Plot elements in the comedy Woe from Wit. Woe from Wit

YU. N. TYNYANOV Plot "Woe from Wit" * Source: Yu. N. Tynyanov. Pushkin and his contemporaries. Moscow: Nauka, 1969. Under. ed. ak. V. V. Vinogradova. Compiled by V. A. Kaverin and Z. A. Nikitina. Electronic version: Alexander Prodan. The original is located at:Library of Alexander Belousenko ============================================================== 1 The researcher of the text "Woe from Wit" I.D. Garusov wrote in 1875: "For exactly half a century there have been rumors about" Woe from Wit ", and comedy, we do not say: for the majority, but for masses, remains unclear." * Prepared for publication by E. A. Tynyanov based on handwritten materials from the archive of Yu. P. Tynyanov. Hoping in the study of the living historical remnants of the past to get the right solution to the issue, to make the play understandable to the viewer. Garusov studied the prototypes of actors for many years. “Even the artists of the capital, who have not yet erased the legends about the author,” he wrote, “who remember his instructions, even They still unable to fully recreate the Griboedov types, because - for the most part they depict caricatures, and not persons acting then ... The late Shchepkin and Orlov were the only exception, embodying Famusov and Skalozub alive, because they knew the faces covered by these names, but they, according to the conditions of the time and dramatic censorship, left large gaps. true feeling necessary in art, but as far as the general idea allows. "3 It was even worse with female types. Garusov wrote that, apart from A. M. Karatygina in the role of Natalia Dmitrievna and Kolosova (in Moscow) in the role of Liza, "neither before, nor now not a single artist could cope with a less typical role in a comedy. "4 Dooming the play to a temporary, quickly forgettable understanding, Garusov relied on living speech and the characters of the prototypes. This historian of the play, who demanded the direct reproduction of Griboedov's truth of the image, had no future, no prospects In a letter to Katenin dated January 1825, which is the basis of Griboyedov's understanding of the play, Griboyedov answered Katenin's objection in such a way that in Woe from Wit the "characters are portraits": "Yes! And I, if I do not have the talent of Moliere, then at least I am more sincere than him; portraits and only portraits are part of comedy and tragedy ... "And immediately after this, Griboedov speaks not about portraits already, but about types, that in portraits, "however, there are features characteristic of many other persons, and others for everything to the human race insofar as each person resembles all his bipedal brethren. I hate caricatures, you won’t find a single one in my picture. "Here, as the only means of understanding the play, the study of Garusov ended. Here there was a new quality of dramatic literature. "Portraits" became types. The practice of dramatic portraits was started by Krylov, Shakhovsky, later developed by Katenin.In Shakhovsky's comedy "The New Stern" (1807) they saw a caricature of Karamzin, in Fialkin of his other play - "A Lesson for Coquettes or Lipetsk Waters" (1815) - Zhukovsky himself recognized the caricature of himself, which marked the beginning literary society"Arzamas" and the emergence of the famous literary controversy, the war between "Arzamas" and "Conversations". The plot of "Woe from Wit", the "plan" was explained most fully and clearly by Griboedov himself. In the aforementioned letter to Katenin, he wrote: “You find the main error in the plan: it seems to me that it is simple and clear in purpose and execution; the girl herself is not stupid prefers a fool to an intelligent person (not because the mind of us sinners was ordinary, no! And in my comedy 25 fools to one sane person); and this man, of course, is at odds with the society around him, no one understands him, no one wants to forgive him, why is he a little taller than the others, at first he is cheerful, and this is a vice: "To joke and joke for a century, how will you become!" - Slightly goes over the oddities of former acquaintances, what to do if they do not have the noblest noticeable feature! His taunts are not caustic until he is enraged, but still: "Not a man! a snake!" - and then, when the personality of "ours has been touched" intervenes, it is anathematized: "I'm glad to humiliate, prick, envious! proud and angry!" He does not tolerate meanness: "Oh! my God, he is a carbonarius." Someone out of malice invented about him that he was crazy, no one believed him and everyone repeats, the voice of general unkindness even reaches him, moreover, the dislike for him of that girl for whom he was the only one who came to Moscow, he completely explains, he tells her and spit in the eyes of everyone and was like that. The queen is also disappointed with her sugar honey. What could be more complete than this?" The most striking feature here is the interpretation of Sophia and Chatsky. Chatsky is "in contradiction with society": the main representative of this society in terms of is Sophia. Of the four remarks about Chatsky given by Griboyedov, three belong to Sophia, and only one - to Famusova.From act 1 - "Not a man, a snake" - this is said by Sofya (aside) after Chatsky's words about Molchalin: "After all, now they love the dumb"; Sophia in act III: "Joke: and joke for a century ! how it will become of you!" - after Chatsky's feigned attempt to come to terms with Sophia's opinion about Molchalin. "I'm glad to humiliate, prick, envious! proud and angry!" - Sophia's words about Chatsky after Chatsky's words about Molchalin: "Zagoretsky will not die in him." Famusov utters here only a verse from act II: "Oh, my God! he is a carbonarius!" - after Chatsky's response to Famusov's delight in front of Maxim Petrovich ("He does not tolerate meanness"). Sophia is characterized precisely as a representative of society: "after, when the personality of" ours was affected ", she is anathematized"; "ours were affected" - - these are eloquent words and fully explain the role and significance of Sophia (here she is not spoken of as a woman, here she is a representative of society). out of anger, he invented about him that he was crazy. "And if Sophia's dislike is spoken of as the dislike for him of that girl for whom he only came to Moscow, then here she is an impersonal representative of society, "someone." The beloved girl is a representative of the society with which Chatsky is "at odds". Sophia openly opposes "this mind, that a genius for others, and for others a plague," and acts as a representative of the interests of the family: "Will such a mind make a family happy?" (in this respect leading role it’s not she, not Famusov, but Molchalin himself who plays as the guardian of the family: “She once loved Chatsky, she will stop loving me like him”). After the release of Woe from Wit, Senkovsky wrote a wonderful article about the play. He wanted to put an end to the petty and largely hypocritical controversy surrounding the play. Those affected by it revolted against the play. "Whoever unconditionally denigrates" Woe from Wit "offends the taste of all the people and the judgment pronounced by all of Russia. This folk book: there is no Russian who does not know by heart at least ten verses of this comedy ... "And he immediately gave a wonderful definition, which, stopping Vyazemsky's attacks, echoed his words about Fonvizin: 5 "Like The Wedding of Figaro, this is a political comedy : Beaumarchais and Griboyedov, with the same talents and equal causticity of satire, were brought onto the stage political concepts and the habits of the societies in which they lived, measuring the national morality of their homelands with a proud look. "6 The last phrase is clearly erroneous. Griboyedov always contrasted the popular customs and morality with the morals of the educated part of society, the "damaged class of semi-Europeans", to which he himself belonged ("Country trip "). The mention of Beaumarchais deserves analysis and study. "If "Woe from Wit" is inferior to the work of the French comedian in the art of intrigue, on the other hand, it restores its balance with him in relation to the inner dignity of the poetic part and the charm of the story. "The case concerns "Someone, out of anger, invented about him that he was crazy, no one believed him and everyone repeats" - this is the basis of the plot, and here Senkovsky remembered Beaumarchais for good reason. Compare act 2 of The Barber of Seville: Basil. ... Draw him into this nasty story good hour, and in the meantime slander him irrevocably, Bartolo. Strange way to get rid of a person! Basil. Slander, sir: you do not know at all what you are neglecting. I have seen the most honest people almost destroyed by her. Believe me, there is no flat malicious invention, abomination, an absurd fairy tale that could not be made food for idle people in big city, properly grasping it, and here we have such dodgers ... At first, a light conversation, hovering low above the ground, like a swallow before a thunderstorm, a pianissimo whisper runs and leaves a poisonous trail behind it. Somebody's mouth will shelter him and a piano, a piano with dexterity will stick in your ear. Evil is done. It sprouts, creeps, twists, and rinforzando from mouth to mouth will go for a walk. Then suddenly, I don’t know why, slander rises, whistles, swells, grows before your eyes. It rushes forward, spreads its flight, spins, seizes everything, tears, drags along, sparkles and thunders, and now, thanks to the sky, it has turned into a common cry, a crescendo of the whole society, a powerful chorus of hatred and curses. Who the hell can resist her? Act 4 of the same play: Basil. Slander, doctor, slander! You should always stick to it. There is no doubt that this was taken into account by Griboedov (cf. comparison of slander with " snowball"in the first edition of "Woe from Wit" 7). Moreover, Griboyedov studied with Beaumarchais the art of plot construction. Compare the preface to The Marriage of Figaro: "I thought and continue to think that it is impossible to achieve either great touching or of deep morality, nor of good and genuine comedy except by means of strong propositions in the plot which one wants to work out — propositions constantly born out of social clashes... Comedy is less bold, does not exaggerate clashes, because its pictures are borrowed from our mores, its plots - from the life of society ... A fable is a short comedy, and any comedy is nothing more than a lengthy fable; the difference between them lies in the fact that in the fable the animals are smart, and in our comedy people are often animals and, even worse, evil animals. "Griboedov's art of lively depiction is such that his study pushed all other points aside. The study of the plot of" Woe from wit "were much less involved. But the strength and novelty of" Woe from Wit "was precisely in the fact that the very plot was of enormous life, social, historical significance. Beaumarchais was not a "source" here, but only a teacher. "A strong point in the plot" is a fiction about Chatsky's madness. The emergence of fiction is the strongest point in Chatsky's love drama. It is based on own words hero. Trying to figure out who Sophia loves, and not trusting the evidence, Chatsky, as it were, reconciles with the end of his love. He bitterly sneers at his rejected love, calling it madness: Then I can guard against madness; I'll go further - to forgive, to grow cold, Do not think about love, but I will be able to Get lost in the world, forget and have fun. To this bitter confession, Sophia says (to herself): Here's what drove me crazy! Sophia, infuriated by Chatsky's words about Molchalin, repeats this out of revenge: He has a screw loose. Art - in barely noticeable amplifications. It is interesting that the rumor was launched through the nameless Mr. N and then Mr. D. The spread and growth of fiction. III ACTION Phenomenon 1 Chatsky. I can avoid madness. Sophia. Here's what drove me crazy! Event 14 Sophia. He has a screw loose. G.N. Have you gone crazy? Event 15 G.N. Crazy. Event 16 G.D. Crazy. Zagoretsky. His uncle, the rogue, hid him in the insane. Event 17 Zagoretsky. He's crazy. Zagoretsky. Yes, he's crazy! Appearance 19 Zagoretsky. In the mountains he was wounded in the forehead, went crazy from the wound. phenomenon 21 Zagoretsky. Crazy but... Khlyostov. In his summer crazy jumped off! Famusov. Crazy divorced people, and deeds, and opinions. Khlyostov. Who in the mind is upset. phenomenon 22 Khlyostov. Well, as if from crazy eyes ... IV ACTION. Phenomenon 6 Zagoretsky. Seriously damaged in mind. Event 14 Famusov. She called him insane! The spread of fiction is based on the portrayal of reciprocity. However, the point is not in faith, in a change of opinion, the point is in the complete community of agreement. At the end of Act III, Chatsky has already been declared insane. To the question of Platon Mikhailovich: Who disclosed first? Natalia Dmitrievna says: Ah, my friend, everything! And Chatsky's old friend must yield: Well, everything, so believe involuntarily. It's not about believing in fiction, not even trust; They will heal, cure, maybe says Khlestova, obviously not believing. "No one believed and everyone repeats." Blind need to repeat the general rumor, with distrust. Repetilov agrees even more clearly: I'm sorry, I didn't know that was too loud. Fiction takes on the character of a conspiracy, a conspiracy. Mistaken, confusing Molchalin with Chatsky, in the last scene, in front of a crowd of servants with candles, Famusov, addressing Sophia with reproaches, says: It's all a conspiracy and there was a conspiracy He himself, and all the guests. He has the vanity of a statesman - I'm the first, I discovered! This is no longer a small scene, no home comedy. What kind of future awaits everyone, the catastrophic figure of Repetilov testifies. In the features of not only character, but also inventions, there are real features. In act III, the fiction breaks up into a series of concrete ones, and Zagoretsky's absurd assertion about Chatsky's madness presents a coloring of proximity to Griboedov's autobiographical moments: In the mountains he was wounded in the forehead - he went crazy from the wound. This is an echo of the rumors that circulated around Griboedov's opponent, Yakubovich, rumors that he himself, who loved exaggerated passion, were inflated: he strongly emphasized his wound, wore a bandage on his forehead, tragically pulled it off, etc. However, Chatsky's words about "madness "and the gradual development - from Sophia to the crowd of guests - the rumor that Chatsky is "out of his mind", to be understood entirely in the new, current meaning of the word. There is a significant difference between the modern meaning of this concept and the meaning that it had at that time. The chivalrous code of love for a lady in the courtly chivalrous era includes mad love, madness because of a lady - such is the madness of the furious Roland because of Angelica, such is the madness of Don Quixote because of Dulcinea. Survivals of this meaning of madness remained in the language and reached the 20s of the 19th century. The indispensable connection between madness and love for a woman seemed self-evident. The poet Batyushkov became mentally ill in the 1920s. His illness was hopeless, and his life was divided into two halves: a normal life until 1822-1824. and the life of an insane person until 1855. Friends took an ardent part in his illness. P. A. Vyazemsky wrote on August 27, 1823 to Zhukovsky about Batyushkov and outlined decisive measures. The measures planned by Vyazemsky to cure Batyushkov’s illness were as follows: “In St. Petersburg there is Mukhanov Nikolai, a life hussar officer. He was with Batyushkov in the Caucasus and saw him quite often. "something woman. An explanation of this matter can serve as a guide to dealing with him and his illness. In this case, deception can be useful. And if he is really in love with this woman, then it will be possible to think of something else ... Do not refuse : here a minute can accomplish everything and impose on our conscience terrible remorse. It will hurt us to tell ourselves. 8 Thus, Vyazemsky outlined a complex and exhaustive plan for the behavior of friends with a mentally ill poet, and this plan is based on the origin of the disease from falling in love with a woman. In early September 1824, Griboedov wrote a letter to Bulgarin, with which he decisively with him any relationship, literary and personal.The letter was written after Bulgarin's immoderate praise of Griboedov in the press, which should have been widely publicized this "friendship".Personal relations ended with this letter, apparently, after Bulgarin's explanations and persistent steps, And on the autograph of this letter from Griboedov to Bulgarin, according to Griboyedov's biographer M. Semevsky, Bulgarin wrote: "Griboedov in a moment of madness." In his memoirs, he says about Kuchelbecker that "his friend was Griboyedov, who met him at my place and at first glance mistook him for a madman." 10 This invention, the sudden unfounded suspicion of insanity, which we meet in Woe from Wit, was used by dubious "friends". Fiction can be used in the future. It should be noted that this is emphasized in comedy. In Act III, at the very moment of the appearance of the fiction, Sophia has nameless, unnamed Mr. N and Mr. D. Both nameless characters are remarkable in that they do not differ from all the others. It cannot even be said that they are more impersonal. However, they do have personalities. Thus, Mr. N., in his interest in this rumor, most of all resembles a person who is specially interested in such rumors. I'll go and inquire; tea, who knows. It is like the voice of some von Fock agent. He seems to anticipate Zagoretsky. G. D., speaking with Zagoretsky, refutes Mr. N.: "Empty", but the conversation with Zagoretsky inspires him: Let me go spread my wings I’ll ask everyone: however, chur, a secret! Zagoretsky has the features and conversations of an employee. If he were appointed censor, he would lean on fables where Eternal mockery of lions! over the eagles! Whoever says: Although animals, but still kings. It was a person of a special office who was close to a political detective, an employee, who could speak like that. Platon Mikhailovich tells him: I'll tell you the truth about you Which is worse than any lie. About Zagoretsky, Platon Mikhailovich says: Beware with him, endure much And do not sit down in the cards: he will sell. This happens at the very beginning of the disclosure of fiction. During the years of writing the end of the comedy, the activities of the special office, which was already in charge of von Fock, were highly developed. Fictions during the activities of the special office often received an ominous conclusion. The fiction of Chatsky's madness is a striking example of the "strong position in the plot" that Beaumarchais speaks of. The change of inventions, their growth ends with the replica of the old princess: I think he's just a Jacobin Your Chatsky!!! Fiction turns into a denunciation. 2 First of all, Griboyedov had to study very early in his life, in fact, what Beaumarchais calls slander, and he himself, more precisely and more broadly, "fiction." It is precisely to study, because its creative subtlety and accuracy were prompted here by both literary and diplomatic activity. It is not only about the emergence of hearing, but also about its growth, about how hearing appears and grows. Griboedov very early took part in the literary controversy. By 1816, he spoke about the free translation of the burgher ballad "Lenora". This is one of the most fundamental literary and poetic disputes of the 1920s. I have already written about him. 11 The reason for the controversy was that, along with a free translation of "Lenora", the famous "Lyudmila" Zhukovsky, another free translation appeared - "Olga" by Katenin. The results of the controversy were summed up in 1833 by Pushkin. He wrote about the burgher Lenore: “She was already known to us by the incorrect and charming imitation of Zhukovsky, who made of her the same thing that Byron in his Manfred did of Faust: he weakened the spirit and forms of his model. Katenin he felt this and took it into his head to show us "Lenora" in the energetic beauty of her primitive creation, he wrote "Olga". But this simplicity and even rudeness of expressions, this bastard, replacing aerial chain of shadows, this gallows instead rural paintings, illuminated by the summer moon, unaccustomed readers were unpleasantly struck, and Gnedich undertook to express their opinion in an article with which Griboyedov denounced the injustice. 12 Griboyedov was then 21 years old. subtle analysis of the transition of literary controversy into personal reproaches against the enemy.Reproaches to the reviewer are as follows: "G. Zhukovsky, - he says, - writes ballads, others, too, therefore, these others are either imitators of him, or envious people. Here is an example of Mr. Reviewer's logic. Perhaps others will not approve of the offensive personality of his imprisonment; but is it done in literary life? G. the reviewer reads a new poem: it is not written as he would like; for that he scolds the author as he pleases, calls him an envious person and prints this in a magazine, and does not sign his name. All this is very ordinary and no longer surprises anyone. "13 The very simplicity in presenting the facts of the literary polemics of the young Griboedov is amazing and resembles a dramatic plan. Insufficiency of foundation ("he writes ballads, others too, therefore, these others are either imitators of him, or envious") leading to the insulting "personality" of accusations, conclusions, the namelessness of attacks - these are precisely and briefly stated features of literary and everyday polemics. Griboedov starts from the very roots, the most insignificant and at the same time simple facts. In literary polemics, an unfounded private accusation against Shakhovsky is that he opposed the staging of Ozerov's play led to the heavy accusation of Shakhovsky of Ozerov's death, an accusation that, under the influence of Vyazemsky, 14 widely spread in literary circles. Ozerov was not a brilliant playwright, and Shakhovsky's accusation had no factual basis. Pushkin reconciles with Shakhovsky Katenin. 15 In October 1817, Griboedov wrote to Katenin, explaining his behavior in the polemic with Zagoskin (in response to Zagoskin's harsh review of the production of Griboedov's play "The Young Spouses" 16 Griboyedov wrote a poetic response to "Lubochny Theatre", which his friends distributed): " It's up to you, you can't get away with silence when a fool buzzes about you tomfoolery. You won't get anything by this, proof of Shakhovskaya, who always keeps a noble silence and is always bombarded with lampoons. At the beginning, having paid tribute to the extremes of the literary struggle in Arzamas, Pushkin not only learns to treat the literary struggle broadly, but in the first chapter of Eugene Onegin he gives an unprecedented example of attitude towards it. The case is about the same theater: There Ozerov involuntary tribute People's tears of applause I shared with the young Semenova. There our Katenin resurrected Corneille is a majestic genius, There he brought out the sharp Shakhovskoy Noisy swarm of their comedies, There Didlo was crowned with glory, There, there under the shadow of the wings My young days flew by... This famous stanza of "Eugene Onegin" is usually evaluated solely by its verse, by its amazing expressiveness and brevity, as a result of which a broad picture of dramatic and theatrical history is contained in one stanza. The nature of the names is usually overlooked. Meanwhile, abandoning loud and sharp controversy, which did not at all solve the main tasks of art, Pushkin combined in this stanza seemingly incompatible names at that time. In this amazing stanza, the names turned out to be combined: Ozerov, who, according to literary polemics, was killed by Shakhovsky, and Shakhovsky himself; side by side are the names of Semyonova, to whom rumors attributed the reason for the exile of Katenin, 17 her theatrical opponent, and Katenin himself. It is not without reason that this list ends with the name of the "non-partisan" in literary and stage polemics, the famous St. Petersburg choreographer Didlo. The accusation of murder, which grew out of literary and theatrical polemics and the generalization of private facts, was for Griboedov a case that he was a witness to. Usually, Griboedov's diplomatic activity was placed unusually far from his literary life. There is nothing more superficial. In his diplomatic activity, Griboyedov had a vast field of observation and study, which was essential for his drama. In 1819, he placed in Son of the Fatherland an extensive Letter to the publisher of Son of the Fatherland regarding the placement in the Russian Invalid of news based on false and malicious sources, as if, according to news from Constantinople, "an indignation occurred in Georgia whom the Tatar prince is considered the main culprit": "Tell me, is it not sad to see," writes Griboedov, "how we have about what is believed to have happened among the people subject to us, and about an incident so significant, they do not find it difficult to borrow news from foreign statements, and do not hesitate to pass them off as at least plausible, because they do not express doubts in the slightest mark ... " 18 state activity was close to him to the theater and literature. "The indignation of the people is not like the indignation in the theater against the directorate, when it gives a bad performance: it echoes in all parts of the empire, however vast our Russia is." 19 The following is a case reinterpreted as an outrage, and the possible consequences of such reports are discussed. Speaking of Persia, Griboyedov writes: " Russian empire embraced the expanse of the earth in three parts of the world. What will not make any impression on her German neighbors can easily agitate the eastern power adjacent to her. An Englishman in Persia will read the same news, already written out from the Russian official journals, and very innocently tell it to anyone - in Tabriz or Teiran. Everyone is left to discuss the consequences that this may entail. "20 Griboedov here reveals such an understanding of the meaning of rumors, fictions, slander, which is equally important in assessing his drama, artistic and personal; moreover, an article written ten years before his death The growth, the development of fiction, which in the first edition of Woe from Wit is likened to the growth of an avalanche, as it were, anticipates all the main causes of it and even its culprits. real source such inventions? Who is the first to release them? Some Armenian, dissatisfied with his bargaining in Georgia, comes to Constantinople and with a cloudy face tells his comrade that things are not going well there. A friend's news is passed on to another, which private murmuring interprets as common to the whole people. It is not difficult for a third person to turn a dreamy murmur into indignation! Such a conjecture soon acquires newspaper authenticity and reaches the Hamburg Correspondent, from whom nothing can be hidden, and we are used to translating it from board to board; so how can you not write out an article from Constantinople from there? - in the emergence and spread of fiction, slander, developed by Griboedov through the daily practice of his diplomatic work. 3 However, neither the literary nor the diplomatic field of study was enough here. There were deep personal impressions, life experience. He himself had to live a whole long period of his life slandered. Pushkin, who met Griboyedov's body during his trip to Arzrum, remembered precisely this, from which one can conclude about the role of slander in Griboyedov's life. "Born with an ambition equal to his talents, for a long time he was entangled in networks of petty needs and obscurity. The abilities of a statesman remained unused; the poet's talent was not recognized; even his cold and brilliant courage remained suspect for some time." 22 Here, undoubtedly, we are talking about the famous quadruple duel: partie carrée Zavadovsky - Sheremetev - Yakubovich - Griboyedov; the first duel (1817) ended in the death of Sheremetev; the second took place in October 1818; this interval, caused by the impossibility of fighting immediately after the murder of Sheremetev, and then by the exile of Yakubovich, caused, of course, an invention, a slander - an accusation of cowardice. Be that as it may, the forced departure from Moscow and the decisive turning point in the life of Griboedov, who no longer lived in Moscow, were personal memories that made Woe from Wit a phenomenon of drama and poetry at the same time. However, the reason for his exile was much deeper and wider. Already in 1820 he calls his life "political exile". Senkovsky's definition of "Woe from Wit" as a "political" play is in complete agreement with these words. Later, this bold definition caused rumors and explanations, attempts to reduce everything to December 14, 1825 and immediately refute it. The case, however, was about a play written long before the December uprising; Senkovsky's reference to The Marriage of Figaro gave the word "political" a much broader meaning. Be that as it may, already in 1817 Griboyedov personally experienced the broadest slander directed against himself. The separation from the motherland that followed this was the main life result of the drama. And these are the words of Chatsky at the end of the play about the motherland: I see that she will soon get tired of me ... This is the famous ending: Get out of Moscow! It should be noted that in a letter to Katenin, Griboyedov speaks of slander as a fabrication. 