A million torments (Goncharov). Goncharov “A Million Torments” – synopsis

28.04.2019

Goncharov Ivan Alexandrovich

Goncharov Ivan Alexandrovich

A million torments

Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov

A million torments

(Critical study)

Woe from mind, Griboyedova. -- Monakhov's benefit, November, 1871

All celebrities of the first magnitude, of course, were not admitted to the so-called “temple of immortality” for nothing. They all have a lot, and others, like Pushkin, for example, have much more rights to longevity than Griboyedov. They cannot be close and placed one with the other. Pushkin is huge, fruitful, strong, rich. He is for Russian art what Lomonosov is for Russian enlightenment in general. Pushkin took over his entire era, he himself created another, gave birth to schools of artists - he took everything in his era, except what Griboyedov managed to take and what Pushkin did not agree on.

Despite Pushkin's genius, his leading heroes, like the heroes of his century, are already turning pale and becoming a thing of the past. Brilliant creatures while continuing to serve as models and sources for art, they themselves become history. We have studied "Onegin", his time and his environment, weighed it, determined the meaning of this type, but we no longer find living traces of this personality in 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, turn to stone, but in immobility, like statues on graves. We are not talking about the more or less bright types who appeared later, who managed to go to the grave during the authors’ lifetime, leaving behind some rights to literary memory.

They called Fonvizin's comedy "The Minor" immortal, and rightly so - its lively, hot period lasted about half a century: this is enormous for a work of words. But now there is not a single hint in "The Minor" of living life, and the comedy, having served its purpose, has turned into historical monument.

“Woe from Wit” appeared before Onegin, Pechorin, outlived 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 eras and will not lose its vitality.

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

Criticism did not move the comedy from the place it had once occupied, as if at a loss as to where to place it. The oral assessment was ahead of the printed one, just as the play itself was ahead of the print. But the literate masses actually appreciated it. Immediately realizing its beauty and not finding any flaws, she tore the manuscript into pieces, into verses, hemistiches, and dispersed all the salt and wisdom of the play into colloquial speech, as if she had turned a million into ten kopecks, and so peppered the conversation with Griboyedov’s sayings that she literally wore out the comedy to the point of satiety.

But the play passed this test - and not only did not become vulgar, but it seemed to become dearer to readers, it found a patron, a critic and a friend in everyone, like Krylov’s fables, which did not lose their literary power, having passed from the book into living 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 the comedy was an exemplary work, and with that everyone made peace.

What should an actor do when thinking about his role in this play? To rely on one’s own judgment alone would lack any self-esteem, and to listen to the talk of public opinion after forty years is impossible 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 build your own assessment plan on them.

Some value in comedy a picture of Moscow morals of a certain era, the creation of living types and their skillful grouping. The whole play seems to be a 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 etched into the memory as firmly as kings, jacks and queens in cards, and everyone had a more or less consistent concept of all the faces, except for one - Chatsky. So they are all drawn correctly and strictly, and so they have become familiar to everyone. Only about Chatsky many are perplexed: what is he? It's like he's some kind of fifty-third mysterious map in the deck. If there was little disagreement in the understanding of other people, then about Chatsky, on the contrary, the differences have not ended yet and, perhaps, will not end for a long time.

Others, giving justice to the picture of morals, loyalty to types, value more epigrammatic salt language, living satire - morality, which the play still, like an inexhaustible well, supplies everyone with at every everyday step of life.

But both connoisseurs almost pass over in silence the “comedy” itself, the action, and many even deny it conventional stage movement.

Despite this, however, every time the personnel in the roles changes, both judges go to the theater, and again lively talk arises about the performance of this or that role and about the roles themselves, as if in new play.

All these various impressions and everyone’s own point of view based on them serve as the best definition of the play, that is, that the comedy “Woe from Wit” is both a picture of morals, and a gallery of living types, and an ever-sharp, searing satire, and together with that is what comedy is, and let's say for ourselves - most of all comedy - which is unlikely to be found in other literatures, if we accept the totality of all the other stated conditions. Like a painting, it is, without a doubt, enormous. Her canvas captures a long period of Russian life - from Catherine to Emperor Nicholas. The group of twenty faces reflected, like a ray of light in a drop of water, the entire former Moscow, its design, its spirit at that time, its historical moment and morals. And this with such artistic, objective completeness and certainty that only Pushkin and Gogol were given in our country.

