A million torments in short. A million torments. Others, giving justice to the picture of morals, fidelity to types, value the more epigrammatic salt of language, living satire - morality, with which the play still, like an inexhaustible well, supplies everyone for every occasion.

26.06.2020

Critical analysis of the plot of the book by A.S. Griboyedov’s “Woe from Wit”, Goncharov brought out in his work. In it, he quite deeply carries out an ideological and social analysis of Griboyedov’s comedy.

The comedy differs from many works of that time in its more durable durability, some kind of novelty and spontaneity. A society that is experiencing the transition to a capitalist system is no longer able to captivate Pushkin’s and Lermontov’s heroes. So Pechorin and Onegin can give people less than the newly-minted hero Chatsky. Freshness

This image is undoubtedly in demand due to the unusualness of its view on such aspects as: education, social activities, the role of man in society.

This work, although it was written later than many others, which it would seem should have been successful with the reader, nevertheless it outlived them. The problems that Griboedov raised were relevant in the times of Pushkin and Lermontov, and will also be relevant after several eras. This work is read by different segments of the population, with different preferences, with different desires to find something interesting and educational in it.

Some will be interested

Find out how people lived in Moscow at the beginning of the 19th century, their morals and customs. Moreover, the author managed to very successfully convey the very essence of the nobility, its spirit in this period. The types that are written in the comedy are so alive and natural that it seems to the reader that they are his neighbors or close acquaintances. Anyone who has read this work can easily name someone in their circle who is similar to Molchalin or Famusov.

There are readers who cannot help but be attracted by apt epigrams, memorable quotes, and satirical phrases. After all, in all of them, according to Goncharov, there is “the salt of the tongue.” He calls this play a real treasure trove where you can find witty answers for every occasion in life. The quotes that sound in this work have long gone among the people and become aphorisms. For example, who among us does not know this phrase: ‘’ Happy Hours they don’t observe” or “The smoke of the Fatherland is sweet and pleasant to us.”

Without the character of Chatsky, as the author rightly notes, instead of a fun and exciting comedy, most likely, the result would be a boring picture of morals. As you know, Chatsky has a prototype - the then famous philosopher and publicist Chaadaev, who was declared abnormal for his bold views.

In the play, Chatsky suffers the same fate. After all, all the grief of the main character is in his mind. Although Pushkin, at one time, did not agree with this saying, moreover, he was sincerely perplexed about this, considering Chatsky a man of a very narrow mind. Dobrolyubov generally treated this character with great irony. Still, undoubtedly, Chatsky is a pioneer new era and the new century, and this is its purpose.

In comedy, we see a confrontation between two strong personalities challenging each other. The beginning and end of the battle between two difficult characters - Chatsky and Famusov - are traced. One is expressed by the author elegantly and succinctly, which can be compared to an opera overture.

The other, Famusov, Sophia's father, is a retrograde and conservative. And it turns out that two camps open before the reader, in one of which the elders or “fathers”, led by Famusov, and in the other there is only one Chatsky. He, like a noble warrior, wages his fight to the end, furiously, which is so similar to natural selection, conducted in the animal world.

There is in the book the so-called state of the Molchalins. These are unspiritual people who can obsequiously bow down and then easily betray. They pretend wildly useful activity, in fact, all this is only for career daring. Molchalin Alexey Stepanovich, Famusov’s vile and mediocre secretary, he is the complete opposite of Chatsky.

There is nothing natural and living in his image. He is stupid and cowardly, at the same time abstinent and diligent in his career; in the future he is a typical bureaucrat. His credo, with which he goes through life, is slavery and servility. He calculated everything correctly, because it is precisely such individuals who will subsequently be noticed and elevated by the authorities; they, who do not have their own opinion and voice, will help to rule.

What Chatsky eventually managed to get was just a million torments. He, a very witty and quick-tongued man, was for the time being invincible in various verbal duels. With your ability to defeat the enemy with a satirical word, to notice him weak points, he used with amazing ruthlessness. But in the battle with Famusov, he felt the unpleasant taste of loss and mental anguish, to which grief was added. He was forced to leave without finding support or moral closeness from anyone.

