The most textbook Russian comedy, an inexhaustible source of proverbs and a freak show of immortal Russian types. Griboyedov combines love intrigue with social conflict and creates a universal image of a prophet who is not understood in his own country.
comments: Varvara Babitskaya
What is this book about?
In the mid-1820s, Alexander Chatsky, a young, witty nobleman and an ardent citizen, returned to Moscow after a three-year absence, where he grew up in the house of a prominent official Famusov, and hurries to his beloved girl, Famusov’s daughter, Sophia. But the cultural distance turns out to be insurmountable: Sophia fell in love with the hypocrite and careerist Molchalin, and Chatsky himself is declared insane for inappropriate sermons.
A few years after the victory in the Patriotic War and the Moscow fire, patriotic upsurge is replaced by a murmur against the onset of the reaction ("arakcheyevschina"), and the patriarchal Moscow way of life fades into oblivion - and finally turns out to be captured by a stinging Muscovite.
Ivan Kramskoy. Portrait of the writer Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov. 1875 year. State Tretyakov Gallery
When was it written?
Griboyedov conceived his main play in 1820 in Persia, where he served in the diplomatic line (evidence that the idea arose earlier is unreliable). Griboyedov wrote the first two acts in Tiflis, where he managed to transfer in the fall of 1821 and where he subsequently made a career under General Yermolov. Leaving the service for a while in the spring of 1823 and collecting new material for comedy at Moscow balls, Griboyedov wrote acts III and IV in the summer of 1823 in the village of Dmitrovskoye, Tula province, where he was staying with his old friend Stepan Begichev Stepan Nikitich Begichev (1785-1859) - military man, memoirist. Begichev, like Griboyedov, was General Andrei Kologrivov's adjutant, rose to the rank of colonel, and retired in 1825. In the 1820s, Odoevsky, Davydov, Kuchelbecker stayed in his house in Moscow, Griboyedov lived for a long time. Begichev wrote one of the first articles in defense of Woe from Wit, which he did not publish at the insistence of Griboyedov. He was a member of the Decembrist Union of Welfare, but left the organization before the uprising and was not brought to trial. ... At the beginning of the summer of 1824, having gone to St. Petersburg to punch the finished comedy through censorship, Griboyedov came up with a new denouement on the way and already in St. Petersburg heavily reworked the comedy. He asks Begichev not to read the remaining manuscript to anyone, because since then Griboyedov "has changed over eighty verses, or, better to say, rhyme, now smoothly as glass." Work on the comedy continued for a long time - the so-called Bulgarin list, which Griboyedov handed to his publisher and friend Thaddeus Bulgarin on June 5, 1828, on the eve of his return to the East, is considered the last authorized version.
A girl who is not stupid herself prefers a fool to a clever person (not because our sinful mind is ordinary, no! And in my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person)
Alexander GriboyedovHow is it written?
Spoken language and free iambic Typical examples of free iambic can be found in Krylov's fables. For example, "Council of Mice": "A sign in mice that the one whose tail is longer / Always smarter / And quicker everywhere. / Is it clever, now we will not ask; / Moreover, we ourselves often judge the mind / By the dress or by the beard ... " ... Both in Russian comedy were an absolute innovation. Before Griboyedov, free iambic, that is, iambic with alternating verses of different lengths, was used, as a rule, in small poetic forms, for example in Krylov's fables, sometimes in poems with "frivolous content" - such as "Darling" Bogdanovich Ippolit Fedorovich Bogdanovich (1743-1803) - poet, translator. Bogdanovich was an official: he worked in the Foreign Collegium, the Russian embassy at the Saxon court, the State Archives. In 1783 he published a novel in verse "Darling", a free adaptation of La Fontaine's novel "The Love of Psyche and Cupid." Thanks to "Darling" Bogdanovich became widely known, but his further compositions were not successful. ... This size allows one to make the best use of both the attractiveness of poetic means (meter, rhyme) and the intonational freedom of prose. Lines of different lengths make the verse more free, close to natural speech; the language of "Woe from Wit" with a multitude of inaccuracies, archaisms and vernaculars reproduces the Moscow accent of the era even phonetically: for example, not "Alexei Stepanovich", but "Alexei Stepanoch". Thanks to the aphoristic syllable, the play immediately became proverbs after its appearance.
Having finished the first version of the comedy, which was immediately banned by the censorship, Griboyedov went to St. Petersburg in June 1824, hoping there, thanks to his connections, to put the play on stage and in print. Meanwhile, "Woe From Wit" was already circulating widely on the lists.
Having lost hope of publishing the comedy in its entirety, on December 15, 1824, the playwright published fragments (phenomena 7-10 acts I and all act III) in the Bulgarin almanac "Russian Waist" The first theatrical anthology in Russian, published by Faddey Bulgarin in 1825 in St. Petersburg. In addition to Griboyedov's Woe from Wit, Thalia published translations of Moliere, Voltaire, texts by Shakhovsky, Katenin, Gendre, Grech. where the text has undergone censorship revisions and abbreviations. The discussion in print that followed the publication further stimulated readers' interest and the replication of handwritten copies. Andrey Zhandre told that he “had a whole office at hand: she copied“ Woe from Wit ”and got rich, because they demanded a lot lists " 2 Fomichev S. A. The author of "Woe from Wit" and the readers of the comedy // A. S. Griboyedov: Creativity. Biography. Traditions. L., 1977. S. 6-10. ... The comedy was first published as a separate edition after the death of the author, in 1833 - in full, but with censorship notes. Neither this edition, nor the subsequent one, in 1839, stopped the production of lists - Xenophon Field Xenophon Alekseevich Polevoy (1801-1867) - writer, critic, translator. From 1829 to 1834 he edited the "Moscow Telegraph", the magazine of his brother, the writer Nikolai Polevoy. In 1839 he published Woe from Wit with his introductory article. In the 1850s, Polevoy published in Severnaya Beele, Otechestvennye zapiski, and published the Picturesque Russian Library. He wrote critical texts about Pushkin, Delvig, Bogdanovich, became the author of memoirs about Nikolai Polev. wrote later: “Can you find many examples so that the composition of sheets in twelve printed sheets was rewritten thousands of times, for where and who does not have a handwritten“ Woe from Wit ”? Have we ever had an even more striking example, so that a handwritten essay became the property of literature, so that it would be judged as a work known to everyone, knew it by heart, cited it as an example, referred to it, and only in relation to it did not need Gutenberg's invention? "
Thus, "Woe from Wit" became the first work massively circulated in samizdat. Completely and without cuts, the comedy was published only in 1862.
What influenced her?
In Woe from Wit, the influence of the French salon comedy, which reigned on the stage at that time, is evident. At the beginning of his literary career, Griboyedov himself paid tribute to this tradition - he parodied it in the play "Young Spouses" and together with Andrey Zhandrom Andrei Andreevich Zhandre (1789-1873) - playwright, translator. Gendre began his career as a civil servant as a clerk and finished with the rank of privy councilor with the Order of St. Alexander Nevsky. In his free time, Gendre translated from French: together with Griboyedov he translated the comedy "Feigned Innocence" by Nicholas Barthes, together with Shakhovsky - the opera "The Magic Lamp, or the Cashmere Pastries". Published in the almanac "Russian Thalia", magazines "Son of the Fatherland" and "Northern Observer". wrote the comedy Feigned Infidelity, a reworking of a play by Nicholas Barthes. Influenced Griboyedov and the Russian poetry comedy of the 1810s, in particular Alexander Shakhovskoy Alexander Alexandrovich Shakhovskoy (1777-1846) - playwright. In 1802, Shakhovskoy left military service and began work in the directorate of the Imperial Theaters. His first successful comedy was "New Stern", a few years later the comedy "Polubarian Ventures, or Home Theater" was staged, in 1815 - "A Lesson to Coquettes, or Lipetsk Waters". In 1825, Shakhovskoy, compromised by his connections with the Decembrists, left the directorate of theaters, but continued writing - in total he wrote more than a hundred works. , who developed the methods of free verse in Lipetsk Waters and in the comedy "If you don’t like it, don’t listen, but don’t interfere with lying", with which "Woe from Wit" coincides in places both verbally and in plot.
Contemporary criticism for Griboyedov pointed to the plot similarity of Woe from Wit to Moliere's Misanthrope and to Christoph Wieland's The History of the Abderites, in which the ancient Greek philosopher Democritus returns after wandering to his hometown; stupid and ignorant fellow citizens of Democritus consider his natural science experiments to be witchcraft and declare him insane.
Griboyedov himself was largely guided by Renaissance drama - primarily by Shakespeare, whom he (knowing English well) read in the original and appreciated for his freedom from genre canons and restrictions: the first plot, but handled it in my own way. In this work, he was great " 1 Bestuzhev-Marlinsky A. My acquaintance with Griboyedov // A. S. Griboyedov in the memoirs of contemporaries. S. 190. .
Griboyedov learned the art of plotting under Beaumarchais. Finally, in the story of Sophia's love for Molchalin, researchers see a ballad plot - a kind of parody of Zhukovsky's ballad "Aeolian Harp"; apparently not unreasonable, because Zhukovsky was an important aesthetic opponent for Griboyedov.
The earliest comedy manuscript, 1823-1824. Belonged to Griboyedov's friend Stepan Begichev
How was she received?
Having barely finished the comedy in June 1824 in St. Petersburg, Griboyedov read it in familiar houses - and, according to his own testimony, with invariable success: "There is no end to thunder, noise, admiration, curiosity." After the publication of excerpts from the comedy in "Russian Talia", the discussion moved to print - all important Russian magazines responded: "Son of the Fatherland" Literary magazine published from 1812 to 1852. The founder was Nikolai Grech. Until 1825, the magazine published the authors of the Decembrist circle: Delvig, Bestuzhev, Zhukovsky, Pushkin, Kyukhelbeker, Vyazemsky, Griboyedov, Ryleev. After the defeat of the Decembrists, Thaddeus Bulgarin became the co-publisher of the magazine, who united his "Northern Archive" with the "Son of the Fatherland". Later the magazine was headed by Alexander Nikitenko, Nikolay Polevoy, Osip Senkovsky. , "Moscow Telegraph" An encyclopedic journal published by Nikolai Polev from 1825 to 1834. The magazine appealed to a wide range of readers and advocated the "education of the middle class." In the 1830s, the number of subscribers reached five thousand people, a record audience at that time. The magazine was closed by personal decree of Nicholas I because of a negative review of the play by Nestor Kukolnik, which the emperor liked. , "Polar Star" Literary anthology of the Decembrists, published by Kondraty Ryleev and Alexander Bestuzhev from 1822 to 1825. It published poems by Pushkin, Vyazemsky, Baratynsky, Ryleev. After the uprising of the Decembrists, the almanac was banned, and the issue for 1825 was arrested. Since 1855, Alexander Herzen began publishing a magazine of the same name in London as a sign of respect for the Decembrists. etc. Here, along with praise for the living picture of Moscow mores, fidelity to types and the new language of comedy, the first critical voices were heard. The controversy was primarily caused by the figure of Chatsky, whom such critics as Alexander Pushkin and now forgotten Mikhail Dmitriev Mikhail Alexandrovich Dmitriev (1796-1866) - poet, critic, translator. Dmitriev spent most of his life as an official: he served at the archive of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs, the Moscow Court of Justice, and a department of the Senate. Thanks to his uncle, the poet Ivan Dmitriev, he got acquainted with the literary environment and began to engage in criticism - he published articles in Vestnik Evropy, Moskovsky Vestnik, Moskvityanin. He became famous for his polemic with Vyazemsky about the nature of romanticism and his dispute with Polevoy over Griboyedov's Woe from Wit. In 1865, a collection of Dmitriev's poems was published. Translated by Horace, Schiller, Goethe. , reproached for lack of intelligence. The latter still presented to Griboyedov the seemingly unnatural development of the plot and the "hard, uneven and incorrect" language. Although Dmitriev's claims gave life to many years of discussion, he himself became an object of ridicule, for example, in the epigram of Pushkin's friend Sergei Sobolevsky Sergei Alexandrovich Sobolevsky (1803-1870) - poet. From 1822 he served in the archives of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs. It was Sobolevsky who became the author of the expression "archival youth", meaning a young man from a wealthy family, busy with unhindered work in the archive. Sobolevsky was known as the writer of especially caustic epigrams, communicated with Gogol, Lermontov, Turgenev, and was close friends with Pushkin. In 1840-60s he was engaged in publishing and collecting rare books. : “Schoolchildren gathered, and soon / Mikh<айло>Dm<итриев>I scribbled a review, / In which he clearly proved, / That “Woe from Wit” is not Mishenka’s grief ”. Nadezhdin Nikolai Ivanovich Nadezhdin (1804-1856) - founder of the Teleskop magazine and predecessor of Belinsky: in many ways, under the influence of Nadezhdin, literary criticism in Russia acquires a conceptual basis. In 1836, Telescope was closed for publishing Chaadaev's Philosophical Letter, and Nadezhdin himself was sent into exile. Returning, Nadezhdin leaves criticism, gets a job at the Ministry of Internal Affairs and devotes himself to ethnography. , who appreciated Woe from Wit highly, noted that the play was devoid of action and was written not for the stage, and Pyotr Vyazemsky called the comedy a "slander on manners."
Griboyedov's language surprised many of Griboyedov's contemporaries, but this surprise was most often joyful. Bestuzhev-Marlinsky praised "the unprecedented fluency and nature of the spoken Russian language in poetry", Odoevsky called Griboyedov "the only writer who comprehended the secret of translating our spoken language onto paper" and in whom "we find the color of Russian in one syllable."
In general, with the exception of one Belinsky, who in 1839 wrote devastating criticism on Woe From Wit, the originality, talent and innovation of comedy were no longer in doubt. As for the political background of "Woe from Wit", for understandable censorship reasons, it was not discussed directly until the 1860s, when Chatsky was increasingly brought closer to the Decembrists - first Nikolai Ogarev, followed by Apollon Grigoriev and, finally, Herzen; it was this interpretation of the image of Chatsky that subsequently reigned in Soviet literary criticism.
“I’m not talking about poetry, half of them should be a proverb,” said Pushkin immediately after the appearance of “Woe from Wit,” and he was right. In terms of citation frequency, Griboyedov was probably ahead of all Russian classics, including even the former champion Krylov. “Happy hours are not observed”, “The legend is fresh, but hard to believe” - it is pointless to multiply examples; even the line "And the smoke of the Fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us!" is now perceived as a Griboyedov aphorism, although Chatsky in this case quotes Derzhavin.
Famus society has become a household name, as well as its individual representatives - "all these Famusovs, Molchalins, Skalozubs, Zagoretskies." In a certain sense, “Griboyedov's Moscow” itself has become a household name - this is how Mikhail Gershenzon titled the book, describing a typical Moscow lordly way of life on the example of a particular family of Rimsky-Korsakovs, and in all households he directly saw Griboyedov's characters, and he backed up quotes from documents with quotes from comedy.
The classic Russian drama of the 19th century grew out of the Griboyedov tradition: Lermontov's "Masquerade", in whose disappointed hero Arbenin it is easy to recognize the features of Chatsky, Gogol's "Inspector General" is a "public comedy" where a district town with a gallery of cartoons embodies the entire Russian society, Alexander's social drama Sukhovo-Kobylin and Alexander Ostrovsky. Since that time, the discussion of dramatic social conflicts with comic means, which once amazed Griboyedov's contemporaries, became a commonplace, and the genre framework became blurred. Moreover, the play set a kind of new canon. For a long time, theatrical troupes were recruited under "Woe from Wit": it was believed that the cast of actors, among whom Griboyedov's roles were well distributed, could be played by the entire theatrical repertoire 3 Sukhikh I. Cool reading from gorukhscha to Gogol. Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov 1795 (1790) - 1829. // Neva. 2012. No. 8 .
In crisis moments of social thought, the Russian intelligentsia invariably returned to the image of Chatsky, which more and more merged in the cultural consciousness with Griboyedov himself: from Yuri Tynyanov, who in 1928 investigated in The Death of Vazir-Mukhtar the eternal question of whether it is possible to serve in Russia " business, not persons "and not turn from Chatsky to Molchalin, - until Viktor Tsoi, who sang" Woe you are mine from the mind "(" Red-yellow days ") in 1990.
House of the Griboedovs at the corner of Novinsky and Bolshoy Devyatinsky lanes. Moscow, XIX century
Grave of Griboyedov in Tiflis
How did Woe From Wit make its way onto the stage?
The first attempt to stage a comedy was made in May 1825 by students of the St. Petersburg Theater School with the live participation of Griboyedov himself, who dreamed of seeing his impassable play "even on a home stage" (the comedy was not allowed on the big stage as a "lampoon against Moscow"). However, on the eve of the performance, the performance was banned by the Governor-General of St. Miloradovich Count Mikhail Andreevich Miloradovich (1771-1825) - general, participant in the Russian-Swedish war, the Italian and Swiss campaigns of Suvorov, the Russian-Turkish war of 1806-1812. In 1810 Miloradovich was appointed military governor of Kiev. In the Patriotic War of 1812 he took part in the Battle of Borodino, the Battle of Vyazma, the capture of Paris. After the war - St. Petersburg military governor-general. During the uprising on December 14, he was killed by the Decembrists in the Senate Square, before his death he bequeathed to release all his peasants. , who considered that a play that was not approved by the censorship could not be staged in a theater school.
The next attempt was made in October 1827 in Yerevan, in the building of the Sardar Palace, by officers of the Caucasian Corps, among whom were the exiled Decembrists. The theater club was soon strictly forbidden, as the craze for the theater distracted officers from service.
According to some reports, amateur performances were staged in Tiflis with the participation of the author, and in 1830 several young people “traveled around Petersburg in carriages, sent a card to familiar houses with the inscription“ III act of Woe from Wit ”, entered the house and played there are separate scenes from comedy " 4 Gamazov M. The first performances of the comedy "Woe from Wit". 1827-1832. From the memoirs of a student // Bulletin of Europe. 1875. No. 7. S. 319-332. Cit. Quoted from: Orlov Vl. Griboyedov. Essay on life and work. Moscow: State Publishing House of Fiction, 1954, p. 93. .
During his lifetime, Griboyedov never saw his comedy on the big stage, in a professional production. Beginning in 1829, when the excerpt was staged at the Bolshoi Theater, the play gradually made its way into the theater - first with separate scenes, which were played in an interlude divertissement among "recitations, singing and dancing." Completely (albeit with censorship cuts) "Woe from Wit" was first presented in St. Petersburg, at the Alexandrinsky Theater, in 1831 - the tragic actor Vasily Andreevich Karatygin, brother of Peter Karatygin, became the first professional performer of the role of Chatsky, on whose initiative the students Petersburg Theater School enthusiastically staged the play five years earlier. Pyotr Karatygin himself, later a famous playwright, in the same year made his debut in literature with two vaudeville - the second of them was called "Woe without Wit".
"Woe from Wit" at the Theater. Meyerhold, 1928. Production by Vsevolod Meyerhold
Did the heroes of the comedy have real prototypes?
The critic Katenin, in a letter to Griboyedov, noticed that in his comedy "characters are portrait", to which the playwright objected that although the heroes of the comedy had prototypes, their features are characteristic of "many other people, and others to the whole human race ... I hate caricature, in my you will not find a single picture. " Nevertheless, rumors and guesses about who exactly was bred in this or that role began to spread already in the winter of 1823/24, as soon as Griboyedov began to read the still unfinished play in familiar houses. His sister was worried that Griboyedov would make enemies for himself - and even more for her, “because they will say that the evil Griboyedov pointed out to her brother about originals" 5 .
So, many consider Sofya Alekseevna Griboyedova, the playwright's cousin, to be the prototype of Sofia Famusova, while her husband, Sergei Rimsky-Korsakov, was considered a possible prototype of Skalozub, and the name of the house of her mother-in-law, Marya Ivanovna Rimskaya-Korsakova, was fixed on Strastnaya Square in Moscow "Famusov's house", its main staircase was reproduced in the play based on the play by Griboyedov at the Maly Theater. Uncle Griboyedov is called the prototype of Famusov himself, based on one passage from the playwright: “I leave it to the historian to explain why in the generation of that time some kind of mixture of vices and courtesy was developed everywhere; from the outside, chivalry is in morals, but in hearts there is an absence of any feeling.<...>Let us explain more roundly: everyone had dishonesty and deceit in their language in their souls. It seems that this is not the case today, but maybe it is; but my uncle belongs to that era. He fought like a lion with the Turks under Suvorov, then grovelled in the front of all the random people in Petersburg, in retirement he lived with gossip. The image of his teachings: "I, brother! .."
Nothing explains or justifies the unbridled indignation with which Chatsky smashes this, perhaps ridiculous, but not criminally criminal society
Pyotr Vyazemsky
In the famous Tatyana Yuryevna, whom “officials and officials - / All her friends and all relatives”, contemporaries recognized Praskovya Yuryevna Kologrivova, whose husband “asked at the ball by one tall person who he was, was so confused that he said that he was a husband Praskovya Yurievna, believing, probably, that this title is more important than all his titles. " The old woman Khlestova deserves a special mention - the portrait of Nastasya Dmitrievna Ofrosimova, the famous legislator of Moscow drawing rooms, who left a noticeable mark in Russian literature: Leo Tolstoy brought her, in the face of the rude, but certainly pretty Marya Dmitrievna Akhrosimova, in War and Peace.
In Chatsky's friend, Platon Mikhailovich Gorich, they often see the features of Stepan Begichev, a close friend of Griboyedov in the Irkutsk hussar regiment, as well as his brother Dmitry Begichev, once a member of Union of prosperity The organization of the Decembrists, created in 1818 to replace the Union of Salvation. It consisted of about two hundred people. The declared goals of the society are to spread knowledge and help the peasants. In 1821, the Welfare Union was dissolved due to mutual disagreements, on the basis of which the Southern Society and the Northern Society arose. , an officer, and by the time of the creation of the comedy (which Griboyedov wrote directly on the Begichevs' estate) retired and happily married.
Such a multitude of prototypes among the most passable heroes of "Woe from Wit", indeed, can be considered proof of the good intentions of Griboyedov, who ridiculed not specific people, but typical traits. Probably the only absolutely unmistakable character of Griboyedov is off-stage. In the “night robber, duelist”, whom, according to Repetilov, “you don’t need to be named, you can recognize him by his portrait,” everyone really recognized right away Fyodor Tolstoy-American Count Fyodor Ivanovich Tolstoy, nicknamed the American (1782-1846) - military man, traveler. In 1803, he set off on a voyage around the world with Captain Kruzenshtern, however, due to hooligan antics, he was landed on the coast in Kamchatka and had to return to St. Petersburg on his own. Traveling in Russian America - Kamchatka and the Aleutian Islands - Tolstoy owes his nickname. He took part in the Russian-Swedish War, the Patriotic War of 1812, after the war he settled in Moscow. Tolstoy was known for his love of duels and card games, he married a gypsy dancer, from whom he had twelve children (only one daughter survived him). In old age, Tolstoy became devout and considered the death of children a punishment for the eleven people he killed in duels. , who was not offended - only suggested making a few corrections. Nikolai Piksanov, a specialist in the work of Griboyedov, studied in 1910 the list of "Woe from Wit", which at one time belonged to the Decembrist Prince Fyodor Shakhovsky, where by the hand of Tolstoy the American against the words "he was exiled to Kamchatka, he returned aleut and was unclean on the hand," an amendment was proposed : “He wore the devil to Kamchatka” (“for he was never exiled”) and “he was not clean in cards on hand” (“for the correctness of the portrait, this amendment is necessary so that they do not think that they are stealing snuff boxes from the table; at least I thought to guess intention author ") 6 Piksanov NK Creative history "Woe from Wit". M., L .: GIZ, 1928.S. 110. .
