A creative story of the creation of woe from wit. Woe from mind

The author of the immortal comedy "Woe from Wit" Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov was born 220 years ago, on January 15, 1795 in the Moscow house of his mother. This house was restored so thoroughly in the 70s of the last century that little was left of the previous building.

He began to study literature very early. Although his mother was a powerful and old-fashioned woman, she understood that without books and real education it was impossible to achieve anything decent in life.

S.N. Bagichev, Griboyedov’s army comrade, recalled: “At that time, summers for entering the university had not yet been appointed, and he entered as a student of thirteen years, already knowing completely French, German and English languages and having understood freely in the original all the Latin poets; in addition to this, he had an extraordinary ability for music, played the piano excellently, and if he had devoted himself only to this art, he, of course, would have become a first-class artist. But in the fifteenth year of his life, it became clear that his decisive vocation was poetry." Bagichev also recalled that he once found Griboyedov "... just getting out of bed: he, undressed, was sitting in front of the kindled stove and throwing his first act into it sheet by sheet. I shouted: “Listen, what are you doing?!” “I’ve thought it over,” he answered, “yesterday you told me the truth, but don’t worry: everything is already ready in my head.” And a week later the first act was already written."

However exact date The beginning of writing the comedy "Woe from Wit" is unknown. Most likely, Griboedov began writing it in Persia, where in 1818 he was sent as secretary of the Russian embassy, ​​continued in Tiflis and finished in the fall of 1824 in Moscow. There is also evidence that he conceived it when he was just a boy, having discovered that his uncle was the spitting image of Famusov.

Thaddeus Bulgarin, who was the first to write and publish a biography of Griboyedov, cites an alleged fact of a creative dream: “He dreamed that he was among his friends talking about the plan of a comedy that he had written, and even reading some passages from it. Having woken up, Griboyedov takes a pencil, runs into the garden and that same night draws up a plan for "Woe from Wit" and composes several scenes from the first act. This comedy took up all his leisure time, and he finished it in Tiflis in 1822. In March 1823, he received leave to Moscow and St. Petersburg for 4 months. Arriving in Moscow, Griboyedov began to visit societies and at the same time felt the shortcomings of his comedy and began to remake it. Each trip to the world presented him with new materials for improving his work, and it often happened that, returning home late, I wrote entire scenes at night, so to speak, in one sitting."

During the author's lifetime, the comedy "Woe from Wit" was not staged on any stage in any domestic theater and was never published in its full printed form: censorship prohibited it. But the manuscripts were out of print. Thousands of hand-copied copies became available to the reading public in St. Petersburg and Moscow, then scattered throughout vast Russia.

Pushkin, having read one of these copies, wrote: “In the comedy “Woe from Wit,” who is the smart character? Answer: Griboedov.” In the same letter to A.A. Bestuzhev, at the end of January 1825: “A dramatic writer should be judged according to the laws recognized by himself. Consequently, I do not condemn either the plan, the plot, or the decency of Griboyedov’s comedy. Its goal is characters And sharp picture morals."

On next year Griboyedov was arrested on charges of connections with the Decembrists, but they could not prove anything. In 1828, despite his categorical reluctance and acute premonition of trouble, he was appointed ambassador to Persia. From there he returned in a coffin. He was buried in Tiflis, on Mount St. David. Fifteen-year-old Nina Chavchavadze, the daughter of a famous Georgian poet, became his wife a few months before the death of her beloved husband. Circumstances tragic death Griboyedov has not yet been studied in its entirety, but it was officially said in St. Petersburg: “It’s my own fault.” And they were strictly forbidden to dwell on this topic, to draw any conclusions or to get to the bottom of anything not very official.

The manuscript with the comedy's lifetime edits was inherited by his wife and sister. They say that this is the text that has been heard since today. theatrical stage, not always exactly corresponding to the author’s intention, but always in the most avant-garde versions with extremely sharp satire of “time and morals.”

The playwright achieved his goal with deadly force. Another force, barbaric and elemental, killed him. The creator of the images of Chatsky, Famusov, Sofia Andreevna, Liza, Skalozub, Molchalin, Repetilov and others was so talented that it was unlikely to please those about whom the comedy says: “And who are the judges? - For ancient times / K free life their enmity is irreconcilable, / Judgments are drawn from the forgotten s x newspapers / The times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of the Crimea."

The comparison of himself with Chatsky is correct, but only partly. It never happens that the author exactly matches the image he himself created. It is partly true that those times have disappeared somewhere out there, in the “gray-haired antiquity”, and for a long time there have been no Zagoretskys, no Repetilovs, or Molchalins. They themselves, of course, are not to be found in any of the nooks and crannies of modern Moscow, but their descendants exist and are alive. Not literally, but as if on the sly, so that they would not be suspected of involvement in “some incomprehensible plans.” They guide our entire lives, not “knowing shame” and not rushing to “fit into the regiment of jesters,” but they themselves fit in there.

We, on occasion, will not refuse to “choose our age mercilessly,” remembering little that we went through “Woe from Wit” back in school and discovering in ourselves only fleeting traces of what we have passed through. It seems to us that Griboyedov is some kind of a strange man wearing glasses, of good height, looking into some mysterious unknown, black hair and thin lips. Exactly the same as in the late portrait by Kramskoy.

Is it so? No not like this. He was a duelist and a mocker, an aristocrat and a great brave man. He composed two waltzes and several dramatic plays, wrote many poems and created an entire treatise on how to settle Georgia. Volunteered for Patriotic War 1812. I had a fun and loud walk in my youth in St. Petersburg. He thoroughly explored the Moscow high society and then made significant changes and additions to the comedy. He was a friend of the Decembrists and served under General Ermolov in the rebellious Caucasus. But only a small percentage of the current population knows when he lived and did all this. Some people don’t know anything about him (“What, my God, is the emptiness all around!”), and many believe that “Woe from Wit” was written by... Pushkin and that Alexander Andreevich Chatsky was not a hero at all: he simply went crazy because of unhappy love for Sofya Pavlovna, and immediately after the ball they took him in a carriage to the Yellow House...

Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov, from Famusov’s Moscow, who brilliantly peered into the distant future and paid dearly for this gift, reproached himself for writing too little: “Time flies, dear friend, a flame burns in my soul, thoughts are born in my head, and between However, I cannot get down to business, because science is moving forward, but I don’t even have time to study, not only to work. But I have to do something..."

Vladimir Vester

Superstyle magazine

The author of the immortal comedy "Woe from Wit" Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov was born 220 years ago, on January 15, 1795 in the Moscow house of his mother. This house was restored so thoroughly in the 70s of the last century that little was left of the previous building.

He began to study literature very early. Although he was a powerful and old-fashioned woman, she understood that without books and real education it was impossible to achieve anything decent in life.

S.N. Bagichev, Griboedov’s army comrade, recalled: “At that time, the summer for entering the university had not yet been appointed, and he entered as a student of thirteen years, already knowing completely French, German and English and fluently understanding all the Latin poets in the original; In addition to this, he had an extraordinary ability for music, played the piano excellently, and if he had devoted himself only to this art, he, of course, would have become a first-class artist. But in the fifteenth year of his life, it became clear that his decisive vocation was poetry." Bagichev also recalled that he once found Griboedov “... just getting out of bed: he, undressed, sat in front of the melted stove and threw his first act into it, sheet by sheet. I shouted: “Listen, what are you doing?!!” “I’ve thought it over,” he answered, “yesterday you told me the truth, but don’t worry: everything is already ready in my head.” And a week later the first act was already written.”

However, the exact date of the beginning of writing the comedy "Woe from Wit" is unknown. Most likely, Griboedov began writing it in Persia, where in 1818 he was sent as secretary of the Russian embassy, ​​continued in Tiflis and finished in the fall of 1824 in Moscow. There is also evidence that he conceived it when he was just a boy, having discovered that his uncle was the spitting image of Famusov.

Thaddeus Bulgarin, who was the first to write and publish a biography of Griboyedov, cites an alleged fact: “He dreamed that he was talking with friends about the plan of a comedy that he had written, and even read some passages from it. Having woken up, Griboedov takes a pencil and runs into garden and that same night he drew up the plan for "Woe from Wit" and composed several scenes from the first act. This comedy took up all his leisure time, and he finished it in Tiflis in 1822. In March 1823, he received leave to Moscow and St. Petersburg for 4 month. Arriving in Moscow, Griboyedov began to visit societies and at the same time felt the shortcomings of his comedy and began to remake it. Each trip to the world presented him with new materials for improving his work, and it often happened that, returning home late, he wrote entire scenes at night, so to speak, in one sitting."

During the author's lifetime, the comedy "Woe from Wit" was not staged on any stage in any domestic theater and was never published in its full printed form: censorship prohibited it. But the manuscripts were out of print. Thousands of hand-copied copies became available to the reading public in St. Petersburg and Moscow, then scattered throughout vast Russia.

The following year, Griboyedov was arrested on charges of having connections with the Decembrists, but they could not prove anything. In 1828, despite his categorical reluctance and acute premonition of trouble, he was appointed ambassador to Persia. From there he returned in a coffin. He was buried in Tiflis, on Mount St. David. Fifteen-year-old Nina Chavchavadze, the daughter of a famous Georgian poet, became his wife a few months before the death of her beloved husband. The circumstances of Griboyedov’s tragic death have not yet been studied in full, but it was officially said in St. Petersburg: “It’s his own fault.” And they were strictly forbidden to dwell on this topic, to draw any conclusions or to get to the bottom of anything not very official.

