What does Goncharov think about Chatsky? Goncharov - critic: critical sketch “A Million Torments” based on Griboedov’s play “Woe from Wit”

As a critical response to Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit,” Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov creates “A Million Torments.” Summary articles - deep social and ideological analysis this work. It is characteristic that the title of the article was a phrase dropped by Griboyedov’s character, Alexander Andreevich Chatsky. Thus, already when reading the title it becomes clear what will be discussed.

A comedy demanded by the era

Was this assessment given in a timely manner? Without a doubt. Russia lived in a transitional era from the capitalist era. There were no commoners yet, and yet the nobility remained the most advanced layer of society. But is it all the nobility? That is the question. The development of a huge country could no longer be stimulated either by heroes like Pushkin’s Onegin or Lermontov’s Pechorin. Article by I.A. Goncharova’s “A Million Torments” popularly and logically led its readers to this conclusion. Of course, society was in demand for a new, fresh look at society, at the role of a citizen, at education, at social activities. And this look was presented by the image of Alexander Andreevich Chatsky.

Chatsky's character

Chatsky’s character is not just central, but centrifugal in Goncharov’s “A Million Torments” was dedicated to an adequate, fair assessment of the meaning of this image (which simply did not exist before). The summary of the comedy is that Chatsky confronts the “old world,” intelligently and meaningfully testifying to the truth. It’s not customary to talk like that in aristocratic circles in Moscow. And an honest description of the “pillars of society” is perceived by the highest nobility as an “attack on the foundations” and sacrilege. The nobility is powerless in the face of his rhetoric; they shun him, declaring him insane.

Is this legal? Yes, and in highest degree! Let us remember that even Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin did not understand Chatsky. Famous poet, noting the justice of the comedy hero’s statements, at the same time he is perplexed: “Why is he saying all this if no one hears him” (i.e. the veiled question is clearly felt: “Isn’t Chatsky a fool?”). Dobrolyubov openly ironically treated this character - “a gambling fellow.” Since the fundamental novelty of the talentedly created image was not noticed by almost the entire society, in fact, that’s why Goncharov wrote “A Million Torments.” A brief summary of his work is an analysis of Griboyedov’s work.

So, our hero comes to aristocratic Moscow, taking time away from business, to declare his love to the young, educated and romantic Sofya Famusova, who refuses him. The plot intrigue is built on this. The girl, in turn, had already forgotten about her first feeling for him. She is driven by romantic generosity. Therefore, it cannot be said that she is as mercantile as her chosen one - her father’s mediocre and vile secretary - Alexey Stepanovich Molchalin. People who imitate activities to achieve their career aspirations are unspiritual people, capable of expressing servility and then betraying. Silent people. Goncharov dedicates “A Million Torments” to their caustic characterization. The summary of the comedy shows: they must lose. After all, the future state of the “Molchalins” is much more terrible than the state of the “Famusovs”.

Alexey Stepanovich Molchalin is the antipode of Chatsky. A cowardly, stupid, but “moderate and careful” careerist and in the future a bureaucrat. There is nothing living or natural in the image of Molchalin. But his life calculation is correct - it is precisely such people, by nature slaves, that those in power prefer to elevate, so that they can then rule unchallenged with the help of such people who do not have their own opinions.

conclusions

What is the significance of this work by Ivan Alexandrovich? It's obvious. Goncharov dedicates “A Million Torments” to an objective and worthy assessment. The summary of the article is precisely dedicated to this “ray of light in the dark kingdom.”

Goncharov’s merit is that after a while he noticed an essential detail: Chatsky is active, he is able to change the world. He is a man of the future, which cannot be said about the passive dreamers Onegin and Pechorin. The image of Alexander Andreevich, despite the name Griboyedov's comedy, optimistic. He inspires confidence in his rightness, being a literary and figurative embodiment of the words “and one in the field is a warrior!”

The beliefs of this man are the beliefs of the Decembrist. Thus, comedy is a kind of alarm bell for future events Russian society which occurred on December 14, 1825

How do Goncharov and Pushkin evaluate Chatsky, Sophia, other comedy heroes, and the writer’s artistic skill?