All he takes with him is torment. In conclusion, Goncharov concludes that literature will always fight confined to the circle of problems that Griboyedov touches on.

“A million torments” is critical article Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov for the comedy “Woe from Wit”. The purpose of this essay is an attempt to convey to readers the meaning of the work through an analysis of the image of Alexander Chatsky, as well as to analyze the individual components of its composition: time, place of action and characters.

The work was not immediately understood even by prominent figures of Russian literature, and therefore it definitely had to be analyzed by another expert on the word. That's why Goncharov's essay is worth reading online. "A Million Torments" in summary presented below.

The meaning of “Woe from Wit” for Russian literature

As the title of the article, Goncharov chose a statement by Alexander Chatsky, one of the central characters comedies. If you look at this quote, it will immediately become clear what this work is about.

Goncharov writes that Griboyedov managed to create characters whose images remained relevant 40 years after the creation of the work (the first excerpts of “Woe from Wit” were published in 1825, and the article “A Million Torments” - 46 years later). In this regard, the comedy managed to surpass two other masterpieces of Russian literature: “Eugene Onegin” by Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin and “The Minor” by Denis Ivanovich Fonvizin.

Since the work was very close in spirit to the audience, it quickly spread into quotes. After this, not only did it not become vulgar, but on the contrary, it became even closer to the reader.

As Ivan Goncharov notes, Alexander Griboyedov managed to depict the entire era from Catherine to Nicholas in his comedy. At the same time, the atmosphere of Moscow, its traditions and morals, characteristic of the time of Woe from Wit, were presented by the author in the images of only 20 characters.

The figure of Chatsky in Griboedov's comedy

The comedy exposes the tendency to worship rank, the spread of false rumors, and declares inaction and emptiness to be vices. The author could not have done this without the image of Alexander Andreevich Chatsky in the work.

He became not just the main character of the work, but a figure through which Griboedov decided to highlight contemporary Moscow, as well as the image of a new man. The latter appeared in Russian literature before Pushkin's Onegin and Lermontov's Pechorin, but managed to remain relevant even years later (unlike the other two named heroes).

desire to develop spiritually and intellectually;
ambition;
wit;
good-heartedness.

Other heroes in the world of the work criticize Chatsky because he looks like a black sheep compared to them. He openly expresses his opinion regarding the “old world” and the morals accepted in aristocratic Moscow, while in this environment it is customary to communicate in a different manner. The main thing is that the hero sincerely believes in his ideals and is ready to follow them, no matter what.

It is not surprising that even famous literary figures could not understand the motivation for Chatsky’s actions. For example, Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin could not explain why Griboyedov’s hero does not stop expressing his point of view on this or that issue if no one listens to him. Thus, he seems to doubt the adequacy of the hero’s behavior. The critic Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov treats Chatsky condescendingly, calling him a “gambling fellow.”

This character has not lost its relevance to this day, because such people always appear during the transition period from one era to another. The psychotype of such a person does not change dramatically over time.

Chatsky's relationship with other characters

Relations with Famusova

The romantic line of the comedy is based on the fact that Chatsky, putting aside all his affairs, comes to Moscow to confess his love to seventeen-year-old Sofya Famusova. She decided not to develop a relationship with him.

To understand the motives for Famusova’s behavior, an allowance should be made for the conditions in which she grew up and what influenced the development of her personality. On the one side, Sophia was unable to escape the influence of the atmosphere Moscow of that time, and on the other hand, she was fond of the works of sentimentalists. As a result, she grew up childish and overly romanticized.

Famusova rejected Chatsky (even though he was her first lover) because his image did not correspond to her ideas about life. This pushed the girl to choose another person - Alexei Molchalin (although Sophia’s instinctive beginning also played a certain role here).