The manuscript with the comedy's lifetime edits was inherited by his wife and sister. They say that it is this text that sounds from the current theatrical stage, not always exactly corresponding to the author’s intention, but always in the most avant-garde versions with an extremely sharp satire of “time and mores.”

The playwright achieved his goal with deadly force. Another force, barbaric and elemental, killed him. The creator of the images of Chatsky, Famusov, Sofia Andreevna, Liza, Skalozub, Molchalin, Repetilov and others was so talented that it was unlikely to please those about whom the comedy says: “Who are the judges? - For ancient times / Their enmity towards a free life irreconcilable, / Judgments are drawn from the forgotten s x newspapers / The times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of the Crimea."

The comparison of himself with Chatsky is correct, but only partly. It never happens that the author exactly matches the image he himself created. It is partly true that those times have disappeared somewhere out there, in the “gray-haired antiquity”, and for a long time there have been no Zagoretskys, no Repetilovs, or Molchalins. They themselves, of course, are not to be found in any of the nooks and crannies of modern Moscow, but their descendants exist and are alive. Not literally, but as if on the sly, so that they would not be suspected of involvement in “some incomprehensible plans.” They guide our entire lives, not “knowing shame” and not rushing to “fit into the regiment of jesters,” but they themselves fit in there.

We, on occasion, will not refuse to “choose our age mercilessly,” remembering little that we went through “Woe from Wit” back in school and discovering in ourselves only fleeting traces of what we have passed through. It seems to us that Griboyedov is some kind of strange man, of good height, looking into some mysterious unknown, black hair and with thin lips. Exactly the same as in the late portrait by Kramskoy.

Is it so? No not like this. He was a duelist and a mocker, an aristocrat and a great brave man. He composed two waltzes and several dramatic plays, wrote many poems and created an entire treatise on how to settle Georgia. Volunteered for the Patriotic War of 1812. I had a fun and loud walk in my youth in St. Petersburg. He thoroughly explored the Moscow high society and then made significant changes and additions to the comedy. He was a friend of the Decembrists and served under General Ermolov in the rebellious Caucasus. But only a small percentage of the current population knows when he lived and did all this. Some people don’t know anything about him (“What, my God, is the emptiness all around!”), and many believe that “Woe from Wit” was written by... Pushkin and that Alexander Andreevich Chatsky was not a hero at all: he simply went crazy because of unhappy love for Sofya Pavlovna, and immediately after the ball they took him in a carriage to the Yellow House...

Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov, from Famusov’s Moscow, who brilliantly peered into the distant future and paid dearly for this gift, reproached himself for writing too little: “Time flies, dear friend, my soul burns, thoughts are born in my head, and meanwhile I can’t get down to business, because science is moving forward, and I don’t even have time to study, not only to work. But I have to do something..."

Vladimir Vester

Superstyle magazine

“Griboyedov is a man of one book,” noted V.F. Khodasevich. “If it weren’t for Woe from Wit, Griboyedov would have no place at all in Russian literature.”

Creative history The comedy, which the playwright has been working on for several years, is extremely complex. The idea " stage poem", as Griboyedov himself defined the genre of the planned work, arose in the second half of the 1810s. - in 1816 (according to S.N. Begichev) or in 1818-1819. (according to the memoirs of D.O. Bebutov). The writer, apparently, began working on the text of the comedy only in the early 1820s. The first two acts of the original edition of “Woe from Wit” were written in 1822 in Tiflis. Work on them continued in Moscow, where Griboyedov arrived during his vacation, until the spring of 1823. Fresh Moscow impressions made it possible to develop many scenes that were barely outlined in Tiflis. It was then that Chatsky’s famous monologue “Who are the judges?” was written. The third and fourth acts of the original edition of “Woe from Wit” were created in the summer of 1823 on the Tula estate of S.N. Begichev. However, Griboyedov did not consider the comedy complete. In the course of further work (late 1823 - early 1824), not only the text changed - the surname of the main character changed somewhat: he became Chatsky (previously his surname was Chadsky), the comedy, called "Woe to Wit", received its final name.

In June 1824, having arrived in St. Petersburg, Griboyedov made significant stylistic changes to the original edition, changed part of the first act (Sofia’s dream, the dialogue between Sofia and Lisa, Chatsky’s monologue), and in the final act a scene of Molchalin’s conversation with Lisa appeared. The final edition was completed in the fall of 1824. After this, hoping for the publication of the comedy, Griboedov encouraged the appearance and distribution of its lists. The most authoritative of them are the Zhandrovsky list, “corrected by the hand of Griboedov himself” (belonged to A.A. Zhandre), and the Bulgarinsky copy, a carefully corrected clerk’s copy of the comedy, left by Griboedov to F.V. Bulgarin in 1828 before leaving St. Petersburg. On the title page of this list, the playwright made the inscription: “I entrust my grief to Bulgarin...”. He hoped that an enterprising and influential journalist would be able to get the play published.

Already in the summer of 1824, Griboyedov tried to publish a comedy. Excerpts from the first and third acts first appeared in the anthology “Russian Waist” in December 1824, and the text was “softened” and shortened by censorship. “Inconvenient” for printing, too harsh statements of the characters were replaced by faceless and “harmless” ones. Thus, instead of the author’s “To the Scientific Committee,” “Among the Scientists Who Settled” was printed, Molchalin’s “programmatic” remark “After all, one must depend on others” was replaced with the words “After all, one must keep others in mind.” The censors did not like the mentions of the “royal person” and the “reigns”. The publication of excerpts from the comedy, well known from handwritten copies, evoked many responses in the literary community. “His handwritten comedy: “Woe from Wit,” recalled Pushkin, “produced an indescribable effect and suddenly placed him alongside our first poets.”

The full text of “Woe from Wit” was never published during the author’s lifetime. The first edition of the comedy appeared translated into German in Reval in 1831 Russian edition, with censored corrections and cuts, was published in Moscow in 1833. Two uncensored editions of the 1830s are also known. (printed in regimental printing houses). For the first time, the entire play was published in Russia only in 1862. The scientific publication of “Woe from Wit” was carried out in 1913 by the famous researcher N.K. Piksanov in the second volume of the academic Complete Works of Griboyedov.

The fate of theatrical productions of comedy turned out to be no less difficult. For a long time theater censorship did not allow it to be staged in full. Back in 1825, the first attempt to stage “Woe from Wit” ended in failure. theater school in St. Petersburg: the performance was banned because the play was not approved by the censor. The comedy first appeared on stage in 1827, in Erivan, performed by amateur actors - officers of the Caucasian Corps (the author was present at the performance). Only in 1831, with numerous censored notes, “Woe from Wit” was staged in St. Petersburg and Moscow. Censorship restrictions on theatrical performances Comedies only stopped working in the 1860s.

Story critical interpretations The play reflects the complexity and depth of its social and philosophical issues, indicated in the very title of the comedy: “Woe from Wit.” Problems of intelligence and stupidity, insanity and insanity, tomfoolery and buffoonery, pretense and hypocrisy posed and solved by Griboyedov on a variety of everyday, social and psychological material. Essentially, all the characters in the comedy, including minor, episodic and off-stage ones, are drawn into a discussion of questions about the relationship to the mind and various forms of stupidity and madness. The main figure around whom all the diversity of opinions about comedy was immediately concentrated was the smart “madman” Chatsky. The overall assessment of the author's intention, problems and artistic features of the comedy depended on the interpretation of his character and behavior, relationships with other characters.

Let's look at just some of the most notable critical judgments and assessments.

From the very beginning, approval of the comedy was by no means unanimous. Conservatives accused Griboedov of exaggerating his satirical colors, which, in their opinion, was a consequence of the author’s “brawling patriotism,” and in Chatsky they saw a clever “madman,” the embodiment of the “Figaro-Griboedov” style. life philosophy. Some contemporaries who were very friendly towards Griboyedov noted many errors in “Woe from Wit”. For example, a longtime friend and co-author of the playwright P.A. Katenin, in one of his private letters, gave the following assessment of the comedy: “It’s like a chamber of intelligence, but the plan, in my opinion, is insufficient, and the main character is confused and knocked down (manque); The style is often charming, but the writer is too pleased with his liberties.” According to a critic, annoyed by deviations from the rules classical drama, including the replacement of “good Alexandrian verses” usual for “high” comedy with free iambic, Griboyedov’s “phantasmagoria is not theatrical: good actors they won’t take these roles, and the bad ones will ruin them.”

A remarkable auto-commentary to “Woe from Wit” was written in January 1825 by Griboyedov’s response to the critical judgments expressed by Katenin. This is not only an energetic “anti-criticism”, representing the author’s view of comedy (this must be taken into account when analyzing the play), but also aesthetic manifesto of an innovative playwright, refusing “to please the theorists, i.e. do stupid things,” “satisfy school requirements, conditions, habits, grandmother’s legends.”

In response to Katenin’s remark about the imperfection of the “plan” of the comedy, that is, its plot and composition, Griboyedov wrote: “You find the main error in the plan: it seems to me that it is simple and clear in purpose and execution; the girl herself is not stupid, she prefers a fool to an intelligent person (not because our sinners have an ordinary mind, no! and in my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person); and this man, of course, is in contradiction with the society around him, no one understands him, no one wants to forgive him, why is he a little higher than others... “The scenes are connected arbitrarily.” Just as in the nature of all events, small and important: the more sudden, the more it attracts curiosity.”