In a picture where there is not a single pale spot, not a single extraneous stroke or sound, the viewer and reader feel even now, in our era, among living people. Both the general and the details, all this was not composed, but was entirely 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 the smallest touches, to Prince Tugoukhovsky and to Petrushka's footman, without whom the picture would be incomplete.

However, for us it is not quite finished yet historical picture: we have not moved away from the era at a sufficient distance for an impassable abyss to lie between it and our time. The coloring was not smoothed out at all; the century has not separated from ours, like a cut-off piece: we have inherited something from there, although the Famusovs, Molchalins, Zagoretskys and others have changed so that they no longer fit into the skin of Griboyedov’s types. The harsh features have become obsolete, of course: no Famusov will now invite Maxim Petrovich to be a jester and hold up Maxim Petrovich as an example, at least not in such a positive and obvious way. Molchalin, even in front of the maid, now secretly does not confess to the 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 will be a desire for honors apart from merit, as long as there will be masters and hunters to please and “take rewards and live happily,” while gossip, idleness, and emptiness will reign not as vices, but as elements public life, - until then, of course, they will flicker in modern society features of the Famusovs, Molchalins and others, there is no need that that “special imprint” of which Famusov was proud was erased from Moscow itself.

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

This can especially be attributed to Griboyedov’s comedy. In it, the local coloring is too bright, and the designation of the characters themselves is so strictly outlined and furnished with such reality of details that universal human traits can hardly stand out from under social positions, ranks, costumes, etc.

As a picture of modern morals, the comedy "Woe from Wit" was partly an anachronism even when it appeared in the 30s...

Quick navigation back: Ctrl+←, forward Ctrl+→

The comedy "Woe from Wit" stands out somehow 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 lived out their time in turn, dies and lies down, and he walks, vigorous and fresh, between the graves of old people and the cradles of new people. And it never occurs to anyone that someday his turn will come.
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. Chatsky is not only smarter than all other people, but also positively smart. His speech is full of intelligence and wit. He has a heart, and, moreover, he is impeccably honest. In a word, he is not only an intelligent person, but also a developed one, with feeling, or, as his maid Lisa recommends, he is “sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp.” Chatsky, apparently, was preparing seriously for his activities. He “writes and translates nicely,” Famusov says about him, and about his high intelligence. He, of course, traveled for good reason, studied, read, apparently got to work, had relations with ministers and separated - it’s not difficult to guess why. “I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening,” he himself hints.
He loves seriously, seeing Sophia as his future wife. He came to Moscow and to Famusov, obviously for Sophia and for Sophia alone.
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 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.
Meanwhile, Chatsky had to drink the bitter cup to the bottom - not finding “living sympathy” in anyone, and leave, taking with him only “a million torments.” Chatsky is eager to " free life", "to engage" in science and art and demands "service to the cause, not to individuals." He is an exposer of lies and everything that has become obsolete, that drowns out new life, "free life." All his mind and all his strength go into this struggle. Not only for Sophia, but also for Famusov and all his guests, Chatsky’s “mind,” which sparkled like a ray of light in the whole play, burst out at the end into that thunder at which, as the proverb goes, men are baptized. All that was needed was an explosion, a battle, and it began, stubborn and hot - on one day in one house, but its consequences were reflected throughout Moscow and Russia.
Chatsky, even if he was deceived in his personal expectations, did not find the “charm of meetings, living participation,” then he himself sprinkled living water on the dead soil - taking with him “a million torments” - torments from everything: from the “mind”, from the “offended feeling "Chatsky's role is a passive role: it cannot be otherwise. This is the role of all Chatskys, although at the same time it is always victorious. But they do not know about their victory, they only sow and others reap. Chatsky is broken by the amount of old power, inflicting a mortal blow on it in turn with the quality of fresh power. He is the eternal denouncer of lies hidden in the proverb: “alone in the field is not a warrior.” No, a warrior, if he is Chatsky, and a winner at that, but an advanced warrior, a skirmisher and always a victim.
Chatsky is inevitable with every change from one century to another. It’s unlikely that Griboyedov’s Chatsky will ever grow old, and with him the whole comedy. Chatsky, in our opinion, is the most lively personality of all the comedy heroes. His nature is stronger and deeper than other persons and therefore could not be exhausted in comedy.

Very briefly The article is devoted to Griboyedov’s timeless, always relevant play “Woe from Wit,” a society spoiled by conventional morality, and Chatsky, a freedom fighter and denouncer of lies who will not disappear from society.

