Opinion about the comedy Woe from Wit. Comedy "Woe from Wit" Literary criticism
What did she write about “Woe from Wit” contemporary to Griboedov criticism, how it understood the main conflict of the comedy, how it assessed central image Chatsky in it? The first negative review of “Woe from Wit,” published in March 1825 in the “Bulletin of Europe,” belonged to an old-timer in Moscow, a minor writer, M. A. Dmitriev. He was offended by the satirical picture unfolded in the comedy “ Famusov society"and the accusatory pathos of the main character's monologues and dialogues. “Griboyedov wanted to present an intelligent and educated person who is not liked by the society of uneducated people. If the comedian had fulfilled this idea, then Chatsky’s character would have been entertaining, the faces around him would have been funny, and the whole picture would have been funny and instructive! “But we see in Chatsky a man who slanderes and says whatever comes to mind: it is natural that such a person will get bored in any society, and the more educated the society, the sooner he will get bored!” For example, having met a girl with whom he is in love and with whom he has not seen for several years, he finds no other conversation than curses and ridicule of her father, uncle, aunt and acquaintances; then to the young countess’s question “why didn’t he marry in foreign lands?” he answers with rude insolence! “Sofia herself says about him: “Not a man, a snake!” So, is it any wonder that such a face will make people run away and take him for a madman? them because he considers himself smarter: therefore, everything funny is on Chatsky’s side! He wants to distinguish himself either by his wit or by some kind of scolding patriotism in front of people whom he despises; he despises them, and yet, obviously, he would like them to respect him! In a word, Chatsky, who should be the smartest person in the play, is presented as the least reasonable of all! This is such an incongruity of character with its purpose, which should deprive the character of all his entertainment and for which neither the author nor the most sophisticated critic can give an account!
The most extensive anti-criticism defending Chatsky was given by the gifted writer, Decembrist by conviction O. M. Somov in the article “My thoughts on Mr. Dmitriev’s remarks,” published in the May issue of “Son of the Fatherland” for 1825. To consider “Woe from Wit” “from a real point of view,” Somov noted, “one must cast aside the partiality of the spirit of parties and literary old belief. Its author did not follow and, apparently, did not want to follow the path that comic writers from Molière to Piron and our times had smoothed out and finally trampled upon. Therefore, the usual French standard will not apply to his comedy... Here the characters are recognized and the plot is unraveled in the action itself; nothing is prepared, but everything is thought out and weighed with amazing calculation...” Griboyedov “had no intention at all of presenting an ideal face in Chatsky: maturely judging dramatic art, he knew that transcendental creatures, examples of perfection, appeal to us as dreams of the imagination, but do not leave long-term impressions in us and do not tie us to themselves... He presented in the person of Chatsky, smart, passionate and kind young man, but not at all free from weaknesses: he has two of them and both are almost inseparable from his supposed age and conviction of his advantage over others. These weaknesses are arrogance and impatience. Chatsky himself understands very well that by telling the ignorant about their ignorance and prejudices and the vicious about their vices, he only loses his words in vain; but at that moment when vices and prejudices touch him, so to speak, to the quick, he is unable to control his silence: indignation against his will breaks out from him in a stream of words, caustic, but fair. He no longer thinks whether they are listening and understanding him or not: he expressed everything that was on his heart - and it seemed to make him feel better, such is the general character of ardent people, and this character is captured by Mr. Griboyedov with amazing fidelity. Chatsky’s position in the circle of people whom the critic so condescendingly takes for “people who are not at all stupid, but uneducated,” we will add - full of prejudices and rigid in their ignorance (qualities, despite Mr. criticism, are very noticeable in them), Chatsky’s position, I repeat, in their circle it is all the more interesting that he apparently suffers from everything he sees and hears. You involuntarily feel pity for him and justify him when, as if to relieve himself, he expresses to them his offensive truths. Here is the face that Mr. Dmitriev likes to call a madman, out of some kind of benevolent condescension towards genuine madmen and eccentrics...
Chatsky's mutual relationship with Sophia allowed him to adopt a humorous tone, even on his first date with her. He grew up with her, was brought up together, and from their speeches one can understand that he was used to amusing her with his caustic remarks about the eccentrics they knew before; Naturally, out of old habit, he now asks her funny questions about the same eccentrics. The very thought that Sophia had liked this before should have assured him that even now it was a sure way to please her. He did not yet know and did not guess the change that had occurred in Sophia’s character... Chatsky, without betraying his character, begins a cheerful and witty conversation with Sophia, and only where spiritual feelings overpower both gaiety and sharpness of mind in him, he speaks to her about love her own, about which she has probably already heard enough. But he speaks to her in a language not bookish, not elegiac, but the language of true passion; his words reflect his ardent soul; they, so to speak, burn with their heat... Where did Mr. critic find that Chatsky “slanders and says whatever comes to mind?”
Here are two opposing positions in Chatsky’s assessment and the essence of the conflict underlying “Woe from Wit”. At one pole is the defense of Famusov's Moscow from the extravagance of Chatsky, on the other - the defense of Chatsky from the extravagance of Famusov's Moscow. In O. Somov's criticism there are many true and accurate observations about the position and character of Chatsky, psychologically justifying his behavior from the beginning to the end of the dramatic action in the comedy. But at the same time, in Somov’s interpretation, it turns out that Griboedov showed “woe to the mind,” and not “woe to the mind.” Without denying the deep truth in Somov’s judgments, continued and expanded in I. A. Goncharov’s classic article “A Million Torments,” we need to pay attention to the nature and qualities of Chatsky’s “mind” itself, to which Griboyedov gave completely specific properties and features typical of the culture of Decembrism .
Already during Griboyedov’s lifetime, a third point of view on main conflict comedy, although set out in a private letter from A. S. Pushkin to A. A. Bestuzhev from Mikhailovsky, not intended for publication, at the end of January 1825: “I listened to Chatsky, but only once and not with the attention that he deserves. Here's what I caught a glimpse of:
A dramatic writer must be judged by the laws he has recognized above himself. Consequently, I do not condemn either the plan, the plot, or the decency of Griboyedov’s comedy. Its purpose is characters and sharp picture morals In this regard, Famusov and Skalozub are excellent. Sophia is not drawn clearly: it’s not that (here Pushkin uses an unprintable word characterizing lung woman behavior. – Yu. L.), or Moscow cousin. Molchalin is not quite harshly mean; Shouldn't it have been necessary to make him a coward? An old spring, but a civilian coward big world between Chatsky and Skalozub could be very funny. Conversations at the ball, gossip, Repetilov's story about the club, Zagoretsky, notorious and accepted everywhere - these are the features of a true comic genius. Now the question. In the comedy "Woe from Wit" who is the smart character? answer: Griboedov. Do you know what Chatsky is? An ardent and noble young man and a kind fellow, who spent some time with a very smart man (namely Griboyedov) and was imbued with his thoughts, witticisms and satirical remarks. Everything he says is very smart. But to whom is he telling all this? Famusov? Skalozub?
At the ball for Moscow grandmothers? Molchalin? This is unforgivable. The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at first glance who you are dealing with and not throw pearls in front of the Repetilovs and the like. By the way, what is Repetilov? It has 2, 3, 10 characters. Why make him ugly? It’s enough that he admitted every minute to his stupidity, and not to his abominations. This humility is extremely new in the theater; who among us has not experienced embarrassment while listening to similar penitents? - Among the masterful features of this charming comedy - Chatsky’s incredulity in Sofia’s love for Molchalin is charming! - and how natural! This is what the whole comedy was supposed to revolve around, but Griboedov apparently didn’t want to - it was his Will. I’m not talking about poetry, half of it should become a proverb.
Show this to Griboyedov. Maybe I was wrong about something else. Listening to his comedy, I did not criticize, but enjoyed it. These remarks came to my mind later, when I could no longer cope. At least I’m speaking directly, without mincing words, like a true talent.”
First of all, we note that Pushkin felt the lyricism of “Woe from Wit” - a comedy in verse, not in prose, and therefore revealing the secret presence of the author in each character. Griboedov “speaks out” as an author not only in Chatsky, but also in Famusov, Skalozub, Khlestova, giving all the heroes of the comedy to one degree or another the qualities and properties of his mind. V. G. Belinsky drew attention to this circumstance, although he considered it a weakness of comedy. Famusov, for example, “so true to himself in every word, sometimes betrays himself with entire speeches,” the critic notes and then gives a whole set of quotes from Famusov’s monologues confirming his thought.