4 The notion of fiction was most closely associated with the story of Chaadaev's resignation and civil death. The very surname of Chatsky had a connection precisely with the surname of Chaadaev (in Pushkin's spelling, which reflected living speech, Chadaev); in the first edition of Woe from Wit, the surname Chatsky was written by Griboyedov as Chadsky, which is directly connected with Chaadaev. This absolutely clear connection between Chatsky and Chaadaev makes us dwell on him. This is all the more curious and significant because the character, the type of the historical Chaadaev, is not at all the prototype of Chatsky. Of course, Chatsky's speech about serf slavery is Chaadaev's main socio-political thought about the delay in Russian development due to slavery, which affects all relations - not only the bar and the serfs. The very behavior of Chatsky, quickly flaring up, loving and offended by dislike, is far from the well-known image of Chaadaev. The only thing that made the main impression on Griboyedov was Chaadaev's resignation and the fiction, the slander that contributed to it. The "fiction" about Chaadaev, and then his resignation, was due to the fact that it was he who was sent to Alexander I, who was at the congress in Troppau, with a message about unrest in the Semenovsky regiment, as an adjutant to the corps commander Vasilchikov. D. Sverbeev in "Memoirs of P. Ya. Chaadaev" (1856) left a lot of interesting information about him and his views. This is his first recollection of Chaadaev: "Chaadaev was handsome, distinguished not by hussars, but by some English, almost even Byronian manners and had a brilliant success in the then Petersburg society." Speaking of Chaadaev's well-known courage and military merits, Sverbeev from the very beginning drops a meaningful phrase about the incident with Chaadaev: "Chadaev's behavior in this accident could have had some influence on the Troppau congress that was then." And yet, the main reason that turned, according to him, the whole fate of Chaadaev and had an impact on the rest of his life, he considers the delay, attributing it to the toilet: “Chaadaev often hesitated at the stations for his toilet. Such habits of neatness and comfort were always with him carefully observed." Further, it is said that "the consequence of the slowness of the gentleman courier was that Prince Metternich found out about the Semenov story a day or two earlier than the emperor," etc. Sverbeev's fiction further increases: Alexander locked Chaadaev with a key, after which Chaadaev was dismissed etc. 23 Echoes of gossip and a story about fiction are also found in the story of a relative of Chaadaev M. Zhikhareva: “Vasilchikov sent Chaadaev there with a report to the sovereign, despite the fact that Chaadaev was the junior adjutant and that the eldest should have gone. Chaadaev, going to Troppau, received instructions, of course, from Vasilchikov and, moreover, from Count Miloradovich , who was then the St. Petersburg military governor-general. After a meeting with the sovereign, on his return from Troppau to St. Petersburg, Chaadaev very soon resigned and left the service. On the way, he was late when he arrived in Troppau. The Austrian courier, who went to Prince Metternich, left Petersburg at the same time and arrived earlier. The Austrian minister learned about the "Semenov story" before the Russian emperor. This is not enough. On the day of the arrival of his courier, Prince Metternich dined with the sovereign, and to his words that "everything is calm in Russia," he rather sharply objected to the emperor who knew nothing: "Excepté une révolte dans un des régiments de la garde impériale." * * Except for the uprising in one of the regiments of the imperial guard (French). --Note. ed. Finally, as if after all this, Chaadaev did not appear for a very long time, doing ablutions, rubbing and changing clothes in a nearby hotel. The irritated sovereign had just seen him, went into great anger, shouted, got angry, told him an abyss of trouble, drove him away, and the offended Chaadaev demanded his resignation. This tale, which for quite a long time, however, took root and was in great circulation, is, in fact, not worth refuting. Chaadaev was not late, the Austrian courier did not arrive before him, and even if he had arrived and notified Prince Metternich, is there any possibility to assume that such a skillful and cautious diplomat would not guess to keep silent about the unpleasant news until the time?" Zhikharev restores in some detail the circumstances of Chaadaev’s meeting with Alexander I, adding that the meeting “lasted a little more than an hour.” A relative-memoirist rejects the rumor, the fiction about Chaadaev’s toilet and his being late, and his reminiscences are reminiscent of Griboedov’s words about the fiction about Chatsky’s madness: “No one believed and everyone repeats." He repeatedly tells in his memoirs about the importance that Chaadaev attached to his clothes, etc. About Chaadaev's resignation, which forever decided the question of his public service and activity, Zhikharev says: “Upon his return to St. Petersburg, almost the entire guards corps was followed by a general, instantaneous explosion of displeasure against him, for which he took upon himself a trip to Troppau and a report to the sovereign about the“ Semenov history. ”He - - they said - not only should not have gone, not only should not have stuffed up on a trip, but should have rejected it in every possible way, "etc. and worse: he went with secret orders, with secret instructions to present the matter to the sovereign in such a way that the commander of the guards corps and the regimental commander seemed right, and the blame fell with all its weight on the officer corps. Therefore, out of ambition, out of a desire to become the sovereign's adjutant as soon as possible, he, without any other need, decided to commit two crimes, first distorting the truth, presenting some as more right, others more guilty than they were, and then treason against former comrades. In addition, his behavior in this case was the most reckless: with this, almost denunciation, he threw a bad shadow on his hitherto impeccable reputation, and for him he could only get an adjutant wing, which from him, with his fame and distinction, without that Further, this memoirist, who recounts the slander in detail, assumes the role of an impartial judge and justifies Chaadaev in some ways: “In my understanding, Chaadaev positively and unconditionally, purely and simply should have given up the trip ... refuse.” And, finally, the nephew-judge adds: “That instead of refusing the trip, he sought and achieved it, for me is also beyond doubt. In this accident he succumbed to the inherent weakness of an inordinate vanity; I don’t think that when he left Petersburg, the aide-de-camp monograms on epaulettes shone before his imagination as much as the charm of a close relationship, a short conversation, close rapprochement with the emperor. adjutant rank, and "close relationship, short conversation, close rapprochement" with Alexander I, which Chaadaev hoped for. And if vanity remained the main motivating reason, then the nephew, through a complex internal struggle, managed to convince himself of the inaccuracy of the history of belatedness and more high degree Chaadaev's vanity than the aide-de-camp epaulettes. So: a short conversation, a close rapprochement with the emperor. Before us is a man who knew Chaadaev closely, a man not a stranger. The rest of the evidence boils down mainly to being late. A later historian writes about this: “The first news was received by the sovereign on October 29th. P. Ya. Chaadaev was sent only on October 21st and arrived in Troppau (in Silesia) on the 30th. Vasilchikov dated October 19, sent with a courier, all the stories that, through the fault of Chaadaev, they. Alexander later Metternich found out about this story, turn out to be complete nonsense ... In addition, Metternich's notes contain direct news that this event was to him became known only on November 3 (according to the old style). “We received today,” writes Metternich, “the news of an outbreak in the Semyonovsky regiment. Three couriers arrived tonight, one after the other. Immediately after that, Emperor Alexander called me and told me all this adventure. "Semevsky makes a note to this place:" The fact that Metternich received the news from his embassy so late is due to the delay of foreign couriers by not issuing them, within one day, passports by order Minister of the Interior Kochubey. Chaadaev retired only in February 1821, partly as a result of gossip and slander caused by his trip to Troppau. Vasilchikov initially persuaded him to stay in the service and offered him a long vacation until Feb. 21. In 1821, Volkonsky reported that the sovereign had received unfavorable information about Chaadaev and ordered him to resign without being awarded a rank (probably due to the fact that his letter was intercepted, where he wrote that he did not find it possible to live in Russia). "25 Of course, the riddle that gave rise to the fiction of being late, which turned into slander, was called by Zhikharev a "short conversation" with the emperor - such was the purpose of Chaadaev's trip - only the conversation with the tsar was unknown and it was not clear why Chaadaev was silent about the conversation all his life. the growing importance of Chaadaev's personality, the interest in him of Alexander I, the meaning and significance of the event that called into question the entire future of the tsar, with a report about which he was traveling, and the "short conversation" that was the goal - it is easier to imagine that the conversation that took place, ended in disagreement, and explains what happened next.Chadaev's main thought - a painful, passionate thought - was the idea of ​​slavery as the common cause of all the illnesses and shortcomings of Russia. "These slaves who serve you, don't they make up the air around you? These furrows that other slaves blew up in the sweat of their faces, isn't this the soil that wears you? And how many different sides, how many horrors, contains one word: Here is the vicious circle, in which we are all perishing, powerless to get out of it. Here is the accursed reality, against which we are all broken. that stains all our virtues... Where is a man so strong that in eternal contradiction with himself, constantly thinking one thing and acting differently, he does not become disgusted with himself? 26 What did the idea of ​​slavery have in common with the uprising of the Semyonovsky regiment? However, the uprising took place against the commander, Colonel Schwartz, a German, precisely because he introduced into the regiment the methods of the worst slavery. Later, during interrogations, the soldiers testified that "they were weighed down by the regimental commander, they had no rest either on weekdays or on holidays." Dressing and cleaning ammunition were the main point of nit-picking Colonel Schwartz "His exactingness regarding impeccable cleanliness and serviceability led to the fact that the soldiers had to buy many things with their own money ... In addition to the burden on the soldiers of the cost of improving the uniforms of which they were not at all obliged to do, they were still subjected to cruel punishments... The commander beat the soldiers with his own hand, pulled their mustaches, according to some of them, even sometimes pulled them out ... One private, on the orders of Schwartz, was punished in the palace arena with fuchtels (cleavers, flat) for coughing in the front. The uprising of the Semyonovsky regiment took place against the complete equation of the military system with serf slavery. Caused by the German Schwartz, who introduced the methods and procedures of slavery into the Russian army, it with great force posed before Russian society the question of national culture, of the national tasks of art. This was reflected in "Woe from mind." Chatsky wishes So that our smart, cheerful people Although the language did not consider us Germans. Independence, originality of Russian artistic speech became the main task. It can be assumed that Chaadaev sought to meet with the tsar and report to him about the uprising that had taken place precisely because it was caused by the rules of slavery introduced into the regiment. The unpleasantness of meeting with the king and reporting to him was too obvious. It was to this time that hopes for the decisive role of Emperor Alexander in the abolition of slavery date back. At the end of 1819, N. I. Turgenev compiled, at the suggestion of Miloradovich, for presentation to the tsar, a note "Something about the serfdom." 27 In this note, Turgenev wrote: “Any extension of the political rights of the nobility would inevitably be associated with ruin for the peasants who are in a serf state. In a certain sense, the power of the autocracy is the anchor of salvation for our fatherland. we can hope for the liberation of our brethren from slavery, as unjust as it is useless. It is a sin to think of political freedom where millions do not even know natural freedom. Thus, the report to the tsar (by the way, Chaadaev's departure took place after a meeting with the same Miloradovich), which Chaadaev was carrying, was a completely natural means at that time for a short conversation about slavery. The possibility of this short conversation is not at all accidental. This could be based on a note on slavery already prepared by N.I. Turgenev at the suggestion of Miloradovich for presentation to the tsar. By the way, in the light of Chaadaev’s thoughts about slavery, the “toilet” motif, favored by fiction, acquires a different meaning, because of which Chaadaev seemed to be late: he recognized clothing and order in it as important not out of smartness, but as the opposite of slave habits. Hatred of slavery was a common feature of Chaadaev and Griboyedov. Undoubtedly, it was also the obvious basis of Griboyedov's attitude to secret societies. Regarding the short-term arrest after December 1825, a poetic note by Griboyedov has been preserved, showing the main role in his political life of the issue of slavery: In the spirit of the time and taste, I hate the word: slave. I was called to the headquarters And pulled to Jesus 28 . During interrogations at the General Staff, "Woe from Wit" played a significant role. Griboedov answered the opposite to the indication of the connection between comedy and the Decembrist ideology. Repetilov as a representative of the running, upbeat, comic was among his evidence. The catastrophe with Chaadaev occurred in October-November 1820, forced resignation - on February 21, 1821. , the beginning of work on "Woe from Wit" - December 1821. The catastrophe with Chaadaev, played out under the head of the European reaction, Metternich, was not at all private, personal. It was the disaster of an entire generation. The rapid growth of rumors, fictions, their slanderous sharpening, the choice during the invention of the most miserable, everyday fact (lateness due to the toilet), which grew like a snowball, finally a catastrophe, Chaadaev’s desire to leave Russia - all this was not past Griboyedov and secondary fact. This formed the basis - lyrical excitement, the significance of everyday scenes. The state significance of a private individual was reflected in Chatsky, and this trait undoubtedly comes from Chaadaev, from his unfulfilled enormous influence on state affairs, from his influence and connections with important persons, for example, corps commander Vasilchikov. Molchalin speaks about Chatsky. Tatyana Yurievna told something, Returning from Petersburg With ministers about your connection, Then the break... Rapid rise and sudden break are characteristic features of Chaadaev's career. Zhikharev talks about Chaadaev's personal interest in Alexander I. One of Chatsky's central speeches, about serfdom, also recalls one of Chaadaev's convictions, which reached the point of painful persistence, about the disastrous nature of slavery for Russia. Meanwhile, general rumors about Chaadaev's story, as well as about some relationship, some connection between Woe from Wit (still in the old sense of "comedy") and Chaadaev's personality, spread widely. On April 5, 1823, Pushkin, from his exile in Chisinau, writes to Vyazemsky: "They say that Chedaev is going abroad - it would have been like that for a long time," and between December 1 and 8, he anxiously asks him: "What is Griboedov? I was told that he wrote a comedy on Chedaev; in the present circumstances, this is extremely noble of him. "Wrote a comedy for Chedaev" - an expression quite appropriate about a comedy before Griboyedov. Pushkin remembered Shakhovsky's comedies, namely, written "in Karamzin", "in Zhukovsky". A strange and hardly coincidental episode reminiscent of "Woe from Wit" occurred only in 1836: after the publication of Chaadaev's "Philosophical Letter" he was declared insane. The punishment was exceptional, but not unprecedented, and its implementation was not only a moral fact. In 1834, a Frenchman from Kazan, Professor Jobar, was declared insane. Following this, he was sentenced to exile. The case was conducted with great noise by Uvarov, who drew many people into it. Thus, the venerable Kazan professor, physician Fuchs, who was acquainted with Pushkin, contributed to declaring him insane and expelling him, to whom this case was later recalled. Chaadaev's case had a political character, with the seizure of all papers, interrogations, etc. Even A. I. Turgenev was afraid to be "involved" (as the brother of the Decembrist émigré N. I. Turgenev). The real forms of punishment were not only "moral" (Turgenev expressed his fear that Chaadaev really went crazy from doctor's visits, etc.). Turgenev wrote on November 3, 1836: "The doctor comes to visit him about his official illness. He had to make some kind of separation with his brother: a madman cannot do this." 29 5 Griboyedov's discovery was the speech vitality of the characters. Pushkin, having read his play in 1825, was convinced of this. Objecting to the typicality of Repetilov ("He has 2, 3, 10 characters"), he once and for all put an end to the exclusively lyrical, autobiographical interpretation of Chatsky, pointing out that we have before us "Griboyedov's student", "saturated with his thoughts, witticisms and satirical remarks. Everything he says is very clever. But to whom does he say all this? Famusov? Skalozub? At the ball for Moscow grandmothers? Molchalin? This is unforgivable." 30 Pushkin points to the central scene in the play, to the most daring novelty in the entire play, new to theater and literature. The end of Act III completely changed the interpretation of the comedy in general and the main character in it, in particular. Chatsky's hot satirical monologue about the "Frenchman from Bordeaux" is one of the ideological centers of the play. This monologue ends as follows: And in St. Petersburg, and in Moscow, Who is the enemy of written faces, frills, curly words, In whose, unfortunately, head Five, six there are healthy thoughts, And he dares to announce them publicly, Look... (Looks around, everyone is waltzing with the greatest diligence. The old men wandered off to the card tables.) End of the third act. The center of comedy is in the comical position of Chatsky himself, and here comedy is a means of tragedy, and comedy is a type of tragedy. Pushkin saw this feature of Chatsky with unusual clarity. And here there was a vital transition in Griboedov's studies from Chaadaev to Kuchelbeker, who had "an abyss of these features." This central place in the comedy is undoubtedly connected with the fate, the position of not Chaadaev, but of this friend Griboedov, who ended up in Tiflis, like Chatsky in Moscow, after Western Europe. Positively reminiscent of Kuchelbeker, and most importantly, the then attitude of society towards him, from which Kuchelbeker fled to Tiflis to Griboyedov, the following scene: Sofia Do you want to know the truth two words? The slightest strangeness in whom is barely visible, Your gaiety is not modest, Your sharpness is ready at once, And you yourself... Chatsky I myself? isn't it funny? Sofia Yes! menacing look, and a sharp tone, And these features in you abyss, And above a thunderstorm is far from useless. Chatsky Am I weird? Who isn't weird? The one who looks like all the fools... This feature is photographically close to Küchelbecker. Strangeness, moreover, funny, menacing look and sharp tone, and even "these features" are close to Kuchelbecker, and the rumors around him. This could have been limited if it were not for the extreme closeness of the positions and some special moments in the biography of Kuchelbecker, who witnessed the creation of Woe from Wit. In 1833, in the Sveaborg fortress, Küchelbecker, objecting to M. Dmitriev and other critics about their "treacherous praise of successful portraits", seeing this was not at all the main thing, wrote: "I really understand what they wanted to say, but I know (and I can very well know this, because Griboedov wrote "Woe from Wit" almost in my presence, at least, each individual phenomenon was read to me first immediately after it was written), I know that the poet never intended to paint such portraits ". 31 This role of Küchelbecker, the role of a close and first listener - as soon as each phenomenon is ready - eliminates the need to name separately the sources of those characteristic places that in their entirety are explained by the personality of Küchelbecker. So, for example, it is precisely the life circumstances and significance of Kuchelbecker for all these schools and institutions, and these well-known schools and institutions for the life of Kuchelbecker, that the source of the conversation between Khlestova and the princess should be explained: Khlyostov And really you will go crazy from these, from some From boarding schools, schools, lyceums, whatever. Yes, from Lancart mutual teachings, Princess No, in St. Petersburg the institute Pe-da-go-gic, that's what they call it; There they practice in schisms and in unbelief Professors! Here is a complete and exact list of educational institutions in which Küchelbecker studied and taught, and the name of the society of which he was secretary. All this was vital to him. He graduated from the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum in 1817, was one of the chief professors of the Pedagogical Institute and educators of his boarding school, had to resign before leaving abroad; was one of the most ardent figures, the secretary of the "St. Petersburg Society for the Establishment of Schools for Mutual Education According to the Method of Belle and Lancaster", managed by members of the Welfare Union. There were also vivid impressions of communication with Küchelbecker, reflected in the play (Küchelbecker was also at the end of the play, and his violent clashes with society did not pass without a trace for many pages of the play). Such, for example, was the denunciation of Professor I. I. Davydov against Küchelbecker in Moscow, in 1823, about the fact that a pupil of the women's boarding school, in which Küchelbecker, who was without a livelihood, taught in Moscow, answered the question at the exam, what man differs from other creatures - only by the gift of speech - which, undoubtedly, was not enough from the point of view of God's law. Professor Davydov's denunciation threatened to ban the newly authorized journal Mnemosyne, to ban teaching, and to expel him. In Chatsky's famous speech "And who are the judges?" there is a place that undoubtedly refers to Küchelbecker, or rather, and already - to this episode of his life: Or in his soul God himself will excite the heat To creative arts, lofty and beautiful, They immediately: robbery! fire! And they will be known as a dreamer! dangerous!! Of course, here Griboyedov was thinking about Kuchelbecker, who was threatened by Professor Davydov just at that time. Meanwhile, in 1821 Kuchelbecker wrote in a poem to "Griboedov": Singer, you are given by the hand of fate A living soul, a flame of feeling, Quiet fun and bright love, Holy mysteries of high art... However, the role of Küchelbecker in the creation of the play, which took place in his society, was much deeper. No wonder Kuchelbecker wrote about the “set”: “... The whole plot consists in the opposite of Chatsky to other persons: here, for sure, there are no intentions that some want to achieve, which others resist, there is no struggle of benefits, there is no what is called intrigue in dramaturgy Dan Chatsky, other characters are given, they are brought together, and it is shown what the meeting of these antipodes must certainly be, and nothing more. which neither Griboyedov's opponents nor his clumsy defenders understood." 