"A million torments" by Sofia Famusova. The image of Sophia Famusova in the assessment of literary critics The influence of the Famus society

Lessons 15 - 18

Learn by heart one of Chatsky's monologues.

Write an essay on the topic (optional):

"Chatsky - a new man of the new century?"

Note. Recall that the creation by students of essays that precede the study of the text in the classroom is one of the ways that contribute to the development of an independent reader. Such "preliminary" compositions were also practiced in the past years of study; their number will increase this academic year and will continue to grow in subsequent years.

At the same time, in the process of writing essays about the comedy "Woe from Wit", students have the opportunity to get acquainted with Goncharov's article "A Million of Torments" (although it is not required and not even desirable to read it in advance) As our experience shows, by the 8th grade, our students already became sufficiently strong as independent critical readers and did not thoughtlessly repeat other people's thoughts, but treated them quite critically. Moreover, in the future, the task to read, for example, articles by Belinsky and Pisarev about Pushkin, met with resistance from some students, argued by their unwillingness to find out "other people's thoughts" about the literary texts they read.

^ Lessons 15-17. A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit"

Accent proofreading of dramatic text

Text for lessons.

A. Griboedov "Woe from Wit".

Features of the comedy "Woe from Wit"

"A dramatic writer must be judged according to the laws he himself has recognized over himself."

^ ALEXANDER GRIBOEDOV

Alexander Sergeevich Griboedov was born into an impoverished noble family. He received a good education: he graduated from the verbal and law faculties of Moscow University, and studied at the natural and mathematical. Knew 8 languages. He was a talented musician. A. S. Pushkin spoke of him as one of "the smartest people in Russia."

In 1812, Griboyedov volunteered to join the hussar regiment, participated in the Patriotic War, and upon his return from military service turned to literary creativity. In 1817, he entered the service of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs, then left for diplomatic work at the embassy in Persia (Iran). On the day of the uprising in 1824, he was not in the capital, but after his return, Griboedov was arrested on suspicion of having links with the Decembrists. However, the investigation failed to prove his involvement in the preparation of the uprising.

In 1828, Griboyedov brilliantly completed an important diplomatic mission - the conclusion of a peace treaty with Persia. Nicholas I appointed him a plenipotentiary ambassador, but the post of ambassador in this country was very dangerous. In 1829, during an attack by a crowd of fanatics on the Russian embassy in Tehran, Griboyedov was killed. They buried him in Tiflis. On his grave, a young wife, the daughter of the Georgian writer Chavchavadze, erected a monument with the inscription: “Your mind and deeds are immortal in Russian memory - why did my love survive you?”

The comedy "Woe from Wit" was conceived by Griboyedov in 1818 and completed in 1824. It immediately went on lists all over Russia, but for the first time it was put on stage only three years after the death of the author, and even then with censorship cuts. The full text of the comedy was published in Russia only in 1862.

The play in the first version, as Griboyedov himself noted, had the character of a "stage poem" - a work in the spirit of Byron's romantic tragedies. Then the idea changed.

At first, the play was called "Woe to the mind", and in the final edition - "Woe from the mind". This title contains the entire ideological essence of the play, the key to the leading image.

In addition to the antithesis of "woe to mind", the comedy contains a great variety of topics, and each character clarifies something new. The play contains both a philosophical problem, and socio-political satire, and a love theme (without a stencil, without a happy ending, where virtue triumphs and vice is punished, as was the case in classicism). The complex interweaving of themes made it possible to combine the comic with the dramatic, and at the same time the comedy of the play did not turn into a caricature. Comic characters are depicted realistically, which the playwright insisted on. He claimed that "you won't find a single caricature in my picture." Defending the playwright's innovative searches, A. S. Pushkin wrote: "A dramatic writer should be judged according to the laws that he himself recognized over himself."

The first readers of "Woe from Wit" were shocked by the boldness of the pictures of the life of Russia, the depth of understanding of Russian reality and the most acute political topicality. Comedy was the artistic embodiment of the most advanced political and moral quests of the new people of modern times.

However, the full significance of the problem of "woe to mind" was fully realized much later. In 1872, the writer Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov (1812–1891) noted in his article “A Million of Torments” that “Chatsky is inevitable with every change of one century to another.”

In 1918, the poet Alexander Blok (1880-1921) called Griboyedov's work "... unsurpassed, the only one in world literature, not completely unraveled ...". He wrote: “The tragic insights of Griboyedov and Gogol remained: future Russian generations will have to return to them; do not ride around them. Future generations should think deeper and penetrate into the source of their artistic excitement, which so often turns into insane anxiety ”(“ Reflections on the Poverty of Our Repertoire ”).

U. So that you can discuss the essays you have written with sufficient evidence, we will do some preliminary work. Let's try to understand the most important points of the work "Woe from Wit". The main thing, you have long known: you must try to understand the author's intention. What needs to be determined for this?

Genus. Genre.

U. You are right. But you are already quite sophisticated readers and, of course, you have already determined that the genre of literature is drama. There is no doubt about this: the play is intended to be staged. As for the genre, it is indicated by the author himself - comedy. What should be the specific features of comedy as a genre?

D. Must be funny. The leading emotional tone is humor or satire. It's funny because there can be funny characters or they can get into a funny situation.

U. What signs of comedy did you single out in Griboedov's play? What's funny there?

^ Summary of the discussion. The plot is built on a continuous chain of comic situations. Chatsky invariably finds himself in a ridiculous position when he answers Famusov's moralizing maxims, and does not remain silent. The funny thing is aggravated by the fact that, on the one hand, Chatsky, having begun to answer, is deepened in his thoughts and philosophizes to himself, although out loud. On the other hand, the dialogue turns out to be funny because Famusov, completely incapable of perceiving Chatsky's train of thought, does not listen to him, but picks up only individual words. Chatsky declares his love for Sophia at the most inopportune moments. The clever Chatsky also finds himself in a comical position at the moment of meeting with Molchalin at the entrance to Sophia's room, the door of which had just been slammed in front of the nose of the enamored Chatsky.

In turn, Sofya, according to Griboyedov's definition, "a girl not stupid", finds herself in a comic position in front of Molchalin and the all-knowing Lisa, when she dreamily tells her about how their dates with Molchalin are going. Lisa cannot help laughing: she knows what Molchalin really is. Griboyedov put his heroine in an equally comical position when, after fainting due to a trifling bruise, Molchalin fell off his horse, she begins to explain to him with pathos what she is ready for for him, and he does not want her victims at all, but is afraid of evil tongues.

As for Famusov and his guests, here the chain of misunderstandings that cause laughter moves scene after scene. And unlike the smart Chatsky and the intelligent Sophia, they all make you laugh with their characters, i.e. before us is not only a comedy of positions, but also of characters.

U. We found out the presence in Griboyedov's play of the features of the comedy genre "in general". But does Griboyedov's comedy belong to the "high comedy" of classicism?

^ Summary of the discussion. There are features of classicism. It is the unity of time and place. Speaking surnames: Famusov - from the French "famous", Repetilov - from the French "repetition", Molchalin, Skalozub, Tugoukhovsky. Chatsky has the features of a reasoning hero, expressed in his long monologues. He is in many ways the "mouthpiece of the author."

W. Yes, indeed, the features of the high comedy of classicism can be seen in the play. But is this comedy entirely classic? Does it violate any rules of classicism?

^ D. Violated. The positive hero Chatsky is not only positive. He has flaws.

Comedy heroes.

U. What shortcomings do you see in Chatsky?

U. Is Chatsky a comedic hero?

^ D. No. In itself, he is not funny, he is more a hero of drama than comedy.

U. Consequently, Griboedov, a man who lived after the heyday of classicism, no longer fully adheres to the rules of this literary trend in his play. What character traits can be seen in Chatsky?

^ D. Romantic. He is not accepted by the world around him, he is an exceptional hero.

U. Judging by the outline of the preface to the unrealized edition, the comedy in its first outline had the character of a “stage poem” - as Griboedov himself often called it, that is, works in the spirit of Byron's romantic tragedies. In this vein, both the exceptional character of Chatsky and the drama of his position become clear.

Are the other characters exceptional?

D. No, ordinary.

D. Ordinary people in ordinary circumstances. Typical characters are depicted in typical circumstances, approaching the depiction of life as it is. And this was already a new step in the development of art, the transition from romantic exclusivity to a realistic depiction of life. Is Chatsky also depicted realistically?

^ Summary of the discussion. Chatsky is no longer a pure hero-reasoner of classicism, broadcasting truths close to the author, not an exceptional hero of romanticism, misunderstood and not accepted by the world, but a hero of a psychological drama. By the way, Griboyedov often called his play a "dramatic picture." Chatsky is a thinking young man, a seeker of truth and justice. Such a hero is always persecuted by social inertia. Griboyedov, with his play, in which the leading emotional tone is still comic, won for Russian dramaturgy complete freedom from genre conventions and constraints.

^ The plot of the comedy.

U. Now consider the plot. Are there any features of the plot that are typical for a classic comedy?

E. All the characters that the author makes fun of should be punished, and all those whom the author sympathizes with should be awarded. And in the end, Griboyedov is bad for everyone: Chatsky is disappointed, Sophia's eyes are opened, Molchalin is exposed, and Famusov is afraid that Princess Marya Aleksevna will talk about his family.

U. There is another subtle point. In the classic tragedy, the reasoning monologues the hero must pronounce alone. But Griboyedov never did this. And although Chatsky essentially talks to himself in his monologues, Griboyedov always surrounds him with other heroes.

So, in a comic vein, Griboedov solved the main task of the playwright - revealing the characters of the characters in the author's assessment. And you know that in order to reveal the characters of the characters, you need to “test”, put them in a conflict situation, which is the basis of the plot. How many storylines are in the play?

^ D. Two. One - Chatsky and Sophia. Another - Chatsky and society.

U. And this is also not characteristic of classicism, where there should be unity of action.

What was the beginning of both conflicts? Can Chatsky's arrival be considered the beginning of Chatsky's relationship with Sophia? Or the beginning of Chatsky's relationship with society?

D. No, it's just a fact - I arrived. The essence of the conflict between Sophia and Chatsk is that he loves her, but she does not love him. The plot of this storyline begins precisely from the moment Chatsky tries to explain himself. And the essence of Chatsky's conflict with society is that he has different views, and this becomes clear in the very first conversation between Chatsky and Famusov.

U. So, there are two storylines in the play. One line is love. Traditionally, intrigue should be laid in it, the knots of which should be gradually untied. But from the very beginning, everything is clear to the viewer about Sophia and Molchalin. But Chatsky knows nothing about this situation: he psychologically does not perceive the obvious truth and only gradually comprehends it. The other line is based on the antagonism between Chatsky and those around him, which gradually grows and allows the author to satirically highlight Russian reality.

^ Meaning of the title.

U. Initially, Griboedov wanted to name the play "Woe to the mind." Compare both names. What is the difference? Why do you think Griboyedov abandoned the first option?

comedy language.

U. Griboedov's dramatic mastery was reflected not only in freedom from genre conventions, but also in solving the main task - in revealing the characters of the characters, in expressing the comic - both humorous and satirical, reaching the grotesque. All this, as you have known for a long time, is conveyed in the drama not only through the actions of the characters, but also through...

D. Their speech.

U. The skill of Griboyedov the playwright in using these techniques is unsurpassed. This is clearly seen in the examples of the appearance of guests, when the playwright manages to reveal the character of the hero with just two or three lines.

Even Pushkin predicted that half of the verses from this comedy should become proverbs. Did Pushkin predict?

Children give examples of aphorisms. (The teacher draws the children's attention to the aphorism "And the smoke of the fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us." In the text of the comedy, it is written in italics, which is a sign of quotation - a slightly modified quote from Derzhavin's poem "Harp" (1798): "The fatherland and the smoke are sweet and pleasant to us "". The aphorism goes back to the ancient saying: "And the smoke of the fatherland is sweet.")

W. Griboyedov's comedy is inexhaustible. And not only because it was torn apart into quotes, not only because of the brilliant language, dramatic skill, but also because of the depth of the problems. Are they gone, do you think? Does everything in it belong to its era, or is there something that is consonant with our time?

U. We will put an end to this for now.

This sketch was written in 1872, but is still considered one of the best critical articles on Griboyedov's comedy.

Critics - the same readers, but the most "qualified". They share their understanding of the read work with other readers. Reading criticism is useful for developing your own point of view, because you can agree with the critic, or you can argue.

Questions for note-taking are placed in notebooks - Task No. 7.

2) Select reviewers who will write written reviews of essays intended for discussion in the lesson.

Task 7

Read the fragments of the critical study of the writer I. A. Goncharov (1812–1891) “A Million of Torments” and make an outline of them.

For note-taking, questions are proposed that must be answered, either by quoting Goncharov in full (verbatim and in quotation marks), or by retelling individual critical judgments in your own words. For convenience, the fragments given in the textbook are numbered.

If there are Goncharov's assessments with which you disagree, underline them in your abstract.

^ Note-taking questions.

What task does Goncharov set for himself?

What do critics appreciate in A. S. Griboyedov's play?

What does Goncharov appreciate in a play?

How long will the features of the heroes of the play flicker in society?

What in comedy never dies?

Is there movement in the play?

Is Chatsky smart? Who is he?

What connects the parts of the comedy to each other?

In what does Goncharov see the role of the characters in "another, lively, lively comedy"?

What is the psychological portrait of Chatsky at the end of the play?

Why, according to Goncharov, did Griboedov end the play with a disaster?

What is the portrait of Sophia through the eyes of Goncharov and what is the attitude of criticism towards her?

What, according to Goncharov, is the role of Chatsky?

What does Goncharov blame contemporary critics for?

What is Chatsky's ideal?

What is the eternity of the image of Chatsky?

What does Goncharov say in his last remark about Chatsky?

^ IVAN ALEKSANDROVICH GONCHAROV

Ivan Alexandrovich Goncharov was born in Simbirsk into a wealthy merchant family, graduated from the boarding school, then the Commercial School. In 1831 he entered the verbal department of Moscow University, then served as an official in Simbirsk, and from 1835 in St. Petersburg, where he became an active member of the aesthetic circle and paid tribute to the romantic moods that prevailed there. Through the members of the circle in 1846, he met V. G. Belinsky and other democrats of the common people, entered the circle of the editors of Sovremennik. Subsequently, Goncharov moved away from the democratic movement. He was especially disliked by the views of D. I. Pisarev - the writer spoke sharply about the "miserable and untenable doctrines of materialism, socialism and communism."

Goncharov's novels, An Ordinary History (1847), Oblomov (1849–1859), and The Precipice (1869), constituted a peculiar trilogy. In these novels, the author portrayed "superfluous people" - nobles and "new people" who replace them. The book of travel sketches "Frigate Pallada" (1856-1857), written as a result of his round-the-world trip, stands apart.

Goncharov's Peru also owns a number of critical articles, including the article "A Million Torments", dedicated to the play "Woe from Wit" by A. S. Griboyedov.

A million torments

(Critical study)

Woe from Wit, Griboedova. - Monakhov's benefit performance, November, 1871

(fragments)

The comedy "Woe from Wit" holds itself apart in literature and is distinguished by its youthfulness, freshness and stronger vitality from other works of the word.<...>

Some appreciate in comedy a picture of the Moscow manners of a certain era, the creation of living types and their skillful grouping. The whole play is presented as a kind of circle of faces familiar to the reader, and, moreover, as definite and closed as a deck of cards. The faces of Famusov, Molchalin, Skalozub and others were as firmly embedded in the memory as kings, jacks and queens in cards, and everyone had a more or less agreeable concept of all persons, except for one - Chatsky. So they are all inscribed correctly and strictly, and so become familiar to everyone. Only about Chatsky, many are perplexed: what is he? It's like the fifty-third of some mysterious card in the deck. If there was little disagreement in the understanding of other persons, then about Chatsky, on the contrary, the contradictions have not ended so far and, perhaps, will not end for a long time.