Ivan Goncharov notes the freshness and youthfulness of the play “Woe from Wit”:

She is like a hundred-year-old old man, around whom everyone, having lived out their time in turn, dies and lies down, and he walks, vigorous and fresh, between the graves of the old and the cradles of the new.

Despite Pushkin’s genius, his heroes “turn pale and become a thing of the past,” while Griboyedov’s play appeared earlier, but outlived them, the author of the article believes. The literate masses immediately dismantled it into quotes, but the play withstood this test.

“Woe from Wit” is both a picture of morals, and a gallery of living types, and “an eternally sharp, burning satire.” “The group of twenty faces reflected... all the old Moscow.” Goncharov notes the artistic completeness and definiteness of the play, which was given only to Pushkin and Gogol.

Everything was taken from Moscow living rooms and transferred to the book. The traits of the Famusovs and Molchalins will be in society as long as gossip, idleness and sycophancy continue to exist.

The main role is the role of Chatsky. Griboedov attributed Chatsky's grief to his mind, "and Pushkin denied him any mind at all."

Unlike Onegin and Pechorin, who were incapable of doing business, Chatsky was preparing for serious activity: he studied, read, traveled, but parted ways with the ministers over known reason: “I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening.”

Chatsky's disputes with Famusov reveal the main goal of the comedy: Chatsky is a supporter of new ideas, he condemns the “vilest traits of the past” for which Famusov stands.

Two camps were formed, or, on the one hand, a whole camp of the Famusovs and the entire brethren of “fathers and elders,” on the other, one ardent and brave fighter, “the enemy of quest.”

A love affair also develops in the play. Sophia's fainting after Molchalin's fall from his horse helps Chatsky almost guess the reason. Losing his “mind,” he will directly attack his opponent, although it is already obvious that Sophia, in her own words, is dearer to him than the “others.” Chatsky is ready to beg for what cannot be begged - love. In his pleading tone one can hear complaints and reproaches:

But does he have that passion?
That feeling? That ardor?
So that, besides you, he has the whole world
Did it seem like dust and vanity?

The further, the more tears are heard in Chatsky’s speech, Goncharov believes, but “the remnants of his mind save him from useless humiliation.” Sophia almost gives herself away when she says about Molchalin that “God brought us together.” But she is saved by Molchalin’s insignificance. She draws Chatsky his portrait, not noticing that he comes out vulgar:

Look, he gained the friendship of everyone in the house;
He served under his father for three years,
He is often pointlessly angry,
And he will disarm him with silence...
...old people won’t set foot outside the threshold...
...Doesn’t cut strangers at random, -
That's why I love him.

Chatsky consoles himself after each praise of Molchalin: “She doesn’t respect him,” “She doesn’t put him in a penny,” “She’s being naughty, she doesn’t love him.”

Another lively comedy plunges Chatsky into the abyss of Moscow life. This is the Gorichevs - a degraded gentleman, “a boy-husband, a servant-husband, the ideal of Moscow husbands”, under the shoe of his sugary, cutesy wife, this is Khlestova, “a remnant of Catherine’s century, with a pug and a little arap girl”, “a ruin of the past” Prince Pyotr Ilyich , an obvious swindler Zagoretsky, and “these NNs, and all their talk, and all the content that occupies them!”

With his caustic remarks and sarcasms, Chatsky turns them all against himself. He hopes to find sympathy from Sophia, unaware of the conspiracy against him in the enemy camp.

“A million torments” and “woe!” - this is what he reaped for everything he managed to sow. Until now he had been invincible: his mind mercilessly struck the sore spots of his enemies.

But the struggle tired him. He is sad, bilious and picky, the author notes, Chatsky almost falls into intoxication of speech and confirms the rumor spread by Sophia about his madness.

Pushkin probably denied Chatsky his mind because of last scene Act 4: neither Onegin nor Pechorin would have behaved like Chatsky in the entryway. He is not a lion, not a dandy, he does not know how and does not want to show off, he is sincere, so his mind has betrayed him - he has done such trifles! Having spied the meeting between Sophia and Molchalin, he played the role of Othello, to which he had no right. Goncharov notes that Chatsky reproaches Sophia for “luring him with hope,” but all she did was push him away.

Meanwhile, Sofya Pavlovna is not individually immoral: she sins with the sin of ignorance, blindness, in which everyone lived...

