The main elements of the plot are grief from mind. "Woe from Wit"

Innovation and tradition in the comedy “Woe from Wit”

The problem of genre.

Exploring the conflict and plot of the comedy “Woe from Wit,” it should be noted that Griboyedov innovatively used the classicist theory of three unities. Following the principles of unity of place and unity of time, the author of the comedy violates the principle of unity of action, which, according to existing rules, was built on one conflict, the beginning took place at the beginning of the play, the denouement - in the finale, where vice was punished and virtue triumphed.

The author’s refusal to build traditional intrigue caused heated controversy, some participants of which refused to give Griboyedov literary skill, others noted the “newness, courage, greatness<...>poetic consideration." The result of the dispute was summed up. In the article “A Million Torments,” the writer identified two conflicts in the comedy “Woe from Wit.” And accordingly, two storylines connected “in one knot”: love and social. “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.” Goncharov showed that at the beginning of the comedy a love conflict ensues, then the plot is complicated by the hero’s confrontation with society.

Both lines develop in parallel, reaching a climax in the 4th act. The love affair gets a resolution, and the solution to the social conflict is taken outside the scope of the work:

Chatsky was expelled from Famus society, but is still true to his convictions. Society also does not intend to change its views. Although the fighting has subsided for a while, further clashes are inevitable.

The two-dimensionality of the plot of “Woe from Wit” revealed by Goncharov for a long time became a dogmatic formula characterizing the artistic originality of the play. But, as you know, Griboyedov himself, retelling the plot of the comedy in a letter, emphasized the unity of personal and social elements. Social satirical scenes and love-comedy action in “Woe from Wit” do not alternate, which is in keeping with the traditions of this genre XVIII centuries, but act as a thoughtful whole. Thus, Griboedov rethought familiar plot patterns and endowed them with new content.

Identification of the features of various genres in comedy.

The comedy “Woe from Wit” was written during the reign of classicism, although in general, realism and romanticism developed in literature. This situation greatly influenced the definition of the method of the work: comedy has both traditional classic features, and the features of realism and romanticism.

1. Features of classicism:

The principle of three unities is observed: the unity of time and place (the action fits into one day, takes place in Famusov’s house); formally there is one storyline Sofya-Molchalin-Chatsky, although it is violated social conflict and the introduction of off-stage characters;

The traditional “role system” is preserved: the plot is based on a love triangle; a father who has no idea about his daughter’s love; a maid who helps lovers;

A departure from tradition is that Chatsky is a reasoner and a hero-lover at the same time, although as a hero-lover he failed. But Molchalin does not quite fit this role, since he is depicted with a clearly negative assessment of the author. Famusov is, in addition to a father who knows nothing, also an ideologist of the “past century.” Therefore, it can be argued that the traditional scope of roles in comedy has been expanded.

There is a principle of “talking names”. These surnames can be divided into three types: 1) surnames indicating some trait of the hero; 2) assessing names; 3) associative surnames;

The comedy is built according to classical canons: 4 acts - the 3rd climax, the 4th denouement.

2. Features of realism:

Social and psychological typification: typical characters, typical circumstances, accuracy in detail.

In contrast of classical plays is that no happy ending: virtue does not triumph, and vice is not punished. The number of characters goes beyond the classic ones (5-10) - there are more than 20 of them in the comedy.

The comedy is written in iambic meter, which perfectly conveys intonation shades, individual characteristics speeches of individual characters.

H. Features of romanticism:

The romantic nature of the conflict;

The presence of tragic pathos;

The motive of loneliness and exile of the main character;

The protagonist's journey as salvation from the past.

Features of the plot of the comedy "Woe from Wit"

The play has a double plot. The beginning love conflict immediately introduces you to the essence of the plot. In the first six apparitions (before Chatsky’s appearance), we meet the heroes in love, the “deceived” father, and the quick-witted maid. Having given only a hint of the traditional turn of events, Griboyedov radically changes both the course and meaning of the plot. The maid Lisa does not want to play the role of “confidante” and “bringing together lovers”; lovers do not seek dates and the father’s blessing for their love, their meetings (“locked” in the bedroom) are appointed by Sophia herself; The “noble” father feels “contradictions” in explaining how a “young man” could get into the living room so early in the morning, but allows himself to be persuaded.

