Goncharov's million torments critical sketch briefly. Others, giving justice to the picture of morals, fidelity to types, value the more epigrammatic salt of language, living satire - morality, with which the play still, like an inexhaustible well, supplies everyone

Goncharov I. A

"A Million Torments"

The comedy “Woe from Wit” stands out somehow in literature and is distinguished by its youthfulness, freshness and stronger vitality from other works of the word. She is like a hundred-year-old man, around whom everyone, having lived out their time in turn, dies and lies down, and he walks, vigorous and fresh, between the graves of old people and the cradles of new people. And it never occurs to anyone that someday his turn will come.<…>

Criticism did not move the comedy from the place it had once occupied, as if at a loss as to where to place it. The oral assessment was ahead of the printed one, just as the play itself was long ahead of the printing. But the literate masses actually appreciated it. Immediately realizing its beauty and not finding any flaws, she tore the manuscript into pieces, into verses, half-verses, and dispersed all the salt and wisdom of the play into colloquial speech, as if she had turned a million into ten kopecks, and so peppered the conversation with Griboyedov’s sayings that she literally wore out the comedy to the point of satiety.

But the play withstood this test - not only did it not become vulgar, but it seemed to become dearer to readers, it found in each of them a patron, critic and friend, like Krylov’s fables, which have not lost their literary power, moving from the book to live speech. <…>

Some people appreciate the picture of Moscow morals in a comedy famous era, the creation of living types and their skillful grouping. The whole play seems to be a circle of faces familiar to the reader, and, moreover, as definite and closed as a deck of cards. The faces of Famusov, Molchalin, Skalozub and others were etched into the memory as firmly as kings, jacks and queens in cards, and everyone had a more or less consistent concept of all the faces, except for one - Chatsky. So they are all drawn correctly and strictly, and so they have become familiar to everyone. Only about Chatsky many are perplexed: what is he? It's like he's some kind of fifty-third mysterious map in the deck. If there was little disagreement in the understanding of other people, then about Chatsky, on the contrary, the differences have not ended yet and, perhaps, will not end for a long time.

Others, giving justice to the picture of morals, the fidelity of types, value the more epigrammatic salt of language, living satire - morality, with which the play still, like an inexhaustible well, supplies everyone at every everyday step of life.

But both connoisseurs almost pass over in silence the “comedy” itself, the action, and many even deny it conventional stage movement.<…>

All these various impressions and each one’s own point of view based on them serve as the best definition of the play, that is, that the comedy “Woe from Wit” is both a picture of morals, and a gallery of living types, and an ever-sharp, searing satire, and together with that is why it is a comedy and, let’s say for ourselves, most of all a comedy – which can hardly be found in other literatures, if we accept the totality of all other stated conditions. As a painting, it is, without a doubt, enormous. Her canvas captures a long period of Russian life - from Catherine to Emperor Nicholas. The group of twenty faces reflected, like a ray of light in a drop of water, the entire former Moscow, its design, its spirit at that time, its historical moment and morals. And this with such artistic, objective completeness and certainty that only Pushkin and Gogol were given in our country.

In a picture where there is not a single pale spot, not a single extraneous stroke or sound, the viewer and reader feel even now, in our era, among living people. Both the general and the details, all this is not composed, but entirely taken from Moscow living rooms and transferred to the book and to the stage, with all the warmth and with all the “special imprint” of Moscow - from Famusov to the smallest touches, to Prince Tugoukhovsky and to the footman Parsley, without which the picture would not be complete.

However, for us it is not quite finished yet historical picture: we have not moved away from the era at a sufficient distance for an impassable abyss to lie between it and our time. The coloring was not smoothed out at all; the century has not separated from ours, like a cut-off piece: we have inherited something from there, although the Famusovs, Molchalins, Zagoretskys and others have changed so that they no longer fit into the skin of Griboyedov’s types. Sharp features have become obsolete, of course: no Famusov will now invite Maxim Petrovich to be a jester and hold up Maxim Petrovich as an example, at least not in such a positive and obvious way. Molchalin, even in front of the maid, quietly, now does not confess to those commandments that his father bequeathed to him; such a Skalozub, such a Zagoretsky are impossible even in a distant outback. But as long as there will be a desire for honors apart from merit, as long as there will be masters and hunters to please and “take rewards and live happily,” while gossip, idleness, and emptiness will reign not as vices, but as elements public life, – until then, of course, they will flicker in modern society features of the Famusovs, Molchalins and others, there is no need that that “special imprint” of which Famusov was proud was erased from Moscow itself.<…>

Salt, an epigram, a satire, this colloquial verse, it seems, will never die, just like the sharp and caustic, living Russian mind scattered in them, which Griboedov imprisoned, like a wizard of some spirit, in his castle, and it crumbles there evil laugh. It is impossible to imagine that another, more natural, simpler, more taken from life speech could ever appear. Prose and verse merged here into something inseparable, then, it seems, so that it would be easier to retain them in memory and put into circulation again all the intelligence, humor, jokes and anger of the Russian mind and language collected by the author. This language was given to the author in the same way as it was given to a group of these individuals, as it was given to main meaning comedy, how it all came together, as if it poured out at once, and everything formed an extraordinary comedy - both in the narrow sense, like a stage play, and in the broad sense, like the comedy of life. It couldn't have been anything else but a comedy.<…>

We have long been accustomed to saying that there is no movement, that is, no action in a play. How is there no movement? There is - living, continuous, from Chatsky’s first appearance on stage to his last word: “A carriage for me, a carriage.”

