Sergey SHTILMAN

"Woe from Wit" - A PIECE OF MONOLOGUES

And they hear, they don't want to understand
Lisa's response from the 1st Apparition of Act I

Oh! deafness is a major vice.
Replica of the Countess Grandmother from the 20th Apparition, Act III

What about the dialogues in the comedy A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit" is not all right, and many of Chatsky's monologues are addressed to himself, are essentially rhetorical, was immediately noticed.

Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin in a letter to A.A. Bestuzhev, written at the end of January 1825, shortly after the appearance of the comedy in the lists, wrote: “Everything that he says (Chatsky. - S.Sh.), 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 to cast pearls in front of the Repetilovs and the like.

Pushkin is not alone in this perception of Chatsky's monologues. N.P. wrote about the same (or almost about this) at different times. Ogaryov and A.A. Grigoriev, I.A. Goncharov and M.M. Bakhtin. Each of them, in one way or another, noted that communication between the heroes of a comedy is largely difficult, sometimes turning into a conversation of the deaf.

We even have the right to speak more about disunity, not about communication between heroes. However, it would be wrong to completely and completely connect this circumstance with one, albeit the main character of the comedy - Chatsky. In our opinion, the problem is much more complete and general and concerns almost all the stage heroes of Woe from Wit. After all, that's what comedy is for, so that its characters communicate with each other in a rather strange, comical way.

1

The very title of the play, expressed in an ironic formula - "woe from wit" - gives an idea of ​​the nature of the conflict between the main character of the comedy and the rest of the characters. As Griboedov himself wrote in a letter to P.A. Katenin on February 14, 1825: “... in my comedy there are 25 fools for one sane person; and this man, of course, is in conflict with the society around him, no one understands him, no one wants to forgive him, why is he a little higher than the others ... ”

In addition, since “Woe from Wit” is a public comedy with social conflict, and Chatsky is the ideologist of the “current century”, then, like all ideologists in comedies, he speaks monologue. Therefore, initially much of what Chatsky says, to one degree or another loosely connected with lines from other characters. If we take into account the fact that the numerous monologues of Chatsky (and the lengthy statements of Famusov and Repetilov should also be added to his monologues) occupy a very significant place in the text of the comedy, then, purely arithmetically, almost half of the play is essentially not dialogic!

A few words should be said about what is dialog and monologue. In the "Literary Encyclopedia of Terms and Concepts" edited by A.N. Nikolyukin about what dialog, we read: “D. - a conversation between two or more persons in a drama or prose work. On our own behalf, we add that in poetic works one can find monologues and dialogues, for example, in the novel by A.S. Pushkin "Eugene Onegin".

Oh monologue The “Concise Dictionary of Literary Terms” says the following: “M. (from Greek monos - one and logos - word) - a detailed statement of one person, unrelated (highlighted by me. - S.Sh.) with replicas of other persons” .

It also draws attention to what is already poster The motive of misunderstanding (misunderstanding), “deafness” and “muteness” of some heroes arises in the play. This, of course, refers to the “speaking names” (surnames) of such characters as Prince and Princess Tugoukhovsky and their six daughters, Alexei Stepanovich Molchalin, as well as Repetilov, a character who senselessly repeats other people's words, parodies Chatsky, profanes his ideas.

In addition, two more names of comedy characters are indirectly connected with the same motives: Skalozub and Famusova. Indeed, the inadequacy of the reactions of Colonel Skalozub to the remarks of almost all the characters makes it difficult for the dialogue between him and other heroes of the play.

If, in addition, the name of the “Moscow ace” Famusov is “leaded” from the Latin “fama” - “rumor” (and not from the English “famous” - “famous”), then the list of heroes with surnames “talking” about problems in communication, will increase by one more name. It is easy to calculate that there are twelve such heroes, that is, half of ALL the stage characters of the play!

Even more curious is that in the very first scene of the comedy, as if by the way it sounds:

Hey! Sofia Pavlovna, trouble.
Your conversation went during the night;
You deaf? (highlighted by me. - S.Sh.) -
Alex Stepanoch!

It is here, in the very first minute of the stage action, that the motive arises. deafness heroes. By the way, a little later, in the same phenomenon, Lisa says: "AND hear, do not want to understand. So another motive arises, which can be characterized as follows: listen but don't hear (or don't want to hear).

So, the scene in which one of the characters (Liza) at first speaks as if to herself (with the audience), and only then tries to attract the attention of Sofia and Molchalin, the play itself begins and its first act ends, the second ends and the third begins comedy action. In fairness, it must be said that there are relatively few such episodes where the hero is on stage alone for some time in Woe from Wit. The most notable of them is the 3rd appearance of Act IV, when Chatsky, waiting for his carriage in the front hall of the Famusov house, breaks out in a monologue: “Well, the day has passed, and with him // All the ghosts, all the smoke and smoke ...” Regarding him, P. Weil and A. Genis wrote in the book “Native Speech”: “Who uttered these terrible hopeless words, these confused lines - one of the most touching and lyrical in Russian poetry? All the same - Alexander Andreyich Chatsky - Russian Hamlet. Yes, here is another episode from the 10th phenomenon of the IV act, when Chatsky finds out that all the guests of Famusov consider him crazy. It was at this moment that his words sounded: “What is this? did I hear with my ears!..” There are several more episodes in the play in which this or that hero remains alone on the stage for several moments.

