The finale of Griboyedov's comedy Woe from Wit. Comedy finale

The charm of Pushkin's lyrics does not fade; time has no power over it. Less than two years left until Pushkin's bicentenary. Millions of people of different ages, different nationalities will pay tribute to the great poet. For the second century now, the wizard of the Russian word has united us with these lines:

And for a long time I will be so kind to the people,
That I awakened good feelings with my lyre...

Good feelings are mercy, humanity, compassion, respect, sincerity, nobility, decency and, of course, the ability to be friends and love.

In the variety of lyrical themes that illuminate Pushkin’s poetry, the theme of friendship occupies such a significant place that he can safely be called the singer of this noble feeling. Obviously, the origins of this feeling were laid in the very nature of the poet, a noble, responsive nature that knows how to reveal the best qualities in each person.

Since his lyceum days, Pushkin had many friends: both close and not very close, but he paid tribute to all of them. That is why the range of his friendly preferences is wide - from simple and external friendship to high degrees demanding, fearless and sometimes sacrificial friendship.

Pushkin brotherly loved the dreamy Delvig, and the naively ardent Küchelbecker, and the noble Pushchin, and the caustic and witty Vyazemsky, and the violent Denis Davydov, and the melancholy Baratynsky, and the poet-citizen Ryleev, and the simple-minded Nashchokin. He treated Karamzin, Zhukovsky, Krylov - people of the older generation - with respectful friendship. But his classmates were especially close to his soul. Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum and friends of the freedom-loving St. Petersburg youth.

For six years, thirty lyceum students lived together. They were not even allowed to go home during the holidays. They became very good friends and decided, after graduating from the lyceum, to gather every year on October 19 to celebrate the opening day of the lyceum, when they first met. His poems are famous: “October 19” (1825, 1827,1828); “The more often the Lyceum celebrates...”, “It was time, our holiday is young...” The poet confessed from the depths of his soul:

My friends, our union is wonderful!
He, like the soul, is indivisible and eternal...

Sounding like an oath of friendship! words about small homeland— Tsarskoe Selo:

Wherever fate throws us
And happiness no matter where it takes you,
We are still the same:
Us the whole world foreign land,
Our Fatherland is Tsarskoe Selo.

Among Pushkin’s friends from his lyceum youth, I. I. Pushchin occupied a special place. It is to him that these sincere words are addressed:

My first friend, my priceless friend!

These words reached Pushchin already in Siberia, where he was exiled to hard labor as a member of a secret society.

Pushkin does not forget about all his friends - the Decembrists, exiled to Siberia, and writes poems full of the deepest confidence in the correctness of their heroic cause:

Your sorrowful work will not be wasted
And I think about high aspiration.

In the vast galaxy of Pushkin’s friendly predilections, Chaadaev occupies a special place. It was wonderful peculiar person, which in early years for the poet he was an example of high civil courage and love of freedom.

Chaadaev, do you remember the past?
How long has it been with the delight of the young
I thought the name fatal
Consign it to other ruins?

The famous lines are perceived as a manifesto of friendship that unites noble and freedom-loving people:

While we are burning with freedom,
While hearts are alive for honor,
Let's dedicate my friend to the fatherland
Souls have wonderful impulses.

The theme of friendship was developed by Pushkin in a variety of ways, going through all the shades of the majestic and heroic, tender and thoughtful lyricism, affectionate and sly irony.

But, perhaps, the eternal theme of love is even more diverse in Pushkin’s lyrics. Love in Pushkin's poems is always a high feeling that ennobles a person, a deep, strong, pure and selfless feeling. The beloved in his poems is the personification of the highest ideal of beauty and moral perfection.

The poem “I remember a wonderful moment...” that has long captivated everyone sounds like a hymn to a high and bright feeling:

And the heart beats in ecstasy,
And for him they rose again
And deity and inspiration,
And life, and tears, and love.

This is one of the peaks of Pushkin's lyrics. The poems captivate not only with the purity and passion of the feelings embodied in them, but also with their extraordinary harmonious harmony. Words that seem familiar, but put together give the impression of unusual festivity. They are bathed in the sun of boundless happiness, they sing and shine. At first it's sad and fond memory, then the sad consciousness of loss and, finally, the solemn rise of joy and delight. All this was perfectly reproduced by M. I. Glinka in the music of his immortal romance.

Other shades of this eternal and inexhaustible theme of love are expressed in the poems “I loved you...”, “For the shores of a distant fatherland!..”, “On the hills of Georgia..!” The poem “I loved you...” certainly stands out for its unusual content and such height moral sense, which was not easy to find a match in world lyrics:

I loved you so sincerely, so tenderly,
How God grant that your beloved be different.

Pushkin scholars are still arguing about who the recognition is addressed to - Olenina, Natalya Goncharova? The exact address has never been found. He remained the poet's secret. But in the end, this is not important for us, people of a different generation, more than a century removed from the era when these poems were born. The amazing thing is that they sound as if they were spoken today, in the language of our day. And the bright feeling expressed by them will forever remain the embodiment of the highest nobility and human dignity, which managed to rise above the completely understandable egoism of love.

Belinsky highly appreciated the “soul-touching humanity” and “artistic charm” of this eight-line, and the critic and poet Apollo Grigoriev confirmed his thought: “The last verse is incomparable with anything; he is highly human.” It is quite clear that this eight-line verse has repeatedly served as the basis for musical works. More than 20 romances were written based on these words, including by Alyabiev, Varlamov, Dargomyzhsky, and Cui. Composers were attracted, of course, by the psychological romanticism of the poem and the depth of its expressive lines.

