A million torments. “A Million Torments” (critical study) A Million Torments of Potters read the article briefly
The comedy “Woe from Wit” somehow stands apart 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.
“Woe from Wit” appeared before Onegin, Pechorin, survived them, passed unscathed through the Gogol period, lived these half a century from the time of its appearance and still lives its imperishable life, will survive many more eras, and everything will not lose its vitality.
Why is this, and what is “Woe from Wit” anyway?
Criticism did not move the comedy from the place it had once occupied, as if at a loss as to where to place it. The oral assessment was ahead of the printed one, just as the play itself was long ahead of the printing. But the literate masses actually appreciated it. Immediately realizing its beauty and not finding any flaws, she tore the manuscript into pieces, into verses, half-verses, spread all the salt and wisdom of the play into colloquial speech, as if she had turned a million into ten-kopeck pieces, and so peppered the conversation with Griboyedov’s sayings that she literally wore out the comedy to the point of satiety. .
Printed criticism has always treated with more or less severity only the stage performance of the play, touching little on the comedy itself, or expressing itself in fragmentary, incomplete and contradictory reviews. It was decided once and for all that the comedy was an exemplary work - and with that everyone made peace.
Some value in comedy a picture of Moscow morals of a certain era, the creation of living types and their skillful grouping. The whole play seems to be a circle of faces familiar to the reader, and, moreover, as definite and closed as a deck of cards. The faces of Famusov, Molchalin, Skalozub and others were etched into the memory as firmly as kings, jacks and queens in cards, and everyone had a more or less consistent concept of all the faces, except for one - Chatsky. So they are all drawn correctly and strictly, and so they have become familiar to everyone. Only about Chatsky many are perplexed: what is he? It's like he's the fifty-third mysterious card in the deck. If there was little disagreement in the understanding of other people, then about Chatsky, on the contrary, the differences have not ended yet and, perhaps, will not end for a long time.
Others, giving justice to the picture of morals, the fidelity of types, value the more epigrammatic salt of language, living satire - morality, with which the play still, like an inexhaustible well, supplies everyone at every everyday step of life.
All these various impressions and each one’s own point of view based on them serve as the best definition of the play, i.e., 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 and, let’s say for ourselves - most of all a comedy - which can hardly be found in other literatures, if we accept the totality of all other stated conditions. As a painting, it is, without a doubt, enormous. Her canvas captures a long period of Russian life - from Catherine to Emperor Nicholas. The group of twenty faces reflected, like a ray of light in a drop of water, the entire former Moscow, its design, its spirit at that time, its historical moment and morals. And this with such artistic, objective completeness and certainty that only Pushkin and Gogol were given in our country.
In a picture where there is not a single pale spot, not a single extraneous stroke or sound,- the viewer and the reader feel themselves even now, in our era, among living people. Both the general and the details, all this is not composed, but entirely taken from Moscow living rooms and transferred to the book and to the stage, with all the warmth and with all the “special imprint” "Moscow, - from Famusov to the small touches, to Prince Tugoukhovsky and to the footman Petrushka, without whom the picture would not be complete.
However, for us it is not yet a completely completed historical picture: we have not moved away from the era at a sufficient distance for an impassable abyss to lie between it and our time. The coloring was not smoothed out at all; the century has not separated from ours, like a cut-off piece: we have inherited something from there, although the Famusovs, Molchalins, Zagoretskys, etc. have changed so that they no longer fit into the skin of Griboyedov’s types. The harsh features have become obsolete, of course: no Famusov will now invite Maxim Petrovich to become a jester and set an example, at least so positively and clearly Molchalin, even in front of the maid, secretly, now does not confess to the commandments that his father bequeathed to him; such a Skalozub, such a Zagoretsky are impossible even in a distant outback. But 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 dominate not as vices, but as elements of social life - so long, of course , the features of the Famusovs, Molchalins and others will flash in modern society, there is no need that that “special imprint” of which Famusov was proud has been erased from Moscow itself.