However, there is also plenty of “loneliness together” in the crowd of Famusov’s guests in the play. And there are enough “conversations of the deaf with the dumb”.

Three scenes are most indicative in the light of the problem we are considering - Chatsky's conversations with Famusov in the 2nd phenomenon of the II act, with Sophia in the 1st phenomenon of the III act and with Molchalin in the 3rd phenomenon of the III act. Let's analyze them one by one.

2

I phenomenon 2nd act II - Famusov's conversation with Chatsky - without much exaggeration can be called a scene from the "theatre of the deaf".

As we remember, Chatsky, leaving Famusov's house at the end of the first act, promised him:

In one hour
I will appear, I will not forget the slightest detail;
You first, then you tell everywhere.
(In the door)
How good!

Here with this “How good!” he “in an hour” will reappear in Famusov’s office.

Chatsky

You have become somewhat unhappy;
Tell me why? Is my arrival at the wrong time?
Sofya Pavlovna what
Did sadness happen?
There is vanity in your face, in your movements.

Famusov

Oh! father, found a riddle,
I'm not cheerful! .. In my years
You can't squat on me!

Chatsky

Nobody invites you
I just asked two words
About Sofya Pavlovna: perhaps she is unwell?

Famusov, who begins to get angry after this remark by Chatsky, can be understood: “Ugh, God forgive me! Five thousand times / Says the same thing! // That Sofya Pavlovna in the world is not more beautiful, // That Sofya Pavlovna is sick. // Tell me, did you like her? // Sprayed the light; don't you want to get married?"

The “Moscow ace” expected from his guest stories that are traditional for such cases, since, as usual, he, a “native Russian”, is much more interested in foreign affairs than his own, Russian ones. And his impatience and the fact that he is angry are quite natural. The dialogue is already hanging by a thread. And at this very moment, Chatsky answers Famusov’s last question - does he, Chatsky, want to get married - with the question: “What do you need?”

We agree that this question of Alexander Andreevich is at least tactless. And although I.A. Goncharov in his article "A Million of Torments" writes that Chatsky asks him "in absent-mindedness", in the text of the play There are no copyright notes on this. After that, “What do you need?” last opportunity for full communication, in the full sense dialogue will eventually be lost. In the words of Famusov, irony, even sarcasm, begins to sound clearly: “It would not be bad to ask me, / After all, I am somewhat akin to her; // At least from time immemorial // They didn't call Father for nothing.

The continuation of this scene can only be described as the ultimate narrowing of the already thin thread of dialogue, which was initially still possible.

On the conditions of Famusov (given in the form of advice), under which Chatsky can at least to some extent claim the hand of his daughter: most importantly, go and serve, ”Chatsky also answers not quite logically:“ I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to serve.

It is, of course, the ideas of “civil society”, which Chatsky professes and preaches, order the nobleman to serve his state, but not sovereign, cause, but not persons. Ideas are quite progressive. But after all, Pavel Afanasyevich spoke to his younger interlocutor completely about other. In Famusov's understanding, serving means service your immediate supervisor, serve to him, to be useful to him, and for Chatsky, service is a high service their country, their people.

Famusov's first advice can be understood as follows: if Chatsky is really going to be his son-in-law, he must ensure that what, where, to whom and how He speaks. And the point is not at all that for a long tongue he can be sent to Siberia. Times in Famusov's Moscow were still "vegetarian" then. But in the society of the Famusovs, Khlestovs, Tugoukhovskys and Skalozubs, liberal ideas are not in honor. Therefore, the future husband of Sophia should be able to keep his mouth shut, “not to be blissful”. Otherwise, high-society salons will be closed forever for both him and his wife.

Regarding the second piece of advice - “Do not mismanage the estate, brother” - one can also say that Sophia's father is absolutely right in his own way. And his advice is worth a lot: Chatsky has either 300 or 400 souls. Of course, he is not poor. But he will not be able to support Sophia, accustomed to dresses, balls and jewelry, accustomed to comfort and splendor, especially if he “manages” his estates “by mistake”, for example, from abroad, trusting it the very management of the elders and clerks.

So Chatsky, a nobleman of an average hand, of course, is obliged to take into account what on a girl of what circle he is going to get married.

And the last advice of Famusov - “A main , go and serve ”- no less intelligent and worldly fair. 300-400 souls of serfs are good as starting capital, but this capital must be developed and multiplied in every possible way. To stand on a par with Famusov, you need to go to serve. This, according to Famusov, is the most real opportunity for Chatsky to receive a rank and material benefits. After all, Pavel Afanasyevich himself serves not at all because he is poor.

As you can see, Chatsky ignored all three tips of the “Moscow ace”.

And about the fact that in those days (but only in those?) “serve” and “serve” meant almost the same thing ... Well, here Chatsky, of course, is right, sadly.