To convey the general meaning of conventional morality, Goncharov cites Pushkin’s couplet:

The light does not punish delusions,
But it requires secrets for them!

The author notes that Sophia would never have seen the light from this conditional morality without Chatsky, “for lack of chance.” But she cannot respect him: Chatsky is her eternal “reproachful witness,” he opened her eyes to true face Molchalina. Sophia is “a mixture of good instincts with lies, a lively mind with the absence of any hint of ideas and beliefs,... mental and moral blindness...” But this belongs to her upbringing, in her own personality there is something “hot, tender, even dreamy.”

Women learned only to imagine and feel and did not learn to think and know.

Goncharov notes that in Sophia’s feelings for Molchalin there is something sincere, reminiscent of Pushkin’s Tatyana. “The difference between them is made by the ‘Moscow imprint’.” Sophia is just as ready to give herself away in love; she does not find it reprehensible to be the first to start an affair, just like Tatyana. Sofya Pavlovna has the makings of a remarkable nature; it is not for nothing that Chatsky loved her. But Sophia was drawn to help the poor creature, to elevate him to herself, and then to rule over him, “to make him happy and have an eternal slave in him.”

Chatsky, says the author of the article, only sows, and others reap; his suffering lies in the hopelessness of success. A million torments are the Chatskys’ crown of thorns - torments from everything: from the mind, and even more from offended feelings. Neither Onegin nor Pechorin are suitable for this role. Even after the murder of Lensky, Onegin takes him with him to the “kopeck piece” of torment! Chatsky is different:

He demands space and freedom for his age: he asks for work, but does not want to serve, and stigmatizes servility and buffoonery.

The idea of a “free life” is freedom from all the chains of slavery that bind society. Famusov and others internally agree with Chatsky, but the struggle for existence does not allow them to give in.

He is the eternal denouncer of lies hidden in the proverb: “Alone in the field is not a warrior.” No, a warrior, if he is Chatsky, and a winner at that, but an advanced warrior, a skirmisher and always a victim.

This image is unlikely to age well. According to Goncharov, Chatsky is the most living personality as a person and performer of the role entrusted to him by Griboedov.

...The Chatskys live and are not translated in society, repeating themselves at every step, in every house, where the old and the young coexist under the same roof... Every business that requires updating evokes the shadow of Chatsky...

“Two comedies seem to be nested inside one another”: a petty, love affair, and a private one, which is played out in big battle.

Next, Goncharov talks about staging the play on stage. He believes that the game cannot claim historical fidelity, since “the living trace has almost disappeared, and the historical distance is still close. An artist must resort to creativity, to the creation of ideals, according to the degree of his understanding of the era and Griboedov’s work.” This is the first stage condition. The second is artistic performance language:

An actor, like a musician, is obliged... to think of the sound of the voice and the intonation with which each verse should be pronounced: this means to come up with a subtle critical understanding of all poetry...

“Where, if not from the stage, can one wish to hear an exemplary reading of exemplary works?” It is the loss of literary performance that the public rightly complains about.

In his critical study“A Million Torments” by I.A. Goncharov described “Woe from Wit” as a lively, sharp satire, but at the same time a comedy, which shows the morals and historical moments of Moscow and its inhabitants.

In the play, Griboedov touched on quite important issues such as: upbringing, education, civic duty, service to the fatherland, serfdom and worship of everything foreign. The work describes a huge period in the life of the Russian people, from Catherine to Emperor Nicholas, symbolized by a group of 20 guests at Famusov’s reception, which Chatsky attends - main character comedies. The writer showed the struggle of the past and the present in the images of Chatsky and Famus society.

When Chatsky arrives at Famusov's house to visit his beloved Sophia, he encounters people living in lies and hypocrisy. People who are only interested dinner parties and dances that are not at all interested in anything new. Chatsky personifies a person with a new structure of mind and soul, who is inspired by new ideas and knowledge, who is looking for new horizons. He is disgusted by serving the Fatherland only for the sake of ranks and wealth.

What about Sophia? Sophia did not love Chatsky, she cheated on him, choosing the narrow-minded Molchalin, who knows where and who to serve. Having declared Chatsky crazy, Sophia joins Chatsky’s “tormentors,” who laugh and mock him.