The playwright explained the meaning of Chatsky’s behavior as follows: “Someone out of anger invented about him that he was crazy, no one believed it, and everyone repeated it, the voice of general hostility reaches him, and, moreover, the dislike of the girl for whom he only appeared to Moscow, it is completely explained to him, he didn’t give a damn to her and everyone and was like that. The queen is also disappointed about her honey sugar. What could be more complete than this?

Griboyedov defends his principles of depicting heroes. He accepts Katenin’s remark that “the characters are portraits,” but considers this not an error, but the main advantage of his comedy. From his point of view, satirical images-caricatures that distort the real proportions in the appearance of people are unacceptable. "Yes! and if I do not have the talent of Moliere, then at least I am 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 that are characteristic of the entire human race, to the extent that each person is similar to all his two-legged brothers. I hate caricatures; you won’t find one in my painting. Here is my poetics...”

Finally, Griboedov considered Katenin’s words that his comedy contained “more talent than art” as the most “flattering praise” for himself. “Art consists only of imitating talent...” noted the author of “Woe from Wit.” “As I live, I write freely and freely.”

Pushkin also expressed his opinion about the play (the list of “Woe from Wit” was brought to Mikhailovskoye by I.I. Pushchin). In letters to P.A. Vyazemsky and A.A. Bestuzhev, written in January 1825, he noted that the playwright was most successful in “characters and a sharp picture of morals.” In their depiction, according to Pushkin, Griboedov’s “comic genius” was revealed. The poet was critical of Chatsky. In his interpretation, this is an ordinary hero-reasoner, expressing the opinions of the only “intelligent character” - the author himself: “... What is Chatsky? An ardent, noble and kind fellow, who spent some time with a very smart man (namely Griboedov) 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 Repetilov and the like.” Pushkin very accurately noticed the contradictory, inconsistent nature of Chatsky’s behavior, the tragicomic nature of his position.

At the beginning of 1840, V.G. Belinsky, in an article about “Woe from Wit,” as decisively as Pushkin, denied Chatsky practical intelligence, calling him “the new Don Quixote.” According to the critic, main character comedy - a completely absurd figure, a naive dreamer, “a boy on a stick on horseback who imagines that he is sitting on a horse.” However, Belinsky soon corrected his negative assessment of Chatsky and comedy in general, emphasizing in a private letter that “Woe from Wit” is “a most noble, humanistic work, an energetic (and still the first) protest against the vile racial reality.” It is characteristic that the previous condemnation "with artistic point view” was not canceled, but only replaced by a completely different approach: the critic did not consider it necessary to understand the real complexity of Chatsky’s image, but assessed the comedy from the standpoint of the social and moral significance of his protest.

Critics and publicists of the 1860s went even further from the author's interpretation of Chatsky. For example, A.I. Herzen saw in Chatsky the embodiment of the “ultimate thoughts” of Griboyedov himself, interpreting the hero of the comedy as a political allegory. “... This is a Decembrist, this is a man who ends the era of Peter I and is trying to discern, at least on the horizon, the promised land...” And for the critic A.A. Grigoriev, Chatsky is “our only hero, that is, the only one who is positively fighting in the environment where fate and passion threw him,” therefore the whole play turned into his critical interpretation from “high” comedy to “high” tragedy (see article “Concerning the new edition of an old thing. “Woe from Wit.” St. Petersburg, 1862”). In these judgments, Chatsky’s appearance is rethought, interpreted not only in an extremely general way, but also one-sidedly.

For the production of “Woe from Wit” in Alexandrinsky Theater(1871) I.A. Goncharov responded with a critical sketch “A Million Torments” (published in the journal “Bulletin of Europe”, 1872, No. 3). This is one of the most insightful analyzes of comedy. Goncharov gave deep characteristics of individual characters, appreciated the skill of Griboedov the playwright, and wrote about the special position of “Woe from Wit” in Russian literature. But, perhaps, the most important advantage of Goncharov’s sketch is its careful attitude to the author’s concept, embodied in the comedy. The writer abandoned the one-sided sociological and ideological interpretation of the play, carefully examining the psychological motivation for the behavior of Chatsky and other characters. “Every step of Chatsky, almost every word in the play is closely connected with the play of his feelings for Sophia, irritated by some lie in her actions, which he struggles to unravel until the very end,” Goncharov emphasized, in particular. Indeed, without taking into account the love affair (its importance was noted by Griboyedov himself in a letter to Katenin), it is impossible to understand the “woe from the mind” of a rejected lover and a lonely lover of truth, and the simultaneously tragic and comic nature of Chatsky’s image.

The main feature of comedy is interaction of two plot-shaping conflicts: a love conflict, the main participants of which are Chatsky and Sofia, and a socio-ideological conflict, in which Chatsky faces conservatives gathered in Famusov’s house. From the point of view of the issue, the conflict between Chatsky and Famusov’s society is in the foreground, but in the development of the plot action the traditional love conflict is no less important: after all, it was for the sake of meeting with Sofia that Chatsky was in such a hurry to Moscow. Both conflicts - love and socio-ideological - complement and strengthen each other. They are equally necessary in order to understand the worldview, characters, psychology and relationships of the characters.

In the two storylines of “Woe from Wit” all the elements of the classical plot are easily revealed: exposition - all the scenes of the first act preceding Chatsky’s appearance in Famusov’s house (phenomena 1-5); the beginning of a love conflict and, accordingly, the beginning of the action of the first, love plot - the arrival of Chatsky and his first conversation with Sofia (D. I, Rev. 7). Social-ideological conflict (Chatsky - Famusov society) is planned a little later - during the first conversation between Chatsky and Famusov (D. I, Rev. 9).

Both conflicts are developing in parallel. Stages of development of a love conflict - dialogues between Chatsky and Sofia. The hero is persistent in his attempts to call Sofia to openness and find out why she became so cold towards him and who her chosen one is. Chatsky’s conflict with Famusov’s society includes a number of private conflicts: Chatsky’s verbal “duels” with Famusov, Skalozub, Silent and other representatives of Moscow society. Private conflicts in “Woe from Wit” literally throw many minor characters onto the stage and force them to reveal their position in life in their remarks or actions. Griboyedov creates not only a broad “picture of morals”, but also shows the psychology and life principles of people literally surrounding Chatsky from all sides.

The pace of action in the comedy is lightning fast. Many events that form fascinating everyday “micro-plots” take place before readers and viewers. What happens on stage causes laughter and at the same time makes you think about the contradictions of the society of that time, and about universal human problems. The development of the action is somewhat slowed down by the lengthy but extremely important monologues-“programs” of Chatsky and other characters (Famusov, Molchalin, Repetilov): they not only exacerbate the ideological conflict, but also important means social and moral-psychological characteristics of the warring parties.

The climax of “Woe from Wit” is an example of Griboyedov’s remarkable dramatic skill. At the heart of the culmination of the socio-ideological plot (society declares Chatsky crazy; d. III, appearances 14-21) is a rumor, the reason for which was given by Sofia with her remark “to the side”: “He is out of his mind.” The annoyed Sofia dropped this remark by chance, meaning that Chatsky had “gone crazy” with love and had become simply unbearable for her. The author uses a technique based on the play of meanings: Sofia’s emotional outburst was heard by the social gossip Mr. N. and understood it literally. Sofia decided to take advantage of this misunderstanding to take revenge on Chatsky for his ridicule of Molchalin. Having become the source of gossip about Chatsky’s madness, the heroine “burned the bridges” between herself and her former lover.

Thus, the culmination of the love plot motivates the culmination of the socio-ideological plot. Thanks to this, both seemingly independent plot lines of the play intersect at a common climax - a lengthy scene, the result of which is the recognition of Chatsky as crazy. It should, however, be emphasized that just as the arrival of the lover Chatsky gave rise to fundamental disputes between him, representing the “present century,” and those who stubbornly cling to the life values ​​of the “past century,” so Sofia’s annoyance and anger at the “madman” the lover led society to a complete ideological separation from Chatsky and everything new in public life that stands behind him. In fact, any dissent, the reluctance of Chatsky and his like-minded people outside the stage to live as “public opinion” prescribed, was declared “madness.”

After the climax, the storylines diverge again. The denouement of a love affair precedes the denouement of a socio-ideological conflict. The night scene in Famusov's house (d. IV, appearances 12-13), in which Molchalin and Liza, as well as Sofia and Chatsky participate, finally explains the position of the heroes, making the secret obvious. Sofia becomes convinced of Molchalin’s hypocrisy, and Chatsky finds out who his rival was:

Here is the solution to the riddle at last!
Here I am donated to!

The denouement of the storyline, based on Chatsky’s conflict with Famus society, is Chatsky’s last monologue, directed against the “crowd of persecutors.” Chatsky declares his final break with Sofia, and with Famusov, and with the entire Moscow society (d. IV, iv. 14): “Get out of Moscow! I don’t go here anymore.”

