The Textual Dynamics of the Author's Artistic Decisions
Vasyl Chaichenko is the pseudonym of Boris Grinchenko, a playwright and public figure of the second half of the 19th century. The purpose of the study is to identify the characteristics of the development of his dramaturgical aesthetics and artistic thinking on the basis of the autograph draft of the play The Viper.
The draft manuscript is kept at the Manuscript Institute of the V.I. Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine, in the first fund, preservation unit 31334. The reconstructed text was published for the first time by the publishing house of the Borys Grinchenko Kyiv Metropolitan University, within the activities of the “Grinchenko Studies” Competence Centre. To this end the canonical text was reconstructed and every change recorded in footnotes — and the analysis of those changes allows us to get closer to the writer's dramaturgical laboratory.
Introducing The Viper into scholarly circulation refines the interpretation of the artist's dramatic heritage and highlights the development of Ukrainian drama at the end of the 19th century. Above all, the reconstructed changes already open the door to the writer's creative laboratory — letting us watch a single work move from intention toward realization.
A reconstruction of Grinchenko's life and work first revealed an urgent task — the re-reading of his oeuvre. To date only a single edition can be called a complete collection: the ten-volume set issued in 1926–1931 by the Kharkiv publisher “Rukh” and the Kyiv branch of “Knyhospilka.” The publication of his dramatic works has an even sadder history, which makes the recovery of The Viper all the more significant.
It has been reconstructed that the play was preceded by a request: in July 1884 the public figure Anton Matviiev asked Grinchenko to send works — and, “most desirable of all, some dramatic piece (a comedy or a drama)” — for the Ukrainian literary collection Nyva. The play (the author's own genre definition is “scenes in V acts”) was written under the pseudonym Vasyl Chaichenko; the first page of the gathering records the year of composition — 1885.
The first corrections, judging by the identical handwriting and ink, were made either immediately after the text was written or simultaneously with its appearance. A second, later layer can be distinguished: the writer adhered to different spelling norms, used new ink, and corrected in a changed hand. It was probably then that he composed a new act, mounted between the first and the second, which affected not only the numbering but the very unfolding of the conflict — and transformed the genre. The second act is written on a separate gathering of whiter paper. On the last pages a draft of the verse “Та довелося побачить ще раз…” — the fifth part of the verse tale The Daughter (dated 1887) — was jotted down; it is not connected with the play.
9 July 1884 — Matviiev asks Grinchenko to send works, especially a dramatic piece, for the Ukrainian literary collection Nyva.
The first redaction — “dramatic pictures in IV acts” — composed under the pseudonym Vasyl Chaichenko. Kept at the Manuscript Institute, V.I. Vernadsky NLU, Fund I, unit 31334.
New ink, a changed hand and new orthography. A second act is inserted; the genre becomes “scenes in V acts”; the unrelated draft poem The Daughter is noted on the blank pages.
Published in Chernihiv. In the section “Folk Theatre” Grinchenko's principles as a theorist of drama take shape — principles the early draft already anticipates.
The reconstructed canonical text is published by the Borys Grinchenko Kyiv Metropolitan University; all variant fragments recorded in footnotes.
A functional typology of the revisions, correlating the changes with Grinchenko's views as a theorist of drama.
The inserted second act reshaped the structure and the genre definition.
Source: author's genre definition recorded on the manuscript
A single relationship of the original concept gives way to four interlocking relational axes.
Father–son · brother–brother · father-in-law–daughter-in-law · brother-in-law–daughter-in-law
The study employs textual analysis, biographical analysis, and the method of receptive aesthetics, carried out with attention to genre. Textual study of a work must proceed dynamically: this makes visible the process of formation — from intention to realization — and allows the separation of intuitive decisions from deliberate, motivated changes.
Following H. Hadzhylova, the work treats the manuscript as “dynamic poetics” — not merely fixing textual changes, but explaining their causes and the historical-literary commentary of the reworkings.
Because reality in drama is shaped through the dramatis personae, dialogue and stage directions are analyzed separately — the remark being not only the author's voice but a marker of stagecraft and of time-and-space.
Recording the changes is only the first step. Each edit carries a function — re-semanticizing a line, adjusting the stage action, refining rhythm — that brings the scholar closer to decoding the author's intent.