Universal human models, of course, always remain, although they turn into types unrecognizable due to temporary changes, so that, to replace the old, artists sometimes have to update, after long periods, the basic features of morals and human nature in general that once appeared in images , clothing them with new flesh and blood in the spirit of their time
This can especially be attributed to Griboyedov’s comedy. In it, the local coloring is too bright, and the designation of the characters themselves is so strictly delineated and furnished with such reality of details that universal human traits can hardly stand out from under social positions, ranks, costumes, etc.
Chatsky himself thunders against the “past century” when the comedy was written, and it was written between 1815 and 1820.
or:
he says to Famusov
Consequently, now only a little of the local color remains: passion for rank, sycophancy, emptiness. But with some reforms, the ranks can move away, sycophancy to the extent of Molchalinsky’s lackeyness is already hiding in the darkness, and the poetry of the fruit has given way to a strict and rational direction in military affairs.
But there are still some living traces, and they still prevent the painting from turning into a completed historical bas-relief. This future is still far ahead of her.
Salt, an epigram, a satire, this colloquial verse, it seems, will never die, just like the sharp and caustic, living Russian mind scattered in them, which Griboyedov imprisoned, like some kind of wizard spirit, in his castle, and it crumbles there an evil laugh. It is impossible to imagine that another, more natural, simpler, more taken from life speech could ever appear. Prose and verse merged here into something inseparable, then, it seems, so that it would be easier to retain them in memory and put into circulation again all the intelligence, humor, jokes and anger of the Russian mind and language collected by the author. This language was given to the author in the same way as a group of these individuals was given, as the main meaning of the comedy was given, as everything was given together, as if it poured out at once, and everything formed an extraordinary comedy - both in the narrow sense, like a stage play, and in the broad sense, like a comedy life It couldn't be anything else but a comedy
Leaving the two main aspects of the play, which so clearly speak for themselves, and therefore have the majority of admirers, - that is, the picture of the era, with a group of living portraits, and the salt of the language - let us first turn to the comedy, as a stage play, then as comedy in general, to its general meaning, to its main reason in social and literary significance, and finally let’s talk about its performance on stage.
We have long been accustomed to saying that there is no movement, that is, there is no action in the play. How is there no movement? There is - living, continuous, from Chatsky’s first appearance on the sienna to his last word: “Carriage for me, carriage!”
This is a subtle, intelligent, elegant and passionate comedy, in a close, technical sense, true in small psychological details, but elusive for the viewer, because it is disguised by the typical faces of the heroes, ingenious drawing, the color of the place, the era, the charm of the language, all poetic forces, so abundantly diffused in the play. The action, that is, the actual intrigue in it, in front of these capital aspects seems pale, superfluous, almost unnecessary.
Only when driving around in the entryway does the viewer seem to awaken to the unexpected catastrophe that has broken out between the main characters, and suddenly remember the comedy-intrigue. But even then not for long. The enormous, real meaning of comedy is already growing before him.
Ivan Goncharov
"A Million Torments"
(Critical study)
Woe from mind Griboedova.- Monakhov's benefit, November, 1871
How to look and look (he says),
This century and this century past,
The legend is fresh, but hard to believe -
And about his time he expresses himself like this:
Now everyone breathes more freely, -
Scolded your forever I am merciless, -
I would be glad to serve, but it makes me sick to serve,
He hints himself. There is no mention of “yearning laziness, idle boredom,” and even less of “tender passion,” as a science and an occupation. He loves seriously, seeing Sophia as his future wife.
