Read the fragments of the critical article of the writer I. A. Goncharov (1812–1891) “A Million of Torments” and outline it.
For note-taking, questions are proposed that must be answered either by quoting Goncharov in full (verbatim and in quotation marks), or by retelling individual critical judgments in your own words. For convenience, the fragments presented here are numbered.
If there are Goncharov's assessments with which you disagree, underline them in your abstract.
Questions for taking notes.
What task does Goncharov set for himself?
What do critics appreciate in A. S. Griboedov's play?
What does Goncharov appreciate in a play?
How long will the features of the heroes of the play flicker in society?
What in comedy never dies?
Is there movement in the play?
Is Chatsky smart? Who is he?
What connects the parts of the comedy to each other?
In what does Goncharov see the role of the characters in "another, lively, lively comedy"?
What is the psychological portrait of Chatsky at the end of the play?
Why, according to Goncharov, did Griboedov end the play with a disaster?
What is the portrait of Sophia through the eyes of Goncharov and what is the attitude of criticism towards her?
What, according to Goncharov, is the role of Chatsky?
What does Goncharov blame contemporary critics for?
What is Chatsky's ideal?
What is the eternity of the image of Chatsky?
What does Goncharov say in his last remark about Chatsky?
IVAN ALEKSANDROVICH GONCHAROV
Ivan Alexandrovich Goncharov was born in Simbirsk into a wealthy merchant family, graduated from the boarding school, then the Commercial School. In 1831 he entered the verbal department of Moscow University, then served as an official in Simbirsk, and from 1835 in St. Petersburg, where he became an active member of the aesthetic circle and paid tribute to the romantic moods that prevailed there. Through the members of the circle in 1846, he met V. G. Belinsky and other democrats of the common people, entered the circle of the editors of Sovremennik. Subsequently, Goncharov moved away from the democratic movement. He was especially disliked by the views of D. I. Pisarev - the writer spoke sharply about the "miserable and untenable doctrines of materialism, socialism and communism."
A peculiar trilogy was made up of Goncharov's novels - "Ordinary Story" (1847), "Oblomov"(1849–1859), "Cliff"(1869). In these novels, the author portrayed "superfluous people" - nobles and "new people" who replace them. The book of travel essays stands apart "Frigate Pallas"(1856-1857), written as a result of his round-the-world trip.
Peru Goncharov also owns a number of critical articles, among which the article "A million torments" dedicated to the play by A. S. Griboyedov “Woe from Wit”.
A million torments
(Critical study)
Woe from the mind Griboyedov.- Monakhov's benefit performance, November, 1871
(fragments)
The comedy "Woe from Wit" holds itself apart in literature and is distinguished by its youthfulness, freshness and stronger vitality from other works of the word.<…>
Some appreciate in comedy a picture of the Moscow manners of a certain era, the creation of living types and their skillful grouping. The whole play is presented as a kind of circle of faces familiar to the reader, and, moreover, as definite and closed as a deck of cards. The faces of Famusov, Molchalin, Skalozub and others were as firmly embedded in the memory as kings, jacks and queens in cards, and everyone had a more or less agreed concept of all the faces, except for one - Chatsky. So they are all inscribed correctly and strictly, and so become familiar to everyone. Only about Chatsky, many are perplexed: what is he? It's like the fifty-third of some mysterious card in the deck. If there was little disagreement in the understanding of other persons, then about Chatsky, on the contrary, the contradictions have not ended so far and, perhaps, will not end for a long time.
Others, doing justice to the picture of morals, fidelity of types, cherish the more epigrammatic salt of the language, lively satire - morality, which the play still, like an inexhaustible well, supplies to everyone for every everyday step of life.
But both those and other connoisseurs almost pass over in silence the "comedy" itself, the action, and many even deny it a conditional stage movement.
Despite the fact, however, whenever the personnel in the roles changes, both judges go to the theater, And again lively talk rises about the performance of this or that role and about the roles themselves, as if in a new play.
All these diverse impressions and the point of view based on them serve as the best definition of the play for each and every one, that is, that the comedy "Woe from Wit" is both a picture of morals, and a gallery of living types, and an eternally sharp, burning satire, and together with this is also comedy, and let's say for ourselves - most of all comedy - which is hardly found in other literatures, if we accept the totality of all the other conditions expressed. As a painting, it is without a doubt huge. Her canvas captures a long period of Russian life - from Catherine to Emperor Nicholas. In a group of twenty faces reflected, like a ray of light in a drop of water, all the former Moscow, its drawing, its then spirit, historical moment and customs. And this with such artistic, objective completeness. And certainty, which was given to us only by Pushkin.
In the picture, where there is not a single pale spot, not a single extraneous, superfluous stroke and sound, the viewer and reader feel themselves even now, in our era, among living people. And the general and the details, all this is not composed, but is completely taken from Moscow living rooms and transferred to the book and to the stage, with all the warmth and with all the “special imprint” of Moscow, from Famusov to small strokes, to Prince Tugoukhovsky and to the footman Parsley, without which the picture would be incomplete.
However, for us it is not yet a completely finished historical picture: we have not moved far enough away from the era for an impassable abyss to lie between it and our time. The coloring has not completely smoothed out: the century has not separated from ours, like a cut off piece: we inherited something from there, although the Famusovs, Molchalins, Zagoretskys and others have changed so that they no longer fit into the skin of Griboedov's types.<…>But as long as there is a striving for honors apart from merit, as long as there are craftsmen and hunters to please and “take rewards and live happily”, as long as gossip, idleness, emptiness will dominate not as vices, but as the elements of social life - until then, of course , the features of the Famusovs, Molchalins and others will flicker in modern society, there is no need that that “special imprint” that Famusov was proud of has been erased from Moscow itself.<…>
Salt, epigram, satire, this colloquial verse, it seems, will never die, just like the sharp and caustic, living Russian mind scattered in them, which Griboedov has imprisoned like a magician of the spirit in his castle, and it crumbles there with malicious laughter . It is impossible to imagine that another, more natural, simpler, more taken from life speech could ever appear. Prose and poetry merged here into something inseparable, then, it seems, so that it would be easier to keep them in memory and put back into circulation all the mind, humor, joke and anger of the Russian mind and language collected by the author. This language was given to the author in the same way as the group of these persons was given, as the main meaning of the comedy was given, as everything was given together, as if poured out at once, and everything formed an extraordinary comedy - both in the narrow sense as a stage play, and in the broader sense - as the comedy of life. Nothing else but a comedy, it could not have been.
