Critical article of grief from the minds of potters. 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 Griboedov 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. His brilliant creations, continuing to serve as models and sources for art, 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.

They called Fonvizin’s comedy “The Minor” immortal, and rightly so; 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 “The Minor” of living life, and the comedy, having served its purpose, has turned into a historical monument.

“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 will 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, disseminated 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. .

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, a critic and a friend in everyone, like Krylov’s fables, which did not lose their literary power, having passed from the book into living speech.

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.

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, and to listen to the talk of public opinion after forty years is impossible without getting lost in petty analysis. It remains, from the countless chorus of opinions expressed and expressed, to dwell on some general conclusions, most often repeated, and build your own assessment plan on them.

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, fidelity to types, value the more epigrammatic salt of language, living satire - morality, which the play still, like an inexhaustible well, supplies everyone with 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 a new play.

All these various impressions and everyone’s own point of view based on them serve as the best definition of the play, that is, that the comedy “Woe from Wit” is both a picture of morals, and a gallery of living types, and an ever-sharp, searing satire, and together with that is comedy, and let's say for ourselves - most of all comedy - which is unlikely to 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 reader feel even now, in our era, among living people. Both the general and the details, all this was not composed, but was 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” of Moscow - from Famusov to the smallest touches, to Prince Tugoukhovsky and to the footman Parsley, without whom the picture would be incomplete.

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 and others 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 be a jester and hold up Maxim Petrovich as an example, at least not in such a positive and obvious way. Molchalin, even in front of the maid, now secretly 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 prevail 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 also 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. Tartuffe, of course, is an eternal type, Falstaff is an eternal character, but both of them and many other famous similar prototypes of passions, vices, etc., disappearing in the fog of hoary antiquity, have almost lost their living image and turned into an idea, into a conventional concept , into a common name for vice, and for us they no longer serve as a living lesson, but as a portrait of a historical gallery.

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.

As a picture of modern morals, the comedy “Woe from Wit” was partly an anachronism even when it appeared on the Moscow stage in the 30s. Already Shchepkin, Mochalov, Lvova-Sinetskaya, Lensky, Orlov and Saburov played not from life, but according to fresh legend. And then the sharp strokes began to disappear. Chatsky himself thunders against the “past century” when the comedy was written, and it was written between 1815 and 1820.

How to compare and see (he says)

The present century and the past century,

The legend is fresh, but hard to believe -

and about his time he expresses himself like this:

Now everyone breathes more freely, -

I scolded your age mercilessly, -

he says to Famusov.

Consequently, now only a little of the local color remains: passion for rank, sycophancy, emptiness. But sycophancy to the extent of Molchalinsky’s lackeyness is already hiding in the darkness, and the poetry of the frunt has given way to a strict 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, epigram, satire, this one, it seems, will never die, just like the sharp and caustic scattered in them, which Griboyedov imprisoned, like a wizard of some kind of spirit, in his castle, and it crumbles there. 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 author’s collected intelligence, humor, jokes, and the Russian mind and language. 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 as a stage play, and in the broad sense as a comedy of life. It couldn't have been anything else but a comedy.

Leaving aside 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 comedy as a stage play, then as comedy in general, to 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, no action in a play. How is there no movement? There is - living, continuous, from Chatsky’s first appearance on stage to his last word: “A carriage for me, a carriage!”

This is a subtle, intelligent, elegant and passionate comedy in a close technical sense, true in small details, but almost imperceptible 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 the poetic forces that are 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.

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.

Griboyedov himself attributed Chatsky's grief to his mind, but Pushkin denied him any mind at all.

One would think that Griboyedov, out of fatherly love for his hero, flattered him in the title, as if warning the reader that his hero is smart, and everyone else around him is not smart.

Both Onegin and Pechorin turned out to be incapable of action, of an active role, although both vaguely understood that everything around them had decayed. They even “carried discontent within themselves and wandered like shadows with “yearning laziness.” But, despising the emptiness of life, the idle lordship, they succumbed to it and did not think of either fighting it or fleeing completely. Dissatisfaction and bitterness did not prevent Onegin from being a dandy, “shine” both in the theater, and at a ball, and in a fashionable restaurant, flirting with girls and seriously courting them in marriage, and Pechorin from shining with interesting boredom and plunging his laziness and bitterness between Princess Mary and Beloy, and then pretend to be indifferent to them in front of the stupid Maxim Maksimovich: this indifference was considered the quintessence of Don Juanism. Both languished, suffocated in their environment and... Onegin tried to read, but yawned and gave up, because both he and Pechorin knew only the science of “tender passion”, and for everything else they learned “something and somehow” - and they had nothing to do.

Chatsky, apparently, on the contrary, was seriously preparing for activity. 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 down to work, had relations with ministers and separated - it’s not difficult to guess why.

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 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 stupidly in general, and 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 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 with this strength of his, which, of course, pleased Sophia 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: gentle, witty words - nothing helps. He endures nothing but coldness from her, until, caustically touching Molchalin, he touched a nerve in 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, 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!

On his second visit, he starts talking about Sofya Pavlovna again: “Isn’t she sick? did she experience any sadness? - and to such an extent he is overwhelmed and fueled by the feeling of her blossoming beauty and her coldness towards him that when asked by his father if he wants to marry her, he absent-mindedly asks: “What do you want?” And then indifferently, only out of decency, he adds:

Let me woo you, what would you tell me?

And, almost not listening to the answer, he sluggishly remarks on the advice to “serve”:

I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening!