Stepan Begichev. A close friend of Griboyedov and a possible prototype of Platon Mikhailovich Gorich
Dmitry Begichev. Another possible Gorich prototype
Nastasya Ofrosimova. The prototype of the old woman Khlestova
Well, Chatsky is Chaadaev?
Contemporaries, of course, immediately thought so. In December 1823, Pushkin wrote from Odessa to Vyazemsky: “What is Griboyedov? I was told that he wrote a comedy on Chedaev; in the present circumstances it is extremely noble of him. " With this sarcasm, Pushkin hinted at the forced resignation and departure abroad of Chaadaev, who had fallen a victim of slander; making fun of a victim of political persecution was not very nice. Probably, in the final version, Griboyedov renamed Chadsky to Chatsky, including in order to avoid such suspicions 7 Tynyanov Yu. The plot of "Woe from Wit" // Tynyanov Yu. N. Pushkin and his contemporaries. Moscow: Nauka, 1969. It is curious that if Chatsky was indeed copied from Chaadaev, the comedy became a self-fulfilling prophecy: 12 years after the creation of the comedy, Pyotr Chaadaev was formally declared insane by order of the government after the publication of his first "Letters" From 1828 to 1830, Chaadaev wrote eight "philosophical letters". In them, he reflects on progressive Western values, the historical path of Russia and the meaning of religion. In the magazine "Telescope" An educational magazine published by Nikolai Nadezhdin from 1831 to 1836. In 1834 Vissarion Belinsky became Nadezhdin's assistant. The journal published Pushkin, Tyutchev, Koltsov, Stankevich. After the publication of Chaadaev's "Letter", "Telescope" was closed, and Nadezhdin was sent into exile. ... The magazine was closed, its editor was exiled, and the Moscow police chief placed Chaadaev under house arrest and compulsory medical supervision, removed a year later, on condition that he did not write anything else.
There is no less reason to assert that in Chatsky Griboyedov brought out his friend, the Decembrist Wilhelm Kuchelbecker, who was slandered - namely, denounced as a madman in society - with the aim of politically discrediting. When the old woman Khlestova complains about “boarding schools, schools, lyceums ... mutual learning in Lancart” - this is the direct biography of Kuchelbecker, a pupil of the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum, a teacher Main Pedagogical Institute Founded in 1816 on the basis of the Pedagogical Institute. It trained teachers for gymnasiums and higher educational institutions. In 1819 it was transformed into St. Petersburg University, almost ten years later it was restored, but already closed in 1859, and all students were transferred to St. Petersburg University. and the secretary of the "Mutual Learning Society" Lancaster system A peer education system whereby older students teach younger students. Invented in Great Britain in 1791 by Joseph Lancaster. The Russian "Society of Mutual Education Schools" was founded in 1819. The proponents of the Lancaster system were many members of secret societies; Thus, the Decembrist Vladimir Raevsky came under investigation in 1820 for "harmful propaganda among the soldiers" precisely in connection with teaching. .
However, another character studied at the St. Petersburg Pedagogical Institute - the chemist and botanist Prince Fyodor, the nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskoy, who is not for nothing that she is indignant: "They practice splits and unbeliefs there / Professors !!"
In 1821, several professors were charged with denying the "truths of Christianity" and "calling for an encroachment on legitimate government" in their lectures and forbidding teaching; the case caused a lot of buzz and was used as an argument in favor of the danger of higher education. So it would be most accurate to say that although Griboyedov used the features of real people, including his own, when creating his hero, Chatsky is a collective portrait of the progressive part of his generation.
Peter Chaadaev. Lithograph by Marie-Alexandre Alof. 1830s
Is Chatsky smart?
This seems to be self-evident and is postulated in the title of the comedy, which Griboyedov originally wanted to call even more definitely: "Woe to the mind." In a letter to Pavel Katenin, the playwright, on this principle, contrasted Chatsky with all the other characters (except perhaps Sophia): "In my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person."
Contemporaries, however, disagreed on this matter. Pushkin was the first to refuse Chatsky in his mind, writing to Peter Vyazemsky: "Chatsky is not at all an intelligent person, but Griboyedov is very smart." This view was shared by many critics; Belinsky, for example, called Chatsky "a phrase-monger, an ideal jester, profaning everything that is sacred about which he speaks at every step."
The accusation against Chatsky was based primarily on the discrepancy between his words and actions. “Everything he says is very clever,” says Pushkin. - But to whom does he say all this? Famusov? Skalozub? At the ball for Moscow grandmothers? Molchalin? This is unforgivable. The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at a glance who you are dealing with, and not to throw beads in front of the Repetilovs. "
Between the masterful features of this charming comedy - Chatsky's incredulity in Sofia's love for Molchalin is charming! - and how natural! This is what the whole comedy was supposed to be
Alexander Pushkin
The unfairness of this reproach is shown by careful reading of the text. Beser in front of Repetilov, for example, Chatsky does not rush at all - on the contrary, it is Repetilov who crumbles before him "about important mothers", and Chatsky answers in monosyllables and rather rudely: "Yes, it's full of nonsense to grind." Chatsky speaks of a French woman from Bordeaux, though at the ball, not to Moscow grandmothers, but to Sophia, whom he loves and considers equal (and Griboyedov himself called her “not stupid girl”), in response to her question: “Tell me what makes you so angry ? " Nevertheless, it must be admitted that Chatsky finds himself in ridiculous and ridiculous situations, which did not seem to fit the "smart" hero.
However, Chatsky himself admits that his "mind and heart are out of tune." Ivan Goncharov finally cleared the hero's reputation, noting in the article "Million of Torments" that after all Chatsky is a living person experiencing a love drama, and this cannot be written off: "Every step of Chatsky, almost every word in the play is closely related to the play of his feelings for Sophia "- and this internal struggle" served as a motive, a reason for irritation, for that "million torments" under the influence of which he could only play the role indicated to him by Griboyedov, a role of much greater, higher significance than unsuccessful love, in a word, a role, for which the whole comedy was born ”. According to the critic, Chatsky not only stands out against the background of other heroes of the comedy - he is “positively smart. His speech is seething with intelligence, wit.<...>... Chatsky begins a new century - and this is his whole meaning and all "mind" 8 Goncharov I.A.Million of torment (Critical study) // Goncharov I.A. .
Even Pushkin, the first accuser of Chatsky, paid tribute to the "thoughts, witticisms and satirical remarks" with which Chatsky was fed, according to the poet, from "a very clever man" - Griboyedov. The poet was confused only by the inconsistency of the hero, who thinks so clearly about abstractions and so absurdly acts in practical circumstances. But he immediately noted that the blindness of Chatsky, who does not want to believe in Sophia's coldness, is psychologically very reliable. In other words, if you do not try to squeeze Chatsky into the narrow role of a walking idea-reasoner, in which he does not fit, there is no reason to doubt his mind: a romantic hero who gets into a comedy inevitably plays a comic role - but this position is not funny, but tragic.
Dmitry Kardovsky. Illustration for the comedy "Woe from Wit". 1912 year
Why did Pushkin call Sofya Famusova an unprintable word?
The well-known unprintable expression of Pushkin from a letter to Bestuzhev - “Sophia is not drawn clearly: not that<б....>, not that Moscow cousin According to Yuri Lotman, "the Moscow cousin is a stable satirical mask, a combination of provincial panache and mannerism." "- today it seems too harsh, but the same bewilderment was shared by many contemporaries. In the first home and theatrical productions, six acts from the first act were usually omitted: the scenes of Sofia's meeting with Molchalin (as well as the flirting of both Molchalin and Famusov with Lisa) seemed too shocking to be presented to the ladies, and were almost large for censorship problem than the political overtones of comedy.
Today the image of Sophia seems to be somewhat more complex and prettier than the Pushkin formula. In the famous article "A Million of Torments" Ivan Goncharov stood up for the reputation of the girl Famusova, noting in it "strong inclinations of a remarkable nature, a lively mind, passion and feminine softness" and comparing her with the heroine of "Eugene Onegin": in his opinion, Sofia, although spoiled environment, but, like Tatiana, childishly sincere, simple-minded and fearless in her love.
Neither Onegin nor Pechorin would have acted so stupidly in general, especially in the matter of love and matchmaking. But on the other hand, they have already turned pale and turned into stone statues for us, and Chatsky remains and will always live for this "stupidity"
Ivan Goncharov
This is a valid comparison. Pushkin got acquainted with "Woe from Wit" in the midst of work on "Eugene Onegin"; traces of Griboyedov's comedy can be seen both in the comic gallery of guests at Tatyana's birthday, and in her dream, varying the fictional dream of Sophia; Pushkin directly compares Onegin to Chatsky, who got “from the ship to the ball”. Tatiana, a kind of improved version of Sophia, a lover of novels, like that, endows a completely inappropriate candidate with the traits of her favorite literary heroes - Werther or Grandison. Like Sophia, she shows a love initiative that is indecent by the concepts of her time - she composes a "letter for a dear hero" who did not fail to reprimand her for it. But if the love recklessness of Sofia Pavlovna Pushkin condemned, then he treats his heroine in a similar situation sympathetically. And when Tatyana marries a general without love, as Sophia could marry Skalozub, the poet took care to clarify that Tatyana's husband was “mutilated in battles” - unlike Skalozub, who obtains the general's rank by various channels far from military prowess. As the theater critic Sergei Yablonovsky put it in 1909 in the article "In Defense of S.P. Famusova", the theater critic Sergei Yablonovsky, "Pushkin cries over sweet Tanya and dissolves our heart so that we better hide this ... sleeping girl and woman in it," but Griboyedov "does not wanted to bring Sophia closer to us.<...>She was not given even the last word defendant " 9 "The present century and the past century ..." Comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" in Russian criticism and literary criticism. SPb .: Azbuka-Klassika, 2002.S. 249 .
Sophia was often perceived as a girl of dubious morality, a typical representative of the vicious Famus society, and Tatyana Larina - as the ideal of a Russian woman. This happened largely because the author refused to sympathize with Sophia - this was demanded by the interests of the protagonist, Chatsky. Interestingly, in the first edition of the comedy, Griboyedov did give Sophia the opportunity to justify himself:
What baseness! lie in wait!
Sneak up and then, of course, dishonor,
Well? by this you thought to attract me?
And to make you fall in love with fear, horror?
I owe the report to myself,
However, my deed to you
Why does it seem so angry and so insidious?
I was not hypocritical and I was right around.
And although in the final version the author took away this monologue from the heroine, exposing Chatsky in a bad light, he allowed her to maintain her dignity: "Reproaches, complaints, my tears // Don't you dare expect, you are not worth them ..." *****, nor a Moscow cousin.
Powder spray. Germany, XVIII-XIX centuries
Powder box. France, XIX century
What do the names of the heroes mean in Griboyedov?
Griboyedov, in the tradition of classic comedy, gives almost all of his heroes speaking surnames. Such surnames usually highlighted the main property of the character, personified vice, virtue or some other one-dimensional quality: for example, in Fonvizin, stupid landowners are called Prostakovs, a government official who puts things in order bears the surname Pravdin, and Tsyfirkin teaches arithmetic to the ignorant Mitrofanushka. In Woe From Wit, everything is less straightforward: all the speaking surnames in one way or another embody one idea - the idea of verbal communication, mostly difficult. So, the surname Famusova is formed from the Latin fama - "rumor" (no wonder his main sadness at the denouement - "What will Princess Marya Aleksevna say!"). The surname of Molchalin, “who dares not have his own judgment,” speaks for itself. A double meaning can be seen in the name of Repetilov (from the French répéter - "to repeat by heart", "to repeat after someone"): this character, on the one hand, silently listens to the important conversations that the "juice of smart youth" has, and then repeats to others , and on the other hand, it acts as a comic double of Chatsky, illustrating his mental impulses with his own physical awkward movements. Prince Tugoukhovsky is deaf, Colonel Skalozub - "To joke and he is great, because nowadays who is not joking!" - a master of barracks wit. In the name of Khlestova, one can see a hint of a scathing word, which you cannot refuse - she, for example, was the only one in the whole comedy that made the main witty Chatsky laugh, who noted that Zagoretsky "will not be happy with such praises." Khlestova's remarks about Chatsky and Repetilov (the first one will be "treated, cured maybe", the second - "incurable, at least give it up") anticipates the later observations of literary scholars about the relationship between these two characters.
The surname of Chatsky himself (in the early edition - Chadsky) was associated by various researchers with the word "child" on the basis of his general ardor and analysis of his remarks ("Well, the day has passed, and with him / All the ghosts, all the child and smoke / Nadezhd, who they filled my soul ”or maxims about the sweet and pleasant“ smoke of the Fatherland ”). But a more direct association, of course, with Chaadaev.
Dmitry Kardovsky. Illustration for the comedy "Woe from Wit". 1912 year
Is Chatsky a Decembrist?
The opinion that for Chatsky, as Griboyedov wrote him, the direct road lay on Senate Square, was first expressed by Ogarev, substantiated by Herzen, who argued that “Chatsky walked the straight road to hard labor,” and subsequently became undividedly established in Soviet literary criticism - especially after that, as the book of Academician Militsa Nechkina “A. S. Griboyedov and the Decembrists "received the Stalin Prize in 1948. Today, however, the question of Chatsky's Decembrism is no longer resolved so unambiguously.
The argumentation in this dispute often revolves around another question: was Griboyedov himself a Decembrist?
The writer was friends with many Decembrists, was, like many of them, in the Masonic lodge and at the beginning of 1826 spent four months in the guardhouse of the General Staff under investigation - he later described this experience in an epigram as follows:
- According to the spirit of the times and taste
He hated the word "slave" ...
- For that I got into the General Staff
And he was attracted to Jesus! ..
In the case of the Decembrists, Griboyedov, however, was acquitted, released "with a purification certificate" and an annual salary, and sent to his place of service in Persia, where a brilliant, albeit, unfortunately, short-lived career awaited him. And although his personal sympathies towards the Decembrists are beyond doubt, he himself was not in a secret society, as Bestuzhev and Ryleev showed during interrogations, and spoke skeptically about their program: “One hundred warrant officers want to change the entire state life of Russia.” Moreover, there is one directly named member of the "most secret union" in his comedy - the caricatured Repetilov, over whom Chatsky sneers: "Are you making a noise? Only?"
To this, supporters of the "Decembrist" concept object that Repetilov is a mirror of Chatsky, albeit a crooked one. Chatsky “writes gloriously, translates” - Repetilov “sculpts a vaudeville of six”, his quarrel with his father-in-law is a reflection of Chatsky’s connection and rupture with the ministers, when Repetilov first appeared on the stage “falls as fast as he could” - just like Chatsky, who “fell how many times ", jumping from St. Petersburg to be at the feet of Sophia. Repetilov is like a circus clown who, in between the performances of trainers and equilibrists, repeats their heroic numbers in an absurd light. Therefore, it can be considered that the author put into his mouth all those speeches that Chatsky himself, as the author's mouthpiece, could not utter for censorship reasons.
According to the spirit of the times and taste
Alexander Griboyedov
I hated the word "slave"
I was called to the General Headquarters
And pulled to Jesus
Of course, "Woe from Wit" had a political subtext - this is evidenced by the long-term censorship ban and the fact that the Decembrists themselves recognized their own in Chatsky and in every possible way contributed to the spread of the play (for example, at the apartment of the poet-Decembrist Alexander Odoevsky for several evenings a whole the workshop rewrote "Woe from Wit" under general dictation from the original manuscript of Griboyedov, in order to further use it for propaganda purposes). But there is no reason to consider Chatsky a revolutionary, despite the civic pathos with which he criticizes the tyranny of the serfs, sycophancy and corruption.
"Carbonary" From Italian - "coal miner". Member of the secret Italian society that existed from 1807 to 1832. The Carbonari fought against the French and Austrian occupation, and then for the constitutional order of Italy. Complex ceremonies and rituals were practiced in society, one of them is the burning of charcoal, symbolizing spiritual cleansing. , “A dangerous person” who “wants to preach freedom” and “does not recognize the authorities”, calls Chatsky Famusov - who has plugged his ears and does not hear what Chatsky is telling him, who at this time is not calling for the overthrow of the system, but only for intellectual independence and meaningful activities for the benefit of the state. His spiritual brothers - "physicist and botanist" Prince Fyodor, nephew of Princess Tugouhovskaya, and cousin Skalozub, who "suddenly left the service, / In the village began to read books." His, as we would say today, a positive agenda is clearly articulated in the play:
Now let one of us,
Of young people, there is an enemy of quest,
Requiring neither places nor promotion,
In science he will stick a mind hungry for knowledge;
Or God himself will stir up a fever in his soul
To the creative arts, high and beautiful ...
Yuri Lotman in his article "Decembrist in Everyday Life" actually put an end to this dispute, considering "Decembrism" not as a system of political views or a type of activity, but as a worldview and style of behavior of a certain generation and circle, to which Chatsky certainly belonged: Contemporaries highlighted not only the "talkativeness" of the Decembrists - they also emphasized the harshness and straightforwardness of their judgments, the peremptory nature of the sentences, "indecent" from the point of view of secular norms ...<…>... a constant desire to express one's opinion bluntly, not recognizing the ritual and hierarchy of secular speech behavior approved by the custom. " The Decembrist openly and "publicly calls things by their proper names," thunders "at the ball and in society, since it is in this name that he sees the liberation of man and the beginning of the transformation of society." Thus, having resolved the issue of Chatsky's Decembrism, Lotman at the same time relieved him of suspicions of stupidity, once caused by critics by his "inappropriate" behavior.
Before Griboyedov, Russian comedy of the 1810s and 20s developed as usual. consider 10 Zorin A. L. "Woe from Wit" and Russian Comedy of the 10-20s of the XIX century // Philology: Collection of works of students and post-graduate students of the philological faculty of Moscow State University. Issue 5.M., 1977.S. 77, 79-80. , in two directions: the pamphlet-satirical comedy of mores (bright representatives - Alexander Shakhovskoy and Mikhail Zagoskin) and the salon comedy of intrigue (first of all, Nikolay Khmelnitsky Nikolai Ivanovich Khmelnitsky (1789-1845) - playwright. Khmelnitsky served in the College of Foreign Affairs and was engaged in theater: he published theater reviews in the St. Petersburg Bulletin, translated plays. The success of Khmelnitsky was brought by the staging of the comedies "Talker" and "Pranks of Lovers". It was in his house that the first reading of Griboyedov's "Woe from Wit" took place. After the war of 1812, Khmelnitsky served as a state councilor, was the governor of Smolensk, then Arkhangelsk. In 1838 he was imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress for embezzlement, but later found innocent. ). The comedy of intrigue was written mainly from French samples, often in a directly adapted translation. Griboyedov paid tribute to this tradition in his early comedies. And he builds a love affair in Woe From Wit according to a seemingly familiar scheme: the oppressive father of a pretty girl with the traditional name Sophia (meaning, note, "Wisdom") and two seekers - a hero-lover and his antagonist. In this classical scheme, as Andrei Zorin notes, the rivals were certainly endowed with a number of opposite qualities. The positive hero was distinguished by modesty, quietness, respectfulness, prudence, in general, "moderation and accuracy", the negative one was an evil-speaking boaster and an irreverent mockery (for example, in Khmelnitsky's comedy "The Talker", the positive and negative heroes carry the speaking names of Modestov and Zvonov, respectively). In short, in the literary context of his time, Chatsky was at first glance recognized as a negative hero, a buffoonish lover - and his rightness, like the author's obvious sympathy for him, caused cognitive dissonance among readers.
We add to this that before Griboyedov, love in comedy could not be wrong: an obstacle on the path of lovers was the seeker's poverty, the girl's parents' dislike of him - but in the end these obstacles were happily resolved, often due to external interference ( deus ex machina "God is out of the car." Latin expression meaning an unexpected resolution of a situation due to external interference. Initially, a technique in ancient drama: one of the gods of Olympus descended onto the stage with the help of a mechanical device and easily solved all the problems of the heroes. ), the lovers united, and the ridiculed vicious rival was banished. Griboyedov, in spite of all the comedic rules, completely deprived Woe from Wit of a happy ending: vice is not punished, virtue does not triumph, the reasoner is expelled like a jester. And this happens because the playwright excluded the latter from the classic triad of the unity of time, place and action: in his comedy there are two equal conflicts, love and social, which was impossible in a classicist play. Thus, in the words of Andrei Zorin, he blew up the entire comedy tradition, turning both the familiar plot and the role inside out - sympathizing with yesterday's negative character and making fun of the former positives.
A Moscow young lady, a virgin with not high feelings, but with strong desires, barely abstained from secular decency. A romantic girl, as many believe, she can not be in any way: for in the most ardent frenzy of imagination it is impossible to dream before giving her heart and soul to a doll Molchalin».
However, if Sophia is just an empty Moscow young lady and she left not far from Molchalin, why does Chatsky himself love her, who knows her well? Not because of the vulgar Moscow young lady, he was three years old "the whole world seemed like dust and vanity." This is a psychological contradiction - meanwhile, among the merits of comedy, Pushkin noted its psychological reliability: “Chatsky's distrust of Sofia's love for Molchalin is lovely! - and how natural! "
In an attempt to explain this discrepancy, many critics have had to indulge in psychological speculation. Goncharov believed, for example, that Sophia was guided by a kind of maternal feeling - "the desire to patronize a loved one, poor, modest, not daring to look at her, - to raise him up to himself, to his circle, to give him family rights."
Chatsky is crushed by the amount of old power, inflicting a fatal blow on it with the quality of fresh power.
Ivan Goncharov
Another psychological motivation for Sophia's choice can be seen in the history of her relationship with Chatsky, which is described in the play in some detail.
Once they were bound by a tender childhood friendship; then Chatsky, as Sophia recalls, “moved out, he felt bored with us, / And rarely visited our house; / Then he again pretended to be in love, / Demanding and distressed !! "
Then the hero went on a journey and “didn’t write two words for three years”, while Sophia asked any newcomer about him - “at least be a sailor”!
It is clear after this that Sophia has reason not to take seriously the love of Chatsky, who, among other things, “goes to women” and does not miss an opportunity to flirt with Natalya Dmitrievna, who “is fuller than ever, prettier fear” (just like Sophia “ blossomed beautifully, inimitable ").
