Articles about the comedy Woe from Wit. Comedy "Woe from Wit" Literary criticism

After the publication in Russkaya Thalia, critics, already familiar with Woe from Wit from their lists, had the opportunity to widely discuss the comedy on the pages of the press. Among the numerous responses, one should highlight the review of A. S. Pushkin. Pushkin, by his own admission, "enjoyed" reading the comedy and especially noted the accuracy of the language. At the same time, he made a number of fundamental remarks concerning the violation of the plausibility of the characters and the unmotivated comedic intrigue. In a letter to P. A. Vyazemsky, he wrote: “... In the whole comedy there is no plan, no main thought, no truth.

Chatsky is not a smart person at all - but Griboyedov is very smart.” In a letter to A. A. Bestuzhev, Pushkin somewhat softened his assessment, but with regard to Chatsky he remained firm: “In the comedy Woe from Wit, who is the smart character? Answer: Griboyedov. Pushkin perceived "Woe from Wit" in line with the European comedy about the "smart guy". He saw Griboedov as inconsistent in the fact that Chatsky notices Reshetilov's stupidity, and he himself finds himself in the same strange and dubious position: he preaches among those who cannot understand him, and speaks when no one is listening to him. In this case, why is he smarter than Famusov or Reshetilov? Chatsky expresses clever thoughts. Where did he get them if he's not smart? They were told to him by Griboyedov. Consequently, Chatsky is a transmitter of Griboyedov's ideas, a reasoning hero who brings the author's point of view to the audience 1 . As a reasoning hero, Chatsky gets the opportunity to directly address the audience. But then his connection with the actors, whom he does not notice and does not hear, is significantly weakened. It turns out that, having lost such interaction, the hero finds himself in comic, ridiculous situations for this reason.

Of course, Pushkin was well aware that the discrediting of Chatsky was not part of Griboyedov's intention, but unwittingly happened because Griboedov did not completely overcome the rules of classicism dramaturgy. The so-called realism of "Woe from Wit" is still very conditional, although in comedy a decisive step has been taken in a realistic direction, especially in the transfer of the mores and characters of society, in language and verse. The weakness of the embodiment of the idea was that the author was present in the comedy, while in a truly realistic drama he should not reveal himself. The author's thought must flow from the interaction of the characters.

1 Chatsky is connected with Griboyedov by some general feelings: the author of Woe from Wit, just like his hero, experienced a dramatic discord between daydreaming and skepticism; he said about himself that he feels like a persecuted person who is not understood by others, that he dreams of “where to find a corner for solitude. At the same time, Griboedov made tangible attempts to present Chatsky as an independent person, and not as the mouthpiece of the author, endowing the hero with features characteristic of his acquaintances. However, in general, the distance separating Griboedov and Chatsky is not great. So, getting rid of daydreaming and overcoming it is the spiritual path not only of Chatsky, but also of the creator of his image.

In Russian literature, it began already in the first third of the 19th century, when classicism, sentimentalism and romanticism predominantly dominated literature. However, it would be impossible for the author of that period to do without elements of realism at all, because. the main task of realism is to describe the personality from all sides, to analyze life and life.

Realist writers paid much attention to the environment in which the hero lives. The environment is both upbringing, and surrounding people, and financial situation. Therefore, it is quite interesting to evaluate, from the point of view of a comprehensive description of the personality, the comedy of A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit", which in the 19th century was devoted to many critical articles and assessments of writers.

Article A million torments: an overview of the characters

One of the most famous and successful is the article I.A. Goncharova "Million Torment". This article is about the fact that each comedy hero is a tragic figure in his own way, everyone has their own trials.

Chatsky comes to Moscow to meet Sophia, admires her, but he will be disappointed - Sophia has lost interest in him, preferring Molchalin. Chatsky cannot understand this cordial attachment.

But he is also unable to understand that a long-standing childhood tender friendship is not a promise of eternal love, he has no rights to Sophia. Finding her with Molchalin, Chatsky plays the role of Othello, without any reason.