Meanwhile, Chatsky had to drink the bitter cup to the bottom - not finding “living sympathy” in anyone, and leaving, taking with him only “a million torments.” Neither Onegin nor Pechorin would have acted so foolishly in general, especially in the matter of love and matchmaking. But they have already turned pale and turned into stone statues for us, and Chatsky remains and will always remain alive for this “stupidity” of his. The reader remembers, of course, everything that Chatsky did. Let us slightly trace the course of the play and try to highlight from it the dramatic interest of the comedy, the movement that runs through the entire play, like an invisible but living thread connecting all the parts and faces of the comedy with each other. Chatsky runs to Sophia, straight from the road carriage, without stopping by his place, passionately kisses her hand, looks into her eyes, rejoices at the date, hoping to find an answer to his old feeling - and does not find it. He was struck by two changes: she became unusually prettier and cooled towards him - also unusual. This puzzled him, upset him, and a little irritated him. In vain he tries to sprinkle the salt of humor into his conversation, partly playing with this strength of his, which, of course, was what Sophia liked before when she loved him - partly under the influence of annoyance and disappointment. Everyone gets it, he went through everyone - from Sophia’s father to Molchalin - and with what apt features he draws Moscow - and how many of these poems have gone into living speech! But everything is in vain: tender memories, witticisms - nothing helps. He suffers nothing but coldness from her, until, caustically touching Molchalin, he touched her too. She already asks him with hidden anger whether he happened to even accidentally “say kind things about someone,” and disappears at her father’s entrance, betraying Chatsky to the latter almost with her head, that is, declaring him the hero of the dream told to his father before. From that moment on, a hot duel ensued between her and Chatsky, the most lively action, a comedy in the close sense, in which two persons, Molchalin and Liza, take a close part. Every step of Chatsky, almost every word in the play is closely connected with the play of his feelings for Sophia, irritated by some kind of 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 Griboyedov, a role of much greater, higher significance than unsuccessful love , in a word, the role for which the whole comedy was born. Chatsky hardly notices Famusov, coldly and absentmindedly answers his question, where have you been? “Do I care now?” - he says and, promising to come again, leaves, saying from what is absorbing him:How Sofya Pavlovna has become prettier for you!
Let me woo you, what would you tell me?
I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening!
That's it, you are all proud:
Famusov speaks and then draws such a crude and ugly picture of servility that Chatsky could not stand it and, in turn, made a parallel between the “past” century and the “present” century.
But his irritation is still restrained: he seems ashamed of himself that he decided to sober Famusov from his concepts; he hastens to insert that “he’s not talking about his uncle,” whom Famusov cited as an example, and even invites the latter to scold his age; finally, he tries in every possible way to hush up the conversation, seeing how Famusov has covered his ears, he calms him down, almost apologizes.It’s not my desire to continue the debate,
He says. He is ready to enter himself again. But he is awakened by Famusov’s unexpected hint about a rumor about Skalozub’s matchmaking.
It’s as if he’s marrying Sofyushka... etc.
How he fusses, what agility!
Ah - tell love the end,
Who will go away for three years! —
But he himself still does not believe it, following the example of all lovers, until this love axiom plays out over him to the end.
Famusov confirms his hint about Skalozub’s marriage, imposing on the latter the thought of “the general’s wife,” and almost obviously invites him to matchmaking. These hints about marriage aroused Chatsky’s suspicions about the reasons for Sophia’s change towards him. He even agreed to Famusov’s request to give up “false ideas” and remain silent in front of the guest. But irritation was already rising, and he intervened in the conversation, until casually, and then, annoyed by Famusov’s awkward praise of his intelligence and so on, he raised his tone and resolved himself with a sharp monologue: “Who are the judges?” etc. Here another struggle begins, an important and serious one, a whole battle. Here, in a few words, the main motive is heard, as in an opera overture, and the true meaning and purpose of the comedy is hinted at. Both Famusov and Chatsky threw down the gauntlet to each other:If only we could see what our fathers did
You should learn by looking at your elders! —
Famusov's military cry was heard. Who are these elders and “judges”?
For the decrepitude of years
Their enmity towards a free life is irreconcilable, -
Chatsky answers and executes -
The meanest features of the past life.
Confusion, fainting, haste, anger of fright!
(on the occasion of Molchalin’s fall from his horse) -
You can feel all this
When you lose your only friend,
He says and leaves in great excitement, in the throes of suspicion about the two rivals.
In the third act, he gets to the ball before everyone else, with the goal of “forcing a confession” from Sophia - and with trembling impatience he gets down to business directly with the question: “Who does she love?” After an evasive answer, she admits that she prefers his “others.” It seems clear. He sees this himself and even says:And what do I want when everything is decided?
It’s a noose for me, but it’s funny for her!
Once in my life I'll pretend,
He decides to “solve the riddle,” but actually to hold Sophia when she rushed away at the new arrow fired at Molchalin. This is not pretense, but a concession with which he wants to beg for something that cannot be begged for - love when there is none. In his speech one can already hear a pleading tone, gentle reproaches, complaints:
But does he have that passion, that feeling, that ardor...
