In accordance with the hierarchy of literary genres established by the aesthetics of classicism, comedy was considered low genre, but Griboyedov, like Gogol later, did not agree with this. He rethought the purpose of comedy, and this new understanding of the genre became a real innovation in the literature of that time. At the same time, Griboyedov, creating “Woe from Wit,” adhered to the laws of classicism dramaturgy, for example, the rule of three unities (they are also called Aristotelian unities, based on Aristotle’s “Poetics”): unity of action (the play must have one main plot), unity of place (the action is not transferred in space) and unity of time (the action of the play cannot cover more than 24 hours).
However, Griboedov still manages to make a breakthrough: without changing the form and preserving in the comedy the elements of classic vaudeville, so beloved by the public at that time ( love triangle, a misunderstood hero-lover, a more successful rival, a deceived father of a family, etc.), he nevertheless abandons classicism and creates a socio-psychological work. This is a new realistic dramaturgy, and it is based on the task of depicting reality in all its diversity. Griboyedov’s merit can be called attracting the viewer’s attention to everyday life and everyday life, to real problems today, which is achieved through a masterful depiction of Moscow life with great attention to detail.
Traditionally, a comedy consisted of five acts, but “Woe from Wit” is a comedy in four acts. Griboyedov deliberately made the ending of his comedy open: the vice is not punished, main character did not become the winner, but left the scene after a stormy scene. Such a composition is, of course, more characteristic of the realistic tradition than the canons of the era of classicism, which in Once again characterizes Griboyedov the playwright as an innovator.
There are two principles in the play - social and psychological. The social principle is manifested in the description of the mores of society, the interests of people and Moscow life, and the psychologism of the work is associated with the typical principle. In Griboedov's heroes one can discern universal human traits and certain types. If in the era of classicism the heroes had to act as carriers of a certain flaw, then in “Woe from Wit” they are complex and contradictory personalities. This polysemy reveals the psychologism of the work.
Another important innovation of Griboyedov in the comedy genre can be called a conscious rejection of the theory of three calms put forward by Lomonosov, within the framework of which comedy was classified as a low style, which, accordingly, is characterized by a certain vocabulary. Griboyedov uses the entire range of the Russian language in his work, introducing colloquial speech(“As I live, I write freely and freely,” from a letter to P. A. Katenin on February 14, 1825). Each of the heroes of “Woe from Wit” has its own speech characteristics: Chatsky’s speech is the speech of an educated person, Lisa’s speech abounds folk wisdom, Famusov’s speech is the speech of a narrow-minded tradesman, etc. Imitating lively conversational speech, Griboedov skillfully built dialogues, and the monologues in the work served as an element of the psychological principle, since they contributed to the self-disclosure of the characters. All this was atypical for plays of that time, and this can also be called the innovation of Griboyedov the playwright.
To summarize, we can say that Griboyedov abandoned many prescriptions and created a work based on innovative discoveries. "Woe from Wit" has features of three literary trends- outgoing classicism, replacing it with romanticism and emerging realism.
Searched here:
- how the innovation of the playwright Griboyedov manifested itself
The plot and composition of the comedy. A. S. Griboyedov worked a lot as a playwright - both alone and in collaboration with many well-known writers of that time, but for readers he remained for the rest of his life the author of one comedy, the brightest and most cheerful - “Woe from Wit”. This work is unusual for its time: it combines the features of classicism that is fading into the past and realism that is gaining its rights. What remains from classicism in the play is strict adherence to the “three unities”: place, time and action. The events take place in Famusov's house over the course of one day; there are no characters or episodes that do not relate to the main conflict of the comedy. The characters of some of the heroes can be considered classic: the good-natured “father of the family” Famusov, the quick-tongued maid Liza, the faithful friend of her mistress.
But in the plot of the comedy, features are already appearing that distinguish it from the usual classical canons. First of all, it has two storylines that are closely interconnected: the social conflict of Chatsky and Famusov society and personal relationships between Chatsky and Sophia. Both lines are connected so closely that all compositional moments: beginning, climax, denouement - they exactly coincide.