This is a subtle, intelligent, elegant and passionate comedy, in a close, technical sense, true in small psychological details, but for the viewer almost elusive, because it is disguised typical faces characters, brilliant drawing, the color of the place, the era, the charm of the language, all the poetic forces spilled so abundantly in the play. The action, that is, the actual intrigue in it, in front of these capital aspects seems pale, superfluous, almost unnecessary.

Only when driving around in the entryway does the viewer seem to awaken when unexpected disaster erupted between the main persons, and suddenly remembers the comedy-intrigue. But even then not for long. The enormous, real meaning of comedy is already growing before him.

The main role, of course, is the role of Chatsky, without which there would be no comedy, but, perhaps, there would be a picture of morals.

Griboyedov himself attributed Chatsky's grief to his mind, but Pushkin denied him any mind at all.

One would think that Griboyedov, out of fatherly love for his hero, flattered him in the title, as if warning the reader that his hero is smart, and everyone else around him is not smart.

Chatsky, apparently, on the contrary, was seriously preparing for activity. “He writes and translates well,” Famusov says about him, and everyone talks about his high intelligence. He, of course, traveled for good reason, studied, read, apparently got down to work, had relations with ministers and separated - it’s not difficult to guess why.

“I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening,” he himself hints. There is no mention of “yearning laziness, idle boredom,” and even less of “tender passion,” as a science and an occupation. He loves seriously, seeing Sophia as his future wife.

Meanwhile, Chatsky had to drink the bitter cup to the bottom - not finding “living sympathy” in anyone, and leaving, taking with him only “a million torments.”<…>

Every step of Chatsky, almost every word in the play is closely connected with the play of his feelings for Sophia, irritated by some kind of lie in her actions, which he struggles to unravel until the very end. His whole mind and all his strength go into this struggle: it served as a motive, a reason for irritation, for that “millions of torments”, under the influence of which he could only play the role indicated to him by Griboedov, a role of much greater, higher significance than failed love, in a word, the role for which the comedy was born.<…>

Two camps were formed, or, on the one hand, a whole camp of the Famusovs and the entire brethren of “fathers and elders,” on the other, one ardent and brave fighter, “the enemy of quest.” This is a struggle for life and death, a struggle for existence, as the newest naturalists define the natural succession of generations in the animal world.<…>

Chatsky is eager to “ free life", "to practice" science and art and requires "service to the cause, not to persons", etc. On whose side is victory? Comedy gives Chatsky only "a million torments" and leaves, apparently, Famusov and his brethren in the same position as they were, without saying anything about the consequences of the struggle.

We now know these consequences. They emerged with the advent of comedy, still in manuscript, in the light - and like an epidemic swept across all of Russia.

Meanwhile, the intrigue of love runs its course, correctly, with subtle psychological fidelity, which in any other play, devoid of other colossal Griboyedov beauties, could make a name for the author.<…>

The comedy between him and Sophia ended; The burning irritation of jealousy subsided, and the coldness of hopelessness entered his soul.

All he had to do was leave; but another, lively, lively comedy invades the stage, several new perspectives of Moscow life open up at once, which not only displace Chatsky’s intrigue from the viewer’s memory, but Chatsky himself seems to forget about it and gets in the way of the crowd. New faces group around him and play, each their own role. This is a ball, with all the Moscow atmosphere, with a series of lively stage sketches, in which each group forms its own separate comedy, with a complete outline of the characters, who managed to play out in a few words into a complete action.

Is not complete comedy Are the Gorichevs playing tricks? This husband, recently still a cheerful and lively man, is now degraded, clothed, as in a robe, in Moscow life, a gentleman, “a boy-husband, a servant-husband, the ideal of Moscow husbands,” according to Chatsky’s apt definition, - under the shoe of a cloying, cutesy , socialite wife, Moscow lady?

And these six princesses and the countess-granddaughter - this whole contingent of brides, “who know how,” according to Famusov, “to dress themselves up with taffeta, marigold and haze,” “singing the top notes and clinging to military people”?

This Khlestova, a remnant of Catherine’s century, with a pug, with a blackamoor girl, - this princess and prince Peter Ilyich - without a word, but such a talking ruin of the past; Zagoretsky, an obvious swindler, escaping from prison in the best living rooms and paying off with obsequiousness, like dog diarrhea - and these NNs, and all their talk, and all the content that occupies them!

The influx of these faces is so abundant, their portraits are so vivid that the viewer becomes cold to the intrigue, not having time to catch these quick sketches of new faces and listen to their original conversation.

Chatsky is no longer on stage. But before leaving, he gave abundant food to that main comedy that began with Famusov, in the first act, then with Molchalin - that battle with all of Moscow, where, according to the author’s goals, he then came.