Then Chatsky imprudently comes into conflict with Famusov - they criticize each other's time (the color of time in comedy is especially strong). Full of great ideas and a thirst for action, Chatsky fails to "reason" the slightly outdated morally Famusov, therefore he remains the main suffering figure in comedy. Chatsky's mind turns into a tragedy for everyone around him, but his own actions are primarily driven by irritation and irascibility.

Sophia also has her own "million of torments". Brought up by her father, she is accustomed to living in an environment of light lies "for good", therefore she sees nothing wrong either in her love for Molchalin, or in refusing Chatsky. And when they both rejected her, Sophia is almost ready to marry Skalozub - the last option left for her to have a calm, orderly life. However, despite this, Sophia is a priori a positive character: unlike many, she knows how to dream and imagine, her actions are always sincere.

According to Goncharov, the comedy "Woe from Wit" will remain relevant at all times, since the problems it discusses are eternal. He also believes that staging this comedy on stage is an extremely responsible event, since every little thing plays a huge role in it: the costumes, the scenery, the manner of speech, and the selection of actors.

However, according to Goncharov, the only open question of "Woe from Wit" on stage is the image of Chatsky, which can be discussed and corrected for a long time. For other characters, stable images have long been formed.

Comedy review by other critics

The same opinion: what is the main thing in "Woe from Wit" - characters and social mores, adhered to A.S. Pushkin. According to him, the author turned out to be the most integral personalities Famusov and Skalozub; Sophia, in the opinion of Pushkin, is a somewhat indefinite person.

He considers Chatsky a positive, ardent and noble hero, who, however, addresses the wrong people with his sound and reasonable speeches. According to Pushkin, Chatsky's conflict with Repetilov could turn out to be "funny", but not with Famusov and not with elderly Moscow ladies at the ball.

Noted literary critic of the 19th century V.G. Belinsky emphasizes that the main thing in the comedy "Woe from Wit" is the conflict of generations. He draws attention to the fact that after the publication, the comedy was approved mainly by young people who, together with Chatsky, laughed at the older generation.

This comedy is an evil satire on those echoes of the 18th century that still lived in society. Belinsky also emphasizes that Chatsky's love for Sophia, by and large, is unfounded - after all, both of them do not understand the meaning of each other's life, both ridicule each other's ideals and foundations.

In such an atmosphere of mutual ridicule, there can be no talk of love. According to Belinsky, "Woe from Wit" should not be called a comedy, but a satire, since the characters of the characters and the main idea in it are extremely ambiguous. On the other hand, Chatsky's mockery of the "bygone century" was perfectly successful.

Need help with your studies?

Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov became famous thanks to one work, about which Pushkin said: “His handwritten comedy Woe from Wit produced an indescribable effect and suddenly put him along with our first poets.” Contemporaries said...

The emperor was terribly afraid of the penetration of revolutionary ideas into Russia - the "French infection". He could make promises at the European Diet, but in his homeland, things did not come to real steps. Moreover, domestic politics have adopted repressive...

The comedy "Woe from Wit" was written in 1824. In this work, A. S. Griboyedov recreated a true picture of Russian life in the first quarter of the 19th century: he showed the changes that had taken place in Russian society after the Patriotic War of 1812, reflected the anti-serfdom...

Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" is one of the most famous works of Russian literature. It has not lost its relevance even in our time, two centuries later. The conflict of generations, the relationship between man and society - these problems existed, ...

Famusov Pavel Afanasyevich - Moscow gentleman, "manager in a government house." Sophia's father, friend of Chatsky's father. The events of the play take place in his house. F. - one of the brightest representatives of the "past century." In one of his monologues, F. praises the Moscow...

As in a painting, the background, minor details set off and enhance the main idea of ​​the picture, so in the comedy Woe from Wit, each of the characters in the play performs its own artistic function. Episodic characters set off and complement the features of the main ...

Literary criticism
Goncharov Ivan Alexandrovich
"A million torments" (article by I. A. Goncharov)

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. She is like a hundred-year-old man, around whom everyone, having outlived their time in turn, dies and falls, and he walks, cheerful and fresh, between the graves of old and the cradles of new people. And it never occurs to anyone that someday his turn will come.