Pushkin's lyrics are always marked by the traits of spiritual nobility, genuine humanism and love of freedom inherent in him as a person. His poetry is truly a “union of magical sounds.” Her highly moral and aesthetic essence awakens “good feelings” in many generations.

Comedy A.S. Griboedov's "Woe from Wit" was created by the author over 8 years (1816-1824). This was a period when Russian literature developed rapidly and actively. In less than half a century, she went from classicism to sentimentalism, romanticism, and realism. The changes taking place were reflected in artistic features“Woe from Wit”, in the ending that the author chooses for his work. The writer created the comedy at a time when there was practically no Russian national theater in Russia (it was represented mainly by vaudeville and D.I. Fonvizin’s play “The Minor”). The Russian stage was filled with productions of French plays written in accordance with the canons of classicism. The greatest merit of A.S. Griboyedov in artistically is that he tried to overcome the canons of classicism (especially the requirement of 3 unities) and made a huge contribution to the formation of realistic drama. Fulfilling the requirements of unity of time (the action of the comedy takes place over the course of a day), place (all events unfold in Famusov’s house), he decisively violates the requirement of unity of action. Main character comedy - Chatsky - changes significantly in the process of developing intrigue. He came to Moscow bored, in love, and not at all in the mood to ridicule Famusov society. But under the influence of “a million torments,” his mood changes dramatically. In the last monologue (“Get out of Moscow...”) this is a completely different person - ironically minded, embittered, indignant. The author also violates the unity of action by the fact that his heroes do not represent a static, one-dimensional figure, they are shown from different sides. Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov appears before us first as a bureaucrat (“Signed, off your shoulders”), then as a conservative (“I don’t listen, I’ll be put on trial!”), but at the same time as a caring father (thinks about the future of Sophia, whom raised alone, without a mother), a hospitable host (receives and treats guests at the ball). A.S. Griboyedov recreates real picture way of life, customs, life of lordly Moscow in the first quarter of the 19th century, draws the typical characters of Famusov’s society (Famusov, Molchalin, Khlestova, Repetilov, Zagoretsky), gives a realistic image of the conflict between the “present century” and the “past century”. The conflict depicted in the comedy and the ending of this conflict, the finale of the work, seem special. The contemporary audience of the playwright is accustomed to the fact that the central intrigue classic comedy is a love conflict. Usually in a play like this, young masters in love with each other, who are prevented by some circumstances from getting together, are helped to solve this problem by servants, who are often smarter and more enterprising than their masters. This " love conflict Griboedov also has it. But it is depicted and solved in a very unique way. According to the classical tradition, Molchalin (the owner’s secretary) and Liza (the owner’s daughter’s maid) must do everything possible to ensure that the two unite loving hearts: Sophia (the owner's daughter) and Chatsky (a young man in love). And at the end of the play we would have a wedding of lovers. It would be better if there were two weddings at once: between Molchalin and Liza and Sophia and Chatsky. This would be the material for the last fifth act of the classic comedy, its ending. Everyone is happy, u1076 virtue and love have triumphed, and vice is punished. But Griboedov, following his plans to depict a realistic conflict, strives in every possible way to avoid such a straightforward interpretation of his ideas. He deprives his play of the fifth, final act, and his traditional conflict looks very original. Chatsky loves Sophia, Sophia is in love with Molchalin, Molchalin is drawn to Lisa, Lisa likes the bartender Petrusha, but at the same time she correctly assesses Chatsky’s human merits (“Who is so sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp, Like Alexander Andreich Chatsky!”). If we add here Famusov’s attempts to flirt with Liza, then instead of the banal classic love triangle we will get an equation with many unknowns from higher mathematics. Basically creative method realism and correlates with classicism, like arithmetic with higher mathematics. How to resolve such a conflict so that vice (that is, Molchalin, Famusov and Sophia) are punished, and virtue (Chatsky and Liza) triumphs? A realistic solution to such a conflict in a play is almost impossible (or it will be a work of a completely different genre), the author understands this well. Therefore, he abandons the idea of ​​depicting the fifth act of the comedy, ending it with the so-called “open” ending. But, as I.A. was the first to note. Goncharov, love conflict is not the main thing in comedy. It only complicates and deepens the main one, which is the contradiction between the conservative Moscow nobility and the radical progressive representative of the noble youth - Chatsky. The same heroes are involved in this second, main conflict of the work, and again here the forces are distributed very realistically, that is, completely unevenly. Alone in the play, Chatsky fights against the inert views of an entire society, Famusov’s, as it is commonly called, to which Famusov himself, Molchalin, Sophia, and all the guests, relatives and friends of the owner of the house in which the action takes place belong. Throughout the comedy, this conflict deepens and becomes more complicated, reaching the point of direct slander (on the part of the Famus society) and direct rejection (on the part of Chatsky). What realistic ending could such a conflict have? Vice must be punished. Is it conceivable to imagine that the comedy would realistically show the punishment of the entire Famus society, which, from the point of view of the author and his hero, is conservative, reactionary and patriarchal? Would Chatsky celebrate the victory? A.S. Griboedov understood perfectly well that a realistic depiction of such an ending is impossible, and therefore ends the action of his work on the highest note, leaving it without a denouement. Chatsky leaves Moscow alive, in his right mind, without abandoning his progressive ideas - this can already be considered a positive ending to the comedy. There is another explanation for the meaning of the ending in A.S.’s comedy. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit". Every playwright would like the viewer, upon leaving the theater or putting down the book, not to immediately forget about the characters of what he saw or read, so that he would mentally turn to the situation depicted, reflect on it, draw conclusions, and become a supporter of certain views. Therefore, the “open” ending depicted by A.S. Griboyedov in this play, gives the reader the opportunity to think about what will happen to its characters in the future. How will the heroes behave the next morning? Will Chatsky have the courage to leave Moscow without seeing Sophia? Will Famusov find out the truth about his daughter’s feelings not for Chatsky, but for Molchalin? Will he send his daughter, as he threatened, to Saratov, and Liza to the poultry yard? With the help of servants, will rumors about the embarrassment that occurred in Famusov’s house spread throughout Moscow, will they reach the ears of “Princess Marya Aleksevna”? What verdict will “public opinion” give in connection with what happened? How will Molchalin behave in such a delicate situation? What will Sophia feel and what will she decide for herself? All this is very interesting, and people haven’t stopped thinking about it since the first reading of the text of the comedy. That is why M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin’s work “In an environment of moderation and accuracy” appeared, telling about the matured Molchalins who reached “the famous levels”, A.A. Blok called “Woe from Wit” the only work of Russian literature that has not been fully solved, M.V. Nechkina wondered whether Sophia could simply feign love for Molchalin in order to take revenge on Chatsky for neglecting herself. This, in my opinion, is the meaning of the “open” ending of A.S.’s comedy. Griboyedov's "Woe from Wit" and its role in the perception of this work and in its long literary and stage life.