In brief, even instant meetings with old acquaintances, he managed to arm everyone against him with caustic remarks and sarcasms. He is already vividly affected by all sorts of trifles - and he gives free rein to his tongue. He angered the old woman Khlestova, gave some inappropriate advice to Gorichev, abruptly cut off the countess-granddaughter and again offended Molchalin.<…>

“A million torments” and “grief” - that’s what he reaped for everything he managed to sow. Until now he had been invincible: his mind mercilessly struck the sore spots of his enemies. Famusov finds nothing but to cover his ears against his logic, and shoots back commonplaces old morality. Molchalin falls silent, the princesses and countesses back away from him, burned by the nettles of his laughter, and former friend him, Sophia, whom he spares alone, deceives, slips and deals him the main blow on the sly, declaring him at hand, casually, crazy.

He felt his strength and spoke confidently. But the struggle exhausted him. He obviously weakened from this “millions of torments,” and the disorder was so noticeable in him that all the guests grouped around him, just as a crowd gathers around any phenomenon that comes out of the ordinary order of things.

He is not only sad, but also bilious and picky. He, like a wounded man, gathers all his strength, challenges the crowd - and strikes everyone - but he does not have enough power against the united enemy.

He falls into exaggeration, almost into intoxication of speech, and confirms in the opinion of the guests the rumor spread by Sophia about his madness. One can no longer hear sharp, poisonous sarcasm, into which a correct, definite idea is inserted, the truth, but some kind of bitter complaint, as if about a personal insult, about an empty, or, in his own words, “insignificant meeting with a Frenchman from Bordeaux,” which he, in in good condition spirit, I would hardly have noticed.

He has ceased to control himself and does not even notice that he himself is putting together a performance at the ball.<…>

He is definitely “not himself”, starting with the monologue “about a Frenchman from Bordeaux” - and remains so until the end of the play. There are only “millions of torments” ahead.

Pushkin, denying Chatsky intelligence, probably most of all had in mind last scene Act 4, in the entryway, while driving around. Of course, neither Onegin nor Pechorin, these dandies, would have done what Chatsky did in the entryway. They were too trained “in the science of tender passion,” but Chatsky is distinguished, by the way, by sincerity and simplicity, and does not know how and does not want to show off. He is not a dandy, not a lion. Here not only his mind betrays him, but also common sense, even simple decency. He did such nonsense!

Having gotten rid of Repetilov's chatter and hid in the Swiss waiting for the carriage, he spied on Sophia's date with Molchalin and played the role of Othello, without having any rights to do so. He reproaches her for why she “lured him with hope,” why she didn’t directly say that the past was forgotten. Every word here is not true. She did not entice him with any hope. All she did was leave him, barely spoke to him, admitted indifference, called some old children's novel and hiding in corners was “childish” and even hinted that “God brought her together with Molchalin.”

And he, only because -

… so passionate and so low

Was a waster of tender words,-

in rage for his own useless humiliation, for the deception voluntarily imposed on himself, he executes everyone, and throws at her a cruel and unfair word:

With you I am proud of my breakup,-

when there was nothing to tear apart! Finally he just comes to the point of abuse, pouring out bile:

For the daughter and for the father,

And on the lover fool -

and seethes with rage at everyone, “at the tormentors of the crowd, traitors, clumsy wise men, crafty simpletons, sinister old women,” etc. And he leaves Moscow to look for “a corner for offended feelings,” pronouncing a merciless judgment and sentence on everyone!

If he had one healthy minute, if he had not been burned by “a million torments,” he would, of course, ask himself the question: “Why and for what reason have I done all this mess?” And, of course, I wouldn’t find the answer.

Griboyedov is responsible for him, who ended the play with this disaster for a reason. In it, not only for Sophia, but also for Famusov and all his guests, Chatsky’s “mind,” which sparkled like a ray of light in the whole play, burst out at the end into that thunder at which, as the proverb goes, men are baptized.

From the thunder, Sophia was the first to cross herself, remaining until Chatsky appeared, when Molchalin was already crawling at her feet, still the same unconscious Sofia Pavlovna, with the same lie in which her father raised her, in which he lived himself, his entire house and his entire circle . Having not yet recovered from shame and horror when the mask fell from Molchalin, she first of all rejoices that “at night she learned everything, that there are no reproachful witnesses in her eyes!”

But there are no witnesses, therefore, everything is sewn and covered, you can forget, marry, perhaps, Skalozub, and look at the past...

No way to look. Yours moral sense will endure, Liza will not let slip, Molchalin does not dare to utter a word. And husband? But what kind of Moscow husband, “one of his wife’s pages,” would look back at the past!

This is her morality, and the morality of her father, and the whole circle.<…>

Chatsky's role is a passive role: it cannot be otherwise. This is the role of all Chatskys, although at the same time it is always victorious. But they do not know about their victory, they only sow, and others reap - and this is their main suffering, that is, in the hopelessness of success.

Of course, he did not bring Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov to his senses, sober him up, or correct him. If Famusov had not had “reproachful witnesses” during his departure, that is, a crowd of lackeys and a doorman, he would have easily dealt with his grief: he would have given his daughter a head wash, he would have torn Lisa’s ear and hastened with Sophia’s wedding to Skalozub. But now it’s impossible: the next morning, thanks to the scene with Chatsky, all of Moscow will know - and most of all “Princess Marya Alekseevna.” His peace will be disturbed from all sides - and will inevitably make him think about something that never occurred to him.<…>

Molchalin, after the scene in the entryway, cannot remain the same Molchalin. The mask is pulled off, he is recognized, and like a caught thief, he has to hide in a corner. The Gorichevs, Zagoretskys, the princesses - all fell under a hail of his shots, and these shots will not remain without a trace.<…>Chatsky created a schism, and if he was deceived in his personal goals, did not find “the charm of meetings, living participation,” then he himself sprinkled living water on the dead soil - taking with him “a million torments,” this Chatsky’s crown of thorns - torments from everything: from “ mind,” and even more from “offended feelings.”<…>

The role and physiognomy of the Chatskys remains unchanged. Chatsky is most of all an exposer of lies and everything that has become obsolete, that drowns out new life, “free life.”