All celebrities of the first magnitude, of course, not without reason entered the so-called "temple of immortality." All of them have a lot, while others, like Pushkin, for example, have much more rights to longevity than Griboyedov. They can not be close and put one with the other. Pushkin is huge, fruitful, strong, rich. He is to Russian art what Lomonosov is to the Russian Enlightenment in general. Pushkin occupied his entire era, he himself created another, gave rise to schools of artists - he took everything in his era, except what Griboyedov managed to take and what Pushkin did not agree to.

Despite Pushkin's genius, his foremost heroes, like the heroes of his age, are already turning pale and fading into the past. His brilliant creations, while continuing to serve as models and sources of art, themselves become history. We have studied Onegin, his time and his milieu, weighed, determined the significance of this type, but we no longer find living traces of this personality in the modern century, although the creation of this type will remain indelible in literature. Even the later heroes of the century, for example, Lermontov's Pechorin, representing, like Onegin, their era, however, turn to stone in immobility, like statues on graves. We are not talking about their more or less brilliant types who appeared later, who managed to go to the grave during the life of the authors, leaving behind some rights to literary memory.

Fonvizin's "Undergrowth" was called the immortal comedy, - and thoroughly - her lively, hot time lasted about half a century: this is huge for a work of words. But now there is not a single hint of living life in The Undergrowth, and the comedy, having served its service, has turned into a historical monument.

“Woe from Wit” appeared before Onegin, Pechorin, survived them, passed unharmed through the Gogol period, lived these half a century from the time of its appearance and still lives its imperishable life, will survive many more epochs and everything will not lose its vitality.

Why is this, and what is “Woe from Wit” in general?

Criticism did not move the comedy from the place it once occupied, as if at a loss where to place it. The verbal evaluation outstripped the printed one, just as the play itself was long ahead of the press. But the literate mass actually appreciated it. Immediately realizing its beauty and not finding any shortcomings, she smashed the manuscript to shreds, into verses, half-verses, dissolved all the salt and wisdom of the play in colloquial speech, as if she turned a million into dimes, and so full of Griboedov's sayings conversation that she literally wore out the comedy to satiety .

But the play withstood this test too - and not only did not become vulgar, but seemed to become dearer to readers, found in each of them a patron, critic and friend, like Krylov's fables, which did not lose their literary power, passing from a book into live speech.

Printed criticism has always treated with more or less severity only the stage performance of the play, touching little on the comedy itself or expressing itself in fragmentary, incomplete and contradictory reviews. It was decided once and for all that comedy is an exemplary work - and on that everyone was reconciled.

What is an actor to do when he thinks about his role in this play? To rely on one's own court - there will be no self-esteem, and to listen for forty years to the voice of public opinion - there is no way without getting lost in petty analysis. It remains, from the countless chorus of opinions expressed and expressed, to dwell on some general conclusions, most often repeated - and on them to build your own assessment plan.

Some value 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 engraved in my memory as firmly as kings, jacks and queens in the cards, and everyone had a more or less agreeable concept of all faces, 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, cherish 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 personnel in the roles changes, both judges go to the theater and lively talk rises again about the performance of this or that role and about the roles themselves, as if in a new play.

All these diverse impressions and their own 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 at the same time and 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 picture, it is, no doubt, huge. Her canvas captures a long period of Russian life - from Catherine to Emperor Nicholas. In a group of twenty faces, like a ray of light in a drop of water, all the old Moscow, its drawing, its then spirit, historical moment and customs were reflected. And this with such artistic, objective completeness and certainty, which was given to us only by Pushkin and Gogol.

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. Both 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 not be complete.

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 smoothed out at all; the century did not separate from ours, like a cut off piece: we 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. Sharp features have become obsolete, of course: no Famusov will now invite to jesters and set as an example Maxim Petrovich, at least so positively and clearly Molchalin, even in front of the maid, now quietly confesses those commandments that his father bequeathed to him; such a Skalozub, such a Zagoretsky are impossible even in a distant outback. But as long as there is a desire for honors apart from merit, as long as there are craftsmen 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.