So that, besides you, he has the whole world
Did it seem like dust and vanity?
So that every beat of the heart
Love accelerated towards you... -
He says - and finally:
To make me more indifferent to the loss,
As a person - you, who grew up with you,
As your friend, as your brother,
Let me make sure...
These are already tears. He touches serious strings of feeling -
I can beware of madness
I’m going to go away to catch a cold, get cold... -
He concludes. Then all that was left was to fall to my knees and sob. The remnants of his mind save him from useless humiliation.
Such a masterful scene, expressed in such verses, is hardly represented by any other dramatic work. It is impossible to express a feeling more noblely and soberly, as it was expressed by Chatsky, it is impossible to extricate oneself from a trap more subtly and gracefully, as Sofya Pavlovna extricates oneself. Only Pushkin's scenes of Onegin and Tatyana resemble these subtle features of intelligent natures. Sophia managed to completely get rid of Chatsky’s new suspicion, but she herself became carried away by her love for Molchalin and almost ruined the whole matter by expressing her love almost openly. To Chatsky’s question:Why did you get to know him (Molchalin) so briefly?
- she answers:
I didn't try! God brought us together.
Look, he gained the friendship of everyone in the house.
Serves under the priest for three years;
He is often pointlessly angry,
And he will disarm him with silence,
From the kindness of his soul he will forgive.
And, by the way,
I could look for fun, -
Not at all, the old people won’t set foot outside the threshold!
We are frolicking and laughing;
He’ll sit with them all day, whether he’s happy or not,
Playing...
Of the most wonderful quality...
He is finally: compliant, modest, quiet,
And there are no wrongdoings in my soul;
He doesn’t cut strangers at random...
That's why I love him!
She doesn't respect him!
He's being naughty, she doesn't love him.
She doesn't give a damn about him! —
He consoles himself with each of her praises to Molchalin and then grabs onto Skalozub. But her answer - that he was “not the hero of her novel” - destroyed these doubts too. He leaves her without jealousy, but in thought, saying:
Who will unravel you!
The liar laughed at me! —
He notices and goes to meet new faces.
The comedy between him and Sophia ended; The burning irritation of jealousy subsided, and the coldness of hopelessness entered his soul. All he had to do was leave; but another, lively, lively comedy invades the stage, several new perspectives of Moscow life open up at once, which not only 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. New faces group around him and play, each their own role. This is a ball, with all the Moscow atmosphere, with a series of live stage sketches, in which each group forms its own separate comedy, with a complete outline of the characters, who managed to play out in a few words into a complete action. Isn’t the Gorichevs playing a complete comedy? This husband, recently still a cheerful and lively man, is now degraded, clothed, as in a dressing gown, in Moscow life, a gentleman, “a boy-husband, a servant-husband, the ideal of Moscow husbands,” according to Chatsky’s apt definition, - under the shoe of a cloying, cutesy , socialite wife, Moscow lady? And these six princesses and the countess-granddaughter - this whole contingent of brides, “who, according to Famusov, know how 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 Peter Ilyich - without a word, but such a speaking ruin of the past; Zagoretsky, an obvious swindler, escaping from prison in the best living rooms and paying off with obsequiousness, like dog diarrhea - and these N.N., and all their talk, and all the content that occupies them! The influx of these faces is so abundant, their portraits are so vivid that the viewer becomes cold to the intrigue, not having time to catch these quick sketches of new faces and listen to their original conversation. Chatsky is no longer on stage. But before leaving, he gave abundant food to that main comedy that began with Famusov, in the first act, then with Molchalin - that battle with all of Moscow, where, according to the author’s goals, he then came. In brief, even instant meetings with old acquaintances, he managed to arm everyone against him with caustic remarks and sarcasms. He is already keenly affected by all sorts of trifles - and he gives free rein to his tongue. He angered the old woman Khlestova, gave some inappropriate advice to Gorichev, abruptly cut off the countess-granddaughter and again offended Molchalin. But the cup overflowed. He leaves the back rooms, completely upset, and out of old friendship, in the crowd he again goes to Sophia, hoping for at least simple sympathy. He confides in her his state of mind:A million torments! —
He says. he complains to her, not suspecting what conspiracy has matured against him in the enemy camp.