Is it any wonder that this - the 2nd phenomenon of the second act of the play - ends in the same traditions of the "theatre of the deaf":

Chatsky

Yes, now laughter frightens and keeps shame in check;
It is not for nothing that sovereigns favor them sparingly.

Famusov

Oh! My God! he's carbonari!

Chatsky

No, today the world is not like that.

Famusov

A dangerous person!

Chatsky

Everyone breathes freely
And not in a hurry to fit into the regiment of jesters.

Famusov

As he says! and speaks as he writes!

Chatsky

Have patrons yawn at the ceiling,
Appear to be silent, to shuffle, to dine,
Substitute a chair, raise a handkerchief.

Famusov

He wants to preach!

Chatsky

Who travels, who lives in the village...

Famusov

Yes, he does not recognize the authorities!

This whole long scene suspiciously resembles an opera aria with the participation of two not very gifted singers, each of whom hears only himself and sings only his own. This kind of “opera singing” eventually leads to the fact that the audience (listeners) in the theater stop making sense of this “verbal mess”. The scene ends with Famusov simply plugging his ears. This is more of a farce than a comedy! In any case, in the 3rd scene of Act II, until the appearance of Colonel Skalozub, Famusov deliberately DOES NOT LISTEN to his interlocutor, but only shouts: “I don’t listen, I’m on trial! on trial!”, “Huh? riot? Well, I’m waiting for sodom.”

The reason for the misunderstanding between the characters is more than understandable: Chatsky preaches something that makes it impossible for them, the Famusovs, to live comfortably. For Pavel Afanasyevich, Chatsky's “false ideas” are a sharp knife, and the peremptory attitude with which a young, progressive-minded nobleman proclaims them simply offends the “Moscow ace”.

It is after this scene, as you know, that Famusov asks Chatsky to keep quiet, not to “agitate” Colonel Skalozub. And following this request, Chatsky’s famous monologue “Who are the judges? ..” sounds rather inappropriately, at the end of which Famusov simply LEAVES away from sin (RUNS), leaving both his guests, violating the elementary rules of decency.

3

The conversation with Sophia (1st scene of act III) is no less a vivid illustration of the fact that the degree of misunderstanding between the characters does not decrease in the course of the play, but only increases. This “dialogue” is characterized by at least the fact that in it the characters say their lines six times (!!!) to the side or inwardly: Chatsky four times and Sofia twice. Moreover, Chatsky himself (the only time in the play!) intentionally talking to a childhood friend disingenuously:“For once in my life I will pretend”.

At the very beginning of this phenomenon on a straight line, Chatsky’s question was asked head-on: “Of course, they weren’t looking for me?” - Sophia answers as an experienced diplomat, and not as an ingenuous, sincere girl: "I was not looking for you." Such an answer would have sounded much more logical with another question, for example, this: “Were you looking for me?” We agree that the amount (meaning) changes significantly from a change in the places of terms (words).

So, this scene in which Sophia confesses to Chatsky in love with Molchalin(which in itself is more than strange), is characterized by the fact that error in the answers to the questions asked is already very significant from the very beginning. Further, it will only increase. Chatsky will continue to ask head-on questions: “Who do you love?” To be honest, the questions are tactless. Even a long-standing acquaintance with Famusov's daughter does not give Chatsky the right to them. And Sophia will still do her best to evade direct answers. When asked who she loves, Sofia Pavlovna - again in the best traditions of diplomats - will answer: “Ah! My God! the whole world." There is no need to quote their entire conversation, but a small fragment is still worth quoting:

Chatsky

Who is more dear to you?

Sofia

There are many relatives...

Chatsky

All over me?

Sofia

Chatsky

And what do I want when everything is decided?
I climb into the noose, but it's funny to her.

Sofia

Do you want to know the truth two words?
The slightest strangeness in whom is barely visible,
Your joy is not modest,
Your sharpness is ready at once,
And you yourself...

Chatsky

I myself? isn't it funny?

This “cute conversation” is like a duel of swordsmen, in which one (Chatsky) gets excited, attacks very artlessly, in a boyish way. The other (Sofia) calmly and skillfully reflects all blows, sometimes turning into an attack. In general, this model of Sophia's behavior towards Chatsky is very typical for the play, including the scene of Chatsky's appearance in Famusov's house at the beginning of the comedy. Sophia even then reacted in a very peculiar way to the satirical characteristics given by Chatsky to all or almost all of her relatives and friends: “I wish I could set you up with my aunt, // To count all my acquaintances.” And in general, her answers to Chatsky in the 7th phenomenon of the first act did not look much like a dialogue. Sophia rather expressed her attitude to Chatsky's manner of communicating, and not to WHAT exactly he said. Not without reason, therefore, in literary criticism, the idea of different behavior Chatsky, and not only about his dissent.