Aware, unlike Belinsky, of the inevitability of the author’s lyrical “pronunciation” in the heroes of the comedy, Pushkin nevertheless expresses doubts about the good quality of Chatsky’s mind. Is it appropriate for an intelligent person to “throw pearls” in front of people who are unable to understand him? This can be justified by Chatsky’s love, which, not receiving satisfaction, torments the hero’s soul and makes him insensitive to the essence of the people around him. The reckless energy of his denunciation can be explained by youthful recklessness and enthusiasm.
Apollo Grigoriev many years later, in 1862, defending Chatsky, wrote: “Chatsky is still the only heroic face of our literature. Pushkin proclaimed him a stupid person, but he didn’t take away his heroism, and couldn’t take it away. He could have been disappointed in his mind, that is, the practicality of the mind of people of Chatsky’s caliber, but he never ceased to sympathize with the energy of the fallen fighters. “God help you, my friends!” he wrote to them, looking for them with his heart everywhere, even “in the dark abysses of the earth.”
Calm down: Chatsky believes in the benefits of his sermon less than you yourself, but bile has boiled in him, his sense of truth is offended. And besides, he is in love... Do you know how such people love? - Not this one and not worthy of a man love, which absorbs all existence into the thought of a beloved object and sacrifices everything to this thought, even the idea of moral improvement: Chatsky loves passionately, madly and tells the truth to Sophia that “I breathed you, lived, was busy continuously.” But this only means that the thought of her merged for him with every noble thought or deed of honor and goodness.”
In Sofya, according to Apollo Grigoriev, Chatsky loves a girl who is able to “understand that the whole world is “dust and vanity” before the idea of truth and goodness, or at least who is able to appreciate this belief in the person she loves. He loves only such an ideal Sophia; he does not need another: he will reject the other and broken hearted will go “to search the world where there is a corner for an offended feeling.”
Apollo Grigoriev draws attention to the social significance of the main conflict of the comedy: in this conflict, the personal, psychological, love organically merges with the social. Moreover, the social problems of the comedy directly follow from the love ones: Chatsky suffers simultaneously from unrequited love and from an insoluble contradiction with society, with Famusov’s Moscow. Apollo Grigoriev admires the fullness of Chatsky’s feelings in both love and hatred of social evil. In everything he is impetuous and reckless, direct and pure in soul. He hates despotism and slavery, stupidity and dishonor, the meanness of the serf owners and the criminal inhumanity of serfdom. Chatsky reflects eternal and enduring features heroic personality of all eras and times.
This idea of Apollon Grigoriev will be picked up and developed by Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov in the article “A Million Torments”: “Every business that requires renewal evokes the shadow of Chatsky - and no matter who the figures are, no matter what human cause they are grouped... they cannot escape anywhere from the two main motives for the struggle: from the advice to “learn by looking at your elders,” on the one hand, and from thirst to strive from routine to “ free life“, forward and forward - on the other. That’s why Griboyedov’s Chatsky, and with him the whole comedy, has not aged yet and is unlikely to ever grow old. And literature will not escape the magic circle drawn by Griboedov as soon as the artist touches on the struggle of concepts and the change of generations. He... will create a modified image of Chatsky, like after Servant’s Don Quixote and Shakespeare's Hamlet endless similarities to them have appeared and are appearing. 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!”
However, when Apollo Grigoriev proceeds to determine the historical significance of the image of Chatsky, his character critical assessment again shifts towards Pushkin and his doubts about the quality of the “Decembrist” mind. “Chatsky,” says Grigoriev, “besides his general heroic significance, he also has historical significance. He is a product of the first quarter Russian XIX centuries... comrade of people " eternal memory twelfth year,” a powerful, still believing in itself and therefore stubborn force, ready to perish in a collision with the environment, to perish if only because it would leave behind a “page in history”... He does not care that the environment with which he struggling, positively unable not only to understand him, but even to take him seriously. But Griboyedov, as a great poet, cares about this. It’s not for nothing that he called his drama a comedy.”
Griboyedov gives people of the Decembrist mentality and character a bitter lesson. He does not bring his intelligent and passionate accuser into the square, does not pit him against political antagonists in a heroic battle. He takes Chatsky into the depths of everyday life and puts him face to face with a real enemy, whose strength Decembrism underestimated and did not feel. Evil was hidden, according to Griboyedov, not in the administrative regime and not in tsarism as such: it was rooted in the moral foundations of an entire class on which Russian statehood stood and from which it grew. And before the imperious power of these foundations, the enlightened mind had to feel its helplessness.
ALEXANDER SERGEEVICH GRIBOEDOV
(1795—1829)
"One of the most smart people in Russia"
The outstanding Russian writer Alexander Griboyedov was born in Moscow into a noble family.
Alexander received an excellent education. First - at home, under the guidance of foreign tutors, then - at the Moscow Noble Boarding School and Moscow University. At the university, he graduated from two faculties: literature and law, after which he began studying natural sciences and mathematics, preparing to receive a doctorate. However, to do this future writer did not have time due to the entry of Napoleon’s army into Moscow.
In the midst Patriotic War 1812 A. Griboyedov volunteered to join the Moscow Hussar Regiment. He remained in military service until 1816. His literary debut dates back to this four-year period: in 1814, the magazine “Bulletin of Europe” published correspondence from A. Griboedov describing a holiday organized by fellow soldiers for General Kologrivov. And in 1815 in St. Petersburg Theater There was a play by a novice author, “The Young Spouses.”
Soon after leaving military service The writer entered the State College of Foreign Affairs.
Interesting fact
Excellent education, knowledge of European (French, German, English, Italian) and eastern (Arabic and Persian) languages, outstanding musical abilities(A. Griboedov was an excellent pianist and composer) gave A. Pushkin reason to call him “one of the smartest people in Russia.”
In 1818, the writer, having become secretary of the Russian diplomatic mission, went to Persia. On this trip, Alexander Sergeevich began work on the comedy “Woe from Wit.”
Staying in the Persian “diplomatic monastery” was a burden for A. Griboyedov, and in 1822 he was transferred to the Caucasus, to Tiflis.
A. Griboyedov conducted peace negotiations with the heir to the Persian throne, which contributed to the end of the Russian-Persian War of 1826-1828. and the conclusion of the Turkmanchay Peace, beneficial for Russia. As a reward for success, Alexander Sergeevich received the post of plenipotentiary ambassador to Persia.
In October 1828, full of plans and happy A. Griboyedov, who had just married the Georgian princess Nina Chavchavadze in Tiflis, arrived in Persia. Four months later, a crowd incited by religious fanatics destroyed the Russian mission in Tehran. Several dozen mission employees were killed, including A. Griboyedov.
The diplomat's body was taken to Tiflis and buried at the Church of St. David. At the grave, the young widow of Alexander Sergeevich Nina Chavchavadze erected a monument to the writer with the inscription: “Your mind and deeds are immortal in Russian memory, but why did my love survive you?”
Comedy "Woe from Wit". Themes and issues of the play
From 1822 to 1824 A. Griboyedov worked on his most famous work- comedy "Woe from Wit." Since the play was directed against the entire Moscow nobility, it did not pass censorship. The comedy appeared on stage only after the death of A. Griboedov.
"Woe from Wit" is an innovative play. Innovation was evident in the author's choice of topic and formulation of problems. In the comedies created by A. Griboyedov's contemporaries, individual vices were usually ridiculed: tyranny, ignorance, arrogance. A. Griboyedov reflected the life and morals of a large part of Russian society at the beginning of the 19th century. - nobility. According to the writer and literary critic I. Goncharov, “Woe from Wit” is “...a picture of morals, a gallery of living types, and an ever-sharp, burning satire.” In the play, the playwright touched upon the painful social and moral problems of his time: veneration, sycophancy, ignorance, careerism, martinetry, blind imitation of foreign things to the detriment of the original national culture.
Features of conflict comedy
The presentation of acute social and moral problems in the play became possible thanks to the depiction of the clash of the main character, Alexander Andreevich Chatsky, with the Moscow nobility, typical representatives which are Famusov and his entourage - the Famusov society.
