Moscow society in the image of A. With

One of the most profound and touching Russian epitaphs was inscribed by Griboyedov’s widow over his grave:

“Your mind and deeds are immortal in the memory of Russians, but why did my love survive you?”

The murder of the plenipotentiary ambassador, all officials (except for one) and all the guards is a completely extraordinary thing, unheard of in history. Griboyedov could not predict it logically, quite clearly, as an inevitable fact arising from the existing diplomatic relations. If I could, I would have reported this to my superiors in a timely manner and would not have received the ill-fated appointment and would not have gone to Persia.

But what he could not express with objective conviction, he knew with instinct absolutely precisely, for sure. “He was sad and had strange premonitions,” Pushkin recalled. “I wanted to calm him down, but he told me: “Vous ne connaissez pas ces gens-la!” Vous verrez qu "il faudra jouer des couteaux! (You don't know these people! You will see that it will come down to knives! (French))" His very departure from St. Petersburg was marked by these premonitions. A.A. Gendre says: “We sadly saw off Griboedov. Only two of us saw him off to Tsarskoe Selo: A.V. Vsevolozhsky and I. That’s the mood we were in then: I had a farewell breakfast; alone. The day was cloudy and rainy. We drove to Tsarskoe Selo, and neither of us said a word. In Tsarskoe Selo, Griboyedov ordered, since it was already evening, to serve a bottle of Burgon, which he loved very much, a bottle of champagne and have a snack. No one touched anything. Finally, they said goodbye. Griboyedov sat down in the carriage; we saw her turn the corner of the street, returned with Vsevolozhsky to Petersburg and did not say a single word to each other the whole way - absolutely not one ".

Griboedov stayed in Moscow for two days: he said goodbye to his mother. Then he went to the Tula province to visit his sister. On the way I stopped by an old friend, S.N. Begichev. Guest at Begichev’s, he was extremely gloomy all the time and finally said: “Farewell, brother Styopa, it’s unlikely that we will see each other again!” And he also explained: “I have a presentiment that I will not return alive from Persia... I know the Persians. Allayar Khan is my personal enemy, he is leaving me!”

With such thoughts he reached Tiflis. Princess Nina Chavchavadze lived there. She looked like Madonna Murillo, and she was only 16 years old. And Griboyedov was thirty-three. He had known her for a long time, once gave her music lessons, she grew up before his eyes. He was in love, but secretly, reservedly and, perhaps, coldly: he learned to despise women from his youth. And suddenly, in these darkest days (having forgotten about premonitions of death? Or, perhaps, just because they clarified, heightened, sharpened all his feelings?) - he somehow suddenly blossomed. Already on July 24, he wrote to Bulgarin, with whom he had a friend:

“It was the 16th. That day I was having lunch with an old friend of mine, I was sitting at the table opposite Nina Chavchavadzeva, I kept looking at her, thinking, my heart was beating, I don’t know whether it was anxiety of a different kind, about my job, which is now unusually important, or that something else gave me extraordinary determination, leaving the table, I took her hand and said to her: “Venez avec moi, j”ai quelque chose a vous dire (Come with me, I need to tell you something (fr. ))". She obeyed me, as always; That’s right, she thought that I would sit her down at the piano; it didn't turn out right; her mother’s house is nearby, we ducked there, went into the room, my cheeks were flushed, my breathing was labored, I don’t remember what I started muttering to her, and more and more alive, she began to cry, laughed, I kissed her, then to her mother , to her grandmother, to her second mother, Pras. Nick. Akhverdova, we were blessed, I hung on her lips all night and all day, sent a courier to her father in Erivan with letters from both of us and from relatives..."

After that, all events moved with tragic speed. The letter to Bulgarin was written on the road, because the explanation took place on July 16, and on the night of the 18th Griboyedov went to Paskevich in Akhalkalaki. He returned to Tiflis on August 4 and immediately fell ill with a fever. When he felt better, he rushed to the wedding. The wedding took place on August 22 in the evening. During the wedding, the fever began to shake Griboedov again, and he dropped his wedding ring (as Pushkin dropped his ring a year and a half later). On September 9, Griboyedov with his wife, her mother and embassy officials left for Persia. They were accompanied by an honor escort and a Persian official sent by the Shah. The farewell was solemn, military music was played. While on the road, Griboedov wrote a wonderful letter to an acquaintance in St. Petersburg: “I’m married, I’m traveling with a huge caravan, 110 horses and mules, we spend the night under tents at the heights of the mountains, where it’s cold in winter, my Ninusha doesn’t complain, she’s happy with everything, playful, cheerful; for a change there are we have brilliant meetings, the cavalry rushes at full speed, gathers dust, dismounts and congratulates us on our happy arrival to a place where we would not like to be at all.Today we were received by the entire clergy of the monastery in Etchmiadzin, with crosses, icons, banners, singing, smoking, etc. . ..Throw away your Traper and Cooper's Prairie ("Prairie" (French)), - my novel is alive before your eyes and a hundred times more entertaining..."

They were inspired with happiness. The wife said to Griboedov: “How did it all happen! Where am I, what and with whom! We will live forever, we will never die!”

The caravan solemnly entered the borders of Persia, but Griboyedov was constantly tormented by fever. He arrived in Tabriz on October 7, half ill. Things, meanwhile, were not expected. Already in Tabriz the most serious complications with the Persians began. Griboyedov had to go further, to Tehran. Nina Alexandrovna was pregnant - and not entirely safely. It was decided for her to stay in Tabriz. On December 9, Griboyedov left. On this day he saw his wife for the last time: on January 30 (February 11) he was killed in Tehran by a crowd of Persians.

His death was hidden from his wife for a long time. But one relative let it slip, Nina Alexandrovna became hysterical, and she prematurely resolved herself as a child who lived only a few hours.

Griboedov's body was transported from Tehran very slowly. On June 11, not far from the Gergery fortress, his famous meeting with Pushkin took place. Finally, the procession approached Tiflis, where the widow was with her relatives. In "Son of the Fatherland" 1830, unknown author signed Eyewitness told:

“The road from quarantine to the city outpost goes along the right bank of the Kura; on both sides stretch vineyards, fenced with high stone walls. There was something majestic in the sad procession and inexplicably touched the soul: the twilight of the evening, illuminated by torches, the walls completely covered with crying Georgians, wrapped in white veils, the lingering singing of the clergy, behind the chariot a crowd of people, the memory of the terrible death of Griboyedov - tore the hearts of those who knew and loved him! The widow, condemned in her brilliant youth to experience a terrible misfortune, stood in sorrowful anticipation with her family at the city outpost; light the first torch announced to her the proximity of precious ashes; she fainted, and for a long time they could not bring her to her senses."

It was July 17, 1829, exactly one year and one day after their rapid explanation; exactly on the very anniversary of the day that Griboyedov spent “hanging on the lips” of Princess Nina Chavchavadze. Their marriage itself lasted only three and a half months. Griboyedov was right when he wrote that his lively novel is a hundred times more entertaining than Cooper’s novels.

We dwelled in such detail on the story of Griboyedov's love and death because it was not an accidental tragic conclusion, mechanically attached by fate to his life. Here, in this gloomy and romantic finale, the general tone of Griboyedov’s life, rich in feelings, impressions and events, was heard only more clearly. Griboyedov was a man of remarkable intelligence, great education, a unique, very complex and, in essence, charming character. Beneath his dry and often bilious restraint, he buried a depth of feeling that did not want to show itself over trifles. But in worthy cases, Griboyedov showed both strong passion and active love. He knew how to be an excellent, if somewhat unyielding, diplomat, a dreamy musician, a “citizen of the scenes,” and a friend of the Decembrists. The very story of his last love and death would not have been successful for an ordinary person. Finally, poetry was the greatest love of his life... But here is a question, one of the most important questions about Griboedov: was this love for poetry mutual? Did the muse of poetry give Griboyedov mutual love?

The fact that everything written by Griboyedov before and after “Woe from Wit” is of no literary value has never been denied by anyone, even N.K. Piksanov, Griboyedov’s most active admirer, who put so much work and knowledge into studying his favorite author. Griboedov is a “man of one book.” If it were not for Woe from Wit, Griboyedov would have no place at all in Russian literature. What's the matter? The imperfection of what was written before “Woe from Wit” can, for example, be explained by immaturity and inexperience. But how can we explain the quantitative and qualitative insignificance of everything that was written after? After all, Griboyedov died nine years after the end of his comedy. During these years, nothing happened that could reduce his will to create. On the contrary, this will has reached, perhaps, special tension. There were no external obstacles either. But Griboyedov could not create anything. He was aware of his creative impotence - and suffered extremely. In 1825, he wrote from Crimea to his friend: “Well, I spent almost three months in Taurida, and the result was zero. I wrote nothing. Am I demanding too much of myself? Can I write? Really, it’s still a mystery to me. "I have plenty of things to say, I can vouch for that. Why am I dumb? Silent as a grave!"

Griboyedov’s creative impotence after “Woe from Wit” is undeniable. But the history of literature, recognizing it as a fact, does not seek to explain it, as if falling silent before the unexplored depths of creative psychology. It seems, however, that a lot can be explained here - and not without benefit in establishing the correct view of “Woe from Wit” itself. Let us at least try to outline this explanation, since the limits of a newspaper article do not prevent this.

Before “Woe from Wit,” Griboyedov’s writings followed two lines, very different from each other. On the one hand, these were lyrical poems, attempts at poetic creativity, in the strict sense of the word. And here we cannot help but say frankly that these attempts are extremely weak. But, apparently, these were not easy for Griboyedov. Only a few poems have reached us, banal in content and helpless in form. Let me give you an example of “Epitaph for Doctor Castaldi”:

From the countries of Italy-fatherland
An unknown fate brought him here.
A wanderer, here he was looking for a better life...
Far from his own, he found death close to him.

This is not at all the worst of Griboedov’s poems of that time. But its shortcomings are obvious, but it has no advantages. Meanwhile, this was not written by a boy: the author was already twenty-six years old. And here’s what’s remarkable: at this very time he was already thinking about “Woe from Wit.”

Another cycle of Griboyedov’s writings consisted of plays and excerpts of a light comedy and vaudeville nature. Several of them have reached us. Despite their trivial content, they are qualitatively much higher than Griboyedov’s lyrics. They have a certain stage agility. But upon closer examination it turns out that there is no need to talk about real authorship here. In fact: “The Young Spouses” is a poetic (in terrifying verses) adaptation of a French play; "Student" was written in collaboration with Katenin; “One’s own family” are just a few scenes inserted into Shakhovsky’s comedy; "Feigned infidelity" is simply a translation; “Who is brother, who is sister” - written in collaboration with Vyazemsky. So, apart from a complete trifle (a vaudeville interlude with couplets), everything that bears the name of Griboyedov turns out to be either a translation, or an alteration, or, finally, written under the supervision and influence of more mature and experienced authors: Katenin, Shakhovsky, Vyazemsky.

If we now turn to the period after“Woe from Wit,” we immediately notice a significant phenomenon: Griboedov decisively turns away from the comedy genre. He writes “important” lyric poetry and sketches tragedies in a high style. But the lyrics remain almost at the same low level as they were before “Woe from Wit”. Only in the message to the actress Teleshova and in the poem “Liberated”, if desired, can one find some merits. As for the tragedies, Griboyedov himself was aware of their fatal shortcomings, he suffered - and the matter did not go beyond sketches, plans, and individual scenes.

This happened because, with his vast mind, with all his understanding of poetry, with his great love for it, Griboedov was deprived of the poetic gift - and he was aware of it. In 1826, he wrote to the same Begichev: “Poetry! I love it without memory, passionately, but is love alone sufficient to glorify oneself?”

This is where we come to "Woe from Wit". The fall of Griboyedov's creativity after this comedy will forever remain inexplicable if we look at it as a fall. In reality, there was no fall: in the poetic and tragic art of the great style that Griboyedov demanded of himself, he, as before, remained helpless. The experience of “Woe from Wit” could not be useful to him here, because it was nothing more than a developed experience of that light, comedic line of creativity, which Griboyedov abandoned, which he himself did not consider worthy of himself.

“Woe from Wit” is the result of everyday observations and a well-known system of thoughts that brought Griboedov closer to Decembrism. Under the strong pressure of experiences that were completely limited to the area of ​​contemporary Griboyedov public and politics, these observations resulted in a comedy, richly saturated with social satirical material. But as an artist, Griboyedov himself demanded more from himself. He himself was aware that the satirical impulse of “Woe from Wit” was not the impulse of “great” art, true poetry, and he was languishing because fate did not give him the strength for this art.

"Woe from Wit", with all the brilliance of the dialogue, with all the vitality of the characters, with all the scenic merits (of which there are many in it, despite the well-known shortcomings), is still nothing more than a satire, a work that, by its very nature, is worthwhile, so to speak. , in the background of art. Despite its maximum merits, satire is still wingless, like a fable. It can only be inspired by internal overcoming, giving it a second, more in-depth, universal and enduring meaning, which is not in “Woe from Wit”, but which Gogol soon managed to give to his comedy. Behind the images of a provincial town, Gogol discovered enormous philosophical perspectives, from satire he ascended to the heights of religious and creative feat, which Griboedov longed for as a potential artist, and to which, as a real satirist, he did not rise: he did not know where “overcome” satire could lead, and in “Woe from Wit” he did not try to overcome it.

Everything that is deepened and elevated in Gogol, in Griboyedov remains in the plane of a given everyday life. Gogol showed his comedy as our common tragedy to this day. "Inspector without end!" - exclaims Gogol. And he is right, because the theme of his comedy remains eternal. We clearly know about “Woe from Wit” that it ended with the end of Famusov’s Moscow.

Russia will remain forever grateful to Griboyedov. We will forever re-read "Woe from Wit" - this true "feat of an honest man", a civil feat, courageous and timely. We will always look for living and truthful evidence of past times in Griboyedov’s comedy. We will do justice to the brightness and truthfulness of the image. But in deep moments, when we, alone with ourselves, are looking for revelations in poetry that are more necessary, vital for our very soul, will we, will we be able to read “Woe from Wit”? Without revelation, without prophecy there is no poetry. That is why Griboyedov himself did not continue its tradition, did not want to use the experience gained in creating this thing. He knew what poetry was, he strove for it painfully, but this path was closed to him.

Vladislav Felitsianovich Khodasevich (1886-1939) poet, prose writer, literary critic.

A. S. Griboyedov was born into a noble family. His life (1794-1829) and activities took place during the period of the heroic struggle of the Russian people against Napoleon, during the revolutionary movement of the Decembrists. Griboyedov admired the courage and talents of the Russian people. A highly educated and intelligent man, he spoke many foreign languages, wrote music, was an officer, a talented statesman, and one of the best diplomats of his time. Griboyedov subtly understood the Russian character, spiritual beauty and lively mind of the Russian person. The writer loved Russia very much, and this love aroused in his soul hatred of slavery and oppression. He despised the vulgar and barbaric world of feudal landowners, officials, and bribe-takers.

Griboyedov’s personality and worldview were reflected in the comedy “Woe from Wit.” In it, the author opposes the autocratic-serf system. In the image of Alexander Andreevich Chatsky, Griboyedov showed a revolutionary who despises a reactionary society, defends freedom, humanity, culture, and has his own view of the world and human relations.

Chatsky is a young, highly educated man who recently returned from a trip abroad. He comes from a poor noble family. Chatsky spent his childhood in Moscow, then he served in St. Petersburg, was “acquainted with the minister,” but left the service, not wanting to “serve.” He angrily protests against serfdom. But there were still few people like Chatsky at that time. In the comedy "Woe from Wit" he is shown in a hostile environment. The world of the Famusovs, Skalozubovs, Molchalins and Zagoretskys reigns around, with their petty goals and low aspirations.