Leaving aside the two capital aspects of the play, which so clearly speak for themselves and therefore have the majority of admirers - that is, the picture of the era, with a group of living portraits, and the salt of the language - let us first turn to comedy as a stage play, then as a comedy in general, to its general meaning, its main reason in its social and literary meaning, and finally, let's talk about its performance on the stage.
It has long been accustomed to say that there is no movement, that is, there is no action in the play. How is there no movement? There is - alive, continuous, from the first appearance of Chatsky on the stage to his last word: “Carriage for me, carriage!”
This is a subtle, intelligent, elegant and passionate comedy in a narrow, technical sense - true in small psychological details - but almost elusive for the viewer, because it is disguised by the typical faces of the characters, ingenious drawing, the color of the place, era, the charm of the language, all poetic forces, so abundantly spilled in the play. The action, that is, the actual intrigue in it, in front of these capital aspects seems pale, superfluous, almost unnecessary.
Only when driving around in the passage does the viewer seem to wake up at an unexpected catastrophe that has erupted between the main persons, and suddenly recalls a comedy-intrigue. But not for long either. The enormous, real meaning of comedy is already growing before him.
The main role, of course, is the role of Chatsky, without which there would be no comedy, but, perhaps, there would be a picture of morals.
Griboyedov himself attributed Chatsky's grief to his mind, while Pushkin denied him any mind at all.
One might think that Griboyedov, out of paternal love for his hero, flattered him in the title, as if warning the reader that his hero is smart, and everyone else around him is not smart.
Both Onegin and Pechorin turned out to be incapable of work, of an active role, although both vaguely understood that around them all had decayed. They were even "embittered", carried within themselves "dissatisfaction" and wandered about like shadows with "longing laziness". But, despising the emptiness of life, the idle nobility, they succumbed to it and did not think of either fighting it or running away completely. Discontent and anger did not prevent Onegin from being smart, "shine" both in the theater, and at a ball, and in a fashionable restaurant, flirting with girls and seriously courting them in marriage, and Pechorin from shining with interesting boredom and mooing his laziness and anger between Princess Mary and Bela, and then show off indifference to them in front of stupid Maksim Maksimych: this indifference was considered the quintessence of Don Juanism. Both languished, suffocated in their midst and did not know what to want. Onegin tried to read, but yawned and quit, because he and Pechorin were familiar with one science of “tender passion”, and they learned everything else “something and somehow” - and they had nothing to do.
Chatsky, apparently, on the contrary, was seriously preparing for activity. He “writes and translates nicely,” Famusov says about him, and everyone talks about his high mind. He, of course, did not travel in vain, studied, read, apparently took up work, was in contact with the ministers, and got divorced - it is not difficult to guess why.
I would be glad to serve, - it's sickening to serve, -
he hints. There is no mention of "yearning laziness, idle boredom", and even less of "gentle passion" as a science and an occupation. He loves seriously, seeing Sophia as a future wife.
Meanwhile, Chatsky got to drink a bitter cup to the bottom - not finding "living sympathy" in anyone, and leave, taking with him only "a million torments."<…>
The reader remembers, of course, everything that Chatsky did. Let us trace the course of the play a little and try to single out from it the dramatic interest of the comedy, that movement that goes through the whole play, like an invisible but living thread that connects all the parts and faces of the comedy with each other.
Chatsky runs out to Sofya, straight from the road carriage, without stopping by himself, kisses her hand passionately, looks into her eyes, rejoices at the date, hoping to find an answer to his former feeling - and does not find it. He was struck by two changes: she had become unusually prettier and cooler towards him - also unusually.
This puzzled him, and upset him, and a little annoyed him. In vain he tries to sprinkle salt of humor on his conversation, partly playing with this strength of his, which, of course, Sofya liked before when she loved him, partly under the influence of vexation and disappointment. Everyone gets it, he went over everyone - from Sophia's father to Molchalin - and with what apt features he draws Moscow - and how many of these poems went into live speech! But all in vain: tender memories, witticisms - nothing helps. He suffers only coldness from her, until, having caustically touched Molchalin, he did not touch her to the quick. She already asks him with hidden anger if he happened to at least inadvertently “say good things about someone”, and disappears at the entrance of her father, betraying the latter almost with the head of Chatsky, that is, declaring him the hero of the dream told to his father before.
From that moment on, a heated duel began between her and Chatsky, the most lively action, a comedy in the strict sense, in which two persons, Molchalin and Liza, take an intimate part.
Every step of Chatsky, almost every word in the play is closely connected with the play of his feelings for Sofya, irritated by some kind of lie in her actions, which he struggles to unravel to the very end. All his mind and all his strength go into this struggle: it served as a motive, a pretext for irritation, for that “million of torments”, under the influence of which he could only play the role indicated to him by Griboyedov, a role of much greater, higher significance than unsuccessful love. , in a word, the role for which the whole comedy was born.
Chatsky almost does not notice Famusov, coldly and absently answers his question, where have you been?<…>He came to Moscow and to Famusov, obviously, for Sophia and for Sophia alone.<…>He is bored and talking with Famusov - and only the positive challenge of Famusov to an argument brings Chatsky out of his concentration.<…>But still his irritation is restrained.<…>But he is awakened by Famusov's unexpected hint at the rumor about Skalozub's matchmaking.<…>
These allusions to marriage aroused Chatsky's suspicion about the reasons for Sophia's change for him. He even agreed to Famusov's request to give up "false ideas" and keep quiet in front of the guest. But the irritation was already going crescendo, and he intervened in the conversation, so far casually, and then, annoyed by Famusov’s awkward praise of his mind and so on, raises his tone and resolves with a sharp monologue:
"Who are the judges?" etc. Here another struggle is already underway, an important and serious one, a whole battle. Here, in a few words, the main motive is heard, as in an overture of operas, hinting at the true meaning and purpose of the comedy. Both Famusov and Chatsky threw a signet to each other:
See what fathers did
Would learn by looking at the elders! -
Famusov's military call was heard. And who are these elders and "judges"?
... For the decrepitude of years
Their enmity is irreconcilable to a free life, -
Chatsky answers and executes -
The meanest traits of the past life.
Two camps were formed, or, on the one hand, a whole camp of Famusova and all the brethren of the “fathers and elders”, on the other, one ardent and courageous fighter, “the enemy of searches”. This is a struggle for life and death, a struggle for existence, as the latest naturalists define the change of generations in the animal world. Famusov wants to be an "ace" - "eat on silver and gold, ride in a train, be rich in orders and see children rich, in ranks, in orders and with a key" - and so on without end, and all this is just for that he signs the papers without reading and being afraid of one thing, "so that a lot of them do not accumulate."