The writer showed the conflict not only between two different eras: “the present century” with the “past century” - but two value systems. Representatives of the “past century” are characterized by hatred of enlightenment, arrogance, lack own opinion, admiration for wealth and power, the desire to move up the social ladder as high as possible, groveling before those in power. IN public service Famusov and his like-minded people see only a means to get rich and acquire useful connections.
Chatsky's values are completely different. The hero defends free-thinking, independence of opinions, and spiritual independence. The idea of adapting and pleasing the powers that be for the sake of a career and personal enrichment is deeply alien to him. Alexander Andreevich does not want to be served, but is ready to serve honestly for the benefit of society.
The image of Chatsky
The main and most controversial image of the comedy is Alexander Andreevich Chatsky. Almost immediately after finishing work on the comedy, conflicting reviews about this hero.
One group of critics recognized the timeliness of the hero's appearance, but noted his inability to act. For example, N. Gogol wrote: “Even the person who is apparently taken as a model, that is, Chatsky himself, shows only the desire to become something, expresses only indignation against what is despicable and vile in society, but does not provide a model for society.”
A. Pushkin in a letter to A. Bestuzhev noted: “In the comedy “Woe from Wit,” who is the smart character? Answer: Griboyedov. Do you know what Chatsky is?<...>Everything he [Chatsky] says is very smart. But to whom is he telling all this? Famusov? Skalozub? At the ball for Moscow grandmothers? Molchalin? This is unforgivable. The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at first glance who you are dealing with and not throw pearls in front of Repetilov and the like.”
Critics from the second group considered Chatsky a new hero, whose feat and struggle is to have his say about the imperfections of the world. He does not act yet, he only speaks, but he is ready to suffer for his ideals. A. Grigoriev belonged to this group, claiming that “Chatsky is a product of the first quarter of the Russian XIX century,<...>powerful, still deeply believing in itself and therefore stubborn force, ready to perish in a collision with the environment...”
The answer to the question “Who is Chatsky?” not found yet. In modern theatrical productions he appears either as a poser and idle talker, or as a tragic and misunderstood figure.
Creating an ambiguous image has become a new word in drama. This is also the innovation of A. Griboyedov.
Reflecting on the fate of Chatsky, I. Goncharov wrote: “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 the hopelessness of success.”
Chatsky and Molchalin
The image of Chatsky is revealed in confrontation with Famus society and its a prominent representative— Alexey Stepanovich Molchalin.
Molchalin is the complete opposite of the honest, impatient, ironic Chatsky. Alexey Stepanovich has a “speaking” surname. Unlike Chatsky, he is used to keeping quiet. Molchalin serves as secretary in Famusov’s house, trying to please his patron in everything. The main advantages of Alexei Stepanovich, in his own words, are “moderation and accuracy.” All Molchalin’s efforts are aimed at
to please to the right people, make a career and get rich. The hero subordinates even his feelings to this goal.
Chatsky and Sofia
The tragedy of Chatsky’s fate, alone opposing the entire Famus society, is intensified by a personal drama - unrequited love for Sofia. Sofia is an extraordinary girl.
On the one hand, she was raised by her father, mediocre foreign teachers and sentimental French novels. On the other hand, Sofia, like Chatsky, is smart and independent in thoughts and actions, going against the Famus environment and its values. She gives a damning description of the rich and noble Skalozub: He never uttered a smart word, -
The girl prefers the “rootless” Molchalin to the groom desired in the eyes of society. Defending her love, she shows rare courage and determination: “What do I hear? Whoever wants to judges!”
The meaning of the title of the play "Woe from Wit"
The title of A. Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit” is associated with the conflict of the play. The playwright poses the question of what the mind is and makes it clear to the reader: each hero has his own answer, depending on the system of moral coordinates in which he lives.
For Famus society, an indicator of intelligence is the ability to acquire wealth and achieve a high position in society. For people like Molchalin, helpfulness and compliance with moderation are considered a sign of intelligence. For Chatsky clever man- one who thinks independently and has his own opinion.
The minds of Famusov and Molchalin serve their owners, help them adapt to any conditions, achieve success, while Chatsky’s sublime mind only harms him, so for those around him he is akin to madness.
However, Chatsky not only lost, but also won in the fight against the Moscow nobility. Chatsky, being a typical product of this society, nevertheless managed to rise above it, overcome its illusory values and inert worldview. Therefore, in the title of the play - “Woe from Wit” - the reader feels bitter irony.
Comedy language
One of the main advantages of the play “Woe from Wit” is its language. From the great fabulist I. Krylov, A. Griboyedov adopted the experience of using conversational intonations and constructions in poetry. Thereby
The iambic hexameter of comedy becomes light and free. In addition, the speech of each character is individualized.
After reading the play, A. Pushkin said: “I’m not talking about poetry - half of it should be included in proverbs.” And so it happened. Already a year after the appearance of the comedy, the writer V. Odoevsky noted: “Almost all the poems of Griboedov’s comedy became proverbs, and I often happened to hear whole conversations in society, which most composed poems from “Woe from Wit.”
Many expressions and phrases from A. Griboyedov’s work still decorate our speech: “ Happy Hours they don’t observe”, “And the smoke of the fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us”, “Who are the judges?”, “I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to be served”, “The legend is fresh, but it’s hard to believe” and others.
Making sense of what we read
1. Why did A. Pushkin call A. Griboyedov one of the smartest people in Russia?
2. In what field of activity, besides literature, did A. Griboedov show himself?
3. Did any fact from the writer’s biography surprise you? Why?
4. List the problems raised by the playwright in the comedy “Woe from Wit”. What works of literature do you know that deal with the social and moral issues you mentioned?
5. Which of A. Griboyedov’s aphorisms given in the article do you know? When are these phrases used?
We are preparing a project
6. Prepare a project " Interesting Facts about A. Griboedov."
WORTH FROM MIND
Comedy in five acts (Abridged)
Characters:
Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov, manager at the government office.
Sofia Pavlovna, his daughter.
Lizanka, maid.
Alexey Stepanovich Molchalin, Famusov’s secretary, living in his house.
Alexander Andreevich Chatsky.
Colonel Skalozub, Sergei Sergeevich.
Natalya Dmitrievna, young lady.
Platon Mikhailovich, her husband.
G o r i c h i.
Prince Tugoukhovsky and Princess, his wife, with six daughters.
Countess grandmother.
Countess granddaughter.
Anton Antonovich Zagoretsky.
Old woman Khlestov, sister-in-law of Famusov.
Repetilov.
Parsley and several talking servants.
Lots of guests of all sorts and their lackeys on their way out. Famusov's waiters.
Action in Moscow in Famusov's house.
ACT I
[Early morning. Lizanka, who woke up in a chair in the middle of the living room, remembered that the young lady did not let her go yesterday because Molchalin came to her. The date was still not over, and the alarmed Lisa had difficulty persuading Sofia and Molchalin to break up. At the door Molchalin ran into Famusov. He asked in amazement how the secretary ended up in the living room. Molchalin lied as if he had just returned from a walk. Famusov and the secretary went to sort out business papers.]
Phenomenon 5
Sofia, Lisa.
Just think how capricious happiness is!
It can be worse, you can get away with it;
When sad nothing comes to mind,
We lost ourselves in music, and time passed so smoothly;
Fate seemed to be protecting us;
No worries, no doubts.
And grief awaits around the corner.
That's it, sir, you never favor my stupid judgment:
But here's the problem.
What better prophet do you need?
I kept repeating: there will be no good in this love, Not forever and ever.
Like all Moscow people, your father is like this:
He would like a son-in-law with stars and ranks,
And under the stars, not everyone is rich, between us;
Well, of course, then
And money to live on, so he could give balls; Here, for example, Colonel Skalozub:
And a golden bag, and aims to become a general.
How cute! and it’s fun for me to hear about the front and the rows;
He never said a smart word,
I don’t care what goes into the water.
Yes, sir, so to speak, he is eloquent, but not very cunning;
But be a military man, be a civilian,
Who is so sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp,
Like Alexander Andreich Chatsky!
Not to confuse you;
It's been a long time, can't turn it back
And I remember.
What do you remember? He knows how to make everyone laugh;
He chats, jokes, it’s funny to me;
You can share laughter with everyone.
But only? as if? - Shedding tears,
I remember, poor thing, how he parted with you. - “Why, sir, are you crying? live laughing."