“A million torments” and “woe!” - this is what he reaped for everything he managed to sow. Until now he had been invincible: his mind mercilessly struck the sore spots of his enemies. Famusov finds nothing but to cover his ears against his logic, and shoots back with commonplaces of the old morality. Molchalin falls silent, the princesses and countesses back away from him, burned by the nettles of his laughter, and his former friend, Sophia, whom he spares alone, dissembles, slips and deals him the main blow on the sly, declaring him, at hand, casually, crazy. He felt his strength and spoke confidently. But the struggle exhausted him. He obviously weakened from this “millions of torments,” and the disorder was so noticeable in him that all the guests grouped around him, just as a crowd gathers around any phenomenon that comes out of the ordinary order of things. He is not only sad, but also bilious and picky. He, like a wounded man, gathers all his strength, challenges the crowd - and strikes everyone - but he does not have enough power against the united enemy. He falls into exaggeration, almost into intoxication of speech, and confirms in the opinion of the guests the rumor spread by Sophia about his madness. One can no longer hear sharp, poisonous sarcasm, into which a correct, definite idea is inserted, the truth, but some kind of bitter complaint, as if about a personal insult, about an empty, or, in his own words, “insignificant meeting with a Frenchman from Bordeaux,” which he, in a normal state of mind, would hardly have noticed. He has ceased to control himself and does not even notice that he himself is putting together a performance at the ball. He also falls into patriotic pathos, goes so far as to say that he finds the tailcoat contrary to “reason and the elements,” and is angry that madame and mademoiselle have not been translated into Russian—in a word, “il divague!” - all six princesses and the Countess-granddaughter probably concluded about him. He feels this himself, saying that “in a crowd of people he is confused, he is not himself!” He is definitely not himself, starting with the monologue “about a Frenchman from Bordeaux” - and remains so until the end of the play. There are only “millions of torments” ahead. Pushkin, denying Chatsky his mind, probably most of all had in mind the last scene of the 4th act, in the entryway, while driving around. Of course, neither Onegin nor Pechorin, these dandies, would have done what Chatsky did in the entryway. They were too trained “in the science of tender passion,” but Chatsky is distinguished, by the way, by sincerity and simplicity, and does not know how and does not want to show off. He is not a dandy, not a lion. Here not only his mind betrays him, but also his common sense, even simple decency. He did such nonsense! Having gotten rid of Repetilov's chatter and hid in the Swiss waiting for the carriage, he spied on Sophia's date with Molchalin and played the role of Othello, without having any rights to do so. He reproaches her for why she “lured him with hope,” why she didn’t 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 spoke to him, admitted indifference, called some old children’s novel and hiding in corners “childish” and even hinted that “God brought her together with Molchalin.” And he, only because -So passionate and so low
There was a waste of tender words, -
In rage for his own useless humiliation, for the deception voluntarily imposed on himself, he executes everyone, and throws at her a cruel and unfair word:
With you I am proud of my breakup, -
When there was nothing to tear apart! Finally he just comes to the point of abuse, pouring out bile:
For the daughter and for the father.
And on the lover stupid —
And he seethes with rage at everyone, “at the tormentors of the crowd, traitors, clumsy wise men, crafty simpletons, sinister old women,” etc. And he leaves Moscow to look for “a corner for offended feelings,” pronouncing a merciless judgment and sentence on everyone!
If he had had one healthy moment, if he had not been burned by “a million torments,” he would, of course, have asked himself the question: “Why and for what reason have I done all this mess?” And, of course, I wouldn’t find the answer. Griboyedov is responsible for him, who ended the play with this disaster for a reason. In it, 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. From the thunder, Sophia was the first to cross herself, remaining until Chatsky appeared, when Molchalin was already crawling at her feet, with the same unconscious Sofia Pavlovna, with the same lies in which her father raised her, in which he lived himself, his entire house and his entire circle . Having not yet recovered from shame and horror when the mask fell from Molchalin, she first of all rejoices that “at night she learned everything, that there are no reproachful witnesses in her eyes!” But there are no witnesses, therefore, everything is sewn and covered, you can forget, marry, perhaps, Skalozub, and look at the past... No way to look. She will endure her moral sense, Liza will not let slip, Molchalin does not dare to say a word. And husband? But what kind of Moscow husband, “one of his wife’s pages,” would look back at the past! This is her morality, and the morality of her father, and the whole circle. Meanwhile, Sofya Pavlovna is not individually immoral: she sins with the sin of ignorance, the blindness in which everyone lived -The light does not punish delusions,
But it requires secrets for them!