32 And about the simplicity of the poetic plot, Kuchelbecker wrote, understanding and knowing more than criticism. Kuchelbecker traveled across Western Europe from September 1820 to August 1821, and in September he was forced to leave for Tiflis. Thus, the witness of the creation and the first listener of "Woe from Wit" came to Griboyedov from Europe, as Chatsky arrives. In an article about Kuchelbecker's journey through Western Europe, I presented information about the role of Kuchelbecker as a propagandist of Russian literature in the West. 33 Impressions from the personality of Kuchelbecker, from the persecution and rumors around him - this is not at all his main role in the creation of "Woe from Wit". He arrived in Tiflis almost directly from Western Europe ... Turgenev wrote to Vyazemsky (both took an active part in arranging the fate of Kuchelbecker): "The sovereign knew everything about him; he believed him in Greece." 34 The tsar was not only interested in Küchelbecker's activities abroad, not only was he aware of him ("knew everything about him"), but also "supposed him in Greece." The last sentence shows how far Küchelbecker's preliminary steps in leaving for Greece have gone. Kuchelbecker's poems show this even more clearly. Such is the poem "To friends on the Rhine", the last stanzas of which become clear only if the poem was written after the decision to take part in the struggle of the Greeks for independence: Or is it that irresistible fate awaits me on the field of glory? ... Yes, I will fall for freedom, For the love of my soul, A sacrifice to a glorious people, Pride of weeping friends! .. Very early it was associated with Byron, his personality, his political struggle, his work. Byron's personal biography was widely known, occupied the whole world. In 1816, a high-profile case broke out with his divorce. The persecution of British public opinion was such that in 1816 Byron's departure from England (to Italy) followed. In 1820, he appealed to the London Greek Committee (Bentham, Gobgauz, etc.) for assistance to Greece and was elected a member. Byron's personal drama, about which, of course, Griboyedov spoke, for unknown reasons, he could not be in Greece and take part in the Greek war for independence. - this personal, biographical drama of Byron has a special meaning for Griboyedov. We have studied Pushkin's "Byronism" in more or less detail. Given the complete lack of knowledge of Griboyedov, both biographical and historical and literary, the question of Griboyedov's attitude towards Byron is extremely poorly covered. Meanwhile, it is necessary to study it. Griboedov's biography, his very character, which is revealed in a number of well-known stories (for example, in the story about his attitude towards the little-known playwright Ivanov), 35 point to an undoubted relationship with Byron. Saturation with Russian life, a purely Russian, patriotic understanding of all literary issues - and even more so historical - in Griboedov does not remove the question of the relationship of both poets, the question of Byron's moments in Woe from Wit. Griboedov, as it were, warns the answer to this question of Lermontov, who is in many respects related to him: No, I'm not Byron, I'm different Still unknown chosen one, Like him, a wanderer persecuted by the world, But only with a Russian soul. "The poetry of politics" is Byron's expression. "Woe from Wit is a political comedy," wrote Senkovsky. To what extent Griboedov and his creative personality raised the question of Byron, it is clear, for example, from the still unknown relationship to Griboedov of the translator and vocal imitator of Byron Teplyakov. Teplyakov, who had a relationship with Chaadaev, comes to Tiflis to attend Griboyedov's wedding. Teplyakov's poem about Griboyedov's wedding, as well as Teplyakov's poem directly addressed to Griboedov, are a page of Griboyedov's relationship to Byron. Thus Byron's personality, his political and social activity and, above all, the fight against him by "public opinion" - that was the most exciting information given by Kuchelbecker, whom the king "supposed in Greece." Kuchelbeker in Tiflis, who had already made friends with Griboedov, wrote fiery poems about Greek events, 36 leaving no doubt that Greece and its fate continued to be one of the most exciting questions for him. By the way, how far Kuchelbecker went in his intentions to penetrate into Greece and fight for its independence, and also how he knew in detail about Byron, can be seen at least from the fact that in Part III of Izhora (1841) Kuchelbecker depicted in detail the Greek war for independence ... One of the actors is Nikita Botsaris, one of the leaders of the uprising, the other is Kapodistrias, the president of Greece, the third, finally, is Travelney, who brought Byron a message about his election as a member of the Greek "committee", and then accompanied him to Greece, where he remained until Byron's death. In 1820-1821. Kuchelbecker, who wanted to fight in Greece and, apparently, took steps to implement his intention, knew, of course, about Byron's Hellenic activities, but at the same time he knew about Byron's personal tragedy, the circumstances of his break with England. Byron's personal tragedy, the slander surrounding his divorce and emigration from his native country - all this had deep roots, at the same time personal, social, political. The story of Byron became the drama of the whole young creative Europe. The circumstances of the personal tragedy and the history of slander, which developed thickly and variously around, were as follows. Byron was married. December 10, 1815 his daughter was born. Between the spouses all the time, starting from the wedding itself, misunderstanding and coldness grew. January 6, 1816 Lady Byron went to her parents. Seffresen claimed that Byron was drinking opium at this time, and this explained Byron's "manic behavior". Dr. Baillie recommended, as an experience in relation to the maniac, the departure of his wife. He assumed, according to the complaints of Byron's wife, his "mental disorder". The advice of the wife and her parents with doctors about Byron's mental health begins. Lady Byron and her parents decided that if Byron was mentally ill, every effort should be made to treat him, But if he was healthy, the only thing left was divorce. The doctors' consultation said that there was no reason to talk about Byron's mental illness. In January 1817, rumors about Byron's madness were widely spread by the poet's wife, her parents and relatives, starting with the departure of Lady Byron to her parents. The slander and noise around his personal life led to an open war of society against the poet. The whole of Europe started talking about Byron's personal fate. Of course, Russian society was also interested in it. Repetilov at meetings of the "most secret union" says About Byron, well, about important mothers. Since 1820, magazines have written not only about Byron's poetry, which excited everyone, but also about the poet's personal life and about the struggle that was waged around him in English society. "He had to, as he says himself, fight alone with everyone." 37 This is most reminiscent of the presentation of the plot of "Woe from Wit" in Griboyedov's letter to Katenin. Plot peak: fiction about Chatsky's madness; a rumor that goes around the whole society, the emergence of this rumor from a beloved woman - all this in "Woe from Wit" very closely resembles Byron's personal drama. There are even some unerased traces in the composition of the comedy, confirming our considerations. Such is the surname "Famusov". Surnames in "Woe from Wit" are semantic, coming from an old comedy: Molchalin, Skalozub. Famusov is usually explained as a surname derived from the Latin word fama - rumor. However, it is not so easy to derive the surname Famusov from fama. The basis of the surname is not at all a fama, which only Famin could give. The surname Famusov is derived from the word "famus", that is, a graphic rendering of the English word famus - famous, famous, notorious. "Famous" is the most common epithet of a prominent, outstanding person in the Famus circle. So, Famusov says to Chatsky about Skalozub: "A well-known person, respectable." In this origin of the surname Famusov is the same unerased trace. In general, the surnames "Woe from Wit" are not only semantic, but they are equal words associated with the main, characteristic feature of the character. So, Chatsky describes the new man of the changed Moscow society: Appear to be silent, to shuffle, to dine is a derivative of the name and image of Molchalin. Similarly, the meaning of the name Famusov is repeated. Molchalin says about Tatyana Yurievna: Tatyana Yuryevna!!! well-known - moreover Officials and officials - All her friends and all her family. Such is the unerased trace of Byron's history, his break with English society in the style and language of comedy. However, not in this unerased trace of the appearance of the first starting points of the play is the meaning of what is indicated. The bitter words of Chatsky in the last act become much clearer after he discovered the fiction about his madness: And that homeland ... No, on the current visit, I see that she will soon tire of me. And the famous last words: Get out of Moscow! I don't go here anymore. I'm running, I won't look back, I'll go looking around the world, Where there is a corner for the offended feeling! Carriage for me, carriage! This is not a short-term quarrel with old Moscow, not a small, local comedy with a local plot basis. Dostoevsky unfairly wrote about "Woe from Wit": "Griboyedov's comedy is brilliant, but inconsistent: "I'm going to search the world..." i.e. where? After all, he has only the light that is in his window, with a good circle of Moscow - he will not go to the people. And since the Muscovites rejected it, it means "light" here means Europe. He wants to flee abroad." 38 Pushkin wrote about Woe from Wit, knowing that Chatsky was not Griboedov, and, above all, knowing Griboyedov. The comedy of Chatsky's position did not escape him: "But to whom is he saying this?" of the poem became the main, predominant quality, and the lyrical power of Chatsky led to the fact that the line between the creator and the hero was erased. Dostoevsky speaks of Chatsky as Griboedov. Thus, Chatsky's passionate speeches about the people do not prevent Dostoevsky from deciding: "he will not go to the people ". This is said either about Chatsky, or about Griboyedov. The same is true about the "Moscow good circle." Petersburg did not exist for Griboedov. The city of officials, censors, the palace did not solve a single Griboyedov issue. In 1819, during trips in Georgia, Griboedov talked with the translator Shemir-bek. The travelers were traveling along the Khram River. "The view of the bridge is magnificent!<...>I was forced to confess to him that Petersburg does not contain anything like that, as it, however, is neither beautiful nor magnificent.<...>“Imagine,” he said to me, “to visit Persia 8 times and not see Petersburg, isn’t it terrible!” "We took the wrong road," I answered him."39 Griboyedov took the wrong road. Having condemned the people of his circle as a "damaged class of semi-Europeans," Griboedov had to turn precisely to the people. statesman, a statesman thinker, a figure, what Chaadaev was, is felt, for example, by Chatsky in a conversation with Sophia in act III. The conversation with Sophia is "diplomatic". Chatsky, wanting to know the truth about Sophia's relationship with Molchalin, pretends that Molchalin is unclear to him, since he could change in three years: There are such transformations on earth Boards, climates, and manners, and minds; There are important people, they were known for fools: One in the army, another a bad poet. Another ... I'm afraid to name, but recognized by the whole world, Especially in recent years. The remark about "transformations", i.e., variability, changes, first of all - in assessment and opinions begins with the thought of changing "rules". This thought about state phenomena, about changes ("transformations"), boards, which appears in an intimate conversation, emphasizes the significance of the entire personal drama of Chatsky - Sophia. A simple lyrical drama of relations takes shape against the backdrop of major public and state events. "Transformations" in comedy take place in connection, depending on these transformations, invisible on the stage, as in classical tragedy the main events take place outside the stage. What does this transformation mean, this sudden appearance in the characters of the play of traits of a completely different character? The characters, all of them, have ceased to be portraits. This was a feature of comedy that had already departed - such was the work of Shakhovsky. But they are not only characters. Belinsky, in an article on "Woe from Wit," noted striking passages: Famusov's speech suddenly begins to resemble Chatsky in one place: "This is not Famusov, but Chatsky speaking through Famusov, and this is not a monologue, but an epigram on society ... Not only that: he himself The puffer is sharp, and how! - exactly like Chatsky. Belinsky says of Liza that she answers "with an epigram that would do honor to the wit of Chatsky himself." 40 The whole dominates the actors. Neither characters, nor types, but much more subtle elements of transformations, changes - that's what is the main thing in the heroes of this comedy, in its development. Pushkin wrote about Repetilov: "He has 2, 3, 10 characters." Plot changes, "transformations" in the comedy of estimates, the most protagonists are dictated by more significant "transformations", which are not given in comedy. The play itself seems to have been written during such "transformations", hence its pointless anxiety. heroic war The year 1812, in which Griboyedov took part, has passed, its immediate tasks have ended. The expectation that in response to the exploits of the people the fall of slavery would follow, did not come true. The "transformation" has come. The businesslike, insinuating, timid Molchalin has already appeared to replace the heroes of 1812. The image of Chatsky's close friend Platon Mikhailovich draws this change best of all. His wife Natalya Dmitrievna, who, judging by the beginning of her meeting with Chatsky, was close to him, is a health guard with her husband. He is her worker, who obeyed the requirements of the post-war era: No, there are things to do, On the flute I repeat the A-molny duet ... Chatsky What did you say five years ago? These health concerns, petty, deliberate, subjugated him. Chatsky is a representative of a generation who does not agree to this subordination to the ladies. Yes, and Platon Mikhailovich himself perfectly understands what the power of women is - ladies in Moscow. Platon Mikhailovich says to Zagoretsky: Away! Go to women, lie to them and fool them. The wife of an old friend, Platon Mikhailovich, is Sophia's faithful companion and friend. False concerns about the health of Platon Mikhailovich, in which he is allegedly very weak - concerns for which he pays by forgetting all old inclinations and former courageous tastes and habits. "Now, brother, I'm not the one," confesses the old friend. Sofya Pavlovna tames the insinuating and "timid" Molchalin, accustoming him, a new one, making a career through pleasing and obedience to women, to special submission in love. Her love has its own poetry. According to this poetic, false picture of her love, Molchalin, insinuating and smart, but timid, businessman and bureaucrat, begins his career, which, of course, has a bright future (not without reason that Saltykov later portrays him as a prominent and prosperous official). 41 This businessman in act I is suffering in Sophia's dream. He is poor, he is "tormented". ... And they tortured the one who was sitting with me. ... And insinuating, and smart, But timid ... You know who was born in poverty ... Sofya Pavlovna began to tame Molchalin (who is "tormented" - a parallel to the ill health of the healthy Platon Mikhailovich). This female mode, to which the characters of "Woe from Wit" are subordinate, explains a lot. Autocracy was for many years female. Even Alexander I still considered the "power" of his mother. Griboyedov knew, as a diplomat, what influence a woman had at the Persian court. Molchalin's relationship with Sophia is very real. In fact, it is the feigned love of an employee "to please the daughter of such a person" and real torment from the regime of restraint to which he is forced during the forced enjoyment of music that he does not understand. Sophia Pavlovna has her own system of raising her future husband, of those that Chatsky says: Husband-boy, husband-servant, from the wife's pages, The lofty ideal of all Moscow men. She began to tame. Natalya Dmitrievna is intoxicated with her power. Its language is one of Griboyedov's discoveries, anticipating the prose language of the 20th century: My angel, my life Priceless, honey. Wait, what's so sad? (Kisses her husband on the forehead) Admit it, did the Famusovs have fun? The full relationship of Natalya Dmitrievna, who deals with the illness of a healthy husband, with Sofya Pavlovna, who forcibly brings up music, is obvious. The dead pause in the reign of Alexander I after the Patriotic War of 1812, when they expected a response to the victory of the heroic people, primarily by the destruction of slavery, was filled in Moscow with a semblance of female power. In the dead pause of society and the state, this "women's power" had its own hierarchy. Molchalin talks about Tatyana Yurievna, who, returning from St. Petersburg, spoke about Chatsky's connections with the ministers, then about his break. The influence of women in Molchalin's conversation with Chatsky grows into a complete semblance of female power, the highest: Officials and officials All her friends and all her family. Chatsky, who goes to women not for patronage, is already incomprehensible. The protagonists of comedy, who have influence over the whole life and activity, who have power, are women, skillful secular women. The vicious peace of Emperor Alexander, who did not abolish the slavery of the people, who won a historic victory in the Patriotic War of 1812, is being put into practice by Sofya Pavlovna and Natalya Dmitrievna. And if Sofya Pavlovna educates Molchalin for future affairs, then Natalya Dmitrievna, who made Chatsky's friend, Platon Mikhailovich Gorichev, her "worker" at balls, exaggerated, false concerns about his health destroys the very idea of ​​​​the possibility of military activity when it is needed. This is how new cadres of the bureaucracy are being prepared. The female power of Natalya Dmitrievna leads to the physical weakening of her husband, albeit seemingly false, but which has become a way of life, his starting point. Chatsky - for a real male fortress and activity. More movement. To the village, to the warm land... Was it not last year, at the end, Did I know you in the regiment? only morning: foot in the stirrup And you ride on a greyhound stallion; Blow the autumn wind, even from the front, even from the rear ... This is reminiscent, above all, of concerns about physical health, about the courageous life of people in 1812 - cf. worries about the bathing of the troops at Kulnev, 42 worries about the light artillery riders of Dorokhov. 43 Skalozub is the fall of a military man into the dead pause of the Russian state of 1812-1825. Wasn't it last year... in the regiment I knew you? This question is in apparent contradiction with the fact that Chatsky was absent for three years. In relation to comedy, a position on accuracy has been adopted. This precision has nothing to do with the nature of comedy. Comedy, which has long been called a dramatic poem, posed new questions for the drama, new manifestations in the drama of "transformations" (changes), which pose the question of the whole in a new way. Belinsky was the first to discover them in the speeches of Famusov, Lisa - Chatsky. The new construction of the drama required great strength and expressiveness at every given moment. Pettiness in "exact" is a mistake. The pettiness, the false precision that was established in relation to Woe from Wit, prevented us from discerning the most important features not only of the plot, but also of the characters. Chatsky, as a result of theatrical incarnations, lost specific features, retaining only lyrical ones. Meanwhile, in act III, Chatsky's conversation with Platon Mikhailovich, his old comrade in the war, takes place. In the regiment, the squadron will give. Are you chief or headquarters? This is a purely military, army conversation. "Ober" - senior: chief corporal - senior corporal, chief secretary - senior secretary; a staff officer is a military official holding the rank of major, lieutenant colonel or colonel. Such precise military terms depict the time and the person very well. A conversation with Platon Mikhailovich is a conversation of the military people of 1812. Chatsky not only rebels against the transformation of an old military comrade into an invalid without illness, into a "worker" of his wife at balls. He even accurately recalls the military past. The victories of 1812 were still in the recent past. The pause in the state evokes a semblance of "women's power" that is archaic in its essence and meaning. Griboedov was a man of the twelfth year "according to the spirit of the time and taste." In public life, December 1825 was already possible for him. He treated the fallen Platon Mikhailovich with lyrical regret, with the author's hostility to Sofya Pavlovna, with the laughter of a theater teacher and a poet who senses the future - to Repetilov, with a personal, autobiographical hostility to that Moscow, which was for him what old England was for Byron. Griboyedov, having barely reached the age of 18, participates in the Patriotic War of 1812. In the comedy, post-war indifferent careerism is given with particular force. A successful careerist of a new type Skalozub is already given by the surname itself. However, indiscriminate chuckling has a very definite character. Puffer talks about career paths. It turns out that the most profitable thing is to use the benefits provided by the war itself: "Some, you see, are killed." The criminality of Skalozubov's careerism, based on the losses of the army, is obvious. The ardent delight in front of his luck on the part of Famusov, who looks at him as a welcome son-in-law, is even more important than the struggle between Famusov and Chatsky. The warning about Rocktooth as the premier military character of the era was one of the major performances in political comedy. Pointless, complete indifference to everything except his own career, the laughter and jokes of the joker Skalozub is the most hated for Griboedov's satire, just as lovers of the funny and writers on the funny part of Saltykov were hated later. According to Skalozub, "to get the ranks, there are many channels." And here one "channel" of this successful man is named, which bears the name for the generosity of jokes, for that boundless playfulness that indiscriminately distinguishes the new "regiment of jesters": which is most hostile to Chatsky's jokes, as it seeks to replace them with itself. This channel "to get ranks" - "others, you see, are killed." Criminal satisfaction with the profitability of death. This joker is not far from crime, like this comedy is not far from drama. The figure of Skalozub in "Woe from Wit" predicts the death of the Nikolaev military regime. "Woe from Wit" is a comedy about that time, about timelessness, about female power and male decline, about the great historical centuries-old bill for the heroic people's war: for the freedom of the peasants, for the great national culture, for the military power of the Russian people - an unpaid bill and which led to December 1825. The rapid oblivion of the main thing in the development of time was obscured in the study of the play by false precision regarding the characters, and led to a complete misunderstanding of the play, which was already written about in 1875. FROM THE COMPILERS This collection includes Tynyanov's most significant works on Pushkin and the poets of Pushkin's circle. These articles, published at one time in journals, collections, volumes of Literary Heritage, Tynyanov's book of articles Archaists and Innovators (1929), have long become a bibliographic rarity. The texts of the works included in this collection have been re-checked against all printed sources and manuscripts preserved in Tynyanov's archive, as well as against printed copies of some articles corrected by the author. Errors and misprints that have crept into printed texts have been eliminated, including those in the collection Archaists and Innovators, which was considered the most authoritative text, published during the author's lifetime. When preparing the text, all quotations were checked against the sources indicated by the author. Cases where the quoted text diverges from a more authoritative modern edition of it are specifically noted in the notes. Minor typos and inaccuracies in quotations, as well as in the imprint of articles and books, have been corrected without editorial reservations. The system of notes and references (under the line or inside the text) is preserved by the author. When necessary, bibliographic references given by the author in an abbreviated form or with incomplete output data were supplemented and unified in accordance with the current bibliographic standards. Author's references and notes are given sublinear, with asterisks, editorial references are indicated by numbers and are given at the end of the book, in the comments. The comments provide sources of explicit and implicit quotations not indicated by the author; full imprints of books and articles are given that are only named by the author; the necessary information is given about the time, history of creation and publication of Tynyanov's articles, the most significant reviews of criticism about them. The realities inside the quotes cited by Tynyanov, as a rule, are not explained. Tynyanov's articles have been written for more than twenty years. This explains the repetitions found in them (this was also pointed out by Tynyanov himself in the preface to Archaists and Innovators). This determined the system of references in comments from article to article; the main explanation is given to the place where this idea is developed by the author most fully. References with only the note number and title of the article indicate that they refer to this edition.