And he responded: “No wonder, Lisa, I’m crying:
Who knows what I will find when I return?
And how much I might lose!”
The poor thing seemed to know that in three years.
Listen, don’t take unnecessary liberties.
I was very windy, perhaps I acted
And I know, and I’m guilty; but where did it change?
To whom? so that they could reproach with infidelity.
Yes, it’s true that we were brought up and grew up with Chatsky; The habit of being together every day inseparably tied us together with childhood friendship; but then he moved out, he seemed bored with us,
And he rarely visited our house;
Then again he pretended to be in love, demanding and distressed!
Sharp, smart, eloquent,
I'm especially happy with friends,
He thought highly of himself...
The desire to wander attacked him,
Oh! if someone loves someone,
Why search for the mind and travel so far?
Where is it running? in what areas?
They say he was treated in sour waters,
Not from illness, tea, from boredom - more freely.
And, of course, he’s happy where the people are funnier.
The one I love is not like this:
Molchalin is ready to forget himself for others,
The enemy of insolence - always shy, timid, whole night with anyone you can spend like that!
We are sitting, and the yard has long since turned white,
What do you think? what are you doing?<...>
He will take your hand and press it to your heart,
He will sigh from the depths of his soul,
Not a free word, and so the whole night passes,
Hand in hand, and doesn’t take his eyes off me.<...>
[The servant reported on Chatsky’s arrival. Chatsky traveled for almost two days to see Sofia as quickly as possible. However, the girl received him rather coldly.]
ACT II
[Chatsky began persistently asking Famusov about his daughter. The owner of the house asked if the young man wanted to marry Sophia.]
Phenomenon 2
Famusov, Servant, Chatsky. Chatsky
Let me woo you, what would you tell me? Famusov
I would say, firstly: don’t be a whim,
Brother, don’t mismanage your property,
And, most importantly, go ahead and serve.
I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening. Famusov
That's it, you are all proud!
Would you ask what the fathers did?
We would learn from our elders:
We, for example, or the deceased uncle,
Maxim Petrovich: he’s not on silver,
Ate on gold; one hundred people at your service;
All in orders; I was always traveling in a train 1;
A century at court, and at what court!
Then it was not the same as now,
He served under the Empress Catherine.
And in those days everyone is important! at forty poods... Take a bow - we’re stupid 2 and they won’t nod.
The nobleman in case 3 - especially since
Not like anyone else, and he drank and ate differently.
And uncle! what is your prince? what's the count?
Serious look, arrogant disposition.
When do you need to help yourself?
And he bent over:
On Kurtag 4 he happened to step on his feet; He fell so hard that he almost hit the back of his head; The old man groaned, his voice hoarse;
He was granted the highest smile; They deigned to laugh; what about him?
He stood up, straightened up, wanted to bow,
A row suddenly fell - on purpose,
And the laughter is worse, and the third time it’s the same.
A? what do you think? in our opinion - smart. He fell painfully, but got up well.
But it happened that who was most often invited to whist 1?
Who hears a friendly word at court? Maxim Petrovich! Who knew honor before everyone? Maxim Petrovich! Joke!
Who promotes you to ranks and gives pensions?
Maxim Petrovich. Yes! You people today are nootka!
And sure enough, the world began to grow stupid,
You can say with a sigh;
How to compare and see the present century and the past century:
The legend is fresh, but hard to believe,
As he was famous for, whose neck bent more often;
As not in war, but in peace they took it head on,
They hit the floor without regret!
Who needs it: those are arrogant, they lie in the dust,
And for those who are higher, flattery was woven like lace. It was an age of obedience and fear,
All under the guise of zeal for the king.
I'm not talking about your uncle;
We will not disturb his ashes:
But in the meantime, who will the hunt take?
Even in the most ardent servility,
Now, to make people laugh,
Bravely sacrifice the back of your head?
And the peer, and the old man Other, looking at that leap,
And crumbling into old skin,
Tea, he said: “Ax! If only I could too!” Although there are hunters everywhere to be mean,
Yes, nowadays laughter frightens and keeps shame in check; No wonder the sovereigns favor them sparingly.
Famusov Ah! My God! he's a carbonari! 2
No, the world is not like that these days.
A dangerous person!<...>
[The servant reported Skalozub's arrival. Famusov asked Chatsky to be careful around the colonel. When Skalozub appeared, the owner of the house started with him small talk about Moscow, glorious for its noble traditions and luxury houses, rebuilt after the fire of 1812.]
Phenomenon 5
Chatsky, Famusov, Skalozub.
The houses are new, but the prejudices are old.
Rejoice, neither years, nor fashion, nor fires will destroy them.
Famusov (to Chatsky)
Hey, tie a knot for memory;
I asked you to be silent, it was not a great service.
(To Skalozub.)
Allow me, father. Here you go - Chatsky, my friend, Andrei Ilyich's late son:
It does not serve, that is, he does not find any benefit in it,
But if you wanted to, it would be businesslike.
It's a pity, it's a pity, he's small in head,
And he writes and translates well.
One cannot help but regret that with such a mind.
Is it possible to regret someone else?
And your praise annoys me.
I’m not the only one, everyone is also condemning.
Who are the judges? - For the antiquity of years, their enmity is irreconcilable towards a free life,
Judgments are drawn from forgotten newspapers from the times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of the Crimea 1; Always ready to fight,
They all sing the same song,
Without noticing about yourself:
The older it is, the worse it is.
Where, show us, are the fathers of the fatherland,
Which ones should we take as models?
Aren't these the ones who are rich in robbery?
They found protection from court in friends, in kinship, building magnificent chambers,
Where they spill out in feasts and extravagance,
And where foreign clients will not resurrect the meanest traits of a past life.
And who in Moscow hasn’t had their mouths clamped at lunches, dinners and dances?
Aren't you the one to whom I was born from the shrouds?
For some incomprehensible plans,
Did you take the children to bow?
That Nestor 2 noble scoundrels,
Surrounded by a crowd of servants;
Zealous, they saved his honor and life more than once during the hours of wine and fights: suddenly he exchanged three greyhounds for them!!!
Or that one over there, who, for the sake of an undertaking, drove many wagons to the serf ballet 3 From the mothers, fathers of rejected children?!
Myself immersed in mind in Zephyrs and Cupids, Made all of Moscow marvel at their beauty!
But the debtors did not agree to a deferment:
Cupids and Zephyrs are all sold out individually!!!
These are the ones who lived to see their gray hairs!
This is who we should respect in the wilderness!
Here are our strict connoisseurs and judges!
Now let one of us
Of the young people, there will be an enemy of quest,
Without demanding either places or promotion,
He will focus his mind on science, hungry for knowledge;
Or in his soul God himself will arouse a fervor for creative, lofty and beautiful arts - They immediately: robbery! fire!
And he will be known among them as a dreamer! dangerous!! —
Uniform! one uniform! he once covered them in their former life, embroidered and beautiful,
Their weakness, poverty of reason;
And we follow them on a happy journey!
And in wives and daughters there is the same passion for the uniform!
How long ago did I renounce tenderness towards him?!
Now I can’t fall into this childishness;
But who wouldn’t follow everyone then?
When from the guard, others from the court came here for a while,
The women shouted: hurray!
And they threw caps into the air!<...>
[Famusov hastened to end the conversation and left the living room. Sofia and Lisa entered the room. Through the window they accidentally saw Molchalin fall from his horse. Sofia lost consciousness from fright. Chatsky suspected that the girl was in love with the secretary.]
ACT III Phenomenon 1
Chatsky, then Sofia.
In vain: this all applies to others,
Molchalin would hardly bore you,
If only we could get along better with him.
Chatsky (fervently)
Why did you know him so briefly?
I didn’t try, God brought us together.
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,
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 frolic, we laugh,
He sits with them all day, whether he’s happy or not, plays...
Plays all day!
He is silent when he is scolded!
(To the side.)
She doesn't respect him.
Of course he doesn’t have this mind,
What a genius is to some, and to others a plague, Which is quick, brilliant and soon disgusted, Which scolds the world on the spot,
So that the world can at least say something about him; Will such a mind make a family happy?
Satire and morality - the point of it all?
(To the side.)
She doesn't give a damn about him.
Finally, He has the most wonderful properties: compliant, modest, quiet.
