Goncharov's million torments briefly. Two camps and a love triangle
In his critical study“A Million Torments” by I.A. Goncharov described “Woe from Wit” as a lively, sharp satire, but at the same time a comedy, which shows the morals and historical moments of Moscow and its inhabitants.
In the play, Griboyedov touched upon quite important issues such as: upbringing, education, civic duty, service to the fatherland, serfdom and worship of everything foreign. The work describes a huge period in the life of the Russian people, from Catherine to Emperor Nicholas, symbolized by a group of 20 guests at Famusov’s reception, which Chatsky attends - main character comedies. The writer showed the struggle of the past and the present in the images of Chatsky and Famus society.
When Chatsky arrives at Famusov's house to visit his beloved Sophia, he encounters people living in lies and hypocrisy. People who are only interested in dinner parties and dances, who are not at all interested in anything new. Chatsky personifies a person with a new structure of mind and soul, who is inspired by new ideas and knowledge, who is looking for new horizons. He is disgusted by serving the Fatherland only for the sake of ranks and wealth.
What about Sophia? Sophia did not love Chatsky, she cheated on him, choosing the narrow-minded Molchalin, who knows where and who to serve. Having declared Chatsky crazy, Sophia joins Chatsky’s “tormentors,” who laugh and mock him.
In Famusov's society, Chatsky remains misunderstood. He sees and understands the horror of serfdom and the fact that this world is owned by those gentlemen who absolutely do not care about problems common people and the state, they are more concerned about their own good. At the same time, Chatsky does not understand how it is possible to exchange a person for a dog, or take a child from his parents, to satisfy the will of the master.
Unfortunately, neither his speeches nor his suffering bother anyone, and by expressing everything that he has accumulated, Chatsky turns everyone even more against himself. And he stands against people who value power and wealth, but are very afraid of enlightenment and truth. He talks about how the progress of society is associated with the development of personality, the flourishing of science and enlightenment. But alas, this is all alien and alien to the society of old Moscow. They always point out to him his ancestors that he needs to be the same. Chatsky is very smart and educated and does not understand how you can not live, but only play your roles. Ridiculed and misunderstood, he leaves Famusov’s house with his unresolved torment.
Goncharov believes that Chatsky is broken by the number old power, but in turn he inflicted on her death blow the quality of a new force, thereby beginning a new century.
Immortal work famous classic Griboyedov's "Woe from Wit", which has been and continues to be staged performances in many theaters around the world over time, has not lost its relevance.
Critical analysis of the plot of the book by A.S. Griboyedov’s “Woe from Wit”, Goncharov brought out in his work. In it he carries out the ideological and social analysis Griboyedov's comedy.
The comedy differs from many works of that time in its more durable durability, some kind of novelty and spontaneity. A society that is experiencing the transition to a capitalist system is no longer able to captivate Pushkin’s and Lermontov’s heroes. So Pechorin and Onegin can give people less than the newly-minted hero Chatsky. The freshness of this image is undoubtedly in demand due to the unusualness of its view on such aspects as: education, social activity, the role of man in society.
This work, although it was written later than many others, which it would seem should have been successful with the reader, nevertheless it outlived them. The problems that Griboyedov raised were relevant in the times of Pushkin and Lermontov, and will also be relevant after several eras. This work is read by different segments of the population, with different preferences, with different desires to find something interesting and educational in it.
Some will be interested to know how people lived in Moscow at the beginning of the 19th century, their morals and customs. Moreover, the author managed to very successfully convey the very essence of the nobility, its spirit in this period. The types that are written in the comedy are so lively and natural that it seems to the reader that they are his neighbors or close acquaintances. Anyone who has read this work can easily name someone in their circle who is similar to Molchalin or Famusov.
There are readers who cannot help but be attracted by apt epigrams, memorable quotes, and satirical phrases. After all, in all of them, according to Goncharov, there is “the salt of the tongue.” He calls this play a real treasure trove where you can find witty answers for every occasion in life. The quotes that sound in this work have long gone among the people and become aphorisms. For example, who among us doesn’t know this phrase: ‘’ Happy Hours they don’t observe” or “The smoke of the Fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us.”
