Alexander Chatsky is a young man who has strong convictions and principles. He is ready to serve his cause, idea, Fatherland, but Alexander will not serve the people. He is very smart and educated.

Alexander decides to return to Moscow to his beloved Sophia, but he does not even suspect that she has a completely different life here. His love is no longer the same as before, it has changed in a completely different direction. In childhood, they were of the same views. Young and passionate hearts, they loved each other, but one day Chatsky left and left Sophia for the Famus Society. Not only did the girl grow up without a mother, now she fell under the influence of Moscow ladies, who taught her how to live correctly. Now her views and beliefs have changed radically.

Chatsky travels to Moscow, expecting to see the same Sophia as before. But he does not even suspect that he will meet a completely different person. That Sophia, whom he loved, remained in the past. The reality changed her life for the worse. Under the influence of an obliging, selfish and greedy society, the girl became completely different. Now her ideal is Aleksey Molchalin, it is easy to crush him, he always agrees with her and will never object. The girl is crazy about him.

Alexander, meeting with such a reality, is in a state of shock. He does not understand how you can love such a stupid and hypocritical person as Molchalin. Immediately after his arrival, Alexander starts a conversation with Sophia about his feelings, but stumbles upon a cold iceberg of misunderstanding and rejection. The girl perceives their past relationship as something frivolous, like childishness. Alexander's heart is broken, his feelings are trampled. Sophia openly praises Alexei in front of Chatsky, which irritates him. Alexander only mocks Molchalin. He does not understand how Sophia could become so stupid.

The dreams of youth are shattered. The love that Chatsky kept all these years was trampled on. The Famus society absolutely does not understand the ideas and beliefs of the hero, they are far from them. This society needs only material things, only money, ranks and titles. Representatives of this society are ready to do anything for the sake of promotion. Chatsky, on the other hand, is ready to serve only a cause or an idea; he will never serve people. For Alexander, this is baseness, he will never sink to such a level.

Now he regrets coming. Alexander could not even imagine that his love would change so much. Sophia, with whom in his youth he shared all his experiences and views, who supported him in all endeavors, is now completely different. That Sophia is no more, in addition, she also spreads the rumor that Alexander has gone crazy. And this nonsense quickly spreads throughout the house. Chatsky expressed everything that he thinks about everything and left this house forever. His life will never be the same.

Option 2

Comedy A.S. Griboedov is a work that played a big role in the formation and education of the moral character of Russian society. In this work, we see the urge to fight against stupidity, immorality, meanness and violence. The work still does not leave the theater stages, it excites the minds in the same way as in the days of the Russian Empire.

In the play, Griboedov portrayed only one day in Famusov's house. But, despite this, the author managed to touch on many significant issues: education, duty, service, serfdom and worship of everything foreign. We see the struggle of the old foundations with the new century.

In the Famus society, everything is built on hypocrisy and lies. All they do is just fun and carelessness. And so, into this house, where every corner drains vices, Chatsky bursts. In his image, Griboedov captured a young man full of new ideas and aspirations. He has his own mindset, different from others, he is in constant search for a new, hitherto unknown.

The work is based on a love drama, behind the screen of which social and ideological conflicts are hidden. In them we see the suffering and mental anguish of Chatsky. He comes to the Famusovs' house to his beloved girl, but she is cheating on the young man, preferring Molchalin. Molchalin is a close-minded person, in whose talents there is only accuracy and helpfulness. Sophia belongs entirely to the Famus society, and therefore cannot be together with Chatsky, since he is completely different, unusual for her understanding. Sophia turns out to be one of the "tormentors" of the poor protagonist. Chatsky alone opposes this society, he is a simple dreamer who wants to overthrow the old and install bright and good in its place.

Chatsky is disgusted by the Russian society of those times, he sees the whole horror of serfdom, when people are exchanged for dogs, when they are treated as second-class. He sees that power is in the hands of the worst of people, they do not care about the fate of the people.

In such a society, it is the Molchalins who feel great, who know how to flatter and serve at the right moment. Chatsky is superfluous, he understands this, and wants to finally change everything.

Chatsky is a man of a new era, he opposes the foundations of old Moscow. In the matter of serving the people, he has his own views. He does not want to see that rank and wealth dominate honesty and intelligence. He is against those who are afraid of science and enlightenment. In his opinion, progress will come only when people begin to develop, to think, but in Famusov's society this is alien.

The ideas and speeches of Chatsky remain incomprehensible to anyone. He wants to open his soul, to express everything. At the ball, he turns everyone against him, because he considers it impossible to behave like the assembled "gentlemen". But society laughs at him. They take him for a lunatic and kick him out.

In this comedy, we see a man who suffers from his mind. Because of his education, he becomes in the eyes of the public an eccentric and crazy. He is among those in whom there is nothing human, they only hide behind the norms of morality. He is unable to stay with them and eventually walks away from them.

Some interesting essays

• Essay composition Work of the soul Grade 7

  The work of the soul is an unusual concept in itself. How can the soul work? Although the poet said that the soul must work both day and night. (I don’t remember who exactly said, since we didn’t go through this program yet.)

• The image of Grandfather in the poem Grandfather Nekrasov

  Grandfather is the main character in the poem. He is Sasha's grandfather, he was once a Decembrist. Modern readers may have recognized in this image a certain Volkonsky. Describing his appearance, one can single out a stately figure.

• What is ball rolling? essay based on Bulgakov's Heart of a Dog

  Such a definition was introduced into the Russian language by Mikhail Bulgakov after writing the work "Heart of a Dog". Some people are sure that the story was written to reflect all the vices of the future political system and society.

• The image and characteristics of the Baron in the play At the bottom of Gorky essay

  The Baron is an adult male, one of the residents of the rooming house, part-time working as a pimp. According to him, he was led to such a life by a series of misfortunes, because of which he was penniless.

• The image and characteristics of Mikhail Koshevoy Quiet Don Sholokhov essay

Reflecting on the peculiarities of the comedy “Woe from Wit”, I. A. Goncharov noted that in the group of actors “the entire former Moscow was reflected, like a ray of light in a drop of water, ... its then spirit, historical moment and customs.” He also noted that the comedy would have remained only a picture of morals, had it not been for Chatsky, who breathed a living soul into action from his first word to the last. Without the figure of Chatsky, without his passionate monologues, the play would not have gained such popularity, would not have become one of the most beloved
works of true patriots of Russia.

/> But if Chatsky is one smart person for 25 fools, why in the last act he appears bewildered in front of us, with “a million torments” in his chest? Is it only the collapse of his love for Sophia that is the reason? No, he boils with indignation, having plunged into the world of “clumsy wise men, crafty simpletons, sinister old women, old men ...” In a word, the outgoing age and its principles, pulling their tentacles to the new, fall under the hail of his arrows.
The last action only sums up the clashes on this ground between the Famus society and the main character.
Chatsky is a smart, educated person. As other characters describe him, “he
small with a head”, “gloriously writes, translates”. Previously, he served, occupied a high position, but did not find any benefit in this, because he had to serve individuals, and not the cause. And Chatsky doesn’t want to “fit into the regiment of jesters” and patrons: “I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to serve” - his credo. For his views, which are contrary to the generally accepted ones, he was “declared a wast, a tomboy”, because he managed the estate “by mistake”, that is, in his own way, he traveled for three years, which in the eyes of the world only added to the strangeness of his behavior.

Failures and wanderings have not weathered his energies. He does not seem disappointed when he appears at Famusov's house, and his talkativeness, liveliness and witticisms are not only from a date with Sophia. After all, the smoke of the Fatherland is sweet and pleasant to him, although Chatsky knows that he will not see anything new, it is the same everywhere.
Feeling insincerity in Sophia, some kind of falsehood, Chatsky, as an honest person, tries to understand her. His mind and senses are irritated by hidden lies, and everything he used to
tried to be condescending, outraged him. So the “intrigue of love” becomes “general
battle” of an advanced person with the obscurantists of his era.
First of all, Chatsky is opposed to the “past century”, so beloved by Famusov, against servility, humility and fear, inertia of thinking, when
Judgments draw from forgotten newspapers
Ochakov times and the conquest of the Crimea.
He is disgusted by the mutual responsibility of the nobility, extravagance and feasts, but most of all indignation in him
incites serfdom, in which devoted servants are exchanged for greyhounds,
sold singly "from mothers, fathers of rejected children." Chatsky cannot
to respect such people even in desertion, does not recognize their right to trial over a new
century. And they, in turn, consider people like Chatsky to be robbers, dangerous
dreamers preaching the most terrible thing for them - liberty.
For Chatsky, doing science and art is creativity, high and beautiful, but for
others it is tantamount to fire. After all, it’s more convenient “so that no one knows and does not learn to read”,
better ranks and drill.
From monologue to monologue, Chatsky's irritation grows, and this is not only about Sophia. “Houses are new, but prejudices are old” - that's the main thing. Therefore, his remarks directed at the bearers of these prejudices, old and young, become so caustic. He sowed hostility, and reaped "a million torments."
The rumor about Chatsky's madness fell on fertile ground, otherwise the Famus society would not have been able to explain his behavior, bilious, picky. The white crow has no place among the blacks, it must be rejected. Fencing off Chatsky with slander, everyone sighs
freer, and the hero weakens. His monologue “Yes, no urine: a million torments” sounds like
complaint, and pain responds to the heart. Not only Chatsky, but also the Fatherland is humiliated by the existing order, the dominance of foreigners, when “empty, slavish, blind imitation” replaces national culture, and “smart, vigorous ... people” even accept foreigners according to the language of the masters.
That is why in the last scene we see Chatsky so indignant. Disappointed in love and having not found “neither the sound of a Russian, nor a Russian face”, deceived and slandered, Chatsky flees from Moscow “to look around the world where there is a corner for an offended feeling”, taking away, like a crown of thorns, “a million torments”. But his principles are not debunked. Goncharov correctly noted that “Chatsky is broken by the amount of old strength, inflicting on it in turn
a fatal blow by the quality of fresh force.
Is he really the eternal debunker of lies, which is spoken of in the proverb “One man is not a warrior”? No, a warrior, if he is Chatsky, and, moreover, a winner, but an advanced warrior, skirmisher and always a victim.