The plot of Griboyedov's comedy is quite original and unusual in itself. I cannot agree with those who consider it banal. At first glance, it may seem that the main thing in the plot is the love story of Chatsky for Sophia. Indeed, this story occupies a large place in the work, giving liveliness to the development of the action. But still, the main thing in comedy is the social drama of Chatsky. The title of the play also points to this. The story of Chatsky's unhappy love for Sophia and the story of his conflict with the Moscow nobility, closely intertwined, are combined into a single plot line. Let's follow its development. The first scenes, the morning in Famusov's house - the exposition of the play. Sofya, Molchalin, Lisa, Famusov appear, the appearance of Chatsky and Skalozub is being prepared, the characters and relationships of the characters are told. The movement, the development of the plot begins with the first appearance of Chatsky. And before that, Sophia spoke very coldly about Chatsky, and now, when he, animatedly sorting through his Moscow acquaintances, at the same time laughed at Molchalin, Sophia's coldness turned into irritation and indignation: "Not a man, a snake!" So Chatsky, without suspecting it, turned Sophia against himself. Everything that happened to him at the beginning of the play will continue and develop in the future: he will be disappointed in Sophia, and his mocking attitude towards his Moscow acquaintances will grow into a deep conflict with Famus society. It is clear from the dispute between Chatsky and Famusov in the second act of the comedy that it is not just a matter of dissatisfaction with each other. Here two worldviews collide.
In addition, in the second act, Famusov’s allusions to Skalozub’s matchmaking and Sophia’s fainting put Chatsky in front of a painful riddle: can Skalozub or Molchalin be Sophia’s chosen one? And if so, which one of them?.. In the third act, the action becomes very tense. Sofya unambiguously makes it clear to Chatsky that she does not love him, and openly confesses her love for Molchalin, but she says about Skalozub that this is not the hero of her novel. It seems that everything turned out, but Chatsky does not believe Sophia. This disbelief is further strengthened in him after a conversation with Molchalin, in which he shows his immorality and insignificance. Continuing his sharp attacks against Molchalin, Chatsky arouses Sophia's hatred for himself, and it is she who, first by accident, and then intentionally, spreads the rumor about Chatsky's madness. Gossip is picked up, spreads with lightning speed, and they begin to talk about Chatsky in the past tense. This is easily explained by the fact that he has already managed to set against himself not only the hosts, but also the guests. Society cannot forgive Chatsky for protesting against his morality.
Thus the action reaches its highest point, the climax. The denouement comes in the fourth act. Chatsky learns about the slander and immediately observes the scene between Molchalin, Sophia and Lisa. "Here is finally the solution to the riddle! Here I am donated to whom!" is the ultimate insight. With great inner pain, Chatsky delivers his last monologue and leaves Moscow. Both conflicts are brought to an end: the collapse of love becomes obvious, and the clash with society ends in a break.

