Many writers XIX centuries described balls in their works: Pushkin in “Eugene Onegin”, Lermontov in “Masquerade”, Tolstoy in “War and Peace”. It is at the balls that fateful events for the heroes take place. He was in the comedy "Woe from Wit" and plays many roles. He is the culmination of the work, the decoration, atmosphere and image of the century.
In the composition of comedy, like any other literary work, there is its own exposition, plot, climax and denouement. Without hesitation, I call the ball scene the climax. This is the peak of the work. This is the pinnacle towards which the action has been moving from the very beginning. After the ball, the tension in the plot begins to subside.
In addition, the atmosphere of the ball is a suitable backdrop for the action. The comedy was designed for a person of that time, for whom a ball was a common thing. I believe that the most intense point of the plot should have an ordinary decoration behind it, thereby simplifying the process of perception by the audience. For modern man The ball appears as a picture of that time. It’s as if we are looking into an aquarium with fish, where all natural processes take place. The 19th century is “preserved” in this ball. The entire brilliant, sparkling century is concentrated in the Gorichs, Tugoukhovskys, Khryamins, Zagoretskys, Khlestovs and even in the servants who do not have replicas. By the way, all these surnames are somewhat unpleasant to hear, and their roots are negative character: hard on the ears, whip, grunt. And separately, I would like to examine the surnames Gorich and Zagoretsky. Gorich and “bitterness” are homophones, which causes corresponding associations. But also in this surname one can identify the root of “mountains”, and then the meaning of the surname Zagoretsky will be revealed: behind the Gorichi, hiding behind them. Moreover, everything negative characteristics: “An out-and-out swindler, a rogue”, “He’s a liar, a gambler, a thief” - they put it into his mouth.
All the guests gathered together form an image secular society. Natalya Dmitrievna, speaking for her husband, Countess-granddaughter Khryumina, inserting French phrases into her speech, the Tugoukhovsky princesses discussing outfits - they are all the same " dead Souls", which Gogol will later have. Bogged down in small talk and visits, they have lost all original thoughts and real feelings. In their society, serf owners and flatterers do not tolerate dissent. Now they can only serve as conduits for gossip. Cruel, by the way, gossip. Having learned, that Chatsky is supposedly insane, they do not try to help him or at least pretend that they do not know about it. They do everything possible to oust Chatsky, throw him outside the circle: at the time when he pronounces a monologue at the end of the third act, “everyone spins in the waltz with the greatest zeal.”
Now let’s try to imagine where the action could take place, if not at the ball. This place or atmosphere must meet the following requirements: firstly, people from the nobility must gather there; secondly, they should all be able to move freely over some distance so that they can talk in private; thirdly, the environment should be natural for people like them; fifthly, it should be conducive to small talk and gossip. That is, it can only be a ball.
So, main idea comedy is revealed at the ball, and this is its significance. The meaning of the work is very well formulated by Vladimir Orlov: “Under the conditions of a feudal society, every independent thought, every living passion, every sincere feeling. Chatsky's intimate drama thus grows into the public drama of an entire generation. advanced people Decembrist era".
How is the conflict between “old” and “new” Moscow resolved? In the finale of the comedy, the social conflict (Chatsky - Famusov's Moscow) comes to a resolution, and the love triangle is resolved (Sofya - Molchalin - Chatsky).
Sophia learns that Molchalin did not love her, but courted her unwillingly. Moreover, the girl’s father, Famusov, finds out about Sophia’s affair with his secretary. He blames everything on new trends that made his daughter too “free.” Famusov threatens to take the “lovers” with a tight rein:
Wait, I'll correct you:
If you please, go to the hut, march, go after the birds;
Yes, and you, my friend, I, daughter, will not leave...
You shouldn’t be in Moscow, you shouldn’t live with people;
To the village, to my aunt, to the wilderness, to Saratov,
There you will grieve...
Moreover, Chatsky also becomes a witness to the exposure. He was finally convinced that it was Molchalin who was his rival in love for Sophia. Alexander Andreevich is amazed and disappointed: “Blind man! In whom I looked for the hope of all my labors!” Not only did Sophia choose such an insignificant person as Molchalin. All the time that Chatsky was in Moscow, the girl led him by the nose and did not admit that she loved someone else.