(No Ratings Yet)

related posts:

1. A. Griboedov's comedy is a source of reflections... (I. A. Goncharov - about the fact that the comedy has not been completely solved: “... the comedy “Woe from Wit” is both a picture of morals, and a gallery of living types, and ... a sharp satire ... Without Chatsky there would be no comedy, but there would be a picture of manners.”) Who is he, Chatsky? The personality of A. Chatsky. Love line comedy. (Chatsky is full [...] ...
2. In Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" many vices of rich people of that time are ridiculed. The heroes of the work, such as Famusov, Molchalin, Tugoukhovsky, Skalozub and others, reveal the negative qualities of their character to readers. They are petty, miserable, self-serving and helpful. Their ideals are “serving persons” people, “hunters to be mean”. These ideals are not shared by only one character - Chatsky. He prefers people […]
3. A million torments of Chatsky He will come out of the fire unharmed, Who will have time to stay with you for a day, Breathe the same air, And his mind will survive. A. S. Griboyedov. According to V. G. Belinsky, “Woe from Wit” is the noblest creation of a man of genius. And I. A. Goncharov in his article “A Million of Torments” wrote: “Woe from Wit” - there are […] ...
4. The comedy "Woe from Wit" in Russian literature stands apart. Without the figure of Chatsky, there would be no comedy. Chatsky is smart and cordial, the rest are not. The essence of Chatsky's character is expressed in his words: "I would be glad to serve, it's sickening to serve." Unhappy love for Sophia is the cause and motive of Chatsky's “million torments”. The main idea of ​​this passage is that in order to create [...] ...
5. AS Griboyedov entered Russian literature as the author of one work. His comedy "Woe from Wit" is hard to overestimate. Griboyedov's play will remain modern and vital until careerism, servility, gossip disappear from our lives, until our society is dominated by the thirst for profit, the desire to live at the expense of others, and not by one's own labor, until […]
6. AS Griboyedov entered Russian literature as the author of one work - the comedy "Woe from Wit". This play by Griboedov is still contemporary and will excite society until careerism, servility, gossip disappear from our lives, until the thirst for profit, the desire to live at the expense of others, and not at the expense of one’s own labor, prevail, […]. ..
7. Griboedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" was written in 1824. The author draws us living images of Russian people, reflecting the reality as it really was in the first quarter of the 19th century. From the position of the Decembrists, Griboyedov ridicules the rigidity, conservatism and backwardness of society's traditions. The play is written in the classical style. The author takes an innovative approach to the theory of three unities. He maintains unity […]
8. The departure of the guests seems to bring us back to the beginning of Act III: Khryumina despises everyone; Natalya Dmitrievna trains her husband; The Tugoukhovskys are chirping... Everything enters the shores, but Khryumina has a little more anger, Gorich's despondency is more frank, Skalozub's martyrdom, the Tugoukhovskys' poverty, Khlestova's dominance. Chatsky hears in their words about himself "not laughter, but clearly anger." At first glance, Chatsky in [...] ...
9. The role and physiognomy of the Chatskys is unchanged. Chatsky is most of all a denouncer of lies and everything that has become obsolete. He knows what he is fighting for. He is very positive in his demands. He demands space and freedom for his age. He is outraged by the ugly manifestations of serfdom, insane luxury and disgusting morals. His ideal of a "free life" is freedom from all chains of slavery. […]...
10. The comedy "Woe from Wit" holds itself somewhat apart in literature and is distinguished by its youthfulness, freshness and stronger vitality from other works of the word. “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 everything lives its imperishable life, will survive many more epochs and all [...] ...
11. About Chatsky: Chatsky is most of all a debunker of lies and everything that has become obsolete, which drowns out a new life, “free life”. He is very positive in his demands and declares them in a ready-made program worked out by the beginning of the century. He is outraged by the ugly manifestations of serfdom, insane luxury and disgusting morals. Out of fear for himself, Famusov slanders Chatsky, but he lies because [...] ...
12. The comedy "Woe from Wit" is both a picture of manners, and a gallery of living types, and burning satire, and most of all a comedy. As a picture it is huge. Her canvas captures a long period of Russian life - from Catherine to Emperor Nicholas. In a group of twenty people, all the old Moscow was reflected, its design, its then spirit, historical moment and customs. And all […]...
13. In general, it is difficult to treat Sofya Pavlovna not sympathetically: she has strong inclinations of a remarkable nature, a lively mind, passion and feminine gentleness. I. A. Goncharov A. S. Griboedov entered the history of Russian and world literature as the creator of the brilliant comedy “Woe from Wit”. It is interesting not only from the point of view of the problems of Russian society in the first half of the 19th century, [...] ...
14. 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 outlived their time in turn, die and fall, and he walks, cheerful and fresh, between the graves of the old and the cradles of the new. Despite the genius of Pushkin, his characters “turn pale and fade into the past,” while Griboedov’s play appeared earlier, but survived [...] ...
15. A. S. Griboyedov I. A. Goncharov “A Million of Torments” (the article was written in 1871) About comedy in general: “It is impossible to imagine that another, more natural, simple, more taken from life speech could ever appear . Prose and verse merged here into something inseparable, then, it seems, so that it would be easier to keep them in memory and put them back into circulation ... [...] ...
16. The only character conceived and performed in the comedy "Woe from Wit", as close to Chatsky, is Sofia Pavlovna Famusova. Griboyedov wrote about her: “The girl herself is not stupid, she prefers a fool to a smart person:” This character embodies a complex character, the author has left satire and farce here. He presented the female character of great strength and depth. Sophia for quite a long time “not [...] ...
17. Chatsky's story: The material of the comedy is insufficient for any details regarding Chatsky's life. We can say that he was brought up with Sophia, was friends with her as a child, then studied and served. Now he left the service and returned to his native places, where he had not been for many years. “A million torments” of Chatsky lies in the fact that he had lost before [...] ...
18. Why is this play still being performed in many theaters in Russia and abroad? In Chekhov's comedy "The Cherry Orchard" we see a combination of dramatic and comic, which is connected with the problematics of the work. The play shows the passage of time: past, present and future. The central characters are Ranevskaya and Gaev. They live in the past, they have no present or future. […]...
19. The material of the comedy is not enough for any details about Chatsky's life. We can say that he was brought up with Sophia, was friends with her as a child, then studied and served. Now he left the service and returned to his native places, where he had not been for many years. “A million torments” of Chatsky lies in the fact that he lost the previously carefully guarded [...] ...
20. The image of Chatsky based on the work of I. A. Goncharov “A Million of Torments” The main role, of course, is the role of Chatsky, without which there would be no comedy, but there would, perhaps, be a picture of morals. Chatsky is not only smarter than all other people, but also positively smart. His speech boils with intelligence, wit. He has a heart, and at the same time he is impeccably honest. In a word, […]...
21. “Woe from Wit” is a comedy of high social content. Griboyedov touches on the most important issues: upbringing and education, service to the fatherland and civic duty, serfdom and the worship of everything foreign. The main character of this comedy is Chatsky, who feels hatred for serfdom, passionate patriotism and pride in everything Russian, love for education, science and art. After […]...
22. I. A. Goncharov in his article “A Million of Torments” wrote about the protagonist of A. S. Griboyedov’s immortal comedy “Woe from Wit”: “The role of Chatsky is the main role, without which there would be no comedy, but would, perhaps, picture of manners. I fully agree with this opinion. Alexander Andreevich Chatsky is the main and most striking image of the comedy. He […]...
23. Chatsky and Molchalin are the heroes of Griboyedov's comedy “Woe from Wit. They are absolutely different both in character, and in worldview, and in position in society. Molchalin is a typical representative of the Famus era, the personification of servility, lies, flattery, selfishness, self-humiliation for selfish purposes. Chatsky is absolutely opposite to Molchalin. Many aspects of Griboyedov's soul were reflected in the image of Chatsky. He is true and passionate [...] ...
24. The comedy "Woe from Wit" is the most famous work of A. S. Griboyedov. The ideas embodied in it by the author often caused a contradictory attitude of readers. In "Woe from Wit" we see how the concepts of "the present century" and "the past century" clash. Chatsky proclaims the views of the "current century", so it is quite natural that in the comedy we find the hero's lengthy monologues. From the monologues we learn […]...
25. Comedy Griboedov "Woe from Wit" touches on the most important issues of life. These are such problems as the upbringing of a person and about admiration for everything foreign, as well as about serfdom. In his work, the author of the comedy ridicules and condemns his characters. These are Famusov, Molchalin and Skalozub. All these heroes are opposed by the main character. This is Chatsky Alexander Andreevich. He received an excellent education […]
26. Before answering this question, I would like to briefly return to past events and see how the action of the comedy developed before this angry and accusatory speech by Chatsky. So, Chatsky clearly realized that his return to Moscow was in vain. He feels that Sophia's heart belongs to another, although he still cannot understand who this other is. And in […]
27. A clash between Chatsky and Famusov's Moscow is inevitable. As soon as Chatsky arrived at Famusov's house, disagreements immediately arose. Famusov and Chatsky are completely different people, so there are always contradictions between them. Everything that Famusov praises in Moscow, Chatsky condemns. There is a clash of the "current century", that is, the advanced nobility, with the "past century" - the mass of feudal lords. Chatsky believes that […]
28. Comparative Characteristics of Chatsky and the Gorichs The protagonist of Griboyedov's play is opposed to the society around him. And this motive of confrontation sounds in the scene already cited. Chatsky's advice did not please Natalya Dmitrievna, since, according to this heroine, they violated the usual, measured way of life of secular people. Chatsky advises Gorich to get down to business, to return to the regiment, to go to the village. Such […]...
29. "Woe from Wit" - the works of A. S. Griboyedov, revealing one of the most important problems of society - the problem of the collision of two worlds: "the present century" and "the past century". Later, many classics of Russian literature will raise this topic in their works. In Griboedov's play, the clash of different views is shown in the opposition of Chatsky and Famus society. Alexander Andreevich Chatsky - chief […]...
30. Chatsky's clash with the Famus society was inevitable. It takes on an increasingly violent character and is complicated by Chatsky's personal drama - the collapse of hopes for personal happiness. His attacks become more and more sharp. He enters the struggle, and in his speeches, the opposite of his views to the views of Famusov's Moscow is clearly expressed: If Famusov is the defender of the old century, time […]...
31. Consistently develops social intrigue. She comes to the fore in Chatsky's clashes with Famusov, Skalozub and Molchalin. And the opposite side does not skimp on assessments, she quickly finds out what kind of enemy Chatsky is for her. Each new person becomes hostile to Chatsky, and in the third act, the whole society, gathered for the evening at Famusov, becomes hostile. […]...
32. A. S. Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit” was written in the first half of the 19th century. This is a time of contrasts, which has absorbed everything: both triumphs and defeats. People who wore beggarly rags tried on royal robes. And stingy innkeepers who previously held a butcher's knife received a marshal's baton. But triumphs gave way to a disastrous sunset, jubilant cries eclipsed bitter lamentation, the majestic radiance of truth [...] ...
33. The figure of Chatsky determines the conflict of the comedy, both of its storylines. In the monologues and remarks of Chatsky, in all his actions, what was most important for the future Decembrists was expressed: the spirit of liberty, free life, the feeling that "he breathes more freely than anyone." Freedom of the individual is the motive of time and the comedy of A. S. Griboyedov. And freedom from outdated notions of love, [...] ...
34. In the comedy "Woe from Wit" Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov puts his cherished thoughts into the mouth of the main character Alexander Andreevich Chatsky, who expresses them most often in the form of monologues. They play an important role in revealing the ideological meaning of the work. In total, Chatsky delivers six monologues. Each of them characterizes a step in the development of the comedy plot. The first of them (“Well […]
35. It seems that the writer had the gift of providence - so accurately he showed in his comedy everything that later became reality. Chatsky, having entered the struggle with the whole old, conservative system, was doomed to defeat. He is a representative of the young progressive-minded generation of Russia of that era, and the Famus society is that conservative majority that does not want to accept anything [...]...
36. In my comedy, there are 25 fools to one sane person. And sometimes a person, of course, is in conflict with the society around him, no one understands him, no one wants to forgive him, why he is a little higher than others. AS Griboyedov In 1824, Griboedov created the immortal comedy Woe from Wit. The main character of this comedy is Chatsky. Chatsky is a young […]
37. Griboedov entered Russian literature as the author of the well-known comedy Woe from Wit. It touches upon very important questions: about upbringing, education, about admiration for everything foreign, about serfdom. In the comedy, the author ridicules and condemns a number of characters: Famusov, Skalozub, Molchalin, Repetilov. But all these heroes are opposed by the main character of the comedy - Alexander Andreyevich Chatsky. He received […]...
38. I got acquainted with AS Griboyedov's comedy “Woe from Wit” during the summer holidays. In this comedy, the author touched on a painful topic of that time. Mind and honor are the main virtues of a person. Our protagonist has just such qualities, but falls into the wrong society, among which he would like to be. So, our main character, Alexander Andreevich [...] ...
39. There are many versions. I have only read about two. The first is that originally the surname “Chatsky” was written “Chadsky”, you will agree, you can hear the echo of the surname of the famous thinker P. Ya. Chaadaev. The second - after the publication of "Woe from Wit" in St. Petersburg (June 1824), critics began to argue about whether this self-portrait was negative or positive. Pushkin was not a supporter of these versions. Of the two […]...