Speaking about the clarity and simplicity of the composition of the play, V. Kuchelbecker noted: "In Woe from Wit ... the whole plot is in contrast to Chatsky to other persons; ... here ... there is nothing that is called intrigue in dramaturgy. Dan Chatsky , other characters are given, they are brought together, and it is shown what the meeting of these antipodes must certainly be - and nothing more. It is very simple, but in this simplicity - news, courage "... The peculiarity of the composition" Woe from Wit "in that his separate scenes, episodes are connected almost arbitrarily. It is interesting to see how, with the help of the composition, Griboyedov emphasizes the loneliness of Chatsky. At first, Chatsky sees with disappointment that his former friend Platon Mikhailovich "became the wrong one" in a short time; now Natalya Dmitrievna directs his every movement and praises with the same words that later Molchalin - Spitz: "My husband is a lovely husband." So, Chatsky's old friend turned into an ordinary Moscow "husband - boy, husband - servant." But this is still not a very big blow for Chatsky. Nevertheless, throughout the entire time when the guests come to the ball, he talks with Platon Mikhailovich. But Platon Mikhailovich later recognizes him as crazy, to please his wife and everyone else, he will refuse him. Further, Griboedov, in the middle of his fiery monologue, first addressed to Sophia, Chatsky looks around and sees that Sophia left without listening to him, and in general "everyone is waltzing with the greatest zeal. The old people dispersed to the card tables." And, finally, Chatsky's loneliness is especially acutely felt when Repetilov begins to impose himself on him as a friend, starting a "sensible conversation ... about vaudeville." The very possibility of Repetilov’s words about Chatsky: “We are with him ... we ... have the same tastes” and a condescending assessment: “he is not stupid” shows how far Chatsky is from this society if he already has no one to talk to , except for the enthusiastic talker Repetilov, whom he simply cannot stand.
The theme of falling and the theme of deafness runs throughout the comedy. Famusov recalls with pleasure how his uncle Maxim Petrovich fell three times in a row to make Empress Ekaterina Alekseevna laugh; falls from the horse Molchalin, tightening the reins; stumbles, falls at the entrance and "hurriedly recovers" Repetilov ... All these episodes are interconnected and echo the words of Chatsky: "And he was all confused, and fell so many times" ... Chatsky also falls to his knees in front of Sophia, who has fallen out of love with him. The theme of deafness is also constantly and stubbornly repeated: Famusov plugs his ears so as not to hear Chatsky's seditious speeches; everyone respected Prince Tugoukhovsky does not hear anything without a horn; Khryumina, the countess-grandmother, herself completely deaf, not hearing anything and confusing everything, edifyingly says: “Oh! deafness is a great vice.” Chatsky and later Repetilov, carried away by their monologues, hear nothing and no one.
There is nothing superfluous in Woe from Wit: not a single unnecessary character, not a single extra scene, not a single vain stroke. All episodic faces are introduced by the author with a specific purpose. Thanks to off-stage characters, of which there are many in comedy, the boundaries of Famusov's house and the boundaries of time are expanding.

13. The problem of genre and artistic method .

First of all, let's consider how the principle of "three unities" is preserved in comedy - the unity of time, the unity of place and the unity of action. All the action of the play takes place in one house (although in different places). But at the same time, Famusov's house in the play is a symbol of all of Moscow, Griboedov's Moscow, aristocratic, hospitable, with a leisurely course of life, with its own customs and traditions. However, Famusov's Moscow is not limited to the real space of Woe from Wit. This space is expanded by the characters of the play themselves, stage and non-stage: Maxim Petrovich, introducing the theme of Catherine's court; Puffer, entrenched in a trench; a Frenchman "from Bordeaux", Repetilov with his house "on the Fontanka"; Sophia's uncle, member of the English Club. In addition, the space of comedy is expanded by references to different places in Russia: “He was treated, they say, he was on acidic waters”, “I would have smoked in Tver”, “I was exiled to Kamchatka”, “To the village, to my aunt, into the wilderness, to Saratov ". The artistic space of the play is also expanding due to the philosophical remarks of the characters: “Where is the world created, how wonderful!”, “No, today the world is no longer like that”, “The silent ones are blissful in the world”, “There are such transformations on earth”. Thus, Famusov's house symbolically develops in the play into the space of the whole world.

In comedy, the principle of the unity of time is preserved. “The whole action of the play takes place within one day, starting at the dawn of one winter day and ending at the next morning.<…>Only one day was needed for Chatsky, who had returned to his home, to his beloved girl, in order to sober up "completely from his blindness, from the most vague dream." However, the severe limitation of stage time was psychologically justified in the play. The very essence of the dramatic collision (the clash of Chatsky, with his progressive views, sharp, caustic mind, explosive temperament, with the inert, conservative world of the Famusovs and Repetilovs) demanded this. Thus, observing the classic "unity of time" only formally, Griboyedov achieves maximum concentration stage action. The action in the play takes place within one day, but this day contains a whole life.

A.S. Griboyedov only violates the principle of unity of action: there is no fifth act in comedy, and instead of one conflict, two develop in parallel - love and social. Moreover, if the love conflict has its denouement in the finale, then the public conflict does not receive resolution within the content of the play. In addition, we do not observe the “punishment of vice” and the “triumph of virtue” either in the denouement love line, nor in the development of social conflict.

Let's try to consider the character system of the comedy "Woe from Wit". The classical canon prescribed a strictly defined set of roles: "heroine", "first lover", "second lover", "servant" (assistant to the heroine), "noble father", "comic old woman". And the composition of the actors rarely exceeded 10-12 people. Griboedov, on the other hand, violates the literary tradition, introducing, in addition to the main characters, many minor and off-stage persons. The main characters formally correspond to the classic tradition: Sophia is a heroine who has two admirers (Chatsky and Molchalin), Liza is the best suited for the role of a clever and lively assistant, Famusov is a “noble deceived father”. However, all the roles of Griboyedov seem to be mixed up: Sophia's chosen one (Molchalin) is far from being a positive character, the "second lover" (Chatsky) is the spokesman for the author's ideals, but at the same time an unsuccessful gentleman. As the researchers accurately note, the unusual love triangle is resolved in the play atypically: the “noble deceived father” does not capture the essence of what is happening, the truth is not revealed to him, he suspects his daughter of a love affair with Chatsky.

Violates the playwright and the principle of unambiguity of characters. For example, Famusov appears in the play in a variety of roles: he is an influential government bureaucrat, a hospitable Moscow gentleman, an aging red tape, a caring father, and a philosopher who talks about life. He is hospitable in Russian, responsive in his own way (he took the son of a late friend to raise him). Similarly, the image of Chatsky is also ambiguous in comedy. In comedy, he is both a hero-denouncer of social vices, and a bearer of "new trends", and an ardent lover, doomed to failure, and a secular dandy, and an idealist who looks at the world through the prism of his own ideas. In addition, many romantic motives are associated with the image of Chatsky: the motive of confrontation between the hero and the crowd, the motive of unhappy love, the motive of the wanderer. Finally, in comedy there is no clear division of characters into positive and negative. Thus, Griboyedov describes the characters in the play in a realistic spirit.

Noting the realistic pathos of the comedy, we note that Griboyedov presents us with the life stories of the characters (from Famusov's remarks we learn about the childhood of Chatsky, Sophia, about the fate of Molchalin) as a factor determining the development of character.

Another innovative feature of the playwright is the Russian form of names (names, patronymics). Griboyedov's predecessors either endowed their characters with surnames borrowed from the proper names of Russian cities, rivers, etc. (Roslavlev, Lensky), or used a patronymic name in a comical sense (Matryona Karpovna). In Woe from Wit, the use of Russian names and patronymics is already devoid of comedic coloring. However, many surnames in comedy correlate with the motif of rumor, with the words “to speak” - “to hear”. So, the surname Famusov correlates with lat. fama, which means "rumour"; Repetilov - from the French. repeater - "repeat"; the names of Molchalin, Skalozub, Tugoukhovsky are defiantly "speaking". So, Griboyedov skillfully uses the classic principle of "speaking" surnames and at the same time acts as an innovator, introducing the Russian form of patronymic names.

Thus, in Woe from Wit, Griboyedov gives a broad panorama of the Russian life of noble Moscow. Life in Griboyedov's play is not shown in statistical images classic comedy XVIII century, but in motion, in development, in dynamics, in the struggle of the new with the old.

love conflict in the plot of the play it is difficult to intertwine with a social conflict, the characters are deep and multifaceted, typical heroes act in typical circumstances. All this determined the realistic sounding of Griboedov's comedy.

Comedy "Woe from Wit" A.S. Griboedova destroyed traditional genre principles. Sharply different from the classic comedy, the play, however, was not based on a love affair. It could not be attributed to the genre of everyday comedy or comedy of characters in its pure form, although the features of these genres were also present in the work. The play was, as contemporaries said, "high comedy", the genre that the Decembrist literary circles dreamed about. Woe from Wit combined social satire and psychological drama; comical scenes were replaced in it by high, pathetic scenes. Let's try to consider the genre features of the play in more detail.

First of all, we note the elements of the comic in the work. It is known that Griboyedov himself called "Woe from Wit" a comedy. And here, of course, it is worth noting the presence in the play of both explicit comic tricks and hidden authorial irony. The language comic techniques of the playwright are hyperbole, alogism, ambiguity, the method of bringing to the point of absurdity, distortion foreign words, the use of foreign words in the Russian speech of the characters. So, we notice hyperbole in the remarks of Molchalin, who seeks to please "the janitor's dog, so that it is affectionate." With this technique, the technique of bringing to the point of absurdity echoes. So, discussing with the guests the madness of Chatsky, Famusov notes the “hereditary factor”: “I went after my mother, after Anna Aleksevna; The dead woman went crazy eight times.” In the speech of the old woman Khlestova there is an alogism: "There was a sharp man, he had about three hundred souls." She determines the personal characteristics of Chatsky by his condition. Ambiguities sound in the speech of Zagoretsky, condemning the fabulists for “... eternal mockery of lions! over the eagles! At the end of his speech, he declares: "Whoever say what: Although animals, but still kings." It is this line that equates "kings" and "animals" that sounds ambiguous in the play. The comic effect is also created due to the distortion of foreign words by the author (“Yes, there is no power in Madame”, “Yes, from Lancart mutual teachings”).

“Woe from Wit” is also a comedy of characters. The comedy is the image of Prince Tugoukhovsky, who, suffering from deafness, misunderstands those around him and distorts their remarks. An interesting image of Repetilov, who is both a parody of Chatsky, and at the same time the antipode of the protagonist. There is also a character in the play with a "speaking" surname - Skalozub. However, all his jokes are rude and primitive, this is real "army humor":

I am Prince Gregory and you
Sergeant major in Voltaire ladies,
He will build you in three lines,
And squeal, it will instantly calm you down.