Others, doing justice to the picture of morals, fidelity of types, value the more epigrammatic salt of the language, lively satire - morality, which the play still, like an inexhaustible well, supplies to everyone for every everyday step of life.

But both those and other connoisseurs almost pass over in silence the "comedy" itself, the action, and many even deny it a conditional stage movement.

Despite the fact, however, whenever the staff in the roles changes, both judges go to the theater, And again lively talk rises about the performance of this or that role and about the roles themselves, as if in a new play.

All these diverse impressions and the point of view based on them serve as the best definition of the play for each and every one, that is, that the comedy "Woe from Wit" is both a picture of morals, and a gallery of living types, and an eternally sharp, burning satire, and together with this is also comedy, and let's say for ourselves - most of all comedy - which is hardly found in other literatures, if we accept the totality of all the other conditions expressed. As a painting, it is without a doubt huge. Her canvas captures a long period of Russian life - from Catherine to Emperor Nicholas. In a group of twenty faces reflected, like a ray of light in a drop of water, all the former Moscow, its drawing, its then spirit, historical moment and customs. And this with such artistic, objective completeness. And certainty, which was given to us only by Pushkin.

In the picture, where there is not a single pale spot, not a single extraneous, superfluous stroke and sound, the viewer and reader feel themselves even now, in our era, among living people. And the general and the details, all this is not composed, but is completely taken from Moscow living rooms and transferred to the book and to the stage, with all the warmth and with all the “special imprint” of Moscow, from Famusov to small strokes, to Prince Tugoukhovsky and to the footman Parsley, without which the picture would be incomplete.

However, for us it is not yet a completely finished historical picture: we have not moved far enough away from the era for an impassable abyss to lie between it and our time. The coloring has not completely smoothed out: the century has not separated from ours, like a cut off piece: we have inherited something from there, although the Famusovs, Molchalins, Zagoretskys and others have changed so that they no longer fit into the skin of Griboedov's types.<...>But as long as there is a desire for honors apart from merit, as long as there are masters and hunters to please and “take rewards and live happily”, as long as gossip, idleness, emptiness will dominate not as vices, but as the elements of social life - until then, of course. , the features of the Famusovs, Molchalins and others will flicker in modern society, there is no need that that “special imprint” that Famusov was proud of has been erased from Moscow itself.<...>

Salt, epigram, satire, this colloquial verse, it seems, will never die, just like the sharp and caustic, living Russian mind scattered in them, which Griboedov has imprisoned like a magician of the spirit in his castle, and it crumbles there with malicious laughter . It is impossible to imagine that another, more natural, simpler, more taken from life speech could ever appear. Prose and poetry merged here into something inseparable, then, it seems, so that it would be easier to keep them in memory and put back into circulation all the mind, humor, joke and anger of the Russian mind and language collected by the author. This language was given to the author in the same way as the group of these persons was given, as the main meaning of the comedy was given, as everything was given together, as if poured out at once, and everything formed an extraordinary comedy - both in the narrow sense as a stage play, and in the broader sense - as the comedy of life. Nothing else but a comedy, it could not have been.

Leaving aside the two capital aspects of the play, which so clearly speak for themselves and therefore have the majority of admirers - that is, the picture of the era, with a group of living portraits, and the salt of the language - let us first turn to comedy as a stage play, then as a comedy in general, to its general meaning, its main reason in its social and literary meaning, and finally, let's talk about its performance on the stage.

It has long been accustomed to say that there is no movement, that is, there is no action in the play. How is there no movement? There is - alive, continuous, from the first appearance of Chatsky on the stage to his last word: “Carriage for me, carriage!”

This is a subtle, clever, elegant and passionate comedy in a narrow, technical sense - true in small psychological details - but almost elusive for the viewer, because it is disguised by the typical faces of the characters, ingenious drawing, the color of the place, era, the charm of the language, all poetic forces, so abundantly spilled in the play. The action, that is, the actual intrigue in it, in front of these capital aspects seems pale, superfluous, almost unnecessary.

Only when driving around in the passage does the viewer seem to wake up at an unexpected catastrophe that has erupted between the main persons, and suddenly recalls a comedy-intrigue. But not for long either. The enormous, real meaning of comedy is already growing before him.

The main role, of course, is the role of Chatsky, without which there would be no comedy, but, perhaps, there would be a picture of morals.

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

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

Both Onegin and Pechorin turned out to be incapable of work, of an active role, although both vaguely understood that around them all had decayed. They were even "embittered", carried within themselves "dissatisfaction" and wandered about like shadows with "longing laziness". But, despising the emptiness of life, the idle nobility, they succumbed to it and did not think of either fighting it or running away completely. Discontent and anger did not prevent Onegin from being smart, "shine" both in the theater, and at a ball, and in a fashionable restaurant, flirting with girls and seriously courting them in marriage, and Pechorin from shining with interesting boredom and mooing his laziness and anger between Princess Mary and Bela, and then show off indifference to them in front of stupid Maksim Maksimych: this indifference was considered the quintessence of Don Juanism. Both languished, suffocated in their midst and did not know what to want. Onegin tried to read, but yawned and quit, because he and Pechorin were familiar with one science of “tender passion”, and they learned everything else “something and somehow” - and they had nothing to do.

Chatsky, apparently, on the contrary, was seriously preparing for activity. He “writes and translates nicely,” Famusov says about him, and everyone talks about his high mind. He, of course, did not travel in vain, studied, read, apparently took up work, was in contact with the ministers, and got divorced - it is not difficult to guess why.

I would be glad to serve, - it's sickening to serve, -

he hints. There is no mention of "yearning laziness, idle boredom", and even less of "gentle passion" as a science and an occupation. He loves seriously, seeing Sophia as a future wife.

Meanwhile, Chatsky got to drink a bitter cup to the bottom - not finding "living sympathy" in anyone, and leave, taking with him only "a million torments."<...>

The reader remembers, of course, everything that Chatsky did. Let us trace the course of the play a little and try to single out from it the dramatic interest of the comedy, that movement that goes through the whole play, like an invisible but living thread connecting all the parts and faces of the comedy with each other.

Chatsky runs out to Sofya, straight from the road carriage, without stopping by himself, kisses her hand passionately, looks into her eyes, rejoices at the date, hoping to find an answer to his former feeling - and does not find it. He was struck by two changes: she became unusually prettier and cooler towards him - also unusually.

This puzzled him, and upset him, and a little annoyed him. In vain he tries to sprinkle salt of humor on his conversation, partly playing with this strength of his, which, of course, Sofya liked before when she loved him, partly under the influence of vexation and disappointment. Everyone gets it, he went over everyone - from Sophia's father to Molchalin - and with what apt features he draws Moscow - and how many of these poems went into live speech! But all in vain: tender memories, witticisms - nothing helps. He suffers only coldness from her, until, having caustically touched Molchalin, he did not touch her to the quick. She already asks him with hidden anger if he happened to at least inadvertently “say good things about someone”, and disappears at the entrance of her father, betraying the latter almost with the head of Chatsky, that is, declaring him the hero of the dream told to his father before.

From that moment on, a heated duel began between her and Chatsky, the most lively action, a comedy in the strict sense, in which two persons, Molchalin and Liza, take an intimate part.

Every step of Chatsky, almost every word in the play is closely connected with the play of his feelings for Sofya, irritated by some kind of lie in her actions, which he struggles to unravel to the very end. All his mind and all his strength go into this struggle: it served as a motive, a pretext for irritation, for that “million of torments”, under the influence of which he could only play the role indicated to him by Griboyedov, a role of much greater, higher significance than unsuccessful love. , in a word, the role for which the whole comedy was born.

Chatsky almost does not notice Famusov, coldly and absently answers his question, where have you been?<...>He came to Moscow and to Famusov, obviously, for Sophia and for Sophia alone.<...>He is bored and talking with Famusov - and only the positive challenge of Famusov to an argument brings Chatsky out of his concentration.<...>But still his irritation is restrained.<...>But he is awakened by Famusov's unexpected hint at the rumor about Skalozub's matchmaking.<...>

These allusions to marriage aroused Chatsky's suspicion about the reasons for Sophia's change for him. He even agreed to Famusov's request to give up "false ideas" and keep quiet in front of the guest. But the irritation was already on the crescendo1, and he intervened in the conversation, so far casually, and then, annoyed by Famusov’s awkward praise of his mind and so on, raises his tone and resolves with a sharp monologue:

"Who are the judges?" etc. Here another struggle is already underway, an important and serious one, a whole battle. Here, in a few words, the main motive is heard, as in an overture of operas, hinting at the true meaning and purpose of the comedy. Both Famusov and Chatsky threw a signet to each other:

See what fathers did

Would learn by looking at the elders! -

Famusov's military call was heard. And who are these elders and "judges"?

For decrepitude of years

Their enmity is irreconcilable to a free life, -

Chatsky answers and executes -

The meanest traits of the past life.

Two camps were formed, or, on the one hand, a whole camp of Famusova and all the brethren of the “fathers and elders”, on the other, one ardent and courageous fighter, “the enemy of searches”. This is a struggle for life and death, a struggle for existence, as the latest naturalists define the change of generations in the animal world. Famusov wants to be an "ace" - "to eat on silver and gold, ride in a train, be rich in orders and see children rich, in ranks, in orders and with a key" - and so on without end, and all this is just for that he signs the papers without reading and being afraid of one thing, "so that a lot of them do not accumulate."

Chatsky strives for a "free life", "to pursue" science and art, and demands "service to the cause, not to persons", etc. On which side is the victory? Comedy gives Chatsky only "a million torments" and apparently leaves Famusov and his brethren in the same position they were in, saying nothing about the consequences of the struggle.

Now we know these consequences. They showed up with the advent of comedy, still in manuscript, in the light - and how an epidemic swept over all of Russia!

Meanwhile, the intrigue of love goes on as usual, correctly, with subtle psychological fidelity, which in any other play, devoid of other colossal Griboedov's beauties, could make a name for the author.

Sophia's fainting when she fell from Molchalin's horse, her participation in him, so carelessly expressed, Chatsky's new sarcasms on Molchalin - all this complicated the action and formed that main point, which was called in the piitiki an outset. This is where the dramatic interest comes in. Chatsky almost guessed the truth.<...>

In the third act, he gets to the ball before anyone else, with the aim of "forcing a confession" from Sophia - and with a shudder of impatience gets down to business directly with the question: "Who does she love?"

After an evasive answer, she admits that she prefers his "others". Seems clear. He himself sees this and even says:

And what do I want when everything is decided?

I climb into the noose, but it's funny to her!

However, she climbs, like all lovers, despite her "mind". And already weakens before her indifference. He throws a weapon that is useless against a happy opponent - a direct attack on him, and condescends to pretense.

Once in a lifetime I'll pretend

he decides in order to "unravel the riddle", but in fact, to keep Sofya when she rushed away with a new arrow fired at Molchalin. This is not a pretense, but a concession by which he wants to beg for something that cannot be begged for - love when it is not there.<...>Then all that was left to do was to fall to his knees and sob. The remnants of the mind save him from useless humiliation.

Such a masterly scene, expressed in such verses, is hardly represented by any other dramatic work. It is impossible to express a feeling more noblely and more soberly, as Chatsky expressed it, it is impossible to extricate itself from the trap more subtly and gracefully, as Sofya Pavlovna extricates herself. Only Pushkin's scenes of Onegin with Tatyana resemble these subtle features of intelligent natures.

Sofya was able to completely get rid of Chatsky's new suspiciousness, but she herself was carried away by her love for Molchalin and almost spoiled the whole thing by speaking out almost openly in love.<...>In her enthusiasm she hurried to draw his full-length portrait, perhaps in the hope of reconciling with this love not only herself, but also others, even Chatsky, as the portrait goes vulgar.<...>

Chatsky dispelled all doubts:

She doesn't respect him!

Shalit, she doesn't love him.

She doesn't give a damn about him! -

he comforts himself at her every praise of Molchalin and then grabs Skalozub. But her answer—that he was "not the hero of her novel"—destroyed those doubts as well. He leaves her without jealousy, but in thought, saying:

Who will guess you!

He himself did not believe in the possibility of such rivals.
? What is the focus of the critic's attention - the play by A. S. Griboyedov or the life phenomena reflected in it?

What assessments of Goncharov do you agree with? What would you like to argue with?

"The role of secondary characters in the comedy" Woe from Wit ".

^ Essay discussion

"Houses are new, but prejudices are old."

U. In the last lesson, we prepared for the work of critics, so we will do this work today - we will discuss two topics of your essays at once: “Moscow nobility in the author’s assessment” and “The role of secondary characters in the comedy “Woe from Wit”. What is the difference between these themes?

E. The first theme is broader: the Moscow nobility includes not only secondary characters, but also the main ones. The main characters are Famusov, Molchalin, Sophia. But even if these topics were about the same heroes, the tasks are still different: in one it was necessary to write about how the author evaluates the heroes, and in the other - why the author needed these heroes.

^ U. Who are the most important in terms of the development of the storylines of the play?

D. For a love affair, of course, Sofia and Molchalin. For Chatsky's conflict with society - Famusov.

^ U. About Famusov, everything is more or less clear. What about Sophia?

U. And how does Goncharov evaluate it?

Lessons 15 - 18

Homework . Read A. Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" and an article about his life and work. Learn by heart one of Chatsky's monologues. Write an essay on the topic (optionally):

"Chatsky - a new man of the new century?" "Moscow nobility in the author's assessment". "The role of secondary characters in the comedy" Woe from Wit ".

Note. Recall that the creation by students of essays that precede the study of the text in the classroom is one of the ways that contribute to the development of an independent reader. Such "preliminary" compositions were also practiced in the past years of study; their number will increase this academic year and will continue to grow in subsequent years. At the same time, in the process of writing essays about the comedy "Woe from Wit", students have the opportunity to get acquainted with Goncharov's article "A Million of Torments" (although it is not required and not even desirable to read it in advance) As our experience shows, by the 8th grade, our students already became sufficiently strong as independent critical readers and did not thoughtlessly repeat other people's thoughts, but treated them quite critically. Moreover, in the future, the task to read, for example, articles by Belinsky and Pisarev about Pushkin, met with resistance from some students, argued by their unwillingness to find out "other people's thoughts" about the literary texts they read. Lessons 15-17.A. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit"

Accent proofreading of dramatic text

Lesson 15

Features of the comedy "Woe from Wit"

"A dramatic writer must be judged according to the laws he himself has recognized over himself."