Intuitive decisions could not be reconstructed and were set aside; the focus fell on motivated changes. Some edits are merely the trace of rapid note-taking — a sentence begun and instantly replaced (for example, «[Це тільки] Ні!») — where the original intention cannot be recovered. Others have no clear conceptual weight: lest the play be read as autobiographical, Chaichenko removed the names of the villages where he had taught — Syrovatka and Troichate — and sent the character Marko into hire to the village of Tsyrkuny.
The deliberate, functional corrections operate on several strata of the text at once. They sharpen the word, charge the syntax with emotion, regulate the dramatic action, tighten the intrigue, and refine the architecture of the play — always in the service of character and the stage.
Precision and unambiguity of expression; removal of tautology; preference for personal verb forms and traditional folk-colloquial formulas.
Emotionally charged constructions — exclamations, rhetorical questions, threats — set against the trimming of long declarative monologues.
Attention to both internal and external action; the deliberate use of invisible action to endow the work with theatrical potential.
Suppression of lines that lower tension or prematurely reveal the conflict; deepening of the generational antagonism.
Whole scenes cut or reworked, and a second act added — turning the play into an organized artistic whole.
Remarks tuned to logic of events, of character, and of the character's exact place within the stage space.
At the lexical level the revisions are multifunctional: they stem from the author's feel for language, his care for precision, his attention to the register of speech, and his use of traditional set formulas.
Lexis as characterization — Kulyna, Marko, Semen. In the first act Kulyna tells Lesia: «Ну вже, панно, якъ соби хочешъ … а меншою я тоби не буду, не буду – отъ що!». The repeated “не буду” signalled hysteria; removing the repetition lets the categorical “отъ що!” land after a short pause, sharpening her cold, consistent ruthlessness. The seemingly slight swap of «картоплю носити» for «картоплю копати» intensifies her cruelty — she replaces hard work with crippling labour that will rob the defenceless Lesia of her health. Marko's line is strengthened by the address «тату» and by the word «симъи» (family), which scales his sense of the good to the whole household; Semen's lines gain «батька боятися» and «старшой невисткы Кулыны слухатыся!», making the family hierarchy explicit. Even the swap of «завсігди» for «іноди», in the context of drinking, materially changes our picture of a character.
Olena's line is completed by an exclamation — «То-ж то й не горечко!» — to amplify her emotional, exclamation-laden speech. Building the complex character of Semen, who would found family relations on total submission, Chaichenko adds lines of self-assertion («Мовчить! Цытьте. Я усих розсужу») and threats («Та й ты: гляды мини! … Провчу!»). A pile-up of questions — «Чого вона мене не боитця? Чого? Хиба я не батько ій, га?» — exposes his impulsiveness and his fear of not being honoured. Two tendencies emerge: a saturation of speech with emotionally charged constructions, and the trimming of over-long, declarative monologues.
Марко. Якъ печуть, якъ розрывають мое серце оци іи слова и слёзы іи. Боже! чого-бъ я не виддав, щобъ ти слёзы высушыты – и не можу. И ще мини писля цёго кажуть: мырытыся зъ батькомъ! Винъ и тоди ще мое кохання, мое щастя топтавъ, якъ я парубкомъ бувъ, а теперъ имъ усимъ воно вже зовсимъ поперекъ глоткы стало. Заздрисно, чи-що имъ? Ни, не заздрисно, ни! Батько що, – батько не такъ, якъ оти – братъ зъ жинкою. Гарни братъ и братова! Отымъ заздрисно, – тилькы на гроши, на [добро] худобу! Такъ хай-же имъ чортъ! Не буду я благаты, просыты та мырытыся. Не зъ батькомъ-бо мырѣтыся, а съ Кулыною! Ни, николы! николо. (Замыслюетця.) А ты, моя зоре, Лесю моя! И тоби, безталанній, треба лѣхо зо мною [терпиты! Охъ, люде, колѣ вѣ будете людяны!]
Марко. Эх, краще світу не бачити, як на ці сварки дивитися! А що зробиш? З батьком миритися? Хиба воно покращае тоді? От і доводитця тепер бурлакувати
Square brackets [ … ] mark text struck out in the manuscript.