Not a shadow of worry in his face,
And there are no wrongdoings in my soul,
He doesn’t cut strangers at random, -
That's why I love him.
Chatsky (to the side)
He's being naughty, she doesn't love him.
I’ll help you finish with Molchalin’s image.
But Skalozub? here's a peek:
Stands up for the army,
Not my novel.
Not yours? who will solve you?<...>
[Lisa said that Molchalin will come now. Sofia left.]
Phenomenon 3
Chatsky, then Molchalin.
Oh! Sophia! Was Molchalin really chosen for her?
Why not a husband? There is only little intelligence in him;
But to have children,
Who lacked intelligence?
Helpful, modest, with a blush in his face.
(Molchalin enters.)
There he is on tiptoe and not rich in words;
What kind of sorcery he knew how to get into her heart!
(Addresses him.)
You and I, Alexey Stepanych, were unable to say two words.
Well, what is your way of life?
Without grief today? without sadness?
Molchalin
Still, sir.
How did you live before?
Molchalin
Day after day, today is like yesterday.
To pen from cards? and to cards from the pen?
And the allotted time for the ebb and flow of the tides?
Molchalin As I work and force,
Since I've been listed in Archives 1,
Received three awards.
Lured by honors and nobility?
Molchalin
No, sir, everyone has their own talent...
Molchalin
Moderation and accuracy.
The most wonderful two! and are worth our all.
Molchalin
Have you not been given ranks, have you had no success in your career?
Ranks are given by people,
And people can be deceived.<...>
[Meanwhile, guests began to arrive at Famusov’s house. Upset by Chatsky’s words about Molchalin, Sofia, in a conversation with one of the guests, said that Chatsky was out of his mind. Soon all the guests were discussing Chatsky's madness.
Unaware of the rumor started by Sofia, he delivered a woeful monologue in front of all those gathered about his dissatisfaction with Moscow. When Chatsky finished his fiery speech and looked around, he discovered that no one was listening to him: some guests danced enthusiastically, others played cards.]
ACT IV
[Late in the evening, Famusov’s guests began to leave. Chatsky, who still had not been given a carriage, went to the Swiss one. From there he heard Zagoretsky inform Repetilov about his madness. Zagoretsky’s words were confirmed by other departing guests.]
Phenomenon 10
The last lamp goes out.
Chatsky (leaves the Swiss)
What is this? did I hear with my ears!
Not laughter, but clearly anger. What miracles?
Through what witchcraft
And for others it’s like a triumph,
Others seem to have compassion...<...>
[Sofia appears. Chatsky realized that she was looking for Molchalin and hid behind a column.]
Phenomenon 12
Chatsky behind the column, Liza, Molchalin (stretches and yawns), Sofia (sneaks from above).
Molchalin
<...>I don’t see anything enviable in Sofya Pavlovna. May God grant her a rich life,
I once loved Chatsky,
He will stop loving me like he did.
My little angel, I would like to feel half the same for her as I feel for you;
No, no matter how much I tell myself,
I’m getting ready to be gentle, but when I’m dating, I’ll throw a sheet.
Sofia (to the side)
What baseness!
Chatsky (behind the column)
And you are not ashamed?
Molchalin My father bequeathed to me:
Firstly, please all people without exception - the owner where you happen to live,
The boss with whom I will serve,
To his servant who cleans dresses,
Doorman, janitor, to avoid evil,
To the janitor's dog, so that it is affectionate.<. >
[Molchalin wanted to hug Lisa, but he was stopped by Sofia, who heard the entire conversation. Molchalin fell to his knees in front of her, but the girl demanded that he leave the house immediately. Molchalin hid in his room.]
Phenomenon 13
The same, except for Molchalin.
Rather faint, now it's alright
There is a more important reason why
Here is the solution to the riddle at last!
Here I am donated to!
I don’t know how I curbed my rage!
I looked and saw and didn’t believe it!
And darling, for whom is it forgotten?
AND former friend, and women's fear and shame, -
He hides behind the door, afraid to be held accountable.
Oh! how to comprehend the game of fate?
A persecutor of people with a soul, a scourge! - Silent people are blissful in the world!
Sofia (all in tears)
Don't continue, I blame myself all around.
But who would have thought that he could be so insidious!
Knock! noise! Oh! My God! the whole house is running here. Your father will be grateful.
Phenomenon 14
Chatsky, Sofia, Lisa, Famusov, a crowd of servants with candles.
Here! Behind me! hurry up! hurry up!
More candles and lanterns!
Where are the brownies? Bah! All familiar faces!
Daughter, Sofya Pavlovna! Stranger!
Shameless! Where! with whom! She is like her mother, a deceased wife.
It happened that I was with my better half
A little apart - somewhere with a man!
Fear God, how? How did he seduce you?
She called him crazy!
No! Stupidity and blindness have attacked me!
It's all a conspiracy, and there was a conspiracy
Himself and all the guests. Why am I being punished like this!..<...>
Chatsky (fervently)
<...>Blind! In whom I sought the reward of all my labors! I was in a hurry!.. flying! trembled! Happiness, I thought, was close. Before whom I was so passionately and so lowly Was a waste of tender words!
And you! Oh my God! who did you choose?
When I think about who you preferred!
Why did they lure me with hope?
Why didn't they tell me directly?
Why did you turn everything that happened into laughter?!
That the memory even disgusts you
Those feelings, in both of us the movements of those hearts,
Which have never cooled in me,
No entertainment, no change of place.
I breathed and lived by them, was constantly busy!
They would say that my sudden arrival was to you,
My appearance, my words, actions - everything is disgusting, -
I would immediately cut off relations with you And before parting forever,
I wouldn't bother to get there very much,
Who is this dear person to you?..
(Mockingly.)
You will make peace with him, after mature reflection.
Destroy yourself, and why!
Think, you can always take care of him, and swaddle him, and send him to work. A boy-husband, a servant-husband, one of the wife's pages—the high ideal of all Moscow husbands. - Enough!.. with you I am proud of my breakup.
And you, sir father, you, passionate about ranks:
I wish you to sleep in happy ignorance,
I do not threaten you with my matchmaking.
There will be another, well-behaved one,
A sycophant and a businessman,
Finally, He is equal in merits to his future father-in-law.
So! I have completely sobered up
Dreams out of sight - and the veil fell;
Now it wouldn’t be bad for the daughter and the father in a row,
And on a foolish lover,
And pour out all the bile and all the frustration to the whole world.<...>
Get out of Moscow! I don't go here anymore.
I’m running, I won’t look back, I’ll go looking around the world,
Where is there a corner for an offended feeling!..
Carriage for me, carriage!
(Leaves.)
Phenomenon 15
Except Chatsky.
Well? Don't you see that he's gone crazy?
Say it seriously:
Insane! What kind of nonsense is he talking about here!
The sycophant! father-in-law! and so menacing about Moscow!
Have you decided to kill me?
Isn't my fate still sad?
Oh! My God! what will he say
Princess Marya Aleksevna!
Reflecting on the text of a work of art
1. There are two conflicts in comedy: social and love. Name their participants. Do the moments at which conflicts begin coincide?
2. What principles do people in the Famus circle adhere to? What is for them highest value? What social and moral problems Are they related to the image of Famus society?
3. In what way does Chatsky’s position contradict the views of Famus society?
4. Describe the image of Chatsky. In your opinion, can he be called a positive hero? Justify your answer.
5. What do you think had the strongest influence on Sofia’s attitude towards Chatsky: public opinion, falling in love with Molchalin, or the character of the hero himself? Justify your answer.
6. How do other comedy characters feel about Chatsky? Why was everyone so willing to believe that he had gone crazy?
7. How does Molchalin’s speech reveal his character, views, and principles?
8. In your opinion, which character primarily refers to the title of the comedy “Woe from Wit”?
9. How does the play address the theme of the mind raised in the title?
10. What is the difference between lifestyle and moral principles Chatsky and Molchalin? Fill out the table in your notebook “ Comparative characteristics Chatsky and Molchalin."
11. Write out phrases from the play that can be called aphorisms.
12. What is comedy? Why did A. Griboedov classify his work in this genre?
13. Why do some researchers say that the play has features of tragedy?
We express our opinion
14. The comedy “Woe from Wit” has been around for almost 200 years. theatrical stage. How do you explain the reason for your interest in her? How can a modern viewer be attracted to the image of Chatsky? Are the questions raised in the play relevant?