A. Pushkin

ALEXANDER GRIBOEDOV

Alexander Sergeevich Griboedov was born into an impoverished noble family. He received a good education: he graduated from the verbal and law faculties of Moscow University, and studied at the natural and mathematical. Knew 8 languages. He was a talented musician. A. S. Pushkin spoke of him as one of "the smartest people in Russia." In 1812, Griboyedov volunteered to join the hussar regiment, participated in the Patriotic War, and upon his return from military service turned to literary creativity. In 1817, he entered the service of the Collegium of Foreign Affairs, then left for diplomatic work at the embassy in Persia (Iran). On the day of the uprising in 1824, he was not in the capital, but after his return, Griboedov was arrested on suspicion of having links with the Decembrists. However, the investigation failed to prove his involvement in the preparation of the uprising. In 1828, Griboyedov brilliantly completed an important diplomatic mission - the conclusion of a peace treaty with Persia. Nicholas I appointed him a plenipotentiary ambassador, but the post of ambassador in this country was very dangerous. In 1829, during an attack by a crowd of fanatics on the Russian embassy in Tehran, Griboyedov was killed. They buried him in Tiflis. On his grave, a young wife, the daughter of the Georgian writer Chavchavadze, erected a monument with the inscription: “Your mind and deeds are immortal in Russian memory - why did my love survive you?” Comedy "Woe from Wit" was conceived by Griboedov in 1818 and completed in 1824. It immediately went on lists all over Russia, but for the first time it was put on stage only three years after the death of the author, and even then with censorship cuts. The full text of the comedy was published in Russia only in 1862. The play in the first version, as Griboyedov himself noted, had the character of a "stage poem" - a work in the spirit of Byron's romantic tragedies. Then the idea changed. At first, the play was called "Woe to the mind", and in the final edition - "Woe from the mind". This title contains the entire ideological essence of the play, the key to the leading image. In addition to the antithesis of "woe to mind", the comedy contains a great variety of topics, and each character clarifies something new. The play contains both a philosophical problem, and socio-political satire, and a love theme (without a stencil, without a happy ending, where virtue triumphs and vice is punished, as was the case in classicism). The complex interweaving of themes made it possible to combine the comic with the dramatic, and at the same time the comedy of the play did not turn into a caricature. Comic characters are depicted realistically, which the playwright insisted on. He claimed that "you won't find a single caricature in my picture." Defending the playwright's innovative searches, A. S. Pushkin wrote: "A dramatic writer should be judged according to the laws that he himself recognized over himself." The first readers of "Woe from Wit" were shocked by the boldness of the pictures of the life of Russia, the depth of understanding of Russian reality and the most acute political topicality. Comedy was the artistic embodiment of the most advanced political and moral quests of the new people of modern times. However, the full significance of the problem of "woe to mind" was fully realized much later. In 1872, the writer Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov (1812–1891) noted in his article “A Million of Torments” that “Chatsky is inevitable with every change of one century to another.” In 1918, the poet Alexander Blok (1880-1921) called Griboyedov's work "... unsurpassed, the only one in world literature, not completely unraveled ...". He wrote: “The tragic insights of Griboyedov and Gogol remained: future Russian generations will have to return to them; do not ride around them. Future generations should think deeper and penetrate into the source of their artistic excitement, which so often turns into insane anxiety ”(“ Reflections on the Poverty of Our Repertoire ”). U. In order for you to be able to reasonably discuss the essays you have written, we will do some preliminary work. Let's try to understand the most important points of the work "Woe from Wit". The main thing, you have long known: you must try to understand the author's intention. What needs to be determined for this? D.(interrupting each other). The task of the author. Genus. Genre. Genus. Genre. U. You're right. But you are already quite sophisticated readers and, of course, you have already determined that the genre of literature is drama. There is no doubt about this: the play is intended to be staged. As for the genre, it is indicated by the author himself - comedy. What should be the specific features of comedy as a genre? D. Must be funny. The leading emotional tone is humor or satire. It's funny because there can be funny characters or they can get into a funny situation. U. What signs of comedy did you single out in Griboedov's play? What's funny there? Outcome of the discussion. The plot is built on a continuous chain of comic situations. Chatsky invariably finds himself in a ridiculous position when he answers Famusov's moralizing maxims, and does not remain silent. The funny thing is aggravated by the fact that, on the one hand, Chatsky, having begun to answer, is deepened in his thoughts and philosophizes to himself, although out loud. On the other hand, the dialogue turns out to be funny because Famusov, completely incapable of perceiving Chatsky's train of thought, does not listen to him, but picks up only individual words. Chatsky declares his love for Sophia at the most inopportune moments. The clever Chatsky also finds himself in a comical position at the moment of meeting with Molchalin at the entrance to Sophia's room, the door of which had just been slammed in front of the nose of the enamored Chatsky. In turn, Sofya, according to Griboyedov's definition, "a girl not stupid", finds herself in a comic position in front of Molchalin and the all-knowing Lisa, when she dreamily tells her about how their dates with Molchalin are going. Lisa cannot help laughing: she knows what Molchalin really is. Griboyedov put his heroine in an equally comical position when, after fainting due to a trifling bruise, Molchalin fell off his horse, she begins to explain to him with pathos what she is ready for for him, and he does not want her victims at all, but is afraid of evil tongues. As for Famusov and his guests, here the chain of misunderstandings that cause laughter moves scene after scene. And unlike the smart Chatsky and the intelligent Sophia, they all make you laugh with their characters, i.e. before us is not only a comedy of positions, but also of characters. U. We found out the presence in Griboyedov's play of the features of the comedy genre "in general". But does Griboyedov's comedy belong to the "high comedy" of classicism? Outcome of the discussion. There are features of classicism. It is the unity of time and place. Speaking surnames: Famusov - from the French "famous", Repetilov - from the French "repetition", Molchalin, Skalozub, Tugoukhovsky. Chatsky has the features of a reasoning hero, expressed in his long monologues. He is in many ways the "mouthpiece of the author." U. Yes, indeed, the features of the high comedy of classicism can be seen in the play. But is this comedy entirely classic? Does it violate any rules of classicism? D. Violated. The positive hero Chatsky is not only positive. He has flaws. Comedy heroes. U. What shortcomings do you see in Chatsky? D. ... U. Is Chatsky a comedic hero? D. No. In itself, he is not funny, he is more a hero of drama than comedy. U. Consequently, Griboyedov, a man who lived after the heyday of classicism, no longer fully adheres to the rules of this literary trend in his play. What character traits can be seen in Chatsky? D. Romantic. He is not accepted by the world around him, he is an exceptional hero. U. Judging by the outline of the preface to the unrealized edition, the comedy in its first outline had the character of a "stage poem" - as Griboyedov himself often called it, that is, works in the spirit of romantic Byron's tragedies. In this vein, both the exceptional character of Chatsky and the drama of his position become clear. Are the other characters exceptional? D. No, ordinary. U. Ordinary people in ordinary circumstances. Depicted typical heroes in typical circumstances, approaching the image of life as it is. And this was already a new step in the development of art, the transition from romantic exclusivity to realistic image of life. Is Chatsky also depicted realistically? D.… Outcome of the discussion. Chatsky is no longer a pure hero-reasoner of classicism, broadcasting truths close to the author, not an exceptional hero of romanticism, misunderstood and not accepted by the world, but a hero of a psychological drama. By the way, Griboyedov often called his play a "dramatic picture." Chatsky is a thinking young man, a seeker of truth and justice. Such a hero is always persecuted by social inertia. Griboyedov, with his play, in which the leading emotional tone is still comic, won for Russian dramaturgy complete freedom from genre conventions and constraints. Comedy plot. U. Now let's look at the plot. Are there any features of the plot that are typical for a classic comedy? D. All the characters that the author makes fun of should be punished, and all those whom the author sympathizes with should be awarded. And in the end, Griboyedov is bad for everyone: Chatsky is disappointed, Sophia's eyes are opened, Molchalin is exposed, and Famusov is afraid that Princess Marya Aleksevna will talk about his family. U. There is another subtle point. In the classic tragedy, the reasoning monologues the hero must pronounce alone. But Griboyedov never did this. And although Chatsky essentially talks to himself in his monologues, Griboyedov always surrounds him with other heroes. So, in a comic vein, Griboedov solved the main task of the playwright - revealing the characters of the characters in the author's assessment. And you know that in order to reveal the characters of the characters, you need to “test”, put them in a conflict situation, which is the basis of the plot. How many storylines are in the play? D. Two. One - Chatsky and Sophia. Another - Chatsky and society. U. And this is also not typical of classicism, where there should be unity of action. What was the beginning of both conflicts? Can Chatsky's arrival be considered the beginning of Chatsky's relationship with Sophia? Or the beginning of Chatsky's relationship with society? D. No, it's just a fact - arrived. The essence of the conflict between Sophia and Chatsk is that he loves her, but she does not love him. The plot of this storyline begins precisely from the moment Chatsky tries to explain himself. And the essence of Chatsky's conflict with society is that he has different views, and this becomes clear in the very first conversation between Chatsky and Famusov. U. So, there are two storylines in the play. One line is love. Traditionally, intrigue should be laid in it, the knots of which should be gradually untied. But from the very beginning, everything is clear to the viewer about Sophia and Molchalin. But Chatsky knows nothing about this situation: he psychologically does not perceive the obvious truth and only gradually comprehends it. The other line is based on the antagonism between Chatsky and those around him, which gradually grows and allows the author to satirically highlight Russian reality. The meaning of the name. U. At first, Griboyedov wanted to name the play "Woe to the Wit." Compare both names. What is the difference? Why do you think Griboyedov abandoned the first option? D.... The language of comedy. U. Griboyedov's dramatic mastery was reflected not only in freedom from genre conventions, but also in solving the main task - in revealing the characters' characters, in expressing the comic - both humorous and satirical, reaching the grotesque. All this, as you have known for a long time, is conveyed in the drama not only through the actions of the characters, but also through... D. Their speech. U. Griboedov's skill as a playwright in using these techniques is unsurpassed. This is clearly seen in the examples of the appearance of guests, when the playwright manages to reveal the character of the hero with just two or three lines. Even Pushkin predicted that half of the verses from this comedy should become proverbs. Did Pushkin predict? Children lead examples of aphorisms. (The teacher draws the children's attention to the aphorism "And the smoke of the fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us." In the text of the comedy, it is written in italics, which is a sign of quotation - a slightly modified quote from Derzhavin's poem "Harp" (1798): "The fatherland and the smoke are sweet and pleasant to us "". The aphorism goes back to the ancient saying: "And the smoke of the fatherland is sweet.") U. Griboedov's comedy is inexhaustible. And not only because it was torn apart into quotes, not only because of the brilliant language, dramatic skill, but also because of the depth of the problems. Are they gone, do you think? Does everything in it belong to its era, or is there something that is consonant with our time? D. ... U. This is where we will put an end to. Homework assignment. 1) Read the fragments of the critical study of the writer Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov (1812-1891) "A Million of Torments" and make a summary of these fragments. This sketch was written in 1872, but is still considered one of the best critical articles on Griboyedov's comedy. Critics - the same readers, but the most "qualified". They share their understanding of the read work with other readers. Reading criticism is useful for developing your own point of view, because you can agree with the critic, or you can argue. Questions for taking notes are placed in notebooks - Task number 7. 2) Select reviewers who will be required to write written reviews of essays intended for class discussion. Task 7 Read the fragments of the critical study of the writer I. A. Goncharov (1812–1891) “A Million of Torments” and make an outline of them. For note-taking, questions are proposed that must be answered, either by quoting Goncharov in full (verbatim and in quotation marks), or by retelling individual critical judgments in your own words. For convenience, the fragments given in the textbook are numbered. If there are Goncharov's assessments with which you disagree, underline them in your abstract.

Questions for taking notes.

What task does Goncharov set for himself? What do critics appreciate in A. S. Griboyedov's play? What does Goncharov appreciate in a play? How long will the features of the heroes of the play flicker in society? What in comedy never dies? Is there movement in the play? Is Chatsky smart? Who is he? What connects the parts of the comedy to each other? In what does Goncharov see the role of the characters in "another, lively, lively comedy"? What is the psychological portrait of Chatsky at the end of the play? Why, according to Goncharov, did Griboedov end the play with a disaster? What is the portrait of Sophia through the eyes of Goncharov and what is the attitude of criticism towards her? What, according to Goncharov, is the role of Chatsky? What does Goncharov blame contemporary critics for? What is Chatsky's ideal? What is the eternity of the image of Chatsky? What does Goncharov say in his last remark about Chatsky?

IVAN ALEKSANDROVICH GONCHAROV

Ivan Alexandrovich Goncharov was born in Simbirsk into a wealthy merchant family, graduated from the boarding school, then the Commercial School. In 1831 he entered the verbal department of Moscow University, then served as an official in Simbirsk, and from 1835 in St. Petersburg, where he became an active member of the aesthetic circle and paid tribute to the romantic moods that prevailed there. Through the members of the circle in 1846, he met V. G. Belinsky and other democrats of the common people, entered the circle of the editors of Sovremennik. Subsequently, Goncharov moved away from the democratic movement. He was especially disliked by the views of D. I. Pisarev - the writer spoke sharply about the "miserable and untenable doctrines of materialism, socialism and communism." A peculiar trilogy was made up of Goncharov's novels - "Ordinary Story" (1847), "Oblomov"(1849–1859), "Cliff"(1869). In these novels, the author portrayed "superfluous people" - nobles and "new people" who replace them. The book of travel essays stands apart "Frigate Pallas"(1856-1857), written as a result of his round-the-world trip. Peru Goncharov also owns a number of critical articles, among which the article "A million torments" dedicated to the play by A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit".

A million torments

(Critical study)

Woe from the mind Griboyedov.– Monakhov's benefit performance, November, 1871

I would be glad to serve, - it's sickening to serve, -

He hints himself. There is no mention of "yearning laziness, idle boredom", and even less of "gentle passion" as a science and an occupation. He loves seriously, seeing Sophia as a future wife. Meanwhile, Chatsky got to drink a bitter cup to the bottom - not finding "living sympathy" in anyone, and leave, taking with him only "a million torments."<...>The reader remembers, of course, everything that Chatsky did. Let us trace the course of the play a little and try to single out from it the dramatic interest of the comedy, that movement that goes through the whole play, like an invisible but living thread connecting all the parts and faces of the comedy with each other. Chatsky runs out to Sofya, straight from the road carriage, without stopping by himself, kisses her hand passionately, looks into her eyes, rejoices at the date, hoping to find an answer to his former feeling - and does not find it. He was struck by two changes: she became unusually prettier and cooler towards him - also unusually. This puzzled him, and upset him, and a little annoyed him. In vain he tries to sprinkle salt of humor on his conversation, partly playing with this strength of his, which, of course, Sofya liked before when she loved him, partly under the influence of vexation and disappointment. Everyone gets it, he went over everyone - from Sophia's father to Molchalin - and with what apt features he draws Moscow - and how many of these poems went into live speech! But all in vain: tender memories, witticisms - nothing helps. He suffers only coldness from her, until, having caustically touched Molchalin, he did not touch her to the quick. She already asks him with hidden anger if he happened to at least inadvertently “say good things about someone”, and disappears at the entrance of her father, betraying the latter almost with the head of Chatsky, that is, declaring him the hero of the dream told to his father before. From that moment on, a heated duel began between her and Chatsky, the most lively action, a comedy in the strict sense, in which two persons, Molchalin and Liza, take an intimate part. Every step of Chatsky, almost every word in the play is closely connected with the play of his feelings for Sofya, irritated by some kind of lie in her actions, which he struggles to unravel to the very end. All his mind and all his strength go into this struggle: it served as a motive, a pretext for irritation, for that “million of torments”, under the influence of which he could only play the role indicated to him by Griboyedov, a role of much greater, higher significance than unsuccessful love. , in a word, the role for which the whole comedy was born. Chatsky almost does not notice Famusov, coldly and absently answers his question, where have you been?<...>He came to Moscow and to Famusov, obviously, for Sophia and for Sophia alone.<...>He is bored and talking with Famusov - and only the positive challenge of Famusov to an argument brings Chatsky out of his concentration.<...>But still his irritation is restrained.<...>But he is awakened by Famusov's unexpected hint at the rumor about Skalozub's matchmaking.<...>These allusions to marriage aroused Chatsky's suspicion about the reasons for Sophia's change for him. He even agreed to Famusov's request to give up "false ideas" and keep quiet in front of the guest. But irritation was already on the crescendo, and he intervened in the conversation, casually so far, and then, annoyed by Famusov’s awkward praise of his mind and so on, raises his tone and resolves with a sharp monologue: “Who are the judges?” etc. Here another struggle is already underway, an important and serious one, a whole battle. Here, in a few words, the main motive is heard, as in an overture of operas, hinting at the true meaning and purpose of the comedy. Both Famusov and Chatsky threw a signet to each other:

See what fathers did

Would learn by looking at the elders! -

Famusov's military clique rang out. And who are these elders and "judges"?

For decrepitude of years

Their enmity is irreconcilable to a free life, -

Chatsky answers and executes -

The meanest traits of the past life.