Just think how capricious happiness is,
She says, when her father found Molchalin in her room early in the morning, “
It can be worse - you can get away with it!
Listen, lie, but know when to stop!
Who travels, who lives in the village -
He says, and he objects with horror:
Yes, he does not recognize the authorities!
As a critical response to Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit,” Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov creates “A Million Torments.” The summary of the article is a deep social and ideological analysis of this work. It is characteristic that the title of the article was a phrase dropped by Griboyedov’s character, Alexander Andreevich Chatsky. Thus, already when reading the title it becomes clear what will be discussed.
A comedy demanded by the era
Was this assessment given in a timely manner? Without a doubt. Russia lived in a transitional era from the capitalist era. There were no commoners yet, and yet the nobility remained the most advanced layer of society. But is it all the nobility? That is the question. The development of a huge country could no longer be stimulated either by heroes like Pushkin’s Onegin or Lermontov’s Pechorin. Article by I.A. Goncharova’s “A Million Torments” popularly and logically led its readers to this conclusion. Of course, society was in demand for a new, fresh view of society, the role of a citizen, education, and social activities. And this look was presented by the image of Alexander Andreevich Chatsky.
Chatsky's character
Chatsky’s character is not just central, but centrifugal in Goncharov’s “A Million Torments” was dedicated to an adequate, fair assessment of the meaning of this image (which simply did not exist before). The summary of the comedy is that Chatsky confronts the “old world,” intelligently and meaningfully testifying to the truth. It’s not customary to talk like that in aristocratic circles in Moscow. And an honest description of the “pillars of society” is perceived by the highest nobility as an “attack on the foundations” and sacrilege. The nobility is powerless in the face of his rhetoric; they shun him, declaring him insane.
Is this legal? Yes, and to the highest degree! Let us remember that even Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin did not understand Chatsky. The famous poet, noting the justice of the comedy hero’s statements, is at the same time perplexed: “Why is he saying all this if no one hears him” (i.e. the veiled question is clearly felt: “Isn’t Chatsky a fool?”). Dobrolyubov openly ironically treated this character - “a gambling fellow.” Since the fundamental novelty of the talentedly created image was not noticed by almost the entire society, in fact, that’s why Goncharov wrote “A Million Torments.” A brief summary of his work is an analysis of Griboyedov’s work.
So, our hero comes to aristocratic Moscow, taking time away from business, to declare his love to the young, educated and romantic Sofya Famusova, who refuses him. The plot intrigue is built on this. The girl, in turn, had already forgotten about her first feeling for him. She is driven by romantic generosity. Therefore, it cannot be said that she is as mercantile as her chosen one - her father’s mediocre and vile secretary - Alexey Stepanovich Molchalin. People who imitate activities to achieve their career aspirations are unspiritual people, capable of expressing servility and then betraying. Silent people. Goncharov dedicates “A Million Torments” to their caustic characterization. The summary of the comedy shows: they must lose. After all, the future state of the “Molchalins” is much more terrible than the state of the “Famusovs”.
Alexey Stepanovich Molchalin is the antipode of Chatsky. A cowardly, stupid, but “moderate and careful” careerist and in the future a bureaucrat. There is nothing living or natural in the image of Molchalin. But his life calculation is correct - it is precisely such people, by nature slaves, that those in power prefer to elevate, so that they can then rule unchallenged with the help of such people who do not have their own opinions.
conclusions
What is the significance of this work by Ivan Alexandrovich? It's obvious. Goncharov dedicates “A Million Torments” to an objective and worthy assessment. The summary of the article is precisely dedicated to this “ray of light in the dark kingdom.”