Without the character of Chatsky, as the author rightly notes, instead of a fun and exciting comedy, most likely, the result would be a boring picture of morals. As you know, Chatsky has a prototype - the then famous philosopher and publicist Chaadaev, who was declared abnormal for his bold views.
In the play, Chatsky suffers the same fate. After all, all the grief of the main character is in his mind. Although Pushkin, at one time, did not agree with this saying, moreover, he was sincerely perplexed about this, considering Chatsky a very small minded. Dobrolyubov generally treated this character with great irony. Still, undoubtedly, Chatsky is a pioneer new era and the new century, and this is its purpose.
In comedy we observe a confrontation between two strong personalities challenging each other. The beginning and end of the battle between two difficult characters - Chatsky and Famusov - are traced. One is expressed by the author elegantly and succinctly, which can be compared to an opera overture.
The other, Famusov, Sophia's father, is a retrograde and conservative. And it turns out that two camps open before the reader, in one of which the elders or “fathers”, led by Famusov, and in the other there is only one Chatsky. He, like a noble warrior, wages his fight to the end, furiously, which is so similar to the natural selection carried out in the animal world.
There is in the book the so-called state of the Molchalins. These are unspiritual people who can obsequiously bow down and then easily betray. They vigorously simulate useful activities, but in reality all this is only for career daring. Molchalin Alexey Stepanovich, Famusov’s vile and mediocre secretary, he is the complete opposite of Chatsky.
There is nothing natural and living in his image. He is stupid and cowardly, at the same time abstinent and diligent in his career; in the future he is a typical bureaucrat. His credo, with which he goes through life, is slavery and servility. He calculated everything correctly, because it is precisely such individuals who will subsequently be noticed and elevated by the authorities; they, who do not have their own opinion and voice, will help to rule.
What Chatsky eventually managed to get was just a million torments. He, a very witty and quick-tongued man, was for the time being invincible in various verbal duels. He used his ability to defeat the enemy with a satirical word, to notice his weak points, with amazing mercilessness. But in the battle with Famusov, he felt the unpleasant taste of loss and mental anguish, to which grief was added. He was forced to leave without finding support or moral closeness from anyone.
All he takes with him is torment. In conclusion, Goncharov concludes that literature will always fight confined to the circle of problems that Griboyedov touches on.
The comedy "Woe from Wit" stands out somehow in literature and is distinguished by its youthfulness, freshness and stronger vitality from other works of the word. She is like a hundred-year-old man, around whom everyone, having lived out their time in turn, dies and lies down, and he walks, vigorous and fresh, between the graves of old people and the cradles of new people. And it never occurs to anyone that someday his turn will come.
The main role, of course, is the role of Chatsky, without which there would be no comedy, but, perhaps, there would be a picture of morals. Chatsky is not only smarter than all other people, but also positively smart. His speech is full of intelligence and wit. He has a heart, and, moreover, he is impeccably honest. In a word, he is not only an intelligent person, but also a developed one, with feeling, or, as his maid Lisa recommends, he is “sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp.” Chatsky, apparently, was preparing seriously for his activities. He “writes and translates nicely,” Famusov says about him, and about his high mind. He, of course, traveled for good reason, studied, read, apparently got to work, had relations with ministers and separated - it’s not difficult to guess why. “I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening,” he himself hints.
He loves seriously, seeing Sophia as his future wife. He came to Moscow and to Famusov, obviously for Sophia and for Sophia alone.
Two comedies seem to be nested within one another: one, so to speak, is 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.