In the relationship between Chatsky and Famusov, Famusov’s views on career and service are revealed and ridiculed. Famusov himself is a wealthy serf owner, a defender of the autocratic-serf system, a typical representative of lordly Moscow. He does not consider his servants to be people, he treats them rudely, he can sell them, send them to hard labor. He scolds them as donkeys, logs, calls them Parsleys, Filkas, Fomkas. In other words, he despises them. Chatsky is outraged by lordly Moscow, which values ​​only rank and wealth in people. "Oh! Mother, don’t finish the blow! “Whoever is poor is not a match for you,” says Famusov. And further” adds:

For example, we have been doing this since ancient times,

What honor for father and son:

Be bad, but if you get enough

Two thousand ancestral souls,

He's the groom.

Famusov takes only relatives and friends into his service. Respects flattery and sycophancy. He wants to convince Chatsky to serve, “looking at the elders,” “putting up a chair, raising a handkerchief.” To which Chatsky objects: “I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to be served.” He believes that it is necessary to serve “the cause, not individuals.”

Chatsky appreciates people who “are in no hurry to enroll in the regiments of jesters.” A striking example of such a “jester” is the sycophant Molchalin, who in the comedy is shown as low and vulgar, accustomed to pleasing “all people without exception.” His father also taught him this: The owner, where I happen to live, The boss, with whom I will serve, His servant, who cleans the dresses, The doorman, the janitor, to avoid evil, The janitor’s dog, so that he is affectionate! Everything in Molchalin: behavior, words - emphasize the cowardice of a person striving to make a career “without understanding the means.” He is insincere in his relationship with Sophia, whom he loves “by position.” Chatsky says bitterly: “The silent ones are blissful in the world!” He opposes those who approach the service formally and bureaucratically. If Famusov believes: “it’s signed, off your shoulders,” then Chatsky says: “When in business, I hide from fun, when fooling around, I’m fooling around, and mixing these two crafts is a multitude of experts, I’m not one of them.”

Griboyedov boldly opposes stick drills and Arakcheevism in the army. When he meets Skalozub, a colonel in the tsarist army, Chatsky sees how stupid he is. Skalozub is only interested in ranks and awards. He dreams of the rank of general, rejoices when reading that his comrades died:

Quite happy in my comrades,

The vacancies are just open;

Then the elders will turn off others,

The others, you see, have been killed.

Skalozub is a bearer of the typical traits of a reactionary of Arakcheev’s time. “Wheezer, strangler, bassoon, constellation of maneuvers and mazurkas!” - this is how Chatsky characterizes him. Skalozub is an enemy of education and science. “I can’t be fooled by my learning,” he says, welcoming the project according to which only step skills will be taught at school, “and books will be saved like this: for big occasions.”

But Skalozub is not the only one who opposes education, knowledge, and science. The entire Famus society does not like enlightened people. “Learning is a plague, learning is the reason that today there are more crazy people, actions, and opinions than ever before,” says Famusov. And the rich old woman Khlestova, discussing education, declares:

And you'll really go crazy from these, from some

From boarding houses, schools, lyceums...

The comedy's images are deeply realistic. Famusov, Skalozub, Molchalin, Khlestova, the rogue Zagoretsky and others are typical representatives of Moscow society of those years. These people, stupid and selfish, afraid of enlightenment and progress, whose thoughts are focused only on acquiring honors and titles, wealth and clothes, constitute a single camp of reaction that tramples all living things,

We see how this society worships the foreign. Chatsky condemns this “empty, slavish, blind imitation.” He is outraged when some Frenchman from Bordeaux comes to Russia and feels at home. Chatsky appeals to society:

Will we ever be resurrected from the alien power of fashion?

So that our smart, cheerful people

Although based on our language, he didn’t consider us Germans!

These words contain a call to fight for national dignity.

Griboedov shows how Famus society crippled Sophia, an intelligent, beautiful and pure girl. The upbringing of French governesses instilled in her false ideals, made her a representative of the generally accepted views in aristocratic Moscow, and accustomed her to lies and hypocrisy. All her natural qualities could not be developed in Famus society. She fell in love with the rogue Molchalin and was cruelly deceived in her feelings. Chatsky truly loves Sophia: “It’s barely light and he’s already on his feet!” and I am at your feet." But Sophia pushes him away, and then Chatsky, with pain in his heart, says: There will be another, well-behaved, A low-worshipper and a businessman, Finally, in virtues, He is equal to his future father-in-law.

It is not her fault that Sophia has become a typical young lady of Famus society. The society in which she was born and lived is to blame, “she was ruined in the stuffiness, where not a single ray of light, not a single stream of fresh air penetrated” (Goncharov. “A Million Torments”). Sophia, according to Goncharov, is “heavier than even Chatsky.”

The main character of the comedy opposes the society of ignoramuses and serf owners. He fights against noble scoundrels and sycophants, swindlers, cheats and informers. In his famous monologue “Who are the judges?” he tore off the mask from the vile and vulgar world of Famus, in which the Russian people turned into an object of purchase and sale, where landowners exchanged human serfs who saved “honor and life... more than once” for “three greyhounds.” Chatsky defends a real person, humanity and honesty, intelligence and culture. He dreams of ridding the Russian people, his Russia, of everything inert and backward. He calls to fight violence, tyranny, and ignorance. Chatsky wants to see Russia enlightened. He defends his views in disputes and conversations with all the characters in the comedy.

Griboyedov's sharp, accusatory satire hit the target and caused a storm of protest among the nobility. Progressive people of that time, on the contrary, warmly welcomed the appearance of the comedy “Woe from Wit.” V. G. Belinsky wrote: “What a murderous power of sarcasm, what causticity of irony, what pathos in the lyrical outpourings of irritated feeling... What typical characters; what a language, what a verse - energetic, concise, lightning fast, purely Russian! Is it surprising that Griboedov’s poems turned into sayings and proverbs and were spread among educated people to all ends of the Russian land!”

The comedy “Woe from Wit” still retains its significance. It is shown on theater stages. Together with Griboyedov, we laugh and are indignant. The author opposed everything inert and insignificant, defending the advanced and noble. We value Griboyedov’s ardent faith in Russia, in his Motherland, and we want Griboyedov’s lordly Moscow to remain a thing of the past forever.

Lunacharsky Anatoly Vasilievich

Despite the fact that a whole century has passed, Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit” is still considered the best comedy in our literature, along with Gogol’s “The Inspector General”. I don’t know if it’s possible to put next to these two pearls of the first caliber at least one other comedy, not excluding the comedies of Shchedrin, Ostrovsky, Sukhovo-Kobylin and Chekhov.

But is this a comedy? Griboedov himself, who, of course, repeatedly heard bursts of laughter when he read such apt lines, which he scattered with his brilliant writer's hand in front of the listener or reader, such unusually convex hilarious figures - Griboyedov himself with great sorrow, with great bile, rejected the title of a cheerful writer, and even more so - the title of a cheerful person. “Am I,” he asks, “a cheerful writer? Have I created a funny comedy? 1 “These Famusovs, Skalozubs...” he incessantly repeats. This shows with what disgust he looked at his life, how terrible it was for him to live in this slave environment. And when life threw him all over the face of his vast fatherland, with what indescribable horror he exclaimed: “What a country! Who is it inhabited by? What a ridiculous story she has!” 2

The comedy is called "Woe from Wit." Woe in comedy to the mind, - to the mind that was proclaimed madness; a mind from which everyone has turned away; mind, to which the best, most beautiful, most intelligent, most independent girl of those who

appear on stage, preferred a lackey nature. All this, of course, does not create a comic impression. True, it sounds a little in the style of that era, a little like a landowner: “A carriage for me, a carriage!”, But in this carriage Chatsky sets off to “search the world” for some kind of shelter. And it is unknown whether he will find it. If, as expected, he is released abroad, then one must think about how much Chatsky will get used to the new environment, how much this environment can satisfy the needs of his mind and conscience.

The comedy “Woe from Wit” is a drama about the collapse of a person’s mind in Russia, about the uselessness of the mind in Russia, about the grief experienced by a representative of the mind in Russia.

Didn’t Pushkin exclaim: “The devil guessed that I would be born in Russia with intelligence and talent!” 3 And Chaadaev, who wrote the smartest book 4 in the literature of that time, was not proclaimed a madman? The entire high society - high-ranking “elderly Nestors”, 5 out-of-mind old women - the whole herd was talking about this madness.

Comedy is an accurate, completely accurate self-report of how an intelligent person lives, or rather, how he perishes, how he dies in Rus'. When we take a closer look at Griboyedov’s biography, we understand perfectly why he came to such sentiments. Every biography has a large social background. Where did this mind come to Russia, where did it come from, and what kind of mind is it? If Famusov is not very smart, then next to Famusov there were such nobles who had no brains, there were smart merchants, peasants who sometimes “went out in public.” In any case, they could judge any matter very well, because our people are not a mediocre people.

But what is the peculiarity of the person about whom they say: this is an intelligent person? The characteristic of such a person is that he criticizes because he is smarter than his environment, smarter than those around him. The mind is noticeable precisely because it brings something new and that it is not satisfied with what the ordinary person is satisfied with.

Where did such intelligence come from in Rus'? It is the result of deep processes of capitalism growing into Russia. Asian feudal forms of existence with a highly developed commercial capital, which existed earlier, at the beginning of the 19th century began to give way to new forms of capitalism, private production, and, since our country was an agricultural country, to agricultural capitalism. The main farmers were, of course, the nobles. The agricultural nobility were mostly representatives of Asian origins; it sought to profit from serfdom the old-fashioned way, but essentially went bankrupt the old-fashioned way. The largest nobles of this type could exist only by additionally extorting funds from the same peasantry through the state machine, receiving them in the form of the same salary. At the same time, the expanding trade in grain with Europe, which gave very great prospects ahead, forced the larger part of the nobility to think about how to begin to move towards the West, as the autocracy did from time to time in its own interests not only under Peter, but both at the beginning of the reign of Catherine and at the beginning of the reign of Alexander I. The government itself sometimes succumbed to that clever current that said: “And militarily we will be beaten, because we are a clay pot next to cast iron and will be broken against it in further shaking along the historical road . We need to renew ourselves, we need to Europeanize.” But to Europeanize means to introduce some new features of statehood, it means to destroy or, at least to a certain extent, weaken serfdom, and to give a certain scope to human initiative.

This was that Westernizing movement, advanced in its principles, but extremely important in the development of our culture, which led to the then movement of minds and wills and resulted in the Decembrist uprising. And Decembrism itself represented a huge rainbow - from conservatism through liberalism to Jacobinism. The circle of Decembrists, of course, did not include all liberal and progressive-minded Russian people; outside it remained major figures, only to a certain extent affected by the movement, such as Pushkin and Griboedov. We should not be deceived by the features of early Slavophilism that appear in Griboyedov. He had this because there were frequent attempts by the autocracy to Europeanize and there were frequent periods when a wild reaction set in, when the autocracy was frightened by its own courage, all serious reforms were put out and a period of Arakcheevism began in one form or another. But external Western gilding, like the French language, tutors, wigs, perfumes, various things of Parisian origin, was not abandoned; on the contrary, everyone saw this as a decisive sign of good taste, a sign of belonging to the upper class, a way to establish the correct and real distance between the common people and the elite. This situation of the so-called aristocracy, fashionable by the Westernism of the elite, was hated by real progressive people; national pride awoke in them, because they felt that their aspirations were closer to the bulk of the people. They dissociated themselves from the elite, who artificially created their own culture and, while ape-like in relation to the West, in reality remained wild and barbaric.

The mind, thus, expressed the emergence of the first avant-gardes, say, that enlightened bourgeoisie, even of noble origin, which began to make serious demands for the Europeanization of all Russian life. The bearers of the mind came across that very Russian life, which did not want to Europeanize beyond the top, which wanted to remain in a comfortable Asian swamp. From here came two main feelings: seething indignation against the pig snouts that surrounded advanced Russian writers from Griboyedov to Gogol, and, on the other hand, next to this indignation, deepest sorrow. This grief was weakened by those who could believe in the revolution, who could believe that this coup would immediately change everything. There was a period of enthusiasm when the Decembrists saw some kind of light; Griboyedov could not see this light.

Belinsky did not believe in the possibility of a peasant revolution, did not see any outcome, and the biggest promise he made to himself and others was that perhaps the bourgeoisie would come and create some preconditions for the further progressive establishment of capitalism in Russia. If we take the most mature layers that were followers of Belinsky, for example Chernyshevsky, then his entire life bears the stamp of tragedy - not only when he was exiled, but also when he was engaged in the revolution, when in his famous work “Prologue of the Prologue” he repeats a thousand times: Is it possible to do something? You can't change anything, you can only protest!

Griboyedov is a man of enormous intelligence and dazzling abilities. Griboedov is a musician, mathematician, diplomat, writer-stylist, psychologist. It represents a single phenomenon. Maybe you can’t put anyone next to him. In terms of the diversity of his abilities, he is a genius. Griboyedov is a colossal, dazzling figure. Being like this, he experienced two passions. The incessant voice of genius spoke in him of conviction, and at the same time we see in him the deepest sorrow about the impossibility of breaking out of this hell, about the need to look for some path of reconciliation with it. In the area of ​​his life paths, Griboedov made such a reconciliation. Chatsky says that “I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening.” He is afraid to enter this terrible bureaucratic world. Griboedov knew very well that this bureaucratic world was terrible. He writes from Persia: “They desert back and forth. The Persians are fleeing to Russia. The Russians are fleeing to Persia. Both here and there, the officials are equally disgusting.” 7 By officials he meant the regime. The same regime is in both Russia and Persia. But he served this regime, and served brilliantly. He quickly rose to high ranks, internally, like a genius, aware of his tragic guilt.

To conduct, in the name of commercial capital, colonial policy; force the defeated Persians to sign the most humiliating colonial peace; 8 to stay in Persia in order to squeeze the last juices out of this country under the pressure of militaristic police Russia, to rip buttons from the dresses of the Shah's wives, to tear off the gilding from the Shah's throne in order to pay the indemnity - of course, a man like Griboyedov could not do all this, and His melancholy grows next to his career. So, leaving for Persia for the last time, he knew perfectly well where he was going and what awaited him. He said that his grave was there. 9 Whether it will be a blow from a secret killer from around the corner or the rage of a crowd specially incited to an anti-Russian pogrom is not so important. This is Nemesis. He who takes the sword from the sword will die. Anyone who is a rapist in a neighboring country should know that he is universally hated. Griboyedov knew this. And here is his double defeat - not only by that scimitar that tore his brilliant head from his shoulders, but also morally, since he understood, as one of the first talented, fairly energetic colonialists, the essence of his “sardyr”: 10 about him he usually responded with suspicious restraint, behind which a considerable amount of indignation and hatred was hidden.

I think it is somewhat incorrect to say that on his poetic path Griboyedov was something of a loser, that he, having created such an amazing thing in the history of world, and especially Russian literature, as “Woe from Wit,” completely dried up after that, which is why suffered very much. 11 After “Woe from Wit” it was difficult for him to write anything else, and it is natural that his attempts to create a new work were accompanied by failure. But Griboyedov died at thirty-four. Is it possible to give up on the person who created “Woe from Wit”? We cannot say what Griboedov would have given to the world if his life at thirty-four had not been cut by a crooked scimitar. But let's not talk about what would have happened; Let's see how his poetic life went and whether he knew here revenge in relation to the deep physical and moral catastrophes in his real life.