"Million of torments" Chatsky

Article menu:

The personality of Ivan Goncharov entered the history of literature. The writer, literary critic, corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of St. Petersburg and a real state councilor is known for many works. Of the most important - "Oblomov", published in "Notes of the Fatherland", "Cliff" - a text that appeared in the "Bulletin of Europe", as well as "Ordinary History" from "Contemporary".

In 1872, the text "A Million Torments" saw the light of day. This is the title of an article of a literary-critical nature published by Goncharov. The author turns to the analysis of another masterpiece of Russian literature, which has already become a classic - "Woe from Wit". The Russian critic writes that "Woe from Wit" has taken its rightful place in Russian literature, because the text is relevant and fresh. Let us turn to a brief summary of Goncharov's critical prose.

Remark about Griboyedov's text "Woe from Wit"

Since Goncharov refers to Griboyedov's play, we consider it useful to briefly recall what kind of work it is. "Woe from Wit" is considered to be a comedy written in verse by the Russian writer, diplomat and State Councilor Alexander Griboyedov. The work was written in the style of classicism, but it is clear that the author was also inspired by romanticism and realism, which had just begun to come into fashion during this period. The play is deeply aphoristic - this feature led to the pulling of Griboedov's work into quotes, many of which turned into catch phrases (for example, the phrases “Who are the judges?”, “The hero is not of my novel”, “With feeling, with sense, with arrangement”, “ The legend is fresh, but it is hard to believe" and other expressions).

Ilya Ilyich Oblomov in the work of Ivan Goncharov "Oblomov" is a lazy, apathetic, overly dreamy person and completely unadapted to real life. We invite readers to familiarize themselves with which in the novel is the central and most striking.

About "Woe from Wit", in addition to Goncharov's text, to which this article is dedicated, there are other reviews. For example, Pushkin also wrote about the play, who was almost the first to highlight the significance of the play for culture:

In the comedy "Woe from Wit" who is the smart character? Answer: Griboedov. Do you know what Chatsky is? An ardent, noble and kind fellow, who spent some time with a very smart person (namely with Griboyedov) and was fed by his thoughts, witticisms and satirical remarks<…>The first sign of an intelligent person is to know at a glance who you are dealing with and not to cast pearls in front of the Repetilovs and the like ...

Brief description of the content of "A Million of Torments"

The Russian critic says from the very beginning that Griboyedov's play is difficult to classify because this text stands apart from other significant works in Russian literature. The work is called Goncharov strong, youthful and fresh, and also tenacious, because the relevance of "Woe from Wit" does not disappear. The writer is original when it comes to comparisons and analogies. Thus, Ivan Goncharov draws parallels between Griboyedov's text and a centenary old man: it would seem that the old man must die, but everyone around him dies, but not himself.

On the other hand, Goncharova is surprised that Griboyedov's work befell the fate of a centenary old man in literature. According to the critic, Pushkin has "more rights to longevity." But the characters in the works of Alexander Sergeevich do not seem to stand the test of time. Pushkin's characters are pale, the time of the heroes of the Russian genius has passed, and Pushkin himself has already become history. Meanwhile, Griboyedov is not history, but modernity.

Goncharov emphasizes that "Woe from Wit" is a comedy that contains within itself another comedy, like peace in the world. Thus, several plots come to the surface. The first plot is devoted to a love affair in pairs Chatsky - Sofia, as well as Liza - Molchalin. Goncharov comments on this phenomenon as follows:

... When the first breaks through, suddenly another appears in between, and the action is tied up again, a private comedy is played out in a general battle and tied into one knot ...

Pushkin, Lermontov and Griboedov: Vitality of "Woe from Wit"

Despite the fact that the "best before date" of Pushkin's texts passed earlier, Griboyedov's works were created earlier than Pushkin's. So, "Woe from Wit" came out from under the writer's pen before "Eugene Onegin" and "Hero of Our Time", but managed to survive both texts. "Woe from Wit" was able to survive even the enchanting Gogol. The Russian critic is sure that this play "will survive many more epochs and will not lose its vitality."

Griboyedov's play immediately, as soon as the text was published, was snapped up for quotations. However, this did not lead to the vulgarization of the text, as is usually the case when the text gains popularity. Goncharov noted that, on the contrary, “Woe from Wit” from such popularization “seemed to become more expensive for readers.”

A separate situation is observed when trying to stage "Woe from Wit" on stage. At the same time, according to Goncharov, actors should use a creative approach, create ideals. In addition, the actors should artistically perform the language of the play. Griboyedov's play, of course, is based on real historical motives, but the Russian critic emphasizes that Woe from Wit cannot be played on stage under the guise of a work that refers to historical fidelity. No, Woe from Wit has rather strong artistic credibility:

… the living trail has almost disappeared, and the historical distance is still close. The artist needs to resort to creativity and the creation of ideals, according to the degree of his understanding of the era and the work of Griboyedov<…>The actor, as a musician, is obliged ... to think of that sound of the voice and that intonation with which each verse should be pronounced: this means - to think of a subtle critical understanding of all poetry ...

"Woe from Wit" as a picture of manners

So, in Russian literature, Griboyedov's play has a special role. The author of "A Million of Torments" considers the work a specific picture of morals. The writer draws for the reader a gallery of living types, real people. But what is "Woe from Wit"? According to Goncharov, these are:

... forever sharp, burning satire, and at the same time a comedy<…>Her canvas captures a long period of Russian life - from Catherine to Emperor Nicholas ...

For the most part, "Woe from Wit", of course, appears as a comedic work. But this is a huge world that shows the reader the realities of the life of Russian culture. Special attention should also be paid to the heroes of "Woe from Wit".

About the heroes of "Woe from Wit"

There are no more than twenty key characters in Griboedov's play, but in these characters the author managed to reflect the whole of the old Moscow, the spirit of the city, the historical situation, as well as moral principles and customs.

Opposition groups of characters in "Woe from Wit"

Each of the groups of characters is associated with a certain set of qualities. For example, Chatsky plays a passive role, denounces lies, acts as a marker of obsolete things and orders. The image of Chatsky reveals what hinders a new, free life. The ideal of the hero, therefore, is freedom from "all the chains of slavery by which society is fettered." The Famus group, on the one hand, deeply understands that Chatsky is right, but the desire to survive and continue to exist prevents the “brothers” from openly taking the side of the hero.