In a comedy, the situation in Famusov’s house before Chatsky’s arrival can be called exposition—events occurring before the action begins. From Lisa’s words, from her conversations with Famusov and Sophia, we learn about the dates of Molchalin and Sophia, about Famusov’s desire to marry his daughter to Skalozub, that Chatsky was formerly Sophia’s friend, was brought up in this house, but then left to travel for three I haven’t written a single line in a year. It is clear that Sophia is offended by his departure: “Oh, if someone loves someone, why look for the brains and travel so far!” And probably, in revenge for Chatsky who left, she chose Molchalin - modest, agreeing with her in everything, the complete opposite of the obstinate Chatsky. At the same time, Sophia does not at all share the opinion of her father, who considers Skalozub the best groom for his daughter: “He hasn’t uttered a smart word in his life - I don’t care what’s for him, what’s in the water.”
But the plot of the comedy lies in the arrival of the main character. Only with his appearance do both storylines begin to develop. Chatsky is hot, impetuous, all in motion, from his first remark: “It’s barely light and you’re already on your feet!” And I’m at your feet” - and to the last: “Carriage for me, carriage!” He immediately draws attention to Sophia’s coldness and tries to understand the reason for such inattention: who is the hero of the novel now? Listing all his old acquaintances and asking about them, he gives each an apt, caustic characterization, and Sophia finds it amusing to listen to him until he just as caustically makes fun of Molchalin. Sophia feels insulted and begins to avoid Chatsky, trying not to reveal her feelings for Molchalin. This is how the hero’s personal drama begins. In parallel with it, a social conflict is developing: after all, Chatsky boldly and passionately expresses his views on the structure of society, on serfdom, the need to serve the state. This scares Famusov, Molchalin cannot accept this, Skalozub does not understand this, and, finally, with this Chatsky alienates all the guests in Famusov’s house. The ball scene is the culmination of both storylines. The offended Sophia, taking advantage of an accidental slip of the tongue, convinces Mr. N that Chatsky is “out of his mind,” he conveys the news to Mr. D, and there the gossip grows like a snowball, enriched with more and more new details. The guests, whom Chatsky inadvertently turned against himself, joyfully slander, looking for the reason for his madness: either it was hereditary, or he drank a lot, or from “learning.” And when, during one monologue, Chatsky looks around him, he sees that no one is listening to him - “everyone is twirling in the waltz with the greatest zeal.” The ostentatious zeal of the dancers and the loneliness of the hero - this is the climax of the play, highest point development of action for both storylines.
The decoupling also arrives simultaneously. When the guests are leaving, Chatsky's carriage is missing for a long time, and he accidentally witnesses a conversation between the guests about his madness, and then a meeting between Sophia and Molchalin, and hears a conversation between Molchalin and Lisa. Sophia also hears this conversation, learning the truth about Molchalin’s true attitude towards her. For her, this is a cruel blow, but Chatsky at this moment does not think about the girl’s feelings. He doesn’t even think about the need to be careful; the main thing for him is that he learned: “Here, finally, is the solution to the riddle! Here I am sacrificed to whom!” Therefore, it is not surprising that Molchalin managed to quietly disappear, and Famusov and the servants, attracted by the noise, find Chatsky with Sophia and consider him the hero of the scandal. And here the conflict is finally resolved: Famusov lets slip that it was Sophia who called him crazy. The hero is used to being condemned in Famus society, but the fact that Sophia treats him the same way is too hard for him: “So I still owe you this fiction? “Having suffered a crushing defeat both in the social circle and in love, he is in a hurry to leave. This is the ending of the comedy. However, it should be noted that Griboedov leaves the ending open and open-ended. After all, Chatsky left without changing his convictions, without doubting them for a minute. Society will also not change its views on life and main life values, which means that the conflict has not been resolved, it will continue in the future.
A special feature of the comedy is also the vivid and imaginative speech characteristics of the characters. For each of the characters, speech serves as a means of creating an individual character: for the modest Molchalin, who does not attract attention to himself, for the limited Skalozub, for the not very educated but confident old woman Khlestova, or the French-speaking fashionista of Countess Khryumina, the granddaughter.
In the speech of the heroes, there are often well-aimed, witty phrases that have become catchphrases: “Evil tongues are worse than a pistol,” “Happy people don’t watch the clock,” “Who are the judges?”, “The legend is fresh, but hard to believe.”