Molchalin as the antipode of Chatsky

Griboyedov endowed Alexey Stepanovich Molchalin with the following characteristics:

a combination of stupidity and cowardice;
moderation and prudence;
a tendency towards careerism (it is precisely such people who later become bureaucrats);
hypocrisy.

The image of Molchalin disgusts moral person, but it was precisely such people who were valued in Moscow during the time of Griboedov. The authorities prefer to give privileges and elevate in every possible way precisely people with a slave mentality, since in the future they are very easy to control.

The meaning of the essay “A Million Torments”

With his critical article Ivan Goncharov wanted to draw attention to positive traits the image of Chatsky, to form a positive impression of him.

Goncharov drew attention to the fact that main character“Woe from Wit” is capable of not only pointing out the vices of society, but is also ready to act in the name of transforming reality. Therefore, he can be considered a man of the future. Chatsky is firmly confident in his beliefs and is able to convince others that his views are right. It shows that one person can influence society if he really wants to.

The comedy “Woe from Wit” stands apart in literature, distinguished by its relevance at all times. Why is this, and what is this “Woe from Wit” anyway?

Pushkin and Griboedov are two greatest figures of art who cannot be placed close to one another. Heroes of Pushkin and Lermontov - historical monuments, however, a thing of the past.

“Woe from Wit” is a work that appeared before Onegin and Pechorin, went through the Gogol period, and everything lives to this day with its imperishable life, will survive many more eras and will not lose its vitality.

Griboyedov's play caused a sensation with its beauty and absence of shortcomings, caustic, burning satire even before it was published. The conversation was filled with Griboyedov's sayings to the point of satiety with comedy.

This work became dear to the reader’s heart, passed from the book into living speech...

Everyone appreciates comedy in their own way: some find in it the mystery of Chatsky’s character, the controversy about which has not yet ended, others admire the living morality and satire.

“Woe from Wit” is a picture of morals, a sharp, searing satire, but above all, a comedy.

However, for us it is not yet a completely complete picture of history: we inherited something from there, although the Famusovs, Molchalins, Zagoretskys and others have changed.

Now only a little of the local color remains: passion for rank, sycophancy, emptiness. Griboedov encapsulated the living Russian mind in sharp and caustic satire. This magnificent language was given to the author just as it was given to main meaning comedy, and all this created the comedy of life.

The movement on stage is lively and continuous.

However, not everyone will be able to reveal the meaning of the comedy - “Woe from Wit” is covered with a veil of ingenious drawing, the coloring of the place, the era, the charming language, all the poetic forces that are so abundantly diffused in the play.

The main role, undoubtedly, is the role of Chatsky - a passive role, although at the same time victorious. Chatsky created a split, and if he was deceived for personal purposes, he himself splashed living water onto the dead soil, taking with him “a million torments” - torments from everything: from the “mind”, and even more from the “offended feeling.”

The vitality of Chatsky’s role does not lie in the novelty of unknown ideas: he has no abstractions. Material from the site

His ideal " free life": this is freedom from these numbered chains of slavery with which society is shackled, and then freedom - "to focus on the sciences the mind hungry for knowledge", or to unhinderedly indulge in "creative, high and beautiful arts" - freedom "to serve or not to serve" , live in a village or travel without being considered a robber - and a number of similar steps towards freedom - from unfreedom.

Chatsky is broken by the amount of old power, inflicting a fatal blow on it, in turn, with the amount of fresh power.

That’s why Griboyedov’s Chatsky, and with him the whole comedy, has not aged yet and is unlikely to ever grow old.

And this is the immortality of Griboyedov’s poems!

Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the search

On this page there is material on the following topics:

Goncharov's article: a million torments
summary on the topic of potters' million torments
a million torments of potters knowledge summary
Goncharov's article: a million torments
summary of the work Woe from Wit

/Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov (1812-1891).
"Woe from Wit" by Griboyedov - Benefit Performance Monakhova, 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.

