. Tarkhova, ‘The Griboyedov Country House,
Khmelita’ in Fomichev (ed.), Materialy k biografii (see Bibliography),
pp.48–60.
8. ‘In my time’: Nicholas Volkov-Muromtsov, private letter to author, 1991.
9. ‘This was nothing extraordinary’: Volkov-Muromtsov to author, 1991.
10. ‘The restorers’: Volkov-Muromtsov to author, 1991.
11. ‘A heedless, merry sort of fellow’: applied to Fyodorovich in Fomichev
and Vatsuro (eds), Griboyedov (see Bibliography); Lykoshin on his
Khmelita childhood shared with Alexander as youths; his uncle was a
‘bespechny veselchak’, p.32.
12. The full text of The Character of my Uncle: Piksanov and Shlyapkin
(eds), Complete Collected Works (see Bibliography), vol. 2, p.118.
13. ‘… It will fall to the lot’, ibid., vol. 2, p.118.
14. Griboyedov’s musical education and association with John Field: S.
Bulich, ‘Griboyedov: A Musician’ in ibid., vol. 2, pp.305–28.
15. Griboyedov’s childhood and education in Moscow: Meshcheryakov,
The Life and Activity of Alexander Griboyedov (see Bibliography),
pp.4–45; also includes some evidence on Griboyedov’s date of birth.
Regrettably, this author also includes some unsustainable Tynianov
‘factional material’.
16. ‘Our mentor’ referring to Griboyedov’s governor Petrosilius:
Griboyedov, Woe from Wit, tr. Waring (see Bibliography), p.56.
17. His examination with Lykoshin by Professor Aviat de Vattoy: Fomichev
and Vatsuro (eds), Lykoshin’s memoirs, Griboyedov (see Bibliography),
pp.32–8.
18. ‘A certain indeterminate power’: ibid., pp.32–8.
19. Griboyedov’s admiration for and interest in Voltaire as a leading prophet
of the Enlightenment and French Revolution: Nechkina, A.S. Griboyedov
(see Bibliography), pp.86, 93, 97–9, 101, 107, 344. The ‘bronze bust’
refers to Houdon’s bust of Voltaire in the Hermitage for Catherine the
Great: letter 11 July 1824 to P.A. Vyazemsky in Piksanov and Shlyapkin
(eds), Complete Collected Works (see Bibliography), vol. 3, pp.158–9.
20. Beguichov’s recollections of Griboyedov’s childhood: Fomichev and
Vatsuro (eds), Griboyedov (see Bibliography), pp.23–4.
Diplomacy and Murder in Tehran
228
21. ‘A little Frenchman from Bordeaux’: Griboyedov, Woe from Wit, tr.
Waring (see Bibliography), p.94.
22. Dmitri Dyranskoy: Fomichev and Vatsuro (eds), Griboyedov, (see
Bibliography), pp.23–4.
23. For the English Club: Memoir Series No. 10: Vigel’, Zapiski (see
Bibliography); Buyotov, Moskovsky Anglisky Klub (see Bibliography);
Lopatina, A.S. Pushkin (see Bibliography).
24. Bagration and Count Rostov’s dinner at the Club: Tolstoy, War and
Peace, tr. Garnett (see Bibliography), pp.503–4 (also pp.282–88).
25. All references to Marya Ivanovna Rimskaya-Korsakova: Gershenzon,
Griboyedov’s Moscow (see Bibliography).
26. Translation of and reference by Famusov to his Diary: Griboyedov, Woe
from Wit, tr. Waring (see Bibliography), p.59.
27. Tatiana at the Assembly of the Nobility: Pushkin, Eugene Onegin, tr.
Johnston (see Bibliography), p.202.
28. Reference to King of Prussia: Griboyedov, Woe from Wit, tr. Waring (see
Bibliography), p.67.
Chapter II: The War of 1812
1. Recollections of Erström on the French invasion of Moscow and its
effect on the university: Roginsky (ed.), Our Heritage, pp.640–73.
2. Baron Shtein’s view, ‘Russia should keep her original customs’:
Nechkina, A.S. Griboyedov (see Bibliography), pp.112–3; Griboyedov’s
introduction to him by Professor Bühle: p.568.
3. All details relating to Griboyedov’s military service and the story of
the Saltykov and Irkutsk Hussars merging, S.V. Sverdlin, ‘The War Years’:
Fomichev (ed.), A.S. Griboyedov, Materialy k biografii (See Bibliography),
pp.61–75. For military details, including description of the regiment’s
uniform: Nechkina, A.S. Griboyedov (see Bibliography), pp.111–25. With
thanks to Sophie Lund for her useful translation (see Bibliography).