Prepared a lessonAfanasenko Elena Ippolitovna,teacher of Russian language and literature at Lomonosov school No. 5

Lesson topic: The finale of N.V.’s comedy Gogol's "The Inspector General", its ideological and compositional meaning

Lesson objectives:

help students understand the philosophical significance of not only the ending, but also the entire comedy as a whole through a comprehensive consideration final scene;

develop analytical skills students;

to form positive moral orientations.

There was a lot of controversy about the ending. ...

Z. Gipius: “the silent scene expresses the idea of ​​power and law, but interpreted in a unique way”

A. Voronsky: “A symbolic expression of killing”

M. Khrapchenko: “The appearance of the gendarme and the silent scene represents an external denouement.” The complete denouement of the comedy is contained in the monologue of the Governor “Why are you laughing? You’re laughing at yourself!”

V. Ermilov: “the plausibility of the comedy finale”

Gogol: “The silent scene expresses the idea of ​​the law, upon the advent of which everything “turned pale and shook.”

Many simply ignored this scene, which was the main one for Gogol and expressed the essence of the author’s concept of the resurrection of man, and not his “mortification” as a result of numerous shocks.

Before talking about the finale and the author’s concept expressed in it, let’s restore the sequence of events of the comedy in order to understand the logic of the ending and through it the author’s intention.

The guys presented a series of events

1“An auditor is coming to visit us ! - strike, lightning. string, like a bolt from the blue. The beginning, like the end, is dramatic and strong.

2.Reaction to hit- confusion. Fright, but not yet fear.

3.Everything comes in convulsive - feverish movement. “To have time, to have time, to have time! Clean up the city"

4. Breathing is not transferred, blow again: the auditor is already here!

5. Numbness and Confusion. The point of application of forces has changed: don't tidy up the city A “get an auditor.” Oh my God, oh my God! Let's go. Just let me get away with it quickly.”.

6.Again blow - the unpredictability of the behavior of the “imaginary” auditor increases the Gorodnichy’s fear, translates into uncontrollable fear. (not according to plan)

7. “Oh, thin thing! You don’t know which side to take. Well, thank God! He took the money. Things will get better..." You can catch your breath

8.But fear increases contrary to all logic. “It’s just scary; and why, you yourself don’t know.” The retinue makes a king and trembles. (Mayor “Va-va-va...procession..”)

9. “Happy ending” and dreams of social life The mayor and his wife. “...Damn it, I really want to be a general.”

10. New blow - the auditor is not real! The blow is so strong that something like an epiphany occurs . (Why are you laughing? You’re laughing at yourself! Eh, you! ... I don’t see anything. I see some pig snouts instead of faces.”)

11. The final crushing blow and...numbness - petrification Highest point reaches tragic exactly at "silent stage".

So, before us is the finale of the comedy with comments from the critic.

Critic: The heroes of Gogol's city forgot about the revision of conscience, about the evangelical commandments, and became mired in bribery, embezzlement, and lies."Plucking flowers of pleasure" to command and be at the top of the Olympus of power is the goal and meaning of their life, and all means are good. But“No matter how much the rope twists, it will end.” The entire action of the comedy moves towards its logical end according to the author’s plan...

Having seen off Khlestakov, Anna Andreevna and the mayor indulge in dreams of St. Petersburg life, unaware of the cruel, but, however, fair retribution...

(scene of intoxication with dreams of future life)

And this happy moment When they already consider themselves a general’s couple, the postmaster runs in with a very important message.Like thunder The words of the postmaster were heard:

(scene with letter, appendix)

The crushed mayor delivers an accusatory speech not so much to the helipad Khlestakov, but to the officials who surrounded him and gloated over him.