Griboyedov repeatedly pointed out that he was called to a different field, that he would have to speak in a different language, that his play itself was conceived in the order of something much more majestic, that he to a certain extent brought it down from this height, to the level at which we know her, because of the desire to make her sparkle under the stage lights. We know one plan for Griboyedov’s play, which was tentatively called “The Twelfth Year.” We know which plot should have been dominant there: in the environment of the nobility, where the peasant was always taken only as an object, at best as a detail, the main character should have been a serf. Not in the nobility, in order to directly declare to them a certain degree of class struggle, he began to look for great heroes like Chatsky, but in the peasantry. A talented peasant, awakened to political life by the storms of the 12th year, putting his whole soul into defending his homeland, performing true feats, is awarded for this by the nobility, as a true fighter for Russia. And next to this is a picture of the false patriotism of the landowners, “hurray-patriotism,” all kinds of Repetilov chatter, the desire to warm their hands, to profit from the people’s misfortune.

These were the types that should have existed and the ruling class should have been depicted in this way. The war is over. Thinking elements with a heroic will, like the hero-peasant, are no longer needed; he returns to normal serf conditions and commits suicide so as not to die under the sticks of his wild master.

I must say that if one of our current writers of 1928-29 had undertaken to write such a play, he would have written a very modern thing, modern not in the sense of criticism of the current state of Russia, but in the sense of a magnificent criticism of what was. If from time to time we still need to drive an extra aspen stake into the grave of the sorcerer we buried, who held Russia in his claws for thousands of years, then such a stake would be strong.

But this was conceived by the nobleman Griboyedov, grew out of a progressive bourgeois protest, which was formed on economic roots from the demand to Europeanize the country and grew, unfolded into a magnificent flower in the writer’s brain as a demand for humanity, just as Schiller and Goethe demanded the cleansing of life from that old dirty trick, which polluted it.

What is “Woe from Wit”? Griboyedov could no longer carry his hatred, his disgust within himself, he wanted to publicly, in front of everyone, loudly express, shout out his indignation. This is the same feeling that Gorky once wrote about, when he first became acquainted with the depraved, exploitative rot of France: “I want to spit bile and blood into your beautiful face.” 12 Griboyedov wanted to “spit bile and blood” in the face of the then official Russia, in the face of the then ruling classes, the ruling bureaucracy. But for this it was necessary to come up with a form. It's not that easy. Come on, spit it out, not just bile and blood, but just a good spit! We know that Chaadaev spat and died, if not physically, then politically and civilly. This means that it was necessary to take such a tone, to find such a manner in which it was possible to tell the truth to both kings and princes. The jester form for this has long been known; in this form it was possible to sneak something in, therefore, leaving the fullness of seriousness to Chatsky - his prosecutor (I will later tell you what trick was used on Chatsky), Griboyedov otherwise tried to make a cheerful comedy. For this purpose, he also borrows new Western European forms - in Liza, for example, the European is especially widely felt. His intrigue is not God knows how constructed and not God knows how interesting in itself; You can very strongly criticize a work from this point of view, and it was criticized, but, when criticized, they gave praise and glory. For why did Griboedov need to build a thorough comedy that would highlight every event, where the structure would stick out to the fore? He didn't need that. He is not a comedian, but he is a great prophet like Jeremiah 13, who goes out into the square to tell the terrible truth about his ardent love and hatred for everything that was a disgrace to his homeland. Therefore, comedy as a form for Griboedov was completely secondary, he himself spoke about this when he claimed that the conditions of that time forced him to belittle his original plan.

His technique, completely legal and deeply artistic and striking, is precisely akin to buffoonery, but also akin to indignation. But behind indignation comes disgust. Of course, you can be indignant, but you can also feel respect for what you are indignant against, or you can turn away from all this and forget. But if you are unable to forget and turn away, then beyond disgust, beyond internally indignant condemnation, the next step is contempt, in it there is already a desire to laugh at what you despise, for laughter is the reaction of resolving certain internal contradictions. You are a monster, but I don’t see anything scary or terrible in you, you are just a funny face, you have long been morally and mentally defeated, and you deserve only laughter. When a person feels the complete victory of the will, then a light humor appears, a feeling of trembling irony, something even like a caressing laugh at an eccentric everyman of the Chekhov type, who, of course, is disgusting, but can one take him seriously? It only deserves to be sprinkled with Dalmatian powder, since it is, after all, a bug.

But when things have not yet come to this victory, when the Famusovs and Skalozubs are the rulers of the country, when their regime is a continuing crime, you cannot go to the fight with a free, easy laugh. And Griboyedov, apparently, went a little overboard, took en comique a little too much; * should have taken it more seriously. But there was no other way out, and the way out that was found turned out to be magnificent. It was a striking laugh, and nothing kills like laughter, because when you are angry, you still don’t know who is right, you don’t know who will win. But when the arrow of laughter strikes, similar to the arrow of Pushkin’s Apollo, 14 when this luminous arrow pierces the darkness, then we see something else here. These weapons made it easier to fight deformities.

* from the comic side (French). - Ed.

In the end, this play was published, saw the stage and became an unsurpassed classical masterpiece of our literature. The play acquired extremely great not only literary but also moral significance. If we list how many times in a moral and political sense, for moral and political purposes, the names of the heroes of various comedies are used, then, of course, we will take precedence over the heroes of the comedy “Woe from Wit.” We still, sometimes almost unconsciously, say “Famusovshchina” or “Molchalinshchina”, as if these names are the root terms of our Russian language. In this sense, Griboyedov achieved complete success. After hesitation, after hesitation, he smuggled a ship filled with explosives under the guise of a comedy and handed it over to the people. The play became an active tool, although not understood by everyone. The comedy takes on especially serious significance because, in addition to the delightful masks created by Griboyedov, it contains a figure representing Griboyedov himself. Chatsky is Griboyedov’s port-password. Pushkin felt the falseness in Chatsky. Griboyedov is smart, Pushkin argued, but Chatsky is stupid: is it possible to throw pearls in front of pigs who will trample him anyway! Chatsky, according to Pushkin, acts as a lone skirmisher, using tirades of condemnation, which ultimately lead him to a social scandal. But what could this boy do with this colossus of Skalozubovism and Famusovism? Pushkin, despite all his brilliant vigilance as a critic, did not see (perhaps the close distance from which he looked at this was to blame) that there was no other way out.

The truth speaks through the mouths of madmen, starting from St. Basil the Blessed and ending with Lyubim Tortsov 15 and the types closer to us. When drunk, a person sometimes becomes a daredevil. He says things he wouldn't say if he was sober. Chatsky's madness and intoxication are in his youth. He is still too young, he has not matured yet. His mind is that of a brilliant boy. His incontinence is because he does not yet have gray hair, that he has not yet come to terms with meanness, has not experienced those clicks that Griboedov and Pushkin themselves experienced. Therefore, there is no need for him to speak in a low voice. He will not reach the political tirades of the Decembrists, he does not need that. At that time, Griboyedov himself did not believe in Decembrism. But Griboyedov gave an avant-garde battle in order to defeat evil spirits with the help of artistic, moral weapons. And for this, all he needed was a very young, unrestrained person with a student’s temperament, who, due to his youth, gets carried away, and, on top of that, is in love. But love is more intoxicating than any wine, especially unhappy love. Intoxicated by unhappy love, Chatsky completely forgets all caution. But, despite the fact that Chatsky is young and still drunk with unhappy love, he does not say nonsense; he speaks smartly because he is smart and by Griboyedov’s will and generally smart, just as boys are often smarter than their grandfathers and fathers. And the situation is created in the most profound way, truthful and acceptable. Perhaps, except for Pushkin, no one thought much about this, especially after the censorship allowed the play to pass. They even overlooked the question of how Chatsky decided to fight.

I hope that if we present “Woe from Wit” in the future, then for the role of Chatsky we will choose such artists who could convey this youth, this excellent, bright mischief of an irritated man who “jumped out of himself” due to his youth.

There is no need for me to go into a special analysis of the great figures depicted in Woe from Wit. I will only dwell on why such a phenomenon as “Woe from Wit” or “The Inspector General” is generally possible, that is, the phenomenon of an everyday comedy that smashes the bureaucracy, the great light of its time, a comedy - a talented agitator, which then turns out to be such a highly artistic work for its time that survives him.

You know that Aristophanes wrote propaganda. It did not seem to Aristophanes in the slightest that he should write major artistic comedies that claim to be eternal. He wrote something like today's "revues," like those "Ladies and the Polar Bears" that many of you have probably seen. These were witty revues, a series of scenes studded with witticisms and sometimes with a finger pointed at the audience: so-and-so is sitting there. Everything was designed to be topical. But Aristophanes lives and will probably live for a long time, although I sincerely wish all the Aristophanes and Griboyedovs to finally die. I sincerely wish that these great shadows, which still thirst for living blood and feed on it, one fine day would say: “Now you let us go,” would lie down in golden tombs prepared in advance - and after that would be used by our generation only in historical context.

But, unfortunately, this is not yet the case, unfortunately, they are still our fellow citizens, unfortunately, they live among us, because what they were indignant against lives on. What you feel disgust for lives, what you should despise lives. We have to laugh at this. How does this happen? If a person thinks in advance about a work of art that should live for centuries, thinks wisely about who will read it, what the viewer will be like in a hundred to five hundred years, what tastes will be then, so as not to seem boring then such an author usually creates in the spirit of Cupid and Psyche: eternal heroes, eternal sky, eternal woman, and applies everything to its plot, but in fact such a work soon fades. When mummified, placed in a historic jar of formaldehyde, they are sometimes preserved, but they are only fit for a museum. Start from reality: where your hand lies, answer a big life problem, and then you will be a real contemporary. And if you are a true contemporary, you will live for centuries. Every great comedy we know is propaganda. She is an agitator because she ridiculed the evil of her time and struck at it with all her might. And if you don’t hit with all your might, if you don’t make fun of modern evil, then no matter how funny or lively the comedy is written in form, it’s a waste of time. Even an operetta only lives long if it contains a certain vinegar, if it captures the negative aspects of its time. It’s as if it’s fun and sweet, but drink it and you’ll grimace. Propaganda of this kind in some cases turns out to be great works, but, of course, when it is a blow of gigantic proportions.

Time has different purposes, and these purposes depend on different conditions. When you are traveling on a train on the railway, if you look out the window, telegraph poles are rushing and sleepers are flashing in front of you. If you shift your gaze to a more distant plane, you can see a mountain that will bore you as you pass: it seems to be standing, not moving. This is what happens in history: relationships change, events pass, kings and entire dynasties pass away, but under these transient layers there is a subsoil, there is a basic heavy soil that stretches to extremely distant historical perspectives. For example, take the same culture, those ugliness and ugly perversions in human life that were associated with certain phases from which one cannot jump out. Undoubtedly, the “heavenly existence of man” before the origin of private property was a half-starved ape existence. It was inevitable, just as all subsequent eras are inevitable - capitalism, imperialism and the era of struggle in which we live.

We have only now reached the place where a huge thousand-year-old formation is catastrophically changing into a new one in the cliffs, in the volcanic depths. And when the giant hits the old cultural layer with his critical pickaxe, he pierces the soil to extreme depths. Griboyedov hits through the Nikolaev official into the official in general. He hits further - he hits the egoist person in general. And then it turns out that his blow, bleeding, painful, hits something that is moribund, but still alive. The blow remains healing until a huge amount of time has passed, until the historical train leaves our horizon for the very, very distant plane.

The October Revolution dealt such a devastating blow to the old world that it sent shards flying in all directions. Not a single revolution that has ever taken place in the world can, even remotely, compare in radicalism, in its destruction and the fire that was lit on earth, with the October Revolution. This fire is still burning, and in its light we begin to build a new majestic building, a new city, about which humanity has been moaning for so long. He is gradually starting to rise now. But you look around and see familiar reptiles crawling out of different holes and crevices. These reptiles begin to build their holes and weave their webs. How long will they crawl? Where is the border? Is it possible to draw a magic circle and say that behind it, over there - the philistine evil spirits, Nepmen and kulaks, the old and new bourgeoisie, the philistinism, and here - everything honest, all those who crossed to this side of the barricades, the entire heroic proletariat, made from one piece of steel, his entire communist vanguard? When you look closely, you will see that there is no circle beyond which these bastards should not crawl, that they crawl into all the cracks of the temporary buildings that are now being created, and strive to crawl between the boulders of the newly built socialist city. Climbing into all the openings, they sow fine dust and infection everywhere. We inhale it into ourselves, and sometimes a disgusting dirty trick develops within us. The party itself, which is the bulwark of our hopes, is sometimes not free from infection.

Periodic cleanings carried out by the party show what kind of contaminated environment they have to live in. What is true for the party is true for every intelligent, honest person, for every progressive, for everyone who builds a positive life and who must live next to the carriers of that infection that was once considered health. But our joy is that now everything healthy goes under the red banner and will strangle this disease. And in this sense, Griboyedov turned out to be a great winner in his poetic field. He outlived his time, and will probably live to an even greater old age than the one he has reached today, for the struggle in which he fought so brilliantly continues even after the decisive defeat that was inflicted in our country on all the abominations of everyday life by the weapons of Lenin and the Communist Party.

Today in one of the newspapers I saw a cartoon signed “Soviet Official”: 17 people in a dressing gown sleeping on a sofa. He is bombarded with shrapnel, he snores and hears nothing. The word “negligence” is inextricably linked with the figure of Famusov. This is his spirit. He still lives now and snores in response to the demands of life. Life put a man on a high chair, but he found the chair comfortable and began to doze there. Here is a picture that is often found in different offices, and sometimes in offices on which a lot depends. And the more we move from the brightest shining centers to the darkness, the more we will find this kind of thing.

In yesterday's newspaper I read that one justice of the peace, whose last name was not Skalozub, but something like Skalozubenko, had reason to dislike a member of the city council, and when he managed to find fault with him, although, as it turned out later, there were no reasons for this and he had to justify him, then he wanted to disgrace him in front of the whole city. He did not stop at the fact that his enemy was sick, he ordered him to be tied up and the sick man, despite the 40° temperature, was brought and placed in the dock. 18 This happened here in Soviet Russia, a Soviet judge did this in relation to a member of the city Council of Workers, Peasants and Red Army Deputies.

You will say: well, what kind of judge Skalozub is he, he has no shoulder straps, no insignia, piping, buttonholes 19 and he doesn’t have any weapons. But the judge did not drag this member of the City Council himself, but through the Soviet police, which in this case played the role that Skalozub played.

Skalozub is the embodiment of that military power that is the hallmark of any state. Engels said: the state is an organization based on a group of armed people, with the help of which the ruling classes govern in their own interests. 20 And we rely on groups of armed people - on the Red Army, on the police, to govern with their help, in the interests of our proletarian class. There is no doubt that every person from our military or police apparatus is a thrice-criminal Skalozub if he perverts the character of our state in the name of the order of this or that imaginary dignitary.

We had to hire old bureaucrats. Among these bureaucrats there are the Famusovs and Skalozubs, whom we hear about and read in the newspapers. Our task is to heal these ulcers and defects, and often have to be cured surgically.