We read expressively
15. Remember what a monologue is. Learn by heart and expressively read one of the monologues of Chatsky or Famusov (your choice). In your opinion, what feelings do you want to convey when reading?
A. A. Bestuzhev defended Griboyedov and praised his comedy in “The Polar Star,” O. M. Somov in “Son of the Fatherland,” V. F. Odoevsky and N. A. Polevoy in “Moscow Telegraph.” Abrists and all those who wrote then in defense of “Woe from Wit” proved the originality of the comedy and its correspondence to Russian reality. A. A. Bestuzhev, in the article “A Look at Russian Literature during 1824 and Early 1825,” called Griboedov’s comedy a “phenomenon” that had not been seen since the time of Fonvizin’s “The Minor.” He finds its merit in Griboedov’s mind and wit, in the fact that “the author is not liked by the rules,” he boldly and sharply draws a crowd of characters, a living picture of Moscow morals, using the “unprecedented fluency” of “colloquial Russian in verse.” Bestuzhev prophesied that “the future will appreciate this comedy and place it among the first folk creations.”
Abrist criticism emphasized the clash in the play of two opposing social forces. Opponents tried their best to hide this. The writer’s friends had to prove the specificity of the plot of “Woe from Wit” and its masterful construction.
Apparently, Pushkin had another consideration. The comedy avoided the question of the fate of numerous “good fellows” who diverged from the secular environment, but did not oppose it, like Chatsky. They see the vulgarity of the life around them, but they themselves pay tribute to the prejudices of the world. He portrayed this controversial type of young people of the 20s in Eugene Onegin. And after April 14, 1825, having survived the trials of time, they continued to remain among the best. Later they turned into Pechorin, Beltov, Rudin. Eat historical truth in the image of the enthusiast Chatsky, though in the sharp picture of morals “Woe from Wit”. But there is historical truth both in the dual image of Onegin and in the softened pictures of Pushkin’s novel. This exactly corresponded to the contradictions of the noble heroes, far from the people and unable to break with the interests and prejudices of their class. showed an active, efficient side social movement, Pushkin – his skeptical, contradictory. Griboyedov showed how the nobles rebel against injustice, Pushkin - how they fight and make peace with it. Griboyedov showed the struggle of the hero with society, Pushkin - the struggle in the soul of the hero, carrying within himself the contradictions of society. But both truths are important and real. And both great realist artists reflected the progressive movement in all its heroism and historical inconsistency.
But in his assessment of Chatsky, Pushkin somewhat disagreed with both Griboedov and the abrists. Pushkin admits that Chatsky is smart, that he is an ardent and noble young man and a kind fellow, and “everything he says is very smart.” But, firstly, this mind is somewhat borrowed. Chatsky seemed to have picked up thoughts, witticisms and satirical remarks from Griboedov himself, with whom he spent time, and, secondly, “who is he telling all this to? Famusov? Skalozub? At the ball for Moscow grandmothers? Molchalin? This is unforgivable." Pushkin notes at the same time: “The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at first glance who you are dealing with and not throw pearls in front of the Repetilovs and the like.” Pushkin knew people like Chatsky well. This is a person close to the circle of Griboedov and the Abrists. But Pushkin had already gone through a period of similar hobbies. Once he flooded St. Petersburg with his epigrams, in the poem “Village” he exclaimed: “Oh, if only my voice could disturb hearts!”; once upon a time he spoke out in an accusatory spirit among random people. Now Pushkin judges more maturely. He believes that arguing with the Famusovs is useless.
The comedy by A. S. Griboyedov aroused the most controversial rumors among his contemporaries and gave rise to controversy in literary circles. The most interesting were the reviews of P. A. Katenin, Abrists and A. S. Pushkin. At the beginning of 1825, Katenin sent Griboedov a letter criticizing “Woe from Wit.” Katenin's letter has not reached us. But Griboedov’s answer arrived, refuting all of his opponent’s points, which Griboyedov repeated in the letter. This allows us to judge the nature of the dispute. Katenin saw the “main flaw” of the comedy – in the plan. Griboedov objected: “It seems to me that it is simple both in purpose and execution.” As proof, the playwright revealed the general idea of the comedy, the arrangement of the characters, the gradual course of the intrigue and the significance of Chatsky’s character.
“: In my comedy,” wrote Griboyedov, “there are 25 fools for one sane person; and this person, of course, is at odds with the society around him.” Griboedov pointed out: the essence of comedy is in Chatsky’s clash with society; Sophia - in the Famus camp, three of the four remarks directed against Chatsky belong to her; no one believes in Chatsky’s madness, but everyone repeats the rumor that has spread; and, finally, Chatsky emerges as the winner. According to Griboyedov, Chatsky in Famusov’s house from the very beginning plays two roles: as a young man in love with Sophia, who chose someone else over him, and as a smart one among twenty-five fools who cannot forgive him for his superiority over them. Both intrigues merge together at the end of the play: “: he didn’t give a damn to her and everyone and was like that.” Thus, Griboyedov opposes a one-sided interpretation of the meaning of comedy. Katenin considers it a mistake to move away from the rationalistic and allegorical “universality” of many of Moliere’s heroes and the schemes of classicism in general. "Yes! - says Griboedov. “And I, if I don’t have Moliere’s talent, am at least more sincere than him; Portraits and only portraits are part of comedy and tragedy; however, they contain features that are characteristic of many other persons, and others of the entire human race: “According to Griboedov, the portrait nature of the heroes does not in the least interfere with their typicality. In realism, portraiture becomes an indispensable condition for the typical. “I hate caricatures,” continues Griboyedov, “you won’t find a single one in my painting. Here is my poetics: As I live, so I write: freely and freely.”
In the press, the reactionary “Bulletin of Europe”, an article by M. Dmitriev and A. Pisarev, attacked “Woe from Wit”. Griboedov was accused of making the main intrigue far-fetched and of imitating Moliere's "The Misanthrope." It was this erroneous version that was later put forward by Al. N. Veselovsky based his work “Alcest and Chatsky” of 1881 and for a long time enjoyed recognition in bourgeois literary criticism.
Pushkin expressed his judgment about comedy from the standpoint of the realism that developed in his own creativity. The poet read “Woe from Wit” together with I. I. Pushchin in Mikhailovsky in January 1825. He soon expressed his opinion about the comedy in a letter to Bestuzhev. It can be assumed that this letter from Pushkin influenced Bestuzhev’s review of “Woe from Wit.” The author of “Boris Godunov” recognizes the right of a dramatic writer to choose the rules for his work, by which he should be judged. One can now argue with this idea, because the rules themselves are subject to judgment. But at the moment of the birth of realism, the most important thing was to proclaim freedom of creativity. Unlike Katenin, Pushkin does not condemn “neither the plan, nor the plot, nor the decency of comedy.” Pushkin himself broke old traditions and established his own. Pushkin also understood Griboyedov’s main goal, defining it as follows: “characters and a sharp picture of morals.” Pushkin, working on Eugene Onegin, was solving the same problem at that moment. He also appreciated the extraordinary expressiveness of the language of “Woe from Wit.”
The controversy surrounding "Woe from Wit" showed the importance of comedy in modern social struggle and outlined further development literature along the path of realism.
Comedy by A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" in Russian criticism
1.First judgments
2. The appearance of negative reviews
3. The appearance of positive reviews
4. Griboyedov’s immortal work
1.First judgments
Griboyedov criticism review comedy
The first judgments about “Woe from Wit” were made even before individual fragments of the comedy appeared in print and on stage. Having delivered the new play to St. Petersburg in June 1824, Griboyedov immediately began reading it in literary salons. Among the listeners were famous critics and playwrights, actors, and the success of the reading was obvious. Griboedov's friend F.V. Bulgarin managed to publish several scenes from the first act and the entire third act of the comedy in the theatrical anthology “Russian Waist” for 1825. The publication was almost immediately followed by printed statements about new play. An announcement was placed in the magazine “Son of the Fatherland” about the release of the almanac, and the announcement was accompanied by a short but enthusiastic review, dedicated essentially to a single essay, “I’m Burning from My Mind.” A little later, in one of the February issues of the newspaper “Northern Bee” it was published a review of literary news, and again the publication from “Woe from Wit” was presented as the most significant of them.