Meanwhile, Chatsky had to drink the bitter cup to the bottom - not finding “living sympathy” in anyone, and leave, taking with him only “a million torments.” Chatsky is eager to " free life", "to engage" in science and art and demands "service to the cause, not to individuals." He is an exposer of lies and everything that has become obsolete, that drowns out new life, "free life." All his mind and all his strength go into this struggle. Not only for Sophia, but also for Famusov and all his guests, Chatsky’s “mind,” which sparkled like a ray of light in the whole play, burst out at the end into that thunder at which, as the proverb goes, men are baptized. All that was needed was an explosion, a battle, and it began, stubborn and hot - on one day in one house, but its consequences were reflected throughout Moscow and Russia.
Chatsky, even if he was deceived in his personal expectations, did not find the “charm of meetings, living participation,” then he himself sprinkled living water on the dead soil - taking with him “a million torments” - torments from everything: from the “mind”, from the “offended feeling "Chatsky's role is a passive role: it cannot be otherwise. This is the role of all Chatskys, although at the same time it is always victorious. But they do not know about their victory, they only sow and others reap. Chatsky is broken by the amount of old power, inflicting a mortal blow on it in turn with the quality of fresh power. He is the eternal denouncer of lies hidden in the proverb: “alone in the field is not a warrior.” No, a warrior, if he is Chatsky, and a winner at that, but an advanced warrior, a skirmisher and always a victim.
Chatsky is inevitable with every change from one century to another. It’s unlikely that Griboyedov’s Chatsky will ever grow old, and with him the whole comedy. Chatsky, in our opinion, is the most lively personality of all the comedy heroes. His nature is stronger and deeper than other persons and therefore could not be exhausted in comedy.
“A million torments” (compendium).
The comedy “Woe from Wit” is a picture of morals, a gallery of living types, a searing satire, and most of all a comedy. Like a painting it is huge. Her canvas captures a long period of Russian life - from Catherine to Emperor Nicholas. The group of twenty people reflected the whole of the former Moscow, its design, its spirit at that time, the historical moment and morals. And all this with such artistic, objective completeness and certainty, which was given only to Pushkin and Gogol.
As long as there will be a desire for honors apart from merit, as long as there will be masters and hunters to please and “take rewards and live happily,” while gossip, idleness, and emptiness will prevail not as vices, but as parts of public life, - until then, of course, the modern society features of the Famusovs, Molchalins and others.
The main role, of course, is the role of Chatsky, without which there would be no comedy, but there would be a picture of morals.
Every step of Chatsky, almost every word of his in the play is closely connected with the play of his feelings for Sophia, irritated by some lie in her actions, which he struggles to unravel until the very end. His whole mind and all his strength go into this struggle: it served as a motive, a reason for irritation, for that “millions of torments”, under the influence of which he could only play the role indicated to him by Griboedov, a role of much greater, higher significance than failed love, in a word, the role for which the whole comedy was born.
Chatsky's role is a suffering one, but at the same time it is always victorious.
The vitality of Chatsky’s role lies in his lack of distractions.
The role and physiognomy of the Chatskys remains unchanged. Chatsky is most of all an exposer of lies and everything that has become obsolete, that drowns out new life, “free life.”
His ideal of a “free life” is defined: this is freedom from all these countless chains of slavery that shackle society, and then freedom - “to focus on the sciences the mind hungry for knowledge”, or to unhinderedly indulge in “the creative, high and beautiful arts” - freedom “to serve or not to serve”, “to live in a village or to travel”, without being considered either a robber or an incendiary, and - a series of further successive similar steps to freedom - from unfreedom. Chatsky is broken by the amount of old power, inflicting a fatal blow on it in turn with the quality of fresh power.
He is the eternal denouncer of lies hidden in the proverb: “Alone in the field is not a warrior.” No, a warrior, if he is Chatsky, and a winner at that, but an advanced warrior, a skirmisher and always a victim. Chatsky is inevitable with every change of centuries.
Sofya Pavlovna is not individually immoral: she sins with the sin of ignorance, blindness, in which everyone lived -
The light does not punish delusions,
But it requires secrets for them!