Griboyedov’s smaller gnomes and demons probably do not deserve mention, but the Molchalins, Zagoretskys, and Repetilovs, of course, are still alive today. These are those about whom they say: he is sneaky, unscrupulous in principles, but he can still be used, because he is submissive, obedient, does everything that is ordered, an efficient person. You hear such speeches. And at this time, Griboyedov’s shadow whispers: remember Molchalin. And next to Molchalin there are people who are dexterous in all trades, masters of finding all sorts of solutions. Again Griboyedov’s shadow suggests: remember Zagoretsky. There is also a certain synthetic type in which you can’t distinguish what is more in him - Molchalin, Zagoretsky or Repetilov: he chatters, proposes projects, is groveling, honey flows from his tongue, and at the same time he is a tiny Mephistopheles or a Peredonov-type imp. 21

Griboyedov is still alive. But the hour will be joyful when Griboyedov the satirist will no longer be able to work with us, because this work will already be over.

But Griboyedov also works as a great dramatography teacher. We cannot give only Griboyedov. You must be able to work in a modern way, in different conditions. Some of the mass of Griboyedov’s types have turned pale and no longer have the same importance, but other types have grown; some have remained the same. We need a new Soviet satirical comedy. It will not resemble a powerful blow of a man against an iron rock - it will resemble a man who took an iron broom and sweeps away the rubbish in the name of the future. In the time of Griboedov, the human fighter was small compared to the black force with which he fought. And now the fighter is a huge force fighting for the future. Satirical comedy is a force that ozonizes the air, it is laughter that is highly needed. Russian drama is a backward wing in Russian literature, and comedy is the most backward part of this wing. We don't have many great comedies, but they exist. And Fonvizin did not completely calm down in his grave, much less Griboedov, Shchedrin and the writers closer to us. You can’t ignore the lessons given by Ostrovsky and Sukhovo-Kobylin. We need to learn from all of them, and from Griboedov more than from anyone else. We need to learn the design of individual figures from Griboyedov. In one of his letters, he writes: “I have all portraits, I do not stoop to caricatures.” 22 But this does not mean at all that the characters are copied exactly from really existing people. It is unlikely that the researcher Famusov, Molchalin, Skalozub could say this. These people are taken synthetically. With Griboyedov, everything corresponds to reality, everything is pure artistic realism, the product is given without any mixture. A real authentic portrait begins only where it synthesizes the whole person in his most characteristic features and into broad types. A truthful type in literature is a portrait, and the wider it captures, the more artistic and social significance it acquires.

In this form he gave portraits of Griboyedov, both in speech and in action, and this is what a comedian is called upon to do. Synthetically, without caricaturing, to take through laughter the most necessary essence of figures that typify an entire stripe, an entire breed in modern society - this needs to be learned, and this, perhaps, cannot be learned from anyone as much as from Griboyedov. I find it difficult to say whether we can find figures of the same synthetic power in anyone, not even excluding Gogol, perhaps only by taking the very figure of Khlestakov beyond the limits.

Then - the amazing language of Griboedov. Let them say that our language is in a creative process and it is difficult, impossible for us to write in Griboyedov’s language. Griboedov wrote at a time when the language was being formed: it was formed in the true sense of the word only after Pushkin. Griboyedov created speech in the very crucible, he was a huge experimenter, an accumulator of wealth, and in our time we should do the same. A classical language is a language that reflects its time most fully. In the critical era in which the great comedy was created, Griboedov, from the amazing linguistic material that he noticed with such a socio-musical ear, managed to create a thing full of life, that is, a genuine dramatic dialogue, which is even more alive than the conversation that flows between the living persons, which is entirely dynamic in every single moment of human existence, in which the social classes of people participating in this dialogue are constantly revealed. The monologue itself is here only a shudder of the soul, at the moment lonely. But as a result of passionate contacts with the social environment in which this soul recently found itself, almost every single phrase of Griboyedov’s dialogue represents a crystal of such correctness, such pure water that we took everything completely and decorated our language for a hundred years and probably even longer.

In my speech today, which is by no means a lecture on Griboyedov, I cannot talk about every image of Griboyedov, and I must dwell on these small remarks.

I am very glad that Meyerhold, a living talent of our time, tried in both “The Inspector General” and “Woe from Wit” to begin work that reveals the horror and anger behind the laughter, revealing the thousand-year-old targets at which they were aiming - the Nikolaev bureaucracy human vices. 23 Marx said that an idiot would be someone who does not understand the colossal importance of classical literature (and therefore Griboedov) for the proletariat, 24 because if a person describes his province or district a hundred years before us, this means that he grasped the historical causes of events and he managed to find something there that casts its terrible shadow over a person’s entire life, take, for example, the period of possessiveness that needed to be reformed. And we must approach Griboedov not from the point of view of admiration for the great dead man, not from the point of view of rewarding his merits, which our revolution must recognize, not at all from the point of view of some kind of ceremonial; if we must dig up everything that relates to the works of Griboyedov and his personality, if we must remember Griboyedov, then this is because we need to better understand the roots of his mood and those conclusions that are vital to our time.

And we should treat his work not as an outdated and unnecessary thing, but we should think about what kind of chalk to clean, what pedestal to put on, what kind of spotlight to illuminate it so that even today it burns with the most dazzling rays, as if it has extraordinary power. This is the task that faces us. Griboyedov is still fully alive, and the best veneration for Griboyedov will be precisely that if we, without giving up the task of restoring “Woe from Wit”, as it was performed for the first time (they say it went badly, did not correspond to Griboyedov’s plans), following the path of Meyerhold, - and it has many paths - we will try to give Griboyedov in such a way that the power of his genius, with the help of all the technology of our era, becomes even more obvious and interesting.

Let's say that Griboyedov is alive and we must make him even better, even more alive. Let us take advantage of the unfortunate circumstance that his work has not yet been completed, and include him in our mechanism, in our human apparatus, with which we will complete this work. We extend our proletarian hand through death to Griboyedov and say to him: “You live well, Comrade Griboedov! Come work with us. You have started cleaning the Augean stables very well. We haven't cleaned it up yet. The work, it’s true, is sad, but now it’s much more fun. Time to finish it. Alexander Sergeevich, please come to us!”

Notes

1. Lunacharsky, apparently, quotes from memory a letter to S.N. Begichev dated September 9, 1825. From Griboyedov: “Travelers came who knew me from magazines: the author of Famusov and Skalozub, therefore, a cheerful person. Ugh, villainy! Yes, I’m sad, bored, disgusting, unbearable!..” (Griboyedov, p. 566).

2. Inaccurate quote from Griboyedov’s letter to S.N. Begichev dated January 4, 1825 (cf. Griboedov, p. 556).

3. A not entirely accurate quote from Pushkin’s letter to his wife dated May 18, 1836 (cf. Pushkin, vol. X, p. 583).

4. We are talking about the “Philosophical Letters” written in 1829–1831. The first letter was published in the magazine “Telescope”, 1836, book. XV.

5. See Chatsky’s monologue (“Woe from Wit,” act II, scene 5).

6. Expression of the mayor from Gogol’s “The Inspector General” (act V, scene VIII).

7. Quoted with some deviations from the text is the report of A. S. Griboedov dated October 6, 1819 to the charge of Russian affairs in Persia S. I. Mazarovich. The report was sent from Tiflis (cf.: O.I. Popova, A.S. Griboedov in Persia, 1818–1823 (According to new documents), “Life and Knowledge,” M. 1929, pp. 71–72) .

8. This refers to the Turkmanchay Peace (1828), which ended the Russian-Persian War of 1826–1828. According to the Treaty of Turkmanchay, the Erivan and Nakhichevan khanates went to Russia, and Persia was obliged to pay a large indemnity.

9. The words “There is my grave! I feel that I won’t see Russia again,” Griboyedov said to F.V. Bulgarin. See Sat. "A. S. Griboyedov in the memoirs of his contemporaries", "Federation", M. 1929, p. 34.

10. Nicholas I is implied.

11. Lunacharsky is referring to the view of Griboyedov, formulated in the work of N.K. Piksanov “A. S. Griboyedov. Biographical sketch" (in the book: The Complete Works of A. S. Griboedov, vol. I, St. Petersburg, 1911, pp. CXXVIII-CXXIX), as well as in his article "The Mental Drama of Griboyedov" ("Sovremennik", 1912, book .I, pp. 223–243).

12. Inaccurate quote from M. Gorky’s pamphlet “Beautiful France” (1906).

13. Jeremiah is a Jewish prophet whose activity dates back to approximately 628–586. BC e.

14. This refers to “Epigram (From the Anthology)” by A. S. Pushkin to A. N. Muravyov, written in 1827. The bow rings, the arrow trembles, And Python exhales swirling; And your face shines with victory, Belvedere Apollo!

15. We love Tortsov - a character from A. N. Ostrovsky’s play “Poverty is not a vice” (1854).

16. In 1929, the Moscow Music Hall staged a review by S. Voskresensky and V. Ya. Tipot “Where there is ice.” One of the dance numbers of this review was called “Lady and the Bears” (staged by K. Ya. Goleizovsky).

17. The cartoon that Lunacharsky is talking about was published in the newspaper “Evening Moscow”, 1929, No. 34, and February.

18. Lunacharsky could have read about a similar case in the newspaper Pravda, 1929, No. 33, February 9, in the “Court” section under the title “An exceptional case.”

19. Skalozub’s remark is implied (cf.: “Woe from Wit”, act III, appearance 12).

20. See the work of F. Engels “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State” (K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 21, pp. 170–171).

21. Peredonov - a character from F. Sologub’s novel “The Little Demon” (1892–1902, published in 1905) who became a household name - a type of philistine, reactionary, informer and coward.

22. Griboedov wrote to P. A. Katenin (the first half of January 1825): “...portraits and only portraits are part of comedy and tragedy, they, however, have features characteristic of many other persons, and others of the entire human race are so , how similar each person is to all his two-legged brothers. I hate caricatures, you won’t find a single one in my painting” (Griboyedov, pp. 557–558).

23. This refers to the productions of “The Inspector General” by Gogol (1926) and “Woe from Wit” by Griboedov (1928) at the Theater. Sun. Meyerhold in Moscow. At the Meyerhold Theater, Griboyedov’s comedy was staged under the title “Woe to Wit.”

24. Lunacharsky implies Marx’s statement in his unfinished work “Introduction (From Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858)” about the enduring aesthetic value of ancient art (see K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 12, pp. 737–738 ).

Keywords: Woe from Wit, Alexander Griboyedov, the work of Alexander Griboyedov, and Griboedov, criticism, life and work, download essay, download for free, read online, Russian literature 19th century, Woe from Wit, characterization, analysis, comedy, Lunacharsky

(A.S. GRIBOEDOV)

The flourishing of Russian romantic lyrics in the first third of the 19th century showed that at the turn of the century the spiritual world of people became more complex, became richer, united them at the level of emotions, feelings and poetic thoughts, and strived for beautiful, personal happiness, dreams and heroics. At the same time, the Russian people, who defeated Napoleon and his army and passed through the whole of Western Europe, continued to live in an unfair class society, where rank, nobility, orders, proximity to power, the ability to curry favor and get rich by any means were valued. The common people remained poor, ignorant and enslaved. This has always been the case, but now it is clearly understood and seen in a stark comparison, unfavorable for the victorious country.

The younger generation, faced with oppression, injustice, abuse, the fruits of semi-enlightenment, boldly expressed their emotional protest and criticism in accusatory satires, romantic poems and rebellious Byronism, naively wanted to correct the “backward” Russian society and its patriarchal shortcomings according to European “advanced” models. The old generation, having achieved (not always worthily and honestly) high ranks, fortunes and social position, stubbornly did not want to change anything in their well-fed, comfortable, but immoral life, flexible customs and principles of the past century. Their inevitable conflict was a remarkable and tragic collision of two eras, old and new, and found its artistic reflection in the most social form of art - theater, in social comedy, in strong and principled satire. This was the famous comedy “Woe from Wit” by Alexander Sergeevich Griboedov (1790, 1794, 1795? – 1829), which continued the educational traditions of Fonvizin’s “The Minor” and preceded Gogol’s “The Inspector General” in Russian drama.

A.S. Griboedov came from a noble family and received a good education at home, then from 1803 he studied at the Moscow University Noble Boarding House and University under the programs of three faculties (literature, law and physics and mathematics), became a candidate of literature and by 1812 was preparing to receive title of Doctor of Law. The Patriotic War of 1812 changed the fate of the young man; he volunteered to join the hussar regiment, but due to illness and being in the reserve, he did not take part in hostilities and already lived in St. Petersburg from mid-1815. In 1817, Griboyedov finally retired and entered the service of the State Collegium of Foreign Affairs.

In St. Petersburg, he found himself among young, enlightened liberals, met Chaadaev, Pushkin, Kuchelbecker, playwrights P. Katenin and A. Shakhovsky, actors, musicians, future Decembrists, and began writing for the theater. The retired hussar Griboyedov led the usual absent-minded life for the “golden” youth of St. Petersburg, was fond of ballerinas, had dangerous duels, masterfully played the piano and composed music, was considered a secretive and strong-willed “man of calculation,” bilious, proud and quarrelsome, an intelligent and caustic interlocutor.

In 1818, Griboedov left the capital, began serving in Georgia under the local commander in chief A.P. Ermolov, became a confidant of this intelligent, treacherous and cruel conqueror of the Caucasus, and was on an important diplomatic mission in Persia. In Tabriz and Tiflis, he began constant work on the comedy “Woe from Wit” (the first outlines for its plan and rough scenes appeared earlier) and in 1823 he brought the first two acts of the play to Moscow, completing work on it on the Tula estate of his friend S. Begicheva.

The absence of drafts and first editions of the play in this case proves that Griboyedov first composed his works in his head, kept them in his capacious and unique memory and constantly repeated them mentally, while improving lines and entire scenes: “He took up the pen only when when I had already decided not to change anymore. He read almost all of “Woe from Wit” to me, when not a single verse had yet been written down on paper, because he was still dissatisfied with some scenes” (Prince V.F. Odoevsky). Subsequently, the demanding author repeatedly revised his play, thus achieving lightness and swiftness of verse and dialogue.

The comedy quickly spread across the country in lists, but its author returned to the Caucasus, where he was arrested in 1826 on a very well-founded charge of participation in the Decembrist conspiracy and taken to St. Petersburg. With the help of Yermolov and other influential friends, Griboyedov managed to justify himself, returned to the Caucasus and participated in the conclusion of the Turkmanchay Peace Treaty with Persia (Iran), which was beneficial for Russia, for which he was generously rewarded by the new emperor. He married the young Georgian beauty Nina Chavchavadze, the daughter of a famous poet and sovereign prince. The high appointment as resident minister at the court of the Persian Shah finally strengthened Griboedov's diplomatic career, but a sudden revolt of the Muslim fanatical mob in Tehran led to the extermination of the entire Russian mission and the death of the writer. The Russian ambassador fought heroically to the end. Griboedov's wife brought his body to Tiflis and buried it in the mountain monastery of St. David. She made the inscription on the tombstone: “Your mind and deeds are immortal in Russian memory, but why did my love survive you?”

The best epitaph for the author of “Woe from Wit” was written by Pushkin, who deeply respected him: “I met Griboedov in 1817. His melancholy character, his embittered mind, his good nature, the very weaknesses and vices, the inevitable companions of humanity - everything about him was unusually attractive. Born with an ambition equal to his talents, for a long time he was entangled in the networks of petty needs and the unknown. The abilities of a statesman remained unused; the poet's talent was not recognized; even his cold and brilliant courage remained in suspicion for some time... Griboyedov’s life was obscured by certain circumstances: a consequence of ardent passions and powerful circumstances. He felt the need to reckon once and for all with his youth and turn his life around... His handwritten comedy “Woe from Wit” produced an indescribable effect and suddenly placed him along with our first poets... Arriving in Georgia, he married the one he loved. I don’t know anything more enviable than the last years of his stormy life. The death itself, which befell him in the middle of a bold, uneven battle, had nothing terrible for Griboyedov, nothing painful. It was immediate and beautiful.”