Sophia is distinguished, as I. A. Goncharov said, “a mixture of good instincts with lies... confusion of concepts, mental and moral blindness - all this does not have the character of personal vices in her, but appears in her as common features her circle. In her own, personal physiology, something of her own is hidden, hot, tender, even dreamy.” Sophia’s personal, considerable potential in relationships with genuine, and not imaginary, moral values ​​had no reason to manifest itself. The heroine's future is uncertain.

I. A. Goncharov wrote: “Chatsky was broken by the amount of old strength, inflicting a fatal blow on it in turn with the quality of fresh strength. He is the eternal exposer of lies, hidden in the proverb: “Alone in the field is no warrior.” No, a warrior, if he is Chatsky, and a winner at that, but an advanced warrior, a skirmisher and always a victim.”

And yet, throughout the course of the action, the writer proves that abstract romantic judgments about the good are somewhat devalued by the hero’s inability to understand specific, not so difficult circumstances.

Chatsky accuses Sophia of something she did not do: “Why did they lure me with hope?” In the article “A Million Torments” I. A. Goncharov wrote that in this case Chatsky “is betrayed not only by his mind, but also common sense" As A. S. Pushkin rightly noted, there is no great intelligence in the hero’s attempts to preach his ideas among ignorant people who cannot accept them, but are hostile in advance. However, it is important for the author that Chatsky’s accusatory monologues still be heard. In them, the “present century” manifests itself to the fullest.

Searched here:

• comedy composition woe from wit Pushkin Goncharov
• comparison of grief from wit Pushkin and Goncharov
• What does Gonyarov say about Chatsky?

Read the fragments critical article writer I. A. Goncharov (1812–1891) “A Million Torments” and take notes on it.

For note-taking, questions are proposed that must be answered either by quoting Goncharov in full (word for word and in quotation marks), or by retelling individual critical judgments in your own words. For convenience, the fragments given here are numbered.

If there are Goncharov's assessments with which you do not agree, highlight them in your notes.

Questions for taking notes.

What task does Goncharov set for himself?

What do critics value in A. S. Griboedov’s play?

What does Goncharov value in the play?

How long will the traits of the characters in the play appear in society?

What in comedy never dies?

Does the play have “movement” (development of action)?

Is Chatsky smart? Who is he?

What connects the parts of comedy to each other?

What does Goncharov see as the role characters“another, lively, lively comedy”?

What psychological picture Chatsky at the end of the play?

Why, according to Goncharov, did Griboedov end the play in disaster?

What is the portrait of Sophia through the eyes of Goncharov and what is the attitude of critics towards her?

What, according to Goncharov, is Chatsky’s role?

What does Goncharov reproach contemporary criticism for?

What is Chatsky's ideal?

What is the eternity of Chatsky’s image?

What does Goncharov say in his last remark about Chatsky?

IVAN ALEXANDROVICH GONCHAROV

Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov was born in Simbirsk into a wealthy merchant family, graduated from a boarding school, then from the Commercial School. In 1831 he entered the literature department of Moscow University, then served as an official in Simbirsk, and from 1835 in St. Petersburg, where he became an active participant in an aesthetic circle and paid tribute to the romantic mood that prevailed there. Through members of the circle in 1846, he met V. G. Belinsky and other common democrats, and became part of the editorial circle of Sovremennik. Subsequently, Goncharov moved away from the democratic movement. He especially disliked the views of D.I. Pisarev - the writer spoke sharply about the “pathetic and untenable doctrines of materialism, socialism and communism.”

A kind of trilogy was made up of Goncharov’s novels - « An ordinary story» (1847), "Oblomov"(1849–1859), "Cliff"(1869). In these novels, the author depicted “superfluous people” - nobles and “new people” who replaced them. The book of travel essays stands apart "Frigate Pallas"(1856–1857), written as a result of his trip around the world.

Goncharov also wrote a number of critical articles, including the article « A million torments», dedicated to the play “Woe from Wit” by A. S. Griboedov.

A million torments

(Critical study)

Woe from mind Griboedova.– Monakhov’s benefit performance, November, 1871

(fragments)

The comedy “Woe from Wit” stands out somehow in literature and is distinguished by its youthfulness, freshness and stronger vitality from other works of the word.<…>

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

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

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

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

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

In a picture where there is not a single pale spot, not a single extraneous stroke or sound, the viewer and reader feel even now, in our era, among living people. Both the general and the details, all this was not composed, but was entirely taken from Moscow living rooms and transferred to the book and to the stage, with all the warmth and with all the “special imprint” of Moscow - from Famusov to the smallest touches, to Prince Tugoukhovsky and to the footman Parsley, without which the picture would be incomplete.