) - This was common practice for popular plays in the early 19th century, but the quantity and literary scale were unusual. Mikhail Bestuzhev-Ryumin Mikhail Alekseevich Bestuzhev-Ryumin (1800-1832) - poet, journalist. He published the literary newspaper "Northern Mercury" and the almanacs "Garland", "Sirius", "Maisky leaf", "North Star". He published his poems and critical articles in them under the pseudonym of Aristarchus the Zaventny. Known for his attacks on Pushkin and fierce polemics with the editor of "Literary additions to the" Russian invalid "Alexander Voeikov, which ended with threats to expel the journalist from St. Petersburg. published in his almanac "Sirius" a small story in letters "Consequence of the comedy" Woe from Wit ", where Sophia, first sent by her father to the village, soon returns to Moscow, marries an elderly" ace " travels in a train Zug is a team in which horses go in several pairs, tail to tail. Only very rich people could afford to travel in train. , and is looking for an opportunity to reconcile with Chatsky in order to instruct her husband with him.Dmitry Begichev, a friend of Griboyedov, on whose estate a comedy was written and who was considered one of the prototypes of Platon Mikhailovich Gorich, in the novel "The Kholmskys" brought Chatsky into old age, poor, living "quieter than water below the grass" in his village with a grumpy wife, then I have completely repaid my friend for the caricature.
In 1868, Vladimir Odoevsky published his Intercepted Letters from Famusov to Princess Marya Aleksevna in Sovremennye Zapiski. Evdokia Rostopchina, in the comedy "Chatsky's Return to Moscow, or a Meeting of Familiar Faces after 25 Years of Separation" (written in 1856, published in 1865) ridiculed both political parties of Russian society of that time - Westernizers and Slavophiles. The culmination of this literary tradition was the cycle of satirical essays "Lord Molchalina", written in 1874-1876 by Saltykov-Shchedrin: there Chatsky descended, lost his former ideals, married Sophia and is living out his life as director of the Department of State Mysteries, where he attached him godfather Molchalin, a reactionary bureaucrat who "reached the level of the known." But the most odious future was drawn to Chatsky at the beginning of the 20th century by Viktor Burenin in the play "Woe from Stupidity" - a satire on the 1905 revolution, where Chatsky, following the author, preaches Black Hundred ideas, denouncing not reactionaries, but revolutionaries, but instead of a "Frenchie from Bordeaux" his target is "the little black Jew of the lawyers."
bibliography
- A. S. Griboyedov in the memoirs of contemporaries: Collection. Introductory article by S. A. Fomichev. M .: Fiction, 1980.
- "The present century and the past century ..." Comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" in Russian criticism and literary criticism. SPb .: Azbuka-Klassika, 2002.
- Gershenzon M.O. Griboedovskaya Moscow // Gershenzon M.O. Griboedovskaya Moscow. P. Ya.Chaadaev. Sketches of the past. M .: Moscow worker, 1989.
- Lotman Yu. M. Decembrist in everyday life (everyday behavior as a historical and psychological category) // Literary heritage of the Decembrists: collection of articles. / ed. V. G. Bazanova, V. E. Vatsuro. L .: Nauka, 1975. P. 25–74.
- Nechkina M. V. A. S. Griboyedov and the Decembrists. M .: GIKHL, 1947.
- Orlov Vl. Griboyedov. A short sketch of life and work. Moscow: Art, 1952.
- Piksanov N.K. Chronicle of the life and work of A.S. Griboyedov. 1791-1829. Moscow: Heritage, 2000.
- Piksanov NK Creative history "Woe from Wit". M., L .: GIZ, 1928.
- Slonimsky A. "Woe from Wit" and the comedy of the Decembrist era (1815-1825) // A. Griboyedov, 1795-1829: Sat. Art. Moscow: Goslitmusey, 1946, pp. 39–73.
- Tynyanov Yu. N. The plot of "Woe from Wit" // Tynyanov Yu. N. Pushkin and his contemporaries. Moscow: Nauka, 1969.
- Fomichev S.A. Griboyedov: Encyclopedia. SPb .: Nestor-History, 2007.
- Tsimbaeva E. Artistic image in a historical context (Analysis of biographies of characters "Woe from Wit") // Voprosy literatury. 2003. No. 4. P. 98–139.
The entire list of references
In a literature lesson, 9th grade students study an outstanding comedy play in verse "Woe from Wit", which was conceived by the author in St. Petersburg around 1816 and completed in Tiflis in 1824. And at once you involuntarily ask yourself the question: “Woe from Wit” who wrote it? This work became the pinnacle of Russian drama and poetry. And thanks to its aphoristic style, almost everything went into quotes.
Quite a lot of time will pass after this piece comes out without any cuts or distortions. This will cause some confusion about the year in which "Woe from Wit" is written. But this is easy to figure out. It appeared in print with censorship in 1862, when the author, who died at the hands of fanatics in Iran, had not been in this world for three decades. The play "Woe from Wit" was written in a year that paved the way for free-thinkers, just on the eve of the Decembrist uprising. Bold and outspoken, she burst into politics and became a real challenge to society, a rather original literary pamphlet that denounced the existing tsarist regime.
"Woe from Wit": Who Wrote?
Well, back to the main issue discussed in the article. Who wrote Woe from Wit? The author of the comedy was none other than Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov himself. His play was instantly sold in handwritten form. About 40 thousand copies of the play were rewritten by hand. It was a tremendous success. Over this comedy, people from high society did not have the desire to laugh at all.
In the comedy, the author very sharply reveals and makes fun of the vices that have struck Russian society. "Woe from Wit" was written in the 19th century (in its first quarter), however, the topic touched upon by Griboyedov is also relevant for our modern society, because the heroes described in it still successfully exist.
Famusov
The characters of the comedy are not at all accidentally described in such a way that they have become household names over time. For example, what a bright personality - the Moscow gentleman Pavel Afanasevich Famusov! Each of his remarks is a zealous defense of the "century of humility and fear." His life depends on the opinion of society and traditions. He teaches young people to learn from their ancestors. In support of this, he cites the example of his uncle Maksim Petrovich, who "ate not on silver, but on gold." Uncle was a nobleman at the time of "Mother Catherine". When he had to curry favor, "he bent over the edge."
The author makes fun of Famusov's flattery and servility (he holds a large post, but often does not even read the papers he signs). Pavel Afanasevich is a careerist, and serves to receive ranks and money. And Griboyedov hints at his love of sister-in-law and nepotism. He evaluates people according to their material well-being. To his daughter Sophia, he says that the poor woman is not a match for her, and prophesies Colonel Skalozub as the groom, who, according to him, will not become a general today or tomorrow.
Molchalin and Skalozub
The same can be said about Molchalin and Skalozub, who also have the same goals: by any means - career and position in society. They achieve their goal, as Griboyedov himself said, with "light" bread, currying favor with their superiors, thanks to sycophancy, they strive for a luxurious and beautiful life. Molchalin is presented as a cynic, devoid of any moral values. Skalozub is a stupid, narcissistic and ignorant hero, an enemy of everything new, who only chases after ranks, awards and rich brides.
Chatsky
But in the hero Chatsky, the writer embodied the qualities of a free-thinker close to the Decembrists. As an advanced and reasonable man of his era, he has a completely negative attitude towards serfdom, respect for rank, ignorance and careerism. He opposes the ideals of the past century. Chatsky is an individualist and humanist, he respects the freedom of thought, of the common man, he serves the cause, not people, stands for progressive ideas of our time, for respect for language and culture, for education and science. He gets into an argument with the capital's Famusian elite. He wants to serve, not be served.
It should be noted that Griboyedov managed to make his work immortal due to the relevance of the topic he touched upon. Goncharov in 1872 wrote about this very interestingly in his article "Million of Torments", saying that this play will continue to live its imperishable life, bypassing many more eras, and will never lose its vitality. After all, to this day, famus, puffers and taciturns make our modern Chatsk people experience "woe from wits."
History of creation
Its author Griboyedov had an idea for this work at a time when he had just returned from abroad to Petersburg and found himself at an aristocratic reception, where he was outraged by the Russians' craving for everything abroad. He, like the hero of his work, saw how everyone bows to one foreigner and was very unhappy with what was happening. He expressed his attitude and extremely negative point of view. And while Griboyedov was pouring out in his angry monologue, someone announced his possible madness. This is truly grief from the mind! Whoever wrote a comedy himself experienced a similar thing - that's why the work came out so emotional, passionate.
Censors and judges
Now the meaning of the play "Woe from Wit" is probably becoming clear. Who wrote it really knew very well the environment that he described in his comedy. After all, Griboyedov noticed all situations, portraits and characters at meetings, parties and balls. Subsequently, they found their reflection in his famous history.
Griboyedov began reading the first chapters of the play as early as 1823 in Moscow. He was repeatedly forced to redo the work at the request of the censorship. In 1825, again, only excerpts were published in the almanac "Russian Talia". This play was released completely uncensored only in 1875.
It is also important to note the fact that, having thrown his accusatory comedy play in the face of secular society, Griboyedov was never able to achieve any significant changes in the views of the nobles, but he sowed the seeds of enlightenment and reason in aristocratic youth, which later sprouted in the new generation ...
Writing
“Griboyedov is“ a man of one book, ”noted VF Khodasevich. "If it were not for Woe from Wit, Griboyedov would not have had any place at all in Russian literature."
The creative history of comedy, on which the playwright has worked for several years, is extremely complex. The idea of a "stage poem", as Griboyedov himself defined the genre of the intended work, arose in the second half of the 1810s. - in 1816 (according to S.N.Begichev's testimony) or in 1818-1819. (according to the memoirs of D.O. Bebutov). The writer apparently started working on the text of the comedy only in the early 1820s. The first two acts of the original edition of Woe from Wit were written in 1822 in Tiflis. Work on them continued in Moscow, where Griboyedov arrived on vacation, until the spring of 1823. Fresh impressions from Moscow made it possible to unfold many scenes barely outlined in Tiflis. It was then that the famous monologue of Chatsky "Who are the judges?" Was written. The third and fourth acts of the original edition of "Woe from Wit" were created in the summer of 1823 in the Tula estate of SN Begichev. However, Griboyedov did not consider the comedy complete. In the course of further work (late 1823 - early 1824), not only the text changed - the surname of the protagonist changed somewhat: he became Chatsky (earlier his surname was Chadsky), the comedy, called Woe to the Mind, received its final name.
In June 1824, having arrived in St. Petersburg, Griboyedov made a significant stylistic revision of the original version, changed part of the first act (Sophia's dream, Sophia's dialogue with Lisa, Chatsky's monologue), in the final act a scene of Molchalin's conversation with Lisa appeared. The final edition was completed in the fall of 1824. After that, hoping for the publication of the comedy, Griboyedov encouraged the appearance and distribution of copies of it. The most authoritative of them are the Zhandrovsky list, "corrected by the hand of Griboyedov himself" (belonged to A.A. Zhandr), and Bulgarinsky - a carefully corrected clerk's copy of the comedy, left by Griboyedov to F.V. Bulgarin in 1828 before leaving St. Petersburg. On the title page of this list, the playwright made the inscription: "I entrust my woe to Bulgar ...". He hoped that an enterprising and influential journalist could get the play published.
Already in the summer of 1824 Griboyedov tried to print a comedy. Excerpts from the first and third acts first appeared in the almanac "Russian Talia" in December 1824, and the text was "softened" and shortened by the censorship. "Inconvenient" for printing, too harsh statements of the heroes were replaced by faceless and "harmless". So, instead of the author's "The Scientific Committee" was printed "Among the scientists who settled", Molchalin's "programmatic" remark "After all, you need to depend on others" was replaced by the words "After all, you need to keep others in mind." The censors did not like the mention of the "monarch's face" and the "boards". The publication of excerpts from a comedy, well known from handwritten copies, caused a lot of responses in the literary community. "His handwritten comedy" Woe from Wit, "Pushkin recalled," produced an indescribable effect and suddenly put him alongside our first poets. "
The full text of Woe from Wit was never published during the author's lifetime. The first edition of the comedy appeared in German translation in Reval in 1831. The Russian edition, with censorship revisions and cuts, was published in Moscow in 1833. Two uncensored editions of the 1830s are also known. (printed in regimental printing houses). For the first time, the play was completely published in Russia only in 1862. The scientific publication "Woe from Wit" was carried out in 1913 by the famous researcher NK Piksanov in the second volume of the academic Complete Works of Griboyedov.
The fate of theatrical performances of the comedy turned out to be no less difficult. For a long time, theatrical censorship did not allow staging it in full. Back in 1825, the first attempt to stage "Woe from Wit" on the stage of a theater school in St. Petersburg ended in failure: the play was banned because the play was not approved by the censors. For the first time, the comedy appeared on the stage in 1827, in Erivan, performed by amateur actors - officers of the Caucasian corps (the author was present at the play). Only in 1831, with numerous censorship notes, "Woe from Wit" was staged in St. Petersburg and Moscow. Censorship restrictions on theatrical performances of comedy ended only in the 1860s.
The history of critical interpretations of the play reflects the complexity and depth of its social and philosophical problems, indicated in the very title of the comedy: Woe from Wit. The problems of mind and stupidity, insanity and insanity, tomfoolery and buffoonery, pretense and hypocrisy were posed and solved by Griboyedov on the basis of diverse everyday, social and psychological material. Essentially, all the characters in the comedy, including minor, episodic and non-stage ones, are embroiled in discussions about attitudes towards the mind and various forms of stupidity and insanity. The clever "madman" Chatsky became the main figure around whom all the variety of opinions about comedy was immediately concentrated. The general assessment of the author's intention, problematics and artistic features of comedy depended on the interpretation of his character and behavior, relationships with other characters.
Let's consider just some of the most notable critical judgments and assessments.
From the outset, the comedy's approval was by no means unanimous. The conservatives accused Griboyedov of exaggerating satirical colors, which, in their opinion, was a consequence of the author's "scolding patriotism", and in Chatsky they saw a clever "madman", the embodiment of the "figaro-Griboyedov" philosophy of life. Some contemporaries who were very friendly towards Griboyedov noted many errors in Woe from Wit. For example, an old friend and co-author of the playwright PA Katenin, in one of his private letters, gave the following assessment of the comedy: “The mind is like a ward in it, but the plan, in my opinion, is insufficient, and the main character is confused and confused (manque); the syllable is often charming, but the writer is too pleased with his liberties. " According to the critic, annoyed by deviations from the rules of classical drama, including the replacement of the “good Alexandrian verses” usual for “high” comedy with free iambic, Griboyedov's “phantasmagoria is not theatrical: good actors will not take these roles, and bad actors will spoil them”.
Griboyedov's response to the critical judgments expressed by Katenin, written in January 1825, became a remarkable auto-commentary on Woe from Wit. This is not only an energetic "anti-criticism" representing the author's view of comedy (it must be taken into account when analyzing a play), but also an aesthetic manifesto of an innovative playwright who refuses to "please the theorists, that is, to do stupid things "," to meet school requirements, conditions, habits, grandmother's traditions. "
In response to Katenin's remark about the imperfection of the comedy “plan”, that is, its plot and composition, Griboyedov wrote: “You find the main error in the plan: it seems to me that it is simple and clear in purpose and execution; a girl who is not stupid herself prefers a fool to an intelligent person (not because the mind of our sinners was ordinary, no! and in my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person); and this man, of course, is in opposition to society, those around him, no one understands him, no one wants to forgive, why is he a little taller than others ... "The scenes are linked arbitrarily." Just like in the nature of any events, small and important: the more sudden, the more it attracts curiosity. "
The playwright explained the meaning of Chatsky's behavior as follows: “Someone out of anger invented about him that he was crazy, no one believed, and everyone repeats, the voice of general ill-will reaches him, moreover, the dislike of the girl for whom he was the only one to Moscow, it is completely explained to him, he did not give a damn about her and everyone and was like that. The queen is also disappointed about her honey sugar. What can be fuller than this? "
Griboyedov defends his principles of depicting heroes. Katenin's remark that he accepts "the characters of a portrait", but considers this not an error, but the main merit of his comedy. From his point of view, satirical caricature images that distort the real proportions in the appearance of people are unacceptable. "Yes! and if I do not have Moliere's talent, then at least I am more sincere than he; portraits and only portraits are part of comedy and tragedy; however, they have features that are characteristic of many other persons, and others for the whole human race as much as each person is similar to all his two-legged brethren. I hate caricature, you won't find one in my picture. Here is my poetics ... ".
Finally, the most "flattering praise" for himself, Griboyedov considered Katenin's words that in his comedy "talent is more than art." “Art consists only in imitating a gift ... - noted the author of“ Woe from Wit ”. "As I live, I write freely and freely."
Pushkin also expressed his opinion about the play (II Pushchin brought the list of "Woe from Wit" to Mikhailovskoye). In letters to P.A. Vyazemsky and A.A. Bestuzhev, written in January 1825, he noted that the playwright succeeded most of all with "characters and a sharp picture of morals." It was in their portrayal that, according to Pushkin, the “comic genius” of Griboyedov manifested itself. The poet reacted critically to Chatsky. In his interpretation, this is an ordinary hero-reasoner, expressing the opinions of the only “intelligent character” - the author himself: “... What is Chatsky? An ardent, noble and kind fellow who spent some time with a very intelligent person (namely with Griboyedov) and was saturated with his thoughts, witticisms and satirical remarks. Everything he says is very clever. But to whom does he say all this? Famusov? Skalozub? At the ball for Moscow grandmothers? Molchalin? This is unforgivable. The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at first glance who you are dealing with, and not to throw beads in front of Repetilov and the like. " Pushkin very accurately noticed the contradictory, inconsistent nature of Chatsky's behavior, the tragicomic nature of his position.
At the beginning of 1840, VG Belinsky, in an article about "Woe from Wit", just as decisively as Pushkin, denied Chatsky a practical mind, calling him "the new Don Quixote." According to the critic, the main character of the comedy is a completely ridiculous figure, a naive dreamer, "a boy on a stick on horseback, who imagines that he is sitting on a horse." However, Belinsky soon corrected his negative assessment of Chatsky and comedy in general, stressing in a private letter that Woe From Wit is “the noblest, humanistic work, an energetic (and still the first) protest against the vile racial reality”. It is characteristic that the previous condemnation "from an artistic point of view" was not abolished, but only replaced by a completely different approach: the critic did not consider it necessary to understand the real complexity of Chatsky's image, but assessed the comedy from the standpoint of the social and moral significance of his protest.
The critics and publicists of the 1860s went even further from the author's interpretation of Chatsky. For example, A.I. Herzen saw in Chatsky the embodiment of Griboyedov's own "back thought", interpreting the comedy hero as a political allegory. "... This is a Decembrist, this is a man who ends the era of Peter I and is striving to discern, at least on the horizon, the promised land ...". And for the critic A.A. Grigoriev, Chatsky is “our only hero, that is, the only positively fighting in the environment where fate and passion threw him,” therefore the whole play in his critical interpretation turned from a “high” comedy into a “high” tragedy (see the article "Concerning the new edition of an old thing. Woe from Wit. St. Petersburg 1862"). In these judgments, the image of Chatsky is rethought, interpreted not only in an extremely generalized way, but also one-sidedly.
IAGoncharov responded to the production of Woe from Wit at the Alexandrinsky Theater (1871) with a critical study "Million of Torments" (published in the journal "Vestnik Evropy", 1872, no. 3). This is one of the most insightful analyzes of comedy. Goncharov gave deep characteristics of individual characters, appreciated the skill of Griboyedov as a playwright, wrote about the special position of "Woe from Wit" in Russian literature. But, perhaps, the most important advantage of Goncharov's etude is the careful attitude to the author's concept embodied in the comedy. The writer abandoned the one-sided sociological and ideological interpretation of the play, carefully examining the psychological motivation for the behavior of Chatsky and other characters. "Every step of Chatsky, almost every word in the play is closely related to the play of his feelings for Sophia, irritated by some lie in her actions, which he struggles to unravel until the very end," Goncharov emphasized, in particular. Indeed, without taking into account the love intrigue (its significance was noted by Griboyedov himself in a letter to Katenin), it is impossible to understand the “woe from wits” of the rejected lover and lonely lover of truth, the tragic and comic nature of Chatsky's image at the same time.
The main feature of the comedy is the interaction of two plot-forming conflicts: a love conflict, the main participants in which are Chatsky and Sofia, and a socio-ideological conflict, in which Chatsky collides with the conservatives gathered in Famusov's house. From the point of view of problems, in the foreground is the conflict between the Chatsky and the Famus society, but the traditional love conflict is no less important in the development of the plot action: after all, it was precisely for the sake of meeting Sofia that Chatsky was in such a hurry to Moscow. Both conflicts - love and socio-ideological - complement and reinforce each other. They are equally necessary in order to understand the worldview, characters, psychology and relationships of the characters.
All the elements of the classic plot are easily revealed in the two storylines of "Woe from Wit": the exposition - all the scenes of the first act, preceding the appearance of Chatsky in Famusov's house (appearances 1-5); the beginning of a love conflict and, accordingly, the outset of the action of the first, love plot - the arrival of Chatsky and his first conversation with Sophia (file I, yavl. 7). The socio-ideological conflict (Chatsky - Famus society) is outlined a little later - during the first conversation between Chatsky and Famusov (file I, yavl. 9).
Both conflicts develop in parallel. The stages of the development of a love conflict are the dialogues between Chatsky and Sofia. The hero is persistent in his attempts to challenge Sophia to be frank and find out why she became so cold to him, who is her chosen one. The conflict between Chatsky and Famusian society includes a number of private conflicts: verbal “duels” between Chatsky and Famusov, Skalozub, Silent and other representatives of Moscow society. Private conflicts in "Woe from Wit" literally throw a lot of secondary characters onto the stage, forcing them to reveal their life position in remarks or actions. Griboyedov creates not only a broad "picture of morals", but also shows the psychology and life principles of people literally surrounding Chatsky from all sides.
The pace of development of action in comedy is lightning fast. A lot of events, forming into fascinating everyday "microplots", take place in front of readers and spectators. What is happening on the stage causes laughter and at the same time makes one think about the contradictions of the then society, and about universal problems. The development of the action is somewhat slowed down by the widespread, but extremely important monologues - "programs" of Chatsky and other actors (Famusov, Molchalin, Repetilov): they not only exacerbate the ideological conflict, but are also an important means of social, moral and psychological characterization of the opposing sides. lengthy, but extremely important monologues - "programs" by Chatsky and other actors (Famusov, Molchalin, Repetilov): they not only exacerbate the ideological conflict, but also are an important means of social, moral and psychological characterization of the opposing sides.
The culmination of "Woe from Wit" is an example of Griboyedov's remarkable dramatic skill. At the heart of the culmination of the socio-ideological plot (society declares Chatsky crazy; file III, javl. 14-21) is a rumor, the reason for the emergence of which was given by Sofia with her remark "to the side": "He is out of his mind." The annoyed Sophia dropped this remark by accident, meaning that Chatsky “went crazy” with love and became simply unbearable for her. The author uses a technique based on the play of meanings: Sophia's emotional outburst was heard by the secular gossip Mr. N. and understood it literally. Sofia decided to take advantage of this misunderstanding to take revenge on Chatsky for his mockery of Molchalin. Becoming a source of gossip about Chatsky's madness, the heroine "burned bridges" between herself and her former lover.