The Energy of Conviction

Griboyedov, in his literary views and connections, belonged to the conservative school of “archaists,” but his main principle was creative freedom: “I live and write freely and freely.” He highly appreciated Shakespeare and spoke about the great playwrights of French classicism Corneille, Racine and Moliere: “Why did they paste their talents into the narrow frame of three unities? And didn’t give free rein to your imagination to wander across a wide field?” However, comedy "Woe from Wit" written with strict observance of these three unities - time, place and action.

Everything in the play takes place over the course of a day in one big house of Famusov, and this action is unified and is not interrupted by other plot lines and events. The very language of “Woe from Wit,” in accordance with the rules of classicism, is emphatically conventional, because Griboyedov’s characters, unlike real people, speak in verse. There is a changing, slowly awakening hero-reasoner (Chatsky), a heroine (Sofya), a cheerful soubrette-confidante (maid Liza), a noble deceived father (Famusov) and detailed monologues. In a word, this is precisely a high comedy in the style of classicism, and it has a well-known source and worthy example in French drama – Moliere’s “The Misanthrope”. The famous words of Pushkin are quite applicable to “Woe from Wit”: “High comedy is not based solely on laughter, but on the development of characters, and ... often comes close to tragedy.”

However, having set himself such seemingly constraining conditions for the author, the Russian playwright, within these strict limits, achieved complete creative freedom, created a truly innovative play, a social satire that fully and realistically presented the life and customs of Russian secular society in the most difficult, transitional period of struggle it contains two forces, two generations and the main figures of this struggle in the movement and clash of their living, portrait and at the same time typical characters. “His goal is characters and a sharp picture of morals,” said Pushkin. Dostoevsky agreed with him: “Woe from Wit” ... is strong only with its bright artistic types and characters, and only one artistic work gives all the internal content to this work.”

But in these living, real types, their thoughtful combination and collision and the author’s idea is expressed, lies the deep inner content of Griboedov’s play. This timeless idea must be understood, and its ambiguous content must be revealed. This is what the Russian theater has been doing for two centuries, helped as much as possible by criticism (the best are the statements of Pushkin, Apollo Grigoriev and I.A. Goncharov) and theater studies.

It is not for nothing that Belinsky saw an example of high comedy in “Woe from Wit,” “this stormy dithyrambic outpouring of bilious, thunderous indignation at the sight of a rotten society of insignificant people, into whose souls a ray of God’s light has not penetrated, who live according to the dilapidated traditions of antiquity, according to a system of vulgar and immoral rules whose petty goals and low aspirations are aimed only at the ghosts of life - rank, money, gossip, humiliation of human dignity and whose apathetic, sleepy life is the death of every living feeling, every rational thought, every noble impulse ... "

Griboyedov thoughtfully expanded the number of characters, introducing into their composition absent on stage but mentioned (“off-stage”) characters such as the clever nobleman Maxim Petrovich, the “many writer” Foma Fomich, the important lady Tatyana Yuryevna and the powerful princess Marya Alekseevna. All of them are “masterfully outlined” (P. Katenin), enrich the action, explain and highlight the acting characters, and are necessary for the author to create a collective image of a particular social environment, a moving picture of persons, generations and ideas colliding on the stage.

“In my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person,” the author himself said, rejecting accusations of excessive portraiture, caricatures and caricatures. Griboyedov's characters are not a crowd, not at the same time, but thoughtfully, in sequence and groups subordinate to the plot. And this expanded the boundaries of his comedy and the stage itself, gave the author new opportunities for character development, and emphasized the social nature of Griboyedov’s satire and its main conflict.

Griboyedov managed to transform the poetic language of his comedy (he called it a “stage poem”) from a mandatory convention into a way to preserve and convey the living conversation of people of that era, the free, accurate and flexible word of Griboyedov’s Moscow. The knowledge of the language of Russian chronicles, the high style of sermons, psalms and odes, without which Chatsky’s sublime monologues would have been poor and inexpressive, is also palpable here. I.A. Goncharov figuratively called this language “colloquial verse,” because it fully expressed the verbal action and original characters of the play: “It is impossible to imagine that another, more natural, simpler, more taken from life speech could ever appear.” .

The prose of those years captured only individual phrases; in the poetic monologues and speeches of the characters in “Woe from Wit” there lives the image of free colloquial speech, with all its “irregularities” and abbreviations, “swallowing” of verbs and conjunctions, hints, intonations and sayings. These speeches are figurative, closer to the folk language. They expressed the sharp, accurate, sarcastic Russian mind, magnificent humor and comedy, which forced the whole of Russia to learn these pithy, biting phrases by heart, making them popular. “I’m not talking about poetry: half of it should become a proverb,” wrote Pushkin, after reading “Woe from Wit” for the first time.

Since the very appearance of Griboyedov's comedy, there has been a lot of controversy about who its main character is and what he is like. Pushkin even stated: “In the comedy “Woe from Wit,” who is the smart character? Answer: Griboyedov. Do you know what Chatsky is? An ardent, noble and kind fellow, who spent some time with a very smart man (namely Griboedov) and was imbued with his thoughts, witticisms and satirical remarks. Everything he says is very smart. But to whom is he telling 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 throw pearls in front of the Repetilovs and the like.” Goncharov spoke about some of the mystery of Chatsky. Therefore, we must first talk about this key character, who opens the play with his appearance and is its main driving force.

The nature of dramatic conflict requires a rapid collision, lively and continuous stage movement. In “Woe from Wit,” successive generations, ideas, morals and customs, different ways of life, morality and immorality, self-satisfied half-enlightenment and a young thirst for new thoughts and knowledge, spiritual slavery and freedom, habitual lies and real truth enter into battle. That's why Griboedov needed so many characters present and absent on stage. The playwright groups them, the characters he needs at the moment gather and communicate. Their unexpected meetings, dialogues and clashes are entertaining and dynamic, because in each such scene various original characters are skillfully combined. This is how a movement is born action of the play.

The Moscow conservative society of the Famusovs and Khlestovs is depicted by Griboedov in a remarkable ensemble of satirical figures, “portrait” types with lively characters and figurative colloquial speech. Comedy truly became “a picture and mirror of our social life” (Gogol), and truly reflected this moving life in typical details and faces. But it is often argued that the bilious and intelligent Protestant (in the ancient theater this role was called a reasoner) Chatsky is lonely and hopelessly opposed to this large and close-knit society (his principle “Is it possible against everyone!”), the traditional way of life of the nobility of the ancient capital, the established world of the old ideas, customs and prejudices. “Chatsky was broken by the quantity of the old force, inflicting a fatal blow on it in turn with the quality of the fresh force,” wrote Goncharov. And he even said about him: “One ardent and brave fighter.”

Let me remind you that Chatsky in the comedy is not alone “against everyone”; the old princess mentions his young nephew Fyodor, a chemist and botanist, and his teachers, free-thinking professors of the St. Petersburg Pedagogical Institute; Skalozub sadly talks about his cousin-officer, who suddenly gained some then new rules. Once upon a time, the protagonist's friend and fellow soldier was the intelligent, kindly and lazy hulk Platon Gorich, who now completely obeyed his capricious and tyrannical wife, a Moscow lady. The cheerful and intelligent maid Lisa sympathizes with the young man in love.

But the main proof of Chatsky’s social significance and his connections, the influence and prevalence of his progressive ideas is the noise-loving Repetilov, who easily exchanges these serious ideas for liberal vulgarities and fantastic chatter and lies. Dostoevsky considered Repetilov’s type to be tragic, and the tragedy of a naive talker is that the changing ideas of others fill his empty head, he has nothing of his own and serious in his soul. This is like a crooked mirror, distorting and reducing borrowed thoughts, a comical master of empty words, a parody double of the serious man of Chatsky’s deeds.

But we must remember that Repetilov, sensitive to the trends of the times, is always there where a fashionable novelty, an influential opinion, energetic thinking people, a new movement appear. This means that behind the young St. Petersburger Chatsky there is already a new force that has reached Moscow and made his conflict with Moscow conservative society not just a personal clash (then there would be no public comedy and social satire), but a fundamental struggle of generations, two centuries, past and present . And the new century behind the bilious Protestant Chatsky and other “new people” cannot be abolished by any of Famusov’s and Khlestov’s.

Chatsky comes to Moscow from St. Petersburg. This is implied, but with the appearance of this key character in the comedy, Petersburg of new liberal trends seems to hang from its metropolitan northern distance over the peaceful and free life of Famusov’s Moscow, threatening imminent big changes, inevitable anxiety. Chatsky is the herald of the coming century, from the galaxy of “new people” born in the northern capital. We know from the conversations of the characters in the play that after military service “he thought highly of himself,” he was happy with his friends (that is, with like-minded people), he wrote and translated (of course, he wrote drafts and new laws, translated works necessary for this), desired to serve “the cause, not individuals,” had some serious, well-known even to Muscovites, affairs with ministers, and, therefore, he seriously wanted to do something important, to change something. And he wasn’t the only one who wanted this, because both the people in power and the new generation of advanced nobles understood the need for political reforms; they heard the people’s murmurs.

Although the comedy was written by Griboyedov mainly in Persia and Tiflis, its first ideas and sketches appeared by 1816 or 1819, they reflected his fresh St. Petersburg impressions, life in the circle of liberal serving youth (it was not by chance that Pushkin decided at the beginning that Chatsky was Griboyedov’s a caricature of their mutual friend Chaadaev), whose freedom-loving, but somewhat general and rhetorical ideas are expressed in the ode of the young Pushkin “Liberty” (1817) and other uncensored works. And this general The liberal trend, encouraged “from above” by the enlightened emperor and his minister-reformers such as M. Speransky and A. Golitsyn, which captured young nobles and dignitaries, is not rebellious Decembrism (after all, young Pushkin was not accepted into the secret society), which At that time it was just taking shape as a secret political movement. This is a widespread, advanced, but not radically revolutionary ideology of the new time and the new generation, which Chatsky characterizes as follows: “Everyone breathes more freely... Nowadays, laughter frightens and keeps shame in check.” This does not require creating secret societies, organizing military conspiracies, or preparing regicide*.

* Cm.: Sakharov V.I. Romanticism in Russia: Epoch, schools, styles. M., 2004. Chapter “Enlightened mysticism of the Alexander era.”

That is, in advanced St. Petersburg, a new thing has already taken shape, become influential and completely legal. public opinion, the open spokesman of which was the intelligent and active character of Griboedov in Moscow. Of course, these common progressive ideas were shared by all the Decembrists, who explained their secret plans precisely by the growth of freedom-loving ideas and protests, and society’s hopes for radical changes. Even the stern and straightforward campaigner-frunt Skalozub from the reactionary camp of A. Arakcheev had heard about the “new rules”; they fully comprehended them and were immediately simplified, reduced and vulgarized by the talkative liberal Repetilov.

Criticism of Pushkin, who accused the ardent Chatsky of excessively and uselessly shaking the air with his angry speeches to the old conservatives of the Famus school who did not understand and were unworthy of them, points to the main character trait, quite consciously bestowed on him by the author - a young, hot naivety. After all, the observant maid Lisa says about him: “So sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp.” The feeling of a hero goes ahead of the mind; he is just beginning his struggle, full of great expectations. Great disappointments await him.

Chatsky is active, full of hope, sincerely believes in his strength, in people, and that is why he is so surprised and outraged by the stubborn and unfriendly resistance of the inert Moscow environment. After all, his and his St. Petersburg friends’ progressive ideas are so good, new and progressive, they just need to be followed, and all Russian life will quickly change for the better. Goncharov said correctly: “Chatsky is beginning a new century - and this is his whole meaning and his whole “intelligence.” All his inevitable disappointments, struggles and defeats are still ahead, and at the beginning of the comedy, Chatsky’s charming “stupidity” speaks only of his kind and open character, honesty and gullibility, which is then cleverly used by Moscow conservatives, experienced in intrigue and completely immoral.

Therefore, Griboyedov builds his comedy on two conflicts: Chatsky’s clash with Moscow society and his blind faith in the soul and love of Sophia, who had long since changed internally and followed in the footsteps of her addicted (see Famusov’s review of his wife), sentimental, read fashionable novels mother (this character was outlined in the first drafts of the comedy , but then disappeared). The interweaving of these conflicts is outlined already in the first act, where Sophia, who has long cooled towards Chatsky, is offended by his caustic review of her new lover Molchalin: “From that moment, a hot duel ensued between her and Chatsky, the most lively action, a comedy in the close sense, in which they take close participation of two persons, Molchalin and Liza” (Goncharov). Having spread gossip about Chatsky's madness in secular society, Sophia connects both stage conflicts into a single plot unit, which is explained in the finale of the comedy.

Sophia was also called a mysterious and unclear character. The key to her understanding: Chatsky’s love for her and the fact that she, in her mind, is a worthy daughter of Famusov and her sensitive and amorous mother, a Moscow young lady with an indelible imprint of her environment and era, “French” fashionable upbringing and reading sentimental novels. She is not just smart, but also has a strong, commanding character (“I want to love, I want to say”), and knows how to sincerely feel (her unfeigned fainting when Molchalin fell from his horse and the reproachful words “I was ready to jump through your window”).

Sophia loved Chatsky in her youth, but she did not like his independent character and mocking mind; she needed a timid and submissive “husband-servant.” The proud, wayward girl, with obvious displeasure, calls her former lover “demanding”, who thinks highly of himself: “Will such a mind make the family happy?” She has her own idea of ​​family happiness, Sophia is a despot here too. And she cruelly takes revenge on the caustic wise man, skillfully spreading slander in society about his imaginary madness and thereby entering into an alliance with the Moscow secular public who is close to her in spirit. And all this, in turn, testifies to Sophia’s very high opinion of herself.

This proud Moscow young lady, in essence, is despotic in love, she needs a timid and sensitive lover, described in fashionable sentimental novels, below her in social status (Famusov is the head of a public office, that is, a department and, therefore, in rank no less than a real civil servant adviser, that is, he is a civilian general), obediently fulfilling all her demands and whims. “God knows what you came up with for him. He is not a sinner in anything, you are a hundred times more sinful,” Chatsky correctly says to Sophia.

The insincere and helpful Molchalin, being completely different in character (Liza sees right through him and therefore laughs when her young lady calls Molchalin timid), agreed to play this book role of a shy admirer imposed on him in order to get closer to the sentimental daughter of his boss and benefactor, to the coveted career and an advantageous marriage of convenience. He is ready for any humiliation. Chatsky involuntarily guessed this: “After all, nowadays they love dumb" Hence the evil words of the offended Sophia: “Not a man, a snake!” This man bothers her, stings her eyes.

The essence of the conflict between Sophia and Chatsky is that the St. Petersburg smart guy, who inopportunely returned after a three-year absence, involuntarily, albeit not immediately, opens her eyes to her new lover and her wrong choice. Sophia will never forgive him for this (“I’m happy to humiliate, to stab…”), but she is involuntarily made to think by Chatsky’s excited questions about Molchalin: “But does he have that passion, that feeling, that ardor?.. But is he worth you? » Chatsky’s very naivety and blindness are offensive to proud Sophia, for he stubbornly does not believe that his former lover could humiliate herself like that. He doesn’t even hear her direct confession: “God brought us together.” Pushkin immediately noticed this: “Among the masterful features of this charming comedy, Chatsky’s distrust of Sophia’s love for Molchalin is charming! - and how natural! This is what the whole comedy was supposed to revolve around, but Griboedov, apparently, didn’t want to - it was his will.”