In Famusov's society, Chatsky remains misunderstood. He sees and understands the horror of serfdom and the fact that this world is owned by those gentlemen who absolutely do not care about problems common people and the state, they are more concerned about their own good. At the same time, Chatsky does not understand how it is possible to exchange a person for a dog, or take a child from his parents, to satisfy the will of the master.

Unfortunately, neither his speeches nor his suffering bother anyone, and by expressing everything that he has accumulated, Chatsky turns everyone even more against himself. And he stands against people who value power and wealth, but are very afraid of enlightenment and truth. He talks about how the progress of society is associated with the development of personality, the flourishing of science and enlightenment. But alas, this is all foreign and alien to the society of old Moscow. They always point out to him his ancestors that he needs to be the same. Chatsky is very smart and educated and does not understand how you can not live, but only play your roles. Ridiculed and misunderstood, he leaves Famusov’s house with his unresolved torment.

Goncharov believes that Chatsky was broken by the amount of old power, but in turn he dealt her a mortal blow with the quality of the new power, thereby beginning a new century.

Immortal work famous classic Griboedov's "Woe from Wit", which has been and continues to be staged performances in many theaters around the world over time, has not lost its relevance.

“Woe from Wit” by Griboyedov. –

Monakhov's benefit, November, 1871

The comedy “Woe from Wit” stands out somehow 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 lived out their time in turn, dies and lies down, and he walks, vigorous and fresh, between the graves of old people and the cradles of new people. And it never occurs to anyone that someday his turn will come.

Despite Pushkin's genius, his leading heroes, like the heroes of his century, are already turning pale and becoming a thing of the past. His brilliant creations, continuing to serve as models and sources of art, themselves become history. We have studied Onegin, his time and his environment, weighed and determined the meaning 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, his era, however, turn to stone in immobility, like statues on graves. We are not talking about the more or less bright types who appeared later, who managed to go to the grave during the authors’ lifetime, leaving behind some rights to literary memory.

Called immortal the comedy “The Minor” by Fonvizin - and thoroughly - its lively, hot period lasted about half a century: this is enormous for a work of words. But now there is not a single hint in “The Minor” of living life, and the comedy, having served its purpose, has turned into a historical monument.

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

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

Criticism did not move the comedy from the place it had once occupied, as if at a loss as to where to place it. The oral assessment was ahead of the printed one, just as the play itself was long ahead of the printing. But the literate masses actually appreciated it. Immediately realizing its beauty and not finding any flaws, she tore the manuscript into pieces, into verses, half-verses, spread all the salt and wisdom of the play into colloquial speech, as if she turned a million into ten-kopeck pieces, and so peppered the conversation with Griboyedov’s sayings that she literally wore out the comedy to the point of satiety. .

But the play passed this test too - and not only did it not become vulgar, but it seemed to become dearer to readers, finding in each of them a patron, critic and friend, like Krylov’s fables, which did not lose their literary power, having passed from the book into living speech.

It was decided once and for all that the comedy was an exemplary work - and with that everyone made peace.

What should an actor do when thinking about his role in this play? To rely on one’s own judgment alone will not suffice for any pride, and to listen to the talk of public opinion after forty years is impossible 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 build your own assessment plan on them.

Some value in comedy a picture of Moscow morals of a certain era, the creation of living types and their skillful grouping. The whole play seems to be a 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 etched into the memory as firmly as kings, jacks and queens in cards, and everyone had a more or less consistent concept of all the faces, except for one - Chatsky. So they are all drawn correctly and strictly, and so they have become familiar to everyone. Only about Chatsky many are perplexed: what is he? It's like he's the fifty-third mysterious card in the deck. If there was little disagreement in the understanding of other people, then about Chatsky, on the contrary, the differences have not ended yet and, perhaps, will not end for a long time.

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

But both connoisseurs almost pass over in silence the “comedy” itself, the action, and many even deny it conventional stage movement.

All these various impressions and everyone’s own point of view based on them serve as the best definition of the play, that is, that the comedy “Woe from Wit” is both a picture of morals, and a gallery of living types, and an ever-sharp, searing satire, and together with that is why it is a comedy and, let’s say for ourselves, most of all a comedy – which can hardly be found in other literatures, if we accept the totality of all the other stated conditions. Like a painting, it is, without a doubt, enormous. Her canvas captures a long period of Russian life - from Catherine to Emperor Nicholas. The group of twenty faces reflected, like a ray of light in a drop of water, the entire former Moscow, its design, its spirit at that time, its historical moment and morals. And this with such artistic, objective completeness and certainty that only Pushkin and Gogol were given in our country.