Thus, the culmination of a love story motivates the culmination of a socio-ideological story. Thanks to this, both outwardly independent plot lines of the play intersect at a common culmination point - a lengthy scene, the result of which is the recognition of Chatsky as a madman. However, it should be emphasized that just as the arrival of the enamored Chatsky gave rise to fundamental disputes between him, representing the "present century", and those who stubbornly cling to the life values of the "past century", so Sophia's annoyance and anger at the "madman" lover led society to a complete ideological demarcation with Chatsky and with everything new in public life that stands behind him. In fact, any dissent, the unwillingness of Chatsky and his associates outside the stage, to live as the “public opinion” dictates, was declared “madness”.
After the climax, the storylines diverge again. The denouement of a love affair precedes the denouement of a socio-ideological conflict. The night scene in the Famusov house (house IV, apparitions 12-13), in which Molchalin and Liza, as well as Sofia and Chatsky, take part, finally explains the position of the heroes, making the secret clear. Sofia becomes convinced of Molchalin's hypocrisy, and Chatsky finds out who his rival was:
Here is finally the solution to the riddle!
Here I am donated to whom!
The denouement of the storyline, based on the conflict between Chatsky and Famusian society, is Chatsky's last monologue directed against the “crowd of persecutors”. Chatsky declares his final break with Sophia, Famusov, and the whole of Moscow society (house IV, Yavl. 14): “Get out of Moscow! I don’t come here anymore. ”
In the character system of the comedy, Chatsky, linking both storylines, occupies a central place. We emphasize, however, that for the hero himself, it is not the socio-ideological conflict, but the love conflict that is of paramount importance. Chatsky understands perfectly well what kind of society he got into, he has no illusions about Famusov and "all Moscow". The reason for Chatsky's violent accusatory eloquence is not political or educational, but psychological. The source of his passionate monologues and well-aimed stinging remarks - love experiences, "impatience of the heart", which is felt from the first to the last scene with his participation. Of course, a sincere, emotional, open-minded Chatsky cannot but go to a collision with people alien to him. He is unable to conceal his assessments and feelings, especially if he is openly provoked - by Famusov, and Molchalin, and Skalozub, but it is important to remember that it is love, as it were, that opens all the "floodgates", making the stream of Chatsky's eloquence literally unstoppable.
Chatsky came to Moscow with the sole purpose of seeing Sophia, finding confirmation of his former love and, probably, getting married. He is driven by love ardor. Chatsky's excitement and "talkativeness" are at first caused by the joy of meeting with his beloved, but contrary to expectations, Sofia meets him very coldly: the hero seems to run into a blank wall of alienation and poorly hidden annoyance. The former lover, whom Chatsky recalls with touching tenderness, completely changed to him. With the help of his usual jokes and epigrams, he tries to find a common language with her, “touches” his Moscow acquaintances, but his witticisms only irritate Sophia - she answers him with barbs. The strange behavior of his beloved arouses jealous suspicions of Chatsky: "Isn't there really a groom here?"
The actions and words of the clever and sensitive to people Chatsky seem inconsistent, illogical: his mind is clearly out of tune with his heart. Realizing that Sophia does not love him, he does not want to come to terms with this and undertakes a real "siege" of his beloved who has cooled to him. The feeling of love and the desire to find out who became the new chosen one of Sophia keep him in Famusov's house: “I will wait for her and force her to confess: / Who is finally dear to her? Molchalin! Skalozub! "
He annoys Sophia, trying to challenge her to be frank, asking her tactless questions: “Could I find out, / ... Whom do you love? ".
The night scene in Famusov's house revealed the whole truth to the "recovered" Chatsky. But now he goes to the other extreme: he cannot forgive Sophia for his love blindness, he reproaches her that she "lured him with hope." The denouement of the love conflict did not cool Chatsky's ardor. Instead of a passion for love, the hero was seized by other strong feelings - fury and anger. In the heat of rage, he blames others for his "fruitless efforts of love." Chatsky was offended not only by the "betrayal", but also by the fact that Sofia preferred him the insignificant Molchalin, whom he despised so much ("When I think about who you preferred!"). He proudly declares his "break" with her and thinks that now he has "sobered up ... in full", intending at the same time "to pour out all the bile and all the annoyance to the whole world."
It is interesting to trace how love experiences exacerbate the ideological opposition of Chatsky to Famus society. At first, Chatsky calmly refers to Moscow society, almost does not notice its usual vices, sees only comic sides in it: "I am in eccentrics to another miracle / Once I laugh, then I will forget ...".
But when Chatsky is convinced that Sofia does not love him, everything in Moscow begins to irritate him. Remarks and monologues become impudent, sarcastic - he angrily denounces what he previously laughed without malice.
In his monologues, Chatsky touches on topical problems of the modern era: the question of what a real service is, the problems of enlightenment and education, serfdom, and national identity. But, being in an excited state, the hero, as IA Goncharov subtly noted, “falls into exaggeration, almost into drunkenness of speech ... , angry that madame and madame moiselle ... have not been translated into Russian ... ".
Behind the impulsive, nervous verbal shell of Chatsky's monologues, serious, hard-won convictions are hidden. Chatsky is a person with an established worldview, a system of life values and morality. The highest criterion for assessing a person for him is "the mind hungry for knowledge", the desire "to the creative arts, high and beautiful." Chatsky's idea of the service - Famusov, Skalozub and Molchalin literally force him to talk about it - is connected with his ideal of a "free life." One of its most important aspects is freedom of choice: after all, according to the hero, every person should have the right to serve or refuse service. Chatsky himself, according to Famusov, “does not serve, that is, he does not find any use in that,” but he has a clear idea of what the service should be. According to Chatsky, one should serve "to the cause, not to persons", not to confuse personal, selfish interest and "fun" with "deeds." In addition, he connects service with people's notions of honor and dignity, therefore, in a conversation with Famusov, he deliberately emphasizes the difference between the words "serve" and "serve": "I would be glad to serve, it is sickening to serve."
Life philosophy places him outside the society gathered in the Famusov house. Chatsky is a person who does not recognize authorities, does not share generally accepted opinions. Above all, he values his independence, causing horror among ideological opponents, who see the ghost of a revolutionary, "Carbonarius". "He wants to preach liberty!" - exclaims Famusov. From the point of view of the conservative majority, Chatsky's behavior is atypical, which means it is reprehensible, because he does not serve, travels, “knows the ministers,” but does not use his connections, does not make a career. It is no coincidence that Famusov, the ideological mentor of all those gathered in his house, the legislator of the ideological "fashion", demands from Chatsky to live "like everyone else", as is customary in society: do not run wrong, / And most importantly, go and serve. "
Although Chatsky rejects generally accepted ideas about morality and public duty, he can hardly be considered a revolutionary, radical or even a "Decembrist": there is nothing revolutionary about Chatsky's statements. Chatsky is an enlightened person who offers society to return to simple and clear ideals of life, to cleanse from extraneous layers that which is much talked about in Famusian society, but about which, according to Chatsky, they have no correct idea - service. It is necessary to distinguish between the objective meaning of the very moderate enlightenment judgments of the hero and the effect that they produce in a conservative society. The slightest dissent is regarded here not only as a denial of the usual ideals and way of life, consecrated by the “fathers”, “elders”, but also as a threat of a social upheaval: after all, Chatsky, according to Famusov, “does not recognize the authorities”. Against the background of the inert and unshakable conservative majority, Chatsky gives the impression of a lone hero, a brave "madman" who rushed to storm a powerful stronghold, although in a circle of free-thinkers his statements would not shock anyone with their radicalism.
Sofia, Chatsky's main story partner, occupies a special place in the Woe from Wit character system. The love conflict with Sophia involved the hero in a conflict with the whole of society, served, according to Goncharov, "as a motive, a cause for irritation, for that" million torments "under the influence of which he alone could play the role indicated to him by Griboyedov." Sofia does not take the side of Chatsky, but does not belong to Famusov's associates either, although she lived and was brought up in his house. She is a closed, secretive person, it is difficult to approach her. Even her father is a little afraid of her.
There are qualities in the character of Sophia that sharply distinguish her among the people of the Famus circle. First of all, this is the independence of judgments, which is expressed in her dismissive attitude to gossip and gossip ("What is rumor to me? Who wants to judge so ..."). Nevertheless, Sophia knows the "laws" of Famus society and is not averse to using them. For example, she cleverly connects "public opinion" to take revenge on her former lover.
Sophia's character has not only positive, but also negative traits. "A mixture of good instincts with lies" saw in her Goncharov. Self-will, stubbornness, capriciousness, supplemented by vague ideas about morality, make her equally capable of good and bad deeds. After all, having slandered Chatsky, Sofia acted immorally, although she remained, the only one among the audience, convinced that Chatsky was a completely "normal" person. He finally became disillusioned with Sofia just when he learned that he owed her "this fiction."
Sophia is smart, observant, rational in her actions, but love for Molchalin, at the same time selfish and reckless, puts her in an absurd, comic position. In a conversation with Chatsky, Sophia exalts the spiritual qualities of Molchalin to heaven, but she is so blinded by her feeling that she does not notice “how the portrait goes out of hand” (Goncharov). Her praises to Molchalin ("He plays all day!" Sofia exaggerates the danger that threatened Molchalin when falling from a horse, and an insignificant event grows in her eyes to the size of a tragedy, forcing him to recite:
Molchalin! How my reason remained intact!
You know how your life is dear to me!
Why should she play, and so carelessly?
(D. II, yavl. 11).
Sofia, a lover of French novels, is very sentimental. Probably, like Pushkin's heroines from Eugene Onegin, she dreams of the Grandison, but instead of the Sergeant's Guard, she finds another “model of perfection” - the embodiment of “moderation and accuracy”. Sofia idealizes Molchalin, not even trying to find out what he really is, not noticing his "vulgarity" and pretense. “God brought us together” - this “romantic” formula exhausts the meaning of Sophia's love for Molchalin. He managed to please her, first of all, by behaving like a living illustration to a novel she had just read: "He takes his hand, presses to his heart, / From the depths of his soul he sighs ...".
Sophia's attitude to Chatsky is completely different: after all, she does not love him, therefore she does not want to listen, does not seek to understand, avoids explanations. Sophia is unfair to him, considering him callous and heartless ("Not a man, a snake!"), Attributing to him an evil desire to "humiliate" and "prick" everyone, and does not even try to hide her indifference to him: "What do you want me for?" In her relationship with Chatsky, the heroine is as “blind” and “deaf” as in her relationship with Molchalin: her idea of her former lover is far from reality.
Sophia, the main culprit of Chatsky's mental anguish, herself evokes sympathy. In her own way, sincere and passionate, she completely surrenders to love, not noticing that Molchalin is a hypocrite. Even oblivion of decency (night dates, inability to hide her love from others) is evidence of the strength of her feelings. Love for her father's “rootless” secretary takes Sofia outside the famus circle, because she deliberately risks her reputation. For all the bookishness and obvious comicism, this love is a kind of challenge to the heroine and her father, who is anxious to look for a rich careerist groom for her, and to society, which excuses only open, not camouflaged debauchery. The height of feelings, not characteristic of the Famusians, makes her internally free. She is so happy with her love that she is afraid of exposure and possible punishment: "Happy hours are not observed." It is no coincidence that Goncharov compared Sofia to Pushkin's Tatyana: “... In her love, she is just as ready to betray herself as Tatyana: both, as in sleepwalking, wander in infatuation with childish simplicity. And Sofia, like Tatiana, herself begins a novel, finding nothing reprehensible in this. "
Sofia has a strong character and developed self-esteem. She is proud, proud, able to inspire respect for herself. In the finale of the comedy, the heroine regains her sight, realizing that she was unfair to Chatsky and loved a person unworthy of her love. Love is replaced by contempt for Molchalin: "Reproaches, complaints, my tears / Do not dare to wait, you are not worth them ...".
Although, according to Sofia, there were no witnesses to the humiliating scene with Molchalin, she is tormented by a feeling of shame: "I am ashamed of myself, of the walls." there was no humiliating scene with Molchalin, she is tormented by a feeling of shame: "I myself, I am ashamed of the walls." Sophia is aware of her self-deception, blames only herself and sincerely regrets. “All in tears,” she says her last line: “I blame myself all around.” In the last scenes of "Woe from Wit" not a trace remains of the former capricious and self-confident Sophia - the "optical illusion" was revealed, and the features of a tragic heroine are clearly visible in her appearance. The fate of Sofia, at first glance, unexpectedly, but in full accordance with the logic of her character, approaches the tragic fate of Chatsky, who was rejected by her. Indeed, as IA Goncharov subtly noted, in the final of the comedy she has to be “the hardest of all, harder even than Chatsky, and she gets“ a million torments ”. The denouement of the love story of the comedy turned out to be "grief" for the clever Sofia, a catastrophe in life.
Not individual characters in the play, but a "collective" character - the multifaceted Famus society - the main ideological opponent of Chatsky. A lone lover of truth and an ardent defender of a "free life" is opposed by a large group of actors and non-stage characters united by a conservative worldview and the simplest practical morality, the meaning of which is "to take awards and have fun." The ideals and behavior of the heroes of the comedy reflected the mores and way of life of real Moscow society "after the fire" era - the second half of the 1810s.
Famus society is heterogeneous in its composition: it is not a faceless crowd in which a person loses his individuality. On the contrary, convinced Moscow conservatives differ among themselves in intelligence, abilities, interests, occupation and position in the social hierarchy. The playwright discovers in each of them both typical and individual traits. But in one thing everyone is unanimous: Chatsky and his associates are "crazy", "madmen", renegades. The main reason for their "madness", according to the Famusians, is in an excess of "intelligence", in excessive "learning", which is easily equated with "free-thinking." In turn, Chatsky does not skimp on critical assessments of Moscow society. He is convinced that nothing has changed in "after the fire" Moscow ("The houses are new, but the prejudices are old"), and he condemns the inertness, patriarchal nature of Moscow society, his adherence to the obsolete morality of the age of "obedience and fear." The new, educational morality frightens and embitters conservatives - they are deaf to any arguments of reason. Chatsky almost shouts in his accusatory monologues, but each time one gets the impression that the “deafness” of the Famus members is directly proportional to the strength of his voice: the louder the hero “shouts”, the more diligently they “shut their ears”.
Depicting the conflict between Chatsky and Famusian society, Griboyedov makes extensive use of the author's remarks, which report on the reaction of the conservatives to the words of Chatsky. The remarks complement the replicas of the characters, reinforcing the comic of what is happening. This technique is used to create the main comic situation of the play - the situation of deafness. Already during the first conversation with Chatsky (d. II, yavl. 2-3), in which his opposition to conservative morality was first identified, Famusov "sees and does not hear anything." He deliberately plugs his ears so as not to hear the seditious, from his point of view, Chatsky's speeches: "Good, I plugged my ears." During the ball (d. 3, javl. 22), when Chatsky utters his angry monologue against the "alien rule of fashions" ("In that room, an insignificant meeting ..."), "everyone is spinning around a waltz with the greatest zeal. The old men scattered to the card tables. " The situation of feigned "deafness" of the characters allows the author to convey mutual misunderstanding and alienation between the conflicting parties.
Famusov is one of the recognized pillars of Moscow society. His official position is high enough: he is "a manager in a state place." It is on him that the material well-being and success of many people depend: the distribution of ranks and awards, "patronage" to young officials and pensions to old people. Famusov's outlook is extremely conservative: he accepts hostility to everything that is at least somewhat different from his own beliefs and ideas about life, hostile to everything new - even to the fact that in Moscow “roads, sidewalks, / Houses and everything is new harmony ". Famusov's ideal is the past, when everything was "not what it is now."
Famusov is a staunch defender of the morality of the "past century." In his opinion, to live correctly means to act in everything “as the fathers did”, to study, “looking at the elders”. Chatsky, on the other hand, relies on his own "judgments" dictated by common sense, therefore, the ideas of these heroes-antipodes about "proper" and "inappropriate" behavior do not coincide. Famusov imagines rebellion and "debauchery" in the free-thinking, but completely harmless statements of Chatsky, he even predicts that the free-thinker will be put on trial. But in his own actions, he does not see anything reprehensible. In his opinion, the real vices of people - debauchery, drunkenness, hypocrisy, lies and servility are not dangerous. Famusov says about himself that he is known for his monastic behavior, despite the fact that before that he tried to flirt with Liza. At first, society is inclined to attribute the cause of Chatsky's "madness" to drunkenness, but Famusov authoritatively corrects the "judges":
Here you go! great trouble
What a man will drink too much!
Learning is the plague, learning is the reason
What's more important now than when,
Insane divorced people, and deeds, and opinions.
(D. III, manifest. 21)
Listening to Famusov's advice and instructions, the reader seems to find himself in the moral "antiworld". In it, ordinary vices are almost transformed into virtues, and thoughts, opinions, words and intentions are declared "vices". The main "vice", according to Famusov, is "learning", an excess of intelligence. He considers stupidity and buffoonery to be the basis of the practical morality of a decent person. Famusov speaks of the "smart" Maxim Petrovich with pride and envy: "He fell painfully, got up well."
Famusov's idea of "mind" is down-to-earth, everyday: he identifies the mind either with practicality, the ability to "settle down" in life (which he evaluates positively), or with "free-thinking" (such a mind, according to Famusov, is dangerous). For Famusov, Chatsky's mind is a mere trifle, which cannot be compared with the traditional noble values - nobility ("honor for father and son") and wealth:
Be bad, but if you have enough
There are two thousand generic souls, -
He and the groom.
Be another at least quicker, inflated with all sorts of arrogance,
Let yourself be reputed to be a wise man,
And they won't be included in the family.
(D. II, yavl. 5).
Famusov finds a clear sign of insanity in the fact that Chatsky condemns bureaucratic servility:
I have long wondered how no one will bind him!
Try about the authorities - and the field will tell you what!
Bow down a little, bend over a ring,
At least in front of the monarch's face,
So he will call him a scoundrel! ..
(D. III, yavl. 21).
The theme of the mind in comedy is connected with the theme of education and upbringing. If for Chatsky the highest value is “the mind hungry for knowledge”, then Famusov, on the contrary, identifies “scholarship” with “free-thinking”, considering it the source of madness. In enlightenment, he sees such a huge danger that he proposes to fight it with the tried and tested method of the Inquisition: "If evil is suppressed: / Take away all the books and burn it."
Of course, the main question for Famusov is the question of service. Service in the system of his life values is the axis around which the entire public and private life of people revolves. The true goal of the service, believes Famusov, is to make a career, "reach the degrees of the known," and thereby ensure a high position in society. Famusov treats people who succeed in this, for example Skalozub ("Not now or tomorrow general") or those who, like "businesslike" Molchalin, strive for this, with approval, recognizing in them his like-minded people. On the contrary, Chatsky, from the point of view of Famusov, is a “lost” person who deserves only contemptuous regret: after all, having good data for a successful career, he does not serve. “But if you wanted it, it would be businesslike,” notes Famusov.
His understanding of service, therefore, is so far from its true meaning, "inverted", as well as ideas about morality. Famusov sees no fault in open neglect of official duties:
And I have, what is the matter, what is not the matter,
My custom is this:
Signed, off your shoulders.
(D. I, yavl. 4).
Even the abuse of office Famusov makes it a rule:
How will you begin to imagine to the cross, to the place.
Well, how not to please a dear little man! ..
(D. II, yavl. 5).
Molchalin is one of the most prominent representatives of the Famus society. His role in the comedy is comparable to that of Chatsky. Like Chatsky, Molchalin is a participant in both a love conflict and a socio-ideological conflict. He is not only a worthy student of Famusov, but also Chatsky's rival in love for Sofia, a third person who arose between former lovers.
If Famusov, Khlestova and some other characters are living fragments of the "past century", then Molchalin is a man of the same generation as Chatsky. But, unlike Chatsky, Molchalin is a convinced conservative, therefore dialogue and mutual understanding between them are impossible, and conflict is inevitable - their ideals in life, moral principles and behavior in society are absolutely opposite.
Chatsky cannot understand "why are the opinions of others only holy?" Molchalin, like Famusov, considers dependence "on others" the basic law of life. Molchalin is a mediocrity that does not go beyond the generally accepted framework, this is a typical "average" person: both in ability, and in mind, and in ambition. But he has "his own talent": he is proud of his qualities - "moderation and accuracy." Molchalin's outlook and behavior is strictly regulated by his position in the service hierarchy. He is modest and helpful, because "in the ranks of ... small", he cannot do without "patrons", even if he has to completely depend on their will.
But, unlike Chatsky, Molchalin fits organically into the Famus society. This is "little Famusov", because he has a lot in common with the Moscow "ace", despite the big difference in age and social status. For example, Molchalin's attitude to the service is purely "Famusian": he would like to "both take awards and have fun." Public opinion for Molchalin, as well as for Famusov, is sacred. Some of his statements (“Ah! Evil tongues are more terrible than a pistol”, “In my age you shouldn't dare / Have your own judgment”) resemble Famus’s: “Ah! Oh my God! what will she say / Princess Marya Aleksevna! "
Molchalin is the antipode of Chatsky, not only in convictions, but also in the nature of his attitude towards Sophia. Chatsky is sincerely in love with her, nothing exists for him above this feeling, in comparison with him "the whole world" Chatsky "seemed dust and vanity." Molchalin only skillfully pretends that he loves Sophia, although, by his own admission, he does not find "anything enviable" in her. Relations with Sofia are entirely determined by Molchalin's position in life: this is how he sticks with all people without exception, this is a life principle learned from childhood. In the last act, he tells Lisa that he was "bequeathed by his father" "to please all people without exception." Molchalin is in love "according to his position", "in the pleasing of the daughter of such a person" as Famusov, "who feeds and gives water, / And sometimes he will give him a rank ...".
The loss of Sofia's love does not mean the defeat of Molchalin. Although he made an unforgivable oversight, he managed to get away with it. It is significant that not on the "guilty" Molchalin, but on the "innocent" Chatsky and the offended, humiliated Sophia, the Famusov brought down his anger. In the finale of the comedy, Chatsky becomes an outcast: society rejects him, Famusov points to the door and threatens to "announce" his alleged debauchery "to the whole people." Molchalin is likely to redouble his efforts to make amends for Sophia. It is impossible to stop the career of such a person as Molchalin - this is the meaning of the author's attitude to the hero. Even in the first act, Chatsky rightly remarked that Molchalin "will reach the known degrees." The night incident confirmed the bitter truth: the society rejects the Chatskys, and "The silencers are blissful in the world."
Famusovskoe society in "Woe from Wit" is a set of secondary and episodic characters, guests of Famusov. One of them, Colonel Skalozub, is a soldier, the embodiment of stupidity and ignorance. He "never uttered a clever word", and from the conversations of those around him he only understands what, as it seems to him, relates to the military theme. Therefore, when asked by Famusov, "How do you feel about Nastasya Nikolavna?" Skalozub businesslike replies: "We did not serve together with her." However, by the standards of the Famus society, Skalozub is an enviable groom: “He is both a golden bag and marks the generals,” therefore no one notices his stupidity and uncouthness in society (or does not want to notice). Famusov himself "is very delusional with them", not wanting another groom for his daughter.
