A very brief summary of a million torments. The meaning of the essay “A Million Torments”
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 beautifully,” 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 quantity old power, inflicting on her in turn death blow quality of fresh strength. 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
(Critical study)
Woe from mind, Griboyedova. -- Monakhov's benefit, November, 1871
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.
All celebrities of the first magnitude, of course, were not admitted to the so-called “temple of immortality” for nothing. They all have a lot, and others, like Pushkin, for example, have much more rights to longevity than Griboyedov. They cannot be close and placed one with the other. Pushkin is huge, fruitful, strong, rich. He is for Russian art what Lomonosov is for Russian enlightenment in general. Pushkin took over his entire era, he himself created another, gave birth to schools of artists - he took everything in his era, except what Griboyedov managed to take and what Pushkin did not agree on.
Despite Pushkin's genius, his leading heroes, like the heroes of his century, are already turning pale and becoming a thing of the past. Brilliant creatures while continuing to serve as models and sources for art, they themselves become history. We have studied “Onegin,” his time and his environment, weighed and determined the meaning of this type, but we no longer find living traces of this personality in the modern century, although the creation of this type will remain indelible in literature. Even the later heroes of the century, for example Lermontov's Pechorin, representing, like Onegin, their era, turn to stone, but in immobility, like statues on graves. We are not talking about their more or less bright types who appeared later, who managed to go to the grave during the authors’ lifetime, leaving behind some rights to literary memory.
Called immortal comedy Fonvizin’s “Minor”, and thoroughly, its lively, hot period lasted about half a century: this is enormous for a work of words. But now there is not a single hint in "Minor" to living life, and the comedy, having served its purpose, turned into a historical monument.
“Woe from Wit” appeared before Onegin, Pechorin, outlived 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 still not lose its vitality.
Why is this, and what is this “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 ahead of the print. But the literate masses actually appreciated it. Immediately realizing its beauty and not finding any flaws, she tore the manuscript into pieces, into verses, hemistiches, and dispersed all the salt and wisdom of the play into colloquial speech, as if she had turned a million into ten kopecks, and so peppered the conversation with Griboyedov’s sayings that she literally wore out the comedy to the point of satiety.
But the play passed this test - and not only did not become vulgar, but it seemed to become dearer to readers, it found a patron, critic and friend in everyone, like Krylov’s fables, which have not lost their literary power, moving from a book to live speech.
Printed criticism has always treated with more or less severity only stage performance plays, touching little on the comedy itself or speaking out 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.
What should an actor do when thinking about his role in this play? To rely on one's own judgment is to lack any self-esteem, but to listen to the talk of forty years public opinion-- there is no way without getting lost in petty analysis. It remains, from the countless chorus of opinions expressed and expressed, to dwell on a few general conclusions, the most frequently repeated ones - and build your own assessment plan on them.
Some people appreciate the picture of Moscow morals in a comedy famous 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 some kind of fifty-third mysterious map 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, which the play still, like an inexhaustible well, supplies everyone at every everyday step of life.
But both connoisseurs almost pass over in silence the “comedy” itself, the action, and many even deny it conventional stage movement.
Despite this, however, every time the personnel in the roles changes, both judges go to the theater, and again lively talk arises about the performance of this or that role and about the roles themselves, as if in new play.
The article “A Million Torments” is critical study. It is interesting that I. A. Goncharov was encouraged to write it by his friends.
After watching “Woe from Wit” at the theater, the writer made several interesting judgments about the comedy. In 1871, a review was published signed with the initials “I. G.". Subsequently, the article was republished in Vestnik Evropy along with the work of A. S. Griboyedov.
So this is an analysis of "subtle, smart, graceful and passionate comedy."
The name “A Million Torments” is not accidental: the entire analysis, in fact, is devoted to its explanation. Well, whose torment is it? “The Superfluous Man” by Chatsky.
The place of Griboyedov's comedy in Russian literature
I. A. Goncharov immediately notes that the comedy “Woe from Wit” occupies a special place among the works of Russian classics: A. S. Pushkin, M. Yu. Lermontov, and others. She is distinguished by a young spirit, freshness and a special kind of “vitality” (the writer’s expression). Well, we can quite agree with this assurance of his. From what other literary work do we quote so much, and not only in essays, but also in colloquial speech? Let's remember:
“Evil tongues are worse than a gun.”
“I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening.”
Goncharov writes that “Woe from Wit” outlived both “Eugene Onegin” and “Hero of Our Time.” All these works were written later. It would seem that they have a greater chance of success with the reader. But no - the problems raised by Griboyedov turned out to be relevant during the heyday of the work of these classics, and were relevant during Goncharov’s lifetime. The work “Woe from Wit,” he writes, will survive several more eras without losing its relevance.
Morals and customs in Griboedov's comedy
What does the reader find in Griboyedov’s comedy? It depends on what kind of reader, depending on what he is looking for.
Some are attracted by the description of Moscow life, way of life and customs early XIX century. It should be noted that Griboedov managed to convey the very spirit noble society of this period.