However, for us it is not yet a completely completed historical picture: we have not moved away from the era at a sufficient distance for an impassable abyss to lie between it and our time. The coloring has not been smoothed out at all: the century has not separated from ours, like a cut piece: we have inherited something from there, although the Famusovs, Molchalins, Zagoretskys and others have changed so that they no longer fit into the skin of Griboyedov’s types.<…>But as long as there will be a desire for honors apart from merit, as long as there will be masters and hunters to please and “take rewards and live happily,” while gossip, idleness, and emptiness will prevail not as vices, but as elements public life, – until then, of course, they will flicker in modern society features of the Famusovs, Molchalins and others, there is no need that that “special imprint” of which Famusov was proud was erased from Moscow itself.<…>

Salt, an epigram, a satire, this colloquial verse, it seems, will never die, just like the sharp and caustic, living Russian mind scattered in them, which Griboyedov imprisoned, like a wizard of some spirit, in his castle, and he scatters there with evil laughter . It is impossible to imagine that another, more natural, simpler, more taken from life speech could ever appear. Prose and poetry merged here into something inseparable, then, it seems, so that it would be easier to retain them in memory and put into circulation again all the author’s collected intelligence, humor, jokes and anger of the Russian mind and language. This language was given to the author in the same way as it was given to a group of these individuals, as it was given to main meaning comedy, how it all came together, as if it poured out at once, and everything formed an extraordinary comedy - both in the narrow sense as a stage play, and in the broad sense as a comedy of life. It couldn't have been anything else but a comedy.

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

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

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

Only when driving around in the entryway does the viewer seem to awaken to the unexpected catastrophe that has broken out between the main characters, and suddenly remember the comedy-intrigue. But even then not for long. The enormous, real meaning of comedy is already growing before him.

The main role, of course, is the role of Chatsky, without which there would be no comedy, but, perhaps, there would be a picture of morals.

Griboyedov himself attributed Chatsky's grief to his mind, but Pushkin denied him any mind at all.

One would think that Griboyedov, out of fatherly love for his hero, flattered him in the title, as if warning the reader that his hero is smart, and everyone else around him is not smart.

Both Onegin and Pechorin turned out to be incapable of action, of an active role, although both vaguely understood that everything around them had decayed. They were even “embarrassed,” carried “dissatisfaction” within themselves and wandered around like shadows with “mourning laziness.” But, despising the emptiness of life, the idle lordship, they succumbed to it and did not think of either fighting it or fleeing completely. Dissatisfaction and bitterness did not prevent Onegin from being a dandy, “shine” both in the theater, and at a ball, and in a fashionable restaurant, flirting with girls and seriously courting them in marriage, and Pechorin from shining with interesting boredom and plunging his laziness and bitterness between Princess Mary and Beloy, and then pretend to be indifferent to them in front of the stupid Maxim Maksimych: this indifference was considered the quintessence of Don Juanism. Both were languishing, suffocating in their environment and did not know what to want. Onegin tried to read, but yawned and gave up, because he and Pechorin were familiar only with the science of “tender passion,” and for everything else they learned “something and somehow” - and they had nothing to do.

Chatsky, apparently, on the contrary, was seriously preparing for activity. He “writes and translates beautifully,” Famusov says about him, and everyone talks about his high intelligence. He, of course, traveled for good reason, studied, read, apparently set to work, had relations with ministers and separated - it’s not difficult to guess why.

I would be glad to serve, but it makes me sick to serve,

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

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

The reader remembers, of course, everything that Chatsky did. Let us slightly trace the course of the play and try to highlight from it the dramatic interest of the comedy, the movement that runs through the entire play, like an invisible but living thread connecting all the parts and faces of the comedy with each other.