Skalozub shares the attitude of the Famus members to service and education, talking to the "soldier's directness" that which is shrouded in the fog of eloquent phrases in the statements of Famusov and Molchalin. In his abrupt aphorisms, reminiscent of teams on the parade ground, all the simple everyday "philosophy" of careerists fits. "As a true philosopher," he dreams of one thing: "I just got to be a general." Despite his "cudgel-lovableness", Skalozub very quickly and successfully moves up the career ladder, causing respectful amazement even in Famusov: "Colonels for a long time, but serve recently." Education is of no value to Skalozub (“you won’t fool me with scholarship”), the army drill, from his point of view, is much more useful, if only by the fact that it is able to knock out the scientific crap out of his head: “I am Prince Gregory and you / Feldwebel in Volters I will. " A military career and reasoning "about frunt and ranks" are the only things that Skalozub is interested in.
All the characters who appear in Famusov's house during the ball are actively involved in the general confrontation with Chatsky, adding all new fictional details to the gossip about the "madness" of the protagonist, until in the mind of the countess grandmother she turns into a fantastic story about how Chatsky went " in nusurmans ". Each of the minor characters performs in their own comic role.
Khlestova, like Famusov, is a colorful type: this is an "angry old woman", a domineering lady-serf woman of Catherine's era. She "out of boredom" carries with her a "little arap girl and a dog", has a weakness for young Frenchmen, loves to be "pleased", therefore she treats Molchalin and even Zagoretsky favorably. Ignorant tyranny is the life principle of Khlestova, who, like most of Famusov's guests, does not hide her hostility to education and enlightenment:
And you will really go crazy from these, from some
From boarding houses, schools, lyceums, as you mean them,
Yes from Lancart peer learning.
(D. III, yavl. 21).
Zagoretsky - "a notorious swindler, a rogue", an informer and a sharper ("Beware of him: carry a lot, / Eve don't sit down: he will sell"). The attitude towards this character characterizes the mores of Famus society. Everyone despises Zagoretsky, not hesitating to scold him in the face ("He is a liar, a gambler, a thief" - says Khlestov about him), but in society he is "scolded / Everywhere, but everywhere they accept", because Zagoretsky is a "master to serve."
The “speaking” surname of Repetilov indicates his tendency to thoughtlessly repeat other people's arguments “about important mothers”. Petilova points to his tendency to mindlessly repeat other people's arguments "about important mothers." Repetilov, unlike other representatives of the Famus society, is in words an ardent admirer of "scholarship". But the educational ideas that Chatsky preaches, he caricatures and vulgarizes, calling, for example, that everyone should learn "from Prince Gregory", where "they will give them champagne for slaughter." Repetilov nevertheless let it slip: he became an admirer of "learning" only because he failed to make a career ("I would climb into ranks, but I met failures"). Education, from his point of view, is just a forced replacement for a career. Repetilov is a product of the Famus society, although he shouts that he and Chatsky have "the same tastes." The "secret union" and the "secret gatherings" about which he tells Chatsky are very interesting material that allows one to draw a conclusion about the negative attitude of Griboyedov himself to the "noisy secrets" of secular free-thinking. However, the "secret union" can hardly be considered a parody of the Decembrist secret societies, it is a satire on ideological "empty dance" that made "secret", "conspiratorial" activity a form of secular pastime, because it all comes down to idle chatter and shaking the air - "we make noise, brother, we make noise. "
In addition to those heroes who are listed in the "playbill" - the list of "characters" - and at least once appear on the stage, in "Woe from Wit" many people are mentioned who are not participants in the action - these are non-stage characters. Their names and surnames flicker in the monologues and remarks of the characters, who necessarily express their attitude towards them, approve or condemn their life principles and behavior.
Out-of-stage characters are invisible "participants" in the socio-ideological conflict. With their help, Griboyedov managed to expand the scope of the stage action, concentrated on a narrow area (Famusov's house) and completed in one day (the action begins early in the morning and ends in the morning of the next day). Non-stage characters have a special artistic function: they represent society, of which all participants in the events in Famusov's house are a part. Without playing any role in the plot, they are closely associated with those who fiercely defend the "past century" or strive to live by the ideals of the "present century" - shout, indignant, indignant or, conversely, experience "a million torments" on stage.
It is the non-stage characters who confirm that the entire Russian society is split into two unequal parts: the number of conservatives mentioned in the play significantly exceeds the number of dissidents, “crazy”. But the most important thing is that Chatsky, a lone lover of truth on stage, is not at all alone in life: the existence of people who are spiritually close to him, according to Famusians, proves that “nowadays there are more insane people, deeds, and opinions than when”. Among Chatsky's associates are Skalozub's cousin, who abandoned his brilliant military career in order to go to the village and read books (“Chin followed him: he suddenly left his service, / In the village he began to read books”), Prince Fyodor, the nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskoy (“ Chinov does not want to know! He is a chemist, he is a botanist ... "), and the Petersburg" professors "with whom he studied. According to the guests of Famusov, these people are just as crazy, crazy because of "learning", like Chatsky.
Another group of non-stage characters is Famusov's "associates". These are his "idols", whom he often mentions as a model of life and behavior. Such is, for example, the Moscow "ace" Kuzma Petrovich - for Famusov this is an example of a "meritorious life":
The deceased was a venerable chamberlain,
With a key, he knew how to deliver the key to his son;
He is rich, and he was married to a rich man;
Survived children, grandchildren;
Died; everyone remembers him sadly.
(D. II, yavl. 1).
Another worthy, according to Famusov, an example to follow is one of the most memorable off-stage characters, “the deceased uncle” Maxim Petrovich, who made a successful court career (“he served Catherine under the empress”). Like other "nobles in the case", he had a "haughty disposition", but, if the interests of his career demanded it, he knew how to deftly "help out" and easily "bent over the edge".
Chatsky exposes the mores of Famus society in the monologue "Who are the judges? .." (file II, yavl. 5), talking about the unworthy way of life of the "fatherland of fathers" ("spilled in feasts and extravagance"), about the riches they have unjustly acquired ( “They are rich with robbery”), about their immoral, inhuman acts that they commit with impunity (“they found protection from the court in friends, in kinship”). One of the non-stage characters mentioned by Chatsky, “traded” the “crowd” of devoted servants who rescued him “during the hours of wine and fight” for three greyhounds. Another "for ventures / On serf ballet drove on many wagons / From mothers, fathers of rejected children", which were then "sold out one by one." Such people, from the point of view of Chatsky, are a living anachronism that does not correspond to the modern ideals of enlightenment and a humane attitude towards serfs:
Who are the judges? Over the antiquity of years
Their enmity is irreconcilable to a free life,
Judgments are drawn from forgotten newspapers
The times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of Crimea ...
(D. II, yavl. 5).
Even a simple enumeration of non-stage characters in the monologues of the actors (Chatsky, Famusov, Repetilov) complements the picture of the mores of the Griboyedov era, giving it a special, "Moscow" flavor. In the first act (episode 7), Chatsky, who has just arrived in Moscow, in a conversation with Sofia "goes over" a lot of common acquaintances, mocking their "oddities".
From the tone in which some of the characters speak of Moscow ladies, one can conclude that women enjoyed tremendous influence in Moscow society. Famusov enthusiastically speaks of the imperious "secular lionesses":
And the ladies? - sunsya who, try, master;
Judges to everything, everywhere, there are no judges above them
Command before the frunt!
Attend send them to the Senate!
Irina Vlasyevna! Lukerya Aleksevna!
Tatyana Yuryevna! Pulcheria Andrevna!
(D. II, yavl. 5).
The famous Tatyana Yuryevna, about whom Molchalin spoke with reverence to Chatsky, apparently enjoys indisputable authority and, on occasion, can provide "patronage". And the formidable princess Marya Aleksevna thrills even the very Moscow "ace" Famusov, who, as it unexpectedly turns out, is concerned not so much with the meaning of what happened, but with the public disclosure of the "depraved" behavior of his daughter and the merciless malicious language of the Moscow lady.
Griboyedov's dramatic innovation was manifested primarily in the rejection of some genre canons of classic "high" comedy. The Alexandrian verse, which wrote the "standard" comedies of the classicists, is replaced by a flexible poetic meter, which made it possible to convey all the shades of lively colloquial speech - free iambic. The play seems to be "overpopulated" with characters in comparison with the comedies of Griboyedov's predecessors. One gets the impression that Famusov's house and everything that happens in the play is only a part of the big world, which was brought out of the usual half-asleep state by "madmen" like Chatsky. Moscow is a temporary haven for an ardent hero wandering "around the world", a small "post station" on the "main road" of his life. Here, not having time to cool down from the frenzied race, he made only a short stop and, having experienced "a million torments", set off again.
In Woe From Wit, there are not five, but four actions, so there is no situation typical of the “fifth act” when all contradictions are resolved and the life of the heroes restores its unhurried course. The main conflict of comedy, social and ideological, remained unresolved: everything that happened is only one of the stages of the ideological consciousness of the conservatives and their antagonist.
An important feature of Woe from Wit is the rethinking of comic characters and comic situations: in comic contradictions, the author reveals a hidden tragic potential. Not allowing the reader and viewer to forget about the comic nature of what is happening, Griboyedov emphasizes the tragic meaning of the events. The tragic pathos is especially intensified in the finale of the work: all the main characters of the fourth act, including Molchalin and Famusov, do not appear in traditional comedic roles. They are more reminiscent of the heroes of the tragedy. The true tragedies of Chatsky and Sophia are complemented by the "small" tragedies of Molchalin, who broke his vow of silence and paid the price for it, and the humiliated Famusov, who with trepidation awaits retribution from the Moscow "thunderer" in a skirt - Princess Marya Aleksevna.
The principle of "unity of characters" - the basis of the drama of classicism - turned out to be completely unacceptable for the author of "Woe from Wit". Griboyedov considered the "portraiture", that is, the life truth of the characters, which the "archaist" PA Katenin attributed to the "errors" of comedy, the main merit. The straightforwardness and one-sidedness in the depiction of the central characters are discarded: not only Chatsky, but also Famusov, Molchalin, Sophia are shown as complex people, sometimes contradictory and inconsistent in their actions and statements. It is hardly appropriate and possible to evaluate them using polar assessments ("positive" - "negative"), because the author seeks to show in these characters not "good" and "bad". He is interested in the real complexity of their characters, as well as the circumstances in which their social and everyday roles, worldview, system of life values and psychology are manifested. The characters of the Griboyedov comedy can rightfully be attributed to the words spoken by A.S. Pushkin about Shakespeare: these are "living beings, filled with many passions ..."
Each of the main characters appears to be in the focus of a variety of opinions and assessments: after all, even ideological opponents or people who do not sympathize with each other are important to the author as sources of opinions - verbal “portraits” of heroes are formed from their “polyphony”. Perhaps rumor plays no less a role in comedy than in Pushkin's novel "Eugene Onegin". The judgments about Chatsky are especially saturated with a variety of information - he appears in the mirror of a kind of "oral newspaper" created in front of the viewer or reader by the inhabitants of the Famus house and his guests. It is safe to say that this is only the first wave of Moscow rumors about the St. Petersburg freethinker. The "crazy" Chatsky gave food for gossip for a long time to secular gossips. But "evil tongues", which for Molchalin "are more terrible than a pistol," are not dangerous to him. Chatsky is a man from another world, only for a short moment he came into contact with the world of Moscow fools and gossips and recoiled from him in horror.
The picture of "public opinion", masterfully recreated by Griboyedov, consists of the oral statements of the characters. Their speech is impulsive, impulsive, reflects an instant reaction to other people's opinions and assessments. The psychological reliability of the speech portraits of the characters is one of the most important features of comedy. The verbal appearance of the characters is as unique as their place in society, demeanor and range of interests. In the crowd of guests gathered in Famusov's house, people often stand out precisely for their "voice", peculiarities of speech.
Chatsky's “voice” is unique: his “speech behavior” already in the first scenes betrays him as a convinced opponent of the Moscow nobility. The hero's word is his only, but the most dangerous "weapon" in the "duel" of the truth-lover with the Famus society, which lasts all long day. To the idle and "evil languages" of the "storytellers of indomitable, / Ungainly clever, cunning simpletons, / Sinister old women, old men, / Decreased over inventions, nonsense", Chatsky opposes a hot word of truth, in which bile and annoyance, the ability to express their comic sides existence is connected with the high pathos of the affirmation of genuine life values. The language of comedy is free from lexical, syntactic and intonational restrictions; it is a “rough”, “unkempt” element of colloquial speech, which, under the pen of Griboyedov, the “talker”, turned into a miracle of poetry. “I’m not talking about poetry,” said Pushkin, “half of them should be included in the proverb.”
Despite the fact that Chatsky as an ideologist opposes the inert Moscow nobility and expresses the author's point of view on Russian society, he cannot be considered an unconditionally “positive” character, such as, for example, the characters of the comedy-giants - Griboyedov's predecessors. Chatsky's behavior is the behavior of an accuser, a judge, a tribune, who fiercely attacks the mores, everyday life and psychology of Famusians. But the author points out the motives for his strange behavior: after all, he came to Moscow not at all as an emissary of the St. Petersburg free-thinkers. The indignation that grips Chatsky is caused by a special psychological state: his behavior is determined by two passions - love and jealousy. They are the main reason for his fervor. That is why, despite the strength of his mind, Chatsky in love does not control his feelings that are out of control, is not able to act rationally. The anger of an enlightened person, combined with the pain of losing his beloved, made him "throw pearls before the Repetilovs." His behavior is comical, but the hero himself is experiencing genuine mental suffering, "a million torments." Chatsky is a tragic character in comic circumstances.
Famusov and Molchalin do not look like traditional comedic "villains" or "dumbass". Famusov is a tragicomic person, because in the final scene not only all his plans for Sophia's marriage collapse - he is in danger of losing his reputation, a “good name” in society. For Famusov this is a real misfortune, and therefore at the end of the last act, he exclaims in despair: "Isn't my fate still deplorable?" The position of Molchalin, who is in a hopeless position, is also tragicomic: captivated by Liza, he is forced to pretend to be a modest and uncomplaining adorer of Sophia. Molchalin understands that his relationship with her will cause irritation and bossy anger of Famusov. But to reject Sofia's love, Molchalin believes, is dangerous: the daughter has influence on Famusov and can take revenge, ruin his career. He found himself between two fires: the "lordly love" of his daughter and the inevitable "lordly anger" of his father.
Sincere careerism and feigned love are incompatible, an attempt to unite them turns for Molchalin humiliation and "fall", even if from a small, but already "taken" by him service "height". “The people created by Griboyedov are taken from life to their full height, drawn from the bottom of real life, - stressed the critic A.A. Grigoriev, - they do not have their virtues and vices written on their foreheads, but they are branded with the seal of their insignificance, branded with a vengeful hand executioner-artist ".
Unlike the heroes of classic comedies, the main characters in Woe from Wit (Chatsky, Molchalin, Famusov) are depicted in several social roles. For example, Chatsky is not only a free-thinker, a representative of the younger generation of the 1810s. He is a lover, a landowner ("had three hundred souls"), and a former military man (Chatsky once served in the same regiment with Gori-what). Famusov is not only a Moscow "ace" and one of the pillars of the "past century". We see him in other social roles as well: a father trying to "find a place" for his daughter, and a government official "managing a government place." Molchalin is not only "Famusov's secretary living in his house" and "happy rival" of Chatsky: he belongs, like Chatsky, to the younger generation. a generation. But his worldview, ideals and way of life have nothing to do with the ideology and life of Chatsky. They are characteristic of the "silent" majority of the noble youth. Molchalin is one of those who easily adapt to any circumstances for the sake of one goal - to climb as high as possible in the career ladder.
Griboyedov neglects an important rule of classicistic drama - the unity of plot action: there is no single event center in Woe From Wit (this caused criticism of the literary Old Believers for the vagueness of the comedy's "plan"). Two conflicts and two storylines in which they are realized (Chatsky - Sofia and Chatsky - Famus society) allowed the playwright to skillfully combine the depth of social issues and subtle psychologism in portraying the characters of the heroes.
The author of "Woe from Wit" did not set himself the task of destroying the poetics of classicism. His aesthetic credo is creative freedom (“I live and write freely and freely”). The use of certain artistic means and techniques of drama was dictated by specific creative circumstances that arose in the course of work on the play, and not by abstract theoretical postulates. Therefore, in those cases when the requirements of classicism limited its possibilities, not allowing to achieve the desired artistic effect, he resolutely rejected them. But quite often it was the principles of classicist poetics that made it possible to effectively solve an artistic problem.
For example, the “unity” characteristic of the classicists' drama - the unity of place (Famusov's house) and the unity of time (all events occur within one day) are observed. They help to achieve concentration, "thickening" the action. Griboyedov also skillfully used some private techniques of the poetics of classicism: the portrayal of characters in traditional stage roles (an unlucky hero-lover, his sneaky rival, a servant - a confidant of his mistress, a capricious and somewhat eccentric heroine, a deceived father, a comic old woman, a gossip, etc. .). However, these roles are necessary only as a comedy "highlight", emphasizing the main thing - the individuality of the characters, the originality of their characters and positions.
In the comedy there are a lot of "setting faces", "figurants" (as in the old theater episodic characters were called, who created the background, "living scenery" for the main characters). As a rule, their character is exhaustively revealed by their “speaking” surnames and first names. The same technique is used to emphasize the main feature in the appearance or position of some central characters: Famusov is known to everyone, on everyone's lips (from Latin fama - rumor), Repetilov - repeating someone else's (from French repeter - to repeat ), Sophia - wisdom (ancient Greek sophia), Chatsky in the first edition was Chad, that is, “dwelling in a child”, “beginning”. The ominous surname Skalozub - "changeling" (from the word "scoffing"). Molchalin, Tugoukhovsky, Khlestova - these names "speak" for themselves ..
In Woe from Wit, the most important features of realistic art were clearly manifested: realism not only frees the individuality of the writer from the deadening “rules”, “canons” and “conventions”, but also relies on the experience of other artistic systems.