( scene of the mayor's accusatory monologue, appendix )

And only the sudden appearance of the gendarme interrupts his heated monologue.

(scene of the gendarme's appearance, appendix)

Real thunder fell on the heads of those present in the mayor’s house at the momentappearance of the Gendarme , who announced the arrival of the real auditor. Moreover, he appeared before them as if scary ghost, for everyone dies when he appears.The news about the real auditor shocks everyone.

The silent scene lasts more than a minute, during which time no one changes their position.

Teacher: What unites and separates the denouement and outset of a comedy

Student answers : The denouement, like the beginning, “embraces all faces, but only this time it produces not a commotion in the county town, but a sacred horror, forcing the heroes not to expose themselves, as in the beginning, but to become numb in horror from the sins they have committed.

Teacher: Why did the image of the Gendarme evoke such sacred horror among officials? After all, they have already, for better or worse, covered up the traces of their crimes, made the appearance of transformations.

Teacher: Let's turn to the "Inspector General" poster. Determine its purpose. Think about why the gendarme is not included in the poster. Doesn't this circumstance make the character significant and doesn't it distinguish him in the system of comedy images?

Student answers: Gendarme - representative state power, which is designed to punish vices. At the same time, the gendarme is the messenger of Providence, higher power, more powerful than senior officials state system. This is what produces this strong impression on the heroes of the comedy and gives rise to horror and fear in them (and the audience).

Gogol explains this idea in his additional “The Inspector General’s Denouement,” which he wrote, and puts it into the mouths of the 1st and 2nd comedians. Let's listen to her.

First comic actor:

Take a close look at this city, which is depicted in the play!

Everyone agrees that there is no such city in all of Russia... Well, what if this is our soulful city and it sits with each of us?.. And who is its auditor?

Second comic actor:

As if you don’t know who this auditor is? Why pretend? This auditor is our awakened conscience, which will force us to suddenly and at once look at ourselves with all our eyes. Nothing can be hidden from this auditor. Because he was sent by the Named Supreme Command. And then such a monster will be revealed to you, within you, that your hair will stand up in horror. It’s better to revise everything that is in us at the beginning of life, and not at the end of it.”

Let's pay attention to how the characters are positioned on stage.

(Name central figures- mayor and postmaster, the rest characters represent “a detail in a picture that is outlined with one stroke of the brush and covered with one color” (Gogol): they are just a background).

What is unusual about the mayor’s pose?

(“The mayor is in the middle in the form of a pillar, with outstretched arms and his head thrown back.” What does the mayor’s figure resemble? (Cross, crucifix) This is a symbolic picture of the Last Judgment. The guys’ conclusion: “The Silent Scene” introduces comedy, firstly, biblical motifs, secondly, the motive of inevitable punishment for sins, the inevitable “auditor”.

Teacher: Gogol believed that social vices – a certain projection of the shortcomings of a person’s spiritual world. Therefore, man must first change. Cleansing inner world, according to Gogol, is possible only through tragedy: shock forces a person to be spiritually reborn.

Teacher: So social conflict comedy receives a philosophical interpretation: the origins of the vices of society are rooted in the spiritual organization of man, and not in the system itself.

(“Confrontation of the divine principle, moral ideal, conscience inside a person, his spiritual filling with the Animal nature, the consumer gut of a person."

Let us turn to the epigraph, which succinctly formulates the idea of ​​comedy and its main conflict. (“Confrontation of the divine principle, the moral ideal, conscience within a person, the animal, mortal principle, the consumer gut of man”)

What is the postmaster's position on stage? What is his posture?

(Character turned into question mark, who addressed the audience, stands behind the mayor).

Formulate the question that Gogol addresses to the audience and which receives such an allegorical embodiment on stage.

(Students offer their own versions of questions).

HOW WILL YOU, THE VIEWER (READER), MEET JUDGMENT DAY?

This line of the play's deeply spiritual layer

Teacher: Like this complex issue the writer puts before us, making us think about our lives, our actions, our affairs.

But what about the real auditor?

Let's try to get him on stage.

How will the action of the play develop after the “silent scene” if the inspector is a copy of Khlestakov and if he is his complete opposite.

(Students' answers). Let's say that the real auditor is like Khlestakov. Then, after the “silent scene,” the action of the comedy will be repeated from the beginning, with the only difference that instead of Khlestakov, a real auditor will act.

If the auditor is providence itself (as indicated by the analysis of the silent scene), then the development of the play after the “silent scene” is unpredictable, and the ending thus becomes a symbol of the latter - doomsday- the day of the life of the city.

House. task: preparation for test work(questions in notebook)

Sources:

The comedy “Woe from Wit” by A. S. G. Riboyedov, work on which was completed in 1824, is an innovative work in terms of issues, style, and composition. For the first time in Russian drama, the task was set to show not just a comedic action based on a love triangle, not mask images corresponding to the traditional roles of classicist comedies, but living, real types of people - Griboedov’s contemporaries, with their real problems, not only personal, but also social conflicts.

He spoke very accurately about the peculiarities of constructing the comedy “Woe from Wit” in his critical study"A million torments." I.A. Goncharov: “Two comedies seem to be nested within one another: one, so to speak, private, petty, domestic, between Chatsky, Sofia, Molchalin and Liza: this is the intrigue of love, the everyday motive of all comedies. When the first is interrupted, another unexpectedly appears in the interval, and the action begins again, a private comedy plays out into a general battle and is tied into one knot.”