The fundamental basis of a dramatic work is action, and the path to the viewer's mind runs through it. Chaichenko cared not only for the internal action within the characters' minds but for the external action that drives the plot. In the note to act two he changes «хата» (house) to «обстанова» (setting), foregrounding interior and atmosphere; he strikes the verb «треба» where the action is obligatory and already reconstructed in the viewer's imagination. He avoids lines that over-specify intentions («Сем[ен]. Я ось ій дам, проклятій тварюці. [Я іи сюди приволочу]»), strengthening the work of the audience's imagination. A multivalent «Гм…» is kept while the surrounding explanation is cut. In the finale the parting of Marko and Lesia is shortened to concentrate feeling; against the moment of tragedy Chaichenko chooses Marko's silent action — «стоїть мовчки де який час».
Intrigue both organizes the play and generates inner tension, binding the conflict knot. The reworked opening of act three turns a dialogue about a domestic quarrel into one that lays bare the value and worldview positions of its participants — transforming the clash from the interpersonal to the generational. The Uncle (Dyadko) insists on the father's authority — «голова у симъи» — and counsels endurance even of a beating; Marko likens silent submission first to a boy who lets himself be abused, then to an animal that cannot defend its labour. The father–son conflict is sharpened into brother–brother: «Це [значить батько] Петро писаря підмогоричив та й не давав дядькові листів».
The original concept — drawn from the rejected epigraph about a mother-in-law and daughter-in-law — was kept but complicated. Preserving the conceptual plan of family relations, the playwright layered the conflict across four relational axes, moving it from the sphere of private misunderstanding into a field of moral and value-based divergence between generations.
Марко. [[Якъ-же що] Та батько жъ давно вже обицялыся йімъ садокъ сусѣдынъ прыкупыты и на йіхъ запысаты сусида, бачъ, садокъ продае. Ну, а грошей нема усихъ. Такъ оце хоче, щобъ батько ти гроши, що за воливъ, прыклавъ до тыхъ, що е, та садокъ та й зъ левадою й купыв. Воно й станетця, що йімъ садокъ буде, а у насъ [спильного] умисного хазяйсьтва пара воливъ такыхъ, що я за йіхъ и дви сотни давъ-бы, пропада!]
Марко. То вжеж мабуть щось выгадалѣ. Уже тут доброго не сподивайся. Я вже знаю, що ци гроши не на добре пидуть… Та й волив жалко…
Марко. Та що? Геть, каже, зъ моейі хаты, щоб и духъ твій тутї не смердивъ! Тутъ и мене вже досада узяла. Не ваша, кажу, ця хата і свойімы рукамы, якъ погорилы мы, я на нейі дерево тягавъ, свойімы руками робывъ, а вы тилькы дывылысь на роботу. А! такъ ты, кажуть, такъ батькови! Геть-же и нема тоби ничого съ хазяйсьтва – нема твого тутъ ничого: я батько и все мое! Запекло мини въ грудяхъ: я, кажу, тутъ робывъ, и есть тутъ мое. А колы вы, тату, правды не знаете, такъ я прохаты не буду. Узявъ Лесю за руку та й пишов. Отъ и все!
М[арко]. Та не я-ж сам и пишов – мене вѣгналы. Та й те: вѣ думаете, що колѣ-б я тепер не йшов, то вжѣвся-б там зроду ни! Кулына с Петром тилькы те й мають на думци щоб мене вытурыты
Square brackets [ … ] mark text struck out in the manuscript.
Chaichenko deletes the eighth scene of act two entirely — in it Marko returns to ask for his due and his wife's chest; a man of dignity, he instead chooses to go into hire, which sustains and intensifies the psychological tension. The fifth scene of act one is reworked so that the personae share the stage as a harmonious whole, and the seventh scene is substantially expanded — Marko's restrained outrage («Ух, ладу нема!») is kept while lines inviting an unwanted reading are struck.
The remark «падае навколишкы» is cut from Marko's line — kneeling did not suit a son who argues by facts and appeals to reason. Place-remarks are added («Кулына (зъ другои хаты)», «Дядько … выходыть») and inconsistent ones removed. A motivated physical interaction is kept where Marko refuses to tolerate the abuse of his wife («одхыляючѣ ёго»), at the height of the family's tension.
