How the expositional part of the play prepares the appearance of Chatsky. Innovation and tradition in the comedy “Woe from Wit”
Griboyedov Alexander Sergeevich
Alexander Sergeevich GRIBOEDOV(1795-1829. According to other sources, year of birth 1790 or 1794)
We are accustomed to consider A.S. Griboyedov, the creator of the only masterpiece - verse comedy“Woe from Wit,” and, indeed, although in the history of drama Griboyedov is spoken of as the author of several wonderful, witty and funny comedies and vaudevilles, written in collaboration with the leading playwrights of the tenth years N.I. Khmelnitsky and A.A. Shakhovsky and with the poet P.A. Vyazemsky, but it was “Woe from Wit” that turned out to be a one-of-a-kind work. This comedy for the first time broadly and freely depicted modern life and thus opened a new, realistic era of Russian theater; Not a single major Russian writer escaped its influence. The creator of our national theater, A.N., said most precisely about the significance of Griboyedov. Ostrovsky, whose comedies more than once make us recall “Woe from Wit”: “On a high mountain above Tiflis stands the great grave of Griboedov, and his genius soars just as high above all of us.”
"Woe from Wit"
The idea for the comedy apparently dates back to 1818. It was completed in the fall of 1824; censorship did not allow it to be published or staged. The comedy sold on lists and soon became known to the entire reading public. “Who among the literate Russians does not know it by heart!” - asked the famous magazine “Moscow Telegraph”. It was authorized for publication (with censorship restrictions) in 1831, after Griboedov’s death, and was then staged on the professional stage. But “Woe from Wit” was published in its entirety, without cuts, almost forty years later - during the era of reforms, in 1862.
The enthusiastic attitude of the Decembrist-minded part of society was expressed by the Decembrist writer A. Bestuzhev: “The future will appreciate this comedy and place it among the first folk creations.” “...There is a lot of intelligence and humor in the poems...”, “...a striking picture of morals...”(Pushkin), “...darkness of mind and salt...”(Katenin) - these statements show what contemporaries saw in Griboyedov’s comedy. The conflict was close and understandable - the clash of an independent, passionate, honest and noble man, a man of new thoughts, with environment, with its inertia, lack of spirituality and fierce hostility towards all manifestations of independence, with hatred towards any attempts to renew life. But there was something else. For today’s reader or viewer, everything in “Woe from Wit” is perfect; it never even occurs to us to look for any shortcomings or oddities in this classic work; Griboyedov's contemporaries saw first of all his new and unusual form, and it raised many questions. The questions concerned (primarily) the construction of the plot and the character of the main character. P.A. Katenin, a poet and playwright, a close friend of Griboyedov, says: “...the plan is insufficient and the main character is confused”, Pushkin also writes about the lack of a plan and calls Chatsky a “not at all smart” person, P.A. Vyazemsky also writes about the “oddities” of comedy, although he considers them the artistic merit of the playwright.
What is the “ill-thought-out plan”?
The structure of the plot in dramatic work consists of several elements: exposition (the viewer’s acquaintance with the scene of the action and its participants), the plot (the establishment, “tying up” of the conflict), the development of the action (the action continuously moves forward, with each next round of development depending on the previous one), the climax (the moment highest voltage, when further development of the conflict is impossible), resolution (resolution of the conflict: either leading to well-being - then we're talking about about a comedic outcome, or causing the death or suffering of the hero - in this case the outcome is tragic or dramatic).
The exposition in “Woe from Wit” is not very long (five scenes of the first act), but amazingly rich: we learn about the character of Famusov with his simple-minded hypocrisy (he flirts with Lisa, and tells his daughter about himself - “... famous for his monastic behavior”), stinginess (his memories of Madame Rosier, the “eternal French”, “destroyers of pockets and hearts” - it is unknown what is more painful for him), contempt for education (words about “vagrant” teachers); Sophia, her character, ability to get out of difficult situations(composed dream), love for Molchalin, resentment towards Chatsky, attitude towards Skalozub - all this also becomes known from the exposition; and Chatsky himself, who has not yet appeared on stage, is illuminated by the opposite characteristics of Lisa ( "...sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp") and Sophia (pretender and mocker). The exposition prepares the plot - the arrival of Chatsky. The beginning defines a conflict - a clash of interests between Chatsky, who is in love and seeking an answer, and Sophia, for whom Chatsky is a threat to her love for Molchalin. And the subsequent action is connected with the activity of Chatsky, looking for an answer to the question of who could be Sophia’s chosen one. Here are the main dramatic moments in the development of the action: Sophia’s provocation by praising Skalozub (“... a hero with the directness of his figure, face and voice”) and an indifferent response ( "Not my novel"), convincing that Skalozub is not her chosen one; Sophia's fainting because of Molchalin's fall, forcing Chatsky for the first time to suspect her interest in "who is like all fools", and Sophia’s test that follows (the result is a threefold repetition: "She doesn't respect him"
"She doesn't give a damn about him"
“He’s being naughty, she doesn’t love him”) and Molchalin's test, again with the same result:
With such feelings, with such a soul Do we love?
The liar laughed at me!
And the climax is Sophia’s response, organizing a rumor about Chatsky’s madness: “He’s out of his mind,” and a little later a remark that leaves no doubt about her intentions:
Ah, Chatsky! You love to dress everyone up as jesters,
Would you like to try it on yourself?
But why did Griboyedov, in his letter to Katenin, describing the plot of the comedy, say a strange phrase: “Someone, out of anger, made up an idea about him that he was crazy...”? She is strange (how is this “someone”? Why an indefinite pronoun? The whole logic of the action says that it cannot be anyone other than Sophia!) only at first glance. Essentially, it doesn’t matter who started building the snowball of slander, it’s important that everyone participates in it - both enemies and friends. People who are unlike each other - Famusov and Zagoretsky, Molchalin and Skalozub, Gorich and Khlestova - find themselves united in their opposition to Chatsky. At the climax, the conflict, which was set as love, reveals its effective social force. It seemed to us that all of Chatsky’s words about freedom and slavery, about dignity and humility, about service and subservience and much more were just words that characterize him, nothing more. But it turned out that these were actions that put him alone against everyone. “The only truly heroic face of our literature,” Apollo Grigoriev said about Chatsky. And in the denouement of the comedy, Griboedov connects two previously separated plans: Chatsky learns who his rival is and that for everyone he is mad. The reproaches addressed to Sophia are side by side with denunciations of the “tormentors of the crowd.” “You have called me crazy by the whole chorus,” in the words addressed to Sophia, he unites her, previously beloved, with the entire hostile circle. His anger is poured out not only “on his daughter and on his father and on his foolish lover,” but also on “the whole world.” A love, private conflict merges with a civil, social one.