Ivan Alexandrovich Goncharov is one of the leading prose writers of the 19th century. Recommended for lovers of the classics

Goncharov concludes that Chatsky is the rock of any time, so Woe from Wit does not lose its relevance. Chatsky's star becomes especially bright during the change of eras.

The Famus group is distinguished by a thirst for honors and glory, the desire to please and assent for the sake of personal gain. Goncharov calls such heroes masters and hunters to please, to receive awards, in order, above all, to live cheerfully and carefree. Such a way of life is accompanied by various vices: lies, gossip, idleness and, in the end, emptiness.

The figure of Chatsky in detail

As for the map of heroes, that is, the general layout of the characters in Woe from Wit, the critic is of the opinion that in Griboedov's text all the characters are divided into two groups. In the first symbolic camp, the "Famusovs and all the brethren" took their places, and Chatsky was in the other group. Goncharov calls Chatsky an ardent and courageous fighter who participates in the struggle "for life and death", in the battle for the opportunity to exist. However, this way of life logically leads to fatigue, because, having survived the ball, the hero certainly wants to find peace. At least for a while. Goncharov writes:

... He, like a wounded man, gathers all his strength, makes a challenge to the crowd - and strikes at everyone - but he did not have enough power against the united enemy ...

Chatsky is gradually mistaken for a madman: the hero often resorts to exaggerations, the speech of Griboedov's character gives away drunkenness. There comes a moment when Chatsky is no longer able to notice that he himself has turned into a ball, into a performance from which he fled.

Chatsky has a treasure that many seem to have lost in our time. The hero has a heart. Lisa, a servant, speaks positively about Chatsky, calling the hero sensitive, cheerful and smart to the point.

Meanwhile, the image of Chatsky is overshadowed by personal grief. The play is called "Woe from Wit", but Goncharov writes that the reason for Chatsky's personal misfortunes is not in the mind. The trouble lies in the compassionate role of the hero Griboyedov.

The bitterness of Chatsky's fate

Goncharov notices that Chatsky's fate consists only in sowing. The fruits of this sowing are destined to reap for other people. The Chatskys - we speak in the plural, because this is a type, and not just one image - carry a kind of crown of thorns on their heads: such people are tormented by every little thing, but most of all - from a clash of mind and compassion, an unrequited love feeling, the pain of an offended dignity. Goncharov speaks of Chatsky's personality in the following way:

... He demands a place and freedom for his age: he asks for business, but does not want to be served, and stigmatizes servility and buffoonery ...

Thus, we are slowly approaching the idea of ​​a free life, which is embodied by the personality of Chatsky. What is a free life in the interpretation of Goncharov? First of all, it is an opportunity not to depend on slave chains, not to grovel before superiors. Unfortunately, the chains of dependencies have so enveloped society that the Famusov camp, although it understands the truth of the state of affairs, is still afraid to break the systems or go against the established order. What is the role of Chatsky? Goncharov answers this question in the following lines:

... He is the eternal debunker of lies, hidden in the proverb: "One in the field is not a warrior." No, a warrior, if he is Chatsky, and, moreover, a winner, but an advanced warrior, a skirmisher - and always a victim<…>The Chatskys live and are not translated in society, repeating themselves at every turn, in every house, where the old and the young coexist under the same roof.<…>Each case that needs updating causes the shadow of Chatsky ...

Who is Sofia?

Of course, Goncharov could not forget about the figure of Sofia. The heroine belongs to the category of women who draw "worldly wisdom from novels and stories." Such women are characterized by a vivid imagination, the ability to feel. But Sophia is weak in those areas that relate to thoughts and knowledge. However, the heroine strives for knowledge and thoughts, which young ladies at that time were usually not taught.

In our opinion, Sofia is similar to the type of the so-called Turgenev young ladies, however, Goncharov sees in the image of Griboedov's Sofia a resemblance to the figure of Tatyana from Pushkin's "Eugene Onegin":

... both, as in sleepwalking, wander in enthusiasm with childlike simplicity ...

Sophia wants to feel like a patron. So, it is in this image that the heroine appears in the novel with Molchalin. Chatsky's feelings for Sophia also play an important role in the work. Chatsky is annoyed by the lies visible in the girl's actions. On the one hand, Chatsky is drawn to Sophia, but, on the other hand, the heroine serves as a motive for Chatsky and a reason for suffering, which darkened the soul of the hero in the end. Chatsky, although suffering, still wins as a result. The hero is trying to beg for something that cannot be received with requests, namely: love:

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

Opposition of feelings and mind

The main drama of the play lies in the opposition and incompatibility of mind and feelings. Goncharov believes that initially Chatsky was saved by his mind and sharpness of thought, but the flame of passion consumed the dignity and personality of the hero. All that saves Chatsky from the final "useless humiliation" is the "remnants of the mind."

Sophia needs not so much Molchalin, but the insignificant character of this hero. However, the girl, at the same time, admits that the meeting with Chatsky is significant and not accidental for her:

Look, he has gained the friendship of everyone in the house;
He served with the father for three years,
He often gets angry for no reason,
And he will disarm him with silence<…>
<…>from the old people will not step over the threshold<…>
<…>Strangers and at random does not cut, -
That's why I love him...

"A million torments" as Chatsky's grief

Chatsky, indeed, goes into madness, because he tries to find in Sophia's words something that is not really in these words. For the hero, this method seems to be an attempt to calm down and self-justify.

After the failure with Sophia, Chatsky plunges into other cycles of life in Moscow. For example, the Gorichev group - the owner, who completely sank, the obliging husband, who is under the heels of a stern wife, and the wife herself - Mrs. Goricheva - is a cutesy and sugary person. Chatsky also meets with Khlestova, a heroine who seems to have remained from the age of Catherine, with Pyotr Ilyich, another ruin from the past, with Zagoretsky, an obvious swindler, and other heroes from the Famusov category.

Personality transformations of Chatsky

Chatsky's mind is undergoing transformations. Now Chatsky's speech is distinguished by caustic remarks, cynicism and sarcasm. With this style of communication and behavior, the hero causes antipathy from the people around him. Chatsky still has hope - to find compassion and sympathy in Sophia's soul. However, the hero does not know that a conspiracy is being prepared against him in the Famusov camp:

"A million torments" and "woe" - that's what he reaped for everything he managed to sow. Until now, he was invincible: his mind mercilessly hit the sore spots of enemies ...

Chatsky's mind weakens at the moment when the hero gets tired of the endless struggle. The former cheerfulness, sharpness, cuteness and sensitivity are replaced by bile, pickiness and sadness. Even at the end, Chatsky does not behave, like Onegin or Lermontov's hero, like a dandy. Griboyedov's hero continues to keep his sincerity, but allows himself a fatal weakness: jealousy overwhelms Chatsky when the hero sees the girl's date with Molchalin. The man reproaches the heroine because she gave him hope. However, Goncharov emphasizes that Sophia, on the contrary, constantly repelled Chatsky:

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

Goncharov's conclusions

To convey the main moral and ideological orientation of Woe from Wit, the Russian critic turns to Pushkin's poetry:

Light does not punish delusions,
But secrets are required for them!

On the one hand, Chatsky helps Sophia to lose that unreasonable naivety and blindness, which is initially characteristic of the heroine's personality. However, Sophia is still unable to show respect to Chatsky: the hero is evidence of Sophia's mistakes and vices, a "reproachful witness" who opens the girl's eyes to the true appearance of Molchalin. Sophia, according to Goncharov's interpretation, appears as a kind of mixture of "good instincts" and lies, "a lively mind" and the absence of even a hint of the presence of ideas, own opinions and beliefs. Sophia is sick with mental and moral blindness, which lies an insurmountable gulf between the girl and Chatsky. However, this is not a shortcoming of Sophia herself, these are qualities instilled in her upbringing. The heroine herself is hot, tender and dreamy. Let's remember what we talked about at the beginning of our article:

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

Ivan Goncharov

"A million torments"

(Critical study)

Woe from the mind Griboyedov.- Monakhov's benefit performance, November, 1871

How to look yes look (he says),
The present age and the age past,
Fresh legend, but hard to believe -

And about his time, he expresses it like this:

Now everyone breathes more freely -

branil your century I am merciless, -

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

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

Meanwhile, Chatsky got to drink a bitter cup to the bottom - not finding "living sympathy" in anyone, and leave, taking with him only "a million torments." Neither Onegin nor Pechorin would have acted so stupidly in general, especially in the matter of love and matchmaking. But on the other hand, they have already turned pale and turned into stone statues for us, and Chatsky remains and will always remain alive for this "stupidity" of his. The reader remembers, of course, everything that Chatsky did. Let us trace the course of the play a little and try to single out from it the dramatic interest of the comedy, that movement that goes through the whole play, like an invisible but living thread that connects all the parts and faces of the comedy with each other. Chatsky runs in to Sofya, straight from the road carriage, without stopping by, passionately kisses her hand, looks into her eyes, rejoices at the date, hoping to find an answer to his former feeling - and does not find it. He was struck by two changes: she became unusually prettier and cooler towards him - also unusually. This puzzled him, and upset him, and a little annoyed him. In vain does he try to sprinkle salt of humor on his conversation, partly playing with this strength of his, which, of course, Sofya liked before when she loved him, partly under the influence of vexation and disappointment. Everyone gets it, he went over everyone - from Sophia's father to Molchalin - and with what apt features he draws Moscow - and how many of these poems went into live speech! But all in vain: tender memories, witticisms - nothing helps. He suffers only coldness from her, until, having caustically touched Molchalin, he did not touch her to the quick. She already asks him with hidden anger if he happened to at least inadvertently “say good things about someone”, and disappears at the entrance of her father, betraying the latter almost with the head of Chatsky, that is, declaring him the hero of the dream told to his father before. From that moment on, a heated duel began between her and Chatsky, the most lively action, a comedy in the strict sense, in which two persons, Molchalin and Liza, take an intimate part. Every step of Chatsky, almost every word in the play is closely connected with the play of his feelings for Sofya, irritated by some kind of lie in her actions, which he struggles to unravel to the very end. All his mind and all his strength go into this struggle: it served as a motive, a pretext for irritation, for that “million of torments”, under the influence of which he could only play the role indicated to him by Griboyedov, a role of much greater, higher significance than unsuccessful love. , in a word, the role for which the whole comedy was born. Chatsky almost does not notice Famusov, coldly and absently answers his question, where have you been? "Now am I up to it?" - he says and, promising to come again, leaves, saying from what absorbs him:

How beautiful Sofya Pavlovna has become!