And when Sophia, at the end of the comedy, with the help of Chatsky, finally sees all the baseness, insincerity, “crookedness of the soul” of Molchalin, for her this is also “a million torments,” the collapse of all illusions, a terrible blow to pride and reputation. It becomes clear that she was angry and offended at Chatsky not for Molchalin, but for herself; his stubborn disbelief involuntarily condemned her erroneous and unworthy choice. After all, for this proud Moscow girl it is also important “what Princess Marya Aleksevna will say!” She herself loves to judge others, to read morals to them, just like her always angry father. Perhaps fate is preparing Sophia the fate of the second Khlestova, the self-proclaimed stern guardian of old morals, pulling everyone back, giving public reprimands to everyone and not noticing the simple-minded Moscow rudeness hidden in her loud and important shouts and angry reproaches. It is not for nothing that in the final scene Chatsky angrily calls his former lover “a persecutor of people with a soul, a scourge!”

Three people begin the comedy “Woe from Wit” early in the morning, lead it from action to action and end it in the final evening scene of general discoveries, epiphanies and lamentations - these are its main characters, Chatsky, Famusov and Sophia. The young couple and their clash based on jealousy and the struggle of egos have already been mentioned; this is a skillfully twisted “intrigue of love” (Goncharov), working on the main idea of ​​the comedy. But the role of Famusov, his character, connection and conflict with Chatsky is not as simple as it sometimes seems.

The young man lived like a relative and was brought up in his patriarchal house together with his only daughter; the grumpy and hot-tempered old man (by the way, he is hardly more than fifty years old) loves him in his own way, warmly hugs him when he meets, praises him (“He’s small with a head, And he writes nicely, translates... with such intelligence"), is keenly interested in his career, fortune and estate. As for Chatsky’s new ideas, the owner of the house is of little interest to them; he prefers to live securely, comfortably and calmly, like all the Moscow “aces”, that is, according to the established traditions and prejudices of his conservative environment. But at some point these ideas become a material force, they begin to disturb Famusov and his circle, they have to respond to the visiting smart guy. Their dispute began a long time ago and now continued at a different time and in new conditions and forms.

This dispute is about the main thing - about intelligence and enlightenment, their significance for the destinies of new Russia, its young culture. We know the thoughts of the angry “reasoner” Chatsky by heart, they are set out in his famous monologues, that is, detailed and inspired statements of their ideas, more similar to public accusatory speeches and, in essence, not requiring a response. The monologue is an essential feature of the drama of the classic era and is usually addressed by the hero to the audience and himself, containing accusations and teachings. The author needs him to express his thoughts to the audience, but he is not very scenic, because he temporarily interrupts the action, stops the dialogue, everyone stops, falls silent and waits for the hero to express everything to the end. Meanwhile, the entire action of “Woe from Wit” is based on monologues, rapidly developing from one accusatory speech to another. This means that Griboyedov looked at the monologue differently and found a different place for it in the artistic body of his comedy.

“Woe from Wit” begins with a monologue. And this is a monologue, or rather, Famusov’s monologues growing from one another. First, his appearance is prepared by the maid Liza, who is afraid of the owner’s arrival, then the patriarchal master appears at the bedroom of his daughter, who has read novels, locked there with Molchalin, and angrily talks about unnecessary enlightenment, about the uselessness and harmfulness of reading French and especially Russian books. And he says this not for the maid, but to the audience, as his opponent Chatsky will later do. In the fourth appearance, Famusov, with a passion worthy of Chatsky, anger and sarcasm, continues to expose the harmful consequences of reading immoral French books, the ruinous trips of ladies and girls to the Kuznetsky Bridge to fashionable French shops. His accusations are energetic, figurative and eloquent, their solemn rhetoric and accuracy speak of his erudition (commentators found in Famusov’s speeches traces of reading Russian historical tragedies of the 18th century) and the undoubted gift of an orator, honed by endless teachings in the English Club, drawing rooms and salons:

Destroyers of pockets and hearts!

When the Creator will deliver us

From their hats! caps! and stilettos! and pins!

And book and biscuit shops!

And then follows an important phrase worthy of the offended Chatsky: “But was I expecting new troubles? so that he would be deceived...” But he was really deceived by his neighbors, led by his daughter. The distraught Famusov excitedly and quite correctly speaks about his bad upbringing, bad French teachers, speaks flatteringly about himself as a model of morality, attacks the really guilty Molchalin who turned up at hand, criticizes the dream of a justifying daughter, hastily and awkwardly taken from fashionable romantic ballads (“Where are the miracles, there is not enough storage there") and ends this extensive accusatory monologue, which occupies the entire fourth episode, with his famous principle of not accumulating unnecessary business papers from the official place: “It’s signed, so off your shoulders.”

The Old Believer Famusov is seething with indignation, this is satire, anger and sarcasm, a heartfelt conviction that broke through under the influence of well-founded suspicions. To whom does the despotic and grumpy Moscow gentleman address accusatory speeches? To his serf girl Lisa, the insignificant Molchalin, his sentimental daughter who loves French books and fashionable shops? No, their answers and, especially, other, independent opinions, are not needed and deeply indifferent to him, this is his heartfelt conviction, a mature opinion that is shared by the Moscow “aces” and ladies of his generation, the children of the past century. And this opinion, at first, innocently considers itself the ultimate truth and, as such, does not require an answer; moreover, such self-satisfied people do not need answers. And that’s why Famusov and his entourage are so irritated by Chatsky’s response monologues.

Famusov’s monologue is the loud voice of Griboyedov’s post-fire Moscow, defending its ancient way of life, traditions, prejudices, power and wealth. This is an alarming cry of anger and indignation, to which the imperious old woman Khlestova, the Tugoukhovskys, Skalozub, the Countesses Khryumina, Anton Antonovich Zagoretsky, Natalya Dmitrievna Gorich, spreading gossip and slander, Messrs. and D. - that is, all of patriarchal noble Moscow. This environment is already restless, irritated by bad rumors and unpleasant news from St. Petersburg, full of vague forebodings and expectations.

This monologue is not addressed to emptiness, it is expressed in a specific address and requires a response. A dangerous young enemy from their own camp appeared. A split in society is followed by a clash. This is the beginning of the comedy. “The plot should embrace all faces, and not just one or two, - touch what worries, more or less, all the actors,” Gogol wrote in “Theater Travel.” Griboedov is familiar with this law of high comedy. It is enough to look at the list of characters in the play to understand that only the former Muscovite Chatsky, a young serious reasoner, a descendant of Molière’s Alceste and Fonvizin’s Starodum, a herald of future general changes, can give a worthy response to the eloquent and angry Moscow master. His appearance, speeches and actions affect everyone, affecting society specifically. And the brave, intelligent young man begins to respond to his high-ranking relative Famusov at his first appearance in his manor house, he ironically speaks about his beloved conservative Moscow, about himself, funny eccentrics, right down to his relatives, the enemy of the books from the academic committee.

Finally, they meet in the second act, and the sworn speaker Famusov summarizes in a new monologue about the fathers, their ancient life, the past century, his previous defensive speeches and panegyrics to the former ability to live and serve. Chatsky responds with an angry monologue, where the obliging “aces” and the old age of obedience, fear and servility are contrasted with a new, freer time, new people and their advanced ideas. The old master is so outraged by these attacks that, with cries of “carbonari”, “rebellion” and “freedom wants to preach”, he closes his ears and does not want to listen to these rebellious speeches. The appearance of the enviable groom Skalozub, an elderly rich man and a future general, clearly looking for a good Moscow bride, forces Sophia's caring father to return to his native Moscow, its people and way of life and dedicate to them a new laudatory monologue, where we talk about the Moscow court of people and opinions.

“Here another struggle is already beginning, an important and serious one, a whole battle... Both, Famusov and Chatsky, threw down the gauntlet to each other... Chatsky answers,” wrote Goncharov, speaking about the famous monologue “Who are the judges?” The idealist and romantic Chatsky answers to the owner of the house’s extensive rhetorical praise of old Moscow, its usual way of life, old people and young people, following simple moral rules that have turned into everyday prejudices, and allowing ordinary everyday unscrupulousness in the name of real benefits and successes. This coincidence in words and tone shows that in fact the monologues of Famusov and Chatsky are detailed, lasting throughout the entire action of the comedy dialogue, where the positions and goals of both warring camps are determined and the main philosophical and satirical meaning of Griboyedov’s social comedy is revealed. These two characters answer each other all the time; their overlapping accusatory speeches, like paired mirrors skillfully placed during the action of the comedy, reflect the growing social conflict that led the country and society to the rebellion and split of the landmark year 1825. In “Woe from Wit” this clash is just beginning, so far these are just words.

The remaining characters of the Famus camp only complement this fundamental dispute between the two main characters of the comedy and the ideas, eras and generations behind them with new arguments, details and features of their typical characters and destinies. All of them are descendants of Fonvizin's Mrs. Prostakova; simple-minded egoism is combined in them with cunning, experience and tenacity. They stand for everyday realism and their own benefit and do not tolerate accusations and reproaches. The Arakcheevsky serviceman Skalozub, the despotic old woman Khlestova, the insignificant ball lovers Tugoukhovsky and Khryumin, the arrogant and cunning swindler and informer Zagoretsky turn into a multi-faced “tormentor crowd”, poisoning Chatsky, tired of all these betrayals, stupid slander and persecution.

He loses his former natural cheerfulness, thirst for activity, goodwill and faith in people and love, gets irritated, makes mistake after mistake. A young critic of old prejudices is betrayed by his beloved girl. Now he is truly alone, the defeat of the new man is inevitable, although it is temporary, the new century and advanced ideas are already entering patriarchal Moscow life. The stronger is her emotional, stupid, but skillful and cunning resistance, which speaks of rich life experience and does not stop at low gossip, slander and primitive deception.

The slander grows and develops, squeezing the soul of the one driven by some kind of pain and forcing him, through force, to utter into the void (everyone has left him and is dancing) an angry monologue about a Frenchman from Bordeaux and the admiration of Moscow society for everything foreign, clearly echoing Famusov’s words about the Kuznetsky Bridge and French immoral novels and fashions and satire of the 18th century, the works of Novikov and Fonvizin. The words about “our smart, cheerful people” are addressed by the angry Chatsky to the future, because for now these people are not present on the stage and are silent.

The liberal chatterbox Repetilov with his simple-minded faith in any fashionable novelty, noisy secret society known throughout Moscow and love for dancers and vaudeville only briefly entertained the visiting smart guy. The main characters of the comedy converge in Famusov’s hallway, empty after the guests have left, and it begins denouement, everything is explained. With a monologue from the desperate Chatsky about “offended feelings,” disappointment in Moscow and love for the traitor Sophia, this satirical comedy ends, in which there are clear sad, even tragic notes, and which Prince P.A. Vyazemsky aptly called it “a modern tragedy.”

QUESTIONS AND TASKS

Name the two main stage conflicts on which the action of Griboyedov’s comedy is based.

What social environment does Famusov represent?

How do Chatsky’s advanced statements relate to the revolutionary ideology of the secret society of the Decembrists?

What are the “off-stage” characters in Griboedov’s comedy and what is their role in “Woe from Wit”?

BASIC CONCEPTS

Classicism.

Three unities - place, time and action.

Dramatic conflict.

Verbal action.

REPORTS AND ABSTRACTS

Griboyedovskaya Moscow as a social environment.

Dialogue between Famusov and Chatsky.

Repetilov as a parody double of Chatsky.

The role of "off-stage" characters in "Woe from Wit".

I.A. Goncharov about Griboyedov’s comedy.

“The present century and the past century...” Comedy by A.S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit” in Russian criticism and literary criticism. St. Petersburg, 2002.

Gershenzon M.O. Griboyedovskaya Moscow. M., 1989.

Goncharov I.A. “A Million Torments.”

“Woe from Wit” on the Russian and Soviet stages. Evidence from contemporaries. M., 1987.

Griboyedov A.S. Woe from the mind. Comedy. Comment by S.A. Fomichev. St. Petersburg, 1994.

Face and Genius: from the heritage of Russian emigration. M., 2001.

Meshcheryakov V.P. A.S. Griboyedov. Literary environment and perception (XIX - early XX centuries). L., 1983.

Meshcheryakov V.P. The life and deeds of Alexander Griboyedov. M., 1985.

Fomichev S.A. Comedy by A.S. Griboedov “Woe from Wit.” A comment. M., 1983.

Khechinov Yu.E. The life and death of Alexander Griboedov. M., 2003.

Tsimbaeva E.N. Griboyedov. M., 2003.

© Vsevolod Sakharov. All rights reserved.

Lesson 21

Chronicle of life and creativity A.S.Griboyedova

The goal is to study the biography of A.S. Griboyedov, control knowledge

1 Introduction

In 1816, an article appeared, the author of which sharply criticized Zhukovsky’s famous Ballad “Lyudmila”. The name of the author of the article became famous in the literary world. It was A.S. Griboyedov. Who was he: critic, playwright, military man, diplomat, musician, politician?

G.'s fate is tragic, beautiful and mysterious. It is not known for certain in what year he was born (1795|1794|1790), and died under mysterious circumstances.

2 Checking the remote data - refute or confirm the information

Griboyedov was born into an impoverished noble family

No , Griboedov was born into a wealthy noble family, his father was a retired military man, his mother was an intelligent woman and a despotic landowner.

Griboedov's first teachers were Moscow University librarian Petrosilius and tutor Bogdan Ivanovich Ion, who graduated from the University of Göttingen in Germany

Yes

At the age of 13 he entered university

We cannot answer this question with accuracy, since the exact date of birth of Griboyedov is not known, but in the period from 1806 to 1812 he studied at the university

Graduated in 6.5 years from the faculty

Yes, he graduates from the philosophical and law faculties of Moscow University. The Patriotic War of 1812 prevented me from graduating from the third faculty of mathematics and natural sciences, as well as passing exams for the degree of Doctor of Law.

Knew four languages: English, French, German, Italian

No , he knew the listed languages, Latin, Greek, and also studied oriental languages

Griboedov is a wonderful composer

Yes , 2 of his waltzes are known

Griboyedov - famous diplomat

Yes, He worked for many years in Persia and the Caucasus, conducted affairs on diplomatic relations with Turkey, participated in the military campaign against Erivan, went to the Persian camp for negotiations, formed a number of articles of the Turkmanchay Peace Treaty and in 1828 brought it to St. Petersburg for approval. He was an outstanding diplomat, but not all of his proposals and plans were approved by the government of Nicholas I. Griboyedov was burdened by public service, dreamed of another career, but he was forced to serve, hidden in political exile

Generously awarded by the government for signing a peace treaty with Persia

Yes , Griboedov was received with honor by the emperor, awarded the rank of state councilor, an order and four thousand chervonets, and was appointed to the post of minister plenipotentiary in Persia

Participated in the War of 1812

No , despite poor eyesight, he volunteered for the Moscow Hussar Regiment. He did not have to participate directly in hostilities, which he very much regretted.