Griboedov also uses “speaking” surnames traditional for Russian comedy for his characters: Molchalin, Skalozub, Famusov (from the Latin fama - fame, rumor), Repetilov (from the Latin repeto - repeat).
And finally, a significant role in comedy is played by the so-called off-stage characters - heroes who do not participate in the action, but are mentioned along the way. Some of them are like-minded people of Chatsky, but the majority still cannot be called his supporters, they are his same opponents, the “tormenting crowd” that prevails in secular society.
These are the main features of the plot and composition of the comedy “Woe from Wit”; these are the artistic and linguistic means that helped the author achieve his main goal - to make his work unforgettable for readers.
The comedy “Woe from Wit,” written by A. S. Griboedov at the beginning of the 19th century, is still relevant for today’s Russia. In this work, the author reveals in all depth the vices that have struck Russian society the beginning of the last century. However, reading this work, we also find in it heroes of the present day.
Alexander Sergeevich Griboedov is the creator of the brilliant comedy “Woe from Wit,” which scattered into hundreds of “catchphrases” and expressions, becoming like a collection of aphorisms. The author originally called the comedy “Woe to Wit,” meaning main reason human ill-being in contemporary society. Chatsky -- clever man, ardent and passionate nature, looking for real work, but not finding a use for it; a mind that wants to serve “the cause, not individuals”...
But in the society where he is forced to live, the opposite is valued - pride, or rather, arrogance, reverence for the faces of only the rich, and it does not matter how well-being was achieved.
Here everyone envyes not their intelligence, but their luck and rank; not merits to the fatherland - the main thing is: you need to be “at the feeding trough”, “be with the key yourself and deliver the key to your son.”
Some kind of “very sophisticated” sense of self-esteem, if it is valued in money. This is a corrupt society, everything here is bought and sold, a price is determined for everything, this bargaining is only covered up with beautiful and lofty phrases, but the essence is the same. When there is a person who calls everything by its proper name, who wants to be sincere and unselfish, who values science, friendship, love, then he will instantly be dubbed crazy.
The comedy of Alexander Sergeevich Griboedov is a complex synthesis of three literary methods, a combination, on the one hand, of their individual features, and on the other, a holistic panorama of Russian life early XIX century.
That is why the play by A.S. Griboyedov’s “Woe from Wit” remains relevant in our time.
To better understand the ideological and artistic content of “Woe from Wit” and the socio-political issues of the comedy, let’s remember characteristics historical era reflected in the play.
There are certain difficulties with dating Woe from Wit, primarily due to the fact that the author did not leave precise instructions about the beginning of work on the play.
Researchers call 1816, 1818, and 1821. The only documented time is when the work was completed: 1824.
Griboyedov dreamed “ prophetic dream", the following dialogue occurred in the dream:
“What do you want? - You know it yourself. - When should it be ready? “Definitely in a year.” This event was the impetus for active work on comedy.
Griboyedov was personally acquainted with Grand Duke Nikolai Pavlovich, with the Governor General of St. Petersburg Miloradovich, with Minister Lansky, and with other prominent dignitaries. However, the playwright was unable to publish the comedy or stage it on stage.
There was not a cultured noble family that did not have a list or copy of the comedy "Woe from Wit." This manuscript, containing many erasures, from which the lists that were scattered throughout the country were compiled, has also been preserved and is called the “Gandrovsky Manuscript.”
Unexpectedly, luck smiled on Griboyedov: Bulgarin, who was friendly towards him, decided to publish the theatrical almanac “Russian Waist for 1825.” At the end of 1824, the almanac was published and contained the comedy “Woe from Wit” (in incomplete form).
Traces of editing were preserved in the manuscript, which Griboedov, leaving for Persia in 1828, gave to Bulgarin. There is an inscription on it: “I entrust my grief to Bulgarin. Faithful friend of Griboyedov. June 5, 1828"
During Griboedov's lifetime, the play was well known, but it was known only in handwritten copies, since it was not published in full and was not staged in the theater. The text of the comedy, which is known to modern readers and viewers, was compiled by the literary scholar N.K. Piksanov based on an in-depth study of numerous author’s manuscripts.
In the comedy A.S. Griboedov’s “Woe from Wit”, the problem of the mind is one of the key ones. This, in fact, is evidenced by the name. Therefore, this problem should be considered, perhaps, the very first, when talking about comedy, its themes and figurative system.