4. ‘Letter from Brest-Litovsk’ written to praise General Kologrivov:
Piksanov and Shlyapkin (eds), Complete Collected Works (see
Bibliography), vol. 3, pp.3–9.
5. Article on the importance of the Cavalry Reserves: ibid., vol. 3,
pp.10–4.
6. ‘Strange destiny of the Slavonic race’ and the occupation of Paris in
1814 by the Russian army: Mikhailovsky-Danilevsky, History (see
Bibliography), pp.340–95.
7. Cruelties practised in Russia under Arakcheyev, ‘the blood was never
dry on the floors’: Herzen, My Past (see Bibliography), vol. 1,
pp.198–200, 203.
8. Griboyedov’s pleasant recollection of his times in the saddle, as
expressed by Chatsky to Platon Mikhailovich in the play: Griboyedov,
Woe from Wit, tr. Waring, p.83.
229
Notes on the Text
9. War memoirs of Beguichov: Fomichev and Vatsuro (eds), Griboyedov
(see Bibliography), pp.24–5.
10. The church episode and riding to a ball on the first floor on horseback:
Zhandr had the stories from Beguichov, ibid., pp.247–8.
11. ‘Kamarinskaya’ anecdote and escapade, D.A. Smirnov interviewing
Zhandr after Griboyedov’s death many years later: ibid., pp.247–8.
12. Griboyedov’s retirement negotiations due to ill health: S.V. Sverdlin,
‘The War Years’ in Fomichev (ed.), A.S. Griboyedov, Materialy k biografii
(see Bibliography), pp.64–6.
Chapter III: Literary Beginnings: St Petersburg
1. Skalozoop’s view that the fire of 1812 improved the appearance of
Moscow: Griboyedov, Woe from Wit, tr. Waring (see Bibliography), p.67.
2. Pushkin’s views on the position of writers in Russian society: see his
letter to A. Bestuzhev of June–August 1825 from his Mikhailovskoye
estate in Pushkin, The Letters (see Bibliography), pp.199, 221–4;
letters to A. Bestuzhev, end of January 1825, describing Woe from Wit:
pp.200–1.
3. Griboyedov’s letter of 9 November 1816 to Beguichov: Piksanov and
Shlyapkin (eds), Complete Collected Works (see Bibliography), vol. 3,
p.121; also exclamation about cheap porter: p.122. The same letter
describes his mild attack of VD and visit to the Shuster Club: p.122.
4. Griboyedov’s early plays under the influence of Prince Shakhovskoy:
Bonamour, A.S. Griboyedov (see Bibliography), pp.131–69. These
pages also describe his joint comedy with P.A. Katenin, The Student.
Bonamour has painted the best and most comprehensive picture of
literary St Petersburg when Griboyedov arrived there after his
military experiences: pp.78–123.
5. Griboyedov’s prank disguised as a monk and other anecdotes of
Azarevicha alleged to have taken place in Shakhovskoy’s garret:
Davydov, ‘Tale of the Past’ in Zima-Kazan (see Bibliography), 1871–2
and 1880–2. Kindly made available by the courtesy of Mr Evgeny
Tsymbal in Moscow.
6. For a lively description of Shakhovskoy’s influence on Griboyedov, his
dominant position in the Russian theatre and trail-blazing role in
Russian comedy: Karlinsky, Russian Drama (see Bibliography),
pp.239–51; chapter on Shakhovskoy: pp.226–48, 269–77.
7. On Shakhovskoy: Vigel’, Zapiski (see Bibliography), pp.278–309; for an
excellent summary by Karlinsky of Woe from Wit’s plot and place in
Russian drama: Karlinsky, Russian Drama (see Bibliography),
pp.330–5; also pp.278–309.
8. Suggested division of garret into archaists and romantics: Nabokov in
Pushkin, Eugene Onegin, tr. Nabokov (see Bibliography), vol. 2, p.450.
As Nabokov writes, reverting to the issues of the day that enjoyed the
Diplomacy and Murder in Tehran
230
attention of the garret: ‘Küchelbecker was not alone in preferring the
old Lomonosov-Derzhavin type of ode to the romantic elegy of his
time. Sheviryov, a forerunner (in certain tricks of archaic demeanor
and mythopoeic imagery) of Tyutchev (whose genius he lacked),
had similar predilections. Classifiers distinguish two main groups
of poets: the Archaists (Derzhavin, Krylov, Griboyedov, Küchelbecker)
and the Romanticists (Zhukovski, Pushkin, Bariatinski, Lermontov).