During his military service, his first works were published in the magazine “Bulletin of Europe”

Yes , these were the essays “Letter from Brest-Litovsk to the publisher of the “Bulletin of Europe” and the article “On cavalry reserves”

Pushkin, Griboyedov and Kuchelbecker met at an evening at a literary salon

No , they met on June 15, 1817 in the building of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where they were on official business

Exiled to Persia for involvement in the Decembrist uprising

No, Griboyedov’s ideological closeness to the Decembrists is well known, but he could not take direct part in the uprising, because was in the Caucasus, the reason for his move to Persia is as follows. In 1817, a duel between A.P. Zavadsky and V.V. Sheremetyev took place, which ended in the death of the latter. The outcome of this duel was a duel between the seconds - Griboedov and A.I. Yakubovich, where Griboedov was wounded in the arm. He decided to change his life because... suffered greatly from the consequences of this duel, and accepted an offer to become secretary of the Russian diplomatic mission in Persia, and in 1818 he left for the East

- “Woe from Wit” - a tragedy written in 1826.

No , a comedy written in 1824

His death was accidental

No, Griboedov’s death was the result of a well-thought-out plan, although the Persian government assured that it was a tragic accident, in turn, the Russian government did nothing to restore the truth. He was identified by a scar on his hand, shot during a duel.

Killed in Tehran

Yes, On January 30, 1829, a huge crowd, armed with anything, incited by religious fanatics, attacked the Russian embassy building. The entire Russian embassy (37 people) was literally torn to pieces. According to some reports, Griboyedov’s torn body was dragged through the streets of Tehran for three days, and then thrown into a pit. The Russian government demanded the release of the body. On June 11, 1829, A.S. Pushkin, heading to the active army, on the road from Tiflis to Kara, met a simple cart, accompanied by several Georgians. "Where are you from?" - asked Pushkin. "From Tehran." - “What are you bringing?” - “Griboyeda...” This is how Pushkin learned that Griboedov’s prophetic words about his own death, spoken by him in St. Petersburg upon parting, had come true

Buried in Tiflis, in the David Monastery

Yes, shortly before leaving for Persia, Griboedov, as if foreseeing his death, said to his wife: “Do not leave my bones in Persia: if I die there, then bury me in Tiflis, in the monastery of David.” That's where he is buried

Yes, Griboyedov married in Tiflis the daughter of the Georgian poet and general of the Russian service A.G. Chavchavadtse, Princess Nina Alexandrovna in 1828, they stayed together for about 4 months, and Griboyedov again left for Persia, where he was killed

- “Griboedov belongs to the most powerful manifestations of the Russian spirit,” believed V.G. Belinsky

Yes

Griboyedov managed to do a lot in his short life. Of his literary heritage, the comedy “Woe from Wit” was destined to have the longest creative life.

The main artistic principles of the writer were “nationality” and “truth” in their inseparability. He advocated for the liberation of Russian literature from the element of imitation, from the mechanical transfer of borrowed ideas and plots to Russian soil. Griboyedov considered it necessary to look for literary material primarily in the life of modern Russian society, in history, in folk life. In contrast to the sublimely pretentious language of the works of sentimentalists and classicists, the writer turns to urban vernacular, to the living language spoken by the people of that time.

DZ reading the comedy “Woe from Wit”

Reading an article in school. “On the comedy “Woe from Wit” (1824)” pp. 147-156, synopsis

(special attention to the history of creation and characteristics of the images)

Answer questions orally – 1, 2, 12 s. 164

Start learning the monologue of Famusov or Chatsky

Lesson 22

Meet the Comedy Characters“Woe from Wit” (Iaction)

The goal is to analyze the list of characters, characterize the heroes of the work, study the history of the creation of Griboyedov’s comedy

“Woe from Wit” is a phenomenon that we haven’t seen since the days of “Nedoroslya”,

Full of characters depicted boldly and sharply;

A living picture of Moscow morals, the soul in feelings,

Intelligence and wit in speeches, unprecedented fluency

And the nature of spoken language in poetry.

All this attracts, amazes, attracts attention

A. Bestuzhev

1 Introduction

Griboyedov is a man of one book. If not for “Woe from Wit”,

Griboyedov would have no place at all in Russian literature

V.F. Khodasevich

Indeed, Griboyedov entered the history of Russian literature as the author of the comedy “Woe from Wit,” although he also wrote other works (“Young Spouses,” “Student,” etc.), he is the author of the first Russian realistic comedy.

2 History of creation

The idea for the comedy arose in 1816-20, according to some sources in 1812, but active work on the text began in Tiflis after returning from Persia.

S.N. Begichev, a friend of Griboyedov, wrote:“...the plan for this comedy was made by him back in St. Petersburg in 1816, and several scenes were even written, but I don’t know whether it was in Persia or Grizia that Griboedov changed it in many ways and destroyed some of the characters.”

There is a version that the author dreamed about the plot of the comedy:“I woke up... the cold of the night dispelled my unconsciousness, lit a candle in my temple, sat down to write, and vividly remembered my promise: given in a dream, it will be fulfilled in reality!”

The comedy was completed by 1824, at which time a new version of the title “Woe from Wit” appeared; previously the name was “Woe to Wit.” The comedy was copied by hand; excerpts were published only in 1825 in a form distorted by censorship. The success was amazing. The comedy was published in an abbreviated form in 1833 after the death of the author, and in 1862 it was published in full.

3 Meet the characters of the comedy “Woe from Wit”

Let's read the index of characters. What are the names of the heroes that give us an idea of ​​the character and qualities of their owners?

Famusov - (from Latin fama - rumor, gossip) - a large and influential official, a “noble father”, teaches, instructs the younger generation on the true path, a widower. In a brilliant self-portrait monologue, he recommends himself as a model of virtue, but also exposes himself. “He is known for his monastic behavior,” nevertheless he flirts with the maid and talks about the doctor’s christening. Upholstered with everything new. The main enemy is teaching, because it violates the stillness of the world, the dream is “to take all the books and burn them”

Molchalin - (he is heartless, his soul is silent) - the role of a stupid lover, Sophia’s warm friend, who despises her in his soul, dreams of Lisa, ranks and awards. His motto is “to please all people without exception”, his main qualities are “moderation and accuracy”), “a boy-husband, a servant’s husband, effeminate pages - the high ideal of all Moscow husbands

Skalozub - the image of an ideal Moscow groom, rude, pleased with himself, rich, strives for the rank of general, covers up his stupidity with a uniform

Repetilov – from Latin repeto – to repeat, has no opinion

Tugoukhovskie – motive of deafness, unwillingness to listen, to perceive the opposite point of view

Khlestova - harsh judgments

Chatsky – Chadsky – Chaadaev – this is an encrypted allusion to the name of Pyotr Yakovlevich Chaadaev. With his comedy, Griboyedov foresaw his fate. Chaadaev published the treatise “Philosophical Thoughts” at the age of 36. His worldview system turned out to be so unacceptable for Nicholas Russia that the emperor himself declared him crazy.

A young nobleman, heir to 300-400 souls, is the link between two storylines - he satirically denounces Moscow society and finds himself drawn into a love triangle.

Gorich - (from grief) - a former colleague of Chatsky, who changed after marriage, becoming a typical Moscow husband, submitting to the opinion of his wife and the world

Sophia – (meaning of the name “wise”) – 17 years old, is fond of French novels and during Chatsky’s absence became a victim of Famus’s Moscow, part of it

Lisa – role of soubrette, coquette

Ways to create characters in comedy

When considering the features of constructing a character system and revealing characters, it is necessary to keep in mind the following circumstances:

B) abandoned the traditional division of characters into positive and negative. He contrasted the traditional way of creating characters, based on classical roles and exaggeration of any one character trait, with a way of depicting social types, drawn through individual detail and multidimensionality of characters. The main personality trait, which the author considered to be the main one, he denotes by the technique of “speaking surnames”. Important means of creating characters are their actions, their views on existing life problems; characterization given by another person, self-characterization, comparison of heroes with each other, their opposition, irony, sarcasm.

Classification of heroes of dramatic works

Main character - characters whose interaction with each other develops, determines the plot, the course of events (Sofia, Chatsky, Famusov, Molchalin)

Minor characters- participate in the development of the plot, but are not directly related to it. Their images are developed less deeply than the images of the main characters (Skalozub, Zagoretsky, Lisa, Gorich)

Episodic – Khlestova, Tugoukhovsky, Khryumin, Repetilov

Heroes-masks – their images are extremely generalized, these are images-signs of the time, eternal human types (Skalozub is a type of martinet, Zagoretsky is a “master of service”)

Off-stage characters- heroes whose names are mentioned, but they themselves do not appear on stage and do not take part in the action (Prince Fedor, Kuzma Petrovich, Maxim Petrovich). What is their role? (expand the scope of the conflict)

Now let's turn directly to the text of the comedy. In the foreground, lordly Moscow is depicted, but in conversations and remarks, the image of the capital’s ministerial Petersburg and the Saratov wilderness arise. People of different social status perform in comedy

4 Conversation on the content of Act I

Which?

What are phenomena 1-5 in terms of plot development? (exposition)

What is the atmosphere in the life of Famusov’s house and its inhabitants themselves?

How does Griboyedov create their characters?

What information and how do we get about heroes who have not yet appeared on the scene?

At what point does the action begin? (From January 7, when Chatsky appears)

How and how does Chatsky appear?

How does Sophia greet him?

What irritates Sophia about Chatsky? (Chatsky's bile tongue)

What feelings does Chatsky have for Sophia?

What is his irony directed against?

5 Summing up

T.O, analyzing the content of act 1, we characterized the characters of the comedy

DZ Vocabulary work – plot, comedy, conflict, composition

Answer questions orally – 8, 9, 10, 12 s. 164

Copy quotes from Acts I and II that use the words “mind, clever, philosopher”

What, how and whom do they characterize?

Lesson 23

The meaning of the comedy title. The main plot lines of the work

The goal is to analyze the work taking into account the characteristics of the artistic method and genre originality

In my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person,

And this man, of course, contrary to the community that was arming him,

No one understands him, no one wants to forgive him,

Why is he a little taller than others?

A.S.Griboyedov

1 Repetition of what has been covered, checking the remote control

Comedy - one of the types of dramatic work.

Peculiarities:

Limitation of action by space and time

Revealing the character's character through moments of confrontation (the role of conflict)

Organization of speech in the form of dialogues and monologues

In the system of classicism genres, it refers to the lowest style. One of the main plot lines is the struggle of two contenders for the hand of a girl, the positive hero is poor, but endowed with high moral qualities, a happy ending

The comedy “Woe from Wit” is a work that accurately reproduces momentary ideological and political disputes and at the same time identifies problems of a national and universal nature. These problems are born of a clash between a bright personality and a skeletal way of life.

Such a clash, "the contradiction between characters, or characters and circumstances, or within character, underlying action" is called conflict . Conflict drives the plot forward.

Plot - it is “a chain of events depicted in a literary work, i.e. the life of the characters in its spatio-temporal changes, in changing positions and circumstances.” The plot not only embodies the conflict, but also reveals the characters' characters and explains their evolution.

What plot elements do you know? How are they characterized? (exposition, plot, development of action, climax, denouement)

What 2 conflicts and, accordingly, 2 storylines can be distinguished? (love and social; the love conflict that begins at the beginning of the play is complicated by the hero’s opposition to society)

Both lines develop in parallel, reaching a climax (the spread of gossip about madness), the love affair receives a denouement, and the solution to the social conflict is taken beyond the scope of the work.

2 Meaning of the name

Griboedov the comedian sets goals other than ridiculing vices and entertaining the public. To understand them, one should turn to the meaning of the title of the play. The central question posed by Griboyedov in his work can be formulated as follows: why is an intelligent person rejected by both society and his beloved?

The problem of the mind is the ideological and emotional core around which other issues of a philosophical, socio-political, national-historical and moral nature are grouped.

Griboyedov initially called the comedy “Woe to Wit,” what is the difference between these two titles?

Calling Chatsky smart and the rest of the heroes fools, Griboyedov unambiguously expressed his point of view. Each of the opposing sides considers itself smart, and the crazy one is the one who does not share her opinion. The theme of different minds arises:

The mind of Famusov and the characters in his circle is the ability to adapt to any living conditions and extract material benefits. Success in life is expressed in the ability to acquire souls, ranks, awards, and get married successfully. Anyone who has achieved this is smart.

Intelligence, according to Chatsky, is the ability to freely and impartially evaluate the very conditions of life from the point of view of common sense and change these conditions if they do not correspond to common sense.

Griboyedov is inclined to consider a mind that only adapts as stupidity.

3 Analysis of Act II of the Comedy

What is the role of Act I in the development of the plot?

What conflict begins in Act II?

What is the role of the monologues of Chatsky and Famusov

Who is the initiator of the dispute?

Are these people from the same or different centuries?

What life ideals does each of the heroes defend?

Who is Skalozub? How do they treat him in Famusov’s house?

At what point does he appear? What are his views on career and service?

Which generation is Skalozub closer to in age and in his views?

How does Chatsky behave?

From 7 to 14 the love theme develops, it turns out not one, but several love triangles: Sophia - Molchalin - Chatsky

Sofia – Lisa – Molchalin

Liza - Petrusha - Molchalin...

T.O., in the second act, a social conflict begins to develop and the love story of the story becomes more complicated

4 Reading a monologue by heart

DZ Answer the question in writing. 3, 5, 6 p. 164

Lesson 24

Analysis of the ball scene. The third act is the culmination of the main act

conflict

The goal is to learn how to analyze an episode-scene

1 Introductory remarks for learning to analyze an episode of a scene we need:

Define character relationships

Understand what the scene provides for understanding the characters of the characters

Show what techniques are used to break characters

Show the role of this scene in the development of the action and conflict of the play

Understand the significance of the scene in revealing the ideological content of the entire work

2 Conversation:

What events precede the ball scene?

Remember what brings Chatsky to Famusov’s house in Act II?

In Act III, Chatsky is again in the house of Pavel Afanasyevich, for what purpose this time? (Get Sophia's recognition)

What words of Sophia return us to the problem of the mind?

Why does Chatsky conclude “She doesn’t love him?” Is he right? (Molchalin is not worthy of Sophia’s love, because he is pathetic)

Does Sophia really love Molchalin?

How does Chatsky and Molchalin conduct their dialogue?

Is this dialogue connected with the dialogue between Chatsky and Famusov in Act II, with the ball scene?

How do you see Molchalin?

From 5 Jan. Guests appear at Famusov's house. Read out the guest appearance scenes

How does Griboedov introduce new characters?

Who appears first?

Why does Chatsky barely recognize his former colleague Gorich, what happened to him?

What is important for the princes of Tugoukhovsky?

What is the principle of depicting these heroes? (satirical image through speech, poses, gestures specified by the author in the stage directions; speaking surnames)

Why is it customary to unite all the presented heroes with the concept of “Famusov’s Moscow”?

How does it spread?

Why is everyone picking up this gossip? (connects love and social conflict)

Trace through the text the extent of the spread of gossip

The emergence of gossip is based on the hero’s own speeches.

A) Chatsky will come to terms with the end of love, mocks it and himself calls it madness.

B) Sophia: “I reluctantly drove you crazy!”, then repeats with offense “He’s out of his mind”

G. N “Are you crazy?”

G. D “Crazy”

D) Zagoretsky - His uncle, a rogue, hid him into madness. He's crazy. Yes, he's crazy. In the mountains, his forehead was wounded, he went crazy from the wound. Crazy about everything. The mind is seriously damaged

D) Khlestova - Who is upset in the mind?

E) Famusov - She herself called him crazy

Fiction takes on the character of a conspiracy, conspiracy, turns into denunciation

What do the guests see as the reasons for Chatsky’s madness? (in learning, in injury, in drunkenness, in love)

How does the clash between Chatsky and the “sick” society end?

What is the tragedy (raises important questions) and comedy (no one listens to him) of Chatsky

Summarizing

The third act is the climax, the fourth is the denouement. The guests leave, but the social conflict finds no resolution, it continues.