Two camps were formed, or, on the one hand, a whole camp of Famusova and all the brethren of the “fathers and elders”, on the other, one ardent and courageous fighter, “the enemy of searches”. This is a struggle for life and death, a struggle for existence, as the latest naturalists define the change of generations in the animal world. Famusov wants to be an "ace" - "to eat on silver and gold, ride in a train, be rich in orders and see children rich, in ranks, in orders and with a key" - and so on without end, and all this is just for that he signs the papers without reading and being afraid of one thing, "so that a lot of them do not accumulate." Chatsky strives for a "free life", "to pursue" science and art, and demands "service to the cause, not to persons", etc. On which side is the victory? Comedy gives Chatsky only "a million torments" and leaves, apparently, in the same position Famusov and his brethren, in which they were, without saying anything about the consequences of the struggle. Now we know these consequences. They showed up with the advent of comedy, still in manuscript, in the light - and how an epidemic swept over all of Russia! Meanwhile, the intrigue of love goes on as usual, correctly, with subtle psychological fidelity, which in any other play, devoid of other colossal Griboedov's beauties, could make a name for the author. Sophia's fainting when she fell from Molchalin's horse, her participation in him, so carelessly expressed, Chatsky's new sarcasms on Molchalin - all this complicated the action and formed that main point, which was called in the piitiki an outset. This is where the dramatic interest comes in. Chatsky almost guessed the truth.<...>In the third act, he gets to the ball before anyone else, with the aim of "forcing a confession" from Sophia - and with a shudder of impatience gets down to business directly with the question: "Who does she love?" After an evasive answer, she admits that she prefers his "others". Seems clear. He himself sees this and even says:

And what do I want when everything is decided?

I climb into the noose, but it's funny to her!

However, she climbs, like all lovers, despite her "mind". And already weakens before her indifference. He throws a weapon that is useless against a happy opponent - a direct attack on him, and condescends to pretense.

Once in a lifetime I'll pretend

He decides in order to "solve the riddle", but in fact, to keep Sofya when she rushed away with a new arrow fired at Molchalin. This is not a pretense, but a concession by which he wants to beg for something that cannot be begged for - love when it is not there.<...>Then all that was left to do was to fall to his knees and sob. The remnants of the mind save him from useless humiliation. Such a masterly scene, expressed in such verses, is hardly represented by any other dramatic work. It is impossible to express a feeling more noblely and more soberly, as Chatsky expressed it, it is impossible to extricate itself from the trap more subtly and gracefully, as Sofya Pavlovna extricates herself. Only Pushkin's scenes of Onegin with Tatyana resemble these subtle features of intelligent natures. Sofya was able to completely get rid of Chatsky's new suspiciousness, but she herself was carried away by her love for Molchalin and almost spoiled the whole thing by speaking out almost openly in love.<...>In her enthusiasm she hurried to draw his full-length portrait, perhaps in the hope of reconciling with this love not only herself, but also others, even Chatsky, as the portrait goes vulgar.<...>Chatsky dispelled all doubts: She does not respect him! Shalit, she doesn't love him. She doesn't give a damn about him! - he consoles himself at her every praise of Molchalin and then grabs Skalozub. But her answer—that he was "not the hero of her novel"—destroyed those doubts as well. He leaves her without jealousy, but in thought, saying:

Who will guess you!

He himself did not believe in the possibility of such rivals, but now he was convinced of this. But his hopes for reciprocity, which had so far worried him, were completely shaken, especially when she did not agree to stay with him under the pretext that "the tongs would get cold", with a new barb at Molchalin, she eluded him and locked herself. He felt that the main goal of returning to Moscow had betrayed him, and he moved away from Sophia with sadness. He, as he later confesses in the entrance hall, from that moment suspects in her only coldness to everything - and after this scene, the very faintness attributed not "to signs of living passions", as before, but "to a whim of spoiled nerves." His next scene with Molchalin, which fully describes the character of the latter, confirms Chatsky definitively that Sophia does not love her opponent.

The liar laughed at me! -

He notices and goes to meet new faces. The comedy between him and Sophia broke off; the burning irritation of jealousy subsided, and the chill of hopelessness smelt into his soul. He had to leave; but another, lively, lively comedy invades the stage, several new perspectives of Moscow life open at once, which not only oust Chatsky's intrigue from the viewer's memory, but Chatsky himself seems to forget about it and interferes with the crowd. Around him, new faces group and play, each with its own role. This is a ball, with all the Moscow atmosphere, with a number of lively stage sketches in which each group forms its own separate comedy, with a complete outline of the characters who managed to play out in a few words into a finished action. Aren't the Gorichs playing a complete comedy? This husband, recently still a vigorous and lively person, now lowered, put on, as in a dressing gown, in Moscow life, a gentleman, "a husband-boy, a husband-servant, the ideal of Moscow husbands", according to Chatsky's apt definition, - under the shoe of a sugary, cutesy , a secular wife, a Moscow lady: And these six princesses and the countess-granddaughter - all this contingent of brides, "who, according to Famusov, know how to dress themselves up with taffeta, marigold and haze", "singing the top notes and clinging to military people"? This Khlestova, a remnant of the Catherine's age, with a pug, with a little black-haired girl - this princess and Prince Pyotr Ilyich - without a word, but such a talking ruin of the past; Zagoretsky, an obvious swindler, escaping from prison in the best living rooms and paying off with obsequiousness, like dog diapers - and these N.N. - and all their rumors, and all the content that occupies them! The influx of these faces is so abundant, their portraits are so embossed, that the viewer grows cold to the intrigue, not having time to catch these quick sketches of new faces and listen to their original dialect. Chatsky is no longer on stage, but before he left, he gave abundant food to that main comedy that he began with Famusov, in the first act, then with Molchalin - that battle with all of Moscow, where he, according to the goals of the author, then arrived. In brief, even instantaneous meetings with old acquaintances, he managed to arm everyone against himself with caustic remarks and sarcasm. He is already vividly touched by all sorts of trifles - and he gives free rein to the language. He angered the old woman Khlestova, gave some advice to Gorichev inappropriately, abruptly cut off the granddaughter countess and again touched Molchalin. But the cup overflowed. He leaves the back rooms already completely upset and, according to old friendship, in the crowd again goes to Sofya, hoping at least for simple sympathy. He confides his state of mind to her: A million torments! - Breasts from a friendly vice, he says. Legs from shuffling, ears from exclamations, And more than a head from all sorts of trifles! Here my soul is somehow compressed by grief! - he complains to her, not suspecting what kind of conspiracy has matured against him in the enemy camp. "A million torments!" and "woe!" - that's what he reaped for all that he managed to sow. Until now, he was invincible: his mind mercilessly hit the sore spots of enemies.<...>He felt his strength and spoke confidently. But the struggle wore him down.<...>He is not only sad, but also bilious, picky. He, like a wounded man, gathers all his strength, makes a challenge to the crowd - and strikes at everyone - but he did not have enough power against a united enemy. He falls into exaggeration, almost into drunkenness of speech, and confirms in the opinion of the guests the rumor spread by Sophia about his madness.<...>He has lost control of himself and does not even notice that he himself is putting together a performance at the ball.<...>He is definitely not himself, starting with the monologue "About the Frenchman from Bordeaux" - and remains so until the end of the play. Only “a million torments” are replenished ahead. Pushkin, denying Chatsky the mind, probably most of all had in mind the last scene of the 4th act, in the hallway, at the departure. Of course, neither Onegin nor Pechorin, these dandies, would have done what Chatsky did in the hallway. Those were too trained "in the science of tender passion", and Chatsky is different, and, by the way, sincerity and simplicity, and does not know how and does not want to show off. He is not a dandy, not a lion. Here not only his mind betrays him, but also common sense, even simple decency. He did such nonsense! After getting rid of Repetilov's chatter and hiding in the Swiss waiting for the carriage, he spied on Sophia's meeting with Molchalin and played the role of Othello, having no rights to that. He reproaches her for why she “lured him with hope”, why she didn’t directly say that the past was forgotten. Not a word here is true. She didn't give him any hope. She only did that she left him, barely spoke to him, confessed her indifference, called some old children's romance and hiding in the corners "childhood" and even hinted that "God brought her together with Molchalin." And he, just because - ... so passionately and so low Was a spender of tender words - in a rage for his own useless humiliation, for the deception he voluntarily inflicted on himself, he executes everyone, and he throws a cruel and unjust word to her:

With you I am proud of my break, -

When there was nothing to break! Finally, he simply comes to abuse, pouring out bile: On the daughter, and on the father, And on the fool's lover, - and boils with rage at everyone, "at the tormentors of the crowd, traitors, clumsy wise men, crafty simpletons, sinister old women," etc. And he leaves Moscow to look for a “corner for an offended feeling”, pronouncing a merciless judgment and sentence on everything! If he had one healthy minute, if “a million torments” had not burned him, he would, of course, ask himself the question: “Why and for what have I done all this mess?” And, of course, there would be no answer. Griboedov is responsible for it, and it was not without reason that the play ended with this catastrophe. In it, not only for Sophia, but also for Famusov and all his guests, Chatsky’s “mind”, sparkling like a ray of light in a whole play, burst out at the end into that thunder at which, according to the proverb, men are baptized. From the thunder, Sophia was the first to cross herself, remaining until the very appearance of Chatsky, when Molchalin was already crawling at her feet, all the same unconscious Sofya Pavlovna, with the same lie in which her father raised her, in which he lived himself, his whole house and the whole circle . Still not recovering from shame and horror, when the mask fell from Molchalin, she first of all rejoices that “at night she found out that there are no reproachful witnesses in her eyes!” And there are no witnesses, therefore, everything is hidden and hidden, you can forget, marry, perhaps, Skalozub, and look at the past ... Yes, you can’t look at all. He endures his moral sense, Liza will not let it slip, Molchalin does not dare to utter a word. And husband? But what kind of Moscow husband, "from his wife's pages", will look back at the past! This is her morality, and the morality of her father, and the whole circle. Meanwhile, Sofya Pavlovna is not individually immoral: she sins with the sin of ignorance, blindness, in which everyone lived, - The Light does not punish delusions, But it requires secrets for them! This couplet by Pushkin expresses the general meaning of the conditions of morality. Sophia never saw the light from her and never would have seen the light without Chatsky, for lack of a chance.<...> Sofya Pavlovna is not at all as guilty as it seems. This is a mixture of good instincts with lies, a lively mind with the absence of any hint of ideas and convictions, confusion of concepts, mental and moral blindness - all this does not have the character of personal vices in her, but appears as common features of her circle. In her own, personal physiognomy, something of her own is hiding in the shadows, hot, tender, even dreamy. The rest belongs to education. French books, which Famusov complains about, piano (even with flute accompaniment), poetry, French and dancing - that's what was considered the young lady's classical education. And then "Kuznetsky Most and Eternal Updates", balls, such as this ball with her father, and this society - this is the circle where the life of the "young lady" was concluded. Women learned only to imagine and feel and did not learn to think and know. Thought was silent, only instincts spoke. They drew worldly wisdom from novels, stories - and from there instincts developed into ugly, pitiful or stupid properties: dreaminess, sentimentality, the search for an ideal in love, and sometimes worse. In a soporific stagnation, in a hopeless sea of ​​lies, most women outside were dominated by conditional morality - and secretly life swarmed, in the absence of healthy and serious interests, in general, of any content, those novels from which the "science of tender passion" was created. Onegins and Pechorins are representatives of a whole class, almost a breed of dexterous gentlemen, jeunes premiers. These advanced personalities in high life - such were in the works of literature, where they occupied a place of honor from the time of chivalry to our time, to Gogol. Pushkin himself, not to mention Lermontov, cherished this outward brilliance, this representativeness du bon ton, the manners of high society, under which lay both “embitterment”, and “yearning laziness” and “interesting boredom”. Pushkin spared Onegin, although he touches upon his idleness and emptiness with a slight irony, but to the smallest detail and with pleasure describes a fashionable suit, toilet knick-knacks, smartness - and that negligence and inattention put on himself, this fatuite, posing, which the dandies flaunted. The spirit of a later time removed the tempting drapery from his hero and all the "cavaliers" like him and determined the true meaning of such gentlemen, driving them from the foreground. They were the heroes and leaders of these novels, and both sides were trained to marriage, which absorbed all the novels almost without a trace, unless some nervous, sentimental, in a word, fool, or the hero turned out to be such a sincere "crazy" like Chatsky. But in Sofya Pavlovna, we hasten to make a reservation, that is, in her feelings for Molchalin, there is a lot of sincerity, strongly reminiscent of Tatyana Pushkin. The difference between them is made by the “Moscow imprint”, then glibness, the ability to control oneself, which appeared in Tatiana when she met Onegin after her marriage, and until then she had not been able to lie about love even to the nanny. But Tatyana is a village girl, and Sofya Pavlovna is Moscow, in the then developed way. Meanwhile, in her love, she is just as ready to betray herself as Tatyana: both, as if in sleepwalking, wander in enthusiasm with childlike simplicity. And Sophia, like Tatyana, begins the affair herself, not finding anything reprehensible in this, she does not even know about it. Sofya is surprised at the laughter of the maid when she tells how she spends the whole night with Molchalin: “Not a free word! And so the whole night passes! "The enemy of insolence, always shy, bashful!" That's what she admires in him! This is ridiculous, but there is some kind of almost grace here - and far from immorality, there is no need for her to let out a word: worse - this is also naivety. The huge difference is not between her and Tatyana, but between Onegin and Molchalin. Sophia's choice, of course, does not recommend her, but Tatyana's choice was also random, even she hardly had anyone to choose from. Looking deeper into Sophia's character and environment, you see that it was not immorality (but not "God", of course) that "brought her" to Molchalin. First of all, the desire to patronize a loved one, poor, modest, who does not dare to raise his eyes to her - to elevate him to himself, to his circle, to give him family rights. Without a doubt, she smiled in this role to rule over a submissive creature, make him happy and have an eternal slave in him. It’s not her fault that the future “husband-boy, husband-servant – the ideal of Moscow husbands” comes out of this! There was nowhere to stumble upon other ideals in Famusov's house. In general, it is difficult to treat Sofya Pavlovna not sympathetically: she has strong inclinations of a remarkable nature, a lively mind, passion and feminine gentleness. It is ruined in stuffiness, where not a single ray of light, not a single stream of fresh air penetrated. No wonder Chatsky also loved her. After him, she alone of all this crowd suggests some kind of sad feeling, and in the soul of the reader against her there is not that indifferent laughter with which he parted with other faces. She, of course, is harder than everyone else, even harder than Chatsky, and she gets her “million torments”. Chatsky's role is a passive role: it cannot be otherwise. Such is the role of all the 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, the hopelessness of success.<...>Chatsky's authority was known before as the authority of the mind, wit, of course, knowledge and other things. He already has like-minded people. Skalozub complains that his brother left the service without waiting for the rank, and began to read books. One of the old women grumbles that her nephew, Prince Fyodor, is engaged in chemistry and botany. All that was needed was an explosion, a fight, and it began. Stubborn and hot - in one day in one house, but the consequences of it, as we said above, were reflected in all of Moscow and Russia. Chatsky gave rise to a split, and if he was deceived for his own personal purposes, did not find “the charm of meetings, living participation”, then he himself sprinkled living water on the dead soil - taking with him “a million torments”, this Chatsky crown of thorns - torments from everything: from “ mind”, and even more so from “offended feelings”.<...>Now, in our time, of course, they would reproach Chatsky for why he put his “offended feeling” above social issues, the common good, etc. and did not stay in Moscow to continue his role of a fighter with lies and prejudices, a role higher and more important than the role of a rejected fiance? Yes, now! And at that time, for the majority, the concepts of public issues would have been the same as for Repetilov the talk of "About the camera and the jury." Criticism erred a lot in that, in its trial of the famous dead, it left the historical point, ran ahead and hit them with modern weapons. We will not repeat her mistakes - and we will not blame Chatsky for the fact that in his heated speeches addressed to the Famusov guests there is no mention of the common good, when there is already such a split from “search for places, from ranks”, as “engagement in the sciences and arts ”, was considered “robbery and fire”.<...>He is very positive in his demands and declares them in a ready-made program, worked out not by him, but by the century already begun. With youthful vehemence, he does not drive from the stage everything that has survived, which, according to the laws of reason and justice, as according to natural laws in physical nature, is left to live out its term, which can and should be tolerated. He demands a place and freedom for his age: he asks for business, but does not want to be served and stigmatizes servility and buffoonery. He demands "service to the cause, not to persons", does not mix "fun or tomfoolery with business", like Molchalin - he is weary among the empty, idle crowd of "tormentors, traitors, sinister old women, absurd old men", refusing to bow before their decrepitude authority , chinolyubiya and other things. He is outraged by the ugly manifestations of serfdom, the insane luxury and disgusting customs of “pouring in feasts and extravagance” - phenomena of mental and moral blindness and corruption. His ideal of “free life” is definitive: it is freedom from all these innumerable chains of slavery that fetter society, and then freedom - “to fix the mind that is hungry for knowledge”, or freely indulge in “arts creative, high and beautiful”, - freedom to “serve or not to serve”, “to live in the village or travel”, not having a reputation for that either as a robber or an incendiary, and – a number of further next similar steps towards freedom – from lack of freedom.<...>Chatsky is broken by the amount of old strength, inflicting a mortal blow on it with the quality of fresh strength. He is an eternal denouncer of lies, hiding in the proverb: "one man in the field is not a warrior." No, a warrior, if he is Chatsky, and, moreover, a winner, but an advanced warrior, a skirmisher and always a victim. Chatsky is inevitable with each change of one century to another. The position of the Chatskys on the social ladder is diverse, but the role and fate are all the same, from major state and political personalities who control the fate of the masses, to a modest share in a close circle.<...> That is why Griboedov's Chatsky has not yet grown old, and hardly ever will grow old, and with him the whole comedy. And literature will not get out of the magic circle outlined by Griboedov as soon as the artist touches on the struggle of concepts, the change of generations. He will either give a type of extreme, immature advanced personalities, barely hinting at the future, and therefore short-lived, which we have already experienced a lot in life in art, or he will create a modified image of Chatsky, as after Cervantes' Don Quixote and Shakespeare's Hamlet, their endless similarities. In the honest, heated speeches of these later Chatskys, Griboyedov's motives and words will forever be heard - and if not 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 Griboedov's poems! One could cite a lot of Chatskys - who appeared at the next change of eras and generations - in the struggle for an idea, for a cause, for truth, for success, for a new order, at all levels, in all layers of Russian life and work - high-profile, great deeds and modest office exploits. A fresh legend is kept about many of them, we have seen and known others, and others still continue the struggle. Let's turn to literature. Let us recall not a story, not a comedy, not an artistic phenomenon, but let us take one of the later fighters with an old century, for example, Belinsky. Many of us knew him personally, and now everyone knows him. Listen to his hot improvisations - and the same motives sound in them - and the same tone, as in Griboedovsky Chatsky. And he died in the same way, destroyed by "a million torments", killed by a fever of expectation and not waiting for the fulfillment of his dreams, which now are no longer dreams. Leaving the political delusions of Herzen, where he left the role of a normal hero, from the role of Chatsky, this Russian man from head to toe, let us remember his arrows, thrown into various dark, remote corners of Russia, where they found the culprit. In his sarcasm one can hear the echo of Griboyedov's laughter and the endless development of Chatsky's witticisms. And Herzen suffered from "a million torments", perhaps most of all from the torments of the Repetilovs of his own camp, to whom he did not have the courage to say during his lifetime: "Lie, but know the measure!" But he did not take this word to the grave, confessing after death to "false shame" that prevented him from saying it. Finally - the last remark about Chatsky. They reproach Gribodov that Chatsky is not clothed as artistically as other faces of comedy, in flesh and blood, that he has little vitality, Others even say that this is not a living person, but an abstract, an idea, a walking morality of a comedy, and not such a complete and finished creation as, for example, the figure of Onegin and other types snatched from life. It's not fair. It is impossible to put Chatsky next to Onegin: the strict objectivity of the dramatic form does not allow that breadth and fullness of the brush, like the epic one. If the other faces of comedy are stricter and more sharply defined, then they owe this to the vulgarity and trifles of their natures, which the artist easily exhausts in light sketches. Whereas in the personality of Chatsky, rich and versatile, one dominant side could be boldly taken in the comedy - and Griboyedov managed to hint at many others.<...> ? What is the focus of the critic's attention - the play by A. S. Griboyedov or the life phenomena reflected in it? What assessments of Goncharov do you agree with? What would you like to argue with? Lesson 16