In this couplet Pushkin expresses general meaning conventional morality. Sophia never saw the light from her and would never have seen without Chatsky, for lack of chance. She's not as guilty as she seems. This is a mixture of good instincts with lies, a lively mind with the absence of any hint of ideas and beliefs, confusion of concepts, mental and moral blindness - all this does not have the character of personal vices in it, but is, as common features her circle. In her own, personal face, something of her own is hidden in the shadows, hot, tender, even dreamy. The rest belongs to education.
Looking deeper into Sophia’s character and surroundings, you see that it was not immorality that “brought her together” with Molchalin. First of all, the desire to patronize a loved one, poor, modest, who does not dare to raise his eyes to her - to elevate him to himself, to his circle, to give him family rights. Without a doubt, she enjoyed the role of ruling over a submissive creature, making him happy and having an eternal slave in him. It’s not her fault that the future “husband is a boy, a husband-servant is the ideal of Moscow husbands!” came out of this. There was nowhere to stumble upon other ideals in Famusov’s house. In general, it is difficult not to like Sophia: she has strong inclinations of a remarkable nature, a lively mind, passion and feminine softness. It was ruined in the stuffiness, where not a single ray of light, not a single stream penetrated fresh air. No wonder Chatsky loved her too. After him, she alone begged for some kind of sad feeling; in the reader’s soul there is no laughter against her with which he parted with other people. Of course, it’s harder for her than anyone, even Chatsky.
I. A. Goncharov. "A Million Torments"
I. Literary and historical fate comedy by Griboyedov.
II. Genre originality of "Woe from Wit".
III. Language and style of the play.
IV. The plot and composition, the scenic quality of the comedy.
V. The image of Chatsky.
1. The role of Chatsky is the main one in the play.
2. Comparison of the hero of Griboedov’s comedy with “ extra people"(Onegin and Pechorin).
3. The unity of personal and social motives in Chatsky’s drama (“a million torments” of the hero).
VI. Sophia's image.
VII. Chatsky - winner or loser?
VIII. Realism of comedy and typicality of the Chatskys.
I. Goncharov notes that the comedy “Woe from Wit” stands “apart in literature.” Recognizing that Griboyedov’s creation cannot be put on a par with the immortal “Eugene Onegin” and other works of the “genius Pushkin,” the author of the article says that “Onegin” has become history for us, and the heroes of “Woe from Wit” will live until then. “as long as there will be a desire for honors apart from merit, as long as there will be masters and hunters to please and “take awards and live happily,” as long as careerism, veneration of rank, gossip, idleness will prevail, social vices, while it will be possible to meet the Famusovs, Silents, Repetilovs, Zagoretskys.
The play stood the test of popularity (the public “literally wore out the comedy to the point of satiety”). Finally, it was recognized as an "exemplary work" by both the "literate masses" and critics.
What attracts fans of the play to it? Answering this question, Goncharov writes that some see the dignity of comedy in the fact that it conveys with amazing accuracy the main features of such social types, like Famusov, Molchalin, Skalozub, others “value more epigrammatic salt language, living satire - the morality of the play.
II. The author of the article completely agrees with those who admit that “the comedy “Woe from Wit” is both a picture of morals, and a gallery of living types, and an ever-sharp, burning satire, and at the same time a comedy... most of all a comedy.” In these features of the play, Goncharov sees it genre originality, emphasizing that “Woe from Wit” is more than anything “a subtle, smart, graceful and passionate comedy.” Not only the representatives of Famusov’s circle are comical, Chatsky is also comical with his naive behavior in the living room Famusovsky house.
The play recreates “a long period of Russian life - from Catherine to Emperor Nicholas. The group of twenty faces reflected... the whole of the former Moscow, its design, its spirit at that time, the historical moment and morals.” Goncharov believes that in comedy there is not a single far-fetched character, not a single unnecessary detail; everything - “from Famusov to the smallest touches, to Prince Tugoukhovsky and to the lackey Petrushka” - was taken from life and transferred to the play.