In Tyutchev the two lines merged.’
9. Shakhovskoy’s invitation to Griboyedov and Khmel’nitsky to help him
compose his successful comedy The Married Fiancée: Fomichev and
Vatsuro (eds), Griboyedov (see Bibliography), p.25 (Beguichov), p.341
(note only). Griboyedov and Prince Shakhovskoy: V.P. Meshcheryakov,
A.S. Griboyedov (see Bibliography), pp.22–36. All the texts of
Griboyedov’s apprenticeship translations of plays from the French
theatre are in Piksanov and Shlyapkin (eds), Complete Collected Works
(see Bibliography), copiously annotated.
10. On Griboyedov’s relationship with Katenin and young Pushkin:
Meshcheryakov, A.S. Griboyedov (see Bibliography), pp.38–63. Proud
of his success in September 1815 in having his French play The Newly
Weds (Le Secret du Ménage) performed in St Petersburg by such well-
known actors and actresses as Semyonova, Sosnitsky and Bryansky,
Griboyedov took up the cudgels in defence of his clever new friend
Pavel Katenin, denouncing an unsigned attack on him by N.I. Grech,
the editor of Son of the Fatherland, who had already obliged him by
publishing in November 1815 his review of Prince Shakhovskoy’s com-
edy The Lipetsk Spa, otherwise known as A Lesson to Coquettes.
Katenin (1792–1853) was an adherent of the classical school of
poetry, a translator of Corneille and author of many tragedies, poems
and articles. Like Pushkin, he was a great theatre-goer. Pushkin often
visited Katenin’s quarters in the barracks of the first battalion of
the Preobrazhensky Regiment in Millonaya Ulitza (Million Street). In
Eugene Onegin Pushkin refers to Millonaya Ulitza, and to the late
hours at which he used to leave Katenin’s quarters when ‘everything
was still, only the sentries called to one another, and the distant
clatter of some cab resounded suddenly from Million Street.’ In his
reminiscences, Katenin recalls Pushkin’s first visit to his rooms: ‘My
visitor met me at the door, offered me his stick with its thick end and
said, “I came to you as Diogenes to Antisthenes: give me a beating, but
teach me.” I replied: “To educate an educated man is to spoil him”, and
taking him by the arm led him to my rooms. A quarter of an hour later
the courtesies were over, our conversation became animated, time
passed imperceptibly and I invited him to dine with me. Someone else
came in and my new friend left late at night.’
Much overrated by his friend Pushkin – who overrated also le grand
(Pierre) Corneille, whose bombastic and platitudinous Cid (1637) Katenin
‘translated’ into Russian (1822). In the draft of a poem referring to a
231
Notes on the Text
theatrical feud (18 lines composed in 1821, published posthumously,
1931), Pushkin had already found the formula (II 16–7):
And for her [Semyonova] …
Youthful Katénin will revive
Aeschylus’ majestic genius …
N. Nabokov in Pushkin, Eugene Onegin, tr. Nabokov (see Bibliography),
p.83.
See also Meshcheryakov, A.S. Griboyedov (see Bibliography), who
devotes a whole chapter to their relations as far back as their collabo-
ration on the play The Student, pp.38–63.
11. Griboyedov’s attack on Zagoskin: With thanks to Sophie Lund for a
sprightly translation of The Puppet Theatre of 1819 (see Bibliography).
12. Griboyedov’s relationships with Grech: Fomichev and Vatsuro (eds),
Griboyedov (see Bibliography), pp.33–4; for an excellent social picture
of the city and leading literary personalities, including Grech:
Yatsevich, Pushkinsky Petersburg (see Bibliography), p.308.
13. For the text of his article defending Katenin’s translations against the
sentimentalist school: Piksanov and Shlyapkin (eds), Complete
Collected Works (see Bibliography), vol. 3, p.24l; also useful notes:
pp.281–3.
14. More details about Shakhovskoy’s garret and Pushkin’s happy
evenings there: Magarshack’s readable Life of Pushkin (see
Bibliography), pp.52; pp.60–65 on the Green Lamp.
15. The literary and social circles of Grech and Osip Senkovsky’s salon:
Yatsevich, Pushkinsky Petersburg (see Bibliography), pp.304–7; for his
links with Grech: pp.272–4, 309.