Chatsky's denunciations are confirmed by the entire unfolding of the action. But there is no complete coincidence of the views of the author and the hero: the objective picture of life shown in the play turns out to be broader than the view of the hero. At the beginning of the comedy, Chatsky is convinced that the main vices - all types of slavery from serfdom to disrespect for one’s own personality - are the vices of the last century, and “nowadays the world is not like that.” He is confident that the successes of reason are enough for the victory of the new, that the old century is doomed to destruction. The development of the action and the entire system of images in the comedy shows how naive such a view is: old evil skillfully adapts to the present. The conflict is determined not by the antagonism of two centuries, but by the ability of survival and adaptation of evil: Maxim Petrovich is repeated in Famusov, Famusov - in Molchalin (i.e. in Chatsky’s generation), Moscow “old men”, praised by Famusov, who “will argue, make noise and - disperse ”, are duplicated in the young participants of the “secret meetings”, which Repetilov tells Chatsky about: “We’re making noise, brother, we’re making noise...” Everyday life becomes a formidable force capable of defeating any ideal aspirations.
The character system is built on the opposition to Chatsky of the entire Moscow, “Famus” circle - young and old, men and women, the main characters and numerous minor ones - Famusov's guests at the ball. The main semantic image that creates this opposition is the image of the “mind”. General concept The “mind” becomes, as it were, a conventional character in the play; people think about it, understand it differently, fear it, and persecute it. In the two camps there are two opposing ideas about the mind: a liberating mind associated with enlightenment, learning, knowledge (“a mind hungry for knowledge”), and base common sense, good behavior, the ability to live. The Moscow circle seeks to contrast the mind with other values: for Famusov these are patriarchal family ties ( “Let yourself be known as a wise man /But they won’t include you in the family, /Don't look at us. /After all, only here they also value the nobility.”), for Sophia - sentimental sensitivity (“Oh, if someone loves someone, /Why bother searching and traveling so far??”), for Molchalin - the covenants of the official hierarchy (“At my age one should not dare /Have your own opinions"), for Skalozub - the poetry of frunt ("You can’t fool me with learning... I am Prince Gregory and you /I'll give the sergeant major to Voltaire").
An important place in the system is occupied by off-stage characters(those who are mentioned but who do not appear on stage). They seem to expand the space of the theater stage, introducing into it the life that remains outside the theater hall. It is they who allow us to see in Chatsky not a renegade and a strange eccentric, but also a person who feels like he belongs in his generation. Behind him one can discern a circle of like-minded people: mind you, he rarely says “I”, much more often “we”, “one of us”. And the same is evidenced by Skalozub’s disapproving comments about his cousin, who “took a strong hold on some new rules” and, leaving the service while “the rank followed him,” “began to read books in the village,” or Princess Tugoukhovskaya about her nephew Prince Fyodor - “chemist and botany”, who studied at St. Petersburg pedagogical institute, where “professors practice schism and lack of faith.”
Where did contemporaries get the feeling of violating dramatic canons? Let us briefly note the main aspects of artistic innovation in comedy from the point of view of genre, construction of character images, and peculiarities of speech.
Genre. In contrast to the aesthetics of classicism with its strict isolation and certainty genre forms(its own system of norms in comedy, satire, tragedy) Griboyedov offers a free and wide combination of possibilities characteristic of different genres ( “I live and write freely and freely”- letter to Katenin). Comedy, built according to the rules of classicism, is combined with the genre characteristics of satire and realistic painting morals (It was this aspect that Pushkin especially liked - “a striking picture of morals!”). In addition, in “Woe from Wit” the comic coexists with the dramatic (the term comedy-drama was proposed by Belinsky). The seriousness and pathetic nature of Chatsky’s speech does not exclude the comic situations in which he finds himself - see his conversation with his ears covered, i.e. deaf, Famusov. But the dialogue of the deaf is an image that extends to the entire situation of the play: deafness is misunderstanding. Both Skalozub, who decided that Chatsky was standing up for the army against the guards, and the princess, who only understood that he “deigned to call her a milliner,” and Repetilov, who did not feel Chatsky’s irony at all and was ready to consider him his comrade-in-arms, are deaf. But Chatsky himself is deaf, not hearing Sophia, not understanding how serious the power embodied in Molchalin, who is funny and pitiful to him, is. Comicism creates complexity of meaning: Chatsky is a tragic figure standing in conflict against everyone, but the denouement cannot be considered tragic, because it is introduced into a comic situation of misunderstanding. So, Famusov, confident that he caught Chatsky meeting with his daughter, remained deaf. And in more in a general sense- the entire society remained deaf, unable to understand, i.e. “hear” the hero. This was astutely noted by the remarkable Russian critic Apollon Grigoriev, who noted that Chatsky “does not care that the environment with which he is fighting is positively incapable not only of understanding him, but even of taking him seriously. But Griboyedov, as a great poet, cares about this. It’s not for nothing that he called his drama a comedy.”
The classic rules of the three unities (action, time and place) are observed, but take on a different meaning, helping to enlarge the generalizations expressed in the conflict. Famusov’s house becomes a model for the entire Moscow society, one day - a means of expressing the maximum confrontation between the hero and everyone else (“... he will come out of the fire unharmed, / Whoever manages to spend a day with you, / Will breathe the same air, / And his sanity will survive.” ).
The comedy contains the traditional outline of a love affair, but the more noticeable is the inversion of the usual plot situations: love and success should go to the positive hero, but here the insignificant one wins the love match; the heroine, who traditionally deceives her father, contrary to tradition, is deceived herself; there is no active struggle between rivals provided for by the canon.
Character images. One of the requirements of traditional comedy during Griboyedov's time was a limited number of characters. Nothing superfluous - not a single character without whom the comedy intrigue can do. Katenin reproaches Griboyedov for introducing “side characters who appear only for one moment.” Although they, according to the critic, are “masterfully depicted,” this is a violation of dramatic canons. A crowd of people, not provided for by tradition (“the people of the characters,” according to Vyazemsky), was necessary for Griboyedov to create an acute social conflict - the confrontation of one hero with the whole society.