Alexander Andreevich is broken. In Moscow he was declared crazy, so he must leave the city. His beloved betrayed and deceived him. In despair, Chatsky concludes:
Who was it with? Where fate has taken me!
Everyone is driving! Everyone curses! A crowd of tormentors...
You are right: he will come out of the fire unharmed,
Who will have time to spend a day with you,
Will breathe air alone,
And his sanity will survive.
Get out of Moscow! I don't go here anymore.
The hero leaves. But it cannot be said that he suffered a complete defeat, and the Famusovs won. We know that Chatsky has supporters. I believe that progressive youth will work and fight for the good of their country, without retreating from the “past century.” Therefore, we can say that Chatsky suffered a temporary defeat. He appeared in Moscow too early. The old order was still too strong. But after some time, new trends will still prevail, and the “past century” will recede. I think this is inevitable: the new and young will win sooner or later.
The fate of Sophia is also unclear. It seems to me that Famusov threatened her with Saratov in the heat of his feelings. He wanted everyone around him to hear how angry he was. After all, for this hero, the most important thing is public opinion, the word of “Princess Marya Alekseevna.” I believe that when Famusov cools down, he will forgive his daughter. Sophia will remain in Moscow and look for a profitable husband. Everyone will gossip about the incident in Famusov’s house and forget, switching to something more “fresh.”
But these are assumptions and conjectures. Griboyedov himself does not say anything about the further fate of his heroes. He leaves the ending of the play "open".
The stories of the heroes remained unfinished. Why? Perhaps because Griboyedov wrote about his modernity. He couldn't know exactly what would happen next. The writer could only guess or express his wishes.
In addition, it seems to me that the finale was not so important for Griboedov. It was much more important for him to show the clash of heroes itself, to draw their portraits, that is, to capture the “past century” and the “present century.”
The “open” ending of the comedy “Woe from Wit” allows readers to reflect, express their assumptions, opinions about future fate heroes. This means that this work will not leave the reader indifferent. In my opinion, this is the main goal of any writer.
Thanks to a deliberate violation of the canons of classicism, Griboedov creates a special play. It contains two storylines, which is not typical for comedy. It is their presence that makes the ending unique.
The originality of the comedy's ending lies in the fact that, unlike a love conflict, the social conflict does not have a resolution, but is taken outside the scope of the work.
Related information:
- I. If the verb in the main clause has the form of the present or future tense, then in the subordinate clause any tense that is required by meaning can be used.
Comedy A.S. Griboyedov's "Woe from Wit" was created by the author over 8 years (1816-1824). This was a period when Russian literature developed rapidly and actively. In less than half a century, she went from classicism to sentimentalism, romanticism, and realism. The changes taking place were reflected in artistic features“Woe from Wit”, in the ending that the author chooses for his work. The writer created the comedy at a time when there were practically no Russians in Russia national theater(it was represented mainly by vaudeville and D.I. Fonvizin’s play “The Minor”). The Russian stage was filled with productions of French plays written in accordance with the canons of classicism. The greatest merit of A.S. Griboyedov in artistically is that he tried to overcome the canons of classicism (especially the requirement of 3 unities) and made a huge contribution to the formation of realistic drama. Fulfilling the requirements of unity of time (the action of the comedy takes place during the day), place (all events unfold in Famusov’s house), he decisively violates the requirement of unity of action. Main character comedy - Chatsky - changes significantly in the process of developing intrigue. He came to Moscow bored, in love, and not at all inclined to ridicule Famus society. But under the influence of “a million torments,” his mood changes dramatically. In the last monologue (“Get out of Moscow...”) this is a completely different person - ironically minded, embittered, indignant. The author also violates the unity of action by the fact that his heroes do not represent a static, one-dimensional figure, they are shown from different sides. Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov appears before us first as a bureaucrat (“Signed, off your shoulders”), then as a conservative (“I don’t listen, I’ll be put on trial!”), but at the same time as a caring father (thinks about the future of Sophia, whom raised alone, without a mother), a hospitable host (receives and treats guests at the ball). A.S. Griboyedov recreates real picture way of life, morals, life of the lordly Moscow of the first quarter of the XIX centuries, draws typical characters Famusov society(Famusov, Molchalin, Khlestova, Repetilov, Zagoretsky), gives a realistic image of the conflict between the “present century” and the “past century”. The conflict depicted in the comedy and the ending of this conflict, the finale of the work, seem special. The contemporary audience of the playwright is accustomed to the fact that the central intrigue of a classical comedy is a love conflict. Usually in a play like this, young masters who are in love with each other, and who are