These changes to the clichéd plot scheme allowed Griboyedov to escape from the routine theatrical tradition and show characters connected by difficult relationships.

Sophia deceives her father in his own home, at the same time she herself turns out to be a victim of an insidious lover; The “noble” father flirts with the maid and immediately declares his “monastic behavior.” There is no truth or sincerity in the relationships between the characters; they find themselves bound by mutual responsibility. As the comedy progresses, it becomes obvious that there is a double morality when what appears does not correspond inner essence, is generally accepted. Deception is conditioned by the unwritten law of “secular” relations, in which everything is permissible, but it is necessary that what happened remains implicit and unspoken. In this regard, Famusov’s monologue that ends the play is indicative, where the hero fears that rumors about the events in his house will reach “Princess Marya Alekseevna” herself.

The title of the work contains the word “grief”. We call what happens to Chatsky drama. Why do we, following Griboyedov, define the genre of the work as a comedy? It is unlikely that it will be possible to achieve clarity in the answer to this question, especially since the author himself, in notes about this work, defines the genre as “ stage poem”, and researchers offer a range from poetic lyrics to stories and novels. One way or another, if this is a comedy, it is an innovative one; it is no coincidence that many of Griboyedov’s contemporaries did not understand it.

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.
Liza's line is connected with the traditional image of the soubrette from the 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 prepare troubles 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 we 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 motive of deafness, which we already talked about when examining the list characters, such an important motif in comedy, begins right here - in the first scene 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 always points to authority, cites as an example someone who, in Famusov’s opinion, cannot be disrespected. 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 recall 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, expressing his impartial opinions about various aspects of Moscow life: if he talks about theatrical life, he does not forget to say that the one who “has Theater and Masquerade written on his forehead” - “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 pupils and mugs”, then again he is dissatisfied with teachers and Muscovites who “are busy recruiting regiments of teachers, // More than one in number , at a cheaper 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

Target: get into the atmosphere of action; identify exposure, features of the conflict; analyze the list of actors; pay attention to the aphorism of speech

Download:

Preview:

A.S. Griboyedov. "Woe from Wit." Content overview. Reading key scenes plays. Features of comedy composition. Features of classicism and realism in comedy, imagery and aphorism of its language. Meet the heroes.

Target: get into the atmosphere of action; identify exposure, features of the conflict; analyze the list of actors; pay attention to the aphorism of speech

During the classes

I Organizational moment

II Studying new material.

The comedy by A. S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit” is a work in which momentary ideological and political disputes are accurately reproduced and at the same time problems of a national and universal nature are identified. These problems in the play are born of the collision of a bright personality with an inert social structure, in the words of the author himself, “a sane person” with “twenty-five fools.”

Such a clash, "the contradiction between characters, or characters and circumstances, or within character, underlying action" is called conflict . Conflict is the “mainspring”, the source of dynamic tension in a literary work, ensuring the development of the plot.

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

What plot elements do you know?

Which ones are major and which are secondary?

What are distinctive features each (exposition, plot, development of action, climax, denouement)?

Is it possible to rearrange them?

What artistic effect is achieved?

1. Conversation about the composition of comedy.

Let's see which of the laws of classicism are preserved in the play, and which are violated.

1) The rule of “three unities”: - unity of time (1 day);

Unity of place (Famusov's house);

Unity of action (no, there is more than one conflict in the play).

The author touches on many serious issues of social life, morality, and culture. He talks about the situation of the people, about serfdom, about future fate Russia, about the freedom and independence of the human person, about man’s vocation, about duty, about the tasks and ways of education and upbringing, etc.

2) In comedy it is observed compositional principle: 4 actions,

in the 3rd - the climax, in the 4th - the denouement.

3) The presence of a love triangle.

4) Presence of a reasoner (Chatsky and Lisa).