III. Goncharov highly appreciates the language and style of comedy, in particular its aspects such as “intelligence, humor, jokes and the anger of the Russian mind and language.” The author of the article points to the “spoken verse” of the play and notes that the language of its characters is “natural, simple... speech taken from life.”
Goncharov emphasizes that not a single work of Russian literature before the comedy “Woe from Wit”, long even before its publication, penetrated to such an extent into the wide layers of the then readers: “... the literate masses... immediately understood its beauty and did not having found shortcomings... she tore the manuscript into pieces, into verses, half-verses, and scattered all the salt and wisdom of the play into colloquial speech, as if she turned a million into ten kopecks... she peppered the conversation with Griboyedov’s sayings..."
IV. Goncharov subtly analyzes the plot and composition of “Woe from Wit,” while criticizing those who denied comedy the stage presence, the presence of movement and action: “How is there no movement? There is - living, continuous, from Chatsky’s first appearance on stage to his last word: “Carriage for me, carriage!” “that movement that runs through the entire play, like an invisible but living thread that connects all the parts and faces of the comedy with each other.”
Goncharov thoroughly traces the “course of the play”, its plot development, dynamics, internal mechanism - from scene to scene, from act to act, establishing for the first time that in the stage movement of comedy two intrigues are intertwined - personal and public. The author of the article draws attention to the fact that in the scenes of the third act, dedicated to the depiction of Famusov’s ball, the pictures of the ball temporarily “displace Chatsky’s intrigue from the viewer’s memory, but Chatsky himself seems to forget about it and gets in the way of the crowd.” Each person or group of people at the ball “forms its own separate comedy, with a full outline of the characters who managed to play out in a few words into a complete action.”
"Is not complete comedy are they playing Gorichi? This husband, recently still a vigorous and lively man, is now a degraded gentleman, clothed, as in a robe, in Moscow life; “a boy-husband, a servant-husband, the ideal of Moscow husbands,” according to Chatsky’s apt definition, - under the shoe of a sugary, cutesy socialite wife, a Moscow lady?
And these six princesses and the countess-granddaughter - this whole contingent of brides, “who know how,” according to Famusov, “to dress themselves up with taffeta, marigold and haze,” “singing the top notes and clinging to military people”?
This Khlestova, a remnant of Catherine’s century, with a pug, with a blackamoor girl, - this princess and Prince Pyotr Ilyich - without a word, but such a talking ruin of the past; Zagoretsky, an obvious swindler, escaping from prison in the best living rooms and paying off with servility... and these N.N., and all their talk, and everything that occupies them!”
Goncharov highly appreciates the skill of Griboyedov the realist, who painted a true picture of Moscow life and morals of that era.
V. Goncharov brought especially a lot of new things into the interpretation of the image of Chatsky. The author of the article notes that “many people are perplexed about Chatsky: what is he? It's like... some kind of mysterious map in the deck. If there was little disagreement in the understanding of other people, then about Chatsky, on the contrary, the disagreements have not ended yet and, perhaps, will not end for a long time.” Goncharov emphasizes the realistic versatility of Chatsky’s image, the hero’s wit, the honesty and progressiveness of his beliefs, and expresses warm sympathy for him as a living person.
1. According to Goncharov, “ the main role“, of course, is the role of Chatsky, without which there would be no comedy, but, perhaps, there would be a picture of morals.” The collision of the hero with the society around him determines the “huge, real meaning”, the “main mind” of the work, gives it that living, continuous movement that permeates it from beginning to end. In the comedy, “two centuries come face to face.” Chatsky is truly “smarter than all other people... His speech is full of intelligence and wit.” But despite all this, he acts so “stupidly” that “this gave Pushkin a reason to deny him his intelligence.” (“Pushkin... probably most of all meant last scene Act 4, in the entryway, while driving around.” Here Chatsky is betrayed “not only by his mind, but also common sense, even simple decency... neither Onegin, nor Pechorin, these dandies, would have done what Chatsky did in the entryway.")