Goncharov notes how living the characters are presented in the comedy - so much so that the reader seems to be in the circle of his acquaintances.
Anyone reading the play can name both Famusov and Molchalin among their acquaintances...
Comedy language
Other readers will be more attracted to epigrams, apt satirical expressions - “the salt of the tongue,” as Goncharov wrote about it. He called the play an “inexhaustible well” that can provide us with witty answers at literally every step. Griboyedov's quotes became aphorisms.
Well, for example:
“You don’t watch happy hours.”
Real folk wisdom:
“Pass us beyond all sorrows, And lordly anger, and lordly love.”
As we know:
“And the smoke of the Fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us!”
The role of Chatsky in comedy
Without Chatsky, as Goncharov rightly notes, there would be no comedy, but only a picture of morals would have turned out, perhaps a little boring.
So, this is the main character of the comedy.
According to Griboyedov, Chatsky’s grief comes from his mind. A. S. Pushkin did not agree with this judgment at one time. Chatsky, without a doubt, opens new Age And new era- that is the meaning of this hero.
“Who are the judges?”
Between Famusov and Chatsky, as if throwing down a gauntlet to each other.
The main motive of the comedy is expressed gracefully in Griboyedov’s style, literally in a few words, which Goncharov compares with the overture of an opera.
The reader sees two camps: Famusov’s, the camp of the “fathers” or “elders” - this is on the one hand.
On the other hand, who? It turns out that there is one person - Chatsky, a noble warrior, “the enemy of quest.” This struggle, Goncharov writes, is waged for life and death; it is comparable to the struggle for existence in the animal world, the one that natural scientists describe as a natural change of generations in the animal world.
Bottom line
“A million torments” is what Chatsky received in the end. Until now, he, a man of sharp mind, was literally invincible in verbal duels, mercilessly defeated his enemies, and knew how to see their weak points. But in the battle with Famusov, “grief” is added to the bitterness of defeat and moral torment.
He has to leave without finding sympathy in anyone (not in the sense of pity, but in the sense of sharing his feelings). As Goncharov writes, he takes with him only “a million torments.”
“Get out of Moscow! I don't go here anymore. I’m running, I won’t look back, I’ll go looking around the world, Where there is a corner for an offended feeling!.. A carriage for me, a carriage!”
Well, in conclusion, I. A. Goncharov comes to disappointing conclusions. Literature, he concludes, will not escape the circle of problems outlined by Griboyedov.
As soon as the writer touches on the topic of the dissimilarity of generations, the struggle of their views, the same result awaits him as Chatsky.
Very briefly The article is devoted to Griboyedov’s timeless, always relevant play “Woe from Wit,” a society spoiled by conventional morality, and Chatsky, a freedom fighter and denouncer of lies who will not disappear from society.
Ivan Goncharov notes the freshness and youthfulness of the play “Woe from Wit”:
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 the old and the cradles of the new.
Despite Pushkin’s genius, his heroes “turn pale and become a thing of the past,” while Griboyedov’s play appeared earlier, but outlived them, the author of the article believes. The literate masses immediately dismantled it into quotes, but the play withstood this test.
“Woe from Wit” is both a picture of morals, and a gallery of living types, and “an eternally sharp, burning satire.” “The group of twenty faces reflected... all the old Moscow.” Goncharov notes the artistic completeness and certainty of the play, which was given only to Pushkin and Gogol.
Everything was taken from Moscow living rooms and transferred to the book. The traits of the Famusovs and Molchalins will be in society as long as gossip, idleness and sycophancy continue to exist.
The main role is the role of Chatsky. Griboedov attributed Chatsky's grief to his mind, "and Pushkin denied him any mind at all."
Unlike Onegin and Pechorin, who were incapable of doing business, Chatsky was preparing for serious activity: he studied, read, traveled, but parted ways with the ministers over known reason: “I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening.”
Chatsky's disputes with Famusov reveal the main purpose of the comedy: Chatsky is a supporter of new ideas, he condemns the “vilest traits of the past” for which Famusov stands.
Two camps were formed, or, on the one hand, a whole camp of the Famusovs and the entire brethren of “fathers and elders,” on the other, one ardent and brave fighter, “the enemy of quest.”
A love affair also develops in the play. Sophia's fainting after Molchalin's fall from his horse helps Chatsky almost guess the reason. Losing his “mind,” he will directly attack his opponent, although it is already obvious that Sophia, in her own words, is dearer to him than the “others.” Chatsky is ready to beg for what cannot be begged - love. In his pleading tone one can hear complaints and reproaches:
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?
The further, the more tears are heard in Chatsky’s speech, Goncharov believes, but “the remnants of his mind save him from useless humiliation.” Sophia almost gives herself away when she says about Molchalin that “God brought us together.” But she is saved by Molchalin’s insignificance. She draws Chatsky his portrait, not noticing that he comes out vulgar:
Look, he gained the friendship of everyone in the house;
He served under his father for three years,
He is often pointlessly angry,
And he will disarm him with silence...