Universal models, of course, always remain, although even they turn into types unrecognizable from temporary changes, so that in place of the old, artists sometimes have to update, after long periods, the main features of morals and human nature in general that were already once in the images, clothe them into new flesh and blood in the spirit of their time. Tartuffe, of course, is an eternal type, Falstaff is an eternal character, but both of them, and many still famous prototypes of passions, vices, etc., like them, disappearing themselves in the fog of antiquity, almost lost their living image and turned into an idea, into a conditional concept, the common name of vice, and for us, they no longer serve as a living lesson, but as a portrait of a historical gallery.

This can be especially attributed to Griboedov's comedy. In it, the local color is too bright, and the designation of the very characters is so strictly outlined and furnished with such a reality of details that universal human features can hardly be distinguished from social positions, ranks, costumes, etc.

As a picture of modern morals, the comedy "Woe from Wit" was partly an anachronism even when it appeared on the Moscow stage in the 1930s. Already Shchepkin, Mochalov, Lvova-Sinetskaya, Lensky, Orlov and Saburov played not from nature, but according to fresh tradition. And then the sharp strokes began to disappear. Chatsky himself thunders against the "past century" when the comedy was written, and it was written between 1815 and 1820.

How to compare and see (he says),
The current century and the past century,
Fresh legend, but hard to believe -

And about his time, he expresses it like this:

Now everyone breathes more freely -

I scolded your age
Ruthlessly -

He says to Famusov.

Consequently, now only a little of the local color remains: a passion for ranks, cringing, emptiness. But with some reforms, ranks can move away, servility to the degree of servility of the molachalinsky is already hiding and now in the dark, and the poetry of the fruit has given way to a strict and rational direction in military affairs.

But still, there are still some living traces, and they still prevent the picture from turning into a finished historical bas-relief. This future is still far ahead of her.

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 some spirit, in his castle, and it crumbles there maliciously. with fur. It is impossible to imagine that another, more natural, simpler, more taken from life speech could ever appear. Prose and verse merged here into something inseparable, then, it seems, so that it would be easier to 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, how the main meaning of the comedy was given, how everything was given together, as if poured out at once, and everything formed an extraordinary comedy - both in the narrow sense, like a stage play, and in the broad sense, like a comedy. life. Nothing else but a comedy, it could not have been.

Leaving 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 - we turn first to comedy as a stage play, then as to 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 - living, continuous, from the first appearance of Chatsky on stage to his last word: “Carriage for me, carriage!”

This is a subtle, intelligent, elegant and passionate comedy, in a narrow, technical sense, true in small psychological details, but elusive for the viewer, because it is disguised by the typical faces of the characters, ingenious drawing, the color of the place, era, the beauty of the language, all the 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 in the hallway does the viewer seem to wake up at an unexpected catastrophe that has broken out between the main characters, 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 everything around them had decayed. They were even "embittered", carried within themselves "dissatisfaction" and wandered about like shadows "with yearning 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 pretend to be indifferent to them in front of the stupid Maxim Maksimovich: this indifference was considered the quintessence of Don Juanism. Both languished, suffocated in their 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 well,” 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 relations with ministers and dispersed - it is not difficult to guess why:

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."

Neither Onegin nor Pechorin would have acted so stupidly in general, especially in the matter of love and matchmaking. But on the other hand, they have already turned pale and turned into stone statues for us, and Chatsky remains and will always remain alive for this "stupidity" of his.

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 that connects all the parts and faces of the comedy with each other. Chatsky runs in to Sofya, straight from the road carriage, without stopping by his room, passionately kisses her hand, looks into her eyes, rejoices at the date, hoping to find an answer to his former feeling, but 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 does he try 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 ensued between her and Chatsky, the most lively action, a comedy in the strict sense, in which two persons take a close part - Molchalin and Lisa.

Every step, 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 absent-mindedly answers his question: where have you been? - "Is it up to me now?" - he says, and, promising to come again, he leaves, saying from what absorbs him:

How beautiful Sofya Pavlovna has become!