Chatsky strives for a "free life", "to pursue" science and art, and demands "service to the cause, not to persons", etc. On which side is the victory? Comedy gives Chatsky only "a million torments" and leaves, apparently, in the same position Famusov and his brethren, in which they were, without saying anything about the consequences of the struggle.
Now we know these consequences. They showed up with the advent of comedy, still in manuscript, in the light - and how an epidemic swept over all of Russia!
Meanwhile, the intrigue of love goes on as usual, correctly, with subtle psychological fidelity, which in any other play, devoid of other colossal Griboedov's beauties, could make a name for the author.
Sophia's fainting when she fell from Molchalin's horse, her participation in him, so carelessly expressed, Chatsky's new sarcasms on Molchalin - all this complicated the action and formed that main point, which was called in the piitiki an outset. This is where the dramatic interest comes in. Chatsky almost guessed the truth.<…>
In the third act, he gets to the ball before anyone else, with the aim of "forcing a confession" from Sophia - and with a tremor of impatience, he gets down to business directly with the question: "Who does she love?"
After an evasive answer, she admits that she prefers his "others". It seems clear. He himself sees this and even says:
And what do I want when everything is decided?
I climb into the noose, but it's funny to her!
However, she climbs like all lovers, despite her "mind". And already weakens before her indifference. He throws a weapon that is useless against a happy opponent - a direct attack on him, and condescends to pretense.
Once in a lifetime I'll pretend
he decides in order to "unravel the riddle", but in fact, to keep Sofya when she rushed away with a new arrow fired at Molchalin. This is not a pretense, but a concession by which he wants to beg for something that cannot be begged for - love when it is not there.<…>Then all that was left to do was to fall to his knees and sob. The remnants of the mind save him from useless humiliation.
Such a masterly scene, expressed in such verses, is hardly represented by any other dramatic work. It is impossible to express a feeling more noblely and more soberly, as Chatsky expressed it, it is impossible to get out of the trap more subtly and gracefully, as Sofya Pavlovna gets out. Only Pushkin's scenes of Onegin with Tatyana resemble these subtle features of intelligent natures.
Sofya was able to completely get rid of Chatsky's new suspiciousness, but she herself was carried away by her love for Molchalin and almost spoiled the whole thing by speaking out almost openly in love.<…>In her enthusiasm she hurried to draw his full-length portrait, perhaps in the hope of reconciling with this love not only herself, but also others, even Chatsky, as the portrait goes vulgar.<…>
Chatsky dispelled all doubts:
She doesn't respect him!
Shalit, she doesn't love him.
She doesn't give a damn about him! -
he comforts himself at her every praise of Molchalin and then grabs Skalozub. But her answer—that he was "not the hero of her novel"—destroyed those doubts as well. He leaves her without jealousy, but in thought, saying:
Who will guess you!
He himself did not believe in the possibility of such rivals, but now he was convinced of this. But his hopes for reciprocity, which had so far worried him, were completely shaken, especially when she did not agree to stay with him under the pretext that "the tongs would get cold", with a new barb at Molchalin, she eluded him and locked herself.
He felt that the main goal of returning to Moscow had betrayed him, and he moved away from Sophia with sadness. He, as he later confesses in the hallway, from that moment suspects in her only coldness towards everything - and after this scene, the very faintness attributed not "to signs of living passions", as before, but "to a whim of spoiled nerves."
His next scene with Molchalin, which fully describes the nature of the latter, confirms Chatsky definitively that Sophia does not love her opponent.
The liar laughed at me! -
he notices and goes to meet new faces.
The comedy between him and Sophia broke off; the burning irritation of jealousy subsided, and the chill of hopelessness smelt into his soul.
He had to leave; but another, lively, lively comedy invades the stage, several new perspectives of Moscow life open at once, which not only oust Chatsky's intrigue from the viewer's memory, but Chatsky himself seems to forget about it and interferes with the crowd. Around him, new faces group and play, each with its own role. This is a ball, with all the Moscow atmosphere, with a number of lively stage sketches in which each group forms its own separate comedy, with a complete outline of the characters who managed to play out in a few words into a finished action.
Aren't the Gorichs playing a complete comedy? This husband, recently still a vigorous and lively person, now lowered, dressed like in a dressing gown, in Moscow life, a gentleman, "a husband-boy, a husband-servant, the ideal of Moscow husbands", according to Chatsky's apt definition, - under the shoe of a sugary, cutesy , secular wife, Moscow lady:
And these six princesses and the granddaughter countess, all this contingent of brides, “who, according to Famusov, know how to dress themselves up with taffeta, marigold and haze”, “sing the top notes and cling to military people”?
This Khlestova, a remnant of the Catherine's age, with a pug, with a girl, this princess and prince Pyotr Ilyich - without a word, but such a talking ruin of the past; Zagoretsky, an obvious swindler, escaping from prison in the best living rooms and paying off with obsequiousness, like dog diapers - and these N.N. - and all their rumors, and all the content that occupies them!
The influx of these faces is so abundant, their portraits are so embossed, that the viewer grows cold towards intrigue, not having time to catch these quick sketches of new faces and listen to their original dialect.
Chatsky is no longer on stage, but before he left, he gave abundant food to that main comedy that he began with Famusov, in the first act, then with Molchalin - that battle with all of Moscow, where he, according to the goals of the author, then arrived.
In brief, even instantaneous meetings with old acquaintances, he managed to arm everyone against himself with caustic remarks and sarcasm. He is already vividly touched by all sorts of trifles - and he gives free rein to the language. He angered the old woman Khlestova, gave some advice to Gorichev inappropriately, abruptly cut off the granddaughter countess and again touched Molchalin.
But the cup overflowed. He leaves the back rooms already completely upset and, according to old friendship, in the crowd again goes to Sofya, hoping at least for simple sympathy. He confides his state of mind to her:
A million torments! —
Breasts from a friendly vice,
he says.
Feet from shuffling, ears from exclamations,
And more than a head from all sorts of trifles!
Here my soul is somehow compressed by grief! -
he complains to her, not suspecting what kind of conspiracy has matured against him in the enemy camp.
"A million torments!" and "woe!" - that's what he reaped for all that he managed to sow. Until now, he was invincible: his mind mercilessly hit the sore spots of enemies.<…>He felt his strength and spoke confidently. But the struggle wore him down.<…>
He is not only sad, but also bilious, picky. He, like a wounded man, gathers all his strength, makes a challenge to the crowd - and strikes at everyone - but he did not have enough power against a united enemy.