All celebrities of the first magnitude, of course, not without reason, entered the so-called “temple of immortality.” 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 an entire era, he himself created another, gave birth to schools of artists - he took for himself everything in the 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 a source 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.<...>

“Woe from Wit” appeared before Onegin, Pechorin, outlived them, passed unscathed 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 “Woe from Wit” anyway?<...>

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 some 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 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, 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.<...>

The comedy "Woe from Wit" is both a picture of morals, and a gallery of living types, and an ever-sharp, burning satire, and at the same time a comedy, and let's say for ourselves - most of all a comedy - which can hardly be found in other literatures.<...>As 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.<...>

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 the footman Parsley, without which 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, 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 prevail 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.<...>

Salt, epigram, 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 author’s collected intelligence, humor, jokes and anger of the Russian mind and language. This language was also given to the author, just as the group of these individuals was given, how the main meaning of the comedy was given, how everything was given together, as if it poured out at once, and everything formed an extraordinary comedy - and in a close sense, how stage play, and in the broad sense - as a comedy of life. It couldn't have been anything else but a comedy.<...>

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, all the poetic forces so abundantly diffused in the play.<...>

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.

Griboedov himself attributed Chatsky's grief to his intelligence, but Pushkin denied him any intelligence at all 2 .

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.

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,” they carried “discontent” within themselves and wandered around like shadows with “mourning laziness.” But, despising the emptiness of life, the idle lordship, they succumbed to him and did not think of either fighting him or fleeing completely.<...>

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 it makes me sick to serve,

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.”<...>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 unusually.

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 endures nothing but coldness from her, until, caustically touching Molchalin, he touched a nerve in 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 begins the conversation again about Sofya Pavlovna: “Isn’t she sick? Has she experienced 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 for 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: You should watch what your fathers did, 3 You should learn by looking at your elders! —

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 continue the debate,

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.<...>

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 the “false ideas” and remain silent in front of the guest. But irritation was already building up crescendo 4, 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 the overture of operas, hinting at the true meaning and purpose of the comedy. Both Famusov and Chatsky threw down the gauntlet to each other:

If only we could watch what our fathers did, we could learn by watching our elders! -

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

For the decrepitude of 5 years to a free life, their enmity is irreconcilable, -

Chatsky answers and executes -

The meanest features of the past life.

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.”<...>Famusov wants to be an “ace” - “eat on silver and gold, ride in a train, covered in orders, be rich and see children rich, in ranks, in orders and with a key” - and so on endlessly, and all this just for that , that he signs papers without reading and is afraid of one thing, “so that a lot of them do not accumulate.”

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

We now know these consequences. They were revealed with the advent of comedy, still in manuscript, in the light - and like an epidemic swept across all of Russia.

Meanwhile, the intrigue of love runs its course, correctly, with subtle psychological fidelity, which in any other play, devoid of other colossal Griboyedov beauties, could make a name for the author.

Sophia's fainting when Molchalin fell from his horse, her sympathy for him, so carelessly expressed, Chatsky's new sarcasms on Molchalin - all this complicated the action and formed that main point, which was called the plot in the poems. Here the dramatic interest was concentrated. Chatsky almost guessed the truth.<...>

In the third act, he gets to the ball before everyone else, with the goal of “forcing a confession” from Sophia - and with trembling impatience he 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 sees this himself and even says:

And what do I want when everything is decided? It’s a noose for me, but it’s funny for her!

However, he climbs in, like all lovers, despite his “intelligence,” and is already weakening in front of her indifference.<...>

His next scene with Molchalin, which fully describes the latter’s character, confirms Chatsky definitively that Sophia does not love this rival.

The liar laughed at me! —

he notices and goes to meet new faces.

The comedy between him and Sophia ended; The burning irritation of jealousy subsided, and the coldness of hopelessness entered his soul.