He came to Moscow and to Famusov, obviously for Sophia and for Sophia alone. To others to him; Even now he is annoyed that instead of her he found only Famusov. “How could she not be here?” - he asks himself, remembering his youthful love, which “neither distance, nor entertainment, nor change of places cooled in him,” and he is tormented by its coldness.

He is bored and talking with Famusov - and only Famusov’s positive challenge to an argument brings Chatsky out of his concentration.

That's it, you are all proud:

If only we could see what our fathers did

says Famusov 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 Skalozub’s matchmaking.

It’s like he’s marrying Sofyushka... etc.

Chatsky perked up his ears.

How he fusses, what agility!

“And Sophia? Isn’t there really a groom here?” - he says, and although then he adds:

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 was played out over him to the end.

Famusov confirms his hint about Skalozub’s marriage, imposing on the latter the idea of ​​“the general’s wife,” and almost obviously challenges 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 had already begun to crescendo, 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. Immediately another struggle ensues, 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.

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.” This is a struggle for life and death, a struggle for existence, as the newest naturalists define the natural succession of generations in the animal world. Famusov wants to be an “ace” - “eat on silver and gold, ride in a train, covered in orders, be rich and see children rich, in ranks, in orders and with a key” - and so on endlessly, and all this just for that , that he signs papers without reading and is afraid of one thing, “so that a lot of them do not accumulate.”

Chatsky strives for a “free life”, “to pursue” science and art and demands “service to the cause, not to individuals,” etc. Whose side is winning? The comedy gives Chatsky only “a million torments” and leaves, apparently, Famusov and his brothers in the same position as they were, without saying anything about the consequences of the struggle.

We now know these consequences. They were revealed in the appearance of the comedy, still in manuscript, in the light - and how an epidemic swept across all of Russia!

Meanwhile, the intrigue of love runs its course, correctly, with subtle psychological fidelity, which in any other play, devoid of other colossal Griboyedov beauties, could make a name for the author.

Sophia's fainting when Molchalin fell from his horse, her sympathy for him, so carelessly expressed, Chatsky's new sarcasms on Molchalin - all this complicated the action and formed that main point, which was called the plot in the poems. Here the dramatic interest was concentrated. Chatsky almost guessed the truth.

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 of 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!

However, he climbs in, like all lovers, despite his “intelligence,” and is already weakening in front of her indifference. He throws a useless weapon against a happy opponent - a direct attack on him, and condescends to pretend.

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

he concludes. Then all that was left was to fall to my knees and sob. The remnants of his mind save him from 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 would have been able 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.

This is enough to open the eyes of the blind. But Molchalin himself saved her, that is, his insignificance. In her enthusiasm, she hastened to draw his full-length portrait, perhaps in the hope of reconciling not only herself, but also others, even Chatsky, with this love, not noticing how the portrait turned out vulgar:

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,

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!

Chatsky’s doubts were dispelled:

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!

He himself did not believe in the possibility of such rivals, but now he is convinced of it. But his hopes for reciprocity, which had until now passionately worried him, were completely shaken, especially when she did not agree to stay with him under the pretext that “the tongs would get cold,” and then, when she asked him to let him come into her room, with a new barb on Molchalin, she slipped away from him and locked herself in.

He felt that the main goal of returning to Moscow had betrayed him, and he left Sophia with sadness. He, as he later confesses in the entryway, from that moment on only suspects in her coldness towards everything - and after this scene the fainting itself was attributed not “to a sign of living passions,” as before, but “to a quirk of spoiled nerves.”

His next scene with Molchalin, which fully describes the latter’s character, confirms Chatsky definitively that Sophia does not love this rival.

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 lively 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 momentary meetings with old acquaintances, he managed to arm everyone against him with caustic remarks and sarcasms. They are already touching him vividly - 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, again goes to Sophia in the crowd, hoping for at least simple sympathy. He confides in her his state of mind:

A million torments! —

Breasts from friendly vices,

he says.

Feet from shuffling, ears from exclamations,

And all sorts of trifles are worse than my head!

Here my soul is somehow compressed with grief! —

he complains to her, not suspecting what conspiracy has matured against him in the enemy camp.

“A million torments” and “woe!” - that's what he shook for everything. Until now he was invincible: his mind hit the sore spots of his enemies. Famusov finds nothing but to close his ears against him, 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, 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, in 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 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 “the crowd he is confused, he is not himself!”

He is definitely not himself, starting with the monologue “about a Frenchman from Bordeaux” - and the play. “A million torments” are being replenished 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 are 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, 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. Not a word here is true. She did not entice him with any hope. All she did was walk away from him, barely speak to him, admit to indifference, call 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, for the deception voluntarily imposed on himself, he executes everyone, and he throws a cruel and unfair word at her:

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 for a foolish lover,

and 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 everything!

If he had just one minute, if “a million torments” weren’t burning him, he would, of course, ask 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!

This couplet by Pushkin expresses the general meaning of conventional morality. Sophia never saw the light from her and would never have seen without Chatsky, for lack of chance. After the disaster, from the minute Chatsky appeared, it was no longer possible to remain blind. His ships cannot be ignored, nor bribed with lies, nor appeased - it is impossible. She cannot help but respect him, and he will be her eternal “reproachful witness,” the judge of her past. He opened her eyes.