"The role of secondary characters in the comedy" Woe from Wit ".

Essay discussion

"Houses are new, but prejudices are old."

Chatsky

U. In the last lesson, we prepared for the work of critics, so we will do this work today - we will discuss two topics of your essays at once: “Moscow nobility in the author’s assessment” and “The role of secondary characters in the comedy “Woe from Wit”. What is the difference between these themes? D. The first theme is broader: the Moscow nobility includes not only secondary characters, but also the main ones. The main characters are Famusov, Molchalin, Sophia. But even if these topics were about the same heroes, the tasks are still different: in one it was necessary to write about how the author evaluates the heroes, and in the other - why the author needed these heroes. U. Who are the most important in terms of the development of the plot lines of the play? D. For a love affair, of course, Sofia and Molchalin. For Chatsky's conflict with society - Famusov. U. Everything is more or less clear about Famusov. What about Sophia? D. ... U. And how does Goncharov evaluate it? Children quotes from the article "A Million of Torments". U. What can you say about Molchalin? Chatsky refuses his mind. Is Molchalin so stupid? D. He flatters, adjusts, realizing that otherwise he will not achieve anything. He is cunning and quite smart. U. And why are secondary, episodic heroes given in the play, such as Gorichi, Tugoukhovsky, Countess grandmother and granddaughter, Zagoretsky? D. For the development of the second storyline - Chatsky and society. They highlight Moscow life even brighter, strengthen the camp hostile to Chatsky. At. And why Repetilov? D. He is like a caricature of Chatsky. U. Recall that Griboyedov claimed that he had no cartoons. You are right that Repetilov is directly connected with Chatsky. But what is their connection? D. Repetilov pretends to be a new person, but in fact there is nothing new in him. In fact, he is an empty talker: "We make noise, brother, we make noise." U. Although he is trying to pass himself off as a liberal and a politician. "Moscow nobility in the author's assessment". U. Now let's turn to your writings. Let's try to evaluate the composition essays 1. do not like when you are asked to make a plan for it before writing an essay. But a reasonable person, when he wants to clearly express his thoughts, always has such a plan, at least not in writing, but "mental". And we can isolate it from the composition itself. So try to isolate the plan of this essay and see if it contributes to the disclosure of the topic or not. This essay can be divided into 9 parts. Now I will read the essay, pausing at the end of each part, and you will write down your name for each part. Then, based on the plans you made, we will evaluate the composition of the essay.

Essay 1

In Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" there are two conflicts: Chatsky and Sophia and Chatsky and society. For my topic, you need to consider the second conflict - Chatsky and society. In this conflict, Chatsky is more sympathetic to the author. In general, this comedy makes fun of the Moscow nobility of that time. All the Moscow nobility gathers at the evening at Famusov's. And here the author's assessment of the Moscow nobility is very well shown. Prince Tugoukhovsky, his wife and six daughters are present at the evening. The attitude of the author is shown through the replicas of the princesses-daughters: “What a beautiful style!” "What folds!" "Fringed!" They admire sheer nonsense, and seriously. And Natalya Dmitrievna is very pleased with the compliments and asks a little: “No, if you had seen my satin tulle!” And the princess, their mother, is anxious to marry her daughters to a rich man. And the author shows an attitude towards money through remarks: when she finds out that the person she wants to invite to dinner is not rich, she screams at her husband "loud as hell": Prince. Prince! Back!" All six princesses and the countess-granddaughter are a whole detachment of brides, and all of them "Sing the top notes and cling to the military people." Khlestova, Ekaterina's courtier, with a black-haired girl, whom she treats like a dog: “Out of boredom, I took a black-haired girl and a dog with me, - Tell them to feed them already, my friend, We got a handout from dinner.” Zagoretsky, whose assessment is shown through the words of Khlestova: “He is a liar, a gambler, a thief. I was from him and the doors were locked; Yes, the master is to serve: to me and sister Praskovya I got two Arapchenkos at the fair; Bought, he says, tea, cheated at cards; And a present for me, God bless him!” They all take Chatsky for a madman, because he does not fit their standards, because his opinion is not consistent with the opinion of society: “He advised me to serve in Moscow, in the archives”, “He deigned to call me a modiste!”, “And my advice to my husband gave to live in the village "-" Crazy in everything. Usually in a comedy, the positive character must eventually triumph, and the negative must be punished. Griboyedov punishes everyone - Chatsky leaves, he could not fix this society, and society is punished because it is incorrigible and will never know real human values. Students read the names of the points of the plan invented by them, the teacher on the blackboard writes down the most successful options. The points of the plan might be something like the following. one). Two conflicts; assessment by the author of the Moscow society. 2). Evaluation by the author of the Tugoukhovsky princesses. 3). Features of Natalya Dmitrievna. four). Estimated by the author of Princess Tugoukhovskaya. 5). Features of the princesses and the countess-granddaughter. 6). Khlestova's features. 7). Zagoretsky's assessment. eight). Assessment by Chatsky's society. 9). Griboyedov's assessment of society. U. Now think: is such a composition aimed at revealing a theme? Is there an “entrance” to the topic in the identified plan? Is there a "way out"? D. There is an "entrance" - Chatsky's conflict with society is highlighted and the author's comic attitude towards the Moscow nobility is highlighted. There is also a “way out”: society is incorrigible. But in the main part we are talking only about minor characters at the ball. And where is the main character - Famusov? And the author's assessment was not revealed for all the characters. U. So, the composition plan helps to draw some conclusions about the disclosure of the theme of the composition. But we also have a written review of this work, which we asked one of you to do in advance (the author of the review wished to remain anonymous). Listen to the review and rate it.

Review #1

In this essay, the author managed to show the author’s assessment of the Moscow nobility, but, in my opinion, the author draws conclusions from the characters’ replicas either incorrectly or not at all: “The author’s attitude is shown through the replicas of the princesses-daughters: “What a beautiful style!” "What folds!" "Trimmed with fringes." They admire sheer nonsense, and seriously. Here you can see the attitude of the author of the work, but not the author of the comedy. In my opinion, the language in which the essay is written spoils it even more. In some places, because of this, some kind of nonsense is obtained. In this comedy, for example, in the penultimate paragraph, the words “measurements” and “opinion does not agree” do not fit. It turns out some kind of pun. The author does not draw any conclusion about the Moscow society in the author's assessment. That is, there is no one common line in the essay. In my opinion, the author did not cope with his task. U. The reviewer turned out to be more strict than you and me. Do you agree with this assessment of the essay? D.... "The role of secondary characters in the comedy" Woe from Wit ". U. Now let's do the same with composition 2 on the topic "The role of secondary characters in the comedy" Woe from Wit ". Listen to the essay and in pauses write down your names of the points of the plan. There are 8 of them.

Essay 2

Comedy A.S. Griboyedov's "Woe from Wit" so vividly and sincerely reflects the life of the Moscow society of the Griboedov era that we, the current readers, very well imagine what we read. All the heroes of the comedy are drawn with very bright colors, so the conflict between the main character Chatsky and the society of the Famusovs and Skalozubov will excite the minds of readers for a long time. Goncharov said this best in his article “A Million of Torments”, calling the comedy “Woe from Wit” “a picture of morals and camps of living types”. In the images of the main characters of the comedy - Chatsky, Famusov, Skalozub, Molchalin, a broad satirical picture of the life of Moscow secular society was reflected, but the picture of the life of then Moscow was expanded and colored by the introduction of many minor characters, which are sometimes only mentioned in the comedy. And, although their characteristics are brief, they have their bright outlined characters. First of all, they are guests in Famusov's house, united by common views on life, common interests. Their interests are very limited. This is a "liar. Gambler, thief" Zagoretsky, "stupid, talkative" Repetilov", "weak character" Gorich, "typical serf woman" Khlestova, the princely family of Tukhoukhovski and others. In people, they value only wealth, nobility and ranks. Chatsky also has friends who share his views. In the comedy there are characters who are on the side of Chatsky - the nephew of Princess Tugoukhovskaya, the cousin of Skalozub. The Famusov Society hates Chatsky for his progressive, freedom-loving views and tries to neutralize him by declaring Chatsky crazy. These people, although they are very ignorant, consider themselves the most intelligent. All the episodic heroes brought out by Griboedov in the comedy "Woe from Wit" play a certain role, revealing why the entire Famus society stood up against Chatsky. All of them are drawn very lively and true, and each completes the main idea of ​​the comedy. The heroes of Griboyedov's comedy still excite readers. And today this immortal comedy is on the stages of theaters. With the help of the names of the plan items proposed by the children, the teacher writes down on the board roughly the following plan. one). Readers attitude. 2). The attitude of readers, including Goncharov. 3). Secondary characters color the picture. four). Interests of minor characters. 5). The characters are Chatsky's friends. 6). Ignorance of minor characters. 7). Episodic heroes reveal why the entire Famus society stood up against Chatsky. eight). Comedy characters excite readers. U. What conclusions about the disclosure of the theme of the essay can be drawn on the basis of this plan? D. Entry and exit are not related to the topic - they are not about the role of heroes, but about the interests of readers. The main part says that the role of secondary characters is to color the picture. It is said about their interests, ignorance, but there is no textual evidence. And it is also said that there are characters - Chatsky's friends. But, firstly, there are no such characters in the play, only other characters talk about them, and, secondly, why did the critical reader decide that they are friends of Chatsky? U. Chatsky is lonely, and there are only hints about such “dangerous eccentrics” in the comedy. Now evaluate Lena's review, which she, like the first reviewer, wrote in advance.

Review #2

In terms of integrity, this essay is not badly constructed. But as an essay-review on this topic, I did not like it. This is very similar to just a comment, the ROLE of the secondary characters is not disclosed at all, there is only a phrase that they "play a certain role." This role had to be revealed and proved that this is so, by text. Perhaps I don’t know the text well, but I haven’t seen such a hero - a friend of Chatsky. Perhaps the author of the essay meant Repetilov, but he cannot be called a friend: Chatsky despises him, and Repetilov goes to this society only because, firstly, they drink champagne for slaughter, and, secondly, they will teach such things, what , of course, "we can not invent with you." "And the whole Famus society rebelled against Chatsky." In my opinion, it was not society that “revolted”, but Chatsky rebelled against society, he wanted to introduce something new that this society did not accept. And I would also like this review to prove that comedy is immortal, and why "the heroes of Griboyedov's comedy still excite readers." And there is absolutely no proof! Students evaluate review. At the end of the lesson, the teacher invites the children to independently evaluate another essay on the topic “ Moscow nobility in the author's assessment.

Essay 3

The nobles were completely different people. The only hope rests on people like Chatsky. "I'll go to look around the world, where there is a corner for the offended feeling." Others are a panopticon of various monsters, "clumsy wise men, sly simpletons, sinister old women, old men." The author gives in comedy an extraordinary wealth of types, which will then go throughout Russian literature. Comedy begins with characters. Three "talking" surnames and clearly not in favor of their owners: Molchalin, Skalozub and Tugoukhovsky. One of the most important evaluation criteria is Chatsky's remarks, the self-characterization of the characters, their speech and actions are no less important. Only when he arrived, Chatsky, in a conversation with Sophia, gives a picture of the customs and customs of Moscow, as Chatsky remembered it before his departure. In the course of the action, it turns out that little has changed. Famusov is resourceful and cunning in his areas of activity. He knows what to say to whom, but, on the other hand, he does not understand Chatsky at all. Famusov characterizes himself and the Moscow nobility with a monologue that “there is hardly anywhere to find a capital like Moscow”: the number of souls is valued in suitors, an unhealthy predilection for foreigners, superficiality admires in old men and ladies, “After all, only here they value the nobility.” This phrase shows what those nobles are who consider this way of life a manifestation of noble honor. And then Chatsky in the monologue “Who are the judges?” sharply and truthfully criticizes the "judges". The people he talks about are still dating. The stupidity of Skalozub is striking, answering: “And when did they fall behind in the first army? In what? According to Chatsky, Skalozub is "a wheezing, strangled man, a bassoon, a constellation of maneuvers and mazurkas." Beginning with the 5th Apparition of Act III, a canvas unfolds, depicting a collection of ugly, absurd, grotesque personalities. Sensitive, hypocritical, talkative Natalya Dmitrievna with the unfortunate "husband-boy" Platon Mikhailovich, who literally rotted from his wife's excessive guardianship. Comic Tugoukhovskys. The deaf prince is characterized by one remark: "He sets off, hovering around Chatsky and coughing." The languid Khryumina granddaughter is an example of the blind imitation of France. Zagoretsky is the one who found protection from court in friends; in order to be forgiven for cheating and lying, he crumbles in favors. Khlestova remained “the maid of honor of Catherine II, the house is full of pupils and moseks. The interests of these people are completely incompatible with the concepts of Chatsky. Everyone is afraid to seem less informed when Sophia spreads a rumor about Chatsky's madness (Zagoretsky: "Ah, I know, I remember, I heard." ) On the other hand, the nobles are people like Repetilov, who imitates Chatsky, is not acceptable either to them or to the Famus society. The author despises Repetilov. Chatsky characterizes them in grief as "torturers in a crowd." Chatsky's extremely sincere, ardent and cruel statement does not make any impression on Famusov. The play ends with his words: “Oh, my God! What will Princess Marya Aleksevna say! There can be no better self-esteem. Students write mini-reviews of Anya's essay. Homework . Complete in notebooks task number 8. Lesson 17

"Chatsky - a new man of the new time?"