All he had to do was leave; but another, lively, lively comedy invades the stage, several new perspectives of Moscow life open up at once, which not only displace Chatsky’s intrigue from the viewer’s memory, but Chatsky himself seems to forget about it and gets in the way of the crowd. New faces group around him and play, each their own role. This is a ball, with all the Moscow atmosphere, with a series of live stage sketches, in which each group forms its own separate comedy, with a complete outline of the characters, who managed to play out in a few words into a complete action.

Isn't it complete comedy Are the Gorichevs playing tricks? 6 This husband, recently still a cheerful and lively man, is now degraded, clothed, as in a robe, in Moscow life, a gentleman, “a boy-husband, a servant-husband, the ideal of Moscow husbands,” according to apt definition Chatsky, - under the shoe of a sugary, cutesy, socialite wife, a Moscow lady?

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

This Khlestova, a remnant of Catherine's century, with a pug, with a blackamoor girl - this princess and prince Peter Ilyich - without a word, but such a speaking ruin of the past; Zagoretsky, an obvious swindler, escaping from prison in the best living rooms and paying off with obsequiousness, like dog diarrhea - and these N.N., and all their talk, and all the content that occupies them!

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

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

In brief, even instant meetings with old acquaintances, he managed to arm everyone against him with caustic remarks and sarcasms. He is already keenly affected by all sorts of trifles - and he gives free rein to his tongue. He angered the old woman Khlestova, gave some inappropriate advice to Gorichev, abruptly cut off the countess-granddaughter and again offended Molchalin.

But the cup overflowed. He leaves the back rooms, completely upset, and out of old friendship, in the crowd he again goes to Sophia, hoping for at least simple sympathy. He confides his state of mind... unaware of what conspiracy was brewing 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. Famusov finds nothing but to cover his ears against his logic, and shoots back with commonplaces of the old morality. Molchalin falls silent, the princesses and countesses back away from him, burned by the nettles of his laughter, and his former friend, Sophia, whom he spares alone, dissembles, slips and deals him the main blow on the sly, declaring him, at hand, casually, crazy.

He felt his strength and spoke confidently. But the struggle exhausted him. He obviously weakened from this “millions of torments,” and the disorder was so noticeable in him that all the guests grouped around him, just as a crowd gathers around any phenomenon that comes out of the ordinary order of things.

He is not only sad, but also bilious and picky. He, like a wounded man, gathers all his strength, challenges the crowd - and strikes everyone - but he does not have enough power against the united enemy.<...>

He has lost control of himself and does not even notice that he himself is putting together a performance at the ball. He also falls into patriotic pathos, goes so far as to say that he finds the tailcoat contrary to “reason and the elements,” and is angry that Madame and Mademoiselle have not been translated into Russian.<...>

He is definitely not himself, starting with the monologue “about a Frenchman from Bordeaux” - and remains so until the end of the play. There are only “millions of torments” ahead.<...>

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.

Sophia was the first to cross herself from the thunder.<...>

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

The light does not punish errors, But it requires secrecy for them!

In this couplet Pushkin expresses general meaning conventional morality. Sophia never regained her sight from her and would never have regained her sight without Chatsky, for lack of chance. After the disaster, from the minute Chatsky appeared, it was no longer possible to remain blind. His ships cannot be ignored, nor bribed with lies, nor appeased - it is impossible. She cannot help but respect him, and he will be her eternal “reproaching witness,” the judge of her past. He opened her eyes.

Before him, she did not realize the blindness of her feelings for Molchalin and even, analyzing the latter, in the scene with Chatsky, thread by thread, she herself did not see the light on him. She did not notice that she herself had called him to this love, which he, trembling with fear, did not even dare to think about.<...>

Sofya Pavlovna is not at all as guilty as she seems.