He falls into exaggeration, almost into drunkenness of speech, and confirms in the opinion of the guests the rumor spread by Sophia about his madness.<…>
He has lost control of himself and does not even notice that he himself is putting together a performance at the ball.<…>
He is definitely not himself, starting with the monologue "About the Frenchman from Bordeaux" - and remains so until the end of the play. Only “a million torments” are replenished ahead.
Pushkin, denying Chatsky the mind, probably most of all had in mind the last scene of the 4th act, in the hallway, at the departure. Of course, neither Onegin nor Pechorin, these dandies, would have done what Chatsky did in the hallway. Those were too trained "in the science of tender passion", and Chatsky is different and, by the way, sincerity and simplicity, and does not know how and does not want to show off. He is not a dandy, not a lion. Here not only his mind betrays him, but also common sense, even simple decency. He did such nonsense!
After getting rid of Repetilov's chatter and hiding in the Swiss waiting for the carriage, he spied Sophia's meeting with Molchalin and played the role of Othello, having no rights to that. He reproaches her for why she “lured him with hope”, why she didn’t directly say that the past was forgotten. Not a word here is true. There was no hope for her. She only did that she left him, barely spoke to him, confessed her indifference, called some old children's romance and hiding in the corners "childhood" and even hinted that "God brought her together with Molchalin."
And he, just because -
...so passionate and so low
There was a spender of tender words, -
in a rage for his own useless humiliation, for self-inflicted deceit voluntarily, he executes everyone, and throws a cruel and unfair word at her:
With you I am proud of my break, -
when there was nothing to break! Finally, he simply comes to swearing, pouring out bile:
For daughter and father
And for a fool's lover,
and boils with rage at everyone, “at the tormentors of the crowd, traitors, clumsy wise men, crafty simpletons, sinister old women,” etc. And he leaves Moscow to look for a “corner for an offended feeling”, pronouncing a merciless judgment and sentence on everything!
If he had one healthy minute, if “a million torments” had not burned him, he, of course, would have asked himself the question: “Why and for what have I done all this mess?” And, of course, there would be no answer.
Griboedov is responsible for it, and it was not without reason that the play ended with this catastrophe. In it, not only for Sophia, but also for Famusov and all his guests, Chatsky's "mind", sparkling like a ray of light in a whole play, burst out at the end into that thunder at which, according to the proverb, men are baptized.
From the thunder, Sophia was the first to cross herself, remaining until the very appearance of Chatsky, when Molchalin was already crawling at her feet, all the same unconscious Sophia Pavlovna, with the same lie in which her father raised her, in which he lived himself, his whole house and the whole circle . Still not recovering from shame and horror, when the mask fell from Molchalin, she first of all rejoices that “at night she found out that there are no reproachful witnesses in her eyes!”
And there are no witnesses, therefore, everything is hidden and covered, you can forget, marry, perhaps, Skalozub, and look at the past ...
Yes, do not look at all. He endures his moral sense, Liza will not let it slip, Molchalin does not dare to utter a word. And husband? But what kind of Moscow husband, "from his wife's pages", will look back at the past!
This is her morality, and the morality of her father, and the whole circle. Meanwhile, Sofya Pavlovna is individually not immoral: she sins with the sin of ignorance, the blindness in which everyone lived -
Light does not punish delusions,
But secrets are required for them!
This couplet by Pushkin expresses the general meaning of the conditions of morality. Sophia never saw the light from her and never would have seen the light without Chatsky, for lack of a chance.<…>Sofya Pavlovna is not at all as guilty as it seems.
This is a mixture of good instincts with lies, a lively mind with the absence of any hint of ideas and convictions, confusion of concepts, mental and moral blindness - all this does not have the character of personal vices in her, but appears as common features of her circle. In her own, personal physiognomy, something of her own is hiding in the shadows, hot, tender, even dreamy. The rest belongs to education.
French books, which Famusov complains about, piano (even with flute accompaniment), poetry, French and dancing - that's what was considered the young lady's classical education. And then "Kuznetsky Most and Eternal Updates", balls, such as this ball with her father, and this society - this is the circle where the life of the "young lady" was concluded. Women learned only to imagine and feel and did not learn to think and know. Thought was silent, only instincts spoke. They drew worldly wisdom from novels, stories - and from there instincts developed into ugly, pitiful or stupid properties: dreaminess, sentimentality, the search for an ideal in love, and sometimes worse.
In a soporific stagnation, in a hopeless sea of lies, most women outside were dominated by conditional morality - and secretly life swarmed, in the absence of healthy and serious interests, in general, of any content, those novels from which the "science of tender passion" was created. Onegins and Pechorins are representatives of a whole class, almost a breed of dexterous gentlemen, jeunes premiers. These advanced personalities in high life - such were in the works of literature, where they occupied a place of honor from the time of chivalry to our time, to Gogol. Pushkin himself, not to mention Lermontov, cherished this outward brilliance, this representativeness du bon ton, the manners of high society, under which lay both “embitterment”, and “yearning laziness” and “interesting boredom”. Pushkin spared Onegin, although he touches upon his idleness and emptiness with a slight irony, but to the smallest detail and with pleasure describes a fashionable suit, toilet knick-knacks, smartness - and that negligence and inattention put on himself, this fatuite, posing, which the dandies flaunted. The spirit of a later time removed the tempting drapery from his hero and all the "cavaliers" like him and determined the true meaning of such gentlemen, driving them from the foreground.
They were the heroes and leaders of these novels, and both sides were trained to marriage, which absorbed all the novels almost without a trace, unless some nervous, sentimental, in a word, fool, or the hero turned out to be such a sincere "crazy" like Chatsky.
But in Sofya Pavlovna, we hasten to make a reservation, that is, in her feelings for Molchalin, there is a lot of sincerity, strongly reminiscent of Tatyana Pushkin. The difference between them is made by the “Moscow imprint”, then glibness, the ability to control oneself, which appeared in Tatiana when she met Onegin after her marriage, and until then she had not been able to lie about love even to the nanny. But Tatyana is a village girl, and Sofya Pavlovna is Moscow, in the then developed way.
Meanwhile, in her love, she is just as ready to betray herself as Tatyana: both, as if in sleepwalking, wander in enthusiasm with childlike simplicity. And Sophia, like Tatyana, begins the affair herself, not finding anything reprehensible in this, she does not even know about it. Sofya is surprised at the laughter of the maid when she tells how she spends the whole night with Molchalin: “Not a free word! And so the whole night passes! "The enemy of insolence, always shy, bashful!" That's what she admires in him! This is ridiculous, but there is some kind of almost grace here - and far from immorality, there is no need for her to let out a word: worse - this is also naivety. The huge difference is not between her and Tatyana, but between Onegin and Molchalin. Sophia's choice, of course, does not recommend her, but Tatyana's choice was also random, even she hardly had anyone to choose from.