Essay discussion

"No man is an island".?

U. We have already talked about how complex the image of Chatsky is. It was found out that it bears the features of classicism and romanticism. Which? D. The hero as the mouthpiece of the author is a feature of classicism. The hero is exceptional, in conflict with society - a feature of romanticism. U. In your writings, you should have written about something else: about the new that Chatsky carried in himself. Checking homework - Literature notebook task number 8. Task 8 Read reviews about Chatsky by various critical readers. Do you agree with any of them? Justify your opinion. ALEXANDER PUSHKIN (1799-1837). Letter to the Decembrist A. A. Bestuzhev (1797–1837). 1825. From Mikhailovsky to St. Petersburg. “Do you know what Chatsky is? An ardent, noble and kind fellow, who spent some time with a very smart person (namely with Griboyedov) and was fed by his thoughts, witticisms and satirical remarks. Everything he says is very smart. But to whom does he say all this? Famusov? Puffer? At the ball for Moscow grandmothers? Molchalin? It's unforgivable. The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at a glance who you are dealing with and not throw pearls in front of Repetilov and the like.<…>Show it to Griboyedov. Maybe I was wrong about something else. Listening to his comedy, I did not criticize, but enjoyed. These remarks came to my mind later, when I could no longer cope. At least, I speak directly, without blunts, as a true talent. ALEXANDER HERZEN (1812-1870). New phase of Russian literature. 1864. “The image of Chatsky, melancholy, gone into his irony, trembling with indignation and full of dreamy ideals, appears at the last moment of the reign of Alexander I on the eve of the uprising on St. Isaac's Square; this is - Decembrist". IVAN GONCHAROV (1812-1891). A million torments. 1872. “Chatsky is broken by the quantity of the old force, inflicting a mortal blow on it with the quality of the fresh force. He is the eternal debunker of lies, hiding in the proverb: "One man in the field is not a warrior." No, a warrior, if he is Chatsky, and, moreover, a winner, but an advanced warrior, a skirmisher and always a victim. U. Chatsky was understood differently by both contemporaries and descendants of Griboyedov. The controversy around the play, and especially around the image of Chatsky, began immediately. At the same time, criticism proceeded from the perception of "Woe from Wit" as a comedy that belongs entirely to the classical school. Thus, the accuser - Chatsky, who was perceived as a character similar to Starodum, took the role of a reasoner on stage. Critics immediately divided into two camps. Romantics of the Decembrist persuasion, although they perceived the comedy as a classic, were enthusiastic about the comedy, because Chatsky fully satisfied them as an accuser. The situation in which Chatsky found himself was well known to them. Their opponents, conservative critics, considered Chatsky a clever, funny madman. Doing your homework in your notebooks, you had to consider the points of view of Pushkin, and then Goncharov and Herzen. Whose point of view do you prefer and why? D ... U. I would not unequivocally define Chatsky. Yes, the Decembrists saw in him the mouthpiece of their denunciations. Yes, what is valuable in Chatsky for the revolutionary Herzen is precisely that which brings him closer to the Decembrists. But in the text of the play there are no grounds for such far-reaching conclusions. So what do you yourself think about Chatsky? The answer to this question should be in your essays. Listen to two essays and write comparative review.

The writing1

The main role in the comedy of A. S. Griboyedov belongs to Alexander Andreevich Chatsky. To a poor nobleman who lived in the Famusovs' house, who loved Sophia and left this house. Arriving a few years later with the intention of marrying Sophia, Chatsky sees a completely different picture than he expected. Let's take a closer look at who Chatsky is. From the very first words, he does not agree with Famusov. He does not honor antiquity, but on the contrary, scolds her, condemns her past life: “Where. Point out to us, fathers of the fatherland, Whom should we take as models? Are not these rich in robbery? They found protection from court in friends, in kinship, Magnificent in building chambers ... ”And here he condemns vices:“ Uniform! One uniform! In their former life, He once sheltered, embroidered and beautiful, Their weakness, reason, poverty ... ”Chatsky says with these words that in life for them rank, wealth than intelligence, kindness, than the person himself with his virtues are more important. When Famusov invites him to serve, Chatsky answers him like this: “I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to serve.” This phrase says a lot. Chatsky does not like to please, he is proud and ambitious. But Famusov does not understand this. This is the first spring of conflict, misunderstanding, and if we do not like it, then this is not true. Famusov thinks so. And then Chatsky tells Famusov that his age was the age of servile, obsequious, flattering people: “The age of humility and fear was direct, all under the guise of zeal for the king.” Of course, this makes Famusov angry, he does not want to listen anymore. After all, the truth hurts the eyes. Chatsky further proves to him that antiquity is not the best. In a conversation with Molchalin, Chatsky also rejects his words. He believes that if you work, work like that, have fun, have fun like that: “When I’m in business, I hide from the fun. When I'm fooling around, I'm fooling around, And mixing these two crafts There are a lot of craftsmen, I'm not one of them. Chatsky is not only smart, he also knows a lot about life. In addition, Chatsky is a highly moral person, maybe even a nationalist: “Let me be declared an Old Believer, But our North is a hundred times worse for me Since I gave everything in exchange for a new way, And customs, and language, and antiquity holy, And stately clothes on another - According to the clownish model ... ”He laughs at fashion admirers, he believes that no matter how you dress, you will not become smarter. Chatsky is not only smart, he is also proud, he was able to come out worthy of this sad stupid story: “Enough! .. I am proud of my break with you.” So he says to Sophia. Chatsky does not fit into the society of the Famusovs, Molchalins, he is a stranger to everyone. For them, he is "not of this world." They do not understand what Chatsky understands. They don't like him because he told them all the truth about them. They do not like Chatsky, because he is not like them. Chatsky will always be a contemporary of ours and future generations.

The writing2

Dispute

"Chatsky is inevitable with every change of one century to another."

I. Goncharov

U. Dispute is a joint search for truth. In the topic of the dispute, two positions are declared: the mind is grief, the mind is happiness. Who will defend the first position? Children raise arms. U. Second position? Children raise arms. U. There are more supporters of the second position. But not everyone raised their hands. What does it mean? Don't have a position? D. There is, but more complex - both grief and happiness. U. Indeed, such a position is also possible. Let's start with a discussion of the mind-woe position. Who's ready first? Sasha. In general, this question cannot be answered unambiguously. I still think that the mind brings grief at any time. A smart person soberly assesses the situation from all sides, and he can foresee what others do not suspect. Even in a joyful event, he will see something that could turn out to be quite the opposite - and in this is his grief. He may not be understood, lonely, like Chatsky. In our time, in general, people are afraid of everything. On the other hand, it is a great happiness to know and understand everything. But more often than not, smart people are not taken seriously, they do not find understanding, and as a result, they remain with their premonitions. Especially in our time, when something strange and incomprehensible is happening. A smart person already feels where this will lead. He tries to warn against something, but they do not listen to him. So, probably, this is still grief, although, I repeat once again, it is unambiguously difficult to answer. Let us leave this opportunity to philosophers and sages. Andrew. What does it mean "smart understands what's going on"? Anyone can understand. Katia. Smart life is hard. Alyosha. It is hard for a person who knows how to foresee, understand the complexities of life, that it is not so simple and cannot be simple. Anya. We all agree. There is no real dispute. U. Because so far only supporters of one position have expressed themselves. Of course, they have nothing to argue with each other. True, Sasha nevertheless moved away from the first position to a more difficult one. She sees in the mind not only grief, but also the happiness of knowledge, understanding. Who wants to speak on the second position? Petya. And I also want to say that the mind is grief. Here is a fact that everyone has experienced. When we were just children, we did not know good and evil, we were happy. Andrew. But I didn't understand it then. Petya. As soon as the child grows up, he begins to understand the difference between good and evil, and happiness disappears. When a child is quite an adult and knows the whole world, he becomes unhappy and wise. A real sage understands that his mind has given nothing. He loses interest in everything. Life is wasted. Ira. How do you understand happiness? Petya. Happiness is understood in human, worldly ideals. Ira. But you said that a person is happy when he does not understand what good and evil are. And I think that a smart person who understands everything is happy. U. It is very good that Ira's question was raised about what happiness is. To discuss, it is necessary to define concepts, otherwise nothing will come of it. What is happiness? Remember, you wrote essays about what kind of person can be considered happy? And remember, you came to the conclusion that everyone understands happiness in their own way, and even a person may seem happy from the outside, but he himself may not feel that way. Let us turn to Dahl: “Prosperity, well-being, earthly bliss, the desired daily life, without grief, confusion, anxiety; peace and contentment; in general, everything desired, everything that calms and pleases a person, according to his convictions, tastes and habits. Happy or not, only the person himself can feel. Let's move on to the second position. Can an intelligent person feel happy “according to beliefs, tastes and habits”? Dima. A person always depends on others. The grief of this person is that others do not understand him. If people do not understand the person who says that you live in a wrong way, this is grief. Nastya. Would a smart person tell everyone they were wrong? Dima. A smart person knows how to help them. Misha. Smart will show. Prove. Julia. We are talking about a too perfect person. U. We are discussing the issue in principle. Angelica. But is it a misfortune when you are understood? Dima. We have already written essays about this and found out that it is not always good when they understand you, there is something of their own, personal, which a person does not want everyone to guess. But in principle, a person is happy if at least one understands him. Anya. But how to explain that the fate of a large number of smart people is sad? I do not think that happiness is in understanding. U. You take us away from the problem, break the logic. In general, we have not moved anywhere yet, but we need to answer the question for ourselves: can an intelligent person feel happy or not? Let's try to listen to the representative of another point of view. Anya. The mind cannot be without connection with other feelings; the mind, together with morality, as Dahl said, makes up the soul. The words just don't come through. For example, there may be a perverted mind. As Dahl says, a depraved mind is a mind that is used for evil, incompatible with morality. Like Swift. There is no need to talk about fortitude here. Tact is important as a property that corrects the rest of the mind and behavior. U. Anya raised a very interesting question. Referring to Dahl, she reminded us all of the structure of a person’s inner world, of his soul, which consists of the mind and, as Dahl says, “temper”. To temper, as subordinate concepts, include will, love, mercy, and so on, and to the mind - reason, reason, memory, and so on. But we should not be talking about other qualities, but only about the ratio of "mind" and "happiness-unhappiness." Anya takes us away from the problem. Ira. I think that happiness depends on the team. If the society is "stupid", then it depends on the person. He can position himself in such a way that people will respect him. Smart people in stupid circles get bored. Petya. Did I understand you correctly that happiness depends on others and personal qualities? If a smart person is placed in the society of sages, then he is happy with his mind. If a true sage is placed in such a society, is he happy? And having got to the savages - is he happy? Ira. The smart will not enjoy the mind, they will act. U. The time for debate is running out, and we can’t come to any definite, even intermediate, conclusions. I do not mean those moments when you get away from the problem under discussion. Everything is clear here. But on the other hand, much is not clear, difficult and ambiguous in solving the problem of dispute. Most of you make the problem of happy and unhappy smart guy conditional. But you all call the conditions different, although if you try to generalize them, you can say that the third position is “smart is happy on the condition that ...” What's the matter? Are we not smart enough to solve this problem? Or maybe this problem is not solvable at all? So Sasha advised us to turn to the sages and philosophers. Let us follow her advice and turn to the wise saying of Ecclesiastes, or the Preacher, who is traditionally considered the author of one of the books of the Old Testament: “... in much wisdom there is much sorrow; and whoever increases knowledge, increases sorrow” (1:18). From this point of view, the teacher at school contributes to the multiplication of grief in the souls of his students. How do you like it? D... U. And yet the Preacher believes that it is better to be smart than stupid: "A wise man has his eyes in his head, but a fool walks in darkness" (2, 14). And in order not to end on a sad note, let's turn to poets, because they are also intelligent people. Karamzin in his “Hymn to Fools” (1802) wrote: “Blessed is not the one who is smarter than everyone - Oh, no! He is often the saddest of all, - But he who, being a fool, considers himself a wise man. growing (Italian) First lovers (French). In high society (English). Good tone (French). Folly (French). V. G. Belinsky (1811-1848) - literary critic. A. I. Herzen (1812-1870) - writer, philosopher, revolutionary. 109

Read the fragments of the critical article of the writer I. A. Goncharov (1812–1891) “A Million of Torments” and outline it.

For note-taking, questions are proposed that must be answered either by quoting Goncharov in full (verbatim and in quotation marks), or by retelling individual critical judgments in your own words. For convenience, the fragments presented here are numbered.

If there are Goncharov's assessments with which you disagree, underline them in your abstract.

Questions for taking notes.

What task does Goncharov set for himself?

What do critics appreciate in A. S. Griboyedov's play?

What does Goncharov appreciate in a play?

How long will the features of the heroes of the play flicker in society?

What in comedy never dies?

Is there movement in the play?

Is Chatsky smart? Who is he?

What connects the parts of the comedy to each other?

In what does Goncharov see the role of the characters in "another, lively, lively comedy"?

What is the psychological portrait of Chatsky at the end of the play?

Why, according to Goncharov, did Griboedov end the play with a disaster?

What is the portrait of Sophia through the eyes of Goncharov and what is the attitude of criticism towards her?

What, according to Goncharov, is the role of Chatsky?

What does Goncharov blame contemporary critics for?

What is Chatsky's ideal?

What is the eternity of the image of Chatsky?

What does Goncharov say in his last remark about Chatsky?

IVAN ALEKSANDROVICH GONCHAROV

Ivan Alexandrovich Goncharov was born in Simbirsk into a wealthy merchant family, graduated from the boarding school, then the Commercial School. In 1831 he entered the verbal department of Moscow University, then served as an official in Simbirsk, and from 1835 in St. Petersburg, where he became an active member of the aesthetic circle and paid tribute to the romantic moods that prevailed there. Through the members of the circle in 1846, he met V. G. Belinsky and other democrats of the common people, entered the circle of the editors of Sovremennik. Subsequently, Goncharov moved away from the democratic movement. He was especially disliked by the views of D. I. Pisarev - the writer spoke sharply about the "miserable and untenable doctrines of materialism, socialism and communism."

A peculiar trilogy was made up of Goncharov's novels - "Ordinary Story" (1847), "Oblomov"(1849–1859), "Cliff"(1869). In these novels, the author portrayed "superfluous people" - nobles and "new people" who replace them. The book of travel essays stands apart "Frigate Pallas"(1856-1857), written as a result of his round-the-world trip.

Peru Goncharov also owns a number of critical articles, among which the article "A million torments" dedicated to the play by A. S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit".