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

French books that Famusov complains about, piano (also with flute accompaniment), poetry, French and dancing - this was considered the classical education of a young lady. And then “Kuznetsky Most and Eternal Renewals”, balls, such as this ball at her father’s, and this society - this is the circle where the life of the “young lady” was concluded. Women learned only to imagine and feel and did not learn to think and know.<...>But in Sofya Pavlovna, we hasten to make a reservation, that is, in her feelings for Molchalin, there is a lot of sincerity, strongly reminiscent of Tatiana Pushkin. The difference between them is laid by the “Moscow imprint,” then by the agility, the ability to control oneself, which appeared in Tatyana when she met Onegin after marriage, and until then she was not able to lie about love even to the nanny. But Tatyana is a country girl, and Sofya Pavlovna is a Moscow girl, developed as it was then.<...>

The huge difference is not between her and Tatyana, but between Onegin and Molchalin.<...>

In general, it is difficult to be unsympathetic to Sofya Pavlovna: she has strong inclinations of a remarkable nature, a lively mind, passion and feminine softness. It was ruined in the stuffiness, where not a single ray of light, not a single stream penetrated fresh air. No wonder Chatsky loved her too. After him, she, alone from this entire crowd, begs for some kind of sad feeling, and in the reader’s soul there is not that indifferent laughter against her with which he parted with other people.

She, of course, has it harder than everyone else, harder even than Chatsky, and she gets her “millions of torments.”

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 - and this is their main suffering, that is, in the hopelessness of success.

Of course, he did not bring Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov to his senses, sober him up, or correct him. If Famusov had not had “reproachful witnesses” during his departure, that is, a crowd of lackeys and a doorman, he would have easily dealt with his grief: he would have given his daughter a head wash, he would have torn Liza’s ear and hastened the wedding of Sophia with Skalozub. But now it’s impossible: the next morning, thanks to the scene with Chatsky, all of Moscow will know - and most of all “Princess Marya Alekseevna.” His peace will be disturbed from all sides - and will inevitably make him think about something that never occurred to him. He is unlikely to even end his life as an “ace” like the previous ones. The rumors generated by Chatsky could not help but stir up the entire circle of his relatives and friends. He himself could no longer find a weapon against Chatsky’s heated monologues. All Chatsky’s words will spread, be repeated everywhere and create their own storm.

Molchalin, after the scene in the entryway, cannot remain the same Molchalin. The mask is pulled off, he is recognized, and like a caught thief, he has to hide in a corner. The Gorichevs, Zagoretskys, the princesses - all fell under a hail of his shots, and these shots will not remain without a trace. In this still consonant chorus, other voices, still bold yesterday, will fall silent or others will be heard, both for and against. The battle was just heating up. Chatsky's authority was known before as the authority of intelligence, wit, of course, knowledge and other things. He already has like-minded people. Skalozub complains that his brother left the service without receiving his rank and began reading books. One of the old women grumbles that her nephew, Prince Fyodor, is studying chemistry and botany. All that was needed was an explosion, a battle, and it began, stubborn and hot - on one day in one house, but its consequences, as we said above, were reflected throughout Moscow and Russia. Chatsky created a split, and if he was deceived in his personal goals, did not find “the charm of meetings, living participation,” then he himself sprinkled living water onto the dead soil - taking with him “a million torments,” this Chatsky’s crown of thorns - torments from everything: from “ mind,” and even more from “offended feelings.”<...>

The vitality of Chatsky’s role does not lie in the novelty of unknown ideas, brilliant hypotheses, hot and daring utopias.<...>Heralds of a new dawn, or fanatics, or simply messengers - all these advanced couriers of the unknown future are and - according to the natural course of social development - should appear, but their roles and physiognomies are infinitely diverse.

The role and physiognomy of the Chatskys remains unchanged. Chatsky is most of all an exposer of lies and everything that has become obsolete, that drowns out new life, "free life." He knows what he is fighting for and what this life should bring him. He does not lose the ground from under his feet and does not believe in a ghost until he has put on flesh and blood, has not been comprehended by reason and truth.<...>

He is very positive in his demands and states them in a ready-made program, developed not by him, but by the century that has already begun. With youthful ardor, he does not drive from the stage everything that has survived, that, according to the laws of reason and justice, as according to natural laws in physical nature, remains to live out its term, that can and should be tolerable. He demands space and freedom for his age: he asks for work, but does not want to serve and stigmatizes servility and buffoonery. He demands “service to the cause, not to persons,” does not mix “fun or tomfoolery with business,” like Molchalin, he languishes among the empty, idle crowd of “torturers, traitors, sinister old women, quarrelsome old men,” refusing to bow to their authority of decrepitude , love of rank and so on. He is outraged by the ugly manifestations of serfdom, insane luxury and disgusting morals of “spillage in feasts and extravagance” - phenomena of mental and moral blindness and corruption.