Before him, she did not realize the blindness of her feelings for Molchalin and even, analyzing the latter, in the scene with Chatsky, thread by thread, she herself did not see the light on him. She did not notice that she herself had called him to this love, which he, trembling with fear, did not even dare to think about. She was not embarrassed by meetings alone at night, and she even let slip her gratitude to him in the last scene for the fact that “in the silence of the night he was more timid in his disposition!” Consequently, the fact that she is not completely and irrevocably carried away, she owes not to herself, but to him!

Finally, at the very beginning, she blurts out even more naively in front of the maid.

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!

And Molchalin sat in her room the whole night. What did she mean by “worse”? You might think God knows what: but honne soit qui mal y pense! Sofya Pavlovna is not at all 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 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... The rest belongs to education.

French books, which Famusov complains about, piano (also with flute accompaniment), poetry, French language and dancing - this was what was considered the classical education of a young lady. And then “Kuznetsky Most and”, balls, such as this ball at her father’s, and this society - this is the circle where the life of the “young lady” was concluded. Women learned only to imagine and feel and did not learn to think and know. Thought was silent, only instincts spoke. They drew worldly wisdom from novels and stories - and from there instincts developed into ugly, pitiful or stupid properties: sentimentality, the search for an ideal in love, and sometimes worse.

In a soporific stagnation, in a hopeless sea of ​​lies, for most women outside, conventional morality dominated - and quietly life teemed, in the absence of healthy and serious interests, or any content at all, with those novels on which the “science of tender passion” was created. The Onegins and Pechorins are representatives of a whole class, almost a breed of dexterous gentlemen, jeunes premiers. These advanced personalities in high life - such were also in works of literature, where they occupied an honorable place from the times of chivalry to our time, to Gogol. Pushkin himself, not to mention Lermontov, valued this external splendor, this representativeness du bon ton, the manners of high society, under which lay both “depressing laziness” and “interesting boredom.” Pushkin spared Onegin, although he touches with slight irony his idleness and emptiness, but he describes to the smallest detail and with pleasure the fashionable suit, the trinkets of the toilet, the dandyism - and that assumed negligence and inattention to anything, this fatuite, posing, which the dandies flaunted. The spirit of later times removed the tempting drapery from his hero and all “gentlemen” like him and determined the true meaning of such gentlemen, driving them out of the foreground.

They were the heroes and leaders of these novels, and both parties were trained before marriage, which absorbed all the novels almost without a trace, unless some faint-hearted, sentimental - in a word, fool - was encountered and announced, or the hero turned out to be such a sincere “madman” as Chatsky.

But in Sofya Pavlovna, we hasten to make a reservation, that is, in her feelings for Molchalin, there is a lot of sincerity, strongly reminiscent of Tatiana Pushkin. The difference between them is laid by the “Moscow imprint”, then by the agility, the ability to control oneself, which appeared in Tatyana when she met Onegin after marriage, and until then she was not able even to a nanny. But Tatyana is a country girl, and Sofya Pavlovna is a Moscow girl, developed as it was then.

Meanwhile, in her love, she is just as ready to give herself away as Tatyana: both, as if sleepwalking, wander in infatuation with childish simplicity. And Sophia, like Tatyana, begins the novel herself, not finding anything reprehensible in it, she doesn’t even know about it. Sophia is surprised at the maid’s laughter when she tells how she and Molchalin spend the whole night: “Not a free word! “And so the whole night goes by!” “The enemy of insolence, always shy, bashful!” That's what she admires about him! It’s funny, but there is some kind of almost grace here - and far from immorality, there is no need for her to let it slip: worse is also naivety. The huge difference is not between her and Tatyana, but between Onegin and Molchalin. Sophia's choice, of course, does not recommend her, but Tatyana's choice was also random, even she hardly had anyone to choose from.

Looking deeper into Sophia’s character and surroundings, you see that it was not immorality (but not “God,” of course) that “brought her together” with Molchalin. First of all, the desire to patronize a loved one, poor, modest, who does not dare raise his eyes to her - to elevate him to oneself, to one’s 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 this turned out to be a future “husband-boy, husband-servant - the ideal of Moscow husbands!” To other ideals in Famusov's house.

In general, it is difficult to be unsympathetic to Sofya Pavlovna: 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 of fresh air penetrated. her and Chatsky. After him, she alone, out of this whole crowd, begs for some kind of sad feeling, and in the reader’s soul there is no feeling against her with which he parted with other people.

She, of course, gets her “millions of torments.”

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 - and this is their main suffering, that is, in.

Of course, he did not bring Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov to his senses, sober him up, or correct him. If Famusov had not had “reproachful witnesses” during his departure, that is, a crowd of lackeys and a doorman, he would have easily dealt with his grief: he would have given his daughter a head wash, he would have torn Liza’s ear and hastened his daughter’s wedding to Skalozub. But now it’s impossible: the next morning, thanks to the scene with Chatsky, all of Moscow will know - and most of all “Princess Marya Alekseevna.” His peace will be disturbed from all sides - and will inevitably make him think about something that never even occurred to him. He is unlikely to even end his life as an “ace” like the previous ones. The rumors generated by Chatsky could not help but stir up the entire circle of his relatives and friends. He himself could no longer find a weapon against Chatsky’s heated monologues. All Chatsky’s words will spread, be repeated everywhere and create their own storm.