He knows what he is fighting for and what this life should bring him. He does not lose the ground from under his feet and does not believe in a ghost until he has put on flesh and blood, has not been comprehended by reason, truth - in a word, has not become human.<…>He is very positive in his demands and states them in a ready-made program, developed not by him, but by the century that has already begun. With youthful ardor, he does not drive from the stage everything that has survived, that, according to the laws of reason and justice, as according to natural laws in physical nature, remains to live out its term, that can and should be tolerable. He demands space and freedom for his age: he asks for work, but does not want to serve, and stigmatizes servility and buffoonery. He demands “service to the cause, not to individuals,” does not mix “fun or tomfoolery with business,” like Molchalin, he languishes among the empty, idle crowd of “tormentors, traitors, sinister old women, quarrelsome old men,” refusing to bow to their authority of decrepitude , love of rank and so on. He is outraged by the ugly manifestations of serfdom, insane luxury and disgusting morals of “spillage in feasts and extravagance” - phenomena of mental and moral blindness and corruption.

His ideal of a “free life” is definite: it is freedom from all these countless chains of slavery that shackle society, and then freedom - “to focus on the sciences the mind hungry for knowledge”, or to unhinderedly indulge in “the creative, high and beautiful arts” - freedom “ to serve or not to serve”, “to live in the village or travel”, without being considered either a robber or an incendiary, and - a series of further successive similar steps to freedom - from unfreedom.<…>

Chatsky is broken by quantity old power, inflicting on her in turn death blow quality of fresh strength.

He is the eternal denouncer of lies hidden in the proverb: “Alone in the field is not a warrior.” No, a warrior, if he is Chatsky, and a winner at that, but an advanced warrior, a skirmisher and always a victim.

Chatsky is inevitable with every change from one century to another. The position of the Chatskys on the social ladder is varied, but the role and fate are all the same, from major state and political figures who control the destinies of the masses, to a modest share in a close circle.<…>

In addition to large and prominent personalities, during sharp transitions from one century to another, the Chatskys live and are not transferred in society, repeating themselves at every step, in every house, where the old and the young coexist under one roof, where two centuries come face to face in crowded families - the struggle of the fresh with the outdated, the sick with the healthy continues, and everyone fights in duels, like Horaces and Curiatia - miniature Famusovs and Chatskys.

Every business that requires renewal evokes the shadow of Chatsky - and no matter who the figures are, about any human matter - will it be new idea, a step in science, in politics, in war - no matter how people group, they cannot escape the two main motives of struggle: from the advice to “learn by looking at your elders,” on the one hand, and from the thirst to strive from routine to “free life” forward and forward - on the other.<…>

From the book A Million of Torments (critical study) author Goncharov Ivan Alexandrovich

I. A. Goncharov A Million of Torments (Critical Study) “Woe from Wit” by Griboyedov. - Monakhova's benefit performance, November, 1871. The comedy “Woe from Wit” stands somehow apart in literature and is distinguished by its youthfulness, freshness and stronger vitality from other works of the word. She

From the book Life by Concepts author Chuprinin Sergey Ivanovich

CRITICAL SENTIMENTALISM This is how Sergei Gandlevsky characterized his own artistic experience and the experience of an informal poetry school " Moscow time"(A. Soprovsky, B. Kenzheev, A. Tsvetkov) in an article with same name, dated 1989. According to him

From the book Volume 3. Confusion-grass. Satire in prose. 1904-1932 by Black Sasha

CHANGE. STUDY* The year 1908, spotted with flies and covered with cobwebs, sits under the clock and sleeps. The hour hands converge at 12. The dial wrinkles as if in great pain, the clock hisses, wheezes, and finally a dull, hoarse, boring chime is heard with long pauses. NEW YEAR, bald and yellow

From the book Collection of critical articles by Sergei Belyakov author Belyakov Sergey

Sketch in red-brown tones (Alexander Prokhanov) Yes, a sketch, nothing more. A large, 1:1 scale portrait has already been painted by Lev Danilkin, the author of the most thorough research about Prokhanov. But the topic is far from exhausted. “The Man with the Egg” came out two years ago. Since then

From the book Russian Literature in Assessments, Judgments, Disputes: A Reader of Literary Critical Texts author Esin Andrey Borisovich

I.A. Goncharov “A Million Torments”1 (Critical Study)

From the book “Magical Places Where I Live with My Soul...” [Pushkin Gardens and Parks] author Egorova Elena Nikolaevna

From the book All essays on literature for grade 10 author Team of authors

From the book Russian History literary criticism[Soviet and post-Soviet era] author Lipovetsky Mark Naumovich

I. A. Goncharov “Oblomov” 24. Olga Ilyinskaya, and her role in the life of Oblomov (based on the novel “Oblomov” by I. A. Goncharov) The image of Oblomov in Russian literature closes the series of “superfluous” people. An inactive contemplator, incapable of active action, at first glance really