His ideal of a “free life” is definitive: this is freedom from all these countless chains of slavery that shackle society, and then freedom - “to focus on the sciences the mind hungry for knowledge”, or to unhinderedly indulge in “the creative, high and beautiful arts” - freedom “to serve or not to serve”, “to live in a village or to travel”, without being considered either a robber or an incendiary, and - a series of further successive similar steps to freedom - from unfreedom.<...>

Chatsky is broken by the amount of old power, having dealt it, in turn, a fatal blow 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. The position of the Chatskys on the social ladder is varied, but the role and fate are all the same, from major state and political figures who control the destinies of the masses, to a modest share in a close circle.<...>

The Chatskys live and are not transferred in society, repeating themselves at every step, in every house, where the old and the young coexist under one roof, where two centuries come face to face in crowded families - the struggle between the fresh and the obsolete, the sick and the healthy continues.<...>

Every matter that requires renewal evokes the shadow of Chatsky - and no matter who the figures are, about any human matter - will it be new idea, a step in science, in politics, in war - no matter how people group, they cannot escape the two main motives of struggle: from the advice to “learn by looking at your elders,” on the one hand, and from the thirst to strive from routine to “free life” forward and forward - on the other.

That’s why Griboyedov’s Chatsky, and with him the whole comedy, has not aged yet and is unlikely to ever grow old. And literature will not escape the magic circle drawn by Griboedov as soon as the artist touches on the struggle of concepts and the change of generations.<...>

Many Chatskys could be cited - who appeared at the next change of eras and generations - in the struggle for an idea, for a cause, for truth, for success, for new order, at all levels, in all layers of Russian life and work - high-profile, great deeds and modest armchair exploits. Many of them are kept fresh legend, others we saw and knew, and others still continue to fight. Let's turn to the literature. Let us remember not a story, not a comedy, not artistic phenomenon, but let’s take one of the later fighters from the old century, for example, Belinsky. Many of us knew him personally, and now everyone knows him. Listen to his passionate improvisations - and they sound the same motives - and the same tone as Griboyedov's Chatsky. And just like that he died, destroyed by “a million torments,” killed by the fever of anticipation and not waiting for the fulfillment of his dreams.<...>

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

It's not fair. It is impossible to place Chatsky next to Onegin: the strict objectivity of the dramatic form does not allow for the breadth and fullness of the brush as the epic. If other faces of comedy are stricter and more sharply defined, then they owe this to the vulgarity and trifles of their natures, which are easily exhausted by the artist in light essays. Whereas in Chatsky’s personality, rich and versatile, one dominant side could be brought out in relief in the comedy - and Griboyedov managed to hint at many others.

Then - if you take a closer look at the human types in the crowd - then almost more often than others there are these honest, ardent, sometimes bilious individuals who do not meekly hide away from the oncoming ugliness, but boldly go to meet it and enter into a struggle, often unequal, always to the detriment of oneself and without any visible benefit to the cause. Who didn’t know or doesn’t know, each in his own circle, such smart, ardent, noble madmen who create a kind of chaos in those circles where fate takes them, for the truth, for an honest conviction?!

No, Chatsky, in our opinion, is the most living personality of all, both as a person and as a performer of the role assigned to him by Griboedov. But, we repeat, his nature is stronger and deeper than other persons and therefore could not be exhausted in comedy.<...>

If the reader agrees that in comedy, as we said, the movement is passionately and continuously maintained from beginning to end, then it should naturally follow that the play is in highest degree scenic. That's what she is. 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.<...>

Article “A Million Torments” by I.A. Goncharova is a critical review of several works at once. In response to the essay by A.S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit”, I.A. Goncharov provides not only literary, but also social analysis of this work, comparing it with other great works of that era.