Molchalin, after the scene in the entryway, cannot remain the same Molchalin. The mask is pulled off, he is recognized, and like a caught thief, he has to hide in a corner. The Gorichevs, Zagoretskys, the princesses - all fell under a hail of his shots, and these shots will not remain without a trace. In this still consonant chorus, other voices, still bold yesterday, will fall silent or others will be heard, both for and against. The battle was just heating up. Chatsky's authority was known before as the authority of intelligence, wit, of course, knowledge and other things. He already has like-minded people. Skalozub complains that his brother left the service without receiving his rank and began reading books. One of the old women grumbles that her nephew, Prince Fyodor, is studying chemistry and botany. All that was needed was an explosion, a battle, and it began, stubborn and hot - on one day in one house, but its consequences, as we said above, were reflected throughout Moscow and Russia. Chatsky, and 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,” this Chatsky - torments from everything: from the “mind”, and from “offended feelings.”

Neither Onegin, nor Pechorin, nor other dandies were suitable for this role. They knew how to shine with the novelty of ideas, as well as the novelty of a suit, new perfume, and so on. Having driven into the wilderness, Onegin amazed everyone by the fact that he “didn’t approach ladies’ hands, drank red wine in glasses, not shot glasses,” and simply said: “yes and no” instead of “yes, sir, and no, sir.” He winces at the “lingonberry water”, in disappointment scolds the moon “stupid” - and the sky too. He brought a new one for a dime and, having intervened “smartly”, and not like Chatsky “stupidly”, in the love of Lensky and Olga and killing Lensky, he took with him not a “million”, but a torment for a dime!

Now, in our time, of course, they would reproach Chatsky for why he put his “offended feeling” above public issues, the common good, etc. and didn’t stay in Moscow to continue his role with lies and prejudices, a role higher and more important than the role of the groom?

Yes, now! And at that time, for the majority, the concept of public issues would have been the same as for Repetilov the talk of “the camera and the jury.” Criticism made a big mistake in that in its trial of the famous dead it left the historical point, ran ahead and hit them with modern weapons. Let’s not repeat her mistakes - and we won’t blame Chatsky for the fact that in his hot speeches addressed to Famusov’s guests there is no talk about the common good, when there is already such a split from “searching for places, from ranks” as “engaging in the sciences and arts” , was considered “robbery and fire.”

The vitality of Chatsky's role consists of unknown ideas, brilliant hypotheses, hot and daring utopias, or even en herbe truths: he has no abstractions. Heralds of a new dawn, or fanatics, or simply messengers - all these advanced couriers of the unknown future are and - according to the natural course of social development - should appear, but their roles and physiognomies are infinitely diverse.

The role and physiognomy of Chatsky. Chatsky is most of all an exposer of lies and everything that has become obsolete, that drowns out new life, “free life.” He knows, he is fighting and this is his life. He does not lose the ground from under his feet and does not believe in a ghost until he has put on flesh and blood, has not been comprehended by reason, truth, - in a word, .

Before being carried away by an unknown ideal, before the seduction of a dream, he will soberly stop, just as he stopped before the senseless denial of “laws, conscience and faith” in Repetilov’s chatter, and say his own:

Listen, lie, but know when to stop!

He very much states them in a program developed, and already begun, by a century. He does not drive from the stage with youthful ardor everything that has survived, that, according to the laws of reason and justice, as according to natural laws, remains to live out its term, that can and should be tolerable. He demands space and asks for work, but does not want to serve and stigmatizes servility and buffoonery. He demands “service to the cause, not to persons,” does not mix “fun and tomfoolery with business,” like Molchalin; he languishes among the empty, idle crowd of “tormentors, traitors, sinister old women, quarrelsome old men,” refusing to bow to their authority of decrepitude , love of rank and so on. He is outraged by the ugly manifestations of serfdom, insane luxury and disgusting morals of “spillage in feasts and extravagance” - phenomena of mental and moral blindness and corruption.

His ideal of a “free life” is definite: 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, lofty and beautiful arts” - freedom “to serve or not to serve”, “to live in the village or travel”, without being considered either a robber or an incendiary, and - a series of further successive similar steps to freedom - from unfreedom.

Both Famusov and others know this and, of course, they all privately agree with him, but the struggle for existence prevents them from giving in.

Out of fear for himself, for his serenely idle existence, Famusov closes his ears and slanderes Chatsky when he tells him his modest program of “free life.” By the way -

Who travels, who lives in the village -

he says, and he objects with horror:

Yes, he does not recognize the authorities!

So, he also lies because he has nothing to say, and everything that lived as a lie in the past lies. The old truth will never be embarrassed by the new - it will take this new, truthful and reasonable burden on its shoulders. Only the sick, the unnecessary are afraid to take the next step forward.

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. The position of the Chatskys on the social ladder is varied, but the role and fate are all the same, from major state and political figures who control the destinies of the masses, to a modest share in a close circle.

All of them are governed by one thing: for different motives. Some, like Griboyedov’s Chatsky, have love, others have pride or love of fame - but they all get their share of “a million torments,” and no height of position can save them from it. Very few, the enlightened Chatskys, are given the comforting knowledge that it was not for nothing that they fought - albeit disinterestedly, not for themselves and not for themselves, but for the future, and they succeeded.

In addition to large and prominent personalities, during sharp transitions from one century to another, the Chatskys live and are not transferred in society, at every step, in every house, where under one roof, where two centuries come face to face in the closeness of families, everything lasts the struggle of the fresh with the outdated, the sick with the healthy, and everyone fights in duels, like Horaces and Curiaties - miniature Famusovs and Chatskys.