The dialogue in these comedy scenes, according to M.M. Bakhtin, almost at the “zero level”, there is almost no semantic contact between the replicas. In any case, Sofia Famusova ignored Chatsky's sincere and very detailed (40 lines!) Explanation of love for her, without answering him in any way. This is more than understandable. Even in the comedy exposition, speaking with Lisa about Chatsky, Sofia spoke about the feelings of her former lover as follows: “Then again pretended to be(highlighted by me. - S.Sh.) in love, // demanding and distressed!!.” Note also the two exclamation marks at the end of this phrase. Sophia generally wanted to avoid continuing the conversation in this scene of Act III: “And I, so as not to interfere, will avoid here.” Chatsky simply forcibly kept her. There is a very remarkable note in the text of the play: “(holding her)”. Moreover, Chatsky tells her: "Wait a minute."

We agree that at such conditions further conversation for Sofia, and for Chatsky, is simply painful, and a declaration of love is more than inappropriate. If we add to this the fact that Sofia, at the very beginning of this scene, tried to end the conversation with Chatsky, mainly because of his next tactlessness: “I am strange, but who is not strange? // The one who looks like all fools; // Molchalin, for example...” - it becomes even more clear why the main character of the play does everything to avoid this scene, painful for both of them.

By the way, in the course of the play, Chatsky repeatedly “walked” about the mental and oratorical abilities of the first hero-lover, and three times in the presence of Sophia. The first two times Sofia forgave him, after the third - the most merciless review of Molchalin - she began to take revenge, spreading the rumor about Chatsky's madness. Thus (not very respectable and moral) she defended herself against the merciless, sharp tongue of her too exacting admirer.

And the ending of this phenomenon, where Sofia paints the virtues of Molchalin, and Chatsky over and over again throws to the side replicas (“She does not respect him”, “She does not put a penny on him”, “Naughty, she does not love him”) already directly precedes the “talk of the deaf” - in 18–20 phenomena of the third act of the play.

Purely psychologically, everything in this scene - the conversation between Chatsky and Sofia - is more than understandable. Sofia loves Mochalin and does not believe in the sincerity of Chatsky's feelings. He, in turn, cannot even in his thoughts admit that a smart girl who knows how to feel deeply (“It was not for nothing that Chatsky loved her” - I.A. Goncharov) is able to prefer him, Chatsky, such a nonentity as Molchalin. It seems to Alexander Andreevich that he knows something what, per what kind human qualities can and should be loved. This point of view has long been formed by him, and he is not going to change it. Approaching relations between people with such a yardstick, Chatsky is doomed to make mistakes over and over again.

In the scene discussed above, it has long been customary to find manifestations of the “love blindness” of the characters. But it seems to us that in this case it is much more correct to speak of the “love deafness” of both Sophia and Chatsky.

4

Not in the best way Chatsky had a conversation with Famusov's secretary Molchalin in the 3rd apparition of Act III. Even before it began, Alexander Andreevich made the most disappointing conclusions about a native of provincial Tver:

Molchalin used to be so stupid!..
Wretched creature! (III, 1)
That I'm dumber than Molchalin? Where is he, by the way?
Have you broken the silence of the press yet? (I, 7)

And one of the statements about the current beloved Sophia is already just on the verge of decency:

Why not a husband! There is only little mind in him,
But to have children
Who lacked intelligence? (III, 3)

It is impossible with SUCH an initial approach to the interlocutor to fully communicate with him. Condescending to the “wretchedness” of Secretary Famusov, Chatsky asks Molchalin “leading” questions: “Well, what is your way of life? // Without grief today? without sadness?

Well, what can answer this “wretched creature”? And at first, Molchalin seems to justify Chatsky's expectations. His humble answer with the word-erik: “Still, sir” is also “on tiptoe”. But the further course of the dialogue refutes the opinion of the protagonist of the play about the “nearness” of Secretary Famusov. He reacts lively and absolutely calmly to Chatsky’s irritated remarks, laconically and simply answers the most “tricky” questions of his interlocutor. So, to Chatsky's remark about moderation and accuracy - “Wonderful two! and they are worthy of all of us” - Molchalin very astutely and witty asks: “You weren’t given ranks, were you unsuccessful in your service?”

Let us pay attention to the fact that Molchalin's remarks are many times shorter than Chatsky's phrases. But this does not mean that they are stupid and primitive. Molchalin really knows how to speak briefly and clearly. Apparently, the years of work as Famusov's secretary, efficient and concise reports did their job, shaped the tone and style of his speech.

Alexander Andreevich in this conversation is more and more ironic and angry, and Alexei Stepanovich tries to be correct and courteous. Jealousy obscures Chatsky's eyes, he is caustic and bilious, does not want (or cannot) hear his interlocutor. But Molchalin (as if by the way) gives Chatsky advice no less valuable (if he was going to make a career) than those that Famusov gave him a little earlier: “You should go to Tatyana Yuryevna at least once.” Already he, collegiate assessor Molchalin, knows on whom "success in the service" depends in Moscow. And the further continuation of the conversation testifies to the same thing: Chatsky does not hear his interlocutor. So, after the advice to go to an influential Moscow lady, their conversation develops as follows:

Chatsky

Molchalin

Yes: often
We find patronage where we do not aim.

Chatsky

I go to women, but not for this.