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

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

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

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

Chatsky hardly notices Famusov, coldly and absentmindedly answers his question, where have you been?<…>He came to Moscow and to Famusov, obviously for Sophia and for Sophia alone.<…>He is bored and talking with Famusov - and only Famusov’s positive challenge to an argument brings Chatsky out of his concentration.<…>But his irritation is still restrained.<…>But he is awakened by Famusov’s unexpected hint about a rumor about Skalozub’s matchmaking.<…>

These hints about marriage aroused Chatsky’s suspicions about the reasons for Sophia’s change towards him. He even agreed to Famusov’s request to give up “false ideas” and remain silent in front of the guest. But the irritation was already building up crescendo, and he intervened in the conversation, until casually, and then, annoyed by Famusov’s awkward praise of his intelligence and so on, he raised his tone and resolved himself with a sharp monologue:

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

If only we could see what our fathers did

You should learn by looking at your elders! –

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

... For the decrepitude of years

Their enmity towards a free life is irreconcilable, -

Chatsky answers and executes -

The meanest features of the past life.

Two camps were formed, or, on the one hand, a whole camp of Famusov and the entire brethren of “fathers and elders,” on the other, one ardent and brave fighter, “the enemy of quest.” This is a struggle for life and death, a struggle for existence, as the newest naturalists define the change 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 endlessly, and all this just for the fact that that he signs papers without reading and is afraid of one thing, “so that a lot of them do not accumulate.”

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

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

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

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

In the third act, he gets to the ball before everyone else, with the goal of “forcing a confession” from Sophia - and with trembling impatience he gets down to business directly with the question: “Who does she love?”

After an evasive answer, she admits that she prefers his “others.” It seems clear. He sees this himself and even says:

And what do I want when everything is decided?

It’s a noose for me, but it’s funny for her!

However, he climbs like all lovers, despite his “intelligence.” And he is already weakening before her indifference. He throws a useless weapon against a happy opponent - a direct attack on him, and condescends to pretend.

Once in my life I'll pretend,

he decides to “solve the riddle,” but actually to hold Sophia when she rushed away at the new arrow fired at Molchalin. This is not pretense, but a concession with which he wants to beg for something that cannot be begged for - love when there is none.<…>Then all that was left was to fall to my knees and sob. The remnants of his mind save him from useless humiliation.

Such a masterful scene, expressed in such verses, is hardly represented by any other dramatic work. It is impossible to express a feeling more noblely and soberly, as it was expressed by Chatsky, it is impossible to extricate oneself from a trap more subtly and gracefully, as Sofya Pavlovna extricates oneself. Only Pushkin's scenes of Onegin and Tatyana resemble these subtle features of intelligent natures.

Sophia managed to completely get rid of Chatsky’s new suspicion, but she herself became carried away by her love for Molchalin and almost ruined the whole matter by expressing her love almost openly.<…>In her enthusiasm, she hastened to draw a full-length portrait of him, perhaps in the hope of reconciling not only herself, but also others, with this love, even Chatsky, as the portrait turns out vulgar.<…>

Chatsky’s doubts were dispelled:

She doesn't respect him!

He's being naughty, she doesn't love him.

She doesn't give a damn about him! –

he consoles himself with each of her praises to Molchalin and then grabs onto Skalozub. But her answer - that he was “not the hero of her novel” - destroyed these doubts too. He leaves her without jealousy, but in thought, saying:

Who will unravel you!

He himself did not believe in the possibility of such rivals, but now he is convinced of it. But his hopes for reciprocity, which had until now passionately worried him, were completely shaken, especially when she did not agree to stay with him under the pretext that “the tongs would cool down,” with a new barb against Molchalin, she slipped away from him and locked herself in.

He felt that the main goal of returning to Moscow had betrayed him, and he left Sophia with sadness. He, as he later confesses in the entryway, from that moment on only suspects in her coldness towards everything - and after this scene the fainting itself was attributed not “to a sign of living passions,” as before, but “to a quirk of spoiled nerves.”

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

The liar laughed at me! –

he notices and goes to meet new faces.

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

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

Isn’t the Gorici playing a complete comedy? This husband, recently still a cheerful and lively man, is now degraded, clothed, as in a robe, in Moscow life, a gentleman, “a boy-husband, a servant-husband, the ideal of Moscow husbands,” according to Chatsky’s apt definition, - under the shoe of a cloying, cutesy , socialite wife, Moscow lady:

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

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

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

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

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

But the cup overflowed. He leaves the back rooms completely upset and, out of old friendship, again goes to Sophia in the crowd, hoping for at least simple sympathy. He confides in her his state of mind:

A million torments! —

Breasts from friendly vices,

he says.

Feet from shuffling, ears from exclamations,

And all sorts of trifles are worse than my head!