Puffer is not witty, but, on the contrary, stupid. A certain element of the comic is also present in the character of Chatsky, whose "mind and heart are not in harmony."

The play has features of a sitcom, parodic effects. So, the author repeatedly plays with two motives: the motive of falling and the motive of deafness. The comic effect in the play is created by Repetilov's fall (he falls at the very entrance, running into Famusov's house from the porch). Chatsky fell several times on the way to Moscow ("Miles more than seven hundred swept - the wind, the storm; And he was all confused, and fell how many times ..."). Famusov tells about the fall of Maxim Petrovich at a social event. Molchalin's fall from a horse also causes a violent reaction from others. So, Skalozub declares: “Look how he cracked - in the chest or in the side?” The fall of Molchalin reminds him of the fall of Princess Lasova, who "the other day was knocked down" and now "is looking for a husband to support."

The motif of deafness sounds already in the first appearance of the play. Already in the first appearance, Liza, unable to get through to Sofya Pavlovna, asks her: “Are you deaf? - Alexei Stepanych! Madame! .. - And fear does not take them! Famusov plugs his ears, not wanting to listen to Chatsky's "devious ideas", that is, he becomes deaf of his own free will. At the ball, the countess-grandmother "ears stuffed up", she also notices that "deafness is a great vice." At the ball, Prince Tugoukhovsky is present, who "does not hear anything." Finally, Repetilov plugs his ears, unable to endure the choral recitation of the Tugoukhovsky princesses about Chatsky's madness. The deafness of the actors here contains a deep inner subtext. The Famus society is "deaf" to Chatsky's speeches, does not understand him, does not want to listen. This motive reinforces the contradictions between the main character and the world around him.

It is worth noting the presence of parodic situations in the play. So, the author parodically reduces Sophia's “ideal romance” with Molchalin by comparing Lisa, who recalls Sophia's aunt, from whom the young Frenchman fled. However, in "Woe from Wit" there is also a comic of a different kind, which is a mockery of the vulgar aspects of life, exposing the contemporary society of the playwright. And in this regard, we can already talk about satire.

Griboedov in "Woe from Wit" denounces social vices - bureaucracy, veneration of rank, bribery, service to "persons" and not "cause", hatred of education, ignorance, careerism. Through the mouth of Chatsky, the author reminds his contemporaries that there is no social ideal in his own country:

Where? show us, fathers of the fatherland,
Which should we take as samples?
Are not these rich in robbery?
They found protection from court in friends, in kinship,
Magnificent building chambers,
Where they overflow in feasts and extravagance,
And where foreign clients will not resurrect
The meanest traits of the past life.

Griboyedov's hero criticizes the rigidity of the views of Moscow society, its mental immobility. He also speaks out against serfdom, recalling the landowner who exchanged his servants for three greyhounds. Behind the magnificent, beautiful uniforms of the military, Chatsky sees "weakness" and "reason poverty." He also does not recognize the "slavish, blind imitation" of everything foreign, manifested in the dominance French. In "Woe from Wit" we find references to Voltaire, the Carbonari, the Jacobins, we meet discussions about the problems of the social system. Thus, Griboedov's play addresses all the topical issues of our time, which allows critics to consider the work a "high", political comedy.

And finally, the last aspect in the consideration of this topic. What is the drama of the play? First of all, in emotional drama Main character. As I.A. Goncharov, 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”. Chatsky rushed to Sofya, hoping to find understanding and support from her, hoping that she would reciprocate his feelings. However, what does he find in the heart of the woman he loves? Coldness, bitterness. Chatsky is stunned, he is jealous of Sophia, trying to guess his opponent. And he cannot believe that his beloved girl preferred Molchalin. Sophia is annoyed by Chatsky's barbs, his manners, behavior.

However, Chatsky does not give up and in the evening again comes to Famusov's house. At the ball, Sophia spreads gossip about Chatsky's madness, and everyone present readily picks it up. Chatsky enters into a skirmish with them, delivers a hot, pathetic speech, denouncing the meanness of the "past life." At the end of the play, the truth is revealed to Chatsky, he finds out who his rival is and who spread the rumors about his madness. In addition, the whole drama of the situation is exacerbated by the alienation of Chatsky from the people in whose house he grew up, from the whole society. Returning "from distant wanderings", he does not find understanding in his own country.

Dramatic notes are also heard in Griboyedov's depiction of the image of Sofya Famusova, who gets her "million torments". She bitterly repents, discovering the true nature of her chosen one and his real feelings for her.

Thus, Griboyedov's play "Woe from Wit", traditionally considered a comedy, is a certain genre synthesis, organically combining the features of a comedy of characters and a comedy of positions, features of a political comedy, topical satire, and finally, a psychological drama.

24. The problem of the artistic method "Woe from Wit" by A.S. Griboyedov

The Problem of the Artistic Method in Woe from Wit

ARTISTIC METHOD - a system of principles that govern the process of creating works of literature and art.

Written at the beginning of the 19th century, namely in 1821, Griboyedov’s comedy “Woe from Wit” absorbed all the features literary process that time. Literature, like all social phenomena, is subject to concrete historical development. The comedy of A. S. Griboyedov was a kind of experience of combining all methods (classicism, romanticism and critical realism).

The essence of comedy is the grief of a person, and this grief stems from his mind. It must be said that the very problem of "mind" in Griboedov's time was very topical. The concept of “smart” was then associated with the idea of ​​a person not just smart, but “free-thinking”. The ardor of such "wise men" quite often turned into "madness" in the eyes of the reactionaries and the townsfolk.

It is Chatsky's mind in this broad and special sense that places him outside the circle of the Famusovs. It is on this that the development of the conflict between the hero and the environment is based in comedy. Chatsky's personal drama, his unrequited love for Sophia, naturally, is included in the main theme of the comedy. Sophia, with all her spiritual inclinations, still belongs entirely to the Famus world. She cannot love Chatsky, who opposes this world with all the turn of his mind and his soul. She, too, is among the "tormentors" who insulted the fresh mind of Chatsky. That is why the personal and social dramas of the protagonist do not contradict, but mutually complement one another: the hero's conflict with the environment extends to all his everyday relationships, including love ones.

From this we can conclude that the problems of A. S. Griboedov's comedy are not classic, because we do not observe the struggle between duty and feeling; on the contrary, conflicts exist in parallel, one complements the other.

There is one more non-classical feature in this work. If from the law of “three unities” the unity of place and time is observed, then the unity of action is not. Indeed, all four actions take place in Moscow, in Famusov's house. Within one day, Chatsky discovers the deception, and, appearing at dawn, he leaves at dawn. But the plot line is not one-line. There are two plots in the play: one is Chatsky's cold reception by Sofya, the other is a clash between Chatsky and Famusov and Famusov's society; two storylines, two climaxes and one overall denouement. This form of the work showed the innovation of A. S. Griboyedov.

But some other features of classicism are preserved in comedy. So, the main character Chatsky is a nobleman, educated. Interesting image of Lisa. In "Woe from Wit" she is too loose for a servant and looks like a heroine of a classic comedy, lively, resourceful. In addition, the comedy is written mainly in a low style, and this is also Griboedov's innovation.

The features of romanticism in the work were very interesting, because the problems of “Woe from Wit” are partly of a romantic nature. In the center is not only a nobleman, but also a man who is disappointed in the power of reason, but Chatsky is unhappy in love, he is fatally lonely. Hence the social conflict with representatives of the Moscow nobility, the tragedy of the mind. The theme of wandering around the world is also characteristic of romanticism: Chatsky, not having time to arrive in Moscow, leaves it at dawn.

In the comedy of A. S. Griboedov, the beginnings of a new method for that time - critical realism - appear. In particular, two of its three rules are respected. This is sociality and aesthetic materialism.

Griboyedov is true to reality. Knowing how to single out the most essential in it, he portrayed his heroes in such a way that we see the social laws behind them. Woe from Wit created an extensive gallery of realistic artistic types, that is, typical characters appear in comedy in typical circumstances. The names of the characters of the great comedy have become household names.

But it turns out that Chatsky, who is essentially a romantic hero, has realistic features. He is social. He is not conditioned by the environment, but opposes it. Man and society in realistic works always inextricably linked.

The language of A. S. Griboyedov’s comedy is also syncretic. Written in a low style, according to the laws of classicism, it absorbed all the charm of the living great Russian language.

Thus, the comedy of Alexander Sergeevich Griboedov is a complex synthesis of three literary methods, a combination, on the one hand, of their individual features, and on the other, a holistic panorama of Russian life at the beginning of the 19th century.

Griboedov about Woe from Wit.

25. I. A. Goncharov about the comedy of A.S. Griboyedov "Woe from Wit"

"A MILLION OF TORTURES" (critical study)

I.A. Goncharov wrote about the comedy "Woe from Wit", that it is "a picture of morals, and a gallery of living types, and an eternally burning, sharp satire," which presents noble Moscow in the 10-20s of the 19th century. According to Goncharov, each of the main characters of the comedy is going through "its own million torments." Sophia is also experiencing him. Brought up by Famusov and Madame Rosier in accordance with the rules of upbringing of Moscow young ladies, Sophia was taught "both dancing, and singing, and tenderness, and sighs." Her tastes and ideas about the world around her were formed under the influence of French sentimental novels. She imagines herself to be the heroine of the novel, so she has a poor understanding of people. S. rejects the love of the overly caustic Chatsky. She does not want to become the wife of the stupid, rude, but rich Skalozub and elects Molchalin. Molchalin plays the role of a platonic lover in front of S. and can sublimely remain silent until dawn alone with his beloved. S. prefers Molchalin, because he finds in him many virtues necessary for "a husband-boy, a husband-servant, from the wife's pages." She likes that Molchalin is shy, compliant, respectful. Meanwhile, S. is smart and resourceful. She gives the right characteristics to others. In Skalozub, she sees a dull, narrow-minded martinet who "won't utter a word of wisdom" who can talk only about "fronts and rows", "about buttonholes and piping". She can't even imagine being the wife of such a man: "I don't care what's for him, what's in the water." In her father, Sophia sees a grumpy old man who does not stand on ceremony with his subordinates and servants. Yes, and the quality of Molchalin S. evaluates correctly, but, blinded by love for him, does not want to notice his pretense. Sophia is resourceful as a woman. She skillfully diverts her father's attention from the presence of Molchalin in the living room, at the early hour of the morning. To disguise her fainting and fright after Molchalin's fall from his horse, she finds truthful explanations, declaring that she is very sensitive to the misfortunes of others. Wanting to punish Chatsky for his caustic attitude towards Molchalin, it is Sophia who spreads the rumor about Chatsky's madness. The romantic, sentimental mask has now been torn off Sophia and the face of an irritated, vindictive Moscow young lady is revealed. But retribution awaits S., because her love dope has dispelled. She witnessed the betrayal of Molchalin, who spoke insultingly about her and flirted with Lisa. This strikes at S.'s self-esteem, and her vengeful nature is again revealed. “I’ll tell the whole truth to the father,” she decides with annoyance. This once again proves that her love for Molchalin was not real, but bookish, invented, but this love makes her go through her "million torments." One cannot but agree with Goncharov. Yes, the figure of Chatsky determines the conflict of the comedy, both of its storylines. The play was written in those times (1816-1824) when young people like Chatsky brought new ideas and moods to society. 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 Griboedov's comedy. And freedom from decrepit ideas about love, marriage, honor, service, the meaning of life. Chatsky and his like-minded people strive for “creative, lofty and beautiful arts”, dream “to put the mind hungry for knowledge into science”, crave “sublime love, in front of which the whole world ... is dust and vanity”. They would like to see all people free and equal.

Chatsky's desire is to serve the fatherland, "the cause, not the people." He hates all the past, including slavish admiration for everything foreign, servility, servility.

And what does he see around him? A lot of people who are looking only for ranks, crosses, "money to live", not love, but a profitable marriage. Their ideal is “moderation and accuracy”, their dream is “to take away all the books and burn them”.

So, at the center of the comedy is the conflict between "one sane person" (Griboyedov's assessment) and the conservative majority.

As always in a dramatic work, the essence of the character of the protagonist is revealed primarily in the plot. Griboyedov, true to life's truth, showed the plight of a young progressive man in this society. The environment takes revenge on Chatsky for the truth that pricks his eyes, for trying to break the usual way of life. Beloved girl, turning away from him, hurts the hero the most, spreading gossip about his madness. Here is the paradox: the only sane person is declared insane!

It is surprising that even now it is impossible to read without emotion about the sufferings of Alexander Andreevich. But such is the power of true art. Of course, Griboyedov, perhaps for the first time in Russian literature, managed to create a truly realistic image goodie. Chatsky is close to us because he is not written as an impeccable, "iron" fighter for truth and good, duty and honor - we meet such heroes in the works of classicists. No, he is a man, and nothing human is alien to him. “Mind and heart are not in harmony,” the hero says about himself. The ardor of his nature, which often makes it difficult to keep peace of mind and composure, the ability to fall in love recklessly, this does not allow him to see the flaws of his beloved, to believe in her love for another - these are such natural features!

Mind is a theoretical virtue. For Griboyedov's predecessors, only compliance with the measure was considered mind. Molchalin, not Chatsky, has such a mind in comedy. Molchalin's mind serves his master, helps him, while Chatsky's mind only harms him, he is akin to madness for those around him, it is he who brings him "a million torments." The convenient mind of Molchalin is opposed to the strange and sublime mind of Chatsky, but this is no longer a struggle between mind and stupidity. There are no fools in Griboedov's comedy, its conflict is based on the opposition of different types of mind. "Woe from Wit" is a comedy that has stepped over classicism.

In the work of Griboedov, the question is asked: what is the mind. Almost every hero has his own answer, almost everyone talks about the mind. Each hero has his own idea of ​​the mind. There is no standard of mind in Griboyedov's play, so there is no winner in it either. “Comedy gives Chatsky only “a million torments” and apparently leaves Famusov and his brethren in the same position as they were, without saying anything about the consequences of the struggle” (I. A. Goncharov).

The title of the play contains an unusual important question: what is the mind for Griboyedov. The writer does not answer this question. Calling Chatsky "smart", Griboyedov turned the concept of the mind upside down and ridiculed its old understanding. Griboyedov showed a man full of enlightening pathos, but faced with an unwillingness to understand it, stemming precisely from the traditional concepts of “prudence”, which in Woe from Wit are associated with a certain social and political program. Griboyedov's comedy, starting from the title, is addressed not to the Famusovs, but to the Chatskys - funny and lonely (one smart person for 25 fools), striving to change the unchanging world.

Griboedov created an unconventional comedy for his time. He enriched and psychologically rethought the characters of the characters and the problems traditional for the comedy of classicism, his method is close to realistic, but still does not achieve realism in its entirety. I.A. Goncharov wrote about the comedy "Woe from Wit", that it is "a picture of morals, and a gallery of living types, and an eternally burning, sharp satire," which presents noble Moscow in the 10-20s of the 19th century. According to Goncharov, each of the main characters of the comedy experiences "his own million torments.

Lyceum lyrics by Pushkin.

During the lyceum period, Pushkin appears primarily as the author of lyrical poems reflecting his patriotic moods in connection with Patriotic War 1812 ("Memoirs in Tsarskoye Selo"), enthusiastically accepted not only by fellow lyceum students, but even by Derzhavin, who was considered the greatest literary authority of that time. protest against political tyranny ("To Licinius" boldly sketching in the traditional images of ancient Roman antiquity a broad satirical picture of Russian socio-political reality and angrily scourging the "darling of the despot" - an omnipotent temporary worker, behind whom contemporaries guessed the image of Arakcheev, then hated by everyone.), rejection of the religious view of the world ("Unbelief"), literary sympathies for Karamzinists, "Arzamas" ("To a friend of the poet", "Town", "Shadow of Fonvizin"). The freedom-loving and satirical motifs of Pushkin's poetry at this time are closely intertwined with epicureanism and anakreoticism.

From the first lyceum poetic experiments of Pushkin until 1813, nothing has come down to us. But they are remembered by Pushkin's comrades at the Lyceum.