IN character system Comedy Chatsky, connecting both storylines, occupies a central place. Let us emphasize, however, that for the hero himself the paramount importance is not the socio-ideological conflict, but the love conflict. Chatsky understands perfectly well what kind of society he has found himself in; he has no illusions about Famusov and “all the Moscow people.” The reason for Chatsky’s stormy accusatory eloquence is not political or educational, but psychological. The source of his passionate monologues and well-aimed caustic remarks is love experiences, “impatience of the heart,” which is felt from the first to the last scene with his participation. Of course, sincere, emotional, open Chatsky cannot help but come into conflict with people alien to him. He is unable to hide his assessments and feelings, especially if he is openly provoked by Famusov, Molchalin, and Skalozub, but it is important to remember that it is love that opens all the “floodgates,” making the flow of Chatsky’s eloquence literally unstoppable.

Chatsky came to Moscow with the sole purpose of seeing Sofia, finding confirmation of his former love and, probably, getting married. He is driven by the ardor of love. Chatsky’s animation and “talkativeness” are initially caused by the joy of meeting with his beloved, but, contrary to expectations, Sofia greets him very coldly: the hero seems to come across a blank wall of alienation and poorly hidden annoyance. Ex-lover, which Chatsky recalls with touching tenderness, completely changed towards him. With the help of the usual jokes and epigrams, he tries to find a common language with her, “sorts out” his Moscow acquaintances, but his witticisms only irritate Sofia - she responds to him with barbs. The strange behavior of his beloved arouses Chatsky’s jealous suspicions: “Is there really some kind of groom here?”

The actions and words of Chatsky, who is smart and sensitive to people, seem inconsistent and illogical: his mind is clearly not in harmony with his heart. Realizing that Sofia does not love him, he does not want to come to terms with this and undertakes a real “siege” of his beloved who has lost interest in him. A feeling of love and a desire to find out who has become Sofia’s new chosen one keeps him in Famusov’s house: “I’ll wait for her and force a confession: / Who is finally dear to her? Molchalin! Skalozub!

He pesters Sofia, trying to provoke her into frankness, asking her tactless questions: “Is it possible for me to find out / ... Who do you love? "

The night scene in Famusov’s house revealed the whole truth to Chatsky, who had seen the light. But now he goes to the other extreme: he cannot forgive Sophia for his love blindness, he reproaches her for having “lured him with hope.” The outcome of the love conflict did not cool Chatsky's ardor. Instead of love passion others have taken possession of the hero strong feelings- rage and anger. In the heat of his rage, he shifts responsibility for his "labour's fruitless" to others. Chatsky was offended not only by the “betrayal,” but also by the fact that Sofia preferred him to the insignificant Molchalin, whom he so despised (“When I think about who you preferred!”). He proudly declares his “breakup” with her and thinks that he has now “sobered up... completely,” intending at the same time to “pour out all the bile and all the frustration on the whole world.”

It is interesting to trace how love experiences exacerbate Chatsky’s ideological confrontation with Famus’s society. At first, Chatsky calmly treats Moscow society, almost does not notice its usual vices, sees only the comic sides in it: “I am an eccentric of another miracle / Once I laugh, then I forget...”.

But when Chatsky becomes convinced that Sofia does not love him, everything in Moscow begins to irritate him. Replies and monologues become impudent, sarcastic - he angrily denounces what he previously laughed at without malice.

In his monologues, Chatsky touches on actual problems modern era: the question of what real service is, problems of enlightenment and education, serfdom, national identity. But, being in an excited state, the hero, as I.A. Goncharov subtly noted, “falls into exaggeration, almost into drunkenness of speech... He also falls into patriotic pathos, reaching the point that he finds the tailcoat contrary to “reason and the elements” , is angry that madame and madame moiselle... have not been translated into Russian...".

Behind the impulsive, nervous verbal shell of Chatsky’s monologues lie serious, hard-won convictions. Chatsky is a person with an established worldview, a system of life values ​​and morals. The highest criterion for assessing a person for him is “a mind hungry for knowledge”, the desire “for creative, high and beautiful arts.” Chatsky’s idea of ​​service—Famusov, Skalozub, and Molchalin literally force him to talk about it—is connected with his ideal of a “free life.” One of her the most important aspects- freedom of choice: after all, according to the hero, every person should have the right to serve or refuse to serve. Chatsky himself, according to Famusov, “does not serve, that is, he does not find any benefit in it,” but he has clear ideas about what service should be. According to Chatsky, one should serve “the cause, not the persons,” and not confuse personal, selfish interest and “fun” with “business.” In addition, he associates service with people’s ideas about honor and dignity, therefore, in a conversation with Famusov, he deliberately emphasizes the difference between the words “serve” and “serve”: “I would be glad to serve, but it is sickening to be served.”

His philosophy of life puts him outside the society gathered in Famusov’s house. Chatsky is a person who does not recognize authorities and does not share generally accepted opinions. Above all, he values ​​his independence, causing horror among his ideological opponents, who see the ghost of a revolutionary, a “Carbonari.” “He wants to preach freedom!” - exclaims Famusov. From the point of view of the conservative majority, Chatsky’s behavior is atypical, and therefore reprehensible, because he does not serve, travels, “knows the ministers,” but does not use his connections, does not make a career. It is no coincidence that Famusov, the ideological mentor of all those gathered in his house, the trendsetter of ideological “fashion,” demands that Chatsky live “like everyone else,” as is customary in society: “I would say, first of all: don’t be a whim, / In honor, brother, Don’t mismanage, / And most importantly, come and serve.”

Although Chatsky rejects generally accepted ideas about morality and public duty, one can hardly consider him a revolutionary, radical, or even a “Decembrist”: there is nothing revolutionary in Chatsky’s statements. Chatsky is an enlightened person who proposes that society return to simple and clear ideals of life, to cleanse from extraneous layers something that is talked about a lot in Famus society, but about which, in Chatsky’s opinion, they do not have a correct idea - service. It is necessary to distinguish between the objective meaning of the hero’s very moderate educational judgments and the effect they produce in a conservative society. The slightest dissent is regarded here not only as a denial of the usual ideals and way of life, sanctified by the “fathers” and “elders,” but also as a threat of a social revolution: after all, Chatsky, according to Famusov, “does not recognize the authorities.” Against the backdrop of the inert and unshakably conservative majority, Chatsky gives the impression of a lone hero, a brave “madman” who rushed to storm a powerful stronghold, although among freethinkers his statements would not shock anyone with their radicalism.

Sofia- Chatsky’s main plot partner - occupies a special place in the system of characters in “Woe from Wit”. Love conflict with Sofia brought the hero into conflict with the entire society, served, according to Goncharov, as “a motive, a reason for irritation, for that “millions of torments”, under the influence of which he could only play the role indicated to him by Griboyedov.” Sofia does not take Chatsky’s side, but she does not belong to Famusov’s like-minded people, although she lived and was raised in his house. She is a closed, secretive person and difficult to approach. Even her father is a little afraid of her.

Sofia’s character has qualities that sharply distinguish her from the people of Famus’s circle. This is, first of all, independence of judgment, which is expressed in its disdainful attitude to gossip and rumors (“What do I hear about rumors? Whoever wants, judges that way...”). Nevertheless, Sofia knows the “laws” of Famus society and is not averse to using them. For example, she cleverly uses “public opinion” to take revenge on her former lover.

Sofia’s character has not only positive, but also negative traits. “A mixture of good instincts with lies” was seen by Goncharov in her. Willfulness, stubbornness, capriciousness, complemented by vague ideas about morality, make her equally capable of good and bad deeds. After all, by slandering Chatsky, Sofia acted immorally, although she remained, the only one among those gathered, convinced that Chatsky was a completely “normal” person. He finally became disillusioned with Sophia precisely when he learned that he owed her “this fiction.”

Sofia is smart, observant, rational in her actions, but her love for Molchalin, at the same time selfish and reckless, puts her in an absurd, comical position. In a conversation with Chatsky, Sofia extols Molchalin’s spiritual qualities to the skies, but is so blinded by her feelings that she does not notice “how the portrait turns out vulgar” (Goncharov). Her praises to Molchalin (“He plays all day long!”, “He’s silent when he’s scolded!”) have the completely opposite effect: Chatsky refuses to take everything Sofia says literally and comes to the conclusion that “she doesn’t respect him.” Sofia exaggerates the danger that threatened Molchalin when he fell from a horse - and an insignificant event grows in her eyes to the size of a tragedy, forcing her to recite:

Molchalin! How my sanity remained intact!
You know how dear your life is to me!
Why should she play, and so carelessly?
(D. II, Rev. 11).

Sofia, a lover of French novels, is very sentimental. Probably like Pushkin heroines from “Eugene Onegin”, she dreams of “Grandison”, but instead of the “guard sergeant” she finds another “example of perfection” - the embodiment of “moderation and accuracy”. Sofia idealizes Molchalin, without even trying to find out what he really is, without noticing his “vulgarity” and pretense. “God brought us together” - this “romantic” formula exhausts the meaning of Sofia’s love for Molchalin. He managed to please her, first of all, because he behaves like a living illustration of a novel he has just read: “He will take your hand, press it to your heart, / He will sigh from the depths of your soul...”.

Sofia's attitude towards Chatsky is completely different: after all, she does not love him, therefore she does not want to listen, does not strive to understand, and avoids explanations. Sofia is unfair to him, considering him callous and heartless (“Not a man, a snake!”), attributing to him an evil desire to “humiliate” and “prick” everyone, and does not even try to hide her indifference to him: “What do you need me for?” In her relationship with Chatsky, the heroine is just as “blind” and “deaf” as in her relationship with Molchalin: her idea of ​​her former lover is far from reality.