From the book Analysis, Style and Trend. About the novels of gr. L. N. Tolstoy author Leontyev Konstantin Nikolaevich

4. “Under the sign of life-building” and “literature of fact”: literary-critical avant-garde The radical left wing of literary criticism, presented on the pages of the magazines “Lef” (1923–1925) and “New Lef” (1927–1928), united representatives various groups, aesthetics and trends

From the book Movement of Literature. Volume I author Rodnyanskaya Irina Bentsionovna

3. Critical impressionism: The critic as a writer From traditional impressionistic criticism - ranging from Yuri Aikhenvald to Lev Anninsky - the new direction differs in that the impressionist critics of the 1990s–2000s, regardless of their aesthetic positions, obviously

From the author's book

4. Critical impressionism: Diary discourse In the second half of the 1990s, for many reasons (including due to the crisis of liberal ideologies in Russia that began after the 1998 default), it radically changed social type existence of literature. Short

From the author's book

About the novels of gr. L. And Tolstoy Analysis, style and trend (Critical

From the author's book

A Study of the Beginning (Andrey Bitov) As we see, Andrey Bitov writes the same “novel of education” year after year, the hero of which, the shadow alter ego of the author, is an “egoist”, or, using Stendhal’s word, an “egotist” (focused a person on himself) - impartially led by the writer to

Article “A Million Torments” by I.A. Goncharova is a critical review of several works at once. In response to the essay by A.S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit”, I.A. Goncharov provides not only literary, but also social analysis of this work, comparing it with other great works of that era.

The main idea of the article is that great changes have been brewing in society for a long time, and people like Griboedov’s hero Chatsky will become great achievers.

Read the summary of the article Million torments of Goncharov

I.A. Goncharov calls great comedy“Woe from Wit” is the comedy that the era was waiting for. His article is a deep analysis of the socio-political life of Russia. The huge country was at the stage of transition from feudal rule to capitalist rule. The most advanced part of society were people noble class. It was on them that the country relied on in anticipation of change.

Among the noble educated class of Russia, as a rule, there were the fewest people like Griboyedov’s hero Chatsky. And people who could be attributed to Onegin A.S. Pushkin, or to Pechorin M.Yu. Lermontov, prevailed.

And society did not need people focused on themselves and their exclusivity, but people ready for achievements and self-sacrifice. Society needed a new, fresh vision of the world, social activities, education and the role of the citizen in the end.

Goncharov gives a comprehensive description of Chatsky’s image. He breaks the foundations of the old world, speaking the truth face to face. He seeks the truth, wants to know how to live, he is not satisfied with the morals and foundations of a respectable society, which covers up laziness, hypocrisy, lust and stupidity with decency and politeness. Everything that is dangerous, incomprehensible and beyond their control, they declare either immoral or insane. It’s easiest for them to declare Chatsky crazy - it’s easier to expel him from their little world so that he doesn’t confuse their souls and doesn’t interfere with living according to the old and so convenient rules.

This is quite natural, since even some great writers of that era treated Chatsky either condescendingly or mockingly. For example, A.S. Pushkin is perplexed why Chatsky shouts into the void, not seeing a response in the souls of those around him. As for Dobrolyubov, he condescendingly and ironically notes that Chatsky is a “gambling fellow.”

The fact that society did not accept or understand this image was the reason that Goncharov wrote the article in question.

Molchalin appears as the antipode of Chatsky. According to Goncharov, Russia, which belongs to the Molchalins, will ultimately come to a terrible end. Molchalin is a man of a special, mean-spirited nature, capable of pretending, lying, saying what his listeners are waiting for and wanting, and then betraying them.

I.A. Goncharov’s article is full of caustic criticism of the Molchalyns, cowardly, greedy, stupid. According to the author, it is precisely such people who break through to power, since they are always promoted by those in power, those who are more comfortable ruling those who do not have own opinion, and in general the outlook on life as such.

Essay by I.A. Goncharov is still relevant today. It makes you involuntarily think about who is more numerous in Russia – the Molchalins or the Chatskys? Who is there more in yourself? Is it always more convenient to go ahead or, by remaining silent, pretend that you agree with everything? What is better - to live in your own warm little world or to fight injustice, which has already dulled the souls of people so much that it has long seemed to be the usual order of things? Is Sophia so wrong in choosing Molchalin - after all, he will provide her with position, honor, and peace of mind, even if bought by meanness. All these questions trouble the reader’s mind while studying the article; they are the “millions of torments” that everyone goes through at least once in their life thinking man, fearing the loss of honor and conscience.

According to I.A. Goncharova, Chatsky is not just a mad Don Quixote, fighting with mills and causing a smile, anger, bewilderment - everything except understanding. Chatsky – strong personality, which is not so easy to silence. And he is able to evoke a response in young hearts.

The ending of the article is optimistic. His beliefs and way of thinking are consonant with the ideas of the Decembrists. His convictions are convictions that he cannot do without. new world standing on the threshold of a new era. Goncharov sees in Griboyedov’s comedy a forerunner of new events that will take place on Senate Square in 1825.

Who will we take into our new life? Will the Molchalins and Famusovs be able to penetrate there? – the reader will have to answer these questions for himself.