Goncharov's merit is that after a while he noticed an essential detail: Chatsky is active, he is capable of changing the world around him. He is a man of the future, which cannot be said about the passive dreamers Onegin and Pechorin. The image of Alexander Andreevich, despite the name of Griboyedov's comedy, is optimistic. He inspires confidence in his rightness, being a literary and figurative embodiment of the words “and one in the field is a warrior!”
The beliefs of this man are the beliefs of the Decembrist. Thus, the comedy is a kind of alarm bell for future events in Russian society that occurred on December 14, 1825 on
The comedy “Woe from Wit” stands apart in literature, distinguished by its relevance at all times. Why is this, and what is this “Woe from Wit” anyway?
Pushkin and Griboyedov are two greatest figures of art who cannot be placed close to one another. The heroes of Pushkin and Lermontov are historical monuments, but they are a thing of the past.
“Woe from Wit” is a work that appeared before Onegin and Pechorin, went through the Gogol period, and everything lives to this day with its imperishable life, will survive many more eras and will not lose its vitality.
Griboyedov's play caused a sensation with its beauty and lack of shortcomings, caustic, burning satire even before it was published. The conversation was filled with Griboyedov's sayings to the point of satiety with comedy.
This work became dear to the reader’s heart, passed from the book into living speech...
Everyone appreciates comedy in their own way: some find in it the mystery of Chatsky’s character, the controversy about which has not yet ended, others admire the living morality and satire.
“Woe from Wit” is a picture of morals, a sharp, searing satire, but above all, a comedy.
However, for us it is not yet a completely complete picture of history: we inherited something from there, although the Famusovs, Molchalins, Zagoretskys and others have changed.
Now only a little of the local color remains: passion for rank, sycophancy, emptiness. Griboedov encapsulated the living Russian mind in sharp and caustic satire. This magnificent language was given to the author in the same way as the main meaning of the comedy was given, and all this created the comedy of life.
The movement on stage is lively and continuous.
However, not everyone will be able to reveal the meaning of the comedy - “Woe from Wit” is covered with a veil of ingenious drawing, the coloring of the place, the era, the charming language, all the poetic forces that are so abundantly diffused in the play.
The main role, undoubtedly, is the role of Chatsky - a passive role, although at the same time victorious. Chatsky created a split, and if he was deceived for personal purposes, he himself splashed living water onto the dead soil, taking with him “a million torments” - torments from everything: from the “mind”, and even more from the “offended feeling”.
The vitality of Chatsky’s role does not lie in the novelty of unknown ideas: he has no abstractions. Material from the site
His ideal of a “free life”: this is freedom from these countless chains of slavery that shackle society, and then freedom - “to focus on the sciences the mind hungry for knowledge”, or to freely indulge in “the creative arts, high and beautiful” - freedom to “serve or not to serve”, to live in a village or to travel without being considered a robber - and a number of similar steps towards freedom - from unfreedom.
Chatsky is broken by the amount of old power, inflicting a fatal blow on it, in turn, by the amount of fresh power.
That’s why Griboyedov’s Chatsky, and with him the whole comedy, has not aged yet and is unlikely to ever grow old.
And this is the immortality of Griboyedov’s poems!
Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the search
On this page there is material on the following topics:
- Goncharov's article: a million torments
- summary on the topic of potters' million torments
- a million torments of potters knowledge summary
- Goncharov's article: a million torments
- summary of the work Woe from Wit
Article “A Million Torments” by I.A. Goncharova is a critical review of several works at once. In response to the essay by A.S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit”, I.A. Goncharov gives not only a literary, but also a social analysis of this work, comparing it with other great works of that era.
The main idea of the article is that great changes have been brewing in society for a long time, and people like Griboedov’s hero Chatsky will become great achievers.
Read the summary of the article Million torments of Goncharov
I.A. Goncharov calls the great comedy “Woe from Wit” the comedy that the era was waiting for. His article is a deep analysis of the socio-political life of Russia. The huge country was at the stage of transition from feudal rule to capitalist rule. The most advanced part of society were people of the noble class. It was on them that the country relied on in anticipation of change.
Among the noble educated class of Russia, as a rule, there were the fewest people like Griboyedov’s hero Chatsky. And people who could be attributed to Onegin A.S. Pushkin, or to Pechorin M.Yu. Lermontov, prevailed.