Looking deeper into Sophia's character and environment, you see that it was not immorality (but not "God", of course) that "brought her" to Molchalin. First of all, the desire to patronize a loved one, poor, modest, who does not dare to raise his eyes to her - to elevate him to himself, to his circle, to give him family rights. Without a doubt, she was smiling in this role to rule over a submissive creature, make him happy and have an eternal slave in him. It’s not her fault that the future “husband-boy, husband-servant – the ideal of Moscow husbands” comes out of this! There was nowhere to stumble upon other ideals in Famusov's house.
In general, it is difficult to treat Sofya Pavlovna not sympathetically: she has strong inclinations of a remarkable nature, a lively mind, passion and feminine gentleness. It is ruined in stuffiness, where not a single ray of light, not a single stream of fresh air penetrated. No wonder Chatsky also loved her. After him, she alone of all this crowd suggests some kind of sad feeling, and in the soul of the reader against her there is not that indifferent laughter with which he parted with other faces.
She, of course, is harder than everyone else, even harder than Chatsky, and she gets her “million torments”.
Chatsky's role is a passive role: it cannot be otherwise. Such is the role of all the Chatskys, although at the same time it is always victorious. But they do not know about their victory, they only sow, and others reap - and this is their main suffering, that is, the hopelessness of success.<…>
Chatsky's authority was known before as the authority of the mind, wit, of course, knowledge and other things. He already has like-minded people. Skalozub complains that his brother left the service without waiting for the rank, and began to read books. One of the old women grumbles that her nephew, Prince Fyodor, is engaged in chemistry and botany. All that was needed was an explosion, a fight, and it began. Stubborn and hot - in one day in one house, but the consequences of it, as we said above, were reflected in all of Moscow and Russia. Chatsky gave rise to a split, and if he was deceived for his personal purposes, did not find “the charm of meetings, living participation”, then he himself sprinkled living water on the dead soil - taking with him “a million torments”, this Chatsky crown of thorns - torments from everything: from “ mind”, and even more so from “offended feelings”.<…>
Now, in our time, of course, they would reproach Chatsky for why he put his “offended feeling” above social issues, the common good, etc. and did not stay in Moscow to continue his role of a fighter with lies and prejudices, a role higher and more important than the role of a rejected fiance?
Yes, now! And at that time, for the majority, the concepts of public issues would have been the same as for Repetilov the talk of "About the camera and the jury." Criticism erred a lot in that, in its trial of the famous dead, it left the historical point, ran ahead and hit them with modern weapons. We will not repeat her mistakes - and we will not blame Chatsky for the fact that in his heated speeches addressed to the Famusov guests there is no mention of the common good, when there is already such a split from “search for places, from ranks”, as “engagement in the sciences and arts ”, was considered “robbery and fire”.<…>
He is very positive in his demands and declares them in a ready-made program, worked out not by him, but by the century already begun. With youthful vehemence, he does not drive from the stage everything that has survived, which, according to the laws of reason and justice, as according to natural laws in physical nature, is left to live out its term, which can and should be tolerated. He demands a place and freedom for his age: he asks for business, but does not want to be served and stigmatizes servility and buffoonery. He demands "service to the cause, not to persons", does not mix "fun or tomfoolery with business", like Molchalin - he is weary among the empty, idle crowd of "tormentors, traitors, sinister old women, absurd old men", refusing to bow before their authority of decrepitude , chinolyubiya and other things. He is outraged by the ugly manifestations of serfdom, insane luxury and disgusting mores of "spill in feasts and prodigality" - phenomena of mental and moral blindness and corruption.
His ideal of “free life” is definitive: it is freedom from all these innumerable chains of slavery that fetter society, and then freedom - “to fix the mind that is hungry for knowledge”, or freely indulge in “arts creative, high and beautiful”, - freedom to “serve or not to serve”, “to live in the village or to travel”, not having a reputation for being either a robber or an incendiary, and – a number of further next similar steps towards freedom – from lack of freedom.<…>
Chatsky is broken by the amount of old strength, inflicting a mortal blow on it with the quality of fresh strength.
He is an eternal denouncer of lies, hiding in the proverb: "one man in the field is not a warrior." No, a warrior, if he is Chatsky, and, moreover, a winner, but an advanced warrior, a skirmisher and always a victim.
Chatsky is inevitable with each change of one century to another. The position of the Chatskys on the social ladder is diverse, but the role and fate are all the same, from major state and political personalities who control the fate of the masses, to a modest share in a close circle.<…>
That is why Griboedov's Chatsky has not yet grown old, and hardly ever will grow old, and with him the whole comedy. And literature will not get out of the magic circle outlined by Griboedov as soon as the artist touches on the struggle of concepts, the change of generations. He will either give a type of extreme, unripe advanced personalities, barely hinting at the future, and therefore short-lived, which we have already experienced a lot in life in art, or he will create a modified image of Chatsky, as after Cervantes' Don Quixote and Shakespeare's Hamlet, there were and are endless of them. similarities.
In the honest, heated speeches of these later Chatskys, Griboyedov's motives and words will forever be heard - and if not the words, then the meaning and tone of his Chatsky's irritable monologues. Healthy heroes in the fight against the old will never leave this music.
And this is the immortality of Griboedov's poems! One could cite a lot of Chatskys - who appeared at the next change of eras and generations - in the struggle for an idea, for a cause, for truth, for success, for a new order, at all levels, in all layers of Russian life and work - high-profile, great deeds and modest office exploits. A fresh legend is kept about many of them, we have seen and known others, and others still continue the struggle. Let's turn to literature. Let us recall not a story, not a comedy, not an artistic phenomenon, but let us take one of the later fighters with an old age, for example, Belinsky. Many of us knew him personally, and now everyone knows him. Listen to his hot improvisations - and they sound the same motives - and the same tone as Griboedovsky Chatsky. And he died in the same way, destroyed by “a million torments”, killed by a fever of expectation and not waiting for the fulfillment of his dreams, which now are no longer dreams.
Leaving the political delusions of Herzen, where he left the role of a normal hero, from the role of Chatsky, this Russian man from head to toe, let us remember his arrows, thrown into various dark, remote corners of Russia, where they found the guilty one. In his sarcasm one can hear the echo of Griboyedov's laughter and the endless development of Chatsky's witticisms.