The word “mind” was used quite often above. But at first it is not entirely clear what the author and his characters mean by this concept; it is necessary to specify it within the framework of the comedy. And indeed, speaking of the fact that Chatsky is smart, we remember the stupid, from his point of view, Maxim Petrovich, Uncle Famusov, and the words of his nephew: “Huh? what do you think? In our opinion, he’s smart.” In this regard, based on other images of the work (Molchalin, Sophia and others), we can conclude that Griboedov considered two types of mind: “intellectuality” and “adaptability,” also called the “everyday” mind, which is often akin to stupidity.
So, “Woe from Wit,” despite the complexity of the problem, gives us hope for “enlightenment at the end of the tunnel,” so to speak, in the person of such smart and highly educated people as Chatsky. And Famus society looks something deathly pale and dying in its attempts to resist this.
Ideological meaning comedy lies in the opposition of two social forces, ways of life, worldviews: the old, serfdom, and the new, progressive; in exposing everything that was backward and proclaiming the advanced ideas of that time. The struggle of the “present century” with the “past century” is Chatsky’s struggle, advanced person of his time, and the backward Famus society. Representatives of the Moscow nobility are deprived of any civic thoughts and interests. They see the meaning of life, first of all, in enrichment; they are careerists and envious people. They are in power and occupy a high social position.
Satirically denouncing the local and bureaucratic nobility, the entire feudal-serf system, A.S. Griboyedov clearly saw the positive social forces of his era, the emergence and growth of new, progressive aspirations and ideas.
In the comedy, the conflict ends with the general recognition of Chatsky as crazy, and the love drama ends with the exposure of the love affair led by Molchalin. At the end of the play, Chatsky feels abandoned by everyone, and his feeling of alienation from the society to which he once belonged intensifies. Denouement love drama influences the main conflict: Chatsky leaves all contradictions unresolved and leaves Moscow. In a clash with Famusov’s society, Chatsky is defeated, but, losing, he remains undefeated, since he understands the need to fight the “past century,” its norms, ideals, and life position.
Depicting in the comedy “Woe from Wit” the socio-political struggle between the conservative and progressive camps, social characters, morals and way of life in Moscow, Griboyedov reproduces the situation of the entire country. “Woe from Wit” is a mirror of feudal-serf Russia with its social contradictions, the struggle of the outgoing world and the new one, called to win.
The comedy "Woe from Wit" is at the intersection of various artistic aesthetics. Classicist tendencies are combined in it with elements of romanticism and realism. Similar synthesis artistic models is also found in Western European drama. The originality of Griboedov's artistic experience lies in the specificity of the conflict of the work, in the development of images, in the semantics of the title.
The very score of the character’s behavior illustrated the ideas of the Decembrists, who believed that it was necessary to express progressive views everywhere: both at the ball and in the noble assembly. The social character, the publicity of the hero's monologues, the subversive pathos of his social position were read from the image of disagreement contained in the surname: Chatsky is a smoker, expressing seditious ideas.
The thesis-theme included in the title can be extended to all characters, and is illustrated by the existential forms of their self-realization. Category of mind, so popular in XVIII literature century, is rethought by Griboedov in the context of changed ethical and aesthetic priorities and issues relevant to the beginning of the 19th century. The comedy contrasts two types of “reasonable” behavior: the first is of a purely protective nature; the second involves the destruction of archaic dogmas.
Formally, the author resolves the conflict situation in favor of Famus society, but the philosophical correctness of the ideological position belongs to Chatsky. Such a denouement demonstrates the triumph of a personified idea over a world subordinated to the dictates of outdated morality.
The realistic nature of comedy lies in creating a special art world, in which each hero experiences his own “woe from the mind.” Famusov is depicted as a noble gentleman, to whom all of Moscow comes, but at the end of the play he is afraid of becoming a universal laughing stock and the second meaning of his surname (from the Latin fama - “rumor”) is revealed in the character’s remark: “Ah! My God! What will Princess Marya Alekseevna say? Sophia's character is set in accordance with the images of positive heroines of previous literature, but in comedy her wisdom extends to the idealization of an unborn lover and the desire to correspond to those romantic ideals which she learned from French books.