In a picture where there is not a single pale spot, not a single extraneous stroke or sound, the viewer and reader feel even now, in our era, among living people. Both the general and the details, all this is not composed, but entirely 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 the smallest touches, 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 completed historical picture: we have not moved away from the era at a sufficient distance for an impassable abyss to lie between it and our time. The coloring was not smoothed out at all; the century has not separated from ours, like a cut-off piece: we have inherited something from there, although the Famusovs, Molchalins, Zagoretskys and others have changed so that they no longer fit into the skin of Griboyedov’s types. The harsh features have become obsolete, of course: no Famusov will now invite Maxim Petrovich to be a jester and hold up Maxim Petrovich as an example, at least not in such a positive and obvious way. Molchalin, even in front of the maid, quietly, now does not confess to 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 will be a desire for honors apart from merit, as long as there will be masters and hunters to please and “take rewards and live happily,” while gossip, idleness, and emptiness will dominate not as vices, but as elements of social life - so long, of course , the features of the Famusovs, Molchalins and others will flash in modern society, there is no need that that “special imprint” of which Famusov was proud has been erased from Moscow itself.

Universal human models, of course, always remain, although they also turn into types unrecognizable due to temporary changes, so that, to replace the old, artists sometimes have to update, after long periods, the basic features of morals and human nature in general that once appeared in images , clothing them with 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 similar prototypes of passions, vices, etc., disappearing in the fog of antiquity, almost lost their living image and turned into an idea, into a conventional concept, a common name for vice, and for us they no longer serve as a living lesson, but as a portrait of a historical gallery.

This can especially be attributed to Griboyedov’s comedy. In it, the local coloring is too bright and the designation of the characters themselves is so strictly delineated and furnished with such reality of details that universal human traits can hardly stand out from under 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 thirties. Already Shchepkin, Mochalov, Lvova-Sinetskaya, Lensky, Orlov and Saburov played not from life, but from fresh legend. 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)
This century and this century past,
The legend is fresh, but hard to believe,

and about his time he expresses himself like this:

Now everyone breathes more freely,

Scolded your forever I am merciless, -

he says to Famusov.

Consequently, now only a little of the local color remains: passion for rank, sycophancy, emptiness. But with some reforms, the ranks can move away, sycophancy to the extent of Molchalinsky’s lackeyness is already hiding in the darkness, and the poetry of the frunt has given way to a strict and rational direction in military affairs.

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

Salt, an epigram, a satire, this colloquial verse, it seems, will never die, just like the sharp and caustic, living Russian mind scattered in them, which Griboyedov imprisoned, like some kind of spirit wizard, in his castle, and he scatters there with evil laughter. 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 retain them in memory and put into circulation again all the intelligence, humor, jokes and anger of the Russian mind and language collected by the author. This language was given to the author in the same way as it was given to a group of these individuals, as it was given to main meaning comedy, how it all came together, as if it 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 the comedy of life. It couldn't have been anything else but a comedy.

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

We have long been accustomed to saying that there is no movement, that is, no action in a play. How is there no movement? There is - living, continuous, from Chatsky’s first appearance on stage to his last word: “Carriage for me, carriage!”

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

Only when driving around in the entryway does the viewer seem to awaken to the unexpected catastrophe that has broken out between the main characters, and suddenly remember the comedy-intrigue. But even then not for long. 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, but Pushkin denied him any mind at all.

One would think that Griboyedov, out of fatherly 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.

But Chatsky is not only smarter than all other people, but also positively smart. His speech is full of intelligence and wit.

Both Onegin and Pechorin turned out to be incapable of action, of an active role, although both vaguely understood that everything around them had decayed. They were even “embarrassed”, carried “discontent” within themselves and wandered around like shadows with “yearning laziness.” But, despising the emptiness of life, the idle lordship, they succumbed to it and did not think of either fighting it or fleeing completely. Dissatisfaction and bitterness did not prevent Onegin from being a dandy, “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 plunging his laziness and bitterness between Princess Mary and Beloy, and then pretend to be indifferent to them in front of the stupid Maxim Maksimych: this indifference was considered the quintessence of Don Juanism. Both were languishing, suffocating in their environment and did not know what to want. Onegin tried to read, but yawned and gave up, because he and Pechorin knew only the science of “tender passion”, and for everything else they learned “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 intelligence. He, of course, traveled for good reason, studied, read, apparently got down to work, had relations with ministers and separated - it’s not difficult to guess why:

I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening, -

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

Meanwhile, Chatsky had to drink the bitter cup to the bottom - not finding “living sympathy” in anyone, and leaving, taking with him only “a million torments.”