Chatsky's answer is somewhat bad form. The mockery is heard in it too clearly. As for the patrons, Chatsky really did not have to look for them in this life. Famusov did this for him, taking Chatsky “from the veil” “for some incomprehensible plans” to these same patrons “to bow”. Alexander Andreevich did not have to seek the location of the ministers either. He already knew them, was a man of their circle. Apparently, that is why the “break” with them so easily happened. It is difficult for Chatsky to understand an ignoble young man, a “rootless” native of the provinces, who “crawls” to ranks and wealth and is so surprised at the “break with the ministers”. Therefore, the ending of this phenomenon of the play testifies to a complete misunderstanding between the characters:

Molchalin

I dare not speak my mind.

Chatsky

Why is it so secret?

Molchalin

In my summers must not dare
Have your own opinion.

Chatsky

Forgive me, we are not guys,
Why are other people's opinions only holy?

Molchalin

After all, you have to depend on others.

Chatsky

Why is it necessary?

Molchalin

We are small in ranks.

Molchalin is forced to explain to his interlocutor, in general, elementary truths. Chatsky, a hereditary nobleman by right of birth, a representative of the privileged class, does not understand why Molchalin is wary of being frank (“he is silent”, including “when he is scolded”). But Famusov's secretary, who received the rank of collegiate assessor - the eighth in the Table of Ranks, which gave him and his heirs the right to hereditary nobility - who achieved three awards, went to both his nobility and his "awards" is not at all easy and simple. Yes, he fawned over influential ladies like Khlestova and Tatyana Yurievna, fawned and kowtowed before Foma Fomich, worked day and night in Famusov’s house, doing all the “paper” work for the “manager in a state-owned place”. But Molchalin knows perfectly well WHY he came to Moscow, HOW one can achieve ranks here, “And take awards, and have fun”, before WHOM you need to fawn and please, before whom - “bend over backwards”.

The world is what it is, no matter how Chatsky denounces it. And people, unfortunately, are just that. They will not change on purpose for the clever Chatsky, a man of impeccable honesty, a man of high morals.

The ending of the 3rd phenomenon of the third act of the play testifies to the final break between these two heroes. Chatsky restores Molchalin against himself, makes secretary Famusov his personal enemy. Not without reason, therefore, Griboyedov accompanies the last phrase in the conversation between Chatsky and Molchalin with a very significant remark - “(almost loud)”. The phrase is this:

With such feelings, with such a soul
Love!.. The deceiver laughed at me!

What, by definition, should be addressed only to the audience or said “to himself”, Chatsky deliberately pronounces loudly so that the interlocutor will surely hear him. This is already an open CHALLENGE, even an insult.

5

One wonders how quickly Chatsky - in less than one day - was able to quarrel with all members of the Famus society. Not only that, between him and the other main characters of the play - Famusov, Sofia and Molchalin (although the latter, according to critics, formally does not belong to this "society") - relations are irreparably damaged. On the same day, Chatsky was able to turn against himself Khlestova (“I said something - he began to laugh”), and the old maid Countess granddaughter (“Whom should I marry?”), And Natalya Dmitrievna Gorich, whom he advised to live in the village .

Alexander Andreevich's short communication with almost all the characters in the play ends with their complete break. Is it only Colonel Skalozub, who did not understand anything from Chatsky's speech “Who are the judges? ..”, except that he also dislikes the “guards” and “guardsmen”, listens favorably to his new acquaintance. Yes, here's another Platon Mikhailovich Gorich, according to old friendship, is more or less disposed to Chatsky.

But it would be wrong to reduce the motive of “deafness”, “non-hearing” by the heroes of each other only to the fact that Chatsky does not hear all of them. And Chatsky himself, by and large, is not heard, neither Famusov, nor Molchalin, nor Sofia, nor the countess granddaughter, nor Mrs. Gorich, nor other heroes of the play are able to understand.

However, the most curious thing is that other characters of "Woe from Wit" to the same extent unable to hear each other. So, Sergei Sergeyevich Skalozub, a deliberately reduced character, “a constellation of maneuvers and mazurkas”, “a hoarse, strangled, bassoon”, by and large does not really understand Famusov. At least, his anecdotal remarks like “The distance is huge”, “I don’t know, sir, it’s my fault; // We didn’t serve together with her”, “I’m ashamed, as an honest officer” do not at all contribute to the development of their dialogue with Famusov. By the way, Famusov also tries not to notice the stupidest phrases of a possible contender for his daughter's hand.

All the same Skalozub does not really listen to Repetilov, and he - to his official acquaintance. It is not for nothing that the point of view has long been established in literary criticism that Repetilov profanes the ideas of Chatsky, parodies him.

In some scenes, especially in the first act of the play, Famusov does not want to listen to Molchalin and Sofya when they try to explain the reason for the appearance of Alexei Stepanovich in Sofia Pavlovna's living room at such an inopportune hour. Yes, and Molchalin has something to hide, so he rather evades communication with the boss than maintains a conversation with him.