Every business that requires updating evokes the shadow of Chatsky - and no matter who the figures are, around any human cause - be it a new idea, a step in science, in politics, in war - no matter how people group, they cannot escape two main motives struggle: from the advice to “learn by looking at your elders,” on the one hand, and from the thirst to strive from routine to a “free life,” forward and forward, on the other.

This is why Griboyedov’s Chatsky has not aged and is unlikely to ever grow old, and with him the whole comedy. And it will not break out of what Griboyedov outlined as soon as the artist touches on the struggle of concepts, the change of generations. He will either give a type of extreme, immature advanced personalities, barely hinting at the future, and therefore short-lived, of which we have already experienced many in life and in art, or he will create a modified image of Chatsky, as after Cervantes’ Don Quixote and Shakespeare’s Hamlet, endless of them appeared and are similarities

In the honest, passionate speeches of these later Chatskys, Griboyedov’s motives and words will forever be heard - and if not the words, then the meaning and tone of his Chatsky’s irritable monologues. Healthy heroes in the fight against the old will never leave this music.

And this is the immortality of Griboyedov’s poems! Many Chatskys could be cited - who appeared at the next change of eras and generations - in the struggle for an idea, for a cause, for truth, for success, for a new order, at all levels, in all layers of Russian life and work - loud, great things and modest armchair exploits. There is a fresh legend about many of them, others we saw and knew, and others still continue to fight. Let's turn to. Let's remember not a story, not a comedy, not an artistic phenomenon, but let's take one of the later fighters with the old century, for example. Many of us knew him personally, and now everyone knows him. Listen to his passionate improvisations - and the same motives will sound in them - and the same tone as Griboyedov’s Chatsky. And just like that he died, destroyed by “a million torments,” killed by the fever of expectation and not waiting for the fulfillment of his dreams, which are now no longer dreams.

Leaving the political delusions of Herzen, where he is a normal hero, from the role of Chatsky, this Russian man from head to toe, let us remember his arrows thrown into various dark, remote corners of Russia, where they found the culprit. In his sarcasms one can hear the echo of Griboyedov's laughter and the endless development of Chatsky's witticisms.

And Herzen suffered from “a million torments,” perhaps most of all from the torments of the Repetilovs, to whom during his lifetime he did not have the courage to say: “Lie, but know when to stop!”

But he did not take this word to his grave, confessing after death to the “false shame” that prevented him from saying it.

Finally, one last note about Chatsky. They reproach Griboedov for saying that Chatsky is not as artistically clothed as other faces of comedy, in flesh and blood, that he has little vitality. Some even say that this is not a living person, but an abstract, an idea, a walking moral of a comedy, and not such a complete and complete creation as, for example, the figure of Onegin and other types snatched from life.

It's not fair. It is impossible to place Chatsky next to Onegin: the strict objectivity of the dramatic form does not allow for the same breadth and fullness of the brush as the epic. If other faces of comedy are stricter and more sharply defined, then they owe this to the vulgarity and trifles of their natures, which are easily exhausted by the artist in light sketches. Whereas in Chatsky’s personality, rich and versatile, one dominant side could be brought out in relief in the comedy - and Griboyedov managed to hint at many others.

Then - if you take a closer look at the human types in the crowd - then you will meet these honest, ardent, sometimes bilious individuals who do not meekly hide away from the oncoming ugliness, but boldly go to meet it halfway and enter into a struggle, often unequal, always to the detriment of themselves and without any visible benefit to the matter. Who didn’t know or doesn’t know, each in his own circle, such smart, ardent noble madmen who are produced in those circles where fate takes them, for the truth, for an honest conviction?!

No, Chatsky, in our opinion, is the most living personality of all, both as a person and as a performer of the role assigned to him by Griboyedov. But, we repeat, his nature is stronger and deeper than other persons and therefore could not be exhausted in comedy.

— — — — — — — —

Finally, let us make a few comments about the performance of comedy on stage recently, namely at Monakhov’s benefit performance, and about what the viewer could wish for from the performers.

If the reader agrees that in a comedy, as we said, the movement is passionately and continuously maintained from beginning to end, then it should naturally follow that the play is highly scenic. That's what she is. 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.

Artists who reflect on the general meaning and course of the play and each in their own role will find a wide field for action. There is a lot of work involved in mastering any role, even an insignificant one, all the more so the more conscientiously and subtly the artist treats art.

Some critics place the responsibility of the artists to perform the historical fidelity of the characters, with the color of the time in all details, even down to the costumes, that is, to the style of dresses, hairstyles inclusive.

This is difficult, if not completely impossible. As historical types, these faces, as stated above, are still pale, and living originals can no longer be found: there is nothing to study from. It's the same with costumes. Old-fashioned tailcoats, with a very high or very low waist, women's dresses with a high bodice, high hairstyles, old caps - in all this, the characters will seem like fugitives from a crowded market. Another thing is the costumes of the last century, completely outdated: camisoles, robrons, front sights, powder, etc.

But when performing “Woe from Wit,” it’s not about the costumes.

We repeat that the game cannot claim historical fidelity at all, since the living trace has almost disappeared, and the historical distance is still close. Therefore, it is necessary for the artist to resort to creativity, to the creation of ideals, according to the degree of his understanding of the era and Griboyedov’s work.

This is the first, that is, the main stage condition.

The second is language, that is, the artistic execution of language, like the execution of an action: without this second, of course, the first is impossible.