3. Goncharov convincingly shows the unity of personal and social motives in Chatsky’s drama, which allows him to prove the social and psychological justification of the hero’s behavior.
Chatsky came to Moscow only for Sophia. “He was struck by two changes: she became unusually prettier and cooled towards him - also unusual.” Chatsky hopes to find an answer to his former feeling - “it’s all in vain: tender memories, witticisms - nothing helps. He endures nothing but coldness from her. A hot duel ensued between her and Chatsky, the most lively action, a comedy in the close sense, in which two persons take part - Molchalin and Liza.
Soon the Chatsky - Sophia line expands significantly; it is no longer the only one in the comedy. The hero’s struggle for the heart of his beloved girl develops into “another struggle, important and serious, a whole battle” - between Chatsky and Famus’s circle. “Two camps have formed, or, on the one hand, a whole camp of the Famusovs and the entire fraternity of “fathers and elders”, on the other - one ardent and brave fighter... If Famusov wants to be an “ace”, “he is on silver and gold” only for the fact that “he signs papers without reading” them, then Chatsky demands “service to the cause, not to persons,” etc.
The collision is one: love theme absorbs enormous social content (the hero’s personal drama is determined by social motives), and, in turn, the social drama is complicated by the personal one. As a result, the hero experienced “a million torments,” under the influence of which he could only play the role indicated to him by Griboyedov, a role of much greater, higher significance than unsuccessful love, in a word, the role for which the whole comedy was born.”
Revealing with exceptional skill the stage development of Chatsky’s image, Goncharov points out, in particular, that in an atmosphere of struggle the hero becomes “bilious, picky... falls into exaggeration... has ceased to control himself and does not even notice that he himself is putting together a performance at the ball.” . The struggle “has exhausted him. He obviously weakened from this “millions of torments”... Chatsky reproaches Sophia, “why did she lure him with hope,” why didn’t she directly say that the past was forgotten. Every word here is not true. She did not entice him with any hope. All she did was walk away from him, barely speak to him, and admitted to indifference.” Chatsky “throws at her a cruel and unfair word: “I am proud of my breakup with you”...
Indeed, in last words and Chatsky’s reproaches addressed to Sophia, not everything corresponds to the truth. But even if the hero’s words are “untrue,” his anger itself is righteous. Anger not only at Sophia, but at the entire Moscow “society”, absurd and terrible: “Dreams are out of sight and the veil has fallen”... “In the “untruth” of Chatsky’s words, the truth of his character is strongly expressed, ardent, spontaneous, capable of deep experiences. In a fit of passion, the hero often sins against private logic, but he is always right in the most important things. Chatsky’s angry and sometimes inaccurate words contain the truth of his relationship with the surrounding society. And in this sense, Goncharov, polemicizing with Pushkin, emphasizes: “Chatsky is smarter than all other people”... his mind sparkles, “like a ray of light, in the whole play.”
VI. Speaking about Sophia, Goncharov, in fact, was the first to show how contradictory and complex spiritual world heroine: “This is a mixture of good instincts with lies, a lively mind with the absence of any hint of ideas and beliefs - confusion of concepts, mental and moral blindness - all this does not have the character of personal vices in her, but appears as general features of her circle. In her own, personal face, something of her own is hidden in the shadows, hot, tender, even dreamy. The rest belongs to education.” Sophia herself is not immoral. She was raised in such a way that “thought was silent, only instincts spoke.” Her ideas about life are drawn from French sentimental novels. Accustomed to imagine and feel, but not accustomed to think, Sophia is blind in her love. She doesn’t see that she herself called Molchalin to this love, which he did not dare even think about. As Goncharov notes, “she sins with the sin of ignorance.” Chatsky opens her eyes. Only he makes Sophia feel all the “horror and shame” of the situation. But with all this, the author of the article notes that “in her feelings for Molchaliu there is a lot of sincerity, strongly reminiscent of Tatiana Pushkin... the desire to patronize a loved one, poor, modest...”.