Other compositions on this work
"Crazy all over" (Image of Chatsky) "The present century" and "the past century" "Woe from Wit" - the first Russian realistic comedy "All Moscow ones have a special imprint." (Old Moscow in A.S. Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit".) "Who are the judges ?!" (Chatsky through the eyes of Famusov, Sophia and other heroes of the comedy by A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit".) "Otherwise, a lot of intelligence is worse than it would be at all." N.V. Gogol "In my comedy there are twenty-five fools for one smart person." "The present century" and "the past century" in A. Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" "The present century" and "the past century" in the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" "Woe from Wit" - the "pearl" of Russian drama "Woe from Mind" - the immortal work of Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" A. S. Griboyedov as a comedy of a new type "Woe from Wit" in the comedy of the same name by A. S. Griboyedov Woe from Wit as a Political Comedy "Sin is not a problem, word of mouth is not good" (The moral image of Famus' Moscow "in the comedy" Woe from Wit "by A. Griboyedov.) "Life in servility with the most ardent" (based on the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit") "Every business requiring renewal evokes the shadow of Chatsky" (I. A. Goncharov) "Who will solve you!" (Sophia's riddle in the comedy by A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit".) "A Million Torments of Chatsky" (based on the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit") "Million torment" (compendium). "Million of Torments" by Sofia Famusova (Based on Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit") Chatsky's "Million of Torments" "The taciturns are blissful in the world!" (based on the comedy by A.S. Griboyedov Woe from Wit) "Silent people are blessed in the light ..." "The most despicable traits of a past life." "The Chatsky role is passive ... This is the role of all the Chatskys, although it is at the same time always victorious" (I. A. Goncharov) (based on the comedy A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit.") "The Chatsky role is passive ... This is the role of all the Chatskys, although it is at the same time always victorious" (IA Goncharov) (based on the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit"). Who are the judges? (based on the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit") Analysis of the final episode of the comedy A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Analysis of the final episode of the comedy "Woe from Wit" by A. Griboyedov. Analysis of the ball scene in the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Analysis of the episode "Dialogue between Chatsky and Famusov" Analysis of the episode "Ball at Famusov's House" in the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Analysis of the episode "Ball at Famusov's House" of Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit". Analysis of the episode "Ball in the House of Famusovs" from the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Analysis of the episode of the ball in Famusov's house (based on the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit") Ball at Famusov's house Ball at the Famusovs' house What is the meaning of the "open" finale of the comedy "Woe from Wit" by A. Griboyedov? WHAT IS THE MEANING OF A. S. GRIBOEDOV'S WORKS "WAIT FROM MIND" What is the meaning of comparing the image of Chatsky with the image of Repetilov in the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit"? What is the meaning of the ending of Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" The present century and the past century ("Woe from Wit") The present century and the past century in the comedy "Woe from Wit" Views of Chatsky and Famusov Non-stage and secondary characters and their role in the comedy "Woe from Wit" Non-stage and episodic characters and their role in the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Non-stage characters in the comedy by A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Time: its hero and antihero (based on the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit") The hero of the time in the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" The main idea of the comedy by A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Deafness in the work of A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit". Griboyedov A.S. Woe from Wit Griboyedov and his comedy "Woe from Wit" Griboyedov and Chatsky Griboyedov and Chatsky (based on the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit") Griboedovskaya Moscow Two views of the world in the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Two patriotisms: the dispute between Chatsky and Famusov about Moscow (based on the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit") Noble youth in Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" Is Chatsky a Decembrist? Dialogue between Famusov and Chatsky (analysis of 2 phenomena of the second act of the comedy by A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit") Dialogue between Famusov and Chatsky. (Analysis of the 2nd phenomenon of the second act of the comedy by A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit".) Dialogue between Chatsky and Repetilov (analysis of the 5th phenomenon from the 4th act of the comedy by A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit".) Is Sophia worthy of Chatsky's love? (based on the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit") Is Sophia Chatsky worthy? Genre originality of the play by A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Female images in the comedy by A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" For what and against what is Chatsky fighting? (Based on the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit".) The meaning of the comedy "Woe from Wit". The ideas of Decembrism in A. Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit". Chatsky and the Decembrists The ideas of Decembrism in Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" Ideological and artistic wealth of the comedy "Woe from Wit" The ideological meaning of Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" Image of Moscow in the comedy by A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" How was the historical conflict of eras reflected in Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit"? How Skalozub became a colonel The picture of morals in the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" The picture of the morals of the life of the nobility in the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Comedy "Woe from Wit" Comedy A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" as a political comedy Comedy A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" as a socio-political drama Comic and tragic in A. Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" Conflict of two eras in the comedy "Woe from Wit" Winged expressions from the work of Griboyedov "Woe from Wit". Who is Chatsky: winner or loser Who is Chatsky: winner or loser? Personality and Society in the Comedy by A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Mastery of realistic depiction of life in one of the works of Russian literature of the 19th century. (A.S. Griboyedov. "Woe from Wit.") A million torments of Sofia Famusova in Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" My attitude to Sophia ("Woe from Wit") My attitude to Chatsky and Molchalin Can Chatsky be considered an extra person? My reflections on the pages of the comedy "Woe from Wit". The young generation in the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Molchalin - "the miserable creature" (based on the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit") Molchalin and "silence". Is Molchalin funny or scary? Molchalin and Chatsky in the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Molchalin - "the miserable creature" (based on the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit") Moscow A.S. Griboyedov and A.S. Pushkin Moscow as depicted by A.S. Griboyedov Moscow in the comedy by A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Moscow in faces in the comedy by A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Moscow nobility in the comedy by A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Moscow nobility in the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" "All Moscow ones have a special imprint" A. S. Griboyedov's innovation in the comedy "Woe from Wit" Innovation and tradition in the comedy by A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" INNOVATION AND TRADITION IN THE COMEDY OF GRIBOEDOV "Woe FROM MIND" The Accused and the Judges in the Play by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit". The image of Sophia in the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" The image of Sophia in the comedy by A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit". THE IMAGE OF SOPHIA IN THE PLAY BY A. S. GRIBOEDOV "Woe FROM MIND" The image of Sofia Famusova The image of Chatsky The image of Chatsky in "Woe from Wit" The image of Chatsky in the comedy by A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit". Images of officials in the plays "Woe from Wit" by A. Griboyedov and "The Inspector General" by N. V. Gogol. Explanation of Chatsky with Sophia (analysis of the 1st phenomenon of the third action of the comedy by A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit"). Onegin and Chatsky The main conflict in the comedy Woe from Wit The main conflict of the comedy "Woe from Wit" Features of the conflict of the comedy A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Letter to Sofya Pavlovna Famusova Letter to Chatsky Letter to Chatsky (based on the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit") The generation of fathers in the comedy Griboyedov Woe from Wit Vices of Famus Society (based on the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit") Why Griboyedovsky Chatsky hasn’t aged so far, and with him the whole comedy? Why did Sophia choose Molchalin? Representatives of the "fathers" in the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Chatsky's arrival at Famusov's house. (Analysis of a scene from the first act of the comedy by A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit") Reception of the antithesis in one of the works of Russian literature of the XIX century. (A.S. Griboyedov. "Woe from Wit.") The problem of "madness" and "mind" in the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" The problem of the mind in the comedy by A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" The problem of the mind in the comedy A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" The problem of the mind in Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" and the meaning of its name. Two types of mind in the play. Griboyedov's work "Woe from Wit" - a comedy or a tragedy? The role of non-stage characters in A. Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" The role of minor characters in one of the works of Russian literature of the 19th century. (A.S. Griboyedov. "Woe from Wit.") The role of Chatsky's monologues in the comedy by A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit". The role of the image of Sophia in the comedy A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" The role of the image of Sophia in the comedy Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" The role of Repetilov and Zagoretsky in the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" The role of Sophia in the comedy A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" The role of the third act in the comedy A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Russia of the XIX century The originality of Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" as a literary work of the early 20s of the xix century The originality of the conflict in "Woe from Wit" A. S. Griboyedov The originality of the conflict in the comedy A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" The originality of the conflict in the comedy A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" The family and its problems in the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" The system of characters in the comedy by A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Rumor about Chatsky's madness (analysis of phenomena 14-21, action of the third comedy by A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit") Is Molchalin funny or scary? (based on the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit") The meaning of the name of the comedy "Woe from Wit" The meaning of the name of the comedy A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" The meaning of the name of the comedy A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Modern reading of Griboyedov Sophia and Liza in the comedy by A.S. Griboyedov's "Woe from Wit": two characters and two destinies. Social and personal concept in the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit". Socio-historical roots of Chatsky's drama Social and personal in conflict comedy A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Gossip about Chatsky's madness (analysis of phenomena 14-21, action of the third comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit"). Comparative characteristics of Molchalin and Chatsky Comparative characteristics of Famusov's images from A. Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" and Anton Antonovich Skvoznik-Dmukhanovsky (Governor) from N. Gogol's comedy "The Inspector General" Comparative characteristics of Famusov and Chatsky (based on the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit") Judges and defendants in the comedy by A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Ball scene in the comedy by A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Love theme in the play Chatsky's tragedy Traditions and innovation of A. S. Griboyedov in the comedy "Woe from Wit" Tradition and innovation in the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Tradition and innovation in Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" Traditions and innovation of the comedy A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Traditional and innovative in the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Famusov (based on the play by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit") Famusov in my view Famusov and others ... Famusov and his entourage. Famusov and the life philosophy of the "fathers" in Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" Famusov and the life philosophy of the "fathers" in the comedy of A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Famusov and Molchalin in the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Famusov and Chatsky (based on the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit") Famusovskaya Moscow (based on the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit") Famusovskaya Moscow in the image of A.S. Griboyedov Famusovsky world Famus Society Famus Society (based on the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit") Famus society in the comedy "Woe from Wit" Famus Society in A.S. Griboyedov's Comedy Famus society in the comedy of A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Famus Society in A. Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" The nature of the main conflict in the comedy A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Characteristics and meaning of the dialogue between Famusov and Chatsky in Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" Artistic features of the comedy "Woe from Wit" Quotation characteristics of Molchalin Quotation characteristics of Skalozub and Famusov Quotation characteristics of Chatsky Chatsky - "other" in the world of Famusovs Chatsky - the image of a "new man" (Based on the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit") Chatsky winner or victim? Chatsky and the Decembrists CHATSKY AND MOLCHALIN Chatsky and Molchalin in the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Chatsky and Molchalin as heroes-antipodes. (Based on the comedy by A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit") Chatsky and Molchalin. Comparative characteristics of heroes Chatsky and Molchalin: classic images of comedy in a modern interpretation Chatsky and Famus Society Chatsky and the Famus Society in the comedy "Woe from Wit" Chatsky and the Famus Society in the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Chatsky as the spokesman for the ideas of the Decembrists (based on the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit") Chatsky as a hero of his time (based on the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit"). Chatsky as a representative of the "present century" (based on the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit") Chatsky against Famus society (based on A. Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit") Chatsky, Onegin and Pechorin. How to explain the durability of Griboyedov's work "Woe from Wit"? What attracts me to the image of Chatsky. What is the modern comedy "Woe from Wit"? Features of classicism and realism in the comedy by A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Features of classicism, romanticism and realism in the comedy by A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Features of realism in the comedy by A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Features of Famus society, preserved in modern Moscow (based on the comedy by A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit") Reading the comedy "Woe from Wit" Contents of the comedy "Woe from Wit" The moral image and life ideals of the Famus society Characteristics of the image of Famusov in the comedy "Woe from Wit" CHATSKY AND FAMUSOVSKOE SOCIETY IN GRIBOEDOV'S COMEDY “Woe FROM MIND”. The famous monologue of Chatsky "Who are the judges?" The image of Chatsky in the comedy "Woe from Wit" Features of realism and classicism in the comedy "Woe from Wit" Griboyedov A.S. Speech characteristics of the heroes of the comedy "Woe from Wit" Griboyedov A.S. An essay based on the comedy by A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Characteristics of the image of Molchalin in the comedy "Woe from Wit" Characteristics of the image of Colonel Skalozub in the comedy "Woe from Wit" The plot and composition of the comedy "Woe from Wit" Griboyedov A.S. Chatsky and Famusov. Comparative characteristics of heroes Liza is a minor character in Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" The author's position and means of its expression in the comedy "Woe from Wit" Chatsky and Sophia - The Tragedy of "Outraged Feelings" Funny or scary Molchalin Is Chatsky smart, opposing himself to the Famus society Characteristics of minor characters in the comedy "Woe from Wit" FAMUSOVSKAYA MOSCOW Gossip about Chatsky's madness The concept of "Woe from Wit" by Griboyedov Starodum is an enlightened and progressive man Analysis of the 2nd phenomenon of action II of the comedy "Woe from Wit" The meaning of the dialogue between Famusov and Chatsky The role of Chatsky, the main role Analysis of the comedy "Woe from Wit" Description of the image of Sophia in the comedy "Woe from Wit" Love triangle in a play with a public sound (Woe from Wit) Famusov and Molchalin in the comedy by A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" My description of the image of Chatsky How the characters of both heroes are revealed in the dialogue between Chatsky and Molchalin Ball at Famusov's house (based on the comedy "Woe from Wit" by A. Griboyedov) Chatsky and society Chatsky and Molchalin. Comparative characteristics of the heroes of the comedy A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" The main reasons for the conflict between Chatsky and Famus society What does it mean to be smart in Famusov's circle Why the Molchalins are dangerous. Winged words in Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" "Woe from Wit" is an unsurpassed work, the only one in world literature that has not been fully solved "(A. Blok) The language of the comedy A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" The first act is an exposition of a conflict Honor, cowardice, resourcefulness and servility Characteristics of the guests of the Famus house. The purpose of their arrival A.S. GRIBOEDOV "Woe FROM MIND". CONFLICT OF CHATSKY AND SOFIA. Chatsky and Famus Society. (6) The image and character of Sophia in the comedy Woe from Wit - artistic analysis "The present century" and "the past century" in the comedy by A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Who is Chatsky: the winner or the loser? (2) Sofya Famusova, Tatiana Larina and other female images The idea of the comedy "Woe from Wit" Chatsky and Molchalin in the comedy by A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Skalozub 2 Eremeevna nanny Mitrofan The image and character of Molchalin What will happen in Famusov's house the day after Chatsky's departure What the modern reader laughs at in the comedy AS Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" For what and against what Chatsky is fighting Critics and contemporaries about the comedy "Woe from Wit" CHATSKY AGAINST FAMUSOVSKY SOCIETY (ACCORDING TO AS GRIBOEDOV'S COMEDY "Woe FROM MIND"). Time: its hero and antihero. "Woe from Wit" as a political comedy. The present century and the past century (based on the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit") Gossip about Chatsky's madness. (Analysis of the phenomena 14-21 III acts of the comedy by A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit") What is the role in the comedy of A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" plays a ball scene Features of classicism in the comedy "Woe from Wit" by Griboyedov The artistic world of the comedy A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Chatsky and Molchalin. (one) Famusov and the life philosophy of the "fathers" in the comedy of A.S. Griboyedov Chatsky - a winner or a victim? (based on the comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit") Representatives of the Famous Society The main theme of the comedy "Woe from Wit" Dialogue between Famusov and Chatsky The meaning of the name of the comedy by Alexander Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" Ideological and aesthetic wealth of the comedy by A. S. Ggriboyedov "Woe from Wit" The problem of "Mind" in the comedy by Alexander Griboyedov Why did Sophia fall in love with Molchalin? The heroine who violates the moral foundations. Female images in the comedy by A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" (1) "Hero of Time" in "Woe from Wit" by Griboyedov Is it a comedy "Woe from Wit"? Motive of epiphany in Alexander Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" Intelligence, cunning, resourcefulness of the image of Molchalin Subject characteristics of the play "Woe from Wit" The plot basis of the work "Woe from Wit" by Griboyedov Chatsky's conflict with representatives of the Famus society (Based on the comedy by A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit") TRADITIONS AND INNOVATIONS OF THE COMEDY "WINE FROM MIND" Artistic features of the play "Woe from Wit" by AS Griboyedov What conflicts are intertwined in the comedy "Woe from Wit" "Woe from Wit" as a formula for life "Woe from Wit" as a monument to the Russian art Chatsky's fight against Famus society Old Moscow in the comedy "Woe from Wit" The image of Chadsky in the context of the era of the then Russia Winged words in "Woe from Wit" What can you imagine the future fate of Chatsky The ideological and compositional role of the image of Sophia in the comedy of A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit"“Griboyedov is“ a man of one book, ”noted VF Khodasevich. "If it were not for Woe from Wit, Griboyedov would not have had any place at all in Russian literature."
Indeed, at the time of Griboyedov, there were no professional writers, poets, composers of whole "series" of ladies' novels and low-quality detectives, the content of which cannot be retained for a long time in the memory of even the most attentive reader. Literature at the beginning of the 19th century was not perceived by the Russian educated society as something special. Everyone wrote something - for themselves, for friends, for reading with their families and in secular literary salons. In the conditions of the almost complete absence of literary criticism, the main advantage of a work of art was not adherence to any established rules or requirements of publishers, but its perception by the reader or viewer.
A.S. Griboyedov, a Russian diplomat, a highly educated socialite, from time to time "dabbled" in literature, was not constrained either in terms, or in means, or in ways of expressing his thoughts on paper. Perhaps, due to precisely these circumstances, he managed to abandon the canons of classicism accepted in the literature and drama of that time. Griboyedov managed to create a truly immortal, outstanding work, which produced the effect of a “exploding bomb” in society and, by and large, determined all further paths of the development of Russian literature of the 19th century.
The creative history of writing the comedy "Woe from Wit" is extremely complex, and the author's interpretation of the images is so ambiguous that for almost two centuries it continues to cause lively discussions among literary scholars and new generations of readers.
The history of the creation of "Woe from Wit"
The idea of a "stage poem" (as A.I. Griboyedov himself defined the genre of the conceived work) arose in the second half of 1816 (according to S.N.Begichev) or in 1818-1819 (according to the memoirs of D.O.Bebutov) ...
According to one of the versions very widespread in the literature, Griboyedov somehow attended a secular evening in St. Petersburg and was amazed at how the entire public bows to foreigners. That evening, she surrounded with attention and care of some overly chatty Frenchman. Griboyedov could not stand it and made a fiery, incriminating speech. While he was talking, someone from the public declared that Griboyedov was crazy, and thus spread a rumor all over Petersburg. Griboyedov, in order to take revenge on secular society, conceived of writing a comedy on this matter.
However, the writer began to work on the text of the comedy, apparently, only in the early 1820s, when, according to one of his first biographers, F. Bulganin, he saw a “prophetic dream”.
In this dream, Griboyedov allegedly had a close friend of his who asked if he had written anything for him. Since the poet replied that he had deviated from any scriptures a long time ago, the friend shook his head in distress: "Give me a promise that you will write." - "What do you want?" - "You know yourself." - "When should it be ready?" - "In a year by all means." “I undertake,” answered Griboyedov.
One of the close friends of A.S. Griboyedov SN Begichev in his famous "Note about Griboyedov" completely rejects the version of the "Persian dream", stating that he had never heard anything like this from the author of "Woe from Wit" himself.
Most likely, this is one of the many legends, which to this day shrouded the real biography of A.S. Griboyedov. In his "Note" Begichev also assures that already in 1816 the poet wrote several scenes from the play, which were later either destroyed or significantly changed. In the original version of the comedy, completely different characters and heroes were present. For example, the author subsequently abandoned the image of Famusov's young wife - a secular coquette and fashionista, replacing her with a number of supporting characters.
According to the official version, the first two acts of the original edition of Woe from Wit were written in 1822 in Tiflis. Work on them continued in Moscow, where Griboyedov arrived on vacation, until the spring of 1823. Fresh impressions from Moscow made it possible to unfold many scenes barely outlined in Tiflis. It was then that the famous monologue of Chatsky "Who are the judges?" Was written. The third and fourth acts of the original edition of "Woe from Wit" were created in the spring and summer of 1823 in the Tula estate of SN Begichev.
S.N.Begichev recalled:
“The last acts of Woe from Wit were written in my garden, in the pavilion. At this time he got up almost with the sun, came to us for dinner and rarely stayed with us long after dinner, but almost always soon left and came to tea, spent the evening with us and read the scenes he had written. We have always looked forward to this time. I don’t have enough words to explain how pleasant our frequent (and especially in the evenings) conversations together were for me. How much information he had in all subjects! How captivating and animated he was when he revealed to me, so to speak, to plow his dreams and the secrets of his future creations, or when he analyzed the works of genius poets! He told me a lot about the Persian court and the customs of the Persians, their religious stage performances in the squares, etc., as well as about Alexei Petrovich Ermolov and about the expeditions on which he was with him. And how kind and sharp he was when he was in a cheerful disposition. "
However, in the summer of 1823, Griboyedov did not at all consider the comedy complete. In the course of further work (late 1823 - early 1824), not only the text changed - the surname of the protagonist changed somewhat: he became Chatsky (earlier his surname was Chadsky), the comedy, called Woe to the Mind, received its final name.
In June 1824, having arrived in St. Petersburg, Griboyedov made a significant stylistic revision of the original version, changed part of the first act (Sophia's dream, Sophia's dialogue with Lisa, Chatsky's monologue), in the final act a scene of Molchalin's conversation with Lisa appeared. The final revision was completed only in the fall of 1824.
The publication
A well-known actor and a good friend of A.I. Griboyedov P.A. Karatygin recalled the author's first attempt to acquaint the public with his creation:
“When Griboyedov brought his comedy to St. Petersburg, Nikolai Ivanovich Khmelnitsky asked him to read it at his home. Griboyedov agreed. On this occasion, Khmelnitsky made a dinner, to which, in addition to Griboyedov, he invited several writers and artists. Among the latter were: Sosnitsky, my brother and me. Khmelnitsky was then living as a gentleman, in his own house on the Fontanka near Simeonovsky Bridge. At the appointed hour, a small company gathered at his place. The dinner was luxurious, cheerful and noisy. After dinner, everyone went into the living room, served coffee, and lit cigars. Griboyedov put the manuscript of his comedy on the table; the guests in impatient anticipation began to pull up chairs; each tried to fit closer so as not to utter a single word. Among the guests there was a certain Vasily Mikhailovich Fedorov, the composer of the drama "Liza, or the Triumph of Gratitude" and other long-forgotten plays. He was a very kind, simple man, but he had a claim to wit. Griboyedov did not like his physiognomy, or, perhaps, the old joker overdid it at dinner, telling non-funny jokes, only the owner and his guests had to witness a rather unpleasant scene. While Griboyedov was lighting his cigar, Fedorov, going up to the table, took a comedy (which was copied rather quickly), shook it on his hand and said with an innocent smile: “Wow! How full-bodied! It's worth my Lisa. " Griboyedov looked at him from under his glasses and answered through clenched teeth: "I don't write vulgarities." Such an unexpected answer, of course, stunned Fedorov, and he, trying to show that he took this harsh answer for a joke, smiled and immediately hurried to add: “No one doubts this, Alexander Sergeevich; I not only didn’t want to offend you by comparison with me, but, really, I’m ready to be the first to laugh at my works ”. - “Yes, you can laugh at yourself as much as you like, but I at myself - I will not allow anyone.” - "Have mercy, I was not talking about the merits of our plays, but only about the number of sheets." "You still cannot know the merits of my comedy, but the merits of your plays have long been known to everyone." - "Really, you are saying this in vain, I repeat that I did not mean to offend you at all." - "Oh, I'm sure you said without thinking, and you can never offend me." The owner of these pins was on pins and needles, and, wishing to somehow hush up the disagreement, which was not a joke, with a joke, he took Fedorov by the shoulders and, laughing, said to him: "We will put you in the back row of seats for punishment." Griboyedov meanwhile, walking around the living room with a cigar, answered Khmelnitsky: "You can put him wherever you like, only I won't read my comedy in front of him." Fedorov blushed up to his ears and at that moment looked like a schoolboy who is trying to grab a hedgehog - and where he does not touch him, he will be pricked everywhere ... "
Nevertheless, in the winter of 1824-1825, Griboyedov readily read Woe from Wit in many houses in Moscow and St. Petersburg, and was successful everywhere. Hoping for an early publication of the comedy, Griboyedov encouraged the appearance and distribution of its lists. The most authoritative of them are the Zhandrovsky list, "corrected by the hand of Griboyedov himself" (belonged to A.A. Zhandr), and Bulgarinsky - a carefully corrected clerk's copy of the comedy, left by FV Griboyedov. Bulgarin in 1828 before leaving Petersburg. On the title page of this list, the playwright made the inscription: "I entrust my woe to Bulgar ...". He hoped that an enterprising and influential journalist could get the play published.
A.S. Griboyedov, "Woe from Wit",
edition 1833
Already in the summer of 1824, Griboyedov tried to print a comedy. Excerpts from the first and third acts first appeared in F.V. Bulgarin "Russian Talia" in December 1824, and the text was significantly "softened" and reduced by the censorship. "Inconvenient" for printing, too harsh statements of the heroes were replaced by faceless and "harmless". So, instead of the author's "To the Scientific Committee" was printed "Among the scientists who settled." Molchalin's "programmatic" remark "After all, you need to depend on others" was replaced by the words "After all, you need to keep others in mind." The censors did not like the mention of the "monarch's face" and the "boards".
“The first outline of this stage poem,” wrote Griboyedov bitterly, “as it was born in me, was much more magnificent and of higher significance than now in the vain outfit in which I was forced to put it on. The childish pleasure of hearing my poems in the theater, the desire for them to succeed made me spoil my creation as much as possible. "
However, Russian society at the beginning of the 19th century knew the comedy "Woe from Wit" mainly from handwritten copies. Military and civilian clerks earned a lot of money by copying the text of the comedy, which literally overnight disassembled into quotes and "catch phrases." The publication of excerpts "Woe from Wit in the anthology" Russian Thalia "caused a lot of responses in the literary environment and made Griboyedov truly famous. "His handwritten comedy" Woe from Wit, "Pushkin recalled," produced an indescribable effect and suddenly put him alongside our first poets. "
The first edition of the comedy appeared in German translation in Reval in 1831. Nicholas I allowed comedy to be published in Russia only in 1833 - "in order to deprive it of the attractiveness of the forbidden fruit." The first Russian edition, with censorship revisions and cuts, was published in Moscow. There are also two uncensored editions of the 1830s (published in regimental printing houses). The play was first published in full in Russia only in 1862, during the era of the censorship reforms of Alexander II. The scientific publication "Woe from Wit" was carried out in 1913 by the famous researcher N.K. Piksanov in the second volume of the academic Complete Works of Griboyedov.
Theatrical performances
The fate of the theatrical performances of Griboyedov's comedy turned out to be even more complicated. For a long time, theatrical censorship did not allow to stage it in full. In 1825, the first attempt to stage Woe from Wit on the stage of a theater school in St. Petersburg ended in failure: the play was banned because the play was not approved by the censors.
Artist P.A. Karatygin in his notes recalled:
“Grigoriev and I suggested that Aleksandr Sergeevich play“ Woe from Wit ”at our school theater, and he was delighted with our proposal ... We had a lot of work to beg the good inspector Bok to allow the pupils to take part in this performance ... Finally ... , he agreed, and we quickly set to work; in a few days they painted the roles, in a week they learned them, and things went smoothly. Griboyedov himself came to us for rehearsals and taught us very diligently ... You should have seen the innocent pleasure with which he rubbed his hands, seeing his "Woe from Wit" at our childish theater ... Although, of course, we split off his immortal a comedy with grief in half, but he was very pleased with us, and we were delighted that we could please him. He brought A. Bestuzhev and Wilhelm Kuchelbecker to one of the rehearsals - and they also praised us. " The play was banned by order of the Governor-General of St. Petersburg, Count Miloradovich, and the school authorities were reprimanded. "
For the first time, the comedy appeared on the stage in 1827, in Erivan, performed by amateur actors - officers of the Caucasian corps. The author was present at this amateur performance.