5) “Talking” names (we read the poster: Molchalin, Famusov, Repetilov, Tugoukhovsky, Khlestova, Skalozub, Khryumin).

a) Famusov (from Latin Fama - rumor). Repetilov (from the French repeter - repeat).

Molchalin, Tugoukhovsky, Skalozub, Khryumina, Khlestova.

b). Heroes are characterized based on the following criteria:

the principle of birth and place on the career ladder.

V). Chatsky and Repetilov are deprived of these characteristics. Why?!

G). Two characters are designated conventionally G.N. and G,D. Why?

Surname Chatsky “Rhymed” (Chadsky - Chaadaev). With his comedy, Griboyedov foresaw the fate of PYa. Chaadaeva.

The surname “Chatsky” carries an encrypted hint to the name of one of the most interesting people of that era: Pyotr Yakovlevich Chaadaev. In the draft versions of “Woe from Wit,” Griboedov wrote the hero’s name differently than in the final version: “Chadsky.” The surname of Chaadaev was also often pronounced and written with one “a”: “Chadaev”. This is exactly how, for example, Pushkin addressed him in the poem “From the Sea Shore of Taurida”: “Chadaev, do you remember the past? .."

Chaadaev took part in the Patriotic War of 1812, in the anti-Napoleonic campaign abroad. In 1814 he joined the Masonic lodge, and in 1821 he suddenly interrupted the brilliant military career and agreed to join secret society. From 1823 to 1826, Chaadaev traveled around Europe, comprehended the latest philosophical teachings, met Schelling and other thinkers. After returning to Russia in the 1828-1830s, he wrote and published the historical and philosophical treatise “Philosophical Letters”.

The views, ideas, judgments - in a word, the very system of worldview of the thirty-six-year-old philosopher turned out to be so unacceptable for Nicholas Russia that the author of the “Philosophical Letters” suffered an unprecedented and terrible punishment: by the highest (i.e. personally imperial) decree he was declared crazy.

It so happened that literary character did not repeat the fate of his prototype, but predicted it. And here we come to the most important question: what is Chatsky’s madness?

2. Work on the text of the comedy.

So, the action of the comedy takes place in the Famusovs’ house, in Moscow, but in the conversations and remarks of the characters, both the capital’s ministries of St. Petersburg and the Saratov “wilderness”, where Sophia’s aunt lives, appear. People of different types perform in comedy social status: from Famusov and Khlestova to serf servants.

Imagine the house of a rich Moscow gentleman half of the 19th century V. We enter the living room.

1. Reading by roles of the 1st and 2nd phenomena of Act I.

Reading will be accompanied by elements of analysis.

Working in notebooks, students record the following material during or after reading and conversation: “catchphrase” expressions, characteristics of characters (including quotes), observations of the development of the conflict.

2) Conversation on the content of what was read.

What are phenomena 1-5 in terms of plot development? (Exhibition) What is the atmosphere of life in Famusov’s house and its inhabitants themselves, how does Griboyedov create their characters?

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

What characters and situations are comical?

Can we imagine the individual appearance of each hero?

What have we learned about the characters’ hobbies and activities?

What kind of person is Famusov? How does he treat others?

Why does Pavel Afanasyevich pretend that he does not notice his daughter’s meetings with Molchalin?

What phenomenon begins the action? (From the 7th, when Chatsky appears.)

The last question will make it possible to draw attention to the peculiarity of the language of comedy and the skill of Griboedov, the poet. We emphasize that the poet adheres to the principles of simplicity and colloquial (but not vernacular) language, the speech of the characters is individualized; free iambic is used as the most flexible and mobile size; Griboyedov’s rhymes are interesting (what is the rhyme in Famusov’s monologue about Sophia’s upbringing - “mother” - “accept” worth).

3) Reading by roles of the 7th phenomenon.

4) Conversation on the content of the 7th phenomenon.

How does Chatsky appear? Where he was? What traits of his character immediately catch your eye?

How does Sophia greet him?