In the first printed reviews of Woe from Wit, several basic motives varied. The main advantages of the play were considered to be the abundance of new and poignant thoughts, the strength of noble feelings that animate both the author and the hero, the combination of truth and individual artistic features of “Woe from Wit” - the skillfully drawn characters, the extraordinary fluency and liveliness of poetic speech. A. A. Bestuzhev, who expressed all these thoughts most emotionally, supplemented them with an enthusiastic description of the impact of comedy on readers: “All this attracts, amazes, and attracts attention. A person with a heart will not read it without being moved to tears.”
2. The appearance of negative reviews
The deepening of understanding and appreciation of the new comedy was unexpectedly facilitated by the appearance of sharply negative and clearly unfair reviews about it. The attacks led to the fact that the unanimity of enthusiastic praise gave way to polemics, and the polemics turned into serious critical analysis, covering different aspects content and form of "Woe from Wit".
The image of Chatsky was subjected to the most vehement attacks from the critic of Vestnik Evropy. And this is no coincidence. After all, it was Chatsky who appeared in the comedy as the herald of the ideas of Decembrism.
Griboyedov and his supporters were opposed by the not very talented, but quite famous playwright and critic M. A. Dmitriev in those years. In the March magazine “Bulletin of Europe” for 1825, he published “Remarks on the judgments of the Telegraph,” giving criticism of Griboyedov’s play the form of an objection to the review of N. A. Polevoy. Disputing the enthusiastic assessments of fans of “Woe from Wit,” Dmitriev first of all attacked the hero of the comedy. In Chatsky, he saw a man “who slanderes and says whatever comes to mind,” who “finds no other conversation except curses and ridicule.” The critic sees in the hero and the author of the comedy standing behind him the personification of a social force hostile to him. He tried to justify his attacks on “Woe from Wit”. Dmitriev, according to his own understanding, reconstructed the author's plan and, starting from this construction, subjected to devastating criticism what, in his opinion, Griboyedov had achieved. "G. Griboedov, Dmitriev argued, wanted to present an intelligent and educated person who is not liked by the society of uneducated people. If the comedian (that is, the author of the comedy) had fulfilled this idea, then Chatsky’s character would have been entertaining, the people around him would have been funny, and the whole picture would have been funny and instructive! However, the plan did not come true: Chatsky is nothing more than a madman who was in the company of people who were not at all stupid and at the same time played smart in front of them. This leads to two conclusions: 1) Chatsky, who “Should be the smartest person in the play, is presented as the least reasonable of all,”
2) it’s not the people around Chatsky who are funny, it’s the main character himself who is funny, contrary to Griboyedov’s intentions.”
Around the same time, in letters to Bestuzhev and Vyazemsky, Pushkin made several critical comments about Griboedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit,” some of which were consonant with Dmitriev’s theses. Overall rating The comedy in Pushkin’s letters was high: the poet found in the play “traits of a truly comic genius,” fidelity to reality, and mature skill. But with all this, he considered the behavior of Chatsky, who was throwing pearls “in front of the Repetilovs,” ridiculous. In addition, Pushkin (albeit not directly) denied the presence of a “plan” in comedy, that is, unity and development of action.
In 1840, Belinsky tried to substantiate the devastating assessment of “Woe from Wit” in a new way. But this attempt was also surrounded by significant excuses, and later, during the 1840s, it was corrected by more objective judgments about Griboedov and his play. Belinsky stated: “Someone who said that this comedy was deeply correctly assessed is grief - only not from the mind, but from cleverness.”
Pisarev came out to help Dmitriev against Somov. Filled with cheeky, flat witticisms, the critic's article basically repeats Dmitriev's judgments, without making them at least in any way more convincing. Following Dmitriev, Pisarev accuses Griboyedov of deviating from the “rules”, that “there is no need in the whole play, it has become, there is no plot, and therefore there can be no action.” In his opinion, Somov praises “Woe from Wit” only because he is “of the same parish as the author.”
3. The appearance of positive reviews
The first printed statement about “Woe from Wit” was the review of N. A. Polevoy in his review of the almanac “Russian Waist”, in which excerpts from the comedy were first published. Polevoy’s review appeared in the Moscow Telegraph magazine he had just founded, which occupied a progressive position in journalism of those years. “In no other Russian comedy have we found such sharp new thoughts and such vivid pictures of society as we find in Woe from Wit,” wrote Polevoy. -Natalya, Dmitrievna, Prince Tugoukhovsky, Khlestova, Skalozub were copied with a masterful brush. We dare to hope that those who have read the excerpts allow us, on behalf of everyone, to ask Griboedov to publish the entire comedy.” Highly appreciating the comedy, Polevoy pointed out its topicality, fidelity to reality, and the typicality of its images.
Dmitriev's article caused a storm of indignation among leading Russian writers - Decembrist writers and their like-minded people. In particular, the outstanding figure of Decembrist literature, one of Belinsky’s predecessors in the history of Russian criticism, A. A. Bestuzhev-Marlinsky, responded to the attacks of the “martel Dmitriev,” in the review “A Look at Russian Literature.” Having subtly ridiculed Dmitriev as a playwright in his review, Bestuzhev, immediately after assessing Dmitriev’s “creation,” moves on to Griboedov’s comedy. He decisively declares that in “Woe from Wit” life itself is reproduced, that it is “ living picture Moscow morals” and that is why those who, as if in a mirror, recognize themselves in it, take up arms against the comedy with such malice. Bestuzhev accuses opponents of “Woe from Wit” of lack of taste. “The future will appreciate this comedy with dignity and place it among the first folk creations,” Bestuzhev prophetically concludes his review.
Soon after Bestuzhev, O. M. Somov came out with a long article in defense of “Woe from Wit”. Somov convincingly rejects Dmitriev’s attacks in his article. Somov interestingly and convincingly analyzes the image of Chatsky, which was subjected to a particularly fierce attack. Somov notes that in the person of Chatsky, Griboedov showed “an intelligent, passionate and kind young man with noble feelings and an exalted soul. Chatsky is a living person, and not a “transcendental being,” he is ardent, passionate, impatient and acts in comedy in full accordance with his character.” Chatsky himself understands, Somov says sympathetically, that “he is only losing his speech in vain,” but “he is not able to control his silence.” His indignation bursts out “in a stream of caustic but fair words.” This is how the critic explains the behavior of the hero of “Woe from Wit” among people whom Dmitriev called “not stupid, but uneducated.” Dmitriev’s assertion that the author did not give Chatsky a “proper contrast” with the Famusov society, Somov rejects, stating that “the contrast between Chatsky and those around him is very noticeable.”
Following Somov, the critic Odoevsky spoke. He also pointed out the high merits of the language “Woe from Wit” and sees confirmation of this point of view in the fact that “almost all styles of Griboedov’s comedy have become proverbs.”
A review followed from V.K. Kuchelbecker. He fully shared Odoevsky’s point of view on “Woe from Wit.” In 1825, Kuchelbecker published the poem “To Griboedov” in the Moscow Telegraph. “Woe from Wit” is not directly mentioned in the poem, but Griboedov’s poetic gift is rated unusually highly and this assessment, of course, could not be associated primarily with “Woe from Wit.” Kuchelbecker's statements about comedy flow into the general mainstream of assessments of comedy by Decembrist criticism. He notes that “Woe from Wit” “will almost remain the best flower our poetry from Lomonosov." “Dan Chatsky, other characters are given,” writes Kuchelbecker, “they are brought together, and it is shown what the meeting of these antipodes must necessarily be like - and that’s all. It’s very simple, but in this very simplicity there is news, courage, greatness.”
The most important stage in the assimilation of Griboedov’s legacy by Russian criticism are statements about “Woe from Wit” by V. G. Belinsky. These statements are very numerous and relate to different periods of the great critic’s activity. Belinsky first ranked Griboyedov among the largest Russian writers of the 18th and early 19th centuries, describing him as “the creator of Russian comedy, Russian theater.” The critic praised “Woe from Wit” as “the first Russian comedy,” especially noting the significance of its theme, the accusatory power of humor, which stigmatizes everything insignificant and “bursts out of the artist’s soul in the heat of indignation,” and the authenticity of the characters—not constructed according to a pattern, in “filmed from life in full height, drawn from the bottom of real life.”