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

Let me get married, what would you tell me?

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

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

He came to Moscow and to Famusov, obviously, for Sophia and for Sophia alone. He does not care about others; even now he is annoyed that he found only Famusov instead of her. "How could she not be here?" he asks himself, recalling his former youthful love, which in him “neither distance, nor entertainment, nor a change of place, has cooled it,” and is tormented by its coldness. He is bored and talking with Famusov - and only the positive challenge of Famusov to an argument brings Chatsky out of his concentration.

That's it, you are all proud:

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

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

To prolong disputes is not my desire, -

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

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

Chatsky pricked up his ears.

How fussing, what a rush!

"And Sophia? Is there really no groom here? he says, and although he later adds:

Ah - he say love is the end,
Who will go away for three years! —

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

Famusov confirms his hint about Skalozub's marriage, imposing on the latter the thought of "a general's wife", and almost clearly calls for a matchmaking. These allusions to marriage aroused Chatsky's suspicions about the reasons for Sophia's change for him. He even agreed to Famusov's request to give up "false ideas" and keep quiet in front of the guest. But irritation was already on the crescendo, and he intervened in the conversation, casually so far, and then, annoyed by Famusov’s awkward praise of his mind and so on, raises his tone and resolves with a sharp monologue: "Who are the judges?" and so on. Here another struggle, an important and serious one, is already starting, a whole battle. Here, in a few words, the main motive is heard, as in an overture of operas, hinting at the true meaning and purpose of the comedy. Both Famusov and Chatsky threw a glove at each other:

See what fathers did
Would learn by looking at the elders! —

Famusov's military clique rang out. And who are these elders and "judges"?

For decrepitude of years
Their enmity is irreconcilable to a free life, -

Chatsky answers and executes -

The meanest traits of the past life.

Two camps were formed, or, on the one hand, a whole camp of the Famusovs and all the brethren of the "fathers and elders", on the other, one ardent and courageous fighter, "the enemy of searches." This is a struggle for life and death, a struggle for existence, as the latest naturalists define the natural succession of generations in the animal world. Famusov wants to be an "ace" - "eat on silver and gold, ride in a train, all in orders, be rich and see children rich, in ranks, in orders and with a key" - and so on without end, and all this is just for that that he signs the papers without reading and being afraid of one thing, "so that a lot of them do not accumulate." Chatsky yearns for a "free life", "to engage in" science and art, and demands "service to the cause, not to individuals", etc. Whose side is the victory on? Comedy gives Chatsky only "a million torments" and leaves, apparently, in the same position Famusov and his brethren, in which they were, without saying anything about the consequences of the struggle. Now we know these consequences. They showed up with the advent of comedy, still in manuscript, in the light - and like an epidemic swept all of Russia. Meanwhile, the intrigue of love goes on as usual, correctly, with subtle psychological fidelity, which in any other play, devoid of other colossal Griboedov's beauties, could make a name for the author. Sophia's fainting when she fell from Molchalin's horse, her participation in him, so carelessly expressed, Chatsky's new sarcasms on Molchalin - all this complicated the action and formed that main point, which was called in the piitiki a tie. This is where the dramatic interest comes in. Chatsky almost guessed the truth.

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

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

In the third act, he gets to the ball before everyone else, with the aim of "forcing a confession" from Sophia - and with a shudder of impatience gets down to business directly with the question: "Who does she love?" After an evasive answer, she admits that she prefers his "others". It seems clear. He himself sees this and even says:

And what do I want when everything is decided?
I climb into the noose, but it's funny to her!

However, she climbs, like all lovers, despite her "mind", and is already weakening before her indifference. He throws a weapon that is useless against a happy opponent - a direct attack on him, and condescends to pretense.

Once in a lifetime I'll pretend

He decides in order to "solve the riddle", but in fact to keep Sofya when she rushed away with a new arrow fired at Molchalin. This is not a pretense, but a concession by which he wants to beg for something that cannot be begged for - love when it is not there. In his speech, one can already hear a pleading tone, gentle reproaches, complaints:

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

He says, and finally:

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

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

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

He concludes. Then all that was left to do was to fall to his knees and sob. The remnants of the mind save him from useless humiliation.

Such a masterly scene, expressed in such verses, is hardly represented by any other dramatic work. It is impossible to express a feeling more noblely and more soberly, as Chatsky expressed it, it is impossible to get out of the trap more subtly and gracefully, as Sofya Pavlovna gets out. Only Pushkin's scenes of Onegin with Tatyana resemble these subtle features of intelligent natures. Sofya was able to completely get rid of Chatsky's new suspiciousness, but she herself was carried away by her love for Molchalin and almost spoiled the whole thing by speaking out almost openly in love. To Chatsky's question:

Why did you recognize him (Molchalin) so briefly?

- she answers:

I didn't try! God brought us together.

This is enough to open the eyes of a blind man. But Molchalin himself saved her, that is, his insignificance. In her enthusiasm, she hurried to draw his full-length portrait, perhaps in the hope of reconciling with this love not only herself, but others, even Chatsky, not noticing how the portrait came out went:

Look, he has gained the friendship of everyone in the house.
He has been serving with the priest for three years;
He often gets angry
And he will disarm him with silence,
From the kindness of the soul, forgive.
And by the way,
I could look for fun -
Nothing, from the old people will not step over the threshold!
We frolic, we laugh;
He will sit with them all day long, glad not glad,
Playing...

Further:

Greatest property...
He is finally: compliant, modest, quiet,
And there are no misdeeds in the soul;
Strangers and at random does not cut ...
That's why I love him!

Chatsky dispelled all doubts:

She doesn't respect him!
Shalit, she doesn't love him.
She doesn't give a damn about him! —

He comforts himself at her every praise of Molchalin and then grabs Skalozub. But her answer—that he was "not the hero of her novel"—destroyed those doubts as well. He leaves her without jealousy, but in thought, saying:

Who will guess you!

He himself did not believe in the possibility of such rivals, but now he was convinced of this. But his hopes of reciprocity, which had so far excited him, were completely shaken, especially when she did not agree to stay with him under the pretext that "the tongs would get cold," and then, at his request to be allowed to go into her room, with new causticity on Molchalin, she eluded him and locked herself. He felt that the main goal of returning to Moscow had betrayed him, and he moved away from Sophia with sadness. He, as he later confesses in the entrance hall, from that moment suspects in her only coldness towards everything - and after this scene, the very faintness attributed not "to signs of living passions", as before, but "to a whim of spoiled nerves." His next scene with Molchalin, which fully describes the nature of the latter, 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 broke off; the burning irritation of jealousy subsided, and the chill of hopelessness smelt into his soul. He had to leave; but another, lively, lively comedy invades the stage, several new perspectives of Moscow life open at once, which not only oust Chatsky's intrigue from the viewer's memory, but Chatsky himself seems to forget about it and interferes with the crowd. Around him, new faces group and play, each with its own role. This is a ball, with all the Moscow atmosphere, with a number of lively 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 finished action. Isn't the Gorichevs playing a complete comedy? This husband, recently still a vigorous and lively person, now lowered, dressed like in a dressing gown, in Moscow life, a gentleman, "a husband-boy, a husband-servant, the ideal of Moscow husbands", according to Chatsky's apt definition, - under the shoe of a sugary, cutesy , a secular wife, a Moscow lady? And these six princesses and the granddaughter countess, all this contingent of brides, “who, according to Famusov, know how to dress themselves up with taffeta, marigold and haze”, “singing high notes and clinging to military people”? This Khlestova, a remnant of the Catherine's age, with a pug, with a girl, this princess and prince Pyotr Ilyich - without a word, but such a talking ruin of the past; Zagoretsky, an obvious swindler, escaping from prison in the best living rooms and paying off with obsequiousness, like dog diapers - and these N.N., and all their rumors, and all the content that occupies them! The influx of these faces is so abundant, their portraits are so embossed, that the viewer grows cold to the intrigue, not having time to catch these quick sketches of new faces and listen to their original dialect. Chatsky is no longer on stage. But before leaving, he gave abundant food to that main comedy that he 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 arrived. In brief, even instantaneous meetings with old acquaintances, he managed to arm everyone against himself with caustic remarks and sarcasm. He is already vividly touched by all sorts of trifles - and he gives free rein to the language. He angered the old woman Khlestova, gave some advice to Gorichev inappropriately, abruptly cut off the granddaughter countess and again touched Molchalin. But the cup overflowed. He leaves the back rooms already completely upset, and out of old friendship, in the crowd again goes to Sophia, hoping at least for simple sympathy. He confides his state of mind to her:

A million torments! —

He says. he complains to her, not suspecting what kind of conspiracy has matured against him in the enemy camp.