How does Chatsky try to return the “tone of the previous relationship” with his beloved?

When does Sophia begin to treat Chatsky with open hostility? Why?

Why is Famusov concerned about Chatsky’s arrival? Why doesn’t he see worthy candidates for his daughter’s hand in either Molchalin or Chatsky?

After getting acquainted with phenomena 8-10, we find out whether a conflict has manifested itself, between whom, and what its nature is.

C onclusion: Analyzing action 1, we got acquainted with the characters and notedtwo main conflicts: "love" with which the play begins, and social , when “the present century” and “the past century” are contrasted. Social conflict does not fit into the framework of a love plot, it is broader. Act I develops mainly love line, the social is only outlined by Chatsky’s petty remarks about old Moscow.

III. Lesson summary.

Homework

1. Read Act II. 2. Individual task: prepare expressive reading Chatsky’s monologues “And sure enough, the world began to grow stupid...”, “Who are the judges?” and Famusov “That’s it, you are all proud!”, “Taste, father, excellent manners”

One of the most common and persistent accusations brought against Griboedov as the author of a comedy by his contemporaries was the remark about the lack of a coherent and thoughtful plan. Moreover, this accusation was made by both friends and foes. Katenin and Pushkin wrote about this in friendly responses; One of Griboyedov’s first ill-wishers, the famous vaudeville actor A.I., also spoke about this. Pisarev on the pages of the magazine “Bulletin of Europe”.

Contemporaries did not see internal unity in Griboedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit,” although it would seem that the so-called “trinity” was preserved: place (Famusov’s house), time (one day), action (love triangle). But this was also an apparent adherence to tradition: the house turned into a space not only for Moscow, but for all of Russia; one crazy day became a symbol of the era, and the love triangle consisted of solid angles and was not so much love as ideological: everyone ended up with nothing, there was not even a hint of a happy ending.

But with internal unity the situation was even more complicated: in the comedy “Woe from Wit” by Griboyedov it was not there, but there were two lines of development of the action and plot. When Pisarev reproached Griboyedov for the lack of communication, i.e. plan, he meant one of two things: either a single love affair, or a consistently sustained moral narrative satirical assignment. In Griboedov’s comedy there is something else, but it is deeply interconnected, and the classical interpretation of such a synthesis is given by I.A. Goncharov. “Two comedies,” he wrote, “seem to be nested within one another: one, so to speak, private, petty, domestic, between Chatsky, Sophia, Molchalin and Liza; This is the intrigue of love, the everyday motive of all comedies. When the first is interrupted, 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.” The composition of the comedy “Woe from Wit” is the key to understanding this paradox of “internal form”, and therefore let us turn to its consideration.

Woe from Wit has four acts. And this was also a reason for bewilderment among contemporaries: why not the traditional and legalized five? First of all Griboyedov's comedy tangibly divided into two dialectically interacting parts. The first half (acts one and two) is dominated by comedy based on the love affair, and therefore these acts are relatively sparsely populated. In the second half (third and fourth acts) social comedy dominates, and these actions are presented to the reader and viewer, according to the witty remark of P.A. Vyazemsky, “the people of the characters.” But the social theme does not arise with the beginning of the 3rd act, and the love theme does not end with the end of the 2nd. Chatsky’s clash with Famusov’s Moscow begins from his very first appearance on stage: first, in a conversation with Sophia, with humorous epigrams addressed to acquaintances (“Well, what about your father, and auntie? Still a girl, Minerva?”). In the second act, it intensifies to an irritated intonation (“And sure enough, the world began to grow stupid, // And who are the judges?”). In the third act it reaches a climax and is catastrophically resolved in the fourth (“I won’t come to my senses, it’s my fault...”) as a result of a meeting with Repetilov, Sophia’s accidentally overheard conversation with Molchalin and an explanation with Sophia. Thus, in terms of emotional tension and intensity, the center of gravity social comedy accounts for two final actions, but the material for this feeling is already contained in the first two acts.