prevented by some circumstances from getting together, are helped to solve this problem by servants, who are often smarter and more enterprising than their masters. Griboyedov also has this “love conflict”. But it is depicted and solved in a very unique way. By classical tradition, Molchalin (the owner’s secretary) and Lisa (the owner’s daughter’s maid) must do their best to ensure that the two unite loving hearts: Sophia (the owner's daughter) and Chatsky (a young man in love). And at the end of the play we would have a wedding of lovers. It would be better if there were two weddings at once: between Molchalin and Liza and Sophia and Chatsky. This would be the material for the last fifth act of the classic comedy, its ending. Everyone is happy, u1076 virtue and love have triumphed, and vice is punished. But Griboedov, following his plans to depict a realistic conflict, strives in every possible way to avoid such a straightforward interpretation of his ideas. He deprives his play of the fifth, final act, and his traditional conflict looks very original. Chatsky loves Sophia, Sophia is in love with Molchalin, Molchalin is drawn to Lisa, Lisa likes the bartender Petrusha, but at the same time she correctly assesses Chatsky’s human merits (“Who is so sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp, Like Alexander Andreich Chatsky!”). If we add here Famusov’s attempts to flirt with Liza, then instead of the banal classic love triangle we will get an equation with many unknowns from higher mathematics. Basically creative method realism and correlates with classicism, like arithmetic with higher mathematics. How to resolve such a conflict so that vice (that is, Molchalin, Famusov and Sophia) are punished, and virtue (Chatsky and Liza) triumphs? A realistic solution to such a conflict in a play is almost impossible (or it will be a work of a completely different genre), the author understands this well. Therefore, he abandons the idea of depicting the fifth act of the comedy, ending it with the so-called “open” ending. But, as I.A. was the first to note. Goncharov, love conflict is not the main thing in comedy. It only complicates and deepens the main one, which is the contradiction between the conservative Moscow nobility and the radical progressive representative of the noble youth - Chatsky. The same characters are involved in this second, main conflict of the work, and again here the forces are distributed very realistically, that is, completely unevenly. Alone in the play, Chatsky fights against the inert views of an entire society, Famusov’s, as it is commonly called, to which Famusov himself, Molchalin, Sophia, and all the guests, relatives and friends of the owner of the house in which the action takes place belong. Throughout the comedy, this conflict deepens and becomes more complicated, reaching the point of direct slander (on the part of the Famus society) and direct rejection (on the part of Chatsky). What realistic ending could such a conflict have? Vice must be punished. Is it conceivable to imagine that the comedy would realistically show the punishment of the entire Famus society, which, from the point of view of the author and his hero, is conservative, reactionary and patriarchal? Would Chatsky celebrate the victory? A.S. Griboedov understood perfectly well that a realistic depiction of such an ending is impossible, and therefore ends the action of his work at the very end. high note, leaving him without a solution. Chatsky leaves Moscow alive, in his right mind, without abandoning his progressive ideas - this can already be considered a positive ending to the comedy. There is another explanation for the meaning of the ending in A.S.’s comedy. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit". Every playwright would like the viewer, upon leaving the theater or putting down the book, not to immediately forget about the characters of what he saw or read, so that he would mentally turn to the situation depicted, reflect on it, draw conclusions, and become a supporter of certain views. Therefore, the “open” ending depicted by A.S. Griboyedov in this play, gives the reader the opportunity to think about what will happen to its characters in the future. How will the heroes behave the next morning? Will Chatsky have the courage to leave Moscow without seeing Sophia? Will Famusov find out the truth about his daughter’s feelings not for Chatsky, but for Molchalin? Will he send his daughter, as he threatened, to Saratov, and Liza to poultry yard? With the help of servants, will rumors about the embarrassment that occurred in Famusov’s house spread throughout Moscow, will they reach the ears of “Princess Marya Aleksevna”? What verdict will “public opinion” give in connection with what happened? How will Molchalin behave in such a delicate situation? What will Sophia feel and what will she decide for herself? All this is very interesting, and people haven’t stopped thinking about it since the first reading of the text of the comedy. That is why M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin’s work “In an environment of moderation and accuracy” appeared, telling about the matured Molchalins who reached “the famous levels”, A.A. Blok called “Woe from Wit” the only work of Russian literature that has not been fully solved, M.V. Nechkina wondered whether Sophia could simply feign love for Molchalin in order to take revenge on Chatsky for neglecting herself. This, in my opinion, is the meaning of the “open” ending of A.S.’s comedy. Griboyedov's "Woe from Wit" and its role in the perception of this work and in its long literary and stage life.