Sofia, the main culprit of Chatsky’s mental torment, herself evokes sympathy. Sincere and passionate in her own way, she completely surrenders to love, not noticing that Molchalin is a hypocrite. Even the oblivion of decency (nightly dates, the inability to hide her love from others) is evidence of the strength of her feelings. Love for her father’s “rootless” secretary takes Sofia beyond Famus’s circle, because she deliberately risks her reputation. For all its bookishness and obvious comedy, this love is a kind of challenge to the heroine and her father, who is preoccupied with finding her a rich careerist groom, and to society, which only excuses open, uncamouflaged debauchery. The height of feelings, not typical of Famusovites, makes her internally free. She is so happy with her love that she is afraid of exposure and possible punishment: “Happy people don’t watch the clock.” It is no coincidence that Goncharov compared Sofia with Pushkin’s Tatyana: “... She, in her love, is just as ready to give herself away as Tatyana: both, as if sleepwalking, wander in infatuation with childish simplicity. And Sofia, like Tatyana, begins an affair themselves, not finding anything reprehensible in it.”

Sofia has strong character And developed sense self-esteem. She is self-loving, proud, and knows how to inspire self-respect. At the end of the comedy, the heroine begins to see clearly, realizing that she was unfair to Chatsky and loved a man unworthy of her love. Love gives way to contempt for Molchalin: “My reproaches, complaints, tears / Don’t you dare expect them, you’re not worth them...”.

Although, according to Sofia, there were no witnesses to the humiliating scene with Molchalin, she is tormented by a feeling of shame: “I am ashamed of myself, of the walls.” Sofia realizes her self-deception, blames only herself and sincerely repents. “All in tears,” she says her last line: “I blame myself all around.” IN last scenes There is no trace of “woe from mind” from the former capricious and self-confident Sophia - the “optical illusion” is revealed, and the features of a tragic heroine clearly appear in her appearance. Sofia's fate, at first glance, unexpectedly, but in full accordance with the logic of her character, approaches tragic fate Chatsky, rejected by her. Indeed, as I.A. Goncharov subtly noted, in the finale of the comedy she has “the hardest time of all, harder even than Chatsky, and she gets “a million torments.” The outcome of the love plot of the comedy turned into “grief” and a life catastrophe for the smart Sofia.

Not individual characters in the play, but a “collective” character—Famus’s many-sided society—Chatsky’s main ideological opponent. A lone lover of truth and an ardent defender of “free life” is opposed by a large group of characters and off-stage characters, united by a conservative worldview and the simplest practical morality, the meaning of which is “to win awards and have fun.” The life ideals and behavior of the heroes of the comedy reflected the morals and way of life of real Moscow society “after the fire” era - the second half of the 1810s.

Famus society is heterogeneous in its composition: it is not a faceless crowd in which a person loses his individuality. On the contrary, staunch Moscow conservatives differ among themselves in intelligence, abilities, interests, occupation and position in the social hierarchy. The playwright discovers in each of them both typical and personality traits. But everyone is unanimous on one thing: Chatsky and his like-minded people are “crazy”, “madmen”, renegades. The main reason for their “madness,” according to Famusites, is an excess of “intelligence,” excessive “learning,” which is easily identified with “freethinking.” In turn, Chatsky does not skimp on critical assessments Moscow society. He is convinced that nothing has changed in “after the fire” Moscow (“The houses are new, but the prejudices are old”), and condemns the inertia, patriarchal nature of Moscow society, its adherence to the outdated morality of the century of “obedience and fear.” The new, enlightening morality frightens and embitters conservatives - they are deaf to any arguments of reason. Chatsky almost screams in his accusatory monologues, but each time one gets the impression that the “deafness” of the Famusites is directly proportional to the strength of his voice: the louder the hero “screams,” the more diligently they “close their ears.”

Depicting Chatsky’s conflict with Famusov’s society, Griboyedov makes extensive use of the author’s remarks, which report on the reaction of conservatives to Chatsky’s words. Stage directions complement the characters' remarks, enhancing the comedy of what is happening. This technique is used to create the main comic situation of the play - situations of deafness. Already during the first conversation with Chatsky (d. II, appearances 2-3), in which his opposition to conservative morality was first outlined, Famusov “ sees and hears nothing" He deliberately plugs his ears so as not to hear Chatsky’s seditious, from his point of view, speeches: “Okay, I plugged my ears.” During the ball (d. 3, yavl. 22), when Chatsky pronounces his angry monologue against the “alien power of fashion” (“There is an insignificant meeting in that room ...”), “everyone is twirling in a waltz with the greatest zeal. The old men scattered to the card tables.” The situation of the feigned “deafness” of the characters allows the author to convey mutual misunderstanding and alienation between the conflicting parties.

Famusov is one of the recognized pillars of Moscow society. His official position is quite high: he is a “government manager.” The material well-being and success of many people depend on it: the distribution of ranks and awards, “patronage” for young officials and pensions for old people. Famusov’s worldview is extremely conservative: he takes hostility to everything that is at least somewhat different from his own beliefs and ideas about life, he is hostile to everything new - even to the fact that in Moscow “roads, sidewalks, / Houses and everything on new way" Famusov’s ideal is the past, when everything was “not like it is now.”

Famusov is a staunch defender of the morality of the “past century.” In his opinion, living correctly means doing everything “as our fathers did,” learning “by looking at our elders.” Chatsky relies on his own “judgments” dictated common sense, therefore, the ideas of these antipodean heroes about “proper” and “improper” behavior do not coincide. Famusov imagines rebellion and “debauchery” in Chatsky’s freethinking, but completely harmless statements; he even predicts that the freethinker will be put “on trial.” But he sees nothing reprehensible in his own actions. In his opinion, the real vices of people - debauchery, drunkenness, hypocrisy, lies and servility do not pose a danger. Famusov says about himself that he is “known for his monastic behavior,” despite the fact that before that he tried to flirt with Lisa. Society is initially inclined to attribute the reason for Chatsky’s “madness” to drunkenness, but Famusov authoritatively corrects the “judges”:

Here you go! great misfortune
What will a man drink too much?
Learning is the plague, learning is the reason,
What is worse now than then,
There were crazy people, deeds, and opinions.
(D. III, Rev. 21)

Listening to Famusov’s advice and instructions, the reader seems to find himself in a moral “anti-world”. In it, ordinary vices turn almost into virtues, and thoughts, opinions, words and intentions are declared “vices”. The main “vice,” according to Famusov, is “learnedness,” an excess of intelligence. The basis of practical morality decent person he considers stupidity and buffoonery. Famusov speaks about the “smart” Maxim Petrovich with pride and envy: “He fell painfully, but got up well.”

Famusov’s idea of ​​“mind” is down-to-earth, everyday: he identifies intelligence either with practicality, the ability to “get comfortable” in life (which he evaluates positively), or with “free-thinking” (such a mind, according to Famusov, is dangerous). For Famusov, Chatsky’s mind is a mere trifle that cannot be compared with traditional noble values ​​- generosity (“honor according to father and son”) and wealth:

Be bad, but if you get enough
Two thousand ancestral souls, -
He's the groom.
The other one, at least be quicker, puffed up with all sorts of arrogance,

Let yourself be known as a wise man,
But they won’t include you in the family.
(D. II, iv. 5).

Famusov finds a clear sign of madness in the fact that Chatsky condemns bureaucratic servility:

I’ve been wondering for a long time how no one will tie him up!
Try talking about the authorities - and God knows what they'll tell you!
Bow a little low, bend like a ring,
Even in front of the royal face,
That's what he'll call you a scoundrel!..
(D. III, Rev. 21).

The theme of education and upbringing is also connected with the theme of the mind in comedy. If for Chatsky highest value- “a mind hungry for knowledge,” then Famusov, on the contrary, identifies “learning” with “freethinking,” considering it the source of madness. He sees such a huge danger in enlightenment that he proposes to fight it using the proven method of the Inquisition: “If evil is to be stopped: / Take away all the books and burn them.”

Of course, the main question for Famusov is the question of service. Service in the system of his life values ​​is the axis around which the entire social and private life of people. The true goal of the service, Famusov believes, is to make a career, “to achieve well-known degrees,” and thereby secure a high position in society. Famusov treats people who succeed in this, for example Skalozub (“Not today or tomorrow general”) or those who, like the “businesslike” Molchalin, strive for this, recognizing them as his like-minded people. On the contrary, Chatsky, from Famusov’s point of view, is a “lost” person who deserves only contemptuous regret: after all, having good data for successful career, it doesn't serve. “But if you wanted to, it would be businesslike,” notes Famusov.

His understanding of service, thus, is as far from its true meaning as it is “upside down,” just like his ideas about morality. Famusov does not see any vice in outright neglect of official duties:

And for me, what matters and what doesn’t matter,
My custom is this:
Signed, off your shoulders.
(D. I, iv. 4).

Famusov even makes abuse of official position a rule:

How will you begin to introduce yourself to a small cross or a small town?
Well, how can you not please your loved one!..
(D. II, iv. 5).

Molchalin- one of the most prominent representatives Famusov society. His role in the comedy is comparable to the role of Chatsky. Like Chatsky, Molchalin is a participant in both love and socio-ideological conflict. He is not only a worthy student of Famusov, but also Chatsky’s “rival” in love for Sofia, the third person who has arisen between the former lovers.