This fundamental position allows us to correctly evaluate and understand both the problems and the heroes of the comedy, and therefore, understand the meaning of its ending. But first of all, we need to determine what the ending is about. we're talking about. After all, if, as Goncharov convincingly puts it, there are two intrigues, two conflicts in a comedy, then there should be two endings. Let's start with a more traditional - personal - conflict.

In the comedies of classicism, the action was usually based on a “love triangle”, which consisted of characters with a clearly defined function in the plot and character. This “role system” included: a heroine and two lovers - a lucky one and an unlucky one, a father who has no idea about his daughter’s love, and a maid who arranges dates for the lovers - the so-called soubrette. There is some semblance of such “roles” in Griboedov’s comedy.

Chatsky would have to play the role of the first, successful lover, who in the finale, having successfully overcome all difficulties, successfully marries his beloved. But the development of the comedy and especially its ending refute the possibility of such an interpretation: Sophia clearly prefers Molchalin, she gives rise to gossip about Chatsky’s madness, which forces Chatsky to leave not only Famusov’s house, but also Moscow and, at the same time, give up hopes for Sophia’s reciprocity . In addition, Chatsky also has the traits of a hero-reasoner, who in the works of classicism served as an exponent of the author’s ideas.

Molchalin would fit the role of a second lover, especially since the presence of a second - comic - “love triangle” (Molchalin - Liza) is also associated with him. But in fact, it turns out that he is the one who is lucky in love, Sophia has a special affection for him, which is more suitable for the role of the first lover. But here, too, Griboyedov departs from tradition: Molchalin is clearly not positive hero, which is mandatory for the role of the first lover, and is portrayed with a negative author’s assessment.

Griboedov departs somewhat from tradition in his depiction of the heroine. In the classical “role system” Sophia should have become ideal heroine, but in “Woe from Wit” this image is interpreted very ambiguously, and in the finale nothing awaits her happy marriage, but a deep disappointment.

The author deviates even more from the norms of classicism in his depiction of the soubrette, Lisa. As a soubrette, she is cunning, quick-witted, resourceful and quite courageous in her relations with gentlemen. She is cheerful and relaxed, which, however, does not prevent her, as befits her role, from accepting Active participation V love affair. But at the same time, Griboyedov endows Lisa with traits that are quite unusual for such a role, making her similar to the hero-reasoner: she gives clear, even aphoristic characteristics to other heroes, formulates some of the most important positions of Famus society (“sin is not a problem, rumor is not good,” and golden bag, and aims to become a general” - about Skalozub).

Famusov in the “role system” plays the role of a noble father who has no idea about his daughter’s love, but by changing the traditional ending, Griboyedov deprives this character of the opportunity to safely complete the development of the action: usually in the end, when everything was revealed, a noble father who cares about his daughter’s happiness , blessed the lovers for marriage and it all ended with a wedding.

Obviously, there is nothing like that in the finale of “Woe from Wit.” Famusov really doesn’t know anything about the real state of things until the very end. But even there he still remains blissfully unaware of his daughter’s true passions - he believes that Sophia is in love with Chatsky, and he doesn’t even think about Molchalin as the object of his daughter’s sighs, otherwise everything would have ended much worse, especially for Molchalin, Certainly. Indeed, in addition to what the role of a noble father implies, the image of Famusov includes the features of a typical Moscow “ace”, a big boss, a master who is not used to his subordinates allowing themselves much lesser liberties - it’s not for nothing that Molchalin is so afraid of showing sympathy for him on Sophia’s part, despite all the girl’s precautions:

And it makes me shiver so much,

And at one thought I’m afraid,

What Pavel Afanasyich times

Someday he'll catch us

He will disperse, he will curse!.. -

Molchalin complains to Lisa. And all the other participants in this “triangle” went so far beyond their roles precisely because, when creating realistic images, Griboedov could not endow them with any standard set of features. And as full-blooded, living images, they began to behave completely differently from the rules of classicism.

Responding to accusations of “lack of a plan,” that is, exactly what was just said, Griboedov argued that, on the contrary, his plan was “simple and clear in execution. The girl, who is not stupid herself, prefers a fool smart person" You probably can’t say more precisely. And as a result, it turns out that even in something that somehow still retained a connection with the traditions of classicism, Griboyedov acted as a true innovator. His heroes in their personal sphere behave as, alas, quite often happens in life: they make mistakes, are at a loss and choose a clearly wrong path, but they themselves do not know this.

So, Sophia was clearly mistaken about Molchalin, but she believes that the quiet young man is actually like the noble heroes of the sentimental novels that she loves to read so much. At the same time, preferring to command rather than obey, she sharply rejects the noble, but overly ardent, sometimes even fiery in disputes, Chatsky, who manages to inadvertently offend Molchalin, so dear to Sofia’s heart. As a result, instead of entertaining and making the girl laugh, Chatsky provokes a storm of her anger. She takes cruel revenge on the unlucky lover: she spreads gossip about his madness into society. But she herself will be deeply disappointed: Molchalin turns out to be an ordinary careerist and scoundrel.

Don't be mean, stand up...

Reproaches, complaints, my tears

Don’t you dare wait, you’re not worth it, -

Sophia angrily throws herself at Molchalin, who has been caught lying to her, but insight comes only in the finale.