And Herzen suffered from "a million torments", perhaps most of all from the torments of the Repetilovs of his own camp, to whom he did not have the courage to say during his lifetime: "Lie, but know the measure!"
But he did not take this word to the grave, confessing after death to "false shame" that prevented him from saying it.
Finally - the last remark about Chatsky. They reproach Gribodov that Chatsky is not clothed as artistically as other faces of comedy, in flesh and blood, that he has little vitality, Others even say that this is not a living person, but an abstract, an idea, a walking morality of a comedy, and not such a complete and finished creation as, for example, the figure of Onegin and other types snatched from life.
It's not fair. It is impossible to put Chatsky next to Onegin: the strict objectivity of the dramatic form does not allow that breadth and fullness of the brush, like the epic one. If the other faces of comedy are stricter and more sharply defined, then they owe this to the vulgarity and trifles of their natures, which the artist easily exhausts in light sketches. Whereas in the personality of Chatsky, rich and versatile, one dominant side could be boldly taken in the comedy - and Griboyedov managed to hint at many others.<…>
growing (Italian)
First lovers (French).
In high society (English).
Good tone (French).
Folly (French).
V. G. Belinsky (1811-1848) - literary critic.
A. I. Herzen (1812-1870) - writer, philosopher, revolutionary.
Biography of I.A. Goncharova
Having visited the play "Woe from Wit" at the Alexandrinsky Theater in 1871, the writer shared his thoughts with his friends. They managed to convince Ivan Alexandrovich to write down his own reflections. The article, signed with the initials "IG", was a great success. Editor of Vestnik Evropy M.M. Stasyulevich four years later decided to republish it with the work for which it was a review. Upon learning of this, Goncharov, demanding of himself, was alarmed: “But so separately, in plain sight, and even next to the play - it’s not good, it’s not good!” It took a lot of persuasion. The article appeared again only in 1881. This "critical study" was called "A Million of Torments", without which it is now unthinkable to read a great play.
Goncharov makes a deep thoughtful analysis of "subtle, intelligent, elegant and passionate comedy." Starting from the title of Griboedov's comedy, he offers his program title "Million of Torments" - also a quotation, and further analysis subordinates it to disclosure. Who among the characters is doomed to torment? What are they? Are they justified? Chatsky's ideals are noble, concrete, "definitive" in the highest degree. These are the ideals of humanity, close to the writer, and indeed to any independent person: “... This is freedom from all<…>chains of slavery that fettered society, and then freedom - “to put a mind hungry for knowledge into science”, or freely indulge in “creative arts ...”<…>, and - a series of further next similar steps to freedom - from lack of freedom. Chatsky attracts the writer with moral strength and energy of activity. This moral correctness is felt by the rest of the characters, and if they fight, dodge, slander - “out of fear for themselves, for their serenely idle existence ...” Goncharov’s analysis of the play ends with a conclusion honed in his persuasiveness: the turn of a mortal blow with the quality of fresh strength. Although Famusov Chatsky "did not reason, did not sober up and did not correct" - nevertheless "his peace was indignant from all sides - and involuntarily will make you think about something ...". The same can be said about Molchalin (and not about him alone): “The mask has been pulled off<…>and he, like a caught thief, must hide in a corner. To Chatsky and his "battle" Goncharov attaches the importance of the conflict of his time. The events that took place "on the same day, in the same house" - "reverberated throughout Moscow and Russia."
In Chatsky Goncharov sees an eternal type, similar to "Servantes' Don Quixote" and "Shakespeare's Hamlet". “A lot of Chatskys could be cited,” notes Ivan Alexandrovich, “who appeared at the next change of generation era - in the struggle for an idea, for a cause, for the truth<…>, for a new order, at all levels, in all layers of Russian life and work<…>. A fresh legend is kept about many of them, we saw and knew others, and others still continue the struggle.
Focusing on Chatsky the man, Goncharov gives a subtle psychological interpretation of his actions, which invariably stem from his rejected love for Sophia. Analyzing each, at first glance, his strange and illogical phrase, any movement, the writer proves that the lover could not have acted otherwise in these circumstances. A subtle poetic sketch is a characteristic of Sophia. Consideration of the actions and speeches of the most complex character in comedy, the author of the review bases on two indisputable observations. There was something in this girl that irresistibly attracted an outstanding person - "it was not for nothing that Chatsky loved her." This determined the connection. And in the finale, “of course, it is harder for her than everyone else, even harder than Chatsky, and she gets her “million torments”. As a true realist, Goncharov notes the influence that the environment had on the heroine, "education" in "hypnotic stagnation". And he offers to see behind this "her own, her personal physiognomy." The result of the reflections is again invincibly convincing. Ivan Alexandrovich attracts the main evidence of the direct impression of the viewer: “... She (Sofya) has strong inclinations of a remarkable nature, a lively mind, passion and feminine gentleness. She is ruined in stuffiness, where not a single ray of light penetrated<…>. She is one of this crowd, asking for some kind of sad feeling ... "
Goncharov is not content with considering one text of the comedy. He vividly imagines how this "piece" is played and will be played on the stage. The writer expresses the final advice, a kind of “remark for gentlemen of the actors”: “The actor, as a musician, is obliged ... to think of that sound of a voice and that intonation with which each verse should be pronounced: this means thinking of a subtle critical understanding of all the poetry of Pushkin and Griboedov language.
Goncharov, due to illness, could not come to Moscow in 1880 for the opening of a monument to his beloved Pushkin. In a response letter to the organizers of the holiday, he wrote: “If this adversity had not happened to me, I would consider it my sacred duty, without any reminders, at the foot of the monument, in Moscow, together with other writers, to bow to the memory of our common great example and mine especially.” The writer could not "bow" to the teacher physically. But Goncharov extended his memory in his articles: “Pushkin is huge, fruitful, strong, rich. He is for Russian art what Lomonosov is for Russian education in general” (“Million of Torments”). In the article “Better late than never,” the same thought sounds: “... From Pushkin and Gogol in Russian literature<…>you won't go anywhere. Even Lermontov, a colossal figure, all, like the eldest son into his father, poured into Pushkin<…>. All the seeds and rudiments are hidden in Pushkin, from which all kinds and types of art later developed.<…>how in Aristotle there were seeds, germs and allusions to almost all subsequent branches of knowledge and science.
Read also other articles about the life of the writer I.A. Goncharov and analysis of his works.