If Famusov, Khlestova and some other characters are living fragments of the “past century,” then Molchalin is a man of the same generation as Chatsky. But, unlike Chatsky, Molchalin is a staunch conservative, therefore dialogue and mutual understanding between them is impossible, and conflict is inevitable - their life ideals, moral principles and behavior in society are absolutely opposite.

Chatsky cannot understand “why are other people’s opinions only sacred.” Molchalin, like Famusov, considers dependence “on others” to be the basic law of life. Molchalin is a mediocrity that does not go beyond the generally accepted framework; he is a typical “average” person: in ability, intelligence, and aspirations. But he has “his own talent”: he is proud of his qualities - “moderation and accuracy.” Molchalin's worldview and behavior are strictly regulated by his position in the official hierarchy. He is modest and helpful, because “in ranks... small,” he cannot do without “patrons,” even if he has to depend entirely on their will.

But, unlike Chatsky, Molchalin organically fits into Famus society. This is “little Famusov”, because he has a lot in common with the Moscow “ace”, despite the big difference in age and social status. For example, Molchalin’s attitude towards service is purely “Famusov’s”: he would like to “win awards and live a fun life.” Public opinion for Molchalin, as for Famusov, is sacred. Some of his statements (“Ah! evil tongues scarier than a pistol“,” “At my age one should not dare / Have one’s own judgment”) are reminiscent of Famus’s: “Ah! My God! what will Princess Marya Aleksevna say?

Molchalin is the antipode of Chatsky not only in his beliefs, but also in the nature of his attitude towards Sofia. Chatsky is sincerely in love with her, nothing exists higher for him than this feeling, in comparison with him “the whole world” seemed like dust and vanity to Chatsky. Molchalin only skillfully pretends that he loves Sophia, although, by his own admission, he does not find “anything enviable” in her. The relationship with Sofia is entirely determined by life position Molchalin: this is how he behaves with all people without exception, this is a life principle learned from childhood. In the last act, he tells Lisa that his “father bequeathed to him” to “please all people without exception.” Molchalin is in love “by position”, “to please the daughter of such a man” as Famusov, “who feeds and waters, / And sometimes gives rank...”.

The loss of Sofia's love does not mean Molchalin's defeat. Although he made an unforgivable mistake, he managed to get away with it. It is significant that Famusov brought down his anger not on the “guilty” Molchalin, but on the “innocent” Chatsky and the insulted, humiliated Sofia. At the end of the comedy, Chatsky becomes an outcast: society rejects him, Famusov points to the door and threatens to “publicize” his imaginary depravity “to all the people.” Molchalin will probably redouble his efforts to make amends to Sofia. It is impossible to stop the career of a person like Molchalin - that’s the point author's attitude to the hero. Chatsky rightly noted in the first act that Molchalin “will reach the well-known levels.” The night incident confirmed the bitter truth: society rejects the Chatskys, and “The silent ones are blissful in the world.”

Famusov's society in "Woe from Wit" consists of many minor and episodic characters, Famusov's guests. One of them, Colonel Skalozub, is a martinet, the embodiment of stupidity and ignorance. He “hasn’t uttered a smart word in his life,” and from the conversations of those around him he understands only what, as it seems to him, relates to the army topic. Therefore, to Famusov’s question “How do you feel about Nastasya Nikolaevna?” Skalozub busily replies: “She and I didn’t serve together.” However, by the standards of Famus society, Skalozub is an enviable bachelor: “He has a golden bag and aspires to become a general,” so no one in society notices his stupidity and uncouthness (or does not want to notice). Famusov himself is “very delusional” about them, not wanting any other groom for his daughter.

Skalozub shares the attitude of the Famusovites towards service and education, finishing with “soldier’s directness” what is shrouded in the fog of eloquent phrases in the statements of Famusov and Molchalin. His abrupt aphorisms, reminiscent of commands on the parade ground, contain the entire simple everyday “philosophy” of careerists. “Like a true philosopher,” he dreams of one thing: “I just wish I could become a general.” Despite his “cudgel-like dexterity,” Skalozub very quickly and successfully moves up the career ladder, causing respectful amazement even from Famusov: “You’ve been colonels for a long time, but you’ve only been serving recently.” Education does not represent any value for Skalozub (“learning won’t fool me”), army drill, from his point of view, is much more useful, if only because it can knock the learned nonsense out of your head: “I am Prince Gregory and you / Sergeant Major in Walter I'll give you." A military career and discussions “about the front and the ranks” are the only things that interest Skalozub.

All the characters who appear in Famusov’s house during the ball actively participate in the general opposition to Chatsky, adding more and more fictitious details to the gossip about the “madness” of the main character, until in the minds of Countess Granny it turns into a fantastic plot about how Chatsky went “ to nusurmans." Each of the minor characters acts in its own comic role.

Khlestova, like Famusov, is a colorful type: she is an “angry old woman,” an imperious serf-lady of Catherine’s era. “Out of boredom,” she takes with her “a blackaa girl and a dog,” has a soft spot for young Frenchmen, loves when people “please” her, so she treats Molchalin favorably and even Zagoretsky. Ignorant tyranny is the life principle of Khlestova, who, like most of Famusov’s guests, does not hide her hostile attitude towards education and enlightenment:

And you'll really go crazy from these, from some
From boarding schools, schools, lyceums, you name it,
Yes from lankartachnyh mutual trainings.
(D. III, Rev. 21).

Zagoretsky- “an out-and-out swindler, a rogue,” an informer and a sharper (“Beware of him: it’s too much to bear, / And don’t sit down with cards: he’ll sell you”). The attitude towards this character characterizes the morals of Famus society. Everyone despises Zagoretsky, not hesitating to scold him to his face (“He’s a liar, a gambler, a thief,” Khlestova says about him), but in society he is “scold / Everywhere, and accepted everywhere,” because Zagoretsky is “a master of serving.”

"Talking" surname Repetilova indicates his tendency to mindlessly repeat other people’s reasoning “about important mothers.” Repetilov, unlike other representatives of Famusov’s society, is in words an ardent admirer of “learning.” But he caricatures and vulgarizes the educational ideas that Chatsky preaches, calling, for example, for everyone to study “from Prince Gregory,” where they “will give you champagne to kill.” Repetilov nevertheless let it slip: he became a fan of “learning” only because he failed to make a career (“And I would have climbed into ranks, but I met failures”). Enlightenment, from his point of view, is only a forced replacement for a career. Repetilov is a product of Famus society, although he shouts that he and Chatsky have “the same tastes.” The “most secret union” and the “secret meetings” that he tells Chatsky about are very interesting material that allows us to conclude that Griboedov himself has a negative attitude towards the “noisy secrets” of secular freethinking. However, one can hardly consider the “most secret union” a parody of the Decembrist secret societies; it is a satire on the ideological “idle dancers” who made “secret”, “conspiratorial” activity a form of social pastime, because everything comes down to idle chatter and shaking the air - “we make noise, brother, we’re making noise.”

In addition to those heroes who are listed in the “poster” - the list of “characters” - and appear on stage at least once, “Woe from Wit” mentions many people who are not participants in the action - these are off-stage character. Their names and surnames appear in the monologues and remarks of the characters, who necessarily express their attitude towards them, approve or condemn their life principles and behavior.

Off-stage characters are invisible “participants” in the socio-ideological conflict. With their help, Griboedov managed to push the boundaries stage action, concentrated on a narrow area (Famusov's house) and completed in one day (the action begins early in the morning and ends in the morning of the next day). Off-stage characters have a special artistic function: they represent a society of which all participants in the events in Famusov’s house are part. Without playing any role in the plot, they are closely connected with those who fiercely defend the “past century” or strive to live by the ideals of the “present century” - they scream, are indignant, indignant, or, conversely, experience “a million torments” on stage.

It is the off-stage characters who confirm that the entire Russian society is split into two unequal parts: the number of conservatives mentioned in the play significantly exceeds the number of dissidents, “crazy people.” But the most important thing is that Chatsky, a lonely lover of truth on stage, is not at all alone in life: the existence of people spiritually close to him, according to Famusovites, proves that “nowadays there are more crazy people, deeds, and opinions than ever.” Among Chatsky’s like-minded people is Skalozub’s cousin, who refused brilliant career a military man to go to the village and start reading books (“The rank followed him: he suddenly left the service, / In the village he began to read books”), Prince Fyodor, the nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskaya (“The rank does not want to know! He is a chemist, he is a botanist.. ."), and the St. Petersburg “professors” with whom he studied. According to Famusov’s guests, these people are just as crazy, crazy because of “learning,” as Chatsky.

Another group of off-stage characters are Famusov’s “like-minded people.” These are his “idols”, whom he often mentions as models of life and behavior. Such, for example, is the Moscow “ace” Kuzma Petrovich - for Famusov this is an example of a “commendable life”:

The deceased was a venerable chamberlain,
With the key, he knew how to deliver the key to his son;
Rich, and married to a rich woman;
Married children, grandchildren;
Died; everyone remembers him sadly.
(D. II, iv. 1).

Another worthy role model, according to Famusov, is one of the most memorable off-stage characters, the “dead uncle” Maxim Petrovich, who made a successful court career (“he served under the Empress Catherine”). Like other “nobles of the occasion,” he had an “arrogant disposition,” but, if the interests of his career required it, he knew how to deftly “curry favor” and easily “bent over backwards.”