But the main novelty was that in place of the usual comedic roles of an eccentric, blinded by love, his successful rival, a boastful warrior, a comic old father, original characters appeared in which there was no schematism or one-dimensionality, characters with a new quality - complexity. Although the characters are endowed with “speaking” names, their characters are by no means limited to this. The complexity is manifested primarily in the combination of opposing properties in the characters. So, in Chatsky, anger, causticity, bile are combined with tenderness, gentleness, good nature; he has a sharp, insightful mind, but at the same time - simplicity and naivety; his irony coexists with sensitivity. Sophia is sentimental - and vengeful, dreamy - and insidious, brave and capable of desperate acts - and cowardly. It is the lack of differentiation of qualities that makes it possible to naturally connect two plot lines: love and ideological. Conflict affects life in its entirety. One of Griboyedov’s most interesting finds is Repetilov. He has the maximum concentration of the property of repetition, he is a person who does not have his own character and his own ideology and therefore borrows as many strangers as he likes (Pushkin: “he has 2, 3, 10 characters”). He is a frivolous waster of life, a careerist-loser, and a loud-mouthed freethinker. How socially significant this image is is evident from the way it is continued in Russian literature (for example, Sitnikov and Kukshina in Turgenev’s novel, Lebezyatnikov in Dostoevsky’s “Crime and Punishment”).
Language and verse. Comedy in verse was not new in Russian drama before Griboyedov; the poetic form was the norm for high comedy classicism. The amazing novelty of “Woe from Wit” in this area was that in it the Alexandrian verse (a system of couplets: iambic hexameter with adjacent rhymes), which is obligatory in comedy and tragedy, which, due to its monotony, doomed the plays to the monotony of verse intonation, was replaced by free , i.e. iambic heterometers (you can see such iambs in Krylov’s fables). The use of poetic lines of different lengths (from hexameter to monometer) gave, on the one hand, the natural intonation of lively conversational speech, on the other hand, the sharp contrast of long and short verses helped to express the severity of clashes of ideas, changes in thoughts and moods.
The most characteristic aspect of comedy is the saturation of the text with poetry and aphorisms. Any of the characters can utter an aphorism, a witticism, or a maxim - Molchalin ( "Oh! Evil tongues are worse than a pistol!”), Repetilov ( "Yes clever man can't help but be a rogue"), Lisa ( “Sin is not a problem, rumor is not good”). Especially many aphorisms belong to Famusov, the main exponent of the truths of his circle: “It’s signed, off your shoulders”, “Whoever is poor is not a match for you”, “Well, how can you not please your loved one”, “What will Princess Marya Aleksevna say!”. But the true storehouse of wit is Chatsky. Pay attention to the brilliant irony in Chatsky’s aphorisms: “Blessed is he who believes, he is warm in the world,” “I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening,” “The houses are new, but the prejudices are old,” “Why are other people’s opinions only sacred?”
In "Woe from Wit" Russian noble life appears in its concreteness, and the language of comedy is of great importance in this. Colloquial speech, everyday vocabulary, noble vernacular, an abundance of phraseological units (“sleep in hand”, “gave a blunder”, “death hunt”, etc.), and next to it is Chatsky’s speech, the brilliant bookish speech of an educated person, an intellectual and a scribe, full of general concepts ( "He speaks as he writes", - Famusov will say about him). The isolation and contrast of Chatsky’s speech with other characters supports the main conflict of “Woe from Wit.”
The plot and composition of the comedy. A. S. Griboyedov worked a lot as a playwright - both alone and in collaboration with many well-known writers of that time, but for readers he remained for the rest of his life the author of one comedy, the brightest and most cheerful - “Woe from Wit”. This work is unusual for its time: it combines the features of classicism that is fading into the past and realism that is gaining its rights. What remains from classicism in the play is strict adherence to the “three unities”: place, time and action. The events take place in Famusov's house over the course of one day; there are no characters or episodes that do not relate to the main conflict of the comedy. The characters of some of the heroes can be considered classic: the good-natured “father of the family” Famusov, the quick-tongued maid Liza, the faithful friend of her mistress.
But in the plot of the comedy, features are already appearing that distinguish it from the usual classical canons. First of all, it has two storylines that are closely interconnected: the social conflict between Chatsky and Famus society and the personal relationship between Chatsky and Sophia. Both lines are connected so closely that all compositional moments: beginning, climax, denouement - they exactly coincide.
In a comedy, the situation in Famusov’s house before Chatsky’s arrival can be called exposition—events occurring before the action begins. From Lisa’s words, from her conversations with Famusov and Sophia, we learn about the dates of Molchalin and Sophia, about Famusov’s desire to marry his daughter to Skalozub, that Chatsky was formerly Sophia’s friend, was brought up in this house, but then left to travel for three I haven’t written a single line in a year. It is clear that Sophia is offended by his departure: “Oh, if someone loves someone, why look for the brains and travel so far!” And probably, in revenge for Chatsky who left, she chose Molchalin - modest, agreeing with her in everything, the complete opposite of the obstinate Chatsky. At the same time, Sophia does not at all share the opinion of her father, who believes Skalozub the best groom for his daughter: “He hasn’t uttered a smart word in his life - I don’t care what’s for him, what’s in the water.”
But the plot of the comedy lies in the arrival of the main character. Only with his appearance do both storylines begin to develop. Chatsky is hot, impetuous, all in motion, from his first remark: “It’s barely light and you’re already on your feet!” And I’m at your feet” - and to the last: “Carriage for me, carriage!” He immediately draws attention to Sophia’s coldness and tries to understand the reason for such inattention: who is the hero of the novel now? Listing all his old acquaintances and asking about them, he gives each an apt, caustic characterization, and Sophia finds it amusing to listen to him until he just as caustically makes fun of Molchalin. Sophia feels insulted and begins to avoid Chatsky, trying not to reveal her feelings for Molchalin. This is how the hero’s personal drama begins. In parallel with it, it develops social conflict: after all, Chatsky boldly and passionately expresses his views on the structure of society, on serfdom, the need to serve the state. This scares Famusov, Molchalin cannot accept this, Skalozub does not understand this, and finally, with this Chatsky turns all the guests in Famusov’s house against himself. The ball scene is the culmination of both storylines. The offended Sophia, taking advantage of an accidental slip of the tongue, convinces Mr. N that Chatsky is “out of his mind,” he conveys the news to Mr. D, and there the gossip grows like a snowball, enriched with more and more new details. The guests, whom Chatsky inadvertently turned against himself, joyfully slander, looking for the reason for his madness: either it was hereditary, or he drank a lot, or from “learning.” And when, during one monologue, Chatsky looks around him, he sees that no one is listening to him - “everyone is twirling in the waltz with the greatest zeal.” The ostentatious zeal of the dancers and the loneliness of the hero - this is the climax of the play, highest point development of action for both storylines.