In such lofty literary works as “Woe from Wit”, like Pushkin’s “Boris Godunov” and some others, the performance should be not only stage, but the most literary, like the performance of exemplary music by an excellent orchestra, where every musical phrase must be played flawlessly and every note is in it. An actor, like a musician, must complete his performance, that is, come up with the sound of the voice and the intonation with which each verse should be pronounced: this means coming up with a subtle critical understanding of the entire poetry of Pushkin and Griboyedov's language. In Pushkin, for example, in “Boris Godunov,” where there is almost no action, or at least unity, where the action breaks up into separate scenes not connected with each other, any other performance than a strictly artistic and literary one is impossible. In it, every other action, every theatricality, facial expressions should serve only as a light seasoning of literary performance, action in the word.

With the exception of some roles, to a large extent the same can be said about “Woe from Wit”. And there is most of the game in the language: you can endure the awkwardness of facial expressions, but every word with the wrong intonation will hurt your ear like a false note.

Let’s not forget that the public knows such plays as “Woe from Wit” and “Boris Godunov” by heart and not only follows every word with their thoughts, but senses, so to speak, with their nerves every mistake in pronunciation. They can be enjoyed not only by seeing, but only by hearing them. These plays were and are often performed in private life, simply as readings between literature lovers, when there is a good reader in the circle who knows how to subtly convey this kind of literary music.

Several years ago, they say, this play was presented in the best St. Petersburg circle with exemplary art, which, of course, in addition to a subtle critical understanding of the play, was greatly helped by the ensemble in tone, manners, and especially the ability to read perfectly.

It was performed in Moscow in the 30s with complete success. To this day we have retained the impression of that game: Shchepkin (Famusov), Mochalov (Chatsky), Lensky (Molchalin), Orlov (Skalozub), Saburov (Repetilov).

Of course, this success was greatly facilitated by the then striking novelty and boldness of the open attack from the stage on much that had not yet had time to move away, which they were afraid to touch even in the press. Then Shchepkin, Orlov, Saburov expressed typically still living likenesses of the belated Famusovs, here and there the surviving Molchalins, or hiding in the stalls behind the back of their neighbor Zagoretskys.

All this gave great interest to the play, but besides this, in addition to even the high talents of these artists and the resulting typicality of the performance of each of their roles, what was striking in their performance, as in an excellent choir of singers, was the extraordinary ensemble of the entire staff of individuals, down to the smallest roles, and most importantly, they subtly understood and excellently read these extraordinary poems, with exactly the “sense, feeling and arrangement” that is necessary for them. Mochalov, Shchepkin! The latter, of course, is now known by almost the entire orchestra and remembers how, even in old age, he read his roles both on stage and in salons!

The production was also exemplary - and should now and always surpass in care the staging of any ballet, because the comedy of this century will not leave the stage, even when later exemplary plays have come off.

Each of the roles, even minor ones, played subtly and conscientiously, will serve as an artist’s diploma for a wide role.

Unfortunately, for a long time now the performance of the play on stage does not correspond to its high merits; it does not particularly shine with either harmony in the playing or thoroughness in the staging, although separately, in the performance of some artists, there are happy hints or promises of the possibility of a more subtle and careful performance . But the general impression is that the viewer, along with the few good things, takes his “millions of torments” out of the theater.

In the production one cannot help but notice negligence and scarcity, which seem to warn the viewer that they will play weakly and carelessly, therefore, there is no need to bother about the freshness and accuracy of the accessories. For example, the lighting at the ball is so weak that you can barely distinguish faces and costumes, the crowd of guests is so thin that Zagoretsky, instead of “disappearing,” that is, evading somewhere into the crowd, from Khlestova’s scolding, has to run across the entire empty hall , from the corners of which, as if out of curiosity, some two or three faces peek out. In general, everything looks somehow dull, stale, colorless.

In the game, instead of the ensemble, discord dominates, as if in a choir that did not have time to sing. In a new play one could assume this habit, but one cannot allow this comedy to be new to anyone in the troupe.

Half of the play passes inaudibly. Two or three verses will burst out clearly, the other two will be spoken by the actor as if for himself - away from the viewer. The characters want to play Griboyedov's poems like a vaudeville text. Some people have a lot of unnecessary fuss in their facial expressions, this imaginary, false game. Even those who have to say two or three words accompany them either with increased, unnecessary emphasis on them, or with unnecessary gestures, or even with some kind of game in their gait, in order to make themselves noticed on stage, although these two or three words , said intelligently, with tact, would be noticed much more than all bodily exercises.

Some of the artists seem to forget that the action takes place in a large Moscow house. For example, Molchalin, although a poor little official, lives in the best society, is accepted in the first houses, plays cards with noble old women, and therefore is not devoid of certain decency in his manners and tone. He is “smarmy and quiet,” the play says about him. This is a domestic cat, soft, affectionate, who wanders everywhere around the house, and if he fornicates, then quietly and decently. He cannot have such wild habits, even when he rushes to Lisa, left alone with her, that the actor playing his role has acquired for him.

Most artists also cannot boast of fulfilling that important condition mentioned above, namely, correct, artistic reading. They have long been complaining that this capital condition is being increasingly removed from the Russian stage. Is it possible that along with the recitation of the old school, the ability to read and pronounce an artistic speech in general has been banished, as if this skill had become superfluous or unnecessary? One can even hear frequent complaints about some of the luminaries of drama and comedy that they don’t take the trouble to learn their roles!

What then is left for the artists to do? What do they mean by playing roles? Make-up? Mimicry?