It is easy to see that Lizanka is not disposed to listen to Molchalin, especially at the moment when he declares his love to her, and Famusov tries to ignore flirting. At the end of the play, Sofia does not want to listen to Molchalin's explanations about his "tenderness" with Lisa. First, Sophia tells him to shut up, and then she kicks him out.

In general, this motive - the motive of "closing the mouth" - is one of the most common in the play. “Silence! Terrible age! Don't know what to start!" - Famusov shouts at Liza in the 4th phenomenon of the first act. “Hey, tie a knot in memory, // I asked you to be silent, a small service,” Famusov tells Chatsky in the 5th apparition of Act II. This list could easily be continued.

A kind of culmination of the motive of deafness are downright farcical scenes (18-20 phenomena of the III act).

First, the garrulous granddaughter of the Countess tells the Countess' grandmother, who is hard of hearing, about the gossip about Chatsky's madness, then the Countess's grandmother tries to find out the cause of the commotion in Famusov's house at Zagoretsky's. Let us pay attention to the fact that of the two “interlocutors” in these two phenomena (18th and 19th), only one countess grandmother is deaf. And in Apparition 20, two deaf people are already “talking” to each other, while the deaf Countess grandmother speaks Russian not without an accent, and the other “interlocutor”, Prince Tugoukhovsky, is not only deaf, but almost dumb:

Countess grandmother

Prince, prince! oh this prince P alam, myself
a little t breathes!
Prince, have you heard?

prince

Countess grandmother

He doesn't hear anything!
Though, mo w no, you saw the police chief here P yl?

prince

Countess grandmother

In prison, prince, who grabbed Chatsky?

prince

Countess grandmother

A cleaver to him and a satchel,
Sol t and you! Is it a joke! changed the law!

prince

Countess grandmother

Yes!.. in P he is a usurmanah!
Oh! damned Voltairian!
What? a? deaf, my father; get your ro w OK.
Oh! deafness on big vice.

Therefore, there is nothing surprising in the fact that the third act of the comedy ends with Chatsky's monologue “There is an insignificant meeting in that room ...”. About this monologue, P. Weil and A. Genis ironically remarked: “... a person full of genuine depth and strength should not now and then psychopathically break out into long speeches, constantly pun and make fun of objects that are not worthy of attention” .

This scene is in fact the most striking example of the “theatre of the deaf” in the play: Chatsky bursts into angry philippics, standing in the middle of the hall, while “everyone is waltzing around with the greatest zeal. The old men wandered off to the card tables.” Next to this scene, one can only put Chatsky’s last monologue “I won’t come to my senses ... I’m guilty ...” and Famusov’s very characteristic reaction to it:

Well? can't you see that he's gone mad?
Say seriously:
Insane! what the hell is he talking about here!
Worshiper! father-in-law! and about Moscow so menacingly!

6

Everything in this piercing, one-of-a-kind play is amazingly accurately spelled out: what is the “communication” between the characters, and what is the state of Russian society in the first quarter of the 19th century, and what was it like in then (always!) Russia too sincere, frank and naive Chatsky.

However, in fairness it must be said that in the play A.S. Griboyedov there are episodes (and there are many of them) where the characters vividly communicate with each other. We have the right to talk about dialogue in the scenes in which Sofia Famusova is talking animatedly with Lisa. Discussing the merits and demerits of Sophia's admirers, these characters of the play react very directly and vividly to each other's remarks. And Chatsky communicates at ease with his old acquaintance - Platon Mikhailovich Gorich. However, this does not prevent the latter from dutifully agreeing with the gossip launched by Sofia Pavlovna: “Well, that’s all, you can’t believe it, // But I doubt it.” This is also, whatever one may say, if not betrayal, then certainly apostasy.

So the princesses Tugoukhovskaya “coo” very nicely, talking about their own, haberdashery, ladies’ (well, why not chat):

1st princess

What a beautiful style!

2nd princess

What folds!

Brief dictionary of literary terms. M., 1985. S. 88.

Weil P., Genis A. Native speech. Lessons in belles lettres. M., 1991. S. 42.

The role of Chatsky's monologues in A. S. Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit"

The comedy "Woe from Wit" was written by A. S. Griboedov after the Patriotic War of 1812, that is, at a time when deep socio-political changes were taking place in the life of Russia.

With his work, Griboyedov responded to the most pressing issues of our time, such as serfdom, individual freedom and independence in thought, the state of enlightenment and education, careerism and servility, admiration for foreign culture. The ideological meaning of "Woe from Wit" consists in the opposition of two ways of life and worldviews: the old, feudal ("the past century") and the new, progressive ("the present century").

"Current Century" presents in the comedy Chatsky, who is the ideologist of new views, He expresses his attitude to everything that happens in society. That is why the protagonist's monologues occupy such an important place in the play. They reveal Chatsky's attitude to the main problems of contemporary society. His monologues also carry a great plot load: they appear in the play at turning points in the development of the conflict.