The decoupling also arrives simultaneously. When the guests are leaving, Chatsky's carriage is missing for a long time, and he accidentally witnesses a conversation between the guests about his madness, and then a meeting between Sophia and Molchalin, and hears a conversation between Molchalin and Lisa. Sophia also hears this conversation, learning the truth about true attitude Molchalin to her. For her, this is a cruel blow, but Chatsky at this moment does not think about the girl’s feelings. He doesn’t even think about the need to be careful; the main thing for him is that he learned: “Here, finally, is the solution to the riddle! Here I am sacrificed to whom!” Therefore, it is not surprising that Molchalin managed to quietly disappear, and Famusov and the servants, attracted by the noise, find Chatsky with Sophia and consider him the hero of the scandal. And here the conflict is finally resolved: Famusov lets slip that it was Sophia who called him crazy. The hero is used to being condemned Famusov society, but the fact that Sophia treats him the same way is too hard for him: “So I still owe you this fiction? “Having suffered a crushing defeat both in the social circle and in love, he is in a hurry to leave. This is the ending of the comedy. However, it should be noted that Griboedov leaves the ending open and open-ended. After all, Chatsky left without changing his convictions, without doubting them for a minute. Society will also not change its views on life and main life values, which means that the conflict has not been resolved, it will continue in the future.
A special feature of the comedy is also the vivid and imaginative speech characteristics of the characters. For each of the characters, speech serves as a means of creating an individual character: for the modest Molchalin, who does not attract attention to himself, for the limited Skalozub, for the not very educated but confident old woman Khlestova, or the French-speaking fashionista of Countess Khryumina, the granddaughter.
In the speech of the heroes, there are often well-aimed, witty phrases that have become catchphrases: “ Gossips scarier than a pistol», « Happy Hours they don’t observe”, “Who are the judges?”, “The legend is fresh, but hard to believe.”
Griboedov also uses “speaking” surnames traditional for Russian comedy for his characters: Molchalin, Skalozub, Famusov (from the Latin fama - fame, rumor), Repetilov (from the Latin repeto - repeat).
And finally, a significant role in comedy is played by the so-called off-stage characters - heroes who do not participate in the action, but are mentioned along the way. Some of them are like-minded people of Chatsky, but the majority still cannot be called his supporters, they are his same opponents, the “tormenting crowd” that prevails in secular society.
These are the main features of the plot and composition of the comedy "Woe from Wit", these are the artistic and language means, which helped the author achieve his main goal - to make his work unforgettable for readers.
Elena VIGDOROVA
Continuation. See No. 39, 43/2001
Comedy Griboedov "Woe from Wit"
For practitioners of literature
Conversation three
First act: exposition, setup, keywords
So, in the first act - the plot and exposition.
Pushkin wrote: “I’m not talking about poetry - half of it will become proverbs...”. Time has shown: more than half. We begin to read the comedy - and all the words, phrases, expressions - everything is aphoristic, everything has entered, fit into our culture, starting from Lisa’s very first remarks: “It’s dawning!.. Ah! how quickly the night has passed! Yesterday I asked to sleep - refusal... Don’t sleep until you fall out of your chair” - and so on.
Lysine's line is associated with the traditional image of a soubrette from French comedy. Lisa is in a special position not only in relation to Sophia, being her confidante, confidant of her secrets, but also to Famusov, Molchalin, even to Chatsky. The author puts particularly apt aphorisms and maxims into the mouth of Lisa, the maid. Here are examples of Lisa's wit:
You know that I am not flattered by interests;
Better tell me why
You and the young lady are modest, but what about the maid?
Oh! Move away from the gentlemen;
They have troubles prepared for themselves at every hour,
Pass us away more than all sorrows
And lordly anger, and lordly love.
Here's how she sums up the created qui pro quo:
Well! people around here!
She comes to him, and he comes to me,
And I...... I am the only one who crushes love to death. –
How can you not love the bartender Petrusha!
Lisa amazingly formulates and “ moral law»:
Sin is not a problem, rumor is not good.
Taking advantage of her privileged position in the house, she often talks to Famusov, the young lady, and Molchalin in a commanding, demanding, even capricious manner.
Famusov:
You are a spoiler, these faces suit you!
Let me in, you little windbags,
Come to your senses, you are old...
Please go.
Sophia and Molchalin:
Yes, disperse. Morning.
Molchalin:
Please let me in, there are two of you without me.
Liza’s speech is rich in popular expressions:
You need an eye and an eye.
And fear does not take them!
Well, why would they take away the shutters?
These faces suit you!
I'll bet it's nonsense...
She has frequent incomplete sentences without predicates:
Where are we going?
Foot in the stirrup
And the horse rears up,
He hits the ground and straight to the crown of his head.
In general, you can copy aphorisms from a comedy without missing anything, but Lizin’s language is somehow especially good for its Moscow flavor, its complete lack of bookishness.
It is impossible not to give another example of Lisa’s sharp tongue:
Push, know that there is no urine from the outside,
Your father came here, I froze;
I spun around in front of him, I don’t remember that I was lying...
Lizanka wonderfully defined the nature of her actions with a verb lie. This word and all those close to it in meaning - not true,
you're all lying, to be deceived- will turn out to be not just important in the first four phenomena, but key. Because all the characters lie here:
Lisa - because she must protect Sophia from her father’s wrath.
The young lady herself - to protect herself and her lover from troubles. “He just came in,” she says to her father. And for greater plausibility, he will then add: “You deigned to run in so quickly, // I was confused...”. At the end of this scene, Sophia, having recovered “from fright,” composes a dream where, as Famusov will say, “everything is there if there is no deception.” But, as we understand, there is deception here too. And just towards the end, at the end of the first act, Sophia, in our opinion, is not only lying, but intriguing, transferring Famusov’s suspicions from Molchalin to Chatsky: “Ah, father, sleep in hand.”
Of course, Molchalin also lies in this scene, he does it easily and naturally - in order to avoid personal troubles: “I’m off for a walk now.”
All of them - Lisa, Sophia, and Molchalin - in other words, young people Famusovsky house, "children", or, if you like, representatives " this century“- they all deceive the old father, master, owner, patron. They consider him an old man, “a century gone by,” although he himself, if you remember his scene with Lisa, is not always ready to come to terms with this.
Lisa: Come to your senses, you are old...
Famusov: Almost.
It is clear that when flirting with Liza, Famusov is in no hurry to admit that he is an old man, but in a conversation with his daughter he refers to his advanced age: “he lived to see his gray hair.” And with Chatsky too: “In my years...”.
Perhaps from the first minute, before the clock has even been changed, some kind of conflict ensues, quite clearly. This conflict, as Lisa asserts in her very first short monologue, will certainly end in disaster, because “father,” aka “uninvited guest,” can enter at any moment, and young lovers - we don’t yet know that Molchalin loves Sophia “ position" - they show a strange deafness: "And they hear, they don’t want to understand."