The author's voice is heard in the title, in the names of the personae, in the rejection of an epigraph, and in the transformation of the genre definition.
Where Grinchenko's other plays fix on a neutral or positive protagonist — Stepovyi hist, Myrotvortsi — the title The Viper stands apart: the author uses the word as an insult, to bring out the negative traits of the central figure, Kulyna.
In the first redaction Olena bore the telling nickname Slizkoiazyka (“Slippery-tongued”), but this blurred the author's intent toward the chief negative character — for the “viper” Kulyna was herself marked by a slippery tongue.
Chaichenko rejects the epigraph — lines of the folk song about family life «Ой, жила удівонька та на роздолі» — and, keeping the conceptual plan of family relations, complicates it into several interlocking bonds.
The personae list is renamed from «діёви люде» to «лицедії», and «стара» becomes «пристаркувата» — avoiding extra semantics of age. The genre shifts from “dramatic pictures” to “scenes,” a turn from fragmentariness toward the wholeness of the action.
Grinchenko's views as a theorist of drama crystallized later — in 1900, in the Chernihiv book Before the Wide World. Yet, observing how village audiences received plays, he formulated requirements the early draft of The Viper already strives toward.
Vivid characters free of ambiguity — aided by concise notes that bring out each persona's age and family status.
The role of expressive “human character traits,” which “make a great impression on the rural audience.”
The relation of sympathetic figures to negative events and persons reveals the play's idea; without positive types the play risks being misunderstood by audiences from the people.
Whole plots, free of “episodic sketches,” in which the intrigue “gradually develops and is brought to completion.”
The expressiveness of “expressions, situations, types,” for the sake of stageability.
The use of recognizable folklore elements, understandable language, and emotional scenes.
Without positive types a play will inevitably fail to please audiences from the people, and they may not understand it at all — for the relation of the sympathetic figures to the negative reveals the author's idea.Boris Grinchenko · Before the Wide World, “Folk Theatre” (paraphrased from the cited passage, p. 296)
The textological study of the autograph draft made it possible to outline, as a whole, the formation of Grinchenko's dramaturgical aesthetics and artistic thinking at an early stage. The process of the text's becoming proved consistent, conscious, and conceptually motivated — subordinated to the artist's aesthetic and worldview, not random.
The primary body of the text is dated 1885; later corrections — in different ink, a changed hand, and with new orthographic norms — probably belong to 1887. At this stage the second act was added, transforming the genre (“dramatic pictures in IV acts” → “scenes in V acts”) and the architectonics of the conflict.
Systemic edits pursued accuracy, unambiguity, and stylistic motivation — removing tautology, choosing semantically exact words, favouring personal verb forms and folk-colloquial formulas. A large share of the lexical changes served the deepening of characterization.
On the one hand, the saturation of speech with emotionally charged constructions; on the other, the shortening of over-long, declarative monologues — raising the dynamics of scenes and opening space for active reception and the viewer's co-creation.
At the compositional and action levels the edits strengthen the intrigue, motivate the appearance of characters, and avoid over-detail. The added second act sharpens not only the domestic conflict but the ideological chasm, shifting it into a field of moral divergence between generations.
The textual changes reflect the dramaturgical principles Grinchenko formulated as a theorist in “Folk Theatre”: attention to internal and external action, to the motivation of deeds, to the stage potential of the work, to the ethical expressiveness of the conflict. The draft of The Viper thus appears as a space of the artist's creative laboratory, where intuitive impulses are gradually transformed into a balanced artistic system.
Future perspectives. The play merits interpretation through receptive aesthetics, psychoanalysis, and genre theory; and the other plays of Grinchenko require textual analysis, as the impetus for a project to publish his dramatic heritage. According to the “Plan for the Edition of Grinchenko's Works” kept at the Manuscript Institute (Fund I, unit 31840), the dramatic works are to be arranged in two volumes — and The Viper is to open the first. Publication should apply a principle of moderate orthographic modernization while preserving the author's characteristic language, recording all inaccuracies in notes and emending obvious printing errors.