We already meet the first monologue in the exposition. It begins with the words “Well, what about your father? ..”, and in it Chatsky characterizes Moscow morals. He notes with bitterness that during his absence in Moscow, nothing has changed significantly. And here, for the first time, he starts talking about the system of education adopted in society. The children of Russian nobles are brought up by foreign tutors "more in number, at a cheaper price." The younger generation is growing up in the belief that "without the Germans there is no salvation for us." Chatsky mockingly and at the same time bitterly remarks that in order to pass for an educated person in Moscow, one must speak "a mixture of French and Nizhny Novgorod languages."

The second monologue ("And sure enough, the world began to grow stupid...") is connected with the beginning of the conflict, and it is dedicated to the opposition of "the present century" and "the past century". This monologue is sustained in a calm, slightly ironic tone, which is psychologically justified. Chatsky loves Famusov's daughter and does not want to annoy her father. But Chatsky does not want to agree with Famusov, who offends his pride, his views of a free-thinking person. Moreover, this monologue was caused by the moralizing of Sophia's father, his advice on how to make a career, using the experience of the unforgettable uncle Maxim Petrovich.

Chatsky categorically disagrees with this. The whole accusatory meaning of the words of the protagonist lies in the fact that he is trying to explain to Famusov the difference between the two historical periods past and present. The Catherine era, which causes such tenderness in Famusov, is defined by Chatsky as "the age of humility and fear." Chatsky believes that now other times have come when there are no people who want to “make people laugh, bravely sacrifice the back of their heads.” He sincerely hopes that the techniques and methods of the nobles of Catherine's time are a thing of the past, and the new century appreciates people who are truly honest and devoted to the cause, and not to individuals:

Although there are hunters to scoff everywhere,
Yes, now laughter scares and keeps shame in check,
It is not for nothing that the sovereigns favor them a little.

The third monologue "Who are the judges?" - the most famous and vivid monologue of the protagonist. It occurs at the time of the development of the conflict in the play. It is in this monologue that Chatsky's views receive the fullest coverage. Here the hero clearly expresses his anti-serfdom views, which subsequently made it possible for critics to bring Chatsky closer to the Decembrists. How different is the tone of this passionate monologue from the peaceful lines of the previous one! Citing specific examples of the manifestation of the monstrous attitude of the nobles towards the serfs, Chatsky is horrified by the lawlessness that reigns in Russia:

That Nestor of noble villains,
Crowd surrounded by servants;

Zealous, they are in the hours of wine and fight
And honor and life saved him more than once: suddenly
He traded three greyhounds for them!!!

Another master sells his serf actors:

But the debtors did not agree to the postponement:
Cupids and Zephyrs all
Sold out individually!

“Where, show us, fathers of the fatherland, / Whom should we take as models?” - bitterly asks the main character. In this monologue, one can hear the genuine pain of a person who knows the value of the “fathers of the fatherland”, who are “rich in robbery” and are protected from judgment by the entire existing system: connections, bribes, acquaintances, position. The new man cannot, according to the hero, come to terms with the existing slavish position of the "intelligent, vigorous people." And how can one come to terms with the fact that the defenders of the country, the heroes of the war of 1812, the gentlemen have the right to exchange or sell. Chatsky raises the question of whether serfdom should exist in Russia.

Hero Griboedov is also outraged that such "strict connoisseurs and judges" persecute everything freedom-loving, free and protect only the ugly and unprincipled. In this monologue of the hero, the voice of the author himself is heard, expressing his innermost thoughts. And, after listening to Chatsky's passionate monologue, any sane person must inevitably come to the conclusion that such a state of affairs cannot exist in a civilized country.

With the words "In that room, an insignificant meeting ..." begins another monologue of Chatsky. It marks the climax and denouement of the conflict. Answering Sophia’s question “Tell me, what makes you so angry?” Chatsky, as usual, gets carried away and does not notice that no one is listening to him: everyone is dancing or playing cards. Chatsky speaks into the void, but in this monologue he touches on an important issue. He is outraged by the "Frenchman from Bordeaux" as an example of the admiration of Russian nobles for everything foreign. With fear and tears, he went to Russia, and then he was delighted and felt like an important person, not having met there "neither the sound of a Russian, nor a Russian face." Chatsky is offended by the fact that the Russian language, national customs and culture should be placed much lower than foreign. He ironically proposes to borrow from the Chinese "the wise ... ignorance of foreigners." And continues:

Will we ever be resurrected from the foreign power of fashion?
So that our smart, cheerful people
Although the language did not consider us Germans,

The last monologue falls on the denouement of the plot. Chatsky says here that he will never be able to come to terms with the mores and orders of Famus' Moscow. He is not surprised that this society of people, terribly afraid of everything new and advanced, declares him insane:

You are right: he will come out of the fire unharmed,
Who will have time to spend the day with you,
Breathe the air alone
And his mind will survive.

So, Chatsky left the Famusovs' house insulted and disappointed. And yet he is not perceived as a defeated person, a loser, because he managed to remain faithful to his ideals, to remain himself.

Monologues help us understand not only the character of the protagonist. They tell us about the orders that existed in Russia at that time, about the hopes and aspirations of the progressive people of that time. They are important both in the semantic and structural construction of the play. Thinking readers and viewers should definitely think about the main problems of Russian society in the times of Griboedov, many of which are still relevant today.