Let us note in parentheses that the motif of deafness, which we have already talked about when analyzing the list of characters, such an important motif in comedy, begins right here - in the first phenomenon of the first act.
Lisa, as we remember, performs some manipulations with the arrows, and in response to the noise, of course, Famusov appears - the one whose arrival everyone should be afraid of. So it looks like the conflict is starting to develop. Lisa “spins” in order to avoid at this hour and in this place the meeting of all persons involved in the “domestic” conflict. It seems impossible to avoid a scandal. After all, the intelligent and observant Famusov will immediately draw attention to the strangeness of what is happening. Liza, demanding silence from him, because Sophia was “now asleep” and “read all night // Everything in French, out loud,” and as Famusov should know, since he is “not a child,” “girls have morning sleep so subtle, // The slightest creak of the door, the slightest whisper - Everyone hears,” he won’t believe it. How he doesn’t believe her from the very beginning. The presence of intent is obvious to Famusov (“Just by chance, notice you; // Yes, that’s right, with intent”), but I don’t want to figure it out. He himself is a “pampered man” and flirts with the maid.
It should be noted that Liza will not let the master down either and will not tell Sophia about his advances. Only when Famusov boasts that he is “known for his monastic behavior!” will Lizanka immediately respond: “I dare, sir...”.
It is unlikely that the maid wanted to expose the master and catch him in a lie, although, of course, one could suspect her of this. Famusov is exposed and incriminated by none other than the viewer, the reader, to whom Liza’s remark precisely at that moment when Pavel Afanasyevich says: “You don’t need another example, // When the example of your father is in your eyes,” should remind you of how he somehow a while ago he flirted with a maid, but now he lies as easily and naturally as his secretary, maid and daughter.
Just like Sophia and Molchalin, Famusov hears everything in the scene with Lisa, but does not want to understand and does everything possible to avoid a scandal.
In the scene that ends with the words, of course, which have become a proverb (“Pass us away more than all sorrows // Both lordly anger and lordly love”), two more lines open up for us - the line of madness and the line of moral teaching. When Lisa as loud as possible calls on Famusov not to disturb Sophia’s sensitive sleep, Pavel Afanasyevich covers her mouth and reasonably notes:
Have mercy, how you scream!
Crazy
are you going?
Lisa calmly answers:
I'm afraid it won't work out...
It does not occur to Lisa, nor to the reader-viewer, nor to Pavel Afanasyevich himself that the master really considers the maid insane. Idiom you're going crazy works the way an idiom should work: it does not carry a specific semantic load and is, as it were, a metaphor. So in the second act, Famusov will tell Chatsky: “Don’t be a whim.” And in the third he calls Famusov Khlestov himself “crazy”:
After all, your father is crazy:
He was given three fathoms of daring, -
He introduces us without asking, is it pleasant for us, isn’t it?
When in the first scene of the third act Sophia throws aside: “I reluctantly drove you crazy!” – the intrigue has not yet been conceived by her, but already in the fourteenth scene of the same action the innocent idiom will work. “He’s out of his mind,” Sophia will say about Chatsky to a certain Mr. N, and he will ask: “Have he really lost his mind?” And Sophia, after a pause, will add: “Not really...” She already understood how she would take revenge on Chatsky: her “keeping silent” was worth a lot. But we'll talk about this later. Now it is important for us that in a neutral, ordinary situation without additional intrigue, words about madness do not carry a threat, a diagnosis, or slander, and the characters in the play understand and use them the same way as you and I do.
But the line of moral teaching opens as soon as Sophia’s passion for reading is reported. Famusov immediately remembers that he is not just a gentleman who is not averse to having an affair with a maid on occasion, but also “the father of an adult daughter.” “Tell me,” he says to Liza, “that it’s not good for her to spoil her eyes, // And reading is of little use: // French books make her sleepless, // But Russian books make it painful for me to sleep.” Lisa will answer Famusova’s proposal very wittily: “Whatever happens, I’ll report.” Liza’s remark emphasizes the comedy of the situation: the moral teachings are delivered somehow at the wrong time. But in itself this Famus remark is remarkable: it is structured in the same way as all his main speeches, no matter who he addresses - the footman Petrushka, his daughter, Molchalin, Chatsky or Skalozub. Famusov always starts with a very specific imperative: “tell me”, “don’t cry”, “read this wrong”, “be silent”, “you should ask”, “admit”. This is, let's say, the first part of the statement. The second part carries a generalization - Famusov likes to reason and philosophize (“Philosophize - your mind will spin”). Here is a deep thought about the “benefits of reading.” And in the third part - to confirm that you are right! – he necessarily points to authority, gives an example of someone who is not respected, Famusov's opinion, it is forbidden. In this tiny monologue, the main authority is the speaker himself: if Sophia “can’t sleep because of French books,” then her father “has trouble sleeping because of Russians.” Famusov is absolutely sure that he is a completely suitable role model.
Word sample we note because it will appear many times in the text and will turn out to be very important for understanding the main conflict. For now, let us pay attention to Famusov’s penchant for demagoguery, rhetoric, and oratory. One must think that Lisa will not tell Sophia in the morning that there is no point in “spoiling her eyes”, and there is no sense in reading, she will not remind her that literature only contributes to her father’s sleep. Doesn’t Famusov understand this? Hardly. But him pedagogical principles correspond to official ones: “It’s signed, off your shoulders.” Famusov sees the absurdity of the situation, but, as we have already noticed, he does not want to expose anyone, and upon hearing Sophia’s voice, he says: “Shh!” - And sneaks out of the room on tiptoe. It turns out that he, an exemplary Moscow gentleman (he, according to Lisa, is “like all Moscow ...”), has something to hide from prying eyes and ears.
What, Lisa, attacked you?
You’re making noise... –
the young lady who appeared on stage with her lover will say after his disappearance. This “make noise” is a neutral word, and it absolutely accurately defines Lisa’s actions. But let’s not forget that in the future, for some reason, Famusov himself and other characters will pronounce it very often. In Act II, Famusov will tell Skalozub about the Moscow old men: “They’ll bet make some noise " And Chatsky will say to Gorich: “Forgotten noise camp". But Repetilov boasts: “ We make noise , brother, we make noise " Remember how contemptuously Chatsky responds to this: “ Make some noise You? and that’s all?”... So Lisa at the beginning of the play is really just making noise, trying to prevent the brewing conflict between the old man and the youth from taking place and from getting out of control. And in the third phenomenon, we, in fact, only get to know Sophia and understand that Sophia really reads in French, because Sophia’s speech, her vocabulary, a little later, a dream she composed (however, who knows, maybe not on this, but on another night she saw him - “dreams can be strange”) - all this characterizes Sofya Famusova, Chatsky’s beloved, as a bookish young lady.