Goncharov treats Sophia with sympathy, defends her, seeing in her the features of a victim of the patriarchal-noble way of life: “Sofya Pavlovna is not at all as guilty as she seems.” The author of the article notes in her “strong inclinations of a remarkable nature, a lively mind, passion and feminine softness. It was ruined in the stuffiness, where not a single ray of light, not a single stream of fresh air penetrated. No wonder Chatsky loved her too.” At the same time, Goncharov emphasizes that not only Chatsky, but also Sophia experiences tragedy when she sees the person she loves in the real world: “It’s, of course, harder for her than everyone else, harder even for Chatsky, and she gets her “millions of torments.”
VII. Goncharov poses the question for the first time: who is Chatsky - the winner or the loser? Chatsky is defeated, because he is slandered and insulted; The “tormenting crowd” tormented him. His belief that “the world is not like that today” is broken and dispelled. What seemed to the hero a “past century” turned into a cruel and merciless “present century”. Chatsky is forced to flee Moscow...
But at the same time, Chatsky is a winner. Goncharov rightly writes: “Chatsky is broken by the quantity of the old force, having dealt it, in turn, a fatal blow with the quality of the fresh force.” The author of the article claims that the image of Chatsky refutes the proverb: “Alone in the field is not a warrior.” “No, warrior, if he is Chatsky, and, moreover, a winner, but an advanced warrior, a skirmisher and always a victim.” In other words, “Chatsky’s role is a passive role... although at the same time it is always victorious.” The Chatskys “do not know about their victory, they only sow, and others reap - and this is their main suffering, that is, in the hopelessness of success.” The Chatskys are “advanced couriers of the unknown future.”
According to Goncharov, Chatsky “didn’t fight in vain,” he fought “for the future.” He is not broken spiritually, has not betrayed his ideals, has not resigned himself to evil. And this revealed the optimistic essence of the great comedy.
For Famusov's Moscow, the clash with Chatsky will not pass without a trace. What Famusov feared most will happen - publicity, and, perhaps, “he will hardly even end his life as such an “ace””; “the mask is pulled off” from Molchalin; “they fell under a hail of his shots” Gorichi, Zagoretsky, the princesses... Chatsky “gave rise to a split... he himself sprinkled living water on the dead soil”... The consequences of the battle, stubborn and hot, given by the hero“enemy camp” in one day and in one house, “reflected throughout Moscow and Russia.”
VIII. Goncharov expresses the idea that “Chatsky is most of all an exposer of lies and everything that has become obsolete, that drowns out new life, “free life”... He is outraged by the ugly manifestations of serfdom, insane luxury and disgusting morals of “spillage in feasts and extravagance” - phenomena mental and moral blindness and corruption. The author of the article claims that the Chatskys are typical for their time. At the same time, Goncharov emphasizes that “Chatsky is inevitable with every change from one century to another,” thereby affirming the typicality of Chatsky for future times. “Every business that requires renewal evokes the shadow of Chatsky... The Chatskys live and are not transferred in society... where... the struggle of the fresh with the outdated, the sick with the healthy continues... That is why he has not yet grown old and is unlikely to grow old someday Griboyedov’s Chatsky, and with him the whole comedy.” The author of the article finds similarities with Griboedov’s hero in Belinsky, in whose hot improvisations the same motives sound as in Chatsky, and who also suffered “a million torments” in life, as well as in the young Herzen: “In his sarcasms one can hear the echo of Griboyedov’s laughter and endless development of Chatsky’s witticisms.” Goncharov concludes his article with the words: “Chatsky, in our opinion, is the most lively personality of all... But... his nature is stronger and deeper than other persons and therefore could not be exhausted in comedy.” And the main thing is that in the image of Chatsky the trend of the “new century”, which he begins, is affirmed.
Literature
Ozerov Yu. A. Reflections before writing. ( Practical advice applicants to universities): Tutorial. – M.: graduate School, 1990. – P. 100–107.