A. S. Griboyedov's comedy "Woe from Wit" as a socio-political drama
The name of A. S. Griboedov opens one of the brilliant pages in the history of Russian literature. According to V. G. Belinsky, Alexander Sergeevich is one of the “most powerful manifestations of the Russian spirit.” His comedy "Woe from Wit" played an outstanding role in the socio-political and moral education of people.
This work broadly and realistically reflected the life of Moscow in the twenties of the 19th century, as well as the movement of advanced social thought in Russia, when noble revolutionaries - the Decembrists - came out to fight the old world.
I. A. Goncharov, who wrote a profound article about "Woe from Wit", said that "Chatsky begins a new century - and this is all his meaning and all his mind." Without such an understanding, it is impossible to evaluate and correctly comprehend the image of the hero. Chatsky, a spokesman for progressive ideas, as well as a true patriot, said: “When you wander, you return home, and the smoke of the fatherland is sweet and pleasant for us!”
Having created the image of a new hero, A. S. Griboedov shows that the mind is a powerful force IN The fight against inertia and despotism, and it is he who leads Chatsky to a clash with the Famus society. Already in the very name of the comedy lies the key to its understanding. The writer's work speaks of a person's grief, and this grief is due to the mind. This problem in Griboedov's time was relevant, since the words "smart", "clever" were used as a synonym for the concept of "free-thinking".
It was such a mind in the Famus world that was regarded as madness, insanity. This is the basis in the comedy of the internal development of the conflict between the two worlds: “the present century” and the “past century”.
“The current century” is the protagonist of the work, sharply exposing the Moscow nobility, rebelling against ignorance; “the past century” are representatives of the Famus society who hate education, who declared that “learning is a plague”, “if evil is stopped, they would collect all the books and burn them.” Chatsky opposes bureaucracy, serving individuals, not the cause (“I would be glad to serve - it’s sickening to serve”). He is outraged by Famusov's principles: "signed - so off your shoulders", "well, how not to please your dear little man." The protagonist, selflessly loving his homeland, the people, advocates a careful attitude to the Russian language, "so that our smart, vigorous people, although in language we are not considered Germans." Chatsky is eloquent, a man of extraordinary intelligence, courageous, honest and sincere. A. S. Griboyedov shows these qualities especially clearly, opposing the hypocritical sycophant Molchalin to the main character. This is a vile person who regularly fulfills his father's covenant "to please all people without exception." Molchalin is “a low-flyer and a businessman”, as Chatsky characterizes him, whose bold speeches stirred up the calmness of the Famus society, caused indignation and a sharp rebuff. The old world resists, fights with the hero, using slander. Together they picked up the rumor started by Sophia about the madness of Alexander Andreevich. Famusovsky world is still strong and numerous. And the offended Chatsky flees from the house of Pavel Afanasyevich, flees from Moscow. But the reader is convinced of the moral victory of the hero over the old world.
I. A. Goncharov in the article “A Million of Torments” defined the meaning of Griboyedov’s hero in the following way: “he is an eternal denouncer of lies, hiding in a proverb: one is not a warrior in the field. No, warrior, if he is Chatsky and, moreover, a winner.
AS Griboyedov left an indelible mark on the history of Russian culture. In the comedy "Woe from Wit" he put forward the main social and idealistic problem of his turning point - the problem of irreconcilable enmity between the defenders of the old system and the representatives of a new worldview, a new free life. This topic not only did not lose its significance throughout the entire 19th century, but, on the contrary, is becoming increasingly acute, reflecting the socio-historical contradictions of the bourgeois era. The great comedy remains fresh and relevant in our time. And the current reader is very dear to the patriotism and deep faith in Russia of A. S. Griboyedov, a wonderful national and folk writer.
The image of Chatsky based on the work of I.A. Goncharova A million torments. The main role, of course, is the role of Chatsky, without which there would be no comedy, but, perhaps, there would be a picture of morals. Chatsky is not only smarter than all other people, but also positively smart. His speech boils with intelligence, wit. He has a heart, and at the same time he is impeccably honest. In a word, this person is not only intelligent, but also developed, with feeling, or, as his maid Lisa recommends, he is sensitive, and cheerful, and sharp. He is a sincere and ardent figure. Chatsky strives for a free life and demands service to the cause, and not to individuals. Every step, almost every word in the play is closely connected with the play of his feelings for Sofya, irritated by some kind of lie in her actions, which he struggles to unravel to the very end.
He came to Moscow and to Famusov, obviously, for Sophia and for Sophia alone. He doesn't care about others. Meanwhile, Chatsky managed to drink a bitter cup to the bottom, not finding living sympathy in anyone, and leave, taking with him only a million torments. A million torments and grief, that's what he reaped for everything he managed to sow.
Until now, he was invincible his mind mercilessly hit the sore spots of enemies. He felt his strength and spoke confidently. But the struggle wore him down. Chatsky, like a wounded man, gathers all his strength, makes a challenge to the crowd, and strikes at everyone, but he did not have enough power against the united enemy. He falls into exaggeration, almost into drunkenness of speech, and confirms in the opinion of the guests the rumor spread by Sophia about his madness. He has ceased to control himself and does not even notice that he himself is composing a performance at the ball. Alexander Andreevich is definitely not himself, starting with a monologue about a Frenchman from Bordeaux and remains so until the end of the play.
Only a million torments are replenished ahead. If he had one healthy minute, if a million torments had not burned him, he, of course, would have asked himself the question Why and why did I do all this mess? And, of course, he would not have found an answer. Chatsky is most of all a debunker of lies and everything that has become obsolete, that drowns out a new life, a free life.
He is very positive in his demands and declares them in a ready-made program, worked out not by him, but by the century already begun. Chatsky demands a place and freedom for his age, he asks for deeds, but does not want to be served and stigmatizes servility and buffoonery. His ideal of a free life is determinant - it is freedom from all the chains of slavery that fetters society, and then freedom - to put a mind hungry for knowledge into science Every deed , which requires updating, causes Chatsky's shadow. And no matter who the figures are, no matter what human business is about - whether there will be a new idea, a step in science, in politics - people are grouped, they can’t get away from the two main motives of the struggle from the advice to learn, looking at the elders, on the one hand , and from thirst to strive from routine to a free life forward and forward - on the other.
That is why Griboedov's Chatsky has not yet grown old, and with him the whole comedy.
What will we do with the received material:
If this material turned out to be useful to you, you can save it to your page on social networks:
| tweet |
More essays, term papers, theses on this topic:
A million torments of Chatsky
All this eternal imperfection of people and the world is beautifully described in Griboedov's immortal comedy Woe from Wit Griboedov creates a whole gallery .. He came to Moscow, returning from distant wanderings, only for the sake of Sophia .. ..