A.S. Griboedov in the story "Woe from Wit" raises the essence of the conflict of the century, which was brewing in society at that time. Following the world reforms in Russia, a crisis was brewing on the basis of conservative views on the way of life.

More and more appeared in the society of dissidents. Not only did the people talk about the need to restructure the statutes and revise the rights of citizens, but also in high society there were heated disputes between representatives of the nobility. High society, sustained in centuries-old traditions, did not want to restructure its way of life. However, there were supporters

Chatsky's monologue reflects his reflection on the mores of society. He is offended by the primitiveness of the nobility, based on monetary well-being. He does not understand why simple human principles are so alien to most members of the nobility. Chatsky realizes that further pressure on the people is impossible and changes are required.

He boldly expresses himself about the military. In his opinion, the uniform is no longer the personification of honor and dignity, now it covers "reason poverty." Chatsky often asks the question: “Who are the judges?” This expression

It has become a household word and reflects the equality of people and their right to commit the most condemned by society deeds.

Famusov in his monologue does not ask questions about human values ​​and problems of society. He is interested in primitive needs. First of all, he is concerned about food and the schedule of dinners. He considers the stomach to be the main vital organ. Such as Chatsky, Famusov condemns and calls "wise men." He strongly disagrees with their views. Famusov recalls everything that earlier life was calmer at court, no one spoke out as boldly as Chatsky.

Family ties play a significant role for him in society. Of course, the status of a person determines his interest in him. When communicating, Famusov always asks about the pedigree, he considers useful contacts to be a way of promotion. With contempt, he treats the stumbled old servant. He has no respect for age, he is only content with the humiliation of a person of lower status.

In the monologues of these two characters, completely different views on life can be clearly seen. The explicit conflict, in fact, was the conflict of the entire Russian society of that time. This disagreement has been brewing for a long time. Conservative views, such as Famusov, for a long time hindered the implementation of reforms and the introduction of new statutes not only for the way of life, but also for the country's economy.

The difference in the views of representatives of different classes is quite understandable, but the conflict of opinions of people of the nobility spoke volumes. Educated representatives of the Russian intelligentsia did not agree on what Russia should be like after the reforms in Europe.

Chatsky's monologue "And who are the judges? .." from the comedy "" (1824) by the Russian writer and diplomat (1795 - 1829) is given in act 2, phenomenon 5 of the comedy. Chatsky responds to criticism of Famusov.

Chatsky's monologue is the most famous episode from the comedy "". The first phrase of the monologue "" became winged.

Monologue of Chatsky (act. 2 yavl. 5)

And who are the judges? - For the antiquity of years

To a free life their enmity is irreconcilable,

Judgments draw from forgotten newspapers

The times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of the Crimea;

Always ready to churn

They all sing the same song

Without noticing about yourself:

What is older is worse.

Where? show us, fathers of the fatherland,

Which should we take as samples?

Are not these rich in robbery?

They found protection from court in friends, in kinship,

Magnificent building chambers,

Where they overflow in feasts and extravagance,

And where foreign clients will not resurrect

The meanest traits of the past life.

Yes, and who in Moscow did not clamp their mouths

Lunches, dinners and dances?

Isn't it the one you are to whom I am still from the cradle,

For some incomprehensible intentions,

Did they take the child to bow?

Made all of Moscow marvel at their beauty!

But the debtors did not agree to the postponement:

Cupids and Zephyrs all

Sold out singly!!!

Here are those who lived to gray hair!

That's who we should respect in the wilderness!

Here are our strict connoisseurs and judges!

Now let one of us

Of the young people, there is: the enemy of quest,

Not demanding either places or promotions,

In the sciences, he will stick the mind, hungry for knowledge;

Or in his soul God himself will excite the heat

To creative arts, lofty and beautiful,—

They immediately: robbery! fire!

And they will be known as a dreamer! dangerous!! —

Uniform! one uniform! he is in their former life

Once sheltered, embroidered and beautiful,

Their weak-heartedness, reason poverty;

And we follow them on a happy journey!

And in wives, daughters to the uniform the same passion!

Have I renounced tenderness to him for a long time?!

Now I can’t fall into this childishness;

But then who would not be attracted to everyone?

When from the guard, others from the court

Came here for a while:

Women shouted: hurrah!

And they threw caps into the air!

Notes

1) Alexander Andreevich Chatsky- the protagonist of the story. A young nobleman, the son of Famusov's late friend Andrei Ilyich Chatsky. Chatsky and Sofia Famusova used to love each other.

2) Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov- Moscow nobleman of the middle hand. Serves as a manager in a state-owned place. He was married, but his wife died shortly after giving birth, leaving his only daughter Sophia to his wife. Famusov was friends with the late father of Chatsky.

3) The times of the Ochakovskys and the conquest of the Crimea- the fortress and the city of Ochakov was taken by Russian troops on December 6 (17), 1788 in the Russian-Turkish war of 1787-1791. The general command of the assault was carried out by Prince Potemkin, the army was commanded by the commander