The plot of the comedy reflects life in Famusov's house. Each guest represents a certain type of behavior, elevated by the author to the level of sociocultural generalization. Repetilov embodies the idea of profanation of high ideals.
Griboedov's innovation also lies in the creation of a new genre for Russian literature. “Woe from Wit” can be classified as a type of love-domestic comedy, but dramatic pathos, permeating the conflict, does not allow us to limit the genre nature of the work by indicating the experiences of the main character and the misunderstanding of him by the surrounding society. The presence of two intrigues destroys the usual classicist structure, known from Moliere’s comedies, and introduces parallel storylines into Griboedov’s work. Composition elements dramatic conflict- love-everyday and socio-political - coincide in the beginning and end. The culmination of the socio-political intrigue is Chatsky’s monologue, in which the hero attacks the servile attitude of Famus society towards everything foreign.
What is the ideological and stylistic originality comedy? Let us turn, first of all, to the conflict. Against the backdrop of traditional classical dramas, vaudevilles, and Shakhovsky's caustic comedies, the conflict in Griboyedov's comedy is distinguished by its psychological and philosophical novelty and depth.
The originality of the conflict dictates the originality of the genre. Household comedy, comedy of manners, satire - all these definitions are clearly not enough to define the genre of “Woe from Wit”. If you wish, you can find farcical elements in comedy, which, in general, were not an innovation in those days. For example, replicas of Skalozub, the princess, the appearance of Repetilov. In Griboyedov's play, all this is uniquely combined with the romantic sublimity of Chatsky. But this is not a tragedy and not romantic drama for reading.
Distrust of life takes its revenge, and the development of both personal and social intrigues leads the smartest Chatsky to disaster and disappointment in life.
Thus, we can call Griboyedov’s work philosophical drama, the main conflict of which is the conflict between living life and our abstract concepts about it.
Considering genre originality play, one cannot help but refer to its stylistic features. Griboyedov's innovative play combines features of classicism and realism. In creating the play, Griboyedov developed a special, new poetics. “As I live, so I write, freely and freely,” says Griboedov in a letter to Katenin.
Take, for example, brand new speech characteristics heroes. The language in which the heroes of the comedy communicate contributes to their individualization and at the same time typification. “A mixture of French with Nizhny Novgorod”, the saturation of colloquial elements of the language in which Famusov’s society communicates, clearly shows us with whom we are dealing.
An almost onomatopoeic depiction of the speech of secular young ladies (for example: Natalya Dmitrievna’s “satin turlure”), the clear, dry speech of Skalozub, the apt, biting words of Khlestova, the aphoristic statement of Chatsky - all this allows us to agree with the words of Pushkin: “... I don’t care about poetry I say: half will become proverbs.” Let's remember just a few of them: “Blessed is he who believes, he is warm in the world”, “an intelligent person cannot help but be a rogue”, “nowadays they love the dumb”, “ happy hours do not observe", " gossips scarier than a pistol” and many, many others.
For one hundred and fifty years it has been interpreted by criticism “ immortal comedy» Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov. It would seem that back in the 19th century everything was said about “Woe About Wit”. The images of the heroes are examined from all sides, the thought and pathos are interpreted to suit every taste. The whole flower of Russian literature and criticism of all directions spoke about “Woe from Wit” - from Belinsky to Apollo Grigoriev, from Pushkin to Dostoevsky. The range of assessments was so wide that Chatsky appeared either as a pathological clever man, or as a pathological fool, or as a pure Westerner, or as a Slavophile.
Blok called “Woe from Wit” a work “unsurpassed, unique in world literature, unsolved to the end, symbolic in the true sense of the word...” This is an assessment of an artist whose scale and whose influence on Russian culture of the 20th century are enormous and whose references to comedy in his own creativity are so frank, gives the right and obliges us to carefully read the familiar text of “Woe from Wit” again and again - this is the key to interpreting the meaning of many subsequent literary works- and look in this text for new answers to pressing questions of Russian history.
A.S. Griboyedov initially called the comedy “Woe to Wit,” indicating the main reason for the ill-being of a person in his contemporary society. Chatsky is an intelligent person, an ardent and passionate nature, looking for real work, but not finding a use for himself; the mind that wants to serve “the cause, not the persons”... But in the society where he is forced to live, the opposite is valued - pride, or rather, arrogance, reverence for the faces of only the rich, and it does not matter how well-being was achieved.