A million torments

(Critical study)

Woe from the mind Griboyedov.- Monakhov's benefit performance, November, 1871

(fragments)

The comedy "Woe from Wit" holds itself apart in literature and is distinguished by its youthfulness, freshness and stronger vitality from other works of the word.<…>

Some appreciate in comedy a picture of the Moscow manners of a certain era, the creation of living types and their skillful grouping. The whole play is presented as a kind of circle of faces familiar to the reader, and, moreover, as definite and closed as a deck of cards. The faces of Famusov, Molchalin, Skalozub and others were as firmly embedded in the memory as kings, jacks and queens in cards, and everyone had a more or less agreeable concept of all persons, except for one - Chatsky. So they are all inscribed correctly and strictly, and so become familiar to everyone. Only about Chatsky, many are perplexed: what is he? It's like the fifty-third of some mysterious card in the deck. If there was little disagreement in the understanding of other persons, then about Chatsky, on the contrary, the contradictions have not ended so far and, perhaps, will not end for a long time.

Others, doing justice to the picture of morals, fidelity of types, value the more epigrammatic salt of the language, lively satire - morality, which the play still, like an inexhaustible well, supplies to everyone for every everyday step of life.

But both those and other connoisseurs almost pass over in silence the "comedy" itself, the action, and many even deny it a conditional stage movement.

Despite the fact, however, whenever the staff in the roles changes, both judges go to the theater, And again lively talk rises about the performance of this or that role and about the roles themselves, as if in a new play.

All these diverse impressions and the point of view based on them serve as the best definition of the play for each and every one, that is, that the comedy "Woe from Wit" is both a picture of morals, and a gallery of living types, and an eternally sharp, burning satire, and together with this is also comedy, and let's say for ourselves - most of all comedy - which is hardly found in other literatures, if we accept the totality of all the other conditions expressed. As a painting, it is without a doubt huge. Her canvas captures a long period of Russian life - from Catherine to Emperor Nicholas. In a group of twenty faces reflected, like a ray of light in a drop of water, all the former Moscow, its drawing, its then spirit, historical moment and customs. And this with such artistic, objective completeness. And certainty, which was given to us only by Pushkin.

In the picture, where there is not a single pale spot, not a single extraneous, superfluous stroke and sound, the viewer and reader feel themselves even now, in our era, among living people. And the general and the details, all this is not composed, but is completely taken from Moscow living rooms and transferred to the book and to the stage, with all the warmth and with all the “special imprint” of Moscow, from Famusov to small strokes, to Prince Tugoukhovsky and to the footman Parsley, without which the picture would be incomplete.

However, for us it is not yet a completely finished historical picture: we have not moved far enough away from the era for an impassable abyss to lie between it and our time. The coloring has not completely smoothed out: the century has not separated from ours, like a cut off piece: we have inherited something from there, although the Famusovs, Molchalins, Zagoretskys and others have changed so that they no longer fit into the skin of Griboedov's types.<…>But as long as there is a desire for honors apart from merit, as long as there are masters and hunters to please and “take rewards and live happily”, as long as gossip, idleness, emptiness will dominate not as vices, but as the elements of social life - until then, of course. , the features of the Famusovs, Molchalins and others will flicker in modern society, there is no need that that “special imprint” that Famusov was proud of has been erased from Moscow itself.<…>

Salt, epigram, satire, this colloquial verse, it seems, will never die, just like the sharp and caustic, living Russian mind scattered in them, which Griboedov has imprisoned like a magician of the spirit in his castle, and it crumbles there with malicious laughter . It is impossible to imagine that another, more natural, simpler, more taken from life speech could ever appear. Prose and poetry merged here into something inseparable, then, it seems, so that it would be easier to keep them in memory and put back into circulation all the mind, humor, joke and anger of the Russian mind and language collected by the author. This language was given to the author in the same way as the group of these persons was given, as the main meaning of the comedy was given, as everything was given together, as if poured out at once, and everything formed an extraordinary comedy - both in the narrow sense as a stage play, and in the broader sense - as the comedy of life. Nothing else but a comedy, it could not have been.

Leaving aside the two capital aspects of the play, which so clearly speak for themselves and therefore have the majority of admirers - that is, the picture of the era, with a group of living portraits, and the salt of the language - let us first turn to comedy as a stage play, then as a comedy in general, to its general meaning, its main reason in its social and literary meaning, and finally, let's talk about its performance on the stage.

It has long been accustomed to say that there is no movement, that is, there is no action in the play. How is there no movement? There is - alive, continuous, from the first appearance of Chatsky on the stage to his last word: “Carriage for me, carriage!”

This is a subtle, clever, elegant and passionate comedy in a narrow, technical sense - true in small psychological details - but almost elusive for the viewer, because it is disguised by the typical faces of the characters, ingenious drawing, the color of the place, era, the charm of the language, all poetic forces, so abundantly spilled in the play. The action, that is, the actual intrigue in it, in front of these capital aspects seems pale, superfluous, almost unnecessary.

Only when driving around in the passage does the viewer seem to wake up at an unexpected catastrophe that has erupted between the main persons, and suddenly recalls a comedy-intrigue. But not for long either. The enormous, real meaning of comedy is already growing before him.

The main role, of course, is the role of Chatsky, without which there would be no comedy, but, perhaps, there would be a picture of morals.

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

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

Both Onegin and Pechorin turned out to be incapable of work, of an active role, although both vaguely understood that around them all had decayed. They were even "embittered", carried within themselves "dissatisfaction" and wandered about like shadows with "longing laziness". But, despising the emptiness of life, the idle nobility, they succumbed to it and did not think of either fighting it or running away completely. Discontent and anger did not prevent Onegin from being smart, "shine" both in the theater, and at a ball, and in a fashionable restaurant, flirting with girls and seriously courting them in marriage, and Pechorin from shining with interesting boredom and mooing his laziness and anger between Princess Mary and Bela, and then show off indifference to them in front of stupid Maksim Maksimych: this indifference was considered the quintessence of Don Juanism. Both languished, suffocated in their midst and did not know what to want. Onegin tried to read, but yawned and quit, because he and Pechorin were familiar with one science of “tender passion”, and they learned everything else “something and somehow” - and they had nothing to do.

Chatsky, apparently, on the contrary, was seriously preparing for activity. He “writes and translates nicely,” Famusov says about him, and everyone talks about his high mind. He, of course, did not travel in vain, studied, read, apparently took up work, was in contact with the ministers, and got divorced - it is not difficult to guess why.

I would be glad to serve, - it's sickening to serve, -

he hints. There is no mention of "yearning laziness, idle boredom", and even less of "gentle passion" as a science and an occupation. He loves seriously, seeing Sophia as a future wife.

Meanwhile, Chatsky got to drink a bitter cup to the bottom - not finding "living sympathy" in anyone, and leave, taking with him only "a million torments."<…>

The reader remembers, of course, everything that Chatsky did. Let us trace the course of the play a little and try to single out from it the dramatic interest of the comedy, that movement that goes through the whole play, like an invisible but living thread connecting all the parts and faces of the comedy with each other.

Chatsky runs out to Sofya, straight from the road carriage, without stopping by himself, kisses her hand passionately, looks into her eyes, rejoices at the date, hoping to find an answer to his former feeling - and does not find it. He was struck by two changes: she became unusually prettier and cooler towards him - also unusually.

This puzzled him, and upset him, and a little annoyed him. In vain he tries to sprinkle salt of humor on his conversation, partly playing with this strength of his, which, of course, Sofya liked before when she loved him, partly under the influence of vexation and disappointment. Everyone gets it, he went over everyone - from Sophia's father to Molchalin - and with what apt features he draws Moscow - and how many of these poems went into live speech! But all in vain: tender memories, witticisms - nothing helps. He suffers only coldness from her, until, having caustically touched Molchalin, he did not touch her to the quick. She already asks him with hidden anger if he happened to at least inadvertently “say good things about someone”, and disappears at the entrance of her father, betraying the latter almost with the head of Chatsky, that is, declaring him the hero of the dream told to his father before.

From that moment on, a heated duel began between her and Chatsky, the most lively action, a comedy in the strict sense, in which two persons, Molchalin and Liza, take an intimate part.

Every step of Chatsky, almost every word in the play is closely connected with the play of his feelings for Sofya, irritated by some kind of lie in her actions, which he struggles to unravel to the very end. All his mind and all his strength go into this struggle: it served as a motive, a pretext for irritation, for that “million of torments”, under the influence of which he could only play the role indicated to him by Griboyedov, a role of much greater, higher significance than unsuccessful love. , in a word, the role for which the whole comedy was born.

Chatsky almost does not notice Famusov, coldly and absently answers his question, where have you been?<…>He came to Moscow and to Famusov, obviously, for Sophia and for Sophia alone.<…>He is bored and talking with Famusov - and only the positive challenge of Famusov to an argument brings Chatsky out of his concentration.<…>But still his irritation is restrained.<…>But he is awakened by Famusov's unexpected hint at the rumor about Skalozub's matchmaking.<…>

These allusions to marriage aroused Chatsky's suspicion about the reasons for Sophia's change for him. He even agreed to Famusov's request to give up "false ideas" and keep quiet in front of the guest. But irritation was already on the crescendo, and he intervened in the conversation, so far casually, and then, annoyed by Famusov’s awkward praise of his mind and so on, raises his tone and resolves with a sharp monologue:

"Who are the judges?" etc. Here another struggle is already underway, an important and serious one, a whole battle. Here, in a few words, the main motive is heard, as in an overture of operas, hinting at the true meaning and purpose of the comedy. Both Famusov and Chatsky threw a signet to each other:

See what fathers did

Would learn by looking at the elders! -

Famusov's military call was heard. And who are these elders and "judges"?

... For the decrepitude of years

Their enmity is irreconcilable to a free life, -

Chatsky answers and executes -

The meanest traits of the past life.

Two camps were formed, or, on the one hand, a whole camp of Famusova and all the brethren of the “fathers and elders”, on the other, one ardent and courageous fighter, “the enemy of searches”. This is a struggle for life and death, a struggle for existence, as the latest naturalists define the change of generations in the animal world. Famusov wants to be an "ace" - "to eat on silver and gold, ride in a train, be rich in orders and see children rich, in ranks, in orders and with a key" - and so on without end, and all this is just for that he signs the papers without reading and being afraid of one thing, "so that a lot of them do not accumulate."

Chatsky strives for a "free life", "to pursue" science and art, and demands "service to the cause, not to persons", etc. On which side is the victory? Comedy gives Chatsky only "a million torments" and leaves, apparently, in the same position Famusov and his brethren, in which they were, without saying anything about the consequences of the struggle.

Now we know these consequences. They showed up with the advent of comedy, still in manuscript, in the light - and how an epidemic swept over all of Russia!

Meanwhile, the intrigue of love goes on as usual, correctly, with subtle psychological fidelity, which in any other play, devoid of other colossal Griboedov's beauties, could make a name for the author.

Sophia's fainting when she fell from Molchalin's horse, her participation in him, so carelessly expressed, Chatsky's new sarcasms on Molchalin - all this complicated the action and formed that main point, which was called in the piitiki an outset. This is where the dramatic interest comes in. Chatsky almost guessed the truth.<…>

In the third act, he gets to the ball before anyone else, with the aim of "forcing a confession" from Sophia - and with a shudder of impatience gets down to business directly with the question: "Who does she love?"

After an evasive answer, she admits that she prefers his "others". Seems clear. He himself sees this and even says:

And what do I want when everything is decided?

I climb into the noose, but it's funny to her!

However, she climbs, like all lovers, despite her "mind". And already weakens before her indifference. He throws a weapon that is useless against a happy opponent - a direct attack on him, and condescends to pretense.

Once in a lifetime I'll pretend

he decides in order to "unravel the riddle", but in fact, to keep Sofya when she rushed away with a new arrow fired at Molchalin. This is not a pretense, but a concession by which he wants to beg for something that cannot be begged for - love when it is not there.<…>Then all that was left to do was to fall to his knees and sob. The remnants of the mind save him from useless humiliation.

Such a masterly scene, expressed in such verses, is hardly represented by any other dramatic work. It is impossible to express a feeling more noblely and more soberly, as Chatsky expressed it, it is impossible to extricate itself from the trap more subtly and gracefully, as Sofya Pavlovna extricates herself. Only Pushkin's scenes of Onegin with Tatyana resemble these subtle features of intelligent natures.

Sofya was able to completely get rid of Chatsky's new suspiciousness, but she herself was carried away by her love for Molchalin and almost spoiled the whole thing by speaking out almost openly in love.<…>In her enthusiasm she hurried to draw his full-length portrait, perhaps in the hope of reconciling with this love not only herself, but also others, even Chatsky, as the portrait goes vulgar.<…>

Chatsky dispelled all doubts:

She doesn't respect him!

Shalit, she doesn't love him.

She doesn't give a damn about him! -

he comforts himself at her every praise of Molchalin and then grabs Skalozub. But her answer—that he was "not the hero of her novel"—destroyed those doubts as well. He leaves her without jealousy, but in thought, saying:

Who will guess you!

He himself did not believe in the possibility of such rivals, but now he was convinced of this. But his hopes for reciprocity, which had so far worried him, were completely shaken, especially when she did not agree to stay with him under the pretext that "the tongs would get cold", with a new barb at Molchalin, she eluded him and locked herself.

He felt that the main goal of returning to Moscow had betrayed him, and he moved away from Sophia with sadness. He, as he later confesses in the entrance hall, from that moment suspects in her only coldness to everything - and after this scene, the very faintness attributed not "to signs of living passions", as before, but "to a whim of spoiled nerves."

His next scene with Molchalin, which fully describes the character of the latter, confirms Chatsky definitively that Sophia does not love her opponent.

The liar laughed at me! -

he notices and goes to meet new faces.

The comedy between him and Sophia broke off; the burning irritation of jealousy subsided, and the chill of hopelessness smelt into his soul.

He had to leave; but another, lively, lively comedy invades the stage, several new perspectives of Moscow life open at once, which not only oust Chatsky's intrigue from the viewer's memory, but Chatsky himself seems to forget about it and interferes with the crowd. Around him, new faces group and play, each with its own role. This is a ball, with all the Moscow atmosphere, with a number of lively stage sketches in which each group forms its own separate comedy, with a complete outline of the characters who managed to play out in a few words into a finished action.

Aren't the Gorichs playing a complete comedy? This husband, recently still a vigorous and lively person, now lowered, put on, as in a dressing gown, in Moscow life, a gentleman, "a husband-boy, a husband-servant, the ideal of Moscow husbands", according to Chatsky's apt definition, - under the shoe of a sugary, cutesy , secular wife, Moscow lady:

And these six princesses and the granddaughter countess, all this contingent of brides, “who, according to Famusov, know how to dress themselves up with taffeta, marigold and haze”, “sing the top notes and cling to military people”?

This Khlestova, a remnant of the Catherine's age, with a pug, with a little black-haired girl - this princess and Prince Pyotr Ilyich - without a word, but such a talking ruin of the past; Zagoretsky, an obvious swindler, escaping from prison in the best living rooms and paying off with obsequiousness, like dog diapers - and these N.N. - and all their rumors, and all the content that occupies them!

The influx of these faces is so abundant, their portraits are so embossed, that the viewer grows cold to the intrigue, not having time to catch these quick sketches of new faces and listen to their original dialect.

Chatsky is no longer on stage, but before he left, he gave abundant food to that main comedy that he began with Famusov, in the first act, then with Molchalin - that battle with all of Moscow, where he, according to the goals of the author, then arrived.

In brief, even instantaneous meetings with old acquaintances, he managed to arm everyone against himself with caustic remarks and sarcasm. He is already vividly touched by all sorts of trifles - and he gives free rein to the language. He angered the old woman Khlestova, gave some advice to Gorichev inappropriately, abruptly cut off the granddaughter countess and again touched Molchalin.

But the cup overflowed. He leaves the back rooms already completely upset and, according to old friendship, in the crowd again goes to Sofya, hoping at least for simple sympathy. He confides his state of mind to her:

A million torments! —

Breasts from a friendly vice,

he says.