The main idea of the article is that great changes have been brewing in society for a long time, and people like Griboyedov’s hero Chatsky will become great achievers.

Read the summary of the article Million torments of Goncharov

I.A. Goncharov calls the great comedy “Woe from Wit” the comedy that the era was waiting for. His article is a deep analysis of the socio-political life of Russia. The huge country was at the stage of transition from feudal-type rule to capitalist rule. The most advanced part of society were people of the noble class. It was on them that the country relied on in anticipation of change.

Among the noble educated class of Russia, as a rule, there were the fewest people like Griboyedov’s hero Chatsky. And people who could be attributed to Onegin A.S. Pushkin, or to Pechorin M.Yu. Lermontov, prevailed.

And society did not need people focused on themselves and their exclusivity, but people ready for achievements and self-sacrifice. Society needed a new, fresh vision of the world, social activities, education and the role of the citizen in the end.

Goncharov gives a comprehensive description of Chatsky’s image. He breaks the foundations of the old world, speaking the truth face to face. He seeks the truth, wants to know how to live, he is not satisfied with the morals and foundations of a respectable society, which covers up laziness, hypocrisy, lust and stupidity with decency and politeness. Everything that is dangerous, incomprehensible and beyond their control, they declare either immoral or insane. To declare Chatsky crazy is the easiest thing for them - this makes it easier to expel him from their little world so that he does not confuse their souls and does not interfere with living according to the old and so convenient rules.

This is quite natural, since even some of the great writers of that era treated Chatsky either condescendingly or mockingly. For example, A.S. Pushkin is perplexed why Chatsky shouts into the void, not seeing a response in the souls of those around him. As for Dobrolyubov, he condescendingly and ironically notes that Chatsky is a “gambling fellow.”

The fact that society did not accept or understand this image was the reason that Goncharov wrote the article in question.

Molchalin appears as the antipode of Chatsky. According to Goncharov, Russia, which belongs to the Molchalins, will ultimately come to a terrible end. Molchalin is a man of a special, mean-spirited nature, capable of pretending, lying, saying what his listeners are waiting for and wanting, and then betraying them.

I.A. Goncharov’s article is full of caustic criticism of the Silents, cowardly, greedy, stupid. According to the author, it is precisely such people who break through to power, since they are always promoted by those in power, those who find it more convenient to rule over those who do not have their own opinion, and indeed no outlook on life as such.

Essay by I.A. Goncharov is still relevant today. It makes you involuntarily think about who is more numerous in Russia – the Molchalins or the Chatskys? Who is there more in yourself? Is it always more convenient to go ahead or, by remaining silent, pretend that you agree with everything? What is better - to live in your own warm little world or to fight injustice, which has already dulled the souls of people so much that it has long seemed to be the usual order of things? Is Sophia so wrong in choosing Molchalin - after all, he will provide her with position, honor, and peace of mind, even if bought by meanness. All these questions trouble the reader’s mind while studying the article; they are the “millions of torments” that every thinking person who fears the loss of honor and conscience goes through at least once in his life.

According to I.A. Goncharova, Chatsky is not just a mad Don Quixote, fighting with windmills and causing a smile, anger, bewilderment - everything except understanding. Chatsky is a strong personality who is not so easy to silence. And he is able to evoke a response in young hearts.

The ending of the article is optimistic. His beliefs and way of thinking are consonant with the ideas of the Decembrists. His convictions are convictions that he cannot do without. new world standing on the threshold of a new era. Goncharov sees in Griboyedov’s comedy a forerunner of new events that will take place on Senate Square in 1825.

Who will we take into our new life? Will the Molchalins and Famusovs be able to penetrate there? – the reader will have to answer these questions for himself.