"A million torments" and "woe!" - that's what he reaped for all that he managed to sow. Until now, he was invincible: his mind mercilessly hit the sore spots of enemies. Famusov finds nothing but to shut his ears against his logic, and shoots back with commonplaces of the old morality. Molchalin falls silent, the princesses, countesses - back away from him, burned by the nettles of his laughter, and his former friend, Sophia, whom he spares alone, cunningly, slips and inflicts the main blow on him secretly, declaring him, at hand, casually, crazy. He felt his strength and spoke confidently. But the struggle wore him down. He was obviously weakened by this "million torments", and the disorder showed up in him so noticeably that all the guests cluster around him, just as a crowd gathers around any phenomenon that goes out of the ordinary order of things. He is not only sad, but also bilious, picky. He, like a wounded man, gathers all his strength, makes a challenge to the crowd - and strikes at everyone - but he did not have enough power against a united enemy. He falls into exaggeration, almost into drunkenness of speech, and confirms in the opinion of the guests the rumor spread by Sophia about his madness. What is heard is no longer sharp, poisonous sarcasm, in which a true, definite idea is inserted, however, but some kind of bitter complaint, as if for a personal insult, for an empty, or, in his own words, "insignificant meeting with a Frenchman from Bordeaux", which he, in his normal state of mind, would hardly have noticed. He has ceased to control himself and does not even notice that he himself is putting together a performance at the ball. He also strikes at patriotic pathos, agrees to the point that he finds the tailcoat contrary to "reason and the elements", is angry that madame and mademoiselle have not been translated into Russian - in a word, "il divague!" - all six princesses and the granddaughter countess probably concluded about him. He feels this himself, saying that “in the crowd he is confused, he is not himself!” He is definitely "not himself", starting with the monologue "about the Frenchman from Bordeaux" - and remains so until the end of the play. Only “a million torments” are replenished ahead. Pushkin, denying Chatsky the mind, probably most of all had in mind the last scene of the 4th act, in the hallway, at the departure. Of course, neither Onegin nor Pechorin, these dandies, would have done what Chatsky did in the hallway. Those were too trained "in the science of tender passion", and Chatsky is different and, by the way, sincerity and simplicity, and does not know how and does not want to show off. He is not a dandy, not a lion. Here not only his mind betrays him, but also common sense, even simple decency. He did such nonsense! After getting rid of Repetilov's chatter and hiding in the Swiss waiting for the carriage, he spied on Sophia's meeting with Molchalin and played the role of Othello, having no right to do so. He reproaches her for why she “lured him with hope”, why she didn’t directly say that the past was forgotten. Not a word here is true. There was no hope for her. She only did that she left him, barely spoke to him, confessed her indifference, called some old children's romance and hiding in the corners "childhood" and even hinted that "God brought her together with Molchalin." And he, just because -

So passionate and so low
There was a spender of tender words, -

In a rage for his own useless humiliation, for self-inflicted deceit voluntarily, he executes everyone, and throws a cruel and unfair word at her:

With you I am proud of my break, -

When there was nothing to break! Finally, he simply comes to swearing, pouring out bile:

For daughter and father.
And for a lover fool —

And he boils with rage at everyone, “at the tormentors of the crowd, traitors, clumsy wise men, crafty simpletons, sinister old women,” etc. And he leaves Moscow to look for “a corner for offended feelings,” pronouncing a merciless judgment and sentence on everything!

If he had one healthy minute, if “a million torments” had not burned him, he would, of course, ask himself the question: “Why and for what did I do all this mess?” And, of course, there would be no answer. Griboedov is responsible for it, and it was not without reason that the play ended with this catastrophe. In it, not only for Sophia, but also for Famusov and all his guests, Chatsky's "mind", sparkling like a ray of light in a whole play, burst out at the end into that thunder at which, according to the proverb, men are baptized. From the thunder, Sophia was the first to cross herself, remaining until the very appearance of Chatsky, when Molchalin was already crawling at her feet, all the same unconscious Sophia Pavlovna, with the same lie in which her father raised her, in which he lived himself, his whole house and the whole circle . Still not recovering from shame and horror, when the mask fell from Molchalin, she first of all rejoices that “at night she found out that there are no reproachful witnesses in her eyes!” And there are no witnesses, therefore, everything is hidden and hidden, you can forget, marry, perhaps, Skalozub, and look at the past ... Yes, do not look at all. He endures his moral sense, Liza will not let it slip, Molchalin does not dare to utter a word. And husband? But what kind of Moscow husband, "from his wife's pages", will look back at the past! This is her morality, and the morality of her father, and the whole circle. Meanwhile, Sofya Pavlovna is not individually immoral: she sins with the sin of ignorance, the blindness in which everyone lived -

Light does not punish delusions,
But secrets are required for them!

This couplet by Pushkin expresses the general meaning of conventional morality. Sophia never saw the light from her and never would have seen the light without Chatsky, for lack of a chance. After the catastrophe, from the moment Chatsky appeared, it was no longer possible to remain blind. It is impossible to bypass its courts with oblivion, or bribe it with lies, or calm it down. She cannot but respect him, and he will be her eternal "reproachful 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, bit by bit, she herself did not see the light on him. She did not notice that she herself called him to this love, about which he, trembling with fear, did not dare to think. She was not embarrassed by dates alone at night, and she even blurted out in gratitude to him in the last scene for the fact that "in the silence of the night he kept more timidity in his temper!" Consequently, the fact that she is not carried away completely and irrevocably, she owes not to herself, but to him! Finally, at the very beginning, she blurts out even more naively in front of the maid.

Think how capricious happiness is,

She says when her father found Molchalin early in the morning in her room, -

It happens worse - get away with it!

And Molchalin sat in her room all night. What did she mean by this "worse"? You might think God knows what: but honny soit qui mal y pense! Sofya Pavlovna is not at all as guilty as she seems. This is a mixture of good instincts with falsehood, a lively mind with the absence of any hint of ideas and convictions, confusion of concepts, mental and moral blindness - all this does not have the character of personal vices in her, but appears as common features of her circle. In her own, personal physiognomy, something of her own is hiding in the shadows, hot, tender, even dreamy. The rest belongs to education. French books, which Famusov complains about, piano (still with flute accompaniment), poetry, French and dances - that was what was considered the young lady's classical education. And then "Kuznetsky Most and Eternal Updates", balls, such as this ball with her father, 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. Thought was silent, only instincts spoke. They drew worldly wisdom from novels, stories - and from there instincts developed into ugly, pathetic or stupid properties: dreaminess, sentimentality, the search for an ideal in love, and sometimes even worse. In a soporific stagnation, in a hopeless sea of ​​lies, most women outside were dominated by conventional morality - and secretly life swarmed, in the absence of healthy and serious interests, in general, of any content, those novels from which the "science of tender passion" was created. Onegins and Pechorins are representatives of a whole class, almost a breed of dexterous cavaliers, jeunes premiers. These advanced personalities in high life were such in the works of literature, where they occupied a place of honor from the time of chivalry to our time, to Gogol. Pushkin himself, not to mention Lermontov, cherished this outward brilliance, this representativeness du bon ton, the manners of high society, under which lay both “embitterment”, and “yearning laziness”, and “interesting boredom”. Pushkin spared Onegin, although he touched on his idleness and emptiness with a slight irony, but to the smallest detail and with pleasure describes a fashionable suit, toilet knick-knacks, smartness - and that negligence and inattention to nothing that he put on himself, this fatuité, posing, which flaunted dandies. The spirit of a later time removed the tempting drapery from his hero and all the "cavaliers" like him and determined the true meaning of such gentlemen, driving them from the forefront. They were the heroes and leaders of these novels, and both sides were trained to marriage, which absorbed all the novels almost without a trace, unless some nervous, sentimental, in a word, fool, or the hero turned out to be such a sincere "crazy" like Chatsky. 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 Tatyana Pushkin. The difference between them is made by the “Moscow imprint”, then glibness, the ability to control oneself, which appeared in Tatyana when she met Onegin after her marriage, and until then she had not been able to lie about love even to the nanny. But Tatyana is a village girl, and Sofya Pavlovna is Moscow, developed in that way. Meanwhile, in her love, she is just as ready to betray herself as Tatyana: both, as if in sleepwalking, wander in enthusiasm with childlike simplicity. And Sophia, like Tatyana, begins the affair herself, not finding anything reprehensible in this, she does not even know about it. Sofya is surprised at the laughter of the maid when she tells how she spends the whole night with Molchalin: “Not a free word! And so the whole night passes! "The enemy of insolence, always shy, bashful!" That's what she admires in him! This is ridiculous, but there is some kind of almost grace here - and far from immorality, there is no need for her to let out a word: worse - this is also naivety. The huge difference is not between her and Tatyana, but between Onegin and Molchalin. Sophia's choice, of course, does not recommend her, but Tatyana's choice was also random, even she hardly had anyone to choose from. Looking deeper into Sophia's character and environment, you see that it was not immorality (but not "God", of course) that "brought her" to Molchalin. First of all, the desire to patronize a loved one, poor, modest, who does not dare to raise his eyes to her, to elevate him to himself, to his circle, to give him family rights. Without a doubt, she smiled in this role to rule over a submissive creature, make him happy and have an eternal slave in him. It is not her fault that the future “husband-boy, husband-servant – the ideal of Moscow husbands” came out of this! There was nowhere to stumble upon other ideals in Famusov's house. In general, it is difficult to treat Sofya Pavlovna not sympathetically: she has strong inclinations of a remarkable nature, a lively mind, passion and feminine gentleness. It is ruined in stuffiness, where not a single ray of light, not a single stream of fresh air penetrated. No wonder Chatsky also loved her. After him, she alone of all this crowd suggests some kind of sad feeling, and in the soul of the reader against her there is not that indifferent laughter with which he parted with other faces. She, of course, is harder than everyone else, even harder than Chatsky, and she gets her “million torments”. Chatsky's role is a passive role: it cannot be otherwise. Such is the role of all the 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, the hopelessness of success. Of course, he did not bring Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov to reason, did not sober up and did not correct him. If Famusov had not had “reproaching witnesses” at the departure, that is, a crowd of lackeys and a porter, he would have easily coped with his grief: he would have given his daughter a head-washer, would have torn out Lisa by the ear and would have hurried Sophia’s wedding with Skalozub. But now it’s impossible: in the morning, thanks to the scene with Chatsky, all of Moscow will know - and more than anyone else, “Princess Marya Alekseevna”. His peace will be disturbed from all sides - and willy-nilly make him think about something that did not occur to him. He will hardly even end his life with such an “ace” as the previous ones. The rumors generated by Chatsky could not but stir up the whole circle of his relatives and friends. He himself did not find a weapon against Chatsky's heated monologues. All Chatsky's words will spread, be repeated everywhere and produce their own storm. Molchalin, after the scene in the hallway, cannot remain the same Molchalin. The mask is pulled off, they recognized him, and he, like a caught thief, has to hide in a corner. The Gorichevs, Zagoretsky, the princesses - all fell under the hail of his shots, and these shots will not remain without a trace. In this still consonant chorus, other voices, still bold yesterday, will be silenced, 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 the mind, wit, of course, knowledge and other things. He already has like-minded people. Skalozub complains that his brother left the service without waiting for the rank, and began to read books. One of the old women grumbles that her nephew, Prince Fyodor, is engaged in chemistry and botany. All that was needed was an explosion, a fight, and it started, stubborn and hot - on the same day in one house, but its consequences, as we said above, were reflected in all of Moscow and Russia. Chatsky gave rise to a split, and if he was deceived for his own personal purposes, did not find “the charm of meetings, living participation”, then he himself splashed living water on the dead soil - taking with him “a million torments”, this Chatsky crown of thorns - torments from everything: from “ mind”, and even more so from “offended feelings”. Neither Onegin, nor Pechorin, nor other dandies were suitable for this role. They knew how to shine with the novelty of ideas, as with the novelty of a costume, new perfumes, and so on. Having driven into the wilderness, Onegin amazed everyone by the fact that he “didn’t fit the hand of the ladies, he drank red wine with glasses, not glasses,” he simply said: “yes and no” instead of “yes and no, sir.” He frowns at the "lingonberry water", in disappointment scolds the moon "stupid" - and the sky too. He brought a new one for a dime and, interfering “smartly”, and not like Chatsky “stupidly”, in the love of Lensky and Olga and killing Lensky, he took with him not a “million”, but for a “dime” and torment! Now, in our time, of course, they would reproach Chatsky for why he put his “insulted feeling” above public issues, the common good, etc. and did not stay in Moscow to continue his role as a fighter with lies and prejudices, the role is higher and more important than the role of the rejected groom? Yes, now! And at that time, for the majority, the concepts of public issues would have been the same as for Repetilov the talk "about the camera and the jury." Criticism has sinned a lot in that, in its trial of the famous dead, it left the historical point, ran ahead and hit them with modern weapons. We will not repeat her mistakes - and we will not blame Chatsky for the fact that in his heated speeches addressed to the Famusov guests there is no mention of the common good, when there is already such a split from “search for places, from ranks”, as “engagement in the sciences and arts ”, was considered “robbery and fire”. The vitality of Chatsky's role does not lie in the novelty of unknown ideas, brilliant hypotheses, hot and bold utopias, or even truths en herbe: he has no abstractions. Heralds of a new dawn, or fanatics, or just messengers - all these advanced couriers of an unknown future are and - in the natural course of social development - should be, but their roles and physiognomies are endlessly diverse. The role and physiognomy of the Chatskys is unchanged. Chatsky is most of all a debunker of lies and everything that has become obsolete, which drowns out a 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 clothed himself in flesh and blood, has not been comprehended by reason, by truth, in a word, has not become human. Before being carried away by an unknown ideal, before the seduction of a dream, he will soberly stop, as he stopped before the senseless denial of "laws, conscience and faith" in Repetilov's chatter, and will say his own:

Listen, lie, but know the measure!

He is very positive in his demands and declares them in a ready-made program, worked out not by him, but by the century already begun. With youthful vehemence, he does not drive from the stage everything that has survived, which, according to the laws of reason and justice, as according to natural laws in physical nature, is left to live out its term, which can and should be tolerated. He demands a place and freedom for his age: he asks for business, but does not want to be served 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 is weary among the empty, idle crowd of "tormentors, traitors, sinister old women, absurd old men", refusing to bow before their authority of decrepitude , chinolyubiya and other things. He is outraged by the ugly manifestations of serfdom, the insane luxury and disgusting customs of "spill in feasts and prodigality" - manifestations of mental and moral blindness and corruption. His ideal of “free life” is decisive: it is freedom from all these counted chains of slavery that fetter society, and then freedom - “to stare into the sciences the mind that is hungry for knowledge”, or freely indulge in “creative, high and beautiful arts” - freedom “to serve or not to serve”, “to live in the countryside or travel”, not having a reputation for being either a robber or an incendiary, and - a series of further next similar steps towards freedom - from lack of freedom. Both Famusov and others know this and, of course, everyone agrees with him inwardly, but the struggle for existence prevents them from yielding. Out of fear for himself, for his serenely idle existence, Famusov plugs his ears and slanders Chatsky when he announces to him his modest program of “free life”. By the way -

Who travels, who lives in the village -

He says, and he objects with horror:

Yes, he does not recognize the authorities!