The conflict, it seems to us, is developing in the third phenomenon, the climax is near: here he is, the “uninvited guest” from whom troubles are expected, has now entered at the very moment when he is especially feared. Sophia, Lisa, Molchalin - they're all here. Famusov indignantly asks his daughter and secretary: “And how did God not bring you together at the right time?” No matter how cleverly the lovers caught by surprise lie, he does not believe them. “Why are you together? // It can’t happen by accident.” It would seem that he exposed. But Famusov, as we have already noted, cannot limit himself to just a remark; the second part of the monologue delivered before this, of course, carries a generalization. Famusov is pronouncing the famous monologue denouncing the Kuznetsky Most and the “eternal French” right now. As soon as Famusov verbally moves from the door of Sophia’s bedroom to the Kuznetsky Bridge and turns not to his daughter and her friend, but to the Creator, so that he saves Muscovites from all these French misfortunes, the guilty daughter will have the opportunity to recover “from her fright.” And Famusov will not forget to move on to the third obligatory part: he will also talk about himself, about his “trouble in his position, in his service.” The examples he gives to Sophia are not only his father, known for his “monastic behavior,” but also smart Madame Rosier (“She was smart, had a quiet disposition, rarely had rules”) - that same “second mother” who “allowed herself to be lured by others for an extra five hundred rubles a year.” Griboyedov introduced exposition into this moralizing monologue by Famusov. After all, it is from Famusov’s story that we learn about Sophia’s upbringing, about her wonderful mentors, role models, who, it turns out, taught her a very important science - the science of lies, betrayal and hypocrisy. We will see later that Sophia has learned these lessons.
Familiar with lies and betrayal from an early age, Sophia (three years later!) suspects insincerity in Chatsky’s actions, which we learn about from her conversation with Lisa (phenomenon 5):
Then he pretended to be in love again...
Oh! if someone loves someone,
Why bother searching and traveling so far?
It seems that “models” do not play a role in Sophia’s life. last role. Let us also remember Liza’s story about Sophia’s aunt, whose “young Frenchman ran away” from home, and she “wanted to bury // Her annoyance, // failed: // She forgot to blacken her hair // And after three days she turned gray.” Lisa tells Sophia about this to “cheer her up a little,” but smart Sophia will immediately notice the similarity: “That’s how they’ll talk about me later.” If it was not Liza’s intention to compare Auntie’s and Sophia’s situations, then Famusov, at the evil moment of the final revelation (last act), remembering Sophia’s mother, directly speaks of the similarity in the behavior of mother and daughter (phenomenon 14):
She neither give nor take,
Like her mother, the deceased wife.
It happened that I was with my better half
A little apart - somewhere with a man!
But let's return to the 3rd scene of Act I. ...Famusov’s words “A terrible century!” seem to confirm our assumption that the conflict between the “present century” and the “past century” is starting right now. The action, which began with Liza’s failed attempt to prevent a clash between father and daughter, reaches its climax “here and at this hour” and, it seems, is already rapidly moving towards a denouement, but, starting from the “terrible century”, talking about education:
We take tramps, both into the house and with tickets,
To teach our daughters everything, everything -
And dancing! and foam! and tenderness! and sigh!
It’s as if we are preparing them as wives for buffoons. “Famusov will also remember how he benefited Molchalin, and Sophia will immediately stand up for her, as Griboyedov will say, “Sahar Medovich.” She lost her breath while Famusov was ranting, and her lie would be completely thought out and couched in beautiful and literate phrases worthy of a well-read young lady. The scandal, which should have broken out here, and not in the fourth act, begins to get bogged down in words: time, upbringing, the plot of a strange dream are already being discussed, and then Molchalin answers the question “I was in a hurry to hear my voice, for what?” “Speak,” he replies: “With the papers, sir,” and thereby completely changes the whole situation. Famusov, throwing out his ironic: “that this suddenly fell into zeal for written matters,” will let Sophia go, explaining to her at parting that “where there are miracles, there is little storage,” and he will go with his secretary to “sort out the papers.” Finally, he declares his credo relating to official matters:
And for me, what matters and what doesn’t matter,
My custom is this:
Signed, off your shoulders.
The credo, of course, is also exemplary. There will be no resolution, just as, apparently, there was no conflict: so, a petty domestic squabble, of which, apparently, there have already been many: “It can be worse, you can get away with it,” Sophia will remind her maid-friend. In this conflict-scandal-squabble, Famusov will utter another important word in the context of the play. He will say: “Now they will reproach me, // That it is always useless I'm judging " Chide, scold – we will come across these words more than once. Chatsky in the second act will remember the “sinister” old women and old men who are always ready To ordeal. And Famusov himself pronounces the verb scold in his famous monologue about Moscow precisely when he talks about education younger generation: “Please look at our youth, // At the young men - sons and grandchildren. // Jury We will understand them, and if you understand them, // At the age of fifteen they will teach teachers!”
Please note, we do not reprove, we do not condemn, we do not expel from our circle, but... we “reprimand”. “Scold” – that is, “lightly reprimand someone; express censure by instructing” (Dictionary of the Russian Language in 4 volumes; the example given in the dictionary from Chekhov’s “Duel” is also interesting: “As a friend, I scolded him why he drinks a lot, why he lives beyond his means and gets into debt”). So, the resolution of the conflict is replaced by a trial. Famusov, expressing censure, instructs. He, “like all Moscow people,” is raising his daughter, who, like “all Moscow people,” has a “special imprint.” A quarrel occurs between people. They don't expel their own people. They scold their own people.
In the first act there is a plot, but until the fifth event we still do not hear the name of the main character, the main participant in the conflict that is real, and not what we imagined at first. Actually, none of the rivals of Molchalin, who was born in poverty, has yet been named, whom we, perhaps, took for the main character, that is, for a character different from the rest, a kind of defenseless provincial in love with his master’s daughter. “Love will be of no use // Not forever,” prophesies the far-sighted Lisa. Maybe "Woe from Wit" is a tragedy little man? Words trouble, grief will be heard in the fifth scene during a frank (they don’t seem to be lying to each other) conversation between the young lady and the maid several times:
Sin is not a problem...
And grief awaits around the corner.
But here's the problem.