Picture or drawing of a million torments

One day the author was sitting in a company and heard a story, this was about 15 years old. And these fifteen years this story lives in his heart, he himself does not understand why this happened. The heroine's name was Lyudochka, her parents were ordinary people

Summary of Nabokov Christmas

Sleptsov returns home. There is clearly something wrong with this man. He is very absent-minded and constantly thinks about something to himself. His appearance, his whole image speaks of deep emotional experiences.

A million torments

(Critical study)

Woe from mind, Griboyedova. -- Monakhov's benefit, November, 1871

The comedy "Woe from Wit" stands out somehow in literature and is distinguished by its youthfulness, freshness and stronger vitality from other works of the word. She is like a hundred-year-old man, around whom everyone, having lived out their time in turn, dies and lies down, and he walks, vigorous and fresh, between the graves of old people and the cradles of new people. And it never occurs to anyone that someday his turn will come.

All celebrities of the first magnitude, of course, were not admitted to the so-called “temple of immortality” for nothing. They all have a lot, and others, like Pushkin, for example, have much more rights to longevity than Griboyedov. They cannot be close and placed one with the other. Pushkin is huge, fruitful, strong, rich. He is for Russian art what Lomonosov is for Russian enlightenment in general. Pushkin took over his entire era, he himself created another, gave birth to schools of artists - he took everything in his era, except what Griboyedov managed to take and what Pushkin did not agree on.

Despite Pushkin's genius, his leading heroes, like the heroes of his century, are already turning pale and becoming a thing of the past. Brilliant creatures while continuing to serve as models and sources for art, they themselves become history. We have studied "Onegin", his time and his environment, weighed it, determined the meaning of this type, but we no longer find living traces of this personality in modern century, although the creation of this type will remain indelible in literature. Even the later heroes of the century, for example Lermontov's Pechorin, representing, like Onegin, their era, turn to stone, but in immobility, like statues on graves. We are not talking about their more or less bright types who appeared later, who managed to go to the grave during the authors’ lifetime, leaving behind some rights to literary memory.

Called immortal comedy Fonvizin’s “Minor”, and thoroughly, its lively, hot period lasted about half a century: this is enormous for a work of words. But now there is not a single hint in "Minor" to living life, and the comedy, having served its purpose, turned into a historical monument.

“Woe from Wit” appeared before Onegin, Pechorin, outlived them, passed unscathed through the Gogol period, lived these half a century from the time of its appearance and still lives its imperishable life, will survive many more eras and still not lose its vitality.

Why is this, and what is this “Woe from Wit” anyway?

Criticism did not move the comedy from the place it had once occupied, as if at a loss as to where to place it. The oral assessment was ahead of the printed one, just as the play itself was ahead of the print. But the literate masses actually appreciated it. Immediately realizing its beauty and not finding any flaws, she tore the manuscript into pieces, into verses, hemistiches, disseminated all the salt and wisdom of the play into colloquial speech, as if she had turned a million into ten-kopeck pieces, and so peppered the conversation with Griboyedov’s sayings that she literally wore out the comedy to the point of satiety. .

But the play passed this test - and not only did not become vulgar, but it seemed to become dearer to readers, it found a patron, a critic and a friend in everyone, like Krylov’s fables, which did not lose their literary power, having passed from the book into living speech.

Printed criticism has always treated with more or less severity only stage performance plays, touching little on the comedy itself or speaking out in fragmentary, incomplete and contradictory reviews. It was decided once and for all that the comedy was an exemplary work, and with that everyone made peace.

What should an actor do when thinking about his role in this play? To rely on one's own judgment is to lack any self-esteem, but to listen to the talk of forty years public opinion-- there is no way without getting lost in petty analysis. It remains, from the countless chorus of opinions expressed and expressed, to dwell on a few general conclusions, the most frequently repeated ones - and build your own assessment plan on them.

Some value in comedy a picture of Moscow morals of a certain era, the creation of living types and their skillful grouping. The whole play seems to be a circle of faces familiar to the reader, and, moreover, as definite and closed as a deck of cards. The faces of Famusov, Molchalin, Skalozub and others were etched into the memory as firmly as kings, jacks and queens in cards, and everyone had a more or less consistent concept of all the faces, except for one - Chatsky. So they are all drawn correctly and strictly, and so they have become familiar to everyone. Only about Chatsky many are perplexed: what is he? It's like he's the fifty-third mysterious card in the deck. If there was little disagreement in the understanding of other people, then about Chatsky, on the contrary, the differences have not ended yet and, perhaps, will not end for a long time.

Others, giving justice to the picture of morals, the fidelity of types, value the more epigrammatic salt of language, living satire - morality, which the play still, like an inexhaustible well, supplies everyone at every everyday step of life.

But both connoisseurs almost pass over in silence the “comedy” itself, the action, and many even deny it conventional stage movement.

Despite this, however, every time the personnel in the roles changes, both judges go to the theater, and again lively talk arises about the performance of this or that role and about the roles themselves, as if in a new play.

The comedy “Woe from Wit” somehow stands apart in literature and is distinguished by its youthfulness, freshness and stronger vitality from other works of the word. She is like a hundred-year-old man, around whom everyone, having lived out their time in turn, dies and lies down, and he walks, vigorous and fresh, between the graves of old people and the cradles of new people. And it never occurs to anyone that someday his turn will come.