In those years when A.S. Griboyedov creates his comedy; in Russian society there is already a clear gap between the educated part of society, thinking and searching, striving for fundamental changes in Russian life, and the authorities. The War of 1812, which caused a general patriotic upsurge, united the entire society, allowed hopes to arise that in the near future they would finally be realized whole line liberal reforms, which the educated part of society dreamed of: canceled, for example, it would be shameful for Russia serfdom. However, the reality that came after the end of the war and some dulling of memories of the unity that took place showed that there were no changes in Russian public life not expected in the near future. The result was that some European educated people were forced to resign in scandal, many others became members of secret anti-government organizations. The tense situation that developed eventually ended in an explosion, which went down in Russian history as the Decembrist uprising.
Griboyedov saw what was happening well - and his idea for a comedy gradually matured. Undoubtedly, the fact that the expulsion of the author himself from St. Petersburg was associated with slander played a role here. In a word, Griboyedov was tormented by the eternal question of fate smart person in Russia. The very name of the comedy sets central problem, indicating the speculative nature of the hero’s ideas due to a certain high position and, therefore, his doom to bitter and hard fate. Chatsky's mind combines high degree enlightenment, love of freedom, free-thinking, ardor (it is no coincidence that Famusov says about him that “he writes and translates well”). Chatsky is convinced that a person can fully express himself in a word and fully convey this word to another. But the speculative nature of his positions is immediately revealed by the reality surrounding him in Moscow - his words never reach his interlocutor. To immediately turn everyone against him, it was enough for Chatsky to simply come to Moscow. Its very existence immediately comes into conflict with the existing order in Moscow.
Having arrived, the hero perceives Sophia as a natural interlocutor who will undoubtedly understand him. However, he completely misses the fact that during the time they did not see each other, Sophia could have changed. He does not even assume this possibility, just as he does not assume that his departure then could have offended her, insulted her, caused real pain. Chatsky, without thinking about anything, begins to criticize everything around him, use irony, but goes too far in his rejection of the environment. The constructs of the mind according to which he lives turn out to be too shaky and do not stand the test of reality, with which Chatsky constantly does not coincide. The hero's sharp, insightful mind nevertheless turns out to be compatible with innocence and naivety, irony with sensitivity, freedom with virtue, alien to rigorism. Oddly enough, Chatsky’s main opponent turns out to be Sophia. She is at the same time sentimental and vindictive, dreamy and not without cunning, capable of strong feelings and touchily capricious, sometimes petty, and to a certain extent callous. However, of all the heroes of the comedy, she is the one who is close to Chatsky. Sophia does not entirely accept all the morals of Moscow and views on life and is free from many prejudices: she is not looking for a profitable marriage, she dreams u1086 of high love, to some extent even ready to fight for it. She is strong in character - and this largely contributes to her delusion. Sophia chooses Molchalin, whom she sculpts in accordance with her own ideas about the virtuous young man worthy of her love. And, thus, she is paradoxically mistaken, perceiving Chatsky as an enemy, who precisely has much of what is inherent in herself.