Here everyone envyes not their intelligence, but their luck and rank; The main thing is not merits to the fatherland: you must be “at the feeding trough”, “be with the key yourself and deliver the key to your son.”
Some kind of “very sophisticated” sense of self-esteem, if it is valued in money. This is a corrupt society, everything here is bought and sold, a price is determined for everything, this bargaining is only covered up with beautiful and lofty phrases, but the essence is the same. When there is a person who calls everything by its proper name, who wants to be sincere and unselfish, who values science, friendship, love, then he will instantly be dubbed crazy.
The comedy of Alexander Sergeevich Griboedov is a complex synthesis of three literary methods, a combination, on the one hand, of their individual features, and on the other, a holistic panorama of Russian life at the beginning of the 19th century.
Griboedov considered two types of mind: “intelligence” and “adaptability,” also called the “everyday” mind, which is often akin to stupidity.
The ideological meaning of comedy lies in the opposition of two social forces, ways of life, worldviews: the old, serfdom, and the new, progressive; in exposing everything that was backward and proclaiming the advanced ideas of that time. The struggle of the “present century” with the “past century” is the struggle of Chatsky, a leading man of his time, and the backward Famus society. Representatives of the Moscow nobility are deprived of any civic thoughts and interests. They see the meaning of life, first of all, in enrichment; they are careerists and envious people. They are in power and occupy a high social position.
Depicting in the comedy “Woe from Wit” the socio-political struggle between the conservative and progressive camps, social characters, morals and way of life in Moscow, Griboyedov reproduces the situation of the entire country. “Woe from Wit” is a mirror of feudal-serf Russia with its social contradictions, the struggle of the passing world and the new one, called to win.
The comedy "Woe from Wit" is at the intersection of various artistic aesthetics. Classicist tendencies are combined in it with elements of romanticism and realism.
The realistic nature of comedy lies in the creation of a special artistic world in which each hero experiences his own “woe from the mind.” Famusov is depicted as a noble gentleman, to whom all of Moscow comes, but at the end of the play he is afraid of becoming a universal laughing stock and the second meaning of his surname (from the Latin fama - “rumor”) is revealed in the character’s remark: “Ah! My God! What will Princess Marya Alekseevna say? Sophia's character is set in accordance with the images of positive heroines of previous literature, but in the comedy her wisdom extends to the idealization of an unborn lover and the desire to live up to the romantic ideals that she comprehended from French books.
The plot of the comedy reflects life in Famusov's house. Each guest represents a certain type of behavior, elevated by the author to the level of sociocultural generalization. Repetilov embodies the idea of profanation of high ideals.
Griboedov's innovation also lies in the creation of a new genre for Russian literature.
“Woe from Wit” can be classified as a type of love comedy, but the dramatic pathos that permeates the conflict does not allow us to limit the genre nature of the work by indicating the experiences of the protagonist and his misunderstanding by the surrounding society. Against the backdrop of traditional classical dramas and vaudevilles, the conflict of Griboedov’s comedy is distinguished by its psychological and philosophical novelty and depth.
The originality of the conflict dictates the originality of the genre. Everyday comedy, comedy of manners, satire - all these definitions are clearly not enough to define the genre of “Woe from Wit”. If desired, farcical elements can be found in comedy. In Griboyedov's play, all this is uniquely combined with the romantic sublimity of Chatsky. But this is not a tragedy or a romantic drama to read.
Distrust of life takes its revenge, and the development of both personal and social intrigues leads the smartest Chatsky to disaster and disappointment in life.
Thus, we can call Griboyedov’s work a philosophical drama, the main conflict of which is the conflict between living life and our abstract concepts about it.
Considering the genre uniqueness of the play, one cannot help but turn to its stylistic features.
Griboyedov's innovative play combines features of classicism and realism.
Let's take, for example, completely new speech characteristics of the heroes. The language in which the heroes of the comedy communicate contributes to their individualization and at the same time typification. “A mixture of French with Nizhny Novgorod”, the saturation of colloquial elements of the language in which Famusov’s society communicates, clearly shows us with whom we are dealing.