It is in this conversation that all the rivals of Molchalin will be presented, about whom we do not yet know that he will not be able to lay claim to the role of a sensitive hero. Molchalin is still a mystery to us, and in the first act there is not a single hint of his hypocrisy. So far, he differs from the other “suitors”, about whom we will now hear for the first time, only in his modesty and poverty - very positive qualities. And everything we learn about Skalozub and Chatsky does not make them happy. Skalozub greets Famusov, who “would like a son-in-law<...>with stars and ranks,” the “golden bag” is suitable for Famusov, but not for Sophia:
what's in it, what's in the water...
We have already noted that Sophia is not satisfied with Skalozub’s intelligence; She seems to have no doubt in Chatsky’s mind: “sharp, smart, eloquent,” but she denies him sensitivity. Let us remember that her words are a response to Lizino “who is so sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp.” Sophia is ready to confirm both the sharpness of his mind and his penchant for fun (“He’s great // He knows how to make everyone laugh; // He chats, jokes, it’s funny to me”), but his sensitivity is not! - does not believe:
if someone loves someone...
But Lisa doesn’t just talk about his spiritual qualities, she remembers how Chatsky “shed himself in tears.” But Sophia has her own reasons: she remembers her childhood friendship and love, her resentment that he “moved out, he seemed bored with us, // And rarely visited our house”, does not believe in his feeling that flared up “later”, and believes that he was only “pretending to be in love, // Demanding and distressed,” and Chatsky’s tears, which Liza remembers, are like tears if there is fear of loss (“Who knows what I will find when I return? // And how many , maybe I’ll lose it!”) did not become an obstacle to leaving: after all, “if someone loves someone, // Why search for intelligence and travel so far?”
So, Chatsky - this is how Sophia sees him - is a proud man who is “happy where people are funnier”, in other words, a frivolous young man, perhaps a talker, whose words and feelings do not inspire confidence. And Molchalin, in Sophia’s understanding, is his positive antipode: he is “not like that.” It was in his shy, timid love, in his sighs “from the depths of the soul”, silence - “not a free word” - that Sophia believed: a reader of sentimental novels.
The first thing we see when Chatsky finally appears on stage is his self-confidence, assertiveness, inability to think about others - even about the same Sophia: somehow she spent these years, which seemed to him so fast, as if not a week had passed! And as if in order to confirm the characterization given by Sophia, Chatsky shows that “he knows how to make everyone laugh”:
Has your uncle jumped back his eyelid?
And this one, what’s his name, is he Turkish or Greek?
The little black one, on crane legs...
And three of the tabloid faces,
Who have been looking young for half a century?
What about our sun?
And that consumptive...?
And auntie? all girl, Minerva?
In a word, “quick questions and a curious look” seem to further highlight Molchalin’s modesty.
During this first meeting with Sophia, Chatsky managed to offend many past acquaintances, express his impartial opinions about various aspects of Moscow life: if he talks about theatrical life, then he does not forget to say that the one who “has Theater and Masquerade written on his forehead” is “he himself is fat, his artists are skinny”; if he speaks “about education,” and he moves on to this topic without any reason, only remembering that Aunt Sophia “has a house full of students and little boys,” then again he is dissatisfied with teachers and Muscovites who “are busy recruiting teachers' regiments, // More in number, cheaper in price.” How can one not recall Famusov’s dissatisfaction with the Kuznetsk Bridge and the “eternal French,” “destroyers of pockets and hearts,” and these “tramps,” as he calls teachers who are taken “both into the house and on tickets, // To teach our daughters everything , everything – //And dancing! and foam! and tenderness! and sigh!”
The reader has reason to assume that it is Chatsky, and not Skalozub, who will even turn out to be Famusov’s desired contender for Sophia’s hand: he was raised in Famusov’s house, and is ready to count many “acquaintances,” and does not favor the French, and - finally! - not rootless - “Andrei Ilyich’s late son” - surely Andrei Ilyich is known for something, and a friend of Famusov, and from Moscow, and in Moscow, after all, “from time immemorial it has been said that honor is given to father and son.”
But the reader (like Pushkin!) has a question: is he smart? Griboyedov’s contemporaries still remember very well the comedy “The Minor” and the hero-reasoner Starodum. Let us remember how he appeared at the Prostakovs’ house. Firstly, it was very timely - if he had come a day earlier, there would have been no conflict related to marriage, and a day later - the fate of his niece Sophia would have been decided, she would have been married off - no matter, to Mitrofanushka or Skotinin, but Starodum would I couldn't help her. Secondly, it is impossible to imagine Starodum uttering a word without thinking. What does Starodum say when Pravdin calls him to immediately “free” Sophia?
“Wait,” the wise Starodum will say, “my heart is still seething with indignation at the unworthy act of the local owners. Let's stay here for a few minutes. I have a rule: do nothing in the first movement" ( Act III, phenomenon 2).
Everything that Chatsky does, he does in the first “movement” - whether of indignation, delight, joy. Like all other characters, he is “deaf” to others and hears only himself. He wandered for a long time, suddenly became homesick and rushed “through the snowy desert”; For half an hour he is not ready to “tolerate the coldness”; he will turn to the young lady, the bride-to-be, with a demand - well, kiss him!
No, we won’t notice Silly’s modesty in him. Sincerity? Yes, there is sincerity. After all, how touchingly he admits:
And yet I love you without memory.
And then minute silence repents of what he said earlier:
Are my words really all pricks?
And tend to harm someone?
But if so: the mind and heart are not in harmony.
However, in Act I we still do not know about Molchalin’s treachery. But we see that the daughter’s coldness is compensated by the warm embrace of her father: “Great, friend, great, brother, great!” - Famusov will say, hugging Chatsky. Note that Famusov, of course, does not hug either Molchalin or Skalozub. And the first “news” that Chatsky tells him immediately after the first hug is that “Sofya Pavlovna... has become prettier.” And, saying goodbye, once again: “How good!”
Well, that’s how Famusov will see him, one of the young people who “have nothing else to do but notice girls’ beauties.” Famusov himself was once young, he probably remembers this, and so he speaks with sympathy and understanding:
She said something casually, and you,
I am filled with hopes, enchanted.
Until Famusov’s last remark in this action, when it suddenly turns out that Chatsky for him is no better than Molchalin (“half a mile out of the fire”) - “dandy friend”, “spendthrift”, “tomboy” - these are the words he speaks about him Famusov, - until this last remark we do not realize that Chatsky is the main participant in the conflict. We do not yet know that it is he, who is not suitable for either the daughter, or the father, or, as we will see later, for the parents of six princesses as a groom, who appeared, as Pushkin will say, “from the ship to the ball”, who will bring all this fuss, will stir up, alarm, make reality Liza’s assumption that she, “Molchalin and everyone out of the yard”... And he himself, expelled, will again go “to search the world,” but not for his mind, but for that quiet place, “where there is a corner for the offended feeling.”