But Chatsky is also waiting for a lot unexpected discovery. From the very beginning, he lived in the world of his illusions: for some reason he decided that Sophia, after his unexpected departure from Famusov’s house three years ago, still treated him with the same sympathy, although we see no reason for this - after all, he I didn’t even write letters to her. Then, finally feeling her coldness, he begins to look for a rival - and finds him in the person of Skalozub, again without any reason in Sophia’s behavior or words. She is an independent girl and can hardly easily accept her father’s opinion about the young and promising colonel. She has her own ideas about her husband, however, they are also somewhat reminiscent of the traditional image of a husband-boy, a husband-servant for Famus society.

Chatsky still had a suspicion about Molchalin as a possible rival when Sophia fainted after seeing him thrown off by a horse. But Chatsky cannot take the girl’s position; he is too convinced of his judgments, including those about Molchalin, which means, in his opinion, Sophia cannot love such a person. By some very strange logic, he, having heard Sophia unrestrainedly praising Molchalin, draws a paradoxical conclusion: “She doesn’t respect him. ... She doesn’t give a damn about him.”

So Griboyedov leads the action to a logical ending: the collapse of the illusions of all the main characters. But such an ending is motivated not from the point of view of the traditional “role system”, but from the position of the psychological appearance of each of the heroes, the internal motivation of their actions, resulting from the individual characteristics of the characters.

As we can see, everything in Griboyedov’s work does not go according to the rules: the characters are not the same, the plot is developing in the wrong way, and in the finale, instead of the traditional happy ending, everyone expects the collapse of illusions and hopes. By the way, this “irregularity” of the comedy caused a negative assessment among many of Griboyedov’s contemporaries, although, of course, true art connoisseurs who immediately appreciated innovative character works, gave very high reviews about it. And yet, even Pushkin, as we know, did not accept this work in all respects; in particular, Chatsky’s character seemed unconvincing to him, apparently precisely because he retained the features of a reasoning hero.

But the play also has another line of development, which means the ending of another conflict. In it, Chatsky, as a representative of the young progressive-minded generation of Russia of that era, enters into an unequal struggle with Famusov’s society - that conservative majority that does not want to accept anything new: neither in politics nor in social relations, neither in the system of ideas, nor in the usual way of life. He is one against everyone and the ending of the conflict is, in fact, a foregone conclusion: “Chatsky is broken by the number old power", as Goncharov wrote.

Although Chatsky despises Famusov’s society, expulsion from this society is still painful for him: he grew up here, Famusov once replaced his father and, no matter what you say, he loves Sophia, and therefore he really suffers, receiving his “millions of torments”, which gives the ending of the comedy even a tragic sound:

Who was it with? Where fate has taken me!

Everyone is driving! Everyone curses! Crowd of torturers!

And yet, if his collapse in love is absolutely obvious, then the question of whether Chatsky’s expulsion from Famus society can be called a victory over the hero remains open. “Get out of Moscow! I don’t go here anymore,” Chatsky shouts in despair. But the world is wide, in it you can find not only a place “where there is a corner for an offended feeling,” but also your like-minded people, your own business in life. After all, if we agree with the legitimacy of comparing Chatsky with the Decembrists - and this was done by Griboedov’s contemporaries, the Decembrists themselves, with whom the author of “Woe from Wit” was well acquainted - then we only have to admit that the dispute between heroes like Chatsky and the old foundations is only begins.

Continuing the conversation about the significance of the finale of the clash between Chatsky and Famusov’s society, Goncharov noted that, in spite of everything, the hero dealt the conservatives “a fatal blow with the quality of fresh strength.” Maybe talk about " fatal blow“It’s somewhat premature, but it’s obvious that the once monolithic Famus society has really given a breach - and Chatsky is to blame for this. Now there is no rest for the old Moscow “aces” and noble ladies, because there is no confidence in the inviolability of their positions, although they are still strong. Goncharov is absolutely right in calling Chatsky “an advanced warrior, a skirmisher,” who is always also a victim - such is the fate of those who go first.

And maybe main meaning the finale of Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" for us is that a person who dares to go first in an era of turning point, the replacement of one century by another, the collapse of old ideas and the emergence of new sprouts, must be ready to sacrifice himself. Always, at all times, woe to the mind that dared to oppose new concepts to generally accepted ones. But praise also to the person who can keep such a mind free and sound, despite all the vicissitudes of his personal fate.

The ending of the comedy, its ideological and compositional meaning

Today in class we will systematize and generalize knowledge about the heroes of N.V.’s work. Gogol's "The Inspector General", we will reveal the role of the ending and the meaning of the epigraph of the comedy.

Re-read the 1st phenomenon and pay attention to the behavior of the mayor.

The mayor’s behavior resembles Khlestakov’s behavior in moments of lying. He is in a state of complacency, calm, triumph. He perceives everything that happened as a “rich prize”, fully deserved by him, his efforts and efforts. Reveling in his new position as the father-in-law of a major St. Petersburg official, the mayor makes rosy plans for the future. He notifies the whole city that “he is marrying off his daughter not just to some ordinary person, but to someone who has never existed in the world, who can do everything, everything, everything, everything!”