The earliest lyceum poems of Pushkin that have come down to us date back to 1813. Pushkin's lyceum lyrics are characterized by exceptional genre diversity. One gets the impression of the young poet's conscious experiments in mastering almost all the genres already represented in the poetry of that time. This was extremely important in the search for their own way in the lyrics, their own lyrical style. At the same time, this genre diversity also determines the features of that stage of Russian poetic development, which was distinguished by the radical breaking of the old genre traditions and the search for new ones. Pushkin's lyceum lyrics of the first years are distinguished by the predominance of short meter verses (trimeter iambic and trochee, two-meter iambic and dactyl, trimeter amphibrach). This very early period of Pushkin's lyrics is also characterized by a significant length of poems, which, of course, is explained by the poetic immaturity of the young author. As Pushkin's genius developed, his poems became much shorter.

All this taken together testifies, on the one hand, to the period of Pushkin's conscious apprenticeship in mastering most of the lyrical forms already developed by both the Russian and Western European poetic traditions, and, on the other hand, to the inorganic nature for Pushkin of almost all the poetic templates that came to him from outside, from which he subsequently and quite soon begins to be released.

In this initial period of Pushkin's poetic development, when his whole being was full of a jubilant feeling of youth and the charm of life with all its gifts and pleasures, the most attractive and, as it seemed to him then, most characteristic of the very nature of his talent, were the traditions of the poetic madrigal culture XVIII century, dissolved by the sharp free-thinking of the French Enlightenment.

It was pleasant for the young poet to portray himself as a poet, to whom verses are given without any difficulty:

The main circle of motives of Pushkin's lyrics in the first years of the lyceum (1813-1815) is closed by the framework of the so-called "light poetry", "anacreontics", the recognized master of which was Batiushkov. The young poet portrays himself as an epicurean sage, nonchalantly enjoying the light pleasures of life. Beginning in 1816, elegiac motifs in the spirit of Zhukovsky became predominant in Pushkin's lyceum poetry. The poet writes about the torments of unrequited love, about a prematurely withered soul, grieves for a faded youth. In these early poems by Pushkin there are still many literary conventions, poetic clichés. But even now, through the imitative, literary conditional, something independent, its own, is breaking through: echoes of real life impressions and genuine inner experiences of the author. “I am wandering my own way,” he declares in response to Batyushkov’s advice and instructions. And this “own path” here and there gradually emerges in the works of Pushkin the lyceum student. Thus, the poem "Gorodok" (1815) is still written in the manner of Batyushkov's message "My Penates". However, unlike their author, who bizarrely mixed the ancient and the modern - the ancient Greek "lares" with the domestic "balalaika" - Pushkin makes you feel the features of life and life of a small provincial town, inspired by real Tsarskoye Selo impressions. The poet was going to give a detailed description of Tsarskoe Selo in a special work specially dedicated to this, but, apparently, he sketched only his plan in his lyceum diary (see Vol. 7 of this edition: “In the summer I will write“ A Picture of Tsarskoe Selo ” ).

But already at the lyceum, Pushkin develops an independent and sometimes very critical attitude towards his literary predecessors and contemporaries. In this sense, the “Shadow of Fonvizin” is of particular interest, in which the poet through the mouth of a “famous Russian merry fellow” and “mockery”, “the creator who wrote off Prostakova” , administers a bold judgment on literary modernity.

Anacreontic and elegiac poems Pushkin continues to write both in these and in subsequent years. But at the same time, the exit in the middle of 1817 from the “monastic”, as the poet called them, lyceum walls into great life was also an outlet for a large public theme.

Pushkin begins to create poems that respond to the thoughts and feelings of the most advanced people of Russian society during the period of growth of revolutionary sentiments in it, the emergence of the first secret political societies that set themselves the task of fighting against autocracy and serfdom.

The affirmation of the joys of life and love - such, using Belinsky's term, is the main "pathos" of Pushkin's lyrics of 1815. All this fully corresponded to that ideal of the poet - the singer of easy pleasures, which certainly seemed to Pushkin himself at that time the closest to his character, and the purpose of life in general, and the peculiarities of his poetic gift.

Elinsky wrote: “Pushkin differs from all the poets who preceded him precisely in that in his works one can follow his gradual development not only as a poet, but at the same time as a person and character. The poems written by him in one year already differ sharply both in content and form from the poems written in the next ”(VII, - 271). In this regard, the observations of Pushkin's lyceum lyrics are especially indicative.

Pushkin began to print in 1814, when he was 15 years old. His first printed work was the poem "To a friend of the poet." Here is a different form than in the earliest poems, and a different genre, but the path is essentially the same: the path of free, easy, unconstrained poetic reflection.

The literary teachers of the young Pushkin were not only Voltaire and other famous Frenchmen, but even more Derzhavin, Zhukovsky, Batyushkov. As Belinsky wrote, "everything that was essential and vital in the poetry of Derzhavin, Zhukovsky and Batyushkov - all this was added to Pushkin's poetry, reworked by its original element." The connection with Zhukovsky during the lyceum period was especially noticeable in such poems by Pushkin as "The Dreamer" (1815), "The Slain Knight" (1815). Derzhavin also had an undoubted influence on Pushkin. In an obvious way, his influence was manifested in the famous poem of the lyceum period "Recollection in Tsarskoye Selo". Pushkin himself recalled his reading of this poem at the solemn examination ceremony in the presence of Derzhavin: “Derzhavin was very old. He was in a uniform and in plush boots. Our exam made him very tired. He sat with his head on his hand. His face was meaningless, his eyes were cloudy, his lips drooped; his portrait (where he is shown in a cap and robe) are very similar. He dozed until the exam in Russian literature began. Then he perked up, his eyes sparkled; he was completely transformed. Of course, his poems were read, his poems were analyzed, his poems were praised every minute. He listened with extraordinary vivacity. Finally they called me. I read my Memoirs in Tsarskoye Selo, standing a stone's throw from Derzhavin. I am unable to describe the state of my soul; when I got to the verse where I mention Derzhavin's name, my voice rang out like a child, and my heart beat with intoxicating delight... I don't remember how I finished my reading, I don't remember where I ran away. Derzhavin was in admiration; he demanded me, wanted to hug me…. They searched for me but did not find me.

It all starts in the spacious living room. The maid Lizonka is dozing in an armchair, pleasant music is heard from the bedroom of the owner's daughter. Two instruments - a flute and a piano - help to understand that there are two people in the bedroom. The frightened maid wakes up and, seeing that day is approaching outside the window, begins to knock on the mistress. She hurries and frightens the hidden lovers with a meeting with their father, but they are deaf to her requests. Famusov appears at the noise in the room. He flirts with the maid, trying to figure out where the noise was coming from. Liza makes even more noise, and the owner leaves. The lovers leave the room. This is Sofia, Famusov's daughter, and Molchalin, a secretary who lives in his house. They didn't hear what was going on in the living room. Lisa tries to send Molchalin away, but she runs into Famusov at the door. The lovers are trying to get out. One says that he was here by accident, returning from a walk, and the daughter blames everything on her father, who with a loud voice woke her from a gentle dream. The girl tells her father about the dream that disturbed her. She dreamed of a poor lover, screaming and arguing with her father. In the dream there were monsters, laughter and roars. Famusov proceeds to interrogate Molchalin. He, it turns out, also hurried to the owner's voice in order to present him the papers early. The men leave, but the girls remain in the room. They continue to talk about men. The maid is trying to convey to the young lady that there will be no sense in meeting with Molchalin. The father will not allow to connect fate with the poor. The blinded girl hopes for a different outcome. Lisa invites her rich daughter to take a closer look at Colonel Skalozub.

Lisa explains to Sophia that her father wants a son-in-law with rank and stars. But the windy girl does not want to hear about military movements: the front and the ranks. With admiration, Lisa talks about Alexander Andreyevich Chatsky. He is cheerful, sensitive, sharp-tongued, reminiscent of the young man's love for Sophia. Famusov's daughter laughs at Chatsky, she loves Mochalin, who sits next to him all night, sighing without uttering a word. The maid becomes even more cheerful when she imagines this ridiculous picture.

The conversation of the girls is interrupted with the arrival of Chatsky. He hurries to see his beloved, to find out how she lives. In his speech, the young man tries to remind her of childhood pranks and fun, carefree days of games and hide and seek. In conversation, the young man begins to ridicule everyone he knew, asking if they have changed:

• Father;
• Uncle;
• Auntie;
• Three youthful faces with a huge number of relatives;
• Theatrical;
• A man hidden behind a screen, whistling like a nightingale.

Gradually Chatsky got to Molchalin. He wonders if the silent fool has changed. Sophia is angry, she is ready to send her former friend into the fire, just not to hear his mockery of her beloved.

The owner of the house, Famusov, appears. Sophia, taking advantage of this, hides in her room. Famusov starts a conversation with the guest. He is interested in where Chatsky was for 3 years, what he learned new, but the young man is busy with his own thoughts. The lover is amazed at how prettier Sofia has become, his feelings have flared up even more. He apologizes to Famusov, explains: he wanted to see Sophia so much that he did not stop by home. Alexander Andreevich says goodbye, promising to return in the evening.

Famusov remains alone in his doubts. He does not understand what his daughter is hinting at, saying that "a dream in the hand." He is not satisfied with either the morning guest - the beggar Molchalin, or Chatsky, whom he considers a fashionista and sharp-tongued.

Action 2

Famusov fills out a calendar of events for the week with a servant. The life of a nobleman is so full that every day is scheduled:

• dinner party with trout;
• burial;
• baptism.

It is impossible to listen to plans without a sarcastic smirk: “she did not give birth, but according to my calculation, she should give birth.”

Chatsky enters Famusov's office. An interesting dialogue between representatives of two generations of the nobility begins. The young man is interested in everything related to Sofia. In response, the father tries to find out his plans: have you thought of getting married? Chatsky finds out what Famusov would answer him for a matchmaking. He says that he would like to see in him a skillful leader of the estate. The main thing is that Famusov wants to send the young man to serve. Alexander Andreevich retorts him with a phrase that has become winged: “I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to serve.”

Famusov cites the example of Maxim Petrovich, his late uncle. He earned respect and reverence through a ridiculous situation. Stumbled once and cheered noble people, he repeated the fall several times. He attracted attention and became a person who himself gives ranks, distributes pensions. Chatsky, after listening to the example, was simply amazed at how you can get a place at the expense of your own humiliation (“they knocked on the floor without sparing”), flattery (flattery was woven like lace). The ancestors hid all the meanness under the mask of admiration for the king, but in reality they only dreamed of their own. career growth and money. The speeches of the young man frighten Famusov. He sees in him "carbonari" (secret political society revolutionary connotation), a dangerous person. And the more Chatsky says, the more frightened Famusov is. The owner of the house no longer hears the end of the speech, he simply asks to let him go, not to argue and not to continue criticizing the events and people of his century.

The servant announces that Colonel Skalozub has arrived. Frightened Famusov shouts that Chatsky should be brought to justice. Only on the third time the servant was able to shout to the owner. He asks Chatsky to behave carefully and respectfully in the presence of Skalozub, not to argue and slanderous ideas. He talks about the possible desire of the colonel to marry Sophia. Famusov does not see an urgent need for this wedding, but does not exclude such a possibility.

Chatsky is left alone for several minutes. He reflects that an unknown number of suitors appeared around his beloved. Love, in his opinion, comes to an end, unable to withstand 3 years of separation.

Sergey Sergeevich Skalozub, Famusov and Alexander Andreyevich Chatsky are located in the same room, they start a conversation.

The Colonel's speech is one-sided. He thinks only in clear military terms. Therefore, it is ridiculous to hear his answer to the question of kinship with a woman: "We did not serve together." He only knows about his relatives, who served where and when, how he distinguished himself. Skalozub has a brother among his relatives, who, instead of receiving a rank, went to the village to read books. Skalozub is friends with those who open job vacancies for him. He envies the more fortunate, pities himself. He had to ride for the regiment for 2 years to get the next rank. Skalozub's dream is to become a general. Famusov is interested in his plans for marriage. The Colonel is not averse to getting married.

The characteristic of Moscow sounds interesting: the distances are huge, the fire contributed a lot to its decoration. The feeling of patriotism is even more original in Famusov's words. Girls cling to the military because they are patriots.

Chatsky joins the conversation when it comes to Moscow. His very first judgment frightens Famusov. The young man says that there are new houses in the capital, but old prejudices. The owner asks to remember what he asked at the beginning of the meeting. He has to present to the Colonel young man. There is a lot of negativity and criticism in his words:

• does not want to serve;
• did not become business;
• spends his mind in the wrong place.

Words turn on Chatsky. He answers all the arguments of the older generation. Another phrase that sounded in the lips of the young man: “And who are the judges?”, Began to walk, as an independent, immediately after the release of the book. The owner did not listen to the long speech of the representative of the new generation, he went into the office, calling the colonel with him. Puffer from the whole tirade heard only thoughts about the military.

Sophia runs into the room to Chatsky and Skalozub together with a maid. She rushes to the window and screams that someone has fallen and broken. Alexander Andreevich notices the girl's genuine fear. The skalozub imagines that the old master has “blundered”. Lisa explains to everyone in the room that misfortune happened to Molchalin, who was unable to get on the horse. The Colonel wonders how the miserable rider fell: chest or sideways.

Chatsky does not know how to help his beloved. Lisa asks for water to bring Sophia back to consciousness. Waking up, the girl scolds Alexander Andreevich that he is not helping Molchalin, but Liza brings her to the window to see: everything worked out, and there is no reason to panic.

Action 3

Chatsky is waiting for a meeting with Sophia, hoping to find out who the girl loves. He doubts among two admirers: Molchalin and Skalozub. But the young lady leaves the conversation, calls the lover strange. Chatsky admits that he is crazy about the girl. Sofia confesses her love for Molchalin. Her words sound so ridiculous that Alexander Andreevich doubts. He has no idea how you can love such a nonentity: "he is silent when he is scolded", he does not have his own opinion. About Skalozub, Sofia has a very short answer: "The hero is not of my novel."

Sophia, under the pretext of the arrival of a hairdresser, leaves to meet her beloved. Chatsky remains even more confused, the riddle remains completely tangled. Molchalin approaches him. Their conversation is just funny. Chatsky is trying to understand how such a person can be liked. Molchalin's talent is moderation and accuracy. Molchalin enviously talks about the gossip that spread about Chatsky. He enthusiastically talks about some Tatyana Yurievna, to whom you must definitely go. There are balls every day and an ongoing holiday. But Chatsky does not see attractiveness in balls. The longer the young man speaks with Molchalin, the more he becomes convinced of the impossibility of a relationship between him and Sofia.

The arrival of guests to Famusov's house begins: a dinner party is planned. Many of them are old acquaintances of Chatsky, there are descriptions of their meetings and conversations. Some of the guests are funny and ridiculous:

• deaf princes and princesses;
• girls busy with their skirts.

All of them appreciate Chatsky.

Sophia is dating Mr.N. She shares her opinion that Chatsky is out of his mind. The young lady, having uttered these words, understands that she said the wrong thing, but she begins to like the idea of ​​spreading such thoughts among the guests. She exposes a jester in love with herself and waits for the development of events.

The gossip is quickly gaining momentum. Everyone shares the news, adding from themselves. Zagoretsky speeds up the gossip: "they grabbed him, into the yellow house, and put him on a chain." No one doubts madness, everyone, on the contrary, finds signs of it in Alexander Andreevich's behavior. When a young man appears in the hall, everyone dances diligently, the old people play cards. No one listens to his speeches, everyone tries to stay away.

Action 4

The guests leave the ball.

Countess Khryumina and her granddaughter are dissatisfied with those who were invited: "freaks from the next world."

Gorina Natalya Dmitrievna was having fun, her husband was dozing or dancing at the behest of his wife.