Neither Onegin nor Pechorin would have acted so foolishly in general, especially in the matter of love and matchmaking. But 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 slightly trace the course of the play and try to highlight from it the dramatic interest of the comedy, the movement that runs through the entire play, like an invisible but living thread connecting all the parts and faces of the comedy with each other.

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

This puzzled him, upset him, and a little irritated him. In vain he tries to sprinkle the salt of humor into his conversation, partly playing with this strength of his, which, of course, was what Sophia liked before when she loved him - partly under the influence of annoyance and disappointment. Everyone gets it, he went through everyone - from Sophia’s father to Molchalin - and with what apt features he draws Moscow - and how many of these poems have gone into living speech! But everything is in vain: tender memories, witticisms - nothing helps. He suffers nothing but coldness from her until, caustically touching Molchalin, he touched her too. She already asks him with hidden anger whether he happened to even accidentally “say kind things about someone,” and disappears at her father’s entrance, betraying Chatsky to the latter almost with her head, that is, declaring him the hero of the dream told to his father before.

From that moment on, a hot duel ensued between her and Chatsky, the most lively action, a comedy in the close sense, in which two persons, Molchalin and Liza, take a close part.

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

Chatsky hardly notices Famusov, coldly and absentmindedly answers his question, where have you been? “Do I care now?” - he says and, promising to come again, leaves, saying from what is absorbing him:

How Sofya Pavlovna has become prettier for you!

On his second visit, he starts talking again about Sofya Pavlovna. “Isn’t she sick? did she experience any sadness? - and to such an extent he is overwhelmed and fueled by the feeling of 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 want?” And then indifferently, only out of decency, he adds:

Let me woo you, what would you tell me?

And almost without listening to the answer, he sluggishly remarks on the advice to “serve”:

I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening!

He came to Moscow and to Famusov, obviously for Sophia and to Sophia alone. He doesn't care about others; Even now he is annoyed that, instead of her, he found only Famusov. “How could she not be here?” - he asks himself, remembering his former youthful love, which “neither distance, nor entertainment, nor change of places” cooled in him - and he is tormented by its coldness.

He is bored and talking with Famusov - and only Famusov’s positive challenge to an argument brings Chatsky out of his concentration.

That's it, you are all proud:
If only we could see what our fathers did

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

But his irritation is still restrained: he seems ashamed of himself that he decided to sober Famusov from his concepts; he hastens to insert that “he’s not talking about his uncle,” whom Famusov cited as an example, and even invites the latter to scold his age; finally, he tries in every possible way to hush up the conversation, seeing how Famusov has covered his ears, he calms him down, almost apologizes.

It’s not my desire to prolong arguments, -

he says. He is ready to enter himself again. But he is awakened by Famusov’s unexpected hint about a rumor about Skalozub’s matchmaking.

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

Chatsky perked up his ears.

How he fusses, what agility!

“And Sophia? Isn’t there really a groom here?” - he says, and although then he adds:

Ah - tell love the end,
Who will go away for three years! -

but he himself still does not believe it, following the example of all lovers, until this love axiom was played out over him to the end.

Famusov confirms his hint about Skalozub’s marriage, imposing on the latter the thought of “the general’s wife,” and almost obviously invites him to matchmaking.

These hints about marriage aroused Chatsky’s suspicions about the reasons for Sophia’s change towards him. He even agreed to Famusov’s request to give up “false ideas” and remain silent in front of the guest. But the irritation was already crescendo 1
Increasing ( italian.).

And he intervened in the conversation, casually for now, and then, annoyed by Famusov’s awkward praise of his intelligence and so on, he raised his tone and resolved himself with a sharp monologue:

“Who are the judges?” etc. Here another struggle begins, an important and serious one, a whole battle. Here, in a few words, the main motive is heard, as in an opera overture, and the true meaning and purpose of the comedy is hinted at. Both Famusov and Chatsky threw down the gauntlet to each other:

If only we could see what our fathers did
You should learn by looking at your elders! -

Famusov's military cry was heard. Who are these elders and “judges”?