“Woe from Wit” appeared before Onegin, Pechorin, survived them, passed unscathed through the Gogol period, lived these half a century from the time of its appearance and still lives its imperishable life, will survive many more eras, and everything will not lose its vitality.

Why is this, and what is “Woe from Wit” anyway?

Criticism did not move the comedy from the place it had once occupied, as if at a loss as to where to place it. The oral assessment was ahead of the printed one, just as the play itself was long ahead of the printing. But the literate masses actually appreciated it. Immediately realizing its beauty and not finding any flaws, she tore the manuscript into pieces, into verses, half-verses, spread all the salt and wisdom of the play into colloquial speech, as if she had turned a million into ten-kopeck pieces, and so peppered the conversation with Griboyedov’s sayings that she literally wore out the comedy to the point of satiety. .

Printed criticism has always treated with more or less severity only the stage performance of the play, touching little on the comedy itself, or expressing itself in fragmentary, incomplete and contradictory reviews. It was decided once and for all that the comedy was an exemplary work - and with that everyone made peace.

Others, giving justice to the picture of morals, the fidelity of types, value the more epigrammatic salt of language, living satire - morality, with which the play still, like an inexhaustible well, supplies everyone at every everyday step of life.

All these various impressions and each one’s own point of view based on them serve as the best definition of the play, i.e., that The comedy “Woe from Wit” is both a picture of morals, and a gallery of living types, and an ever-sharp, burning satire, and at the same time a comedy and, let’s say for ourselves - most of all a comedy - which can hardly be found in other literatures, if we accept the totality of all other stated conditions. As a painting, it is, without a doubt, enormous. Her canvas captures a long period of Russian life - from Catherine to Emperor Nicholas. The group of twenty faces reflected, like a ray of light in a drop of water, the entire former Moscow, its design, its spirit at that time, its historical moment and morals. And this with such artistic, objective completeness and certainty that only Pushkin and Gogol were given in our country.

In a picture where there is not a single pale spot, not a single extraneous stroke or sound,- the viewer and the reader feel themselves even now, in our era, among living people. Both the general and the details, all this is not composed, but entirely taken from Moscow living rooms and transferred to the book and to the stage, with all the warmth and with all the “special imprint” "Moscow, - from Famusov to the small touches, to Prince Tugoukhovsky and to the footman Petrushka, without whom the picture would not be complete.

However, for us it is not yet a completely completed historical picture: we have not moved away from the era at a sufficient distance for an impassable abyss to lie between it and our time. The coloring was not smoothed out at all; the century has not separated from ours, like a cut-off piece: we have inherited something from there, although the Famusovs, Molchalins, Zagoretskys, etc. have changed so that they no longer fit into the skin of Griboyedov’s types. The harsh features have become obsolete, of course: no Famusov will now invite Maxim Petrovich to become a jester and set an example, at least so positively and clearly Molchalin, even in front of the maid, secretly, now does not confess to the commandments that his father bequeathed to him; such a Skalozub, such a Zagoretsky are impossible even in a distant outback. But as long as there will be a desire for honors apart from merit, as long as there will be masters and hunters to please and “take rewards and live happily,” while gossip, idleness, and emptiness will dominate not as vices, but as elements of social life - so long, of course , the features of the Famusovs, Molchalins and others will flash in modern society, there is no need that that “special imprint” of which Famusov was proud has been erased from Moscow itself.

Universal human models, of course, always remain, although they turn into types unrecognizable due to temporary changes, so that, to replace the old, artists sometimes have to update, after long periods, the basic features of morals and human nature in general that once appeared in images , clothing them with new flesh and blood in the spirit of their time

This can especially apply to Griboyedov's comedy. In it, the local coloring is too bright, and the designation of the characters themselves is so strictly outlined and furnished with such reality of details that universal human traits barely stand out from under social provisions, ranks, costumes, etc.

Chatsky himself thunders against the “past century” when the comedy was written, and it was written between 1815 and 1820.

or:

he says to Famusov

Consequently, now only a little of the local color remains: passion for rank, sycophancy, emptiness. But with some reforms, the ranks can move away, sycophancy to the extent of Molchalinsky’s lackeyness is already hiding in the darkness, and the poetry of the fruit has given way to a strict and rational direction in military affairs.

But there are still some living traces, and they still prevent the painting from turning into a completed historical bas-relief. This future is still far ahead of her.

Salt, an epigram, a satire, this colloquial verse, it seems, will never die, just like the sharp and caustic, living Russian mind scattered in them, which Griboyedov imprisoned, like some kind of wizard spirit, in his castle, and it crumbles there an evil laugh. It is impossible to imagine that another, more natural, simpler, more taken from life speech could ever appear. Prose and verse merged here into something inseparable, then, it seems, so that it would be easier to retain them in memory and put into circulation again all the intelligence, humor, jokes and anger of the Russian mind and language collected by the author. This language was given to the author in the same way as a group of these individuals was given, as the main meaning of the comedy was given, as everything was given together, as if it poured out at once, and everything formed an extraordinary comedy - both in the narrow sense, like a stage play, and in the broad sense, like a comedy life It couldn't be anything else but a comedy

Leaving the two main aspects of the play, which so clearly speak for themselves, and therefore have the majority of admirers, - that is, the picture of the era, with a group of living portraits, and the salt of the language - let us first turn to the comedy, as stage play, then how to comedy in general, to her general sense, to her main reason in public and literary significance, finally let’s talk about its performance on stage.