A love affair goes through the same stages, with some differences in composition and tempo. Moreover, the space of its greatest intensity is the first and second actions. It is they who are oversaturated with the question that intrigues all the heroes: “Which of the two?”: for Famusov - Molchalin or Chatsky, for Chatsky - Molchalin or Skalozub. Two planned love triangle: dramatic - Sophia, Molchalin, Chatsky and almost vaudeville - Liza, Famusov, Molchalin, which complement and balance each other. Moreover, it is curious that they are identical in their dramatic properties - in both of them, two unsuccessful rivals are opposed by a happy third: Sophia, rejecting Chatsky and Skalozub, loves Molchalin, and Liza, rejecting the advances of Molchalin and Famusov, admits: “And I... I am the only one who is afraid of love to death. — // How can you not fall in love with the bartender Petrusha!” This is the final line of the second act, and then the love affair subsides: “the scales fell from my eyes.” The love affair is resolved simultaneously with the social drama in the comedy finale. This is approximately the dialectic of two large parts of the text.

In turn, each action is divided into two relatively independent paintings, and these paintings are arranged in such a way that, within the entire comedy, in the center there are social paintings, framed by love ones. Each character takes part in two actions and lives in two spaces. This can be represented in the following table:

Act I

Act II

Act III

IV action

Thus, overall plan The play is classically structured: the basis of the composition “Woe from Wit” by Griboedov is the relationship, the interweaving of love intrigue and Chatsky’s social drama, which not only interact, but also alternate rhythmically, like the encircling rhymes in two quatrains: abba and abba. The general compositional principle of “Woe from Wit” can be defined as the law of artistic symmetry or as the principle of mirror composition. In such an architectonics, the fifth act turned out to be unnecessary, since it violated the harmonious unity of the two lines. At the same time, the four-act sequence had a meaningful meaning: the comedy ended in open space, its hero went into life as a spiritual winner.

Speaking about the pre-Griboyedov comedy (and here, first of all, the names of Sumarokov, Fonvizin, Kapnist must be mentioned), it should be noted that its conflict was born from the collision of everyday and existential principles, which determined the presence of two types artistic images: satirical, morally descriptive and heroic ideologists or lovers. And if the first in the tradition of satire had texture, volume, and a pronounced individuality, then the second in the tradition of the odic world image were ethereal and resonant.

Subject: Griboyedov. "Woe from Wit." Features of comedy composition The purpose of the lesson: introduce students to the comedy “Woe from Wit.”
Tasks: 1) educational: introduce students to the history of comedy; introduce students to the plot and composition;
2) developmental: promote the development of skills logical thinking; promote the acquisition of analytical skills; promote drafting skills thesis plan according to the teacher's lecture;
3) educational: to instill a feeling of love for the Russian language in literature lessons; promote the formation of connected response skills; promote the formation of discipline.

During the classes.

I Organizing time.

Teacher's word.
II 1) Checking homework.
2) Statement of the problematic question:
What is unique about the conflict in the comedy “Woe from Wit”?

III Learning new material.
Teacher's word.

History of creation.

There is a legend about how Griboedov came up with the idea for “Woe from Wit.” On November 17, 1820, in a letter from Tiflis to an unknown person, Griboyedov described his prophetic dream. For three years Griboyedov hatched the idea of ​​a comedy. It is also known that in the fall of 1819, Griboyedov, while traveling from Mozdok to Tiflis, read passages to his companion, Prince Bebutov.

The playwright began working directly on the comedy later. Two acts were written by him during his stay in the Caucasus in 1821-1822. The first listener was V. Kuchelbecker. In March 1823 Griboedov gets a long leave and goes to Moscow. As Begichev’s niece E.P. Sokovnina recalls, in Moscow the writer “continued to finish his comedy “Woe from Wit” and, in order to more accurately capture all the shades of Moscow society, went to dinners and balls, which he had never been in the mood for, and then retired to all day in my office."