The image of St. Petersburg is introduced into the comedy different ways. Khlestakov lies about his situation in the city, the image of the capital appears in his letter to “soul Tryapichkin”, officials dream about it, Osip shares his memories of the city. But the strange thing is that the images of Khlestakov’s fictional Petersburg and the real one that appears in his speeches and in his letter are almost the same. In both cases, this is a city based on fear, a “fearful” city, only in one case is the state council, a department, afraid of Khlestakov, where, when he appears, “it’s just an earthquake, everything trembles and shakes like a leaf,” and in another case, he himself is afraid of the pastry chef, who can drag him by the collar “about the pies eaten at the expense of the income of the English king.” St. Petersburg and the Governor think exactly the same way.

What attracts Skvoznik-Dmukhanovsky to life in St. Petersburg? And Anna Andreevna?

The only one of the heroes who does not feel fear at the mention of St. Petersburg is Osip: he stands outside the bureaucratic hierarchy based on fear, and he has nothing to fear.

Show Petersburg to Osip. Why does he see life in the capital as “subtle and political”?

What aspects of character are revealed in the mayor in the scene with the merchants? (2nd phenomenon of action V).

“The arrival of the merchants,” writes Belinsky, “intensifies the excitement of the rough passions of the city-nothing: from animal joy it turns into animal malice... He recounts his blessings to Abdulina, that is, he recalls the cases where they robbed the treasury together...” ) In the scene of the conversation between the mayor and the merchants, the wolf law of the world of swindlers is expressed. In this criminal world, whoever wriggles out has both rights and power.

What underlies relationships in the bureaucratic world? Contempt for inferiors and servility to higher officials is the basis of the Russian bureaucratic machine. It was the legalized state system that created and shaped the psychology of the official. How was it possible to talk about the true dignity of a person if rank meant everything!

What do you think is the end of a comedy? The postmaster appears with a letter. And the play is crowned by a silent scene.

The interpretation of the silent scene in criticism is ambiguous. But the author himself compared the silent scene with a “living picture” - in a “living picture” life is stopped, but at the same time, in the frozen figures we recognize the features of people who are familiar and not at all alien to us.”

What is the ideological and compositional role of the silent stage? One of the most important ideas of The Inspector General is the idea of ​​inevitable spiritual retribution, the threat of the future moral law, a judgment from which no person can escape. Instilling in the reader and viewer thoughts about this trial was one of the main creative tasks of the writer. Therefore, the “silent stage” gains wide symbolic meaning, which is why it does not lend itself to any unambiguous interpretation. This is why interpretations of the silent scene are so varied. It is interpreted as an artistically embodied image of the Last Judgment, before which a person cannot justify himself by citing the fact that every intelligent person “has sins”; draw analogies between the “silent scene” and Karl Bryullov’s painting “The Last Day of Pompeii,” the meaning of which Gogol himself saw in the fact that the artist uses historical material to address the situation of a strong “crisis felt by the whole mass.” The characters in “The Inspector General” experience a similar crisis at the moment of shock, like the heroes of Bryullov’s painting, when “the entire group, who stopped at the moment of shock and expressed thousands of different feelings,” is captured by the artist in last moment earthly existence. Already later, in 1846, in the dramatic passages “The Denouement of The Inspector General,” Gogol proposed a completely different interpretation of the “silent” scene.” “Take a close look at this city, which is depicted in the play!” says the First Comic Actor. “Everyone agrees that there is no such city in all of Russia... Well, what if this is our soulful city and it sits each of us?.. Whatever you say, the inspector who is waiting for us at the door of the coffin is terrible. As if you don’t know who this inspector is? Why pretend? This inspector is our awakened conscience, which will suddenly catch us and look at yourself with all your eyes at once. Nothing will be hidden from this auditor, because he was sent by the Named Supreme Command and will be announced about it when it is no longer possible to take a step back. Suddenly it will be revealed before you, in you, such a monster that your hair will stand up in horror. It is better to revise everything that is in us at the beginning of life, and not at the end of it."

One way or another, the appearance of the gendarme, announcing the arrival from St. Petersburg “by personal order” of the inspector of the present one, “strikes everyone like thunder,” says the author’s remark. “The sound of amazement unanimously flies from the ladies’ lips; the whole group, suddenly changing the situation remains petrified."

The “silent scene” also has a very important compositional role. At the moment of reading the letter, what connected the heroes throughout stage action, - fear, and the unity of people is disintegrating before our eyes. The terrible shock that the news of the arrival of the true auditor produced on everyone again unites people with horror, but this is no longer the unity of living people, but the unity of lifeless fossils. Their muteness and frozen poses show the exhaustion of the heroes in their fruitless pursuit of a mirage. That is why it cannot be said that the officials will receive the new auditor in the same way as Khlestakov: their exhaustion in the mirage life is too deep and final. This allows us to talk about the final transition of the comic to the tragic in the “silent scene”.