Chatsky exposes the morals of Famus society in the monologue “And who are the judges?..” (d. II, iv. 5), talking about the unworthy lifestyle of the “fatherland of their fathers” (“spill themselves in feasts and extravagance”), about the wealth they unjustly acquired ( “rich in robbery”), about their immoral, inhumane acts, which they commit with impunity (“they found protection from the court in friends, in kinship”). One of the off-stage characters mentioned by Chatsky “traded” the “crowd” of devoted servants who saved him “in the hours of wine and fight” for three greyhounds. Another “for the sake of the idea / He drove many wagons to the serf ballet / From the mothers and fathers of rejected children,” who were then “sold off one by one.” Such people, from Chatsky’s point of view, are a living anachronism that does not correspond modern ideals education and humane treatment to the serfs:

Who are the judges? For the antiquity of years
Their enmity towards a free life is irreconcilable,
Judgments are drawn from forgotten newspapers
The times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of Crimea...
(D. II, iv. 5).

Even a simple listing of off-stage characters in the monologues of the characters (Chatsky, Famusov, Repetilov) complements the picture of the morals of the Griboyedov era, giving it a special, “Moscow” flavor. In the first act (episode 7), Chatsky, who has just arrived in Moscow, in a conversation with Sofia, “sorts out” many mutual acquaintances, ironizing over their “oddities.”

From the tone in which some characters speak about Moscow ladies, one can conclude that women enjoyed enormous influence in Moscow society. Famusov speaks enthusiastically about the powerful “socialites”:

What about the ladies? - anyone, try it, master it;
Judges of everything, everywhere, there are no judges above them<...>
Order the command in front of the front!
Be present, send them to the Senate!
Irina Vlasevna! Lukerya Aleksevna!
Tatyana Yuryevna! Pulcheria Andrevna!
(D. II, iv. 5).

The famous Tatyana Yuryevna, about whom Molchalin spoke with reverence to Chatsky, apparently enjoys unquestioned authority and can provide “patronage” on occasion. And the formidable princess Marya Aleksevna awes even the Moscow “ace” Famusov himself, who, as it unexpectedly turns out, is concerned not so much with the meaning of what happened, but with the publicity of his daughter’s “depraved” behavior and the merciless evil tongue of the Moscow lady.

Dramatic innovation Griboyedov was manifested primarily in the rejection of some genre canons of classic “high” comedy. The Alexandrian verse, with which the “standard” comedies of the classicists were written, was replaced by a flexible poetic meter, which made it possible to convey all the shades of lively colloquial speech - free iambic. The play seems “overpopulated” with characters in comparison with the comedies of Griboyedov’s predecessors. It seems that Famusov’s house and everything that happens in the play is only part big world, who is brought out of his usual half-asleep state by “madmen” like Chatsky. Moscow is a temporary refuge for an ardent hero traveling “around the world”, a small “postal station” on the “main road” of his life. Here, not having time to cool down from the frenzied gallop, he made only a short stop and, having experienced “a million torments,” set off again.

In “Woe from Wit” there are not five, but four acts, so there is no situation characteristic of the “fifth act”, when all the contradictions are resolved and the lives of the heroes resume their unhurried course. Main conflict comedy, social and ideological, remained unresolved: everything that happened is only one of the stages of the ideological self-awareness of conservatives and their antagonist.

An important feature of “Woe from Wit” is the rethinking of comic characters and comic situations: in comic contradictions the author discovers hidden tragic potential. Without allowing the reader and viewer to forget about the comedy of what is happening, Griboyedov emphasizes the tragic meaning of the events. The tragic pathos is especially intensified in the finale of the work: all the main characters of the fourth act, including Molchalin and Famusov, do not appear in traditional comedic roles. They are more like heroes of a tragedy. The true tragedies of Chatsky and Sophia are complemented by the “small” tragedies of Molchalin, who broke his vow of silence and paid for it, and the humiliated Famusov, tremblingly awaiting retribution from the Moscow “thunderer” in a skirt - Princess Marya Aleksevna.

The principle of “unity of characters”—the basis of the dramaturgy of classicism—turned out to be completely unacceptable for the author of “Woe from Wit.” “Portraitness,” that is, the life truth of the characters, which the “archaist” P.A. Katenin attributed to the “errors” of comedy, Griboedov considered the main advantage. Straightness and one-sidedness in the image central characters discarded: not only Chatsky, but also Famusov, Molchalin, Sophia are shown as complex people, sometimes contradictory and inconsistent in their actions and statements. It is hardly appropriate and possible to evaluate them using polar assessments (“positive” - “negative”), because the author seeks to show not “good” and “bad” in these characters. He is interested in the real complexity of their characters, as well as the circumstances in which their social and everyday roles, worldview, system of life values ​​and psychology. To the characters Griboyedov's comedy One can rightfully include the words spoken by A.S. Pushkin about Shakespeare: these are “living creatures, filled with many passions...”

Each of the main characters appears to be the focus of a variety of opinions and assessments: after all, even ideological opponents or people who do not sympathize with each other are important to the author as sources of opinions - their “polyphony” makes up the verbal “portraits” of the heroes. Perhaps rumor plays no less a role in comedy than in Pushkin’s novel Eugene Onegin. Judgments about Chatsky are especially rich in various information - he appears in the mirror of a kind of “oral newspaper”, created before the eyes of the viewer or reader by the inhabitants of Famusov’s house and his guests. It is safe to say that this is only the first wave of Moscow rumors about the St. Petersburg freethinker. “Crazy” Chatsky gave secular gossips food for gossip for a long time. But “evil tongues,” which for Molchalin are “more terrible than a pistol,” are not dangerous to him. Chatsky is a man from another world, only for a short moment he came into contact with the world of Moscow fools and gossips and recoiled from it in horror.

The picture of “public opinion”, masterfully recreated by Griboyedov, consists of the oral statements of the characters. Their speech is impulsive, impetuous, and reflects an instant reaction to other people's opinions and assessments. The psychological authenticity of speech portraits of characters is one of the most important features of comedy. The verbal appearance of the characters is as unique as their place in society, manner of behavior and range of interests. In the crowd of guests gathered in Famusov’s house, people often stand out precisely because of their “voice” and peculiarities of speech.

Chatsky’s “voice” is unique: his “speech behavior” already in the first scenes reveals him as a convinced opponent of the Moscow nobility. The hero’s word is his only, but most dangerous “weapon” in the truth-seeking “duel” that lasts the whole long day with Famus society. Chatsky contrasts the idle and “evil tongues” of “indomitable storytellers, / Clumsy wise men, crafty simpletons, / Sinister old women, old men, / Decrepit over inventions and nonsense,” with the hot word of truth, in which bile and vexation, the ability to express in words the comic aspects of them existence are connected with the high pathos of affirming genuine life values. The language of comedy is free from lexical, syntactic and intonation restrictions; it is a “rough”, “uncombed” element of colloquial speech, which under the pen of Griboyedov, the “speech creator”, turned into a miracle of poetry. “I’m not talking about poetry,” Pushkin noted, “half of it should become a proverb.”

Despite the fact that Chatsky the ideologist opposes the inert Moscow nobility and expresses the author’s point of view on Russian society, he cannot be considered an unconditionally “positive” character, as, for example, the characters of the comedians who preceded Griboyedov were. Chatsky’s behavior is that of an accuser, a judge, a tribune, fiercely attacking the morals, life and psychology of the Famusites. But the author indicates his motives strange behavior: after all, he did not come to Moscow as an emissary of St. Petersburg freethinkers. The indignation that grips Chatsky is caused by a special psychological state: his behavior is determined by two passions - love and jealousy. In them main reason his ardor. That is why, despite the strength of his mind, Chatsky in love does not control his feelings, which are out of control, and is not able to act rationally. The anger of an enlightened man, combined with the pain of losing his beloved, forced him to “throw pearls in front of the Repetilovs.” His behavior is comical, but the hero himself experiences genuine mental suffering, “a million torments.” Chatsky - tragic character, caught in comical circumstances.

Famusov and Molchalin do not look like traditional comedy “villains” or “stupid people”. Famusov is a tragicomic figure, because in the final scene not only do all his plans for Sofia’s marriage collapse, but he is threatened with the loss of his reputation, his “good name” in society. For Famusov, this is a real disaster, and therefore at the end of the last act he exclaims in despair: “Isn’t my fate still deplorable?” The situation of Molchalin, who is in a hopeless situation, is also tragicomic: captivated by Liza, he is forced to pretend to be a modest and resigned admirer of Sophia. Molchalin understands that his relationship with her will cause Famusov’s irritation and managerial anger. But rejecting Sofia’s love, Molchalin believes, is dangerous: the daughter has influence on Famusov and can take revenge and ruin his career. He found himself between two fires: the “lordly love” of his daughter and the inevitable “lordly anger” of his father.

Sincere careerism and feigned love are incompatible, an attempt to combine them turns out to be humiliation and “fall” for Molchalin, albeit from a small, but already “taken” official “height”. “The people created by Griboedov are taken from life in full height, drawn from the bottom of real life,” emphasized the critic A.A. Grigoriev, “they do not have their virtues and vices written on their foreheads, but they are branded with the seal of their insignificance, branded with a vengeful hand executioner-artist."