Since when did this neglect of art begin? We remember both the St. Petersburg and Moscow scenes in the brilliant period of their activity, starting with Shchepkin and the Karatygins to Samoilov and Sadovsky. There are still a few veterans of the St. Petersburg stage here, and among them the names of Samoilov and Karatygin are reminiscent of the golden time when Shakespeare, Moliere, Schiller appeared on the stage - and the same Griboedov, whom we present now, and all this was given along with a swarm of various vaudevilles, alterations with French, etc. But neither these alterations nor the vaudeville acts interfered with the excellent performance of either Hamlet, Lear, or The Miser.

In response to this, you hear, on the one hand, that it is as if the taste of the public has deteriorated (which public?), has turned to farce, and that the consequence of this was and is the artists’ weaning off the serious stage and serious, artistic roles; and on the other hand, that the very conditions of art have changed: from the historical type, from tragedy, high comedy - society left, and turned to bourgeois, so-called drama and comedy, and finally to the genre.

An analysis of this “corruption of taste” or the modification of old conditions of art into new ones would distract us from “Woe from Wit” and, perhaps, would lead to some other, more hopeless grief. It’s better to accept the second objection (the first is not worth talking about, since it speaks for itself) as an accomplished fact, and allow these modifications, although we note in passing that Shakespeare and new historical dramas like “The Death of Ivan the Terrible” also appear on the stage. “Vasilisa Melentyeva”, “Shuisky”, etc., requiring the very ability to read that we are talking about. But besides these dramas, there are other works of modern times on the stage, written in prose, and this prose, almost like Pushkin’s and Griboyedov’s poems, has its own typical dignity and requires the same clear and distinct execution as the reading of poetry. Each phrase of Gogol is just as typical and also contains its own special comedy, regardless of the general plot, just like each Griboyedov’s verse. And only a deeply faithful, audible, distinct performance throughout the hall, that is, the stage pronunciation of these phrases, can express the meaning that the author gave them. Many of Ostrovsky's plays also largely have this typical side of the language, and often phrases from his comedies are heard in colloquial speech, in various applications to life.

The public remembers that Sosnitsky, Shchepkin, Martynov, Maksimov, Samoilov in the roles of these authors not only created types on stage - which, of course, depends on the degree of talent - but also with intelligent and prominent pronunciation they retained all the strength of an exemplary language, giving weight every phrase, every word. Where else, if not from the stage, can one hear exemplary readings of exemplary works?

It seems that the public has been rightfully complaining about the loss of this literary, so to speak, performance of works of art lately.

In addition to the weakness of execution in the general course, regarding the correct understanding of the play, the lack of reading skills, etc., we could dwell on some inaccuracies in details, but we do not want to seem picky, especially since minor or particular inaccuracies resulting from negligence , will disappear if the artists take a more thorough critical analysis of the play.

Let us wish that our artists, from the entire mass of plays with which they are overwhelmed by their duties, with love for art, single out works of art, and we have so few of them - and, by the way, especially “Woe from Wit” - and, compiling from They themselves have chosen a repertoire for themselves, they would perform them differently than how they perform everything else that they have to play every day - and they will certainly perform it properly.

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 fade into 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 work: he studied, read, traveled, but parted ways with the ministers for a well-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 meanest traits of his past life” 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 the general meaning of 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 Molchalin’s true face. 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 within one another”: a petty, love affair, and a private one, which plays out into a 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.

The meaning of “Woe from Wit” for Russian literature

As the title of the article, Goncharov chose a statement by Alexander Chatsky, one of the central characters of the comedy. If you look at this quote, it will immediately become clear what this work is about.

Goncharov writes that Griboyedov managed to create characters whose images remained relevant 40 years after the creation of the work (the first excerpts of “Woe from Wit” were published in 1825, and the article “A Million Torments” - 46 years later). In this regard, the comedy managed to surpass two other masterpieces of Russian literature: “Eugene Onegin” by Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin and “The Minor” by Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin.

Since the work was very close in spirit to the audience, it quickly spread into quotes. After this, not only did it not become vulgar, but on the contrary, it became even closer to the reader.

As Ivan Goncharov notes, Alexander Griboedov managed to depict the entire era from Catherine to Nicholas in his comedy. At the same time, the atmosphere of Moscow, its traditions and morals, characteristic of the time of Woe from Wit, were presented by the author in the images of only 20 characters.

The figure of Chatsky in Griboedov's comedy

The comedy exposes the tendency to worship rank, the spread of false rumors, and declares inaction and emptiness to be vices. The author would not have been able to do this without the image of Alexander Andreevich Chatsky in the work.

He became not just the main character of the work, but a figure through which Griboyedov decided to highlight contemporary Moscow, as well as the image of a new man. The latter appeared in Russian literature before Pushkin's Onegin and Lermontov's Pechorin, but managed to remain relevant even years later (unlike the other two named heroes).

• desire to develop spiritually and intellectually;
• ambition;
• wit;
• good-heartedness.

Other heroes in the world of the work criticize Chatsky because he looks like a black sheep compared to them. He openly expresses his opinion regarding the “old world” and the morals accepted in aristocratic Moscow, while in this environment it is customary to communicate in a different manner. The main thing is that the hero sincerely believes in his ideals and is ready to follow them, no matter what.

It is not surprising that even famous literary figures could not understand the motivation for Chatsky’s actions. For example, Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin could not explain why Griboyedov’s hero does not stop expressing his point of view on this or that issue if no one listens to him. Thus, he seems to doubt the adequacy of the hero’s behavior. The critic Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov treats Chatsky condescendingly, calling him a “gambling fellow.”