Here my soul is somehow compressed with grief! –

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

“A million torments!” and “woe!” - this is what he reaped for everything he managed to sow. Until now he had been invincible: his mind mercilessly struck the sore spots of his enemies.<…>He felt his strength and spoke confidently. But the struggle exhausted him.<…>

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

He falls into exaggeration, almost into intoxication of speech, and confirms in the opinion of the guests the rumor spread by Sophia about his madness.<…>

He has lost control of himself and does not even notice that he himself is putting together a performance at the ball.<…>

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

Pushkin, denying Chatsky intelligence, probably most of all had in mind last scene Act 4, in the entryway, while driving around. Of course, neither Onegin nor Pechorin, these dandies, would have done what Chatsky did in the entryway. They were too trained “in the science of tender passion,” but Chatsky is distinguished, by the way, by 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 his common sense, even simple decency. He did such nonsense!

Having gotten rid of Repetilov's chatter and hid in the Swiss waiting for the carriage, he spied on Sophia's date with Molchalin and played the role of Othello, without having any rights to it. He reproaches her for why she “lured him with hope,” why she didn’t directly say that the past was forgotten. Every word here is not true. She did not entice him with any hope. All she did was walk away from him, barely spoke to him, admitted indifference, called some old children’s novel and hiding in corners “childish” and even hinted that “God brought her together with Molchalin.”

And he, only because -

...so passionate and so low

There was a waste of tender words, -

in rage for his own useless humiliation, for the deception voluntarily imposed on himself, he executes everyone, and throws at her a cruel and unfair word:

With you I am proud of my breakup, -

when there was nothing to tear apart! Finally he just comes to the point of abuse, pouring out bile:

For the daughter and for the father,

And for a foolish lover,

and seethes 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 had one healthy moment, if he had not been burned by “a million torments,” he would, of course, have asked himself the question: “Why and for what reason have I done all this mess?” And, of course, I wouldn’t find the answer.

Griboyedov is responsible for him, who ended the play with this disaster for a reason. In it, not only for Sophia, but also for Famusov and all his guests, Chatsky’s “mind,” which sparkled like a ray of light in the whole play, burst out at the end into that thunder at which, as the proverb goes, men are baptized.

From the thunder, Sophia was the first to cross herself, remaining until Chatsky appeared, when Molchalin was already crawling at her feet, with the same unconscious Sofia Pavlovna, with the same lies in which her father raised her, in which he lived himself, his entire house and his entire circle . Having not yet recovered from shame and horror when the mask fell from Molchalin, she first of all rejoices that “at night she learned everything, that there are no reproachful witnesses in her eyes!”

But there are no witnesses, therefore, everything is sewn and covered, you can forget, marry, perhaps, Skalozub, and look at the past...

No way to look. She will endure her moral sense, Liza will not let slip, Molchalin does not dare to say a word. And husband? But what kind of Moscow husband, “one of his wife’s pages,” would 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 -

The light does not punish delusions,

But it requires secrets for them!

This couplet by Pushkin expresses the general meaning of the conditions of morality. Sophia never saw the light from her and would never have seen without Chatsky, for lack of chance.<…>Sofya Pavlovna is not at all as guilty as she seems.

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

French books that Famusov complains about, piano (also with flute accompaniment), poetry, French and dancing - this was considered the classical education of a young lady. And then “Kuznetsky Most and Eternal Renewals”, balls, such as this ball at her father’s, and this society - this is the circle where the life of the “young lady” was concluded. Women learned only to imagine and feel and did not learn to think and know. Thought was silent, only instincts spoke. They drew worldly wisdom from novels and stories - and from there instincts developed into ugly, pitiful or stupid properties: daydreaming, sentimentality, the search for an ideal in love, and sometimes worse.

In a soporific stagnation, in a hopeless sea of ​​lies, the majority of women outside were dominated by conventional morality - and quietly, life was teeming, in the absence of healthy and serious interests, or any content at all, with those novels from which the “science of tender passion” was created. The Onegins and Pechorins are representatives of a whole class, almost a breed of dexterous gentlemen, jeunes premiers. These advanced personalities in high life - such were also in works of literature, where they occupied an honorable place from the times of chivalry to our time, to Gogol. Pushkin himself, not to mention Lermontov, valued this external brilliance, this representativeness du bon ton, the manners of high society, under which lay “bitterness”, “yearning laziness” and “interesting boredom”. Pushkin spared Onegin, although he touches with slight irony his idleness and emptiness, but he describes to the smallest detail and with pleasure the fashionable suit, the trinkets of the toilet, the dandyism - and that assumed negligence and inattention to anything, this fatuite, the posing that the dandies flaunted. The spirit of later times removed the tempting drapery from his hero and all “gentlemen” like him and determined the true meaning of such gentlemen, driving them out of the foreground.