Unlike heroes classic comedies, the main characters of “Woe from Wit” (Chatsky, Molchalin, Famusov) are depicted in several social roles. For example, Chatsky is not only a freethinker, a representative of the younger generation of the 1810s. He is both a lover, and a landowner (“he had three hundred souls”), and a former military man (Chatsky once served in the same regiment with Gorich). Famusov is not only a Moscow “ace” and one of the pillars of the “past century”. We see him in other social roles: a father trying to “place” his daughter, and a government official “managing a government place.” Molchalin is not only “Famusov’s secretary, living in his house” and Chatsky’s “happy rival”: he, like Chatsky, belongs to the younger generation. But his worldview, ideals and way of life have nothing in common with Chatsky’s ideology and life. They are characteristic of the “silent” majority of noble youth. Molchalin is one of those who easily adapt to any circumstances for the sake of one goal - to rise as high as possible up the career ladder.

Griboedov neglects an important rule of classic dramaturgy - the unity of plot action: in “Woe from Wit” there is no single event center (this led to reproaches from literary Old Believers for the vagueness of the “plan” of the comedy). Two conflicts and two storylines in which they are realized (Chatsky - Sofia and Chatsky - Famus society) allowed the playwright to skillfully combine the depth of social problems and subtle psychologism in the depiction of the characters' characters.

The author of “Woe from Wit” did not set himself the task of destroying the poetics of classicism. His aesthetic credo is creative freedom (“I live and write freely and freely”). The use of certain artistic means and dramatic techniques were dictated by specific creative circumstances that arose during the work on the play, and not by abstract theoretical postulates. Therefore, in those cases where the requirements of classicism limited his capabilities, not allowing him to achieve the desired artistic effect, he resolutely rejected them. But often it was the principles of classicist poetics that made it possible to effectively solve an artistic problem.

For example, the “unities” characteristic of the dramaturgy of the classicists - the unity of place (Famusov’s house) and the unity of time (all events take place within one day) are observed. They help to achieve concentration, “thickening” of action. Griboyedov also masterfully used some particular techniques of the poetics of classicism: the depiction of characters in traditional stage roles (an unsuccessful hero-lover, his nosy rival, a servant - her mistress's confidant, a capricious and somewhat eccentric heroine, a deceived father, a comic old woman, a gossip, etc. .). However, these roles are necessary only as a comedic “highlight”, emphasizing the main thing - the individuality of the characters, the originality of their characters and positions.

In comedy there are many “characters of the setting”, “figurants” (as in the old theater they called episodic characters who created the background, “living scenery” for the main characters). As a rule, their character is fully revealed by their “speaking” surnames and given names. The same technique is used to emphasize main feature in the appearance or position of some central characters: Famusov - known to everyone, on everyone’s lips (from Latin fama - rumor), Repetilov - repeating someone else’s (from French repeter - repeat), Sofia - wisdom (ancient Greek sophia), Chatsky in the first edition he was Chadian, that is, “being in the child”, “beginning”. The ominous surname Skalozub is “shifter” (from the word “zuboskal”). Molchalin, Tugoukhovskiye, Khlestova - these names “speak” for themselves..

In “Woe from Wit” the the most important features realistic art: realism not only frees the writer’s individuality from deadening “rules”, “canons” and “conventions”, but also relies on the experience of other artistic systems.

Comedy in verse by A.S. Griboedova. The play was completed by Griboedov in 1824 and published in 1862, after the author's death. The comedy takes place in Moscow* in the 20s. XIX century in the house of Famusov, a rich nobleman*, located on... ... Linguistic and regional dictionary

Woe from mind- 1. Book. About the misunderstanding of an intelligent, independently thinking person by mediocre people and the troubles associated with this. BMS 1998, 128; ShZF 2001, 57. 2. Zharg. Arm. Joking. iron. The outfit is out of order. Cor., 77. 3. Jarg. school Iron. Unsatisfactory... ... Large dictionary of Russian sayings

Woe from Wit (television play)- Woe from Wit (television play, 1952) production of the Maly Theater Woe from Wit (television play, 1977) Woe from Wit (television play, 2000) Woe from Wit (television play, 2002) production of the Maly Theater ... Wikipedia

WORTH FROM MIND (2000)- WOE FROM MIND, Russia, Theater Partnership 814 / RTR, 2000, color, 157 min. Video version of the play “Woe from Wit” (1998, director of the play Oleg Menshikov). Cast: Igor Okhlupin (see OKHLUPIN Igor Leonidovich), Olga Kuzina, Oleg... ... Encyclopedia of Cinema

WOE FROM MIND (1952)- WOE FROM MIND, USSR, film studio named after. M. Gorky, 1952, b/w, 154 min. Comedy by A.S. Griboyedov. Film performance staged by the Maly Theater of the USSR. The director of the play is Prov Sadovsky. Cast: Konstantin Zubov (see ZUBOV Konstantin Alexandrovich), Irina... ... Encyclopedia of Cinema

Woe from Wit (Griboyedova)- a comedy in four acts. Epigraph: Fate, the prankster, the minx, has determined this: for all the stupid, happiness comes from madness, for all the smart, grief comes from the mind. The original title of the comedy was: Woe to Wit. The comedy plan dates back to the days student life… … Dictionary of literary types

Woe from Wit (comedy)- ... Wikipedia

Woe from Wit (play)- ... Wikipedia

Minor characters of the comedy "Woe from Wit"- characters from Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit” who are not the main characters. Many of these characters have a significant role in the composition of the comedy. Almost all minor characters comedies come down to three types: “Famusovs, candidates ... Wikipedia

Chatsky, Alexander Andreevich ("Woe from Wit")- See also 14) A. Suvorin’s view differs in sharp contrast. Griboyedov put his favorite ideas into Chatsky’s mouth, his view of society is indisputable and without any instructions is clear to everyone, but in no way does it follow from this that... ... Dictionary of literary types

Books

• Woe from Wit, Alexander Griboyedov. “Woe from Wit” is one of the first Russian comedies, torn into proverbs and sayings, which still adorn the speech of any more or less well-read person. "Woe from Wit" - comedy,... Buy for 230 rubles
• Woe from Wit, Alexander Griboyedov. Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov - a brilliant Russian diplomat, statesman, mathematician and composer. However, he entered the history of world literature primarily as a playwright and...

One of the central characters in Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit” is the image of Sophia. The author himself characterized his heroine as follows: “the girl herself is not stupid.” And the author gave the appropriate name to his heroine - Sofia, which means “wisdom”. But the reader still feels the author’s ambiguous attitude towards the heroine. And therefore our perception of Sophia is also ambiguous. “Who will solve you?” - to this question asked by Chatsky, we must find an answer

Chatsky loves Sophia, she is not like other Moscow young ladies. And the heroine loved Chatsky, the young man left a significant mark on her soul, and she is still not indifferent to him.

But Sofya also has a “special imprint”, like all Moscow people. She received the upbringing and education that society required. She developed a certain ideal of family life - Moscow. True, the formation of this ideal was also influenced by French novels about extraordinary love. For a long time, Chatsky was not with Sophia (he “didn’t write two words for three years”). But there was Molchalin, who, from the heroine’s point of view, was quite suitable for the role of a sweet, timid, timid lover.
The girl came up with a similar image for herself and “put it on” Molchalin. She liked not Molchalin as he really was, but Molchalin as she imagined him. I. A. Goncharov noted that this heroine “is not immoral: she sins with the sin of ignorance, blindness.” Sophia is determined, she is ready to fight for her happiness, which is why she comes up with her dream. The heroine is waiting for an opportunity to prepare her father for the idea of ​​her marriage to Molchalin. What does her story about the dream remind us of? It contains the features of a ballad, so popular in Griboyedov’s era: separation from a loved one, the confrontation of the world, fantastic monsters... “Everything is there, if there is no deception,” Famusov reacts to this dream.

Sophia is smart enough not to anger her father; she is cunning, deceiving, without feeling any remorse. She is sharp-tongued and sarcastic.

I. A. Goncharov gave Sophia the following characteristics: “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 is, How common features her circle. In her own, personal face, something of her own is hidden in the shadows, hot, tender, even dreamy. The rest belongs to education.”

The image of Sophia plays a very significant role in the comedy. The beginning of a love conflict is connected with it, as well as the beginning of a conflict between the individual and society, which occurs in the episode of the conversation between Chatsky and Famusov about matchmaking, which turned to a conversation about service.
Highlights These two conflicts coincide, and the point of coincidence is Sophia, who said in anger about Molchalin - “He is out of his mind.” The heroine consciously confirms Chatsky’s madness:

Ah, Chatsky! You love to dress everyone up as jesters,

Would you like to try it on yourself?

And the denouement is connected with Sophia. The girl sends Lisa for Molchalin and, like Chatsky, hears their conversation. The appearance of Famusov brings both conflicts to their logical conclusion.

Sophia is the only leading character in the play whose actions are absolutely independent and do not depend on anyone else. Molchalin takes on the role of a lover and plays it resignedly. Famusov is in a state of some not yet entirely defined suspicions towards Molchalin, and then towards Chatsky, since Sophia put him in these conditions. Chatsky is stunned by the cold meeting and, due to his deepening love drama, reacts inadequately to any appeals to him from the characters in the play. Gossip about Chatsky's madness is spread among Famusov's guests, also at the instigation of Sophia. Sophia here acts as a puppeteer, in whose hands are the strings that activate the puppets.