Chatsky asks the footman to give him a carriage. There is no coachman on the spot, the footman leaves to look for him, Chatsky remains. Repetilov runs up to him. He begins to chaotically declare his love for Alexander Andreevich. He does not believe, says that this is a lie and nonsense. He warns that Repetilov is late and the ball is already over. Repetilov is full of boasting, he considers himself among the smart people who understand politics and books. He is a member of a secret club, calls a young man to them, promises to introduce him to interesting people. But all the listed names do not arouse interest in the interlocutor. The speech stops when the Puffer's carriage is announced. Repetilov tends to go there. And begins a declaration of love to the colonel. But he is evidently not the first time listening to such speeches. He frightens with the fact that all noisy meetings will be completed by building in ranks. Imperceptibly, Zagoretsky appears in the place of Skalozub. He begins to ask Repetilov about Chatsky. He wonders if he's okay with his head. Repetilov does not believe that Chatsky is insane.

The following guests appear: the princess with 6 daughters, the princess Khlestova. She is led by Molchalin. Zagoretsky asks everyone for confirmation of his words. It turns out that the news of madness is already out of date.

Molchalin accompanies Khlestova, who lets him into the room. Sarcasm is heard in the name of the secretary's place of residence - closet. Repetilov does not know where to go next, he asks the footman to take him somewhere.

Chatsky, who had been in the Swiss all this time, heard what they were saying about him. He is amazed. The absurdity of insanity is startling, he wants to know who spread such terrible rumors. His thoughts are interrupted by Sofia, who, with a candle in her hand, makes her way to Molchalin's room. He hides behind a pillar, hoping to wait and find out the secrets hidden in the house.

Lisa with a candle moves along another dark corridor. She needs to call Molchalin to Sofia.

Chatsky and Sofia hide in different places. Lisa knocks on Molchalin's room. She calls him to the young lady, scolds that he is sleeping and not preparing for the wedding. Molchalin's reciprocal speeches are frightened by blasphemy. He explains to Lisa that he is simply "wasting" time, afraid to offend the owner's daughter, does not want him to kick him out of the house after learning about his connection with Sophia. He begins to confess his love to the maid. Sophia perceives his words as meanness, and Chatsky as meanness. Lisa calls the deceiver to conscience. Molchalin tells the girl what the meaning of his life is in pleasing. He is ready to please everyone:

• owner;
• servant;
• boss
• doorman;
• dog.

Molchalin asks Lisa to allow herself to be hugged in order to go share love with the deplorable young lady, but Sofia does not let him. She says she is ashamed of herself and her feelings. Molchalin crawls on her knees, but the girl remains adamant. She understands that his speeches are lies and deceit. The girl thanks Molchalin for being timid on dates. She is glad that she found out everything at night, and there are no witnesses to her shame. At this moment, Chatsky appears.

Molchalin runs away to his closet, Lisa drops the candle out of fear. The young man turns to Sophia, he is surprised for whom she exchanged his real feelings. Sofia is crying.

A crowd of servants runs into the corridor along with Famusov. He is outraged that Sophia, who declared Chatsky insane, is meeting with him in the dark. Chatsky, having learned to whom he owes his madness, is even more surprised. Famusov scolds the young man, asking him not to appear in his house until he improves. Alexander Andreevich laughs at himself and hurriedly leaves to look for a corner where he can retire and forget about the insults he received.
Famusov is left alone and talks only about whether the news from his house will reach the next princess.

This concludes a brief retelling of the comedy "Woe from Wit", which includes only the most important events from the full version of the work!

The text "Woe from Wit" abounds catchphrases. They are used separately from the text, sometimes without even knowing where they came from.

Early in the morning, the maid Lisa knocks on the door to the young lady's bedroom. Sophia does not respond immediately: she talked all night with her lover, her father's secretary Molchalin, who lives in the same house.

Sophia's father, Pavel Afanasyevich Famusov, who appeared inaudibly, flirts with Liza, who barely manages to fight off the master. Fearing that they might hear him, Famusov disappears.

Leaving Sophia, Molchalin runs into Famusov at the door, who is interested in what the secretary is doing here at such an early hour? Famusov, who cites his own "monastic behavior" as an example, is somehow reassured.

Left alone with Liza, Sophia dreamily recalls the night that passed so quickly, when she and Molchalin “were forgotten by the music, and time went by so smoothly,” and the maid could barely contain her laughter.

Lisa reminds her mistress of her former inclination of the heart, Alexander Andreyevich Chatsky, who has been wandering in foreign lands for three years now. Sophia says that her relationship with Chatsky did not go beyond childhood friendship. She compares Chatsky with Molchalin and finds in the latter virtues (sensitivity, timidity, altruism) that Chatsky does not have.

Suddenly, Chatsky himself appears. He bombards Sophia with questions: what's new in Moscow? How are their mutual acquaintances, who seem funny and ridiculous to Chatsky? Without any ulterior motive, he speaks unflatteringly about Molchalin, who probably made a career ("because now they love the dumb").

This hurts Sophia so much that she whispers to herself: “Not a man, a snake!”

Famusov enters, also not too pleased with Chatsky's visit, and asks where Chatsky disappeared and what he did. Chatsky promises to tell about everything in the evening, since he still did not have time to call home.

In the afternoon, Chatsky reappears at Famusov's house and asks Pavel Afanasyevich about his daughter. Famusov is worried, is Chatsky aiming for suitors? And how would Famusov react to this? - in turn inquires the young man. Famusov evades a direct answer, advising the guest to first put things in order and achieve success in the service.

“I would be glad to serve, it’s sickening to serve,” says Chatsky. Famusov reproaches him with excessive "pride" and cites his late uncle as an example, who achieved rank and wealth, servilely serving the empress.

Chatsky is not satisfied with this sample. He finds that the "age of humility and fear" is a thing of the past, and Famusov is outraged by these "free-thinking speeches", he does not want to listen to such attacks on the "golden age".

The servant reports the arrival of a new guest, Colonel Skalozub, whom Famusov courts in every possible way, considering him a profitable fiancé. Skalozub ingenuously boasts of his official successes, which were achieved by no means by military exploits.

Famusov pronounces a lengthy panegyric to the Moscow nobility with its hospitality, conservative old men, nobles, power-hungry matrons and girls who know how to present themselves. He recommends Chatsky Skalozub, and Famusov's praise for Chatsky sounds almost like an insult. Unable to stand it, Chatsky breaks out into a monologue in which he falls upon those flatterers and serf-owners who delight the owner of the house, denounces their "weakness, poverty of reason."

Skalozub, who understood little of Chatsky's speeches, agrees with him in assessing the pompous guardsmen. The army, according to the brave campaigner, is no worse than the "Guards".

Sofya runs in and rushes to the window with a cry: “Oh, my God, he fell, he killed himself!” It turns out that it was Molchalin who "cracked" from the horse (Skalozub's expression).

Chatsky wonders: why is Sophia so frightened? Soon Molchalin comes and reassures those present - nothing terrible has happened.

Sophia tries to justify her careless impulse, but only strengthens the suspicions that have arisen in Chatsky.

Left alone with Molchalin, Sophia worries about his health, and he is concerned about her intemperance (“Evil tongues are worse than a gun”).

After a conversation with Sophia, Chatsky comes to the conclusion that she cannot love such an insignificant person, but nevertheless she struggles with the riddle: who is her lover?

Chatsky starts a conversation with Molchalin and becomes even more strengthened in his opinion: it is impossible to love someone whose virtues boil down to "moderation and accuracy", someone who does not dare to have own opinion and bows before nobility and power.

Guests continue to come to Famusov for the evening. The first to arrive are the Gorichevs, old acquaintances of Chatsky, with whom he talks in a friendly way, warmly recalling the past.

Other persons also appear (the princess with six daughters, Prince Tugoukhovsky, etc.) and carry on the most empty conversations. The Countess-granddaughter tries to prick Chatsky, but he easily and witty parries her attack.

Gorich introduces Zagoretsky to Chatsky, characterizing the latter directly in the eyes as a "swindler" and "rogue", but he pretends that he is not at all offended.

Khlestova arrives, an imperious old woman who does not tolerate any objections. Chatsky, Skalozub and Molchalin pass in front of her. Khlestov expresses favor only to Famusov's secretary, as he praises her dog. Turning to Sophia, Chatsky is ironic about this. Chatsky's sarcastic speech infuriates Sophia, and she decides to avenge Molchalin. Moving from one group of guests to another, she gradually hints that Chatsky seems to be out of his mind.

This rumor immediately spreads throughout the living room, and Zagoretsky adds new details: “They grabbed him, into the yellow house, and put him on a chain.” The final verdict is passed by the countess-grandmother, deaf and almost out of her mind: Chatsky is an infidel and a Voltairian. In the general choir of indignant voices, all other freethinkers - professors, chemists, fabulists ...

Chatsky, wandering lost in a crowd of people alien to him in spirit, runs into Sophia and indignantly falls upon the Moscow nobility, who bows to insignificance only because they had the good fortune to be born in France. Chatsky himself is convinced that the “smart” and “peppy” Russian people and their customs are in many ways higher and better than foreign ones, but no one wants to listen to him. Everyone waltzes with the greatest zeal.

The guests are already beginning to disperse when another old acquaintance of Chatsky, Repetilov, runs in recklessly. He rushes to Chatsky with open arms, right off the bat begins to repent of various sins and invites Chatsky to visit the "secret union" consisting of "decisive people" who fearlessly talk about "important mothers." However, Chatsky, who knows the value of Repetilov, briefly characterizes the activities of Repetilov and his friends: “You only make noise!”

Repetilov switches to Skalozub, telling him the sad story of his marriage, but even here he does not find mutual understanding. With only one Zagoretsky, Repetilov manages to enter into a conversation, and even then Chatsky's madness becomes the subject of their discussion. Repetilov does not believe the rumor at first, but the others persistently convince him that Chatsky is a real madman.

Chatsky, who lingered in the porter's room, hears all this and is indignant at the slanderers. Only one thing worries him - does Sophia know about his "crazy"? It never crossed his mind that she was the one who started the rumor.

Lisa appears in the lobby, followed by a sleepy Molchalin. The maid reminds Molchalin that the young lady is waiting for him. Molchalin confesses to her that he is caring for Sophia in order not to lose her affection and thereby strengthen his position, but he really likes only Lisa.

This is heard by Sophia, who has quietly approached, and Chatsky, who is hiding behind a column. An angry Sophia steps forward: “A terrible person! I am ashamed of myself, I am ashamed of the walls. Molchalin tries to deny what was said, but Sofya is deaf to his words and demands that he leave the house of his benefactor today.

Chatsky also gives vent to feelings and denounces Sophia's deceit. A crowd of servants, led by Famusov, runs to the noise. He threatens to send his daughter to her aunt, in the Saratov wilderness, and to identify Lisa as a poultry house.

Chatsky laughs bitterly at his own blindness, and at Sophia, and at all of Famusov's like-minded people, in whose society it is really difficult to maintain reason. Exclaiming: “I’ll go looking around the world, / Where there is a corner for an offended feeling!” - he forever leaves the house that was once so dear to him.

Famusov himself is most concerned with “what will / Princess Marya Aleksevna say!”

After reading a short summary of the work, you can find out about all the events that the author describes in the play "Woe from Wit". The chapter summary below conveys the main essence of the work and answers the question: "How many actions are in Griboyedov's work?".

In contact with

Characters in the play by Alexander Sergeevich Griboyedov:

• Famusov Pavel Afanasyevich is a widower raising his only daughter.
• Sofya is the seventeen-year-old daughter and heiress of Famusov.
• Molchalin Aleksey Stepanovich - a cowardly young man, helps Famusov to conduct the deal and lives in his house.
• Chatsky Alexander Andreevich - Sophia's childhood friend. In love with her. Recently returned from abroad.
• Lizanka is a maid in the Famusovs' house.
• Skalozub Sergey Sergeevich - stupid, but wealthy man. They want to marry Sophia for him.
• Repetilov is one of secondary characters works. He is a parody reflection of Chatsky.

The plot of the play

All 4 actions of the work take place in Famusov's house. Summary by chapters, which in a dramatic work are called actions, will help to trace the course of events.

Important! In the 1st act of the play "Woe from Wit", the reader learns that Sophia loves Molchalin and is indifferent to Chatsky.

Lovers have to say goodbye. But Famusov finds Molchalin right next to the door and inquires what the young man is doing here so early. Pavel Afanasyevich also reprimands his daughter for allowing herself early meetings with a young man.

When father leaves maid claims that Famusov will never give consent to the marriage of a daughter with an ignorant person. The father thinks that the girl needs to marry a rich and noble Colonel Skalozub. Sophia recalls her first love for Alexander Chatsky, a cheerful and intelligent young man. But, according to the girl, these cannot be called true love. At this moment, the butler appears to report that Alexander Andreevich has arrived at the house.

The guest sincerely rejoices at the meeting with the girl to whom he is not indifferent. The cold reception of his beloved somewhat moderates his ardor. unexpected guest begins to indulge in memories of past relationships with a girl. But the past feelings between them, Famusov's daughter calls childishness. Then the man asks if the girl's heart is busy thinking about someone else. The young lady claims that her embarrassment is caused by Alexander Andreevich's frank questions.

The father appears. Sophia runs away. Begins conversation between Pavel Afanasyevich and Alexander Andreevich. The young man makes it clear that the girlfriend of his youth still likes it.

The conflict between the heroes of the play - 2 act

Important! In the play Woe from Wit 2, the action tells the reader about Famusov's attitude to Chatsky's feelings for Sofya, and Molchalin appears in a completely different light.

Famusov makes plans for the near future. Chatsky appears. He frankly asks the owner of the house what answer he will receive if he asks his daughter in marriage. Pavel Afanasyevich replies that it would not hurt for an unexpected guest to get a higher rank. The young man begins to blame those who make up opinion of a person only by his ranks. Famusov, listening to the fiery speech of the guest, concludes that he adheres to revolutionary ideas. knotted conflict between Pavel Afanasyevich and Alexander Andreevich.

At this time complained Colonel Skalozub, which Pavel Afanasyevich is very happy about. Famusov and the colonel begin to discuss Skalozub's brother, who quit his service and left for the village. Here wedged into the conversation Alexander Andreevich and stands up for those who do not try to curry favor with the authorities. Such a heated discussion is interrupted by the departure of the owner of the house.

Suddenly Sophia appears with the message that Molchalin fell off his horse. The excited girl loses her senses. Alexander Andreevich understands who she likes. Puffer comes out to help the victim. Chatsky and Lizanka fussing about a young lady. Skalozub returns with Molchalin. The Colonel reassures everyone, explaining that the victim only had a bruised hand. Chatsky, offended by his beloved, leaves. Sergei Sergeevich retires to Famusov's office.

Aleksey Stepanovich reproaches the girl that she so openly demonstrates her feelings for him. Molchalin is afraid that rumors about their relationship will reach the girl's father. The maid advises the young lady to start flirting with Chatsky in order to mislead her father. Sophia leaves in thought. Molchalin begins to flirt with Lisa.

Climax - act 3

Important! In Woe from Wit 3, the action contains the climax of the piece. When Chatsky confesses his love to Sophia, the girl does not say who she really likes.

In the evening at Famusov's house Numerous guests come to the ball. They are all powerful people. Molchalin begins to curry favor with them. Famusov's daughter casually notices that Alexander Andreevich has gone crazy. This phrase, said in a figurative sense, is perceived as real news. The sensation immediately spreads throughout the hall.

Among Famusov's guests, Repetilov attracts the reader's interest. His long monologues and emotional exclamations are somewhat reminiscent of Chatsky's speech. Even the appearance and departure of the hero are as unexpected as the arrival and departure of Chatsky. Repetilov - a parody of Alexander Andreevich.

Alexander Andreevich discouraged by the fact that in Russia only everything foreign is in fashion. But none of the guests listens to the man, perceiving his ideas for delirium of a madman. This climax is the last step in the conflict between Famus Society and Chatsky. Open Final work allows the reader to only guess about the denouement.

Interchange - 4 act

Suddenly Sophia appears. Chatsky hides behind the nearest column. Sofya sends Liza to check if Alexander Andreevich is downstairs. Looking around, Lisa knocks on Molchalin's door to call him to the young lady. A conversation takes place between the maid and Alexei Stepanovich. Molchalin explains that he does not love Famusov's daughter. Sophia hears everything and is disappointed in her lover. Alexander Andreevich comes up to her to reproach her for her dislike.