So he lies too, because he has nothing to say, and lies all that lived in lies in the past. The old truth will never be embarrassed before the new one - it will take this new, truthful and reasonable burden on its shoulders. Only the sick, the unnecessary is afraid to take another step forward. Chatsky is broken by the amount of old strength, inflicting a mortal blow on it with the quality of fresh strength. He is the eternal debunker of lies, hidden in the proverb: "one man in the field is not a warrior." No, a warrior, if he is Chatsky, and, moreover, a winner, but an advanced warrior, a skirmisher and always a victim. Chatsky is inevitable with each change of 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 personalities who control the fate of the masses, to a modest share in a close circle. All of them are controlled by one thing: irritation with various motives. Some, like Griboedov's Chatsky, have love, others have self-esteem or love of glory - but all of them get their own "million of torments", and no high position can save them from it. Very few, enlightened Chatsky, are given a consoling consciousness that they did not fight in vain - although disinterestedly, not for themselves and not for themselves, but for the future, and for everyone, and they succeeded. In addition to large and prominent personalities, during abrupt transitions from one century to another, 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 the same roof, where two centuries meet face to face in cramped quarters. families, the struggle of the fresh with the obsolete, the sick with the healthy continues, and everyone fights in duels, like Horaces and Curiats, miniature Famusovs and Chatskys. Every business that needs to be updated causes the shadow of Chatsky - and no matter who the figures are, no matter what human cause is - whether it be a new idea, a step in science, in politics, in war - or people grouped, they can’t get away from the two main motives of struggle: from the advice to "learn by looking at the elders", on the one hand, and from the thirst to strive from routine to "free life" forward and forward - on the other. That is why Griboedov's Chatsky has not yet grown old, and hardly ever will grow old, and with him the whole comedy. And literature will not get out of the magic circle outlined by Griboedov as soon as the artist touches on the struggle of concepts, the change of generations. He will either give a type of extreme, immature advanced personalities, barely hinting at the future, and therefore short-lived, of which we have already experienced a lot in life and in art, or he will create a modified image of Chatsky, as after Cervantes' Don Quixote and Shakespeare's Hamlet, there were and are endless of them. similarities. In the honest, heated speeches of these later Chatskys, Griboyedov's motives and words will forever be heard - and if not the words, then the meaning and tone of his Chatsky's irritable monologues. Healthy heroes in the fight against the old will never leave this music. And this is the immortality of Griboedov's poems! One could cite a lot of Chatskys - who appeared at the next change of eras and generations - in the struggle for an idea, for a cause, for truth, for success, for a new order, at all levels, in all layers of Russian life and work - high-profile, great deeds and modest office exploits. A fresh legend is kept about many of them, we have seen and known others, and others still continue the struggle. Let's turn to literature. Let us recall not a story, not a comedy, not an artistic phenomenon, but let us take one of the later fighters with an old century, for example, Belinsky. Many of us knew him personally, and now everyone knows him. Listen to his hot improvisations - and they sound the same motives - and the same tone, like Griboedov's Chatsky. And he died in the same way, destroyed by "a million torments", killed by a fever of expectation and not waiting for the fulfillment of his dreams, which now are no longer dreams. Leaving behind the political delusions of Herzen, where he stepped out of the role of a normal hero, out of the role of Chatsky, this Russian man from head to toe, let us remember his arrows, thrown into various dark, remote corners of Russia, where they found the culprit. In his sarcasm one can hear the echo of Griboyedov's laughter and the endless development of Chatsky's witticisms. And Herzen suffered from "a million torments", perhaps most of all from the torments of the Repetilovs of his own camp, to whom he did not have the courage to say during his lifetime: "Lie, but know the measure!" But he did not take this word to the grave, confessing after death to "false shame" that prevented him from saying it. Finally - the last remark about Chatsky. Griboedov is reproached for the fact that Chatsky is not clothed as artistically as other faces of the comedy, in flesh and blood, that there is little vitality in him. Others even say that this is not a living person, but an abstract, an idea, a walking morality 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 put Chatsky next to Onegin: the strict objectivity of the dramatic form does not allow that breadth and fullness of the brush, like the epic one. If the other faces of comedy are stricter and more sharply defined, then they owe this to the vulgarity and trifles of their natures, which the artist easily exhausts in light sketches. Whereas in the personality of Chatsky, rich and versatile, one dominant side could be boldly taken in the comedy - and Griboedov managed to hint at many others. Then - if you look more closely at the human types in the crowd - then almost more often than others there are these honest, hot, sometimes bilious personalities who do not obediently hide away from oncoming ugliness, but boldly go towards it and enter into a struggle, often unequal, always to the detriment of oneself and without visible benefit to the cause. Who did not know or does not know, each in his own circle, such smart, ardent, noble madcaps who make a kind of mess in those circles where fate takes them, for the truth, for an honest conviction?! No, Chatsky, in our opinion, is the most lively personality of all, both as a person and as a performer of the role indicated to him by Griboyedov. But we repeat, his nature is stronger and deeper than other persons and therefore could not be exhausted in comedy. Finally, let us make a few remarks about the performance of comedy on stage in recent times, namely at Monakhov's benefit performance, and about what the audience could wish from the performers. If the reader agrees that in comedy, as we have said, the movement is ardently and uninterruptedly maintained from beginning to end, then it should follow of itself that the play is eminently theatrical. She is what she is. Two comedies seem to be nested one into the other: one, so to speak, is private, petty, domestic, between Chatsky, Sophia, Molchalin and Lisa: this is the intrigue of love, the everyday motive of all comedies. When the first is interrupted, another unexpectedly appears in between, and the action is tied up again, the private comedy is played out in a general battle and tied into one knot. Artists who ponder the general meaning and course of the play, and each in his own role, will find a wide field for action. There is a lot of work to overcome any, even an insignificant role, - all the more, the more conscientious and subtle the artist will be in relation to art. Some critics lay on the duty of the artists to fulfill the historical fidelity of faces, with the color of the time in all details, even to the costumes, that is, to the style of dresses, hairstyles, inclusive. This is difficult, if not completely impossible. As historical types, these faces, as mentioned above, are still pale, and now you cannot find living originals: there is nothing to study from. It's the same with costumes. Old-fashioned tailcoats, with a very high or very low waist, women's dresses with a high bodice, high hairstyles, old caps - in all this, the characters will seem like fugitives from the market. Another thing is the costumes of the last century, completely obsolete: camisoles, robrons, flies, powder, etc. But during the performance of "Woe from Wit" it's not about the costumes. We repeat that in the game it is generally impossible to claim historical fidelity, since the living trace has almost disappeared, and the historical distance is still close. Therefore, it is necessary for the artist to resort to creativity, to the creation of ideals, according to the degree of his understanding of the era and the work of Griboyedov. This is the first, that is, the main stage condition. The second is language, that is, such an artistic performance of language as the performance of an action: without this second, of course, the first is also impossible. In such lofty literary works as Woe from Wit, as Pushkin's Boris Godunov and some others, the performance should not only be stage, but the most literary, like a performance by an excellent orchestra of exemplary music, where every musical phrase must be played unmistakably and every note in it. The actor, as a musician, is obliged to finish his acting, that is, to think of the sound of the voice and the intonation that each verse should be pronounced: this means to think of a subtle critical understanding of all the poetry of Pushkin's and Griboedov's language. In Pushkin, for example, in Boris Godunov, where there is almost no action, or at least unity, where the action breaks up into separate, unrelated scenes, a performance other than strictly artistic and literary is impossible. In it, any other action, any stage performance, mimicry should serve only as a light seasoning for literary performance, action in the word. With the exception of some roles, to a large extent, the same can be said about Woe from Wit. And there is most of the game in the language: you can endure the awkwardness of facial expressions, but every word with the wrong intonation will cut your ear like a false note. It must not be forgotten that the public knows such plays as "Woe from Wit" and "Boris Godunov" by heart and not only follows every word with their thoughts, but feels, so to speak, with their nerves every mistake in pronunciation. They can be enjoyed without seeing, but only hearing them. These plays were and are often performed in private life, simply by reading between lovers of literature, when there is a good reader in the circle who can subtly convey this kind of literary music. Several years ago, they say, this play was presented in the best Petersburg circle with exemplary art, which, of course, in addition to a subtle critical understanding of the play, was greatly helped by the ensemble in tone, manners, and especially the ability to read perfectly. It was performed in Moscow in the 1930s with complete success. Until now, we have retained the impression of that game: Shchepkin (Famusov), Mochalov (Chatsky), Lensky (Molchalin), Orlov (Skalozub), Saburov (Repetilov). Of course, this success was greatly facilitated by the open attack from the stage, which struck at that time with novelty and courage, on many things that had not yet had time to depart, which even the press were afraid to touch. Then Shchepkin, Orlov, Saburov expressed typically still living likenesses of the belated Famusovs, in some places the Molchalins who survived, or the Zagoretskys hiding in the stalls behind the back of their neighbor. All this undoubtedly gave great interest to the play, but besides this, in addition to even the high talents of these artists and the typical performance of each of them in their role, in their game, as in an excellent choir of singers, the extraordinary ensemble of the entire staff of persons, down to the smallest roles, struck , and most importantly, they subtly understood and excellently read these extraordinary verses, precisely with that "sense, feeling and arrangement" that is necessary for them. Mochalov, Shchepkin! The latter, of course, is known even now by almost the entire parterre and remembers how, already in his old age, he read his roles both on stage and in salons! The staging was also exemplary - and should now and always be more careful than the staging of any ballet, because the comedies of this century will not leave the stage, even when later exemplary plays will come down. Each of the roles, even minor in it, played subtly and conscientiously, will serve the artist as a diploma for an extensive role. Unfortunately, the performance of a piece on stage has long been far from meeting its high merits; it especially does not shine with either harmony in performance or thoroughness in staging, although separately, in the performance of some artists, there are happy hints of promises of the possibility of a more subtle and thorough performance. . But the general impression is that the spectator, along with a little good, takes out his “million torments” from the theater. In the production, it is impossible not to notice negligence and poverty, which seem to warn the viewer that they will play weakly and carelessly, therefore, it is not worth bothering about the freshness and fidelity of accessories. For example, the lighting at the ball is so weak that you can barely make out the faces and costumes, the crowd of guests is so thin that Zagoretsky, instead of “vanishing”, according to the text of the comedy, that is, dodging somewhere in the crowd, from Khlestova’s scolding, has to run through the whole empty hall, from the corners of which, as if out of curiosity, some two or three faces peep out. In general, everything looks somehow dull, stale, colorless. In the game, instead of an ensemble, discord prevails, as if in a choir that did not have time to sing. In the new play, this reason could have been suggested, but one cannot allow this comedy to be new to anyone in the troupe. Half of the play passes silently. Two or three verses will come out clearly, the other two are pronounced by the actor as if only for himself - away from the viewer. The actors want to play Griboyedov's poems as a vaudeville text. In facial expressions, some have a lot of unnecessary fuss, this imaginary, false game. Even those who have to say two or three words accompany them either with reinforced, unnecessary emphasis on them, or with extra gestures, or some kind of game in gait, in order to make themselves noticed on stage, although these two or three words , said smartly, with tact, would be noticed much more than all bodily exercises. Some of the actors seem to forget that the action takes place in a large Moscow house. For example, Molchalin, although a poor little official, but he lives in the best society, is accepted in the first houses, plays cards with noble old women, therefore, he is not devoid of certain decency in manners and tone. He is "ingratiating, quiet," the play says of him. This is a domestic cat, soft, affectionate, which roams everywhere in the house, and if he fornicates, then secretly and decently. He cannot have such wild ways, even when he rushes to Liza, left alone with her, that the actor who plays his part has learned to him. The majority of artists cannot boast of fulfilling the important condition mentioned above, namely, correct, artistic reading. For a long time people have been complaining that this fundamental condition is being removed more and more from the Russian scene. Is the ability to read, to pronounce artistic speech, as if this ability had become superfluous or unnecessary, along with the recitation of the old school, was it really expelled? There are even frequent complaints about some of the luminaries of drama and comedy that they do not take the trouble to teach roles! What then is left for the artists to do? What do they mean by role playing? Make-up? Facial expressions? Since when did this neglect of art appear? We remember both the St. Petersburg and Moscow scenes in the brilliant period of their activity, from Shchepkin, Karatygins to Samoilov, Sadovsky. A few veterans of the old St. Petersburg stage still live here, and among them the names of Samoilov, Karatygin remind of the golden time when Shakespeare, Molière, Schiller appeared on the stage - and the same Griboedov, whom we bring now, and all this was given along with a swarm of various vaudevilles, remakes from French, etc. But neither these alterations, nor the vaudevilles interfered with the excellent performance of either Hamlet, or Lear, or The Miser. In response to this, one hears, on the one hand, that the taste of the public has deteriorated (what kind of public?), has turned to farce, and that the consequence of this was and is the disaccustoming of the actors from the serious stage and serious, artistic roles; and on the other hand, that the very conditions of art have changed: from the historical kind, from tragedy, high comedy - society left, as if from under a heavy cloud, and turned to the bourgeois, so-called drama and comedy, and finally to the genre. An analysis of this “corruption of taste” or the modification of the old conditions of art into new ones would distract us from Woe from Wit and, perhaps, lead to some other, more hopeless grief. Let us rather accept the second objection (it is not worth talking about the first, since it speaks for itself) as a fait accompli and allow these modifications, although we note in passing that Shakespeare and new historical dramas appear on the scene, such as "The Death of Ivan the Terrible", " Vasilisa Melentyeva”, “Shuisky” and others, requiring the very ability to read that we are talking about. But after all, besides these dramas, there are other works of the new time written in prose on the stage, and this prose, almost like Pushkin's and Griboedov's poems, has its own typical dignity and requires the same clear and distinct performance as the reading of poetry. Each phrase by Gogol is just as typical and contains its own special comedy, regardless of the general plot, as is each Griboedov's verse. And only a deeply faithful, audible, distinct performance, that is, a stage pronunciation of these phrases, can express the meaning that the author gave them. Many of Ostrovsky's plays also to a large extent have this typical side of the language, and often phrases from his comedies are heard in colloquial speech, in various applications to life. The public remembers that Sosnitsky, Shchepkin, Martynov, Maksimov, Samoilov, in the roles of these authors, not only created types on the stage, which, of course, depends on the degree of talent, but also retained all the power and exemplary language with intelligent and embossed pronunciation, giving weight to each phrase , every word. Where, if not from the stage, can one wish to hear exemplary readings of exemplary works? It seems that the public has rightly complained about the loss of this literary, so to speak, performance of works of art lately. In addition to the weakness of the performance in the general course, regarding the correct understanding of the piece, the lack of reading skills, etc., one could dwell on some more inaccuracies in detail, but we do not want to seem picky, especially since minor or private inaccuracies stemming from negligence , will disappear if the artists treat the play with a more thorough critical analysis. Let us wish that our artists, out of the whole mass of plays with which they are inundated with their duties, with love for art, single out works of art, and there are so few of them with us - and, by the way, especially Woe from Wit - and, composing from them their own chosen repertoire, would perform them differently from how they perform everything else that they have to play daily, and they will certainly perform properly.