...old people won’t set foot outside the threshold...
...Doesn’t cut strangers at random, -
That's why I love him.
Chatsky consoles himself after each praise of Molchalin: “She doesn’t respect him,” “She doesn’t put him in a penny,” “She’s being naughty, she doesn’t love him.”
Another lively comedy plunges Chatsky into the abyss of Moscow life. This is the Gorichevs - a degraded gentleman, “a boy-husband, a servant-husband, the ideal of Moscow husbands”, under the shoe of his sugary, cutesy wife, this is Khlestova, “a remnant of Catherine’s century, with a pug and a little arap girl”, “a ruin of the past” Prince Pyotr Ilyich , an obvious swindler Zagoretsky, and “these NNs, and all their talk, and all the content that occupies them!”
With his caustic remarks and sarcasms, Chatsky turns them all against himself. He hopes to find sympathy from Sophia, unaware of the conspiracy 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.
But the struggle tired him. He is sad, bilious and picky, the author notes, Chatsky almost falls into intoxication of speech and confirms the rumor spread by Sophia about his madness.
Pushkin probably denied Chatsky his mind because of the last scene of Act 4: neither Onegin nor Pechorin would have behaved the way Chatsky did in the entryway. He is not a lion, not a dandy, he does not know how and does not want to show off, he is sincere, so his mind has betrayed him - he has done such trifles! Having spied the meeting between Sophia and Molchalin, he played the role of Othello, to which he had no right. Goncharov notes that Chatsky reproaches Sophia for “luring him with hope,” but all she did was push him away.
Meanwhile, Sofya Pavlovna is not individually immoral: she sins with the sin of ignorance, blindness, in which everyone lived...
To convey general meaning conventional morality, Goncharov cites Pushkin’s couplet:
The light does not punish delusions,
But it requires secrets for them!
The author notes that Sophia would never have seen the light from this conditional morality without Chatsky, “for lack of chance.” But she cannot respect him: Chatsky is her eternal “reproachful witness,” he opened her eyes to true face Molchalina. Sophia is “a mixture of good instincts with lies, a lively mind with the absence of any hint of ideas and beliefs,... mental and moral blindness...” But this belongs to her upbringing, in her own personality there is something “hot, tender, even dreamy.”
Women learned only to imagine and feel and did not learn to think and know.
Goncharov notes that in Sophia’s feelings for Molchalin there is something sincere, reminiscent of Pushkin’s Tatyana. “The difference between them is made by the ‘Moscow imprint’.” Sophia is just as ready to give herself away in love; she does not find it reprehensible to be the first to start an affair, just like Tatyana. Sofya Pavlovna has the makings of a remarkable nature; it is not for nothing that Chatsky loved her. But Sophia was drawn to help the poor creature, to elevate him to herself, and then to rule over him, “to make him happy and have an eternal slave in him.”
Chatsky, says the author of the article, only sows, and others reap, his suffering lies in the hopelessness of success. A million torments are the Chatskys’ crown of thorns - torments from everything: from the mind, and even more from offended feelings. Neither Onegin nor Pechorin are suitable for this role. Even after the murder of Lensky, Onegin takes him with him to the “kopeck piece” of torment! Chatsky is different:
He demands space and freedom for his age: he asks for work, but does not want to serve, and stigmatizes servility and buffoonery.
The idea of a “free life” is freedom from all the chains of slavery that bind society. Famusov and others internally agree with Chatsky, but the struggle for existence does not allow them to give in.
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.
This image is unlikely to age well. According to Goncharov, Chatsky is the most living personality as a person and performer of the role entrusted to him by Griboedov.
...The Chatskys live and are not translated in society, repeating themselves at every step, in every house, where the old and the young coexist under the same roof... Every business that requires updating evokes the shadow of Chatsky...
“Two comedies seem to be nested inside one another”: a petty, love affair, and a private one, which is played out in big battle.
Next, Goncharov talks about staging the play on stage. He believes that the game cannot claim historical fidelity, since “the living trace has almost disappeared, and the historical distance is still close. An artist must resort to creativity, to the creation of ideals, according to the degree of his understanding of the era and Griboedov’s work.” This is the first stage condition. The second is the artistic execution of the language:
An actor, like a musician, is obliged... to think of the sound of the voice and the intonation with which each verse should be pronounced: this means to come up with a subtle critical understanding of all poetry...
“Where, if not from the stage, can one wish to hear an exemplary reading of exemplary works?” It is the loss of literary performance that the public rightly complains about.
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 all 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 Griboedov, 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 played 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 it is heard, as in the overture of operas, main motive, hints at the true meaning and purpose of comedy. 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 fine features smart 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. Is not complete comedy Are the Gorichevs playing tricks? 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 former friend him, Sophia, whom he spares alone, deceives, slips and deals him the main blow on the sly, declaring him, at hand, in passing, 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 in good condition spirit, I 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 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 leave him, barely spoke to him, admitted indifference, called some old children's novel and hiding in corners was “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!