Late summer 1823 Griboyedov spent time at Begichev's Tula estate, where he mostly finished his comedy. In the autumn of 1824 the work was completed. The censorship troubles began. All attempts to publish “Woe from Wit” were unsuccessful. The production in the theater was also impossible. An attempt to stage a comedy at least on the stage of the St. Petersburg theater school in May 1825 ended in failure. The performance was banned by order of the St. Petersburg Governor-General Count Miloradovich, and the school authorities were reprimanded. In 1825 in the anthology “Russian Waist” only a few scenes were published.

Composition of the work.

All compositional means in comedy are subordinated to the depiction of social conflict. Each act of comedy reveals a certain stage of the struggle: Act I - a dramatic knot is tied; II - Chatsky is trying to find out: “Is there really a groom here?”; III - Chatsky wants to get a confession from Sophia herself: “I’ll wait for her and force a confession...”; IV - Chatsky saw who she preferred to him.

Each act consists of separate scenes representing a fight, a “duel”, where each response is a blow from the attacking hero or a counter-attack from the hero repelling the attack.

basis stage action is a love affair, i.e. Outwardly, “Woe from Wit” is the story of the deceived Chatsky, who passionately loves Sophia, but after a long separation finds her in love with another. The search for the object of Sophia’s love initially leads Chatsky to a dead end, since he believes that neither the “most pitiful creature” Molchalin, nor the “wheezing, strangled, bassoon” Skalozub are worthy of her love. But insight comes only when Chatsky witnesses the scene that opened true face Silence in front of Sophia. And here nothing can stop Chatsky: offended, after an accusatory monologue, he leaves “out of Moscow.”

Feature compositional construction comedy is the interweaving of two storylines. Behind love affair a socio-political struggle between two forces arises, one of which is represented by Famusov and his entourage, the other by Chatsky. And this line is the main one in comedy. In the fiercest battle between the “present century” and the “past century,” the winner is the still strong “Famus society.” The honest, decent Chatsky has no choice but to run away from this society, “where there is a corner for the offended feeling.”

The plot and composition of "Woe from Wit"
The plot of Griboyedov's comedy in itself is already quite original and unusual. I cannot agree with those who consider it banal. At first glance, it may seem that the main plot is the love story of Chatsky for Sophia. Indeed, this story occupies the work great place, giving liveliness to the development of action. But still, the main thing in comedy is Chatsky’s social drama. The title of the play indicates this. The story of Chatsky’s unhappy love for Sophia and the story of his conflict with the Moscow nobility, closely intertwined, are united in single line plot. Let's follow its development. The first scenes, morning in Famusov's house - an exposition of the play. Sophia, Molchalin, Liza, Famusov appear, the appearance of Chatsky and Skalozub is prepared, the characters and relationships of the characters are described. The movement and development of the plot begins with the first appearance of Chatsky. And before this, Sophia spoke very coldly about Chatsky, and now, when he, animatedly sorting through his Moscow acquaintances, laughed at Molchalin at the same time, Sophia’s coldness turned into irritation and indignation: “Not a man, a snake!” So Chatsky, without suspecting it, turned Sophia against himself. Everything that happened to him at the beginning of the play will receive further continuation and development: he will be disappointed in Sophia, and his mocking attitude towards his Moscow acquaintances will grow into a deep conflict with Famus society. From Chatsky’s dispute with Famusov in the second act of the comedy, it is clearly clear that this is not just a matter of dissatisfaction with each other. Here two worldviews collided.

In addition, in the second act, Famusov’s hints about Skalozub’s matchmaking and Sophia’s fainting pose Chatsky with a painful riddle: could Sophia’s chosen one really be Skalozub or Molchalin? And if this is so, then which one of them?.. In the third act the action becomes very intense. Sophia unambiguously makes it clear to Chatsky that she does not love him and openly admits her love for Molchalin, but she says about Skalozub that this is not the hero of her novel. It seems that everything has become clear, but Chatsky does not believe Sophia. This disbelief strengthens in him even more after a conversation with Molchalin, in which he shows his immorality and insignificance. Continuing his sharp attacks against Molchalin, Chatsky arouses Sophia’s hatred of himself, and it is she, first by accident, and then intentionally, who starts a rumor about Chatsky’s madness. The gossip is picked up, spreads with lightning speed, and they begin to talk about Chatsky in the past tense. This is easily explained by the fact that he has already managed to turn not only the hosts, but also the guests against himself. Society cannot forgive Chatsky for protesting against his morality.