We have long been accustomed to saying that there is no movement, that is, there is no action in the play. How is there no movement? There is - living, continuous, from Chatsky’s first appearance on the sienna to his last word: “Carriage for me, carriage!”

This is a subtle, intelligent, elegant and passionate comedy, in a close, technical sense, true in small psychological details, but elusive for the viewer, because it is disguised by the typical faces of the heroes, ingenious drawing, the color of the place, the era, the charm of the language, all poetic forces, so abundantly diffused in the play. The action, that is, the actual intrigue in it, in front of these capital aspects seems pale, superfluous, almost unnecessary.

Only when driving around in the entryway does the viewer seem to awaken to the unexpected catastrophe that has broken out between the main characters, and suddenly remember the comedy-intrigue. But even then not for long. The enormous, real meaning of comedy is already growing before him.

The article “A Million Torments” is a critical study. It is interesting that I. A. Goncharov was encouraged to write it by his friends.

After watching “Woe from Wit” at the theater, the writer made several interesting judgments about the comedy. In 1871, a review was published signed with the initials “I. G.". Subsequently, the article was republished in Vestnik Evropy along with the work of A. S. Griboyedov.

So this is an analysis of "subtle, smart, graceful and passionate comedy."

The name “A Million Torments” is not accidental: the entire analysis, in fact, is devoted to its explanation. Well, whose torment is it? " An extra person» Chatsky.

The place of Griboyedov's comedy in Russian literature

I. A. Goncharov immediately notes that the comedy “Woe from Wit” occupies a special place among the works of Russian classics: A. S. Pushkin, M. Yu. Lermontov, and others. She is distinguished by a young spirit, freshness and a special kind of “vitality” (the writer’s expression). Well, we can quite agree with this assurance of his. From what else? literary work do we quote so much, and not only in essays, but also in colloquial speech? Let's remember:

“Evil tongues are worse than a gun.”

“I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening.”

Goncharov writes that “Woe from Wit” outlived both “Eugene Onegin” and “Hero of Our Time.” All these works were written later. It would seem that they have a greater chance of success with the reader. But no - the problems raised by Griboyedov turned out to be relevant during the heyday of the work of these classics, and were relevant during Goncharov’s lifetime. The work “Woe from Wit,” he writes, will survive several more eras without losing its relevance.

Morals and customs in Griboedov's comedy

What does the reader find in Griboyedov’s comedy? It depends on what kind of reader, depending on what he is looking for.

Some are attracted by the description of Moscow life, way of life and customs early XIX century. It should be noted that Griboedov managed to convey the very spirit noble society of this period.

Goncharov notes how living the characters are presented in the comedy - so much so that the reader seems to be in the circle of his acquaintances.

Anyone reading the play can name both Famusov and Molchalin among their acquaintances...

Comedy language

Other readers will be more attracted to epigrams, apt satirical expressions - “the salt of the tongue,” as Goncharov wrote about it. He called the play an “inexhaustible well” that can provide us with witty answers at literally every step. Griboyedov's quotes became aphorisms.

Well, for example:

“You don’t watch happy hours.”

Real folk wisdom:

“Pass us beyond all sorrows, And lordly anger, and lordly love.”

As we know:

“And the smoke of the Fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us!”

The role of Chatsky in comedy

Without Chatsky, as Goncharov rightly notes, there would be no comedy, but only a picture of morals would have turned out, perhaps a little boring.

So this is main character comedies.

According to Griboyedov, Chatsky’s grief comes from his mind. A. S. Pushkin did not agree with this judgment at one time. Chatsky, without a doubt, opens new Age And new era- that is the meaning of this hero.

“Who are the judges?”

Between Famusov and Chatsky, as if throwing down a gauntlet to each other.

The main motive of the comedy is expressed gracefully in Griboyedov’s style, literally in a few words, which Goncharov compares with the overture of an opera.

The reader sees two camps: Famusov’s, the camp of the “fathers” or “elders” - this is on the one hand.

On the other hand, who? It turns out that there is one person - Chatsky, a noble warrior, “the enemy of quest.” This struggle, Goncharov writes, is waged for life and death; it is comparable to the struggle for existence in the animal world, the one that natural scientists describe as a natural change of generations in the animal world.

Bottom line

“A million torments” is what Chatsky received in the end. He's still a man sharp mind, was literally invincible in verbal duels, mercilessly defeated enemies, and knew how to see their weak points. But in the battle with Famusov, “grief” is added to the bitterness of defeat and moral torment.

He has to leave without finding sympathy in anyone (not in the sense of pity, but in the sense of sharing his feelings). As Goncharov writes, he takes with him only “a million torments.”

“Get out of Moscow! I don't go here anymore. I’m running, I won’t look back, I’ll go looking around the world, Where there is a corner for an offended feeling!.. A carriage for me, a carriage!”

Well, in conclusion, I. A. Goncharov comes to disappointing conclusions. Literature, he concludes, will not escape the circle of problems outlined by Griboyedov.

As soon as the writer touches on the topic of the dissimilarity of generations, the struggle of their views, the same result awaits him as Chatsky.