In general, Moscow society is a kind of frozen, frozen structure, not ready for any changes and categorically does not accept them. This state of affairs leads to the fact that the individual traits of those who make up this society are inevitably leveled out, leaving only some opportunities for realization. This process personifies Repetilov: he appears as a kind of empty form, which under different circumstances could turn into a playmaker, a careerist or a loser, a loud freethinker. Thus, many other characters also embody a whole set of different possibilities, which will never become a reality in conditions of extreme inertia that covers all of Moscow. Chatsky's clash with Moscow is a clash of an awakened, very bright personality with routine, the dogma of an immovable social order. Any, even private intrigue (Chatsky - Molchalin - Sophia) acquires social significance and carries its significant element: first of all, because it is filled with public significance and is projected onto the social dimension. The hero constantly undermines the foundations of Moscow life, Moscow society - everything as a whole and each individual. So, for example, the meaning of Sophia’s life is love for Molchalin, and Chatsky laughs at the secretary’s dumbness. And that’s why the girl says, “He’s out of his mind.” Sophia herself understands these words in a figurative sense, but is glad that her interlocutor, Mr. N., understood them in the literal sense. In the same way, for Khlestova the main thing is respect, for Molchalin it’s a career, for Natalya Dmitrievna it’s social entertainment. And since Chatsky touches all this with all his actions and words, tries to refute it, then he naturally turns out to be crazy in relation to this world and from the point of view of this world.
In fact, Chatsky is restless wherever he finds himself. So, in St. Petersburg he “was not given ranks”; he wanted to serve the state, but when it turned out that it was also necessary to serve, he abandoned these plans. Chatsky’s entire position in life is determined in his dialogue with Sophia, when the question “Where is better?” he replies: “Where we are not.” And that’s why at the beginning of the comedy he appears from nowhere, and in the finale he goes to nowhere. His developed mind is also questionable from another point of view: “Will such a mind make a family happy?” - Sophia asks, and she is right in her own way.
The ending of the comedy remains open. First of all, because the issues raised in it cannot be resolved on such a scale, their solution remains with historical time, and Griboedov, with the subtle instinct of an artist, understands this. On the other hand, Chatsky himself is not completely defined - many equal opportunities open up before him. And for Griboedov it turns out to be important not to impose on his hero any one definition, which will inevitably narrow and limit him.
Comedy A.S. Griboyedov's "Woe from Wit" was created by the author over 8 years (1816-1824). This was a period when Russian literature developed rapidly and actively. In less than half a century, she went from classicism to sentimentalism, romanticism, and realism. The changes taking place were also reflected in the artistic features of “Woe from Wit” and in the ending that the author chooses for his work. The writer created the comedy at a time when there was practically no Russian national theater in Russia (it was represented mainly by vaudeville and D.I. Fonvizin’s play “The Minor”). The Russian stage was filled with productions of French plays written in accordance with the canons of classicism. The greatest merit of A.S. Griboyedov's artistic achievement is that he tried to overcome the canons of classicism (especially the requirement of 3 unities) and made a huge contribution to the formation of realistic drama. Fulfilling the requirements of unity of time (the action of the comedy takes place during the day), place (all events unfold in Famusov’s house), he decisively violates the requirement of unity of action. The main character of the comedy - Chatsky - changes significantly in the process of developing intrigue. He came to Moscow bored, in love, and not at all inclined to ridicule Famus society. But under the influence of “a million torments,” his mood changes dramatically. In the last monologue (“Get out of Moscow...”) this is a completely different person - ironically minded, embittered, indignant. The author also violates the unity of action by the fact that his heroes do not represent a static, one-dimensional figure, they are shown from different sides. Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov appears before us first as a bureaucrat (“Signed, off your shoulders”), then as a conservative (“I don’t listen, I’ll be put on trial!”), but at the same time as a caring father (thinks about the future of Sophia, whom raised alone, without a mother), a hospitable host (receives and treats guests at the ball).
A.S. Griboyedov recreates a real picture of the way of life, morals, and life of lordly Moscow in the first quarter of the 19th century, draws the typical characters of Famusov’s society (Famusov, Molchalin, Khlestova, Repetilov, Zagoretsky), gives a realistic image of the conflict between the “present century” and the “past century.” The conflict depicted in the comedy and the ending of this conflict, the finale of the work, seem special. The contemporary audience of the playwright is accustomed to the fact that the central intrigue of a classical comedy is a love conflict. Usually in a play like this, young masters who are in love with each other, and who are prevented by some circumstances from getting together, are helped to solve this problem by servants, who are often smarter and more enterprising than their masters. Griboyedov also has this “love conflict”. But it is depicted and solved in a very unique way. According to the classical tradition, Molchalin (the owner’s secretary) and Lisa (the owner’s daughter’s maid) must do their best to ensure that two loving hearts unite: Sophia (the owner’s daughter) and Chatsky (the young man in love). And at the end of the play we would have a wedding of lovers. It would be better if there were two weddings at once: between Molchalin and Liza and Sophia and Chatsky. This would be the material for the last fifth act of the classic comedy, its ending. Everyone is happy, u1076 virtue and love have triumphed, and vice is punished.