This is how the action reaches highest point, climax. The denouement comes in the fourth act. Chatsky learns about the slander and immediately observes the scene between Molchalin, Sophia and Liza. “Here is the solution to the riddle at last! Here I am sacrificed to someone!” - this is the final insight. With enormous internal pain, Chatsky pronounces his last monologue and leaves Moscow. Both conflicts are brought to an end: the collapse of love becomes obvious, and the clash with society ends in a break. Vice is not punished and virtue does not triumph. However, Griboedov refused the happy ending, abandoning the fifth act.

Discussing the clarity and simplicity of the composition of the play, V. Kuchelbecker noted: “In “Woe from Wit” ... the whole plot consists of Chatsky’s opposition to other persons; ... here ... there is no what in drama is called intrigue. Dan Chatsky ", other characters are given, they are brought together, and it is shown what the meeting of these antipodes must necessarily be like - and nothing more. It is very simple, but in this simplicity there is news, courage "... The peculiarity of the composition "Woe from Wit" in the fact that its individual scenes and episodes are connected almost arbitrarily. It is interesting to see how, with the help of the composition, Griboedov emphasizes Chatsky’s loneliness. At first, Chatsky sees with disappointment that he ex-friend Platon Mikhailovich “became not the same” in short term; Now Natalya Dmitrievna directs his every move and praises him with the same words that Molchalin later praises the Pomeranian: “My husband is a wonderful husband.” So, Chatsky’s old friend turned into an ordinary Moscow “husband - boy, husband - servant.” But this is not a very big blow for Chatsky. Nevertheless, throughout the entire time when the guests arrive at the ball, he talks with Platon Mikhailovich. But Platon Mikhailovich later recognizes him as crazy and, for the sake of his wife and everyone else, abandons him. Further on, Griboyedov, in the middle of his fiery monologue, first addressed to Sophia, Chatsky looks back and sees that Sophia has left without listening to him, and in general “everyone is spinning in the waltz with the greatest zeal. The old people have scattered to the card tables.” And finally, Chatsky’s loneliness is especially acutely felt when Repetilov begins to force himself on him as a friend, starting a “sensible conversation... about vaudeville.” The very possibility of Repetilov’s words about Chatsky: “He and I... we have... the same tastes” and a condescending assessment: “he’s not stupid” shows how far Chatsky is from this society, if he no longer has anyone to talk to , except for the enthusiastic chatterbox Repetilov, whom he simply cannot stand.

The theme of falling and the theme of deafness runs through the entire comedy. Famusov recalls with pleasure how his uncle Maxim Petrovich fell three times in a row to make Empress Ekaterina Alekseevna laugh; Molchalin falls from his horse, tightening the reins; Repetilov stumbles, falls at the entrance and “hastily recovers”... All these episodes are interconnected and echo the words of Chatsky: “And he was completely confused, and fell so many times”... Chatsky also falls to his knees in front of Sophia, who no longer loves him. The theme of deafness is also constantly and persistently repeated: Famusov covers his ears so as not to hear Chatsky’s seditious speeches; the universally respected Prince Tugoukhovsky does not hear anything without a horn; Khryumina, the Countess-grandmother, herself completely deaf, not hearing anything and confusing everything, edifyingly says: “Oh! Deafness is a great vice.” Chatsky and later Repetilov hear no one and nothing, carried away by their monologues.
There is nothing superfluous in “Woe from Wit”: not a single unnecessary character, not a single unnecessary scene, not a single wasted stroke. All episodic persons were introduced by the author with specific purpose. Thanks to off-stage characters, of which there are many in the comedy, the boundaries of Famusov’s house and the boundaries of time expand.
Summarizing.

Reflection.

Homework: selection of material and its design for a lesson-research on comedy.

Grading.