Since his student years, N. G. Chernyshevsky considered “Woe from Wit” outstanding dramatic work and emphasized that his heroes were “very faithfully taken from life,” that they are living people and act in accordance with their character. He called “Woe from Wit” an “excellent comedy,” spoke of his sincere love for its “noble author,” and noted that Griboyedov “should share with Pushkin the glory of a transformer of literature.”
A significant event in Griboyedov’s literature of the 50s and 60s was Grigoriev’s article. He convincingly shows that only such an image of the “high society”, which is characteristic of “Woe from Wit,” is deeply realistic and does not have any admiration for this “dark, dirty world.” Grigoriev’s analysis of the image of Chatsky is of particular interest. The critic calls Chatsky “the only truly heroic face of our literature”
Some of the provisions of Grigoriev’s article were developed in Goncharov’s famous article “A Million Torments.” An outstanding realist artist created a one-of-a-kind critical work about “Woe from Wit”, unsurpassed in skill and subtlety of analysis. “Woe from mind,” says Goncharov, “this is a picture of the era. In it, like a ray of light in a drop of water, the entire former Moscow is reflected and with such artistic, objective completeness and certainty that only Pushkin and Gogol were given to us.” But Griboyedov’s comedy, Goncharov emphasizes, is not only a “picture of morals” and not only “ live satire“, but also “a picture of morals, and a gallery of living types, and an ever-sharp, burning satire, and at the same time a comedy, and, let’s say for ourselves, most of all a comedy.” The role of Chatsky, according to Goncharov - the main role, “without which there would be no comedy.” His mind “sparkles like a ray of light in the whole play.” Chatsky’s clash with the society around him determines the “tremendous real meaning,” the “main mind” of the work, gives it that living, continuous movement that permeates it from beginning to end.
“The faces of Famusov, Molchalin, Skalozub and others were etched into our memory as firmly as kings, queens and jacks on 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? 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.
“In my comedy there are twenty-five fools for one sane person,” wrote Griboedov. The comedy “Woe from Wit” by A. S. Griboyedov was completed in 1824. It was created during a period of change from one worldview to another, and freethinking already took place in those days. The bright end of this process was the Decembrist uprising in 1825. The comedy, advanced for its time, aroused special interest in society. The disgraced Pushkin, who was in exile in Mikhailovsky, read the comedy and was delighted with it. The main problem of the work is the problem of confrontation between two eras, so characteristic of that time, the problem of two worldviews: the “past century”, which defends the old foundations, and the “present century”, advocating decisive changes.
4. Griboyedov’s immortal work
“For more than 150 years, Griboedov’s immortal comedy “Woe from Wit” has attracted readers; each new generation rereads it anew, finding in it consonance with what worries him today.”
Goncharov in his article “A Million Torments” wrote about “Woe from Wit” - that it “all lives its own imperishable life, will survive many more eras and will not lose its vitality.” I completely share his opinion. After all, the writer drew real picture morals, created living characters. So alive that they have survived to our times. It seems to me that this is the secret of the immortality of A. S. Griboyedov’s comedy. After all, our Famusovs, silents, skalozubs still make our contemporary Chatsky experience grief from his mind.
The author of the only fully mature and completed work, which, moreover, was not published in its entirety during his lifetime, Griboyedov gained extraordinary popularity among his contemporaries and had a huge influence on the subsequent development of Russian culture. For almost a century and a half, the comedy “Woe from Wit” has been living, without aging, exciting and inspiring many generations for whom it has become part of their own spiritual life, entered their consciousness and speech.
After several years when criticism did not mention Griboyedov’s comedy, Ushakov wrote an article. He correctly identifies historical meaning comedy "Woe from Wit". He calls Griboyedov’s work an “immortal creation” and sees the best proof of the comedy’s “high dignity” in its extraordinary popularity, in the fact that every “literate Russian” knows it by heart.
Belinsky also explained the fact that, despite the efforts of censorship, it “even before printing and presentation spread across Russia in a stormy stream” and acquired immortality.
The name of Griboyedov invariably stands next to the names of Krylov, Pushkin and Gogol.
Goncharov, comparing Chatsky with Onegin and Pechorin, emphasizes that Chatsky, unlike them, is a “sincere and ardent figure”: “their time ends with them, and Chatsky begins new Age, and this is his whole meaning and his whole mind,” and that’s why “Chatsky remains and will always remain alive.” It is “inevitable with every change from one century to another.”
“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 still not lose its vitality.
The epigram, the satire, this colloquial verse, it seems, will never die, just like the sharp and caustic, living Russian mind scattered in them, which Griboyedov imprisoned, like some kind of magician, in his castle, and it crumbles there evil laugh. It is impossible to imagine that another, more natural, simpler, more taken from life speech could ever appear. Prose and verse merged here into something inseparable, then, it seems, to make it easier to retain them in memory and to put into circulation again all the author’s collected intelligence, humor, jokes and anger of the Russian mind and language.
The great comedy remains young and fresh even now. She retained her social sound, her satirical salt, her artistic charm. She continues her triumphant march through the scenes Russian theaters. It is studied at school.
The Russian people who built new life, who showed all humanity the straight and broad road to a better future, remembers, appreciates and loves the great writer and his immortal comedy. Now, more than ever, the words written in grave monument Griboedova: “Your mind and deeds are immortal in Russian memory...”
1. Collection of articles “A. S. Griboyedov in Russian criticism" A. M. Gordin
2. “Comments on Griboedov’s Comedy” S. A. Fomichev
3. “The Work of Griboyedov” by T. P. Shaskolskaya
After publication in “Russian Waist,” criticism, already familiar with “Woe from Wit” from the lists, had the opportunity to widely discuss the comedy on the pages of the press. Among the numerous responses, the review by A. S. Pushkin should be highlighted. Pushkin, by his own admission, “enjoyed” reading the comedy and especially noted the accuracy of the language. At the same time, he made a number of fundamental comments regarding the violation of the credibility of characters and the lack of motivation comedic intrigue. In a letter to P. A. Vyazemsky, he wrote: “... In the whole comedy there is no plan, no main thought, no truth.
Chatsky is not a smart person at all - but Griboedov is very smart.” In a letter to A. A. Bestuzhev, Pushkin somewhat softened his assessment, but remained firm in relation to Chatsky: “In the comedy “Woe from Wit,” who is the smart character? answer: Griboedov." Pushkin perceived “Woe from Wit” in line with the European comedy about a “wise guy.” He saw Griboyedov as inconsistent in the fact that Chatsky notices Reshetilov’s stupidity, and he himself finds himself in the same strange and dubious position: he preaches among those who cannot understand him, and speaks when no one listens to him. In this case, why is he smarter than Famusov or Reshetilov? Chatsky expresses smart thoughts. Where did he get them from if he is not smart? Griboedov told him about them. Consequently, Chatsky is a transmitter of Griboyedov’s ideas, a reasoning hero who conveys the author’s point of view to the audience 1. As a hero-reasoner, Chatsky gets the opportunity to directly address the audience. But then its connection with actors, which he does not notice or hear. It turns out that, having lost such interaction, the hero, and for this reason, finds himself in comical, ridiculous situations.
Of course, Pushkin understood well that discrediting Chatsky was not Griboyedov’s intention, but it happened involuntarily because Griboedov did not completely overcome the rules of classicist dramaturgy. The so-called realism of “Woe from Wit” is still very conditional, although the comedy has taken a decisive step in realistic direction, especially in conveying the morals and characters of society, in language and poetry. The weakness of the implementation of the plan was that the author was present in the comedy, whereas in truly realistic drama he should not reveal himself. The author's idea must flow from the interaction of the characters.
1 Chatsky is associated with Griboyedov by some common feelings: the author of “Woe from Wit,” just like his hero, experienced a dramatic discord between daydreaming and skepticism; He said about himself that he feels like a persecuted person who is not understood by those around him, that he dreams of “where to find a corner for solitude. At the same time, Griboedov made tangible attempts to present Chatsky as an independent person, and not as the author’s mouthpiece, endowing the hero with traits characteristic of his acquaintances. However, in general, the distance separating Griboyedov and Chatsky is small. So, getting rid of daydreaming and overcoming it is the spiritual path not only of Chatsky, but also of the creator of his image.