On the second visit, he starts talking again about Sofya Pavlovna: “Isn't she sick? Has it happened to her sadness? - and to such an extent is seized by the feeling warmed up by her blossoming beauty, and her coldness towards him, that when asked by his father if he wants to marry her, he absent-mindedly asks: “What do you need!” And then indifferently, only out of decency, he adds:

Let me get married, what would you tell me?

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

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

He came to Moscow and to Famusov, obviously, for Sophia and for Sophia alone. He does not care about others: even now he is annoyed that he found only Famusov instead of her. "How could she not be here?" - he asks a question, recalling his former youthful love, which in him “neither distance has cooled, nor entertainment, nor a change of place,” and is tormented by her coldness.

He is bored and talking with Famusov, and only a positive challenge to Famusov to an argument brings Chatsky out of his concentration:

That's it, you are all proud;

Famusov says and then draws such a crude and ugly picture of servility that Chatsky could not stand it and, in turn, drew a parallel of the “past” century with the “present” century.

But his irritation is still restrained: he seems to be ashamed of himself that he took it into his head to cut Famusov off from his concepts; he hurries to insert that “he is not talking about his uncle,” whom Famusov cited as an example, and even invites the latter to scold his age, and finally, he tries his best to hush up the conversation, seeing how Famusov plugged his ears, reassures him, almost apologizes.

To prolong disputes is not my desire, -

He says. He is ready to go back into himself. But he is awakened by Famusov's unexpected allusion to the rumor about Skalozub's matchmaking:

It’s as if he is marrying Sofyushka ... etc.

Chatsky pricked up his ears.

How fussing, what a rush!
"And Sophia? Is there really no groom here? -

He says and although then he adds:

Ah - that tell love the end,

Who will go away for three years! -

But he himself does not yet believe this, following the example of all lovers, until this love axiom has played out over him to the end.

Famusov confirms his hint about Skalozub's marriage, imposing on the latter the thought of "a general's wife", and almost clearly calls for a 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 crescendo 1, and he intervened in the conversation, casually so far, and then, annoyed by Famusov’s awkward praise of his mind, etc., raises his tone and resolves with a sharp monologue: “Who are the judges?” and so on. Here another struggle, important and serious, a whole battle is already underway. 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 glove at 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 the Famusovs 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 natural succession of generations in the animal world. Famusov wants to be an “ace”: “to eat on silver and gold, ride in a train, all in orders, be rich and see children rich, in ranks, in orders and with a key” - and so on without end, and all this is just for that that he signs the papers without reading and being afraid of one thing - "so that a lot of them do not accumulate."

Chatsky rushes to "a free life", "to study science and art" and demands "service to the cause, not to persons", etc. Whose side is the victory on? Comedy gives Chatsky only "a million torments" and, apparently, leaves Famusov and his brethren in the same position 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, like an epidemic, swept 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.

Sofya'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:

Confusion, fainting, haste, anger! fright!
(on the occasion of the fall from Molchalin's horse)
All this can be felt
When you lose your only friend,

He says and leaves in great agitation, in the throes of suspicion of two rivals.

In the third act, he gets to the ball before anyone else in order to “force 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". It 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 is already weakening 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 Sophia when she rushed away with a new arrow fired at Molchalin. This is not pretense, but a concession, with which he wants to beg for something that cannot be begged for - love when it is not there. In his speech, one can already hear a pleading tone, gentle reproaches, complaints:

But does he have that passion, that feeling, that ardor...
So that, besides you, he has the whole world
Was it dust and vanity?
So that every beat of the heart
Love accelerated to you ... -

He says, and finally:

To be more indifferent to me to lead the loss,
As a person - you, who grew up with you -
As your friend, as your brother,
Let me make sure...

These are already tears. He touches the serious strings of feeling:

From madness I can beware,
I'll go further away to catch a cold, get cold ... -

He concludes. 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 noble and sober, as Chatsky expressed it, it is impossible more subtle and graceful