An almost onomatopoeic depiction of the speech of secular young ladies (for example: Natalya Dmitrievna’s “satin turlure”), the clear, dry speech of Skalozub, the apt, biting words of Khlestova, the aphoristic statement of Chatsky - all this allows us to agree with the words of Pushkin: “... I don’t care about poetry I say: half will become proverbs.” Let's remember just a few of them: “Blessed is he who believes, he is warm in the world”, “an intelligent person cannot help but be a rogue”, “nowadays they love the dumb”, “happy people do not watch the clock”, “evil tongues are worse than a pistol” and many - a lot others.
For one hundred and fifty years, the “immortal comedy” of Alexander Sergeevich Griboedov has been interpreted by critics. It would seem that back in the 19th century everything was said about “Woe About Wit”. The images of the heroes are examined from all sides, the thought and pathos are interpreted to suit every taste. The range of assessments was so wide that Chatsky appeared either as a pathological clever man, or as a pathological fool, or as a pure Westerner, or as a Slavophile.
Blok called “Woe from Wit” a work “unsurpassed, unique in world literature, unsolved to the end, symbolic in the true sense of the word...”
Plot and compositional features. The originality of the ideological and thematic content of the comedy determines the features of its construction. He said this very precisely in his critical study“A Million Torments” by Goncharov: “Two comedies seem to be nested within one another: one, so to speak, is private, petty, domestic, between Chatsky, Sofia, Molchalin and Liza: this is the intrigue of love, the everyday motive of all comedies. When the first one is interrupted, another unexpectedly appears in the interval, and the action begins again, a private comedy plays out into a general battle and is tied into one knot.”
For Griboyedov’s contemporaries, such a structure was absolutely unusual, since it violated one of the basic stage rules of the “three unities” - the unity of action, according to which the play should have only one storyline. But, creating a realistic work, Griboyedov wanted to show the diversity of human manifestations and his relationships, and therefore personal and public intrigue intertwine and create the true vitality of the presented conflicts (personal and public). Responding to the reproaches of his contemporary critics for the “lack of a plan,” Griboyedov said: “The plan is simple and clear in execution. The girl, who is not stupid herself, prefers a fool to an intelligent man.”
The first of the storylines is based on a more traditional love conflict in which Chatsky, Sophia and Molchalin act. The second is related to social conflict, which reflects the real social situation of that era. Within the framework of this conflict, Chatsky, as a representative of the progressively thinking part of the nobility, is opposed by the entire system of conservative noble society, reflected in the comedy in collective image Famusovskaya Moscow.
The inclusion of two conflicts and two storylines in the play posed new problems for the author related to the composition of the work. At first the leader is love line, with which the line of public intrigue is closely intertwined. Trying to win Sophia’s favor, Chatsky invariably encounters not only the girl’s incomprehensible coldness, but also all the norms and orders accepted in Famus society. This clash causes his angry monologues directed against the foundations of a conservative society.
The final connection of these two lines occurs in the scene of the emergence and spread of gossip about Chatsky’s madness, which is the culmination in the development of both conflicts. But if the love line can be completed here, since the impossibility for Chatsky to find reciprocity on the part of Sophia is obvious, then the development of the social conflict is not yet completed and now this line of the play comes to the fore, becoming the basis further action. Within its framework, gossip about the hero’s madness is no longer the girl’s attempt to take revenge on her unlucky lover; this is the reaction of Famus society to all the behavior, the entire system of views of Chatsky, which does not fit into the generally accepted framework, which is regarded here as madness.
So Griboyedov became a true innovator in the construction of comedy. His heroes behave in their personal sphere as it happens in life: they make mistakes, are lost in conjectures and choose a clearly wrong path, although they themselves do not know it. In the finale of the traditional comedy of classicism, vice is always punished and virtue triumphs. For Griboyedov, the ending is open: if Chatsky’s collapse in love is absolutely obvious, then the question of whether his expulsion from Famus society can be called a victory over the hero remains open. After all, if we agree with the legitimacy of comparing Chatsky with the Decembrists, which Griboedov’s contemporaries, the Decembrists, did, then it remains to be recognized that the dispute between heroes like Chatsky and the old foundations is just beginning.