But Griboedov, following his plans to depict a realistic conflict, strives in every possible way to avoid such a straightforward interpretation of his ideas. He deprives his play of the fifth, final act, and his traditional conflict looks very original. Chatsky loves Sophia, Sophia is in love with Molchalin, Molchalin is drawn to Lisa, Lisa likes the bartender Petrusha, but at the same time she correctly assesses Chatsky’s human merits (“Who is so sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp, Like Alexander Andreich Chatsky!”). If we add here Famusov’s attempts to flirt with Lisa, then instead of a banal classic love triangle we get an equation with many unknowns from higher mathematics. In principle, the creative method of realism correlates with classicism, like arithmetic with higher mathematics. How to resolve such a conflict so that vice (that is, Molchalin, Famusov and Sophia) are punished, and virtue (Chatsky and Liza) triumphs? A realistic solution to such a conflict in a play is almost impossible (or it will be a work of a completely different genre), the author understands this well. Therefore, he abandons the idea of depicting the fifth act of the comedy, ending it with the so-called “open” ending. But, as I.A. was the first to note. Goncharov, love conflict is not the main thing in comedy. It only complicates and deepens the main one, which is the contradiction between the conservative Moscow nobility and the radical progressive representative of the noble youth - Chatsky. The same characters are involved in this second, main conflict of the work, and again here the forces are distributed very realistically, that is, completely unevenly. Alone in the play, Chatsky fights against the inert views of an entire society, Famusov’s, as it is commonly called, to which Famusov himself, Molchalin, Sophia, and all the guests, relatives and friends of the owner of the house in which the action takes place belong. Throughout the comedy, this conflict deepens and becomes more complicated, reaching the point of direct slander (on the part of the Famus society) and direct rejection (on the part of Chatsky). What realistic ending could such a conflict have? Vice must be punished. Is it conceivable to imagine that the comedy would realistically show the punishment of the entire Famus society, which, from the point of view of the author and his hero, is conservative, reactionary and patriarchal? Would Chatsky celebrate the victory? A.S. Griboedov understood perfectly well that a realistic depiction of such an ending is impossible, and therefore ends the action of his work on the highest note, leaving it without a resolution. Chatsky leaves Moscow alive, in his right mind, without abandoning his progressive ideas - this can already be considered a positive ending to the comedy. There is another explanation for the meaning of the ending in A.S.’s comedy. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit". Every playwright would like the viewer, upon leaving the theater or putting down the book, not to immediately forget about the characters of what he saw or read, so that he would mentally turn to the situation depicted, reflect on it, draw conclusions, and become a supporter of certain views. Therefore, the “open” ending depicted by A.S. Griboyedov in this play, gives the reader the opportunity to think about what will happen to its characters in the future. How will the heroes behave the next morning? Will Chatsky have the courage to leave Moscow without seeing Sophia? Will Famusov find out the truth about his daughter’s feelings not for Chatsky, but for Molchalin? Will he send his daughter, as he threatened, to Saratov, and Liza to the poultry yard? With the help of servants, will rumors about the embarrassment that occurred in Famusov’s house spread throughout Moscow, will they reach the ears of “Princess Marya Aleksevna”? What verdict will “public opinion” give in connection with what happened? How will Molchalin behave in such a delicate situation? What will Sophia feel and what will she decide for herself? All this is very interesting, and people haven’t stopped thinking about it since the first reading of the text of the comedy. That is why M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin’s work “In an environment of moderation and accuracy” appeared, telling about the matured Molchalins who reached “the famous levels”, A.A. Blok called “Woe from Wit” the only work of Russian literature that has not been fully solved, M.V. Nechkina wondered whether Sophia could simply feign love for Molchalin in order to take revenge on Chatsky for neglecting herself. This, in my opinion, is the meaning of the “open” ending of A.S.’s comedy. Griboyedov's "Woe from Wit" and its role in the perception of this work and in its long literary and stage life.