16. The general background to Admiral Shishkov’s views: Nabokov in
Pushkin, Eugene Onegin, tr. Nabokov (see Bibliography), vol. 3,
pp.169–73. Griboyedov had no direct relations with the Admiral, but
was fully aware of his views and his role as a conservative.
17. On Admiral Shishkov’s role: ibid., pp.170–1.
18. For a caustic and witty description of the Arzamas dining society: ibid.,
pp.171–2; also Vigel’, Zapiski (see Bibliography), pp.63–65, vol. 2,
pp.100–4.
On Zhukovsky: Nabokov in Pushkin, Eugene Onegin, tr. Nabokov
(see Bibliography); on Karamzin’s reforms: vol. 3, pp.143–5: ‘In his
truly marvelous reform of the Russian literary language, Karamzin
neatly weeded out rank Church Slavonic and archaic Germanic
constructions (comparable, in their florid, involved, and uncouth
character, to bombastic Latinisms of an earlier period in western
Europe); he banned inversions, ponderous compounds, and monstrous
conjunctions, and introduced a lighter syntax, a Gallic precision of
diction, and the simplicity of natural-sounding neologisms exactly
suited to the semantic needs, both romantic and realistic, of his
tremendously style-conscious time. Not only his close followers,
Diplomacy and Murder in Tehran
232
Zhukovski and Batyushkov, but eclectic Pushkin and reluctant
Tyutchev remained eternally in Karamzin’s debt. Whilst, no doubt, in
the idiom Karamzin promoted, the windows of a gentleman’s well-
waxed drawing-room open wide onto a Le Nôtre garden with its tame
fountains and trim turf, it is also true that, through those same French
windows, the healthy air of rural Russia came flowing in from beyond
the topiary. But it was Krylov (followed by Griboyedov), not Karamzin,
who first made of colloquial, earthy Russian a truly literary language
by completely integrating it in the poetic patterns that had come into
existence after Karamzin’s reform.’
19. A lively ‘insider’s view’ of Freemasonry written by the generally well-
informed Vigel’: Zapiski (see Bibliography), vol. 2, pp.114–8; Nabokov in
Pushkin, Eugene Onegin, tr. Nabokov (see Bibliography), vol. 2, p.226.
20. The relief afforded to Pierre Bezukhov in War and Peace by belonging
to the Masons: Tolstoy, War and Peace, tr. Garnett (see Bibliography),
pp.328–337.
21. The whole story of the rise of secret societies, leading eventually to
the Northern Society in St Petersburg and the Southern Society in
Tulchin, fusing to collapse in the Decembrist uprising of 1825, and
Griboyedov’s ‘elective affinities’ with their members, created by propin-
quity at the Noble Pension, Moscow University and in St Petersburg by
shared institutions such as the Green Lamp, and his Masonic Lodge,
‘Les Amis Réunis’ to which Pestel’ also belonged: Nechkina,
Sledstvennoye (see Bibliography); Nabokov in Pushkin, Eugene Onegin,
tr. Nabokov (see Bibliography), vol. 3, pp.345–51.
For thorough English accounts: Ulam, Russia’s Failed Revolutions
(see Bibliography), pp.3–65; Zetlin, The Decembrists (see Bibliography);
Mazour, The First Russian Revolution (see Bibliography); the excellent
references in Lynn Barratt, The Rebel (see Bibliography).
Finally, a reaffirmation of the party line in 1989, that of
Griboyedov’s role as a Decembrist, is the principal question to be
addressed in Griboyedov’s biography: Yu P. Fesenko in Fomichev, A.S.
Griboyedov, Materialy k biografii (see Bibliography), pp.92–108.
Chapter IV: The Duel
Additional Background Material
Notes from Reyfman, Ritualized Violence (see Bibliography). On the
Sheremet’yev–Zavadovsky duel: Sbornik biografii kavalergvardov, 3:
pp.241–3 (this account relies heavily on archival materials that have
since been lost; it is reprinted in Fomichev and Vatsuro (eds), Griboyedov
(see Bibliography), pp.268–71; S.N. Beguichov, ‘A.S. Griboyedov’ and
D.A. Smirnov, ‘Rasskazy ob A.S. Griboyedov, zapisanniye so slov ego
druzei’, both in Fomichev and Vatsuro (eds), Griboyedov (see
Bibliography), pp.26–37, 212–14 (B.I. John’s account, pp.231–43). For
233
Notes on the Text