And society did not need people focused on themselves and their exclusivity, but people ready for achievements and self-sacrifice. Society needed a new, fresh vision of the world, social activities, education and the role of the citizen as a result.
Goncharov gives a comprehensive description of Chatsky’s image. He breaks the foundations of the old world, speaking the truth face to face. He seeks the truth, wants to know how to live, he is not satisfied with the morals and foundations of a respectable society, which covers up laziness, hypocrisy, lust and stupidity with decency and politeness. Everything that is dangerous, incomprehensible and beyond their control, they declare either immoral or insane. It’s easiest for them to declare Chatsky crazy - it’s easier to expel him from their little world so that he doesn’t confuse their souls and doesn’t interfere with living according to the old and so convenient rules.
This is quite natural, since even some great writers of that era treated Chatsky either condescendingly or mockingly. For example, A.S. Pushkin is perplexed why Chatsky shouts into the void, not seeing a response in the souls of those around him. As for Dobrolyubov, he condescendingly and ironically notes that Chatsky is a “gambling fellow.”
The fact that society did not accept or understand this image was the reason that Goncharov wrote the article in question.
Molchalin appears as the antipode of Chatsky. According to Goncharov, Russia, which belongs to the Molchalins, will ultimately come to a terrible end. Molchalin is a man of a special, mean-spirited nature, capable of pretending, lying, saying what his listeners are waiting for and wanting, and then betraying them.
I.A. Goncharov’s article is full of caustic criticism of the Molchalyns, cowardly, greedy, stupid. According to the author, it is precisely such people who break through to power, since they are always promoted by those in power, those who find it more convenient to rule over those who do not have their own opinion, and indeed no outlook on life as such.
Essay by I.A. Goncharov is still relevant today. It makes you involuntarily think about who is more numerous in Russia – the Molchalins or the Chatskys? Who is there more in yourself? Is it always more convenient to go ahead or, by remaining silent, pretend that you agree with everything? What is better - to live in your own warm little world or to fight injustice, which has already dulled the souls of people so much that it has long seemed to be the usual order of things? Is Sophia so wrong in choosing Molchalin - after all, he will provide her with position, honor, and peace of mind, even if bought by meanness. All these questions trouble the reader’s mind while studying the article; they are the “millions of torments” that every thinking person who fears the loss of honor and conscience goes through at least once in his life.
According to I.A. Goncharova, Chatsky is not just a mad Don Quixote, fighting with mills and causing a smile, anger, bewilderment - everything except understanding. Chatsky is a strong personality who is not so easy to silence. And he is able to evoke a response in young hearts.
The ending of the article is optimistic. His beliefs and way of thinking are consonant with the ideas of the Decembrists. His convictions are convictions that the new world, standing on the threshold of a new era, cannot do without. Goncharov sees in Griboyedov’s comedy a forerunner of new events that will take place on Senate Square in 1825.
Who will we take into our new life? Will the Molchalins and Famusovs be able to penetrate there? – the reader will have to answer these questions for himself.
Picture or drawing of a million torments
Other retellings and reviews for the reader's diary
- Summary Zamyatin We
In 1920, Zamyatin wrote the dystopian novel “We.” This work describes approximately the thirty-second century. The state adheres to totalitarian policies.
- Summary of the Extraordinary Adventure of Mayakovsky
This work talks about the dialogue between the great Russian poet Vladimir Mayakovsky and the celestial body the Sun. Mayakovsky was at the dacha, working tirelessly as always, working on a new work
- Summary of London On the Shores of Sacramento
On a high bank, rising two hundred feet above the Sacramento River, a father and son live in a small house: old Jerry and little Jerry. Old Jerry is a former sailor who left the sea and took a job
- Summary of Aleksin the Third in the fifth row
The story is told from the perspective of a retired literature teacher. Her son and daughter-in-law often go on business trips, so the grandmother is mainly involved in raising Elizabeth’s granddaughter. The girl loves to look at class photos
- Summary of Goncharov Obryv
Boris Pavlovich Raisky takes the main role in the novel by Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov. He lives a calm and trouble-free life. On the one hand, he does everything and then nothing. He tries to find himself in art, wanting to be an artist