To be continued
1. What is the theme of the comedy “The Inspector General”?
The comedy "The Inspector General" is a comedy of manners. Its topic is bribery and corruption of officials; the author satirically depicts various abuses in the bureaucratic environment, as well as Khlestakov’s frivolity and dishonesty.
2. Who was the first to report the auditor? Why did everyone believe this message? Who is Khlestakov: a petty official and insignificant person or significant person? How does he appear in conversations with officials, merchants, the mayor’s wife and daughter?
For the first time they learned about the auditor from a letter received by the Governor and, since the auditor could already arrive and live in the city incognito, the eccentric and stupid gossips Dobchinsky and Bobchinsky mistook the Strange Visitor for the auditor, who turned out to be Khlestakov. Everyone believed their guess because they were very scared. In reality, Khlestakov is an insignificant and empty person, a talker and a braggart who does not know how to do anything, but knows how to benefit from the mistakes of officials. He quite cleverly adapts to his interlocutors and impresses everyone. He behaves freely with officials, boasts in front of ladies, and pretends to be a boss with merchants.
3. Where is the beginning and end of the comedy? Did Khlestakov want to deceive the officials and townspeople?
The plot of a comedy is an episode in which the prerequisites for the development of the plot are laid. IN in this case, it seems to me that this is the moment when Bobchinsky and Dobchinsky report that they saw the auditor.
The denouement is the moment when the plot comes to its conclusion. This is an episode of reading Khlestakov’s letter, from which it becomes clear to everyone that he is not an auditor.
4. Why are the landowners Dobchinsky, Bobchinsky and the mayor being deceived? Read and comment on the scene at the inn. For what reason do officials believe Khlestakov in the “scene of lies”? Remember and tell or read this scene out loud. What is the role of stage directions in comedy?
The landowners are deceived because they are stupid, they are captured by the sensation and want to be involved in it, and Khlestakov behaves atypically. The mayor believes them out of fear. For example, he takes all Khlestakov’s words about prison personally: Khlestakov is afraid that he will be sent to prison for not paying the innkeeper, and the Governor himself is afraid of prison for bribery. Wanting to avoid arrest, Khlestakov lies that he is a respected official, and the Mayor takes this as a hint that he is the auditor.
In the "lying scene" all the officials are very scared because they think that the drunk will tell the truth. They have never met such selfless liars as Khlestakov. He seems to believe himself. In addition, everyone is very afraid of him, because they all broke the law. The stage directions show how at first they did not dare to sit down, and then jumped up and shook with horror.
5. What did the news of the arrival of a new auditor mean and who is this new auditor - an official or the conscience of each character? Read this scene and prepare a detailed answer to this question.
The news of the arrival of a new auditor - the real one - meant the end of a career for each of the officials, and perhaps even prison. Everyone was already dumbfounded by their revealed mistake, and then there was the real auditor. The mayor says: “Killed, completely killed!” That was probably everyone's feeling.
I think this is a real auditor: people like, for example, Strawberry can hardly have a conscience. It seems to me that this is not conscience then, but fear of punishment, because if officials had a conscience, they would not behave this way. The same Zemlyanika stole from sick people, hired a doctor who doesn’t understand a word of Russian: it’s not surprising that all the patients “get better like flies.” Something like human feelings appears in Gorodnichy, he even says the words that Gogol himself would like to say: “Why are you laughing? You’re laughing at yourself!” He speaks these words not so much to officials, but to all of us. Because the auditor is not the conscience of officials, but ours.
6. Read the definitions of the main stages of plot development. What comedy scenes do you think correspond to these stages? (exposition, beginning, climax, resolution)
The exhibition is a reading and discussion of the letter received by the Mayor.
The beginning is a message from the landowners that they have found the auditor and the conversation of the Governor with him.
The climax is the scene where the Mayor boasts that he is leaving for St. Petersburg.
The denouement is the reading of Khlestakov’s letter.
7. It is known that Nicholas 1, after the first performance of the play, said: “What a play! Everyone got it, and I got it more than anyone else!” And Gogol exclaimed: “Everyone is against me!” How can we explain the indignation of all classes by the play?
Everyone was offended by the comedy because people of all classes were depicted satirically. Under the guise county town All of Russia is depicted.
Immoral and ignorant district governors mistake a St. Petersburg official who happened to be passing through their city for a real auditor, whose appointment they already knew.
The whole goal, all the aspirations of the mayor, whose frightened imagination made Khlestakov the personification of the punitive power of the law, are aimed at inclining this power in his favor and thus avoiding punishment for criminal acts.
There is a struggle that reveals various moments state of mind hero. But this struggle is comic: it is waged against an imaginary force, depicts the negative sides of reality, that is, the world of the vulgar, petty passions, vulgar egoism.
From the theory of dramatic poetry it is known that in order to express the idea of struggle and present the characters in their mutual relations, the playwright must choose a moment in the life of his heroes in which its entire essence and meaning could be expressed. Such a moment in Gogol's comedy is the arrival of the inspector.
The entire movement of the play is based on this moment, all the details of the action are dedicated to it, none of which seems superfluous, because it has one or another relation to the main event, i.e., to the appearance of the auditor.
The very characters of the characters are clarified at the same moment: the arrival of the auditor illuminated the whole past life district leaders, full of untruth and arbitrariness, and fully revealed their real feelings and passions. Hence the remarkable unity of action, according to which Gogol’s comedy should be classified as an exemplary dramatic work.
There are no leaps in it, everything consistently develops from one general idea, and each individual moment of action is imbued with remarkable naturalness, complete agreement with the truth of life.
The Inspector's premise has its own characteristics. Usually the beginning is taken in the sense love affair. But Gogol departed from the usual method of playwrights, guided by considerations expressed by him in the words of one of the characters in “Theater Travel.”
“It’s time to stop relying so far on this eternal premise. It's worth taking a close look around. Everything changed a long time ago in the world. Now the drama is more strongly tied to the desire to get an advantageous place, to shine and outshine, at all costs, the other, to avenge neglect, for ridicule. Don’t they now have more electricity rank, money capital, advantageous marriage than love."
In addition, according to Gogol, the plot of a comedy should embrace all faces, and not just one or two, touch on what worries, more or less, all the characters.
This character is what distinguishes the plot of the Inspector General, where each individual person takes an active part in the general endeavor. The ending of the comedy seemed artificial to some.
But, according to Belinsky’s fair remark, the end of the comedy should take place where the mayor finds out that he was punished by a ghost, and that he will be punished by reality, and therefore the arrival of the gendarme with the news of the arrival of the true auditor perfectly ends the play and gives it its entirety and all the independence of a special, self-contained world.