Only in 1831, with numerous censorship notes, "Woe from Wit" was staged in St. Petersburg and Moscow. Censorship restrictions on theatrical performances of comedy ended only in the 1860s.
Public perception and criticism
Despite the fact that the full text of the comedy never got into print, immediately after the publication of excerpts of the play by Bulgarin, heated discussions developed around Griboyedov's work. The approval was by no means unanimous.
The conservatives immediately accused Griboyedov of exaggerating satirical colors, which, in their opinion, was a consequence of the author's “scolding patriotism”. In the articles of M. Dmitriev and A. Pisarev, published in Vestnik Evropy, it was argued that the content of the comedy does not correspond to Russian life at all. "Woe from Wit" was declared a simple imitation of foreign plays and was characterized only as a satirical work directed against an aristocratic society, "a gross error against local customs." Especially Chatsky got it, in whom they saw a clever "madcap", the embodiment of the "figaro-Griboyedov" philosophy of life.
Some contemporaries who were very friendly towards Griboyedov noted many errors in Woe from Wit. For example, an old friend and co-author of the playwright P.A. In one of his private letters, Katenin gave the following assessment of the comedy: “The mind is like a ward in it, but the plan, in my opinion, is insufficient, and the main character is confused and confused (manque); the syllable is often charming, but the writer is too pleased with his liberties. " According to the critic, annoyed by deviations from the rules of classical drama, including the replacement of the “good Alexandrian verses” usual for “high” comedy with free iambic, Griboyedov's “phantasmagoria is not theatrical: good actors will not take these roles, and bad actors will spoil them”.
Griboyedov's answer to Katenin's critical judgments, written in January 1825, became a remarkable autocomment to "Woe from Wit". This is not only an energetic "anti-criticism" representing the author's view of comedy, but also a kind of the aesthetic manifesto of the innovative playwright refusing to please the theorists and satisfy the classics' school demands.
In response to Katenin's remark about the imperfection of the plot and composition, Griboyedov wrote: “You find the main error in the plan: it seems to me that it is simple and clear in purpose and execution; a girl who is not stupid herself prefers a fool to an intelligent person (not because the mind of our sinners was ordinary, no! and in my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person); and this man, of course, is in opposition to society, those around him, no one understands him, no one wants to forgive, why is he a little taller than others ... "The scenes are linked arbitrarily." Just like in the nature of any events, small and important: the more sudden, the more it attracts curiosity. "
The playwright explained the meaning of Chatsky's behavior as follows: “Someone out of anger invented about him that he was crazy, no one believed, and everyone repeats, the voice of general ill-will reaches him, moreover, the dislike of the girl for whom he was the only one to Moscow, it is completely explained to him, he did not give a damn about her and everyone and was like that. The queen is also disappointed about her honey sugar. What can be fuller than this? "
Griboyedov defends his principles of depicting heroes. Katenin's remark that he accepts "the characters of a portrait", but considers this not an error, but the main merit of his comedy. From his point of view, satirical caricature images that distort the real proportions in the appearance of people are unacceptable. "Yes! and if I do not have Moliere's talent, then at least I am more sincere than he; portraits and only portraits are part of comedy and tragedy; however, they have features that are characteristic of many other persons, and others for the whole human race as much as each person is similar to all his two-legged brethren. I hate caricature, you won't find one in my picture. Here is my poetics ... ".
Finally, the most "flattering praise" for himself, Griboyedov considered Katenin's words that in his comedy "talent is more than art." “Art consists only in imitating a gift ... - noted the author of“ Woe from Wit ”. "As I live, I write freely and freely."
Pushkin also expressed his opinion about the play (II Pushchin brought the list of "Woe from Wit" to Mikhailovskoye). In letters to P.A. Vyazemsky and A.A. Bestuzhev, written in January 1825, he noted that the playwright succeeded most of all with "characters and a harsh picture of morals." It was in their portrayal that, according to Pushkin, the “comic genius” of Griboyedov manifested itself. The poet was critical of Chatsky. In his interpretation, this is an ordinary hero-reasonable, expressing the opinions of the only “intelligent character” - the author himself. Pushkin very accurately noticed the contradictory, inconsistent nature of Chatsky's behavior, the tragicomic nature of his position: “... What is Chatsky? An ardent, noble and kind fellow who spent some time with a very intelligent person (namely with Griboyedov) and was saturated with his thoughts, witticisms and satirical remarks. Everything he says is very clever. But to whom does he say all this? Famusov? Skalozub? At the ball for Moscow grandmothers? Molchalin? This is unforgivable. The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at first glance who you are dealing with, and not to throw beads in front of Repetilov and the like. "
At the beginning of 1840, VG Belinsky, in an article about "Woe from Wit", just as decisively as Pushkin, denied Chatsky a practical mind, calling him "the new Don Quixote." According to the critic, the main character of the comedy is a completely ridiculous figure, a naive dreamer, "a boy on a stick on horseback, who imagines that he is sitting on a horse." However, Belinsky soon corrected his negative assessment of Chatsky and comedy in general, declaring the main character of the play almost the first revolutionary rebel, and the play itself the first protest "against the vile Russian reality." Furious Vissarion did not consider it necessary to understand the real complexity of Chatsky's image, evaluating the comedy from the standpoint of the social and moral significance of his protest.
The critics and publicists of the 1860s went even further from the author's interpretation of Chatsky. AI Herzen saw in Chatsky the embodiment of Griboyedov's own “back thought”, interpreting the comedy hero as a political allegory. "... This is a Decembrist, this is a man who ends the era of Peter I and is striving to discern, at least on the horizon, the promised land ...".
The most original is the judgment of the critic A.A. Grigoriev, for whom Chatsky is "our only hero, that is, the only positively fighting in the environment where fate and passion have thrown him." Therefore, the entire play in his critical interpretation turned from a "high" comedy into a "high" tragedy (see the article "Concerning the new edition of an old thing." Woe from Wit. St. Petersburg 1862 ").
IAGoncharov responded to the production of Woe from Wit at the Alexandrinsky Theater (1871) with a critical study "Million of Torments" (published in the journal "Vestnik Evropy", 1872, no. 3). This is one of the most insightful analyzes of comedy, which later became a textbook. Goncharov gave deep characteristics of individual characters, appreciated the skill of Griboyedov as a playwright, wrote about the special position of "Woe from Wit" in Russian literature. But, perhaps, the most important advantage of Goncharov's etude is the careful attitude to the author's concept embodied in the comedy. The writer abandoned the one-sided sociological and ideological interpretation of the play, carefully examining the psychological motivation for the behavior of Chatsky and other characters. "Every step of Chatsky, almost every word in the play is closely related to the play of his feelings for Sophia, irritated by some lie in her actions, which he struggles to unravel until the very end," Goncharov emphasized, in particular. Indeed, without taking into account the love intrigue (its significance was noted by Griboyedov himself in a letter to Katenin), it is impossible to understand the “woe from wits” of the rejected lover and lonely lover of truth, the tragic and comic nature of Chatsky's image at the same time.
Comedy analysis
The success of Griboyedov's comedy, which has taken a firm place in the ranks of Russian classics, is largely determined by the harmonious combination of the acute and the timeless in it. Through the brilliantly drawn by the author picture of Russian society in the 1820s (disturbing the minds of disputes about serfdom, political freedoms, problems of national self-determination of culture, education, etc., skillfully outlined colorful figures of that time, recognizable by their contemporaries, etc.) are guessed " eternal "themes: the conflict of generations, the drama of the love triangle, the antagonism of personality and society, etc.
At the same time "Woe from Wit" is an example of an artistic synthesis of the traditional and innovative in art. Paying tribute to the canons of classicism aesthetics (unity of time, place, action, conventional roles, names-masks, etc.), Griboyedov "revives" the traditional scheme with conflicts and characters taken from life, freely introduces lyrical, satirical and journalistic lines into comedy.
The accuracy and aphoristic accuracy of the language, the successful use of the free (differential) iambic, which conveys the element of colloquial speech, allowed the text of the comedy to retain its sharpness and expressiveness. As predicted by A.S. Pushkin, many lines of "Woe from Wit" have become proverbs and sayings, very popular today:
- The tradition is fresh, but hard to believe;
- Happy hours are not observed;
- I would be glad to serve, to serve is sickening;
- Blessed are those who believe - warmth to him in the world!
- Pass us more than all sorrows
And lordly anger, and lordly love. - The houses are new, but the prejudices are old.
- And the smoke of the Fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us!
- Oh! Evil tongues are more terrible than a pistol.
- But to have children, who lacked intelligence?
- To the village, to my aunt, to the wilderness, to Saratov! ...
Play conflict
The main feature of the comedy "Woe from Wit" is interaction of two plot-forming conflicts: a love conflict, the main participants of which are Chatsky and Sofia, and a socio-ideological conflict, in which Chatsky collides with the conservatives gathered in Famusov's house. From the point of view of problems, in the foreground is the conflict between the Chatsky and the Famus society, but the traditional love conflict is no less important in the development of the plot action: after all, it was precisely for the sake of meeting Sofia that Chatsky was in such a hurry to Moscow. Both conflicts - love and socio-ideological - complement and reinforce each other. They are equally necessary in order to understand the worldview, characters, psychology and relationships of the characters.
All the elements of the classic plot are easily revealed in the two storylines of "Woe from Wit": the exposition - all the scenes of the first act, preceding the appearance of Chatsky in Famusov's house (appearances 1-5); the beginning of a love conflict and, accordingly, the outset of the action of the first, love plot - the arrival of Chatsky and his first conversation with Sophia (file I, yavl. 7). The socio-ideological conflict (Chatsky - Famus society) is outlined a little later - during the first conversation between Chatsky and Famusov (file I, yavl. 9).
Both conflicts develop in parallel. The stages of the development of a love conflict are the dialogues between Chatsky and Sofia. The conflict between Chatsky and Famus society includes verbal “duels” between Chatsky and Famusov, Skalozub, Molchalin and other representatives of Moscow society. Private conflicts in "Woe from Wit" literally throw a lot of minor characters onto the stage, forcing them to reveal their life position in remarks and actions.
The pace of development of action in comedy is lightning fast. A lot of events, forming into fascinating everyday "microplots", take place in front of readers and spectators. What is happening on the stage causes laughter and at the same time makes one think about the contradictions of the then society, and about universal problems.
The culmination of "Woe from Wit" is an example of Griboyedov's remarkable dramatic skill. At the heart of the culmination of the socio-ideological plot (society declares Chatsky crazy; file III, javl. 14-21) is a rumor, the reason for the emergence of which was given by Sofia with her remark "to the side": "He is out of his mind." The annoyed Sophia dropped this remark by accident, meaning that Chatsky “went crazy” with love and became simply unbearable for her. The author uses a technique based on the play of meanings: Sophia's emotional outburst was heard by the secular gossip Mr. N. and took it literally. Sofia decided to take advantage of this misunderstanding to take revenge on Chatsky for his mockery of Molchalin. Becoming a source of gossip about Chatsky's madness, the heroine "burned bridges" between herself and her former lover.
Thus, the culmination of a love story motivates the culmination of a socio-ideological story. Thanks to this, both outwardly independent plot lines of the play intersect at a common culmination point - a lengthy scene, the result of which is the recognition of Chatsky as a madman.
After the climax, the storylines diverge again. The denouement of a love affair precedes the denouement of a socio-ideological conflict. The night scene in the Famusov house (house IV, apparitions 12-13), in which Molchalin and Liza, as well as Sofia and Chatsky, take part, finally explains the position of the heroes, making the secret clear. Sofia becomes convinced of Molchalin's hypocrisy, and Chatsky finds out who his rival was:
Here is finally the solution to the riddle! Here I am donated to whom!
The denouement of the storyline, based on the conflict between Chatsky and Famusian society, is Chatsky's last monologue directed against the “crowd of persecutors”. Chatsky declares his final break with Sofia, Famusov, and the whole of Moscow society: “Get out of Moscow! I don’t come here anymore. ”
Character system
V character system comedy Chatsky takes center stage. He connects both storylines, but for the hero himself, it is not the socio-ideological conflict, but the love conflict that is of paramount importance. Chatsky understands perfectly well what kind of society he got into, he has no illusions about Famusov and "all Moscow". The reason for Chatsky's violent accusatory eloquence is not political or educational, but psychological. The source of his passionate monologues and well-aimed stinging remarks - love experiences, "impatience of the heart", which is felt from the first to the last scene with his participation.
Chatsky came to Moscow with the sole purpose of seeing Sophia, finding confirmation of his former love and, probably, getting married. Chatsky's animation and "talkativeness" at the beginning of the play are caused by the joy of meeting with his beloved, but, contrary to expectations, Sofia completely changed to him. With the help of his usual jokes and epigrams, Chatsky tries to find a common language with her, "goes over" his Moscow acquaintances, but his witticisms only irritate Sofia - she answers him with barbs.
He annoys Sophia, trying to challenge her to be frank, asking her tactless questions: “Could I find out, / ... Whom do you love? ".
The night scene in Famusov's house revealed the whole truth to the "recovered" Chatsky. But now he goes to the other extreme: instead of a passion for love, the hero was possessed by other strong feelings - fury and anger. In the heat of rage, he blames others for his "fruitless efforts of love."
Love experiences exacerbate the ideological opposition of Chatsky to Famus society. At first, Chatsky calmly refers to Moscow society, almost does not notice its usual vices, sees only comic sides in it: "I am in eccentrics to another miracle / Once I laugh, then I will forget ...".
But when Chatsky is convinced that Sofia does not love him, everything and everyone in Moscow begins to irritate him. Remarks and monologues become impudent, sarcastic - he angrily denounces what he previously laughed without malice.
Chatsky rejects conventional ideas about morality and public duty, but he can hardly be considered a revolutionary, radical, or even a "Decembrist." There is nothing revolutionary in Chatsky's statements. Chatsky is an enlightened person who invites society to return to simple and clear ideals of life, to cleanse from extraneous stratifications what is said a lot in Famus society, but which, according to Chatsky, do not have a correct idea - service. It is necessary to distinguish between the objective meaning of the very moderate enlightenment judgments of the hero and the effect that they produce in a conservative society. The slightest dissent is regarded here not only as a denial of the usual ideals and way of life, consecrated by the “fathers”, “elders”, but also as a threat of a social upheaval: after all, Chatsky, according to Famusov, “does not recognize the authorities”. Against the background of the inert and unshakable conservative majority, Chatsky gives the impression of a lone hero, a brave "madman" who rushed to storm a powerful stronghold, although in a circle of free-thinkers his statements would not shock anyone with their radicalism.
Sofia
performed by I.A. Lixo
Sofia- the main story partner of Chatsky - occupies a special place in the character system "Woe from Wit". The love conflict with Sophia involved the hero in a conflict with the whole of society, served, according to Goncharov, "as a motive, a cause for irritation, for that" million torments "under the influence of which he alone could play the role indicated to him by Griboyedov." Sofia does not take the side of Chatsky, but does not belong to Famusov's associates either, although she lived and was brought up in his house. She is a closed, secretive person, it is difficult to approach her. Even her father is a little afraid of her.
There are qualities in the character of Sophia that sharply distinguish her among the people of the Famus circle. This is, first of all, the independence of judgments, which is expressed in her dismissive attitude to gossip and gossip ("What is rumor to me? Who wants to judge so ..."). Nevertheless, Sophia knows the "laws" of Famus society and is not averse to using them. For example, she cleverly connects "public opinion" to take revenge on her former lover.
Sophia's character has not only positive, but also negative traits. "A mixture of good instincts with lies" saw in her Goncharov. Self-will, stubbornness, capriciousness, supplemented by vague ideas about morality, make her equally capable of good and bad deeds. Slandering Chatsky, Sofia acted immorally, although she remained, the only one among the audience, convinced that Chatsky was a completely "normal" person.
Sophia is smart, observant, rational in her actions, but love for Molchalin, at the same time selfish and reckless, puts her in an absurd, comic position.
As a lover of French novels, Sofia is very sentimental. She idealizes Molchalin, not even trying to find out what he really is, not noticing his "vulgarity" and pretense. “God brought us together” - it is with this “romantic” formula that the meaning of Sophia's love for Molchalin is exhausted. He managed to please her because he behaves like a living illustration for a novel she just read: "He takes his hand, presses to his heart, / From the depths of his soul he sighs ...".
Sophia's attitude to Chatsky is completely different: after all, she does not love him, therefore she does not want to listen, does not seek to understand, avoids explanations. Sophia, the main culprit of Chatsky's mental anguish, herself evokes sympathy. She completely surrenders to love, not noticing that Molchalin is a hypocrite. Even oblivion of decency (night dates, inability to hide her love from others) is evidence of the strength of her feelings. Love for her father's “rootless” secretary takes Sofia outside the famus circle, because she deliberately risks her reputation. For all the bookishness and obvious comicism, this love is a kind of challenge to the heroine and her father, who is anxious to look for a rich careerist groom for her, and to society, which excuses only open, not camouflaged debauchery.
In the last scenes of "Woe from Wit" in the guise of Sophia, the features of a tragic heroine are clearly visible. Her fate is approaching the tragic fate of Chatsky, who was rejected by her. Indeed, as IA Goncharov subtly noted, in the final of the comedy she has to be “the hardest of all, harder even than Chatsky, and she gets“ a million torments ”. The denouement of the love story of the comedy turned out to be "grief" for the clever Sofia, a catastrophe in life.
Famusov and Skalozub
performed by K.A. Zubov and A.I. Rzhanova
The main ideological opponent of Chatsky is not individual characters in the play, but a "collective" character - a multifaceted famus society... A lone lover of truth and an ardent defender of a "free life" is confronted by a large group of actors and non-stage characters united by a conservative worldview and the simplest practical morality, the meaning of which is "to take awards and have fun." Famus society is heterogeneous in its composition: it is not a faceless crowd in which a person loses his individuality. On the contrary, convinced Moscow conservatives differ among themselves in intelligence, abilities, interests, occupation and position in the social hierarchy. The playwright discovers in each of them both typical and individual traits. But in one thing everyone is unanimous: Chatsky and his associates are "crazy", "madmen", renegades. The main reason for their "madness", according to the Famusians, is an excess of "intelligence", an excessive "learning", which is easily equated with "free-thinking."
Depicting the conflict between Chatsky and Famusian society, Griboyedov makes extensive use of the author's remarks, which report on the reaction of the conservatives to the words of Chatsky. The remarks complement the replicas of the characters, reinforcing the comic of what is happening. This technique is used to create the main comic situation of the play - the situation of deafness. Already during the first conversation with Chatsky (d. II, yavl. 2-3), in which his opposition to conservative morality was first identified, Famusov "sees and does not hear anything." He deliberately plugs his ears so as not to hear the seditious, from his point of view, Chatsky's speeches: "Good, I plugged my ears." During the ball (d. 3, javl. 22), when Chatsky utters his angry monologue against the "alien rule of fashions" ("In that room, an insignificant meeting ..."), "everyone is spinning around a waltz with the greatest zeal. The old men scattered to the card tables. " The situation of feigned "deafness" of the characters allows the author to convey mutual misunderstanding and alienation between the conflicting parties.
Famusov
performed by K.A. Zubova
Famusov- one of the recognized pillars of Moscow society. His official position is high enough: he is "a manager in a state place." It is on him that the material well-being and success of many people depend: the distribution of ranks and awards, "patronage" to young officials and pensions to old people. Famusov's outlook is extremely conservative: he accepts hostility to everything that is at least somewhat different from his own beliefs and ideas about life, hostile to everything new - even to the fact that in Moscow “roads, sidewalks, / Houses and everything is new harmony ". Famusov's ideal is the past, when everything was "not what it is now."
Famusov is a staunch defender of the morality of the "past century." In his opinion, to live correctly means to act in everything “as the fathers did”, to study, “looking at the elders”. Chatsky, on the other hand, relies on his own "judgments" dictated by common sense, therefore, the ideas of these heroes-antipodes about "proper" and "inappropriate" behavior do not coincide.
Listening to Famusov's advice and instructions, the reader seems to find himself in the moral "antiworld". In it, ordinary vices are almost transformed into virtues, and thoughts, opinions, words and intentions are declared "vices". The main "vice", according to Famusov, is "learning", an excess of intelligence. Famusov's idea of "mind" is down-to-earth, everyday: he identifies the mind either with practicality, the ability to "settle down" in life (which he evaluates positively), or with "free-thinking" (such a mind, according to Famusov, is dangerous). For Famusov, Chatsky's mind is a mere trifle, which cannot be compared with the traditional noble values - nobility ("honor for father and son") and wealth:
Be bad, but if there are two thousand family Souls, - He and the groom. Be another at least quicker, inflated with all sorts of arrogance, Let yourself have a reputation for being intelligent, And they will not be included in the family. (D. II, yavl. 5)
Sophia and Molchalin
performed by I.A. Likso and M.M. Sadovsky
Molchalin- one of the most prominent representatives of the Famus society. His role in the comedy is comparable to that of Chatsky. Like Chatsky, Molchalin is a participant in both a love conflict and a socio-ideological conflict. He is not only a worthy student of Famusov, but also Chatsky's rival in love for Sofia, a third person who arose between former lovers.
If Famusov, Khlestova and some other characters are living fragments of the "past century", then Molchalin is a man of the same generation as Chatsky. But, unlike Chatsky, Molchalin is a convinced conservative, therefore dialogue and mutual understanding between them are impossible, and conflict is inevitable - their ideals in life, moral principles and behavior in society are absolutely opposite.
Chatsky cannot understand "why are the opinions of others only holy?" Molchalin, like Famusov, considers dependence "on others" the basic law of life. Molchalin is a mediocrity that does not go beyond the generally accepted framework, this is a typical "average" person: both in ability, and in mind, and in ambition. But he has "his own talent": he is proud of his qualities - "moderation and accuracy." Molchalin's outlook and behavior is strictly regulated by his position in the service hierarchy. He is modest and helpful, because "in the ranks of ... small", he cannot do without "patrons", even if he has to completely depend on their will.
But, unlike Chatsky, Molchalin fits organically into the Famus society. This is "little Famusov", because he has a lot in common with the Moscow "ace", despite the big difference in age and social status. For example, Molchalin's attitude to the service is purely "Famusian": he would like to "both take awards and have fun." Public opinion for Molchalin, as well as for Famusov, is sacred. Some of his statements (“Ah! Evil tongues are more terrible than a pistol”, “In my age you shouldn't dare / Have your own judgment”) resemble Famus’s: “Ah! Oh my God! what will she say / Princess Marya Aleksevna! "
Molchalin is the antipode of Chatsky, not only in convictions, but also in the nature of his attitude towards Sophia. Chatsky is sincerely in love with her, nothing exists for him above this feeling, in comparison with him "the whole world" Chatsky "seemed dust and vanity." Molchalin only skillfully pretends that he loves Sophia, although, by his own admission, he does not find "anything enviable" in her. Relations with Sofia are entirely determined by Molchalin's position in life: this is how he sticks with all people without exception, this is a life principle learned from childhood. In the last act, he tells Lisa that he was "bequeathed by his father" "to please all people without exception." Molchalin is in love "according to his position", "in the pleasing of the daughter of such a person" as Famusov, "who feeds and gives water, / And sometimes he will give him a rank ...".