They were the heroes and leaders of these novels, and both parties were trained before marriage, which absorbed all the novels almost without a trace, unless some kind of faint-hearted, sentimental - in a word, a fool - was encountered and announced, or the hero turned out to be such a sincere “crazy” as 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 Tatiana Pushkin. The difference between them is laid by the “Moscow imprint”, then by the sprightliness, the ability to control oneself, which appeared in Tatyana when she met Onegin after marriage, and until then she was not able to lie about love even to the nanny. But Tatyana is a country girl, and Sofya Pavlovna is a Moscow girl, developed as it was then.

Meanwhile, in her love, she is just as ready to give herself away as Tatyana: both, as if sleepwalking, wander in infatuation with childish simplicity. And Sophia, like Tatyana, begins the novel herself, not finding anything reprehensible in it, she doesn’t even know about it. Sophia is surprised at the maid’s laughter when she tells how she and Molchalin spend the whole night: “Not a free word! “And so the whole night goes by!” “The enemy of insolence, always shy, bashful!” That's what she admires about him! It’s funny, but there is some kind of almost grace here - and far from immorality, there is no need for her to let slip the 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 surroundings, you see that it was not immorality (but not “God,” of course) that “brought her together” with 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 enjoyed the role of ruling over a submissive creature, making him happy and having an eternal slave in him. It’s not her fault that this turns out to be a future “husband-boy, husband-servant - the ideal of Moscow husbands!” There was nowhere to stumble upon other ideals in Famusov’s house.

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

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

Chatsky's role is a passive role: it cannot be otherwise. This is the role of all Chatskys, although at the same time it is always victorious. But they do not know about their victory, they only sow, and others reap - and this is their main suffering, that is, in the hopelessness of success.<…>

Chatsky's authority was known before as the authority of intelligence, wit, of course, knowledge and other things. He already has like-minded people. Skalozub complains that his brother left the service without receiving his rank and began reading books. One of the old women grumbles that her nephew, Prince Fyodor, is studying chemistry and botany. All that was needed was an explosion, a battle, and it started. Stubborn and ardent - on one day in one house, but its consequences, as we said above, were reflected throughout Moscow and Russia. Chatsky created a schism, and if he was deceived in his personal goals, did not find “the charm of meetings, living participation,” then he himself sprinkled living water onto the dead soil - taking with him “a million torments,” this Chatsky’s crown of thorns - torments from everything: from “ mind,” and even more from “offended feelings.”<…>

Now, in our time, of course, they would reproach Chatsky for why he put his “offended 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 rejected groom?

Yes, now! And at that time, for the majority, the concepts of social issues would have been the same as for Repetilov the talk of “About the Camera and the Jury.” Criticism made a big mistake in that in its trial of the famous dead it left the historical point, ran ahead and hit them with modern weapons. Let’s not repeat her mistakes - and we won’t blame Chatsky for the fact that in his hot speeches addressed to Famusov’s guests, there is no mention of the common good, when there is already such a split from “searching for places, from ranks” as “engaging in the sciences and arts ", was considered "robbery and fire."<…>

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

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

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

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

Chatsky is inevitable with every change from one century to another. The position of the Chatskys on the social ladder is varied, but the role and fate are all the same, from major state and political figures who control the destinies of the masses, to a modest share in a close circle.<…>

That’s why Griboyedov’s Chatsky, and with him the whole comedy, has not aged yet and is unlikely to ever grow old. And literature will not escape the magic circle drawn by Griboedov as soon as the artist touches on the struggle of concepts and the change of generations. 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 many in life in art, or he will create a modified image of Chatsky, as after Cervantes’ Don Quixote and Shakespeare’s Hamlet, endless of them appeared and are similarities