What does Chatsky expose in his last monologue?

The love conflict is over.

DZ Answer orally question 4 p. 164

Write down quotes characterizing the different attitudes of representatives

“present century” and “past century” to the main issues raised by the author

Lesson 25

Chatsky and the “Famus society”.

The goal is to summarize and consider key issues in the conflict between the “present century” and the “past century”

Discussion according to plan

1 The era reflected in the work

2 Famusov and characteristics of Moscow light

3 Characteristics of Chatsky’s views

The main conflict in comedy is social - the clash of the “present century” and the “past century.” The historical boundary of the “present century” and the “past century” is the war of 1812. It was after the war that 2 political camps emerged - the advanced noble youth and the conservative feudal-serf camp. Their clash was embodied in the conflict of the “present century” and the “past century”

Why?

Who is the ideologist (exponent of ideas) of the “present century”, and who is the “past century”?

How does Chatsky behave in society?

A) appears after a three-year absence

B) gives bilious characteristics to humans

B) says what he thinks

D) not to enter into confrontation with him, he came to see Sophia

D) wounded by Sophia’s coldness and hurt by her father’s instructions, Chatsky cannot withstand the tension and sets out his beliefs in Famusov’s company

E) evaluates the life of Moscow society from the outside, therefore he is objective and critical

H) the hero’s statements bring him closer to the position of the leading people of that time - the Decembrists

And) the principles of life that have developed over centuries have become obsolete, but they suit Famusov and the people in his circle, so they don’t want to change anything

K) Chatsky, declared crazy, leaves Moscow

How does Famusov behave?

On what issues is the opposition taking place?

Commented reading

T.O., we can draw a conclusion about different worldview systems as the basis of social conflict in the comedy “Woe from Wit”

DZ copy aphorisms from the text

Homework:

“The present century” and “the past century”, The problem of the mind in Griboyedov’s comedy

How do I see A.A. Chatsky?, Chatsky and Molchalin, The image of Sofia Famusova

Traditions and innovations of Griboyedov - playwright

Lesson 26

The skill and innovation of Griboedov, a playwright

The goal is to consider the comedy “Woe from Wit” as innovative at all levels of text organization

The future will appreciate this comedy

And he will place it among the first creations of the people

A. Bestuzhev

1 Introduction

The comedy “Woe from Wit” is a wonderful work and magnificent in concept and execution.

The comedy was written during the reign of classicism, although in general romanticism developed in literature and realistic tendencies appeared. This situation greatly influenced the definition of the artistic method of the work: comedy has traditional classical features, as well as features of romanticism and realism.

2 Conversation

What facts indicate that comedy belongs to variousartistic methods?

A) Features of classicism. Which?

The principle of unity of time and place is observed - the action fits into one day, takes place in Famusov’s house, but the principle of unity of action is not observed - two conflicts, two storylines: Sophia - Chatsky - Molchalin

Chatsky - Famusov Moscow

The writer showed that, having initially begun as a love conflict, the conflict is complicated by opposition to society, then both lines develop in parallel, reaching a climax, the love conflict receives its resolution, and the social conflict goes beyond the scope of the work. Chatsky is expelled from Famus society, but remains true to his convictions. Society does not intend to change its views - therefore, further clashes are inevitable. In such openness of the finale, and even in the refusal to show the triumph of virtue, Griboyedov’s innovation is manifested.

Revealed by Goncharov, the duality of the plot of “Woe from Wit” was for a long time considered as an innovative feature that determined the originality of the comedy. But Griboyedov himself, in a letter to P.A. Katenin, emphasized the unity of the personal and public in comedy. Social-satirical and love-comedy scenes do not alternate, which corresponds to the traditions of this genre of the 18th century, but act as a thoughtful whole. Thus, Griboyedov rethought familiar plot schemes, endowing them with new content.

The traditional role system is preserved: the plot is based on a love triangle, a deceived father, the image of a maid

But the traditional scope of the role has been expanded: Chatsky is a fiasco, Molchalin is clearly portrayed negatively by the author, Famusov is also an ideologist of the Famusov society

a) surnames indicating any trait - Repetilov

b) evaluating names - Molchalin

c) associative surnames – Chatsky

The comedy is built according to the classical canons of tragedy - 4 acts, III - the climax, IV - the denouement. The unusual content and plot solutions with regularity led to an unusual compositional structure.

B) Features of realism:

A departure from classical plays - there is no happy ending: virtue does not triumph, vice is not punished. The number of characters goes beyond classical plays - more than 20 persons

Social and psychological typing: typical characters in typical circumstances, accuracy in details

Which characters are considered main, which are secondary, episodic, depends on their role in the conflict, in the formulation of problems, in the stage action. Thus, the social confrontation is built along the lines of Chatsky-Famusov, the love conflict is Sophia - Chatsky - Molchalin, it becomes obvious that of the four main characters, Chatsky bears the main burden, in addition, he expresses the author’s way of thinking, i.e. bears the features of a hero-reasoner.

The comedy is written in iambic meter (previously written in Alexandrian verse), conveying lively colloquial speech and the peculiarities of the speech of individual characters.

The comedy was written “not in book language, which no one spoke, but in living, easy, colloquial Russian.” Such a language made it possible to create truly realistic types of heroes. Each of them speaks in his own language, unique to him, which becomes a means of speech characterization of the characters. For example, Famusov’s language is in the old style, Chatsky’s speech is bookish, with the inclusion of oratorical techniques, sometimes emotional and lyrical, sometimes satirically accusatory.

Quite a few aphorisms have entered modern speech, as Pushkin said: “I’m not even talking about poetry, half of it should become a proverb.”

Checking remote sensing - aphorisms

“Free verse” “Woe from Wit” prepared the transition of Russian drama to prosaic realistic language, the language of Gogol, Pushkin, etc.

B) Traits of romanticism. Which?

Romantic nature of the conflict

The presence of tragic pathos

The motive of loneliness, exile of the main character

Travel as an escape from the past

Traditionally, “Woe from Wit” is consideredthe first Russian realistic comedy. Griboedov violated a number of genre, plot and compositional canons that prevented him from reflecting new content that was not typical for traditional comedies.

Griboyedov raises the problems of the socio-political structure of Russia; the harm of bureaucracy and veneration of rank, the problems of upbringing and education of youth, honest service to duty and the Fatherland, the national identity of Russian culture.

Philosophical problems include the problem of the mind, the meaning of life, happiness, personal freedom, and the problem of fate.

Among the socio-political problems, one can highlight the problem of deep divisions within the nobility. Most nobles are satisfied with the life they live and they do not want to change it. The minority, on the contrary, strives to transform their contemporary reality. Concluding the analysis of the content, it is necessary to pay attention to the absolute nature of the confrontation between the current forces on all issues: not one of their sides is not only capable of compromise, but, on the contrary, is completely convinced that the truth belongs only to it. This is a feature of national consciousness; at turning points, society always splits into supporters of the new and the old; people are not able to put themselves in the opposite point of view. In this regard, the motive of deafness, which manifests itself both at the social and interpersonal level, acquires special attention (for example, the father turns out to be deaf to his daughter’s pranks, tries not to notice them, the daughter does not listen to the maid’s warnings, Chatsky does not hear Sophia, who tells him about his love for Molchalin...). Deafness is played up using satirical techniques that correlate the reluctance to listen with deafness in the real sense (the image of the Tugoukhovskys).

The title of the work poses not only the problem of the mind, there is also the word “grief”, which refers us to the drama of the hero, what we call drama happens to him - he is not understood either by his beloved or by society, he is declared crazy, expelled. But why do we define genre like a comedy? The author in his notes called the work a “stage poem,” and various researchers offer a range from poetic lyrics to stories and novels. One way or another, we have before us a comedy, but an innovative one; it is no coincidence that many of Griboyedov’s contemporaries did not understand it.

3 Summing up. Filling out the table

Thus, both the content and all levels of form of the work were solved by Griboyedov in an innovative way, bringing the work of art as close as possible to reality, which served as one of the foundations for the longevity of the comedy.

Lesson 27

Criticism about comedy. I.A. Goncharov “A Million Torments”

Goal: learning to take notes and work with critical literature

1 Introduction

The comedy “Woe from Wit” posed many questions that could not be answered unequivocally; many things were new to contemporaries in the structure of the work’s organization, so serious controversy arose around the comedy.

A.S. Pushkin from a Letter to A.A. Bestuzhev:

I don’t condemn either the plan, the plot, or the decency of Griboedov’s comedy. Its purpose is character and sharp criticism of morals. In this regard, Famusov and Skalozub are excellent. Sophia is drawn unclearly...Molchalin is not quite sharply mean... In the comedy "Woe from Wit" who is the smart character? Answer: Griboyedov. Do you know what Chatsky is? An ardent, noble and kind fellow, who spent some time with a very smart man (namely Griboedov) and was imbued with his thoughts, witticisms and satirical remarks.

The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at first glance who you are dealing with and not throw pearls in front of the Repetilovs, etc.

I’m not even talking about poetry - half of them should become proverbs.

V.K.Kuchelbecker from the diary

Dan Chatsky, other characters are given, they are brought together and it is shown what the meeting of these antipodes must certainly be like - and only... but in this very simplicity there is news, courage, greatness...

A.A.Grigoriev senior “About a new edition of an old thing”

The only work that represents the artistic sphere of our so-called secular life, and on the other hand, Griboyedov’s Chatsky is the only truly heroic face of our literature... Griboyedov punishes rudeness and ignorance... in the name of the highest laws of the Christian and human-folk view.

Chatsky...the honest and active nature of a fighter...that is, an extremely passionate nature...also has historical significance. He is a product of the first quarter of the Russian 19th century.

Yu.N.Tynyanov senior "The plot of "Woe from Wit"

The center of comedy is in the comical position of Chatsky himself, and here comedy is a means of tragedy, and comedy is a type of tragedy...

Griboedov was a man of the twelfth year “in the spirit of the time and taste.” In public life, December 1825 would have been possible for him. He treated with lyrical regret the fallen Platon Mikhailovich, with authorial hostility towards Sofya Pavlovna... with personal, autobiographical hostility towards that Moscow, which was for him what old England was for Byron...The comedy portrays post-war indifferent careerism with particular force... The figure of Skalozub in “Woe from Wit” predicts the death of the Nicholas military regime.

Yu.M. Lotman art. “Decembrist in everyday life”

We feel Chatsky as a Decembrist...Chatsky’s speech differs sharply from the words of other characters precisely because of its bookishness. He speaks as he writes because he sees the world in its ideological, not everyday manifestations

Article by A.I. Goncharov “A Million Torments” (1871)- the best critical analysis of the comedy, was written 50 years after the appearance of the comedy itself. Goncharov’s critical sketch put an end to many disputes about the work “Woe from Wit,” although he wrote “we do not pretend to pronounce a critical verdict here...we, as an amateur, are only expressing our thoughts.”

2 Speeches and discussion according to plan (2 and 3 can be parallel or sequential)

A) What is “Woe from Wit” anyway?

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... Its canvas captures a long period of Russian life - from Catherine to Emperor Nicholas. In the group of 20 faces, the entire former Moscow, its design, its spirit at that time, its historical moment and morals were reflected, like a ray of light in a drop of water..

In it, the local coloring is too bright, and the designation of the characters themselves is so strictly delineated and furnished with such reality of details that universal human traits can barely stand out from subsocial positions, ranks, costumes, etc.

Two comedies seem to be nested within one another: one, so to speak, is private, petty, domestic, between Chatsky, Sophia, Molchalin and Liza, this is the intrigue of love, the everyday motive of all comedies. When the first is interrupted, unexpectedly another is in between, and the action begins again, the private comedy plays out into a general battle and is tied into one knot.

B) “Salt, epigram, satire, this colloquial verse, it seems, will never die”

Salt, epigram, 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 a wizard of some kind of spirit, in his castle, and it crumbles there evil laugh...

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 the entire collected author’s mind, humor, jokes and anger of the Russian mind and language...

C) “We have long been accustomed to saying that there is no movement, i.e. there is no action in the play. How is there no movement?

There is - living, continuous, from Chatsky’s first appearance on stage to his last word: “Carriage for me, carriage!”

This is a subtle, intelligent, elegant and passionate comedy...true in psychological details...disguised by the typical faces of the heroes, ingenious drawing, the flavor of the place, the era, the charm of the language...

D) “Chatsky’s role is a passive role... although at the same time it is always victorious

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. But Chatsky is not only smarter than all other people, but also positively smart. His speech is full of intelligence and wit. He has a heart, and, moreover, he is impeccably honest... He is a sincere and ardent activist... Chatsky begins a new century - and this is all his significance and all his “mind”... Chatsky... was preparing seriously for activity. ..he traveled not in vain, studied, read, set to work..., was in relations with ministers and separated - it’s not difficult to guess why... He loves seriously, seeing in Sophia 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.”

Tsayky runs to Sophia... He was struck by two changes: she has become unusually prettier and has grown colder towards him... He endures nothing but coldness from her, until, barely touching Molchalin, he touched a nerve with her too... From that moment on, between her and Chatsky ensued a heated duel, the most lively action, comedy in the strict sense...

“Who are the judges?” etc. Here another struggle is already beginning, an important and serious one, a whole battle...

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.” Famusov wants to be an “ace”... Chatsky is eager for a “free life”, “to pursue science and art” and demands “service to the cause, not to individuals”...

The role of Chatsky is a passive role... 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, i.e. in the hopelessness of success...He already has like-minded people...Chatsky created a split

The vitality of Chatsky’s role does not lie in the novelty of unknown ideas, brilliant hypotheses, hot and daring utopias...Chatsky is most of all an exposer of lies and everything that has become obsolete, that suppresses new life, “free life”

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. His ideal... is freedom from all these countless chains of slavery that bind society...

Chatsky is broken by the amount of old power, inflicting a mortal blow on it in turn with the quality of fresh power.

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.

Every case that requires updating evokes the shadow of Chatsky...

Chatsky, in our opinion, is the most living personality of all, both as a person and as a performer of the role assigned to him by Griboyedov... his nature is stronger and deeper than other persons and therefore could not be exhausted in comedy.

D) “Sophia is a mixture of good instincts with lies... confusion of concepts, mental and moral blindness”

Everything is sewn and covered... This is her morality, and the morality of her father, and the whole circle. Meanwhile, Sofya Pavlovna is not individually immoral: she sins with the sin of ignorance, the blindness in which everyone lived... Sofya never received her sight from her and would not have received her sight without Chatsky - never for lack of chance. After the disaster, from the minute Chatsky appeared, it was no longer possible to remain blind. His ships cannot be ignored, nor bribed with lies, nor appeased - it is impossible. She cannot help but respect him, and he will forever be her “reproaching witness,” the judge of her past. He opened her eyes.

This is a mixture of good instincts with complexity, a lively mind with the absence of any hint of ideas and beliefs - a confusion of concepts, mental and moral weakness - all this does not have the character of personal vices in her, but is like the general features of her circle... she has strong inclinations of a remarkable nature, a lively mind, passion and feminine softness. She is ruined in the stuffiness... It’s not for nothing that Chatsky also loves her... she gets her “millions of torments.”

3 Conversation (check perception, retell in your own words)

What does Goncharov see as the special position of “Woe from Wit” in literature?

What are the virtues of comedy?

What is the grief that Chatsky’s mind brings?

Chatsky - winner or loser?

What is the critic's assessment of Sophia's image?

What controversial questions did Goncharov answer? How convincingly did he do it?

DZ prepare for a test paper on Griboedov’s works