Skalozub
performed by A.I. Rzhanova
The loss of Sofia's love does not mean the defeat of Molchalin. Although he made an unforgivable oversight, he managed to get away with it. It is significant that not on the "guilty" Molchalin, but on the "innocent" Chatsky and the offended, humiliated Sophia, the Famusov brought down his anger. In the finale of the comedy, Chatsky becomes an outcast: society rejects him, Famusov points to the door and threatens to "announce" his alleged debauchery "to the whole people." Molchalin is likely to redouble his efforts to make amends for Sophia. It is impossible to stop the career of such a person as Molchalin - this is the meaning of the author's attitude to the hero. ("The taciturns are blissful in the world").
Famusovskoe society in "Woe from Wit" is a set of secondary and episodic characters, guests of Famusov. One of them, Colonel Skalozub, - martyr, the embodiment of stupidity and ignorance. He "never uttered a clever word", and from the conversations of those around him he only understands what, as it seems to him, relates to the military theme. Therefore, when asked by Famusov, "How do you feel about Nastasya Nikolavna?" Skalozub businesslike replies: "We did not serve together with her." However, by the standards of the Famus society, Skalozub is an enviable groom: “He is both a golden bag and marks the generals,” therefore no one notices his stupidity and uncouthness in society (or does not want to notice). Famusov himself "is very delusional with them", not wanting another groom for his daughter.
Khlestova
performed by V.N. Plowed
All the characters who appear in Famusov's house during the ball are actively involved in the general confrontation with Chatsky, adding new fictional details to the gossip about the "madness" of the protagonist. Each of the minor characters performs in their own comic role.
Khlestova, like Famusov, is a colorful type: this is an "angry old woman", a domineering lady-serf woman of Catherine's era. She "out of boredom" carries with her a "little arap girl and a dog", has a weakness for young Frenchmen, loves to be "pleased", therefore she treats Molchalin and even Zagoretsky favorably. Ignorant tyranny is the life principle of Khlestova, who, like most of Famusov's guests, does not hide her hostility to education and enlightenment:
And you will really go crazy from these, from some From boarding houses, schools, lyceums, as you mean them, Yes from Lankart mutual training.
(D. III, yavl. 21).
Zagoretsky
performed by I.V. Ilyinsky
Zagoretsky- "a notorious swindler, a rogue", an informer and a sharper ("Beware of him: carry a lot, / Eve do not sit down the cards: he will sell"). The attitude towards this character characterizes the mores of Famus society. Everyone despises Zagoretsky, not hesitating to scold him in the face ("He is a liar, a gambler, a thief" - says Khlestov about him), but in society he is "scolded / Everywhere, but everywhere they accept", because Zagoretsky is a "master to serve."
"Speaking" surname Repetilova indicates his tendency to mindlessly repeat other people's arguments "about important mothers." Repetilov, unlike other representatives of the Famus society, is in words an ardent admirer of "scholarship". But the educational ideas that Chatsky preaches, he caricatures and vulgarizes, calling, for example, that everyone should learn "from Prince Gregory", where "they will give them champagne for slaughter." Repetilov nevertheless let it slip: he became an admirer of "learning" only because he failed to make a career ("I would climb into ranks, but I met failures"). Education, from his point of view, is just a forced replacement for a career. Repetilov is a product of Famus society, although he shouts that he and Chatsky “have the same tastes.
In addition to those heroes who are listed in the "playbill" - the list of "characters" - and at least once appear on the stage, in "Woe from Wit" many people are mentioned who are not participants in the action. off-stage characters... Their names and surnames flicker in the monologues and remarks of the characters, who necessarily express their attitude towards them, approve or condemn their life principles and behavior.
Out-of-stage characters are invisible "participants" in the socio-ideological conflict. With their help, Griboyedov managed to expand the scope of the stage action, concentrated on a narrow area (Famusov's house) and completed in one day (the action begins early in the morning and ends in the morning of the next day). Non-stage characters have a special artistic function: they represent society, of which all participants in the events in Famusov's house are a part. Without playing any role in the plot, they are closely associated with those who fiercely defend the "past century" or strive to live by the ideals of the "present century" - shout, indignant, indignant or, conversely, experience "a million torments" on stage.
It is the non-stage characters who confirm that the entire Russian society is split into two unequal parts: the number of conservatives mentioned in the play significantly exceeds the number of dissidents, “crazy”. But the most important thing is that Chatsky, a lone lover of truth on stage, is not at all alone in life: the existence of people who are spiritually close to him, according to Famusians, proves that “nowadays there are more insane people, deeds, and opinions than when”. Among Chatsky's associates are Skalozub's cousin, who abandoned his brilliant military career in order to go to the village and read books (“Chin followed him: he suddenly left his service, / In the village he began to read books”), Prince Fyodor, the nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskoy (“ Chinov does not want to know! He is a chemist, he is a botanist ... "), and the Petersburg" professors "with whom he studied. According to the guests of Famusov, these people are just as crazy, crazy because of "learning", like Chatsky.
Another group of non-stage characters is Famusov's "associates". These are his "idols", whom he often mentions as a model of life and behavior. Such is, for example, the Moscow "ace" Kuzma Petrovich - for Famusov this is an example of a "meritorious life":
The deceased was a venerable chamberlain, With a key, and he knew how to deliver the key to his son; He is rich, and he was married to a rich man; Survived children, grandchildren; Died; everyone remembers him sadly.
(D. II, yavl. 1).
Another worthy, according to Famusov, an example to follow is one of the most memorable off-stage characters, “the deceased uncle” Maxim Petrovich, who made a successful court career (“he served Catherine under the empress”). Like other "nobles in the case", he had a "haughty disposition", but, if the interests of his career demanded it, he knew how to deftly "help out" and easily "bent over the edge".
Chatsky exposes the mores of Famus society in the monologue "Who are the judges? .." (file II, yavl. 5), talking about the unworthy way of life of the "fatherland of fathers" ("spilled in feasts and extravagance"), about the riches they have unjustly acquired ( “They are rich with robbery”), about their immoral, inhuman acts that they commit with impunity (“they found protection from the court in friends, in kinship”). One of the non-stage characters mentioned by Chatsky, “traded” the “crowd” of devoted servants who rescued him “during the hours of wine and fight” for three greyhounds. Another "for ventures / On serf ballet drove on many wagons / From mothers, fathers of rejected children", which were then "sold out one by one." Such people, from the point of view of Chatsky, are a living anachronism that does not correspond to the modern ideals of enlightenment and a humane attitude towards serfs.
Even a simple enumeration of non-stage characters in the monologues of the actors (Chatsky, Famusov, Repetilov) complements the picture of the mores of the Griboyedov era, giving it a special, "Moscow" flavor. In the first act (episode 7), Chatsky, who has just arrived in Moscow, in a conversation with Sofia "goes over" a lot of common acquaintances, mocking their "oddities".
Dramatic innovation of the play
Griboyedov's dramatic innovation was manifested primarily in the rejection of some genre canons of classic "high" comedy. The Alexandrian verse, which wrote the "standard" comedies of the classicists, is replaced by a flexible poetic meter, which made it possible to convey all the shades of lively colloquial speech - free iambic. The play seems to be "overpopulated" with characters in comparison with the comedies of Griboyedov's predecessors. One gets the impression that Famusov's house and everything that happens in the play is only a part of the big world, which was brought out of the usual half-asleep state by "madmen" like Chatsky. Moscow is a temporary haven for an ardent hero wandering "around the world", a small "post station" on the "main road" of his life. Here, not having time to cool down from the frenzied race, he made only a short stop and, having experienced "a million torments", set off again.
In Woe From Wit, there are not five, but four actions, so there is no situation typical of the “fifth act” when all contradictions are resolved and the life of the heroes restores its unhurried course. The main conflict of comedy, social and ideological, remained unresolved: everything that happened is only one of the stages of the ideological consciousness of the conservatives and their antagonist.
An important feature of Woe from Wit is the rethinking of comic characters and comic situations: in comic contradictions, the author reveals a hidden tragic potential. Not allowing the reader and viewer to forget about the comic nature of what is happening, Griboyedov emphasizes the tragic meaning of the events. The tragic pathos is especially intensified in the finale of the work: all the main characters of the fourth act, including Molchalin and Famusov, do not appear in traditional comedic roles. They are more reminiscent of the heroes of the tragedy. The true tragedies of Chatsky and Sophia are complemented by the "small" tragedies of Molchalin, who broke his vow of silence and paid the price for it, and the humiliated Famusov, who with trepidation awaits retribution from the Moscow "thunderer" in a skirt - Princess Marya Aleksevna.
The principle of "unity of characters" - the basis of the drama of classicism - turned out to be completely unacceptable for the author of "Woe from Wit". "Portraiture", that is, the life truth of the characters, which the "archaist" P.A. Katenin attributed comedy to the "errors", Griboyedov considered the main merit. The straightforwardness and one-sidedness in the depiction of the central characters are discarded: not only Chatsky, but also Famusov, Molchalin, Sophia are shown as complex people, sometimes contradictory and inconsistent in their actions and statements. It is hardly appropriate and possible to evaluate them using polar assessments ("positive" - "negative"), because the author seeks to show in these characters not "good" and "bad". He is interested in the real complexity of their characters, as well as the circumstances in which their social and everyday roles, worldview, system of life values and psychology are manifested. The characters of the Griboyedov comedy can rightfully be attributed to the words spoken by A.S. Pushkin about Shakespeare: these are "living beings, filled with many passions ..."
Each of the main characters appears to be in the focus of a variety of opinions and assessments: after all, even ideological opponents or people who do not sympathize with each other are important to the author as sources of opinions - verbal “portraits” of heroes are formed from their “polyphony”. Perhaps rumor plays no less a role in comedy than in Pushkin's novel "Eugene Onegin". The judgments about Chatsky are especially saturated with a variety of information - he appears in the mirror of a kind of "oral newspaper" created in front of the viewer or reader by the inhabitants of the Famus house and his guests. It is safe to say that this is only the first wave of Moscow rumors about the St. Petersburg freethinker. The "crazy" Chatsky gave food for gossip for a long time to secular gossips. But "evil tongues", which for Molchalin "are more terrible than a pistol," are not dangerous to him. Chatsky is a man from another world, only for a short moment he came into contact with the world of Moscow fools and gossips and recoiled from him in horror.
The picture of "public opinion", masterfully recreated by Griboyedov, consists of the oral statements of the characters. Their speech is impulsive, impulsive, reflects an instant reaction to other people's opinions and assessments. The psychological reliability of the speech portraits of the characters is one of the most important features of comedy. The verbal appearance of the characters is as unique as their place in society, demeanor and range of interests. In the crowd of guests gathered in Famusov's house, people often stand out precisely for their "voice", peculiarities of speech.
Chatsky's “voice” is unique: his “speech behavior” already in the first scenes betrays him as a convinced opponent of the Moscow nobility. The hero's word is his only, but the most dangerous "weapon" in the "duel" of the truth-lover with the Famus society, which lasts all long day. But at the same time, Chatsky, an ideologist who opposes the inert Moscow nobility and expresses the author's point of view on Russian society, in the understanding of the comedians - the predecessors of Griboyedov, cannot be called an "unequivocally positive" character. Chatsky's behavior is the behavior of an accuser, a judge, a tribune, who fiercely attacks the mores, everyday life and psychology of Famusians. But the author points out the motives for his strange behavior: after all, he came to Moscow not at all as an emissary of the St. Petersburg free-thinkers. The indignation that grips Chatsky is caused by a special psychological state: his behavior is determined by two passions - love and jealousy. They are the main reason for his fervor. That is why, despite the strength of his mind, Chatsky in love does not control his feelings that are out of control, is not able to act rationally. The anger of an enlightened person, combined with the pain of losing his beloved, made him "throw pearls before the Repetilovs." Chatsky's behavior is comical, but the hero himself experiences genuine mental suffering, "a million torments." Chatsky is a tragic character in comic circumstances.
Famusov and Molchalin do not look like traditional comedic "villains" or "dumbass". Famusov is a tragicomic person, because in the final scene not only all his plans for Sophia's marriage collapse - he is in danger of losing his reputation, a “good name” in society. For Famusov this is a real misfortune, and therefore at the end of the last act, he exclaims in despair: "Isn't my fate still deplorable?" The position of Molchalin, who is in a hopeless position, is also tragicomic: captivated by Liza, he is forced to pretend to be a modest and uncomplaining adorer of Sophia. Molchalin understands that his relationship with her will cause irritation and bossy anger of Famusov. But to reject Sofia's love, Molchalin believes, is dangerous: the daughter has influence on Famusov and can take revenge, ruin his career. He found himself between two fires: the "lordly love" of his daughter and the inevitable "lordly anger" of his father.
“The people created by Griboyedov are taken from life to their full height, drawn from the bottom of real life, - stressed the critic A.A. Grigoriev, - they do not have their virtues and vices written on their foreheads, but they are branded with the seal of their insignificance, branded with a vengeful hand executioner-artist ".
Unlike the heroes of classic comedies, the main characters in Woe from Wit (Chatsky, Molchalin, Famusov) are depicted in several social roles. For example, Chatsky is not only a free-thinker, a representative of the younger generation of the 1810s. He is a lover, a landowner ("had three hundred souls"), and a former military man (Chatsky once served in the same regiment with Gorich). Famusov is not only a Moscow "ace" and one of the pillars of the "past century". We see him in other social roles as well: a father trying to "find a place" for his daughter, and a government official "managing a government place." Molchalin is not only "Famusov's secretary living in his house" and "happy rival" of Chatsky: he belongs, like Chatsky, to the younger generation. But his worldview, ideals and way of life have nothing to do with the ideology and life of Chatsky. They are characteristic of the "silent" majority of the noble youth. Molchalin is one of those who easily adapt to any circumstances for the sake of one goal - to climb as high as possible in the career ladder.
Griboyedov neglects an important rule of classicistic drama - the unity of plot action: there is no single event center in Woe From Wit (this caused criticism of the literary Old Believers for the vagueness of the comedy's "plan"). Two conflicts and two storylines in which they are realized (Chatsky - Sofia and Chatsky - Famus society) allowed the playwright to skillfully combine the depth of social issues and subtle psychologism in portraying the characters of the heroes.
The author of "Woe from Wit" did not set himself the task of destroying the poetics of classicism. His aesthetic credo is creative freedom (“I live and write freely and freely”). The use of certain artistic means and techniques of drama was dictated by specific creative circumstances that arose in the course of work on the play, and not by abstract theoretical postulates. Therefore, in those cases when the requirements of classicism limited its possibilities, not allowing to achieve the desired artistic effect, he resolutely rejected them. But quite often it was the principles of classicist poetics that made it possible to effectively solve an artistic problem.
For example, the “unity” characteristic of the classicists' drama - the unity of place (Famusov's house) and the unity of time (all events occur within one day) are observed. They help to achieve concentration, "thickening" the action. Griboyedov also skillfully used some private techniques of the poetics of classicism: the portrayal of characters in traditional stage roles (an unlucky hero-lover, his sneaky rival, a servant - a confidant of his mistress, a capricious and somewhat eccentric heroine, a deceived father, a comic old woman, a gossip, etc. .). However, these roles are necessary only as a comedy "highlight", emphasizing the main thing - the individuality of the characters, the originality of their characters and positions.
In the comedy there are a lot of "setting faces", "figurants" (as in the old theater episodic characters were called, who created the background, "living scenery" for the main characters). As a rule, their character is exhaustively revealed by their “speaking” surnames and first names. The same technique is used to emphasize the main feature in the appearance or position of some central characters: Famusov is known to everyone, on everyone's lips (from Latin fama - rumor), Repetilov - repeating someone else's (from French repeter - to repeat) , Sophia - wisdom (ancient Greek sophia), Chatsky in the first edition was Chadian, that is, “dwelling in a child”, “beginning”. The ominous surname Skalozub - "changeling" (from the word "scoffing"). Molchalin, Tugoukhovsky, Khlestova - these names "speak" for themselves.
In Woe From Wit, for the first time in Russian literature (and what is especially important - in drama), the most important features of realistic art were clearly manifested. Realism not only frees the individuality of the writer from the deadening "rules", "canons" and "conventions", but also relies on the experience of other artistic systems.
Educational: to acquaint students with the biography of A.S. Griboyedov; Give an idea about the history of the creation of the work "Woe from Wit"; to highlight the issue of the genre of the workDeveloping: develop the ability to express your point of view; develop diction, coherent speech and creative thinking; develop skills and abilities to soberly assess historical facts.
Educational: to foster respect for the writer's work for literature and education;foster a sense of patriotism and tolerance
Lesson type: Lesson - learning new material
Equipment: ICT
Lesson plan
Organizing time
Replay of previously studied material
Psychological preparation of students for the perception of new material
Presentation of new material
Summarizing
Homework
During the classes
1
Organizing time
2
Working with diction. Tongue Twisters.
Once there was a case in distant Macau:
Macaque koala dipped in cocoa,
Koala lapped cocoa lazily,
Macaque dipped, koala hiccup.
Work on the development of coherent speech. Mini - composition.
What do you think the story says?
Syapala Kalusha with Kalushats on the edge. And she respected Butyavka, and willed:
Kalushata! Kalusatochki! Bottle!
They put Kalushat on and shaken off Butyavka. And they smelled.
And Kalusha wills:
About her! About her! The bottle is not cold!
Kalushata Butyavka was learned.
The bottle rattled, snatched up and fell off the canopy.
And Kalusha wills the Kalushats:
Kalusatochki! Do not shake the bottles, the bottles are big and the zyumo-zyumo are not curvy.
From the bottles you hear.
And Butyavka wills for a pillow:
Kalushata smelled! Zyumo is not curvy! Puski beaten!
(Lyudmila Petrushevskaya"Puski beaten". 1984)
Reading Zhukovsky's elegy "More"
A word about the biography of Griboyedov
3
Working with proverbs, sayings, aphorisms, catchphrases, phraseological units.
Pass us more than all sorrows,
And lordly anger, and lordly love.
Oh! evil tongues are more terrible than a pistol.
Blessed are those who believe - warmth to him in the world!
Where is better?
Where we are not.
More in number, cheaper price.
However, he will reach the known degrees,
After all, nowadays they love the dumb.
I would be glad to serve, to serve is sickening.
Tradition is fresh, but hard to believe
Ranks are given by people,
And people can be deceived.
Carriage to me, carriage!
There are such transformations on earth
Of reigns, climates, and mores, and minds.
4
Teacher's word
Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov (1795-1829)
"Woe from Wit"
History of creation.
“Griboyedov is“ a man of one book ”. If it were not for "Woe from Wit", Griboyedov would not have had any place in Russian literature "- this is how V.F. Khodasevich, poet of the Silver Age and author of a number of
theoretical and critical articles and research. On the one hand, one can agree with his statement, because indeed Griboyedov entered the history of Russian literature as the author of a comedy< Горе от ума», хотя его перу принадлежат и другие произведения, написанные ранее (комедии «Молодые супруги», «Студент» и другие). Но с другой - место Грибоедова в русской литературе особое: автор первой русской реалистической комедии вместе с Пушкиным стоит у истоков нового этапа развития отечественной литературы - реалистического.
The idea of a comedy arose in 1820 (according to some sources already in 1816), but active work on the text begins in Tiflis after Griboyedov's return from Persia. By the beginning of 1822, the first two acts were written, and in the spring and summer of 1823 the first version of the play was completed in Moscow. It was here that the writer could supplement his observations of the life and customs of the Moscow nobility, "breathe in the air" of secular drawing rooms. But even then the work does not stop: in 1824 a new version appeared, which had the name "Woe from Wit" (originally - "Woe to Wit"). In 1825, excerpts from 1 andIIIacts of comedy, but permission to stage it could not be obtained. This did not prevent the wide popularity of the work, which was at variance in the lists. One of them is Pushkin's lyceum friend, the Decembrist I.I. Pushchin brought the poet to Mikhailovskoye. The comedy was received with enthusiasm, especially in the Decembrist environment. For the first time the comedy "Woe from Wit" with significant reductions was published after the death of the author in 1833, and it was fully published only in 1862. A detailed and thorough analysis of Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" was given in a critical sketch by I.A. Goncharov's "Million of Torments" (1872).
Direction and genre.
The comedy "Woe from Wit" is the first Russian realistic comedy. It is satirical because it is based on social contradictions. At the same time, the ego work, like no other, combined features that were characteristic of classicism, which resisted new trends, and romanticism, which was rapidly gaining strength, and realism that was taking the first steps. In this sense, Woe From Wit remains one of the unique artistic creations of the early 19th century in Russian literature.
The playwright had to reckon with the requirements of classicism, which continued to dominate the Russian stage, and therefore some of its features are preserved in the comedy. The main one is the observance of the principle of three unities: time, place and action. Griboyedov really retained the unity of time (the comedy takes place over the course of one day) and place (all the action takes place in Famusov's house), however, the requirement for unity of action turned out to be violated, since there are two conflicts in the play - social and personal - and, accordingly, two storylines.
The comedy also retains the features of the traditional "love triangle" and the associated system of roles: the heroine and two heroes seeking her hand and heart, the "noble father", the resourceful maid helping the lovers - the soubrette, etc. But the changes made by Griboyedov to these established forms are so significant that they make it possible to speak rather of their destruction. The same applies to the use of "speaking surnames": although formally they have survived (Skalozub, Molchalin, Repetilov, Tugoukhovsky), they do not completely determine, as in classicism, the character of the character, since he is a truly realistic type and is not limited to one feature.
Thus, within the framework of the traditional "high comedy" of classicism, Griboyedov includes what is characteristic of works of the realistic direction - the depiction of typical heroes in typical circumstances. "Characters and a rare picture of mores", in the words of Pushkin, were at times frighteningly reliable. At the same time, Chatsky is not opposed by Famusov. Molchalin or Skalozub, but the entire "past century", depicted satirically by Griboyedov. That is why there are so many episodic and non-stage characters here, allowing you to expand the scope of social conflict.
Realism is also reflected in the author's ambiguous attitude towards his hero. Chatsky is not at all an ideal image, he is a real person with inherent advantages and disadvantages. Chatsky is "sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp", but he also amazes with the absurdity of his behavior, the inappropriateness of some verbal attacks, which creates a comic effect.
Often romantic recklessness is expressed in him - he throws himself into a struggle with the whole Famus society, being there in absolute solitude and, almost until the end of the play, does not notice that they do not want to listen to him at all. So romantic tendencies are manifested in comedy: in the romantic character of the hero and the conflict (one against all), the motive of loneliness and exile, the presence of not only comic (many characters in the play find themselves in comic situations) and satirical, but also tragic pathos (not without reason Goncharov calls the role of Chatsky "Passive").
And yet, realistic tendencies in Griboyedov's comedy clearly predominate. Therefore, it can be argued that before us, as Goncharov noted, “is a picture of morals, and a gallery of living types, and an eternally sharp, burning satire, and at the same time a comedy, and ... most of all a comedy - which can hardly be found in others literatures ".
5
Frontal poll
6
Homework
Loading ...