In the honest, passionate 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 Griboyedov’s poems! Many Chatskys could be cited - who appeared at the next change of eras and generations - in the struggle for an idea, for a cause, for truth, for success, for a new order, at all levels, in all layers of Russian life and work - loud, great things and modest armchair exploits. There is a fresh legend about many of them, others we saw and knew, and others still continue to fight. Let's turn to the literature. Let's remember not a story, not a comedy, not an artistic phenomenon, but let's take one of the later fighters with the old century, for example Belinsky. Many of us knew him personally, and now everyone knows him. Listen to his passionate improvisations - and they sound the same motives - and the same tone as Griboedovsky's Chatsky. And just like that he died, destroyed by “a million torments,” killed by the fever of expectation and not waiting for the fulfillment of his dreams, which are now no longer dreams.

Leaving the political delusions of Herzen, where he emerged from the role of a normal hero, from 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 sarcasms 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 which during his lifetime he did not have the courage to say: “Lie, but know your limits!”

But he did not take this word to his grave, confessing after death to the “false shame” that prevented him from saying it.

Finally, one last note about Chatsky. They reproach Gribodov for the fact that Chatsky is not as artistically clothed as other faces of 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 comedy, and not such a complete and complete creation as, for example, the figure of Onegin and other types snatched from life.

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

Increasing (Italian)

First lovers (French).

In high society (English).

Good manners (French).

Fatefulness (French).

V. G. Belinsky (1811–1848) – literary critic.

A. I. Herzen (1812–1870) - writer, philosopher, revolutionary.

I. A. Goncharov “Chatsky is broken by the amount of old strength, inflicting a mortal blow on it in turn with the quality of fresh strength. He is the eternal exposer of lies." Chatsky's drama is that he sees tragedy in the fate of society, but cannot influence anything.

I. A. Goncharov “Chatsky is inevitable with every change of one century to another... Every business that requires updating evokes the shadow of Chatsky.”

A. S. Pushkin “What is Chatsky? An ardent, noble and kind fellow, who spent some time with a very smart person (namely Griboyedov) and was imbued with his thoughts, witticisms and satirical remarks... The first sign smart person“Know at first glance who you are dealing with, and not throw pearls in front of the Repetilovs and others like him.”

A. Grigoriev Chatsky Griboyedova is the only truly heroic face of our literature..., an honest and active nature, and also the nature of a fighter.

V. G. Belinsky “A boy on a stick on horseback, a screamer, a phrase-monger, an ideal jester, Chatsky’s drama - a storm in a teacup.”

A. I. Herzen “Chatsky is an ideal hero, taken by the author from life itself... Real positive hero Russian literature. Enthusiast Chatsky is a Decembrist at heart."

M.A. Dmitriev Chatsky... is nothing more than a madman who is in the company of people who are not at all stupid, but uneducated, and who plays smart in front of them because he considers himself smarter.

A. Lebedev “Chatsky does not leave, but exits the stage. To infinity. His role is not completed, but begun."

A.V. Lunacharsky Comedy [“Woe from Wit”] is an accurate, completely accurate self-report of how an intelligent person lives, or rather dies, how an intelligent person dies in Rus'.

A. Skabichevsky “Chatsky is a vivid personification of Griboyedov’s contemporaries... Chatsky was precisely one of those reckless preachers who were the first heralds of new ideas even when no one was listening to them, as happened with Chatsky at Famusov’s ball.”

N. K Piksanov Optimism is the main mood of “Woe from Wit”. Whatever the outcome, inner powerlessness Famusov society and Chatsky’s strength are obvious to the reader and viewer.

M. Dunaev “What is Chatsky’s grief? In the fatal discrepancy between the system of his life values ​​and those he encounters in Famusov’s house. He is alone. And they don’t understand him. And his mind is failing. And for him here is death, grief, “a million torments.” And the internal reason is in himself. For grief is from his mind. More precisely: from the originality of his mind."

P. Vail, A. Genis So modern and timely main question: Is Chatsky stupid or smart? If, as a bearer of progressive opposition ideas, he is stupid, then it is understandable why he fusses, chatters, throws pearls and profanely. If we recognize Chatsky as smart, then we must also admit that he is smart in a different way. We dare say; not smart in Russian. To someone else. In a foreign way. For him, word and deed are not so irrevocably separated, the idea of ​​obligatory seriousness does not put pressure on his lively, temperamental intellect. It's different in style.