Feet from shuffling, ears from exclamations,

And more than a head from all sorts of trifles!

Here my soul is somehow compressed by grief! -

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

"A million torments!" and "woe!" - that's what he reaped for all that he managed to sow. Until now, he was invincible: his mind mercilessly hit the sore spots of enemies.<…>He felt his strength and spoke confidently. But the struggle wore him down.<…>

He is not only sad, but also bilious, picky. He, like a wounded man, gathers all his strength, makes a challenge to the crowd - and strikes at everyone - but he did not have enough power against a united enemy.

He falls into exaggeration, almost into drunkenness of speech, and confirms in the opinion of the guests the rumor spread by Sophia about his madness.<…>

He has lost control of himself and does not even notice that he himself is putting together a performance at the ball.<…>

He is definitely not himself, starting with the monologue "About the Frenchman from Bordeaux" - and remains so until the end of the play. Only “a million torments” are replenished ahead.

Pushkin, denying Chatsky the mind, probably most of all had in mind the last scene of the 4th act, in the hallway, at the departure. Of course, neither Onegin nor Pechorin, these dandies, would have done what Chatsky did in the hallway. Those were too trained "in the science of tender passion", and Chatsky is different, and, by the way, sincerity and simplicity, and does not know how and does not want to show off. He is not a dandy, not a lion. Here not only his mind betrays him, but also common sense, even simple decency. He did such nonsense!

After getting rid of Repetilov's chatter and hiding in the Swiss waiting for the carriage, he spied on Sophia's meeting with Molchalin and played the role of Othello, having no rights to that. He reproaches her for why she “lured him with hope”, why she didn’t directly say that the past was forgotten. Not a word here is true. She didn't give him any hope. She only did that she left him, barely spoke to him, confessed her indifference, called some old children's romance and hiding in the corners "childhood" and even hinted that "God brought her together with Molchalin."

And he, just because -

...so passionate and so low

There was a spender of tender words, -

in a rage for his own useless humiliation, for self-inflicted deceit voluntarily, he executes everyone, and throws a cruel and unfair word at her:

With you I am proud of my break, -

when there was nothing to break! Finally, he simply comes to swearing, pouring out bile:

For daughter and father

And for a fool's lover,

and boils with rage at everyone, “at the tormentors of the crowd, traitors, clumsy wise men, crafty simpletons, sinister old women,” etc. And he leaves Moscow to look for a “corner for an offended feeling”, pronouncing a merciless judgment and sentence on everything!

If he had one healthy minute, if “a million torments” had not burned him, he would, of course, ask himself the question: “Why and for what have I done all this mess?” And, of course, there would be no answer.

Griboedov is responsible for it, and it was not without reason that the play ended with this catastrophe. In it, not only for Sophia, but also for Famusov and all his guests, Chatsky’s “mind”, sparkling like a ray of light in a whole play, burst out at the end into that thunder at which, according to the proverb, men are baptized.

From the thunder, Sophia was the first to cross herself, remaining until the very appearance of Chatsky, when Molchalin was already crawling at her feet, all the same unconscious Sofya Pavlovna, with the same lie in which her father raised her, in which he lived himself, his whole house and the whole circle . Still not recovering from shame and horror, when the mask fell from Molchalin, she first of all rejoices that “at night she found out that there are no reproachful witnesses in her eyes!”

And there are no witnesses, therefore, everything is hidden and covered, you can forget, marry, perhaps, Skalozub, and look at the past ...

Yes, do not look at all. He endures his moral sense, Liza will not let it slip, Molchalin does not dare to utter a word. And husband? But what kind of Moscow husband, "from his wife's pages", will look back at the past!

This is her morality, and the morality of her father, and the whole circle. Meanwhile, Sofya Pavlovna is not individually immoral: she sins with the sin of ignorance, the blindness in which everyone lived -

Light does not punish delusions,

But secrets are required for them!

This couplet by Pushkin expresses the general meaning of the conditions of morality. Sophia never saw the light from her and never would have seen the light without Chatsky, for lack of a chance.<…>Sofya Pavlovna is not at all as guilty as it seems.

This is a mixture of good instincts with lies, a lively mind with the absence of any hint of ideas and convictions, confusion of concepts, mental and moral blindness - all this does not have the character of personal vices in her, but appears as common features of her circle. In her own, personal physiognomy, something of her own is hiding in the shadows, hot, tender, even dreamy. The rest belongs to education.

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

In a soporific stagnation, in a hopeless sea of ​​lies, most women outside were dominated by conditional morality - and secretly life swarmed, in the absence of healthy and serious interests, in general, of any content, those novels from which the "science of tender passion" was created. Onegins and Pechorins are representatives of a whole class, almost a breed of dexterous gentlemen, jeunes premiers. These advanced personalities in high life - such were in the works of literature, where they occupied a place of honor from the time of chivalry to our time, to Gogol. Pushkin himself, not to mention Lermontov, cherished this outward brilliance, this representativeness du bon ton, the manners of high society, under which lay both “embitterment”, and “yearning laziness” and “interesting boredom”. Pushkin spared Onegin, although he touches upon his idleness and emptiness with a slight irony, but to the smallest detail and with pleasure describes a fashionable suit, toilet knick-knacks, smartness - and that negligence and inattention put on himself, this fatuite, posing, which the dandies flaunted. The spirit of a later time removed the tempting drapery from his hero and all the "cavaliers" like him and determined the true meaning of such gentlemen, driving them from the foreground.

They were the heroes and leaders of these novels, and both sides were trained to marriage, which absorbed all the novels almost without a trace, unless some nervous, sentimental, in a word, fool, or the hero turned out to be such a sincere "crazy" like Chatsky.

But in Sofya Pavlovna, we hasten to make a reservation, that is, in her feelings for Molchalin, there is a lot of sincerity, strongly reminiscent of Tatyana Pushkin. The difference between them is made by the “Moscow imprint”, then glibness, the ability to control oneself, which appeared in Tatiana when she met Onegin after her marriage, and until then she had not been able to lie about love even to the nanny. But Tatyana is a village girl, and Sofya Pavlovna is Moscow, in the then developed way.

Meanwhile, in her love, she is just as ready to betray herself as Tatyana: both, as if in sleepwalking, wander in enthusiasm with childlike simplicity. And Sophia, like Tatyana, begins the affair herself, not finding anything reprehensible in this, she does not even know about it. Sofya is surprised at the laughter of the maid when she tells how she spends the whole night with Molchalin: “Not a free word! And so the whole night passes! "The enemy of insolence, always shy, bashful!" That's what she admires in him! This is ridiculous, but there is some kind of almost grace here - and far from immorality, there is no need for her to let out a word: worse - this is also naivety. The huge difference is not between her and Tatyana, but between Onegin and Molchalin. Sophia's choice, of course, does not recommend her, but Tatyana's choice was also random, even she hardly had anyone to choose from.

Looking deeper into Sophia's character and environment, you see that it was not immorality (but not "God", of course) that "brought her" to Molchalin. First of all, the desire to patronize a loved one, poor, modest, who does not dare to raise his eyes to her - to elevate him to himself, to his circle, to give him family rights. Without a doubt, she smiled in this role to rule over a submissive creature, make him happy and have an eternal slave in him. It’s not her fault that the future “husband-boy, husband-servant – the ideal of Moscow husbands” comes out of this! There was nowhere to stumble upon other ideals in Famusov's house.

In general, it is difficult to treat Sofya Pavlovna not sympathetically: she has strong inclinations of a remarkable nature, a lively mind, passion and feminine gentleness. It is ruined in stuffiness, where not a single ray of light, not a single stream of fresh air penetrated. No wonder Chatsky also loved her. After him, she alone of all this crowd suggests some kind of sad feeling, and in the soul of the reader against her there is not that indifferent laughter with which he parted with other faces.

She, of course, is harder than everyone else, even harder than Chatsky, and she gets her “million torments”.

Chatsky's role is a passive role: it cannot be otherwise. Such is the role of all the 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, the hopelessness of success.<…>

Chatsky's authority was known before as the authority of the mind, wit, of course, knowledge and other things. He already has like-minded people. Skalozub complains that his brother left the service without waiting for the rank, and began to read books. One of the old women grumbles that her nephew, Prince Fyodor, is engaged in chemistry and botany. All that was needed was an explosion, a fight, and it began. Stubborn and hot - in one day in one house, but the consequences of it, as we said above, were reflected in all of Moscow and Russia. Chatsky gave rise to a split, and if he was deceived for his own personal purposes, did not find “the charm of meetings, living participation”, then he himself sprinkled living water on the dead soil - taking with him “a million torments”, this Chatsky crown of thorns - torments from everything: from “ mind”, and even more so from “offended feelings”.<…>

Now, in our time, of course, they would reproach Chatsky for why he put his “offended feeling” above social issues, the common good, etc. and did not stay in Moscow to continue his role of a fighter with lies and prejudices, a role higher and more important than the role of a rejected fiance?

Yes, now! And at that time, for the majority, the concepts of public issues would have been the same as for Repetilov the talk of "About the camera and the jury." Criticism erred a lot in that, in its trial of the famous dead, it left the historical point, ran ahead and hit them with modern weapons. We will not repeat her mistakes - and we will not blame Chatsky for the fact that in his heated speeches addressed to the Famusov guests there is no mention of the common good, when there is already such a split from “search for places, from ranks”, as “engagement in the sciences and arts ”, was considered “robbery and fire”.<…>

He is very positive in his demands and declares them in a ready-made program, worked out not by him, but by the century already begun. With youthful vehemence, he does not drive from the stage everything that has survived, which, according to the laws of reason and justice, as according to natural laws in physical nature, is left to live out its term, which can and should be tolerated. He demands a place and freedom for his age: he asks for business, but does not want to be served and stigmatizes servility and buffoonery. He demands "service to the cause, not to persons", does not mix "fun or tomfoolery with business", like Molchalin - he is weary among the empty, idle crowd of "tormentors, traitors, sinister old women, absurd old men", refusing to bow before their decrepitude authority , chinolyubiya and other things. He is outraged by the ugly manifestations of serfdom, the insane luxury and disgusting customs of “pouring in feasts and extravagance” - phenomena of mental and moral blindness and corruption.

His ideal of “free life” is definitive: it is freedom from all these innumerable chains of slavery that fetter society, and then freedom - “to fix the mind that is hungry for knowledge”, or freely indulge in “arts creative, high and beautiful”, - freedom to “serve or not to serve”, “to live in the village or travel”, not having a reputation for that either as a robber or an incendiary, and – a number of further next similar steps towards freedom – from lack of freedom.<…>

Chatsky is broken by the amount of old strength, inflicting a mortal blow on it with the quality of fresh strength.

He is an eternal denouncer of lies, hiding in the proverb: "one man in the field is not a warrior." No, a warrior, if he is Chatsky, and, moreover, a winner, but an advanced warrior, a skirmisher and always a victim.

Chatsky is inevitable with each change of one century to another. The position of the Chatskys on the social ladder is diverse, but the role and fate are all the same, from major state and political personalities who control the fate of the masses, to a modest share in a close circle.<…>

That is why Griboedov's Chatsky has not yet grown old, and hardly ever will grow old, and with him the whole comedy. And literature will not get out of the magic circle outlined by Griboedov as soon as the artist touches on the struggle of concepts, the change of generations. He will either give a type of extreme, immature advanced personalities, barely hinting at the future, and therefore short-lived, which we have already experienced a lot in life in art, or he will create a modified image of Chatsky, as after Cervantes' Don Quixote and Shakespeare's Hamlet, their endless similarities.

In the honest, heated speeches of these later Chatskys, Griboyedov's motives and words will forever be heard - and if not 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 Griboedov's poems! One could cite a lot of Chatskys - who appeared at the next change of eras and generations - in the struggle for an idea, for a cause, for truth, for success, for a new order, at all levels, in all layers of Russian life and work - high-profile, great deeds and modest office exploits. A fresh legend is kept about many of them, we have seen and known others, and others still continue the struggle. Let's turn to literature. Let us recall not a story, not a comedy, not an artistic phenomenon, but let us take one of the later fighters with an old age, for example, Belinsky. Many of us knew him personally, and now everyone knows him. Listen to his hot improvisations - and the same motives sound in them - and the same tone, as in Griboedovsky Chatsky. And he died in the same way, destroyed by "a million torments", killed by a fever of expectation and not waiting for the fulfillment of his dreams, which now are no longer dreams.

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

And Herzen suffered from "a million torments", perhaps most of all from the torments of the Repetilovs of his own camp, to whom he did not have the courage to say during his lifetime: "Lie, but know the measure!"

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

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

It's not fair. It is impossible to put Chatsky next to Onegin: the strict objectivity of the dramatic form does not allow that breadth and fullness of the brush, like the epic one. If the other faces of comedy are stricter and more sharply defined, then they owe this to the vulgarity and trifles of their natures, which the artist easily exhausts in light sketches. Whereas in the personality of Chatsky, rich and versatile, one dominant side could be boldly taken in the comedy - and Griboyedov managed to hint at many others.<…>

growing (Italian)

First lovers (French).

In high society (English).

Good tone (French).

Folly (French).

V. G. Belinsky (1811-1848) - literary critic.

A. I. Herzen (1812-1870) - writer, philosopher, revolutionary.

INTRODUCTION

1. THE PERSONALITY OF SOFIA AS ASSESSED BY GONCHAROV

2. LOVE CONFLICT IN THE COMEDY "Woe From Wit"

3. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE IMAGE OF SOPHIA FOR THE PLAY

CONCLUSION

LIST OF USED LITERATURE

Extract from the text

This is the evaluation and interpretation of a work of art, when the principles of creativity are discovered and affirmed in one direction or another. It is a kind of literary creativity. In it, as a rule, there is an illumination of the processes taking place in contemporary literature, but it happens that classical works that critics try to comprehend in the spirit of contemporary reality become the object. Therefore, it seems to me, it is obvious that literary criticism is always closely connected with life, struggle in the social world, as well as with philosophical and aesthetic ideas.

The ideas of all three of Goncharov's main works - the novels "Ordinary History", "Oblomov" and "Cliff" - arise in the 40s, at a time when the writer was closest to the democratic negation of the feudal serf system.

Maykov in the journal "Domestic Notes". The study of this topic is especially relevant, since the critical activity of V. Maikov is one of the most original and talented domestic critics, in particular, he had a great influence on the development of the tendencies of the “natural school”, the formation of analysis and synthesis as methods of criticizing literary works and their estimates.

The publication of the novel generated a storm of criticism. Despite disagreements, they spoke about the typical image of Oblomov, about such a social phenomenon as Oblomovism. We are most interested in the assessments given by contemporaries of I.

Foreign researchers also devoted a lot of their work to the work of E. Hemingway. Attention is drawn to such works as: MeyersJ. Hemingway: ABiography. — London: Macmillan, 1985; Mellow J. Hemingway: A Life Without Consequences. — New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1992; Young P. Ernest Hemingway, Minneapolis, 1960; The Hemingway manuscripts: an inventory, University Park - L., 1969; Wagner-Martin L. A Historical Guide to Ernest Hemingway. - New York: Oxford University Press, 2000 and many others.

criticism during the life of the writer. Each new Dreiser novel caused a whole storm and too powerful a public outcry in America, because it was too significant a phenomenon to be ignored. Therefore, Dreiser could never complain about the lack of interest from the critics. But this interest, as a rule, was unfriendly.

List of information sources

1. Bakhtin M.M. Questions of literature and aesthetics. M., 1995.

2. Goncharov I.A. A million torments // Collected works in 7 volumes. T.3. M., 1994.

3. Griboyedov A.S. Woe from the mind. M., 1997.

4. V.A. Zapadov. The function of quotations in the art system "Woe from Wit". M., 1997.

5. Meshcheryakov V.P. A.S.Griboyedov. Literary environment and perception (XIX - early XX century), M, 1999.

6. Piksanov N.K. Creative history of "Woe from Wit". M., 2001.

7. Khrenov N.A. Noble utopia and its festive archetype. M., 1995.

bibliography