A million torments of Chatsky
This is a truly immortal work. In the play, which depicts just one day in the house of the Moscow master Famusov, Griboyedov touched the most .. In the image of Chatsky, Griboedov showed a man of a new mindset and soul, inspired .. She cannot love Chatsky, because he completely opposes this with the turn of his mind and soul society. Sophia..
Typology of the image of a servant in Russian literature of the 19th century based on the material of the works of A.S. Pushkin, N.V. Gogol, I.A. Goncharova
Thus, we are moving from the general concept of a person as an object of representation to a more specific and historical concept of character. Character is a certain type of social behavior of a person. This is a personality characterized by thoughts, feelings and actions inherent in it. This is a man in his concrete..
And Love created man in Her own image, in the image of Love she created him; she created them male and female
On the site site read: ... and love created man in her own image, in the image of love she created him; She created them male and female...
Techniques for creating the image of Asya in the work of the same name by I.S. Turgenev
Started at Sinzig on the banks of the Rhine June 30, July 12, 1857 on Sunday, finished in Rome on November 1527 of the same year on Friday. In this work.. The characteristic of Asya occupies a significant place in the article by D.I. Pisareva Female .. Pisarev believes that such characters prove the need for social emancipation of women, because they serve ..
The image of Chatsky in the comedy "Woe from Wit"
And freedom from decrepit ideas about love, marriage, honor, service, the meaning of life. Chatsky and his like-minded people strive for “creative arts .. Their ideal is “moderation and accuracy”, their dream is “to take all the books, yes .. As always in a dramatic work, the essence of the character of the protagonist is revealed primarily in the plot. ..
Journalistic image as a means of organizing a journalistic work
This problem has been considered by many authors from different angles. Questions of the structure of the author's work were considered by V. V. Vinogradov. Starush M.I. in the book "Author's "I" in a journalistic work" considered the reader's and author's categories ..
Tragic images on the example of works of art
This is no longer loneliness from one's own greatness, and not even loneliness from the indifference of the surrounding world. Everything becomes more complicated, and the main motive for this is .. This pain arises from the slightest contact with the outside world. And this world is perceived in a completely different way. The poet in Mayakovsky's poems is a priceless word spender and spendthrift. WITH..
The nature of the educational image in the work of G. Fielding "The Story of Tom Jones, the Foundling"
Born in the family of Major Edmund Fielding (Lieutenant General). He graduated from Eton, an aristocratic school, studied for a year and a half in Leiden on what was considered .. Fielding receives a law degree and begins to practice law .. Here Fielding follows the novel tradition laid down by Cervantes, but at the same time strives to create a new, special type ..
As a critical response to the comedy "Woe from Wit" by Alexander Sergeevich Griboedov, Ivan Alexandrovich Goncharov creates "A Million Torments". The summary of the article is a deep social and ideological analysis of this work. It is characteristic that the title of the article was a phrase dropped by Griboedov's character - Alexander Andreyevich Chatsky. Thus, already when reading the title, it becomes clear what will be discussed.
Comedy demanded by the era
Was this assessment timely? Undoubtedly. Russia lived in a transitional era from the capitalist. There were no raznochintsy yet, and yet the nobility remained the most advanced layer of society. But is it all the nobility? That is the question. Neither heroes like Pushkin's Onegin, nor Lermontov's Pechorin could have encouraged the development of a huge country. Article by I.A. Goncharov's "A Million of Torments" popularly and logically led its readers to this conclusion. Undoubtedly, society demanded a new, fresh look at society, the role of a citizen, education, and social activity. And this view was presented by the image of Alexander Andreyevich Chatsky.
Chatsky's character
Chatsky's character is not just central, but centrifugal in an adequate, fair assessment of the meaning of this image (which simply did not exist before) Goncharov dedicated "Million of Torments". The brief content of the comedy is manifested in the fact that Chatsky opposes the "old world", cleverly and meaningfully testifying to the truth. It is not customary to talk like that in the aristocratic circles of Moscow. And an honest characterization of the "pillars of society" is perceived by the highest nobility as an "assault on the foundations" and sacrilege. The nobility is powerless before his rhetoric, they shun him, declaring him insane.
Is it logical? Yes, and to the highest degree! Let us recall that even Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin did not understand Chatsky. The well-known poet, noting the justice of the comedy hero’s statements, at the same time wonders: “Why does he say all this if no one hears him” (i.e., the veiled question is clearly felt: “Isn’t Chatsky stupid?”). Dobrolyubov, on the other hand, was frankly ironic about this character - "gambling guy." Since the fundamental novelty of the talentedly created image was not noticed by almost the entire society, in fact, this is why Goncharov wrote “Million of Torments”. The summary of his work is an analysis of Griboedov's work.
So, our hero comes to aristocratic Moscow, looking up from business, to declare his love to the young, educated and romantic Sofia Famusova, who refuses him. This is where the plot intrigue is built. The girl, in turn, had already forgotten about her first feeling for him. She is driven by romantic generosity. Therefore, it cannot be said that she is as mercantile as her chosen one - the untalented and vile secretary of her father - Alexei Stepanovich Molchalin. People who imitate activities to achieve their career aspirations are soulless people, capable of expressing subservience and then betraying. Molchalins. Their caustic characterization is dedicated by Goncharov "Million of Torments". The summary of the comedy shows: they must lose. After all, the future state of the "Molchalins" is much more terrible than the state of the "Famusovs".
Alexei Stepanovich Molchalin is the antipode of Chatsky. A cowardly, stupid, but "moderate and accurate" careerist and in the future - a bureaucrat. There is nothing living, natural in the image of Molchalin. But his life calculation is correct - it is precisely such people, by their nature - slaves, who prefer to elevate those in power, so that later they reign supreme with the help of such people who do not have their own opinion.
conclusions
What is the significance of this work by Ivan Alexandrovich? It is obvious. Goncharov devotes "A Million of Torments" to an objective and worthy assessment. The brief content of the article is dedicated to this "beam of light in the dark kingdom."
Goncharov's merit is that after a while he noticed an essential detail: Chatsky is active, he is able to change the world around him. He is a man of the future, which cannot be said about the passive dreamers Onegin and Pechorin. The image of Alexander Andreevich, despite the name of Griboedov's comedy, is optimistic. He inspires confidence in his rightness, being a literary and figurative embodiment of the words "and alone in the field - a warrior!"
The convictions of this man are the convictions of a Decembrist. Thus, the comedy is a kind of alarm for the future events of Russian society that occurred on December 14, 1825 on