This character has not lost its relevance to this day, because such people always appear during the transition period from one era to another. The psychotype of such a person does not change dramatically over time.

Chatsky's relationship with other characters

Relations with Famusova

The romantic line of the comedy is based on the fact that Chatsky, putting aside all his affairs, comes to Moscow to confess his love to seventeen-year-old Sofya Famusova. She decided not to develop a relationship with him.

To understand the motives of Famusova’s behavior, an allowance should be made for the conditions in which she grew up and what influenced the development of her personality. On the one side, Sophia was unable to escape the influence of the atmosphere Moscow of that time, and on the other hand, she was fond of the works of sentimentalists. As a result, she grew up childish and overly romanticized.

Famusova rejected Chatsky (even though he was her first lover) because his image did not correspond to her ideas about life. This pushed the girl to choose another person - Alexei Molchalin (although Sophia’s instinctive beginning also played a certain role here).

Molchalin as the antipode of Chatsky

Griboyedov endowed Alexey Stepanovich Molchalin with the following characteristics:

• a combination of stupidity and cowardice;
• moderation and prudence;
• a tendency towards careerism (it is precisely such people who later become bureaucrats);
• hypocrisy.

The image of Molchalin disgusts a moral person, but it was precisely such people who were valued in Moscow during the time of Griboedov. The authorities prefer to give privileges and elevate in every possible way precisely people with a slave mentality, since in the future they are very easy to control.

The meaning of the essay “A Million Torments”

With his critical article Ivan Goncharov I wanted to draw attention to the positive features of Chatsky’s image, to form a positive impression of him.

Goncharov drew attention to the fact that the main character of “Woe from Wit” is capable of not only pointing out the vices of society, but is also ready to act in the name of transforming reality. Therefore, he can be considered a man of the future. Chatsky is firmly confident in his beliefs and is able to convince others that his views are right. It shows that one person can influence society if he really wants to.

Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov

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. His brilliant creations, while continuing to serve as models and sources for art, 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.

They called the immortal comedy “The Minor” by Fonvizin, and rightly so, 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 “The Minor” of living life, and the comedy, having served its purpose, has 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, disseminated 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. .

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, a critic and a friend in everyone, like Krylov’s fables, which did not lose their literary power, having passed from the book into living speech.

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.

What should an actor do when thinking about his role in this play? To rely on one’s own judgment alone would lack any self-esteem, and to listen to the talk of public opinion after forty years is impossible without getting lost in petty analysis. It remains, from the countless chorus of opinions expressed and expressed, to dwell on some general conclusions, most often repeated, and build your own assessment plan on them.

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, 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 a new play.

In his critical sketch “A Million Torments” I. A. Goncharov described “Woe from Wit” as a living, 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, the main character of the comedy, attends. 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 the problems of the 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 was broken by the amount of old power, but in turn he dealt her a mortal blow with the quality of the new power, thereby beginning a new century.

The immortal work of the famous classic Griboedov “Woe from Wit”, based on which performances were constantly staged and continue to be staged in many theaters around the world, has not lost its relevance over time.

(No ratings yet)

Other writings:

1. A Million Torments The comedy “Woe from Wit” stands somehow 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 old man, around whom everyone, having lived out their time in turn, dies and lies down, and he Read More......
2. The conflict in Griboyedov’s play “Woe from Wit” represents the unity of two principles: public and personal. Being an honest, noble, progressive-minded, freedom-loving person, the main character Chatsky opposes Famus society. His drama is aggravated by a feeling of ardent but unrequited love for Famusov’s daughter Sophia. More Read More......
3. A. S. Griboedov entered Russian literature as the author of one work. His comedy “Woe from Wit” cannot be put on a par with the immortal creation of A. S. Pushkin “Eugene Onegin”, since “Eugene Onegin” has already become history for us, an encyclopedia of life Read More ......
4. The innovation of A. S. Griboedov in creating the play “Woe from Wit” was manifested in the organic fusion of the tragic and the comic. Therefore, researchers of Griboyedov’s work call this work “high comedy” or tragicomedy. Among the main characters there are no positive or negative heroes in their “pure form”. Read More......
5. In general, it is difficult to be unsympathetic to Sofya Pavlovna: she has strong inclinations of a remarkable nature, a lively mind, passion and feminine softness. I. A. Goncharov A. S. Griboedov entered the history of Russian and world literature as the creator of the brilliant comedy “Woe from Read More ......
6. The only character conceived and performed in the comedy “Woe from Wit” as close to Chatsky is Sofya Pavlovna Famusova. Griboyedov wrote about her: “The girl herself is not stupid, prefers a fool to an intelligent person:” This character embodies a complex character, the author here left Read More ......
7. Woe from Wit Early in the morning, the maid Lisa knocks on the young lady’s bedroom. Sophia does not respond immediately: she spent the whole night talking with her lover, her father’s secretary Molchalin, who lives in the same house. Sophia's father, Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov, appeared silently and flirted with Read More......
8. The main character of Griboedov's comedy “Woe from Wit” is the young nobleman Alexander Andreevich Chatsky. This man experiences “a million torments” in the work. Having spent a long time abroad, he returns home - to Moscow. And immediately Chatsky comes to his house Read More......

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

One day the author was sitting in a company and heard a story, this was about 15 years old. And these fifteen years this story lives in his heart, he himself does not understand why this happened. The heroine's name was Lyudochka, her parents were ordinary people