Gogol believed that with the power of laughter you can change better world and man in this world. “Much would outrage a person,” Gogol writes in the author’s final monologue in “Theatrical Road Trip...”, “was presented in its nakedness; but, illuminated by the power of laughter, it already brings reconciliation to the soul.<...>Those who say that laughter has no effect on those against whom it is directed, and that the rogue will be the first to laugh at the rogue brought on stage are unjust... Even those who are no longer afraid of anything in the world are afraid of ridicule.” That is why the laughter in The Inspector General is predominantly satirical, aimed at denying the ridiculed vice inherent in social or privacy person. Satire, according to Gogol, is designed to correct human vices, and this is her high public importance. This understanding of the role of laughter determines its focus not on a specific person, an official, or a specific county town, but on the vice itself. Gogol shows how terrible the fate of a person struck by him is. This predetermines another feature of the funny in the play: the combination of the comic with the dramatic, which lies in the discrepancy between the original high purpose of a person and his unrealization, exhaustion in the pursuit of life mirages. The final monologue of Gorodnichy and the imaginary matchmaking of Khlestakov are also full of drama, but the culmination of the tragic, when the comic completely fades into the background, becomes a “silent scene”. Gogol shows how terrible the fate of a person struck by him is. This predetermines another feature of the funny in the play: the combination of the comic with the dramatic, which lies in the discrepancy between the original high purpose of a person and his unrealization, exhaustion in the pursuit of life mirages. The final monologue of Gorodnichy and the imaginary matchmaking of Khlestakov are also full of drama, but the culmination of the tragic, when the comic completely fades into the background, becomes a “silent scene”.

So, let's summarize the work on the play. The life of the county town in the past and present passed before us, the readers. And what awaits the mayor and officials in the future, each will complete the play in his own way. Now let’s try to summarize what we learned in previous lessons. There are different opinions in literary criticism on the issue of the main characters of Khlestakov’s comedy and the mayor.

Who do you think is the main character in a comedy?
- What is the time period during which the action of “The Inspector General” develops? Most likely, the action spans two days, since Khlestakov in the 2nd scene of Act IV says: “It seems like yesterday they slipped me something for breakfast: my head is still pounding.” In the 6th scene of Act IV, he asks Artemy Filippovich: “Please tell me, it seems to me as if yesterday you were a little shorter, wasn’t it?”

- Which historical time reflected in comedy? What do we know about this time? 1830-1831 is the time of the reign of Nicholas I. N.V. Gogol not only knew reality well, but also studied many documents, however, the comedy “The Inspector General” is a work of art, its peculiarity is that the writer does not copy life, but reinterprets the facts through fiction. The playwright generalized the facts of reality so deeply that the plot of the comedy went far beyond the boundaries of a specific place and time. County town In the 30s of the 19th century it became a symbol of autocratic Russia.

So, in the center of the comedy the writer created two images: Gorodni-chego and Khlestakov.

Khlestakov cannot be considered a conscious swindler and an ordinary liar. Living in a hotel, he had no intention of impersonating important official, since he was only concerned with how to replenish his wallet, depleted after a significant loss at cards, and how to have another dinner, if not “at the expense of the English king,” then at least on credit. Only in the fourth act does the hero begin to realize that he was mistaken for “ statesman", almost for the Governor General. Khlestakov, however, quickly fell into the role and in the end even began to talk down to officials and petitioners, and this is not accidental. Inherent in his nature (or formed by circumstances) was the desire to appear, to become different, to rise at least one step higher on the career ladder. The constant humiliation of the individual, the infringement of all sorts of rights aroused in him a reciprocal desire, at least in fantasy, to compare with strongmen of the world this, and on occasion, show off. Even before meeting the mayor, we learn from the comedy, he dreamed of a carriage with lanterns, with a footman, and a visit to some landowner. Khlestakov really lies without thinking about what he said, that is, he speaks and acts without any consideration. His lies, by chance, are directed in one direction: he is rich, noble, famous and omnipotent. The more and more sophisticated Khlestakov lies, the more officials shake with fear.

V.G. Belinsky in his book “Gogol and the Theater” wrote that Skvoznik-Dmukhanovsky, an experienced campaigner, “inherited from his father and from the world around him the following rule: in life you need to be happy, and for this you need money and ranks, and to acquire - their intentions are bribery, embezzlement, sycophancy and groveling before the authorities, nobility and wealth, deceit and bestial rudeness before the lower self.

The words of the mayor: “I have been living in the service for thirty years, not a single merchant or contractor could cheat, swindlers were deceived by swindlers; such scoundrels and rogues that they are ready to rob the whole world, cheated on the hook; He deceived three governors!...what about governors, there is nothing to say about governors,” they show what the activities of officials who managed districts and provinces turned into Russian Empire 30s of the XIX century.

Thus, all of them, like Skvoznik-Dmukhanovsky, did not miss what was floating in their hands, by all means they created such conditions in order to enrich themselves; despised the people and hated honestly truth. And what are the officials of higher institutions like, if we judge them based on what is said in Gogol’s comedy? This can be judged from the dialogue at the beginning of the first scene of Act IV. The dispute is only about the form of presenting the bribe, and the very necessity and naturalness of such a gift to the capital auditor is not disputed by anyone, everyone is sure that this should be the case in a well-organized state.

The words that Gogol gave to the mayor in his last monologue and which became a proverb - “Why are you laughing? You're laughing at yourself! - in meaning, they are closely related to the epigraph of the comedy “There is nothing to blame for the mirror if your face is crooked.” The author emphasizes that each character is taken from life and behind each hero of “The Inspector General” there is a whole gallery hidden similar people, generated by certain social conditions.

What is “Khlestakovism”? Boasting, not supported by real opportunities, deeds, the desire to appear to be something other than what you really are, an addiction to showing off, combined with inner emptiness, frivolity, irresponsibility, vanity. In Khlestakov, these qualities receive a peculiar embodiment: as Gogol says, “he lies with feeling; the pleasure he receives from this is expressed in his eyes.”

Homework : to prepare for practical work based on the comedy by N.V. Gogol "The Inspector General".